Judge Orders Bakery to Serve Gay Couple

I look forward to sources for this astounding statement.

In case you missed this:


Here is yet another article that proves early christians had no problem with gay marriage and held it in the same regard as traditional marriage

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html
 
SentinelMind:

Regardless, dude, we do live in an ever-changing world. Though our beliefs need not change, we must adapt in order to show that we truly want the best for all and we all want to live together harmoniously. I just don't like seeing you be so defensive and that resulting in your mockery.

You want my honest, personal belief? Here it is: I consider homosexuality to be a sin. Not because that's what I was raised to believe, but because I believe that. But I also believe we as Christians should love the "sinner" regardless. Jesus himself hung out with prostitutes, destitutes, tax collectors, lepers, everybody the Pharisees said were "undesirable" and "unclean" because he understood that basic, universal truth. And while he may have said that these things go against God's will, he also said that our God is a loving, forgiving God. And he also said that "He who is without sin [should] cast the first stone." Therefore none of us our perfect, and none of us have the right to impose and/or forcefully dictate what we believe to be true on others. What we have as believers is an obligation to show BY EXAMPLE God's grace to the world, and in this way make disciples of men in this world.

I just want you to understand where all this frustration directed at you is coming from. I believe in my heart that you're a good dude. It's up to you to show that to the rest of us.
 
I appreciate response, DS, but I try my best to separate opinions from posters and debate topics. Don't believe all the propaganda leveled me at this site. do not engage in personal attacks and profanity laced posts as others have done here. I love everyone here, I think everyone should be given opportunity live a good life. I love people, have worked with gay people, think people should be treated with respect and courtesy and I do that in real world (I admit I do not personally voice my disapproval of gay agenda much in public except to family members, church members).

I don't think bending over towards gay agenda as they threaten mom and pop shops for not participating in their celebration is way to go. This agenda wants complete submission...anyone standing tall in defiance is going to attacked and mocked personally, so this does not faze me...its human nature.

I think lot of posters here take attacks on me personally because I provide well-researched rebuttals to their talking points...they are convinced social conservatives are neanderthal idiots and have lived in an echo chamber reinforcing that. When you have some pop their bubble with facts, statistics, data they respond overtly emotional. I try keep high road and keep pressing on, telling truth, standing for what's right.

SentinelMind's most passionate and ardent defender is SentinelMind. Reading this you'd think he was eligible for sainthood. The fact is the guy's full of it. He is an instigator, he has insulted people personally including myself in other threads and his idea of research is going to obviously biased websites that follow his agenda.
 
If what you say is true, JJJ (and I only say that because I've had very little interaction with him) then that I can't approve of. I can now see where you're coming from, but it doesn't change my attitude toward him.
 
In case you missed this:



Here is yet another article that proves early christians had no problem with gay marriage and held it in the same regard as traditional marriage

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Thank you for link..
I don't see your claim in bold in the article...

I see from your and TQ sources one gay historian found records that few churches bound property of two saints and equates them as equivalent to gay marriage (although reviews show some differences between traditional marriage).

I admit I do find that record peculiar. It is perhaps possible some churches performed some form of same-gender civil union, but that is not the same as saying it was Christian doctrine, widespread practice, or that it was held in same regard as traditional marriage.
You need to be careful, here the early Christian church is not one church and Paul had been known to correct heresies within various churches. Is it really any different saying some liberal churches today performed gay marriage that is now 'Christian doctrine'
 
SentinelMind's most passionate and ardent defender is SentinelMind. Reading this you'd think he was eligible for sainthood. The fact is the guy's full of it. He is an instigator, he has insulted people personally including myself in other threads and his idea of research is going to obviously biased websites that follow his agenda.

Ok, you don't like me. We get it.
 
You want my honest, personal belief? Here it is: I consider homosexuality to be a sin.

Not to get too theological here, but as a Christian this is the response I usually give to that:

"16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."

Colossians 2:16-23

Emphasis mine.

Obviously there's room for interpretation there (which is the root of the problem), but the way I've always read it is "you are now free to ignore the old rules from Leviticus that tell you how to conduct your personal life." And I include homosexual sex in that estimation. I admit, that'a my partly my choice. But the way I see it, if something is vague enough that it's open for interpretation, we should go with the interpretation that allows for being nice to as many people as possible.
 
SentinelMind:

Regardless, dude, we do live in an ever-changing world. Though our beliefs need not change, we must adapt in order to show that we truly want the best for all and we all want to live together harmoniously. I just don't like seeing you be so defensive and that resulting in your mockery.

You want my honest, personal belief? Here it is: I consider homosexuality to be a sin. Not because that's what I was raised to believe, but because I believe that. But I also believe we as Christians should love the "sinner" regardless. Jesus himself hung out with prostitutes, destitutes, tax collectors, lepers, everybody the Pharisees said were "undesirable" and "unclean" because he understood that basic, universal truth. And while he may have said that these things go against God's will, he also said that our God is a loving, forgiving God. And he also said that "He who is without sin [should] cast the first stone." Therefore none of us our perfect, and none of us have the right to impose and/or forcefully dictate what we believe to be true on others. What we have as believers is an obligation to show BY EXAMPLE God's grace to the world, and in this way make disciples of men in this world.

I just want you to understand where all this frustration directed at you is coming from. I believe in my heart that you're a good dude. It's up to you to show that to the rest of us.

If I may ask, do you also consider eating shellfish a sin?
 
Not to get too theological here, but as a Christian this is the response I usually give to that:

"16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."

Colossians 2:16-23

Emphasis mine.

Obviously there's room for interpretation there (which is the root of the problem), but the way I've always read it is "you are now free to ignore the old rules from Leviticus that tell you how to conduct your personal life." And I include homosexual sex in that estimation. I admit, that'a my partly my choice. But the way I see it, if something is vague enough that it's open for interpretation, we should go with the interpretation that allows for being nice to as many people as possible.

Paul condemned homosexuality emphatically. Here he saying Christ has taken the sacrifice for all mankind and we now have responsibility to follow him in Spirit, not in carrying out Mosaic legal system. The Mosaic legal system's purpose is to remind us we are sinners, but it does not save us. All prophets and leaders were saved based on faith, not by attending to hundreds of judgments and rules. Christ pointed out how Pharisees abused the laws by caring more about technicality instead of spiritual intent of the law.
 
If I may ask, do you also consider eating shellfish a sin?

The purpose of eating shellfish and other Mosaic Laws were to remind the early Israelites need to keep our temple (our body) clean. You are not going to hell for eating shellfish. The Book of Moses serve as historical context of early chosen people that would later be fulfilled by Jesus's arrival. Those laws are reminders that we are sinners...not replacements for coming to Christ.
 
Paul condemned homosexuality emphatically.

That's debatable. It's possible to read his use of the word "sodomite" as referring to either pedophilia, reckless sexual promiscuity, or both, instead of referring to homosexual sex between adults. And a lot of folks argue that one or both of those interpretations makes a lot more sense in the historical context. Translating ancient writings is tricky like that.

Here he saying Christ has taken the sacrifice for all mankind and we now have responsibility to follow him in Spirit, not in carrying out Mosaic legal system. The Mosaic legal system's purpose is to remind us we are sinners, but it does not save us. All prophets and leaders were saved based on faith, not by attending to hundreds of judgments and rules. Christ pointed out how Pharisees abused the laws by caring more about technicality instead of spiritual intent of the law.

That's how you read it because that's how you want to read it. I want to read it a different way. You have to admit that it's vague enough that there's room for interpretation.

The purpose of eating shellfish and other Mosaic Laws were to remind the early Israelites need to keep our temple (our body) clean. You are not going to hell for eating shellfish. The Book of Moses serve as historical context of early chosen people that would later be fulfilled by Jesus's arrival. Those laws are reminders that we are sinners...not replacements for coming to Christ.

And how is "no gay sex" not included in that estimation of old rules that we don't need anymore?
 
The purpose of eating shellfish and other Mosaic Laws were to remind the early Israelites need to keep our temple (our body) clean. You are not going to hell for eating shellfish. The Book of Moses serve as historical context of early chosen people that would later be fulfilled by Jesus's arrival. Those laws are reminders that we are sinners...not replacements for coming to Christ.

Leviticus states that if something comes from the sea and does not have fins and scales, you are not to eat it and they are detestable to you. So, if this is not a sin, but you can use the same part of the Bible to say homosexuality is a sin, then why do you get to pick and choose what you follow in it?
 
You want my honest, personal belief? Here it is: I consider homosexuality to be a sin. Not because that's what I was raised to believe, but because I believe that. But I also believe we as Christians should love the "sinner" regardless. Jesus himself hung out with prostitutes, destitutes, tax collectors, lepers, everybody the Pharisees said were "undesirable" and "unclean" because he understood that basic, universal truth. And while he may have said that these things go against God's will, he also said that our God is a loving, forgiving God. And he also said that "He who is without sin [should] cast the first stone." Therefore none of us our perfect, and none of us have the right to impose and/or forcefully dictate what we believe to be true on others. What we have as believers is an obligation to show BY EXAMPLE God's grace to the world, and in this way make disciples of men in this world.

DS, I agree with everything you've written here. I believe loving the whole person and treating others with respect and courtesy regardless of walk of life. I'm a sinner, I'm not perfect and I need Christ just as everyone else.

I've made it clear Christ will save anyone....but He still calls out sinful activity.
Just like Jesus asked Pharisees "he without sin cast the first stone..." to protect the adulterer from hypocritical Pharisees...he still told the adulterer to stop sinning. Lot of posters here can't seem to separate the sin from the person...they are proud and addicted to sin so they see me criticizing the activity as personal attack on them...so they respond in accord and attack me.

Thank you for response...I just want to add you need to be careful lot of people spreading lies that "I hate people and hate women are not Christians", and want to tear down anyone who doesn't follow their non-believer worldview. Please be skeptical lot of criticism leveled against my character unless you see me writing in person...if you do then call me out for it.
 
Leviticus states that if something comes from the sea and does not have fins and scales, you are not to eat it and they are detestable to you. So, if this is not a sin, but you can use the same part of the Bible to say homosexuality is a sin, then why do you get to pick and choose what you follow in it?

Homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament. Furthermore, keep in context God had ordained man and woman to come together as one in very beginning. God set up prophets to implement laws and judgments for early Isrealites surrounded by pagan gods to separate them. You have to put community in proper historical context. The early Israelites are like children...they have to be given laws and rules because they don't really know better and needed those habits embedded into their mind. Once they matured in their faith, they would later understand the spiritual goal....not the habit.
Christ came to explain that he cares what goes in your heart....He came to fulfill the law (which means explain its ultimate purpose and that He would be the sacrifice for mankind). We are saved through trusting that Christ died for us and rose on the third day...not from following Mosaic instructions of shellfish and hair and where to sit, etc...
 
JJJ, why don't you quote my entire post instead of stopping mid-sentence?
 
Thank you for response...I just want to add you need to be careful lot of people spreading lies that "I hate people and hate women are not Christians", and want to tear down anyone who doesn't follow their non-believer worldview.

But the bolded is exactly what you are doing to people that don't follow YOUR worldview...

Please be skeptical lot of criticism leveled against my character unless you see me writing in person...if you do then call me out for it.

Your behavior has been clear all throughout this thread, and documented in other threads as well...

WE are calling you out for it, but when it's from the rest of us, you just put your fingers in your ears and hold up your Bible.
 
Being gay isn't a belief. :huh:
You are correct, and I never said it was. Sentinel believes one thing and JJJ Ulcer believes another. Both can disagree until the ocean swallows the land, but the hypocrisy in what one chooses to be upset about is astounding.
 
You are correct, and I never said it was. Sentinel believes one thing and JJJ Ulcer believes another. Both can disagree until the ocean swallows the land, but the hypocrisy in what one chooses to be upset about is astounding.

You're right. I believe in inclusion and equality. He believes in exclusion and inequality.

I believe in live and let live. He believes in telling others how to live.

Yeah, it's totally unreasonable and hypocritical for someone to think the right of other people to be happy and equal is more important than someone else's right to deny other people their happiness and equality. Totally astounding. :o
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"