Judge Orders Bakery to Serve Gay Couple

[Hal_Jordan]

So basically,what you're saying is according to the Bible, two men (and I suppose women?) can get married,just not have sex? That is the most strained line of reasoning I've ever seen.(and I've unfortunately seen plenty.)It's a blatant case of trying to take something that's clearly being stated,and trying to have the meaning hinge on a technicality.

The Bible has communicated homosexuality as a sin consistently,and constantly. In fact,homosexuality has been shown in a consistently negative light throughout all of scripture.It is virtually impossible to interpret it as a condoned behavior.

So sinners are not allowed to marry? Got it!

 

[Astro13Zombie]

The cake agenda is tearing the world apart.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

21 pages and now one has mentioned this yet

 

[Tanin]

Valve is overrated.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

21 pages and now one has mentioned this yet

I mentioned it. Pages ago.

 

[Asgard]

I wonder if the baker told the couple he wouldnt bake their cake because it was for a homosexual union.

If the baker had called up the couple and told them he wouldnt bake their cake for "personal reasons", and left it at that, would they still be able to get the ACLU to make a case against him? I wouldnt think so.

 

[SentinelMind]

Seriously, though, the Bible may say it's a sin for two dudes to have sex (though it's worth noting that it never says it's a sin for two ladies to have sex), but it never says that two men or two women aren't allowed to marry each other.

I'm not going to bother testing the technical accuracy of this post, but the Bible is intended to be read genuinely, not like a defensive lawyer.

 

[SentinelMind]

So that means all of the rules about what's acceptable to eat and wear would still apply as well?

When it says he is meant to fulfill the law of prophets, he is fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies of taking the sacrifice for all mankind and fulfilling the spiritual intent of the Mosaic Laws. He is telling the listener that he is not getting rid of morality and condemnation of sin, but he is fullfilling the ultimate purpose behind the creation of hte Laws. You do understand the Laws were not created in the Garden of Eden...the laws are good..but Jesus Is the Word and the Word existed before anything else in creation. Jesus is providing the spiritual intent and conclusion of laws....not engaging in literal semantics of succumbing to Old Testament customs for personal gain like Pharisees.

Isaiah 53
English Standard Version (ESV)
53 Who has believed what he has heard from us?[a]
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows,[c] and acquainted with[d] grief;[e]
and as one from whom men hide their faces[f]
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;[g]
when his soul makes[h] an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,[j]
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,[k]
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.

 

[SentinelMind]

So basically,what you're saying is according to the Bible, two men (and I suppose women?) can get married,just not have sex? That is the most strained line of reasoning I've ever seen.(and I've unfortunately seen plenty.)It's a blatant case of trying to take something that's clearly being stated,and trying to have the meaning hinge on a technicality.

The Bible has communicated homosexuality as a sin consistently,and constantly. In fact,homosexuality has been shown in a consistently negative light throughout all of scripture.It is virtually impossible to interpret it as a condoned behavior.



I understand and agree. I was only pointing out the passages in question couldn't be held up to the excuse that their meaning was misinterpreted.

Eh,I think I've said all I have to say about this. Kudos to The Question for not engaging in some of the mocking and name-calling going on in this thread.

Human Torch,...there is not point in debating this with The Question, he's trying to engage in semantic, losing forest for trees gaming debating. I think he knows the Bible is to be read with genuine heart, but he is choosing not to do so to exercise his intellectual muscle in this thread.

 

[SentinelMind]

I don't understand why hardcore Christians are thrown into such a tizzy over homosexuality, which, to my knowledge, Jesus never spoke about, and ignore divorce, which Jesus openly condemned. Why don't more of them refuse to serve divorcees or support legislation banning divorce?

It was actually the many liberal and feminist groups passed laws making it easier to get divorces (no fault divorces) in opposition to many traditionalists who wanted condemnation for adultery and such.

 

[The Question]

I'm not going to bother testing the technical accuracy of this post, but the Bible is intended to be read genuinely, not like a defensive lawyer.

What does "read genuinely" mean?

Anyway, my point was never to go rules lawyer. My point was simply to make clear that there is room for interpretation. There are things that the Bible is not specific about or could have multiple meanings, so there aren't obvious and clear cut answers.

 

[Tanin]

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

 

[SentinelMind]

To The Question:
You do understand the difference between the carrying out the law on technicalities and carrying out the spirit behind the law? You have to have an open heart seeking God when reading the Bible and seeking to practice faith openly and consistently and holistically. Reading the Bible with purpose of engaging in confrontational semantic games defeats purpose of reading the Bible. There's not more I can say beyond that.

 

[The Question]

To The Question:
You do understand the difference between the carrying out the law on technicalities and carrying out the spirit behind the law? You have to have an open heart seeking God when reading the Bible and seeking to practice faith openly and consistently and holistically. Reading the Bible with purpose of engaging in confrontational semantic games defeats purpose of reading the Bible. There's not more I can say beyond that.

Who are you to say what the spirit of the law actually is? The spirit of the law is open to interpretation. That's my whole point.

 

[SentinelMind]

When you read Genesis which discusses why God created Adam...and then created Eve as a helper and how he wants man and wife to join as one...when you read how Paul discusses how husband and wife must treat each other with respect and love, serving specific roles in marriage....and when Paul writes about how we should conduct ourselves in a way not to lead others into confusion....and when you read parts of Old Testament and New Testament condemning homosexuality....it becomes pretty clear to conclude God blesses only straight traditional one man one woman marriage. You have to read the Bible as a whole to get the spiritual intent...picking pieces together and making statements "this one sentence isn't technically here" defeats the whole point. You need patience and desire to learn to get God's message.

That's really all I'm going to say on that. You don't have to like the message, but I'm pretty sure its clear for you to understand what I'm saying, even if you want to pretend its not.

 

[Breogan]

200001 pages and now? one has mentioned this yet

................................?

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Human Torch,...there is not point in debating this with The Question, he's trying to engage in semantic, losing forest for trees gaming debating. I think he knows the Bible is to be read with genuine heart, but he is choosing not to do so to exercise his intellectual muscle in this thread.

And what exactly are you trying to do?

 

[Hal_Jordan]

When you read Genesis which discusses why God created Adam...and then created Eve as a helper and how he wants man and wife to join as one...when you read how Paul discusses how husband and wife must treat each other with respect and love, serving specific roles in marriage....and when Paul writes about how we should conduct ourselves in a way not to lead others into confusion....and when you read parts of Old Testament and New Testament condemning homosexuality....it becomes pretty clear to conclude God blesses only straight traditional one man one woman marriage. You have to read the Bible as a whole to get the spiritual intent...picking pieces together and making statements "this one sentence isn't technically here" defeats the whole point. You need patience and desire to learn to get God's message.

That's really all I'm going to say on that. You don't have to like the message, but I'm pretty sure its clear for you to understand what I'm saying, even if you want to pretend its not.

What if your messenger has misinterpreted the message. Ever play the game of telephone? That pretty much sums up how the bible was written.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Or maybe the bible should just be read as it is...a book. Like Harry potter or captain under pants

 

[KevanG]

That would be cheating.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Or maybe the bible should just be read as it is...a book. Like Harry potter or captain under pants

The problem with that is that the bible has a lot of historically documented events in parts of it. So people assume the whole thing is absolute truth, even though it was never meant to be read that way.

 

[KevanG]

Are you saying Harry Potter isn't real?

Freaking Muggles...

 

[DarkSovereignty]

I know for a fact that captain underpants fought the alien lunch ladies for our sins

 

[KevanG]

Your sins maybe. I was always nice to them.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Are you saying Harry Potter isn't real?

Freaking Muggles...