Hope For LGBT

[Doug_E_Fresh]

PSA:

Just a thought, but it would probably be best to argue this first from a christian standpoint, then worry about the legal stuff after. We do ultimately submit to God over the law anyway. That will also allow you to get a clear understanding of eachother's positions (which I know, you think you know already.. but i'm not convinced). For example, if LightMessenger doesn't think that practicing homosexuality is a sin, then you have pretenses you should work out before you even bother with a topic like this. Otherwise you're going to continue infuriating each other and going in circles.

 

[Wormwood]

River,

The only question I see you have asked is: What's your point?

My point is that the courts rule in favor of a women being allowed to terminate the life of the unborn. It doesn't matter to me if every court in all the world said that killing the unborn is right, it would still be wrong. Pointing to a court ruling doesn't prove anything. As I said, if the Bible teaches us anything, its that the ways of men are generally corrupt and nations often create laws and practices that bring God's judgment.

Churches are private and not subject to public accommodation laws.

So are you suggesting we can only be Christians in private? Does a photographer have to accommodate a nude model in their request to take photos or do they have the freedom to refuse? I still don't see why this is different. You refuse to see this as the baker not wanting to be a part of a gay wedding that he felt was immoral and was actually against the law in his state (regardless of where the wedding would be held). You keep claiming that he was discriminating because of who they were, but he wasn't. He was willing to bake for them, but he was unwilling to create a cake for this event (not because of who they were, but because of what they were doing). There is a difference in saying, "I will not serve you because of who you are" and "I will not participate in what you are doing." I don't expect judges or courts to see this (so it doesn't surprise me when courts rule against Christian convictions), but I do expect Christians to see this. Why are you so intent in defending the "laws" rather than the convictions of a Christian (regardless of whether or not those convictions are held in a church or in a business). I just cannot understand why a Christians convictions should only apply to their private church life and not their work life.

LightMessenger-

You are extrapolating and trying to make it sound as if it was I who is saying ".... you sin too so let's legalize my sin...." I did not say that. You did.

You keep talking about how we all sin, as rationale for not rejecting homosexuality. You posted a link to an article that explicitly made that very point. If you don't believe it, you shouldn't post such articles.

As for ministers, no one is saying that they are being forced to perform gay marriage. If they wish to they can and if they don't they don't have to. It's as simple as that.

My point is that the invisible barrier between "church" and the secular does not exist in the Bible. We have created imaginary lines where one is capable of living by faith convictions and when those convictions can no longer be held. God does not play by our imaginary rules. He expects us to be faithful whether we are paid minister, baker, or candlestick maker.

As for your come-back on Luke 6:42, again, you are making things up that I did not say in order to try to save your argument on this. There is no ".... planting specks in people's eyes." That is something that people guilty of that have already well planted there for themselves for all to see and become aware of.

No, you are planting a speck in someone's eye when you force them to do something that violates their faith. It is a sin to not act in faith, the Bible is very clear on this. To tell someone, "Well you are a business, therefore you have to produce goods that will support a gay marriage" is to make them conform to a standard that many feel is wrong. We remove the obstacles in our eyes so we can help others remove the sin in their lives. That is Jesus' point. Not that we should ignore peoples sins because we also sin. That is not what that verse is teaching.

As to your question on whether Homosexuality is a sin and one to remove that particular 'speck'. I have to overwhelmingly and unequivocally tell you that It Is Not A Sin and should be embraced by normal thinking people who have no prejudice, intolerance, bigoted thoughts, and who do not discriminate. Why? Because Jesus Christ said not one word against homosexuals and homosexuality. That is good enough for me and so many others! That is why I, for one, can never and will never buy into the stories of prejudice and bigotry where people like to use inappropriate Scripture to make homosexuality appear to be a bad thing. It is not. If indeed it was such a grave "sin", Jesus would have clearly and definitively spoken against it and so would God His Father. He would have made it His Eleventh Commandment to prohibit homosexuality, only He didn't because He obviously knew there was absolutely nothing wrong with it and that it was a normal, acceptable sexual orientation as medicine and science has found to be the case and has also known for decades. Again, the scare-tactic Scriptures used by bigots to try to condemn Gays and Lesbians are all speaking to other things and not against homosexuals or homosexuality and ALL Must Know and Understand That. One day you will learn the truth in this that God does not and cannot discriminate against a person who was born with their sexual orientation being homosexual which He gave to them in the first place. It is the sin of Promiscuity, for BOTH Homosexual and Heterosexual orientations, that He is against as is evidenced by Mary Magdalene, the woman in the Bible who had seven demons that Jesus freed her from. He told her to "go and sin no more" with regard to her promiscuity. Not that she was a Lesbian or Gay and had to refrain from being that as that is not sinful in and of itself but promiscuity is.

I figured as much.

 

[StanJ]

PSA:

Just a thought, but it would probably be best to argue this first from a christian standpoint, then worry about the legal stuff after. We do ultimately submit to God over the law anyway. That will also allow you to get a clear understanding of eachother's positions (which I know, you think you know already.. but i'm not convinced). For example, if LightMessenger doesn't think that practicing homosexuality is a sin, then you have pretenses you should work out before you even bother with a topic like this. Otherwise you're going to continue infuriating each other and going in circles.

He has pretty much confirmed this many times, and is the main reason I have him/her on ignore.

 

[River Jordan]

My point is that the courts rule in favor of a women being allowed to terminate the life of the unborn. It doesn't matter to me if every court in all the world said that killing the unborn is right, it would still be wrong.

But we weren't debating right vs. wrong. I specifically cited the court rulings to demonstrate that from a legal standpoint, the arguments you've been offering have been summarily rejected. If you don't want to discuss the legal issues surrounding gays and Christian businesses, then let's drop that aspect of the discussion.

Pointing to a court ruling doesn't prove anything.

In the context I presented it, it sure does. It proves that your arguments have no legal merit.

So are you suggesting we can only be Christians in private?

No, that's ridiculous. I was specifically talking about the legal distinction between a private church and a public business.

Does a photographer have to accommodate a nude model in their request to take photos or do they have the freedom to refuse? I still don't see why this is different.

Does the photographer advertise that he will take nude photos? Is he refusing to take nude photos of only a certain group of people? If not, then the photographer can simply say that nude photos are not a service they provide to anyone. Thus, they are not discriminating against any group of people.

Contrast that with the Christian baker, who sells wedding cakes, just not for gay weddings. Understand?

You refuse to see this as the baker not wanting to be a part of a gay wedding that he felt was immoral and was actually against the law in his state (regardless of where the wedding would be held). You keep claiming that he was discriminating because of who they were, but he wasn't. He was willing to bake for them, but he was unwilling to create a cake for this event (not because of who they were, but because of what they were doing). There is a difference in saying, "I will not serve you because of who you are" and "I will not participate in what you are doing."

We've been over this. As the court unanimously decided...

The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation

IOW, they're saying in legal-ese "that's a pretty stupid argument".

I don't expect judges or courts to see this (so it doesn't surprise me when courts rule against Christian convictions), but I do expect Christians to see this.

Since when is discriminating against gays a "Christian conviction". Just from this board alone you should realize that's not the case.

Why are you so intent in defending the "laws" rather than the convictions of a Christian (regardless of whether or not those convictions are held in a church or in a business).

First, because as I said above, discriminating against gays is not a Christian conviction. Second, because we don't live in a Christian theocracy (and I wouldn't want to live in one either). We live in a deliberate secular democratic republic, where all citizens are supposed to be treated equally under the law. And that includes being able to walk into a public business and not be discriminated against because of who you are. Third, you still haven't explained how if we allow Christian bakers to refuse service to gays due to religious beliefs, a Christian banker wouldn't also be allowed to refuse to give home loans to gays.

If we say to Christian bakers "You're allowed to discriminate against gays", we'd also have to allow the same to every religious group and every business. Is that really what you want? Or maybe you really do want to live in a Christian theocracy where only Christians get special privileges?

I just cannot understand why a Christians convictions should only apply to their private church life and not their work life.

They can, up until they negatively impact the rights of others. And that's what's going on here. Gay couples, just like all other citizens, have the right to walk into a public business and be able to purchase a product just like everyone else. When that right is infringed, they go to the legal system to get relief.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
When some of you drove in here looking for a parking space, I wonder if you
stopped at the front gate first to note that the OP is about spiritual help for
LGBT rather than legal and/or political help?
=============================================

 

[LightMessenger]

First, because as I said above, discriminating against gays is not a Christian conviction. Second, because we don't live in a Christian theocracy (and I wouldn't want to live in one either). We live in a deliberate secular democratic republic, where all citizens are supposed to be treated equally under the law. And that includes being able to walk into a public business and not be discriminated against because of who you are. Third, you still haven't explained how if we allow Christian bakers to refuse service to gays due to religious beliefs, a Christian banker wouldn't also be allowed to refuse to give home loans to gays.

If we say to Christian bakers "You're allowed to discriminate against gays", we'd also have to allow the same to every religious group and every business. Is that really what you want? Or maybe you really do want to live in a Christian theocracy where only Christians get special privileges?


They can, up until they negatively impact the rights of others. And that's what's going on here. Gay couples, just like all other citizens, have the right to walk into a public business and be able to purchase a product just like everyone else. When that right is infringed, they go to the legal system to get relief.

===========================================================================
Yes, of course you're right, River. If the baker or the banker refuses to provide a service to a Gay or Lesbian person or couple but provides it to the Straight couple or person, the Gay person or couple who was refused service certainly has the right to go to court to seek relief. And the question would inevitably arise in court put to the defendant as to whether his or her business was in effect a church or a religious organization. If he or she cannot definitively say that it is then undoubtedly the court would find in favor of the plaintiff due to the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay marriage was not a church or religious organization that may have had a religious right to do so therefore, they should have baked it for the Gay couple simply because they were, in effect, a business but not a church or religious organization. And that's the way it is.

 

[justaname]

-
When some of you drove in here looking for a parking space, I wonder if you
stopped at the front gate first to note that the OP is about spiritual help for
LGBT rather than legal and/or political help?
=============================================

Good point...

The issue rests in the conviction of sin. Once sin is admitted, then spiritual help can be sought. I think the other point of issue rests in the lack of understanding and compassion. Quite a difficult case really. I have seen a real spirit of hatred coming from both sides of the fence.

My personal conviction is LGBT activity is a sin, this conviction resulting from biblical interpretation. I am uncertain of the "born this way" argument due to personal ignorance. Yet if science were to identify chemical or genetic differences in kleptomaniacs this would not excuse their behavior, so also in the case of LGBT, even though society might embrace the latter.

Even within this I feel compassion, love, and acceptance of the individual must be universal throughout the Church. We must not accept the sin, just as we must not accept any other sin. (Lies, Pride, Arrogance, Gluttony, Coveting, Adultery) The list could go on. So then the question arises of excommunication, yet if we are quick to excommunicate the homosexual why are we not so quick to excommunicate the liar? Why not the adulterer as described biblically as the divorced, or those guilty of pride and arrogance? Simple, because the Church would be empty if we excommunicated everyone guilty of sin. My mind goes to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you and the measure in which you judge so shall it be measured upon you." Many have a hard line, until it is their son or daughter. Many point their finger in condemnation and judgment, yet their own blackened heart stands in judgment against themselves. If we want to excommunicate the sinner we need only to look into the mirror. I believe people truly do not understand the depth of darkness within their own hearts. Standing in the light of God, looking upon His holiness, the depravity of wickedness that is filled throughout the heart causes trembling, fear, and mourning. Gazing into the void of blackness, that is the sin of the heart, disgust and horror overwhelms as you cry to God, "Please show me no more!" Why do we fear such a great and awesome God? Because we are desperately wicked, and He is unfathomably good and holy . Thank the lovingkindness, mercy, and patience of God to send His only begotten Son to reconcile us back to Himself. Oh how we all are unworthy! My continual prayer is the destruction of evil with deliverance from the same and mercy from God. Oh what a great day in the day of the Lord, for the wicked will perish and righteousness will reign for eternity, yet I cry real tears for those who must drink the wrath of God to the dregs. May the Good Lord have mercy on their poor souls. I wish I could go to the gates of hades and put a no-vacancy sign up, yet I dare not stand against the righteous judgment of God. May the Logos divinely inspire us instilling wisdom and compassion through these treacherous and perilous times.

I must state I have not fully thought all of this topic of LGBT through (if that were even possible). I do not have personal experience of this in a church setting. I have only begun to think of the logistical or practical aspects. I have not formulated a position dealing with someone who refuses to admit sin in the lifestyle or even one who does admit sin in the lifestyle. So IOW this topic is complex, and I have only begun to stabilize my stance. I am still like a newborn colt. My legs are under me, but they are a bit shaky still.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

"We ought to obey God rather than man." The time is coming when all other manner of sin will also be declared legal.

Sociopaths, pedophiles, are also born that way. It's not their fault. When did you choose to be concerned with the pain and misery of others?

We simply need to obey God rather than man. it's going to get much worse. It's the end of time after all. As RJ points out, (her giddiness about it aside) we will, in an ever-increasing fashion lose these cases. The cards are indeed stacked against biblical Christianity (hence the giddiness).

The good news is that we win in the end. Woe unto them that are on the wrong side.

 

[Wormwood]

But we weren't debating right vs. wrong. I specifically cited the court rulings to demonstrate that from a legal standpoint, the arguments you've been offering have been summarily rejected. If you don't want to discuss the legal issues surrounding gays and Christian businesses, then let's drop that aspect of the discussion.

So you agree it would have been wrong for the baker to bake the cake for the gay ceremony? I have been discussing what I believe the law should be in order to maintain our freedom to act according to our faith and conscience. I am under no illusion that the courts or mob consensus of our country will side with me.

It proves that your arguments have no legal merit.

I am not interested in "legal merit." I am interested in what is right and the stances our country should take if it is really interested in protecting the freedom of religion.

No, that's ridiculous. I was specifically talking about the legal distinction between a private church and a public business.

Yes I understand. But when has the freedom of religion only applied to private churches? I don't think a person who owns his own sandwich shop should have to leave his faith convictions at the door the moment he opens his business to the public. I don't think that is what the founding fathers meant when they spoke of religious liberty.

IOW, they're saying in legal-ese "that's a pretty stupid argument".

Yes, and in legal-ese, such judges have also ruled that rejecting the plea to spare the lives of the unborn is "a pretty stupid argument." Again, you are not a judge, and neither am I. We are having a discussion as people of faith regarding what we feel the laws should entail for us to live out our faith in accordance with our convictions. By your rationale, we shouldn't even discuss these matters because what the court says should silence any and all discussion. The courts are not God. I think we should talk about what pleases God and our views on this as Christians and not what the courts decided is best for us. The Sanhedrin ruled that Peter and John shouldn't preach the name of Jesus. By your rationale, they had a "pretty stupid argument" for continuing to obey God because the court decided against them.

Since when is discriminating against gays a "Christian conviction". Just from this board alone you should realize that's not the case.

Yes, of course you're right, River. If the baker or the banker refuses to provide a service to a Gay or Lesbian person or couple but provides it to the Straight couple or person, the Gay person or couple who was refused service certainly has the right to go to court to seek relief.

I don't know how many times we can go over this so the two of you will stop tearing down straw men. You are completely blind to the issues here and are trying to make this about the person. This isn't about the sexual orientation of the individual. but participating in an event that a person feels is immoral. Yes, only gay people have gay marriages. But the issue is the event. Only polygamists marry multiple people, and I think a polygamist should be served by a business. But if a polygamist wants a baker to bake a cake for an event where he will marry three women, I think the baker should have every right to refuse. The baker was willing to bake for the gay couple. He was not willing to prepare a cake for the occasion of a gay wedding. If a heterosexual person came in and asked for a cake for a gay wedding, they would have been refused as well. It wasn't about the person, but the event. Can we do away with the straw men now?

 

[River Jordan]

===========================================================================
Yes, of course you're right, River. If the baker or the banker refuses to provide a service to a Gay or Lesbian person or couple but provides it to the Straight couple or person, the Gay person or couple who was refused service certainly has the right to go to court to seek relief. And the question would inevitably arise in court put to the defendant as to whether his or her business was in effect a church or a religious organization. If he or she cannot definitively say that it is then undoubtedly the court would find in favor of the plaintiff due to the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay marriage was not a church or religious organization that may have had a religious right to do so therefore, they should have baked it for the Gay couple simply because they were, in effect, a business but not a church or religious organization. And that's the way it is.

Yep. We have a situation where some Christian business owners are saying it's a violation of their religious conscience to serve gays and/or sell products that will be used in gay weddings. But that creates a situation where gays are having their rights violated, where they walk into public businesses and are denied service because of who they are. So we have a conflict of rights. One group wants to stay faithful to their religious conscience, and the other wants to be served at public businesses. Both can't have their way.

That's why we have a court system...to resolve conflicts like this one.

So you agree it would have been wrong for the baker to bake the cake for the gay ceremony?

Only if he also refused to bake cakes for weddings that involved other sins as well (e.g., greed, gluttony, adultery). If not, he's a hypocrite.

I have been discussing what I believe the law should be

I am not interested in "legal merit."

So you want to discuss "what the law should be" but not the legal merits of your arguments? Does that mean you think the law should have no interest in the legal merits of various arguments? :blink:

I am interested in what is right and the stances our country should take if it is really interested in protecting the freedom of religion.

It is interested, up until you practicing your religion infringes on the rights of others.

Let me ask you this: Do you think gays have a right to walk into a public business and purchase a product just like everyone else?

Yes I understand. But when has the freedom of religion only applied to private churches?

It doesn't. You and I have freedom to practice our religion, up until doing so infringes on the rights of others.

Yes, and in legal-ese, such judges have also ruled that rejecting the plea to spare the lives of the unborn is "a pretty stupid argument."

Do you use this excuse every time there's a ruling you don't like?

Again, you are not a judge, and neither am I. We are having a discussion as people of faith regarding what we feel the laws should entail for us to live out our faith in accordance with our convictions. By your rationale, we shouldn't even discuss these matters because what the court says should silence any and all discussion. The courts are not God.

I never made any argument like that at all.

I think we should talk about what pleases God and our views on this as Christians and not what the courts decided is best for us. The Sanhedrin ruled that Peter and John shouldn't preach the name of Jesus. By your rationale, they had a "pretty stupid argument" for continuing to obey God because the court decided against them.

Now you're just reacting emotionally rather than thinking objectively. The "pretty stupid argument" thing was specifically about the argument you have been putting forward, not every argument that a court doesn't side with.

I don't know how many times we can go over this so the two of you will stop tearing down straw men. You are completely blind to the issues here and are trying to make this about the person. This isn't about the sexual orientation of the individual. but participating in an event that a person feels is immoral. Yes, only gay people have gay marriages. But the issue is the event.

You can keep making this ridiculous argument all you like, but no one is buying it.

 

[LightMessenger]

So you agree it would have been wrong for the baker to bake the cake for the gay ceremony? I have been discussing what I believe the law should be in order to maintain our freedom to act according to our faith and conscience. I am under no illusion that the courts or mob consensus of our country will side with me.


I am not interested in "legal merit." I am interested in what is right and the stances our country should take if it is really interested in protecting the freedom of religion.


Yes I understand. But when has the freedom of religion only applied to private churches? I don't think a person who owns his own sandwich shop should have to leave his faith convictions at the door the moment he opens his business to the public. I don't think that is what the founding fathers meant when they spoke of religious liberty.


Yes, and in legal-ese, such judges have also ruled that rejecting the plea to spare the lives of the unborn is "a pretty stupid argument." Again, you are not a judge, and neither am I. We are having a discussion as people of faith regarding what we feel the laws should entail for us to live out our faith in accordance with our convictions. By your rationale, we shouldn't even discuss these matters because what the court says should silence any and all discussion. The courts are not God. I think we should talk about what pleases God and our views on this as Christians and not what the courts decided is best for us. The Sanhedrin ruled that Peter and John shouldn't preach the name of Jesus. By your rationale, they had a "pretty stupid argument" for continuing to obey God because the court decided against them.



I don't know how many times we can go over this so the two of you will stop tearing down straw men. You are completely blind to the issues here and are trying to make this about the person. This isn't about the sexual orientation of the individual. but participating in an event that a person feels is immoral. Yes, only gay people have gay marriages. But the issue is the event. Only polygamists marry multiple people, and I think a polygamist should be served by a business. But if a polygamist wants a baker to bake a cake for an event where he will marry three women, I think the baker should have every right to refuse. The baker was willing to bake for the gay couple. He was not willing to prepare a cake for the occasion of a gay wedding. If a heterosexual person came in and asked for a cake for a gay wedding, they would have been refused as well. It wasn't about the person, but the event. Can we do away with the straw men now?

==================================================================

Straw men? I think not. It is, in effect, reality and the very crux of Discrimination. It's really that simple. Again I say to you that you can color it any way you want and spin it any way you want but in the end it still spells D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N. When a business is open for business but refuses to serve everyone, that is plain discrimination. I don't see how it can come any closer. And even if the "personal conviction and religion" excuse is used, it is still blatant discrimination.

And since you mention the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin, as well as the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Scribes, were all sacrilegious jerks who were damned as well as stupid who didn't know their rear end from a hole in the ground. End of story.

"RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" Is Nothing More Than A License To DISCRIMINATE!​

 

[HammerStone]

Straw men? I think not. It is, in effect, reality and the very crux of Discrimination. It's really that simple. Again I say to you that you can color it any way you want and spin it any way you want but in the end it still spells D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N. When a business is open for business but refuses to serve everyone, that is plain discrimination. I don't see how it can come any closer. And even if the "personal conviction and religion" excuse is used, it is still blatant discrimination.

And since you mention the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin, as well as the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Scribes, were all sacrilegious jerks who were damned as well as stupid who didn't know their rear end from a hole in the ground. End of story.

Just wanted to quote this one again because it illustrates perfectly well the modern viewpoint.

Tolerance, except when you disagree, of course. Rub into the ground in the name of tolerance. Lost souls matter, except very certain ones who disagree.

 

[StanJ]

Straw men? I think not. It is, in effect, reality and the very crux of Discrimination. It's really that simple. Again I say to you that you can color it any way you want and spin it any way you want but in the end it still spells D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N. When a business is open for business but refuses to serve everyone, that is plain discrimination. I don't see how it can come any closer. And even if the "personal conviction and religion" excuse is used, it is still blatant discrimination.

And since you mention the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin, as well as the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Scribes, were all sacrilegious jerks who were damned as well as stupid who didn't know their rear end from a hole in the ground. End of story.

​

So you believe that a NO SHOES/NO SHIRT = NO SERVICE is discriminatory? You think enforcing a dress code at a golf course is discriminatory? Do you believe an all female or all male gym is discriminatory?

IMO, all you're doing here is practising reverse discrimination.

The Sanhedrin was the leadership, they were not SACRILEGOUS, they were religious. Sacrilegious is when a person forces their own unbelief on others by forcing them to accept an unacceptable practise and thus violating their belief. It is very clear to me who is being sacrilegious in regards to this OP. Jesus and His way is the ONLY hope for the gay community.

 

[River Jordan]

Tolerance, except when you disagree, of course. Rub into the ground in the name of tolerance. Lost souls matter, except very certain ones who disagree.

FYI, "tolerance" does not = "you have to tolerate absolutely everything".

So you believe that a NO SHOES/NO SHIRT = NO SERVICE is discriminatory? You think enforcing a dress code at a golf course is discriminatory? Do you believe an all female or all male gym is discriminatory?

Of course not, because those rules apply to everyone.

It's this sort of ridiculous argument that makes me think the real issue here is that some Christians just don't like gays.

 

[LightMessenger]

FYI, "tolerance" does not = "you have to tolerate absolutely everything".


Of course not, because those rules apply to everyone.

It's this sort of ridiculous argument that makes me think the real issue here is that some Christians just don't like gays.

================================================================

And you and others have just been given several examples of how some Christians strongly dislike and even detest Gays. And like I have been saying, no matter how they color it or paint what they're saying still reeks of discrimination against LGBT citizens who work, who pay their taxes, who go to church to worship God, who have or adopt children to add to their family, and who go into the military for the love of their country and so that we ALL may enjoy our freedom, many times placing themselves in harm's way. And this is the thanks they get from others just so that bigots can hold on to their prejudices and intolerance for these fine citizens. Shameful! But that is so plain to see in most every posting from the opposition.

Just wanted to quote this one again because it illustrates perfectly well the modern viewpoint.

Tolerance, except when you disagree, of course. Rub into the ground in the name of tolerance. Lost souls matter, except very certain ones who disagree.

======================================================================================
Hammer, it goes far beyond mere disagreement with the Sanhedrin. They were all a bunch of Old BLASPHEMOUS IDIOTS. That was quite simple to see. Look at how they treated Jesus, Our LORD and Savior. They actually had the gonads to accuse Him of blasphemy!! That was more than shameful, it was despicable and outrageous! And the worst part is that they never repented from how they treated Jesus. Never. They never apologized to Him for their cruelty and monster-like Anti-Christ behavior. And it's obvious that they were Not Saved or Born Again therefore, could not enter into Heaven when they expired. God was not pleased with the Sanhedrin nor the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Scribes. Those groups also were obviously in legion with the devil therefore, not Saved or Born Again and must very well find themselves in the company of Satan today and for eternity. That's not my judgment on them but God's according to how one becomes saved thus, Born Again, as found in the Holy Bible. No, there can be absolutely No Respect at all for Blasphemous Anti-Christ Morons like that.

 

[StanJ]

it goes far beyond mere disagreement with the Sanhedrin. They were all a bunch of Old BLASPHEMOUS IDIOTS. That was quite simple to see. Look at how they treated Jesus, Our LORD and Savior. They actually had the gonads to accuse Him of blasphemy!! That was more than shameful, it was despicable and outrageous! And the worst part is that they never repented from how they treated Jesus. Never. They never apologized to Him for their cruelty and monster-like Anti-Christ behavior. And it's obvious that they were Not Saved or Born Again therefore, could not enter into Heaven when they expired. God was not pleased with the Sanhedrin nor the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Scribes. Those groups also were obviously in legion with the devil therefore, not Saved or Born Again and must very well find themselves in the company of Satan today and for eternity. That's not my judgment on them but God's according to how one becomes saved thus, Born Again, as found in the Holy Bible. No, there can be absolutely No Respect at all for Blasphemous Anti-Christ Morons like that.

I won't speak for Hammer, but I find it amusing that you rail against the OC religiosity as well as the NC belief system at the same time. Nobody accepts the behaviour of those that caused Christ's death, but THEY did it, nobody forced them, and the same holds true for those you try to engender sympathy for on this thread, that are unrepentant sinners, by advocating they're lifestyle be accepted IN the BOC. ALL the deflection and obfuscation in the world will not hide the reality of God's truth. The ONLY hope gays have is to repent and GET saved.

 

[Born_Again]

-
When some of you drove in here looking for a parking space, I wonder if you
stopped at the front gate first to note that the OP is about spiritual help for
LGBT rather than legal and/or political help?
=============================================

I would pose the same question. Good point, WH. And let us not forget to hate the sin and not the sinner. Yes, it is a sin. Yes they can be saved. But its like any gift. You have to want to receive it. Its an awesome deal. When people indulge the pleasures of the flesh this is the end result. So, I guess I would challenge the any LGBT person who claims to be a Christian the following: Is how you are living bringing glory to the kingdom of God? Its a fairly simple question but its a good one. As for the marriage part, the Word clearly states

Genesis 2:24
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

There are no add on's saying "or be joined with another man"

So says the Lord.

BA

 

[Wormwood]

Only if he also refused to bake cakes for weddings that involved other sins as well (e.g., greed, gluttony, adultery). If not, he's a hypocrite.

First, there is a difference between baking a cake for a wedding that "involves" other sins and baking a cake for a wedding that is itself a sin. There is no way for a baker to know if a wedding will "involve" people getting drunk. He would be arrogant and judgmental if he assumed someone was going to get drunk or overeat at a wedding by merely looking at the person. Surely you would recognize the silliness of such a thought. These responses are puzzling.

So you want to discuss "what the law should be" but not the legal merits of your arguments? Does that mean you think the law should have no interest in the legal merits of various arguments? :blink:

Im interested in what is right and fair for both Christians to adhere to their faith and to protect various people groups from being mistreated. Telling me what a judge decided does not end the discussion. You seem to think that a judge's opinion resolves the issue completely as if the person in the black robe is the Almighty.

Do you use this excuse every time there's a ruling you don't like?

No, only when Christians use court rulings to define good and bad rather than logic that coincides with the teaching of the Scriptures.

I never made any argument like that at all.

You essentially said the judge's ruling defined my argument as stupid. I don't know how else to take that.

Now you're just reacting emotionally rather than thinking objectively. The "pretty stupid argument" thing was specifically about the argument you have been putting forward, not every argument that a court doesn't side with.

I assure you I am not emotional in this dialogue. If you think my argument is "stupid" I would encourage you to explain why...rather than knocking down the bigotry strawmen and saying, "Because the judge says so." God says its sinful to act in conflict with one's faith. I think I'll go with God on this one rather than your judge who thinks I'm stupid.

You can keep making this ridiculous argument all you like, but no one is buying it.

It looks to me like only you and LightMessenger are on the same page here. And LightMessenger rejects the teaching of the Scriptures that homosexuality is wrong. So, you have that going for you...

 

[LightMessenger]

First, there is a difference between baking a cake for a wedding that "involves" other sins and baking a cake for a wedding that is itself a sin. There is no way for a baker to know if a wedding will "involve" people getting drunk. He would be arrogant and judgmental if he assumed someone was going to get drunk or overeat at a wedding by merely looking at the person. Surely you would recognize the silliness of such a thought. These responses are puzzling.


Im interested in what is right and fair for both Christians to adhere to their faith and to protect various people groups from being mistreated. Telling me what a judge decided does not end the discussion. You seem to think that a judge's opinion resolves the issue completely as if the person in the black robe is the Almighty.


No, only when Christians use court rulings to define good and bad rather than logic that coincides with the teaching of the Scriptures.


You essentially said the judge's ruling defined my argument as stupid. I don't know how else to take that.


I assure you I am not emotional in this dialogue. If you think my argument is "stupid" I would encourage you to explain why...rather than knocking down the bigotry strawmen and saying, "Because the judge says so." God says its sinful to act in conflict with one's faith. I think I'll go with God on this one rather than your judge who thinks I'm stupid.


It looks to me like only you and LightMessenger are on the same page here. And LightMessenger rejects the teaching of the Scriptures that homosexuality is wrong. So, you have that going for you...

============================================================================

Because I know only too well that those so-called teachings are wrong when applied to same-sex oriented people. They Are Not speaking to homosexuality being wrong though you choose to believe that it does. But even at that that does not make it so.

Biblical Scholars have spoken to each of those Scriptures that are frequently brought up that you are so convinced speak against homosexuality. They have all concluded that they do not speak to that but to something else such as temple prostitution, etc.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sodom.html

http://www.gaychristian101.com/how-do-you-interpret-leviticus-1822-and-2013-man-should-not-lay-with-man.html

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html

http://www.gaychristian101.com/what-does-you-shall-not-lie-with-a-man-as-with-a-woman-mean.html

** Jesus Christ Spoke Not One Word Against Homosexuals. Inappropriate Scriptures Used By Bigots To Incorrectly Try To Say That He Did Cannot Withstand Scrutiny. **
​

 

[pom2014]

I think it boils down to the male wasp mindset.

I truly believe it is a twisted and malevolent version of the poem by Niemöller.

When the catholics wanted rights I said nothing now they are everywhere.

When the women wanted rights I said nothing and now women are not submissive to men.

When the coloureds wanted rights I said nothing now they're in the white house.

When the hispanics wanted rights I said nothing now everything is in English and Spanish.

When the gays wanted rights I said enough is enough, sod that!

I see this as reactionary anger born of fear that their dominant reign is ending. We brits did the same thing when we lost the most of the empire through misuse and prejudice. We also complained and even today there are pro British groups that are filled with hate for non brits.

I'm quite sure that when the ostrogoths and visigoths were pounding on the gates of Rome that many there were rather upset why this had to happen to them.

But sadly by that time most citizens were so mixed with other people they weren't really Romans anymore.

Britain had the same issue, most of us are either Germans or French. Even the queen is a Gerry.

But here is the brilliant thing about the states, you were a melting pot nation. You just have bits in the pot that just don't want to melt. Before long they will be swept aside by age and it'll get better.

Until then you'll have some troublesome,.undigestable and repulsive chunks to deal with.