Discussion Cakes,lawsuits,and a Holy Spirit filled life.

[SpiritPsalmist]

I think some of you keep missing the point entirely...

The FINE (not lawsuit judgement) that the bakers were ordered to pay was because they were cyber-bullying the gay couple. They posted the couples complete information, including home address, etc. on social media and encouraged others to discriminate against them... and when ordered by the court to stop, they refused.

That's completely different from just not baking a cake. And no one will EVER convince me that it was the Holy Spirit that told them to do such, since when we see how Jesus treated those in sin (such as the woman caught in adultery... "let he who is without sin cast the first stone") it is exactly opposite. He didn't go through the town square announcing where she lived to everyone. Rather, He treated her with dignity as a human being just as she was.

The reason the case is Oregon is completely different (and therefore, no fines, etc.) is because the couple there actually acted in a Christ-like manner while maintaining their beliefs. It's basically the same as a Jewish deli refusing to sell ham to anyone... they just don't carry it in their line, because if someone eats it that would be against their religious beliefs. No discrimination... everyone is treated the same. The Oregon couple said "we can't participate in wedding cakes for same sex couples, therefore, we won't make wedding cakes for anyone". They did not treat the couple differently.... they treated everyone the same. Jesus said "be wise as a serpent, but gentle as a dove"... and that's what they did. They still (I'm assuming) bake birthday cakes, etc.... just not wedding cakes.

Ok, now that I can understand. If the couple did that then I agree that their behavior is not Christlike. I still don't see it wrong to say "no" (depending on the heart attitude behind the "no" which scripture allows me to speculate on only my own attitude, not someone else) but with the added behavior that is different. Their behavior of posting personal info does seem vindictive. However, I still think that we should pray for them and ask God to reveal to them their poor attitude in the situation and see them come forward with repentance to the couple instead of bashing them and adding to the problem.

Hey Rick, good to see you. It's been awhile.

 

[Alithis]

of course we should pray for them

and my point all along has been that we can learn from the error ..our is to love as Christ has loved us .he said to go out and preach the gospel ..not change or control the world .he has already declared its destruction. our is to preach the god news of deliverance from the judgment that is coming .not enforce it before its time.

 

[All4Christ]

I haven't been able to get thorough every post, but I do want to give a bit of input here (though I'm sure some others have said the same). There is a difference between judging the sinner and determining that you can't support something that a person is doing.

If they refused to bake cakes in general for a gay couple, then that would be discrimination and would be wrong. I am assuming that they were more than willing to make a cake for them (Party cakes, etc.). They just refused to make cakes for gay weddings. That is different than judging a person.

Christ treated the prostitute with dignity and kindness, but he did not excuse the sinful behavior. Instead, he forgave her and said to sin no more.

 

[jiminpa]

Since I don't know what all this couple with the bakery has and has not done, if the issue is as the media has described it, (and it never is), and this couple simply refused to bake the wedding cake for what isn't really a wedding, and has stood their ground despite heavy persecution and the loss of income and potentially all earthly materials, how much more of a witness is that than to value the things of this word, (material possessions and human approval), above moral and ethical convictions? Which says more, a Christian who takes a stand of conscience and is willing to forfeit much to hold true to conviction, or one who bows to the pressure of man's approval in the name of a "love" that is no love at all? Which is more loving to someone Hell-bent on damnation, giving even a passive stamp of approval of the enemy's foothold, or warning of the sin that they love too much to receive salvation? There is no loving someone so much that you will make their trip to Hell more comfortable, that is not love.

 

[Aldebaran]

of course we should pray for them

and my point all along has been that we can learn from the error ..our is to love as Christ has loved us .he said to go out and preach the gospel ..not change or control the world .he has already declared its destruction. our is to preach the god news of deliverance from the judgment that is coming .not enforce it before its time.

If the church isn't an agent of change in this world, then we may as well not even be here.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

If the church isn't an agent of change in this world, then we may as well not even be here.

How can a church who refuses to change be an agent of change?

 

[Aldebaran]

How can a church who refuses to change be an agent of change?

What kind of change do you expect the church to make? Do you want Obama-style "Change you can believe in"? Is that what you want from the church?
Christ didn't change, even though people wanted Him to when He was on the Earth. I don't think the church should change to accomodate the world either.
But do you know what a catalyst is? It's something that changes something else without being changed itself. That's what the church is to be.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

What kind of change do you expect the church to make? Do you want Obama-style "Change you can believe in"? Is that what you want from the church?
Christ didn't change, even though people wanted Him to when He was on the Earth. I don't think the church should change to accomodate the world either.
But do you know what a catalyst is? It's something that changes something else without being changed itself. That's what the church is to be.

The church is to obey God's instructions. How can they show they are different, and cause others to see that they are different, when they are not doing what God says either?

 

[Aldebaran]

The church is to obey God's instructions. How can they show they are different, and cause others to see that they are different, when they are not doing what God says either?

Does God want us to conform to the world when the world wants us to? Should a Supreme Court ruling make us change? What change are you looking for?

 

[Alithis]

The church is not an agent of change.it is not even of this world .
The world is destined for destruction by fire.
The churches mission is to love and share the good news.
When the church runs around trying to change the world.. Its gone outside its mission.
The world wlill not change .but the lost within it can be saved.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Does God want us to conform to the world when the world wants us to? Should a Supreme Court ruling make us change? What change are you looking for?

The question is, what change is God looking for?

 

[Alithis]

Does God want us to conform to the world when the world wants us to?

no he does not want us to conform to the world .
and there comes a day when every knee will bow and conform to the truth of the lord Jesus .

but we should not act as if the world should conform to "us" .

to try and drag this back on topic ... refusing to bake a "wedding " cake ..sure anyone can see(and understand) the reasoning behind it . but is the reasoning the righteousness of God or the righteousness of man?
if we see a known gay man starving on the street ..will you be condoning his sin by giving him bread ? of course not .. you would be displaying the love of God to a man in need . whether he be friend or enemy .. love is our Guideline and God is Love

 

[Biblicist]

to try and drag this back on topic .......if we see a known gay man starving on the street ..will you be condoning his sin by giving him bread ? of course not .. you would be displaying the love of God to a man in need . whether he be friend or enemy .. love is our Guideline and God is Love

You seem to be going off topic by trying to associate someone's physical wellbeing with their sin. Heck, I would even give a paedophile or an enemy combatant a drink in the field if they were dying of first. This is completely different to someone making a moral decision that their business will not be seen to supporting behaviour that is destructive to society.

Hopefully there will be enough individual Christians and Christian businesses who will make a stand against the wicked decision that was made by the six or seven unelected judges to overturn not only the Law of God but the historical traditions of the US; where popular pressure may even force the government to change its ways.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-texas-idUSKCN0P900F20150629

 

[Biblicist]

The church is not an agent of change.it is not even of this world .
The world is destined for destruction by fire.
The churches mission is to love and share the good news.
When the church runs around trying to change the world.. Its gone outside its mission.
The world wlill not change .but the lost within it can be saved.

Alithis, this could possibly be one of the worst statements that I have ever seen on this forum - in my opinion, it is nothing less than shameful.

 

[Alithis]

Alithis, this could possibly be one of the worst statements that I have ever seen on this forum - in my opinion, it is nothing less than shameful.

can we see in the scriptures where the church is supposed to "take over " the present kingdoms of this world ? no, because it has never been its commission .

 

[Alithis]

You seem to be going off topic by trying to associate someone's physical wellbeing with their sin. Heck, I would even give a paedophile or an enemy combatant a drink in the field if they were dying of first. This is completely different to someone making a moral decision that their business will not be seen to supporting behaviour that is destructive to society.

Hopefully there will be enough individual Christians and Christian businesses who will make a stand against the wicked decision that was made by the six or seven unelected judges to overturn not only the Law of God but the historical traditions of the US; where popular pressure may even force the government to change its ways.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-texas-idUSKCN0P900F20150629

lets keep a balance of context in check ..i was replying in context to what others had said implying baking the cake some how condones their sin.. it doesnt . nor does refusing to aid the furtherance of the Gospel.
also its an intellectual moral judgment based decision .

 

[Biblicist]

can we see in the scriptures where the church is supposed to "take over " the present kingdoms of this world ? no, because it has never been its commission .

Okay, if your standing against the odd views of those deluded "Christians" who say that that before the Lord returns, that the Christians will be seizing/given control of the various secular governments then your concern probably has some validity.

What we are talking about is the Gospel, where the Good News has been given to all mankind and where the USA in particular was (supposedly) founded on Christian values. Now as the Good News was intended to free man from the shackles of sin (including that of homosexuality) and where each American is (again supposedly) given the right to protest in their Constitution against political, moral, police oppression and other forms of injustices, if they refuse to speak up then their country will end up being little more than a banana republic where both immorality and corruption reign supreme.

To get back to the main point of your post, you run into your first obstacle when you try and say (even if unintentionally) that the Scriptures forbid Christians from being the 'salt' in their community. Your second problem you encounter is when you make a stand that Amercian Christians are not allowed to be Americans, where all Americans have the right to protest against the unjustices of the government, which the recent pro-sodomy decision by the unelected judges is a good example.

As sodomy and its associated sins are undoubtedly no less evil than the horrors of slavery, if the citizens of the US and particularly those who are Christians fail to stand up and be counted then all is lost.

 

[Alithis]

Okay, if your standing against the odd views of those deluded "Christians" who say that that before the Lord returns, that the Christians will be seizing/given control of the various secular governments then your concern probably has some validity.

What we are talking about is the Gospel, where the Good News has been given to all mankind and where the USA in particular was (supposedly) founded on Christian values. Now as the Good News was intended to free man from the shackles of sin (including that of homosexuality) and where each American is (again supposedly) given the right to protest in their Constitution against political, moral, police oppression and other forms of injustices, if they refuse to speak up then their country will end up being little more than a banana republic where both immorality and corruption reign supreme.

To get back to the main point of your post, you run into your first obstacle when you try and say (even if unintentionally) that the Scriptures forbid Christians from being the 'salt' in their community. Your second problem you encounter is when you make a stand that American Christians are not allowed to be Americans, where all Americans have the right to protest against the injustices of the government, which the recent pro-sodomy decision by the unelected judges is a good example.

As sodomy and its associated sins are undoubtedly no less evil than the horrors of slavery, if the citizens of the US and particularly those who are Christians fail to stand up and be counted then all is lost.

nah lol i dont run into any problems because im not saying that we ..via love and the Gospel do not effect change . we certainly do .for the gospel believed and received effects eternal change in the individual . that individual then joins the kingdom of God ..forsaking "the world" goes out and perpetuates that same love .
but this effectual change is resultant of the Gospel.
we are not called to force that change on the unbeliever ..only to love them both in word and deed and deliver the message . for the "good news" is the power of God unto salvation to every one who believes it .
we seek to share the gospel ... the truth that it effects a change for the eternal betterment of the receiver preparing them for the eternal (not worldly )kingdom of God (which is within firstly ) is resultant .
but it is the message we are commissioned to share .. being salt is the result .

we don't accomplish anything by shaking our finger in that face of a man who beat and robbed some one.. but we accomplish much by loving and aiding whom he beat ..to the muggers shame . and one day when he is the one beaten we also love and aid him .. love has no bias .

and we have been here before on this topic ..america was founded invasion followed by rebellion ,then on carnal intellectual well intended principles which laid the foundation for so called "rights" that have led to the passing of the present laws against God -yet another very large example that when we act based upon the carnal reasoning of the flesh .. we do not accomplish the will of God .Because that which is born of the Spirit is Spiritual and that which is of the flesh is flesh .

we simply cannot oppose the world using the world methodology .we have lost already the moment we began to do so.

 

[Biblicist]

nah lol i dont run into any problems because im not saying that we ..via love and the Gospel do not effect change . we certainly do .for the gospel believed and received effects eternal change in the individual . that individual then joins the kingdom of God ..forsaking "the world" goes out and perpetuates that same love. but this effectual change is resultant of the Gospel.

That’s good, I like that, and it seems that we are essentially all on the same path with this.

we are not called to force that change on the unbeliever ..only to love them both in word and deed and deliver the message.

I like this as well, where the two bakers undoubtedly agree where I’m sure that they did not attempt to force the sodomites to change their ways; we can hardly deem a refusal to provide a certain product or service as being necessarily seen as an attempt to “force a change” on anyone.

we don't accomplish anything by shaking our finger in that face of a man who beat and robbed some one.. but we accomplish much by loving and aiding whom he beat ..to the muggers shame . and one day when he is the one beaten we also love and aid him .. love has no bias .

It could be that this was the same attitude the Corinthians had toward the man who married his fathers wife; where Paul chastised the Corinthians for not casting him out of the church. Paul's position was that by not doing so, that the individual would suffer eternal judgment, but by being 'harsh' where they should have thrown him out earlier he would have had a father greater chance of repenting.

For that matter, why would you suggest that the bakers had rebuked the homosexuals, again, a refusal to provide a service or product was simply a moral decision as they felt that they could not be seen to support wicked behaviour.

and we have been here before on this topic ..america was founded invasion followed by rebellion ,then on carnal intellectual well intended principles which laid the foundation for so called "rights" that have led to the passing of the present laws against God -yet another very large example that when we act based upon the carnal reasoning of the flesh .. we do not accomplish the will of God .Because that which is born of the Spirit is Spiritual and that which is of the flesh is flesh .

When it comes to 'freedom for all' the Revolutionary War had little to with such high ideals as it was a backward step when compared to British Law. If the first Civil War (1776) was nothing more than an attempt by the US Founding Fathers to maintain their slaves in lieu of the court decision by the British in 1772 that slavery had no part in British Law (or the Magna Carta), then the Masonic founders of the US may have possibly pulled a ruse where their Constitution was devised to provide a catalyst for Revolution which served only a few business leaders.

But, even if the Declaration of Independence was a ruse in that it was merely an attempt to uphold slavery, it was still written in a way that people of goodwill who were prepared to stand up could indeed introduce change which is what these two fine Christian bakers have done.

we simply cannot oppose the world using the world methodology .we have lost already the moment we began to do so.

Do you mean “civil disobedience”, if so then I think that Ghandi and the millions of Indians who sought and won their independence from Britain would disagree.

 

[All4Christ]

if we see a known gay man starving on the street ..will you be condoning his sin by giving him bread ? of course not .. you would be displaying the love of God to a man in need . whether he be friend or enemy .. love is our Guideline and God is Love

Refusing to bake a cake for an event you disagree with morally is not the same as refusing to give a homeless person bread because of them being gay. One is a way to not conform to this world, while the second is disobeying the commands of God.

I'm sure many cake bakers wouldn't want to bake a cake for a conference supporting alcoholism either. Somehow I don't think people would have as big of a reaction too someone refusing business for an event like that.

I think it comes down to the intentions of the cake bakers. My feelings on the matter are based on the assumption that they are more than willing to bake cakes in general for the couple, but are not willing to bake a cake for any gay wedding or other event that supports something against their morals.