Arizona Court of Appeals rules in favor of SS couple, based on SC Masterpiece ruling

[ubicaritas]

(Also, homosexuals will eventually realize that they have to support pedophilia. For otherwise, pedophilia completely undermines all of their arguments regarding "love" and "sexual orientation".)

Not true. Pedophilia does not involve consensual activity.

Also, Christians have the First Amendment right to the "free exercise" of their religion, which requires that they not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11), such as homosexuality ...

My church does not recognize such a "freedom" as being "religious", we recognized it as offensive to human dignity. We reserve the right to discipline any member of our church who discriminates against a gay person in providing a public service, per our church's constitution. A gay person is created in the image of God and worth every drop of the precious blood of Christ. Christian love requires impartiality, not judgmentalism.

 

[Bible2+]

SilverBear said in post #721:

Pedophilia does not involve consensual activity.

What if a 17-year-old consents to the activity? Note that many states allow 17-year-olds to even marry.

Is minors' consent okay for marriage, but not for pedophilia?

SilverBear said in post #721:

[Re: the religious freedom to not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11)]

My church does not recognize such a "freedom" as being "religious", we recognized it as offensive to human dignity.

Note that the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin (Romans 1:26-27), and so offensive to human dignity, just as pedophilia is a sin (Mark 9:42).

SilverBear said in post #721:

Christian love requires impartiality . . .

No, it requires God's standard (Revelation 3:19), so that people will not perish (Luke 13:3).

 

[kiwimac]

What if a 17-year-old consents to the activity? Note that many states allow 17-year-olds to even marry.

Is minors' consent okay for marriage, but not for pedophilia?



Note that the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin (Romans 1:26-27), and so offensive to human dignity, just as pedophilia is a sin (Mark 9:42).



No, it requires God's standard (Revelation 3:19), so that people will not perish (Luke 13:3).

Rot and nonsense.

 

[ubicaritas]

What if a 17-year-old consents to the activity? Note that many states allow 17-year-olds to even marry.

The law for consent will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Note that the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin (Romans 1:26-27), and so offensive to human dignity, just as pedophilia is a sin (Mark 9:42).

That still doesn't justify discrimination, even if we accept what the Bible says as being true of homosexuality. Baking a cake for a gay wedding is not participation in a gay marriage, any more than war photography is participation in war. It's incidental to the actual event.

No, it requires God's standard (Revelation 3:19), so that people will not perish (Luke 13:3).

Nobody lives up to God's standard, though. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", which you seem to be ignoring in your frequent quoting of Romans.

 

[Bible2+]

kiwimac said in post #723:

Rot and nonsense.

No, Biblical truth (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4).

Also, 2 Timothy 4:3-4 shows that in a wrong desire to continue in their lusts without repentance, even Christians can reach the point where they become no longer able to endure the sound doctrine of the Bible, and instead seek out and latch onto any false teachings which will help to support them in their lusts (1 Timothy 4:1-2).

kiwimac said in post #723:

Jesus Christ is good news for the poor,
release for the captives,
recovery of sight for the blind
and liberty for those who are oppressed.

Amen.

And so He can free Christians from slavery to sin (John 8:34-36), such as to the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

 

[Bible2+]

ubicaritas said in post #724:

The law for consent will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Then just as some jurisdictions allow even minors to consent to marriage, could some allow them to consent to pedophilia?

And could pedophilia-with-consent come to be seen as "love" and a "sexual orientation", no less than homosexuality?

ubicaritas said in post #724:

That still doesn't justify discrimination, even if we accept what the Bible says as being true of homosexuality.

There is no discrimination in not making a cake for a homosexual marriage, so long as one is willing to serve homosexuals themselves with items which do not support their sinful activity (Ephesians 5:11), just as there would be no discrimination in not making a cake for a pedophile marriage, so long as one is willing to serve pedophiles themselves with items which do not support their sinful activity.

ubicaritas said in post #724:

Baking a cake for a gay wedding is not participation in a gay marriage . . .

It is, in that a wedding cake is for the celebration of a wedding.

ubicaritas said in post #724:

Nobody lives up to God's standard, though.

That's right.

But there is provision if we repent of our sins (1 John 1:9).

Yet there is no provision if we do not repent (Hebrews 10:26-29).

 

[ubicaritas]

Then just as some jurisdictions allow even minors to consent to marriage, could some allow them to consent to pedophilia?

Stop equating these two things. It really doesn't help your credibility with people like me at all.

And could pedophilia-with-consent come to be seen as "love" and a "sexual orientation", no less than homosexuality?

I doubt it. Being gay hurts no one and its really nobody else's business what two consenting adults do in their private lives.

There is no discrimination in not making a cake for a homosexual marriage, so long as one is willing to serve homosexuals themselves with items which do not support their sinful activity (Ephesians 5:11), just as there would be no discrimination in not making a cake for a pedophile marriage, so long as one is willing to serve pedophiles themselves with items which do not support their sinful activity.

There you go again.

It is, in that a wedding cake is for the celebration of a wedding.

As Justice Sotomayor pointed out, a cake is food for eating. What people do with a cake, exactly, is completely up to the people that buy it, the seller is not responsible for that.

That's right.

But there is provision if we repent of our sins (1 John 1:9).

Yet there is no provision if we do not repent (Hebrews 10:26-29).

That's not how my church talks about the Gospel. God's love is unconditional, and is not dependent on our performance. Repentance is what happens when God's gift of unconditional love works in us. But none of us are perfect so we are simul iustus et peccator, both righteous and a sinner.

As Luther said, "No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins?..."

Christians have the First Amendment right to the "free exercise" of their religion, which requires that they not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11), such as homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) or adultery (Galatians 5:19-21), or pedophilia for that matter (Mark 9:42).

This line of reasoning amounts to fear-based religion. It's a bate and switch "Now that you are saved, look at what you have to do to stay saved...". You promise a fish, and give a snake instead. The Gospel is the end of the Law's demands.

So he was not discriminating against their persons at all, but was discriminating against an event which goes against his religion.

People used the same empty religious rhetoric decades ago against serving black people and recognizing interracial marriage:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Sorry, I see no reason to take this sort of argument all that seriously anymore. We've been down this road before.

There is evidence. Just read the personal testimonies (not hearsay), which can be found online, of the Christians who have been helped by Christian Gay Conversion Therapy to become straight, or at least to no longer practice homosexuality.

Oh my...

Dr. Nicolosi and his gang are some of the most self-deluded frauds to ever have walked the earth. There is no credible scientific evidence that "gay conversion therapy" does anything but cause psychological damage to gay people.

Note that in our future, pedophilia could be legalized in all cases where "consent" has been established in court, or by some other legal means.

Spoken as someone who is ignorant of how our governments legal system works. The Constitution has this thing called due process that prohibits the government from taking away rights from the states and citizens arbitrarily. Pedophilia is illegal in all states, and for good reason. There has to be a compelling state interest at stake to change that, and what you've presented is little more than an appeal to a slippery slope that only exists in your mind.

 

[SilverBear]

Note that saying that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27) does not make someone a bigot.

its a good thing no one is saying that. Why not address what was actually said?

But someone might ask: "Since it is wrong for Christians to be against miscegenation, is it not also wrong for them to be against same-sex marriage?"

Why not address what was actually said?

 

[SilverBear]

What if a 17-year-old consents to the activity? Note that many states allow 17-year-olds to even marry.

Is minors' consent okay for marriage, but not for pedophilia?

all you have done here is demonstrate that you are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Note that the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin (Romans 1:26-27), and so offensive to human dignity, just as pedophilia is a sin (Mark 9:42).

Mark 9:42 says nothing about the sexual abuse of children. Please stop lying about this

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

you mean Memories Pizza. The owner went on the air declaring that her store would discriminate. She brought it on herself but there was no targeting.


To bad your linked article says nothing of the sort.

So why the lie?



I think only right wing conspiracy buff have ever read this

Muslim owned bakeries are not the ones discriminating

Memories Pizza, a Pizzaria in a very small town in Indiana is now closed permanently. The intolerant ones managed to close down a long-established business simply because the daughter of the owner replied, when set up by a member of the media (her first mistake was in replying at all) that IF the pizza place was asked to do a gay wedding (highly unlikely), it would decline.

A complete hypothetical...but that didn't stop the death threats against their family after the idiotic newspaper stated that this business "declines same sex business" in a headline, which was not true. Who the heck wants their wedding catered by a PIZZA company? And there is NO SUCH THING as a "wedding pizza", such as there is a "wedding cake". It's not even a rational question to examine.

Completely ridiculous hypothetical, but the woman forgot that the media sensationalizes everything. Within a week, the haters were bombarding the family with death threats. Nothing says "tolerance" like threatening to kill someone because of their biblical beliefs, eh?

If you really want to know what happened instead of just make knee jerk reactionary responses, watch this interview with her father, the owner,(starting at minute 9) with Milo Yiannopoulos at Memories Pizza. By the way, he is a gay guy who has just purchased a pizza (kind of putting the lie to the whole "they don't serve gays" nonsense) and sat to interview them.

No, actually everyone who reads read Hunter and Madsen back in the 80's, and its popular successor, "After the Ball". It's all out there in the public arena, but you choose to remain ignorant and flippant about it. Maybe you weren't born yet, but those of us who have been there remember the 80's and the push to normalize this.

Lots of teachers have been fired:

Jocelyn Morffi: a teacher at Miami's St. Peter and Paul Catholic school, fired after putting her same sex wedding out on social media and showing photos of "her wife" to her young students. Terms of her condition of employment requires her to uphold Catholic teaching. From the archbishop:

Archbishop Thomas Wenski, who oversees Miami’s Catholic archdiocese, sent a message to all employees, according to the Religion News Service.

It said that every person employed by the church — regardless of whether that person is a practicing Catholic — is expected to abide by Catholic teaching, including the church’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

There are several fired or censured for refusing to promote homosexuality:

Crystal Dixon, a college administrator (and black woman), was fired for refusing to equate homosexuality with race. She wrote a opinion piece in a local newspaper in response to an article that claimed homosexuals are victims of civil rights abuses. In the letter, Dixon -- who is black -- objected to the article's claim that homosexual civil rights are being trampled on. In her view, civil rights and homosexuality do not fit into the same box." Fired.

Patricia Jannuzzi, a theology teacher at Immaculata High School in Somerville, New Jersey, suspended for posting a personal opinion supporting marriage on her own Facebook page.

Madeline Kirksey, Children's Lighthouse Learning Center, was fired Nov. 3 after she would not agree to treat a child as a male and call the child by a new male name.

Jenye “Viki” Knox New Jersey: Teaching certificate revoked because she defended the biblical position of marriage on Facebook. So...fired.


In the Rolling Stone article you clearly did not bother to read, though I posted the link:

From the article:

Tim Gill: "In the past three decades, Gill has methodically, often stealthily, poured $422 million of his fortune into the cause of equal rights for the LGBTQ community – more than any other person in America."

Gill’s fingerprints are on nearly every major victory in the march to marriage, from the 2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health case, which made Massachusetts the first state to allow same-sex marriage, to the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision two decades later that legalized it in all 50. “Without a doubt,” says Mary Bonauto, the attorney who argued the Obergefell case, “we would not be where we are without Tim Gill and the Gill Foundation.”

Gill refuses to go on the defense. “We’re going into the hardest states in the country,” he says. “We’re going to punish the wicked.”

He means those pesky Biblically-adherent believers, if that is unclear to you.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

all you have done here is demonstrate that you are morally and intellectually bankrupt.


Mark 9:42 says nothing about the sexual abuse of children. Please stop lying about this

Why can't you answer the question posed, instead of merely respond with a childish retort to each question you don't like? It's more of that delegitimizing nonsense you keep posting.

It's a legitimate question, examining the strength of your commitment to your view. Answer it, if you are capable, instead of merely lazily leveling an ad hominem attack at the one who asked.

 

[creslaw]

Instead, some people could simply (yet still mistakenly) think that God supports homosexuality, just as many U.S. Southerners of old simply (yet still mistakenly) thought that God supports racism.

From a Scriptural perspective, that neatly puts the gay lobby in the same basket as the racists of yesterday.

 

[Bible2+]

ubicaritas said in post #727:

Stop equating these two things. It really doesn't help your credibility with people like me at all.

What is incredible about pedophilia-with-consent being considered by the world in the future as no less about "love" and "sexual orientation" than homosexuality?

Also, you keep saying that love is impartial. So must not we be impartial regarding minor consent to pedophilia, just as we must be impartial to minor consent to marriage, as is legal in many states?

If the world allows a minor to consent to marriage, then why not to pedophilia?

ubicaritas said in post #727:

Being gay hurts no one . . .

It hurts gay people, for it is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), which, like any other sin, will cause people to perish (Luke 13:3).

ubicaritas said in post #727:

As Justice Sotomayor pointed out, a cake is food for eating.

A wedding cake is for the celebration of a wedding.

Would you force someone to make a cake for an event celebrating pedophilia?

ubicaritas said in post #727:

What people do with a cake, exactly, is completely up to the people that buy it, the seller is not responsible for that.

He is if he is a Biblical Christian, for a Biblical Christian must not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11).

ubicaritas said in post #727:

God's love is unconditional, and is not dependent on our performance.

Note that ultimately it is dependent on our performance (John 15:10).

ubicaritas said in post #727:

Repentance is what happens when God's gift of unconditional love works in us.

While the ability to repent is God's gift (2 Timothy 2:25), it does not take away free will (Hebrews 10:26-29).

ubicaritas said in post #727:

But none of us are perfect so we are simul iustus et peccator, both righteous and a sinner.

The ability of Christians (although not their choosing) to repent from and confess to God every sin that they commit is assured. For if they do commit a sin, even if they are unaware of it, Jesus Christ will send them warning and chastening to make sure that they know that they have sinned and need to repent (Revelation 3:19, Hebrews 12:6-7, cf. Jeremiah 31:18-19). And He will give them time to repent (Revelation 2:21a). But if they wrongly employ their free will to waste the time that they are given, and ignore the warning and chastening, and refuse to repent (Revelation 2:21-23, cf. Deuteronomy 21:18-21), until death (1 John 5:16b) or Jesus' future, Second Coming (Luke 12:45-46), then they will ultimately lose their salvation due to unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Galatians 5:19-21).

If Christians become unsure whether or not they have ignored Jesus Christ's warning and refused to repent from a sin, then they need to pray and ask Him to reveal to them if there is any unrepentant sin in their heart (Psalms 139:23-24). And they need to be reading the Bible, every word of it (Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16), over and over again. For it will expose to them any unrepentant sin which still exists in their heart (Hebrews 4:12; 2 Timothy 3:16), so that they can then repent from it and confess it to God, and be forgiven and perfect before God (2 Timothy 3:17; 1 John 1:9).

2 Corinthians 7:1 ¶Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

ubicaritas said in post #727:

As Luther said, "No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins?..."

Hebrews 10:26-29 makes clear that any unrepentant sin can cause us to ultimately lose our salvation.

For Hebrews 10:26-29 shows that Christians, who have been sanctified by Jesus Christ's sacrificial blood (Hebrews 10:29), which sanctification requires faith (Acts 26:18b, cf. Romans 3:25-26), can, after they get saved, wrongly employ their free will to commit sin without repentance (Hebrews 10:26). By doing this, these Christians are unwittingly trampling on Jesus and His sacrificial blood, and doing despite unto the Spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:29), turning the grace of God into lasciviousness (Jude 1:4), so that their ultimate fate will be worse than if they had never been saved at all (2 Peter 2:20-22). Even though Jesus' sacrificial blood is sufficient to forgive all sins (1 John 2:2), it actually forgives only the sins of Christians which are past (Romans 3:25-26), as in sins which have been repented from and confessed to God (1 John 1:9,7). Jesus' sacrificial blood does not remit unrepentant sins (Hebrews 10:26-29). So a Christian can ultimately lose his salvation if he wrongly employs his free will to commit unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46).

Some Christians say that Hebrews 10:26-29 is not for Christians. But the immediate context of Hebrews 10:26-29 is Hebrews 10:25, which is addressing "we" Christians. Hebrews 10:25-29 is the same idea as Hebrews 3:13: Christians need to gather together and exhort each other so that no Christian will fall into any unrepentant sin. For any unrepentant sin will ultimately result in the loss of salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46, Matthew 7:22-23, Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 2:20-22, Romans 8:13; 1 John 5:16, James 5:19-20).

One way that a Christian could come to desire to commit a sin without repentance would be if he finds a particular sin to be very pleasurable, so pleasurable and so fulfilling (in the short term) that he continues in it over time until his heart becomes hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13), to where his love for God grows cold because of the abundance of iniquity (Matthew 24:12), to where he quenches the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19), to where he sears his conscience as with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2), to where he becomes so infatuated with his sin that he can no longer endure the sound doctrine of the Bible (such as the doctrine of Hebrews 10:26-29), but instead latches onto a mistaken, man-made teaching which contradicts the Bible (2 Timothy 4:3-4), such as the mistaken teaching which assures Christians that there is no way that they can ever lose their salvation, even if they commit a sin without repentance.

ubicaritas said in post #727:

This line of reasoning amounts to fear-based religion.

Christians are commanded to fear God (1 Peter 2:17, Luke 12:5, Hebrews 12:28-29; 2 Corinthians 7:1, Ephesians 5:21, Acts 9:31). They must remain in fear of being cut off the same as non-Christians if they do not continue in God's goodness (Romans 11:20-22, Luke 12:45-46). They must work out their own ultimate salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12b; 1 Peter 1:17, Romans 2:6-8), knowing the terror of the future judgment of Christians by Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10-11), at His Second Coming, when some Christians will end up losing their salvation because of unrepentant sin (Luke 12:45-46, Hebrews 10:26-29), or unrepentant laziness (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a), or apostasy (Mark 8:35-38, Hebrews 6:4-8).

ubicaritas said in post #727:

The Gospel is the end of the Law's demands.

But not the end of the New Covenant's law's demands (Matthew 7:21).

ubicaritas said in post #727:

People used the same empty religious rhetoric decades ago against serving black people . . .

Racism is wrong.

But it is not wrong to say that homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), and that Biblical Christians must not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11).

ubicaritas said in post #727:

There is no credible scientific evidence that "gay conversion therapy" does anything but cause psychological damage to gay people.

There is, for Jesus Christ has the power to free Christians from slavery to any sin (John 8:34-36).

ubicaritas said in post #727:

Pedophilia is illegal in all states, and for good reason. There has to be a compelling state interest at stake to change that . . .

Note that homosexuality used to be illegal in all states, and for good reason (Romans 1:26-27). What was the compelling state interest at stake to change that?

 

[kiwimac]

What is incredible about pedophilia-with-consent being considered by the world in the future as no less about "love" and "sexual orientation" than homosexuality?

Also, you keep saying that love is impartial. So must not we be impartial regarding minor consent to pedophilia, just as we must be impartial to minor consent to marriage, as is legal in many states?

If the world allows a minor to consent to marriage, then why not to pedophilia?



It hurts gay people, for it is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), which, like any other sin, will cause people to perish (Luke 13:3).



A wedding cake is for the celebration of a wedding.

Would you force someone to make a cake for an event celebrating pedophilia?



He is if he is a Biblical Christian, for a Biblical Christian must not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11).



Note that ultimately it is dependent on our performance (John 15:10).



While the ability to repent is God's gift (2 Timothy 2:25), it does not take away free will (Hebrews 10:26-29).



The ability of Christians (although not their choosing) to repent from and confess to God every sin that they commit is assured. For if they do commit a sin, even if they are unaware of it, Jesus Christ will send them warning and chastening to make sure that they know that they have sinned and need to repent (Revelation 3:19, Hebrews 12:6-7, cf. Jeremiah 31:18-19). And He will give them time to repent (Revelation 2:21a). But if they wrongly employ their free will to waste the time that they are given, and ignore the warning and chastening, and refuse to repent (Revelation 2:21-23, cf. Deuteronomy 21:18-21), until death (1 John 5:16b) or Jesus' future, Second Coming (Luke 12:45-46), then they will ultimately lose their salvation due to unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Galatians 5:19-21).

If Christians become unsure whether or not they have ignored Jesus Christ's warning and refused to repent from a sin, then they need to pray and ask Him to reveal to them if there is any unrepentant sin in their heart (Psalms 139:23-24). And they need to be reading the Bible, every word of it (Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16), over and over again. For it will expose to them any unrepentant sin which still exists in their heart (Hebrews 4:12; 2 Timothy 3:16), so that they can then repent from it and confess it to God, and be forgiven and perfect before God (2 Timothy 3:17; 1 John 1:9).

2 Corinthians 7:1 ¶Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.



Hebrews 10:26-29 makes clear that any unrepentant sin can cause us to ultimately lose our salvation.

For Hebrews 10:26-29 shows that Christians, who have been sanctified by Jesus Christ's sacrificial blood (Hebrews 10:29), which sanctification requires faith (Acts 26:18b, cf. Romans 3:25-26), can, after they get saved, wrongly employ their free will to commit sin without repentance (Hebrews 10:26). By doing this, these Christians are unwittingly trampling on Jesus and His sacrificial blood, and doing despite unto the Spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:29), turning the grace of God into lasciviousness (Jude 1:4), so that their ultimate fate will be worse than if they had never been saved at all (2 Peter 2:20-22). Even though Jesus' sacrificial blood is sufficient to forgive all sins (1 John 2:2), it actually forgives only the sins of Christians which are past (Romans 3:25-26), as in sins which have been repented from and confessed to God (1 John 1:9,7). Jesus' sacrificial blood does not remit unrepentant sins (Hebrews 10:26-29). So a Christian can ultimately lose his salvation if he wrongly employs his free will to commit unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46).

Some Christians say that Hebrews 10:26-29 is not for Christians. But the immediate context of Hebrews 10:26-29 is Hebrews 10:25, which is addressing "we" Christians. Hebrews 10:25-29 is the same idea as Hebrews 3:13: Christians need to gather together and exhort each other so that no Christian will fall into any unrepentant sin. For any unrepentant sin will ultimately result in the loss of salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46, Matthew 7:22-23, Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 2:20-22, Romans 8:13; 1 John 5:16, James 5:19-20).

One way that a Christian could come to desire to commit a sin without repentance would be if he finds a particular sin to be very pleasurable, so pleasurable and so fulfilling (in the short term) that he continues in it over time until his heart becomes hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13), to where his love for God grows cold because of the abundance of iniquity (Matthew 24:12), to where he quenches the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19), to where he sears his conscience as with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2), to where he becomes so infatuated with his sin that he can no longer endure the sound doctrine of the Bible (such as the doctrine of Hebrews 10:26-29), but instead latches onto a mistaken, man-made teaching which contradicts the Bible (2 Timothy 4:3-4), such as the mistaken teaching which assures Christians that there is no way that they can ever lose their salvation, even if they commit a sin without repentance.



Christians are commanded to fear God (1 Peter 2:17, Luke 12:5, Hebrews 12:28-29; 2 Corinthians 7:1, Ephesians 5:21, Acts 9:31). They must remain in fear of being cut off the same as non-Christians if they do not continue in God's goodness (Romans 11:20-22, Luke 12:45-46). They must work out their own ultimate salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12b; 1 Peter 1:17, Romans 2:6-8), knowing the terror of the future judgment of Christians by Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10-11), at His Second Coming, when some Christians will end up losing their salvation because of unrepentant sin (Luke 12:45-46, Hebrews 10:26-29), or unrepentant laziness (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a), or apostasy (Mark 8:35-38, Hebrews 6:4-8).



But not the end of the New Covenant's law's demands (Matthew 7:21).



Racism is wrong.

But it is not wrong to say that homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), and that Biblical Christians must not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11).



There is, for Jesus Christ has the power to free Christians from slavery to any sin (John 8:34-36).



Note that homosexuality used to be illegal in all states, and for good reason (Romans 1:26-27). What was the compelling state interest at stake to change that?

What a load of hooey

 

[Queller]

I follow the NT, are you speaking of that ?

You don't believe in the Old Testament?

And besides, marriage in the NT is relegated to secondary status behind singleness and celibacy.

 

[Queller]

Is nothing settled in your world ? When evidence leads to a consensus agreement, it is proven.

Where did you get that definition? BTW the way, if your statement is true, then evolution is proven. Unless of course you think that because there are people who thing that the earth flat means that a round (mostly) earth is unproven?

Your rebuttal is weak. A ball falls, down, the name for the reason it falls is gravity. Is the fact that it falls theoretical, or observable fact ? If observable fact, then it is proven a ball falls down by what is called gravity.

Okay, try this on for size.

Animals change over time, the name for the reason they change is evolution. Is the fact that animals change over time theoretical or observable fact? If observable fact, then it is proven that animals change over time by what is called evolution.

Oh, I understand theory and fact both in law and in science, it is you who can´t seem to differentiate between the two. Science has indisputable facts just like the law does. You simply have backed yourself into a corner because you don´t
know the difference, unless, of course, you are contending that there are absolutely no proven facts in science, are you ?

Proven facts or proven theories? There is a difference between the two no matter whether you realize it or not.

 

[Queller]

You silly little person.

Insults are the last refuge of the desperate.

They do not exist,

Then why did you claim they do?

I don´t have to know all of the genes,

but you said they exist so you must know at least one or two. What are they?

I do have to know the conclusions of geneticists on a homosexual gene, it doesn´t exist.

Doesn't exist or hasn't been found?

Find it then you will have the great fun of proving me wrong, please do.

Sorry, that's not how evidence works. I thought you knew about evidence and the law? If you make a positive claim (that a homosexual gene does not exist) then it is to you to provide evidence for such a claim. It is not up to me to disprove your as yet unevidenced claim.

 

[Queller]

Homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27).

So is wearing clothes of two different fibers (Leviticus 19:19).

In the case of the OP, homosexuals were not actually denied their rights.

Sure they were. There were denied the right to marry the single consenting adult of the gender to which they are attracted. A right every heterosexual person had but every homosexual person did not.

There is evidence. Just read the personal testimonies (not hearsay), which can be found online, of the Christians who have been helped by Christian Gay Conversion Therapy to become straight, or at least to no longer practice homosexuality.

There is not one shred of objective evidence that Gay Conversion Therapy is effective at all. And for every hearsay personal testimony you give, I can give one showing it doesn't work.

It's the mount Zion in heaven (Hebrews 12:22), from where the earth can be viewed (Psalms 102:19).

There is no evidence anywhere in the Bible for this claim. The text reads as if it is a mountain here on earth. Or do you believe the pinnacle of the tabernacle was also not on earth?

They don't say "only". They simply focus on one of the two men in Matthew 20:29-30.

Now that's laughable. You really thing that Mark and Luke wouldn't have mentioned the second blind man that was healed?

Also, in one account Jesus is going to Jericho and in the other two He is leaving Jericho.

And, in one account Jesus heals the men by touching their eyes, but in the other two, the healing is done by faith alone.

Note that in our future, pedophilia could be legalized in all cases where "consent" has been established in court, or by some other legal means.

Consent still has to be given, free from duress or coercion, by the intended target.

As an example, imagine that a man is brought before a municipal court on charges of pedophilia with a thirteen-year-old boy. The defendant's counsel brings the boy to the stand to testify.

"Can you say whether you have been harmed by the defendant?"

"No, sir. I have been in no way harmed, but only loved. Preciously loved, like I have never known before."

"Then he did not force himself upon you?"

"No, in no way. He has loved me tenderly from the start. He fills me up with his love. He is my lover. My man. I cannot imagine living without him."

At this point, the defendant's upper lip begins to quiver. And in the jury, a woman's eyes well up with tears. She dabs them with a tissue.

Then the defendant's counsel brings a respected psychiatrist to the stand to testify. The defendant's counsel tells the judge:

"Your honor, the next witness is an advocate for homosexuality and transgenderism, who has proven in peer-reviewed articles in top psychiatric journals that neither homosexuality nor transgenderism per se requires any mental illness whatsoever. To reject her testimony would be to reject these normal expressions of human sexuality, just as I hope to show the court that pedophilia can also be a normal expression of human sexuality."

Judge: "Proceed".

Defendant's counsel to the psychiatrist: "Has the defendant abused the child mentally?"

"Not at all. He has shown the child only gentleness, kindness, and love. I have thoroughly examined the child psychiatrically, and he is in perfect mental and emotional health. It would be a total crime to separate him from his lover."

The judge shifts in his seat. For his municipal jurisdiction has clearly outlawed pedophilia.

But at the end of the trial, the jury goes to deliberations and uses "jury nullification" to declare the pedophile innocent. (Jury nullification allows a jury to declare a defendant innocent regardless of the law or the facts in a case.)

The prosecutor appeals to state court, which agrees with him that the law has been broken. But the defendant appeals to federal district court, which agrees with him that no harm, and so no crime, has been committed. The prosecutor appeals to federal circuit court, which agrees with him, saying that the local jurisdiction had the right to outlaw pedophilia in every case. But the defendant appeals to the Supreme Court, which rules that pedophilia is lawful in every case where the child's consent and mental health have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

And so pedophilia joins homosexuality and transgenderism as a normal, lawful expression of human sexuality. Pedophilia becomes just another natural, "sexual orientation". Pedophiles become simply "lovers of children", the literal meaning of the word "pedo-phile".

And then the SPLC begins to persecute as "hate groups" any Christian groups who continue to say that pedophilia is sinful.

It is beyond the bounds of credulity that you think this is a possible or reasonable scenario.

He could, for He can even raise people from the dead (John 12:1).

Then why hasn't He? So many other healing are attributed to Him that regrowing a finger should be a trivial matter. But it has never happened.

And he will cure obedient Christian amputees by resurrecting them at His future, Second Coming into perfect, immortal, physical resurrection bodies (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-58, Philippians 3:21, Luke 24:39, Romans 8:23-25).

Indeed, even Christians who will be beheaded in our future will be physically resurrected (Revelation 20:4-6).

We're talking about the here and now, when so many other people claim to have been healed by God.

They would be included as part of the protection of religion from the government as required by the First Amendment.

Forcing other people to adhere to Christian religious beliefs is protected in the First Amendment?

It has, since 1962.

This is a lie. Only school sponsored and/or mandated prayer has been deemed unconstitutional. Personal prayers and prayers among students who voluntarily gather to pray together is perfectly legal and has been successfully defended by such groups as the ACLU many times.

No, they aren't. For example, they can't have a prayer said at graduation or at a school football game.

No, even voluntary prayers are forbidden at school events.

That's because when you have a captive audience it is no longer voluntary participation but forced.

Read this for a little better understanding of the issue:

Why I'm Against Pre-game Prayers

Not as sinful. Everyone knows that the U.S. began to lose its moral compass beginning in the 1960's, after school prayer was outlawed.

That's when we lost our moral compass?

It wasn't when we forced millions of people off the land they had lived on for generations so we could have it?

It wasn't when we forced millions of Africans to come to this country to be our slaves? Slaves that could be abused, raped, and murdered without meaningful consequence?

It wasn't when prevented millions of US citizens from exercising their right to vote because of their gender or the color of their skin?

No, it wasn't any of that. It was when we stopped forcing people to participate in prayers to God regardless of what their personal beliefs might be.

We really need the facepalm emoji back.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, in fact, it does.

Also, even if homosexuality could ever be proven to be genetic, so could alcoholism, criminal violence, and schizophrenia. Human genes in their current, fallen, corrupted state have nothing to do with proving what is moral, or what is good mental health.

I don't understand the common (among Fundamentalists) belief that if something is a choice, it doesn't deserve Constitutional protections. Being a Christian is a choice and yet that gets multiple layers of protections.

They can't have a prayer said before their school games or other activities.

But they can pray, have Bible study groups, and other things which you incorrectly claimed they could not.

Their own lockers.

Yes, their own lockers. Why should they get to put up things on other peoples lockers?

But they can't pray out loud at school activities, even if everyone in the school is Christian and wants to pray.

How do they know that all the other students are Christian and want to pray? Did they take a poll?

So their "free exercise" of religion has been denied by the government,

Not providing someone with a platform for their prayer is not denying the free expression of religion.

If possible, try and look at it from another point of view. Suppose that school-sponsored prayer was allowed again and your child's teacher was a Wiccan. Would you be OK with that teacher leading their class in a prayer to Diana?

just as homosexuals now want to deny the free exercise of Biblical Christianity to not support sinful events (Ephesians 5:11).

When you will make a cake for an opposite-sex couple's wedding abut won't make an identical cake for a same-sex couple's wedding, you are discriminating against the same-sex couple.

It does. For without a change in orientation there would be no arousal for a change in behavior.

If you want to try this sentence again so it makes sense, I'll try to respond.

 

[Queller]

Great post ! A silent minute at the start of school is outlawed because it " implies and pressures the student to pray "

Got any evidence for that? I googled the phrase in quotes and the only place it comes up on the entire web, is that post.

 

[Queller]

We can agree that such a claim is absurd, especially in these days.

For even if a school started each day with a spoken prayer, non-religious students today would feel no pressure to have any part of it.

Where in the world did you get that idea? The desire to be like everyone else is one of the biggest pressures that kids are under.

Instead, while the other students bowed their heads in prayer to Almighty God, non-religious students would simply bow their heads into their smartphones, and play with them during the prayer.

And feel like outcasts because they don't pray to the same God as everyone else.

It is abomination that the government has prohibited the free exercise of religion in the schools. "Engel" must be overturned as soon as possible.

Also, the sweet and utterly-innocuous prayer outlawed by "Engel" was no more "indoctrinating" than the repeated references to God in the Declaration of Independence.

It is evil to claim that the U.S. must have no Christian foundation. For the U.S. in no way forces any citizen to follow Christianity.

Then why do you feel the need to have students forced to participate in Christian prayers or be considered outcasts??

Do you really not understand the Establishment Clause or is the the Free Exercise Clause the only part you care about?

The very serious missteps of the Supreme Court in the past must be rectified.

A movement needs to begin in the U.S. to restore prayer to the schools, which have become hotbeds of insane "political correctness", which is ultimately Satanic, for it loves to focus on issues which are anti-Christian.

And when a teacher then leads students in a completely legal prayer to Allah, what will be your response then?