Christian Bakers and Gay Wedding Cakes

[Glaucus]

People who oppose the baking of a wedding cake by a Christian baker for a same sex wedding, often do so because they believe that baking this cake shows support for the wedding, and that they are involved in wedding, which would violate their faith and beliefs.

Now other people oppose the people who oppose the wedding cake based upon that reasoning, essentially saying that simply baking a cake doesn't show any support for or involvement in the wedding.

I leaned more towards the latter group until this passage from 2nd John popped out at me:

9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

The part, "for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds" is the part that stands out the most. If we take this as it is written, then surely providing the cake would be to to part in the wedding, sharing their evil deeds.

 

[High Fidelity]

Conversely if baking a cake for a gay couple is seen as supporting homosexuality, what does it say about people who voted for someone who boasted about sexually assaulting women?

 

[now faith]

Conversely if baking a cake for a gay couple is seen as supporting homosexuality, what does it say about people who voted for someone who boasted about sexually assaulting women?

What does it matter ?
They are 2 different subjects all together,and I did not vote for Hillary any way no matter how many women that were assaulted under the Clinton coverups.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Conversely if baking a cake for a gay couple is seen as supporting homosexuality, what does it say about people who voted for someone who boasted about sexually assaulting women?

As opposed to voting for a woman who let her husband have a sexual affair with a woman, then covered it up. And who is against christians. Neither person is to be voted for then.

 

[now faith]

I have not heard and boasting from Al Franken, but if it's Trump you are referring to when did he boast ?
If He touched a woman 20 years ago I would think she would have sued 20 years ago unless she was being paid to be touched.

 

[now faith]

Why do people have to go off topic to lick their wounds from the election a year ago?
Get over it.

 

[FireDragon76]

John is talking about a religious issue that pertains to traveling preachers and prophets, and sharing fellowship with them. Don't read it out of that context.

As opposed to voting for a woman who let her husband have a sexual affair with a woman, then covered it up. And who is against christians.

Hillary Clinton is a Methodist. Last time I checked, Methodists were Christians. Her politics are also consistent with those of many Methodists.

 

[now faith]

John is talking about a religious issue that pertains to traveling preachers and prophets, and sharing fellowship with them. Don't read it out of that context.

Hillary Clinton is a Methodist. Last time I checked, Methodists were Christians. Her politics are also consistent with those of many Methodists.

Hillary Clinton supports aborition ,the last time I checked murder was not a Christian concept.

 

[FireDragon76]

Hillary Clinton supports aborition ,the last time I checked murder was not a Christian concept.

She's pro-choice, there is an important difference in nuance from what you are implying.

 

[now faith]

What ever I'm out of this mess,it's the same old garbage a year later.
The original poster was sharing Her religious convictions on another subject.

 

[now faith]

She's pro-choice, there is an important difference in nuance from what you are implying.

You are kidding I hope.
Tell me what is a pro choice agenda.
You have pro life and pro choice.
The only choice is who She serves, she does not choose life,and that is Gods will.
To be clear I am not implying a nuance, I am speaking from God's Word thou shalt not kill.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are kidding I hope.
Tell me what is a pro choice agenda.
You have pro life and pro choice.
The only choice is who She serves, she does not choose life,and that is Gods will.
To be clear I am not implying a nuance, I am speaking from God's Word thou shalt not kill.

So I guess police officers and soldiers cannot go to heaven?

 

[now faith]

Clinton promotes killing babies while they are being born.
The God's honest truth and Bill lobbied
for the same thing.
What are we to do such abominations before God?
How can we?

 

[now faith]

Good by

 

[FireDragon76]

The politicizing of religion, and the religionizing of politics are part of the problem. People have turned the baking of a cake into a political-religious statement, when in reality it is just a cake.

 

[now faith]

Good by

No they can go to heaven,unless they murder,their is a difference between war and killing babies

Matthew 18: 9. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. 10. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. 11. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Tis a dangerous theology God Bless and good by

 

[FireDragon76]

The Methodist church doesn't teach that being anti-choice is strictly necessary in ones politics. Most mainline churches agree with them. It's considered a matter of Christian liberty in whether one is pro-life or pro-choice.

 

[HARK!]

So I guess police officers and soldiers cannot go to heaven?

"Thou shalt not kill" is a poor translation. If you look at the Hebrew word used for "kill;" you will find that the better translation is the word "murder."

Murder is unlawful killing, not legal, (man made legislation) lawful.

A brief study will prove that murdering babies disgusts Yahweh.

I don't want to take this thread any further down the "off topic" bunny hole; so if you have any more questions about this; send me a PM; and I'll start a thread on this subject for you.

 

[redleghunter]

The politicizing of religion, and the religionizing of politics are part of the problem. People have turned the baking of a cake into a political-religious statement, when in reality it is just a cake.

Considering cake is bad for us the SCOTUS should cite the former First Ladys edicts on healthy eating.

Broccoli should be served for dessert at weddings.

SCOTUS should decide against all confections. Bad for our health and increases healthcare costs.

 

[FireDragon76]

"Thou shalt not kill" is a poor translation. If you look at the Hebrew word used for "kill;" you will find that the better translation is the word "murder."

Murder is unlawful killing, not legal, (man made legislation) lawful.

A brief study will prove that murdering babies disgusts Yahweh.

I don't want to take this thread any further down the "off topic" bunny hole; so if you have any more questions about this; send me a PM; and I'll start a thread on this subject for you.

Sounds like rationalizing.

We prefer to comprehend the Law of God in the broadest way possible. We also understand this law applies not just to murder, but to a whole host of attitudes and behaviors that are violence against the image of God, as Jesus pointed out (that anger against someone is akin to killing them).