[moved] Enablers and those who Hearty Approve

[joshua 1 9]

Do you have evidence to support your assertion os a radical change in views about homosexuals by the US public, yes or no?

What are you talking about? All I know is this case in front of the supreme court because the baker would not make a cake for a gay wedding. That is something new that would have never happened before. You can not force people to participate in your sin. As Christians we are called to take a stand for what is good and pure - right and true. We know that lawlessness will abound and the love of many will grow cold but we are called to persevere to the end and live as an overcomer. Matthew 24:21

 

[joshua 1 9]

Economics is only one factor in society, and not what I was referring to.

Of course people want to create a diversion against what is good and right, proper and true. As a Christian we are called to take a stand for God and live our life worthy of His calling.

 

[badatusernames]

Of course people want to create a diversion against what is good and right, proper and true. As a Christian we are called to take a stand for God and live our life worthy of His calling.

"As a Christian we are called" is a key phrase there, we aren't supposed to and can't expect non-Christians to live up to Christianity morality.

 

[joshua 1 9]

"As a Christian we are called" is a key phrase there, we aren't supposed to and can't expect non-Christians to live up to Christianity morality.

A lot of them do though and they reap the benefit of that. WE are called to be a watchman and to warn people of impending danger. Perhaps people do not want to hear what we have to say but God is still calling us to warn them of any danger that they are exposing themselves to.

 

[Desk trauma]

What are you talking about?

Your claim in post ten.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Your claim in post ten.

Trump was elected because there is a lot that people are not willing to put up with from the liberals.

 

[Desk trauma]

Trump was elected because there is a lot that people are not willing to put up with from the liberals.

Stil no evidence for this seachange that allegedly took place post election?

 

[Desk trauma]

Trump was elected because there is a lot that people are not willing to put up with from the liberals.

Also of note, "a lot" wasn’t even the majority of the 58% of the electorate who turned out to vote.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Also of note, "a lot" wasn’t even the majority of the 58% of the electorate who turned out to vote.

He won and that is all it takes to get the job. God was with him and there was no way he was going to lose.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Nonsense, that would be like saying you are a cold blooded killer because you promote the use of guns.

No, it's exactly a comparable scenario to what I described. If you read the context of my post, I'm not saying that a baker is an enabler by selling cake to fat people (they're the ones who are choosing what to eat). I'm saying that these Christian bakers aren't applying their own logic consistently.

If selling cake to a fat person isn't enabling obesity, then selling cake to a gay person isn't enabling homosexuality.

Yet, as you just demonstrated in your post, you were quick to shoot down the former, but started a whole thread supporting the notion of the latter.

So I can understand that selling sugar is said to be harmful to people. Only they tell me a carb is a carb and you have to eat carbs just don't go over 300 carbs a day. So we would encourage the fat people to follow the guidelines and to eat right and to eat in moderation. I have battled weight for a lot of my life. I lost over 100 pounds once. So I know weight can be a real struggle.

Again, discussing the finer points of cake wasn't the purpose of my rebuttal.

The purpose was to point out that these Christian bakers aren't applying their own logic consistently to all things that their holy book defines as "sin".

If making a cake for a gay couple is considered "enabling" in their view (which, that's the justification many have given, and that you seem to be on board with based on OP), then selling cake to a glutton should be considered "enabling" in their view as well if they're being consistent.

They're trying to have it both ways.

They don't have the same stigma against gluttons that they have against gay people...so they're willing to take the "it's up to the individual stance" for the former, but the "I don't want to enable" for the latter.

However, part of that could also be contributed to the fact that nearly 40% of the population is overweight, so a food providing business avoiding a 40% share of the market wouldn't be exactly good for business...so the reason for their double standard could also be driven by financial reasons as well.

 

[Desk trauma]

He won and that is all it takes to get the job. God was with him and there was no way he was going to lose.

Wait, free will is out the window now?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Wait, free will is out the window now?

It is all about free will. We are not slaves or robots

 

[Desk trauma]

It is all about free will. We are not slaves or robots

How does that jive with Trump being unable to lose the election? If his win was predetermined that requires people having no choice in their vote.

 

[Belk]

Swing and a miss, nice try though. No one is refusing to serve the sinner. We are refusing to participate in their sin. We are NOT going to approve of their sin. We are not going to decorate their cake to celebrate their sin and their transgression.

The issue is not selling them a cake or providing them with service. The issue has to do with how you decorate the cake. As a Christian we are not going to approve of this sin and transgression. If they want to sin that is up to them. We are not going to encourage them to transgress the commandments of God.

That is exactly the issue with all of the cases that have gone to court that I have heard of. None of the cases where about how the cake was decorated.

Romans 1:32 "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

This is no different then a boss trying to force a women employee to participate in his sexual sin. You can not force people to do something that in good conscious they do not want to do. You can not force people to approve of your sin and your transgression.

I'll buy this argument when Christians stop lining up to vote for unrepentant sinners claiming "we are not electing a pastor". Sorry, if you really were worried about morality I think we would see much more consistency. This strikes me as nothing more then conservative Christian virtue signaling.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'll buy this argument when Christians stop lining up to vote for unrepentant sinners claiming "we are not electing a pastor". Sorry, if you really were worried about morality I think we would see much more consistency. This strikes me as nothing more then conservative Christian virtue signaling.

Do you mean hillary and trump? It would appear there was a lot more involved in that then you are aware of. The vote between gore and bush was even closer.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How does that jive with Trump being unable to lose the election? If his win was predetermined that requires people having no choice in their vote.

Interesting question. He won because people exercised their free will. The people that voted against Trump are in bondage and gave up their freedom.

 

[Belk]

Do you mean hillary and trump? It would appear there was a lot more involved in that then you are aware of. The vote between gore and bush was even closer.

Hillary, Trump, Roy Moore, and all the other obviously sub par morality displayed.

 

[Desk trauma]

Interesting question. He won because people exercised their free will.

How can it be a free choice yet Trump couldn’t lose?

 

[Go Braves]

So then the American voters should stop enabling Trump's multitude of sins he never bothers to repent for by standing behind other candidates (a decent Republican challenger for POTUS would be my own preference) in future elections.

 

[ewq1938]