Today's Ruling

[LinkH]

... says the guy ironically oblivious to the rebuke he just received.

I read the vague rebuke, and considered what she said in light of scripture.

 

[Hetta]

It just seems like you twist things a lot in your posts. Maybe you don't mean to. But whether you are on the Internet talking to a stranger or talking with someone face to face that you've known a long time, if you are wise, you will consider a rebuke and engage in some introspection. If you are a fool, you will ignore it.

I would be a fool to listen to people who I don't know who may have all kinds of motivations, who may in fact be a 14 year old boy, or a criminal, or just anyone actually. So, no, I'm not going to go "ohhhh, this man told me I should do x." SO not going to happen. Because you're men, you think that women must listen to you. Ah, no.

 

[Hetta]

I read the vague rebuke, and considered what she said in light of scripture.

And decided you were right. Amirite? LOL.

This is exactly why I don't want to hang out with Christians. You're all right. No matter that you all have different readings and perspectives and beliefs, you're still all correct in everything you say and everyone should listen to you. Nope.

 

[Hetta]

And again, unless the baker is also turning away the non-Christian wedding cakes, the baby shower cakes of the single mothers, refusing service to the divorced couple getting remarried to new partners, the couple who already has kids, or anybody serving pork, the whole "my morality forbids it" thing is deeply conditional.

The only time people seem to feel so compelled to follow their faith to the letter is when it gets them out of something they really don't want to do in the first place.

You find me the baker who whips out his Bible with his cake order form to ensure the people he's providing a cake to are adhering to the tenants of his faith as he sees it and not secular or non-Christian beliefs, I'll rethink my stance. But the fact is, I've yet to see the person who's rejecting a service to homosexuals as he or she does other "sinners" according to his or her faith. It's the "being gay" that seems to be the sticking point, not lack of adherence to their faith.

I've said this over and over - my son and his fiancé lived together before they married. At no point during the lead up to their wedding were they refused service "because sin." The pastor, the baker, the candlestick maker ... they all gladly took their money and said "yes sir" "yes ma'am."

 

[Tropical Wilds]

So either I'm not getting the new format of this forum or what, but for some reason the reply to one post is spread out over like four pages and I simply don't have the time or interest to go through and reply to four pages of stuff bit by bit. Especially since it's four pages of "what I want the Bible to say against homosexuals" and not four pages of what the Bible actually says.

At the end of the day, Romans 1 clearly refers to idolatry and the sin that arose from that. The people who turned to idolatry, then felt in the worship of that idolatry they were required by said false idol to act in ways that were against God because of their actions having been rooted in what was commanded through idolatry. The focus on the same-sex relations part of it is cherry picking at it's finest. It's the highlighting on the result of a sin, idolatry, and how God doesn't want us in the name of other gods and engage in promiscuous sex with somebody of the same gender (depending on your version of the Bible, promiscuous sex with children of the same gender) to try and please them. It's turning what's actually a message about one thing and twisting it to an argument against something you have a personal issue with and applying it to Christianity when it's a message actually applied to the actions of idolatry.

This whole argument is negated anyway when people hold up the Bible and demand the literal meaning of it, devoid of context, and use it to illustrate that somehow homosexuality must be awful and that's why we as Christians are apparently commanded to treat it as a sin so great that it violates one's personal freedom, yet at the end of the very same passage, when it says that they are deserving of death (along with a multitude of other sins, many of which have been committed by people here I'm absolutely sure), the story changes to "Weeeeell... We can skip that part. It's not to be taken literally" despite the fact that there's no indication the passage is metaphorical instead of literal.

The lesson here is we skip the beginning, when it provides the context of idolatry to the transgressions, we skip the end when it says they, and other sinners, deserve to die for their sins as the result of idolatry because it's apparently a metaphor, but we pick out that one little section in the middle to prove irrevocably that because Paul had an issue with what idolatrous people did because of their idolatry, that must mean that God himself wants us to completely marginalize an entire segment of people because their "sin" is non-idolatrous homosexuality.

When you factor in that all of us, every day, intentionally or accidentally commit sins we don't believe to be sins despite their inclusion in the Bible, yet we still have a right to our marriages, our seats in our churches, and stab at salvation through the grace of God, the fact that we cut out homosexuals because of their supposed sin... It's completely hypocritical. Sin is sin is sin is sin. So their sin isn't your sin. So you find their sin makes you uncomfortable. Get over it. That's not a reason to marginalize them, say that God is against them any more than he's against your sin, or certainly deny them basic human rights as a citizen of this country. It's totally preposterous.

Though, at the end of the day, this only matters in the context of homosexuals who are Christian. If their not Christian, this belief matters not even slightly as they're not bound to do any sort of repenting or apologizing for what they're doing... They're not Christian. Just like you don't go and apologize or justify yourself and your faith to Muslims because you don't follow that faith, non-Christian homosexuals don't need to apologize or justify themselves to Christians because they don't follow our faith. It's only pride and selfishness that says that those who're not Christian need to explain to Christians why they should be allowed do or be or think or follow anything. Non-Christians owe you nothing in the way of an explanation, and you have no business telling them how to conduct themselves to be in accordance of your faith. Worry more about what you're doing to please God through your faith and behavior, and less about what your non-Christian neighbor needs to do to please your God.

And it's that very fact, that because Christianity rules over Christians and not non-Christians or the nation as a whole, that is why it was unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the right to marry. There are rights earned to us by being citizens, marriage being one of them. It's not a right earned by being a good Christian. If it were, none of us could marry.

The blessing in all of this is that, sooner rather than later, this will be like those who used the Bible as a reason to rail against the civil rights movement. The height of it was less than 60 years ago and despite an entire segment of the nation being against it (the same one against this ruling, actually), you can't find many people who say "I wasn't for the civil rights movement or the granting Black Americans equal protections and rights under the law." Everybody was always a champion for the movement because to be anything else made you an ignorant bigot. Nobody was the relative of a racist who fought against the black community. In 60 years, you'll never admit that you were against gay rights and Link Jr. will be on here talking about how his family was one of the early champions of gay civil rights, just like everybody else. We've already seen it... Companies and people came out in light of the ruling, now that they had the power to do so, to celebrate the ruling when this time last year these companies wouldn't have dreamed of coming out in support of the same-sex community.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I've said this over and over - my son and his fiancé lived together before they married. At no point during the lead up to their wedding were they refused service "because sin." The pastor, the baker, the candlestick maker ... they all gladly took their money and said "yes sir" "yes ma'am."

Exactly. My first wedding, when we got the full on cake from a woman who I suspect was the inspiration for the religious nut in Edward Scissorhands didn't ask my first husband and I if we had premarital sex, were living together, had strippers at our singles party, or what our state of salvation was. She didn't ask us our faith, or beliefs in God, if we were saved, if we were on birth control, if we voted on religious tickets, or even if we thought the numerous crosses in and around her property were nice.

She did ask us for $250 and why we would possibly want a theme of fall and ocean on our cake when the inner flavor was a spring flavor. That seemed to tweak her nose a bit.

 

[WolfGate]

And again, unless the baker is also turning away the non-Christian wedding cakes, the baby shower cakes of the single mothers, refusing service to the divorced couple getting remarried to new partners, the couple who already has kids, or anybody serving pork, the whole "my morality forbids it" thing is deeply conditional.

The only time people seem to feel so compelled to follow their faith to the letter is when it gets them out of something they really don't want to do in the first place.

You find me the baker who whips out his Bible with his cake order form to ensure the people he's providing a cake to are adhering to the tenants of his faith as he sees it and not secular or non-Christian beliefs, I'll rethink my stance. But the fact is, I've yet to see the person who's rejecting a service to homosexuals as he or she does other "sinners" according to his or her faith. It's the "being gay" that seems to be the sticking point, not lack of adherence to their faith.

My brain is going in circles trying to understand what you are saying - I see a fork that takes my mind in two different directions. So perhaps this question will help me.

In this case, what do you think they don't want to do in the first place?
Sell to gay people?
Or sell for use in a gay wedding ceremony?

 

[Dave-W]

And yes, affirmative action is evil. There is nothing good about it.

And there is even less good in the discrimination that mandated affirmative action to rebalance the tables.
It is a case of one evil counteracting another (perhaps worse) evil.

 

[Dave-W]

Says the white man.

I'm not white and I'm not a man. Nice display of bigotry.

That is a typical response from a white male; one which I have heard from coworkers and family members many times. All white males.

The fact that someone OTHER than a white male has the same opinion/viewpoint in no way invalidates the generality.

 

[tall73]

I would be a fool to listen to people who I don't know who may have all kinds of motivations, who may in fact be a 14 year old boy, or a criminal, or just anyone actually. So, no, I'm not going to go "ohhhh, this man told me I should do x." SO not going to happen. Because you're men, you think that women must listen to you. Ah, no.

I have taken a biblical rebuke from my teenage daughter, and accepted it. I did not refuse it because it came from a young person, or a female. Nor would I expect that my wife would accept something against the Bible that I insist on just because I am a man.

I have also learned from people on Christian forums that I didn't know. This included women. One in particular I recall who I was diametrically opposed to on theology, but pointed out something from the Scriptures that I realized was correct, and began changing my point of view on some points.I do not have to know them if they point out something from the Scriptures I had not seen that changes my view.

Now so far in this conversation you have thrown out comments about white men, men who expect all women to listen to them, etc. is this going to be your approach to this conversation all the time, throwing out assumptions and stereo-types?

 

[tall73]

That is a typical response from a white male; one which I have heard from coworkers and family members many times. All white males.

The fact that someone OTHER than a white male has the same opinion/viewpoint in no way invalidates the generality.

And affirmative action was also created largely by the white males in power. People from all genders and all races can have varying views on the subject.

The point being the statement was made by a poster on this board. That person is who they are, not "the white male". Why not address their point, rather than referring to white males?

 

[tall73]

Exactly. My first wedding, when we got the full on cake from a woman who I suspect was the inspiration for the religious nut in Edward Scissorhands didn't ask my first husband and I if we had premarital sex, were living together, had strippers at our singles party, or what our state of salvation was. She didn't ask us our faith, or beliefs in God, if we were saved, if we were on birth control, if we voted on religious tickets, or even if we thought the numerous crosses in and around her property were nice.

She did ask us for $250 and why we would possibly want a theme of fall and ocean on our cake when the inner flavor was a spring flavor. That seemed to tweak her nose a bit.

Yet Walmart did balk when asked to make a rebel flag cake, because they thought it would send the wrong message.

Are they discriminating?

Folks may all have different lines they draw. The preacher who did our pre-marital counseling did address whether we were having pre-marital sex, etc.

The cake folks probably didn't know one way or the other since my mother in law ordered it. However, if it had two grooms on the top they may have gotten the idea.

 

[tall73]

So either I'm not getting the new format of this forum or what, but for some reason the reply to one post is spread out over like four pages and I simply don't have the time or interest to go through and reply to four pages of stuff bit by bit. Especially since it's four pages of "what I want the Bible to say against homosexuals" and not four pages of what the Bible actually says.

What you are seeing is not a format error.

I actually took you seriously and considered every point you raised. I then responded to every point you raised. This is somewhat normal behavior in some discussion boards, though I admit it is a bit foreign in this section.

I have learned from people in the past by comparing what I believe to what they believe point by point. This was an attempt to engage in such a discussion.

Had you addressed it point by point you might have had to look at a number of Scriptures that speak about judging in the church, removing sexually immoral people from fellowship, etc.

 

[tall73]

At the end of the day, Romans 1 clearly refers to idolatry and the sin that arose from that.

At the end of the day that particular argument in Romans 1 starts in vs. 18 and is against all humanity.

From there on it traces rebellion against God, and yes, includes those who were idolaters.

It culminates in saying all people are sinful:

Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

There are a great number of sins listed, and they are not limited only to idolaters.

 

[tall73]

and engage in promiscuous sex with somebody of the same gender (depending on your version of the Bible, promiscuous sex with children of the same gender) to try and please them.

Had you gone point by point you would have had to address the lack of evidence for this being sex with children of the same gender.

 

[tall73]

It's turning what's actually a message about one thing and twisting it to an argument against something you have a personal issue with and applying it to Christianity when it's a message actually applied to the actions of idolatry.

Chapter 2 is makes it quite plain again that it extends to everyone:

Rom 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
Rom 2:10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
Rom 2:11 For God shows no partiality.
Rom 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

 

[tall73]

This whole argument is negated anyway when people hold up the Bible and demand the literal meaning of it, devoid of context, and use it to illustrate that somehow homosexuality must be awful and that's why we as Christians are apparently commanded to treat it as a sin so great that it violates one's personal freedom, yet at the end of the very same passage, when it says that they are deserving of death (along with a multitude of other sins, many of which have been committed by people here I'm absolutely sure), the story changes to "Weeeeell... We can skip that part. It's not to be taken literally" despite the fact that there's no indication the passage is metaphorical instead of literal.

No, it means just what it says. And it says it about gossips, adulterers, etc. in the whole argument from 1:18-3:20.

We all deserve death because of sin, of which men having sex with men, and women having sex with women are examples.

 

[tall73]

The lesson here is we skip the beginning, when it provides the context of idolatry to the transgressions, we skip the end when it says they, and other sinners, deserve to die for their sins as the result of idolatry because it's apparently a metaphor, but we pick out that one little section in the middle to prove irrevocably that because Paul had an issue with what idolatrous people did because of their idolatry, that must mean that God himself wants us to completely marginalize an entire segment of people because their "sin" is non-idolatrous homosexuality.

No, we look at the beginning of the argument from 1:18 and see it is about God's wrath on all humans. And we keep reading all the way through the end of the argument in 3:20, where it concludes all alike are under sin. Of which the sin under discussion is just one of many others, but still a sin.

 

[tall73]

The lesson here is we skip the beginning

Much like you skipped looking at the responses, point-by-point, to your statements, and so did not even make an attempt to understand what I was saying, and so respond to something else. I at least took your statements, point by point, considered them, and responded to them.

 

[bluegreysky]

Are the majority of you on here "for" same-sex marriage or "against" it?
Just wondering.

I was never "for" it, nor have I been adamantly against it. I guess you can say it's been one of my "grey areas" since I've been in church. sometimes I felt that only the biblical way was right. other times, I was like "well, at least they are committing to someone and not sleeping around".
Then this ruling happened about a week ago already.
Since then, my facebook has become a political war in a skittles factory.
The main feed is a mess of rainbow profile pics posting screen shots of homophobic stuff and saying how disgusted they are, pictures of pride parades, and conservative christians talking about how wrong it all is.
I didn't actively take a stand about any of it because I chose the very lazy, passive approach : "i dont care".
Not like "who cares?" but more like "I have more important things to worry about in my personal life right now and bigger causes to fight for like hunger"
Unfortunatly, since the media has become overpopulated with drama,
I now hate the whole thing.
Because deep down under my confusion on where to stand, I do believe the bible and God's word is right. One man, one woman.
And it makes me want to post alot of religious, anti-same-sex stuff on my page and denounce same-sex marriage with every sarcastic e-card the internet can dish out but........just like my friend trying to sabotage her husband's affair won't do any good,
neither will trying to sabotage this whole "movement".
All I did was post a thing that said "God writes the marriage rules, not man"
and then later a photo of a bride holding hands with a groom that said "I still support traditional marriage".
Then after that, a long status saying "ok I'm going to go forward and ignore the rest of this stuff now and just live my life"
and so this here comment on this thread is all you'll hear from me.
because that rule will now apply here too.