nebula Posted February 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I am not asking you to justify yourself. Is it offensive to determine the world view and religious convictions of the person they are in a debate with in order to understand their argument and position better? You made a theological claim concerning Jesus' actions, and I was shocked by the response. Thus I needed to dig deeper to gain an better understanding of your theological mindset. If the tables had been turned, I would not feel the need to respond defensively about it. I do not understand why you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted February 24, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,799 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 How about the protection of following the law? There is no protection for a Christian in the law any more. As long as the Christian follows the law there is. No there isnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted February 24, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,262 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,989 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2014 How about the protection of following the law? There is no protection for a Christian in the law any more. As long as the Christian follows the law there is. are you serious...... do you really believe that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted February 25, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 25, 2014 How about the protection of following the law? There is no protection for a Christian in the law any more. As long as the Christian follows the law there is. are you serious...... do you really believe that? of course I really believe it, it is the fact of the matter. It is sort of embarrassing to sit here and watch Christians in America imply they are being persecuted. 3/4 of this country identifies as Christian. Follow the law you have the same protection as anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandyU Posted February 25, 2014 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 64 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 18 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/13/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 25, 2014 I would be against making laws outlawing gay activity. That would be forcing our religious beliefs on others, But that is not happening here. It is the bakery that is being forced into a acting against its beliefs. It is gay activist that is forcing their morality on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I would simply support keeping the government out of the private affairs of businesses. They should be free to refuse to serve anyone they want. If I was allowed to vote on a bill that allowed businesses to refuse to serve homosexuals, I would vote in favor, but I don't believe it is the governments place to tell businesses they have to serve anyone in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted February 25, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.22 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 25, 2014 I have hidden posts with insults and personal attacks from the last two pages, along with posts that have replied to such posts. If people cannot discuss without personal attacks or insults, they will be banned from the thread. Colossians 4:6Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted February 25, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.22 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 25, 2014 Here is how I see this issue. I obviously would own a business to make money by offering a service. The underlying point is to make money, not to offer a service. If I chose to not make money for any particular reason, that is a choice I made and my loss. For someone to force me to provide a service I don't want to provide is like slavery, forcing someone to do something by power, not by choice.Bottom line, if I don't provide the service, someone else would. If I did that too much, I would no longer have a business and the loss would be mine.The question to me is, which is more important, my faith in God or the sexual choice of an individual. When the two conflict, which do I surrender to?Laws that force one to go against their faith should not be laws. There used to be a law for the draft. Everyone had to sign up for the draft at the age of 18. If you did not want to fight because of your religious belief, they allowed this under the consciousness objection rule, a religious choice. Yet, if someone want to uphold their religions beliefs by refusing to provide a service, much like the consciousness objector, they get sued. This has become very hypocritical in nature. There is a point when law makers go too far. Laws that would harm the life or safety of anyone are important, but those mentioned in this thread are not. Take New Hampshire for example, where I live. They have a few laws that are just plain stupid. Here are a few as an example.It is illegal to pick seaweed up off of the beach.Any cattle that crosses state roads must be fitted with a device to gather its feces.You may not run machinery on Sundays.On Sundays citizens may not relieve themselves while looking up.You may not tap your feet, nod your head, or in any way keep time to the music in a tavern, restaurant, or cafe.Laws should be created to protect people, not choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted February 25, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 25, 2014 Here is how I see this issue. I obviously would own a business to make money by offering a service. The underlying point is to make money, not to offer a service. If I chose to not make money for any particular reason, that is a choice I made and my loss. For someone to force me to provide a service I don't want to provide is like slavery, forcing someone to do something by power, not by choice. Bottom line, if I don't provide the service, someone else would. If I did that too much, I would no longer have a business and the loss would be mine. The question to me is, which is more important, my faith in God or the sexual choice of an individual. When the two conflict, which do I surrender to? Laws that force one to go against their faith should not be laws. There used to be a law for the draft. Everyone had to sign up for the draft at the age of 18. If you did not want to fight because of your religious belief, they allowed this under the consciousness objection rule, a religious choice. Yet, if someone want to uphold their religions beliefs by refusing to provide a service, much like the consciousness objector, they get sued. This has become very hypocritical in nature. There is a point when law makers go too far. Laws that would harm the life or safety of anyone are important, but those mentioned in this thread are not. Take New Hampshire for example, where I live. They have a few laws that are just plain stupid. Here are a few as an example. It is illegal to pick seaweed up off of the beach. Any cattle that crosses state roads must be fitted with a device to gather its feces. You may not run machinery on Sundays. On Sundays citizens may not relieve themselves while looking up. You may not tap your feet, nod your head, or in any way keep time to the music in a tavern, restaurant, or cafe. Laws should be created to protect people, not choices. I agree with most of what you said, what I do not understand is how baking a cake can conflict with your faith. You are not joining in on the sexual choice, you are not giving an approval of the sexual choice, you are not doing anything different than you do with every other cake (or whatever service you are offering). Should a Christian plumber refuse to fix the pipes at the house of a gay couple? Should a mattress store owner refuse to sell a bed to a gay couple? How do any of these things violate the Christian faith. If Jesus can eat with sinners we should be able to bake a cake for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted February 25, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.22 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 25, 2014 Here is how I see this issue. I obviously would own a business to make money by offering a service. The underlying point is to make money, not to offer a service. If I chose to not make money for any particular reason, that is a choice I made and my loss. For someone to force me to provide a service I don't want to provide is like slavery, forcing someone to do something by power, not by choice.Bottom line, if I don't provide the service, someone else would. If I did that too much, I would no longer have a business and the loss would be mine.The question to me is, which is more important, my faith in God or the sexual choice of an individual. When the two conflict, which do I surrender to?Laws that force one to go against their faith should not be laws. There used to be a law for the draft. Everyone had to sign up for the draft at the age of 18. If you did not want to fight because of your religious belief, they allowed this under the consciousness objection rule, a religious choice. Yet, if someone want to uphold their religions beliefs by refusing to provide a service, much like the consciousness objector, they get sued. This has become very hypocritical in nature. There is a point when law makers go too far. Laws that would harm the life or safety of anyone are important, but those mentioned in this thread are not. Take New Hampshire for example, where I live. They have a few laws that are just plain stupid. Here are a few as an example.It is illegal to pick seaweed up off of the beach.Any cattle that crosses state roads must be fitted with a device to gather its feces.You may not run machinery on Sundays.On Sundays citizens may not relieve themselves while looking up.You may not tap your feet, nod your head, or in any way keep time to the music in a tavern, restaurant, or cafe.Laws should be created to protect people, not choices. I agree with most of what you said, what I do not understand is how baking a cake can conflict with your faith. You are not joining in on the sexual choice, you are not giving an approval of the sexual choice, you are not doing anything different than you do with every other cake (or whatever service you are offering). Should a Christian plumber refuse to fix the pipes at the house of a gay couple? Should a mattress store owner refuse to sell a bed to a gay couple? How do any of these things violate the Christian faith. If Jesus can eat with sinners we should be able to bake a cake for themIt is rather simple. Follow the whole reason to the end. If the person came in and asked for a wedding cake and never said it was for a gay marriage, your conscience is clear. If they tell you it is for a gay marriage, you are then taking part in the end result by offering your service.A doctor sees a patience they know. The history is that the patient ofter goes doctor hunting to find someone to give them pain killers. HE complains of a back issue and requests narcotics. The doctor says no for reasons that he will not take part in fulfilling an activity, even though he does nothing by write a script. Is the doctor wrong in doing so?In the end, nobody but the person will stand accountable for their actions. Fixing a broken pipe or selling a mattress to a gay person has nothing to do with the sacraments of marriage. That is a straw-mans argument.Let me put it another way by asking you this question. What do you believe this passage is telling us?1 Corinthians 10:27-29aIf any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts