Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll tell you right now--- Swaggart is a snake oil salesman. He is disqualified from serving in ministry due to his behavior. Under no circumstances would I suggest anyone listen to him.
Is that good enough?
I believe that many Christians use the Bible as a shield to hide their personal hatred for homosexuality, rather than as the basis for their hatred because if Christians are merely expressing their hatred for the sins listed in the Bible, then there should be equal outrage for other sins.
As an example: 1 Corinthians 6:9 includes "sexual sin," which is actually listed first out of the ten sins listed. One could interpret "sexual sin" to apply to pornography. So I ask where is the Christian outrage against the state of Utah, which in 2009 ranked number one for "online pornography consumption." In fact, "[o]nline porn subscription rates are higher in states that enacted conservative legislation banning same-sex marriage or civil unions and where surveys show support for conservative positions on religion, gender roles and sexuality, according to an analysis published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives."
When Christians assert that their hatred for homosexuality is based on their religious conviction, what they are truly saying is that their conviction is a shield that creates an impenetrable barrier such that any beliefs that are based on religious convictions cannot be questioned or challenged. Indeed, so long as Christians preface their beliefs to be based on their religious convictions, they can justify any belief, including torturing small children if they wanted. IMO, that is an improper use of the idea of having a religious conviction.
I contend that because Christians are not equally outraged by the other nine sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 -- because they don't seem to speak much about them in comparison to homosexuality -- their outrage over homosexuality is not truly based on a religious conviction because the Bible offers no reason for Christians to make such an extreme distinction between the sins listed. That is, the Bible doesn't rank the sins. They're merely listed. In fact, out of the list of ten sins, homosexuality is listed fifth, hardly a place that suggests it is the most wicked sin of all. See Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
To be clear: I am not arguing in this post that Christians are not permitted to hate homosexuality. I am merely arguing that because there is not an equal outrage for the other sins listed, which arguably concern principles that are far more important to our society than homosexuality, regardless of how one might feel about homosexuality, such as denouncing greedy people, abusive people, and people who cheat others, that it is unwarranted to give Christians special consideration for their religious conviction concerning homosexuality when it seems clear to me that it's not based solely on instructions found in the Bible.
What does that mean? Perhaps not much, ultimately, but it serves to remove the barrier that makes the religious conviction an unquestionable topic. It places the parties on equal footing to discuss the issue of homosexuality, rather than having Christians simply maintain that their hatred is based on their religious conviction and thus their beliefs cannot be questioned or challenged.
I appreciate your comments about Jimmy Swaggart. I was reluctant to include him as an example because I wasn't trying to score points solely on the basis of his notoriety. His story worked to support my point that the Bible doesn't instruct Christians, for instance, to condemn homosexuals but cut adulterers a break.
Last edited by Mantronix4204; 06-08-2014 at 06:10 AM..
1) Marriage is not a "right", as the article says. It's nowhere guaranteed in the Constitution.
2) He's a wedding officiant. He has the right to refuse to officiate any marriage he wants. I have a wedding policy that states the same thing. If I do not want to marry someone, I won't. I personally don't have an issue with marrying 2 atheists or agnostics, but I won't marry a Christian to someone of any other religion/non-religion. I will not violate my conscience and marry a couple that I do not feel should be married. I also have a stated policy that says I won't marry same-gender couples.
Why do these people feel the need to make a big deal out of it? Why not just move on with life and go find someone else?
Yes but isn't he really saying by his actions that marriage is a christian invention?? Sort of how they have that fantasy that morality is a christian invention??
A better examination of history might be in order if these people would not after being proven wrong by the facts turn and say it was all lies to undermine christianity. Cognitive Dissonance anyone??
Yep. So I can't see what all the fuss about religious discrimination is. It is simply a question of a business owner breaking the law. Render onto Caesar and all that, you know.
Quote:
I don't know that it has anything do with being gay. I'm sure he's served plenty of gay customers. It's tha they didn't believe in gay marriage.
Yeah, the fact that he'll make wedding cakes for straight couples - and for canine couples - but not for gay customers has nothing to do with the gay couples being gay. Sure, pull the other one.
Quote:
It's been said repeatedly that gay <> black skin color. They are 2 different things.
Yes, of course they aren't the same. But there is an obvious comparison between the two situations.
Quote:
Why do you feel the need to trample our religious rights?
How about if all of your wedding cakes have a male groom and female bride.
Should you have to make a cake with two females or two males on it?
1. Many wedding cakes do not have those little figures on them.
2. Most people who do put figures on their cakes order them separately. There is a limited selection in the bakery.
3. If the bakery only carried little bride and groom toppers, then that is the selection available, but the couple could choose to put flowers on the cake or order their own topper.
That would not excuse the baker from making a cake with flowers, or no figures for a same sex couple.
Message for Vizio:
Vizio I don't know if it is something I said, but I can't help but notice that you are ignoring my question. I don't know if I am asking awkward questions or what it is.
In this thread I twice politely asked you a question and you have been back to the thread since so I assume you have seen it.
I would still like to know where in the bible it specifically forbids Christians to marry people from other faiths or unbelievers. Mordant responded with an answer (thanks) - is this something with which you concur?
Forgive me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, Christs overriding central message was about love was it not? I don't understand why in this day and age people should not be allowed to marry people from another faith. I understand this is not limited to Christianity - other religions forbid such marriages outside their faith too, but in the modern age of enlightenment, here in America, what possible reason could there be not to bless the joining of two peoples love for each other?
A response would would be appreciated. Thanks.
Good, so you understand that simply having a religious belief isn't an excuse to break the law.
No one is suggesting you don't. But you don't get special privileges just because you have a religious belief.
I have a right to practice my religion. If my religion prevents me from doing something, then I have a right, as a private business owner, not to provide service in a particular case. Again....key words "private business". No government funding.
I have a right to practice my religion. If my religion prevents me from doing something, then I have a right, as a private business owner, not to provide service in a particular case. Again....key words "private business". No government funding.
You may want to re-read the federal and state anti discrimination laws. They say you are wrong.
Message for Vizio:
Vizio I don't know if it is something I said, but I can't help but notice that you are ignoring my question. I don't know if I am asking awkward questions or what it is.
In this thread I twice politely asked you a question and you have been back to the thread since so I assume you have seen it.
I would still like to know where in the bible it specifically forbids Christians to marry people from other faiths or unbelievers. Mordant responded with an answer (thanks) - is this something with which you concur?
Forgive me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, Christs overriding central message was about love was it not? I don't understand why in this day and age people should not be allowed to marry people from another faith. I understand this is not limited to Christianity - other religions forbid such marriages outside their faith too, but in the modern age of enlightenment, here in America, what possible reason could there be not to bless the joining of two peoples love for each other?
A response would would be appreciated. Thanks.
Sorry....didn't notice your post.
A Christian marrying a non-christian is called being "unequally yoked". It would not be something that I'd be a part of. If 2 non-christians decided to marry, I would not have the same issue in officiating the wedding.
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Cor. 6:14).
In any event, I reserve the right to refuse to marry a couple that I feel is not compatible, or should not be getting married. That might be from a religious standpoint, or it might be that I can tell they are simply not right for each other and will be divorced in 6 months. The divorce rate is high enough--I don't want it on my conscience that I had any part in making it higher.
You may want to re-read the federal and state anti discrimination laws. They say you are wrong.
I would disagree, of course. But in any event, it's shameful that a couple of anti-religious bigots had to go out of their way to harass the baker.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
