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 think Jesus would participate in your life, Jeff, in spite of the active hatefulness with which you speak of people who are gay. He wouldn't practice or participate in that hatefulness, but he would embrace you, if you let him.
Believing that something is sinful is not hateful. Show me one example where I spoke of anything in the manner of hate.
In other words, you condemn people who are not like you?
I'm not condemning anyone. Just don't force Christian business owners to get involved with sinful activities. Meanwhile your side had absolutely no problem with imprisoning a woman just because she didn't feel comfortable issuing SSM licences. Disgusting.
You probably don't give a rip about religious freedom, but it is an important right guaranteed to us by the founding fathers of this nation.
The ones on my side seek to love God and our fellow human beings. We don't discriminate in that way unlike your side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
Is it alright, if I come to your business to buy a cake? How about obtaining a marriage license, according to the law of the land in which we live? And you say, you do not discriminate? Just for the record, love does not discriminate, neither does it condemn other people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
You are welcome to buy any baked goods that doesn't require me to get involved with your immoral wedding ceremony. If we were truly discriminating based on your as an individual, we wouldn't take ANY business from you. But yes, we will discriminate against gay marriage because it is wrong to force us to violate our religious beliefs just so you can have your cake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
Baking a cake does not mean you are a member of the wedding party, nor have you been invited.
You are merely a vendor who is using and hiding behind his religion to discriminate against others.
And, yes, it would be discrimination on the basis of the individual if you serve or cater to the public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
No it means I would have played a small role in helping a person's sinful act come off as a success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
In other words, you condemn people who are not like you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I'm not condemning anyone. Just don't force Christian business owners to get involved with sinful activities. Meanwhile your side had absolutely no problem with imprisoning a woman just because she didn't feel comfortable issuing SSM licences. Disgusting.
You probably don't give a rip about religious freedom, but it is an important right guaranteed to us by the founding fathers of this nation.
It also means "freedom from religion," as no one needs to be persecuted because of someone else's beliefs or religion. And that woman you referenced was using her position to impose her beliefs on that of another.
Even though fundies have little or no redeeming social value, I still feel sorry for them. I've never met a group of people so afraid, so unhappy with their lives, and so negative about mankind.
Something tells me they aren't all that confident that heaven awaits them.
I'm not condemning anyone. Just don't force Christian business owners to get involved with sinful activities. Meanwhile your side had absolutely no problem with imprisoning a woman just because she didn't feel comfortable issuing SSM licences. Disgusting.
You probably don't give a rip about religious freedom, but it is an important right guaranteed to us by the founding fathers of this nation.
8f you don't have hate and bigotry against gays why can't you be honest about Kim Davis. She was ordered t9 allow one of her staff of government employees to issue those certificates however she refused an order made by a judge who himself is a devout Christian who personally disagreed with SSM. It is illegal for the government to discriminate in this case as well what about the religious freedoms of her staff. She denied them the right to perform a legal and government duty regardless of how THEY felt about it. Do you accept that according to your claim, your supervisor has the right to decide what your religious beliefs are? Of course not. The Judge bent over backwards to work out the compromise but Davis did not want to and until she was sent to jail she refused a court order. It was the actual law and a devout Christian who sent her t9 jail for her show boating. If you say that our side includes all Christians who recognize the legal framework and the Constitution then your side does not in fact care about the law, employees rights as well as being able to refuse government services based stricktly on a personal choice.
Again she could have had her employees issue the licence. Under your idea you could end up with a supervisor who refuses to allow you to serve Christians and you would have to accept his freedom of religion because he is your supervisor.
Jesus said marriage was for a man and a woman. No exceptions. He most certainly would not have celebrated sin. There are people feeling joyful and having faith in all kinds of false religions. Doesn't make it true.
You said: "Jesus said marriage was for a man and a woman. No exceptions."
The only passage I can think of right off the top of my head was when Jesus was asked about divorce. I can't recall a single time Jesus mentioned men having multiple wives, but he surely knew of characters in Old Testament writings that had multiple wives. He never said that was a bad thing. (Do you think multiple wives are OK?) Now, which verse is it where Jesus defines marriage? Not where he's discussing divorce, but where he defines marriage. Oh yeah, where he defines it and says "no exceptions."
You said: "Jesus said marriage was for a man and a woman. No exceptions."
The only passage I can think of right off the top of my head was when Jesus was asked about divorce. I can't recall a single time Jesus mentioned men having multiple wives, but he surely knew of characters in Old Testament writings that had multiple wives. He never said that was a bad thing. (Do you think multiple wives are OK?) Now, which verse is it where Jesus defines marriage? Not where he's discussing divorce, but where he defines marriage. Oh yeah, where he defines it and says "no exceptions."
Jesus said marriage was for a man and a woman. No exceptions. He most certainly would not have celebrated sin. There are people feeling joyful and having faith in all kinds of false religions. Doesn't make it true.
That's not true. Mensa explains that above, so I don't have to repeat it.
Not everyone believes that to be sin. You know that. This Right/Wrong Black/White Heaven/Hell way of thinking is damaging, not just to others but to those who hold those views. God is love, not a book of rules and prejudices.
It has perplexed me for some time that there seems to be an either/or to the literalist's thinking. The Bible is not discarded just because we don't believe it is literally God's Word. It is a valuable writing of man reaching to know God. But it is not God's word; that is to say, words actually uttered by God and meant to be taken on their face value.
I don't understand how saying that translates to the idea that the Bible therefore means nothing to non-fundamentalist Christians. There is so much in between those two frames of thought.
MQ, the salvation of the bible fundamentalist is rooted in the bible being all that they believe it to be. Their mindset is if any of it is potenially flawed then how can i trust it . The thing is, they were never told to trust it in the first place. Jesus did not say you believe in the scriptures believe also in me, no, he said you believe in God believe also me. Even if they did believe the scriptures they didn't understand them, and that is why Jesus never wasted his breath expounding on them until after he was resurrected. He did not use the scriptures in the way the bible fundamentalist does, and the very few times He(not the gospel writers) did quote the scriptures was generally to correct those who thought they understood it. Jesus was not about us believing in him, but believing him about the Father.
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.
