What is it about the gays?..

[PsyOps]

Well Sir, how would one know whose minds are made up? One would have to be a mind reader to know that, would they not? How do you know that somewhere down the road these people will actually want to know about God?

I'd like to think of it this way... you have a child that is a drug addict. You spent tons putting him into rehab only to have him come back out and right back into drugs. Do you give up or do you, as a loving and caring parent keep trying?

There are no guarantees in life; but you can guarantee if you don't bother to try, it will never happen.

 

[baydoll]

It is my understanding that the Bible was very accepting of slavery as a simple matter of fact. No? And doesn't like the idea of mixing races?



As for freedom of association, marriage is a contract and seeking to forbid, via the Constitution of all things, gays, adult, consenting gays, from marriage is a prohibition of free association.

No the Bible never accepted slavery, it condemned the practice of 'man-stealing' which was abhorrent to God. The penalty for such crime in the Mosaic Law was death: 'Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death' (Exodus 21:16).

There were many cases OF slavery in the bible but God never said He approved of such practices. He did give instruction of how they were to be treated (fairly and with kindness).

The ONLY place in the Bible that condemned the mixing of races was in the Old Testament when God commanded the Jewish people not to mix with those (Gentiles) around them. It had nothing to do with race, it was religious. God didn't want the Jews to intermingle with those who were idolaters and worshippers of false gods. Only if that Gentile person turned away from those things and converted into the Jewish nation were they allowed to marry. It had nothing to do with skin color.

There were a number of mixed marriages throughout the Bible: Moses married two 'dark skinned' women: a Midianite named Zipporah (Exodus 2:21-22) then later on married Cus hite woman which his brother Aaron and sister Miriam criticized him for doing. God wasn't too happy about this and He ended up severely punishing Aaron and Miriam for their racist slight.

Then there was Joseph who married an Egyptian woman.. Joseph's brother Judah married his Canaanite daughter-in-law Tamar (interesting story, that!) to which they had a son named Perez. In the book of Ruth (a decendant of Perez), Ruth's two sons both married Moabitess women. Rahab the famous Canaanite prostitute who protected the spies before the Israelites conquered Jericho went on to marry a prominent Israelite named Salmon, and they had a son named Boaz. Boaz married the previous mentioned heroine of the Book of Ruth Ruth the Moabitess.

I could go on and on but I would probably bore you to death, lol!

As for freedom of association, I don't follow man's law, I follow God's.

 

[baydoll]

First I will tell you what it doesn't mean: Shove God down peoples' throats. Shutting people out.

What it does mean: Spread the Word. Spread the Gospel. Seize opportunities that will allow you to possibly affect change in someone. Do not just preach to the choir. It is the sick that need a doctor.

Well I agree totally with you on the first point.

But your second statement : 'spreading the Word, spread the Gospel and so on' how does one do that, exactly? And what is the Word/Gospel?

 

[baydoll]

One would not.



One would only need to have a conversation with somebody.

So one could read ones mind if they have a conversation with that person?

Okay....

 

[baydoll]

I'd like to think of it this way... you have a child that is a drug addict. You spent tons putting him into rehab only to have him come back out and right back into drugs. Do you give up or do you, as a loving and caring parent keep trying?

There are no guarantees in life; but you can guarantee if you don't bother to try, it will never happen.

Well I totally agree with that but I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about...

Not to sound redundant but just in case you missed it I have a gay son. I have never stopped loving him; I have not disowned him or his friends, we have a wonderfully warm, loving, close relationship. Our lives are pretty much the same as it was before he 'came out of the closet'. I don't preach to him and his friends, my son knows God and knows what His Word says about homosexuality, so there is no need for me to keep pressing that point (I'm not one to shove my faith down people's throat ) . BUT (and I've said this before) if there ever came a time when my son and his SO came to me and said Mom we are getting married and we like you to come I would tell him No. And I would tell him WHY I said No: I cannot as a follower of Christ participate in something that He condemned. Simple as that.

Pretty much my point in regards to what that baker did.

 

[baydoll]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post

It is my understanding that the Bible was very accepting of slavery as a simple matter of fact. No? And doesn't like the idea of mixing races?



As for freedom of association, marriage is a contract and seeking to forbid, via the Constitution of all things, gays, adult, consenting gays, from marriage is a prohibition of free association.

Would that include ALL marriages? If that's the case, where does one draw the line?

Quite a slippery slope, that.

 

[PsyOps]

Well I totally agree with that but I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about...

Not to sound redundant but just in case you missed it I have a gay son. I have never stopped loving him; I have not disowned him or his friends, we have a wonderfully warm, loving, close relationship. Our lives are pretty much the same as it was before he 'came out of the closet'. I don't preach to him and his friends, my son knows God and knows what His Word says about homosexuality, so there is no need for me to keep pressing that point (I'm not one to shove my faith down people's throat ) . BUT (and I've said this before) if there ever came a time when my son and his SO came to me and said Mom we are getting married and we like you to come I would tell him No. And I would tell him WHY I said No: I cannot as a follower of Christ participate in something that He condemned. Simple as that.

Pretty much my point in regards to what that baker did.

When you have the opportunity to solve a problem you can either ignore it or you can try to solve it. Doing nothing will rarely result in it just going away. But I want to make it clear that people do what they are compelled to do. The baker seemed compelled to express their faith (not bake the gay couple a cake) and rather than using that as an opportunity to ‘solve a problem’, they were compelled to express their faith by casting judgment and shutting people out; by essentially telling the gay couple ‘your sins are too unacceptable for me to serve you’.

I think everyone has someone in their family that is gay. I have a cousin and nephew. Like you, I love them dearly. I think it’s safe to say that even if your own child commits murder you wouldn’t stop loving them. THAT’S the difference between loving the person and hating the sin. Just like you, I’m not compelled to preach to them about their lifestyle. But the baker decided to act on his/her faith; send a message. In my opinion, if you’re going to take a ‘vocal’ position on someone’s behavior (sin) it should be done in a teachable manner not in a manner that shuts people out.

 

[Radiant1]

BUT (and I've said this before) if there ever came a time when my son and his SO came to me and said Mom we are getting married and we like you to come I would tell him No. And I would tell him WHY I said No: I cannot as a follower of Christ participate in something that He condemned. Simple as that.

I don't really want to pry too much, but I have a question because this confuses me a bit.

Do you think your son and his SO are having sexual relations?

If the answer to the question above is yes, then are you not already "participating" in their sin by going shopping with them, dining with them, etc? I ask because I'm not sure why you are differentiating an actual marriage as what you can't "participate" in, or why that's where you draw your line.

 

[PsyOps]

BUT (and I've said this before) if there ever came a time when my son and his SO came to me and said Mom we are getting married and we like you to come I would tell him No. And I would tell him WHY I said No: I cannot as a follower of Christ participate in something that He condemned. Simple as that.

Pretty much my point in regards to what that baker did.

I would have to side with Radiant that God did not forbid gay marriage, he forbade homosexuality. Jesus went into the house of a tax collector:

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” - Matthew 9:10_13

Associating with ‘sinners’ is not the problem; it’s what you do with that time. We do this every day with all sorts of people. You work with people that are probably atheists, adulterers, gay, etc… Do you refuse to work with them, serve them, help them…? I work for and with people that have all sorts of lifestyles and habits that I adamantly disagree with, but I will do everything I can to make my working environment one that conveys the message that I care. Associating with or serving someone is not condoning their behavior. As Radiant asked, where do you draw the line?

 

[hotcoffee]

I would have to side with Radiant that God did not forbid gay marriage, he forbade homosexuality. Jesus went into the house of a tax collector:



Associating with ‘sinners’ is not the problem; it’s what you do with that time. We do this every day with all sorts of people. You work with people that are probably atheists, adulterers, gay, etc… Do you refuse to work with them, serve them, help them…? I work for and with people that have all sorts of lifestyles and habits that I adamantly disagree with, but I will do everything I can to make my working environment one that conveys the message that I care. Associating with or serving someone is not condoning their behavior. As Radiant asked, where do you draw the line?

We draw the line when the church becomes complacent. Alcoholics go to church reverently even after they slip up. Greedy people run the church in some cases. People who profane and gossip go to church. If the church leads the way to Jesus the Lord.... then that's where they should be.

 

[Radiant1]

We draw the line when the church becomes complacent. Alcoholics go to church reverently even after they slip up. Greedy people run the church in some cases. People who profane and gossip go to church. If the church leads the way to Jesus the Lord.... then that's where they should be.

Homosexuals and adulterers go to church too, and nobody is forcing your church to marry homosexuals, so again, I don't understand why this is where you draw your line.

 

[Larry Gude]

As for freedom of association, I don't follow man's law, I follow God's.

And, again, this boils it all down to the question of religious freedom; are you for it?

I get the argument that the difference between a sin where the sinner is trying to cut it out and one who is not but, again, if a homosexual is not of your faith and isn't claiming to be how do you propose to live in peace with anyone if you still want them to behave as a devout member of your faith? A gay person coming to me to bake them a cake for their union, two consenting adults, are not asking me to join their faith nor give up mine. They, as a neighbor, are saying "Hey, neighbor, I see you bake cakes. We would like one for a celebration."

If I say "Sorry. I don't think you should be doing that and can not, in good conscience, bake you a cake. It will threaten my faith" how am I not being a poor neighbor and creating division and friction where there, easily, could be none?

 

[PsyOps]

We draw the line when the church becomes complacent. Alcoholics go to church reverently even after they slip up. Greedy people run the church in some cases. People who profane and gossip go to church. If the church leads the way to Jesus the Lord.... then that's where they should be.

 

[Makavide]

And, again, this boils it all down to the question of religious freedom; are you for it?

I get the argument that the difference between a sin where the sinner is trying to cut it out and one who is not but, again, if a homosexual is not of your faith and isn't claiming to be how do you propose to live in peace with anyone if you still want them to behave as a devout member of your faith? A gay person coming to me to bake them a cake for their union, two consenting adults, are not asking me to join their faith nor give up mine. They, as a neighbor, are saying "Hey, neighbor, I see you bake cakes. We would like one for a celebration."

If I say "Sorry. I don't think you should be doing that and can not, in good conscience, bake you a cake. It will threaten my faith" how am I not being a poor neighbor and creating division and friction where there, easily, could be none?

Taking the legality out of the situation and going strictly on the beliefs and tenants of one's faith. What should happen here: "There is a gun shop owner who believes murder is a sin. That gun shop owner sells guns and ammunition for hunting and self protection. However, someone with out the same belief system, as the gun shop owner, on murder enters the shop and asks to buy a gun, explaining it was to kill his neighbor." What should the gun shop owner do?

 

[Larry Gude]

Taking the legality out of the situation and going strictly on the beliefs and tenants of one's faith. What should happen here: "There is a gun shop owner who believes murder is a sin. That gun shop owner sells guns and ammunition for hunting and self protection. However, someone with out the same belief system, as the gun shop owner, on murder enters the shop and asks to buy a gun, explaining it was to kill his neighbor." What should the gun shop owner do?

I agree with the Dixie Chick Principle; you should be able to speak your mind. Just don't be surprised if others do, too.

I agree with the principle that I should not have to sell a cake to homosexuals for their wedding if I don't want to. I also agree that folks then have the right to look at me like a loon. Me, personally, that's all this is; this cake guy is not very strong in his faith nor his interest in getting along with his community. So, reap what you sow. It is defensible that he acted in any sort of Christian way as I understand it and I think he harms the faith and, again, that is my problem with all of this. The world will not be a better place when people like this discredit Christianity down to cult status. He's a guy who may know the music but he sure doesn't know the song, in my view.

 

[hotcoffee]

Check out Revelation 11. Things are getting way out of sync here.

All this discussion about having gays in the church is really taking the discussion away from the gospel.

Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality. I'm sure He knew it was referenced in Leviticus 20:13, but He never made a reference to it that I can find.

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)"​

So are we supposed to expose sin?

Certainly the Biblical teaching never intends the Christian to be purposefully nasty and hurtful to anyone. We are to warn the world, however, of encroaching dangers and pitfalls. We have the spiritual eyes to see them coming, and we are to warn those that cannot see or understand them. Yes, the guilty person or persons may scream bloody murder when their violation of God’s principles has been exposed, but it still is our obligation to help them, and it is not necessarily “hateful” or “unloving” of us to help them. It certainly is not “pushing it down their throat” when we show them what God’s Word says.​

Things are apparently going to get a whole lot worse.... Revelation 11 says Jerusalem will be called Sodom.

On a side note.... I found this article on Sodomy laws.... Note.... the origin of the word Sodomy is Sodom.... interesting?

 

[Larry Gude]

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)"​

So are we supposed to expose sin?

Certainly the Biblical teaching never intends the Christian to be purposefully nasty and hurtful to anyone. :​

The way I read it, they are supposed to be put to death and it will be their own fault.​

 

[PsyOps]

The way I read it, they are supposed to be put to death and it will be their own fault.

Then under the same laws, an adulterer should have been put to death; but Jesus chose to admonish those that wanted to put her to death, forgave her and told her to sin no more. What do we take away from this? The sin is still a sin, but we are to forgive and ADVISE people to sin no more. Judgment was to be left up to God.

 

[Larry Gude]

Then under the same laws, an adulterer should have been put to death; but Jesus chose to admonish those that wanted to put her to death, forgave her and told her to sin no more. What do we take away from this? The sin is still a sin, but we are to forgive and ADVISE people to sin no more. Judgment was to be left up to God.

What I don't take from this is "No cake for you!"

 

[PsyOps]

What I don't take from this is "No cake for you!"

For far too long in my life I have watched all too many Christians shut people out. I told this story some time ago… when I was stationed in FL there was a church near my house. It was a very proper church; people dressed in suits and fine dresses. One day a homeless man showed up. Rumor was he was an alcoholic. He sat in the back of the church. When some of the ‘elders’ were told he was there they went back and escorted him out telling him drunks and people that dressed that way weren’t welcome there. It was my assumption the guy was looking for a way out of his plight and church was the place for him to go. They found his body later in the woods; an apparent suicide.

The guy didn’t fit their narrow thinking of who belongs in God’s house. I get that a bakery isn’t a church, but the owners turned it into one by preaching their rejection of people they disagree with. Jesus forgave EVERYONE, not just those who fit a narrow image of who belongs and who doesn’t. Something as simple as refusing to bake a cake sends a loud message that some people don’t belong. Those that don’t belong gets decided in the end when God makes the final decision. Until then, do we continue to put to death the adulterer and homosexuals or do we offer them what Jesus offered the adulterer and those that put Him to death? Do we bake that cake? If they reject the message, let God decide.