What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[Nosmo King]

Yet you ignored my post and refuse to answer my questions, why is that?

Jesus did not shun prostitutes. He did not shun lepers. Jesus loved the poor, the feeble minded, the outcast.

So, to answer your question, yes indeed, Jesus would not cast aside a homosexual or a committed homosexual couple. His record of love and acceptance is the lesson of His life, no matter what St. Paul wrote to gentile congregations. I'll go with the lessons taught by Jesus Himself.

Nosmo, you still have not answered my question. My question was not would Jesus shun them, my question was whether Jesus would see homosexual sex/relationships as sin? Why won't you answer that with a simple yes or no? I would like to know your stance on that exact question.

To respond to what you did answer, I've never submitted that Jesus would shun them, on the contrary, if He believed they were sinning He would have advised them that they were forgiven and to GO AND SIN NO MORE, in other words, change their ways and follow Him. That's exactly why He congregated with the worst of humanity, to SAVE them. He would not have participated with them in their sin. He would have loved them but He would NEVER have 'accepted' their sin. I don't know what Bible you read, but the one that I read never showed Jesus Christ 'accepting' anyone's sin. Christ was sinless. And I'm also not saying that Christians should shun them either, but neither should Christians participate in their sin (as Quantum has pointed out many times here) if they believe homosexual relationships to be sin. Some Christians do believe it's sin, some do not, for those who do believe it is sin, they should not be forced to particpate in what goes against their religious beliefs, which wouuld be SPECIFICALLY not providing service for a gay wedding. And you have no right to determine for them whether participating is sin or not. You're entire premise is based on these people USING the Bible and scripture to justify their bigotry, when in fact, the majority of these people are simply trying to stay true to their faith and do what they think God would want them to do and bigotry plays NO PART in it. But you are entirely unwilling to accept that premise. You would rather assign them feelings of hate than accept that they're being true to their faith. Why you need to see them in the light is beyond me, perhaps you only like to believe the worst of people? I can only assume it is so you can rationalize continuing your crusade of judgment against them and slinging mud for whatever reason.

It's difficult to answer the question framed in sin, as it were. Social mores change and, during Christ's time, homosexuality may very well have been accepted rather than vilified as it is among Social Conservatives today. Sins have included violating dietary laws, shaving, planting different crops in adjoining farrows, failure to treat your slaves fairly, failing to stone sinners in a timely manner. I believe that if Christ encountered a homosexual, he would not have thought of that individual as a sinner for his homosexuality. The same cannot be said of many of today's Conservatives.

 

[Bumberclyde]

So, to sum up your beliefs, Nosmo, anyone can do anything they want and Jesus would have, or will be, loving and accepting of their behavior? Because Jesus was Love and accepted anyone, even those that turned away from Him and continued their sin? In other words, He never spoke of consequences for living a life of sin? Or you feel that those consequence that He spoke of will never be applied?

What Jesus "spoke" of is hearsay, so realistically, you can't claim that believing that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and that our debt is paid already, is wrong.

You seriously need to read the Bible for yourself, you're clueless.

You're going to hell anyways, so what do you know?

 

[Newby]

Jesus did not shun prostitutes. He did not shun lepers. Jesus loved the poor, the feeble minded, the outcast.

So, to answer your question, yes indeed, Jesus would not cast aside a homosexual or a committed homosexual couple. His record of love and acceptance is the lesson of His life, no matter what St. Paul wrote to gentile congregations. I'll go with the lessons taught by Jesus Himself.

Nosmo, you still have not answered my question. My question was not would Jesus shun them, my question was whether Jesus would see homosexual sex/relationships as sin? Why won't you answer that with a simple yes or no? I would like to know your stance on that exact question.

To respond to what you did answer, I've never submitted that Jesus would shun them, on the contrary, if He believed they were sinning He would have advised them that they were forgiven and to GO AND SIN NO MORE, in other words, change their ways and follow Him. That's exactly why He congregated with the worst of humanity, to SAVE them. He would not have participated with them in their sin. He would have loved them but He would NEVER have 'accepted' their sin. I don't know what Bible you read, but the one that I read never showed Jesus Christ 'accepting' anyone's sin. Christ was sinless. And I'm also not saying that Christians should shun them either, but neither should Christians participate in their sin (as Quantum has pointed out many times here) if they believe homosexual relationships to be sin. Some Christians do believe it's sin, some do not, for those who do believe it is sin, they should not be forced to particpate in what goes against their religious beliefs, which wouuld be SPECIFICALLY not providing service for a gay wedding. And you have no right to determine for them whether participating is sin or not. You're entire premise is based on these people USING the Bible and scripture to justify their bigotry, when in fact, the majority of these people are simply trying to stay true to their faith and do what they think God would want them to do and bigotry plays NO PART in it. But you are entirely unwilling to accept that premise. You would rather assign them feelings of hate than accept that they're being true to their faith. Why you need to see them in the light is beyond me, perhaps you only like to believe the worst of people? I can only assume it is so you can rationalize continuing your crusade of judgment against them and slinging mud for whatever reason.

It's difficult to answer the question framed in sin, as it were. Social mores change and, during Christ's time, homosexuality may very well have been accepted rather than vilified as it is among Social Conservatives today. Sins have included violating dietary laws, shaving, planting different crops in adjoining farrows, failure to treat your slaves fairly, failing to stone sinners in a timely manner. I believe that if Christ encountered a homosexual, he would not have thought of that individual as a sinner for his homosexuality. The same cannot be said of many of today's Conservatives.

Well, if sin isn't clearly defined, how would we know whether or not we're sinning then? That was Jesus's primary focus during his preaching, so I think we're equipped to know when we're sinning or doing something that would not please God. I don't think it has anything to do with the social mores of the time at all, Jesus spoke about following Him or following the world, He was not concerned with the world, only the individual and how that individual conducted him or herself according to what He taught. He spoke of lust, He spoke of marriage, people that live together or that have sex with multiple partners just for the sake of pleasure are also sinning and turing away from what He taught and Him. You either place homosexual behavior in that category or you don't. But Christ was pretty clear when it came to marriage, lust, and sex. The baker could also turn away a heterosexual couple that wanted a cake to celebrate the birth of their child born out of wedlock, in my opinion, it would be the same thing as not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding celebration. Whether or not the baker in question would equally apply his or her faith to all customers is an altogether different question, and they will be personally responsible for their own actions at some point. We all have to follow our conscience/faith/beliefs because ultimately we are going to be the ones that face judgment for them, not anyone else.


Btw, I don't mix politics with religion in that I don't stereotype a certain political viewpoint with a religious viewpoint. Faith is a personal thing.
Thanks for answering.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No sir...YOU ask the wrong question.

My question is to the individual...the sinner. Your question is to the system, government.

God is concerned w/the individual response, NOT the government's.

Nice try though.

I wasn't referring to government action....I was referring to the bigots who attacked the bakers and forced them to close their business......thus we are both referring to individuals....(notice how I deflected your deflection?).......

So bigots are people who try to force their views on others? Like the baker?

I must have missed the part of the story where the baker was trying to force the gay couple to go to church.

 

[daws101]

I wasn't referring to government action....I was referring to the bigots who attacked the bakers and forced them to close their business......thus we are both referring to individuals....(notice how I deflected your deflection?).......

So bigots are people who try to force their views on others? Like the baker?

I must have missed the part of the story where the baker was trying to force the gay couple to go to church.

the baker was trying to impress god ..he did. just not in the way he expected...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Jesus did not shun prostitutes. He did not shun lepers. Jesus loved the poor, the feeble minded, the outcast.

So, to answer your question, yes indeed, Jesus would not cast aside a homosexual or a committed homosexual couple. His record of love and acceptance is the lesson of His life, no matter what St. Paul wrote to gentile congregations. I'll go with the lessons taught by Jesus Himself.

Nosmo, you still have not answered my question. My question was not would Jesus shun them, my question was whether Jesus would see homosexual sex/relationships as sin? Why won't you answer that with a simple yes or no? I would like to know your stance on that exact question.

To respond to what you did answer, I've never submitted that Jesus would shun them, on the contrary, if He believed they were sinning He would have advised them that they were forgiven and to GO AND SIN NO MORE, in other words, change their ways and follow Him. That's exactly why He congregated with the worst of humanity, to SAVE them. He would not have participated with them in their sin. He would have loved them but He would NEVER have 'accepted' their sin. I don't know what Bible you read, but the one that I read never showed Jesus Christ 'accepting' anyone's sin. Christ was sinless. And I'm also not saying that Christians should shun them either, but neither should Christians participate in their sin (as Quantum has pointed out many times here) if they believe homosexual relationships to be sin. Some Christians do believe it's sin, some do not, for those who do believe it is sin, they should not be forced to particpate in what goes against their religious beliefs, which wouuld be SPECIFICALLY not providing service for a gay wedding. And you have no right to determine for them whether participating is sin or not. You're entire premise is based on these people USING the Bible and scripture to justify their bigotry, when in fact, the majority of these people are simply trying to stay true to their faith and do what they think God would want them to do and bigotry plays NO PART in it. But you are entirely unwilling to accept that premise. You would rather assign them feelings of hate than accept that they're being true to their faith. Why you need to see them in the light is beyond me, perhaps you only like to believe the worst of people? I can only assume it is so you can rationalize continuing your crusade of judgment against them and slinging mud for whatever reason.

It's difficult to answer the question framed in sin, as it were. Social mores change and, during Christ's time, homosexuality may very well have been accepted rather than vilified as it is among Social Conservatives today. Sins have included violating dietary laws, shaving, planting different crops in adjoining farrows, failure to treat your slaves fairly, failing to stone sinners in a timely manner. I believe that if Christ encountered a homosexual, he would not have thought of that individual as a sinner for his homosexuality. The same cannot be said of many of today's Conservatives.

Most Christians I know believe that homosexuals sin when they have sex, not because they are gay. Every theologian I have ever heard of teaches that acting on your desires is what makes you a sinner. not having them. Perhaps, if you weren't exactly what you accuse everyone else of, you would know that, and stop demanding that I stop hating people I don't hate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So bigots are people who try to force their views on others? Like the baker?

I must have missed the part of the story where the baker was trying to force the gay couple to go to church.

the baker was trying to impress god ..he did. just not in the way he expected...

So what?

 

[daws101]

I must have missed the part of the story where the baker was trying to force the gay couple to go to church.

the baker was trying to impress god ..he did. just not in the way he expected...

So what?

Non sequitur.

TOO TOUGH A CONCEPT ?

 

[Bumberclyde]

I wasn't referring to government action....I was referring to the bigots who attacked the bakers and forced them to close their business......thus we are both referring to individuals....(notice how I deflected your deflection?).......

So bigots are people who try to force their views on others? Like the baker?

I must have missed the part of the story where the baker was trying to force the gay couple to go to church.

Ok, even you must think that that's a lame answer.

 

[PostmodernProph]

No sir...YOU ask the wrong question.

My question is to the individual...the sinner. Your question is to the system, government.

God is concerned w/the individual response, NOT the government's.

Nice try though.

I wasn't referring to government action....I was referring to the bigots who attacked the bakers and forced them to close their business......thus we are both referring to individuals....(notice how I deflected your deflection?).......

So bigots are people who try to force their views on others? Like the baker?

??...and how did the baker force his views on them?......did refusing to make them gaycake keep them from getting married?......

 

[Bumberclyde]

I wasn't referring to government action....I was referring to the bigots who attacked the bakers and forced them to close their business......thus we are both referring to individuals....(notice how I deflected your deflection?).......

So bigots are people who try to force their views on others? Like the baker?

??...and how did the baker force his views on them?......did refusing to make them gaycake keep them from getting married?......

WoW! You seriously can't figure this one out by yourself?

Ok, I'll help. If I'm a baker and 2 black people come in and I tell them "no, I don't bake no ****** wedding cakes", it shows that I don't think that 2 blacks should marry, and it forces them to get some race hating thrown right in their faces.

 

[daws101]

I wasn't referring to government action....I was referring to the bigots who attacked the bakers and forced them to close their business......thus we are both referring to individuals....(notice how I deflected your deflection?).......

So bigots are people who try to force their views on others? Like the baker?

??...and how did the baker force his views on them?......did refusing to make them gaycake keep them from getting married?......

why do you keep using the misnomer gaycake?

 

[Nosmo King]

So bigots are people who try to force their views on others? Like the baker?

??...and how did the baker force his views on them?......did refusing to make them gaycake keep them from getting married?......

why do you keep using the misnomer gaycake?

To reinforce his views on homosexuality. Ain't it cute? Just a little more good old fashioned gay baiting bigotry. He uses that term to insulate himself from catching the "gay".

 

[Nosmo King]

Nosmo, you still have not answered my question. My question was not would Jesus shun them, my question was whether Jesus would see homosexual sex/relationships as sin? Why won't you answer that with a simple yes or no? I would like to know your stance on that exact question.

To respond to what you did answer, I've never submitted that Jesus would shun them, on the contrary, if He believed they were sinning He would have advised them that they were forgiven and to GO AND SIN NO MORE, in other words, change their ways and follow Him. That's exactly why He congregated with the worst of humanity, to SAVE them. He would not have participated with them in their sin. He would have loved them but He would NEVER have 'accepted' their sin. I don't know what Bible you read, but the one that I read never showed Jesus Christ 'accepting' anyone's sin. Christ was sinless. And I'm also not saying that Christians should shun them either, but neither should Christians participate in their sin (as Quantum has pointed out many times here) if they believe homosexual relationships to be sin. Some Christians do believe it's sin, some do not, for those who do believe it is sin, they should not be forced to particpate in what goes against their religious beliefs, which wouuld be SPECIFICALLY not providing service for a gay wedding. And you have no right to determine for them whether participating is sin or not. You're entire premise is based on these people USING the Bible and scripture to justify their bigotry, when in fact, the majority of these people are simply trying to stay true to their faith and do what they think God would want them to do and bigotry plays NO PART in it. But you are entirely unwilling to accept that premise. You would rather assign them feelings of hate than accept that they're being true to their faith. Why you need to see them in the light is beyond me, perhaps you only like to believe the worst of people? I can only assume it is so you can rationalize continuing your crusade of judgment against them and slinging mud for whatever reason.

It's difficult to answer the question framed in sin, as it were. Social mores change and, during Christ's time, homosexuality may very well have been accepted rather than vilified as it is among Social Conservatives today. Sins have included violating dietary laws, shaving, planting different crops in adjoining farrows, failure to treat your slaves fairly, failing to stone sinners in a timely manner. I believe that if Christ encountered a homosexual, he would not have thought of that individual as a sinner for his homosexuality. The same cannot be said of many of today's Conservatives.

Most Christians I know believe that homosexuals sin when they have sex, not because they are gay. Every theologian I have ever heard of teaches that acting on your desires is what makes you a sinner. not having them. Perhaps, if you weren't exactly what you accuse everyone else of, you would know that, and stop demanding that I stop hating people I don't hate.

Well then! It seems homosexuals have thrown off the shackles of the psychiatric community and are no longer considered mentally disturbed. They are in the process of throwing off the shackles of state control and are finally permitted to enter a marriage contract. And now it appears the final hurdle is "Christians" who think they know better than anyone who can be accepted in modern American society and who cannot.

 

[PostmodernProph]

So bigots are people who try to force their views on others? Like the baker?

??...and how did the baker force his views on them?......did refusing to make them gaycake keep them from getting married?......

WoW! You seriously can't figure this one out by yourself?

Ok, I'll help. If I'm a baker and 2 black people come in and I tell them "no, I don't bake no ****** wedding cakes", it shows that I don't think that 2 blacks should marry, and it forces them to get some race hating thrown right in their faces.

does it keep them from being black?....would it even keep them from getting married?.....

the net result is that it doesn't force the baker's views on them......

now if they had been forced to get married even though they didn't want to, or eat cake even though they didn't want to (or bake a cake even though they didn't want to) then something would have been forced on them.......

all the gay couple lost was the potential enjoyment they may have had from eating JimmyJoe's Scrumptious Gaycake.......even then, they were deprived of something, not having something forced on them......

 

[PostmodernProph]

So bigots are people who try to force their views on others? Like the baker?

??...and how did the baker force his views on them?......did refusing to make them gaycake keep them from getting married?......

why do you keep using the misnomer gaycake?

to distinguish it from something it is not....a wedding cake.....

 

[Nosmo King]

??...and how did the baker force his views on them?......did refusing to make them gaycake keep them from getting married?......

why do you keep using the misnomer gaycake?

to distinguish it from something it is not....a wedding cake.....

If the couple is homosexual and they are getting married, is the cake not a wedding cake? Or does your little warped view include playing with semantics? If the state recognizes a wedding, why won't you? Are there other weddings you would not recognize, considering both participants are above the age of majority, not siblings, entering into the marriage contract without reservation or under duress?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the baker was trying to impress god ..he did. just not in the way he expected...

So what?

Non sequitur.

TOO TOUGH A CONCEPT ?

Oh, you were being clever.

I missed it because I wasn't thinking like an idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So bigots are people who try to force their views on others? Like the baker?

I must have missed the part of the story where the baker was trying to force the gay couple to go to church.

Ok, even you must think that that's a lame answer.

Almost as lame as your posts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So bigots are people who try to force their views on others? Like the baker?

??...and how did the baker force his views on them?......did refusing to make them gaycake keep them from getting married?......

WoW! You seriously can't figure this one out by yourself?

Ok, I'll help. If I'm a baker and 2 black people come in and I tell them "no, I don't bake no ****** wedding cakes", it shows that I don't think that 2 blacks should marry, and it forces them to get some race hating thrown right in their faces.

Go for it, I dare you.