As a Christian I find this really irritating. I truly believe that God loves gay people just as much as everyone else. Religion on the other hand will tell you otherwise. Don't get me wrong, I think going to church is great. Until they start bashing people who are different, who only want to love equally and be treated as humans and not some evil mistake. God doesn't make mistakes. Jesus came to his people to teach love, compassion, and patience. Go to YouTube and type in ''why I hate religion'' it's a guy rapping about this very issue.
I'm a Christian. I believe that we should be loving towards them, but that doesn't mean that we should accept what they do as "natural". It means that we should try our best to point them towards God, and show them the love of Christ.
True peregrine. But I know plenty of gay guys that are devout Christians and are amazing evangelists who have led thousands of people to be saved. In my eyes if homosexuality is so wrong then why has God blessed them to become missionaries and do so much good for this world?
8
deleted
· 9 years ago
I'm a Christian too, and I agree with pergrine. Pegleg, to answer that last question: I think that God can use anyone to complete his work and do good things. If you think about it, there are many people who are unbelievers who are amazing people that love everyone, though not under God's direction, but they're still unknowingly obeying his laws. Although it's not exactly the same as bring people to faith, I think it goes to show that God uses everyone for his work.
In America you have the right to be homosexual. You also have the right to not like homosexuals. That's what freedom is about. Diversity is all-encompassing.
Allow me a few examples, to illustrate just where the boundaries lie, in my view.
Let's say some mouth-breathing knuckle dragger comes in here and rants off some racist stereotypes. Likely, a good many people would have some choice words for that individual and that person may be downvoted, banned, etc. That's all well and good.
What if that person had their own website dedicated to the same message? I'm okay with that, because freedom of speech is not fact-dependant.
I don't have to visit the website or subscribe to someone else's personal views.
In the scenario put forth on the original post, a business owner chose not to supply a homosexual with their service.
I heard the two parties knew each other and were friendly with each other prior to this encounter. Even though this was an underganded and hugely unpopular decision, when a person has their own business, I support their freedom to choose who they want as customers. Cake is not a human right. Personally, I would bake a
cake for a gay, but there are certain people I've met whose character is not deserving of my confections, no matter how burnt they may be. It is my right as a private business owner to choose my customers.
If the person providing a product or service did so as an agent of the government, of course any discrimination based on personal beliefs would be grounds for termination. The same goes for companies that have anti-discrimination policies in place.
If a white hooded racial hate group member came into a cake store owned and operated by black homosexuals, would they serve him? Would they charge him double? I don't care because literally, that's their business. I support their right to associate and do business with whomever they choose.
Harassment is covered by criminal law. It is indeed your right to put someone down with verbal insults if you see fit, no matter who they are or what they're doing. Just as we might flame a blatantly racist post on a discussion board or street
corner, it is that person's constitutionally guaranteed right to voice their own opinion. Even though it may lead to being socially ostracised or the abrupt end of their carreer, they enjoy that right as Americans.
Legislating based on moral views is a quagmire that to this day we are still digging out from. To outlaw words and opinions is the door to facism. Freedom is a fine line between liberty and chaos. The preservation of personal choice is what allows us to evolve as a society.
The difference is that by eating with them, Jesus still wasn't condoning the sins. Whereas if you make a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage, you are condoning the sin. It's like how you're expected to still be kind to someone who may be a thief, but that doesn't mean you have to let them borrow your car for a bank heist.
It rather bugs me that you (guest) consider homosexuality a 'sin'. And since when was the cake a 'wedding' cake? The post did specifically say it was a cake 'for a gay person'. Not people. Not couple. 'Person'. As far as I'm concerned, a cake won't make a gay person more gay.
I'm sorry, I had just been talking to someone else about the difference between refusing to serve at a wedding versus refusing to serve for an everyday thing, so "wedding" was on my mind and I accidentally inserted it when I read the post. So as far as just regular cakes go, the guy who posted that (and you) are 100% correct. My apologies.
(The "sin" I was referring to was homosexual marriage, not just homosexuality. Although I get the feeling that if I elaborated on that, it'd probably bug you too, so I'm not going to go on a huge lecture here. (Unless you're genuinely curious and want me to.))
You take orders from a god Damn book! And because you believe in the book you are better than other people?! Because of a book who is written by a large amount of people?! Why do people do this?! There are three vague mentions of homosexuality in the new testament, that you people press to your heart! Vague..
And at the same time you discard 2/3 of the new testament, because "these rules are stupid and do not Apply to me.."
Like this !
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 5:28-30)"
Double standards! You are not good people, you are assholes.
Hello guest, sorry for the delay. Yes, I am genuinely curious as to why you think that homosexual marriage is a sin. Although a part of me really wants to rail and argue about why it isn't, I think it's more merciful for everyone that I just shut up and let you explain.
Alright. So some of this might be specific to my religion and some might apply to all Christians, but here's what I believe. Marriage is special to God. It is intended to be a special bond between a man and a woman that goes beyond anything else. Sex is also supposed to only be performed between a married man and woman to bring children into the world. Marriage is sacred to the point where it is a required ordinance to enter into the highest levels of heaven. Things that pervert this, like adultery or extramarital sex or homosexual marriage, are an affront to something that's sacred. That's what makes it a sin.
As for being homosexual, it's just an extra challenge. Kind of like how someone with kleptomania has to work harder to master themselves and not steal, or someone with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism has a greater struggle to remain addiction-free. Having that trait isn't a sin, but acting on it is.
Above all, though, I know God is fair. I know there are methods provided so people who died without knowing stuff like this or people who never got the chance won't just be condemned by default. And I trust that He will deal fairly with things that seem to be too difficult or don't make sense. I'm sure there are special cases that make things seem unfair, but I trust Him to deal with those in a way that doesn't unfairly condemn anyone who wasn't being sinful with the intent to defy Him.
*sigh*. Well, I cannot argue with that simply because your entire opinion is based on what you believe your God's outlook on marriage is. As I don't believe in a God I can't counter your arguments in a way that would be logical or persuasive for you. In any case, thank you for sharing :)
Let me clear this up: a business cannot discriminate based upon race, age, religion, disability, or sexual orientation. If a business would bake a wedding cake for a straight couple, they have no legal reason to tell a gay couple they would not bake a wedding cake for them. There are some states that want to enact laws stating that a business can discriminate if they feel like their religious freedom is being violated. That is bullshit, and bad economics.
And let's all remember that the disciples had money, as many of them had successful jobs..the thrives that some people refer to actually repented,and therefore are saved
Let's say some mouth-breathing knuckle dragger comes in here and rants off some racist stereotypes. Likely, a good many people would have some choice words for that individual and that person may be downvoted, banned, etc. That's all well and good.
What if that person had their own website dedicated to the same message? I'm okay with that, because freedom of speech is not fact-dependant.
I don't have to visit the website or subscribe to someone else's personal views.
In the scenario put forth on the original post, a business owner chose not to supply a homosexual with their service.
I heard the two parties knew each other and were friendly with each other prior to this encounter. Even though this was an underganded and hugely unpopular decision, when a person has their own business, I support their freedom to choose who they want as customers. Cake is not a human right. Personally, I would bake a
If the person providing a product or service did so as an agent of the government, of course any discrimination based on personal beliefs would be grounds for termination. The same goes for companies that have anti-discrimination policies in place.
If a white hooded racial hate group member came into a cake store owned and operated by black homosexuals, would they serve him? Would they charge him double? I don't care because literally, that's their business. I support their right to associate and do business with whomever they choose.
Harassment is covered by criminal law. It is indeed your right to put someone down with verbal insults if you see fit, no matter who they are or what they're doing. Just as we might flame a blatantly racist post on a discussion board or street
Legislating based on moral views is a quagmire that to this day we are still digging out from. To outlaw words and opinions is the door to facism. Freedom is a fine line between liberty and chaos. The preservation of personal choice is what allows us to evolve as a society.
(The "sin" I was referring to was homosexual marriage, not just homosexuality. Although I get the feeling that if I elaborated on that, it'd probably bug you too, so I'm not going to go on a huge lecture here. (Unless you're genuinely curious and want me to.))
And at the same time you discard 2/3 of the new testament, because "these rules are stupid and do not Apply to me.."
Like this !
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 5:28-30)"
Double standards! You are not good people, you are assholes.
As for being homosexual, it's just an extra challenge. Kind of like how someone with kleptomania has to work harder to master themselves and not steal, or someone with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism has a greater struggle to remain addiction-free. Having that trait isn't a sin, but acting on it is.