Secular+Other Religions vs. Christianity

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Of course. I agree, but life isn't perfect. If it was, cases like this wouldn't exist.

So let me get this straight, if somebody asked me to bring a bottle of wine to dinner to share at a meal, and I want to catch a cab to do that, and the cab driver refuses because I have a bottle of wine on religious grounds, you people are ok with that ?
But you are mad that a private bakery won't make a gay themed cake and you are not ok with that ?

Because if that is the case I am calling out selective tolerances for religion, it amazes me how the progressive liberals on this site defend Islamic rights but condemn Christian rights.

originally posted by: Seede
Only pointing out inconsistencies that's all. If one doesn't believe in use of tobacco then that also should be a consideration of that one demanding preference of employment. Chopping heads and honor killings are part and parcel of this very same religion, and yes in this U.S., and is never mentioned as offense by these very religious people who are offended by the alcohol. That was the comparative inference in my post as you very well understand. The only insanity is that of this religion to demand special privileges. All Muslims are Muslims least you need to be reminded.

The bold is an absurd generalization. You do realize that moderate Muslims far outnumber the radicals, right? To think all Muslims practice that is beyond silly. That's like saying torture, war and world domination is part and parcel of Christianity. So why is this lady in the bakery worried about cakes for gay couples, when her brothers and sisters are in positions of world power starting wars with third world countries where mostly innocent civilians die? It's a complete non sequitur to the conversation.

You have to be more specific to get a complete answer. Are you talking about the commandments of Jesus or Moses?
Firstly you need to understand that Jesus never taught that all people were equal.

Jesus taught us to TREAT people equally, not that they ARE equal. Jesus said to treat others as you want to be treated and not to judge them. The cake baker has gone against Jesus' teachings by not baking the cake. I was specific in my inquiry. I said I am looking for NEW TESTAMENT quotes, preferably from Jesus that go against homosexuality. The Leviticus argument holds no weight whatsoever since 90% of those commandments are ignored by Christians today.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

It's already been explained. Your description of the cases is not what actually happened. It wasn't a cab driver denying a passenger with alcohol, and it wasn't a baker refusing a gay themed cake.

In one situation it is discrimination against a person. In the other, it is an object. Think about it.

If you support the baker refusing to bake a normal wedding cake (not gay themed) for a homosexual, then you must support the baker being able to deny inter-racial couples their cake as well.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

It's already been explained. Your description of the cases is not what actually happened. It wasn't a cab driver denying a passenger with alcohol, and it wasn't a baker refusing a gay themed cake.

In one situation it is discrimination against a person. In the other, it is an object. Think about it.

If you support the baker refusing to bake a normal wedding cake (not gay themed) for a homosexual, then you must support the baker being able to deny inter-racial couples their cake as well.

In both situations it was people acting according to their own beliefs and that's what needs to be held up, unless harm was done to another. Not having a cake isn't harm.

a reply to: stolencar18

how did the baker know, before hand that there would be no harm?? did he have a crystal ball in the back room that he consulted? how did he know that by denying that cake, he wouldn't force the customer to drive to a nearby city and get plowed into by a semi, killing the person?

to provide a cake or not to provide a cake, it's rather easy to claim no harm done isn't it....
what about a pharmacist refusing not to fill the prescription for birth control...how do they know, for sure that there is no harm done? how can they know, for sure, that the doctor didn't prescribe those pills for their hormonal value in treating another problem, or that a pregnancy would be detrimental to that women?
no harm done, yep!!! until, there is, and then well it's too late, the harm is done!!!

originally posted by: stolencar18
In both situations it was people acting according to their own beliefs and that's what needs to be held up, unless harm was done to another. Not having a cake isn't harm.

You say this, but I still haven't seen any Christians justify why it even goes against their beliefs. It is an old outdated commandment from the old testament like wearing mixed fabrics. Where is this explained in the new testament? When does Jesus justify treating homosexuals unfairly? Why does 'treat others as you would like to be treated' get ignored by so many followers?

a reply to: Barcs

Jesus taught us to TREAT people equally, not that they ARE equal. Jesus said to treat others as you want to be treated and not to judge them. The cake baker has gone against Jesus' teachings by not baking the cake. I was specific in my inquiry. I said I am looking for NEW TESTAMENT quotes, preferably from Jesus that go against homosexuality. The Leviticus argument holds no weight whatsoever since 90% of those commandments are ignored by Christians today.

I never gave any opinion on cake baking so I will let that pass.

As far as NT quotes on perversion I believe I went over that in another thread but will cap it here again. Simply because a specific sin is not named does not mean that it is of non effect.

The story of the woman caught in the act of adultery is a good example. Because she was forgiven by Jesus did not nullify the fact that it still remains a sin and is still part and parcel of the Hebrew Sinai commands. You seem to forget that Jesus came with forgiveness whereas the law came as punishments. There was no forgiveness in the law. If one repents then it is counted as never having existed in the eyes of God. But not so in the law which was an agreement between man and God in the covenant of Moses.

Jesus verifies this --
Matthew_5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew_5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Now as far as homosexuality is concerned the same applies to that law also. It was and is an abomination in the Hebrew context and it is not nullified by Jesus. Jesus can and does forgive any sin including homosexuality but it is still a sin the same as adultery is a sin.

Why should I think this?
John_5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Jesus did not change or erase any of the laws of Moses. You may not understand this but the commands given to Moses were witnessed by the same spirit which was the Word who then became Jesus. Can the devil cast out the devil? Of course not and Jesus cannot cast out the Word. Both are the same. When Moses compiled his books, it was the Word who gave the commands to Moses and that is what Jesus means when He said Moses wrote of Him. Homosexuality and all sin can be forgiven except the sin of blasphemy. It might be profitable to examine this blasphemy that is so predominate on ATS.

a reply to: Barcs

The bold is an absurd generalization. You do realize that moderate Muslims far outnumber the radicals, right? To think all Muslims practice that is beyond silly.

Yes yes yes-- you finally get my point and it took me quite some time to get it from you.
You are one hundred percent correct. You cannot judge all Muslims the same even though they are still in the Islamic mindset.

Now let us all apply that same defense to Christianity. Some what of a greater job because of the many denominations but fair nevertheless. If one expects people to love all people including the head hunters of Islam then is it hypocritical not to love all the Christians including the crusaders? Humm? Or is there some sort of limit on this sort of love fest?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33
You bring up an interesting point, and here is where that starts to fall apart in a legal sense. There are 2 kinds of places in the USA, public accommodation and non accommodation. The number of non accommodation kinds of places are very far and few, and usually restricted to those of a religious houses, like churches, things run by churches, like schools, and the military. That means those considered non accommodation, have the right to refuse service, and are protected by federal law and statute. However, a public accommodation business, really can not use religion to refuse service, under any circumstance. That means if it is say a baker, legally it can not refuse service to say a gay wedding couple. And those that have gotten in trouble, and law suits, there are state laws on the books, that they also violated. So in answer to your question, if you had a bottle of wine, and are refused by a cab, you could thus sue the cab company, and chances are win. The legal precedent for such was set back with the Heart of Atlanta Motel V. United States. And in that case the Justices even stated, that religion is not an excuse to deny services in a business that is considered public accommodation.

a reply to: Seede

Nothing you said has anything to do with homosexuality in the least, nor does it justify the Christian view against homosexuals. In fact, it is a complete cop out. I asked for specific references to homosexuality being condemned in the new testament. There are numerous old testament laws that Jesus went against. In fact, the stoning of folks for adultery is specifically commanded in the old testament, yet Jesus stood up against it.

Not only that, but it is a hypocritical viewpoint because most of the laws of Leviticus are now ignored and treated as outdated by most Christians. Again, I'm trying to find a justification for why so many Christians are against homosexuality, but do not follow the numerous other laws of Moses. You can't say you believe something because it's a law of Moses, but then selectively pick and choose which laws to agree with and which ones to call "outdated". Do you know which law is NOT outdated? Empathy aka the golden rule as taught by Jesus.

You cannot judge all Muslims the same even though they are still in the Islamic mindset.

Agreed, and the same holds true for Christians. Just because they are of Christian mindset doesn't mean they have to discriminate against homosexuals or torture folks for blasphemy anymore. It's the difference between rational folks that follow Jesus' example and the irrational fundamentalists that hypocritically break numerous Leviticus commandments while taking the passages on homosexuality as absolute literal truth.

So, again, I'll ask, are there any new testament passages that condemn homosexuality? Is there any justification whatsoever in following a commandment that is 4000+ years old and is mixed in with some of the most uninformed, ridiculous commandments ever written. (ie mixed fabrics, silly rules on slavery, not eating shellfish, etc). I still maintain that being anti-gay is NOT a Christian viewpoint and is completely unjustified. The problem is that the Christian fundamentalists hypocritically choose to speak out against it, and champion a cause that discriminates against others.