# If I were a devout Christian, I'd be against the Indiana Law for this reason **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 4, 2015, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810 "2015-04-04T16:25:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/121 "2015-04-07T14:56:11Z")
Oh it was just for educational purposes. Walking a mile in a sinner’s shoes if you will. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/122 "2015-04-07T14:56:21Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Why do you think #2? Can you point to a single instance in scripture where Jesus tells people that sin is unimportant? Whenever Jesus encountered a sinner he would tell them to repent. Jesus spent the bulk of his limited time advising people not to concern themselves with condemning, shaming, or ostracizing their fellow man. Judgment was God’s business, not the people’s. He was constantly telling people to take the most difficult action towards those they were inclined to hate or ignore: to be kind and forgiving and generous. Of course he told sinners to repent. Sin is ubiquitous and inherent to all men; and thus, everyone is expected to repent. The central tenant to Christianity is that we _all_ inherit the sin of Eve and Adam. So with that, none of us are in the position to judge another as more ungodly than another. We are all destined for hell without salvation. I believe that Jesus’ position on the cake issue would be simple enough a baby could understand it. “If wedding cakes were only fit for those who are free from sin, then no one would have cake. Why do you single out the gays, while indulging liars, adulterers, thieves, and blasphemers? If your eyes lack the discernment to see the latter when they are in your midst, then you should assume they are everywhere. Act according to your professed principles then, and go bankrupt, for there are none among you who is saintly.” And yeah I’m just putting words in his mouth. At least I’m being honest about it. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/123 "2015-04-07T14:58:52Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I was a little drunk when I wrote that. You’ll have to trust me when I say my head was not exploding. To be honest I didn’t even noticed you suggested Jesus might be gay but that would still only get an eye roll from me, no exploding head. Do you doubt I’m an atheist? I could care less that you’re atheist, but no I don’t doubt that. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/124 "2015-04-07T15:01:09Z")
He most certainly did not spend the “bulk” of his time telling people not to condemn others. It’s just what you want to focus on. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/125 "2015-04-07T15:12:28Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > He most certainly did not spend the “bulk” of his time telling people not to condemn others. It’s just what you want to focus on. Where’s your evidence? I can rattle off plenty of passages to support my stance. Where is one instance in which Jesus encouraged the public to condemn, shame, and penalize others for the offense of being a sinner? Where is one passage wherein he commands us to concern ourselves with the sin in others rather than the sin in ourselves? Jesus taking people to task (as with the gamblers in the temple) is different than him advising others to do such. Seeing how he is God and all, he was allowed to be judgmental in a way us mere mortals are not. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/126 "2015-04-07T15:15:50Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Where’s your evidence? I can rattle off plenty of passages to support my stance. Where is one instance in which Jesus encouraged the public to condemn, shame, and penalize others for the offense of being a sinner? Where is one passage wherein he commands us to concern ourselves with the sin in others rather than the sin in ourselves? > > Jesus taking people to task (as with the gamblers in the temple) is different than him advising others to do such. Seeing how he is God and all, he was allowed to be judgmental in a way us mere mortals are not. Just quit being ridiculous. Not condemning others was something that he preached so no shit you can rattle off some examples, but you know perfectly well it wasn’t the bulk of his preaching. It got like 5 lines near the end of his sermon on the mount. It didn’t even make it into the intro "blessed be"s. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/127 "2015-04-07T15:20:26Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Just quit being ridiculous. Not condemning others was something that he preached so no shit you can rattle off some examples, but you know perfectly well it wasn’t the bulk of his preaching. It got like 5 lines near the end of his sermon on the mount. It didn’t even make it into the intro "blessed be"s. Are you still drunk? I think you’re still drunk. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/128 "2015-04-07T15:21:24Z")
But I’m still right and you’re still wrong. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/129 "2015-04-07T15:28:13Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Where’s your evidence? I can rattle off plenty of passages to support my stance. Where is one instance in which Jesus encouraged the public to condemn, shame, and penalize others for the offense of being a sinner? Where is one passage wherein he commands us to concern ourselves with the sin in others rather than the sin in ourselves? Did you read post #74 in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/130 "2015-04-07T15:36:17Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. I cannot think of any example in scripture of Jesus telling anyone who came to him to go somewhere else\*. Whether he would have approved of same sex marriage or not is a matter for speculation, but I do know he would have found a way to draw them in, not shut them out. > > \*(The closest I can think of is the Syrophoenician woman, whom Jesus at first turned away because she was not a child of Israel. But, he did not turn her away because of any wrong doing and he changed his mind when she pleaded that “even dogs under the table may eat the scraps dropped by children.” But that’s not really a good analogy because his initial refusal had nothing to do with her righteousness). > [@adaher](#): > > I agree. Jesus’ approach was to welcome sinners while getting them to change. Being that this was Jesus, he probably would have gotten the guy to become celibate. While they shared a cake. Well, fuck me, you’ve said it better than I had. The result is still no cake for the wedding and lots of love for the couple. [QUOTE] > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > And you know this…how? Homosexuality wasn’t exactly unheard of in those days, as evident in the OT. Certainly if it was familiar enough for men to write about, it was familiar enough to be recognized. > > You also are assuming that the Jesus and Friends in my scenario couldn’t be engaged in affection that could ping someone’s gaydar. Imagine them kissing each other, holding hands, and expressing love for each other passionately. > > But does this even matter, though? > > And you’re fighting the hypothetical. The inn-keeper thinks they are gay. That’s all that you need to worry about. If a Jewish innkeeper in AD30 in Roman Palestine thought that they were 13 gay guys knocking on the door asking for a room (more than likely a common room with other people there), he’d get all the people in town to beat them up, à la 13 black guys in 1950’s Alabama coming to an all white town asking for a room in the only hotel in town. They’d be lucky to escape unharmed. There’s your hypothetical. However, the idea that 13 Jewish gay men would walk around rural roads then and there and kissing and touching without getting beat up constantly is ludicrous. > [@](#): > > Can you provide doctrinal support for this belief? Since Jesus was a carpenter, I’m trying to imagine him withholding service from a man whose house was falling apart because he was gay. I find that harder to believe than I do his divinity. It’s simply not consistent with his message of love and refraining from judgement. If a gay couple’s house was falling apart and He could help, he would. He wouldn’t condone their actions and would certainly talk them out of living together. Jesus helped sinners (we’re all sinners), He didn’t help them sin. Jesus thought (thinks) that homosexual sex is wrong. He wouldn’t build the gazebo for their wedding. I have no desire of turning this thread into yet another “is homosexuality a sin in the Bible” thread. I won’t explain why I think it is because you can easily find it. The OP is about thinking that gay sex is wrong and still baking the cake. Those are the premises. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/131 "2015-04-07T15:42:30Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > (snipped) > “If wedding cakes were only fit for those who are free from sin, then no one would have cake. Why do you single out the gays, while indulging liars, adulterers, thieves, and blasphemers? If your eyes lack the discernment to see the latter when they are in your midst, then you should assume they are everywhere. Act according to your professed principles then, and go bankrupt, for there are none among you who is saintly.” > > And yeah I’m just putting words in his mouth. At least I’m being honest about it. It’s not that wedding cakes are only for sinless people. It’s that a wedding cake specifically aids, and appears to condone, in the sin of homosexual intercourse. Giving them a hot meal of changing their tires doesn’t. Giving a liar an alibi for their lie would be specific for that sin. Hailing a taxi for them isn’t. Giving an adulterer a flu shot is helping in the sin. Giving them a room with a false name, does. It’s very simple to get the difference between helping a sinner and helping a sinner sin. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/132 "2015-04-07T15:43:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Did you read post #74 in this thread? You mean this? > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Matthew > > If your brother sins **against you** , go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. This passage is about when someone personally _screws you over_. Not for merely committing a sin that is zero consequence to anyone else. But notice too that even with this, there is nothing in here that suggests vengeance or punishment. He’s not telling us it is our _duty_ to hold our brother in account, either. He simply laying out a procedure for righting a wrong in a peaceful way. Also please observe the passage that follows from this one: > [@Matthew 18:21-22](#): > > Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often ywill my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? zAs many as seven times?” 22 **Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times**. So your cite is a fail. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/133 "2015-04-07T15:48:42Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Where is one instance in which Jesus encouraged the public to condemn, shame, and penalize others for the offense of being a sinner? [Matthew 18:17.](http://https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:17&version=RSV) ETA: Didn’t see the handwaving - try 1 Cor 5:2. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/134 "2015-04-07T15:50:53Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Do you not understand the difference between a philosophical argument and a legal one? Based on the examples adduced in this thread, my guess would be that a philosophical argument requires no standard of proof or citation to evidence in support of any inferences offered therein. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/135 "2015-04-07T15:53:44Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > You mean this? > > This passage is about when someone personally _screws you over_. Not for merely committing a sin that is zero consequence to anyone else. > > But notice too that even with this, there is nothing in here that suggests vengeance or punishment. He’s not telling us it is our _duty_ to hold our brother in account, either. He simply laying out a procedure for righting a wrong in a peaceful way. Also please observe the passage that follows from this one: > > So your cite is a fail. Well, if you’re going to move the goalpost, there is no point in playing the game. You asked for, and I quote: "Where is one instance in which Jesus encouraged the public to condemn, shame, and penalize others for the offense of being a sinner? Where is one passage wherein he commands us to concern ourselves with the sin in others rather than the sin in ourselves? " I gave you a cite that fulfills every word in that quote. Now, if you’d like to retract your claim and rephrase it, go ahead and do so. But don’t tell me that my cite fails. It doesn’t. And the other thing you’re missing is that we’re not talking about forgiving a sin. We’re talking about participating in a sin, or at the very least, sanctioning a sin that is yet to be committed. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/136 "2015-04-07T15:53:57Z")
Interesting watching Christians trying to stand firm on their right to look down their noses at people who sin differently than them. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/137 "2015-04-07T16:04:37Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Interesting watching Christians trying to stand firm on their right to look down their noses at people who sin differently than them. That’s not what’s happening here. No one is talking about a right to look down their noses. The OP and her sis are trying to prove the Bible says don’t look down your nose. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/138 "2015-04-07T16:11:41Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Interesting watching Christians trying to stand firm on their right to look down their noses at people who sin differently than them. > [@CarnalK](#): > > That’s not what’s happening here. No one is talking about a right to look down their noses. The OP and her sis are trying to prove the Bible says don’t look down your nose. Indeed. This thread was started by a non-Christian\*, telling Christians what they ought to believe, by quoting scripture. That is a losing strategy as scripture is full of contradictions and can be used to prove almost anything. And this is one of those cases. \*Maybe “former Christian” is more accurate. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/139 "2015-04-07T16:15:19Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If a Jewish innkeeper in AD30 in Roman Palestine thought that they were 13 gay guys knocking on the door asking for a room (more than likely a common room with other people there), he’d get all the people in town to beat them up… You’re still fighting the hypothetical! Unbelievable. To this, all I have to say is pretend the in-keeper was of the non-violent homophobic persuasion, and was content with just dismissing them rather than killing them. Are you _still_ going to refuse to entertain the scenario? I mean, on a certain level, what you’re saying actually fits what was purported to have happened to him, which is ironic. He was persecuted and killed because of what he represented. > [@](#): > > If a gay couple’s house was falling apart and He could help, he would. He wouldn’t condone their actions and would certainly talk them out of living together. Jesus helped sinners (we’re all sinners), He didn’t help them sin. Jesus thought (thinks) that homosexual sex is wrong. He wouldn’t build the gazebo for their wedding. If the gay man was living with his partner and their house was in disrepair, one could argue that any aid given to fixing their home is tantamount to condoning their union. The difference between you and me is that apparently you can imagine Jesus grasping at these kind of straws to justify turning his back on two men in need of his help, and I can’t. The NT doesn’t show him to be this petty and exacting. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/140 "2015-04-07T16:29:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I gave you a cite that fulfills every word in that quote. No it doesn’t fulfill it. That passage does not exhort us to “condemn, shame, and penalize”, nor does it command us to concern ourselves with others’ sin. It’s advice for how one person should handle things when they’ve been _wronged_ by another man. Does “sin against” not mean anything to you? Why act as though that is a trifling nothing? Insisting that this fits the bill is absurd, and I suspect you see that which is why you’re not even bothering to defend it rationally. > [@](#): > > Now, if you’d like to retract your claim and rephrase it, go ahead and do so. But don’t tell me that my cite fails. It doesn’t. Why should I be persuaded by a mere assertion? > [@](#): > > And the other thing you’re missing is that we’re not talking about forgiving a sin. We’re talking about participating in a sin, or at the very least, sanctioning a sin that is yet to be committed. What constitutes participation and sanctioning is purely subjective. Why is baking a wedding cake for a gay couple any more participating/sanctioning than feeding a gay couple at a restaurant or renting out a hotel room to a gay couple? Or giving a mortgage to a gay couple? It’s perfectly valid to point out the slippery slope here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810.md?page=8)