Oh it was just for educational purposes. Walking a mile in a sinner’s shoes if you will. 
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.
I could care less that you’re atheist, but no I don’t doubt that.
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.
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.
But I’m still right and you’re still wrong.
Did you read post #74 in this thread?
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Why should I be persuaded by a mere assertion?
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.