[QUOTE=you with the face]
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
[/quote]
If you think Jesus was so awesome then why don’t you go worship him. Lol
Yeah, because making sure someone has a roof over his head is pretty much the same as making sure he has a wedding cake.
Here’s the thing you’re still missing. Two guys getting married is a sin. If you’re Jesus living in AD 30, that’s a fact. Jesus is not going to help two guys get married anymore than he is going to help Marry the prostitute* score her next trick so she can buy dinner. He may give her dinner (along with a polite lecture about sinning no more), but that’s entirely different
*Not to be confused with Mary Magdalene.
Does the centurion and his pais not come into the argument?
I fail to see how selling them a cake is helping two dudes to get married - presumably they can just as easily get married without it.
Jesus said in no uncertain terms that someone re-marrying after divorce is committing adultery. Why doesn’t anyone raise a stink about selling wedding cakes to them? He never mentioned homosexuality at all, but we all seem to like to put words in his mouth.
Exactly. Not only telling them, but showing them.
If someone is sinning, that’s between them and God. I have plenty or work for myself worrying about my own sins; I’m not going to judge people on what I think their sins are. How do I even know I’m right? Maybe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin - but maybe, just maybe it doesn’t. I’ve been wrong about what it says before. What business have I punishing people for what I think their sins are, or even pointing them out, when I might be wrong? I’m going to sabotage their joy and happiness because of a perceived sin that doesn’t even affect me? For a sin I’m not even tempted by? That doesn’t sound like it puts me on Jesus’ side.
John, what exactly is your position in this discussion? Early on this thread you posted this:
Wow, look at you. Telling Christians what they should believe using scripture as your reference! The arrogance!
How in the hell do you reconcile these positions? One minute you’re calling this Unchristian-like discrimination and the next minute you’re saying Jesus would endorse such discrimination. One minute you’re saying that Jesus taught judgment-free love, and the next minute you’re portraying him as a busybody who actually thinks baking a cake is aiding and betting a sin.
So again, I ask, what is it that you’re arguing in this thread?
Option 1.
I’ve explained this scenario to my, yes my, satisfaction. I shall no longer try to explain it again.
You’re right. I should have posted something like this:
Oh wait, I did.
Well, the thread was originally about what we, if we were devout Christians, would do. I gave my answer. Then you came into this thread and tried to make it about what Jesus would have done in 30 AD. I gave an answer to that. There is no reason to believe that the two answers need to be the same. For example, if I were a devout Christian, I wouldn’t go around trashing the stores of money changers, just because Jesus did it. Things have changes since the time of Jesus, and our views of homosexuality is one of those things.
Jesus spent the bulk of his time telling people to repent and follow him. Do you believe gays should repent? Would Jesus have told them to repent? Should followers of Jesus be telling others to repent?
Do you really think that the wedding cake makers or pizza shop owner would provide food for a party celebrating a liar’s lie, an adulterous relationship, a successful heist, or a blasphemous statement?
Every wedding invite is either the couple’s parents or the couple inviting you to help them celebrate the marriage of the couple. A wedding is a celebration of a relationship, if you go to a wedding you are there to celebrate that relationship. The only way gays are being singled out is that they are the only ones who are throwing parties to celebrate their sin.
I remember Jesus telling the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more.” (This passage, by the way, is not found in the most ancient sources of the Gospel of John, or it is included elsewhere. It is unlikely it originally belonged to the gospel).
That instance aside, I cannot recall a specific instance of Jesus telling someone to repent except the religious leaders of his day. I could be wrong, but I’m certain he did not spend “the bulk of his time” doing any such thing. So my answers to your questions I quoted above are “it doesn’t matter if I believe they should repent,” “I don’t think Jesus would have told them to repent,” and “no, followers of Jesus should not be telling other people to repent.”
The marriage relationship between a gay couple is celebrating much, much more than their sexual coupling. Have you ever been to a straight wedding? Was your understanding that you were there to celebrate that the couple was having sex with each other? You were there to celebrate the love, joy, faithfulness in their relationship, with their community of friends and loved ones. A wedding is not a celebration, or even an affirmation, of how people have sex. (Besides, the caterer is not exactly a guest of honor - he’s paid to be there).
As for me, if I don’t know what I should do as a Christian, my default position is to swallow my pride and self-importance and do what makes me most uncomfortable and what makes other people feel most loved and cared for. If I’m going to make a mistake, I’m more prepared to stand in front of Jesus one day and say “I’m sorry, I was trying to love them as I love myself” instead of “I’m sorry, I knew they were sinners so I wanted to make sure they knew that I disapproved.”
Or that said person wanted to make sure they thought Jesus disapproved. Because that kind of person isn’t just about satisfying their own sense of disapproval. They’re about appropriating God’s judgment as a proxy for their own disapproval.
Good point.
You saved me some keystrokes, thanks.
The Bible doesn’t say anything SSM, because SSM is a modern concept. The Bible does speak about gay sex, but marriage and sex are not synonymous. Priests and nuns become “married” to the church, and yet live celibately. And plenty of heteros live in sexless unions.
There really is no Biblical basis for saying the marriage of two men or two women is sinful.
And if the subject were abortion, would you council others to take the same approach? That is, err on the side that maybe God/Jesus doesn’t want us aborting fetuses? Because, as we all know, the Bible isn’t exactly crystal clear on that issue what with souls being involved and all. Would you feel confident you knew exactly when the soul entered the body (or whatever it does to become part of the person)?
On the contrary, I think same-sex marriage is actually far worse than whatever erotic practices they may be indulging in. The Epistle to the Ephesians is clear than the union of husband and wife is an image and reflection of the union of Christ and the Church. A profoundly asymmetrical union: Christ saves the Church, and not vice versa. But same-sex marriage denies this. If husband and wife and interchangeable, then Christ and the Church are also interchangeable, and we have no salvation.
My main objection to same-sex marriage is not what they do with their genitals, though I do oppose that. No, my main objection is that same-sex marriage is blasphemy.
Wait. In a heterosexual marriage, which partner is Christ and which is The Church?
When it comes to abortion, I err on the side of providing dignity and respect to the woman who made a moral choice I will never have to make - just as gay people face decisions that I will never have to. I’m not comfortable telling them they are wrong, even if I think I would have made a different moral choice in their position.
I do happen to believe that every abortion is a tragedy, and if a woman in my life wanted to know why I believed that, I would tell her. But I certainly would not reject or turn her away if she chose to have one. And if she needed money or a ride to the clinic, I would help her if I could.
Jesus told everyone to repent. That’s what we’re all supposed to do to prepare for the Kingdom. So yeah he would have told gays that, but then he would have also issued the same command to the people making a fussing about giving gay people some cake.
Sure, because I have no reason to think these businesses wouldn’t cater someone’s second or third marriage. This kind of adultery is so commonplace no blinks an eye at it, but it’s a sin according to the Bible. I also have no reason to think these businesses make a point of investigating whether their products and services go towards the support of lies, heists, and blasphemous statements. That’s too much to expect a mom-and-pop to do.
If not endorsing the sinful practices of others was a true concern, I would expect these businesses to require every prospective client to fill out a personal survey and then recite a morality oath before agreeing to provide service. But we all know they don’t do that.
If someone wants a cake for their 16 year-old pregnant daughter’s baby shower, do you think it would Christ-like for the baker to deny them service because “by selling them a cake, I’m endorsing the abomination that is fornication!” Because this to me is no different than a baker turning away a gay couple.
This is an interesting theological argument from a Christian perspective. As a matter of civil policy it is weightless; but in terms of how Christians understand marriage (and the relationship of Christ to the Church) it’s a discussion I can get behind.
However, my perspective on it is this: the husband:wife as Christ:church is analogy, not a literal ontological truth. Saying that SSM upends the Christ-church relationship is taking the analogy too far. The sacrificial love that SSM partners have (or should have) for one another can be just as accurate a model as a straight marriage.
Well Christ is the one who gets nailed obviously.
No, your initial answer was that Christians should object to the law because it promotes discrimination. That wasn’t what Jesus stood for, is what you wrote as plain as the eye can see.
Then somewhere in the middle, your position became that Jesus had a problem with gays and would not have supported wedding cakes for them. Discrimination somehow becomes okay when it’s cake involved, or something.
What Jesus would have done in 30 AD. has direct relevance to how Christians should conduct themselves in 2015 AD. To act like these are wildly different things is crazy. WWJD is a thing.
So are flip flops.