Baker Forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

a reply to: Deaf Alien

As expected, the Huffington Post article is pure garbage. That last link you provided though (Would Jesus Discriminate), is rather compelling from what I've read so far. I particularly like their take on Ruth and Naomi, but I would stop short of saying that the story is in any way indicative of homosexuality NOT being a sin. I'll keep reading though. Who knows maybe I'll find something in there that'll change my mind.

If anything it totally reinforces what I've been saying all along, which is that the Christian opposition to gay marriage does not translate to hate for homosexuals.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I never knew that the traditional wedding vows were taken from Ruth or that they were spoken to another woman. That link is great, thank-you.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Wow, I feel dumber having read that. Seriously, just more perverts doing what perverts do, perverting. The author insinuates that the same word being used twice absolutely has to have the same meaning. That's bull. It's like when a black person calls another black person a 'n-word' and then a white person calls a black person a 'n-word'. Two completely different contexts, one word, two completely different meanings. Again you people need to examine the contexts of the stories. But then by doing that your case would weaken significantly and you would no longer be able to pervert the Bible.
Love takes many different forms and lust is not one of them. I am a man and have several close male friends and I tell them I Love them all of the time. I would give them the shirt off of my back but I am not gay. I do not lust for them.
Yall are seriously missing the boat. There is no context nor remote possibility that the two women had any type of lesbian relationship or similar feelings for one another. The text does not suggest it nor imply it. Bishop Jakes created that supposition out of thin air. It was an outrage then and it is a fresh outrage now. Perhaps if Bishop Jakes had been publicly challenged on this type of thinking who knows whether he would have aired numerous other false or questionable teachings about homosexuality. People don’t know how to explain what Ruth said to Naomi? I do … it was an expression of loyalty, of devotion, and of love. There are people who realize that love and sex aren’t the same thing. Borders on lesbianism? I wonder if Jakes noticed that Ruth was talking to her mother-in-law, and ended the book being married to Boaz, a guy.

originally posted by: Annee


And once those who suffered seizures were shunned and cast out as being possessed by the devil. Until ignorance was replaced by factual knowledge.

Yeah but using seizures to justify a homosexual issue is silly. They are completely different things.

As now, we have knowledge that sexual orientation is inherent to the individual.

If this is the case then how can a homosexual call themselves a Christian knowing that it is against religion?

It is no more a sin then seizures are a sin.

Again, two different issues with no relationship what so ever.

Many Christians understand what was not understood in ancient times, can and should not be held to taboos -- after knowledge brings ignorance into modern times.

Christians shouldn't be forced to acknowledge something that is against their values and morals either.

Real Christians understand "walking in his footsteps" does not mean holding onto ignorance.

Are you saying that as a Christian or someone who thinks they understand what Christians want?

I see more selective debating coming from the right wing Christians than anyone else. As soon as someone has posted something they can't refute, just ignore them and they will go away is the policy.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

Not true, I played Gryph's "What If" game and had the best "What If". I plan on going nowhere.

a reply to: Christian Voice

You never answered this question from this post to you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But the passage you quoted you implied that the verse was saying that "takes hold of and sleeps with her" and "defile's" her, which in your sanitised version means just sleeps with her while not married.
Not defile in it's literal sense which from the dictionary defile means "rape or sexually assault (a woman)." Which is what defile meant in babylonian times, so more than likely means the same thing seeing as the region is so close.

But I decided to check out the definitions of the key words you used in your translation of that text.
Taphas
to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield (Qal) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)
Lexicons - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version - Taphas

Anah - Definition
(Qal) to be occupied, be busied with
to afflict, oppress, humble, be afflicted, be bowed down
(Qal)
to be put down, become low
to be depressed, be downcast
to be afflicted
to stoop
(Niphal)
to humble oneself, bow down
to be afflicted, be humbled
(Piel)
to humble, mishandle, afflict
to humble, be humiliated
to afflict
to humble, weaken oneself
(Pual)
to be afflicted
to be humbled
(Hiphil) to afflict
(Hithpael)
to humble oneself
to be afflicted

Shakab
to lie down (Qal) to lie, lie down, lie on to lodge to lie (of sexual relations) to lie down (in death) to rest, relax (fig) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually) (Hiphil) to make to lie down (Hophal) to be laid
Lexicons - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American Standard - Shakab

So using the common translation of Anah the most common word is Afflict. Then we have Taphas which the common word there is sieze. Then finally Shakab which unless someone died then the common translation would be to lie down (Sexually).
So we have a woman that is seized, made to lie down sexually and then be afflicted on. It sure sounds like rape to me.

So my point still stands do you think rapists should have to marry their victims?
Because an interpretation of a verse in the bible sure makes it sound so

a reply to: mclarenmp4

It never insinuates raping anyone nor does it insinuate that raping is fine. More perverting of scriptures to try and suit a perverted agenda. Again, look at the contexts of the words and the story before you summize such things.

originally posted by: Christian Voice
a reply to: mclarenmp4

It never insinuates raping anyone nor does it insinuate that raping is fine. More perverting of scriptures to try and suit a perverted agenda. Again, look at the contexts of the words and the story before you summize such things.

It's funny because only a few verses prior Deuteronomy actually states that death should be the penalty for the person committing rape. Different scenarios are being used as examples and therefore choosing one verse or example is ridiculous.

a reply to: Christian Voice

That's it, that's your reply.
Why don't you enlighten me and show me the full Hebrew text for Deuteronomy 22:28-29 so we can decipher it together as a means of enlightening each other. Because the English version seems to think it's rape, the few words you gave me from the hebrew passage indicate it's not a willing partship a.k.a rape.
The sanitised version you posted doesn't even make sense and is taking a hell of a lot of assumptions yet you are not willing to discuss it because I am perverting the words.
Words and phrase and parables are all open to interpretation that's why stories are an art for they are all subjective including your most beloved bible.
I thank God that in my country we don't have so many religious zealots that preach hate.

a reply to: DarknStormy

Probably because during that time they had to have these moral judgments which are no more godly than our own system of law. It's a book from 2000 years ago, it's moral guidance is good up to a point until it starts going all dark ages and breeds hate. As soon as that starts happening it's game over for me, I enjoy the teachings of christ I'm sure it was a great comic book back in the day.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

That doesn't matter, you are targeting 2 verses yet have missed significant information prior to those verses which clearly states that rape is not promoted and the offender should be put to death for what he has done.

Oh yeah our system is perfect.. Rapists in my country get a 4 year prison sentence only to be released and go off and destroy someone else's life. I have no issue with giving people like that the death penalty, what about you?

a reply to: DarknStormy

Quite easily because that's exactly what the baker did, lol. He doesn't even know which part of the bible says that marriage is a union only between a man and a woman.
You can read my posts from page 40 onwards as I'm not going to repeat what I have already discussed.

oops dup

a reply to: DarknStormy

Same way he tried to say Ruth and Naomi were lesbians because of one word. He never bothered to point out that Naomi was Ruth's Mother in Law or that Ruth Married Boaz toward the end of the book. Picking and choosing to suit his agenda.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

How do you know the baker does not know his Bible ?

I'm out peeps. It was great to have the chance once again to debate with you guys. Hopefully no offense was taken, none was intended. Good Night all and God Bless.

a reply to: Christian Voice

Because he refused to serve them because they were getting married. And as we know Marriage in the bible takes many forms As I've mentioned over and over. Like the Ezra passage which says that marriage is only between 2 israelites.
So does he refuse wedding cakes to all non jewish customers, you can't cherry pick one part of the bible and ignore the rest can you?

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: Christian Voice

So does he refuse wedding cakes to all non jewish customers, you can't cherry pick one part of the bible and ignore the rest can you?

Apparently so. Don't worry we've been doing it for thousands of years

a reply to: mclarenmp4

More reaching, misinterpretation and perverting of the Bible to try and further an agenda.