Hold on a minute - Were conservatives right, about gay rights?

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

We're talking about the deliberate targeting of a business, over something like a wedding cake.

Everyone should be able to buy a wedding cake, even people who are not being married.

I could be making a fictional "home movie" and just want a wedding cake for that part of my "script".

It gets a little different, however, when you're asking someone to create a wedding cake for you.

That is, this is not a general wedding cake that anybody can walk into a store and buy, it's a "custom cake."

In that case, part of the "custom product" involves the artist "stamp of approval".

You can go to many architects and request them to design your building, and the architect has the right to refuse. He can say "I don't design that type of building", or "I don't do work in that area". He's entitled to that refusal, because this is the work of "art" that carries his "name," and it becomes part of his identity, part of his "legacy", even though you own it after.

So, the wedding cake issue, is more complicated than it is usually presented by the media. Are you trying to buy a wedding cake from a "special artist", because you "admire his work"? Then he has the right to refuse that "commission", if it conflicts with is "artistic genre."

But, if you just need a wedding cake, that anybody can make, then just buy one from anybody who isn't a specialty "artist" with a preferred working domain.

Exactly. Something like a cake for a wedding is an artistic thing, and as such, personal not just for those being wed, but for the creator. Anyone doing such work has a right to not do one, if they don't want to, even if they do them in other instances.

I actually made the wedding cake for my eldest, and that was something special for the both of us. Not something I'd do for just anyone, and certainly not if I didn't approve for whatever reason, of the wedding in question.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
We're talking about the deliberate targeting of a business, over something like a wedding cake.

You said it was not something we would see from christians if they were not testing to see if they would get equal treatment.

Any example to the contrary would apply to proving that statement false, not just cakes.

So far, the only example I have seen is in the for of a test, however.

originally posted by: Barcs
Who cares what aspects of humans the laws are related to? They are commandments of god, given to his "chosen" people to be a template for society. So basically you are telling me that Leviticus is NOT the word of god, or that some of it doesn't matter because it's not behavioral?? I'm really confused, is it word of god or not?

God's "chosen people" would be the nation of Israel. Ceremonial laws and food laws were given to them. Moral laws, on the other hand, are repeated in the NT, as important for believers to follow as well. We are also told that all believers to NOT have to obey various laws, for food, for circumcision, etc.

Matthew 19:4-6 - "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

That is REALLY stretching.

Not at all. A clear reference is made regarding what God intends for marriage.

Romans 1:26-27 - "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Ok, you were right about this, although that was a letter from Paul to the Romans, it's wasn't actually Jesus or god stating that.

The entire book is the Word of God, though, for those who believe. Different people wrote the different books, but all inspired by, and approved by God. Now, some don't believe this, but for those who do, it's clear.

The important thing to remember is that such sins can still be forgiven. Only blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I posted others. You said it was only about bakers. Which is it?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
God's "chosen people" would be the nation of Israel. Ceremonial laws and food laws were given to them. Moral laws, on the other hand, are repeated in the NT, as important for believers to follow as well. We are also told that all believers to NOT have to obey various laws, for food, for circumcision, etc.

I would argue that it's not the nation of Israel, it's the Hebrew people. They weren't originally from Israel based on the bible. Anyways, are you able to give me an example from the bible of where people are told that believers do not have to obey certain laws related to food or ceremony? I've never heard of such a thing. Every NT passage I've read about that topic suggests that the OT should be followed to the letter. To me, that doesn't mean that behavioral commandments are more important than food commandments. That suggests they are ALL important. Hopefully you have some scriptures that clear this up. Because it's very confusing.

The entire book is the Word of God, though, for those who believe. Different people wrote the different books, but all inspired by, and approved by God. Now, some don't believe this, but for those who do, it's clear.

If that's the case, then why are certain commandments optional? I'd like to know more about this. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just very confused about why certain things are considered important while others are not. For example the slavery laws are very much about behavior but are ignored today by most believers.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
God's "chosen people" would be the nation of Israel. Ceremonial laws and food laws were given to them. Moral laws, on the other hand, are repeated in the NT, as important for believers to follow as well. We are also told that all believers to NOT have to obey various laws, for food, for circumcision, etc.

I would argue that it's not the nation of Israel, it's the Hebrew people. They weren't originally from Israel based on the bible. Anyways, are you able to give me an example from the bible of where people are told that believers do not have to obey certain laws related to food or ceremony? I've never heard of such a thing. Every NT passage I've read about that topic suggests that the OT should be followed to the letter. To me, that doesn't mean that behavioral commandments are more important than food commandments. That suggests they are ALL important. Hopefully you have some scriptures that clear this up. Because it's very confusing.

Colossians 2

That's one passage which discusses such matters.

Verse 16 states, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"

Plus, you have to be careful not to confuse laws with commandments. The commandments were written on stone, by God, and laws were given later.

The entire book is the Word of God, though, for those who believe. Different people wrote the different books, but all inspired by, and approved by God. Now, some don't believe this, but for those who do, it's clear.

If that's the case, then why are certain commandments optional? I'd like to know more about this. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just very confused about why certain things are considered important while others are not. For example the slavery laws are very much about behavior but are ignored today by most believers.

Again, commandments are not the same as other laws.

The slavery laws are a touchy issue, and not always understood. In those days, someone would willingly become a "slave", an indentured servant, choosing to work for the person, for benefits, and this wasn't the same sort of situation as those forced into slavery. Those laws were to state how to treat these people, and how they should behave toward those for whom they worked.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Colossians 2

That's one passage which discusses such matters.

Verse 16 states, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"

That doesn't say what you think it does. He is talking about man judging somebody, not god. That doesn't say it's okay to neglect the old testament laws. That is a HUGE stretch to claim it means it's okay to disregard food laws from the old testament.

Plus, you have to be careful not to confuse laws with commandments. The commandments were written on stone, by God, and laws were given later.

That is simply not true. The TEN commandments are the ones written in stone, and that doesn't make the other ones less important. Commandment simply means divine law, which fits the bill here, since you believe it is word of god.

The slavery laws are a touchy issue, and not always understood. In those days, someone would willingly become a "slave", an indentured servant, choosing to work for the person, for benefits, and this wasn't the same sort of situation as those forced into slavery. Those laws were to state how to treat these people, and how they should behave toward those for whom they worked.

Completely wrong. Slavery IS NOT the same thing as indentured servitude. There are laws about servitude, but there are also laws about SLAVES. To claim they are the same is disingenuous. It specifically says to purchase slaves from surrounding African nations. It says that Hebrews cannot be slaves, only indentured servants. It makes a CLEAR DISTINCTION between the 2 things, and both were allowed and encouraged.

a reply to: Barcs

I'm pretty sure all laws in the bible, including the commandments, where specifically for the isrealites.

Somewhere along the line the commandments were split from the others and said to apply to everyone but I don't recall any part of the OT where moses tells anyone else that they apply to them.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Colossians 2

That's one passage which discusses such matters.

Verse 16 states, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"

That doesn't say what you think it does. He is talking about man judging somebody, not god. That doesn't say it's okay to neglect the old testament laws. That is a HUGE stretch to claim it means it's okay to disregard food laws from the old testament.

That's your opinion. I disagree. The passage states what it states. Food laws were for a certain people, not for all believers. There are other passages about holy days, circumcision, and so forth, as well, that make it clear those are not to be pushed onto all believers.

Plus, you have to be careful not to confuse laws with commandments. The commandments were written on stone, by God, and laws were given later.

That is simply not true. The TEN commandments are the ones written in stone, and that doesn't make the other ones less important. Commandment simply means divine law, which fits the bill here, since you believe it is word of god.

That's what I stated. The commandments are what God wrote, and the laws are different. Not all laws are commandments. Not all laws applied to all people. Again, some were for that chosen nation.

The slavery laws are a touchy issue, and not always understood. In those days, someone would willingly become a "slave", an indentured servant, choosing to work for the person, for benefits, and this wasn't the same sort of situation as those forced into slavery. Those laws were to state how to treat these people, and how they should behave toward those for whom they worked.

Completely wrong. Slavery IS NOT the same thing as indentured servitude. There are laws about servitude, but there are also laws about SLAVES. To claim they are the same is disingenuous. It specifically says to purchase slaves from surrounding African nations. It says that Hebrews cannot be slaves, only indentured servants. It makes a CLEAR DISTINCTION between the 2 things, and both were allowed and encouraged.

Do the history research. Not debating this further.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Barcs

I'm pretty sure all laws in the bible, including the commandments, where specifically for the isrealites.

Somewhere along the line the commandments were split from the others and said to apply to everyone but I don't recall any part of the OT where moses tells anyone else that they apply to them.

I see what you are saying, but the "Israelites" are what became the Jewish (Hebrew) people, that eventually became widespread and became Christians. They are essentially the same people, and that is the foundation of both faiths. Also they weren't yet Israelites at the time Moses gave them the ten commandments. That was during the whole 40 years in the desert fiasco before they even got to Israel. Why would god give laws that only apply to Israelites specifically, and not their future ancestors and other believers? Why wouldn't he want everyone following the laws?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
That's your opinion. I disagree. The passage states what it states. Food laws were for a certain people, not for all believers. There are other passages about holy days, circumcision, and so forth, as well, that make it clear those are not to be pushed onto all believers.

For example?

That's what I stated. The commandments are what God wrote, and the laws are different. Not all laws are commandments. Not all laws applied to all people. Again, some were for that chosen nation.

Again, that "chosen nation" is what became the Jewish people and eventually the Christian people. Just because the belief became widespread doesn't mean it only applies to the original people. And again, you believe the texts are word of god, so by definition the laws ARE commandments.

Do the history research. Not debating this further.

Typical creationist response. You shouldn't debate this because you will lose. The bible made a CLEAR distinction between slavery and indentured servitude. Claiming they are the same is flat out BS. And to quote you, "the passage states what the passage states". The bible clearly states to purchase your SLAVES from the surrounding african nations and that hebrews cannot be SLAVES. Why would it say that if a few passages later it says that Hebrews can be slaves as long as it is to pay a debt? Sorry, but there's a huge difference between those 2 concepts. YOU need to do the research on this. Denial isn't an argument. Slavery was the norm back then and people used the bible to justify that for thousands of years afterwards.

a reply to: Barcs

I was referring to the rest of us goyem.

Why would god give laws that only apply to Israelites specifically, and not their future ancestors and other believers? Why wouldn't he want everyone following the laws?

The real question is, did Moses make up a story about god and commandments that he really only intended for "his people" because they were the only ones he was interested in controlling?

Seems likely when we see that pockets of people did the same around the world.

a reply to: Barcs

Same old denials. Since you clearly don't really want knowledge, and just want to claim whatever someone else says is wrong I'll leave you to it.

Here's a story,

About a world where people who run shat, simply create " distractions " in the form of clownlike presidents, insane issues that aren't even issues, thought we lived in the free country, I mean, freedom to worship satan out in the open but trying to tell me it's an issue to like the same sex? Guess what, it's not an issue, but it is a GREAT DISTRACTION!

Smoke and mirrors is the name of the game, people are free to do what they want, until they listen to other's opinions, then they suddenly can't, when they can.

It's not the everyday people that cause it to be an issue, it's the media and governments, of which are controlled by whom again?

Stop looking at where the shots are fired at or what windows the rocks being thrown, but at the people firing the shots and throwing the rocks, they are the folks trying to distract you from the real issues.

Pretty sure you are typing right now without others staring at you, you are free to be who you are.

It's only when you give a damn about what others think that you are limited, screw it, be who you are and pay attention to the real issues.

a reply to: Barcs

Try Matthew 15

15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”
10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides.[d] If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”

16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”[/quote

edit on 28-7-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

a reply to: ketsuko

Matthew's got a big mouth.

I mean, being 15 an all, he should be studying for school, not telling others how to think, eat, poop and be, I mean, what kinda parents did he have.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Barcs

Same old denials. Since you clearly don't really want knowledge, and just want to claim whatever someone else says is wrong I'll leave you to it.

What denial? I clearly posted evidence of the bible supporting slavery and you denied it and dismissed it falsely. Indentured servitude and slavery are 100% not the same concept in the bible. It's not my fault you don't read the old testament outside of genesis. If you are giving up, just say you are giving up instead of ignoring everything posted and not even giving a response to it as if I'm automatically wrong because you can't come to grips with that cold hard reality about the roots of your religion.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thanks, I was unaware of that passage there. No wonder disease was so widespread back then. Jesus actually said to not worry about washing your hands before eating even though it could kill you.

Now I'm curious where the old testament actually commanded people to wash their hands before eating. I've read the passages about purifying your hands before using the alter, but nothing about washing before eating. It seems like that only applied for "sacred" food, but I could be wrong.