TOTALLY GEEKED!

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

Nobody said anybody should be shunned or discriminated against. We should love everybody. You simply seem to think that love means you have to participate in and condone sin. You do not. And if you try to say it's not a sin, you are ignoring parts of the Bible. - Lawyerlady

_______________________________

They haven't? You must have missed all the agreement here with the bakery denying a wedding cake and the pizzeria saying they wouldn't cater a gay wedding. To me that's discriminating and shunning.

Who asked anyone to participate in or condone sin? Providing a baked good for a public party where no sex, gay or otherwise, will be occurring is not participating in or condoning sin.

We agree that the Bible says male on male sex is a sin. I suppose that's something.

---

 And that is where the problem lies.  As so many others have said you cannot selectively pick and choose the parts of the Bible you like and don't like.  And there were man times in the Bible Jesus shunned sinners.  I don't know all the verses but Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind.

And that is where the problem lies. As so many others have said you cannot selectively pick and choose the parts of the Bible you like and don't like. And there were man times in the Bible Jesus shunned sinners. I don't know all the verses but Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind.
- Nobody Just Nobody

_________________________

I actually agree with you that it's wrong to pick and choose out of the Bible. Those that want to shun and discriminate should stop doing it.

Obtuse - Nobody Just Nobody

____________________________

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya (from "The Princess Bride")

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

And that is where the problem lies. As so many others have said you cannot selectively pick and choose the parts of the Bible you like and don't like. And there were man times in the Bible Jesus shunned sinners. I don't know all the verses but Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind.
- Nobody Just Nobody

_________________________

I actually agree with you that it's wrong to pick and choose out of the Bible. Those that want to shun and discriminate should stop doing it.

---

 This makes you sound like you've never even read the Bible.

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

You obviously haven't read the Bible very carefully if you believe that is the only message Jesus had. So we should give love, acceptance, and tolerance to every one? I myself know quite a few people that will never get any of those three things from me. Think about this statement and then read the Bible again with your agenda left out of it. If you willing participate in sin you are going against the parts of the Bible you conveniently leave out. - Tinydancer

________________________

I've read it quite carefully, and quite often. Thank you very much.

Jesus had many messages. None of them that I recall were about shunning or intolerance though. Would you care to reference one that was?

---

 Romans 12:2Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

1 Peter 2:9But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

John 17:15-18I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.

Romans 12:1-2I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

You just don't seem to understand what "shunning" means. Nobody is being shunned. They are told they will not serve a cake in celebration of their lifelong commitment to sin.

Who cares what they are asking for? The baker doesn't want to bake it. Find someone else.

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

You just don't seem to understand what "shunning" means. Nobody is being shunned. They are told they will not serve a cake in celebration of their lifelong commitment to sin. - Lawyerlady

_________________________

Are they being served? If yes, then they are not being shunned. If no, then they are being shunned.

They aren't asking for a cake in celebration of their lifelong commitment to sin. They are asking for a cake in celebration of their promise to love honor and respect each other.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree as to what's going on here, just as we'll have to agree to disagree as to what the Bible teaches.

---

 You are wrong. 

Luke 19:45 When Jesus entered the temple courts, he began to drive out those who were selling. 46“It is written,” he said to them, “ ‘My house will be a house of prayer’c ; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’d ”

Matthew 21:12-17 Christ found some of the courts of the temple turned into a market for cattle and things used in the sacrifices, and partly occupied by the money-changers. Our Lord drove them from the place, as he had done at his entering upon his ministry, Joh 2:13-17. His works testified of him more than the hosannas; and his healing in the temple was the fulfilling the promise, that the glory of the latter house should be greater than the glory of the former. If Christ came now into many parts of his visible church, how many secret evils he would discover and cleanse!

The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the Lord and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The Lord informed Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous." Verses 22-33 record Abraham pleading with the Lord to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah because Abraham's nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom.

Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities..."

In light of the passage, the most common response to the question "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?" is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term "sodomy" came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of why God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels (who were disguised as men). At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..." The Hebrew word translated "detestable" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." Similarly, Jude 7 declares, "...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.

Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable. There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape. But to say God completely destroyed two cities and all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point. While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.

Not once in any of these instances did god "condone" sin. Nor did he sit down with them and take up a meal. He punished the sinners because they wouldn't turn away from their sin. You keep quoting how Jesus loved the sinners. That is true. But he also expected them to turn away from sin. And if they didn't he didn't continue to support their lifestyles. Somehow I just can't see Jesus conducting a gay wedding. But if you really believe that more power to you. The Bible just says very clearly otherwise.

And I just want to thank you WYSIWYG. So are so vague and obtuse in the scriptures you quote that you inspire me to actually do research. You pick and choose the parts of the Bible you want to believe in and discard the rest. It doesn't work like that.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Fornication and adultery are sins in the Bible. Only married sex is condoned. And a man was to marry a woman AKA Genesis. It aint rocket science to understand the Bible. If people want to ignore the Bible then fine. But don't pretend it is vague or doesn't say what it says.

---

 Exactly.  God said love the sinner and hate the sin.  He did not say condone the sin or take part in it or stand around and watch it happen.  People pick and choose what part of the Bible they want to believe.  It doesn't work like that.  God loved sinners.  He loved all of enough to send his son to die for us so we could have everlasting life.  But part of the condition of having everlasting life is that you repent for your sins.

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Ahh but if you pretend it's not a sin then you have no need for repentance.

---

 Maybe we can all do like the government does?  Take a big black sharpie and redact those statements we find incriminating or that we don't like?

You are wrong. - Lawyerlady

With out a doubt wrong. WYSIWYG needs to understand what sin is in the eyes of God. - just Czech

_________________________

Only according to your interpretations of the Bible.

My interpretation of sin is to go against a commandment of god or to wrong another. Both are ways to sin. Making a cake is not going against a commandment of God. Shunning someone against the commandment of Jesus to love one another is sin.

I find it interesting that you both believe your interpretations are the only right and acceptable one, even though you both are equally as human as I am. This helps me understand the disdain that nonbelievers have for many "my way is the only right way" Christians. Thank you for that understanding.

I think I will retire from this thread now, I have limited time each night and don't come here to argue.

Interpretations that ignore every part that you don't like it not very convincing.

I don't think you and I are reading the same Bible WYSIWYG. You must have a version none of us have seen.

The lesbian high school coach who threatened to burn them down has been fired -

Following that news, Dooley tweeted:

 

image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/tweet.jpg

 

 

Concord Communities School issued a statement following her tweet:

As an educational institution, Concord Community Schools believes that the exchange of differing ideas, concepts, and principles is a valuable and meaningful part of the educational process. It is not necessary that everyone agree with every idea offered. It is, however, both critically important and absolutely necessary that the expression of any idea comport with the minimum expectations established by federal and state laws. The active promotion of illegal violence cannot be permitted.

Walkerton Police were notified of the threat as well and began an investigation and that case is now in the hands of county prosecutors.

The threats caused Memories Pizza to close, not knowing if it was safe for them to be open for business. As a result, a fund was set up with a goal of $25,000 to help the O'Connors. However, it quickly swelled to receive $842,000 in just three days! The O'Connors were able to reopen eight days after they closed on April 10.

 

It's funny how they threatened the pizza shop but we're the ones they call haters. All the ugly names are for Christians who never threatened anyone. I guess not baking them a cake is so much worse than threatening to burn their shop down according to many here.

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

I wonder how serious the threat was? Serious enough to warrant a visit from the police?
Probably not, but I wouldn't keep an employee like that.

---

 When will these people realize that social media is PUBLIC??

flan

Every group has a radical fringe. In the past, Planned Parenthood clinics have been bombed by Right to Lifers.

That doesn't mean ALL the members are bad.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

Every group has a radical fringe. In the past, Planned Parenthood clinics have been bombed by Right to Lifers.

That doesn't mean ALL the members are bad.

flan

---

Yes, yes, there have always been fringe radicals.  But Christians by far and large have condemned those that that bomb clinics.  As they have condemned the Westboro people.   I have yet to see the gay community come out and condemn her... 

flan327 wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

She's not a radical fringe. This is why Christians get so pissed. We're haters because we won't bake a cake but threats of violence and forcing others to do what you want is ok because you agree with her agenda.

-- Edited by Tinydancer on Wednesday 29th of April 2015 01:02:18 PM

---

 Why would you EVEN say that?!

If you could read, I said that she should have been fired.

flan

---

 Because she's NOT a radical fringe, she's just an average lesbian who thinks that because the Christian shop owners wouldn't do what she wanted it gave her the RIGHT to threaten them. She should be more than fired, she should be prosecuted for making threats.

Believe that if you'd like but the BIG GAY HATE MACHINE says it all. Why isn't there more condemning of her actions? You should be up in arms that she would threaten them but it seems only gay people deserve sympathy. Let's see "one set of people wouldn't bake a cake that could be purchased at numerous other bakeries and they're hateful" but "a lesbian threatens to burn down a business" but because all the gay people you know are so nice you don't call her out as hateful. Double standard much?

All of the lesbians I know personally are perfectly nice and normal people.
___________________________________________________________

LOL

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

All of the lesbians I know personally are perfectly nice and normal people. They worry over thehealth of their kids and about their cars and how to keep hawks away from the chickens.
None if them would ever consider this sort of thing.
She made the news because she isdifferent. N9t because all lesbians are like her.

---

 I have a feeling that on most days, this woman was perfectly nice and normal.  She's a high school coach (was).  It's doubtful she was a horrible radical on an everyday basis. 

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Believe that if you'd like but the BIG GAY HATE MACHINE says it all. Why isn't there more condemning of her actions? You should be up in arms that she would threaten them but it seems only gay people deserve sympathy. Let's see "one set of people wouldn't bake a cake that could be purchased at numerous other bakeries and they're hateful" but "a lesbian threatens to burn down a business" but because all the gay people you know are so nice you don't call her out as hateful. Double standard much?

---

 I don't know where you are getting this nonsense, as nobody here is defending this woman. 

Pretty much everyone including myself has said she deserves to be charged for threatening the business.