Posted on 02/22/2014 10:19:15 AM PST by aimhigh
Jesus Christ would absolutely bake a cake for a gay person. He’d bake a cake for a straight person. He’d bake a cake for a girl, a boy, a person who isn’t sure what they are, a black person, a white person — Jesus would bake that cake if it, in some way large or small, drew that person closer to Him. . . . .
The disagreement comes on one issue only — should a Christian provide goods and services to a gay wedding. That’s it. We’re not talking about serving a meal at a restaurant. We’re not talking about baking a cake for a birthday party. We’re talking about a wedding, which millions of Christians view as a sacrament of the faith and other, mostly Protestant Christians, view as a relationship ordained by God to reflect a holy relationship. . .
You might think Jesus would bake a cake for a gay wedding. I think you are wrong because I don’t Christ would collaborate in sin.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Don’t cast your pearls before swine....comes to mind.
It’s a waste of time arguing whether or not Jesus Christ would bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding”. Since He doesn’t condone sin of any kind, He would never celebrate it in any way.
But from what we know, He absolutely did eat with sinners and explained why. Some didn’t like it, and some wouldn’t like it today.
About all we can assume is that He would bake a cake for a hungry sinner, and He would take the opportunity to minister to their soul.
And if He asked why and they said it was for one of these evil celebrations, He’d say no... but knowing Jesus and how He could effortlessly riff from what was evil to what was good, He might well talk about loving one’s brother righteously.
And really, they need to learn how to love their brother. If they did, they’d stop buggering and start other things that were very, very good.
Liar. It's "should a Christian be forced to provide goods and services to a gay wedding or be penalized by the government and law enforcement."
There are more levels to the current debate. But it has also raised a question in more liberal halls of Christendom, which is exactly as stated. Watch who you call a liar before you understand the intended context.
I did. The claims made in the first half are not negated by the second.
“You might think Jesus would bake a cake for a gay wedding. I think you are wrong because I don’t [believe] Christ would collaborate in sin.”
I guess if this is unclear then there is no point in further discussing it with you.
You also have Elymas bar-Jesus the sorcerer as an example of those who don’t try to hide it. Never mind the rather sticky end of Herod after his impiety in Acts 12.
Evasion. How does that negate the initial claim that Jesus would bake a cake for a gay person?
I do not think that you can speculate on what Jesus Christ would do or not do. Maybe you would bake a cake, but that has little to do with Jesus Christ.
You are a sinner. I am a sinner. Gays are sinners. Jesus wants you to repent from your sinning ways. He wants me to repent from my sinning ways. He wants gays to repent from their sinning ways.
It is that simple.
Evasion on YOUR part, from the clear revelation that you are determined to read the worst into it. And that has been a problem with you. Given two possible readings, you go for the most blame-laden one.
The cake would say “REPENT” all over it
Its always the same with the lying liberal progressive left. Their god is supposed to be our God. Their god would not only bake a cake for the gay (person, wedding, event) but APPROVES of who and what they are and how they live and the choices they make IN SPITE of the written word God left for us. So, that is not God at all but their god. They have crafted a golden calf and the golden calf allows for and approves of. So, by their typical PROJECTION they COMMAND all other god’s and the Lord of all Creation to conform to their golden calf or else your God is a hateful one.
Now, the weak in faith types will not fight this effectively, they will be cast as ignorant red-necks, the strong in their faith, if bold, will be cast as Nazi’s and the sell-outs will be cast as illuminated and exalted.
Its how the left works.
What’s reading the worst? I’m just reading what’s written there. There are not two possible readings, unless the author was deliberately trying to be duplicitous. In the devil’s world, the “worst possible” is usually the most likely, remember.
Now if one wants to be pedantic and claim that there were gays (even unrepentant) among the multitudes fed by the miracle of loaves and fish, I won’t dispute the possibility.
...being one himself?
Cake? You sure you want a cake?
Have some more wine and fishes.
We will talk about cake later.
Also, in regards to ‘g’ unions, doesn’t/didn’t the church contend that ALL sex is for procreation?
For a time a Catholic couldn’t/wouldn’t Masturbate, use a condom, birth control etc...
Sex was virtually banned unless in the marriage bed with the only good outcome ‘supposed’ to be one of the parties getting pregnant.
The ONLY purpose of ejaculation was to produce another member of the flock.
Would loosely say part of the reason for the celibate Priests and Nuns was since they could marry ONLY God, there was no sense for sex to have to be in their lives so no sense ‘doing’ it or even thinking evil thoughts.
As a ‘Catholic School attendee’ in the mid to late 40’s early 50’s sort of remember the lectures of ‘touching yourself down there’ and people checking each others hands for hair on the palms.....or having their eyesight checked on a daily basis.....
Don’t want ‘little Bobby the sinner going blind now do we’? Bad enough he is going to Hell, or maybe Purgatory at best but ‘THOSE’ hands will not be any where near God.
“Welcome to the party, pal.”
The distinction is on the mark but Erickson should not use the word ‘day’. Rather he should use the correct word ‘homosexual’.
Many of those who have been sued, prosecuted and fined $1000 per day for failing to participate commercially in homosexual ‘marriage’ HAVE STATED to the deaf ears of the press that they would gladly perform the commercial service for the individual but not for the purpose that perverts their faith.
That is not what John 21:25 says.
However, Jesus would not bake a cake for anyone... that’s women work....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.