"LGBT RIGHTS"

[mustaphadrink]

Let me tell you, any person who makes their life's work to teach people how to be utterly selfless is a worthy model for morality in my eyes. Jesus said 'you shall know them by their fruits', and it is clearly obvious that ones like the ones above are highly revered moral characters for whom millions of people have gained wisdom and a knowledge of what it is to help the world and do things for the sakes of other people.

Not that christianity is immoral or that hinduism is the ultimate truth, certainly not, but it definitely makes a person think, whenever a person from a religion often regarded as a complete heretical waste of time is actually a profoundly thoughtful, compassionate person. Again 'ye shall know them by their fruits'

Telling half the story isn't going to help. What Jesus said is that you will know the tree by their fruits and the context was blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. If you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit you are a goner.

In addition he said if you are not on my side, you are against me. The Hindus and the other religions may have their good points but the fact is they are against Jesus because they follow another god.

Unless a person is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God (John 3) Good works and nice personalities will not enable a person to see the Kingdom of God. All that has no value unless they first are born again which the Hindus are not.

 

[mustaphadrink]

It would be non-beneficial for me to refuse service to a person under current law if I owned a business, since in owning a business of whatever type, and in having opened that business, I am bound under a countries' business laws, to operate my business within the boundaries of such laws..

The law states that no one is forced to sell to anyone. If a shopkeeper said "I am not going to sell to you because you are black" then he is breaking the law but to refuse to sell to facilitate immorality IS NOT breaking the law.

 

[mustaphadrink]

In essence, I want you guys to understand as I am understanding, to want the same things for the both of them. Not jail for either. Not hatred for either. Not enmity between either. Not a 'winning' or a 'loosing' for either. But a deep understanding, an empathy, a compassion, a genuine forgiveness and a peace for both.

As they say "It ain't goin to happen." Love is sourced from God. Hate is sourced from satan. Whilst you are serving satan which is what homosexuals are doing, your response will be motivated by hate as satan is incapable of loving.

Disagree with a homosexual especially of the radical kind, which these were by their actions and the response is always motivated by hate. Hate takes no prisoners so they will not be happy (sic) until they destroy the one they hate and........in so doing they will destroy themselves.

 

[mustaphadrink]

I can understand the viewpoint. I just don't inherently think that to bake the cake (if I were the shopkeeper) would be such a condemnable act. For me, it's food. That's all. It's making food for two people and selling these people food, as has been the custom of people who make food for thousands of years.

If it were just a case of "its food, that's all" there would be no problem but it is not as simple as that. One of the trends in society to day is that you are not supposed to judge anyone for their actions, good or bad and you are not supposed to impose your own morality on others and whatever your moral perspective is, you keep it to yourself.

This situation is as clear an example you can get. I want a cake. you bake me a cake. Whatever your position is on homosexuality, keep it to yourself.

The problem arose because the baker did not toe the line and keep their moral judgment to themselves. They obviously were not people who worshipped God on Sunday and then worshipped satan on Monday through Saturday.

Now the fact is very clear. The homosexuals were adamant that the baker could not impose their moral judgment on them and at the same time, they had every right to impose their immoral judgment on the baker so in fact, that alone makes the homosexuals the intolerant ones, especially as there were in all probability hundreds of other bakers who they could have gone to for their cake.

The fact that they didn't and the fact that they made an issue out of it and relentlessly attacked the baker and his business is a clear indication they were "out to get him" which is not surprising as they were motivated by hate.

 

[Jhana]

Telling half the story isn't going to help. What Jesus said is that you will know the tree by their fruits and the context was blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. If you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit you are a goner.

In addition he said if you are not on my side, you are against me. The Hindus and the other religions may have their good points but the fact is they are against Jesus because they follow another god.

Unless a person is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God (John 3) Good works and nice personalities will not enable a person to see the Kingdom of God. All that has no value unless they first are born again which the Hindus are not.

I don't really think Jesus meant what you say he meant. Those who are with him are the workers of righteousness, compassionate people of the Earth who do God's will in helping others. To be born again is not to undergo some ritual in a specific church under a particular title. Being born again is to do with renewing the mind and literally changing one's thoughts towards things.

'See those babies nursing there?' Asked Jesus. 'Like those are the ones who enter the kingdom'.

'Shall we be reborn as babies then, teacher?' asked his disciples.

'I tell you, anyone who makes the two into one, the upper the lower, the inner the outer, the male and female one that neither are male nor female, but one, and who puts an eye in place of an eye, and a foot in place of a foot, and a hand in place of a hand, then he shall enter the kingdom'.

Clearly our neat little western concept of being a born-again believer isn't really what Jesus meant when he said 'you must be born again'. We attribute 'born again' as a title, then we say 'you have to be a born again christian'. That's not what he meant at all. And 'seeing' the kingdom of God isn't getting a place in heaven, or being somewhere, or looking across the plains and saying 'hey, look, the kingdom is over there'. It just isn't.

'There will be those who say to you 'come, the kingdom is here', and 'see, the kingdom is there', but do not follow them'.

and

'If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the father's kingdom is in the sky', then the birds of the sky shall precede you, and if they say 'behold, it is in the sea', then the fish of the sea shall precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you, then it is outside you. When you understand yourselves, then you shall be known, and you will recognize that you are children of the living father. But, if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, for you are impoverished.'

'Nobody goes to the father except by me'. This talks of 'going' and gravitating towards something, in a sense 'walking'. We don't walk to where the father is unless we trod Jesus' steps. To my mind, Jesus trod the road of compassion for all people and thus a person who trods such a road would be walking in the right direction.

The narrowest path is the one least trodden. And I look around and know there are over 2 billion mainstream christians in the world today. That's a pretty big herd and a pretty wide path.

All this talk of being motivated by hatred, but let me ask you this. If the baker wins the case, what's to stop all bakers refusing homsexuals food? And shops? And other outlets? And what's to stop someone saying 'you're not christian, and you're gonna eat this cake with unbelievers and sinners, so I'm not baking you a cake', or 'white people and black people shouldn't mix, I'm not baking you a cake'.

It comes to court and the judge asks 'why did you do this?' and the person responds 'because it's my moral belief'.

Or should we limit such discrimination to homosexuals only?

How do you propose this new law you advocate be implimented? Must a person buying a product tell the merchant what the product's going to be used for, or where it will be eaten and whom with?

Will all merchants have a right to where, how, and with whom their product is eaten by those who purchase it?

Should we control who can and cannot buy food from christian shop owners?

The idea, when we really think about it, is ridiculous.

But, if the baker wins the case, that's what we'd be looking at. Free reign for people to discriminate at will on grounds of 'my moral standing on the matter'.

 

[john832]

LGBT have rights. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney,..."

 

[jandian]

Did you know the Bible doesn't say that God loves the sinner and hates the sin? Someone else said that. I believe it to be true because I know He loves us, but He doesn't love us all the same. Those that are His, He loves dearly. Though He loves everyone, it is a different kind of love, if that makes sense.

It would be like saying a man loves all women the way he loves his wife. Not true.

I also have to say that I am so disgusted by the blatant homosexuality going on that it irritates me how often it comes up. The thing is that homosexuality is vile and disgusting and so long as a person continues in their sin and are unrepentant, they are not covered up in the righteous blood of Jesus Christ and thus are not viewed the way the justified are viewed.

Yes, we are to love them and not mistreat them. I agree wholeheartedly. Yet, if a same sex couple asked me to photograph their wedding, I'd refuse.

I think that there is a grave danger in Christians today who are so afraid to appear unloving that they are willing to accept a whole lot of lies fed to them by the mainstream media, so afraid of being called a hate monger that they refuse to stand for the truth. Maybe it's time we stood for the truth again and stopped seeing equality and popularity. Jesus wasn't loved by His generation. He was chased from His own hometown and none there would listen to Him. Why should we expect to be accepted and loved for standing for the same things He stood for when He was rejected, betrayed, abused and murdered?

BRAVO!!!!!!!.......

 

[mustaphadrink]

I don't really think Jesus meant what you say he meant. Those who are with him are the workers of righteousness, compassionate people of the Earth who do God's will in helping others. To be born again is not to undergo some ritual in a specific church under a particular title. Being born again is to do with renewing the mind and literally changing one's thoughts towards things.

Can you show me where I said that being born again means undergoing a ritual is a specific church under a specific title?

 

[mustaphadrink]

Clearly our neat little western concept of being a born-again believer isn't really what Jesus meant when he said 'you must be born again'. We attribute 'born again' as a title, then we say 'you have to be a born again christian'. That's not what he meant at all. And 'seeing' the kingdom of God isn't getting a place in heaven, or being somewhere, or looking across the plains and saying 'hey, look, the kingdom is over there'. It just isn't.

Where did I say that being born again is a title?

 

[mustaphadrink]

'Nobody goes to the father except by me'. This talks of 'going' and gravitating towards something, in a sense 'walking'. We don't walk to where the father is unless we trod Jesus' steps. To my mind, Jesus trod the road of compassion for all people and thus a person who trods such a road would be walking in the right direction..

You don't go to the Father. You COME to the father. NO one COMES to the father but by me so it has nothing to do with walking towards something so your theology is flawed.

 

[mustaphadrink]

All this talk of being motivated by hatred, but let me ask you this. If the baker wins the case, what's to stop all bakers refusing homsexuals food? And shops? And other outlets? And what's to stop someone saying 'you're not christian, and you're gonna eat this cake with unbelievers and sinners, so I'm not baking you a cake', or 'white people and black people shouldn't mix, I'm not baking you a cake'..

As you seem to have all the answers, why don't you tell us.

 

[mustaphadrink]

But, if the baker wins the case, that's what we'd be looking at. Free reign for people to discriminate at will on grounds of 'my moral standing on the matter'.

Please try and put your intelligence cap on.

First, a retailer can sell to whoever he wants or does not want. THAT IS LAW. He cannot refuse service or goods on the basis of skin colour.

Second, this issue has arisen only with homosexuals. That speaks volumes.

Third, for ever and a day this has not been an issue with homosexuals. That speaks volumes.

Fourth. Take homosexuals out of the equation and it will not be an issue.

Fifth. The right to serve or not serve a particular person has not been an issue. They just move on to someone else. They didn't jump up and down because they didn't get their way.

Sixth. If homosexuals acted like reasonable human beings there would be no issue.

Seventh. Rather visiting bakers, the homosexuals would do themselves a favour if they visited a psychologist to get their emotional dysfunction sorted out.

I can't respond to anything else you have said because it is a garbled mish mash of words that doesn't make sense.

 

[mustaphadrink]

I think that there is a grave danger in Christians today who are so afraid to appear unloving that they are willing to accept a whole lot of lies fed to them by the mainstream media, so afraid of being called a hate monger that they refuse to stand for the truth. Maybe it's time we stood for the truth again and stopped seeing equality and popularity. Jesus wasn't loved by His generation. He was chased from His own hometown and none there would listen to Him. Why should we expect to be accepted and loved for standing for the same things He stood for when He was rejected, betrayed, abused and murdered?

So right. The men pleaser's and keep them happy preachers have given us the idea that christianity is all about being happy and not rocking the boat. If that was the case, Jesus and Paul would have been considered a failure today.

In case people had not noticed, if you keep quiet and don't rock the boat the radical homosexuals praise you. If you do rock the boat, you are the recipient of savage attacks from them. One friend of mine who writes a blog on all sorts of issues including homosexuality, gets death threats from them. I read of a Minister in San Francisco who taught about homosexuality to his congregation and his children got death threats from the homosexuals.

If you say nothing you are left alone. If you tell the truth you are hated and vilified which is against the law but not if a homosexual is doing the vilifying. Jesus was the most hated man on earth by those that mattered, that is why he was crucified. if we expect anything different we are living in denial.

 

[kennethcadwell]

We are to show love to all, and we can tell them the good word in salvation in our Lord. We can also tell them what the bible says about homosexuality, but only if we do it in a calm caring manner. We are not to use judgment or hatred because it is not up to us who goes or doesn't go to Heaven. That is up to our Lord Jesus Christ. To show this Jesus even told the pharisees, ( Matthew 21:31 I assure you: Tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you! ) A lot of people would put prostitution up there as bad as homosexuality, and our Lord says right hear they will enter the kingdom. Makes you think !!!

 

[Percepi]

Seventh. Rather visiting bakers, the homosexuals would do themselves a favour if they visited a psychologist to get their emotional dysfunction sorted out.

You say this as if all homosexuals know they're sinning. Most homosexuals feel they're doing no wrong. Many, in fact, believe God has nothing against homosexuality (in the same way many people believe God has nothing against tattoos).

I don't think there's much of a point in debating whether or not homosexuality is a sin. Most of us here already knows what the Bible says.

The question is, should we force non-Christians to abide by your religious laws? Or should people willingly choose whether or not they want to follow the word of the Bible?

Personally, I abide by the non-coercion principle. If two consenting adults want to partake in actions that don't infringe on my rights - then I believe they have every right to partake in said actions. I'm not saying those actions are necessarily right, but it's their body and they'll be the ones held accountable for their actions in the end (or not).

Although I support people's rights to partake in homosexuality, I also support people's rights to speak both for and against homosexuality. I stand solid on the First Amendment. Only man can dictate whether or not he wants to follow God's will. If you want to spread the word of God, you should do it! But we shouldn't trust the government to do ANYTHING in the name of God. Governments only use God's name for their own personal agenda. If you give the government the power to use your God's name for policies you support, then you also give them the power to use his name for policies you don't support. God's name belongs to the people, and to churches, not the Government. But, I'm getting off topic...

TL;DR

If people want to sin, let them sin. If people want to partake in actions they don't personally believe are sins, let them do so. You have the right to try and persuade them they're wrong - but as long as they don't hurt others, it's them who has to choose whether or not they want to abide by the words of the Bible.

Also: I believe in property rights. If a church doesn't want to allow homosexuals into their doors, they have every right to discriminate.

 

[Jhana]

Please try and put your intelligence cap on.

First, a retailer can sell to whoever he wants or does not want. THAT IS LAW. He cannot refuse service or goods on the basis of skin colour.

Second, this issue has arisen only with homosexuals. That speaks volumes.

Third, for ever and a day this has not been an issue with homosexuals. That speaks volumes.

Fourth. Take homosexuals out of the equation and it will not be an issue.

Fifth. The right to serve or not serve a particular person has not been an issue. They just move on to someone else. They didn't jump up and down because they didn't get their way.

Sixth. If homosexuals acted like reasonable human beings there would be no issue.

Seventh. Rather visiting bakers, the homosexuals would do themselves a favour if they visited a psychologist to get their emotional dysfunction sorted out.

I can't respond to anything else you have said because it is a garbled mish mash of words that doesn't make sense.

It has arisen with homosexuals because I can't really see a shop owner refusing a black because he or she is black. That would be obviously wrong. My worry is that next it will be muslims, blacks or whites, divorcees, gamblers, thieves and cons and then anyone who isn't christian or doesn't fit your moral code.

An update though. The Colorado baker was deemed to be in the wrong and was ordered to cater regardless of what the food was for, and several states are taking on legislation similar to the Unruh Act in California, making it effectively illegal to refuse someone service on the basis of sexual preference.

I rest my case.

 

[mustaphadrink]

You say this as if all homosexuals know they're sinning. Most homosexuals feel they're doing no wrong. Many, in fact, believe God has nothing against homosexuality (in the same way many people believe God has nothing against tattoos).

Having an emotional dysfunction has nothing to do with sin in any shape or form and comparing tattoos with homosexuality is rather a nonsensical comparison. As far as I know you can't get AIDS from having a tattoo.

 

[Jhana]

Having an emotional dysfunction has nothing to do with sin in any shape or form and comparing tattoos with homosexuality is rather a nonsensical comparison. As far as I know you can't get AIDS from having a tattoo.

You can get AIDS from a tattoo. And also from straight sex.

 

[Percepi]

Having an emotional dysfunction has nothing to do with sin in any shape or form and comparing tattoos with homosexuality is rather a nonsensical comparison. As far as I know you can't get AIDS from having a tattoo.

Both homosexuality and tattoos are forbidden in the Bible. My comparison is completely relevant.

 

[mustaphadrink]

LGBT have rights. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney,..."

Good one John.