Baking Cakes for Homosexual Couples

[Skybringr]

"You, anti-gay Christian, have the God-given freedom and the American right to believe whatever you want, and to worship and congregate with anyone and everyone who shares your beliefs. What sane person would argue against that?

For all practical purposes (and for such concerns, what else matters?) it is not beliefs that make a bigot. It's actions.

If you vote against gay marriage or gay rights, you are a bigot, as surely as anyone who voted against civil rights in the '60s was a bigot. If you preach against gay rights, you are a bigot. If you write against gay rights, you are a bigot. If you give your money or time to any Christian church or ministry that you know actively works to restrict or limit gay rights in any way, you are a bigot. If, in private, you intimate to your dearest friend that you don't think gay people should be allowed to get married, you are a bigot.

No one wants to be a bigot, of course. Not even the most virulent KKK member will claim that repelling appellation for him- or herself. But bigot is as bigot does.

And since it's impossible for a person to hold a conviction -- especially one based on religious beliefs -- that they don't in some way live out, it is, alas, safe to claim that any and every Christian who believes that gay people shouldn't have every last moral and legal right they claim for themselves is a bigot.

You can't be in the KKK and claim that you're not a bigot; you can't be opposed to LGBT rights and claim that you're not a bigot. Well, you can, of course, but if you do, you are fooling no one, least of all God."

The majority of HIV is among the 2% of the US population- the LGBT.

Oh wait, never mind, it's among the $% now bwcause something so innate, so naturally, just NATURALLY DOUBLED over the past decade since the issue was inflated to redundancy.

Because that's how science works. It goes by what people want and whatnot lain:

That's surely what the gay agenda has tried to make it be. There's a myriad of reasons to be against it's support outside of the act of homosexuality itself.

How about I support bestiality and call you a bigot if you disagree with my support of them being hired as farmhands and marrying dogs.
Anything wrong with that?
Don't go be a 'bigot' now and disagree :wave:. I'll support incestuous acts as well- as long as they wear protection, it's no longer any worse then gay sex logically speaking.

..right?



You all are just trying to repave the moral highroad with your brownie point loving, trumpet blowing, high horse riding selves who just want to look good in society. It's laughable to see you all even pretend that your true beliefs rest with something so inconsistent and driven by pure emotion.

 

[Lighthouse]

An idol is an object that embodies an entity. Make a statue of pure gold to summon a being and then we'll talk idolatry.

Idols don't embody anything; they represent them. Of course, in the minds of the idolaters they do embody them.

So you, just like every other protestant, fail to know enough about your religion to KNOW WHAT IDOLATRY IS.

I do not hold my beliefs in protest of the RCC.

Good job. Maybe your lot should get away from that altogether and maybe study up on other sins. Like bearing false witness.

Worship is worship, and worshiping anyone other than God is idolatry.

yes you are, I'm glad you recognize that about yourself

That was weak.

 

[musterion]

Instead of baking a cake, would buying a sodomite couple a box of Twinkies be considered offensive?

 

[Skybringr]

Idols don't embody anything; they represent them. Of course, in the minds of the idolaters they do embody them.

See, that's where your wrong ~home skillet~. The ancient pagans, the REAL idolaters, put esteem into objects. It's why they made them out of precious metals and whatnot.

And it doesn't always have to be inanimate:
Hindus are a modern example- their worship and divine treatment of cows and whatnot.

You have the falsely assumed idea of what idolatry is, as it pertains to the biblical context. It's utterly a pagan ritual that deals in making God resemble an animal or something in nature.

Perfect example: The Levites made a golden calf, which resembled prosperity. They hoped that this would enact God's grace on them as such, as they were wondering around the desert homeless with Moses.

It really just IS NOT that hard to understand. The very fact that you won't just accept the truth is tell-tale that you aren't entirely truthful when you say your belief isn't inspired by anti-Catholicism.

 

[GFR7]

There's a myriad of reasons to be against it's support outside of the act of homosexuality itself.




You all are just trying to repave the moral highroad with your brownie point loving, trumpet blowing, high horse riding selves who just want to look good in society. It's laughable to see you all even pretend that your true beliefs rest with something so inconsistent and driven by pure emotion.

:thumb: Aptly stated.

 

[musterion]

See, that's where your wrong ~home skillet~. The ancient pagans, the REAL idolaters, put esteem into objects. It's why they made them out of precious metals and whatnot.

And it doesn't always have to be inanimate: Hindus are a modern example. Their worship and divine treatment of cows and whatnot.

You have the falsely assumed idea of what idolatry is, as it pertains to the biblical context. It's utterly a pagan ritual that deals in making God resemble an animal or something, there's no being flimsy about what it is and trying to make valid Christians seem guilty of such.

Your assertion is inaccurate. Historically, there are primarily two distinct types of idolatry.

1. Sometimes, spirits or deities are believed to inhabit a particular object or place, be it a shrine, a statue, rocks, caves, rivers, lakes, trees, sun, moon and stars, animals or, in some cases, a living human being. In these cases, to worship one is to worship the other. This type of idolater sees no difference between the two.

2. Other times, the idolater knows the physical object of his devotion, whatever that object may be, is not in itself the true target of worship. The object serves only as a "point of contact" between himself and the being, spirit or god the object represents. This second definition fits Catholic iconography:

"The Christian [meaning "Roman Catholic"] veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, 'the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,' and 'whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it' The honor paid to sacred images is a 'respectful veneration,' not the adoration due to God alone..." (2132).

This passage then goes on to quote Thomas Aquinas:

"Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is."

So not only does Rome deny that prayer to statues is idolatry, it approves of and even encourages the practice as a point of contact with God or (as is more commonly the case) whoever else the Catholic wants to contact.

What real difference is there between a modern Roman Catholic praying to Christ, Mary, or various saints and angels with the help of a statue, and a citizen of ancient pagan Rome praying to Jupiter with the help of a statue? Obviously the outward forms of worship certainly differ, as the religions themselves are different. Apart from that, however, there is no real difference. If we focus on the act itself (what is being done) and its goals (why it's being done), can anyone deny they are essentially identical? No. Be they modern Catholics or ancient pagans, the whole point of religious statues is to seek intercession and blessing from heavenly beings OTHER THAN THE LIVING GOD via the objects representing them. That is the very heart and soul of all idolatry, and the Catechism plainly reveals modern Catholic practice to be no different.

Does the Bible give any indication that God sees any difference between these two types of idol worship? No; the basic purpose of both is the same: worshipers seek to adore, appease, or gain the assistance of a non-physical being through the use of a physical replica or representation of that being. This is the common thread that connects all idolatry throughout human history and the Roman Catholic version is no exception.

Sincerity and good intentions mean nothing - idolatry, in all its forms, always comes down to the same thing: "Asserting themselves to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for a likeness of an image of corruptible man and of birds and of quadrupeds and of snakes...they exchanged the truth of God [His Word] for a lie and worshipped and rendered religious service to the creation, rather than to the Creator..." Romans 1:22-25.

Does this passage apply to Roman Catholic statues? Let's see:

*Did PJPII bow before "likenesses" and "images" of Mary, a human beings whose corruptible body died and lies buried in the dust, awaiting resurrection? YES.

*Does the Catechism encourage Catholics to do the same? YES.

*How many Catholics pray to images of Mary? As it is a worldwide practice, tens or possibly hundreds of millions. But it's not only statues. Reflections on windows, weeping or bleeding paintings, sites of alleged celestial visions, stained windows, burnt toast and even a melted popsicle on a sidewalk are "images" which have been worshiped with great fervency because they were said to be earthly manifestations of Mary or Christ Himself.

Will God can let John Paul II and the millions who follow his example off the hook just because they're sincere?

"Idolaters...shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second [eternal] death." Revelation 21:8

 

[Dialogos]

except for polygamy, levirate marriages, the use of slaves for surrogate parents, concubines and so on and so on

...Which were all heterosexual relationships.

How many of these relationships were punishable by death according to the Mosaic Law?

You don't even realize how this argument completely destroys your point, do you?

God clearly articulated that His plan for marriage in creation and it is one man, one woman. God also clearly demonstrates that He is willing to tolerate perversions of this plan throughout redemptive history showing that God is patient when it comes to sexual sins.

However, God draws the line on homosexuality and prescribes death as the just consequent for homosexuality.

Homosexuality crosses the line, God won't tolerate it, and this is just as clear form the New Testament as it is from the Old which is why there is no such thing as a gay wedding, only a perverted lie.

it's more interesting looking where your notion comes from. For generations racist have used the same analogies, linking black people to sexual excess, rape and abuse, to justify their own hate and prejudices.

It's your argument, not mine..

Its your argued that Romans 1 is teaching us that it is sinful to behave sexually in a way that is contrary to one's natural inclinations. You made the patently stupid argument that the real problem was that straight men were having sex with each other, they were behaving contrary to their natural sexual inclinations.

So when a man claims to have natural sexual inclinations toward having sex with boys, your perverted version of Romans 1 says they shouldn't have sex with adults but should stick to having sex with children because it is wrong to go against one's natural inclination.

Now I think that this is sick, twisted, perverted, evil and wicked along with being stupid but its your argument so you own the implications.

Is pedophilia related in anyway to homosexuality? no.

Yes, both are sexual perversions.

is pedophilia an orientation? no.

It is if you ask pedophiles, who are you to judge, right? That's just "who they are."

and good scholarship has debunked the Septuigint connection.

We'll see...

:chuckle:

arsen and koite ALSO appear in conjunction in Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:12, Leviticus 20:15

:sozo: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

Where is this scholarship you mentioned because we sure don't get to see any in your reply.

I don't know what gay friendly website you are getting these stupid arguments from but clearly they (and you) have no idea what you are talking about.

The phrase ἄρσενος κοίτην does not appear in the 20th chapter of Leviticus other than when it appears in verse 13.

You are completely wrong about 20:11.

Here it is in Greek notice the complete lack of the phrase ἄρσενος κοίτην.

Leviticus 20:11 ἐάν τις κοιμηθῇ μετὰ γυναικὸς τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἀσχημοσύνην τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἀπεκάλυψεν θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν ἀμφότεροι ἔνοχοί εἰσιν

And you are completely wrong about 20:12 as well.

Here it is in Greek, notice the complete lack of the phrase ἄρσενος κοίτην.

Leviticus 20:12 καὶ ἐάν τις κοιμηθῇ μετὰ νύμφης αὐτοῦ θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν ἀμφότεροι ἠσεβήκασιν γάρ ἔνοχοί εἰσιν.

And you are completely wrong about 20:15.

Here it is in Greek, again, notice the complete lack of the phrase ἄρσενος κοίτην.

Leviticus 20:15 καὶ ὃς ἂν δῷ κοιτασίαν αὐτοῦ ἐν τετράποδι θανάτῳ θανατούσθω καὶ τὸ τετράπουν ἀποκτενεῖτε.

... and at least three other places,

Well you proved yourself to be totally wrong on the first three so you'll understand if I conclude that you have no credibility about the next three.

but none of them are connected in nay way to homosexuality.

And none of them have the phrase ἄρσενος κοίτην in them either which makes your argument about as moot as moot gets.

If you're going to use this single conjunction justification to "prove" arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all the other appearances of arsen and koite and the fact that they were referring to completely separate things.

You have yet to give me any real examples of appearances to ignore...

:chuckle:

the phrase in the Septuigint you are abusing is: ""kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"

Leviticus 20:13 καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι θανατούσθωσαν ἔνοχοί εἰσιν (Lev 20:13 Rahlph's Septuaginta)

You left out the highlighted part and I'm not sure what version of the LXX you are using but I'm using Rahlf's.

basically it's saying don't bring someone to your and your wife's bed to sleep with them because if you do so you become ritually impure. This isn't a sin which is "zimah" just that after this you must go through a ritual purification.

No, it says what Brenton's translation says it says:

" Leviticus 20:13 And whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both wrought abomination; let them die the death, they are guilty. (Lev 20:13 LXE)"

Its about a man having sex with another man and it is considered an abomination that carry's the death penalty.

look to the Luther Bible and it's descendants for this

What does the Luther bible have to do with anything!

You said that the word ἀρσενοκοίτης (1Co 6:9 BGM) referred to kidnapping and masturbation.

Where?

Verse number please...

Any translation will do as I will look at the either the NT greek or the LXX to determine (if) or most likely (that) you are totally wrong.

The lengths one will go to pervert God's word.
Detestable things - shiqquts; sheqets; shiqqutsim - a term always applied to idol-worship or to objects connected with idolatry

I've already disproved this silly argument with your own words.

שֶׁקֶץ (sheqets) is the word used in Lev 11:10 not תועבה. Are you arguing that eating a lobster (no fins or scales) is connected with idolatry?

:dizzy:

 

[Skybringr]

Sincerity and good intentions mean nothing - idolatry, in all its forms, always comes down to the same thing: "Asserting themselves to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for a likeness of an image of corruptible man and of birds and of quadrupeds and of snakes...they exchanged the truth of God [His Word] for a lie and worshipped and rendered religious service to the creation, rather than to the Creator..." Romans 1:22-25.

Does this passage apply to Roman Catholic statues?

No, because the application of the Church is not anything of the sort stated in that passage in the first place!

In those times, it was very common to worship in a way that put a deity in some resemblance to worldly things.

The Levites were going to the Promised Land, and in their desperation made a golden calf. In their preconceived religious perception, it was common sense to make an idol that would beckon the appraisal of a deity.

You see, it was basically incomprehensible to most of the ancient world to pray to something not physically there. They put stock into physical things- these idols were made out of sacrificial items- in this case, gold jewelry, to appease whatever spirit they were pertaining to.

It's old school paganism, very very different from a Catholic praying with rosary beads or a ceramic Mary standing on a stool.
That's all just merely the common human desire to treat their religion with some chivalry, it's no different then protestants raiding up their Bible.


You talking about 'good intentions don't matter, that idolatry is idolatry' is a load of crock. We have no obligation to defend our ways by saying it's in 'good intention' because there's nothing wrong with it ANYWAY.

"Idolaters...shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second [eternal] death." [/B]Revelation 21:8

So according to you, the Bible says all Catholics are going straight to Hell.

Say you believe that, and good luck when your made to give an account to God. Or, say you don't, and you've basically just proven yourself wrong on how you perceive idolatry.

You pretty much just dug yourself a hole you can't get out of there, buddy :thumb:

 

[musterion]

It's old school paganism, very very different from a Catholic praying with...a ceramic Mary standing on a stool.

It's the same thing. Motivation, goal, method...identical.

And identical will be the Judgment for both.

 

[Lighthouse]

See, that's where your wrong ~home skillet~. The ancient pagans, the REAL idolaters, put esteem into objects. It's why they made them out of precious metals and whatnot.

I was making a statement of reality versus their beliefs, and I fully stated that they believed them to embody those false gods. You need to learn to pay attention.

And it doesn't always have to be inanimate:
Hindus are a modern example- their worship and divine treatment of cows and whatnot.

Irrelevant. I said nothing of animate or inanimate.

You have the falsely assumed idea of what idolatry is, as it pertains to the biblical context. It's utterly a pagan ritual that deals in making God resemble an animal or something in nature.

A graven image is a graven image. And worshiping it as though it were the embodiment of that which the image represents is idolatry; especially when the image is not of God.

Perfect example: The Levites made a golden calf, which resembled prosperity. They hoped that this would enact God's grace on them as such, as they were wondering around the desert homeless with Moses.

So they made an image of something other than God and worshiped it, hoping to earn something from God...:think:...:idea:

It really just IS NOT that hard to understand. The very fact that you won't just accept the truth is tell-tale that you aren't entirely truthful when you say your belief isn't inspired by anti-Catholicism.

I became anti-Catholic well after becoming a Christian.

 

[Skybringr]

It's the same thing. Motivation, goal, method...identical.

And identical will be the Judgment for both.

Hey look, it's the inside of a Lutheran church

Notice something peculiar in there? The statue, the kneeling stands..

http://www.trinitymonitor.org/attachments/Image/Trinity/Altar1.jpg

NOT EVEN THE PROTESTANT FOUNDERS AGREE WITH YOUR NONSENSE

 

[musterion]

I can't speak for Lighthouse but if I were a Lutheran, or even considered myself an actual Protestant (I don't), you might have scored half a point with that one. As it is, you look very sad for having spent over 30 minutes all you could dig up is that picture and what amounts to, "Oh yeah? Well, LUTHERANS DO IT TOO!"

I never thought I'd say this but you really need to hand off to Cruciform. He's much better at this than you, and he's a lightweight.

 

[Skybringr]

I can't speak for Lighthouse but if I were a Lutheran, or even considered myself an actual Protestant (I don't), you might have scored half a point with that one. As it is, you look very sad for having spent over 30 minutes all you could dig up is that picture and what amounts to, "Oh yeah? Well, LUTHERANS DO IT TOO!"

I never thought I'd say this but you really need to hand off to Cruciform.

Mostly all non-Catholic denominations that have even a vestige of proper orthodoxy in them are inspired exclusively by either the Lutheran or Calvinist theology. The only real exception is Methodism, straight out of the Anglican communion.

Statues and venerating saints is not idolatry, that is simply a made up modern claim by those like yourself who have nothing else to do then draw up idiotic conclusions against those you don't like.

Nothing new there.

You want to sit there and condemn the Greek Orthodox, the Roman Church, the Anglican Communion, and all of traditional Protestantism, then go right ahead.

But beware of the fact that because most of these churches have been around since the Early Ages, who made the distinction themselves what idolatry is when it was prime among actual idolaters of the times, you can deduce your own falsehood just by realizing that and condemning 90% of Christians on Earth to Hell will probably put you at the front of the line TO IT.

You would do well not to fall into the claptrap of the protestant bias on here, thinking you can just condemn others to Hell. What you think serves you well among them now will come back on you, like it has now. Don't be fooled by my join date, I've been around here a looong time.



Stop laboring under childish lies.
Goodbye musterion :wave:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Statues and venerating saints is not idolatry

Of course it is idolatry.
Everyone knows it, even the Catholics that try so hard to claim it is not idolatry.

 

[Skybringr]

Of course it is idolatry.
Everyone knows it, even the Catholics that try so hard to claim it is not idolatry.

Well I just thoroughly and utterly proved you wrong, so whatever :thumb:

 

[musterion]

Mostly all non-Catholic denominations that have even a vestige of proper orthodoxy in them are inspired exclusively by either the Lutheran or Calvinist theology. The only real exception is Methodism, straight out of the Anglican communion.

Statues and venerating saints is not idolatry, that is simply a made up modern claim by those like yourself who have nothing else to do then draw up idiotic conclusions against those you don't like.

Nothing new there.

You want to sit there and condemn the Greek Orthodox, the Roman Church, the Anglican Communion, and all of traditional Protestantism, then go right ahead.

But beware of the fact that because most of these churches have been around since the Early Ages, who made the distinction themselves what idolatry is when it was prime among actual idolaters of the times, you can deduce your own falsehood just by realizing that and condemning 90% of Christians on Earth to Hell will probably put you at the front of the line TO IT.

You would do well not to fall into the claptrap of the protestant bias on here, thinking you can just condemn others to Hell. What you think serves you well among them now will come back on you, like it has now. Don't be fooled by my join date, I've been around here a looong time.



Stop laboring under childish lies.
Goodbye musterion :wave:

Respond to my differentiation of the two types of idolatry, and make a case why yours is not Type II.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Well I just thoroughly and utterly proved you wrong

Your proof is no better than the proof the Pharisees used to try to justify their doctrines of men that made void the commandments of God.

 

[Lighthouse]

I can't speak for Lighthouse but if I were a Lutheran, or even considered myself an actual Protestant (I don't), you might have scored half a point with that one. As it is, you look very sad for having spent over 30 minutes all you could dig up is that picture and what amounts to, "Oh yeah? Well, LUTHERANS DO IT TOO!"

I never thought I'd say this but you really need to hand off to Cruciform. He's much better at this than you, and he's a lightweight.

:chuckle:

Mostly all non-Catholic denominations that have even a vestige of proper orthodoxy in them are inspired exclusively by either the Lutheran or Calvinist theology. The only real exception is Methodism, straight out of the Anglican communion.

And any of them that venerate anyone other than God are idolaters. Plain and simple.

Statues and venerating saints is not idolatry, that is simply a made up modern claim by those like yourself who have nothing else to do then draw up idiotic conclusions against those you don't like.

It is most certainly idolatry. Simply saying it isn't doesn't make it not.

But beware of the fact that because most of these churches have been around since the Early Ages, who made the distinction themselves what idolatry is when it was prime among actual idolaters of the times, you can deduce your own falsehood just by realizing that and condemning 90% of Christians on Earth to Hell will probably put you at the front of the line TO IT.

No. God defined idolatry and man has never had the authority to redefine it.

And I condemn no one. All those who are condemned are condemned by themselves. [John 3:18]

Well I just thoroughly and utterly proved you wrong, so whatever :thumb:

No you didn't. All you did was use circular reasoning. Your argument is that it's not idolatry because it isn't idolatry. That is an epic logic fail.

I also notice you didn't respond to my argument. What are you afraid of?

 

[musterion]

That's two arguments you haven't responded to. Cruciform would have at least tried, in his feeble way.

 

[Skybringr]

I've already proved you both wrong.

I don't really care about your anti-Catholic blindfold keeping you all from the truth, that's your own problem. You can bear false witness all by yourselves :thumb: