Aaron, people will think you more credible and thoughtful if you would not insult them by intentionally changing their names.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Megachurch pastor rejects his father’s bigotry: Jesus would want you to bake a gay wedding cake
- Thread starter Zaac
- Start date
Aaron, people will think you more credible and thoughtful if you would not insult them by intentionally changing their names.
You wish to use vulgarity but do not want to be Mod-edited?
You should look up some of these words. Three, as commonly used, are insulting to Our Lord.
I disagree. If a person has same gender attractions, that, in itself, is not a sin. Acting on those attractions is a sin.
Yes because no such thing exists. A wedding, according to the bible, is one man leaving his father and mother and clinging only to his wife so long as they both live.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Hold up oh yeah with the potty mouth. You're a [edited] and the truth ain't in ya if you think that- I of all people on this board filters anything through politics.
As many times as I have called folks out for that, well it would be right out silly. But we all know you've developed quite the penchant for inappropriate words or the truth.
Now back to the subject at hand. I'm not a fan of Andy Stanley's teaching at all. But I do believe that in accordance with Scripture that love covers a multitude of sins.
This whole cake baking thing is just another thing that some Christians have latched onto that, IMO, turns the very people away whom we should be attempting to point to Christ.
If I'm in the business of baking cakes, I'm gonna bake you a cake. What you do with the cake after I bake it is on you. I don't particularly care that two gay people use it as a wedding cake. I'm not performing the wedding. If you want me to come to the wedding, I'll come because I LOVE you. But because they know me, they know that my attending is because I fully love them out of the overflow of my love for Christ. But my attendance has NOTHING to do with me okaying the event, but everything to do with my love for Christ and His Commission to me.
And if someone is offended by me attending the wedding or giving them a cake, I'm okay with that. Because like preaching, I'm called to be pleasing to Jesus FIRST. And if I'm not committing a sin, the lot of you would just have to find something else to be upset about.
If I were a realtor, should I not sell a house to a gay "married" couple?
If I were a car salesman, should I not sell a car to a gay "married" couple?
If I were an insurance salesman, should I not sell insurance to a gay "married" couple?
If I am a pastor, should I not invite the gay couple to my church?
If I am a doctor, should I refuse to deliver the baby of a gay couple?
IMO, certain people in the church try to create issues and narratives. And it's usually the same folks who do that in politics. None of which has nothing to do with pointing folks to Christ.
So the question for me becomes should I do that which brings glory to the name and cause of Christ, or should I do that which pleases a bunch of bigots who make it a point of consistently acting nothing like Christ?
Ain't any question of the one I choose.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zaac
Well-Known Member
As TC said, this is NOT so. Sins are ACTS. They aren't just states of being. There is a homosexual offense that Scripture says is sin. If just identifying as a homosexual was a sin, if we were being honest, we'd have to deduce that just being a heterosexual was also a sin. Rather, God's word speaks to ACTS of homosexuality and ACTS of heterosexuality as being sinful.
<SNIP>
Wouldn't it have been just as presumptuous at the time to say that Christ would attend dinner at the home of a tax collector? Or that He would entertain talking to a Samaritan woman?
I think His attendance would depend on the role He intended to play at such a wedding. As with unsaved friends, you don't get together and do things just for the sake of doing things. At least as Christians, we shouldn't. The sole purpose of such engagements HAS TO BE to witness Christ.
And I believe if Jesus chose to attend a gay wedding, it would only be to witness Himself so that those in attendance who did not know Him would be drawn to His love for them.
JK, read up on how Samaritans and lepers were viewed during the time that Christ was on earth.
And we know from scripture that Christ ate with sinners. [Of course, who isn't a sinner?]
Mute point as there was no gay marriages then, so he would never had had the opportunity to attend a wedding. We do know that he never turned anyone away who was seeking him honestly.
Would he attend one now? Probably as that would give him an opportunity to talk with the two people. Christ never commanded us not to associate with sinners. He did command us go to all the world.
Indeed Crabby. Did u look at Romans? Did God give humans up to leprosy or being biracial? Answer: no.
He gave them up to........ come on.....
Another point, Jesus told the Samaritan woman to go and sin no more.
I'm sure the ghey crowd would just LOVE it if the Lord showed up at one of their weddings and told them that their acts were sinful and that He designed marriage for one man and one woman for life.
Question, weren't the sinners Jesus ate with repentant? See, that's my favorite answer to "Jesus ate with sinners" yeah He did...the ones who were broken over their sin.
When I see ghey pride parade footage where guys are leashed to other guys wearing diapers and acting like animals, I really don't think they're upset over their sin, in fact they are celebrating their sin. I truly do feel awful for them because they are slaves to sin. And baking cakes isn't going to sway them.
But we'll never really know if Jesus would show up to a ghey wedding today. Nor will I be asking Him. As a matter of fact, it is I who owe some answers to Him, not the other way around.
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
He gave them up to........ come on.....
Another point, Jesus told the Samaritan woman to go and sin no more.
I'm sure the ghey crowd would just LOVE it if the Lord showed up at one of their weddings and told them that their acts were sinful and that He designed marriage for one man and one woman for life.
Question, weren't the sinners Jesus ate with repentant? See, that's my favorite answer to "Jesus ate with sinners" yeah He did...the ones who were broken over their sin.
When I see ghey pride parade footage where guys are leashed to other guys wearing diapers and acting like animals, I really don't think they're upset over their sin, in fact they are celebrating their sin. I truly do feel awful for them because they are slaves to sin. And baking cakes isn't going to sway them.
But we'll never really know if Jesus would show up to a ghey wedding today. Nor will I be asking Him. As a matter of fact, it is I who owe some answers to Him, not the other way around.
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
We don't know for sure. That is your opinion. My assumptions are a result of how I read of his actions toward people in the circumstances of his days on earth.
There, again, you give opinion assuming you know how any gay person would respond in the negative. That is not a given. We will all have to answer for our own sins, both the sins of comission and of omission.
Again, your opinion. I know of no verse that says all sinners he ate or drank with were sinners. The Rich Young Ruler did not repent. We have no way of knowing if everyone he ate with repented. What we do know is that "All have fallen short".
And showing hate toward them will not sway them either.
In your opinion, would Christ attend the wedding of two white racist bigots?
I agree. We will never know the answer for certain ... and yes, we must all answer for our actions or lack of actions.
Here Crabby. I'll copy and paste it for u. God did not give them up to leprosy nor did He give them up to being a biracial group. Please see what He gave them up to. Hint: it wasn't leprosy....
======================
Romans 1:24-32English Standard Version (ESV)
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
You don't find me employing them either.
There are no gay marriages now. There is sodomy, and sodomy wasn't unknown in the First Century.
Which only means they have a great need of Him ... which strengthens the idea that he would associate with them attempting to bring them the truth. Christ never shied away from any sinner. He was kind to all except religious bigots.
Affections are acts. Thoughts are acts. To lust after a woman is to commit adultery. To be angry without cause is to murder.
Same sex attractions are corrupt attractions.
Sexuality is in a large part conditioned. There is no such thing as a heterosexual or a homosexual. For that matter, there is no such thing as a pedophile. The terms and identities were invented in just the last century. A homosexual was one who had unnatural and deviant appetites for members of the same sex, and a heterosexual was one who had unnatural and deviant appetites for members of the opposite sex.
Whether by humanist standards an act is heterosexual or homosexual, it is still sodomy. Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky and cigars in the Oval Office is a prime example.
But to say that one is a homosexual is to lie and to illegitimately ban him from the natural remedies for lusts that are effected in marriage. Paul said it is better to marry than to burn with lust. It doesn't matter how Darwinistic humanists qualify the lust, marriage can be a remedy. And there is no such thing as gay marriage. Marriage, according to Creation and Christ, the Creator, is a union of one man and one woman. Anything else is sodomy.
He was kind to those who owned slaves.
Oh! Oh! Oh! Why didn't I think of this earlier?
You mean in my heart I can think any nonwhite individual a stupid, subhuman ape, and bear all kinds of ill will and contempt for him, and it isn't sin unless I ACT on it?
How do we leave the One who saved us from our sins - including the sin of homosexuality - out of our discussion of homosexuality and gay marriage? Every single thing I do is based in my faith and if I choose to not participate in sin, I absolutely am going to point to Jesus as to why I cannot do it.
There is a very big difference between being "people friendly" and being "sin friendly". This is not even "love the sinner but hate the sin" but instead seeing everyone as a specially designed creation of God - but who are marred by a sinful heart. I would hope that he would treat the LGBT congregant the same as he would treat someone in open and celebratory adultery - or drug addiction - or thievery. He would love the person enough to say "This is not God's best and if you continue to celebrate and exalt your sin, you will have to be removed from our fellowship and we don't want to do that. We want to see you living a life of victory and worship of your Savior." Sometimes that means being the tough guy but that's what Jesus himself calls us to do.
No one refused to bake a cake because someone is gay. That is a complete untruth. The bakery had actually served this customer before happily. What they would not do is to make a cake for a gay wedding. BIG difference.