Cakes, Fakes & Counter-Quakes; Do The Kleins Have A Countersuit Against The Lesbians?

[JoeB131]

Joe, declaring yourself god is unattractive. You don’t get to decide what sin is. Someone with a much better grasp of reality already has that job

Really, so we can stone you for posting today, since your "God" said that was a sin worthy of death.

you really didn't think this through, did you?

 

[rightwinger]

We do hope for your redemption. When one suffers in the grip of Sin, it saddens us all.

TRUE ******* STORY!

TRUE ******* STORY- Nothing I've done in my life counts as "sin" to a sane person. I've never screwed over a person in my life, even people who've truly deserved it.

I just don't believe in your Sky Fairy.

Well Joe, did you admit you are a Christian-hater or not?

I have the stupidity of certain "Christians", but calling people who think Jesus was all about hating on the Gays really don't count as Christians.

Watching these people twist in the wind because society no longer tolerates their bigotry, is hilarious.

Joe, declaring yourself god is unattractive. You don’t get to decide what sin is. Someone with a much better grasp of reality already has that job

Yes, you do get to decide
You have to face yourself in the mirror

No, no I am not the one who decides. Not quite that powerful.

You have power over your own actions and morals

 

[rightwinger]

Joe, declaring yourself god is unattractive. You don’t get to decide what sin is. Someone with a much better grasp of reality already has that job

Really, so we can stone you for posting today, since your "God" said that was a sin worthy of death.

you really didn't think this through, did you?

Many of his postings have been worthy of a stoning

 

[Silhouette]

Really, so we can stone you for posting today, since your "God" said that was a sin worthy of death.

you really didn't think this through, did you?

That's Old Testament Jewish law. New Testament has Jesus revising that to "ye who is without sin cast the first stone".

Interesting though that with all Jeses' lenient revisions in the NT, he still conveyed to Jude that God was serious as shit when it came to not helping spread the culture of homosexuals "as normal".

 

[JoeB131]

That's Old Testament Jewish law. New Testament has Jesus revising that to "ye who is without sin cast the first stone".

But that's not a change in the law.... Jesus didn't say to stop punishing people for what he considered "sin".

Interesting though that with all Jeses' lenient revisions in the NT, he still conveyed to Jude that God was serious as shit when it came to not helping spread the culture of homosexuals "as normal".

Except there's no proof Jude was speaking for anyone but himself.

Of course, since Jesus himself was mythical, you had a bunch of people attributing all sorts of things to him.

 

[Silhouette]

Interesting though that with all Jeses' lenient revisions in the NT, he still conveyed to Jude that God was serious as shit when it came to not helping spread the culture of homosexuals "as normal".

Except there's no proof Jude was speaking for anyone but himself.

Of course, since Jesus himself was mythical, you had a bunch of people attributing all sorts of things to him.

So your fallback is "there's no proof the NT Bible is based on real eyewitness gospels?" OK, good luck.

Jesus put in Jude's ear in Jude 1 the reminder that God destroyed Sodom for the sodomites' behaviors overtaking the entire town. To facilitate such another social coup using the vehicles of marriage, education or adoption is the "smooth speech".."crept in unawares" part of the passage. Christians are to actively resist such a coup or face eternal soul peril. It was important enough of an event (destroying an entire region for homosexual normalizing) that it was included in the NT's witnessing.

God has God's reasons for emphasizing this particular mortal sin, with the punishment of eternal damnation. My own speculation is though that people are put on the earth in order to be tested against such depravities as overeating, drug abuse, sexual deviance, crime, murder, thieving, lying, etc. If an entire region normalizes one of these sins by participating in allowing it a vehicle into the minds of future generations, then that mortal sin is committed. My theory is that God cannot use that region anymore to test his souls because they cannot be held accountable if their formative years stamped them with a sin as "completely normal". God may know we are first and foremost social monkeys who dare not buck such an ingrained social fold. How could the test be complete if the mind is completely owned by the sin such that the person never even is faintly aware that it is wrong? If there had been just a tiny cluster of people still dedicated to outcry against sodomy becoming mainstream in Sodom, perhaps those faint inclines might have reached innocent ears. But since there was just one dude left in the region who wasn't on board with ass sex, God said "OK, get out before I destroy this place and start over".

 

[JoeB131]

Jesus put in Jude's ear in Jude 1 the reminder that God destroyed Sodom for the sodomites' behaviors overtaking the entire town.

Okay, buddy, you realize there's no evidence Sodom ever existed, either, right? I mean,next you'll be telling me the talking snakes and donkeys in the Bible were real.

God has God's reasons for emphasizing this particular mortal sin, with the punishment of eternal damnation. My own speculation is though that people are put on the earth in order to be tested against such depravities as overeating, drug abuse, sexual deviance, crime, murder, thieving, lying, etc.

Well, that's kind of fucked up, isn't it? God programs you with whatever urges you have as a person, and then punishes you for indulging them? This makes God kind of sound like a Comic Book Villian, doesn't it. Or maybe the psycho from the Saw movies.

 

[Silhouette]

No. Not really. If you accept that souls are inside preprogrammed bodies for the purpose of gaining strength to override those urges in the interest of more lofty goals, then the Test not only makes sense but also is a rather smart plan.

Those who pass can be trusted on a plain where there may be much more dire consequences born from a misuse of greater power there. In fact I believe that's what old Satan did. He had greater power & once was welcomed among the angels. But then he went rogue & couldn't be trusted. Maybe Gods plan doesn't include a repeat of that mistaken trust.

 

[JoeB131]

No. Not really. If you accept that souls are inside preprogrammed bodies for the purpose of gaining strength to override those urges in the interest of more lofty goals, then the Test not only makes sense but also is a rather smart plan.

No, it's kind of an awful plan. It's sort of sadistic. If everyone had equal temptation, and the same trials, then I guess it would be "fair", but some people have great lives and are fuckups and some people have awful lives and still make it work.

Those who pass can be trusted on a plain where there may be much more dire consequences born from a misuse of greater power there. In fact I believe that's what old Satan did. He had greater power & once was welcomed among the angels. But then he went rogue & couldn't be trusted. Maybe Gods plan doesn't include a repeat of that mistaken trust.

So yeah, I guess God really wants the butt-sex test for people to weild cosmic power... that makes sense.

 

[Syriusly]

Really, so we can stone you for posting today, since your "God" said that was a sin worthy of death.

you really didn't think this through, did you?

Interesting though that with all Jeses' lenient revisions in the NT, he still conveyed to Jude that God was serious as shit when it came to not helping spread the culture of homosexuals "as normal".

Jesus never once mentions homosexuality in the New Testament. Not once.

Seems that Jesus had more important messages to give his followers like

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

'There is no commandment greater than these"

Why wouldn't a Baker follow Jesus's own commandment and love his gay neighbor?

 

[Syriusly]

Interesting though that with all Jeses' lenient revisions in the NT, he still conveyed to Jude that God was serious as shit when it came to not helping spread the culture of homosexuals "as normal".

Except there's no proof Jude was speaking for anyone but himself.

Of course, since Jesus himself was mythical, you had a bunch of people attributing all sorts of things to him.

So your fallback is "there's no proof the NT Bible is based on real eyewitness gospels?" OK, good luck. .

There are no 'real eyewitness gospels- there are only gospels- which do exist- but whether they represent any historical events or not- we have no proof of.

 

[Syriusly]

Interesting though that with all Jeses' lenient revisions in the NT, he still conveyed to Jude that God was serious as shit when it came to not helping spread the culture of homosexuals "as normal".

Except there's no proof Jude was speaking for anyone but himself.

Of course, since Jesus himself was mythical, you had a bunch of people attributing all sorts of things to him.

God has God's reasons for emphasizing this particular mortal sin, .

Except according to the bible- God hasn't emphasized anything about homosexuality.

That is entirely your interpretation- because you are a bigoted loon who despises homosexuals.

 

[bodecea]

Really, so we can stone you for posting today, since your "God" said that was a sin worthy of death.

you really didn't think this through, did you?

That's Old Testament Jewish law. New Testament has Jesus revising that to "ye who is without sin cast the first stone".

Interesting though that with all Jeses' lenient revisions in the NT, he still conveyed to Jude that God was serious as shit when it came to not helping spread the culture of homosexuals "as normal".

So...the 10 Commandments don't mean anything anymore.....someone tell Roy Moore who made a big thing out of sneaking a super-heavy 10 Commandments monument into an Alabama courthouse and getting it bolted down in the middle of the night.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Jesus never once mentions homosexuality in the New Testament. Not once.

Seems that Jesus had more important messages to give his followers like

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

'There is no commandment greater than these"

Why wouldn't a Baker follow Jesus's own commandment and love his gay neighbor?

Except according to the bible- God hasn't emphasized anything about homosexuality.

That is entirely your interpretation- because you are a bigoted loon who despises homosexuals.

It was never Jesus' purpose or intent to reiterate all the various issues of right and wrong, that God had already clarified through His prophets,and which he further clarified after Jesus' time on Earth. The standards of sexual morality have always been quite clear and consistent throughout the Bible, everywhere that they have been covered. There was never any need or reason for Jesus to specifically tell us what we had already been told plenty of times, and would yet be told plenty of times.

I'm aware of the efforts that have been made by various factions of the pro-pervert movement to try to twist passages in the Bible in order to deny that they mean what they very clearly say, but there is no rational basis on which to deny that the Bible is quite clear about homosexual behavior—that it is immoral and unacceptable before God. It is an evil and abominable practice, and anyone who professes to serve God is obligated to eschew it, and to refrain from giving any support to it.

Why wouldn't a Baker follow Jesus's own commandment and love his gay neighbor?

Loving my neighbor does not mean that I am to give my approval support to my neighbor's immoral behavior. It is not loving to support and enable evil and destructive behavior; in fact, it is rather the opposite. Even Jesus did not do so. Remember what his last recorded words were to the woman taken in adultery, after he saved her from those who wished to put her to death? He didn't tell her that it was OK for her to keep cheating on her husband. He told her to “Go and sin no more.” There are other instances in which Jesus encountered people who were caught up in serious sin, and in which he refrained from condemning them for it, but in no instance did he ever say or suggest that their sin was OK.

 

[Syriusly]

Jesus never once mentions homosexuality in the New Testament. Not once.

Seems that Jesus had more important messages to give his followers like

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

'There is no commandment greater than these"

Why wouldn't a Baker follow Jesus's own commandment and love his gay neighbor?

Except according to the bible- God hasn't emphasized anything about homosexuality.

That is entirely your interpretation- because you are a bigoted loon who despises homosexuals.

It was never Jesus' purpose or intent to reiterate all the various issues of right and wrong, that God had already clarified through His prophets,and which he further clarified after Jesus' time on Earth. The standards of sexual morality have always been quite clear and consistent throughout the Bible, everywhere that they have been covered. .

You are correct in part- sexual morality was covered in the Bible- in particular in the 10 Commandments.

Homosexuality? Not mentioned in the 10 Commandments- unlike adultery.

Male/Male homosexuality arguably is condemned in Leviticus-

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)


If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Of course Christians argue that such rules only apply Jews- except oddly enough for homosexuality. So while Leviticus says that a man having sex with a man is an abomination- it also says
Leviticus 11:10-19: “But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you.

Yet Christians have no problem eating octopus or shrimp.

As far as Jesus's purpose- actually Jesus was very clear about stating what was right and what was wrong.

Jesus condemned adultery numerous times- he condemned divorce- but he didn't condemn homosexuality.

Heck Jesus even condemned greed and lust- but he didn't condemn homosexuality.

What did Jesus do though? Jesus gave very specific guidelines to his followers

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

'There is no commandment greater than these"

Note the 'there is no commandment greater than these'.

Odd isnt' it- when Christians condemn homosexuals and gay marriage- they never once refer to any of Jesus's actual words.

So who is obeying Jesus more? Following Jesus's commandments more?

The Baker who loves his neighbor- and bakes him his wedding cake?

Or the Baker who says it is against Gods law to bake his neighbor a wedding cake?

 

[Syriusly]

Jesus never once mentions homosexuality in the New Testament. Not once.

Seems that Jesus had more important messages to give his followers like

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

'There is no commandment greater than these"

Why wouldn't a Baker follow Jesus's own commandment and love his gay neighbor?

Except according to the bible- God hasn't emphasized anything about homosexuality.

That is entirely your interpretation- because you are a bigoted loon who despises homosexuals.

It was never Jesus' purpose or intent to reiterate all the various issues of right and wrong, that God had already clarified through His prophets,and which he further clarified after Jesus' time on Earth. The standards of sexual morality have always been quite clear and consistent throughout the Bible, everywhere that they have been covered. There was never any need or reason for Jesus to specifically tell us what we had already been told plenty of times, and would yet be told plenty of times.

I'm aware of the efforts that have been made by various factions of the pro-pervert movement to try to twist passages in the Bible in order to deny that they mean what they very clearly say, but there is no rational basis on which to deny that the Bible is quite clear about homosexual behavior—that it is immoral and unacceptable before God. It is an evil and abominable practice, and anyone who professes to serve God is obligated to eschew it, and to refrain from giving any support to it.

Why wouldn't a Baker follow Jesus's own commandment and love his gay neighbor?

Loving my neighbor does not mean that I am to give my approval support to my neighbor's immoral behavior. It is not loving to support and enable evil and destructive behavior; in fact, it is rather the opposite. Even Jesus did not do so. Remember what his last recorded words were to the woman taken in adultery, after he saved her from those who wished to put her to death? He didn't tell her that it was OK for her to keep cheating on her husband. He told her to “Go and sin no more.” There are other instances in which Jesus encountered people who were caught up in serious sin, and in which he refrained from condemning them for it, but in no instance did he ever say or suggest that their sin was OK.

And no one is asking a Baker to say that gay wedding is okay.

Show me where in the Bible Jesus said to love thy neighbor- but not if he is gay. Or where he said "love thy neighbor- but if he is sinning- don't sell him that pita.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You are correct in part- sexual morality was covered in the Bible- in particular in the 10 Commandments.

Homosexuality? Not mentioned in the 10 Commandments- unlike adultery.

Male/Male homosexuality arguably is condemned in Leviticus-

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)


If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Of course Christians argue that such rules only apply Jews- except oddly enough for homosexuality. So while Leviticus says that a man having sex with a man is an abomination- it also says
Leviticus 11:10-19: “But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you.

Yet Christians have no problem eating octopus or shrimp.

Through revelation via the prophet Peter, the dietary restrictions were lifted shortly after Jesus's time. See Acts 11:6-9

6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.

8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.

9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.​

As far as Jesus's purpose- actually Jesus was very clear about stating what was right and what was wrong.

Jesus condemned adultery numerous times- he condemned divorce- but he didn't condemn homosexuality.

Heck Jesus even condemned greed and lust- but he didn't condemn homosexuality.

Jesus didn't mention—as far as is recorded—incest or bestiality. Does this mean that those are OK?

What did Jesus do though? Jesus gave very specific guidelines to his followers

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

'There is no commandment greater than these"

Note the 'there is no commandment greater than these'.

Odd isnt' it- when Christians condemn homosexuals and gay marriage- they never once refer to any of Jesus's actual words.

To focus on specific acts of sexual perversion misses the point.

The standard is clear. Sexual intimacy is acceptable only within marriage. Period.

Homosexual behavior cannot occur within marriage, because marriage is only between a man and a woman, no matter how desperately the sick perverts want to try to define it otherwise. The Ten Commandments are not the whole of the law, but the highlights. The Mosaic law fills it out more, and enumerates other acts of sexual perversion and immorality that are exactly equivalent to adultery, including incest, bestiality, and homosexuality.

So who is obeying Jesus more? Following Jesus's commandments more?

The Baker who loves his neighbor- and bakes him his wedding cake?

Or the Baker who says it is against Gods law to bake his neighbor a wedding cake?

Again, enabling and supporting evil, destructive, and immoral behavior is not “love”, no matter how hard you try to twist and pervert scripture to argue that it is.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And no one is asking a Baker to say that gay wedding is okay.

To produce a custom artistic work, in support of an event, is to endorse that event, to say that that event is OK. There is simply no rational way to deny this.

To produce a “wedding cake” for a disgusting homosexual mockery of a wedding is to endorse that mockery along with the evil and perversion that it embodies.

 

[Syriusly]

[

As far as Jesus's purpose- actually Jesus was very clear about stating what was right and what was wrong.

Jesus condemned adultery numerous times- he condemned divorce- but he didn't condemn homosexuality.

Heck Jesus even condemned greed and lust- but he didn't condemn homosexuality.

Jesus didn't mention—as far as is recorded—incest or bestiality. Does this mean that those are OK?

.

Well that is a good question- why didn't Jesus mention incest or bestiality?

Jesus does condemn adultery- repeatedly.

But not incest- not bestiality- not child sex abuse- and not homosexuality.

But Jesus does mention divorce- again in terms of adultery

He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

So all of this does beg the question- why does Jesus focus on adultery- but not homosexuality?

Of course the easiest way you have to deal with it is with a hand wave- 'nothing to see here'- by presuming that 'of course Jesus' was against homosexuality.

And maybe he was- or maybe he just find the issue important like he did adultery.

We do have Jesus's very specific and unambiguous command about divorce though.

According to Jesus- Donald Trump is committing adultery against his first and second wives. And adultery is specifically mentioned in the 10 Commandments.

Now are Christians refusing to recognize Trump's wedding because of his violating Jesus's words?

Not that I have seen.

 

[Syriusly]

And no one is asking a Baker to say that gay wedding is okay.

To produce a custom artistic work, in support of an event, is to endorse that event, to say that that event is OK. There is simply no rational way to deny this..

That simply is not a rational answer.

You think that a Jewish baker who makes an Easter cake is endorsing Easter? That an atheist who bakes a cake celebrating Christmas is endorsing Christianity?

Baking a wedding cake for someone is hiring a craftsman to produce a custom work. They are not asking the craftsman- or the 'artist' to endorse anything.

There is simply no rational way to deny this. (LOL)