Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:

THE real question: Is it more important to accommodate a man or to take a stand for God's desires for right and wrong?

Love your neighbour as yourself. If you have a right, so should he. That is also God's desire.

Love your neighbor as yourself, doesn't mean, "be complicit in an act that's wrong".

A good comparison would be a bartender serving a customer who is intoxicated. Is continuing to serve him, "loving your neighbor"? Or is it the better choice to actually discriminate in this instance?

If you have a right, so should he. That is also God's desire.

Are you making the argument that it's God's desire that homosexuals have the right to "marry"? Or just that they have the right to force people to make a cake supporting homosexual acts?

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

THE real question: Is it more important to accommodate a man or to take a stand for God's desires for right and wrong?

Love your neighbour as yourself. If you have a right, so should he. That is also God's desire.

Love your neighbor as yourself, doesn't mean, "be complicit in an act that's wrong".

A good comparison would be a bartender serving a customer who is intoxicated. Is continuing to serve him, "loving your neighbor"? Or is it the better choice to actually discriminate in this instance?

If you have a right, so should he. That is also God's desire.

Are you making the argument that it's God's desire that homosexuals have the right to "marry"? Or just that they have the right to force people to make a cake supporting homosexual acts?

Don't present wrong examples, please. Going to the bar and having a drink is the right people have. who fit the criteria of age etc. Getting intoxicated is not a right, it is the consequence.

I am making the argument that God desires, to love your neighbour equal to yourself. If you have a particular right by default, so should he or she.

By the way I haven't used the argument for "forcing" anyone. Maybe you missed my post?
I can imagine in certain scenarios where you get forced to do something by the law of the land. The same way the govt. forces you to pay tax? if something falls under the law then yeah you may be forced.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

THE real question: Is it more important to accommodate a man or to take a stand for God's desires for right and wrong?

Love your neighbour as yourself. If you have a right, so should he. That is also God's desire.

Love your neighbor as yourself, doesn't mean, "be complicit in an act that's wrong".

A good comparison would be a bartender serving a customer who is intoxicated. Is continuing to serve him, "loving your neighbor"? Or is it the better choice to actually discriminate in this instance?

If you have a right, so should he. That is also God's desire.

Are you making the argument that it's God's desire that homosexuals have the right to "marry"? Or just that they have the right to force people to make a cake supporting homosexual acts?

1. Don't present wrong examples, please. Going to the bar and having a drink is the right people have. who fit the criteria of age etc. Getting intoxicated is not a right, it is the consequence.

2. I am making the argument that God desires, to love your neighbour equal to yourself. If you have a particular right by default, so should he or she.

By the way I haven't used the argument for "forcing" anyone. Maybe you missed my post?
I can imagine in certain scenarios where you get forced to do something by the law of the land. The same way the govt. forces you to pay tax? if something falls under the law then yeah you may be forced.

1. Neo, I gave this example, because the whole issue is an issue of conscience. The cake baker is being told that he can't discriminate on the basis of his conscience. And you say he shouldn't discriminate on the basis of his conscience, because the other person feels they have a "right" to something, correct? So, if this person feels they have a right to drink, even though the bartender feels the person is intoxicated, and it would go against his conscience to serve him, should he still serve him?

2. What particular "right", given by God, is not being afforded to someone if someone refuses to bake a gay wedding cake? And again, if someone believes gay "marriage" is wrong, why is it loving to be complicit in an act that's wrong?

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

THE real question: Is it more important to accommodate a man or to take a stand for God's desires for right and wrong?

Love your neighbour as yourself. If you have a right, so should he. That is also God's desire.

Love your neighbor as yourself, doesn't mean, "be complicit in an act that's wrong".

A good comparison would be a bartender serving a customer who is intoxicated. Is continuing to serve him, "loving your neighbor"? Or is it the better choice to actually discriminate in this instance?

If you have a right, so should he. That is also God's desire.

Are you making the argument that it's God's desire that homosexuals have the right to "marry"? Or just that they have the right to force people to make a cake supporting homosexual acts?

1. Don't present wrong examples, please. Going to the bar and having a drink is the right people have. who fit the criteria of age etc. Getting intoxicated is not a right, it is the consequence.

2. I am making the argument that God desires, to love your neighbour equal to yourself. If you have a particular right by default, so should he or she.

By the way I haven't used the argument for "forcing" anyone. Maybe you missed my post?
I can imagine in certain scenarios where you get forced to do something by the law of the land. The same way the govt. forces you to pay tax? if something falls under the law then yeah you may be forced.

1. Neo, I gave this example, because the whole issue is an issue of conscience. The cake baker is being told that he can't discriminate on the basis of his conscience. And you say he shouldn't discriminate on the basis of his conscience, because the other person feels they have a "right" to something, correct? So, if this person feels they have a right to drink, even though the bartender feels the person is intoxicated, and it would go against his conscience to serve him, should he still serve him?

Yes, he should. Getting drunk is that person's right and by law he is entitled to drink. A waiter's right is to have a job and his responsibility is to serve the customer. You are not responsible for someone's choice.

Let me give you another example, what if a soldier faces a terrorist or a state enemy or criminal and doesn't capture or shoot him because he feels it is against his conscience. What would you say to such a soldier?

2. What particular "right", given by God, is not being afforded to someone if someone refuses to bake a gay wedding cake? And again, if someone believes gay "marriage" is wrong, why is it loving to be complicit in an act that's wrong?

The right is to buy things available in the market.

If you believe gay marriage is wrong, then don't participate because it is a matter of choice. No one is selling marriage. But something that is in the market to buy, is a different thing.

I don't think that homosexuality is natural. It isn't. But I also don't see any reason why it should not be allowed. It is not a matter of what's morally right or wrong, it is a problem of rights.

Also you and Phil haven't answered my question from before, in case you missed it:

what if you are living in a non-Christian country and they refuse to get you a cake based on the Christian belief/message that has to go on the cake. And what if you are a minority and you get refused everywhere. Wouldn't that be wrong, unfair, unjust, discriminating?

what should be done in your opinion?

Neo: Love your neighbour as yourself. If you have a right, so should he. That is also God's desire.

So, I'm to believe that God thinks it is loving to accommodate and contribute to declarations of values He prolifically states are terribly sinful???!!! And as homosexuals marrying and celebrating with declarations of same-sex love on their cakes is a terrible thing in the sight of the Lord, HOW is it loving to help facilitate their declarations? Again, that is helping normalize what God says is perversion. And as these people are on the dangerous track (toward hell!) that Scripture declares them to be, going along with their public declarations of their perversion is about as UNLOVING as one can be. That is, IF Scripture is true, and what God says about those unrepentantly practicing perversions while declaring them lovely and natural. That's the issue - because if the Scriptures are TRUE, then what you assert to be loving is anything but!

Philip wrote:

Neo: Love your neighbour as yourself. If you have a right, so should he. That is also God's desire.

So, I'm to believe that God thinks it is loving to accommodate and contribute to declarations of values He prolifically states are terribly sinful???!!! And as homosexuals marrying and celebrating with declarations of same-sex love on their cakes is a terrible thing in the sight of the Lord, HOW is it loving to help facilitate their declarations? Again, that is helping normalize what God says is perversion. And as these people are on the dangerous track (toward hell!) that Scripture declares them to be, going along with their public declarations of their perversion is about as UNLOVING as one can be. That is, IF Scripture is true, and what God says about those unrepentantly practicing perversions while declaring them lovely and natural. That's the issue - because if the Scriptures are TRUE, then what you assert to be loving is anything but!

For the upteenth time, you don't live in a theocracy. Look around there are other people too. It is not a moral question, it is a question of rights.

It seems to me that you either misread my posts. Or perhaps just focused on things I haven't said. Would you answer my question, if you'd like perhaps? I'm curious as to what you think? Please let me know. I have pasted it below again for your convenience.

what if you are living in a non-Christian country and they refuse to get you a cake based on the Christian belief/message that has to go on the cake. And what if you are a minority and you get refused everywhere. Wouldn't that be wrong, unfair, unjust, discriminating?

what should be done in your opinion?

I have a couple of questions for you, I would appreciate if you could answer them:
1. So if I follow your logic consistently, then every person who got a divorce other than the reason that their spouse committed adultery, and remarried, are going to hell? I don't see any other way this ends, so please affirm if you agree or disagree?
2. Preaching other religions, and gods, false doctrines are all perversion of what God has revealed, so I would be right then to ask for constitution that prohibits, sikhs, Jews, indians and pretty much everyone non-christian to have public institutions of prayer and worship, such as the hindu temple, or sikh temple or a mosque? Their message as per the scriptures is concerned, is obviously wrong. They should not be allowed such?

And as these people are on the dangerous track (toward hell!) that Scripture declares them to be, going along with their public declarations of their perversion is about as UNLOVING as one can be.

By the way we are all going to hell, all the time, you and me too, only Christ saves us. Your sins or mine, whatever they are, are gone by not your measure of what we think is right or wrong, only by his redemption.

Neo, you are missing the main point! To be a Christian baker and to accommodate a message that is in opposition to God's views on something - the issue is it would be wrong for the CHRISTIAN. You also are ignoring the witness that one is personally validating their belief of the issue of homosexuality. You're also denying a responsibility for Christians to be a witness for what they feel are Godly values. So while your focus is for the non-Christian to get what they want, to do so, you're ignoring 1) the rights of a Christian to run their own business in sync with their own values, and 2) you asserting that just because you have a public business, you should have to accommodate the views of everyone else. As a long time guy in the business world, I can tell you that MANY businesses refuse certain clients, and for a variety of reasons. And yet, you don't typically see lawsuits filed over these. But for those with an agenda, instead of merely finding another baker or vendor for their services, they rather drag people into court and have them fined for being unwilling to violate their consciences on a specific issue. What the gay couple has a REASONABLE right to is a cake. What they don't have a reasonable right to is for the baker to decorate it to a homosexual wedding them. Again, let's make black bakers decorate a cake plastered with rebel flags and KKK signs- same deal, essentially. The thing is, the refusal isn't causing any great hardship or trauma. They've plenty of other bakers, and they are well used to people not agreeing with their sexual expression.

Neo, your real argumentation obviously is driven by the fact that you are unconvinced that the practice of homosexuality is sinful.

RickD wrote:
1. Neo, I gave this example, because the whole issue is an issue of conscience. The cake baker is being told that he can't discriminate on the basis of his conscience. And you say he shouldn't discriminate on the basis of his conscience, because the other person feels they have a "right" to something, correct? So, if this person feels they have a right to drink, even though the bartender feels the person is intoxicated, and it would go against his conscience to serve him, should he still serve him?

Neo wrote:
Yes, he should. Getting drunk is that person's right and by law he is entitled to drink. A waiter's right is to have a job and his responsibility is to serve the customer. You are not responsible for someone's choice.

Actually neo,
In the US, getting drunk in public is against the law. It's also against the law to serve alcohol to someone who is intoxicated. And in fact, it is the responsibility of the bartender/wait person, to make sure they don't serve a person who is drunk.

neo wrote:
Let me give you another example, what if a soldier faces a terrorist or a state enemy or criminal and doesn't capture or shoot him because he feels it is against his conscience. What would you say to such a soldier?

I would tell him that if he chooses to follow his conscience, there may be serious consequences.
And if he ignores his conscience, there will be consequences also.

RickD wrote:
2. What particular "right", given by God, is not being afforded to someone if someone refuses to bake a gay wedding cake?

Neo wrote:

The right is to buy things available in the market.

A God-given right to buy a gay wedding cake? That's really a God-given right? You're sticking with that argument?

RickD wrote:
And again, if someone believes gay "marriage" is wrong, why is it loving to be complicit in an act that's wrong?

Neo wrote:
If you believe gay marriage is wrong, then don't participate because it is a matter of choice. No one is selling marriage. But something that is in the market to buy, is a different thing.

Neo wrote:
I don't think that homosexuality is natural. It isn't. But I also don't see any reason why it should not be allowed. It is not a matter of what's morally right or wrong, it is a problem of rights.

Who is saying that homosexuality should not be allowed? That's not even remotely part of the argument.

Neo wrote:
what if you are living in a non-Christian country and they refuse to get you a cake based on the Christian belief/message that has to go on the cake. And what if you are a minority and you get refused everywhere. Wouldn't that be wrong, unfair, unjust, discriminating?

So what. Just buy a blank cake, and put your own message on it. Better yet, if I lived in a country that had absolutely nobody that was willing to bake a cake with a Christian message, I'd probably move.

Philip wrote:Neo, you are missing the main point! To be a Christian baker and to accommodate a message that is in opposition to God's views on something - the issue is it would be wrong for the CHRISTIAN. You also are ignoring the witness that one is personally validating their belief of the issue of homosexuality. You're also denying a responsibility for Christians to be a witness for what they feel are Godly values. So while your focus is for the non-Christian to get what they want, to do so, you're ignoring 1) the rights of a Christian to run their own business in sync with their own values, and 2) you asserting that just because you have a public business, you should have to accommodate the views of everyone else. As a long time guy in the business world, I can tell you that MANY businesses refuse certain clients, and for a variety of reasons. And yet, you don't typically see lawsuits filed over these. But for those with an agenda, instead of merely finding another baker or vendor for their services, they rather drag people into court and have them fined for being unwilling to violate their consciences on a specific issue. What the gay couple has a REASONABLE right to is a cake. What they don't have a reasonable right to is for the baker to decorate it to a homosexual wedding them. Again, let's make black bakers decorate a cake plastered with rebel flags and KKK signs- same deal, essentially. The thing is, the refusal isn't causing any great hardship or trauma. They've plenty of other bakers, and they are well used to people not agreeing with their sexual expression.

Neo, your real argumentation obviously is driven by the fact that you are unconvinced that the practice of homosexuality is sinful.

It could be the worst sin in the world, what I don't get, is that what you saying leads to bigger problems. But you don't seem to realize that.

I think we should all agree, that no matter which way you go there are going to be problems with the arguments that cannot be easily reconciled. Neo and I see huge problems in yours and you guys see huge problems in ours, in fact I see the problems in ours also, do you guys see the problem with yours?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I think we should all agree, that no matter which way you go there are going to be problems with the arguments that cannot be easily reconciled. Neo and I see huge problems in yours and you guys see huge problems in ours, in fact I see the problems in ours also, do you guys see the problem with yours?

No.

As usual, you and Neo are wrong.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I think we should all agree, that no matter which way you go there are going to be problems with the arguments that cannot be easily reconciled. Neo and I see huge problems in yours and you guys see huge problems in ours, in fact I see the problems in ours also, do you guys see the problem with yours?

No.

As usual, you and Neo are wrong.

I thought as much.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I think we should all agree, that no matter which way you go there are going to be problems with the arguments that cannot be easily reconciled. Neo and I see huge problems in yours and you guys see huge problems in ours, in fact I see the problems in ours also, do you guys see the problem with yours?

No.

As usual, you and Neo are wrong.

I thought as much.

But it is good that you see the problems in your argument. It's the first step towards fixing your mistakes.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I think we should all agree, that no matter which way you go there are going to be problems with the arguments that cannot be easily reconciled. Neo and I see huge problems in yours and you guys see huge problems in ours, in fact I see the problems in ours also, do you guys see the problem with yours?

No.

As usual, you and Neo are wrong.

I thought as much.

But it is good that you see the problems in your argument. It's the first step towards fixing your mistakes.

At least I have taken my first step, you are still crawling around on your hands and knees in full denial.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I think we should all agree, that no matter which way you go there are going to be problems with the arguments that cannot be easily reconciled. Neo and I see huge problems in yours and you guys see huge problems in ours, in fact I see the problems in ours also, do you guys see the problem with yours?

No.

As usual, you and Neo are wrong.

I thought as much.

But it is good that you see the problems in your argument. It's the first step towards fixing your mistakes.

At least I have taken my first step, you are still crawling around on your hands and knees in full denial.

Why don't you help a brother out, and kindly show me the flaws you see in my argument. But please make sure it's my argument that you find flaws in. Not some argument that I'm not even making.