Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I concur with what John said, if you deny one you must deny all things contrary to your own personal beliefs or you are a hypocrite, it is a slippery slope of legalism that one must take, rather than grace and mercy. Like my obesity example, one must also take a stand against that, or if you want to take it too it's logical conclusion of full legalism, you should not sell this sugary fatty goodness in the first place.

I don't know, I really don't see it that way.

Consider that a person's moral conscience may not be pricked by sugary foods being wrong, especially if in moderation. If on the other hand, you're an anti-sugar type of person, that "big sugar" is just as bad as "big tobacco" then I suppose you would be inconsistent with yourself. It depends upon the extent that your conscience is pricked doesn't it?

For example, let's take up my ISIS example. If someone came into your store, and asked you to bake a cake with "Allahu Akba" on it with a picture of two men in dresses falling from a building to their death. Sadly, this happens -- gay people being thrown off buildings and/or stoned -- and it is even celebrated.

If you chose to not bake such a cake, based upon your moral conscience, I'd fully support your decision. I would not expect you to take such a stance on absolutely everything, because perhaps other things do not prick your conscience as much. Just because you refuse to bake such a cake, doesn't necessarily lead you to legalism, nor would I feel you are a bigot, or necessarily discriminating against the person (rather it's their horrible beliefs you're discriminating against).

In fact, my own stance on homosexuality, including gay marriage, is that such is destructive to both the gay person (whether or not they acknowledge it) and shows a break down of society in rebellion against God. Therefore, my moral conscience cannot support that which I think is harmful. I'd happily bake the person another cake though, they can write whatever message they want on it.

Kurieuo wrote:I'd like to point out that the issue, in this case, wasn't with serving a homosexual person. If the person was straight, ordering a cake to have a message on that condones and celebrates gay marriage, then that same person would not have been served.

If on the other hand, the person was not being served a cake precisely because they were gay, or even a pedophile, then forget bigotry or discrimination -- such is unChristian.

A person should always be entitled to not be complicit in whatever their moral conscience tells them is wrong. If the cake has a message that support ISIS and the execution of Christians, then equally I think it would be right for the person to opt out of making such a cake.

We would prefer people to not ignore their moral conscience in certain instances, for example, as was expected by the International tribunal setup to put on trial Nazi German soldiers for war crimes. Such I see (moral conscience of people) is invaluable to protect.

I liked the core of your message, K. My only remark is that making a cake for law abiding citizen holding a belief about his sexual orientation is a farcry than a cake for ISIS? What if a gay bakery owner or someone who supports their message refuses to make you a cake? This runs both ways.

The problem with moral conscience is that people can find perfectly good reasons to justify wrong actions based on their conscience, consider my example of Pakistan. There is nothing wrong with a Muslim baker who refuses to make a Christian ceremony cake for me, but what if all of the bakers feel the same way? what do I do then? Is it not my right that I can purchase things in the market as everyone else. That is what is wrong with the idea of involving moral conscience based business. You can be perfectly alright to say that Muslim baker has no obligation based on his conscience to serve me a cake, but in the wake of him having that privilege, I am the one without my right to buy something for which I pay a tax to the govt.

Now I think it is only fair if a message which is harmful is being asked to celebrate, such as pedophile books or ISIS message etc. Yes I agree you can refuse it, but you are refusing it on more than your moral grounds, you have legal and criminal grounds to do that.

Being gay is not a crime fellas, being a pedophile and isis supporter is. So I am not sure how these examples work.

Technically Neo, being a pedophile is not a crime, acting on it is illegal and all the other things connected with it. Other than that small technicality you can carry on.

I think something that is being overlooked is the gay movement itself. I mean as Christians? We know it is a sin,regardless if they think so.But the bigger issue is how it is being forced against the will of the people and then when we are appalled at how it is being forced on us by a rogue court system against our will we are called bigots. It is the gay movement forcing their immorality onto society that is the problem that everybody is overlooking.

It would be like if Christians pushed for it to be illegal in our society to be gay and forced gay people to accept it against their will.,it would be wrong. Because we cannot force people to obey God,it must come from the person's own free will and America is all about freedom and it should remain that way.

Again, it isn't that the cake was refused to be made on the grounds that the person was homosexual, but rather a type of cake was refused to be made -- one with a message that supported something the baker strongly disagreed with. There was no real discrimination of person, but rather of the message which pricked the baker's conscience.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, I do believe such is harmful, and my heart goes out to those trying to normalise that which naturally isn't possible, they're harming themselves. It also shows a break down in society who is more and more turning away from God. It to me, shows how captive many are by sin. God's laws, which the telos of nature itself bears witness to, are above that of human social law.

Again, no one should ever feel forced to take part in that which they have a strong conscience against. Being gay may not be a crime, though it once was and still is even in many parts of the world. Karo-kari isn't a crime either I believe in Pakistan. If I were asked to bake a cake with a message supporting this practice of honour killings, I'd not do so. Though, I'd make the Muslim Pakistani who believes in such any other cake.

We might suspect one has ulterior motivations, perhaps they are being bigoted and even white supremacist-like only to homosexuals. I'd agree here such is disgusting, but you get those people in the world. Whether such should be prosecuted for their beliefs, I'd say only if they acted upon them to directly harm another.

Nonetheless there are real cases of one's conscience being pricked, and when such happens, people need to be free to not participate in such. Anything else, is repression, is discrimination, is, in my opinion, bigoted ("intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices") and actually forcing a person to do something clearly against their conscience which would cause them much distress, pain and anguish.

Now to you Neo-X, and I'm sure D220, someone who acts out homosexually is no different to being left handed.

Many do not see such that way, including myself. My strong belief that such is wrong isn't only born witness to in the telos of man and woman to be united together and raise a family, but as Christians we see more clearly God's intentions in the words of Christ and those we call Apostles. Indeed, "marriage" itself is a religious practice. It is no place of any government to regulate such, in fact, they can regulate civil unions. But, the telos of marriage, two being united together as one, only finds meaning if there is an intended design to such. Our physiology bears witness to this intention. Indeed, male+male or female+female can never be truly united as one as biology doesn't allow such. So then, marital fulfillment, even if legally sanctions, will never be fulfilled -- though civil unions are something entirely different.

Now to speak as one Christian to another, the witness of our natural teleology seen in biology is supported by Christ who is reported as saying, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." (Matt 19:5) It is supported by Paul who only ever talks of husband and wife in marriage, how the two should treat each other, and indeed even Romans 1:24-27 we have because people deny God:

• 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
  
  26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I cannot support such in clear conscience, even if I were paid the equivalent of 30 pieces of silver in modern times. You might think me backward, out of touch with society or the like, but I think you two know me better than that. I feel I've presented what I feel are also good arguments above from both Natural Design and Christianity.

Again, I'll be clear, if someone wasn't served based upon their beliefs, then such is unChristian. But, if someone refuses to make something that would infringe upon their moral conscience, that is an entirely different issue.

neo wrote:
Rick, if you are one Christian in a country full of Muslims, who want a cake for their religous ceremony, with a religious message on it would you make one for them? if not, would you be discriminating?

I damn well better make it, unless I want my head cut off!

neo wrote:

I don't understand this argument at all. On any regular day, you are alright if you serve someone supporting a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist message, but not a gay one? How silly is that? Bakeries make cakes for all occasions, race, gender, ethnicity, other religions, all the time. But you have to make an exception for a Gay occasion. You really want to start down this path?

It seems like you're asking me. I wasn't the one who owns the cake place. But, you're changing the argument. lets assume the cake baker was the son of a Jew killed in a concentration camp. This Jewish cake baker was asked to bake a cake with a swastika on it, with the words, "Happy Anniversary Auschwitz death camp". Would it be discrimination if that baker didn't bake that cake? Should that baker be able to refuse to bake that cake, legally? We're talking in the US now, where there is supposed to be religious freedom.

neo wrote:

Imagine in a country like mine, Pakistan, where I can't get a cake for a Christian wedding or any Christian ceremony? Because the bakers in my country don't support my religious message. What kind of reasoning is that? I am tax paying citizen. I would rightly call it discrimination.

Get a blank cake, and write your own message. See, not so difficult.

neo wrote:
And I have been to places in Pakistan where the restaurant knows you are Christian, they might not serve you at all, or they might ask you to get your own crockery or cutlery. And that is why I call it discrimination.

Yes neo, I can only imagine how much that sucks. But again, that's not the issue. The bakery didn't refuse to bake a cake for someone because the customer is gay! They refused the message on the cake! Billy Graham could've walked in, ordered a gay wedding cake, and they still would've refused.

Nobody refused to serve a customer, because that customer was gay! You need to understand that.

I think it fits the definition of legalism quite well, they are so concerned with following the letter of the law they have forgotten about the Gospel message of grace, mercy and the spirit of the law. If you are going to live by the law then you must be consistent with the application of it or else you will be a hypocrite, so that would mean no cakes for divorced people who are remarrying, no cakes for overweight and obese people, no other religious cakes or holidays etc.. etc.. But no, we just discriminate against gays in western Christian culture.

You can wrap it up in "it's just the message on the cake", but what is the difference between a wedding cake with two names on it and a wedding cake with none, they are both being used for the same purpose! I think we can ignore this "It's only the writing on it" as that is not the issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology)

Legalism (or nomism), in Christian theology, is the act of putting law[clarification needed] above gospel by establishing requirements for salvation beyond repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and reducing the broad, inclusive and general precepts of the Bible to narrow and rigid moral codes.[1] It is an over-emphasis of discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law at the expense of the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption. On the Biblical viewpoint that redemption is not earned by works, but that obedient faith is required to enter and remain in the redeemed state, see Covenantal nomism.

Daniel,

If it were truly legalism, the cake baker would stone the offending homosexuals.

There is only one Gospel of Grace and Mercy and such applies to sinners who have no hope and deserve righteous condemnation, yet God finds a way via Grace for us to inherit righteousness via Christ so that God's Loving Mercy can abound rather than God's Righteous Condemnation.

Grace and mercy can only ever be found in that context, one of our being saved. However, loving one's neighbour as oneself wherein your argument could be better made, I don't see the gay person not being loved, and loves should ideally go both ways with both sides understanding each other rather than trying to force the other to agree.

The sword cuts both ways. Say there was a referendum on gay marriage. I needed a cake to support saying "no" to the bill. If I went into the cake store and the person behind the counter refused to make a cake with such a message, then I'd accept such in their strong belief, walk away a buy a cake somewhere else or ice my own message on top.

I'd not want to force the other person into doing something that's cause them pain going against their strongly held beliefs. They should be equally free to act according to their beliefs. That is love, not legalism.

Dan: what is the difference between a wedding cake with two names on it and a wedding cake with none, they are both being used for the same purpose! I think we can ignore this "It's only the writing on it" as that is not the issue.

The difference is, one need not police people. If they want to buy a cake, fine. And what they do with it - sinful or not - is between them and God. But if I oblige and decorate a cake which obviously is celebrating a gay union, then that is putting my APPARENT approval of that union, or at least contributing to it. Everyone should have the right to buy a cake, but they shouldn't have the right to force me to buy into or be supportive of beliefs I find immoral.

Let's say I'm a black baker, and a couple that are members of a white supremacy organization comes to my shop and wants me to put racist slogans on the cake, cover it in Confederate flags, and show a little plastic bride and groom all dressed in white - white SHEETS, that is, with "KKK" written on the front of each. As a baker, whose shop is open to the public, should that black baker have to do such a thing, so as to remain open, to not be fined, for standing up to something he finds exceptionally evil, or hate speech he finds immoral. What's the difference with the Christian baker who finds gay "marriage" an abomination? ZIP! In both cases, a cake should be sold, but without the writings each finds deplorable! We should not be held accountable for the sins of what others might do with a morally neutral thing, that could be sinfully used.

RickD wrote:Daniel,

If it were truly legalism, the cake baker would stone the offending homosexuals.

No it just means they are not being consistent with it.

Philip wrote:

Dan: what is the difference between a wedding cake with two names on it and a wedding cake with none, they are both being used for the same purpose! I think we can ignore this "It's only the writing on it" as that is not the issue.

The difference is, one need not police people. If they want to buy a cake, fine. And what they do with it - sinful or not - is between them and God. But if I oblige and decorate a cake which obviously is celebrating a gay union, then that is putting my APPARENT approval of that union, or at least contributing to it. Everyone should have the right to buy a cake, but they shouldn't have the right to force me to buy into or be supportive of beliefs I find immoral.

Let's say I'm a black baker, and a couple that are members of a white supremacy organization comes to my shop and wants me to put racist slogans on the cake, cover it in Confederate flags, and show a little plastic bride and groom all dressed in white - white SHEETS, that is, with "KKK" written on the front of each. As a baker, whose shop is open to the public, should that black baker have to do such a thing, so as to remain open, to not be fined, for standing up to something he finds exceptionally evil, or hate speech he finds immoral. What's the difference with the Christian baker who finds gay "marriage" an abomination? ZIP! In both cases, a cake should be sold, but without the writings each finds deplorable! We should not be held accountable for the sins of what others might do with a morally neutral thing, that could be sinfully used.

So would you say it is perfectly acceptable for me to refuse to bake a cake for people of a mixed race marriage, if I believed that the message on it was supportive of it and it goes against my beliefs? (I don't support this belief!!).

Question D220. If a "legalistic" Christian went into a cake shop, and ordered a cake with the message "Say NO to Gay Marriage". The baker just attended her daughter's ceremony where she vowed her love for another woman, and so the baker is really passionate about having laws passed that allow for and recognise "gay marriage". Should the baker make the cake for this Christian fellow?

Kurieuo wrote:There is only one Gospel of Grace and Mercy and such applies to sinners who have no hope and deserve righteous condemnation, yet God finds a way via Grace for us to inherit righteousness via Christ so that God's Loving Mercy can abound rather than God's Righteous Condemnation.

Grace and mercy can only ever be found in that context, one of our being saved. However, loving one's neighbour as oneself wherein your argument could be better made, I don't see the gay person not being loved, and loves should ideally go both ways with both sides understanding each other rather than trying to force the other to agree.

The sword cuts both ways. Say there was a referendum on gay marriage. I needed a cake to support saying "no" to the bill. If I went into the cake store and the person behind the counter refused to make a cake with such a message, then I'd accept such in their strong belief, walk away a buy a cake somewhere else or ice my own message on top.

I'd not want to force the other person into doing something that's cause them pain going against their strongly held beliefs. They should be equally free to act according to their beliefs. That is love, not legalism.

Yet you are forcing the cake to be made without the writing and causing pain to the gay people, the sword surely does cut both ways.

Daniel220 wrote:
I think it fits the definition of legalism quite well, they are so concerned with following the letter of the law they have forgotten about the Gospel message of grace, mercy and the spirit of the law. If you are going to live by the law then you must be consistent with the application of it or else you will be a hypocrite, so that would mean no cakes for divorced people who are remarrying, no cakes for overweight and obese people, no other religious cakes or holidays etc.. etc.. But no, we just discriminate against gays in western Christian culture.

At first I didn't understand how someone who refused to make a gay wedding cake, fit legalism. But then I remembered Leviticus 20;28, which says, "Thou shalt not baketh a cake for homosexual offenders.

Good point Daniel.