I'm certain the baker, like you, assumes that knowingly baking the requested custom cakes, which were neither vulgar nor obscene, for a gay wedding and for a party celebrating one person's sex change, somehow implicates him in the sins of his customers...except Jesus didn't teach his followers to believe such things.
It would not make Phillips an accomplice in sin, because he is not actively participating in their perceived sins. Souls are to be judged by God/Jesus according to their own sins and good works, not by the sins of others...if you believe in that stuff, anyhow. It's not important. The real issue is that, while he did offer premade goods, he still refused to accept custom cake orders for a gay couple and a transgender individual, which would have normally been accepted had they been placed by heterosexual customers. That's why he's being sued for discrimination based on sex/gender and sexual orientation, not because he's a Christian.
I can't ****ing believe I'm saying this...but can you cite Biblical scripture--preferably something from the New Testament, since that's where Jesus' teachings are described--that supports the idea of sin by association, and this notion that one may be held accountable for the sins of another?
I ask because I've just provided two of many scriptures, one from the Apostle Paul in a letter to the Romans and one from the Apostle Luke quoting Jesus himself, which state that one should not only refrain from passing judgement on another, but also that one should be accepting of others in spite of their flaws or differences, and to treat them as one would want to be treated. Jesus himself said it was perfectly okay to mingle with sinners when he said,
"But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked." (Luke 6:35)
My vacation is nearing its end. I may not have the time to discuss this or anything else at length much longer, nor would I expect to change your opinion nor anyone else's by doing so. I will maintain my point that Phillips cannot prove it is a sin to bake a custom cake for LGBTQ purposes, and that he discriminated against these customers due to his own prejudiced views. Though he was willing to sell them other previously-made goods, he still refused to provide the service of making a cake to their specifications, again, not because doing so can be proven to be a sin, but because of his own bias against LGBTQ lifestyles.
I'm going to watch Slayer, Anthrax, and Testament tomorrow in Denver. Will I be sinning by attending the concert, simply because those bands are known for songs which are critical of religion and feature themes about the occult?
If I stop by a burger chain after the show, clearly drunk, and a Muslim takes my order for a bacon double cheeseburger and serves it to me, would he be sinning?
Is a drug store clerk sinning by selling a legal amount of Sudafed to an extremely nervous man with an unusually thin face full of pinch marks, or by selling condoms to a young couple without wedding rings?
Are weapon manufacturers sinning at the assembly line, knowing many of their weapons will be used for murder?
The entire premise of sin by association is asinine, especially when you factor in the core Christian belief that all people are sinners.
Nope, I have no idea where such a quote would be in the bible, I'm nowhere close to what one would consider a bible scholar. But do you honestly doubt that in the bible there exists some passage that basically tells people not to knowingly and actively help others commit sin? I mean if one of your friends came over and said "Hey I need to borrow your spare bedroom for a while to have sex with this hooker because my wife is home and she can't find out" you honestly don't think God might take issue with it? What about it he asked to borrow your chainsaw because he was fed up with his wife and he needed it to cut her into little pieces?
He shouldn't HAVE to prove it's a sin. The bible is one of those books that's highly open to interpretation, is full of contradictions. and has been translated from through multiple languages over the years. You can't actually prove any of it. Think about what you're actually wanting by asking someone to prove their interpretation in court... It's basically goes against the concept of Church and state because it would be requiring government approval for ones beliefs. Can you really not see how that kind of thing could backfire in the long run?
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Aug 18th, 2018 at 02:41 PM
The scenarios you provided are laughably in no way similar to this lawsuit. Both scenarios involve knowingly aiding people who intend to harm others, and in ways which are in direct violation of Jesus' teachings, as well as at least two of the Ten Commandments. By law, knowingly aiding someone in premeditated murder would make you an accomplice; but according to Jesus and other authors of the books of the Bible, each person is responsible for his or her own sins, and not those of others.
I'm not a Biblical scholar either, but a quick search provided me an abundance of scripture (some quoting, or at least paraphrasing, Jesus himself) in support of the acceptance and forgiveness of sinners, encouraging humility, and against passing judgement on others. I'm sure if you looked, you'd probably find a quote or two to support the contrary, especially in the Old Testament, but would they be congruent with Jesus' teachings?
Here are some which support the idea of individual accountability for sins committed, and contradict the idea of sin by association:
Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man will come in His Father's glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done.
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. A son will not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father will not bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will fall upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked man will fall upon him.
2 Kings 14:6
Yet he did not put the sons of the murderers to death, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded: "Fathers must not be put to death for their children, and children must not be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."
Isaiah 3:10-11
Tell the righteous it will be well for them, for they will enjoy the fruit of their labor. Woe to the wicked; disaster is upon them! For they will be repaid with what their hands have done.
Jeremiah 31:30
Instead, each will die for his own iniquity. If anyone eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will be set on edge.
If one is claiming religious discrimination and a violation of one's religious beliefs, yes, I expect that person to be able to demonstrate how his or her beliefs are being violated, especially if taken to the Supreme Court.
Specifically, Phillips is claiming that it would be a sin to bake cakes for LGBTQ people, thus any legal mandate requiring him to do so would violate his Christian beliefs. If he's going to argue this in the Supreme Court, then he should be able to cite Biblical scripture which overwhelmingly supports this notion of sin by association without contradicting Jesus' own teachings of acceptance, tolerance, and forgiveness.
He doesn't have to prove Christianity is correct and true; he has to prove on some level that baking a cake for gay people is a sin or would force him to sin, according to the teachings of Jesus. Otherwise, he's just another Christian cherry-picking quotes from the Bible which seem to agree with an already established bias against gays and transsexuals, in order to justify his discrimination against them.
They are similar because in both of those instances you're excuse of "Well I'm not personally responsible for his sin, all I did was help", which is what you're trying to use against the baker, could apply. Either it's a sin to support someone else's sin or it's not, it's only vary rarely that the bible says something is a sin and then goes on to list an exception. The only such instance I can think of off the top of my head is when Jesus spoke against divorce but then made a specific allowance in the case of infidelity.
Yeah there's all kinds of contradictions in the bible, no doubt.
You keep misrepresenting what's happening. The baker's not refusing to serve anyone because they're gay or trans, he's refusing to bake a cake that celebrates a sinful ceremony. They're not barred from his store, he still welcomes their business. If they want a custom birthday cake, he'll make it for them. If they want a pink/blue cake or wedding cake that's already on the shelf, they're welcome to buy one.
And he himself probably DOES know of a passage indicating that you shouldn't help/support people sin. I mean have you checked to see if he's made such a thing known or are you simply assuming that nothing exists saying that you shouldn't aid someone in sin and there's therefor nothing that can possibly be interpreted as such?
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Aug 18th, 2018 at 09:00 PM
I think using bible quotes like your are demonstrates why it is a terrible idea to try and use bible quotes to shame a Christian for not condoning sin.
2 Thessalonians 3:14-15
14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
If a person sins, you're not supposed to associate with that person but you're also not supposed to treat them or think of them as an enemy and, in fact, let them know what they are doing is a sin. This is part of why the Westboro Baptist Church does their picketing: taking these verses to the extreme on "admonishing as a brother."
The baker not decorating a cake for a gay wedding is following his religious beliefs and teachings but not associating with the sinner.
Here is the most important verses from Christ, Himself, though:
John 8:
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Even Christ did not condemn her for her sin but he did tell her to not sin any more after he laid down the hammer. In this instance, only Christ can judge. However, we are not to judge at all. We are not Christ nor are we God. We do not possess the ability to judge in this manner. So, we are to forgive all. In the first verses I quoted, it was about how we are not supposed to associate people who are clearly sinners (because they refuse to obey "Righteous Law" - theosophically, "Righteous Law" is immutable and absolute truths meaning we do not need to judge to know they are wrong). But we are supposed to forgive them their trespasses and offenses, advise them in righteousness (not self-righteousness) to not sin anymore, but also not to associate with them.
Dude I saw some shit about some Mormons on Ancient Aliens.
Legit.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
"Bake the cake or I will whip you with a belt. Wait I'm magic so I could bake the cake right now. Mind blown."
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
And then he baked forty cakes. That's as many as four 10's. And that's terrible.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
If I'm going to indulge the idea that it would be a sin to make the custom-ordered cakes for both LGBTQ customers to use in their wicked celebrations, then how is the situation any different by selling them pre-made cakes to use for the exact same events? Why would it not be a sin to sell them pre-made cakes identical to the ones requested?
It sounds like he refused to work for gays and transgenders out of spite, yet still wanted to make a sale, so he offered them cakes he'd already made.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 18th, 2018 06:46 AM
