Christian business owners . . .

[Imran Siddiqui]

King Henry VIII Agrees!

[Elok]

Yeahhh, about that abolish the law thing, IIRC that's from Sermon on the Mount, and Jesus explicitly modifies the Mosaic Law in that exact same Sermon. Cherry-picking verses doesn't really do anything.

[Sava]

If only these bakers made cakes depicting the prophet Mohammed.

[Kidlicious]

MrSatire

[Kidlicious]

Would they be requesting a "happy divorce cake?"

Yes

[Kidlicious]

Conservatives think homosexuality is fornication and the NT says not to fornicate (Acts 15:29). They believe baking gay cakes is condoning fornication.

The gay cake is a lie.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes

I see no reason why a Christian Baker wouldn't be able to turn down a request for a 'happy divorce cake'. This would be different from them asking for a plain cake.

[Kidlicious]

MrSatire doesn't know that people get judged for other things besides being gay.

[MrFun]

Yeahhh, about that abolish the law thing, IIRC that's from Sermon on the Mount, and Jesus explicitly modifies the Mosaic Law in that exact same Sermon. Cherry-picking verses doesn't really do anything.

Exactly. Anti-LGBT bigots need to stop cherry picking the Bible for their bigoted agenda, and follow ALL of the Bible (such as New Testament rules on divorce, premarital sex, etc.).

Why are LGBT people often the only type of "sinners" singled out by right-wing Christians, for denunciation, discrimination, and harassment??

[Elok]

No, cherry-picking verses from multiple books is still cherry-picking. The difference is that your side is cherry-picking to suit a different agenda, and has less understanding of the book as a whole. Which is the only way the Bible can be correctly understood, holistically and thoughtfully, because the Bible was written by dozens of authors over more than a thousand years, and the disparate parts frequently emphasize different things, where they do not flat contradict each other (e.g., the genealogies in Luke and Matthew give Joseph two different fathers).

I would not open my Riverside Shakespeare, pick a random line from a random play, and claim (without regard for who was saying it, in response to what, in which play, when it was written, etc.) that the sentiments expressed in that line represent "what Shakespeare thought about [topic]." To do the same with the Bible is actually even dumber, only centuries of Protestant culture in this country have taught us that any old insight some random buffoon digs out of the text in two minutes is just as valid as conclusions reached by monks and bishops after studying the thing for a lifetime. Thank you, Martin Luther, for that wretched contribution to scriptural exegesis.

This is setting aside the fact that, AFAIK, nobody goes into a bakery and asks for a cake with "Way to **** that whore!" on it, for example . . .

[rah]

Think of all those that asked a bakery to make a cake with room for a whore to hide and eventually leap out of.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Luther never taught that anyone can come up with an equally valid interpretation of Scripture as centuries of scholarship. That is a completely misreading of the Universal Priesthood - after all what would be the point of Lutheran Seminaries if Luther actually taught and believed that each believer's view of Scripture is equally valid.

[MrFun]

No, cherry-picking verses from multiple books is still cherry-picking. The difference is that your side is cherry-picking to suit a different agenda, and has less understanding of the book as a whole. Which is the only way the Bible can be correctly understood, holistically and thoughtfully, because the Bible was written by dozens of authors over more than a thousand years, and the disparate parts frequently emphasize different things, where they do not flat contradict each other (e.g., the genealogies in Luke and Matthew give Joseph two different fathers).

I would not open my Riverside Shakespeare, pick a random line from a random play, and claim (without regard for who was saying it, in response to what, in which play, when it was written, etc.) that the sentiments expressed in that line represent "what Shakespeare thought about [topic]." To do the same with the Bible is actually even dumber, only centuries of Protestant culture in this country have taught us that any old insight some random buffoon digs out of the text in two minutes is just as valid as conclusions reached by monks and bishops after studying the thing for a lifetime. Thank you, Martin Luther, for that wretched contribution to scriptural exegesis.

This is setting aside the fact that, AFAIK, nobody goes into a bakery and asks for a cake with "Way to **** that whore!" on it, for example . . .

Nah. It's the Christian far right that has a less understanding of the Bible. Christian right wingers love cherry-picking the Bible, rather than understanding it as a whole.

Anyway, what do you think of my question as to why LGBT people seem to be the only type of "sinners" to be singled out by right-wing Christians, for discrimination, denunciation, and harassment? Well okay - one other group singled out is women making their own reproductive and health decisions.

Can someone explain this obsessive, one-minded focus, at the expense of ignoring the other types/groups of sinners out there?

[Kidlicious]

Luther never taught that anyone can come up with an equally valid interpretation of Scripture as centuries of scholarship. That is a completely misreading of the Universal Priesthood - after all what would be the point of Lutheran Seminaries if Luther actually taught and believed that each believer's view of Scripture is equally valid.

If I read the Bible and understand it a certain way, and the Lutheran Church interprets it another way, you're saying it's possible to not believe my own interpretation?

[MrFun]

Hey Kid, I have you on block, so I cannot read your post if it was in response to me.