First Amendment Under Attack

[Hemodoc]

I thought I had made this quite clear.  The Oregon bakery incident is quite striking. Exercising Christian values by NOT participating in gay marriage is now chastised. That is a direct infringement of first amendment rights. As in Europe and Canada, the courts have decided along the lines of the Humanist Manifesto's elevating gay rights above religious freedom.

All right. I think I now understand your point, although I disagree with it.

I think civil law SHOULD supersede religious "law." Ours is a civil government, not a theocracy. The founding fathers were very clear on establishing it as such. So, where religious practices (discrimination of gays in this case) go counter to civil law, those practices fall outside the law. Just as those whose religion bans medical intervention may be held accountable for the deaths of children when medical intervention could prevent those deaths.

This gets back to having to decide which religions are "right."

You think that yours is right and that gays should be treated as second class citizens. Others might think that their religion is right and that those who discriminate against gays are second class citizens. The practice of religious freedom ends where it crosses the boundary of legality.

Not true again. The founding fathers based the majority of our new constitution on the Common law which as documented by Blackstone is derived with the Bible as the highest authority. They did use some elements of the civil law which came from many sources including the Romans. The military developed their code of military justice based more on the civil laws than the Common Law and has some noted differences. The Common law gave us trial by jury of our peers. Civil law gives us tribunals of judges.

Just as we see such civil laws as the Military Commissions Act which establishes tribunals, we also see more and more adherence to civil laws. The Common Law Religious liberties which also stem forth from natural rights is now directly at odds with civil law by granting gay marriage as a civil right. Study the differences between the Common Law and Civil Law history and you will see that over and over again, the founding fathers chose the basis which is founded first on the Bible.

Now, they did NOT establish a theocracy, but they did not eschew the influences of the 10 Commandments and the rest of the influence of the Bible on the Common Law. We have a Republic and a constitution which guarantees natural rights. They were not at all afraid to speak openly of their Christian faith. As a politician, saying that they were an atheist in an overwhelmingly Christian nation would not fly. Today, we are no longer a predominantly Christian nation but a secular one. Looking at the issues of the 1700's through the lenses of today's society gives erroneous impressions of the founding fathers and their documents. The establishment clause is just that, no denomination will be the state religion as in Europe, but they were not anti-religion as so many mistakenly interpret the first amendment. If a man by his Christian faith is led to not participate in a gay marriage, the founding fathers did not have an issue with that at all. That is what the first amendment was for, religious freedom and the liberty to fully exercise that faith openly.

The constitution in no manner forbid states from openly requiring Christian faith as a prerequisite for serving in government for instance as seen in the original MA constitution. It simply did not allow the state to establish a certain denomination as the state sanctioned church as they had in Europe. Failing to understand the essential elements of what the first amendment did or did not at the foundation underlies much of the confusion of what it means today.

[rocker]

Mixed threads? Come on out of the OT Rocker.

Yes, that's typical "cafeteria Christianity".  The kind that says the only important laws in the Bible are the ones I already agree with.

It's a shame that Jesus didn't agree with that.  Read Matthew 5:17-20.

Since when do you not get married if you committed fornication prior to marriage?

Since when is fornication no longer a sin?

You continue to display an amazing ignorance of the Bible and Christianity.

Uh huh.

They didn't wish to participate in a gay marriage

They were never asked to participate in a gay marriage.

[Hemodoc]

1) Yes, that's typical "cafeteria Christianity".  The kind that says the only important laws in the Bible are the ones I already agree with.

It's a shame that Jesus didn't agree with that.  Read Matthew 5:17-20.

Matthew 5:17     ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19     Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20     For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Rocker, do you REALLY wish to discuss the meaning of Matthew 5:17-20???  It is a wonderful set of verses that you are probably correct are not well understood. However, I could quote a whole bunch of verses showing that we are not under the law anymore, even though the law shall NEVER change. The Mosaic or Sinai covenant is different than the NT covenant written in the blood of Jesus. One requires a human priest to make offerings yearly as well as other commandments, the other is a covenant made by the death of Jesus who ONCE gave His life for us. People who apply the OT Jewish laws to Christians were and are called Judaizers. It is actually a heresy that Paul dealt with in several of his epistles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers

Simply put, why would think that an OT law to children of Israel applies to a born again Christian. Do you not understand the old and new covenants? If you wish, I would be more than happy to explain in detail why your answer does show your ignorance of this issue. We are not under the Mosaic law my friend.

Here is one admonition from Paul on this very issue that I just happened to read a couple of hours ago for another unrelated reason:

Galatians 2:11    But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12     For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13     And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14     But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15     We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16     Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17     But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18     For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19     For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20     I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21     I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

We could discuss this issue at great length if you wish, but you are in error on the meaning of Matthew 5:17-20 which by the way has been an incredibly important set of verses to me personally. The law does remain though my friend but not for those who are born again living by the "grace" of God. It is completely intact for those who do not believe and it is what God shall judge the lost by.

I Timothy 1:8     But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9     Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10     For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11     According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
12    And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
13     Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14     And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
15     This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
16     Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Christians have already been forgiven for all of our sins. We will not stand in judgement for them even though the Lord does rebuke and chastise us here and now for them when we fail to live to His wishes. When we live the life Christ has for us, this is what we are to follow:

Galatians 5:18     But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19     Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20     Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21     Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22     But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23     Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24     And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25     If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Lastly, you need to understand that Jesus did not destroy the law, but He did take it and bares the burden of the law upon Himself for us. Take a look:

Colossians 2: 8    Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9     For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10     And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11     In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12     Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13     And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14     Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15     And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16     Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17     Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

It says above that Jesus took these ordances away, but He did not destroy them at all. He nailed them to the cross baring the burden of the law for us who are saved by His grace. Therefore, Paul says, let no man judge you by the law in verse  16. In addition, I could go into quite  long discussion on the prophetic significance of Matthew 5:17-20 but only if you wish.

2) Since when is fornication no longer a sin?

Never said it was no longer a sin did I. Since when is getting right with the Lord and MARRYING instead of remaining in sin condemned my friend? God does not punish someone for repenting and doing right. Once again, you are in great error. Let us look at what Jesus said to the woman caught in the very act of adultery:

John 8: JESUS Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2     And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
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.

So, according to you, the bakers SHOULD condemn a couple who are living in sin but are now going to marry according to God's commandments. That is not the message of Christianity.  Read what Jesus said. Neither do I condemn thee, go, and sin no more.

3) They were never asked to participate in a gay marriage.

Sure it is my friend. Baking a cake for a wedding is a very involved affair from what I have seen with many hours of work to bring it to pass. Many deliver and set up the cake and at times bring it out during the reception.  Sure, it is indeed a very direct involvement. There are a whole lot of reasons to not engage in business with another person. Personal religious convictions have up until now been a well recognized reason for choosing such a course.

In addition, since God is indeed real, the baker is correct to give warning to the gay couple to go and sin no more. So how is it that you wish the baker to participate in what they rightly consider to be a behavior that God shall judge according to His law as you correctly noted in Matthew 5:17-20. Yes, Matthew 5:17-20 still applies to those who shall stand before God in the great white throne judgement noted in Revelation chapter 20.

Since you appear to want to consider the OT, there is a verse in the OT that Paul paraphrased in the NT.

Ezekiel 33:8     When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
9     Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Acts 20:26     Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27     For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

[noahvale]

*

[rocker]

Mom fights back: Teacher tells daughter she can’t choose God as her idol

I know someone who used to work in the legal department of a major school system.

One thing to always remember when you hear these outrageous school stories is this: Children in school are almost always (as in this case) minors, and protected by privacy laws.  The school cannot, by law, comment on individual cases.  The parents, on the other hand, are free to hold as many press conferences as they like, saying anything they wish.

You are only ever getting one side of the story.  The teacher or school system cannot say "No, what really happened is this -".  That's why the school statements will always say things like "Our policy is....", because that's all they are allowed to comment on.

My favorite outrageous school story was the little boy who was charged with sexual harassment by the school for giving a girl on the swing a sweet little kiss on the cheek.  Outrageous!

Except, people who knew the situation (not the school) eventually revealed that the boy had been a constant discipline problem in the school, hitting and biting other students.  He had focused particularly on one little girl, constantly hitting and poking her and generally making her life miserable.  He ignored all punishments, and was eventually moved to another classroom to separate him from her. At recess one day, he saw her sitting on the swing.  He ran over, grabbed her by the hair, yanked her head back, and bit her on the cheek. And he was never "charged with sexual harassment", he was suspended for repeatedly ignoring warnings to change his behavior.

That was the sweet little boy who just wanted a kiss.

So I really don't trust any "outrageous" school stories, whether I tend to agree with them or not. I've heard the other side of a few of them.

[noahvale]

^

[rocker]

In this situation what's "outrageous" is the teacher's lack of understanding

Is that what the teacher said?  Or are you only basing this on the mother's [thirdhand] account?

[willowtreewren]

Back to "cafeteria" Christianity. This little cartoon sums up many of the contradictions of the Bible. While Rocker calls this cafeteria Christianity, I call it cherry picking the Bible to find what one wants to believe from it and tossing the rest. So, going back to the bakery, why do the owners serve people who have committed adultery? Isn't THAT cherry picking from sins?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

Aleta

[willowtreewren]

Now let's look at the premise that the civil law of the USA is based on the 10 commandments. Here they are:

***
   

    1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
    2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
    3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
    4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
    6. Thou shalt not kill.
    7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    8. Thou shalt not steal.
    9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
    10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

***
I don't think the Constitution says ANYTHING about numbers 1,2,3,4,5,7,9, or 10.

So, perhaps we could say that the Constitution reflects 1/5 of the commandments. Not a very good track record for claiming that the laws of our country are based on the 10 commandments.

Aleta

[Hemodoc]

Back to "cafeteria" Christianity. This little cartoon sums up many of the contradictions of the Bible. While Rocker calls this cafeteria Christianity, I call it cherry picking the Bible to find what one wants to believe from it and tossing the rest. So, going back to the bakery, why do the owners serve people who have committed adultery? Isn't THAT cherry picking from sins?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

Aleta

Did you even bother to read my very lengthy response to Rocker? Oh well, it is senseless to continually responded to false allegations.  Matthew 5:17-20 must be taken in context to what the law means in the OT and the NT. But in any case, believe as you wish but it is Rocker in gross error on this issue, but once again, really no sense in trying to correct your vision or Rocker's vision of Christianity.

[Hemodoc]

Now let's look at the premise that the civil law of the USA is based on the 10 commandments. Here they are:

***
   

    1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
    2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
    3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
    4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
    6. Thou shalt not kill.
    7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    8. Thou shalt not steal.
    9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
    10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

***
I don't think the Constitution says ANYTHING about numbers 1,2,3,4,5,7,9, or 10.

So, perhaps we could say that the Constitution reflects 1/5 of the commandments. Not a very good track record for claiming that the laws of our country are based on the 10 commandments.

Aleta

Dear Aleta, I suggest you do a better study on the Common Law and Civil Law. Then look at the influences of the Common Law moreso than the Civil Law in our founding documents which by the way starts with the declaration of Independence. Remember, it is 1776 that the US became a nation, not 1789.

Not much to respond to Aleta, you need to do some more homework on this issue. 
Take care,

Peter

[Hemodoc]

The Wiki has a good write up on the origins of the Civil law as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

Here is Blackstone's Commentary on the Law which was one of the most important references when framing our founding documents:

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

Here is an excellent overview of Blackstone's influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism/blackstone.htm

In addition, in the 1950's, Blackstone was honored for his contributions to the US laws in relief portrait in the US Capitol itself even though Blackstone himself was against the American revolution in a bit of irony over his influence on these documents. This is what is stated on his portrait:

Sir William Blackstone (1793-1780) English jurist; professor of common law at Oxford; author of Commentaries on the Laws of England, which had considerable influence on the importation and adaptation of English common law in America.

http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/relief-portrait-plaques-lawgivers/sir-william-blackstone

Aleta, I could post much more on this subject, BUT WHY? You don't even have a rudimentary understanding of this subject no more than Rocker has any understanding whatsoever about the OT law in NT times. Aleta, you and Rocker have much homework to do on these issues. Go do your homework and perhaps we could actually have a meaningful debate. Until then, you are simply demonstrating your ignorance of these issues.

[monrein]

Hmm, nothing like a jugful of condescension poured liberally over any attempt at discussion to make one think "Oh good grief, Charlie Brown."

[willowtreewren]

Dear Aleta, I suggest you do a better study on the Common Law and Civil Law. Then look at the influences of the Common Law moreso than the Civil Law in our founding documents which by the way starts with the declaration of Independence. Remember, it is 1776 that the US became a nation, not 1789.

Not much to respond to Aleta, you need to do some more homework on this issue.
Take care,

Peter

Sorry, Peter. I am not claiming to be an expert and I don't accept your condescending attitude as a good argument.

On the other hand, I have taken several courses on the Bible. There are so many "laws" in the Bible that are completely ignored in any legal system today, that I can't help but wonder why the "word of god" is held up as the basis for our Constitution. And quibbling over the date of the beginning of our country is rather silly. The colonies declared independence in 1776, but did not put our current government in place until later. So what?

Back to the question of gay rights, and whether businesses should be allowed to discriminate against gays for religious reasons - as a physician, would your religious conscience have guided you to refuse treatment of gays? Why or why not? Would your religious conscience have guided you to refuse treatment of unwed mothers? Isn't adultery a sin? What about people who are divorced?

If you can condone treatment for some of these folks, but not others, I would consider that cherry picking the laws of the Bible. That brings me back to the same confusion that I have trouble getting past. Who gets to decide which things to follow in the Bible and which things to ignore if the whole thing is supposed to be the word of god?

And why did this sacred word shift so dramatically from the OT to the NT? Did god change his mind? Make a mistake?

[Hemodoc]

Dear Aleta, I suggest you do a better study on the Common Law and Civil Law. Then look at the influences of the Common Law moreso than the Civil Law in our founding documents which by the way starts with the declaration of Independence. Remember, it is 1776 that the US became a nation, not 1789.

Not much to respond to Aleta, you need to do some more homework on this issue.
Take care,

Peter

Sorry, Peter. I am not claiming to be an expert and I don't accept your condescending attitude as a good argument.

On the other hand, I have taken several courses on the Bible. There are so many "laws" in the Bible that are completely ignored in any legal system today, that I can't help but wonder why the "word of god" is held up as the basis for our Constitution. And quibbling over the date of the beginning of our country is rather silly. The colonies declared independence in 1776, but did not put our current government in place until later. So what?

Back to the question of gay rights, and whether businesses should be allowed to discriminate against gays for religious reasons - as a physician, would your religious conscience have guided you to refuse treatment of gays? Why or why not? Would your religious conscience have guided you to refuse treatment of unwed mothers? Isn't adultery a sin? What about people who are divorced?

If you can condone treatment for some of these folks, but not others, I would consider that cherry picking the laws of the Bible. That brings me back to the same confusion that I have trouble getting past. Who gets to decide which things to follow in the Bible and which things to ignore if the whole thing is supposed to be the word of god?

And why did this sacred word shift so dramatically from the OT to the NT? Did god change his mind? Make a mistake?

Funny how all of these political threads always devolve into an anti-Christian diatribe. The topic is the loss of first amendment protections. Trying to stay within that realm a little bit, you continue to not understand what Christianity is all about.

I am glad you have taken courses on the Bible, but it appears you haven't really heard the message the Jesus sent forth. God created us, He gave us a free will for very simple reason, for love to be real, it has to be a free choice. That in a nutshell is at the heart of Christianity summed up in John 3:16.

John 3:16      ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

That is the greatest act of love ever bestowed upon anyone since the beginning of time. It appears folks have taught you that the Bible is not reliable or true and that this is just a story. That is how I looked at it until I was 36 years old a few years after finishing my training and starting my practice.

You posted a very "cute" little video on alleged Bible contradictions. If you wish, start a new thread on this and we can go over each one. I have studied these alleged contradictions and their is only one I have not been able to explain from the text itself, but that does not exclude that both accounts were accurate, but separated by a short period of time in which God softened His judgement to David as David considered his error. In any case, the contradictions you alluded to, just are not so.

I was saved through the study of Bible prophecy and it was the fact that one specific prophecy I knew when it was written and I knew how it was being fulfilled exactly even today. On that day, the Lord showed me personally without any doubt that His word is not only true, but literally true. I am more than happy to discuss these issues with you in a pm if you wish.

But back to the issue of gay marriage.

1) God defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The marriage relations are to be in the context of a marriage covenant between a man and a woman. The Bible teaches any sex outside of that design is a sin. Not my law, but God who created us and God who will be our judge when we stand before Him.

2) I did treat many gay and lesbian couples and singles. I did treat many who were admittedly in the state of adultery or fornication. BTW, I never met a person who was not a sinner yet. Thus your question becomes one that has no answer since it is based on a false understanding of Christianity. I am divorced myself. That is not the issue. The issue is not contributing support for anyone remaining in that sin. Remember, Jesus stated to the woman caught in adultery, Neither do I condemn, go and sin no more. That is the message, go and sin no more wether someone is committing the sin of fornication, adultery are homosexuality.

Here is another verse that sums it up:

John 3:17     For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Christians following in the footsteps of Jesus are not here to condemn the world as you imply in your question, but to send the message of how to come to know Jesus and sin no more. So it is NOT at all a contradiction as you are trying to imply to treat gay couples or adulterers or fornicators or any of the multitude of sins we commit but at the same time state you would not participate in any manner with a gay marriage which is against God's laws. In other words, we will not condone what God does not condone. That is at the same time not a condemnation since we are all under the condemnation of sins within our own lives. But to participate in that and in essence give tacit approval to staying within what God has defined as a sin would be in error of the admonition, go and sin no more.

That is exactly what the bakers in OR have so stated. That is the basis for their objection to baking a cake for an openly gay marriage event.

3) I went to a couple of my patient's weddings at their invitation, but if they had been a gay marriage, no, I would not have gone. In fact, there is more than one couple that got married through my counsel and they were all grateful.

4) OT vs NT. The purpose of the law was to keep the children of Israel so that the prophecies of the Messiah could come to pass. The OT laws cannot save since no man can live without any sin. Shucks, trying living even one hour without committing any sin of commission or omission. But Paul tells us why the OT laws were given very succinctly.

Galatians 3:21     Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22     But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23     But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24     Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25     But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26     For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27     For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28     There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29     And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The promise of the seed of Abraham, singular, i.e., that Jesus would come from the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is fulfilled in Christ as our Saviour and Messiah. The law kept the people of Israel from not keeping that promise to Abraham and bound them in a society, chosen of God to bring these things to pass. The redemption of mankind through the blood of Jesus who God the Father gave of His own Son for all of us as a ransom for our sins. Jesus fulfilled all of the law for us since none of us can fulfill the law. The law then convicts us of our sins and that should lead us into repentance. That is what Paul is talking about in the book of Romans among other things.

By the way, don't worry if there are things difficult to understand especially when reading Paul's epistles, that is what Peter the apostle himself said of Paul's very involved commentaries.  (II Peter 3:15  And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16     As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.)

Now, back to the common law. You are looking at these issues with the lenses of a 21st century citizen. Go back to the founding father's writings which include the declaration of independence since that is our first founding document. In that document, there are many common law expressions of the natural rights of man. In addition, between 1776 and 1789, most of the states developed their own constitutions. The one in MA is very important in understanding the role that Christianity played in our founding documents which did include the constitution and the bill of rights since much of the language in the Bill of Rights especially is predated in many of the state constitutions. In addition, the Federal constitution did not abrogate any of the state constitutions at all.

The role that Blackstone's commentaries on the common law are well documented. There is a large difference between the Common law which Blackstone contended was subject to the final authority of the God of the Bible, and civil law which came from many sources including a large contribution from Roman law developed without any Christian influence.

Not only is Blackstone's relief portrait in congress, but that of Moses as well due to his contribution to American law. Here is the testimony of his contribution with his portrait:

Moses (c. 1350-1250 B.C.) Hebrew prophet and lawgiver; transformed a wandering people into a nation; received the Ten Commandments.

http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/relief-portrait-plaques-lawgivers/moses

Looking at the historical nature of our founding documents, the influence of Christianity on these documents is quite evident.

[willowtreewren]

Christians following in the footsteps of Jesus are not here to condemn the world as you imply in your question, but to send the message of how to come to know Jesus and sin no more. So it is NOT at all a contradiction as you are trying to imply to treat gay couples or adulterers or fornicators or any of the multitude of sins we commit but at the same time state you would not participate in any manner with a gay marriage which is against God's laws. In other words, we will not condone what God does not condone. That is at the same time not a condemnation since we are all under the condemnation of sins within our own lives. But to participate in that and in essence give tacit approval to staying within what God has defined as a sin would be in error of the admonition, go and sin no more.

Isn't this a slippery slope?

Isn't treating gays giving tacit agreement to their "choice" of lifestyle. I put choice in quotes, since I do not think it is a choice any more than one chooses one's gender. In the decades that I have been teaching I have been able to recognize children who were gay long before they knew it. They didn't choose that orientation. They were born that way. I met a young woman today who told a story on herself. She said that when she got her dog she told him that he was the only man for her. She said that it was only later in life that she realized that she was gay and that her dog WOULD be the only man in her life.

If it IS a choice, then it would seem that helping a gay person in any way would be aiding and abetting, so to speak. If it isn't a choice, then didn't god make them that way?

I find these questions very troubling. Troubling because as you realize I do not accept the authority of the Bible. Those who do, think it is right to deny rights to gays. Those who don't, think gays whould have all the rights of every other person.

[Hemodoc]

1) Who defines "rights?"  There was a time in this nation that the answer to that question was God. Not today. Take God out of the equation and every man will do what they find right in their own mind.

2) No slippery slope whatsoever. Here is the message, we are ALL sinners. If I don't serve sinners, then I am a hermit since no man is worthy, we have all fallen short of the grace of God, there is none righteous, not one. We ALL need a Saviour. No man can ever be "good" enough to go to heaven on our own worth. Your view of Christianity is not what the Bible teaches. The gospel is a nutshell is this. One beggar telling another beggar where to find good bread. Jesus is that bread of life, the living waters that washes away our sins. Once you have that bread of life, you don't want to go back. I will keep the words of God and be thankful that this beggar, me, had someone kind enough to show me where to find the good bread.

So, you are saying that I shouldn't help any person who is gay because that is aiding them? Sorry, not the story of Christ. Once again, the woman caught in the very act of adultery. Let's let Jesus speak for Himself here:

John 8:JESUS Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2     And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
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.

So, the woman was caught in adultery, the punishment under the law was death by stoning. Jesus said, let the one without sin cast the first stone. He was the only without sin. When her accusers departed, he said who accuses you? She said, no one. God Himself said neither do I condemn. Here is the point of difference, and then He added. GO AND SIN NO MORE.

I have tried to explain this concept so many times, not sure what more I can say.  We are all sinners. God did not come here to condemn the world but to save it. Acknowledge your sins and SIN NO MORE. The bakers would not be able to keep that last part of saying SIN NO MORE by participating in baking a wedding cake for an openly gay wedding. That is the issue, GO AND SIN NO MORE. That is exactly what the bakers stated was their intent in refusing to bake the cake.

However, in today's world that has cast away God, Roman based civil laws prevail over the Common law based on the highest authority of the Bible per Blackstone. It is a paradigm shift in our culture. However, God is still real and He has not changed even though we have. The modern ethics of civil rights will not play well on the day we will all give account before our Creator. That is something I have no doubt shall occur. Counting on no judgement at the end of time here on earth is not a winning strategy.

3) There is no proof of the gay gene. Saying people are born this way is an age old debate that will not be settled on IHD.  I have faith in the word of God even in areas where I cannot prove by available evidence what is the right answer. God states it comes about in a different matter and that it is a sin like any other willful choice we make.

Those that say that they were born that way are in part true since God states we are all born of the Adamic natural man nature which is manifested in Sodom and Gomorrah. There are a multitude of ways to fail God. This is just one among many. In any case, the debate on wether folks are born gay or it is a choice will not be decided on IHD.

[monrein]

If one believes that God will judge our sins at the end and we are all sinners and doctors will treat all who need treating since all are with sin, should we not simply do our jobs whatever they might be and allow God to do the judging at the end.  The serving of customers, the treating of patients, the defending of criminals within a justice system does not mean that one agrees with or condones all of their beliefs or actions. 

I certainly do't feel up to the task of deciding whose sins warrant my boycott unless those trespasses are specifically against me. ..in which cases I think I'd want help from our imperfect legal system.  I paraphrase the Dalai Lama in saying that my religion is simple, my religion is kindness. 

[Hemodoc]

If one believes that God will judge our sins at the end and we are all sinners and doctors will treat all who need treating since all are with sin, should we not simply do our jobs whatever they might be and allow God to do the judging at the end.  The serving of customers, the treating of patients, the defending of criminals within a justice system does not mean that one agrees with or condones all of their beliefs or actions. 

I certainly do't feel up to the task of deciding whose sins warrant my boycott unless those trespasses are specifically against me. ..in which cases I think I'd want help from our imperfect legal system.  I paraphrase the Dalai Lama in saying that my religion is simple, my religion is kindness.

Well, if God is real, which I firmly believe He is for many reasons, and His word is real, then we should all pay attention to what the Bible states. Judgement is where we are all headed before a righteous judge, including the Dalai Lama himself.

Then the story of the woman in adultery is absolutely at hand in this case, GO AND SIN NO MORE is the message from Jesus. That is what Christianity preaches as well, repent and go and sin no more. If that is your belief, then treating any man is an act of kindness and mercy as a doctor. Representing the guilty is an act for past sins and the lawyer I am sure is in essence telling his client, go and sin no more by telling them to keep themselves clean so that the current case goes better.

Lastly, I challenge anyone to consider that there is no greater act of love and kindness than John 3:16-17:

John 3:16      ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17     For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

The Dalai Lam may have man's wisdom, but will he prepare anyone for the judgement to come?

Hebrews 9:27     And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

[monrein]

Peter, with all due respect, I understand your point and also that it comes from your  deeply held conviction of the truth of the Bible and of Jesus's exhortation for us all to GO AND SIN NO MORE.  It seems to me however that while this may well be pertinent for each individual to try to live up to, each Christian is not Jesus nor should he try to sit in judgment of the sins of others given that each human has sins enough of his own with which to deal.  We all must interact regularly with folks who sin, who have sinned and who will sin again and to refuse to bake cakes, or treat patients or represent clients etc. seems to me quite un Christian. 
I think we would all do well to proceed through life with acts of kindness as our action goals, regardless of religion or philosophy and then at the end God can judge. 

I really do understand that you believe in the Bible and all that it says, I respect your conviction,  and I also know that others are guided through life by a variety of religious views or organizing principles.  I am not up to judging others or even trying to exhort them to behave...I have enough to look at within myself.

[Hemodoc]

Peter, with all due respect, I understand your point and also that it comes from your  deeply held conviction of the truth of the Bible and of Jesus's exhortation for us all to GO AND SIN NO MORE.  It seems to me however that while this may well be pertinent for each individual to try to live up to, each Christian is not Jesus nor should he try to sit in judgment of the sins of others given that each human has sins enough of his own with which to deal.  We all must interact regularly with folks who sin, who have sinned and who will sin again and to refuse to bake cakes, or treat patients or represent clients etc. seems to me quite un Christian. 
I think we would all do well to proceed through life with acts of kindness as our action goals, regardless of religion or philosophy and then at the end God can judge. 

I really do understand that you believe in the Bible and all that it says, I respect your conviction,  and I also know that others are guided through life by a variety of religious views or organizing principles.  I am not up to judging others or even trying to exhort them to behave...I have enough to look at within myself.

No problem Monrein, unfortunately, the modern ethics such as in the Human Manifesto II is predicated on the assumption that God is not real and that we should free ourselves from the "shackles" of traditional theism. Sadly, they didn't consult God about that new modern ethics. While I respect your right to decide for yourself, I do take issue that the Baker's actions are "un-Christian."  If you wish to state you disagree with them, that is fine, but they were in fact acting in complete accordance with the word of God and the gospel of Jesus. He forgives our sins, but He does not support our sins. For the bakers in OR, they were completely following the proper teachings of Christ. Once again, if you disagree that is your right, but it is indeed the correct Christian response in line with Go and sin no more.

There is a very popular saying that just about everyone understands, Christian or not. WWJD. What Would Jesus Do? In the context of the gay marriage issue, just would forgive their sins and say, go and sin no more. For the bakers in OR, WWJD is just that, go and sin no more. That is quite Christian in fact.

[monrein]

I am not speaking strictly about bakers.  Should Christian doctors, or landlords or lawyers or grocery stores etc etc etc refuse to do business with sinners?  I simply think not.  So many sins, so many sinners, kindness is a Christian virtue and judgment is the business of God.  Many places would be quite devoid of business if they catered only to repentant or willing to be repentant sinners. 

[MooseMom]

I've gone back and read quite a few past and more recent articles about Sweet Cakes, and in none of the statements by the owners have they said anything at all about their religious beliefs including "GO AND SIN NO MORE."  When they explain just what their religious beliefs are, they state that they are not against gays but are, rather, against same sex marriage...that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  The owner, Aaron Klein, stated that he believed that a man should leave his mother and father and cling to his wife.  No where is he quoted as explaining that the message he was trying to convey to this same sex couple was, in fact, "Go and sin no more."  He further explained that he did not want his kids to see him backing down from his religious beliefs, which, again, doesn't really seem to include the "Go and sin no more" entreaty.  He acted pridefully.

This may be a small quibble, but the same sex couple in question were lesbian, and I am not sure that the Bible addresses lesbian relationships.  The Bible is pretty much all about men, and while a certain passage may forbid a man from laying with a man as he may with a woman, it doesn't seem to place any such restrictions on women.  So if one takes the Bible literally, lesbians get a pass...and should get a cake.

I have to wonder if the bakery owners care that, in their exertion of their religious freedom, made someone feel bad.  Is there such a thing as "justified unkindness"?

[Simon Dog]

Sadly, they didn't consult God about that new modern ethics.

How does one "consult God"?

[Hemodoc]

Sadly, they didn't consult God about that new modern ethics.

How does one "consult God"?

It's called payer my friend.