pennelope wrote: how is this any different that harvesting the organs of an unborn baby and replicating the cells to inject into everyone's body to "give us life"? is it any wonder there is so much autoimmune disease and autism as a direct result? we call them pagans because instead of using words like science and efficacy and slicing organs under white lights and in sterile rooms, they put organs on display on an altar. there's no difference.
Not even addressing the inaccurate assertions and false implications from your statement. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Why get on to others about bringing up their pet peeves when it doesn't relate to the article about which they are posting. There is no corrolation between what you said and the article that is posted except in your mind. Not trying to be unkind just answering your assertion there's no difference.
s c wrote: if the bakers maintain Christian standards then why don't they ask more questions from all potential customers? Or is ignorance bliss?
My guess is they don't ask personal questions. If the "gay" person had simply came in and asked for a wedding cake without specifically stating that it was for a "gay wedding", they would have got the cake. If I run a public bakery shop and I get a reputation for asking questions about everybody's private matters before I fulfill an order, I am pretty sure I would go out of business without the aide of a lawsuit. You seem to miss the distinction between serving sinners, (as GS stated) which is everyone who walks into the bakery, and baking a cake for a sinner who specifically told you it was to honor their vile union. They would have turned down a cake for a guy who was trying to add his 10th bride to his fold if he had stated that was why he wanted the cake.
Actually, you have made the argument for "ignorance is bliss" by saying sell a generic cake, what they use it for is their business.
We can't expect the bakery to only serve godly people who live close to God. Thing is, even then there is much to be abhorred, mortified, and forsaken in the lives of their clientele.
penned wrote: a true dispensationalist needs ISIS, its a kamikaze position.
If you disdain dispensationalist that is fine, it does not mean you have to make false and denigrating comments about those who hold those beliefs. You didn't even link to a site run by Christians, it was a Jewish site.
You are dear sister, but this is getting old. These are my people in the churches I attend. We are just like you we want ISIS destroyed, we value our families, our brothers and sisters in Christ, our property, our fellow citizens, and our country. The persecution of our brethren in other parts of the world saddens and concerns us and we disdain any involvement by our government that supports these terrorists. I would appreciate the stopping of the broad brush approach and am asking politely that you please stop. Thank you.
None of this is intended as comment or position on replacement theology.
s c wrote: In answer to your question,a cake which "gives honor" to whatever,would then cease to be generic. That's the key.Provide generic cakes as it appears that these bakers offer any way. Customers can take 'em or leave 'em.
so if a lady walks into your shop and want a cake and she tells you she using it to celebrate her upcoming lesbian marriage. You say go ahead and take one of my generic cakes (btw, if baker's have any generic cakes sitting in their shop which they made, they are few, nobody likes stale cake and the business can't afford to make cakes to just throw away) She says she doesn't like any of the ones you have ready, not the right flavor or frosting combination. She orders a generic vanilla cake with strawberry topping, a certain flavor frosting and pink flowers around the edges. (btw not sure how you saw a website for this couple when they are permanently closed) No words or characters are on the cake. Would you make the cake?
s c wrote: Unprofitable, one cannot promote anything with a generic product. Pretty elemental. I'm sure that these Christian bakers have sold many generic cakes to all types of sinners. Just because they don't make the bakers privy to which sin they embrace,doesn't make them more or less "responsible". They aren't promoting their sin unless they are "marrying" the couple or promoting sodomy on the cake in some way.
alrighty, to avoid being wrongfully accused of misunderstanding what you are saying. Are you saying that if...
You own the SC Bakery. People walk in or call your bakery and specifically say (this is key) they want you to make them a cake to celebrate and honor (let's make a list of any one of the following) jihad, adultery, polygamy, satanism, sex trafficking, wife beating, incest, or drunkenness. Your response to them would be, well as long as it is a generic cake, I will make that cake for your celebration?
Jim Lincoln wrote: No apology from me UPS. I didn't call her a liar. I called Donald Trump a liar, and a chronic one at that.
ok Jim, if Trump lies more than Hillary, it is because he actually is out in public. Been nearly 290 days since her last press conference and because she isn't getting her usual $20 million for a speech she rarely makes campaign appearances and keeps them short. You can pretty much tell when she is lying by whenever her lips are moving. For instance, she used the "c" to classify her emails (they have her signature on them) but she claimed she did not know what it stood for. She couldn't even tell the truth about her own grandparents or after whom she was named
sc, still no apology for the false accusation of saying that ladybug called you a liar. She hasn't used the word in her last 100 posts with the exception of one time and that was just to reference what you said.
It does not seem that you can find it in yourself to admit you wronged ladybug. Ladybug is correct to offer unconditional forgiveness regardless. You would think as often as you tell people they are falsely accusing you (even when they aren't) and how it offends you that when someone points out that you did that to them you would be very forward to show contrition and sorrow for your actions.
May I suggest sister sc that you go before the Lord and ponder Matthew 5:23,24
This is not what about so and so or shifting the blame to someone else. Her 9/11 post clearly stated, "when you call those for whom Christ died, "wicked" (a word you hadn't used in a post for over a month) and she also referred to you in the third person. For you to say you didn't know she wasn't writing the post to you shows your lack of attention to detail and how you jumped to conclusions without thinking. (which also, btw, says a lot about the way your think and how you feel) It started as an honest mistake. May God guide your steps to paths of righteousness for His name's sake.
She wrote a book with the title, It takes a Village, should tell you something right there.
In the chapter that MRS. CLINTON WORKED ON, titled â€śProtection of Childrenâ€™s Rights,â€ť it reads â€śit has become necessary for society to make some piecemeal accommodations to prevent parents from denying children certain privileges that society wants them to have.â€ť
The chapter goes on to explain that some of these â€śprivilegesâ€ť should be allowing children to consult doctors for pregnancy and drug-related issues without parental consent, and prevent schools from expelling or suspending disruptive students. Itâ€™s most outrageous claim, however, is the adoption of a â€śpublic advocate,â€ť who are people that can speak to childrenâ€™s issues, upending the parentsâ€™ wishes
Christopher Lasch, a historian and LIBERAL in public policy, wrote in Harperâ€™s of Mrs. Clintonâ€™s essays on child rearing, that â€śa careful reading of [her] argument. shows that she objects to the family much more than she objects to the state
from the article.
They did not use the false quote that Snopes argues against, Jim your "defense" is against something not stated in this article. Take it up with your fellow liberal historian and have them take out her chapter in the book.
ladybug wrote: Now, if they wanted a cake made with football players in yoga pants, you know who would hit the roof!
Hope all is well with you sister ladybug. Want you to know your wisdom is greatly appreciated. Good point about the you know who sports players. Would she sell the cake to a group who said they wanted to honor Christmas? or promote sex trafficking as long as it was a generic cake?
If I may post more about my musings. It wasn't that they requested cupcakes for their kids birthday and they refused them service because they were gay. It wasn't that they asked for 4 loaves of bread for a picnic and they refused them service because they knew they were gay. Her analogy falls apart. She keeps talking about not giving them any kind of service because they of their sinful choice. They refused to bake them a cake to HONOR their "union" at a "gay wedding". Just like they would turn down a person who wanted a cake to celebrate polygamy. A grocer or eatery isn't honoring gay lifestyle choices by selling them food. It is sad that one can understand why a Muslim baker wouldn't do this, but some how she is at a loss why a Christian baker wouldn't. Even sadder, she thinks that everybody else are the ones who just don't get it.
s c wrote: then it is you, and not I, that have diminished this event.... you can't possibly be real people by such ludicrous accusations...false at that.
First, to my fellow posters, my apologies for having this conversation in this thread I will try and keep it to minimal and limit any further responses.
Neither ladybug nor I brought the inappropriate subject of football into this discussion, sc, so we can't be suggesting anything about the players by our comments. This is like you finding out that a husband of a lady in your church has terminal cancer and she was told he only had days to live. It would not be appropriate for you to say to the wife, "There is one huge blessing and comfort in all this, at least he wasn't out on the gridiron prancing around in front of everybody in his yoga pants."
An article about a Christian martyr whose family and friends are grieving should not be a forum to parade our pet peeves. It would be like Jim saying in a comment on this story, "Thank God he doesn't live in a country that will use the KJV at his funeral." Using the thread to bring up your disdain for football, imo, demolished any credibility for your other statements.
s c wrote: I went to their website. All of their tiered cakes look pretty generic to me. If no names are on the cakes,does it matter if one is not actually performing the ceremony?
Really sc, if I go to a bakery's website, cakes are generic so I can decorate them the way I want for my special occasion. The couple let them know they wanted it made and decorated to honor their same sex "marriage.'
" Do grocers refrain from selling to same sex couples?"
People don't walk into the grocers and tell them we need to get groceries that will honor our homosexual union.
"Do tuxedo places refrain from renting out attire?"
Are you saying if the tuxedo place does wrong, then it is okay for the bakery to so do? What the tuxedo place does has no bearing on this story.
"I heard a "fortune teller" in a family restaurant doing her thing the other day. Should Christian servers refrain from serving her because she is in sin?"
Even the server in the restaurant is not being asked to honor and support the fortune tellers beliefs by serving them food and drink. Every customer that walks into ANY business for anything has sin in their lives, even if it is you or me.
s c wrote: Yes,Dave. This young lad was courageous and he is in our Father's hands. Christopher,there are many missing children and people for which we need to be praying,including their families.It's so easy to become distracted in this society and what seems to keep a lot of peoples attention is so superficial...like the game. The real heroes in life are akin to this little guy...not the celebrities in yoga pants playing ball for a living. Stories like this are very sobering and should help us to reconsider our priorities.
Just an observation sc. You took away all credibility of your comment by talking about something that not only wasn't on anybody's mind but is never promoted by people who post here. All you have proved is that your priority is to bash football and not to offer edifying statements in light of such a tragedy.
Thank God for this boy's steadfastness, his family and loved ones are in our prayers.
Ignominious Emirakan wrote: Melanin is the ONE color God used for Skin
Melanin is not a color
Melanin is a complex polymer derived from the amino acid tyrosine
Melanin is found in several areas of the human body including:
Skin where it provides skin color *Hair* *Pupils or irises of the eyes* Stria vascularis of the inner ear Areas of the brain, the substantia nigra and locus coeruleus The medulla and zona reticularis of the adrenal gland
We don't say, well people all have the same eye color, it is just Melanin. People have same color hair is just Melanin.
You know the Bible does not say God made of one color all nations of men, but He hath made of one blood (Acts 17:26) all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth. Solomon's bride in the Song of Solomon declared herself to be black. (1:5,6) There is but one race, the human race, but there are definitely different colors of skin whether you choose to acknowledge that or not. Maybe you meant to say there is not a white race. There are definitely white people.
Wayfarer Pilgrim was obviously making a tongue in cheek comment to assist in the point that was made in the post.
To dear brother Frank and Paulus, it appears to me that you can't have it both ways. If we want woman to stay home and rear and teach the children but we don't want them teaching children in Sunday School??? Either teaching children is part of their calling or it isn't. I, personally, have yet to run in a woman who feels it her job to teach men the Bible because they had woman Sunday School teachers when they were young if that is what Paulus was implying, not trying to put words in mouth.
s c wrote: So,you were correct in concluding that there was a misunderstanding. :
wow, you based a response (see your 9/11/16 5:49 PM post)to her on a comment that SA removed but you obviously read that she gave to SteveR and said
1. you said she called you a liar, which she did not, 2. you said she was misinterpreting your motives (wasn't speaking to you) 3. you said she was brazen. 4. you accused her of interjecting her personal biases on what you posted (remember she wasn't talking to you)
Here is your response to her for all those false statements, that you admit was based upon inaccurate judgment on your part.
"I am sorry that she has had a bad experience with a drunk in her life. Her experience is commonplace. She might want to abstain from misreading my posts as well."
and you think that those who disagree with your opinion are divisive????
2. If alcoholic wine is good in the Scriptures then why were the priests and rulers to abstain from it?
1. really??? Three people point out that you wrote a false statement to ladybug. We will even say you just misunderstood and reached a wrong conclusion. But it still makes what you wrote a false accusation. You can't even acknowledge your error or walk back your statements??? Amazing. Is being humble and truthful unlawful? Should we abstain from false accusations or do you conveniently think that is ok?
2. "Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, ---when ye go into the tabernacle--- (Lev 10:9)
There is no command for total abstinence at all times unless they were a Nazarite. Do you really think they threw out the tithe of wine that the Israelites brought? Which king of Israel did not drink wine? What verse forbade them from so doing?
I am all for abstinence, I am all against condemning the brethren for something for which they are not condemned in Scripture. If God does not condemn drinking in moderation, who are you to put yourself above our Lord? Amazing.
maybe I don't read between the lines, but ladybug wasn't addressing sc in her 5:27 post and she hasn't used the word liar in her last 20 posts dating back to 8/29/16. This is what happens when you are not interested in a godly dialogue but have an agenda to push and set yourself up as judge of God's elect. Are Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:10-13 not part of Holy Writ? sc, may I suggest you reconsider you harsh words to ladybug for saying she called you a liar, which she did not, and for saying she interjected her bias into your post, which she did not.
another thread will be closed soon by SA, gotta go to church, God bless.