Thank you for your encouraging words,Jessica. ..pretty sure that he was not encouraging fast food. The Lord knows what he meant and,being impartial,that's how I understood it. ...hope that you two can come to an understanding. Unprofitable,perhaps you completely read through threads. I don't... mostly only parts... Hopefully,you're not accusing me of being cold. You will note that I was trying to encourage Jessica and give Jim the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps, you could do the same for me. You are being a bit presumptuous.
Conviction is annoying too,Lurker. If you carefully had read what I had posted in regards to Jim's comment regarding fast food and exercise,you would have figured it out. Maybe you need to properly discern before you assume. I wouldn't have an idea of Jessica's condition unless I would read through all of what has been posted,which I don't. And,sweet as she may be,she did misinterpret what Jim had posted in regards to his fast food comment.I was merely pointing that out.She was upset,partially,because she thought that he had recommended that she eat more fast food,not less.
Penny,you don't know nor can you know that she is a Christian. We may have an idea by their fruit but all you know of this woman, and all that I know, is that she professes Christianity and her great contribution to the "cause" is not being a "Judas" in this specific case. Not everyone who says that they're a Christian and takes a public stand against fundamental issues is necessarily the real deal. Roman Catholics take issue with abortion,for example. Again,it is not an issue of not serving sinners period. It is an issue of withholding services from those based on a fair standard. "Yes",it would be wrong to serve a couple that is about to wed who got together because of adultery.It's not an issue of whether or not anyone ever committed adultery but whether or not they are presently in that sin. This is just how far we are removed from God's standard. We don't even recognize the double standard and we accept the sexually sinful heteros' activities. The world condones them and so do we. But when it comes to the homos,then we are all pious. And I am not holding myself above. For all I know,she is sincere. I had addressed that earlier.I was speaking to consistency and what constitutes hypocrisy.
I meant context of the sentence. And you assume way too much. Neither you nor I know that this is a kind lady just because she says that she is a Christian and doesn't care to be a Judas. I was specifically speaking of sexual sins. I still think that if you take issue with homosexuality that you should,likewise,take issue with hetero adultery. Just because one is less obvious doesn't discount the notion that one would still be supporting a displeasing union if adulterers are married. So,if you're a Christian business owner make it very clear to those who come in that you will only serve those who do not counter your convictions. "Yes", that means that you would ask them whether or not they are engaged in adultery. What's wrong with that? Of course,one might lose some business but,at least,they wouldn't have to run the risk of being,as the kind lady says,a "Judas".
I feel compassion for Jessica but I'm not seeing where Jim was so cold in his previous post. Jessica,did you understand that he was not suggesting that you eat fast food in the previous post? When he mentioned fast food,he was suggesting that it may be problematic if you did just eat it.And he may not have been well enough acquainted with your specific condition to know that exercise might be a challenge to you.I don't think that he was being cruel there. Not everyone is familiar with all who post on here. It might help to keep that in mind. We all have a propensity,from time to time,to read things through subjective eyes and miss what was actually intended.
Jessica,hello,sorry to hear of your difficulties. I haven't read all of Jim's post but did see where you had copied part of it "...Jessica, it helps with a multitude of problems including a diet that consists mainly of fast foods -- though of course talk to your doctor .." If you read that carefully,Jim was not suggesting that you eat fast food. He seems to have been referring to fast food as something that could be problematic with the diet. From reading your comment back,it doesn't sound like that is the case with you though. ...hope that helps with clarification. I'll pray for you as well.
pen...stated"...it almost sounds to me that you really just agree with the religious rainbow zealots..." It wouldn't sound that way if you put things into context. CONTEXT. I'm not a rainbow zealot.Do you not have a problem with hetero sins?
I was suggesting that Christian business owners need to drop double standards if they have them.In doing so,they wouldn't appear as being unfair."Yes",they should question the heterosexual couples that want their services insofar as whether or not they are in an adulterous affair...if they are so concerned about contributing to that which God would be displeased.Then there are no double standards. And Mike,I'm not saying that Christians say that it's okay. The fact remains,as long as they don't have to participate in the wedding,how are they "honoring" it by selling a cake or flowers? There should be a standard across the board or they should cater to homosexuals as well. My problem with all of this is the double standard and the propaganda and spiritual grandstanding that goes along with it. This country aborts how many babies a year? There are more critical issues at hand. We dropped the ball a long time ago as far as contending for sexual decency.We're only in a position to reject homosexuality if we also reject heterosexuality in its lewdness. Perhaps this lady is consistent in that regard.I hope so then she is completely just in her stand.
Your point is well taken,Frank. I did state that I didn't know (this lady's motive). I was simply pointing out that Christians are,seemingly,very eager to abstain from serving homosexuals. This always seems to make headlines just as whenever a celebrity or sports figures wants to "pray" or point to "god". These actions are guaranteed publicity and could be wrongly motivated.Again,I would be more inclined to take such more seriously if they were consistent in their Christian stand. Pennned,you're accusing me of accusing the brethren? How so? Judgment always comes in a manner which is perceived as more "evil". To God,there is no difference between adulterers,fornicators and idolators.If we encourage them and take no issue with them,we cannot take issue with homosexuals. That's called hypocrisy. idol worship of sports by servantjohn77 on youtube is a good link.
I think that it would be difficult,naturally speaking and apart from Christ,if there aren't many young women into witchcraft.Witchcraft saturates the culture.It's a significant part of music,movies,(disney),nfl,grammys,award programs,television,cartoons,etc...sadly,even "christian" books and,of course, the word faith movement. Many Christians are routinely entertained by it even if only in their ignorance. And this is nothing new;Witchcraft was made out to be palatable and "harmless" decades ago (i.e. bewitched,disney,cinderella,etc.)
Mike,if the homosexuals are not "married in God's sight" then why do Christians get in an uproar if they want to get "married"? The florist or baker is just selling a product/providing a service. The cake and/or flowers do not "honor" any wedding. Again,leave the bride and groom off the cake to be purchased separately.As far as flowers...they're just flowers.And drop double standards. If Christians are so bothered by sodomy,and more so by them when they want to unite (I guess uncommitted ones are preferable?),they might want to consider why that is the case.This is judgment on this country; we have winked at lasciviousness and indecency so long when done among ourselves/heteros that maybe we can see the error of our ways more clearly when confronted with the homosexual agenda. I also find it interesting that we care so much what the word "marriage" means as to not defile it but we don't have a problem trying to change a word like "christmas" which should ,all the more,be undefiled by keeping Christ out of it. Unprofitable,I respect you too,of course, but sports and entertainment figures and teams are all idolatrous. It's hard to navigate around that.
Well,Michael,it certainly would be yet another opportunity for FG to try to "win" the "fundamental" Christians and this (homosexuality)is what Christians like to boldly stand against so as not to be likened unto Judas. Bravo!And the BGEA love to be in the public eye..much like Sharpton and Jackson. I'd say that chances are,if FG hasn't already,he would be more than happy to support these wedding businesspeople/"martyrs". Perhaps,while you're at it,you could humbly take it before the RC church as well.
Really 1517? I don't struggle with porn or sexual sin and I am a Christian. God pretty much laid it out as far as how we can keep from falling into sin by not making provision for it.The truth sets us free and if we abide in His Spirit,we won't wander off. It might help to cut out sensual snares. Some Christians on here,including the spiritual Christian flower lady, should be as lenient on homosexuals as they are on themselves...or is there a double standard? I am not for sodomites but I can see how they might be confused about the concessions made for heterosexual sin in this culture when they are ostracized. Pull the beam out of our eyes so that we may see clearly to pull out the speck in others.It's no wonder they are so confused. I hope that I see the day that they have queerleaders on the nfl sidelines;maybe that will get some of the Christian's attention...or not.Some will still be protesting the lewd homosexuals and probably,all the while,still defend the hetero ones.
I don't know about this lady. It seems that Christians are very bold in their stand for Jesus when it comes to not serving sodomites but they aren't quite as vocal when it comes to other areas of compromise. Providing flowers(which are neutral as far as sexual orientation)for homosexuals is no different than providing flowers for any other sinner (as fornicators or adulterers). To be consistent,the flower lady or cake decorator needs to inquire of the heterosexual patrons as to whether or not they are engaging in fornication or adultery. Unless they subscribe to the "ignorance is bliss" mentality. I would be more moved by these Christian business owners if they would be so bold as to stand against idolatry. How many cakes are made with the "little mermaid" or some other disney witch like elsa on them...or even nfl designs,etc ? Seemingly,to counter homosexuality is more en vogue now for spiritual grand standing.
Flee from temptation and do not make provision for the flesh. One does not have to be enslaved or struggle with sin. The truth about it sets us free.If one avoids that which would cause them to stumble,it will be a lot easier.Also discerning the truth of it can easily break someone away from its deceptive power.Porn,for example,is all smoke and mirrors.It makes something appear much more appealing than it actually is.Further,for all the peeping tom knows,they might be looking at someone who has been coerced into it (a very little known dirty secret-sex trade,especially in the u.s.) or someone has been duped into the "glamorous" aspect of it so that they may be "idolized". The truth behind porn is that the people who are being used are victims. Instead of thinking that the people that you are looking at are inviting you (they don't even know you and probably wouldn't care to),think of them as victims,which they truly are. That might help.
No problem,Unprofitable...not trying to debate just simply point out that God's standards are universally applicable and if parents were mindful of them,they wouldn't be opening the door for their children to look at those things which,even they,perceive as inappropriate.
Unprofitable,I'm not concerned about the world's definition,only God's. "Much more vile",as you say is a moot point. What fits the description of "nudity" is in God's Word and not subject to compromise.
Perhaps the difficulty is that it is "all Greek to us". This link offers up a reasonable answer- http://rcg.org/books/ttooe.html
a side note: If "Easter" was in reference to the Resurrection of Christ,we are,sorely,left without any clarity and certainly not a precedence for its observation. And it is not conceivable that Easter was a Christian observance before the civil war (except for the Catholics who took this pagan holy day). To their credit,the pagans never lift Christian terms and objects to make their celebrations more palatable. The Christians who follow after catholic observations,could learn from their (the heathen's) "egg-sample".