it is NOT a matter of free speech .. it is a matter of religious beliefs ..
Colorado Judge Orders Christian Baker To Make Cakes For Same-sex Ceremonies Or Face Fines.
- Thread starter RosaVera
- Start date
it is NOT a matter of free speech .. it is a matter of religious beliefs ..
let me explain something to you ..
God's law trumps Gov law .. it is a higher law ..
if the Gov thinks it can tell me to defy God's law, I will OBEY God rather then men ..
I fear He who can cast my soul in hell for all eternity, and do not fear anyone who can harm my body ..
Act 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
God's law trumps Gov law .. it is a higher law ..
if the Gov thinks it can tell me to defy God's law, I will OBEY God rather then men ..
I fear He who can cast my soul in hell for all eternity, and do not fear anyone who can harm my body ..
Act 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
Last edited:
When should a Christian disobey the government?
1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The Christian is called to obey his government whenever possible .. Jesus did not call for revolution against Rome, even though it was an oppressive conqueror of Israel ..
So when should a Christian disobey the civil government?
I have had to wrestle with all of the “what ifs” of life under the Obama administration. What if the government run health care plan is enacted and I am forced to use my tax dollars to pay for abortion. Do I peacefully stop paying taxes and pay the consequences?
What if hate crime legislation is enacted and it becomes against the law to preach on the wickedness of sexual perversion? Do I preach the whole counsel of God anyway?
What if you work in the health care industry and you are now federally mandated to provide abortions or to fill prescriptions for medications that destroy life. Do you follow your conscience even though it may cost you your job?
These are the real life issues Christians must face when the government violates its sacred trust with God and the people ..
When a civil government refuses people the liberty to worship and obey God freely, it has lost its mandate of authority from God .. Then the Christian should feel justified in disobeying ..
Some leaders would ask us to give to them what belongs to God ..
Mat 22:21 They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
Mar 12:17 And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him.
Luk 20:25 And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
The apostles refused to obey an order not to preach and teach in Jesus' name ..
Act 5:28 saying, "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us."
Act 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.
Whenever the civil government forbids the practice of things that God has commanded us to do, or tells us to do things He has commanded us not to do, then we are on solid ground in disobeying the government ..
Blind obedience to government is never right ..
Mat 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.
There are some laws for which obedience to them would cause us to disobey God, and we may even put our "hope of salvation" in jeporady ..
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, ’Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Jhn 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Hbr 5:9 And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,
Thomas Jefferson believed that when a government began to be tyannical, it was the right and even the DUTY of the citizens to rebel against that government.
Martin Luther King, Jr. in his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, argued that "an unjust law is no law at all" .. Every elected official, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, is accountable to God and His Law .. When elected officials pass laws in direct opposition to the Scriptures, these laws become unjust laws and must be disobeyed .. Charles Colson, in his book God & Government, explains .. “Any government that violates the law that is higher than its own is exceeding the legitimate authority God has granted.”
Dietrich Bonhoffer, the Christian pastor murdered by the Nazis for his bold, prophetic resistance to their wicked agenda wrote, “If government persistently and arbitrarily violates its assigned task, then the divine mandate lapses.”
I believe we are dangerously close to witnessing a “divine lapse” in our day.
1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The Christian is called to obey his government whenever possible .. Jesus did not call for revolution against Rome, even though it was an oppressive conqueror of Israel ..
So when should a Christian disobey the civil government?
I have had to wrestle with all of the “what ifs” of life under the Obama administration. What if the government run health care plan is enacted and I am forced to use my tax dollars to pay for abortion. Do I peacefully stop paying taxes and pay the consequences?
What if hate crime legislation is enacted and it becomes against the law to preach on the wickedness of sexual perversion? Do I preach the whole counsel of God anyway?
What if you work in the health care industry and you are now federally mandated to provide abortions or to fill prescriptions for medications that destroy life. Do you follow your conscience even though it may cost you your job?
These are the real life issues Christians must face when the government violates its sacred trust with God and the people ..
When a civil government refuses people the liberty to worship and obey God freely, it has lost its mandate of authority from God .. Then the Christian should feel justified in disobeying ..
Some leaders would ask us to give to them what belongs to God ..
Mat 22:21 They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
Mar 12:17 And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him.
Luk 20:25 And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
The apostles refused to obey an order not to preach and teach in Jesus' name ..
Act 5:28 saying, "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us."
Act 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.
Whenever the civil government forbids the practice of things that God has commanded us to do, or tells us to do things He has commanded us not to do, then we are on solid ground in disobeying the government ..
Blind obedience to government is never right ..
Mat 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.
There are some laws for which obedience to them would cause us to disobey God, and we may even put our "hope of salvation" in jeporady ..
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, ’Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Jhn 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Hbr 5:9 And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,
Thomas Jefferson believed that when a government began to be tyannical, it was the right and even the DUTY of the citizens to rebel against that government.
Martin Luther King, Jr. in his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, argued that "an unjust law is no law at all" .. Every elected official, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, is accountable to God and His Law .. When elected officials pass laws in direct opposition to the Scriptures, these laws become unjust laws and must be disobeyed .. Charles Colson, in his book God & Government, explains .. “Any government that violates the law that is higher than its own is exceeding the legitimate authority God has granted.”
Dietrich Bonhoffer, the Christian pastor murdered by the Nazis for his bold, prophetic resistance to their wicked agenda wrote, “If government persistently and arbitrarily violates its assigned task, then the divine mandate lapses.”
I believe we are dangerously close to witnessing a “divine lapse” in our day.
Wait...go back here... "Generic"? So, that makes a very different statement to me. Baking a cake celebrating something you are morally opposed to is one thing. We should not be forced to do anything we are morally opposed to. That is oppression. But, if the baker has made cakes for other gay people, and is refusing this one, it almost seems foolish that he cited their marriage as the issue. A business can refuse service legally to just about anyone. He could have refused them and said it was because he was opposed to guys named Jim wearing blue bow ties and he would have had legal grounds. IDK, the more I read about this, the more I'm convinced this guy just kept making compromises and got fed up. Still, lawsuit just doesn't seem to be the right answer to me.
You claimed that without government intervention, most of the time these things get worse rather than better. Anyone thinking that government intervention solves more problems than it creates hasn't spent enough time in the DMV. The Civil Rights movement wasn't solved by government intervention, but by people who were fed up with being treated as second class citizens. More than that, it was by people who couldn't understand the inconsistencies of the government and forced the government to alter the way they treated people. It wasn't a government intervention, it was the people intervening on the government. Don't ever forget where the power is. America seems to have forgotten that the government only has power because of the people, and the people wield the true power here.
RiverJordan
Inactive
ixoye,
As far as the rest of your posts, I still don't understand how discriminating against gays is an essential part of Christianity, to the point where not allowing you to discriminate is infringing on your freedom to practice your religion.
Please go read the OP.
We don't live in a theocracy.
As far as the rest of your posts, I still don't understand how discriminating against gays is an essential part of Christianity, to the point where not allowing you to discriminate is infringing on your freedom to practice your religion.
not really .. the question needs to be answered first ..
was the other gays he served for a wedding or Bday cake ..
in other words, a Bday and a wedding are different ..
Bday's are not against God's law, but gay unions are ..
thus even though he did object to the sin of gay unions, IF the gays he served was not based on that union, then he was obliged to serve them under the civil law .. it is a very fine line at that point if are you breaking God's law to make a Bday cake or not .. IF it is not, then there is no inconstancy in being consistent to his beliefs ..
RiverJordan
Inactive
I also suggest you read more about this case. The judge explained...
"Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage. For all Phillips knew at the time, Complainants might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for consumption at any wedding. Therefore, Respondents’ claim that they refused to provide a cake because it would convey a message supporting same-sex marriage is specious."
Seriously? You're going to compare civil rights with waiting at the DMV? That's both ridiculous and insulting on so many levels.
Again, history is not on your side. Brown vs. Board of Education, Loving vs. Virginia, and other landmark civil rights cases were extremely unpopular in much of the country, and remain so in parts of the south today. Without those "government interventions", it's very likely such racist policies would still exist today.
apply your logic .. murder is a sin .. so if I refuse to bake a cake for an abortion for someone black, white, yellow or green, am I discriminating ???
yet if someone who has had an abortion want a Bday cake .. that is NOT against my religious convictions .. only when it is concerning the sin can I invoke my religious convictions ..
yet if someone who has had an abortion want a Bday cake .. that is NOT against my religious convictions .. only when it is concerning the sin can I invoke my religious convictions ..
RiverJordan
Inactive
ixoye,
Unless you live in some Islamic state, you don't live in a theocracy. If you live in the US, you live in a Democratic Republic. Sheesh.
Done.
Unless you live in some Islamic state, you don't live in a theocracy. If you live in the US, you live in a Democratic Republic. Sheesh.
So if discriminating against gays is not an essential part of Christianity, then a law prohibiting discrimination against gays is not an infringement of your ability to practice your religion.
Done.
RiverJordan
Inactive
I urge anyone who's interested to read the judge's ruling. LINK
The baker even says he has no trouble serving gays. His argument is that he doesn't want to bake a cake for their wedding.
IMO, that's no different than saying "I have no trouble serving different races. I just refuse to bake a cake for interracial weddings."
The baker even says he has no trouble serving gays. His argument is that he doesn't want to bake a cake for their wedding.
IMO, that's no different than saying "I have no trouble serving different races. I just refuse to bake a cake for interracial weddings."
RiverJordan
Inactive
Again, ad hominem.
you pretty much confirm my thoughts ..
I think that in itself is the debate. Many believe the natural law is subjective. Others (like me for one) argue it is objective.
But I do think it's a worthy discussion from both sides as both have a lot to offer to it.
actually, it's pretty simple .. the Gov defines religious beliefs under the 1st amendment as "organized religion" .. thus if a person claiming Christianity says it violates their religious convictions, then those religious convictions would have to be consistent to the "organized religions" beliefs .. those who are non-denominational have no presidence or church stated beliefs to claim distinct beliefs by ..
No, again, you are reading what you want to read and kinda twisting everything to match what you want to hear. I really don't understand that, since I've been fairly understanding towards you. Government intervention is NOT the way to make life better. That's a victim mentality. I'm not comparing civil rights to the DMV, I'm comparing the government intrusion into ever facet of our society to the expectation that it will be completely unlike what happens at the DMV. Every direct encounter I've had with the government has made the DMV experience a relatively pleasant one.
What I AM saying, is that government intervention does not create rights, it gives them up. Anytime you say you want the government to take over something, you are saying you no longer what the right to decide about that something. That's the opposite of freedom.
EDIT : That's the last I'll participate, I just wanted to clarify what I said. I need to get back to being unbiased, but this topic is going down a bad road fast.
I think that's absolutely true, but I'm only speaking beyond that. There's also the argument of private property -- even if his argument was that he doesn't like to do business with a certain hair color or people who aren't handicapped, shouldn't his property rights also hold valid by the Constitution?
But in fact, I'm even going past the Constitution itself. The concept of the Constitution is meant to be an embodiment of natural rights...but of course, the Constitution is flawed itself. Look at the 16th Amendment for instance; it permits the government to take.
This is why I wouldn't consider myself a Constitutionalist. The concept of the Constitution is right, but I don't agree that the Constitution itself is the ultimate source of where rights stem from.
RiverJordan
Inactive
Banarenth,
If you had no intention of comparing civil rights legislation to the DMV except for the basic fact that they're both "government", then the only thing I can glean from you mentioning it at all in this thread is something like....
The DMV sucks, therefore everything the government does sucks, including civil rights laws.
If that's the case, then it serves as a good indication of why conservative Christians keep losing these court cases. The arguments they bring to the table are pathetic.
If you had no intention of comparing civil rights legislation to the DMV except for the basic fact that they're both "government", then the only thing I can glean from you mentioning it at all in this thread is something like....
The DMV sucks, therefore everything the government does sucks, including civil rights laws.
If that's the case, then it serves as a good indication of why conservative Christians keep losing these court cases. The arguments they bring to the table are pathetic.