|
|
Post by asaph on Mar 29, 2015 14:32:25 GMT -8
Just curious what members here think of it.
I find interesting, and predictable, that a lot of the mainstream media is slanting commentary to those decidedly against the law.
I also find the word "tolerance" batted about in strange ways. And how "hate" is the first thing people say. Amazing the number of adherents Saul Alinsky has, whether they realize it or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 2, 2015 17:16:12 GMT -8
Sounds like the law is poorly written.
I do think this is a pretty good example of something political that doesn't help the church. |
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Apr 2, 2015 18:06:53 GMT -8
Looks like it is about to be gutted.
Frankly, I do not believe any rewording would satisfy the homosexual activists. From A.C.T. U.P. in the 80s and their riots and violence to today the Sodomite movement has become ever more emboldened. I see it as a huge sign of the times and the soon return of Christ.
The question now is whether we see a religious backlash to now being told conscience and conviction and the first amendment means nothing.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Apr 4, 2015 7:29:23 GMT -8
The side story, if not the replacement story, about Memories Pizzeria, is quite incredible. Reporter sent out to query Christian businesses. Unsuspecting girl behind counter honestly answers set-up question. Pandemonium results. Owners go into hiding after various threats ensue. GoFundMe raises over $800k for the owners, after only seeking 25k, to off set expenses from having to close their doors.
Only in America.
I pray Christians will see the far greater issue here than what is termed 'discrimination,' and the whole issue of rights and law and freedom, etc. The larger issue is where this nation is, where the world is, and what it says about last day events.
Both Daniel (3 and 6) and Revelation (13 and 14) relate to issues regarding obedience to God versus obedience to the state. The issue of inalienable rights granted by God (the biblical Creator) or rights granted by the state/church (man-made creations) are world-ending issues. This Indiana situation creates a stepping stone towards the final confrontation of righteousness versus unrighteousness.
Nineteen other states have laws similar to Indiana. There is the federal law itself, enacted under the Clinton administration. Why all the riotous behavior now? Why the furor over a pizzeria now? Because the end is nearing and God is giving another wake-up call.
If the state can force a business owner to disregard their conscience and their faith in the God who gave us inalienable rights, the time has arrived when the state can force ANY issue, any policy, any man-made law upon all citizens.
Are we ready to make war with the beast?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 5, 2015 19:31:22 GMT -8
From my perspective, you're over-inflating a complicated issue that really isn't that new and is certainly less ominous than many other events over the last 2000 years. Also, this is just something that is happening in one corner of the world. The return of Christ isn't predicated on the current state of America. |
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Apr 6, 2015 6:41:13 GMT -8
Would that not depend on whether or not the student of prophecy sees the United States of America in Bible prophecy? I believe God has not left the history and effect of this nation out of His portrayal of last day events. The second beast of Rev. 13 is the USA, and its current state of affairs can easily spill into its final influence upon last day events.
I might ask how you believe I have 'over-inflated' the issue of homosexuality and its obvious, current political force in America (and many nations of the world) and the seeming backlash of people against it, creating a bigger divide in America than ever before. What is 'complicated' about the First amendment to the Constitution?
If I were a baker I should not be forced to construct food art for a homosexual wedding, a kkk party, a neo-nazi celebration, an atheist convention, Barack Obama's, Nancy Pelosi's, or John Boehner and co's birthday party, a death metal band's after concert party, or any other event I deem either a matter of faith and conscience or just something I do not want to be part of for whatever reason. That is freedom and liberty protected by the Constitution. It used to be, anyway.
A culture war has been underway for decades. The planet is shifting and Noah's day and Sodom's day is upon us in significant ways. You believe otherwise. So be it. Time will tell.
I should also ask, where in the past history of this nation or any other relatively modern nation, or any in the last 2000 years has sexual orientation been a legal issue and matter of rights? You say this is not a new issue. In light of history I would have to see it as a very recent development. Which is what makes it a decided sign of our times and Christ's return. The entire structure of God's established order is being overturned and you can not see that as important to our times? Perhaps Preterism is more dangerous a position than I realized.
n
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 22, 2015 14:11:04 GMT -8
Considering I think that 80% of the book of Revelation was fulfilled shortly after it was written (as the book itself claimed it would be), and for a variety of other reasons, I think it makes no sense to see specific reference to the U.S. in the book of Revelation. It is, however, interesting to me that the US has gone from the saving "eagle" to the "second beast" over the last few decades among some futurists 
Question for you: should a baker be able to refuse service to blacks or Asians or Hispanics (or Whites?)
A culture war has been underway for decades. The planet is shifting and Noah's day and Sodom's day is upon us in significant ways. You believe otherwise. So be it. Time will tell.
My point was simply that Christianity once flourished among societies that either overtly (Greeks) or more winkingly (Roman) accepted homosexual practice, and it didn't need any laws passed in order to win people to the truth.
Again, I think you are putting too much stock in what our SECULAR government does or doesn't allow. But secular governments have always contended with gospel truths, even when they pretended to be allies. I DO see societal shifts as "important" for us to response to. But not primarily politically. If we as Christians aren't doing the real work of convincing people one at a time of the truths of the gospel and discipleship to Jesus, then we shouldn't rely on laws to stem the tide.
Rather than worry about what's happening in Indiana, let's be concerned with our own witness right now in our own personal spheres.
The only way that my Preterism plays into this is that it simply puts a check on alarmist thinking, and serves as a reminder that there have been many, many dark days since the 1st century AD that the church has had to wade through and be a light in.
Do you want me to affirm that these days are dark days? Yes, I could affirm that in many aspects they are. But not in every aspect. Some things are better today that in the past. We need to think objectively about each trend rather than "painting it all black" in hopes of... what? Scaring people into the kingdom?
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Apr 23, 2015 12:56:49 GMT -8
Considering I think that 80% of the book of Revelation was fulfilled shortly after it was written (as the book itself claimed it would be),  ? and for a variety of other reasons, I think it makes no sense to see specific reference to the U.S. in the book of Revelation. *******So, what or who do you see as the fulfillment of that beast power?
It is, however, interesting to me that the US has gone from the saving "eagle" to the "second beast" over the last few decades among some futurists *******I have never seen any futurist positions to that identity. Perhaps post some?
Question for you: should a baker be able to refuse service to blacks or Asians or Hispanics (or Whites?)*******It isn't a sin to be black or Asian or Hispanic or Caucasian. It is a sin to practice homosexuality. It is wrong to force people to accept sin and open sinners and have to cater to its/their agenda. Beyond that, discrimination laws are generally based on people being offended. There is nothing in the Constitution which protects anyone from being offended and people should have the freedom to be offensive. They may lose business and have to shut down because people reject them but, once politicians begin making laws about not offending people we go down the slippery slope. The pope doesn't want Protestants to say anything negative about the RCC. Shall hate speech laws be framed so no one can offend anyone's religious practices or beliefs? If someone can refuse service to people not wearing a shirt, they should be able to refuse service to people for any reason they deem necessary. If that offends me, I can give my business to someone else. It IS America, after all. Land of the free, home of the brave. God bless the brave bakers, and florists, and photographers standing up in conscience right now.
A culture war has been underway for decades. The planet is shifting and Noah's day and Sodom's day is upon us in significant ways. You believe otherwise. So be it. Time will tell.
My point was simply that Christianity once flourished among societies that either overtly (Greeks) or more winkingly (Roman) accepted homosexual practice, and it didn't need any laws passed in order to win people to the truth. *******Were there laws in those nations/empires which prosecuted freedom of conscience to reject homosexual practices and those who pushed them? It is one thing to reject a pagan idol or god and be persecuted, as a Christian. It is another to reject people who want to have sex with the same gender and persecute those who reject their sexual choices and preferences. Marriage is a God-given institution between a man and a woman. Laws stating marriage is between any consenting adults is an apostasy from truth. National apostasy shall be followed by national ruin.
Again, I think you are putting too much stock in what our SECULAR government does or doesn't allow. But secular governments have always contended with gospel truths, even when they pretended to be allies. I DO see societal shifts as "important" for us to response to. But not primarily politically. If we as Christians aren't doing the real work of convincing people one at a time of the truths of the gospel and discipleship to Jesus, then we shouldn't rely on laws to stem the tide. *******I agree. First, our government is not secular by design. It is civil, and recognized the sovereignty of the Creator of the universe. The issue is inalienable rights given of our Creator, and freedom and the Constitution being discarded. Persecution has always been and always will be, till the end. But, that should not mean Christians, living in a Constitutional Republic, should invite it upon them when courts take away their God-given rights to freedom of conscience.
Rather than worry about what's happening in Indiana, let's be concerned with our own witness right now in our own personal spheres. *******What is happening in Indiana is directly effecting the walk and witness of Christians in a way which should not be taking place in the United States of America. No one should lose their business or be reduced to indigence in this nation because they follow their conscience. They may, by God's grace, endure and rise above. They should not have to deal with such things, in America.
The only way that my Preterism plays into this is that it simply puts a check on alarmist thinking, and serves as a reminder that there have been many, many dark days since the 1st century AD that the church has had to wade through and be a light in. *******Indeed. But, there has never been a Constitutional Republic based on Judeo/Christian principles in history before, and certainly not one which has promoted the Gospel around the planet as this nation has, through the wealth and goodwill of its citizens, which came as a result of the freedoms Americans enjoy. If you consider me an alarmist, so be it. Frankly, being told I must cater to sexual sinners, be they homosexual or heterosexual, should sound an alarm in a nation the world has looked to as an example and beacon of hope for a couple centuries now.
Do you want me to affirm that these days are dark days? Yes, I could affirm that in many aspects they are. But not in every aspect. Some things are better today that in the past. We need to think objectively about each trend rather than "painting it all black" in hopes of... what? Scaring people into the kingdom? *******I disbelieve the popular doctrine of hell and its demonstrable effects precisely because I reject the notion anyone can be scared into the kingdom. Nonetheless, warnings are only warnings when they have teeth to them. A barking dog showing me gums is no threat, is it? God warns and He tells the end from the beginning, giving His secrets through His servants the prophets, that His people may be ready when major events are coming. The NT is filled with signs and warnings leading up to Christ's return. One of them is open and brazen homosexuality. Laws protecting sexual preferences at the expense of freedom of conscience is, to me, an alarming thing. I see no reason to remain silent on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 23, 2015 16:07:52 GMT -8
Regarding America being identified by some futurists as the eagle of Revelation 12, I recall it being pretty popular in the 1980's when I was growing up a futurist.
It must have been popular enough at one time for even Hal Lindsay to admit that it was a popular view, though he disavowed it in this 2001 article:
www.wnd.com/2001/05/9070/
I'm actually impressed that at least by 2001 Lindsey didn't see any good reason to read America into biblical prophecy (probably a rare point of agreement I'd find with Hal)
As to my view of the second beast, I think I've posted my thoughts on that somewhere on the Eschatology folder. But if not, or if you want to start a new thread there, I can answer. I'd rather not stretch this current topic too much more.
So, should it be acceptable to refuse service to anyone we perceive to be an unrepentant sinner in any way?
I'm asking these kind of questions in hopes of highlighting that this is not a simple black and white issue. Part of me does want to go all free-market on this stuff but there are notable exceptions that I think we have learned we need our government to enforce- such as laws against racial discrimination. And I don't think it should be legal for some store or shop owner to refuse me service on my religious viewpoints or personal-yet-legal moral decisions. I don't think a Baptist or Seventh-Day Advenstist run bookstore should legally be able to refuse me service because I drink alcohol or smoke a pipe. Yet how is that different than the instance of someone engaged in a homosexual relationship?
All that said, I also recognize that in situations in which someone is asking a business to publish, print, or attend in support of something they fundamentally disagree with is a slippery slope. So, I personally think this is a tough issue in which no matter which side prevails, negative consequences will arise. Should such legislation pass, I think Christians may unwittingly be creating an environment and legal structure in which they could also be discriminated against.
But I think the best way forward would be for Christians to get out of the "business" and "legality" of marriage, and just go back to the idea that marriage is the church's province, not the State's. Let's keep our marriages unassailable by law by not involving the law in them if there is too much baggage attached.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Apr 24, 2015 16:22:02 GMT -8
Not being a reader of Hal Lindsey I am not familiar with attempts to make the eagle of rev 12 out to be anything in particular. It is a metaphor. I didn't know anyone sees it as a particular symbol of any power or nation. My thoughts are about the second beast of rev 13 but, as you say, that would be for another section of the board.
Serving "perceived" unrepentant sinners. Well, I would not want to be asked to make a cake or provide flowers, etc., for a church member I knew was having an affair, anymore than making a cake for homosexual event. The issue is being forced to put aside one's religious convictions to partake in an event they deem openly abominable.
In a truly free Republic I believe anyone should be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason they choose. Most respectable people will not frequent a business which displays racial discrimination. I know racists: church going, professed Christian racists. Southeners. Scary. But, they are entitled to their beliefs in a free nation. Politicians should not be allowed to make laws respecting freedom of conscience.
Personally I am sick and tried of people playing the "race card." I could not care less the color of Obama's skin. Besides, he is half Caucasian. I care about the color of his politics which are communist red. He has gotten away with things ONLY because of the race card. It's ridiculous. If he were white he'd have been impeached by now. So, there you have the other side of the discrimination coin - those who take advantage of the social stigma attached to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Apr 24, 2015 17:11:18 GMT -8
I'm asking these kind of questions in hopes of highlighting that this is not a simple black and white issue. *******I believe it is a black and white issue. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Black and white. Marriage is an establishment of religion, the oldest establishment of religion on the planet besides the Sabbath. Congress or state bodies should not be making laws about it, abrogating what the Creator established. The SCOTUS should have nothing to do with it. If homosexuals want to get married that is their business. Those opposed to such unions should not be forced to serve them in any way, shape or form.
Part of me does want to go all free-market on this stuff but there are notable exceptions that I think we have learned we need our government to enforce- such as laws against racial discrimination. And I don't think it should be legal for some store or shop owner to refuse me service on my religious viewpoints or personal-yet-legal moral decisions. I don't think a Baptist or Seventh-Day Advenstist run bookstore should legally be able to refuse me service because I drink alcohol or smoke a pipe. Yet how is that different than the instance of someone engaged in a homosexual relationship? *******The issue is being forced to do something for that relationshp when your conscience tells you no, I will not. Christians are not against homosexuals, per se. They are against homosexual intimacy. If a man wants to put his organ in another man's anus that is his business but to make anybody serve that union calling it marriage in God's eyes is an abomination. The fact is you cannot smoke in most buildings now. So, the Baptist or SDA bookstores should be able to tell a smoker to smoke outside and keep your beer outside. That is freedom. When you cross the threshold into someone's private business you should abide by their way, not yours. The same as entering into another person's home. You would not be allowed to smoke or drink in my home because it is my home and private property rights mean something. Well, they used to. Not anymore.
All that said, I also recognize that in situations in which someone is asking a business to publish, print, or attend in support of something they fundamentally disagree with is a slippery slope. So, I personally think this is a tough issue in which no matter which side prevails, negative consequences will arise. Should such legislation pass, I think Christians may unwittingly be creating an environment and legal structure in which they could also be discriminated against. *******So be it. "Great peace have they which love thy law and nothing shall offend them." If a business run by homosexuals wants to tell me to shop elsewhere, so be it. It is no skin off my nose. I may have mentioned this already but, have you seen the video of the guy asking Muslim bakeries to make a cake for his homosexual wedding and every, single one says NO. Where are the protests and riots and death threats? This is all hypocrisy and war being waged towards people of professed Christian faith. That is all it is.
But I think the best way forward would be for Christians to get out of the "business" and "legality" of marriage, and just go back to the idea that marriage is the church's province, not the State's. Let's keep our marriages unassailable by law by not involving the law in them if there is too much baggage attached. ******* Not sure what you mean by the business of marriage. I would agree that marriage is a covenant which the state should have no involvement in, like licenses, etc.
Like I say, if I run a bakery and have a wedding cake on a shelf and homosexuals come in and want to buy it, buy it. Even then I reserve the right to not sell it. But under no circumstances should a person be forced to produce anything which supports something they believe is wrong. Freedom of conscience is priceless, it is the foundation of this nation. It has been eroded by sexual preference laws which never should have been made. The Leopard cannot change his spots nor the Ethiopian the color of his skin. What someone does with their bodies of any skin color, yes, that they can change. Marriage is sacred. Sex is sacred. God is love. He gets to define the parameters of it all, not man, not governments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 5, 2015 21:17:54 GMT -8
So, for clarification, are you agreed in general the law should protect a gay person's right to receive general services in society? For instance, the law should prohibit me from refusing to sell a hamburger to a gay person?
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on May 7, 2015 2:50:03 GMT -8
What am I failing to get across here?
I do not believe sexual preference laws are constitutional. I do not believe sexual activity should be protected by specific laws. The very nature of the laws will fight against the first amendment and bring discrimination against people of religious faith. Either the first amendment means what it says or it is an empty vessel.
All men are created equal. What they do after they are created, like sexual preference, is not necessarily an act of the creation of the Creator.
That said, No, I do not believe laws should force people to violate their conscience in any way they feel and are convicted it is violated, whether selling hamburgers or anything else. My parents ran a restaurant. They were Roman Catholic (my mother became a Protestant later in life). If a Protestant, whom they knew spoke against Roman Catholic doctrine and traditions on a radio program, or public seminars or whatever, entered their place of business, they should have the right to refuse him service, their choice. He makes his choices, they make theirs. Now, they might lose business when other Protestants choose to eat elsewhere, and maybe pick up business from Roman Catholics who choose to eat there. That is freedom. That is the marketplace in a Free Republic run by laws which protect rights of conscience as long as people stay civil. If my father lays hands on the man and physically throws him out the door and he lands hard on the asphalt the man now has right to take my father to court for uncivil behavior. Otherwise, like I stated, no one has a Constitutional right not to be offended by another's convictions and beliefs.
Being a man or woman, or Caucasian or Negroid or Mongoloid, etc. are acts of creation, not choice and preference. Sexual activity is a matter of choice and preference. I reserve the right to refuse service to Sodomites the same as I would refuse the right to serve someone from the KKK or a pastor I knew was having an affair. Someone will find that offensive. So be it.
Either America maintains freedom or some group is going to persecute another, as is happening to Christians now, and it is going to get a lot worse. The choice to be Christian is protected by the first amendment. No law should EVER have been made which challenges that freedom, period. Same as any other faith, or no faith at all. If an atheist hates Christians for some reason he should not have to serve people who choose to be Christians. People should not have the right to file lawsuits because they are offended or discriminated against based on choices they make. Laws should not be framed which open the doors to such lawsuits.
Having sex is a choice. Catholic priests. I find the Roman doctrine of celibacy in their priesthood Scripturally erroneous, and practically fraught with problems history has shown. In America the RCC gets to promote their doctrine in freedom. People choose not to have sex. The same is true for promiscuity. I believe it is wrong. People are free to violate their spirit, soul, and bodies like that. Free sex is paraded as the norm now. Homosexuality is no different and should not be protected by any law in the Republic. If men want sex with men, that is their choice. Legal Marriage? No. Not by definition of God, the Creator. Special protections under law? No. But now, homosexuality is protected by American laws, and persecution commences. Duh.
America is sealing its doom with its rejection of God. God weeps but, allows man to choose his way. The gift of choice carries with it responsibility and accountability. America will reap what it sows.
|
|
