Summations Only

There is no way you are going to get me to treat homosexuality as the equivalent of race.

There is no way you are going to get me to treat homosexuality as the equivalent of race or sex.

There is no way you are going to get me to treat gay marriage as the equivalent of inter-racial marriage.

There is a right to act according to conscience, which in this case comes down to a right to refuse service where it would violate one's conscience.

I'd agree that giving other reasons might be the best solution. I don't know if that was an option in the cases under discussion. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the actual situation isn't apparent right away.

There is no way you are going to get me to treat homosexuality as the equivalent of race.

That's absurd. There is no case for Jim Jones acting on conscience.

Can I discriminate against felons? Pedophiles? Would you object if I refused to cater a Nazi celebration, or discriminated against a skinhead rally?If the argument is that you might make a person feel oppressed, would you care in these cases?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, there is no middle category. Homosexuality is not to be classed with race or sex, and the only thing it can be classed with is another unnatural sexual inclination. Or criminality, which is how it used to be classed. It ought to be enough that it is no longer treated as criminal, but there is no way it should be treated as normal.

You need your mouth washed out with soap.

I hope some from the apostate churches will be saved, including you, but that doesn't make the churches less apostate.A major clue to their apostasy, by the way, is your idea of what constitutes Christian love. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have no problem whatever with treating people as decent citizens, including gays. They can buy all the cake and eclairs they want from my bakery. I'll serve them freshly roasted coffee with their eclairs if they like. And they can hire me to do portrait photography as well. I'll even sit down and chat with them if they like. Many gays are very knowledgeable about art and politics and other interesting subjects. I've known some strongly conservative gays. We get along great in all those areas.I have a very specific problem with being asked to do anything that suggests support for gay marriage, the overthrow of thousands of years of the meaning of marriage in all cultures, and the ratification of a sexual aberration as the same as heterosexual union. I know at least one gay man who agrees with me about this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Bible believing churches are the standard, those who take the Bible as inerrant and believe all of it (not of course the parts of the OT intended only for the Israelites), and those that follow basic Reformation Protestantism, which recovered the Bible based truth after a millennium of the apostasy of the RCC. These days you have to spend some time investigating the beliefs of any given congregation because we are apparently in the period of the Great Apostasy when the RCC is only the spearhead of a whole gaggle of apostate churches. There are a few mainstream churches that are still Bible believing, but not PC USA, not Methodist, not Anglican or Episcopalian, not Evangelical Lutheran, certainly not the RCC, or Eastern Orthodox which holds too many doctrines similar to the RCC. I'd look first at churches that call themselves Reformed, at independent churches, community churches, Bible churches and so on, but all those aren't necessarily reliable either. Again the standard is Bible inerrancy and Protestant theology. I identify at the moment with Reformed Baptist. Basically the denomination of the late great English preacher Charles Spurgeon. But denominational names aren't always reliable either. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Such a chart unfortunately doesn't show the changes in some of the denominations. Presbyterian used to be strongly Bible believing, but has gone through splits because of the inroads of Bible-compromising liberalism. Same with the Methodists who were Bible believers in the beginning. Lutherans too, and Missouri Synod is still pretty reliably Bible believing. The Anglicans and Episcopalians are "Catholic Light" these days and getting deeper into it, though they too have had their orthodox history and some really great preachers, such as J C Ryle and Martyn Lloyd-Jones were Anglicans. The Westminster Confession is still a benchmark of Bible believing Christianity. Congregationalists were also once orthodox. I think that was Jonathan Edwards' denomination. The Waldensians were a solid bunch of Bible believers who hid away from the RCC in their own Alpine communities for centuries up until the Reformation, although they got persecuted and murdered by the RCC from time to time. 'As I look over your chart it's really only that branch in the upper middle that came off the Reformation that held to the true faith and most of them have apostasized too. Universalism and Unitarianism, which you rightly identify as spinning off Congregationalism, are certainly not Christian because they deny the Trinity, meaning the Deity of Christ.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you believe in evolution you do not believe all the Bible, DA, and I thought you said you believe in evolution. You also think it's Christian love not to call homosexuality sin. This is a repudiation of the truth of the Bible and of Jesus Christ. I don't require Christians to be Calvinists but I do require them to believe the entire Bible without compromising it with evolution or "gay rights" or other man made doctrines. And what I believe in this regard is completely in line with all the Bible believers down the millennia.