BaptistLife.Com Forums.

There is a difference in being discriminating and showing discrimination against a class of people.

Jesus saw the greed of the money changers (no doubt that is what Jim was referring to with the "temple-defilement episode”) and wanted to make a point emphatically to not use the temple for monetary gain. That is what those money changers needed at the time. Jesus hoped that they would end this practice.

Jesus saw the hearts of the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law, and lashed out at them and He showed more anger at their sinful attitudes than any other type of sin. That is what those people needed again hoping they would become less judgmental and legalistic.

Jesus had witnessed the lack of welcoming or listening (Matt 10:14,15 a passage that Jim used to justify discrimination of a class of people) had told disciple to leave. Jesus believe was that the disciples should not browbeat or coerce them not belief. That would not be effective at that time, was Jesus’s guidance. So he asked te disciples to be discriminating but do not call for a forever-discrimination against those who were not receptive.

Then when Jesus Himself went into two of those unbelieving cities (Chorazin and Bethsaida Matt 11:20-25 larger context of what Jim offered to justify discrimination) and warned of a Day of Judgment that would be coming. That was what they needed.


So, yes Jesus was discriminating, but it was to be redemptive in the the most effective ways and I’m not about to challenge Jesus’s discernments.


Jesus also saw the sin of “sinners” like the woman caught in adultery (that the Pharisees brought to Jesus) and was tender with her as He saw her repentance and asked that she “sin no more” to the consternation of the Pharisees. He was always sympathetic towards those who are marginalized (e.g. Pharisee-condemned “sinners”, lepers, beggars, the sick, those with “demons”, Canaanites) whether they were sinners or not. These people were suffering from discrimination by the local people and Jesus condemned that discrimination. Jesus did not avoid interacting with the marginalized, as those cake makers or florists (in today’s issue de jour) are doing due to their discrimination.

For the record, in the LGBT/the cake maker&florist dilemma, I believe it is a very minor issue flared up by the RW. I believe LBGTs should just shake the dust off their feet and go elsewhere for their desired service and cake makers/florists should hold their nose and perform the service - they are not liable for the sin of others (if in fact God sees a same-sex marriage as sin) but their unloving attitudes very well could be sin.

Yes, you should move over.

Here lies the body of old John Gray
Who died defending his right-of-way,
He was right - dead right - as he sped along,
But now he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

To this someone has added:
John had the courage; he had the pluck,
But the other guy had a very big truck!

I've never heard of a gay florist or baker who objected in principle to heterosexual marriage, or considered it, and aiding and abetting it, sinful. So it is not surprising that like Ed, I have never heard of one being asked to provide services to one. You only hear about it when someone sues.

The evil-of-discrimination thing, or political incorrectness, always seems to redound to the treatment of the LGBTQ gang, not least perhaps because it has to do with God's design for perpetuating the race and the acceptance of people of that design or rejection/violation of it for whatever reason, usually the satisfying of carnal-as-opposed-to-spiritual acquiescence regarding God's plan. For those not accounting Genesis as myth, mankind is made in God's image. No one seems to know exactly what that means but it seems to me that man and woman were created with owning no imperfections. Perhaps Paul said it best in I Cor. 6:19 when he concluded the human body to be the physical/spiritual temple of God (Holy Spirit) on earth. Just as Jesus cleansed the temple of uncleanness when he violently threw out the money-changers and their spoils, God intends the human to keep uncleanness from his/her body. Uncleanness or defilement of the body is well-explained in scripture, both OT and NT. It includes homosexuality with bestiality and by extension any sexual exercises that run counter to protecting the original attribute of flawlessness, including the attempt to change sex. The pastor who weds man to man in the church defiles the earthly temple building-wise. The two men defile their bodies, with the pastor complicit. The denominations accepting as normal these perversions are at the gasping stage, a slap in God's face.

Here's a pretty thorough treatment of what Voddie Bauchum and King James I of England and VI of Scotland misleadingly called "abomination": .

I see a difference between selling equally to everyone a product you have on your shelf, as opposed to contracting to provide a specific product or service which one doesn't do all the time and may or may not want to do.

[But my comment about comparing a consensual decision on consummating a sex act with the color of skin with which one was born was mostly to Leland about Voddie Baucham and abomination in the Bible, and not specifically regarding the overall topic of butchers and bakers and candlestick makers. I've gone back and edited to make that clearer. BTW, I don't think one has to have a Christian perspective to understand that one's choice regarding sexual activity and "born-with" skin color are apples & oranges, not the same kind of categories.]