Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Approves Gay Marriage in Church Constitution

a reply to: windword

I'm sorry to tell you that there is no Matthew 3:34. The copy and paste from your anti-Catholic site is not correct.

(

originally posted by: Seamrog

NO ONE has the authority to change the teachings of Christ, no matter how good it may feel.

Really?

Let me know when I can hear his words direct from his mouth.

Because until then, all we have is man's words, interpretations, and misinterpretations.

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: windword

I'm sorry to tell you that there is no Matthew 3:34. The copy and paste from your anti-Catholic site is not correct.

(

However 5:34 does and that's the text being referred to. May have been a typo but the pretext still applies.

biblehub.com...

a reply to: Seamrog

Typo fix. Matthew 5:34

Thanks Flammadraco!

a reply to: windword

When Jesus changed the water into wine at Cana, what exactly was he celebrating there?

a reply to: Seamrog

In the first century, weddings weren't preformed in a temples, and churches didn't exist, yet. There were no ceremonies or oaths, because the bride's consent wasn't required.

originally posted by: Mousygretchen
I just hope they don't start legalizing gay adoption.

You're too late. Gay adoption is already legal in many states and municipalities. Chart

And the vast majority of Catholics support marriage equality. Source Will the Catholic Church be next?

originally posted by: Seamrog

NO ONE has the authority to change the teachings of Christ, no matter how good it may feel.

Can you quote where Jesus taught about a restriction on marriage equality?

I do remember Him talking about how those who are divorced are committing adultery in the eyes of God, and I remember Him saying that souls in heaven, like the angels, are neither male nor female (which totally eliminates the concerns about same or different sexes)... but can you remind me where He says that people of the same sex cannot be married to each other here on Earth?

Or where He condemned same-sex relationships here on Earth?

Thanks much.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Wow, some Christians just really want to ignore Christ's words, don't they?

Those words being "judge not that you not be judged."

Kudos to the Presbyterians. Kudos to Benevolent Heretic for the post.

To some of you who have already posted ... do you have any conception of the idea that your own personal beliefs about the Bible, God, Jesus, who marries who and who does what to whom where are your business alone?

Your interpretation stands for no one else; many people believe just as ardently as you do ... just completely differently.

If you're against same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of your same sex; problem solved!

jesus's word do not mean what you think they do. judging as in the way a ruler judges condemns and executes is not a part of the individual's portfolio. it is the responsibility of either a secular ruler and his delegated representatives or appointed by community elders if there is no secular authority.

Context is important. He did not mean not to acknowledge that bad man is bad to the contrary he not only talked about knowing people by their works or fruits, He lived by the law of the old covenant; he said he had not changed one Jot or title of it. in revelation he condemned several churches for reverting to pagan fertility worship and the sexual activities attendant thereto because he referred them as doing as king Ahab did.

The Presbyterians had better read His letter to the seven churches. The only two ways he meant not to judge was to take it upon the individual to pass legal judgement or to take justice into their own hands or to pronounce someone to be doomed to hell. That's God's job and it annoys him when people try to usurp things he has reserved for himself. Saying things like: John smith you are going to hell. or The deceased, john smith, is in hell right now. are judging a person. You can get real close to the line and not be transgressing the injunction not to judge in that sense. and of course if you bomb an abortion clinic or attack or kill any sinner you are acting as if you have legal authority to hold a trial in your own mind, convict and execute someone on earth. Romans 13 says what the person that does so has brought upon himself in the afterlife.

individuals may not be judge jury and executioner. but governments and agents of governments can:

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

a reply to: Seamrog

So the question is to be dogma, is it?

Fine. Are you, personally, are the arbiter of dogma for all Christians everywhere?

That is, I don't recall seeing the election of Pope Seamrog, or Patriarch Seamrog, or Grand Protestant Poobah Seamrog ...

These (well, the first two at least) are endowed to state what is the universal dogma for Christians everywhere in their respective communions.

Perhaps the release of a small bit of your haughtiness is is order ... because that is another "sin" that your god "hates":

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Proverbs 6: 16-19

(You may want to check the rest of that list ... you might be catching a few more of those rings, just guessin'.)

a reply to: stormbringer1701

How do you know that Jesus didn't mean what I think He means???

He says very clearly (following that famous verse) that "you will be judged by the same measure you judge by."

Context is important, indeed.

Which is why Jesus went on to say that "why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye and miss the board that is in yours." This clearly demonstrates, in the context, that Jesus was addressing individuals who are so interested in the failings of others that they miss their own.

Jesus didn't write a "Letter" to any Churches ... that was Paul. Come on, can we at least pretend to stay within the boundaries of facts?

You're stating your opinion and interpretation of words just as I am.

You have no more special standing to interpret English than I do.

Thanks for your interpretation, although I do believe based on what Jesus actually said in the context in which He said it, His meaning is clear: don't judge others for their failings, at least not before make sure that you yourself are blameless.

Best,

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: windword

When Jesus changed the water into wine at Cana, what exactly was he celebrating there?

Alchemy? (yuk-yuk-yuk)

Return question: What did Jesus say to the Centurion about his request that Jesus heal his pais?

Follow up question: What did Jesus mean by "eunuchs from birth" a phrase which, all over the Middle East for hundreds of years, referred to homosexual men hired to guard men's wives in their households?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: stormbringer1701

How do you know that Jesus didn't mean what I think He means???

He says very clearly (following that famous verse) that "you will be judged by the same measure you judge by."

Context is important, indeed.

Which is why Jesus went on to say that "why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye and miss the board that is in yours." This clearly demonstrates, in the context, that Jesus was addressing individuals who are so interested in the failings of others that they miss their own.

Jesus didn't write a "Letter" to any Churches ... that was Paul. Come on, can we at least pretend to stay within the boundaries of facts?

You're stating your opinion and interpretation of words just as I am.

You have no more special standing to interpret English than I do.

Thanks for your interpretation, although I do believe based on what Jesus actually said in the context in which He said it, His meaning is clear: don't judge others for their failings, at least not before make sure that you yourself are blameless.

Best,

paul didn't. the letters i am speaking of were dictated to John the revalator in the first part of the book of revelations.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

paul didn't. the letters i am speaking of were dictated to John the revalator in the first part of the book of revelations.

Ah. I was mistaken about your reference then. I beg your pardon.

So, we're talking about the Jesus Christ that John declared "is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen." (Rev. 1:5-6)

That Jesus?

The One who later says at the end of the same book "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll." (Rev. 22:18-19)

Er, uh ... like you did? When you started offering your interpretation of what Jesus "really meant" in those Seven Letters, instead of, you know, letting the Words speak for Themselves?

Hmmmm...

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Out of curiosity, what do you make of the men who like men half the time and women the other half?

Or women who like women half the time, and men the other half?

Or men who like women 90% of the time, except when they go on a fishing trip with their special buddy from college?

Or what about folks who are intersex that are medically neither man nor woman?

Or what about the angels (and departed saints) in heaven who are neither male nor female according to Jesus?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

paul didn't. the letters i am speaking of were dictated to John the revalator in the first part of the book of revelations.

Ah. I was mistaken about your reference then. I beg your pardon.

So, we're talking about the Jesus Christ that John declared "is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen." (Rev. 1:5-6)

That Jesus?

The One who later says at the end of the same book "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll." (Rev. 22:18-19)

Er, uh ... like you did? When you started offering your interpretation of what Jesus "really meant" in those Seven Letters, instead of, you know, letting the Words speak for Themselves?

Hmmmm...

i added nothing but context. for example what was it that ahab did to cause God's anger? why did Christ say that some of the churches were doing as ahab? here is a key: look up the word "groves" in strongs concordance and other study aids. The hebrews did not like to talk of sexual things in plain language. they use euphemisms in a lot of cases. But the meanings of these euphemisms are not unknown to scholars. there was more than just idolatry going on. phallic worship. maypoles in the tabernacle. yes; groves in this case does not mean a group of trees because asherah means otherwise. and groves of trees are not portable and stored in the tabernacle.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Whatever you added, if you look at what the Angel says in Chapter 22, you're kinda ... well, god-cursed.

"If anyone adds ANYTHING to the words of the prophecy" ... the Guy you're talking about doesn't really deal in legal subtleties.

Anyway, your punishments are between you and your god, anyway, which means you're probably off the hook.

And, ... er ... I don't have any response to your kinda convoluted discussion of King Ahab, Strong's Concordance, armchair linguistics, orgies, maypoles in temples ... sounds like a party though. I might have gone to church more if we'd had that at our place ...

None of that really has anything to do with the Presbyterian Church's vote (of a majority of the membership I might add) aside from your claim that these fellow Christians of yours are wrong.

Guess what ... they think YOU are the one who's wrong.

I know, hard to believe.

Your whole argument relies on your stated ability to "interpret" the Bible to understand things that aren't there in the literal text. Honestly ... good for you.

You aren't the first person to claim to be seeing things that aren't there. Best.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Seamrog

In the first century, weddings weren't preformed in a temples, and churches didn't exist, yet. There were no ceremonies or oaths, because the bride's consent wasn't required.

At what point then, did God join a couple together?

originally posted by: 200Plus
Further proof that the "church" is dying perhaps?

I am believer is marriage equality. Any people that want to be married should be able to. Regardless of gender, identification, OR party size.

That being said, changing the word of God in an attempt to bolster congregation figures is doomed to failure.

This. If the Church finds it has to modify their stances to "stay relevant" then perhaps it was all o bunch of made up bull# all along.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Only perhaps???