|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Presbyterian Church approves of same-sex marriages | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The important point is that you cannot get much more Protestant Christian than the Presbyterian Church. Presbyterian USA is known as apostate among us conservative Christians. When I was a new Christian I joined the local PCUSA and within a year recognized their false (unbiblical) teachings. I made some good friends there nevertheless and eventually all of us found our way to orthodox churches. There are at least two conservative Presbyterian churches that I know of, that I understand to be orthodox: Covenant Presbyterian and Orthodox Presbyterian. There aren't any in my vicinity or I'd certainly check them out. As conservative assemblies they would hold to what the Bible says about marriage and about homosexuality. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Shouldn't the kind of love for God be completely different than the kind of love for one another?
I can't understand how there could be a competition between the two. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Any two people...of whatever gender combination...have a legal right to get married, but there must be a spiritual purpose to the communion. I take this to mean that you cannot imagine or accept a spiritual purpose for a union between two Christian men, be that union marriage, friendship, or simply agreeing to walk the same way along a road. I think it pretty evident that what you say here is merely an excuse for your disapproval. I have no idea what the real objection is.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
This quote sums it up.
quote: I take this to mean that you cannot imagine or accept a spiritual purpose for a union between two Christian men, be that union marriage, friendship, or simply agreeing to walk the same way along a road. My point is that there is no purpose for marriage between two Christian men. Let it be legal, I've no problem with legalization---we are, after all a pluralistic society. For a church to endorse such behavior, however, means that the church is weak, vague, and unable to comprehend the reality of a spiritual union rather than an unneeded physical one. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Jon writes: Yes and No. Shouldn't the kind of love for God be completely different than the kind of love for one another? The Spirit should transcend the Flesh. Flesh gives birth to flesh and Spirit to spirit. If a couple (of whatever gender) has not the spirit, I would expect them to cuddle and satisfy their needs until the cows came home. What I dont expect nor accept is a couple in church limiting themselves to carnal expression. A church is much more than a social club for meeting people. Marriage is a symbol. I see no point nor purpose for marriage between two men. That is, for the record, my opinion. Give them their rights as a secular society. This church is, sadly a club I would want to avoid. They have no spirituality.Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Phat writes: For a church to endorse such behavior, however, means that the church is weak, vague, and unable to comprehend the reality of a spiritual union rather than an unneeded physical one. How does it make the church weak? How is an explicit statement vague? What does the "reality of a spiritual union rather than an unneeded physical one" even mean? Why is the "reality of a spiritual union rather than an unneeded physical one" relevant to marriage? Where is your evidence to support your quote of:
quote: Can you see the doublespeak, NewSpeak conman carny tactics evident in that quote? Would there be any possible reason to trust anything said by the author of that quote? Edited by jar, : fix quoteboxAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2374 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Phat writes: quote: Yeah, because the evidence from countless different denominations shows clearly that there is only one way to *correctly* interpret the bible (rolling eyes). JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined:
|
... unneeded physical one You have been asked and haven't yet explained why you feel a union between same sex partners is "unneeded" while a union between a man and a woman is somehow needed? Do you believe that a marriage between infertile hetero couples or hetero couples who do not wish to procreate should not be allowed in christian churches? should a married couple who are unable to procreate immediately divorce on learning this? you need to clarify why you feel a heterosexual "needs" marriage more than a homosexual.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I see no point nor purpose for marriage between two men. Its right there, Phat. Its all that spiritual union stuff you're talking about. Your whole argument looks like Begging the Question to me. That is, the thing you are concluding (that two men shouldn't get married) is one of the premises that you are starting with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Can you see the doublespeak, NewSpeak conman carny tactics evident in that quote?
Yes, that stuck out like a sore thumb. But I guess Phat didn't notice, for otherwise he would not have considered it credible enough to post.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
My point is that there is no purpose for marriage between two Christian men. Let it be legal, I've no problem with legalization---we are, after all a pluralistic society. As has been mentioned, the distinction between a marriage with two Christian men and between a Christian man and a Christian woman is that in the first marriage, no one can get pregnant. You have yet to provide any other Christian or non Christian purpose for a man/woman union that does not exist for man/man. So unless child bearing is your point, you would not seem to have one. Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I see no point nor purpose for marriage between two men. The point and purpose has to do with secular laws that treat married couples different from non-married people, laws that have to do with inheritance, especially of benefits, income tax breaks, visitation rights in hospitals and any other place where "family only" restrictions apply. The point and purpose is to recognize that a devoted couple make a family unit. The point and purpose is to recognize that we are all people of equal value.
What I dont expect nor accept is a couple in church limiting themselves to carnal expression. Marriage is not about a license to have sex, it is about commitment for the long run, through sickness and health. A chosen demonstration of commitment, made in public to love and honor each other.
Give them their rights as a secular society. And we do. A secular society dedicated to equality and justice, and to the freedom to pursue happiness where it is found. Just as we, without discrimination, give heterosexual couples their rights to marry without regard for their religion or lack thereof, and without regard for their sexual preferences, predilections, practices or limitations (from age, infertility, sexual dysfunction, etc).
This church is, sadly a club I would want to avoid. They have no spirituality. and I would not want to belong to a church that discriminates and rejects people from being members.
A church is much more than a social club for meeting people. and when it is used to divide people into "us" and "them" it becomes evil. But that's just my opinion ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
That's why I say that churches should stay out of marriage. The "communion with God" mumbo-jumbo is an individual thing, unrelated to the civil contract of marriage. ... a church has a primary obligation of joining people in communion with God first---before joining them with each other. If a minister wants to also be a justice-of-the-peace, that's fine. If he wants to superimpose some religious mumbo-jumbo on the civil contract, that's fine too as long as the couple agrees. But he has no business redefining marriage according to his own beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
My point is that if a man and woman get married, the purpose is to raise a family.
Bullshit. The purpose of marriage is not to raise a family. That is just stupid. Also, why can't a same sex couple raise a family?
Two men have no such restriction and should not have a need to focus exclusively on each other.
Your god doesn't think two people can spend their life in love with each other? You are one warped dude.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Are you saying only marriages solemnized by some religious figures are the only valid marriages? Well fuck you. My marriage is as valid as any other marriage. Marriage is a civil institution. A marriage can exist without any church involvement, but cannot exist without the involvement of civil institutions.
So I guess being really wrong is where you stand. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024