Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Presbyterian Church approves of same-sex marriages
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 123 (753264)
03-18-2015 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
03-18-2015 9:38 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 03-18-2015 9:38 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 123 (753266)
03-18-2015 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
03-18-2015 1:24 PM


Re: Club Rules
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 03-18-2015 1:24 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Phat, posted 03-19-2015 8:10 AM Jon has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 123 (753267)
03-18-2015 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
03-18-2015 11:10 AM


Re: Club Rules
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 03-18-2015 11:10 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 03-19-2015 8:02 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 19 of 123 (753310)
03-19-2015 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by NoNukes
03-18-2015 4:00 PM


Re: Club Rules
This quote sums it up.
quote:
The PCUSA was already denying the virgin birth, resurrection, miracles of Jesus, and the inerrancy of the Bible in the 1920s. At the same time they were using the great liberal tactic of being vague, redefining the meanings of words, and using the good old argument that there are many ways to interpret what the Bible says to deny that they did not believe those things. It's not much of a step to get them to this point.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 03-18-2015 4:00 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 03-19-2015 8:53 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 22 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-19-2015 9:05 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 23 by Heathen, posted 03-19-2015 10:25 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 03-19-2015 12:15 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 20 of 123 (753312)
03-19-2015 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jon
03-18-2015 3:57 PM


Re: Club Rules
Jon writes:
Shouldn't the kind of love for God be completely different than the kind of love for one another?
Yes and No.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jon, posted 03-18-2015 3:57 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2015 10:37 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2015 12:49 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 03-19-2015 5:51 PM Phat has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 21 of 123 (753318)
03-19-2015 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Phat
03-19-2015 8:02 AM


Re: Club Rules
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:
The PCUSA was already denying the virgin birth, resurrection, miracles of Jesus, and the inerrancy of the Bible in the 1920s. At the same time they were using the great liberal tactic of being vague, redefining the meanings of words, and using the good old argument that there are many ways to interpret what the Bible says to deny that they did not believe those things. It's not much of a step to get them to this point.
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 quotebox

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 03-19-2015 8:02 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 03-19-2015 12:09 PM jar has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2374 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 22 of 123 (753320)
03-19-2015 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Phat
03-19-2015 8:02 AM


Re: Club Rules
Phat writes:
quote:
... using the good old argument that there are many ways to interpret what the Bible says to deny that they did not believe those things.
Yeah, because the evidence from countless different denominations shows clearly that there is only one way to *correctly* interpret the bible (rolling eyes).
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 03-19-2015 8:02 AM Phat has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


(1)
Message 23 of 123 (753329)
03-19-2015 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Phat
03-19-2015 8:02 AM


Re: Club Rules
... 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 03-19-2015 8:02 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 123 (753331)
03-19-2015 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Phat
03-19-2015 8:10 AM


Re: Club Rules
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Phat, posted 03-19-2015 8:10 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 25 of 123 (753355)
03-19-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
03-19-2015 8:53 AM


Re: Club Rules
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 03-19-2015 8:53 AM jar has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 123 (753358)
03-19-2015 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Phat
03-19-2015 8:02 AM


Re: Club Rules
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 03-19-2015 8:02 AM Phat has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 27 of 123 (753367)
03-19-2015 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Phat
03-19-2015 8:10 AM


purpose?
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 ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Phat, posted 03-19-2015 8:10 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 28 of 123 (753373)
03-19-2015 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
03-18-2015 1:24 PM


Re: Club Rules
Phat writes:
... a church has a primary obligation of joining people in communion with God first---before joining them with each other.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 03-18-2015 1:24 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 29 of 123 (753408)
03-19-2015 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
03-18-2015 11:32 AM


Re: Club Rules
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 03-18-2015 11:32 AM Phat has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 30 of 123 (753409)
03-19-2015 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
03-18-2015 1:24 PM


Re: Club Rules
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 03-18-2015 1:24 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024