Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Presbyterian Church approves of same-sex marriages
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 123 (753217)
03-18-2015 9:38 AM


The Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed its constitution to define marriage as "Marriage involves a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman, to love and support each other for the rest of their lives."
There are almost two million Presbyterians in the US and while this change does not require that a church perform same-sex marriages it does allow that.
The important point is that you cannot get much more Protestant Christian than the Presbyterian Church.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 03-18-2015 10:38 AM jar has replied
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 3:24 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 123 (753222)
03-18-2015 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Phat
03-18-2015 10:38 AM


Re: Club Rules
I'm sorry but I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Phat writes:
1) Apart from Jesus, why should a male limit his commitment to only one other male? Should not a member of the "Body" of Christ strive to commit to everyone in the body rather than simply one person?
So you are saying Jesus should shag all the guys. Got it.
Phat writes:
2) What rules does your club have? What recommendations might a Priest or Reverand have for a soon-to-be-married couple and also, why not emphasize to all that Jesus should be our main love interest?
I can tell you that anyone making such a silly statement would just be greeted with laughter and rightly so.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 03-18-2015 10:38 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 03-18-2015 11:06 AM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 03-18-2015 11:10 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 123 (753227)
03-18-2015 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
03-18-2015 11:10 AM


Re: Club Rules
Phat writes:
In my opinion, when a male limits his love to only one other male, he is basically becoming idolatrous...avoiding Jesus...and living "in the flesh".
You do know the meaning of living in the flesh, I hope. (seeing as how you claim to have read the Bible)
Any two people...of whatever gender combination...have a legal right to get married, but there must be a spiritual purpose to the communion.
Again, you do understand spirit, I trust. (Seeing as how you claim to have read the Bible)
I don't doubt that you believe such utter nonsense and thanks for the laugh.
Why should there be any spiritual purpose to anything (whatever "spiritual purpose" is supposed to mean)?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 03-18-2015 11:10 AM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 11 of 123 (753235)
03-18-2015 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
03-18-2015 11:32 AM


Re: Club Rules
Phat writes:
My point is that if a man and woman get married, the purpose is to raise a family. Two men have no such restriction and should not have a need to focus exclusively on each other.
I'm sorry but that is just nonsense. Why can't unmarried couples raise a family or married couples have no intention of ever raising a family?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 03-18-2015 11:32 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 03-18-2015 1:24 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 123 (753260)
03-18-2015 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
03-18-2015 1:24 PM


Re: Club Rules
Phat writes:
Again...they can. MY point is that even though anyone has or should have every legal right to marry whomsoever they want, a church has a primary obligation of joining people in communion with God first---before joining them with each other.
Back to your communing with God nonsense.
Phat writes:
My point was that in my opinion there is little need for two of the same gender to marry since it is selfish to focus on each other to the exclusion of others. The order of communion should be this:
1) To God
2) To Others
Loving ones partner above either God or others is, in my opinion, selfish.
What does that even mean?
What does it have to do with marriage anyway?

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

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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 123 (753552)
03-20-2015 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Phat
03-20-2015 1:24 PM


Re: Phats Opinion
Phat writes:
Do you have a problem with loving God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength?
What the hell does that even mean?
How would that exclude loving anyone else?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Phat, posted 03-20-2015 1:24 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 03-20-2015 2:57 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 123 (753561)
03-20-2015 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Phat
03-20-2015 2:57 PM


Re: Phats Opinion
Phat writes:
The problem here---as I see it---is that you people don't understand the basic differences between needs and wants.
And yet another "What the hell does that mean or have to do with the topic" response from you.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 03-20-2015 2:57 PM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 53 of 123 (753633)
03-21-2015 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Phat
03-21-2015 3:23 AM


Re: Phats Opinion
Phat writes:
Marriage is a civil contract.
And a church may bless and sanctify a marriage.
Do you have a problem with that?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 03-21-2015 3:23 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 03-21-2015 10:37 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 105 of 123 (754245)
03-25-2015 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by New Cat's Eye
03-25-2015 12:34 PM


Re: A Distinction with a Difference
Yup, yup and lots.
Grow a pair.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2015 12:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2015 1:12 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 121 of 123 (754526)
03-27-2015 9:48 PM


not sure if they approve of kids.
The Presbyterian Church approves of same-sex marriages.

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024