Presbyterian Assembly: Gay Marriage Is Christian

Does God want us to keep the sinners out of Heaven, or help them repent and get in?

Of course to help them repent and get in. Telling them to continue to sin does not help them in their repentance. In fact, it is the WORST thing a loving person would do if they really cared about their eternal souls instead of looking to simply being politically correct and not to bruise any egos.

Being attracted to one's own sex does not bar one from Holy Communion, nor is it any reason to shun them or treat them without love and concern. But our love and concern does not mean that we accept sinful actions as being ok. We are to love our neighbors in spirit AND truth, not in platitudes ignoring their sinful actions which are leading them headlong into perdition.

Tell you what. You save the sinners who are easy to save, and the PCUSA will do what is necessary to save the sinners who aren't easy to save--and turn the other cheek to you at the same time. Deal?

The PCUSE is not saving sinners by promoting gay marriage. They are helping them down the broad and wide road which leads to perdition. They are doing no one any favors but rather trying to fill their emptying pews. Christianity is not a popularity contest, it is a way of life in accordance to the teachings of Jesus Christ, of which the PCUSA seem to have tossed out the window. We are to love the sinners, but hate the sin, not encourage it.
 
BTW, in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the prodigal realized how much of a sinner he was, came to himself, stood up and then started walking back to his father, always acknowledging his transgressions as his own faults. Neither did he blame his father for making him that way nor blame society or others for the sins he committed.

He also didn't waltz back to the father saying that he deserved to be re-accepted back home simply because he was his child, nor did he try to convince his father that his passionate desires and sinful actions he committed to fulfill those desires should be overlooked or accepted. Instead, he went back to his father in true humility and repentance, asking to be one of his father's hired servants and live a life of obedience to his father's will.

The Parable of the Prodigal son does not teach us at all to accept the sinful actions of another. Rather, it teaches us to get up and turn our lives around and away from our sinful actions and go back to our Father in Heaven Who patiently waits for us to turn our backs to our sinful desires and face Him. It also teaches us to love and accept the repentant. It says nothing about how we are to treat those who willfully and habitually sin (in fact, if anything, it teaches us to allow them to go their own way and live their sinful lives apart from us, even if it means losing our own child, all in the hopes they might turn back from their evil ways and towards the truth and eventually save their own souls), so the use of this parable in trying to defend gay marriage does not help one's argument in any way.
 
Last edited:
The PCUSE is not saving sinners by promoting gay marriage. They are helping them down the broad and wide road which leads to perdition. They are doing no one any favors but rather trying to fill their emptying pews.

Oh? Is this first hand knowledge, my friend?

I know of another prodigal son. This one is a middle child; he has both an older and a younger brother. The eldest was jealous and bitter; he said, why should I forego such pleasures and stay here and take care of the family business (what's left of it after a third was sold off) when I know Dad will forgive my brother if he ever comes home? The youngest merely missed his brother terribly.

The eldest posted ads on every craigslist site he could find saying, 'Brother our father will never forgive you. Stay away. If you come to my house, I will ridicule you and abuse you as you know you deserve. You have made your bed. Lie in it.' The youngest brother posted ads on every craigslist site he could find saying, 'Brother you know our father will forgive you. Come home. If you come to my house, I will help you clean up and kick your habits and dress you in my clothes, so that you won't be so mortified when we go to our father together and you receive your welcome from the whole house.'

Who is doing his father's will?

I say you have to appear to be 'helping them down the broad and wide road which leads to perdition' these days to avoid frightening most of them away. I say it's better to fill the pews than to bar the doors to all but the Pharisees (who are also sinners, whether they believe it or not). I say it's all well and good to say you're more than willing to help them while running around making noises designed to send the message that you don't even want to breathe the same air as them. Jesus dived right down amongst the sinners. He saved his fire and brimstone for the hypocrites.

PCUSA doesn't care to run a soup kitchen with a big sign out front announcing it has a dress code. If you don't see how railing publicly against a certain group of sinners makes them afraid to even try your church, then you need to practice trying on the shoes of others and seeing how it is to walk in them.

It says nothing about how we are to treat those who willfully and habitually sin (in fact, if anything, it teaches us to allow them to go their own way and live their sinful lives apart from us, even if it means losing our own child, all in the hopes they might turn back from their evil ways and towards the truth and eventually save their own souls...

No, it doesn't say that at all. It doesn't advocate putting them in jail to save them from themselves, obviously--just the opposite. But it doesn't say to send them away lest their sins tempt you into sinning as well. If you're made of stronger stuff than that, like the youngest brother in my version of the parable, then you can walk through the valley of the Shadow of Death where there are rescues to be made, instead of hiding in fear within the walls of your safe church, praying that God will send some repentant, halfway-cured person to you so you can tell yourself later that his redemption was all your fault.
 
Last edited:
Consent is Not the Defining Issue, Especially in Homosexuality

Homophobes "interpreting" God's will? Who know?

Honestly, why care what consenting adults do with one another?

Because the issue has nothing to do with consent, as if consent determines whether something is moral or not.

It seems to me that you don't have children.
 
Because the issue has nothing to do with consent, as if consent determines whether something is moral or not.

It seems to me that you don't have children.

Really? Consent has a lot to do with whether or not some things are moral. Consent is the difference between rape and non-rape, and the difference between theft and gift, and between a victim and non-victim. When consenting adults have a homosexual relationship there is no victim.
What do children have to do with it?
 
That is the PCUSA, which all Presbyterian and Reformed Christians know is a very liberal denomination. It was only a matter of time before they officially declared homosexual "marriages" to be "Biblical" as a denomination.

I don't think that's what they're saying, exactly. I don't see any of them citing Bible precedent for it.

Really? Consent has a lot to do with whether or not some things are moral. Consent is the difference between rape and non-rape, and the difference between theft and gift, and between a victim and non-victim. When consenting adults have a homosexual relationship there is no victim.
What do children have to do with it?

I don't think sins and crimes are exactly the same thing. A sin can certainly be a crime against yourself.
 
I don't think sins and crimes are exactly the same thing. A sin can certainly be a crime against yourself.

I would agree that immorality goes beyond crimes, but both have victims. Cheating on your spouse is not illegal, but it is immoral because you have broken an oath to your spouse. Smoking two packs a day is not illegal, but it might be immoral if you have a family that depends on you and you are shortchanging them by wrecking your health. But when there's no victim (other than yourself)? I wouldn't consider chopping your own pinky finger off to be immoral, just stupid. With gay relationships though you can't even demonstrate how it is harmful to anyone, including yourself.
 
I would agree that immorality goes beyond crimes, but both have victims. Cheating on your spouse is not illegal, but it is immoral because you have broken an oath to your spouse. Smoking two packs a day is not illegal, but it might be immoral if you have a family that depends on you and you are shortchanging them by wrecking your health. But when there's no victim (other than yourself)? I wouldn't consider chopping your own pinky finger off to be immoral, just stupid.

Fair enough. But when you fail to enter Heaven, God and the angels are disappointed as well.

With gay relationships though you can't even demonstrate how it is harmful to anyone, including yourself.

You must be too young to remember the AIDS epidemic. That would just be one of a very long list of diseases, most deadly at some point in the past, which sodomy transmits very well. There's certainly a reason it was right up there with eating pork on the Leviticus list.
 
You must be too young to remember the AIDS epidemic. That would just be one of a very long list of diseases, most deadly at some point in the past, which sodomy transmits very well. There's certainly a reason it was right up there with eating pork on the Leviticus list.

Seriously? It's immoral because they have a higher likelihood of getting AIDS? As if heterosexual couples don't also get AIDS and a zillion other sexually transmitted diseases? Okay, it can be just as immoral as eating pork. Which is not immoral.
 
Last edited:
I am not intrested in starting a RCC vs Protestant bullshit pissing contest terry. Take it up with sola or ff when they come back if you feel the need.

You made the statement that the PCUSA doesn't represent the views of the mainstream Presbyterians. I posted the wiki link to show that the mother church of those same mainstream Presbyterians are also debating allowing same sex marriages in their church and have been for a while now.

There's no "pissing match" here that I know of, because I'm not a Roman Catholic anyway. I was simply responding to what you wrote and added that other major protestant orgs are headed in the same direction.
 
I think it needs to be clarified here that we're not talking about secular human rights to live and worship as they please. We're talking about a Christian based religious org in breech of it's own said beliefs in God and how that affects the Christian church as a whole with regard to what the Christian bible teaches.

I believe the issue should be debated on just how far apart from the word of God a Christian church can go before it's no longer feasible to call it a "Christian Church" any longer. There are set beliefs and morality that go with the belief in the Christian God. When those beliefs no longer match up with the word of God, they they're not within the continuum of the will of God any longer.
 
Ok Terry. Every single protestant church is caving into homosexuality. You and wiki have convinced me.
 
When Consent Doesn't Matter

Really? Consent has a lot to do with whether or not some things are moral. Consent is the difference between rape and non-rape, and the difference between theft and gift, and between a victim and non-victim. When consenting adults have a homosexual relationship there is no victim.
What do children have to do with it?

From a Christian worldview, things like rape and theft are objectively wrong because they are against God's law, before consent comes into the picture. Having said that, I do agree with you that consent has a judicial role in determining whether someone is raped or not, as well as whether something was stolen or not. In addition, there are victims even in homosexual relationships, and the victims are the homosexual partners themselves. Their act is a defilement of their own bodies, which God created for sexual union with the opposite sex (in a marital context, of course).

The appeal to consent is extinguished when it comes to child-rearing, however. Children are under the authority of their parents, and therefore, they are expected to obey their parents, even if they do not consent to their parents' rules (assuming those rules are in accord with righteousness). A child, for instance, must do his chores, even if he doesn't want to, that is to say, even if he doesn't consent to performing chores, or else he faces the penalties of not doing them (being grounded, spanking, having privileges/luxuries taken away, etc.). I don't consider it wrong, on the parents' part, to punish the child for his non-consent when he failed to do his chores. That is discipline, after all.
 
That is the PCUSA, which all Presbyterian and Reformed Christians know is a very liberal denomination. It was only a matter of time before they officially declared homosexual "marriages" to be "Biblical" as a denomination.

What does one expect from a 'church' that condones the murder of the unborn? Obviously condoning homosexual 'marriage' was next on the list of intrinsic evils they had to support.
 
Last edited:
What an one expect from a 'church' that condones the murder of the unborn? Obviously condoning homosexual 'marriage' was next on the list of intrinsic evils they had to support.

Yeah, PCUSA has sucked for a very long time.
 
More and more churches are caving in, I see it much like politics. How unprincipled of a man will you vote for? How low will your church go before you stop attending. I fear we are going into a dark time, a lot are blind to their own church selling out. I don't attend church, I have never found one that seemed right.
 
Back
Top