Presbyterian Assembly: Gay Marriage Is Christian

[donnay]

The Truth is God. Christ says 'I am the Truth'. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth.

John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

 

[Crashland]

I mean to say, I willfully chose to follow the interpretations of the Church Fathers and not my own, and if my interpretation is at odds with them, then it is I who needs to be corrected.

That makes sense.

 

[Terry1]

Well this isn't just a *Presbyterian* problem--this is the problem with many physical churches today that are failing and falling prey to political correctness and secular humanism. Instead of doing what God has called the church to do, they're doing the exact opposite.

There's a lot of people that want to believe they can just keep on sinning all the more and still inherit the kingdom of heaven, but that certainly doesn't mean that they will unless they repent and turn to God. This is what OSAS and Calvin's doctrine teaches.

I love gay people, but that doesn't mean I love their sin too any more than they should love mine. We are called to love one another, but also live our convictions and witness Christ. Christ is against all sin and tells us we need to repent of it--not sin all the more and think we'll be rewarded for it because we're sinners by nature. If we have the nature of Christ in us--we won't want to sin and we will repent. That's why He died on the cross was to give us the power to overcome sin--not "sin all the more".

The church of four walls has failed--hence the warning to the seven churches in Revelations. God is pretty clear about what He said He's going to do with them. A very scary message to those who do understand it too.

I spoke with a gay pastor who thought just because he threw on a robe and roman collar teaching that being gay is okay that God is going to honor his commitment. I told him any drunk can teach that being drunk is acceptable to God too, but that doesn't mean God will accept all drunks into heaven either. The same with a murderer or a thief. What's wrong in the eyes of God is just wrong and teaching that it's right and within the will of God doesn't make it so--no matter how much they want to believe it does.

Can you imagine a drunk standing there wearing a robe and roman collar slurring out a sermon while drooling on his pulpit teaching that all drunks will inherit the kingdom of heaven?



If people want to be Christians, they should at least try to live it instead of attempting to change who God is by teaching that perversion and corruption can still inherit the kingdom of heaven when God tells us the exact opposite.

Romans 1:

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[acptulsa]

Yes, the More Light faction causes similar disagreement within the Presbytery. Yes this was a close vote. Yes, these opinions are based on Biblical truths.

God seems to give us this time bearing our mortal coil to prepare us for the Kingdom. Sometimes this involves getting over stuff. Sometimes the best way to get over our stuff is not through threats of fire and brimstone, but through patience. Make joyful noises. Spread the good news. You get more flies with honey than vinegar. The church can't help the people they shun.

Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man, man wasn't made for the Sabbath. We need one day of rest in seven, but if working on the Sabbath because an unseasonable rain is threatening your half-harvested crop and that crop will keep you and your family from starving, which will send you to hell faster--working a Sabbath or being so rigidly dogmatic that you cause your poor kids to starve? We eat pork. We're told not to. But we've learned to deal with the diseases that pork carries. We're also better at curing the diseases spread by sodomy.

Be fruitful and multiply was an order given to us long before there was any reason for anyone to coin the term 'overpopulation'. Even in India.

Judge not, lest ye be judged. We're here to help each other get through judgement day, not bring it on early. Of course, if the people of your church are that afraid of being led into temptation, then you must be careful. So let More Light Presbyterians step up to the plate and pinch hit for you. Though we walk through the valley of the Shadow of Death, we ain't scared. Get over it.

 

[Terry1]

Any church that promotes sinning is not doing what God called them to do. The church of four wall was always--always meant to be exemplars to the people and to draw them into the righteousness of Christ and win souls towards the kingdom of heaven. Any church that does not do this is an abomination to God and leading His sheep astray.

 

[MelissaWV]

Nothing in the Old Testament is invalidated. What has happened is Jesus died for all our sins...so long as we recognize them and repent.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son that whom shall ever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

The Bible...Old and New Testament is God's letter to us. We need to study it, chapter by chapter, verse by verse.

"Knowledge is power but only wisdom is liberty."

2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

This tickles me. I absolutely understand people being upset at the OP issue. I also understand reading and using the Bible as guidance in coming to conclusions regarding morality/immorality of actions.

What I don't understand is quoting parts of Leviticus as justification/foundation.

A significant portion of Leviticus deals with offerings and animal sacrifices.

Another significant portion of Leviticus deals with destruction of property that comes into contact with the unclean.

There are even guidelines of what to do if you cannot afford the prescribed offering.

Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord...

And then God tazed them.

11 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud.

4 “‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

9 “‘Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean. 11 And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat; you must regard their carcasses as unclean. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you.

13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

20 “‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. 21 There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.

24 “‘You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. 25 Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening.

26 “‘Every animal that does not have a divided hoof or that does not chew the cud is unclean for you; whoever touches the carcass of any of them will be unclean. 27 Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. 28 Anyone who picks up their carcasses must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. These animals are unclean for you.

29 “‘Of the animals that move along the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, 30 the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon. 31 Of all those that move along the ground, these are unclean for you. Whoever touches them when they are dead will be unclean till evening. 32 When one of them dies and falls on something, that article, whatever its use, will be unclean, whether it is made of wood, cloth, hide or sackcloth. Put it in water; it will be unclean till evening, and then it will be clean. 33 If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot. 34 Any food you are allowed to eat that has come into contact with water from any such pot is unclean, and any liquid that is drunk from such a pot is unclean. 35 Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean. 36 A spring, however, or a cistern for collecting water remains clean, but anyone who touches one of these carcasses is unclean. 37 If a carcass falls on any seeds that are to be planted, they remain clean. 38 But if water has been put on the seed and a carcass falls on it, it is unclean for you.

39 “‘If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches its carcass will be unclean till evening. 40 Anyone who eats some of its carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening.

41 “‘Every creature that moves along the ground is to be regarded as unclean; it is not to be eaten. 42 You are not to eat any creature that moves along the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is unclean. 43 Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. 44 I am the Lord your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves along the ground. 45 I am the Lord, who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

46 “‘These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves about in the water and every creature that moves along the ground. 47 You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.’”

Got all that? Again, the contention here is that all of this still applies. I will still be eating pork this week, and if I am out in the woods and snare a rabbit, I will risk God's wrath.

Then there's passages about women on their periods, or being unclean after their birth (and don't tell me it's just a wise way of excusing a woman from working too soon after birth for their health, since the length of time she rests is tied to the sex of the baby she has). Man oh man they probably went through a lot of chairs and saddles/blankets in the olden days; anything you sit on when you have your period is unclean, anything a guy who has an "unusual discharge" sits on is unclean, and so on. There's also all the great information about your defiling skin disease needing to be examined by the priests.

All throughout this, there's doves and lambs and bulls sacrificed all over the place to the priests. All of this is in the same section that holds the one big sentence people love to fling out there as proof that homosexuality is evil. Somehow I don't see those same folks getting as upset over sitting in a chair in a restaurant that has previously been occupied by a woman on her period, or someone with an ingrown hair that happens to be white.

 

[acptulsa]

Any church that promotes sinning is not doing what God called them to do. The church of four wall was always--always meant to be exemplars to the people and to draw them into the righteousness of Christ and win souls towards the kingdom of heaven. Any church that does not do this is an abomination to God and leading His sheep astray.

I might also define performing marriage services for same-sex couples as 'promoting sin' too--if it weren't for the government and their masters the insurance cartel conferring major benefits on married couples and trashing the economy for the benefit of the robber barons to such a degree that it's hard to get through life in this society without those benefits.

Given a choice between sheltering and failing to shelter sheep--including lost sheep and, yes, even black sheep--the More Light Presbyterians have made the choice we have made and will answer to God for it in the end.

God bless you for your concern, though.

 

[Terry1]

This tickles me. I absolutely understand people being upset at the OP issue. I also understand reading and using the Bible as guidance in coming to conclusions regarding morality/immorality of actions.

What I don't understand is quoting parts of Leviticus as justification/foundation.

A significant portion of Leviticus deals with offerings and animal sacrifices.

Another significant portion of Leviticus deals with destruction of property that comes into contact with the unclean.

There are even guidelines of what to do if you cannot afford the prescribed offering.



And then God tazed them.



Got all that? Again, the contention here is that all of this still applies. I will still be eating pork this week, and if I am out in the woods and snare a rabbit, I will risk God's wrath.

Then there's passages about women on their periods, or being unclean after their birth (and don't tell me it's just a wise way of excusing a woman from working too soon after birth for their health, since the length of time she rests is tied to the sex of the baby she has). Man oh man they probably went through a lot of chairs and saddles/blankets in the olden days; anything you sit on when you have your period is unclean, anything a guy who has an "unusual discharge" sits on is unclean, and so on. There's also all the great information about your defiling skin disease needing to be examined by the priests.

All throughout this, there's doves and lambs and bulls sacrificed all over the place to the priests. All of this is in the same section that holds the one big sentence people love to fling out there as proof that homosexuality is evil. Somehow I don't see those same folks getting as upset over sitting in a chair in a restaurant that has previously been occupied by a woman on her period, or someone with an ingrown hair that happens to be white.

LOL--Melissa, the old testament law or also known as the Mosaic laws were ceremonial laws which Jesus overcame on the cross and we no longer have to abide by and perform them as they were done then. Sin is still sin no matter what it is. Under the New Testament, all we're called to do now is believe in the Lord and repent of our sins. We don't have to perform the rituals and ceremonies like animal sacrifices and such any more. Those are what God calls "dead works" and they no longer apply under the New Testament/covenant.

A lot of the Levitical laws are simply a guide to clean healthy living and not considered sin if we don't do them. That was all covered by what Jesus did on the cross.

 

[MelissaWV]

LOL--Melissa, the old testament law or also known as the Mosaic laws were ceremonial laws which Jesus overcame on the cross and we no longer have to abide by and perform them as they were done then. Sin is still sin no matter what it is. Under the New Testament, all we're called to do now is believe in the Lord and repent of our sins. We don't have to perform the rituals and ceremonies like animal sacrifices and such any more. Those are what God calls "dead works" and they no longer apply under the New Testament/covenant.

A lot of the Levitical laws are simply a guide to clean healthy living and not considered sin if we don't do them. That was all covered by what Jesus did on the cross.

I understand that thinking, but it seems like cherrypicking. It actually states that societies have fallen because people had sex with the wrong people (no, not just "as with a woman," but as any one of those behaviors listed). I struggle to think of a society that was perfect economically and politically and that waged no unjust wars, treated its people fairly from poorest to richest, but disintegrated because of not conforming to the list of allowable sexual practices.

If this particular church wants to dole out ceremonies, there will be a backlash. I would be far more wary of being married to another woman in a church that is pushing back against every other church to get my ceremony done, than just having a ceremony in a back yard somewhere in front of family and friends. God is everywhere. I don't need any portion of a union to be devoted to giving others the finger, which seems like what a lot of these "gay marriage rights" activists are going for. I think the church stands to lose many more patrons than it will temporarily gain. That is the market at work, and one would hope that's what happens.

 

[William Tell]

I understand that thinking, but it seems like cherrypicking.

Why? Jesus told the women who committed adultery to "go and sin no more" I think it's cherrypicking to say that certain moral laws are the same, while others are done away with. Keep in mind I am talking about what is moral, not punishments or ceremonial rules.

 

[donnay]

This tickles me. I absolutely understand people being upset at the OP issue. I also understand reading and using the Bible as guidance in coming to conclusions regarding morality/immorality of actions.

What I don't understand is quoting parts of Leviticus as justification/foundation.

A significant portion of Leviticus deals with offerings and animal sacrifices.

Another significant portion of Leviticus deals with destruction of property that comes into contact with the unclean.

There are even guidelines of what to do if you cannot afford the prescribed offering.



And then God tazed them.



Got all that? Again, the contention here is that all of this still applies. I will still be eating pork this week, and if I am out in the woods and snare a rabbit, I will risk God's wrath.

Then there's passages about women on their periods, or being unclean after their birth (and don't tell me it's just a wise way of excusing a woman from working too soon after birth for their health, since the length of time she rests is tied to the sex of the baby she has). Man oh man they probably went through a lot of chairs and saddles/blankets in the olden days; anything you sit on when you have your period is unclean, anything a guy who has an "unusual discharge" sits on is unclean, and so on. There's also all the great information about your defiling skin disease needing to be examined by the priests.

All throughout this, there's doves and lambs and bulls sacrificed all over the place to the priests. All of this is in the same section that holds the one big sentence people love to fling out there as proof that homosexuality is evil. Somehow I don't see those same folks getting as upset over sitting in a chair in a restaurant that has previously been occupied by a woman on her period, or someone with an ingrown hair that happens to be white.

Yes, I am well aware of the burnt offerings since it was before Christ. As far as the Mosaic laws are concerned; I considered them the Health guidelines. For example: If you eat pork, you won't go to hell, but it will slowly make you sick (over time). It is an omnivorous animal. It eats everything--a scavenger and it's digestive system is poor. It's meat is filled with parasites and worms, deemed not good for human consumption. I don't eat pork.

Leviticus 11:7
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Deuteronomy 14:8
And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

Then Jesus went on to say...

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

 

[Keith and stuff]

This is exactly what most libertarians want. I am not Presbyterian. I don't care what this religion wants to do with same sex marriage. Let the Presbyterians decide this religious issue for themselves. Ahem!

 

[Terry1]

I understand that thinking, but it seems like cherrypicking. It actually states that societies have fallen because people had sex with the wrong people (no, not just "as with a woman," but as any one of those behaviors listed). I struggle to think of a society that was perfect economically and politically and that waged no unjust wars, treated its people fairly from poorest to richest, but disintegrated because of not conforming to the list of allowable sexual practices.

If this particular church wants to dole out ceremonies, there will be a backlash. I would be far more wary of being married to another woman in a church that is pushing back against every other church to get my ceremony done, than just having a ceremony in a back yard somewhere in front of family and friends. God is everywhere. I don't need any portion of a union to be devoted to giving others the finger, which seems like what a lot of these "gay marriage rights" activists are going for. I think the church stands to lose many more patrons than it will temporarily gain. That is the market at work, and one would hope that's what happens.

I agree because I don't believe in discrimination against gays or Christians. Everyone should be free to live as they choose as long as it's peaceful and loving, honest and productive.

Christianity is about teaching the *will of God* and any church that refuses to do that and follow those moral rules shouldn't be calling themselves "Christian", but rather something else more suitable to what they choose to believe. I think that's the point of this thread actually is that Christian churches are turning apostate and becoming more politically correct.

 

[Crashland]

if it weren't for the government and their masters the insurance cartel conferring major benefits on married couples and trashing the economy for the benefit of the robber barons to such a degree that it's hard to get through life in this society without those benefits.

This is exactly what most libertarians want. I am not Presbyterian. I don't care what this religion wants to do with same sex marriage. Let the Presbyterians decide this religious issue for themselves. Ahem!

100% agree with these ^^

 

[Crashland]

I agree because I don't believe in discrimination against gays or Christians. Everyone should be free to live as they choose as long as it's peaceful and loving, honest and productive.

Christianity is about teaching the *will of God* and any church that refuses to do that and follow those moral rules shouldn't be calling themselves "Christian", but rather something else more suitable to what they choose to believe. I think that's the point of this thread actually is that Christian churches are turning apostate and becoming more politically correct.

You can argue with their beliefs, but you can't really tell a religious institution what they can or can't call themselves. That's up to them, not you.

 

[acptulsa]

Christianity is about teaching the *will of God* and any church that refuses to do that and follow those moral rules shouldn't be calling themselves "Christian", but rather something else more suitable to what they choose to believe. I think that's the point of this thread actually is that Christian churches are turning apostate and becoming more politically correct.

I don't think there's anything negative to be said for Presbyterian Sunday Schools. That would be the sum total of my theological training. I think there's a difference between teaching someone and shoving something down his or her throat.

If the Presbytery believes to support those in the church who feel that we shouldn't kick people out because they take a different interpretation than we do, or because they want to hang around with us and stay in touch with God while they figure out how to stop doing the self-destructive things they're doing, then that's what the Presbytery believes. And I, for one, have no complaints about it.

 

[MelissaWV]

It is eerie how people seize on the same parts of what I posted. Everything's a guideline --- including destroying furniture someone impure has sat on --- all for health (except as I pointed out apparently having a female baby is even more unclean than having a male one; no one addressed that).

Yes, I am well aware of the burnt offerings since it was before Christ.

... said by the same person as ...

Nothing in the Old Testament is invalidated.

mmkay.

Again, these people having an utterly weird view of gay marriage being inherently Christian is not likely to win that church more members than it loses, and it certainly doesn't have a whole lot of backing as far as Biblical reference and Christian doctrine, but it doesn't harm me any more than other churches spewing plenty of other things I do not agree with. All the zealots ever get is a series of backfires. The zealots du jour are the "marriage equality" zealots who are so obsessed with begging Government to regulate them that they don't realize how stupid that sounds.

 

[donnay]

It is eerie how people seize on the same parts of what I posted. Everything's a guideline --- including destroying furniture someone impure has sat on --- all for health (except as I pointed out apparently having a female baby is even more unclean than having a male one; no one addressed that).


... said by the same person as ...



mmkay.

Again, these people having an utterly weird view of gay marriage being inherently Christian is not likely to win that church more members than it loses, and it certainly doesn't have a whole lot of backing as far as Biblical reference and Christian doctrine, but it doesn't harm me any more than other churches spewing plenty of other things I do not agree with. All the zealots ever get is a series of backfires. The zealots du jour are the "marriage equality" zealots who are so obsessed with begging Government to regulate them that they don't realize how stupid that sounds.

Wow, you got that out of what I said. Interesting.

 

[Terry1]

You can argue with their beliefs, but you can't really tell a religious institution what they can or can't call themselves. That's up to them, not you.

Did I say it was? I think you've made your point. Mine was simply an opinion--that a Christian church is suppose to teach the will of God--end of point.

Would you call yourself a brain surgeon if you were a carpenter?

 

[Crashland]

Did I say it was? I think you've made your point. Mine was simply an opinion--that a Christian church is suppose to teach the will of God--end of point.

Would you call yourself a brain surgeon if you were a carpenter?

The will of God according to who? Presbyterians also claim to teach the will of God.

Words are defined by the way they are used by people. If enough people used 'surgeon' to describe someone who works with wood, then the word 'surgeon' would simply have another meaning. 'Christian' already has zillions of meanings.