Presbyterians Give Approval to Same Sex Marriage

[Muffled]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/u...riage.html?emc=edit_na_20150317&nlid=56901988

The votes in and same sex marriage is approved. Please discuss.

I believe this is another chuch body that has become apostate. However there are separate divisions in Presbyterianism that still hold to a belief in God.

 

[Muffled]

I come from a Presbyter background, so I can give at least a little insight, though my Bible reading days are behind me.

Presbyterians are deterministic. The idea is really quite simple. Anything that would be God (with a capital G), must be omniscient. Anything less than that wouldn't be God. It would be a god...

Using that base understanding, God knew and knows everything ever. All actions and outcomes, to some extent, are also the outcome of God's omnipotent omniscience. Because of that, everything is attributed to god, both the good and the bad. Marriage equality is obviously something that is happening to this world and, as such, it's part of God's will. It would be against the fabric of the Presbyterian understanding of God to oppose that.

I don't think I explained that very eloquently, but that's the gist of it.... I'm sick. Sorry.

I believe that is blasphemy. Once when I was attending a local Presbyterian Church (Not apostate) God told me that they were slipping something in. The church was in the habit of praying a confession of sin. This one time they finished the prayer with "in Jesus name." However God takes exception to people thinking they sin in His name.

 

[Muffled]

This is partly why it is so surprising to me that the Presbyterians have evolved so quickly on this issue, while the United Methodists, for example, remain conservative. The Reformed tradition is generally very hostile, theologically, to gay people.

I believe a church is only as good as the people in it.

 

[gsa]

I believe this is another chuch body that has become apostate. However there are separate divisions in Presbyterianism that still hold to a belief in God.

Disagreeing on homosexuality is equivalent to apostasy?

 

[thau]

A tithe is a tithe is a tithe.

And religion is undoubtedly a business. If it's true that church attendance is declining at an unprecedented pace, it only makes sound business sense to not automatically exclude and alienate a percentage of prospective customers attendees.

But you know how those evangelicals are ... they're always trying to recruit people into their chosen lifestyle.

First off, "religion" is a lousy word because it is too generic. Catholicism is no more responsible for the actions of Islam or Confucionism than is atheism responsible. In fact, I would not even defend what Presbyterians do or believe just because they and us Catholics are both religions.

Catholicism is not a business. Do not be so naïve. Or, really, quit lying to yourself. An honest look at history and all of the Church’s martyrs, saints, missionaries, and altruism and you will come to know it is not about “business.” It is about the two great commands given by Jesus (shortened by me to “Love your God and love your neighbor"). So quit trying to trick your way to cheap victories.

But to your articles where church attendance across the board is way down and trending worse --- that is truly alarming. Not only for the individuals who have abandoned their faith, but for all of these affluent nations in the West. We are already enduring horrendous punishments as a result, be it torn apart marriages, abandoned duties of those who create babies, mental instability and depression amongst the masses, insecurity of self, and so on. Abortion on demand alone is going to bring about God’s holy wrath. But really, everyone needs to care first about their own family and themselves. If we all could do that much things would improve tremendously.

What a shame you spend so much time on Christian teaching and revelation and find it all so phony or worthless.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

First off, "religion" is a lousy word because it is too generic.

I'd argue that the word ("religion") is quite specifically defined:

1.) the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2.) an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
3.) an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Given that definition, would you care to explain how Catholicism and Islam differ?

And if you care to dismiss that definition, allow me to invite you to by all means supply your own.

Catholicism is no more responsible for the actions of Islam or Confucionism than is atheism responsible.

While atheism is certainly not a religion, I feel compelled to ask: Is Confucianism a religion? What god or gods do they worship?

In fact, I would not even defend what Presbyterians do or believe just because they and us Catholics are both religions.

Does that extend to their belief in the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Catholicism is not a business. Do not be so naïve.

Actually, it would appear that naivete is required to avoid concluding that religion is a business. It has a product. It has customers. It earns income and profits from its product.

The irony here is that earthly legislation appears to be the most meaningful way to forge a distinction between the two.

An honest look at history and all of the Church’s martyrs, saints, missionaries, and altruism and you will come to know it is not about “business.”

Altruism involves a disinterested concern for the well-being of others. Please establish that the Catholic Church's alleged concern for the well-being of others is in fact disinterested. That, or you might concede that what they're doing in in fact philanthropy.

And please keep in mind that businesses can (and do) engage in philanthropy. If you're seeking to establish that the Catholic Church isn't a business, you might not want to pursue this spectacularly inconclusive item.

It is about the two great commands given by Jesus (shortened by me to “Love your God and love your neighbor"). So quit trying to trick your way to cheap victories.

And exactly where do golden carriages and papal currency fit into that equation? Oh do please explain!

But to your articles where church attendance across the board is way down and trending worse --- that is truly alarming.

They're not my articles. That's why I cited them.

What a shame you spend so much time on Christian teaching and revelation and find it all so phony or worthless.

The conclusion does appear to be inescapable, given the nature of the evidence.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Is not this charge of yours off topic?

I don't know. Which of us originally asserted that the Catholic Church wasn't motivated by concerns for attendance or revenue?

 

[atpollard]

The votes in and same sex marriage is approved. Please discuss.

Every time any group of Christians embraces a position in opposition to the Bible ... I want to weep.
This time is no different.

 

[columbus]

Every time any group of Christians embraces a position in opposition to the Bible ... I want to weep.
This time is no different.

You mean like when the USA founding fathers embraced democracy and republic?
The Bible only endorses kings and priests.

Tom

 

[atpollard]

You mean like when the USA founding fathers embraced democracy and republic?
The Bible only endorses kings and priests.

Tom

Nope.
I wasn't around when that decision was being made.
However, technically, the Bible only tolerates kings ... It endorses a theocracy (with God himself in charge).
(Remember what God told Samuel and what Samuel told the people).
I could support a theocracy (and when Jesus returns, I will).

 

[Nietzsche]

Nope.
I wasn't around when that decision was being made.
However, technically, the Bible only tolerates kings ... It endorses a theocracy (with God himself in charge).
(Remember what God told Samuel and what Samuel told the people).
I could support a theocracy (and when Jesus returns, I will).

Democracy has been around in some form or another longer than Judaism, let alone Christianity.

 

[columbus]

Nope.
I wasn't around when that decision was being made.
However, technically, the Bible only tolerates kings ... It endorses a theocracy (with God himself in charge).
(Remember what God told Samuel and what Samuel told the people).
I could support a theocracy (and when Jesus returns, I will).

So, in the meantime you think monarchy is more godly than democratic republics?
I would agree. There is nothing the least bit biblical about the foundation of the USA.
Except the genocide of the natives, enslavement of the blacks and oppression of women, of course. That was all well supported by the Bible interpretation of the day.
Tom

 

[thau]

I'd argue that the word ("religion") is quite specifically defined:

1.) the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2.) an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
3.) an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Given that definition, would you care to explain how Catholicism and Islam differ?

And if you care to dismiss that definition, allow me to invite you to by all means supply your own.



While atheism is certainly not a religion, I feel compelled to ask: Is Confucianism a religion? What god or gods do they worship?



Does that extend to their belief in the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?



Actually, it would appear that naivete is required to avoid concluding that religion is a business. It has a product. It has customers. It earns income and profits from its product.

The irony here is that earthly legislation appears to be the most meaningful way to forge a distinction between the two.



Altruism involves a disinterested concern for the well-being of others. Please establish that the Catholic Church's alleged concern for the well-being of others is in fact disinterested. That, or you might concede that what they're doing in in fact philanthropy.

And please keep in mind that businesses can (and do) engage in philanthropy. If you're seeking to establish that the Catholic Church isn't a business, you might not want to pursue this spectacularly inconclusive item.



And exactly where do golden carriages and papal currency fit into that equation? Oh do please explain!



They're not my articles. That's why I cited them.



The conclusion does appear to be inescapable, given the nature of the evidence.

Really, must you be so disagreeable at every turn?

No, the Catholic Church is not a business. But the Catholic Church would refer to itself more so as a family. It has to be run as a business in some sense in order to achieve its primary mission. It cannot operate without income either, yes, so true.

But the author of this article attempted to paraphrase the Catechism and explain what is the “mission of the of the Church.”
What is the Mission of the Church?

He said: “The mission of the Church is to win souls for Jesus Christ and to work to build God’s Kingdom on Earth.”

To which someone asked, “What does it mean to ‘build God’s Kingdom on Earth?’”

He replied --- “to build God’s Kingdom” means “to work to create a world that reflects the innate, God-given, dignity and worth of every human being.” ​

So just because some clergy or faithful stray from that objective and allow their human weaknesses to cause scandal does not discredit the truth, the overall history of the Church, or its mission and great accomplishments.

Once again on the word ‘religion.’ You and yours too often find horrors in one religion and use then to discredit all religions. That is unjust. Islam cannot discredit Catholicism, but the way you use the word religion is, again, unjust. Why not just say mankind is evil towards its many neighbors, Catholism is made up of mankind, therefore Catholicism is evil?

And atheism can be called a religion in the sense that your third definition suggests and ideology as much as any deity. It defines intent and actions on ordering one’s life, no different than all these religions you want to lump together as more or less the same.

What is the difference between Catholicism and Islam? Well, the former represents the one true God and His mission, the other has a different mission and speaks falsehoods about the one true God. Results differ greatly.

Yes, I well know we Catholics and Presbyterians have a lot of common dogma or doctrine. Your charge is a red herring. The point I was making is that what they do differently is also severe. They endorse gay marriage, that is one example. They also claim praying to and honoring the Blessed Mother is a great error. That is far greater a transgression than you will ever consider. They deny the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, they reject the sacrament and divine presence in Confession, they deny the reality of purgatory. You think all of this is bears little consequence to God?

The charge of yours that Catholic Church accumulates wealth for wealth’s sake (whether true or not) is NOT THE SAME as another Christian denomination that changes its beliefs for the sake of gathering greater numbers to bring in more donations. Why must this be explained to you again? The Catholic Church will never recognize gay marriage or abortion as ok, much less for the sake of attracting more paying customers. I do not believe you cannot see the difference.

 

[lostdandelion]

I am a Christian who strongly believes that the bible does not oppose gay marriage. If you're interested, here's an interesting article on the matter: The Great Debate | The Gay Christian Network

Or to quote the Romans: "
The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

So I am happy that they say yes to same-sex marriage, though I am not sure about their motives.

 

[atpollard]

I am a Christian who strongly believes that the bible does not oppose gay marriage. If you're interested, here's an interesting article on the matter: The Great Debate | The Gay Christian Network

Or to quote the Romans: "
The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

So I am happy that they say yes to same-sex marriage, though I am not sure about their motives.

What about Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
​

Please do not misunderstand.
I am not particularly hating on homosexuality.
It falls in the same lists with adultery and gossiping.

I am simply uncomfortable redefining what God has called evil as suddenly being good.

 

[gsa]

Nope.
I wasn't around when that decision was being made.
However, technically, the Bible only tolerates kings ... It endorses a theocracy (with God himself in charge).
(Remember what God told Samuel and what Samuel told the people).
I could support a theocracy (and when Jesus returns, I will).

Would you endorse a theocracy before that unlikely event?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I heard about that. It's wonderful! Too bad my denomination is so ridiculously backward on sexual matters, in many ways.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Nope.
I wasn't around when that decision was being made.
However, technically, the Bible only tolerates kings ... It endorses a theocracy (with God himself in charge).
(Remember what God told Samuel and what Samuel told the people).
I could support a theocracy (and when Jesus returns, I will).

Actually, the Jews didn't have a king for a long time until they betrayed God and clamored after Samuel to give them a king. Humans weren't supposed to rule over each other. God was to be our only ruler, but He allowed it but He did give them a warning:

"4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah,
5 and said to him, "Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint for us a king to govern us like all the nations."
6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to govern us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD.
7 And the LORD said to Samuel, "Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.
8 According to all the deeds which they have done to me, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you.
9 Now then, hearken to their voice; only, you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.""
- 1 Samuel 8:4-9

Samuel's warning and the people's reply:

"10 So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking a king from him.
11 He said, "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots;
12 and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.
13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.
14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants.
15 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants.
16 He will take your menservants and maidservants, and the best of your cattle and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.
18 And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the LORD will not answer you in that day."
19 But the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; and they said, "No! but we will have a king over us,
20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles."
- 1 Samuel :10-20

The early Christians actually lived like anarcho-communists according to Acts. They did not take part in the political system and Christ was their only King.

So we're really not supposed to have any human rulers. People are to govern themselves by God's law written on their hearts. That is not a theocracy as commonly defined, but rather, Christian anarchism, Christian communism or anarcho-communism.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Really, must you be so disagreeable at every turn?

Yes.

Note: To reply with a "No" would have required some degree of disagreeableness, correct?

No, the Catholic Church is not a business. But the Catholic Church would refer to itself more so as a family.

Ahh! A family? I see. So it's more like La Cosa Nostra?

It has to be run as a business in some sense in order to achieve its primary mission.

A business must also be run as a business in order to achieve its primary mission.

Rather than forging a distinction between religion and business, you appear to be offering evidence that supports the notion that religion is in fact a business.

It cannot operate without income either, yes, so true.

Indeed. To do so would border on the miraculous.

But the author of this article attempted to paraphrase the Catechism and explain what is the “mission of the of the Church.”
What is the Mission of the Church?

He said: “The mission of the Church is to win souls for Jesus Christ and to work to build God’s Kingdom on Earth.”

To which someone asked, “What does it mean to ‘build God’s Kingdom on Earth?’”

He replied --- “to build God’s Kingdom” means “to work to create a world that reflects the innate, God-given, dignity and worth of every human being.”​

​

So the church's philanthropy could never be described as disinterested, correct? Which is why the word "altruism" doesn't seem applicable to what churches do.

Once again on the word ‘religion.’ You and yours too often find horrors in one religion and use then to discredit all religions. That is unjust.

I hope you'll agree that religions share some common features?

Islam cannot discredit Catholicism, but the way you use the word religion is, again, unjust. Why not just say mankind is evil towards its many neighbors, Catholism is made up of mankind, therefore Catholicism is evil?

First of all, I don't recall mentioning Islam in this thread. Would you care to cite the point where I did? Otherwise, I'm largely prepared to dismiss this as a digression.

However, since we find ourselves here, allow me to ask what I hope are a few relevant questions:

Q. - Are you arguing that both Catholicism and Islam aren't religions? Don't they both fall into the category of "religion?"
Q. - Was the 1919 Black Sox Scandal merely a black eye for the White Sox organization ... or was it a black eye for Major League Baseball as a whole?

If it was a black eye for the entire edifice of baseball, then I suppose you're best advised to imagine the various faiths as baseball franchises and stop trying to imply that they aren't all inexorably linked by virtue of them all being religions.

And atheism can be called a religion in the sense that your third definition suggests and ideology as much as any deity.

So in the sense of that definition, Catholicism is like the Cub Scouts or model railroading?

It defines intent and actions on ordering one’s life, no different than all these religions you want to lump together as more or less the same.

Wrong. Atheism is a position regarding a single item: The existence of a god or gods. That's it.

An atheist is free to order their life in any way that they see fit.

What is the difference between Catholicism and Islam? Well, the former represents the one true God and His mission, the other has a different mission and speaks falsehoods about the one true God. Results differ greatly.

I'm going to maintain that as religions, Christianity and Islam have the exact same mission.

Yes, I well know we Catholics and Presbyterians have a lot of common dogma or doctrine. Your charge is a red herring.

It wasn't a charge. It was a question to your blanket assertion that you would not defend what Presbyterians do or believe. It isn't a red herring to seek clarification.

The point I was making is that what they do differently is also severe. They endorse gay marriage, that is one example. They also claim praying to and honoring the Blessed Mother is a great error.

Where in the Bible are Christians advised to pray to Mary? Where in The Lord's Prayer does Jesus instruct his disciples to pray to his mother?

That is far greater a transgression than you will ever consider.

Again: When asked how to pray correctly, Jesus did not indicate that anyone needed to pray to his mother.

Note: I'll be happy to be corrected on this point if you can conjure up some scripture that disproves my assertion that this bit of Catholic doctrine fails to rise above the level of non-canonical fan fiction.

They deny the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, they reject the sacrament and divine presence in Confession, they deny the reality of purgatory. You think all of this is bears little consequence to God?

Again: Are any of these theological accoutrements supported by scripture?

The charge of yours that Catholic Church accumulates wealth for wealth’s sake (whether true or not) is NOT THE SAME as another Christian denomination that changes its beliefs for the sake of gathering greater numbers to bring in more donations.

My "charge" that the Catholic Church accumulates obscene amounts of wealth (for whatever reason) was only offered as a response to your assertion that the Catholic Church would never resort to such behavior to attract adherents. I'm going to maintain that all of the glitz and glitter is for exactly that purpose. It's Las Vegas-styled showmanship.

...

And anyway, it's quite clearly evident that the Catholic Church has indeed changed its beliefs over the centuries. Conveniently - for the sake of this discussion, at least - these changes have in fact been in regard to the accumulation of wealth (Quelle surprise!):

At the fifteenth Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church (The Council of Vienne, 1311) it was declared that "if any person obstinately maintained that there was no sin in the practice of demanding interest, he should be punished as a heretic."

Does the Catholic Church still condemn charging interest on loans as a heresy, or has its position on this issue changed with time? Wait. I'll answer that one for you:

"The Holy See itself puts its funds out at interest, and requires ecclesiastical administrators to do the same." ~ Catholic Encyclopedia

Shall we investigate other areas where Catholic Doctrine has changed evolved?

The Catholic Church will never recognize gay marriage or abortion as ok, much less for the sake of attracting more paying customers.

Don't hold your breath.

As you've already conceded, the Catholic Church must be run as a business and it cannot function without income.

 

[lostdandelion]

What about Romans 1:26-27

You did not read the article, I linked, did you? Your quote is one of the "prooftexts" it discusses