Presbyterian Church narrowly rejects pro-gay proposal to redefine marriage to 2 people

Jul 6, 2012 Full story: Star Tribune 150

The Presbyterian Church narrowly rejected a proposal to revise the traditional definition of marriage on Friday, a year after it struck down a barrier to ordaining gays.

Full Story

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#84 Jul 19, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>I would suggest that it is what the Bible teaches when one allows it to speak for itself. Whenever same sex copulation is mentioned, it is always put in a negative light. Speaking of using thread bare evidence to support a position, how about the way gays will contend that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers?
My lesbian pastor says they were and that's good enough for me !

:)

Pass the Communion Beer !

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#85 Jul 19, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but you give yourself a pass on eating shellfish and pork. Then you have the nerve to condemn others--who don't even claim to share your beliefs--for behavior that you simply have no desire to partake in. Homosexuality and eating shellfish are condemned in exactly the same terms and carry the same punishment in exactly the same book of the Bible. But one is inconvenient for you, so you ignore it while harping on others who have no reason or desire to gratify your delusions of holiness.
And again, you are ignoring Jesus' admonition to look to your own shortcomings before highlighting the shortcomings of others.
Why do you do this? Do you think all your hypocrisy is earning you brownie points with Saint Peter?
When you truly get a real understanding instead of trying to homosexualize it and misquote it, maybe them you will be qualified to debste it.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#86 Jul 19, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
My lesbian pastor says they were and that's good enough for me !
:)
Pass the Communion Beer !
Your "church" is more interested in promoting political correctness than sound biblical hermeneutics.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#87 Jul 19, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Your "church" is more interested in promoting political correctness than sound biblical hermeneutics.
Oh, we got rid of all our old bibles when Pastor Patty joined the church. We use "Pastor Patty's Poetry & Home Beermaking Guide" instead.

:)

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#88 Jul 19, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, we got rid of all our old bibles when Pastor Patty joined the church. We use "Pastor Patty's Poetry & Home Beermaking Guide" instead.
:)
You and Frank Stanton (if you are indeed separate identities) both used to call it "Pastor Bob's Poetry and Home Beermaking Guide."

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#89 Jul 19, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>You and Frank Stanton (if you are indeed separate identities) both used to call it "Pastor Bob's Poetry and Home Beermaking Guide."
Frank Stanton is from Nebraska. Ask him. He often steals my material.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#90 Jul 19, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>I never said that, liar! I only said that a hypocritical accusation did not let the accused sinner off the hook. If one sins and another hypocritically points it out, it doesn't mean that one gets a free pass from God on his sin that was hypocritically exposed.
So what you are basically saying then is Christ's sacrifice for all the sins of mankind was pointless.

Got it.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#92 Jul 19, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>So what you are basically saying then is Christ's sacrifice for all the sins of mankind was pointless.
Got it.
Are you trying to say that one can sin to his heart's content and not be subject to divine discipline? First off, according to the Bible, before one can be saved, one must repent of his former ways and give himself over to God's ways.One must be saved to even have his sins forgiven and in heaven, the ones who are less than faithful are subject to a loss of rewards in heaven.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#93 Jul 19, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>I would suggest that it is what the Bible teaches when one allows it to speak for itself. Whenever same sex copulation is mentioned, it is always put in a negative light. Speaking of using thread bare evidence to support a position, how about the way gays will contend that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers?
The Bible also clearly condemns hypocrites. But you don't worry about that, do you?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#94 Jul 19, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>When you truly get a real understanding instead of trying to homosexualize it and misquote it, maybe them you will be qualified to debste it.
Well, there's a completely non-responsive reply. I was just listening to an expert talk about how people behave when they don't want to admit something. And you just nailed it.

To wit: I am not "homosexualizing" the Bible. And you can't find any place that I tried to do that. But you DID try to cast false aspersions on me. And you completely ignored the subject at hand, which is this: Why do you feel you need to tell me, a non-believer, that I have to obey certain Biblical passages when you, a self-described follower, completely ignore the passages right next door. Ans why do you ignore the many many passages where Jesus himself condemned hypocrisy?

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#95 Jul 19, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible also clearly condemns hypocrites. But you don't worry about that, do you?
And if a hypocrite catches you in you sin, you are no less guilty than if you were found out by one who wasn't. Hypocrisy will impact the hypocrite, but it won't mitigate the sin of the one he hypocritically accuses. You are absolutely tight about hypocrisy being a serious sin, but so are any other sins mentioned in the Bible.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#96 Jul 19, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, there's a completely non-responsive reply. I was just listening to an expert talk about how people behave when they don't want to admit something. And you just nailed it.
To wit: I am not "homosexualizing" the Bible. And you can't find any place that I tried to do that. But you DID try to cast false aspersions on me. And you completely ignored the subject at hand, which is this: Why do you feel you need to tell me, a non-believer, that I have to obey certain Biblical passages when you, a self-described follower, completely ignore the passages right next door. Ans why do you ignore the many many passages where Jesus himself condemned hypocrisy?
You obviouisly have no clue about the Bible and what it teaches. You wopuld be best advised to find a subject you know soething about. You twist it worse than a lawyer twists facts in a courtroom.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#98 Jul 20, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>You obviouisly have no clue about the Bible and what it teaches. You wopuld be best advised to find a subject you know soething about. You twist it worse than a lawyer twists facts in a courtroom.
Oh. Now there's a strong argument. You can't answer the question without admitting your inadequacy, so you belittle the questioner. The questions stand. If I'm under some sort of misapprehension of what the Bible says, answer the question and enlighten me. I certainly don't claim to be an expert, although I seem to know more about it than most of you "believers.".

It will be interesting to see how YOU twist and turn the Bible to suit your own purposes. I have no need to do that. It's a good book, but I don't have to pretend that I structure my life around it like every last fundamentalist pretends.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#99 Jul 20, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Are you trying to say that one can sin to his heart's content and not be subject to divine discipline? First off, according to the Bible, before one can be saved, one must repent of his former ways and give himself over to God's ways.One must be saved to even have his sins forgiven and in heaven, the ones who are less than faithful are subject to a loss of rewards in heaven.
I'm simply pointing out that the "logic" of your religion doesn't make sense.

I was taught from an early age that Jesus sacrificed himself as payment for the sins of mankind. I was also taught that God gave us free will.

If "free will" means we must follow certain rules (which are often contradictory) in order to "be saved" what was the point of Christ's sacrifice? Why would God give us "free will" if He wanted obedience?

Under your formula we must
1) accept Jesus as our personal savior
2) repent our sins
3) rely on various conflicting versions of Bible stories in order to understand what God expects of us.

To me that says that the sacrifice of Jesus was a bribe and didn't cover payment for ALL the sins of mankind.

I think I'll stick with John 3:17. Judgement is for God to decide not other people.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#100 Jul 20, 2012
As far as I know, virtually every "Christian" denomination believes they are led and guided by the "Holy Spirit".

The problem arises when one group claims another group ISN'T following what the first group says are the rules Holy Spirit wants followed.

SSM is creating far more questions than just who is eligible for the sanctity of marriage. A few years ago the Presbyterians claimed the Holy Spirit said it's OK to have a gay minister as long as he remained celibate. And in the R.C.C. priests are to be celibate unless they are men who were married converts from another faith.

Seems the Holy Spirit makes up a lot of exceptions to it's "rules".

It gets even more ironic and convoluted if one keeps in mind that Presbyterians believe in pre-determination!

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#101 Jul 21, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh. Now there's a strong argument. You can't answer the question without admitting your inadequacy, so you belittle the questioner. The questions stand. If I'm under some sort of misapprehension of what the Bible says, answer the question and enlighten me. I certainly don't claim to be an expert, although I seem to know more about it than most of you "believers.".
It will be interesting to see how YOU twist and turn the Bible to suit your own purposes. I have no need to do that. It's a good book, but I don't have to pretend that I structure my life around it like every last fundamentalist pretends.
How Am I supposed to answer nonsense like this? I do believe you once raised something about Christians who eat pork and shellfish which is not forbidden any longer to Christians per Acts 10:13-16.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#102 Jul 21, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I'm simply pointing out that the "logic" of your religion doesn't make sense.
I was taught from an early age that Jesus sacrificed himself as payment for the sins of mankind. I was also taught that God gave us free will.
If "free will" means we must follow certain rules (which are often contradictory) in order to "be saved" what was the point of Christ's sacrifice? Why would God give us "free will" if He wanted obedience?
Under your formula we must
1) accept Jesus as our personal savior
2) repent our sins
3) rely on various conflicting versions of Bible stories in order to understand what God expects of us.
To me that says that the sacrifice of Jesus was a bribe and didn't cover payment for ALL the sins of mankind.
I think I'll stick with John 3:17. Judgement is for God to decide not other people.
Salvation is not of works, but when one becomes a Christian. good works and not continuation in sin is the normal byproduct. If one can continue in sin without it bothering one's conscience, I would start to wonder about that one's claim to being saved.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#103 Jul 21, 2012
DNF wrote:
As far as I know, virtually every "Christian" denomination believes they are led and guided by the "Holy Spirit".
The problem arises when one group claims another group ISN'T following what the first group says are the rules Holy Spirit wants followed.
SSM is creating far more questions than just who is eligible for the sanctity of marriage. A few years ago the Presbyterians claimed the Holy Spirit said it's OK to have a gay minister as long as he remained celibate. And in the R.C.C. priests are to be celibate unless they are men who were married converts from another faith.
Seems the Holy Spirit makes up a lot of exceptions to it's "rules".
It gets even more ironic and convoluted if one keeps in mind that Presbyterians believe in pre-determination!
You. like may others, confuse the meaning of the words "celibacy" and "chastity". "Chastity' is defined as abstaining from sex. "Celibacy" is defined as the sate of being unmarried.

Now while married men from other faiths can become RCC priests, they must remain chaste, but they are certainly not celibate.

Now if these men were really smart, they would become Lutherans so they can remain married, be unchaste, and celebrate the solstices and equinoxes by painting their bodies different pretty colors, and dancing naked around the church bonfire drinking the Holy Communin Beer and singing praises to God for the wonderful day He has made for us !

:)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#104 Jul 21, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>How Am I supposed to answer nonsense like this? I do believe you once raised something about Christians who eat pork and shellfish which is not forbidden any longer to Christians per Acts 10:13-16.
Last time I checked, scallops were neither four-footed nor reptiles. So just how broad we're the implications of this vision? Did the vision also make clean cloth of two threads? Did it also countenance growing two crops in the same field? If so, why was the love between two people not purified at the same time? Could all of these things be a simple matter of your own preferences and needs?

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#105 Jul 21, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I checked, scallops were neither four-footed nor reptiles. So just how broad we're the implications of this vision? Did the vision also make clean cloth of two threads? Did it also countenance growing two crops in the same field? If so, why was the love between two people not purified at the same time? Could all of these things be a simple matter of your own preferences and needs?
All of those silly rules were man-made so Jews could visibly separate themselves from others. Those rules were NOT written by God.

And because of that, they can be completely disregarded.

And if I'm wrong, then I'll tightly hold on to a COLD mug of beer when I die and yell, "WOO-HHO ! We're on an express elevator to Hell ! Goin' Down !"

:)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 min Cali Girl 2014 26,029
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 24 min enough now 31,422
Schuette urges court to take gay marriage case 50 min Mitt s Airtight D... 15
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 1 hr Grau 112
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 2 hr Poof1 27
Totus Tuus...all yours (Mar '12) 9 hr ELIAS IBARRA 164
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 11 hr QUITTNER Nov 27 2014 67

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE