Presbyterian Church (USA) Changes Its Constitution

[MDC 5,893]

Why would anyone want to force a baker to make them a ghey wedding cake when the baker clearly does not want to do it? It's a generation of people growing up that believes the world revolves around them and anyone that does not agree should be forced to do their bidding. Facebook, twitter, selfies, etc. It's all about narcissism piled on top of entitlement.

Yes how narcissistic for gay couples to force a baker to make a gay wedding cake. That's the real outrage here.

[Voltaire 4,562]

Yes how narcissistic for gay couples to force a baker to make a gay wedding cake. That's the real outrage here.

It's the same with a baker as it is with a church, why get bent out of shape and give your money to somebody who offends you? Go down the street and find somebody else to jack off in the batter and bake a yummy phallic-shaped cake for your wedding.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Just don't tell the baker who the focking cake is for. Put your own damm groom and groom on the top. It's not that hard.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

I am surprised the left gets behind this when they believe that gene therapy will someday render all of this a complete waste of time.

[MDC 5,893]

It's the same with a baker as it is with a church, why get bent out of shape and give your money to somebody who offends you? Go down the street and find somebody else to jack off in the batter and bake a yummy phallic-shaped cake for your wedding.

Are businesses allowed to decline service from anyone they want for whatever reason? Like, if I own a hardware store can I not do business with white or black or asian people just because I don't approve of them?

 

No. So why should gays be any different?

 

We make special dispensations for churches all the time, I don't like it but is rather not get into forcing churches to form religious unions they don't support. The example Philly used though is pretty dubious.

[BiPolarBear 476]

Marriage has legal and financial impact without any of the "sacrament" claims made by religions.

[vuduchile 1,941]

It's the same with a baker as it is with a church, why get bent out of shape and give your money to somebody who offends you? Go down the street and find somebody else to jack off in the batter and bake a yummy phallic-shaped cake for your wedding.

Um...not to derail the thread or anything...but...uh...is there an actual real street you're referring to here?

[drobeski 3,061]

so looks like we are all in agreement that st asstains idea of the scotus forcing churches to marry gays is retarded and extremely intolerant.

 

good job geeks

[Sho Nuff 719]

so looks like we are all in agreement that st asstains idea of the scotus forcing churches to marry gays is retarded and extremely intolerant.

 

good job geeks

Well yeah, they cant really get past the 1st amendment there

[drobeski 3,061]

Well yeah, they cant really get past the 1st amendment there

still, good to see not everyone has gone completely wacko

[GobbleDog 816]

I'm all for the government allowing legal gay marriage, but it's ridiculous for churches to allow it. How do they keep their congregations?

 

"You know how we've said homosexuality was a sin for over 2,000 years now? Yeah well, starting today we say it isn't. It's just coincidence that we're flip-flopping right as public opinion has changed... similar to the Earth being the center of the universe fiasco. This is directly from the word of God! Apparently we just misunderstood what God was saying all these years. But we're pretty sure everything else we've been preaching is true. Ok so let's all sing a song and try to forget how ridiculous the church looks now."

[Lord4GL 4]

Not surprising. PCUSA has been left of center for some time. Back in 2010 (or 2011?), they were ok with gay pastors. So gay marriage was just a matter of time with them.

[NewbieJr 540]

Not surprising. PCUSA has been left of center for some time. Back in 2010 (or 2011?), they were ok with gay pastors. So gay marriage was just a matter of time with them.

So according to that logic, the Catholic church will soon be ok with adult men/little boy marriages.

[jerryskids 5,206]

I'm all for the government allowing legal gay marriage, but it's ridiculous for churches to allow it. How do they keep their congregations?

 

"You know how we've said homosexuality was a sin for over 2,000 years now? Yeah well, starting today we say it isn't. It's just coincidence that we're flip-flopping right as public opinion has changed... similar to the Earth being the center of the universe fiasco. This is directly from the word of God! Apparently we just misunderstood what God was saying all these years. But we're pretty sure everything else we've been preaching is true. Ok so let's all sing a song and try to forget how ridiculous the church looks now."

I don't understand the logic that God can't change his message. The New Testament is a bit different than the Old, no? Perhaps he knew that we weren't ready for that message yet?

[drobeski 3,061]

So according to that logic, the Catholic church will soon be ok with adult men/little boy marriages.

Michael jackson fans approve this message

[wiffleball 4,645]

if churches start accepting gay people , can you imagine how much money churches are going to have to spend drilling glory holes into the confessionals?

[wiffleball 4,645]

it is going to be mighty awkward when they start exchanging cawk rings at the altar.

[wiffleball 4,645]

I now pronounce you pitcher and catcher.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

Are businesses allowed to decline service from anyone they want for whatever reason? Like, if I own a hardware store can I not do business with white or black or asian people just because I don't approve of them?

 

No. So why should gays be any different?

 

We make special dispensations for churches all the time, I don't like it but is rather not get into forcing churches to form religious unions they don't support. The example Philly used though is pretty dubious.

 

I refer you to the decision of 5 old guys and their opinion of Hobby Lobby.

[GobbleDog 816]

How can God change his message? There are no new Bibles being produced so God must have told the church leaders to flip flop on the gay issue after 2,000 years.?. You really buying that? Does that mean being gay was never a sin, or that it's just no longer a sin?

 

Ugh.... logic and religion. I don't like religious debates, because I don't enjoy insulting people's beliefs and culture, but this should be a deal breaker for believers. This flip flop makes their entire religion look like a joke.

[drobeski 3,061]

they'll be rainbows unicorns and shiny clothes galore in mosques througout the country once these militant gays get their way

[wiffleball 4,645]

the Bible is very very clear about being gay. It is an abomination. Which is worse than a sin. It is the very worst thing you can do unto God.

 

 

of course, so is eating shellfish. So red lobster is fawked.I wouldn't stand too close to a Joe's Crab Shack either.

[NewbieJr 540]

How can God change his message? There are no new Bibles being produced so God must have told the church leaders to flip flop on the gay issue after 2,000 years.?. You really buying that? Does that mean being gay was never a sin, or that it's just no longer a sin?

 

Ugh.... logic and religion. I don't like religious debates, because I don't enjoy insulting people's beliefs and culture, but this should be a deal breaker for believers. This flip flop makes their entire religion look like a joke.

I thought it was back when they decided the Bible was wrong about killing anyone who talked back to his/her parents.

[wiffleball 4,645]

have you guys ever seen footage of states where gay marriage is suddenly legal?

 

Ooof. Those are some seriously gross looking people.

 

I guess I'm ok with gay people getting married. But there should definitely be a law against ugly people kissing on camera.

[wiffleball 4,645]

do gay Muslims wear suicide sweater vests?

[Saint Elistan 106]

Marriage has legal and financial impact without any of the "sacrament" claims made by religions.

 

At least someone around here understands that.

 

Religion adopted the practice of sanctifying marriage. Marriage was never a religious practice. Marriage, even in early America, was a contract. The man and woman agreed to marry, but it was the local Government that set the terms of the marriage. Once the union was formed, its obligations were fixed in common law. The husband and wife assumed a new legal status. And severing this contract required legal action.

[Frank M 181]

I don't understand the logic that God can't change his message. The New Testament is a bit different than the Old, no? Perhaps he knew that we weren't ready for that message yet?

 

My mother went to her priest because she was upset that I wasn't baptizing my kids and they were going to limbo, whatever the fock that is. The priest told her that they don't even believe in that anymore.

 

So yeah, antiquated BS is discarded by various religions all the time.

[Frank M 181]

I am surprised the left gets behind this when they believe that gene therapy will someday render all of this a complete waste of time.

 

Worst bait ever, little timmy.

[Frank M 181]

 

I refer you to the decision of 5 old guys and their opinion of Hobby Lobby.

 

In fairness, that was about employment and insurance, not who walks through the door as a customer.

[BiPolarBear 476]

I now pronounce you pitcher and catcher.

 

Very funny. Hips or lips, huh?

[rholio 339]

if churches start accepting gay people , can you imagine how much money churches are going to have to spend drilling glory holes into the confessionals?

 

Making them higher, you mean?

[jerryskids 5,206]

How can God change his message? There are no new Bibles being produced so God must have told the church leaders to flip flop on the gay issue after 2,000 years.?. You really buying that? Does that mean being gay was never a sin, or that it's just no longer a sin?

 

Ugh.... logic and religion. I don't like religious debates, because I don't enjoy insulting people's beliefs and culture, but this should be a deal breaker for believers. This flip flop makes their entire religion look like a joke.

I'm not religious either. I'm merely asserting that if there is a God who guides our actions, it is reasonable for that guidance to change over time. Wiff's shellfish one is a good example. There was probably a time when that was good advice. Now, notsomuch.

[Saint Elistan 106]

 

Making them higher, you mean?

[BiPolarBear 476]

 

Making them higher, you mean?

 

I wish I didn't get that joke.

 

alsogoodwork

[BudBro 117]

But fock all if I'm gonna call my marriage anything but 'marriage' because some sh*theads who think the world is 10000 years old want to prevent others from using that word.

 

if it was your first (unless your first wife died) and her first (unless her first husband died), then you should call it a "marriage," because that's what it is. marriage is a covenant, and is designed to be a reflection of Christ's marriage to the church. marriage was not designed for any other purpose. as one of the sh*theads to which you refer, i think it's nice you promote the word "marriage" to describe these types of unions. it just sheds light and insight into the covenant relationship God designed, and gives opportunity to promote the reality of marriage. it's pretty cool how God uses atheists to promote His kingdom design.

 

the history of the redefinition of marriage is a fascinating one to study. the big changes came around the time of the westminster confession and the reaction by the council of trent. erasmus was credited with the universalism mindset that only a monster of a god would expect one man to stay with one woman their entire lives. the reformers bought into it, adopted the univeralism into the westminster confession, and nearly all protestant churches have been teaching marriage heresy since then. erasmus was deemed anathema by the roman catholic church, and they threw out all his writings as heretical. so, for those who think God is a monster for His marriage rules, erasmus of rotterdam beat you to it and he worked as hard as he could on your behalf.

 

all the first century writers of the church age, including origen and augustine, continued the original teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman, until the death of one of them. if divorced for any reason (a violation of the covenant, not a dissolution of it), neither could remarry until the death of one of the spouses. upon death, the survivor could remarry, but only to a widow or one never before married. a divorced man or woman is to reconcile or remain single (not in relationship with another) until the death of the first spouse. one who is remarried while a first spouse is still alive is deemed an adulterer. there is a moral commandment regarding that.

 

this decision by the presbyterians further highlights the heresy of the protestant church, yet visibly aids their status among the pagans in an area of their hypocrisy. no church-goer should be up-in-arms over allowing gay marriage while endorsing remarriage of those with living first spouses. neither are recognized as naturally lawful marriages, though man may consider them legal, so they shouldn't allow one without allowing the other.

 

this information is provided for informational purposes only. the wad in your panties is of your own making.

[Saint Elistan 106]

 

if it was your first (unless your first wife died) and her first (unless her first husband died), then you should call it a "marriage," because that's what it is. marriage is a covenant, and is designed to be a reflection of Christ's marriage to the church. marriage was not designed for any other purpose. as one of the sh*theads to which you refer, i think it's nice you promote the word "marriage" to describe these types of unions. it just sheds light and insight into the covenant relationship God designed, and gives opportunity to promote the reality of marriage. it's pretty cool how God uses atheists to promote His kingdom design.

 

the history of the redefinition of marriage is a fascinating one to study. the big changes came around the time of the westminster confession and the reaction by the council of trent. erasmus was credited with the universalism mindset that only a monster of a god would expect one man to stay with one woman their entire lives. the reformers bought into it, adopted the univeralism into the westminster confession, and nearly all protestant churches have been teaching marriage heresy since then. erasmus was deemed anathema by the roman catholic church, and they threw out all his writings as heretical. so, for those who think God is a monster for His marriage rules, erasmus of rotterdam beat you to it and he worked as hard as he could on your behalf.

 

all the first century writers of the church age, including origen and augustine, continued the original teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman, until the death of one of them. if divorced for any reason (a violation of the covenant, not a dissolution of it), neither could remarry until the death of one of the spouses. upon death, the survivor could remarry, but only to a widow or one never before married. a divorced man or woman is to reconcile or remain single (not in relationship with another) until the death of the first spouse. one who is remarried while a first spouse is still alive is deemed an adulterer. there is a moral commandment regarding that.

 

this decision by the presbyterians further highlights the heresy of the protestant church, yet visibly aids their status among the pagans in an area of their hypocrisy. no church-goer should be up-in-arms over allowing gay marriage while endorsing remarriage of those with living first spouses. neither are recognized as naturally lawful marriages, though man may consider them legal, so they shouldn't allow one without allowing the other.

 

this information is provided for informational purposes only. the wad in your panties is of your own making.

 

Nope, sorry.

[Lord4GL 4]

So according to that logic, the Catholic church will soon be ok with adult men/little boy marriages.

 

Not sure where that came from. PCUSA has been heading down this path for some time. If they permitted gay pastors, there is no reason to no have gay marriages.

 

Guess that means you'll be going to a Catholic church now?

[naomi 343]

Biblical "flip-flopping" would cause me to disassociate with a sect.

 

The model laid out for churches in the bible is local autonomous assemblies, so the idea that regard of right and wrong can be changed by the top of the hierarchy is out right there.

 

Matthew Henry 'Welsh non-conformist' (17th century) commentary on the shellfish, etc., passage of Leviticus.

 

Verses 9-19

Here is, 1. A general rule concerning fishes, which were clean and which not. All that had fins and scales they might eat, and only those odd sorts of water-animals that have not were forbidden, Lev. 11:9, 10. The ancients accounted fish the most delicate food (so far were they from allowing it on fasting-days, or making it an instance of mortification to eat fish); therefore God did not lay much restraint upon his people in them; for he is a Master that allows his servants not only for necessity but for delight. Concerning the prohibited fish it is said, They shall be an abomination to you (Lev. 11:10-12), that is, “You shall count them unclean, and not only not eat of them, but keep at a distance from them.” Note, Whatever is unclean should be to us an abomination; touch not the unclean thing. But observe, It was to be an abomination only to Jews; the neighbouring nations were under none of these obligations, nor are these things to be an abomination to us Christians. The Jews were honoured with peculiar privileges, and therefore, lest they should be proud of those, Transeunt ###### onere—They were likewise laid under peculiar restraints. Thus God’s spiritual Israel, as they are dignified above others by the gospel-covenant of adoption and friendship, so they must be mortified more than others by the gospel-commands of self-denial and bearing the cross. (continues into technical inspiration)

 

In Christian history it's never been thought that this was directed to gentiles.

[Voltaire 4,562]

if churches start accepting gay people , can you imagine how much money churches are going to have to spend drilling glory holes into the confessionals?

So wrong and yet so funny.

[Voltaire 4,562]

have you guys ever seen footage of states where gay marriage is suddenly legal?

 

Ooof. Those are some seriously gross looking people.

 

I guess I'm ok with gay people getting married. But there should definitely be a law against ugly people kissing on camera.

So true.

 

Now I love lesbian pron the best, but in real life it can be really scary. Michigan has this maybe the worst. The pair of lesbian ogres inflicted on my eyes regularly since they are at the forefront of the gay marriage lawsuit in Michigan, if they were a wresting tag team, would be billed as a combined weight of 550 pounds.