Presbyterian Church to Allow Gay Marriage?

[Kanastrous]

If by 'questioning the beliefs of people in' you mean you're hoping for some kind of rational, sensible or even sane rationaliztion...don't hold your breath. Unless maybe you're into that whole erotic auto-asphyxia-type thing.

[Serafina]

We wouldn't have that thread discussion if it was about a heterosexual couple but that doesn't make it less important.

Yes - because that would not be news!
If there was ANY organisation that widely supported anti-hetero policies, commits hatespeech against heterosexual people and discriminated against them as much as possible and then it (or part of it) would stop, then THAT would be news too.
Of course, there is no such organization.

I recall that in various religions, gay people are accepted but the sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex is still seen as being sinful.

That is not acceptance. It is at best tolerance, but if you call someone a sinner etc. i would hardly call that tolerant.

This is a slippery slope since you're telling that you respect their orientations but don't want to know that they are actively putting them in practice. And all that makes me think that religious gay marriage is just for the show. And it pains me to see that because religions are also a cultural product. I'm looking at Christians and just can't tell anymore what brought all those people together.

How could it be "for show"? What show? For what purpose? Do religious people ever behave like that?

And now the priests just seemed to fathom some half-a** solution to conciliate their religion with today's social changes and make everyone think that they are "cool".

How is that any more or less half-assed than any of the other changes Christianity has undergone in the last 2000 years?

I am questioning the beliefs of people in the legitimacy of religious gay marriage not the legitimacy of gay marriage itself.

What makes you think it is impossible or even hard to fully accept gay marriage? It is no different from hetero marriage - two people who love each other enter another stage of commitment towards each other.
Given that love is supposedly a central part of Christianity, it should fit right in.
Indeed, we can draw an analogy to interracial marriage - once upon a time (about 50 years ago), the situation was very similar to the attitude towards gay marriage now. Today, most christiants don't even blink at that (of course, the USA has a large share of nutjobs - but most christiants live outside the USA anyway).

[Kanastrous]

How could it be "for show"? What show? For what purpose? Do religious people ever behave like that?

Ever attend a really well-staged Mass, particularly a holiday Mass? Or service at a well-funded Conservative Jewish Synagogue? Or a really rockin' and rollin' AME service?

Of course not every religious observance will be a theatrical-type exercise. But sure, plenty of the faithful get together and put on a show, every week.

[Serafina]

How could it be "for show"? What show? For what purpose? Do religious people ever behave like that?

Ever attend a really well-staged Mass, particularly a holiday Mass? Or service at a well-funded Conservative Jewish Synagogue? Or a really rockin' and rollin' AME service?

Of course not every religious observance will be a theatrical-type exercise. But sure, plenty of the faithful get together and put on a show, every week.

Of course religions pull off shows. But he implied that it was only a show to appease gay people or something - and i can't really imagine a church doing that without at least some seriousness.

[Hillary]

I recall that in various religions, gay people are accepted but the sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex is still seen as being sinful.

So the fuck what. Eating shellfish is sinful, wearing mixed fabric clothing is sinful, a women speaking in church in sinful. As I said before, a lot of the bible's rules are ignored these days so why not this one?

This is a slippery slope since you're telling that you respect their orientations but don't want to know that they are actively putting them in practice.

Do you know what slippery slope actually means?

And all that makes me think that religious gay marriage is just for the show.

Just for show? WTF man. These people believe in Christ as their saviour just as much as an heterosexual couple and want to get married in church. Just because YOU seem to think that gay people can't possibly be proper Christians, that doesn't make it so.

And it pains me to see that because religions are also a cultural product. I'm looking at Christians and just can't tell anymore what brought all those people together.

i.e. there's only room for ONE opinion in my church - and that's mine. Twat!

And now the priests just seemed to fathom some half-a** solution to conciliate their religion with today's social changes and make everyone think that they are "cool".

Are they just being cool allowing women to speak in church or people to wear cotton and polyester shirts and eat shellfish? Moron.

I am questioning the beliefs of people in the legitimacy of religious gay marriage not the legitimacy of gay marriage itself.

It is only not legitimate if you subscribe to an inerrant bible. As I keep have to fucking say, the rules are constantly reinterpreted and modernised.

[Kanastrous]

Of course religions pull off shows. But he implied that it was only a show to appease gay people or something - and i can't really imagine a church doing that without at least some seriousness.

You have a higher opinion of the whole carny act and its performers than I do. But that doesn't mean you're wrong.

So the fuck what. Eating shellfish is sinful, wearing mixed fabric clothing is sinful, a women speaking in church in sinful. As I said before, a lot of the bible's rules are ignored these days so why not this one?

So far as Christians go Jesus dispensed with the dietary laws, regulations on mixed textiles, etc. Retention of the ban on homosexuality - thanks in large part to Paul - probably leads some number of Christians to conclude that it must be extra-sinful, if the ban on it was retained while so many other Mosaic bans were dismissed.

[Hillary]

So far as Christians go Jesus dispensed with the dietary laws, regulations on mixed textiles, etc. Retention of the ban on homosexuality - thanks in large part to Paul - probably leads some number of Christians to conclude that it must be extra-sinful, if the ban on it was retained while so many other Mosaic bans were dismissed.

Doesn't stop them quoting the 10 Commandments at every opportunity. The bottom line is that almost every Christian has a different interpretation of the bible. This generally involves cherry-picking bits that agree with their beliefs. The ones who jump up and down about homosexuals would largely be homophobes even if that line from Leviticus had been cut by the editors

[Serafina]

Oh. Now i get it. Sirocco thinks that religious gay marriage is just for show - i thought that the church offered it just for show.
While that makes more sense, it is a much worse POV. Gay people can be just as christian as straight people - who are YOU to decide otherwise? What gives you the right to decide about someone else's personal belief?

[sirocco]

Oh. Now i get it. Sirocco thinks that religious gay marriage is just for show - i thought that the church offered it just for show.
While that makes more sense, it is a much worse POV. Gay people can be just as christian as straight people - who are YOU to decide otherwise? What gives you the right to decide about someone else's personal belief?

Well, I'm just wondering if they did it for the good reasons or just for the show. Don't remember when I was deciding about other people personal beliefs.

[Kanastrous]

Sirocco, what difference do their motivations make?

[Simon_Jester]

And as Simon_Jester said, you could always go church-shopping . And I see that as some "You didn't want us to get married? Well we found someone to do it anyway!" which is just another way to say "F**k you".

That's absurd.

The first reason it's absurd is that if so, then it's a legally protected way of saying "Fuck you!" and therefore there's no reason not to do it if you feel the need. Freedom of religion requires the right to go church-shopping; if one religious institution displeases you because of its doctrines, you must be able to go somewhere else. Or nowhere else. And that doesn't just mean its anti-gay doctrines; you can leave a church whenever you want, and find (or found) another whenever you want, over any issue. That is your right, and that's what freedom of religion means- your religious beliefs do not give you the right to dictate what beliefs can be expressed, or what ceremonies can be held, in someone else's religious institution.

The second reason it's absurd is that if so, then the entire history of the Christian church back to the days of Rome consists of one massive endless marathon of "Fuck you!" From the very beginning, Christians have been divided into little blocs that believed (and practiced) mutually inconsistent things. Christians have split their churches over political divisions, over fits of pique on the part of European monarchs, over obscure debates over who is or is not qualified to appoint bishops, over the nature of the trinity (or whether there is one), and over an enormous range of other problems both secular and temporal.

And now you're trying to tell me that when people leave one church in favor of another because of their doctrine on the subject of marrying same sex couples, NOW and only now is this some horrible act of defiant insult-flaunting in the face of Christendom? And that it somehow wasn't back during the Reformation?

Nonsense.

We wouldn't have that thread discussion if it was about a heterosexual couple but that doesn't make it less important.

I recall that in various religions, gay people are accepted but the sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex is still seen as being sinful.

This is a slippery slope since you're telling that you respect their orientations but don't want to know that they are actively putting them in practice. And all that makes me think that religious gay marriage is just for the show. And it pains me to see that because religions are also a cultural product. I'm looking at Christians and just can't tell anymore what brought all those people together.

You can't tell what brought all those people together? Belief in salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, what else? It says Christian on the label, not Biblicalliteralistian or Youngearthcreationistian or Leviticusnutterian.

Wake up and smell the coffee, man. Religion has always been a cultural product, and has always adapted to fit the non-religious customs of the times.

If you want to argue the theological reasoning that leads various churches to support gay marriage, that's your call. If so, then you should be openly seeking to engage people from such churches in debate, not slinking around and muttering about how "traditionally" various unnamed "religions" oppose homosexual sex and therefore shouldn't sanction a homosexual marriage.

But you don't have a right to dictate the doctrines of another person's church, or the sacraments of that church, or who those sacraments can be given to. If my church wants to hold a ceremony marrying a pair of women, that is our business, not yours, for the same reason that it's not our business if your church believes in following the dictates of some random chunk of apocrypha dug out of a monastery cellar somewhere in Greece.

[Kanastrous]

The problem is that if you actually buy a given religion's bullshit as Truth with the 'ol capital 'T,' you have a real problem in trying to accommodate those alterations to fit prevailing culture and custom. Because of course *real* capital-T "Truth" is eternal and doesn't submit to editing for the sake of cultural conformity or believers' convenience.

And I'm not familiar with very many religions that advertise their "Truth" as relative and subject to social or cultural influences.

[Simon_Jester]

Which is why prudent religious leaders would be wise to avoid claiming that the customs of their tribe are eternal laws of nature.

[Kanastrous]

Must be a shortage of prudent religious leaders, or something.

[Simon_Jester]

Must be a shortage of prudent religious leaders, or something.

Oh, yeah. It's really frustrating sometimes. You get them, but not in Western religions, where the tradition of religious activism is strong.

[General Mung Beans]

Ironic thing to note: the PCUSA and especially the Episcopalian Church is now politically more liberal than the Democratic Party. They politically speaking are pretty much with the board consensus (on some issues such as Afghanistan even more to the left.

[General Mung Beans]

Must be a shortage of prudent religious leaders, or something.

Oh, yeah. It's really frustrating sometimes. You get them, but not in Western religions, where the tradition of religious activism is strong.

Where have you been for the last thirty years or so? Most liberal Christian leaders say Christianity is just one path to God and that all people will be saved and etc.

[Simon_Jester]

Where have you been for the last thirty years or so? Most liberal Christian leaders say Christianity is just one path to God and that all people will be saved and etc.

And have you noticed them not being high-profile religious figures in America, the way their evangelist counterparts are?

They run churches, yes: churches that make little effort to have their voice heard beyond the limits of their own congregations.

[General Mung Beans]

Where have you been for the last thirty years or so? Most liberal Christian leaders say Christianity is just one path to God and that all people will be saved and etc.

And have you noticed them not being high-profile religious figures in America, the way their evangelist counterparts are?

They run churches, yes: churches that make little effort to have their voice heard beyond the limits of their own congregations.

That's partially because many Christians find the doctrine unbiblical and heretical (such as me) and in a free society like the US you listen to who you want to and don't listen to who you don't want to. In other ways they're influential-the National Council of Churches forms a powerful pressure group relatively immune from conservative attacks by the virture of being a group of religious denominations and they've pressed for the health care bill, anti-war efforts, and other "social justice" programs in general. They may not have much support among the people but they do hold influence among the elites. Plus most Evangelical leaders have "softened" in some respects no longer being as doggedly Republican as before-see for instance Tony Campolo's "Red letter Christian" movement.

[Shroom Man 777]

Where in the Bible does it say that God is "just one path" to salvation and that all people will be saved? The Bible, which is the literal word of god, says in John 3:16 that "for god so loved the world, he gave up his only begotten son so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

I don't know that kind of Bible your reading, Mung Beans, or even if you read the Bible at all, but the Bible - the Word of God - basically says that if you DON'T believe in god's only begotten son, then you WILL perish and NOT have eternal life. His only begotten son. So, unless god has any other begotten sons out there, there can only be one path and as Revelations so clearly states, those who don't follow it will burn in the fires of Hell forever and ever in eternal torment, amen. God is love. He is kind and all-loving. And if you do not follow his word, as written down in the Bible, if you follow the wrong teachings of false prophets and other blasphorities and deceit, then you aren't on the one and only path and you will burn in Hell together with the devil and the idolators and the fornicators and the degenerates of this city!


(PS, I am an atheist. But hey, I was raised in a Christian School. By True Christians! So I may be born in the sea, but I'm no dummy.)

[General Mung Beans]

Where in the Bible does it say that God is "just one path" to salvation and that all people will be saved? The Bible, which is the literal word of god, says in John 3:16 that "for god so loved the world, he gave up his only begotten son so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

I don't know that kind of Bible your reading, Mung Beans, or even if you read the Bible at all, but the Bible - the Word of God - basically says that if you DON'T believe in god's only begotten son, then you WILL perish and NOT have eternal life. His only begotten son. So, unless god has any other begotten sons out there, there can only be one path and as Revelations so clearly states, those who don't follow it will burn in the fires of Hell forever and ever in eternal torment, amen. God is love. He is kind and all-loving. And if you do not follow his word, as written down in the Bible, if you follow the wrong teachings of false prophets and other blasphorities and deceit, then you aren't on the one and only path and you will burn in Hell together with the devil and the idolators and the fornicators and the degenerates of this city!


(PS, I am an atheist. But hey, I was raised in a Christian School. By True Christians! So I may be born in the sea, but I'm no dummy.)

What you said is what I believe-ie Jesus is the only path to salvation. I think there is some sort of misunderstanding here. In fact I did note that I found that the doctrine there's more than one way to salvation to be unbiblical. I was merely noting the fact there were a lot of clergymen who believe otherwise.

[Shroom Man 777]

Oh, then hallelujah brother!

Though honestly I think the biblical doctrine is full of shit. Like what I heard once: I love it when people argue over religion. It's a bit like arguing over whether a unicorn can defeat a hippogriff. "My book of irrational beliefs is better than your book of irrational beliefs!"

It's really cool that librul Christians have to be "unbiblical" and "heretical" in order to make their belief system not as offensive and not be intolerant pieces of poo.

[General Mung Beans]

Though honestly I think the biblical doctrine is full of shit. Like what I heard once: I love it when people argue over religion. It's a bit like arguing over whether a unicorn can defeat a hippogriff. "My book of irrational beliefs is better than your book of irrational beliefs!"

Practically speaking even for atheists it might make for good intellectual exercise and debating practice. In addition there is no lack of debates concerning fictional universes here.

[Kanastrous]

It's fun intellectual exercise until you being to realize how many of your interlocutors live in a fantasy land wherein the bullshit is somehow 'true...'

[Shroom Man 777]

Practically speaking even for atheists it might make for good intellectual exercise and debating practice. In addition there is no lack of debates concerning fictional universes here.

Oh, very. It would be nice to assume the role of a fundamentalist Christian, knowing their arguments and all that intellectually as an atheist, and then arguing against some liberal Christian who believes in "multiple paths" to salvation and other new age claptrap. Then, as an atheist in the role of a fundie Christian, you end up making the liberal Christian cry because you've convinced him/her that he/she is going straight to hell because s/he's not following the literal word of god and because he/she doesn't want to think that good innocent people are going to burn in hell just because of not believing in the Jesus Man.

I actually did this once, I think, in 6th grade. I asked some kind compassionate but really religious Christian a question, I think I was wondering why god would condemn people to hell just for not believing in jesus, if he was so all-loving, just for the "sin" of not believing in jesus. Does not believing in jesus make them evil people? Or something. I remembered asking a religious question, and someone crying.


I think that if I tried, I would be a good pastor for born agains. All I need is to elocute some fancy nice-sounding Jesusy words, and all I need is a congregation of true Christians, and I can say whatever Jesusy stuff I can say, and all the true Christians can agree with me, and then through peer pressure and psychological conditioning, we can easily convert non-Christians who go into our church! Think about it. A whole lot of people who honestly believe that God and Jesus and Satan and Hell are real, that are honestly convinced that believing in Jesus is the one only way to avoid burning in Hell forever. If you're an insecure person, if you're a scared person, if you're a susceptible person, oh man. It's Jesus Time.

And think of all the trusting children attending my Sunday School, with minds just sooo easy to mold like clay. They'll believe in just about anything and everything, and raised in such a good Jesusy Christianly environment, raised the proper Christian Way, from childhood to adulthood, man. Such a wonderful upbringing. They won't even be able to think differently at all, it will be impossible for them, because their beliefs will be made real. They won't even be able to choose. They won't have a choice. They won't even have a chance!