1
188
189

Presbyterian Church U.S.A. votes to allow gay marriage ceremonies (freep.com)

submitted by Disciples of ChristRevEMD

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Southern BaptistTheBluestDevil 88 ポイント89 ポイント

Sad, but entirely expected. The PC(USA) has long rejected Biblical teaching and sound doctrine.

Edit: Just so everyone knows where your moderators stand, I got banned from posting as a result of this comment thread.

Edit2: "For what it's worth, I just removed you from our banlist. A warning and comment removal was what was deemed a worthy response. I was wrong to jump to a ban. I guess consider this a warning and an apology."

[–]Reformed Baptist Orthodox Presbyterianinjoy 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Your comments got deleted, too...

[–]Unitarian Universalist Associationjaijaikali 9 ポイント10 ポイント

Its not what you say, Blue, its how you go about it, at least IMO. In this particular case, I'm a tad confused as to why.

[–]Eastern Orthodoxwalkerforsec 39 ポイント40 ポイント

I like that you're getting downvotes for defending Scripture. Don't you know that's passé?

[–]PresbyterianbostonT 42 ポイント43 ポイント

Yes, there must be only one true way to look at Scripture.

That must explain why Christianity is so united, not split into many denominations...

[–]Christian (Cross)thornsap 30 ポイント31 ポイント

Its funny you say that in this thread full of people calling this action indisputably good and calling anyone who disagrees a hateful bigot

[–]PresbyterianGoMustard 27 ポイント28 ポイント

I see the opposite in this thread. I see people condemning it as a departure from true Christianity and calling anyone who disagrees unfaithful.

To be honest, I see a lot of nastiness in this thread in general, and as a Presbyterian pastor--- one of the people this action actually effects--- it pisses me off.

[–]Christian (Cross)thornsap 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Tbf, i commented a good hour ago where the top voted comments, aside from yours, consisted of 'good' and 'thank god for this' with very little substance and anyone who disagrees is wrong

*edit

I mean, seriously, the majority of people who are for this change, not conflicted like you are, are literally saying that their view is, and i quote, 'the correct reading of scripture'

[–]PresbyterianbostonT 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Calling people bigots isn't Christlike either; just because some people are doing that doesn't make it acceptable to belittle the beliefs of other Christians by calling theirs unfaithful to Scripture.

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)SoWhatIfImChristian 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Oh sweet irony

[–]Christian (Cross)I_Am_Justicar_Iac 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Do you think this is a good thing?

[–]Christian (Cross)thornsap 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I'm not sure what you mean by that

It was more an attempt at dry humour than anything

[–]Christian (Cross)I_Am_Justicar_Iac 0 ポイント1 ポイント

HATEFUL BIG- oh, well, uhhhh, this is awkward scratches back of neck I didn't really mean anything by it. Just a question.

[–]Eastern Orthodoxwalkerforsec 6 ポイント7 ポイント

There are many ways to look at Scripture - you will always find something new.

However, the fact that people do not abide in unity is on us, not on Scripture. And if there is only one Christ, then there can only be one Church. And for the last 2,000 years, that same Church - despite and across the many denominations - has held that "same-sex marriage" doesn't exist. Until now, because we feel like it should.

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)SleetTheFox 6 ポイント7 ポイント

It's for childishly slinging mud actually.

[–]Eastern Orthodoxwalkerforsec 11 ポイント12 ポイント

How is he doing that? Based on their decision today, it sounds pretty spot on.

[–]UGAShadow 1 ポイント2 ポイント

The PC(USA) has long rejected Biblical teaching and sound doctrine.

[–]Reformed Baptist Orthodox Presbyterianinjoy 3 ポイント4 ポイント

He got banned for defending Scripture. Apparently it's not allowed.

[–]United MethodistThe_Sven 6 ポイント7 ポイント

He didn't defend Scripture. He made a slightly inflammatory claim without providing examples as evidence. All he said was

The PC(USA) has long rejected Biblical teaching and sound doctrine.

Had he said something such as "like when they..." it would've been defending his claim that they reject Scripture but it still wouldn't have defended Scripture itself.

[–]Reformed Baptist Orthodox Presbyterianinjoy 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Maybe someone should have asked him what he meant rather than banning him so he couldn't explain. He did explain, with evidence, on /r/Reformed, since he couldn't post here. Did you read the context of this conversation, though? The other person was consistently making false accusations to him (that he thought the SBC was the only group who could interpret the Bible, which is patently a lie), being sarcastic, and harping on the same point repeatedly. In response to all that harassment, TheBluestDevil finally said the above. The person who was actually being unkind, rude, and inflammatory? Not even warned.

[–]Eastern Orthodoxwalkerforsec -1 ポイント0 ポイント

How do you know he was banned? His comment is still there...

Also, seriously??

[–]Lutheran-purgatorial universalistfunny_original_name 3 ポイント4 ポイント

The user in question was banned temporarily. But they were banned for the way they presented their statements not for defending scripture.

[–]Reformed Baptist Orthodox Presbyterianinjoy -1 ポイント0 ポイント

No, he got banned for saying they were compromising Scripture / endangering salvation / etc., which he said nicely, it was the content and not the tone. The mods didn't accuse him of not being nice, they accused him of making a definitive statement; "you don't get to make that call" is what was said.

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)SoWhatIfImChristian -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

It's what this subreddit has come to. Reddit has efficiently imbed it's influence

[–]Southern BaptistFreeFurnace 1 ポイント2 ポイント

No no no..contrary to what people whose primary language was Koine Greek said for 2,000+ years when they translated Scripture and were familiar with the culture around them..the Scriptures don't actually mean homosexual... /s

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)havearemotecontrol 24 ポイント25 ポイント

Or come to a different understanding of it.

[–]Southern BaptistTheBluestDevil 40 ポイント41 ポイント

To come to any "understanding" that is expressly contrary to Scripture is to deny Scripture.

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)havearemotecontrol 38 ポイント39 ポイント

I suspect we all agree there.

[–]Lutherankingpatzer 1 ポイント2 ポイント

If you can show me a scriptural reference that is indisputably speaking about modern understanding of homosexuality and gender identity, I'll concede your point.

But since you can't, you're point is moot.

[–]Southern BaptistTheBluestDevil -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Well, you'll undoubtedly use one of the many recycled arguments to claim that these aren't speaking about the "modern understanding," but here goes.

[[Leviticus 18:22]] [[Romans 1:26-27]] [[1 Corinthians 6:9-11]] [[1 Timothy 1:8-11]]

"But the Old Testament Law is no longer valid!"

False, Jesus not only affirms the moral laws of the Old Testament, he heightens them.

"But those verses are only talking about exploitative forms of homosexuality!"

Romans 1 proves that claim false, as it talks about the mutual nature of the passions. Men or boys who are being abused aren't "consumed with passion" for their abuser.

"But the word Paul uses doesn't really mean homosexuality!"

The word Paul uses is an amalgamation of the two Greek words found in the explicit Levitical command against homosexual practice.

"But there were no loving homosexual relationships in ancient times!"

False; ancient pottery and ancient writings indicate this type of homosexual relationship.

[–]Help all humans!VerseBot 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Leviticus 18:22 | English Standard Version (ESV)

[22] You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Romans 1:26-27 | English Standard Version (ESV)

[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 | English Standard Version (ESV)

[9] Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 | English Standard Version (ESV)

[8] Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, [9] understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, [10] the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, [11] in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Source Code | /r/VerseBot | Contact Dev | FAQ | Changelog

All texts provided by BibleGateway and TaggedTanakh

[–]r1senphoenix 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Romans I proves nothing of the source. It clearly sets the context as being within pagan ceremonies. It states nothing about gay relationships. It's an intolerance towards other religions not towards gay people.

[–]Lutherankingpatzer 0 ポイント1 ポイント

The word Paul uses is an amalgamation of the two Greek words found in the explicit Levitical command against homosexual practice.

As Martin wrote in Biblical ethics & homosexuality: listening to scripture, "It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts."

The translational difficulties around the term arsenokoites are huge. And even if its meaning is definable purely and correctly by it's component parts, then what is being spoken about throughout the NT is only male homosexuality, and the text says nothing at all about lesbians.

But if one looks at, say 1 Tim 1:10, then the issue becomes more clouded because the very structure of the verse demonstrates that at issue is exploitative encounters and not the modern model of homosexual relationships:

Hence arsenokoitai does not refer to homosexuality in general, to female homosexuality, or to the generic model of pederasty. It certainly cannot refer to the modern gay model, he affirms (109). This is Scrogg’s interpretation of the term in 1 Tim 1:10 also. The combination of πόρνοι (pornoi, “fornicators”), arsenokoitai, and ἀνδραποδισταῖ (andrapodistai, “slave-dealers”) refers to “male prostitutes, males who lie [with them], and slave dealers [who procure them]” (120). It again refers to that specific form of pederasty “which consisted of the enslaving of boys as youths for sexual purposes, and the use of these boys by adult males” (121).’, De Young, ‘The Source and NT Meaning of Αρσενοκοιται, with Implications for Christian Ethics and Ministry’, Masters Seminary Journal (3.2.196-197), 1992.

[–]Southern BaptistTheBluestDevil -1 ポイント0 ポイント

As Martin wrote in Biblical ethics & homosexuality: listening to scripture, "It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts."

Supporting evidence is found in the terms use in conjunction with the other term, malakos, and its inclusion in a list of sins that prohibit people from entering the kingdom of God.

And even if its meaning is definable purely and correctly by it's component parts, then what is being spoken about throughout the NT is only male homosexuality, and the text says nothing at all about lesbians.

Romans 1 speaks about lesbianism.

[–]Lutherankingpatzer 0 ポイント1 ポイント

http://www.clgs.org/arsenokoit%C3%A9s-and-malakos-meanings-and-consequences

[–]Atheistnightpanda893 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Except for the fact that the bible doesn't mention same sex marriage and the definition of homosexuality in the bible is nothing like the way we understand it today.

[–]PresbyterianFrognosticator 14 ポイント15 ポイント

I'm not sure where you're coming up with that. The old testament explicitly condemns homosexuality. The new testament is more vague, but still lists "sexual immorality" as a cardinal sin.

[–]Atheistnightpanda893 6 ポイント7 ポイント

The problem is focusing only on sex. The bible defines heterosexuality by relationships and the possibility for family in addition to the sexual aspect. We now know that these things are possible for non-straight people as well. With an incomplete definition, some interpretation is left to the people.

[–]koreanpenguin 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Except, with that logic, you are assuming God had no idea what today's culture would be like. Somehow, the creator of the universe overlooked the cultural climate of our present generation, so jokes on God for not actually being omnipresent.

[–]AtheistDuke_of_New_Dallas 9 ポイント10 ポイント

Kinda like how God shoulda seen how 2014 humans would view slavery, yet never bothered to have his followers condemn it 2000 years sooner, saving tens of millions needless suffering?

[–]Atheistxhable -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

I really liked Fry making this point in debate here http://youtu.be/dBSH2oWVGEs?t=1h25m10s

[–]Atheistnightpanda893 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

The logic is that it's actually not mentioned.

[–]koreanpenguin 1 ポイント2 ポイント

God doesn't change. Like at all. What's different about our definition then and now? It's the same dooooogggg

[–]Atheistnightpanda893 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

The bible only talks about sex for gays and now homosexuality can lead to and include family and relationships in the same way heterosexuality does.

[–]koreanpenguin 3 ポイント4 ポイント

are you not just stretching it? I'm all about discussing the Bible and the meaning of verses, but at some point, you are just finding excuses to sin.

If I stole bread back then, I'd be a thief, BUT what if I download a movie off a torrent? What if I already own a copy of the movie? I'm just going to watch it and then delete it afterwards, so I guess I'm actually only borrowing it. I'm not a thief though, don't worry. I'm returning it.

It's a slippery slope.

[–]Atheistnightpanda893 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I think there is a difference between key aspects of someone's identity being left out and different methods of stealing. I mean, if you defined a heterosexual relationship by sex alone, would that be the same thing as defining it with committed relationships and family? Adding that context changes it entirely when it comes to sexual sins for heterosexual couples.

[–]waterdevil19 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Great. Creatonist then?

[–]Southern BaptistTheBluestDevil 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Yes.

[–]Reformedmoby__dick 21 ポイント22 ポイント

I'm not really hearing homosexual marriage advocates appealing to the plain sense and logic of Scripture. I'm hearing them denegrate Scripture for a newer, more enlightened approach.

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)havearemotecontrol 13 ポイント14 ポイント

It makes logical sense to me. "Plain sense" seems to be code for "applied in the way I apply it," so I'm not sure that's really a useful description.

Based on my understanding of the plain sense of scripture, I agree that pederasty and idolatrous orgies aren't consistent with Christianity.

[–]Reformedmoby__dick -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

But do we see it established by Scripture? Do we see any principles of gender emerging from the Biblical narrative?

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)havearemotecontrol 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Are "emerging principles" "plain sense"?

[–]Reformedmoby__dick 1 ポイント2 ポイント

It depends. Where did they emerge from?

[–]Christian (Cross)FountainPensAreCool 15 ポイント16 ポイント

Hello,

I'm Andrew, and you probably think of me as a homosexual marriage advocate. I don't denegrate Scripture. I do understand Scripture differently to you.

You can read more about what I think on Faith and Pride and on my personal website.

[–]Reformedmoby__dick 15 ポイント16 ポイント

Hi Andrew -

Without my scrolling through your entire website, could you explain to me how it is that you see homosexual marriage as having always been taught in Scripture, or perhaps link to a pertinent article on your site? It's not really fair to ask me to read 2 whole blogs in their entirety.

[–]Christian (Cross)FountainPensAreCool -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

You could start with Jonathan Loved David, or if you want something really short, have a look at this.

I'm sure you will disagree with most of what I say, but you should see that I am not "denegrat[ing] Scripture for a newer, more enlightened approach", I'm just not agreeing with what you say.

[–]LutheranPreciousPuritans 11 ポイント12 ポイント

Only in hyper-sexualized America would we find people who twist a loving brotherhood into homosexuality...

[–]Christian (Cross)FountainPensAreCool 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I'm not in America...

[–]Roman CatholicLuke_Poley 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Looking at your website, I'm almost positive you must be joking. You're assertions are ignorant at best and blasphemously anti-scripture at worst.

[–]Christian (Cross)thisisbowling 10 ポイント11 ポイント

"So, as marriage is ordained by God in the first place and as being not for procreation but for companionship (Genesis 2:18), then you might consider that anything suggested by man as being a marriage does actually make it one as long as it meets this criterion."

That's a bit of a reach isn't it?

[–]Reformedmoby__dick 11 ポイント12 ポイント

Is your site a parody?

[–]PresbyterianTurretOpera 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Top kek.

[–]Christian (Cross)FountainPensAreCool -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

No. If you think that a sincere site that puts forward a different view to your own is a parody, then you should probably disengage from this debate.

[–]Reformedmoby__dick 3 ポイント4 ポイント

David and Jonathan were married.... That strikes you as sincere?

[–]Christian (Cross)FountainPensAreCool -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

You don't think I am sincere because you don't agree with my conclusion?

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)SoWhatIfImChristian 1 ポイント2 ポイント

How the heck did you come up with that? I understand different interpretations ... but this is just ridiculous

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)SleetTheFox 4 ポイント5 ポイント

I'm endorsing the correct understanding. I defy that the "plain sense" is automatically correct. Otherwise we'd murder a lot of people.

[–]Reformedmoby__dick 12 ポイント13 ポイント

I'm endorsing the correct understanding. I defy that the "plain sense" is automatically correct. Otherwise we'd murder a lot of people.

I think that, perhaps every time I have heard the argument, it's couched in the language of "Old Fashioned Paul, needs to keep up with the times." You're saying that you have a Biblical case that explains why the Scriptures have actually been endorsing homosexual marriage all this time?

That's what I mean - all along, the Bible has taught that homosexual marriage is A-OK, and we're just now discovering it?

If you have that argument, I would love to hear it.

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)SleetTheFox 3 ポイント4 ポイント

There are generally two approaches. The "high" view of scripture and the "low" view. One argues that the Bible, understood correctly, does not prohibit same-sex marriage any more than it endorses slavery. The other argues that some of the writers were mistaken about this issue and were not truly speaking for God.

I really don't see why it's so surprising to you that people could have been incorrect about what the Bible says all along. You act like abolition or women's rights aren't relatively new, on the time scale of Christianity. Christians are humans, and humans are sinful. Sinful humans can be mistaken sometimes.

[–]Reformedmoby__dick 9 ポイント10 ポイント

I find it hard to believe that the Bible has actually established same-sex marriage all this time, and it took 2000 years for us to discover this long-hidden teaching.

I really don't see why it's so surprising to you that people could have been incorrect about what the Bible says all along.

Well, among other reasons, what standard would you use to determine what was, actually, right and wrong? Maybe you're behind the times along with the Bible, and future generations will discover that sexual assault is an expression of a different sort of morality. What standard, if not Scripture, will you point to as the source of the truth of right and wrong?

I affirm women's rights as far as the Bible affirms them and no further; I affirm slavery as far as the Bible affirms it and no further - so, for example, the entire African slave trade was unbiblical, because it was based on kidnapping, which itself is prohibited by Scripture. [Exodus 21:16]. As you know, abolitionists were deeply religious people.

[–]Help all humans!VerseBot 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Exodus 21:16 | English Standard Version (ESV)

[16] “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Source Code | /r/VerseBot | Contact Dev | FAQ | Changelog

All texts provided by BibleGateway and TaggedTanakh

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)SleetTheFox -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

I find it hard to believe that the Bible has actually established same-sex marriage all this time, and it took 2000 years for us to discover this long-hidden teaching.

"The Bible" didn't establish anything. Period. Never has, never will. God establishes things. The Bible records them. That distinction is subtle, but it's an important one, because failing to understand it can be seen as a form of idolatry.

I believe that God blesses marriage, both for straight people and gay people. I do not believe there is a valid argument for the exclusion of gay couples from marriage, and as such those marriages should be seen all the same as valid.

Well, among other reasons, what standard would you use to determine what was, actually, right and wrong? Maybe you're behind the times along with the Bible, and future generations will discover that sexual assault is an expression of a different sort of morality. What standard, if not Scripture, will you point to as the source of the truth of right and wrong?

Are you arguing that you can't think of a single thing wrong with sexual assault other than "the Bible says don't do it?"

I affirm women's rights as far as the Bible affirms them and no further; I affirm slavery as far as the Bible affirms it and no further - so, for example, the entire African slave trade was unbiblical, because it was based on kidnapping, which itself is prohibited by Scripture. [Exodus 21:16]. As you know, abolitionists were deeply religious people.

Then why did it take so long for Christians to discover this "long-hidden teaching," as you put it? Because the slave trade was justified by the faith of those who insisted it was alright with Christianity. It wasn't godless atheist slave traders vs. devout Christian abolitionists. It was Christian slavery-supporters with one interpretation of Christianity vs. Christian abolitionists with another interpretation of Christianity. I also should note that many supporters of gay marriage are also deeply religious.

[–]Help all humans!VerseBot 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Exodus 21:16 | English Standard Version (ESV)

[16] “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Source Code | /r/VerseBot | Contact Dev | FAQ | Changelog

All texts provided by BibleGateway and TaggedTanakh

[–]Reformedmoby__dick 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Are you arguing that you can't think of a single thing wrong with sexual assault other than "the Bible says don't do it?"

No, you could figure that out on your own from a principle of love, other-centeredness, etc.. But push that out a little bit - maybe those values themselves are going to be out of date. Perhaps we should be a little more Darwinian in our thinking. Who's to say?

Then why did it take so long for Christians to discover this "long-hidden teaching," as you put it? Because the slave trade was justified by the faith of those who insisted it was alright with Christianity. It wasn't godless atheist slave traders vs. devout Christian abolitionists. It was Christian slavery-supporters with one interpretation of Christianity vs. Christian abolitionists with another interpretation of Christianity. I also should note that many supporters of gay marriage are also deeply religious.

Right, but what you're doing is you're removing the standard by which truth can be determined. I'm making the case that the Bible teaches that the African slave trade was wrong, and those who argued for it from the Bible were wrong. And those who support homosexual marriage are wrong in their exegesis of Scripture. But you're suggesting that it just doesn't really matter what the Bible says, so I'm asking you what standard you are looking at to determine what is true? Or how do you determine what parts of the Bible should be considered true and what shouldn't be?

Eventually you have to get a standard somewhere, right?

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)SleetTheFox -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

No, you could figure that out on your own from a principle of love, other-centeredness, etc..

That also happens to be the principles used to come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage is moral.

I'm making the case that the Bible teaches that the African slave trade was wrong, and those who argued for it from the Bible were wrong.

I agree with you.

And those who support homosexual marriage are wrong in their exegesis of Scripture.

I disagree with you.

But you're suggesting that it just doesn't really matter what the Bible says, so I'm asking you what standard you are looking at to determine what is true?

No, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm suggesting that the status quo interpretation isn't automatically right, citing the slavery issue where abolitionism was not the dominant position for all time. When we reach a question of how to correctly interpret the Bible on an issue, at least one side is going to be wrong, and the wrong side is not automatically the less-popular side.

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)SoWhatIfImChristian 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Hear hear!

[–]Christian (Cross)BigMrC 9 ポイント10 ポイント

Okay, what?! Why is this guy getting banned for defending scripture?!

[–]AtheistCeannairceach 20 ポイント21 ポイント

He probably was banned for the way he's posting, not what he's posting.

[–]Turd BurglarHerecomethedrums 5 ポイント6 ポイント

That's what happened..unless the mods are now fascists!

MAH OPPRESSION!

[–]United MethodistThe_Sven 1 ポイント2 ポイント

He didn't defend Scripture he just made an inflammatory claim against a denomination.

[–]Roman Catholicjojothepopo 4 ポイント5 ポイント

It's not what you said it's how you said it.

[–]zimm3r16 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Irrespective of the position or post on the biblical view of gay unions you shouldn't have been banned for it, either it is the correct view and therefor good or the incorrect view and will spark much needed and good discussion.

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 1 ポイント2 ポイント

The topic of same sex marriage has never, in all my time here, sparked good discussion.

[–]PresbyterianbostonT 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Just so everyone knows where your moderators stand, I got banned from posting as a result of this comment thread.

Good. I come here to read about current perspectives on my faith from my brothers and sisters, not to offhandedly be condemned as a heretic by those too myopic to accommodate other viewpoints.

[–]BaptistMichigan__J__Frog 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Oh come on. Nobody would ever be banned for saying similar things about the SBC.

Here's a mod posting a link of a similar nature to this comment.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/27zp82/the_southern_baptist_contention_to_hell_with/

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Eh, if I said that I thought the Southern Baptists were plainly and willfully ignoring and defying the clear teachings of Scripture and leading people to hell, that would warrant action.

On the other hand, the SBC did actually pass a resolution relating to transgender people, and people have written about it in their blogs. Posting links to controversial things isn't necessarily bad, as it can generate discussion, but coming to the subreddit and attacking a whole denomination is definitely bad. While the mods have no power over a random blogger, they can enforce the rules of civility within the sub.

Asserting that one denomination has the only valid reading of Scripture on a subject that is obviously not clear, given that there is such a disagreement, and asserting it in a way that is arrogant and rude in the face of the pain of those in the denomination, is arrogant and rude.

There are times and places to speak this way, and his comment was inappropriate in both ways.

[–]BaptistMichigan__J__Frog 0 ポイント1 ポイント

on a subject that is obviously not clear, given that there is such a disagreement

No matter what the Bible said about homosexuality there would still be an argument about it. As there seems to be an argument about everything the Bible says no matter how clearly it says it.

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 2 ポイント3 ポイント

It doesn't exactly help if you think it's clear and other people think it isn't. To someone, it isn't clear, and thus, disagreement arises. To act like all parties see it equally clearly and one party just wants to ignore it is silly (at best) and unChristian at worst.

Imagine a situation in which someone came to you saying that they didn't see how the Bible presented Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life and the savior of those who confess him as Lord. Would you not be especially kind a patient with them, for their own sake? Even if a person thinks the Bible is clear on sexuality and issues of sexuality, they should be patient with those who don't, gently instructing them and teaching them, instead of basically telling them that they are wrong, stupid, and defying Scripture, which happens all the time around these parts.

[–]PresbyterianTurretOpera 1 ポイント2 ポイント

First I was totally on board with him being moderated, but this come-back is god tier.

[–]Lutherannofrak [score hidden]

but this come-back is god tier.

I see what you did there.

[–]PresbyterianbostonT 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Really? The link says Southern Baptists are disregarding Scripture and are not of sound doctrine? Hardly.

[–]Roman Catholicwankypudding 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Well said.

[–]zimm3r16 0 ポイント1 ポイント

You do realize the Roman Catholic church (your flair) holds the view you are seem to denounce fyi.

[–]Roman Catholicwankypudding 15 ポイント16 ポイント

Just because I hold a viewpoint doesn't mean I favor when someone rudely asserts their opinion over another.

[–]zimm3r16 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

The previous comment was 2 words it was hardly indicative of either it being supportive of gay unions or not being a jackass. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[–]Atheistkhalid1984 3 ポイント4 ポイント

It's clear because of who he is responding to.

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)SleetTheFox 8 ポイント9 ポイント

We know nothing about /u/wankypudding's position on this issue. But what we do know is that they do not support the practice of lashing out and stamping "heretic" on the forehead of anyone in this thread who supports same-sex marriage.

[–]zimm3r16 0 ポイント1 ポイント

No but we also can't really know what he means by well said and in this case I would think caution would dictate clarification (as oppose to normal, assume best intentions) simply because of how controversial this issue is.

[–]Roman Catholicheatdeath 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Uh, the guy was just offering his opinion, I guess that's too much for you, who prefers to silence traditional Christians.

[–]PresbyterianbostonT -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Nowhere did I say differing views should be silenced. Just that if you come to a subreddit titled Christianity, go in with the understanding that there are different types of Christians who hold different views and RESPECT those differences rather than call anyone who disagrees a heretic, or clearly "rejected Biblical teaching or sound doctrine."

[–]Roman Catholicheatdeath 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Neither of those terms is offensive or inappropriate to say. You just want to silence all discussion of biblical teaching in favor of your agenda. If you can't handle people talking about "biblical teaching" or "sound doctrine" you shouldn't even be on the internet discussing Christianity.

[–]PresbyterianbostonT 0 ポイント1 ポイント

You wouldn't consider it offensive if someone were to say your beliefs were untrue to Scripture or sound doctrine? Awesome, then please go to a forum where that's acceptable; the mods here have the right to run this sub how they please, and I like their moderation. Hope that helps.

[–]Roman Catholicheatdeath 1 ポイント2 ポイント

No, I wouldn't. You get offended way too easily. Anyway, the moderator reversed the decision, thankfully. Otherwise people like you would be having everyone banned. What I do find offensive is your gloating over silencing people.

[–]FFSausername 5 ポイント6 ポイント

You remind me so much of the people that originally pushed me away from God. It's something that I am just recently recovering from.

I don't care about arguing scripture or trying to convert you to my viewpoint. I just want you to know what you're actually doing, and not what you think you're doing.

[–]LutheranPreciousPuritans 11 ポイント12 ポイント

And I've seen countless people pushed away from God because of liberal churches.

[–]FFSausername -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

Ah yes, that's what the churches need to get the youth back into Christianity: More conservative, elitist churches!

[–]LutheranPreciousPuritans 9 ポイント10 ポイント

Elitist? Really? Next time you're in my area you can worship enthusiastically with a wonderful girl with Down's Syndrome who's basically the mayor of our church or sip coffee with the multiple homeless men who only feel welcome with us.

[–]FFSausername 0 ポイント1 ポイント

What sort of bastardized version of karma is that? "If you're gay we want nothing to do with you and won't accept you, but hey look, we did nice things with homeless people"

[–]LutheranPreciousPuritans 10 ポイント11 ポイント

Huh. I don't remember turning any gay people away. Then again, I haven't volunteered for bouncer duty in a while. Let me know when you're done making false assumptions about my church and we can talk! :D

[–]FFSausername 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Unfortunately, growing up in the rural south has made this situation all too real. Is it every fundamentalist church? No, and that was hyperbole on my part. But you're being willfully ignorant if you deny that it is a problem.

[–]LutheranPreciousPuritans 5 ポイント6 ポイント

My original point was that just because something pushes people out of church doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. I know someone who didn't come back to my church because we were "too extroverted and friendly". Should we be cold and reserved? My church has many issues too, and I'm not ignorant of the countless issues conservative churches have, but the liberal churches have just as many of a different flavor.

[–]FFSausername -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

"but the liberal churches have just as many of a different flavor."

I don't deny that, but I overall think that the problems conservative churches pose are more of a threat to continued Christian presence than the liberal churches. Hence my gripe.

[–]PresbyterianTurretOpera 8 ポイント9 ポイント

Laugh at the concept, but I always sigh a little bit when I leave my service each week and down the block getting out of the fundamentalist church, I see 15-20 of what our church doesn't have a single one of: Someone my age (late 20's/early 30's, no kids). Similarly, when my liberal home church had a massive member implosion, 80+% of the members we lost went to a far, far, far more conservative PC(USA) church. Like one that does things with Young Life, etc.

[–]Roman CatholicLuke_Poley 5 ポイント6 ポイント

You got BANNED for defending the scripture? That's absolutely ridiculous. I'm pretty flabbergasted right now...

[–]Roman CatholicDannyDawg 9 ポイント10 ポイント

This is not a Christian subreddit. This is a subreddit for discussing Christianity. Don't ever forget that.

[–]Roman Catholicheatdeath 4 ポイント5 ポイント

I would happily forget it. That just seems like an excuse to turn this into a board critical of Christianity rather than one that fosters community and discussion amongst Christians, which is what it should be.

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)SoWhatIfImChristian 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Sadly it's not like that

[–]Roman CatholicDangerRabbit 3 ポイント4 ポイント

How does condemning Christians who share different opinions as heretics foster community?

[–]Roman Catholicheatdeath [score hidden]

It's just people expressing their feelings on religion. Better than the chilling effects of banning anyone who says what they think.

[–]Roman CatholicSCHROEDINGERS_UTERUS 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Given your flair, it might be appropriate to say that /r/Catholicism is much more what you wish /r/Christianity would be than /r/Christianity itself. (Obviously substituting the word Christian with Catholic in your definition)

[–]Roman Catholicheatdeath [score hidden]

I post there too, but I don't see why /r/Christianity should be given up.

[–]Roman CatholicSCHROEDINGERS_UTERUS [score hidden]

Well, I must just not have seen you around, then.

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)SleetTheFox 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Keep in mind "defending the scripture" is just his spin. It was hardly a productive comment.

[–]Southern BaptistTheBluestDevil 2 ポイント3 ポイント

My spin?

I simply said, "Edit: Just so everyone knows where your moderators stand, I got banned from posting as a result of this comment thread."

[–]Southern BaptistTheHandyman1 1 ポイント2 ポイント

So much for free speech here and defending scripture, I fully support your comment. If you really are banned, do you mind sending a screen as proof? I've never been banned on Reddit before so I wouldn't know how to check. Since I agree, I should probably also be banned from this sub, which I once thought highly of, and will now most likely leave. There is nothig wrong with tough love and letting a brother or sister or brother know you beleive they're acting against scripture.

Edited for grammar.

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 9 ポイント10 ポイント

The thing is, Scripture teaches us a way to let our fellow Christians know that they are acting against Scripture. Coming to a subreddit and anonymously saying that an entire denomination - with pastors, seminaries, and people who deeply love Jesus - has turned from Biblical teaching and sound doctrine is not that way.

I disagree with a great deal of Southern Baptist theology, because I used to be a Southern Baptist. But I'm not going to say that Southern Baptists have turned from the Bible's teachings because I disagree with them, because I recognize that groups of people can have equal love for Jesus and still read Scripture differently.

He didn't seem to be able to do that.

[–]Lutheran-purgatorial universalistfunny_original_name 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Exactly.

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)FlareCorran 1 ポイント2 ポイント

What is the way when an entire denomination is proclaiming false doctrine?

For the sake of argument (and to remove the current debate), say that they were instead proclaiming that Jesus never actually rose from the dead. Is your claim that there's a responsibility to go individually to every person who voted for that and challenge them on it? Or would it be reasonable to point to Scripture and condemn the entire leadership of the denomination on that basis?

Paul commanded Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:20 that when a leader in the church sins, they should be rebuked publicly. I think that could readily apply here. It certainly seems more applicable than Matthew 18, which relies on a higher ecclesiastic authority over both parties.

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I'm going to stick with the user in question, because it's not that defending Scripture is wrong, and it's not that defending one's view of Scripture is wrong; it's that he does neither of those things. He just makes accusations about the internal affairs of a denomination to which he doesn't belong.

Show me how he rebuked a leader in the church, and show me how he defended his claims that that leader erred. Show me how he proclaimed the truth and pointed to Christ with what he said. Show me how his comments are humble and gracious.

Had he gone to the leading figures of the PC(USA) and carefully explained his case, I think he'd be in the right. Or if he himself were PC(USA) and he spoke with his pastor after the service to condemn this act, his actions would have been acceptable. But on a subreddit that's for people who have varying beliefs on the subject, it's considered extraordinarily bad taste to proclaim that one has a monopoly on the truth and that one'a opponent is simply disregarding Scripture.

If I made a post about denying the Resurrection and not believing in Christ, you wouldn't just say I was denying the Scriptures and forget about me. No, you'd carefully guide me to the truth, or at least attempt to, teaching me about the culture as necessary and filling in what I needed to know to understand the Bible. Had the user done that for his position, he would be in the clear; he would have contributed information to the discussion. But instead, he tossed a whole denomination (several, if you count denominations that already permit same sex marriage) aside as not even worth dealing with.

This isn't really about the topic of gay marriage, but about the user's abysmal grasp of when it is appropriate to say things. At a time of pain and possible fracture in this denomination's existence, they really don't need people like him casually assuming they can't read the Bible.

Edit for tl;dr: There is no good way on Reddit, because that conversation requires finesse and trust often not found online.

[–]Reformed Baptist Orthodox Presbyterianinjoy 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I don't think you can check, but there's a thread in /r/Reformed, /u/Bakeshot (mod) confirmed the ban. And some of his posts (which you can see in his user history) have also been deleted (which you can see by their invisibleness here).

[–]BaptistMichigan__J__Frog -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Here's proof. A mod discussing the ban.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/28kyej/pcusa_ministers_in_marriage_equality_states_can/cibzgop?=3

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)havearemotecontrol 4 ポイント5 ポイント

I was wondering whether most of /r/Reformed came over here for a massive voting party.

[–]Reformed Baptist Orthodox Presbyterianinjoy 3 ポイント4 ポイント

The votes here were... surprising... before it was ever mentioned on r/reformed. I was pretty shocked.

[–]Southern BaptistTheBluestDevil 1 ポイント2 ポイント

That was, to me, by far the most surprising part of the whole ordeal.

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)havearemotecontrol 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Interesting.

I'm trying to upvote generously and mightily restrain my downvoting.

[–]PresbyterianGoMustard 1 ポイント2 ポイント

and this comment was downvoted when I got to it.

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)SleetTheFox 2 ポイント3 ポイント

That explains a lot.

[–]BaptistMichigan__J__Frog 0 ポイント1 ポイント

There really are't that many people in /r/reformed .

[–]PresbyterianGoMustard 0 ポイント1 ポイント

So that's the giant vote swing came from.

EDIT: If there's one thing /r/reformed hates, it's whatever the PC(USA) does.

[–]Southern BaptistTheHandyman1 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Sounds like a well meaning and informed post. Again, tough love is sometimes necessary. We must love everybody, and not ignore the plank in our own eyes, but at the same time, we must be warriors for Christ, not pushovers. This user was wrongly banned, and the votes in this thread prove that.

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)eclectro -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Pretty salty!

[–]Southern BaptistTheHandyman1 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Orr pretty I have a beleife and have read the entire Bible and drawn a conclusion myself?

[–]Christian (Chi Rho)eclectro 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Mat 5:13

[–]totes_meta_bot [score hidden]

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.

[–]Jewishgingerkid1234 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I agree with your view of what the bible's saying on this, but I think it's important to explain why I and others take issue with it, since I like advocating for healthier discourse around here.

Your comments were for the most part all the same. Several of them were just "the bible is clear", or some variation. When that's happening you're just talking past someone. If you want people to agree with you, explain why you're right, just don't say that you're right. And especially don't do it in terms that accuse others of not really being Christian, because that's not even an argument or a statement that you're right, that's just a statement that someone else is wrong.

[–]Christian (Cross)HistoryBuff92 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

Lord, open the open the moderators of /r/Christianity's eyes.

[–]Eastern Orthodoxthephotoman 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Yawn. Gay thread. It's going to suck. I hate these things, both as a user and as a moderator. Seriously, stop pretending that you actually care. You don't. It's all about a culture war that has been going on for a very long time now between two factions of bigots: those that want to cloak their bigotry in abstract principles and those that just want to be up front about it.

Make no mistake: 95% of the people stumping for gay marriage truly do not care about gay people. They're even comfortable with slurs about gay people. These threads invariably show that most of our readers, without regard to flair or position on homosexuality, utterly fail at being Christian. I will be the first to say that I'm chief of those who just suck at being Christian myself.

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)havearemotecontrol 1 ポイント2 ポイント

95% of the people stumping for gay marriage truly do not care about gay people.

I realize it's shaping up to be a long night for you mods, but really - this seems both unfair and inaccurate, unless you have statistics or something.

[–]Eastern Orthodoxthephotoman 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Just read this thread.

Only one person here is talking about how this decision affects his life. One. The rest of the people here are circlejerking about how this is a sign of the end times or a massive step forward. Even the gay people in this thread are not talking about how they're happy they can finally commit to someone they've loved and live openly and without shame about it. And those that oppose gay marriage are only saying that the PCUSA has fallen into heresy--they're not talking about anything related to why the Church has, until very recently, entirely opposed the validity of same sex sex acts. There's been an attempt to claim that "gay" is new or something. No, even amongst the ancient Greeks and Romans, there were people that would flout social norms and live in a committed, sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Human nature hasn't changed. The Church was aware of this from the beginning. And yet, She has still denounced it.

No. Nobody cares about the faith because despite spending their lives in church, they don't understand its teachings or how they relate to each other. Nobody cares about gay people--they're just an abstract concept. They care about winning a battle in the ongoing culture war--a war that started a long time ago and predates European settlement in this country by a fair amount.

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)havearemotecontrol 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I don't feel inclined to bring details of my personal experiences or those of dear friends into this mess, only for people to use that as ammunition against my motives. Why would others?

[–]Christian (Cross)HistoryBuff92 0 ポイント1 ポイント

My comment was only, like, 5% serious. It was mostly a William Tyndale joke/reference. ;)

[–]Christian (Cross)InspiredRichard -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Edit: Just so everyone knows where your moderators stand, I got banned from posting as a result of this comment thread.

You say that like it is a surprize

[–]Southern BaptistTheBluestDevil -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Ha. It apparently was to some people. Somehow.

[–]Roman CatholicJames_Locke -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

"I guess consider this a warning ."

really? that mod is pathetic.