I guess I could be wrong, but I thought that inter-racial marriage was thought to be morally wrong. I assume you believe one to be worse morally, but really this is besides my point. My point is that eventually “gay marriage” will just be called “marriage” like “interracial-marriage”. Just like gay people don’t has a gay lunch or take a gay nap the gay in front of marriage is unnecessary.
And what of it? Reasonable people do tend to come to that conclusion and have for over 2 thousand years.
Well, if Matthew Vines says it . . .
So wrong it ain’t even funny. The government defines “civil marriage” which is the legal relationship two people (formerly of the opposite sex in the USA) entered into voluntarily. It was defined by state legislatures until relatively recently when the Supreme Court decided that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton believed in a right to same-sex marriage and wrote that into the Constitution but were too drunk or stupid to tell anyone about it.
)Blown away by the bolded portion of this post.
Which, ironically, overturns Sola Scriptura, because no longer is “Scripture Alone” or sufficient in itself to be the norm for doctrine and teaching. Instead, 21st-century human reasoning is placed in a position above Scripture. Instead of the modern-day church being accountable to the witness of Holy Scripture, this position subordinates Scripture to what “we think” it might’ve/could’ve/would’ve meant if only Paul had the benefit of our standard college Women and Gender Studies course.
Your welcome, Stan.
As I understand it, the Presbyterian Church has been business since the early 1700s or earlier. I further understand that they acknowledge the sovereignty of God and the authority of the Scriptures. As a Catholic I agree: God and Scriptures.
The churches that are being cited in this thread (the PC(USA) and Church of Scotland, the national Presbyterian church of that nation) are not “hardline Protestants.” They are mainline Protestant, which increasingly just means “halfway to Unitarian Universalism.”
In 2010, then Vice Moderator of the PC(USA) the Rev. Landon Whitt stated that “Sola Scriptura is dead.” He went on to say that:
You are correct. It is an innovation that has absolutely no scriptural support. And since sola scriptura also relies on the witness of the historic Church and the Fathers, there is no support there either.
Here Christ provides the proper understanding of marriage. Now, unless someone has another scriptural sources that provides for a different understanding, SSM cannot be justified using the practice of sola Scriptura.
Some churches haves an escape clause for sola scriptura…“conscience”. Which depend on the vote of the day.
:clapping:And what of it? Reasonable people do tend to come to that conclusion and have for over 2 thousand years.
Well, if Matthew Vines says it . . .
So wrong it ain’t even funny. The government defines “civil marriage” which is the legal relationship two people (formerly of the opposite sex in the USA) entered into voluntarily. It was defined by state legislatures until relatively recently when the Supreme Court decided that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton believed in a right to same-sex marriage and wrote that into the Constitution but were too drunk or stupid to tell anyone about it.
Yet, the Church (and I mean any of the churches) and even non-Christian religions have had their own canonical and theological definitions of marriage from before the modern iteration of “gubment” was even thought of.
Quite frankly the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The states were incorporated into this provision by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. So now neither Congress nor the 50 state legislatures can create laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.
Therefore, churches can define marriage however they like and neither you nor Congress nor the Supreme Court can tell any religious group “what marriage is.” Before you reference “separation of church and state,” you might want to actually learn what that means.
For purposes of this conversation, it means that yes churches do have the right to “define what marriage is.”
(As does each individual, by the way, since this is, you know, supposed to be a “free country.”
Isn’t this similar though for a solo scripture(SS)believer when reading and discerning say a verse like 1 Corinthians 11:6
I admire them for at least being honest about what the Bible teaches and honest that they reject it. Unfortunately the Church of Scotland voted oxymoronically to uphold the traditional Christian teaching as the official position of the denomination while allowing individual congregations to ignore it as they wish.
Probably. Mark 10 is crystal clear.
While I have heard individuals make use of this argument about orgies and rape etc in the references to homosexual condemnation I haven’t heard of any liberal academics or intellectuals who have seriously studied the Bible to put forward this view. Do you know any?
There is NOTHING immoral about marrying outside of your race.
The Church is totally fine with marrying a different race. 