Christ Centered Gamer

You can read about it here, if you'd like. I don't know if we have anyone here who identifies with the Presbyterian church, but if you'd like to weigh in on what you think about this decision, feel free to do so!

If they ordained openly gay ministers, may as well marry them too. Not too surprised.

“By overturning natural marriage the PCUSA is only accelerating its already fast-paced demise. It will become even smaller, whiter and older,” he said, according to Charisma News.

Um... I guess?

I suppose it was only a matter of time. It's the same story here. I can remember a while back the Presbytarian synod allowing certain churches to deny the existence of the devil. Of course not insinuating that gay rights are on the same level, but it shows how the church hierarchy is adapting and changing with politics.

However, as far as I know, gays here prefer to attend "gays only" churches, which I can respect totally. Apart from the traditional African communities, the churches here are pretty progressive when it comes to these kinds of issues.

Perhaps, in a broader sense, it's becoming evident that the Presbytarian church is inching towards ecumenism. Much like the Papacy and Roman Catholics under the new pope.

Wilpanzer wrote:I can remember a while back the Presbytarian synod allowing certain churches to deny the existence of the devil.

What, really? That's bizarre. I know it's not related to the topic, but pretending that the enemy isn't there doesn't actually make the enemy go away....

But neither does pretending he exists make him show up.

ArchAngel wrote:But neither does pretending he exists make him show up.

SHOTS FIRED

ChickenSoup wrote:

ArchAngel wrote:But neither does pretending he exists make him show up.

SHOTS FIRED

Hee hee, hardly! Instead, a phrase from Terry Pratchett popped into my head. Unfortunately I can't remember it verbatim and I can't find it on-line, but it runs along the lines of this: Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't believe in you.

But looking at it from a spiritual perspective, I can see a big problem with a Christian church claiming that the devil doesn't exist. Because wasn't it Satan that first prompted man to sin in the first place? It doest take much to start connecting the dots. No devil = no sin = nothing is truly "wrong" = "right" and "wrong," "good" and "evil" are subjective = there are no moral absolutes = what the heck are we doing inside on a nice Sunday morning like this?

One of the best philosophical scenes I've seen. It really gets to me. The devil can be so deceiving that we would not recognize its existence.

EDIT:

If you don't want to see violence, just watch the first few minutes.

Sstavix wrote:Hee hee, hardly! Instead, a phrase from Terry Pratchett popped into my head. Unfortunately I can't remember it verbatim and I can't find it on-line, but it runs along the lines of this: Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't believe in you.

But looking at it from a spiritual perspective, I can see a big problem with a Christian church claiming that the devil doesn't exist. Because wasn't it Satan that first prompted man to sin in the first place? It doest take much to start connecting the dots. No devil = no sin = nothing is truly "wrong" = "right" and "wrong," "good" and "evil" are subjective = there are no moral absolutes = what the heck are we doing inside on a nice Sunday morning like this?

I wasn't being fully direct in my response. Yes, not believing in something doesn't make it go away and believing in something doesn't make it exist. Although, this is kind of true. Pretend monsters can be made real in one's mind and can vanish when you realize they don't exist. Ignoring a real monster is undeniably dangerous, but creating monsters might not seem so dangerous, but in the long run, it can possible be worse.

Point is this, all this talk about "danger" and pretending is beside the point. The existence of the devil needs to be established before we can assert values on stances.

This is a video is by a single atheist advocate and it's production value isn't stellar, but he makes good points.


I don't mean to try to convince you that Satan doesn't exist, only that it's not out of the question that Satan doesn't exist.

And I'll point out, as the video did, the serpent tempted Adam and Eve, not necessarily Satan.

I'm at work right now so I can't watch the videos at this time. I'll try to do that tonight, though! However, as interesting as a discussion about the existence of Satan and moral absolutism vs. moral relativism might be (and probably over my head) it's getting a bit meta for the topic.

I was wondering what people thought the effect would be to the Presbyterians - either as individuals, or as the church as a whole.

One thought that occurred to me was this - by whose authority was this change instituted? To the best of my recollection, there are only two mainstream Christian denominations which are led by individuals who claim to receive direct communication from God in regards to church decisions as a whole. And the Presbyterians aren't one of them.

So did the members of the general assembly all receive visions or messages from Heavenly Father indicating that it was time to reverse a centuries-long standing in regards to homosexuality? We have seen instances of God supposedly "changing His mind" in places in the scriptures (for example, Paul's vision in Acts which allows us Christians to enjoy that miracle what is bacon), so it may not be too far a stretch to argue that the same has happened here. Or would it be more of a decision by the church leaders to try and adopt a more mainstream, politically-correct approach in order to try and attract more members to their churches?

What if those centuries long stance were wrong?
Churches have revoked millenially long stances on slavery. It's not unheard of, and it's certainly not guaranteed that the old way was the good way.

ArchAngel wrote:What if those centuries long stance were wrong?
Churches have revoked millenially long stances on slavery. It's not unheard of, and it's certainly not guaranteed that the old way was the good way.

Nor is the inverse true.

But at least the old ways have a track record that may be examined. And if Yahweh is eternal and unchanging the old ways have a lot going for them.

selderane wrote:

ArchAngel wrote:What if those centuries long stance were wrong?
Churches have revoked millenially long stances on slavery. It's not unheard of, and it's certainly not guaranteed that the old way was the good way.

Nor is the inverse true.

But at least the old ways have a track record that may be examined. And if Yahweh is eternal and unchanging the old ways have a lot going for them.

Ah yes. The good old days of stoning people for breaking the sabbath, enslaving other nations, and forcing rape victims to marry their rapists. So much better than letting those uppity gays marry.

Bruce_Campbell wrote:

selderane wrote:

ArchAngel wrote:What if those centuries long stance were wrong?
Churches have revoked millenially long stances on slavery. It's not unheard of, and it's certainly not guaranteed that the old way was the good way.

Nor is the inverse true.

But at least the old ways have a track record that may be examined. And if Yahweh is eternal and unchanging the old ways have a lot going for them.

Ah yes. The good old days of stoning people for breaking the sabbath, enslaving other nations, and forcing rape victims to marry their rapists. So much better than letting those uppity gays marry.

You could have just said you don't know anything about Biblical history and saved yourself a lot of time.