# leaving Presbyterian USA, anyone else?



## preparing (Aug 4, 2011)

*Save the homophobe label. If you knew me you wouldn't even go there.*

The recent vote by Presbyterian USA to revise its constitution will now read that marriage is "a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman," as opposed to just a man and woman. 

I've stayed until now because they hadn't made it official. My conscience will no longer allow me to do this. 

Is anyone out there going through this tough separation?


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

What is it about that statement the bothers your conscience, if you don't mind my asking?
Jim


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Where will you go?


----------



## preparing (Aug 4, 2011)

*I believe* the Bible is the word of God. Unless someone is trying to find a loop hole, *I believe* it conveys marriage is between a man and a woman.

I am not looking for an argument I am looking for people in my situation and what they are going to do now. What other churches are they considering.

I will not answer any other questions about theology (even if your questions are genuine and are not meant to be argumentative).

This has been and continues to be very difficult for my family.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

It's a chipping away. A camels nose under the flap of the tent. An Abandoning of Christianity for the modern world.


----------



## preparing (Aug 4, 2011)

> Where will you go?


 That is what I am trying to figure out.

(I didn't mean I wouldn't answer any questions. I just don't have it in me to argue and persuade right now. And I love to argue.)


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Probably just as well, since church should be about love, not hate.

Going from 3 million in the 1980's to 1.7 million now, their collection baskets are telling them, it's time for real change.

Keep giving members reasons to leave the church - any reason, and they will leave the church.

It's a shame people can't just love God and each other.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

preparing said:


> marriage is "a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman," as opposed to just a man and woman.


That statement doesn't say a lot about church policy. It doesn't encourage or discourage anything. It just states what they believe has been the traditional meaning of a word. In regard to whether the church sanctions single-sex marriage, is says nothing.

That said, I've always been amazed at how the rights & obligations of marriage are never discussed in open conversation. Many married people don't really understand it until they find themselves in divorce court. I've wondered why high schools don't set up and teach a course in marital rights & obligations, since so few understand it. Are they concerned that nobody would do it if they understood it?


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

My take on "where will you go?" If you remember reading in the Old Testament, after Joshua died, there were the occasional judges and prophets but in whole it was the people, and their king was God himself. (the Levities were teachers of God's law but not really rulers) Samuel was told by the people "we want a king like the other nations" to which God told Samuel, "they haven't rejected you but me." The church I went to, went worldly, so like the ancient Israelites, God is my king and no one else between. I noticed a lot of ministers want to be priests, between God and the people, this was done away with when the veil in the temple was split symbolizing direct access to the holy of holies or God's throne. In the past there were prophets that told the people of the will of God, but we have them today, written down in the Bible. Back then they had no book to reference, we do. So just like then we can have direct access with no minister in between. Thus I stay home and teach my children myself. I rest on my Sabbath day, keep the days that are holy to God and learn directly from the law and the prophets and the New Testament. Sometimes I look online and see what is being taught but be careful not to be lead astray from what I had originally learned as what was right. You can trust God but never put your trust in man. I know what it is like to have the stuffings knocked out of you, a church you learned about God and his ways in, goes to pot. It is sad. Even recently, one of the online places I would look at from time to time, the minister is disappointing, when he was young he was a swimmer, now it looks like he is swimming around the deep end of the pool. Just sad. Reaffirms my belief to stay at home with family and the occasional friend.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That said, I've always been amazed at how the rights & obligations of marriage are never discussed in open conversation. Many married people don't really understand it until they find themselves in divorce court. I've wondered why high schools don't set up and teach a course in marital rights & obligations, since so few understand it. Are they concerned that nobody would do it if they understood it?


You're talking about premarital counselling. Premarital counselling is available through a variety of agencies. The Catholic church requires it and takes it very seriously. Some other churches, although they don't demand it, do recommend and provide it.

It's not all that easy or practical to provide secular premarital counselling courses in high schools as required curriculum but some colleges do offer courses. The point is though that premarital counselling is available to those who want it.


----------



## preparing (Aug 4, 2011)

Thank you BlackFeather. Yours is an answer to the question I asked. I appreciate you taking the time to share.

I forget it isn't just the Presbyterians who have lost their way.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

When we found the church we were members of deciding by one vote to do something very decisive, we with some or our friends, started a small, non-synodical Lutheran church. We hired retired Pastors to preach on Sunday, they had no other responsibilities. It worked very well and we had some wonderful Pastors working with us, and still do.

When the new definition of marriage was forced on one of the local Presbyterian congregations, 85% of the members walked out one Sunday to go to their new church. They started a non-denominational church in a recently closed movie theater. It is very popular.

I think that when the district or national church governing bodies decide that they will redefine anything, the members have an obligation to decide for themselves if this is what they believe and act accordingly.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Eph 4:14 (NLT) Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won't be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

An interesting article addressing the problem you've mentioned, plus some other commentary on social and biblical aspects of the church.

_The Presbyterian Church (USA) is the Radio Shack of church denominations. It&#8217;s been in free fall for so long that it&#8217;s sometimes difficult to believe the church is still around. It makes news only when it makes bad news. This is a church that has long embraced a culture of death by accepting abortion on demand. Indeed, church materials have declared that abortion can even be &#8220;an act of faithfulness before God,&#8221; and church policy states: &#8220;The considered decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be a morally acceptable, though certainly not the only or required, decision.&#8221;
_
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415694/where-god-loves-abortion-and-hates-israel-david-french


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

You know what you believe, you know the churches in your community or ones within driving distance, so start researching them and find one that matches your beliefs. If none do, do as some have suggested and you be the spiritual leader in your household.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Preparing, I have no advice to give as to where to go. Look around and pray. One thing for sure, we would not even stayed for the vote. The simple fact that it was even brought up for a vote would have been enough for us. It is good to see families take a stand.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

If I'm not mistaken , just a few years ago the Presbyterian church was debating whether or not to ordain gay ministers . I'd look for a nondenominational church that taught the bible . Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it & right is right even if nobody is doing it .


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

The Episcopal Church went through this and women's ordination beginning 25+ years ago and folks left like flies. The problem was many people organized their own churches or aligned with out of country dioceses that were very conservative, and then became disillusioned with those bodies and ended up dropping out of organized religion completely. Instead of being driven by love of others and forbearance, many of these groups became driven by "thy shalt not" doctrines, and I really think this caused the demise of many. 

The end result has been a polarized and fractured church (on both sides of the issues) where people really have forgotten the Great Commandment -- Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul and your neighbour as yourself. 

I stayed the course in the Episcopal Church even though I didn't fully agree with all it's decisions, and I'm glad I did. I still become frustrated from time to time, but there isn't any other church I could move to that I'd be any more comfortable with. 

I know this doesn't answer your question -- but I wanted to chime in to say I feel your discomfort and understand it. I wish you the best in whatever decision you end up making.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Our church, Northwest Presbyterian filed to leave the beginning of last year. They are not allowing the separation unless we pay them quite a hefty sum IIRC.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

...then again, the Lord has opened my eyes wider through others, it is just that you have to test that "message" against scripture. Something else that has been hammered into my soul in the past two years is to relax, for to fret about things means that your faith in our Almighty Lord's Plan is not strong. We are to show ourselves before others in a manner that Glorifies God, we don't have to worry what happens from day to day, it is His will. Yes, we will grieve and we will laugh, it is all Him. Live in the moment knowing the He is your Maker, Your Strength, your Everything. He will guide you to the Church that He wants you in and if not then do not fret, for He hasn't changed one iota.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I'm a catholic. We don't know whether homosexuals (man or woman) are made or born that way. Whatever it is, we love them, but consider practicing homosexual ways a sin. If two of them want to join and become a couple, so be it, but don't call it a catholic marriage. We cannot dictate the ways of the state, but we do not have to accept it in the church.

Homosexuality may be a natural thing imposed by birth--we don't know what makes a homosexual. We do, however, know what homosexuals do, and their practices are a perversion of the natural and so unhealthy that many die miserably.

Still further, homosexuals by their nature do not have the same outlook on life and the continuity of life as heterosexuals and should never be allowed to hold public office. 

Now; all those comments deal with the great numbers theory, not individuals. Scattered through the homosexual ranks are individuals of sterling character who would be a credit to any community. I will never forget that when my wife was so terribly ill that it was a homosexual couple on this board who were the first to call and offer aid if needed.

It comes down to "hate the sin, not the sinner".


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Our churchwide allows for gay ministers that are in a relationship.Each congregation can call the minister they want that is on the synod roster.I believe that only a marriage between one man and one woman has God's blessing.I don't care what the state or the other congregations do as long as my congregation is not required to have a minister we don't want.I don't see why you would get worked up unless it had a direct affect on you and your congregation.I will let God do the judging.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

Preparing, 
We left the church of my birth( and Dh's conversion) after we decided we just couldnt attend any more in good faith, i was uncomfortable for a while but waited for GCPete (dh) to make the call. He researched churches online, and he found one that he was comfortable trying out and we got lucky, it was close to home, and held many of our same beliefs. My suggestion is to determine your comfort level with the churches in your area and then try the ones that seem to be the best fit. Ask as many questions as you need to, and determine if what they will want from you is what you are willing to give. While we were trying out a new church, dh's parents were doing the same, they were very comfortable in their new church until they went to a membership meeting, and learned about all the requirements for membership and then they never went back. Walking away is hard but being where you feel you dont belong is even more uncomfortable, it does get easier.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

preparing, is your church doing any real discussion about staying in the PCUSA? My church has been slowly considering this for a few years. If you haven't yet, do some googling on EPC, ECO, and other formations that might sound hopeful to you. 

Like Shine said, there is an incredible amount of money at stake and many legal ties that are not easy to undo. (such a shame, it's way too similar to politics in that way).

I know churches who have pulled out or are in the process. There are a couple alternatives to look into. But it is very, very complex. It's not only money, but physical property in many cases can be taken by PCUSA.

We have folks who have left our church over these issues. BTW there are a few, not just the homosexual thing. They make itty bitty detail word changes that have very serious effect on what people are committed to believing or not.

We also have people whose view is "don't leave. we should stay and work to change the majority opinion in the voting, so that they retract or change back the issues" Again, it's so similar to politics how it works. Representation, votes, majority, etc. When things don't go the way you like, do you look toward the next election? or do you leave the party? 

On a local level, my church is not affected by these changes and is still following beliefs as before. However, it could be only a matter of time until someone wants to challenge our staff with something that, if refused, could get them fired by the presbytery.

I'm afraid the bad news is you are not going to find a perfect organization. But try not to be discouraged! They are made of humans, who are fallible. I know a lot of people who have decided they will just watch a t.v. service or do a Bible study at home rather than tolerate differences with organized worship. But I also believe we are charged with worshiping as a group as well.

I hope you will find something that fits you soon. I know it is very unpleasant if you are having to miss a fellowship you are familiar with and seek a new place.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

............Sodomy , use to be a violation of state law , now , the churches openly endorse such behavior like it was a normal part of a marriage relationship ! So , now we'll have to watch grown men kissing each other like it was a man and a woman . 
............There is a very large percentage of the 'Normal' Population which will , NEVER accept this perverted behavior regardless of what the courts say in the matter ! , fordy


----------



## preparing (Aug 4, 2011)

Thank you all! 

I am a sinner saved by faith in Christ. I take His word as truth and *try* to live my life in accordance.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> It's a chipping away. A camels nose under the flap of the tent. An Abandoning of Christianity for the modern world.


Yes. I suppose it started when some radical, upstart Christians (heretics) started calling for an end to slavery. The Bible says slavery is perfectly OK, yet they went against it. How dare they?


----------



## bigjon (Oct 2, 2013)

seems to me-religion isn't a one size fits all type of garment.clothes are made from many sizes and fibers.god does not care what garment u wear,just that u find one that fits u.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Homosexuality may be a natural thing imposed by birth--we don't know what makes a homosexual. We do, however, know what homosexuals do, and their practices are a perversion of the natural and so unhealthy that many die miserably.


Umm, Ox, you do know that heterosexual couples -- even, gasp, some MARRIED CHRISTIAN ones -- quite happily partake in those same "perverted" acts don't you? In fact, I have rarely met a man who didn't want to engage in one or the other. A few were quite insistent about it! 

Heterosexuality also doesn't confer protection from AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, studies have shown that lesbian women are the LEAST likely to contract a STD, so by your standards (healthfulness), I guess all women should be lesbians, and you guys are just outta luck! ound:


----------



## Whisperwindkat (May 28, 2009)

Yes, I left the Episcopal Church when they made "blessing partnerships" part of church doctrine. Even though they left it up to each diocese as to how they would handle it or whether they would participate or not. I felt like by sitting there on Sundays my actions were saying that it was ok. It is hard. I am or was a cradle Episcopalian and I miss it. We have gone to a Methodist church and it is a nice church for the most part. I like the people, the message is good solid Bible based preaching, my children love it. But is doesn't really feel like church to me. But then I look at myself and maybe I was too caught up in the "rituals of man/church". Maybe I needed this separation. I have thought about going to the Catholic church, but I have way too many problems with that. I have thought about going to the Anglican church instead, but the closest one is over 45 minutes away. That can be tough trying to get young children ready and livestock taken care of. At some point in my life I probably will. Both children were baptized in the Episcopal church and my oldest went through confirmation. My little one doesn't even remember the church hardly. It will be sad not having her go through confirmation. My only advice is to find a church where the message is solid and the people welcoming. It will make the transition a little easier. It is still hard. Even now there is a stink in the Methodist church about the same type of issue. The world is invading into all the churches.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Ozarks Tom said:


> An interesting article addressing the problem you've mentioned, plus some other commentary on social and biblical aspects of the church.
> 
> _The Presbyterian Church (USA) is the Radio Shack of church denominations. Itâs been in free fall for so long that itâs sometimes difficult to believe the church is still around. It makes news only when it makes bad news. This is a church that has long embraced a culture of death by accepting abortion on demand. Indeed, church materials have declared that abortion can even be âan act of faithfulness before God,â and church policy states: âThe considered decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be a morally acceptable, though certainly not the only or required, decision.â
> _
> Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415694/where-god-loves-abortion-and-hates-israel-david-french


If they are leaving this church, because of it's views, where are they going instead?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I was never a strong Catholic, but I remember my last time in the church.

A Catholic mass, has various parts, where the congregation stands, sits, or kneels. It is exactly the same for each and every mass.

It got to to a point, where they were supposed to sit and the entire congregation (hundreds) just froze. I remember thinking " Ok, I have not been to church in 15 years, isn't the the time we are supposed to sit?" 

The Priest stood their dismayed for a bit, them motioning with his hands and a weak smile states, "this is the point where everybody sits".

The congregation, who have attended mass daily or weekly for decades, their heads were somewhere else. Many times it seemed their were just going through the motions.

After many decades they finally started serving after mass breakfast, just to keep the church parking lot from clearing out in 5 minutes.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

This is a very good Christian site. Reading the Bible is very important.

I would welcome hearing anyone finding something not of Biblical origin at this site. http://www.ucg.org/ 

Maybe life choices have always been hard. I am cursed with the propensity to empathize with those of very different circumstances than myself. It can take you down many winding, twisted roads. Staying grounded in one's beliefs is a struggle for me.

http://www.ucg.org/


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> The Bible says slavery is perfectly OK, yet they went against it. How dare they?


Spoken by someone who obviously has a deep grasp on all things Biblical.

(NOT!!)


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bellyman said:


> Spoken by someone who obviously has a deep grasp on all things Biblical.
> 
> (NOT!!)


Bellyman, you might be wrong. Some have a very good understanding of the Bible, but simply do not believe in its supremacy. They will use their understanding to twist the Bible to confuse others, or to make themselves more comfortable in their own belief.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Bellyman, please don't make me quote your holy book to you! :teehee:

Suffice to say that the Bible authorizes slavery, and clearly tells people who are enslaved to be obedient to their masters. Speaking out against the practice, or encouraging slaves to revolt, clearly contradicts the Bible. 

But I do not think American Christians would for one moment tolerate being enslaved, and to heck with what the Bible says they should do! 

Why does it seem so natural to violate Biblical principles where slavery is concerned, yet hew to them in the case of homosexuality?

Or, to put it another way, if America were taken over by a foreign entity, and you were enslaved, would you follow the admonition in 1 Peter 2:18:" Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust"? Or the one in Titus 2:9-10, "Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior." Or would you fight for your freedom with every ounce of your being?

Maybe gay people are fighting for their right to sexually equality in the same way, and to heck with what the Bible says! Can you really blame them? If it were YOUR ox being gored, wouldn't you do the same?


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

The Bible has a lot of history in it. It records a lot of things that were never God's intention for mankind, slavery being one of them. So saying that the Bible says "slavery is ok" is, to me, the equivalent of twisting someone's words to say something they never said.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Ummmm, Willow: Perhaps your experience is wider than mine.
Ox


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The New Testament further underscores the idea of human equality in passages such as Galatians 3:28: âThere is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one man in Christ Jesus.â Jobâs statement regarding his slaveâs equalityâdue to the fact that God formed him in the same way that God formed Job (31:15)âprovides a perfect example of the biblical idea that all men possess the same inherent value. 

The idea that one nation or race is superior to another does not come from the Bible. Racism like that displayed by many during the slavery years of the United States has always been a sin (Acts 17:26-31).

As a concluding argument, let it be clearly stated that the principles set forth by Jesus and His apostles, if followed, would result in the abolition of all types of abusive relationships. 

Slavery would have been nonexistent if everyone from the first century forward had adhered to Jesusâ admonition in Matthew 7:12: âTherefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them.â Any discussion of slavery would be moot if the world had heeded the words of Peter: âFinally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another, love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteousâ (1 Peter 3:8).

From: 
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1587

This is a very long article, and clarity on the subject of slavery is only a factor of one's choice of what to believe.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I don't mean to drift this thread, but I see no evidence that slavery was never "God's intention for mankind." The OT gives rules outlining how slavery can be practiced righteously; the NT admonishes enslaved Christians to be good and faithful servants. Nowhere is the practice condemned. Christian masters aren't even required to free their slaves!

But all that is kind of beside my point, which was that it's easy to say that the rights and freedoms of others ought to be abrogated in accordance with the Bible. It is perhaps less so where one's own rights and freedoms are concerned. No?

Thus I would say that any Christian who insists that homosexuals ought to do as the Bible says, but who wouldn't be willing to serve as a cheerful and obedient slave should the occasion arise, is a hypocrite.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> Ummmm, Willow: Perhaps your experience is wider than mine.
> Ox


I would be willing to bet on that, Ox! ound:


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

HDRider said:


> The New Testament further underscores the idea of human equality in passages such as Galatians 3:28: âThere is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one man in Christ Jesus.â Jobâs statement regarding his slaveâs equalityâdue to the fact that God formed him in the same way that God formed Job (31:15)âprovides a perfect example of the biblical idea that all men possess the same inherent value.
> 
> The idea that one nation or race is superior to another does not come from the Bible. Racism like that displayed by many during the slavery years of the United States has always been a sin (Acts 17:26-31).
> 
> ...



Well said! And thank you!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

*SIGH*

Let me give you another example, then, that might be more to your liking. 

Christ clearly stated, in regard to taxes, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," meaning, pay your taxes and don't make an issue of it. Christians are also told elsewhere to obey their government.

As a Christian, if you faced a truly confiscatory tax rate -- say, 95 percent of your income -- would you be inclined to follow the Bible faithfully and pay up, or would you be defiant?

Another example. Let's say your spouse was an alcoholic, or abusive, or mentally ill, etc., but never unfaithful to you, and thus did not give you Biblical grounds for a divorce. If you were to leave them, would you be content to be celibate for the rest of your life, as doing otherwise would constitute adultery? Or would you defy the Bible, and go on to have a relationship with someone else?

(You see, I think most Christians find it easy to tell gay people that they have to follow the Bible (and too bad if they don't like it!), simply because their religion so seldom requires THEM to make sacrifices or do anything that is difficult or unpleasant! Or, if it does -- as in the case of divorce without Biblical grounds followed by remarriage -- most Christians just ignore what the Bible says and go on their merry way. And as long as they're not gay, churches tend to overlook it, don't they?)


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Bellyman said:


> The Bible has a lot of history in it. It records a lot of things that were never God's intention for mankind, slavery being one of them. So saying that the Bible says "slavery is ok" is, to me, the equivalent of twisting someone's words to say something they never said.


You are 100% correct, but many people consider the Bible to be 100% Gods word, exactly what He wants us to know and follow.
It's not, but many people believe that.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Mankind began to lose it's way when it began setting up it's own hierarchy and rules and taking down the rules Christ set up. 

If a church changes it's rules it is time to reevaluate. 
God has not changed HIS rules, and they are to be our rules. 
For me, any church that puts the Bible at its front with Christ at it's head will do. (You can't accept what God does not when doing this)
I don't care what it's moniker is. 

The first churches were in homes. I see this as a good option when I am not up to leaving home for what ever reason. 
While you evaluate your options and pray, this is an acceptable alternative for your family. 

I hope you find peace in your separation.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> Eph 4:14 (NLT) Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won't be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth.


This sounds so much like we should be afraid of change and learning..Lets all just stay with the program and not think for ourselves...Sheep? My God is all about Love, not hate because someone is different...


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

The horrific things done in the name of religion, are what made me back away...I am a very spiritual person. I believe in loving, and being kind. I believe God loves all of his creations, no matter what...Many men wrote the Bible. Many changes have been made to it...Look how it oppressed women. Did God or Jesus think women were less then animals? When he made our bodies to carry the generations to come? hate should not be a part of religion, but it is.....


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> *SIGH*
> 
> Let me give you another example, then, that might be more to your liking.
> 
> ...



And there was the custom of the year of jubily
Where all debts were forgiven.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

preparing said:


> That is what I am trying to figure out.
> 
> (I didn't mean I wouldn't answer any questions. I just don't have it in me to argue and persuade right now. And I love to argue.)


After many years of living and studying I have decided that almost all churches set up on the "denomination" system are not Biblical. One reason is because the set up a man lead system of authority. The Church (as in the followers of Christ) are not to follow the teachings of man therefore having some 'home office' telling the local assembly what to do and how to do it is wrong. Also it separates the Church. Remember what Paul said in 1 Corinthians? What's the difference is you are saying "I follow the Presbyterian teaching." and someone else saying "I follow the Methodist teaching." and another saying "I follow the Lutheran teachings."?


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> Another example. Let's say your spouse was an alcoholic, or abusive, or mentally ill, etc., but never unfaithful to you, and thus did not give you Biblical grounds for a divorce. If you were to leave them, would you be content to be celibate for the rest of your life, as doing otherwise would constitute adultery? Or would you defy the Bible, and go on to have a relationship with someone else?


I absolutely would remain celibate. Not everything has to revolve around sex. That is only a small part of a good marriage. Some of us really do take things that seriously. My relationship with God is much more important than my relationship with any human. Our time here on earth is a blink compared to eternity.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

I've come to find that I have little in common with most churches of any denomination, these days, because this is not the only issue that's getting compromised and many of them are more subtle (and maybe more dangerous). I choose to have "church" with other believers in a home where everyone can talk, ask and learn instead of being told what to think by the new PC/ government loving criteria of the day.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> *SIGH*
> 
> Let me give you another example, then, that might be more to your liking.
> 
> ...


See Bellyman..


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> After many years of living and studying I have decided that almost all churches set up on the "denomination" system are not Biblical. One reason is because the set up a man lead system of authority. The Church (as in the followers of Christ) are not to follow the teachings of man therefore having some 'home office' telling the local assembly what to do and how to do it is wrong. Also it separates the Church. Remember what Paul said in 1 Corinthians? What's the difference is you are saying "I follow the Presbyterian teaching." and someone else saying "I follow the Methodist teaching." and another saying "I follow the Lutheran teachings."?



Very good advice.
In all things it's important to study God's word for yourself. There are far too many who teach it falsely either through ignorance or malice.
It is especially hard to discern if the teaching has become popularly widespread and accepted.......




willow_girl said:


> *SIGH*
> 
> Let me give you another example, then, that might be more to your liking.
> 
> ...


A classic example, I might add.
Many good Christians have been taught this verse as an endorsement of paying taxes, cut and dried.
The Pharisees certainly swallowed it hook, line and sinker, lol.
Oh how the context of this story reveals so much about it......

If the previous verses were only included when reciting it, the intention of the question would be abundantly clear.

*13And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. 14And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? 15Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.* 16And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's. 17And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.







willow_girl said:


> Another example. Let's say your spouse was an alcoholic, or abusive, or mentally ill, etc., but never unfaithful to you, and thus did not give you Biblical grounds for a divorce. If you were to leave them, would you be content to be celibate for the rest of your life, as doing otherwise would constitute adultery? Or would you defy the Bible, and go on to have a relationship with someone else?
> 
> (You see, I think most Christians find it easy to tell gay people that they have to follow the Bible (and too bad if they don't like it!), simply because their religion so seldom requires THEM to make sacrifices or do anything that is difficult or unpleasant! Or, if it does -- as in the case of divorce without Biblical grounds followed by remarriage -- most Christians just ignore what the Bible says and go on their merry way. And as long as they're not gay, churches tend to overlook it, don't they?)


The hypocrisy defense is never a good one.





willow_girl said:


> Yes. I suppose it started when some radical, upstart Christians (heretics) started calling for an end to slavery. The Bible says slavery is perfectly OK, yet they went against it. How dare they?


Another deception. God in fact says that "man stealing" is a capital offense, in two places preceding the law on the treatment of slaves.
Providing a remedy for sin is not the same as advocating the sin.
Of course knowing what that is all about is the essence of Christianity.



willow_girl said:


> Bellyman, please don't make me quote your holy book to you! :teehee:
> 
> Suffice to say that the Bible authorizes slavery, and clearly tells people who are enslaved to be obedient to their masters. Speaking out against the practice, or encouraging slaves to revolt, clearly contradicts the Bible.
> 
> ...





willow_girl said:


> I don't mean to drift this thread, but I see no evidence that slavery was never "God's intention for mankind." The OT gives rules outlining how slavery can be practiced righteously; the NT admonishes enslaved Christians to be good and faithful servants. Nowhere is the practice condemned. Christian masters aren't even required to free their slaves!


http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-16.htm

"Kidnappers must be put to death, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves."




willow_girl said:


> But all that is kind of beside my point, which was that it's easy to say that the rights and freedoms of others ought to be abrogated in accordance with the Bible. It is perhaps less so where one's own rights and freedoms are concerned. No?
> 
> Thus I would say that any Christian who insists that homosexuals ought to do as the Bible says, but who wouldn't be willing to serve as a cheerful and obedient slave should the occasion arise, is a hypocrite.



True, hypocrisy is vanity.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Members leave and join churches and religious faith sects all the time simply because religious belief is governed by personal belief choices and human free will.

If humans did not possess free will , Judeo -Christian churches would never had developed a few thousand years ago and humanity would not have literally thousands of religious faiths in existence today.

All any of us can do is select the belief choice we are most comfortable with while doing our best not to interfere in others religious choices as long as they don't interfere with ours.


----------



## Werforpsu (Aug 8, 2013)

I grew up PCUSA (still am). As for this issue, I am torn.

I truly do not care what other people do in their own homes. Everyone sins and I don't have the right to judge others on their sins...it's not my job, but GODS!

That being said. I do not feel that the bible supports gay marriage and while I do not care about the legality of it, do not feel it belongs in the church. Law and Church are not the same thing...there are a lot of things that are legal that aren't supported by scripture.

I personally won't be leaving the PCUSA church over this, but I can understand why others would. If you no longer feel comfortable with the direction of your church (and this applies to any church) then you should allow yourself the desire to change your church so that you are being spiritually uplifted by it and not stressed by it.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> I don't mean to drift this thread


I like you willow, but I don't believe this. You and I are not in the target audience for this thread. I have been reading it because it interests me, but the OP specifically asked a particular subset about their experiences so it's only polite to stay out of it if we are not in that subset. Not to say you can't offer your unsolicited opinion, but perhaps this isn't the place for it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Werforpsu said:


> I grew up PCUSA (still am). As for this issue, I am torn.
> 
> I truly do not care what other people do in their own homes. Everyone sins and I don't have the right to judge others on their sins...it's not my job, but GODS!


You are not to judge if they are are not Christians but you are to judge their actions. We are specifically told to judge those who take the name of Christ. 

We quite clearly told to not associate with sexually immoral people. To do this we must judge them based on their actions.

Stronger than that we are told to purge those people from among us. Now how are we to do that without judging them?





Werforpsu said:


> That being said. I do not feel that the bible supports gay marriage and while I do not care about the legality of it, do not feel it belongs in the church. Law and Church are not the same thing...there are a lot of things that are legal that aren't supported by scripture.
> 
> I personally won't be leaving the PCUSA church over this, but I can understand why others would. If you no longer feel comfortable with the direction of your church (and this applies to any church) then you should allow yourself the desire to change your church so that you are being spiritually uplifted by it and not stressed by it.


Let me see if I have this correct. You are willing to support a church which is doing and teaching something you see as unbiblical because its no *too *unbiblical. What if someone told you they were doing something they knew was a sin but wasn't going to stop because it wasn't too big of a sin. What would you say to them?


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Right jtbrandt

I am a life long member of a Presbyterian Church, currently in PCUSA and struggling with same as the OP.

Plenty of good debate here, but I don't believe the OP needs that, and they pretty much said so pages back. Another thread would have been appropriate for someone else to start.

And actually, while Willow and I may disagree on many things, i believe her to be a sincerely caring human. 

Willow I don't think you would have made wisecracks and argumentative statements if this were any other subject than one in contradiction with your personal opinions. preparing asked about alternatives related to leaving a particular organization, not about the beliefs that cause that struggle. Kind of like if you posted that you were thinking of getting away from dairy business due to some new regulations you don't feel you can morally abide. Then someone comes along and posts that cows are not real anyway, they are large dogs with spots. And they don't give milk, they actually give soda. hmmf. How silly have you been? It's totally irrelevant since it's not what you believe, and it didn't help anything.


----------



## Werforpsu (Aug 8, 2013)

watcher said:


> Let me see if I have this correct. You are willing to support a church which is doing and teaching something you see as unbiblical because its no *too *unbiblical. What if someone told you they were doing something they knew was a sin but wasn't going to stop because it wasn't too big of a sin. What would you say to them?


I would tell them that there is no such thing as a small sin and a big sin. no where, that I am aware of, does the bible say that _____ is the biggest sin of all. I would remind them not repenting for a sin = not receiving forgiveness for it.

That being said...I was answering the original question regarding how other PCUSA people feel about the situation. I was trying to be honest and non judgmental about the question. It is a hard decision to leave a church denomination and the off topic comments from many people are not helping the original questioner or any of the rest of us dealing with this in our home churches. if you want to debate theology, which the original poster said they did not want to do,...then start a new thread!


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

watcher said:


> I truly do not care what other people do in their own homes. Everyone sins and I don't have the right to judge others on their sins...it's not my job, but GODS!
> 
> You are not to judge if they are are not Christians but you are to judge their actions. We are specifically told to judge those who take the name of Christ.
> 
> ...


that is like being a little pregnant. It is either biblical or not.


----------



## lhspirited (Jan 31, 2010)

This week I've been extra proud to be associated with the Presbyterian Church. 

I don't remember where I acquired the article below....

"On her radio show, Dr. Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. 

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman,

Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,

Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. (It would be a ---- shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)"


----------



## Werforpsu (Aug 8, 2013)

watcher said:


> Let me see if I have this correct. You are willing to support a church which is doing and teaching something you see as unbiblical because its no *too *unbiblical.


I never said that. I said that *I* would not be leaving my church at this time due to this issue. I am fairly certain that at my little country church this issue will not become a daily problem...we have almost no people, let alone people who want to change the way the church is currently run!


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

It is about a relationship between you and God. Not you and XYZ Church.
As I have stated before, I am not a religious person. And I pray everyday I do not become one.


----------



## V-NH (Jan 1, 2014)

Good luck on your quest to find the right place, OP. God gave us all free will so that we would have a choice regarding our behavior and actions. However, close reading of the scriptures gives us a clear understanding of how we should live our lives if we hope to return to live with Him. Many will stray from those teachings because they have been misled by popular culture or damaged by their experiences, but it is extremely important that those of us who remain committed to living a scriptural life stick to our principles regardless of the criticism laid at our feet. 

Remember, just because everyone was given the free will to make decisions on their own, that does not mean that every decision is acceptable in God's eyes. We shouldn't hate people for making the wrong decisions. In fact, we should love them all the more and offer them that love regularly. However, we are under no obligation to and in fact must never condone making the wrong choice. Politely sticking to our fundamental principles is an essential component of Christianity. Recall the following quotation by Jesus Christ himself:

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."

So, to the OP and others, ignore the criticism and stay your course.

OP: If you're looking for a Christ-centered church, explore www.mormon.org/eng


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

Oh my gosh Ihspirited, that is priceless!


----------



## Werforpsu (Aug 8, 2013)

Miss Kay said:


> Oh my gosh Ihspirited, that is priceless!


And yet it completely ignores the New Testament and the role of Jesus. It is why you cannot pick and choose verses from all over the bible without understanding the rest of it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Werforpsu said:


> I would tell them that there is no such thing as a small sin and a big sin. no where, that I am aware of, does the bible say that _____ is the biggest sin of all. I would remind them not repenting for a sin = not receiving forgiveness for it.


Should you not hold a denomination to the same standard? Would you not agree that there is no small unbiblical teaching?




Werforpsu said:


> That being said...I was answering the original question regarding how other PCUSA people feel about the situation. I was trying to be honest and non judgmental about the question. It is a hard decision to leave a church denomination and the off topic comments from many people are not helping the original questioner or any of the rest of us dealing with this in our home churches. if you want to debate theology, which the original poster said they did not want to do,...then start a new thread!


You can't give advice if you are not willing to be judgmental. After all if you aren't willing to judge something as good/bad or right/wrong or whatever then all you can do is tell them what ever they decide to do is OK.

To me the OP question has a very simple answer, which I thought I gave. You either feel that the group of believers you are associated with are following the teachings of Christ or you don't. If you think they are and like the other things they do/teach then stay with them. If you think what they are teaching is not following the teachings of Christ and are staying with them just because you like other things is a BAD, a very bad, thing to do. 

Maybe its just me but teaching something that you think is unbiblical would reach that point.


----------



## billinwv (Sep 27, 2013)

Werforpsu said:


> And yet it completely ignores the New Testament and the role of Jesus. It is why you cannot pick and choose verses from all over the bible without understanding the rest of it.


Bit of the "pot calling the kettle black" I'd say. Pretty concise to me. Sheep will follow an ignorant shepherd as well as an educated one.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I think the first chapter of Romans spells things out pretty well. I'll stand with that.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

lhspirited said:


> This week I've been extra proud to be associated with the Presbyterian Church.
> 
> I don't remember where I acquired the article below....
> 
> ...


Simple, if you are a Jew then all above it true. There are may other things as well. You can't eat lobster nor catfish. You have to do animal sacrifices. And other things. But as a lot of people don't seem to get there's a BIG difference in Mosaic law and the heart of God, even back in the OT. There are several places in the OT where God tells His people He wants them to give them their hearts not just follow the letter of the law. Read Isaiah and Psalm 51 puts it fairly bluntly.

Now when it comes to Christians its a completely different ball of wax.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Hmm the whole sheep shepherd thing bugs me. 
As a Christian I am a sheep and Christ is my shepherd.

While I can and do think for myself I still must follow what Christ says. All of it. 
He fulfilled the old law for me then said now do this.

Regardless of what the gov or a denomination says I and all who truly call on Christ must obey him.
It doesn't matter if the topic is gay marriage, divorce or lying about ones age. Christ is the first and last authority. 
Therefore any denomination that changes their rules on things Christ commands is not a true church.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Werforpsu said:


> I never said that. I said that *I* would not be leaving my church at this time due to this issue. I am fairly certain that at my little country church this issue will not become a daily problem...we have almost no people, let alone people who want to change the way the church is currently run!


I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood you when you posted in post #55 of this thread; _"__I grew up PCUSA (still am)." __and  __ "I do not feel that the bible supports gay marriage" _and_ "I personally won't be leaving the PCUSA church over this,"

_Silly little old me, I just thought that if you are in the PCUSA church and this was unbiblical and would not be leaving it over this then you are perfectly willing to continue to be in a church which you thought was teaching something unbiblical.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

lhspirited said:


> This week I've been extra proud to be associated with the Presbyterian Church.
> 
> I don't remember where I acquired the article below....
> 
> ...


Bellyman, again, using what knowledge they have to mislead and justify THEIR sense of right.


----------



## Werforpsu (Aug 8, 2013)

Most people here just want to fight and bicker. You all don't care that you have taken this thread and turned it into something that the OP asked you not to. You just want to debate homosexuality which wasn't the point at all. I didn't realize the heated debate when I responded. I looked at the OP question and answered my opinion. It wasn't until after I had formed my response and submitted it I saw the nastiness of people's responses. 

I will not debate theology. The OP asked us not to. If that person is still reading I will give one last nugget of advice before I NEVER open this thread again. -pray and trust in your heart. Being a Christian is soooo much more then the four walls of the church. Leaving a denomination is hard and many people don't understand that. When you are a third or fourth generation not just in the denomination but in THAT VERY CONGREGATION it is a deeply emotional thing to consider leaving. It's like disowning family that loves you. I hope that you come to a decision which lightens the burden you feel on your heart. GOD will lead you if you let him. 
-blessings


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

LOL... There are those that cannot see. You see, you do not come to God unless He calls you first. It is not your choice. It is His. If it were us that chose Christ then there would be some Glory for us to claim. There is none. Some would quote the Old Testament laws as laws for us. The Old Testament laws were for the Glorification of God Himself. He gave the Jews ways to please Him. It was for a reason, you see, the pious Jews that followed ALL of what was written still could not make themselves Righteous by their OWN actions, they could not become "Sinless" - God is so Holy that He cannot even be on the planet with a sinner. The Old Testament was the first Covenant, Jesus Chris brought the New Covenant. He said, these are the greatest commands: You will love your God with all of your mind, body and strength, next, you will love your neighbor as yourself. Satan will try to mix things up so those that have not the eyes to see are more against those that follow Christ. Go ahead those of you that will say the Old Testament is the way of Christ, you are wrong, the first Covenant has been fulfilled, we are in the New Covenant. I guess you could not see that...

ETA: I have people that call me a friend that are Gay, I call them my friend. It is not for me to change them, it is for me to allow them to see someone that tries to love with the Love of Christ. So often, I fall so short...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

lhspirited said:


> This week I've been extra proud to be associated with the Presbyterian Church.
> 
> I don't remember where I acquired the article below....
> 
> ...






There are so many errors in this professor's letter that all I can say once again is to read the word for yourself rather than depend on someone else trying to tell you what it says.
The previous 2 chapters in Leviticus tells of how God feels about slavery and the treatment of the poor, the main reason a man sold _himself or his children_ into slavery........to pay a debt. This was abhorrent to God and He spent many verses saying exactly that BEFORE the treatment of such slaves was discussed.

Most of the quoted passages in Leviticus used to ridicule modern Christians were rules of the Priesthood, not the general public, like the hair, beards and the physical infirmities. 
Quoting them out of that context is a common way to make fun of those who do believe in God and the bible.




watcher said:


> Simple, if you are a Jew then all above it true. There are may other things as well. You can't eat lobster nor catfish. You have to do animal sacrifices. And other things. But as a lot of people don't seem to get there's a BIG difference in Mosaic law and the heart of God, even back in the OT. There are several places in the OT where God tells His people He wants them to give them their hearts not just follow the letter of the law. Read Isaiah and Psalm 51 puts it fairly bluntly.
> 
> Now when it comes to Christians its a completely different ball of wax.



I wish you hadn't said that.
Just as I did to Willow, I have to correct you when you mistakenly state that Christian law is somehow different from Jewish law.
I really wish the next time some fool behind a pulpit opens his mouth to say something like that he would ask himself one question first.

What did Jesus do?
You know, the One who you believe in and follow?
What did He do?




Shine said:


> Go ahead those of you that will say the Old Testament is the way of Christ, you are wrong, the first Covenant has been fulfilled, we are in the New Covenant. I guess you could not see that...


You may want to look up the definition of "covenant" before saying anything else. When you find out it means everlasting and permanent you'll realize that what has been taught by some, can't possibly be true.





Werforpsu said:


> Most people here just want to fight and bicker. You all don't care that you have taken this thread and turned it into something that the OP asked you not to. You just want to debate homosexuality which wasn't the point at all. I didn't realize the heated debate when I responded. I looked at the OP question and answered my opinion. It wasn't until after I had formed my response and submitted it I saw the nastiness of people's responses.
> 
> I will not debate theology. The OP asked us not to. If that person is still reading I will give one last nugget of advice before I NEVER open this thread again. -pray and trust in your heart. Being a Christian is soooo much more then the four walls of the church. Leaving a denomination is hard and many people don't understand that. When you are a third or fourth generation not just in the denomination but in THAT VERY CONGREGATION it is a deeply emotional thing to consider leaving. It's like disowning family that loves you. I hope that you come to a decision which lightens the burden you feel on your heart. GOD will lead you if you let him.
> -blessings


While I respect your views that the OP did not want a debate, your analogy about leaving a congregation is like disowning a family member is accurate.
And Jesus answered THAT question as well, didn't He?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Werforpsu said:


> And yet it completely ignores the New Testament and the role of Jesus. It is why you cannot pick and choose verses from all over the bible without understanding the rest of it.


It was addressed to a Jewish radio personality - Jews do not follow the New Testament.


----------



## Jlynnp (Sep 9, 2014)

plowjockey said:


> Probably just as well, since church should be about love, not hate.
> 
> Going from 3 million in the 1980's to 1.7 million now, their collection baskets are telling them, it's time for real change.
> 
> ...


Amen!!


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Bellyman, again, using what knowledge they have to mislead and justify THEIR sense of right.


It's hard to know what to say. If someone read one paragraph from page 3, 16, 39, 62 and 121 from the book Moby Dick and tried to make the whole book about what they had read, it would be difficult to have an intelligent conversation about the book Moby Dick.

As for the OP, I feel for her. It is heartbreaking when you learn that the church that you love is going in a direction you don't believe is right. I would encourage her to continue to spend time with her Bible and seek out those who believe as she has read to be right and good and true. There are good people out there that love the Lord with all their hearts and want to obey as He has instructed us in His word. Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." I believe if you will allow the Lord to lead you, He will lead you to a group of believers that desire to follow the teachings of Jesus whether they are popular or not.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

If y'all think all that God is, is love, y'all are selling God mighty short.

God is a lot more than love. At times, he has been terrible and swift vengeance. In a coming time, He will be the ultimate judge of men and will cast many of them to Hell.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

FarmrBrown, I lovingly call your attention to Hebrews 8:13

13 By calling this covenant &#8220;new,&#8221; he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

A Presby pastor, who I have long debated the gay issue with:

https://www.facebook.com/dwain.lee


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Shine said:


> FarmrBrown, I lovingly call your attention to Hebrews 8:13
> 
> 13 By calling this covenant &#8220;new,&#8221; he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.



Yes, I hear you and agree.

By reading from verse 1 of chapter 8 until you get to verse 13, you then discover what that new covenant is, and when it goes into effect.
Surely, you don't think that God has written His word on everyone's heart and they know all of His law at this point in time, do you?
That point in time is written of, in the book of Revelation, and is yet a little while coming.

The great misunderstanding between Jews and Christians about the law is the blood sacrifice.
Every year at the day of atonement, an unblemished lamb was to be sacrificed on the alter of God and its blood used to cleanse the people's sin.
That was the intent, but as we all know, that never actually took place because the perfect lamb was yet to be born, until 2,000 years ago.
That's the reason Jesus went back to all the ancestors that died before, to offer this new covenant to them, during the 3 days in the tomb.

THAT is the new covenant. 
Forgiveness of sin, not with the blood of an animal that was imperfect, but from a man who was.
That was the fulfilling of the old and the making of the new, from that moment on. 
That, and the tearing of the veil so that all may approach God individually, because we have all been truly cleansed with perfect blood.
The law never changed, then or now.

I realize the council of Nicene did a great disservice to Christians in 335 A.D., like changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and ignoring much of the Torah in order to separate themselves from the Jews.
And correcting 1700 years of false teaching is too big a task for a mere mortal like me, but as the passage you quoted says, One day His law will be written our hearts and we will all know it.:goodjob:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I wish you hadn't said that.
> Just as I did to Willow, I have to correct you when you mistakenly state that Christian law is somehow different from Jewish law.
> I really wish the next time some fool behind a pulpit opens his mouth to say something like that he would ask himself one question first.
> 
> ...


Christian law *IS* different from "Jewish law". A Jew who has not accepted that Christ is the messiah is bound by the Mosaic law. He must follow the law when it comes to what he can eat, to clean himself is he does something which makes him "unclean" and all the other things.

That was the law Christ freed us from, not God's law. Which Christ said when He was asked what was the most important. Put briefly; love God completely and love others. And its not loving to look at someone who is in harm's way and doing nothing to help them.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

I think part of the disconnect folks lose site of is this.
The Mosaic law was a law of the physical, flesh based.

God's law, given us by Christ is a law of the spirit. 

Remember Christ gave the example that to think a thing equaled doing that thing.

Which is why folks get hung up on old and new law.
Old = physical New = Spiritual


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> Christian law *IS* different from "Jewish law". A Jew who has not accepted that Christ is the messiah is bound by the Mosaic law. He must follow the law when it comes to what he can eat, to clean himself is he does something which makes him "unclean" and all the other things.
> 
> That was the law Christ freed us from, not God's law. Which Christ said when He was asked what was the most important. Put briefly; love God completely and love others. And its not loving to look at someone who is in harm's way and doing nothing to help them.



True.
The law is the same, the resulting *punishment* for not obeying now has a redemption, for those who believe in Jesus.
Paul goes to great lengths to explain this in Romans ch. 7 and Galatians ch. 3.
I will call attention to Galatians 3:10 to confirm what I said was true about whether the law has changed or not and whether Christians are "exempt" from following the law. Continue reading until the end of the chapter.
You will then see what Paul, an expert on the Torah and a Jew, had to say about the law and covenants.
This is the falsehood that rears its head every year at this time, when people go get a ham, color eggs and participate in a ritual first instituted as a spring fertility celebration to the goddess Ishtar.
I am not under condemnation for doing that for many years, I am forgiven.
But that does NOT mean that since I now know the truth, that I am exempt from following Christ, who IS the Word of God.


----------



## karenp (Jun 7, 2013)

following and looking for suggestions as well.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Exactly Farmer, it is the intent in one's heart that I believe is the crux of the matter. We do not know why an individual does this or does that, God does. God shows us things in His time frame. When he sinks that knowledge into someone's heart, yes heart, not mind, then you will see, by the intent of that "knowing" individual through their actions. We will never shed the title of "sinner" but if we seek to maintain the straight and narrow in all we do then our burden is all the lighter.

The Jews of Jesus's time had turned the Law into a ritual to be followed for the sake of following the Law, they lost sight of the fact that the Mosaic Law was for the Glorification of God, not the elevation of mankind...


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> It was addressed to a Jewish radio personality - Jews do not follow the New Testament.


 Orthodox jews have yet to accept Jesus as the messiah, "true"
Messianic jews however have seen the light. And do follow the New Testament.
Someone mentioned, We don't call on Him till first He calls us. Also true,
Jew or gentile.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

The PCUSA has been on the downslide for decades, since they started denying the virgin birth along with a few other things.

That is why the PCA was formed. Conservative, prolife, pro Biblical marriage, etc. look at their website at www.pcanet.org. This is the Presbyterian Church in America. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (www.opc.org) is even more conservative than the PCA. They are more basic in their worship, don't care for frills.

I think every denomination needs to be vigilant. Liberalism has had infiltration of the church as a major goal for decades. It seeps in slowly without many noticing, usually by the hands of just a few determined individuals who are dedicated in their mission and know what they're doing.

We attend a PCA church. Even there many of us are fighting some attempted infiltrations. Again, vigilance over complacency. No church is immune.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Personally I believe gays were born that way, and so to call them sinners because of that is, for me, is the equivalent of calling someone with a disease or a handicap a sinner. Can't do it, and won't do it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Personally I believe gays were born that way, and so to call them sinners because of that is, for me, is the equivalent of calling someone with a disease or a handicap a sinner. Can't do it, and won't do it.


Not being snide but what about other non-traditional sexual preferences, specifically pedophiles. Are they born that way?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> Not being snide but what about other non-traditional sexual preferences, specifically pedophiles. Are they born that way?


 Maybe they are, but that is no excuse, because their behavior clearly injures another party. 2 gays in a consensual relationship do not.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Maybe they are, but that is no excuse, because their behavior clearly injures another party. 2 gays in a consensual relationship do not.


Says you.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Read Romans 1 starting at 26. God calls it unnatural.


----------



## ceresone (Oct 7, 2005)

My problem, is my faith declared a marriage is between a man and a woman, period! The idea of marriage was to procreate, and populate the world. This has been done extremely well. the church is about love, and we should love each other-which I agree with--HOWEVER, I have grandchildren of a different persuasion, and even tho I keep my mouth shut to avoid dissension, I feel guilty that I don't speak my mind. GOD is all about love, and I agree, I just think its been carried too far. After all, I love my children--and I love my animals too-and if I should ever remarry, which I wont, it would certainly be to a man


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

That is the beauty of the situation. We are not in "charge" of others, we, who have been called, are only charged with telling others of that which we have received. We are not here to change others, they too are in God's plan. God might direct us to them, or them to us. He might use us to change them, He might use them to change us. When He does this we have to remember that this too is in His plan. So, in my case, when evil presents itself I am to confront it with love not allowing it to overcome me, all the while reflecting the light that is shining upon me. It really takes a lot of the burden off of one's soul knowing that God really does not need my help, that He's already got it covered. I just have to love Him and others, consider that, it is easy to love friends, it is to us to love even those that are not friends. When you start following this path, you find that there is a lot more beauty in this world than you have ever seen...


----------



## Belldandy (Feb 16, 2014)

preparing said:


> *Save the homophobe label. If you knew me you wouldn't even go there.*
> 
> The recent vote by Presbyterian USA to revise its constitution will now read that marriage is "a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman," as opposed to just a man and woman.
> 
> ...




I was never a member, but I fully support and understand your decision. No matter how anyone tries to redefine marriage, it has been and will always be between one man and one woman.


----------



## wogglebug (May 22, 2004)

Just a comment: the decisions made are not necessarily the decisions of the entire Presbyterian Church. That Church works on a large scale - national in some countries, state-by-state in others. However, it isn't THE (entire Universal or even Worldwide) Church. So, if the Presbyterian Church of the USA decides to declare something, the Presbyterian Church worldwide has not done the same thing. In fact, as far as I can see neither has the USA Church - they've just said that local groups can decide based on their own consciences. I'll also comment that most of the Presbyterian congregations I've ever known would be equally at home as Church Of Christ congregations, and their members would also find congenial homes there (although not necessarily in a particular congregation), or in Dutch Reformed or even Lutheran congregations. Heck, as you can tell, I'm fairly strongly (non-USA) Presbyterian, and I've found a happy home at times with even Anglican (your Episcopal) churches - a lot of it depends on the boundaries they set, and a lot more on the choices they enable me to make.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Maybe they are, but that is no excuse, because their behavior clearly injures another party. 2 gays in a consensual relationship do not.


My point is if one 'unusual' sexual behavior is genetic then, as you seem to accept, all of them are therefore do we not have to accept them as well? Using a slightly milder example. Would you not have to allow an exhibitionist have sex in public (or at least on his private property but exposed to other's view)? After all what clear injury would he/they be causing to another party?

Another point is where do you put the line of genetic program and mental illness?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wogglebug said:


> Just a comment: the decisions made are not necessarily the decisions of the entire Presbyterian Church. That Church works on a large scale - national in some countries, state-by-state in others. However, it isn't THE (entire Universal or even Worldwide) Church. So, if the Presbyterian Church of the USA decides to declare something, the Presbyterian Church worldwide has not done the same thing. In fact, as far as I can see neither has the USA Church - they've just said that local groups can decide based on their own consciences. I'll also comment that most of the Presbyterian congregations I've ever known would be equally at home as Church Of Christ congregations, and their members would also find congenial homes there (although not necessarily in a particular congregation), or in Dutch Reformed or even Lutheran congregations. Heck, as you can tell, I'm fairly strongly (non-USA) Presbyterian, and I've found a happy home at times with even Anglican (your Episcopal) churches - a lot of it depends on the boundaries they set, and a lot more on the choices they enable me to make.


Does the local church get support and/or support the national? Does it get its teaching material from them? Does part of its income go to them? Are its leaders ordained by them? 

If the answer to any of theses is yes then the local church is just as responsible as the national one.

Plus they are tarred with the brush. You say you are Presbyterian people are going to assume that you support gay marriage just because you are a member of the group.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Watcher
Your mental illness question seems to have a ever-changing answer. 

Those with an agenda look to refine that.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Watcher
> Your mental illness question seems to have a ever-changing answer.
> 
> Those with an agenda look to refine that.


Not really. Abnormal sexual desire/behavior (just like any other abnormal behavior) must come from one of three places: A) Its a choice. B) Its genetic. C) Its a mental illness/problem.

If you believe one abnormal sexual desire is genetic then would not logic say that all of them are?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

ceresone said:


> My problem, is my faith declared a marriage is between a man and a woman, period!


 First off, you're faith is YOUR faith. Obviously not everyone agrees with it.
And if you're that worried about who marries who, there is a simple solution for you, don't marry a gay person. See how easy that was? Now you enjoy your faith-based repopulate the world marriage, and the gay folks can have their marriage. Why so quick to deny them the same freedom you enjoy?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> Not really. Abnormal sexual desire/behavior (just like any other abnormal behavior) must come from one of three places: A) Its a choice. B) Its genetic. C) Its a mental illness/problem.
> 
> If you believe one abnormal sexual desire is genetic then would not logic say that all of them are?


 You're saying gay folks are mentally ill?? Thats a bit of a stretch. 
I don't know what causes it, but the folks I knew as kids who turned out to be gay were pretty much that way since kindergarten, WAY before any of us knew much of anything about sex and attraction. This leads me to believe they were already inclined in that direction.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> You're saying gay folks are mentally ill?? Thats a bit of a stretch.


Why? If someone had a sexual attraction to a Ford trucks and ONLY Ford trucks would you not think they had a mental problem? 

Like it or not the "normal" or "natural" sexual attraction is for the opposite sex because the reason for sex in nature is procreation of the species. 




greg273 said:


> I don't know what causes it, but the folks I knew as kids who turned out to be gay were pretty much that way since kindergarten, WAY before any of us knew much of anything about sex and attraction. This leads me to believe they were already inclined in that direction.


And again I have to ask why do you think this is? Was it genetic or environmental or mental/emotional?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> And again I have to ask why do you think this is? Was it genetic or environmental or mental/emotional?


 I have no idea. Probably a combination of factors. Still no reason to call them sinners.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> I have no idea. Probably a combination of factors. Still no reason to call them sinners.


So you think someone who has a sexual attraction to Ford trucks could have just been born with that attraction?

It is if you are a Jew or Christian. If you are not then you can call them whatever you like.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

watcher said:


> So you think someone who has a sexual attraction to Ford trucks could have just been born with that attraction?
> 
> It is if you are a Jew or Christian. If you are not then you can call them whatever you like.


I am a bit confused. Are you trying to equate being gay to being sexually attracted to an inanimate object?

If you are I can't figure out if that is totally bizarre or totally offensive


----------



## newfieannie (Dec 24, 2006)

well I like ford trucks myself. I don't think it's got anything to do with sexual attraction though. course I could be wrong. ~Georgia


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> So you think someone who has a sexual attraction to Ford trucks could have just been born with that attraction?
> 
> It is if you are a Jew or Christian. If you are not then you can call them whatever you like.


I have a good friend who is only attracted to and dates redheads. Was he born that way? Was his first babysitter a redhead? Did he eat too many red M&Ms as a child? Is he mentally ill because of his fixation? I don't know and I don't care. It's between him and those he dates or doesn't.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

keenataz said:


> I am a bit confused. Are you trying to equate being gay to being sexually attracted to an inanimate object?
> 
> If you are I can't figure out if that is totally bizarre or totally offensive


Sigh. . . Its simple homosexuality is by definition an abnormal sexual desire based on the fact that it does lead to the continuation of the species. You view is they are born that way and we should just accept it/them. I'm just trying to get you to think about that point of view by pointing out there are a LOT of abnormal sexual desires (aka paraphilia) out there and once you accept one as 'normal' then logically you'd have to accept all of them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

watcher said:


> Sigh. . . Its simple homosexuality is by definition an abnormal sexual desire based on the fact that it does lead to the continuation of the species. You view is they are born that way and we should just accept it/them. I'm just trying to get you to think about that point of view by pointing out there are a LOT of abnormal sexual desires (aka paraphilia) out there and once you accept one as 'normal' then logically you'd have to accept all of them.


Watcher. Some will never get it. They will peck at you until they drive you crazy.

Lots of people are born with wires crossed and circuits shorted out. I am sure no neurologist, but I understand the brain as an electrically driven organ. We may never understand why some little connections behave the way they do in our brain.

I don't want to stone homos, but I will never view that as normal human behavior. Sure homos exist. Always have. So do other abnormalities. Just a fact of life.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Watcher. Some will never get it. They will peck at you until they drive you crazy.
> 
> Lots of people are born with wires crossed and circuits shorted out. I am sure no neurologist, but I understand the brain as an electrically driven organ. We may never understand why some little connections behave the way they do in our brain.
> 
> I don't want to stone homos, but I will never view that as normal human behavior. Sure homos exist. Always have. So do other abnormalities. Just a fact of life.


The point is a lot of people with crossed wires can be rewired. People who hear voices, schizophrenia, can get medication which stops the voices. People who have short circuits which make them 'need' to wash their hands every 10 minutes can have those circuits replaced with therapy.

The choice, genetic or mental issue question must be addressed. If its a choice or mental issue it must be handled completely differently that if its a genetic one.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

watcher said:


> The point is a lot of people with crossed wires can be rewired. People who hear voices, schizophrenia, can get medication which stops the voices. People who have short circuits which make them 'need' to wash their hands every 10 minutes can have those circuits replaced with therapy.
> 
> The choice, genetic or mental issue question must be addressed. If its a choice or mental issue it must be handled completely differently that if its a genetic one.


Maybe. 

I think some people are wired for violence too. We have no method to rewire them.

Read Genes for susceptibility to violence lurk in the brain at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1458834/


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> Sigh. . . Its simple homosexuality is by definition an abnormal sexual desire based on the fact that it does lead to the continuation of the species.


A lot of things humans do, do not lead to continuation of the species, are they all abnormal?

Ever have protected sex? did you wife/partner ever use birth control? Ever have sex outside your partners fertile period?
Is that abnormal?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> A lot of things humans do, do not lead to continuation of the species, are they all abnormal?
> 
> Ever have protected sex? did you wife/partner ever use birth control? Ever have sex outside your partners fertile period?
> Is that abnormal?


That is normal.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Maybe.
> 
> I think some people are wired for violence too. We have no method to rewire them.
> 
> ...


Maybe or maybe not. Some people with anger or violent tendencies can be rewired to channel them in other ways. Mental training and psychology is a strange thing.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> A lot of things humans do, do not lead to continuation of the species, are they all abnormal?
> 
> Ever have protected sex? did you wife/partner ever use birth control? Ever have sex outside your partners fertile period?
> Is that abnormal?


The key is if it is the only way you can become sexually aroused. If you could ONLY have sex is those were the cases then you'd have a problem.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

watcher said:


> Maybe or maybe not. Some people with anger or violent tendencies can be rewired to channel them in other ways. Mental training and psychology is a strange thing.


I think you only have to look at our incarceration rate, and especially the recidivism of violent offenders to realize our wiring methods are found lacking.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> The point is a lot of people with crossed wires can be rewired.


 Yes, there is hope for bigots. Unless its genetic, of course.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I think you only have to look at our incarceration rate, and especially the recidivism of violent offenders to realize our wiring methods are found lacking.


Anyone who has had ANY dealing with our "justice" and prison systems can tell you there is no 'rewiring' going on. AAMOF, in the last many decades any attempt at such actions have been, basically, ruled unconstitutional. In most cases you can't even make a mentally ill person take the meds he needs to say 'sane'.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Yes, there is hope for bigots. Unless its genetic, of course.


Quite a bit of hope for them. Bigotry has been shown to be a combination of environmental and choice. Someone raised in a bigoted environment will grow up to believe in it. When shown differently they must then make a choice to remain so.

Think about this. Its not normal for a person to eat paper. Yet if placed in a situation where there is no food people will eat paper in order to get some possible nutrition plus to reduce their hunger pains. But when place back in a normal situation they will stop eating paper therefore they show they do not have a mental disorder.

On the other hand some people in a normal situation eat paper, LOTS of paper. They will eat paper rather than eating 'normal' food to the determent of their health. These people *are* considered to have a mental disorder.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

I think the problem with churches picking and choosing what to believe in the bible and the congregation knows it's not a salad bar .The other is i'm willing to die for my faith and beliefs and the liberals know this and want me to die because they don't agree.Kill the troglodyte.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

HDRider said:


> That is normal.


Not according to watcher.

However let me ask you, if its ok for a male and female to have sex just for fun with no chance of precreation, whats wrong with 2 males or 2 females having sex just for fun?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> The key is if it is the only way you can become sexually aroused. If you could ONLY have sex is those were the cases then you'd have a problem.


Sorry, I'm not understanding what you are saying.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

michael ark said:


> I think the problem with churches picking and choosing what to believe in the bible and the congregation knows it's not a salad bar .The other is i'm willing to die for my faith and beliefs and the liberals know this and want me to die because they don't agree.Kill the troglodyte.


Yep. I tell people there are "churches" which go through the Bible with a highlighter and a black marker. They highlight the parts they like and black out the parts they don't. They highlight the don't judge part but they black out the part about how AFTER you have removed the log from your eye. And they highlight the parts about how loving God is but black out the parts where it talks about how righteous and vengeful He is.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Sorry, I'm not understanding what you are saying.


Hum. . .I thought I was fairly clear. I'll try again.

If you find socks erotic and get extra aroused when your spouse wears them during sex you do not have a problem. If the ONLY way you can get aroused is if they are wearing socks then you have a problem. You can replace the need to wear socks with almost anything. Its the need for the thing which indicates the problem.

Understand it now?


----------

