• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Episcopalians Vote to Allow Gay Marriage in Churches

Then they are free to remain Methodists.

It is like if I wanted to remain Catholic, but insisted that in order for me to remain Catholic, the Catholic Church needed to adopt Sola Scriptura... .

The rejection of Sola Scriptura by the Catholic and the various Orthodox churches mirrors Judaism. In addition, Christ was not a Sola Scriptura teacher. If he was, then he would have needed to allow the adultress to be stoned, probably would not have asked the Samaritan woman for a drink of water and would not have allowed the disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath.
 
Last edited:
I actually know all about that and have studied the evidence concerning doubts that the Bible actually says anything at all about homosexuality. Few are willing to dive into such a study and doubt the translation they hold, but that really isn't the point. Clearly some churches will marry same sex couples. There will be no governmental force to make that happen.
 

Well, that's a debate for elsewhere, but also irrelevant to the point.
 

Considering there are so many different denominations, and the reasons why there are so many different denominations (different interpretation of the meaning of scripture)...

NOBODY can claim that another denomination is not following scripture, as all of them view scripture differently.

You can claim that a specific church isn't following "Baptist Principles" for example, if they go against what the baptists as a whole believe in when it comes to scripture..

But you can't claim that "EVERYONE WHO ISN'T METHODIST IS WRONG" or something similar.....
 

OH you didn't know?

All you have to do is ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus Christ into your heart and he will forgive all sins....


Except 'dem damned gays...... Im sure its in the bible somewhere....

It doesn't matter if you've lived a life of sin (except if you are gay, then it matters), you can ask for forgiveness and be forgiven. But don't wait to do it before you die.... You need to do it early enough to be able to contribute to the Church's Coffers first..........
 

The Rev Elizabeth Eaton? Elizabeth? A "Reverend".... How is she a reverend if she is to remain silent?

Clearly they were not following the scripture and teachings of christ anyways..... they are not "real christians" huh Countryboy?
 
:roll: Christ also didn't say anything about rape or pedophilia. He did define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and the New Testament is pretty clear on the subject.

Its also pretty clear on the subject that women need to STFU and make me a sammich...

And that Slaves need to obey their earthly masters and serve them well.
 
Christians in name only. If you don't adhere to scripture, you're a fake. The Bible wasn't meant to be redefined or rewritten...only reread.

Yeah, but there are several versions of the bible with variences in interpretation, and we have how many Christian sects? I mean, if it were all the unbiased, unadulterated truth with only one interpretation, shouldn't there be only one sect of Christianity?
 
Its also pretty clear on the subject that women need to STFU and make me a sammich...

That is incorrect. A direct reading of the text lends itself to the argument that women are not to teach doctrine in Church to mixed-gender groups. Men, if anything, are supposed to serve women to a greater degree than women are supposed to serve men.

And that Slaves need to obey their earthly masters and serve them well.

And that is partially correct. Greek had a single word that covered everything that we would recognize as chattel slavery to bond-servants, similar to the indentured servants who made up many of our early settlers. Paul seems to have written that the latter should obey their masters (Seneca, for example, estimated that most worked off their debts and earned freedom within 7 years), and declared that those who captured / sold chattel slaves were acting in ways antithetical to the faith.

Broadly, Paul was less concerned with the particulars of your physical situation than how you acted in them.
 

Well, yes. :shrug:
 

Far too few seem to understand this.
 

A lot of it has to do with simply dismissing or overlooking certain scripture to fit the cultural mood. It's flat out wrong to do that.

In the case of homosexuality, God is quite clear.
 
A lot of it has to do with simply dismissing or overlooking certain scripture to fit the cultural mood. It's flat out wrong to do that.

In the case of homosexuality, God is quite clear.

Oh, so your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one, yeah? Which Christian sect is the right one?
 
Oh, so your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one, yeah? Which Christian sect is the right one?

:shrug: The Bible is pretty clear on Homosexuality regardless of which interpretation you use.
 
:shrug: The Bible is pretty clear on Homosexuality regardless of which interpretation you use.

Is it? Some sects, or at least this one, doesn't seem to agree. Are they not Christian then? Which Christian is the most Christian of all the Christians? Which one speaks the truth about the Bible?
 
The one who sticks to what the Bible actually says?

Just a guess.
 
Is it? Some sects, or at least this one, doesn't seem to agree. Are they not Christian then? Which Christian is the most Christian of all the Christians? Which one speaks the truth about the Bible?

If a sect of Christians decided that the commandment "thou shall not kill" wasnt really a commandment and strated murdering people would you argue that they are still Christians who just have a different view on the Bible?
 
If a sect of Christians decided that the commandment "thou shall not kill" wasnt really a commandment and strated murdering people would you argue that they are still Christians who just have a different view on the Bible?

It would be up to them, and some Christians do take variations of that, as being Thou Shall not Murder. Meaning that killing in certain circumstances is OK.
 
It would be up to them, and some Christians do take variations of that, as being Thou Shall not Murder. Meaning that killing in certain circumstances is OK.

Thou shall not kill has traditionally meant murder as there are plenty of passages supporting killing in self defense. What Im talking about is if a group of self proclaimed Christians went out and murdered people in cold blood specifically because they claimed no where in the Bible is murdering/killing condemned. Would your opinion be that they are still Christians who just have a different view of the Bible?
 
The Bible doesn't "actually say" anything about same sex marriages

"marriages"?? No, it doesn't get that far....In the Bible to even consider "laying with another of the same sex" is an "abomination" according to the book in numerous places.
 
"marriages"?? No, it doesn't get that far....In the Bible to even consider "laying with another of the same sex" is an "abomination" according to the book in numerous places.

marriage <> sex
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…