UK United Reformed Church Votes to Allow Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ in Houses of Worship

United Reformed Church Cheshire PD-compressedSOUTHPORT, U.K. — The United Reformed Church (URC) in the United Kingdom has overwhelmingly voted to allow same-sex “weddings” to be held in houses of worship.

“Today the URC has made an important decision at which some will rejoice and with which others will be uncomfortable,” General Secretary John Proctor said in a statement. Those of our churches who now wish to offer full marriage services to same-sex couples are free to do just that, and those churches who do not wish to are not compelled to.”

The 240-21 vote took place on Saturday in Southport during the URC’s General Assembly. A two-thirds majority was needed for the passage of the proposal.

The Assembly has considered the issue for the past three years, and last year, it was concluded that the decision whether or not to allow nuptials between those of the same gender should be left up to each congregation.

“This has been a sensitive issue for many in our churches,” Proctor said. “It has been important to take our time over the decision process, and to listen as carefully as we can to one another along the way.”

URC officials advise on the denomination’s website that guidance for congregations in England and Wales that wish to register to hold same-sex “weddings” in their sanctuaries will be issued within the week.

They also note, as per Proctor, that Reformed ministers who decline to officiate homosexual ceremonies may not “prevent local churches from registering their buildings.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“But if the building were registered, the minister would not be obliged to officiate,” the site outlines. “Local churches cannot, and the denomination will not, compel ministers to conduct same-sex marriages against their conscience.”

Reformed minister Malcom Hanson, amid calling the issue a “biblical puzzle,” admitted in an article on the matter last year that “‘one plus one’ is about the union of complementaries”—or the fact that God created the woman as the complement to the man. He said that the Scriptures cannot simply be discarded about the matter.

“In other words, if we dismiss Leviticus 18:22 (‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman’) and similarly negative passages as not relevant to our present understanding of sexuality, how do we handle Genesis 2:24 (‘That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh’) and similarly positive passages?” Hanson asked.

“We have commonly understood marriage to be based on the Genesis model, endorsed by Jesus and confirmed by nature,” he wrote.

The United Reformed Church was founded in 1972 and has roots in Presbyterianism and Congregationalism. It currently has an estimated 1,500 congregations throughout the U.K. and Wales.

Saturday’s vote makes the URC the largest professing Christian body in the U.K. that allows same-sex “marriages” in the house of God.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Amos Moses

    /SMH …………..

  • Emmanuel

    Is there any churches in the UK that still follows Christ and the Bible?

    • Amos Moses

      Not sure there are any in the EU …………..

  • TheBottomline4This

    It’s never surprising when a non-Christian church does this.

    • Ronald Carter

      No True Scotsman fallacy.

      • TheBottomline4This

        You are wrong Ronny. A non-Christian church will do this sort of thing in compromising and allowing this. Marriage is only between a man and woman.

        • Ronald Carter

          No, Mr. Bottom. It is the No True Scotsman fallacy. A Christian group is doing or saying something you don’t personally like, and so you have deemed them not to be Christians at all. The problem is, we don’t define things based on your opinion.

          • Amos Moses

            You are right ……… we base them on SCRIPTURE ……….

            6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
            6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
            6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
            6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

            So we are FULLY authorized to judge those things …………. and your “No True Scotsman fallacy” is a fallacy that has no place in the church ………. as it is NOT SCRIPTURAL ……. and since you are not part of the church …… you have no say in it ………….

          • Ronald Carter

            And you don’t understand that scripture the same way, Amos. That’s your problem right there. You need to unify yourselves a little better and stop telling each other that they’re false Scotsmen. I mean Christians.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Ah, so you’re into the ecumenical stuff eh? LOL

          • Amos Moses

            “You need to unify yourselves a little better and stop telling each other that they’re false Scotsmen. I mean Christians.”

            You have no concept of what the church needs ……………

          • Ronald Carter

            And you do? Let me guess. Less people accepting of homosexuals.

          • Amos Moses

            No ……… more people accepting Christ ……. the Christ of scripture …….. being saved …… homosexuals included …….. Of course …… if they are saved ……… then they would no longer be homosexuals ……. but that would actually make the church shrink in numbers ……. because the false converts would leave ……….. which is a good thing for the church ………… it would purify it ….

            Christ is not here for everyone ……. He would like that …….. but He knows that will not happen ………. see …….. Christ is here for a remnant …….. a remainder ………. like in a division problem ………. when you get done dividing …… that little bit leftover ……. that is who Christ is here for ……… the remainder ….. the remnant ……….. Christ is not here to unite …….. He is here to divide ………….

            Matthew
            10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
            10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
            10:36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
            10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
            10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
            10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

            Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

          • Ronald Carter

            “then they would no longer be homosexuals”

            Considering that has never happened in the history of the world, I suggest you read a basic psych text on human sexuality. Being “saved” means only that you recite the sinner’s prayer off a piece of paper or make some similar pledge. It doesn’t magically alter your sexuality to make you straight if you happen to be homosexual.

          • TheBottomline4This

            “the sinner’s prayer off a piece of paper or make some similar pledge”
            I’m not sure what denomination you are getting this from, but that’s not what I did when I was saved. Yes I prayed, but I didn’t have to recite a pledge. Wish you would think for yourself Ronny on these things and stop looking to some denomination to get your talking points from.

          • Ronald Carter

            People study for years to become Lutheran.
            They also study for years to become Catholic.
            To be “born again” requires LITERALLY nothing more than reading some words off a piece of paper, at which point you’ve apparently given yourself to Jesus. What was that about thinking for yourself?

          • TheBottomline4This

            Again, you are wrong. I’m not saying there aren’t groups that do what you say, but that wasn’t my experience at all. So yes, I do think for myself.

          • Ronald Carter

            The point is, being “born again” is something that you are told can happen in an instant. It requires no preparation or study.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Again, you are wrong. My experience was not instant. I didn’t hear about the Bible and think ok, I’m in. It took many months if not years for me. I’m really not sure where you get your info from. Is it an atheist site that spreads lies about Christians?

          • Ronald Carter

            I get it from the preachers who tell you that you can be saved in an instant. Do you think I am making that up?

          • TheBottomline4This

            If you are not, then name some of these preachers.

          • Ronald Carter

            Type into Google this exact phrase: how do you get saved right now. See for yourself.

          • TheBottomline4This

            No. I don’t go chasing after your claims. Either share or you have nothing.

          • Ronald Carter

            I answered your charge. It’s not difficult to do. Be saved in an instant – lots of people offering it.

          • Charles

            “Pastor” Creflo Dollar thinks it’s ok to ask his congregation for a 65 Million Dollar Jet.. So, I’m going to put that in the “Tales of Apostasy” file. Doesn’t work like that. Every single person grows at different rates. It’s not where you start it’s where you end up.

          • Ronald Carter

            The point is there are many people who believe that being saved is something that happens the moment you say the words.

          • Charles

            Maybe some are.. I don’t know.. I was stubborn, so took me a bit longer.. That’s a personal testimony.

          • Amos Moses

            “Considering that has never happened in the history of the world, I suggest you read a basic psych text on human sexuality.”

            i suggest you read scripture ………….. because it has ……….. you just choose not to accept it …..

            “Being “saved” means only that you recite the sinner’s prayer off a piece of paper or make some similar pledge.”

            No ………… it does not ………… many are fooled into thinking that ……….. there are no magic words to speak ……… that is a lie ………… but thank you for giving me the opportunity to point that out ………. there is nothing in scripture about a sinners prayer ……. or anything similar …… faith comes by hearing …… and hearing the words of God …… God uses that to enter a person …… and that is where all true change begins ……. inside …. not on the outside ….

            Romans
            10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
            10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
            10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
            10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
            10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

            10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Ronny and others like him are blind to their twisted understanding of Scripture.
            In part it is the Church’s fault that some or a lot these days, have dropped the ball, but on the other hand it is the fault of the person who blindly follows whatever they hear without truly testing and seeking the truth.
            It’s like they are automatically drawn to the default option culture offers and accepts that as fact. Plus their own hearts are deceived by satan.

          • Ronald Carter

            No, Amos. A person has never changed their sexuality and reading scripture is pointless for this subject because there is nothing in the Bible about changing sexuality.

          • Amos Moses

            Sorry …………. wrong ……… you do not know scripture ………

          • Ronald Carter

            You’re of course welcome to cite the scripture that talks about sexuality being changeable, or you can admit to your lie too.

          • TheBottomline4This

            So if we go by your logic, I guess whatever a person is drawn to sexually be it homosexuality, adultery, pedophilia, etc cannot be changed. Correct?

          • Ronald Carter

            Adultery is a choice. So it can be changed. Pedophilia we don’t know about, but regardless of whether it’s a natural attraction, we don’t allow the abuse of children. Homosexuality isn’t a choice and hurts no one since two consenting adults are not abusing anyone.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Ah, but homosexuality IS a choice. In 1996, The Advocate, a gay and lesbian magazine, asked readers what they believed the potential impact would be to the advancement of gay and lesbian rights if a scientific discovery proves a biological basis for homosexuality. About 61 percent of the magazine’s readers asserted that such scientific research would advance the cause of gays and lesbians and lead to more positive attitudes toward homosexuality. For example, if one can be born gay, much as one can be born with brown eyes, then a “fair” society could not possibly condemn him as being unnatural or immoral. To that end, gay activists and the liberal media have actively encouraged the idea that homosexuality is inherited and unchangeable. It is not Ronny. I know there is no changing your thinking on this issue at all. You are wrong whether you know it or not.

          • Ronald Carter

            You’re wrong. No one chooses their sexuality. Did you choose to be straight? The APA website talks extensively about it.

          • TheBottomline4This

            You are wrong Ronny. It is a choice Ronny.

          • Ronald Carter

            OK, I guess all homosexuals are lying then when they say it’s not a choice, and the medical community too.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Yes.

            The Bible and God are against homosexual sex Ronny, just like any of the other sexual perversions. Only heterosexual sex is normal.
            The Bible does say, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,” 1 Cor. 6:9
            “immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching” 1 Tim. 1:10
            You are supporting known sin Ronny. You say you are not gay. Is there anyone in your circle of family or friends that are gay or are you just or are you just a social activist for the cause?

          • Ronald Carter

            I think you’d benefit from a portion from this Huffington article, addressed specifically to anti-gay Christians:

            Far too often Christian, when you make the statement that being gay is a sin, what you’re really doing without realizing it is reducing all LGBT people down to a sex act — as if that alone defines sexuality.

            You’re denying any emotional component in their lives, any capacity to feel real love or show genuine affection toward someone else.

            In a gross oversimplification, you’re labeling a complex, fully formed human being as merely a performer of intercourse.

            That’s something you would never do with heterosexuality, and especially not with your own sexuality, because you understand implicitly that your sexual orientation is about much more than a physical act. It’s a much deeper part of who you are than that.

            It’s about far greater things than just plumbing and gymnastics.

            You know that in your own life, the physical act of sex isn’t the totality of your sexuality — that it is also about affection and companionship and the desire to love and be loved. It’s about who you are drawn to and attracted to and compelled to be close to.

            In your own story, you experienced those things firsthand before you ever thought about or experienced the act of intercourse. In those moments when you first began to understand your own sexual identity, it snuck up on you and surprised you. There was likely no internal battle, no great wrestling, no real conscious choice to be made.

          • uninvitedguest

            Opinions are just that……

          • TheBottomline4This

            As are yours.

          • Hope

            Scientificly, would you concede that Identical twins are 100% genetically identical?

          • Amos Moses

            The bible talks about peoples SIN nature being changed by God ………. ANY SIN ………….. including sexual SINS …………

          • Ronald Carter

            Sexuality doesn’t mean you’re having sex. It means sexual attraction. No sin involved.

          • Amos Moses

            Sexuality ………. and the thoughts that go with it ………….. outside of marriage ……….. ARE SIN ……………. Sex or no sex ………. not even part of the equation ………….. the thought is the SIN …………

          • Ronald Carter

            How very sad that you think that way. Sounds like thought control to me.

          • Amos Moses

            SCRIPTURE sees it that way ……….. CHRIST sees it that way ………..

          • Ronald Carter

            Maybe to the first. Highly doubtful and impossible to prove to the second.

          • Amos Moses

            You do not believe the scriptures ……….. but here is Christ saying it …. sermon on the mount …….

            Matthew
            5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
            5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

            Man or woman ……….. makes no difference ……….. proven …….. not to you …… but proven none the less …………..

          • Hope

            Amos, yes brother. Amen

          • TheBottomline4This

            Why is homosexuality such a topic for you? I think you are one who said you are not gay, so why are you fighting for it so much?

          • Ronald Carter

            Because you work so hard to hate on them, and it’s cruel and terrible, and about as un-Christlike as it gets.

          • TheBottomline4This

            There is not one gay person I hate. Do I support their homosexuality, no. But that doesn’t’ equate to hate.
            Using that logic, I guess one of my friends who is in an adulterous relationship I hate, since I don’t agree with adultery.
            How bad am I to not agree with sexual sins. How unChristian of me. Oh the horror that I could be so hateful in not agreeing with sexual sins. How cruel and terrible it is that I don’t go along with it. Shame on me!!!

          • Ronald Carter

            You’re considering them sinful based on an attraction they have which they have no control over. But that attraction doesn’t hurt anyone else, not like if they were pedophiles. I don’t know how you can embrace any belief system that would tell you to do that.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I don’t know how you can embrace homosexual sex. It is not natural for humans. It is just as perverted as the others, regardless of whether it’s “hurting anyone else” or not.
            If that is your criteria, then I guess you support the single person who is an alcoholic or drug addict. They are single and aren’t hurting anyone else, right?

          • Ronald Carter

            It’s a physical expression of love. It’s what you and I feel towards women, but with the poles of attraction reversed, so of course you and I would find it strange or disgusting.

            Alcohol in alcoholics is poisoning and killing them. Drugs, same thing. But not homosexuality…I don’t even know why you would make such a comparison. Two monogamous homosexuals aren’t going to hurt each other any more than a straight couple.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Rom. 1:26-27 says otherwise…For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
            Homosexual sex is degrading, unnatural, indecent and they will receive in their own person the due penalty of their error. It’s sin and it is wrong to partake in homosexual sex Ronny.

          • Ronald Carter

            How much do you think they knew, really knew from years of study, about homosexuality at the time that verse was written compared to now? Why do you seem to want to remain so mired in the ignorance of the past, why do you fear moving forward in knowledge?

          • TheBottomline4This

            You are delusional if you think in 2016 we are at the highest point of knowledge. Just delusional.

          • Ronald Carter

            Never said that. But I think we have learned more in 40 years on the subject than we have in 2000 years because it’s actually being studied. I wonder why you think an ancient text is the best source of information, when there was almost no knowledge.

          • uninvitedguest

            Exactly this!

          • TheBottomline4This

            Exactly not.

          • TheBottomline4This

            No Ronny. We don’t define things according to your like buddy, but God’s. God trumps any of either of our views that are wrong. Yours just happens to be the one that is wrong on this subject.

          • Ronald Carter

            No, Mr. Bottom. I challenge you to find me a Christian who says they don’t speak for God. You all make the claim, but you cannot possibly all be right. And when you want to distance yourselves from each other, you invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I have never typed the phrase “I speak for God”.
            I only go by what His Word says. It speaks for itself. I think you probably are confusing the 2.
            Have you seen some use the phrase “I speak for God”?

          • Ronald Carter

            You are saying God is the boss here, that it’s God’s word you are following. What a shame none of you can reach a consensus on what that is. You all understand God’s word in different ways. All of you. And yet you all claim to know what that is. And when you disagree, you don’t simply call it a disagreement. You would earn more respect if you did. No, what you do, Mr. Bottom, is tell your opponent that they are wrong, deceived, etc. and then tell them they aren’t true Christians. That is the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Be specific on your beef about this. Give an example you run across with “all of you”.
            One thing you need to know is that denominations are man made, not God ordained. I was a catholic for over 20 yrs. Now I’m non-denominational. I don’t go by what any of the denominations say. I go by the Bible.
            Another thought, if you are so bothered by all of what you say, why even go to any sites’ that are faith based. it would cause you less stress to avoid them.

          • Ronald Carter

            How much more specific do you need me to be? It says right in the book of James “confess your sins to one another”, and when you tell Catholics they aren’t Christians because they confess sins to a priest, and they cite that verse, you tell them it’s not there. Or they are misunderstanding it. There’s an example for you right there. What about infant baptism? The MAJORITY of Christian faiths baptize infants. And you insist that God says they are wrong. How arrogant can you GET? You’re in the MINORITY on this one, insisting that “believers’ baptism” is all there is. All I’m asking you to do is recognize that you don’t agree on everything as Christians, and shouldn’t be telling each other that you’re false and deceived and apostate and not true Christians. Agree to disagree like the rest of the world does and lose the arrogance.

          • TheBottomline4This

            The saying you can’t fix stupid applies to you Ronny. I’m not going to try to fix you on this topic. You are wrong.
            Your ignorance is your bliss Ronny.

          • Ronald Carter

            So when you cannot counter the hard truth you resort to insults, Mr. Bottom. You disappoint me, I expected better of you. Because you know I’m not saying anything stupid at all.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Here you go with your sensitivities to truth agian. Yes, Ronny, I am using words that you will take as an insult. Words like stupid, wrong, ignorance. Put them together in what I said and it is applicable to you dear. Very. When someone doesn’t really know something that is what they are. You really don’t have a clue the folly you are supporting on this issue. Most of what you have said on this topic is stupid. No ronny, I’m not saying you are stupid overall, just on this topic. The bottomline is that you are wrong on this issue Ronny.

          • Ronald Carter

            What you’re saying isn’t truth, it’s your faith. I wish you could be honest enough to understand the difference. You’re talking like vice-God or something, like you alone understand God and what he wants. You don’t. You just have what everyone else has – a belief.

          • Patrik Ahlberg

            You have made it abundandly clear that you have no understanding or even interest in the Scriptures at all. If you did read God’s Word you would see how absurd your claims actually are. Like your view on baptism, and claiming infant baptism is biblical, “because that’s what most churches think”. In reality they don’t read the Bible either, just like you, because they do not let the Scriptures be the authority. If they, or you, ever read and studied the Bible, you would see that no one is baptized at birth, but always in direct relation to them coming to faith in Christ. A baby cannot choose to trust Jesus.

            The same with your understanding of homosexuality and even being saved – your beliefs is totally non-biblical and only based on secular views about the Bible (which i actuality just mean judging the Bible without ever actually reading what it says. And a lot of testimonies is out there about homosexuals getter freed from their sinful behaviour through Jesus Christ. Listen to Jackie Hill Perry’s testimony for example.

            May God open your eyes, so that you would repent and believe while there is still time to be saved. In Jesus name, Amen.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Well said.
            Sadly many non-believers don’t believe one can be saved from their choice of homosexuality. They are truly convinced they are born that way. If one is a homosexual, of course that doesn’t’ mean they will instantly drop it. Some may, but for some it may take a bit. Christians are not perfect, we are forgiven, thanks to Jesus Christ!!!

          • Ronald Carter

            That’s a very enlightening post. It’s pointed out to you that you are not understanding baptism the way the majority or Christian do and you respond by saying they don’t read the Bible. That’s a ridiculous charge to make simply because someone disagrees with you.

            The point isn’t that one of you is right and the other is wrong. The point is that there are two understandings of baptism within Christianity. That’s the point, but you arrogantly state that no, there’s only one correct understanding of it and the other side – the MAJORITY – are the ones who have it wrong.

            And guess what? Your Bible-only understanding is also at odds with many Christians, who also hold church teachings and sacred traditions to be important.

            Finally, no, it’s not possible to have your sexuality changed through Jesus. Sorry. The testomonies you speak of are fraught with lies and besides, telling a homosexual to live a sexless life is no “conversion” at all.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Ronny, what religions (denominations) have you grown up with or been involved with?

          • Ronald Carter

            Not that it matters, but Lutheranism, Roman Catholicism, and the United Church in Canada.

          • TheBottomline4This

            It does matter, because some of that good or bad has helped form some of your views today, good or bad.

          • Ronald Carter

            I don’t think so. A general interest in religion isn’t damaging. I can read about Mormonism and say I like this aspect of it and dislike that aspect of it. I do that with all of them. But I never tell any of them that they aren’t Christians.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I do think so.

          • Ronald Carter

            Just your opinion.

          • TheBottomline4This

            As is yours.

          • Thomas Loy Bumgarner

            Have you ever studied Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek manuscripts? Bet you use only King James. but originally Geneva Bible was used. Besides James threatened death to the translators if they departed from already declared doctine

          • TheBottomline4This

            You would be wrong. I use a few versions, one being the KJV. Why are you asking?

          • Charles

            It’s about questioning God’s Word I’m sure.. This translations wrong, that translations wrong. Obviously, we don’t need to be a Scholar (Just studied) to read and follow Gods Word.. Some people don’t get that.

          • Michael A. Todd

            Having the names Church and Christ in the names of churches doesn’t mean they are practicing true Christianity. A whole lot of them are not. It’s just a business to those pastors. Sadly… Oh and this was predicted in several books of the Bible written 2,000 to 4,000 years ago. So, it’s not a surprise.

          • Ronald Carter

            Who is the one who gets to define true Christianity? And please don’t say God, because God’s not here. His holy books are, but no one agrees on their meanings, do they? If they did would we have so many thousands of denominations?

          • TheBottomline4This

            “If they did would we have so many thousands of denominations?”
            I think I already told you, denominations are man made. Men are the ones who split up many moons ago and did that. God didn’t have anything to do with all the denominations you see.

  • Faithwalker

    God’s presence has left the building. Darkness and light cannot occupy the same space.

  • Jalapeno

    I wonder why people keep trying to put quotation marks around the word ‘wedding’.

    It’s very much a wedding, even if some people don’t like the fact that those people can get married.

    • TheBottomline4This

      I wonder why people don’t like quotation marks around the word ‘wedding’.

      It’s not at all a wedding, even if some people don’t like the fact that those people are not really married.

      • Jalapeno

        It is a wedding.

        No religion gets claim over the term.

        • TheBottomline4This

          It isn’t a wedding.

          You are right in saying though that “No religion gets claim over the term.”
          God does though get claim over saying basically that a marriage is a man and a woman…nothing else qualifies. Regardless of anything you or anyone else who agrees with you says.

          • Jalapeno

            “God does though get claim over saying”

            Not really. Other people’s religions have different definitions.. Yours does not get to define it.

          • TheBottomline4This

            One thing you need to know is that denominations are man made, not God ordained.
            I was a catholic for over 20 yrs. Now I’m non-denominational. I don’t go by what any of the denominations say. I go by the Bible.
            God and the Bible are the only true source. Whatever “other religions” say are irrelevant if they don’t match up with the Bible.
            So again, God does though get claim over saying basically that a marriage is a man and a woman…nothing else qualifies.

          • Jalapeno

            ” God and the Bible are the only true source”

            You already said that you understood that no religion gets to claim the definition.

          • TheBottomline4This

            The Bible does, which is the Word of God.

            What does the word Christian mean to you personally? How would you personally define it?

          • Jalapeno

            No.. No religions get to claim it.

            There are many other religions. There are different ideas within Christianity.

            The word is applicable to all people who are married under the law, not just the ones you approve of.

          • TheBottomline4This

            You are wrong Jally, very wrong. Gay “marriage…gay “weddings” are a farce. They are not real marriages or weddings.

          • Jalapeno

            They fit the objective definition of what a wedding is.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Be very careful in adhering to that Jally. Very careful. Someday you may have to eat those words dear.

          • Jalapeno

            Yeah, only bad people want to respect other religions and choices.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I’m serious, you need to be careful. Someday someone else will come along saying to you…”But we fit the definition of what a wedding is” so you must go along with us and agree.” Be very careful Jally. Your own words may bite ya in the backside.

          • Jalapeno

            You don’t have to agree, you just need to understand that your views don’t apply to everyone.

          • TheBottomline4This

            How thick is your skull? It’s not my views on this topic that matters, it’s God’s view that does. He says marriage is only between a man and a woman. Period. Any other views are vain.

          • Jalapeno

            No, it’s the view of the law that counts. People can get married without your religions permission.

          • TheBottomline4This

            No. God says marriage is only between a man and a woman. Period.

          • Jalapeno

            Good thing your religion doesn’t determine who gets married eh?

          • TheBottomline4This

            Good thing those who think they are married really aren’t. Regardless of what your god the law says. It’s wrong, so it doesn’t count.

          • Jalapeno

            Why does your religion get to make that determination?

            I know it’s hard to believe, but the people who get married without the “permission” of the church are still equally married in the eyes of the law and a good chunk of the population. You don’t decide for them. Your beliefs are not special, nor are they applicable to everyone.

          • TheBottomline4This

            GOD makes THAT determination Jally.
            “a good chunk of the population” is a lie. The majority don’t support it. The media and the gay agendas blow it out of proportion to feed their need. Only your side is fooled dear. The law is wrong on this one.
            Again, God determines it. Not you, not the law, not anyone but Him.

          • Jalapeno

            So.. The facts and the polls are irrelevant to you because you want your views are special and get to dictate other people’s lives.

          • Michael A. Todd

            Christians believe as the Bible says that marriage was instituted by almighty God. When a marriage is done with His blessing between two believers then it is ordained as holy and acceptable.

            What you are talking about are civil marriages (i.e. Las Vegas, Justice of the Peace, Buddhist, wiccan or other worldy, secular type marriage).

            What we Christians are talking about is marriage that God condones and accepts, not just a piece of paper that says Marriage License on it.

          • Jalapeno

            “What we Christians are t alking about is marriage that God condones and accepts, not just a piece of paper that says Marriage License on it.”

            That’s called “holy matrimony”.

            “Marriage” is LITERALLY the legal term for it, it’s the term that’s used by almost every couple out there, religious or not. If people bothered to specify that gay people aren’t married under THEIR church doctrine, no one would care.

            Pretending like you get some form of special claim over the word isn’t quite as innocent though.

          • Michael A. Todd

            From Smith’s Dictionary – Marriage:

            Its origin and history. — The institution of marriage dates from the time of man’s original creation. Gen_2:18-25. From Gen_2:24, we may evolve the following principles:

            (1) The unity of man and wife, as implied in her being formed out of man.

            (2) The indissolubleness of the marriage bond, except on; the strongest grounds, Compare Mat_19:9.

            (3) Monogamy, as the original law of marriage.

            (4) The social equality of man and wife.

            (5) The subordination of the wife to the husband. 1Co_11:8-9; 1Ti_2:13.

            (6) The respective duties of man and wife.

          • Jalapeno

            So.. Etymology, which isn’t a definition… And religious ideas, which is just circular logic.

          • Thomas Loy Bumgarner

            Not according to Webster

          • TheBottomline4This

            It’s not the view of the law that counts if that view is against God’s Word. He doesn’t approve of any marriage other than ones between a natural born man to a natural born woman.

          • Jalapeno

            “It’s not the view of the law that counts if that view is against God’s Word”

            Many people don’t care what other people’s religious views say about their own marriage. Why should they?

          • TheBottomline4This

            And we don’t care that you or they don’t care. The Truth still stands against you and them. God trumps all of you 🙂

          • Jalapeno

            Sure..sure..it’s not like people fought to make sure that they didn’t have legal access to the same protections that everyone else has or anything.

          • Ronald Carter

            What if you’re wrong about God, and the Hindus are right about him? Or the Muslims? Or the Jehovah’s Witnesses? It’s very dangerous to claim you speak for God when the bulk of religious people in the world believe you don’t.

          • TheBottomline4This

            The bulk of the people are wrong.
            Haven’t you seen Matthew 7: 13,14,21, 22, 23?

          • Ronald Carter

            But not you, right? You guessed perfectly?

          • TheBottomline4This

            You poor thing.

          • Ronald Carter

            All of you are told the same exact thing. I wish you could recognize that.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I’m not sure where you are getting your info from, but do elaborate and let’s see…

          • Charles

            Is there over 300 prophecies (All came true) about the Son of Man?! Jesus Christ? Of course not.. Only one is right.. What other “Book” contains that? I’ll wait.

          • Ronald Carter

            All of them can make similar claims.

          • Charles

            But the Bible is one hundred percent accurate.. Can the others say that? The Bible is 1/3 prophecy.. Can the others say that?

          • Ronald Carter

            No, the Bible is not one hundred percent accurate.

          • Charles

            Yes it is.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I saw this on FB and thought I’d share it with you Ronny.

            You don’t believe in God? Fine.
            Why is it so important for many of you to mock those of us that do? If we’re wrong, what have we lost when we die? Nothing!
            How does our believing in Jesus bring you any harm? You think it makes me stupid? Gullible? Fine. How does that affect you?
            If you’re wrong though, your consequence is far worse.
            I would rather live my life believing in God and serving Him, and find out I was right, than not believe in Him and not serve Him, and find out I was wrong. Then it’s too late.

          • Ronald Carter

            You can serve God any way you like, Mr. Bottom. This isn’t about that. It’s about the arrogant and dismissive attitude you have towards other Christians who don’t always see eye to eye with the way you do things.

          • TheBottomline4This

            There is one book the Bible that true Christians follow. Now I know there are many Bibles out there that confuse the non-believer…it used to be that way for me. But you learn. It’s kind of like a bank that has it’s employees become so familiar with real money that when a counterfeit comes along they can spot it. It’s really not that hard Ronny once you begin to be able to discern the differences.

          • Ronald Carter

            I wouldn’t say you learn, because there is no way of knowing whether you are learning information that is more correct or less correct since there is no one to tell you for sure. I would say you become more indoctrinated.

          • Charles

            Amen! Praise the Lord Jesus Christ! I was dead and am now alive! 🙂

          • Thomas Loy Bumgarner

            The Bible is not the Word of God(logos). Only Jesus may be called the Word of God

    • Ronald Carter

      That drives me crazy too. I call them “disapproving quotation marks”.

    • Stephen W.

      If we had had the Internet back in 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining state bans on interracial opposite-sex marriage as unconstitutional, we most likely would have seen scare quotes in the form of interracial “marriage” and interracial “wedding.” They know that same-sex couples have true marriage and true weddings. They’re not even really in denial. It’s just a pretense of denial. They refuse to admit that justice prevailed.

      • Ronald Carter

        “Scare quotes”…that’s an even better description than “disapproving quotes”.

        • Stephen W.

          Some of them now, of course, claim there is nothing wrong with interracial opposite-sex couples and it is, therefore, true marriage and true weddings. In fact, at that time, 72% of adult Americans were opposed to interracial opposite-sex marriage, and 48$ of adult Americans favored criminal punishments for interracial opposite-sex couples who married. What they fail to admit is that hindsight is always 20/20.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I’ve never thought there was anything wrong with interracial couples Theo. Your % ‘s you like to use are cute to say the least.
            (replying to me through comments to others is a bit childish, don’t ya think Theo?)

          • Ronald Carter

            40 years ago, Mr. Bottom, you would have been on the wrong side of history just as you are now.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Wrong sweetie.

          • Ronald Carter

            Go into Google and search for the image that says “imagine how stupid you’re going to look in 40 years” which shows a picture of people protesting race mixing from 40 years ago, and another picture of “Christians” protesting same-sex marriage today.

          • TheBottomline4This

            You poor thing.

          • Charles

            Real Christians don’t care what color you are. Or if you’re a Scotsman.

          • Stephen W.

            At one time “real” Christians did care. Time changes things.

          • Charles

            Doesn’t exclude one from being misguided.. Because it’s not in Scripture.

          • Stephen W.

            Depends on how one interprets “scripture.”

          • Charles

            No it’s clear enough.

          • Stephen W.

            Perhaps by your interpretation.

          • Charles

            No it’s clear.

            Gen 19:5 KJV
            (5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

            Lev 18:22 KJV
            (22) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

            Lev 20:13 KJV
            (13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

            Deu 22:5 KJV
            (5) The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

            Deu 23:17 KJV
            (17) There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

            Jdg 19:22 KJV
            (22) Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

            Rom 1:26-27 KJV
            (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
            (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

            Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
            Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
            Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
            Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
            Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
            Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
            Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
            Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
            Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

            1Ti 1:10 KJV
            (10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

          • Stephen W.

            Your “scriptures” are open to interpretation. One thing that is clear though, gay men do not lie with women.

          • Charles

            Interpret how you wish. It’s clear.

          • TheBottomline4This

            They weren’t real Christians Theo.

      • TheBottomline4This

        What in the world is wrong with interracial couples? All skin colors are beautiful.

        No, gay “marriages”/”weddings” are not true or real. You are the one in denial Theo. You are the one living under pretense. You refuse to admit it, because you are gay and feeding your sin, so how could you see it to begin with..

        • Ronald Carter

          In the eyes of the law, which are all that matter to those of us unburdened by religion, yes, gay marriages are true, real, and legal.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Not at all.

          • Ronald Carter

            Only within the walls of your church, Mr. Bottom. Outside of that, they’re married, and no one can say anything about it.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Only within the walls of wrong man made laws Ronny. Outside of that, they’re not married, and no one can say anything about it.
            Gay “marriages” are not true, real marriages. They are basically sinful shacking ups and nothing more.

          • Ronald Carter

            Man made laws are all we have Mr. Bottom. We are men after all. You are speaking from a very specific Christian perspective when you say gay marriages are not true. However your denomination does not have the authority to determine the validity of marriage. In fact, no Christian does, since marriage predates Christianity. The laws of the land are what determines marriage validity.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I’m non-denominational.
            My authority is from God and His Word. I follow man’s authority (laws) if they don’t conflict with God’s. Since God only recognizes marriage as a man and woman, no, gays are never in a marriage. They simply are shacking up and living in sin..

          • Ronald Carter

            You are therefore a Christian fundamentalist. At least the denominations decided there were certain principles that would bind them together in their faith. Non-denoms throw all rules out the window and make up their own. Everyone, whether part of a denomination or not, believes they are aligning themselves the most closely to what God wants.

          • TheBottomline4This

            No, my authority is from God and His Word.
            It’s interesting you are so into labeling things according to your views or the views of those you get your talking points from. To bad you are not able to independently think for yourself Ronny.

          • Ronald Carter

            “My authority is from God and his word.”

            I DEFY you to find me any other Christian, regardless of denomination, who does not say the same thing.

            If you’re as independent a thinker as you think you are, how come you’re anti-gay? Doesn’t being non-denominational free you of such rigid and outdated and anti-scientific thinking?

          • TheBottomline4This

            I DEFY you to find me any other gay supporter, regardless of religious views or not, who does not say the same things as you.

            “how come you’re anti-gay?” The BIBLE says so. Period.
            Your beef is really with God Ronny. God does not tolerate homosexual sex Ronny. He really doesn’t’ Ronny. If you think He does tolerate homosexual sex, then you are wrong Ronny. So your beef is really toward God Ronny. What say you about that Ronny?

          • Ronald Carter

            Why are you dodging, Mr. Bottom? Of course people supportive of homosexuals living a life free of hate and discrimination feels the same way. Now tell me why you feel you are a better or more true Christian since you all claim to be doing what God wants.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I’m not dodging anything Ronny. Gay sex is wrong. How is that dodging??
            I’m surprised you would want me to support something that is wrong. Oh wait,, since you don’t agree that it is wrong, you think I’m wrong in not supporting something you think is right.

            Your beef is really with God Ronny. God does not tolerate homosexual sex Ronny. What say you about that Ronny?

          • Ronald Carter

            You completely changed the subject, Mr. Bottom. I asked you to find me one other Christian who does not say that their authority is from God and his word and you challenged me instead on something to do with homosexuals. One issue at a time, Mr. Bottom. We are talking about what makes your non-denom church superior to all the other Christians. Can you answer that? We have plenty of time to talk about homosexuals, although it’s funny you accuse me of wanting to talk about them too much and now want to talk about them when I don’t.

          • TheBottomline4This

            “what makes your non-denom church superior to all the other Christians. Can you answer that?” I guess you’re not getting it from our other interactions. I DON”T go by what a Church says, I go by the Bible. Can you understand that Ronny?
            Now, let’s have you answer this…Your beef is really with God Ronny. God does not tolerate homosexual sex Ronny. What say you about that Ronny?

          • Ronald Carter

            You’re proving to be excellent at dodging – I don’t know if you’re doing it on purpose or not, but let me say this in a way you can finally, hopefully get it through your head – ALL Christians claim what you are claiming! They ALL claim to follow the Bible to the letter! Even Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to follow the word of God in the Bible. You are NOT saying anything that every other Christian does. Do you get it yet?

            As for homosexuality, no, I don’t believe that is what God says about them, Mr. Bottom. Even if you want to try to convince me that’s what your holy book says, it’s ludicrous to think God would create them that way just to hate them.

          • TheBottomline4This

            It went over your head what I said, but you think I’m dodging. Which isn’t’ true. So let’s move n from that. It’s really tedious dealing with liberals like you.
            What do you think about Rom. 1:26-27? For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

          • Ronald Carter

            So you cannot tell me what makes your brand of Christianity superior or more correct than all the others who make exactly the same claims you do. Got it. Thanks.

          • TheBottomline4This

            What about1 Corinthians 6:9-11 …
            Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such WERE some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

            Homosexuals can be saved from this sin just like anyone else and their sins. It does say were in this Bible verse. A person can be saved and turn away from the sin of gay sex basically. Just like the other sins. It is possible for those who are willing.
            It’s sad you support sin Ronny and think others should too.
            satan has you blinded Ronny, very blinded. You are really fighting for nothing but sin. So sad.

          • Ronald Carter

            You’re trying to change the subject again, Mr. Bottom. The subject is what makes you a Christian that makes the others lesser or non-Christians, and you have demonstrated that you are unable to answer.

            The words of the Bible mean only that some men wrote a book, Mr. Bottom. It doesn’t mean God said those words, and I see no reason to believe that. I don’t believe tour Satan exists, either. So no, I am not blinded by what is not there.

          • TheBottomline4This

            You seem to be mentally challenged. I’ve already answered…(what makes your non-denom church superior to all the other Christians. Can you answer that?” I guess you’re not getting it from our other interactions. I DON”T go by what a Church says, I go by the Bible. Can you understand that Ronny?) THIS is my answer to that Ronny. Can you understand it???

          • Ronald Carter

            And for the last time, Mr. Bottom, SO DOES EVERY OTHER CHRISTIAN regardless of whether they go to a church or not!

          • TheBottomline4This

            “The words of the Bible mean only that some men wrote a book, Mr. Bottom. It doesn’t mean God said those words, and I see no reason to believe that. I don’t believe tour Satan exists, either. So no, I am not blinded by what is not there.”
            Pay attention, here’s the reply to that…Famous writers through history have used amanuenses, or secretaries, to produce their literature. The poet John Milton was blind by the age of 44. His entire Paradise Lost was dictated to friends and relatives—anyone who would write for him—and that’s how the entire epic was recorded (a total of 10,550 lines of poetry). Even though Milton himself did not put pen to paper, no one questions that Paradise Lost is his work. We understand the function of an amanuensis. While God did not “dictate” His Word to the human authors, the principle is similar. God, the Ultimate Author of the Bible, used human agents as His “amanuenses,” and the result was the divinely inspired Word of God.

          • Ronald Carter

            Imagine the absurdity of what’s being said here. I could write a book tomorrow and say it was God’s word, that I was God’s “amanuensis”. What would be the difference?

          • Charles

            Do you believe adultery is wrong Ronald?

          • Ronald Carter

            Do I believe adultery is wrong? Yes.

          • Charles

            So what if there was a big movement to commit adultery by some people’s interpretation of the Bible. So then it becomes somehow acceptable in Churches.. Next, in Schools, etc.. In context of another moral sin, you wouldn’t accept it by your own admission. You wouldn’t want that nonsense in your Church, or in schools.

          • Ronald Carter

            That’s what is known as slippery slope logic and is false. If we allow X to happen, it will lead to Y.

            Some churches handle deadly snakes. It’s a stupid practice that leads to people dying. But it doesn’t spread like wildfire or become acceptable anywhere just because a few idiots do it.

          • Charles

            “”That’s what is known as slippery slope logic and is false. If we allow X to happen, it will lead to Y.””

            Which in this scenario happens…. A LOT… Same as Adultery, Fornication, Porn, etc.

            “”Some churches handle deadly snakes. It’s a stupid practice that leads to people dying. But it doesn’t spread like wildfire or become acceptable anywhere just because a few idiots do it.””

            That’s true, handling deadly snakes, or snakes period isn’t the best idea in “Church”.. But it’s not Biblical doctrine either. That’s a man made one. We’ll file that under the Westboro Baptist files.

          • Michael A. Todd

            In the eyes of man’s law, not God’s, not even agreeing with all of the states that voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The majority votes were simply illegally overruled by circuit court activist judges.

            And, no, gay marriage will never be a true marriage as the couple cannot procreate just between themselves. Remember, that’s the primary purpose of marriage, to procreate. And to be loving and loved.

            And, explain to me why every gay or lesbian couple I have ever seen has one dressed manly and the other womanly? To me that implies the natural plan that God devised for marriage.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I’ve noticed what you say in the last paragraph. Even if they don’t dress that way, they do act that way. It’s very telling.

          • Ronald Carter

            How very interesting that you think the elderly and the infertile should not be married because they cannot produce children. Marriage was never owned by Christianity anyway, it predates it by thousands of years, so you are not the one who gets to deem whether it’s a true marriage.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            And, explain to me why every gay or lesbian couple I have ever seen has one dressed manly and the other womanly? To me that implies the natural plan that God devised for marriage.

            Stereotyping much?

      • Charles

        Always with the Race (Not sinful) = Homosexual behavior (Sinful)? How in the world does 5+5=3? Race is simply a skin color (Surface).. Homosexual behavior is sinful, and reprobate.. How you keep comparing this is beyond me.

        • Jalapeno

          People thought that interracial marriages were sinful too.

          • Charles

            Then those people weren’t either reading, or following the Bible.

          • Jalapeno

            Sure, sure…and some people think that the anti-gay people aren’t following the bible.

            Of course, YOUR interpretation is the correct one in both cases, I’m sure.

          • Charles

            I’m not an Activist for the “Anti-Gay” committee. But a sin is a sin.. I’ll tell you what. I’ll turn it around.. Let’s say that there was a big movement to start committing adultery because some believed it’s not a sin from their “Interpretation” of the Bible.. Next thing you know.. It’s getting accepted in Churches. BUT WAIT! They also want to teach Adultery in schools! They want Adulterating politicians (Which we have anyway) in office but you get the point..Even more so they get “Special” rights! Doesn’t feel so good on the other foot does it…

          • Jalapeno

            “Even more so they get “Special” rights! Doesn’t feel so good on the other foot does it…”

            You mean..people who commit adultery get equal access to marriage protections?

            That’s fine with me..I don’t like adultery, but teaching people not to ostracize and making sure they get equal legal protections is fine.

            After all..freedom.

          • Charles

            “”You mean..people who commit adultery get equal access to marriage protections?””

            No, no.. It becomes a protected status! YEAH FOR ADULTERY! NOT.. You wouldn’t accept that in your Church, and/or schools either.

          • Jalapeno

            What would be the class?

            After all..gay people aren’t a protected class..it’s sexual orientation.

            Is it a hypothetical situation where people were being discriminated against based on being cheaters and we decided it was unconstitutional?

            “YEAH FOR ADULTERY!”

            Schools aren’t saying “YAY FOR GAY PEOPLE”, and churches are completely exempt, as usual.

          • Charles

            “”After all..gay people aren’t a protected class..it’s sexual orientation.””

            So… Adultery isn’t a “Sexual” orientation then?

            “”Schools aren’t saying “YAY FOR GAY PEOPLE”, and churches are completely exempt, as usual.””

            They very much are in Schools, especially in California.. West coast really.. The “Acceptance” of homosexuality is no different that accepting adultery.. There is no difference.. But that depends. If you see adultery as “Acceptable” that is.. As far as Churches, they are dropping like flies to this doctrine. See how easy these things turn? It’s a dangerous slope we are on.

          • Jalapeno

            “So… Adultery isn’t a “Sexual” orientation then?”

            No. Sexual orientation : “a person’s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.”

            “The “Acceptance” of homosexuality is no different that accepting adultery”

            One..you need to understand the difference between going “YAY” and having acceptance.

            Two..adultery hurts people. Homosexuality does not.

            So..what would the protected trait be?

          • Charles

            “”No. Sexual orientation : “a person’s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.””

            *(Hypothetically, I’m an unrepentant adulterer): Well.. I’m attracted to women. Married or not. It’s my right to do what I want. I think kids, and Churches need to be told about it. In fact, I want to celebrate a WHOLE month.. And have “ADULTERY PRIDE” parades with MANY Married women with a 6-Color rainbow. This adulteress guy wanst to give The Lord a prideful look. Even dedicate an Adulteress bar! This should show you how ridiculous this whole thing is. Sin is Sin. Appears in many forms. You aren’t pulling that over me, much less the Lord.

            “”Two..adultery hurts people. Homosexuality does not.””

            That’s ridiculous! It’s KILLING THEM! Look at the statistics!

          • Jalapeno

            “Well.. I’m attracted to women. Married or not. It’s my right to do what I want”

            That doesn’t fall in the definition of sexual orientation.

            ” It’s KILLING THEM!”

            How is being gay INNATELY harmful?

            Many gay people NEVER have anal sex. Many straight people do.

            Many gay people are exclusive..many straight people are not.

            So what exactly is physically harmful about being gay?

          • Charles

            “”That doesn’t fall in the definition of sexual orientation.””

            Why not? I’ve felt that way my whole life?

            “”How is being gay INNATELY harmful?””

            You need to look that the statistics again on the CDC site.

            “”Many gay people NEVER have anal sex. Many straight people do.””

            I assume you mean Lesbians?

            “”Many gay people are exclusive..many straight people are not.””

            Neither is morally right in the sight of the Lord.

            “”So what exactly is physically harmful about being gay?””

            Again, you need to look at the statistics. It’s right now hitting the black community especially hard.

          • Jalapeno

            “Why not? I’ve felt that way my whole life?”

            Try reading the definition. It has to do with what gender you’re attracted to, not how you deal with that attraction.

            “You need to look that the statistics again on the CDC site.’

            Okay..so imagine a situation where there’s two people of the same gender that are monogamous, never have anal sex, use protection for oral sex…

            How is that physically harmful? Do you think they contract diseases just because of gender?

          • Charles

            “”Try reading the definition. It has to do with what gender you’re attracted to, not how you deal with that attraction.””

            What do I care what the definition is.. I can make my own, have people “Accept” it. I don’t go by any standard? So… Does that mean you’re a bigot?

            “”Okay..so imagine a situation where there’s two people of the same gender that are monogamous, never have anal sex, use protection for oral sex…””

            Look, I’m not saying there aren’t ones that are monogamous.. I believe that’s true to an extent. Just like heterosexuals are.. That doesn’t eliminate the sin of homosexuality and where it can lead in many cases.

            “”How is that physically harmful? Do you think they contract diseases just because of gender?””

            No.. But homosexual males are predominately promiscuous. This stat also shows up in Heterosexual stats. The males cheat more than females. The stats show that..

          • Jalapeno

            “What do I care what the definition is’

            Intellectual honesty, for a start.

            ” I’m not saying there aren’t ones that are monogamous”

            Good. What’s harmful about being a gay, monogamous person that never has anal sex?

            How is that physically harmful?

          • Charles

            “”Intellectual honesty, for a start.””

            What?!! Why CAN’T I be a protected adulterer?!! Really?!!!

            Well, it’s not just the direct physical health effects (Which really is bad enough isn’t it?). There are mental health effects associated with many those types of relationships. But that’s obvious. A bot doesn’t fit with a bolt, and a lug nut doesn’t fit a lug nut either….

          • Jalapeno

            “Well, it’s not just the direct physical health effects”

            What direct physical effects?

            Oral sex?
            “What?!! Why CAN’T I be a protected adulterer?!! Really?!!!’

            What would be protected? Your relationship status?

          • Charles

            “”What direct physical effects?””

            Anyone male or female can get diseases.. It’s not exclusive to any one group.

            “”What would be protected? Your relationship status?””

            Yeah, you know.. So I can’t be sued by any jealous husbands. No matter how much I adulterate. THIS ADULTERER WANTS PROTECTION!!! HA HA. The right to choose ANY MARRIED WOMAN I WANT! (Not really of course.. I’ve been married for going on 22 years).

          • Jalapeno

            “Anyone male or female can get diseases.. It’s not exclusive to any one group.”

            So..if someone is a part of a monogamous gay couple that never has anal sex…why are they more at risk?

            “So I can’t be sued by any jealous husbands”

            So..would all people be exempt from lawsuits based on relationships?

          • Charles

            “”So..if someone is a part of a monogamous gay couple that never has anal sex…why are they more at risk?””

            It goes deeper than that.. Men and Women are very, very different. I’m sure you know this. It’s creates environments that aren’t part of God’s plan. Therefore, it’s not blessed. It will never function the same as a male and female and children in a union. It will never be one outside of male and female.

            “”So..would all people be exempt from lawsuits based on relationships?””

            Well yeah.. I don’t care.. Maybe some others don’t but so what? I do (Which of course, goes right down the rabbit hole). It would ludicrous to allow that behavior and promote it. Which I’m assuming you wouldn’t accept as a moral standard. This road leads the same south direction as homosexuality does. Then it lead’s to moral chaos. Where does it stop? No one knows.

          • Jalapeno

            “It goes deeper than that”

            So..there’s no physical damage that’s innate to being in a homosexual relationship? It’s just based on your assumptions that its not emotionally healthy?

            “Well yeah.. I don’t care”

            It’s YOUR hypothetical situation? Can’t you even be bothered to flesh it out?

            ” Which I’m assuming you wouldn’t accept as a moral standard”

            Homosexuality doesn’t hurt people. Cheating on people does.

          • Charles

            “”So..there’s no physical damage that’s innate to being in a homosexual relationship? It’s just based on your assumptions that its not emotionally healthy?””

            If you’re a male homosexual there sure is major physical risk. But there is always risk, as stated above.

            “”It’s YOUR hypothetical situation? Can’t you even be bothered to flesh it out?””

            Well.. I told you I was born that way. I wanted to do it since around 8. I knew then.. I’ve know for some time now. It’s normal. I’m convinced I was born that way.

            “”Homosexuality doesn’t hurt people. Cheating on people does.””

            Statistics say otherwise. Both homosexual (Esp. Males), and cheating.. They are both destructive.. Just a different method. But they both lead down the wrong road.

          • Jalapeno

            “If you’re a male homosexual there sure is major physical risk.”

            How is there a risk if you’re not having anal sex ?Do you think that just being male and having sex with a male means you’ll catch a disease…even if both are clean and exclusive?

            “Statistics say otherwise”

            Even IF you were right…it doesn’t actually hurt anyone else.

            CHEATING hurts other people.

          • Charles

            “”How is there a risk if you’re not having anal sex ?Do you think that just being male and having sex with a male means you’ll catch a disease…even if both are clean and exclusive?””

            Well, certainly that will lower the health risk. Homosexuals, just like Heterosexuals have many issues with cheating as well.. Like I said.. It’s not exclusive.

            Obviously, there is point to all of this. I don’t have to spell it out. It simply depends on your point of view.. But if you claim to be a Christian and care about following our Lord Jesus Christ.. It’s not a safe place to be and our Salvation is not assured..

          • Jalapeno

            “Well, certainly that will lower the health risk”

            You didn’t really answer the question. You’re pretending that being gay is INNATELY harmful. I think what you mean is that promiscuity and anal sex are harmful.

            Being gay isn’t. If you’re a gay couple that never participates in risky behavior…you’re not more at risk.

            “I don’t have to spell it out”

            So..you can’t? Got it.

          • Charles

            “”You didn’t really answer the question. You’re pretending that being gay is INNATELY harmful. I think what you mean is that promiscuity and anal sex are harmful.””

            I have already answered that above.. Like I said.. It goes beyond just the physical health risk. It involves morality (Gods Laws) and places outside of his Laws we shouldn’t go (Adultery, and homosexuality to name a couple). I don’t care what a judge says about it. There are reasons the Lord has it setup this way. He designed it.. He KNOWS his design.

          • Jalapeno

            ” It goes beyond just the physical health risk”

            I’m asking about the physical health risk. How is it innately harmful? How does it harm other people?

          • Charles

            You don’t get it.. It opens you to attack on other things.. Darker things.. For example:

            Porn addiction leads to adultery and who knows????? I don’t think that’s going to look good to the Lord..

          • Jalapeno

            So.. You acknowledge that people in homosexual relationships don’t die younger because they’re gay?

            Maybe.. That anal sex and promiscuity are the problem?

          • Charles

            “”So.. You acknowledge that people in homosexual relationships don’t die younger because they’re gay?””

            Gay men lifespan shorter than non gay men: “The life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for men in general. Robert S. Hogg et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.”
            “In 2007, MSM [Men Sex with Men] were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women.” (Center for Disease Control)
            Domestic Violence higher among homosexuals: “‘the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.'(Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41–59.”
            Sex of women with women at greater health risk than women with men: “For women, a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of adverse sexual, reproductive, and general health outcomes compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men.” (American Journal of Public Health)

            Clearly, it’s a bit deeper than just that. The lifestyle obviously leads to more promiscuity, more domestic violence, etc.. You can’t use the “We couldn’t get “Married” excuse.. You are either Monogamous or not, you are either an abuser, or not. That’s never changed. The only reason the mortality rates have improved is because the drug treatments are getting better. Which is a good thing, because it gives you more time, and another chance to repent to the Lord and change your ways.

          • Jalapeno

            Do you think a gay guys going to get aids out of nowhere?

            What’s risky if they are clean, monogamous, and never have anal sex? Why would they die sooner?

            “Sex of women with women at greater health risk than women with men”

            Try thinking for two seconds about that. What’s going to change? Maybe… They’re less likely to go to the gyno because they don’t need birth control?

          • Charles

            “”Do you think a gay guys going to get aids out of nowhere?””

            Don’t be silly.

            “Try thinking for two seconds about that. What’s going to change? Maybe… They’re less likely to go to the gyno because they don’t need birth control?”

            Obviously, it doesn’t apply to every single person.. But thats what the study finds.

          • Jalapeno

            “Don’t be silly.”

            Then…how is BEING GAY risky?

            So far..all you’ve done is repeatedly explain that they are MORE AT RISK..but..if they don’t have anal sex, and they are monogamous, and they keep up on their reproductive health…how are they at physical risk?

          • Charles

            “”Then…how is BEING GAY risky?””

            Because most of the time it leads to other sin.. Such as pornography, abuse, drugs & alcohol, etc. I”m not just “Picking” on you.. That goes for EVERYONE..

            “”So far..all you’ve done is repeatedly explain that they are MORE AT RISK..but..if they don’t have anal sex, and they are monogamous, and they keep up on their reproductive health…how are they at physical risk?””

            Let’s say you are “Low” risk. What does that have to do with with the sin of Homosexuality? Not a thing.

          • Jalapeno

            So.. You’re saying that being gay itself doesn’t actually physically hurt someone? Anal sex, promiscuity and not getting health checks up does.

            Remember, I’ve been repeatedly asking why being gay is physically risky… Not whether or not you think it’s a sin.

          • Charles

            “”So.. You’re saying that being gay itself doesn’t actually physically hurt someone? Anal sex, promiscuity and not getting health checks up does.””

            “”Remember, I’ve been repeatedly asking why being gay is physically risky… Not whether or not you think it’s a sin.””

            No. It may not affect you as much, but for much of the community it does affect.. The Numbers don’t lie, at least last time I checked we haven’t changed our math system. Obviously, the numbers say they do.. Again, sin ultimately leads to more sin. The overall discussion here is THAT particular sin is being accepted more and more in these Churches as I recall. Next, something else.. Who knows? Maybe Adultery?

          • Jalapeno

            And.. I asked why being gay was physically harmful. Was it so hard to say “it isnt”?

            Adultery hurts other people. Being gay does not.

          • Stephen W.

            Look at my statistics. My husband and I have been together for 37 years, married for almost one.

          • Charles

            That’s commendable, and uncommon in todays society.. The issue isn’t loyalty for you. The issue is you are with the wrong sex. It’s a sin.

          • Stephen W.

            I just checked with my husband, and he says you’re mistaken.

          • Charles

            According to Scripture. It’s a sin.

          • Stephen W.

            I was referring to your statement that I’m with the wrong sex.

            Your “scripture” is irrelevant.

          • Charles

            “”I was referring to your statement that I’m with the wrong sex””.

            You are.

            “”Your “scripture” is irrelevant.””

            Obviously, to you it is.. That’s a personal issue.

          • Stephen W.

            It becomes much more than a personal issue when a cult attempts to impose its beliefs on nonbelievers.

          • Charles

            Ha. ha.. Uh huh…

          • Charles

            “”You mean..people who commit adultery get equal access to marriage protections?””

            Either way, either in secret or out in the open.. It’s still a sin.

          • Stephen W.

            At least your war on adultery would be a legitimate one by protecting marriages, instead of trying to prevent couples from marrying.

          • Charles

            Yes, adultery is destructive to say the least. I AM protecting Marriage according to the Words of my Saviour Jesus Christ. Who came to redeem us from unrighteousness that we might Glorify his name. Amen. That’s why we are having this discussion.

          • Amos Moses

            Bad news for you ………. you cannot embrace idolatry and embrace God ….. homosexuality is IDOLATRY …………..

          • Stephen W.

            That’s an awful lot of people misintempering scripture. In any event, there’s that hindsight again.

          • Charles

            Yes.. That happens. People can, and do misinterpret, or use interpretations of Scripture that agrees with themselves. That’s wouldn’t be the first time people did what’s contrary to the Lord Jesus Christ and his Word.

    • hytre64

      We put quotation marks around the word ‘wedding’, as God had defined marriage as between a man and a woman (Gen 2:24, Mt 19:5, Eph 5:31,…). As a wedding is the beginning of a marriage, If I am referring to the beginning of some type of union other than a marriage as defined in the Bible, I will put quotes around it to denote that it is not the same as a wedding which marks the beginning of a Biblical Marriage.

      • Jalapeno

        Oh man, that’s a riot.

        “When words are used in a way that please me, I’ll use the word. Otherwise I put quotation marks around it so people know that I think I’m better than them”.

        • hytre64

          I call it a ‘wedding’ out of deference to them. To me it isn’t even that. It is a union, but not a God-ordained one.

          I don’t do it “so people know that I think I’m better than them”, but rather for clarity of communication.

          • Jalapeno

            It’s called a wedding because it’s literally a wedding.

            As I’ve said..no one religion or belief gets to actually claim the word. You aren’t doing it out of respect, you’re going out of your way to be DISRESPECTFUL.

          • Amos Moses

            Its called a jelly doughnut because i put powdered sugar on that manure …………

            LYING to people about what a word means ……….. IS DISRESPECTFUL …

        • Amos Moses

          “Otherwise I put quotation marks around it so people know that I think I’m better than them”

          No …………. we use it to denote the LIE being told ………….

          • Jalapeno

            Using words AS DEFINED is not a lie.

            Again…no religion gets to decide who’s married and who isn’t.

          • Amos Moses

            “Using words AS DEFINED is not a lie.”

            THEN DO THAT AND QUIT LYING ………………..

          • Jalapeno

            Wedding: “a ceremony at which two people are married to each other”

            Marriage : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

          • Amos Moses

            “a ceremony at which two people are married to each other”

            No ….. not two people ….. a man and a woman ……….. see …. changing the definition ………. which is just post modern claptrap ………. and a lie ………….. DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE ………. restating the lie does not make it true …….

          • Jalapeno

            That’s the definition that’s in the dictionary.

            There’s also the legal definition, which includes both opposite sex and same sex couples.

            You said I was lying and not using the word as defined..so..there’s the definition. Remember..no religion gets to claim the word.

          • Amos Moses

            No ………. that is a dictionary LIE ………… sanitized and it has no meaning ………..

            “no religion gets to claim the word.”

            So which religion has claimed it that you are defying ………. Islam has no homosexual marriage …… Judaism has no homosexual marriage ……. Christianity has no homosexual marriage …………… got any other Bovine Scatology you would like to spread …… it has been defined ………. FOR MILLENNIA ……….. and the only time ………… IN HISTORY …… that it has EVER meant what you are trying to say it means ……….. is now ………..

            Trying to pick up manure by the clean end …………..

          • Jalapeno

            “So which religion has claimed it that you are defying”

            You’re trying to say that your religion gets a claim on the word “marriage”.

            It does not.

          • Amos Moses

            You are saying that you get to define it because you do not like religion ……………. Sorry ……….. REDEFINE IT ………..

            NO YOU DO NOT ……………

          • Jalapeno

            “You are saying that you get to define it because you do not like religion …………….”

            Not at all. It HAS a definition. I am using the word as it is objectively and legally defined…not as one particular interpretation of one religious text defines it.

          • Amos Moses

            NO ……….. it has a REDEFINITION ………….. and it is a LIE ……….

          • Jalapeno

            So..you think your religion gets to determine what “marriage” is.

            You’re incorrect.

          • Amos Moses

            So you think NON-religionists get to REDEFINE it ………… YOU are INCORRECT ……..

          • Jalapeno

            Why do you think that your religion gets to determine who gets to use the word “wedding”?

          • Amos Moses

            Why do you think your nonreligion gets to REDEFINE it ………………

          • Jalapeno

            Marriage was used as the legal term, and has been used as a societal definition instead of a strictly religious one for a long time.

            If it didn’t have any legal or societal meaning, you might have a point, but that ship sailed long ago.

          • Amos Moses

            No …… the ship is still in the harbor ………… but ships sink in the ocean ALL THE TIME ……..
            Pirates rarely last long when they are recognized and steal from others …………… and the term being stolen is a theft ……………

            Marriage is a religious term that was appropriated by the legal system ………..

          • Jalapeno

            “Marriage is a religious term that was appropriated by the legal system ”

            Yeah, because people wanted legal protections for their MARRIAGE. Now..it’s no longer owned by one religion.

          • Amos Moses

            No ………. marriage was recognized as a religious institution ……… it still is ………. no amount of theft can change the ownership ………. and no amount of lies about it alters the truth ……….. the protections exist in the legal system ….. OR outside of it …………. and again …… powdered sugar does not turn manure into a jelly doughnut ……………..

          • Jalapeno

            ” marriage was recognized as a religious institution”

            Was. Past tense.

            Now it’s more than that, and no religion has claim over the term.

          • Amos Moses

            Was as in when the legal system was instituted ……… and as i said ……. IT STILL IS ………. No past tense …………… religion has the ONLY claim on it ……. and it will ALWAYS be in quotes as “marriage” and “wedding” when referring to homosexuals and their LIES ……………

          • Jalapeno

            “religion has the ONLY claim on it”

            So..are we taking it away as a legal term? Deciding that no one can be legally married anymore?

          • Amos Moses

            No …. you are talking about a “legal term” that has no validity in reality when it was REDEFINED ……….. BTW ….. that ship you think has sailed …… its the Titanic ………… hope you can swim ……..

          • Jalapeno

            So..you want the benefits of it being a legal term while still maintaining control of it?

          • Amos Moses

            i have no vested interest in the legal system defining or REDEFINING marriage …… i do not put my faith in the government of men ……. and i have said it before ….. i will say it again now …… the only thing homosexuals are doing ….. in getting “married” …… is providing the next government ……. MUSLIM SHARIA government ….. with a list of names and addresses …. and they will use it to form a line at the tallest building they can find ………… and if you cant see that coming at this point …………… you must be blind ……………….

          • Jalapeno

            “i have no vested interest in the legal system defining or REDEFINING marriage”

            Do you want the government get rid of the word “marriage” and change everything to “civil unions” just so you can feel special and try to claim the word?

            Did you want the government to stop having any form of official unions?

          • Amos Moses

            i do not need to “feel special” ………. but apparently homosexuals feel a desperate need to have everyone approve of their depravity ………….

          • Jalapeno

            So..you’re okay with “marriage” being the legal term?

          • Amos Moses

            No …………. not the way it is currently REDEFINED ………. it is a lie ………….

          • Jalapeno

            So..do we take the legal protections away from married couples?

          • Stephen W.

            It has been a year since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the remaining state bans on same-sex marriage. Such marriages are now traditional. You are attempting to redefine the word “traditional.”

          • Amos Moses

            “The SCOTUS has no authority to REDEFINE it and it is a lie ………….. and no they are not …….

          • Stephen W.

            The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t “redefine” anything. It simply struck down unconstitutional state bans on same-sex marriage, just as it struck down unconstitutional state bans on interracial opposite-sex marriage in 1967.

          • Amos Moses

            .. and to do that …….. it required them to REDEFINE marriage ………..

          • Stephen W.

            Taking away the freedom of opposite-sex couples to marry would be a redefinition.

          • Amos Moses

            LOL! …………… only in a delusional worldview ……….. but look who i am telling about that ……..

          • Stephen W.

            Good luck getting a legal and binding divorce through your local church.

          • Amos Moses

            And why would i want one ……… i can understand why you might need one …… but seriously ……. it is not a “legal” marriage …… why would i want a “legal” divorce …..

          • Stephen W.

            Ah, so you’re not even legally married. Figures. Those who can’t … teach.

          • Amos Moses

            There is no “legal” requirement to be “legally” married ……….. there is no church requirement to be “legally” married ……….. those who now see the “legal” system for what it is …… what it has become ………. should leave it ….. it is detestable and it has failed to follow Gods mandate for government …… and it is doomed …………. by its own corruption ……..

          • hytre64

            Definition #2 was added to be “Politically Correct” and does not denote the traditional use of the word, “Wedding” ie. a “Traditional Wedding” to go along with a “Traditional Marriage” (as per definition #2).

          • Jalapeno

            Something being “nontraditional” doesn’t mean that it’s not actually well within the meaning of the word.

          • Stephen W.

            It’s called “Correct” for a reason.

          • hytre64

            Being “Correct” and being “Politically Correct” are two completely different things. Just like there are three kinds of lies; Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. (British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli)

          • hytre64

            It is when they change the definition of the word to match the lie.

          • Jalapeno

            The only way it would be a “lie” is if one religion got to decide what the word meant. That’s not the case.

  • Nidalap

    As it was in the days of Noah…

    Heh. Someone’s even built an ark! 🙂

    • Charles

      I had to laugh…

    • Amos Moses

      ROTFLM Donkey O

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Anything “united” sounds altogether disasterous in preserving the purity of God’s teachings. What URC decided is horrible, but Israel must stop having perv parades in God’s Holy Land as well. Those who endorse homosexual “marriage” are denying the existence of sin and therefore they are not Christian at all.

    • TheBottomline4This

      The ecumenical movement is fooling many.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    “Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.” (Revelation ch.22)

  • hytre64

    ““Today the URC has made an important decision at which some will rejoice and with which others will be uncomfortable,” General Secretary John Proctor said

    If I were a member of the URC, I would be more than uncomfortable – I would be weeping and crying out to God in repentance – just before I left to find a church that actually reads and understands God’s Word.

  • Gena B

    If you read the scripture it tells you exactly how to conduct church and what Christ expects if you are a true follower of Christ (calling yourself Christian). It’s not complicated, and this is no different than what was going on in Paul’s early churches..he warned them about mixing paganism with Christ.

  • Becky

    A “professing Christian body” they are not.

  • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

    This is an abomination that makes desolate.