Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why are some denominations/churches changing their bylaws on gay marriage (Or drinking, smoking...
12/10/2012 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

Posted on 12/10/2012 9:27:44 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist

...gambling, rock music, etc, etc?

Now, this thread isn't about debating what is sin and what isn't or what constitutes sin or doesn't. Please don't hijack this thread over the issues that I listed. Thank you.

This thread is about our changing culture - and let's face it, more and more denominations/churches are ever so slowly moving towards tolerance and/or acceptance of homosexual marriage. The rest in the list (following gay marriage) that I included in the thread were put there to show that if you look back far enough at various denomination's church bylaws some churches were once against this or that - but no longer are. Just like they once were adamantly against homosexuality/homosexual marriage, but are slowly drifting away from that.

Which makes me wonder and posit the following question:

Those (the various ministers who were the crafters of church bylaws and voted on them) believed that they were following God's will in the crafting of their church/denomination bylaws. And they believed that they had it right (or scripturally correct) be it in the early 1800's, early 1850's, late 1800's, early 1900's mid 1900's, etc.

So, if a church/denomination "took a stand" against drinking and smoking or gambling, etc, etc in the 1800's in its bylaws but now has since changed the bylaws on these, did those back in the 1800's really hear from God when they crafted those bylaws? If not, then how can those today who change the church bylaws on these things be certain that they aren't making a mistake by changing the church/denomination's bylaws as they are just as fallible as those who lived back then?

Which leads to churches and the slow change in many denominations taking place over gay marriage....

Where are we as a society headed? What bylaw(s) is/are absolutely correct and never need to be changed?


TOPICS: Apologetics; Current Events; General Discusssion; History; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes; prolife; religiousleft; sin; trends; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-195 next last
To: stuartcr

I believe in life after death. And although my reasons for hoping for eternity in Heaven are complex; you can boil it down to a simple concept:

Live a Godly and pure life and go to Heaven. But then if you die and there is no Heaven... You still lived a good life.

Live a sinful and evil life and go to Hell after you die. For eternity. But - if there is no life after death - you get (as it were) a get out of jail feee card, and you don’t go to Hell.

But you still lived a sinful and evil life. And every person who ever lived knows the here and now benefits of living a good life is far better than living a miserable life.

Live for God. What have you got to lose?


61 posted on 12/10/2012 10:48:05 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

“If a rock music song glorifies homosexuality, is that song itself wrong to listen to?”

If a bluegrass song glorifies homosexuality, it is wrong to listen to bluegrass music?

The reason I’m using bluegrass as an example, is that it has many of the musical aspects that caused pastors to denounce rock & roll music.

It is based on African rhythmic patterns.

Both the fiddle and banjo were denounced from the pulpit in the past as being instruments of the devil.

Bluegrass lyrics (like its country cousin) often deal with the seedier side of life—adultery & violence are common song themes.

Bluegrass has been called the jazz of country music, but it’s also accurate to call it the punk rock of country music. Consequently bluegrass attracts people who are outside the mainstream.


62 posted on 12/10/2012 10:56:20 AM PST by Brookhaven (theconservativehand.com - alt2p.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

Well, first there is no such thing as non-Bible based Christianity.
When Christ had the “first communion”, He and the disciples where eating a meal together, so I guess it wasn’t that big a deal to have food in the stomach.


63 posted on 12/10/2012 11:00:32 AM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Wasichu

Jesus neither drank nor created fermented wine.


On the day of Pentecost the people thought the apostles were drunk on wine when actually it was the holy spirit, the people never knew anything about the holy spirit but they did know about wine and would have known that the apostles drink it.

There are many places that indicate that it is not wrong to drink wine as long as it does not become drunkenness.


64 posted on 12/10/2012 11:04:18 AM PST by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Denominations change ‘their’ rules/law because they can. It’s theirs and they have nothing to do about God.

God’s Word never changes! Jesus, The Word, didn’t come for the ‘religious’/denominations or did He start one either. Those who believe on HIM - believe ONLY in His Word. There are no man-made teachings in God’s Body of Believers - His church.


65 posted on 12/10/2012 11:04:55 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
As I posted earlier, I have yet to know an alcohol defending Christian who doesn't get intoxicated.

I don't drink alcohol at all, because I can't stand the taste. I defend the use of alcohol if drunkenness does not result. And I am a Christian who believes that Jesus is Lord. The argument of unfurmented wine is just silly.

66 posted on 12/10/2012 11:04:55 AM PST by aimhigh ( Guns do not kill people. Planned Parenthood kills people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

1 Thess 4:1-8 draws a line in the sand. It COMMANDS against sexual immorality and concludes by saying that those who reject this command have REJECTED God. Churches who allow for sexual immorality have rejected God.


67 posted on 12/10/2012 11:07:20 AM PST by aimhigh ( Guns do not kill people. Planned Parenthood kills people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wasichu

“There are two kinds of ‘wine’ in the Bible. Fermented and unfermented. Unfermented “wine” or grape juice is “Holy” or “clean” while fermented wine is “unholy” and “unclean.” All alcoholic beverages are unholy and unclean!”

No, there is not two kinds of wine in the Bible.

I was in your camp, but when I pushed hard for the evidence for this, nobody could show it to me.

On the other hand, evidence that believers drank alcoholic wine is scattered throughout both the old and new testament.

For example, Paul (in a letter) chastises some believers for getting drunk on the wine from the Lord’s Supper. Yet, he doesn’t chastise them for serving alcoholic wine at the Lord’s supper to begin with, just for drinking too much.


68 posted on 12/10/2012 11:10:35 AM PST by Brookhaven (theconservativehand.com - alt2p.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LambSlave

“They do not believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, they believe it needs to be updated for “modern culture”.”

This is just like the libs who say the Constitution isn’t infallible, that it has to be updated and by gosh, it’s a living, breathing document that has to fit modern times.


69 posted on 12/10/2012 11:15:00 AM PST by princeofdarkness ( Nobama. No more. No way. November 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

I believe that’s very good advice.


70 posted on 12/10/2012 11:17:36 AM PST by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to, otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

I have yet to know an alcohol defending Christian who doesn’t get intoxicated.


Although that makes sense,it is also how the scriptures get fought over all of the time, i take one drink each year because it gives me a buzz and if that was a sin and my only one i would be a saint.


71 posted on 12/10/2012 11:21:04 AM PST by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

> Perhaps... but ‘won’ what?

Agreed. But still....


72 posted on 12/10/2012 11:25:59 AM PST by mbarker12474 (If thine enemy offend thee, give his childe a drum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
think the question is, which of those things that you listed are clearly identified by the Bible as sin? Aside from homosexuality, which is identified as sin in both the Old and New Testaments, none of the others is identified as a sin. Drunkenness is listed as something to be avoided, but smoking, gambling, music? I think there are many things which churches have decided contributed to temptation (dancing, for example) or caused other problems for the individual or society (smoking, drugs, etc.), but that was a determination by man, not something from the Bible.

But the churches that are moving toward accepting homosexuality as normal, and approving gay marriage, are definitely in conflict with the Bible. THAT is the difference.

...in conflict with the Bible.

Aren't both sides of the above coin preaching doctrine that is in conflict with the Bible?

How might this affect a non-believer--who wants to follow the Bible's teachings--only to find what the Bible teaches isn't what he is being taught?

Adding or subtracting from the Bible--even for the best of causes--is never good.

73 posted on 12/10/2012 11:26:26 AM PST by Brookhaven (theconservativehand.com - alt2p.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
There is really only ONE reason these days for drinking alcohol - for the effect it gives.

How do you feel about Prozac? or Xanax? Are those sinful too?

I always figured anti-depressants and anti-anxiety meds were for people who didn't drink.

signed, a Catholic who likes his drink.

74 posted on 12/10/2012 11:26:26 AM PST by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

God’s Word never changes! Jesus, The Word, didn’t come for the ‘religious’/denominations or did He start one either.


Amen to that.


75 posted on 12/10/2012 11:31:08 AM PST by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: svcw
how about just use the Bible

AMEN!

76 posted on 12/10/2012 11:36:24 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: svcw
Well, first there is no such thing as non-Bible based Christianity. When Christ had the “first communion”, He and the disciples where eating a meal together, so I guess it wasn’t that big a deal to have food in the stomach.

I agree, but the point is that was used to be holy and sacred for centuries now became just old-fashioned and not in effect.

77 posted on 12/10/2012 11:38:02 AM PST by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Wasichu; fwdude
I'd add legalistic attitudes like you two seem to have to the list of why things are now allowed in church that never were before. One of you seemingly condemning all music that doesn't fit ‘his’ view, the other stating as fact that a sip of wine is a ticket to hell. No surprise that you back each other up. Churches have enough of a struggle getting people thru the door without also having to deal with biblically unfounded opinions such as yours. So what do churches do? They contort actual scripture as a means to make the ‘church’ that you created seem more palatable.

Please include in any response all of the lyrics that you find so offensive and the exact, undeniable scripture that states that ALL wine consumption is sin.

78 posted on 12/10/2012 11:38:04 AM PST by bramps (Sarah Palin got more votes in 2008 than Mitt Romney got in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
There is really only ONE reason these days for drinking alcohol - for the effect it gives

But there was a solid reason throughout most of history: alcoholic beverages were sterile.

Google "mayflower pilgrims beer". You'll find that the fist thing the pilgrims did upon landing was to start brewing alcoholic beverages. Not because they wanted to get drunk, but because it was the only way the could make sure their water supply wouldn't make them sick.

Drinking low alcohol volume beverages (including adding some wine to water to make it safe to drink) has been a common practice throughout most of history (especially in crowded settlements which made obtaining clean water difficult).

And, this is why drinking wine was not totally banned in the Bible.

If you want to argue about today--fine. But, you can't take today's situation and apply it to all of history.

79 posted on 12/10/2012 11:41:27 AM PST by Brookhaven (theconservativehand.com - alt2p.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Wasichu

Pretzilian Theology at its best.


80 posted on 12/10/2012 11:46:44 AM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-195 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson