re: How is it possible that some Protestant churches support gay marriage?

quote:

---

How is it possible that some Protestant churches support gay marriage?

This is a genuine question and I am not honestly trying to offend. I know that Protestant churches vary greatly on many issues and there are many Protestant churches that condemn gay marriage. But for the churches that support gay marriage, how is it possible for them to reach this conclusion when the scripture overwhelmingly shows that homosexuality is a sin? BTW, I’m Greek Orthodox, not Catholic. Just in case you are wondering.

---

Not standing upon what scripture says for truth instead of man’s word on what truth is is rampant amongst all denominations because we’re currently living in Babylon, and many have departed from the only true faith, that which is found in God’s word alone. The attack on scripture is throughout, but none more so than the attack on Genesis, that is God’s will for His creation.

Think about this.. “Pride” is a word indicating the root cause of man’s sin problem, yet proudly used to depict the Alphabet lifestyles, and combined with a symbol of promise God gave to mankind to never flood the world again over man’s sinfulness.

Any denomination or church that sides with this does not adhere to God’s word, but is now a part of the Babylonian system where man is his own god, and believes that man’s word is of greater importance than God’s word on the matter.

This is what scripture references as the great falling away, and the great irony is that Jesus said that as in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the second coming. We are not long here folks, and God’s word is the only thing we can truly rely upon. How we respond to that is the only thing that actually matters.

quote:

---

Hmmmm. Well, all the more reason to come to the original, Apostolic Orthodox church then,

---

We are part of the original, Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. We are not so inclusivistic to believe that there is only one true and pure expression of Christ's Church on earth, but the one tree has many branches.

quote:

---

because yall's studies have lead to 40 thousand different denominations, and there are many, many major theological differences among them that make the adage of, "well we all follow the same God," doa.

---

That's quite the overstatement. Most of the Protestant denominations are still in adherence to the core and ancient creeds of the Christian faith. The differences between most are on secondary and tertiary issues, not first-level issues like who God is. There are some heretical denominations like the Oneness Pentecostals that reject the biblical teachings on the Trinity, but those are in the small minority.

quote:

---

There was a sacramental Apostolic church hundreds of years before there was a Bible; hence why being a part of that church is so important.

---

There was the OT Bible in use during the very formation of the Church, and it was just a few decades after Christ went up to Heaven that the NT books were starting to be written. I'm not sure what you mean by this, other than that you are claiming that the Church created the Bible rather than receiving it. The Church of Christ is not infallible, and it doesn't take an infallible body to recognize an infallible standard (the Bible). God did use the Church to recognize and receive what He had created and gifted to the Church, but the infallible authority is God, not fallible human beings.

quote:

---

Using your own interpretations is what got us to the point of this thread: heresies abound.

---

Protestants argue that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches also use their own interpretations which have led them astray from the truth. The difference is the type of polity that enables a top-down conformity to those bad interpretations rather than in Protestantism, where Christians are free to attempt to reform bad interpretations and then to leave a false or erroneous denomination.

Simple. They are not Churches. At least not where the Holy Spirit is.

Scripture is very clear. Those churches have no more presence of GOD or His Spirit than the local McDonald's down the street. You preach and teach every verse from Genesis to Revelation regardless of whom it offends or you cease to exist as an entity of GOD.

Actually, either word would work.
And no I'm not. I attend a Methodist church and they were obsessed with talking about gay people. It got to be ridiculous. And I knew many people in that church committing adultery, and single people having sex outside of marriage. But, straight people can do all that in the shadows. I guess we can see gay couples in the open. So, let's attack them.

Man made religions will sacrifice God's word and scripture in return for power, influence, position, and wealth. This is not exclusive to Protestant churches, wouldn't you agree?

quote:

---

I attend a Methodist church and they were obsessed with talking about gay people. It got to be ridiculous.

---

I don’t know what happened to the Methodist Church, my Dad left the Church back when he was a younger man because of the over the top fire and brimstone he had to endure every Sunday

quote:

---

Welp. You’re just wrong.

---

Yep.

I have not been to Church in a few years, but my Cumberland Presbyterian Church talked quite a lot about gluttony, lust, stealing, pride, etc. I don; remember much of anything about homosexuality.

At the same time - I don't see churches flying gluttony flags, or thieving flags, etc. But plenty of pride flags are flown by churches.

No need to wonder who is making homosexuality a big issue.

Yeah. The concept of hell is interesting. Fire is an element of this natural world. So, there's an alternate dimension somewhere where our consciousness/soul is transferred to, and it burns forever feeling pain? I thought the afterlife is spiritual. How does a spirit feel pain/thirst?

quote:

---

If a church permits a woman to preach, they permit what God forbids. That’s bad. The elders do not have the authority to authorize a woman to violate God’s Word.

---

Tell that to Phoebe (Romans 16:1), Junia (Romans 16:7), and Priscilla (Acts 18:26).

The reason these conversations don't go anywhere constructive and assumedly why Chicken bans them is because differing biblical worldviews are incommensurable due to the inherent interpretation of what the text is doing.

Is the bible the literal writings of God where each verse is a commandment and instruction for sanctified living? If so, then of course 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids women from speaking or having a leadership role in church. Forever and ever.

However, if the bible is a historically situated text that reveals the nature of God and reports/reflects on the teachings of Jesus (along with the understanding that Jesus fulfills prophecy and sacrificed for our sins), then 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a law against women speaking. Instead, it can be read as Christianity's attempt to build its ethos in a Greco-Roman society, which was patriarchal and highly suspicious of social disruptions. Women speaking would both defy their traditional social norms of men being in leadership positions. Not to mention, at the time, women had been denied education but were suddenly radicalized through a new religion, one that positioned women in important roles (Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Joanna for example). It would be deleterious in that situation for women to speak with authority in a traditionally male-dominated society. Christianity would be either shut down or laughed away. So in that context, women are commanded to remain silent.

With a literal interpretation, not only is there a struggle to account for social change over long periods of time, there are also many contradictions in the bible that struggle to be settled. This is why it's said that atheists "know the bible better than Christians" because they are keen on identifying verses that through a literal interpretation contradict each other, modern social norms, and epistemological advancements.

But you won't read this. You'll say "nuh uh" and call women having pastoral roles in the church evil, that sects that are more inclusive are sending people to hell. This is more aligned with your personal oppressive worldview than what Jesus taught. Because Jesus was highly inclusive throughout his life, often defying the most common sense commitments to restrictions that dominated the society of the time. He was for liberating people, not just Jews but also Gentiles, not just the righteous who perfectly adhered to the Law but also sinners.

Some churches get more off base than others.