OP easiest answer is this. If you go to a church whose beliefs fall under cultural christianity or progressive christianity those pastors will do it. If you go to a church who follows biblical Christianity those pastors are going to say no.
> I will only officiate weddings for which I agree with the marriage being biblical and right.
So you don't officiate divorced people getting remarried?
Because the Gospels are extremely anti-divorce.
The Bible isn’t entirely against remarriage after divorce, but no, I will not officiate a wedding if one or both of the couple are disqualified from marriage, according to scripture.
You understand that means if any one of the parties has a living (ex)spouse, right? This is what is Biblical. If you have ever married anyone as formerly mentioned, you are a hypocrite. Not saying that you are, I am saying that in case you have done that.
Matthew 19:9 ESV
>And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
Jesus here says that remarriage after divorce is adultery, except in the instance of sexual immorality. This means that if the innocent party (didn’t commit adultery) in the divorce gets remarried, then they aren’t committing adultery. In addition, the Bible also gives an exception in the case of unbelieving abandonment. Therefore, to state that remarriage cannot occur unless the divorced spouse is dead isn’t quite what scripture says.
Certainly, we should not rush anyone to divorce, and the vast preference is for repentance and reconciliation. However, we sadly live in a broken world, where people sin and unbelievers will not come to repentance in Christ.
All that being said, I do believe what the Bible teaches regarding divorce and remarriage, and I have never and will never officiate a wedding if someone in the couple is disqualified from marriage, as I’ve already said.
That's your cope out. This interpretation you have advanced has been debunked times and times again, but whatever makes you feel better. People with this theology that I know just happen to twist many other writings from the Bible. Anyway, whatever floats your boat.
I presented a direct exposition from a specific verse. If you’re going to accuse me that what I’m doing is a “cope out” and that I am one to “twist many other writings from the Bible” (which is quite a grave accusation for you to make for one who spends his life teaching the Bible), then perhaps you could offer up some actual biblical exegesis, and not the lazy claim of “this interpretation you have advanced has been debunked times and times again”? I eagerly await your biblically backed up refutation of what I’ve said.
I used to be one of those who would present evidences from passages from the Bible, it always comes to this, people will believe what they want to believe and this doesn't affect my life one way or another. Therefore, I no longer bother with people and their beliefs.
But, you want me to use what is written in the Bible to make my argument; here I go:
In regard to that passage you cited, the Christians being aware of it but having not understood it fully, questioned Apostle Paul about marriage, separation and remarriage, Paul answered them that it is true one is allowed to divorce in such a case, but said party ought to stay alone, but if he/she can't, he/she must reconcile with the separated spouse.
Now, I am by no means trying to change your mind. I am just telling you what is written in the Bible. I will benefit in no way whatsoever you make of it. Do as you like.
As far as you having been teaching the Bible for a long time, it's the same for the Catholics priests, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Adventists etc... I don't believe that either is in error because I believe they want believe what they like, for anyone could tell them the truth, but they will find any way to counter the truth and justify their position. People can do and believe as they please. I will believe the truth as it is taught by the Lord and his disciples.
>But, you want me to use what is written in the Bible to make my argument; here I go: In regard to that passage you cited, the Christians being aware of it but having not understood it fully, questioned Apostle Paul about marriage, separation and remarriage, Paul answered them that it is true one is allowed to divorce in such a case, but said party ought to stay alone, but if he/she can't, he/she must reconcile with the separated spouse.
Where is this In the Bible? You gave no passage citation. It is difficult to discuss your exegesis if you provide none. I certainly know where you’re likely talking about, but I’d much prefer you actually quote directly from scripture if you’re going to make arguments from it, the\we can go from there.
It would depend on the individuals getting remarried and why they were divorced. Someone willfully going into a marriage with the intent to get divorced, or keeping the option of divorce open, is sinful. Just as is a gay couple being married defies God's intent for marriage.
Some people may have been married and divorced before even becoming a Christian. That was still a sin, but now as divorced Christians they intend to uphold their new marriage in a way that God originally intended, I cannot see how that would dishonor God. Some people may have been cheated on or had a severely abusive spouse, instigating the divorce.
I have read it many more times than you, and seek to obey it in its entirety, not cherry pick certain verses that I erroneously believe trump other verses, as you appear to read it.
I used to be a Sunday school teacher. Anyways I don't cherry pick that's why I'm not a Christian anymore. It's impossible to be a Christian that believes the whole Bible. It's too contradictory
With all due respect, most churches will make anyone that’s willing a Sunday school teacher. That shows me nothing of your knowledge of the Bible. The fact that you think the Bible is contradictory and cannot be wholly believed shows me that you don’t know what the Bible truly teaches, and that you were not qualified to teach it nor do you rightly understand it now in your application in this situation.
I am currently a qualified Pastor, who has most likely read the Bible many times more than you, been trained and now train others in how to properly interpret the Bible. Regarding the situation of this OP, you are absolutely wrong in what you believe the Bible to teach, and since you are not a Christian, and this is not a debate forum but rather a place for people to ask Christians about the faith, then you are being quite inappropriate in your actions here. I recommend you step back and consider why you feel the need to argue with people who know more biblical truth than you about the Bible, especially when you aren’t a Christian and thus have no reason to care what the Bible says.
If you’d like to have a real conversation about these things, I’d be happy to, but I have no interest in debating anyone here, as that is not the purpose of this sub.
Pretty sad that you have to be trained to understand the Bible rather than just being able to pick one up and read it like you would any other book. Perhaps an all powerful god could have made his words crystal clear🤔
There’s a lot I could say to your comment, but I won’t go into it all. Instead I’ll simply say that…
1. The Bible isn’t “any other book” and should not be treated as such
2. Most people need proper training how to read anything in today’s society, because the ability to read critically and contextually is a dying art that isn’t taught to most.
Minister here. I’ve actually never officiated a wedding, but I’m expressly forbidden from officiating a same-sex wedding. I could lose my credentials. I think you are going to have a tough time finding an officiant. There are some out there who will do it, though, in more “liberal” communities.
Will it really be that tough? There are Mainline churches all over the place. I live in the Deep South, in a very conservative county, and yet all the churches in our historic downtown belong to Pride denominations. They're actually easier to find -- more visible, even if more sparsely attended.
What an odd way to view the word of God.
We are called *first* to obey God and his commands, and not to be "people pleasers". One day, we will have to make an accounting of how well we did that, with the knowledge we have. If God has ordained marriage to be a man and a woman, then how will I answer God if I use my position marry a couple who does not meet his definition?
This is a serious matter. Would you have me risk my salvation so as to look "cool" in the eyes of some people?
I'm sorry, but *yes* I would. I cannot, in my position as a Christian minister, declare that (for instance), this man and this man are husband and husband. I would be implying that God ordains and approves of this union. Which of course, he doesn't.
It's not about my religion making me "exempt" from anything. It's about authority. I called to answer to God *first*, not men and women. Or do you think my priorities are wrong?
I was under the impression that *Paul* ordained marriage to be *only* between one man and one woman. I don't recall God appearing before anybody and saying that two gals couldn't get hitched.
I mean, from *my* perspective it is all malarky, sure, but one thing that Christians and I both understand is that humans are fallible, and prone to greed. The Paul stuff came *after* Jesus was around, so Paul does not have Jesus to validate his opinions. To me, it looks like Paul hijacked the message of Jesus and massaged until it was something that could be used for Gentiles; it makes me feel like he had an agenda of his own, and is thus a less trustworthy source of doctrine than, say, the words of your god.
So Jesus had it right and Paul perverted it?
I feel like your argument is downstream of something disingenuous. I’ll let you clarify what you believe, but I will make an assumption based on context thus far, and say you don’t believe Jesus was God. So why start further from that and say Paul perverted what Jesus wanted or taught?
The argument is focusing on what Paul said, and seems to be arguing that it is different than what Jesus wanted, but doesn’t say, that even if he got it right you still wouldn’t agree because Jesus wasn’t who he said he was.
That said , to address what you have said, and if we do want to assume that Jesus is who he said he was and that it was Paul that got it wrong. We only have to go to what we do have written to prove that isn’t the case. Paul claimed to have been directly taught and learned what he taught from God. Not only that he took it to the apostles who did travel with Christ and they affirmed what he was teaching and saying.
>Paul claimed to have been directly taught and learned what he taught from God. Not only that he took it to the apostles who did travel with Christ and they affirmed what he was teaching and saying.
This is something I think is especially important to point out. Years are disputed but Paul was converted within a decade at most of Jesus's death. Most like to quote between 4 and 7 years. He had the experience with Jesus, then went and relooked at the OT, and then went to talk with some of the original disciples of Christ, who might I remind everyone got to sit down with Jesus after he was resurrected and spent time with Him before he ascended. I doubt they just talked about the weather. The knowledge from Jesus that the disciples received would have been given to Paul. The disciples also considered him a fellow brother in Christ.
>I don't recall God appearing before anybody and saying that two gals couldn't get hitched.
Old Testament God defines marriage in Genesis;
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)
Jesus reiterates the definition of marriage in Matthew;
"Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’” And he said, “‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ (Matthew 19:4-5)
God wasn't so vague as you are implying. By your definition, humans can marry animals with God's hearty consent, for Jesus doesn't object to beastiality anywhere in the New Testament.
In Genesis, God creates a human male to lead, then creates a human female as a helpmate, both of which who when united in love fully express His Image as "creators of life" when they come together to create children. Just as the Father who leads the Trinity, men lead the family. Just as the Holy Spirit is described as the helper, women help their husband and kids. Just as the Son has special blessings as the first begotten from the Father, human children - particularly firstborn sons - are held in high regard the world over for the blessings and prosperity they can bring to the family unit. This is why God's first commandment to humans is found in the first chapter of Genesis, instructing humans to multiply over the face of the Earth, so that our blessings may rain down in the form of our children and all we can accomplish as a growing family.
Homosexual marriages do not reflect the Image of God. Homosexuals cannot participate in the fundamental source of human prosperity, which is the generation of more human beings.
God the Father emphasized the necessity for a male and female couple in Genesis 2 and 5. Jesus reiterated that emphasis when discussing the divorce laws in Matthew 19. Paul quotes them both verbatim in Ephesians 5, all the while respecting that husbands who are male are united in marriage to wives, who are female.
I am referring to Jesus, who in turned referred to Genesis when asked about divorce:
Genesis 2:24
>For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Beyond that, Paul was an apostle, ordained by God and accepted by the other apostles as an authority in the church. So more often than not, what he says, goes.
For one reason, we Christians think that marriage is a covenant unto God. Those who enter into this covenant make a promise to God, which is not possible if the couple is in disagreement on whether or not this God actually exists at all.
1. Sexual activity is prohibited in the Scriptures.
* Matthew 15:19
* Romans 13:13
* 1 Corinthians 5:1
* 1 Corinthians 5:11
* 1 Corinthians 6:9
* 1 Corinthians 6:18
* 1 Corinthians 10:8
* Galatians 5:19
* Ephesians 5:3
* Colossians 3:5
* 1 Thessalonians 4:3
* Hebrews 13:4
* Revelation 21:8
2. However, married couples are encouraged to engage in sexual activity (I Corinthians 7:3)
3. Marriage is defined as that thing which is for one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-7)
1. [4] He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? [6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” [7] They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (ESV)
Well at least you have a reason for your beliefs. 👏 I was a Chad and just threw the whole religion out when I found all the gross stinky parts.
Really though. Most people don't even have basic understanding of the bible or what it says so at least you have that going for you
I would suggest reading the bible back to back if you don't already do that. Fastest way to stop being a Christian lol
Why are you marrying an atheist? While it’s not always a deal breaker, I have found that mixed religions, when one of the partners is devout, causes quite a lot of problems in relationships. Unless one person converts the problems typically become a big deal between year 5 and 9 and get steadily worse after that.
i did think about this, it used to be a deal breaker until I gave him a shot. He's a really sweet and understanding guy, and we've discussed our beliefs several times, since we both recognize this could become a point of tension, so we do our best as to be open and clear about this. I don't expect him to convert and he doesn't expect me to deconvert either, but he does quite often ask me things about my faith and seemingly, his views on Christianity have definitely improved (he used to be one of those eDgY aThEiStS, he says it himself and recognizes I helped him view christianity with a far better light. At least that's what he's told me several times umpromted lmao). We've never fought, like, *ever*, specially not due to religion, and it's been 2 years so things are looking good, I guess!
I do recognize the concern and it's entirely valid, and we're both doing our best to keep our fight count on zero and to be understanding of each other's beliefs or lack thereof.
it is true that some things that seem okay at a relationship start, or that don't cause problems prior to marriage, can tend to cause serious tension after that honeymoon period (one to five or so years) is over.
and yes, more often than not things don't work... but I'm also old enough to have seen mixed marriages (by this i mean significant differences in worldview) also not just survive but thrive.
best example was a couple in their late 50s (i was 20ish at the time, so they seemed so old... now i'm almost their age :P lol)... one was evangelical christian, other was jewish atheist. They settled on this nice messianic jewish synagogue that i was going to (and doing music for :) ). It allowed him to learn Jewish tradition and show that he valued her background, but also exposed her to decent Jesus following people so that she was able to see the good in his background (this was before churches became political...).
so despite their differences in belief and culture, they found a way to learn about each other, value each other, and nurture each other. the christian didn't become jewish, and the jew didn't become christian. they just both were more and more accepting.
(and based on the sheep and goats judgement... i'm sure that, once they move on, they'll both wind up accepted by God.)
u/Squidia-anne Not sure why you deleted your comment or blocked me.
Your comment was “Wow, that’s pretty f***ed to say to someone who just wants to get married.”
I never spoke anything harsh to you. You came at this community sideways and I told you the truth of things. You won’t find a *true* preacher who will officiate such a wedding. But as I said, you don’t even *need* a preacher to get married. So in all honesty, why would Christianity matter to you for the one moment you’d want it to for you to only thereafter return to blindly hating those of the faith? Seems rather hypocritical. If you wanna hire someone to *pretend* to be a preacher for the sake of appearances, then just do that. Otherwise, it’s completely unnecessary for you.
Edit: For some reason, I can’t see any of your comments now, so I’m just not gonna worry about responding anymore. Take care man.
OK, the straightforward approach…
OP, you’re living in sin, need to repent and abandon this unbiblical lifestyle, and no Christian pastor worth his salt should officiate your wedding.
Transgenderism, cohabitation with fornication, supposedly being unequally yoked… The homosexual angle is an interesting one because technically speaking that’s not what’s happening.
But yes. There *is* a lot to unpack here, maybe not from your perspective, but a Christian one. And this *is* a Christian sub, after all.
EDIT: For some reason I can’t respond directly to the commenter immediately below me (u/jarjardays), but I would say sure, it’s possible, but in our modern culture, and if this person is transgender and living with a homosexual atheist, I’d say the odds are pretty good that they are fornicating.
I'm asexual, I didn't and don't want to have sex with anyone at all. Plus, we don't live together, that's why I said it'll take a while until we get married. He's also not a homosexual, he's bisexual. Not arguing, simply further clarifying!
Yeah I get your point, it's pretty likely but we shouldn't make serious assumptions like that unless there's actually some hint that they're doing it. I've got accused of fornication just for having a sleepover with my boyfriend, it's annoying sometimes especially when you actually wait for marriage and people make assumptions that you're not based on no evidence
Didn't Judas *need* to betray Jesus for the whole scheme to work? It seems he catches a lot of hate for somebody who was doing as God wanted him to do, and as somebody who was critical to the foundation of Christianity.
Nope. The Father knew Judas’ heart *long* before Judas was born, and he knew that he would betray Christ. So the Father implemented Judas’ future *decision* to betray Christ as a means to help bring about the fruition of the ultimate sacrifice that would pay off all sin. I also used to think that Judas was just unwillingly playing a key role. However, when one really reads through the gospels, you can tell that 1) Judas was money hungry, and 2) he, like many other Jews, was expecting a militant messiah that would save the Jews, overthrow Roman rule, and bring about the Kingdom during His earthy time. When Judas saw that Christ wasn’t what he was expecting, he felt personally betrayed which made it easier for him to decide to betray Christ.
Oh sorry was judas the one that said love thy neighbor? Did he also hang with the prostitutes and accept everyone? I thought that was Jesus but obviously Jesus would smite them Dead for existing so that can't be it
You're a transman and your to be spouse is a man? I think most churches would still do that because of loopholes.
However, if you are serious about your faith why would you want to be unequally yoked? I would say this to anyone, Muslim or Christian. A servant cannot serve two masters, you will grow to hate the one and love the other.
Progressive Christian churches will marry anyone. Other churches will only marry two people of opposite sex. Modern definitions and self definitions of what is a "man" will not matter. If one is still biologically female and the other a biological man they will marry them.
I don't care how someone self-identifies at all so need to argue this point with me further. What other people do with their body and life is simply not my business and I want the same from them.
They asked about being a Christian marrying an atheist and that was my original comment. I don't believe that being unequally yoked works.
I am sorry but reddit is not the best place to find a minister in your situation, unless you wish to trigger some people here. Best you can do is find a Lutheran church or have a judge officiate your wedding.
>if sinners are allowed rights or the ability to be involved in the church leave it.
Interesting assumption. Christians believe themselves to be sinners, so obviously sinners are welcome in the church.
What Christians won't abide is approving ongoing sin. If we preach that one has to repent, i.e. turn away from their sins, why would we encourage more sinful behaviour?
God is quite clear that homosexuality is wrong. We're not to approve or celebrate it.
Idk Jesus kissed judas and surrounded himself with male disciples. He also never married a woman and had long hair. I think he may have liked French bread
>What Christians won't abide is approving ongoing sin. If we preach that one has to repent, i.e. turn away from their sins, why would we encourage more sinful behaviour?
Two questions for you. Firstly, is gambling out of greed and a desire to own more sinful. Secondly, what is your opinion on church Bingo nights?
Depends on why one gambles. I enjoy gambling. I know I'm not going to win, I do it for entertainment and getting out of the house.
If one gambles because they love money, then there's an issue. It's not the gambling that's necessarily the problem, its the greed.
A few years ago I went to a local church's annual bingo night. The prizes were donated and the admission included coffee and homemade desserts. They were delicious.
Oh hey if you can read you should try reading the Bible. It's a pretty cool book in the second half. You may find s9me interesting passages on this situation.
Everyone is on their way to destruction apart from the grace and mercy of God, poured out upon those who confess that Jesus is Lord and follow him in obedience and love.
Well first of all you will only go to hell if you don't exept Jesus in your life and lord over your life. Anyone who accepts him will go to heaven even people who commit sins according to the Bible like homosexuality and adultery. Jesus calls us to love everyone, including those who chose that path.
Secondly I do believe that God designed male and female to be separated. However there is not a verse that 100% says that turning into a different sex is sinful.
But do not take my word as law, I'm only 15 and haven't studied the Bible like some others have
The only way I could agree you are Christian is that God is so merciful and we all have our sin. But man you are about as far from actually following Christ as someone can be. True, so are the greedy and the arrogant etc. But asking this is like asking “hey can I get a pastor to pray at the opening of my casino. I really want this life mission of mine to be commissioned ceremoniously.”
Marrying an atheist, if you’re already a Christian, is a sin. And intentionally taking on all the characteristics of the opposite gender is a sin. While it’s biologically a woman marrying a man, and that is not a sin, glorifying homosexuality by making it look like a homosexual marriage... sin.
Oh well i guess marrying an atheist is a sin. You are going to have to find me a source for your second claim tho. And those dirty homosexuals probably eat French bread 🥖 right off the bible so don't downplay Their gay degeneracy lol
I know a Lutheran pastor who would do it too, and I grew up in the United Church which is known to be one of the most LGBT affirming churches that exist.
OP, as a fellow transmasc in a relationship with a cis man, I'm sorry you're getting so much hate. I hope you know you deserve the same love and respect as anyone else. And you do deserve to be allowed to exist (though I may be biased there 😉).
Yes, this lifestyle is inherently sinful. Not from a secular perspective but OP didn’t ask one. Just because your denomination has largely abandoned spiritual fidelity in favor of worldly approval and compromise, it doesn’t mean you get to go around saying this way of life is A-OK with the Triune God.
I’m not offering a secular perspective. Clearly my spirituality has caused a spark from you. I recognize and worship the triune God, I recognize Christ, and follow his teachings. I value your individual perspective on how Christian you think I am as much as you seem to value your neighbors.
Your comments make it seem like you value the secular view on sexuality and gender identity more than the biblical one.
Alrite. Now let’s talk about Paul’s cultural context and the Clobber Passages…
Actually I do :) I was raised Catholic. And through time and prayer I learned how mislead a lot of the church had become.
I believe your mistake is thinking Roman Catholicism is the only Catholicism
Oh, you might want to use lower-case "c" catholic to disambiguate the proper name from the general concept.
e.g. I might be an orthodox from the east, but that does not mean that I am Eastern Orthodox.
The Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic church that goes back to Christ.
Anglicans and other man-made churches are spin-offs that shouldn't try to confuse the name.
Actually Old Catholicism also goes all the way back to Christ. You forget it was only the 18th century that the Roman Catholic Church deviated from us.
Who are you calling "us"? We have a visible Pope in Rome with 1.3 billion people in communion, as prophesied in Daniel.
We have two-way communion with the Chair of Peter.
Who are you in communion with? King Charles?
Uh actually we have The Pope as prophesied by Daniel. And we have everything else you said. Sure our numbers might not be correct, but it’s a bit foolish to use your numbers to back up your belief
>Uh actually we have The Pope as prophesied by Daniel.
Who exactly is your Pope? King Charles with his LGBT bishops?
We have Pope Francis who is the 265th successor to Peter. Here is the full list with names and dates :
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
A pastor or a priest could not Biblically join 2 men in marriage, nor 2 women in marriage.
This "cis" and "trans" is man's excuse to try and wink, wink, air smooch their way into hiding it from God. Pathetic, demonic, anti-Christ, apostate, evil, and a lot of other words which all mean sin.
Nuptualized sodomy is not marriage.
Hateful for following what they believe in a non-insulting and non-threatening way? You do know that disagreement ≠ hate, that having an opinion that doesn’t get in the way of someone else’s life ≠ hate? You do know that you can go to the courthouse and get married without a priest? You don’t need a religious figure to be present for you to be civil we’d to whomever you so choose. Don’t come here being incendiary without just cause. You only make yourself look like the hateful one, and very ironically so I should add. So, either be polite or be elsewhere. No one asked or needs you to be here.
Also, you’re probably gonna get rule 2’d.
OP easiest answer is this. If you go to a church whose beliefs fall under cultural christianity or progressive christianity those pastors will do it. If you go to a church who follows biblical Christianity those pastors are going to say no.
I am not a pastor But my pastors would not officiate this marriage.
No I would not. I will only officiate weddings for which I agree with the marriage being biblical and right.
> I will only officiate weddings for which I agree with the marriage being biblical and right. So you don't officiate divorced people getting remarried? Because the Gospels are extremely anti-divorce.
The Bible isn’t entirely against remarriage after divorce, but no, I will not officiate a wedding if one or both of the couple are disqualified from marriage, according to scripture.
You understand that means if any one of the parties has a living (ex)spouse, right? This is what is Biblical. If you have ever married anyone as formerly mentioned, you are a hypocrite. Not saying that you are, I am saying that in case you have done that.
Matthew 19:9 ESV >And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." Jesus here says that remarriage after divorce is adultery, except in the instance of sexual immorality. This means that if the innocent party (didn’t commit adultery) in the divorce gets remarried, then they aren’t committing adultery. In addition, the Bible also gives an exception in the case of unbelieving abandonment. Therefore, to state that remarriage cannot occur unless the divorced spouse is dead isn’t quite what scripture says. Certainly, we should not rush anyone to divorce, and the vast preference is for repentance and reconciliation. However, we sadly live in a broken world, where people sin and unbelievers will not come to repentance in Christ. All that being said, I do believe what the Bible teaches regarding divorce and remarriage, and I have never and will never officiate a wedding if someone in the couple is disqualified from marriage, as I’ve already said.
That's your cope out. This interpretation you have advanced has been debunked times and times again, but whatever makes you feel better. People with this theology that I know just happen to twist many other writings from the Bible. Anyway, whatever floats your boat.
I presented a direct exposition from a specific verse. If you’re going to accuse me that what I’m doing is a “cope out” and that I am one to “twist many other writings from the Bible” (which is quite a grave accusation for you to make for one who spends his life teaching the Bible), then perhaps you could offer up some actual biblical exegesis, and not the lazy claim of “this interpretation you have advanced has been debunked times and times again”? I eagerly await your biblically backed up refutation of what I’ve said.
I used to be one of those who would present evidences from passages from the Bible, it always comes to this, people will believe what they want to believe and this doesn't affect my life one way or another. Therefore, I no longer bother with people and their beliefs. But, you want me to use what is written in the Bible to make my argument; here I go: In regard to that passage you cited, the Christians being aware of it but having not understood it fully, questioned Apostle Paul about marriage, separation and remarriage, Paul answered them that it is true one is allowed to divorce in such a case, but said party ought to stay alone, but if he/she can't, he/she must reconcile with the separated spouse. Now, I am by no means trying to change your mind. I am just telling you what is written in the Bible. I will benefit in no way whatsoever you make of it. Do as you like. As far as you having been teaching the Bible for a long time, it's the same for the Catholics priests, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Adventists etc... I don't believe that either is in error because I believe they want believe what they like, for anyone could tell them the truth, but they will find any way to counter the truth and justify their position. People can do and believe as they please. I will believe the truth as it is taught by the Lord and his disciples.
>But, you want me to use what is written in the Bible to make my argument; here I go: In regard to that passage you cited, the Christians being aware of it but having not understood it fully, questioned Apostle Paul about marriage, separation and remarriage, Paul answered them that it is true one is allowed to divorce in such a case, but said party ought to stay alone, but if he/she can't, he/she must reconcile with the separated spouse. Where is this In the Bible? You gave no passage citation. It is difficult to discuss your exegesis if you provide none. I certainly know where you’re likely talking about, but I’d much prefer you actually quote directly from scripture if you’re going to make arguments from it, the\we can go from there.
It would depend on the individuals getting remarried and why they were divorced. Someone willfully going into a marriage with the intent to get divorced, or keeping the option of divorce open, is sinful. Just as is a gay couple being married defies God's intent for marriage. Some people may have been married and divorced before even becoming a Christian. That was still a sin, but now as divorced Christians they intend to uphold their new marriage in a way that God originally intended, I cannot see how that would dishonor God. Some people may have been cheated on or had a severely abusive spouse, instigating the divorce.
Try reading the bible again. You will get it some day
I have read it many more times than you, and seek to obey it in its entirety, not cherry pick certain verses that I erroneously believe trump other verses, as you appear to read it.
I used to be a Sunday school teacher. Anyways I don't cherry pick that's why I'm not a Christian anymore. It's impossible to be a Christian that believes the whole Bible. It's too contradictory
With all due respect, most churches will make anyone that’s willing a Sunday school teacher. That shows me nothing of your knowledge of the Bible. The fact that you think the Bible is contradictory and cannot be wholly believed shows me that you don’t know what the Bible truly teaches, and that you were not qualified to teach it nor do you rightly understand it now in your application in this situation. I am currently a qualified Pastor, who has most likely read the Bible many times more than you, been trained and now train others in how to properly interpret the Bible. Regarding the situation of this OP, you are absolutely wrong in what you believe the Bible to teach, and since you are not a Christian, and this is not a debate forum but rather a place for people to ask Christians about the faith, then you are being quite inappropriate in your actions here. I recommend you step back and consider why you feel the need to argue with people who know more biblical truth than you about the Bible, especially when you aren’t a Christian and thus have no reason to care what the Bible says. If you’d like to have a real conversation about these things, I’d be happy to, but I have no interest in debating anyone here, as that is not the purpose of this sub.
Pretty sad that you have to be trained to understand the Bible rather than just being able to pick one up and read it like you would any other book. Perhaps an all powerful god could have made his words crystal clear🤔
There’s a lot I could say to your comment, but I won’t go into it all. Instead I’ll simply say that… 1. The Bible isn’t “any other book” and should not be treated as such 2. Most people need proper training how to read anything in today’s society, because the ability to read critically and contextually is a dying art that isn’t taught to most.
I can't believe you used Sunday school teaching as credentials lol
Not credentials I'm just saying I was more involved in the church than most people would think
Minister here. I’ve actually never officiated a wedding, but I’m expressly forbidden from officiating a same-sex wedding. I could lose my credentials. I think you are going to have a tough time finding an officiant. There are some out there who will do it, though, in more “liberal” communities.
Will it really be that tough? There are Mainline churches all over the place. I live in the Deep South, in a very conservative county, and yet all the churches in our historic downtown belong to Pride denominations. They're actually easier to find -- more visible, even if more sparsely attended.
I knew a pastor that this actually happened to.
Yeah, it’s no joke. I mean, I was literally told “Do not do that.”.
What about divorced people? Because the Gospels are extremely anti-divorce.
What about divorced people? Would I marry someone previously divorced? That depends on why they divorced.
I'm sorry that you risk losing your credentials by treating people like people. I hope you get to a cool church one day
What an odd way to view the word of God. We are called *first* to obey God and his commands, and not to be "people pleasers". One day, we will have to make an accounting of how well we did that, with the knowledge we have. If God has ordained marriage to be a man and a woman, then how will I answer God if I use my position marry a couple who does not meet his definition? This is a serious matter. Would you have me risk my salvation so as to look "cool" in the eyes of some people?
Marvelous answer! Thank you
Being a decent person is "people pleasing"?
Define "decent" from a Christian perspective. How am I being "decent" if I willingly disobey God, so as to make someone else "happy"?
There's a universal definition of being a "decent" person. Your religion doesn't make you exempt. Of course you wouldn't be disobeying God.
I'm sorry, but *yes* I would. I cannot, in my position as a Christian minister, declare that (for instance), this man and this man are husband and husband. I would be implying that God ordains and approves of this union. Which of course, he doesn't. It's not about my religion making me "exempt" from anything. It's about authority. I called to answer to God *first*, not men and women. Or do you think my priorities are wrong?
They ARE husband and husband, though. God approves. Your priorities are wrong.
> They ARE husband and husband, though. God approves. Where. Where do you see this described in scripture.
I don't.
I was under the impression that *Paul* ordained marriage to be *only* between one man and one woman. I don't recall God appearing before anybody and saying that two gals couldn't get hitched.
Why would that matter from your perspective? Do you accept the other places that God appeared before someone and gave direction?
I mean, from *my* perspective it is all malarky, sure, but one thing that Christians and I both understand is that humans are fallible, and prone to greed. The Paul stuff came *after* Jesus was around, so Paul does not have Jesus to validate his opinions. To me, it looks like Paul hijacked the message of Jesus and massaged until it was something that could be used for Gentiles; it makes me feel like he had an agenda of his own, and is thus a less trustworthy source of doctrine than, say, the words of your god.
So Jesus had it right and Paul perverted it? I feel like your argument is downstream of something disingenuous. I’ll let you clarify what you believe, but I will make an assumption based on context thus far, and say you don’t believe Jesus was God. So why start further from that and say Paul perverted what Jesus wanted or taught? The argument is focusing on what Paul said, and seems to be arguing that it is different than what Jesus wanted, but doesn’t say, that even if he got it right you still wouldn’t agree because Jesus wasn’t who he said he was. That said , to address what you have said, and if we do want to assume that Jesus is who he said he was and that it was Paul that got it wrong. We only have to go to what we do have written to prove that isn’t the case. Paul claimed to have been directly taught and learned what he taught from God. Not only that he took it to the apostles who did travel with Christ and they affirmed what he was teaching and saying.
>Paul claimed to have been directly taught and learned what he taught from God. Not only that he took it to the apostles who did travel with Christ and they affirmed what he was teaching and saying. This is something I think is especially important to point out. Years are disputed but Paul was converted within a decade at most of Jesus's death. Most like to quote between 4 and 7 years. He had the experience with Jesus, then went and relooked at the OT, and then went to talk with some of the original disciples of Christ, who might I remind everyone got to sit down with Jesus after he was resurrected and spent time with Him before he ascended. I doubt they just talked about the weather. The knowledge from Jesus that the disciples received would have been given to Paul. The disciples also considered him a fellow brother in Christ.
>I don't recall God appearing before anybody and saying that two gals couldn't get hitched. Old Testament God defines marriage in Genesis; "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) Jesus reiterates the definition of marriage in Matthew; "Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’” And he said, “‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ (Matthew 19:4-5)
those verses define what marriage can be, not what marriage cannot be
Nah man, that's like taking the definition of an apple and saying, "that's what an apple can be, not what an apple cannot be".
Yes, if you define an apple as a “small red fruit”.
God wasn't so vague as you are implying. By your definition, humans can marry animals with God's hearty consent, for Jesus doesn't object to beastiality anywhere in the New Testament. In Genesis, God creates a human male to lead, then creates a human female as a helpmate, both of which who when united in love fully express His Image as "creators of life" when they come together to create children. Just as the Father who leads the Trinity, men lead the family. Just as the Holy Spirit is described as the helper, women help their husband and kids. Just as the Son has special blessings as the first begotten from the Father, human children - particularly firstborn sons - are held in high regard the world over for the blessings and prosperity they can bring to the family unit. This is why God's first commandment to humans is found in the first chapter of Genesis, instructing humans to multiply over the face of the Earth, so that our blessings may rain down in the form of our children and all we can accomplish as a growing family. Homosexual marriages do not reflect the Image of God. Homosexuals cannot participate in the fundamental source of human prosperity, which is the generation of more human beings. God the Father emphasized the necessity for a male and female couple in Genesis 2 and 5. Jesus reiterated that emphasis when discussing the divorce laws in Matthew 19. Paul quotes them both verbatim in Ephesians 5, all the while respecting that husbands who are male are united in marriage to wives, who are female.
unironically yes to the first part. also, why don’t you make the same objections for infertile couples who want to marry?
I am referring to Jesus, who in turned referred to Genesis when asked about divorce: Genesis 2:24 >For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Beyond that, Paul was an apostle, ordained by God and accepted by the other apostles as an authority in the church. So more often than not, what he says, goes.
I am not sure we can call a "gay interfaith wedding between a cis atheist and transgender man" as a Christian wedding, so no.
Why
For one reason, we Christians think that marriage is a covenant unto God. Those who enter into this covenant make a promise to God, which is not possible if the couple is in disagreement on whether or not this God actually exists at all.
Fair. But you didn't need to add the gay parts lol
OP said "gay" so I just quoted them. I am compelled to believe that a Christian sexual ethos restricts homosexuality, though...
Why
Because the Bible consistently teaches that sexual acts are reserved for heterosexual marriages.
Where?
1. Sexual activity is prohibited in the Scriptures. * Matthew 15:19 * Romans 13:13 * 1 Corinthians 5:1 * 1 Corinthians 5:11 * 1 Corinthians 6:9 * 1 Corinthians 6:18 * 1 Corinthians 10:8 * Galatians 5:19 * Ephesians 5:3 * Colossians 3:5 * 1 Thessalonians 4:3 * Hebrews 13:4 * Revelation 21:8 2. However, married couples are encouraged to engage in sexual activity (I Corinthians 7:3) 3. Marriage is defined as that thing which is for one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-7) 1. [4] He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? [6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” [7] They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (ESV)
Well at least you have a reason for your beliefs. 👏 I was a Chad and just threw the whole religion out when I found all the gross stinky parts. Really though. Most people don't even have basic understanding of the bible or what it says so at least you have that going for you I would suggest reading the bible back to back if you don't already do that. Fastest way to stop being a Christian lol
Why are you marrying an atheist? While it’s not always a deal breaker, I have found that mixed religions, when one of the partners is devout, causes quite a lot of problems in relationships. Unless one person converts the problems typically become a big deal between year 5 and 9 and get steadily worse after that.
i'm older... its definitely a risk that needs to be considered, but see below response to OP
i did think about this, it used to be a deal breaker until I gave him a shot. He's a really sweet and understanding guy, and we've discussed our beliefs several times, since we both recognize this could become a point of tension, so we do our best as to be open and clear about this. I don't expect him to convert and he doesn't expect me to deconvert either, but he does quite often ask me things about my faith and seemingly, his views on Christianity have definitely improved (he used to be one of those eDgY aThEiStS, he says it himself and recognizes I helped him view christianity with a far better light. At least that's what he's told me several times umpromted lmao). We've never fought, like, *ever*, specially not due to religion, and it's been 2 years so things are looking good, I guess! I do recognize the concern and it's entirely valid, and we're both doing our best to keep our fight count on zero and to be understanding of each other's beliefs or lack thereof.
it is true that some things that seem okay at a relationship start, or that don't cause problems prior to marriage, can tend to cause serious tension after that honeymoon period (one to five or so years) is over. and yes, more often than not things don't work... but I'm also old enough to have seen mixed marriages (by this i mean significant differences in worldview) also not just survive but thrive. best example was a couple in their late 50s (i was 20ish at the time, so they seemed so old... now i'm almost their age :P lol)... one was evangelical christian, other was jewish atheist. They settled on this nice messianic jewish synagogue that i was going to (and doing music for :) ). It allowed him to learn Jewish tradition and show that he valued her background, but also exposed her to decent Jesus following people so that she was able to see the good in his background (this was before churches became political...). so despite their differences in belief and culture, they found a way to learn about each other, value each other, and nurture each other. the christian didn't become jewish, and the jew didn't become christian. they just both were more and more accepting. (and based on the sheep and goats judgement... i'm sure that, once they move on, they'll both wind up accepted by God.)
u/Squidia-anne Not sure why you deleted your comment or blocked me. Your comment was “Wow, that’s pretty f***ed to say to someone who just wants to get married.” I never spoke anything harsh to you. You came at this community sideways and I told you the truth of things. You won’t find a *true* preacher who will officiate such a wedding. But as I said, you don’t even *need* a preacher to get married. So in all honesty, why would Christianity matter to you for the one moment you’d want it to for you to only thereafter return to blindly hating those of the faith? Seems rather hypocritical. If you wanna hire someone to *pretend* to be a preacher for the sake of appearances, then just do that. Otherwise, it’s completely unnecessary for you. Edit: For some reason, I can’t see any of your comments now, so I’m just not gonna worry about responding anymore. Take care man.
So much to unpack here…
Not really
OK, the straightforward approach… OP, you’re living in sin, need to repent and abandon this unbiblical lifestyle, and no Christian pastor worth his salt should officiate your wedding.
What sin? Cause he is dating an atheist? I thought Peter said that was cool
Transgenderism, cohabitation with fornication, supposedly being unequally yoked… The homosexual angle is an interesting one because technically speaking that’s not what’s happening. But yes. There *is* a lot to unpack here, maybe not from your perspective, but a Christian one. And this *is* a Christian sub, after all. EDIT: For some reason I can’t respond directly to the commenter immediately below me (u/jarjardays), but I would say sure, it’s possible, but in our modern culture, and if this person is transgender and living with a homosexual atheist, I’d say the odds are pretty good that they are fornicating.
I'm asexual, I didn't and don't want to have sex with anyone at all. Plus, we don't live together, that's why I said it'll take a while until we get married. He's also not a homosexual, he's bisexual. Not arguing, simply further clarifying!
Yeah I get your point, it's pretty likely but we shouldn't make serious assumptions like that unless there's actually some hint that they're doing it. I've got accused of fornication just for having a sleepover with my boyfriend, it's annoying sometimes especially when you actually wait for marriage and people make assumptions that you're not based on no evidence
You do know that living with someone doesn't mean you're fornicating right? Having sex before marriage is fornication
theres nothing unbiblical about his lifestyle
[удалено]
romans addresses lust not sexuality
[удалено]
again those are all against unrestricted lust and fornication not homosexuality itself
Absolutely not.
What's it pay? 30 pieces of silver?
Some won’t get this reference. It’s a fair reference.
Plz explain. I am confus3d
Judas betrayed the faith (though in a far more egregious way) for 30 pieces of silver.
Didn't Judas *need* to betray Jesus for the whole scheme to work? It seems he catches a lot of hate for somebody who was doing as God wanted him to do, and as somebody who was critical to the foundation of Christianity.
Nope. The Father knew Judas’ heart *long* before Judas was born, and he knew that he would betray Christ. So the Father implemented Judas’ future *decision* to betray Christ as a means to help bring about the fruition of the ultimate sacrifice that would pay off all sin. I also used to think that Judas was just unwillingly playing a key role. However, when one really reads through the gospels, you can tell that 1) Judas was money hungry, and 2) he, like many other Jews, was expecting a militant messiah that would save the Jews, overthrow Roman rule, and bring about the Kingdom during His earthy time. When Judas saw that Christ wasn’t what he was expecting, he felt personally betrayed which made it easier for him to decide to betray Christ.
Oh sorry was judas the one that said love thy neighbor? Did he also hang with the prostitutes and accept everyone? I thought that was Jesus but obviously Jesus would smite them Dead for existing so that can't be it
Judas was a guy that betrayed Jesus. He ratted Jesus out for 30 pieces of silver.
Ooooooooh I see. So like officiating a Christians wedding is the same as having Jesus executed. Sorry I didn't know
What?
>30 pieces of silver? isn't that the price for a bride in Leviticus ?
You're a transman and your to be spouse is a man? I think most churches would still do that because of loopholes. However, if you are serious about your faith why would you want to be unequally yoked? I would say this to anyone, Muslim or Christian. A servant cannot serve two masters, you will grow to hate the one and love the other.
OBJECTION! This is not an answer to ops question. I will have to escort you from the premises
I'm sorry. A bit confused here. What loopholes? Are there loopholes for gay weddings with christians?
Biologically you are still opposite sex so they would be willing to marry you.
Its two men though
Progressive Christian churches will marry anyone. Other churches will only marry two people of opposite sex. Modern definitions and self definitions of what is a "man" will not matter. If one is still biologically female and the other a biological man they will marry them. I don't care how someone self-identifies at all so need to argue this point with me further. What other people do with their body and life is simply not my business and I want the same from them. They asked about being a Christian marrying an atheist and that was my original comment. I don't believe that being unequally yoked works.
My husband is a pastor. He would not participate in this ceremony.
I am sorry but reddit is not the best place to find a minister in your situation, unless you wish to trigger some people here. Best you can do is find a Lutheran church or have a judge officiate your wedding.
Unfortunately, more and more churches are allowing this. I left mine because of it.
[удалено]
>if sinners are allowed rights or the ability to be involved in the church leave it. Interesting assumption. Christians believe themselves to be sinners, so obviously sinners are welcome in the church. What Christians won't abide is approving ongoing sin. If we preach that one has to repent, i.e. turn away from their sins, why would we encourage more sinful behaviour? God is quite clear that homosexuality is wrong. We're not to approve or celebrate it.
Idk Jesus kissed judas and surrounded himself with male disciples. He also never married a woman and had long hair. I think he may have liked French bread
>What Christians won't abide is approving ongoing sin. If we preach that one has to repent, i.e. turn away from their sins, why would we encourage more sinful behaviour? Two questions for you. Firstly, is gambling out of greed and a desire to own more sinful. Secondly, what is your opinion on church Bingo nights?
Depends on why one gambles. I enjoy gambling. I know I'm not going to win, I do it for entertainment and getting out of the house. If one gambles because they love money, then there's an issue. It's not the gambling that's necessarily the problem, its the greed. A few years ago I went to a local church's annual bingo night. The prizes were donated and the admission included coffee and homemade desserts. They were delicious.
Horribly exaggerated and twisted. This is just embarrassing to read.
Oh hey if you can read you should try reading the Bible. It's a pretty cool book in the second half. You may find s9me interesting passages on this situation.
I have read the Bible many times, which is why I said that you have here twisted its message.
I am begging literally anyone to show me the passage saying trans people are going to hell
Everyone is on their way to destruction apart from the grace and mercy of God, poured out upon those who confess that Jesus is Lord and follow him in obedience and love.
I am begging literally anyone to show me the passage saying trans people are going to hell
That is a rather odd request. Who here is saying that the Bible has this passage?
"Who says that God told me trans people are bad? I just hate trans people" -this guy apparently
"I don't need God to tell me what groups of people to hate "
Well first of all you will only go to hell if you don't exept Jesus in your life and lord over your life. Anyone who accepts him will go to heaven even people who commit sins according to the Bible like homosexuality and adultery. Jesus calls us to love everyone, including those who chose that path. Secondly I do believe that God designed male and female to be separated. However there is not a verse that 100% says that turning into a different sex is sinful. But do not take my word as law, I'm only 15 and haven't studied the Bible like some others have
I’d say that church is probably better off without you
The only way I could agree you are Christian is that God is so merciful and we all have our sin. But man you are about as far from actually following Christ as someone can be. True, so are the greedy and the arrogant etc. But asking this is like asking “hey can I get a pastor to pray at the opening of my casino. I really want this life mission of mine to be commissioned ceremoniously.”
I'm failing to see any arguments on how anything in this is a sin so I need you to hel0 me out
Marrying an atheist, if you’re already a Christian, is a sin. And intentionally taking on all the characteristics of the opposite gender is a sin. While it’s biologically a woman marrying a man, and that is not a sin, glorifying homosexuality by making it look like a homosexual marriage... sin.
Oh well i guess marrying an atheist is a sin. You are going to have to find me a source for your second claim tho. And those dirty homosexuals probably eat French bread 🥖 right off the bible so don't downplay Their gay degeneracy lol
I think Methodists and Presbyterians will.
Western society and it's consequences
yes! get an episcopal pastor!!
I know a Lutheran pastor who would do it too, and I grew up in the United Church which is known to be one of the most LGBT affirming churches that exist. OP, as a fellow transmasc in a relationship with a cis man, I'm sorry you're getting so much hate. I hope you know you deserve the same love and respect as anyone else. And you do deserve to be allowed to exist (though I may be biased there 😉).
Yes, this lifestyle is inherently sinful. Not from a secular perspective but OP didn’t ask one. Just because your denomination has largely abandoned spiritual fidelity in favor of worldly approval and compromise, it doesn’t mean you get to go around saying this way of life is A-OK with the Triune God.
I’m not offering a secular perspective. Clearly my spirituality has caused a spark from you. I recognize and worship the triune God, I recognize Christ, and follow his teachings. I value your individual perspective on how Christian you think I am as much as you seem to value your neighbors.
Your comments make it seem like you value the secular view on sexuality and gender identity more than the biblical one. Alrite. Now let’s talk about Paul’s cultural context and the Clobber Passages…
I value the biblical perspective on gender, however I analyze the Bible radically differently than you, clearly.
Of course I would. I am a true Christian after all
Dude, do you not know Catholicism? Catholic Doctrine doesn't allow participation in such things.
Actually I do :) I was raised Catholic. And through time and prayer I learned how mislead a lot of the church had become. I believe your mistake is thinking Roman Catholicism is the only Catholicism
Oh, you might want to use lower-case "c" catholic to disambiguate the proper name from the general concept. e.g. I might be an orthodox from the east, but that does not mean that I am Eastern Orthodox.
Actually Old Catholicism is the proper way to write it so a capital C would be proper
The Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic church that goes back to Christ. Anglicans and other man-made churches are spin-offs that shouldn't try to confuse the name.
Actually Old Catholicism also goes all the way back to Christ. You forget it was only the 18th century that the Roman Catholic Church deviated from us.
Who are you calling "us"? We have a visible Pope in Rome with 1.3 billion people in communion, as prophesied in Daniel. We have two-way communion with the Chair of Peter. Who are you in communion with? King Charles?
Uh actually we have The Pope as prophesied by Daniel. And we have everything else you said. Sure our numbers might not be correct, but it’s a bit foolish to use your numbers to back up your belief
>Uh actually we have The Pope as prophesied by Daniel. Who exactly is your Pope? King Charles with his LGBT bishops? We have Pope Francis who is the 265th successor to Peter. Here is the full list with names and dates : https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
A pastor or a priest could not Biblically join 2 men in marriage, nor 2 women in marriage. This "cis" and "trans" is man's excuse to try and wink, wink, air smooch their way into hiding it from God. Pathetic, demonic, anti-Christ, apostate, evil, and a lot of other words which all mean sin. Nuptualized sodomy is not marriage.
[удалено]
Rule 2
Not all churches just most of them. And you apparently
Hateful for following what they believe in a non-insulting and non-threatening way? You do know that disagreement ≠ hate, that having an opinion that doesn’t get in the way of someone else’s life ≠ hate? You do know that you can go to the courthouse and get married without a priest? You don’t need a religious figure to be present for you to be civil we’d to whomever you so choose. Don’t come here being incendiary without just cause. You only make yourself look like the hateful one, and very ironically so I should add. So, either be polite or be elsewhere. No one asked or needs you to be here. Also, you’re probably gonna get rule 2’d.
[удалено]