Megachurch cancels vet’s memorial because he was gay.
By on Aug 12th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Megachurch cancels vet’s memorial because he was gay.
24 hours before it was to hold a memorial service for Navy vet Cecil Howard Sinclair, the High Point Church in Arlington, TX, canceled the ceremony after discovering that Sinclair was gay. “It’s a slap in the face. It’s like, ‘Oh, we’re sorry he died, but he’s gay so we can’t help you,’” said Sinclair’s sister, Kathleen Wright. High Point’s pastor, Rev. Gary Simons, claimed the church acted on “principle”:
“We did decline to host the service — not based on hatred, not based on discrimination, but based on principle,” Simons told The Associated Press. “Had we known it on the day they first spoke about it — yes, we would have declined then. It’s not that we didn’t love the family.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Jesus wept.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:32 amNot based on hatred. We love the family but hate the fact he was gay. Jesus weeps.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:33 am“We did decline to host the service — not based on hatred, not based on discrimination, but based on principle.â€
August 12th, 2007 at 11:35 am
A friend long ago told me that when someone said something was a matter of principle, to ask them to state exactly what the principle is. I wish the pastor would state the principle he’s referring to—in the words of his Savior, if possible.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:37 amMaybe the head of High Point Church is gay? And this is part of of self-hate routine?
August 12th, 2007 at 11:37 amThats some “principle”.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:38 amYup, the principle of hatred and discrimination. Disgusting.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:40 amIt’s not that we didn’t love the family.
Aren’t memorial services really for the family? The deceased really isn’t in a position to care much one way or the other. This is a sad commentary on this church and its pastor.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:40 amrecycling stories from C&L ???
you would be doing yourselves a HUGE favor, TP,
if you went to the gonzales thread and pitched everything
from at least the 800s on…
really really smelly over there…
August 12th, 2007 at 11:41 ama major embarrassment…
…
#7 Bob, I was going to say the same thing about principle of hatred, but you beat me to it.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:43 amYa gotta love these “holier-than-thou” so called “Christians” that claim to have “principles”. Strange how selective their “principles” are. I’m sure there’s more than one principle that they discriminate against but strange how the only one that gets enforced is homosexuality.
And as a side note on homosexuality, take a look at the pastor on their web page. I’m just saying…….
August 12th, 2007 at 11:44 amIf he were a gambler or an alchoholic or an adulterer the service would have been canceled too.
Comment by George — August 12, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Seriously? How do you know that? Does this church have a specific list of sins that forbid a memorial service?
August 12th, 2007 at 11:45 amrecycling stories from C&L ???
Comment by katy — August 12, 2007 @ 11:41 am
It was a story on Americablog a few days ago. C&L picked it up and now TP.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:46 amApparently Pastor Simons isn’t satisfied to hate “the gay” during life, the hate must go on even after death.
Oops, I mean….his principles must go on even after death.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:46 amTrizza-OMG!! I wonder if he know Rev. Haggard?
August 12th, 2007 at 11:47 am“It’s not that we didn’t love the family.â€
Ya, they loved them so much they were going to teach them a lesson about supporting the geh lifestyle..doing bait and switch over a dead loved one.
Nice people.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:48 amhow christ like……
August 12th, 2007 at 11:48 amIf I had Bill Gates’ money, I might be tempted to hire a squadron of private investigators and identify every single member of that church who has ever been involved in adultery. Such individuals would indeed be fortunate if they were merely let off with expulsion from the church, since the Biblical prescriptions were a little more severe, as the passages which will follow later will attest.
So, the question to anyone who wishes to speak for High Point — What would you have done in the following situation? Would your actions be consistent with the stance of your church with regard to canceling the service for the gay veteran? Please explain.
And here are the promised Biblical passages, taking note that the New Testament rules apparently exempt the man from any punishment (how convenient):
John 8:2-11 — 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” — NIV
Leviticus 20:10 — 10 ” ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.– NIV
August 12th, 2007 at 11:49 amGood Morning ’s Katy,…..Sad post for the family….I guess this church is missing the main point’s like brotherly love, serving it’s member’s and most of all the teaching’s of their Bible……
What’s up with TP?, a real mess, I have been gone on purpose….Blessings
August 12th, 2007 at 11:51 amWhat can you say…they are supersitious primatives that still believe in the invisible, magical faerie in the sky. If they believe in that then they are too stupid to know any better.
Off topic: Thought I would post that before the trolls take over. The amount of trolls on TP has made it so I seldom come here for even reading the thread topics anymore, they are destroying your site on purpose. You respond to them and their numbers increase, it is just sad that TP does not ban most of them.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:51 amcan somebody explain why i am having so much freaking trouble opening the ‘thinkprogress’ website? there are no graphics and 9 times out of 10 a pop-up tells me i need to download some “document.” Looks like a virus. Anybody else got this? Is there a fix?
August 12th, 2007 at 11:53 amSince the High Point Church of Arlington, Texas seems to interpret the Bible literally, then surely the following must apply:
1) None of their members have ever sinned. But this can’t be true. The New Testament clearly states in Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” — English Standard Version
This then leads to Option #2:
2) Every member of the church is missing eyes, ears, tongues, brains (likely in many cases) and/or other assorted appendages.
(The Biblical reference appears at the end of this post). Does the church perform the necessary surgery as part of a religious ceremony? Does the altar double as a surgical suite? Their property was formerly a corporate site for Johnson & Johnson. Did they receive a sweetheart deal on bandages and other medical equipment?
Think this writer has lost his mind?
Once you’ve stopped laughing, please consider the following excerpt from the church’s own website:
“Our Statement of Faith:
We believe:
That the Bible is the inspired, infallible and authoritative written Word of God”
Since “all have sinned” and the Bible is infallible, then body parts which cause a person to sin are to be removed.
Still shaking your head in disbelief? Then check out the following passage from the New Testament (i.e., Matthew 5:27-30):
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” — English Standard Version
August 12th, 2007 at 11:54 ambanning+restriction of freedom of speech=unTP.
I have made friends with a few trolls, and if you laugh them off instead of getting defensive, they lose steam…
yes, I’ve flamed a couple of them myself, but the key is to flame(if you must) then ignore…
August 12th, 2007 at 11:54 amJesus would not be proud. Sometimes I wonder how people can interpret His message this way. Jesus told us to love our neighbors as we did ourselves, even the sinners. There’s really no excuse for this.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:54 amoops
banning=restriction of freedom of speech
August 12th, 2007 at 11:55 amTIME TO HEAVILY TAX THESE MEGA HYPOCRITES, I MEAN CHURCHES!
August 12th, 2007 at 11:55 amYou really have to love those religious hypocrites….
Here is another story about a pastor as well….
http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chron.com%2Fdisp%2Fstory.mpl%2Fmetropolitan%2F5045830.html
Pastor accused of dragging girl behind his van
“A San Antonio pastor and an employee of his Christian boot camp were arrested Friday on aggravated assault charges, accused of dragging a girl behind a van after she failed to keep up during a running exercise.”
August 12th, 2007 at 11:55 am……I wonder if he know Rev. Haggard?
Comment by whiteyfresh
I wouldn’t doubt if they both belong to the same bath house and have lockers next to each other. As a generality, those that complain the most, or “preach” to others about immorality tend to be the ones who are engaging in that very same immoral act.
As Shakespeare wrote…”The lady doth protest too much”. In this case it would be “The gentleman”.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:55 amemail these hypocrites and let them know how you feel:
http://www.churchunusual.com/
why is their url “chruch unusual”?
August 12th, 2007 at 11:56 amHypocritical bastards. So much for the “Support our Troops” mantra emanating from the right.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:02 pmStrange Fruit:
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/n/nina+simone/strange+fruit_20100706.html
August 12th, 2007 at 12:06 pmI went to this “church’s” website.
“Miracles Still Happen!”
Yes, it’s a miracle if that guy is straight….
August 12th, 2007 at 12:07 pmPerhaps High Point has their own unique interpretation of the meaning of Romans 14:3-10?
Any High Pointers out there care to elucidate?
August 12th, 2007 at 12:07 pmIt was at the 2000 Repignican convention in Philadelphia that former congressman Tom “Bugboy” DeLay thunderously proclaimed that “we (the Repignicans) are the party of god”.
Funny how the “god” I studied in Lutheran confirmation classes ages ago was a loving all inclusive “god”. I wonder when he/she/it changed so radically?
August 12th, 2007 at 12:07 pmWhat would they have done if he had at some point in his life committed adultery? That’s a choice, right? Can’t wait to see the trolls on this one…
August 12th, 2007 at 12:12 pmCareful curmudgeon, republicans don’t like having the fact that they don’t follow the religion they claim to follow, and break just about every law the Bible puts forth, brought to other people’s attention.
It makes them itchy.
:)
August 12th, 2007 at 12:14 pmWhat did the Wright woman expect from US Chritianist?
August 12th, 2007 at 12:19 pmI do not agree with the church refusing to hold a memorial service for the Navy Vet. They must hold services for sinners as well. This could be used as an opportunity to witness and coax non-believers into giving their lives to Christ. It is sad to hear that the Vet died because he could have given his life to Christ and diverted from his sinful ways before death. I hope others use his death as an example. I will continue to pray for the Vet’s family.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pmIs there anything in the 10 Commandments regarding homosexuality?
August 12th, 2007 at 12:21 pmThe section entitled, “Our Statement of Faith” on the High Point Church website, includes absolutely no mention of forgiveness or accepting others who are not exactly like them.
Surely, they can’t be pleased that Jesus choose to spend quality time with tax collectors (the pariahs of the time), the poor, the infirm and horror of horrors, prostitutes. Would they have allowed Jesus’ funeral to be held in their sacred church?
August 12th, 2007 at 12:22 pmWhile I am not religious, I have read the book. These people are not Christian. Much of what they use to condemn homosexuality is either from the Old Testament or the Apostle Paul.
The Apostle Paul hated eveything! He was a misogynist. He was a homophobe. He did not know Christ. He claims conversion on the Damascus Road. He was alone.
So these present-day “Christians” actually are serving another master.
They are so fond of quoting John 3:16:
As usual, they conveniently forget the next verse:
If that church and its pastor does not believe that one of its members, Navy Vet Cecil Howard Sinclair, was saved, then they don’t believe God. To my way of thinking the church has a problem: According to what they say they believe, Cecil is in heaven and his accusers are condemned to hell.
To the family: Get out of that hate-filled church. Be comforted that Cecil is at rest. If there is life beyond the grave, be assured he heard the words: “Well done, good and faithful servant.”
August 12th, 2007 at 12:23 pmI am curious. If they can’t HOLD a service for a war hero who was gay, how can they let guys like Ted Haggard LEAD services?
August 12th, 2007 at 12:31 pmJesus HATED GAYS. Its a FACT. Its in the Bible don’t you know?
It is all there in writing, GODs WORD…
And Jesus said unto them, “I hate gays, and later in my holy meggachurches thow shalt not allowest them to pray there. I hate gays and on principle ye shall cast them from within the meggachurch.”
Just go to the Holy Bible…God’s word… Just like it says!!!
Amen brother, pass the offering plate.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:33 pmRose Tyler blows hard, she forfieted my beautiful name again.
And Sharon, just stay the hell away; will ya?
I’m the new Zooey in this town!
August 12th, 2007 at 12:34 pmThe High Point has a section on its website named “Ethnic Ministries”, but when you click onto it, it only says, “Coming Soon.” Surely, there must be some significant discussion on this area.
They do provide a number of affinity groups, however, one stop shopping for everything you might need in your life:
Sports – Softball
Writers & Authors
12 Step Christ Centered Recovery Program
HPC Open Air Ministry
Healing Hearts of Women
Stock Market Trends
Marriage Support
Motorcycles
Intercessory
Prison Ministry
Christian Parenting for Various Stages of Life
Basic Christian Growth
Arbrook Nursing Home
Health
Some of these groups may contribute to its parishioners’ spiritual growth, but “Sports-Softball”, “Stock Market Trends” and “Motorcycles”?
August 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pmThe Church pastor is a disgusting hypocrite and most likely a GOPer.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pmIt’s true that Rudy was there more often – in fact, he was there getting Ground Zero set up on 9/10 -what’s up with that picture?
August 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pmComment by Zooey — August 12, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Makes no difference. TP would no longer allow me to post as Zooey, so you can have it — you’ll go the same way soon.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:37 pm———————————————————–
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
———————————————————–
Jesus HATED GAYS. Its a FACT. Its in the Bible don’t you know?
It is all there in writing, GODs WORD…
And Jesus said unto them, “I hate gays, and later in my holy meggachurches thow shalt not allowest them to pray there. I hate gays and on principle ye shall cast them from within the meggachurch.â€
Just go to the Holy Bible…God’s word… Just like it says!!!
Amen brother, pass the offering plate.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:37 pm—————————————————————————-
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
—————————————————————————-
I guess there can never be enough hatred, death, and destruction in the world for Christ or his followers … ?
August 12th, 2007 at 12:39 pmComment by Administrator1 — August 12, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
just to be sure – sinclair was NOT a member of that “church”…
August 12th, 2007 at 12:39 pmas far as other family being members, the article only mentions
that a brother was a janitor at the church…
…
We love the family but hate the son.
Is that what good Christians are all about?
August 12th, 2007 at 12:49 pm“you would be doing yourselves a HUGE favor, TP,
if you went to the gonzales thread and pitched everything
from at least the 800s on…
really really smelly over there…
a major embarrassment…
Comment by katy “
Why would they do that. They can now go out in the world and brag that they had one thread that has 800 comments. Wow, what bragging rights that is.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:50 pmMakes no difference. TP would no longer allow me to post as Zooey, so you can have it — you’ll go the same way soon.
Comment by Rose Tyler
If you’d stop playing with the trolls balls, and stop the idle chit-chat, then TP. might deem you worthy of my beautiful name.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:51 pmBTW., I thought you and falseblue and other crybabies were leaving for greener pastures. LOL
For an absolutely mind-bending experience, check out “Zeitgeist, The Movie” on one of the two major video sites.
if you haven’t seen it before or arent’ familiar with the material, your jaw will drop open in amazement and/or disbelief.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:53 pmI thought you and falseblue and other crybabies were leaving for greener pastures. LOL
Comment by Zooey
Cuz your contribution here has been huge. Riiight.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:56 pmAnother personal fixation a-hole with some of the regular posters. Cant you just get a life?
Trolls are fixated on Bush’s crotch > they want to all be his pole smoker.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:01 pmBTW., I thought you and falseblue and other crybabies were leaving for greener pastures. LOL
Comment by Poser Zooey — August 12, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Actually, I do what I please. And it pleases me to be here this morning with a lovely new name. *yawn*
August 12th, 2007 at 1:04 pmHi, Juan. :)
August 12th, 2007 at 1:04 pmI liked the old Zooey bettter this one is sort of tarded.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:04 pmoops
banning=restriction of freedom of speech
Comment by whiteyfresh — August 12, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Try this one:
banning=/=restriction of freedom of speech
Freedom of speech applies to and from the government, not private entities.
Unless TP is a government run site, banning in no way impacts freedom of speech.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:06 pmReligion is hilarious. It’s like watching little kids play house and making up rules just for the sake of it. Get a real job, REVEREND
August 12th, 2007 at 1:07 pmHi, Juan. :)
Comment by Rose Tyler
Hey, friend. It was being gloomy without you here. :)
August 12th, 2007 at 1:11 pmUnless TP is a government run site, banning in no way impacts freedom of speech.
Comment by hacker bob
which is another reason to be against privatizations. Just sayin…
Nice to have you here, Bob.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:12 pmHey, friend. It was being gloomy without you here. :)
Comment by Juan C — August 12, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
I’m only here for a bit — tired of waiting for the men to wake up. :)
August 12th, 2007 at 1:14 pmHi, Juan. :)
Comment by Rose Tyler
There you go again, pattin’ little Juanny on the head and drying his back.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:14 pmAnd you wonder why TP. won’t let you post. No great loss.
Each time I read dumb sh*t like this I am reinforced my 50+ years as an athiest have been correct.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pmI liked the old Zooey {bettter} this one is sort of tarded.
Comment by dbadass
Me?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pmThere you go again, pattin’ little Juanny on the head and drying his back.
Comment by Zooey — August 12, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
See my above response. I do what I please — and it pleases me to dry Juan’s back.
Go monitor your own life — if you have one.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:20 pmMe?
Comment by Zooey — August 12, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
Yes, you are retarded.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:20 pmHey, friend. It was being gloomy without you here. :)
Comment by Juan C
Then why don’t you leave too.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:24 pmYour mammy’s callin’, now git!
Here’s the bio page for the ‘good’ pastor Simons.
http://www.churchunusual.com/pastor.html
You may first need to take your anti-nausea medication before reading.
Yikes.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:25 pmGo monitor your own life — if you have one.
Comment by Rose Tyler
Is it just me, or does this comment just drip with irony?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:27 pmIs it just me, or does this comment just drip with irony?
Comment by Poser Zooey — August 12, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
It’s just you.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:29 pmOn topic:
Hahahahhaha. Divine Hypocresy!!!
A friend told me this anecdote from the Church he used to sing in the chorus back when he was a teenager. And just some days before the leading guitar of the chorus was about to marry with a girl he met there, somebody found the priest and the guitarist making out like there was no tomorrow inside the confessionary room.
Guess, this giving your life to Christ kind of make you very close towards people of your own gender.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:32 pm“Jesus wept.
Comment by Lynn Lightfoot — August 12, 2007″
Dry up! Some institutions believe homosexuality is WRONG! I applaud the church!
August 12th, 2007 at 1:33 pmComment by Juan C — August 12, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
At least they were already in confession — one stop shopping!!
August 12th, 2007 at 1:34 pmoh! good morning, sharon!
sorry so late… i missed that @ 11:51…
have a good day hugging!
August 12th, 2007 at 1:34 pmtoo hot here, for me, to do anything outdoors…
looking around, the puter is not the best use of my time either…
no energy yet… happy sunday – my lazy day…
…
Okay, I know I’m going to get slammed for this. Some of the people who complain about trolls, actually spend more time doing that than commenting on the story. How is that different from the trolls?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:34 pm” Ya gotta love it.
Comment by Bill from Dover — August 12, 2007″
We know liberals don’t have much respect for principles. I respect the church’s decision.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:35 pmChris > that pastor has a block on printing out his bio. He looks gayish to me with his pencil line goatee and mustache.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:35 pm“I wish the pastor would state the principle he’s referring to—in the words of his Savior, if possible.
Comment by Leisureguy — August 12, 2007″
Simple! Homosexuality is immoral! Get it?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:36 pmgood story, juan…
so, was that engagement called off?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:36 pm.
Dry up! Some institutions believe homosexuality is WRONG! I applaud the church!
Comment by michael — August 12, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Where do you stand on the Phelps program?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:36 pmThere is nothing Christian about today’s mainstream Christian church.
This is exactly why I don’t attend church any more.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:37 pmComment by Administrator1 — August 12, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Sorry Admin, but at least I managed an on-topic comment or two.
Just sayin’
August 12th, 2007 at 1:37 pm“This is a sad commentary on this church and its pastor.
Comment by tom — August 12, 2007″
No it’s a sad commentary on how low liberal morals have declined!
August 12th, 2007 at 1:38 pmIf that pastor went to San Francisco, then he would be hit on by Gay men. Hmm I wonder if that is his problem?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:38 pm“Where do you stand on the Phelps program?
Comment by dbadass — August 12, 2007″
Which is?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:40 pm“Simple! Homosexuality is immoral! Get it?”
Comment by michael
So’s an unjust war.
Get it?
Good — now stop supporting this crooked regime.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:41 pmSad really, great big megachurch and no Christians in it.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:41 pm“Where do you stand on the Phelps program?
Comment by dbadass — August 12, 2007″
Which is?
Comment by michael — August 12, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
And you have the nerve to call Zooey stupid? Too funny.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:41 pmNo it’s a sad commentary on how low liberal morals have declined!
Comment by michael —
How so?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:42 pmto comment 90: Interesting that someone so opinionated doesn’t know Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:42 pmWhich is?
Comment by michael — August 12, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
try godhatesfags.com
August 12th, 2007 at 1:42 pm“So’s an unjust war.
Comment by barfly — August 12, 2007″
Says who? You white flag waving, cut and run liberals?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:43 pmComment by Administrator1 — August 12, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
It’s not a Church. It’s basically one extended family of weirdos
August 12th, 2007 at 1:43 pm“Interesting that someone so opinionated doesn’t know Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church.
Comment by Administrator1 — August 12, 2007″
And your point is?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:44 pmSays who? You white flag waving, cut and run liberals?
Comment by michael
Look up the definition of “just war” and you’ll learn something new.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:45 pmkaty:
August 12th, 2007 at 1:45 pmNobody gives a shit about you or your lazy day–get lost.
“How so?
Comment by barfly — August 12, 2007″
Have you forgotten the topic of this thread so fast? Homosexuality, dunce!
August 12th, 2007 at 1:45 pm“Nobody gives a shit about you or your lazy day–get lost.
Comment by Zooey — August 12, 2007″
Mommy let you out of your room?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:46 pmMichael wrote, ‘Simple! Homosexuality is immoral!’
You goof ball, MURDER is immoral. Homosexuality is simply the attraction one has for the same sex. How in the world can that be immoral? One is an act of violence the other is a feeling. Like so many nuts, you don’t know the difference between apple and oranges.
BUT, by the way, there’s also nothing wrong with actually having sex with someone of the same gender. Some day, maybe some day, you’ll learn that love doesn’t have boundaries. I suppose you still believe it’s wrong for a Black person to love a White person.
You also wrote, ‘Some institutions believe homosexuality is WRONG! I applaud the church!’
We’re angry not so much that they stopped the funeral, but because THEY’RE HYPOCRITS. They pick and chose which things from the bible they want to enforce. I wonder if they should murder people in their congregation who are ‘adulterers’ as the ‘Bible’ instructs.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:46 pmAnd you have the nerve to call Zooey stupid? Too funny.
Comment by Rose Tyler — August 12, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
The new one seems so but certainly not the prior gentlewoman
August 12th, 2007 at 1:47 pm“Look up the definition of “just war†and you’ll learn something new.
Comment by barfly — August 12, 2007″
Save me the trouble if you can?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:47 pmmichael: You clearly love to provoke. Since you have expressed an opinion, back it up. It is not enough just to blame “liberals.” That’s a cop out. If you have a view regarding the church and homosexuality. then express it. Otherwise, you are just a troll. If that’s what you intend to be, then don’t expect to be taken seriously.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:47 pmExactly what did “No it’s a sad commentary on how low liberal morals have declined!” have to do with the topic of the thread, silly goat?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:47 pmMichael:
August 12th, 2007 at 1:48 pmHaving been brought up to speed with regard to the Phelps deal, what are your thoughts? Do you applaud their “principled” stance?
And you have the nerve to call Zooey stupid? Too funny.
Comment by Rose Tyler
Yet another example of your endless troll ball tickling.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:50 pm“You goof ball, MURDER is immoral.
Comment by ChrisSEA — August 12, 2007″
This coming from the party who continues to support the torture and murder of 30 million unborn fetuses over the last 35 years? Don’t preach immorality to me jerk!
August 12th, 2007 at 1:50 pmSave me the trouble if you can?
Comment by michael
Another lazy homeschooler.
Google “just war,” slacker.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:50 pmPharisees were acting “on principle” too.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:50 pm“Yet another example of your endless troll ball tickling.
Comment by Zooey — August 12, 2007″
Why did it take kerry over 5 years to get his Honorable Discharge?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:51 pmDon’t preach immorality to me jerk!
Comment by michael
Why not? You seem to need a refresher course…
August 12th, 2007 at 1:52 pmComment by Zooey —
Mommy let you out of your room?
Comment by michael — August 12, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
HILARIOUS!
August 12th, 2007 at 1:53 pmsorry… i couldn’t resist…
August 12th, 2007 at 1:53 pmDon’t preach immorality to me jerk!
Comment by michael — August 12, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
So about those Phelps? Thumbs up or down?
August 12th, 2007 at 1:54 pmmichael, I’d like to know your answer to dbadass’ question also.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:55 pmWith Mike hovering around, I think we should all know how to spot a troll:
- Spending an inordinate amount of time where you’re not wanted;
- A slavish, dog-like obedience to authority;
- A willingness to mimic any talking point;
- A willingness to change any opinion you hold at the drop of the President’s hat;
- A contempt for those who challenge you on any point.
And, I might add, stealing others names in a pathetic attempt at getting attention, and derailing discussion.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:58 pm“Google “just war,†slacker.
Comment by barfly — August 12, 2007″
Why, so I can get some dumb liberal’s explanation of why they want to cut and run?
August 12th, 2007 at 2:01 pm“Why, so I can get some dumb liberal’s explanation of why they want to cut and run?
Comment by michael — August 12, 2007 @ 2:01 pm”
So what is/was your rank in the military michael????
August 12th, 2007 at 2:03 pmThis is great. Michael must mean that Republicans are the party of human rights. Well, there’s something new to everyone here. Let’s see, it’s the Republicans (Bush et al) who are allowing thousands of Americans and many more Iraqi’s to be murdered. That’s just great. And if that ain’t enough, it’s the lovely Republican administration who condones torture.
I note Michael evades questions. Do you believe the Bible? Should people who commit adultery be murdered? Since this church believes the Bible is ‘infallible’ should women be allowed to talk in church? Or how about children who ‘curse’ their parents. Should they also be put to death as the Bible instructs? I could go on and on with the absurdity that is the Bible you and your party cling to.
So don’t lecture us on murder when in the name of your bible millions of BORN human beings have been murdered. Christianity and its history have been responsible for more atrocity and death than abortion ever has.
Now Michael, please go back to the first pew of Reverend Phelps church where you came from.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:05 pmHave you forgotten the topic of this thread so fast? Homosexuality, dunce!
Comment by michael — August 12, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
So about the on topic discussion of the Phelps inbreds and you stated opinion that you applaud churches which stand by their principles?
August 12th, 2007 at 2:05 pmdbadass, I don’t think you are going to get an answer.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:07 pmsorry… i couldn’t resist…
Comment by katy — August 12, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
It is amazing, isn’t it? :D
August 12th, 2007 at 2:08 pmLet me define ‘Cut and Run’ that Michael keeps spewing for everyone.
‘CUT AND RUN’ = ‘GETTING OUT OF A WAR BUSH LIED US INTO’
Ok, can we now shoot down the next silly Republican talking point?
So Michael what does your Bible say about deception and lying?
August 12th, 2007 at 2:10 pmA church whose doctrine is that homosexuality is immoral and will get you sent to hell is merely being consistent with its teachings in refusing to give a gay person a burial service. It would be hypocritical fpr tje, to provide a burial service for such a person.
If one believes that everything in the Bible is literally the word of God, it follows that one must believe that homosexuality is immoral because it is condemmed both in the Old Testament and the New Testament (by St. Paul).
Not all Christian Churches believe in such a literal reading of the Bible, and some of the more liberal protestant churches, that reject such literalism, do not condem homosexuality. The family clearly should have sought out such a church. Fortunately in the United States, where we (in spite of the best efforts of the fundamentalists) still have separation of church and state, people have a choice of many different churches with different doctrines, so that they can choose a church whose teachings are compatible with their beliefs.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:11 pmCome on now Michael, we’ve given you plenty of time. That superior education of yours and superhero powers of debate should have yielded a response by now or have you been owned yet again?
August 12th, 2007 at 2:13 pmwelcom to the troll haven, rose…
will be looking forward to your insight and wit!
…
August 12th, 2007 at 2:13 pm“If one believes that everything in the Bible is literally the word of God, it follows that one must believe that homosexuality is immoral because it is condemmed both in the Old Testament and the New Testament (by St. Paul).”
And one must also own slaves – as it is also in the bible, and an exhortation from God…
August 12th, 2007 at 2:14 pmCaptain Video, I don’t disagree with you that the family maybe could have chosen a better congregation to belong to, but this is really about a more fundamental hypocrisy. The church is being quite hypocritic in its ‘adherence’ to its view of the Bible. Like I said before, unless it somehow follows the letter of this ‘inflallible’ document they’re being hypocrits.
It’s upon this deeper level of hypocrisy that riles our anger so much when so many Christian churches (and hence the Republican party) chooses to vilify we gay folks when they chose to ignore other Biblical edicts.
And by the way what did JESUS himself ever say about homosexuality, not one of his so-called followers?
August 12th, 2007 at 2:16 pm“And by the way what did JESUS himself ever say about homosexuality, not one of his so-called followers?”
Comment by ChrisSEA
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
Love thy neighbor?
Do unto others?
August 12th, 2007 at 2:19 pmdbadass, I don’t think you are going to get an answer.
Comment by Administrator1 — August 12, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
It appears that “brave sir Michael” has chickened out and ran away. I can believe that such a powerful debater and highly educated fellow can be defeated by anyone whose education has all been through public institutions.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pmi recall reading that the church OFFERED to perform the service,
because a brother was a janitor at the church…
the family was not part of the membership…
it was after the planning began that it was found he was gay,
and the church changed it’s mind…
really, really bad form, if nothing else…
August 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pmmichael ran away embarrassed…
August 12th, 2007 at 2:24 pmhe’s trying to figure out how that happened…
such an idjit…
welcom to the troll haven, rose…
will be looking forward to your insight and wit!
Comment by katy
Oh sure, right, as if either of you idiots could even identify insight or wit.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:24 pmYeah, I guess Michael CUT AND RUN.
More hypocrisy from the Wrong.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:25 pmI love it when so-called Christians, charlatans actually discuss Jesus hating someone. Jesus didn’t teach hate, Jesus didn’t teach anything but compassion and tolerance and understanding. But that would get in the way of the Nazi mentality. An Inconvenient truth so to speak.
Now, here we have a self professed devout Christian speaking on the subject. Being a true Christian is a tough business, far more so than 99% of the so-called born agains and self professed saved realize. It is altogether so childishly simple to steal their souls right out from uder their cross;
“May God Almighty give our work His blessing, strengthen our purpose, and endow us with wisdom and the trust of our people, for we are fighting not for ourselves but for Germany.”
speech delivered at Berlin, February 1, 1933
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.”
Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
“Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1
Just a few examples from one of the best charlatans of them all. Led an entire Nation of right wing-nuts to destruction proclaiming self righteousness and devine sanctity all the way.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:26 pmSo MrPEE, when did you chose to be straight? I’m assuming that post wasn’t mere humor.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:27 pmIt appears that “brave sir Michael†has chickened out and ran away.
Comment by dbadass
Maybe Michael had other things to do.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:27 pmPerhaps you should try it sometime.
Great post Bruno.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:29 pmso, was that engagement called off?
Comment by katy
Hahahahaha. Nice question. I just asked what had happened with the priest. And he was removed to another Church…hehehe. Maybe to cure his gayness.
BTW, katy, I do care about you. (Take that, troll boy)
Z…I was lmao with that one. Yeah, guess that the confessionary room take you a step towards heaven… well, at least for them, it would have seemed.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:29 pmhey michael ya dipwad, until YOU have carried a fetus you have no right to even speak on the issue. PERIOD If you don’t have a uterus, you don’t HAVE A SAY on the issue.
The keyword in your drivel is UNBORN. Before a fetus is BORN it is not able to LIVE WITHOUT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER, so your concern for LIFE should rest with the MOTHER.
You moronic right to lifers need to open an orphanage and take care of all those babies you claim to have concern for and actually BACK UP your rhetoric or shut the hell up.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:31 pm“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.â€
Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
Comment by Bruno Hauptmann
Where is that idiot troll that said that Nazis were atheists? hehehe.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:33 pmCant we have intelligent trolls for once?
Who are you to judge that church? If their beliefs are such that homosexuality (or other things #10 mentioned) are wrong, don’t they have the freedom to hold or not hold a service as their faith requires?
Your religious intolerance is showing.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:38 pmJustice, I’ve noticed these right to lifers seem to lose all interest in all these unwanted fetuses after they’re born. Somehow it’s not immoral to raise an unwanted child in poverty and despair. What people like Michael fail to realize is that there are degrees of morality and letting a child be born into terrible circumstances may be more immoral than aborting the fetus.
A corollary to this is that these are the same people who would prevent loving gay couples from adopting unwanted children. The fact is these people have to have their shit together both mentally/emotionally as well as financially to do so. In other words, the very people who could truly provide for a child that would otherwise be unwanted (but as long as it’s born!) are the very people these so-called Christians would prevent from doing so.
Yet another reason why a megachurch like the one mentioned above is so creepy. They foster hypocrisy on so many levels.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pmYou’re right, because this doucher chose to be a *******!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LibTrOLLKKKiller!
—————————————————————————–
Figures you have KKK in your name, you low life piece of ****.
Religion, in the history of mankind, has slain 850 million people in it’s name….why do people still follow religion at all with the ignorances and hateds it breeds…….wake up humans!!!
August 12th, 2007 at 2:44 pmLibTrollkiller wrote, ‘Everyone is born straight, because that is how GOD intended it be, naturally.’
First, I note the loving tone that I’m sure Jesus would have used also. Where in the Beatitudes did Jesus use the term ‘NLY FAGGOTS CHOOSE TO BE GAYFAGS!’?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes
Now, I myself was born gay. You may not like that homosexuality exists across animal species far and wide, but it’s the truth.
But thanks for sharing your special brand of Christian love. Where can I jump on more of that?
August 12th, 2007 at 2:45 pm“Everyone is born straight, because that is how GOD intended it be, naturally.
ONLY FAGGOTS CHOOSE TO BE GAYFAGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by LibTrOLLKKKiller!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — August”
Really????
Can you prove that????
I doubt your “assumption” is factual at all…..
If God did not want “gays” to be born that way then ANIMALS would not turn to the opposite sex as well….
Please provide the location that I can have a ONE ON ONE with god so that he can tell me that “gays” were not intended to be born that way…..
Until YOU can do that, YOU have no idea what the HELL you are talking about.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:45 pmI find it rather odd that anyone within a Google search could make such an uninformed statement that the Nazi’s were atheists. The were infact, anything but. Nazi Germany was predominately Roman Catholic with a large minority of Protestant Christians. As if quotations from Hitler concerning his devotion to Christianity weren’t enough, there are thousands of photographs of the Nazi indulgance of, worship of, and committment to, Christianity.
One of my favority photographs is contained in the World at War Series, ( http://www.amazon.com/World-War-30th-Anniversary/dp/B0002F6AH0 ), in which on one tape we travel to Berlin. It is 1942 at the height of the war. The camera pans over a very large crowd in downtown Berlin singing Oh Tanenbaum, festive, gay, and indulging the Christmas spirit the festivity is very much like that celebrated on the White House lawn every year. In the center is this huge Christmas tree all it up with decorations and lights and everyone is singing… The camera pans it’s way up the tree slowly revealing all the bright lights and ornaments slowly it arrives at the top, where in magic splendor the brightest lit object of all decorates the top of the Christmas tree. It is a Nazi Swastica in all its blazing glory. Good will towards men huh.
http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
August 12th, 2007 at 2:47 pmONLY FAGGOTS CHOOSE TO BE GAYFAGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by LibTrOLLKKKiller!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We should ask Romney´s boys.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:47 pmLou this is true. LibtrollKKKiller does indeed belong to a special brand of KKKristianity.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:47 pm“Lou this is true. LibtrollKKKiller does indeed belong to a special brand of KKKristianity.”
Chances are that this “trollKKK” person is gay and in deep denial himself…that’s usually the norm with extremist….I got this story off of Bill Maher’s blog site….he makes the christians there seem much more rational….lol.
The KKK is a terrorist organization you know…
August 12th, 2007 at 2:53 pmWell I’m just surprised that MrPEEE and Michael have CUT AND RUN from the debate.
Cowards.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:56 pmLibTroLLKKKiller: You’re not under the misperception that you are posting anonymously, are you? Your hate speech is being taken down.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:00 pmCommentary on public figures is protected by the First Amendment. Your hate speech is another matter.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pmSomebody here please read a history book.
“Nothing will prevent me from eradicating totally, root and branch, all Christianity in Germany.” – Adolf Hitler, April 7th, 1933.
This from the pro-Nazi German Faith Movement: “We have no point of connection with Martin Luther, for we have no sense of a relationship to the Bible as a godly holy book, nor to Christ as a Messiah-Savior.”
The Nazis were not Christian. They exterminated Christians along with the Jews. Hitler, like many of today’s Islamo-fascists, was out to kill Jews, Christians and leftists.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:11 pmChristianity is a dangerous, evil and hateful cult that appeals to the dumbest NASCAR types lumbering about the country who think they can visit a zoo and see a living dinosaur.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:15 pmNot to say the deceased was a sinner for being gay, but aren’t church’s supposed to be “hospitals for sinners, not museums for saints”?
My grandparents told me that a long time ago.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:30 pmI think the trolls ran out of meds, they’ve gone batty again today. Poor poor sad pathetic losers, their entire GOP party is going down the crapper. And they are crying like a bunch of 13 year olds who’s mom took away the XBox.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:32 pmSee, even when presented with the photographic and historical truth, the right wing extremists cannot bring themselves to look at it. I suppose then all the photo’s, and there are hundreds of them, of the Nazi’s celebrating Christianity, and Christian festivities, Christmas, Mass, religious weddings, wearing crosses, placing crosses on their dead, placing crosses to God at National shrines, and so on and so on, were all a big left wing conspiracy. Yeah, that’s it. It’s all made up. All those photo’s are doctored, and all those quotations, not only from Hitler, but from most all of the Third Reich’s leaders, were misquotes. We somehow, misunderestimated them.
This is the basic fault of organized religion. It turns true Christians blind to the facts. They would rather believe in Santa Clause than admit the truth. Like the movie “Miracle on 34th Street”, in which the five and dime shrink talks about Chris Kringle and his delusion, and if his delusion were attached that he’d become violent, these blinded Christians actually do just that. They become the very terrorists that they claim they hate in the Middle-East. Which is precisely what happened to the Fundamentalist Muslims. Works the same under either God. You challenge their delusions and they crack. They put on their John Deere hats and go off and blow up some Federal building in Oklahoma, or Bagdad. They wave the flag, eat a hot dog, then run out and blow up a family couseling clinic, doctors and all and then try to hide under poor Jesus claiming their the Lords warriors or some other lunacy. Never knowing just what actual damnation awaits them when they themselves arrive at the Pearly Gates and try to quick talk the Almighty himself. They convienantly forget God’s warning concerning false prophets and charlatans, and the special punishments God has in store for them.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:38 pmNothing like a hot afternoon to bring out the obscurants. From both ends of the spectrum.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:39 pm#176 has not read a history book.
Please see post #168.
Are you trying to put your own spin on history? What part of the following is unclear to you?
“Nothing will prevent me from eradicating totally, root and branch, all Christianity in Germany.†– Adolf Hitler, April 7th, 1933.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:43 pmAnd what would that “principle” be? That a gay man cannot be hero, because he is gay? That a gay man’s life is not worth celebrating, because he is gay? Or is this just another example of so-called people of faith exposing themselves for the hatemongers and hypocrites that they are. These are people of greed, not people of faith–afraid to offend all those “Christians” whose hatred of gays has been whipped up by the Evangelical mega churches to fill the pews and the church coffers. It’s these pastors and their flocks that are an abomination. What a bunch of self-righteous sickos.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:46 pmRe: #178
No, not at all. I don’t think you caught on. Hitler was not a Christian, he was a Charlatan. So were his Reich Marshals, and most leaders of the Nazi movement. They hijacked the Christian religion in Germans and rode it and it’s blinded member for their own agenda of hatred and vitrolic power.
Germany was intertwined with Christianity, and the Nazi’s used it like the right-wing in America uses it. To twist the teachings of true Christianity, that of love, compassion, understanding, reason, and tolerance, into a hate filled weapon of polarization, and even convienant excuse for murder. Like I said, not at all unlike the Fundamentalist Muslims who do the exact same thing.
Hang with me here, it gets deep. ;-)
August 12th, 2007 at 3:51 pmIf he were a gambler or an alchoholic or an adulterer the service would have been canceled too.
Comment by George — August 12, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Seriously? How do you know that? Does this church have a specific list of sins that forbid a memorial service?
Comment by VerbalKint — August 12, 2007 @ 11:45 am
The church wouldn’t hold a funeral for an adulterer if the family insisted on celebrating and promoting that it was ok, which is what this family wanted. TP failed to mention that the church offered to pay for a service somewhere else when it became apparent that the family was insistent upon presenting his gay lifestyle as being ok.
——
Not to say the deceased was a sinner for being gay, but aren’t church’s supposed to be “hospitals for sinners, not museums for saints�
My grandparents told me that a long time ago.
Comment by numfar — August 12, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
That is exactly what the church is. But not for unrepentant sinners. The family insisted on presenting the man’s gay lifestyle as being ok, which conflicts with the Bible and the church. ;)
August 12th, 2007 at 3:57 pmYes, in post #168 the quote from Hitler is correct. As I just pointed out in post #180. Sorry for my spelling errors also.
The fact that Hitler spoke of his devotion to Christianity, and from the other side of his mouth spoke of his hatred for it, should prove the point. It was a smoke screen, a charlatan’s act, a fabrication.
The Nazi leadership feigned Christiandom in order to gain control over a predominate Christian nation. They intertwined their right wing agenda of hatred, murder, and agression, into the Christian faith. They themselves were not believers, they however figured out how to hoodwink a nation of Christian believers to go along for the ride. And ride they did. Adding the damnation of Christ and the Bible, the Pope, and God, all to their demented agenda.
That’s how you know a charatan when you see one. Someone speaking of hatred, killing, murder, torture, arrogant piety and self righteousness, can call themselves a follower of Christ, and because organized religion teaches one not to think, not to reason, rather to follow blindly what their told, the charlatans find easy pickings among the flock with which to build up their armies of hatred and go blow up a Federal building in Oklahoma, the Twin Towers, or something in between.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:02 pmRe: #186
I find it interesting that I didn’t say that, rather you did.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:08 pm“Off topic: Thought I would post that before the trolls take over. The amount of trolls on TP has made it so I seldom come here for even reading the thread topics anymore, they are destroying your site on purpose. You respond to them and their numbers increase, it is just sad that TP does not ban most of them.
Comment by Buck Fush — August 12, 2007 @ 11:51 am”
Interesting how many folks here cannot handle opposing viewpoints, and wish to ban them.
Free speech, anyone?
August 12th, 2007 at 4:17 pm“You’re an idiot if you think that President Bush uses Christianity like the Islamo-Fascists use Islam.”
Anyone who still uses that term (Islamofascists) at this late date, might as well hang a sign around his virtual neck announcing his ignorance.
Oh… wait…
August 12th, 2007 at 4:21 pmRE: #184
Now there’s an interesting quote:
“The Nazis were not Christian. They exterminated Christians along with the Jews. Hitler, like many of today’s Islamo-fascists, was out to kill Jews, Christians and leftists.”
Yes, the ultra-right-wing Germans (Nazi’s), were out to kill Jews, Christians to be sure, and oh gee, leftists!
Leftists. They wanted to kill the leftists. They hated them huh. Called them names when they couldn’t shoot them. Used mob rule to oust them. Sound familiar.
Which then makes the right-wing…what?
And then the good part. The right-wing nuts start calling me names. Oh my, lions and tigers and bears. Can’t win an argument, so then start calling names. Throw some stones, no better yet, build some camps and put those lefties in them and gas them and……
Oh my goodness, the right-wing sounds like…doh.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:24 pmFree speech, anyone?
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Name-stealing trolls, anyone?
Have you seen the list of “signs that you might be a troll,” yet?
August 12th, 2007 at 4:25 pmConservative Christians hate our soldiers. They hate our troops. They have disrespected the sacrifice and patriotism of Cecil Sinclair.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:25 pm“Conservative Christian” is an oxymoron, like “compassionate conservatism.”
August 12th, 2007 at 4:27 pmThe pastor canceled the ceremony probably because he is himself gay. Remember Ted Haggard?
August 12th, 2007 at 4:35 pmAs I said, attack the right-wing delusions and they crack. After some flag waving, claiming the other side or lefties are anti-Reich or anti-American, they proceed onto their second favorite and childish tactic to either use mob rule and ignore facts, history, photographic evidence, and in general logic and reason, or resort to name calling and attempts to entirely derail the thread with posts of bolded crosses or some such, and other gibberish all aimed at being disruptive rather than communicate in a civil manner, and as we’ve all seen they then get further and further agitated, spewing forth all manner of hatred mixed with slogans of Christianity and Nationalistic pride…
This is too easy.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pmOther people here are talking about adulterers think they’re being clever, but maybe people who don’t know anything about Christian theology should shut up before condemning a Christian church, especially in this case the hypocrisy is much larger than adultery.
People who actually know something about Christian beliefs know, literally, the most important premise that everyone falls short of God’s ideal and sins, thus the need for Jesus.
And thus every single person that church has ever memorialized, allowed to speak at a memorial service, allowed to join, and even preached there is a sinner that has fallen short of God’s glory. This idea, and the idea that Jesus fixed that problem, are literally the entire core of Christianity.
So, um, why are they picking on this gay guy?
August 12th, 2007 at 4:43 pmComment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 12, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Conservatism has nothing to do with logic or reason. It is about forcing your views on others.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:43 pmHow about some Free speech with a side of Freedom of Religion?
You folks are awfully tolerant of Muslims who have professed to want to kill us, while you are pretty tough on the Christian who doesn’t want to celebrate the life of a homosexual.
The Christian Bible says that homosexuality is abomination. You can choose to believe it, or you can choose to not believe it. But it’s in there, look it up.
So this pastor chose to honor his religion and his Holy Scripture by cancelling a memorial service for a homosexual.
Let’s see: In five Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen, homosexuals can be executed according to the law.
In several other Muslim countries, homosexuals can do jail time, pay fines, or suffer corporal punishment (most often whippings).
Iran has executed over 4000 homosexuals since it’s Islamic “revolution” (which, incidentally, freed the people from the “tyranny” of the West).
My guess is that most of those folks executed for homosexuality in Iran would have settled just fine for being allowed to live, in exchange for no memorial service upon their eventual death from some other cause.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:48 pmRe: #194
“So, um, why are they picking on this gay guy?”
Another voice of reason.
I think we just looked into that. It has something to do with the ease at which charlatans can hijack religion (a tempting target of ready made followers who devoutly practice a disciplined organization), and use that religion for their own agenda of hatred and power.
Another question would be:
Why did the nation of Germany, a predominate Christian nation of Roman Catholics and Protestantism went whole heartedly and head long into a period where Christianity itself for a period of time, became Satan’s best friend and most useful tool.
One of the groups of people the Nazi’s hated the worst, I mean they put the blighters on the racks, shot them, court marshaled them, went after them good was…. Gays.
Go figure
August 12th, 2007 at 4:50 pmBy denying this memorial service this pastor disrespect the service of a soldier. He dishonored the sacrifice of a soldier.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:56 pmYou folks are awfully tolerant of Muslims who have professed to want to kill us, while you are pretty tough on the Christian who doesn’t want to celebrate the life of a homosexual.
The Christian Bible says that homosexuality is abomination. You can choose to believe it, or you can choose to not believe it. But it’s in there, look it up.
So this pastor chose to honor his religion and his Holy Scripture by cancelling a memorial service for a homosexual.
Let’s see: In five Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen, homosexuals can be executed according to the law.
In several other Muslim countries, homosexuals can do jail time, pay fines, or suffer corporal punishment (most often whippings).
Iran has executed over 4000 homosexuals since it’s Islamic “revolution†(which, incidentally, freed the people from the “tyranny†of the West).
My guess is that most of those folks executed for homosexuality in Iran would have settled just fine for being allowed to live, in exchange for no memorial service upon their eventual death from some other cause.
No more tollerant of Muslims who want to kill us than Christians that want to kill them. Personally life would be better for all the non-extremists if you two war loving crowds would just meet your maker today. You sound like Rush Limbaugh.
The Bible also says all sorts of other things, and you don’t follow them, you know like working on a sunday.
Now you talk about Muslim countries putting gays to death, like you or your leader even cares about the gays here in the USA.
And you want to debate, you have nothing to debate. Liberals know there are crazy Islamics, just as we know there are just as crazy Christians. And one thing for sure, your *cough* Christian leader sure has pissed off a lot of Islamic people, that like you say “just wanted to be allowed to live”.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:56 pmComment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 12, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Conservatives don’t like gays because so many of them are gays. They use religion to further a biased point of view that has nothing to do with religion. Discrimination is cloaked as religion to make it acceptable.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:59 pmThe First Amendment still allows whomever a church wants to invite to speak or not, right?
August 12th, 2007 at 5:02 pmEvery soldier deserves our respect his sexual orientation has nothing to do with his heroism on the battlefield.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:05 pmO. Bigfoot makes some good points — no one was advocating killing this homosexual — you people should try being tolerant of Christianty once in a while.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:06 pmRe: #196
“My guess is that most of those folks executed for homosexuality in Iran would have settled just fine for being allowed to live, in exchange for no memorial service upon their eventual death from some other cause.”
My guess is you may be technically correct. They probably would like to live. However in a Nation which claims to have a Bill of Rights, and a Constitution, and claims to be tolerant, God fearing, Christian, lovable and just plain nice folk waving a flag and eating on a hot dog, then I guess the quick answer to your question is; Why should they?
August 12th, 2007 at 5:07 pmyou people should try being tolerant of Christianty once in a while.
Comment by Jake D. — August 12, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
When you Christians become tolerant of others.. Deal?
August 12th, 2007 at 5:08 pmProbus:
If his (or her) sexual orientation is detrimental to troop cohesion, that soldier “deserves” to be out of the troop.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:08 pmGays soldiers love their country so much that they would rather hide their orientation than avoid combat service. This soldier is my hero and has my gratitude for his immense service to his country. God bless him!
August 12th, 2007 at 5:09 pmBruno Hauptmann:
Please point to the section in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that allows sexual deviance.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:10 pmIf his (or her) sexual orientation is detrimental to troop cohesion, that soldier “deserves†to be out of the troop.
Comment by Jake D. — August 12, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
And say they we’re just hateful bigots like you, and your fellow troops wanted you gone, would that be alright too?
August 12th, 2007 at 5:11 pm“”And you want to debate, you have nothing to debate…..â€.
Comment by Dick Stalin Cheney — August 12, 2007 @ 4:56 pm”
I wasn’t debating, I was stating fact. There is nothing to debate in fact.
This whole topic is ludicrous. Liberals will dig pretty hard to look for examples of what they feel is “Christianity Gone Wrong”, while Muslims are stating today they want to kill infidels, including Christians, Jews, Pagans, Athiests, and….Liberals. Yet those topics, which involve life and death, are ignored.
When was the last time TP, or any Liberal blog, posted a news item about some “Blessed Imam” calling for the death of the west and all the infidels contained within?
Yet we do get entire “news” items concerning Karl Rove playing with his “I-Phone”…
After all, he might be engaging in “political organizing” while on the clock! Horrors!! Oh, the humanity!!
August 12th, 2007 at 5:11 pmThis soldier did not choose to be gay. His homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. God doesn’t care whether he is gay or straight. He was a good man. We should honor his sacrifice to his country for an unjust war.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:12 pmThis soldier has shown more courage than any conservative “Christian”. This pastor has no right to sit in judgment of others. He is wrong. He dishonored the service of a patriotic American. He is a hero.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:15 pmIt is not a sin to be gay. Like the sacrifice of this brave soldier to his country it is to be cherished.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:18 pmI wasn’t debating, I was stating fact. There is nothing to debate in fact.
This whole topic is ludicrous. Liberals will dig pretty hard to look for examples of what they feel is “Christianity Gone Wrongâ€, while Muslims are stating today they want to kill infidels, including Christians, Jews, Pagans, Athiests, and….Liberals. Yet those topics, which involve life and death, are ignored.
When was the last time TP, or any Liberal blog, posted a news item about some “Blessed Imam†calling for the death of the west and all the infidels contained within?
Yet we do get entire “news†items concerning Karl Rove playing with his “I-Phoneâ€â€¦
After all, he might be engaging in “political organizing†while on the clock! Horrors!! Oh, the humanity!!
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 12, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Sorry O, you we’re not debating, you’re here making “talking points”
You know how the “liberals love terrorists.” When we do not. Fact is buddy, your lame ass Global War On Terror, has done NOTHING, but create MORE of those who wish harm upon America.
I don’t know about all liberal blogs, but this one rarely, if ever posts subjects which are not about America or it’s politics. Again no debating. When was the last time a rightie assaulted china, for their human rights violations?
I knew the Iphone thing would be above your head, you know is Karl Rove doing govt business on his “private” phone which is against the law.
Sorry O, you’re nothing but a bunch of empty slogans and talking points.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:19 pm“Every soldier deserves our respect his sexual orientation has nothing to do with his heroism on the battlefield.
Comment by Probus — August 12, 2007 @ 5:05 pm”
In that, I fully agree. This fellow deserves burial with full military honors, that should not be questioned in the least. He died for our country.
Personally, I believe the Rev. Gary Simons could have handled this matter in a different way. However, I stand for his right to handle it according to the dictates of his conscience and his religious beliefs. The Rev. Gary Simons does not need to answer to anyone on this planet, much less anyone on this message board, concerning his decision.
His final judgement will come from his maker, not us.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:20 pmThis pastor has no right to sit in judgment of a man who gave his life for his country. No religion gives him that right. He was using a dead soldier to make a political statement. Shameful.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:23 pmThe Christians should just re-write the bible (again)
New Christian Commandments
KILL THE GAYS
KILL ALL NON WHITE PEOPLE
Okay that should do.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:26 pmRe: #213
Well first off the bat is your assertion that it is of a deviant nature. Who says? You? And perhaps a handful of Christians, or even less a little group of Fundamentalist Christians? That does not make it deviant. So the more precise question would have been;
“Please point to the secion in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that allows sexual preference.”
Why? This isn’t a legal issue. If it was, the Church leaders would be under arrest for violating the deceased’s rights to a memorial, or on the other side the Gay soldier would never have been a soldier at all since he would have been shot in a concentration camp after his arrest by the Gestapo.
That’s if it was a legal issue. It isn’t, since it isn’t illegal to be Gay. And since it isn’t illegal to be Gay, unless ofcourse you can point us all to the section of the Bill of Rights or Constitution where it says you cannot be Gay, then it becomes an issue in this case of religious intolerance.
Bringing up the odd comparision between Fundamentalist Muslims who kill Gays as one fellow said, and and Nazi’s who persecuted Gays, as is historical fact and the Christian Church here who while professing love and good will and all things Godly, denies a soldier a memorial service. Bringing us full circle to the posts earlier about charlatans and how they easily lead the Church for their own purposes of hatred and power.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:28 pmThis pastor had no right to sit in judgment of someone who has made the ultimate sacrifice to his country. He dishonored Sinclair’s service and his faith. It’s not up to him to decide who is a “good” Christian.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pmBringing us full circle to the posts earlier about charlatans and how they easily lead the Church for their own purposes of hatred and power.
Comment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 12, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
DING – We have a winner!
August 12th, 2007 at 5:32 pmLibTrollKKKiller wrote, ‘LET THE GAYS BE IN DEATH AS THEY ARE IN LIFE… GODLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!’
That’s a big opinion if I’ve ever seen one. Once again, all fluff and no facts.
Who set you up as the judge of whose ‘got god’ in their life? Once again, Christian-fascists like LibTrol believe they know everything.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:34 pmThe pastor used a dead soldier to make a political statement at the expense of a grieving family. Now that is a sin. Unforgivable.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:36 pmProbus, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s unforgivable, just stupid.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:38 pm“Fact is buddy, your lame ass Global War On Terror, has done NOTHING, but create MORE of those who wish harm upon America.
When was the last time a rightie assaulted china, for their human rights violations?
Comment by Dick Stalin Cheney — August 12, 2007 @ 5:19 pm”
Talking points straight from the Liberal Playbook. Can anyone say George Soros? Can anyone say Micheal Moore? Can anyone say Sean Penn? They will get even kookier if I go on. (Well, I don’t know about getting kookier than Sean Penn….)
The Global War on Terror has not created more terrorists, it has concentrated many who wish to harm America into various battlefields where they can more easily be identified and dispatched, and it has broken up their supply lines, organization, and information gathering abilities. A splendid tactic.
As for “righties” assaulting China on it human rights record. Let’s see, I did that myself yesterday.
Or did you mean “righties” of note?
How about George W. Bush or Condoleeza Rice? Are they “right” enough for ya’?
August 12th, 2007 at 5:38 pmRe: #220
“The fact is, according to the Christian faith, homosexuality is a sin, therefore, since this guy was a gay he did not receive a Christian memorial service.”
Now this is an interesting rationale. So because he sinned he is then denied a Christian memorial. Okay. Now, forget a minute what Jesus (you remember him, he’s the fellow who you worship), what Jesus said; “Let those without sin cast the first stone.” Forget what Jesus said, I mean who’s he, right?!?!
Let’s use logic then. So this soldier sinned. Ah, you ever sin? Ever? Even maybe a tiny little sin. Peeked through the bathroom keyhole when lil sister was in there? Just who in the Christian Church, and particularly this Church which denied the memorial is without sin?
Anyone? Any takers? Some here going to say their Jesus?
No… Okay, then this rationale goes like this. The soldier in question sinned because he is Gay, so he is dened a memorial, but the other soldiers who have sinned (maybe slapped around the wife, murdered someone, robbed a bank, peeked through the bathroom keyhole when little sister was in there), THEY all get a funeral.
So now just who is it that sits so high and almighty that they can decide WHICH sin denies someone the right to a memorial? Who then sits so high a Christian, so devout and righteous that they can deny Jesus’ words; “Let those without sin cast the first stone.”
Man I can’t wait for the spectacle of all these right-wing charlatans attempting to fast talk the savior when judgement day comes.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:40 pmWhat the pastor did was wrong. He decided to use the death of someone who bravely served his country as a political prop to further his political agenda. This has nothing to do with religion.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:40 pmGOD BLESS, that really made me chuckle. You know the Mormom prophet also believes he’s got the ‘True’ big red phone to god also.
So who is it? You, the Mormon Prophet, or the Pope?
Silly Christians…
August 12th, 2007 at 5:42 pmMy guess is that most of those folks executed for homosexuality in Iran would have settled just fine for being allowed to live, in exchange for no memorial service upon their eventual death from some other cause.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 12, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Your lowering of the bar is exactly why we have lost the wars in iraq and afghanistan. You have assumed that Muslims are as shallow as American Fundamentalist Christians, who happen to be the laziest religious group in the world. Too lazy to fire a pastor who has insulted a serviceman who gave his life to defend this pastor. Too lazy to show Christ’s compassion to the deceased’s family. American Fundamentalist Christians are the white Taliban, with the same hate in their hearts, and the same ignorance in their minds. And they will meet a similar fate sooner than later, as their hatred foments religious violence like that seen in the Middle East since the USA decided its version of supertitious nonsense was superior to anybody else’s. All that defend this pastor are destined to rot in hell, and Jesus will not accept them. Jesus would walk away form you and those like you. In fact, he has. You are damned to the lake of fire.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:43 pmThis pastor used the death of a brave patriotic American to further a bigoted ideology of hate. He dishonored the service of Cecil Sinclair. He had no right to disrespect Sinclair’s family at their time of grief.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:43 pmHow about George W. Bush or Condoleeza Rice? Are they “right†enough for ya’?
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 12, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Not a word of truth in this post. not a single word of truth.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:47 pmProbus, I certainly think he had the right, technically speaking, to do it. But it just makes him a gigantic dork for having done so. I’ve already fired off an email to them letting them know they’ve done nothing more than expose themselves for fake Christians they aren.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:47 pmComment by ChrisSEA — August 12, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
You’re right. Cecil Sinclair’s family needs sympathy at a time like this not a hateful ideology that has dishonored his military service. His sexual orientation is irrelevant.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:51 pmProbus, I certainly think he had the right, technically speaking, to do it. But it just makes him a gigantic dork for having done so. I’ve already fired off an email to them letting them know they’ve done nothing more than expose themselves for fake Christians they aren.
Comment by ChrisSEA — August 12, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
ridiculous point of view. family lifetime membership, dead soldier lifetime member. this is fearmongering, ignorance and hate rolled up in a sleazy, greasy package marked “Christian”. It’s really no wonder Muslims have had it with the hypocrisy of Christianists.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:51 pm“Then why would you want a Christian ceremony from a pastor who does not accept you for who you are and condemns your lifestyle?”
HAHAHAhaha, I’m sorry but are you for real?
Ah, you ever sin son? Just a little? Tell a fib. Maybe get a wood at that girl with the short skirt across from you in Sociology? Come on now, cause if your perfect and without sin let’s hear it…
No?
Then why was this guys sin any different than your sin???
The Church is not the decider of meating out punishment for sin. That was what the Pope in ancient Europe did. Are you saying that you think that the Roman Catholic Pope was correct in mid-evil Europe and those who have sinned should be tortured and murdered?
No?
Then who are you or this ridiculas little lost Church who committed this humiliation of God and our Savior, to tell this soldier that he should not have a memorial.
So the filthy sinners find someone who sinned to wag their righteous fingers at and feel all warm and fuzzy about their own salvation from sin (committing it every day mind you), by denouncing a sin committed by someone else. Any of you right-wingies ever read the Scarlet Letter?
August 12th, 2007 at 5:56 pmGOD BLESS, while I am no longer Mormon, I was raised in a very staunch Mormon household. So I know a lot about Christian intolerance and stupidity. It’s why I bring up the Mormon example. They claim to be the ‘true’ spokesmen for God. Likewise, the Pope claims this and then there are so many other relgious groups claiming this sort of divine centrism/exlusionism everyone is guilty of.
And by the way, what EXACTLY is my ‘lifestyle’? You don’t know a thing about me except that I’m Gay. That means I have FEELINGS for someone of the same gender. It doesn’t say anything about my behavior. Why do you not understand this? Christians can’t seem to wrap their heads around this notion. The behavior of gay people is as wide and varied as that of straight people.
Now, the CHOSEN lifestyle of so many Christians is one of judgementalism, hatred and ignorance.
Likewise, there are many Christians who are the opposite. Kind, loving, giving, tolerant and accepting. My mother is an example of that. I dare say this is more in line with the way Jesus was.
This pastor’s chosen lifestyle of ignorance is certainly one I’m staying far away from. BUT since it is a chosen lifestyle, it’s fair game for me to comment on. I think he shows his stupidity by this move.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:57 pm“I knew the Iphone thing would be above your head, you know is Karl Rove doing govt business on his “private†phone which is against the law.
Comment by Dick Stalin Cheney — August 12, 2007 @ 5:19 pm”
And TP’s article was full of the worst kind of innuendo. How could anyone know what Karl Rove was doing on the I-Phone unless either you or TP was tapping it? I don’t think you folks have enough “juice” with Alberto Gonzales for that.
For all we know, Rove may have just been checking in with his “bookie”, or looking at internet porn.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:01 pmPastor chose to further a bigoted political ideology at the expense of this family and Cecil Sinclair. He insulted the sacrifice of a dead soldier. This was not religiously motivated. It was motivated by hate. He is a bigot.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:02 pmGOD BLESS wrote, ‘let’s ignore what religion says’
Well why not? Religion nothing more than an arbitrary set of edicts and admonitions anyway? Would you please tell us which is the CORRECT religion we ALL should therefore be living by?
August 12th, 2007 at 6:04 pmRe: #251
“So your argument is: Since everyone is a sinner, let’s ignore what religion says! How liberal of you.”
Okay then Mr. Jesus, tell me sir. Where in God’s word does it say a Gay soldier must never have a memorial? Let’s here it, Joshua say it, Moses? Jesus say it?
No?
Well now, then it becomes opinion as to the memorial doesn’t it? Since yes as hard as it appears for you mighty righty sinners to swallow, your sins count too. So as you sit there then all smug in your piety and convinced of your salvation, you bravely pick up the first stone and give him a good belting.
How Christian of you.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:05 pmGOD BLESS wrote, ‘That means if a certain church has a certain belief about homosexuality, that church is free to hold that belief without interference from others who feel differently.’
This is missing the point here. We’re simply pointing out the stupidity of this religious group. We’re pointing out the hypocrisy in religion so wonderfully exemplified by this situation. Here’s a church that shouts JESUS, JESUS, JESUS, JESUS ad-neauseum, then does something that is really un-Christ-like. They could have at least been DECENT and honored his service to the country, but they chose to be all hung up about something that JESUS SAID ZERO ABOUT.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:08 pmWhat the pastor did had nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with discrimination and bigotry. He used this dead soldier to further a hateful political ideology.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:08 pmSo the filthy sinners find someone who sinned to wag their righteous fingers at and feel all warm and fuzzy about their own salvation from sin (committing it every day mind you), by denouncing a sin committed by someone else. Any of you right-wingies ever read the Scarlet Letter?
Comment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 12, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Most folks don’t display photos displaying their sin as a celebration of it. Most folks have sense enough to be ashamed of their sin rather than to asking others to accept it. ;)
August 12th, 2007 at 6:09 pm#12. Boy you weren’t kidding. He looks like he could be the cop in a revival of the Villiage People!
August 12th, 2007 at 6:12 pmUpright left wrote, ‘Most folks don’t display photos displaying their sin as a celebration of it. Most folks have sense enough to be ashamed of their sin rather than to asking others to accept it. ;)’
It’s your OPINION his affection with his partner is a ’sin’. Nothing more, nothing less.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:12 pmBeing gay is not a sin. No one chooses to be gay. The same way no one chooses to be straight.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:17 pmRe: #260
“Most folks have sense enough to be ashamed of their sin rather than to asking others to accept it.”
And so then your posting (or public wearing of your letter), in support of hatred and blasphemy is because…?
August 12th, 2007 at 6:18 pmRE: #262
Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
So? Where is, as I asked, the parable that says a Gay soldier must not have a memorial? This only says it’s an abomination, it does not say; “oh and yes, dead soldiers who have committed an abomination shall never have a memorial.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:25 pmBY THE WAY, this opens up the entirely huge can of worms as to WHICH version of the Bible is the ‘actual’ one ‘God’ wrote???
If the Bible is the ‘literal’ word of God, how could it possibly be translated and not lose meaning or original intent.
Is the so-oft quoted King James version the one ‘God’ authorized himself as ‘definitive’?
August 12th, 2007 at 6:29 pmGOD BLESS wrote, ‘He can have a memorial from a church that chooses to give him one. ‘
THEY DID CHOSE TO GIVE ONE TO HIM. But despite his service to this country when they found out he was Gay, they showed their true colors.
Yes, it’s their right not to do the service, but it shows them for the fools they are.
You also wrote, ‘Clearly, it says in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination.’
WHO GIVES A BIG FAT RATS ASS what the Bible says??? The Bible has been altered, changed, distorted, mistranslated and retranslated over the past 2000 years. Why don’t you also insist that people who commit adultery are taken behind the shed and shot? The Bible is clear on that situation also.
Wow.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:36 pmtest… must be the “flu”…
August 12th, 2007 at 6:37 pmWell the rightie-wingies seem to have thinned out. No one is much threatening me, calling me names, trying to ship me out to GTMO, or Bergen-Belsen so I’ll call it a day. How interesting a conversation. I don’t typically hang out here. I’ve seen the rather rabid discourse that goes on in here and I’m often amused. I didn’t think it would be so easy to show a clear nexus between Hitler, the Nazi’s, the Fundamentalist Christians, and their close cousins the Fundamentialist Muslims, (something for the rest of the sane world to consider as to just whom it is that would take the lives of those who do not believe as they do).
The Federal building in Oklahoma was not blown to smithereens by Muslims, no it was a mass murder by a couple of crazies wearing John Deere hats and waving the flag. Just as the right-wing (yes they had their own left and right wings), Nazi’s conducted the Night of the Long Knives to rid themselves of those who were deemed unpure, or not Nazi enough, perhaps competition. Nice folks any day of the week.
So now, while we shiver in fear and tremble at Cherkoff’s stomach rumblings that the boogy man is gonna get us, let’s all take stock and remember that the boogy man who got us real good, I mean really good, was not a Muslim, though most certainly of Nazi mentality, McVay and Nichols were good ole down home military veteran Christian value hot dog loving flag waving right-wing Americans. God Bless us ever one.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:37 pmGOD BLESS wrote, ‘umm… Christians.’
Great. But stop propping the Bible up as some LAW. It’s not. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. But don’t say, ‘THE BIBLE SAYS THIS, OR THE BIBLE SAYS THAT’ and expect anyone to take it or you SERIOUSLY.
Just because the Bible says something doesn’t mean ANYTHING. For God’s sake. What the Bible has done to countless people is given them carte-blanche to STOP THINKING FOR THEMSELVES. In the name of the Bible people throughout history have been made to halt independent thought.
The next time you read something in the Bible, ask yourself, ‘Could this be true JUST BECAUSE IT’S WRITTEN HERE?’
August 12th, 2007 at 6:47 pmOff topic: Thought I would post that before the trolls take over. The amount of trolls on TP has made it so I seldom come here for even reading the thread topics anymore, they are destroying your site on purpose. You respond to them and their numbers increase, it is just sad that TP does not ban most of them.
Comment by Buck Fush — August 12, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Banning them is not the answer; then we’d be just like the rightwing blogs who ban libs because they don’t like what we say.
We need an ignore option to hide posts from those who contribute nothing to the discussion. Shoot, the Prodigy online service 10 years ago had this option on their bulletin boards. The technology has to exist for Wordpress.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:53 pmWell, this thread certainly is emotional. I have read through all the comments, and I re-read the article.
The vet’s sister says that the church was aware that her brother was gay. The pastor says they weren’t. The siser says the church only canceled after the obituary listed his partner as someone he left behind.
So, who to believe? I suppose if you support the church, you believe the pastor, and if you support the vet, you believe the sister. We will probably never know the answer.
GOD BLESS, you make some valid points. However, you don’t speak for all Christians, just those who accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. Other Christians interpret the Bible in its historical context and literary form. Also, they look to other writings that seem to be absorbed within the Bible. The flood of the Noah story was depicted in an older work, “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” for example.
I totally agree that the church has every right to deny ministry to those who believe in a manner contrary to its teachings.
This is a good argument for the Constitution’s Religion Establishment clause. I would go one step further though: I believe that the churches should pay property taxes. By not doing so, everyone else must make up for it in the municipal budget. In fact, that applies even to the taxes paid by the deceased gay veteran.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:01 pmThis pastor denied a memorial to a soldier simply because he is gay. Is the pastor gay? Could it be he is uncomfortable with his own sexuality? Remember Rev. Ted Haggard? This pastor insulted the memory of this soldier. He dishonored his sacrifice to score a cheap political point.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:01 pm“This soldier was clearly not a practicing Christian.”
And what exactly is a ‘practicing Christian’?
I just hate these kind of statements because they imply that somehow a ‘practicing Christian’ is somehow better than a ‘non-practicing Christian’.
The fact is, they offered to do the memorial service for this ‘non-practicing Christian’, which wasn’t an issue, until they found out he was Gay.
Silliness in the extreme.
What this tells me about Christian Jesus is that he’s petty and small.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:04 pmWC I agree that we shouldn’t censor out people. The best answer to poor, insane and offensive free speech is more free speech.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:07 pmThis was about forcing a bigoted ideology on others. Being gay is not a sin.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:11 pmThis pastor dishonored the combat service of a patriotic gay American. Homosexuality is not a sin. This pastor had no right to make a political statement at the expense of a dead gay soldier. What he did was wrong. It was immoral.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:42 pmChrisSEA,
Yes, so many claim to feed upon the word of God. However, they think of the meal as a smogasbord.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:43 pmHere’s a revelation for you. Maybe the Bible is wrong on this subject.
Comment by ChrisSEA — August 12, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
You are correct. The Bible is wrong on this.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:50 pmThere is a great deal of scholarship about King James. In fact, many who have studied the reign of King James have concluded that King James was gay,
August 12th, 2007 at 8:02 pmAaah, the old “hate the sin, but not the sinner” ploy.
But in this case, this megachurch hates the sinner, too, so much so that they denied funeral services for an American patriot who died serving our country.
Why does this megachurch appear to have the same “principles” as the al Qaeda, who also are right-wing religious fundamentalists, who also hate homosexuals?
Strange, and I thought this megachurch claimed to follow the teachings and “principles” of Jesus Christ. Now we all know better.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:07 pmIt is true conservatives Christians hate the troops. This pastor dishonored the service of all troops in his disrespect of one soldier.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:14 pmThe pastor’s actions had nothing to do with religion. He used the death of a patriotic soldier to further his bigoted, immoral hate. Being gay is not a sin.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:51 pmNo, Probus — just acting on it.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:56 pmAs is lusting about it: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman [or man] with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:27-28
August 12th, 2007 at 9:16 pmExcuse me – but I’ve been hearing about this for days on ’smaller’ blogs. What? It’s not news unless a ‘major’ or big-time blog reports it?
August 12th, 2007 at 9:22 pmGood point, Wordsmith.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:27 pmA whole lot of ugliness goin on here.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:39 pmI agree completely. The Pastor did it on princliple. He just forgot to tell us that the principle he was defending was hate.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:00 pmHate the sin, but love the sinner.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:03 pmThis was about forcing a bigoted ideology on others. Being gay is not a sin.
Comment by Probus — August 12, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Yes it is. ;)
——
You are correct. The Bible is wrong on this.
Comment by Probus — August 12, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
No it isn’t. ;)
The church has a responsibility not to condone sinful behavior. The family insisted on including the man’s homosexuality in the service. Had that not been the case, the church would probably have held the service.
It’s interesting how those who don’t know Jesus think they know so much about him and how He would react to various situations. ;)
August 12th, 2007 at 10:07 pmVery sad, but really, is it that surprising considering what certain church groups believe and will not tolerate?
August 12th, 2007 at 10:34 pmIt seems like there is a passage somewhere in Matthew that has Jesus suggesting something to the effect that “whatever you do to the least of my bretheren, you also do to me..”
If we are take the Lord at His word here, then the church in question has seemingly dishonored Jesus himself as well as the deceased soldier.
Titus Pullo
This was a clear case of bigotry. This pastor is a bigot. He is forcing his political views on homosexuality on others. In doing so he has insulted the memory of a soldier who served his country.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:35 pmBeing gay is no sin. This pastor has no right to sit in judgment of others. He is not God. He is using his pulpit to further a political point of view at the expense of Cecil Sinclair. Fact is, this soldier deserves this memorial. Being gay is no sin in the eyes of God. This is bigotry cloaked as religion.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:38 pmBeing gay is no sin. This pastor has no right to sit in judgment of others. He is not God. He is using his pulpit to further a political point of view at the expense of Cecil Sinclair. Fact is, this soldier deserves this memorial. Being gay is no sin in the eyes of God. This is bigotry cloaked as religion.
Comment by Probus — August 12, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
Hey, probe, God’s word says homosexuality is a sin. The pastor is just upholding God’s word. You’ll understand if people prefer to believe what the Bible says over your take on it, right? Good! ;)
August 12th, 2007 at 11:42 pmThis pastor disrespected the service of a dead soldier. He dishonored the troops in doing so. Being gay is no sin.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:51 pmThis pastor disrespected the service of a dead soldier. He dishonored the troops in doing so. Being gay is no sin.
Comment by Probus — August 12, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
The probelm wasn’t his military service, bud. And, again, the Bible trumps your opinion. ;)
August 12th, 2007 at 11:58 pmMy guy doesn’t have horns.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:44 amComment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 12:37 am
Roadie, I don’t know where ya get this “my guy-your guy” foolishness. I don’t have a “guy”. There is only one God. The one God has given us rules by which we are to live. They aren’t suggestions, they are rules. He didn’t say, “Keep the rules you want, alter them as they become too restrictive or your society changes or someone tells you you have a right to do whatever feels good.” God is who He is, not what you think He ought to be. You don’t get to define our creator or change His rules to suit you, buddy. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 12:45 am#266. I don’t think that you need to know to whom I pray. That’s a very personal decision. I’ve been clear, I am a Christian; however, I am interested and consider the beliefs of other religions. This helps my own understanding of my beliefs and enhances my respect for those of others. The brand of Christianity that would not afford a gay man a memorial is not a brand to which I subscribe.
Your “one God, and only one God” philosophy has no appeal. My higher power rejects your philosophy. (Your guy’s been whispering in Bush’s ear and look where that’s gotten us. . . it’s the one that knows that Bush was a drug addict, that people are fallible, that all people are entitled to dignity, that oil has no currency in the realm of virtue, you know . . .)
August 13th, 2007 at 1:01 am“Being gay is no sin.
Comment by Probus — August 12, 2007″
Yes it is in most moral religions!
August 13th, 2007 at 1:13 am“the Bible trumps your opinion. ;)
Comment by upright left — August 12, 2007″
Here, here! But their opinion has always been immoral!
August 13th, 2007 at 1:14 am“He is forcing his political views on homosexuality on others.
Comment by Probus — August 12, 2007″
He’s not forcing anything on those of us who KNOW that homosexuality is immoral!
August 13th, 2007 at 1:17 am“If we are take the Lord at His word here, then the church in question has seemingly dishonored Jesus himself as well as the deceased soldier.
Titus Pullo
Comment by Titus Pullo — August 12, 2007″
Does that also apply to the 30 million unborn fetuses you liberals supported torturing and killing over the last 35 years?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:19 amMichael – Funny, “most moral religions”
#268. Being gay is no sin.
Comment by Probus — August 12, 2007″
Yes it is in most moral religions!
Let’s talk about all those immoral religions . . .
I don’t know . . . Moonies (Sun Yung Moom has quite enough clought to have legitimacy), Scientology (well there’s the Cruise factor, and also . . . Xenu might just beam you up), Jehovah’s Witnesses (hum, kind of a pain, but not really a threat), Mormons (one might think that having 20 wives and 100 kids would be a problem, but there goes Mitt – he’s been looking at the “seeking stone” and what luck!), who else, don’t know, probably a bunch of pot smokers north of SF.
Could you just do a ranking of “moral religions” for our clarity?
If Methodists don’t rank in the top three, I’ll be totally bummed.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:25 amComment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 1:01 am
Roadie, why even claim to be a Christian? Jesus made it very clear what was required to follow Him. You go by His rules. He doesn’t go by yours. You’re sounding like one of those people who want all the benefits of being a Christian, but none of the responsibilites. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 1:27 am“Could you just do a ranking of “moral religions†for our clarity?
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007″
No, I just know my own values which I grew up with in religious grade schools, high schools, and colleges. Homosexuality is immoral! What don’t you get?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:30 amrocky, are you a fag?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:31 am“You’re sounding like one of those people who want all the benefits of being a Christian, but none of the responsibilites. ;)
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007″
Wow! Well put! But that’s liberals for you!
August 13th, 2007 at 1:34 amThis pastor disrespected the service and sacrifice of a soldier period. Being gay is no sin. Just like being straight is no sin. This soldier deserved a memorial and this pastor took it away from his family. This pastor can’t sit in judgment of others. He disrespected all troops in doing so.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:35 am“Being gay is no sin.
Comment by Probus — August 13, 2007″
In some religions it is! Wake up!
August 13th, 2007 at 1:37 amAlso, this pastor is using his position to preach hate. He is a bigot and needs to be called out on his discriminatory actions. Religion had nothing to do with this. This was hate against another person. He is using religion to further his hateful views.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:38 am“He is using religion to further his hateful views.
Comment by Probus — August 13, 2007″
Unless you can back that statement up, I’ll have to consider you an IDIOT!
August 13th, 2007 at 1:40 am#275. Hah! No, not a fag. But you don’t have to be in a potentially victimized minority to have compassion.
Good grief, is that the best you’ve got? “you must be gay.”
Do you shave your horns daily?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:46 am“Being gay is unChristian.
Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007″
probus, get it?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:47 amHe is using religion to maintain his religious views.
Seek help, Probus.
Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007 @ 1:43 am
Cuz lord knows this pastor wouldn’t be hateful without his religion.
Seek help, P.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:47 amThose cloven hooves must be a real biter. How do you shove them into loafers Michael?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:50 am“But you don’t have to be in a potentially victimized minority to have compassion.
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007″
Compassion for a group of people who want to force their lifestyles on our kids! I know you liberals love this stuff, but there is still those of us who live in the heartland who will NOT allow this to happen!
August 13th, 2007 at 1:50 amAh Probus, homosexuality isn’t normal.
Either is a psychological issue that develops in early childhood.
Or, it’s a handicap like Downs Syndrome.
It’s not normal, though. It affects less than 2% of the population.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:51 am“Cuz lord knows this pastor wouldn’t be hateful without his religion.
Seek help, P.
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007″
Sunday school ended early?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:51 amThis pastor is furthering an ideology of hate that is not based on religion. He is using religion to make his point because on its own merits his actions are discriminatory. Cecil Sinclair deserves our respect and admiration for his service and the courage of his convictions.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:52 amThose cloven hooves must be a real biter. How do you shove them into loafers Michael?
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 1:50 am
So this is what your “guy” advocates, roadie? ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 1:53 am“Cuz lord knows this pastor wouldn’t be hateful without his religion.
Seek help, P.
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007″
What are you trying to say zoo; you’re not doing a very good job.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:54 amFreedom of religion means that you can’t force a Church to give a non-Christian a religious service.
Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007 @ 1:52 am
This church OFFERED to conduct the service for the family, and then backed off when they found out he was gay.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:54 amThis pastor is furthering an ideology of hate that is not based on religion.
Comment by Probus — August 13, 2007 @ 1:52 am
Go borrow a Bible and check it out, probe. It’s all there. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 1:55 amI would think you “christians” would be happy to bury a dead gay guy.
Y’all aren’t even happy when they’re dead!!
August 13th, 2007 at 1:57 am#292. Yes, tilting right. My guy supports the right of any cloven hoofed winger to wear shoes.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:58 amThis church OFFERED to conduct the service for the family, and then backed off when they found out he was gay.
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 1:54 am
Exactly! When it became apparent that the funeral would celebrate the immoral lifestyle of the deceased rather than being a normal service, they couldn’t compromise their principles by appearing to condone the lifestyle.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:59 amAmong the Christian churches that accept gays: United Methodists, Presbyterians and most Episcopal churches.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:00 amThat said, why didn’t the family find a church that accepts gays?
There are plenty out there.
Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007 @ 1:57 am
Maybe they appreciated the offer given by “good christians,” and believed them when they said they cared.
Yeah, blame the family. They have some nerve having a dead brother.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:00 amHate the sin, not the sinner.
Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007 @ 1:58 am
Trite.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:01 amApparently, a brother of the deceased worked as a janitor at the church and so the church offered the service.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:02 am….they couldn’t compromise their principles by appearing to condone the lifestyle.
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 1:59 am
Exactly what “principles” are those?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:02 amBeing gay is not a sin.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:02 amThe family clearly relied upon the benevolence of the church, then got dumped.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:03 amApparently, a brother of the deceased worked as a janitor at the church and so the church offered the service.
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 2:02 am
Can you believe the lengths these “good christians” will go to in order to hate?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:03 am#292. Yes, tilting right. My guy supports the right of any cloven hoofed winger to wear shoes.
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 1:58 am
And the right of people to claim to be Christians when they don’t follow Christ and to attack those who do follow Christ. And to criticize others for being un-Christian one moment and making un-Christian remarks the next. Roadie, that is the definition of a hypocrite, my un-Christian friend. You better check “your guy” for cloven hooves and horns, buddy. LOL ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 2:06 amWhat this pastor did to this family was unChristian.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:07 amYeah, blame the family. They have some nerve having a dead brother.
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 2:00 am
No, the nerve was in expecting a Christian church to celebrate the homosexual lifestyle. They could have had a normal service. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 2:08 amI don’t blame the family at all, in fact, I feel bad for them. I wish this whole situation could have been avoided.
Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007 @ 2:07 am
Yes, the church should have followed through with their offer, and avoided the pain they caused this family.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:09 amWhat this pastor did to this family was unChristian.
Comment by Probus — August 13, 2007 @ 2:07 am
Yeah, creating a video for them, offering to pay for another site, and providing food for 100 people is certainly a horrible way to treat people. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 2:09 amExactly what “principles†are those?
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 2:02 am
Following the Bible, which prohibits homosexualty. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 2:11 amNo, the nerve was in expecting a Christian church to celebrate the homosexual lifestyle. They could have had a normal service. ;)
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 2:08 am
How did the family expect them to “celebrate” the homosexual lifestyle? Drag queens in the aisles? Rainbow streamers?
Or by simply having the partner present? Oh, the horror.
Sounds like a “normal” service to me.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:11 amFollowing the Bible, which prohibits homosexualty. ;)
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 2:11 am
You’re going to have to put up a link citing all the specific language.
Thanks.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:12 amHow did the family expect them to “celebrate†the homosexual lifestyle? Drag queens in the aisles? Rainbow streamers?
Or by simply having the partner present? Oh, the horror.
Sounds like a “normal†service to me.
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 2:11 am
Try reading the story, zooette. Photos which made it clear he lived a homosexual lifestyle, the partner present, a gay men’s choral director officiating. Sounds a little like celebrating his lifestyle. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 2:14 amThe family lost their son and brother. The man served. How could theire be any question that after a church offered to memorialize his life and renigged, the church failed. It failed the man, his family and its mission?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:14 amThere is not God, get over it Michael, you are a superstitious primative. Think alittle and you will see the light. It is all made up, and by the way you can stop concerning yourself over other peoples personal relationships, it is none of your freaking business, fool.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:16 amTry reading the story, zooette. Photos which made it clear he lived a homosexual lifestyle, the partner present, a gay men’s choral director officiating. Sounds a little like celebrating his lifestyle. ;)
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 2:14 am
The name is Zooey. Thanks.
Well, since they DIDN’T perform the service, I guess we’ll never know, will we?
Ok, here’s a little scenario — How would you feel about a completely “normal” service, but the partner is present? Ok with you?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:17 amThou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination.
Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007 @ 2:15 am
Your proof that god uttered those words?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:18 amYou’re going to have to put up a link citing all the specific language.
Thanks.
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 2:12 am
Nice try, zooette. Though that statement is an improvement over your usual “prove it!” I feel confident the even you can find Biblical references for yourself. You have google at your fingertips. Might even do you some good to go searching the scriptures. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 2:18 amNice try, zooette. Though that statement is an improvement over your usual “prove it!†I feel confident the even you can find Biblical references for yourself. You have google at your fingertips. Might even do you some good to go searching the scriptures. ;)
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 2:18 am
The name is Zooey. Thanks.
You’re the one spouting that shit, you do the work.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:19 amOk, here’s a little scenario — How would you feel about a completely “normal†service, but the partner is present? Ok with you?
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 2:17 am
Get rid of every reference and photo documenting his homosexuality and the gay officiate and there would never have been a problem. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 2:20 amGet rid of every reference and photo documenting his homosexuality and the gay officiate and there would never have been a problem. ;)
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 2:20 am
Well, as long as you don’t feel all icky — especially when it’s someone you don’t even know.
The question was about the PARTNER.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:22 amYou’re the one spouting that shit, you do the work.
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 2:19 am
zooette, you seem to be the only one here who doesn’t know that the Bible prohibits homosexuality. If you don’t have the knowledge, stay out of the discussion. Besides, one reference was already posted above. Next question? ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 2:22 amthere’s todays church for ya; prophet has metastasized into profit…
August 13th, 2007 at 2:24 amThat is the specific language of the Bible, per your request. I do not claim to be a profit, but I do know that millions of people do take those to be the words of God, and the Bible is the foundation of Christianity.
Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007 @ 2:20 am
Um, I think you’re looking for the word PROPHET. Just sayin’
And sorry, but that’s not proof.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:24 amMaster P – This is old territory. Read the entire post before you go making demands for more information.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:25 amZooey seems to think the Bible is pro-homosexuality.
Zooey, read this one?
1Co 6:9 Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God’s Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts
August 13th, 2007 at 2:26 amWell, as long as you don’t feel all icky — especially when it’s someone you don’t even know.
The question was about the PARTNER.
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 2:22 am
The church didn’t do the service because the family wanted things that made it obvious that the deceased lived a homosexual lifestyle. If you don’t get rid of EVERYTHING that makes that ovbious, the church appears to be condoning the behavior that the church opposes. If there are no other cues about his lifestyle, then only those who knew him would know who the PARTNER was. There would have been no problem.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:27 amooops, didnt’ get the whole cut’n paste
1Co 6:9 Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God’s Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts
August 13th, 2007 at 2:27 am1Co 6:10 or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves—none of these will possess God’s Kingdom.
zooette, you seem to be the only one here who doesn’t know that the Bible prohibits homosexuality. If you don’t have the knowledge, stay out of the discussion. Besides, one reference was already posted above. Next question? ;)
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 2:22 am
It’s interesting that I’m supposed to respect your “knowledge” about anything, but you won’t even respect my request that you use my proper name.
I know what he bible says — doesn’t make any of it true.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:29 amBible also says thou shalt not kill but “good” Christians have no problem supporting the Iraq war. That is hypocrisy.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:29 amWhat Rev. Gary Simons meant: It’s not that we didn’t love the family. It’s just that we’re hateful, intolerant, mean-spirited “Christians”.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:29 amIf there are no other cues about his lifestyle, then only those who knew him would know who the PARTNER was. There would have been no problem.
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 2:27 am
Hey, maybe you can get a group of “christians” together, and make a trip to the graveyard to dance on this man’s grave! That would be fun!!
August 13th, 2007 at 2:32 amNothing annoys me more than “Christians” quoting scripture to justify hate.
Shut up.
I don’t need to read the bible or anything else to know that to tell the family of a deceased veteran, the church will hold a memorial service, then bail on the service because the man is gay – SUCKS.
Put your scripture where the sun don’t shine. You are bigots and have no business what so ever calling yourselves Christians and hiding behind the bible.
Hide behind the church.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:32 amZooey seems to think the Bible is pro-homosexuality.
1Co 6:9 Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God’s Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts
Comment by muckdog — August 13, 2007 @ 2:26 am
Give it a rest, muckdog. The word “homosexual” was not even invented until the last 50 years or so. I’m pretty sure the bible storybook was written a few years before that.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:34 amYou still have to respect the Christian faith.
Just because you don’t follow that religion doesn’t mean you can persecute those who do.
Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007 @ 2:32 am
No, I don’t HAVE to respect the christian faith — but I do choose respect your right to believe. Just as I expect you to respect my right not to believe.
I am not persecuting you by not believing in what you believe in.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:37 amIt’s interesting that I’m supposed to respect your “knowledge†about anything, but you won’t even respect my request that you use my proper name.
I know what he bible says — doesn’t make any of it true.
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 2:29 am
I never asked you to respect anything. I simply suggested that you find the information yourself and if you are unwilling, don’t comment. Of course, you knew as well as everyone else that the Bible prohibits homosexuality. You just didn’t expect someone else to post the reference so quickly and you had to admit that it didn’t matter anyway. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 2:38 am#348. Who said this man was not Christian? A person can be a perfectly gay Christian. To say otherwise would be a statement of absolute hateful bigotry. Ya think?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:38 amYa think?
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 2:38 am
Apparently he doesn’t.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:40 amMuckdog is right, Zooey, but it is 1Co 6:10 according to my source.
Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007 @ 2:37 am
This is what I’m referring to —
1Co 6:9 Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God’s Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts
The word “homosexual” did not exist when the bible was written. Somebody’s been messing with your little book.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:40 amAs already mentioned, the family could have gone to numerous other churches. It is a shame that they did not.
Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007 @ 2:41 am
Actually, the shame is that they should have to.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:43 amThe word “homosexual†did not exist when the bible was written. Somebody’s been messing with your little book.
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 2:40 am
Perhaps you didn’t notice that we don’t speak Hebrew or Greek around these parts. Try to keep up, zoo. The Bible has been TRANSLATED. Need a reference for that word, too? Well, look it up. I’m fairly certain that the Spanish, French and German languages have different words for homosexuality. It’s still the same thing, no matter what you call it. It’s wrong and it will always be wrong no matter how badly you want it to be ok. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 2:47 amGood Night, Taster Pee!
August 13th, 2007 at 2:47 amI never asked you to respect anything. I simply suggested that you find the information yourself and if you are unwilling, don’t comment. Of course, you knew as well as everyone else that the Bible prohibits homosexuality. You just didn’t expect someone else to post the reference so quickly and you had to admit that it didn’t matter anyway. ;)
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 2:38 am
Now you know what I expect? That’s pretty cool. Is that a “christian” talent, or just you being assholierthanthou?
I was raised in a “christian” home, I know what’s in the book. You can find one or two things in a book that’s been tampered with for over a thousand years.
I can find hundreds of verses citing how we’re supposed to love and care for one another, and be kind to our fellow man.
Those are the things that stayed in my heart when I left the church, not the horrible and violent teachings.
You choose to live in judgment and hate for your fellow man — I do not.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:47 amEducate yourself, Zooey!
Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007 @ 2:44 am
Always best to take one’s own advice.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:48 amThis pastor is wrong in his views. His views have nothing to do with religion or Christianity. He is a hateful bigot. He’s like Rev. Phelps who spreads his hate with the crutch of religion. Without the aid of religion people would call him out on his bigoted views. He is homophobic.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:48 amYes, Master P – it’s too bad that they didn’t go to a different church. It’s unfortunate that they relied on the benevolence and promises of this church, and as noddy blinkin so aptly put it, “that they should have to.”
August 13th, 2007 at 2:48 amIt’s wrong and it will always be wrong no matter how badly you want it to be ok. ;)
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 2:47 am
Methinks he doth protest too much…
August 13th, 2007 at 2:49 amIt’s wrong and it will always be wrong no matter how badly you want it to be ok. ;)
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 2:47 am
It’s also wrong to judge people. You are wrong to impose your alleged morality on others.
Pride is a sin — look in the mirror.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:50 amActually, the shame is that they should have to.
Comment by noddy blinkin — August 13, 2007 @ 2:43 am
Yeah, who do those Christians think they are not following the secular progressive line! Everyone has the right to use their facilities as they see fit what with the tax exemptions and all! ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 2:50 amYes, Master P – it’s too bad that they didn’t go to a different church. It’s unfortunate that they relied on the benevolence and promises of this church, and as noddy blinkin so aptly put it, “that they should have to.â€
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 2:48 am
Yes, that was very well stated. Like I said before, these “christains” aren’t even happy when a gay guy is dead — they need to kick the body around and crap on the family, too.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:52 amIt’s also wrong to judge people. You are wrong to impose your alleged morality on others.
Pride is a sin — look in the mirror.
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 2:50 am
I defended a church’s right not to hold a service that condoned the lifestyle of an unrepenant person. You need to check the definition of pride, zoo, cause that ain’t it. I freely admit to being a sinner and I don’t expect any church to condone it.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:55 amYes, that was very well stated. Like I said before, these “christains†aren’t even happy when a gay guy is dead — they need to kick the body around and crap on the family, too.
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 2:52 am
Or, to put it another way, they don’t want to condone a sinful lifestyle and risk leading others astray. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 2:57 amNo one’s claiming that religious institutions shouldn’t be able to use their churches as they see fit, the question is: when you, a church, promise to hold a memorial service for a vet, should you, a church, be able to back our on a grieving family because the vet is gay.
Get a conscience (a clue would be good too, but . . . whatever).
August 13th, 2007 at 2:58 amI defended a church’s right not to hold a service that condoned the lifestyle of an unrepenant person. You need to check the definition of pride, zoo, cause that ain’t it. I freely admit to being a sinner and I don’t expect any church to condone it.
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 2:55 am
You demonstrate your prideful attitude with almost every comment you ever make here. I don’t need to look up anything — I’m looking at you.
Put on your dancing shoes!!
August 13th, 2007 at 3:02 amNo one’s claiming that religious institutions shouldn’t be able to use their churches as they see fit, the question is: when you, a church, promise to hold a memorial service for a vet, should you, a church, be able to back our on a grieving family because the vet is gay.
Get a conscience (a clue would be good too, but . . . whatever).
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 2:58 am
Only if the family insists on a service that goes against the principles upon which the church is founded. Otherwise, no. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 3:04 amI grow weary, so unless the image of the virgin mary has appeared on the side of Zooey’s pop tart, or upright left has finally decided to come out of the closet, I think I’ll call it a night.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:04 amGet a conscience (a clue would be good too, but . . . whatever).
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 2:58 am
They wouldn’t be able to say any of the things they say if they had any sort of conscience.
Good thing they’re “forgiven,” right? :D
August 13th, 2007 at 3:05 amI grow weary, so unless the image of the virgin mary has appeared on the side of Zooey’s pop tart, or upright left has finally decided to come out of the closet, I think I’ll call it a night.
Comment by noddy blinkin — August 13, 2007 @ 3:04 am
OMG, I haven’t checked my pop tarts today!
Goodnight, NB.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:05 amNight Z
August 13th, 2007 at 3:06 am#375. Just a matter of being an adult: when you promise to perform a significant service for anyone, get a grip on expectations, costs and values. My gosh, you’re a church . . . a fiduciary of not only your parishoners’ money, but their souls.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:10 amYou demonstrate your prideful attitude with almost every comment you ever make here. I don’t need to look up anything — I’m looking at you.
Put on your dancing shoes!!
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 3:02 am
Prideful attitude! Well, well well, zooette, you’ve suddenly found a religious term to pull out when it suits ya! I knew you had it in ya. But really, if you’re gonna whine for proof all the time, ya have to be willing to look things up yourself. I’ll help ya out this one time. I assume you would be referring to this definition of pride: inordinate self-esteem. But since I’ve already stated that I freely admit to being a sinner, that doesn’t really fit. Seems like you are one of those that feel Christians are guilty of the sin of pride because we are saved and you aren’t. That’s not my fault, though. So, while it may make you feel better to make the accusation, it doesn’t make it true or change your situation any. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 3:12 am#375. Just in case I was unclear. . . you wholly failed to obtain this critical information before you promised this grieving family to hold a memorial service for their gay vet son. Either that, or you just didn’t think it would be a problem, proceeded at full speed then got a nasty backlash and f***d the family.
Any way you look at it . . . breach of fiduciary dooty.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:16 amSee ya in hell, upright left. Your seat’s already reserved. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 3:16 am#375. Just a matter of being an adult: when you promise to perform a significant service for anyone, get a grip on expectations, costs and values. My gosh, you’re a church . . . a fiduciary of not only your parishoners’ money, but their souls.
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 3:10 am
Respectful adults would not make demands of a church that require them to go against their principles. And since the church offered to pay for the change of venue when the family insisted on a certain type of service, the church fulfilled their moral obligation to the family.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:16 amGoodnight, rockyroad.
It’s been fun banging my head on the wall with you. :D
August 13th, 2007 at 3:17 amSee ya in hell, upright left. Your seat’s already reserved. ;)
Comment by Zooey — August 13, 2007 @ 3:16 am
Whoa, hit a nerve there did I zooey? Sorry you are in that situation. It must be hell on earth. Fortunately for me, I’ve taken care of it for myself. We both know who has the problem with pride now don’t we? It’s keeping you in a bad situation. Oh well, you’ll probably have time to take care of it. Hopefully, you’ll not only have time for yourself, but you’ll be able to help out your family members too, once you deal with it yourself. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 3:20 amYou too Zooey . . .
August 13th, 2007 at 3:20 am#384. A competent church would not agree to a memorial that violated its “principles.” It would not deceive bereaved family members.
Horrible.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:24 am#384. A competent church would not agree to a memorial that violated its “principles.†It would not deceive bereaved family members.
Horrible.
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 3:24 am
How did the church know the family would insist upon a service that made a point of the sexuality of the deceased? ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 3:28 am#389. Most times, if it’s an important issue, the client asks. Pretty normal stuff.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:34 am#389. Most times, if it’s an important issue, the client asks. Pretty normal stuff.
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 3:34 am
The church isn’t a “client.” And since it is well known that Christianity teaches against homosexuality, it is more reasonable to expect the family to bring up the subject than the church, especially since the deceased wasn’t a member of the church. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 3:38 amYou know, as the conversation goes:
If we were to hold the memorial service for your veteran son, we need to know: was he a Christian, did he ever attend this church: Did he ever engage in behaviour that would harm the reputation of this church (subcontext: was he homicidal? a wife beater? a pedofile? a bank robber?). They just didn’t ask if he were gay (a crime apparently equated with each of the aforementioned crimes)
Damn. We didn’t ask. Service is off. Family be screwed. They had a friggin’ gay son. Granted, he risked his life in service, but he’s gay. May as well give a memorial service for a murderer.
Lovely.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:42 amDamn. We didn’t ask. Service is off. Family be screwed. They had a friggin’ gay son. Granted, he risked his life in service, but he’s gay. May as well give a memorial service for a murderer.
Lovely.
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 3:42 am
You summed it up pretty well. This church has a double standard.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:51 amComment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 3:42 am
You forgot to add, “Will you require a service that makes a point of his sexuality and the fact that he was unrepentant in his sin?”
Should the church also have photos of thieves in action? Display photos of adulterers with all those with whom they cheated? Maybe even photos of the children molested at the funerals of pedophiles? ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 3:51 amYou summed it up pretty well. This church has a double standard.
Comment by Probus — August 13, 2007 @ 3:51 am
No double standard there. They don’t do funerals for those who insist on making a display of the unrepented sin of the deceased. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 3:53 amHomosexuality is not a sin.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:59 amUpright left. . . . shut up. As Zooey said, your crypt in hell is marked.
Do us air breathers a favor . . . just shut up.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:02 amJust a note to all of you on TP . . . aside from upright left, there’s a suprising agsence of trolls. Good job TP!
August 13th, 2007 at 4:05 amThat would be “absence”. Still can’t type.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:06 amProbus, some churches have a double standard, clearly this one is a screamer.
Know that there are churches that don’t.
“Homosexuality is not a sin.” Yes, most air breathers know this and so you can quit posting it. I really enjoy your posts. Be happy.
(I’m not gay, but . . . you are so cool)
August 13th, 2007 at 4:11 amComment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 4:11 am
Thanks. And thank you for your thoughtful posts.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:20 amHaving read this sequencee of comments and noting the name of Christ being tossed about, it intrigues me to observe the lack of love being expressed by those who identify themselves with the religious right. I am also interested to read a fair amount of unthinking, knee-jerk liberalism from those who occupy the other side of the aisle.
First of all, those who keep claiming the Bible as their source for condemnation need to check their source. Perhaps the book of Leviticus for example. Here, we all can read, not only that homosexuality is an abomination, but that it is forbidden for a woman to wear slacks or other clothes that are traditionally men’s. It is forbidden for men to cut the hair above their ears. It is forbidden to play football!!! – to touch the flesh of a dead pig. What? No shellfish? No clams, no lobster? There are many abominations listed in the Books of the Law which are handily ignored by so many of those who profess that the Bible is infallible and the literal word of God. Many have made an idol of the Bible and worship it instead of the Living Christ.
I am a “born-again Christian” with a deep and abiding relationship with my Saviour. I am not afraid of the beliefs or religions or customs or lifestyles or sexuality of any one else. When Jesus summed up the Law in two commandments, (we only hear about the ten and not the two), he said, love God with all your heart and your neighbor as much as you love yourself. That’s it! The Master’s word! No condemnations, no exclusions.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love! That’s it my dears.
The religious right does not represent either Christians or the teachings of Christ anymore than the Islamic fundamentalists represent the true and profound beauties of Islam. What passes for Christianity is mostly and merely a collection of social mores and not faith in the living God and the triumphant Christ.
I could say so much more, but, boring… boring… boring.
Love
August 13th, 2007 at 4:38 amMmm. Takes a whole lot of courage to confront a poster. You post your user name and address them.
“#403. David Gay is a fag.”
Hillarious.
Just because he’s a Christian guy, discussing reconcilliation, kindness and his Christian beliefs doesn’t mean that you’re going to hell. You’d have to talk to one of the God Squad on this site to get a grip on this, but gut check, you’re in line for a tail fitting.
Good thing I don’t take this heaven and hell stuff too seriously.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:59 amKARL ROVE HAS SENT IN HIS RESIGNATION!
Said its for family reasons. Effective August 31st.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:05 ampretty please with sugar on top, can this be true?
August 13th, 2007 at 6:31 amNow that’s what we’re fighting for!
August 13th, 2007 at 6:46 amUpright left. . . . shut up. As Zooey said, your crypt in hell is marked.
Do us air breathers a favor . . . just shut up.
Comment by rockyroad — August 13, 2007 @ 4:02 am
Hit another nerve! roadie, see #386. It goes for you as well as the zoo. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 8:01 amRe: #375
“No one’s claiming that religious institutions shouldn’t be able to use their churches as they see fit…”
I’m not so certain. First, Churches must comply with the laws governing tax exempt status, and as any institution there are other laws they must adhere to. Now I do not myself think this is a legal issue (though a good laywer might sue for recompensation based on the monetary cost to the family of making alternate arrangements), however suppose for a moment we look at this another way.
Suppose the Church in question had denied a memorial service for a soldier they had just discovered was black?
The old Southern slave holders and Southern Christian Babtists rationalized slavery for hundreds of years and could point to parables in the Bible which upheld this notion.
I really fail to see the difference in this particular little Church’s rationale. So what then? Would there not be a huge lawsuit in the making?
August 13th, 2007 at 8:16 amComment by David Gay — August 13, 2007 @ 4:38 am
Typical comment by one seeking to make a sinful lifestyle not a sin. The two commandment thing? It was in response to a question about what was the GREATEST commandment. It wasn’t meant to exclude all the others, which you, of course, are aware. As for the prohibitions in Leviticus, some were given as requirements for that culture, such as the hair cutting. Others were given as laws meant for all. It is addressed in Genesis, Romans, and Corinthians. No matter how badly you want to explain it away, it remains. Just because one is opposed to homosexuality doesn’t mean one hates people who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. And just because people practice homosexuality and feel guilty about it, doesn’t mean the church has to stop following the Bible to make those people feel better. There is a reason we feel guilty when we sin. It’s so we will stop doing it. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 8:19 amNow I do not myself think this is a legal issue (though a good laywer might sue for recompensation based on the monetary cost to the family of making alternate arrangements), however suppose for a moment we look at this another way.
Suppose the Church in question had denied a memorial service for a soldier they had just discovered was black?
The old Southern slave holders and Southern Christian Babtists rationalized slavery for hundreds of years and could point to parables in the Bible which upheld this notion.
I really fail to see the difference in this particular little Church’s rationale. So what then? Would there not be a huge lawsuit in the making?
Comment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 13, 2007 @ 8:16 am
If you would read before you comment, you would know that the church offered to pay for another venue when it became apparent that the family required a celebration of the homosexual lifestyle.
It’s not surprising that you “fail to see” things, brunie. That would require that you try. The obvious difference in your example is that it isn’t a sin to be black but it is a sin to live a homosexual lifestyle. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 8:27 amNow now upright left, we pretty much established yesterday that God didn’t cancel the memorial, the pastor or preacher, was the one who canceled it. Based on… As you say, the soldier sinned. So then must must presume that none of the other soldiers who they held memorials for ever sinned, or somehow they convienantly asked for forgiveness in each case just before they died?
A sin is a sin. In the eyes of God it is all sin. So who are you, or this pastor to assult this family, which is who the memorial service is really for. The soldier in question is dead. I rather doubt he knows or cares about a memorial. It was for his family. So now on top of this blasphemous humiliation of God and the Savior, we add to that the carry over of sin to the family of the soldier who what…? Must have sinned. Like in Watermellon Man, they are the partents of a sinner so they must have sinned.
How perfectly ridiculous which is why fundamentalist Christians, the organized body of individuals who thus far have bombed family clinics, murdered doctors, nurses, and their biggest claim to fame, bombed the Oklahoma Federal building, must certainly have a right to cast judgement on this poor soldier and his family.
Ole Satan smiles today.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:34 amUpright left, can you type Bruno? Come on now, it can’t be that hard. Oh, wait. You thought that cute. Like some little school yard adolecent you think name calling makes you macho or perhaps. Good man, betcha you’d throw that Bible at me if you could huh? Yeah man, pick up that first stone and whallop me a good one. You, with out sin.
Okay, now you say to be Black is not a sin. Yet the religious extremists and faundamentalist Christians used the Bible for centuries to declare people of color sub-human and keep them in slavery. Sounds like a sin to me.
They offered to pay for his sin!?!?!?! Hahahah, now that’s a good one. Okay, so he sinned so we can’t soil our Godly piety in this here Church, but we’ll gladly pay so you can memorialize his sin somewhere else.
I think the restroom doors used to read:
Whites Only
August 13th, 2007 at 8:42 ambrunie, when you come late to the party, ya really ought to make an attempt to find out what went on before ya got here. We’ve been all through that. Of course we are all sinners. If the problem was simply that the deceased was a sinner, then obviously none of us would get a funeral. The problem was that the family wanted a funeral that celebrated the man’s homosexual lifestyle as though it was acceptable, thus making it appear that the church condoned the behavior. Funerals are not generally tributes to the sin in the lives of the deceased. Murderers families don’t display photos of the murders or the victims. Same for the families of theives. That’s the problem, not the fact that the man was a sinner just like you and me and everybody else. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 8:44 amOkay, now you say to be Black is not a sin. Yet the religious extremists and faundamentalist Christians used the Bible for centuries to declare people of color sub-human and keep them in slavery. Sounds like a sin to me.
Comment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 13, 2007 @ 8:42 am
pssst, brunie, those people were wrong, didn’t you know? And saying that someone is not as good as you because of the color of their skin, while wrong, isn’t the same as saying it’s sin to be black now is it, buddy? You go check and see if the Bible ever says it’s a sin to be black. The church’s action was based upon the Bible, not what some people believed. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 8:50 amSee, the right-wing zealots have to resort to name calling as a sign of their hollow macho manism. Like so many little boys at the gymnasium trying to out belch each other. It’s so, little boyish cute.
Oh now who is it that isn’t reading? My my upright left, seems you didn’t read yesterday’s posts. In point of fact we established yesterday the close nexus between the religious extremists and the Nazi party in Germany, the hatred factor and how through the use of secular piety such movements are hijacked by Satan’s own cause. As you said, you “really ought to make an attempt to find out what went on before ya got here.” Ya think.
You also say; “Funerals are not generally tributes to the sin in the lives of the deceased.”
So this piety drapped little Church in order to maintain Jesus’ cleanliness prefers to pay off the family to go elsewhere to celebrate this abomination. Oh I’m sure the Savior likes that one.
If it is such a sin, so damning that it raises the need to deny him a memorial then I rather doubt that Jesus would condone looking the other way and helping them to hold a celebration of it at some other location now would he?
Me thinks that is called;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
August 13th, 2007 at 8:54 amSo now by your own admission; “pssst, brunie, those people were wrong, didn’t you know?”
They were WRONG?!?!?! Oh my, the Church was wrong. My goodness, how could that be. The good Lord was leading them, they had the blessed word to go by, they surely interpreted it as God’s word, and the holey scripture does not lie. So now, just when did these “wrong” Christians wake up to the fact that they were wrong, that blacks and other people of color were not sub-human.
I seem to remember something about a Civil War. Oh yes, I remember, they lost. Good to know they turned inward for Gods strength and recognized they were wrong and righted it. Ofcourse it helps when someone has a bayonet pointed at you. All of a sudden you become much more accepting of tolerance. If not for God, then certainly to stay out of jail.
Again, it’s called Hypocrisy.
Yes, Jesus taught hypocrisy. Instead of upsetting the merchants tables in the Temple, he merely offered to pay them to go to another Temple.
Yeah, that’ll work.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:01 amComment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 13, 2007 @ 8:54 am
Excellent attempt to control the direction of the comments, brunie, bringin in Nazis and all! But, dang, it buddy, it’s not working this time. The church offered to help the family in the only way they could in light of the family’s demands. The church offered to pay out of Christian charity. As long as the service wasn’t at the church, it doesn’t appear that the church condones the lifestyle. And that is the point, no matter how badly you want to make it something else. Show me where I expressed any hatred for anyone or where I or that church claimed we are without sin or somehow better than the deceased. Ya won’t find it, fella. The probelm isn’t that the man was a sinner. In that, he was no different than every other human being. No better, no worse. The only problem was holding a service that condoned the sin. Congratulations on your attempt, though! ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 9:07 amI think TP is cutting us off. For whatever reason they won’t take my post so. You can try and avoid the fact that the Church is notorious for using the Bible to harm people, in this particular instance, the soldier’s family in the other case we discussed, to support slavery. In any event, that is merely their track record and no one said they or you were attempting to do it at this time. Then again, as you pointed out the entire Southern Fundamentalist Christian movement was “wrong” for a few hundred years on the issue of human rights and slavery, so as I say. Not a good track record.
So then now we are to believe they are just good ole down homey folks who abore sin. Discounting their own ofcourse, because as they bury each sinner with a memorial they are in fact celebrating his life of sin so to speak, but in this instance they feel this sin is such that of all the other sins this soldiers sin was more than their sin and so it goes that they can’t bring themselves to comfort their own members and neighbors. How very Christian.
No, much as you’d like this to be about the castagation of Gay’s on account of their no good sinners, it merely points to the hypocrisy of the Church, and their willingness to be used by Satan himself for his own agenda of hatred. And I’m afraid yes, they don’t have a good track record on the issue.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:40 amMust be something about TP that scans words and assemilates them. Nothing in my post it would not take was of an offensive nature, but in re-writing it, it then took. Odd. Off topic ofcourse, but interesting.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:43 amOh, and by the way. Note here how the right-wing author continues to misspell the name of their opponent in an attempt to gain some upper hand completely irrevelant to the conversation, while the left-wing author respects the name of their opponent.
Just an observation.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:47 amThat said, why didn’t the family find a church that accepts gays?
There are plenty out there.
Comment by Master P — August 13, 2007 @ 1:57 am
I would imagine the reason is because the family didn’t realize that being a heterosexual was a pre-requisite to agreeing to hold a funeral service. They likely thought that, you know, being gay would take a back seat to wanting to honor the life of a person who served his country and who obviously was loved by many people despite the lifestyle he led.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:56 amGood man, betcha you’d throw that Bible at me if you could huh? Yeah man, pick up that first stone and whallop me a good one. You, with out sin.
Comment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 13, 2007 @ 8:42 am
Heh, heh, heh. You get a little ticked when ya can’t get a rise out of someone eh, brunie? No, my lost friend, you have no ability to anger me. Self control, brunie, self control. Buddy, you are the only one saying I’m without sin. The fact remains that the church would not hold a service that celebrated a sinful lifestyle. That’s the one and only issue, bud. But you are persistent, I’ll give ya that! ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 11:00 amI would imagine the reason is because the family didn’t realize that being a heterosexual was a pre-requisite to agreeing to hold a funeral service. They likely thought that, you know, being gay would take a back seat to wanting to honor the life of a person who served his country and who obviously was loved by many people despite the lifestyle he led.
Comment by WC — August 13, 2007 @ 10:56 am
The problem wasn’t that the man was a homosexual. The probelm was that his family wanted a service that celebrated his lifestyle, which would of course make it appear that the church condoned the behavior. It wasn’t his homosexuality, it was the kind of service the family wanted. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 11:03 amSo-called reverends like Rev. Gary give Christianity a bad name, IMO.
Just yesterday morning, the preacher in the church we attend (my wife is a member; I am not, nor do I desire to be) referenced a letter to the editor in our local paper that said tattoos were the work of the devil and that God would punish people for scarring their bodies. The preacher called the letter-writer an “idiot.” It rather pissed me off. He did, however, say something about the man obviously had never read the New Testament and referenced something about loving our bodies. The idiot comment could have been left out. He also could have shown a little compassion for the man since he thought he was so wrong.
Another thing that bothers me is that this new preacher has had the audacity to include this statement in a section in the weekly church bulletin:
“What you really worship is defined by what you give (checkbook)…”
Yep…the almighty dollar. You see it in these megachurches that are so freaking big they put aircraft hangars to shame. They build a sanctuary that rivals most theaters, filling it with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of the latest electronic equipment, projection screens, musical instruments for the band, PA systems, etc. All to impress God. Yeah, right. This same church could hold services under a tent in the middle of a field and have the same impact on a person’s soul. But it wouldn’t be as impressive to the public nor to the members of the church. People are supposed to go to church to feed their souls, not to be impressed by the latest gadgetry.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:11 amDiscounting their own ofcourse, because as they bury each sinner with a memorial they are in fact celebrating his life of sin so to speak, but in this instance they feel this sin is such that of all the other sins this soldiers sin was more than their sin and so it goes that they can’t bring themselves to comfort their own members and neighbors. How very Christian.
Comment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 13, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Brunie, I’ll change my opinion on this as soon as you can show me a conservative Christian church in which members have funerals in which photos are displayed representing their unrepented sins. Got a link to photos of adulterers with their fellow cheaters. Pedophiles with their victims? Theives with their loot? And of course you’ll provide evidence that the families believe these activities are acceptable and the church goes along with it. Otherwise, your claim is groundless, bud. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 11:12 amYeah, right. This same church could hold services under a tent in the middle of a field and have the same impact on a person’s soul. But it wouldn’t be as impressive to the public nor to the members of the church. People are supposed to go to church to feed their souls, not to be impressed by the latest gadgetry.
Comment by WC — August 13, 2007 @ 11:11 am
That church absolutely could hold services in a tent. And they would get significantly fewer people into church. A church is supposed to reach out to the lost. People are soft these days and expect comfort. You get more people into a church with comfortable seats, air conditioning, and programs for children. I can’t comment on your wife’s church. There are good churches and not so good. That doesn’t change the fact that a church has a responsibility to point out sin and to refrain from an appearance that sin is condoned just because it is widely practiced. Wrong is wrong. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 11:18 amExactly! When it became apparent that the funeral would celebrate the immoral lifestyle of the deceased rather than being a normal service, they couldn’t compromise their principles by appearing to condone the lifestyle.
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 1:59 am
Let’s consider the same situation although with another “sin.”
Suppose this man had been an adulterer who was divorced, and pictures taken of him with a few of his, er, girlfriends were included in the video presentation, would you agree that the service would celebrate the immoral lifestyle he lived? I’ll bet you good money that Rev. Gary wouldn’t have have even considered canceling that service.
In 2000 my Dad’s brother passed away. He was divorced and remarried. His two sons (from his first marriage) were there. So was his ex-wife. By her presence there, do you think the funeral services were a celebration of divorce? I read somewhere that God did not like divorce.
Another question: do you look at some people and assume they are gay due to the way they look or act? Have you seen a picture of Rev. Gary?
August 13th, 2007 at 11:27 amSo now, just when did these “wrong†Christians wake up to the fact that they were wrong, that blacks and other people of color were not sub-human.
Comment by Bruno Hauptmann — August 13, 2007 @ 9:01 am
Most of them were Democrats, so it must have been about the time the Democrat party stopped opposing civil rights for blacks. Oh wait, you’re not a Democrat are ya, brunie? Oops! ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 11:30 amThe problem wasn’t that the man was a homosexual. The probelm was that his family wanted a service that celebrated his lifestyle, which would of course make it appear that the church condoned the behavior. It wasn’t his homosexuality, it was the kind of service the family wanted. ;)
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Yes, it was his homosexuality that was the “problem.” His lifestyle that the family supposedly wanted to celebrate WAS homosexuality. Rev. Gary said that it was not that they didn’t love the family. Fine. That “love” that they had for the family should have trumped everything else about the situation.
I wonder if Rev. Gary also thought that Mr. Sinclair’s soul was gay? Do you?
August 13th, 2007 at 11:37 amSuppose this man had been an adulterer who was divorced, and pictures taken of him with a few of his, er, girlfriends were included in the video presentation, would you agree that the service would celebrate the immoral lifestyle he lived? I’ll bet you good money that Rev. Gary wouldn’t have have even considered canceling that service.
In 2000 my Dad’s brother passed away. He was divorced and remarried. His two sons (from his first marriage) were there. So was his ex-wife. By her presence there, do you think the funeral services were a celebration of divorce? I read somewhere that God did not like divorce.
Another question: do you look at some people and assume they are gay due to the way they look or act? Have you seen a picture of Rev. Gary?
Comment by WC — August 13, 2007 @ 11:27 am
That has already been addressed WC. If it was commonly known that the man was an adulterer and that the photos were of his fellow cheaters, I absolutely believe the church would have had a problem with it. It would be the same situation. The divorce question is different. If the divorce didn’t result from Biblically allowed circumstances, it was a sin. And if the family insisted on making an issue of his divorce, I’m sure the church would have the same reaction. The issue remains that the family insisted on elements in the service that condoned the lifestyle. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 11:39 amYes, it was his homosexuality that was the “problem.†His lifestyle that the family supposedly wanted to celebrate WAS homosexuality. Rev. Gary said that it was not that they didn’t love the family. Fine. That “love†that they had for the family should have trumped everything else about the situation.
I wonder if Rev. Gary also thought that Mr. Sinclair’s soul was gay? Do you?
Comment by WC — August 13, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Love for the family doesn’t make it ok for the church to go against the Bible. We can’t change God’s laws just because they are difficult for us. It’s not the church’s law, it’s God’s. We all have our temptations. We all choose whether to give in to them or not. The deceased lived a homosexual lifestyle. One’s soul isn’t gay or straight. One chooses to live a gay or straight lifestyle. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 11:43 amPeople are soft these days and expect comfort. You get more people into a church with comfortable seats, air conditioning, and programs for children. I can’t comment on your wife’s church. There are good churches and not so good. That doesn’t change the fact that a church has a responsibility to point out sin and to refrain from an appearance that sin is condoned just because it is widely practiced. Wrong is wrong. ;)
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 11:18 am
And that, IMO, is what is wrong with most people, and most churches, nowadays. People don’t go to hear the word of God; they go to be seen. They think if they can get their 60 minutes of “religion” each week, they’ll be fine. People in my wife’s church get angry if the services exceed 1 hour; they grumble and complain, and some have been known to get up and walk out when the hour’s up.
As for playgrounds and projection screens and weight rooms and exercise rooms…people are drawn to the churches for the wrong reasons.
People need to go to church for their own spiritual needs, and not because if they don’t show up, other people in the church or community will look down on them. I have a friend who was so brainwashed by his church and their members that as a 25 year old adult he hoped that no one from his church would see him walk into a liquor store and buy a 6 pack of beer. He was a casual drinker…not an alcoholic…and I doubt he ever took a drink until long after he was out of college.
It’s just all messed up.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:57 amOrganized religion= worst idea ever…..
Comment #1 says it all…..
August 13th, 2007 at 11:59 amLove for the family doesn’t make it ok for the church to go against the Bible. We can’t change God’s laws just because they are difficult for us. It’s not the church’s law, it’s God’s. We all have our temptations. We all choose whether to give in to them or not. The deceased lived a homosexual lifestyle. One’s soul isn’t gay or straight. One chooses to live a gay or straight lifestyle. ;)
Comment by upright left — August 13, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Is Mr. Sinclair’s soul going to hell because of his “sin,” or do you not know? Is it possible that he will go to heaven, and if so, why do you think God would allow that?
August 13th, 2007 at 12:05 pmSent today to “churchunusual.” Borrowed from the famous Dr. Laura challenge. Will post response here if I get any.
———
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I wanted to pass along my words of congratulations for refusing to hold a memorial service for avowed homosexual Cecil Howard Sinclair as reported in http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20221295/?GT1=10252
I’m sure that Cecil could care less. But there’s no better way of showing your love for his surviving family than denying them this one last tribute. That’s what I call principle.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My friend has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them as in Lev.24:10-16? Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
I’m hoping to publish your answers in the press for the world to see how you glorify God’s word without exception, as you have done with the Sinclair family.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:12 pmNeither the born/choose gay argument nor the Christian theological arguement is relevant here. What is relevant is the right we have of freedom of religion. While you and I may not agree with its decision, the church in question has that right.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:20 pmWell as usual the righties want to select the facts to convienantly support their twisted viewpoints.
Over and over here in the thread, comments from the righties have stated that the family wanted to celebrate the deceased’s “lifestyle”, supposedly referring to statements from the Church which say that the family supplied pictures of the deceased’s life with males hugging and kissing.
Ignoring ofcourse, the fact that the deceased’s sister has repeatedly denied this fact and stated that no such pictures were ever given to this Church.
So the braying over and over again, first that it’s the soldier’s fault for being like every poster in here and sinning, and then secondly that it’s his family’s fault for want to hold a quote, celebration of his lifestyle are complete false distortions just as one would expect from the fundamentalist right.
We support the troops, ah, but not the Gay ones. Oh, and not the Democrat ones. Not the Atheist ones. And not them Mexican ones. Well no we don’t particularly support them Indian ones neither. I guess we have to support the black one’s but we’d rather not. Oh and those ones who saw Michael Moore’s movie, no we don’t support them either.
Such Patriots!
August 13th, 2007 at 5:31 pmRe: #405
upright left, the typical example of right-wing behavior of castagation without knowing the facts, makes a point of name calling to make up for not being able to win a point.
Now he then asserts that the antebellum South who supported slavery drawing moral and legal support from the Fundamentalist Christian movement in the South who used their Bibles not unlike the Nazi’s who used their Bibles to condeme racial tolerance were in point of fact… Democrats!
How right you are there upright. They were. And if you’d paid attention to the preceding conversations, you would then have read that in point of fact the old Southern Democrats who supported slavery and who used the Fundamentalist Christians just as Hitler used the Church in Germany. However, since the Civil War the fact is that the republicans have turned into the old Southern Democrats. The likes of Trent Lott, and particularly Strom Thurmond are excellant examples. Unable to carry on their racial bigotry from a Democrat party ever increasingly holding beliefs of the Northern Abolitionists, and eventually jumped ship to the republicans and their anti-minority agenda. Felt just like home no doubt.
Those Southern Democrats now turned republican are indeed as you pointed out upright, the true holders of hatred and bigotry. While the Democrats have now become the holders of racial tolerance.
And your, not ready for prime time attempt to divert the discussion away from the issue and towards what my particular party affiliation or Church membership might be does not merit any points I’m afraid.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:42 pmHey brunie, go back through your posts and see who brought up slavery, bud. It’s really difficult to carry on a discussion if you aren’t going to keep up. But I guess your “not ready for prime time attempt to divert the discussion away from the issue” “merits points” somehow? Don’t give up, though, buddy. ;)
August 13th, 2007 at 6:39 pmThe mainstream media wants you to believe that a conservative evangelical church deep in the Bible belt has refused to bury a Gulf War veteran because he was gay. Some in the Christian media want you to believe that the church hasn’t shown the love of Jesus to a dead man’s family. Neither charge is anywhere near the truth.
Here are the facts. High Point Church, a non-denominational church in Arlington, Texas, had been praying for Cecil Sinclair after Cecil’s brother Lee (the only member of the Sinclair family who was a member of the church) requested prayer for his brother who had been awaiting a heart transplant.
When Cecil Sinclair’s health became critical last week, the family called a staff member from the church to be with them at the hospital. In the hospital, in the moments immediately following Mr. Sinclair’s death, the family asked the staff member if the church would be open to holding a memorial service for their loved one. The staff member assured them the church would be available to help the family in any way appropriate, a response any pastor would give in that situation.
Cecil was not a member of High Point Church, yet this church selflessly and sacrificially ministered to his family in the wake of his death, preparing and delivering food for the family and one hundred relatives and friends, along with many other expressions of kindness. The church offered to produce a video retrospective of Mr. Sinclair’s life for use during the memorial service. When the family provided the pictures to the church it was then that the church learned of their intention to make the memorial service a celebration of Cecil Sinclair’s gay lifestyle. According to a statement on the High Point Church Web site, one of the photos provided by the family showed a man touching another man inappropriately, along with other unsuitable photos.
The family also requested that “an associate of an openly homosexual choir†officiate at the service and that the homosexual choir sing during the service. “It became clear to the church staff that the family was requesting an openly homosexual service at High Point Church—which is not our policy to allow,†the statement on the church’s Web site said. After initially agreeing to host the memorial service, the church informed the family it could no longer do so based on the direction the family wanted to take it. The church then secured—and paid for—another location for the memorial service, which the family declined. The church also produced the memorial video without the inappropriate photos.
Contrary to the mainstream media reports, High Point Church did not refuse to host the funeral of a gay man. The church refused on biblical principle to allow a celebration of the homosexual lifestyle in its sanctuary, a decision most theologically sound churches would make under similar circumstances.
It’s not surprising that the mainstream media would misrepresent the facts. But the response of some in Christian media has been even more disappointing. High Point Church and its leaders are being accused by Christians of not showing love to the family by not hosting a celebration of Cecil Sinclair’s gay lifestyle. I suppose visiting Cecil in the hospital, sitting with his family after he died, preparing meals for the family, paying the rent on an alternative venue and producing an appropriate memorial video don’t qualify as “showing love†to the family.
Other critics of High Point Church are calling it a “missed opportunity†for the church to reach out to the gay community. Still others have suggested that, because homosexuality is a sin like any other sin, the church’s decision not to host a gay man’s memorial would prohibit it from holding memorial services for anyone because, after all, we are all sinners.
These people are missing the point. The church did not refuse to host the memorial service because Cecil Sinclair was gay. They refused to host the memorial service because the family was turning it into a celebration of the man’s sin—his homosexual lifestyle. Churches and ministers bury sinners every day. But we don’t highlight their sin on the big screen while we’re doing it. We exalt Christ. We proclaim the gospel. And we celebrate the triumph of the cross over sin and death—none of which the family had in mind for Cecil Sinclair’s memorial service.
High Point Church’s principled and biblical decision was the right one, evidenced not only by just how unpopular it is with the mainstream media, but also by the knee-jerk and ill-informed response of today’s culturally-savvy, but often biblically illiterate Christians
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 am