My wording was bad, what I ment to type was homosexuality was not THE sole reason for its demise.
Anyways as you say, alot of the bible is often taken out of context, and alot of it can no longer apply to todays world, or possible.
"There's no star system Slave I can't reach, and there's no planet I can't find. There's nowhere in the Galaxy for you to run. Might as well give up now." Boba Fett
My wording was bad, what I ment to type was homosexuality was not THE sole reason for its demise. Anyways as you say, alot of the bible is often taken out of context, and alot of it can no longer apply to todays world, or possible.
I agree it is obvious it wasn't the sole reason despite what the Bible states later on, but yes people like to pick things out of context and use it for their own purposes. I don't see what would be wrong with editing it for the 21st century? You could have the old edition and a modern one, you wouldn't add anything just edit the ridiculous stuff and contradictions and loopholes. Although the church probably would be afraid of causing a further split, with all the trouble they have it'd be too much.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
I think there are shortcomings on both sides here. The church agreed to provide the service knowing full well he was homosexual, then retracted. The deceased assuredly knew the doctrines his church followed, however.
Still, it is not so easy to simply go to another church, as many suggest. He obviously went there for a reason, probably regarded it as some kind of family, and assuredly had friends and loved ones there. It's entirely possible to be a member of a church and vehemently disagree with some of its doctrines.
My question here is, would the church have withdrawn their memorial if they suddenly found out that instead of being gay, he was a single man who had many many affairs with women he was not married to?
I think there are shortcomings on both sides here. The church agreed to provide the service knowing full well he was homosexual, then retracted. The deceased assuredly knew the doctrines his church followed, however.
Still, it is not so easy to simply go to another church, as many suggest. He obviously went there for a reason, probably regarded it as some kind of family, and assuredly had friends and loved ones there. It's entirely possible to be a member of a church and vehemently disagree with some of its doctrines.
My question here is, would the church have withdrawn their memorial if they suddenly found out that instead of being gay, he was a single man who had many many affairs with women he was not married to?
Probably not since it seems the reason is more about social stigma than anything else. Even a married man that slept with many women would be fine as today there is little social stigma. However if he was a married man that had affairs with many men, then due to the social stigma attatched it would be different.
This was about social stigma, they were fine giving him a service until the community discovered he was gay. It wasn't about the mans widow and family it was about the social image of the church, if Jesus had been like that he'd of brought Mary Magdilen into his flock aslong as no-one knew she used to be a whore. A bit hypocritical in my opinion.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
Funerals are for the living, if the church doesn't want to honor a man due to him leading a lifestyle that they do not agree with then that is their right.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Agricola1 This was about social stigma, they were fine giving him a service until the community discovered he was gay. It wasn't about the mans widow and family it was about the social image of the church, if Jesus had been like that he'd of brought Mary Magdilen into his flock aslong as no-one knew she used to be a whore. A bit hypocritical in my opinion.
Actually did you know it states nowhere in the bible that Mary Magdalene was a whore?
Fact...
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
He said the church offered to pay for another site for the service, made the video and provided food for more than 100 relatives and friends.
Did anybody even read that part? Yes, the article is twisted to make it sound like the church is a bunch of gaybashers, but it sounds like the church just didn't want to show some projection film of two guys kissing inside the church. It definitely would have been a first for a lot of things. The church did, however, paid for another venue, made the video, AND provided food for more than 100 people.
I see no problem here. They're a church, so they obviously wouldn't want to be so directly promoting homosexuality... but they still took care of everything. If they really hated them, they would have just let the family in the cold.
That's not all of the story. It's all over the local news here in Dallas.
The family told the church that they had not known there was a problem, but if there was then they were willing to take the pictures out of the presentation. But the church still refused to hold the service for them.
It's nothing at all but the church being un-Christian bigots. There's not an excuse for it.
My wording was bad, what I ment to type was homosexuality was not THE sole reason for its demise. Anyways as you say, alot of the bible is often taken out of context, and alot of it can no longer apply to todays world, or possible.
If God said he destroyed a city because of people having heterosexual sex out of wedlock, would you consider that to mean that God destroyed the city because of heterosexuality?
It's just as big of a stretch to say that God hates homosexuality because of that story. Where in that story does it say that God was angry at loving homosexuals?
What's an even bigger stretch is to wonder why Lot would offer his daughters to a bunch of homosexuals thinking it would make them go away!
I think there are shortcomings on both sides here. The church agreed to provide the service knowing full well he was homosexual, then retracted. The deceased assuredly knew the doctrines his church followed, however.
Still, it is not so easy to simply go to another church, as many suggest. He obviously went there for a reason, probably regarded it as some kind of family, and assuredly had friends and loved ones there. It's entirely possible to be a member of a church and vehemently disagree with some of its doctrines.
My question here is, would the church have withdrawn their memorial if they suddenly found out that instead of being gay, he was a single man who had many many affairs with women he was not married to?
No, they wouldn't cancel it if they found out he was a swinger with women. They would probably just laugh and remember how much he was a good Navy man who "loved to be with those ladies". And I bet they would allow the pictures of him with his arm around each one of the ladies he slept with as well.
So what if the big story book says homosexuality is a sin? And yes, true, not true, or in between, until it all plays out to be proven true as to it's accuracy/validity, the Bible is a story book.
Fact of the matter is, what does homosexuality have to do with being callous and disrespectful to a grieving family? The man was a homosexual, that was his choice/calling/whatever. Does that suddenly not make him human? Does it make his loved ones and family lepers?
It is not a church full of bigoted Bible thumpers job or right to judge that man OR his family, it is God's place.
"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
You know what will make me smile when and if I see those "pearly gates"?
When I find that God forgave that man of his "sins", and those men and women who judged him unworthy find that they are not so easily forgiven.
Funerals are for the living, if the church doesn't want to honor a man due to him leading a lifestyle that they do not agree with then that is their right.
No one says it's not their right. I agree, they have the right to do whatever they want.
I think what the debate about is them doing what is right. And I agree, funerals are pretty much for the living. So, why didn't they show some respect for the living who are left behind to mourn this Navy vet? He did something wonderful for his country, yet they are instead choosing to focus on one aspect of his life.
This is really insane. It's mean and vindictive towards a general group of people. It shows nothing but lack of respect for a human beings life. Even when the little kids in the Quaker schoolhouse were shot a while back, the Quaker families went to the funeral of the shooter to show their forgiveness for the family and the shooter. That's true love and compassion for human life. Not this. These people have no strength or cause. They're just being mean and trying to look to their religion to justify their hatred.
Maybe when he left the Navy he could of become a priest? Then the church would've covered up his homosexuality or just denied it and gone ahead with the service. I believe there are several references in the Bible pointing out that homosexuality is a sin, personally I've supported lesbianism all my life. I couldn't have faith in any god that doesn't support lesbianism, I mean could you imagine heaven without it?
hey i was going to say the 2nd last sentence.
but on topicish, it is the churches right to cancel stuff... as wrong as it seems, that church believed what he did was wrong, and if they honoured him their church, they'd be supported how he lived, which they do not. I don't really have a stance on this, but I'm just saying they believed in something and what was proposed wasn't what they thought was right.
Funerals are for the living, if the church doesn't want to honor a man due to him leading a lifestyle that they do not agree with then that is their right.
No one says it's not their right. I agree, they have the right to do whatever they want.
I think what the debate about is them doing what is right. And I agree, funerals are pretty much for the living. So, why didn't they show some respect for the living who are left behind to mourn this Navy vet? He did something wonderful for his country, yet they are instead choosing to focus on one aspect of his life.
This is really insane. It's mean and vindictive towards a general group of people. It shows nothing but lack of respect for a human beings life. Even when the little kids in the Quaker schoolhouse were shot a while back, the Quaker families went to the funeral of the shooter to show their forgiveness for the family and the shooter. That's true love and compassion for human life. Not this. These people have no strength or cause. They're just being mean and trying to look to their religion to justify their hatred.
Funerals are for the living, if the church doesn't want to honor a man due to him leading a lifestyle that they do not agree with then that is their right.
No one says it's not their right. I agree, they have the right to do whatever they want.
I think what the debate about is them doing what is right. And I agree, funerals are pretty much for the living. So, why didn't they show some respect for the living who are left behind to mourn this Navy vet? He did something wonderful for his country, yet they are instead choosing to focus on one aspect of his life.
This is really insane. It's mean and vindictive towards a general group of people. It shows nothing but lack of respect for a human beings life. Even when the little kids in the Quaker schoolhouse were shot a while back, the Quaker families went to the funeral of the shooter to show their forgiveness for the family and the shooter. That's true love and compassion for human life. Not this. These people have no strength or cause. They're just being mean and trying to look to their religion to justify their hatred.
Damn. Quoted for truth. Hit the nail on the head.
Somebody tell me why exactly this church was obligated to put on a memorial service? It's not vindictive...going to the guy's funeral with picket signs would be vindictive. There is a big difference between tolerance and acceptance. Not throwing the guy a friggen party doesn't mean that they hate the guy or don't respect what he did. As I said, funerals are for the living, would you want a bunch of people to throw a party to celebrate someone that they believed lived in sin? Then they would just be a bunch of hypocrites.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Agricola1 This was about social stigma, they were fine giving him a service until the community discovered he was gay. It wasn't about the mans widow and family it was about the social image of the church, if Jesus had been like that he'd of brought Mary Magdilen into his flock aslong as no-one knew she used to be a whore. A bit hypocritical in my opinion.
Actually did you know it states nowhere in the bible that Mary Magdalene was a whore?
Fact...
J 8:1-11 Jesus forgives a whore but no reference is made to her name many have assumed this to be her. However I'm not concered over wether she was or wasn't a whore, my point was if Jesus acted similar to that church this is what he may have done. But you are correct in that the Bible states nowhere that she was a whore.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
I always found it ironic that not only were these two verses in the same book, but also in the same chapter and yet the Church seemed to ignore one and harp endlessly on the other:
1) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
2) Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?
As Cabe pointed out, we're not talking about "The Church", but a church, with no affiliations. Of course it's their right to hold whatever funerals they want, just as we have the right to point out that such a decision not only could be argued to be against what Jesus taught in terms of love, compassion and forgiveness, but is also shows an inconsistancy, singling out homosexuality over many other things that could be seen as sins - unless of course they don't hold funerals for people who fail to love their God with all their heart, mind and strength, which would mean they don't hold many funerals at all.
Jude 1:7 is rarely translated as saying Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality. Most translations say "immorality and going after strange flesh". Link. InRomans, we see the suggestion that Paul regarded at least some forms of homosexuality as sinful, but Leviticus is really the verses used to condemn homosexuality as "an abomination".
For me, the part of the bible which would most apply in this situation though, is when Jesus heals the Roman centurian's man-servant. To the readers at the time when this was written, it was widely known that this would have been a homosexual relationship.
Jesus is seen at many times to oppose the Leviticus laws: the stoning of adulterers and gathering food on the Sabbath are the two most obvious ones. "The Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath" is a pretty clear principle which shows that people are prone to view such laws in the wrong way and become slaves to them instead of benefiting from them.
There's a good argument that suggests that the Gospel writers picked particular healings to report for a reason. In healing both the haemhorraging woman and the leper, Jesus was breaking laws of what was unclean in Leviticus. If we are to take such healings as statements about how we should regard and treat those who tradition and ancient law outcasts and calls unclean, then surely we should see the healing of the centurian's servant in the same light.
However homosexuality is regarded in that church, Jesus makes it very clear that compassion always comes first.
Religion is aload of BS anyways and i pity anyone who believes theres a god.
IF there is an afterlife , i hope that those with a religion who in the end are wrong are for eternity treated in the way they treat other human beings on earth who do not have the samereligion as they do.Now THAT would be fun.
Somebody tell me why exactly this church was obligated to put on a memorial service? It's not vindictive...going to the guy's funeral with picket signs would be vindictive. There is a big difference between tolerance and acceptance. Not throwing the guy a friggen party doesn't mean that they hate the guy or don't respect what he did. As I said, funerals are for the living, would you want a bunch of people to throw a party to celebrate someone that they believed lived in sin? Then they would just be a bunch of hypocrites.
You're right, I wouldnt wan't people to judge me after I've died by a book.
I don't think he's friends and family think of him as a sinner, just the church and their ignorant sheeps, they are not the ones who will mourn him nor celebrate his life but they are the ones who refuses to honor his valor due to his sexual alignment.
Here in Canada you would never be able to get away with that. The pastor would be locked up for hate crimes, guaranteed.
Yes, I do find that extreme, but that kind of attitude is what makes me sick.
Here's something for ya' church. Each and every single person you burried sinned in some way or form. And yet, this one sin makes you unable to bury him? Bull. It doesn't make you a sinner by giving the guy a half decent burial. It's bull.
I am a Christian myself but half of the time I am disgusted by their attitudes.
EDIT:
Sodom and Gommora(sp?) were razed to the ground because they raped travelers as well.
As Cabe pointed out, we're not talking about "The Church", but a church, with no affiliations. Of course it's their right to hold whatever funerals they want, just as we have the right to point out that such a decision not only could be argued to be against what Jesus taught in terms of love, compassion and forgiveness, but is also shows an inconsistancy, singling out homosexuality over many other things that could be seen as sins - unless of course they don't hold funerals for people who fail to love their God with all their heart, mind and strength, which would mean they don't hold many funerals at all.
I think the reason why so many people harp on homosexuality with a passion is because of the fact that homosexuality, Biblically speaking, is a capital sin.
Jude 1:7 is rarely translated as saying Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality. Most translations say "immorality and going after strange flesh". Link.
Strange flesh was usually bestiality or homosexuality, sometimes both. Sodom and Gomorrah were basically purged for all out sexual impurity.
InRomans, we see the suggestion that Paul regarded at least some forms of homosexuality as sinful, but Leviticus is really the verses used to condemn homosexuality as "an abomination".
Actually Paul regarded all forms as sinful. He referred to just plain out homosexuals, homosexual prostitutes, and catamites.
For me, the part of the bible which would most apply in this situation though, is when Jesus heals the Roman centurian's man-servant. To the readers at the time when this was written, it was widely known that this would have been a homosexual relationship.
The word used in Matthew 8:6 was translated from the word Pais. Meaning a boy, one that is beaten, or raped, a girl, or just a child, a slave or servant sometimes even in regards to being a minister to a King, a child, a servant, a son, or a young man.
To say this was "widely known" is absolute absurd fallacy, and is trying to use one specific translation to prove a point in contrast to the spirit of the rest of the book. It is as though saying in John 2:4, when he calls his mother, "woman", the word used is gune, which one translation specifically refers to a woman who is a wife. So will people next be trying to say that Mary the Mother of Jesus, was in fact a mis-translation and is Mary the Wife of Jesus?
Jesus is seen at many times to oppose the Leviticus laws:
Incorrect. Jesus specifically said He had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
the stoning of adulterers
They were not fulfilling the law here. The man involved was no where to be seen, and all they wanted was a blood bath, they had no interest in justice, and Jesus saw this.
and gathering food on the Sabbath are the two most obvious ones. "The Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath" is a pretty clear principle which shows that people are prone to view such laws in the wrong way and become slaves to them instead of benefiting from them.
Well, God created the laws to be a tool for man, to keep him pure, good, and alive. Things like the 10 commandments were laws that acted as the basis for simple human order. Things like not eating shell fish and pig, as well as having sex with a woman on her period, all were for cleanliness and public health.
There's a good argument that suggests that the Gospel writers picked particular healings to report for a reason. In healing both the haemhorraging woman and the leper, Jesus was breaking laws of what was unclean in Leviticus.
And they became no longer unclean, for God hath made clean, that which was unclean. It was a perfectly physical example, of "sins" being washed away, them no longer living the leperous life.
If we are to take such healings as statements about how we should regard and treat those who tradition and ancient law outcasts and calls unclean, then surely we should see the healing of the centurian's servant in the same light.
However homosexuality is regarded in that church, Jesus makes it very clear that compassion always comes first.
The man was dead. There was no compassion towards him, or trying to heal him from a "leper" to a "clean man", all they would have been doing was having a ceremony for his life, and homosexuality, being a lifestyle, being apart of who he was, they could have been having a ceremony for that, and they didn't want to.
This had nothing to do with compassion. They showed compassion by offering his family alternative ways of holding the ceremony.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
They are acting upon the laws set before them by God and their church body. If they gave him the memorial they might get thrown out, what then ? Shame on you for judging this congregation. Just because you are okay with gay people dont mean everyone else has to. Right ?
personally i like to pick and choose which bits of the bible to accept and which bits are rediculous.
Leviticus - the part that is anti gay also clearly states that all pork and shellfish is a no-no. So collectivly the ignorant rednecks should all start denouncing or attacking people who eat pork chops, bacon sandwiches, crab, lobster, prawns and shrimp - the godless phuckers
Why do people consider my "sins" worse than theirs?
If this guy would have been straight and ran around sleeping with a bunch of different women drinking and partying it up every weekend, they would have had this funeral for him.
Yet, because people like me are born with the capacity to only fall in love with the same sex and long for the companionship that fills that need, we are deemed somehow worse. Even when we choose to live in a monogamous loving arrangement.
Comments
My wording was bad, what I ment to type was homosexuality was not THE sole reason for its demise.
Anyways as you say, alot of the bible is often taken out of context, and alot of it can no longer apply to todays world, or possible.
"There's no star system Slave I can't reach, and there's no planet I can't find. There's nowhere in the Galaxy for you to run. Might as well give up now."
Boba Fett
I agree it is obvious it wasn't the sole reason despite what the Bible states later on, but yes people like to pick things out of context and use it for their own purposes. I don't see what would be wrong with editing it for the 21st century? You could have the old edition and a modern one, you wouldn't add anything just edit the ridiculous stuff and contradictions and loopholes. Although the church probably would be afraid of causing a further split, with all the trouble they have it'd be too much.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
I think there are shortcomings on both sides here. The church agreed to provide the service knowing full well he was homosexual, then retracted. The deceased assuredly knew the doctrines his church followed, however.
Still, it is not so easy to simply go to another church, as many suggest. He obviously went there for a reason, probably regarded it as some kind of family, and assuredly had friends and loved ones there. It's entirely possible to be a member of a church and vehemently disagree with some of its doctrines.
My question here is, would the church have withdrawn their memorial if they suddenly found out that instead of being gay, he was a single man who had many many affairs with women he was not married to?
Probably not since it seems the reason is more about social stigma than anything else. Even a married man that slept with many women would be fine as today there is little social stigma. However if he was a married man that had affairs with many men, then due to the social stigma attatched it would be different.
This was about social stigma, they were fine giving him a service until the community discovered he was gay. It wasn't about the mans widow and family it was about the social image of the church, if Jesus had been like that he'd of brought Mary Magdilen into his flock aslong as no-one knew she used to be a whore. A bit hypocritical in my opinion.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
Funerals are for the living, if the church doesn't want to honor a man due to him leading a lifestyle that they do not agree with then that is their right.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Fact...
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
The family told the church that they had not known there was a problem, but if there was then they were willing to take the pictures out of the presentation. But the church still refused to hold the service for them.
It's nothing at all but the church being un-Christian bigots. There's not an excuse for it.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
It's just as big of a stretch to say that God hates homosexuality because of that story. Where in that story does it say that God was angry at loving homosexuals?
What's an even bigger stretch is to wonder why Lot would offer his daughters to a bunch of homosexuals thinking it would make them go away!
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
No, they wouldn't cancel it if they found out he was a swinger with women. They would probably just laugh and remember how much he was a good Navy man who "loved to be with those ladies". And I bet they would allow the pictures of him with his arm around each one of the ladies he slept with as well.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
It's refreshing to see groups like this clinging to dated laws. It takes some real courage to stand up to a dead soldier and his family.
If this christian God of theirs supports this shit I'd rather rot in hell.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
So what if the big story book says homosexuality is a sin? And yes, true, not true, or in between, until it all plays out to be proven true as to it's accuracy/validity, the Bible is a story book.
Fact of the matter is, what does homosexuality have to do with being callous and disrespectful to a grieving family? The man was a homosexual, that was his choice/calling/whatever. Does that suddenly not make him human? Does it make his loved ones and family lepers?
It is not a church full of bigoted Bible thumpers job or right to judge that man OR his family, it is God's place.
"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
You know what will make me smile when and if I see those "pearly gates"?
When I find that God forgave that man of his "sins", and those men and women who judged him unworthy find that they are not so easily forgiven.
I think what the debate about is them doing what is right. And I agree, funerals are pretty much for the living. So, why didn't they show some respect for the living who are left behind to mourn this Navy vet? He did something wonderful for his country, yet they are instead choosing to focus on one aspect of his life.
This is really insane. It's mean and vindictive towards a general group of people. It shows nothing but lack of respect for a human beings life. Even when the little kids in the Quaker schoolhouse were shot a while back, the Quaker families went to the funeral of the shooter to show their forgiveness for the family and the shooter. That's true love and compassion for human life. Not this. These people have no strength or cause. They're just being mean and trying to look to their religion to justify their hatred.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All Rights Reversed
but on topicish, it is the churches right to cancel stuff... as wrong as it seems, that church believed what he did was wrong, and if they honoured him their church, they'd be supported how he lived, which they do not. I don't really have a stance on this, but I'm just saying they believed in something and what was proposed wasn't what they thought was right.
?played: Nearly everything.
?waiting: *Darkfall*, Hero''s Journey
I think what the debate about is them doing what is right. And I agree, funerals are pretty much for the living. So, why didn't they show some respect for the living who are left behind to mourn this Navy vet? He did something wonderful for his country, yet they are instead choosing to focus on one aspect of his life.
This is really insane. It's mean and vindictive towards a general group of people. It shows nothing but lack of respect for a human beings life. Even when the little kids in the Quaker schoolhouse were shot a while back, the Quaker families went to the funeral of the shooter to show their forgiveness for the family and the shooter. That's true love and compassion for human life. Not this. These people have no strength or cause. They're just being mean and trying to look to their religion to justify their hatred.
Damn. Quoted for truth. Hit the nail on the head.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
I think what the debate about is them doing what is right. And I agree, funerals are pretty much for the living. So, why didn't they show some respect for the living who are left behind to mourn this Navy vet? He did something wonderful for his country, yet they are instead choosing to focus on one aspect of his life.
This is really insane. It's mean and vindictive towards a general group of people. It shows nothing but lack of respect for a human beings life. Even when the little kids in the Quaker schoolhouse were shot a while back, the Quaker families went to the funeral of the shooter to show their forgiveness for the family and the shooter. That's true love and compassion for human life. Not this. These people have no strength or cause. They're just being mean and trying to look to their religion to justify their hatred.
Damn. Quoted for truth. Hit the nail on the head.
Somebody tell me why exactly this church was obligated to put on a memorial service? It's not vindictive...going to the guy's funeral with picket signs would be vindictive. There is a big difference between tolerance and acceptance. Not throwing the guy a friggen party doesn't mean that they hate the guy or don't respect what he did. As I said, funerals are for the living, would you want a bunch of people to throw a party to celebrate someone that they believed lived in sin? Then they would just be a bunch of hypocrites.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Fact...
J 8:1-11 Jesus forgives a whore but no reference is made to her name many have assumed this to be her. However I'm not concered over wether she was or wasn't a whore, my point was if Jesus acted similar to that church this is what he may have done. But you are correct in that the Bible states nowhere that she was a whore.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
I always found it ironic that not only were these two verses in the same book, but also in the same chapter and yet the Church seemed to ignore one and harp endlessly on the other:
1) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
2) Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?
Religion is aload of BS anyways and i pity anyone who believes theres a god.
As Cabe pointed out, we're not talking about "The Church", but a church, with no affiliations. Of course it's their right to hold whatever funerals they want, just as we have the right to point out that such a decision not only could be argued to be against what Jesus taught in terms of love, compassion and forgiveness, but is also shows an inconsistancy, singling out homosexuality over many other things that could be seen as sins - unless of course they don't hold funerals for people who fail to love their God with all their heart, mind and strength, which would mean they don't hold many funerals at all.
Jude 1:7 is rarely translated as saying Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality. Most translations say "immorality and going after strange flesh". Link. InRomans, we see the suggestion that Paul regarded at least some forms of homosexuality as sinful, but Leviticus is really the verses used to condemn homosexuality as "an abomination".
For me, the part of the bible which would most apply in this situation though, is when Jesus heals the Roman centurian's man-servant. To the readers at the time when this was written, it was widely known that this would have been a homosexual relationship.
Jesus is seen at many times to oppose the Leviticus laws: the stoning of adulterers and gathering food on the Sabbath are the two most obvious ones. "The Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath" is a pretty clear principle which shows that people are prone to view such laws in the wrong way and become slaves to them instead of benefiting from them.
There's a good argument that suggests that the Gospel writers picked particular healings to report for a reason. In healing both the haemhorraging woman and the leper, Jesus was breaking laws of what was unclean in Leviticus. If we are to take such healings as statements about how we should regard and treat those who tradition and ancient law outcasts and calls unclean, then surely we should see the healing of the centurian's servant in the same light.
However homosexuality is regarded in that church, Jesus makes it very clear that compassion always comes first.
IF there is an afterlife , i hope that those with a religion who in the end are wrong are for eternity treated in the way they treat other human beings on earth who do not have the samereligion as they do.Now THAT would be fun.
You're right, I wouldnt wan't people to judge me after I've died by a book.
I don't think he's friends and family think of him as a sinner, just the church and their ignorant sheeps, they are not the ones who will mourn him nor celebrate his life but they are the ones who refuses to honor his valor due to his sexual alignment.
I CREATED MYSELF!
"<Claus|Dev> i r pk"
SW:TOR|War40K:DMO|GW2
Here in Canada you would never be able to get away with that. The pastor would be locked up for hate crimes, guaranteed.
Yes, I do find that extreme, but that kind of attitude is what makes me sick.
Here's something for ya' church. Each and every single person you burried sinned in some way or form. And yet, this one sin makes you unable to bury him? Bull. It doesn't make you a sinner by giving the guy a half decent burial. It's bull.
I am a Christian myself but half of the time I am disgusted by their attitudes.
EDIT:
Sodom and Gommora(sp?) were razed to the ground because they raped travelers as well.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
personally i like to pick and choose which bits of the bible to accept and which bits are rediculous.
Leviticus - the part that is anti gay also clearly states that all pork and shellfish is a no-no. So collectivly the ignorant rednecks should all start denouncing or attacking people who eat pork chops, bacon sandwiches, crab, lobster, prawns and shrimp - the godless phuckers
Why do people consider my "sins" worse than theirs?
If this guy would have been straight and ran around sleeping with a bunch of different women drinking and partying it up every weekend, they would have had this funeral for him.
Yet, because people like me are born with the capacity to only fall in love with the same sex and long for the companionship that fills that need, we are deemed somehow worse. Even when we choose to live in a monogamous loving arrangement.
--------------------------------------
