Skip to comments.
Family says Tampa church canceled funeral because son was gay
WFLA-TV ^
| 8/6/2014
| Shannon Behnken
Posted on 08/08/2014 6:38:41 PM PDT by markomalley
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-117 next last
To: MNDude
No one is more against the queer agenda than I am, but I cant see why they wouldnt hold a funeral for him. Its not at all like a wedding. The church couldn't honor God and acknowledge a "husband". They did the right thing.
41
posted on
08/08/2014 7:55:49 PM PDT
by
DJ MacWoW
(The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
To: markomalley
If they only burred non-sinners, their graveyard would be empty.
42
posted on
08/08/2014 7:56:14 PM PDT
by
The_Media_never_lie
(The media must be defeated any way it can be done.)
To: Olog-hai
No, he’s suffering in Hades now.
43
posted on
08/08/2014 7:59:37 PM PDT
by
NetAddicted
(Just looking)
To: Samurai_Jack
The deceased had a "husband". The church could not acknowledge him. It wasn't about being homosexual. It was about a "husband" that isn't really a husband. Do you suggest they ignore him during the service? They couldn't honor God AND call him the dudes husband. What they did was right.
44
posted on
08/08/2014 7:59:55 PM PDT
by
DJ MacWoW
(The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
To: DJ MacWoW
Re: “The church couldn’t honor God and acknowledge a “husband”. They did the right thing.”
Was the church being asked to “acknowledge” the “husband” during the service? If so, then I would agree with you, but I’m not sure from the information given in the article that that was the case.
To: Morgana
it traded God for sex, it chose poorly... now reap the whirlwind
46
posted on
08/08/2014 8:02:28 PM PDT
by
Chode
(Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
To: napscoordinator
What were they to do about the "husband"? They couldn't acknowledge him and honor God. That's why they cancelled.
47
posted on
08/08/2014 8:02:56 PM PDT
by
DJ MacWoW
(The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
To: rusty schucklefurd
How would they have to acknowledge the “husband”? Couldn’t they just call him by name and not give him any title at all?
48
posted on
08/08/2014 8:04:32 PM PDT
by
MNDude
To: grandpa jones
If forced to hold the funeral, the pastor could’ve said he was now suffering because of his lifestyle. Proper thing to do.
49
posted on
08/08/2014 8:04:32 PM PDT
by
NetAddicted
(Just looking)
To: napscoordinator
better to tell them as soon as possible and give them all the advance warning they can so it's parents can tell those at the wake another venue needs to be found... just my 2c
50
posted on
08/08/2014 8:06:04 PM PDT
by
Chode
(Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
To: rusty schucklefurd
They were not asking him to accept homosexuality nor promote it. Yes, they were. The church couldn't honor God and acknowledge a "husband". They did the right thing.
51
posted on
08/08/2014 8:06:18 PM PDT
by
DJ MacWoW
(The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
To: fr_freak
52
posted on
08/08/2014 8:06:28 PM PDT
by
NetAddicted
(Just looking)
To: DJ MacWoW
I think the pastor could have spoken with the parents of the dead son and explained that while a funeral service could be given, he could not, as a Christian minister, acknowledge the “husband” during the service. If that was acceptable to them, the service could have preceded. If that was unacceptable to them, then the pastor did the correct thing.
To: Samurai_Jack
Comfort the broken heart. How do you comfort the broken heart in this case? You can't tell them that their loved one is in Heaven and they will see him there some day. And it would just seem cruel to tell them the truth, that their loved one will suffer an eternity of torment because he loved his sin more than he loved his soul.
54
posted on
08/08/2014 8:08:32 PM PDT
by
CA Conservative
(Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
To: SoConPubbie
55
posted on
08/08/2014 8:08:41 PM PDT
by
NetAddicted
(Just looking)
To: workerbee
I've never attended nor even heard of funeral services being held in a church. Three deaths in the family, all the memorial services in church, deceased barely mentioned, not Catholic.
56
posted on
08/08/2014 8:11:02 PM PDT
by
xone
To: DJ MacWoW
Re: “Yes, they were. The church couldn’t honor God and acknowledge a “husband”. They did the right thing.”
That’s my question - were the parents asking the pastor to acknowledge the “husband”? That is not all that clear from the information given.
To: rusty schucklefurd
The church cancelled when they found the deceased had a "husband". It's in the article. They didn't know until they read the obituary. The surviving spouse is usually acknowledged. Also in the article was the family had their own preacher doing the service. Most likely it would have been a "gay" funeral. The family left out some details, don't you think?
Atwood's current pastor agreed to preach the funeral, but they needed a large church, like New Hope, to accommodate hundreds of mourners from across the country. New Hope agreed and the service was scheduled for July 26.
58
posted on
08/08/2014 8:12:15 PM PDT
by
DJ MacWoW
(The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
To: grandpa jones
I know for a fact he was not forgiven by G-d because of the Torah.
59
posted on
08/08/2014 8:12:21 PM PDT
by
NetAddicted
(Just looking)
To: grandpa jones
Are you so confident that the young man has committed an unpardonable, unforgivable sin in the eyes of the Lord? There is only one sin that is unforgivable. But for a sin to be forgiven, the person must repent. That does not just mean asking for forgiveness - it means to turn away from sin, to stop engaging in the sin. Since this man was "married" to his homosexual partner, there is nothing to indicate that he repented of his homosexual activity. And once he died, the opportunity for forgiveness was past.
60
posted on
08/08/2014 8:17:00 PM PDT
by
CA Conservative
(Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-117 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson