Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
Had I been Mr. Sinclair's family, the food would have gone to the nearest homeless shelter and the video would have gone directly into the dumpster.

As would be your right. But apparently a Church does not have a right to behavior that you disagree with.

Would you force a Church to hold a service for an acknowledged and proud drunkard? Would the Church have no recourse but to hold the service when it was revealed that a video showing his prodigious drinking skills would be shown at the funeral?

Why must the Church give up it's own values when confronted?

Why can't it make a stand and say, "No, not in our sanctuary. We won't allow a celebration of sin to take place where we meet to go into the presence of God in our time of communal worship."

Once again I find proof that those who scream "Tolerance!" the loudest are those who will not tolerate those who disagree with them.

70 posted on 08/10/2007 7:28:11 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]


To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
As would be your right. But apparently a Church does not have a right to behavior that you disagree with.

Why did they agree to the funeral in the first place? Nobody hid the man's sexual orientation so why all of a sudden the cold feet?

Would you force a Church to hold a service for an acknowledged and proud drunkard? Would the Church have no recourse but to hold the service when it was revealed that a video showing his prodigious drinking skills would be shown at the funeral?

Would the church have banned the funeral if there was a picture of him drinking a beer? The Bible teaches that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. Had Mr. Sinclair been a divorced man would this church censor out pictures of his second wife on the grounds that he and she were living an adulterous lifestyle? I think not. Mr. Sinclair was who he was. His family and his partner were a part of his life and accepted him for who he was, better or worse. If the church could not do the same then they had no business whatsoever of extending the invitation in the first place. But having done so then they should have allowed the family to remember Mr. Sinclair as they wanted to.

Why can't it make a stand and say, "No, not in our sanctuary. We won't allow a celebration of sin to take place where we meet to go into the presence of God in our time of communal worship."

Because if they ban the sinners then the church would be empty?

Once again I find proof that those who scream "Tolerance!" the loudest are those who will not tolerate those who disagree with them.

And that those who scream 'Sinner' generally are very selective in the sin that they protest against.

75 posted on 08/10/2007 8:36:04 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson