Posted on 08/16/2007 11:08:18 AM PDT by Anti-Hillary
Should biblical churches host gay-glorifying funerals? Should evangelical politics move leftward? Many news organs give us one answer: Yes!
The lead of an Aug. 11 Associated Press story seemed to expose a clear case of homophobia: "A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay."
The story stated that officials at High Point Church in Arlington, Texas, offered to host the service for a gay janitor who wasn't a church member but had worked there -- only to say no when his obituary listed a life partner. The deceased's sister said, "It's a slap in the face."
The AP story did quote the church's pastor's concern that the service would promote the gay lifestyle. That quotation was a throwback to the old AP style of trying to present both sides equally, but the new AP is politically correct, and the overall slant of this story was clear: Christians lack compassion.
A Dallas Morning News story was more nuanced. It noted that the issue was not the deceased's unrepentant homosexuality but that "his friends and family wanted that part of his life to be a significant part of the service."
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Talk about blatantly false reporting! The problem wasn’t his being gay. The problem is they wanted to make his memorial service into a perverse celebration of homosexuality.
If they had just asked the United Methodists, ELCA or the Episcopalians, they would have never had this “problem”.
The words “Church” and “Gay” should never be used in the same sentence without a negative in between.
Homos like Elton John think that organized religion should be disbanded because it is not “gay friendly” (his words). That shows you just how far removed from reality these people have become. I would love to be a fly on the wall on his Judgement Day.
Jesus said that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. Should churches refuse to allow pictures of someone's second wife and family on the grounds that it promotes an adulterous life-style?
This topic has been beaten to death on half a dozen posts since it surfaced. The long and short of it is thatgiven their position on the matter the church should probably never have made the offer in the first place.
And the family has denied that.
A Wellstone homosexual hootnanney is what would have happened. Good for the church for not caving in to the MSM ongoing war against independent thought.
A Wellstone homosexual hootnanney is what would have happened. Good for the church for not caving in to the MSM ongoing war against independent thought.
oops!
“The problem is they wanted to make his memorial service into a perverse celebration of homosexuality.”
Like gay pride activities, these celebrations seem to have to include obscene behavior, up to and including simulated and actual sodomy. The gays do their damnedest to foster and promote what they call ‘homophobia’. It’s not just what goes on behind closed doors any longer; they demand the right to do it publicly. They create and then complain of their own victimization.
To answer your question, yes. I could never figure out how today’s Christian churches are so against homosexuality (and rightfully so, based on what the Bible says), yet gloss over that part on divorce and remarriage.
Jesus states that both are wrong, yet you’d never know it with the way divorce and remarriage are so mainstream in today’s churches.
But He also acknowledged that there were legitimate causes for a marriage to end, did He not?
And did He address marriages where one party is deceiving the other?
So what about Christian Churches that do not “gloss over” divorce and remarriage? Are they permitted to teach what God had to say about sexual perversion?
Read this article at The Onion. I thought they were a satire news site, but this article makes you wonder.
Depends on which Gospel you refer to. But at best He allowed for divorce only in cases of infidelity. That accounts for a small minority of all divorces. So should the rest be condemned as sinners?
The Catholic Church pretty much requires an annulment before a divorced Catholic can be remarried in the Church; which I believe is how it should be. At one time divorce pretty much made a someone persona non grate in the Church. That is not the case right now but the Church’s position on remarrying and therefore committing adultery has not changed much.
So how did the church parishoners see those pictures then?
Really? Can you support that assertion?
So should the rest be condemned as sinners?
Leave condemnations to God Himself but let the Churches celebrate according to the Gospel.
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.