Replies

Do you think the family asked him to speak at the funeral so that he would say so and so is going to hell? Don't you think he knew what he was going to say? Or, as soon as he did decide - don't you think it would be appropriate for him to advise the family that he will be trashing the memory of their loved one? Or, is it supposed to be a surprise to all for the proper effect?

Did he get to show the love of God during the ensuing fisticuffs?

The whole thing was a travesty. A true man of God would have given a respectful goodbye, would not have judged the man and then could ask any that need to get right with God to do so and if they need help, he would be glad to work with them.

I see no need to defend this preacher and I'm sure he is so sure he is in the right to be beyond hearing what any have to say. Yet, by his fruits we will know him. Looks like the fruits led to fisticuffs and a broken nose. Did any get right with God based on his words?

"Do you think the family asked him to speak at the funeral so that he would say so and so is going to hell? Don't you think he knew what he was going to say? Or, as soon as he did decide - don't you think it would be appropriate for him to advise the family that he will be trashing the memory of their loved one? Or, is it supposed to be a surprise to all for the proper effect?"

Neither you nor I have any idea of the agreements made prior to this religious service. It is possible, that those who asked this minister to give the eulogy knew full well what he would say. I remind you that this is a very small community and the minister was an almost relative. So far all you have provided is an attack on this man's motivation without any evidence to support your assertations. If you'll return to the article in question, the facts in this matter are very sketchy and do not support any of your claims.

"Did he get to show the love of God during the ensuing fisticuffs?"

Irrelevent. The minister did not instigate the fisticuffs. The bible is full of stories of ministers and prophets whose only rewards for preaching the Word of God were stones, beatings, and death. Does that mean that they were not showing the "love of God"? Reflect on this before you reply, their words were also unpopular, emotionally upsetting, etc.

"A true man of God would have given a respectful goodbye, would not have judged the man and then could ask any that need to get right with God to do so and if they need help, he would be glad to work with them."

I suppose then that Christ was wrong when he chased the money changers from the temple or when he condemned the Pharisees? Should he not have been more "respectful", especially of their feelings? Shouldn't he have invited them to prayer meeting the next Wednesday instead of condemning them?

"I see no need to defend this preacher and I'm sure he is so sure he is in the right to be beyond hearing what any have to say. Yet, by his fruits we will know him. Looks like the fruits led to fisticuffs and a broken nose. Did any get right with God based on his words?"

If we are to know a man by his fruits, then using your standard, what are the fruits by which we should know Christ? He was subject to fisticuffs, whippings, and crucifiction because of his words and his message. Please note, I'm not saying this minister in Alabama is comparable to Christ. So do not accuse me of that because it is not my point. I am saying that this standard is not valid by pointing out that if this standard were applied to the words of Christ (or John the Baptist, or most other prophets and apostles), then their words must also be considered inappropriate.