That is just wrong in my book. I personally don't think that being gay is a sin. I think you are born that way or not. I never chose to be a heterosexual. I just have always been attracted to men. That doesn't make me better than someone else.

Even if you believe being gay is a sin like you said is it really THE sin to end all sins. How many people do you think have been laid out in this church that committed sins? All of them?

What Would Jesus Do? - I believe he would reach out in love not condemn in judgementalness. "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people that you do unto me". I guess they denied Jesus a funeral service. Or how about the plain and simple golden rule, do unto others as you would have done to you. Would they want this done to them?

It seems to me that in order to judge the pastor's actions as being consistent with whatever doctrines and rules they had set for themselves concerning homosexuality, we would need to know a bit more information than the link provides.

For example, by the link, it seems that the pastor and members of the church may not have known the man was a practicing homosexual. If they had known and were consistent with church practice and Biblical teaching denouncing homosexuality as a sin, then they would have counseled him about it.

There is not enough information in the link to denounce the pastor outright for making the decision not to conduct the funeral service of a man actively practicing homosexuality especially if it was revealed to him at the last minute.

The fact that the church made what seems like more than adequate provisions for the funeral service to be held elsewhere was the very next best thing they could do.

Oh no, an organization that actually upholds it's standards, even in the face of public ridicule? Whatever shall we do with such ethics and intergrity!

It's nice to be able to rewrite the Bible according to what we WANT it to say!

While I agree homosexuality should not be an "unforgivable" sin, I didn't make the rules as to whether or not it is a sin!

Would Jesus reach out to this person? ABSOLUTELY! But would Jesus pussyfoot around the sin in this man's life? NO!



I've said it before, Para, and people like Loca only confirm this. If they have their way, churches that teach according to the Bible will be outlaw churches within a generation or two. They will have their tax exempt status removed, then, when they try to operate WITHOUT their tax exempt status, the government will attempt to prosecute them repeatedly for trivial legal transgressions.

It's nice to see our "tolerant" one does not practice what she preaches, and is intolerant of people like this! Man, I want a glass house, too!

You've nailed it, Gideon. This is already happening in Canada where it's a big "no, no" saying homosexuality is a sin, actually it's a hate crime. The end point of the homosexual agenda is to silence the Church who in the end is the only institution that will stand up against the homosexualist juggernaut and their agenda.

Truth is, there is no sin that is unforgivable. All that's needed on our part is recognition of the sin, repentance, and a firm will not to sin again...when that happens...ALmighty and Merciful God will do His part and forgive the sin and it will be remembered no more.

Christ told the woman caught in adultery "to sin no more".

If she did continue in adultery and died unrepentant in that sin or if this guy in the article died in his sin of homosexuality, then the Bible tells us what has happened to his soul, check out the first link. Jesus will condemn him and that is very hard for people to 'hear'.

"Even if you believe being gay is a sin like you said is it really THE sin to end all sins. How many people do you think have been laid out in this church that committed sins? All of them?"

Being sexually attracted to the same sex is not a sin. Lusting after them is a sin, as is lusting after someone of the opposite sex. Having sex is a sin, unless within the construct of marriage, which is between a man and a woman.

If a man was living with a woman not his wife, would they have not done his ceremony? That's living in sin just as the homosexual lifestyle is sin. Conduct does not make the person though - while Loca believes that a homosexual is a separate creature from the rest of us, born that way, I believe homosexual conduct is a choice. BECAUSE CONDUCT IS A CHOICE. I could right now choose to go out and have sex with another man. I'm not going to, but I could. Would that make me a homosexual, born that way? No, it would make me a HUMAN BEING with choices regarding his actions. People who choose to make that a lifestyle, however, are definitely to be reached out to by the church. But, as Gideon said... you can't 'pussyfoot' around the issue of the sin in his/her life. Just like a person having sex outside of marriage, or committing adultery, or prostitution, or lying, or whatever it is needs to be confronted.

As for physical attractiveness being the basis for who you should sleep with... that's always been shallow. Physical attractiveness changes based on the day, your mood, how long you've known someone, whether you're bored with them, whether they changed their own appearance somehow, their mood, the way they look at you, and any number of other factors to do with how you and they interact.

Well said Jythier! It's a matter of choice and conduct what people do.



It was good of the church to arrange for the service elsewhere and I can't say I blame them because the man's lifestyle is not in their beliefs and if they made that abundantly clear before they should stick to their policies. It's just inconvenient to the family and friends of the man who died.





"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"...in a manner of speaking.

No comment on the actions of the guy's church. I will say it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

One weird thing I DID notice was that the closest thing to the word "homosexual," if you updated those two passages using the King James version, was "effeminate." How strange. Wonder why that is? Hmmm...*ponder*...hmmm...*shakes head* It's a mystery! Unless it isn't.

as far as i know there are only two unforgivable sins. murder and suicide.

not killing as in a war.



i looked it up effeminate (comparative more effeminate, superlative most effeminate)

Positive
effeminate
Comparative
more effeminate
Superlative
most effeminate


(of a man or boy) Having behaviour or mannerisms considered typical of a woman or girl.


1. (of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.
2. characterized by excessive softness, delicacy, self-indulgence, etc.: effeminate luxury.

it seems that some gay men fit this difinition.

the ones who want you to call them woman. not that i have or ever will do that.

Thanks for posting the definition. It makes one thing clear - while some gay men might be effeminate, effeminate does not equal homosexual.

I guess someone just decided they were qualified to rewrite the bible. I'm sure it was divine inspiration. The guy that was divinely inspired before wasn't divinely inspired enough, I guess.

That is the thing of it. Most of us aren't biblical scholars and can't read the original version whether it was in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic etc. There are versions that try to be a literal word for word translation and others are more paraphrases that seek to be more easily readable. Homosexual wasn't even a concept or word until the 1800's.

Another point that seems easily missed is that Jesus never condemned gay behavior. There are so many things in the Bible that were acceptable at the times they were written in but not anymore. I don't understand why people can't understand that people use the Bible to justify their prejudices. The Bible condoned polygamy, slavery, etc. many things that we don't believe are right today. The bible says that if a woman's husband dies and he doesn't have a son, his wife should sleep with all of his brothers until she conceives. That's biblical, at the time it was written that was acceptable, now it is not.

It seems like people who want to find a biblical justification for their actions or beliefs can find it. Instead of reading the Bible as a spiritual guide, they look to it only for a single Bible verse that they can quote in defense of their beliefs.



Do you think that this church has never held funeral services for people who have committed these sins?

I think I am going to have to write a separate article. I will link back.

That's a flat out bold faced lie, Loca. Even the staunch advocates of homosexuality would call you on that. It has had its place in every major culture throughout history, and I'm certain they had a word for it.



It's more than a single verse, Loca. I could show you a whole lot of verses in that direction...in the Old AND the NEW Testament.

Again, you're bigotted against these churches, Loca. That's hypocrisy at its finest.



Now THAT is a salient point, and THAT is the issue here, honestly. I think the church has a right to uphold its values in the services it performs, but the question is, are they overlooking other sins while playing up homosexuality.

BUT...one of the issues here had to do with a video tribute that showed this guy with his lover. That was part of the memorial service and part of the objection. Do those who patronize prostitutes or lie have videos EXTOLLING these lifestyles at their funerals? The ONLY thing I would consider comparable to this would be if an unmarried heterosexual couple that had a sexual relationship without being married put a video tribute up. Would the church refuse their funeral as well as the homosexual couples? I don't know about THIS church, but I know of many churches that would.

By the way, Loca, I am glad that without knowing Hebrew, Latin, or Greek, YOU can claim to be enough of an authority to call conservative Christians liars.

My point has been missed or DISmissed...not sure which. Doesn't natter.

The Christians only have one thing to go on for their beliefs. The Bible. And the more zealotous ones will claim that the Bible is the very word of God and was delivered to man through divine inspiration. My point is, how is it that it keeps changing? The only way it could change and still be valid is if it was further divine inspiration, and how can one be more divinely inspired than another? Is the mind of God so in flux? If it is, then why? Rational statement, anyone?

I wish they'd just face it. Men/women write these books - God does not, and "divine inspiration" is just a rationalization for what they write. Lack of thinking forsakes the brain God gave you. Become divinely inspired yourself, and forsake that book. You don't need it. You can figure out all of this on your own without an everchanging roadmap written by people that would control you.