TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The ENTIRE story re Church Service - Gay Man
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The ENTIRE story re Church Service - Gay Man - Page 3

post #61 of 75
CatsAreBetter-- please don't confuse Fundamentalism with Christianity. They're not the same. There are plenty of types of Christianity who don't mind people being gay, who welcome all kinds of religions or non-religions in society and friends without judgement or trying to convert them, who believe in the separation of church and state, a non-literal interpretation of the bible, and believe that we should be following the peaceful teachings of Jesus and not fire and brimstone for-profit leaders like the ones at High Point (the church in question).

Problem is, we're not particularly vocal about these things, so people get the idea that it doesn't exist. But the majority of Christians are not like the ones you speak of (who I've had plenty of experience with myself).
post #62 of 75
I did say not all Christians. Several times, in fact, I specifically said this does not apply to all. In fact, the really funny thing is... I did that *specifically so it was clear that I did NOT MEAN ALL CHRISTIANS*. Amazing, though, that no matter how you say it, someone will just simply take offense to it because they're already on the defensive. And I also know that I specifically said that that particular church is more rigid than others.

Please don't assume that I am confusing fundamentalism with Christianity. I did say that the ones that are heard are the ones that are the most rigid. If you choose to be insulted by my post, then I'm sorry you feel that way, because it was surely, and clearly, not about those Christians that are tolerant.
post #63 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAreBetter View Post
I did say not all Christians. Several times, in fact, I specifically said this does not apply to all. In fact, the really funny thing is... I did that *specifically so it was clear that I did NOT MEAN ALL CHRISTIANS*. Amazing, though, that no matter how you say it, someone will just simply take offense to it because they're already on the defensive. And I also know that I specifically said that that particular church is more rigid than others.

Please don't assume that I am confusing fundamentalism with Christianity. I did say that the ones that are heard are the ones that are the most rigid. If you choose to be insulted by my post, then I'm sorry you feel that way, because it was surely, and clearly, not about those Christians that are tolerant.
I wasn't choosing to be offended, I'm not offended or insulted, nor am I on the defensive. You started out saying it doesn't apply to everyone, or all individuals... but throughout your entire post you present that attitude as tha majority.

Perhaps it stems from people grouping everyone in together with the rabid televangelists, but I'm as sick of that as you are of what your post is about. Guess I was just trying to clarify that the vast majority aren't like that, and we don't like those who are any more than you do.

But thanks for reminding me why I NEVER talk about my own religion.
post #64 of 75
Right, but that's what I'm saying in my post, and perhaps I didn'tn clearly indicate that I was talking about the most vocal, most rigid (usually the very same people) throughout my post. It doesn't apply to all. I know I mentioned it, but I probably didn't reiterate it throughout.

It's those people that are unfortunately the ones that are heard and responded to. And honestly, for those people, IMO, fundamentalism and Christianity are basically the same, although noting the difference between Fundamentalism and the lower case fundamentalism as definied by the third definition from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism

And in all honesty, I really don't consider you to be rigid or unaccepting in that sense, Zissou.
post #65 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAreBetter View Post
Right, but that's what I'm saying in my post, and perhaps I didn'tn clearly indicate that I was talking about the most vocal, most rigid (usually the very same people) throughout my post. It doesn't apply to all. I know I mentioned it, but I probably didn't reiterate it throughout.

It's those people that are unfortunately the ones that are heard and responded to. And honestly, for those people, IMO, fundamentalism and Christianity are basically the same, although noting the difference between Fundamentalism and the lower case fundamentalism as definied by the third definition from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism

And in all honesty, I really don't consider you to be rigid or unaccepting in that sense, Zissou.
I get sad when people feel attacked or threatened by anyone's belief system (or lack thereof, for that matter) because there's no reason for people to assume any of them are mutually exclusive. That's what causes war and hatred, and it seems like we should have gotten beyond that a few centuries ago. Painfully, we haven't.

Somehow it's always the vocal minority that convince everyone they're the majority without caring what the people they claim to represent really think or want.
post #66 of 75
And to throw fuel in the fire...

Cecil Sinclair's sister says the church knew he was gay when they agreed to host the ceremony, but canceled after they listed his husband as a survivor.

The church claims they never knew he was gay and canceled when they found out over the 'inappropriate' pictures.

Call me cynical, but the truth is somewhere between there and probably closer to his sister's... so it isn't that they're upholding the principle of being anti-gay (or anti-practicing gay, or whatever you call it) but that they couldn't handle someone being okay with it and happy in their life. Staying in the closet and marrying a woman isn't healthy, but it seems to be what the church would have preferred.
post #67 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
I get sad when people feel attacked or threatened by anyone's belief system (or lack thereof, for that matter) because there's no reason for people to assume any of them are mutually exclusive. That's what causes war and hatred, and it seems like we should have gotten beyond that a few centuries ago. Painfully, we haven't.

Somehow it's always the vocal minority that convince everyone they're the majority without caring what the people they claim to represent really think or want.
I tried really hard in that post to make sure that I clarified so that no one would take what I said offensively, because it wasn't intended that way.. and then overreacted when I saw your post 'cause I was like ARGGGGHH, someone was offended anyway!!! Sorry!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
And to throw fuel in the fire...

Cecil Sinclair's sister says the church knew he was gay when they agreed to host the ceremony, but canceled after they listed his husband as a survivor.

The church claims they never knew he was gay and canceled when they found out over the 'inappropriate' pictures.

Call me cynical, but the truth is somewhere between there and probably closer to his sister's... so it isn't that they're upholding the principle of being anti-gay (or anti-practicing gay, or whatever you call it) but that they couldn't handle someone being okay with it and happy in their life. Staying in the closet and marrying a woman isn't healthy, but it seems to be what the church would have preferred.
Is there an article somewhere about the family's POV? I didn't ever see that one.
post #68 of 75
The problem here is unless we can see exactly what the family wanted the church to allow during the memorial service, it is a case of he said/she said. I can see the church pulling the plug if some things were getting too carried away, and I can see some churches being too intolerant of the situation. Like it or not there are people out there who will use ANY event to preach their own cause, so I can't discount that certain members of the guys family would use his memorial to do so, and I can't discount that some churches would use this to 'make a statement'. I would think in most situations this service would go off very nicely and in a dignified manner.

One person above did make an interesting point. Why did the family want to have this service at a church where they knew homosexuality was viewed as wrong?
post #69 of 75
My guess on that is because the brother was a member of the church. My sister makes a valid point (and she's used this point in conversations with me numerous times over the past several months)...that funerals and memorial services are for the living, not for the dead, really. And, honestly, I think that's accurate. The living that remain behind are the ones it benefits or helps to bring closure to. Once you're dead, I don't really think it ultimately matters because I don't think you're going to have an opinion about your own funeral.

I wish there was an article to read about what the family thought or why they set it up there. I haven't seen any but the one originally posted at the beginning of this thread.
post #70 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAreBetter View Post
My guess on that is because the brother was a member of the church. My sister makes a valid point (and she's used this point in conversations with me numerous times over the past several months)...that funerals and memorial services are for the living, not for the dead, really. And, honestly, I think that's accurate. The living that remain behind are the ones it benefits or helps to bring closure to. Once you're dead, I don't really think it ultimately matters because I don't think you're going to have an opinion about your own funeral.

I wish there was an article to read about what the family thought or why they set it up there. I haven't seen any but the one originally posted at the beginning of this thread.
He wasn't a member-- his brother worked there. My speculative guess would be that they may have been going to get a discount or something. They did still send over food and the video they had made, censored to fit their own tastes of course (and offered to pay for the service elsewhere--which is why I think it either would have been free or cheaper).

Here's an ABC article http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3469162
post #71 of 75
Hmm, I was reading one of the comments on that article and it said that the church is almost broke and that's why they didn't want to have the service there (didn't want to turn the AC on??). That doesn't make sense to me, considering that they bought and paid for food for 100 people for somewhere else.. isn't the food probably ultimately more expensive than the air conditioning?
post #72 of 75
The church didn't buy the food. People donated it.

People ALWAYS donate the food for after funerals. That is the way it is done in churches. At our church they have a special ministry for it and people on a list to call to donate food for funerals. We just took in 3 dozen cookies a few weeks ago for a funeral.
post #73 of 75
Did you find good homes for them all, Cindy?
post #74 of 75
I hope so! I didn't bake them, that's for sure.
post #75 of 75
Offering free transport and placement for homeless cookies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The ENTIRE story re Church Service - Gay Man