those of you who believe homosexuality is a choice might want to consider jesus' attitude towards the samaritans. were they a group by choice or by nature?

either way, jesus--unlike the righteous jews of the day--musta not had much of a problem with them.



bisexual for sure. please don't take that as a condemnation or an insult because i don't intend it to be.

i can tell you for a fact--and no, i'm not lying, not even to get into someone's pants charlessci--i couldn't do it in any circumstance (and it ain't as if i haven't found myself in 'any circumstance' before so it ain't purely hypothetical).

Why? If he made us, why shouldn't he care about us? If he cares about us, wouldn't he care that we do what is best for us?

Jesus did not directly address many things such as prostitution or pornography. Does his silence means that he condones these activities?

Thanks Little-whip for the other article reference. It does put a slightly different spin on things. If the family was insisting that the objectionable photos be on display at the funeral, that would obviously put the church in a bind and it is understandable that they would back out.

In the first article the family claimed that the church knew from the outset about Sinclair practicing homosexuality, this article seems to give more evidence that this was not the case.



It seems to me that the church did attempt to compromise by offering to make other arrangements. Why would the family want to have the funeral in a place that did not accept what they apparently accepted about their loved one?

"bisexual for sure. please don't take that as a condemnation or an insult because i don't intend it to be."

Taken as you meant it, as well as I can fathom it. And I've never actually tried that. And, I most likely won't be. So, maybe I in fact could NOT have sex with another man. I don't know, and I don't really care.

first of all, i absolutely concur with gideon's take:





perhaps--if, in fact, one mary outta the several usual suspects was a pro--his interaction with her (not to mention members of that despicable community of ill-repute: the samaritans) speaks volumes, albeit indirectly?

as far as porn goes, before the invention of the printing press one either had to be wealthy enough to commission unique works of erotic art or gifted with sufficient imagination to find grafitti or clay tablets embossed with naked stick figures not merely of interest, but prurient interest to boot.

I think a lot are missing the point. It's not about being or not being homosexual. We know he had every right to be, and practice homosexuality to his heart's content. The question here is, should an organization (in this case the High Point Church) have the right to decide what they will and won't agree to but their name to?

True, as some people pointed out, there are most likely other sins just as grevious as homosexuality that were overlooked by High Point church officials. However, how many of the families of adutrous men wanted photos and video of the man kissing his mistress?

The family wasn't happy with just a service for their deceased son, brother, friend...etc... They weren't happy unless his homosexuality could be celebrated also.

There were herms and erotic statues that the Romans and the Greeks would have brought with them into Syria, so presumably it wasn't considered that big a deal.

i didn't say she was.



there were at least two other marys hangin around besides the redhead and mom.

there were at least two other marys hangin around besides the redhead and mom.

One of those mary's wrote a gospel, too. It's on the cutting room floor if anyone's interested.

I think most truly studious Christians can, LW. At least the ones I've met.

It's like a discussion I had with an evangelical and a third party regarding the Book of Mormon. The evangelical argued the individual, who was searching, should not read the Book of Mormon because it was a pack of lies. I have a different stance, one that I brought up. While my feelings towards this particular faith are well known, I encouraged the individual to read the Book of Mormon and decide for himself. It either is the Word of God, or it isn't. And if it isn't, he has lost nothing, but if it is, he has gained everything.

at worse the people on this land(the Americas) would have been isolated from the CHOSEN PEOPLE and their blessings for 6000 years. if you were god and wanted as many of your children/creations to return to you are you going to allow this group of people no contact at all with you and your laws.


you see i knew the book of Mormon was the word of god before i read it. remember the man who wrote it did not finish 8Th grade and he was 18 when he translated it.

so you're sayin god didn't graduate hs?

1 i wrote it that way on purpose.

2 no god did not finish 8th grade on earth.

3 in fact god didn't go to 1st grade on earth.

how'd he learn not only to write, but to emboss??

never mind; i realize now you qualified your answer to make me appear more ignorant than i do without help.

so where did he attend school? shiva's planet?

No, Kolob.

(walks away, whistling!)

G-d Taught himself, and gave himself passing grades, the entire school made up entirely of Cherub, and angels help a graduation party for G-d, the principal who also was G-d, gave G-d his degree. the name of the school was "natural high school"

i don't know but since he went through what we are going through then i would assume he went to school on whatever planet it was he was born on. and it may have been called earth also.

Thank you for being respectful and courteous. I look forward to getting to know you further.





Now you guys have really lost me...

To deliberately ignite debate over homosexuality using an individuals unfortunate death is not the brightest idea on the block.

Agreed.

And I find it funny that a church only wants saints.  It is clear he was not a practticing homosexual at this time.  Where better for a "sinner" to go but a church for repentance?  Or is that reserved for saints only?

As for the photo montage, they could have diplomatically told the family no, and gone on with the service.  There is no sin in acknowledging a homosexual.  There is not even sin in being one.  The sin (accoring to the ones so incllined to categorize it as such) is in the actions, not the definitions.  And dead men are short on actions.

The church was very much in its rights, but as Ock points out, they did it in the worst possible manner.

LW posts:

This is a good find, Gideon. Ezekiel rounds out the abominations by placing stress on avoiding of all things...idleness.

For those of you who might be interested V. 44-58 are an allegory of members of a family meant to draw a comparison between Jerusalem's conduct and that of Samaria (Israel) and Sodom, who in this text are depicted as 3 sisters. Samaria was invaded by Assyria in punishment for her idolatry 2Kings17:5, 17. and long before that, Sodom was engulfed by fire becasue of her perverse conduct (Gen.19:23-29). BUt Jerusalem has behaved far worse than her sisters and therefore must pay the price for her sins.

Ezekiel is using these allegories to make the point that Jerusalem's sins are particularly greivous becasue they are committed by the most beloved city of the Lord God.

V. 49 points to the root causes of Sodom's vices: an easy life of luxury, careless of the needs of others, led her onto worse sins yet. so , therefore, the ascetical tradition's stress on the avoidance of idleness as a means to preserve virtue.

This is the way to keep all aspects of the Sixth Commandment of GOd. "In the first place, we must flee from idleness, for, as Ezekiel wrote, it was through idleness that the people of Sodom succombed and fell into the shameful evil of consupiscence" 3, 7, 10.

Kingbee posts:

Yes, I'll acknowledge this as well....

but this is getting off the topic of the initial article.

I think He does. He condemned sexual immorality. Check out the Ten Commandments, specifically the Sixth, "You shalt not commit adultery". Here according to the Catechism of the CC, the Sixth Commandment condemns acts of lust, masturbation, fornication, pornography, prostitition, rape, incest, adultery, polygamy, divorce and homosexuality.

my opinion is that the church should have buried the man the way he wanted sense they said they would. and having learned from this not allow any more videos to be played again.