Gay man denied a funeral

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Could it be - - - SATAN ! ?

Steven Webster

If such a creature exists, which I sometimes think he does and sometimes think he does not, The less said about him the better. People get derailed from focusing on and emulating Jesus by THINKING about Satan.

When we were teaching one of our kids to ride a bike we discovered that he had this alarming tendency to run headlong into lamp poles. Over and over again he would do it. It was like he had a lamp pole magnet mounted on the front of his bike.

Then we realized that he was so AFRAID of hitting the lamp pole that he couldn't take his eyes off of it. and of course his bike went where his eyes were pointing. When he learned to keep his eye on the goal (staying on the sidewalk) he went TOWARD the goal. The same is true of Satan. Keep your eye on him and you will go toward him. Keep your eye on Jesus and you will go toward him.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by u-dog

If such a creature exists, which I sometimes think he does and sometimes think he does not, The less said about him the better. People get derailed from focusing on and emulating Jesus by THINKING about Satan.

When we were teaching one of our kids to ride a bike we discovered that he had this alarming tendency to run headlong into lamp poles. Over and over again he would do it. It was like he had a lamp pole magnet mounted on the front of his bike.

Then we realized that he was so AFRAID of hitting the lamp pole that he couldn't take his eyes off of it. and of course his bike went where his eyes were pointing. When he learned to keep his eye on the goal (staying on the sidewalk) he went TOWARD the goal. The same is true of Satan. Keep your eye on him and you will go toward him. Keep your eye on Jesus and you will go toward him.

having been delivered from the AoG, I can recall so many times that people actually addressed Satan. For a while, I bought into that teaching, that we have the power and authority to bind, etc. I occasionally hear someone make this reference now and it just baffles me to no end. If we believe in Satan, why give him any power by even addressing him? Like you, u-dog, I vacillate on my belief in such evil personified. I've been in church services where it seems that satan's characteristics are mentioned as much, if not more, than those of God.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Could it be - - - SATAN ! ?

Steven Webster

Sorry, folks! This was one of those rare instances where I was trying to be humorous.

Remember Saturday Nite Live's Church Lady?

If there were a Satan, wouldn't he be delighted about us getting distracted by him? When one considers the human tendency towards self-deception, there seems to be little need for Satan except as a personification of our perverseness.

Steven Webster

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by u-dog

If such a creature exists, which I sometimes think he does and sometimes think he does not, The less said about him the better. People get derailed from focusing on and emulating Jesus by THINKING about Satan.

When we were teaching one of our kids to ride a bike we discovered that he had this alarming tendency to run headlong into lamp poles. Over and over again he would do it. It was like he had a lamp pole magnet mounted on the front of his bike.

Then we realized that he was so AFRAID of hitting the lamp pole that he couldn't take his eyes off of it. and of course his bike went where his eyes were pointing. When he learned to keep his eye on the goal (staying on the sidewalk) he went TOWARD the goal. The same is true of Satan. Keep your eye on him and you will go toward him. Keep your eye on Jesus and you will go toward him.

YES!!!!

That's exactly how it works. The bicycle story is a perfect analogy.

It's why sometimes I feel a need to rupture the mental investment in engaging with the adversary. Instead of engaging directly with anti-gay adversaries, take a third path by focusing on how you want to be, how you want to be, what you want to have happen. . . .

On the other hand, the closest energy I know to a "satan" does occasionally necessitate saying a firm "no." A few times I have had to do that in my life. It's scary, and it's rare, and you really have to focus on the positive and uplifting stuff. I agree that it's better *not* thought about or looked at. If it rears up, unfortunately, then one firm "no" is needed.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Sorry, folks! This was one of those rare instances where I was trying to be humorous.

Remember Saturday Nite Live's Church Lady?

If there were a Satan, wouldn't he be delighted about us getting distracted by him? When one considers the human tendency towards self-deception, there seems to be little need for Satan except as a personification of our perverseness.

Steven Webster

I got the reference, but was also thinking of the people who use Satan as an excuse, and others who seem preoccupied with such a personification.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Sorry, folks! This was one of those rare instances where I was trying to be humorous.

Remember Saturday Nite Live's Church Lady?

If there were a Satan, wouldn't he be delighted about us getting distracted by him? When one considers the human tendency towards self-deception, there seems to be little need for Satan except as a personification of our perverseness.

Steven Webster

AMen brother Steven!!

[tdogg]

Maybe those who spend so much energy on "Satan" are so afraid of the inadequacy of their own salvation, that to even look like they may be supporting something that they are supposed to be so against, could lead them to hell.

There is a prevailing argument amongst many Christians - whether or not 'salavation' is permanent, or could be lost. It's a fear based belief, and their reactions and thoughts are similiarly based in fear. Hence, the concentration on "Satan" versus "Jesus".

All they need to do is concentrate on Jesus and his teachings, and all the other stuff would go away, don't you think? Anyway, well said U and Steven!!

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by mjules

Because you know, whether or not you believe that homosexuality is a choice, I think everyone can agree that being a jerk IS.

I feel a t-shirt coming on ...

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Sorry, folks! This was one of those rare instances where I was trying to be humorous.

Remember Saturday Nite Live's Church Lady?

If there were a Satan, wouldn't he be delighted about us getting distracted by him? When one considers the human tendency towards self-deception, there seems to be little need for Satan except as a personification of our perverseness.

Steven Webster

How did I miss that reference, that is totally my era! Wow, memories.

I'll also weigh in on the literal Satan issue with my favorite (and most profound) theological answer: Uh, I dunno.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I did send a sympathy card to Cecil's family. Today I got a very nice Thank You card in return. It said, in part, "I have been delightfully amazed at the human kindness we've been touched by since Cecil's sudden death and the church's rejection."

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

And just in case we're wrong about what God said, we can blame it on Satan.

[mjules]

The discussion about satan - and I, too, was delivered from the AoG church, along with several other denominations... - made me think of my weekend. I spent my day off (Saturday) volunteering at Pride Charlotte. My parents came (I'm so proud of them! ) and while my Dad couldn't take the summer heat very long, my Mom stayed for quite a while.

Up until then, my Mom hadn't believed there was much persecution and discrimination toward the LGBT community (she works in a very LGBT-friendly environment), but there were, of course, the handful of requisite protesters. She kept wanting to go up to them and argue them - not only were they rude, they were blatantly misquoting the Bible, which was making me itchy because I'm an accuracy-freak - but I had to stop her and tell her that, in our volunteer training, we were told to simply ignore the protesters. Don't make eye contact, don't speak to them, don't touch them, don't take any of their materials. If they harass us, to go to the Peace Enforcers instantly. It was sort of difficult to do, because I was trained in persuasive speech and debate, and there were so many holes and flaws in their logic I knew I could decimate them in a fair rhetoric fight, but we stuck with the training and simply avoided them.

That reminds me a lot of what y'all were saying about the issue of satan, and how some denominations would have you waste your time debating and arguing and commanding, when, in reality, it will only use up your energy in fruitless ways. Better to get on with the joy of being alive and the challenge of following Love up those steep slopes than stopping and yelling at the hecklers.

(For the record, there were plenty of nice churches who were set up around... MCC Charlotte was handing out pins saying "Would Jesus discriminate?" and the Revolution Church of Charlotte - the ones founded by Jay Bakker - were there handing out love all around with stickers that said, "Equality is a morality issue," plus several others.)

And Brent - hee, that could make a cute t-shirt. Maybe I should set up shop at CafePress and start selling shirt designs.

[mister e]

Originally Posted by Emproph

On top of everything else, 6 years and nobody knew that his brother was gay, and if they did, nobody spread the news far and wide that his brother was committing the "worst sin" on Earth?

This is mighty strange for a first post, I suppose, but I was wondering. I understand that the church had been sending visitors to the man, and presumably his partner and family, during his protracted illness. They had been sending food, and support, and all that, and maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I was thinking that they didn't consider the man's being homosexual until the family wanted to celebrate it at his funeral. I mean, maybe it just didn't cross their minds ("hey that fellow is in the hospital, why don't we send our ministers out there, etc.") and they didn't notice. What do you think?

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by mister e

This is mighty strange for a first post, I suppose, but I was wondering. I understand that the church had been sending visitors to the man, and presumably his partner and family, during his protracted illness. They had been sending food, and support, and all that, and maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I was thinking that they didn't consider the man's being homosexual until the family wanted to celebrate it at his funeral.

First of all, the fact that you would characterize the family "celebrating" his homosexuality at his funeral strikes me as virulently ignorant at best on your part, as it's already been covered, repeatedly, and even from my post that you quoted from.

I am perfectly willing to believe that the family are the lying degenerates that you portray them to be, I would just ask that you use reasons facts and examples to portray them as such, instead of furtive innuendo -- as underlined and emboldened in the quote above.

Originally Posted by mister e

I mean, maybe it just didn't cross their minds ("hey that fellow is in the hospital, why don't we send our ministers out there, etc.") and they didn't notice. What do you think?

Unless the family went out of their way to disparage the church by "celebrating" (which you have yet to define and validate) their loved one's homosexuality, then your issue is irrelevant.

Because at that point, to me, what you're saying, is that the only thing the church could have done wrong, was to allow the public to KNOW about their holding the funeral of a homosexual.

It sounds to me like you think it was ok for High Point Church to hold a funeral for a homosexual, just as long as nobody knew about it. -- Despite the Church's claim that it was about homosexuality, and NOT because it became public knowledge.

Does that make any sense myster e?

[mister e]

Originally Posted by Emproph

First of all, the fact that you would characterize the family "celebrating" his homosexuality at his funeral strikes me as virulently ignorant at best on your part, as it's already been covered, repeatedly, and even from my post that you quoted from.

Well, no, I wasn't saying that it was bad for his family to want to celebrate his life. His homosexuality, and his partner, was clearly a major part of his life. I mean, I don't buy the part about them wanting to show pictures of them "hugging and kissing" like some people have reported, but I also think that they probably did wish to celebrate a part of his life that made him happy, along with everything else in his life. I mean, if a man had died, and he really enjoyed aviation and loved his wife, they would probably show pictures of he and his wife smiling at a wedding anniversary, or even smiling as they stood by his plane. That's all I meant by "celebrating", I meant it only in the sense that a funeral is a celebration of someone's life.

Originally Posted by emproph

I am perfectly willing to believe that the family are the lying degenerates that you portray them to be, I would just ask that you use reasons facts and examples to portray them as such, instead of furtive innuendo -- as underlined and emboldened in the quote above.

No, I don't think his family did anything wrong. I don't think they ever tried to hide from the church that the man was a homosexual. My point was that the church didn't notice the man's sexual orientation, because they were sharing compassion by sending ministers (the audio-visual fellow you mentioned) and food, and what not.

Originally Posted by emproph

Unless the family went out of their way to disparage the church by "celebrating" (which you have yet to define and validate) their loved one's homosexuality, then your issue is irrelevant.

Because at that point, to me, what you're saying, is that the only thing the church could have done wrong, was to allow the public to KNOW about their holding the funeral of a homosexual.

I don't think the family went out of their way to do anything. I just think that they wanted to do what anyone does at a funeral, celebrate a life. I think I validated it up there, but if not, all I meant by "celebrate" was that they wanted to celebrate his life, which included his homosexuality. I think your point about the church is somewhat counterintuitive, because the public was going to know if they did and know if they didn't. If they had gone ahead with the funeral as planned, the public in that area would have definitely known about it. As it stands, the public definitely knows that they didn't allow the funeral. So I don't think it had anything to do with whether or not the public knew about it, because it doesn't sound like the pastor cares what the public thinks, only what his congregation thinks.

Originally Posted by emproph

It sounds to me like you think it was ok for High Point Church to hold a funeral for a homosexual, just as long as nobody knew about it. -- Despite the Church's claim that it was about homosexuality, and NOT because it became public knowledge.

Does that make any sense myster e?

I was wondering if anyone had considered that the minister might not have known he was a homosexual, because he was sending other ministers and so on to the family during the illness. I mean if the man truly hated homosexuals, and refused a funeral on only that, wouldn't he also refuse hospital visitation towards the man? My question was, maybe the pastor didn't care the man's orientation, and was willing to show compassion while the man was in the hospital anyway?

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by mister e

I was wondering if anyone had considered that the minister might not have known he was a homosexual, because he was sending other ministers and so on to the family during the illness.

I mean if the man truly hated homosexuals, and refused a funeral on only that, wouldn't he also refuse hospital visitation towards the man?

My question was, maybe the pastor didn't care the man's orientation, and was willing to show compassion while the man was in the hospital anyway?

So we should be grateful for his conditional love?
Ok, I'm grateful. Next.

I'll give you pretty much everything you've asked, but the issue here is the dishonesty of not only how the situation was handled by church underlings, but also of Rev. Simons' response (at sermon) in regard to their handling of the situation. Namely in pointing blame at the response to it.

(ergo; 'those homosexuals sure prove our point in having f****d the familiy over - because their son/partner was one of them!').

Clearly I have enough of the man's own words to show that he is of the devil.

So what exactly is your issue with this?

And btw, I do appreciate you gracious responses to my flippancy.

[mister e]

Originally Posted by Emproph

So we should be grateful for his conditional love?
Ok, I'm grateful. Next.

I'll give you pretty much everything you've asked, but the issue here is the dishonesty of not only how the situation was handled by church underlings, but also of Rev. Simons' response (at sermon) in regard to their handling of the situation. Namely in pointing blame at the response to it.

(ergo; 'those homosexuals sure prove our point in having fucked the familiy over - because their son/partner was one of them!').

Clearly I have enough of the man's own words to show that he is of the devil.

So what exactly is your issue with this?

And btw, I do appreciate you gracious responses to my flippancy.

I wouldn't say I have an issue, really. I was just sort of thinking about a different outlook on it. I mean if it was up to me, I would just had the funeral, because it can't be a bad thing to respect a man, regardless of your beliefs on homosexuality. I mean I think at least they could have worked together to come up with some kind of compromise that didn't include booting them out of the church. I mean I know the church still paid for the food, and the rent of the facility down the street, and all of the rest of that stuff, and since they did, I didn't see a reason why they couldn't just go ahead and have it at the church. I mean they pretty much paid for everything anyway, so why not just let them have it there?

That's why it seems fishy to me that they suddenly decided not to have it at the church. I really feel like they didn't realize he was gay until they heard about the choir, and received the pictures for the slideshow and all that. I guess it just didn't cross their minds to ask whether the fellow they were visiting in the hospital was gay or not, only that he was a man in need of their assistance, with family ties to their church. It was only after they had already offered to pay for food, and to officiate the service did they realize that he was gay, and that they didn't want to have something that gave the appearance that they advocated homosexuality in the church. Once they realized he was gay, and that the celebration of his homosexuality would be a part of the service did they decide not to have it, and to pay the rent for another location. It seems to me that they weren't being malicious about it, it's just that they were following typical church protocol, until they realized he was gay, then they changed. I was picking up from you that you felt like they knew he was gay all along, and that they would help him and do everything for him until it became public (the funeral) and then they dropped their support. I may be too optimistic, but that's I saw it differently. I very well could be mistaken.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by mister e

[BIG SNIP]
I may be too optimistic, but that's I saw it differently. I very well could be mistaken.

So be it. You can have All that.

It seems to me then that the issue is about the fact that the Church was not prepared for the situation.

Again, so be it. I truly did not consider this as a concern. I'll assume you can understand why.

However, I can very much appreciate the trauma of an unexpected occurrence, no matter what the circumstances or situation may be.

Is this the message you wish to relay?

And I don't mean that flippantly, it is well received.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by mister e

I wouldn't say I have an issue, really. I was just sort of thinking about a different outlook on it. I mean if it was up to me, I would just had the funeral, because it can't be a bad thing to respect a man, regardless of your beliefs on homosexuality. I mean I think at least they could have worked together to come up with some kind of compromise that didn't include booting them out of the church. I mean I know the church still paid for the food, and the rent of the facility down the street, and all of the rest of that stuff, and since they did, I didn't see a reason why they couldn't just go ahead and have it at the church. I mean they pretty much paid for everything anyway, so why not just let them have it there?

That's why it seems fishy to me that they suddenly decided not to have it at the church. I really feel like they didn't realize he was gay until they heard about the choir, and received the pictures for the slideshow and all that. I guess it just didn't cross their minds to ask whether the fellow they were visiting in the hospital was gay or not, only that he was a man in need of their assistance, with family ties to their church. It was only after they had already offered to pay for food, and to officiate the service did they realize that he was gay, and that they didn't want to have something that gave the appearance that they advocated homosexuality in the church. Once they realized he was gay, and that the celebration of his homosexuality would be a part of the service did they decide not to have it, and to pay the rent for another location. It seems to me that they weren't being malicious about it, it's just that they were following typical church protocol, until they realized he was gay, then they changed. I was picking up from you that you felt like they knew he was gay all along, and that they would help him and do everything for him until it became public (the funeral) and then they dropped their support. I may be too optimistic, but that's I saw it differently. I very well could be mistaken.

Please click on the links that I posted earlier in this thread. It is clear that the church was not mistaken, nor were they ignorant of this man's orientation. Each step of the way, lies were told to cover up previous lies. It seems that this is pretty clearly documented.

[mister e]

Originally Posted by keltic63

Please click on the links that I posted earlier in this thread. It is clear that the church was not mistaken, nor were they ignorant of this man's orientation. Each step of the way, lies were told to cover up previous lies. It seems that this is pretty clearly documented.

Well, I've read up on the story, including your links, and all I find is that the fellow's sister says that they knew he was gay the whole time, while the pastor claims that they didn't realize it until the obituary said "life partner" and they started putting together the slideshow/video for the funeral. What I am saying is that it is not unreasonable that they wouldn't even be curious as to the man's orientation while he was sick. Best I can tell, they are one of those mega-church deals where they have thousands upon thousands of members. My thought is that they just heard that he was ailing, added him to the prayer list, and sent their visiting minister to visit him without giving a second thought about it. They knew that the family would need assistance (because the fellow's brother was a church janitor) so they offered to help, like a church would, and it was after they had already made that promise that they became uncomfortable with the idea of hosting a funeral with openly homosexual themes, like photos of him with his partner, and the choir. It's just a more optimistic outlook on what happened, I suppose. I mean, I don't notice people's homosexuality when I meet them, and I probably wouldn't even if I visited a person in the hospital. It just isn't something that I think to question, you know.