Church hypocrisy
August 13th 2007 22:04
In my writings I have made it clear I don't condone the gay lifestyle. However I think that people are allowed to live the way they choose to live. I can't tell anyone to live a certain way if they don't feel comfortable doing it. In the end people need to answer to God. The good Lord isn't about to judge anyone until the end of days and I am nowhere near being God so I have absolutely no right to judge anyone for their lifestyle.
What is the church thinking when it refuses to hold a memorial service for an army veteran who was gay? What does it prove? The man has died. He isn't there to make a commitment to another man. It is a celebration of someone's life. Someone who served his country. Yet that wasn't important to this church. Okay so in the traditional view of the church he was a "sinner", but aren't we all to some extent?
If the church was to ban all "sinners" from having memorial services (considering that homosexuality in the bible isn't considered a larger "sin" than say lying, stealing, fornication or adultery) then it should stay consistent and start banning those who committed fornication and adultery and all of the other "sins" we commit daily. I'm just looking for some balance. If the church refuses to start banning adulterers and fornicators it means that the church is playing the hypocrite. Not that it would be anything new to some. As an entity it is supposed to reach out to the people and bring them in not push them away.
The church needs to be reminded of the age old question "What would Jesus do?". I don't remember Jesus ever turning anyone away. If he didn't who are we to do to shut someone out especially in death? Shame on the church and shame on those closed minded individuals who support this kind of un-Christian behaviour.
What is the church thinking when it refuses to hold a memorial service for an army veteran who was gay? What does it prove? The man has died. He isn't there to make a commitment to another man. It is a celebration of someone's life. Someone who served his country. Yet that wasn't important to this church. Okay so in the traditional view of the church he was a "sinner", but aren't we all to some extent?
If the church was to ban all "sinners" from having memorial services (considering that homosexuality in the bible isn't considered a larger "sin" than say lying, stealing, fornication or adultery) then it should stay consistent and start banning those who committed fornication and adultery and all of the other "sins" we commit daily. I'm just looking for some balance. If the church refuses to start banning adulterers and fornicators it means that the church is playing the hypocrite. Not that it would be anything new to some. As an entity it is supposed to reach out to the people and bring them in not push them away.
The church needs to be reminded of the age old question "What would Jesus do?". I don't remember Jesus ever turning anyone away. If he didn't who are we to do to shut someone out especially in death? Shame on the church and shame on those closed minded individuals who support this kind of un-Christian behaviour.
| 12 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
