Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 9, 2024 18:15:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2014 19:34:06 GMT
This thread is the perfect example of why I will not have a funeral, because of churches like the one described.
don't blame the church or this thread. You gave 2 excuses. A church isn't required to have a funeral. Nor is it required that you read this thread.
I said "This thread is the perfect example of why I will not have a funeral, because of churches like the one described. I've heard it said over and over again they are for the living. This is simply not true when your only option for a large enough church, has a *requirement* for the Bishop of that church to speak at the funeral and they speak about their church and IT'S BLESSINGS when the deceased is no longer a believer or a member. It is their right because they own the church, but I do not want that included in my funeral. I would be very interested to know if an openly gay person IN a relationship was ever allowed to have a funeral at an LDS chapel. I can assure you people who have committed suicide, divorced (not because of cheating), and committed adultery, have had funerals there."
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Aug 12, 2014 19:58:18 GMT
I think it's clear that at the time the church agreed to host the funeral, they were not aware that the deceased was gay. The obligation of informing the church was on those who made the plans. Again, they knew they were seeking to use the church for a religious service and knew that the church's stance on homosexuality would have precluded the service being performed there. IMO, this entire situation was created by those who asked the church to bury him. They were attempting to defraud the church into performing a religious rite they knew the church would have declined to perform.
The so-called "bad form" was exercised by those who sought out this church; not the church itself.
ETA...I'm not saying I agree with the church's position on gays. I'm saying that knowing the church's position, the church should never have been approached to perform the funeral. The family was simply trying to pull the wool over the priest's eyes in order to get what they wanted. WRong, wrong, wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 9, 2024 18:15:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2014 20:02:10 GMT
I think it's clear that at the time the church agreed to host the funeral, they were not aware that the deceased was gay. The obligation of informing the church was on those who made the plans. Again, they knew they were seeking to use the church for a religious service and knew that the church's stance on homosexuality would have precluded the service being performed there. IMO, this entire situation was created by those who asked the church to bury him. They were attempting to defraud the church into performing a religious rite they knew the church would have declined to perform. The so-called "bad form" was exercised by those who sought out this church; not the church itself. And I disagree because I have never ever heard of a church turning down a funeral for someone based on them being gay. A wedding yes, funeral no way. The man was Christian as they were having their own officiant to conduct the funeral so I still don't get it. And this is all on the church. No one else.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Aug 12, 2014 20:05:25 GMT
You can disagree all you want. The fact is, anyone knowing a Baptist church, especially a Southern Baptist Church, would know their position on homosexuality. I'm a New York Jew and even I know the position of Baptists on most issues so don't play ignorant, Scrappower. It's one thing to say you don't agree with their position, it's another to force your views on their religion in their own church building.
ETA...that's a generic "you" and not specifically directed to you, Scrappower.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 12, 2014 20:25:12 GMT
I think it's clear that at the time the church agreed to host the funeral, they were not aware that the deceased was gay. The obligation of informing the church was on those who made the plans. Again, they knew they were seeking to use the church for a religious service and knew that the church's stance on homosexuality would have precluded the service being performed there. IMO, this entire situation was created by those who asked the church to bury him. They were attempting to defraud the church into performing a religious rite they knew the church would have declined to perform. The so-called "bad form" was exercised by those who sought out this church; not the church itself. ETA...I'm not saying I agree with the church's position on gays. I'm saying that knowing the church's position, the church should never have been approached to perform the funeral. The family was simply trying to pull the wool over the priest's eyes in order to get what they wanted. WRong, wrong, wrong. I think it's up to the church, since it has such strict standards, to determine they are met up front. Even if most of us are aware that the Baptists are quite conservative, there's no guarantee that everyone knows that. You are making a lot of assumptions about the family's knowledge and even their ability to think that clearly during a time of grief. And it's not like a gay person needing a funeral is unheard-of in our world. The church must realize this issue is going to come up over and over again if they frequently lend or rent out their premises for other people's use. I think most people would not necessarily realize that a church that won't marry a same-sex couple also would refuse to allow the use of the church building itself (remember, they didn't ask the pastor to officiate) for a funeral. And I don't think they should have to tiptoe around within our society, muttering, "Our loved one was a homosexual; is that all right with you?" Unless the church told the family upfront that it wouldn't allow a gay person's funeral to take place there, and the family attempted to mislead them about it, I believe it remains the church's fault for canceling at the last minute. And I realize that's not your personal position. I just think you're making unsupported assumptions about the family and their bad intentions, while making equally unsupported assumptions about the church and its good intentions. Which may well be quite good. It's still very wrong (IMO) to cancel on the family at the last minute, assuming there was no fraud involved and I believe you have no reason to assume there was.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Aug 12, 2014 20:30:40 GMT
Well, here's where you and I disagree Lucy. You think the church is at fault and I think the family is at fault. I can just imagine the outrage if the church asked every individual seeking a funeral "is the deceased gay"? I think the assumptions about the church are also unsupported. In fact, I think the words of the pastor are clear on where he's coming from. To perform this ceremony would violate his religious beliefs and those of the church. Should they put up a sign "No gays allowed" ? Come on, where do the religious individual rites in their own church supercede the rights of a gay person to be involved in those rites? This, IMO, is just another example of gay rights supporters attempting to force religious organizations to accept their lifestyle and be a part of it.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 12, 2014 20:37:38 GMT
You think expecting to be able to plan a funeral just like any "regular" person is attempting to force their lifestyle on other people? Okay then. umm ... I think that's what they've done. Without the sign. So now people have to guess.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Aug 12, 2014 20:41:22 GMT
Yes, it is. There is no reason the family could not have used a secular funeral home rather than asking for a religious funeral rite. To insist on the church doing the religious rite is forcing a life style and belief on the church and it's members. actually, I think now people know. Until the next time a religious organization has the audacity to follow their religious beliefs inside their own church.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Aug 12, 2014 20:47:43 GMT
While I agree with you that religious organizations should not be required to perform any sort of ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs and I don't believe this pastor is motivated by hate either, he was not asked to perform any rites. The family was simply using the church building. They were not asking this pastor to compromise any of his own personal religious beliefs. I believe the onus was on the pastor to say what wasn't allowed in his church, not on the family. They were in essence, borrowing a building, not requesting a Baptist funeral. I think that if the church has certain rules about who they won't allow to use their church, they need to be upfront about it. Maybe they do need a "No Gays Allowed" sign because they haven't said that they are not allowing any other person guilty of what their church deems sinful behavior to use their church. While I support the church's right to make their own rules about what they will and will not condone, I can't help but feel that this church is hypocritical if they are allowing other people openly guilty of sinful behaviors to use their church.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 9, 2024 18:15:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2014 20:53:20 GMT
It's becoming clearer and clearer to me why the suicide attempt rate is so high with gay people.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Aug 12, 2014 20:54:06 GMT
In the end, I don't think they care whether others think they're hypocritical. It's not for any of us to determine which rules and religious laws they abide by or don't abide by.
Personally, I will never go to that church. But then, I have no expectation that they should allow me to engage in activities in that church or that they will abide by rule "I" deem fair or not hypocritical. Maybe that's the difference between myself and others here. I would never go to a church and request to use their facilities for my "Jewish" activities or other activities which I should reasonably know they are opposed to.
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on Aug 12, 2014 21:11:30 GMT
Hope this will attach...
|
|
|
Post by jennyap on Aug 12, 2014 23:22:27 GMT
It's very sad. I understand the decision, but I do think that making it after having previously accepted was at the very least unkind, especially at such short notice.
If it's true that his husband made the arrangements, as I've seen reported in some places, I can't understand how the Pastor could have been unaware that he was gay. In which case it seems it was the pressure put on the Pastor by his congregation that made him change his mind. He has a responsibility to them so I don't think that's necessarily wrong, I just really hate that the timing was so awful with such limited time given for them to rearrange.
It's interesting to me that the Pastor who carried out the service (and would have done so in this church if it had gone ahead there) was also a Baptist minister, so perhaps the family had reason not to think it would be refused.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 12, 2014 23:37:08 GMT
So many times we've read on this board that Christians don't hate gays, don't have a problem with gays, don't want to exclude gays ... they just don't want to be forced to be involved in something they consider a sin, like a gay wedding. All well and good.
Perhaps one of the Christians here can tell me what sin this man committed in dying. How, in hosting a funeral, are you participating in this man's sin? How is hosting a gay man's funeral more offensive than hosting the funeral of an adulterer or liar or someone who doesn't honor his parents?
Oh yeah, it's not. And the truth comes out - it really isn't about declining to participate in sin. Its been about bigotry and exclusion all along.
I for one am grateful for the large Lutheran church that volunteered to host my parents' Catholic funerals in our time of need. The Catholic church was too small. The Lutherans didn't ask if my parents had believed in salvation by faith or works, or whether they believed the host at communion was a representation or the real body and blood of Christ, or whether they acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope. They just opened their doors and said, "Please use our church." Their ladies' committee even volunteered to do the dessert table at the lunch afterward.
I guess by some people's definition neither the Lutherans nor the Catholics are "real" Christians, but that struck me as a very Christ-like thing for them to do.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 9, 2024 18:15:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2014 23:38:01 GMT
So many times we've read on this board that Christians don't hate gays, don't have a problem with gays, don't want to exclude gays ... they just don't want to be forced to be involved in something they consider a sin, like a gay wedding. All well and good. Perhaps one of the Christians here can tell me what sin this man committed in dying. How, in hosting a funeral, are you participating in this man's sin? How is hosting a gay man's funeral more offensive than hosting the funeral of an adulterer or liar or someone who doesn't honor his parents? Oh yeah, it's not. And the truth comes out - it really isn't about declining to participate in sin. Its been about bigotry and exclusion all along. This is so good, I just had to quote it.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Aug 12, 2014 23:38:12 GMT
Why? I'm not attacking you. You are unable to tolerate views that are opposite to yours. You've made yourself an expert on all things religious and I disagree with the things you've said. The fact that it upsets you so much reinforces my opinion that you are arrogant and small-minded. Most people here can tolerate a good discussion without feeling attacked. You cannot. because you are hijacking this thread. I realize that doesn't mean much to you. It does to others.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Aug 12, 2014 23:40:52 GMT
Oh look. Skypea being obtuse and continuing to give Christianity a bad name. SSDD. As much as things change, they stay the same. FFS, I really hope she's just blowing smoke up all our asses and doesn't actually believe the crap she spews. The church was wrong. Period. End of story.
and look at you being judgmental... remember this.
|
|
mallie
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,253
Jul 3, 2014 18:13:13 GMT
|
Post by mallie on Aug 12, 2014 23:55:41 GMT
Well, here's where you and I disagree Lucy. You think the church is at fault and I think the family is at fault. I can just imagine the outrage if the church asked every individual seeking a funeral "is the deceased gay"? I think the assumptions about the church are also unsupported. In fact, I think the words of the pastor are clear on where he's coming from. To perform this ceremony would violate his religious beliefs and those of the church. Should they put up a sign "No gays allowed" ? Come on, where do the religious individual rites in their own church supercede the rights of a gay person to be involved in those rites? This, IMO, is just another example of gay rights supporters attempting to force religious organizations to accept their lifestyle and be a part of it. Honestly, if they feel that strongly, I do think they should ask every individual and put up a sign. If you believe in it, be proud and open about your beliefs. That way there would be no misunderstandings.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Aug 13, 2014 0:26:51 GMT
I think it's up to the church, since it has such strict standards, to determine they are met up front. Even if most of us are aware that the Baptists are quite conservative, there's no guarantee that everyone knows that. You are making a lot of assumptions about the family's knowledge and even their ability to think that clearly during a time of grief. And it's not like a gay person needing a funeral is unheard-of in our world. The church must realize this issue is going to come up over and over again if they frequently lend or rent out their premises for other people's use. there are no guarantees on most things in life. Any normal adult (or semi adult) would know how strict a Baptist church is - unless they've been living under a rock. Did this guy just suddenly die with no advance notice? I thought I read he'd been sick for some time... time to think thru their arrangements. Since when is a Baptist church the only place to hold a funeral? Why should the church have known this would come up? Why would a gay person (not a member of the church) seek to have his funeral in a Baptist church? Didn't I also read that some of his family went to this church? Are they clueless? again, how clueless are these people? what country have they been living in? This isn't news in this country. more likely, you're just game playing. but evidently you think Christians should have to ask that... Who's making unsupported assumptions here? that'd be you and most peas who have posted on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Aug 13, 2014 0:30:40 GMT
Well, here's where you and I disagree Lucy. You think the church is at fault and I think the family is at fault. I can just imagine the outrage if the church asked every individual seeking a funeral "is the deceased gay"? I think the assumptions about the church are also unsupported. In fact, I think the words of the pastor are clear on where he's coming from. To perform this ceremony would violate his religious beliefs and those of the church. Should they put up a sign "No gays allowed" ? Come on, where do the religious individual rites in their own church supercede the rights of a gay person to be involved in those rites? This, IMO, is just another example of gay rights supporters attempting to force religious organizations to accept their lifestyle and be a part of it. Honestly, if they feel that strongly, I do think they should ask every individual and put up a sign. If you believe in it, be proud and open about your beliefs. That way there would be no misunderstandings. I don't know who is clueless enough to buy into that. Christians are open about their beliefs. there was no misunderstanding... just deception.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Aug 13, 2014 0:41:31 GMT
You think expecting to be able to plan a funeral just like any "regular" person is attempting to force their lifestyle on other people? Okay then. umm ... I think that's what they've done. Without the sign. So now people have to guess.
why would they have to guess? look at their website online, pick up a phone and call...
check out beliefs of the Baptists (and any other denom/nondenom church out there), ask a friend, a co-worker, stranger on the street...
Will a Catholic Church hold a funeral for a non Catholic?
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 13, 2014 0:45:36 GMT
Give a funeral mass? No. Allow their facility to be used for the funeral? Yes.
And that's all this family was asking.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Aug 13, 2014 0:51:40 GMT
I want to reiterate that there is a substantial difference between asking a church and particularly a minister/priest/rabbi to perform specific funeral rites reserved for those in their faith - and using a religious building for a funeral. In this case, the family was using their own minister, and they simply wanted to use the church building to accommodate a large gathering. I think comparing it to a Catholic mass or other religious rite is inappropriate. As I stated earlier, we were lucky to have a Lutheran church graciously lend their church for a family member's funeral. We did not ask the minister to officiate and did not ask for any specific blessing etc from the church. We needed a building that held 500+ people.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 9, 2024 18:15:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2014 1:13:27 GMT
Well I, for one, appreciate Skybar's input. It helps me understand the struggles and challenges that gay people experience, and why so many suffer from depression.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 9, 2024 18:15:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2014 2:11:17 GMT
"Oh yeah, it's not. And the truth comes out - it really isn't about declining to participate in sin. Its been about bigotry and exclusion all along."
First, the actions of one church doesn't define what all Baptist churches would do in that same situation. So that's I really don't think that this instance proves your point.
But I'm not going to argue further, because it's futile.
And FWIW, I think they should've allowed them to use the building.
|
|
Country Ham
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,314
Jun 25, 2014 19:32:08 GMT
|
Post by Country Ham on Aug 13, 2014 3:20:04 GMT
This is part of the reason why our church building is for church members or their family only. We don't rent it out etc. Offering up the building opens it up to a lot of situations we might not be comfortable with.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Aug 13, 2014 3:35:54 GMT
The answer is yes. My mother was divorced and no longer a practicing Catholic at the time of her death and we had her funeral at a Catholic church, no questions asked. they would consider her a Catholic. once a Catholic, always a Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 13, 2014 3:38:00 GMT
This is part of the reason why our church building is for church members or their family only. We don't rent it out etc. Offering up the building opens it up to a lot of situations we might not be comfortable with. His family members did attend the church in question. and has anyone confirmed that skypea really is skybar? The intent is there but the linguistics just don't sound true to her style.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 13, 2014 4:50:42 GMT
You are immersed in Christianity. Not everyone is. I don't think a wedding and a funeral are anywhere near the same thing, and I can easily understand other people not knowing how conservative Baptists are or whether a funeral is going to be a problem or not. I also don't understand what you're so angry about. I'm "game playing"? I'm not asking you to officiate at the darned thing. I'm asking why a church that cares so much wouldn't clarify their policy up front. On the plus side, I finally think you're sounding just like the old skybar. Really? Really?? I think that Christians should have to sort of apologize for being Christian and ask if that's okay with everyone else? Don't you feel the tiniest bit ridiculous when you say things like that?
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 13, 2014 4:56:53 GMT
First, the actions of one church doesn't define what all Baptist churches would do in that same situation. So that's I really don't think that this instance proves your point. Would you please explain that to skybar, who's mad at me for saying not everyone knows the ins and outs of various Baptist, um ... what's the word I want? sects? denominations? I don't think those are right.
|
|