I forgot to add. The story got the new church a lot attention in the area at the time, and it took off really fast, because of it too. So, when racism is addressed in a positive manner, it can really benefit a local congregation. My grandfather's church is a little like that - it's very, very old, and there was a lot of resistance for a long time as the church's neighborhood changed from predominantly white to most hispanic (Mexican) immigrants. It took a pastor who was a missionary to Ecuador to come in to really change things, and, frankly, a lot of the members dying off and others changing their attitudes toward the immigrant population. The church is a historic SBC church in our city, so I don't think it will fold, but I do think that eventually, what happened to the neighborhood will happen to the church, and I think that's as it should be. Small churches like his often reflect their immediate neighborhoods. It should not stand out as a "white" church there, it should be mixed race, predominantly hispanic.
Mississippi church refuses to marry black couple
- Thread starter { Emilia }
- Start date
I'm going with what the Bible says on all things. Nothing wrong with marriage in this scenario. The article depicts two black people, a man and a woman wanting to get married. There is nothing in the Bible that states this is a sin. They have the right to get married. So yes, I am against the pastor/church denying them marriage. This is not Gods will.
By your reasoning, I must be FOR racism because I don't agree with homosexual marriage? I find that they are two separate topics. Besides, since when are homosexuals a race?
I am for the marriage of any woman and man, of any race or color. I am against same sex marriage as the Bible says this is a sin.
Can't make it any clearer than that. Homosexuality has nothing to do with this specific thread and article linked.
That's a poor excuse to oppress people.
I know that you support bigotry. The flavour of that bigotry is quite irrelevant to me.
It might not apply in this circumstance because it is a church but -
didn't the pastor have a contract (either verbal or written) with this couple once he agreed to perform the wedding? Should such a contract allow him to move the wedding to a different church so late in the plans (after invitations had gone out etc?
didn't the pastor have a contract (either verbal or written) with this couple once he agreed to perform the wedding? Should such a contract allow him to move the wedding to a different church so late in the plans (after invitations had gone out etc?
A
Amaris
Guest
Sure it does. There was a time when interracial marriage was deemed a sin, something to be fought openly by the church.
Now same sex marriage is being pressed upon by the ignorantly pious, and they will lose ground here, too. There will come a day, and soon, when a devout Christian will look at two gay Christians being denied marriage in their church, and will also say that it wasn't the will of God for this pastor to deny them.
It has happened before, it will happen again. The "will of God" will advance forward, will become more enlightened, and in a couple of decades, the Christians of this era who denied rights to those same sex couples will be looked upon as you look upon those who deny a black heterosexual couple their right to get married.
What you think is set in stone, is not so. What you feel is the bedrock of your foundation is nothing more than shifting sand, easily changing with the times, though you will continue to attest to it's unchanging nature, even as it shifts beneath your very feet.
^ The Bible doesn't change, what is in there, is in there, the rules and morals God wants us to live by have not changed for 2000 years, Gods will has not changed, and they won't change for the next 2000 years to come. Gods will isn't something that changes, what he wants to happen, will happen for this world. People that follow Gods word will continue to follow it, and not change what it says.
If you accept Jesus as your savior, the Bible is Gods word, and nothing in it will change. The choice we have, is to either live by what it says, or not. Any church that allows gay marriage, is not following the word of the Bible, and Gods will. God does not deem same sex marriage as a marriage in his eyes, and this will never change. Do you follow this, or not. I chose to follow his word as best I can in this world.
Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, and the article posted, but I didn't bring it up.
If you accept Jesus as your savior, the Bible is Gods word, and nothing in it will change. The choice we have, is to either live by what it says, or not. Any church that allows gay marriage, is not following the word of the Bible, and Gods will. God does not deem same sex marriage as a marriage in his eyes, and this will never change. Do you follow this, or not. I chose to follow his word as best I can in this world.
Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, and the article posted, but I didn't bring it up.
The Bible has changed a lot over the centuries, and it's still being changed and reinterpreted today. You should study it sometime. Really, if it couldn't evolve, Christianity wouldn't even have made it past being a small desert cult.
Your hypocrisy and complete lack of self-awareness is truly astounding. How can you even post this with a straight face after the things you were saying about gays? You really can't see the connection between your bigotry and this?
Knight Templar
Commodore
Has it ever occurred to you that more than a few people DO NOT see race and sexual orientation as being remotely alike?
A
Amaris
Guest
You're wrong. Both factually, and morally.
It's completely relevant, whether you recognize it or not. That seems to be a running theme here.
Yes, but willful ignorance is never an excuse for such people, yet they persist in it.
The great thing about the Bible is that it doesn't evolve. It says exactly the same thing it did 2000 years ago. God maintains the integrity of the Bible throughout the different translations. He is in total control of making sure the Bible says what it needs to, without changing.
You can't see the difference? Homosexuals are a race? an ethnicity?
As much as I am called a Bigot for not agreeing with same sex marriage, a lot of you are pretty bigoted also against Christian beliefs, and people that believe in the Bible.
Indeed, and homosexuals are not a race.
I don't have any problem with other races of people, I don't know why people would think I do. I love cultures and other races, I'm quite fond of the Japanese culture myself. I'm not a racist, I love people of all races and think they all deserve the same rights and freedoms.
But homosexuality is not a race, I can be against same sex marriage, since that is an action people chose to take. They aren't a race or ethnicity. It's a sexual preference. If you want to coin a word, how about a "sexual preferencist" ?
And 2000 years later it still teaches you how to be the best tribe in a desert.
Heck, I've attended enough theology lectures at uni to know that scholarly interpretation of Bible texts has changed significantly during the last 2000 years.
A
Amaris
Guest
That is factually incorrect.
It's inborn, exactly like race.
You can't change your race.
You can't change your sexuality.
Actually, there are two distinct views here:
Both say "homosexuality is a choice."
However, KT and Brent mean two different things by that.
KT is of the stripe that affirms that homosexual orientation itself is a choice. That's a direct contradiction to the literature of Exodus International itself, and has been pointed out to him repeatedly. He believes this because his theology denies a few other items on the menu that essentially lead to the idea that our desires are chosen. That's a rather extreme version of libertarian action theory.
Brent says that when Christians say "homosexuality is a choice" he's referring to homosexual behavior only. Of course this contradicts Exodus insofar as Exodus is targeting people like KT, and Brent is actually affirming the definition of homosexual behavior qua behavior.
Both can't seem to draw a distinction between orientation and behavior very well, although of the two Brent is, I think, more amenable.
On that level, he's correct, though some of you may dislike it. Churches that affirm the immorality of homosexual behavior should be free to exclude such persons from their membership but not their attendance (membership and attendance are not the same thing) for the same reason they should be able to exclude persons who are persistent liars, etc. from membership but not attendance.Personally, I don't have a problem with Brent's position in that regard.
The problem there is that most churches will carry on a witch hunt against the homosexual but the chronic liar will go undisciplined or even undetected. Ditto with many such things.
On KT's level, well, he just plain can't get away from what gays do in the privacy of their own homes. He's the type that would deny a gay man a job just because the thoughts of what that man might do or may have done at one time, or now, or in the future gives him the heeby-jeebies. So, it's not just a matter of behavior with KT, it's a matter of orientation qua orientation and, frankly, his mental obsession with gay sex - because, really let's be honest, that sort of thinking requires he be, on some level, fixated on it.
But you can chose to ACT or not on your sexuality by the choices you make. You can't chose to act or not on your race.