Gay gospel singers - another thought
ManwSloHand
singer be gay?" question.
I'd do it but for some strange reason, I have my doubts that he'd
respond. <g>
------------------------------
www.RickRyan.com
Jr.
quit the business when they came out of the closet.
Kirk only is coming back because he is supposed to be no longer having gay
feelings.
"ManwSloHand" <rick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124113475.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
dackj...@yahoo.com
ManwSloHand wrote:
> Why doesn't somebody send Kirk and email and ask him the "Can a gospel
> singer be gay?" question.
>
> I'd do it but for some strange reason, I have my doubts that he'd
> respond. <g>
Rick, I believe he's already responded to that question in the GQ
article, and in his newsletters. :)
David Ching
news:481Me.28379$084.20225@attbi_s22...
> Kirk only is coming back because he is supposed to be no longer having gay
> feelings.
>
Sorry, but that's entirely incorrect. Listen to Kirk's interview with
Pamela Furr: http://podcast.loyalears.com/midwest.php?task=shows&show_id=3
-- David
ManwSloHand
heard kinda cut off when they went to commercial break. Really, I'd be
interested to hear K's direct answer to the question. BTW, I didn't see
the interview in GQ. That's a major win in the media game. Good on
Kirk.
--------------------------------------------------------------
www.RickRyan.com
dackj...@yahoo.com
ManwSloHand wrote:
> I downloaded the interview, was it in multiple parts cause the one I
> heard kinda cut off when they went to commercial break. Really, I'd be
> interested to hear K's direct answer to the question. BTW, I didn't see
> the interview in GQ. That's a major win in the media game. Good on
> Kirk.
>
Yeah, it's a 3-part media player piece.
You can read Kirk's comments about the GQ article on his Website, where
he explains why he did it and how they approached him (he didn't seek
it out).
if you can't get a copy of the GQ article let me know off-list, I'll
see about a PDF of it for you. Kirk liked it, overall, even though he
didn't get to review it before going to press, so it must be at least
"mostly" representative of his thoughts.
TommyDale
Could I get a pdf of that article? Send it to
stormtrooper65_yahoo.com and replace the underscore with a @ symbol.
thanks!
David Ching
>I downloaded the interview, was it in multiple parts cause the one I
> heard kinda cut off when they went to commercial break. Really, I'd be
> interested to hear K's direct answer to the question.
Kirk does directly answer the question. Here are direct links to the 3
parts:
http://podcast.loyalears.com/midwest.php?task=browse&file_id=95
http://podcast.loyalears.com/midwest.php?task=browse&file_id=96
http://podcast.loyalears.com/midwest.php?task=browse&file_id=97
-- David
ManwSloHand
the answer given yet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.RickRyan.com
ManwSloHand
that's okay and I'm going to keep on being a gospel minister." Is that
what you guys got from it? What happened to the "testimony" where the
chains fell to the floor? I guess those chains must've been something
different, eh?
Guys, this is ridiculous. I really had hoped Kirk had been delivered
from this evil but instead he's becoming the poster child of gayhood
and some of our own good Baptists or Pentecostals are accepting this???
Am I missing something here? How can we be letting queerdom transition
from a perversion to something that's being accepted in our churches?
My own personal bias put aside, this is about as disturbing as anything
I've heard/read in a while.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.RickRyan.com
dackj...@yahoo.com
ManwSloHand wrote:
> Oh my dear Lord!! So the boy is declaring, "Here I am. I'm gay and
> that's okay and I'm going to keep on being a gospel minister." Is that
> what you guys got from it? What happened to the "testimony" where the
> chains fell to the floor? I guess those chains must've been something
> different, eh?
He isn't saying he's out humping anything in pants. Quite the
opposite, in fact. He's admitted he is dealing with attraction in a
way similar (I guess) to what smokers, drinkers and others do -- one
day at a time. It sounds like he stays busy doing OTHER things to
avoid putting himself in situations where he might find himself in a
difficult spot. What more do you want? He said he prayed and asked
God to take it away, and it didn't go away, so he's dealing with it the
best way he knows how ... apparently UNlike that guy from the Kingsmen
(that Parker fellow...?) who just gave up singing. Singing is Kirk's
life. His faith is his life. Not men, not sex. He has chosen his
priorities and is doing whatever he can do keep his priorities in
order. And by telling his story, he is apparently helping others to do
the same. If God doesn't take it away, perhaps God is giving him
whatever it takes to deal with it in other ways.
You and I are just outsiders, anyway, so it doesn't matter what any of
us think. Why not just sit back and watch to see what happens. Near
as I can tell, it isn't time for a final reckoning, and a lot could
happen between now and then.
Cheers,
ManwSloHand
> us think. Why not just sit back and watch to see what happens. Near
> as I can tell, it isn't time for a final reckoning, and a lot could
> happen between now and then.
Sure, you and I are "outsiders". We can't control anything that KT
does. I didn't quite take the interview as passively as you did. It
looks like a platform to me. At first, we heard "I've been delivered"
in his testimony. That got some of the more naive of the flock to let
him back on the church circuit. Now it's gone to "I still deal with
same sex attraction". That says this "minister" is admitting he's gay,
yet he's going to continue standing in the pulpit to "help others"
without having been delivered from the demons that took him down to
begin with. How can you help others when you're not helped yourself?
How many of us would sit through a service with Jimmy Swaggart
preaching if he admits he's still having "problems" with hiring
prostitutes? All I hear is a ploy incrementally sell it to his fans
that "it's okay to be queer and a minister of the gospel." I know you
and I see this differently but the real problem isn't even you or me or
even Kirk. Incidentally, the guy from the Kingsmen apparently did the
right thing. If you're having a problem in this area, step out of the
pulpit and get help. If you can conquer it and God opens doors for you
to return, then return otherwise find something else to do.
The thing that bothers me is, first of all, this is what I consider a
direct-on attack on the morals of the church. It's yet anothe voice
that's trying to reason that it's okay to pick and choose which of
God's laws we are to obey, but it's not. Doing that on your own
personal level is one thing. Doing it on a national stage is a horse of
a different color and demands challenge by those of us that stand
against such erosion of our faith.
The second part of what bothers me is not just Kirk, but any person
that will proclaim themselves as a "minister" and then knowingly
continue in their mis-deeds instead of repenting and getting right.
After deliverance has happened, then we can get restoration into the
work. By his own admission we now know the deliverance never happened.
It was a sham by his own accounting. When "ministers" carry on like
this, it injures many others that are within their influence. That
injury will carry on to multiple generations, sometimes stripping whole
family lines away from God. THAT is the real danger of simply allowing
some popular figure to remain in the pulpit.
I certainly believe and condone the sharing of God's love and
forgiveness. I cannot condone the hijacking of it for man's own,
selfish purposes.
I'll say one thing else. This whole "queer minister thing" may just be
a huge payday for Kirk. The secular media is apparently all to ready to
give press to anybody that'll admit to being queer, yet says they want
to "help others in their struggles". Kirk may just be helping the
secular media to accomplish something they've wanted for a long time;
the tearing down of religion.
Way to go, Kirk.
dack jarvis
>
> Sure, you and I are "outsiders". We can't control anything that KT
> does. I didn't quite take the interview as passively as you did. It
> looks like a platform to me.
Hmmm.... well, you're entitled to an opinion.
Different subject: Have you read, "KINGDOM, GRACE, JUDGMENT: Paradox,
Outrage, and Vindication in the Parables of Jesus", by Robert Farrar
Capon? It's not a gay book at all, not gay-oriented, or anything like
that. But his exegesis of the Parables is fascinating and more
detailed than any other study in the Parables. His take on it has opened
up an entirely new perspective for me. It's one of those books you have
to read with a pencil or highlighter, it's that good. But again, that's
just my opinion, offered one person to another as a suggestion; take it
or leave it, I don't care. I am reading it now and I'm finding it
helpful in understanding why the Church is the way it is (and the way it
isn't). Perhaps you might enjoy it as well.
--
Dackleigh Robinson Jarvis III
"When all think alike, no one is thinking very much."
-Walter Lippmann (1889-1974)
dack jarvis
> detailed than any other study in the Parables.
Oops... I meant to say "more detailed than any other study in the
Parables that I have read."
TommyDale
Swaggart service is an excellent one. This is not limited to
homosexuals, it applies to any of us who are not living the life we are
required to live. Many churches have a policy that if a minister falls
(example: Swaggart) he is to step down for a given period of time to
get his life together. He is not allowed to continue to lead a flock
or minister to them. Yes, some will say that Kirk Talley is "just an
entertainer" but he has professed to be ministering, including giving
altar calls at concerts.
dack jarvis
is acted on, thought about, entertained, or dismissed as soon as it
comes along -- no matter what, he's still not fit just because he
experiences an attraction to someone? Seems it would be more important
what he does with the attraction when it occurs ... and it sounds like
what he's doing is NOT acting on the attraction but turning about and
doing what he was called to do.
hmmmm... well, whatever.
Hank Gillette
"ManwSloHand" <rick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now it's gone to "I still deal with
> same sex attraction". That says this "minister" is admitting he's gay,
> yet he's going to continue standing in the pulpit to "help others"
> without having been delivered from the demons that took him down to
> begin with. How can you help others when you're not helped yourself?
How is this any different from a man who is attracted to women he is not
married to who does not act on his attractions?
> How many of us would sit through a service with Jimmy Swaggart
> preaching if he admits he's still having "problems" with hiring
> prostitutes?
What Swaggart did was infinitely worse: he claimed to no longer have a
problem while still hiring hookers.
--
Hank Gillette
In the South, they'll still tell you to go to hell, but they say it
differently. They say, "Well, bless your heart". -- Caroline Rhea
Willy
religion as YOU know it, and as most of the fundamentalist community
teaches.
I am proud to say (and I'm not gay) I attend a wonderful, open and accepting
church of around 500 people, many of which are openly gay, most of those in
committed relationships, and in fact, we offer a religious based ceremony
for those couple that wish to make a life long committment of their love to
each other. Yes, I know. That blows the doors off most Baptist churches,
but trust me when I tell you, we are vibrant community of belivers.
Religion is such an emotional issue for all of us, and even moreso for the
hard core Bible Thumpers that truly believe the Bible was written from God's
lips to mans ears.
For some interesting reading - if you dare... I would strongly suggest a
book by noted Biblical scholar Marcus Borg. His book, Meeting Jesus Again
for the First Time, is an excellent first read, and will truly open your
eyes to many of the misgivings of our modern faith.
I've given this book to several of my close friends that lean fundamental,
and all of them returned it with a "Wow, this was an incredible book"... and
that includes a very dear personal friend that holds three doctorates, one
of those in theology.
Of course Kirk still faces issues, and he always will. To believe for one
second that "deliverance" will happen is false hope and false exxpectation.
One may be able to convince onesself for a short while that he is delivered,
but just as those that fall down in a Benny Hinn convention almost
universally pick up those crutches within a few hours, so does anyone that
belives he can change something as rooted as ones own self.
"ManwSloHand" <rick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124228670.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
ManwSloHand
The difference is in admission. Kirk has admitted openly that he's
still struggling with homosexuality. If the minister ADMITS that he's
having trouble with adulterous attraction then the rest of the church
comes into accounting to deal with it. If the man is hiding it then you
can certainly count on it coming to light at some point or other. At
the point of knowledge, the church would again come into accounting to
deal with it. Might want to check 1 Corinthians, chapter 5 for a
reference on how the church should deal with such issues. The warning
is clearly given that if the congregation glosses it over, there are
consequences to be paid.
Swaggart's problem was no worse and no better than KT's in my view. In
my view, he shouldn't be in the pulpit while he's dealing with this
issue.
I have a question for Dack (I believe he's the gay, former minister).
Why aren't you still in the pulpit?
David Ching
>> How is this any different from a man who is attracted to women he is not
>> married to who does not act on his attractions?
>
> The difference is in admission. Kirk has admitted openly that he's
> still struggling with homosexuality. If the minister ADMITS that he's
> having trouble with adulterous attraction then the rest of the church
> comes into accounting to deal with it. If the man is hiding it then you
> can certainly count on it coming to light at some point or other. At
> the point of knowledge, the church would again come into accounting to
> deal with it.
In your example, a team of ministers would have examined the minister in
question and have deemed his adulterous attraction to be under control and
would not interfere with his duties as a minister. There may be people such
as yourself that would interpret "under control" to mean the attraction is
gone, but the goal is to be effective as a minister, not whether one's
thoughts and feelings are pure snow.
-- David
ManwSloHand
> question and have deemed his adulterous attraction to be under control and
> would not interfere with his duties as a minister.
Any decent "ministry team" that wasn't dealing with a "star" would be
raking the offender's rear-end over the coals and wouldn't let him
anywhere near a platform for a lot longer period of time. Also, they'd
only let the minister back into a much smaller venue. Take for
instance, Ronald Brock. He was pastor of one of the largest Church of
God churches in Cleveland, TN. He got hooked on uppers. After his
restoration, he was put back into pastor, but in a small, country
church. This thing is coming off entirely too fast in my view and
evidence is not looking good at this point. I'm afraid Kirk's going to
end up as poster boy for the other team (if he's not already).
dack jarvis
ManwSloHand wrote:
>
> This thing is coming off entirely too fast in my view and
Your view wasn't solicited in their process, was it?
> evidence is not looking good at this point.
specifically what "evidence"?? I haven't seen any clear evidence to
justify giving Kirk such a hard time at this point. Regardless what
happened a year and half ago to make it a "news" event, it's over and
done with, his "restoration team" has released him to return back to his
career. I hear a lot of innuendo, speculation, and so forth, but no
hard evidence that he's actually done something wrong or to refute his
testimony that he is dealing with it and remaining celibate. Most of
his "problem" is in the minds of everyone else, at this point, which
makes it difficult for him to just move forward and get on with his
life. Why does the church make such an issue of such things,
continueing to harp on details that are "old news" and already dealt with?
And would the situation and circumstances be different or call for
different "restoration" from a traveling musical entertainer than for a
full-time pastor?
Snowy
Snowy
didn't know why. Didn't know it was because he is gay.
dack jarvis
> I knew parker johnathan wasn't singing with the kingsmen anymore but I
> didn't know why. Didn't know it was because he is gay.
Funny, but I've not seen that allegation anywhere but here in AMGS.
Would be interesting to know if it is true (that he is gay) and true
that THAT would be the reason he isn't with the Kingsmen. "True", of
course, means admitted by the person(s) actually involved, not just a
volume of repeated assertions. :-)
Being gay, or being kicked out for gay allegations, makes for good
press, but doesn't make for good Christ-like behavior among others who
enjoy trashing people when they're down.
James Moore
ManwSloHand wrote:
> > In your example, a team of ministers would have examined the minister in
> > question and have deemed his adulterous attraction to be under control and
> > would not interfere with his duties as a minister.
>
> Any decent "ministry team" that wasn't dealing with a "star" would be
> raking the offender's rear-end over the coals and wouldn't let him
> only let the minister back into a much smaller venue. Take for
> instance, Ronald Brock. He was pastor of one of the largest Church of
> God churches in Cleveland, TN. He got hooked on uppers. After his
> restoration, he was put back into pastor, but in a small, country
> church. This thing is coming off entirely too fast in my view and
> evidence is not looking good at this point. I'm afraid Kirk's going to
> end up as poster boy for the other team (if he's not already).
I `ve been reading these post, and while I disagree with the gay
lifestyle, I do want to say this-a christian is given trouble by satan-
unless they are perfect-DOES ANYONE HERE KNOW OF A PERFECT PERSON, HERE
ON EARTH? Some fall, and they come back to God. God is merciful enough
to forgive them. But tell me, why is Kirk any different? And are we
showing
the LOVE of GOD by downing Kirk, rather than praying for him?
James
Hank Gillette
"ManwSloHand" <rick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The difference is in admission. Kirk has admitted openly that he's
> still struggling with homosexuality. If the minister ADMITS that he's
> having trouble with adulterous attraction then the rest of the church
> comes into accounting to deal with it. If the man is hiding it then you
> can certainly count on it coming to light at some point or other.
Do you think most ministers admit it every time they have an impure
thought or find themselves attracted to someone other than a spouse? Is
the temptation itself a sin? Obviously not, since even Jesus was tempted.
It still seems that Mr. Talley is being held to a different standard.
Just being tempted in his case is being treated the same as giving in to
temptation, because there is such a stigma against same-sex attraction.
Hank Gillette
> Swaggart's problem was no worse and no better than KT's in my view. In
> my view, he shouldn't be in the pulpit while he's dealing with this
> issue.
I think it's worse, based on what we know, since we know that Swaggart
gave in to temptation, while Talley, as far as we know, did not (the
blackmailer was trying to blackmail him simply for being gay, not for
actually doing anything, as I understand it).
TommyDale
the formula. A man can look at a woman and think she is beautiful,
thus attractive, but that isn't a sin. When he starts the lustful
sexual desires, however, it is as if he actually committed the actual
act.
dackj...@yahoo.com
TommyDale wrote:
> The sin is committed when lust, not necessarily attraction, enters into
> the formula. A man can look at a woman and think she is beautiful,
> thus attractive, but that isn't a sin. When he starts the lustful
> sexual desires, however, it is as if he actually committed the actual
> act.
>
And would you grant this same concession to all people with normal gay
or straight attraction? ("Normal" = we're not discussing rape,
molestation of children, or anything else that is generally agreed as
immoral, dangerous, and wrong; just limited it to adult consensual
relations along the spectrum of what is commonly accepted as human
sexuality.)
If a straight guy can find a woman attractive but not lust after her
(or a straight woman find a guy attractive without lusting after him),
why is it difficult for some to accept that a gay person can find other
guys attractive without lusting after that person? I see LOTS of
attractive people all the time, but that doesn't mean I want to have
sex with them.
TommyDale
orientation. Whether we all agree on what is "normal" is beside the
point. The rules that hold for illicit sex and lust are there no
matter what. Sex outside of marriage is wrong, no matter how we
practice it.
dackj...@yahoo.com
Okay, so there's no problem with Kirk saying he continues to be
attracted to other men, as long as he is working on NOT indulging in
lusting after them, which is what I gathered from what he's put forth.
So why do folks continue to harp on him? I dont' understand it.
ManwSloHand
heart. The issue I have is with a "minister" in this situation. As long
as the "gay struggle" is going on (or adultery, drugs, booze, etc.)
then that person has no b'ness, in my opinion, stepping into a pulpit
to teach or preach to others. God's grace is certainly sufficient to
cover our sins but we're not talking about sins being covered. We're
talking about a teacher/preacher here. The Word clearly says these are
to be held to a higher standard otherwise, they have no b'ness in the
pulpit.
Give it time. I'll be saying "I told you so" once again before you know
it.
dackj...@yahoo.com
Well, if you subcribe to a church model with separate clergy/laity,
then perhaps you have reason for double standards. I don't accept a
separate clergy and I don't see the difference between Joe Blow on the
street being attracted to other men, versus Kirk or me or anyone else
being attracted to someone.
And besides, anyone who is able to teach would naturally teach what
they know, NOT what they don't know. Kirk knows about dealing with a
particular kind of difficulty. What's wrong with using that to help
others deal with similar issues, and letting folks know that God still
loves them in spite of their humanity?
What's "I told you so" going to prove? that you were "right" in your
expectations for him to be just like every other human who ever stood
in a pulpit or on the platform? Who cares. Everyone has a human
moment now and again. So what? Having the moment doesn't matter
nearly so much as what one does with it, how they deal with it, and
what they do afterward, in my not-so-humble opinion. :-)
David Ching
news:1124393622....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hank Gillette wrote:
>>
>> Do you think most ministers admit it every time they have an impure
>> thought or find themselves attracted to someone other than a spouse? Is
>> the temptation itself a sin? Obviously not, since even Jesus was tempted.
>>
>> It still seems that Mr. Talley is being held to a different standard.
>> Just being tempted in his case is being treated the same as giving in to
>> temptation, because there is such a stigma against same-sex attraction.
> The sin is committed when lust, not necessarily attraction, enters into
> the formula. A man can look at a woman and think she is beautiful,
> thus attractive, but that isn't a sin. When he starts the lustful
> sexual desires, however, it is as if he actually committed the actual
> act.
That's what the Bible says all right. But the point is, if the FBI started
an investigation, and the lawyers leaked his name to the papers, every time
a minister transgressed as above, then I'm not sure how many ministers would
remain.
-- David
David Ching
> The issue I have is not with someone having lust or desire in their
> heart. The issue I have is with a "minister" in this situation. As long
> as the "gay struggle" is going on (or adultery, drugs, booze, etc.)
> then that person has no b'ness, in my opinion, stepping into a pulpit
> to teach or preach to others. God's grace is certainly sufficient to
> cover our sins but we're not talking about sins being covered. We're
> talking about a teacher/preacher here. The Word clearly says these are
> to be held to a higher standard otherwise, they have no b'ness in the
> pulpit.
>
The Bible also mentions obesity. Should fat people be ministers? Who gets
to arbitarily call out the "biggie sins" to automatically disquality someone
from the pulpit?
-- David
TommyDale
for their flock. That goes for anyone, any church, any time. Rick
said it earlier: they will be helf to a higher standard, and they will
be punished more harshly if they scatter the flock.
A minister should not be leading people if they are living in adultery,
homosexuality, or even gluttony. And I'll add women here just to stir
the pot.
David Ching
Well then Tommy, your standard doesn't apply to me. I could be ministered
to by a fat person. Or a woman. Or a gay person.
-- David
James Moore
I agree Tom,
Some people look like they`ve been eating pork chops and cream pie.
James
Hank Gillette
"ManwSloHand" <rick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Give it time. I'll be saying "I told you so" once again before you know
> it.
Sounds like you can't wait. But even if you are right, as a follower of
Jesus, you are still expected to forgive him another 488 times.
Hank Gillette
"TommyDale" <stormtr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A minister should not be leading people if they are living in adultery,
> homosexuality, or even gluttony. And I'll add women here just to stir
> the pot.
I must have missed it when you were ragging on the Goodmans.
TommyDale
into a toll road yet?
steve
God given position to fulfill their own worldly needs is simply mocking
God
dack jarvis
Steve, you sure put a funny twist into just about everything. Rick and
TommyDale were very clear in their position that a person dealing with
significant personal issues ought not be in a position of leadership or
public service. (I don't necessarily agree with such a sweeping opinion,
but I understood what they were saying -- I think each case should be
weighed on its own as to what the problem is and whether it affects
their public work.) But neither Rick nor TommyDale said anything about
"USING their God given position" to "fulfill their own worldly needs".
Where did you pull that from? What worldly needs do you think they are
fulfilling? What are you saying?
Give me an example of "using their position to fulfill their own worldly
needs", so that I can understand what you are trying to say.
Snowy
OK, is it safe to say that most Christians believe adultry,
homosexuality and gluttony(how do you spell that anyway?!) is wrong?
What about the issue of pornography. Wasn't KT and the blackmailer
were sharing porn pics and they were chatting and getting to know one
another?
TommyDale
fans can take advantage of some fans. They use their position to
seduce others, no different than a rock star with his "groupies".
ManwSloHand
> God given position to fulfill their own worldly needs is simply mocking
> God
I'm not talking about greed. That part is trivial in comparison to the
real danger. The real danger is two-fold;
1) It's dangerous to the sheep, or congregation to be lead astray by
false teachers or those that are otherwise disqualified from service.
This is in accordance with what is taught in God's Word.
2) It's dangerous to the individual. Standing in a ministry position
under falsehood always has long-term consequences. Those rabid KT fans
may well be contributing to their idol's demise.
ManwSloHand
found a fella. My assumption is he was looking for some action and
thought he found it. It's my understanding that in the gay lifestyle,
the majority are only after a conquest, not long-term relationship.
That fits in with cruising the chat rooms. Gay men often have
multitudes of lovers according to the studies I've read. I realize
there are exceptions.
After this guy found out KT was a gospel singer, he devised a scheme to
extort money. Simple as that.
TommyDale
some entertainers can use their position of "fame", fortune or
popularity to seduce fans, in my answer to the earlier question. It
happens all the time. I can remember girls throwing underwear and even
room keys to a gospel singer. I won't name the singer here, but he was
quite shocked.
dackj...@yahoo.com
Yeah, I figured he was thinking up something slimey like 'shopping for
a date', but I wanted Steve to say what he was thinking and be a little
more direct. :-)
Hank Gillette
"steve" <stevr...@aol.com> wrote:
Don't forget all of those ministers who take a salary. Aren't they using
their God-given position to fulfill their worldly needs?
No matter who you are or what you do, you have worldly needs like food
and shelter.
Hank Gillette
"Snowy" <stop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> OK, is it safe to say that most Christians believe adultry,
> homosexuality and gluttony(how do you spell that anyway?!) is wrong?
I can't speak for most Christians, or any Christians for that matter.
I'd guess that most Christians would agree that adultery is wrong (it's
in the 10 Commandments, after all). I'd think that most fundamentalists
and/or evangelicals consider homosexuality to be wrong, even if the
person never actually has a homosexual relationship. I think the more
traditional churches are more divided on the issue, with some churches
even willing to consider ordaining gay ministers.
As far a gluttony, if you ask, I think most Christians would agree that
the Bible says that it's a sin. But I've seen too many obese
fundamentalists to believe that they take it seriously. In 25+ years of
attending fundamentalist churches, I never once heard someone get up and
ask for forgiveness or deliverance from eating too much. In fact, a lot
of churches act as enablers for gluttons, with their "dinner on the
grounds" (joke).
> What about the issue of pornography. Wasn't KT and the blackmailer
> were sharing porn pics and they were chatting and getting to know one
> another?
How would I know that? Did the blackmailer claim this? Mr. Talley says
that he was simply looking for people he could talk to who understood
his feelings. Apparently, when he sought help from his family and the
Christian community, they failed him.
If someone is willing to blackmail another person, can we expect him to
be truthful? The fact that Mr. Talley is gay would be quite enough to
pressure him to pay, considering the firestorm that he knew he would
experience if that fact were to be revealed. I give the man a lot of
credit for the courage to not give in to the slimeball, knowing that his
career could be destroyed.
I don't know that they weren't sharing pictures. I've read some claims
that Mr. Talley was sharing nude pictures of himself. But if that were
the case, he would have to be extremely stupid and reckless, and one
would expect the pictures to have surfaced by now.
JL
church! LOL!
Seriously, it is interesting to see which sins will disqualify a person
from ministering. Has anyone been banned from singing gospel because
they're a gossip? It does seem that gluttony gets a full pass. How
about pride? Has anyone lost their quartet gig because of being too
prideful? Avarice? Greed? (Please stop by our booth and purchase a
8x10 glossy for just $5!)
TommyDale
If I recall correctly, Kirk Talley confessed this to the investigators,
who
he thought would keep it quiet. Talley didn't expect the law
enforcement people to release it to the public, although that normally
happens when you report any crime. It is on the public record.
Hank Gillette wrote:
<snipped>
David Ching
"JL" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124467774....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Indeed. Jealousy also gets a free pass (as in people jealous of Kirk's
success).
-- David
Ruthfro...@webtv.net
has admitted to this or where anyone has had firsthand knowledge of
this. Isn't it being unfair to spread gossip like this about him? I
mean, the last I read about his coming off the road was after his wife
had a miscarriage!
steve
ceremony". Don't you realize that the bible says that marriage is
between a male and a female? Any sexual relationship outside of
marriage ( man and woman ) is SIN, and thats not even considering the
homosexual sin. Lets look at the sin of Fornication, and put the sin of
homosexuality aside for just a moment. I think i read a previous post
of yours that said you are knowledable in scriptures, so can you just
look the other way about Fornication? Remenber that there is NO basis
in the bible for a relationship outside of marrage between a male and
male, or male and female. So, you said that your church is a " vibrant
community of believers" my question is which God do you serve? You
can't serve God and mammon. I am glad to hear you are not gay, and i
wish no harm to any gay only salvation, but the morals in this country
has decayed enough don't you think? In my humble but correct opinion
LOL, i think the reason for that decay is because ordinary christians
has sit on our rumps, and let a few people corrode our tv's, our
schools, our goverment, and our churches. Suppose your church has a
number of hertosexual, non married couples would your church accept
them and tell them that they were blameless in God's site, accept them
no questions asked or accept them while still proclaiming the sin of
Fornication?
Jr.
real reason Parker Jonathan came off the road.
I know someone, etc. who used to be part of the group and it is not rumor.
Parker, just like Kirk had the same problem.
<Ruthfro...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8798-430...@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net...
dack jarvis
> Willie , I read your post where you said" We offer a religious based
> ceremony". Don't you realize that the bible says that marriage is
> between a male and a female?
No, it doesn't. That is how your church interprets marriage and
incorporates a religious ceremony for the people who belong to that
religion. The rules and restrictions of one religion have no bearing on
the people of another religion, and all the Biblical guidance for the
marital relationship can be applied to both straight and gay couples
(you know -- fidelity, honoring, etc.) Marriage is a civil institution
which is "normally" (but not exclusively) between a man and a woman.
And the Christian church is not the only religion that has a commitment
ceremony for men and women, OR for gay/lesbian relationships as well.
What if a Buddhist (or Muslim, or Native American) man and woman want to
be together? Would you say they aren't really married unless they
follow your interpretation of the Bible way? And even if some
Christian churches have recognized the value of a committed
relationship, and wish to bless that union and invite God's presence
into the partnership, that is between them and their religion.
> Remenber that there is NO basis
> in the bible for a relationship outside of marrage between a male and
> male, or male and female.
Lesbians will appreciate knowing this. :-)
So, you said that your church is a " vibrant
> community of believers" my question is which God do you serve?
Probably the God of the Bible, same as you. They just read it
differently. If you don't like how they handle it, don't attend Willy's
church. :-)
> In my humble but correct opinion
Now, THAT is a contradiction. There is no humility or humbleness in
declaring that your opinion is the correct one (especially since it has
been proven faulty on several counts already!). You are free to keep
your opinion, of course, but you would do well to recognize it is JUST
an opinion and worth no more than anyone else's, and your opinion only
applies to you, your faith, and the way you live your life. Isn't that
what freedom of (or from) religion is about?
> Suppose your church has a number of hertosexual, non married
> couples would your church accept them and tell them that
> they were blameless in God's site, accept them
> no questions asked or accept them while still proclaiming the sin of Fornication?
What if a straight couple were married in the Church, but chose not to
have a civil marriage license (which is not as rare as some would
suppose) ... would you consider them married or not? Does the marital
relationship begin with signing the license or making the commitment to
each other before God?
LJ
> steve wrote:
>> Willie , I read your post where you said" We offer a religious based
>> ceremony". Don't you realize that the bible says that marriage is
>> between a male and a female?
>
> No, it doesn't. That is how your church interprets marriage and
> incorporates a religious ceremony for the people who belong to that
> religion. The rules and restrictions of one religion have no bearing on
> the people of another religion, and all the Biblical guidance for the
> marital relationship can be applied to both straight and gay couples
> (you know -- fidelity, honoring, etc.) Marriage is a civil institution
> which is "normally" (but not exclusively) between a man and a woman. And
> the Christian church is not the only religion that has a commitment
> ceremony for men and women, OR for gay/lesbian relationships as well.
> What if a Buddhist (or Muslim, or Native American) man and woman want to
> be together? Would you say they aren't really married unless they
> follow your interpretation of the Bible way? And even if some
> Christian churches have recognized the value of a committed
> relationship, and wish to bless that union and invite God's presence
> into the partnership, that is between them and their religion.
Well, I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this discussion, but
after the paragraph above, I can't help it. The Bible clearly states
the following:
(Gen 2:20) And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the
air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a
help meet for him.
(Gen 2:21) And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and
he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead
thereof;
(Gen 2:22) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he
a woman, and brought her unto the man.
(Gen 2:23) And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my
flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
(Gen 2:24) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
How in the world can you misinterpret that and say there is nothing
wrong with a man or a woman having a relationship with another member of
the same sex. I don't believe God makes any mistakes and if he had
wanted it to be that way, he would have brought another man to Adam.
--
LJ
My Best Friend Is My Wife!!
steve
is no marriage other than man and woman. every time you post something
different you heap a few more coals on your fire, and it's getting nice
and hot for you . Drink plenty of water you are going to need
it............
steve
you standing up. We are fighting principalities ( the devil ) these
homos here are only his pawn, The truth is not in them. They also
believe Fornication is o.k with God . They are making a mockery of his
name. The fires of hell are gonna be hot for those who walk through the
blood of Jesus.
steve
you are praying for your salvation my saviors name need not be in your
mouth PLEASE.
James Moore
Hank Gillette wrote-
> Don't forget all of those ministers who take a salary. Aren't they using
> their God-given position to fulfill their worldly needs?
JM-As a ministers son let me answer that Hank. The answer is NO, I once
had a nephew by marriage that said he didn`t know why a minister took
money for preaching the gospel.-That was a foolish statement, a
minister
has to make a living, just like you and I he has a family to feed,
bills
just like everyone else. The correct statement should have been-those
ministers who take a salary. They`re using their God`given position to
preach the Gospel.
James Moore
James Moore
That was a good post, and I agree with you Ruth. I would say it`s
just a rumor, and the only qualifications needed to belong to the
Rumormill are one long tongue and two big ears.
James
dack jarvis
There
> is no marriage other than man and woman
Clearly you haven't heard the news... there is marriage for gays and
lesbians in several parts of the world now! You are either ignorant or
just plain lying.
dack jarvis
> They also
> believe Fornication is o.k with God .
And again, you lie. Nobody ever said this, and in fact, I have said
just the opposite, if you would read what I wrote.
ManwSloHand
> lesbians in several parts of the world now! You are either ignorant or
> just plain lying.
Just because some of the world's secular governments have sanctioned it
doesn't mean that God has.
Hank Gillette
"steve" <stevr...@aol.com> wrote:
> That's right LJ, the bible says Adam and Eve not Adam and Tom.
I always heard it as Adam and Steve.
dack jarvis
> Well, I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this discussion, but
> after the paragraph above, I can't help it. The Bible clearly states
> the following:
>
> How in the world can you misinterpret that and say there is nothing
> wrong with a man or a woman having a relationship with another member of
> the same sex. I don't believe God makes any mistakes and if he had
> wanted it to be that way, he would have brought another man to Adam.
Next I suppose you'll try to tell me that you believe that the Adam and
Eve story is about a read man and a real woman at a particular place at
a particular time. Puh-leeeeeze!!! It is part of the creation myth
series in Genesis, repeated in various forms throughout the world in
many flavors and variations. Every culture and religion has its own
version of the creation myths. This passage is NOT the prescriptive
rule for all marriages, and it specifically does not address gay and
lesbian relationships as we know them today. The Genesis account cannot
possibly address every nuance of human relationships.
steve
the news" You said i haven't heard the news? Oh but i have I think you
need to hear it Jesus saves. Just because homo's choose to live outside
of Gods grace and make their own marriage doesn't mean that God is
pleased, but then again you don't care what God thinks you have your
own set of rules. Do you know that you and your butt burgulars are a
disgrace to mankind.
steve
it if you continue to lie. You said that if a couple ( and with you i
know it's man and man ) is commited in their relationship that it is
not sin thats your words. Thats Fornication Mr. preacher man. Any
sexual relationship outside marrage is SIN like it or not.Whats wrong
dack can't remember your own lies?
steve
any thing in the bible dack? How in the world can you call yourself a
minister? Check your forehead the number 666 might ring a bell?
steve
relationship between two consenting adults is not sin" your words. post
234 topic - can a gospel music singer be gay? Now i am waiting for you
to blaspheme your way out of that. Fornication is sin just as
homosexuality, adultry, (ect). is.
steve
church, You see i go to a christian church.
Just Allan
>Looked up that post about fornication, You said " a commited monogamous
>relationship between two consenting adults is not sin" your words.
Actually, I'd be willing to accept that definition. That is until
they move onto their next "committed, monogamous relationship". Since
they claim such a relationship = marriage, then that makes their next
one adultery. Of course once you twist the meaning of one thing, you
have twist everything else - so they'll have a way around that one
too.
Regardless... Since it's in reference to homosexuals, any sexual
relationship is invalid anyway. Since a COMPLETE marriage requires to
fullfill God's original design, that is - one man + one woman = for
life... two men or two woman are still one HALF of "complete".
>Now i am waiting for you
>to blaspheme your way out of that. Fornication is sin just as
>homosexuality, adultry, (ect). is.
Allan.
Just Allan
>Again, again and again you blaspheme the word of God. Do you believe
>any thing in the bible dack? How in the world can you call yourself a
>minister?
A minister of unrighteousness. Or perhaps they misread this verse,
like all the others and think they have to minister carnal things...
Romans 15:27
It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the
Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their
duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.
dack jarvis
And I repeat: "A committed monogamous relationship between two
consenting adults is not sin". A committed monogamous relationship is
not "fornication". Now, let's look at the available resources, okay?
from: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fornication
for·ni·ca·tion (fôrn-kshn)
n. Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.
From Young's Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible:
fornication:
occurs 2 times in the Hebrew from "tazmuth"; meaning whoredom
occurs 3 times in the Hebrew: zanah; meaning to commit (or cause to
commit) fornication
occurs 26 times from the Greek "porneia", meaning fornication or whoredom
occurs 7 times from the Greek "porneua": to commit fornication
occurs 1 time from the Greek "ekporneuo": being given over to much
fornication
The Greek words translated as fornication are the same root as our word
"pornography", and the thought is the same: just plain ol' sex, as in
prostitution (cf. the Hebrew meaning). Sex just for the sake of having
sex is clearly a waste of time, whether you get paid for it or not, or
whether you hire someone to service you or you just pounce on whatever
walks by. The last one (from Jude 7): "ekporneuo") goes beyond just
hiring a whore now and again; it's more like what we might call a "sex
addict".
Also, the word in the New Testament for fornicator is the Greek "pornos"
-- again refering one who has (or seeks after) sex just for the sake of
sex. No romance, no love, no emotional involvement. Just sex.
I have never said fornication is okay, and I have never said God
approves of it.
Fornication is NOT the same as a committed monogamous relationship,
which has little to do with sex. It's about a relationship, same as
with straight folks, building a life together, sharing hearts, minds,
resources, a home, and everything else. The Bible does not condemn a
committed monogamous relationship. Two people in a committed monogamous
relationship are in a marital relationship. It would be nice if the
state recognized it, but even if the state doesn't, that doesn't change
the nature of the relationship, which is why more and more churches (and
other countries) are coming to recognize the value of honoring,
encouraging, and supporting such committed relationships. Such
relationships lead to a more stable society, reduced STDs, and a myriad
of other benefits for everyone.
dack jarvis
> Again, again and again you blaspheme the word of God. Do you believe
> any thing in the bible dack? How in the world can you call yourself a
> minister?
I said I USED TO BE.
I have not blasphemed the Bible at all. Clearly you and I read it from
a different perspective, but that's no reason for you to continue to be
abusive and vulgar. Why do you have such difficulty accepting that not
everyone interprets the Bible the same way you do?
steve
Homosexuality AND fornication is SIN. Do you have no shame? How can
you twist the word to fit your sinful lifestyle? God will deal with
you. Fornication is the same between anyone unless married by God ( man
and woman ). you say " I have never said fornication is o.k." That is a
load of bull. you say sex between unmarried couples is not sin it's
called fornication mr. preacher man SO in essence you did say
fornication is not sin its all here in black and white for everyone to
read. How can you even put the words minister and your name in the same
sentence? You are a disgrace to God. Get saved
steve
steve
problems my friend. You are leading people astray. Yes it makes me mad
when you intentiallly twist Gods words to fit your lifestyle. don't you
realize other lost people are reading your junk.?
LJ
Yes, I do believe the Adam and Eve story is about a real man and a real
woman at a particular place and at a particular time. It is obvious
that you and I are not going to agree on this, but I do not believe it
is a myth series. I believe it is a fact. You can try to explain it
away all you want to with all of the references and authors you want,
but it does not and will not change what really took place. I realize
that I can't offer you the proof you would want, but you need to start
believing the Bible for what it is. It is not a myth. It is the true
word of God. It may have been written by man, but it was inspired by
God Himself. That is enough for me. I am sorry you don't believe that
and I pray some day you will really believe.
dack jarvis
> Dack, Again you are blaspheming Gods words. Twist it anyway you want.
I wasn't "twisting" anything. I pointed out what the Greek words mean.
The word means JUST the physical act of sex, and things that relate to
just the physical act of sex ("porno"), which is NOT the same as a
committed monogamous relationship between two consenting adults. I'm
sorry you disagree, but you can't invent your own meanings for words.
Fornication is JUST SEX. Marital relationships are not just about sex.
dack jarvis
steve wrote:
> Dack, sorry if you see it as abusive,
When you use phrases like "butt burglar", you are being deliberately
vulgar and abusive.
Just Allan
wrote:
>> Next I suppose you'll try to tell me that you believe that the Adam and
>> Eve story is about a read man and a real woman at a particular place at
>> a particular time. Puh-leeeeeze!!! It is part of the creation myth
>> series in Genesis, repeated in various forms throughout the world in
>> many flavors and variations. Every culture and religion has its own
>> version of the creation myths. This passage is NOT the prescriptive
>> rule for all marriages, and it specifically does not address gay and
>> lesbian relationships as we know them today. The Genesis account cannot
>> possibly address every nuance of human relationships.
>
>I am sorry, Dack, but I do not believe the Genesis account is a myth.
>Yes, I do believe the Adam and Eve story is about a real man and a real
>woman at a particular place and at a particular time. It is obvious
>that you and I are not going to agree on this, but I do not believe it
>is a myth series. I believe it is a fact. You can try to explain it
>away all you want to with all of the references and authors you want,
>but it does not and will not change what really took place. I realize
>that I can't offer you the proof you would want, but you need to start
>believing the Bible for what it is. It is not a myth. It is the true
>word of God. It may have been written by man, but it was inspired by
>God Himself. That is enough for me. I am sorry you don't believe that
>and I pray some day you will really believe.
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" The
fact that every culture has a creation "myth" and they have many
common points, is evidence that Genesis IS factual. It's the only
account that contains all the details of the other accounts and isn't
based on superstition, but supported by countless evidence staring us
in the face every time we burn a piece of coal or dig up a "millions
of years" skeleton that should have dissolved into the dirt 99% of
that millions of years ago and yet still contains DNA which breaks
down only a fraction of that again.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Allan.
dack jarvis
Just Allan wrote:
> "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" The
> fact that every culture has a creation "myth" and they have many
> common points, is evidence that Genesis IS factual.
What? That makes no rational sense at all. Just because all cultures
have a creation myth doesn't make your version the right one. They all
have value as myths, but none of them are literally true.
> There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Well, then, you need to get your eyes fixed, son.
steve
homosexual relations, and any other relations outside marital relations
is fornication and its a sin.
steve
who will not see. very true
dack jarvis
Obviously we disagree on the meaning of the word fornication as it is
used in the Bible. As I've shown from context it has to do with sex
just for the sake of sex -- which includes promiscuity (sleeping
around), casual or recreational sex, prostitution, and using someone
else for personal sexual gratification. All of these I have repeatedly
given my position that these behaviors are wrong -- and they appear in
both the gay and straight populations. Gay folks can behave just as
badly as straight folks, and I have never said otherwise. The problem
is their behavior, NOT their sexual orientation.
Since homosexuals can be in committed, monogamous relationship (i.e.,
"married"), that relationship (and the sexual behavior inside that
relatonahip) is not a sin.
But, you go right ahead and believe whatever you want. Your position is
that "all sex outside of male-female marriage" is fornication and a sin,
but you've provided nothing from the Bible to support your position, and
I have shown you mine in light of what the Bible *actually* says about
what fornication is.
Does "marriage" mean when the preacher in a Christian church pronounces
you married? Or when any religious leader in any religion pronounces
you married? Or when the law acknowledges that you are married?
Which definition of "marriage" are you using?
steve
pro gay lifestyle. You don't believe homosexuality is a sin, you don't
believe fornication is a sin ( and sex without marriage is fornication)
you don't believe the story of adam and eve and the garden of eden. You
don't believe the bibilical definition of marriage. So what do you
believe? I have never, ever met a minister of any demonation who did
not believe those things i just mentioned. I got news for you, the
bible wasn't written for you to pick and choose what you believe. I
believe, and i think most CHRISTIANS believe the bible is inspired by
God. ( because thats what it says). I believe in the virgin birth of
Jesus christ. I believe in his sinless life, I believe he was beaten
without mercy. and he was hung on a cross for my (our) sins. I believe
he suffered and died. Then thank God i believe he rose again on the
third day. I believe every word in the bible don't you think we owe
Jesus that much not to question his word? I accept what it says , and
if my life doesnt fit what it says i make my life fit what it says. I
dont change the words in the bible to fit my life. I do hope you get
saved
steve
you should fix your eyes on the SON. Thats not where they are now,
because you don't believe his words.
Just Allan
>Dack you said " we'll then you need to get your eyes fixed,son" Maby
>you should fix your eyes on the SON.
Well said !!!
ManwSloHand
Queers don't stay together for long. That was last week.
dack jarvis
ManwSloHand wrote:
>>I always heard it as Adam and Steve.
>
>
> Queers don't stay together for long. That was last week.
hahahahaha..... good one Rick
dack jarvis
> Dack, It's obvious that everything you believe is slanted toward your
> pro gay lifestyle. You don't believe homosexuality is a sin, you don't
> believe fornication is a sin
Apparently you have difficulty reading plain English. I have shown what
fornication is from the Bible (sex for sex' sake), and I have repeatedly
said it is not right. I have NEVER said promiscuity, prostitution,
casual sexual, abusive sex, or any of that is right. In fact I have
specifically stated several times that it is NOT right. YOU are the one
adding to the definition of the word to make it fit your doctrines.
Maybe if you'd get your theology right, your doctrines wouldn't cause
you such difficulty.
> I have never, ever met a minister of any demonation who did
I have also repeatedly said I am no longer a minister, and haven't been
in the pulpit in over 20 years.
Just Allan
wrote:
>> I always heard it as Adam and Steve.
>
>Queers don't stay together for long. That was last week.
HA!
dack jarvis
Sorry, Steve, but you are sadly mistaken (again!).
I guess if folks don't believe things exactly like you, it's okay to
question their spiritual condition, or even outright lie about it.
Shame on you, boy. Why don't you try opening your Bible, examining
your concordance (a legitimate one like Young's or Strong's), studying
through the meanings of the words (in Wuest's or Vine's expository
dictionaries), scan through a few scholarly commentaries on it, and come
up with some intelligent discussion about the Bible you say you love so
much. I bet you can't.
Jr.
Sorry, DACK, but you are sadly mistaken (again!).
I guess if folks don't believe things exactly like you, it's okay to
question their spiritual condition, or even outright lie about it.
Shame on you, boy. Why don't you try opening your Bible, examining your
concordance (a legitimate one like Young's or Strong's), studying through
the meanings of the words (in Wuest's or Vine's expository dictionaries),
scan through a few scholarly commentaries on it, and come
up with some intelligent discussion about the Bible you say you hate so
much. I bet you can't.
BTW if you once were a minister you have truly sold out to the devil and all
that is evil.
steve
without questioning it. Remember God will choose the not so smart
things in the world to confound the wise, are you confounded yet? by
the way i have concordance's and commentaries, but i choose to believe
the bible over them instead of the other way around.