Plan B Forum

Posted: **Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:30 am**

Tennessee church bans family after daughter wins same sex benefits from town
By David Edwards
Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:37 EDT

After 60 years of attending a Tennessee church, a family in Collegedale has been exiled because they supported their daughter while she fought for same sex benefits from the town where she worked as a police detective.

Earlier this month, Collegedale became the first city in Tennessee to offer same sex benefits after Detective Kat Cooper was initially denied health benefits for her wife, Krista. The couple was married in Maryland earlier this year.

But that victory turned out to be bittersweet because leaders at Ridgedale Church of Christ gave Kat Cooper’s mother, aunt and uncle an ultimatum during a private meeting after worship services on Sunday.

“They could repent for their sins and ask forgiveness in front of the congregation. Or leave the church,” The Chattanooga Times Free Press reported on Wednesday.

“My mother was up here and she sat beside me. That’s it,” Kat Cooper explained to reporter Kevin Hardy. “Literally, they’re exiling members for unconditionally loving their children — and even extended family members.”

Ridgedale Church of Christ Pastor Ken Willis said that something had to be done because the family was publicly endorsing homosexuality by supporting their daughter.

“The sin would be endorsing that lifestyle,” Willis insisted. “The Bible speaks very plainly about that.”

“But you certainly can’t condone that lifestyle, whether it’s any kind of sin — whether they’re shacked up with someone or living in a state of fornication or they’re guilty of crimes,” he added. “You don’t condone it. You still love them as a parent.”

Kat Cooper’s father, Hunt, said that he was devastated at having to leave the church that his family nearly founded, but the decision was simple for his wife, her brother and her sister.

“There’s no sin to repent for,” he pointed out to the Times Free Press. “And she’s not going to turn her back on her daughter.”

Posted: **Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:40 am**

“The sin would be endorsing that lifestyle,” Willis insisted. “The Bible speaks very plainly about that.”

Does it fucking really? I'd like to see the quote for that!

Posted: **Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:48 am**

Yes.

It's in Chapter III of the Tennessee Church Bible, number IV of LXXVI in the Electronics section. Listed under "Lifestyles thou shalt not endorse and will be punishable by a lightning bolt if thou disobeyeth".

Posted: **Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:51 am**

Genesis 19:1-11
New International Version (NIV)

Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed
19 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.
5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door.
11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

Judges 19:16-30
New International Version (NIV)

16 That evening an old man from the hill country of Ephraim, who was living in Gibeah (the inhabitants of the place were Benjamites), came in from his work in the fields. 17 When he looked and saw the traveler in the city square, the old man asked, “Where are you going? Where did you come from?”

18 He answered, “We are on our way from Bethlehem in Judah to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim where I live. I have been to Bethlehem in Judah and now I am going to the house of the Lord.[a] No one has taken me in for the night. 19 We have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves your servants—me, the woman and the young man with us. We don’t need anything.”

20 “You are welcome at my house,” the old man said. “Let me supply whatever you need. Only don’t spend the night in the square.” 21 So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink.

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it was saying to one another, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Just imagine! We must do something! So speak up!”

Leviticus 18:22
New International Version (NIV)

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Romans 1:26-27
New International Version (NIV)

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
New International Version (NIV)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Timothy 1:9-11
New International Version (NIV)

9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Posted: **Sat Aug 24, 2013 12:23 pm**

It's worth pointing out that many students of the bible believe that the people of Sodom were destroyed not for "sodomy" but rather for inhospitality to strangers. A lesson the members of Ridgedale Church of Christ might want to ponder.

Posted: **Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:19 pm**

Gob wrote: I'd like to see the quote for that!

Glad to see you're answering your own question

In future, I'd enjoy you quoting the ESV rather than the NIV - too much subjectivity in the latter.

The Bible is clear on this. All that matters is whether one believes it or rejects it. Those who reject it are not too keen on the Bible.

The rev. was quite correct that there is a significant difference between supporting a lifestyle choice and loving one's child. It is possible to love the latter while disapproving of the former. It is also possible to turn one's back on Christianity and be surprised when church discipline is properly invoked; naturally, those who defy the teachings of a church should be entitled to continue to do so and receive all the chummy benefits of their membership (sarcasm)

In the original post for this thread, I really enjoyed "amost founded". I almost founded Communism but suffered from the disability of having been born about a hundred years too late.

Meade

Posted: **Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:16 pm**

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Glad to see you're answering your own question In future, I'd enjoy you quoting the ESV rather than the NIV - too much subjectivity in the latter.

Vs.

The Bible is clear on this. All that matters is whether one believes it or rejects it. Those who reject it are not too keen on the Bible.

Contradicted yourself there.

If "the bible" was clear on this, there wouldn't be any different versions of it.

The rev. was quite correct that there is a significant difference between supporting a lifestyle choice and loving one's child. It is possible to love the latter while disapproving of the former. It is also possible to turn one's back on Christianity and be surprised when church discipline is properly invoked; naturally, those who defy the teachings of a church should be entitled to continue to do so and receive all the chummy benefits of their membership (sarcasm)

But they didn't do that; "because they supported their daughter while she fought for same sex benefits from the town where she worked as a police detective."

Can you show us where in the Bible it says supporting your daughters claim for same sex benefits is sinful and gets you kicked out of church? The bible says nothing about same sex benefits, nothing a bout lesbianism as far a I can see, . It's just another example of how the bible is used to justify prejudice and is obsessed with people's sex lives. It's a prime example of why Christianity will soon, (hopefully,) die out, Christianity is becoming nothing more than a justification for controlling and hating.. Then we can start work on the Koran,.

Posted: **Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:30 pm**

What so we all can be mad like you?

Posted: **Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:36 pm**

Bless you my son.

Posted: **Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:07 pm**

Christianity will soon, (hopefully,) die out, Christianity is becoming nothing more than a justification for controlling and hating.

Man, I sure don't want to stand next to you...

I'm not in good enough shape to be dodging lightning bolts...

Posted: **Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:15 pm**

LOL!!

Posted: **Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:16 am**

The fact that two different versions of the Bible say different things on the matter clearly show that this is a man made (interpreted?) agenda.

I fail to see how anybody could argue that... But I'm looking forward to readin the replies of people trying!

Posted: **Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:36 am**

“They could repent for their sins and ask forgiveness in front of the congregation. Or leave the church.”

Just out of curiosity, General, exactly what "sins" did Detective Cooper's mother, father, aunt and uncle commit? And if asking for forgiveness is in order, why should they ask forgiveness from the congregation of the Ridgedale Church of Christ rather than from God?

P.S. As for "almost founded": I couldn't find an exact date anywhere (except for the date they got their IRS tax-exemption, 1967) but apparently the Ridgedale Church of Christ was founded sometime in the 1960s. If Cooper's grandparents began attending the church 60 years ago, that puts them considerably closer to founding that church than you are to founding Communism. (Why would you want to, anyway? Isn't saving the Union enough?

)

Posted: **Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:26 pm**

Meade--even if one accepts same sex sexual relations as a sin, how is supporting their daughter in getting benefits for the person she cohabits with/is the partner or spouse of supporting such relations? Apples and oranges.

Posted: **Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:53 pm**

Sean wrote:The fact that two different versions of the Bible say different things on the matter clearly show that this is a man made (interpreted?) agenda.
I fail to see how anybody could argue that... But I'm looking forward to readin the replies of people trying!

It's a pleasure to be of service. They don't say "different things" - they use different words to say the same things. ESV tends toward a more literal translation of Hebrew and Greek to English words. The NIV allows itself more flexibility in going for the meaning (in some places) rather than a direct translation. Both are clear (sorry Gob; no contradiction for you either) but I happen to prefer the ESV. (AFAIK only the Jehovah Witness bible actually mistranslates some portions of the Bible, esp. John, to change the sense).

Big RR: "Detective Kat Cooper was initially denied health benefits for her wife, Krista". The issue was not denial of benefits but the denial of "married" benefits. To support the benefits request is to affirm that homosexual "marriage" is an acceptable choice - many people, perhaps most, believe that to be correct. But it is a violation of God's word. I understand people's right to do that - but I also understand the right of the church to discipline its members when they go into opposition to the Bible

Gob: When discussing this kind of thing, I prefer not to use words such as "gay" and "lesbian" when the word 'homosexual' is perfectly descriptive and is not an attempt to pretend that words do not mean what they do mean. Homosexuality means "same sex" - it has no masculine-only connotation; it applies equally to both male and female persons. You provided the quotes. You can find one or two in there that apply to ladies.

Econoline: church discipline does not (or perhaps that is "should not") expect a person to ask forgiveness from the church (at least, not when properly expressed and not in reformed protestant faith). Forgiveness, as you say is from God. I say that one can only forgive a person for some offense commited againsts oneself. Church discipline is supposed to invite a wayward member of a church body to repent of their error in disregarding God's word and going their own very public way. It should be done as gently and as lovingly as possible with no great histrionics - and it should first be done by one person; then in front of two or three witnesses and only at the last resort should it be conducted in front of the entire church (and that not any kind of trial but a request for the wanderer to finally repent and be welcomed back). The person(s) concerned may not even be present at that final all-church meeting although they are invited to be so. That's my understanding of Jesus' instructions on how to win back a brother or sister who's strayed which Paul repeats.

As I've said before - if people don't believe the Bible then of course they will take different courses of action than a person who does. To advocate in public a position that contradicts the Word of God (which supposedly these people do believe in) means that they in fact do not believe in it. Good luck to them. There are many church options that don't care too much about the Bible. I'm sure they can find one and probably all will be happier for it.

I'm not arguing here that these peoples' actions in behalf of their daughter/granddaughter were "wrong". But those actions are opposed to the faith/belief of their church body, which is not "wrong" to exert church discipline as it should in all such cases. A public decision by a member to divorce his wife and marry another should also result in the same process.

I'm sorry if I sound haughty or self-righteous - I'm trying to express my thoughts as clearly as possible and I'm not condemning these folks or their daughter (that's not my right either). The right of the church to discipline its members is as much a right as any other.

Meade

Posted: **Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:00 pm**

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
I'm sorry if I sound haughty or self-righteous - I'm trying to express my thoughts as clearly as possible and I'm not condemning these folks or their daughter (that's not my right either).

You do not sound "haughty or self-righteous" to me mate, even when defending the indefensible.

Posted: **Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:54 am**

Thanks Gob, but if I do decide to defend you I might be quite stern with any who nay-say you!

It also occurs to me to add (re the Bible) that the original manuscripts of each book (the autographs as such are called) are unique and that we don't as far as anyone knows have any of them. They are all, all the originals in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, gone. What we have are copies and copies of copies and copies of copies of copies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

However, in the discipline of studying ancient documents, those copies of the books are the best attested and most verified (not as truth per se but as adhering to the very earliest forms) using the same standards as for any non-Christian ancient documents (and this all by scholars of the same faith, different faiths and no faiths at all) as to what was original and what, if anything, was added later.

Any book in ancient languages is going to be translated by different experts, in different languages and at different times so that they can be read by the general public. Those translators should always return to the original languages to put those words into the modern usage. They will differ in some places as to how they do that, in English or French or German or whatever, but they will not translate "do" as "don't"; they wll not translate "God is Love" as
"God is a doughnut". I think there are some versions (the Good News Bible for instance) which are not really "translations" at all but paraphrases of other English translations. They have a place in livening up words and making some passages more accessible but cannot be 100% relied upon as approaching the original intent and purpose.

Thus I have no problem saying that the KJV, poetic as it is, has a lot of deficiencies - it was translated into what was modern English but is no longer. For example, in places it correctly translated a Hebrew term by the word "reins" (meaning 'kidney') which these days is translated as "heart". But that's because our modern idiom has the "heart" as the seat of emotion whereas those fun-loving Israelites assigned it to the kidney. Even now, while the NIV will footnote that "the most ancient and reliable documents do not have....", they still include what was added later (the passage about kissing snakes at the end of Mark, when Mark clearly ended "his" original at the discovery of the empty tomb). KJV also packed in all the bits, including that spurious Mark passage, which later research and later discoveries have corrected.

So I will never assert that any English (or other modern) translation of the Bible is 100% exactly word-for-word what the original authors wrote down. It just plain is not. But that does not in any way indicate that they are wrong - that they contradict each other or the original writings.

I don't find this indefensible at all.

Meade

Posted: **Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:47 pm**

“The sin would be endorsing that lifestyle,” Willis insisted. “The Bible speaks very plainly about that.”

I'm pretty sure that the word "lifestyle" appears nowhere in the Bible, and I'm also pretty sure that Biblical Hebrew, Ancient Greek, and Aramaic contain no word equivalent to it. (The pastor also seems to confuse "endorsing", "condoning" and "ignoring", which are all simple English words so he's got no excuse for that.) I cannot imagine what the leaders of the congregation would have expected the parents, aunt and uncle to do that would have had any effect on the sinful Ms. Cooper other than to alienate her from her family at a stressful time in her life, and what good could have come of that?

MajGenl.Meade wrote:I'm not arguing here that these peoples' actions in behalf of their daughter/granddaughter were "wrong". But those actions are opposed to the faith/belief of their church body, which is not "wrong" to exert church discipline as it should in all such cases. A public decision by a member to divorce his wife and marry another should also result in the same process.

I rather doubt whether, in the case of a divorce and remarriage of a member, the church would have called upon the parents, children, siblings, aunts or uncle of the offending member to publicly denounce their family member as a sinner (and that sin is one that Jesus himself--not just that cranky old sourpuss Paul--condemned.) I also doubt whether they would have insisted on a public confession of sin from an entire family who decided not to cut themselves off from a family member who was married outside the church to, say, a Jew or a Roman Catholic.

I titled this thread as I did because, regardless of whether the church's ultimatum is "right" or "wrong" in terms of its own internal disciplinary needs, if it promotes divisiveness and alienation rather than love and compassion within families it is promoting the opposite of what most people would call "family values".

P.S. I was raised as a Roman Catholic on into my teens, and I guess I find the idea of a public confession of sin before the entire congregation (as opposed to the very private RC practice) just so weird and out of my comfort zone that I simply cannot comprehend the mindset of those who would insist on it.

Posted: **Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:30 pm**

"Detective Kat Cooper was initially denied health benefits for her wife, Krista". The issue was not denial of benefits but the denial of "married" benefits. To support the benefits request is to affirm that homosexual "marriage" is an acceptable choice - many people, perhaps most, believe that to be correct. But it is a violation of God's word. I understand people's right to do that - but I also understand the right of the church to discipline its members when they go into opposition to the Bible

So Meade, what you're saying is that the church equates allowing two women to live together in a relationship they call marriage (something which is sanctioned by the state in question) is an endorsement of a gay lifestyle and homosexual sex? And that allowing persons so situated to get health benefits is similarly an endorsement of the same. I concede that their are statements in the bible which condemn at least some gay sexual practices, and the bible defines a church sanctioned marriage as between husband and wife, but here the woman's parents are not (so far as I can see0 endorsing the former, and I see no mention of a church sanctioned marriage, so I still don't understand the church's objection or your defense of it. Jesus taught that we can "render to Caesar" taxes to a corrupt regime which thrived on death and torture as part of its order, but this church somehow teaches that these people should not be able to demand benefits from a government that sanctions their relationship; or that supporting them in that is somehow morally wrong? You lost me there.

Indeed, is it similarly wrong to help your child defend him or herself against a legal charge of theft or murder if they are guilty (perhaps to get a reduced sentence)? Somehow, I doubt that church would say so.

Posted: **Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:14 pm**

Dare I point out that the Church (no matter how you define it) has taken a consistent position on homosexual behavior since its very inception. Along with Judaism, Islam, and basically every other religion in the world that accepts the concept of Natural Law.

In getting "married," Det. Cooper made a conspicuous public statement that not only was she engaged in a relationship that Church considers sinful, but that she intended to remain in that sinful state for the remainder of her life. Kinda like the OPPOSITE of repenting for your sins.

If the family wanted to "support" her, they could have offered to help pay her daughter's insurance premiums, without taking a public position endorsing her marriage. (Parenthetically, there is no fucking reason on god's green earth why ANY employer should be compelled to pay spousal benefits to a gay couple, as there is no reason why the spouse can get his/her own fucking insurance. And the employer in this case is the TAXPAYERS, no less).

Analogously, I wonder what that particular congregation woulda done if the daughter had been unmarried and living with a man, requesting the same sort of benefits. Or living with a man who was separated from his wife, but not divorced.

It's just so fucking irritating when these church's take the Bible's teachings seriously. What are they thinking of?

Plan B Forum

Christian "family values", again

Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again

Re: Christian "family values", again