Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Pastor who name is Damon Thompson outs gay teens in church. It is very strange on how he preaches and never seen anything like it before.
I'm not a fan of his preaching style. Frankly, the talk of demons and devils is a bit over the top charismatic for my tast....but he didn't "out" anyone. The kids chose to "out" themselves.
I'm not a fan of his preaching style. Frankly, the talk of demons and devils is a bit over the top charismatic for my tast....but he didn't "out" anyone. The kids chose to "out" themselves.
Or maybe the devil, in the form of that pastor, made them do it.
Well he's partially right about the possession thing. It's not demons that entered into those teens. If they participated in homosexual acts, an unclean spirit entered inside of them. And they do need to cleansed from such things to have the holy spirit abide inside of them and be the people God called them to be. I don't agree calling them out in church was an act of Christ at all. It was actually the opposite. I don't know what made the pastor think that was acceptable. But regardless of how he did it, I absolutely believe in repentance and the cleansing the soul by commanding and willing those unclean spirits out of the body. Those teens have to be ready for Heaven and to see God. Time isn't promised to anyone. They could be dead tomorrow. That's why it is so important.
This is a style of preaching I'm fairly well aware of, but granted don't relate to not being of that world. (Although I have relatives on my father's side who are) Essentially confession is public, more or less, rather than private. The individual may be expected to give a "testimonial" to the entire congregation and desire for forgiveness from the community. Or they may, I suppose, do it more this way where the preacher names something they deem sinful (homosexuality in this case) and ask if any suffering from it will come to the altar. I think it might be wrong to assume, if we're assuming, that he doesn't do this with adultery, porn-use, gambling, etc. (As a Catholic we do not deem gambling a sin in itself, but I can recognize they might and feel guilt/suffering over doing it) I think from their perspective this is good because it gives you the embrace/forgiveness of the community rather than the judgment of an individual. (Protestants have, throughout the centuries, had a variety of bizarre beliefs about what happens during Confession. Like the priest essentially blackmails you for life or he gets so turned on by your confession he gropes. Sadly the second has occurred, judging by some stories of clergy abuse, but that occurence I think is extremely rare. Blackmail by priests is pretty much unheard of, so far as I know, as they are not to divulge anything they learn and doing so would destroy their standing utterly)
I don't care for the testimonial/public-confession method for many reasons, but I don't find it shocking or upsetting in the way I think most here do. My issue is partly temperamental. I think introverted people would find it a big turn off and if you have no other merhod you may just lose them outright. Also there's some risk public confession will turn into a somewhat controlling situation as the community knows your faults and may see fit to police them. Lastly it's not a guarantee of honesty. Many people choose to omit certain things in "testimonials" or even a case like this some of the gay teens may choose not to admit it on any level.
The commenter in the video is pretty clearly upset just by the idea a Christian preacher would maintain a thread of teaching that's fairly continuous within Protestantism from basically an element of the Reformation to today. (Calvin, Puritans, etc) I don't find what I saw especially shocking or even all that interesting, except for the fact I've never actually been to any sort of revival myself. I do think the preacher was likely stupid to have his sermons be on film though.
Many humanist will say the say thing , that demons and angels do not exist, but God does not change like man belief, Jesus is yesterday, today , and tomorrow
"In studying nature we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as He freely wills, use His creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth His power: we have rather to inquire what Nature with its immanent causes can naturally bring to pass" Albert Magnus 1206-1280
That being said homosexuality does look to be specifically be viewed as devilish in 1320. Although along with the intense anti-homosexual statements I found on reading Peter Damian he does say something harsh that inspires some sympathy in light of events.
"A cleric or a monk molesting adolescents or young people, or those who have been caught kissing or following another shameful attitude, must be publicly whipped and they lose his tonsure. After being shaved, they must be covered with spit and chained with iron chains, and must be left to rot in the anguish of prison for six months. In the evening, for three days a week they have to eat barley bread. Then, after another six months, in the custody of a spiritual father, living segregated in a small courtyard they can be occupied with manual work and prayer. They must be subjected to fasting and prayer, and must walk always in the custody of two spiritual brothers, without any perverse sentence, and must always be separated from younger people." (my emphasis on the last)
"In studying nature we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as He freely wills, use His creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth His power: we have rather to inquire what Nature with its immanent causes can naturally bring to pass" Albert Magnus 1206-1280
That being said homosexuality does look to be specifically be viewed as devilish in 1320. Although along with the intense anti-homosexual statements I found on reading Peter Damian he does say something harsh that inspires some sympathy in light of events.
"A cleric or a monk molesting adolescents or young people, or those who have been caught kissing or following another shameful attitude, must be publicly whipped and they lose his tonsure. After being shaved, they must be covered with spit and chained with iron chains, and must be left to rot in the anguish of prison for six months. In the evening, for three days a week they have to eat barley bread. Then, after another six months, in the custody of a spiritual father, living segregated in a small courtyard they can be occupied with manual work and prayer. They must be subjected to fasting and prayer, and must walk always in the custody of two spiritual brothers, without any perverse sentence, and must always be separated from younger people." (my emphasis on the last)
If only we had heeded that and gotten more Medieval on some jerks.
I am not a gay man, but I get really tired of people who are ignorant on this topic trying to link gay men to sexual abuse of children.
All the evidence shows it is mostly heterosexual men who use abusive sex for control of women and children (either boys or girls), as well as rape of other adult men. I fully support getting "Medieval" on those men. But they are not usually gay men.
Eg
"In over 12 years of clinical experience working with child molesters, we have yet to see any example of a regression from an adult homosexual orientation. The child offender who is also attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male."
“The belief that homosexuals are particularly attracted to children is completely unsupported by our data.”
(Groth and Birnbaum, “Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons.” Archives of Sexual Behavior)
"...male rape is an issue that has been distorted by myths and ignorance about the nature of heterosexuality and homosexuality in relation to perpetrators and victims.
Most perpetrators of male rape are heterosexual..."
This is a style of preaching I'm fairly well aware of, but granted don't relate to not being of that world. (Although I have relatives on my father's side who are) Essentially confession is public, more or less, rather than private. The individual may be expected to give a "testimonial" to the entire congregation and desire for forgiveness from the community. Or they may, I suppose, do it more this way where the preacher names something they deem sinful (homosexuality in this case) and ask if any suffering from it will come to the altar. I think it might be wrong to assume, if we're assuming, that he doesn't do this with adultery, porn-use, gambling, etc. (As a Catholic we do not deem gambling a sin in itself, but I can recognize they might and feel guilt/suffering over doing it) I think from their perspective this is good because it gives you the embrace/forgiveness of the community rather than the judgment of an individual. (Protestants have, throughout the centuries, had a variety of bizarre beliefs about what happens during Confession. Like the priest essentially blackmails you for life or he gets so turned on by your confession he gropes. Sadly the second has occurred, judging by some stories of clergy abuse, but that occurence I think is extremely rare. Blackmail by priests is pretty much unheard of, so far as I know, as they are not to divulge anything they learn and doing so would destroy their standing utterly)
I don't care for the testimonial/public-confession method for many reasons, but I don't find it shocking or upsetting in the way I think most here do. My issue is partly temperamental. I think introverted people would find it a big turn off and if you have no other merhod you may just lose them outright. Also there's some risk public confession will turn into a somewhat controlling situation as the community knows your faults and may see fit to police them. Lastly it's not a guarantee of honesty. Many people choose to omit certain things in "testimonials" or even a case like this some of the gay teens may choose not to admit it on any level.
The commenter in the video is pretty clearly upset just by the idea a Christian preacher would maintain a thread of teaching that's fairly continuous within Protestantism from basically an element of the Reformation to today. (Calvin, Puritans, etc) I don't find what I saw especially shocking or even all that interesting, except for the fact I've never actually been to any sort of revival myself. I do think the preacher was likely stupid to have his sermons be on film though.
I think you've missed the whole point. What that 'pastor' is doing is child abuse. Plain and simple.
Well he's partially right about the possession thing. It's not demons that entered into those teens. If they participated in homosexual acts, an unclean spirit entered inside of them. And they do need to cleansed from such things to have the holy spirit abide inside of them and be the people God called them to be. I don't agree calling them out in church was an act of Christ at all. It was actually the opposite. I don't know what made the pastor think that was acceptable. But regardless of how he did it, I absolutely believe in repentance and the cleansing the soul by commanding and willing those unclean spirits out of the body. Those teens have to be ready for Heaven and to see God. Time isn't promised to anyone. They could be dead tomorrow. That's why it is so important.
IMO, making this idea of yours sound logical is scary. Cleansing of the soul, unclean spirits in the body, getting ready for a Gods judgement, thats the priority here? The psychological damage from such beliefs has to be great. I'd never subject my children to something so irrational. The things that go on behind closed doors in these buildings of strange beliefs sort of freaks me out to be honest.
Well he's partially right about the possession thing. It's not demons that entered into those teens. If they participated in homosexual acts, an unclean spirit entered inside of them. [And they do need to cleansed from such things to have the holy spirit abide inside of them and be the people God called them to be.] I don't agree calling them out in church was an act of Christ at all. It was actually the opposite. I don't know what made the pastor think that was acceptable. But regardless of how he did it, I absolutely believe in repentance and the cleansing the soul by commanding and willing those unclean spirits out of the body. Those teens have to be ready for Heaven and to see God. Time isn't promised to anyone. They could be dead tomorrow. That's why it is so important.
How do you know that they're not being what your god created them to be? If they are the creations of your god then don't you think that your god created them to be just what they are. According to your religion and your sacred book your god created all of you in the image of himself, did he not? If that's the case then who are you or anybody else to question what your god does, unless of course you're saying that your god is not perfect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
