Video: The oddly obligatory “wedding party breaks it down” clip
posted at 1:33 pm on July 25, 2009 by Allahpundit
I wouldn’t have posted it if it were merely viral, but as the second clip demonstrates, it’s full-blown mega-viral now: After one week, the view count’s already creeping up on five million. What’s the fascination? Their moves are sweet, but not so sweet as to warrant an appearance on the Today show; the kooky-quirky-cute factor is sky high, but the same is true of any YouTube vid involving, say, kids or kittens. I think the key is the bride: In an age where entire television shows are devoted to women freaking out over the micro-details of their fairy-tale-princess fantasies, this one’s fun and mellow enough to actually boogie her way down the aisle. Awesome.
Every cynical eeyorish instinct in my body rebels against optimism, but in this case I can’t help it: I think they’re going to make it. Hold onto her, buddy. Hold on tight.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
LOL…I don’t believe this. A persons behavior is approved because someone picked practical dresses and a “cute” hair do.
A lot of these sound like the same people in the Micheal Jackson threads a few weeks ago forgetting his child molestation because they thought he was a great singer and dancer.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 6:05 AM
I was just adding a second comment to save html tags …
But seriously I don’t see blasphemy here, quite the opposite, it’s obvious that peoples’ hearts are full the right sentiment.
You talked about your cousin’s marriage, that was done the “right” way, yes? But obviously was full of all the wrong sentiments. I believe that it’s what is in peoples’ hearts which is important.
Hope on July 26, 2009 at 6:10 AM
You are criticising aspects of her behaviour, we are praising other aspects of behaviour. You whole beef is about “behaviour”, well we’re just saying that many parts of it were most praiseworthy.
It seems to me in societies “suffering” from affluenza, proof of thrift and prioritizing what is important are good qualities to show. Last time I looked, thrift was a good Xtian virtue. In fact, it used to be conservative.
And while I’m on the subject, I loved the way her dress was modest, so many Bride’s dresses seem to be indecent these days. I saw a young girl looking for material to make a transparent corset of the type Mae West used to wear. When did Bride’s start dressing like they were touting for trade at Pigalle?
Hope on July 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM
As I said, it’s simply a matter of opinion. It’s also a matter of what is allowed by a particular church or pastor.
I like my churches and pastors arch conservative. I like scripture/sermons discussed black and white, right and wrong.
No “fuzzy” gray interpretations. No “cutsie” stuff in the “House Of Our Lord”. I don’t need my pastor making it more “fun” to be a Christian.I ‘m not that shallow. But many people today are that shallow.
I realize a marriage today actually means NOTHING about God to many couples, even if it is done in “God’s House”.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 6:28 AM
That’s what I like about America: there are churches for everyone.
I agree about commitment (why I’ve never married not having met someone I could commit like that to). But I don’t think that can be seen in the form I was at a straight down the line Catholic wedding with an officiating Cardinal/Archbishop, where I knew that the groom had married for immigration papers (for the bride), and had already been so unfaithful that he had given her AIDS. A most uncomfortable experience. So form isn’t everything.
Hope on July 26, 2009 at 6:39 AM
Just in case folks forgot…
If we’re going to start damning to hell all those who dance in worship the devil is going to have to put on an addition. At least there’ll be good music and dance as we endure the flames and pitchforks – I’ve always loved gospel choirs.
I find it sad indeed that some are so insecure in their faith that they have to project their own rigidity and self-righteousness upon others. Our nation was founded upon religious liberty. You can visit a different church each and every Sunday for the rest of your life and I’ll bet you that you’ll not find two that celebrate in exactly the same way.
Love God, love one another. Judge not lest ye be judged. Use the word ‘verily’ at least once per day (that’s the humor part).
A successful marriage is a most difficult thing to achieve. You must begin with a foundation of friendship, love and respect. You must have limitless humor to endure – life is not easy and you will be tested severely. Then, if you’re lucky and you work really hard at it, you can bask in the joy of your children and grandchildren.
I don’t think there was anyone in the pews that was surprised by what they witnessed. Not that they knew what was coming, but rather they knew what was in the hearts of the bride and groom. That wasn’t blasphemy, that was an expression of love and of joy. You can see it in the bride, in her smile, her moves. That is one happy woman.
I can only hope and pray that each of my three daughters embraces life in such a way.
God bless them.
turfmann on July 26, 2009 at 6:42 AM
I believe if Christ danced at a wedding, it was like most weddings, AT THE RECEPTION, NOT THE CEREMONY.
Isn’t that what I just said above.If you want to find a fuzzy feel good anything goes church, they’re certainly out there. What I resent is the idea that we must all march in lockstep and say how funny, nice, cute these actions in church are. How we all MUST support them…….
and…this is what I find MOST disturbing from a point of logic…..that this couple is somehow more “loving of each other” because of this in their ceremony. How possibly does this have anything to do with them loving each other more or that their marriage will last longer and be more successful than a couple having a more traditional wedding ceremony.
Reading that kind of tripe allows me to understand the mindset and logic that caused Americans to vote in an inexperienced Communist as President.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 6:55 AM
You need to go one step further: all together now,
It’s all Bush’s fault …
:)
Hope on July 26, 2009 at 7:05 AM
LOL…yes…Bush’s fault
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 7:12 AM
I thought for sure Jesus said somewhere to make joyous sounds…I am almost sure that He would rather have laughter and fun in his church, rather then sadness and solemnity.
Certainly a serious of note when reflecting to His Father, but also a celebration of life…I think celebration is the key word.
Celebrating the beginning of new life together is something to celebrate…and seeing as no one saw the rest of the ceremony, it ends there, with just the video.
Funny how some think a “feel good” church, can’t “be good”. God gave us (most of us) an amazing ability to “multi-task”.
We can enjoy and celebrate life, while showing honor and respect…
right2bright on July 26, 2009 at 7:18 AM
It most certainly is their day. That is the first day their oneness was blessed by God.
No doubt He was smiling upon them.
anuts on July 26, 2009 at 7:42 AM
[I'm nondenominational Bible-believing Christian]
God isn’t impressed by the few people in here , the Pharisees of the day, who are trying to be the local version of Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
Do you think God actually bestows all your little church buildings with some special significance… especially when your denomination splits up like a divorce and then the churches have to all get reestablished again.
You think God would have better things to do.
You think the Holy Spirit is just hanging out by the bathrooms Monday thru Saturday waiting for the two big services on Sunday.
If you’re going to be such kill-joy legalist scolds, then you should know that what makes those Churches any bit of special is not that God is in them.
It’s that God is purportedly in the Christian. And the Christian brings God in the building with all the other worshipers.
There’s nothing significant about a church building. Are you pagans now?
When King David fled to Gath, the king there asked.
Wow.. the Jewish people danced. And they weren’t dancing for God… they dancing and singing songs about the King.
And in the future, after the nation of Israel goes through its worst period of persecution and war ever, needing God Himself to destroy thier enemies and finally for God to come to Earth have the nations to come to him through Israel..
Is God turning the women into strippers?
VinceP1974 on July 26, 2009 at 7:44 AM
It’s a hoot for sure. Obviously not a sacramental wedding but, hey, different strokes.
What struck me the most, sadly, was the bride coming in alone.
That’s not a good thing for whatever reason.
rcl on July 26, 2009 at 8:05 AM
I’m sure you do. But absent any evidence of your claim it is every bit as likely that he could very well have done the opposite, danced at both or not at all.
How amusingly self-contradictory. Religious freedom for me, but not for thee. The fact of the matter is that we must all march in lockstep to ensure our religious freedoms regardless of what religion, denomination, etc. you may subscribe to – and that includes what you might find as kitschy dancing at a wedding ceremony. History is rife with horrific examples of religious intolerance from the dawn of civilization right up to and beyond 9/11. Worship God as you see fit but don’t be so sure that you have a monopoly on what God is thinking. You may be in for a big surprise.
Right… My position on religious freedom qualifies as tripe. Thank you for your endorsement. I guess that I must be right over the target to have engaged that kind of flack.
You’ll not find anyone more utterly opposed to Barack Obama’s presidency than I, but you’ll rightly note that he sat in a church that was protected from its government yet its pastor regularly spewed anti-American vitriol from the pulpit. I will not be found out front of TBC, placard in hand.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 6:55 AM
turfmann on July 26, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Jeff,
I dont think you have been to alot of weddingd outside of your little confort zone if you think that dancing at weddings is confined to a reception. Traditional Israeli weddings sometimes include dancing at the ceremony, so do weddings in India, Indonesia, Kenya, Yemen, Iran, Albania, numerous parts of South America, and among certain Native American Tribes.
Some of these traditions are Christian in Nature, some are not, but all are worshiping and celebrating how they choose.
I disagree with some others on here, you are not a Pharisee, at least they had some standing to be passing dictums on how the Children of Israel should live. You, for some reason, seem to think that giving a lecture about your church is somehow appropriate and informative here (it is not). Furthermore you continue to use non-applicable examples (pole dancing for instance) to try to turn this into something less than what it was.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 9:50 AM
No, this was not a wedding occurring in some obscure and exotic culture, nor in a methobapticostalnondenomiwhatzit, but in a Lutheran church in Minnesota.
Those who have raised objections are… LUTHERANS. We’ve heard from members of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. We DO have the right and obligation to object to what is going on in a church identifying itself as being in agreement and confession with the Book of Concord of 1580.
And do, do, do let’s be careful to actually quote Scripture a bit more precisely in objecting to the Lutherans here who have been scandalized.
Regarding the wedding at Cana– it was at the feast (i.e. the reception) that our Lord turned the water into about 600 bottles of perfectly aged Chateau Rothschild, 1929.
The warnings that we are not to judge are just silly. While one cannot judge another’s heart, we certainly may judge the behavior and words of others. Our Lord cautions us though, that the standard we use is the standard that will be used in judging us.
Scribbler on July 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM
In Israeliete Culture of that period and before there was not a proper “ceremony” at all, so there was no distinction from the “ceremony” and the “feast”. In most instances the marriage was complete as soon as the man took the woman back to his tent or home, this was often after, not before, the horrible horrible debauchery of the feast. There was no “house of G-d” to profane since G-d was present throughout.
As for you Lutherans having the “right” to critisize because you share the same sect name. I have one thing to say to that. You have to reap Martin Luther’s whirlwind. Luther set the precedent for sectorizing modern Christianity, you should probably consider accepting the fact that protestants have about 1K denominations and are adding more each year. You aint gonna agree with all of them, even the ones in your own protestant “phyla”.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 11:58 AM
If I were a moral-relativist leftard who had been making the argument that the “war on terror” is actually just a war against Muslims and that the American Christian community is just as restrictive, just as hateful, and in fact no different than Muslims, I’d be linking up certain comments by a few people here as golden.
The only thing I would need is to get one of them to finish the sentence: “I oppose acts of violence against and the killing of abortion providers, but…”
With the answer I’d be looking for in hand, I could complete the linkage, report it my superiors at the WH and call it a day. High Fives!
/sarcasm for the sarcasm-impaired
jmuchow on July 26, 2009 at 12:12 PM
As I said earlier, I would have had the dancing at my reception, not during the wedding ceremony, which is one kind of worship service. In my church, only music that was written to honor, and is about, Jesus, is permitted, and I prefer that.
This is somewhat OT, but the hyper-personalization of wedding ceremonies these days reminds me of what I’m seeing in tombstone styles these days. Memorial stones from previous decades usually had crosses or Stars of David on them, or symbols such as an overturned torch, broken column, or other emblems which reminded visitors that an earthly life has ended, and that the person’s life was a continuum within that faith. Along with such symbols were usually the name and birth/death dates. Nonreligious people left off the crosses and Stars of David, of course.
Today, when I go to put flowers or flags on the graves of my loved ones, I see near their cross-name-and-dates stones a depiction of a man on a golf course; another of a favorite handgun; a life-sized engraving of a deceased basketball player; and an engraving of a teenager’s car. What was loved in this world — not the foundation for his/her faith and works in this life, and his/her future in the next.
I don’t condemn these nice young people at their wedding, and I wish them every happiness.
KyMouse on July 26, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Very true Squid, there are SO many Protestant denominations.
But I think that’s where the problem lies for a few of us in here.I don’t claim to be an authority on all, but I do have enough relatives that belong to other Protestant groups, (Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc.) that I have attended weddings and funerals where I found a very liberal flavor from what I’m used to.
I do know that there are differences between even the Lutheran Synods, but I was shocked to see how big a difference the one featured in the clip was from any I’ve attended. I guess that’s why you got the most critical responses from those who are Lutheran. Perhaps we weren’t ready for how watered down and liberal some synods have become. As I mentioned before, I grew up Catholic, attended Catholic grade & High School, so I’m not as big an authority on all the differences.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I must have missed the parts of the Bible that said one had to be dour to be a true Christian. I do believe that Christ would have us joyful in our lives. The present ceremonial claptrap that dogmatically clings to organized Christian churches is off-putting. I am thankful for this couple showing us that Christian life includes joyful expression. The traditional ceremony is the wrapping, holy matrimony is the gift. The message is hang up not upon the wrapper, but rather celebrate the gift.
shaken on July 26, 2009 at 1:31 PM
I guess I should expect to be in the minority regarding this. The media has played it up to be cute, funny, fun, etc., so of course it must be. As far as religion goes, look how many religions out their pretend to be of God, yet have no problem with or problem with members actively supporting abortion.
Heck, even the Catholic Church allows the likes of Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, Biden and others to remain members. So nothing really SHOULD surprise me.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 2:04 PM
shameful desecration of a House of Worship…
long_cat on July 26, 2009 at 3:53 PM
People, if you don’t believe exactly as Jeff from WI does you are going to spend all eternity in Hell. (Which will resemble an endless car trip through Wisconsin with Jeff in the back seat yapping about what he learned in Sunday school 50 years ago.)
Boxy_Brown on July 26, 2009 at 4:01 PM
That idea of hell should be enough to make anyone become born again, LOL.
Expressing your joy at the idea of joining together under God is glorifying God. What constitutes an expression of joy is an individual thing, however. For people like Jeff from WI and the others who frown on this behavior, it’s being serious and somber. For this couple, it’s dancing. Because their idea of joy is different than yours doesn’t make it wrong. As someone wrote earlier,it’s the people and what’s in their heart that make the church, not the structure. Someone mentioned the Pharisees earlier-that was the first thing that popped into my head when reading some of these comments.
Sorry if this gets posted twice. The first attempt told me I was not allowed to leave comments for some reason.
macblanegirl on July 26, 2009 at 4:30 PM
My goodness, people have no reading comprehension! Most of us who are offended by this dance, are NOT saying that we are against DANCE in church itself! When dance is an ACT of WORSHIP in the church, it’s a beautiful thing! This dance, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with God. Can’t you hear yourselves?? You are actually defending what was permissable in a loosey-goosey church whose doctrines you would otherwise be making fun of because they are liberal. Take a step back and realize that what this loosey-goosey church teaches has led directly to this stupid dance. It’s all part and parcel of liberal teachings.
I am not a “dour” Christian and anyone who could come to that conclusion after reading the thoughtful posts by objectors have terrible reading comprehension. Again, dancing in church is A-OK, fine, wonderful, joyous IF it is worshipping God. I love watching services held in Pentecostal and Baptist churches because congregrants are moving their whole bodies in, wait for it… WORSHIP. See? That’s the difference. One is an act of worship and the other is simply a bunch of people using the church aisle to show off that they can get jiggy with it.
I’m not a Lutheren, I am a non-denominational Christian whose only authority is the Bible itself, but since ALL denominations are just different kinds of Christians who claim to follow the same Bible, I have a right to point out to them that something they’re doing or believing is not Biblical. This is one of them. It is not Biblical to go into a House of God and dance around when that dance is not a worship act unto God. Sheesh, it can’t get any clearer than that.
And as a totally non-religious issue, I’d roll my eyes at any secular wedding ceremony that did this idiotic dance. A wedding is an exchange of vows which are “sacred” even to atheists. Vows shouldn’t be treated so lightly. But alas, that is what our liberal culture endorses today.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on July 26, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Boxy_Brown, you must be a liberal to resort to making up stuff to win an argument. Jeff in WI has never posted that anyone who doesn’t believe exactly as he does is going to Hell.
Fail.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on July 26, 2009 at 5:27 PM
I NEVER said anything like that. I merely stated my opinion on the dance shown in a worship service. (Thank you Aslan’s girl for explaining that to him) And, as Aslan’s girl stated, and I agree, I have no problem dancing at a service, IF IT’S PART OF THE SERVICE.
This obviously wasn’t part of the service, it was part of being cutesy. My other point was my shock at how liberal a Lutheran Church had become.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Who do you think created dancing and music and celebration? And, dare I say it, sex!?
If you don’t think that God loves sex in the marriage, read Song of Songs, or otherwise titled Song of Solomon.
Jesus turned the water into wine at a wedding. He also said, if you want to know what God is like, look at me. Happy, enthusiastic, caring, angry, outrageously funny.
Want a good read on the real Jesus? Read “The Jesus I Never Knew” by Philip Yancey. One of the best books I’ve ever read.
Tennman on July 26, 2009 at 6:39 PM
In the last place, Lutherans have not been a part of the radical fracturing of the Church. We have instead bound ourselves to the common confession of the Church (including the first several Councils, the Creeds, and the Confessions of the Faith written in the 16th century) bound in the Book of Concord of 1585. The fracturing actually may be laid at the feet of those who introduced the novelties into practice and doctrine which we protested in the 1520′s (hence the term ‘protestant’) who by their unwarranted claim of papal authority even against the common Faith of the Church precipitated a radical backlash. The Lutherans are the heirs of the conservative reformation, not the radical destruction of the visible Church. And against such overheated claims of papal authority our eastern friends ought to be quite familiar, as this was the same fuse which lit the Great Schism between East and West.
Of course it is not mine to teach you history here, but that’ll do for now.
Regarding the actual marriage ceremony in First Century Galilee, that took place at the betrothal ceremony, which was witnessed and agreed to by paterfamilia of both sides and signified by the exchange of gifts, the consent too, of the local rabbi, and a common meal. It was this ceremony which legally effected the contract of marriage. The wedding feast which followed the months of betrothal, after which husband and wife took up their common household, was a social affair much more akin to the wedding reception we see today.
During the betrothal ceremony things were quite sedate, and during the wedding feast things were quite celebratory.
Then as now, there were times for dignified undertaking, and there were times for hilarity and play.
Of course today the middlebrowed mavens of popular religion (and political undertakings too) cannot think anything worthy of dignity, and make all affairs the plaything of individualist nonsense.
Scribbler on July 26, 2009 at 6:43 PM
That is just plain foolish and ridiculous. I was baptized, catechized, attended K-8 parochial school, confirmed and reached adulthood in Jeff’s church body, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and never once were we taught, nor was it implied or suggested that Lutherans are the only ones going to heaven. The same holds true with my current church body, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
For those who wish to become further acquainted with the Lutheran confessions, the Book of Concord can be read online here.
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 7:11 PM
I fully expect Blacks to claim “We’ve been doing this for years. Whitey gets credit for it cuz they’re White”.
Or something similar.
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 7:42 PM
You know, I read through exactly 2 pages of the comments in this thread, and I’m just plain disgusted that anyone could have a problem with something this obviously joyful.
If you had a problem with it, you need to reexamine yourself and your life and try to find some joy in yourself, before trashing others. This was not offensive.
And yes, I felt their joy just watching. That surprised me, and I feel better for having seen it.
As the person that said this video made them proud to be in this country. I COMPLETELY agree with you!!
tickleddragon on July 26, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Sorry SMGL, I have no idea who gets the original credit, but I have seen two black weddings like this already. I actually attended one and I saw clips of another one online about 5 years or so ago. At the time, people were commenting on how “ghetto” the couple was for doing it.
macblanegirl on July 26, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Wow. Just, WOW.
I want to thank you un-fun tightasses for reminding me why I don’t attend any church of any kind.
I can see if that vid isn’t your kind of thing, but geez.
Moesart on July 26, 2009 at 8:43 PM
LOLOL…Yup…I’m sure as you wake with that hang over on Sunday morning, you think hey, I better get to Church. Then you remember not everyone thought this film was proper in church, so you became enraged, turned over in your still drunken stupor and went back to sleep…LOLOLOL
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 8:53 PM
That is the beauty of Jewish Services, Shabbat starts Friday night and goes into Saturday, not time to get drunk.
On another point, your obsession with other peoples personal habits is endemic and telling.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 8:55 PM
No, I’ve just got to laugh when someone says they don’t attend church because not everyone was in lock step cooing about this clip.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Since he said CHURCH instead of synagogue, I figured he was NOT Jewish.
I haven’t a clue what you were referring about
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 9:02 PM
I dont think that that was the reason he gave. It was an example of why he does not attend church.
To be clearer, people who feel the need to use this situation to engage in a theology lecture are the reason that he does not attend church.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 9:07 PM
I was just making a little joke at your sanctimonious expense.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Must of been microscopic. Don’t quit your day job.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Dont worry, I wont.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 9:11 PM
I didn’t give a lecture. I said I thought it was blasphemous and I still do. It’s called an opinion. If you get a group of people together, you might find differing opinions.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Jeff, you have been lecturing us about Lutheran Theology for the last 2 days
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 9:14 PM
tickleddragon on July 26, 2009 at 7:44 PM
I agree with you 100%. There is absoluteley no law, or whatever that says you can’t have the wedding of your choice.
It’s supposed to be a joyous occasion. This is something the couple will remember the rest of their lives. Why not make it even more unforgettable? Anyone who says a wedding should be all formal and uptight and by the book, is nothing but a tight ass. I don’t like the music, but you know what? It’s not about me. I’m happy for these two. They’re celebrating their life. I think it’s wonderful. If I had been there in the audience, I would have been cheering right along with everyone else.
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Which is as wildly inappropriate when discussing something that happened in a church which calls itself Lutheran as, say, discussing the US Constitution when discussing the behavior of the folks who serve in the US Government.
What? That’s not wildly inappropriate at all? It is actually directly to the point?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Scribbler on July 26, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Actually, no I haven’t.I don’t have the background in theology to”lecture” anyone. Other people here have, because they DO have that education to do it correctly.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 9:28 PM
No it is not really appropriate in the sense that this Church is clearly not one which shares your theology. So no, not really adding anything to the conversation but an irrelevant lecture on a set of standards which dont apply to this church.
Which leads me to the conclusion that this is an opportunity to wag the finger at those eeeeevil non-boring Christians.
Reenfoced by the little cracks about the “priestitute” etc.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 9:29 PM
OK Buddy, if you say so.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 9:30 PM
You DO realize you don’t have to read the posts from us stick-up-the-a$$-inerrant Bible believing-Lutherans or the links we provide, dontcha’?
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 9:41 PM
LOL…evidently he can’t keep from reading them.
By the way, thank you and scribbler for the info provided.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 9:45 PM
I cant help it, I spent most of my academic career studying religion. Morbid curiosity I suppose.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 9:48 PM
And you realize you dont have to watch these horrible hedonistic kids and their “priestitute” pastor.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Not about *me* either. A Lutheran Divine Service (including the wedding liturgy) is about what Christ did for *us* and not the wedding party’s blasphemous frolic down the aisle of the nave. Got it?
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 9:49 PM
How is this blasphemous? I know people have asked you that already, but I’m sure the preacher involved in his sermon how marriage is like Christ and the Church.
Jesus allows for his children to enjoy life. He even said he closes the curtain on the marriage bed. I suppose you think they’re supposed to have sex in one position only too huh.
God smiled down on these people because they celebrated a glorious union. Got it?
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 9:53 PM
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Now you got me going.
It’s uptight, snotty nosed prudes who beleive THEY are the only ones who can interpret what God has on his mind.
You no more represent God’s idea of a wedding ceremony than I do. Got it?
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Ah, but I do when “Lutherans” are publicly mocking God.
Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 9:55 PM
FIFY
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 9:57 PM
When it’s done under the auspices/in the name of Lutheranism I surely do.
Got it?
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 10:00 PM
I have no idea what FIFY is. Is that in the Bible somewhere?
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Fixed It For You. Common terminology here at Hot Air.
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Show me in the Bible where a wedding ceremony is required? And then show me in the Bible where it lists the rules for that wedding ceremony.
And then show me in the Bible where it makes you Monitor of the Ceremonies.
I’m thinking your problem is this is something new and different and you can’t stand change. I know God never changes, but I also know God isn’t going to send these people to Hell for celebrating their union the way the feel. God did say “Make a joyful noise unto the Lord”. Those people look pretty joyful to me. Like I said, the song sucks, but…whatever. It ain’t my wedding. I would have picked “It’s Your Thang” by the Isley Brothers. For real. Now THAT’S a happy song. Or maybe even “Get Down Tonight” by K.C. and the Sunshine Band. And as a finishing touch, after the rings were exchanged, I would have played “I Wanna’ Do Something Freaky To You” by Leon Haywood.
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Thanks, I really had no idea what that meant.
But I have to say:
OH MY GOD! A WOMAN PRIEST! Doesn’t God kill those women in the Bible or something?
/sarcasm
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Bless you, dear serious sister in Christ.
No problem, dear serious brother in Christ. We gotcher’ back and your native instincts and wit are spot-on classic cradle-Lutheran like you were born in the faith.
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Clearly not your particular brand of Lutheranism. I am sure that there are people who dont like being lumped with you as a “Christian”.
Maybe the touchiness is lost on me, I dont get my shorts in a wad over some of the stuff that the more liberal reform temples get on with.
Personally I am annoyed that we are all monotheists together :) j/k.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Please stop ascribing things that were never stated nor suggested by any orthodox or serious Lutheran. None of us ever said that God would condemn this charming and cute hedonistic couple to hell for break-dancing down the aisle of the nave in His House during the liturgical Divine Service.
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 10:17 PM
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 10:10 PM
I gotta ask. And maybe you’ve already been asked this but.
How do you feel about homosexual marriages being performed in the Lutheran Church?
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 10:17 PM
I beg to differ with you sir. You said they were blasphemous. And unless they repent, blasphemous people go to…HELL!
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Stupid question, now you are just fishing.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Not that I have to explain anything to you, but I’m trying to make a point about what he believes is the correct way to get married.
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 10:30 PM
I am generally on your side, but I am certain that this is not furthering the argument.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 10:31 PM
While I don’t have as much info as Omaha or Scribbler, and speaking purely from the synod I belong to, hell would literally have to freeze over before that would happen, and even then it wouldn’t happen.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 10:32 PM
I don’t recall ever saying *they* were blasphemous, the dance was, and that is something the theologians of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will have to answer for on Judgement Day, amongst other aberrant practices and anti-Christian doctrine conducted and promoted in the Name of The Lord.
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Fair enough. I’ll drop it.
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Is that like “I dunno officer. I didn’t say I shot her, I said the gun shot her”.
You’re dancing around the issue. If the person’s dance is blasphemous, that makes the person doing the dance blasphemous. You can’t separate the two.
If the policy is to not dance in church, how do you kick the dance out without kicking the dancer out? You can make them stop doing the dance, but they’re still blasphemous for doing it. Got it?
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Not gonna’ happen in the Missouri Synod neither. Only the heretical Evangelical Lutheran Church in America promotes and encourages aberrant non-Scriptural behavior in “The Lutheran Church.”
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Have you bothered to read the whole thread?
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 10:44 PM
So does that mean you’re not going to answer my question? Is that your way out? “I’m not answering anything that’s been asked already”.
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 10:45 PM
That’s about what I figured. I guess anything goes there. Why bother with a church at all.
Jeff from WI on July 26, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Look. It’s like this. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is pulling the wool over the eyes of the weak Christian sheep in their flock(s). If a clean bill of health is given to this kind of blasphemy, one can hardly blame the weak/feel-good pew-sitting laity for participating. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the theolgians, leaders, local pastors and priestitutes.
They have thrown out the Bible, Book of Concord, Luther’s Small Catechism and moral and upright behavior all in the name of social justice and bleeding-heart liberalism so they can cozy up to Palestine and condemn Israel.
They are more political entity, than church.
Guess you just have to be grounded in Lutheran theology to get it.
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Exactly. They should rename themselves as The
EvangelicalPeople’s RepubliKLutheranMinnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor PartyChurchPAC in AmeriKKKa.OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Dude, I was raised in the Pentecostal Church (which I left a few years ago). I’ve forgotten more about the Bible than most people will ever know.
And I still say, what those young people were doing was not a sin. Sure, the song they were dancing to is a “worldly” song, but I don’t see that happening with a gospel song.
People should be praying, that in these times we’re living in, this marriage will stand the test of times instead of pissing and moaning about the ceremony. Which only lasted a short time. I would hate to be one of those people sitting in the church on the day of their 60th wedding anniversary saying “Yeah, but do you remember the ceremony? God’s still going to send them to hell. I don’t care how long they’re married.”
You strike me as the type of person. I’m sorry, but you do.
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s stance.
And here.
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Again, you seem to be the one condemning that couple to hell. The Lutherans here have never suggested that.
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Sounds like stances I have seen other Churches take over the years. Hell, my city is run almost exclusively by one Church.
Squid Shark on July 26, 2009 at 11:18 PM
That first link was issues with US and Peru trade agreements. I’m sure that was a mistake.
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 11:19 PM
That first link was issues with US and Peru trade agreements. I’m sure that was a mistake.
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Uhh, no, it wasn’t. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is more concerned with meddling in global politics than preaching the Gospel. Dude.
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Ok. I’ll say it one more time then I’m gonna’ drop it before I get flamed out of here.
YOU said they were being blasphemous, not me. Even though you said the DANCE was blasphemous, you can’t separate the two.
Therefore, YOU are condemning them to hell, not me. If you’ve paid attention, I think what they did was great. I suppose you object to people getting married while parachuting out of a plane too.
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Oh, don’t be silly.
Jaibones on July 26, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Uhh, well my mistake. I thought we were talking about Wedding Ceremonies According to the Gospel of OmahaConservative. Bud.
SuperManGreenLantern on July 26, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Where do you live, Squid?
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Oh, don’t be silly.
Jaibones on July 26, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Amen to that! How goes it Jaibones?
Bradky on July 26, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Not at all. Lutherans don’t count marriage as a sacrament, just a gift. I could care less how and in what kind of circus Lutherans and other people choose to get married. Just don’t bring this kind of blasphemous Bull$hit into the Lord’s House in a Lutheran Divine Service.
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Guess they just aren’t listening, padre. Mebbee I’ll crack open a Lutheran Beverage and stick around for an hour.
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 11:50 PM
What really *astonishes* me is that we scandalized Lutherans are in the defensive mode here in a conservative forum. I hadn’t realized just how mushy “Christian” theology had become.
OmahaConservative on July 26, 2009 at 11:56 PM
How do you know? You reference Jesus, but surely you realize nothing about our modern weddings is much at all like any he would have gone to.
Some people like to dance, even at church, even when it’s not an official part of the service. Check out a charismatic church some time and you’ll see.
But then, much of wedding ceremonies is about a presentation. Brides “march” down the isle normally, and even though a march is a subdued dance, it’s ultimately no different than what this bride and groom did here.
The only difference is that instead of playing music that was considered pop in its day, they’re playing music that is currently pop.
There’s nothing blasphemous about what they did, but contrary to what you’ve been saying, in calling it blasphemous, you are stating that in your opinion those people and others that do similar things are blaspheming God, which is punishable by hell. So, yes, you are judging them to be damned.
Esthier on July 27, 2009 at 12:03 AM
That amazed me too. You’d think, supposedly conservative people could at least understand the idea that not everyone would see this display as something appropriate for a church.
Jeff from WI on July 27, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Yes I consider them blaspheming Our Lord in His House. Judging them isn’t my job.
Jeff from WI on July 27, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »