Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
they aren't really a 'branch' of the anglican church.The British government. Or did you not know that the Episcopalians are the American branch of the Anglican church?Which government made the Episcopalian church change its stance on homosexuals?Well, let's take a look at the article. Actually, we need go further than the title, where he said Churches must be made to affirm homosexuality. Who can make them do that? Only one entity I can think of that has the power to do that. Not that any real Church will comply. Some churches will, but that will just show which churches real Christians should avoid.Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and stateThe opinion piece
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?rref=collection/column/frank-bruni&_r=0&referrer=
So where in that piece does he advocate the government mandate religious beliefs?You see? Perfect example. You have expressed an opinion and I don't care. I am not victimized by it, threatened by it or even slightly upset by it. I'm not going to start an entire thread to show how people are out to get me because of it. I don't care and I don't have to care. Freedom is a wonderful thing.
Ignored, as usual you bring nothing but gibberish.
Are you too stupid to read a simple sentence and understand it? Let me try this for you: The editorial is the opening salvo of what will become a campaign targeting churches etc to coerce them to change their teachings. Both legal and extra legal pressure will be brought to bear on them. I have no problem with people expressing their belief that their god is a faggot. I do have a problem when those same people try coercing others into changing what they teach.It is clearly more than one person's opinion, otherwise it wouldnt appear in the Times. And it indicates what the Left is up to: nothing less than thought police and suppression of anything contrary to their beliefs.Woosh, right over the quacker's head
Then explain it. Do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion?
I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion...it's the opinion I have a problem with. You can't force acceptance. Hint: That's the crux of the article hence the wooosh
That is one person's opinion. Obviously that went right over your head.
So what you are saying is that any opinion contrary to your beliefs is an attempt to suppress your beliefs. Barry Goldwater was so right.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a
terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting
in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Today the Left thinks gays are the chosen people.The bigoted, conservative, traditional democratic south founded their "nation" 150 years ago as A Christian nation.
Appealed to "Almighty God' right in their Constitution. They thought they were the chosen people.
PratchettFaFought: 11154217 said:
I'm not going to do your homework for you, kid. I asked if you knew why he fought for the south. Do you even know why the war was fought in the first place? It wasn't Fought Over slavery.PratchettFaFought: 11154217 said:You didn't answer the question. Why did Lee fight for the south?Do you know WHY he fought for the south? You might want to study up on that.Lee fought for south, which was pro-slavery. I believe he thought slavery should be abolished, but not so much he was unwilling to fight for the very society that wished it to continue. I believe it was you who said one does not compromise with evil - was it not?
Yes. So that makes it ok to compromise with evil?
No, no. I am not going to allow a detour so you can wriggle out. You tell me why and then explain why that made it ok to compromise with evil? Why did he fight against the Christians?
I'm not going to do your homework for you, kid. I asked if you knew why he fought for the south. Do you even know why the war was fought in the first place? It wasn't Fought Over slavery.PratchettFaFought: 11154217 said:You didn't answer the question. Why did Lee fight for the south?Do you know WHY he fought for the south? You might want to study up on that.Lee fought for south, which was pro-slavery. I believe he thought slavery should be abolished, but not so much he was unwilling to fight for the very society that wished it to continue. I believe it was you who said one does not compromise with evil - was it not?
Yes. So that makes it ok to compromise with evil?
No, no. I am not going to allow a detour so you can wriggle out. You tell me why and then explain why that made it ok to compromise with evil? Why did he fight against the Christians?
See if he knows which side one, first.I'm not going to do your homework for you, kid. I asked if you knew why he fought for the south. Do you even know why the war was fought in the first place? It wasn't Fought Over slavery.PratchettFaFought: 11154217 said:You didn't answer the question. Why did Lee fight for the south?Do you know WHY he fought for the south? You might want to study up on that.Lee fought for south, which was pro-slavery. I believe he thought slavery should be abolished, but not so much he was unwilling to fight for the very society that wished it to continue. I believe it was you who said one does not compromise with evil - was it not?
Yes. So that makes it ok to compromise with evil?
No, no. I am not going to allow a detour so you can wriggle out. You tell me why and then explain why that made it ok to compromise with evil? Why did he fight against the Christians?
Are you too stupid to read a simple sentence and understand it? Let me try this for you: The editorial is the opening salvo of what will become a campaign targeting churches etc to coerce them to change their teachings. Both legal and extra legal pressure will be brought to bear on them. I have no problem with people expressing their belief that their god is a faggot. I do have a problem when those same people try coercing others into changing what they teach.It is clearly more than one person's opinion, otherwise it wouldnt appear in the Times. And it indicates what the Left is up to: nothing less than thought police and suppression of anything contrary to their beliefs.Then explain it. Do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion?
I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion...it's the opinion I have a problem with. You can't force acceptance. Hint: That's the crux of the article hence the wooosh
That is one person's opinion. Obviously that went right over your head.
So what you are saying is that any opinion contrary to your beliefs is an attempt to suppress your beliefs. Barry Goldwater was so right.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a
terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting
in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
OK so the answer to my question at the opening is "Yes, you are too stupid to read a simple sentence and undrstand it."Are you too stupid to read a simple sentence and understand it? Let me try this for you: The editorial is the opening salvo of what will become a campaign targeting churches etc to coerce them to change their teachings. Both legal and extra legal pressure will be brought to bear on them. I have no problem with people expressing their belief that their god is a faggot. I do have a problem when those same people try coercing others into changing what they teach.It is clearly more than one person's opinion, otherwise it wouldnt appear in the Times. And it indicates what the Left is up to: nothing less than thought police and suppression of anything contrary to their beliefs.I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion...it's the opinion I have a problem with. You can't force acceptance. Hint: That's the crux of the article hence the wooosh
That is one person's opinion. Obviously that went right over your head.
So what you are saying is that any opinion contrary to your beliefs is an attempt to suppress your beliefs. Barry Goldwater was so right.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a
terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting
in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
You are free to have a problem and I am free not to care. If you wish to live your life in a paranoid haze that is your choice. I won't try to stop you because I happen to agree with Ron White. You just can't fix stupid.
Was he pro slavery?Not even. A Christian is defined by their obedience to God's word and their love for their fellow man. Only one side did that. Can you guess which one?
Both sides were Christian. I don't judge people's religion. If you say you are a Christian I don't question it, even if you ignore all of Jesus' teachings.
You just did judge and question it. You judge when you say someone is ignoring Jesus' teachings. Interesting how those who say we shouldn't judge do it not realizing they are hypocrites when they do it.
I never said you shouldn't judge. Jesus said it. If you have a problem with that, you need to take it up with him.
Out of curiosity though, do you agree with Mr.Right that Robert E. Lee wasn't a Christian?
He was pro States' rights. Do you know why Lee said he joined the Confederacy despite being offered command of the Union troops? Do you think Lincoln was anti-slavery? You might find through reading that Lee wasn't as pro slavery as people thing ...
I'm not going to do your homework for you, kid. I asked if you knew why he fought for the south. Do you even know why the war was fought in the first place? It wasn't Fought Over slavery.PratchettFaFought: 11154217 said:You didn't answer the question. Why did Lee fight for the south?Do you know WHY he fought for the south? You might want to study up on that.Lee fought for south, which was pro-slavery. I believe he thought slavery should be abolished, but not so much he was unwilling to fight for the very society that wished it to continue. I believe it was you who said one does not compromise with evil - was it not?
Yes. So that makes it ok to compromise with evil?
No, no. I am not going to allow a detour so you can wriggle out. You tell me why and then explain why that made it ok to compromise with evil? Why did he fight against the Christians?
OK so the answer to my question at the opening is "Yes, you are too stupid to read a simple sentence and undrstand it."Are you too stupid to read a simple sentence and understand it? Let me try this for you: The editorial is the opening salvo of what will become a campaign targeting churches etc to coerce them to change their teachings. Both legal and extra legal pressure will be brought to bear on them. I have no problem with people expressing their belief that their god is a faggot. I do have a problem when those same people try coercing others into changing what they teach.It is clearly more than one person's opinion, otherwise it wouldnt appear in the Times. And it indicates what the Left is up to: nothing less than thought police and suppression of anything contrary to their beliefs.That is one person's opinion. Obviously that went right over your head.
So what you are saying is that any opinion contrary to your beliefs is an attempt to suppress your beliefs. Barry Goldwater was so right.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a
terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting
in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
You are free to have a problem and I am free not to care. If you wish to live your life in a paranoid haze that is your choice. I won't try to stop you because I happen to agree with Ron White. You just can't fix stupid.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Yes you have helped me define you as a brainless moron not really worth bothering with. I sense the Iggy feature in your future.OK so the answer to my question at the opening is "Yes, you are too stupid to read a simple sentence and undrstand it."Are you too stupid to read a simple sentence and understand it? Let me try this for you: The editorial is the opening salvo of what will become a campaign targeting churches etc to coerce them to change their teachings. Both legal and extra legal pressure will be brought to bear on them. I have no problem with people expressing their belief that their god is a faggot. I do have a problem when those same people try coercing others into changing what they teach.It is clearly more than one person's opinion, otherwise it wouldnt appear in the Times. And it indicates what the Left is up to: nothing less than thought police and suppression of anything contrary to their beliefs.
So what you are saying is that any opinion contrary to your beliefs is an attempt to suppress your beliefs. Barry Goldwater was so right.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a
terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting
in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
You are free to have a problem and I am free not to care. If you wish to live your life in a paranoid haze that is your choice. I won't try to stop you because I happen to agree with Ron White. You just can't fix stupid.
Thanks for clearing that up.
No problem. Glad I could help. Have fun freaking out.
I'm not going to do your homework for you, kid. I asked if you knew why he fought for the south. Do you even know why the war was fought in the first place? It wasn't Fought Over slavery.PratchettFaFought: 11154217 said:You didn't answer the question. Why did Lee fight for the south?Do you know WHY he fought for the south? You might want to study up on that.
Yes. So that makes it ok to compromise with evil?
No, no. I am not going to allow a detour so you can wriggle out. You tell me why and then explain why that made it ok to compromise with evil? Why did he fight against the Christians?
Actually Robert E Lee didn't really fight for the "south", he fought for Virginia. He chose to do so on the basis of family tradition and love of Virginia. He didn't even believe in the south's economic and political arguments
Today the Left thinks gays are the chosen people.The bigoted, conservative, traditional democratic south founded their "nation" 150 years ago as A Christian nation.
Appealed to "Almighty God' right in their Constitution. They thought they were the chosen people.
Was he pro slavery?Both sides were Christian. I don't judge people's religion. If you say you are a Christian I don't question it, even if you ignore all of Jesus' teachings.
You just did judge and question it. You judge when you say someone is ignoring Jesus' teachings. Interesting how those who say we shouldn't judge do it not realizing they are hypocrites when they do it.
I never said you shouldn't judge. Jesus said it. If you have a problem with that, you need to take it up with him.
Out of curiosity though, do you agree with Mr.Right that Robert E. Lee wasn't a Christian?
He was pro States' rights. Do you know why Lee said he joined the Confederacy despite being offered command of the Union troops? Do you think Lincoln was anti-slavery? You might find through reading that Lee wasn't as pro slavery as people thing ...
Yeah, he was anti-slavery in a "I'm going to keep my slaves until I am forced to free them" kind of way.
Yes, he expressed a few sentiments against slavery, but still fought *for* the cause of defending, preserving, protecting and expanding slavery. There's no getting around that.
Was he pro slavery?You just did judge and question it. You judge when you say someone is ignoring Jesus' teachings. Interesting how those who say we shouldn't judge do it not realizing they are hypocrites when they do it.
I never said you shouldn't judge. Jesus said it. If you have a problem with that, you need to take it up with him.
Out of curiosity though, do you agree with Mr.Right that Robert E. Lee wasn't a Christian?
He was pro States' rights. Do you know why Lee said he joined the Confederacy despite being offered command of the Union troops? Do you think Lincoln was anti-slavery? You might find through reading that Lee wasn't as pro slavery as people thing ...
Yeah, he was anti-slavery in a "I'm going to keep my slaves until I am forced to free them" kind of way.
Yes, he expressed a few sentiments against slavery, but still fought *for* the cause of defending, preserving, protecting and expanding slavery. There's no getting around that.
He fought for States' rights. It's people like you that don't know history that make something simple out of something that isn't. I bet you think the move toward Civil War didn't start until Lincoln was elected in 1860.
The cause and stated purpose of the Confederacy was to preserve, protect, defend and expand slavery - and they elevated the institution to something they glorified on their currency.I'm not going to do your homework for you, kid. I asked if you knew why he fought for the south. Do you even know why the war was fought in the first place? It wasn't Fought Over slavery.PratchettFaFought: 11154217 said:You didn't answer the question. Why did Lee fight for the south?Do you know WHY he fought for the south? You might want to study up on that.Lee fought for south, which was pro-slavery. I believe he thought slavery should be abolished, but not so much he was unwilling to fight for the very society that wished it to continue. I believe it was you who said one does not compromise with evil - was it not?
Yes. So that makes it ok to compromise with evil?
No, no. I am not going to allow a detour so you can wriggle out. You tell me why and then explain why that made it ok to compromise with evil? Why did he fight against the Christians?
