Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality

[bodecea]

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

And you have the right to not care what their opinion is. It is just an opinion. It carries no weight of any kind. The thing about free speech is that sometimes someone is going to say something you don't agree with.

Should any church be forced to accept something? Absolutely not. That is my opinion. The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the free exercise of religion. That is the law.

So what the guy was saying didn't go wooosh. I just didn't give a damn what he was saying. He can say what he likes and I don't have to care. See how that works? In this case, it appears you are choosing to be a victim, without actually being victimized.

Look either comment on the topic or clam up. You're avoiding and are annoying

He commented on the topic. You don't like the FACT that what you presented in the OP is an opinion....an opinion. Get it? Carries as much weight as your opinion.

 

[SAYIT]

Another fail. Misleading OP title and the OPster doesn't like that everyone won't fall for the nonsense.

Is the author suggesting churches be made to accept homosexuality as normal? Why yes, yes he is.

It's all part of the homosexual's large plan, force it as normal and it never will be normal. You CANNOT force acceptance

Thus the point of my previous post which, evidently, went right over your head (woosh).
To wit: "The fact is change - if it is to come - must originate from the pews where real Christians with real Christian beliefs recognize that gay people are indeed people and that their sins - as one might describe their life's choices - are for God to judge, not us."

 

[Silhouette]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality, says New York Times columnist

NEW YORK, April 7, 2015 – A New York Times columnist and a corporate leader have agreed that Christian churches “must” be convinced, or coerced, to change their teachings on sexual morality and abandon an “ossified” doctrinal teaching that sex outside heterosexual marriage is immoral.

The headline might as well have read "Devil Demands Bible Redaction"


As to the post right before this one... Christians already see gay INDIVIDUALS as people and are instructed to reach out to them with compassion...so there's no conflict of interest there..

Where there is conflict is asking a Christian to enable a homosexual cultural takeover of the normal culture. The hub of any culture is marriage. So, yes on compassion and no on gay marriage/teaching children that gay sex is OK. BIG NOs on those. They carry a very heavy penalty: eternal death.

When mental illness organizes into a cult and tries to uproot another culture by it's diametrically-opposed deviant platform, Christians are called to ACT, not sit around praying it will go away..

 

[Syriusly]

Having read Frank Bruni's actual column I can see why you are outraged.

He points out that faith based bigotry is still bigotry.

But nowhere does Bruni say that churches must be forced or coerced to do anything. You just made that crap up.

Nowhere does Bruni or anyone suggest that the state do anything to churches- you just made that crap up.

Poor Christians- so determined to be victims.

 

[Syriusly]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality, says New York Times columnist

NEW YORK, April 7, 2015 – A New York Times columnist and a corporate leader have agreed that Christian churches “must” be convinced, or coerced, to change their teachings on sexual morality and abandon an “ossified” doctrinal teaching that sex outside heterosexual marriage is immoral.

The headline might as well have read "Devil Demands Bible Redaction"

And it would be just as much a lie.

 

[ogibillm]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

The opinion piece
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/0...=collection/column/frank-bruni&_r=0&referrer=

So where in that piece does he advocate the government mandate religious beliefs?

 

[PratchettFan]

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

And you have the right to not care what their opinion is. It is just an opinion. It carries no weight of any kind. The thing about free speech is that sometimes someone is going to say something you don't agree with.

Should any church be forced to accept something? Absolutely not. That is my opinion. The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the free exercise of religion. That is the law.

So what the guy was saying didn't go wooosh. I just didn't give a damn what he was saying. He can say what he likes and I don't have to care. See how that works? In this case, it appears you are choosing to be a victim, without actually being victimized.

Look either comment on the topic or clam up. You're avoiding and are annoying

I'll comment as I please. Free speech.... remember? You don't have to respond. So again, pretty much a self-inflicted issue.

Idiot

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.

 

[Syriusly]

Liberals want the government to have veto power over religious doctrine. The religion then becomes an arm of the government.

Conservatives want the government to mandate religion to all people- Christianity in particular of course- and want the government to force Christianity on the people.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

The 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?

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

And you have the right to not care what their opinion is. It is just an opinion. It carries no weight of any kind. The thing about free speech is that sometimes someone is going to say something you don't agree with.

Should any church be forced to accept something? Absolutely not. That is my opinion. The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the free exercise of religion. That is the law.

So what the guy was saying didn't go wooosh. I just didn't give a damn what he was saying. He can say what he likes and I don't have to care. See how that works? In this case, it appears you are choosing to be a victim, without actually being victimized.

Look either comment on the topic or clam up. You're avoiding and are annoying

I'll comment as I please. Free speech.... remember? You don't have to respond. So again, pretty much a self-inflicted issue.

Idiot

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.

 

[Syriusly]

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

The crux of the article?

But the view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.


It disregards the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.


It ignores the extent to which interpretation is subjective, debatable. And it elevates unthinking obeisance above intelligent observance, above the evidence in front of you, because to look honestly at gay, lesbian and bisexual people is to see that we’re the same magnificent riddles as everyone else.


So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’v e jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history.

The crux of the article doesn't say anything about forcing anyone to accept anything.

 

[guno]

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

And you have the right to not care what their opinion is. It is just an opinion. It carries no weight of any kind. The thing about free speech is that sometimes someone is going to say something you don't agree with.

Should any church be forced to accept something? Absolutely not. That is my opinion. The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the free exercise of religion. That is the law.

So what the guy was saying didn't go wooosh. I just didn't give a damn what he was saying. He can say what he likes and I don't have to care. See how that works? In this case, it appears you are choosing to be a victim, without actually being victimized.

Look either comment on the topic or clam up. You're avoiding and are annoying

I'll comment as I please. Free speech.... remember? You don't have to respond. So again, pretty much a self-inflicted issue.

Idiot

I suggest thumpers like you should be placed in mental institutions

 

[ogibillm]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

The 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?

And you have the right to not care what their opinion is. It is just an opinion. It carries no weight of any kind. The thing about free speech is that sometimes someone is going to say something you don't agree with.

Should any church be forced to accept something? Absolutely not. That is my opinion. The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the free exercise of religion. That is the law.

So what the guy was saying didn't go wooosh. I just didn't give a damn what he was saying. He can say what he likes and I don't have to care. See how that works? In this case, it appears you are choosing to be a victim, without actually being victimized.

Look either comment on the topic or clam up. You're avoiding and are annoying

I'll comment as I please. Free speech.... remember? You don't have to respond. So again, pretty much a self-inflicted issue.

Idiot

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.

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

And you have the right to not care what their opinion is. It is just an opinion. It carries no weight of any kind. The thing about free speech is that sometimes someone is going to say something you don't agree with.

Should any church be forced to accept something? Absolutely not. That is my opinion. The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the free exercise of religion. That is the law.

So what the guy was saying didn't go wooosh. I just didn't give a damn what he was saying. He can say what he likes and I don't have to care. See how that works? In this case, it appears you are choosing to be a victim, without actually being victimized.

It's an opinion that the opinions of others need to be suppressed. Only a Leftist would defend that.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

The 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?

Look either comment on the topic or clam up. You're avoiding and are annoying

I'll comment as I please. Free speech.... remember? You don't have to respond. So again, pretty much a self-inflicted issue.

Idiot

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.

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

Who else is going to force acceptance? The homos? AHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

And you have the right to not care what their opinion is. It is just an opinion. It carries no weight of any kind. The thing about free speech is that sometimes someone is going to say something you don't agree with.

Should any church be forced to accept something? Absolutely not. That is my opinion. The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the free exercise of religion. That is the law.

So what the guy was saying didn't go wooosh. I just didn't give a damn what he was saying. He can say what he likes and I don't have to care. See how that works? In this case, it appears you are choosing to be a victim, without actually being victimized.

It's an opinion that the opinions of others need to be suppressed. Only a Leftist would defend that.

Leftists are fools and are never to be taken serious except in large numbers

 

[Katzndogz]

The government should just do what it intends to do and is working towards. Set up its own church and compel everyone to go.

 

[ogibillm]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

The 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?

I'll comment as I please. Free speech.... remember? You don't have to respond. So again, pretty much a self-inflicted issue.

Idiot

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.

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

Who else is going to force acceptance? The homos? AHAHAHAHAHAHA

parishioners. Church members. The people.

But you're better at stretching than Stretch Armstrong if you think the article implied government mandated change. And stretch armstrong can stretch for miles

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

The 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?

Idiot

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.

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

Who else is going to force acceptance? The homos? AHAHAHAHAHAHA

parishioners. Church members. The people.

But you're better at stretching than Stretch Armstrong if you think the article implied government mandated change. And stretch armstrong can stretch for miles

I bet you play with a stretchy armstrong, child

 

[PratchettFan]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

The 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?

And you have the right to not care what their opinion is. It is just an opinion. It carries no weight of any kind. The thing about free speech is that sometimes someone is going to say something you don't agree with.

Should any church be forced to accept something? Absolutely not. That is my opinion. The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the free exercise of religion. That is the law.

So what the guy was saying didn't go wooosh. I just didn't give a damn what he was saying. He can say what he likes and I don't have to care. See how that works? In this case, it appears you are choosing to be a victim, without actually being victimized.

Look either comment on the topic or clam up. You're avoiding and are annoying

I'll comment as I please. Free speech.... remember? You don't have to respond. So again, pretty much a self-inflicted issue.

Idiot

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.

No. I don't think you have it yet. If you respond you are not ignoring. You have to read what I write in order to respond. Now, try again. This time, don't read this.

 

[ogibillm]

The 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.

Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state

Who else is going to force acceptance? The homos? AHAHAHAHAHAHA

parishioners. Church members. The people.

But you're better at stretching than Stretch Armstrong if you think the article implied government mandated change. And stretch armstrong can stretch for miles

I bet you play with a stretchy armstrong, child

That sadly passed as wit with you, didn't it?