Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality

[Syriusly]

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?

Was he pro slavery?

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?

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?

You didn't answer the question. Why did Lee fight for the south?

Lt. Genl Winfield Scott
Commd U.S. Army

Genl,
Since my interview with you on the 18th Inst: I have felt that I ought not longer to retain any Commission in the Army. I therefore tender my resignation which I request you will recommend for acceptance. It would have been presented at once but for the struggle it has Cost me to separate myself from a Service to which I have divoted all the best years of my life, & all the ability I possessed. During the whole of that time, more than a quarter of a century, I have experienced nothing but kindness from my superiors & the most Cordial friendships from any Comrades. To no one Genl have I been as much indebted as to yourself for kindness & Consideration & it has always been my ardent desire to merit your approbation. I shall carry with me, to the grave the most grateful recollections
of your kind Consideration, & your name & fame will always be dear to me. Save in the defense of my native state shall I ever again draw my sword. Be pleased to accept any more [illegible] wishes for “the Continuance of your happiness & prosperity & believe me

Most truly yours
R E LeePaper. L 32.7, W 29.3 cmArlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial, ARHO 5623

And by defending the South- he also defended the institution of slavery- though that was not his motivation.

 

[paperview]

You couldn't kick your own ass must less destroy something much stronger than you.

You irked and irritated bro ?

How ‘religious liberty’ has been used to justify racism, sexism and slavery throughout history
Using religion to deny people rights is an old routine that harms both the church and the state.

Just for your information, it was democrats doing all of that justifying. Christians are against that sort of thing. Christians led the fight against racism. Democrats fought to keep it. Christians honor and love their wives. Christians were also fighting on the front lines to abolish slavery. What did the Democrats do? I'll give three guesses.

Christians also led the fight for rascism.

I just get tired of this partisan ignorance of history.

Yes- the Confederacy was essentially a Democratic government- and a Conservative government.

Christians led the fight against slavery- and Christians also led the fight for slavery.

Christians fought on the front lines for slavery and fought on the front lines against slavery.

Pretending Christians were only on the side against slavery and racism is either a lie- or ignorance.

I bet you say Lincoln freed the slaves, too?

Like it or not, Bubba, effectually, he did.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Frank Bruni wrote that traditional Christianity – whether among evangelicals, Catholics, or Orthodox – provides the greatest resistance to normalizing homosexuality in the United States in a recent column in the New York Times.

“Homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni insisted. “The continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s 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.”

Christian churches must be made to affirm homosexuality says New York Times columnist News LifeSite

Bruni's commentary:

Frank Bruni commentary It s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins The Columbus Dispatch

I can sum this OP in one sentence: One man has an OPINION that differs than mine.

"Christians" used to back segregation and slavery--both had ample scripture to support them. They'll eventually realize how pathetic they look using one or two lines of scripture (wa-aaaay out of historical context) to justify their homophobia.

Christians also were the driving force behind eliminating both slavery and segregation.

There were Christians on both side of the aisles, bub.

Let's look at another issue and see how Christians on both sides view it. Same sex marriage. Conservative Christians, other than Libertarians, say God's word says same sex marriage is wrong so they oppose it claiming that the sin can be hated without hating the person. Liberal Christians say Jesus never said anything against same sex marriage, although they'd be wrong, therefore, it's OK despite the letter written by Paul, one of those that spread the teachings of Jesus throughout the known world.

All you are doing is saying "my interpretation of bible is right - and yours are wrong."

Do you see the dilemma?

Does the Bible clearly state homosexuality is wrong? Of course it does. See YOUR dilemma?

 

[Syriusly]

You couldn't kick your own ass must less destroy something much stronger than you.

You irked and irritated bro ?

How ‘religious liberty’ has been used to justify racism, sexism and slavery throughout history
Using religion to deny people rights is an old routine that harms both the church and the state.

Just for your information, it was democrats doing all of that justifying. Christians are against that sort of thing. Christians led the fight against racism. Democrats fought to keep it. Christians honor and love their wives. Christians were also fighting on the front lines to abolish slavery. What did the Democrats do? I'll give three guesses.

Christians also led the fight for rascism.

I just get tired of this partisan ignorance of history.

Yes- the Confederacy was essentially a Democratic government- and a Conservative government.

Christians led the fight against slavery- and Christians also led the fight for slavery.

Christians fought on the front lines for slavery and fought on the front lines against slavery.

Pretending Christians were only on the side against slavery and racism is either a lie- or ignorance.

I bet you say Lincoln freed the slaves, too?

What- you decided you couldn't defend your statement and want to change the subject?

Christians also led the fight for rascism.

I just get tired of this partisan ignorance of history.

Yes- the Confederacy was essentially a Democratic government- and a Conservative government.

Christians led the fight against slavery- and Christians also led the fight for slavery.

Christians fought on the front lines for slavery and fought on the front lines against slavery.

Pretending Christians were only on the side against slavery and racism is either a lie- or ignorance.

 

[paperview]

You left out that the baker was willing to provide the cake but refused to write derogatory messages on the cake.

Also - Why do you assume the owner is homosexual?


>>>>


>>>>

In the original assault on liberty, the lesbians were offered a wedding cake for sale, the bakery simply wouldn't cater the wedding.

One set of laws for hated Christians, a very different law for our cherished queers.

Just be honest, queers are preferred by our government and thus hold a higher status under the law.

Which case was this?

 

[Syriusly]

I can sum this OP in one sentence: One man has an OPINION that differs than mine.

"Christians" used to back segregation and slavery--both had ample scripture to support them. They'll eventually realize how pathetic they look using one or two lines of scripture (wa-aaaay out of historical context) to justify their homophobia.

Christians also were the driving force behind eliminating both slavery and segregation.

There were Christians on both side of the aisles, bub.

Let's look at another issue and see how Christians on both sides view it. Same sex marriage. Conservative Christians, other than Libertarians, say God's word says same sex marriage is wrong so they oppose it claiming that the sin can be hated without hating the person. Liberal Christians say Jesus never said anything against same sex marriage, although they'd be wrong, therefore, it's OK despite the letter written by Paul, one of those that spread the teachings of Jesus throughout the known world.

All you are doing is saying "my interpretation of bible is right - and yours are wrong."

Do you see the dilemma?

Does the Bible clearly state homosexuality is wrong? Of course it does. See YOUR dilemma?

The "Bible" and I will presume we are talking purely about the New Testament and the 10 Commandments says that male homosexuality is wrong. Doesn't mention female homosexuality.

The Bible also says remarriage after divorce is really, really wrong.

The Bible also says that swearing is really, really wrong.

The Bible also says that not obeying your parents is really, really wrong.

Christians decide which of those wrongs they want to be outraged about.

Even though Jesus never found homosexuality worthy of comment- from Conservative Christians comments, you would expect that was the main thing Jesus preached about.

 

[paperview]

I can sum this OP in one sentence: One man has an OPINION that differs than mine.

"Christians" used to back segregation and slavery--both had ample scripture to support them. They'll eventually realize how pathetic they look using one or two lines of scripture (wa-aaaay out of historical context) to justify their homophobia.

Christians also were the driving force behind eliminating both slavery and segregation.

There were Christians on both side of the aisles, bub.

Let's look at another issue and see how Christians on both sides view it. Same sex marriage. Conservative Christians, other than Libertarians, say God's word says same sex marriage is wrong so they oppose it claiming that the sin can be hated without hating the person. Liberal Christians say Jesus never said anything against same sex marriage, although they'd be wrong, therefore, it's OK despite the letter written by Paul, one of those that spread the teachings of Jesus throughout the known world.

All you are doing is saying "my interpretation of bible is right - and yours are wrong."

Do you see the dilemma?

Does the Bible clearly state homosexuality is wrong? Of course it does. See YOUR dilemma?

I can sum this OP in one sentence: One man has an OPINION that differs than mine.

"Christians" used to back segregation and slavery--both had ample scripture to support them. They'll eventually realize how pathetic they look using one or two lines of scripture (wa-aaaay out of historical context) to justify their homophobia.

Christians also were the driving force behind eliminating both slavery and segregation.

There were Christians on both side of the aisles, bub.

Let's look at another issue and see how Christians on both sides view it. Same sex marriage. Conservative Christians, other than Libertarians, say God's word says same sex marriage is wrong so they oppose it claiming that the sin can be hated without hating the person. Liberal Christians say Jesus never said anything against same sex marriage, although they'd be wrong, therefore, it's OK despite the letter written by Paul, one of those that spread the teachings of Jesus throughout the known world.

All you are doing is saying "my interpretation of bible is right - and yours are wrong."

Do you see the dilemma?

Does the Bible clearly state homosexuality is wrong? Of course it does. See YOUR dilemma?

What Jesus Christ had to say about homosexuality:



























That is all.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Was he pro slavery?

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 was as pro-slavery as Lincoln was anti-slavery. To use Obama's term, Lincoln "evolved" on his view on slavery. What caused that change is debatable. Many say it was because he looked at it through a moral view no longer thinking it was a necessary evil, as he did at one time or because it was for political gain. I go with the latter.

Lincoln was always anti-slavery.

But Lincoln was a moderate in a Party of liberal radicals- Lincoln always though slavery was evil, and fought to keep slavery from expanding into new territories. But Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue in the South to preserve the Union.

The South didn't believe that. Lincoln's view on emancipation changed as he realized allowing slavery would not preserve the Union- and that being firmly against slavery would help end the insurrection.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Christians also were the driving force behind eliminating both slavery and segregation.

There were Christians on both side of the aisles, bub.

Let's look at another issue and see how Christians on both sides view it. Same sex marriage. Conservative Christians, other than Libertarians, say God's word says same sex marriage is wrong so they oppose it claiming that the sin can be hated without hating the person. Liberal Christians say Jesus never said anything against same sex marriage, although they'd be wrong, therefore, it's OK despite the letter written by Paul, one of those that spread the teachings of Jesus throughout the known world.

All you are doing is saying "my interpretation of bible is right - and yours are wrong."

Do you see the dilemma?

Does the Bible clearly state homosexuality is wrong? Of course it does. See YOUR dilemma?

Christians also were the driving force behind eliminating both slavery and segregation.

There were Christians on both side of the aisles, bub.

Let's look at another issue and see how Christians on both sides view it. Same sex marriage. Conservative Christians, other than Libertarians, say God's word says same sex marriage is wrong so they oppose it claiming that the sin can be hated without hating the person. Liberal Christians say Jesus never said anything against same sex marriage, although they'd be wrong, therefore, it's OK despite the letter written by Paul, one of those that spread the teachings of Jesus throughout the known world.

All you are doing is saying "my interpretation of bible is right - and yours are wrong."

Do you see the dilemma?

Does the Bible clearly state homosexuality is wrong? Of course it does. See YOUR dilemma?

What Jesus Christ had to say about homosexuality:

What did he say about pedophilia....or for that matter, murder? Take your elementary knowledge and age old debunked talking points and try and snow someone else


























That is all.

 

[Syriusly]

No. Just people.

Spoiled brats that can't accept no for an answer on things for which the Constitution grants them nothing related to what they demand.

Yes. That is my opinion of the far right.

Nobody gives a shit about your opinion, s0n.

I have already said that you are free not to care, as am I. But I am not the one complaining that the little kid in the playground is beating me up because he won't let me hit him anymore. I am fine with you not caring and I am fine with you being afraid. Whatever makes you happy. The important thing is that you keep vocalizing your position - which provides a far better argument for the LGBT community than they could ever make for themselves.

That's because they have no argument. "I'm a fag and you should think it's normal" isn't an arugment. It's whining.

That's because they have no argument. "I am a bigot and and think that gays shouldn't be treated equally isn't an argument- its whining.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't think churches should be forced to accept homosexuality, and neither does the gist of the op-ed you OP'ed, quackerhead.

Sure it does, you're too busy quacking about things you obliviously are clueless about to even realize what the op ed is saying. You're just another "look at how smart I am" left loon trying to impress and failing miserably at it

You've already had your ass smashed by better posters than I on this thread, loopy.

Don't cry about it.

LOL No I haven't and because YOU say so means nothing. You don't even understand the op ed and you've spent post after post getting shellacked due to your ignorance. I bet you lay in bed at night sighing over what a burden your "intelligence" is AHAHAHNAHAHNAHNA

One thing I feel pretty confident about is a lot of people as USBM think the Rabbi and your skanky ass are two of the top ranking stupidest posters of the entire right wing insane asylum here. It's a high bar, but you guys are

Winning!

Since none of those that think that amount to a pile of dog shit, neither do their opinions. I find it funny that those like you who are so stupid you can't fathom how stupid you are because you are can claim anything about anyone else.

Since none of those that think that amount to a pile of dog shit, neither do their opinions. I find it funny that those like you who are so stupid you can't fathom how stupid you are because you are can claim anything about anyone else.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't think churches should be forced to accept homosexuality, and neither does the gist of the op-ed you OP'ed, quackerhead.

Sure it does, you're too busy quacking about things you obliviously are clueless about to even realize what the op ed is saying. You're just another "look at how smart I am" left loon trying to impress and failing miserably at it

You've already had your ass smashed by better posters than I on this thread, loopy.

Don't cry about it.

Actually every poster on this thread is a better one than you, dunce-o. And no, the Lass has not had her ass smashed. That woul dbe you.
Are you denying that the op ed doesnt suggest churches be coerced in their teachings?

The op claims a first amendment conflict, which means government would be involved.

The op-ed does not call for government intervention. The op then is at best misleading.

Again, who's going to do the forcing? You sissified liberals and the girly men homos? Who? C'mon motormouth, who?

No one said that anyone should- one person suggested that churches should be forced to change- but never said how.

You Christians who want to be victims have claimed that means the government.

But you are just whiny wanna be victims.

 

[paperview]

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?

Was he pro slavery?

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 was as pro-slavery as Lincoln was anti-slavery. To use Obama's term, Lincoln "evolved" on his view on slavery. What caused that change is debatable. Many say it was because he looked at it through a moral view no longer thinking it was a necessary evil, as he did at one time or because it was for political gain. I go with the latter.

Lincoln was always anti-slavery.

But Lincoln was a moderate in a Party of liberal radicals- Lincoln always though slavery was evil, and fought to keep slavery from expanding into new territories. But Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue in the South to preserve the Union.

The South didn't believe that. Lincoln's view on emancipation changed as he realized allowing slavery would not preserve the Union- and that being firmly against slavery would help end the insurrection.

"But Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue in the South to preserve the Union.

The South didn't believe that..."

Zactly. Hell, the Southern states didn't even allow Lincoln on the Presidential ballot in their general election.

 

[Syriusly]

The topic is about should churches be forced to affirm homosexuality and you don't have
leg to stand on if you think churches should be forced. That's a fact, Jack

I don't think churches should be forced to accept homosexuality, and neither does the gist of the op-ed you OP'ed, quackerhead.

Sure it does, you're too busy quacking about things you obliviously are clueless about to even realize what the op ed is saying. You're just another "look at how smart I am" left loon trying to impress and failing miserably at it

You've already had your ass smashed by better posters than I on this thread, loopy.

Don't cry about it.

Actually every poster on this thread is a better one than you, dunce-o. And no, the Lass has not had her ass smashed. That woul dbe you.
Are you denying that the op ed doesnt suggest churches be coerced in their teachings?

The op claims a first amendment conflict, which means government would be involved.

The op-ed does not call for government intervention. The op then is at best misleading.

That is too kind- the op-ed is a lie.

 

[Syriusly]

You've already had your ass smashed by better posters than I on this thread, loopy.

Don't cry about it.

The tide has turned. Religious freedom is going to win this round.

I am all for religious freedom.

No one should be denied services or government services because of their religion.

Religious freedom is intact.

Just a lot of whiney wanna be victims crying because they are expected to follow the law.

 

[Syriusly]

The OP was a lie- read the actual article that she lied about.

I did.

We have two laws - one for Christians, another VERY different law for our queer overlords.

LOL.....in your perverted and bigoted way- you are right.

Christians are protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Homosexuals are not.

And the ones whining are Christians.

 

[Syriusly]

really? Cite them

The legal requirement that Christians back cakes for queers, but queers need not bake cakes for Christians.

Public Accommodation laws require that a bakery owned by homosexuals cannot refuse service based on the religion of the customer.

So a homosexual baker that offers wedding cakes to the public cannot refuse customer based on the fact they are Christian but then provide the same goods and services say to Jews, Muslims, and Hindus.



>>>>

"Homosexual" is not a religion. It is not a protected category under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment has nothing to do with baking cakes.

Here let me help you with that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[

Nothing about bakers or homosexuals.

But if you would like to insist that the First Amendment means business's can ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act by claiming that they are 'Christian' well go for it.

 

[Syriusly]

really? Cite them

The legal requirement that Christians back cakes for queers, but queers need not bake cakes for Christians.

Public Accommodation laws require that a bakery owned by homosexuals cannot refuse service based on the religion of the customer.

So a homosexual baker that offers wedding cakes to the public cannot refuse customer based on the fact they are Christian but then provide the same goods and services say to Jews, Muslims, and Hindus.



>>>>

{
A Colorado baker that found herself ensnared in controversy after refusing to prepare cakes decorated with anti-gay messages can now breathe deeply.

The Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that Marjorie Silva, owner of Denver's Azucar Bakery, did not discriminate against William Jack when she refused to prep two bible-shaped cakes with anti-gay imagery and phrases like "God hates gays" written in icing, ABC 7 News Denver is reporting.}

Colorado s Azucar Bakery Did Not Discriminate By Refusing To Bake Anti-Gay Cakes Court Rules

Turns out we have one law for the Hated Christians, and a VERY different law for our cherished queers.

Turns out we have one level of reading comprehension for bigots- and a very different level for the rest of us

The Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that Marjorie Silva, owner of Denver's Azucar Bakery, did not discriminate against William Jack when she refused to prep two bible-shaped cakes with anti-gay imagery and phrases like "God hates gays" written in icing, ABC 7 News Denver is reporting.

The decision noted that Silva is Catholic, and her refusal to complete the customer's requests was based on "derogatory language and imagery" rather than their religious nature.

Silva told the news station that the case had "been a roller coaster," but that she was "thankful" for the support from other customers.

"We were not [just] morally right but also legally right," she said.

 

[Syriusly]

What does a poster need to have done to get banned here on USMB?

I don't always agree with people, but I am always surprised when I see someone banned.

 

[paperview]

I don't think churches should be forced to accept homosexuality, and neither does the gist of the op-ed you OP'ed, quackerhead.

Sure it does, you're too busy quacking about things you obliviously are clueless about to even realize what the op ed is saying. You're just another "look at how smart I am" left loon trying to impress and failing miserably at it

You've already had your ass smashed by better posters than I on this thread, loopy.

Don't cry about it.

Actually every poster on this thread is a better one than you, dunce-o. And no, the Lass has not had her ass smashed. That woul dbe you.
Are you denying that the op ed doesnt suggest churches be coerced in their teachings?

The op claims a first amendment conflict, which means government would be involved.

The op-ed does not call for government intervention. The op then is at best misleading.

That is too kind- the op-ed is a lie.

Not only that, I'm reminded of the conservative Op-ed columnist from the conservative National Review who thought Chelsea Clinton and her whole family should be be assassinated in 2001.

Like an Op-Edder is the be-all and end-all.