Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality

[Syriusly]

This puts it in a good nutshell:

Frank Bruni says a true thing that the religionistas are not ready to hear:

… homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.

That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.

But in the end, 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.

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: no more or less flawed, no more or less dignified. …

… 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’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
==================
Bruni goes on to make some of the same points I made in The Book (Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World), in particular that even among “Bible believers” ideas about what is sinful and what isn’t have changed over the years. Polygamy used to be okay, until it wasn’t.

Just 150 years ago southern white preachers defended slavery as not only sanctioned by the Bible but a benefit to the Africans who were sold into the West and made Christian. And so on.

The truth is, the moral views expressed in Iron Age scripture reflect Iron Age culture. Humankind has moved on. If the biblical literalists can’t accept that, they are free to run their own churches any way they like. But unless they want to be like the Mennonites and form their own enclosed communities, they need to adjust.

False Dichotomies

Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?

Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?

There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.

And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?

The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.

 

[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.

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

Relax. That is an opinion piece not the law of the land. 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. We mere mortals are charged with deconstructing the walls we've built to separate us from "the others."

Excuse me but relax is the wrong message to send someone who is letting the world know that the homosexual agenda is now moving towards forcing Christian Churches into affirming homosexuality.

Since that part of the OP was just a lie- it is the correct message to point out that there is no such 'homosexual agenda'- just more Christians wanting to play the victims because they are bigots.

 

[KGB]

This puts it in a good nutshell:

Frank Bruni says a true thing that the religionistas are not ready to hear:

… homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.

That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.

But in the end, 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.

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: no more or less flawed, no more or less dignified. …

… 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’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
==================
Bruni goes on to make some of the same points I made in The Book (Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World), in particular that even among “Bible believers” ideas about what is sinful and what isn’t have changed over the years. Polygamy used to be okay, until it wasn’t.

Just 150 years ago southern white preachers defended slavery as not only sanctioned by the Bible but a benefit to the Africans who were sold into the West and made Christian. And so on.

The truth is, the moral views expressed in Iron Age scripture reflect Iron Age culture. Humankind has moved on. If the biblical literalists can’t accept that, they are free to run their own churches any way they like. But unless they want to be like the Mennonites and form their own enclosed communities, they need to adjust.

False Dichotomies

Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?

Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?

There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.

And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?

The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.

The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I think some of them get off sexually on feeling persecuted.

 

[bodecea]

This puts it in a good nutshell:

Frank Bruni says a true thing that the religionistas are not ready to hear:

… homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.

That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.

But in the end, 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.

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: no more or less flawed, no more or less dignified. …

… 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’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
==================
Bruni goes on to make some of the same points I made in The Book (Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World), in particular that even among “Bible believers” ideas about what is sinful and what isn’t have changed over the years. Polygamy used to be okay, until it wasn’t.

Just 150 years ago southern white preachers defended slavery as not only sanctioned by the Bible but a benefit to the Africans who were sold into the West and made Christian. And so on.

The truth is, the moral views expressed in Iron Age scripture reflect Iron Age culture. Humankind has moved on. If the biblical literalists can’t accept that, they are free to run their own churches any way they like. But unless they want to be like the Mennonites and form their own enclosed communities, they need to adjust.

False Dichotomies

Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?

Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?

There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.

And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?

The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.

The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.

Which is the church's call...not the government.

 

[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.

Since it is Sassy Girl that is trying to suppress the opinion of one editorial writer- by lying about what he said.....only a Conservative would defend that.

What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?

Are you mental?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

You think as long as the cult of LGBT doesn't call itself a religion, it can get away with looking like "the poor seculars getting beaten up by the religious".

Guess again. Your cult has rigid dogma, punishment for heretics and evangelizes more aggressively than any religion I know of.

As usual- you are delusional and your overt hatred of homosexuals comes out again.

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

Conservatives want to mandate everyone be religious?

Stop lying, Leftists!

 

[koshergrl]

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

The nonsense is that the left seems to think it's a function of the state to dictate religious belief.

They're wrong, of course.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

You think as long as the cult of LGBT doesn't call itself a religion, it can get away with looking like "the poor seculars getting beaten up by the religious".

Guess again. Your cult has rigid dogma, punishment for heretics and evangelizes more aggressively than any religion I know of.

As usual- you are delusional and your overt hatred of homosexuals comes out again.

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

Conservatives want to mandate everyone be religious?

Stop lying, Leftists!

They have to lie to justify state intrusion and control of religion, just as they had to lie to convince the courts and a minority of the people that killing babies is not really murder.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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

Thats what Conservatives really want- a return to the good old days before the Bill of Rights.

The Bill Of Rights was ratified in 1791. Most of us here probably were not around before that time, so we wouldn't exactly be "returning".

 

[PratchettFan]

This puts it in a good nutshell:

Frank Bruni says a true thing that the religionistas are not ready to hear:

… homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.

That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.

But in the end, 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.

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: no more or less flawed, no more or less dignified. …

… 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’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
==================
Bruni goes on to make some of the same points I made in The Book (Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World), in particular that even among “Bible believers” ideas about what is sinful and what isn’t have changed over the years. Polygamy used to be okay, until it wasn’t.

Just 150 years ago southern white preachers defended slavery as not only sanctioned by the Bible but a benefit to the Africans who were sold into the West and made Christian. And so on.

The truth is, the moral views expressed in Iron Age scripture reflect Iron Age culture. Humankind has moved on. If the biblical literalists can’t accept that, they are free to run their own churches any way they like. But unless they want to be like the Mennonites and form their own enclosed communities, they need to adjust.

False Dichotomies

Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?

Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?

There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.

And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?

The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.

The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.

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.

Since it is Sassy Girl that is trying to suppress the opinion of one editorial writer- by lying about what he said.....only a Conservative would defend that.

What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?

Are you mental?

What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?

 

[bodecea]

I bet you play with a stretchy armstrong, child

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

I have no interest, pal. Move along with your BS and attempt to "dazzle" a loon

Can you at least admit that jumping to the conclusion that acceptance of gays would be government mandated was an invention of your own "mind"?

Fug off loon....how's that? Good grief why do you loons have to be so annoying? It's like it's a quest for you

Irish Gal is of the type of Christian that believes its okay for her to lie just so long as she does it to attack liberals.

Pointing out her lies makes her testy.

She has even admitted in the past that it is acceptable for her to lie. So much for that 8th Commandment, eh?0

 

[koshergrl]

This puts it in a good nutshell:

Frank Bruni says a true thing that the religionistas are not ready to hear:

… homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.

That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.

But in the end, 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.

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: no more or less flawed, no more or less dignified. …

… 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’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
==================
Bruni goes on to make some of the same points I made in The Book (Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World), in particular that even among “Bible believers” ideas about what is sinful and what isn’t have changed over the years. Polygamy used to be okay, until it wasn’t.

Just 150 years ago southern white preachers defended slavery as not only sanctioned by the Bible but a benefit to the Africans who were sold into the West and made Christian. And so on.

The truth is, the moral views expressed in Iron Age scripture reflect Iron Age culture. Humankind has moved on. If the biblical literalists can’t accept that, they are free to run their own churches any way they like. But unless they want to be like the Mennonites and form their own enclosed communities, they need to adjust.

False Dichotomies

Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?

Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?

There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.

And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?

The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.

The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.

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.

Since it is Sassy Girl that is trying to suppress the opinion of one editorial writer- by lying about what he said.....only a Conservative would defend that.

What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?

Are you mental?

What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?

When did she try to suppress the writer?

Oh yeah, she didn't.

However, the writer is calling for action by the state, against churches.

Which is of course illegal and unconstitutional.

 

[PratchettFan]

This puts it in a good nutshell:

Frank Bruni says a true thing that the religionistas are not ready to hear:

… homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.

That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.

But in the end, 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.

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: no more or less flawed, no more or less dignified. …

… 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’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
==================
Bruni goes on to make some of the same points I made in The Book (Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World), in particular that even among “Bible believers” ideas about what is sinful and what isn’t have changed over the years. Polygamy used to be okay, until it wasn’t.

Just 150 years ago southern white preachers defended slavery as not only sanctioned by the Bible but a benefit to the Africans who were sold into the West and made Christian. And so on.

The truth is, the moral views expressed in Iron Age scripture reflect Iron Age culture. Humankind has moved on. If the biblical literalists can’t accept that, they are free to run their own churches any way they like. But unless they want to be like the Mennonites and form their own enclosed communities, they need to adjust.

False Dichotomies

Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?

Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?

There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.

And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?

The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.

The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.

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.

Since it is Sassy Girl that is trying to suppress the opinion of one editorial writer- by lying about what he said.....only a Conservative would defend that.

What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?

Are you mental?

What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?

When did she try to suppress the writer?

Oh yeah, she didn't.

However, the writer is calling for action by the state, against churches.

Which is of course illegal and unconstitutional.

No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.

 

[koshergrl]

This puts it in a good nutshell:

Frank Bruni says a true thing that the religionistas are not ready to hear:

… homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.

That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.

But in the end, 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.

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: no more or less flawed, no more or less dignified. …

… 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’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
==================
Bruni goes on to make some of the same points I made in The Book (Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World), in particular that even among “Bible believers” ideas about what is sinful and what isn’t have changed over the years. Polygamy used to be okay, until it wasn’t.

Just 150 years ago southern white preachers defended slavery as not only sanctioned by the Bible but a benefit to the Africans who were sold into the West and made Christian. And so on.

The truth is, the moral views expressed in Iron Age scripture reflect Iron Age culture. Humankind has moved on. If the biblical literalists can’t accept that, they are free to run their own churches any way they like. But unless they want to be like the Mennonites and form their own enclosed communities, they need to adjust.

False Dichotomies

Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?

Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?

There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.

And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?

The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.

The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.

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

Since it is Sassy Girl that is trying to suppress the opinion of one editorial writer- by lying about what he said.....only a Conservative would defend that.

What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?

Are you mental?

What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?

When did she try to suppress the writer?

Oh yeah, she didn't.

However, the writer is calling for action by the state, against churches.

Which is of course illegal and unconstitutional.

No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.

In other words, sedition.

Full Definition of SEDITION
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

Sedition - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

This puts it in a good nutshell:

Frank Bruni says a true thing that the religionistas are not ready to hear:

… homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.

That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.

But in the end, 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.

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: no more or less flawed, no more or less dignified. …

… 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’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
==================
Bruni goes on to make some of the same points I made in The Book (Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World), in particular that even among “Bible believers” ideas about what is sinful and what isn’t have changed over the years. Polygamy used to be okay, until it wasn’t.

Just 150 years ago southern white preachers defended slavery as not only sanctioned by the Bible but a benefit to the Africans who were sold into the West and made Christian. And so on.

The truth is, the moral views expressed in Iron Age scripture reflect Iron Age culture. Humankind has moved on. If the biblical literalists can’t accept that, they are free to run their own churches any way they like. But unless they want to be like the Mennonites and form their own enclosed communities, they need to adjust.

False Dichotomies

Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?

Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?

There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.

And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?

The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.

The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.

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.

Since it is Sassy Girl that is trying to suppress the opinion of one editorial writer- by lying about what he said.....only a Conservative would defend that.

What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?

Are you mental?

What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?

Calling for human rights violations is a step in the direction of making it happen, something intelligent people learned because of 1930's Germany. People who defend such disgusting proposals are just as evil.

 

[ogibillm]

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

Relax. That is an opinion piece not the law of the land. 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. We mere mortals are charged with deconstructing the walls we've built to separate us from "the others."

Excuse me but relax is the wrong message to send someone who is letting the world know that the homosexual agenda is now moving towards forcing Christian Churches into affirming homosexuality. It begins with "discussion" and the next thing you know, they are moving towards making it a law, Sayit. It is the Christians who are being judged here - for standing on the Word of God and refusing to acknowledge homosexuality as anything than what it is - an abomination before God Almighty and a sin. The Bible does not say, Love the sinner / hate the sin. Ghandi said that and Ghandi is in hell today. The Bible says God is angry with the wicked every day. The Bible says the wicked shall be destroyed. The Bible says no homosexual will enter the kingdom of heaven. The Bible never teaches any group of believers to invite homosexuals to join their church and live in sin before the congregation. If you will read the 1 Corinthians 5:1 - 5 you'll find that the Apostle Paul rebuked the Church in Corinth for not removing a man who was in sexual sin - from the congregation! What was Pauls command? Put him out of the church - turn him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh. That's what. Do not tell her she is wrong when she is right. She's right. This begins with someone's opinion and the next step is they'll move to make it a law. People have every right to be alarmed and speak up!

Oh come now jeremiah, if anyone should be a fan of changing biblical interpretation it ought to be you. Your faith is based on it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?

Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?

There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.

And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?

The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.

The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.

Since it is Sassy Girl that is trying to suppress the opinion of one editorial writer- by lying about what he said.....only a Conservative would defend that.

What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?

Are you mental?

What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?

When did she try to suppress the writer?

Oh yeah, she didn't.

However, the writer is calling for action by the state, against churches.

Which is of course illegal and unconstitutional.

No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people.

No, the writer is not.

 

[koshergrl]

The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.

What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?

Are you mental?

What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?

When did she try to suppress the writer?

Oh yeah, she didn't.

However, the writer is calling for action by the state, against churches.

Which is of course illegal and unconstitutional.

No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people.

No, the writer is not.

Sedition - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[ogibillm]

Where are the Christian protests against men remarrying after divorce?

Where is the outrage- the rejection of Newt Gingrich for marrying his third wife?

There are some Christian Churches which still forbid divorce- the Catholic Church front and foremost- but I don't see the Catholic Church campaigning to prevent divorced people from legally marrying. Nor do I see other churches preaching about the sin of remarriage after divorce.

And where is the outrage towards those who worship 'false idols'- where is the condemnation by Christian Churches of Buddhists and Hindu's?

The article correctly points out that many churches(certainly not all) do selectively choose to condemn homosexuality out of the many, many sins in the Bible.

The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.

Since it is Sassy Girl that is trying to suppress the opinion of one editorial writer- by lying about what he said.....only a Conservative would defend that.

What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?

Are you mental?

What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?

When did she try to suppress the writer?

Oh yeah, she didn't.

However, the writer is calling for action by the state, against churches.

Which is of course illegal and unconstitutional.

No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.

In other words, sedition.

Please, show us where the writer called for government action.