Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

What the hell do you mean by that?

 

[Skylar]

Here's the actual article

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?_r=0

Its not particularly controversial. Conservatives are gonna pull something if they keep bending over backwards to be offended.

 

[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?

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.

It certainly would be. But since this piece did nothing even vaguely like that your comment is irrelevant.

 

[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.

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.

It certainly would be. But since this piece did nothing even vaguely like that your comment is irrelevant.

Suppressing religious freedom is a human rights violation. That this has to be explained to you is indeed disturbing.

 

[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.

What the hell do you mean by that?

I mean jeremiah is more thsn happy to edit the bible when it suitd his needs, his protestant faith is based on such an edit. Further, jeri is more than happy to rewrite history to support his beliefs, i cant see why he would have a problem with churches simply reexamining their treatment of homosexuals

 

[Skylar]

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?

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.

It certainly would be. But since this piece did nothing even vaguely like that your comment is irrelevant.

Suppressing religious freedom is a human rights violation. That this has to be explained to you is indeed disturbing.

I'm certainly working toward changing hearts and minds on the issues of gays. If nothing else, I've convinced many that love is love and family is family. Among the religious, I've convinced many to prioritize commandments of love over commandments to kill or justification to despise.

Animus is exhausting. Love is fulfilling. Its an easy sell.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

Sedition? Seriously? I'll bite. Quote the section of the piece (what the writer actually wrote, not what other people said he wrote) that even comes close to sedition. I truly can't wait. I mean, you did read the piece before you expressed an opinion on it, I'm sure. So this should not be a problem.

 

[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?

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.

It certainly would be. But since this piece did nothing even vaguely like that your comment is irrelevant.

Suppressing religious freedom is a human rights violation. That this has to be explained to you is indeed disturbing.

Where does the piece suggest this? It's not that long. Just cut and paste.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

What the hell do you mean by that?

I mean jeremiah is more thsn happy to edit the bible when it suitd his needs, his protestant faith is based on such an edit. Further, jeri is more than happy to rewrite history to support his beliefs, i cant see why he would have a problem with churches simply reexamining their treatment of homosexuals

Yes, I see your point now and since Protestants reject Sacred Tradition and have a malleable belief system they will eventually succumb to homosexual pressure. Most people don't perceive this fatal weakness that caused Protestants to abandon all opposition to contraception in the 20th century. This laid the groundwork and makes almost certain the day they will cave in to other forms of sexual immorality.

I have to give you props for making this point. They really have no defense against it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He can say it all he wants....just like columnist can say "Christian churches 'must be made' to affirm inter-racial marriages." Doesn't make it legally happen.

Your church can continue to reject people for marriage....just like they do right now. The law can't and shouldn't touch them.

Do you agree that force should be used to make Churches celebrate homosexuality?

We have already seen that the law is shit upon when it suits the left. Bakers are forced into involuntary servitude in complete disregard of the 13th. Laws are only meaningful if our rulers are constrained by them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

hissysissy, those loons have a right to their 1st Amendment speech rights.

They are also dead wrong. I think at least 95% of Americans say "no" to that nonsense.

 

[Skylar]

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.

What the hell do you mean by that?

I mean jeremiah is more thsn happy to edit the bible when it suitd his needs, his protestant faith is based on such an edit. Further, jeri is more than happy to rewrite history to support his beliefs, i cant see why he would have a problem with churches simply reexamining their treatment of homosexuals

Yes, I see your point now and since Protestants reject Sacred Tradition and have a malleable belief system they will eventually succumb to homosexual pressure. Most people don't perceive this fatal weakness that caused Protestants to abandon all opposition to contraception in the 20th century. This laid the groundwork and makes almost certain the day they will cave in to other forms of sexual immorality.

I have to give you props for making this point. They really have no defense against it.

Religion is flexible, generally reflecting the values of the people practicing it.

The Puritans executed for adultery and sodomy

The Founders for just sodomy.

Modern Christians for neither.

Unless God changed his mind, clearly Christian did.

 

[Skylar]

Again, here's the actual article. I'd suggest that those condemning it actually read it. Its pretty bland stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?_r=0

 

[Skylar]

He can say it all he wants....just like columnist can say "Christian churches 'must be made' to affirm inter-racial marriages." Doesn't make it legally happen.

Your church can continue to reject people for marriage....just like they do right now. The law can't and shouldn't touch them.

Do you agree that force should be used to make Churches celebrate homosexuality?

We have already seen that the law is shit upon when it suits the left. Bakers are forced into involuntary servitude in complete disregard of the 13th. Laws are only meaningful if our rulers are constrained by them.

PA laws aren't slavery or 'involuntary servitude'. Its basic standards of commerce. If you're going to do do business with the public, you're required to treat your customers fairly and equally.

If your religion makes your job impossible, find another job.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

What the hell do you mean by that?

I mean jeremiah is more thsn happy to edit the bible when it suitd his needs, his protestant faith is based on such an edit. Further, jeri is more than happy to rewrite history to support his beliefs, i cant see why he would have a problem with churches simply reexamining their treatment of homosexuals

Yes, I see your point now and since Protestants reject Sacred Tradition and have a malleable belief system they will eventually succumb to homosexual pressure. Most people don't perceive this fatal weakness that caused Protestants to abandon all opposition to contraception in the 20th century. This laid the groundwork and makes almost certain the day they will cave in to other forms of sexual immorality.

I have to give you props for making this point. They really have no defense against it.

Religion is flexible, generally reflecting the values of the people practicing it.

The Puritans executed for adultery and sodomy

The Founders for just sodomy.

Modern Christians for neither.

Unless God changed his mind, clearly Christian did.

The Catholic Church is not flexible and will never compromise her teachings even if Christ should tarry another 2000 years. We don't rely on individual interpretation of the Bible to have its meaning changed like lawyers change the meaning of the law.

In 2000 years, do you really think this is the first time we've been besieged by popular tides pressuring us to change?

 

[BULLDOG]

Or else, what ?

I've got no problem with individuals or groups attempting to convince religions to accept them.
However, they better not be talking about consequences if they fail to be inclusive.

There are always consequences to every action. In this case, that consequence is public reaction.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

What the hell do you mean by that?

I mean jeremiah is more thsn happy to edit the bible when it suitd his needs, his protestant faith is based on such an edit. Further, jeri is more than happy to rewrite history to support his beliefs, i cant see why he would have a problem with churches simply reexamining their treatment of homosexuals

Yes, I see your point now and since Protestants reject Sacred Tradition and have a malleable belief system they will eventually succumb to homosexual pressure. Most people don't perceive this fatal weakness that caused Protestants to abandon all opposition to contraception in the 20th century. This laid the groundwork and makes almost certain the day they will cave in to other forms of sexual immorality.

I have to give you props for making this point. They really have no defense against it.

Religion is flexible, generally reflecting the values of the people practicing it.

The Puritans executed for adultery and sodomy

The Founders for just sodomy.

Modern Christians for neither.

Unless God changed his mind, clearly Christian did.

The Catholic Church is not flexible and will never compromise her teachings even if Christ should tarry another 2000 years. We don't rely on individual interpretation of the Bible to have its meaning changed like lawyers change the meaning of the law.

In 2000 years, do you really think this is the first time we've been besieged by popular tides pressuring us to change?

Do you think that matters?

 

[Skylar]

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.

What the hell do you mean by that?

I mean jeremiah is more thsn happy to edit the bible when it suitd his needs, his protestant faith is based on such an edit. Further, jeri is more than happy to rewrite history to support his beliefs, i cant see why he would have a problem with churches simply reexamining their treatment of homosexuals

Yes, I see your point now and since Protestants reject Sacred Tradition and have a malleable belief system they will eventually succumb to homosexual pressure. Most people don't perceive this fatal weakness that caused Protestants to abandon all opposition to contraception in the 20th century. This laid the groundwork and makes almost certain the day they will cave in to other forms of sexual immorality.

I have to give you props for making this point. They really have no defense against it.

Religion is flexible, generally reflecting the values of the people practicing it.

The Puritans executed for adultery and sodomy

The Founders for just sodomy.

Modern Christians for neither.

Unless God changed his mind, clearly Christian did.

The Catholic Church is not flexible and will never compromise her teachings even if Christ should tarry another 2000 years. We don't rely on individual interpretation of the Bible to have its meaning changed like lawyers change the meaning of the law.

In 2000 years, do you really think this is the first time we've been besieged by popular tides pressuring us to change?

How many heretics have you burned lately? How many inquisitions have you launched? When was the last time you tortured someone to force their conversion to Catholicism? What happened to indulgences?

And is this still church doctrine?

“[we decree] that each and every person of either sex, whether Roman or non-Roman, whether secular or clerical, and no matter of what dignity, status, degree, order or condition they be , may freely and lawfully buy and sell publicly any slaves whatsoever of either sex, and make contracts about them as is accustomed to be done in other places, and publicly hold them as slaves and make use of their work, and compel them to do the work assigned to them....irrespective of whether they were made Christians after enslavement, or whether they were born in slavery even from Christian slave parents according to the provisions of common law.

Pope Paul III

How about this lovely gem?

We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude.

Pope Nicholas V

Do you really want to hang your hat on the idea that Catholic doctrine never changes?

C'mon. For fuck's sake, Catholics weren't even allowed to marry non-Catholics until the early 1800s.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

You started a thread based on a premise you yourself can't explain or defend, and yet you have the audacity to call others "loons?"

Just tell us where the opinion piece suggests government involvement in church beliefs

The Left doesn't just use government. When you people want to attack, you use social institutions, corporations, schools, all levels of government, the media, riots, death threats, and terrorism. If conservatives adopted this multi faceted, take no prisoners approach to advancing our agenda, we would be a lot more successful. But we don't.

Conservatives of course do all of those things. Conservatives eat their own young in order to advance Conservative 'ideals'.

Conservatives use social institutions(among them Churches), corporations (Hobby Lobby), schools(Liberty University), all levels of government(it was not Liberals who passed Indiana's laws), the media(Fox/WND), 'riots' (Conservatives use the threat of riots to fear monger), death threats(homosexual political activists and Family Planning clinics regularly get death threats) and terrorism (see bombing of family planning clinics).

And of course, Conservatives try to equate free speech- like the article cited in this OP- with government oppression.

Wrong. Conservatives are restrained even when we have the power to do more. Look at our illustrious GOP controlled congress doing nothing to stop the Obama agenda.

And family planning clinics don't "regularly" get death threats.

Stop lying, Leftists!

Your illustrious GOP controlled congress is not restrained..........they are idiots that don't know how to get anything done but whine.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

What the hell do you mean by that?

I mean jeremiah is more thsn happy to edit the bible when it suitd his needs, his protestant faith is based on such an edit. Further, jeri is more than happy to rewrite history to support his beliefs, i cant see why he would have a problem with churches simply reexamining their treatment of homosexuals

Yes, I see your point now and since Protestants reject Sacred Tradition and have a malleable belief system they will eventually succumb to homosexual pressure. Most people don't perceive this fatal weakness that caused Protestants to abandon all opposition to contraception in the 20th century. This laid the groundwork and makes almost certain the day they will cave in to other forms of sexual immorality.

I have to give you props for making this point. They really have no defense against it.

Religion is flexible, generally reflecting the values of the people practicing it.

The Puritans executed for adultery and sodomy

The Founders for just sodomy.

Modern Christians for neither.

Unless God changed his mind, clearly Christian did.

The Catholic Church is not flexible and will never compromise her teachings even if Christ should tarry another 2000 years. We don't rely on individual interpretation of the Bible to have its meaning changed like lawyers change the meaning of the law.

In 2000 years, do you really think this is the first time we've been besieged by popular tides pressuring us to change?

Actually, the Catholic Church has been wonderfully flexible. But no one is suggesting it need change.