Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality

Mar 31, 2009
95,064
71,606
3,605
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
 
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
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.
 
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."
 
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."

LOL Wooosh right over another one's head
 
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
 
Another fail. Misleading OP title and the OPster doesn't like that everyone won't fall for the nonsense.
 
Another fail. Misleading OP title and the OPster doesn't like that everyone won't fall for the nonsense.

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

It's all part of the homosexual's large plan, force it as normal and it never will be normal. You CANNOT force acceptance
 
Liberals want the government to have veto power over religious doctrine. The religion then becomes an arm of the government.
 
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.
 
Woosh, right over the quacker's head

Then explain it. Do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion?

I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion...it's the opinion I have a problem with. You can't force acceptance. Hint: That's the crux of the article hence the wooosh

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

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

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

Look either comment on the topic or clam up. You're avoiding and are annoying
 
Woosh, right over the quacker's head

Then explain it. Do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion?

I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion...it's the opinion I have a problem with. You can't force acceptance. Hint: That's the crux of the article hence the wooosh

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

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

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

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

I'll comment as I please. Free speech.... remember? You don't have to respond. So again, pretty much a self-inflicted issue.
 
Another fail. Misleading OP title and the OPster doesn't like that everyone won't fall for the nonsense.

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

It's all part of the homosexual's large plan, force it as normal and it never will be normal. You CANNOT force acceptance
And he can suggest that all he wants...doesn't make it right, doesn't make it happen. Just like we can say the Westboro Church can suggest that America is going to hell because of homosexuality...doesn't make it right, doesn't make it happen. Shall we say it's "all part of the christians' large plan"?
 
Woosh, right over the quacker's head

Then explain it. Do you think that they shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion?

I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion...it's the opinion I have a problem with. You can't force acceptance. Hint: That's the crux of the article hence the wooosh

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

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

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

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

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

Idiot
 

Forum List

Back
Top