New York Times Writer Comes Clean; Christianity MUST EMBRACE Gay Lifestyle

[AuH20]

Not tolerate but embrace. This is a very dangerous notion that George Orwell wrote about.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/04/08/nyt-writer-christianity-must-be-made-to-embrace-gay-lifestyle/


Bruni cites fellow gay activist Mitchell Gold, founder of the advocacy group Faith in America, as saying that church leaders must be made to take homosexuality off the sin list. “His commandment is worthy — and warranted,” writes Bruni.

So now government should be dictating belief to churches and enforcing theological orthodoxy? Now politicians and courts will be telling Christians what they are allowed to consider as sinful? Isn’t this what America was founded to escape from?

People are already talking about forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings, whether they like it or not, or get out of the marriage business. Christians founded America and yet now the minority gay lobby is trying to tell them they are personae non gratae and their beliefs are no longer welcome.

America has a grand tradition of tolerance and religious freedom, respect for a diversity of beliefs, and an honest engagement with ideas of all sorts. It seems that some would like to force all Americans to walk in lockstep, marching to the same drummer.

[RJB]

New York Times Writer Comes Clean; Christianity MUST EMBRACE Gay Lifestyle...
...as saying that church leaders must be made to take homosexuality off the sin list.


Does that go for drunkenness, adultery, etc.?

[cajuncocoa]

Did they happen to mention that other religions should embrace it too?

[GunnyFreedom]

Did they happen to mention that other religions should embrace it too?

There are no other (politically relevant) religions in America.

[Christian Liberty]

There are no other (politically relevant) religions in America.

Biblical Christianity isn't that relevant either. The number who actually care what the Bible says seems small.

[GunnyFreedom]

Biblical Christianity isn't that relevant either. The number who actually care what the Bible says seems small.

Likewise the Constitution.

[Sam I am]

If you want to read the actual column, and not a column about the column, here's the link to it

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

After a quick skim of the article, I couldn't find the part where he wanted the government to define what is or isn't sinful to Christians.

[cajuncocoa]

There are no other (politically relevant) religions in America.
I don't know...I recently read that Muslims will outnumber Christians in about 50 years. Maybe they should start working on them NOW.

[AuH20]

If you want to read the actual column, and not a column about the column, here's the link to it

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

After a quick skim of the article, I couldn't find the part where he wanted the government to define what is or isn't sinful to Christians.

You didn't read this paragraph? The term 'final holdout' conjures up the image of a criminal's lair that is about to be SWATed.


And it’s a vital message because of something that Indiana demonstrated anew: Religion is going to be the final holdout and most stubborn refuge for homophobia. It will give license to discrimination. It will cause gay and lesbian teenagers in fundamentalist households to agonize needlessly: Am I broken? Am I damned?


And then this conclusion? Who do you think they are referring to as the 'enforcer' of such wishes? The Easter Bunny?

Gold told me that church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

His commandment is worthy — and warranted. All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense. And that’s precisely what the florists and bakers who want to turn them away are saying to them.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Huh. Last I checked, Christians stood for what they believed in, even in the face of those who would mock or try to use them. In the world we live in, Christians are seen as intolerant because they disagree with what the world now deems socially acceptable...but many don't accept the idea that many don't abide by the laws of man, but by that of their Creator.

[AuH20]

Huh. Last I checked, Christians stood for what they believed in, even in the face of those who would mock or try to use them. In the world we live in, Christians are seen as intolerant because they disagree with what the world now deems socially acceptable...but many don't accept the idea that many don't abide by the laws of man, but by that of their Creator.

As long as Christians aren't physically harming anyone, let them be. And this principle would apply to Muslims as well. This pathetic attempt to alter how they view the world is highly offensive and anti-freedom at it's core.

[presence]

America has a grand tradition of tolerance and religious freedom,
respect for a diversity of beliefs,
and an honest engagement with ideas of all sorts.

Can I put that in my pipe and smoke it?

[ZENemy]

Should the government force a gay-owned print shop to make "God hates ****" signs for the Westboro Baptist Church?

[presence]

http://i.imgur.com/BaJTezD.png

[AuH20]

Can I put that in my pipe and smoke it?

I think the writer kinda went overboard, but he's certainly right comparatively.

[jmdrake]

There are no other (politically relevant) religions in America.

Judaism seems politically relevant.

[AuH20]

Judaism seems politically relevant.

Judaism has been hollowed out and remade as a destructive political force. The Old Testament forbid usury but don't dare ever bring that up in Jewish circles.

[Sam I am]

You didn't read this paragraph?



And then this conclusion? Who do you think they are referring to as the 'enforcer' of such wishes? The Easter Bunny?

The first paragraph you quoted doesn't even have a call to action, let alone a call to action for government intervention.

As for the second paragraph, it appears as though Mitchell Gold's "enforcement" plan is on his origination's website here:

http://www.faithinamerica.org/stand-up/what-we-need-you-to-do/

It appears to be mostly about applying social pressure and persuasion, and not so much about legislation.


Most people associate bigotry with something to be shunned and don’t want to be a bigot. Our biggest opportunity is to get that person to realize what they are doing, and as a result, they can be moved. We can’t force people to change their minds, but we can try to enlighten them and let them come to their own conclusions.

[AuH20]

The first paragraph you quoted doesn't even have a call to action, let alone a call to action for government intervention.

As for the second paragraph, it appears as though Mitchell Gold's "enforcement" plan is on his origination's website here:

http://www.faithinamerica.org/stand-up/what-we-need-you-to-do/

It appears to be mostly about applying social pressure and persuasion, and not so much about legislation.

If someone wanted to alter church doctrine, all they would have to do is slightly alter the parameters of 501 (c)(3) status. We already have churches essentially working in the employ of the federal government, since they are slaves to the nonprofit status that is bestowed upon them

[Christian Liberty]

"bigotry" as defined in this day and age is a badge of honor.

[jmdrake]

If you want to read the actual column, and not a column about the column, here's the link to it

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

After a quick skim of the article, I couldn't find the part where he wanted the government to define what is or isn't sinful to Christians.

Thank you for the link. Now read between the lines.

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.

And....

For a very long time, he noted, “Many Christians thought slavery wasn’t sinful, until we finally concluded that it was. People thought contraception was sinful when it began to be developed, and now very few Protestants and not that many Catholics would say that.” They hold an evolved sense of right and wrong, even though, he added, “You could find scriptural support for the idea that all sex should be procreative.”

How did slavery end in the U.S.? Through a bloody civil war. One may argue that the civil war wasn't about slavery. But there's no arguing that it set the stage and the end of slavery was the result. Similarly I don't believe this current fight is about marriage equality. If it was, those who were fighting for it would give a rip about polygamy. Most of them don't.

The force of the state has indeed been used to force people to abandoned their beliefs regarding race. The IRS went after Bob Jones University, stripping it of its tax exempt status over its stance against interracial dating. Now that stance was unbiblical and idiotic. Moses' wife was not ethnically Jewish and Rahab, a Canaanite woman (descendant of Ham) was in the genealogy of Jesus. Bob BJU has a right to be biblicaly stupid.

Don't be naive enough to think that this Frank Bruni has the same aversion to government force to push an agenda that you may have. Don't forget that his whole article is in support of the very "You must not discriminate against gays in any way even if you are Christian" law that the Indiana law overturned.

[Anti Federalist]

And then this conclusion? Who do you think they are referring to as the 'enforcer' of such wishes? The Easter Bunny?


Gold told me that church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

AuH2O is right about this.

This is a classic example of "cultural Marxism".

Not "you should think this".

No, it is "you will be made to think this."

Or else.

[jmdrake]

Judaism has been hollowed out and remade as a destructive political force.

And you can say the same thing about Christianity. As enhanced_deficit pointed out in another thread, if Christians hadn't been singing "Onward Christian soldiers" in support of wars that have actually advanced the cause of radical Islam by destroying its enemies like Saddam Hussein there wouldn't have been the political backlash that propelled those hostile to conservative Christianity into power.

[AuH20]

And you can say the same thing about Christianity. As enhanced_deficit pointed out in another thread, if Christians hadn't been singing "Onward Christian soldiers" in support of wars that have actually advanced the cause of radical Islam by destroying its enemies like Saddam Hussein there wouldn't have been the political backlash that propelled those hostile to conservative Christianity into power.

Very true. I wasn't just singling out Judaism. All these religions end up being perverted by political power.

[jmdrake]

It appears to be mostly about applying social pressure and persuasion, and not so much about legislation.

Except the whole article is in defense of anti Christian legislation!

[heavenlyboy34]

Judaism has been hollowed out and remade as a destructive political force. The Old Testament forbid usury but don't dare ever bring that up in Jewish circles.

IDK if that's quite accurate. Judaism has almost always been fragmented-most notably the Essenes, Sadduccees, and Pharisees. There are probably lots more, but Jewish history is not my specialty.

[jmdrake]

Here is something to consider. I know Christians, all Obama supporters, who have taken the "Well I don't agree with gay marriage but I don't like discrimination" argument. One has to wonder what position these Christians will take when confronted with the knowledge that this culture war isn't merely about "extending rights" but about forcing a change in religious thinking? Oh, and this is really about a population control agenda. It's in the P.C. documents. Gays can't naturally have kids. Note that freedom for polygamists is not being pushed. Polygamists tend to have lots of kids. It's that simple.

[enhanced_deficit]

Christian Evangelical leader Billy Graham is not going to be happy with NYT.

Graham-Nixon tape recording on NYT (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471576-for-G-O-P-Support-for-Israel-Becomes-New-Litmus-Test&p=5823820&viewfull=1#post5823820)

[jmdrake]

http://i.imgur.com/BaJTezD.png

LOL

[specsaregood]

/.

[Deborah K]

Not tolerate but embrace. This is a very dangerous notion that George Orwell wrote about.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/04/08/nyt-writer-christianity-must-be-made-to-embrace-gay-lifestyle/


Embrace: accept or support (a belief, theory, or change) willingly and enthusiastically.

synonyms: welcome, welcome with open arms, accept, take up, take to one's heart, adopt

I guess that means we need to censor the Old and New Testament now.

[Deborah K]

Huh. Last I checked, Christians stood for what they believed in, even in the face of those who would mock or try to use them. In the world we live in, Christians are seen as intolerant because they disagree with what the world now deems socially acceptable...but many don't accept the idea that many don't abide by the laws of man, but by that of their Creator.

This. Freedom for some, not all.

[euphemia]

Actually, the abolition movement began in the church. There was no need for a war.

[jmdrake]

on a sidenote, I just heard an ad on the radio yesterday for some conference coming up in our area on family planning for gay couples. "Yes, you can have children too! Come to the conference to find out all the options available to you and your partner"

Uh-huh. Note I said naturally. Yes if you are a lesbian couple (not a male gay couple), you can go to the sperm bank, pay for a batch, get pregnant, and then hit the stupid male donor up for child support. But people are unlikely to go through all of that to have more than a couple of kids. Straight couples who don't practice birth control pump out babies like candy.

[Ronin Truth]

Christianity hasn't had to for ~2,000 years. Why MUST they embrace it now?

[AuH20]

Christianity hasn't had to for ~2,000 years. Why MUST they embrace it now?

Heh.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/68/09/78/680978e530583bec73a20f81ddddaf73.jpg

Funny because it doesn't look like 'progress' to me. 'Progress' to me is flying cars and alternative energy. Demanding people to conform their personal feelings is not progress by any stretch of the imagination.

[Sonny Tufts]

If someone wanted to alter church doctrine, all they would have to do is slightly alter the parameters of 501 (c)(3) status. We already have churches essentially working in the employ of the federal government, since they are slaves to the nonprofit status that is bestowed upon them

You may have a point. In Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 547 (1983), the Supreme Court upheld the IRS's revocation of the tax-exempt status of private schools that practiced racial discrimination. The Court held that entitlement to tax exemption depends on meeting certain common-law standards of charity - namely, that an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy. Since racial discrimination is contrary to public policy, the exemption for the schools could not stand.

The Court rejected the university's claim that denying the exemption would violate the First Amendment, noting that "denial of tax benefits will inevitably have a substantial impact on the operation of private religious schools, but will not prevent those schools from observing their religious tenets." In a footnote, the majority stated, "We deal here only with religious schools - not with churches or other purely religious institutions; here, the governmental interest is in denying public support to racial discrimination in education."

[PRB]

Likewise the Constitution.

I'm out of reps, somebody give this guy a plus for me. thanks!

[jonhowe]

Oh, and this is really about a population control agenda. It's in the P.C. documents. Gays can't naturally have kids. Note that freedom for polygamists is not being pushed. Polygamists tend to have lots of kids. It's that simple.

Gays who arent interested in kids wont have kids, gay marriage or not. Gays who want to have kids (there are PLENTY of ways now) will have kids, gay marriage or not.

[PRB]

I don't know...I recently read that Muslims will outnumber Christians in about 50 years. Maybe they should start working on them NOW.

If Muslims aren't being told they need to tolerate or embrace gays, then I'll embrace them just to ensure this country still has moral values. They may worship the wrong God but Americans deserve the freedom to make gays (or any other sinners and criminals) feel unwelcome. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not sodomy.

[muh_roads]

Does anyone want to form a religion? I want some of that mad 501(c)3 money. You only need 3 ppl to form one.

Name suggestions? "Followers of the Jesus UFO" is what I'm leaning towards.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'm out of reps, somebody give this guy a plus for me. thanks!

You should be plus repping Sam I Am. He does the same nonsense as you.

[jmdrake]

Gays who arent interested in kids wont have kids, gay marriage or not. Gays who want to have kids (there are PLENTY of ways now) will have kids, gay marriage or not.

Is your reading comprehension level really that low? What part of "naturally" do you not understand? Heterosexual couples have kids whether they are specifically trying to or not. And a gay male couple cannot actually have children. They can bring in a surrogate but that's not really them having children.

Edit: More reading for you.

http://www.toomanyaborted.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Jaffe-Memo.pdf

[NewRightLibertarian]

It becomes more clear everyday that the 'Gay Rights' movement is just a trojan horse to attack religious freedom.

[AuH20]

It becomes more clear everyday that the 'Gay Rights' movement is just a trojan horse to attack religious freedom.

I don't think it originally started off like that, but that's what it certainly looks like today.

[PRB]

It becomes more clear everyday that the 'Gay Rights' movement is just a trojan horse to attack religious freedom.

not even a trojan horse, it's pretty blatant and open about it.

[idiom]

http://i.imgur.com/l9z5vUR.jpg

[DamianTV]

Good grief, so easy to recognize.

Obvious Group Think. People are being told to accept an idea as a Group instead of recognizing that is really up to each individual christian and individual gay person to determine how they get along. The real message here is same as in Public Schools, OBEY the Group Opinion.

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/19/pope-homosexuality-church-gay_n_6010904.html


Pope: 'God Is Not Afraid Of New Things'

(Reuters) - Pope Francis has closed an assembly of Catholic bishops that revealed deep divisions on how to respond to homosexuality and divorce, saying on Sunday the Church should not be afraid of change and new challenges.

Francis, who has said he wants a more merciful and less rigid Church, made his comments in a sermon to some 70,000 people in St. Peter's Square for the ceremonial closing of a two-week assembly, known as a synod.

The working session of the gathering ended on Saturday night with a final document that reversed a historic acceptance of gays by the Church made just a week earlier -- a result some progressives see as a setback for Francis.

"God is not afraid of new things. That is why he is continuously surprising us, opening our hearts and guiding us in unexpected ways," the pope said.

At the Mass, he beatified Pope Paul VI, who died in 1978, bringing the pontiff best known for concluding the ground-breaking reforms of the Second Vatican Council and enshrining the Church's ban on contraception a step closer to sainthood.

After an initial draft of the synod's final document was released on Monday, conservative bishops vowed to row back on the upbeat tone adopted regarding gays, cohabitation and re-marriage, saying it would create confusion among the faithful and threatened to undermine the traditional family.

Francis dedicated most of his sermon to the synod, which tackled themes such as homosexuality, divorce, re-marriage, and same-sex couples ahead of a definitive gathering next October after more discussions at a local level around the world.

He said the Church had "to respond courageously to whatever new challenges come our way". He spoke about courage a day after telling the bishops at their last working session to beware both "hostile rigidity" by doctrinal conservatives as well as "destructive good will" by those seeking change at any cost.

[Suzanimal]

Does anyone want to form a religion? I want some of that mad 501(c)3 money. You only need 3 ppl to form one.

Name suggestions? "Followers of the Jesus UFO" is what I'm leaning towards.

muh_religion?

[Sola_Fide]

Now politicians and courts will be telling Christians what they are allowed to consider as sinful? Isn’t this what America was founded to escape from?


Yes it was.

[Ronin Truth]

Quick, somebody go and break the news to the Pope.

[PaulConventionWV]

Actually, the abolition movement began in the church. There was no need for a war.

Very true... but good luck trying to tell people like the writer of the NYT article that. Revisionist history if there ever was.

[PaulConventionWV]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/19/pope-homosexuality-church-gay_n_6010904.html

Ugh. I wish the Pope would just shut his humongous pie-hole already.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Ugh. I wish the Pope would just shut his humongous pie-hole already.

He's there to promote Obama's talking points from the pulpit. Satan's church at work. When they're not diddling children, they are pushing global socialism and the new world order.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ugh. I wish the Pope would just shut his humongous pie-hole already.

I am given to understand that there is a large-ish and mostly self-organized sect amongst Catholics calling themselves "Traditional Catholics," who reject all of the Popes since Vatican II as "Anti-Popes."

[AuH20]

I am given to understand that there is a large-ish and mostly self-organized sect amongst Catholics calling themselves "Traditional Catholics," who reject all of the Popes since Vatican II as "Anti-Popes."

Mel Gibson and his father Hutton Gibson consider themselves as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson


Gibson believes that the Second Vatican Council introduced explicitly heretical and forbidden doctrines into the Catholic Church in order to destroy it from within.[citation needed] He also holds that every pope elected since John XXIII, inclusively, has been an anti-pope or illegitimate claimant to the papacy.[citation needed] This doctrine is called "Sedevacantism", from the Latin words Sede ("seat") and vacante ("vacant"), and affirms that the Pope's seat is effectively vacant because those occupying it do not do so legitimately.[citation needed]

[cajuncocoa]

If Muslims aren't being told they need to tolerate or embrace gays, then I'll embrace them just to ensure this country still has moral values. They may worship the wrong God but Americans deserve the freedom to make gays (or any other sinners and criminals) feel unwelcome. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not sodomy.
Sure, as Americans we deserve that right. But as Christians, Jesus tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:31). << What part of that verse tells you we should make anyone feel unwelcomed?

[Deborah K]

Mel Gibson and his father Hutton Gibson consider themselves as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson


It's true. He even built his own Church in Malibu, where he lives.

[GunnyFreedom]

Mel Gibson and his father Hutton Gibson consider themselves as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson

Fascinating. I am sure the people I know are of the Pius X group, but they could be from the Pius V people. I honestly had no idea all of that existed in Catholicworld. Such drama.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Does anybody really care what this clown says, other than he influences a lot of people? I guess that's a consideration, but he is just some guy who studied communications in college and now gives his opinion in writing. The only difference between him and some people here is that he has a wider audience. And he gets paid. Well, there are a few here who get paid. Heh heh.

[osan]

What's next, gay blowjobs on demand lest we be labeled "haters" and "homophobes" with ***** Nation chanting "burn the witch!!"?

These militant buttsex activists are pushing their luck here. The day may come where the pendulum swings the other way precisely because they pushed it way too far in one direction. If that happens, they may all live just long enough to regret the avarice with which they currently push their agenda. Tolerance just wasn't good enough for the little darlings.

[osan]

Pope: 'God Is Not Afraid Of New Things'[/B]

Oh, OK...so I guess he won't mind if I pay him a visit and buttscrew him with a 1983 GMC school bus, eh?

This new pope seems a profound idiot, based on the ridiculous things he is quoted as having said.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

...Americans deserve the freedom to make gays (or any other sinners and criminals) feel unwelcome. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not sodomy.


Sure, as Americans we deserve that right. But as Christians, Jesus tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:31). << What part of that verse tells you we should make anyone feel unwelcomed?




CC, I think you hit the nail on the head. This is the ideology of the Democrat and other big government advocates. PRB is practicing his usual fake libertarianism, but he and his fellow Democrats really do think this way. Their ideology is that the state (and not one's personal religious beliefs) should govern this type of freedom. They think it is the responsibility of the state to guide and govern one's conscience. They often disdain the church, so that is why they advocate for the state.

This NYT article is a perfect illustration of the mentality. If you read between the lines and also overtly, then you'll notice that Sam I Am, PRB, and others like them have this thought framework. This is a fundamental difference between them and liberty minded people here.

[GunnyFreedom]

Oh, OK...so I guess he won't mind if I pay him a visit and buttscrew him with a 1983 GMC school bus, eh?

This new pope seems a profound idiot, based on the ridiculous things he is quoted as having said.

Particularly considering the axiom that 'there is nothing new under the sun.'

Seems like I read that somewhere in some kind of book....


Wonder if the Pope has read that same book?

[PRB]

CC, I think you hit the nail on the head. This is the ideology of the Democrat and other big government advocates. PRB is practicing his usual fake libertarianism, but he and his fellow Democrats really do think this way. Their ideology is that the state (and not one's personal religious beliefs) should govern this type of freedom. They think it is the responsibility of the state to guide and govern one's conscience. They often disdain the church, so that is why they advocate for the state.

This NYT article is a perfect illustration of the mentality. If you read between the lines and also overtly, then you'll notice that Sam I Am, PRB, and others like them have this thought framework. This is a fundamental difference between them and liberty minded people here.

What of what I said is fake or shows disdain for any church?

[osan]

Particularly considering the axiom that 'there is nothing new under the sun.'

It is one of the great and profound insights contained in the Book.


Wonder if the Pope has read that same book?


"I ain't got time for that shit..."

-Frank

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What of what I said is fake or shows disdain for any church?


PRB: Pretending Really Bad (to be libertarian)

[Philhelm]

What's next, gay blowjobs on demand lest we be labeled "haters" and "homophobes" with ***** Nation chanting "burn the witch!!"?

It's only gay if there is eye contact during the act.

[OReich]

If you want to read the actual column, and not a column about the column, here's the link to it

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

After a quick skim of the article, I couldn't find the part where he wanted the government to define what is or isn't sinful to Christians.

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

You're right, the article doesn't call for gov't action once. The OP is mistaken.

[paleocon1]

This one will get settled by force of arms

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

What of what I said is fake or shows disdain for any church?
Doesn't your name stand for Priests Rape Boys?

[PRB]

Doesn't your name stand for Priests Rape Boys?

Yes. I admit that, I am against the Catholic Church for failing to investigate known crimes, too bad he couldn't even answer that one. I am not against Christianity, I am against homosexuality and child molestation.

[Ronin Truth]

What's next, MUST EMBRACE and abortion lifestyle?

Ain't gonna happen. :p :mad: