Christian Group Objects to Film With Gay Jesus

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Freedom of speech and all that, so go for it. Don't understand why its okay to troll Christians all day, however nobodies gonna step up and make a gay Muhammad movie for fear of being bombed.


Which is another thing why are we scared of getting bombed by one religious group than by another? Why is one insensitive and inflammatory, and the other is expression and free speech?


Like I said freedom of speech I 100% for so if they want to make a movie about Jesus gay hopefully they make it thought provoking and tasteful, though I highly doubt it.




posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by gps777
 


Again, these folks making a film is not forcing others to participate in watching it.

However, saying things like they shouldn't be able to make it. That IS forcing others to participate.

One is imposing, and that would be the latter.

EDIT (To add)
I do think this is in bad taste, but I don't like country music either. I don't think they should stop making songs...
edit on 4/27/2012 by adigregorio because: Addddddddd + d



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio

Again, these folks making a film is not forcing others to participate in watching it.

They are making it to upset people,mission accomplished.


However, saying things like they shouldn't be able to make it. That IS forcing others to participate.

Oh, their freedom of speech is worth less then that of others.


One is imposing, and that would be the latter.

I know,as you have said your no rules=filth that everyone should abide to in your perfect world.



I do think this is in bad taste, but I don't like country music either. I don't think they should stop making songs

It wouldn`t bother me if you did wanted a country music song stopped from playing if it was made in bad taste to purposely upset alot of people.Just imagine if it was just to make fun of a group of people with a particular skin colour.

But nor have I said I think that movie shouldn`t be allowed to be made,why not add it to the rest of the filth that all ready out there,I don`t think it will make much difference.Its just that I understand where they are coming from.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
People use any excuse they can find to justify their hate.

If the Bible is true not many Christians are going to heaven I don't think, because you all seem to miss the point.

Jesus wants you to love, not hate. Do you think Jesus is proud of you for hating other Humans, putting yourself above them?

Christians don't have a monopoly on morality, however much you think you do. Why should your religion be the deciding factor on what society accepts?

I'm tired of your 'morality'. I would rather people be free, not oppressed by your 'morality'. We should turn Christian churches into Gay strip clubs! The Christian church protects pedophiles, you should be cleaning up your own house.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
They have the right to do this, surely? I mean I know they're only doing it to cause a ruckus and make money, but they have that right? No one is being forced to watch it?

If you're Christian, shouldn't you forgive them?

I'm pretty sure God, if he's up there watching, really doesn't care what they do. He gave them the free will to do it, surely?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
People use any excuse they can find to justify their hate.

As per your example of your post,well done.


If the Bible is true not many Christians are going to heaven I don't think, because you all seem to miss the point.

Here we go,cause ANOK knows best.


Jesus wants you to love, not hate. Do you think Jesus is proud of you for hating other Humans, putting yourself above them?

Jesus wants us to know him and give up sin.


Christians don't have a monopoly on morality, however much you think you do. Why should your religion be the deciding factor on what society accepts?

God holds that monopoly,yet allows us all to make our own decissions.


I'm tired of your 'morality'. I would rather people be free, not oppressed by your 'morality'. We should turn Christian churches into Gay strip clubs!

So much love you have.


The Christian church protects pedophiles, you should be cleaning up your own house.

A particular church may do that


The Chatholic church isn`t my house! its as much yours as it is mine.
.................................................................................................................
Analogy...

ATS has a set of rules in which we are to abide,some members leave on their own accord,most if not all members are given warnings to curb their behavour,if they can not do this they will be banned,bye bye.Some who are banned can come back,some who are banned think they deserve their own set of rules and make an ATS hate site just to slander and for revenge.

God works very much the same way,where time and patience and mercy and forgivness is there to be had,just don`t expect to make God bend to our own personal rules,its not going to happen.

The only hate speech that I can see that is allowed to continue here on ATS unabated is toward Christians.

To be expected and was foretold.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by khimbar
If you're Christian, shouldn't you forgive them?

Yes


I'm pretty sure God, if he's up there watching, really doesn't care what they do.

No, He cares
John 3:16


He gave them the free will to do it, surely?

Absolutely anything anyone chooses


People can murder rape steal lie cheat etc etc and spit in His face,might seem like a good time for awhile.

Yet all of that is and can be forgivable,sounds like love to me.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by adigregorio

Again, these folks making a film is not forcing others to participate in watching it.

They are making it to upset people,mission accomplished.

But you are suggesting they be not allowed to make it, or at least that is the main argument I am seeing in regards to this production.

THAT is imposing your morals on the filmmakers. Them making the film, well unless you were court ordered to watch it nothing is being imposed.

And since that is what I was commenting about, how you said I wanted to impose my stuff on others. (Still waiting on you to point out what I am trying to impose....)


Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by adigregorio
However, saying things like they shouldn't be able to make it. That IS forcing others to participate.
Oh, their freedom of speech is worth less then that of others.

WHAT?

Do you even know what freedom of speech is? Forcing others to be unable to speak, is not exersizing your right to free speach. Then to tout that around like you are being American, HA! Well if you want to bring this crap out, religion and state are to be seperate. So find some other government to force out-dated morals onto us.



Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by adigregorio
One is imposing, and that would be the latter.

I know,as you have said your no rules=filth that everyone should abide to in your perfect world.

Hey! We are still waiting for you to provide the rules I listed that equals this perfect world you are talking about. You can not, of course, and it is easier to muddy the topic. (Isn't it!? Rhetorical!!)

And, I said rules = filth. Not "no rules = filth" So if you are going to cherry pick, and mis construe my posts, at least quote them properly...


Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by adigregorio
I do think this is in bad taste, but I don't like country music either. I don't think they should stop making songs

It wouldn`t bother me if you did wanted a country music song stopped from playing if it was made in bad taste to purposely upset alot of people.Just imagine if it was just to make fun of a group of people with a particular skin colour.


Of course it wouldn't bother you, you enjoy giving up freedoms for security. Since YOU don't like it, no one else should like it either. (Moral pushing 101!)

edit on 4/27/2012 by adigregorio because: BB Code

edit on 4/27/2012 by adigregorio because: I hate the preview pane!

edit on 4/27/2012 by adigregorio because: C'mon ATS (I can't preview quotes within quotes...)
edit on 4/27/2012 by adigregorio because: Methinks it is time for a suggestion under site suggestions!! (Yay I can add to my code cleanup idea!)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Genealogy/Etymology never lies:

Director: Nic Arnzen (Ashkenazi) Jewish Surname

Stars:
Jeaneane Ambler name: enameller, Jewish surname
Sheilagh Brooks Jewish surname
Anna Rebek: Jewish name
David Pevsner: Jewish name

Film Editing:
Sean Cruser: Jewish surname

Special Thanks:
Michael Felts: Jewish name


Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. " (Acts 18:5-6)

For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost. (1Thessalonians 2:14-16)

Same premise as ABC's Jewish-produced TV series ,"GCB", or "Good Christian Bitches":
(written by Robert Harling, produced by Darren Star, and starring Kristin Chenoweth, Leslie Bibb, Jennifer Aspen, Miriam Shor, Marisol Nichols and Annie Potts).

Just ignore these filth-peddlers.


edit on 27-4-2012 by 1nOne because: (no reason given)


edit on 27-4-2012 by 1nOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777

No, He cares

People can murder rape steal lie cheat etc etc and spit in His face,might seem like a good time for awhile.

Yet all of that is and can be forgivable,sounds like love to me.


Sorry I think I posted that badly worded. I don't mean he doesn't care as in love people, I mean He's not going to stress about it. In so much as if these people are doing it to pi$$ him off, it isn't gonna work.

Assuming He's up there and the Bible is true. Which I won't question as I sense it's important to you, and it's not the time, place or in me to question your faith.

That make sense? Words seem to be escaping me today.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio

But you are suggesting they be not allowed to make it, or at least that is the main argument I am seeing in regards to this production.

I never said that,read my post that you quoted.


THAT is imposing your morals on the filmmakers. Them making the film, well unless you were court ordered to watch it nothing is being imposed.

Still not reading or understanding my post (on purpose?) considering you thought it a great joke in this thread to be in love with Christs body and all.


And since that is what I was commenting about, how you said I wanted to impose my stuff on others. (Still waiting on you to point out what I am trying to impose....)

You`ve already displayed it.



WHAT?

Do you even know what freedom of speech is? Forcing others to be unable to speak, is not exersizing your right to free speach. Then to tout that around like you are being American, HA!

No one is trying to force others not to speak,I said I can see why they are upset about it.

As if I think I`m American lmao.


Well if you want to bring this crap out, religion and state are to be seperate. So find some other government to force out-dated morals onto us.

Who`s trying Christians don`t own the world.


Hey! We are still waiting for you to provide the rules I listed that equals this perfect world you are talking about. You can not, of course, and it is easier to muddy the topic. (Isn't it!? Rhetorical!!)

Who`s we? (or is this a medical condition)



And, I said rules = filth. Not "no rules = filth" So if you are going to cherry pick, and mis construe my posts, at least quote them properly...

Just cutting to the chase,your rule of no rule=filth,so you admit here that if we played by your rule of no rule thats filth.

I can see that.



Of course it wouldn't bother you, you enjoy giving up freedoms for security. Since YOU don't like it, no one else should like it either. (Moral pushing 101!)

If a country song was made about you or your family to mock and humiliate you,I`d stand by ya.Reguardless of your hate toward me or my beliefs.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by adigregorio

But you are suggesting they be not allowed to make it, or at least that is the main argument I am seeing in regards to this production.

I never said that,read my post that you quoted.

You may have not said it specifically, but that is the general argument against this film. "It shouldn't be made". Or are you saying that they should be allowed to make it? At least we can agree that they have a right to make it now! Sorry for misunderstanding your position, I thought you desired for this films production to be halted (forcibly if needed...)


Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by adigregorio
THAT is imposing your morals on the filmmakers. Them making the film, well unless you were court ordered to watch it nothing is being imposed.

Still not reading or understanding my post (on purpose?) considering you thought it a great joke in this thread to be in love with Christs body and all.

Oh I am reading them all right, you make them flip flop (a bit) but I am having no trouble reading (both lines, and in-between!)

And I didn't think it was a real joke, the creators of Eric Cartman did. (Actually the script writers found it the most funny I imagine.)

I was just making a topical reference to a popular TV show. One that likes to point out silly things like "forced morals" and the like. Anyway, as for reading posts are you ever going to tell me what rules I am imposing?



Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by adigregorio
And since that is what I was commenting about, how you said I wanted to impose my stuff on others. (Still waiting on you to point out what I am trying to impose....)

You`ve already displayed it.

I have? Well then it should be really easy to point out, why do you avoid it? I mean I can really easily point out where folks are imposing their beliefs (or trying to anyway). Don't need cryptic sentences like "You already displayed it" Sheesh...


Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by adigregorio
WHAT?

Do you even know what freedom of speech is? Forcing others to be unable to speak, is not exersizing your right to free speach. Then to tout that around like you are being American, HA!

No one is trying to force others not to speak,I said I can see why they are upset about it.

HA I notice you did not inlude what I was responding to in this quote, cherry picking isn't very kosher. Here let me show everyone how that is SUPPOSED to look. (Diagonal, pretty sneaky sis!!)

Originally posted by adigregorio

Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by adigregorio
However, saying things like they shouldn't be able to make it. That IS forcing others to participate.

Oh, their freedom of speech is worth less then that of others.

WHAT?

Do you even know what freedom of speech is? Forcing others to be unable to speak, is not exersizing your right to free speach. Then to tout that around like you are being American, HA! Well if you want to bring this crap out, religion and state are to be seperate. So find some other government to force out-dated morals onto us.



Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by adigregorio
As if I think I`m American lmao.

Then why the freedom of speech comment? (I know why, just seeing if you will answer this question or avoid it like providing the list of rules I am pushing)


Originally posted by gps777
Hey! We are still waiting for you to provide the rules I listed that equals this perfect world you are talking about. You can not, of course, and it is easier to muddy the topic. (Isn't it!? Rhetorical!!)

Who`s we? (or is this a medical condition)

I don't think you God or his son would approve of your veiled insults to me. I mean What Would Jesus Say? (HA!)

Anyway the rest of your post is run-around spin talk. I am patiently waiting for that list of rules I have already shown, just link me to the specific post that has the rules...thanks!!

EDIT (To Add

Rule, I don't think that word means what you think it means:


rule
   [rool] Show IPA ,noun, verb, ruled, rul·ing.
noun
1. a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of chess

Saying that I think rules are bad mm'kay; well saying that is not governing conduct, actions, procedures, or arrangements. Also, how is having no rules a rule? (See what I mean by spin talk? Easy to confuse people then get them to think you are right, a real debator will use the argument to speak not double talk and fallacies...)
edit on 4/27/2012 by adigregorio because: To add



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by samsamm9
 


Simple response, if you don't like it, don't watch it.

No one is forced to view any movie, so why is this even a problem? Oh yes, it's a problem because hypocrite right-wing Christian fundamentalists scream about everything they don't agree with, from gay marriage to equality in all aspects of life.

Why is a Muslim considered a fundamentalist for the same kind of idol-worship, and yet the radical Christians act in the same way and face little argument?

All organized religious groups are as bad as each other. I long for the day when these archaic fantasies are finally dead. Unfortunately, even though Christianity is on the decline, it probably won't happen in my lifetime.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


ok, enough of your poser knowledge of essential liberties. I challenge you to either admit your outspoken ignorance or back it up. You claim knowledge of American free speech and religious non-LIBERTY.
PROVE IT!
I will give you a hint because I doubt you can find it on your own
IT
S IN THE 1'ST AMENDMENT

Show m where you get free speech and also "seperation" as you claim.
prove it or admit you are making it up



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I think there's really only one solid response to these threads. And I think I'll add this one in all the threads from now on where the radical right congregate to preach their ignorance and bile...

edit on 27-4-2012 by detachedindividual because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by adigregorio
 


ok, enough of your poser knowledge of essential liberties. I challenge you to either admit your outspoken ignorance or back it up. You claim knowledge of American free speech and religious non-LIBERTY.
PROVE IT!
I will give you a hint because I doubt you can find it on your own
IT
S IN THE 1'ST AMENDMENT

Show m where you get free speech and also "seperation" as you claim.
prove it or admit you are making it up

What?

Let's see

1) Poser

Would Jesus call me a poser? Would gay Jesus call me a poser?

What happened to your precious beliefs? The do-unto-others and the like, well those seem to be missing from your bible. I say your, because I know of many Christians who follow the faith to the letter. Not just the letters they agree with...

Anyway, you do not understand the concept of the first ammendment. If you think it gives people the right to force others to abide by their moral code. They gay folks have a right to make this film, bad taste aside. You have a right to not watch it.

The gay folks do NOT have a right to force you to watch the film, you do NOT have the right to force them not to make it.

EDIT (Almost forgot!)
Here:
Seperation of Church and State

If wikipedia is not "good enough" here:


References






Constructs such as ibid., loc. cit. and idem are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes, as they are easily broken. Please improve this article by replacing them with named references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title. (March 2010)


1.^ Princeton University WordNet reads: "separationism: advocacy of a policy of strict separation of church and state."
2.^ Feldman (2009)
3.^ "Delineation of Roman Catholicism: Drawn from the authentic and acknowledged standards of the Church of Rome, by Charles Elliott, 1877 edition, page 165". Books.google.com. Retrieved 2012-04-27.
4.^ Berman, Harold J. (1983). Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-51774-1. OCLC 185405865.
5.^ "Madison to Schaeffer, 1821". Books.google.com. Retrieved 2012-04-27.
6.^ Henry VIII: 1509-47 AD. Britannia History. Retrieved 2008-03-26
7.^ "Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin". Loc.gov. Retrieved 2012-04-27.
8.^ William M. Wiecek, The birth of the modern Constitution: the United States Supreme Court, 1941-1953 (Cambridge U.P., 2006) pp 261-4
9.^ Kermit Hall, ed. The Oxford companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005) pp. 303-4.
10.^ Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State. pp. 287-334, 342, Harvard University Press, 2004
11.^ Kermit Hall, ed. The Oxford companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005) pp. 262-3.
12.^ Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 29 ("It took John Locke to translate the demand for liberty of conscience into a systematic argument for distinguishing the realm of government from the realm of religion.")
13.^ Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 29
14.^ Hamilton, Neil A. (2002). Rebels and renegades: a chronology of social and political dissent in the United States (illustrated ed.). Taylor & Francis. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-415-93639-2
15.^ Bercovitch, Sacvan; Patell, Cyrus R. K. (1997). The Cambridge History of American Literature: 1590-1820 (illustrated ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 196–197. ISBN 978-0-521-58571-2
16.^ For full text see "The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816; Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796" Avalon Project
...
edit on 4/27/2012 by adigregorio because: (no reason given)

(They go up to 72 sources, be sure to discredit them all!!)
edit on 4/27/2012 by adigregorio because: EX was toooooo loooonnnngggg



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


I've never seen this clip before. Brilliant.

I wanted to express my thanks for introducing me to it, and not just simply click a star.

Thank you.



edit on 27-4-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


On a side note:


Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."[32] Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.

Sorcer(er?)

This is in reference to the actual statement "seperation of church and state" or rather "wall of seperation", once the supreme court used it, well. That's what happens when a law is created for the people, and not against the people. Religious persecution is so medieval times...
edit on 4/27/2012 by adigregorio because: To add link, Zelda was lonely.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I know this had been said many times, but hey I think I'll say it again. You don't like? You don't watch. I think it is quite funny here that none of the Christians in this thread so far has condemned the bomb threats. They claim they are so much better than their other counterparts, yet here they are going bonkers over a movie that might offend their sensibilities.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Dude, am I speaking in some code?
Show me where in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
You gave me descriptions for Admiralty laws and the corporate constitution.
You DO NOT know any better because you thought doing a google equates to knowledge.
IT DOES NOT!
So, in the 1'st amendment (or anywhere else
) is there a basis for your ASSUMPTIONS????????????????

Seperation of church and state? WHERE?
iT WAS DEBATED AND FREE SPEECH STOPS WHEN YOU YELL "fire" in a crowded theater.

yOU NOW THINK THAT LONG POSTS QUOTING A GOOGLE IS DEBATE?
I see you have having nothing substantial behind your arg.
Are you admitting you are making it up?
Do you want me to post the 1'st amendment for you?





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join