Christian Group Objects to Film With Gay Jesus

Originally posted by Lovebringer
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.

oh, I condemn the bomb threats but suspect they are false flags by the promoters of the film.
It's an old M.O. to drum up support and used often.
Do you condemn the false cries of persecution?
The FBI would be all over it, right?
What are the conclusions or is it just hype they used on their own?
I will repeat, this is an old method to discredit those you are intending to offend. Without more it is propoganda meant to discredit the people they intended to offend. capiche?

reply to post by adigregorio


see, now we are getting somewhere.
You now admit to making things up to validate your points.

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by adigregorio

 

Dude, am I speaking in some code?

Dude, you just may be! Or at least speaking in a way that I am having difficulty understanding...dude.

Originally posted by manna2
Show me where in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
You gave me descriptions for Admiralty laws and the corporate constitution...

Woah, stop wait one second. Show you where what?

What EXACTLY are you asking me to provide?

Originally posted by manna2
You DO NOT know any better because you thought doing a google equates to knowledge.
IT DOES NOT!

Doing a google? Is that something we should be discussing on a public forum?!?!

Also, I did not use google I used my address bar. You know, where you can physically type links in instead of copy and pasting them? (See I can make nasty veiled comments about your intellegence too! But it is not proper, and doesn't add to the discussion very well. Again I hint that I do not appreciate it, and will cease discussing this topic with you if you continue.)

Originally posted by manna2
So, in the 1'st amendment (or anywhere else
) is there a basis for your ASSUMPTIONS????????????????

(Just incase emotions clouded my important question:

What EXACTLY are you asking me to produce?

I will produce it, once I know what it is you want. Obviously I am not understanding...take pity on the heathen (just this once, please!) (I am the heathen, by the way)

Originally posted by manna2
Seperation of church and state? WHERE?

Is this what you are after? My last post (before this one) shows EXACTLY where it came from.

Originally posted by manna2
iT WAS DEBATED AND FREE SPEECH STOPS WHEN YOU YELL "fire" in a crowded theater.

There are other stipulations to free speech as well, like using it to force your morals onto others

Originally posted by manna2
yOU NOW THINK THAT LONG POSTS QUOTING A GOOGLE IS DEBATE?

No I think that providing a valid argument, with sources and evidence backing my claims is a debate. I think that discussion without logical fallacies, and personal attacks is a debate.

Originally posted by manna2
Do you want me to post the 1'st amendment for you?

Yeah, I think that would be a good idea. Not for me though...

reply to post by adigregorio


yes, He would claim you are posing with knowledge.
You seem to only want to appeal to the victim card and for some reason you think Christians are supposed to act weak and not stand up for truth and what is right and wrong.
We are counseled to be the Salt of the Earth, preservers of truth.
So no, I am no coward and your poser knowledge of the Christs teachings don't offend me or scare me.
You are simply ignorant of all of it.
How do I know this?
Your posts dude, they betray you!

As it is apparent that this discussion is trying to be misled, let me do a quick recap!

Freedom of Speech (In USA at least) protects these film makers, as it should. It also allows the folks that do not like the film, or the idea of the film, to avoid it. (There are no penalties for not watching or participating in the film.)

That is why it works so well, it makes it so one person can not control (or impose ) their beliefs/morals/rules onto another. Hell, even Jesus got that idea. Something about pulling logs out of your eye before worrying about the splinter in mine...

But I digress, those teachings are just to get newcomers. At least gay Jesus will know that sandles and a robe, well those just don't match at all!

(Food for thought: )

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Source: Umm, duh?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I will continue to define it a little
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

Now, you gave references for Admiralty laws and the corporate constition that supports treaties based upon that.
Those decisions came from admiralty, or maritime courts and not common law courts.


It's why you use circle reasoning because they don't make sense with the quotes you make such as seperation of church and state.
The names you use become ambiguous without a sure footing and use of the laws you attempt to base them on.
Again, you somehow feel long posts make a sound answer when you simply keep changing the topic.
You even forget your original assertions to the point you have to ask me what I am talking about.
You are all over the place without any foundation to your thoughts, just empty accusations like "wwjd" as if that means something to those that have foundational knowledge of the subject.

Originally posted by adigregorio

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...)

You were the one who mentioned court orders?

This is rediculous.

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!)

So you say.

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.

Flip flop didn`t you say in that post in brackets "(Seriously, Jesus wasn't gay but I sure am gay for Jesus!) and that you thought the MO of religion is to impose filth in your first.

Yet like to pretend to school people on being Christian.

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!!)

Its easy enough for people to read,without all the confusion of quotes inside of quotes.Sis? I don`t think your anyone to judge on manliness .Correct?

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

I`ve done much worse,but you may have been there with someone else for all I know.I wanted to know who "we" was that you refered to,but no matter.

Saying that I think rules are bad mm'kay; well saying that is not governing conduct, actions, procedures, or arrangements.

It is if you want it to be the rule,that there be no rules,which you admit =filth.

Then claim your rules in your constitution to back you up some how,doesn`t that have rules? and you say I flip flop and spin.

Maybe you need to go to a different country,maybe try and find one with no rules.I think there`s some islands still available if you have the cash.You can`t be happy.

Do you obey the road rules? or just begrudgingly obey etc etc

Yet school me on the rules of debate or impose your way.

reply to post by manna2


Oh, and if those bomb threats actually turned out to be legitimate? Then what, will you just sit by and say, well that is what they get for lampooning my lord and savior. They are going to hell for their blasphemy! Right.

So far, I've seen many forms of Jesus in the media. Including:

Black Jesus
Chinese Jesus (Jesus Hong)
Hipster Jesus
Annoying Jesus
Sleazy Jesus
Jesus with a beer and a tonne of kids
Gay Jesus
Pervert Jesus
Quantam Leap Jesus

Probably lots more too.

What I'm trying to say is that, is there a point in getting angry about this? I mean really. All sorts of people are taken out of context for comedy reasons all the time. Hitler is another good example. Real people (Celebrities) are subjected to this kind of comedy all the time (Tom Cruise & John Travolta anybody?) So why is Jesus any different. Whether you believe in him or not, sometimes it's funny seeing people exploited in these ways.

It isn't a big deal. At all.

Who cares if they make the movie? It’s not the first or the last controversial thing done about Jesus. At least we can still say the name “Jesus” in this country.

I'm a Christian but do not belong to any church. Organized religion, like so many institutions these days have too much corruption at the top and are not really promoting truth. They only use parts of the bible they want to and interject man-made rules. And most are SO into politics these days. If you really study Jesus' words, Christians should realize that Jesus has low tolerance for "believers", or those following him that continue in sin, blaspheme, etc. BUT He preaches high tolerance for those who are not believers. If you read his words it is plain he doesn’t want his followers to browbeat religion into others but rather to just live as an example.

Matthew 5:11“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

So plainly He does not want his followers to try to stop the whole world from doing or saying things that may be offensive to Christians but rather the opposite. “Rejoice and be glad” when you get insulted by things you hear people say, put in books, music, or films. Please let's just be thankful we have religious freedom and freedom of speech!

I’m sure there will be more controversial movies. I predict a remake of “Rudolph the Rednosed Reindeer” where Santa is gay, and Mrs. Claus is actually a man and we find out that the North Pole was the first place on earth to allow gay marriage.

reply to post by adigregorio

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Let's see, would forcing the filmmakers to stop making this film establish religious beliefs....um yeah...

That would establish the law that it is wrong to talk about Jesus in a bad light. Which would imply that the government thinks Jesus is real...which they can not due do to seperation of church and state.

The only circles I see are the faux thorn crowns trying to be worn in here.

PS:
This discussion is not about me, though in order to "win" the discussion you would have to make it as such. The facts are written on hemp paper, stored in Washington DC. Just because you believe something, doesn't mean everyone else has to believe it. And no amount of imposing will change that simple human nature fact.

Originally posted by Lovebringer
reply to post by manna2

 

Oh, and if those bomb threats actually turned out to be legitimate? Then what, will you just sit by and say, well that is what they get for lampooning my lord and savior. They are going to hell for their blasphemy! Right.

Didn't I just condemn them if they are true?
And if they are false will you go on a truth crusade with me?
sheesh, you are chasing paper tigers.

In the 'end times' all Christians will be hated.

Well, I don't necessarily believe we're in the 'end times' but as sure as I'm typing we're NOT in the beginning.

People can hate all they want. I know Jesus is love. People can call Him my 'imaginary friend' all they want. I know He's anything but imaginary.

Am I offended by the people who try to portray Christian as gay? Nope. I pity them actually. I also am ashamed of the (so called) Christians who react in hate. That is the LAST THING Jesus wants is hate. Let it go people. Just let it go. Or stand outside the theaters and with loving kindness tell the truth, hand out information, etc. Combat this stupidity with knowledge and love.

And don't forget. No matter what the lies people tell about Christ, the things they try so pathetically to do against Him, the ignorance?

He is real and He is forgiving - and - He'll get the last laugh on alllll those who despise Him.

He will get the last laugh.

peace

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by adigregorio

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Let's see, would forcing the filmmakers to stop making this film establish religious beliefs....um yeah...

That would establish the law that it is wrong to talk about Jesus in a bad light. Which would imply that the government thinks Jesus is real...which they can not due do to seperation of church and state.

The only circles I see are the faux thorn crowns trying to be worn in here.

And the Supreme court ruled that free speech isn't granted to those yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
You simply do not understand the topic and have at best a cursory knowledge that equates to being able to copy and paste other peoples thoughts whether they be right or wrong.

reply to post by TZela

Very true

and the reason why I`m not against them making it,pretty hard to rejoice about it,for me anyway.

Though I`m a work in progress.

reply to post by manna2


Again you claim to know how much knowledge I have, and you use a strawman argument to attempt that.

I have to say that I will no longer reply to you, you do not wish to discuss you wish to berate.

Silo13, thank you! You seem to grasp what I am saying...It is not up to you (us/we/me) to decide what is going on with others.

www.youtube.com...

I watched the video, I understand where they are coming from, but don't understand why it has to be so extreme, homosexuals do get persecuted, and throughout the centuries so have Christians, lets say we take turns persecuting each other.

" this play showed how thin the scab over homophobia is in this country."

I don't think it is about homophobia at all, but the depiction of Christ as a homosexual, but unless I can see the whole play I can't judge the message, and yes I believe god is love.

reply to post by silo13

Great words

Understood silo13

reply to post by adigregorio


Didn't I just quote the 1'st amendment to you?
Are you ignoring this foundational law on purpose?
Where does it show a seperation of church and state in the way you define it.
I see it as a polar opposite to your definition.
Your whole arg falls if that is the case.