It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christian Group Objects to Film With Gay Jesus

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Honestly, this is what happens when morals are imposed onto others.

They are making a film, slapping Christianity for imposing their rules on them. (My opinion there)

PS: I quoted the first ammendment, but we all knew that didn't we




posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

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.

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.
edit on 4/27/2012 by adigregorio because: Postscript (Anyone else think it odd that the Christians are constantly berating the non-believers, wasn't that something JC hated with a passion?)


Just incase the readers missed this post of mine, where I explain exactly how this is a breach of seperation.

If there is a rule made saying that the gay folks can't do this, then the rulemaker is saying "Jesus is real, you can not talk bad about him."

Just because you (general reference, no one specific) believe something is real, well that doesn't mean I (or someone else) has to believe it as well. AND if what they/I believe is false, it is not up to you (again general) to "teach me". That is a parents job, and you (general) are not my parent.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Honestly, this is what happens when morals are imposed onto others.

They are making a film, slapping Christianity for imposing their rules on them. (My opinion there)

PS: I quoted the first ammendment, but we all knew that didn't we


I would really have to see the film, apparently it is nothing new, actually I would like to see it.

It is not for me to judge, but I would prefer they didn't portray Christ as a homosexual, not because I hate homosexuals, but because I know the reaction they are going to get, and they too know the reaction they are going to get, having knowledge that this is going to ruffle feathers, why do it?

Just out of respect, the same respect they are seeking.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


The only reason to do this (Again, my opinion) would be to ruffle said feathers.

I can not see any other reason for this, since if you are gay then by default JC is gonna have a little bit of a bland taste for you. Being all luke-warm and the like...

So making a film about something that doesn't meld with your life, well either you are making satire or you are making enemies. In this case, it will be a bit of both. They are poking fun at this to get some satisfaction at the other side having to squrim. (My opinion)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio

I can not see any other reason for this, since if you are gay then by default JC is gonna have a little bit of a bland taste for you. Being all luke-warm and the like...

You make it sound as if a person has to be sexually attracted to Christ

Hence your quote in brackets...


(Seriously, Jesus wasn't gay but I sure am gay for Jesus!)

The body of Christ, all muscled and toned, the body of Christ, I sure wish I could call it my own. -- "Body of Christ" Eric Cartman


I don`t mean this as an attack I`ve been trying to understand you at least.



So making a film about something that doesn't meld with your life, well either you are making satire or you are making enemies. In this case, it will be a bit of both. They are poking fun at this to get some satisfaction at the other side having to squrim. (My opinion)

As per your Eric Cartman post and religions MO is to impose filth.

Are these debate skills I really need? that your so good at in your opinion.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
It does not fit in with anything in the bible. In a case like this the Christians ought to be able to sue the filmmaker for slandering their faith. There is freedom of religion in this country, not freedom to slander religion.


actually, if you've ever read the Bible you would notice Jesus was the only jewish kid not to be in an arranged marriage..

and he spend all his time around men..

tell me.. where does it say Jesus had a girlfriend?

and as to litigation..

what gives you or anyone the right to interpret the message someone else has received from the Lord Jesus Christ their personal savior? you can't sue someone for what the Holy Spirit has inspired them through their faith to believe... if that was the case than any number of Trinity based religions should sue Christianity for stealing the idea..



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 



They are poking fun at this to get some satisfaction at the other side having to squrim.


That is wrong, so as I see it Christians should just ignore it, wish them well, and let it go.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 





and he spend all his time around men


Not really, Jesus had a close relationship with women, the first people to proclaim the resurrection were women, and the majority that accept Christianity, in the beginning, were female.

Women played an intricate role in his life.


edit on 123030p://bFriday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by samsamm9
 


Try the same thing with a gay Prophet Mohammad, let's see what happens then. And I can guarantee you that the Muslims won't be bitching like the harmless Christians are. Hell, just look what happened when they drew Prophet Mohammad...

Christianity has become the religion it's politically correct to dump on. Try it with Judaism and you're anti-semetic. Try it with Islam and you're Islamaphobic. I'd like to see some directors really try rocking the boat with a religion that doesn't take it, but they don't dare too hence why you don't see any.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
They should have made him a transvestite furry Muslim doing black face, it would be more entertaining.
And even better give him a title like "The Abortionator" and have some story like he was sent down by the lord to abort non-deserving people with a surprise falcon punch to the gut. And he would be ridding a monkey that slowly evolves throughout the film to become one of his apostles.
edit on 27-4-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 


I have as much rights as any person in the USA. You don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you. I will not bow down to your feeble attempt at intimidating Christians. I will not even attempt to respond to your flawed logic because I feel that no matter what I say you will always try to protect your choice of your way of life.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
These people would be in fear of death had they proposed a gay Mohammad.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



well, thats a nice way to sum it up to try and prove your point i guess..

let me elaborate..

Paul writes in 1st Corinthians 15:5 "and that he appeared to Cephas, (Peter) and then to the Twelve."

now the Gospels..

in Matthew he appeared to Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" as they left the tomb to tell the disciples..

in Mark Jesus appeared to all the disciples around in Galilee..

in Luke it was to Cleopas and another person traveling on some road between Emmaus and Jerusalem..

in John it was in a house that the disciples were gathered in Jerusalem..

and then of course one could argue that since the stone was rolled away all the Gospels except Matthew that had an earthquake it was an Angel who first saw Jesus.. because the Tomb was empty.. then the ladies saw him when leaving..

so as you can see, its not really definitive in any way...

so, to get back on point, yes, he did have contact with women.. but the majority of his time was around men.. better for you?

unless of course you want to delve into the Gnostic Gospel of Mary, which in case Jesus Mary was the rock the church was to be built on and Peter was jealous of the time they spent together.. which is another different barrel of monkeys..

still does not take away from the fact that Jesus would be the only jewish boy around to not have had an arranged marriage set up before puberty.. as was/is the custom.. to align professions.. you sell hay, I have cows.. lets marry our children and cut that cost, then sell to others..

now why would that be?
didn't the Sanhedrin accuse him of being a sexual deviant? does being gay fall under that definition?

not saying for sure, but you cant say it for sure it wasn't..



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 





so, to get back on point, yes, he did have contact with women.. but the majority of his time was around men.. better for you?



You don't have to be so attitudinal, lol

Actually I believe his relationship with women goes much deeper then what you are reading on the surface.

But that's another topic.

I think it was quite common for men to hang out with the men back in those days, nothing unusual,

I wasn't there though.

edit on 013030p://bFriday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I'm not Christian but i find this sad and pathetic.

Christianity has taken enoungh of a battering over the past few decades as it is.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 

I always hang around guys, I'm a guy, I'm not gay. I think reeferman is trying to stir up a bunch of conflict between the 100 million Christians and the half million or so gay people in this country. If he's gay, which I doubt, he's not very smart, neglecting the best interest of his kind. It would be easy for someone who doesn't like gays to cause conflict this way. He gets to blasphemy Christians and Gays this way. I have some friends that are Gay and they would never say something like what he is saying. I can't say that I am a hundred percent sure that Jesus wasn't gay, but how would Jesus gain respect amongst the straight people of his time if he was gay? People of his time would have talked about others the same way as people do now. Not much has really changed in two thousand years. Except for, of course, the internet.

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



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


hey sorry if you got a harsh vibe.. none intended..

I was simply showing how the film makers could come to that conclusion & how forcing someone through litigation to not express their interpretation of who Jesus was to them goes against a personal Savior.. and that it could come back to haunt Christianity later as a whole..

when you cherry picked the idea that Jesus showed himself to women first at the resurrection as an example of the relationship he had with them.. it still didn't prove a sexual orientation or preference.. but I pointed out that according to scripture in is unclear as to who first saw Zombie Jesus when he took his first steps out of the tomb..

if you "believe" his relationship goes much further than I am "reading on the surface" by all means point to where you have discerned this conclusion.. I have read the text & yes Jesus did defend women and if you see into it more than on the "surface" you would conclude it was sexual..

I have pointed to the Gospel of Mary, an Gnostic book outside of the canonized Bible that actually supports that too.. so..

just trying to get all the info on the table.. both sides of the coin..

I know the disciples where upset that Jesus kissed Mary often on the lips.. Gospel of Philip an Egyptian Coptic..

it all comes down to the only thing we can be certain of.. is that we are uncertain..

but at this point without empirical proof.. no ones interpretation is more correct than anyone else's..

and discussion is a healthy thing to have..



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
These people would be in fear of death had they proposed a gay Mohammad.


You didn't get the part where it says they were threatened by Christian extremists... I guess the fundamentalist Christians hurts less if they execute their threats


They threatened his family and they received bomb threats !
Don't you think they're in fear of death ??



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 





I can't say that I am a hundred percent sure that Jesus wasn't gay, but how would Jesus gain respect amongst the straight people of his time if he was gay? People of his time would have talked about others the same way as people do now.


I never thought of that, yes back in those days, it was far less acceptable, way far, less, lol



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 


No problem reefer,

I find the the women of the Bible tell a really interesting story, old and new Testament, there is a pattern, but it is to complicated to tell here.

edit on 013030p://bFriday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join