N.C. Parents Angered by Gay Prince Book

[Johnny Stew]

(If the Hartsell's refuse to return the book, I'm going to buy a replacement copy and send it to the Freeman Elementary School. The book isn't about sex... which I agree a first-grader is too young to be exposed to... it's about love, which comes in many forms, whether people like the Hartsell's "agree" with it or not.)

N.C. Parents Angered by Gay Prince Book

WILMINGTON, N.C. - The parents of a first-grader are fuming over the book their daughter brought home from the school library: a children's story about a prince whose true love turns out to be another prince.

Michael Hartsell said he and his wife, Tonya, couldn't believe it when Prince Bertie, the leading character in "King & King," waves off a bevy of eligible princes before falling for Prince Lee.

The book ends with the princes marrying and sharing a kiss.

"I was flabbergasted," Hartsell said. "My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."

The 32-page book by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland was published in March 2002 by Tricycle Press, the children's division of Ten Speed Press of Berkeley, Calif. A follow-up, "King & King & Family," was recently published.

The publisher's Web site lists the books as intended for readers age 6 and up.

"This book was reviewed by the most reputable children's book reviewers in the country," publisher Nicole Geiger said. "Not one of them said it was inappropriate for children or should not have been published."

"There are many kinds of families in this country, and the children in these families and their friends deserve to see their situations in a positive light."

Barbara Hawley, librarian and media coordinator at Freeman Elementary School, said the book has been on the library's shelves since early last year.

"What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing," said Elizabeth Miars, Freeman's principal.

Hawley said she couldn't comment on the book because she hadn't seen it. She declined to say whether she knowingly selected a book on gay marriage.

The Hartsells said they are keeping the book until they get assurances it won't be circulated. But Hawley said all county schools have a committee that reviews books after their appropriateness is questioned, and the Hartsells must make a written complaint and return the book for review.

The Hartsells said they intend to file such a complaint and are considering transferring their daughter.

[Mari]

hey, that's a Dutch children's book:)

[DrummerDeanna]

:rolleyes: and the cycle of intolerance is perpetuated in that kids home....seriously...you'd think parents would have bigger things to worry about than a book like this...

[Johnny Stew]

That's the saddest thing of all, Deanna. These parents have a wonderful opportunity to instill in their daughter an openness, understanding, and acceptance for other walks of life.

Instead, they'd rather perpetuate their own narrow-mindedness and misguided "values."

They're also blowing their chance to teach their daughter that it's Ok to be yourself, whether other people "agree" with it or not.

[darklinensuit]

What time is the book burning in their backyard?:rolleyes: Guess intolerance never goes out of style.

- Jake

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
That's the saddest thing of all, Deanna. These parents have a wonderful opportunity to instill in their daughter an openness, understanding, and acceptance for other walks of life.

Instead, they'd rather perpetuate their own narrow-mindedness and misguided "values."

They're also blowing their chance to teach their daughter that it's Ok to be yourself, whether other people "agree" with it or not.

I agree with you, but at the same time, if they think it's morally wrong then that's their opinion. Many religions condem homosexuality. I am not saying I agree with religion, but it is what it is..... It is true that there isn't enough love in the world...why worry about a stupid book?

Rob
:cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Rob67
I agree with you, but at the same time, if they think it's morally wrong then that's their opinion. Many religions condem homosexuality. I am not saying I agree with religion, but it is what it is..... It is true that there isn't enough love in the world...why worry about a stupid book?Prejudice is prejudice, no matter how one justifies it.
Again, I point to the Ku Klux Klan, who also use religion to justify their hateful actions.
Far too many people use religion as an excuse, in my opinion, and we need to rise above that.

But, you know, if the Hartsell's think it's morally wrong... so be it. But it's not up to them to decide that NO child in that school disctrict should have the opportunity to read that book.

[Alison]

Hmmm, I have to careful of how I word this, or many people on this board will be hatefull with me.
I personally would not want my very young children reading that book. I would rather sit down and read it with her. Not every one has the same views. Just becasue some one dosn't agree with a life style choice don't call it hate. I personally don't agree with that life style, does that mean I hate gay people? No it doesn't.
God has called me to love and not to judge. God is the final judge in the end. We all will have to stand before him and give acount of what we say and do and what our motives were.
But I will probably get hatefull responds back for what I have said.
Actually I find the ledge very hatefull at times of others opinions. Mainly towards religion and Christians in general.

[Merf]

I live about 200 miles from Wilmington so this article was in my local paper. I just rolled my eyes when I read it. I guess I just don't understand how people can be so hateful towards other human beings and then claim it's because of their "Christian beliefs."

Intolerance in it's biggest, brightest, Judeo-Christian form. Unfortunately, I live in the Bible belt and stuff like this happens all the time. It's enough to make my skin crawl. :rolleyes:

[Alison]

Merf... are you throwing all Christians in the same bag?
Your throwing hate towards Christians, in the same way you claim Christians are all intolerent to others, you are intolerent towards Christians.
I personally don't know any Christians who hate gays.
How would you feel if I said, gee, I live 200 miles from the gay community, and they are shoving their perverse life style down my throat. That sounds hateful doesn't it.

[Merf]

Originally posted by Alison
Merf... are you throwing all Christians in the same bag?
Your throwing hate towards Christians, in the same way you claim Christians are all intolerent to others, you are intolerent towards Christians.
I personally don't know any Christians who hate gays.
How would you feel if I said, gee, I live 200 miles from the gay community, and they are shoving their perverse life style down my throat. That sounds hateful doesn't it.

I know a LOT of Christians who hate gays. I don't know if you live anywhere near the south, but it's reality here, more than anywhere else in the country. And it's a sad reality.

[Mari]

Umm... since when is falling in love with someone a "life-style"?:confused:

[Sugar]

So Merf doesn't agree with a certain "Christian lifestyle" just as some Christian's don't agree with a "gay lifestyle". And she can voice her opinion just as a Christian can voice his/hers. It's too much to expect everyone to just agree with each other blissfully. The key, IMO, is action vs. inaction.

I've talked about things like this with some of my black friends, and many of them have said they can deal with the fact knowing white racists exist, they basically don't want to have to feel the effect of it. And that's what this reminds me of.

No one is telling these people what to believe in or not, but the minute they decided not to return the book they started stepping on the rights of others. They could have just sat down with their daughter and talked with her about the book. Maybe it could have been a nice little story about friendship. The first grader probably didn't put very much importance on the book at all until mom and dad started making a big deal out of it.

Imagine if there is a child in that school being raised by two men. This is a pretty awful thing to do to him/her, isn't it?

[Mari]

Originally posted by Sugar

Imagine if there is a child in that school being raised by two men. This is a pretty awful thing to do to him/her, isn't it?

Nope, if the child's parents love him/her, there's nothing wrong with that. What Ã*s wrong to do, is for other people pointing fingers at it.
Just like pointing fingers at single parents, or mixed-race couples.

Btw, it's not that awful at all to be raised by two mothers or two fathers in my country.

[Sugar]

You and I are in agreement. The awful thing to do to a kid being raised by two men in this community is to have this other family hold up a similar lifestyle and say, "This is wrong, and I don't want my child reading this smut and I will remove my child from this school if this is considered acceptable!"

But your point is a good one, because I was actually waiting for someone to say something about a kid being raised by gay parents being an awful thing to do to the kid. My grandmother recently said that about a friend's bi-racial kids. I just shook my head at her. :distress:

[Mari]

oh, okay, I guess I took one comment out of context.
my english isn't that brilliant at this hour (it's 1.26 ;) )
sorry for that!

[Sugar]

That's cool...:cool: ...I figured it may have been one of those pesky language things...:)

[Mari]

phew:D
I guess it's the subject too, I react on it before I even read a post well. It's just such an endless discussion, religion & homosexuality... I've settled for more or less christian and more or less gay:D
Overboard with those pesky principles!

[Nixxxed]

First of all, I haven't read or even seen the book in question. But I totally agree with Alison's comment and view about not wanting a young child to read it alone. I think adults (parents, aunts, uncles, teachers, etc.) should read WITH children as much as possible. Just think of the bond and memories created by having a loved one snuggled up next to you, sharing a good STORY (and remember, we're not talking non-fiction here) with you, and talking with you about it afterwards - explaining the parts you didn't understand, pointing out the nuances in the words and drawings you missed... Priceless.

Alsion, DO YOU plan on reading this particular book to your daughter, or discussing the subject matter in some other form? I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, just wondering.

However, I'd like to point out something FOR EVERYONE from Alison's post, and that is the phrase "life style choice". And the idea I'd like to impress upon everyone who may be reading is this (in general):

THERE IS NO CHOICE INVOLVED WITH BEING A HOMOSEXUAL.

I'm gay, and I always have been. Every gay person I've ever met has said practically the same thing. I remember having "gay" thoughts in elementary school. I ALWAYS knew I was different. I didn't know exactly how when I was young, but several years before puberty I figured it out. Did I hide it? Yes. Did I feel ashamed at times? Yes. But, my actions were only a response to the "normal", disapproving, frowning world around me. It was merely a case of mental (and yes, at times, physical) survival.

I didn't choose to be gay, Alison, no more than you could suddenly choose to turn off your attraction to men and start dating and having sex with women. Yes, some people do choose a certain kind of gay LIFESTYLE, but they DO NOT choose to be gay or straight (or bi, or transgendered or ... ). And I emphasive the word LIFESTYLE here because there are all kinds of gay people and gay lifestyles, just like there are all kinds of straight people and straight lifestyles.

The only other comment I'd like to make is about the words "gay community". There is no such thing. Gay people are everywhere. Yes, there are concentrations of gay people here and there, just like there are concentrations of Chinese people in Chinatown in San Francisco and concentrations of Italians in Little Italy in New York. But even these concentrations are different, and live differently, than the other concentrations around the country and world.

Okay, enough blabbering from me. None of this is aimed at any one person, and it is no way meant to be hateful.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Alison
Hmmm, I have to careful of how I word this, or many people on this board will be hatefull with me.
I personally would not want my very young children reading that book. I would rather sit down and read it with her. Not every one has the same views. Just becasue some one dosn't agree with a life style choice don't call it hate. I personally don't agree with that life style, does that mean I hate gay people? No it doesn't.
God has called me to love and not to judge. God is the final judge in the end. We all will have to stand before him and give acount of what we say and do and what our motives were.
But I will probably get hatefull responds back for what I have said.
Actually I find the ledge very hatefull at times of others opinions. Mainly towards religion and Christians in general. Alison, I don't want you to think that I, or anyone else, is coming down on you for being Christian or for your opinion.

I should stress that I was raised Catholic, and I am a firm believer in God. I also follow the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.
But I found a lot of flaws and hypocrisy within organized religion, and I just couldn't be a part of that any longer. So I decided to cut out the middle-man, as they say.

For some that's heresy, but for me it feels right. And, at the end of the day, I DO believe in God... and isn't that what's most important?
But I certainly don't deny anyone else the right to believe as they choose to believe. My feeling is that as long as you believe in something bigger than yourself, and as long as that leads you to work towards being a better person, then you're doing something right.

But at any rate, and as Nixxxed said, homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice."
This isn't deciding to become a vegetarian, or that your commute is too long so you're going to start working from home instead.

My sexual orientation was no more a choice for me, than yours was for you.
It's also not a perversion.
Quite simply, it is the way God created me.

My point was that many people cite the bible as a reason to justify "disagreeing" with homosexuality, and a number of other people also point to passages in the bible, in order to justify a wide variety of other prejudices.
To just say, "the bible says it's wrong," isn't really a strudy platform on which to stand, in my opinion. And we should open our hearts and minds, and try to rise above that old chestnut, "but the bible says...." :nod:

[Lala]

Originally posted by Alison
Hmmm, I have to careful of how I word this, or many people on this board will be hatefull with me.
I personally would not want my very young children reading that book. I would rather sit down and read it with her. Not every one has the same views. Just becasue some one dosn't agree with a life style choice don't call it hate. I personally don't agree with that life style, does that mean I hate gay people? No it doesn't.
God has called me to love and not to judge. God is the final judge in the end. We all will have to stand before him and give acount of what we say and do and what our motives were.
But I will probably get hatefull responds back for what I have said.
Actually I find the ledge very hatefull at times of others opinions. Mainly towards religion and Christians in general.

Alison thank you for putting it so well.

I can't help what other Christians do or think. Unfortunately there are many people who give Christianity a bad name. I DO NOT hate gays. I believe that homosexuality is wrong...and if that pisses you off, that's your problem. There is a difference.

[Sugar]

Originally posted by Lala
I believe that homosexuality is wrong...and if that pisses you off, that's your problem.


As I said before I think it's too much to ask to expect everyone to start walking in lockstep together. That's your opinion and you have a right to it. And as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others in this civil society, you can believe in whatever or whomever you please.

But you might want to consider how offensive it is that you believe you have the right to judge anothers life as right or wrong.

I believe that Christianity is wrong...and if that pisses you off, that's your problem.

[markolas]

Originally posted by Sugar
I believe that Christianity is wrong...and if that pisses you off, that's your problem.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Alison]

Well Markolas....hmmm
Well its not me you offended by that statement. But Jesus might not look so kindly at that remark, but I supose that is something you have to take up with him. After all the Word of God says, every knee will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord. Some will be very humbled on that day, encluding me.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Lala
I DO NOT hate gays. I believe that homosexuality is wrong...No offense, but that comment always gives me shivers: "I don't hate gay people... I just think that what they are is wrong."
To me, it kind of sounds like, "Oh, I love black people... in fact, my maid is black."

I'd rather people show their prejudice towards me, to my face... rather than veiling it with false tolerance and acceptance.

"Love the person, hate the sin"... well, as a wise man once said, "I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I'm not."
And I might be a sinner for other reasons, but certainly not because I'm gay. :nod: :)

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
No offense, but that comment always gives me shivers: "I don't hate gay people... I just think that what they are is wrong."
To me, it kind of sounds like, "Oh, I love black people... in fact, my maid is black."

I'd rather people show their prejudice towards me, to my face... rather than veiling it with false tolerance and acceptance.

"Love the person, hate the sin"... well, as a wise man once said, "I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I'm not."
And I might be a sinner for other reasons, but certainly not because I'm gay. :nod: :)

I do NOT hate Red Rover fans, but the song to me is wrong.
Yup, I'd have to agree with you, Johnny. These statements are not as benign as some may believe.:laugh:

- Jake

[Sugar]

Originally posted by Alison
Well Markolas....hmmm
Well its not me you offended by that statement. But Jesus might not look so kindly at that remark, but I supose that is something you have to take up with him. After all the Word of God says, every knee will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord. Some will be very humbled on that day, encluding me.

I'm guessing it's actually me you're referring to since I made the remark. Markolas just thought it was funny.

I don't know that Jesus would be offended by that remark, although I have no doubt he would be touched by your concern. And when the day comes I will have no problem atoning for anything I may have done or said in my life. I've made my bed and I'm prepared to lie in it. I also think that Jesus would be bright enough to see there are a couple of meanings to my remark.

You see you and I obviously have fundamentally (no pun intended) different ideas as to the nature of whomever we will meet in the afterlife. And that's OK. Just don't lord over me (will the puns never cease...) with your opinion, and it's all good.;)

[Lala]

Originally posted by Sugar
I believe that Christianity is wrong...and if that pisses you off, that's your problem.

It doesn't. It makes me sad though.

I don't think I'll be checking this thread again because this arguement will go on for a very long time...and it seems like at least on this board I'm losing. I've shared my opinion and you can take it the wrong way or whatever you want.

Whether you believe it, or believe it's wrong...Jesus loves you.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Alison
Well Markolas....hmmm
Well its not me you offended by that statement. But Jesus might not look so kindly at that remark, but I supose that is something you have to take up with him. After all the Word of God says, every knee will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord. Some will be very humbled on that day, encluding me.

I truly believe if Jesus came back and saw how His good news was twisted and turned for two thousand years to fit the needs of straight white males, there would be a new meaning to the "wrath of God." I think the history of the making of The Bible and the the two thousand years of persecution of anyone who stepped outside of The Roman Catholic Church and now in America, the fundamentalist Christians like Jerry Falwell ( sorry Dissention ), proves my point. So, I pray to God on my own terms and based on Christ's words in the four Gospels, which BTW never mention gay people, and I also pray for Him to forgive all of those people who make money in His name through spreading fear and hate in His name.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Lala
It doesn't. It makes me sad though.

I don't think I'll be checking this thread again because this arguement will go on for a very long time...and it seems like at least on this board I'm losing. I've shared my opinion and you can take it the wrong way or whatever you want.

Whether you believe it, or believe it's wrong...Jesus loves you.

and God made gay people in His image - so He was wrong and sinful :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Also, I think it is not people hating the Christian posters here. I think it is what is perceived as blind following of twisted words and selective enforcement of archaix parts of The Bible that Christ Himself said he was obviating when he made a new covenant with mankind. I see this blind faith as ignorance and/or the results of brainwashing by organized religion. That tends to make people angry, esp. when coupled with "I do not mind you even though you are really only to be tolerated in MY Christian US and you are going to hell." :laugh: I mean who would not take offense at that, esp. when society as a whole pretty much hates gay people based on religion, which is not the law :shrug:

BTW and as an aside - Johnny, there is nothing wrong with having a black maid :cool:

[markolas]

No, people here don't hate Christians...but, there are many Christians who have a martyr complex, and are so obnoxious about their religion that they make other people crazy. And when someone has finally had enough and decides to tell the Christians off, the Christians get passive-aggressive ("I'll pray for *you*"), or sometimes just plain nasty (with threats of hellfire).

It's nearly impossible to take them seriously, or to think of them as anything other than emotionally unbalanced basket-cases.

I laughed at Sugar's comment because I knew what kind of reaction it would get: the Christians can dish out the condemnation, but they usually can't take it.

[Sugar]

Originally posted by Lala
It doesn't. It makes me sad though.

I don't think I'll be checking this thread again because this arguement will go on for a very long time...and it seems like at least on this board I'm losing. I've shared my opinion and you can take it the wrong way or whatever you want.

Whether you believe it, or believe it's wrong...Jesus loves you.

And really there's my point. I took Lala's exact sentence, substituted "Christianity" for "homosexuality", and this is the response.

This isn't about personal belief. This is about respecting others in a civil society. This one's a martyr. I make her "sad"; I can take her response the "wrong way". Why? Because I put her in the same relative place she put homosexuals in, and she doesn't like it. Not unlike Alison with a veiled threat of "that's something you'll have to take up with him." This is the superiority thing that bugs people. Last I checked, being a Christian doesn't make you God.

And I will take it up with him or her or it or whatever greets me on the other side. I will say that I thought very hard about the choices I made in my life and that, more often than not, I lived the way my heart led me. I believe that him or her or it is going to think that's pretty cool.

Again, this is about respecting others in a civil society, not personal belief.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Sugar
Again, this is about respecting others in a civil society, not personal belief.

Amen and well said!!!!!!!

AND - it is perfectly within reason to be a good if not great American citizen and non-Christian!!!!!!!!

[Sugar]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Amen and well said!!!!!!!

AND - it is perfectly within reason to be a good if not great American citizen and non-Christian!!!!!!!!

I'll do you one better...it is even possible to be a great human being and a non-Christian, all at the same time.

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally posted by Sugar
Last I checked, being a Christian doesn't make you God.




Well damn. I guess I better start shopping for a new religion...cause I'm after the title....:laugh:

I am, of course, kidding....but seriously...the Christianity I was raised with had values such as: Do not judge others (the whole s/he who is without sin can cast the first stone thing...that would be no one...)...judgment is set aside for God and God alone...

soooo...with that in mind...isn't saying that "homosexuality is wrong" a judgment??? Sounds like one to me...that's not very Christian IMO....

I agree with above posts as well...you can be a good person and not believe in God....but it's amazing how many people hear someone say they don't believe in God and automatically assume that that person is an uncivilized heathen or something....

I have my own beliefs...and I keep them that way...as MY OWN...I don't believe anyone else should have to have the same ones as me etc...I get really annoyed with the whole "what's right for me and my church is right for everyone...or it's hellbound with ya!!"

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I truly believe if Jesus came back and saw how His good news was twisted and turned for two thousand years to fit the needs of straight white males

Whoa, he's been twisted to fit MY needs?:)

- Jake

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
So, I pray to God on my own terms and based on Christ's words in the four Gospels, which BTW never mention gay people

Isn't there an indirect reference or two? Or is it in the Old Testament? Do today's Christians only follow the four New Testament gospels or do they also follow the Old Testament?

The Old Testament says:

A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is discovered to not be a virgin, she will be stoned to death.

If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. [One shoe!!??]

And here's the kicker:

A woman who has not found a husband shall get her father drunk and have sex with him, thereby perpetuating the family line.

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Isn't there an indirect reference or two? Or is it in the Old Testament? Do today's Christians only follow the four New Testament gospels or do they also follow the Old Testament?

The Old Testament says:

A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is discovered to not be a virgin, she will be stoned to death.

If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. [One shoe!!??]

And here's the kicker:

A woman who has not found a husband shall get her father drunk and have sex with him, thereby perpetuating the family line.

:laugh: :laugh:

Hmm...funny how we never hear about these things anymore...but Leviticus (one of the gay references) is cited again and again and again......

[The Tower]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Isn't there an indirect reference or two? Or is it in the Old Testament? Do today's Christians only follow the four New Testament gospels or do they also follow the Old Testament?

The Old Testament says:

A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is discovered to not be a virgin, she will be stoned to death.

If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. [One shoe!!??]

And here's the kicker:

A woman who has not found a husband shall get her father drunk and have sex with him, thereby perpetuating the family line.

Yeah, this stuff is really unbelievable. I really find it interesting when homophobes, like Fred Phelps, use passages from Leviticus to condemn homosexuality- but conveniently "forget" all the other passages. And it's not even extremist's like Phelps who based their bigotry on Levictus. Many christians simply swallow the scripture without even researching the rest of the chapter. Women, in particular, should be appalled at the majority of Leviticus.

It baffles my mind why anyone in this day and age would organize their life based on ignorant writings from well over 2000 years ago. Oh well..........

[strandinthewind]

That is my point - I mean if we are going to have a Const. Amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage from sinners, then let's put the dealth penalty in there for non-virgin brides, adulters (all involved parties), and, perhaps more importantly, allow polygamy. Why pick on gay people. I guess being a dirty little faggot is a greater sin in the eyes of these a$$holes even though The Bible calls for the same punishment :rolleyes:

Also, Sugar, ITA with your statement. I was just making mine in the context of any notion that the U.S. ought to be a theocracy.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Prejudice is prejudice, no matter how one justifies it.
Again, I point to the Ku Klux Klan, who also use religion to justify their hateful actions.
Far too many people use religion as an excuse, in my opinion, and we need to rise above that.

And all the while the Klan fails to mention that Christ was black. ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by Alison
Merf... are you throwing all Christians in the same bag?
Your throwing hate towards Christians, in the same way you claim Christians are all intolerent to others, you are intolerent towards Christians.
I personally don't know any Christians who hate gays.
How would you feel if I said, gee, I live 200 miles from the gay community, and they are shoving their perverse life style down my throat. That sounds hateful doesn't it.

It's not so much intolerance towards Christians, it's intolerance towards Christains who use their religion to justify hate and intolerance themselves.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Sugar
As I said before I think it's too much to ask to expect everyone to start walking in lockstep together. That's your opinion and you have a right to it. And as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others in this civil society, you can believe in whatever or whomever you please.

But you might want to consider how offensive it is that you believe you have the right to judge anothers life as right or wrong.

I believe that Christianity is wrong...and if that pisses you off, that's your problem.

AMEN to everything you said.

"Did you ever know that you're my hero? :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Jerry Falwell ( sorry Dissention )

You have a * key on your keyboard, use it, dammit! :laugh: Never say the devils name again! :laugh:

And you're absolutely right. If there is a God and he came down to Earth and saw how the human race treats people and uses their religion to promote hatred, he would wipe us all out and begin anew.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
It's not so much intolerance towards Christians, it's intolerance towards Christains who use their religion to justify hate and intolerance themselves.

Amen!

Also, let it be said that I think religion mostly is a great thing that helps a significant number of people. So, I am all for it from that angle. I just cannot stand when so called Christians like Pat Robertson urge people to pray for the expedited death of liberal Supreme Court Justices during W's term so the Court can get more conservative Justices. I mean this so called Christian is openly urging people to pray for the death of someone he does not like. Yet, gay people are the root of the evil in this country :shrug: BTW - Pat Robertson also says that if you send him money he has a more direct route to God's ear and your prayers will be answered :rolleyes: People like Pat Robertson are the reason people are so hostile to Christians - who can blame them?

[dissention]

Originally posted by markolas
No, people here don't hate Christians...but, there are many Christians who have a martyr complex, and are so obnoxious about their religion that they make other people crazy. And when someone has finally had enough and decides to tell the Christians off, the Christians get passive-aggressive ("I'll pray for *you*"), or sometimes just plain nasty (with threats of hellfire).

It's nearly impossible to take them seriously, or to think of them as anything other than emotionally unbalanced basket-cases.

I laughed at Sugar's comment because I knew what kind of reaction it would get: the Christians can dish out the condemnation, but they usually can't take it.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The day someone says they'll "pray" for me because I don't believe in their religion or their God is the day that I haul off and smack 'em. The fact is that people believe that because they believe in a God or a religion, they have the divine right to pass it off on other people. This is the way religions have worked for centuries and I don't think it'll stop now. But you'll feel the wrath of Dissention if you ever say "I'll pray for you" to me. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Whoa, he's been twisted to fit MY needs?:)

- Jake

:nod: :nod: Now - if we could just get some good old fashion Old Testament style polygamy back in the picture . . . . :eek:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Amen!

Also, let it be said that I think religion mostly is a great thing that helps a significant number of people. So, I am all for it from that angle. I just cannot stand when so called Christians like Pat Robertson urge people to pray for the expedited death of liberal Supreme Court Justices during W's term so the Court can get more conservative Justices. I mean this so called Christian is openly urging people to pray for the death of someone he does not like. Yet, gay people are the root of the evil in this country :shrug: BTW - Pat Robertson also says that if you send him money he has a more direct route to God's ear and your prayers will be answered :rolleyes: People like Pat Robertson are the reason people are so hostile to Christians - who can blame them?

People like Pat Robertson are the ones who will go to hell if it does exist. ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:nod: :nod: Now - if we could just get some good old fashion Old Testament style polygamy back in the picture . . . . :eek:

:eek:

What if it was...bi-sexual polygamy?!

Double :eek: :eek: .

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:eek:

What if it was...bi-sexual polygamy?!

Double :eek: :eek: .

Hey now - let's not leave out some beastiality :laugh:

Lord Child and my mercy - that lightening bolt is going to strike me any minute :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Hey now - let's not leave out some beastiality :laugh:

Lord Child and my mercy - that lightening bolt is going to strike me any minute :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

"Hey, Jason. I'm just calling to invite you to my little mixer on Friday night to celebrate my engagement to Daphne. And Jim. And John. And Sarah. And my horse, Thunder. It may seem like I'm biting off more than I can chew, but nothing beats hitting the sheets with a horse, two men, and two women. Actually, I hope the men don't get jealous of the horse, if you catch my drift. John used to turn tricks in LA, but I saved him from a sinful life...just to bring him into a new one...hahahaha! A honeymoon, you ask? Oh yes, we're going to Hawaii. The hotel we're staying has a stable adjacent to our room, but I don't think it'll get much use. Hope to see you on Friday, hugs and kisses! Mwah, bye!"

:laugh:

I think I'll get the most of that lightning bolt, doll.

[strandinthewind]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by dissention
And all the while the Klan fails to mention that Christ was black. ;)

Whaaat!!? Clearly you didn't see "The Passion." ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Whaaat!!? Clearly you didn't see "The Passion." ;)

I thought Gibson's "The Passion" "is as it was" :eek:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
My point was that many people cite the bible as a reason to justify "disagreeing" with homosexuality, and a number of other people also point to passages in the bible, in order to justify a wide variety of other prejudices.
To just say, "the bible says it's wrong," isn't really a strudy platform on which to stand, in my opinion. And we should open our hearts and minds, and try to rise above that old chestnut, "but the bible says...." :nod:

The Bible also says that women should be ruled and controlled by men, that slavery is perfectly okay and the beating of those slaves is okay, that those who don't believe in God will be cannibalized, that a woman should have her child aborted if it's not the child of her husband, and so on and so on.

My point here is that if Christians or anyone else wants to quote the Bible, do so with full knowledge about what it says. Don't pick and choose to support your point of view about certain groups or people. I believe that the Bible is so full of contradictions that it's utterly useless and I find the Old Testament (I admit to not knowing a great deal about the New Testament) to be among the most vile and hateful pieces of trash to ever be published. But I don't despise or hate any Christians as others think some of us on the Ledge do.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Whaaat!!? Clearly you didn't see "The Passion." ;)

Nope. I was too busy trying to circumvent my eventual banishment to the bowels of hell. :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I thought Gibson's "The Passion" "is as it was" :eek:

Yeah, "as it was" in the mind of a nineteenth-century anti-semitic whack-job with psychotic tendencies. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Nope. I was too busy trying to circumvent my eventual banishment to the bowels of hell. :laugh:

I hear they are rasing some old polyps and putting up condos in the Upper Colon!!!! :cool:

[Sugar]

Nice to see ya all here! And thanks, Dissention...

I firmly believe the tide is turning on this one. I think people are beginning to think through their positions instead of having knee-jerk reactions to certain words and phrases. Maybe then we can start dealing with some of the things that are REALLY fouling up this world instead of these red herrings. :wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Sugar
Nice to see ya all here! And thanks, Dissention...

I firmly believe the tide is turning on this one. I think people are beginning to think through their positions instead of having knee-jerk reactions to certain words and phrases. Maybe then we can start dealing with some of the things that are REALLY fouling up this world instead of these red herrings. :wavey:

You're quite welcome, darlin'. ;) And I hope you're right about the tide a-turnin'. :nod:

I watched my local news about an hour ago and came away absolutely disgusted. MA is the hot-spot for the Catholic Church scandal and the next city over from me, Springfield, had its Bishop resign because of allegations of sexual abuse a few weeks ago and they just appointed a new Bishop. Aparrently, many of the churchgoers are furious and actually want Bishop Dupre back. How absurd.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The day someone says they'll "pray" for me because I don't believe in their religion or their God is the day that I haul off and smack 'em. The fact is that people believe that because they believe in a God or a religion, they have the divine right to pass it off on other people. This is the way religions have worked for centuries and I don't think it'll stop now. But you'll feel the wrath of Dissention if you ever say "I'll pray for you" to me. :laugh:


I would rather have an extreme Christian say they'll pray for me then be blown up by an extreme Muslim....but that's neither here nor there...;)

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
The Bible also says that women should be ruled and controlled by men, that slavery is perfectly okay and the beating of those slaves is okay, that those who don't believe in God will be cannibalized, that a woman should have her child aborted if it's not the child of her husband, and so on and so on.

My point here is that if Christians or anyone else wants to quote the Bible, do so with full knowledge about what it says. Don't pick and choose to support your point of view about certain groups or people. I believe that the Bible is so full of contradictions that it's utterly useless and I find the Old Testament (I admit to not knowing a great deal about the New Testament) to be among the most vile and hateful pieces of trash to ever be published. But I don't despise or hate any Christians as others think some of us on the Ledge do.

Actually, Jesus and the New Testement changed all that Old Test. BS.

And I am not even that religious! (all those CCD classes back in the day did teach some things!)

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
And all the while the Klan fails to mention that Christ was black. ;)

Uh...really? A black Jew in the Middle East? Now that is an interesting combination.

Actually...that isn't the case. White, he wasn't, though.

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I would rather have an extreme Christian say they'll pray for me then be blown up by an extreme Muslim....but that's neither here nor there...;)

Rob:cool:

But we weren't talking about the Muslim religion and only a small percentage of real Muslims are extremists. And I don't foresee getting blown up by one in the near future. :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Uh...really? A black Jew in the Middle East? Now that is an interesting combination.

Actually...that isn't the case. White, he wasn't, though.

Rob:cool:

Go read the numerous scientific reports that argue the fact tha the would have been black; they're fascinating and I, for one, take stock in them. ;)

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Yeah, "as it was" in the mind of a nineteenth-century anti-semitic whack-job with psychotic tendencies. ;)

Are people still arguing about Passion being anti-Semitic??? That movie was excellent, as were all three of Gibson's directorial efforts. And I'm not even religious!:wavey:

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
(all those CCD classes back in the day did teach some things!)

Rob:cool:

I thought CCD was just story time. And boring at that. I was too worried about getting home in time for Disney Afternoon. :laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Go read the numerous scientific reports that argue the fact tha the would have been black; they're fascinating and I, for one, take stock in them. ;)

Sorry...don't care enough to so we'll leave it at that!;)

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
But we weren't talking about the Muslim religion and only a small percentage of real Muslims are extremists. And I don't foresee getting blown up by one in the near future. :laugh:

I'm sure somebody had this same conversation around the water cooler in an office at the WTC on 9/11....;)

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Are people still arguing about Passion being anti-Semitic??? That movie was excellent, as were all three of Gibson's directorial efforts. And I'm not even religious!:wavey:

Rob:cool:

Then you obviously don't know what Gibson based his film on.

The name Anne Emerich must not ring any bells.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I'm sure somebody had this same conversation around the water cooler in an office at the WTC on 9/11....;)

Rob:cool:

:rolleyes:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Sorry...don't care enough to so we'll leave it at that!;)

Rob:cool:

Then don't bother wasting your time to dispute it by saying he wasn't black. ;)

[Johnny Stew]

Well, let's not forget the thousands and thousands of Muslim people (some estimates put the number at 35,000) who were slain by extremist Christians during the Crusades. ;)

Every religion has dark spots in its history, and Christianity is definitely no exception.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Well, let's not forget the thousands and thousands of Muslim people (some estimates put the number at 35,000) who were slain by extremist Christians during the Crusades. ;)

Every religion has dark spots in its history, and Christianity is definitely no exception.

You've got that right. Christianity was the major cause for slavery, in this country and in Europe.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
Actually, Jesus and the New Testement changed all that Old Test. BS.

And I am not even that religious! (all those CCD classes back in the day did teach some things!)

Rob:cool:

He certainly did - that is why it is wrong for the far religious right to keep harping on it. The only "sin" in there that Jesus really went into was adultery and I do not see any Const. Amend to ban that :laugh: :rolleyes:

[Mari]

News about the commotion about this book in the US has just reached the Netherlands. Last night I saw an interview with the illustrator, she actually lives in my home-town:)
She said she laughed first when she heard about the commotion, she found it bizarre, funny, sad, and typical of (the somewhat puritan image we have here of) America. She didn't really understand why people were so upset about this.

It's a cute little girl, btw;)

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Then don't bother wasting your time to dispute it by saying he wasn't black. ;)

Hey it's my right to waste my time trying to reason with liberals if I want too!! :D

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Hey it's my right to waste my time trying to reason with liberals if I want too!! :D

Rob:cool:

It's not a matter of being liberal or conservative; politics isn't even a factor in this discussion.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
It's not a matter of being liberal or conservative; politics isn't even a factor in this discussion.

Religion and politics are completely intertwined...whether it is right or wrong. One uses the other.

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Then you obviously don't know what Gibson based his film on.

The name Anne Emerich must not ring any bells.

I saw the film and it seems to be based on the Gospels...As well as some of the stations of the Passion Plays.

Gibson has listed many influences...so what?

I look at the film and it's quality. I thought it was great and Braveheart was as well.

It's amazing that no one cared about Gibson's beliefs before this film and now people who didn't even see it are digging through every quote by every one of his friends and family trying to come up with dirt on him....gotta love it.:rolleyes:

If he would have made a film about Buddah, no one would have given two sh*ts...

Rob:cool:

[Alison]

Rob 67 you are right. If the movie was about anyone else, no one would care. Do you ever wonder when people swear, they use the name of Jesus, we never hear Oh Buddah, or oh for Satan sake. Interesting. Just goes to show me that there is more to the name of Jesus than most would want to admit.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Alison
Rob 67 you are right. If the movie was about anyone else, no one would care. Do you ever wonder when people swear, they use the name of Jesus, we never hear Oh Buddah, or oh for Satan sake. Interesting. Just goes to show me that there is more to the name of Jesus than most would want to admit.

I do not think anyone is arguing against that - I certainly am not. All I am saying is people resent fundamentalist Christians who try to say its their way or the highway. They do this all of the time. A good example is the insertion in 1956 of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to thawrt the evils of Communism (BTW - they originally wanted "under Jesus"). Why does that phrase have to be in there now that the threat of communism is over? I mean we clearly are not on nation "under God" and never have been. If someone wants to put that in their own personal version so be it - I think that is great for them. Yet, almost all of America sees taking this phrase out as an affront to the Judeo Christian God just as if a Chruch had been burned. I do not get why people cannot make the separation here. Why is it that God must be acknowledged as the one God by the U.S. Fed. Govt.? These are the issues that make many people see flims like "The Passion" and think here we go again, its just another effort, albeit this is a stretch, to make Christianity the official religion of the U.S. and all others should just leave. Why can't people just accept govt. as a non theocracy and look to their out faiths for validation of their spirituality. Why do they look to the govt. for that when the govt. represents more than just them?

[The Tower]

Originally posted by Rob67
Gibson has listed many influences...so what?

It's amazing that no one cared about Gibson's beliefs before this film and now people who didn't even see it are digging through every quote by every one of his friends and family trying to come up with dirt on him....gotta love it.:rolleyes:

If he would have made a film about Buddah, no one would have given two sh*ts...

Well, that's a crock.... Mel Gibson's views on social issues have been controversial for twenty years. The Passion of the Christ was just the latest example of his extreme catholicism.

Comparing a movie on the life of Buddah to the life of Christ is apples and oranges. Buddah's life was non-controversial and he died at the age of 80. Christ's life was very controversial (though through no fault of his own, mainly the fault of those who governed him) and he was murdered.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Rob67
I'm sure somebody had this same conversation around the water cooler in an office at the WTC on 9/11....;)

Rob:cool:

Come on, dude. Now you're disrespecting the memory of those poor people. Not cool. Not cool at all.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I saw the film and it seems to be based on the Gospels...As well as some of the stations of the Passion Plays.

Gibson has listed many influences...so what?

I look at the film and it's quality. I thought it was great and Braveheart was as well.

It's amazing that no one cared about Gibson's beliefs before this film and now people who didn't even see it are digging through every quote by every one of his friends and family trying to come up with dirt on him....gotta love it.:rolleyes:

If he would have made a film about Buddah, no one would have given two sh*ts...

Rob:cool:

Firstly, he shouldn't use the psychotic ramblings of an anti-semitic nun in a movie that is marketed as being factual.

Secondly, the quotes from his father are quite telling. When the bastard says that the Holocaust never happened or was exaggerated, you have to wonder what kind of household Gibson was brought up in. Then it makes you wonder why certain negative elements are included in his snuff film. And gibson himself has always been viewed as an extremist.

Thirdly, Gibson has recently said that his next movie will be one about the Jewish religion, and that he will write and direct it. If I was Jewish, I'd be offended and insulted.

Lastly, you're right about Buddha and no one giving two ****s in this country, but that wouldn't be the case elsewhere in the world. There aren't that many practicing buddhists in this country, so it wouldn't get the press coverage that a film about Jews and Christ would get. but in other parts of the world, it would be quite a controversy if Buddha was portrayed in a negative light. Try to look past the US of A for a minute, doll.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by dissention
Lastly, you're right about Buddha and no one giving two ****s in this country, but that wouldn't be the case elsewhere in the world. There aren't that many practicing buddhists in this country, so it wouldn't get the press coverage that a film about Jews and Christ would get. but in other parts of the world, it would be quite a controversy if Buddha was portrayed in a negative light. Try to look past the US of A for a minute, doll.

Buddhism has a lot of wisdom. I just don't like the idea of being reincarnated as a fly.

[Mari]

The Ledge: an exercise in Off-Topic postings, or: How to talk your way from a innocent children's book to a violent bloody movie in 6 pages.;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Mari
The Ledge: an exercise in Off-Topic postings, or: How to talk your way from a innocent children's book to a violent bloody movie in 6 pages.;)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by dissention
You've got that right. Christianity was the major cause for slavery, in this country and in Europe.

Sorry, but if I'm reading this right, I respectfully disagree. Christianity was distorted by some to "justify" slavery, but I don't believe it was the cause of slavery at all. (If I'm missing the facts, tell me.)

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Rob67
Uh...really? A black Jew in the Middle East? Now that is an interesting combination.

Actually...that isn't the case. White, he wasn't, though.

Rob:cool:

If he wasn't black or white, what was he? East Asian? Native American? Pacific Islander?:confused:

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Alison
Rob 67 you are right. If the movie was about anyone else, no one would care. Do you ever wonder when people swear, they use the name of Jesus, we never hear Oh Buddah, or oh for Satan sake. Interesting. Just goes to show me that there is more to the name of Jesus than most would want to admit.

Some say Anne Heche Lafoon.:)

- Jake

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
No offense, but that comment always gives me shivers: "I don't hate gay people... I just think that what they are is wrong."


I say a variation of this all the time - except I add a "doing" after "are." And I mean it.

I've avoided this thread because I knew what it would be like, but when I saw how long it was getting, I decided to take the plunge.

ALL Of us have conceptions about what is right and wrong, a moral basis we work from. Some of us derive it from Christianity, some of us derive it from other areas. But all of us have places where we draw the line, things we deem as "wrong." So if calling something "wrong" makes you judgemental, thenaren't we all?

[dissention]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Sorry, but if I'm reading this right, I respectfully disagree. Christianity was distorted by some to "justify" slavery, but I don't believe it was the cause of slavery at all. (If I'm missing the facts, tell me.)

- Jake

Christians who believed in slavery used the Bible, which not only condoned slavery but said it was okay to beat and kill the slaves, to justify the enslavement of Africans. IMO, if it wasn't for the Christians back in the day, we wouldn't have brought slaves over from Africa on big ships.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
and God made gay people in His image - so He was wrong and sinful :shrug:

God made everyone in his image. All of us are sinful. Does that mean God condones our sin?

[dissention]

Originally posted by sodascouts
ALL Of us have conceptions about what is right and wrong, a moral basis we work from. Some of us derive it from Christianity, some of us derive it from other areas. But all of us have places where we draw the line, things we deem as "wrong." So if calling something "wrong" makes you judgemental, thenaren't we all?

Everyone is judgemental, that's just human nature. But I think it's more offensive when someone uses their religion or belief in the Bible or God to justify their judgement and hate. That's all.

The Bible says to show peace and love to one another and not to judge anyone. Then it goes and contradicts itself by saying that a gay relationship is sinful. So, I guess when it comes to someones belief in the Bible, they can pretty much pick and choose either one of those, thereby making neither argument much use in the end.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Also, I think it is not people hating the Christian posters here. I think it is what is perceived as blind following of twisted words and selective enforcement of archaix parts of The Bible that Christ Himself said he was obviating when he made a new covenant with mankind.

This is an excellent point. Homosexuals who believe in Jesus will get into Heaven according the the New Testament. MANY people forget that.

[dissention]

Originally posted by sodascouts
God made everyone in his image. All of us are sinful. Does that mean God condones our sin?

Which raises another question. If there is a God and he created us all, he obviously created some of his people gay. Why create gay people if they are sinners? And if we are all sinners, what is the point in persecuting gay men and women? Shouldn't we just be more concerned with our sins and not the sins of others? Should we judge other sinners just because we feel that their sin is greater than ours? It doesn't pass the smell test.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
[B]God made everyone in his image. All of us are sinful. Does that mean God condones our sin?

[AND]

This is an excellent point. Homosexuals who believe in Jesus will get into Heaven according the the New Testament. MANY people forget that.
[B]

First of all - you know I always respect your opinions - so you know I am not being hateful, etc. As I know you are not :xoxo: (again no hugging emoticon available :laugh: )

What I was referring to is that God made man in his image. Most of the scientific evidecne supports that gay people are made that way, they do not chose to be gay. So, God must have made gay people that way and, therefore in His image, etc.

Interestingly, my argument sort of fails a little bit because God also made straight people and according to Christ, straight people must temper their adulterous ways. But, gay people cannot be married to be adulters.

How's that for a heady argument!!!

I know what you mean - I for one and sick and tired of, as a Christian, having to defend the Al-Q esq. fundamentalist out there who blow up abortion clinics, etc. I think it cheapens in the public's eye what I believe in, which I can assure you is not violence, etc.

:cool:

[sodascouts]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dissention
The day someone says they'll "pray" for me because I don't believe in their religion or their God is the day that I haul off and smack 'em. [QUOTE]

And yet this person cares about you enough to be worried about your spiritual welfare. I pray for my friends who don't believe in Jesus not because I'm trying to force my beliefs on them, but because I care about them. Sure, if I kept silent, no one would think badly of me, no one would mock me or be angry with me. I could smile and nod and get high fives for my acceptance. But that's the same as saying "Fine, burn in Hell, I've got MY ticket to Heaven, too bad for them" - I think that would be pretty selfish, though.

[dissention]

Originally posted by sodascouts


And yet this person cares about you enough to be worried about your spiritual welfare. I pray for my friends who don't believe in Jesus not because I'm trying to force my beliefs on them, but because I care about them. Then on one would think badly of us, no one would mock us or be angry with us. I could smile and nod and get high fives for my acceptance by saying "Fine, burn in Hell, I've got MY ticket to Heaven, SCREW YOU" - I think that would be pretty selfish, though.

If they care about me, they can care enough to keep their religion and prayers to themselves. :) I'm all for religion and someones beliefs in God, but I believe that it should be kept private and personal and it shouldn't intrude on another person. If someone were to say it to me, I would simply be offended. If you want to pray for me, do it, but don't tell me you're going to and don't say it just because you think I'm a sinner who needs to be prayed for. I'm sure that many of the Christians on this board, must think I'm a heretic or something, but these are just my beliefs. I have the deepest respect for someone with religious beliefs, but I'm just not one of them. :) I've said "You're in my prayers" but when i say that, I don't say it in a religious manner.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by dissention
Which raises another question. If there is a God and he created us all, he obviously created some of his people gay. Why create gay people if they are sinners? And if we are all sinners, what is the point in persecuting gay men and women? Shouldn't we just be more concerned with our sins and not the sins of others? Should we judge other sinners just because we feel that their sin is greater than ours? It doesn't pass the smell test.

Yes, we should be more concerned with our own sins and not the sins of others. When it comes to sin, homosexuality is no more abhorrent than premarital sex. (I think I just alienated 99.95% of the board with that comment, lol). And I think it's' hypocritical to have "Common Law Marriage" and not Gay Marriage if one is concerned about the sanctity of marriage. That being said, two wrongs don't make a right.

As for the rest.... we all WANT to sin, part of our nature. Up to us to fight it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dissention
The day someone says they'll "pray" for me because I don't believe in their religion or their God is the day that I haul off and smack 'em. [QUOTE]

And yet this person cares about you enough to be worried about your spiritual welfare. I pray for my friends who don't believe in Jesus not because I'm trying to force my beliefs on them, but because I care about them. Sure, if I kept silent, no one would think badly of me, no one would mock me or be angry with me. I could smile and nod and get high fives for my acceptance. But that's the same as saying "Fine, burn in Hell, I've got MY ticket to Heaven, too bad for them" - I think that would be pretty selfish, though.

I totally agree with you on this. I think praying for people is a great thing :nod: I just think people (not you!!! ) sometimes are condescending with their "I'll pray for you" in that it comes off like "I know better than you do - I pray you will see that," etc. I think the intent is pretty much always good though. I mean who amongst couldn't use a little help from above. It reminds me of a few years ago when I went down the Amazon River to deliver school supplies to the local tribes and villages. My mother was so scared she had the Catholics, Espiscopaleans, Muslims, Jews, and who knows who else praying for my safe return - talk about overkill :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Yes, we should be more concerned with our own sins and not the sins of others. When it comes to sin, homosexuality is no more abhorrent than premarital sex. (I think I just alienated 99.95% of the board with that comment, lol). And I think it's' hypocritical to have "Common Law Marriage" and not Gay Marriage if one is concerned about the sanctity of marriage. That being said, two wrongs don't make a right.

As for the rest.... we all WANT to sin, part of our nature. Up to us to fight it.

I am curious - do you think that the govt.'s promotion of only essentially the Judeo Christian form of marriage is wrong in the sense that America is not a theocracy. Personally, I think that if the govt. promotes one (via tax benefits, etc.) it must promote them all from Old Testament polygamy to who knows waht else these people will think of :laugh: That is why I think the govt. should in no way sanction any marriage by any institution :cool: I think the churches should marry and that is it. In other words, why is it so important to have Judeo Christian marriage validated by the Federal Govt.?

[The Tower]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Yes, we should be more concerned with our own sins and not the sins of others. When it comes to sin, homosexuality is no more abhorrent than premarital sex. (I think I just alienated 99.95% of the board with that comment, lol). And I think it's' hypocritical to have "Common Law Marriage" and not Gay Marriage if one is concerned about the sanctity of marriage. That being said, two wrongs don't make a right.

As for the rest.... we all WANT to sin, part of our nature. Up to us to fight it.

So, all it takes for straight people to get "sin-free" sex is go to some drive-thru wedding chapel in Vegas- but gays are barred from having sex forever?? Sounds like a crappy deal to me....

No wonder I'm an atheist.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I totally agree with you on this. I think praying for people is a great thing :nod: I just think people (not you!!! ) sometimes are condescending with their "I'll pray for you" in that it comes off like "I know better than you do - I pray you will see that," etc. I think the intent is pretty much always good though. I mean who amongst couldn't use a little help from above. It reminds me of a few years ago when I went down the Amazon River to deliver school supplies to the local tribes and villages. My mother was so scared she had the Catholics, Espiscopaleans, Muslims, Jews, and who knows who else praying for my safe return - talk about overkill :laugh:

That's what I meant by the whole "I'll pray for you"; it sounds condescending from certain religious people. You put it perfectly. :D

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am curious - do you think that the govt.'s promotion of only essentially the Judeo Christian form of marriage is wrong in the sense that America is not a theocracy. Personally, I think that if the govt. promotes one (via tax benefits, etc.) it must promote them all from Old Testament polygamy to who knows waht else these people will think of :laugh: That is why I think the govt. should in no way sanction any marriage by any institution :cool: I think the churches should marry and that is it. In other words, why is it so important to have Judeo Christian marriage validated by the Federal Govt.?

Good question. There are many things going on here. I don't think it's a bad thing for the government to help out people who are getting married. I don't think they should penalize those who aren't, though. Some people believe that NOT receiving a benefit is being penalized, but I don't think that's the case.

And frankly, the polygamy argument is already at the bottom of this slippery slope. Four, five consenting adults, right? What's the difference?

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by dissention
Christians who believed in slavery used the Bible, which not only condoned slavery but said it was okay to beat and kill the slaves, to justify the enslavement of Africans. IMO, if it wasn't for the Christians back in the day, we wouldn't have brought slaves over from Africa on big ships.

People of many faiths participated in the slave trade, and while I do not excuse these Christians (and others) from responsibility for their actions, I don't see how any of this demonstrates that Christianity caused the slavery problem. Christianity was twisted and used by slaveholders in this country, but if it were not Christianity, I believe the greedy and cruel would have found a different faith to distort and help them rationalize their choice.

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by The Tower
So, all it takes for straight people to get "sin-free" sex is go to some drive-thru wedding chapel in Vegas- but gays are barred from having sex forever?? Sounds like a crappy deal to me....

No wonder I'm an atheist.

Interestingly, its not the sex part that is focused on by Chistianity. It is the concept of conception. In general and in a nutshell, the Old Testament speaks of the menstrual cycle as the promise of life eternal or at least the extension of mankind. The discharge was considered a sad event because the possibility for life was lost. Similarly, all Christian sex must be toward the specific goal of conception. Thus, it is not really the idea of free sex (althought that certainly is a great by product :laugh: ) it is the concept of life extending, etc.

BTW - I am not saying I believe in this, I am just saying the reasons behind it, etc.

Also, Jake - if you are reading, I would love it if you woul eloborate on what I said as I am unsure if I said it correctly, etc. :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I say a variation of this all the time - except I add a "doing" after "are." And I mean it.

ALL Of us have conceptions about what is right and wrong, a moral basis we work from. Some of us derive it from Christianity, some of us derive it from other areas. But all of us have places where we draw the line, things we deem as "wrong." So if calling something "wrong" makes you judgemental, thenaren't we all? I think abusing a child is wrong... I think harming an animal is wrong... I think doing something harmful towards anyone is wrong.
If those feelings make me judgemental, then so be it.

But I do not think that expressing love and affection towards someone of the same sex is wrong.
I'm not talking about casual, anonymous sex here... I'm talking about a genuinely loving, caring relationship.

And I'm sorry, but I am not going to deny myself the right to LOVE SOMEONE, simply because "bible-thumpers" (not you, Nancy, but extremists) claim that what I am is a sin and that I should deny myself love and affection in order to gain admittance into Heaven.

I'm only human, but I live as good a life as possible, and I follow the Ten Commandments... but if none of that matters because I happen to express love towards someone of my own gender, then something is seriously whacked.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Good question. There are many things going on here. I don't think it's a bad thing for the government to help out people who are getting married. I don't think they should penalize those who aren't, though. Some people believe that NOT receiving a benefit is being penalized, but I don't think that's the case.

And frankly, the polygamy argument is already at the bottom of this slippery slope. Four, five consenting adults, right? What's the difference?

I know what you mean. In the end, I am not necessarily for the govt. not helping out married people by automatic assumtions like the Social Security benefits going to the spouse, etc. I just think that to exclude a gay or any other person from leaving these same benefits to their partner is wrong.

As for polygamy - I think that will be the next "big hurdle." Interestingly, polygamy was condoned in the Old Testament - so they may have a point :shrug:

[dissention]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
People of many faiths participated in the slave trade, and while I do not excuse these Christians (and others) from responsibility for their actions, I don't see how any of this demonstrates that Christianity caused the slavery problem. Christianity was twisted and used by slaveholders in this country, but if it were not Christianity, I believe the greedy and cruel would have found a different faith to distort and help them rationalize their choice.

- Jake

We'll have to agree to disagree then. :)

[The Tower]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Similarly, all Christian sex must be toward the specific goal of conception. Thus, it is not really the idea of free sex (althought that certainly is a great by product :laugh: ) it is the concept of life extending, etc.

BTW - I am not saying I believe in this, I am just saying the reasons behind it, etc.

If christians truly believe this is the case, then there's probably only five or six people in "heaven"... :rolleyes:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, its not the sex part that is focused on by Chistianity. It is the concept of conception. In general and in a nutshell, the Old Testament speaks of the menstrual cycle as the promise of life eternal or at least the extension of mankind. The discharge was considered a sad event because the possibility for life was lost. Similarly, all Christian sex must be toward the specific goal of conception. Thus, it is not really the idea of free sex (althought that certainly is a great by product :laugh: ) it is the concept of life extending, etc.

BTW - I am not saying I believe in this, I am just saying the reasons behind it, etc.

Also, Jake - if you are reading, I would love it if you woul eloborate on what I said as I am unsure if I said it correctly, etc. :cool:

I've never heard that about the promise of life eternal, etc.
The Hebrew Bible includes several instructions about spiritual cleansing, including the famous ones for the menstruating woman. In general, blood is to be avoided in Jewish life (i.e., the laws of kashrut/kosher diet). In an historical context, menstrual blood was used by many pagans in fertility practices, such as having the woman actually walk around bleeding on the fields. The early Hebrews set out to make laws to distinguish themselves from the pagans.
The purpose of sex in traditional Judaism does not have to be procreation. Orgasm is supposed to bring you closer to G-d in the literal sense. Just as Christians are instructed to emulate Jesus, Jews are taught to follow the example of G-d, who takes pleasure in creation (and who clothes Adam and Eve, buries Moses, etc.) and who gives humans the ability to enjoy sex for its own sake. Intercourse is not sinful within marriage (Have you seen the bestseller Kosher Sex?) and a husband is commanded to pleasure his wife before himself.
I think that's it in a nutshell, if I remember.

- Jake

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by sodascouts
God made everyone in his image. All of us are sinful. Does that mean God condones our sin? There's nothing about homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, which I follow.
I may be a sinner, but not because I'm homosexual.

I was created in His image, just like anyone else. We all have different hair color, or eye color, or skin-tone... we're all of different heights and weights... but we're all created in His image.
Some people happen to be born heterosexual, and others are born homosexual... it's another variation caused by our genes, not by some random "choice" on our part.

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by dissention
We'll have to agree to disagree then. :)

You can't mean about whether I'm right.;)

- Jake

[dissention]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
You can't mean about whether I'm right.;)

- Jake

Not at all. I think I'm right and you think you're right. :laugh:

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by The Tower
So, all it takes for straight people to get "sin-free" sex is go to some drive-thru wedding chapel in Vegas- but gays are barred from having sex forever?? Sounds like a crappy deal to me....

No wonder I'm an atheist.

If you're definining sin Biblically, then yes.

And sinning is certainly a lot more fun. If that's what you want, and you don't want to be concerned with sin, then yeah, you've chosen a religion that will suit you. At least during your life.

[dissention]

Originally posted by The Tower
If christians truly believe this is the case, then there's probably only five or six people in "heaven"... :rolleyes:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by The Tower
If christians truly believe this is the case, then there's probably only five or six people in "heaven"... :rolleyes:

No, because sin does not keep you out of Heaven. if that were the case, there would be ZERO people in Heaven. Not believing Jesus keeps you out of Heaven. So there will be straight non-Christians in hell and Homosexual Christians in Heaven, according to the New Testament, as I said in a previous post.

The Bible does stress conception, but does not prohibit sex within marriage outside of the need to propograte the species! lol

[dissention]

Originally posted by sodascouts
If you're definining sin Biblically, then yes.

And sinning is certainly a lot more fun. If that's what you want, and you don't want to be concerned with sin, then yeah, you've chosen a religion that will suit you. At least during your life.

I'm not sure if it was your intention, but that came off as really rude and inconsiderate remark to people who hold atheist beliefs. :(

[The Tower]

Originally posted by sodascouts
And frankly, the polygamy argument is already at the bottom of this slippery slope. Four, five consenting adults, right? What's the difference?

There is a BIG difference between polygamy and homosexuality.

Polygamy is more akin to slavery than it is to a consensual relationship between two people. It has been shown that the majority of wives in polygamous situations are not participating voluntarily. Polygamy is a patriarchal situation where the man controls his "harem".

It's tempting to try to demonize homosexuality by comparing it to polygamy, bestiality, etc.... However, it usually doesn't work out logically.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by dissention
I'm not sure if it was your intention, but that came off as really rude and inconsiderate remark to people who hold atheist beliefs. :(

You're right, that does sounds rude. Sorry, Tower.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by The Tower
There is a BIG difference between polygamy and homosexuality.

Polygamy is more akin to slavery than it is to a consensual relationship between two people. It has been shown that the majority of wives in polygamous situations are not participating voluntarily. Polygamy is a patriarchal situation where the man controls his "harem".

It's tempting to try to demonize homosexuality by comparing it to polygamy, bestiality, etc.... However, it usually doesn't work out logically.

What if all the women ARE participating willingly? Should we not allow them to participate because the institution has been abused by other polygamists? And what about the reverse - if a woman wants more than one husband?

Just playing devil's advocate. ;)

[The Tower]

Originally posted by sodascouts
You're right, that does sounds rude. Sorry, Tower.

Hey Nancy- I didn't think it was rude at all. I think that everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they believe in , even if it's none at all.

I wouldn't want to infringe upon your beliefs- I think your conviction in your faith is admirable.

However, when others try to force their beliefs upon me (or others for that matter), that's when I think it crosses the line. I don't think you've done anything other than expressed your own personal feelings.

I don't even believe in "sin", so I can handle it...

:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I've never heard that about the promise of life eternal, etc.
The Hebrew Bible includes several instructions about spiritual cleansing, including the famous ones for the menstruating woman. In general, blood is to be avoided in Jewish life (i.e., the laws of kashrut/kosher diet). In an historical context, menstrual blood was used by many pagans in fertility practices, such as having the woman actually walk around bleeding on the fields. The early Hebrews set out to make laws to distinguish themselves from the pagans.
The purpose of sex in traditional Judaism does not have to be procreation. Orgasm is supposed to bring you closer to G-d in the literal sense. Just as Christians are instructed to emulate Jesus, Jews are taught to follow the example of G-d, who takes pleasure in creation (and who clothes Adam and Eve, buries Moses, etc.) and who gives humans the ability to enjoy sex for its own sake. Intercourse is not sinful within marriage (Have you seen the bestseller Kosher Sex?) and a husband is commanded to pleasure his wife before himself.
I think that's it in a nutshell, if I remember.

- Jake

Thanks Jake!!!!!!

I am trying to remember what article I read that went into the whole menstrual cyle issue above. If I find, I will post.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Thanks Jake!!!!!!

I am trying to remember what article I read that went into the whole menstrual cyle issue above. If I find, I will post.

There was a website that I found awhile back that talked about that and some other Jewish beliefs; I'll try to find it for you. It was fascinating. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Thanks!!!

Interestingly, Genesis states:

3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
_________________________________________________

Thus, menstuation is a curse on woman for Eve's actions. other parts of the Old Testament state the joy of children outweighs this curse, but it is a curse none the less.

[The Tower]

Originally posted by sodascouts
What if all the women ARE participating willingly? Should we not allow them to participate because the institution has been abused by other polygamists? And what about the reverse - if a woman wants more than one husband?

Just playing devil's advocate. ;)

If society were such that the women in polygamous situations could be trusted to NOT be under duress, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, that has not been shown to be the case.

I think that any time Earth people try polygamy, it's usually within the context of one person of one gender trying to subjugate many of those of the opposite sex. Whenever one tries to subjugate another, I wouldn't consider that "consensual".

Maybe on other worlds out there in the universe there are cultures that can handle polygamy... But the Earth has had a pretty bad track record.

P.S.- I've been gay my whole life, and I've never heard, seen, or encountered a polygamous homosexual situation. I'm not saying it's impossible, however, homosexuality doesn't lend itself very well to gender subjugation (by definition). :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Interstingly, I have seen polygamy, if you will, if both hetero and homosexual scenarios and no one felt forced into it, etc., although I am sure that does happen, esp. with women The homosexual scenario is still going on after like seven years. The hetero one did not work out. Granted these people were not married, but they all considered theuir situations legit. Also, the people did not consider their polygamous relationships monogamous (for want of a better word :laugh: ) They all were with other people outside of the core people. It made it really hard to address the Christmas Cards - so little room on the envelope! :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I think abusing a child is wrong... I think harming an animal is wrong... I think doing something harmful towards anyone is wrong.
If those feelings make me judgemental, then so be it.

But I do not think that expressing love and affection towards someone of the same sex is wrong.
I'm not talking about casual, anonymous sex here... I'm talking about a genuinely loving, caring relationship.


I fully agree. It frustrates me no end to hear people say what gay folks do is wrong. I'm not sure I understand why it's wrong to love.

Are these folks unable to separate the mental picture of the physical act from the idea that same-gender true love is just as valid?

I would have thought "Six Feet Under" would have made poeple more comfortable with the whole thing.

But then again... some of these folks think certain acts between a man and a woman are sinful too. Oh well.

[ryan8472]

Originally posted by dissention
I thought CCD was just story time. And boring at that. I was too worried about getting home in time for Disney Afternoon. :laugh:

I'm the same way! I'm currently going to classes for my confimation (which I really couldn't care about...it's just another name) I just kind of sit there and nod my head, like I'm paying attention, sometimes injecting my own ideas into the conversation, even though the teacher will pick them apart with some stupid excuse like, "Well, in the bible....".

I'm not against Christians (I was brought up Catholic), and I don't really want to entangle myself in this debate, but I do want to say that gays are still human beings who deserve the same rights everyone else has. A person's sexual preference has nothing to do with their being decent person, and it should be left at that.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by sodascouts
No, because sin does not keep you out of Heaven. if that were the case, there would be ZERO people in Heaven. Not believing Jesus keeps you out of Heaven. So there will be straight non-Christians in hell and Homosexual Christians in Heaven, according to the New Testament, as I said in a previous post.

The Bible does stress conception, but does not prohibit sex within marriage outside of the need to propograte the species! lol I mean no disrespect by this at all, Nancy... but I think it's terribly narrow-minded to assume that someone not believing in Jesus will preclude them from entering Heaven.

If one believes in a higher power, and one conducts their life as best they can, in order to be more intuned with that higher power... then why isn't it good enough, if that God doesn't happen to be Yahweh, or if they don't happen to believe in Jesus?

I didn't realize that Heaven was a place that only an elite few were allowed to enter, and if we don't all believe the way one religion tells us we should believe, then we're out of luck.

[strandinthewind]

nancy is stating a tenet of the Christian faith. By definition, a Christian has via some ceremony accepted Jesus. Therefore, according to Jesus' own words, all Christians may enter the Kingdon of Heaven. Chrisitans are not alone in this notion of exclusion. Almost all faiths that have a concept of heaven exclude non-believers in that faith from that heaven. Thus, the reason why many people view religion as a form of crowd control - either you listen to the ruling theocracy or you are going to hell (sorry - thought a little levity was needed :laugh: ). So, I do not think Nancy is saying what any Christian by defninition would also say.

Note: I am not arguing that many people use the threat of not going to heaven to hurt other people a la Pat Robertson and * (better Dissention :laugh: ). I am just clarifying what Nancy was saying - as if she needs moi to state anything for her :laugh:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by ryan8472
I believe that gays are still human beings,

:eek: :eek: A radical!!!:nod:

- Jake

[Mari]

LOL

*dang, I was hoping for a guestspot as alien of the week in star trek...

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by dissention
Not at all. I think I'm right and you think you're right. :laugh:

I'm thinking of that old 3 Stooges bit:

"I don't think, I know!"
"I don't think you know either!"
:)

- Jake

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
nancy is stating a tenet of the Christian faith.
Chrisitans are not alone in this notion of exclusion. Almost all faiths that have a concept of heaven exclude non-believers in that faith from that heaven.Don't get me wrong, I'm completely aware that Christianity is not the only religion that feels this way... but I still find it narrow-minded and elitist.

And since it was Christianity we were referring to, I made my comment in regards to it, rather than other faiths. :)

There's a joke I always found funny....
This Protestant man passes away and goes to Heaven.
When he gets there, he notices that no one ever speaks above a whisper. One day, he asks St. Peter why everyone is whispering, and St. Peter tells him, "Because the Catholics are right on the other side of this cloud, and they think they're the only ones here." :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Don't get me wrong, I'm completely aware that Christianity is not the only religion that feels this way... but I still find it narrow-minded and elitist.

And since it was Christianity we were referring to, I made my comment in regards to it, rather than other faiths. :)

There's a joke I always found funny....
This Protestant man passes away and goes to Heaven.
When he gets there, he notices that no one ever speaks above a whisper. One day, he asks St. Peter why everyone is whispering, and St. Peter tells him, "Because the Catholics are right on the other side of this cloud, and they think they're the only ones here." :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

As a friend of mine and man of ill repute (sp.?) but heart of gold used to say "The best I can hope for is a golden gazeebo on the outskirts of heaven" :cool:

[ryan8472]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
:eek: :eek: A radical!!!:nod:

- Jake

:laugh:

Yeah, that can be taken out of context (:laugh: ) Maybe I'll edit my post a bit :nod:

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I mean no disrespect by this at all, Nancy... but I think it's terribly narrow-minded to assume that someone not believing in Jesus will preclude them from entering Heaven.



I'm not trying to be narrow-minded, and I understand what you're saying, but I didn't make the rules, and I can't pretend they don't exist.

[strandinthewind]

Interestingly and in the abstract (here he goes again :laugh: ) - OI think people just assume "heaven" is a place that is non religious or at least a place that all agree everyone should be able to go no matter what they believe. That is just no the case. Every religion has its own version and rules regadring what it takes to get there. I mean Christians will never reach Nirvana, etc.

Note: Johnny - I am not slamming you. I am just getting into an esoteric debate with you and Nancy!!!!!!!

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I'm not trying to be narrow-minded, and I understand what you're saying, but I didn't make the rules, and I can't pretend they don't exist. I understand that. None of us made the rules.
But, as Jason pointed out, when you think about it, even the most devoted of Christians sort of "pick and choose" which of the rules to adhere to, and which have become archaic.

So, of the ones we're left with, why can't we see that several of those are just as archaic as, say, murdering a child who disobeys his parents? Or that a wife is the property of her husband?

Those don't fly in this day and age, and I doubt even the most devoted of Christians would consider those to be "rules" that needed to be followed to the letter.
So, with that knowledge, why can't we also get to a place where we realize that notions against homosexuality are also archaic?
Or that we all have to have the same beliefs in order to be good enough to go to Heaven?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I think people just assume "heaven" is a place that is non religious or at least a place that all agree everyone should be able to go no matter what they believe. That is just no the case. Every religion has its own version and rules regadring what it takes to get there. I mean Christians will never reach Nirvana, etc.I firmly believe there is ONE place that we're all working towards.
Whether you call it Heaven, Valhalla, Nirvana, or what have you... in the end, it's the same place.

After all, every language has a different word for "love," but we're all still talking about the same thing. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

I think that is what Nancy said - believing in or accepting Jesus is enough to get you in the Christian Kingdom of Heaven. I suppose sin has some effect after you do that, but that is the biggie according to Christainity and Christ Himself.

Also, the Christiand fight amongst themselves on this topic. For example, many Catholics believe only Catholics can adminsiter Christ's word and that one must accpet the Catholic Chruch if they accept Christ.

Personally, I think if we all live a good life and are decent to others, we are all going to the same place no matter what each religion calls it.

[Sugar]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I say a variation of this all the time - except I add a "doing" after "are." And I mean it.


And may I ask why it is that you think what they are "doing" is wrong? Is it simply because you feel your God thinks it is wrong and in order to be loyal to and recognized by him you are obliged to hold the same opinion?

This is a genuine question and I mean no disrespect. We can argue all day about what is right and wrong about religion and what does and does not make sense and what is and isn't relevent. That's just the nature of faith. But you have chosen this stand I am curious as to what makes you feel so confidant that you, Nancy, (not God or Jesus or your pastor) can stand up and proclaim, "It is wrong for two men or two women to be in a loving relationship and I personally am against it."

And I don't mean to put Nancy on the spot with this, she's just the one who was standing up. :) I'd be curious to the rationale of anyone who feels this way.

[strandinthewind]

Although I do not feel that way, Christians that do point to the book of Leviticus which calls two men lying together as a man and a woman an "abomination" and says that God hates that. In thye New Testament, I believe Paul says this again in a letter to the Ehphesians (I think that is where it is). Plus, sex between the same sex goes against the Chrush's doctrine of sex only with the chance of procreation, which they consider one of God's greatest gifts to mankind.

Thus, they are calling it wrong based on that.

Note: this was just for clarification and to answer your question, etc.

Many people dismiss The Bible here because Leviticus was written way before people understood homosexuality from a sceitntific point of view. It was viewed a little bit like leprosy in that gay people were shunned if not killed. Ad for Paul's letter, there is a probably valid theory that he was referring to a pedophile tyoe thing and not sex bewteen two consenting adults.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Sugar
And may I ask why it is that you think what they are "doing" is wrong? Is it simply because you feel your God thinks it is wrong and in order to be loyal to and recognized by him you are obliged to hold the same opinion?

I do feel God thinks it is wrong, and although I know that God recognizes me regardless of whether or not I sin, that I should try not to.

Originally posted by Sugar
But you have chosen this stand I am curious as to what makes you feel so confidant that you, Nancy, (not God or Jesus or your pastor) can stand up and proclaim, "It is wrong for two men or two women to be in a loving relationship and I personally am against it."

I'm sorry if I sound like I am just preaching the "Nancy rules" lol. I'm trying to follow Biblical principles. And I realize i DO sound preachy. I've been trying to explain things the way I see him but it's hard to talk about right and wrong without offending people. I also realize that I'm probably coming off as sounding like I'm oh-so-holy and better than everyone. I want to assure everyone that I do not suffer from that delusion. I'm no better than anyone else here. I'm not going to heaven because I'm so wonderful or good - I'm not wonderful or pure, as many of you know from talking to me, lol. Sad but true!

[strandinthewind]

My vote is Nancy is great (can I use the kissing emoticon again :laugh: )

[Sugar]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Although I do not feel that way, Christians that do point to the book of Leviticus which calls two men lying together as a man and a woman an "abomination" and says that God hates that. In thye New Testament, I believe Paul says this again in a letter to the Ehphesians (I think that is where it is). Plus, sex between the same sex goes against the Chrush's doctrine of sex only with the chance of procreation, which they consider one of God's greatest gifts to mankind.

Thus, they are calling it wrong based on that.

Note: this was just for clarification and to answer your question, etc.

Many people dismiss The Bible here because Leviticus was written way before people understood homosexuality from a sceitntific point of view. It was viewed a little bit like leprosy in that gay people were shunned if not killed. Ad for Paul's letter, there is a probably valid theory that he was referring to a pedophile tyoe thing and not sex bewteen two consenting adults.

All right I'm just gonna go with this, and I hope I don't offend anyone, but just keep in mind that most of what I presently know about the Bible I learned from Metallica songs which, admittedly, is pretty limited.

OK so the Old Testament is supposed to be the literal word of God, right? So God says he hates it. Does that make it a sin? It could not simply be a less desirable alternative?

And Paul seems adaequately discredited (takin' your word for it) so I'll skip him.

And OK if we're going to REALLY follow the hard line on procreation there's pretty much no getting around that. So so far, we're pretty much all still in the same boat...

I just don't get where all the vitriol comes from? And I don't see any vitriol in Nancy, but there is the feeling of entitliment that she is in a position to have an opinion on the subject. Or is it, in your case, Nancy, just a less desirable alternative.

I mean, how would you feel if the nation was debating the legitimacy of your chosen mate? So a biker moves in next door. You don't have to be happy about it but are you prepared to interfere with his life because he is not your preference? I'm not so much pro-gay as I just don't give it that much thought. And I can't believe that any God that we believe has the power to create everything on this Earth would advovate the way our society treats gays, even if they are "God's little black sheep".

Again, no offense meant. This is just what I think about when I think about this stuff. :)

[strandinthewind]

Actually, the OT and the rest of The Bible are all the word of God in that most Christians believe and for most of the OT only the Jews believe, that God inspired people to write it for Him.

As for a condescending nature, I think many Christians, certainly not Nancy, have that air. So, when someone comes in and gives a factual explanation of sin as defined in The Bible, people automatically assume the same air. Again, I think snooty Christian will be the end of organized religion :laugh:

Finally, The Bible I think calls it a sin.

[Sugar]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Actually, the OT and the rest of The Bible are all the word of God in that most Christians believe and for most of the OT only the Jews believe, that God inspired people to write it for Him.



Yeah, well, I guess that's where faith comes in. That doesn't sound like the literal word of God to me. But hey, who am I to judge these people? ;)

[strandinthewind]

Well . . . "faith is a hard thing to hold onto - something inside you says I don't have to" :cool:

[Mari]

just a note: there are plenty of christians who do not take the bible just as the word of God, but as a book told & written by people, in another time and culture.
Also, homosexuality had a different meaning in that time. The word homosexuality and the current ideas about it (the genetics theory), it only exists for two centuries or so, and in very short time we've changed our way of thinking about it. It doesn't make sense to say the bible (written God knows how long ago ;)) says things about homosexuality as we know it today.

There are alternative interpretations of the texts that supposedly refer to homosexuality.

[CarneVaca]

Heaven? What is heaven?

That moment of absolute joy and peacefulness bobbing on the bay, as a warm breeze whispers in my ear and I stop rowing and trick myself into thinking for a few seconds that this borrowed peace and absolute joy of just being is everlasting.

The moment when my child laughs in pure joy and innocent abandon, eliciting from me laughter buoyed by the joy of just knowing that at that very moment we are both perfectly happy.

You know those moments I'm talking about? And I could think of some more. But my point is, heaven is here. I decided a while back that living my life according to some precepts based on the promise of heaven after death was rather pointless. You see, I believe death is death. So I try to enjoy the now.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
If he wasn't black or white, what was he? East Asian? Native American? Pacific Islander?:confused:

- Jake

Well, he was Jewish and from the Middle East. So he wasn't white. Arab, possibly?

Ah...who cares?;)

Rob:cool:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Rob67
Well, he was Jewish and from the Middle East. So he wasn't white. Arab, possibly?

Ah...who cares?;)

Rob:cool:

As I understand it, Arab (I think you mean semitic) is white.

- Jake

[Rob67]

Originally posted by The Tower
Well, that's a crock.... Mel Gibson's views on social issues have been controversial for twenty years. The Passion of the Christ was just the latest example of his extreme catholicism.

Comparing a movie on the life of Buddah to the life of Christ is apples and oranges. Buddah's life was non-controversial and he died at the age of 80. Christ's life was very controversial (though through no fault of his own, mainly the fault of those who governed him) and he was murdered.

Not really a crock, His views may have been that way for “20 years� but nobody cared until the Passion came out.. I was raised Catholic. I don’t practice organized religion so I watched the film from an objective perspective. I looked at it as a piece of art (ie. Was it a good film?) and was curious to see if there was any credence to the “Anti-semitism� BS. I found none of the latter and felt the film was pretty accurate as far as the Bible was concerned. Of course, as a film I thought it was powerful.

And I am not comparing Buddah and Christ…you miss the point. I am only saying that if Gibson would have made a film about Buddah or Allah or “insert deity here,� people would not have made such a big deal. Period. All I am saying is WHO CARES???? It is just a movie.

Rob:cool:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Rob67
Well, he was Jewish and from the Middle East. So he wasn't white. Arab, possibly?

Ah...who cares?;)

Rob:cool:

I care only in the sense of avoiding any misrepresentation that Jewish (or Arab, or Middle Eastern) is a race. I don't care what race the guy was, if that's what you're asking.

- Jake

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Come on, dude. Now you're disrespecting the memory of those poor people. Not cool. Not cool at all.

How so?:confused:

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Firstly, he shouldn't use the psychotic ramblings of an anti-semitic nun in a movie that is marketed as being factual.

Secondly, the quotes from his father are quite telling. When the bastard says that the Holocaust never happened or was exaggerated, you have to wonder what kind of household Gibson was brought up in. Then it makes you wonder why certain negative elements are included in his snuff film. And gibson himself has always been viewed as an extremist.

Thirdly, Gibson has recently said that his next movie will be one about the Jewish religion, and that he will write and direct it. If I was Jewish, I'd be offended and insulted.

Lastly, you're right about Buddha and no one giving two ****s in this country, but that wouldn't be the case elsewhere in the world. There aren't that many practicing buddhists in this country, so it wouldn't get the press coverage that a film about Jews and Christ would get. but in other parts of the world, it would be quite a controversy if Buddha was portrayed in a negative light. Try to look past the US of A for a minute, doll.


:laugh: :laugh: :rolleyes:

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
:laugh: :laugh: :rolleyes:

Rob:cool:

Well, that was a good response. :laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I care only in the sense of avoiding any misrepresentation that Jewish (or Arab, or Middle Eastern) is a race. I don't care what race the guy was, if that's what you're asking.

- Jake

I don't either...Jewish is a race, isn't it? Or so my Jewish friends tell me.

You consider Arabs to be Caucasian? Interesting....

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Well, that was a good response. :laugh:

I was taken aback by the absurdity of the post and that was just my physical reaction!:D

Rob:cool:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Rob67
I don't either...Jewish is a race, isn't it? Or so my Jewish friends tell me.

Your friends are mistaken. By definition, Jewish is not a race, though Hitler preached otherwise.

- Jake

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I was taken aback by the absurdity of the post and that was just my physical reaction!:D

Rob:cool:

In what ways? Care to dispute any of it in a constructive manner?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I care only in the sense of avoiding any misrepresentation that Jewish (or Arab, or Middle Eastern) is a race. I don't care what race the guy was, if that's what you're asking.

- Jake

Jake - isn't there a theory that the Jewish people are their own race? That is why they marry within the faith. I seem to remember something like this, but I could be wrong AND since you are a neverending source of knowledge . . . . :cool:

Edit:

Here are some sites on this. I know nothing of these sites except that came up in a Google search and seemed on point.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/jews.htm

http://www.anti-racism.supanet.com/rac/racist.htm

http://www.biblequestions.org/archives/BQAR056.htm

http://www.broadcaster.org.uk/section2/transcript/abraham.htm

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
[B]Jake - isn't there a theory that the Jewish people are their own race? That is why they marry within the faith.

Yes, like I said, throughout the ages, many people including Hitler have espoused that Jews are a separate race.
You can become Jewish.
You cannot become black.
The latter is a race.

BTW, for the record, at least 50% of American Jews do not marry within their faith.

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

Why thank you sir :cool:

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
BTW, for the record, at least 50% of American Jews do not marry within their faith.

Is it something that is prefered by the faith or is it dependent upon which part of the Jewish faith that you practice? (I know there are varying forms) Around here, most of the people I know that are Jewish end up marrying other people who are Jewish or their partner is willing to convert.

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Why thank you sir :cool:

From now on I prefer that you call me "Your Grace" or "Your Beloved-of-Stevie's-ness" instead of "Sir.":nod: :cool:

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
From now on I prefer that you call me "Your Grace" or "Your Beloved-of-Stevie's-ness" instead of "Sir.":nod: :cool:

- Jake

Where is the ring to kiss? :cool:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
You cannot become black.


Hmmm... That may be true. But if you're black, evidently you can become white. Think Michael Jackson.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Around here, most of the people I know that are Jewish end up marrying other people who are Jewish or their partner is willing to convert.

That is something I noticed with a certain level of shock when I moved to NY metro. I had previously happily dated Jewish women and at least in one case marriage was discussed.

Here, it was like, "I can't go out with you. You're not Jewish. Unless you just wannat hit the sack and have fun."

Well, that kind'a worked out too, I guess. ;)

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Is it something that is prefered by the faith or is it dependent upon which part of the Jewish faith that you practice? (I know there are varying forms) Around here, most of the people I know that are Jewish end up marrying other people who are Jewish or their partner is willing to convert.

This is America. It's personal preference/interpretation. Does the faith prefer Jewish spouses? How long do you have? The prophet Ezra commanded Jews to divorce their gentile wives before the Second Temple could be built. On the other hand, Moses had an Ethiopian wife, and Solomon had plenty of gentile wives.
Throughout history, practicing Jews have needed Jewish spouses, or how could they observe holidays, keep kosher, etc? These days people pick and choose what to follow. Once Jews gained rights in the West, assimilation increased. Many Jewish households are more open to mixing, the same way many Christian households are. We're a more open society.
(BTW, Marissa, no matter who converts or whatever near you, the bottom line is everybody needs to pray because it's Jersey.)

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Where is the ring to kiss? :cool:

I'm sitting on it.:cool: :laugh:

- Jake

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
That is something I noticed with a certain level of shock when I moved to NY metro. I had previously happily dated Jewish women and at least in one case marriage was discussed.

Here, it was like, "I can't go out with you. You're not Jewish. Unless you just wannat hit the sack and have fun."

Well, that kind'a worked out too, I guess. ;)

Perhaps it depends on what kind of family you come from as well. If your family is heavily embedded in Jewish traditions and they married within the faith and everyone else did, perhaps there would be some pressure to do the same?

As for the rest..... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Perhaps it depends on what kind of family you come from as well. If your family is heavily embedded in Jewish traditions and they married within the faith and everyone else did, perhaps there would be some pressure to do the same?


Of course.
It's like that old joke:
Why are so many doctors Jewish?
Because their mothers are.

Have you seen Keeping The Faith?

- Jake

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
This is America. It's personal preference/interpretation. Does the faith prefer Jewish spouses? How long do you have? The prophet Ezra commanded Jews to divorce their gentile wives before the Second Temple could be built. On the other hand, Moses had an Ethiopian wife, and Solomon had plenty of gentile wives.

Throughout history, practicing Jews have needed Jewish spouses, or how could they observe holidays, keep kosher, etc? These days people pick and choose what to follow. Once Jews gained rights in the West, assimilation increased. Many Jewish households are more open to mixing, the same way many Christian households are. We're a more open society.
(BTW, Marissa, no matter who converts or whatever near you, the bottom line is everybody needs to pray because it's Jersey.)

- Jake

Thank you for the explaination.

And yes, as I've said...grab a bottle, hunker down and pray for daylight..... :nod: :laugh:

I plan on purchasing the t-shirt from Urban Outfitters that says "I SURVIVED NJ" someday soon... :nod:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Perhaps it depends on what kind of family you come from as well.

I'm sure that's true. It's just that I had never encountered it before and I had had Jewish friends since high school.

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Thank you for the explaination.

And yes, as I've said...grab a bottle, hunker down and pray for daylight..... :nod: :laugh:

I plan on purchasing the t-shirt from Urban Outfitters that says "I SURVIVED NJ" someday soon... :nod:

Hey, I've seen you's.
You call that survival?
Cheetah thong, sunglasses on a chain, visor, Coach bag, sweats...

- Jake

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Of course.
It's like that old joke:
Why are so many doctors Jewish?
Because their mothers are.

Have you seen Keeping The Faith?

- Jake

I've not seen the film...no...

Elaborate, please.

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Hey, I've seen you's.
You call that survival?
Cheetah thong, sunglasses on a chain, visor, Coach bag, sweats...

- Jake

Was I wearing any of the aforementioned? Because I don't think I was :distress:

You know, there will come a time when I don't live here anymore. Whatever will you have to make fun of, my dear?

Nevermind. Don't answer that. :distress:

[The Tower]

Originally posted by Rob67
Not really a crock, His views may have been that way for “20 years� but nobody cared until the Passion came out..

And I am not comparing Buddah and Christ…you miss the point. I am only saying that if Gibson would have made a film about Buddah or Allah or “insert deity here,� people would not have made such a big deal. Period. All I am saying is WHO CARES???? It is just a movie.

Uh... yeah, it's a crock. Mel Gibson has had very vocal opinions directly related to his ultra-orthodox catholicism for almost two decades. There are many people out there who have "cared" about the intolerant garbage that he's been spewing for a long time. This movie was not the first time for him.

What is your point? Of course, people wouldn't make a big deal about a Mel Gibson Buddah movie because he's not prejudiced againt buddists!! It's not "just a movie"- his portrayal of jews is highly inflammatory and controversial. That's why people care...

Originally posted by Rob67
I don't either...Jewish is a race, isn't it? Or so my Jewish friends tell me.

You consider Arabs to be Caucasian? Interesting....

Judaism is a religious faith, not a race. It's not a matter of "considering" whether or not arabs are caucasian- it's a fact. All humans are either caucasoid, mongoloid, or negroid. Arabs, persians, and most peoples from the Indian sub-continent are caucasoid. Caucasian doesn't equal "white".

:rolleyes:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by The Tower
Uh... yeah, it's a crock. Mel Gibson has had very vocal opinions directly related to his ultra-orthodox catholicism for almost two decades. There are many people out there who have "cared" about the intolerant garbage that he's been spewing for a long time. This movie was not the first time for him.

What is your point? Of course, people wouldn't make a big deal about a Mel Gibson Buddah movie because he's not prejudiced againt buddists!! It's not "just a movie"- his portrayal of jews is highly inflammatory and controversial. That's why people care...



Judaism is a religious faith, not a race. It's not a matter of "considering" whether or not arabs are caucasian- it's a fact. All humans are either caucasoid, mongoloid, or negroid. Arabs, persians, and most peoples from the Indian sub-continent are caucasoid. Caucasian doesn't equal "white".

:rolleyes:

Give me a break. That movie was not anti-semetic. Period. If you went to see it with the intention of finding anti-semitism then i am sure you could twist it any way you want. But you would be wrong because there isn't any. So says the director, so says the actors (some Jewish, some Muslim, some Christian), so says the crew, so says most religious leaders who have AT LEAST seen the film. And to top it off, I saw it with about 8 people (3 were Jewish). Not one of us saw anything anti-semetic in the film.

And, sorry, but you are wrong (unless my friend and the other two Jewish people I work with are wrong, which I doubt). "Judaism" refers to both religious beliefs and race. Talk to someone who is Jewish and ask them.

Again...who cares what color he was?

:rolleyes: Back at yah!!

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

I do not think it is as anti-s. as some wanted it to be. But, Gibson does take artistic license with the word of God inm order to make the Jews seem harsher than the Romans, which historically was not the case. PP would not have thought twice about killing Christ because he had killed 1,000 of other Jews - some with far less crimes.

Also, what was up with the androgynous/feminine Satan appearing (as a Jew no less) in all those scenes. That was never in The Bible.

[hayley]

Originally posted by Rob67

And, sorry, but you are wrong (unless my friend and the other two Jewish people I work with are wrong, which I doubt). "Judaism" refers to both religious beliefs and race. Talk to someone who is Jewish and ask them.

Again...who cares what color he was?

:rolleyes: Back at yah!!

Rob:cool:

That sounds SO ridiculous. I'll go ask someone who's Jewish, okay? And then when they tell me Judaism is their RACE, then I'll know they're an IDIOT, or at least someone who is quite uninformed regarding the difference between RACE and RELIGION.

TheTower is exactly right regarding the sociological classifications of RACE. You (or your Jewish friends) may be confusing the term "race" with "ethnicity."

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Rob67
Talk to someone who is Jewish and ask them.


I guess I don't count.:confused:

- Jake

[The Tower]

Originally posted by Rob67
Give me a break. That movie was not anti-semetic. Period. If you went to see it with the intention of finding anti-semitism then i am sure you could twist it any way you want. But you would be wrong because there isn't any. So says the director, so says the actors (some Jewish, some Muslim, some Christian), so says the crew, so says most religious leaders who have AT LEAST seen the film. And to top it off, I saw it with about 8 people (3 were Jewish). Not one of us saw anything anti-semetic in the film.


I never said the film was anti-semetic, I said it was inflammatory and controversial- and I'm still sticking to that assertion. I didn't have any preconceived notions about the movie when I went to see it. As an atheist, I'm not on either side of this "christians vs. jews" thing. However, it is fairly obvious that Gibson twisted the standard historical record quite a bit. And as a movie maker, he absolutely has that right. But, just like Scorsese with "The Last Temptation of Christ", one can't expect to make a controversial movie and then act as if there is no controversy.

Originally posted by Rob67
And, sorry, but you are wrong (unless my friend and the other two Jewish people I work with are wrong, which I doubt). "Judaism" refers to both religious beliefs and race. Talk to someone who is Jewish and ask them.

:laugh: Okay. You're right, the sky is not blue, it's plaid. From now on I'll look at Sammy Davis Jr. as a member of the jewish race. :laugh:

Just because someone is a member of a certain faith, that doesn't automatically make them an expert on that faith. I know dozens of christians who don't know jack **** about christianity (although they certainly think they do).

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by The Tower
I never said the film was anti-semetic, I said it was inflammatory and controversial- and I'm still sticking to that assertion. I didn't have any preconceived notions about the movie when I went to see it. As an atheist, I'm not on either side of this "christians vs. jews" thing. However, it is fairly obvious that Gibson twisted the standard historical record quite a bit. And as a movie maker, he absolutely has that right. But, just like Scorsese with "The Last Temptation of Christ", one can't expect to make a controversial movie and then act as if there is no controversy.



:laugh: Okay. You're right, the sky is not blue, it's plaid. From now on I'll look at Sammy Davis Jr. as a member of the jewish race. :laugh:

Just because someone is a member of a certain faith, that doesn't automatically make them an expert on that faith. I know dozens of christians who don't know jack **** about christianity (although they certainly think they do).

I think I agree with you, tower, but now that I think of it, I realize I stopped being a Jew when I joined the Texas race. This must be right - I'm sure I can find three Texans who say it is.:laugh:

- Jake

[Rob67]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I guess I don't count.:confused:

- Jake

If you are then you do...

My Uncle has a Jewish mother and a Scotch-Irish father. When i ask him what he is he says "1/2 Jewish, 1/4 Scottish, and 1/4 Irish".

Is he referring to religion?

Riiiiiight......

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Rob67
If you are then you do...

My Uncle has a Jewish mother and a Scotch-Irish father. When i ask him what he is he says "1/2 Jewish, 1/4 Scottish, and 1/4 Irish".

Is he referring to religion?

Riiiiiight......

As someone said, ethnicity. (Judaism includes several ethnicities, actually.) Certainly you don't believe that Scottish is a race, correct?

- Jake

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Rob67
My Uncle has a Jewish mother and a Scotch-Irish father. When i ask him what he is he says "1/2 Jewish, 1/4 Scottish, and 1/4 Irish".

Is he referring to religion?Not to jump into the fray here, but in that case he's referring to ethnicity, rather than race or religion.

I'm 50% Italian, 25% English & 25% Irish... none of which are their own race or religion. :)

[Johnny Stew]

Sorry... Jake and I were replying at the same time. :)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
. . . Certainly you don't believe that Scottish is a race, correct?

- Jake

Well . . . :laugh:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well . . . :laugh:

Okay, wise-ass breeder, he said Scottish, not Scotties.:)

- Jake

[Rob67]

Originally posted by hayley
That sounds SO ridiculous. I'll go ask someone who's Jewish, okay? And then when they tell me Judaism is their RACE, then I'll know they're an IDIOT, or at least someone who is quite uninformed regarding the difference between RACE and RELIGION.

TheTower is exactly right regarding the sociological classifications of RACE. You (or your Jewish friends) may be confusing the term "race" with "ethnicity."

Ethnicity or "ethnic" : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial , national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background.

Race: a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>

Don't be so quick to call someone an idiot. I never said the word "Judaism." I said "Jewish."


:rolleyes: OK...here goes...(I'can't believe I am actually posting definitions in defense of this stupid topic...at least I am entertained!)

Jewish: of, relating to, or characteristic of the Jews; also : being a Jew

Judaism: the cultural, social, and religious beliefs and practices of the Jews


Ok kids...if my Mom is Jewish and my Dad is Scottish. I tell people that I am half Jewish and half Scottish if asked my heritage.

BUT

If my Mom is Catholic and my Dad is Muslim but both are Italian, I would say that I am Italian if asked my heritage....


You PRACTICE Judaism but you ARE Jewish.

I think that's right....

But, I digress. Happy Weekend everyone!!!:wavey:

Rob:cool:

[The Tower]

Originally posted by Rob67
If you are then you do...

My Uncle has a Jewish mother and a Scotch-Irish father. When i ask him what he is he says "1/2 Jewish, 1/4 Scottish, and 1/4 Irish".

Is he referring to religion?

Riiiiiight......

Well, you got me there. I certainly can't argue with that logic....

:o :laugh: :laugh:

I for SURE thought your uncle woulda said,

"I have a jewish mother and a scotch-irish father. I'm 1/2 jewish, 1/4 calvinist and 1/4 catholic"....

:rolleyes:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Rob67

You PRACTICE Judaism but you ARE Jewish.
[/B]

You PRACTICE Christianity but you ARE Christian. (Does this make Christianity a race?)
You PRACTICE golf but you ARE a golfer. (Does this make golf a race?)

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Rob67



:rolleyes: OK...here goes...(I'can't believe I am actually posting definitions in defense of this stupid topic...at least I am entertained!)

Jewish: of, relating to, or characteristic of the Jews; also : being a Jew

Judaism: the cultural, social, and religious beliefs and practices of the Jews


Help me. How are you reasoning that this makes Judaism or Jewishness a race?

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Okay, wise-ass breeder, he said Scottish, not Scotties.:)

- Jake

:laugh: and the two young gals are "a showin" tommorow.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I do not think it is as anti-s. as some wanted it to be. But, Gibson does take artistic license with the word of God inm order to make the Jews seem harsher than the Romans, which historically was not the case. PP would not have thought twice about killing Christ because he had killed 1,000 of other Jews - some with far less crimes.

Also, what was up with the androgynous/feminine Satan appearing (as a Jew no less) in all those scenes. That was never in The Bible.

We must have seen two different movies...The Romans seemed way more brutal then the Jewish hierarchy (who are really the instigators of the story, not the Jewish people). I mean, look at Simon, who helps with the cross. He's a Jew, the Mary's are Jews, Joseph and the Apostles are Jews. They are all potrayed in a positive light.

If anyone should be offended it should be the Romans...speak out Romans!!! Oh...wait a minute...uh, nevermind.:D

Rob:cool:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:laugh: and the two young gals are "a showin" tommorow.

Marissa and who?:laugh:
Take pics.

- Jake

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
You PRACTICE Christianity but you ARE Christian. (Does this make Christianity a race?)
You PRACTICE golf but you ARE a golfer. (Does this make golf a race?)

- Jake

I dunno Jake...they do both have their own networks.... :laugh:

...oh wait, that's right...you don't have cable ;) :laugh:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Rob67
We must have seen two different movies...The Romans seemed way more brutal then the Jewish hierarchy (who are really the instigators of the story, not the Jewish people). I mean, look at Simon, who helps with the cross. He's a Jew, the Mary's are Jews, Joseph and the Apostles are Jews. They are all potrayed in a positive light.

If anyone should be offended it should be the Romans...speak out Romans!!! Oh...wait a minute...uh, nevermind.:D

Rob:cool:

If anyone should be offended it should be the people who have suffered pogroms and worse due to the effects of similar "harmless" storytellings.

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
I dunno Jake...they do both have their own networks.... :laugh:

...oh wait, that's right...you don't have cable ;) :laugh:

I'm not worried. My race is part of a worldwide conspiracy that controls the media, so I'm sure I'll have access eventually.:laugh:

- Jake

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Marissa and who?:laugh:
Take pics.

- Jake

And you call Jason the wise-ass? I think you have me mistaken for the wrong "bitch" :laugh:

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I'm not worried. My race is part of a worldwide conspiracy that controls the media, so I'm sure I'll have access eventually.:laugh:

- Jake

Very true...very true. And hey, then you won't have to pay for it! :laugh:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
And you call Jason the wise-ass? I think you have me mistaken for the wrong "bitch" :laugh:

I wasn't calling you a dog here, he had chosen the word "gals". You ARE a gal, right? If not, another clarifying private message is warranted.:laugh: :laugh:

- Jake

[Rob67]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
You PRACTICE Christianity but you ARE Christian. (Does this make Christianity a race?)
You PRACTICE golf but you ARE a golfer. (Does this make golf a race?)

- Jake

I practice golf all the time but no one would confuse me with being a golfer!

Seriously, I am not trying to offend here...all I know is that my friends who are Jewish, and devoutly so, say that they have had these arguements with people before and that, leaving religion out of it, you can be called Jewish much like someone would be called Italian or Scottish and so on...if that is defined as ethnicity then that was my point.

Sometimes I do practice being a couch potatoe...does that count as a race?

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
If anyone should be offended it should be the people who have suffered pogroms and worse due to the effects of similar "harmless" storytellings.

- Jake

Gotta love organized religion...it's killed more people in the history of the planet then anything else. And every Religion has had it's turn at being persecuted...

To heck with them all!!! Can't we all just get along?

Rob:cool:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Rob67
you can be called Jewish much like someone would be called Italian or Scottish and so on...if that is defined as ethnicity then that was my point.


Exactly, that's what we're saying. It's ethnicity, not race.

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
If anyone should be offended it should be the people who have suffered pogroms and worse due to the effects of similar "harmless" storytellings.

- Jake

That point, I think. is the crux (no pun intended) of the matter. It is a little bit like how some people view "Gone With the Wind" and other movies depicting the antebellum South. To show this era correctly, you must show slavery. Showing slavery automatically brands a movie racist. While I think this is a wrong label because you cannot accurately portray a movie of that era without showing slavery, I fully recognize that that era on its own is hurtful to millions of Americans because it is based in a horrible reality, etc. Somewhat similarly, while I do not think Gibson's movie on its own is a bad thing or is that significantly inconsistent with the Four Gospels in The Bible, the fact reamins that for many many years, Passion Plays, which this movie clearly is, have been used to encite hatred against the Jews. So, I can see why the Jewish population gets a little defensive when a Passion Play is released as a major motion picture. Again, the Passion Plays show only the agony of Christ. They show nothing else.

[DownOnRodeo]

I saw this miserable excuse for a movie about Jesus, but the last thing I could find was any blatant 'anti-semiticism'. If certain ppl are anti-semitic, then they will use whatever they can as justification for their ends. Art which is otherwise innocent and genuine is helplessly taken for the ride and gets the blame. Another obvious case in point: Neitzche. Now you don't have to like Neitzche's works, and you don't have to like Gibson's movie (cause I sure as hell didn't) but you can't fairly accuse either of being anything but art. As for the portrayl of the Jews, given that he was simply going by the gospel's accounts, depicting the church leaders as any less would have been revisionistic on his part. As it was he made a point of showing one of the church leaders stand up for the justice of Jesus' case. But he was shot down, not because of the 'wickedness' of the other Jews, but because of the nature of any church/religious establishment/institution etc. Rational justice generally plays second fiddle. Christian history and Jewish history and Islamic history alike.

Religion. ARghH!!!

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Rob67
Gotta love organized religion...it's killed more people in the history of the planet then anything else. And every Religion has had it's turn at being persecuted...

To heck with them all!!! Can't we all just get along?

Rob:cool:

I think there are worse offenders than organized religion.
Greed?
Sexism, perhaps?

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by DownOnRodeo
As for the portrayl of the Jews, given that he was simply going by the gospel's accounts,

He added quite a bit that appears nowhere in the Gospels.

- Jake

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I wasn't calling you a dog here, he had chosen the word "gals". You ARE a gal, right? If not, another clarifying private message is warranted.:laugh: :laugh:

- Jake

Honey, I know you weren't. Yes...last I checked, I was a gal ::checks again:: Yep. I still am.

Jason only shows me on Thursday's....you're a day late :nod: :laugh:

[DownOnRodeo]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
He added quite a bit that appears nowhere in the Gospels.

Such as..?
The lone church leader defending Jesus?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I think there are worse offenders than organized religion.
Greed?
Sexism, perhaps?

- Jake

Biut those were all a part of the domination of all of the world's major organized religions, with the exception perhaps of some far eastern ones. Certainly, the Judeo Christian leaders ruled with an iron fist as did the pagan European religions as did the Greco Roman religions and the Egyptian religions. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
He added quite a bit that appears nowhere in the Gospels.

- Jake

Yea - but not an overwhelming amout IMO. But he did add. I am unsure if he has actually said his movie was 100% based on the Gospels.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I think there are worse offenders than organized religion.
Greed?
Sexism, perhaps?

- Jake

All intertwined with religion...but you're right..

Rob:cool:

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Biut those were all a part of the domination of all of the world's major organized religions, with the exception perhaps of some far eastern ones. Certainly, the Judeo Christian leaders ruled with an iron fist as did the pagan European religions as did the Greco Roman religions and the Egyptian religions. :shrug:

No argument, but, for example, I don't think Ghenghis Khan was motivated primarily by religion. Same with Hitler. Same with many of the practitioners of female infanticide, though certainly others were.

- Jake

[DownOnRodeo]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I think there are worse offenders than organized religion.


Yeah, greed, sexism etc, blah blah. The list is endless. 'Institutionalised religious establishment' just sums it up in one neat phrase! :laugh:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
He added quite a bit that appears nowhere in the Gospels.

- Jake

He took artistic license with Satan (which I thought worked as a plot device) and a few flashbacks like Jesus making a table when he was younger...but that is certainly a possible scenario and not controversial. Just artistic license to flesh out the story a little.

Rob:cool:

[DownOnRodeo]

Ah, give me a far eastern philosophy any day.

(Joe - who lives in the Far East :laugh: )

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Rob67
He took artistic license with Satan (which I thought worked as a plot device) and a few flashbacks like Jesus making a table when he was younger...but that is certainly a possible scenario and not controversial. Just artistic license to flesh out the story a little.

Rob:cool:

He added violent moments that appear nowhere in the Gospels.

- Jake

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yea - but not an overwhelming amout IMO. But he did add. I am unsure if he has actually said his movie was 100% based on the Gospels.

I didn't take the script and match it word for word but from memory he is pretty close except for a few artistic devices which were at the very least plausible in the context of the story and not radical religious statements...

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
He added violent moments that appear nowhere in the Gospels.

- Jake

True...but I don't think there was anything gratuitous...Gibson stated that he was trying to show the suffering that the man went through while staying consistent with what we know about Roman torture and execution practices at the time.

Rob:cool:

[DownOnRodeo]

Originally posted by Rob67
He took artistic license with Satan

Oh yeah, all that hacked tripe. But I was referring specifically to the portrayl of 'Jews' in the movie ('Jews' being just about everyone in the movie except the sadistic flailers).

If you want to discuss the merit of Mel's 'artistic' license, we'll need another 20 pages of thread. Or maybe we all agree: bleugh!
Please don;'t tell me I'm the only one who laughed at that stupid old-lookingbaby. "Oooh, I'm scared". What the hell was the point of it?! Nothing!

[Rob67]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Exactly, that's what we're saying. It's ethnicity, not race.

- Jake

Webster's defines Race as: a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics.

That sounds right.....

But, whatever....you understand what I mean...race, ethnicity.

[DownOnRodeo]

I came into this thread to see where the Gay Prince discussion was going and I end up getting all excited about discussing The Passion.

Only on The Ledge. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by DownOnRodeo
Ah, give me a far eastern philosophy any day.

(Joe - who lives in the Far East :laugh: )

Hey - you live in a land down under - yea yea :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
He added violent moments that appear nowhere in the Gospels.

- Jake

True - but most of those violent moments were at the hands of the Romans in the movie :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
No argument, but, for example, I don't think Ghenghis Khan was motivated primarily by religion. Same with Hitler. Same with many of the practitioners of female infanticide, though certainly others were.

- Jake

I think these two guys thought of themselves as Gods. Interestingly, wasn't Hitler an athesist?

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I think these two guys thought of themselves as Gods. Interestingly, wasn't Hitler an athesist?

I think he may have been Christian although he didn't promote it much. He hated Catholics.

Nationalism was his thing.

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Firstly, he shouldn't use the psychotic ramblings of an anti-semitic nun in a movie that is marketed as being factual.

Secondly, the quotes from his father are quite telling. When the bastard says that the Holocaust never happened or was exaggerated, you have to wonder what kind of household Gibson was brought up in. Then it makes you wonder why certain negative elements are included in his snuff film. And gibson himself has always been viewed as an extremist.

Thirdly, Gibson has recently said that his next movie will be one about the Jewish religion, and that he will write and direct it. If I was Jewish, I'd be offended and insulted.

Did you see the film? If not, then it would be impossible to have an intelligent discussion on it because you wouldn't have had the advantage of commenting on the film itself, only press and negative assaults on Gibson's character that have surrounded the opening of the film.


Lastly, you're right about Buddha and no one giving two ****s in this country, but that wouldn't be the case elsewhere in the world. There aren't that many practicing buddhists in this country, so it wouldn't get the press coverage that a film about Jews and Christ would get. but in other parts of the world, it would be quite a controversy if Buddha was portrayed in a negative light. Try to look past the US of A for a minute, doll.

Now this paragraph is just silly. My point was that if it was anyone OTHER THAN Christ, no one would have cared. For someone who gets offended rather easily, diss, you have a knack for throwing out the occasional zinger that could be deemed offensive. I mean, if I was emotionally invested in this conversation for anything other then amusement then I might be offended by the last line. ;) FYI, I am well traveled and have a degree in British history....I would like to think that I have looked beyond our wonderful borders once or twice. We just see the world differently. I happen to think that this is the greatest country in the world and am proud to call myself a citizen. We have our flaws, sure, but we are not the evil in the world and we are definitly not what's wrong with it....

Cheers.....doll!!!!:wavey:

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67


Did you see the film? If not, then it would be impossible to have an intelligent discussion on it because you wouldn't have had the advantage of commenting on the film itself, only press and negative assaults on Gibson's character that have surrounded the opening of the film.


I was given a bootleg video and watched parts, but not all of it, no. I'm not interested in watching a religious extremist's interpretation of the anti-semitic ramblings of a psychotic nun from the nineteenth century. I'm also not interested in watching a snuff and torture film, either; it's not my cup of tea. However, what I did see of it not only seemed quite negative, but it also seemed very heavy-handed. Slow motion shots at just the right moment, melodramatic music cues, the works. I thought Monica Belluci was laughable, too.

As for the negative assaults jibe, it is well documented and admitted by Gibson that he based a large part of the film on the "visions" of Ann Emmerich, a nun whose sanity was questionable and whose disdain for the Jews is also well-documented. Don't take the movie at face value, read about it, bud. There are also quite a lot of articles that compare the film to the actual Bible text and the errors are HUGE. Mel Gibson didn't just take artistic license with the use of Satan, he took artistic license with the Bible.

The movie is a piece of ****, that's my opinion. I don't have to watch all two hours and seven minutes of beatings, torture, and death to come up with that conclusion, either. If you want to talk about good entertainment, let's talk about the look on Gibson's face when he gets completely snubbed at the Oscar nomination announcements. That'll put a smile on my face. :D

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally posted by dissention
I was given a bootleg video and watched parts, but not all of it, no. I'm not interested in watching a religious extremist's interpretation of the anti-semitic ramblings of a psychotic nun from the nineteenth century. I'm also not interested in watching a snuff and torture film, either; it's not my cup of tea. However, what I did see of it not only seemed quite negative, but it also seemed very heavy-handed. Slow motion shots at just the right moment, melodramatic music cues, the works. I thought Monica Belluci was laughable, too.

As for the negative assaults jibe, it is well documented and admitted by Gibson that he based a large part of the film on the "visions" of Ann Emmerich, a nun whose sanity was questionable and whose disdain for the Jews is also well-documented. Don't take the movie at face value, read about it, bud. There are also quite a lot of articles that compare the film to the actual Bible text and the errors are HUGE. Mel Gibson didn't just take artistic license with the use of Satan, he took artistic license with the Bible.

The movie is a piece of ****, that's my opinion. I don't have to watch all two hours and seven minutes of beatings, torture, and death to come up with that conclusion, either. If you want to talk about good entertainment, let's talk about the look on Gibson's face when he gets completely snubbed at the Oscar nomination announcements. That'll put a smile on my face. :D

I'm with Rob...how can you argue so passionatly (pardon the pun :D ) about a movie that you, yourself, admit you don't even want to watch the whole way through?

The movie is made from an old-school Catholic perspective...pre-Vat II here....I think he did a good job...and it is not a snuff film. He portrayed a powerful time in the Christian history (with a big-time Catholic spin) and with today's technology was able to make it "realistic" Previous films that depicted the passion have been flamed for violence...and they are extra mild (due to lack of tech) compared to this one!

I also don't think that Mel was going for the Oscar nod. I do think he made this film out of his own love and intensity for his faith and religion...putting up a crap-load of his own money was one way I think he showed that.

So who cares if this film is, in your opinion, a piece of ****? There are people everywhere who disagree and had an amazing and powerful experience while or after watching it.

I don't take the film at face value..thinking "oh yes...that's exactly how it must've happened..." But then I don't take the Bible literally either...so whatever....

I find this whole debate interesting...and really had nothing new to add...just thought I'd toss in my $0.02 :D

Wow...could we BE any farther off topic lol :laugh:

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
That's the saddest thing of all, Deanna. These parents have a wonderful opportunity to instill in their daughter an openness, understanding, and acceptance for other walks of life.

Instead, they'd rather perpetuate their own narrow-mindedness and misguided "values."

They're also blowing their chance to teach their daughter that it's Ok to be yourself, whether other people "agree" with it or not.
Ok... I'm coming into this discussion very late but I feel the need to make a comment. I'm making this as a mother myself and how I would feel if my young children came home with this book.

Recently my 7 year old daughter started asking me questions about how babies are made. All perfectly normal I know and I knew the time had come to sit down with her and explain the facts of life in a way she would understand and giving as much information as I felt she needed to know at this time. She came home from school saying her friend had told her that Mum and Dad have a special cuddle. She figured there was more to it than that and questioned further. My plan was to sit down with her at the weekend and talk to her about it. This was taken out of my hands when a day later she came home with a book from the school library explaining exactly how babies are made. I have to say I was a little annoyed as I felt it was up to me as a parent to talk to her about this and I might have done it slightly differently to how it was explained in this book. After reading the book with her she was most disgusted by the whole thing and hasn't mentioned it since!! I have always tried to be very honest with her and when she asks questions I will try to explain things to her openly. But I felt this had been totally taken out of my hands and that pissed me off. Personally I have nothing against gay people - each to their own as far as I'm concerned. But I would not be happy about her coming home with a book like the one mentioned in this thread. I'm not saying this as a christian or anything like that.. I'm saying this as a mother. There will come a time when she will be told about gay relationships.. I certainly won't hide it from her as it is a way of life for a lot of people. I just don't feel that it is something she needs to know about YET. I feel strongly that children need to be children and there are certain things that do not need to be on their minds at such a young age. Life is hard enough as you get older and some things can certainly wait. If tomorrow she came to me and said she saw two men kissing in the street and questioned why then I would explain it to her. But at age 7 (and I believe the child in question was younger??) I don't think I need to explain it to her just yet and wouldn't want it forced upon me by her bringing a book home from school.

I hope I don't piss anyone off with my comments.. this is just how I feel as a mother. Children should be children.

Pip

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew

Instead, they'd rather perpetuate their own narrow-mindedness and misguided "values."


I hope you don't class me like that Johnny, after reading my above comment. I am certainly not narrow minded but I just feel that children seem to have to grow up far too quickly nowadays, and life is complicated enough. When asked the question I will explain the best I can. Until then I'm not going to confuse the issue.

Pip

[Rob67]

Originally posted by DrummerDeanna
I don't take the film at face value..thinking "oh yes...that's exactly how it must've happened..." But then I don't take the Bible literally either...so whatever....

I find this whole debate interesting...and really had nothing new to add...just thought I'd toss in my $0.02 :D

Wow...could we BE any farther off topic lol :laugh:

Sanity....

I couldn't have said it better....

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Don't take the movie at face value, read about it, bud. There are also quite a lot of articles that compare the film to the actual Bible text and the errors are HUGE. Mel Gibson didn't just take artistic license with the use of Satan, he took artistic license with the Bible.

The movie is a piece of ****, that's my opinion. I don't have to watch all two hours and seven minutes of beatings, torture, and death to come up with that conclusion, either. If you want to talk about good entertainment, let's talk about the look on Gibson's face when he gets completely snubbed at the Oscar nomination announcements. That'll put a smile on my face. :D

:D Do you really think I took the film at face value??

Come on...I know you would call BS if it was me commenting on a film I haven't seen...

If you simply don't like the film...that's fine. It's your right!

Besides...His best film, Braveheart, already got him the Oscar.....

Rob:cool:

[Mari]

*just peaks in to see what this thread is about now

:eek: :eek: :eek:

;)

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Originally posted by Mari
*just peaks in to see what this thread is about now

:eek: :eek: :eek:

;)
I did try to get it back on topic!! :laugh:

[Mari]

really? where? :D :D

[strandinthewind]

Pip - I totally see your point and agree with you that parents should have control, etc. But, I think the world is changing so that parents can no longer have that control. I mean people in larger cities see gay people holding hands, freely expressing themsleves all of the time. At least I see it here in Atlanta and in other places like London, Paris, and NYC. Then, television no longer has the "we cannot show gay people before 8:00" taboo. So, I think that the question of sex in any variety will come up much sooner for kids than it did in my day and it came up pretty quickly then :laugh: So, I have no problem with the book from that perspective because I think the world has changed (for the better mostly) and the freedom of expression outweighs, if you will, the cost of parents being forced on the topic. I mean I know people now in smaller towns whose kids go to school with children from same sex couples - thus, the issue is forced. Its all good IMO.

[strandinthewind]

Also, I think it is so hyppocritical of Hollywood to applaud the grossest of other films and then lambast Gibson for this one. I think Gibson's film in brilliant, non-anti-S., and art. I do not like it however because I do not like that much violence. But that is different to me than trashing it solely because it came from Gibson and his apparently extremist personal views. I mean L. Reifenstall (sp.?) was brilliant despite her Nazi connections :shrug:

[Sugar]

Originally posted by Gypsy-Rhiannon
If tomorrow she came to me and said she saw two men kissing in the street and questioned why then I would explain it to her.

I completly respect your concerns as a mother myself.

But I think our children will stumble across all sorts of things we'd rather they didn't while we're too busy doing the laundry and making lunches. In my mind stumbling across the book is akin to seeing two men kissing in the street. At seven, I don't see the harm in explaining this as "close friends" or "special friends". Maybe even "chosen life partner" as contrived and as adult as that sounds, it could work for a seven-year-old. No need to get into anything else at this age.

We have very close family friends who are a gay couple, so I suspect I will be dealing with this very early on in my daughter's life. My plan is to just explain it matter-of-factly in the most innocent of terms (it is just love after all) and not to make a big deal out of it. :)

[Sugar]

Oh..and for the record, I don't give a God damn about The Passion and I have no intention of seeing it, not that I actually see a lot of movies these days. It's Mel's thing, and I hope he feels better having got it off his chest. We have freedom of speech in this country, after all. Doesn't mean I have to care. :)

I already think we give Hollywood too much power these days. Note I said "we give" not "they have". ;)

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Pip - I totally see your point and agree with you that parents should have control, etc. But, I think the world is changing so that parents can no longer have that control. I mean people in larger cities see gay people holding hands, freely expressing themsleves all of the time. At least I see it here in Atlanta and in other places like London, Paris, and NYC. Then, television no longer has the "we cannot show gay people before 8:00" taboo. So, I think that the question of sex in any variety will come up much sooner for kids than it did in my day and it came up pretty quickly then :laugh: So, I have no problem with the book from that perspective because I think the world has changed (for the better mostly) and the freedom of expression outweighs, if you will, the cost of parents being forced on the topic. I mean I know people now in smaller towns whose kids go to school with children from same sex couples - thus, the issue is forced. Its all good IMO.
I do agree with what you are saying. And as I said I will explain stuff when I feel my kids are ready to deal with it. And if this is forced on me sooner then so be it. But I certainly won't go looking to tell them things they don't need to know.

Pip