04 Nov 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobwhat are you talking about noobster, of course you are completely insensitive to my religious beliefs, that is not the point. are there not laws protecting gays from persecution of the basis of sexuality? are there not also laws against inciting to religious hatred? well then, why in this instance was it not applied? what gives someone the right to deface a bible, knowing that it produces feelings of ill will. Simply terming it art does not make it either right nor artistic.
I'm curious as to why your religious beliefs are so special they have to be protected. I could be 'completely insensitve' about your political beliefs, or your preference in music, both of which are belief systems just like your religious beliefs, and that would be fine. What makes your religious beliefs any different?
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadyour always getting caught up in technicalities whitey!
Who is this 'gay movement'? Is it a single organisation?
Would you consider it fair if I said the same with regards to the "Christian movement" eg Pastor xyz's most recent statement is further evidence of the Christian Movements ...."
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by Lord Sharkon what basis do you reject Robbie carrobies charge of hypocrisy?
Originally posted by Proper Knob
Firstly although I think it generally good manners not to offend people, sometimes that concern can be trumped by other considerations, including artistic ones. I don't think people should have the right not to be offended. I do think people should have the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of ...[text shortened]... efs, and that would be fine.
In what sense is your preference in music a belief system?[/b]
04 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Badwateryes i believe that marriage should be between a man a woman, doe not nature itself tell you the very same thing? but what we are dealing with is an insidious movement. determined that we shall accept their standards come what may. look what happened to miss California, she simply stated her beliefs but because of the insidious nature of this movement she was rejected and that's just pure gay!
What's up with the anti-gay stance? Do you believe that marriage should be between a man and woman, just like the example of Jesus?
miss California, folk heroine!
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, if that is the case, I feel it is very sad. Jesus grew up in a very rich tradition of studying scripture, debating it and even sharing feelings about it. Surely you can see that there is great value in interpreting scripture and finding its value in how it means different things to us at different times in our lives.
what i feel is irrelevant and of no significance, for i did not write the word of God.
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by kirksey957Do you have itchy ears?
Well, if that is the case, I feel it is very sad. Jesus grew up in a very rich tradition of studying scripture, debating it and even sharing feelings about it. Surely you can see that there is great value in interpreting scripture and finding its value in how it means different things to us at different times in our lives.
Jesus is the teacher. He knows the truth because He is the truth.
The suggestion that Jesus debated the truth of God's Word with anyone is wrong.
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere are laws governing inciting religious hatred, but this doesn't cover it as far as i can see and i'll attempt to explain why (although i could be wrong and am willing to be corrected).
what are you talking about noobster, of course you are completely insensitive to my religious beliefs, that is not the point. are there not laws protecting gays from persecution of the basis of sexuality? are there not also laws against inciting to religious hatred? well then, why in this instance was it not applied? what gives someone the right ...[text shortened]... produces feelings of ill will. Simply terming it art does not make it either right nor artistic.
Excerpted from the bill -
"A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred".
I've only read about the play and obviously haven't seen it, but i'm guessing there is no threatening words or behaviour involved. You find the material offence because Jesus is portrayed as a transexual, and if we're being honest, if it wasn't for your clear dislike of all things gay this wouldn't be an issue with you.
Yet again you fail to make the distinction between a human being and a belief system. Your religious views are merely thoughts in your mind. You can't prove to me God exists, you can't prove to me the alleged teachings of Jesus are 100% accurate, you accept all this on faith, you choose to believe it. If i physically attacked you because of these beliefs you hold, that would be wrong. If i attack the beliefs themselves, that to me is something completely different. I could attack your views on capitalism or socialism and that would be fine, i just don't understand why your religious views should be any different.
Whatever discussions you and i have on homosexuality always comes down to the fact that you believe homosexuality to be a 'serious sin before God', 'immoral', 'unnatural' and 'unclean'. I on the other hand am an evolved being who lives in the 21st Century and accepts homosexuals just for who they are.
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by josephwThere are stories to the contrary, like Matt. 19:
Do you have itchy ears?
Jesus is the teacher. He knows the truth because He is the truth.
The suggestion that Jesus debated the truth of God's Word with anyone is wrong.
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
04 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are "termed a homophobe and a bigot" because you regularly exhibit the characteristics of a homophobe and bigot. When you couch your ravings about an isolated play in terms of "the gay movement and its insidious nature" or use phrases like "bunch of pansies and cowards" it shows what is in your heart.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8342056.stm
"fairly provocative" and said they could be viewed as inciting homophobia.
further evidence of the gay movement and its insidious nature topped with complete and utter hypocrisy, have they no concept themselves that this could be termed inciting to religious hatred, and that some can sure deface a bible and depict Christ as a transsexual. bunch of pansies and cowards!
Somehow it never ceases to amaze me how bigots such as yourself manage to think themselves otherwise.
You're a real piece of work.
Were you taught this bigotry by the Jehovah's Witnesses or did you learn them on your own?
04 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneif you could please comment on the insidious and hypocritical nature of the gay movement, that would be fine, i try to make it a policy, not to get to personal with anyone, therefore your attacks on my character, shall be ignored. They fully merit to be termed cowards and hypocrites, for they would not dare to do the same with another religious figure, like Muhammad for example, but instead, pick a soft and easy target like Jesus Christ, with which to perpetuate their sexual fantasies, in public, under the façade of art!
You are "termed a homophobe and a bigot" because you regularly exhibit the characteristics of a homophobe and bigot. When you couch your ravings about an isolated play in terms of "the gay movement and its insidious nature" or use phrases like "bunch of pansies and cowards" it shows what is in your heart.
Somehow it never ceases to amaze me how bigots re you taught this bigotry by the Jehovah's Witnesses or did you learn them on your own?
04 Nov 09
1 edit
ok Noobster, can you see, in any way shape of form, how this sort of so called 'art', might be provocative and insensitive to the religious feelings of others? it may be very hard to prove that it was not, and if that is the case, is it ok then for Donnie Davies who is a so called reformed homosexual to sing 'god hates fags', as posted by doctor scribbles? for it may be construed as art as well? it being in the genre of music.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFirstly, let me apologise for spelling your name wrong, sorry.
on what basis do you reject Robbie carrobies charge of hypocrisy?
I reject your charge of hypocrisy on the grounds that a legitimate claim of discrimination against homosexuals can be made. Although there might be some instances you can cite of discrimination against Christians, giving offense is not a sufficient condition to qualify something as discrimination. Therefore your charge is unwarranted in this case.
I hope that is clear.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by BadwaterMusic is an interesting analogy, but I'd say that the parallel is more likely to suggest that religions are not really belief systems at their core, than that preference in music involves systematized belief. I suppose the question relates to whether one is an error theorest or a non cognitivist with respect to religion.
Music is an interesting analogy here.
Music and religion are entirely subjective in what is "good" and "bad". Neither have facts or foundations to draw upon what is good music/religion and what is bad music/religion.
So it can be said that how one perceives music/religion is entirely up to oneself.
04 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord Sharksure it is very clear and no need to apologise. if giving offence, with intent or otherwise, is not as you state a sufficient condition to warrant discrimination, then that is fine, however, my point has naught to do with discrimination, but hypocrisy, for how would you fare if you produced a piece of art that was offensive to the gay community, regardless of whether it was intended to be so or not? for if you are prepared to grant the same freedom of expression to those who would take a figure as important to the lives of millions as Jesus Christ, and promote your own vision, as a transsexual, then others too must be warranted under the very same freedom, to express their abhorrence, anything else is hypocritical. However, this is not the case, for to do so would be termed homophobic in the present climate.
Firstly, let me apologise for spelling your name wrong, sorry.
I reject your charge of hypocrisy on the grounds that a legitimate claim of discrimination against homosexuals can be made. Although there might be some instances you can cite of discrimination against Christians, giving offense is not a sufficient condition to qualify something as discrimination. Therefore your charge is unwarranted in this case.
I hope that is clear.