Conservative Christians put warning label on Spongebob video...

[shart1780]

Actually that wouldn't be a mute point. That would mean God would be creating sin, given your definition.

Well, Satan came up with sin and Adam and Eve gave into it, sort of injecting it into the human bloodline if you will.

 

[Iskra]

I love how people have tried to turn liberal into a bad word.
I love it, I'm proud of it, in fact I'm gonna make shirts and sell them.
Liberal means open minded it doesn't always mean decadent crazy over the top behavior. Jesus was a liberal...or wait maybe he was for big tax cuts and guided missiles. Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe Jesus is a CEO.
Have to go rethink my life be back later.
Go Eagles!!!!!

 

[Anthony]

Macfistowannabe;

I, too, would hope there is more to human relationships than pro-creation, hence my rebuttal.

"Those who choose not to have children, for whatever reason, as long as they would give unwanted children away for adoption and such if they became pregnant, I can understand that. Couples who can't have children, I would think, would adopt children even if they aren't the natural parents."

Well, yes - but these are rather sweeping generalisations, when you consider that society is made up of individuals with individual problems. You could understand couples who didn't want children 'only' if they gave away unwanted children? Well, that would inherently be the reason why they have chosen not to pro-create in the first place. My point is that you can not take Marriage equals children as a golden rule, it does not fit the facts of a modern society.

"There IS more than inseminating people, it's showing them love, compassion, moral principles, and obedience. However, I do believe that instead of stating the profound, unproven "born gay" propaganda, give someone hope that they can find relief through medicines, counseling, and faith. How can you believe in miracles if you believe that people cannot overcome obstacles?"

Well, if you choose to believe that homosexuality is an obstacle, then of course your logic would follow. Would you give someone hope that they can find relief through medicines, counseling and faith to get them over their need to divorce? I don't know what miracles have to do with homosexuality, but I assume that you based it on a religious argument (correct me if I'm wrong), if so, there are problems with these. Some religious sins are not considered as such in the eyes of a modern society (at least, not by many), at least, not any more.

"They have their views, and I have mine. They are hypocritical as well, they do not practice the "tolerance" they preach of, and rather, label conservatives as "bigots", "homophobes", and "hateful". The activists have me convinced that they are every bit as hypocritical as Dobson."

Activists are many things, passionate is usually one of them. While I agree that it makes some arguments less convincing, I also agree that its hard to be objective when your rights are being compromised, and you are being afforded a second-rate existence.

Ant.

 

[sallycinnamon78]

It's very sad that 'liberal' is fequently taken to mean 'sissy commie' and 'conservative' interpreted as 'Nazi bastard'.

It sucks.
That's my only glimmer of wisdom for today.

 

[Anthony]

shart1780;

In saying that you accept them, that you would never turn them away and that you would be their friend, despite what may come afterwards (for it is, I believe, only for God to judge), you are talking about your conduct in the here and now - in THIS lifetime.

If this is the case, what about their rights, here and now, in THIS lifetime? Legislating their rights would be, according to your beleifs, encouraging a sin, but would it be more destructive than, say, letting the law to allow divorce? Divorce, I repeat, STILL considered a sin by many churches.

Ant.

 

[dandy]

i've been lurking in this thread since it started, but i have to throw this into the discussion:

if we are all sinners, and there is no degree of sin, wouldn't it be best if we all just worried about our own sins and stopped making such a big hullabaloo about what we perceive to be other people's sins?

(not that i'm christian or think homosexuality is a sin, i just can't help but wonder why there's such a fixation on other people's private lives)

 

[shart1780]

shart1780;

In saying that you accept them, that you would never turn them away and that you would be their friend, despite what may come afterwards (for it is, I believe, only for God to judge), you are talking about your conduct in the here and now - in THIS lifetime.

If this is the case, what about their rights, here and now, in THIS lifetime? Legislating their rights would be, according to your beleifs, encouraging a sin, but would it be more destructive than, say, letting the law to allow divorce? Divorce, I repeat, STILL considered a sin by many churches.

Ant.

I don't really understand what you meant in the first paragraph.

As far as I know, the Bible says divorce is fine when either of the spouses commits adultry. I'm not a huge expert on this cause it's never really came close to affecting me, but that's my understanding of it. I've always been taught this. There's actually alot of things I think should be made illegal that a ton of people would call me crazy for (aka the illegalization of alcohol).

 

[Anthony]

What I meant in my first paragraph, shart1780, is that you seem to make a distinction in that you know what may happen to them for their sins, but you do, within your definition, tolerate them. I wanted to know how you tolerated divorce, to serve as a comparison.

Divorce depends on who you talk to; lots say that the Bible doesn't like it while others say the reverse. We are back to an age-old problem when dealing with the Bible; interpretation.

My question is, should the Bible have any bearing on the way we formulate laws? Yes, for Catholics, divorce is a sin - but it is not illegal to divorce someone. Somewhere along the line a distinction was made between what is considered right in the Bible and what is considered right in society, especially if the society is a secular one, as the USA is supposed to be.

To put it bluntly; is there any other basis in creating inequalities in society, just because a few quotations from the Bible don't like it?

Ant.

 

[Do Miss America]

There's actually alot of things I think should be made illegal that a ton of people would call me crazy for (aka the illegalization of alcohol).

Interesting, forcing communion to be underground. Hmmm

 

[bonoed]

I can't imagine having so much time to worry about so little, as a cartoon sponge. And then more mind-boggling is the fact that a human being with supposedly a brain, thinks a cartoon sponge is "gay." Maybe they worried Sponge Bob will marry that purple Teletubby that Falwell was so concerned about, and it would be a cartoon "gay wedding."

The world is going to hell in a hand basket, but leave it to the brainless to not care.

I wouldn't want to be anything but "liberal," it's the only way I would ever want to live, here is the dictionary definition:

Tolerant. Open minded. Favoring progress. Generosity.

Without us liberals, there would be no Civil Rights Act, no equality for women, no voting rights for women, no Social Security/Medicare/Unemployment, no schooling for all, etc.

Conservative definition: Resist change. Preserve what is established: conditions, and institutions. Traditional in style of manner.

 

[deep]

I've always been taught this.

I think you said everything, here

That was reason enough for me until I reached my late teens and early twenties

I am 49 now.

Many of the things I was taught seemed to make sense at that time


but, upon further examination and study I have had to let them go.

That does not mean I don't care about my old friends and family.
If they still stay with the prevailing orthodoxy

I am just able to come to my own conclusions based on my life experiences, observations and inquiries.

 

[shart1780]

I don't really want to get into a discussion on what sins should be legal and the like. I'm not too well equiped with biblical knowledge in this area. The reason I believe alcohol should be outlawed isn't just because of my beliefe in God, but ecause I think it's destructive to society as a whole, much more destructive than most of the drugs we outlaw.

I was basically just talking about the issue of if homosexuality as sin and what I believe, not gay marriage.

 

[nbcrusader]

If you'll re-read my post you'll note that I commented on YOUR interpretation of Christianity, which as dread pointed out, is far fromt he only one.

Not only what we believe but how we believe it. You summarily dismiss "love the sinner, hate the sin". This is a core application for Christians.

 

[Dreadsox]

Not only what we believe but how we believe it. You summarily dismiss "love the sinner, hate the sin". This is a core application for Christians.

I agree with this.....but it depends on the approach.

And it is a core principle not just applied to homosexuality.

 

[indra]

So you're not willing to give up your buzzwords, which could result in helping homosexuals better succeed in society? My God, I'm trying to HELP YOU OUT! Nobody wants to be compared to racists and homophobes, and NOBODY WILL LISTEN TO someone who makes that comparison. All I am saying is give up the vocabulary, it's very familiar to those who are comparing Bush to Hitler.

Well...sometimes the truth isn't nice to hear. Perhaps part of the reason it bothers you to hear it is because it rings true.

 

[indra]

The word 'tolerant' has been used an awful lot. Be tolerant of this and that, but at the end of the day, the reason this debate takes place here and now is because modern society is 'rife' with intolerance; intolerance of a people who are regarded as an 'obstacle' as opposed to being consenting adults who do absolutely no harm to any other fellow human being.

Label it whatever you want - but allowing one group of persons to marry and denying another is intolerant.

Call it what you will - but protecting the recently widowed spouse from financial harsdship or poverty by recognising his or her marriage and denying the other any legal protection because the sex of their spouse is 'wrong' and not legally recognised, is intolerant.

Name it whatever you wish - but allowing other 'sins' as stipulated by the oh so oft-quoted Bible and calling them 'rights' and 'liberties', such as divorce, and calling others 'aberrations' is, intolerant.

Not a pretty word, but not a pretty thing.

Why oh why can't Christians have an interpretation as, say, Dreadsox's? An interpretation that IS tolerant, that IS accepting and that IS inclusive. I would very much like to hear what other Christian conservatives have to say about Dreadsox's interpetation.

Oh, and by the way; we know that this more than just about the silliness of our man (or sponge) Spongebob's case; we established that it was ludicrous ages ago. No, what is more unsettling is the underlying belief.

Ant.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! That's exactly correct!


And I have a question.... I'm female, heterosexual, an atheist, and never plan to have children, yet I can marry. Why? I wouldn't be doing it in a Church (getting married that is..."doing it' in a Church...well, THAT could be fun ), yet it's considered perfectly fine. I don't care if a Church recognizes any marriages, but I do care that there is such blatent discrimination regarding marriage in secular society. That's what really pisses me off.

 

[indra]

Bottom line: Your message, in the fashion it is being presented, is not appealing to me.

Hahaha! Don't be daft, of course it isn't! Do you honestly think that YOUR message is appealing either? Do you really think telling someone they are going to Hell for something he or she HAS NO CONTROL OVER is appealing (or even true)?

 

[indra]

Do you think I consider homosexuals as some lower life form? No, I'm NOT prejudiced. Do you think I'd turn a homosexual away? No. I welcome anyone into my home or group of friends or WHATEVER! That's what Jesus did. Does that mean I ignore their sins or the fact that they're unsaved? No. But they'll e my friends no matter what.

Would you go to a gay friend's wedding? Or participate in the wedding (as best man, or whatever)?

 

[trevster2k]

Hey Indra, you are supposed to be married, have 3-5 kids, honour your husband even if he is a dick, be a perfect housewife and not complain because that is the woman's role, BWAHAHAHAHAHHA!

I don't believe in any religion because of said intolerance in this thread. Religion has been wrong on just about every issue throughout society's history like single mom's, divorce, birthcontrol, homosexuality, interracial relationships, slavery, heretics, etc. and their solution has been outlaw it. So if they are telling me I am going to hell, fine by me. The way I see it their heaven isn't going to have many residents anyway plus it is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I am so intolerant!!!

 

[indra]

(not that i'm christian or think homosexuality is a sin, i just can't help but wonder why there's such a fixation on other people's private lives)

Perhaps because it's easier (not to mention much more fun) than looking critically within.

 

[indra]

There's actually alot of things I think should be made illegal that a ton of people would call me crazy for (aka the illegalization of alcohol).

Tried that already. Didn't work.

Why should alcohol be illegal? Hell, even Jesus drank wine...the bastard!!!!

Honestly, shart...you are one scary dude!

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Hahaha! Don't be daft, of course it isn't! Do you honestly think that YOUR message is appealing either? Do you really think telling someone they are going to Hell for something he or she HAS NO CONTROL OVER is appealing (or even true)?

I know it isn't because it's apparently not popular. As far as the Hell comment, when have I mentioned that? I do feel that some like Dobson are too focused on this issue, SPONGEBOB for crying out loud. He's making a fool out of us. I do feel a certain way about it, but that doesn't mean that I can't respect those who disagree with me.

 

[shart1780]

Dobson came out yesterday and said on television that he wasn't pointing out Spongebob, but the video that he was momentarily in.

He said, and I heard him, that he has no problems with Spongebob.

 

[indra]

I know it isn't because it's apparently not popular. As far as the Hell comment, when have I mentioned that?

my response to the first sentence:

It's not because it's not a popular view (being popular has never been my priority, ever.), it's because it's very closed and vicious, even though you don't see it as such. Perhaps you really do need to be either gay or very very close to someone who is (and I don't mean just friendly), to understand just how horrid it is.

my response to the second sentence:

maybe I mixed you and shart up. if so, sorry.

 

[indra]

Dobson came out yesterday and said on television that he wasn't pointing out Spongebob, but the video that he was momentarily in.

He said, and I heard him, that he has no problems with Spongebob.

Hahaha!

But what's supposed to be wrong with the video in the first place? Oh, wait, now I remember -- it advocated tolerance!

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Macfistowannabe;

I, too, would hope there is more to human relationships than pro-creation, hence my rebuttal.

Well, yes - but these are rather sweeping generalisations, when you consider that society is made up of individuals with individual problems. You could understand couples who didn't want children 'only' if they gave away unwanted children? Well, that would inherently be the reason why they have chosen not to pro-create in the first place. My point is that you can not take Marriage equals children as a golden rule, it does not fit the facts of a modern society.

The facts of modern society, or the opinions of our modern society? I understand my beliefs are fairly unpopular on this thread, but I am willing to share them, and hope that people respect them, as I try to respect other views. I will admit that sometimes I abandon that when things get heated. However, I'm always happy to have a reasonable person to dare me to get back on track.

My problem with our society is that we have lost respect for decency, morality, and life as far as I can see. We follow some free "love" ideology just because we have birth control and condoms. I do feel however, that the natural parents of the child should at least let that child exist (as in be born and raised) when protection goes wrong. I think a healthy child has a right to be born by a maternally healthy mother in a legal, consentual relationship. Without taking care of your responsibilities, that "love" is incomplete, and it's not love, it's apathy.

Well, if you choose to believe that homosexuality is an obstacle, then of course your logic would follow. Would you give someone hope that they can find relief through medicines, counseling and faith to get them over their need to divorce? I don't know what miracles have to do with homosexuality, but I assume that you based it on a religious argument (correct me if I'm wrong), if so, there are problems with these. Some religious sins are not considered as such in the eyes of a modern society (at least, not by many), at least, not any more.

Since when do miracles have boundaries? I believe God has the power to work in all people. What happened when we referred to the Titanic as the boat that God couldn't even sink? This is a tragic example, but it sank. Denial is a dangerous thing. I'm sure it scares people that I might think of their beliefs in the ways that I do, but I stand by what I believe, and try to avoid forcing my most sincere beliefs on others.

Yes, it's the free will of that individual either to live with certain desires, or to seek out people who give them hope for a more fulfilling life (by this, maybe this person doesn't enjoy living with these desires, and wants to escape them by all means possible).

Yes, I would encourage those who are seeking comfort while they are going through a painful divorce to keep the faith. Obviously, you can't legislate it, but if they seek my advice, I would be happy to give it to them. Just yesterday, I was told about this woman who had a husband who deserted her out of the blue. Because this husband was so sick, so twisted, he divorced her and cheated on her behind her back. She lost her home over it. She lost her job over it. However, she did not lose faith. She was so inspired by Christ's message to keep going, even given the card she was dealt. Her father was a lifelong atheist, and observed how her daughter gained strength and determination through her faith. Shortly before he died, he accepted the message. After long enough, she found a loving man who was willing to provide for her, take care of her, and keep her happy. From my perspective, faith can be a very powerful thing.

Yes, some of my views are not accepted by mainstream society, but if you truly in your heart felt that something was wrong, you wouldn't abandon that for popularity, would you? Let's use torture for example. If more and more people accepted that, and you felt it was wrong, based on lies and half-truths, and promoted by some of the most arrogant human beings, would you "grow" to accept it?

Activists are many things, passionate is usually one of them. While I agree that it makes some arguments less convincing, I also agree that its hard to be objective when your rights are being compromised, and you are being afforded a second-rate existence.

I think as a person who is concerned about my right to pray for example (I keep it very private, but before every test I take, I want to ask for guidance because it allows me to feel more secure before taking it), as well as those who want to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, those who protest the churches, yes I am compromising my rights in a way. I feel that if you do believe in something, you will have to compromise it in our society.

I hope I have commented accordingly, and I hope I have answered your questions clearly.

 

[indra]

Since when do miracles have boundaries? I believe God has the power to work in all people. What happened when we referred to the Titanic as the boat that God couldn't even sink? This is a tragic example, but it sank. Denial is a dangerous thing. I'm sure it scares people that I might think of their beliefs in the ways that I do, but I stand by what I believe, and try to avoid forcing my most sincere beliefs on others.

Do you really believe God sank the Titanic because some morons said it was unsinkable? The jerks who said that most likely weren't even on the damned ship, and many, many who died probably never even heard that claim. And your God would sink the damned thing because of a comment??? What a sick, twisted, evil son of a bitch God that is.

I'd rather go to Hell, thank you very much.

 

[indra]

As for the "right to pray" can that ever be taken away? How does anyone (other than God) even know you are praying, unless you make sure everyone sees you doing it? And if praying is a private conversation with God, why would you want anyone else to overhear it anyway?


** and this is my 2300 th post, so on that note, I'll hit the hay. Goodnight (or morning or afternoon, or evening)!

 

[deep]

Let's use torture for example. If more and more people accepted that, and you felt it was wrong, based on lies and half-truths, and promoted by some of the most arrogant human beings, would you "grow" to accept it?

So you are opposed to Gonzales, and the Bush Administration?

 

[Anthony]

"The facts of modern society, or the opinions of our modern society?"

A 'barren' woman (a horrible word to use), or a 'barren' man incapable of pro-creating is not an opinion, Macfistowannabe, its a fact. A couple not wishing to have children for fear of biological complications is not opinion, its appreciation of a fact that pro-creating will have a pretty high chance of putting either the mother or the foetus at risk.

A couple who chooses not to have children based on their knowledge of themselves, and realising that they do not want children or that they would not be good parents is not a fact, but it is better-informed than you making a decision for them; who knows their capacity as parents better than them?

Yes, I know your opinions are controversial, but it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that if you had it your way, a woman would not be a woman if she didn't pro-create, that a marriage is not a marriage without children. I question your logic; are you not so sure that your opinions don't include 'all' cases of a modern society, privy to facts that you yourself are not privy to?

"My problem with our society is that we have lost respect for decency, morality, and life as far as I can see..."

I agree. Though this has nothing to do with homosexuals, atleast, only in the capacity that SOME homosexuals are just as promiscuous as SOME heterosexuals and perhaps they should know better - though it is not either for you or I to legislate against either.


"Yes, I would encourage those who are seeking comfort while they are going through a painful divorce to keep the faith. Obviously, you can't legislate it, but if they seek my advice, I would be happy to give it to them. Just yesterday, I was told about this woman who had a husband who deserted her out of the blue. Because this husband was so sick, so twisted, he divorced her and cheated on her behind her back. She lost her home over it."

Why can't we legislate against it? If we can legislate against a 'sin' such as homosexuality, why not divorce? There is plenty of scripture in the Bible that says she should have loved her husband no matter what, and that God 'hates' divorce. In other words, tough. She should have dealt with it. She should have dealt with it and sayed in that marriage that was making her unhappy, and learned to trust and love her husband. Do you see what I'm getting at? This is the fate your opinions dictate to a homosexual, who seeks equality in law - no, deal with it, because the Bible says so.

Faith can only ever be a powerful thing, it seems, as long as its alright with the Bible. With respect, your counter-argument to my example using divorce is not convincing, at least, I don't find it so. For one thing, I don't think the Titanic is regarded as a miracle, and another, you talk about the case of a woman amidst the turmoil of divorce - but my point is that this lady is ALLOWED to divorce, that she is ALLOWED to break free from her loveless marriage and to remarry again. You are talking about faith working through someone when that someone has freedom to do what she wishes; tell that to a homosexual who's rights are heavily compromised in a society that is intolerant of him or her.

So, in order to live in a free society your rights should be compromised? What about your rights? No one has banned your right to prayer in the Pledge of Allegiance, so I would request a better example.

Ant.