Conservative Christians put warning label on Spongebob video...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Macfistowannabe said:
You honestly think I want to listen to people who make this comparison on me? No, I'm going to think they're full of crap.

you still haven't explained why comparing racism and homophobia as different forms of prejudice is wrong. evidently you don't like the comparison but you've not yet explained why you feel it's not apropriate.

Let me help you out with your little cause, for example...

"This is James. He's a painter, and a very good one. He may not have everything in common with you, and that's okay. We just hope that you respect his differences, and he will do the same for you."

well, okay. what cause was that again?

"Nice to meet you James. I'm a student, and a very good one. I may not have everything in common with you, and that's okay. I just hope you'll be able to avoid talking homophobic bollocks, and I'll do the same for you."

Err...yes.

This is a better way of saying it, other than referring to me as "strange", it works out much better. Trust me, I'm sorry to hear of it. Really I do think it's awful that people can be so rude. I don't take conservative stances on issues because I am one of those people. I take them because I believe in who and what I'm voting for. If you can take the time to tell me apart from them, I would appreciate it.

Fine, you're sorry to hear about the amount of prejudice that LGBT people face every single day. But you're still going to go about perpetuating that prejudice by claiming homosexuality is sinful. I'm not saying someone who sits behind a computer screen typing homophobic comments is the same as the person who stands outside an LGBT clubnight and screams insults at people as they leave, but you all share the same belief - that there's something wrong or sinful about being gay and in that respect I make no distinction between the two.
 
Thanks for that post, NBC. And by the way Dread, I agree, Spongebob is a really stupid thing for Dobson to piss and moan about.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
And really, I don't tell people they aren't normal.

Excuse me?! I've seen you say over and over I wasn't born this way and that I need to seek the truth and conform to the norms of society. You've told me I'm not normal many times in here. So please keep that in mind when you talk about all encompassing tolerance.
 
nbcrusader said:

You equate Christianity with homophobia with racism. At least Christianity that take the Bible as God's inerrant Word and is willing to accept all of the Bible.

Must Christians reject certain teachings of Scripture to be acceptable to you?

Your own labeling of Christians could fall into your own generalization (i.e., is equal to racism). I'm sure that is not what you intended.

Apparently my church must be rejecting scripture, or at least the most recent translations of it.

While I find the rampant CONDEMNATION of Conservative Christians around here troubling.......

I find it equally offensive that my beliefs are equated with a REJECTION of the scriptures.
 
The reasons it is a RIGHT comparison is clear to me. Gays are an easy target to descriminate against. I would say that I cannot remember the last time I heard a church run an ad condemning stealing, adultery, debauchery ect......I wanted to cry hearing the advertisement on the radio this morning about Gay marriage though.
 
nbcrusader said:
On a person to person basis, yes. It never makes the news because it does not draw the headlines like homosexuality.

The bottom line is: we all are sinner. The question is: what do we do about it.

Well if it's simply on a person to person basis then on what basis do you make the judgement that Christians spend as much time condemning lying, stealing, etc as condemning homosexuality? I assume you can't claim to speak for every one of the millions of Christians in the world, so how are you able to make that statement?

You equate Christianity with homophobia with racism. At least Christianity that take the Bible as God's inerrant Word and is willing to accept all of the Bible.

No, as dread has just pointed out, the idea that homosexuality is wrong is not something which is accepted by all Christians. I'm commenting on those Christians who choose to intepret the Bible in a way which indicates there's somethign wrong with homosexuality.

Must Christians reject certain teachings of Scripture to be acceptable to you?

I don't accept prejudice. Simple as that. So yes, if Christians want to intepret the Bible as advocating bigotry, that is unacceptable to me.

Your own labeling of Christians could fall into your own generalization (i.e., is equal to racism). I'm sure that is not what you intended.

How exactly? I'm not labelling all Christians, I'm commenting specifically on those who are of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. If you think that's comparable to racism or homophobia then I think you've misunderstood the comparison I was making.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
you still haven't explained why comparing racism and homophobia as different forms of prejudice is wrong. evidently you don't like the comparison but you've not yet explained why you feel it's not apropriate.
You label conservatives as homophobes and racists, and expect us to listen to what you have to say. That's what bothers me, and that's why many people get tired of what you have to say. Think of it this way, It's not always the message, but the messengers. You aren't going to change people's beliefs, but if you present your case in the right fashion, people will listen to what you have to say, and take into account not to mistreat homosexuals.

FizzingWhizzbees said:
Fine, you're sorry to hear about the amount of prejudice that LGBT people face every single day. But you're still going to go about perpetuating that prejudice by claiming homosexuality is sinful. I'm not saying someone who sits behind a computer screen typing homophobic comments is the same as the person who stands outside an LGBT clubnight and screams insults at people as they leave, but you all share the same belief - that there's something wrong or sinful about being gay and in that respect I make no distinction between the two.
Again, I don't like your vocabulary, and your intrusion on my belief in monogamous heterosexual relationships. If you could alter that into a better approach, that would be great. There is a difference between promoting the acceptance of homosexuals, and promoting something that opposes someone's personal beliefs. They are two different things, I have my views, you have yours, that is that. You can present examples without calling me a homophobe for being conservative. I would be glad to listen to what you have to say.
 
Dreadsox said:
Apparently my church must be rejecting scripture, or at least the most recent translations of it.

While I find the rampant CONDEMNATION of Conservative Christians around here troubling.......

I find it equally offensive that my beliefs are equated with a REJECTION of the scriptures.
Thanks Dread, I will try to keep this in mind.
 
Dreadsox said:
I find it equally offensive that my beliefs are equated with a REJECTION of the scriptures.

No, I narrowed it to interpreting all of Scripture as God's inerrant Word. I do not want to imply that someone is not a Christian because they do not believe a certain way on non-core matters.

I've seen many "carve outs" in interpretation: OT doesn't count anymore, only words spoken by Jesus count, the writter has a personal agenda, etc.

Methods of interpretation vary. I say it is all inerrant. Fizz expects me to say that certain passages don't say what they say.
 
Last edited:
Macfistowannabe said:
You label conservatives as homophobes and racists, and expect us to listen to what you have to say. That's what bothers me, and that's why many people get tired of what you have to say. Think of it this way, It's not always the message, but the messengers. You aren't going to change people's beliefs, but if you present your case in the right fashion, people will listen to what you have to say, and take into account not to mistreat homosexuals.

If you're tired of hearing people criticise homophobia, imagine how tired I am of seeing people day after day having their lives torn apart by homophobia. I don't really care if you're offended, upset, etc at what I have to say. It's what I believe and I'm not about to pretend otherwise to avoid offending people.

Again, I don't like your vocabulary, and your intrusion on my belief in monogamous heterosexual relationships. If you could alter that into a better approach, that would be great.

And if you could stop saying gay people are living a life of sin, that's be great too.

There is a difference between promoting the acceptance of homosexuals, and promoting something that opposes someone's personal beliefs. They are two different things, I have my views, you have yours, that is that. You can present examples without calling me a homophobe for being conservative. I would be glad to listen to what you have to say.

No, there isn't always a difference. Evidently it's your personal belief that homosexuality is wrong. This is incompatible with being accepting of people regardless of their sexuality.
 
nbcrusader said:
Fizz expects me to say that certain passages don't say what they say.

Nah, Fizz just expects you to acknowledge that your particular brand of Christianity is homophobic. That's what started this whole debate - my comment regarding the ridiculous "hate the sin, love the sinner" line.

Actually, forget that - I expect nothing. You're free to espouse whatever views you wish, just as I'm free to find them abhorrent and tell you so.
 
Dreadsox said:
The reasons it is a RIGHT comparison is clear to me. Gays are an easy target to descriminate against. I would say that I cannot remember the last time I heard a church run an ad condemning stealing, adultery, debauchery ect......I wanted to cry hearing the advertisement on the radio this morning about Gay marriage though.

I think people have this odd idea that Christian churches are fixated on the homosexuality issue. Week after week, I hear sermons and teachings on just about everything else.
 
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.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


Nah, Fizz just expects you to acknowledge that your particular brand of Christianity is homophobic. That's what started this whole debate - my comment regarding the ridiculous "hate the sin, love the sinner" line.

Actually, forget that - I expect nothing. You're free to espouse whatever views you wish, just as I'm free to find them abhorrent and tell you so.

So, we circle back to a generalization about Christian belief. Remember, when you are pointing at someone and declaring "these people are hateful" you do so with your own hatred.
 
nbcrusader said:


I think people have this odd idea that Christian churches are fixated on the homosexuality issue. Week after week, I hear sermons and teachings on just about everything else.

I said ADS...not sermons. ADS on the radio sponsored by Churches.
 
Maybe if the ADS were not on the airwaves people's perceptions would be different.

DO churches run ADS promoting their prison ministry? How about youth outreach?

Not that I have heard.
 
Dreadsox said:


I said ADS...not sermons. ADS on the radio sponsored by Churches.

Same result. Unless I am missing some special media outlet, the vast majority of ADS sponsored by Christian organizations have nothing to do with homosexuality, but do point to other sin.
 
I guess unless we see some empiracle data it is a moot point. I can only speak to the ads running here in MASS.

Time to finish moving the over 30" of snow. And wathc the Pats.
 
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.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
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.

I don't need your help thank you very much, particularly as it seems you want to offer me medicine, counselling and faith as some sort of relief from my imaginary problems. :rolleyes:

I love the way it becomes *my* responsibility to "[help] homosexuals better succeed in society." After all, what would make the biggest difference in that respect is if all LGBT people were accepted as equals, never had to face discrimination, never had to be afraid to be themselves, never had to worry about violence or intimidation or people disowning them. But let's ignore all of that and pretend the real problem is someone using language like prejudice, homophobia and bigotry instead of dressing it up in some cosy little phrases.

Of course homophobes don't like being called homophobic. Just like racists don't like to be called racist. But that doesn't make the label any less appropriate.
 
nbcrusader said:


So, we circle back to a generalization about Christian belief. Remember, when you are pointing at someone and declaring "these people are hateful" you do so with your own hatred.

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

Bottom line: I don't give a fuck. I wouldn't expect my views to appeal to homophobes and if they did I'd start to wonder what I was doing wrong.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


My idea of caring is a bit different. It's being there when one of my friends phones me in the middle of the night upset because someone shouted homophobic abuse at her. It's talking to the fifteen year old kid getting bullied at school and trying to offer some sort of reassurance that there's something wrong with the bullies, not with them. I think I'd rather be on the receiving end of that sort of caring, rather than your strange version.

Well, that's my idea of caring too. You seem to think that since we believe homosexuality is sinful that we're not willing to be there for gays when they need us. Jesus was always there for sinners, but did he condone their sin? Of course not. Your definition of true love and acceptance seems very skewed. I would never turn a homosexual away when they needed a friend. Like I said in an earlier post, they're human just like me.

And uhhh... what's a homophobe again? I thought it was someone who's uncomfortable around gays. Alot of you obviously don't know people like me if you think I'm a homophobe... because I'm not uncomfrtable around gays.

Also, I think wheather somone is orn gay or not is a mute point. We're all born with sin and we need Jesus to rid ourselves of it.
 
shart1780 said:
You seem to think that since we believe homosexuality is sinful that we're not willing to be there for gays when they need us. Jesus was always there for sinners, but did he condone their sin? Of course not. Your definition of true love and acceptance seems very skewed. I would never turn a homosexual away when they needed a friend. Like I said in an earlier post, they're human just like me.


Well I can't imagine many gay people wanting to talk to someone who thinks homosexuality is sinful about their sexuality.
 
And uhhh... what's a homophobe again? I thought it was someone who's uncomfortable around gays. Alot of you obviously don't know people like me if you think I'm a homophobe... because I'm not uncomfrtable around gays.

but because of who they are
or how they behave you see them as less
i. e. sinners

can you not see the trees from the forest

many slave holders were kind, and caring and comfortable around negroes

they just believe they were inferior.
 
There are various Bottom-liners. One that caught my interest, from nbcrusader, I believe was;

Bottom line: we are all sinners - what do we do about it.

Or words to that effect.

I'm quite interested with this premise;

Bottom line: we are all sinners - which sins do we make legal/illegal?

Ant.
 
shart1780 said:


Also, I think wheather somone is orn gay or not is a mute point. We're all born with sin and we need Jesus to rid ourselves of it.

Actually that wouldn't be a mute point. That would mean God would be creating sin, given your definition.
 
It's not a matter of who's a sinner or not, it's a matter of who is cleansed of their sins. That's why Jesus died for our sins, because our sins are not going away. But God does command that once we commit our lives to him that we try our hardest to follow his commandments. The only difference between a child of God and an unsaved person is that a saved person has been cleansed of his or her sins and has a new responsibilty to God.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom