"Saved" - Yay!- Page 3

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/21/04 at 1:55am

I definitely do not think that most churches or schools breed hate. But, I feel that there is an awful lot of ignorance on the subject of gays--if anything, the ridiculous balance in weight placed on homosexuality versus so many other sins--sins that actually hurt other people. If people are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, adultery would be a much bigger issue than gays.

I think there are many churches and schools that choose to focus on love and worship--and that's the kind of place, I would want to go to. And, getting back to topic, I think SAVED did a beautiful job of balancing the satire and respect for Christianity. It, like Dogma, is the kind of film that reminds me of what true faith is all about.

Updated On: 6/21/04 at 01:55 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 3:35am

Well this was an interesting topic. I enjoyed the movie. I thought it did a good job in the end having a moral to the story about accepting our differences as people.

And not to contradict papa, or even support jrb, because I do think papa is running circles around you in the 'ability to debate' department, but the Bible was used to support slavery. But that is a long tangent discussion because the slavery the Bible discusses was not a race based structure, but a class based structure (and sometimes voluntary). The Bible specifically discusses how slaves should be treated, and yet quotes were taken and used in support of black slavery. Other cases were also made against slavery citing the plagues put upon Egypt for enslaving the Jews, which was more applicable. So JRB may have been on to something there even if he chose the wrong decade to cite.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 11:31am

The bible contradicts itself in almost every single passage. The people who wrote it were geniuses. But does anyone honestly believe EVERYTHING in it? I had a book of fairy tales when I was a kid also, but I didn't believe they were true.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 11:45am

How did I choose the "wrong decade to cite"? I stand behind everything I've said--even if papa is "running circles around" me. It's also very easy to think that papa is doing that as he is very good as spewing BS and making it sound intelligent when he needs to. Especially in that he had to resort to insults out his butt.

Furthermore, I engaged in that debate with papa after a 14 hour day on the Olympic Torch Relay and 10 hours sleep that weekend. Pardon me if I wasn't up to speed.

Updated On: 6/23/04 at 11:45 AM

[bythesword84]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 1:14pm

Taken out of context you can find a passage in the Bible to support or condemn anything.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 1:18pm

Ah, the bible. Gotta love it. Oh, speaking of fiction has anyone read the new Grisham yet?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 2:52pm

you chose the wrong decade because youd have a better arguement if you had stated the bible was used to support slavery, as opposed to saying it was used to prevent interracial marriages.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 4:57pm

what does it matter? The Bible was quoted to condemn interracial marriage and to support slavery. I use the interracial marriage example to compare to our current gay marriage debate where people think the Bible should decide that issue's fate. Where some people who choose to deny that right to gays and lesbians hide behind their Bible as a reason.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 5:05pm

In a country which has adapted the idea of separation of church and state to the point which this country has, ideally the Bible or any other religious book should not have anything to do and should be tossed out of any possible arguments.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 5:09pm

jrb, sooner or later youll realize i was supporting your side of the arguement. and maybe youll even notice papa hasnt challeneged my comments on the subject.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 5:12pm

ok, by, that's a little extreme, don't you think? if a person chooses to follow a particular religion and personally chooses to view homosexual marriage as being against the "word of god" (not homosexuals mind you, they would just be misguided) and gives their rational as the bible, rather than claiming that they cannot make that argument, you should accept that they are being consistent to their beliefs.

now, if a politician on the other hand were to attempt to use the bible as a justification for enacting law or disregarding a law, that's a whole other ball of wax. remember, theough, that the first freedom guaranteed in the constitution is freedom of religion. but then, the constitution was written by a bunch of old white protestants.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 5:16pm

oh, I agree that a person has a right to their opinion. If you want to hate gays. Fine. If you and your church does not want to support me and my partner. Fine. But the anti-gay ammo in the legal issue is what I am addressing. And, people I know (on this board and not) who claim to be my friends, but would not support my marriage even in the legal sense--these people are upset that I can not sympathize with their religious view. Awwwww!

Updated On: 6/23/04 at 05:16 PM

[Matt_G]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 5:17pm

Who you gettin' married to, JRB? I didn't get my invitation. Did it get "lost"?

[bythesword84]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 5:19pm

I'm a practicing Catholic but no, I don't think it's a little extreme. I don't think religion should be allowed into the political debate, because that's really what it is, its all about the political aspect of it. You can feel what you want on a personal level but that shouldn't be allowed in the arena where a law is decided. I mean, you can make anything legal and it doesn't mean people have to agree with it. What you (the editorial you, not you specifically) or anyone else does is your business, I'm not about to stop what you do because I don't believe in it.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 5:20pm

I'm marrying you, pumpkin!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 5:27pm

by, are we making law here? did i miss an election or at least a supreme court appointment? should freedom of speech only apply to whom we decide it should?

hee hee hee, a practicing catholic, eh? so as a catholic, you oppose abortion and gay marriage as that is the official catholic position on those issues. right? also, where do you stand on immaculate conception? was christ conceived by the holy ghost? or is that all hooey? what about transubstantiation, you do realize that if you take communion, once a week you become a cannibal?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 5:29pm

wow, you are being dense today, papa--are you not aware that the Senate is voting on a little ol CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT in less than 3 weeks?? Nope--don't see any laws coming up on the issue.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 5:32pm

Actually, there is a law being tossed around which is where it becomes applicable that I said I don't think that religion should be allowed into that debate if the country claims to separate Church and State. If they want to bring religion into it, they should bring religion into everything. This "we'll apply religion when we want to because it backs up our ideas" is crap.

I am intentionally not commenting on my personal religious beliefs because, those are not on trial here. I only even mentioned my religion to show that I do believe in the persons choice to follow whatever religion he or she would like.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 6:42pm

the laws govern both the religious and the non-religious and thus you can't remove religion completely fromn a debate. that's like telling the majority of the nation, "um, yeah, we don't need your input on this one." a person's religion often is the prism through which they view the world and is intrinsic to who they are as a person and influences every decision they make even subconsciously. you're asking people to ignore who they are when they consider an issue. this is akin to saying, well, jrb, since this decision involves gays and you are gay, you can't discuss it in any way that references homosexuality.

i agree that religion should not enter into at the point at which is is being deabated by those who would vote for or against the measure. since none of us, unless we have lurking senators here, will be doing so, i do not see how bringing religion into the debate here in this forum in anyway impinges upon the separation of church and state (get my point now?). here, it is perfectly fine that we allow all our prejudices and beliefs to enter into a debate as it informs how and why we make the decisions that we do. it's fine to say that you disagree with so and so because they are basing their decision what you consider to be an emotional appeal and flawed logic to say the least. but it's not ok to say that you can't argue something here based on your beliefs, however loony they might be.

our representatives should be an apt picture of the communities they represent and based on the congressional demographics (aside from being a bit thick with old white men) they are. if someone in congress votes for or against a measure about which you feel strongly or violates your principles of church and state, organize against him or her and see do your best to make sure that the next representative elected to that position better reflects your views. think it can't happen? follow the grassroots movements of any number of internet activists and see how they are doing it. it ain't rocket science. it's democracy.

Updated On: 6/23/04 at 06:42 PM

[bythesword84]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 7:05pm

Religious marriage and civil marriage are two totally different things though. This is about civil marriages, religions don't have to acknowledge them, so saying yes or no to civil gay marriage has nothing to do with ones religious beliefs on the topic. Now if gay marriage was being petitioned for in a religious setting then that's a different subject altogether.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/23/04 at 11:30pm

as long as the word marriage is used it's a religious issue which is why it (the word) should be stricken from the law books.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 6/24/04 at 12:46am

Agreed.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/24/04 at 2:07am

But as we know from reading our American History books or from watching 1776, sometimes the people are not able to see what is in the best interests for the country. (and SOMEHOW, I know that papa will lovingly turn that against me lol)

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/24/04 at 7:38am

oh, jrb, i don't need to turn that against you, it's a paean to totalitarianism all by itself.