Jerry Springer - The Opera forced to stay off Broadway- Page 4

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 5:34pm

Wow. This message thread is insane. What a stupid, not-going-to-be-solved idiocy Godlovesyou has begun. I miss the normal stupid arguments usually associated with BroadwayWorld message boards...

WICKED SUCKS!

Ah. Much better.

- Gil

[matthius202]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 5:35pm

lol...i agree! :)

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 5:41pm

I love the opportunity for intelligent debate. I find it stimulating as long as it doesn't boil down to an abusive name-calling slam-fest.

[matthius202]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 5:43pm

exactly, mister matt...but whoever that is..doesn't see it that way...instead of discussing it, godlovesyou just started throwing their views around...never once considering that others have HEARTS and FEELINGS...testimony is one thing...but geesh!
i, too, love an intellectual conversation. but i prefer them to be WITH intellectuals!!! :)

[keggss23]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 5:51pm

I agree with you completely Mister Matt. I am not in any way saying that anyone is right or wrong in their beliefs, I just don't understand that way of thinking I guess. Many of my friends are Christian and don't push their beliefs on others nor do they condemn anyone based on sexuality, etc.

"I don't believe all Christians are bad."

I don't believe Christians are bad either, just those select few, such as the ones protesting and causing trouble for JSTO, that give Christians a bad name.

I am sticking to my original statement, that if you find JSTO offensive, don't buy tickets to it. If you find a television program offensive, don't watch it. If you find a song or show on the radio offensive, change the station.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 6:00pm

Keggss, you missed one of the points that Godlovesyou was trying to make: over in Britain they have a tv tax. In essence, they have to pay for that program to be aired. Here in the U.S. it would be shown on HBO where only those who wished to watch it would pay for it. The boycott was not over the showing being presented in a theater, the boycott was over it being aired on public televison. The poster objects to having to pay for something that he/she feels blasphemes his/her religious beliefs.

[keggss23]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 6:25pm

"In essence, they have to pay for that program to be aired."
I can totally understand that and I would be upset too.

What I absolutely don't understand is why this Christian group forced a charity not to accept a donation because the money was "tainted". If anyone has any insight into this one, please let me know!

I love these kinds of discussions. It is so interesting to hear how many different beliefs there are over one issue.

I appologize if anything I have said has offended anyone.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 7:26pm

er, ah, Goth.....I pay taxes so that peoples kids can go to school, and I DON'T complain.........tell those people in Britain to NOT watch the show.......or give me back the taxes I pay for rugrats of other poeple to be educated ;o)

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 7:46pm

"The boycott was not over the showing being presented in a theater, the boycott was over it being aired on public televison."

Actually, the boycott originated over the broadcast, but has now spread to try and prevent a US theatrical production. That was actually the topic at hand.

The UK has more than the singular channel which broadcast JSTO as well as other controversial and offensive programming that is not unique to British television. They have had profanity, nudity and virtually everything censored on American television airing freely for years. Are we to believe that somehow the other stuff is ok, but somehow JSTO is not? As a matter of fact, BBC has been airing South Park for years. I fail to see the significant difference in JSTO and South Park other than the fact that South Park originated during the Clinton years.

[dapapabear2]

Posted: 3/10/05 at 1:43am

Godlovesyou - you obviously don't though. Perhaps if you spent more time reading your Bible and less time spewing cliches and false information about events in the Bible you would have more of an impact. This is not a theology board so I won't waste anyone's time refuting your asinine gay/Christian is a contradiction statement. FYI, I am personally aquainted with one of the lead members in the JSTO cast and his HUSBAND is a pastor and he was very active in a church here in the US before moving to London. (which really is no indication of his spiritual state of course) No doubt there are others in the cast who are of the Christian faith (I distinguish that from the RELIGIOUS cult) and find NO contradiction in that. It is between their God and them, and NOT for some meddling fundie to decide who is Christian and who isn't based on a bigoted interpretation of the Bible. Protesting is fine but the "christian" right is moving well beyond that and that is a big reason for the negative reaction to your post. Lying, slandering, attacking people's character and other tactics up to and including physical violence are apparently acceptable to "christians" as a form of protest. That to me is far more offensive than anything in JSTO. It doesn't claim to be fact, or "the truth" or anything else but entertainment. JSTO may be distasteful and you surely are free to consider it blasphemous but that accusation is meaningless outside of your tiny little religious structure.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/10/05 at 2:03am

Thank GOD (no pun intended) for this thread. Godlovesyou has reminded me exactly why I don't want anything to do with that religion.

P.S.: If you're going to get technical about the Bible, keep in mind that it was written. WRITTEN. By men. Men no greater than you and I, writing stories to entertain people. They did no drop from the sky one day. To live your life by a book written all those years ago is a little insane, in my opinion.

In my opinion, I said...I don't need a bigoted retort from Godloveseveryonebutgaypeopleandpeoplethatdontbelieveinjesus.

Oh, PPS - Jesus wasn't the son of God. TECHNICALLY...God isn't a person, so he's not capable to having intercourse with a woman to produce a child. No ma'm, Joseph the lovely, hard working carpenter held that title.

[Godlovesyou]

Posted: 3/10/05 at 4:04pm

The bible was not written just by “Men”, but holy men who were inspired by God, this means that God actually breathed into them the words that they wrote.

When I wrote, “Matthius referred to being a gay Christian, this is a contradiction of terms, the bible refers to homosexuality as an abomination in Romans 1. We can all see what God thought about this when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19”.

I was not condemning Matthius or any other individual, merely pointing out what the bible clearly says about homosexuality. What the scripture say on the subject cannot be changed it is not my view; it is God’s view.

God loves all sinners whether they are involved in murder, idolatry, sexual sins, theft, lying, covetousness etc. All are able to repent and receive God’s forgiveness.

I know of homosexuals who have experienced reorientation after being saved, it is possible with help of God’s indwelling Holy Spirit.

Christian Voice did not force the Cancer Charity to turn down the money, it merely pointed out the contents of JSTO and prevented them from a PR disaster. My comments on this forum have been quite restrained, it you don’t think so then check out the Christian Voice Website at http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/

Finally, I was not comparing myself to Jesus, however the bible does tell us that our aim is to be like him, we will never actually achieve this, as we all still possess a sinful nature but that does should never stop us from trying to be Christlike.

Other books come and go, The BIBLE does not.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/10/05 at 4:25pm

You make me sick. Literally sick to my stomach that people like you are still crawling this earth. You should watch BENT, the movie in my avatar - it will teach you a thing or two about reality and acceptance. I'm going to go vomit now, and try to forget what I just read.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/10/05 at 5:32pm

"I was not condemning Matthius or any other individual, merely pointing out what the bible clearly says about homosexuality."

You were not pointing out what the Bible "clearly says" about homosexuality at all. You were pointing out the common misinterpretations of homosexuality in the Bible which I have previously clarified that have been gleefully and ignorantly adopted by those who choose not to understand the Bible clearly in order to impose their own personal bigotry on anyone who does not share their beliefs.

"What the scripture say on the subject cannot be changed it is not my view; it is God’s view."

What about the Scripture condoning whoring your daughter, incest, and rape within Lot's family? I see you failed to address that as well as most of my reply, but then, that is a common avoidance manouver employed by most Christians who cannot explain the hypocrasies of their religion that they willfully ignore. What part of the Bible tells Christians to pick and choose and/or reinterpret the scriptures that fit their needs?

"I know of homosexuals who have experienced reorientation after being saved, it is possible with help of God’s indwelling Holy Spirit."

You cannot know ANYTHING about being homosexual unless you are homosexual yourself. You may know individuals who CLAIM to be "reoriented", but neither you nor I can vouch for a successful "reorientation" without being that person and inhabiting their body and mind. If it gives you some sort of reassurance to believe it is true, then I'm happy you have found joy in your own personal beliefs.

"Finally, I was not comparing myself to Jesus, however the bible does tell us that our aim is to be like him, we will never actually achieve this, as we all still possess a sinful nature but that does should never stop us from trying to be Christlike."

And finally, you DID compare yourself to Jesus quite blatantly.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/10/05 at 5:43pm

So you seem to believe that is is possible for a "homosexual" to become "straight" through Jesus, right? Well, if "god is love" and Jesus and religion should all be about love and acceptance, why should you and other die-hard Chritians try to dehumanize someone just for loving someone of the same sex?

[keggss23]

Posted: 3/10/05 at 5:51pm

"I was not condemning Matthius or any other individual, merely pointing out what the bible clearly says about homosexuality. What the scripture say on the subject cannot be changed it is not my view; it is God’s view."

(Sorry Matthius I am sure you can handle yourself, but I just HAVE to make a comment about the above.)

Godloversyou - Yes, YOU were in fact condemning Matthius and all other individuals and hiding behind the "it is God's view" arguement. "It is God's view" is exactly like saying "because I said so" neither of which is an actual reason. People usually give this answer when they have don't HAVE an answer. What a crock. Can you actually form your own opinion without hiding behind this non-answer? Do you really think it is ok to discriminate, judge and condemn as long as you attach "God says it's ok" to it?

"God loves all sinners whether they are involved in murder, idolatry, sexual sins, theft, lying, covetousness etc. All are able to repent and receive God’s forgiveness."

Nope, not "all" as you claim. Those pesky gays are not included, so using the word "all" is a gross mistatement.

[Godlovesyou]

Posted: 3/10/05 at 6:37pm

Mr Matt, read the verses in Romans 1 again, you are the one who is twisting them to your way of thinking, v 27 can only mean one thing.

As for Lot, yes he fell into sin, don’t we all? But he also repented and if we do that God will forgive.

Jesus is beyond comparison but our aim is to be like him. My point was that Jesus was controversial and if we preach Jesus then we are going to be controversial as well.

Keggs, Yes all sinners, including gays, salvation is open to all.

So, I have made some people feel sick, well this is how JSTO made me feel when the wounds of Jesus were mocked.

Good Night.

Other books come and go – the BIBLE does not!

[matthius202]

Posted: 3/10/05 at 7:24pm

Updated On: 9/9/08 at 07:24 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/10/05 at 8:03pm

"Mr Matt, read the verses in Romans 1 again, you are the one who is twisting them to your way of thinking, v 27 can only mean one thing."

Of course it only means one thing if it is removed and isolated out of context. I did not twist it in any way. I simply put the verse in context conatined in Romans I. Perhaps you should read it again yourself. The verse was not stated as a commandment in and of itself. Verses 23-27 denounce [v23] idol worship, [v24] lust (no mention of sexual preference), [v25] worship of beasts and humans, [v26] changing female use from natural to unnatural (unspecified), and [v27] lust between two men (which was already covered for all people in v24) and men with men "working that which is unseemly" (also unspecified). In no way does Paul condemn acts of love between two men or two women because he never witnessed it. He only describes what he witnessed at a pagan ritual. Now it has been argued that the English translation of the Bible (which was originally in Greek and Hebrew and there was no word for "homosexual"), but it is clear that these arguments would be lost on you. You claim that each and every translation was whispered by God into the ears of men, but which Bible? King James? New King James? 21st Century King James? Mormon? New Oxford? New Living? New International Version? American Standard? New American Standard? Amplified Bible? English Standard? Contemporary English? Darby? Holman? New International Reader's? Wycliffe? Wordwide English? Calvinistic Geneva? Reims? Douai? Well, I'm sure you get the picture. They are not all the same, nor do they use the same words with the same meanings.

"So, I have made some people feel sick, well this is how JSTO made me feel when the wounds of Jesus were mocked."

His wounds were not mocked. They were used in contemporary slang when Jesus denounces Satan. Remember that the show is a speculation of what might occur is Jesus were in a contemporary situation involving contemporary issues. The second act is a modern exploration of Christianity.

And you are not the voice of all Christians. I know MANY devout Christians who do not share your views and some who did see JSTO for what it really was, not what they wanted it to be (a reason to censor views and opinions other than their own).

[Godlovesyou]

Posted: 3/11/05 at 9:09am

You are indeed very eloquent in trying to justify blashpemy, Whatever you say, his wounds were mocked in the JSTO and he was portrayed as a sexual deviant and Mary carries out a sex act on him. I cannot understand why you want to support something which clearly attacks God, Jesus and the Christian Faith.

On the other hand this is why I see the need to stand against it.

So you know most of the bible translations, so what! The original Greek and Hebrew were inspired and you can compare our translations today and see that overall what we have today is still extremely accurate.

Matthius, I am not calling you a contradiction, I am saying that Gay and Christian is a contradiction. You have taken my comments personally but at no time have I ever directed my views at you.

Christianity is not only about showing love to people but it is also about being holy and trying to live righteously. Anyone whose life if filled with lasciviousness, fornication adultery etc will have to answer to God for that at judgment day.

I do agree with Matthius on one thing and that is where he says that nothing that I say, will change what you believe and nothing you say will change what I believe.

I could go into more scriptures on the subject of why homosexuality is sinful but I guess that we are never going to see eye to eye on this, (not on this side of eternity anyway) so we will just have to agree to differ.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/11/05 at 9:58am

"Whatever you say, his wounds were mocked in the JSTO and he was portrayed as a sexual deviant and Mary carries out a sex act on him."

Like the scriptures, you are isolating events and using them out of context. I can play that game, too.

"I cannot understand why you want to support something which clearly attacks God, Jesus and the Christian Faith."

And I cannot understand why you support an attack on the freedom of religion and freedom of speech. If you spent even half the energy into truly understanding the Bible rather than regurgitating the narrow-minded ignorant interpretations you have been spoon-fed then maybe you could focus on the true message of Christianity, which is about love. Christians are so fond of attacking those who are not Christian. When did Jesus ever encourage his disciples to attack the Romans?

"The original Greek and Hebrew were inspired and you can compare our translations today and see that overall what we have today is still extremely accurate."

This is not true at all considering most of the words we use in English did not exist in Greek or Hebrew including the word "homosexual".

"Anyone whose life if filled with lasciviousness, fornication adultery etc will have to answer to God for that at judgment day."

Which includes the majority of Christian heterosexuals who condemn homosexuals.

"Matthius, I am not calling you a contradiction, I am saying that Gay and Christian is a contradiction. You have taken my comments personally but at no time have I ever directed my views at you."

You directed your views specifically at Matthius the moment you used his name!

"I could go into more scriptures on the subject of why homosexuality is sinful but I guess that we are never going to see eye to eye on this, (not on this side of eternity anyway) so we will just have to agree to differ."

Believe me, I am familiar with all the scriptures on the subject of homosexuality as is my uncle who is a priest who has offered to marry me and my boyfriend. You are right. As long as you refuse to understand the scriptures as they were actually written, then we will never see eye to eye. And I think it's safe to say you will not meet eye to eye with the majority of the members on this board.

Updated On: 3/11/05 at 09:58 AM

[keggss23]

Posted: 3/11/05 at 1:25pm

"Matthius, I am not calling you a contradiction, I am saying that Gay and Christian is a contradiction."

How is that not calling Matthius a contradiction? HE is gay and a Christian and you just said that was a contradiction.

"You have taken my comments personally but at no time have I ever directed my views at you."

How could you NOT take something like that personally? A stranger (you) is telling him that your religion, according to your interpretation, says that he is a sinner and needs to be saved. I don't even know Matthius and I am taking it personally. Oh, and you addressed Matthius DIRECTLY with: “Matthius referred to being a gay Christian, this is a contradiction of terms, the bible refers to homosexuality as an abomination in Romans 1. We can all see what God thought about this when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19” so, yes you have directed your views to him when you addressed him by name.

[Godlovesyou]

Posted: 3/11/05 at 2:03pm

Mr Matt. I thought it was quite clear that you were well versed on all the scripture on this subject. You clearly have you own private interpretation of these scriptures, but that does not mean that you are right.

Just because others on this message board support your view, that does not make you right. I am just amazed that you fail to see what the scriptures are clearly saying on this subject.

This is not about attacking non-christians however I guess the truth does hurt. Did Jesus ever say things which angered the crowds? Sure he did, and they eventually killed him because of it.

My understanding of scripture is one held by millions of Evangelical Christians, it is not narrow, nor has it been spoon fed like the stuff you are coming out with. There are many people who have very liberal views on Christianity and they usually say, "All you have to do is love each other". Believe me this is important, but there is much much more to being a Christian than this.

Keggss23. I do not have a religion, I have a personal faith in Jesus Christ, if you don't understand this comment. Read the book, "How to be a Christian without being religious.

[Godlovesyou]

Posted: 3/11/05 at 2:03pm

Mr Matt. I thought it was quite clear that you were well versed on all the scripture on this subject. You clearly have you own private interpretation of these scriptures, but that does not mean that you are right.

Just because others on this message board support your view, that does not make you right. I am just amazed that you fail to see what the scriptures are clearly saying on this subject.

This is not about attacking non-christians however I guess the truth does hurt. Did Jesus ever say things which angered the crowds? Sure he did, and they eventually killed him because of it.

My understanding of scripture is one held by millions of Evangelical Christians, it is not narrow, nor has it been spoon fed like the stuff you are coming out with. There are many people who have very liberal views on Christianity and they usually say, "All you have to do is love each other". Believe me this is important, but there is much much more to being a Christian than this.

Keggss23. I do not have a religion, I have a personal faith in Jesus Christ, if you don't understand this comment. Read the book, "How to be a Christian without being religious.
Updated On: 3/11/05 at 02:03 PM

[keggss23]

Posted: 3/11/05 at 2:25pm

"Mr Matt. I thought it was quite clear that you were well versed on all the scripture on this subject. You clearly have you own private interpretation of these scriptures, but that does not mean that you are right."

And you clearly have YOUR own interpretation and it does not mean that YOU are right either.

"Keggss23. I do not have a religion, I have a personal faith in Jesus Christ, if you don't understand this comment. Read the book, "How to be a Christian without being religious."

Call it whatever you'd like, personal faith, beliefs, etc., it still comes back to christianity which is, in fact, a religion. If it looks like a duck...

"This is not about attacking non-christians however I guess the truth does hurt. Did Jesus ever say things which angered the crowds? Sure he did, and they eventually killed him because of it.

What truth? Nothing you have said or regurgitated has convinced me of any truth. Your supposed "truth" is nothing more than your view. As much as you may think so, just because it is your opinion does not make it fact. You are no more "right" than anyone else.