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

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

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.

---

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.

---

"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.

---

"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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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!

"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).

---

"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

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.

"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.

---