46 replies to this topic

[Leave Britney alone!]

Sean93, on 08 January 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

Let's be real, it's because he's a gay man.

Beyonce gets away with it despite dressing in outfits that only pollute the nightmares of all those young Christian boys who obviously don't think of things like that.

Also, that's pretty corny too; writing bible verses on their faces...Just for fun i'd put Ezek 9:6 on my face, be interesting to see what happens.

I agree that is corny.

Putting the date of the Superbowl is witty. Wanting to put Ezekiel 9:6 on your own face is not witty but more in line with the original, just something to make others angry.

Ya, I am a Christian, but I think flaunting verses from a book meant only for believers is disrespectul to others who do not believe. Wanting to put Ezekiel 9:6 on your face would have the same purpose except it would be more disrespectful to believers.

I also would not wear face paint in that manner, there are funner things to do with it than play football or to look like you are, but if I had a chance to do your face, since you already seem open to the idea, I'd scribble the platinum rule on it.

Edited by I believe you, 08 January 2013 - 04:14 PM.

[Sean93]

I believe you, on 08 January 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

I agree that is corny.

Putting the date of the Superbowl is witty. Wanting to put Ezekiel 9:6 on your own face is not witty but more in line with the original, just something to p*** others off.

Ya, I am a Christian, but I think flaunting verses from a book meant only for believers is disrespectul to others who do not believe. Wanting to put Ezekiel 9:6 on your face would have the same purpose except it would be more disrespectful to believers.

I also would not wear face paint in that manner, there are funner things to do with it than play football or to look like you are, but if I had a chance to do your face, since you already seem open to the idea, I'd scribble the platinum rule on your face.

That's the idea.

As for using Ezekiel on my face and it being disrespectful to believers...how? It's in the holy book they follow, allowed to be there by gods' command and as a matter of fact, perhaps it would get the less versed Christians to read the book for themselves so that they realize it's not all sunshine and daisies. But alas, they can do what they want...but so can I.

[Leave Britney alone!]

Sean93, on 08 January 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

That's the idea.

As for using Ezekiel on my face and it being disrespectful to believers...how? It's in the holy book they follow, allowed to be there by gods' command and as a matter of fact, perhaps it would get the less versed Christians to read the book for themselves so that they realize it's not all sunshine and daisies. But alas, they can do what they want...but so can I.

Thank you for supporting my idea.

As for using Ezekiel, in the way you want to use it, it is disrespectful.

How? Well maybe first a how not.

Your statement: "It's in the holy book they follow, allowed to be there by gods' command and as a matter of fact"

Another fact to add to yours: Dispensationalism.

This is understanding there are several dispensation periods, there are 613 laws in the Old Testament. Guess who they apply to? Jews. One of those laws disallows wearing mixed materials, so no poly-cotton blend or anything of that sort. Having to get all one material narrows your shopping.

Christians don't follow every example and edict in the Old Testament because it was written by and for an ancient tribal society. In a tribal society having clothes all one material was not so difficult to do. Christians are not following, nor are they intended to follow, the 613 laws either.

That a tribal society was warlike? Well that is no surprise, all tribal societies were warlike, had they not you would have never heard of them.

As to how it is disrespectful, because of your intention behind it.


Your statement: "perhaps it would get the less versed Christians to read the book for themselves so that they realize it's not all sunshine anddaisies"

I think it would really capture people such as yourself who want to attack other people's beliefs.


Your statement: "But alas, they can do what they want...but so can I."

You can, only you can decide how you want to treat others especially if they do not think like and agree with you. Funny how some of the less shining examples of Christianity like Westboro often make the same decision as you. I see those with your views the same as them, on the same spectrum.

You can both attack each other but it profits you all none, and me less because I have to live in a world with both of you.

Edited by I believe you, 08 January 2013 - 04:59 PM.

[ealdwita]

Beyonce at half-time? Thank you for the warning!!!!

[Sean93]

I believe you, on 08 January 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

Thank you for supporting my idea.

As for using Ezekiel, in the way you want to use it, it is disrespectful.

How? Well maybe first a how not.

Your statement: "It's in the holy book they follow, allowed to be there by gods' command and as a matter of fact"

Another fact to add to yours: Dispensationalism.

This is understanding there are several dispensation periods, there are 613 laws in the Old Testament. Guess who they apply to? Jews. One of those laws disallows wearing mixed materials, so no poly-cotton blend or anything of that sort. Having to get all one material narrows your shopping.

Christians don't follow every example and edict in the Old Testament because it was written by and for an ancient tribal society. In a tribal society having clothes all one material was not so difficult to do. Christians are not following, nor are they intended to follow, the 613 laws either.

That a tribal society was warlike? Well that is no surprise, all tribal societies were warlike, had they not you would have never heard of them.

As to how it is disrespectful, because of your intention behind it.


Your statement: "perhaps it would get the less versed Christians to read the book for themselves so that they realize it's not all sunshine anddaisies"

I think it would really capture people such as yourself who want to attack other people's beliefs.


Your statement: "But alas, they can do what they want...but so can I."

You can, only you can decide how you want to treat others especially if they do not think like and agree with you. Funny how some of the less shining examples of Christianity like Westboro often make the same decision as you. I see those with your views the same as them, on the same spectrum.

You can both attack each other but it profits you all none, and me less because I have to live in a world with both of you.

I see. Of course, you fall under the false assumption that I want to attack people belief's...I don't, I just enjoy getting a reaction out of people; they get so offended and too easily for me not to have a laugh about it. I'm indifferent to religious beliefs and don't hate them for no reason. it's when they branch into fundamentalist nonsense (Westboro being an example) that it bothers me, more so when it comes directly to me...and it has done one or two times in my life.

As for living in a world with me. I can see you don't like that fact and would rather not be around me so just ignore me then, block me on this site; there's a feature on here to ignore people I think. Problem solved.

P.s, perhaps the rules and regulations that the Christians don't follow in the OT should be, y'know...taken out of the book that governs their lives; some of them might get the wrong idea about what they can and can't do.

Edited by Sean93, 08 January 2013 - 05:15 PM.

[Leave Britney alone!]

Sean93, on 08 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

I see. Of course, you fall under the false assumption that I want to attack people belief's...I don't, I just enjoy getting a reaction out of people; they get so offended and too easily for me not to have a laugh about it. I'm indifferent to religious beliefs and don't hate them for no reason. it's when they branch into fundamentalist nonsense (Westboro being an example) that it bothers me, more so when it comes directly to me...and it has done one or two times in my life.

As for living in a world with me. I can see you don't like that fact and would rather not be around me so just ignore me then, block me on this site; there's a feature on here to ignore people I think. Problem solved.

P.s, perhaps the rules and regulations that the Christians don't follow in the OT should be, y'know...taken out of the book that governs their lives; some of them might get the wrong idea about what they can and can't do.

Ammend it to: Living in a world with people like you and them.

Your advice to block you on this site? While it goes well with my original statement I do not believe it was good advice. The more barriers we allow to remain the worse off our world is. What Wesboro does and your intentions are two such barriers. Asking me to block you would be yet a third. Add in a few more and you will never have to empathize with others who think different again! But I would not advise that.

You are correct that some Christians do get the wrong idea about what they should and shouldn't do. I don't think your plan is going to help correct that situation but keep trying because you will eventually find a tactful tactic that will work if you never give up!

Edited by I believe you, 08 January 2013 - 05:31 PM.

[rashore]

I've always kind of wondered why players put blackout paint under their eyes. I understand it's to help block undershine, yes? But is it really that much of a problem to require the blackout paint?
And writing stuff in white on that blackout paint, wouldn't that kind of negate the effect of blocking undershine? Or at the least put something into the peripheral vision that could be distracting when trying to focus on playing?

I totally do not understand why NPH is being questioned over this either. Wouldn't it fall on CBS for hiring him, and the advertising team for writing the ad, and so on? And why not also give unfavorable comment to Beyonce when she did the same thing?

I am so not into sports, especially American football, that I guess I don't really understand the whole uproar.

[Paracelse]

I believe you, on 08 January 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

I agree that is corny.

Putting the date of the Superbowl is witty. Wanting to put Ezekiel 9:6 on your own face is not witty but more in line with the original, just something to make others angry.

Ya, I am a Christian, but I think flaunting verses from a book meant only for believers is disrespectul to others who do not believe. Wanting to put Ezekiel 9:6 on your face would have the same purpose except it would be more disrespectful to believers.

I also would not wear face paint in that manner, there are funner things to do with it than play football or to look like you are, but if I had a chance to do your face, since you already seem open to the idea, I'd scribble the platinum rule on it.

You cut down Oak and Beech trees which are representing my religion, you are polluting springs and well which are home to Goddess ....... but I's'pose that's alright .. but no one can touch some verses about killing because it's blasphemous???? Bravo NPH and Sean93

[Leave Britney alone!]

Paracelse, on 08 January 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

You cut down Oak and Beech trees which are representing my religion, you are polluting springs and well which are home to Goddess ....... but I's'pose that's alright .. but no one can touch some verses about killing because it's blasphemous???? Bravo NPH and Sean93

Ya, ya I know you are speaking in general.

In a black-and-white world, where it is us vs them, and so forth, that holds up well, but nuance does exist.

I personally support green initiatives and prefer to put the environment over corporate interests. Which is I side with the EPA when Governor Rick Perry wants to side with big business in allowing them to pollute our environment.

I also follow the example of Acts 19 when it was said of Paul, Gaius, and Aristarchus that, "these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess."

As a Christian I also am not a blasphemer of your goddess.

I also reserve judgment on if NPH's commercial is blasphemy (lol) since I have not seen it, for now with just the photograph to judge I find it a sly play on Tebow's showy expressions of religion.

In either case a) there is no difference in supporting blasphemy against the goddess, or God, or any other thing another holds sacred, once you want to go out of your way to blaspheme any of those, you are a blasphemer period, b) it is not like being a blasphemer of God is better than being the blasphemer of a goddess, c) you are either support blasphmey or not, doesn't matter who it is against, d) I am not the type to be provoked at blasphemy e) the people who are the type to be provoked need to chill out and f) the people who do get provoked at blasphemy are just as much as the problem as the blasphemers

Edited by I believe you, 08 January 2013 - 07:21 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

Sean93, on 08 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

perhaps the rules and regulations that the Christians don't follow in the OT should be, y'know...taken out of the book that governs their lives; some of them might get the wrong idea about what they can and can't do.

A General in the army who gives an order to assault a bunker and kill anyone who gets in the way may be praised during wartime but condemned during peace for the same action.  It doesn't mean we should remove it from our High School History curriculum just because we are currently not at war with anyone. Understanding the history of Christianity and its early roots in tribal society is absolutely fundamental for any true Christian.  Take out the bits that don't directly apply to us anymore and we are left with an incomplete and false understanding of Christianity.

~ Regards,

[Paranoid Android]

That said, this entire thread topic is laughable.  Mail Online is simply reporting what another website - WND reported (link) - an ultra-conservative Christian news site famous for controversial and misleading news headlines.  But they have a strong following among certain Christian groups.  At the bottom of the WND article there's a Poll asking people their thoughts about whether CBS was mocking Tim Tebow.  Results as follows:

Quote

Is CBS mocking Tim Tebow and/or Christians in its Super Bowl ads?

• Yes, and every effort should be made to boycott CBS and its advertisers (36%, 593 Votes)
  
• No, other players use eyeblack, too. This is just Christians looking for phony 'persecution' (25%, 409 Votes)
  
• Yes, it's more than obvious, and it's totally offensive by CBS (12%, 198 Votes)
  
• Yes, in the subtle way TV networks use images to slowly undermine Christianity (10%, 167 Votes)
  
• Whether "mocking" or not, CBS is clearly juxtaposing Harris with the Tebow image to make the homosexual actor seem virtuous (5%, 82 Votes)
  
• Yes (4%, 60 Votes)
  
• No, the network is just promoting the big game (2%, 35 Votes)
  
• Yes, the CBS image looks exactly like the famous one of Tebow with his Bible eyeblack (1%, 22 Votes)
  
• No, Neil Patrick Harris' homosexuality has nothing to do with the ads (1%, 18 Votes)
  
• No, the network is merely cashing in on Tebow's popularity (1%, 14 Votes)
  
• No, the network is actually honoring Tebow by emulating him (1%, 10 Votes)
  
• Yes, it's mocking, but it's in a fun way, not mean-spirited (1%, 9 Votes)
  
• Other (1%, 9 Votes)
  
• No (0%, 8 Votes)
  
• No, I doubt CBS even made the Tebow connection (0%, 4 Votes)

Total Voters: 1,638

Not surprising, considering its readership, and I have a feeling if any other news network ran the same poll it would have a very different look.

~ PA

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 09 January 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

A General in the army who gives an order to assault a bunker and kill anyone who gets in the way may be praised during wartime but condemned during peace for the same action.  It doesn't mean we should remove it from our High School History curriculum just because we are currently not at war with anyone. Understanding the history of Christianity and its early roots in tribal society is absolutely fundamental for any true Christian.  Take out the bits that don't directly apply to us anymore and we are left with an incomplete and false understanding of Christianity.

~ Regards,

The two things are completely different entirely and are not comparable in the slightest.

The bible is supposedly the word of god and, effectively, law. Christians do things (or don't do things) solely on the basis of what the bible tells them to do. In the case of some of the parts that deserve removing, those parts lead people to do incredibly stupid things (or hold incredible foolish or harmful beliefs).

By contrast that story of a general assaulting a bunker (in either war or peace time) is simply the recounting of events that happened. It's not commanding the reader to do it or not do it, it's simply stating what happened.

Whereas the bible is quite unhelpful and at times contradictory. It would be like a history book saying the general assaulted the bunker in wartime, yet in the next sentence saying it happened during peacetime, then switching back. In any other situation such things would be corrected quite simply, but with religion there's always resistance, despite the obvious (and real) problems caused by the contradictions.

To be honest, with so many contradictions, with so many mistranslations and with the amount of different factions that have sprung up, if there's one thing that needs to be seriously looked over it's religious texts.

Now you say understanding the history is important. I don't necessarily disagree. However, as long as the history is left in the main body of the religious text, it will be misused. Having it as a seperate text will surely ease some of the damage done by retaining it and ease the damage done by it. Does that misuse not bother you at all? Because it certainly bothers me and many others.

Standard procedure when something gets misused and harms other is to try and limit that harm or remove the thing that's being misused entirely. Yet with religion it seems that making excuses is more important than preventing the misuse. And that's what I hear there, another excuse in a long line. It's quite shameful actually.

If you really want to keep it as history, fine, make sure it's kept as that: history and that people are educated that it's just history. As it stands, though, people will constantly use ecuses from the parts that should be historical in nature to harm others.

Edited by shadowhive, 09 January 2013 - 03:23 AM.

[Simbi Laveau]

Its Tim Tebow who's the ***** .An alleged virgin no less . Let's sacrifice him in the next Cabin in the Woods movie ,please ...PLEASE .
Hes so pretentious ,I cannot stand him .

Children aren't even allowed to pray in school anymore,but its ok at a football game ...why ?
Big bucks say it is .So he does it,its all golden ,a gay man does it as a goof ,Ooowww ahhh,let's all get our panties in a bunch .

These are the people,according to that other thread about mental health,that are so ...stable ?
Yah,ok ...
DUUUHHHH

Edited by Simbi Laveau, 09 January 2013 - 03:57 AM.

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 03:15 AM, said:

The bible is supposedly the word of god and, effectively, law.

I agree with the first - the Bible is alleged to be the word of God.  The second, I do not agree - it is not "effectively, law".  Those are your words and do not represent what Christians believe.  Not all the Bible is law, there's plenty of exposition where no commands are made and we are left to evaluate for ourselves whether the actions were right or wrong or helpful or harmful.

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 03:15 AM, said:

By contrast that story of a general assaulting a bunker (in either war or peace time) is simply the recounting of events that happened. It's not commanding the reader to do it or not do it, it's simply stating what happened.

I was, of course, referring to Sean's comment about the passage in Ezekiel, it is God relaying a command to people at a specific time and place, and therefore directly comparable to a General giving his troops orders, stating what happened.

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 03:15 AM, said:

Now you say understanding the history is important. I don't necessarily disagree. However, as long as the history is left in the main body of the religious text, it will be misused. Having it as a seperate text will surely ease some of the damage done by retaining it and ease the damage done by it.

That's the thing, though - it is in separate texts.  The Bible is not just one single book.  It is a collection of 66 books written by approximately 40 different authors.  Some of it is history, and a large portion of it is not a command to us today in the year 2013, but instead simply a recounting of what happened in the past.  I can't help it that people choose to take a passage out of context to justify hate towards others.

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 03:15 AM, said:

Does that misuse not bother you at all? Because it certainly bothers me and many others.

Yes, it bothers me, but there's nothing I can do about it.  I can't force billions of people to read their holy text critically.  I can only do my best to ensure that I understand it myself and grow and learn as best I personally can.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Render, on 08 January 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

Is blasphemy still a thing worth discussing?

No, god dammit.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 09 January 2013 - 04:31 AM.