I found this video – and after laughing through several viewings, I had to share it. It’s a little late, but it’s a brief comedic musical putting California’s anti-gay Proposition 8 into perspective. It stars Maragaret Cho, Neil Patrick Harris, John C. Riley, and none other than Jack Black as Jesus. Don’t watch if you’re easily offended by comedy. Otherwise, click here.
December 3, 2008 at 8:58 pm |
hahahahahaha!
December 4, 2008 at 7:12 pm |
Absolutely amazing. Pure genius.
December 6, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
The shrimp / shellfish argument used in the video is full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address five serious problems with it in flaws of the shellfish argument.
Did you notice how the sodomy depiction in the video involved a woman in back? It was as if they thought using a guy would be too gross. Seems kinda homophobic of them.
December 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
Thanks for the comment. I just read your post. Very informative, but very flawed. According to my copy of Strong’s Concordance, the term ‘abomination’ in the original Hebrew was the same word in both verses. But even if it was a different word as you claimed – what does this have to do with you? Because I am gay, you go to lengths to assume that I have not studied the Scriptures or the words of Christ. Your are in error, my friend. I promise I have fought long and hard with this issue and have studied every verse quite more than you have.
The issue of Hebrew word origins aside, I just have to ask you one question; this question has nothing to do with word origins or Levitical law: Where is the grace and love and compassion that Christ commanded you to have?
The title on your blog says “Eternity matters.” Does it really matter to you, or is the only thing you care about is how much you can put others down? In your entire post you are wrapped up in word studies and legalism. You claim to be a ‘Christian’ – that is, follower of Christ. Can you please point to any bit of your research that shows that commitment to Christ?
Keep in mind – I’m not asking for commitments to Old Testament law, religious studies, or the words of the Apostle Paul – I’m talking about your commitment to Christ. There’s no love, forgiveness, or mercy anywhere in your post. There is damnation. Is your life so clean as to bring this, and then also so clean as to try to “witness” around to various blogs? You are not doing the work of Christ; you are a disciple of Satan, doing his bidding, doing your best to spread hate and contempt while ignoring the very foundations of love and grace and forgiveness.
Maybe, just maybe, if you truly followed Christ – you would be making a case for the poor and less fortunate or at the very least, approaching topics with love. We have not turned deaf ears to you, my friend, because we could not handle the truth. We are turning deaf ears to you because you approach us and spit at us with hate, THEN try to get us to listen to your words.
December 6, 2008 at 6:31 pm |
Thanks for visiting my blog and for taking the time to reply.
For starters, let me try your own reasoning out on your post and comment. You said, “Maybe, just maybe, if you truly followed Christ – you would be making a case for the poor and less fortunate or at the very least, approaching topics with love.” So why aren’t you doing that? After all, your post about the video did not contain any love and did nothing to help the poor. Do you see how some might consider your views to be inconsistent?
It has to do with me trying to understand what the text said. Does that seem illogical to you?
To knowledge we have never met, so I’m not sure how you arrive at any of those conclusions. My claim was that those who use the shellfish argument do so in error. If you use it then you are in error.
Please notice what you have just done here. You try to dismiss one argument of five, then you change subjects to an illogical personal attack. Why is my analysis of a biblical text evidence that I lack grace, love and compassion?
Your off topic attack continues here. Again, how about addressing the content of the post? If you claim to follow Christ then you should hold the view that the Old Testament is accurate down to the last letter, and you would want to understand the text properly. I could go on at length about the evidence for commitment to Christ but it would end up being prideful and counterproductive. You are just doing anything you can to change the subject.
If you claim to be a follower of Christ, then you should know that He is God and the author of all scripture. And the Bible is quite clear that God’s ideal for marriage is for one man and one woman and that homosexual and heterosexual behavior outside this relationship is a sin. So do you seek to follow Christ’s commands? Are you as committed to him as you challenge me to be below?
No, what you are doing is commiting the logical fallacy attacking the person, not the message (not to mention assuming what you should be proving and changing the subject).
Please explain to me why trying to properly understand a controversial text is doing the work of Satan. Even if I was in error that wouldn’t mean I was doing the work of Satan.
Countless sites and the Jack Black video advance the pro-gay interpretation of the Bible. Do you chastise them for hating orthodox Christians and for not spending their time helping the poor instead?
Do you believe Satan is real, or do you just throw that out to demonize your opponents?
I hope you’ll re-read your words and realize how they betray your real motives: Ignore the biblical arguments, accuse your opponents of hate, change the subject, etc.
Do you know how I spend my time? Do you know how much money I donate? Or do you just reflexively launch into attack mode to try to discredit those with the audacity to point out biblical truths?
And aren’t you being a bit hypocritical here? Instead of trying to attack me for explaining the Bible, shouldn’t you be out helping the poor?
December 6, 2008 at 7:23 pm |
1) I do not run a personal blog where I claim any religious beliefs. I do not run a blog where I claim to be portraying the message of Christ to the world. Therefore, unlike you, I do not hold the responsibility of making sure that what I say is full of grace and love. The blog is my personal views and what I find to be personally entertaining, insightful, or just plain interesting to me. Your blog portrays you as a follower of Christ – therefore content containing of the above would be your responsibility, not mine. In addition, I have come across several blogs denouncing the nature of that video, and I have not commented on them. I have taken a “to each your own” mentality, as it would have been (in my view) inappropriate to being a conversation that is in contrast with the blogger’s personal views. However, you came onto my blog, did the same thing I wouldn’t do, and opened the door. In the interest of conversation, I approved your message and responded to it. Do you not understand that when you go onto a blog that holds an obvious point of view other than your own, and post a comment with a link encouraging others to read your blog and why the intention of posting the video and its content are wrong, that someone might not be too happy about that?
2) Your work is the work of Satan, not Christ, because you are the best kind of Satan’s servants, at least when it comes to this issue: you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. When one comes in the guise of being a follower of Christ, but ends up spewing hate and then going to great lengths (to other people’s blogs) and propagating that hate, you are doing a greater harm to the Kingdom of Christ and a great favor to Satan.
3) Again, your argument is based in fiction, not fact, and your errant note that the word ‘abomination’ is different in both verses. I have a great appreciation for one who tries to understand things – and I even commend you for that – but twisting things once understood and then going into extremes is a different story.
4) You state, in your response to me, that the Bible clearly defines marriage to be heterosexual between one man and one women. Yes, there are examples of marriage being this way, but nowhere in the Bible is this defined. If you insist on this being Biblical truth, please provide the exact scripture reference. You won’t find it. Thus, you are treading on dangerous ground of proclaiming that the Bible, and therefore God, says something that it/He does not.
5) As stated above, I do not chastise the other sites for not being fans of the Jack Black video. I chastise them in their ignorance on the subject only when they approach me and open the door to the conversation.
6) We have never met, but my attack to you was personal, yes. Why? It was a personal attack from me to counter your personal attack to me. When you criticize the content of my site, that is a personal attack. When you post a link full of hate and ignorance on my blog for my readers to visit, that is a personal attack. When you place a link on a homosexual’s blog to an article you wrote where you belittle homosexuals and refer to their lifestyle as sinful, that is a personal attack. Can you appreciate this?
7) You are right – I have no idea how you spend your time, what you study, or what money you give to what organizations. But that isn’t the point here? I never judge a person on what their actions are on a piece of paper; I judge them by personal interactions. Judging from my personal interaction with you and what you claim to be on your site, I find you to by hypocritical.
I would be out helping the poor if I was claiming to live such a life as a follower of a person who heavily emphasized this. I don’t claim this. You do. So how am I being hypocritical?
December 7, 2008 at 10:42 am |
Neil,
Thank you for your reply … although I did find it very interesting that you completely dismissed my discussion of why opening the door to the argument by propagating your personal beliefs on other’s blogs – uninvited – would be received wrong by the visitor. To that point, you failed to post the reply on my blog as you did your first reply. Interesting.
The issue at hand, however, is that I stand correct in my stating that the Bible does not define marriage as one man and one woman. Both verses described, the Genesis quote and the Jesus quote, discuss love-making. They do not discuss marriage. I asked you for a verse that SPECIFICALLY backs up your assertion: Marriage is COMMANDED to be between one man and one woman ONLY. You and your friend failed to provide this.
What I said, however, was that there are verses where this is an example – on that end you both proved me right: you provided two examples.
You failed to provide the exact commandment/declaration as you both would like to interpret it; you failed to provide the quote from Christ that defines this to be an exclusive arrangement.
Most of all, you failed to provide the quote from Christ that affirms your tactics and attitude as being Christ-following.
And for someone who originally detested my own personal attacks, you and your friends are certainly serving up plenty of your own. Again, you are a gang of Pharisees, so pious in your own beliefs that you have to condemn others, and end up truly offending Christ more than helping Him.
Flame wars and attacks aside, let’s move onto something else I think we can both agree on: You are working on the assumption that the Bible is the error-free Word of God. You, and many other Christians, are working under the assumption that this Scriptural book is INDEED the end-all-be-all, word-for-word accurate, life guide that everyone MUST abide by.
I have my views on the Bible, many of which are positive, but I do not subscribe to this view of it. I believe it to have errors and be erronous in some places. I also am at a place in my own life where I have trouble listening to evangelical Christians who claim the Bible to be the end all be all, Islamists claiming the same for the Koran, the Mormons claiming the same for the Book of Mormon, the athiest claiming the same for the lack thereof, et cetera. In a way, you are faulting me and many others for failing to hold the Bible in this supreme authoritive state, when we never claimed to. Can you at least understand my point of view on this? I’m not asking you at all to agree with it – I’m just asking you to understand it.
I am not going to take my doubts around to other people and other blogs and hold them over the heads of others – my doubting beliefs in the authenticity of the Bible hold just as much weight as your beliefs in it. And honestly, Neil, I DO respect your beliefs and your perspectives … what i don’t respect is the continual effort of Christians to try to force their lifestyle and views on everyone else. I understand that Christ commands his followers to spread the Gospel, that’s fine. I respect you for the attempt. But when one is clearly not interested, why can you not respect their choice and then still have intelligent conversations them without condemnation? Is arguing with them until they break and convert or get pissed and walk away really the best way to go about this task?
Of course, you’ll probably dismiss my thought-out question with a quick, holier-than-thou self-important comment about how you are not obligated to answer such questions, or about how I am blind to the truth, or how I am prejudiced, or how you “see through to my real motives”, or some other personal attack – like you have everybody else. And by me, really, that’s okay. You began a discussion that you seem to be unwilling to actually engage in. And with that end result, your means of beginning the conversation were wrong, immoral evening.
I’m not claiming to believe the Scriptures are essential. I’m not claiming to believe in the same Christ you do. So why hit me over the head for it? I’m not a fraud, I’m being transparent. You just end up looking stupid when you condemn people for not believing what they never claimed to believe.
I really don’t know why I continue to battle with Christians about this matter – the results are always the same. I’m not attempting to convert you to my views; I just want to have an intelligent TWO-WAY conversation; maybe I’m wrong about you and you CAN engage in that. But at least I still try to actually hold the conversation with your kind of people; I still try to actually learn and discuss things on a personal level, even with all of my past experience and frustration.
That’s more than I can say for the Christians.
December 7, 2008 at 6:34 pm |
[...] Simpson, a conservative Christian, on the issue of marriage. Neil first came to me and posted a comment on my blog inviting my readers to check out his blog that was in general protest of some of the content of the [...]