The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **Keb** » Fri May 25, 2012 4:21 pm

As Christians, we know that homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27).

Okay, I see it now. One scripture.

Here is the verse:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

McDarkseid wrote:Canada may be different, but Christian sects here at least can't seem to really agree on what specific scripture they profess to follow or not follow, so it's hard to generalize a set of their specific beliefs. Generally the rule of holding others to a higher standard than you aim for personally is the key.

Agreed. As someone raised in a Christian home by a pastor who ultimately gave up the label, I disagree with a lot of the bible. The specific scripture up there, and the works of Paul in particular, are ones that I don't think Christians should subscribe to for the most part. That man was an oppressor and a dick.

Still, a good satire might have taken the context of that chapter of Romans and ran with it, as most of the chapter talks about wickedness.

by **alaska1125** » Fri May 25, 2012 4:25 pm

Eh...I thought it was pretty funny. :smt102

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Fri May 25, 2012 4:26 pm

I disagree Keb. You are giving too much credit to the Moms, as their entire point of view on this is wildly misinformed. Have you read their original statement? It was full of a ton of poorly thought out assumptions about comic books and their audience, and I think making the same types of generalizations and out of context leaps of logic about their beliefs is in itself hilarious.

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Fri May 25, 2012 4:29 pm

Also, I was raised Catholic, and I never got the memo that you are supposed to ignore everything in the Old Testament. I think that sounds like liberal revisionist crap to me, and Catholics are the original Christians, so that trumps your experience. IMO. YMMV.

by **Regulator** » Fri May 25, 2012 4:46 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:Also, I was raised Catholic, and I never got the memo that you are supposed to ignore everything in the Old Testament. I think that sounds like liberal revisionist crap to me, and Catholics are the original Christians, so that trumps your experience. IMO. YMMV.

In actuality, Jesus says several times that the old laws still apply.

“"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” - Matthew 5:17-19

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." - Luke 16:17

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." - 2 Peter 20-21

And when people question him, he takes them to task for not killing children that disrespected their parents and says that you should gouge your eyes out if you look at someone with lust.

by **Keb** » Fri May 25, 2012 5:07 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:Also, I was raised Catholic, and I never got the memo that you are supposed to ignore everything in the Old Testament. I think that sounds like liberal revisionist crap to me, and Catholics are the original Christians, so that trumps your experience. IMO. YMMV.

Not ignore, change. You are twisting words to be funny. Settle down ThanosCopter Jr.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:I disagree Keb. You are giving too much credit to the Moms, as their entire point of view on this is wildly misinformed. Have you read their original statement? It was full of a ton of poorly thought out assumptions about comic books and their audience, and I think making the same types of generalizations and out of context leaps of logic about their beliefs is in itself hilarious.

Perhaps I am giving them too much credit, but at the same time I only really became aware of this last night at like 1am when I joined some facebook group and got 19 emails in my inbox. So no, I didn't see OneMillionMoms' original statement. While I don't agree with OneMillionMoms, I can't say I wholly agree with Marvel and DC making "Gay" an issue. In my opinion it's a non-issue and shouldn't be used for publicity.

Anyhow, on to the article itself, which I think is a poor attempt at "satire". It could be considered humor, but what it really does is go low to make insults. That isn't what satire is, and we both know that. It was just poorly written humor that attempted to make fun of one group by calling them "hypocrites", only it didn't call them hypocrites it just kind of made fun of the group by taking outdated information and spitting it back out with no originality.

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Fri May 25, 2012 5:12 pm

I think you are taking this way too seriously.

I wrote a response that contains their original message yesterday. It is also on the front page.

by **Regulator** » Fri May 25, 2012 5:23 pm

Keb wrote:Anyhow, on to the article itself, which I think is a poor attempt at "satire". It could be considered humor, but what it really does is go low to make insults. That isn't what satire is, and we both know that. It was just poorly written humor that attempted to make fun of one group by calling them "hypocrites", only it didn't call them hypocrites it just kind of made fun of the group by taking outdated information and spitting it back out with no originality.

Except they are hypocrites and it's not outdated.

by **Keb** » Fri May 25, 2012 5:30 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:I think you are taking this way too seriously.

I wrote a response that contains their original message yesterday. It is also on the front page.

That was the statement I read earlier.

As for your article, I think it was basically "Oh yeah, well you smell like poo."

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Fri May 25, 2012 5:31 pm

Keb wrote:That was the statement I read earlier.

As for your article, I think it was basically "Oh yeah, well you smell like poo."

And I don't think they deserved anything more.

by **Keb** » Fri May 25, 2012 5:37 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:

And I don't think they deserved anything more.

I don't think they deserved any recognition.

by **Lord Ice** » Fri May 25, 2012 5:43 pm

Seduction of the Innocent 2: Same Evils, New Idiots :-D

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Fri May 25, 2012 5:48 pm

Keb wrote:I don't think they deserved any recognition.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here. :lol:

We run a comic book website that has recently begun trying to report on the "news" of the industry with a humorous slant. Should I have ignored it so that someone could make a thread linking to CBR's boring article and talk about it? Should we have deleted those threads and banned talking about it? I think we made the write call in writing articles mocking them that amused us and others.

by **Keb** » Fri May 25, 2012 5:58 pm

A humorous slant is okay if it's a humorous slant. I've found very little humor in the site and more cheap shots coupled with poor writing. All in all, it's more like an attempt to be unique and original while being completely unexceptional and unoriginal.

I also think it discredits a lot of your writers who work hard for the site.

Maybe it's just me though, but it definitely solidifies my reasoning for not wanting to write for the site and also solidifies my reasoning for not bothering with the front page.

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Fri May 25, 2012 6:14 pm

Keb wrote:A humorous slant is okay if it's a humorous slant. I've found very little humor in the site and more cheap shots coupled with poor writing. All in all, it's more like an attempt to be unique and original while being completely unexceptional and unoriginal.

I also think it discredits a lot of your writers who work hard for the site.

Maybe it's just me though, but it definitely solidifies my reasoning for not wanting to write for the site and also solidifies my reasoning for not bothering with the front page.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I will consider going back to copying and pasting 10 press releases a day. Why should I enjoy writing?

Any satire on a comic book news story should be as good as Voltaire or GTFO.