Current Events > How liberals seek to erase Christian culture: an anecdote

(+) Yeah! (+)

ThePieReborn posted...

I don't really care about "muh oppression" arguments.

The text is unimportant so long as the themes of the piece remain intact.

Literally just said the text of a Shakespeare play is unimportant.

Literally misconstrued my statement.

Though, as a tangent, I frankly don't give two shits about Shakespeare in general.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

What a dumb topic. Also, Christians must have loved all of those men kissing men scenes in Shakespeare's plays.

You do know Shakespeare and his entire audience were Christians, right?

ThePieReborn posted...

Literally misconstrued my statement.

Literally didn't.

KhanJohnny posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

What a dumb topic. Also, Christians must have loved all of those men kissing men scenes in Shakespeare's plays.

You do know Shakespeare and his entire audience were Christians, right?

But you just said he was secretly Catholic.


---

Literally did, given that there was a qualifier attached there that you deliberately chose to ignore.
---

slimfizzle2 posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

What a dumb topic. Also, Christians must have loved all of those men kissing men scenes in Shakespeare's plays.

You do know Shakespeare and his entire audience were Christians, right?

But you just said he was secretly Catholic.

Catholics are Christians, silly.

back in the day there were no land walkers

us humans walking on the land is erasing culture and changing history
---

ThePieReborn posted...

Literally did, given that there was a qualifier attached there that you deliberately chose to ignore.

You just edited that in dude lmao

Error1355 posted...

back in the day there were no land walkers

us humans walking on the land is erasing culture and changing history

Even funnier the third time

It was in the post you quoted. Notice that "so long as the themes of the piece remain intact?"

That was the qualifier. You quoted it and deliberately chose to ignore it in favor of your "Christians are so oppressed D=" schtick.
---

ThePieReborn posted...

It was in the post you quoted. Notice that "so long as the themes of the piece remain intact?"

That was the qualifier.

You can maintain the themes of his pieces which are fairly simple and change the text entirely beyond recognition.

You might as well say the Lion King literally is Hamlet because it kept the themes intact.

back in the old days there was no life on earth

us being alive is trying to erase no life culture on earth and is trying to change history
---

KhanJohnny posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

Garioshi posted...

Why are you ok with women acting in his plays at all?

There is a large distinction between cast diversity and actually changing the text of the play.

There literally isnt.

Next time there's a public reading of the Declaration of Independence, demand that they change it to "All people". We must be consistent.

It is obviously irrelevant what the author put on the page.

Do you take issue with the changing of the constitution via amendmends or the interpretative work of the supreme court that grants rights not explicitly mentioned therein?

If someone wants to do an interpretative piece on the declaration of independence, what would be the issue with changing the wording?

Never heard of interpretative works of the DoI, though, so youre being a dishonest, conniving little dwimmerlaik, though.

No I don't have a problem with amending the Constitution, a legal text.

The Declaration is different, as it is not a document with any legal meaning. It's a historical statement whose language has literary value.

Okay so you agree with me and are shitposting on purpose.

Error1355 posted...

back in the old days there was no life on earth

us being alive is trying to erase no life culture on earth and is trying to change history

Fourth times the charm, they always say

Error1355 posted...

back in the old days there was no life on earth

us being alive is trying to erase no life culture on earth and is trying to change history

As strong an argument as the first time. TC keeps shitting his pants trying to debunk it lmao.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

Garioshi posted...

Why are you ok with women acting in his plays at all?

There is a large distinction between cast diversity and actually changing the text of the play.

There literally isnt.

Next time there's a public reading of the Declaration of Independence, demand that they change it to "All people". We must be consistent.

It is obviously irrelevant what the author put on the page.

Do you take issue with the changing of the constitution via amendmends or the interpretative work of the supreme court that grants rights not explicitly mentioned therein?

If someone wants to do an interpretative piece on the declaration of independence, what would be the issue with changing the wording?

Never heard of interpretative works of the DoI, though, so youre being a dishonest, conniving little dwimmerlaik, though.

No I don't have a problem with amending the Constitution, a legal text.

The Declaration is different, as it is not a document with any legal meaning. It's a historical statement whose language has literary value.

Okay so you agree with me and are shitposting on purpose.

No I don't particularly agree with your unnecesary inflammatory language. It's the sign of a weak mind.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Error1355 posted...

back in the old days there was no life on earth

us being alive is trying to erase no life culture on earth and is trying to change history

As strong an argument as the first time. TC keeps shitting his pants trying to debunk it lmao.

Why would I debunk it or even try? It doesn't make any sense.

But you didnt refute me that its okay for interpretative works of the DoI to change its wording.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

But you didnt refute me that its okay for interpretative works of the DoI to change its wording.

It isn't okay. It would be a disgrace because that isn't what Jefferson wrote and it sullies the literary quality of the text.

And yet this apparently soulshattering alteration of 'men' to 'all people' affects... jack-all squat.

Just like having a female priest.
---

Do you ever watch movies based on books since theres no such thing as a movie that doesnt change the original text?

back in the old days the united states didn't exist

the constutition is an attack on british culture and trying to change and erase history
---

Error1355 posted...

back in the old days the united states didn't exist

the constutition is an attack on british culture and trying to change and erase history

The Magna Carta is an attack on the monarchical culture! D=<
---

ThePieReborn posted...

And yet this apparently soulshattering alteration of 'men' to 'all people' affects... jack-all squat.

Just like having a female priest.

Since it affects "jack-all squat" I wonder why people change these things in the first place. Evidently, they feel that it does have an effect. I agree with them.

Who knows why people do anything.

I sure as fuck don't, and I don't care to know.
---

ThePieReborn posted...

Error1355 posted...

back in the old days the united states didn't exist

the constutition is an attack on british culture and trying to change and erase history

The Magna Carta is an attack on the monarchical culture! D=<

It's weird that you both think these statements are ironic or somehow untrue.

Liberals ruined Star Wars, why didn't we get the hot Asian chick.

Your umbrage stems from the notion that deviation from tradition=bad. Thus the hungover posting on my part.
---

ThePieReborn posted...

Your umbrage stems from the notion that deviation from tradition=bad. Thus the hungover posting on my part.

I have never held that deviation from all tradition is bad.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Do you ever watch movies based on books since theres no such thing as a movie that doesnt change the original text?

NibeIungsnarf posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Do you ever watch movies based on books since theres no such thing as a movie that doesnt change the original text?

In general, movies based on books change and adapt the plot by necessity to fit the media form, not to make political statements.

Yet your knickers are in a twist over minor deviations/alterations in this topic. If such minor issues are so outrageous, that casts a pretty wide umbrella.
---

back in the day the bible didn't exist

the bible is trying to erase the old gods culture and trying to change history
---

KhanJohnny posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Do you ever watch movies based on books since theres no such thing as a movie that doesnt change the original text?

In general, movies based on books change and adapt the plot by necessity to fit the media form, not to make political statements.

So when you like it its okay but when you dont you shit your pants and cry.

Got it.

Oh the irony, you know if there was a wedding in a Shakespeare play back in his day it would be two men getting married as all the roles were played by men.
---

Imagine spending your Saturday in defense of this absolutely shoddy argument.

Summary of the topic: TC is in favor of some breaks of tradition but not this one in particular. I could spend hours here trying to tap away at the plaster encasing his brain, but I don't think anything would really come of it but frustration.
---

Conflict posted...

He's also transphobic and outright says he supports them getting less rights so him trying to act moral on any subject is pure comedy

When did I say they deserve less rights

Sorry to burst you bubble TC, but at some point in history male actors played female roles
---

creativerealms posted...

Oh the irony, you know if there was a wedding in a Shakespeare play back in his day it would be two men getting married as all the roles were played by men.

Oh Lord. Men marrying men. I'm getting me the vapors.

*fans self*
---

Its well known that professional theatre troupes in Renaissance England included male actors only, so that the roles of, for instance, Juliet, Rosalind, Lady Macbeth, and Cleopatra were first played by boys.

lol literal WTF at the 1600s.

Look, the play should be based on what Shakespeare wrote.
he wrote Juliet was a women, she should be played by a women, if he wrote that a preist was a man,it should be a man.
---

I think they should have had a turtle play the priest.

Imagine a cute little turtle in a priest outfit marrying someone.

Edit: Though it has to be a male turtle. Remember that.
---

DoubleDare posted...

Its well known that professional theatre troupes in Renaissance England included male actors only, so that the roles of, for instance, Juliet, Rosalind, Lady Macbeth, and Cleopatra were first played by boys.

lol literal WTF at the 1600s.

Look, the play should be based on what Shakespeare wrote.
he wrote Juliet was a women, she should be played by a women, if he wrote that a preist was a man,it should be a man.

Shakespeare wrote Juliet as a woman played by a man because he knew that that was how it would be performed and never gave notes that it should be deviated from. To have Juliet played by a woman is clearly a political re-writing of Shakespeares text by people who think two men kissing es gross

Error1355 posted...

I think they should have had a turtle play the priest.

Imagine a cute little turtle in a priest outfit marrying someone.

Edit: Though it has to be a male turtle. Remember that.

---

KhanJohnny posted...

ledbowman posted...

There are lots and lots and lots of liberal Christians.

The most liberal churches are the ones that are dying the fastest which is not surprising because they have no discipline in their beliefs.

The church I grew up going to saw its under-40 attendance drop by three-quarters when they pulled out of the ELCA and joined NALC because ELCA was going to allow gay pastors as long as they were in monogamous relationships and NALC doesn't. Almost all the active members now are in their late 50's or older.

Lots of people in my generation and younger are tired of the shit constantly spewed about how gays or muslims (or anything "the church" doesn't approve of, basically) are evil or from the devil. I've known gay people and Muslim people, and none of them have tried to turn me gay or murder me while screaming "Allahu Akbar!"
---

What's "christian culture" anyway?
---