Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Christians protest over Glasgow play which shows Jesus as a trans woman

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Simon Murphy 4 Nov 2009, 12:58pm

    Hilarious. These christians really are intolerant @ssholes.

    Jesus is a fictional character. The christians protesting are merely displaying their stupidity and ignorance at how she (Jesus) is portrayed.

    Personally I’d like to see a film showing Jesus (as a man) getting intimate with Mohammed before Buddha enters and they all have a gang bang.

    Fictional characters do not merit any respect from people who don’t believe in them.

  2. Brian Burton 4 Nov 2009, 1:19pm

    Simon Murphy,
    Atheist Whacho, foaming at the mouth as usual. So you have no respect for fictional characters eh Sweet Simon? Not even James Bond or Rambo? What about Saint Patrick? The trouble with the protesters is that they (unlike me) think of God in human terms. Well, God in’nt human anyway, but Spirit, the Spirit I have embraced and sustains me through the troubled times we all have sometimes. No doubt atheist doctrine sustaines you Simon?

  3. I didn’t realise St Patrick was fictional… Anyway, I disagree with Simon — I think people’s beliefs should be respected, even those in fictional characters. However, that doesn’t mean people have a right not to ever feel offended. I think the spirit of this play is provocative, not offensive, and that is expressed quite clearly in the words of Glasgay!’s spokesperson. Besides, religion is so mainstream that it is part of everyone’s life experience so we all have an equal claim to glorify it or question it.

  4. Simon Murphy 4 Nov 2009, 2:03pm

    No 3: Valerio: ” I think people’s beliefs should be respected”

    I agree. But only if they show the same amount of respect to opposing beliefs which these cultists don’t.

    Christian cultists believe (without any evidence I might add) that ‘god’ sent his son Jesus to earth and Jesus died for our sins before he rose to heaven. So far, so good. No problem there.

    However this artist believes that Jesus was born a man and transitioned to a woman. Again no problem here.

    The christian morons display their utter ignorance and stupidity by showing up at a protest with a sign saying “”God: My son is not a pervert.”

    By displaying this sign they are inviting their opinions to be ridiculed and condemned as they are showing the EXACT same lack of tolerance as they think the artist in question.

    And Brian – no I don’t have respect for fictional characters. I may have respect for the creators of fictional characters but not the characters themselves.

    Whichever novelist (or group of novelists) who wrote the bible or koran deserve respect for learning how to read and write during an era of almost 100% illiteracy. But I have no more respect for Jesus or Mohammed than I do for the Tooth Fairy.

  5. Why not a transwoman or a transman would it be wrong?

    Is it not the bible all subjective and open to interpretation?

    Maybe the play writer is saying something about the life of a transperson and the comparison in the persecution of the two.

    In a society where the BNP are allowed freedom of speech and representation on newsnight why should this be shut down by fundies.

    It seems its OK for the Christians to have freedom of speech and expression but when we use it, its not allowed.

    If they want the right to call us fags and sodomites they must expect us to push back.

  6. vulpus_rex 4 Nov 2009, 2:33pm

    Murphy – Jesus is not a Fictional character, his existence is well attested by Non-Christian historians of the era.

    One might argue that some of the claims attached to him in the New Testament are contentious, but there is no doubt that a person who called himself Jesus of Nazareth, claimed to be the son of God and also claimed to perform miracles existed.

    I find almost all theatre tedious and certainly wouldn’t stoop to watching this drivel but I will make a few guesses:

    1) The play is probably appallingly written by a complete wannabe Z-Lister

    2) The plot is likely to be dreadful and full of the most obvious and cheap cliches about the treatment of Trans-people

    3) It will probably contain lots of gratuitous sex, nudity and foul-language in a hilariously provincial simulachrum of being daring and new.

    4)All of the above will be ignored by Glasgay and the local gay community who will lack the courage to tell the truth for fear of being labelled “Transphobic” or unsupportive of trans-issues

  7. Brian Burton 4 Nov 2009, 2:50pm

    Vulpus_Rex,
    A rather splendid comment, targeting a whacho atheist as Simon Murphy. It warmes my heary when someone (as I do) defends my christian belifes. I have started a group on ‘MY’ Pink, called ‘Christian Meltingpot.’ We have one or two atheists as members too, all are welcome, even Simon..he might learn something! Toodleoo!

  8. I would have thoght “Glasgay” could have used this oppotunity to write and produce a play that could have dealt with trans gender issues in a much more realistic way. “Jesus, Queen of Heaven” seems a strange plot and was bound to cause a stir. Pretty offensive to Christians i should imagine.

  9. Quite ironic of the catholic church to accuse the play of being offensive given that their bigoted views are at least equally as offensive.

  10. 21stCenturySpirituality 4 Nov 2009, 3:20pm

    It seems that the Christian Institute are very keen when it comes to standing up for freedom of speech and expression for themselves but when it comes to the freedom of conscience, thought and belief of those with whom they disagree its a different story. Surely an organisation that says it stands up for Christian beliefs represent ALL who profess a Christian Faith including those who are gay or lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, and those who are not fundamentalists or extremists or who dont use their religion to justify their prejudices, but rather to move beyond them. Why isnt the Christian Institute standing up for those Christians?

  11. 21stCenturySpirituality 4 Nov 2009, 3:23pm

    correction… should represent ALL who profess a Christian Faith

  12. No evidence has ever been found of the existence of Jesus or your God. All you can possibly say is a little evidence exist for the existence of Peter and Paul. But because Paul was in Rome and Peter was in Turkey is not proof positive Jesus ever existed.

    To misrepresent the contents of the play as Vulpus_Rex has is idiotic.

    Its a comparison of the supposed life and suffering of Jesus and the life and suffering of a transsexual that’s why they made Jesus trans. Its written by a transwoman not some Z-lister.

    If Jesus was real he must of been a gay man, after all what did all those guys do on the mountain tops together?

    And why did Jesus wash his disciples feet if it was not to look up their robes and look at their tackle!

  13. vulpus_rex 4 Nov 2009, 3:41pm

    “No evidence has ever been found of the existence of Jesus”

    Well that really does depend on what you call evidence doesn’t it.

    Suppose you choose not to believe the accounts of the new testament, then there are many Roman writers who refer to Jesus as does the most famous antiquarian Jewish historian, Josephus.

    That doesn’t mean that they agree with what he claimed but it is strong evidence that he was about at the time – and to be fair if you discount that then you might as well discount the existence of Julius Caeser, because that’s typical of the evidence to show he existed at the same time.

    PS – To suggest to a group of blokes that the only reason they hang round with each other is because they are closet homosexuals is infantile nonsense.

  14. “God: My son is not a pervert.”

    Oh, nice….

    Funny how these ‘christians’ seem to forget that Jesus wasn’t a bigot. What would they do without someone to pick on, the sad bast@rds?

  15. As much as it loathes me to say this maybe freedom of speech should only be allowed IF it is not purposely causing upset and harm to anyone else. Even if they clearly have a mental illness such as faith.

  16. If Christians have the right to call us gay people sinners, we in turn have the right to call them same or whatever we chose. However, their judgement seem to be saying we should be the one doing what their Christ adviced them…” turning the other cheek”; but they dont anyway.

    On other hand, I do see inferiority complex in these gay people who see it irresistable to remain in religion that despise them; i find it completely scornful. Must you be a Christian? And why regarding this Jesus as something of respect to the point of regard.

    Finally, I believe in a ‘force’ not quite God/s. And like someone earlier said, if gods be spirit, then it makes no sense reducing them to gender

  17. Vikki-Marie Gaynor 4 Nov 2009, 4:50pm

    THE protests are pointless, as I know many Trans with a stronger faith than any of the ppl in the protests, my friends have had to fight and in some cases BLEED to become reborn,, they need to GROW UP and learn to “love thy neighbour” no matter who they are or what gender orientation they have,
    where in the bible is ther any thing to repress … Read morepersonal expression, get off the sreet and into the seats, see what the play says and if it is not your cup of tea do not go again, but do not protest art,, or you may as well burn books again xx

  18. Andromeda 4 Nov 2009, 4:58pm

    “God: My son is not a pervert.”
    Did god say that ?..not as I know of so they are making that up. Isn’t that like saying all Muslims are terrorists?.
    So if they are implying that all trans are perverts..thats a hate crime in my books !!

  19. Personally I think it’s a load of bollocks. “This artist believes that Jesus was born a man and transitioned to a woman…” What is this? Star Trek??

  20. The publicity pack says this:

    “Jesus is a transsexual woman. And it is now she walks the earth. This is a play with music that presents her sayings, her miracles, and her testimony. And she does not condemn the gays or the queers or the trans women or the trans men, and no, not the straight women nor the straight men neither. Because she is the Daughter of God, most certainly, and almost as certainly the son also. And God’s child condemns nobody. She can only love.”

    Its not really something for Christians to start flagellating themselves over is it. After all they themselves have presented gospel messages in the form of: Star Wars, Shureshank Redemption, The Simpsons, The Matrix and Star Trek.

    Most churches present bible stories to children in a cartoon with talking fruit as the bible characters, Its called Veggie Tales. Where are the protests that Jesus was not a tomato?

    So if Jesus can be portrayed as Bart Simpson or a vegetable why not a transwoman?

  21. Don’t trust the Xians – keep an eye on the Christian fifth columnists in our midsts.

  22. “God: My son is not a pervert.”

    So the holder of this placard believes transexuals are perverts, simply for existing.

    Could this person at least not be prosecuted for comments like that?

  23. J mathews 4 Nov 2009, 5:58pm

    ALL religion is just superstition. I find it hard to believe that grown adults can be so deluded as to believe anything to do with any religion. It’s all just made up, just like santa claus.

    As for Jesus, christians cling to tenuous evidence of the flimsiest sort, that there really was a guy called Jesus at some stage in history, but who he was, what he was, nobody not even the pope actually knows.

    Just a point, the nativity (about the virgin birth and Mary and Joseph in the stable etc…) is written about by different sources within the bible, thousands of years apart. The different accounts tell very different stories. No account in the bible was actually written by someone who was ACTUALLY at the birth. Which IS odd, considering the importance christians attach to the birth of the carpenter called jesus who apparently went on to think he was magic.

    It is pure drivel – but most christians don’t seem to read the bible, or seem to just choose to ignore the many, many inconsistencies therein.

    The bible is full of hatred, child murder, prostitution, slavery, bigotry, discrimination against the disabled and genocide – all apparently at the request of this imaginary god – what a nice guy.

    Abraham, who is important to christians, apparently, even tied his own son up, and tried to murder him. Which was nice.

    Deluded people are free to believe in whatever imaginary being/deity/god they wish. but when they call my life and me an “abomination”, then I think it’s only fair for me to ridicule them.

    I wish the play every success.

  24. vulpus_rex (6)

    “1) The play is probably appallingly written by a complete wannabe Z-Lister”

    Jo Clifford has written plays that have been performed on BBC Radio 3 and 4. I’m not sure if this would constitute a Z-Lister, but I would say that national radio stations that offer the quality of broadcasting as these two suggest that Jo is far from your ill-informed comment.

    2) The plot is likely to be dreadful and full of the most obvious and cheap cliches about the treatment of Trans-people

    In the preview I saw it was actually very cleverly written, humourous and contained no cliches about the treatment of anybody, just an interesting viewpoint based on, presumably, the author’s interpretation of biblical texts.

    3) It will probably contain lots of gratuitous sex, nudity and foul-language in a hilariously provincial simulachrum of being daring and new.

    It contains no gratuitous sex, nudity or foul language.

    4)All of the above will be ignored by Glasgay and the local gay community who will lack the courage to tell the truth for fear of being labelled “Transphobic” or unsupportive of trans-issues.

    All of your above will be ignored by Glasgay and the local gay community because it is clearly nonsense.

    The preview I saw was cleverly written, challenging and written from a very interesting perspective. I imagine that, somewhat like the hysterical over-reaction to ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ those that complain about it will not get past the title of the piece and view it with an open mind.

  25. They are free to protest this play, just as we are all free to pass judgement on them and their beliefs. It seems that some people on this comment page are rather hypocritical – Annoyed that those with faith would tar us all with the same brush, then move on to make sweeping generalisations about them right back. Such a shame.

  26. Brian Burton 4 Nov 2009, 6:50pm

    Its only a Arts Festival Play and it keeps the ‘Real Person Jesus’ alive in peoples’ minds. It also makes good debate as this is. Simon Murphy, you unwittinly promote Jesus in your ateist rants. People do not like to be told what to belive or what not to belive by atheist Zellots as yourself. One day you will realize this fact…or will you?

  27. Simon Murphy 4 Nov 2009, 7:53pm

    Vulpy – no 6: You say: ” there is no doubt that a person who called himself Jesus of Nazareth, claimed to be the son of God and also claimed to perform miracles existed.”

    I’m not disputing the existence of a man called Jesus of Nazareth who claimed to be the son of god and who performed miracles.

    Neither however am I disputing the existence of a man called David Icke who claimed the same thing.

    Both are frauds.

    It’s just that Jesus was lucky in that some clever novelist fictionalised his life and as a result loads of people believe in this work of fiction as the word of some unproveable ‘god’

  28. Simon Murphy 4 Nov 2009, 7:55pm

    So for a transexual woman to claim to be the daughter of god is no different than David Icke or Jesus of Nazareth claiming to be the son of god. All are engaging in tall tales for the sake of their ‘art’

  29. Brian Burton 4 Nov 2009, 8:24pm

    Simon Murphy,
    Your arguments do not hold water. No person in this world, living or dead can be compared to Jesus Christ. Most religions in the world and there are a great number significantly centre on one man…Jesus. You Simon are out-voted dear heart. Two thousand years Jesus has graced us with his presence and I feel it. We filled the Albert Hall to sing songs of praise to Him. You Simon, atheist to the ‘end,’ for me the end will be a ‘new beginning!’

  30. Brian Burton 4 Nov 2009, 8:27pm

    Simon, PS.
    Jesus said beware of false prophets (Icke?) and many will come and speak in my name…don’t belive them!

  31. Better the devil you know! These fundies need to spend their time doing something – rather something that causes relatively less harm than what they could be doing if they had brains!

  32. Christina Engela 4 Nov 2009, 9:09pm

    Aren’t these “Christians” the same wankers that protested Jesus being portrayed as a black man? Makes you wonder.

    Is Jesus “too good” to be thought of as white, black, Jewish, gay or straight?

    Yes, sure it is insulting that Jesus is portrayed as a transwoman – after all, people like me are the “spawn of the devil”. What a bunch of gormless idiots.

    Yes, luckily they are that dumb, otherwise they would be actually threatening instead of wasting their time on minor things like entertainment issues!

  33. Brian, why do you and other christians feel the need to label anyone who is an atheist and who expresses that in words as ranting? With your own seemingly aggessive christianity you appear to align yourself with the self same fundamentalists who try at every opportunity to deny the LGBT community their rights. You do yourself no service by applying the logic of the fundamentalists to comments from others who don’t agree with your faith.

  34. Simon Murphy 4 Nov 2009, 11:53pm

    Brian – the bible was written thousands of years ago. It is strange that you should choose to believe in the star character of Part 2 of the book (the New Testament) as your saviour.

    Wouldn’t worshipping Lucky Santangelo (of Jackie Collins’ series of ‘Lucky’ books) be a more enjoyable character to worship?

    I’m not being rude but you seem unable to answer why the character of Jesus is the correct person to worship? What has he done that Harry Potter (Jesus) hasn’t done – Harry has fought off the evil Voldemort (Satan) after all?

  35. Simon Murphy 4 Nov 2009, 11:58pm

    And believe me. I have no issues with whatever or whoever a person wishes to worship or believe in.

    My problem begins when these people try to inflict their personal beliefs on people who don’t share them.

    I would never protest outside a catholic church with a sign that said ‘Catholic priests rape children’. Granted some of them do – but not all. At the same time it would be inappropriate and anti-social and rude to do so.

    These christians in Glasgow lack this compassion for their fellow human being by labelling this artist a ‘pervert’.

    These christians protesting in Scotland are anti-social, disrespectful morons.

  36. theotherone 5 Nov 2009, 12:25am

    to the jesuswasreal people:

    If we are to interpret the bible as truth on the life of christ then we must argue that he may have been born c36BC or possibly c100bc as two characters that crop up (Pilot and whatshisname that slaughters the innocents) belonged to these time periods.

    St Paul himself states that Christ didn’t exist.

    Christ fits into a Mythological Archetype that could be labeled ‘the semi-divine hero’ so perfectly he belongs at the table with the mythical founders of Rome, Adonis and several ‘Gods’ of Roman cults prevalent at the time of the early christian church.

    Now as to the play: it sounds funny and (I’m guessing) has quite a Spiritual punch.

  37. theotherone 5 Nov 2009, 12:31am

    Simon: the ‘hero’ figure i discussed Jesus in terms of can also be applied to Harry Potter:

    1. He is born of gods or godlike creatures
    2. is born in lowly circumstances or surroundings
    3. is brought up by people who are not his real parents
    4. who are of lower stock
    5. he enters into his birthright some time after puberty.

    I’m awaiting HP, like the Hero figure, being crucified and rising from the dead.

    Jesus, Harry Potter, Mithras…

  38. Jean-Paul Bentham 5 Nov 2009, 12:55am

    ‘Jo Clifford, who wrote the play and performs as Christ in the production, has defended her work.

    She said: “This is a play with music that presents her sayings, her miracles, and her testimony.”‘

    Live theatre! How interesting!

    Upcomimg superstar live theatre: Papal visit to Scotland & the UK.
    Mollions of dollars spent on costumes while African children die for lack of clean drinking water.

    There is NOTHING in religion that is nor covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…nothing…not one thing…hyet…rien.

    Long live Art…or else, strip Vatican City of all art…now, and that includes the wardrobes.

  39. theotherone 5 Nov 2009, 1:16am

    I’d love to strip the vatican of it’s art and house it in great galleries where people could flock to admire it’s beauty, the spiritual truth of great art…and then hear about the horrible bastards that hid it away from them for centuries.

  40. Jean-Paul Bentham 5 Nov 2009, 1:59am

    theotherone:

    Enfin, someone who speaks my language, sacré-bleu!

  41. To Brian Burton and the Christian Fifth Column of traitors to the gay cause:

    I am sure that a large number of less intelligent people filled the Royal Albert Hall to sing silly songs about Jesus of Nazareth. The mass of educated humanity however has better things to do – and you as a Christian are fundamentally a traitor to the cause of gay rights as the overwhelming majority of Christian churches are hostile to gay rights.

  42. Jean-Paul Bentham 5 Nov 2009, 3:33am

    Yo Harry!

  43. I hope it is very cold weather in Glasgow at the moment. That is a comfort to me, thinking of all those freezing christians outside the theatre. The play will do great boxoffice. Anything christians want banned does exceptionally well. Congratulations to the writer and the theatre company.

  44. Mihangel apYrs 5 Nov 2009, 8:17am

    theotherone/Jean Paul:

    leave it in the Vatican but kick out all the priests! The buildings are themselves works of art.

  45. Jean-Paul Bentham 5 Nov 2009, 9:20am

    Mihangel ap Yrs;

    Sounds good theoreticslly. Fact is, vatican buildings are in ruins.

    If the RCC wants to be heard on the internationsl scene, let them pass by the taxman like we all do to deserve equal human rights, and let them sell their their pie in the sky to angels and such, for imaginary money.

    Enough Mr. Nice Guy.

    But I ain’t bitter.

  46. Tim Hopkins 5 Nov 2009, 9:29am

    There’s an interview with Jo Clifford (herself a Christian churchgoer) in today’s Herald. Together with a review of her play at the end of the article – 3 stars in the print version although the online version leaves the star rating out. Rather more accurate one suspects than the review at comment #6 above which was based on no more than complete ignorance of the play and the bile of the comment writer.

    The Herald article is here.

  47. Jean-Paul Bentham 5 Nov 2009, 10:26am

    Number 6, one Vulpus_Rex does not have the courage to state his real name, and I doubt he has the finesse of the Latin language.

    What do you expect? He/she has got ahead as thick as a piece of Portland cement, and has a Masters degree on how to jump to conclusions. I believe the word is “idiotic”.

    But I ain’t bitter.

  48. Simon Murphy #35. Very good comment. Says it all. To me the people who protest do so because of their own inadequacies which they try to distarct themselves from by pointing the finger at others. Perhaps it makes them feel big? I don’t actually think they want to evangelise and spread ‘god’s message’ or whatever. Their purpose is to promote prejudice and try to encourage others to bully one section of humanity.

    Tim Hopkins – thanks for the link to the Herald. Interseting to read.

  49. theotherone 5 Nov 2009, 11:36am

    Jean-Paul Bentham:

    we could use some of the mountains of cash held by the Vatican to get the buildings in good working order and leave these as galleries?

    Just one point: I’ve not been attacked for stating ‘the truth’ about the existence of Christ. The Religious always run when you do this…

  50. vulpus_rex 5 Nov 2009, 11:41am

    @48 C’est pas vrai que je ne parle pas de Latin mais je parle aussi francais M. Canade ( ou plutot canard) et je te dis:

    Pierres et roches brisent les os, mais fou et-il qui a peur des mos.

    And for the record I do have a masters degree, in Theology as it happens.

  51. Jean-Paul Bentham 5 Nov 2009, 12:06pm

    @51:

    You have a Masters in Theology??? My ass. What was your final mark; D-? A masters degree denotes an open mind, don’t it?

    “Je suis ce que je suis, mais je ne suis pas ce que je suis; si j’étais ce que que je suis, je ne serai pas ce que je suis.”

    And please spare me the proverbial: “I already heard that one!”.

    Moreover,an educated man does not jump to conclusions the way you do, Cynthia.

    Up yours!

    And that’s Messieur Canada to you, moron.

  52. Jean-Paul Bentham 5 Nov 2009, 12:07pm

    And your French sucks!

  53. vulpus_rex 5 Nov 2009, 12:19pm

    Shadow; and if my french sucks that much how come I can still correct yours M. Canard. It is spelt Messieur(s)and isn’t really appropriate unless you have schizophrenia, which think now I think about it….

  54. A review of the play as linked by Tim Hopkins above:
    ================================================================
    “So is Clifford’s play, presented here as part of the Glasgay! festival, as controversial as it is made out to be? Is it really a blasphemous affront to Christianity? The answer on both counts would seem to be no.”

    “Sure, it is an unconventional interpretation of Jesus’s life: one which transposes the gender of the Messiah from male to female. But then interpretation is what the Christian faith is founded on.”

    “Other than that, ­Clifford’s monologue – which is delivered to an audience seated on three sides at linen-­covered tables resembling The Last ­Supper – is a far-from-­shocking, ­moving, at times narratively ramshackle mix of modernised parables, gospel, autobiographical snippets and pleas for compassion, love and tolerance of others that echo Jesus’s teachings, rather than denigrating them.”

    “As one protester vehemently declared to me: “I don’t need to go down a sewer to know that it sinks.” Well, quite.”

    “But you might want to at least see the play you’re damning before throwing the first stone.”
    ==============================================================
    Maybe vulpus_rex would take this opportunity to apologise for the remarks in No6

    “I find almost all theatre tedious and certainly wouldn’t stoop to watching this drivel but I will make a few guesses:

    1) The play is probably appallingly written by a complete wannabe Z-Lister

    2) The plot is likely to be dreadful and full of the most obvious and cheap cliches about the treatment of Trans-people

    3) It will probably contain lots of gratuitous sex, nudity and foul-language in a hilariously provincial simulachrum of being daring and new.

    4)All of the above will be ignored by Glasgay and the local gay community who will lack the courage to tell the truth for fear of being labelled “Transphobic” or unsupportive of trans-issues”

  55. Jean-Paul Bentham 5 Nov 2009, 12:44pm

    “Shadow; and if my french sucks that much how come I can still correct yours M. Canard. It is spelt Messieur(s)and isn’t really appropriate unless you have schizophrenia, which think now I think about it….”

    Corrections in English:

    “french’ should read “French”;

    “yours M. Canard” should read “yours, M. Canard”;

    “how come” should read “why”;

    “Messieur’ in French is correct, equivalent to Mister en Anglais;

    The phrase “which think now I think about it….” has absolutely no meaning no matter hoe you turn the words around and denotes you had one too many Martinis for lunch, your majesty.

    Blow it out your ear, and stick to the subject, you unmitigated bigot. Masters in Theology…ah! You can barely write high school English, let alone decent Latin…vulpex_rex…what a farce!

  56. Brian Burton 5 Nov 2009, 1:59pm

    Vulpus_Rex,
    You love to tell us on here how well educated you are (Confidentially Mon Ami, I’ve been told by a Frenchman, your ‘French’leaves something to be desired!!) Still, degrees in theology do not make you a Doctor of Divinity now dose it? You are always digging holes for yourself Vulpus and toppling into them. Your ‘Con’party is split, there is already resignations…good-by election! And good-by Vully I must leave you!

  57. theotherone 5 Nov 2009, 2:12pm

    masters in Theology?

    Master in Masturbation more like…

    Bloody Lack Wits!

    Theology is a bastard version of philosophy. I used History, Sociology and Folklore to disprove the existence of Jesus as a Historical figure and he runs for cover under the tarp of THEOLOGY!

    Since we’re on the subject of Philosophy:

    Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does repeatedly find a vindictive fury against those people who did not listen to his preaching – an attitude that is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence.

    Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian (Routledge, 1996.)

  58. Jean-Paul Bentham 5 Nov 2009, 2:57pm

    theotherone reads Bertrand Russell! Who knew??

    But…but….but….où est notre ‘scholar’, the royal walrus?

  59. vulpus_rex 5 Nov 2009, 3:27pm

    “to disprove the existence of Jesus as a Historical figure”

    Not on this thread you haven’t. You cast doubt on the historical accuracy of the bible, and I assume more specifically the New Testament’s accounts of Jesus’ life and the claims made about him therein.

    I’m not sure this proves that Jesus as a historical figure didn’t exist especially when that existence is recounted in other non christian texts.

    Brian – M Canard’s opinion of my french is worth merde, he speaks Canadian argot after all. I may speak with a Swiss accent but it’s nothing like the horrible noise they make in Quebec.

  60. theotherone 5 Nov 2009, 4:01pm

    Dear, Dear Volpone:

    Christ exists but didn’t exist in the way the Bible says but even if you disprove his Biography then you do not disprove him.

    If the Biblical Jesus is not the real Jesus then which one is it? How can we know this Jesus who is not the Biblical Jesus and therefore and not be the figure that the Early Church rested on (that is if the Early Church believed Jesus was a real figure and not an allegorical one.)

    nowe I’m sure I’ve got something about those other texts which I can look out…

    I know one thing – the supposed evidence I know of deducts from the following rather problematic Logical construct: if Christians existed therefore Christ was real.

  61. theotherone 5 Nov 2009, 4:09pm

    Josephus: the text shows signs of being altered at a later date at the very points he discusses Christ.

    Tactus: does not state references and could be quoting a belever and not a verifiable source

    Pliny: discuses Christians but not Christ.

  62. Simon (no. 4), late response, I know…

    “I agree. But only if they show the same amount of respect to opposing beliefs which these cultists don’t.”

    I think you must show respect to everybody. It doesn’t mean you need to give in to their demands but insulting them just because you feel they’re insulting you is not on. Be the bigger man :)

  63. vulpus_rex 5 Nov 2009, 5:23pm

    Well I studied Theology some time ago so the information about Josephus et al. wasn’t around then perhaps, even so and taken together, none of this discredits the idea that non-christians around the time of Jesus were writing about such a person and the likelihood is that he therefore existed.

    Whether you accept what the gospels tell us about him is a different matter entirely. They will never be proved factually or historically correct so any acceptance of their truth is an act of faith rather than evidence based conclusion, and the significant majority of Christians would say the same.

  64. Jean-Paul Bentham 5 Nov 2009, 6:37pm

    Vulpus_rex:

    For the record, Messieur Canada is not, has never been and will never be a Québecois. Not that there’s anything wrong with being a Québecois, and if you knew anything about Canada, which you don’t, you would know that not all French Canadians are Québecois.

    And nobody was writing about Jesus. Josephus’ account of Jesus has been proven to be a forgery.

    James Barrie’s Peter Pan is more credible, and don’t argue with your ‘superiors’. Imbécile. Sans dessein! Niaisseux! Nono! Trou d’cul! And there’s more where that came from, you snobbish idiot!

  65. vulpus_rex 5 Nov 2009, 7:00pm

    M. canard – Je suis completement d’accord qu’il y a beaucoup plus du meme genre – va te faire foutre par example.

    “And nobody was writing about Jesus.” ???? Tu as malcompris comme d’hab, et je t’avis de ne parles pas de ce que tu n’en sais foutre rien.

  66. The enduring fascination of Jesus – for many Christians and non-Christians alike – is precisely that the New Testament offers no coherent or systematic view of him – something reflecting the assorted and often conflicting agendas of the early church. Ignoring this contradictory complexity is characteristic of Biblical literalists and other theological authoritarians, as is their insistence that they have copyright over public representation and interpretation of him. The historical Jesus would find most Christian beliefs about him quite baffling. Good for Jo Clifford. Let many Jesuses proliferate in our culture. It enriches us all, Christians and non-Christians alike.

  67. Brian Burton 5 Nov 2009, 7:57pm

    All this talk of Jesus, someone I belive in implicitly. What do any of you know? Like all poetical natures, he liked ignorant people. He knew that in the soul of an ignorant person there is always room for a great idea. He was’nt keen on stupid people, especially those who are made stupid by education – people who are full of opinions, not one of which can they understand. Some people think they hold the key of knollage but use it without accompanying wisdom.

  68. theotherone 5 Nov 2009, 9:22pm

    BB: he was especially not keen on people who didn’t follow him to the letter and damned them all to hell.

    A poetical person? Don’t make me laugh, he had all the subtlety of a fist.

    Oh and Vulpone: no one was writing about him and the data was available when you where studying – unless you’re allot older than you think as the data I quoted was firstly proposed over 60 years ago and please, don’t do the ‘faith’ thing – you argued Jesus was a historical person and you’ve been proven wrong. To believe in something for which there is no proof is a sure sign of mental illness. Now I believe in fine British tailoring but even the best Tailor isn’t God (though they, like Jesus, may be Jewish.)

  69. Jean-Paul Bentham 6 Nov 2009, 3:25am

    Vulpus_rex:

    “May your heart never be vain because of what you know.
    Take counsel from the ignorant as well as the wise.”

    -Ptahhotep (c. 2414 – 2375 BC)

    And to supplement your Masters in Theology:

    Truth about Religion; Parts 1,2,3

    http://www dot youtube.com/watch?v=TjGkRFFBd0A

    http://www dot youtube.com/watch?v=A_E0vfP79yE

    http://www dot youtube.com/watch?v=pyXIeB1qI6w

    Also, just as you would kindly correct my English, here are a few corrections to your most recent attempt to use “la langue de Voltaire”, which of course I find quite admirable in itself, not to mention that to call a Frenchman ‘a canard’ is to bestow a properous and well-travelled life on him/her. There is actually a charming folk song about that very thing. How kind of you.

    Now in your post 66 you said:

    “M. canard – Je suis completement d’accord qu’il y a beaucoup plus du meme genre – va te faire foutre par example.”

    In good French, you should have said:

    “M. Canard, je suis complètement d’accord qu’il existe un grand nombre d’expressions semblables; par exemple, ‘Va te faire foutre'”.

    The word ‘foutre’, btw, means ‘to do nothing all day’. And when you use the words ‘same’ and ‘completely’ in French, be sure to use the proper accents, e.g. ‘même’, ‘complètement’.

    Also, the word “example” in French is an Anglicism; in French we spell it “exemple”, nest-ce pas?

    Then you said: “Tu as malcompris comme d’hab, et je t’avis de ne parles pas de ce que tu n’en sais foutre rien.”

    Sorry,total nonsense. Check this out:

    “Vous n’avez rien compris comme d’habitude, et je vous conseillerais de ne pas parler de ce que vous ignorez.”

    In the first place, since you began with the formal M. Canard, the same formality should be carried throught to your second sentence, e.g. “Vous n’avez rien compris…” and not “Tu n’as rien compris…”

    No French dictionary in the world contains the words “malcompris”, and “d’hab”.

    As for your last sentence, M. Regina:

    “…je t’avis de ne parles pas de ce que tu n’en sais foutre rien.”, you are using the noun “avis” as a verb (catastrophic blunder).

    You should have used the verb “aviser” in which case you would have said, “Je t’avise”, but you didn’t. A typo, I’m sure.

    Your expression “de ne parles pas” is both inverted and meaningless. You should have said: “de ne pas parler”, in which case you would have been using the infinitive of the verb “parler” following the preposition “de”, instead of its 2nd person singular form, e.g., “tu parles” which does not apply in this case (catastrophic blunder).

    Moreovwe, the expression: “…de ce que tu n’en sais foutre rien.” is a tired attempt at a direct translation from the English which appears to be saying “…of which you know nothing at all”.

    To take it from the top, a proper French sentence would have read:

    “M. Canard, je suis complètement d’accord qu’il existe un grand nombre d’expressions semblables; par exemple, ‘Va te faire foutre’. Vous n’avez rien compris, comme d’habitude, et je vous conseillerais de ne pas parler de ce que vous ignorez.”

    As for the finesse of the Latin from which the French language derives, an educated Frenchperson would use the same form of subject in both parts of a complex sentence, so that you’re second sentence, which is complex because of the use of the conjunction “et”, should read:

    “Vous n’avez rien compris, comme d’habitude, et vous seriez bien conseillé de déguiser votre ignorance silencieusement.”

    If this were a quiz, M. Regina, I would have to score you 2/10.

    Where exactly did you study French in Switzerland, and again, what was your final mark?

    Of course, this entire French lesson would not have taken place had you refrained from exposing your own pride (post 6) in an attempt to analyse a play which you had neither seen nor read, thus exposing both your prejudice as well as your pretentiousness.

    Pride and Prejudice…m-m-m… sounds like a good title for a book.

    And always remember the eternal words of Dante:

    “Chi va piano, va sano, et anche lontano.”

    In the future, kindly express your ignorance silently, or I shall have to delve into the delicious Latin of 2nd century Rome, and you above all others should know how precisely Juvenal has hit the nail sqarely on the head when exposing the foibles of pretentious and reactionary personalities.

    Finally, you have to see Jo’s play now, don’tcha? I’ll be expecting your intelligent comments, in the language of your choice, bien entendu.

  70. Brian Burton 6 Nov 2009, 8:06am

    Theotherone,
    ‘Jesus was not keen on people who did’nt follow him to the letter and damned then all to hell?’…. You knew Jesus personally of course in order to express such an opinion?….I don’t think so, such a crass, uninteligent opinion as that belongs in the gutter of religious opinion. Although, Jesus did not object to stupid people as you, he did not like the educated, they would sound off without any accompanying wisdom.

  71. Andreas Firewolf 6 Nov 2009, 9:53am

    In my opinion, homo-sexuality and trans-sexuality are just variations of nature, no big deal. But why should Jesus be pictured like this?
    In the Netherlands one ‘poet’ made a ‘poem’ of Jesus and Mohammed on a public toilet, referring to a homo-sexual act between the two. The whole ‘poem’ is only made with the intention to hurt and humiliate believers. And of course the moron had to put it on the internet, to increase the level of hurt. I wrote about it on my website:

    http://www.andreasfirewolf.com/politics

    People should be more careful when it comes to sacred symbols of others.
    On the other hand: If you believe in a Creator that is all-wise and that created all people, then one should not criticize people with another sexuality. A believer should not criticize the work of the Creator.

  72. theotherone 6 Nov 2009, 10:49am

    but Brian: it’s there in the bible.

    Perhaps he was misquoted?

  73. theotherone 6 Nov 2009, 11:40am

    and Brian…

    To again quote Russell:

    there is one very serious defect in Christ’s moral character, and that is that he believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.

    (same source as before.)

  74. vulpus_rex 6 Nov 2009, 11:42am

    Morning M Canard – a sad thing that your french lesson would shame anyone outside of Canada – do you really not know the meaning of the word foutre?

    Theotherone – you haven’t proved anything yet you’ve merely pointed out that some people question the authenticity of some non-christian writing – just because you say it on a web site doesn’t actually make it a fact.

  75. theotherone 6 Nov 2009, 12:29pm

    oh please my old Volpone! You wanted to position Christ as a Historical figure, you cried about your qualifications and then (when presented with evidence of the Historical lie of Jesus) you cry foul and plead to faith. Only when this fails do you then refuse to acknowledge any information presented to you.

    You claim to be an academic but behave (and reason) like a Tabloid Journalist.

  76. Jean-Paul Bentham 6 Nov 2009, 1:56pm

    Vulpus_Rex:

    Good morning to you, Sir.

    I could only surmise that my French lesson, like your Swiss education, has been completely lost on you. I suspect your reference to the word ‘foutre’ means that you are aware of its use as the equivalent for the word “f***” in gutter English so that the French expression “va te faite foutre” would mean “Go f*** yourself” in the King’s English. Quaint, but just short of a gentleman’s vocabulary.

    The fact remains that you have failed to detract my attention from the inherent pride and pretentiousness which brought you to impulsively analyse a play that you had neither read nor seen, and which is apparently a part of your nature, or, as we say nowadays, part of your gene pool.

    No doubt, you will be among those standing in line at the box office to confirm your prejudices regarding Jo Clifford’s play, and you can surely understand that I ardently anticipate your intelligent and scholarly comments, in the language of your choice, bien entendu.

    Enfin, allow me to wish you a cultivated “Wertfreiheit”, and a most pleasnt weekend doing what you do best: exaperating intelligent people.

  77. “Jesus, Queen of Heaven”, or “He Who Put the Cross into Cross-Dresser”…..

  78. Sister friendly 6 Nov 2009, 3:22pm

    Is there any point in discussing any serious issue one Vulpus gets in on the act?

  79. Brian Burton 6 Nov 2009, 6:04pm

    Theotherone, Vulpuse, Both of you are sudo-interlectual NUTTERS! I for one will not cast my pearls before swine!…And Good-by!

  80. theotherone 6 Nov 2009, 7:40pm

    well I’ve had one response but Volpone seems to be off acquiring girth around the waist.

    So can we get back to discussing the play and Christian attitudes to Queer people?

  81. Brian Burton 7 Nov 2009, 10:43am

    Theotherone,
    P.S. And incidently, there are far, far more ‘Attitudes’ out there than Christian attitudes so stuff that down your gym-slip!

  82. theotherone 7 Nov 2009, 3:55pm

    why so angry and why so personal BB?

  83. Brian Burton 7 Nov 2009, 8:28pm

    Theotherone,
    Sorry, It’s not personal, It’s just several people have been pissing me off just a little since me and my Partner are Gay Christians, forgive my rudeness?

  84. theotherone 7 Nov 2009, 8:37pm

    I forgive everything, it’s the Christ in me.

  85. Jean-Paul Bentham 8 Nov 2009, 7:53am

    Let us bow our heads and thank whatever creative forces exist in the cosmos that the Church pretends to respect gays to get their money while being inherently homophobic.

    A-woman!

  86. Brian Burton 8 Nov 2009, 6:11pm

    theotherone,
    Come over and click on ‘MY’ You don’t have to show your face after you have regesterd. I’m Burty on there and if you look me up You’ll see my photo. There are several groups on ‘MY’ and you can start a ‘Trans Group’ there is even a HIV group. Please concider it theotherone and see you there!

  87. I guess Jesus is a trans woman. He must be – the church admits it, for his is “the bride of the church”.

    Or maybe the correct way to look at it is that the church has been raping Jesus (name) from time immemorial. Totally ignoring how Jesus said to love thy neighbor as thyself, and whatever you do unto the least of my brethren you do unto me.

    Hell is full of Popes, Bishops, etc. Why can’t we just find a way to send the whole f#@king thing there in one quick trip.

    And the pope with his condom thing and Africa – he should be tried for mass murder. Just as the church should be tried for mass murder for its past.

  88. Pink News might have found a picture in which Jesus wasn’t laden with facial hair for the story.

    If a free publicity shot from the theatre was not available then there are some nice portrayals in Rome, from very early Christian times, where he is shown clean faced and with long blonde hair (as, of course angels are usually portrayed, but then angels are supposed to be both beautiful and sexless).

    Actually it is quite interesting that almost all portrayals show Jesus with very long hair, despite the male fashion of the times having been very much for short hair.

    These so-called christians do seem in denial on so much.

  89. Brian Burton 9 Nov 2009, 8:48pm

    Oatc,
    I’m a Gay Christian and proud of it…er I’m not in deniel of anything. The trouble is oatc behind every exquisit thing that existed as Jesus dose, comes the imagination and as everyone should know, imagination is a manifestation of Love. Therefore Christians dress Jesus as they think he should look even though it could be entirely wrong. Jesus can look or be whatever you want. Look at the Play ‘Jesus Queen Of Heaven,’ like I said, anything you want!

  90. Miriam, the tranz Schmiriam 10 Nov 2009, 10:08pm

    No you’re not; you’re an anti-semitic sexist, misogynist, transphobic and homophobic Nazi schmuck as you’ve displayed on other threads. Brian ‘gone for a Burton’ why don’t you give us a break already:)

  91. Miriam, the tranz Schmiriam 10 Nov 2009, 10:09pm

    Oh and learn to spell the english language properly. Pretty pathetic for a so-called ‘English’ nationalist, wouldn’t y’say?

  92. Brian Burton 11 Nov 2009, 8:25am

    Miriam the Tranz-nutter Arse-off!

  93. Brian Burton 11 Nov 2009, 10:27pm

    There will be protests of sorts from a few different directions when Christianity is depicted on the stage which dose look far more real than movies or TV films. So, people who feel senitive about Jesus on stage in any guise will feel affected more than seeing it on film.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all