Could you also list for me the other sins mentioned in the Old Testament? Let's see how many of them are still practiced today.

Alcar...

It's one tough read. If I didn't know better I'd have thought that the writers didn't want anyone to read it.

My point is that different sexualities these days are trivial differences when it comes to being a person, which is another reason why I think the premise behind the film is a shallow one. Or rather, it should be a trivial difference, but my optimism for the human race is systematically put down whenever I pluck up the courage to have any.

This post just plain pulls the carpet out from under me, socks me in the jaw and pees in my mouth as I lie stunned. I know you don't think of yourself as racist but this reads like someone saying "Hell, I don't have a problem with blacks. Everyone should own one".

Great, just what we need, an indecisive God who can change his mind whenever. The "He's only human" excuse wont cut it, because he's above that.

I'm quite skeptical of the bible, and although I haven't read all of it (only bits of a King James copy). As in God didn't directly write it, so I feel whoever did could've got crossed wires and fucked something up along the way.

Jesus should be bisexual. That would solve that problem, everyone would get a piece of holy...umm...ness :P Thats probably why the bishop got so worked up, he wants jesus all to himself. Seriously though, aren't Christans suppose to accept people for who they are and no judge them?

Traditionally he's not supposed to have any sexuality at all, which in my opinion rather precludes the whole "being human" thing. I would suggest asexuality, but that probably wouldn't go down too well either.

Look seriously super munch, I think that the OT is more stories which are based off truths, and meanings are true, and this is controversial, but I think the Jewish writers may have changed it to be in their favour, because they claim to be the chosen people of God, yet Jesus claims that God loves everyone, becuase we are all his creation.
Also, the Jews don't beleive in the NT, don't they denounce it at sermourns?
So that explains the sudden rift, the OT was written by those in the times of the heavy jewish leaders, or pharasies influence, whilst the NT was written in the time, when, thanks to Jesus, they saw what was realy going on.
And as Bullet Magnet said, he's not supposed to have a sexualality, the reason he's hetro, and not homo sexual, is because it does not contribute to our growth since we can only mate with those of the opposite sex, and sex she be done without lust, so if you were to have sex with someone of the same sex, then you would be doing so only for the sake of lust, I guess you could include love aswell, but it's leading you down to lust anyways.
Lust is one of the 7 deadly sins, Jesus is without sin, as is God, and the holy spirit and therefore they form a trinity, and cannot forsaque to sin like we cannot resist to do
And the whole point of him sacrificng, is that he is God's son, and is without sin, since it is not his punishment to bear (Those who sin, are punnished with death), so only he can take it from us, as he did.
And that is why Jesus Christ cannot be homosexual, or bisexual, and maybe even hetrosexual.
So if Jesus was anything, he was hetrosexual, or simply, not interested in sex. But being Hetrosexual would best unite him with the average man, and he realy can't be human without a sexuality, or at least I think so.

Now that would explain all of the critism against this, we;ll see how the play works out. Most likely, the reader is just interested in media attention, due to the fact that he's such a controversial issue.

Oh, sweet jesus, man. I mean, really? Really? You really have the balls to spout this nonsense?

To start with, the old testament is not the only of the two to claim that the jews are god's chosen people. Jesus is referred to as king of the jews over and over and over again the NT. Also, he was born to a jewish family and preached only to the jews. To say that any error must be attributed to the jews is fairly to extremely foolish since it was jews who wrote both the OT and NT.

All I can say is that you just need to wait for Nate to see this post. You just wait.

Yer in fer a knuckin'.

I've always understood "chosen people" as meaning, at least in part, that they have to adhere to the hundreds of extra-commandment rules laid out specifically for the Hebrew people, from which other people are exempt.

BM, I love you.I did see it, but I didn't think it worth responding. But if you insist...

Old Testament - Jews say it was written by God, dictated to Moses. Historians say that it was a bunch of cultural legends collated at about 500BC (ish) into one book.

New Testament - Christians say that it was written by a number of holy men many years after Jesus' death and tells the absolute (gospel?) truth. Historians say it was written by a number of men many years after Jesus' death and tells a series of conflicting and disagreeing accounts of Jesus' life. Essentially (they would say), it represents the religion that they were promoting to the Romans and, as such, suggests that Jews are the bad guys and the Romans are nice and cuddly.

Take from that as you will, but I will point out that a) the Pharisees did not exist when the Old Testament was written and b) the Pharisees had nothing to do with Jesus' death because, as a group, they had no political power at the time. The priests in the temple were Sadducees but they had died out by the time that the gospels were written so (historians would say) the gospel writers took their wrath out on the then Jewish leadership, who were Pharisees.

Ok actually you have a fair point Nate, but that goes against the whole point of the NT, Jesus was betrayed by his own people, he took the sacrifice for his own people, and therefore took it for everyone.
And even if they had no power, that doesn't change anything, because the Romans still asked the pharasies what should happen to Jesus, becuase he was their people, and they had the most political power over their own people anyways.
If you think about it this way, the persicution of Jesus would have made the Jews go up in an uproar if it wasn't a Jewish descion, and weren't the pharasies the ones making reasons for the Romans to persucute Jesus.
Ok, I've never read the Bible, so I may be wrong.
Ok seriously, look into it far enough and you'll see reason.
And OMG ONAST, wtf, I'm sudenly a huge racist, ok, my family had a reasonable ammount of money (before they spent it), but I am by no means... I don't even want to go into it
The history of the african americans makes me real mad, and all slave trade, as does the history of mistreatement of aboriginies, as they still are, I am by no means for slavery, even if they are provided shelter and food, it's still unechical if they don't get an income, so they don't make a choice.
Maybe it's my snobby backround that makes me sound this way, but I don't mean it, or maybe it's just that you have racist imprinted besides my brain in your mind.
And get over it, I didn't even mean it that way, I regret and apoplgized for saying it, and everyone says racist remarks, I didn't even mean what I said in full seriousness, it was a light hearted thing to say. And one comment doesn't make me a supreme racist, I mean, I'm not a politician, why are we picking each other's words apart?
And Jesus is referred to as king of the Jews, becuase he was the son God, and he was Jewish, think about it, the Romans didn't beleive in the Jewish God's, so why on earth would they say king of everyone? Or basically king of us, ruler of us?
And wasn't it the Romans who called him king of the Jews anyway?
Oh and you made me make a long and boring post :P
Ok, and this is getting off toppic, so let's stop making a big deal about the parts of my posts that aren't to do with this thread, but make sence when combined with the rest of my post (or I hope so)
And you say, just wait untill Nate reads this, shouldn't you be more worried about a mod looking at your flaming? Obviously not.
Whatever, if what I'm saying makes no sence, then let's all go back to what's the thread about.
I'll have to see untill this play comes out.

Backed into a corner and the only way to defend yourself is 'SEE REASON'.

I've been keeping an open mind about religion and I'm sorry but that's on the way to this level of sillyness.

Urgle burgle, I'm going to go eat a pie.

You've more or less stated what the NT says but the point of my last post was that the known history of the time conflicts with that reading.

I really don't want to insult your beliefs (and I know how insulting it is to have someone deride my own holy text) so only read further if you're interested in alternative viewpoints.

The people who brought Jesus to the Romans were the priests in the temple; Sadducees.
70+ years later the Sadducees were gone.
The early Judeo-Christians were persecuted by the Pharisees, who did not approve of the changes they were making to the religion.
The gospel writers were promoting the religion to Romans and needed to make someone other than Pontius the bad guy of the story and thus blamed the Pharisees.

Thanks Nate, I know I'm being realy deffensive and maybe spewing out crap, but it's my religeon and personal beliefs that I am deffending. :)
I read it anyway, and I have to say, this whole thing has gone way above my head, I'm just a 16 year old, maybe I should just focus on other things and contemplate my religeon and if all of this realy matters and changes my faith anyway, later. :)

No, it isn't. You don't even know what your religion is. If you intend to be believe some fantastic story about how a dust man and rib girl were created by an all seeing guy in the sky then you should probably read the book. All you have done is believe whatever your parents told you.

That sounds like fun.

"Dust-Man, Ribgirl, our evil arch-nemesis Serpentor is causing chaos in Eden again!"
"To the Genesis-Mobile!"

You made me giggle.

No but you really should if you want to use it as evidence, always a good idea.

That argument is wrong at so many levels I shouldn't even need to explain myself.

Sure, change the story now toast boy.



Anywho, I found a preview for the film version of the play. Looks exciting!

In the vid OANST posted...

Was some man biting Jesus' bleeding nipple? I'm disturbed.

Isn't Jezus a muslim?

Wow... if only you could see the number of deleted posts in this thread. Next person to post something deliberately inflammatory gets a double infraction.

It's funny. As soon as I turned on the internet the top story on msn was people boycotting this play.

Funny, OANST.

My MSN told me half of my country was flooded.