Jesus & Judas portrayed as Fags
 

How very interesting, even if it is historically incorrect. It's a shame I won't be home in time to see it, especially as it's being held at the theatre I'm always near.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...620272704.html

I can only imagine protests, though I doubt it'll be on a large scale.

Alcar...

The writer of the play was just asking for it though wasn't he?

'Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for the art' Oscar Wilde

I'd certainly go see it :). Looks like a good show and you really have to laugh at anyone stupid enough to use such a subjective term as 'Blasphemous' in an argument.

It looks like they sat down and thought, so, what is the best way to piss off the worlds, if not one of the worlds most widespread religeon followers?
Seriously, they're only doing it to piss everyone off, if only a joke.
I'm not only against Jesus being potrayed as bing in a realationship with Judus, but the fact that he has any sexuality, wasn't the whole point that he wasn't on earth to be in a realation, or didn't have one.
It's stuff like this that undermines works when people have put in that huge extra effort, like "The passion of Christ", translating it into old hebrew and everything.
Owells, have their fun, but what's next, potrayed Muhamid as a woman? Have fun with that...

Anyone who feels pissed off by this theater production deserves a slap with a wet kipper.

....Times like this I wish I had me a picture of someone being slapped with a wet kipper.

I don't think this should be posted. Jesus wasn't gay. This is outrageous. I think who wrote this is crazy or something else.

http://justgiving.typepad.com/photos...rized/fish.jpg
Its a trout and thats the best I could do.

Just one question. You guys are mad because it portrays Jesus how the bible has told you he obviously was not right?

Would you feel so outraged if Jesus was played by a black actor? Or (saints preserve us) by a Jewish actor?

True. I don't believe Jesus was gay either.

I think the major point behind such a play is to take the figurehead of Christianity and juxtapose it with something very anti-homosexual.

Alcar...

Firstly, Jesus was a Jew, so there would be nothing wrong with that, hell, I wouldn't care if it was a gay actor, it's the actor. I would care if Jesus was portrayed as gay but I'm not mad at it or anything, I just simply won't see it unless I hear it's otherwise a good show and inoffensive.
Besides, I have nothing against black people, hell I'm on there said everytime a racist jerk brings it up. (And let's not go back on me being racist or not shall we)
Anyway, it looks like this writer other wants to be a jerk and get everyone pissed off, or he wants to make a point.

Jesus is both black and a Jew. But certainly not homosexual.

This seems strangely similar to Dumbledore coming out of the closet, eh?

Well Gandalf was played by a gay actor, and after the second movie (:() so was Dumbaldore, so going by your logic (no offence), I would be pissed off by that too.
The actors have nothing to do with it, I mean, Othello was oringally played by a white man, and that wasn't too bad, apart from the reasons why.
It's the end product that matters, once you get over the backround's herritage.
And is there anything wrong with jew's? Zac effron and Danial radcliffe are jews, is this something parents should be worried about?
Contary to belief I'm sure, I wouldn't mind him being played by a leb, hell, I've got nothing wrong with lebs as inderviduals, I wouldn't treat him different from anyone else.
It's just here we don't have that many people of african decent, so the criminal ethnic section is occupied by lebs
SO I may have said a racist comment, but I didn't mean it, and I'm not racist, so let's end this, I only say this becuase I'm assuming that's what wings of fire was thinking.

Er, Michael Gambon has a wife.

Alcar...

Don't forget he also has kids.

There is the hilarious quote from Gambon, who often enjoyed lying to naive journos, that he used to be a homosexual but had to give it up because it made his eyes water.

Anyway, who cares, it's only Christians. What are they going to do? Set up a petition?

Honestly, I find this Christian bashing so totally fucking DULL. I'd love a play about a gay Mohammad, but nobody will do it cos they don't have the balls. So, they pick a soft, peaceful target and we're all supposed to react as if they're being edgy and naughty. No they're not, they're a bunch of teenagers.

Oh, and kudos on your use of the word 'fag', you seem so much cooler now.

Oh snap, I never saw this turning into a religious/homosexual debate thread!

Yes, yes he wasn't, but you shouldn't get your panties in a bunch about it. It's just a play, and people have laughed at something for it's outrageousness for quite a while. Case in point: transvestitism.

i learnt about that watching House :tard:

anyway...

Jesus has every right to be played by whoever the fuck has the balls to do it, i mean even it was a racist Nazi adulterer, isn't the christian church about forgiveness and acceptance?

or is that buddists?

The thing I find interesting is that some Christians (although it doesn't actually Christians, I just assume it must be) offered death threats against the writer. Do the Ten Commandments not apply anymore?

I fail to see how forgiveness and acceptance (LOL) have anything to do with this. It doesn't mean they automatically forgive and accept EVERYTHING, good or bad, that would be stupid. Real stupid. Possibly quite fun.

And where exactly do the 'balls' come into it? I mean, really? Does this actually provoke anything more than a yawn from everyone who isn't a Christian these days?

My point was that you two (AIN and Mudling) seem to find the idea of Jesus being portrayed as homosexual rather frightening.

Why?

Also if you're claiming Jesus wasn't homosexual how do you suppose you'll do that? Homosexuality is no crime against God and since being gay has kind of turned full circle in our social culture it is reasonable to suggest that not only was Jesuse no virgin, he also had homosexual relations :). That argument can't be disproved without relying upon the bible (one of the worst kept historical documents in the history of the world) and is therefore a valid assumption to make based on the social norms of the time.

For the record. I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, what I do believe is he was a great philosopher and whatever he chose to do with his dick was his business.

Wrong. There are several passages stating that homosexuality is a sin, and what is a sin but a crime against God? One such passage is 'Do not lie with a man as you lie with a woman: that is detestable.' Leviticus 18:22.

So even if you don't believe Jesus is the son of God, if he was just 'claiming' to be so, then he would surely follow all of God's rules.

Yet people still did it, and forgive me for my foggy arguing that was my fault for not doing my research.

I'd like to expand on my original theory to make it clearer; not only was Jesus not the son of God, he never professed to be. Its a common enough theory now days but one I find extremely likely.

Also remember that Jesus reviewed and rewrote most of 'God's' laws/

Yet he shows no signs of a family.

Also, pleanty of historical facts have been altered in order to make a good play or film. But nobody thinks it's offensive then do they?

In the Bible God states that Jesus is his son, that's enough proof for me. I don't have a great enough knowledge of the Bible to come up with a good argument. And I don't want to say anything if it's not true.

Ooh, Jesus is sexy!

This is why I love not being of any religious affiliation.

You're treated to never-ending stupidity. And I like it. Because it makes me larfs lolz.

Alcar...

The bible was written by the same people who thought the Earth was flat.

Ghost wins this thread.

I'm Christian, and I have a very mature response to this situation. *Ignores*

It seems clear these days that the whole purpose is to be controversial, and if they can squeeze in some philosophical message that only the most artsy-fartsy people are able to read into it, so much the better.

But really, of all things about Jesus, his sexuality has got to be one of the least important. That has nothing to do with his IM. The concept behind the play seems to be remarkably shallow. Though I have noticed that anything portraying Jesus with human traits and vices is immediately condemned. As if the son of God was human!

If, in some dramatic break with archaeological tradition, we were actually able to find evidence of Jesus' homosexuality, it would not make any difference. That's the kind of revelation that can be ignored as easily as a picket line can be organised.

Then again, judging a play, film book or whatever before you have even been to see it is one of the stupidet things you can possibly do. Who knows, there may be a chance, however slight, that there are some novel and valuable insights in the play.

BM read the old tesitment, yes it's harsh, buit yes it's painted as a sin, and therefore, a crime against God, that being said, I don't neccicarily beleave it, I believe God changed his mind in the New Testiment, as he did about alot of things, or so it appears.
Leading to some people, either of Mary mandilane or Judus to beleave that the Jewish God was evil, and Jesus brought back the good God and destroyed the evil God, or something like that.
I don't beleive that either.

And with my comemnts above, then everyone who's ever talked to me on the subject has misleaded me
Still, having a wife means nothing :K
Never scene "Death at a funeral" have you?

And the Lord God did say: 'Son, I've changed my mind, they can do it both ways if they want as long as they love their neighbors and other such stuff. I can't be having with all this 'Eye for an eye' stuff, it makes judging between good and bad people too much like hard work.'

'But Father....I am confused I thought you were omnipotent and omniscient and as such couldn't make mistakes?'

'I've had enough of you cheeking me boy, it's the crucifix for you!'

As with all good fantasy the more 'real' you try to make it the less feasible it appears.

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.