to think that this 'transsexual' Jesus play should not get public funding?

[whatwilltheythinkofnext]

I would say 'no words' but how about "disgusting, insulting, disrespectful, immoral..." need I go on? How does this awful thing get 'public funding' - I'd be demanding a refund of my council tax. Enough already!

We don't know what the play is actually about,

I do.

So what point are you arguing when you don't yet know whether Christians have a point?

What is transphobic is the assumption that depicting him as a transsexual automatically holds him up to ridicule.

This desperate attempt to portray Jesus as a liberal. What is very ironic is that most of those who sling the 'Jesus is a liberal' slogan probably don't even believe in God, much less in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Rather, this statement is used as a club to attempt to shame Christian conservatives into silence, especially on the social issues of our time. The thinking goes that liberals are closer to the example Jesus set, simply because they favour more income redistribution ('welfare') by the government. Their specious logic tells them that they are more compassionate than are conservatives, simply because the latter believe that charity for the downtrodden should:

a) Come from private rather than public sources
b) Be accompanied by a plan to return recipients to a productive role whenever possible.

Liberals foolishly believe themselves to be more like Jesus, because they just love, love, love everyone as Jesus did – conveniently forgetting that Christ also demanded personal responsibility and moral accountability.

Liberals love to claim Jesus Christ thinks the way they do, when the opposite is true.

Ok, please give a synopsis of the play and a brief outline of it's themes, style etc, so that we can all be as informed as you.

Also, it might save us going to see it, because to misquote Voltaire (who apparently never said it anyway- the wisdom of great thinkers tends to get misreported over the decades....) 'though I may disagree that your play is a good one, I will defend with my life the right to express it'.

What is transphobic is the assumption that depicting him as a transsexual automatically holds him up to ridicule.

(sigh) Read my post from: Sun 15-Nov-15 22:13:06

Ok, please give a synopsis of the play and a brief outline of it's themes, style etc, so that we can all be as informed as you.

Nice try.

2/10. See Me.

Faberge, can you explain the message if the parable of the Prodigal Son with reference to Christs alleged lack of liberalism, please?

I am really bored of recounting God's commands regarding how He is to be worshipped and obeyed and then everyone squealing about how Jesus loved everyone including trans people and they should therefore automatically be able to host a play where Jesus is depicted as having a mental illness manifesting itself as sexual dysphoria, whilst completely ignoring the reason for His life and sacrifice on the cross.

I am also crashingly bored of taking the effort in pointing you to the scriptures so that, you know...I can't be accused of living by my own 'brand of Christianity' [yawn] only to be told, 'Huh???? You don't actually believe that shit, like, literally, do you?!'

Good night, all

Faberge, your definition of liberal ideology is unbelievably selective and bears no resemblance to reality. I've never come across a liberal who doesn't believe that the best solution to poverty is to help the poor into a position where they can earn a decent living by going into "productive roles". The difference is mainly that they recognise that, for some, that isn't always possible.

Yes, the Prodigal Son (spoilt like a good 'un) ran off and spent years squandering money and then ended up eating with the pigs, such was his fall from grace. After realising the error of his ways he fled back to the arms of his loving father and repented.

You're welcome.

Ah, I recognise Faberge now. She's rather fond of using 'liberal' and 'feminist' as an insult. She gives Christians a really bad name. I'd probably recognise her in RL as well

So you don't know what the play is about.

See, I don't really care because whatever it is about I think the writer had a complete right to present any play. And that that right is at the heart of a moral civic democracy.

You don't care what it is about because the very fact that it presents JC in any light other than a strict depiction of 'the word' is blasphemous. And that connection between Christ and any form of trans anything is belittling because trans gender people are inadequate.

Voltaire also said 'the truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning '.

I was brought up by thoughtful, kind, theologically literate Christians, and they never stuck to dogma without reason and rationality. They understood metaphor and poetry and art, they had open minds.

They understood metaphor and poetry and art,

So did Hitler.

Ah' the lucky prodigal that he knew his father to be a liberal

So? (Wrt Hitler).
Though he was no defender of freedom for artists. Art/ artists were heavily censored and surpressed by Hitler.

Probably feared that his ideas had something to fear from free expression through fiction, metaphor, poetry, the abstract etc.

Ah yes, Hitler, that famous liberal.

Hitler is rather more famous for burning books than being a respected art critic.

Maude what does your post mean about my giving Christians a bad name and I am 'rather fond of using 'liberal' and 'feminist' as an insult.? If you are suggesting I am someone else then please spell it out so that I can report you.

I really am off to bed now. Good night, all.

they had open minds.

Such meaninglessness. Open about what? Did they believe Christ was the Son of God?

Hmm, that threat to report is a tactic I've seen before from someone with a very similar posting style.

Nah, don't think I will spell out what I mean, Faberge. You already know, as do other posters on this thread.

Why don't you post a photo, y'know, to verify your identity?

My grandfather was a Minister, Faberge, and never meaningless about anything.

Well, night all.
I don't recognise Faberge but don't usually spend time discussing religion on MN.

He brought peace to the demon-possessed), the bereaved and even the dead (Lazarus).

Completely off-topic, but one thing that has always annoyed me about the gospels is the story of Lazarus. As miracles go, that is a big one. It shows Jesus has the power to restore life after death. It is far more impressive than feeding a bunch of people on bread and fish (especially as we have no idea how many of them brought a picnic). Yet, while all the gospel writers chose to wow us with his catering ability, only John thought that the resurrection of Lazarus was a significant enough event to include in their account.

The logical conclusion is that it never happened.

It appears Faberge that you are as happy to interpret the bible to support your own political beliefs as anyone else. You haven't given any evidence of knowing much about the play beyond the title and you certainly don't know the writer's political leanings.

You find the play offensive which is your right and it is also your right to express that view. People have questioned the logic of your view, but not your right to hold it.

However, this thread is about public funding of the arts. It isn't clear whether or how much funding this production received, but the arts aren't funded based on their inoffensive. That is not going to change, whatever random references you make about Hitler and the terrorist attacks in Paris.