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!

Extract from Out of the ordinary: representations of LGBT Lives discussing the play, with audience commentary.

Looks like the total funding for the play was 2k, by the way. More to turn it into a book from Creative Scotland.

Merrymouse: In the current climate of 'no platform' I think the right to free expression in the arts cannot be guaranteed. Hence the need to challenge the likes of the OP and Faberge - whilst , as you say, respecting their own right to hide and express their onions and beliefs.

As it happens I am disappointed in modern liberalism - the feminists who seek to pick and choose university texts, censor politicians and thinkers , people like Germaine Greer, moderate what people receive and how they receive it with 'trigger warnings', and generally police what intelligent people should have access to.

Free speech has to be the right of everyone, and this is a challenge that many a modern liberal has not recognised. That it applies to those whose opinions you abhor as well as the victims of oppression. The emphasis on 'victim' is an issue here.

The arts will become a meaningless majority-message-speak if contained by what people decide to be offended by. And the only recourse will be corporate sponsorship - and the kind of interference we hear Shell have tried to make in the Science Museum content. Our national museum of science!

Many thanks for that link, Lonny.

Just for some context on that 2k figure, you and I paid £2.4k for the Bishop of Chester to attend the house of Lords for 8 days last year.

I'm tired of repeating myself, frankly. Read back and find my post stating that I'm not on this thread to discuss the appropriateness or otherwise of the play being publicly funded; I find many instances where public funds are monstrously spent.

I came on the thread to add my voice to those who find this depiction of Christ to be an outrage; to point out that not everyone claiming to be a Christian actually is one and that the bible is unequivocal in its assertion that God and Jesus are one and the same and He.

If you don't like how the thread has segued between themes that is not my concern.

I have never liked the useless House of Lords but I quite like the safety net they proved themselves to be lately.

to point out that not everyone claiming to be a Christian actually is one

I think you've demonstrated that beyond doubt. Just not in the way you think

I came on the thread to add my voice to those who find this depiction of Christ to be an outrage;

so, what do you suggest is done? Various people are offended by various things. Part of life.

I repented, took up my cross and I followed Jesus. I love Him and try to glorify Him and live my life according to His teachings. I am not perfect.

Please stop winking at me, it's weird.

Do you think this play should not have been put on?

If you don't like that I've finally found enough time to google around the theme of the OP, that's not my concern either. HTH

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.

A) This is by far the most laughable justification of conservatism I have come across in 57 years.
B)Interestingly, most of our Bishops are Liberal thinkers, so one wonders whether they too are Christians, or is it just that they say they are?

Oh, and it doesn't matter what gender Jesus was. The point is, he was and is no more. What harm is there in exploring other possibilities? None. It's not causing civil unrest, it's not harming anyone, it's just making a blinkered few froth a tad. It's not even particularly outrageous.

And finally from statistics corner:

Christians in England and Wales show no sign of becoming 'an oppressed minority' quite yet. Though if current trends continue, perhaps we won't be a 'Christian country' any more.

ONS stats from 2011 census

same broad trend in Scotland although a significantly higher % of population say they are of no religion - 37%.

This is by far the most laughable justification of conservatism I have come across in 57 years.

I am astonished you are 57! I've lurked on these boards for a long time and your contributions never appear to be based on any measure of erudition. It is why I haven't engaged with you thus far on this thread, Dawn. All you have offered is 'the point is, he was and is no more and other such trite slices of genius. Brilliant. Fascinating. However, a little more intelligent thought would lead you to the conclusion that I am defending Christ from a position of believing Him to be the eternal Son of God (see? No room for misgendering) whose perfect humanness and perfect divinity makes Him quite unlike anyone to have ever lived on Earth.

If you cannot grasp that a Christian would find the play outrageous and why then your 'contributions' here are meaningless.

There are quite a few questions being chucked at me this morning; Bert's I am too bored to answer as I have covered it more than once.

Brenda, you haven't yet answered my question regarding the 'open-mindedness' of your Christian parents: Did they believe Christ to be the Son of the living God? What did they consider to be the meaning of John 3:16?

Do you think this play should not be put on?

Just yes or no. I'm pretty sure you haven't said.

Oh dear. How very rude Faberge

Of course I can see why a ChristiN would find the play outrageous. It's what should happen because of that outrage that's significant.

Dear Faberge
It's interesting to note that your Christianity doesn't prevent you from ad hominem attacks. As I have repeatedly said, your arguments are full of logical fallacies and nothing else.
I don't recall having attacked you personally, but hey, if that's what makes you Christians fell better...

Bumble, it's interesting, isn't it? Although there are 4 Gospels, each one was written with a different purpose in mind.

Matthew was written to the Jews, and presents Jesus as King.

Mark was written to the Romans, and presents Jesus as a Servant.

Luke was written to the Greeks, and presents Jesus as Man.

But John was written to a universal audience and presents Jesus as God.

Therefore John focuses more on the miracles of Jesus rather than the other Gospels: the water into wine, feeding of the 5,000, walking on the sea, and raising the dead such as in the case of Lazarus.

The Bible states that all of the Disciples went to Bethany with Jesus but it does not mention that all were present at the raising of Lazarus. As a matter of fact it does not mention the Disciples at Lazarus's tomb. The reason John spoke of it was probably because he was there or he heard of the story and felt it was important to put in his writings.

If we look at all of the Gospels we see that each writer put down what he felt was important or was present for. The Gospels are like a puzzle, we must read them together to get the full picture of Jesus and His ministry. Just look at what was written above Jesus on the cross in all of the Gospels. In actuality it was written in 3 different languages but the 4 Gospels say that it says something different in each one. It doesn't mean they contradict one another, it just means that each Disciple could only read certain languages. Depending on the exact translation of the language it would be a little different.

Donna, it's not an attack (but well done for attempting a deletion); your contributions here have been trite.

Donna, it is clear you do not understand the meaning of 'ad hominem'. Here, I will help you: attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. This is laughable in that you haven't offered an argument.