Transsexual Jesus sparks protests

[JamesHunt]

About 300 protesters held a candlelit protest outside a Glasgow theatre over the staging of a play which portrays Jesus as a transsexual.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8342056.stm

[flabbybody]

I can think of better things to do if I were in Glasgow

[Coroner]

lol at the last pic....

[tekraet]

Kristy looks like Jesus to me.

[BellaBellucci]

"You can't blaspheme God and use freedom of speech as an excuse for that."

Actually, yes. Yes you can. Losers. rofl

~BB~

[Ecstatic]

Reminds me of Dory Previn's song from the 70s, "Jesus Was an Androgyne":

jesus was a androgyne
jesus was a he and she
jesus was a freako baby
just like you and me
jesus was a pagan
jesus was a priest
jesus was a beauty
jesus was a beast

[praetor]

Sinners, you will burn in marble's hell.

[trish]

jesus wasn't the first spammer,
nor his disciples the first spambots.
but they were the first really annoying ones.

[BiancaLover]

Jesus helps those who help themselves!

[rockabilly]

Did they also protest against the "Buddy Christ" or "Office Jesus" ?

[tomvan20000]

sounds like alot of the same cliche nonsense we alway hear from the antireligious

[wombat33]

I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD LEAVE RELIGION ALONE.......I BELIEVE IN JESUS AND THINK HE IS AS HE IS WRITTEN ABOUT.

I DESPISE WHEN YOU SEE PORN WITH PEOPLE PORTRAYED AS NUNS, AND ANY OTHER TYPE OF ASSAULT ON THE SANCTITY OF RELIGION

I AM DEAD SET AGAINST IT

[trish]

I know a request when I hear one.

[GullyFoyle]

I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD LEAVE RELIGION ALONE.......I BELIEVE IN JESUS AND THINK HE IS AS HE IS WRITTEN ABOUT.

I DESPISE WHEN YOU SEE PORN WITH PEOPLE PORTRAYED AS NUNS, AND ANY OTHER TYPE OF ASSAULT ON THE SANCTITY OF RELIGION

I AM DEAD SET AGAINST IT

Hmm, you sound like someone who'd sentence a cartoonist to death for drawing Muhammad. :screwy

Oh, stop shouting.

[SarahG]

sounds like alot of the same cliche nonsense we alway hear from the antireligious

It's hard to be good at nonsense when all the good lines have already been taken, put into print (I'm sure you all know what I have in mind by that), and forced upon millions of people all over the globe.

You don't see atheists dressing like stand ins for geek patrol's tv commercials, grabbing their favorite works of fiction, and banging on the doors of their neighbors at all hours of the day hoping to get them to believe their story, and then melodramatically asserting that their non-existent souls will burn in a lake of fire for ever and ever because they failed to listen.

[notdrunk]

sounds like alot of the same cliche nonsense we alway hear from the antireligious

You don't see atheists dressing like stand ins for geek patrol's tv commercials, grabbing their favorite works of fiction, and banging on the doors of their neighbors at all hours of the day hoping to get them to believe their story, and then melodramatically asserting that their non-existent souls will burn in a lake of fire for ever and ever because they failed to listen.

They make snide comments. For example, read your post or read/look at Trish's post.

[SarahG]

sounds like alot of the same cliche nonsense we alway hear from the antireligious

You don't see atheists dressing like stand ins for geek patrol's tv commercials, grabbing their favorite works of fiction, and banging on the doors of their neighbors at all hours of the day hoping to get them to believe their story, and then melodramatically asserting that their non-existent souls will burn in a lake of fire for ever and ever because they failed to listen.

They make snide comments. For example, read your post.

Superior? No, we're all equals. As much as social conservatives might think otherwise while having wet dreams about sinners & atheists burning for eternity, the reality is no one is better than anyone else at face value. Religious views present no exception.

[gieric]

Come on guys! Wombat33 has balls for posting his beliefs on a thread that would obviously be strongly against him. He didn't blast any one or point any fingers. He manged to state his beliefs on the subject without targeting anyone. Blasting him for speaking is a toned down equivalent of what those people are doing to the play.

[LilWyte]

why would u protest a bunch of nerds in a play, they dont matter

[tomvan20000]

It's hard to be good at nonsense when all the good lines have already been taken, put into print (I'm sure you all know what I have in mind by that), and forced upon millions of people all over the globe.

You don't see atheists dressing like stand ins for geek patrol's tv commercials, grabbing their favorite works of fiction, and banging on the doors of their neighbors at all hours of the day hoping to get them to believe their story, and then melodramatically asserting that their non-existent souls will burn in a lake of fire for ever and ever because they failed to listen.[/quote]

Ahh SarahG, but it seems as though you have indeed surpassed all obstacles presented and thus continued into such(nonsense). Chemical science( true science, the only branch which is not subject to the bias of human character) does indeed warrant the of concept of consicous illustration in pertinence to the universe's creation. There is no speculation to this, there is a general consensus among nearly all cosomologists. Albeit, many stop short to the idea of a "governing god", but this rational is based soely upon their emotional. Einstein for example knew there was a god due to the absolutions and necessities of Quarks, antiquarks, charge-parity-violations,etc, however his inability to accept a "God" who would allow such "pain and evil" in the world was his main reasoning for not subscriing to a "personal god". In other words, Science led him to a creator, but whimsical emotion denied him a God.

*For your sake, let us hope there is indeed no "lake of fire"; it's quite clear that, aside from your blasphemous views, you would probably be thrown in for your subscription to illogic and emotionally based mindset. silly atheist

[LilWyte]

talk about religion on a porn site ya you're cool

[trish]

The only sad thing about being an atheist is that you never get to say, "I told you so."

[notdrunk]

The only sad thing about being an atheist is that you never get to say, "I told you so."

Don't worry because their ass will be burning in Hell or some horrible place... :wink:

[trish]

Sorry, but you only got half the problem right.

If the atheist is wrong, of course he doesn't get to say, "I told you so." If the atheist is right, then there is no afterlife and so again he doesn't get to say, "I told you so."

[SarahG]

There is no speculation to this, there is a general consensus among nearly all cosomologists. Albeit, many stop short to the idea of a "governing god", but this rational is based soely upon their emotional. Einstein for example knew there was a god due to the absolutions and necessities of Quarks, antiquarks, charge-parity-violations,etc, however his inability to accept a "God" who would allow such "pain and evil" in the world was his main reasoning for not subscriing to a "personal god". In other words, Science led him to a creator, but whimsical emotion denied him a God.

Science didn't lead him to a creator anymore than the Egyptians were led to gods to explain away the rising of the sun every morning. The whole concept of saying "well, there must be a god" to explain away the start of the universe is merely reaching for an explanation when science has yet to develop a suitable one.



*For your sake, let us hope there is indeed no "lake of fire"; it's quite clear that, aside from your blasphemous views, you would probably be thrown in for your subscription to illogic and emotionally based mindset. silly atheist

IF, for argument's shake, I am wrong about everything, the alternative doesn't sound so much better. Spending eternity in a so-called heaven surrounded by people who spent their lives talking about how much they hate people like me does not sound like a fun party. And if their music is anything to go by, even that part won't be any good.

If the bible is anything to go by, heaven should include;
-husbands who stoned their wives to death upon finding that they were not a virgin at marriage
-people who stoned to death those who failed to convert from their village after "receiving the message"
-people who stoned to death anyone from their village who refused to participate in stonings prescribed by the bible
-males who gang raped female widows to produce a male heir when no male heir yet exists after a husband dies

None of these people sound like people I would want to spend any time with, to say nothing of eternity. A literal interpretationist would be a barbarian, given the entire text. Anyone believer who fails to follow these instructions is clearly picking & choosing their religion to suit THEIR predispositions.

[praetor]

The Judgement of Sinners: the place where sinners will be condemned after the Judgment is called the "lake of fire", the torments, the punishments, you'll meet Fidel Castro, Stalin, personally....

"flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" St. Paul

[trish]

But I'll also meet Robert E. Lee and personally kick him in the balls.

[SarahG]

But I'll also meet Robert E. Lee and personally kick him in the balls.

Why would he be the object of your attention instead of Davis or Jackson?

[trish]

Who said, "instead of"? There's a lot of ass kickin' to do and in both places too, Heaven and Hell. But I chose Lee as my example 'cause I'm pretty sure it'll get more dander up. BTW is Fidel dead??? I thought there's still a last minute chance of his accepting the Lord and gaining entrance to Heaven.

[praetor]

Question:
Why does never stage a play with the gay version of Moses?

[phobun]

I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD LEAVE RELIGION ALONE.......I BELIEVE IN JESUS AND THINK HE IS AS HE IS WRITTEN ABOUT.

I DESPISE WHEN YOU SEE PORN WITH PEOPLE PORTRAYED AS NUNS, AND ANY OTHER TYPE OF ASSAULT ON THE SANCTITY OF RELIGION

I AM DEAD SET AGAINST IT
Fuck that obsequious attitude.
People like you ARE the problem, because by insisting on such absurd nonsense as not criticizing religion, you are in effect providing cover for the religious extremists.

[SarahG]

Who said, "instead of"? There's a lot of ass kickin' to do and in both places too, Heaven and Hell. But I chose Lee as my example 'cause I'm pretty sure it'll get more dander up. BTW is Fidel dead??? I thought there's still a last minute chance of his accepting the Lord and gaining entrance to Heaven.

It would be hard to know if a dictator is dead, because if they're any good at it they'd be able to keep even that from getting out.

But I do believe your right in the last sentence, so if he is still alive, he still has time to have sex with every nonblood-widow lacking a male heir in his family until they have a son.

[phobun]

About 300 protesters held a candlelit protest outside a Glasgow theatre over the staging of a play which portrays Jesus as a transsexual.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8342056.stm
The producer, Steven Thomson, reportedly said, "Glasgay! supports the right to freedom of expression and offers audiences a diverse view of LGBT life."

This play purports to speak on behalf of "LGBT" people. But it is transwomen who will benefit the least. Similarly, when transgender activists demonstrate for transgender rights during gay-rights rallies, the lay public sees it all as a gay thing.

Not pursuing transgender rights as an independent movement dilutes the transgender rights movement within the LGBT melting pot.

Sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same. Gay rights and transgender rights are two worthy, but independent, movements, with no more in common than either inherently has with women's rights or the rights of ethnic minorities.

Transgenders are the unwelcome stepchild of the gay-rights movement anyway, because many gays loathe transgenders for perpetuating the sissy stereotypes in the eyes of the public. Meanwhile, transwomen want to be seen as women, not as offshoots of gay men.

[tomvan20000]

There is no speculation to this, there is a general consensus among nearly all cosomologists. Albeit, many stop short to the idea of a "governing god", but this rational is based soely upon their emotional. Einstein for example knew there was a god due to the absolutions and necessities of Quarks, antiquarks, charge-parity-violations,etc, however his inability to accept a "God" who would allow such "pain and evil" in the world was his main reasoning for not subscriing to a "personal god". In other words, Science led him to a creator, but whimsical emotion denied him a God.

Science didn't lead him to a creator anymore than the Egyptians were led to gods to explain away the rising of the sun every morning. The whole concept of saying "well, there must be a god" to explain away the start of the universe is merely reaching for an explanation when science has yet to develop a suitable one.



*For your sake, let us hope there is indeed no "lake of fire"; it's quite clear that, aside from your blasphemous views, you would probably be thrown in for your subscription to illogic and emotionally based mindset. silly atheist

IF, for argument's shake, I am wrong about everything, the alternative doesn't sound so much better. Spending eternity in a so-called heaven surrounded by people who spent their lives talking about how much they hate people like me does not sound like a fun party. And if their music is anything to go by, even that part won't be any good.

If the bible is anything to go by, heaven should include;
-husbands who stoned their wives to death upon finding that they were not a virgin at marriage
-people who stoned to death those who failed to convert from their village after "receiving the message"
-people who stoned to death anyone from their village who refused to participate in stonings prescribed by the bible
-males who gang raped female widows to produce a male heir when no male heir yet exists after a husband dies

None of these people sound like people I would want to spend any time with, to say nothing of eternity. A literal interpretationist would be a barbarian, given the entire text. Anyone believer who fails to follow these instructions is clearly picking & choosing their religion to suit THEIR predispositions.


Sorry Sarah, but, in his own words, as well as the words of cosmologists( even non theists) everywhere, there was a spark(God), according to Einstein. Our universe had a beginning, the laws of existence, chemical absolutions, and the laws of nature in general prove this, this is scientific fact.
* Once again sarah you impress me, though on this occasion it is in regards to your focused ignorance rather than your natural. Who said anything about Christianity??? Typical of the mindless atheist to assume the constraints of the conversation; this notion in itself provides basis in that you are simply repeating the “atheist vs. christian” routine. In any case, I never mentioned anything of religion in my reasoning, only scientific fact, which you were unable to respond to with anything other than general phrase, so as to avoid exposing your pre-mentioned sole quality, ignorance.
*For you sarah, let us continue the Christian route. The list you provided of “Heaven dwellers” was little more than your supposition of bible time conduct. So in all honesty, your argument against Christianity is the actions certain individuals participated in. For other words, you are subjecting the concept of God (be he existent of not) to the fallacy of human character. Your reasoning abandoned rational thought long ago I’m afraid.

[SarahG]

Who said anything about Christianity???

Is not the lake of fire a predominately Christian concept? The book of revelations is in the new testament, not the old one. The Egyptians had a similar concept, iirc, but there aren't many practicing that religion today as far as I know. So if we're talking about the lake of fire, we're talking about Christianity as it exists no where else among today's religions.



The list you provided of “Heaven dwellers” was little more than your supposition of bible time conduct. So in all honesty, your argument against Christianity is the actions certain individuals participated in. For other words, you are subjecting the concept of God (be he existent of not) to the fallacy of human character. Your reasoning abandoned rational thought long ago I’m afraid.

A supposition belief of bible time conduct? Sorry no, when we're talking about organized religions their religious texts are a major component in said religions. In the case of Christianity, I don't need to have beliefs on "how people acted" at the time depicted in the bible. I don't need to. Whether or not anyone, in practice, went around stoning their non-virgin wives to death after marrying them back then is immaterial. The reality is the bible instructs... no, orders its followers to do these things. It is in the official text, in the scripture.

If people are basing their religious views on scripture, on their holy texts, then they must reconcile the fact that they are in practice more times than not picking and choosing scripture to meet their personal agendas. If the rational is, in picking one example out of many, in thinking that homosexuality is a sin because the "bible" says so, then that categorically ignores all of the things the same text states elsewhere. The exact phrase used in the Bible on homosexuality is calling a specific type of sex act, specifically among men, an abomination. That same book of the bible separately uses the exact same terminology in instructing people not to eat shrimp (calling such food an abomination). Nonetheless damn few christians who oppose gay marriage or view homosexuality as a sin are willing to follow kosher, and don't protest those who eat shrimp with the same passion or odious behavior seen all over the country whenever gay rights comes to the forefront.

To revisit what I said, a literal interpretationist, someone who takes their holy text 100% literally as divine orders, is in the case of anyone following the bible, a barbarian. Someone following every sentence to the letter would be stoning people to death, raping female widows in the family, and any number of other things- regardless what went on in history.

[phobun]

Sorry Sarah, but, in his own words, as well as the words of cosmologists( even non theists) everywhere, there was a spark(God), according to Einstein.Cool. Einstein was not infallible. As Sarah indicated, what humans have been unable to explain mechanistically has often been attributed to the power of God. Einstein may have done that himself in this case.
Our universe had a beginning, the laws of existence, chemical absolutions, and the laws of nature in general prove this, this is scientific fact.It would be fairer to say that evidence of which we are aware supports the theory that the universe had a beginning. BTW, what are the "laws of existence" and the "laws of nature" to which you refer?
* Once again sarah you impress me, though on this occasion it is in regards to your focused ignorance rather than your natural.This sentence does not make sense.
Who said anything about Christianity??? Typical of the mindless atheist to assume the constraints of the conversation; this notion in itself provides basis in that you are simply repeating the “atheist vs. christian” routine. In any case, I never mentioned anything of religion in my reasoning, only scientific fact, which you were unable to respond to with anything other than general phrase, so as to avoid exposing your pre-mentioned sole quality, ignorance.This is gratuitously cruel. To say that Sarah's "sole quality" is ignorance demonstrates you to be an ignoramous and boor.
*For you sarah, let us continue the Christian route. The list you provided of “Heaven dwellers” was little more than your supposition of bible time conduct. So in all honesty, your argument against Christianity is the actions certain individuals participated in. For other words, you are subjecting the concept of God (be he existent of not) to the fallacy of human character. Your reasoning abandoned rational thought long ago I’m afraid.What is the basis of your conclusion that her reasoning "abandoned rational thought long ago"? How can such a conclusion be drawn from her use sarcasm in that post, in particular, referring to individuals who obeyed the Old Law (as described in the Bible) as "Heaven Dwellers"?

[trish]

The classical theory of the expanding universe (known popularly as the Big Bang), as developed by Einstein, Friedman, Robertson and Walker has no temporal starting time, no beginning, no very first moment. As far back as we go, the universe was expanding. There was no time before the expansion, nor space before the expansion. Many people confuse having a finite age with having a first moment, but no cosmologist, from Einstein to the present ever mistakenly denied what the equations of relativity clearly show: there was no first moment and there was no time before the expansion. There is no scientific proof, nor is there scientific evidence of the existence of a creation, of a beginning or of a creator. Quite the opposite. Perhaps some future reconciliation of quantum field theory and general relativity will change our understanding, but presently classical cosmology holds there is no time and no space prior to expansion of the universe. There was no place for a creator to stand and no time during which the universe was designed, no time when it was under construction nor any place where it could have been constructed, and finally no time or place where the project was completed.

Some excellent reads for those with the appropriate mathematical background:

Modern Cosmology, Scott Dodelson; Academic Press 2003

The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, editors Gibbons, Shellard & Rankin;
Cambridge University Press 2003

[Jericho]

I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD LEAVE RELIGION ALONE.......I BELIEVE IN JESUS AND THINK HE IS AS HE IS WRITTEN ABOUT.

I DESPISE WHEN YOU SEE PORN WITH PEOPLE PORTRAYED AS NUNS, AND ANY OTHER TYPE OF ASSAULT ON THE SANCTITY OF RELIGION

I AM DEAD SET AGAINST IT

I'm perfectly willing to leave religion alone...Providing the religious afford me the same curtesy.
Until then, give me my porno nuns (Suor Ubalda - Italian porn at it's finest!)

[muhmuh]

which is only true if you subscribe to the single universe view though
any multiverse hypothesis naturally postulates several universe specific timelines and some kind of timeline in which universes constantly blink in and out of existance

[trish]

which is only true if you subscribe to the single universe view though
any multiverse hypothesis naturally postulates several universe specific timelines and some kind of timeline in which universes constantly blink in and out of existance

True enough, muhmuh. And it would be a problem if I were attempting to show that under no theory could a god create our universe. But I merely want to show that there is no current scientific proof that the universe was created. To do this I merely need to point to one well understood model of the universe as we currently understand it and show that in that model there is no room for creation.

[JamesHunt]

Einstein for example knew there was a god due to the absolutions and necessities of Quarks, antiquarks, charge-parity-violations,etc

Einstein brought god into the equation cos he was troubled with the randomness of quantum physics...

What was that quote?

"god does not play dice"

whether he said it or not, if anyone finds any hidden variables, they'll be more famous than god... :roll:

[Jericho]

"god does not play dice"

If he did, they'd be loaded.
I'd bet that fukker cheats! :shrug

[Felicia Katt]

I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD LEAVE RELIGION ALONE.......I BELIEVE IN JESUS AND THINK HE IS AS HE IS WRITTEN ABOUT.

I DESPISE WHEN YOU SEE PORN WITH PEOPLE PORTRAYED AS NUNS, AND ANY OTHER TYPE OF ASSAULT ON THE SANCTITY OF RELIGION

I AM DEAD SET AGAINST IT
You mistake sanctimony for sanctity.

According to the disciple Thomas, in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, an account of Jesus, not included in the traditional Bible, Jesus said the following:


when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female..... then will you enter the kingdom.

So as he was written about, Jesus preached for the transcendence of traditional gender. Portraying him as transsexual is arguably accurate and hardly an assault.

FK

[phobun]

I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD LEAVE RELIGION ALONE.......I BELIEVE IN JESUS AND THINK HE IS AS HE IS WRITTEN ABOUT.

I DESPISE WHEN YOU SEE PORN WITH PEOPLE PORTRAYED AS NUNS, AND ANY OTHER TYPE OF ASSAULT ON THE SANCTITY OF RELIGION

I AM DEAD SET AGAINST IT
You mistake sanctimony for sanctity.

According to the disciple Thomas, in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, an account of Jesus, not included in the traditional Bible, Jesus said the following:


when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female..... then will you enter the kingdom.

So as he was written about, Jesus preached for the transcendence of traditional gender. Portraying him as transsexual is arguably accurate and hardly an assault.

FKInteresting, but the problem with this is that by using this quote, you're sort of picking and choosing.

I prefer to dismiss out of hand all superstition, and recognize that all of those "books" were written by partisans decades or centuries after any supposed events. Historians can't even agree on certain aspects of the lives of documented people such as dead presidents, let alone some fucker a couple of thousand years ago who may or may not have existed.

[Chaotic]

This just seems too appropriate for this thread to pass up :lol: :lol:

http://s2.buzzfeed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2009/4/14/18/gay-jesus-offends-christians-10312-1239746908-44.jpg

[notdrunk]

Superior? No, we're all equals. As much as social conservatives might think otherwise while having wet dreams about sinners & atheists burning for eternity, the reality is no one is better than anyone else at face value. Religious views present no exception.

Really? Look at this thread. Some people in this thread that have criticized religion (esp. Christianity) are being derogatory towards it. While some social conservatives might think that way, a number of atheists are having wet dreams about all these people believing in a religion dying and they are not having an afterlife.

[phobun]

Really? Look at this thread. Some people in this thread that have criticized religion (esp. Christianity) are being derogatory towards it. While some social conservatives might think that way, a number of atheists are having wet dreams about all these people believing in a religion dying and they are not having an afterlife.
Keep believing in the promise of your 72 virgins. Maybe if you believe in 72 t-girl virgins fervently enough, you'll get your just reward.

[notdrunk]

Really? Look at this thread. Some people in this thread that have criticized religion (esp. Christianity) are being derogatory towards it. While some social conservatives might think that way, a number of atheists are having wet dreams about all these people believing in a religion dying and they are not having an afterlife.
Keep believing in the promise of your 72 virgins. Maybe if you believe in 72 t-girl virgins fervently enough, you'll get your just reward.

Thanks for proving my point. :roll:

[phobun]

Really? Look at this thread. Some people in this thread that have criticized religion (esp. Christianity) are being derogatory towards it. While some social conservatives might think that way, a number of atheists are having wet dreams about all these people believing in a religion dying and they are not having an afterlife.
Keep believing in the promise of your 72 virgins. Maybe if you believe in 72 t-girl virgins fervently enough, you'll get your just reward.

Thanks for proving my point. :roll:Oh you poor persecuted Christian. Sorry for mistaking someone else's superstition for your own.

[notdrunk]

Oh you poor persecuted Christian. Sorry for mistaking someone else's superstition for your own.

:boring

[SarahG]

Really? Look at this thread. Some people in this thread that have criticized religion (esp. Christianity) are being derogatory towards it.

There's quite a bit of a difference between criticizing a religion, and arguing that people are not equals, no?


While some social conservatives might think that way, a number of atheists are having wet dreams about all these people believing in a religion dying and they are not having an afterlife.

If what you say is the case, there is still a difference insofar as, in the case of the "christain wet dreams" only those they hate or see as unequal would be burning for eternity. Whereas, in the case of the atheists, their "wet dreams" would apply to everyone including themselves & their friends; no one would have an afterlife.

[phobun]

Oh you poor persecuted Christian. Sorry for mistaking someone else's superstition for your own.

:boringNot quite as exciting as feeding the Christians to the lions.

But you do get some browny points with the lord for getting persecuted, even a little bit, right?

[paulgutierrez]

How boringly trite. Of course its a transsexual Jesus, because having a transsexual Muhammad would get people killed. That figures. There's really nothing less risque than talking shit about christians.

I'm by no means religious (obviously) but these pussies need to find a ballsier target because this antichristian "art" has run its course. Its no longer that controversial and it isnt making a statement. Less and less people are giving a shit and its not like the harmless christian community ever affect anything.

[SarahG]

How boringly trite. Of course its a transsexual Jesus, because having a transsexual Muhammad would get people killed. That figures. There's really nothing less risque than talking shit about christians.

I'm by no means religious (obviously) but these pussies need to find a ballsier target because this antichristian "art" has run its course. Its no longer that controversial and it isnt making a statement. Less and less people are giving a shit and its not like the harmless christian community ever affect anything.

I don't think anyone would have been killed if they had chosen to have, say, a transsexual buddha instead of a transsexual jesus.

[phobun]

How boringly trite. Of course its a transsexual Jesus, because having a transsexual Muhammad would get people killed. That figures. There's really nothing less risque than talking shit about christians.

I'm by no means religious (obviously) but these pussies need to find a ballsier target because this antichristian "art" has run its course. Its no longer that controversial and it isnt making a statement. Less and less people are giving a shit and its not like the harmless christian community ever affect anything.

I don't think anyone would have been killed if they had chosen to have, say, a transsexual buddha instead of a transsexual jesus.
I don't think the "christian community" is entirely harmless.

But a transsexual Mohammed would be an insult to transsexuals. At least Jesus was reputed to have all good qualities. Not so with Mo... he was a misogynistic murderous pedophile.

[notdrunk]

There's quite a bit of a difference between criticizing a religion, and arguing that people are not equals, no?

Belittling someone for their beliefs does not make them equal with an individual belittling the individual.


If what you say is the case, there is still a difference insofar as, in the case of the "christain wet dreams" only those they hate or see as unequal would be burning for eternity. Whereas, in the case of the atheists, their "wet dreams" would apply to everyone including themselves & their friends; no one would have an afterlife.

However, they get an extra kick when it is directed towards people that believe in an afterlife. The "extra kick" is similar to those "christian wet dreams" because the atheist thinks that his/her belief is correct and the non-believer is going to get a surprise when they die.

[paulgutierrez]

How boringly trite. Of course its a transsexual Jesus, because having a transsexual Muhammad would get people killed. That figures. There's really nothing less risque than talking shit about christians.

I'm by no means religious (obviously) but these pussies need to find a ballsier target because this antichristian "art" has run its course. Its no longer that controversial and it isnt making a statement. Less and less people are giving a shit and its not like the harmless christian community ever affect anything.

I don't think anyone would have been killed if they had chosen to have, say, a transsexual buddha instead of a transsexual jesus.
Pretty much. I think we all know which are the harmless religions and which one isn't. But then again in buddhism you're supposed to cease attachments to anything wordly so its followers are not supposed to care, about anything.

By the way I hope you dont get offended by me asking but I've always wondered are you a real girl, a gg i mean?

[JamesHunt]

Not so with Mo... he was a misogynistic murderous pedophile.

Iran seems pretty tolerant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran

[paulgutierrez]

Not so with Mo... he was a misogynistic murderous pedophile.

Iran seems pretty tolerant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran
And yet they execute homosexuals.

The whole SRS thing is just a quirk those persians have. Nothing to do with tolerance. After they become women they become like 3rd class citizens anyway.

Execution of two gay teens in Iran spurs controversy - Wikinews ...
Jul 23, 2005 ... He said an estimated 100000 Iranians have been executed in Iran since ... Christopher Curtis "Iranian teens executed for homosexuality". ...
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Execution_of_two_gay_teens_in_Iran_spurs_controver sy

AFP: 'No homosexuals in Iran': Ahmadinejad
'No homosexuals in Iran': Ahmadinejad. (AFP) – Sep 24, 2007 ... Iran on Monday, saying in a speech at a top US university that there were no gays in Iran. ...
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hATGOzv6YSmgeMY1zdYbdpyrG2cw

[Felicia Katt]

You mistake sanctimony for sanctity.

According to the disciple Thomas, in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, an account of Jesus, not included in the traditional Bible, Jesus said the following:


when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female..... then will you enter the kingdom.

So as he was written about, Jesus preached for the transcendence of traditional gender. Portraying him as transsexual is arguably accurate and hardly an assault.

FKInteresting, but the problem with this is that by using this quote, you're sort of picking and choosing.

I prefer to dismiss out of hand all superstition, and recognize that all of those "books" were written by partisans decades or centuries after any supposed events. Historians can't even agree on certain aspects of the lives of documented people such as dead presidents, let alone some fucker a couple of thousand years ago who may or may not have existed.
The Bible is all about picking and choosing. They picked and chose which gospels to include when they edited and assembled it. Major religions pick and choose which Biblical mandates they observe. There are entire cults based on a few picked and chosen passages about handling snakes. Ministers pick and choose which passages to preach. Politicians pick and choose which ones further their repressive agendas. Extremism, in either Religion or rationality is equally bad and dismissal on either part is not part of discourse. It might work for you personally, but it does nothing to further the discussion.

FK

[arnie666]

While Iam not religious myself, I do go by the socialogical functionalist view of religion that it does provide a good moral code to live by. Love thy neighbour, doing good work, not killing not sleeping with someones wife , so perhaps on one level it's a pity that for many religion is sniffed at because it is provides a good way to control people by pointing to a supernatual being.

I also find these atheists who try to push their view onto others using 'science' and 'logic' just as annoying as the god botherers and bible bashers.

I also don't buy all this about religion causing all the wars because humans being humans if it wasn't god and allah they are fighting over and about it would be something else even if religion didn't exist.

However I do find the fundementalists annoying whether they be Christian or Muslim. It has to be said that the muslim ones are particularly nasty. As we have seen by the Fort Hood massacre. It might come to a stage when fundementalists muslims have to be eradicated or interned in camps for their own and others protection if we had more atrocities. Because lets face it when some bible bashers screams 'praise the lord' at people , people just look on them with annoyance with a hadji yells 'allah akbar' personally Iam going to want a firearm to shoot him or her in the head.

[phobun]

While Iam not religious myself, I do go by the socialogical functionalist view of religion that it does provide a good moral code to live by. Love thy neighbour, doing good work, not killing not sleeping with someones wife , These are only some of the commandments from the bible. Of the 10 commandments, many arguably have nothing to do with morality, and the balance is notable for lacking any sort of injunction against vile crimes like slavery or pedophilia. If you take the whole of the Old Law, you find no morality in the deadly misogynism, the cruel and unusual death penalties such as stoning or the multitude of silly prohibitions. Many of the absurd and immoral practices are well-illustrated here:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
In many ways, the Old Testament, and parts of the New, are the very antithesis of morality, and only serve to emphasize the superstitious ignorance and cruelty upon which faith is founded.

[SarahG]

There's quite a bit of a difference between criticizing a religion, and arguing that people are not equals, no?

Belittling someone for their beliefs does not make them equal with an individual belittling the individual.


If what you say is the case, there is still a difference insofar as, in the case of the "christain wet dreams" only those they hate or see as unequal would be burning for eternity. Whereas, in the case of the atheists, their "wet dreams" would apply to everyone including themselves & their friends; no one would have an afterlife.

However, they get an extra kick when it is directed towards people that believe in an afterlife. The "extra kick" is similar to those "christian wet dreams" because the atheist thinks that his/her belief is correct and the non-believer is going to get a surprise when they die.

Fair enough I suppose.



By the way I hope you dont get offended by me asking but I've always wondered are you a real girl, a gg i mean?

Lol, If I got offended easily I wouldn't make half the posts I make on here ;)

To answer your question, I am not a gg.



The whole SRS thing is just a quirk those persians have. Nothing to do with tolerance. After they become women they become like 3rd class citizens anyway.

That would be correct. There was a big case over there over this a year or two ago. IIRC a father passed away, one of his children was at the time of his death a postop MtF, but the father's will had not been updated since she had SRS. So she filed whatever legal process they have over there regarding inheritance. Eventually the decision their system came to was, after SRS she was legally female in every way, and as a result was not entitled to any of the inheritance from her father's estate, and it all went to her male relatives (brothers etc.).

I don't know if they have yet had many cases dealing with FtM's to see if things work the same way for them over there.
:idea:


While Iam not religious myself, I do go by the socialogical functionalist view of religion that it does provide a good moral code to live by. Love thy neighbour, doing good work, not killing not sleeping with someones wife ...

The problem is that there is such a wide difference between what I would call the spirit of the texts, and the specific letter of the texts. In the spirit of the texts, I would agree 100%- the spirit of the texts clearly is for being "a good person" and not going around cheating, stealing, murdering, while helping others- stuff like that.

Thus its the literal interpretations that pose the problem because they, instead of caring about the spirit of the texts, only care about the letter of the texts which include passages that most certainly would be very evil to implement & practice (like various types of slavery, stonings, rape and the like).



I also don't buy all this about religion causing all the wars because humans being humans if it wasn't god and allah they are fighting over and about it would be something else even if religion didn't exist.

I think very few wars really have to do with religion. Religion is usually the excuse, not the real underlying motivation for conflict.

I think it's pretty clear that islamic fundamentalists hate the west, not because we're not Islamic, but because our western lifestyle is slowly eating away theirs as their women & children reject it for our culture.

Ever seen the music video for Amerika by Rammstein? American culture has gone global. Coca-cola is the world's most widely known word at the moment. Our music & movies are known all over the world. Women see all this from their part of the world, decide "hey, I don't want to live my life wearing a tent as clothing, I would like to wear jeans, show my hair in public, or drive a car" and suddenly even without us actually playing a role in-person, we pose a threat.

But we're not just strangers exporting our consumerism & popular culture, we do play a tangible, in-person role in the region and that just serves to pour gasoline on the fire.

[phobun]

You mistake sanctimony for sanctity.

According to the disciple Thomas, in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, an account of Jesus, not included in the traditional Bible, Jesus said the following:


when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female..... then will you enter the kingdom.

So as he was written about, Jesus preached for the transcendence of traditional gender. Portraying him as transsexual is arguably accurate and hardly an assault.

FKInteresting, but the problem with this is that by using this quote, you're sort of picking and choosing.

I prefer to dismiss out of hand all superstition, and recognize that all of those "books" were written by partisans decades or centuries after any supposed events. Historians can't even agree on certain aspects of the lives of documented people such as dead presidents, let alone some fucker a couple of thousand years ago who may or may not have existed.
The Bible is all about picking and choosing. They picked and chose which gospels to include when they edited and assembled it. Major religions pick and choose which Biblical mandates they observe. There are entire cults based on a few picked and chosen passages about handling snakes. Ministers pick and choose which passages to preach. Politicians pick and choose which ones further their repressive agendas. Extremism, in either Religion or rationality is equally bad and dismissal on either part is not part of discourse. It might work for you personally, but it does nothing to further the discussion.

FKI agree with your thoughts about picking and choosing. When I wrote that I dismiss the superstition out of hand, I mean to say that I reject it entirely, but not that I am unwilling to discuss my rejection of it or someone else's embrace of superstition. Furthering the discussion does not require one to be open to accepting superstition, just other ideas, so long as evidence is there to support those ideas.

[muhmuh]

"god does not play dice"

apparently its more like keno
http://www.machall.com/comics/20030924.jpg


Thus its the literal interpretations that pose the problem because they, instead of caring about the spirit of the texts, only care about the letter of the texts which include passages that most certainly would be very evil to implement & practice (like various types of slavery, stonings, rape and the like).

i think the real problem is caring about the letter of the text while postulating a general spirit of the text
ok that was a rubbish sentence what i mean is that the letter of the text only really begins to matter of you postulate that the entire book is the word of god which even the book itself doesnt claim to be
for the most part there are 2 bits in the bible where the bibel itself claims to have a direct written account of what god said which would be the 10 commandments and everything jesus said
if you leave out all the other dreary rubbish which according to the bible is not the direct word of god you end up with something very kant and hard to take issue with

[SarahG]

"god does not play dice"

apparently its more like keno
http://www.machall.com/comics/20030924.jpg


Thus its the literal interpretations that pose the problem because they, instead of caring about the spirit of the texts, only care about the letter of the texts which include passages that most certainly would be very evil to implement & practice (like various types of slavery, stonings, rape and the like).

i think the real problem is caring about the letter of the text while postulating a general spirit of the text
ok that was a rubbish sentence what i mean is that the letter of the text only really begins to matter of you postulate that the entire book is the word of god which even the book itself doesnt claim to be
for the most part there are 2 bits in the bible where the bibel itself claims to have a direct written account of what god said which would be the 10 commandments and everything jesus said
if you leave out all the other dreary rubbish which according to the bible is not the direct word of god you end up with something very kant and hard to take issue with

Would that include the material Moses was reported to have stated?

[muhmuh]

not sure dose it really matter though considering jesus pretty much simplified the whole ethical code into do to other what you would like them to do to you?

hm i hadnt realise this before but dose the kjv jesus always talk like a pirate?
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

[rockabilly]

When i hear "Akbar" i think "It's a Trap!"

[trish]

Captain Barbosa (in the Pirates of the Caribbean) said something to the effect, "Aarrrgh...it's less of a code and more like ... whatchya might call guidelines."