UK Church Hosts 'Blasphemous' Play Portraying Jesus as Transexual Woman for Queer Festival

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: DeathSlayer

God made people, right? God then gave them the sexual desire to be homosexual. Why would God have some human beings be homosexual and then make it a sin.

However, I'm sure I won't convince you. Religious folk have a tendancy to ignore logic when it comes to their religion.

Keep believing in that madman you call God. I'll stick logic and science. No, I don't worship science. I simply know it's telling the truth because it can be tested and proven.

You have heard of temptation.... right?

This is not logic and your explanation is faulty and is an old trick used for Milleniums to justify the wrong and illegal.

We are to daily sacrifice the flesh, do you know what that means?

We are to control our urges which includes wrongful type of sexual urges as explained in Leviticus .... not just homosexuality.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DeathSlayer

And? Are queer people not allowed to watch plays put on by transsexuals in a church?

How is this play any worse than watching Life of Brian?

No, sinners are not supposed to promote their sinful acts, even less so with the passive acquiescence of a church.

It isn't worse than watching Life of Brian, it is equally blasphemous.

Where is transsexualism against the bible?

Can transsexuals bear children? If not, then they cannot fulfill their role in marriage and this is by their decision. They would most likely be regarded as equivalent to eunuchs, which were noted, but ambivalently, in the Bible.

Sterile straight women or men cannot have children either. Plus transsexuals CAN have children. Not all transsexuals chop their penis off or get one surgically attached. This argument is ridiculous.

It is the sexual act outside of a traditional marriage that is a sin. If a trans-person did not have sex, they would not have committed that particular sin.

So it all comes back to sex again huh? So the existence of a transsexual isn't sinful, but the sex is. So in otherwords, a transsexual putting on a play about Jesus isn't sinful.

Oh dear.....

I don't know who is more stupid;

This woman for coming up with this play

Or

That church for allowing it to be shown on their grounds.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Interesting that they chose the epithet "Queen of Heaven". That is one of the titles of the "whore of Babylon", a spiritual representatative of occultism and "mystery Babylon" belief that will gain in power in the last days (according to the Revelation of Jesus Christ by St John).

But, people have been insulting Jesus for millennia.

... and, just my 10cents worth, but the sin of homosexuality according to God's Law is covered under 'having sex outside of the approved model of a normal monogamous marriage where one may conceive children'.

Homosexuality, adultery, premarital sex, bestiality and other behaviors are sins of sexual promiscuity - no worse or different than any other sin (except for the unpardonable sin).

I like how you pointed out 'sins of sexual promiscuity'. Both straight folks and LGBT folks are capable of practicing sins of the sexual nature.
I would just like to add that there are so many different sins and not even the most devout Christian is capable of being perfect in thought and action 100%of the time and that only Christ was perfect. Christ's perfection made the sacrifice on the cross all the more meaningful for those looking for salvation.
As for the OP, I don't think Jesus was a female or a drag queen and I'm guessing if anything, men of biblical times that wore their hair long and wore draping clothes may have been more in touch with the duel male/female Yin/yang nature we as humans all possess, but that is as far as it goes.
I disagree with the play being in a Church and should have been in a community hall or something similar.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Can transsexuals bear children? If not, then they cannot fulfill their role in marriage and this is by their decision.

Yes, transsexuals can bear children. Also, transsexual doesn't equal gay!

Please read the rest of my post. I made no suggestion that transsexualism was necessarily homosexual.

Male to female trans-gendered people cannot bear children (at least with current technology). Female to male trans-gendered people have given birth with much medical assistance.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
Are you saying Jesus was a transsexual?

That is an interesting question. Jesus only received DNA from Mary, meaning he could only have XX chromosomes thus born with a vagina. If the was perceived as a man, he must have been a transman.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The OP says the play reimagines Jesus as a transsexual woman. As a result, people are going to find that offensive, sinful or not.

Being a transsexual is not wrong, I'm sure you and I both know that, but remember, Christians are very conservative so this is shocking to them.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The OP says the play reimagines Jesus as a transsexual woman. As a result, people are going to find that offensive, sinful or not.

Being a transsexual is not wrong, I'm sure you and I both know that, but remember, Christians are very conservative so this is shocking to them.

True enough, but it's really none of their business. Free speech and freedom of religion and all that.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: blueman12

There have been homosexuals right back into history, indeed the story of soddom and gomorah spring's to mind were the angels sent as men into the city were attacked by the people there whom tried to rape them, these angels were in male form at the time.

But as for today it is a simple and very sad fact that there are so many homosexuals because I have to break it to you but we have been poisoned and it effect's the children in the womb.

There are chemicals everywhere today that mimick female hormone's and disrupt the normal male development, some, myself included believe it was a deliberate act by a group of misguided (and evil) individuals whom were trying to regulate birth rate's in the developed nation's as a form of control and to stabilise the population at a managable level for there manipulative control mechanism's.

First off, how do you have an idea how many homosexuals there were today, compared to history? Consider the fact that homosexuality only RECENTLY became normal in western society.

Many countries still often condemn homosexual and either kill or torture homosexuals based on religion. History is chalk full of homosexual oppression. How can you even begin to judge the level of homosexuals in history when most were hiding it?

Chemicals may be affecting sexuality. You may have a point on that. However, we still do not know the full nature of homosexuality. Nature vs Nurture. Our HUGE population may also have something to do with the amount of homosexuals. Population influences our genetics, which may then influence if someone is born a homosexual.

Yet, like I said, we still don't know the full science of sexuality. What we do know, or should know, is that opressing people is wrong. Wether it is race, religion, sexuality, or w/e.

Lastly, there is nowhere NEAR enough homosexuals that endangers humanity. The population is still INCREASING. Which turns your "popluation control" theory upside down.

But hell, if you turn out to be right in the future, would that be bad? I much rather take a population decrease through more homosexuals, than through violent means. If the "TPTB" are going through with Agenda 21 and depopulating us through an increase in homosexuality, I would call that a compassionate agenda. Whereas they could just release a bioengineered virus that wipes out humanity in a horrible torturous death.

But that is just conspiracy theory talk. Realistically, homosexually is nothing to fear.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DeathSlayer

And? Are queer people not allowed to watch plays put on by transsexuals in a church?

How is this play any worse than watching Life of Brian?

No, sinners are not supposed to promote their sinful acts, even less so with the passive acquiescence of a church.

It isn't worse than watching Life of Brian, it is equally blasphemous.

Where is transsexualism against the bible?

Can transsexuals bear children? If not, then they cannot fulfill their role in marriage and this is by their decision. They would most likely be regarded as equivalent to eunuchs, which were noted, but ambivalently, in the Bible.

Sterile straight women or men cannot have children either. Plus transsexuals CAN have children. Not all transsexuals chop their penis off or get one surgically attached. This argument is ridiculous.

It is the sexual act outside of a traditional marriage that is a sin. If a trans-person did not have sex, they would not have committed that particular sin.

So it all comes back to sex again huh? So the existence of a transsexual isn't sinful, but the sex is. So in otherwords, a transsexual putting on a play about Jesus isn't sinful.

The representation of someone as something that they are not is legally defined, secularly, as slander. Blasphemy is slander in a religious context.

A transsexual portraying Jesus as something He was not is both slanderous by our law and blasphemous by God's law. Looks like a sin to me.

A transsexual putting on a play, of itself is not sinful.

a reply to: chr0naut

I made no suggestion that transsexualism was necessarily homosexual.

Yes, you have and you continue to equate transsexualism to acts of perceived sexual immorality.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Absolutely disgusting. I hope the Lord destoys that church publicly for misrepresenting the Gospels in such a morbid and reckless manor.

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
Where is the call to behead the creator of this?

I was under the assumption thats what all religions of peace did when their prophets are blasphemed?

The more people who say this ridiculous twaddle make me certain they're envious of the darker side of Islam's adherents.


Why else would you constantly make the false equivalence unless you were jealous of the difference in reaction.


Do you want people beheaded?

Is there only outrage or beheadings as the two reactions to religions being blasphemed?

Is there no grey area?


You don't need to answer these questions.

I'm not even aiming this at you, it's just a generic response to the obvious "oh but Islam" posts.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

I don't mind the idea, but the thing that makes it sit wrong in my mind is the sexual imagery.

If they could leave that sort of stuff out, all the better.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The OP says the play reimagines Jesus as a transsexual woman. As a result, people are going to find that offensive, sinful or not.

Being a transsexual is not wrong, I'm sure you and I both know that, but remember, Christians are very conservative so this is shocking to them.

True enough, but it's really none of their business. Free speech and freedom of religion and all that.

Not in our house of worship!

If you want to do this at a local park or wherever is fine but not in the house of God.

Can you understand this?

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Well it's not like Christians themselves haven't perverted the word of God through out history by changing the meanings in the bible to suit their own agendas

It was inevitable that the Church would eventually adapt to modern times like it has been doing since its inception

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The OP says the play reimagines Jesus as a transsexual woman. As a result, people are going to find that offensive, sinful or not.

Being a transsexual is not wrong, I'm sure you and I both know that, but remember, Christians are very conservative so this is shocking to them.

True enough, but it's really none of their business. Free speech and freedom of religion and all that.

Not in our house of worship!

If you want to do this at a local park or wherever is fine but not in the house of God.

Can you understand this?

Do you attend this church?

a reply to: Tucket

I don't mind the idea, but the thing that makes it sit wrong in my mind is the sexual imagery.

What sexual imagery?

The one-woman play by award-winning Scottish playwright Jo Clifford, who has herself changed gender, is called "The Gospel According to Jesus, Queen of Heaven," which imagines Jesus returning to Earth as a "trans woman" and retelling the parables with a transsexual slant.

www.christianpost.com...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agreed, but when doing something controversial like this among a group of people who are known to be conservative, one has to expect the same freedom of speech to be used against them.

Just saying.