1. Comment #114031 by leodavinci on January 21, 2008 at 8:55 am

"unhistorical and untrue"

Had a look in the mirror recently?

Other Comments by leodavinci

2. Comment #114033 by liddlefeesh on January 21, 2008 at 8:57 am

I wonder how much of the offense is caused by the portrayal of Jesus' sexuality as a gay man, or if the same knee-jerk reaction would be received if Jesus was shown to be a secular humanist who really didn't believe or claim to be a god.

Other Comments by liddlefeesh

3. Comment #114035 by rod-the-farmer on January 21, 2008 at 9:02 am

the play's creators had committed "a big enough crime" by neglecting to treat Christianity and Christian believers with more sensitivity.

Beg pardon ? Why do they need to be treated with more sensitivity ? Or for that matter, any sensitivity at all ? In my opinion, they need to be challenged every time they spout nonsense. And who elected them to be offended ? If their deity will be offended, surely he will take appropriate action on his own ? On the plus side, at least they are not calling for a fatwa, as they would if the play was about mohammed. THEN we would have riots in cities around the world.

The play.....provoked protests and bomb threats in the US. Death threats were sent to playwright Terrence McNally, who draws parallels between the rejection he faced as a young gay man growing up in Texas, and Christ's persecution.

Because if we don't treat them with more sensitivity (my head shakes just typing these words ) they will call in bomb threats ? Aaaakkk. Maybe we need a bumper sticker that says something like

I'm an atheist. You got a problem with that ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

4. Comment #114038 by octopus on January 21, 2008 at 9:05 am

It's historical nonsense and I wouldn't want to go and see it. Life's too short.

What's the big deal...you have the next one anyway...

Other Comments by octopus

5. Comment #114044 by Apemanblues on January 21, 2008 at 9:10 am

He never had a girlfriend, hung around with guys in dresses and loved his mother a lot.

That's all I'm saying...

Other Comments by Apemanblues

6. Comment #114046 by JemyM on January 21, 2008 at 9:16 am

Homophobes who call themselves christians should just bend over. If Jesus have a problem with this, let him speak, the rest can just shut up.

Other Comments by JemyM

7. Comment #114047 by Celandine on January 21, 2008 at 9:18 am

The ideas are offensive and really border on blasphemous.

If one doesn't subscribe to the belief, though, how can it be blasphemous? Someone who does not consider Jesus of Nazareth divine is hardly speaking profanely of a god, no matter what they might say about him.

Other Comments by Celandine

8. Comment #114050 by NMcC on January 21, 2008 at 9:24 am

A passage from the 'Secret Gospel of Mark' suppressed by the Christians:

"And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God."

Yes! I'll bet he did!!

Other Comments by NMcC

9. Comment #114052 by acidhouser on January 21, 2008 at 9:25 am

"expressed his outrage at the "unhistorical and untrue" depiction of the son of God and some of his disciples as homosexual." and

"It's historical nonsense and I wouldn't want to go and see it. Life's too short." and

"It's just completely fanciful and self-obsessive,"


So is this the play or the bible they are complaining about?

Other Comments by acidhouser

10. Comment #114053 by Steve Zara on January 21, 2008 at 9:25 am

The Anglican Bishop of South Sydney, Robert Forsyth, questioned the integrity of Corpus Christi and expressed his outrage at the "unhistorical and untrue" depiction of the son of God and some of his disciples as homosexual.

I would be fascinated to see some evidence for the heterosexuality of Jesus and his disciples. Until such evidence is forthcoming, it is surely reasonable to speculate. And, given the number of the disciples, it is probably better than 50:50 that at least one was gay.

I do look forward to the historical evidence, which the Anglicans must surely have, to back their statements.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

11. Comment #114055 by Double Bass Atheist on January 21, 2008 at 9:27 am

"unhistorical and untrue" depiction of the son of God
"It's historical nonsense and I wouldn't want to go and see it. Life's too short."

Jesus' entire supposed life is historical nonsense!
Before this Bishop or any believer makes a statement like this, shouldn't they first have to show the "true" account of Jesus (without using the bible) and how they "know" it?
Oh wait, sorry… there's that damn 'logic and reason' again. I keep forgetting this is Theology.

rod-the-farmer,
I'd like to be your first customer. I'll take a case of those bumper stickers, please. ;-)

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

12. Comment #114056 by Cartomancer on January 21, 2008 at 9:28 am

As a Gay man I feel deeply offended with this portrayal of Jesus as a homosexual. For millennia now the christians have been consciously subverting Gay values and Gay culture, trying to challenge our monopoly on liberal lefty politics and destroy the sanctity of Gay marriage. Now they have gone too far in trying to assume our sexual identity for one of their cultural icons. It is entirely unhistorical and bordering on the homophobic to portray the founder of this vile, bigoted confection of dangerous, fanatical doctrines as a well-rounded Gay man. It is almost saying that Gay people are responsible for founding major world religions and miring the world in facile unscientific nonsense. Have people forgotten the Gay Buddha fiasco of the eighties? Did we close down the Queer Mohammed exhibition for nothing?

I am disgusted. Come opening night I shall be protesting outside the New Theatre in my hot pants, knee length leather boots and ridiculously tight vest. We must not stand for this sort of filth on our stage!

Other Comments by Cartomancer

13. Comment #114062 by artificialhabitat on January 21, 2008 at 9:45 am

"unhistorical and untrue"

"It's historical nonsense"

"It's just completely fanciful and self-obsessive,"

I find myself constantly amazed at the extent to which these people are so completely blind to the irony of some of the things they say.

Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing

Other Comments by artificialhabitat

14. Comment #114063 by clunkclickeverytrip on January 21, 2008 at 9:55 am

I am bored with this type of theatrical effort. Christianity is the soft monotheist target so Jesus gets it again. The shock value is diminishing with every try. This isn't dangerous - what Wilders is supposedly planning in Holland is dangerous, literally.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

15. Comment #114064 by Synchronium on January 21, 2008 at 9:55 am

I agree with rtificialhabitat, and indeed everyone else pointing out the delicious irony.

Other Comments by Synchronium

16. Comment #114065 by steveroot on January 21, 2008 at 9:57 am

13. Comment #114056 by Cartomancer on January 21, 2008 at 9:28 am
For millennia now the christians have been...trying to challenge our monopoly on liberal lefty politics and destroy the sanctity of gay marriage.

Well, four out of five baptist divorcees want you gays to stop undermining the sanctity of marriage!
LOL!
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

17. Comment #114067 by liberalartist on January 21, 2008 at 9:59 am

It is intersting how contemporary christians are always changing their religion to fit their own world view. Your a gay christian...well then Jesus could have been gay! Your for women's equality, well then Jesus was pro-woman! Your for peace on earth, well then Jesus was a peace-maker. Religion becomes fuzzier and fuzzier and that I think is a good thing. Perhaps as Daniel Dennett points out, religion will just fade away over time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjljRkaKTwc. If so, its got a long way to go.

Other Comments by liberalartist

18. Comment #114071 by Steve Zara on January 21, 2008 at 10:10 am

I am disgusted. Come opening night I shall be protesting outside the New Theatre in my hot pants, knee length leather boots and ridiculously tight vest. We must not stand for this sort of filth on our stage!

Now that would be a user icon worth having (if only to bring out for debates with fundamentalists).

Other Comments by Steve Zara

19. Comment #114072 by The Reverend Dark on January 21, 2008 at 10:12 am

I suppose that laughing boy bishop is not particularly partial to the Secret Gospel of Mark - discovered and written about by Morton Smith. Now there is still debate as to the authenticity of this document - of which only photographs are available at this time.

However, even in the synoptic account of Mark there is Mark 14:51-52; which hints rather strongly at hot man on Messiah action. It was unlikely that it was Judas that Jesus sowed his wild mustard seeds with; Judas's price for a complete rogering was thirty silver. That's just not economical for your average randy messiah.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

20. Comment #114078 by Phoenix42 on January 21, 2008 at 10:24 am

I think Steve Zara's right. There's no evidence for the hetrosexuality of Jesus and his disciples.

I'm going to write to my MP and demand that in RE lessons at school they 'teach the controversy'. :-)

Other Comments by Phoenix42

21. Comment #114081 by konquererz on January 21, 2008 at 10:38 am

I MUST see this play! To bad its not in the US. I tend to support anything anti-christian orthodoxy. Thus, gay Jesus would fit the bill. LOL

Other Comments by konquererz

22. Comment #114082 by konquererz on January 21, 2008 at 10:39 am

"However, even in the synoptic account of Mark there is Mark 14:51-52; which hints rather strongly at hot man on Messiah action."

Man on Messiah action?
LMFAO!!!

I think I wet myself!

Other Comments by konquererz

23. Comment #114093 by Geoff on January 21, 2008 at 11:10 am

Enough of this crap about "blasphemy". Why the hell should their delusions have such a special privilege? And why the hell doesn't their imaginary friend do something about it if he's really so touchy, instead of relying on them to whinge about it?

[/rant]

Other Comments by Geoff

24. Comment #114106 by Paula Kirby on January 21, 2008 at 11:35 am

Konquererz: I MUST see this play!

If these bishops were just the teensiest bit life-savvy, they'd simply keep quiet. Who outside Sydney would then have ever even heard of this play? As it is, the thought that, hey, Jesus really might have been gay is now in people's minds across the English-speaking world. And it's a fair bet that the theatre's going to sell far more tickets than it ever would have done without the furore. Honestly, these people are so ridiculous, whichever way you look at it.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

25. Comment #114107 by Philip1978 on January 21, 2008 at 11:36 am

But the Da Vinci Code proved he loved Mary, look at the Last Supper painting...! :)

What a thing to get hung up about, like the rest of you I think proving Jesus's existence would be on the top of the list first.

Unhistorical, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight good going there! Why not check his sodding birth date first, was it 4BC or 6AD? Did Nazareth exist then or was it a graveyard for the small village of Japha up until 67AD? Are there any historical documents other than the Bible confirming his miracles? etc etc

As for Jesus or one his mates being gay, yes, its a possibility if he or they ever existed, why not?


Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

26. Comment #114115 by Strigoia on January 21, 2008 at 11:45 am

Oh noes, Jesus slash! :D Sorry to disappoint, but people have been writing this kind of stuff for a while now. And with all the subtext in the N.T., can you blame them?

Other Comments by Strigoia

27. Comment #114116 by AshtonBlack on January 21, 2008 at 11:49 am

LOL!!!!

Good on ya, mates.

*Open's a tinnie of VB*

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

28. Comment #114117 by mikecbraun on January 21, 2008 at 11:51 am

If you take the word "play" out of the title of this article, it sounds fabulous. I think there's something that really needs to give or be set free in the church in general, if you get my drift. There's a lot of pent-up aggression and raw sexuality, and the robes are kind of a clue as to which way these boys really want to swing. That's cool--just quit suppressing it and making other peoples' lives miserable because you're miserable! It's okay to be a sexual being, it's okay to be gay, it's okay to be straight, whatever. Just be human.

Other Comments by mikecbraun

29. Comment #114118 by Matt7895 on January 21, 2008 at 11:52 am

DON'T INSULT MY IMAGINARY FRIEND! WAAAAAH!

Other Comments by Matt7895

30. Comment #114131 by the great teapot on January 21, 2008 at 12:14 pm

"These ideas border on the blasphemous"
Yes, and?

Other Comments by the great teapot

31. Comment #114167 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 1:28 pm

It's historical nonsense

Reminds me of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who said when The Da Vinci Code came out:

"There's a real danger people will believe this fairy story".

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

32. Comment #114169 by shaunfletcher on January 21, 2008 at 1:34 pm

This doesn't border on the blasphemous, it joyfully blasphemes without a care in the world. Good for them.

As for historical.. that's outright funny coming from a bish basher isnt it?

I wouldn't go and see the play though, it sounds dreary and self-involved.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher

33. Comment #114182 by LorienRyan on January 21, 2008 at 1:48 pm

There is virtually no evidence that the jesus character existed historically. That then begs the question of what this is really all about.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

34. Comment #114188 by Steve Zara on January 21, 2008 at 1:52 pm

There is virtually no evidence that the jesus character existed historically. That then begs the question of what this is really all about.

I think it is pretty clear. For reasons that elude me, the leaders of Christian churches don't like men having sex with each other.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #114196 by Double Bass Atheist on January 21, 2008 at 2:08 pm

think it is pretty clear. For reasons that elude me, the leaders of Christian churches don't like men having sex with each other.

That's true Steve… they sure don't like men having sex with each other, they'd much prefer boys.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

36. Comment #114229 by bliktor on January 21, 2008 at 3:30 pm

"It's historical nonsense and I wouldn't want to go and see it. Life's too short."

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black then I don't know what is.

Other Comments by bliktor

37. Comment #114242 by rydrum2112 on January 21, 2008 at 3:56 pm

I was in borders today, saw a "Christian Fiction" section. I thought to myself 'is there a christian non-fiction section?'

Other Comments by rydrum2112

38. Comment #114258 by notsobad on January 21, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Could these stop being offended on god's behalf all the time?

Didn't he leave some instructions, like "Vengeance is mine" and "Do not judge, and you will not be judged?"

Other Comments by notsobad

39. Comment #114268 by atkinson on January 21, 2008 at 5:08 pm

We've met the playwright of Corpus Christi here already: search on McNally for his interview with Richard.

Other Comments by atkinson

40. Comment #114271 by dlitt on January 21, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Blasphemy is a crime against what? Nothingness?

Other Comments by dlitt

41. Comment #114273 by dlitt on January 21, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Comment #114188 by Steve Zara on January 21, 2008 at 1:52 pm

I think it is pretty clear. For reasons that elude me, the leaders of Christian churches don't like men having sex with each other.

They're jealous.

Other Comments by dlitt

42. Comment #114286 by Roland_F on January 21, 2008 at 6:47 pm

For reasons that elude me, the leaders of Christian churches don't like men having sex with each other.

In Germany an 'informed insider' (a priest and teacher of catholic theology) called homosexuality widespread inside the priesthood and called the Catholic Church the "biggest transnational gay organization'.

And to add some more quotes ('The eternal child' Clive Bromhall page 240-241)
[The German invaders of Roman Europe, for instance as well as the Muslims who came into contact with Christians in medieval Spain, all insisted that Catholic priests tended to be gay. Many other observers also noted the prevalence of homosexuality in the church]

[Aside from the various other activities, members of the Inquisition burned vast numbers of homosexuals alive to 'save their souls from eternal damnation'. But despite the numerous cleansing sprees that have occurred throughout history, homosexuality has persistently resurfaced within the Church's ranks.]
[Recent studies have reported staggering levels of homosexuality in the Church. Among Catholic clergy in the USA, it has consistently been indicated that hat between 20 and 50% are gay].

Other Comments by Roland_F

43. Comment #114326 by Philip1978 on January 22, 2008 at 12:38 am

Roland F

Very interesting, I have always been rather at odds with church goers who are also gay, its like they want to punish themselves or are completely oblivious to the mad doctrines of that religion that specify quite strictly that thou shalt not have sex with men if thou art male thyself! Same goes for those sinful females as well!

I think its hideous enough the ridiculous and dangerous emphasis most religions hurl at being gay as it can have very dangerous consequences. The believers don't understand and think its something that can be "cured" through worship.

But I suppose I should not be surprised that people can be gay and be Catholic, Anglican or any other gay hating religion, if they can believe in invisible things they can twist the religion to suit themselves.

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

44. Comment #114333 by Tyler Durden on January 22, 2008 at 1:38 am

Comment by Philip:

Why not check his sodding birth date first, was it 4BC or 6AD?

And the date of his "death" moves with the moon in the spring equinox? Huh? (Good Friday is the Friday before Easter Sunday which is the first Sunday after the Paschal Full Moon, usually the first full moon of spring).

They can't tell the exact date when their messiah was crucified? Surely an event of that magnitude would be inscribed on tablets/parchments etc.

Instead, we get: "Well, we're not quite sure, so we'll let the moon decide". Wackos!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

45. Comment #114353 by Roland_F on January 22, 2008 at 3:42 am

44. Comment #114333 by Tyler Durden

They can't tell the exact date when their messiah was crucified?

Actually Christians can date this relative exactly : end of March 36AD, but this is really the ONLY thing they can within a week accuracy agree on about Horus son of virgin Isis, son of man, son of God, resurrected, the truth, the light, etc... from Egypt 2000BC …. … ooops I meant Jesus son of virgin Mary, …….

There are 4 different Gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus starting with the last supper the evening before Passover (4th Gospel according to Paul) following the solar calendar of the apostles = zealots of the book -- or the totally improbable other 3 versions of events starting on Passover (Gospel of Mark and their adjusted copies of Mathew and Luke) contradicting strict Jewish non working days for their high court. Then Horus/Jesus was crucified the Fridays 30th March 36AD, the day before Sabbath after Passover.

According to John 8:57 about Jesus at Passover the year before (35 AD) 'Thou are not yet 50 years old, and hast thou seen Abraham" , so using this Jesus birth year is 14 or 13 BC.
The birth is not mentioned in 2 Gospels (Mark, John) at all, Mathews Gospel is mentioning the flight to Egypt after birth because of king Herod-1 'the great' massacre of the innocent . Herod-1 died 4BC, so Jesus must have been born before. The famous Christmas story from Luke is a completely invented fairy tale as Augustus never ordered an empire wide census, beside the fact that Roman census is based on residence not remote birthplace. There was a local census of Quirinius 6AD in Judea, but Joseph and his virgin wife Isis (Mary) lived in Galilee which was not part of the Judean census.
The birthplace Bethlehem was used to link the new Messiah to the royal line of King David, needless to say that Gospels don't agree of the number of generations from David to Jesus (28 to 41 generations), besides who cares about the line of Joseph when he is anyway not the father but the 'holy spirit' is ?

Just some highlight for the end: even criminals like Barabbas who was released from Pilate instead of Jesus is mentioned outside the Bible. Beside some later 4th century AD faked insertion of Jesus into the History recording of Josephus, there is no account of Jesus outside the Bible at all.

Other Comments by Roland_F

46. Comment #114364 by padster1976 on January 22, 2008 at 4:35 am

'"It's historical nonsense and I wouldn't want to go and see it. Life's too short."'

My view of religion.

Other Comments by padster1976

47. Comment #114374 by dobiemum on January 22, 2008 at 5:31 am

"It's historical nonsense and I wouldn't want to go and see it. Life's too short."

this bishop bloke really gets it then - he knows we only have one life afterall !!

Other Comments by dobiemum

48. Comment #114375 by elise97 on January 22, 2008 at 5:37 am

lol - how can someone be gay if they never existed?

Other Comments by elise97

49. Comment #114378 by The Reverend Dark on January 22, 2008 at 5:40 am

lol - how can someone be gay if they never existed?

Well there is a long tradition of gay/lesbian characters in literature, drama, and those films offered in the ads towards the back of Viz magazine.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

50. Comment #114438 by Tycho the Dog on January 22, 2008 at 7:58 am

I can see it all clearly: Jesus in tight PVC having the outrageously camp disciples, pharisees, legionaires, etc., pointed out by Mary Magdalene...

"But I'm the only gay in Galilee".

Other Comments by Tycho the Dog