'The creator of a controversial play which depicts Christ returned to earth as a female transsexual has accused critics of misinterpreting her work. Nearly 300 people picketed the opening night of Jesus, Queen of Heaven at the Tron Theatre in Glasgow this week, part of the city’s publicly funded annual Glasgay! arts festival.
'Protesters lit candles, sang hymns and brandished placards saying: "Jesus, King of Kings, Not Queen of Heaven" and "God: My Son Is Not A Pervert." But the play’s writer and sole performer Jo Clifford, who is herself transgender and a committed Christian, has been deeply shocked by the reaction to the play.' <http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/ou...>
When we transcribed the alien script we found that Alwyn had written:
> 'The creator of a controversial play which depicts Christ returned to > earth as a female transsexual has accused critics of misinterpreting her
<cynic>
As an author I know that lack of originality can be compensated for by causing as much offence as possible. To do this safely it is important only to offend groups that do not fight back.
Conversely the best way of dealing with this sort of thing is to ignore it completely.
</cynic>
-- I am Robert Billing, Christian, author, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover. "It burned me from within. It quickened; I was with book as a woman is with child." Quality e-books for portable readers: http://www.alex-library.com
Robert Billing wrote: > When we transcribed the alien script we found that Alwyn had written:
>> 'The creator of a controversial play which depicts Christ returned to >> earth as a female transsexual has accused critics of misinterpreting her
> <cynic>
> As an author I know that lack of originality can be compensated for by > causing as much offence as possible. To do this safely it is important > only to offend groups that do not fight back.
> Conversely the best way of dealing with this sort of thing is to ignore it > completely.
I haven't seen the play and so can't judge its value, but one might be forgiven for thinking that a transsexual author performing her own play in which the only character is a transsexual Jesus Christ was a little self-obsessed. It wouldn't be high on my list of things to see.
It is also hard to imagine that unless the author lives under a rock - which surely no playwright should do - the amount of protest was not anticipated. Even so, the placards reading "Jesus, King of Kings, Not Queen of Heaven" and "God: My Son Is Not A Pervert" reveal some of the heterosexism that lies deep in the Christian psyche.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:26:31 GMT, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >Robert Billing wrote: >> When we transcribed the alien script we found that Alwyn had written:
>>> 'The creator of a controversial play which depicts Christ returned to >>> earth as a female transsexual has accused critics of misinterpreting her
>> <cynic>
>> As an author I know that lack of originality can be compensated for by >> causing as much offence as possible. To do this safely it is important >> only to offend groups that do not fight back.
>> Conversely the best way of dealing with this sort of thing is to ignore it >> completely.
>I haven't seen the play and so can't judge its value, but one might be >forgiven for thinking that a transsexual author performing her own play >in which the only character is a transsexual Jesus Christ was a little >self-obsessed. It wouldn't be high on my list of things to see.
>It is also hard to imagine that unless the author lives under a rock - >which surely no playwright should do - the amount of protest was not >anticipated. Even so, the placards reading "Jesus, King of Kings, Not >Queen of Heaven" and "God: My Son Is Not A Pervert" reveal some of the >heterosexism that lies deep in the Christian psyche.
As there is not a hint in the Bible that Jesus was a transexual I see no problem with the King of Kings, not Queen of Heaven placard.. Its a statement and Christians believe he is indeed King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
The second placard certainly uncalled for and should have been denounced by fellow Christians who were there.
I wonder what uproar wouuld have taken place if it was Mohammed this woman was portraying and not Jesus.
> As there is not a hint in the Bible that Jesus was a transexual I see > no problem with the King of Kings, not Queen of Heaven placard.. Its > a statement and Christians believe he is indeed King of Kings and Lord > of Lords.
God presumably has no body and does not need to reproduce, therefore we can take it that It has no sex. The correct pronoun in English for things with no sex is 'it', though 'she' is sometimes used of ships and countries. So why do we call God 'He' rather than the more appropriate 'It' or possibly 'She'? And if we must personify the Supreme Being, why is it acceptable to call It God the Father but never God the Mother?
God the Father is alleged to have had a Son. Why not a daughter? Or a Son and a Daughter? And why did Jesus choose twelve male disciples rather than six of each sex?
I suggest that the answer to this is that those who formed the Christian religion had a deep-seated belief, no doubt inherited from the Jews, that the male is superior and somehow more spiritual than the female, hence the outrage at attributing the title 'Queen of Heaven' to Jesus.
Early Christians tried to make up for this by giving the title 'Queen of Heaven' to the Theotokos, the Mother of God, but many Protestants will have none of this and cling to their idea of an all-male heavenly hierarchy.
"Alwyn" wrote: > God presumably has no body and does not need to reproduce, therefore > we can take it that It has no sex. The correct pronoun in English for > things with no sex is 'it', though 'she' is sometimes used of ships > and countries.
Consider a genuine hermaphrodite, with fully functioning reproductive systems of both kinds and some sort of blend of other sexual characteristics. (I don't know whether exactly this occurs in humans, but clearly it's imaginable.) Are you saying that we should call such a person "it"?
The correct pronoun in English for *things that are not persons* is "it" (with, again, some exceptions); to call a person "it" would be a sign of contempt, even if that person's sex were somehow indeterminate. We don't *have* a decent pronoun for sexless persons, useful though it might be for gods, aliens, intelligent computers, hermaphrodites, etc.
> So why do we call God 'He' rather than the more > appropriate 'It' or possibly 'She'? And if we must personify the > Supreme Being, why is it acceptable to call It God the Father but > never God the Mother?
I have heard Christians call God "Mother" on occasion.
I agree that some sort of sexism is almost certainly ultimately responsible for some features of Christianity, but not necessarily only in the way you describe. Suppose you're in a culture where men are dominant, and you have to pick a pronoun to use for God. I think "he" is arguably the right choice even if you don't think men are any better than women, if (1) you think that supreme power and authority are key characteristics of God, and (2) you care more about having people perceive God rightly than about improving the way your society treats women. Similarly: suppose you are among polytheists and wish to get everyone to worship a single deity from their pantheon and turn monotheist (or at least henotheist); in a society where men are dominant, again you'd probably better choose a god rather than a goddess.
I doubt that Judaism or Christianity were made up so consciously, but the sort of influence I just described seems to me as important as "men are better, therefore God is male".
> I suggest that the answer to this is that those who formed the > Christian religion had a deep-seated belief, no doubt inherited from > the Jews, that the male is superior and somehow more spiritual than > the female, hence the outrage at attributing the title 'Queen of > Heaven' to Jesus.
Anyway. Once the pronouns and stories are in place, I don't see that any particular extra sexism is needed to make some literal-minded Christians get upset if Jesus is portrated in a way they thing is factually incorrect, especially if they think this is being done to further some agenda that Jesus isn't known to have had. (And especially if it happens to make Jesus more different from *them*, and especially if it's unfamiliar and novel, which is probably why we don't hear much outrage at the commonplace depiction of Jesus as a blonde-haired blue-eyed Aryan.)
> Early Christians tried to make up for this by giving the title 'Queen > of Heaven' to the Theotokos, the Mother of God, but many Protestants > will have none of this and cling to their idea of an all-male heavenly > hierarchy.
They say that their objection is to making an ordinary human being seem equal with God. That seems to me to be a sufficient reason for their objection, although of course it's possible that some of the real motivation comes from sexism.
*
For what it's worth, I don't think there need actually be anything wrong (from a Christian perspective) with depicting Jesus as female, or transsexual, or English, or whatever. After all, the incarnation is supposed to have brought about some sort of identification between him and us (or at least *them* :-) ), not just between him and first-century Jewish men, and having Jesus be a member of one or another group seems like it might be a fruitful way for Christians to explore what the incarnation might mean for members of that group.
Of course the group had better not be defined by something that Christians consider morally wrong, since Jesus's sinlessness is a pretty important doctrine[1]. Some Christians think that transsexualism is a grave moral fault (an extraordinarily stupid idea, in my opinion, but never mind that) and to such a person presumably a depiction of Jesus as transsexual would be not just a misrepresentation of the facts but a serious blasphemy, much as it would be to depict Jesus as a rapist, a confidence trickster, or a murderer. It's possible that the idea that transsexualism is wrong derives from sexism somehow, but if so the derivation must be quite indirect.
[1] Despite the fact that the NT documents him as telling untruths, insulting people at what seems very slight provocation, etc. But I digress.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:57:01 +0000, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >John R (Ripon43) wrote:
>> As there is not a hint in the Bible that Jesus was a transexual I see >> no problem with the King of Kings, not Queen of Heaven placard.. Its >> a statement and Christians believe he is indeed King of Kings and Lord >> of Lords.
>God presumably has no body and does not need to reproduce, therefore we >can take it that It has no sex. The correct pronoun in English for >things with no sex is 'it', though 'she' is sometimes used of ships and >countries. So why do we call God 'He' rather than the more appropriate >'It' or possibly 'She'? And if we must personify the Supreme Being, why >is it acceptable to call It God the Father but never God the Mother?
God is Spirit so you are correct in what you say. However, Jesus was male. He referred to God as his Father, so in that sense I refer to God as Father too.
I know some people see God as a mother figure. I have no objection to that.
>God the Father is alleged to have had a Son. Why not a daughter? Or a >Son and a Daughter? And why did Jesus choose twelve male disciples >rather than six of each sex?
I believe that Jesus has always existed (John 1) but when "he" came to earth he came in a male body. I'm only guessing here but had he chosen to come in a female body then he would not have been listened to by those that followed him. The same goes for choosing 6 female disciples.
That said I think Jesus was a bit of a pioneer as he did have a healthy respect for women if the account of Mary Magdalene is to be believed.
Like it or not, society has always been male dominated and it is only really in the last 100 years that women have had the equality that they have fought for.
>I suggest that the answer to this is that those who formed the Christian >religion had a deep-seated belief, no doubt inherited from the Jews, >that the male is superior and somehow more spiritual than the female, >hence the outrage at attributing the title 'Queen of Heaven' to Jesus.
Possibly. I don't think Paul was quite the woman hater he is made out to be. One of his quotes is their is neither Jew or Greek, slave or fee, male or female, we are all one in Christ Jesus (paraphrased)
>Early Christians tried to make up for this by giving the title 'Queen of >Heaven' to the Theotokos, the Mother of God, but many Protestants will >have none of this and cling to their idea of an all-male heavenly hierarchy.
Alwyn wrote: > 'The creator of a controversial play which depicts Christ returned to > earth as a female transsexual has accused critics of misinterpreting > her work. Nearly 300 people picketed the opening night of Jesus, Queen of > Heaven at the Tron Theatre in Glasgow this week, part of the city’s > publicly funded annual Glasgay! arts festival.
> 'Protesters lit candles, sang hymns and brandished placards saying: > "Jesus, King of Kings, Not Queen of Heaven" and "God: My Son Is Not A > Pervert." But the play’s writer and sole performer Jo Clifford, who is > herself transgender and a committed Christian, has been deeply shocked > by the reaction to the play.' > <http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/ou...>
It's the old question of whether to censor the arts, isn't it? I would have been more impressed if the play had portrayed Mohammed in this way, now that WOULD have taken guts.
John R (Ripon43) wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:57:01 +0000, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> John R (Ripon43) wrote:
>>> As there is not a hint in the Bible that Jesus was a transexual I >>> see no problem with the King of Kings, not Queen of Heaven >>> placard.. Its a statement and Christians believe he is indeed King >>> of Kings and Lord of Lords.
>> God presumably has no body and does not need to reproduce, therefore >> we >> can take it that It has no sex. The correct pronoun in English for >> things with no sex is 'it', though 'she' is sometimes used of ships >> and countries. So why do we call God 'He' rather than the more >> appropriate 'It' or possibly 'She'? And if we must personify the >> Supreme Being, why >> is it acceptable to call It God the Father but never God the Mother?
> God is Spirit so you are correct in what you say. However, Jesus was > male. He referred to God as his Father, so in that sense I refer to > God as Father too.
> I know some people see God as a mother figure. I have no objection to > that.
>> God the Father is alleged to have had a Son. Why not a daughter? Or a >> Son and a Daughter? And why did Jesus choose twelve male disciples >> rather than six of each sex?
> I believe that Jesus has always existed (John 1) but when "he" came to > earth he came in a male body. I'm only guessing here but had he > chosen to come in a female body then he would not have been listened > to by those that followed him. The same goes for choosing 6 female > disciples.
> That said I think Jesus was a bit of a pioneer as he did have a > healthy respect for women if the account of Mary Magdalene is to be > believed.
> Like it or not, society has always been male dominated and it is only > really in the last 100 years that women have had the equality that > they have fought for.
>> I suggest that the answer to this is that those who formed the >> Christian religion had a deep-seated belief, no doubt inherited from >> the Jews, >> that the male is superior and somehow more spiritual than the female, >> hence the outrage at attributing the title 'Queen of Heaven' to >> Jesus.
> Possibly. I don't think Paul was quite the woman hater he is made out > to be. One of his quotes is their is neither Jew or Greek, slave or > fee, male or female, we are all one in Christ Jesus (paraphrased)
>> Early Christians tried to make up for this by giving the title >> 'Queen of Heaven' to the Theotokos, the Mother of God, but many >> Protestants will >> have none of this and cling to their idea of an all-male heavenly >> hierarchy.
> Im not aware of that, so will look into it
> John
I am reminded of a sermon a while back in which our Priest refered to God as 'She', getting approval from some of the women present. However, later in the same sermon he also refered to Satan as 'She'! Why not?
Alwyn wrote: > 'The creator of a controversial play which depicts Christ returned to > earth as a female transsexual has accused critics of misinterpreting > her work. Nearly 300 people picketed the opening night of Jesus, Queen of > Heaven at the Tron Theatre in Glasgow this week, part of the city’s > publicly funded annual Glasgay! arts festival.
> 'Protesters lit candles, sang hymns and brandished placards saying: > "Jesus, King of Kings, Not Queen of Heaven" and "God: My Son Is Not A > Pervert."
This last placard is unacceptable from a Christian. It is neither accurate nor fair to refer to transsexual people as 'perverts'. Their internal gender identity differs from their biological sex, that is all, and is no reflection on how they behave as individuals.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:25:44 +0000, Gareth McCaughan
<Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote: > [1] Despite the fact that the NT documents him as telling > untruths, insulting people at what seems very slight > provocation, etc. But I digress.
I am not aware of Jesus telling any untruths or insulting people without just cause (1) but I am sure you will enlighten me.
(1) The only people he attacked were the religious people who had put a millstone round peoples necks that was not meant to be.
When we transcribed the alien script we found that - .. -- Tim .-. had written:
> I am reminded of a sermon a while back in which our Priest refered to > God as 'She', getting approval from some of the women present. However, > later in the same sermon he also refered to Satan as 'She'! Why not?
"Exactly," said Jane. "If you have to have a force of evil a woman would be much better at running it." There was an ominous double click as the safety came off her energy weapon.
-- I am Robert Billing, Christian, author, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover. "It burned me from within. It quickened; I was with book as a woman is with child." Quality e-books for portable readers: http://www.alex-library.com
>> God presumably has no body and does not need to reproduce, therefore >> we can take it that It has no sex. The correct pronoun in English for >> things with no sex is 'it', though 'she' is sometimes used of ships >> and countries.
> Consider a genuine hermaphrodite, with fully functioning reproductive > systems of both kinds and some sort of blend of other sexual > characteristics. (I don't know whether exactly this occurs in > humans, but clearly it's imaginable.) Are you saying that we > should call such a person "it"?
No, such a person would not lack sex but have two at the same time. (This is the case for many plants and animals.)
> The correct pronoun in English for *things that are not persons* > is "it" (with, again, some exceptions); to call a person "it" > would be a sign of contempt, even if that person's sex were > somehow indeterminate.
A baby is a person, if an immature one, and it is not contemptuous to refer to a baby as 'it'.
> We don't *have* a decent pronoun for > sexless persons, useful though it might be for gods, aliens, > intelligent computers, hermaphrodites, etc.
Is God a person? I think I was taught that God was personal but not a person (whatever that means); on the other hand, the three members of the Trinity are called persons.
Interestingly, when we talk of ghosts, I think we say 'it' even when we are able to associate it with a dead female or male person. Similarly, I would say that if we dealing with a pure spirit, it is more appropriate to use 'if'.
It may well be of course that the God of the Hebrews, whom Christians came to worship, was originally a male god from a pantheon of male and female divine beings; these beings would of course have been envisaged as having human-like bodies and could therefore quite rightly be referred to as 'he' or 'she'.
<snip>
>> Early Christians tried to make up for this by giving the title 'Queen >> of Heaven' to the Theotokos, the Mother of God, but many Protestants >> will have none of this and cling to their idea of an all-male heavenly >> hierarchy.
> They say that their objection is to making an ordinary human > being seem equal with God. That seems to me to be a sufficient > reason for their objection, although of course it's possible > that some of the real motivation comes from sexism.
I wasn't suggesting that the downgrading of the Virgin Mary by post-reformation churches was due to sexism, only that it resulted in an all-male heavenly hierarchy. (The earliest Reformers did in fact pay quite a lot of attention to Our Lady, particularly Oecolampadius, whose treatise on Mariology was quoted with approval by Catholic theologians, so this downgrading must have occurred later.)
> I believe that Jesus has always existed (John 1) but when "he" came to > earth he came in a male body. I'm only guessing here but had he > chosen to come in a female body then he would not have been listened > to by those that followed him. The same goes for choosing 6 female > disciples.
Yep, yep, I agree with this.
> That said I think Jesus was a bit of a pioneer as he did have a > healthy respect for women if the account of Mary Magdalene is to be > believed.
> Like it or not, society has always been male dominated and it is only > really in the last 100 years that women have had the equality that > they have fought for.
Right, Christianity is the product of a patriarchal society. As our society becomes less patriarchal, will Christianity change with it or will it be left behind as a relic of an earlier age?
>> I suggest that the answer to this is that those who formed the Christian >> religion had a deep-seated belief, no doubt inherited from the Jews, >> that the male is superior and somehow more spiritual than the female, >> hence the outrage at attributing the title 'Queen of Heaven' to Jesus.
> Possibly. I don't think Paul was quite the woman hater he is made out > to be. One of his quotes is their is neither Jew or Greek, slave or > fee, male or female, we are all one in Christ Jesus (paraphrased)
I don't see much straightforward evidence that Paul was a woman-hater, unless you insist he was also the author of the Pastoral Epistles, which are in places highly misogynistic in tone.
>> Early Christians tried to make up for this by giving the title 'Queen of >> Heaven' to the Theotokos, the Mother of God, but many Protestants will >> have none of this and cling to their idea of an all-male heavenly hierarchy.
> Im not aware of that, so will look into it
Kudos! I like people who are not fixed in their ideas and are willing to learn new things.
In message <NUOIm.26632$ep1.2...@newsfe30.ams2> Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> God the Father is alleged to have had a Son. Why not a daughter? Or a > Son and a Daughter? And why did Jesus choose twelve male disciples > rather than six of each sex?
I suspect it was partly to avoid scandal, partly because only men were expected to attend rabbinic school/study the Torah/etc, and partly for sheer practicality. Sending women out into a hostile world to preach to the heathen would not have been very effective.
> Early Christians tried to make up for this by giving the title 'Queen of > Heaven' to the Theotokos, the Mother of God, but many Protestants will > have none of this and cling to their idea of an all-male heavenly hierarchy.
Or, as you pointed out earlier, a sexless heavenly hierarchy.
In message <DIEIm.13105$yW6.8...@newsfe11.ams2> Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> 'Protesters lit candles, sang hymns and brandished placards saying: > "Jesus, King of Kings, Not Queen of Heaven" and "God: My Son Is Not A > Pervert." But the play’s writer and sole performer Jo Clifford, who is > herself transgender and a committed Christian, has been deeply shocked > by the reaction to the play.'
Stupid woman! Are you going to tell me that she *didn't* expect people to be outraged?
Kendall K Down wrote: > In message <DIEIm.13105$yW6.8...@newsfe11.ams2> > Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> 'Protesters lit candles, sang hymns and brandished placards saying: >> "Jesus, King of Kings, Not Queen of Heaven" and "God: My Son Is Not A >> Pervert." But the play’s writer and sole performer Jo Clifford, who is >> herself transgender and a committed Christian, has been deeply shocked >> by the reaction to the play.'
> Stupid woman! Are you going to tell me that she *didn't* expect people > to be outraged?
Sorry, Ken, but that's personal abuse of a living person. One week on manual.
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:25:44 +0000, Gareth McCaughan > <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> [1] Despite the fact that the NT documents him as telling >> untruths, insulting people at what seems very slight >> provocation, etc. But I digress.
> I am not aware of Jesus telling any untruths or insulting people > without just cause (1) but I am sure you will enlighten me.
> (1) The only people he attacked were the religious people who had put > a millstone round peoples necks that was not meant to be.
Telling untruths: John 7:8,10.
| Jesus said to them, "[...] Go to the feast yourselves; | I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet | fully come." [...] But after his brothers had gone up | to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but | in private.
Insulting people without just cause: Mark 7:26.
| Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth. | And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. | And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, | for it is not right to take the children's bread | and throw it to the dogs."
And John 8:44:
| [Jesus said ...] "I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and | you do what you have heard from your father." They answered him, | "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's | children, you would do what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill | me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is | not what Abraham did. You do what your father did." They said to | him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even | God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love | me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own | accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is | because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the | devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a | murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, | because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according | to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, | because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. [...]"
(There is, needless to say, no evidence on offer that the people he was addressing had the slightest intention of killing him; they are described as "the Jews who had believed in him" a little earlier.)
In each case I've begun quoting slightly before the actually-offending verse(s), to provide context.
>>> God presumably has no body and does not need to reproduce, therefore >>> we can take it that It has no sex. The correct pronoun in English for >>> things with no sex is 'it', though 'she' is sometimes used of ships >>> and countries.
>> Consider a genuine hermaphrodite, with fully functioning reproductive >> systems of both kinds and some sort of blend of other sexual >> characteristics. (I don't know whether exactly this occurs in >> humans, but clearly it's imaginable.) Are you saying that we >> should call such a person "it"?
> No, such a person would not lack sex but have two at the same > time. (This is the case for many plants and animals.)
So what pronoun should one use of such a person?
If the Christian god exists, he (or she, or it, or whatever) is surely not simply sexless as a rock or an amoeba is. Both male and female are said to have been made "in the image of God", back in Genesis.
>> The correct pronoun in English for *things that are not persons* >> is "it" (with, again, some exceptions); to call a person "it" >> would be a sign of contempt, even if that person's sex were >> somehow indeterminate.
> A baby is a person, if an immature one, and it is not contemptuous to > refer to a baby as 'it'.
Actually, I think it is, although I concede that it's common. Anyway, I think the reason is precisely that the baby's personhood is far from fully formed.
>> We don't *have* a decent pronoun for >> sexless persons, useful though it might be for gods, aliens, >> intelligent computers, hermaphrodites, etc.
> Is God a person? I think I was taught that God was personal but not a > person (whatever that means); on the other hand, the three members of > the Trinity are called persons.
The Christian god is supposed to be *not less than* a person, so to speak.
> Interestingly, when we talk of ghosts, I think we say 'it' even when > we are able to associate it with a dead female or male > person. Similarly, I would say that if we dealing with a pure spirit, > it is more appropriate to use 'if'.
I think we say "it" of ghosts precisely because they are thought to be less than persons. Certainly not because there is no gender to associate them with, since as you say "it" would be the usual pronoun even if the person from whom the ghost is derived were of known sex. And if a ghost turned out to be more person-like than ghosts are generally taken to be, I think we'd want to use "he" or "she"; for a flippant example, the ghosts in J K Rowling's Harry Potter series, who appear to have some personality rather than just going "OOOoooOOOooo", are consistently "he" or "she".
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:25:44 +0000, Gareth McCaughan >> <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> [1] Despite the fact that the NT documents him as telling >>> untruths, insulting people at what seems very slight >>> provocation, etc. But I digress.
>> I am not aware of Jesus telling any untruths or insulting people >> without just cause (1) but I am sure you will enlighten me.
>> (1) The only people he attacked were the religious people who had put >> a millstone round peoples necks that was not meant to be.
>Telling untruths: John 7:8,10.
> | Jesus said to them, "[...] Go to the feast yourselves; > | I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet > | fully come." [...] But after his brothers had gone up > | to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but > | in private.
Was that an untruth, or did he just change his mind?. Some versions have the word yet, but its ambiguous as to whether it should be there or not.
>Insulting people without just cause: Mark 7:26.
> | Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth. > | And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. > | And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, > | for it is not right to take the children's bread > | and throw it to the dogs."
This may well come across as a weak excuse, so feel free to dismiss it. I am giving an explanation after reading the Matthew version.
The Jews saw the woman as a dog, a derogatory term. The woman approaches him and says her daughter is possessed. He has to be careful with his words, so speaks in Jewish terminology.
Notice that she was not offended and Jesus did heal the daughter. Had he sent her packing, as the disciples wanted him to, then I wouldn't attempt to defend it.
I read the story as Jesus having the conversation with a twinkle in his eye.
Compare it with John 4, the samaritan woman at the well. No issues there with a "foreigner" but notice that the disciples weren't there. I get the feeling Jesus had to work within the constraints of the society he was living in.
> | [Jesus said ...] "I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and > | you do what you have heard from your father." They answered him, > | "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's > | children, you would do what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill > | me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is > | not what Abraham did. You do what your father did." They said to > | him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even > | God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love > | me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own > | accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is > | because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the > | devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a > | murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, > | because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according > | to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, > | because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. [...]"
In verse 31 Jesus tells them "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples" It seems that they (or some) wanted to argue the point.
I would say some because verses 30 and 31 say that many put their faith in him and that if they held on to his teaching they really were his disciples.
There then appears a series of objections. I can't see all of them objecting otherwise these verses wouldn't make sense. The conversation appears to get more strained after each objection. Jesus knew their hearts (latter part of verse 43)
>(There is, needless to say, no evidence on offer that the people >he was addressing had the slightest intention of killing him; >they are described as "the Jews who had believed in him" a little >earlier.)
Yes, I saw that. I have looked behind the conversation and concluded what I have written. I'm not saying i am right but thats how I see it.
I was quite surprised at your original comment. It was a mischievous dig at christianity and I didn't expect it from you. I have every respect for your non belief but the comment you made gave me the impression you felt you had to re-inforce it.
Gareth McCaughan wrote: > "Alwyn" wrote: >> So why do we call God 'He' rather than the more >> appropriate 'It' or possibly 'She'? And if we must personify the >> Supreme Being, why is it acceptable to call It God the Father but >> never God the Mother?
> I have heard Christians call God "Mother" on occasion.
And indeed one of the eucharistic prayers in the current Methodist Worship Book begins, "God, our Father and our Mother"! And at least as far back as the time of Julian of Norwich we find Jesus being referred to as "Mother."
Jesus had to be either male or female; that's the way humanity is constituted! I guess that whichever had been the case, some people would have taken offence at the choice! I think the argument that only a male could have had his influence, given the nature of contemporary society, is a fair one. This suggests realism rather than the demeaning of the other gender. But at its best the Catholic emphasis on Mary does something to balance this in that it posits a woman of exceptional spirituality who came as close to God as any human (other than Jesus) could do. If we could hold that idea but dispense with the excessive formalisation of Marian doctrine, I think that would be a valuable thing.
I think Alwyn is right that the "downgrading" of Mary is not integral to the Reformation as such but is a later phenomenon. It arises from two things, I would think: - the fact that some Protestant sects went to extremes and rejected in principle anything that the RCC thought important; and - the fact (to me it is a fact) that within the RCC the veneration of Mary was, and still is, often taken to very great excess.
It is not prominent but there is, among some Protestants, a rethinking of this and some desire to honour Mary as special, albeit in a limited way. There is also a Lutheran community of nuns which is dedicated to Mary. I'm sure there are Anglican communities of a similar kind. A few years ago a Methodist Marian community was set up but, sadly, it never managed to get permanently established.
> Anyway. Once the pronouns and stories are in place, I don't see > that any particular extra sexism is needed to make some literal-minded > Christians get upset if Jesus is portrayed in a way they thing is > factually incorrect, especially if they think this is being done > to further some agenda that Jesus isn't known to have had. (And > especially if it happens to make Jesus more different from *them*, > and especially if it's unfamiliar and novel, which is probably > why we don't hear much outrage at the commonplace depiction of > Jesus as a blonde-haired blue-eyed Aryan.)
I can understand some Christians getting upset. But their manner of expressing that upset is far more offensive than the portrayal itself.
> For what it's worth, I don't think there need actually be anything > wrong (from a Christian perspective) with depicting Jesus as > female, or transsexual, or English, or whatever. After all, the > incarnation is supposed to have brought about some sort of > identification between him and us (or at least *them* :-) ), > not just between him and first-century Jewish men, and having > Jesus be a member of one or another group seems like it might > be a fruitful way for Christians to explore what the incarnation > might mean for members of that group.
I agree. To each of us Jesus is one of us - though it is also vital to remember that he is not only "one of us". I have seen ancient pictures of Jesus portrayed as a Roman soldier. That would seem to many to be absurd or offensive; but if you were a Roman soldier who was also a Christian, it makes a lot of sense.
> Of course the group had better not be defined by something > that Christians consider morally wrong, since Jesus's sinlessness > is a pretty important doctrine[1].
It is. But I have often wondered whether it is really essential. There is an area to be explored there, I think.
> [1] Despite the fact that the NT documents him as telling > untruths, insulting people at what seems very slight > provocation, etc. But I digress.
There, I think, you fall from your normal standards of debate! You are taking one possible reading of certain texts as if that were the only or real reading. If you had said "despite the fact that the NT, on some readings, seems to document him as telling etc", that would have been more reasonable. As it is, you appear to be using a cheap debater's trick.
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
<loiner2...@methodistchristian.co.uk> wrote: >Gareth McCaughan wrote: >> Of course the group had better not be defined by something >> that Christians consider morally wrong, since Jesus's sinlessness >> is a pretty important doctrine[1].
>It is. But I have often wondered whether it is really essential. There >is an area to be explored there, I think.
It depends on whether you accept substitutionary atonement or not. Its a doctrine I lean towards (on a scale of 10 i would say about 8) "He that was without sin became sin for us"
> 'Protesters lit candles, sang hymns and brandished placards saying: > "Jesus, King of Kings, Not Queen of Heaven" and "God: My Son Is Not A > Pervert." But the play's writer and sole performer Jo Clifford, who is > herself transgender and a committed Christian, has been deeply shocked > by the reaction to the play.'
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:25:44 +0000, Gareth McCaughan >> <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> [1] Despite the fact that the NT documents him as telling >>> untruths, insulting people at what seems very slight >>> provocation, etc. But I digress.
>> I am not aware of Jesus telling any untruths or insulting people >> without just cause (1) but I am sure you will enlighten me.
>> (1) The only people he attacked were the religious people who had put >> a millstone round peoples necks that was not meant to be.
> Telling untruths: John 7:8,10.
> | Jesus said to them, "[...] Go to the feast yourselves; > | I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet > | fully come." [...] But after his brothers had gone up > | to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but > | in private.
And His time had not yet come, as he went later :-) hence the use of the word "after" .
> Insulting people without just cause: Mark 7:26.
> | Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth. > | And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. > | And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, > | for it is not right to take the children's bread > | and throw it to the dogs."
> | [Jesus said ...] "I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and > | you do what you have heard from your father." They answered him, > | "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's > | children, you would do what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill > | me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is > | not what Abraham did. You do what your father did." They said to > | him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even > | God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love > | me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own > | accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is > | because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the > | devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a > | murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, > | because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according > | to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, > | because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. [...]"
> (There is, needless to say, no evidence on offer that the people > he was addressing had the slightest intention of killing him; > they are described as "the Jews who had believed in him" a little > earlier.)
There is, needless to say, no evidence that some of those people were not going to kill Him.
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:29:52 +0000, loiner2003 > <loiner2...@methodistchristian.co.uk> wrote:
>>Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>>> Of course the group had better not be defined by something >>> that Christians consider morally wrong, since Jesus's sinlessness >>> is a pretty important doctrine[1].
>>It is. But I have often wondered whether it is really essential. There >>is an area to be explored there, I think.
> It depends on whether you accept substitutionary atonement or not. > Its a doctrine I lean towards (on a scale of 10 i would say about 8) > "He that was without sin became sin for us"
> John
I have never yet seen a sensible argument as to how the atonement was not substitionary, I have seen some that show that it wasn't just substitutionary but then I never thought it was. God rarely does just one thing :-)
|
