Where to begin...
"Well well, my short response certainly proved to be quite controversial, but that is hardly a surprise as Jesus himself was also very controversial in what he had to say."
Wouldn't comparing yourself to Jesus be considered blasphemous and offensive (not to mention highly arrogant)? By your own qualifiers, you should not be allowed the freedom to make such a statement.
"As John 3: 16 tells us, Jesus did indeed die for the sins of the world, that’s everybody. However our sins are our only forgiven if we truly believe in him, so if you don’t want to believe in him you can remain in this life with your sins unforgiven, the only problem with that, is that your eternal destiny will be affected."
Only if you are Christian. Remember that there are other religions in this world that also believe they are correct. And for the record, John 3:16 does not mention that Jesus died for our sins. It says only this according to the King James translation (which is far removed and retranslated from countless other versions):
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Which literally translates as: If you believe in Jesus, you will live forever. That particular piece of scripture which is so commonly thrown about does not mention Heaven or sins. Since fundamentalists revel in literal translations, they are often telling people out of context that Christians will never die. When taking scriptures out of context, it is so easy to apply them to just about anything, isn't it?
"I do believe in freedom of speech insofar as it does not cause serious offence to any other person, freedom of speech is not an unqualified right."
So it's ok for Christians to offend others for centuries, but not anyone else? That doesn't sound very Christian, but then few "Christian" acts these days rarely have anything to do with the teachings of Christ any more. And if you really mean
any other person, then that would include virtually any statement made by anyone of any religion. What is considered "offensive" is highly arguable and subjective. Careful what you wish for. You may find your own freedom as easily revoked as those of the others you wish to revoke.
"Sure, I would not waste my money going to see the show but when the BBC used TV licence payer’s money in order to screen it, we in Britain were all indirectly paying for it."
TV license money has paid for everything broadcast by the BBC and Sky in the UK including numerous shows that have included sex, foul language and religious mockery. Why such an uproar this time? Why not the works of Monty Python, Absolutely Fabulous, Coupling, Queer as Folk, etc.? People are behaving as if the broadcast of a production like Jerry Springer The Opera is somehow a unique circumstance, when it really isn't.
"It is right to be allowed to racially abuse someone because you have freedom of speech? NO, neither is it right to blaspheme God and his son Jesus Christ."
You're comparing apples to oranges. Religion is a choice (whether you like it or not) and race is not. I'm sure you feel that blaspheming Buddha is of no consequence, but it probably is to a Buddhist. The difference is, they are more likely to recognize your right to do so.
"We can all see what God thought about this when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19."
That is the most common misinterpretation of homosexuality in the Bible. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of an act of rape, not because they were homosexuals. Funny how Christians never mention that the same story condones whoring your daughters to strange men, incest, and raping your father to impregnate yourself.
In addition, in Romans I, Paul condemns the acts of homosexuality as a lustful and pagan act of idolotry just as loveless carnal sex and pagan idolotry is considered a sin among heterosexuals elsewhere in the Bible. There is conveniently not one passage in the Bible that addresses love between two men or two women other than of a fraternal nature.
"Anyway I am digressing from JSTO, which remains an offensive blasphemous production." (to you) "It is aimed at Christians because we are seen as peaceful, non-violent and therefore fair game for any kind of abuse."
Peaceful? Non-violent? Since when? Christians are notorious for some of the most bloody and gruesome acts of violence in world history including sending their children off to their deaths in the Crusades, to the Spanish Inquisition, to the Protestant/Catholic war that still rages in the UK, to the Holocaust of WWII, to the torture and slaying of minority groups by White Supremists, to acts of violence against abortion clinics and patients. My father grew up in Irish Catholic schools and he can dispel that myth of Christians "seen as peaceful, non-violent".
"I wonder what would happen if the producers of JSTO had replaced Jesus and God with Allah and Mohammed? It would never have even been considered."
You probably wouldn't have protested because it would not have been considered blasphemous according to Christianity. But you may have given them an idea for their next show which they have already been contracted to produce.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
Updated On: 3/9/05 at 03:29 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
