June 03, 2005
I'm Just Speechless
If this were done to the Koran, people would die. But since it is only the Bible, some will click their tongues and liberals will call it another blow against "right-wing Christian theocrats."
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
A publisher is touting a new edition of the Gospels that identifies Christ as a woman named Judith Christ of Nazareth.LBI Institute says its version, Judith Christ of Nazareth, The Gospels of the Bible, Corrected to Reflect that Christ Was a Woman, Extracted from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, takes Thomas Jefferson's edited Gospel one step futher by "correcting" the gender of Christ and God.
"This long-awaited revised text of the Gospels makes the moral message of Christ more accessible to many, and more illuminating to all," says Billie Shakespeare, vice president for the publisher, in a statement. "It is empowering. We published this new Bible to acknowledge the rise of women in society."
And lest you think this is a joke, you can get confirmation here.
Posted by: Greg at
04:46 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm certianly not calling is another blow against Right-wing "christian" theocrats, because it actually doesn't hurt them in any way shape or form.
It reminds me of the outrage over Corpus Christi. I just don't understand why the outrage. We celebrate freedom of religion in this country so why not let each individual choose to hold whatever religous beliefs they choose. You can believe Jesus was the son of God, somebody else can believe he was the daughter of God, and I can believe he was a good man, and nothing in our beliefs prevent another from believing either the same of differently.
That said, are you sure this isn't a spoof? The VP of the publishing compan is named "Billie Shakespeare" (no, relation to William (Billy) Shakespeare I'm sure). Sounds fishy to me.
It reminds me of the outrage over Corpus Christi. I just don't understand why the outrage. We celebrate freedom of religion in this country so why not let each individual choose to hold whatever religous beliefs they choose. You can believe Jesus was the son of God, somebody else can believe he was the daughter of God, and I can believe he was a good man, and nothing in our beliefs prevent another from believing either the same of differently.
That said, are you sure this isn't a spoof? The VP of the publishing compan is named "Billie Shakespeare" (no, relation to William (Billy) Shakespeare I'm sure). Sounds fishy to me.
Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 3 05:12:18 2005 (2h6qI)
2
Frankly, I objected to Corpus Christi, though I never supported a government ban on the play -- and I say that having met the author a couple of times becaue of my volunteer work with a local theater where he often produces his works.
I disagreed with what was presented, and I was offended that he would choose to present Christ as engaging in what Christianity traditionally regards as a serious sin. That said, you will notice that there was no need for him to go into hiding like Salman Rushdie did after the publication of Satanic Verses, and no one was murdered because of the play (as did happen with a couple of folks associated with Rushdie's work).
And yeah, I noticed the name -- but from what i can tell, it isn't a spoof.
I disagreed with what was presented, and I was offended that he would choose to present Christ as engaging in what Christianity traditionally regards as a serious sin. That said, you will notice that there was no need for him to go into hiding like Salman Rushdie did after the publication of Satanic Verses, and no one was murdered because of the play (as did happen with a couple of folks associated with Rushdie's work).
And yeah, I noticed the name -- but from what i can tell, it isn't a spoof.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 3 05:56:53 2005 (FuzV8)
3
Well, "no need" is a matter of opinion. Most theatres where it was presented were forced to use metal detectors and many threats of violence were made against the theatres who presented the play, the cast, the crew, and the author.
What I don't understand though is why the outrage against this book, his play, Rushdie's work (and it's Quar'an parralels), or even something like the broadway musical "Jesus Christ Superstar" which caused quite a stir when it opened as well. "Offense" I can understand, but objection to someone else's views being expressed I cannot. I'm not necessarily suggesting that you object to the publication of this book (as you have not offered that opinion as of yet) but I do not understand those that almost surely do/will.
I haven't found anything that expressly indicated it was a spoof either, but I'm still leaning toward thinking that it was a spoof or at the very least a political statement versus an honest belief that Jesus was Judith.
What I don't understand though is why the outrage against this book, his play, Rushdie's work (and it's Quar'an parralels), or even something like the broadway musical "Jesus Christ Superstar" which caused quite a stir when it opened as well. "Offense" I can understand, but objection to someone else's views being expressed I cannot. I'm not necessarily suggesting that you object to the publication of this book (as you have not offered that opinion as of yet) but I do not understand those that almost surely do/will.
I haven't found anything that expressly indicated it was a spoof either, but I'm still leaning toward thinking that it was a spoof or at the very least a political statement versus an honest belief that Jesus was Judith.
Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 3 06:28:06 2005 (2h6qI)
4
I don't seek to prevent them from having their say, but that doesn't mean I don't resent what they have to say.
I view this as a childish game with something that is serious and sacred. I wouldn't mind if Jesus had been female, but He wasn't. Trying to behave as if gender somehow changes what He did or what His works mean is foolhardy at best.
God as a being, and Jesus as a thinking entity are genderless. The body of Jesus was male, but He represented all of us, men and women...and did so equally, without bias.
Anyway - when people do this sort of thing, I cannot help but feel that they are playing games with and making light of something that is very serious and very dear to me.
Now - the only way I would to try and block publication of this is by owning the publishing company...or if I were extremely wealthy, buying any significant publishing company that was going to publish them.
Just because they have a right to say it, doesn't mean that I have to like it.
Sub
I view this as a childish game with something that is serious and sacred. I wouldn't mind if Jesus had been female, but He wasn't. Trying to behave as if gender somehow changes what He did or what His works mean is foolhardy at best.
God as a being, and Jesus as a thinking entity are genderless. The body of Jesus was male, but He represented all of us, men and women...and did so equally, without bias.
Anyway - when people do this sort of thing, I cannot help but feel that they are playing games with and making light of something that is very serious and very dear to me.
Now - the only way I would to try and block publication of this is by owning the publishing company...or if I were extremely wealthy, buying any significant publishing company that was going to publish them.
Just because they have a right to say it, doesn't mean that I have to like it.
Sub
Posted by: Subjugator at Fri Jun 3 08:38:49 2005 (lkCzp)
5
Let's see. There was a person with long hair, that seems not to be an animal, and very compassionate towards everyone else.
It has to be woman.
R-
It has to be woman.
R-
Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Fri Jun 3 09:52:11 2005 (nWmj6)
6
I don't think it's a blow to "Right-wing Christian theocrats" at all. In fact I'm not anti-Christian at all. Nor am I anti-Right-wing (I just happen to disagree with them on most issues.) Besides, if some Muslim over in Tehran decided he wanted to (get shot and) publish a Koran with Allah as a woman, I don't think liberals would have your expected reaction. If an American Christian did it to the Koran, or if a Muslim were doing what Mr. Shakespeare's company is doing, there would be outrage.
Posted by: N.J. at Sat Jun 4 12:01:06 2005 (FJAxe)
7
NJ, it'd be interesting to see what kind of response people of the United States would say if the reverse situtation occurred. Would they go to the "freedom of expression/speech" route or would they support the Islamic cause on making sure nobody would defile the koran, even though they wouldn't support such a notion here in the United States?
Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Jun 4 12:19:12 2005 (qzj0i)
8
I think there would be overseas outrage, but within the US, I doubt you'd hear much of a peep at all. The conservatives wouldn't care because it wasn't THEIR religion being "attacked", and the liberals wouldn't care because we believe everybody ought to be able to hold whatever beliefs they want.
Like I said earlier, as far as I'm concerned, You can believe Jesus was son of God, they can believe Jesus was Judith, Joe Muslim can believe that Mohommed was a "The Prophet," somebody else can believe Mohommed was female or whatever. The only thing I get outraged over is when somebody tels me that I have to believe whatever it is they believe.
Like I said earlier, as far as I'm concerned, You can believe Jesus was son of God, they can believe Jesus was Judith, Joe Muslim can believe that Mohommed was a "The Prophet," somebody else can believe Mohommed was female or whatever. The only thing I get outraged over is when somebody tels me that I have to believe whatever it is they believe.
Posted by: dolphin at Sat Jun 4 19:44:47 2005 (MIt/1)
9
I'm not telling you what to believe - never would. I wouldn't object to this happening to someone else's religion either - because it's not mine and not directly offensive to me.
I also don't expect people that belong to other religions to be offended by the marginalization of my religion. What I do expect is for them not to be abusive to my religion, in much the same way that I am not abusive to theirs.
While I may look with derision on the religion of others, I do not molest the writings or other artifacts thereof. I simple leave them alone.
Sub
I also don't expect people that belong to other religions to be offended by the marginalization of my religion. What I do expect is for them not to be abusive to my religion, in much the same way that I am not abusive to theirs.
While I may look with derision on the religion of others, I do not molest the writings or other artifacts thereof. I simple leave them alone.
Sub
Posted by: Subjugator at Sun Jun 5 02:48:24 2005 (r/FBF)
10
Sub,
If this is not a spoof, then these people BELIEVE that Jesus was actually Judith. That's THEIR religion. They are not "molesting" the writings of your religion anymore the Bible could be considered a "molestation" of the Tanakh.
If this is not a spoof, then these people BELIEVE that Jesus was actually Judith. That's THEIR religion. They are not "molesting" the writings of your religion anymore the Bible could be considered a "molestation" of the Tanakh.
Posted by: dolphin at Mon Jun 6 04:32:19 2005 (fgsGh)
11
Dolphin - THAT is an interesting point that I had not considered. It's a very good point too.
From that perspective, if they truly believe it to be true, I have no significant problem with it. Into another person's religion I will not intrude (beyond wincing, as in this case among others).
I had previously thought that they were doing it because they thought gender was irrelevant (which is a truism - I believe Jesus to have been genderless and His earthly gender was complete secondary to what He was up to on this earth) and were trying to prove a point or that they were being deliberately revisionist.
Thanks for the eye opener.
Sub
From that perspective, if they truly believe it to be true, I have no significant problem with it. Into another person's religion I will not intrude (beyond wincing, as in this case among others).
I had previously thought that they were doing it because they thought gender was irrelevant (which is a truism - I believe Jesus to have been genderless and His earthly gender was complete secondary to what He was up to on this earth) and were trying to prove a point or that they were being deliberately revisionist.
Thanks for the eye opener.
Sub
Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 00:20:12 2005 (r/FBF)
14kb generated in CPU 0.0119, elapsed 0.0205 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0151 seconds, 40 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
21 queries taking 0.0151 seconds, 40 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.