Is it wrong that a female portray Jesus Christ?

[Dan From Smithville]

He was born in Iran, became an amateur wrestler, & moved to the US to go pro.
I'm pretty sure that Iran didn't have sheiks.
But hey, he looks middle eastern, so might as well be one, eh.

He does have a certain "Queen Victoria" aura about him.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

She's also deaf, so they'd sign that phrase.
They'd also have a gender fluid name...Jamie Bond.

Notice how progressive I am...using "they" as the pronoun.

It is always the same. Under every Irish groundskeeper, there is a progressive hiding.

 

[dianaiad]

Don't be so sure that Jesus was a fictional character. Whether or not you believe He was the Savior and the Only Begotten Son of God is a matter of opinion, but that this man actually existed...an itinerant preacher who got himself a following and then killed?

It's certainly POSSIBLE that this proposed individual actually existed, but until I'm presented with verifiable evidence that he actually did, I'm more than welcome to consider him to be a fictional character.

It would be a good idea to learn to use the quote function. It's easier for the rest of us. Though I do appreciate your setting off your comments.

OK, that said...we DO have comments from historical writers that this Jesus did exist. We take their word that other people they wrote about did, why not that one? They certainly didn't have any particular agenda or reason to make it up. (shrug)

Why in the WORLD do so many non-believers not only insist that we accept their pronouncement that He was not in any way divine, but that He didn't exist in any possible way? And why in the world are you begging THAT question, anyway? A whole bunch of us don't agree with your insistence that everything about Him is fictional.

I don't know about any other atheists, but as for myself, I have NEVER insisted that ANYONE accept that he was not real. All I ever do is state that I've yet to see sufficient evidence to believe that he did.

er....actually....you wrote:

I find it both funny and sad that so many delicate snowflakes get their panties in a twist because someone wants to portray a fictional character as a different gender or race. They're FICTIONAL CHARACTERS for heaven's sake, everything about them is made up and can be changed at will. .

That's not saying that you don't have sufficient evidence to believe that he did.
That is a flat out claim, beginning with an insult aimed at those who disagree with you, and a categorical statement that Jesus is a fictional character, period. NOT that you don't see any evidence to show that He wasn't, it was a very clear claim that He is a fictional character. Period.

Oh....since you made the claim, you get to prove it.

No I don't. If you can't provide sufficient evidence that he DID exist, it does not mean that I'm required to prove that he didn't.

Does if you are the one making the 'positive claim' here. I wasn't insisting that He IS the Son of God, or that He was real and that's just that. YOU made the categorical statement that He was not only not divine, he is 'fictional.' (i.e., didn't ever actually exist.)

Just like if I can't provide sufficient evidence for you to believe that I have a fire breathing dragon in my garage, it is NOT incumbent upon you prove that my dragon does NOT exist.

If I walk up to you and tell you that you do NOT have a fire breathing dragon in your garage, then, well...it is up to me to prove that you don't. True, it would be fairly easy for me to do that, if I'm dumb enough to open your garage door if there is ANY possibility of a fire breathing dragon in there, but it's my claim and my burden of proof.

If you started it by claiming that this putative dragon is breathing fire in your garage (and why in the world would anybody put one in there, anyway? I've had a house burn down around me. Not fun...) then it is your burden of proof to show that it's there, and I can simply tell you that you haven't proven it to me sufficiently.

However, if you have made no such claim, and I go first by telling you that there is no such dragon, that the whole idea is fictional...then guess what?

I get to prove it, since I made the original claim.

So, since you are the one who claimed that Jesus is fictional,, the proof is in your court. Sorry. You might want to remember the problems with proving a negative...

What I don't understand is why folks like you get your panties in a twist when people who clearly consider Jesus to be a fictional character choose to depict Jesus as a woman.

Because I am a retired English teacher and have studied literature most of my life. I personally have a problem with people who mess with the original plot lines for specious reasons.

And what the heck do you MEAN, 'folks like me?"

BTW, as I have already mentioned, I'd have the same objections to casting Grendel's mother as a man. Some plot lines that involve sex (male/female, not prurient interest) don't require this level of accuracy; Othello would be one of those. Switching genders there really doesn't affect the theme or the plot that much there.

However, for this? Yeah, it's sorta important. Switching sexes there is an inaccurate portrayal of the myth....(and yes, I believe it and it's still 'myth.' ) It would be wrong to portray Artemis and Athena as men, to portray Zeus or Odin as female...inaccurate and a whole missing of the point.

But do, please, define 'folks like you' for me. I'd really like to figure out what you mean by that.

 

[dianaiad]

Why does the fact that Jesus had a phallus matter? He didn't use it...or maybe he did...

Some of us think He was married. Maybe. Or at least, some of us wouldn't call 'BLASPHEMY!" if it turned out that He was.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Can you imagine a boy playing Mary, the Mother of Jesus (except in Shakespeare's time)?

Irony. You clearly accept that there have been times when such a thing is acceptable, if you think about it for a moment you would see there is no reason for it not to be acceptable again.

Either way, is this a pressing issue? Is there some female depiction of Jesus currently happening you're upset by, or is this just another generic, preemptive "ewwww girl's germs!" thread?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some of us think He was married. Maybe. Or at least, some of us wouldn't call 'BLASPHEMY!" if it turned out that He was.

It would not bother me at all.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Any female that dares portray Our Lord and Savior is not worthy of the title "lady".

It's utter perversion. It's an abominable blasphemy. It's the devil's very own craft.

It makes a mockery of Christ. It vainly tries to cheapen divinity.

There's a distinct subtext of misogyny in your posts, are you aware of that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There's a distinct subtext of misogyny in your posts, are you aware of that?

So it was not just me thinking that then. Good to know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Mother Angelica thought so in 1993.
I think so too.

I think it was an embarrassment to America when the Pope visited Denver to see a broad portraying Christ.

I do believe that God has one and only one begotten Son. No begotten daughters of God are ever mentioned in the Good Book.

Can you imagine a woman playing Babe Ruth in a film or even Neil Armstrong?
Can you imagine a girl playing Pinocchio?
Can you imagine a boy playing Mary, the Mother of Jesus (except in Shakespeare's time)?
Can you imagine a muscle man like Hulk Hogan, Arnold Schwarzenegger or the Iron Sheik playing Queen Victoria?

It is a woman playing the part of a man and not a portrayal of the man as a woman. If something similar worked in Shakespeare's time, what difference does it make now?

I am still laughing about Pinocchio. I saw Sandy Duncan play Peter Pan once. She did a good job.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is the martini still shaken not stirred or did shaken transition into stirred?

It will be a gluten free kale tofu smoothie.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So it was not just me thinking that then. Good to know.

I can understand thinking a female portraying Christ would be inappropriate for reasons of historical accuracy, but the idea that it is inherently a mockery or "cheapens divinity" strongly suggests to me an unconscious or subconscious belief that there's something inherently inferior and negative in being female.

Assuming we're not being trolled, of course.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It is a woman playing the part of a man and not a portrayal of the man as a woman. If something similar worked in Shakespeare's time, what difference does it make now?

I am still laughing about Pinocchio. I saw Sandy Duncan play Peter Pan once. She did a good job.

He's gunna blow a fuse when he learns that all girl schools have drama departments where ALL the male roles are played by females.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He's gunna blow a fuse when he learns that all girl schools have drama departments where ALL the male roles are played by females.

Say it ain't so.

Yeah, reality bites harder sometimes than any of us can.

 

[dianaiad]

Irony. You clearly accept that there have been times when such a thing is acceptable, if you think about it for a moment you would see there is no reason for it not to be acceptable again.

Not really. This poster is referring to a time when women weren't allowed to be on the stage, period. ALL female roles were taken by men and/or boys. The audience was still aware that the character being portrayed is female. This sort of thing was done all the time; still is, AFAIK, in 'all girls' or 'all boys' schools and organizations.

Shoot, my sisters and I used to do that when we did little skits when we were kids. A similar situation is portrayed in "Little Women," where Jo wrote, produced, directed....and starred as the male romantic and action lead...in all their little plays, because, well, it was 'Little Women," not "Little Women and a Brother or Two."

This thread isn't about that; it seems to be about PORTRAYING Jesus as female, not simply having a female perform a male role so that the audience understands that the character is male.

Either way, is this a pressing issue? Is there some female depiction of Jesus currently happening you're upset by, or is this just another generic, preemptive "ewwww girl's germs!" thread?

The latter, probably.

As for me, well, just call me a stick in the mud. Never mind my personal religious beliefs...I wouldn't portray Zeus,
Hercules or Baldur as female, or Freya, Mary or Artemis as male. Just ruins the plot and turns it into an entirely different, and inaccurate, story.

Jesus as female just isn't the same character, now, is He?

 

[Revoltingest]

But the Book did say that God made man in His own image. The creature on the far left looks nothing like the octopus-looking thing. Michelangelo surely made Adam's manhood small.

Man just needs a makeover.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think...no matter how politically correct one gets, men simply do not give birth.

Been done on screen already, actually.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can understand thinking a female portraying Christ would be inappropriate for reasons of historical accuracy, but the idea that it is inherently a mockery or "cheapens divinity" strongly suggests to me an unconscious or subconscious belief that there's something inherently inferior and negative in being female.

Assuming we're not being trolled, of course.

That seems to underpin the reasoning behind the OP rather than historical accuracy or the believability of a woman in the part.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He does have a certain "Queen Victoria" aura about him.

He was an established Iranian Greco-Roman wrestler, and a body guard to the Mohammad Pahlavi, the last Shaw of Iran before the Islamic Revolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Been done on screen already, actually.

I find the idea of a pregnant man offensive.

 

[dianaiad]

It is a woman playing the part of a man and not a portrayal of the man as a woman. If something similar worked in Shakespeare's time, what difference does it make now?

I am still laughing about Pinocchio. I saw Sandy Duncan play Peter Pan once. She did a good job.

(grin)

Come to think of it, the role of Peter Pan is traditionally played by a female.

Of course, everybody knows that traditionally the role of Peter Pan is done by a gurrrl, even as everybody knows that the character is male.