Briefing.
From Christian Voice: The South Wales Echo has apologised for an article insulting the Bible and suggesting that Jesus Christ could have been homosexual. The apology was printed in the Echo last week, just two weeks after the original and on the same page. A website version of the article, by the out-of-touch Dan O'Neill, has also been taken down and internet search engines no longer refer to it. The apology came after Christians mounted a quick-fire protest against the article last week.
Members and supporters of Christian Voice gave out leaflets to those going in to work at Cardiff's leading firm of solicitors, Hugh James, who associated themselves with the web article. Following that, they occupied the Media Wales administration offices reception area just around the corner, singing hymns, before meeting with Simon Farrington, a senior managing editor at the Echo.See the full Christian Voice press release.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Dan O'Neil didn't claim Jesus was homosexual. He framed a question about what a paranoid homophobic bigot like Stephen Green would've thought of Jesus had he been around 2000 years ago.
You're not taking Stephen Green's word for anything are you??
The Echo should not have apologised for something the editorial clearly didn't say, they rather spinelessly caved in.
Far better to allow Christians and non-Christians to debate it in the letters page and allow the piece to remain online so that the context could clearly be seen.
Hmm, well since the original Echo story has been withdrawn from the web we weren't able to check. The Echo's apology seems like an admission of guilt.
I can well imagine some article as you describe would still insult Our Lord.
Ok, I've tracked down a quote.
"How would this fanatical Hammerer of Homosexuals, [Green] leader of a bunch of annoying bigots have interpreted events in Palestine a couple of thousand years ago?
This Jesus feller swans around all day with a dozen other blokes. No women. Mark that, no women. And he wanders off into the mountains now and again to spend quality time with his, uh, favourites (Mark.9:2). He picks up small boys and girls and puts his hands upon them (Mark 10:16) And he was seen in a garden when one of his mates came up and kissed him (Matthew,26:48). Suspicious, eh?"
Ok, it's principally an attack on Green, but I don't think Green's interpretation of it as saying 'So, maybe Jesus was gay?' is solely paranoia. The author is saying that on Green's criteria Jesus would be homosexual. What does that mean? What are Green's criteria? According to the author, presumably, prudish Biblical morality. Well, that is an insult to the Bible, to Christian morality and to Our Lord.
The ignorance of the Gospels is telling. O'Neill goes to the trouble of getting references but doesn't know that Jesus was ministered to by women, who were among his disciples.
Post a Comment