x404.co.uk
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/

God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3924		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  paulzolo [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:  God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
Transexual Jesus play upsets god botherers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/gla ... 342056.stm
Author:  l3v1ck [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
I can see how that would offend a lot of people.
Being a cross dresser, gay or transsexual is one thing, but overlapping that on top of someone else's religion is always going to cause problems.
Author:  timark_uk [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
l3v1ck wrote:
a cross dresser
If a window dresser dresses windows …

Mark
Author:  l3v1ck [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
Grammar fascist ;)
Author:  timark_uk [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
(8+D

Mark
Author:  l3v1ck [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
l3v1ck wrote:
Grammar fascist ;)

Hey, I wonder if the BNP have a grammar division?
Author:  timark_uk [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
l3v1ck wrote:
I wonder if the BNP have a grammar division?
Has a grammar division.
*sigh* Come on people, you're better than this. I know you are.

Mark
Author:  l3v1ck [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
I / you / we / they..............have
he / she / it .....................has.

In this case I meant, do they (ie the BNP), so have is correct.

Link
Author:  timark_uk [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
The BNP is singular, so it should have.

Mark
Author:  EddArmitage [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
l3v1ck wrote:
I / you / we / they..............have
he / she / it .....................has.

In this case I meant, do they (ie the [members of the] BNP), so have is correct.

I reckon it should be "does it (the BNP party)", based on how it read in context.
Author:  EddArmitage [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
timark_uk wrote:
The BNP is singular, so it should have.

Aye. My post (above) hopefully illustrates where I feel the confusion lies.
Author:  phantombudgie [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
[digression back to main topic] How in the name of sanity did they EVER, EVER think that people would not get upset by that!?! [/digression]
Author:  pcernie [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
'Cross' dresser :lol:
Author:  l3v1ck [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
They can get away with it as it's Jesus. Can you image what the reaction would have been if they'd had a transexual Mohammed?
Author:  adidan [ Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: God: My Son Is Not A Pervert.
There's never been an outcry at Mary Magdalene being made to look manlike in 'The Last Supper'...
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/