ellauri145.html on line 1086: Ulsterin poka väittää että Rimbaud rienatessaankin pysyy izelleen uskonnollisena. Distancing himself in an at times sacrilegious or blasphemous way from conventional western attachment to the Bible and to the figure of Christ as saviour, Rimbaud nevertheless proceeds to create for himself a radically different spiritual alternative. No voihan se niinnii olla, musta tossa loppupäässä vois olla jotain homostelua. Noi 2 ekaa naista on varmaan sen kuolleet siskot Vitalie (17v) ja Victorine (4kk). Toi Bau on varmaan joku niiden keskinäinen sana. Isabellesta se ei rukoile, koska se on elossa. Ellei se sitten oo toi Lulu, mutta epäilen. Olisko to Madame *** sit tän rimpulan tiukka äitykkä? - Mut no hei! Ulsterin poka on tullut samaan johtopäätöxeen kuin mä että tässä runon lopussa on kuin onkin homostelua! Spunk tarkoittaa kuin tarkoittaakin runkkua! Se oli Rimbaudilla pahe ainainen, esim seuraavassa runossa on sama idea:
ellauri184.html on line 636: In other words, we can perceive Jesus as an outsider whose words and deeds were blasphemous according to Jewish law and seditious according to Roman law. I only briefly consider the well-known reproaches, and it goes without saying that the topics overlap.
xxx/ellauri149.html on line 372: Nevertheless, the film as well as the musical were criticized by some religious groups. As a New York Times article reported, "When the stage production opened in October 1971, it was criticized not only by some Jews as anti-Semitic, but also by some Catholics and Protestants as blasphemous in its portrayal of Jesus as a young man who might even be interested in sex." A few days before the film version's release, the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council described it as an "insidious work" that was "worse than the stage play" in dramatizing "the old falsehood of the Jews' collective responsibility for the death of Jesus," and said it would revive "religious sources of anti-Semitism." Jesus argued in response that the film "never was meant to be, or claimed to be an authentic or deep theological work. Just humdrum everyday anti-semitism."
xxx/ellauri149.html on line 374: Tim Rice said Jesus was seen through Judas' eyes as a mere human being. Some Christians found this remark, as well as the fact that the musical did not show the resurrection, to be blasphemous. Jesus var ingen Spartakus, för helvete. While the actual resurrection was not shown, the closing scene of the movie subtly alludes to the resurrection (though, according to Jewison's commentary on the DVD release, the scene was not planned this way). Some found Judas too sympathetic; in the film, it states that he wants to give the thirty pieces of silver to the poor, which, although Biblical, leaves out his ulterior motives. According to the black policeman in Whitstaple Pearl, ulterior motives usually means sex. The policeman is as talkative as John, and the detective cook lady looks a lot like Kirsi Riski. Not a comfortable thought.
xxx/ellauri295.html on line 680: In 1979, along with Mervyn Stockwood, the Bishop of Southwark, Muggeridge appeared on the chat show Friday Night, Saturday Morning to discuss the film Life of Brian with Monty Python members John Cleese and Michael Palin. Although the Python members gave reasons that they believed the film to be neither anti-Christian nor mocking the person of Jesus, both Muggeridge and the bishop insisted that they were being disingenuous and that the film was anti-Christian and blasphemous. Muggeridge further declared their film to be "buffoonery", "tenth-rate", "this miserable little film" and "this little squalid number".
5