Jesus is a Pirate

| 18/10/2009

If the Cayman Islands Government wishes to change Pirates Week’s name for religious reasons, it’s because Jesus doesn’t have much meaning for them. It’s the sad case of Christians (Caymanians) not understanding Christianity.

Today, for both Christians and non-Christians, Jesus is thought of as somewhat like Barney the Dinosaur. A fun loving, peace bringing, cheerful smile when you’re feeling down. The often quoted “love your neighbour as yourself” has softened Jesus’ image into more of a passive (rather than active) figure. This narrow and shallow interpretation of Jesus is very prevalent today. The fact is that Jesus’ personality embraces much larger (and darker) proportions than many of us realize. By dwelling on a particular aspect of his personality, we can see that we do not need to change Pirates Week’s name for religious reasons, because Jesus is a pirate.

Like a pirate, Jesus gave up a normal life to pursuea passion which prevented him from enjoying the basic things in life. He lives on the road, and he’s very often on the run (John 8: 58 – 59). At night neither he nor his disciples have any place to sleep (Matthew 8: 19-22). Like pirates tend to do, Jesus disrupted the social norm and was a revolutionary with the power to excite vast numbers of people (Matthew 8: 1). And he’s somewhat of a troublemaker. A local community literally begged him to leave their town after he drowned a whole herd of their pigs (Matthew 8: 28- 33). This was someone’s livelihood! In addition to that, he walks into strange towns and curses out the religious authorities (Mark 12: 38 – 40 and Matthew 23: 1 – 39), many of whom were the leaders of these towns. Heck, Jesus is so problematic that his own home town tries throwing him off a cliff (Luke 4: 29 – 20)! Jesus lives a life that is similar to that of a pirate.

Yet Jesus talks rationally and convincingly and acts in the power of God, and he is invited to dinner by these same religious authorities for questioning. He shows up for dinner, and doesn’t even wash his hands (Luke 11: 38)! This is a guy who is sleeping in the wilderness and most likely not showering very frequently. Why did he not wash his hands? Its bad manners, or “no brought ups-y”, as we say in Cayman. And when they call him out on his bad hygiene, he curses them – the very people who invited him to dinner (Luke 11: 37 – 53)! Like a pirate, ‘Jesus don’t business.’

In addition to that, Jesus is very shrewd, and wishes his own followers would be as shrewd as the “children of this age” (Luke 16: 8). He recommends making friends by means of “dishonest wealth” in order to gain more (Luke 16: 1- 9), and that’s something we would expect of a pirate. Jesus tells his followers to be like “serpents” (Matthew 10: 16) and he even lies to his brothers’ faces when they ask him if he’s going to the festival (John 7: 3 – 10). Jesus understood when to be sneaky and deceitful.

In very pirate like fashion, Jesus also has a taste for women and bad company. He is often seen frolicking and dining with prostitutes and sinners (Luke 15: 2). A specific Pharisee must have been alarmed and/or embarrassed when a well known sinner woman shows up at his house to wash his feet (Luke 7: 36 – 39). Jesus takes a pedicure right there on the spot. Can we even imagine that? On another occasion his own disciples are “astonished” to find him chatting to some random woman (John 4: 27) who had been married no less than 5 times, and was currently living with someone who wasn’t even her husband (John 4: 18). Jesus is quite fond of the ladies and vice-versa (Mark 15: 40 – 41), so much so that some rich (and married) women help pay for his lifestyle (Luke 8: 3). Jesus the original sugar daddy?

Even Jesus’ fate was similar to that ofa pirate; he was executed for breaking the law. He was crucified (electric chair in our age) and like a criminal "counted among the lawless" (Luke 22: 37). Is it ironic that Jesus died a death common to one who is lawless like a pirate? No, Jesus shared something essential with these people: his understanding of the law. For Jesus, humans are free from the restricting force of the law (Romans 7: 6). This is not a distortion, nor a misinterpretation of scripture; it is what makes a Christian a Christian. Provided our faith is strong, we Christians can eat and drink whatever we want (Romans 14: 14). Christians can even have their sins overlooked (Romans 4: 8)! It is not how much we fast, observe, or even pray, that we are made holy, but instead, it is through mercy and love, and the celebration of life (Matthew 12: 1 – 14). That is Jesus’ whole point in that Matthew 12 passage. Have we Christians turned into the Pharisees of that passage?

Having said all that, we did not show all the ways Jesus is not a pirate. For instance Jesus wasn’t a thief, a murderer (like Moses?), a rapist, or anything of that sort which we often associate with pirates. We only wished to show how Jesus is positively a pirate, by focusing on yet another side of his divine personality. The problem, which I stated at the beginning, is that Jesus is understood in too narrow and shallow terms. For a Christian, all things can be explained in Jesus’ unique and universal (meaning cosmic as well!) personality. There is a massive psychological reason that 2000 years later Jesus still affects the affairs of mankind, and the government policies of the Cayman Islands. We Christians should be more open minded, brave and objective when it comes to interpreting our faith. Be not afraid. And be not afraid to eat, drink and enjoy Pirates Week because Jesus himself “came eating and drinking” (Matthew 11: 19). And if the Pharisees of today look at us and call us gluttons and drunkards, it’s because many years ago they first called Jesus “a glutton and drunkard” (Matthew 11:19).

Jesus was once asked why his disciples did not fast. His answer was, “Because the bridegroom is here” (Luke 5: 33 – 35). In other words, “It’s time to party people.” The biblical symbol for heaven is in fact a party: a banquet (Matthew 22: 2). There will be a time to fast, but right now, it’s time to party. This November, let’s remember that we are not slaves to the law; but instead, let’s truly try to enjoy life. Let’s dance, eat food, drink drink, and love each other. This Pirates Week, be like Jesus, be a pirate!

*All Biblical quotes from New Revised Standard Version.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Viewpoint

About the Author ()

Comments (104)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. TB says:

    Badir, kudos to you for your mastery manipulation (non-negative of course) of the human condition. Let’s talk further on the subject!

  2. Anonymous says:

    The ever-so-formal sounding rebuttal to a thesis contained in my posting was an entertaining read. However, the fact remains that  "The historical personality of the miraculous Jesus-Christ-Messiah of the Bible does not exist to any substantial degree outside of the broad realm of early Judeo-Christendom and bears more similarity to legend than historical fact". 

    The statement is quite coherent.  Nothing weighty sounding there, simple words, simple message, easily understood, and moreover, it is factual. Which is the test of truth, no? I will save space for now and will take a pass on the King James Bible thing except to say #3 and #6 in your list is very telling of the political agenda.  (I have not only studied the Bible but have also studied its origins and history,ok?)

    The poster goes on to infer about my motives and what I am thinking without directly replying to the thesis quoted at all. This is an inferior ploy to avoid directly addressing the thesis and is a tactic which is more appropriate in spats among school children than in reasoned argument.

    I submit that, there is nothing unchristian (or arrogant) about drawing a conclusion based on observation, physical experience and reasoning. God Himself said, "Come let us reason together".  God Himself also said that all that needs to be learned of Him can be observed through His (physical) creation. My, my… Your arguments do not hold up to the test of the very Book you claim to be defending! How sad.

    You skirted a crucial point: I am calling into question whether the legendary and miraculous Jesus-Christ-Messiah-God-man of the bible ever lived, not whether a historical Jesus ever lived. What I am saying is: If sheer numbers of people having faith in ancient written accounts and global impact makes for truth, then Muhammed can be said to be the New Messenger of God. While on the subject, why are Christians so arrogant to reject the possibility that a new messenger might actually exist?  God changed His mind about Nineveh and about human sacrifice and other stuff He was going to do, right? Why not really test humanity and send another messenger and see if that messenger is rejected or accepted? 

    We move on: Anyone’s idea of truth is actually defined by what one can discern physically and reason with one’s mind. I think we may both agree with the concept that the sphere of truth exists in the nexus of the physical and abstract realms.  If a person cannot experience it or "feel it" and/or think it, for that person, that thing does not exist. This is the subject of an ages-old debate among philosophers, however, there is nothing ungodly or illogical about this idea. You use the same means to determine the truth of the Bible. You physically observe (read) a bible, analyse the evidence of history and archaeology, hear a sermon; your mind processes the words (reasons rationally) and you draw a conclusion whether or not to believe what you have learned. No arrogance there. Its just apparently the way God intended humans to operate. 

    Let’s leave out the spooky terminology, ok?  Faith does not in any way ‘transcend" the realm of human experience and reason. It does not operate in any "other dimension". When I board an airplane I have faith it will not crash en route. No transcendental stuff going on there, I am just making a very human decision because swimming to Miami does not appeal to me and I will accept the odds of crashing to stay dry and get there a bit quicker.  Hopefully, my reasoning is sound, and hopefully the plane will not have any physical problems overcoming gravity in flight, and hopefully the navigation signals (which I cannot see or feel) will point us in the right direction and I will not end up in Venezuela. Lots of "hopefully’s", but that my friend is the essence of faith. Again, Faith: "The substance of things hoped for… (me not crashing), "…the evidence of things not seen" (me arriving in Miami with all my luggage). There is no substantial difference in my concept or outworking of faith and yours.

    Where did you read that I believe that faith is "inferior"? I am a person of religious faith. I apologise if I did not make that clear in my posting and you are forgiven for inferring that I am not a person of faith. The thesis you quoted centers around the comparative quality of evidence between the historical Jesus and the "mystic" Jesus. Yet you further infer that I totally disbelieve in a miraculous Jesus. (Gee, you sure infer a lot bad about people for a good Christian. (Arrogance? Naw!)

    My reasoning mind wraps very nicely around my faith. So you are wrong about both my faith and my reasoning. I have differing beliefs and you conclude I am a heathen. That is silly and arrogant.   I am a believer in God, I have studied the Bible. However, I am NOT a fundamentalist, verbal-plenary adherent.  I do realise that I am deemed to be worse than a heathen by many fundamentalists because of my beliefs.  I also witness and these postings are part of my way of witnessing in hopes of awakening a critical and enlightened view of faith and religion in people’s minds.

    • Anonymous says:

      I will ignore the insults and focus on the issues.

      I am afraid I really do not know what thequote "the historical personality…" means. I would be obliged if you would be gracious enough to explain. 

      What it may possibly mean is that outside of the Bible and other christian apocryphal scriptures there is no *account* of a Jesus who is a miracle working Messiah. However:

      1. Whether a miracle working Messiah Jesus *existed* is quite independent of the fact of whether there are *accounts* of him doing miracles by non-believers.

      2. Clearly, if there had been such accounts those persons would themselves be believers (in which case they would be within "the broad realm of early Judeo Christendom") so such a statement, while very grandiose, proves absolutely nothing. 

      3. Further, there are those who insist that Jesus of Nazareth, miracle working Messiah or not, never existed on the very same basis that you have put forward.  Although I am aware that there are passing references in Josephus’s works which may be attributable to Jesus of Nazareth, it is not clear to me there is any *substantial* account of an historical Jesus of Nazareth in other historical texts. Accordingly, it is not clear to me what text you are relying to prove the existence of the non-miracle working Jesus, outside of the "broad realm of early Judeo Christendom". 

      You seem to be unaware that there are contradictions in your ideas. You state that it is crucial to understand that you are "calling into question whether the legendary and miraculous Jesus-Christ-Messiah-God-man of the bible ever lived" but then go on to state "yet you further infer that I totally disbelieve in a miraculous Jesus. (Gee, you sure infer a lot bad about people for a good Christian. (Arrogance? Naw!)". Which is it? Would it not be reasonable to infer that you do not believe in a miraculous Jesus if you are suggesting that such a Jesus never existed? You have acknowledged that there is nothing unchristian about drawing conclusions based on observation and reasoning, yet you are here clearly suggesting that my reasonable inference is unchristian.

      You assert that you are a "person of religious faith" and "believe in God". It may assist your readers if you explain the content of that faith. 

      I note that you have totally evaded my points regarding the deceptive way that you have presented your arguments by removing texts from their proper context and making assertions that cannot be supported by the text as a whole. You have declared that you have studied scripture so there is really no excuse for this and the inescapable conlcusion is that it is dishonest.      

    • Anonymous says:

      Let me get this right – the faith you profess is expressed in the hope that your plane will not crash?!! What or who exactly is the object of your faith? On what is it grounded – the statistical safety of air travel? The fine training of the pilots? The engineers at Boeing?

      This would be funny if it were not so sad that you been so deceived. To state that "faith does not in any way ‘transcend" the realm of human experience and reason" demonstrates that you do not actually understand what faith is. Faith is not based on what you can see, touch, calculate etc. It is not limited by reason. It does not have matter as its object. It is the evidence of things unseen. It is not a passive hope. Faith can move mountains because it operates in a higher reality, the dimension of spirit, which governs this reality. 

      I have borne witness to the truth. It is not my job to convince you. Engaging in any further debate would be vanity on my part.  Dear Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, let the eyes of this man’s heart be opened to your truth.

  3. Habitual Poster says:

    How much did Jesus pay to get his ears pierced?

    A Buc an ear.


  4. Anonymous says:

    Mohammed was a Pirate

    See the Koran – Chapter IV

  5. Propofol or bust says:

    Jesus was a Jamaican, do you all still love him so?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Haha this is funny, To God be the glory, Look at how powerful the name of Jesus is that their is people in this world who try to use thier intellect to bash the Son of God. If Jesus wasnt such a powerful man there wouldnt be such a debate as this. You see evil wont go against itself. Look i bet there wouldnt be any arguements about Hinduism, Judasim and the other relegious. This is simply because they are not of the true and living God. I really feel sorry for Mr. Badir Awe, for you are ignorant of the Glory of God. I pray that God will open your eyes to what is true annd what is not because in this world there is an absolute truth and it lies within Christ. To my fellow Christians there is no need to argue with these unbelievers. For their behaviours are as a result of the sin in their life, thats what makes them sinners. They dont want to know the truth else they would not have come in this manner, they are just looking for an arguement because their lifes are dull and meaningless. 


    God Bless,

    A Believer of Jesus Christ ( the ONE and only Saviour)

    • Anonymous says:

      Oi! Back to work Julianna! And just to poke a little more fun at your post, you do realise Christ was a Jew. So if I were you I wouldn’t be so quick to label Judaism as evil, lest you have decided to associate your personal lord and saviour (blah, blah) as such, too.

    • Great says:

      The problem is that almost every committed Christian of this level of indoctrination was either brought up in a family where the Bible was taken a the truth (i.e. they were too young to have ever had a chance to think about it)  or they "found god" at a terrible time in there lives when it was a great crutch (i.e. indoctrination at a time of immense suspectibility to suggestion).  So really I accept we can’t "debate" with these people as they are simply not capable of rational debate – dogma gets in the way.

      But what I do object to is being forced to live my life according to to their truth.  No credible case has really been made out for the existence of an omnipotent God in the Judeo-Christian model. So why should non-beleivers be forced to follw Christians’ views on marriage, sex, gay rights, working on a Sunday, free speech (or the lack of it) "Jesus was a gay pirate". 

      Where is the room free will?  Surely I must be free to reject Christ if I am truly to be free to accept him.  To legislate Christianity is to deny the central hypothesis of the meaning of Christianity.


      • Anonymous says:

        Or, alternatively it is those times in life when we realize we are not in control as we would like to believe that we lose the arrogance and self-sufficient attitude that blinds us to God. You need to come to end of yourself before you can meet God.  It is not that "these people" are incapable of rational debate but rather than their eyes have been opened in a way that you cannot relate to, so you deem them stupid or weak. The irony is that you are the one condemning what you do not understand.        

  7. Anonymous says:

    Quick set of question to everyone out there that has always been tickling the back of my mind, and I’m curious to the responses I might get as people levy their opinions. Why is it that an omnipotent, omnipresent entity (god) needs to send messages to people via prophets and books when it would be no challege or waste of energy (omnipotent, remember) to do so directly and unquestionable to each person? Not to be too flippant, but why aren’t we just born with birth marks proclaiming the truth and one true god or whatever? It’d certainly be a snap if there were a god, and a god that actually cared about people, no? I’ve always been curious why the idea of god needed to be conveyed through a written medium when it could be done directly by god (godself?).  It’s not like god should even care if people have faith or praise god – god is already infinite in every way and thus human actions bear no difference on the disposition or characteristics of god. Does anyone else find it just plain silly that something so infinite as god by definition is reduced into some truth that can be found in a book? I’m pretty sure the idea of god as presented by any single religious group is so limiting of whatever god might actually exist (if at all) is just plain laughable.

    Also, jesus if often refered to as a renegade in his actions given his beliefs and the context of those times. Renegades are more or less pirates… Game, set, match!

    • Bredren says:

      Good question, but my answer is no, I don’t think it’s silly that God used a book.

      Did you ever think it’s simply not possible for God to directly relate His message to everyone’s heart?

      God is of a completely different nature than His creation.

      God is omnipotent and infinite, whereas all His creatures are weak and finite. God and his creation are two natures apart.

      He can not directly talk to us on a God by God basis, because we are not god’s.

      So God must of necessitty use other means (Books, prophets, intuition, proddings) to tell us about Himself.

      This does not mean God can’t do something because He still gets His message across, but instead it means that we are uncapable of receiving His message on a direct basis.

      I quote you "It’s not like god should even care if people have faith or praise god – god is already infinite in every way and thus human actions bear no difference on the disposition or characteristics of god."

      Very good thought! That is also the Christian understanding.





      • Anonymous says:

        But why is it not possible for god to relate his message to everyone’s heart? Wouldn’t that imply something is beyond god’s power? Or does it then fall to the argument that it’s not in god’s plan for everyone to know his message? (Especially as some people cannot read, or, for a much smaller group, do not ever come in contact with a relgious message.) What happens to them and why is this so? I find it perplexing…

      • Anonymous says:

        Why are we not also like God? After all he created us in his own image and we are referred to as the temple of God and that he dwells within us. 

        • Anonymous says:

          All of this is explained in the Fall of Man. Initially man was able to freely fellowship with the Creator but when sin entered there was separation from God and that fellowship was then blocked (Man was banished from the Garden of Eden). This is the basic message of Genesis.

          However, the Good News is that in Jesus Christ we are indwelt by His Holy Spirit and can to a greater or lesser extent (depending on our level of sanctification) fellowship is restored. Sin hinders that communication. This possible only though the  at-one-ment of Christ. We can then again bear God’s image for we have become adopted as His sons. That is the basic message of the gospel.   



  8. Anonymous says:

    For those that talk about Him, Jesus is an enigma, an historical person of interest whose origins are certainly open to debate, but for those who actually talk to Him, He is the Saviour, the Lover of their soul, the Lily of The Valley and the Bright Morning Star, the Rose of Sharon and the one who meets their deepest needs in this harsh, cruel and pretentious world.

    My question is this. Do you talk about Jesus, or do you talk to Jesus? It is a personal question that requires a personal answer.

    Peace and love to all.

  9. Anonymous says:


    Don’t you all FEAR GOD.   HE is the CREATOR of HEAVEN and EARTH.

    NO being is above HIM.   That includes every being on the face of this earth.

    I am AMAZED, but not SURPRISED.  As the Bible plainly says these things would happen.  When they do, look up for my return is near.





    • Brian L Zeible says:

      Well to respond:

      1.  "Don’t you all FEAR GOD" .As many of the people you are addressing do not believe in god, they do not fear something they do not believe exists.

      2. "HE is the CREATOR of HEAVEN and EARTH"  we don’t believe that one either for many reasons.  As a side question who created god?

      • telling you says:

        In my opinoin, the question of ‘who created God’ is what give God’s existence credibility.

        This is because you can say ‘another God created God’ and then you would ask "Who created THAT God" and then one can say "another God created that God" and it goes and on and on and on.

        Ultimately, the hypothesis that ‘God has no beginning and no end and He always was and is’ is the most satisfactory answer to how the universe was made, or else you will just keep asking questions over and over.

        My opinion.

      • Anonymous says:

        If God were created then he wouldn’t be God but he would be, as you have written, "god". He is eternal, the causeless cause.  


  10. Herr Ettick says:

    "What it seems to mean is that you cannot conceive how an account of a miraculous Jesus could be true so you conclude that it must be false." 

    Sounds like a sensible application of Occam’s razor to me.

    Option 1:

    Jesus was a spritiual guru.  Accounts of his life written by subsequent followers of his teachings were coloured by fictional miraculous acts in order to improve third party perception of those teachings.

    Option 2:

    Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, produced matter at will (loaves, fish, wine), raised the dead, came back from the dead etc.

    Occam’s razor says "1".  It screams it.

    I believe Jesus was a spiritual genius.  Following his teachings makes life better.  I don’t need to buy into storyline 2 to believe this.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hey Herr Ettick , you do realize that even Occam believed Option 1 and 2 right?

    • Herr Ettick says:

      Sorry, just to be clear I should have typed:

      "Occam’s razor says REJECT Option "1".  "

    • Anonymous says:

      That certainly reflects a novel understanding of Occam’s Razor. For those who may not be aware William of Occam was a Christian Friar (Franciscan). There is no doubt at all that he believed "Option 2" and so it is quite clear that he did not think "Occam’s Razor" excluded it . Briefly stated it is when explaining reasons for something have no more hypotheses than is necessary. It is clear that you think that this always excludes the supernatural. However, there is much that cannot be acounted for by your Option 1, for example the willingness of Jesus followers to die for confessing something they knew to be false and had only been an idle boast to impress others.

      I am afraid this is not a sound application of Occam’s Razor.

  11. Anonymous says:

    "Jesus, a Criminal in His Time"

    Would this, perhaps, have been a more fitting title/subject?

    Or, how about: "Jesus, the Bible’s Only Bartender"?

    Or maybe: "Jesus, Lover of Wine"?

    Ahh..I kinda like "Jesus in the Temple: Turn the Other Cheek or Kick Butt?"

    Those headlines certainly stand up to any rules of sound textual criticism. And the accompanying articles would likely illustrate His humanity in a very graphic way that we all can relate to.

    While on the subject of higher criticism, using the subject text, the Bible, to prove or disprove an argument or challenges thereto does not stand up to sound application of logic and logical argument. Any conclusions thereon based are frankly invalid.

    Now let us look at the facts: While the historicity of the person Jesus is relatively well documented and not in any significant dispute, the historical personality of the miraculous Jesus-Christ-Messiah of the Bible does not exist to any substantial degree outside of the broad realm of early Judeo-Christendom and bears more similarity to legend than historical fact. That being the case, please do not insult the intelligence of readers here by using the lame "Ask yourself: Could a person who never lived have affected human history so remarkably?" Or other similar arguments which rely on numbers of believers or emotional fluff to back up so-called "facts". My reply to Christians on this point is that Muhammed apparently has far more truly sincere (to the point of death) followers right now than Jesus does. (Does not the Bible say: "In the mouth of many withensses the truth shall be established"?) Moreover, in modern times Muhammed has influenced (through his more fervent followers) the history and politics of the entire world on an absolutely huge scale. The historical Muhammed is not in dispute either. So if we base the truth on numbers or influence Muhammed is making good headway here, folks! Muhammed claims to be the new Chosen Messenger. Is he? The "proof" is there.

    It is a fact that the 66 books of the current popular bibles came to be rather late in history and were the result of the flawed deliberations of blatently biased bodies of mere men. The much revered King James version (KJV) sprouted from a faction’s (and the King’s own personal) dissatisfaction with the political influence of the existing translations of the day. King James appointed a committee to revise the Bible. (Sound a lot like modern Cayman politics, no?) The bodies of men were learned scholars of the day, however, the group dynamic of this "politically" appointed body was not unlike any that the Governor or McKeeva Bush would appoint today: the "KJV Statuatory Board" would not dare to displease the King or the leaders of the Church of England, the authority of which church the KJV was intended to bolster. To further amplify the intended bias of the KJV, the instructions King James imposed upon his chosen committe ensured his aims and biases would not be ignored. And lastly the KJV committee was composed entirely of minions of the Church of England.

    Here is the bottom line: Your bible-based religion is strictly based on faith, period! A believer in whatever religion, denomination, sect, cult, or whatever, can no more prove that his spiritual deity exists amd his scripture true than that person can prove what he ate for lunch yesterday. He might be able to present evidence, (i.e. historical documents, eyewitness accounts, etc.) but however compelling that evidence may be, it does not constitute a proof! OK?

    So if you are a Christian, do not go around acting like you have superior and provable knowledge, because for all the hoopla and hot air from the pulpit to the contrary aside, your beliefs and mine are based on faith, and faith according to your bible "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen". These unseen things cannot be "proven". You may have great faith, but that is as far as it goes. And faith leaves ample room for personal interpretation and personal beliefs.

    If you have a "personal relationship with Jesus, it is just that: personal. Please do not try to impose your personal beliefs on my life or the lives of others because that is repugnant to me and will only alienate those who you are trying to "convince".  To do so by constitutional decree is absurd and disgusting. Far better to prove your beliefs and influence this country by living an exemplary life of love and compassion and tolerance. Too bad many of the most rabid Christians I know do not have a clue as to how arrogant and just plain silly they come across.

    It is a damn shame so many christians consider that proving the veracity of Christ by loving others and doing good works is just too much hard work!

    • Anonymous says:

      There really isn’t the time or space to respond to all of this but there a couple of things that could not go unchallenged.

      "The historical personality of the miraculous Jesus-Christ-Messiah of the Bible does not exist to any substantial degree outside of the broad realm of early Judeo-Christendom and bears more similarity to legend than historical fact".

      I am sure you believe that is a very weighty statement but I am afraid it is not coherent. What it seems to mean is that you cannot conceive how an account of a miraculous Jesus could be true so you conclude that it must be false. You make these empty grandiose statements and then have the temerity to accuse Christians arrogance and being just plain silly. 

      I am not sure what to make of your Mohammed argument. I don’t think anyone was suggesting that he didn’t exist and showing that he has had an impact on the world only to tends to bolster the point made by the question: "Could a person who never lived have affected human history so remarkably?" You argue that logic must be the ultimate test of truth but this is not evident in the quality of your arguments.  

      Your idea of truth is limited by what you can discern physically and reason with your mind. It does not occur to you that this is arrogance. Although you believe that faith is inferior, it transcends these things. It operates in another dimension altogether.  But it is not faith in the abstract it must be grounded in the revelation of the truth of the Word.    

      I am not sure what the tirade about the KJV is all about.  On a point of historical fact: the KJV Board was not appointed to "revise" the Bible, but where there multiple versions with varying degrees of accuracy, to provide one official translation of the bible from the original languages. Unlike certain political Boards whwere the members need no relevant qualifications, the editorial board  comprised 54 of theleading scholars and linguists of the day.  Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:

      1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

      2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

      3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

      4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

      5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

      6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

      7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

      8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

      9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

      10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

      11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.

      12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

      13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

      14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.

      15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

      However, all of this is largely irrelevant today since there are many modern translations of the Bible where the editorial boards were populated by a wide variety of scholars.

      A statement of fact in the Constitution that our values are derived from our christian heritage is obviously not imposing anyone’s personal beliefs on anyone. A desire for secularization is the only real basis for objection.  Every Christian is called to witness to his faith in word and by his actions and attitudes. It is true that many Christians (including myself on occasion) fail to be good witnesses. It is also true that this should not be done from a posture of superiority but of love and compassion for the lost. However, we cannot, and I for one will not, make any apology for witnessing.     


  12. Anonymous says:

    Although I found the article self serving and somewhat offensive as I have previously stated, another point can be made here as a result of this article. Were this a discussion about the prophet Mohammad in such terms there would be a totally different response and open discussion would not be possible.

    One cannot take for granted the freedom to expand or redefine religious personalities or themes as there are many places in the world that to do so would carry with it serious consequences.

  13. Anonymous says:

    So silly. All this bickering back and forth about someone who probably never exsisted. Or, if he did, was just some nut wandering the countryside seducing fools with magic tricks.

    Much ado about nothing.

    • Anonymous says:

      Very silly post clearly designed to offend than add anything intelligent to the discussion.

      • Point of View says:

        Or perhaps just another view al bee it expressed in a rather inciteful manner.

        You got believers, non-believers and those that know a game of Chinese Whispers rarely results in the same message being relayed accurately.

        Clearly the writer understands the latter and I have to side with him a little – how likely do you really think it is that the bible should be taken verbatim as 100% accurate.

        Aw cr@p – lightning just zapped my compu…. 

        • Anonymous says:

          I think that inadvertently you got this right: "a rather inciteful" manner (as opposed  to "insightful").   

          Not every ‘view’ has equal validity. There are rules about textual criticism that even atheists apply that this clown has no clue about.  Anyone can take  few scripture verses and take them out of context and distort them to suit his own agenda, but that is not legitimate interpretation. There is nothing particularly insightful but it is particularly dangerous for the credulous. That is what every christian cult has done. No doubt you would have thought that David Koresh was also "insightful".   

          • Point of View says:

            I deliberately meant "inciteful" – clearly the post to which I was referring was not in the least bit "insightful" but rather, it met a different standard:

            –verb (used with object), -cit⋅ed, -cit⋅ing.

            to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulateor prompt to action: to incite a crowd to riot.

            It is hard to imagine they were NOT trying to stir things up!!

            On the other hand, I did not intend to screww up my opener – that should be "all be it"…


            • Anonymous says:

              Two strikes, my friend… it’s "albeit."

              • Dixie O'Neary says:

                Whoops – that one was a mistake…  Both times…  Can’t all be perfect…   

            • M. Websters says:

              Fully aware of what Incite, Incited and Inciting mean, still in your refererence there is no sign of "Inciteful". Next strike and you are out Mister.

              • Dick Sheonary says:

                So you don’t see the following as being in the least bit stirring of emotion to a believer…

                "So silly. All this bickering back and forth about someone who probably never exsisted. Or, if he did, was just some nut wandering the countryside seducing fools with magic tricks."

                I think you forgot to put your real name on the post, Miss Inde Point… 

                The tongue in cheek use of a non-existent word that incorporates a real one, has apparently also gone over your head…

                • M. Websters says:

                  You can try now to defend ignorance in hindsight all you want. You and I both know it wasn’t meant to be tongue in cheek to begin with.

                  • Dick Sheonary says:

                     Funnily enough, it was, and you are not the only person with a sense of humour or the ability to play on words.  You are, however, pretty stubborn – and wrong!!!

                    As I said before – CLEARLY the original writer was trying to INCITE a reaction with their tone!!  Or did you miss that one???

                    • M. Websters says:

                      ….and they got one, which is what makes it so much fun in the first place. People like you who just can’t admit they are wrong every once in a while are what make Cayman what it is today. By the way, is that you Premiere Designate Bush?

                    • Pot or Kettle... says:

                      Wow, Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle…

                      In fact, if you had scrolled a little further down, you would have seen me admit where I was wrong.  I am happy to step up to the plate when I make a mistake.  Clearly you are not since I have adamantly stated my case and backed it with reason.

                      On another note – you clearly are whacked out if you think PD Bush could come up with the coherant arguements here…

                    • M. Websters says:

                      Now I like you. I can’t admit to be wrong if I never am though…

                    • Touche says:

                      I thought I was once, but sadly I was mistaken…


                    • M. Websters says:

                      Some people told me I was once, but alas they were incorrect.

                      Will you be my new best friend?

                    • Nominus Changus says:

                      Of course, but like a chameleon, my name changes…  But my tongue remains firmly in cheek!!  You’ll know it when you see it!!


                • Dick Shaughneary says:

                  Oi – impostor.  I am the real Dick!

                  • Missin Depoint says:

                     Sorry Dick – I was just trying to make a point for the other dick who insists he is the only intelligent being on these boards.

                    Clearly this is not the case.

                    I revert to an earlier pseudonym…

                    • Dick Shaughneary says:

                      I am only a keen guardian of the dictionary and the protector of good grammar.  I make no other claim.

            • Dick Shaughneary says:

              "I deliberately meant "inciteful""  There is no such word as "inciteful".  If you wanted to form an adjective from the verb "to incite", then you should have described that article as "incitant".

          • Anonymous says:

            Yes, all Christian cults take what they want from the Bible and distort them for their own agenda. Of course some people would argue that all Christian sects are cults and that is precisely what you and your pastor do – you take what you want and ignore what you want.  Hmm.. wasn’t that one of the points that the author was making? For example, many Christians say alcohol is ungodly even though Jesus turned water into wine for a party. Some (the UDP deputy leader for example) think that people of other religions are evil, which completely ignores the parable of the Good Samaritan. It was the pharisees that Jesus got angry with.





            • Anonymous says:

              The difference is that since you have no idea what I or my pastor’s method of scripture interpretation is you have no basis whatsoever for that comment. That simply reflects your ignorance.   

              • Anonymous says:

                "Method of interpretation" – is that what you call "reading"? But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Tell me how you "interpret" this?

                Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.  Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.  (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

                • Anonymous says:

                  This is exactly what I mean by searching through the Bible to find a verse of scripture which you believe is unacceptable or to find a contradiction rather than prayerfully studying the same as a whole to discern its true meaning.  You will not find truth that way.  

                  Since you believe "method of interpretation" merely means "reading" it is clear that you need to educate yourself on hermeneutical principles. But of course you won’t because that would spoil all your fun of ‘debunking’ scripture.     

                  • Anonymous says:

                    What you are saying is that it’s OK for you to quote from the Bible to back up your beliefs because you use "hermeneutical principles" to read…oops, sorry, I mean interpret its meaning, but not for me to question passages that I find very morally troubling. A double standard?

                    Instead of brushing me off, can you use those "hermeneutical principles" to explain that passage? I suspect you can’t and therefore hide behind indignation and more nonsense.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      It is OK to question scripture if it is done in good faith with a genuine desire to understand. That does not appear to be the case here. I am not interested in having a fruitless argument.  

                      You are missing the point. One cannot interpret scripture by wresting particular texts out of their proper context and demanding instant interpretations of that particular text.  

                    • Everybody Hurts says:

                      everybody knows that!

                      Perhaps you can show an example of where the writer did that??

                    • Anonymous says:

                      See post 10/21/2009 – 09:48.

                    • Everybody Hurts says:

                      I meant the Jesus is a Pirate writer.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      I was directly responding to the poster rather than the writer of the article. But the writer also takes verses out of context in order to distort their meaning so as to suit his agenda. For example he says:

                      "For Jesus, humans are free from the restricting force of the law (Romans 7: 6). This is not a distortion, nor a misinterpretation of scripture; it is what makes a Christian a Christian".

                      The writer is suggesting that it means that Christians need not be bound by any moral code but are free to sin. Of course if it is read in the context of the previous chapter (6) it is very clear that is not what Romans 7:6 is saying at all. This is dishonest, plain and simple. In particular,

                      verses 1-2  "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?"

                      verses 12-14 "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace".

                      v. 15. "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!"

                      v. 19b "Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness".

                      And the well known v. 23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord".

                      So the point is abundantly clear even from the previous chapter let alone the entire epistle and the rest of the Bible. There is no legitimate way the writer could have reached his conclusion. It has to be mischievous.  




                    • Yes says:

                      That sounds like a legitimate argument.

                      Two things however:

                      1. The writer never said that it was okay to sin. You seemed to imply that he or she did.


                      2. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace". – seems to be the actual point of the author, which you would agree with.


                      Paul is fighting on one hand to tell us that "we are free from the restricting force of the Law" but on the other hand that it doesn’t mean we can sin.

                      The author perhaps didn’t stress the fact that we should not sin, but only stressed the fact that we are under grace, and not the law.




                    • Nicky Watson says:

                      Perhaps start a new thread in the CNS public forum

                    • Anonymous says:

                      The writer never stated it but that is the clear and unmistakable implication in the overall context of the article. That is why I used the word "suggested" rather than "stated". He states that Jesus has  a "taste for women", "frolics" with prostitutes, chats up a woman of ill-repute and is a "sugar daddy" (although the writer has confused the terminoology since this is when the man supports the lifestyle of the woman for sex and not the other way around).

                      No, that is not the actual point of the writer. There would be nothing there with which to titillate his readers since that would simply be orthodox christian doctrine, something which he is explicitly debunking. It is not  question of not "stressing the fact", it is a matter of seeking to mislead by deliberately omitting material which would destroy his thesis. It is like a prosecutor laying out some circumstantial evidence that might implicate the accused, but not submitting evidence which would clearly exculpate him. The prosecutor would be seeking an unjust conviction by misleading the jury.  Would you say that the prosecutor had just "not stressed" the exculpatory evidence? No, he would be perverting the course of justice and you would be crying "foul!".  His real point is the subtext which I have identified – that this means that we have licence to sin, after all, in the writers words "christians can even have their sins overlooked".     

                  • Anon says:

                    The trouble is, you don’t have to search through the Bible – it is littered with stuff that seems weird, horrendous or both. And as soon as you ask Christians about that they get all defensive and snitty. I would understand why god saw the need to kill babies if only I would open my heart to Jesus. Does that make sense?

          • Mr. Websters says:

            "inciteful" is a made up word, which I suppose bodes well in this discusssion regarding make believe and fantasy

  14. Johnny Cake wid a cup of coffey(e) says:

    As a Christian, I was not offended and without checking the contextual bibilical references expressed as truth…I found the article to be insightful and bold. 

    It gels well with my own inner convictions.  It also challenges one to be open enough to "hear" the whisper that the yearning soul should and is commanded to do for the "searching/weighing".  Surely, this must be what scriputures means when it says: search and examine the spirit and what it is saying.

    Your disclaimer and quantified reverence in your closing helped me to weigh your convictions and to better understand your thought-provoking opening paragraphs. 

    Thanks again.

    Cup of coffey to ya boy.

    • Anonymous says:

      If you are a Christian- meaning you have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour- how on earth would you not find it offensive that He is being called a pirate????

      • Anonymous says:

        Would Jesus have been offended? Or would he have turned the other cheek? What harm is being done here that has gotten you in such a tizzy? If you dislike the viewpoint so much, offer your own about your beliefs and your opinion, or, turn the other cheek. Talk about the followers of a man getting it all wrong, all the time.

        • Anonymous says:

          I see I have touched your nerve…go ahead, get to Him for yourself- I dare you….

          • Anonymous says:

            Wrong again, bucko. Trust me, I live a very full and meaningful life sans "Him," or in my opinion, just plain ole "him." If you need Jesus to fill a void, that’s your crutch, not mine.

      • Johnny Cake wid a cup of coffey(e) says:

        I am a born again christian…and no I was not offended by this.  See my sister/brother, I did not allow the word pirate to throw me from really reading the article.  As I settled into what he was saying, it allowed me to be more comfortable with the totality of what he was saying.

        For me….the Lord is more than any labels we can call him.  I found it as a challenge and an enchancement to the foundational truth – to be human.

        I do not believe that the Lord is the least bit bothered by our searching hearts.  I also believe that He has a sense of humour…at the least.

        Your faith is bigger than any offense you feel.

  15. Anonymous says:

    It has been interesting and very insightful to see the blatant manipulation of the Christ story to endorse and support the Pirate theme for a Caymanian money making endeavor.

    On a more serious note it also shows a dangerous reality in the capacity of some for the advancement of their own egocentric agenda to completely distort biblical truths.

    To keep or to replace the Pirate theme aside, the comparison of Christ to a pirate is odious in the extreme and those who flex their egos to create arguments supporting this mendacity obviously do not take Christianity seriously. 

    • Herr Ettick says:

      "completely distort biblical truths"?  Like the Eart was created by magic, the stars are fixed in the firmament, one man lived for 900 years and another couple rose from the dead?  At best this is a work of historical fiction.

      • Not the messiah says:

        Not only is it fiction, it is fiction heavily plagiarised from other pre-existing religious texts local to the middle East.  Virgin births?  Rising from the dead?  All done before, especially by the Egyptians. 

        • Anonymous says:

          More specifically its the Roman/Greek texts which speak to "virgin births" and "rising from the dead" before the Christian texts do.

          But this is nothing for any Christian to be frightened of.

          Christianity is a historical phenomenon and should be placed in its historical context.

          It was "born" out of those times.

        • Anonymous says:

          You know that for a fact, do you?

          Merely because you can point to superficial similarities with other religions does not show "plagiarism".  There was a very interesting article in the Jamaica Gleaner on the issue which referenced a 2003 work by the Anglican Bishop of Durham, Dr. N.T. Wright.   


    • Anonymous says:



  16. Anonymous says:

    Well, its certainly important to consider the context in which these ‘pirates’ of our past were operating. For those not able to put two and two together  – it was during the brutual regime of British colonialism in the Caribbean (think millions of Africans kidnapped and torn from thier families in western Africa, millions drowned enroute to the Caribbean,  millions enslaved for centuries under the most unimagineable conditions).  It was a merciless system of economic gain – for the British/Spanish/ other colonial powers of the day. ‘Pirates’ aims and ambitions must be seen in this historical facutal context. The aims were not to rape and pilage (not that they did not) – but to seek thier economic and more general freedom. Let us not forget the pirates raped and killed far fewer of our Arawak and Carib and African brothers and sisters than the offical Spanish or British  missions to the Caribbean  (who came in the name of Jesus by the way). 

    I applaud Mr Awe for this brave and very insightful piece. 

    These positive characteristics of Jesus, a historical figure – revolutionary, rebel, visionary, inspirational leader, promoter of peace and human dignity – and of life! –  are ones which we all in Cayman – regardless of our faith – can celebrate together.  

    This piece spells out to us the facts that most of us (not blinded to the point of irrationality by extreme religous beliefs) already know – any problem with the name Pirates Week – for the only reason its been attacked – really holds little weight, all factors considered.

    Further, it makes economic sense to keep it going. And, now, it is part of our culture! Mac & Co – you can’t take that away (this is not China and you are not Mao). Its for fun!

    Thank you Mr Awe for a very thoughtful peice. I do hope this reaches all and especially the sensible religous and political leaders of our community.



  17. Joe Average says:


    just doesn’t have the same kind of pull to it.  I’d rather stick with Pirates Week.

  18. what a mess! says:

    Excellent article!

    Hope UDP, PPM and CMA can "grasp" what’s being said.

  19. Mozzie Fodder says:

    It just goes to show that the bible can support a variety of interpretations and beliefs – this writer has pulled references of Jesus’ dark side from the bible but others are just as able to cite tales of his miracles or list the good deeds he did.

    I went to church as a kid but religion didn’t fit with me – I didn’t get why one religion was better than the other. Doesn’t stop me from having good morals.

    The point is that everyone is entitledto their own point of view – and I enjoyed the writers wry twist on Jesus.

    • Anonymous says:

      "Jesus’s dark side". What dark side?

      The Bible certainly does not support the writer’s commentary. Attempting to distort the scripture to paint Jesus as being sexually involved with the various women who followed him could not stand up under any kind of textual criticism. Instead, that reflects the reprobate mind of the writer.  Likewise, deliberately misinterpreting Romans 7:6 by removing the second half of the verse (and the rest of the epistle) and wresting it from its proper context to make it appear that sinning is endorsed is intellectually dishonest.

      • Mozzie Fodder says:

        My point was that different interpretation of the bible is possible and you agree – by leaving out certain parts of the text you can make Jesus out to be a "pirate" or on the flipside, the "saviour". What is confusing to me is why most Christians only read the bits of the bible that they want to and ignore the contradictions and negative aspects of their religion.

        • Anonymous says:

          Different interpretations of the Bible in some respects are possible. My point is that this particular viewpoint does not represent a valid interpretation, applying any rules of textual criticism, from the text. There are no pirate/saviour flipsides. That is simply absurd.  

          You have got this all turned around. You and the writer are only reading the bits of the bible you want to in the quest of finding contradictions and negative aspects to Christianity.  You will find what you seek but it will not be the truth.    

          • Mozzie Fodder says:

            "You and the writer are only reading the bits of the bible you want to in the quest of finding contradictions and negative aspects to Christianity.  You will find what you seek but it will not be the truth."    


            You are only reading the bits of the bible you want to in the quest of finding positive aspects to Christianity.  You will find what you seek but it will not be the truth.    

            I am only pointing out that as much as the writer finds his meaning through "selective reading" so can other christians can find theirs. I know it isn’t as simple as pirate / saviour but in previous posts I have tried to be brief to avoid a lengthy narrative.

            Back to you….

            • Anonymous says:

              You are right that there is always a danger with selective reading by whomever it is practised. You will not find the truth that way. However, that does not mean that every ‘view’ of the bible has equal validity. There are some objective standards for interpretation. This writer has not employed any but has simply made full use of his imagination. The suggestion that what he has presented has equal validity to orthodox christian teaching is preposterous.  

              Christianity is for me about having a relationship with Christ. The truth of His Word is central to that relationship, and is a matter of revelation. To those who are perishing it is foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18).  The Bible contains "some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). 

      • Anonymous says:

        The author never actually said Jesus was sexually involved with those women however.

        I’m a Christian and I liked the article.

        In what way did he take Romans 7: 6 out of context? I ask sincerely.

        Please explain.

        • Anonymous says:

          This is answered in my posts at  Wed, 10/21/2009 – 20:24 and Thu, 10/22/2009 – 14:40.

  20. Anonymous says:

    The original writer was relatively close from an etymological standpoint: The word "pirate" comes from the Latin "pirata", related to the Greek piratis , from the verb pirao, from the ancient Greek "peira"; the basic meaning being: trial, attack, test, attempt, plot, get experience, endeavour.

    I am certain the government of His time deemed Jesus to be more pirate and criminal than anything divine. Christian dogma (doggerel?) maintaining His innocence notwithstanding, in point of fact Jesus did claim to be equal with God, which claim was a crime to both Rome and the Jews. Therefore, Jesus was a criminal in that land at that time. (Duh!) 

    Of course I am sure the editorial was intended more to promote thought than denigrate the status of the Christ. However, in esteeming His divinity we as Christians often overlook Jesus’ humanity.  The writer did give us food for thought, as evidenced by the passionate replies.

    I am not offended.  People would probably take exception to my views, as I personally view Jesus as a consummate rebel. Like the writer of the article, I think that the Man who turned water into (very good) wine would have enjoyed the festivities and not gotten all hung up on the name of the party.

    Of interest is that several British sovereigns of times past – recall that sovereigns were and are to this day designated as "Defender of the Faith" (‘Fidei defensor’) and "Head of the Church" – saw nothing at all unholy about using paid government-sanctioned pirates (look up "privateers") for their own and their country’s gain. Its funny how terminology gets twisted depending on who is calling whoby what name. To the Spanish the British privateers were pirates, to the British they were heroes. To the British the Spanish privateers were the embodiment of evil.

    It all depends on your perspective. If that perspective be obscured by a piece of lumber in your eye then you just may be hindered in your attempt to get the speck out of the eye of the other person.

    I think all this hoopla over the name is just plain stupid: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

    • Anonymous says:

      If the "hoopla" is merely over the name and the substance will remain unchanged then you have a point. You have asserted that it all depends on perspective. Whether it is broke depends on your perspective. From a spiritual perspective it is broke.

      I am afraid you have equally failed to paint Jesus as a pirate, your pseudo-intellectual attempt notwithstanding. The word "pirate" means "one who attacks and robs ships at sea".  A more modern meaning is one who appropriates the work of another for profit without permission. As for Jesus being a criminal, Jesus’s own defence was the truth of his assertion (Matt. 26:63-65). Claiming to be equal with God or the Son of God would only make him a criminal if in fact he was not and was instead guilty of blasphemy.  The whole point was that his execution was not for his own crime since he was innocent of any crime.  Since you claim to be a Christian you surely must understand that this is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.  

      Claiming to the Son of Yahweh or equal to Yahweh could not be an offence under Roman law since the Romans had no particular regard for the God of a people under Roman occupation. When faced with a demand for his execution, his Roman judge, Pilate, asked "Why? What crime has he committed?" and declared that he was innocent. Attempting to equate Christ’s claim of divinity with piracy is tantamount to saying that he was defrauding his followers by his (false) claims to divinity.  

      The fact that you have had national sovereigns who bear titles related to the Church or the Christian faith and who have engaged in atrocities has no bearing whatsoever upon the issue of Jesus’s own character. They do not bear his image.  

      One can certainly say that Jesus challenged the status quo, did not confirm to religious stereotypes, and probably enjoyed a good laugh with a glass of wine. However, this did not impinge upon his holiness and does not mean that he was reveller, or a criminal, or a pirate. In that statement you have simply gone too far. The data does not support your thesis.  

      If you do not accept the cornerstone of the Christian faith  – that he was indeed who he claimed to be – the unique Son of God and express image of the Father, that he was innocent of any crime/sin – in what sense are you a Christian? Can it be that, since you think the Pirate’s Week issue is just about the name, that you believe it is sufficient if  you call yourself a Christian?        

  21. Anon says:

    This was dumb and offensive and CNS should be ashamed to have even published this. Jesus is a pirate??!!  Mr. Awe was obviously smoking too much of something when he decided to sit down and write this rubbish..

    • Anonymous says:

      Who is this Jesus you speak of ?

      Pirates Week is Pirates Week.

      Mac changed the name of the Turtle Farm and now no tourists have any idea of what Boatwains Beach is and it has been a financial disaster.

      Leave it be.

      • Anonymous says:

        Well this Jesus fellow, he is the dude upon whom the western calendar divides human history into B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini – in the Year of our Lord. We are in the year 2009 A.D. He is kinda important. 

        Been asleep for the past 2000 years, eh?     

        • Anonymous says:

          Funny though, there are more people in the world following other calendars… And many in the "western" world that really could care less about the whole BC and AD thing except that it’s so commonly used it would be rather inconvenient to change at this point.

          • Anonymous says:

            I daresay there are more people following the western calendar than any other single calendar.

            Your statement does nothing to diminish the impact that Jesus Christ has had and continues to have on planet earth.

  22. Anonymous says:

    I found the comparison made between Jesus Christ and a pirate to be somewhat offensive.

    Perhaps the author should actually read up about the violent self serving behavior of the pirate. Murder, rape and horrible violence are not part of the Jesus’ "dark side". You can quote as much bible verse as you want but it will never be true.

    The core of the pirate life was stealing and using any means necessary to achieve their self centered goals.

    How offensive and shallow a view to compare our Lord and savior to such men. 

    Where is the outrage from this most Christian country???


    • Anonymous says:

      The author did mention "Jesus wasn’t a thief, a murderer (like Moses?), a rapist, or anything of that sort which we often associate with pirates. We only wished to show how Jesus is positively a pirate, by focusing on yet another side of his divine personality."

      • Anonymous says:

        Er…if you leave out raping, pillaging and murdering then I am afraid you don’t have a pirate. That is the essence of being a pirate. There is no such thing as the positive side of a pirate. That was a pretty nonsensical article.

        One could make the case that Jesus was a non-conformist, but it is preposterous to suggest that he was a like a pirate.  Jesus said the enemy (the Evil One) comes not but to kill, to steal and to destroy (sounds piratical), but I have come that you might have life and have it more abundantly.   Jesus is the anti-pirate.  I understand that the article was intended to be provocative, but your thesis should at least be coherent.

        • Anonymous says:

          HERE HERE!!!!!

          Hopefull this garbage is not printed anywhere- that would be an utter waste of paper and ink….

    • pastor bucket says:

      "You can quote as much bible verse as you want but it will never be true."

      just read that bit again & let us know if you feel foolish, although probably not cos you are a fundamentalist  – actual direct quotes still won’t phase you?!

      you know i am offended daily, by people like you for one, but so what? i get over it – i am sure your god is strong enough

      there are tons of verses in the bible the poster can bring up which show contradiction/warrants for abuse – here are some, i await the venom from the "christ like" who fail to read their "good" book properly!

      Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves


      Human Sacrifice?





  23. For freedom says:

    I know it was a work of fiction, but part of the romance of the Pirates of the Caribbean was not the idealisation of violent crime that the Cayman Taliban claims. It was the dream and quest for freedom.

    That quest is alive now as it ever was. Those that would remove it are wide spread;  internationally it is the revenue men, in Cayman it is the churches.
    Think pirate and cry ‘For freedom’.
  24. Joe Average says:

    What would Jesus do about our Governor.

    • Anonymous says:

      Teach him how to turn water into wine and help organise a fantastic but cost-friendly pirates week?

      • Joe Average says:

        Or HE might take him aside and say

        "Listen, Jack….sit down….I need to tell you something.

        I am the Lord.  You are a Governor.  You answer to the UK.

        I answer to you -know -who.  Did you get that?"

        "yes sir."

        "No.  I am Your Excellency.  Got that??"

    • Anonymous says:

      He would mek ‘im walk de plank! Arrrrrgh!