-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
God is being played by a Black Woman and Evangelicals are pissed
- Thread starter royalan
- Start date
- Status
Evidence should matter, because we're not just talking the average church goer. We're talking about evangelical leaders commenting on this story who should know better. Even a lot of churches God is taught to be a genderless entity. The male pronouns used to describe God are more a product of the patriarchal society Christianity was formed in.
Messofanego
Banned
I'm glad stuff like this happens to out the religious racists.
Diatribe1974
Member
Just cast Morgan Freeman and you're safe. No matter how pissy you might start off seeing him as God,the moment he speaks, everyone is like "Oh, this is good. Proceed." Me? I don't give a shit.
I remember their being backlash with Morgan Freeman playing God in Bruce Almighty, there was heaps against Dogma and not just for God being Woman. "The Devil's work" paraphrasing some church sermons.
The complaint that it promotes false idolatry in this film is confusing, if anything it does the opposite
The complaint that it promotes false idolatry in this film is confusing, if anything it does the opposite
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Was there this much outrage when Morgan Freeman played him? Or even Alanis Morrisette? I guess it only counts when you merge both things they hate.
Edit: Haha. Well then.
Edit: Haha. Well then.
cheststrongwell
my cake, fuck off
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't meant to thread shit too much but... So what? Let them be pissed. It doesn't matter. Any depiction is going to piss some sect off. It doesn't matter.
I'd be pissed too, especially since we already know what God looks like.
In all seriousness, the physical image of God is irrelevant in believing the word, spreading the gospel, and serving others. And if we actually want to play along with the "One true God revealed through Jesus" argument, then how about we stick to the facts and acknowledge that the Bible doesn't describe Jesus as a white blonde blue-eyed messiah? How about instead of crying about a black woman playing God, we use that time and energy to help improve and explain what God is all about and whether or not you should care?
In all seriousness, the physical image of God is irrelevant in believing the word, spreading the gospel, and serving others. And if we actually want to play along with the "One true God revealed through Jesus" argument, then how about we stick to the facts and acknowledge that the Bible doesn't describe Jesus as a white blonde blue-eyed messiah? How about instead of crying about a black woman playing God, we use that time and energy to help improve and explain what God is all about and whether or not you should care?
Muskieratboi
Member
Ah, so God can be either a Black Man (Joe Almighty) or a White Woman (Dogma) Without much backlash, but a Black Woman? IDOLATRY! HERESY!
My eyes Can't roll far enough.
My eyes Can't roll far enough.
Had Bruce Almighty and Dogma come out today, they would have been rallied against,
The early 2000s were a simpler time
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Controversial because Jesus was Middle Eastern ..... when the whole New Testament takes place in the Middle East. Also mankind originated in Africa...... but let's just ignore the "we were made in his image" line. Which leads me to the other point I am surprised they aren't more angry God is a woman than her race......
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
This.
Man, these people. Being all outraged that people don't like the idea of women being subservient to men. Damn uppity feminists ruining everything!
Your memory must be short. There was plenty of evangelical outrage at Dogma. It was pathetic and hilarious then too.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Ftfy
Zantetsuken
Member
With ALL the whitewashing that Hollywood does and people still have the nerve to complain.
Puck Beaverton
Banned
The Mary Magdalene film in 2017 is going to piss people off I imagine.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Send me the link in my PM please
Seth Enosh
Member
Huge lack of religious history and literacy in this thread (edit: admittedly the thread title is inflammatory so the posts aren't a surprise).
Evangelicals descend from the Protestant traditions that turned crucifixes into crosses and tore religious art off the walls of churches because they considered the depiction of even Jesus (much less symbols for other members of the Trinity) to be idolatry. This outrage in some evangelical publications isn't a surprise at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm#Protestant_Reformation
Arthr2ShdsJcksn
Banned
I really don't like the idea of black women playing God. It's just not acurate. For one thing, black women are real.
Puck Beaverton
Banned
Didn't Whoopi Goldberg play God at some point or am i making shit up?
alfredofroylan
Member
Reagan's BR
Banned
I can speak to this a bit.
When the book came out many Christians were upset about the theological implications of the narrative, mostly but not limited to the trinity. The book is supposed to be written by a Christian for other Christians; so Christians were upset when the book failed to accurately portray Christians beliefs in how the trinity works. For more information search for sermons against the shack. There are plenty.
In addition to the theological problems the book also touched on the centuries old issue of inconoclasm and the depiction of God. There is some debate as to whether God the Father or the Holy Spirit should be depicted at all. In fact if you go look at art in many churches you will find stain glass depictions of Jesus but very few depictions of the rest of the Trinity. The creation of man where God is reaching out towards Adam being the most famous depiction of God the Father. While there are a few depictions of the Father, the common belief is that the Father should not be shown at all. In the Old Testament the Father allows Moses to see his back only being seeing anymore would kill him. In fact, Moses' face is glowing after seeing Gods back so he wears a veil. The idea is that the Jesus is the only one who was God incarnate as a man and He is the only one who should be depicted in art. Truly this debate is hundreds of years old.
As far as the comparisons to Dogma and Bruce Almighty go-those were both non-Christian movies where as this book/movie is making the claim to be a Christian movie. an apples to oranges comparison.
When the book came out many Christians were upset about the theological implications of the narrative, mostly but not limited to the trinity. The book is supposed to be written by a Christian for other Christians; so Christians were upset when the book failed to accurately portray Christians beliefs in how the trinity works. For more information search for sermons against the shack. There are plenty.
In addition to the theological problems the book also touched on the centuries old issue of inconoclasm and the depiction of God. There is some debate as to whether God the Father or the Holy Spirit should be depicted at all. In fact if you go look at art in many churches you will find stain glass depictions of Jesus but very few depictions of the rest of the Trinity. The creation of man where God is reaching out towards Adam being the most famous depiction of God the Father. While there are a few depictions of the Father, the common belief is that the Father should not be shown at all. In the Old Testament the Father allows Moses to see his back only being seeing anymore would kill him. In fact, Moses' face is glowing after seeing Gods back so he wears a veil. The idea is that the Jesus is the only one who was God incarnate as a man and He is the only one who should be depicted in art. Truly this debate is hundreds of years old.
As far as the comparisons to Dogma and Bruce Almighty go-those were both non-Christian movies where as this book/movie is making the claim to be a Christian movie. an apples to oranges comparison.
Puck Beaverton
Banned
Yup, but I don't think a lot of people saw or remember that movie.
Huh...kinda suprised I was right.
Also it's more edgy to admit you're religious these days. Calling God fake isn't really rebellious anymore.
This makes no sense as a justification because the criticism is focused specifically on the race and gender of the casting, and not that the Trinity is being depicted at all (something that Protestants routinely hand-wave).
Legit chuckled when I saw they're upset that Jesus is represented as a middle easterner. But when Muslims get upset about depictions of Allah suddenly they pile back onto the free speech bandwagon and say they should get over it.
This sort of thing just makes me laugh at this point, it's so uneducated and knuckle dragging.
This sort of thing just makes me laugh at this point, it's so uneducated and knuckle dragging.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
My memory is fine, and I am not saying there wasn't andy reaction at all.
However, Dogma came out in 1999, it was a different world compared to today. There were a few chatrooms here and there, but high-speed internet proliferation, wifi, smartphones, social media (and the instant soapbox it provided for every Joe schmoe with an ill-thought-out opinions) were at least half a decade away...
Khalifa Jayy
Banned
That article is wrong though. God is referred to as the The Father, Jesus Christ (the Son), and the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus refers to as a 'He.' Those are all male anthropomorphic identities.
Thus, you cannot really say that the Bible doesn't speak on the matter.
Thus, you cannot really say that the Bible doesn't speak on the matter.
kavanf1
Member
Considering it's nigh on impossible to be elected to high office in the US without claiming religious affiliation, it isn't yet socially acceptable by any means.
sems4arsenal
Member
I'm religious and I don't feel comfortable that God is being portrayed by a human (black,white, orange is not relevant).
Puck Beaverton
Banned
Eh I was speaking more from a millennial perspective. You're right about that, but i imagine that will change in 15-20 years.
The criticism in the article you posted is clearly focused on the theological implications of the book. You've created a thread and completely skewed the perception of the criticism by your thread title and framing that doesn't actually line up with what those critics are saying.
But hey continue the pile on, everyone loves it when it's not their side.
Yeah what the hell lol.
SENPAIatLARGE
Banned
I always think of god as masculine, especially seeing how the bible refers to him as a father. That said, I don't really believe he has a set form, and according to the scriptures no human can see him directly and live.
No, the criticism in the article I posted is clearly focused on the criticism of the film and its casting. As is the damn quote that I put in the OP. The criticisms mirror what was said about the book, but it extends to the film. I this were solely a criticism about the depiction of the Holy Trinity, there wouldn't be such strong emphasis on the race and gender chosen.
But hey, continue to be upset.
What, is he like Medusa?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked