-
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
Monocle
Member
Implying that a black woman playing God is an equally incongruous casting choice...?
Huh.
Nah I was just being facetious. I thought the Justin Beiber part was a give away hah
Conciliator
Banned
If I died and learned that Octavia Spencer was God I wouldn't be disappointed
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
I can understand why they're upset. Christianity is misogynistic, and God is a petty asshole. They should have cast a fedora-wearing neckbeard, not a warm maternal figure.
Monocle
Member
Or was that chillingly close to the mark?!?!?
You're absolutely right, Christianity should be thrown in the garbage bin altogether and isn't worth modernizing. Too faulty of a foundation to build upon, an existential swampland.
Hahaha, ouch.
afternoon delight
Member
I too remember the great arrival heralded by the peak Potter popularity years.... So much witchcraft, so many wings a beating... Twas the sound of sweet sweet glory for half a decade.
Are you looking for salvation M'Lady?
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
I'm a Nice God. Why won't they worship me? Fucking heathens. Reeeee
I mean, their complaints are founded. Isn't it doctrine that God created man in his image? I'm not certain where this new belief that God is some formless cosmic soup originated.
That said, and it could come down to denomination differences, I believe the story of Genesis is that God created man in his image - later clarified that it was Adam specifically that he made. Then, from Adam's rib, he crafted Eve. Thus, it's pretty easy to read into this that male is God's form and female is just a lesser portion of that.
Let's not kid ourselves here, Patriarchy is baked right into the foundation of Christianity. Gnosticism was considered the greatest threat to Christianity almost entirely because it not only had the audacity to say women were equal but also that a more closer depiction of God was that of a woman. A female God is to the acceptable vision of the Bible as heretical as an entirely different religion.
That's a lie. It's entirely from Gnosticism and bless them for it.
That said, and it could come down to denomination differences, I believe the story of Genesis is that God created man in his image - later clarified that it was Adam specifically that he made. Then, from Adam's rib, he crafted Eve. Thus, it's pretty easy to read into this that male is God's form and female is just a lesser portion of that.
Depending how much weight your sect gives to the story of Lilith, of course.
Let's not kid ourselves here, Patriarchy is baked right into the foundation of Christianity. Gnosticism was considered the greatest threat to Christianity almost entirely because it not only had the audacity to say women were equal but also that a more closer depiction of God was that of a woman. A female God is to the acceptable vision of the Bible as heretical as an entirely different religion.
Netherscourge
Banned
Wait - Oprah's in the Bible? Damn she's good!
"Forgiveness for you, and forgiveness for you and FORGIVENESS FOR EVERYONE!!!!!"
BlackGoku03
Member
This is why I have a problem with how GAF treats Christians like it's all one group when in reality, it's a mixed bag. It's not supposed to be a mixed bag, but people like to take things and tailor them to their ideology.
It's the same reason why people don't like visiting my church; we have a female pastor. Our church being an inter-denominational church turns people off as well because they think Christianity has to have a denomination attached to it; you can't just be Christian.
This is also why you have some churches who openly invite gays and transsexuals and others openly condemn them. It's all about the stuff they added to their Christian ideology which was never needed in the first place.
This isn't a Christian problem, it's a problem with the people who follow it.
It's the same reason why people don't like visiting my church; we have a female pastor. Our church being an inter-denominational church turns people off as well because they think Christianity has to have a denomination attached to it; you can't just be Christian.
This is also why you have some churches who openly invite gays and transsexuals and others openly condemn them. It's all about the stuff they added to their Christian ideology which was never needed in the first place.
This isn't a Christian problem, it's a problem with the people who follow it.
To be fair, Most gaffers are american, and we all know how fucked up [most of] america's idea of christianity is, to foreigners it looks nothing like christianity at all.
How can a so called "christian" yell something like "God hates fags" and not realize they are committing several blasphemies?
The One and Done
Member
People sure do get up in arms about a fictional character.
Wait...oh my God...oh my God
The world has been GAF this entire time!
Wait...oh my God...oh my God
The world has been GAF this entire time!
Admiral Woofington
Member
The only difference between a religious asshole in the US vs a religious asshole in South America is that one screams it out loud, the other simply talks shit about them behind their back and convinces everybody they know to stay away.
One is just louder.
LookAtMeGo
Member
Well now Jesus looks stupid for saying heavenly father.
This is ridiculous. I think the creator of everything could take whatever for it damn well pleases and if you got a problem with it, enjoy being smote.
This is ridiculous. I think the creator of everything could take whatever for it damn well pleases and if you got a problem with it, enjoy being smote.
I mean, you're making a movie about a Patriarchal god of a patriarchal religion and casting "him" as a woman.
This is sorta like casting Shiva as a man. There's no "modernizing" the image, that's history.
Jesus as middle eastern is canon (fuck you blonde jesus hollywood) and the holy spirit being a woman while a bit debatable is not as clear in the book so whatever. But the abrahamic god is definitely created as a male ideal.
This is sorta like casting Shiva as a man. There's no "modernizing" the image, that's history.
Jesus as middle eastern is canon (fuck you blonde jesus hollywood) and the holy spirit being a woman while a bit debatable is not as clear in the book so whatever. But the abrahamic god is definitely created as a male ideal.
Double faced assholes are a thing of society regardless of religious context or not, i think it's worrying that in most countries the hateful rethoric like that raises eyebrows and people would think "i don't think this is what we were supposed to learn from jesus", but the USA projects this image where the hateful rethoric is basically backed by the church.
Where is the forgiveness? where is love your human brothers and sisters?
Rynocirator
Member
Slightly off topic but from the trailer in the op, I'd watch this movie. The running on water part gave me a laugh though.
BlackGoku03
Member
I don't know. It's simple to see, honestly. But a lot of people here will take the person who says "God hates fags" and make them the quintessential Christian. Using that as a base to criticize Christianity when the real problem are the people who claim they're Christian.
What's interesting is the Bible foretells this and it took me a long time to see it.
woopWOOP
Member
Not made in HER image!!
I always found this dumb thing to be kinda adorable, lol
When you have scriptures written thousands of years ago that is roughly translated and open to wide interpretations without the big man (heh) coming down here himself to clarify all of this shit up, I can see a flaw in it.
MagnaderAlpha
Member
Pretty much. I figure, if God created mankind in its image, that means ALL mankind, all races, man and woman.
You mean Donald Trump.
BlackGoku03
Member
Not really. A lot of these silly rules are either from the old testament (Christians should be pulling from the New) or they're completely made up.
I mean, there are churches who say women can't wear makeup or wear jeans. Where is that in the Bible? Do you really think that'll prevent you from getting in heaven? Or dating someone out of your race? Or worshiping snakes? The list goes on.
Chaplain
Member
The scripture you are referring to is found in 1 Peter 3:3-4. The writer of the verse makes no mention of wearing makeup.
People, from all walks of life, tend to act on the belief that God's love can be earned through rituals or merit based performance. The Bible defines these actions as "legalism." Jesus never taught it, rebuked those who practiced it, and declared that He came to set people free from this type of thinking.
The Albatross
Member
The book this is based off of is pop-evangelical mush that I think most of Gaf would be embarrassed to read, cheesier than the Left Behind series, and largely appeals to the same people who like contemporary Christian rock.
That some evangelical Christians are taking issue with it is too bad because the book's audience is evangelical Christians. I think it's probably getting criticism similar to how a Dan Brown novel would have gotten criticism from Catholics. There are a good number of Catholics who went onto think that Dan Brown was presenting something historically accurate or sort of historically accurate in a novel like the Da Vinci Code, and of course, no, he isn't (although, well, Brown may think he is...). I think the Evangelicals responding to this are doing so as a cautionary to tale to other Evangelicals of, like, "don't put too much emphasis on this as being scripturally sound..."
That some evangelical Christians are taking issue with it is too bad because the book's audience is evangelical Christians. I think it's probably getting criticism similar to how a Dan Brown novel would have gotten criticism from Catholics. There are a good number of Catholics who went onto think that Dan Brown was presenting something historically accurate or sort of historically accurate in a novel like the Da Vinci Code, and of course, no, he isn't (although, well, Brown may think he is...). I think the Evangelicals responding to this are doing so as a cautionary to tale to other Evangelicals of, like, "don't put too much emphasis on this as being scripturally sound..."
That's.The. Same. Thing.
This ain't a Gaf problem, this is a problem within the base itself.
BlackGoku03
Member
Yeah but back in those times, the plaiting of hair was seen as lewd because that's the style that lewd women wore. and the putting on of apparel really wasn't outright banned or forbidden. He was just trying to stress that Christians shouldn't put too much stock on their outward appearance and focus inward instead.
The problem is people take stuff like this and run with it, letting it define their little sect of Christianity and everyone else has it wrong.
I like the passage you posted, it's very true and would upset a lot of these Christians who are guilty of it.
EDIT:
Funny how you're the only one who noticed that. I didn't notice what I did until way after I posted and thought I'd get called out for it.
But yeah, pretty much the same thing.
Lord Frieza
Member
...No? There's a story where God sends an Angel to wrestle a guy, and they end fighting for like two days or something to a stalemate. It was the first live wrestling PPV.
So your primary complaint is that we aren't talking about the things you want to talk about?
Keep in mind that this your original complaint.
I don't know what anything you just said has to do with what we're talking about. The quotes are pretty clear and fairly represented. Why don't you start by addressing them before diving into articles several times removed from the OP.
Chaplain
Member
Our selfish genes tend to push us in this direction. Christians are not exempt from this dilemma. Which is why Jesus' solution to this problem was death: choosing to die to our desires and put God and others first. Anytime I fail to do this, self-centeredness creeps up and dominates my actions.
I agree. Leaders in churches have incorporated America's individualistic life style and merged it with Jesus' teaching. Thus, creating a Jesus' after their own image and followers who follow a Jesus that is radically different to the one found in the Bible.
Chaplain
Member
What makes the old testament any less truer than the new testament asides from where you placed your faith in?
DiipuSurotu
Banned
So Jacob wrestled with a Black woman
Lord Frieza
Member
I stand corrected then, I thought it was an angel
Aren't angels in the bible pillars of fire or something like that ?
Chaplain
Member
BlackGoku03
Member
The NT brings a new covenant making most, if not all, of the rules mentioned in the OT obsolete. Jesus came to basically make it easier to seek salvation among many other things.
But there are a lot of rules and traditions that just aren't needed but some groups like to take one passage and let it define them or make up rules based off of it. It's depressing, really.
CreepingFear
Member
If it wasn't clear before, Evangelicals showed themselves for the scum that they are after their support for Trump. Let them be pissed.
Chaplain
Member
The Old Testament is full of examples of God giving His people wicked rulers as a punishment for living affluent and materialistic life styles.
"When God wants to judge a nation, He gives them wicked rulers." (John Calvin)
God's purpose in this is to use turn people from their sins (repentance) and to live a self-sacrificial life to Him and others.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
You do know that a hell of a lot of people think Trump is Jesus, right?
Chaplain
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked