Is God A "white Man" In A Robe?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

Q, why do you find it disturbing?

I had to think about this for awhile. Not because I didn't have an answer, but rather, there are so many points to the answer, that could never really be expressed in words.

The picture's first point (whether the author intended or not), is not to solicit thoughts of the sacrifice of Christ, but to illicit a base reaction. What is incorporated in the picture is designed to cause the viewer to imagine sadism/masochism, violence, death, and eroticism. There is no message of sacrifice or salvation in the picture.

In reality, there would be no flesh left intact on the musculature of the crucified body (male or female would be indeterminent from visual observation). The Romans were ruthlessly efficient in their scourging of those condemned to death.

This picture uses the crown as a type of erotic apparel, suggesting pleasure in pain (accented by the blood flow that is almost like make up). The female breast exposed is a biological trigger, for most males, as is the clear skin tone/texture and health of the musculature. (In otherwords, the first thing that catches the male eye is the body, and it isn't in revulsion that is in the mind of the viewer).

The picture defeats the message below it, by causing a very male reaction to a female image. Instead of suggesting a blending of humanity into a one ness, without gender or pre-dispositions to gender, it clearly emphasises the difference in gender and causality of that difference.

In short, it attempts to illicit excitment at the sight of a subdued female who is physically attractive and healthy.

If God is female, then man has beaten God, and is the dominant being "over God", who is as helpless as a female bound, bleeding and naked on a cross.

To sensationalise an event like the crucifiction, with a naked female body suggests that man (men) is lower than the basest animals in this world. Even the animal kingdom instinctively protects, (not destroys), its female half, and it certainly does not put that destruction on display, and call it "art".

The only word that seems to fit the picture is "abomination"...a disdainful mockery.

It clearly does not tie in with the message from the passage of Thomas' Gospel. It refutes it. A disturbing parady of one event and paradox of picture and words.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The picture's first point (whether the author intended or not), is not to solicit thoughts of the sacrifice of Christ, but to illicit a base reaction. What is incorporated in the picture is designed to cause the viewer to imagine sadism/masochism, violence, death, and eroticism. There is no message of sacrifice or salvation in the picture.
Q

Personally, that picture did not arouse me sexually at all.
Seeing a bloody woman is not my idea of something erotic.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

In reality, there would be no flesh left intact on the musculature of the crucified body (male or female would be indeterminent from visual observation). The Romans were ruthlessly efficient in their scourging of those condemned to death.
Q

In reality, childrens books depicting Jesus as European are "in fact" not
accurate.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

This picture uses the crown as a type of erotic apparel, suggesting pleasure in pain (accented by the blood flow that is almost like make up). The female breast exposed is a biological trigger, for most males, as is the clear skin tone/texture and health of the musculature. (In otherwords, the first thing that catches the male eye is the body, and it isn't in revulsion that is in the mind of the viewer).
Q

Again a bloody woman, (naked or not) is not erotic. IMHO
The 1st thing that caught my eye was the blood.
Then I saw the cross and the thorns and the verse and so on....

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The picture defeats the message below it, by causing a very male reaction to a female image. Instead of suggesting a blending of humanity into a one ness, without gender or pre-dispositions to gender, it clearly emphasises the difference in gender and causality of that difference.
Q

Would a man without a shirt cause a woman to be aroused?
Do bloody men with no clothes arouse women?

Originally Posted by Quahom1

In short, it attempts to illicit excitment at the sight of a subdued female who is physically attractive and healthy.
Q

Hmmm..
A subdued male who is healthy in the same circumstance may be attractive or sexually arousing to females.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

If God is female, then man has beaten God, and is the dominant being "over God", who is as helpless as a female bound, bleeding and naked on a cross.
Q

Only a woman would let a man think he has "won" just to satisfy a male ego. (Learned that from my mother) (My father often "thought" he won)

Females are not as "helpless" as you may think.

Mothers protect their young everyday.

A woman protected you in her womb before you were born.

Women tend to be less violent then men, true, but "can" be as violent if
properly pushed.

Try going a round in the boxing ring with (Muhammed Ali's daughter).

Try running against Flo Jo

In both cases, you will probably get your but kicked.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

To sensationalise an event like the crucifiction, with a naked female body suggests that man (men) is lower than the basest animals in this world. Even the animal kingdom instinctively protects, (not destroys), its female half, and it certainly does not put that destruction on display, and call it "art".
Q

Killing is universal and so is protection. In the animal kingdom, Females are killed very often and left out for all to see. Killing is just as instinctive as protection. Women protect their young, and will "Kill" another woman to save them. Men do the same.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The only word that seems to fit the picture is "abomination"...a disdainful mockery.
Q

Very storng (real) words. I appreciate the honesty.

[Quahom1]

Personally, that picture did not arouse me sexually at all.
Seeing a bloody woman is not my idea of something erotic.

You didn't create the picture.

In reality, childrens books depicting Jesus as European are "in fact" not
accurate.

Of course not...

Again a bloody woman, (naked or not) is not erotic. IMHO
The 1st thing that caught my eye was the blood.
Then I saw the cross and the thorns and the verse and so on....

Not to you. But then again you did not create the picture.

Would a man without a shirt cause a woman to be aroused?
Do bloody men with no clothes arouse women?

In light of the symbology supposedly being represented? I doubt it. Do bloody men arouse women? yes.

Hmmm..
A subdued male who is healthy in the same circumstance may be attractive or sexually arousing to females.

Not a chance. The only "subduction" of men that most women want is in their bed, on Sunday morning. And they call it "cuddling".

Only a woman would let a man think he has "won" just to satisfy a male ego. (Learned that from my mother) (My father often "thought" he won)

That quite possibly is true. However the opposite is also true. The man needs an excuse not to "win", to shore up his ego (and to take pressure off of himself...that he put on himself).

Females are not as "helpless" as you may think.

I'm not the one conveying a female as helpless...

Women tend to be less violent then men, true, but "can" be as violent if
properly pushed.

Maybe in your "world"...words can also be violent, and a serpent's tongue spits venom that can blind, and paralyse...

Try going a round in the boxing ring with (Muhammed Ali's daughter).

No contest. I don't fight for points...

Try running against Flo Jo

I was a distance runner...

In both cases, you will probably get your but kicked.

Depends on your perspective. I wouldn't come away "clean", but I would still be walking...

Killing is universal and so is protection. In the animal kingdom, Females are killed very often and left out for all to see. Killing is just as instinctive as protection. Women protect their young, and will "Kill" another woman to save them. Men do the same.

But, what has this to do with the picture I find disturbing, for the reasons I expressed?

Very storng (real) words. I appreciate the honesty.

You asked...

v/r

Q

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Q,

The idea of the thread in the begining was to get in "essence" different opinions on how GOD or any religious dieties should be depicted or if they should be depicted at all.

If I offended you, I deeply apoligize for that.
Your opinion is very valuable in this matter, because you have let me know that their are people who do get offended by depicitions.

Just as some people may find it obsene for Jesus to be depicted as a "White Male" (european) hanging on the cross.

Q,

Do you feel that we should have depictions of that event?

Do you feel that we should have depictions of any religious dieties at all?

[Quahom1]

Q,

The idea of the thread in the begining was to get in "essence" different opinions on how GOD or any religious dieties should be depicted or if they should be depicted at all.

If I offended you, I deeply apoligize for that.
Your opinion is very valuable in this matter, because you have let me know that their are people who do get offended by depicitions.

I simply stated it was disturbing...

Just as some people may find it obsene for Jesus to be depicted as a "White Male" (european) hanging on the cross.

He is depicted as people can understand "Him". I simply stated my finding one particular perspective, "disturbing".

Q,

Do you feel that we should have depictions of that event?

By all means.

Do you feel that we should have depictions of any religious dieties at all?

That might cause problems. Especially if one is ignorant of another's faith. Then you might end up with hundreds dead, over a cartoon....

but that could never happen...right?

v/r

Q

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I simply stated it was disturbing...

That's what I was looking for.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

He is depicted as people can understand "Him". I simply stated my finding one particular perspective, "disturbing".

True, we all have our understanding.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

That might cause problems. Especially if one is ignorant of another's faith. Then you might end up with hundreds dead, over a cartoon....
but that could never happen...right?

True, that is why it is so imparative that we evaluate our depictions.
throughly and see if it would be wise to promote them.

People could be killed for this a things deemed a lot less serious in nature.
i.e.
Riots when a football team wins a game. People get hurt during the celebration.

Faith is a process. Are depicitions a necessary part of it?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

That's what I was looking for.



True, we all have our understanding.





True, that is why it is so imparative that we evaluate our depictions.
throughly and see if it would be wise to promote them.

People could be killed for this a things deemed a lot less serious in nature.
i.e.
Riots when a football team wins a game. People get hurt during the celebration.

Faith is a process. Are depicitions a necessary part of it?

Too late my friend. Hundreds are DEAD, over a bloody cartoon...against the religion of "Peace".

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

People dying over cartoons is truly a tragedy.

That's why I said it is imparative that we evaluate "depictions"... That could possibly lead to such things.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

People dying over cartoons is truly a tragedy.

That's why I said it is imparative that we evaluate "depictions"... That could possibly lead to such things.

Maybe better to leave depictions be...

[Dondi]

Actually, now that I thought about it, the picture of an iconic female nullifies the sacrifice. For in the Jewish mind, it was always the umblemished first-born male animal that was fit for sacrifice on the altar. Therefore, to depist a female sacrifice renders everything we know about the method God has chosen in the atonement null and void.

[flowperson]

Hello All:

I've been following this discussion for a while, and quite honestly, yo's image posting of the crucified woman makes sense to me for a lot of reasons that should be quite obvious if one is familiar with the social persecutions and overt abuses levied against women by men since we were all created.

Suffering is not a gender specific phenomenon represented by a single man in history. The use of the image of Jesus on the cross advises us of the universality of suffering for men and women alike throughout history. Jesus' demonstrated partiality to women in the stories passed on to us all demonstrates his assent with this aspect of the gender divide. We are all brothers and sisters together, especially in the suffering parts of life. As a man I am ashamed of our male history in this regard. Thank G-d it seems to be diminishing these day, or at least over the past fifty years or so.

Go to the NT Apocrypha section of this most excellent website that you're on and that we exercise our brains upon, and read through The Gospel of Thomas from beginning to end. Keep in mind while you're reading it that many qualified scholars have determined that this Gospel probably predates much of the synoptic content, except maybe for parts of Mark, and also contains information in parallel with the Q source since some of the concepts are similar to those that ended up in the cannon. Pay particular attention to saying 22, which also captioned the depiction. Also pay close attention to the final saying of the Gospel that was not added later.

We're all going through huge genetic and societal transformations as we speak, and IMHO this Gospel mystically predicted much of it two millenia ago. I, for one, have striven for twenty years to find the "correct" interpretations of this excluded Gospel, for the first saying tells us that those who do so will not taste death, and this infers that such people will find the kingdom. Since this was the central concept in Jesus' teachings about the mysteries, I believe that it's worth the attempt, and in the context of the entire Gospel I for one do not find the image "disturbing".

While you're in the Apocrypha section, also read The Secret Gospel of Mark, which you'll notice was translated by Morton Smith, and who also wrote the excellent book, Jesus the Magician, which I recommended elsewhere here.

If we all continue to exclude such information from our knowledge base concerning this man that we revere so, and who may have represented divinity, I believe that as believeing Christians we're severely damaging our chances at redemptiion in the future.

flow....

[InLove]

Hi--

Since we have been talking a great deal about pictures of Jesus, I wanted to post a picture of a sketch I have always thought was pretty good--and maybe even fairly accurate in an historical sense. But I cannot post it properly because of copyright.

There are lots of pictures here, and some are pretty interesting, but I just have always liked the black and white sketch of Jesus helping a toddler to walk.

So, here's the link, if anyone wants to take a look.

http://www.picturesofjesus4you.com/jesus_drawings.html

I hope there is nothing to offend here, but I guess there could be.

InPeace,
InLove

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by InLove

Hi--

Since we have been talking a great deal about pictures of Jesus, I wanted to post a picture of a sketch I have always thought was pretty good--and maybe even fairly accurate in an historical sense. But I cannot post it properly because of copyright.

There are lots of pictures here, and some are pretty interesting, but I just have always liked the black and white sketch of Jesus helping a toddler to walk.

So, here's the link, if anyone wants to take a look.

http://www.picturesofjesus4you.com/jesus_drawings.html

I hope there is nothing to offend here, but I guess there could be.

InPeace,
InLove

Ditto...

here is one that rings a bell with me...

http://www.christcenteredmall.com/st...-our-pilot.htm

[cavalier]

Q, your arguments seem a little inconsistent

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Quote: Yo Eleven11

Again a bloody woman, (naked or not) is not erotic. IMHO
The 1st thing that caught my eye was the blood.
Then I saw the cross and the thorns and the verse and so on....

Not to you. But then again you did not create the picture.

but then,

Originally Posted by Quahom1

What is incorporated in the picture is designed to cause the viewer to imagine sadism/masochism, violence, death, and eroticism. There is no message of sacrifice or salvation in the picture.

Time and again you tell us exactly what the picture is trying to do, yet when someone else offers their opinion on the picture, you tell them that they did not create it. I can only assume it was you who created the picture.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The picture defeats the message below it, by causing a very male reaction to a female image....
In short, it attempts to illicit excitment at the sight of a subdued female who is physically attractive and healthy.

As YO asked, what of depictions of a semi-naked man as Christ, does that elicit excitment in women? Your answer that most women do not want a man to be subdued is absurd. The notion that we can clearly define who women are and what they want is just old-fashioned male chauvinism.

Also, in a later post you quoted YO as saying,

Originally Posted by YO Eleven 11

Just as some people may find it obsene for Jesus to be depicted as a "White Male" (european) hanging on the cross.

and replied that, "He is depicted as people can understand "Him"."
For some an image of a female Jesus might help them to understand. Should they be denied this understanding simply because such an image might float Q's boat?

Originally Posted by Quahom1

To sensationalise an event like the crucifiction, with a naked female body suggests that man (men) is lower than the basest animals in this world. Even the animal kingdom instinctively protects, (not destroys), its female half, and it certainly does not put that destruction on display, and call it "art".

I haven't known animals give art shows of any kind. Seriously though, people always come out with these statements about the animal kingdom and often they're just absurd. There are species of animals where the females are twice as big as the males, there are matriarchal societies, and if you want to talk about protection then surely you have to look towards mothers.
The males seem to go around for the most part thinking only of their dicks. Ah, now tell me again Q, why was it that you didn't like that picture?

[taijasi]

InLove, thanks for posting that link. And Q, too. InLove, I resonate most with the next to the bottom image, righthand side (#454). It reminds me a great deal of my own favorite, here. Maybe blended with this one.

Another image that evokes a powerful, and heartfelt response for me, is the 1961 Harry Anderson painting (`Prince of Peace'), depicting Jesus knocking at the U.N. Building. I prefer to believe that, relative to our own spiritual stature, Jesus - and/or `G-d' - is a being of these (and greater) dimensions. Perhaps quite literally, though also, the "still, small voice" ...

(it doesn't leave much squirming room in between - and that's what I like about it! )

Namaskar,

andrew/taijasi