Wow~ White Jesus! - Son of God (2014) Discussion

[–] bastasch8647 10 years ago

With all the evangelical Zionism and "support for Jews and Israel", not to mention Jews for Jesus, a truly Jewish Jesus in film would be more than marketable. The problem is finding the "perfect Jewish Jesus" actor. Who knows, maybe the producers looked for one.

reply

[–] wysoft 10 years ago

adam sandler

reply

[–] MatthewLRose 10 years ago

Oded Fehr

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tristan_Carter44 10 years ago

Well, with all the controversy surrounding him now, why not Shia Labeouf? That would get a lot of talk about the film, which would be great for marketing. Tons of people would see that.

reply

[–] Falconeer 9 years ago

You know, Shia Labeouf is actually a great choice for Jesus. I wouldn't have made the connection, but he is most likely what Jesus would have looked like; the bone structure, the slightly darker/olive skin, the black, somewhat curly, coarse hair and dark eyes. And Leabeouf has those huge, soulful eyes and the arched eyebrows that make him look really sensitive and sympathetic. and even though many people hate him, this guy can actually ACT..one of the few young people working in Hollywood today that can..you have a good eye. Ever thought of being a casting scout?

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

reply

[–] ContinentalOp 7 years ago

You know, Shia Labeouf is actually a great choice for Jesus. I wouldn't have made the connection, but he is most likely what Jesus would have looked like; the bone structure, the slightly darker/olive skin, the black, somewhat curly, coarse hair and dark eyes.

Good choice acting-wise, but Jesus, being a Jew of the Second Temple Period, would have looked more like a modern Palestinian than a Polish/Russian/Cajun ''Jew'' (isn't he a Christian now?).

The idea that modern European Jews are largely descended from ancient Hebrews is laughable and racist.

This damned burg's getting me. If I don't get away soon I'll be going blood-simply like the natives.

reply

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 8 years ago

I like your choice, but all of your suggestions prove that the OP is just a liberal drone. These PC idiots are racist and don't even realize it. They want a black Santa Claus and a black Easter Bunny too. Jews are white, but to serve their liberal agenda, these liberals morons want a black Jesus, too.

Back to your post, Shia may be too boyish looking.

Tolerance Is Intolerant Of Politically Incorrect Thought...🇺🇸

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] uniweb 10 years ago

Since Jesus is a fictional character, they can cast whatever color they want. It's just like a black Santa Claus, no big deal.

reply

[–] scottca075 10 years ago

Interesting take uniweb, but very uninformed. No one argues that Jesus didn't exist, he very clearly did. The discussion is about who he was who he said he was. If you are not prepared to discuss from a factual basis, then why bother at all?

reply

[–] tad-32 10 years ago

'No one argues'...please don't be so arrogant as to speak for everyone.

There is no hard evidence of his existence, only stories told by others to others to others to others and then finally written down many decades after the fact. I don't say that he didn't exist for certain, I only say there is reasonable doubt.

reply

[–] amh1219-589-37887 10 years ago

"I don't say that he didn't exist for certain, I only say there is reasonable doubt."

That's a lie. You said flat out that Jesus is a fictional character. That is a "for certain" statement with far stronger implications than just a reasonable doubt. Pick a stance and stick with it, please. Or at least learn to communicate your position more clearly from the start.

reply

[–] Hyperbolee 10 years ago

OH How cute, you don't know how a message board works! Let me tell you how this works.

One person, "Uniweb", posts a comment "I don't say that he didn't exist for certain, I only say there is reasonable doubt" and someone unrelated to him says he doesn't know for sure. Then you say it's a lie and that he said flat out that Jesus is a fictional character. Whoa, whoa hold on there buddy, look at the usernames and you'll see he/she never said such a thing.

Do you understand how a message board works? Again, this is not Uniweb or the person you replied to, I'm a completely new person unrelated to those other 2. I know your mind is blown. At least learn to communicate your thoughts to the correct person and take the time to read their usernames.

reply

[–] Hyperbolee 10 years ago

OH How cute, you don't know how a message board works! Let me tell you how this works.

One person, "Uniweb", posts a comment "I don't say that he didn't exist for certain, I only say there is reasonable doubt" and someone unrelated to him "scottca075" replies and then yet another person "tad-32" says he doesn't know for sure. Then you say it's a lie and that he said flat out that Jesus is a fictional character. Whoa, whoa hold on there buddy, look at the usernames and you'll see he/she never said such a thing.

Do you understand how a message board works? Again, this is not Uniweb or tad-32 that you replied to, I'm a completely new person unrelated to those other 2. I know your mind is blown. At least learn to communicate your thoughts to the correct person and take the time to read their usernames.

reply

[–] conan_g 10 years ago

Lol, all debate aside I can't help but chuckle at someone who lectures another on how to use a message board, but apparently doesn't know you just need to click Post Reply once.

I know, I know, it's the post back's fault. That's why everyone else has double posts...

Too funny

reply

[–] rasmus4u 10 years ago

Don't forget that he also misquotes the original post that he is angry gets misunderstood. As you say it is an honest mistake and I get what he was trying to say, but if your are going to be that condescending about it, you really have to make sure your own post is perfect.

reply

[–] wbagot1 10 years ago

Actually, the first writings on Jesus trace to about 15 years after his death in the early writings of Paul, not "many decades."

reply

[–] taita 10 years ago

You mean the Paul who never met jesus? that paul? All hearsay

reply

[–] wbagot1 10 years ago

You mean the Paul who never met jesus? that paul? All hearsay

From a secular point of view, it would be the Paul who lived with the earliest disciples and people who knew Jesus, hearing their stories and preaching for years before going out on his own.

From a biblical point of view, it would be the Paul who Jesus spoke to and blinded on the road to Damascus and also, quite probably, personally ministered to Paul before he went out preaching.

reply

[–] norbar 10 years ago

Many people argue that. No historians living AT THE TIME OF JESUS make any mention of him. First mentions come from 400 years after.

btw. He is latino ;)

reply

[–] Mighty_Duck_4 10 years ago

Virtually no one in historical academia argues that Jesus was a fictional person. Go try and find a current lecturing historian employed by an accredited university who says Jesus was fictional.

Also you are way way off on you're years there. 400 years is a totally BS random number you've seemed to have pulled from nowhere. The Council of Nicaea and the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity was less than a 400 years after the death of Christ. But 'no one mentioned him before that?' that's just stupid.

The first extra-biblical reference to Jesus was the historian Josephus who was born around the same time as the death of Jesus. Also the Babylonian Talmud mentions him and that was compiled between 40 and 160 CE.

And "No historians living AT THE TIME OF JESUS" is a pretty ignorant statement. Name one single historian who we have the works of who was alive and writing when the events of Jesus happened. I'll give you a hint; there weren't any. Livy and Velleius were both dead before the crucifixion. Josephus was the next one to come around after them. And as I've mentioned he did write about him.

reply

[–] Coolwaves5 10 years ago

Josephus was born after the supposed death of Jesus of Nazareth and his work is widely considered in the academic world to be a forgery. While I personally don't doubt the veracity of his existence, due to roman records among other things, his divinity is not mentioned by any contemporary sources AT ALL.

reply

[–] Mighty_Duck_4 10 years ago

We're not discussing his divinity. We're discussing whether there was a historical Jesus. Which is the point [user] norbar claims many people argue there wasn't.

As for Josephus, like I said he was born sometime around the crucifixion. As no one can definitively nail down a date for Jesus' birth or death. But we know the crucifixion occurred sometime around 33CE, which is within the range of when Josephus was born in 37CE. Which makes Josephus the earliest surviving historical works we have after the crucifixion. As I said before both Velleius and Livy were dead before Jesus would have done anything of noteworthiness. And there are no other historians from the period that we can draw upon. 'Jesus wasn't mentioned by his contemporaries' is a sound argument to the ignorant, but the fact is there aren't any surviving contemporary works at all.

And the statement that, "his work is widely considered in the academic world to be a forgery," is wildly untrue. There is a consensus among historians that the majority of Josephus' writings are authentic with debate as to the extent of Christian interpolation of Book 13 Chapter 3, 3. Which is only one of two times Josephus mentions Jesus. The other passage mentioning Jesus --Book 20 Chapter 9, 1-- is widely agreed among historians to be authentic.

reply

[–] Coolwaves5 10 years ago

Do you think that Jesus was divine?

reply

[–] Mighty_Duck_4 10 years ago

I'm an agnostic, so no I don't think was. But again that has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Posters above are making the claim that Jesus was a completely made up person, like the Tooth Fairy or the Easter bunny. Which is plainly untrue. Every credible historian, whether they're Christian or not, accepts there was a real Jesus whose life and teachings are the basis for the Christian religion. This isn't a question of his divinity. It's a statement of his existence. Which something that is agreed upon almost universally by all historians. The same way they agree there was a real Gautama Buddha, a real Joseph Smith, a real Confucius, a real Abraham, a real Zoroaster or multitude of other spiritual teachers whose works influenced religion.

reply

[–] Coolwaves5 10 years ago

I agree like I stated above and I would certainly hope that people agree there is a real Joseph Smith considering he is a very well documented figure that existed not even 200 years ago.

reply

[–] ApolloPhoebus 10 years ago

That's not accurate at all. The first mention of Jesus comes from the Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote 40 years after his death, not 400.

But why people are complaining about "white Jesus" (white is a color, not a race--many Jews are white), and not the absurdity of the title 'Son of God' (that's a FAR more controversial issue than being white) is beyond me.

reply

[–] activista 10 years ago

Basically because it's been proven that living in a primarily Middle Eastern area, he would have looked more like the average Arab man than some white surfer dude,which is how he's always portrayed. I saw that in a 2004 documentary about the historical and archaelogical facts about Jesus---it was very interesting. In fact, there is actually a 2009 African film ( I forgot the title of it) which portrays the entire story of Jesus with an all black-cast---I need to see that.

reply

[–] [email protected] 10 years ago

Basically because it's been proven that living in a primarily Middle Eastern area, he would have looked more like the average Arab man than some white surfer dude,which is how he's always portrayed.

Proven by who and how?

reply

[–] lemmy999 10 years ago

It bothers me because we know Jesus was NOT a white guy, and the fact that if a black actor was playing him most of the white people (which I am white) would be upset.

reply

[–] batbogey 10 years ago

Portugal, Spain and Italy are about as Western European as it gets. That makes this Jesus White European Latin, not Latin American.

reply

[–] uniweb 10 years ago

Are you answering instead of me? "If you are not prepared to discuss from a factual basis, then why bother at all?" - You decided on your own that I'm not prepared.

There could have been some cult leader called Jesus. But Jesus as son of God never existed. It's a myth.

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 10 years ago

There could have been some cult leader called Jesus. But Jesus as son of God never existed. It's a myth.

oh right because you were there, so you would know? right?

reply

[–] WarpedNature 10 years ago

You would?

reply

[–] eddiewinehosen 10 years ago

No he most certainly did NOT exist. There is not one single historical evidence of the existence of Jesus, and before you even post a lame response, the bible doesn't count as evidence. No fairy tales does!

reply

[–] ApolloPhoebus 10 years ago

No we were not there, so we don't 'know.' But no Christian knows. Not a single Christian was there. In fact, historically speaking, Jesus was a Jew, and thus the entire cult that grew up around him was contrary to what he believed about himself and the world around him. For Jesus to believe he was God would be as absurd as David Koresh beliving the same thing. And everyone branded him as 'crazy.' Jesus was branded the same in his own time, and by our standards, rightfully so.

eddie, actually there is evidence he existed. Several extra-biblical sources do mention Jesus decades following his death (Josephus, Tacitus, etc.) The belief that Jesus was a myth is a popular modernist idea, but it's no more credible than believing he's God. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who was an apocalyptic prophet and very likely a political insurgent against Rome. Beyond that...

reply

[–] nammage 10 years ago

Wrong. The only people who believe "he clearly did exist" are Christians, and perhaps Muslims (since to them he's seen as a prophet). One can conclude that people named "Jesus" existed back then. However, based on the different versions in the NT of a guy named Jesus, or Joshua, Yeshua, and Immanuel, and how one book says he did this but then another says it went this way, and another tells something entirely different--for all anyone knows the guy was schizophrenic--oh, and apparently he's also a god.

Yeah...no arguments. Please...as an atheist: plenty of arguments.

-Nam

I'm on the road less traveled...

reply

[–] daoudi78 10 years ago

Haha double miss man.

Jesus DID exist, you can debate whether he was a prophet or not to your hearts content.

Santa Claus is based on Saint Nicholas (Sinterklaas) who was also very much real and was in fact from the area today known as Turkey. So he was more black than white indeed.

reply

[–] ApolloPhoebus 10 years ago

What? More black than white? What does that mean?

Nicholas of Myra was a Greek who lived in what is NOW Turkey during the 3rd-4th century. It wasn't Turkey then. He was as white as any Greek today. Besides which, Turks are not black either. Turks are originally of Central Asian stock, not African. To divide people into 'black and white' is as ignorant as saying there are two flavors of ice cream, 'chocolate and vanilla.'

reply

[–] beat 10 years ago

Since Jesus is a fictional character, they can cast whatever color they want. It's just like a black Santa Claus, no big deal.

you might not believe that jesus is god's son, but he certainly is not a fictional character.

reply

[–] vegeman69 10 years ago

Agreed!

reply

[–] SailingSwanee 10 years ago

How can Jesus be considered a fictional character? There is more historical proof of Jesus birth, life and death than any other person in history. Whether you believe he is the son of God is your choice, but as to whether he lived or not is not a choice, but a FACT.

reply

[–] grantanplan 10 years ago

Oh boy. Do you even know what a "fact" is?

Do you understand why historians and history books(you know, the
ones with facts in it) do not regard(or even mention) Jesus
as an actual historical figure?

And now the really funny stuff: um... you do understand that
the bible is not a historical document.. right? right?

reply

[–] scottca075 10 years ago

What a weird criticism. Jesus is not portrayed as Caucasian, speaking with an English accent, but rather the actor portraying Him is a Caucasian, speaking with an English accent. Would you rather he speak English with a German accent? Or maybe Spanish? The movie to be commercially successful needs to be in English so I think you get the best actor you can for the role who speaks English as his native tongue. I doubt there were any Aramean actors who could do the role to make it a commercial success.

reply

[–] richardmartinez-526-238280 10 years ago

Actually what your saying is absurd. How would you feel if Abe Lincoln were portrayed by a short caucasian man with blonde hair? I'll go one step further to say the actor could've played him with an appropriate middle eastern accent. Case in point, Abe Lincoln, again. English actor using an early American accent. Daniel Day Lewis. I'll really push the point and say, it doesn't need to be in English to be marketable. For exhibit A, The Passion of the Christ. Just because you don't want to see an Armenian actor, doesn't necessarily mean it can't and won't be marketable.

reply

[–] [email protected] 10 years ago

How would you feel if Abe Lincoln were portrayed by a short caucasian man with blonde hair?

We know with some accuracy what Lincoln looked like because there are photographs of him and we know that he was not short or blonde. We have neither descriptions or imagery of Jesus, so we do not know his appearance and criticizing any particular portrayal on that basis is kind of silly.

reply

[–] batbogey 10 years ago

It's problematic because the Palestinians in the film are dark skinned, and the actor playing the role of Jesus is white-skinned. Doesn't matter to everyone. But if you can practice authentic ethnic casting when you need a villain (say, someone nominated for an Oscar for portraying a Somali pirate), why not cast an actor who is a Middle Eastern Jew in the role of Jesus?

Western cinema and television have a long history of casting ethnic actors when their authenticity calls for a villain, then white-washing the cast when they want a hero.

Antonio Banderas, a Spaniard, was cast as Pancho Villa. When I saw that I couldn't stop thinking "do the producers know what the Spanish did to the Mexicans?"

Long way of saying it matters to me. Doesn't have to matter to anyone else.

On a different point, should anyone making a movie that is ostensibly evangelical in intent make profitability the first priority?

That begs the question, though. This film takes such license with the Bible that anyone with basic biblical literacy would see the shill is the thing.

reply

[–] BrooklynNellie 10 years ago

Ever walk through Williamsburg, Midwood, or Borough Park? The Jewish people there sure look awfully white.

----------------------------------------
"The mind wobbles..." -Kelly Bundy

reply

[–] pleasewait13 10 years ago

Scottca, you are spot on.

It really is ridiculous when people claim Jesus didn't exist and so on.

I just move on from anyone who might say that, as it would be like discussing World War 2 with somebody who didn't believe it actually occurred.

It shows the person's complete lack of knowledge and research into the area. It is almost universally agreed amongst historians that Jesus was very real. These people have obviously examined all angles to arrive at this conclusion. Leave religion aside, why ignore this historian evidence?

reply

[–] trickymutha 10 years ago

Jesus and Santa are both white. Fox news told me. And, when Jesus rides back on a cloud of glory, he'll have an AK-47 on one side, and, be waving a "Don't tread on me" flag for the 5% of the world that rules (USA USA USA!)

reply

[–] richardmartinez-526-238280 10 years ago

Yep, it's pretty much in numerous independent historical documents.

reply

[–] mitchellhundred 10 years ago

Jesus was caucasian but not european as this actor is. He would have been a Semitic middle eastener. It depends on what your definition of white is? If white to you equals european, than no jesus was not white but if white equals the broader caucasion defintion than he was.

reply

[–] StrontiumAE 10 years ago

Jesus was caucasian but not european as this actor is. He would have been a Semitic middle eastener. It depends on what your definition of white is? If white to you equals european, than no jesus was not white but if white equals the broader caucasion defintion than he was.

When people have a problem with a white Jesus, they are not talking about crude racial definitions such as 'caucasian', 'asian' , 'negroid' etc. I haven't met anyone who has. They are talking about the fact that he should look like a brown Middle Easterner and not a white European.

http://www.1971-reviewae.com

reply

[–] Milkyway123 7 years ago

When people have a problem with a white Jesus, they are not talking about crude racial definitions such as 'caucasian', 'asian' , 'negroid' etc. I haven't met anyone who has. They are talking about the fact that he should look like a brown Middle Easterner and not a white European.

You have no idea what you're talking about! You can find a lot of people around the Levant looking European white. The entire Mediterranean coast is inhabited by unique different peoples (the Berbers of North Africa with their Caucasian yet darker complexion is another one that stands out).

The region have been invaded and conquered by Romans, Greeks, Iranians and Turks= many olive skinned among these groups but also many white. The Iranians for example have been invaded by both Arabs and Turks; how did they look before breeding with original dark Arabs and Asian Turks? You can see a "what if" in the Iranian/Kurdish population were some have been spared from interbreeding with outsiders (minority religions to this day have created such barriers): some dark and some white blue-eyed (while the Iranian/Persians are all dark). Or what about the Greeks? Especially with their huge population transfer with the Turks 100 years ago?
Let's not even speak of the Syrian Arabs or Lebanese Arabs: many with fair complexion and bright eyes. These are originally not Arabs, they're assimilated Arabs (like the majority of today's Arabs are). DNA tests shows that there are more and less "Arab DNA" in northern and southern part of Syria. The ones with more Arab DNA in them are naturally darker.

Even one of Egypt's greatest Pharaohs (Ramses) have been found out through DNA-tests (mummies) to be a white 170 cm ginger.

In short, invasions by dark people and interbreeding with them made the original inhabitants of those areas most likely more darker than they originally were. But according to white racists portraying themselves as some kind of enlightened saviors: brown people are innocent victims that would never do such a thing.

Stop peddling this ignorant racist view that there is an absolute "Middle Eastern brown"! We come in different shades; we have been over the last 2000 years.

reply

[–] StrontiumAE 7 years ago

You have no idea what you're talking about!

I am from a tiny little emirate called Ajman in the UAE. But thanks for doing a Google and YouTube search and educating me on my culture and history. 

http://www.1971-reviewae.com

reply

[–] Milkyway123 7 years ago

I am from a tiny little emirate called Ajman in the UAE. But thanks for doing a Google and YouTube search and educating me on my culture and history.

And? Ooooooh. Place of origin matters when arguing and informing about a subject. Not! Are you naturally stupid or are you the result of the infamous Arab "education" we're all suffering for when engaging with your kind?

This is the country you're from; this is your culture: http://www.ibtimes.com/fighting-words/we-should-boycott-dubai-until-it-revises-its-rape-laws-1355905
Disgusting! Is this something to be proud of, *beep* If I want to know about rape laws and how your people support them, I know who to call.

So shut the *beep* up, boy! Watch your manners and thank me for educating your sorry ass.

reply

[–] StrontiumAE 7 years ago

So we went from white Jesus to rape laws in Dubai. Man, disconnect the internet, go outside. Enjoy the fresh air.

http://www.1971-reviewae.com

reply

[–] bdeepe 10 years ago

I agree with this. The Bible makes mention of the fact that Jesus sort of blended in with others and did not particularly stand out. With that in mind, I could certainly see how he might have looked like Jim Caviezel in Passion of the Christ.

reply

[–] spaspa 10 years ago

Christians at their best. Claiming Jesus was a real person, yet failing miserably to provide the evidence. Typical.

reply

[–] wintermonk 10 years ago

"Christians at their best. Claiming Jesus was a real person, yet failing miserably to provide the evidence. Typical."

So a bunch of people in a Roman province were just bored one day and decided to make up a story about some guy named Jesus, and then they actually believed their own story, for some reason (even though they know they made it up--I'm really curious how that works!), and then they actually believed it so much that they began to convert thousands of people who within decades would be willing to die for this belief in a made-up guy?

Yeah okay. That makes sense.

And every single solitary Christian since then has never had a genuine spiritual experience (I'm curious how atheists can know this!). They were so desperate to believe they were sinful (yeah, now that's a belief that people flock to!) and in need of a savior that they decided to, for not real reason, just believe in some fairy tale.

Some atheists, their view of humanity--well, those not like them--is laughably arrogant.

It's a kind of circular reasoning too: "You are religious because you are stupid and crazy. How do I know that you are stupid and crazy? Because you are religious."

reply

[–] spaspa 10 years ago

Creatard drivel keeps piling, evidence keeps lacking.

reply

[–] wintermonk 10 years ago

Appeal to ridicule fallacy.

reply

[–] chickenheadjane 10 years ago

All this post does is make it seem that much more pathetic that people believe this today. What kind of knowledge did these people in this Roman province have? Were they able to watch the news? Were they able to research scientific studies? Were they able to flush a freaking toilet? No. They believed whatever they were told. They had tons of faith, regardless of reason. They probably believed God was mad at them because it didn't rain. They were "cursed".

I can understand why people like that believed in a zombie lord that was sent from heaven, conceived from a virgin, and would die for our sins that will telepathically erase our wrongdoing. People alive in 2014, long after the industrial revolution and decades upon decades of progressing through advancements of technology, I think you're as bat *beep* crazy as a Scientologist.

Numbers 31:7-18

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Does Moses believe rape is good? Is that something God commanded him to do? The bible is full of lunacy like this and only a caveman from the stone age would think this was a book that he could live by.

I don't rape, I don't steal, I don't murder, I try to be good to others, I help others, I'm genuinely a nice person that does the right thing, so I think I'll be in better shape for what comes after my death than most people that pick this book to follow for their morality.

reply

[–] wintermonk 10 years ago

"Does Moses believe rape is good?"

No.

"The bible is full of lunacy like this "

Appeal to ridicule fallacy. I could say the same thing after someone says "two plus two equals four." Meaningless.

"only a caveman from the stone age would think this was a book that he could live by. "

How have people done without it? There have been a few nations that tried to remove God from every aspect of life--how did it go? (Stalin, Mao Zedong, North Korea, Pol Pot).

Look at all the problems in the world today. You have greed. God says to not be greedy. People disobey. Bad things happens.

It seems to me, people REBEL against God, don't live according to God's commands, the world becomes a complete mess, and people blame God and the Bible for not fixing things when God and the Bible are being ignored.

That is like people blaming speed limit signs for not stopping accidents. YOU HAVE TO OBEY THE LAW FOR IT TO WORK! When people speed, bad things happen. Then they say, "Well that speed limit law is so stupid! It's a cave man law! It doesn't work."

Um...perhaps because no one is obeying it?

"I don't rape, I don't steal, I don't murder, I try to be good to others, I help others, I'm genuinely a nice person that does the right thing, so I think I'll be in better shape for what comes after my death than most people that pick this book to follow for their morality. "

Okay, but for you to take the moral high ground over many people, you must have a standard by which to judge yourself and those other people. It's kind of like saying, "Italy is a big country." That is a nigh meaningless statement. You must first have a standard. What is the standard of a "big country"--how do you measure it? IF you compare Italy to San Marino then, yes, it is a big country. If you compare it to Brazil it is not.

God does not compare humans to other humans. It's not like we can all look at the child molester and compare ourselves to them and then say "I'm okay, because I'm not a child molester."

That is like Italy saying, "I'm a big country because I'm not San Marino."

Sorry, but San Marino is not the standard.

And the standard of righteousness God demands is absolute and complete and total moral perfection. Nothing less.

Nobody, apart form Christ, is anywhere near that. It would be like comparing Italy to the surface are of Jupiter, or the entire Milky Way galaxy. Nobody comes close to God's standard--THE ONE THAT MATTERS!

Hence, the need for salvation.

But if you are confident in your rightness, then by all means, you are free to reject Christ and the gift of righteousness that is in him. I hope that works out for you, but I am very doubtful.

reply

[–] ApolloPhoebus 10 years ago

The people that wrote the stories of Jesus never actually met him. They were told by Paul, who also never actually met him. Keep in mind Jesus' original followers were fishermen and carpenters (uneducated people who could not read or write). And your reasoning doesn't work. People in all religions and mythologies 'make up' stories to fulfill their need for spirituality. To believe Christians are historically correct but all other religions 'made it up' is not just ignorant, but purely stupid.

And few Christians actually have a 'genuine spiritual experience.' They may believe in such, but few actually EXPERIENCE it. I have faith that Antarctica exists, but I have never experienced it. I believe Saturn exists, but I have never experienced it.

I am of course not saying Jesus was not real. Yes he was real. He was a Jewish prophet. But what people believe about him does not have to have basis in fact any more than what people believe about Dionysos has to have a basis in fact. Though as a worshipper of wine, I believe in him...

reply

[–] Coolwaves5 10 years ago

That's my exact reaction when people say they don't believe in evolution.

reply

[–] rami-gilneas 10 years ago

Jesus probably looked more like the actor who played Satan. ;)

reply

[–] King_Kestrel 10 years ago

He also had perfect ivory white teeth too, apparently.

----
All your board are belong to Kestrel

reply

[–] wallisar-1 10 years ago

You mean "Wow - Hispanic Jesus!" The actor portraying Jesus is from Portugal... unless, of course, you are saying that Hispanic people are Caucasian... which I'm assuming you are not because with the last name "Martinez" and the obvious offense you take at the notion of a white Jesus, I doubt you would ever attempt to infer that Hispanics are white. I also assume that you aren't very religious if you are offended by such a small "inconsistency" in this film. I, for one, am glad to see an attempt at a film about the life of Christ. In a day and age where religion is scoffed at and villainized, we need to take what we can get. If you are really so passionate about making and marketing a historically accurate movie about Jesus (or really any subject), find a way to make lots of money and film one. However, no matter what you do, there is always going to be someone posting tedious comments on your IMDB page about what you did wrong in the film and what they would have done instead.

reply

[–] knightwind88 10 years ago

"Hispanic" means Spanish-speaking and has nothing to do with race. It is constantanly being confused with "Mestizo" especially by the idiot media and some governments who track people by race in order to give them preferential treatment. People from Portugal are historically, culturally and racially European, hence are indeed Caucasian. People from Central and South American are a mixture of European Spanish and Native Central and South American Indians. They are "Mestizo", a term that means "mixed" in Spanish, but the idiot media and some governments think it is some kind of Spanish "N-word", when it is not. You are assuming that all people who speak Spanish are Mestizos? Go to Portugal and/or Spain and count the number of people you meet there who have white skin, blue, green, or hazel eyes, and blond or brown hair. There are millions of them.

To the OP: You think Diogo Morgado has an English accent? You need to get your hearing checked.

reply

[–] ApolloPhoebus 10 years ago

Well said. People continue to fail to understand Spaniards and Portuguese are as European and 'white' as French and English, and the concept of 'Latin' is not racial. Italians are as 'Latin' as Spaniards, and Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are LESS Latin than Italians.

reply

[–] Hannah-T-Wilson 8 years ago

Lol, hispanic? He is from Portugal, literally one of the oldest countries in Europe. Ahah, did you actually think Portugal was located in south America? Portugal DISCOVERED South America ffs

reply

[–] llbfgt 10 years ago

Does it matter that the actor is Portuguese and addition to his Portuguese speaks English (obviously) French and Spanish. Look on a map. Portugal is almost the same latitude as Israel, and both border the Mediterranean, so it's not THAT much of a stretch. I don't hear anyone screaming that Jean-Luc Picard is played by a Brit.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xcver 10 years ago

ah well about that Picard thing...technically his whole family (though living in france) did speak english because in Star Trek Lorse french became an obscure language not being used anymore...so there is basically no limitation there :P

reply