Are you offended by a Black Jesus?

[Jimbo Gomez]

Are you offended by a Black Jesus?
Will a new movie “Son of Man” that portrays Christ as a contemporary African revolutionary change your perception of Jesus?

The film is set in the black townships near Cape Town and is performed in the African language of Xhosa.

Director Mark Dornford-May said "Christ has been hijacked a bit, he's gone very blonde haired and blue-eyed. The important thing about the message of Christ was that it is universal."

What do you think of a Black Jesus? How does it change your perceptions of Christ? Send us your comments using the form below.

Published: Friday, 20 January, 2006, 13:03 GMT 13:03 UK

click here (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=802&start=0&&&edition=1&ttl=20060120202425) for the hilarious comments

I think the topic of discussion itself is very offensive towards the people from Africa. Perhaps there was a better way then using the word "offended".

Saho, Tokyo, Japan

[Niko Bellic]

I'm offended at the suggestion that there is a virgin in Africa who could have given birth to the new Jesus.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I'm offended at the suggestion that there is a virgin in Africa who could have given birth to the new Jesus.

Probably a 15 month old rapevictim...

[Leif]

I'm offended by the idea that anything but civilization will save Africa. :p

[tricknologist]

To bad that the Temple of Black Jesus site no longer exists.

[Starr]

Does anyone remember the play or painting(I can't remember which) from a few years ago, where Jesus and all of his followers were black with the exception of one, who was white; Judas?::222:

Imagine the hell(no pun intended) that would have broken loose if the roles were reversed.:nono:

This is pretty funny as the one comment suggests, I would think the question "are you offended by a black Jesus" is "offensive" in itself.lol

[Scales]

Being 'offended' by a piece of fiction or art is idiotic, but to be expected from the kind of people who believe in magical ghosties who live in the clouds.

[Lenny]

Being 'offended' by a piece of fiction or art is idiotic, but to be expected from the kind of people who believe in magical ghosties who live in the clouds.How can you say that? :confused: People get offended at art and fiction all the time, I'm sure there has even been some art and/or fiction which has offended you in the past too, unless you have no sense of morality or decency at all :argue:

If you take this view that it is silly to be be opposed to certain offensive things, then perhaps you support a world in which anything goes, "to hell with all standards of deceny and anti-obsenity laws!" Well I'm sure glad you're not in charge Scales :mad:

[Anarch]

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven - so gimme ya money, cracka.

;)

The idea of a black Jesus is an oxymoron.

Also: I have difficulty believing it's possible to have three wise Africans and a virgin.

[Ravenheart]

Does anyone remember the play or painting(I can't remember which) from a few years ago, where Jesus and all of his followers were black with the exception of one, who was white; Judas?::222:

Imagine the hell(no pun intended) that would have broken loose if the roles were reversed.:nono:

Wasn't that the case in the TV production of Jesus Christ Superstar? At least Jesus was white, while Judas was black.

[Scales]

How can you say that? :confused: People get offended at art and fiction all the time, I'm sure there has even been some art and/or fiction which has offended you in the past too, unless you have no sense of morality or decency at all :argue:
Disgusted, yes. Objected to its message, yes. Offended no.

If you actually think about it, it is a ridiculous sentiment to be 'offended' by a piece of artwork or fictional creation. It's a rendering of an idea, that's all.

If you happen to disagree with the moral implications of that idea, then that's one thing. If you are actually 'offended' by it, this by definition, means that you are 'pained' or 'upset' by it. Pained or upset? By a made-up creation based upon an artist or writer's opinion. But then it's not just that -these days it's also used to refer to a feeling of being 'pained or upset' because you disagree with the principal message it's sending AND it hurts your feelings. It's just a sentimental, self-indulgent way of opposing a concept.

'Offended' is over-used hyperbole, a byproduct of modern political correctness and the Culture of Litigation. An intelligent person shouldn't be 'offended' by artistic expressions that contradict their worldview. As I said, it's an idiotic (and manipulative) sentiment to be offended by an artistic creation.

If you take this view that it is silly to be be opposed to certain offensive things, then perhaps you support a world in which anything goes, "to hell with all standards of deceny and anti-obsenity laws!" Well I'm sure glad you're not in charge Scales :mad:
I'm talking about art and fiction -you should note that.

In my opinion, prevent children from accessing sexually explicit or violent art by all means. But a mature adult should be able to view any art or fiction that they wish to.

If it's a black Jesus, or Mohammed being mauled by a herd of pigs, you should be able to see it without being 'hurt or pained' by it. You might judge it as disgusting or blasphemous, or just junk. But if it actually 'offends' you, you need to realise that artistic expression is an artificial construct, not a real physical or moral deed.

[Chesterdox]

Being 'offended' by a piece of fiction or art is idiotic, but to be expected from the kind of people who believe in magical ghosties who live in the clouds.

The language is a bit cryptic, so let's see if I understand you correctly:

Because I'm a Christian I am the kind of person who believes in "magical ghosties who live in the sky." And therefore it is expected that I should be offended by a black Jesus?

Hmmmm. Well, I'm not offended (I do agree with the rationale that it's more reasonable to simply disagree), but it seems to me by your peculiar use of words ("magical ghosties") that you might be the offended one, otherwise why would you employ straw-man language? Or is it that you simply disagree with those who believe in "God" but would rather characterize them in an unflattering manner, impugning their intelligence?

Perhaps while trying to remove the ideological speck from another's eye, you've forgotten the log in your own?


Straw men, straw men
Set 'em up for a fall when you can
Straw men, straw men
Everybody loves to knock down straw men

[il ragno]

Are you offended by a Black Jesus?

Not one-tenth of a percentile point as offended as the majority of this world is by a white Jesus. "White Jesus" is the single most hated and despised individual in the world today.


Silverman wittily deconstructs ‘degrees of racism’, and runs with the notion of: If I can make fun of Jews because I’m Jewish, why can’t I make fun of any other minority out there.

Il Ragno wittily deconstructs ‘degrees of license’, and runs with the notion of: If I'm Jewish, I can shit on anyone out there and wipe my ass with their holiest of holies without any repercussions whatsoever - no morning-after apologies for me - because of my access-all-areas pass/get-out-of-jail-free card called "the Holocaust". Doesn't make a difference that I was born on Long Island 30 years after WW2 ended, because that card is good until "Infinity + 1".

[Slavic Enforcer]

Are you offended by a Black Jesus?

I'm not offended because I know he wasn't Black and it's just propaganda of those who don't even believe in God.

[jasonlfunk]

Are you offended by a Black Jesus?
Will a new movie “Son of Man” that portrays Christ as a contemporary African revolutionary change your perception of Jesus?

The film is set in the black townships near Cape Town and is performed in the African language of Xhosa.

Director Mark Dornford-May said "Christ has been hijacked a bit, he's gone very blonde haired and blue-eyed. The important thing about the message of Christ was that it is universal."

What do you think of a Black Jesus? How does it change your perceptions of Christ? Send us your comments using the form below.

Published: Friday, 20 January, 2006, 13:03 GMT 13:03 UK

click here (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=802&start=0&&&edition=1&ttl=20060120202425) for the hilarious comments

its non-historical

[Scales]

The language is a bit cryptic, so let's see if I understand you correctly:
Because I'm a Christian I am the kind of person who believes in "magical ghosties who live in the sky."
I suspect that your only cause for disagreement there is whether the spirits live 'in the sky' or exist everywhere in the universe at the same time.

And therefore it is expected that I should be offended by a black Jesus?
It would be no surprise should some Christians be offended by art. It's common behaviour for Believers. There have been numerous cases of Christians, Jews, Sikhs claiming 'offense' regarding 'blasphemous' pieces of artwork, literature or film.

I will concede that the 'blackness' of Christ is unlikely to provoke the Christian mainstream, and I was probably over-zealous in using that as an example. But the underlying issue is still one I'd be interested in discussing.

The wider point is that Christians taking offense at a non-conformist religious painting is no more or less ridiculous than the Catholic Church's condemnation of the Life of Brian, the recent tantrum the Muslim community have been having over Mohammed cartoons in Denmark, The Jews versus Mel Gibson, or the long-running fatwa on Salman Rushdie.

Hmmmm. Well, I'm not offended (I do agree with the rationale that it's more reasonable to simply disagree), but it seems to me by your peculiar use of words ("magical ghosties") that you might be the offended one, otherwise why would you employ straw-man language?
You might prefer to call them demons, angels, spirits or gods, but it's just semantics.

Magical Ghosty: Etheric non-human entity with supernatural powers.

How is referencing the belief in such beings a 'straw man'? Not only is the term accurate, but the context was: the irrationality of any opposition that employs such entities as its foundation.

Or is it that you simply disagree with those who believe in "God" but would rather characterize them in an unflattering manner, impugning their intelligence?
I don't disagree with someone's right to believe in spirits, I simply do not regard it as a valid (or intelligent) tool for ethical or political critique. I disagree with any attempt to use it as such, especially when taken to its logical conclusion -as a means for artistic censorship. It's basically using one fictional construct as a justification for censoring another.

[Chesterdox]

I suspect that your only cause for disagreement there is whether the spirits live 'in the sky' or exist everywhere in the universe at the same time.

Mmmm, that would be no. How many Christians do you know that claim to believe in "magical ghosties"? How many do you know that claim to believe in God or angels? I wasn't referencing location, and I suspect location wasn't your reason for using the term.


It would be no surprise should some Christians be offended by art. It's common behaviour for Believers....

I agree that many Christians are offended by what some call "art." My point was to clarify that not all religious people are that way. As an aside, being irrationally and easily offended is not unique to religious people. For example, much of our "hate crimes" legislation and political correctness is based upon being offended in a similarly irrational fashion... and is usually found among the non-religious (e.g. homosexuals, feminists, animal-rights fanatics, et al). I think it's an inherently human impulse.


Magical Ghosty: Etheric non-human entity with supernatural powers. You might prefer to call them demons, angels, spirits or gods, but it's just semantics. How is referencing the belief in such beings a 'straw man'?

Actually, it may be sophistry perhaps, but not semantics. I'm ready to presume you are intelligent enough to know that no Christians claim to believe in "magical ghosties," but your language suggests that you haven't extended the same presumption of intelligence to them. The fact that you equate magical ghosties with God and angels doesn't mean that they do... so it may be semantic for you (because you equate the two), but to them it's your confusion of two disparate groups: make-believe vs. real. Therefore, when you say that they believe in magical ghosties, you've set up a straw-man, or a caricature, of the actual thing they believe, in order to refute it more easily.


I don't disagree with someone's right to believe in spirits, I simply do not regard it as a valid (or intelligent) tool for ethical or political critique. I disagree with any attempt to use it as such, especially when taken to its logical conclusion -as a means for artistic censorship. It's basically using one fictional construct as a justification for censoring another.

That's fine that you don't think their belief is a valid or intelligent tool for ethical or political critique; your right to believe that isn't being disputed. Perhaps an analogy will help:

Let's suppose evolutionists are offended at the idea of Intelligent Design being taught in schools, and during a debate with one of them I say, "It's not surprising that someone who believes that they are the product of multitudinous, random, accidental, meaningless, and unintelligent mutations would be against Intelligent Design. If I were descended from some sort of ape or monkey perhaps I'd believe the same thing." Would you agree that I've created a straw-man or a caricature of their actual beliefs? I think that's exactly what you've done. Incidentally, regarding my analogy, I'd agree that using a fictional construct (naturalism) as a justification for censorship (against I.D.) would be unjustified as well :)

[Scales]

Mmmm, that would be no. How many Christians, for example, do you know that claim to believe in "magical ghosties"? How many do you know that claim to believe in God or angels? I wasn't referencing location, and I suspect location wasn't your reason for using the term.
To be honest, my reason for using that term was to highlight that there is no meaningful difference between referring to 'magical ghosties' and 'angels' or even 'gods'.

Tell me then, what is the difference between the two? I know a thing or two about religion, and fail to see the distinction.

Magic: Characteristic of, or invokation of, supernatural powers.
Ghost: The spirit of a dead person, or etheric being.

Excepting my rather cheeky Scots-influenced use of the term 'Ghosty', we are left with a loose definition that would certainly encompass Jesus and the angel Gibreel -the magical ghost who whispered to Mohammed the words of the Koran.

Agreed. My point was to keep you from the assumption that all religious people are that way.
You're correct -there are many religious people who do not impose their idea of appropriate self-expression on the general populous. But there are a significant, outspoken number who do, and they represent the bulk of artistic censorship demands.

It's fitting that we're discussing this today; tonight in the UK heralds a final vote in the House of Commons for the implementation of the much maligned 'Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill'. If successful, this bill will make criminal: 'a person who uses threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour'. A person 'reckless as to whether religious hatred would be stirred up' can be prosecuted -a frighteningly debatable criteria.

Should this bill pass, it will mean that such cartoons as recently published in Denmark (which depicted a bomb-turbanned Mohammed) would become a criminal offense. Certainly any depiction of a religious figure that inadvertantly 'caused insult' would qualify. Not 'incitement to violence', note. Just insult. Just 'offense'.

Let's suppose evolutionists are offended at the idea of Intelligent Design being taught in schools, and during a debate with one of them I say, "It's not surprising that someone who believes that they are the product of multitudinous, random, accidental, meaningless, and unintelligent mutations would be against Intelligent Design.
It would, first and foremost, be a fallacy, yes. Evolution is not the product of 'random' influences, it is a result of genetic pruning, caused by the competing resource requirements of the surrounding entities and conditions. This is far from random. The 'intelligence' of the evolutionary system is a byproduct of the process of selecting genetic traits most suited to perpetuate themselves in this environment. Intelligence is a complex system of 'rules applied', and in this respect, nature is an intelligent force.

If I were descended from some sort of ape or monkey perhaps I'd believe the same thing." Would you agree that I've created a straw-man or a caricature of their actual beliefs? I think that's exactly what you've done. Incidentally, regarding my analogy, I'd agree that using a fictional construct (naturalism) as a justification for censorship (against I.D.) would be unjustified as well :)
To tackle your example then: You state that my opposition is founded in the fact that I am an evolutionary product. Is that a 'straw man'? Yes.

This is because the evolutionary system does not imply a negative effect upon my attitude or intelligence purely because of simian ancestry. It is a fallacy to presume my viewpoint based upon the fact that my origin follows Darwinian principles. Why should it affect my views in particular and yet not affect those of the entire human race?

In fact, even by asserting this you would have destroyed your own standpoint anyway, as you would have acknowledged the influence of evolution over Intelligent Design in a misguided attempt to refute it. Not that you would actually be so clumsy to do that.:D

But, as I stated, the belief in religion is valid as a trait that might cause a person to promote irrational censorship of intellectual expression. There are many thousands of examples of this being the case, throughout history. Religious faith is an indicator of a preference for unqualified truths reinforced by group dogma. It also produces a disproportionate number of people who are pro-artistic censorship. Noting this is no straw man at all.

[Chesterdox]

Ok, one issue at a time... :)


How many Christians do you know that claim to believe in "magical ghosties"? How many do you know that claim to believe in God or angels?

To be honest, my reason for using that term was to highlight that there is no meaningful difference between referring to 'magical ghosties' and 'angels' or even 'gods'.


If you had made the argument that you believe there is no meaningful difference between magical ghosties and angels and gods, or that you believe that religious people believe in magical ghosties, then I wouldn't have raised the straw-man issue. But you didn't do that; you argued that they believe in magical ghosties, which, if not a straw-man, was certainly a caricature... or it was unintentionally poor grammar, I suppose. Which is unfortunate because the distinction is important in a debate.

Now, that you equate magical ghosties and god is a separate debate, and one that I haven't engaged as of yet. Perhaps there was a confusion of the two issues.

As to the discussion of what differences I believe there are: there is a remarkable historically documented life of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. A history, incidentally, that changed much of western civilization. I am unaware of any magical ghosty, such as Casper the friendly ghost, who has had the same documented history or effect, for starters; maybe you could offer one.

[Scales]

Ok, one issue at a time... :)
If you had made the argument that you believe there is no meaningful difference between magical ghosties and angels and gods, or that you believe that religious people believe in magical ghosties, then I wouldn't have raised the straw-man issue.
Okay, since you haven't answered my previous question, I'll rephrase:

How is Jesus not a ghost?
How is Jesus not magical?

Now, that you equate magical ghosties and god is a separate debate, and one that I haven't engaged as of yet. Perhaps there was a confusion of the two issues.
Yes you have engaged it -when you claimed that using such terms was a 'straw man'. You still haven't succeeded in explaining why. All you've done is complain about the choice of wording, but the underlying meaning of these words still applies to Jesus. If my use of the term is false, please explain why.

Note: I respect your right to believe in magical ghosts, but if you're going to engage in rational debate about them, you'll have to admit that Jesus is one.

As to the discussion of what differences I believe there are: there is a remarkable historically documented life of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. A history, incidentally, that changed much of western civilization. I am unaware of any magical ghosty, such as Casper the friendly ghost, who has had the same documented history or effect. For starters.
Who's talking about Caspar? Jesus was a friendly ghost too. The friendliest ghost of all. The Holy Ghost. The ghost who can walk on water and multiply loaves and fishes, and survive death. So, in that sense, he's also a magical ghost.

I don't dispute that some magical ghosts are more culturally significant than others; but I see no rational reason to accept the conceit that your personal favourite escapes that classification.

[Chesterdox]

The language is a bit cryptic, so let's see if I understand you correctly:

Ok, I think I'm getting closer to understanding you (remember, I'm looking for clarity, not agreement)... let's try this again.

Your use of the term "magical ghosties" is not meant as a caricature and, therefore, is not a straw-man. Good?__________. Issue rested.

However, I do think the term is ill-used because of its cryptic nature for your audience. Can you not see how your ideological counterpart could read that as a caricature, and not as part of your reasoned debate?


Okay, since you haven't answered my previous question, I'll rephrase:

How is Jesus not a ghost?
He was and is fully corporeal (according to Christian theology), unlike a ghost.

How is Jesus not magical?
According to the popular sense of the word, Jesus didn't perform feats that were beyond his natural ability as God. If he were mere man, then I would agree that it could be called magical.


Note: I respect your right to believe in magical ghosts, but if you're going to engage in rational debate about them, you'll have to admit that Jesus is one. Nothing to admit, see above.


Jesus was a friendly ghost too. The friendliest ghost of all. The Holy Ghost. Jesus = the Holy Ghost is not a Christian construct.

[Scales]

He was fully corporeal, unlike a ghost.
But he isn't any more, just like a ghost. In fact, he is now a spirit, having once been flesh.

I understand that you would view him as now being 'God', a big invisible entity that is everywhere, can do anything, knows everything and made everything.

So, if you consider God and Jesus to be non-ghosts, does this mean that Christians do not believe in ghosts at all? Were the evil spirits driven out by Christ different to magical ghosts too?

According to the popular sense of the word, Jesus didn't perform feats that were beyond his natural ability as God. If he were mere man, then I would agree that it could be called magical.
I've heard this argument before -it asserts that, because 'magic' implies supernatural abilities, then a miraculous act by a deity is not magical because it is within natural law.

In which case, I would have to consider any mythological being incapable of magic by definition, as they are natural to their mythos. Pixies and fairies are not magical, by that argument, are they?

Jesus = the Holy Ghost is not a Christian construct.
But there are Ghosts and Spirits in within Christian doctrine. Whether or not you consider it to be Jesus himself, the Holy Ghost/Spirit is a Trinitarian concept, and certainly Christian in origin. Why is the term used, then? Is it just the Catholics who believe in ghosts?

[Chesterdox]

You missed my edit by six minutes :)

[Chesterdox]

...but I'll clarify here. Christian theology teaches that Jesus was and is fully corporeal, while being fully God, even after resurrection.


So, if you consider God and Jesus to be non-ghosts, does this mean that Christians do not believe in ghosts at all?
No.


Were the evil spirits driven out by Christ different to magical ghosts too?
No. According to your non-caricature, non-straw-man definition, the evil spirits were very much like "magical ghosts."


I've heard this argument before -it asserts that, because 'magic' implies supernatural abilities, then a miraculous act by a deity is not magical because it is within natural law.

In which case, I would have to consider any mythological being incapable of magic by definition, as they are natural to their mythos. Pixies and fairies are not magical, by that argument, are they?

If you believe in pixies and fairies, I suppose. But then I don't equate the history of Jesus with myth, whereas you perhaps do. In other words, I don't apply the principal to myths (pixies and fairies).


But there are Ghosts and Spirits within Christian doctrine. Whether or not you consider it to be Jesus himself, the Holy Ghost/Spirit is a Trinitarian concept, and certainly Christian in origin. Why is the term used, then? Is it just the Catholics who believe in ghosts?

The Holy Spirit, I agree, is a "magical ghost" according to your non-caricature, non-straw-man definition. But Jesus is not. The term Trinity doesn't touch on that fact.

...and as far as his being a "big invisible entity," I have no idea how big he is. ;)