foreverserenityOctober 31, 2006 13:42:08

the original old testament mentions GOD in the female form at least twice.

the original old testament mentions GOD in the female form at least twice.

Oh yeah? Can you give me the texts on this?

in order for you to understand where i am coming from...check out some thomas paine (give me liberty or give me death) writings...i'm not gonna clutter this with long copy/pastes , so i'll give ya link...WWW Link

do you always believe everything you read on the net? I checked out the link. Did you check out the guy behind the link?

I can see why he would not care for biblical literacy. Check out his interests.

Here's his blog page.....WWW Link

I'd say there's a little bit of self interest here.

I don't mind checking out Paine. But to go to this site wouldn't be the place to go. I wouldn't believe a thing this guy has to put out.

Be careful what you read on the net.

I don't mind checking out Paine

actually i've read all those before and they looked like the same paine writings i read years ago.

Oh, Christ...chances are, Jesus just had a really dark tan from walking all over the place or had a Middle Eastern tone. Either way, it doesn't matter in the slightest...black, white, brown, or asian...Jesus is Jesus, and if you're Christian just pay attention to the teachings and you're good to go.

I also don't think blacks were persecuted in the Middle East 2,000 years ago...but I don't have any actual research to back that up, so I'm just assuming...if anyone can find out one way or the other that would help.

~Zoo

Reply By: KFC (Kickin For Christ)Posted: Thursday, November 02, 2006yeah, right...the only slave owner that knocked up a slave was thomas jefferson, lol...This may have happened. If you've seen the movie 10 Commandments we see an instance of it, but one thing I do know is there was a fear of the Hebrew's God.

There was a fear and they didn't touch them, but what about others? There might have been those kinds of things going on by others.

maybe they had to write these things because the intermixing between egyptians and jews was rampant? just like most old testament scripture paints many women as chaste or "a whore." 1 is untouchable because she is pure and with God. the other is so disgusting you want to touch her. when i've talked to rabbi's on this, they have told me that the scriptures are that way because they were being taught to young , pubescent, teenage boys. and what are teenage boys interested in most? girls! and the rabbi's didn't want them chasing girls, they wanted them studying scripture.

I don't agree on this, it might be, but I don't think that this would be why it was written like that, although what you say might be because it would be a logical way of looking at it.

do you always believe everything you read on the net? I checked out the link. Did you check out the guy behind the link? I can see why he would not care for biblical literacy. Check out his interests. Here's his blog page.....WWW LinkI'd say there's a little bit of self interest here.

I would agree with KFC here. I looked at that link too and the owner of that blogsite has more than truth and religion on his mind.

Going in search of Paine definately might lead to better answers.

I haven't even heard of the film, so I doubt that it will make the "waves" that say, "Passion of the Christ" did.

Actually, the next day after doing this blog I heard it mentioned on the news and I received an email about it from a group of friends. So it is making the rounds. Of course not as much hoopla as with Mel's movie, he had mucho denero!

have no idea what color christ was in any certainty. and frankly, i really don't care to waste my time worrying about it. i'll have fun speculating about it for a bit, but that's all...the messages christ delivered are what matters. I couldn't agree more.

Jesus is Jesus, and if you're Christian just pay attention to the teachings and you're good to go.

Ditto on that. The message of Christ is more important.

the original old testament mentions GOD in the female form at least twice.

Hmm, I would love to see that original text. I would not be surprise though, seriously!

As a child I've always heard talk of the true original bible that it will not be seen by society at large because it contains things that we would not be ready to know. And that only a few churches have this, in fact, one church owned all of the true versions and then they only put what they wanted in the bibles that are out in the world now. I dont' know how true that is. It could just have been a 'wives' tale going around when I was a child.

I also don't think blacks were persecuted in the Middle East 2,000 years ago...but I don't have any actual research to back that up, so I'm just assuming...if anyone can find out one way or the other that would help.

That would be interesting to find out Shaun.

"I can see why he would not care for biblical literacy. Check out his interests. "

Maybe I didn't look hard enough. What did you have a problem with? The only thing that I can see is that he's gay, or maybe catholic. I guess one is Sodom and one is the whore of babylon. Which would you consider worse, I wonder?

Regardless, sin is sin. The people who write books on paper sin, the people who write things on the Internet sin. Just because he may or may not sin with a man doesn't make him worse than the untold number of people in the traditional publishing industry that sin any other way.

How do you feel about Ecclesiastes, out of curiosity? I wonder old Solomon was up to while he was writing that...

At the end of the day, does it really matter? Perhaps somehow he is supposed to be "all things to all people" in the sense that every race can identify with him. If one believes that God created all races of people, then one surely can't be offended if Jesus is depicted as any of the races (or all of them). If all races were created in His image, then all races are equal in His eyes.

"That's right, Baker. Didn't you know that ALL gays are liars and are therefore not to be trusted to accurately quote such well known historical figures and texts as Thomas Paine or the Bible?"

Well, I wanted to make sure that was what she really meant. If she's saying that you can't trust a gay guy to accurately quote Thomas Paine... well, that's something I wouldn't want to assume about anyone. Then I saw that he was a papist, and I didn't know which she might find more evil.

I'm guessing the buggery, but it's not for me to say...

i triple checked the page,,,which i orig. just randomly chose out of many sources of paine's writing. thisis the source of the material...

This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.

the writings listed are that of paine, not the site owner, whom i guess, you've identified as gay and therefore, must be a liar....whatever!!!!


here is another source of paine's work...it's from ushistory.org (a non profit) is that ok?

WWW Link

I remember a friend once told me about this movie where all the people were green, colour only matters to those who think they see.

The only thing that I can see is that he's gay, or maybe catholic. I guess one is Sodom and one is the whore of babylon. Which would you consider worse, I wonder?

For me it's not what his persuation or personal habits are, it was that his focus on the religion that he writes is more 'tongue in cheek' for effects that would bring on more discussion, rather than actual fact. His thoughts and opinion would be 'way out there' over the top rather than say, sacred or really serious. That's the impression I got. That's why I suggested probably finding the actual writer would give a better answer to those more seriously inclined to want.

Regardless, sin is sin. The people who write books on paper sin, the people who write things on the Internet sin

Hey, everyone sins at one time or another. Show me a perfect person and that would be someone who is lying. Hey, even the evangical president of one of those high held churches is a liar. If someone gay, hey, it's not the end of the world and their choice, right. But some people live behind a screen and come out into the world and pretend and then they fall. Because there will be someone out there who is waiting for them to do so. Sad but true. As Bon Jovi said in his song, "It's my life" I don't see why they can't just live it and don'gt give a damn to everyone else.


My battery is dying I'm goign to have to post then respond as I go along.

That's right, Baker. Didn't you know that ALL gays are liars and are therefore not to be trusted to accurately quote such well known historical figures and texts as Thomas Paine or the Bible? As a fag, he's sure to have some sinister and secret agenda, so I'm sure that he'd misquote or misattribute these easily checked materials in his grand design to make queers of us all!The devil makes him do it.And don't even get me started on Catholics, they're even worse than those buggering turd-burglars!

See, I didn't even pick all that up. I'm too dense in that respect, at certain times!!

At the end of the day, does it really matter? Perhaps somehow he is supposed to be "all things to all people" in the sense that every race can identify with him. If one believes that God created all races of people, then one surely can't be offended if Jesus is depicted as any of the races (or all of them). If all races were created in His image, then all races are equal in His eyes.

True M and that's what many would ask. But you know how some people are, they have to put a color on everything. Especially when they feel that they can't identify with anything else. Or if they feel ostracise in some way. By seeing Jesus as their own color they better identify with him. I dunno, I'm just probably grasping at straws in an effort to explain.

Well, I wanted to make sure that was what she really meant. If she's saying that you can't trust a gay guy to accurately quote Thomas Paine

That would be wrong to think this way. I have gay friends and I find them very honest and forth coming, sometimes a bluntly so.

If one believes that God created all races of people, then one surely can't be offended if Jesus is depicted as any of the races (or all of them). If all races were created in His image, then all races are equal in His eyes.

Exactly! Great response. He was sent to save ALL mankind, not just the caucs, browns or reds.

This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.

Modern history would justify his thinking. His thinking wouldn't be that of the 'old' days it would be of now and earlier, A.D. Then again, I might be wrong.

I remember a friend once told me about this movie where all the people were green, colour only matters to those who think they see.

Oh you mean the one with the red and blue people in it too? Naw, I didn't see that one!! I do get the point though. Like I said, some peole see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear and identify with what they want to identify with. For some color is sooo important, don't know, it's not a good way to live in my opinion.


Sorry for the repeat individual posts, my battery on my keyboard is dyijng so I better go take care of it.

Exactly! Great response. He was sent to save ALL mankind, not just the caucs, browns or reds.

This is true, but the question was does it matter what color he is? Sure he came to save all colors....but he came as a JEW and a JEW from the line of Judah was most likely olive complected as they are today. You can believe he was purple, if you wish. But that doesn't make it so. It's logical that he would have had the same human form as His mother who also was a JEW.
The only thing we do know for sure about his appearance is this from the prophecy of Isaiah:

"he had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." Isa 53:2

the only thing I would bet on is the fact that he was not the pretty Messiah they usually portray in any of the movies I've seen. It wasn't his looks that attracted the masses....it was what He had to say. He brought hope to the hopeless, sight to the blind and a purpose and a plan for all that would follow him.

he had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." Isa 53:2the only thing I would bet on is the fact that he was not the pretty Messiah they usually portray in any of the movies I've seen. It wasn't his looks that attracted the masses....it was what He had to say. He brought hope to the hopeless, sight to the blind and a purpose and a plan for all that would follow him.

Yeah, but we like our heroes to be handsome, and good to look at. Even Jesus had to be good looking! Plus as everyone as said, it doesn't matter what color he was, he was here to save ALL of us.

Yeah, but we like our heroes to be handsome, and good to look at. Even Jesus had to be good looking!

hahaha that's true FS. If you say so, but for me I can only go by what is written. My ways and thoughts are not God's. He knows we would have picked a handsome dude. Actually we do have an example. If you look you'd see that King Saul was chosen by the people and he was a looker....too bad he was not on the same page as God. That was his downfall.

How do you feel about Ecclesiastes, out of curiosity? I wonder old Solomon was up to while he was writing that...

Or the Song of Solomon? If that's "inspired scripture", I'm a horse named Maria van Trottington.

"he had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." Isa 53:2

Ummmmm . . . I'm really thinking Isaiah is speaking figuratively. You can't just assume Jesus was an ugly son-of-a-gun because of that. After all, he was perfect . . .

I figure if he came to save ALL people, and biologically he's HALF of God, and we're made in GOD'S likeness...well...He probably looked like a "mutt".

He was green with purple polka-dots! Haven't you seen that painting? It's totally the truth, because I saw it in the front cover of by "bible for little ones"

check out some thomas paine (give me liberty or give me death)

Umm . . . that was actually Patrick Henry. Thomas Paine said nothing of the sort. Get your facts straight, stinkin' toerag.

Umm . . . that was actually Patrick Henry. Thomas Paine said nothing of the sort. Get your facts straight, stinkin' toerag.

LOL! oh you love that 'toerag' term dontcha?!  

Just picturing one is the ultimate picture of disgust  LOL!

"he had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." Isa 53:2 Ummmmm . . . I'm really thinking Isaiah is speaking figuratively. You can't just assume Jesus was an ugly son-of-a-gun because of that.

Actually there is nothing there to suggest that he was ugly at all. If you think about what is written there what he was saying is that he was an ordinary, average looking man. Based on this one can assume that he was of average height and build, and was neither overly handsome or overly ugly. Just an average looking guy.

Frankly, the title of this film tells you all you really need to know. It's sole intent is to create a racial stir and perhaps widen the racial divides already present. I really hope that the film makers are terribly disappointed and the film goes totally ignored.

If you think about what is written there what he was saying is that he was an ordinary, average looking man. Based on this one can assume that he was of average height and build, and was neither overly handsome or overly ugly. Just an average looking guy

Good point M, and I would agree with your points more readily.

Frankly, the title of this film tells you all you really need to know. It's sole intent is to create a racial stir and perhaps widen the racial divides already present.

Yes, that is true. The main intent is to create a stir, unfortunately.

I really hope that the film makers are terribly disappointed and the film goes totally ignored.

They're opening the film in mostly black areas, which I think is wrong to do. It should be open enmass so all can go see it if they so wish. They happen to be falling into the stereotypical way of thinking which is wrong and un-christian. I know they mentioned, or someone else, that it's good for blacks to see Jesus looking like them, to a point, although it's not really necessary. I think it's the more radical ones who really care about this. However, I definately think it's not a good thing to be touting it the way they are. Although, maybe they were denied it being shown to other areas, neighborhoods unless they were largely African American.

Although, maybe they were denied it being shown to other areas, neighborhoods unless they were largely African American.

I doubt that. In all likelihood it's an intentional attempt to create more racial problems, which I feel the world could really do without. I'll never fully understand the thinking of people for whom race is such a huge issue.