Reply #37: I also found your article less than compelling..

[Mick Knox]

I do not believe you uncovered some truth not recognized by many, if not most Christians.. It flowed.. yet it did not compel in anyway. There was no great unknown truth unmasked.

It is quite obvious that applying race to the Son of God is redundant.. and the picture is simply a visual. I'm sure some KKK types may get up in arms; yet if you think affecting those types is overly difficult or accomplishing the monumental feat angering them is deserving of a pat on ones own back.. it shows that you are targeting the lowest common denominator.

I think the only ones who would find your article discovered some heretofore unknown truth would be those who never studied religion... It provides those that are "ignorant" (in the nicest dictionary sense) of religion in the first place a type of "ah ha!"... yet most Christians recognize the region Christ was born.

It is irrelevent. Many Churches use the visual... The one I attended did not. Aside from painting all Christians religions with one brush; you simply rehashed an argument heard over and over and which is well known and acknowledged in the Christian community; especially those that understand the religion. The picture is a representation... that is all. Select for God and his son whatever color you want... and you would be correct.

Similiarly... years ago when I lived in the Bay Area and listened to Ray Taliafaro (sic?).. he often called God the "Great Black Woman in the Sky".. if only to get a rise out of already pissed off WASPs. It never bothered me in the least. Those concerned by such typically lack thorough understanding of their own religion in the first place... and those that marvel at their own perception of being able to "expose" such equally ignorant of same.