Plenty of films have taken a stab at bringing Bible stories to life, from “The Ten Commandments” and “Jesus Christ: Superstar” to this year’s “Son of God” and “Noah.” But despite those movies’ different genres and tones, these films all tend to share one similarity: They have white casts, even though the Bible’s characters would have been from parts of Africa or the Middle East. Photographer James C. Lewis of Noire3000 | N3K Photo Studios has decided to rectify by presenting these iconic figures in a new light.
Lewis’ “Icons Of The Bible” photo series depicts some of the most famous characters from the Old and New Testament exclusively as people of color, including Simon Peter, Elijah, King Solomon and the archangel Gabriel. The series, which will be fully released in October, features 70 models who identify as either Asian, Native American, Hispanic, African, Middle Eastern, Black American and West Indian.
"I think it is very important to see one’s self in the Scripture so that it may become real in their eyes," Lewis told The Huffington Post. "The whitewashing of the Bible has always bothered me. However I’m happy to now have the opportunity to give a different point of view."
Gabriel can take me up immediately
Anonymous said: I'm confused, do you not believe trans people are valid? I see a lot of posts bashing them for 'claiming' to be another gender, and I don't fully understand why this would hurt feminism. Thanks for taking the time to explain, I've been going through your blog and most of what you say i totally agree with!
What do you mean by valid?
My problem is not individual trans people, it’s the messages that trans activism is sending out, and the very real and harmful legal changes they are pushing for. Just off the top of my head, some of the main issues with trans activism are:
1) Lesbians who do not like dick are considered ‘transphobic’
2) They call for female-only spaces to be abolished, through gender identity legislation
3) They claim females who aren’t trans are somehow privileged, and systematically oppress anyone who identifies as trans (whether they have dysphoria or not) and by assigning “cis” to women who don’t identify as men, they imply that women are “happy” with their gender role (one of subordination)
4) Now they say you don’t need to have sex dysphoria to be considered trans.
5) They say that gender is something to celebrate and experiment with, and not a hierarchy with the purpose of keeping the female sex subordinate to male domination.
If you’ve been going through my blog, you’ve seen examples of all of those and more. These are just a few of the issues though.
my tagged/harm/ has a lot of stuff you might to look at