Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

carpantherfan84

To all white Christians and Jews

143 posts in this topic

People making fun of the idea that something as silly as the color of the skin matters yet they think something as silly as belief matters. "Who cares about one's actions, it's belief that matters. You can be the kindess, most generious person on the planet but if you don't believe Jesus is god you're damned."

Too funny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus was Asian !!

I dont know if you are joking or not, but to me it is obvious that Jesus' teachings were strongly influenced by Buddhism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blacks did not create the racial divide in western society, so dont blame me for pointing out that there is one. I am not blaming you for there being one (I am assuming that you are white, if I am mistaken I apologize. Not that there is anything wrong with being white or anything) But there is a divide. It is common practice for western society to "whitewash" history. This is incredibly arrogant and insulting thing to say the least, but it is downright blasphemous to do it in religion. So why would honest, God-Fearing Christians stand for it? Well likely because they dont know any better. Thats understandable but when you hear the truth try and approach it rationally.

Middle Easterners. Toda

Get over it. That is the only thing that will end racism. Things only improved for white people after they got over their enslavement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how it is always acceptable for people to get douchey and mock people's religious beliefs and use derogatory language towards religious types on here, but anything outside of religion (women, gays, etc.) makes you a bigot.

Comparing mocking religion (a set of ideas to explain the universe, what happens after death, and the meaning of life) to mocking minorities of people is laughable. I mock bad ideas. I do not mock people. I do not mock religious people. I mock the religion. If they cannot separate themselves and see the difference, that is their problem. Now, I realize you were not talking directly to me, and if somebody is calling a religious person an unwarranted name based on their religion, sure, that's bigoted. However, I haven't seen that in this thread (if it happened, I just missed it).

You can talk all day and show how well-versed you are in "history," of which accounts were also written by men, but how do you fill in the gaps? When science has yet to explain something, what is your answer? Coincidence? LOL.

History is written by the victors. It's hard to be precisely accurate on EVERY detail, but most of what we know about the history of man is at least somewhat (if not very well) supported by evidence. When science has yet to explain something, the answer is "we don't know". I challenge you to think of a SINGLE thing that once had a scientific answer, but for now, the best answer is a religious one.

To haphazardly assume that you have all the answers of this universe with your insignificant brain within the vast scope of it is purely ignorance at its finest.

Pot meet kettle. Except, and I'm extrapolating from your words here, when somebody calls a religious person ignorant for "haphazardly assuming they have all the answers of the universe with their insignificant brain", we're apparently being mean/bigots?

And yet, what is even more ignorant is to speak in scientific terms about something that is supernatural. Evidence, "blind faith," historical records, or whatever else... If you have not experienced something that is supernatural, how can you accurately speak on such? You are talking out of place and from an ill informed perspective. When one has experienced something that is supernatural and know that it is God, and then is able to link that supernatural experience with something that is "known" in historical or scientific accounts, how can you try to explain away what they know, when you haven't had the same experience?

Prove the "supernatural" exists. If "supernatural" has to do with just personal experiences, then it cannot be reported as something that is universally true. Personal experiences only matter to the person who it happens to. If they choose to believe that experience to be real and true, fine. The SECOND they start reporting that what they have gathered from their personal experience is universal truth and reality, they bear the burden of proof. Sorry, that's just how it works. Either keep it to yourself and believe whatever you want on a personal note, or spout it out trying to convince people and be challenged to prove it. If there was ever ANY shred of evidence that points, conclusively, to any single supernatural entity or group of entities, then certainly one of the billions of people who had these experiences would have brought it forward and claimed their millions of dollars. Again, if somebody holds an experience as validation for their own personal, privately held belief, I have no qualms. If they want others to believe it, they either need to show evidence or STFU.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get over it. That is the only thing that will end racism. Things only improved for white people after they got over their enslavement.

i'm curious to know more about white enslavement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maleable historicity aside, do you believe jesus existed as a historical figure?

No, not really. I think he's a fictional amalgamation of figures from all the other religions that Christianity was based on. I think it's commonly accepted because it's commonly accepted. But when the earliest written account of the person was 68 years after their death, it makes me question. No one during the entirety of this person's life felt the need to write "Hey some guy performed a miracle in the town square today it was awesome." Yet they did do that for other prophets of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)Comparing mocking religion (a set of ideas to explain the universe, what happens after death, and the meaning of life) to mocking minorities of people is laughable. I mock bad ideas. I do not mock people. I do not mock religious people. I mock the religion. If they cannot separate themselves and see the difference, that is their problem. Now, I realize you were not talking directly to me, and if somebody is calling a religious person an unwarranted name based on their religion, sure, that's bigoted. However, I haven't seen that in this thread (if it happened, I just missed it).

2)History is written by the victors. It's hard to be precisely accurate on EVERY detail, but most of what we know about the history of man is at least somewhat (if not very well) supported by evidence. When science has yet to explain something, the answer is "we don't know". I challenge you to think of a SINGLE thing that once had a scientific answer, but for now, the best answer is a religious one.

3)Pot meet kettle. Except, and I'm extrapolating from your words here, when somebody calls a religious person ignorant for "haphazardly assuming they have all the answers of the universe with their insignificant brain", we're apparently being mean/bigots?

4)Prove the "supernatural" exists. If "supernatural" has to do with just personal experiences, then it cannot be reported as something that is universally true. Personal experiences only matter to the person who it happens to. If they choose to believe that experience to be real and true, fine. The SECOND they start reporting that what they have gathered from their personal experience is universal truth and reality, they bear the burden of proof. Sorry, that's just how it works. Either keep it to yourself and believe whatever you want on a personal note, or spout it out trying to convince people and be challenged to prove it. If there was ever ANY shred of evidence that points, conclusively, to any single supernatural entity or group of entities, then certainly one of the billions of people who had these experiences would have brought it forward and claimed their millions of dollars. Again, if somebody holds an experience as validation for their own personal, privately held belief, I have no qualms. If they want others to believe it, they either need to show evidence or STFU.

I may re-visit in detail point by point later, but I'm too tired to get into a novel writeoff tonight, but briefly...

1) First, in terms of population, women are not considered a "minority." Aside from that, you're approaching the argument with a bias, just as I am (you have made VERY anti-religious statements here, so I assume you to be atheist vs. me coming from a religious perspective i.e., I believe in God). This is not intended to offend because you are cool people lightsout, we just don't agree on religion. So, in you saying "I mock bad ideas" and "I mock the religion," you are in fact mocking people. One's religion is something very meaningful and unifying between the physical body and the spiritual soul, therefore, it is embedded within one's being for those that truly believe. So, from a believer's perspective when a non-believer is saying "you can go worship your bearded man fairy or cereal box..." that is extremely offensive. That is the equivalent of using hate speech IMO. It is meant to be inflammatory and offensive, and it is heartless and inconsiderate. Now, when discussing minorities or "protected groups," you don't even have to use a slur... If you simply don't support gay rights for instance, you are a bigot. So what do you call someone who looks down on anyone for having religion and automatically assumes them to be non-critical thinkers, or thinkers period? Basically it is inferred that they are dumb and feeble minded. That's a bigot - someone who is unwilling to move from their own opinion on matters to the point of insulting others. Many atheist say "the burden of proof" when speaking of religion, but that is of little substance because just as my mind is sure there is a God, you just as strongly believe that there isn't - at least in the context that I do (I apologize if I'm making a false conclusion there, but I'm under the assumption that you don't believe in a God from your posts). And again, how can you show someone the supernatural? How can I prove to you that God created the universe? The burden of proof is a fallacy because you know it is impossible to PROVE with scientific tangible evidence as things stand - because God is beyond the natural, he is supernatural. So, atheists speak from up on a pedestal... Problem is, can they prove that THERE ISN'T A GOD with 100% certainty? No.

2) Correct. And that was my point. Yes, some stories in the Bible have been told in similar fashion in other cultures and so many point to that as a reason not to believe. But, I'm saying that many of the accounts non-believers give as to what is evidence against Christianity from Biblical times are accounts from men as well. So, they are also likely to be flawed in some capacity. Yet, those are to be trusted more because they aren't religious texts? Are they more sacred? Are they more reliable? All in the eye of the beholder, because you stated the exact quote that was behind my thinking - "history is written by the victors."

Science is reliable, but science is still unable to disprove or prove many things that atheists/non-believers use to discredit Christianity. The other problem is, even if they are, many scientists approach proving or disproving religious issues with an extreme bias. Carbon dating? Sure. Fossils? Awesome. But, they have yet to prove that Jesus never existed, and they have yet to prove that he didn't do the works that are attributed to him. But again, to you that is crazy talk because it is supernatural in nature.

3) Yup. But, it is the equivalent to calling me an idiot for believing and I don't see anyone apologizing to me for insulting the fabric of my being. You can easily separate beliefs from being because you don't hold any religious beliefs that I know of. If you did, then maybe you would approach this differently. Treating someone with intolerance or hatred because of their beliefs/religion is indeed BIGOTRY. Yet, is accepted here with no qualms.

4) I've already addressed this in one of the points above. It is the biggest fallacy on behalf of non-believers. So, I ask you to prove the supernatural doesn't exist with certainty. Again, if you haven't felt it yourself, but I have and know it to be true, I can't make that same effect happen in you. So, how will I change your belief regarding the supernatural or the existence of God? It's up to each individual. But again, I ask that until you can prove with certainty that you are right, please don't insult what I know to be true for myself.

I apologize in advance for any typos, I'm running on an hour of sleep. And again, I'm only trying to engage in discussion, I don't intend to offend you and if I made any assumptions/conclusions about you that are inaccurate, I apologize and feel free to correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm curious to know more about white enslavement.

Ever hear of a guy named Moses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually kind of insulted that you found my last post regarding your question in the OP "ridiculous." I don't get what you're trying to prove.

that wasn't targeted at you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites