Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

To all white Christians and Jews


  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#46 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,027 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:35 AM

Hey guys never mind if Jesus existed. It isn't important. If we knew for sure that he existed then what would be the point of having the choice to have faith in him? I mean, it wasn't like it was so important for people to believe in god that god sent his only begotten son to inspire faith in return for everlasting life, or anything.

lol

#47 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:43 AM

Wow, a religion thread! I bet tons of minds were changed here...

#48 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,485 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:48 AM

religion thread AND a race thread at that.


frankly, I don't care if Jesus was purple, it has little bearing on his life.

#49 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,987 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:51 AM

Purple Jesus would be an interesting internet meme.

#50 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,506 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:00 AM

Hey guys never mind if Jesus existed. It isn't important. If we knew for sure that he existed then what would be the point of having the choice to have faith in him? I mean, it wasn't like it was so important for people to believe in god that god sent his only begotten son to inspire faith in return for everlasting life, or anything.

lol


How did you arrive at all the conclusions you seem to hold?

#51 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    The holy ghost of Mr. Miyagi

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,388 posts
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:01 AM

Purple hooded Jesus..way darker than Olive

#52 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Moderators
  • 16,266 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:16 AM

Hey guys never mind if Jesus existed. It isn't important. If we knew for sure that he existed then what would be the point of having the choice to have faith in him? I mean, it wasn't like it was so important for people to believe in god that god sent his only begotten son to inspire faith in return for everlasting life, or anything.

lol

Who said that or anything close to it?

#53 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,506 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:35 AM

all of apologetics argues against blind faith by arguing manifest teleology as a knowable basis from which a causal entity may be derived. i know of no apologeticist that takes any other angle.

what does he say about epistemology?


4 parts

law of non contradiction, law of causality, analogical language and senses


#54 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:39 AM

Now hit me with another anti-religious joke! Man, they're such knee slappers! Huckhuckhuck11!!1


What did the cardinal say about same sex marriage while he was fuging dudes on the side?

It is "a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right" and the British government plans to legalize same-sex marriage would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world."

#55 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    The holy ghost of Mr. Miyagi

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,388 posts
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:44 AM

What did the cardinal say about same sex marriage while he was fuging dudes on the side?

It is "a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right" and the British government plans to legalize same-sex marriage would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world."


Okay whut?

#56 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Moderators
  • 16,266 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:47 AM

What did the cardinal say about same sex marriage while he was fuging dudes on the side?

It is "a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right" and the British government plans to legalize same-sex marriage would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world."

Sadly, that is not a joke but he is.

#57 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 11:20 AM

A lot of insecurity floating around this topic. Look you either agree or disagree with the OP. Thats fine. Dont muddy up the pages with useless babble about why you dont feel that this is worth talking about. Seriously, piss off.

To say that it is not important to remember key figures in the past in the most accurate way possible is ridiculous, whether it is religous past or not. Of course it is important. It has nothing to do with whether or not you accept them but everything to do with respecting who they were. I am pretty sure the people of the time would not think it okay that the people of this time do not feel that they can relate to them or honor them if they do not look like them. Would George Washington or Abe Lincoln be cast as black men? Or rendered in art as such? Should they be? Absolutely not. Would it not be horrific of me to say that I can not accept them as heroes if they did not look like me? Imagine painting MLK or Malcolm X as white IOT to facilitate acceptance in the white community. That would never happen.

But maybe, just maybe the problem is that modern christianity has so far been removed from the original scriptures that it is possible that it may not even be considered of God. It is common knowledge when Constantine absorbed the Christian faith into Roman society he took "liberties" with the scripture and created "traditions" that we still follow today that were not preached by Jesus. Traditions that include the religious hierarchy we respect. This includes the Catholic hierarchy but it also includes the Protestant system of deacons, pastors, etc... which are derived from the Roman Catholic system. It is all just a measure of control on the populace. So many people point out "inaccuracies" or what they consider hipocracies in Christian faith, but what I have found is that usually they point to a discrepancy between what is in the Bible and what is practiced not between what is actually in the Bible. There may be something to that. We must accept the faith AS IT IS, not how it is comfortable to us. There is a lot of misinformation about heaven and hell, satan and lucifer. We celebrate all these dates and holidays. We exalt men above others (popes, bishops, preachers, saints) as if they are closer to God. We do all these things that were devised by a notoriously pagan Roman administration. Then we argue and kill each other over these made up practices claiming that our particular relationship with God is the right one when none resemble the actual practices of the time period.

It is not race-baiting to seek out the true face of bible. It is in fact blasphemous to cast it in any other face. I am still searching for the scripture that says it is okay to change the face of Jesus because it is uncomfortable to you. Because everything I have read screams to the contrary.

#58 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,691 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 04 March 2013 - 11:49 AM

Egyptian kings used to have an ivory statue carved in thier likeness and placed in thier tombs in hopes of being reincarnated as a white. Just a fun fact for people who are racist against whites!

#59 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,506 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 11:58 AM

A lot of insecurity floating around this topic. Look you either agree or disagree with the OP. Thats fine. Dont muddy up the pages with useless babble about why you dont feel that this is worth talking about. Seriously, piss off.

To say that it is not important to remember key figures in the past in the most accurate way possible is ridiculous, whether it is religous past or not. Of course it is important. It has nothing to do with whether or not you accept them but everything to do with respecting who they were. I am pretty sure the people of the time would not think it okay that the people of this time do not feel that they can relate to them or honor them if they do not look like them. Would George Washington or Abe Lincoln be cast as black men? Or rendered in art as such? Should they be? Absolutely not. Would it not be horrific of me to say that I can not accept them as heroes if they did not look like me? Imagine painting MLK or Malcolm X as white IOT to facilitate acceptance in the white community. That would never happen.

But maybe, just maybe the problem is that modern christianity has so far been removed from the original scriptures that it is possible that it may not even be considered of God. It is common knowledge when Constantine absorbed the Christian faith into Roman society he took "liberties" with the scripture and created "traditions" that we still follow today that were not preached by Jesus. Traditions that include the religious hierarchy we respect. This includes the Catholic hierarchy but it also includes the Protestant system of deacons, pastors, etc... which are derived from the Roman Catholic system. It is all just a measure of control on the populace. So many people point out "inaccuracies" or what they consider hipocracies in Christian faith, but what I have found is that usually they point to a discrepancy between what is in the Bible and what is practiced not between what is actually in the Bible. There may be something to that. We must accept the faith AS IT IS, not how it is comfortable to us. There is a lot of misinformation about heaven and hell, satan and lucifer. We celebrate all these dates and holidays. We exalt men above others (popes, bishops, preachers, saints) as if they are closer to God. We do all these things that were devised by a notoriously pagan Roman administration. Then we argue and kill each other over these made up practices claiming that our particular relationship with God is the right one when none resemble the actual practices of the time period.

It is not race-baiting to seek out the true face of bible. It is in fact blasphemous to cast it in any other face. I am still searching for the scripture that says it is okay to change the face of Jesus because it is uncomfortable to you. Because everything I have read screams to the contrary.


It seems this is a long fishing expedition in which people are not playing along.

Please go ahead and tell us what you think Jesus should look like and why and who is casting him in the wrong light in their paintings and what you get from that. This will relieve the frustration you seem to feel. I can't exactly get where you want this to go either.

#60 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Moderators
  • 16,266 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:09 PM

As for the OP... Jesus was not white, and as far as I know, he was not black either. He was Hebrew/Jewish, therefore, I would expect him to look like people of Middle Eastern origination. So, yes, anyone painting him or depicting him as anything other than that are wrong.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com