Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

To all white Christians and Jews


  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#76 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 06:53 PM

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.

#77 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,458 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:01 PM

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.

#78 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Moderators
  • 14,806 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:30 PM

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.

#79 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:42 PM

i'm curious to know more about white enslavement.

Ever hear of a guy named Moses?

#80 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,683 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:44 PM

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

#81 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:45 PM

http://www.globalres...te-slaves/31076

http://www.salon.com...5/white_slaves/

http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0929903056

#82 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,448 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:48 PM

For all that know what Jesus looked like, from where did his DNA derive?

#83 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,623 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:52 PM

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.




I'm a bit tired myself, and may return to tackle this point by point, but there is a big one I do want to cover now. Burden of proof. It is not a fallacy. It is how justice in America works. It is how we determine things to be true or at least, likely true. Asking me to prove something/someone DOESN'T exist is absurd. I cannot prove that bigfoot doesn't exist, but that does not validate bigfoot belief. I cannot prove that space-traveling aliens don't exist, but that does not validate space-traveling alien belief. I cannot prove Jesus, precisely as reported in the bible, did not exist, but that does not validate belief in him. I cannot disprove god, nor do I have to. Just as in court. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, based on the evidence. Same goes for god claims with me (and literally every atheist I know personally). The religious are the prosecution. They are the ones making the claim of guilt of existence. They are claiming god exists. I do not have to prove god's innocence. I merely have to be able to refute the arguments used. If the religious/prosecution fails to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that god exists, then he is to be presumed innocent of existing.


Now, again, if somebody wants to believe, they are free to with no qualms or harsh words from me. If you and I were sitting and talking face to face and you mentioned you are religious, cool. Good for you. The woman I'm currently seeing is Catholic. It really means nothing to me. However, the second you say "I should believe", I'm going to have to take you task for it because you are claiming certainty that god exists, otherwise, there would be no reason for you to attempt to get me to believe, right? Just as if you claimed that I should go jump off a bridge into a shallow river, I'm going to say, "fug that. no. That is stupid". Sure, I could probably word it differently, but it means the same thing. It's harder to be understanding because we don't all have a real personal report between us here. We are effectively strangers. While you may be able to take hearing that from a personal friend who you have a mutual understanding with how you speak to each other, you can't have that with me, and I get it. I just try to treat everybody the same, so I sort of just speak how I speak. If it ever comes off as unwarranted mockery of you as an individual, then please, forgive me. That is not the intent.

#84 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,683 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:55 PM

Once again, and for the last time, what do you think he looked like and why?


Personally I dont even try to guess what he looked like. We are taught in the bible not to idolize images, trinkets, idols etc... So I try and separate myself from that stuff if I can, meaning I dont carry crosses or make religious gestures, or bow to any symbol or image. But I am very aware of how the public perceives the people of that time and that bothers me a little. It is insulting to change their color, especially for the reason that it was changed. And that reason is not what people on here keep saying, that it was changed so people could feel "closer' or better "relate". No the real reason was that they had a problem with color at the time. How can someone possibly reconcile that in their conscience?

#85 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,683 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:11 PM

http://www.globalres...te-slaves/31076

http://www.salon.com...5/white_slaves/

http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0929903056


These are very interesting reads. I am building a library as an inheritance to my children and I will definitely include that book in my collection. I have studied the Irish slave history in America as well. You might be interested to know that part of the reason this is not so well known is because the slave traders made no distinction between Blacks and Irish. Slavery came in many forms during this time period and no story should go untold. I hope that your reason for bringing this up was to honor the people that went through it and not to somehow denigrate the blacks that went through it as well.

#86 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,683 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:32 PM

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



As you continue to learn more about the Irish enslavement in America you will learn that conditions were very harsh for them after the civil war. A large number changed their names in order to blend in to society. Those that did not immediately assimilate found living conditions similar to that of the blacks and in fact often times there was a tentative peace. However sharecropping and Jim Crow further exascerbated the divide while both the Irish and Blacks competed for extremely low paying jobs. Because of worsening conditions and unequal opportunity throughout the poor citizens of America the Irish would often times band together to separate themselves in the eyes of other more affluent whites. This came to an apex during the depression, and it was after this time they succesfully attained acceptance in the white community. (It would seem that when everyone is starving the only thing that matters is what color they are, lol)

Basically the point I am trying to make is that they did not "get over it" they simply blended in. Rascism against the Irish basically faded as the klan and other organizations grew in power and the US government backed a policy of Separate but Equal which separated the US into "colored" and "white"

#87 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:45 PM

http://www.globalres...te-slaves/31076

http://www.salon.com...5/white_slaves/

http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0929903056


The first one was really interesting... I dont know if "white" is the attribute that hinges the irish/english situation but you are correct. White people have been slaves. Thats not quite how i meant it.

#88 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,296 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:57 PM

These are very interesting reads. I am building a library as an inheritance to my children and I will definitely include that book in my collection.


off topic but this is cool as hell

#89 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,717 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:07 PM

haha eff all your skin color choices... Jesus was GREY

Posted Image

#90 thennek

thennek

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:13 PM

That's because most concede that it's completely possible that a man named Jesus (or a man that Jesus of the bible is based on) existed. Sure, I can concede that Jesus existed. However, the stories in the bible require evidence. They make claims that absolutely require it.


There is no contemporary record of the existence of Jesus. Nothing outside of the Bible that points to it. No accounts, no birth/death record, nothing. No writings from him. Nothing. But, it's sort of silly to try to argue that he didn't exist. His existence doesn't validate the bible's claims. That's why scholars don't really care about his existence as much as support for the claims made about him.


Actually, there are several historical writings and/or authors outside of the Bible that conclude that Jesus existed. I am a skeptic by nature and I am not here to thump a Bible at anyone, but after careful study, reading, & research, I believe Jesus was who he claimed to be. And to the OP - yes I know he was Jewish with dark features. Doesn't matter to me.

Ignatius (35-107) wrote of the birth, and resurrection which took place in the time of the govenment of Pontius Pilate, being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ.
Josephus (AD 37-100) - a Jewish source indicated that the Jews were familiar with Jesus, His miracles, His death, and the claims regarding the resurrection
Bavli (in the Babylonian Talmud) - also talked about Jesus - althought he did not believe who Jesus claimed to be
Thallus , Celsus, and Suetonius (70-130) were Roman historians that provided Roman testimony to the fact that Jesus really lived.
Cornelius Tacitus was another Roman historian (55-120) that presented Jesus as a real historical figure and wrote that he had been executed under Pontius Pilate.

In all, at least 42-authors mention Jesus within 150-years of his death, and several of these were not believers...just historians. Further, prophecy was written about Jesus in the Old Testament 400-500 years before he was born. Prophecy in Psalms, Isaiah, Zechariah, Hosea, & Micah foretold where he would be born, how he would live, where he would live, how he would be betrayed, and how he would die. Pretty interesting if you like history.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.