Proof Jesus was black

[Krookie]

I really hope that was a stab at the Canadians, and not lack of Sportscenter.

[metadigital]

A religion which calls for charity, humility,and fairness (for example) needs less justification than one which claims special rights to murder anyone it likes. Because the former is closer to what one might call principles naturally conducive to general happiness.

 

I realise I'm lining up for a kicking here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a humanist or utilitarian philosophy, not a universally accepted axiom. The Thuggee cult worshipped Kali and had decideedly different ethical views, for example.

[Dark Moth]

How ironic...a thread like this turns into another religous debate. We seem to have a lot of those going on here lately, don't we?

 

BTW Mojo, that was hilarious.

[Cantousent]

Proof Jesus was Canadian.  "

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

lol

 

This is just terrible, but funny.

[Gabrielle]

Damn hippy.

[LoneWolf16]

Tasteless......but why the hell not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cantousent]

Decidely unfunny. Kind of disgusting more than anything else, you clod. I say "clod" only in the nicest possible way. :Eldar's mischeivous smile icon:

[Gabrielle]

Tasteless......but why the hell not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Classic

[LoneWolf16]

Decidely unfunny.  Kind of disgusting more than anything else, you clod.  I say "clod" only in the nicest possible way.  :Eldar's mischeivous smile icon:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said it was tasteless. "

[Darkside]

Tasteless......but why the hell not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sick. <_<

[Dark Moth]

Sorry, but I agree with Eldar. Very poor taste.

 

*sigh* Every time I'm away for one day, one of these religious threads pops up and I can't go into my Paladin frenzy early enough! Sad, really. "

[LoneWolf16]

Sick. <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No sicker than the snuff film that screen was taken from.

[Dark Moth]

Sick. <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No sicker than the snuff film that screen was taken from.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, I see, that makes it alright, doesn't it? Typical. And your comment doesn't surprise me at all, since most people misinterpret that film completely.

[LoneWolf16]

Sick. <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No sicker than the snuff film that screen was taken from.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, I see, that makes it alright, doesn't it? Typical. And your comment doesn't surprise me at all, since most people misinterpret that film completely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it doesn't make it "right". I never claimed that.

 

And how in the hell do you misinterpret THAT. I mean damn, I saw it, and most of the film was the actor playing Jesus either screaming in agony, or unecessary gore.

[Darkside]

Sick. <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No sicker than the snuff film that screen was taken from.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldn't say "sick" exactly, but it was certainly disturbing enough to keep me from watching it.

[Mojo]

Tasteless......but why the hell not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh well that is the end of this thread

Edited November 18, 2005 by Mojo

[the dude]

Sick. <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No sicker than the snuff film that screen was taken from.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, I see, that makes it alright, doesn't it? Typical. And your comment doesn't surprise me at all, since most people misinterpret that film completely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well apparently, as this thread has proved the life of any religious leader can be misinterpreted. Unfortunately, Mel Gibson had to aim for a more historical view of Jesus' martyrdom rather than a theological view, which is why the movie displayed such brutality.

By the way, julianw, you mentioned something about "knowing that Jesus was 33 when he died." This is just a statement for consideration, but did you know that 3 is a number that represents completion? Therefore, having two threes is really emphasizing that Jesus was completion himself. I simply brought this up because 33 would have been considered quite old in that time period...perhaps an elder..

I would like to respond to all of the other areas of conversation in this thread, but for now I'll just stay to the main one. --mojo, you had some slighly amusing comparisons to Jesus and modern day African Americans. However, someone said earlier that Jesus was a "Jewish Arab" and was quite correct. If you were to say that black and Arab were the same race to any Sudanee government official, you'd be shot on sight. Things to remember while traveling

Edited November 18, 2005 by the dude

[Dark Moth]

Sick. <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No sicker than the snuff film that screen was taken from.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, I see, that makes it alright, doesn't it? Typical. And your comment doesn't surprise me at all, since most people misinterpret that film completely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it doesn't make it "right". I never claimed that.

 

And how in the hell do you misinterpret THAT. I mean damn, I saw it, and most of the film was the actor playing Jesus either screaming in agony, or unecessary gore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...

so obviously you admit it was tastless and not alright, so why post it in the first place, especially when people have already taken offense to it? Unless you find it funny in some way?

 

And I wasn't necessarily referring to you specifically, but I was just referring to how so many people brand the movie's content as mere gratuitous violence, which it isn't. There was a reason why he made it as he did, and it wasn't for shock value (well, not in the slasher film sense).

[julianw]

After some much needed sleep, I am willing to give this discussion another go now; that is if people are still interested of course.

 

Samurai were pretty well versed in poetry despite being consumate warriors.

But Muhammad was not well versed in poetry. He was an illiterate man.

 

If the only reason your giving is to get in good with the man upstairs then does it really qualify as charity ? It's more like paying your way into the afterlife.

Maybe they are doing charity for the wrong reasons or maybe they are not. You and I do not have the power to judge men's hearts. But surely it is better to feed a starving man than to keep him starving, no?

 

Yep religions have a functional use but for every positive there is a negative. You could say they balance out. Or not depending on your point of view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't quite understand the part of 'for every positive there is a negative'. When you plant crops on farmlands, weeds grew along side them. You cannot remove the farm because there would be no harvest, but do you blame the weeds on those who planted the seeds for the crops?

 

Read Hades's sig. You might understand why I talked with him in that way.

 

Nope, i still don't understand.

 

I didn't kill Jesus, why am i sharing part of the blame for something i didn't do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well. I did explain already that I was speaking 'we' as humans as one. I said nothing about whose fault it was, so please don't be offended.

 

So tell me why would he/she do that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What why would an aethiest dive on a grenade to save a friend ? Since it's not something I'd be inclined to do, not something I can answer. But it does happen so self sacrfice is not confined only to people who believe in god.

 

I know many aethiests who are still humanitarians. Although I wouldnt say I was one since I tend to stick all life on the same shelf.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed, latest scientific investigations have proven that bacteria are capable of self-sacrifice ... are they religious?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But do they do it out of conscience and love for others? If you can find a better phrase to describe humans' innate need to give their lives meaning other than being religious or being in a state of love, that will work as well.

Edited November 18, 2005 by julianw

[LoneWolf16]

Sick. <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No sicker than the snuff film that screen was taken from.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, I see, that makes it alright, doesn't it? Typical. And your comment doesn't surprise me at all, since most people misinterpret that film completely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it doesn't make it "right". I never claimed that.

 

And how in the hell do you misinterpret THAT. I mean damn, I saw it, and most of the film was the actor playing Jesus either screaming in agony, or unecessary gore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...

so obviously you admit it was tastless and not alright, so why post it in the first place, especially when people have already taken offense to it? Unless you find it funny in some way?

 

And I wasn't necessarily referring to you specifically, but I was just referring to how so many people brand the movie's content as mere gratuitous violence, which it isn't. There was a reason why he made it as he did, and it wasn't for shock value (well, not in the slasher film sense).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I found it funny. In a sick, "WTF!!!!1!!!1!!!111!1!!!" kind of way.

 

Fake blood, fake cross, all of it fake, nevermind the fact that it actually happened. The pic itself is VERY tasteless, and I'll be the first to admit that, but I got a cheap laugh out of it.

 

Yes, the film was for shock value. The way he did it couldn't be construed as anything less than that.

[Dark Moth]

Samurai were pretty well versed in poetry despite being consumate warriors.

But Muhammad was not well versed in poetry. He was an illiterate man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but you don't have to be well-versed in poetry to create or speak it. Arabic culture tends to be quite poetic, I'm inclined to believe he was exposed to poetry in his lifetime. But as I said, you don't really have to be well-versed in poetry to create it.

 

And just to clarify something, evidence shows that Muhammad most likely did not write the Quran, in fact it is almost a certainty. Rather it was his scribes and followers who copied his words down as he spoke.

 

BTW, I gotta hand it to you for sticking it out for religion in this thread. Well done. :D

Edited November 18, 2005 by Mothman

[julianw]

Samurai were pretty well versed in poetry despite being consumate warriors.

But Muhammad was not well versed in poetry. He was an illiterate man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but you don't have to be well-versed in poetry to create or speak it. Arabic culture tends to be quite poetic, I'm inclined to believe he was exposed to poetry in his lifetime. But as I said, you don't really have to be well-versed in poetry to create it.

 

And just to clarify something, evidence shows that Muhammad most likely did not write the Quran, in fact it is almost a certainty. Rather it was his scribes and followers who copied his words down as he spoke.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought I PMed you about this already, didn't I? Yes, the scribes recorded his writings. Sometimes, he could speak through day and night as the scribes took turns in recording. I became more than a little suspicious that the work of Qu'ran was divinely inspired since a man could have spoken in such logic and loftiness at the same time.

 

Muhammad was not an educated man. If he was to accumulate knowledge by the means availabe at the time, it is nearly impossible for him to have 'spoken' the Qu'ran.

 

p.s. I tried my best. Wished you were here though so Christianity could be much better represented.

Edited November 18, 2005 by julianw

[Dark Moth]

I thought I PMed you about this already, didn't I? Yes, the scribes recorded his writings. Sometimes, he could speak through day and night as the scribes take their turns in recording. I became a little more than suspicious that the work of Qu'ran was divinely inspired since a man could have spoken in such logic and loftiness at the same time.

 

Muhammad was not an educated man. If he was to accumulate knowledge by the means availabe at the time, it is nearly impossible for him to have 'spoken'   the Qu'ran.

 

p.s. I tried my best. Wished you were here though so Christianity could be much better represented.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh yeah, you did PM me that. Sorry.

 

I guess it's just personal taste, but the Quran's writings don't really impress me that much. Mostly I find it boring, sometimes confusing, and VERY repetitive. And the way it butchers the biblical tales and prophets is just downright sad. As for your part about knowledge, the Quran is mostly teaching-based, and not a lot of storytelling. The Quran is meant to be memorized, so it naturally focuses more on teachings than stories. And as I said above, the tales differ from the biblical tales in many aspects, and the way the Quran shows the prophets is also quite contradictory to the bible as well.

 

From what I've read, it looked like Muhammad just took bits and peices from Christianity and Judaism, threw it together, and combined it with his beliefs to make a new religion. It hardly displays an in-depth knowledge of the Bible. I apologize for sounding harsh, but you probably already have a good idea of my attitude toward Muhammad and his teachings. (and I'm please don't think I'm lashing out at you, just giving my take on the matter)

 

P.S.: Well, I still hand it to you for holding out against Shadowpaladin, Hades, and Baley in the same thread. :D

Edited November 18, 2005 by Mothman

[julianw]

I will praise your effort for showing interest in studying the Qu'ran though. It shows that you won't shun away from differing opinions and beliefs to those that you already established. Quite a just man you are already.

 

I will say that Islam would not be if not for Judaism and Christianity. Also Islam spread to different regions and people from Christianity. I am more inclined for them to reach absolute peace between each other rather than for one to devour another.

[julianw]

By the way, julianw, you mentioned something about "knowing that Jesus was 33 when he died." This is just a statement for consideration, but did you know that 3 is a number that represents completion? Therefore, having two threes is really emphasizing that Jesus was completion himself. I simply brought this up because 33 would have been considered quite old in that time period...perhaps an elder..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are right. Christ may not died exactly at age 33 but still he most likely died very young though. Siddhartha Gautama who was centuries before Christ lived into his 80s. Confucius and Laozi (no, not our Laozi :D ) both lived into their 70s if I recall correctly. So did Muhammad. Christ was one of the very few prophets(generally accepted ones of course) who died young and violently. Also, I think he's probably more likely short (from lack of better nutrients) and dirty (constant travels on foot or by donkey) than the tall and beautiful white man portrayed from Passion.

Edited November 18, 2005 by julianw