View Poll Results: Was Jesus White?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yep, white as a Viking, despite being an Arab!

    8 20.00%
  • Yes, because Arabs are white, too. Have you ever actually looked at a Lebanese person?

    5 12.50%
  • No, he wasn't white, because Arabs aren't white, only European are white.

    27 67.50%
Page 19 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 217

Thread: Was Jesus White?

  1. #181
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: Was Jesus White?

    and he is bound for New Orleans.

  2. #182
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Was Jesus White?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    Science does not make assumptions that is fact.
    That is a very ignorant statement. Again, show me where Newton proved that there was a such thing as mass. He just assumed such, and that force and mass where related mathematically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    You are wrong about Newton he assumed nothing he OBSERVED which is a huge difference.
    Again, you are repeating the same nonsense. Newton ASSUMED his three laws of motion were true, he did not try to prove them. Newton also ASSUMED that time and space are fixed and that the universe is governed by strictly deterministic processes. And those are very big ASSUMPTIONS. And for a long time, those ASSUMPTIONS were adequate. But, it turned out that those ASSUMPTIONS are not necessarily true. Indeed in relativistic mechanics time and space are not fixed. Furthermore quantum mechanics has demonstrated that some processes are not deterministic but stochastic.

    Your problem is that you don't realize that while you criticize the notion of faith, you place quite a bit of faith in the power of your imperfect senses to observe. For example, once most people assumed that the world was flat based on their power of observation. However, it was demonstrated that the world was not flat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    One more time it has been conclusively proven the gospels are not first hand accounts
    And again, you cannot prove CONCLUSIVELY that the manuscripts were not written by someone based on what they here from a firsthand witness. Neither can you prove CONCLUSIVELY that they were not written by someone who used manuscripts that are no longer available as a basis. If you don't agree, then prove it, conclusively.

  3. #183
    Educator Soupnazi630's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    11-08-14 @ 09:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    855

    Re: Was Jesus White?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    That is a very ignorant statement. Again, show me where Newton proved that there was a such thing as mass. He just assumed such, and that force and mass where related mathematically.



    Again, you are repeating the same nonsense. Newton ASSUMED his three laws of motion were true, he did not try to prove them. Newton also ASSUMED that time and space are fixed and that the universe is governed by strictly deterministic processes. And those are very big ASSUMPTIONS. And for a long time, those ASSUMPTIONS were adequate. But, it turned out that those ASSUMPTIONS are not necessarily true. Indeed in relativistic mechanics time and space are not fixed. Furthermore quantum mechanics has demonstrated that some processes are not deterministic but stochastic.

    Your problem is that you don't realize that while you criticize the notion of faith, you place quite a bit of faith in the power of your imperfect senses to observe. For example, once most people assumed that the world was flat based on their power of observation. However, it was demonstrated that the world was not flat.



    And again, you cannot prove CONCLUSIVELY that the manuscripts were not written by someone based on what they here from a firsthand witness. Neither can you prove CONCLUSIVELY that they were not written by someone who used manuscripts that are no longer available as a basis. If you don't agree, then prove it, conclusively.
    Hearing something from somone else is not first hand it is by definition second hand. And it is proven that the gospels were not written first hand. Or even second hand because the earliest known copies date to generations after the time jesus would have lived had he been real.

    Newton did notassume anything he OBSERVED.

    Observation is not assumption. A deity is never observed it is assumed science observes and then explains. Newton observed something real and then explained it as mass.

    People of faith observe nothing and fantasize to explain it.

  4. #184
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Was Jesus White?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    Hearing something from somone else is not first hand it is by definition second hand. And it is proven that the gospels were not written first hand. Or even second hand because the earliest known copies date to generations after the time jesus would have lived had he been real.
    A document written by someone who heard from a firsthand witness, while not firsthand, is based on a firsthand account. Scholars have accepted that the book of Mark was written about 60 to 70 years after Jesus was born. Which would mean that it is quite possible it was written by someone who at least heard from a firsthand witness. It is true that the oldest manuscripts date to about 125 years after Jesus was born and these are copies of the original gospels. But that does not mean that none of the information in them is not based on firsthand accounts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    Newton did notassume anything he OBSERVED.

    Observation is not assumption. A deity is never observed it is assumed science observes and then explains. Newton observed something real and then explained it as mass.
    You keep repeating this very absurd notion. You and no one else has ever OBSERVED a mass. What was observed was motion. And that motion was explained by ASSUMING that the was a such thing as a mass. No one ever directly observed mass. No one ever proved that mass existed. It was assumed to exist to explain motion. It's that simple and there is no way around it. In a similar way, what we observe is sentience, and sentience can be explaining by assuming that God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    People of faith observe nothing and fantasize to explain it.
    You are a person of faith because you have not observed a mass. Neither has anyone else. You have faith that it exists because some restricted types of motion can be explained in this way. Similarly, by assuming that an all powerful God exists, the observable phenomenon of sentience can be explained.
    Last edited by MildSteel; 05-15-14 at 06:58 PM.

  5. #185
    Educator Soupnazi630's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    11-08-14 @ 09:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    855

    Re: Was Jesus White?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    A document written by someone who heard from a firsthand witness, while not firsthand, is based on a firsthand account. Scholars have accepted that the book of Mark was written about 60 to 70 years after Jesus was born. Which would mean that it is quite possible it was written by someone who at least heard from a firsthand witness. It is true that the oldest manuscripts date to about 125 years after Jesus was born and these are copies of the original gospels. But that does not mean that none of the information in them is not based on firsthand accounts.



    You keep repeating this very absurd notion. You and no one else has ever OBSERVED a mass. What was observed was motion. And that motion was explained by ASSUMING that the was a such thing as a mass. No one ever directly observed mass. No one ever proved that mass existed. It was assumed to exist to explain motion. It's that simple and there is no way around it. In a similar way, what we observe is sentience, and sentience can be explaining by assuming that God exists.



    You are a person of faith because you have not observed a mass. Neither has anyone else. You have faith that it exists because some restricted types of motion can be explained in this way. Similarly, by assuming that an all powerful God exists, the observable phenomenon of sentience can be explained.
    I am not repeating anything absurd you are yes mass explains what is observed plain and simple and no one has observed a god.

    Yes it is proven mass exists learn some science before looking so ridiculous with your claims.

    Yes I have observed mass in many ways. Not a shred of faith involved in that.

    Belief in any god requires faith which means acceopting what one cannot observe and which explains only what the writers of an theological book want you to think.

    Youa re losing badly and way off base your attempts to assign faith to science is a MASSIVE failure.

  6. #186
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Was Jesus White?

    He was the same color as God.

  7. #187
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Was Jesus White?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    I am not repeating anything absurd you are yes mass explains what is observed plain and simple and no one has observed a god.

    Yes it is proven mass exists learn some science before looking so ridiculous with your claims.
    Actually I know quite a bit more science than you it appears. You are simply making very foolish statements here. Again no one has observed mass. What was observed was motion. And that motion was explained by ASSUMING that mass existed and was related mathematically.

    You want to try to talk about science, and physics specifically, but I can tell you don't understand the simplest concepts of motion. For instance, since you know so much about physics, in classical physics a solid body can have translational as well as rotational motion. Tell me this, are these two types of motion coupled?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    Yes I have observed mass in many ways. Not a shred of faith involved in that.


    Look man. I studied physics. I know how to simulate motion with Newtonian mechanics. I know how to simulate collisions. I have written computer programs to do it. I have worked on that type of stuff till my head hurt. Ran it in the ground. That's all I used to do all day at one time. You have not observed mass. It's just that simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    Belief in any god requires faith which means acceopting what one cannot observe and which explains only what the writers of an theological book want you to think.
    Just like motion can be explained by assuming that mass exists. The observable phenomenon of sentience can be explained by assuming that God exists. We observe that we are aware. This awareness, sentience, can be explained by assuming that God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    Youa re losing badly and way off base your attempts to assign faith to science is a MASSIVE failure.
    You don't know the simplest things about science and I can prove that very easily.

  8. #188
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Was Jesus White?

    It doesn't matter but I wouldn't call him white. Interestingly in American race relations I'm of the opinion many people tend to subconscious think of just two races most of the time: European ancestry or white and African ancestry or black. I wouldn't say he's black either. I think Middle Eastern and more specifically Hebrew. There is also Biblical genealogy that indicates he has some ancestry from other groups due to interracial marriages in his lineage.

    What concerns me to a degree is in consideration of the tribal mentality of so many people, I would hope people do not categorize Jesus as being of an adversarial ethnic group. Its clear he came for people of every tribe, every language and every nation and welcome anybody who wants to become a part of God's forever family. Revelation 7:9
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  9. #189
    Educator Soupnazi630's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    11-08-14 @ 09:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    855

    Re: Was Jesus White?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    Actually I know quite a bit more science than you it appears. You are simply making very foolish statements here. Again no one has observed mass. What was observed was motion. And that motion was explained by ASSUMING that mass existed and was related mathematically.

    You want to try to talk about science, and physics specifically, but I can tell you don't understand the simplest concepts of motion. For instance, since you know so much about physics, in classical physics a solid body can have translational as well as rotational motion. Tell me this, are these two types of motion coupled?





    Look man. I studied physics. I know how to simulate motion with Newtonian mechanics. I know how to simulate collisions. I have written computer programs to do it. I have worked on that type of stuff till my head hurt. Ran it in the ground. That's all I used to do all day at one time. You have not observed mass. It's just that simple.



    Just like motion can be explained by assuming that mass exists. The observable phenomenon of sentience can be explained by assuming that God exists. We observe that we are aware. This awareness, sentience, can be explained by assuming that God exists.



    You don't know the simplest things about science and I can prove that very easily.
    I do know the simplest things about science you have already proven that you do not OR that you are being deliberately obtuse and choosing to ignore absolute fact in order to save face.

    The absolute fact is that mass can be measured and to bemeasured it must be observed in some fashion. You are wrong and the rest of your post is spin.

    A deity cannot be observed.

    Science works by observing and then hypothesizing and then testing. Otherwise it is not science.

  10. #190
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Was Jesus White?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    I do know the simplest things about science you have already proven that you do not OR that you are being deliberately obtuse and choosing to ignore absolute fact in order to save face.
    No you do not, and you have demonstrated that you do not really understand Newton's second law. Not only that but you cannot answer a rather simple question about motion. It is a fact that the concept of mass is something that is assumed to exist under Newtonian mechanics. In fact, the only precise definition of it is the mathematical relationship F = m * a. Other than that, you really can't say much else about exactly what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    The absolute fact is that mass can be measured and to bemeasured it must be observed in some fashion. You are wrong and the rest of your post is spin.
    Yes mass can be measured, but what is observed is motion or a quantity that can ultimately be expressed in terms of motion, not mass itself, because again, mass is something that was assumed so that motion could be quantitatively described in mathematical equations. Scientists establish units of force such as Newtons and from there, based on motion they measure the assumed quantity mass. For instance the hanging spring scale that is found in some grocery stores. The mass of the grocery items is computed not from observing the mass of the items but from observing the displacement, or motion of the spring. This is very simple, basic physics, that even someone in high school who has been taught properly would know. It's ridiculous to argue such a notion. Mass is assumed to exist and is described in terms of it's mathematical relationship to force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    A deity cannot be observed.
    And again, you cannot directly observe mass. But you can observe it's effect which is motion. Similarly you cannot directly observe God with material senses, but you can observe God's effect in the form of sentience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    Science works by observing and then hypothesizing and then testing. Otherwise it is not science.
    In science any hypothesis will have underlying assumptions, things that are not proven to be true. And observations are made to test the validity of the hypothesis under those assumptions. And that is all science does or can do.
    Last edited by MildSteel; 05-16-14 at 01:25 AM.

Page 19 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •