• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Jesus White?

Was Jesus White?


  • Total voters
    34
That's fine if you don't believe that.

But the fact is, that whether you think those designations are superficial or not, they are temporary for one thing, and they don't yield any insight on what is the nature of sentience. So do you have any insight on what you think the phenomenon of sentience actually is, or do you only have temporary designations to offer? If so, I would put forward that your notion that you are actually British in any meaningful, real sense, is simply imaginary, something that only exists in your subjective mind.

Just as your god is an imaginary construct that only exists in your subjective mind?

I fail to see the difference.

Anyway, I think there's a lot more normative and moral power in my conception of sentience: People are all sovereign, to an extent, and living in a subjective world. To that end, the constructs we create have the ultimate moral power in the world -- governments, laws, systems of thought. These are literally everything -- both our captors and our saviours.

There is nothing but us -- but I think that's a powerful thing.

What is a god except something which gives meaning to the universe? That is precisely what we do. You and I -- we're Gods. We don't need some fairy tale about an incestual father-son celestial dictator to give us meaning -- we can do it ourselves.

In fact, we have been all along.
 
Just a quick remark. I grew up in Toledo, OH, and there is a very LARGE Lebanese community there. All of them have at least olive skin. It is NOT "white".
 
Having never laid eyes on the man, I can't say what his complexion was. The bible says he was a Jew. All the Jewish people I ever met were what I would consider Caucasian versus Negro or Asian.
 
Just a quick remark. I grew up in Toledo, OH, and there is a very LARGE Lebanese community there. All of them have at least olive skin. It is NOT "white".

There are plenty of Arabs with lighter skin than Greeks or Italian, though. Certainly plenty of East Asians, too.

I'm not saying it's incorrect to label Europeans 'white' and Arabs 'not' -- it's merely a metonym. White essentially means European. It's not actually indicative of the skin colour of a person, because there are plenty of people who are as white as Europeans, but they're not 'white' in that specific sense.
 
But I don't believe in your imaginary friend. You telling me everything is superficial except your god rings incredibly hollow to me -- in fact, I would say your religion is one of the more superficial things about you. It's largely determined by where you're born and who tells you which fable when you're young.

Not necessarily. You somehow managed to cleverly escape what you consider fables...now give other individuals the same credit for making their own adult decisions even if they have not rejected what they were taught. And remember too all the people who have become persons of faith as thoughtful, intelligent, reasonable adults.
 
I don't think where Jesus was born has really anything to do with his appearance. Assuming that God really did give Mary an "immaculate conception," could God then make Jesus look like anyone he wanted?

At any rate, what the man looked like in no way affects how I feel towards him or his teachings.
 
Not necessarily. You somehow managed to cleverly escape what you consider fables...now give other individuals the same credit for making their own adult decisions even if they have not rejected what they were taught. And remember too all the people who have become persons of faith as thoughtful, intelligent, reasonable adults.

I will absolutely give someone credit for making their own decision if they're an Iranian factory worker who converts to Christianity, or a Kentucky farmer who takes up Islam, or a Brazilian soldier who decides to become an atheist.

I think, personally, some of those might be what I would call 'unsatisfying' choices -- I certainly wouldn't advocate anyone convert to either Christianity or Islam, except under some extreme circumstances -- but I would absolutely agree that this would be an adult making an adult choice they are responsible for.

The issue, as you well know, is that most people aren't brought up to consider all the various religions and philosophies and idea systems of the world in a total, objective vacuum, and then upon reaching age 20 or something, get to choose their creed, having it renewed like a passport every five or ten years.

The overwhelming, vast majority of religious adherents are merely adherents to that religion because it's the dominant religion of their area, and intentionally or not, they are almost continuously indoctrinated into it through both positive education and peer pressure, and sins of omission in providing proper access to the other, often antithetical creeds out there.

So, my point is, while you're right that your religion is not necessarily determined by where you were born and to whom, it overwhelmingly is.

Mr Mildsteel here would almost certainly be arguing vehemently for the glories of Muhammad, PBUH etc. and Sunni Islam, if he had only been born in Saudi Arabia. Instead, he was probably born in the United States, and thus argues vehemently for the glories of Jesus Christ and Protestant Christianity.

Forgive me for not being able to regard such arguments as entirely rational or well thought-out.
 
There are plenty of Arabs with lighter skin than Greeks or Italian, though. Certainly plenty of East Asians, too.

I'm not saying it's incorrect to label Europeans 'white' and Arabs 'not' -- it's merely a metonym. White essentially means European. It's not actually indicative of the skin colour of a person, because there are plenty of people who are as white as Europeans, but they're not 'white' in that specific sense.

I think Jesus would pass the common definition of "white" in 2014 (skin complection) but not the definition of "white" commonly in use in say 1980 (culturally European).

Jesus would definetly would not pass the common definition of "white" in say, 1920 (not only did "whites" have to be culturally European, but it was strongly prefered that they be Ango Saxon, Celtic, Nordic, or German. Heck, even a certain number of French barely qualifed as "white". Spaniards, Italians, Greeks and Slavs were clearly seen as non "white"- regardless of how light complected they were as individuals).
 
Perhaps we're not meant to know what Jesus looked like lest we lust and idolize him like a sex god and forget his teachings.


jesus-christ-mormon3.jpg


Oh lordy....I'm feeling the glory now. lol
 
619px-Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg


This is one of the first images of Jesus.

The eyes symbolizing his two natures -- Human and Divine.

Notwithstanding the eyes, I believe this to be probably the most accurate depiction we will come across...
 
I will absolutely give someone credit for making their own decision if they're an Iranian factory worker who converts to Christianity, or a Kentucky farmer who takes up Islam, or a Brazilian soldier who decides to become an atheist.

I think, personally, some of those might be what I would call 'unsatisfying' choices -- I certainly wouldn't advocate anyone convert to either Christianity or Islam, except under some extreme circumstances -- but I would absolutely agree that this would be an adult making an adult choice they are responsible for.

The issue, as you well know, is that most people aren't brought up to consider all the various religions and philosophies and idea systems of the world in a total, objective vacuum, and then upon reaching age 20 or something, get to choose their creed, having it renewed like a passport every five or ten years.

The overwhelming, vast majority of religious adherents are merely adherents to that religion because it's the dominant religion of their area, and intentionally or not, they are almost continuously indoctrinated into it through both positive education and peer pressure, and sins of omission in providing proper access to the other, often antithetical creeds out there.

So, my point is, while you're right that your religion is not necessarily determined by where you were born and to whom, it overwhelmingly is.

Mr Mildsteel here would almost certainly be arguing vehemently for the glories of Muhammad, PBUH etc. and Sunni Islam, if he had only been born in Saudi Arabia. Instead, he was probably born in the United States, and thus argues vehemently for the glories of Jesus Christ and Protestant Christianity.

Forgive me for not being able to regard such arguments as entirely rational or well thought-out.

As you will forgive me for laughing at the both pitiably narrow and pretentious view you have of the overwhelmingly vast majority of religious adherents…you know, the “sheeple” to your far more discerning and sophisticated understanding.
 
Does it actually matter? The only time we need to use the "Jesus wasn't white argument", is when dealing with Fascists or Nazis. They obviously don't like Arabs no matter what you tell them.
 
`
According to one of the most intelligent thinkers of our time, Megyn Kelly, both Jesus and Santa Clause were white.
 
Just out of sheer, morbid curiosity at what you folks think.
I'm not convinced that he ever even existed.

But I do know that a lot of extreme black racists from Obama's racist cult insist that Jesus was black. They have no evidence of it or anything, they are merely extremist anti-white racists. Whites are "devils" according to those scumbag racists like Obama. That is in their official cult doctrine/dogma.
 
Last edited:
Where's the "it was just a book" option?
 
kj-2.jpg
48-10_bhy0870.jpg
Didn't you know? Jesus was obviously Korean.
BTW some of the paintings were real authentic paintings from the late 19th century when Christianity was illegally spreading throughout Korea much like how it spread throughout Rome. Some painters decided to paint Jesus to their imagination, to show that the teachings of Jesus can be universal. Points for those who can apply them to the thread.
 
View attachment 67166410


This is one of the first images of Jesus.

The eyes symbolizing his two natures -- Human and Divine.

Notwithstanding the eyes, I believe this to be probably the most accurate depiction we will come across...

From a quick search of the image, it's an icon, not a portrait. Very different, those two. BTW according to wiki, the two mismatching sides of the face which is obvious even to the casual observer suggests of Jesus's two sides-fully human and fully God which means that the icon itself isn't very realistic.
 
Yes he was white and founded the saying "white power"!
 
Just as your god is an imaginary construct that only exists in your subjective mind?

I fail to see the difference.

Anyway, I think there's a lot more normative and moral power in my conception of sentience: People are all sovereign, to an extent, and living in a subjective world. To that end, the constructs we create have the ultimate moral power in the world -- governments, laws, systems of thought. These are literally everything -- both our captors and our saviours.

There is nothing but us -- but I think that's a powerful thing.

What is a god except something which gives meaning to the universe? That is precisely what we do. You and I -- we're Gods. We don't need some fairy tale about an incestual father-son celestial dictator to give us meaning -- we can do it ourselves.

In fact, we have been all along.

The problem is that you have not offered a "conception of sentience." All you have offered is temporary, malleable designations, that offer not the slightest bit of insight into what is the nature of the sentient being that is experiencing the designations. Again, at one time, someone may have asked what are you, and you would have responded that you were a boy. But you can no longer make such a claim. But the sentient being, the observer is still there, although the designation of "boy" is not. You say there is "nothing but us." But when I ask you "what are you", I am asking, exactly what is that "us"? For you to say there is nothing but "us", you need to say what "us" is.
 
Last edited:
Where's the "it was just a book" option?

It's more than "just a book". The Bible (or the many interpretations of it) is probably the most wide-spread and most read book in history. It influenced and inspired billions and still does so today. To say that it's "just a book" is drastically underestimating its importance, comparable to saying of Abraham Lincoln or Hitler as "just people". I'm an atheist but have enormous respect for most religions and appreciate how they can empower and inspire people. I can only hope that fellow atheists will do so also.
 
Perhaps we're not meant to know what Jesus looked like lest we lust and idolize him like a sex god and forget his teachings.

Oh lordy....I'm feeling the glory now. lol

Lord have mercy! I thought I was the only one with a one track mind!!!! :lamo
 
I'm not convinced that he ever even existed.

But I do know that a lot of extreme black racists from Obama's racist cult insist that Jesus was black. They have no evidence of it or anything, they are merely extremist anti-white racists. Whites are "devils" according to those scumbag racists like Obama. That is in their official cult doctrine/dogma.

There's overwhelming evidence that he existed. As for the latter part, I'm not going to even address it.
 
It's more than "just a book". The Bible (or the many interpretations of it) is probably the most wide-spread and most read book in history. It influenced and inspired billions and still does so today. To say that it's "just a book" is drastically underestimating its importance, comparable to saying of Abraham Lincoln or Hitler as "just people". I'm an atheist but have enormous respect for most religions and appreciate how they can empower and inspire people. I can only hope that fellow atheists will do so also.

It was a book written by men, used by men, to control other men. Everyone from the Church of England to the Holy Roman Empire have used this book to put fear into the minds of other men as to what will happen if they disobey. I have very little respect for that book.
 
Back
Top Bottom