• 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?

  • Yep, white as a Viking, despite being an Arab!

    Votes: 8 23.5%

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

    Votes: 4 11.8%

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

    Votes: 22 64.7%
  • Total voters
    34
The descriptive features of Jesus were left out of the Bible on purpose because most importantly they don't matter, and second to that the written account of Jesus took place long after his death. Most modern scholars agree that the man actually existed but I have my doubts, especially given the number of virtually identical tales going back as far as Babylonia.

Btw, "white" is not an ethnicity. There's a lot of "white" people in the U.S. and they are all genetically different from one another. Even if Jesus were "white" according to modern Americans, he would not have much have much in common genetically with most American white people, ethnically speaking.
 
MildSteel said:
Again, you cannot CONCLUSIVELY prove that what was written was not written by someone who heard it from someone who witnessed the events. And neither can you CONCLUSIVELY prove that it was not written from a manuscript that is no longer available. Now you may be able to cast doubt on both assertions, but you cannot CONCLUSIVELY prove either statement. If you can, do it.



No, if there were, there were not many. And it was certainly not the norm of behavior for people at that time as you have asserted. I have discussed Appolonius in another post. I don't have a problem with that.



And that is a very very ignorant thing to say. When did Newton try to prove that force and mass existed? He assumed that they did. Not only that, before you can even say there is a such thing as reality you have to assume that you exist. You cannot prove that you exist. I challenge you, prove that you exist. You can't, you have to assume that you exist. So when you say "science observes reality" you have implicitly assumed that there is a reality in the first place and that there is an observer. You cannot prove that either indeed do exist.



Your assertion that science does not make assumptions is a stupid, weak minded, ignorant notion that is worthy of mind of a donkey.
Click to expand...

Science does not make assumptions that is fact.

You are wrong about Newton he assumed nothing he OBSERVED which is a huge difference.

One more time it has been conclusively proven the gospels are not first hand accounts
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Science does not make assumptions that is fact.
Click to expand...

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.

Soupnazi630 said:
You are wrong about Newton he assumed nothing he OBSERVED which is a huge difference.
Click to expand...

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.

Soupnazi630 said:
One more time it has been conclusively proven the gospels are not first hand accounts
Click to expand...

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.
 
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Soupnazi630 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Soupnazi630 said:
People of faith observe nothing and fantasize to explain it.
Click to expand...

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:
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
He was the same color as God.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

Soupnazi630 said:
Yes I have observed mass in many ways. Not a shred of faith involved in that.
Click to expand...

:lamo

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.

Soupnazi630 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Soupnazi630 said:
Youa re losing badly and way off base your attempts to assign faith to science is a MASSIVE failure.
Click to expand...

You don't know the simplest things about science and I can prove that very easily.
 
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
 
MildSteel said:
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?



:lamo

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Soupnazi630 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Soupnazi630 said:
A deity cannot be observed.
Click to expand...

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.

Soupnazi630 said:
Science works by observing and then hypothesizing and then testing. Otherwise it is not science.
Click to expand...

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:
MildSteel said:
....snip....
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.



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.
Click to expand...

That is one hell of an assumption, and one made in absence of evidence.....which defines it as opinion. There are absolutely no observations whatsoever to point toward a "God" creating sentience....and in fact many to dismiss the hypothesis out of hand.

We can assume cetaceans are sentient beings based on many factors that indicate they think, communicate, and are biologically capable of "Knowing" what they are....but this "God" thingy apparently did not create them in it's image.

By the way...where do you fit gravity into your assumed measurements of mass.
 
tecoyah said:
That is one hell of an assumption, and one made in absence of evidence.....which defines it as opinion. There are absolutely no observations whatsoever to point toward a "God" creating sentience....and in fact many to dismiss the hypothesis out of hand.

We can assume cetaceans are sentient beings based on many factors that indicate they think, communicate, and are biologically capable of "Knowing" what they are....but this "God" thingy apparently did not create them in it's image.

By the way...where do you fit gravity into your assumed measurements of mass.
Click to expand...

It is no more of a hell of an assumption than the assumption that something we call a mass exists. I can similarly say that there is absolutely no observations whatsoever that something called a mass creates force. And therefore it's only a opinion. And actually, in a certain sense that is true. That was just Newton's opinion. But because Newton was able to explain certain types of motion, from his opinion, we accept that the concept of mass is indeed useful for certain types of problems in physics.

Furthermore that fact that, as you have pointed out, that sentient beings think, communicate and are capable of knowing what they are, is evidence that they have been created by a superior sentience that thinks, communicates, and is capable of knowing what it is. It is not an unreasonable assumption at all.

And with regards to gravity, that is also based on the assumption that there is a force called gravity that is directly proportional to the product of an object with a mass of A, another object with a mass of B, and is inversely proportional the squared distance between the two objects. That is what Newton assumed and it is known as Newton's law of gravitation.
 
MildSteel said:
It is no more of a hell of an assumption than the assumption that something we call a mass exists. I can similarly say that there is absolutely no observations whatsoever that something called a mass creates force. And therefore it's only a opinion. And actually, in a certain sense that is true. That was just Newton's opinion. But because Newton was able to explain certain types of motion, from his opinion, we accept that the concept of mass is indeed useful for certain types of problems in physics.

Furthermore that fact that, as you have pointed out, that sentient beings think, communicate and are capable of knowing what they are, is evidence that they have been created by a superior sentience that thinks, communicates, and is capable of knowing what it is. It is not an unreasonable assumption at all.

And with regards to gravity, that is also based on the assumption that there is a force called gravity that is directly proportional to the product of an object with a mass of A, another object with a mass of B, and is inversely proportional the squared distance between the two objects. That is what Newton assumed and it is known as Newton's law of gravitation.
Click to expand...

I disagree, the two assumptions are extremely different as one it based on observed and verified data and the other on....well, books written by men.

We regularly see, feel, and manipulate the forces of gravity and mass....the only things we see from God, might be faith healing.

I think we all know how that works out in the end.
 
tecoyah said:
I disagree, the two assumptions are extremely different as one it based on observed and verified data and the other on....well, books written by men.

We regularly see, feel, and manipulate the forces of gravity and mass....the only things we see from God, might be faith healing.

I think we all know how that works out in the end.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you. Sentience is a phenomenon that is observed, and it is quite reasonable to assume, from the observation of sentience itself, that it is produced by a superior sentient being. That is reasonable and furthermore, it is quite unreasonable to assume that it did not. If it did not then one would have to assume that it is the product of dull matter, which is insentient, which is an absurd notion because one is then left with trying to explain how could something that is insentient produce something that is sentient. It's total foolishness. Therefore the reasonable assumption is that sentience is produced by a superior sentience, God. I don't deny that it is an assumption, but it is a reasonable assumption based on evidence.

Furthermore things like the force of gravity are the indirect effects of the energy of God. But we can measure the direct effects of God's divine energy by observing how that energy effects sentience in the form of divine qualities, such as tolerance, mercy, an absence of the conception that others are enemies, cleanliness, self control, and truthfulness. Jesus exhibited these qualities to a very high degree and therefore, we can understand that he was indeed motivated, under the influence if you will, of a very pure type of love of God.
 
MildSteel said:
I disagree with you. Sentience is a phenomenon that is observed, and it is quite reasonable to assume, from the observation of sentience itself, that it is produced by a superior sentient being. That is reasonable and furthermore, it is quite unreasonable to assume that it did not. If it did not then one would have to assume that it is the product of dull matter, which is insentient, which is an absurd notion because one is then left with trying to explain how could something that is insentient produce something that is sentient. It's total foolishness. Therefore the reasonable assumption is that sentience is produced by a superior sentience, God. I don't deny that it is an assumption, but it is a reasonable assumption based on evidence.

Furthermore things like the force of gravity are the indirect effects of the energy of God. But we can measure the direct effects of God's divine energy by observing how that energy effects sentience in the form of divine qualities, such as tolerance, mercy, an absence of the conception that others are enemies, cleanliness, self control, and truthfulness. Jesus exhibited these qualities to a very high degree and therefore, we can understand that he was indeed motivated, under the influence if you will, of a very pure type of love of God.
Click to expand...

Rather than play this silly game....let's just cut to the chase:

Please provide the evidence used to designate the assumption that sentience must reasonably have come from sentience, or indeed how it could have?
 
tecoyah said:
Rather than play this silly game....let's just cut to the chase:

Please provide the evidence used to designate the assumption that sentience must reasonably have come from sentience, or indeed how it could have?
Click to expand...

I have clearly stated it. What is it that you don't understand about what I have said? It's reasonable to assume that sentience has come from a superior sentience, otherwise we are left to assume that it comes from matter, which is insentient and is a ridiculous notion because we would have to explain how something that is insentient produced something that is sentient. I fail to see why you don't see that this is a reasonable assumption.
 
MildSteel said:
I have clearly stated it. What is it that you don't understand about what I have said? It's reasonable to assume that sentience has come from a superior sentience, otherwise we are left to assume that it comes from matter, which is insentient and is a ridiculous notion because we would have to explain how something that is insentient produced something that is sentient. I fail to see why you don't see that this is a reasonable assumption.
Click to expand...

You have provided nothing but unsubstantiated opinion. We see evolution produce more complex brains as time goes by, and it is far more likely that this allowed for what we term as "sentience" than that a magic man poofed it into existence. It is not reasonable to assume "God did it" when there is no evidence of the instigator existing at all.
 
tecoyah said:
You have provided nothing but unsubstantiated opinion. We see evolution produce more complex brains as time goes by, and it is far more likely that this allowed for what we term as "sentience" than that a magic man poofed it into existence. It is not reasonable to assume "God did it" when there is no evidence of the instigator existing at all.
Click to expand...

There is no direct evidence that mass causes motion. There is simply no direct evidence that mass exists. It is something that is measured from other observable quantities. This is because the notion of mass is an assumption that is used to explain motion. There is no way around this. In a similar way, we can observe sentience, and it's reasonable to assume that sentience has come from a superior sentience. If you don't say that, you are left with trying to explain how sentience has come from something that is insentient. And you cannot give a reasonable explanation for it. You can make the statement that we observe brains evolving, but where did the brains come from? Not only that, but ultimately, the brain is just a configuration of atoms. For your assumption that sentience has come from matter to be reasonable, you need to explain how is it that such atoms have integrated their activity in such a way as to form the integrated notion of sentience. It's a totally absurd notion that sentience has come from matter.
 
MildSteel said:
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.



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.



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.



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.
Click to expand...

Mass is directly observed and measured not just the motion that is fact.

Science runs off of observations not assumptions you simply know nothing of science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom