|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 19, 2018 21:16:18 GMT
Nah, I’m good. There are no “black people” mentioned in the New Testament. Race identified by color is a social construct (a relatively recent one) that was invented long after the Bible was written. ORLY? You think that Ethiopian was white, eh? It doesn’t matter what I think. We can speculate about what RACE the Bible authors were trying to imply without ever mentioning skin color. But race is something they didn’t discuss (because it was irrelevant). What was relevant were locations and customs, not color. Race was not a factor.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Feb 19, 2018 21:17:29 GMT
that was how long ago? don't they have enough sense to figure out who/what they want to follow by now? Evidently not since many of them are still following the religion used to enslave their ancestors. so then you are proving my point.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2018 21:18:26 GMT
OK. They were forced to Christianity by missionaries and slave owners... butt you already knew that because I wrote it above...oh wait you like things written twice for emphasis! Am I misunderstanding the timeframe. Are you saying I was forced by a slave owner to be Christian? What else? Yes, and you are being unbecomingly mischievously disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Feb 19, 2018 21:21:11 GMT
laughing... cause jesus 'was black'. but interestingly.... other races are other religions and they don't bring their race into that religion and pin it on the religion. there are quite a few Asian people in my catholic church and not one of them insists that jesus was Asian. i think they like saying amen and praise jesus. most of these are lovely people. Sorry, did you wander onto the wrong thread by accident? This one is about why black people are Christians, not what color “Jesus” supposedly was. well some black people are insisting jesus [and mary for that matter] were black. they even got action figures! www.blackartdepot.com/products/black-jesus-figurine-lord-i-have-the-key-thomas-blackshear
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2018 21:22:57 GMT
For most black people it was not a willing choice. I've said it before, but it was to a different poster: I don't ever judge the heart; I only judge the fruit. What does that actually mean in this context? I hate it when religious people go all pious and smarty pants. It is almost as bad as giving a chapter and verse reference as a reply! Just spit it out in real language. WTF do you mean?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 21:22:59 GMT
ORLY? You think that Ethiopian was white, eh? It doesn’t matter what I think. We can speculate about what RACE the Bible authors were trying to imply without ever mentioning skin color. But race is something they didn’t discuss (because it was irrelevant). What was relevant were locations and customs, not color. Race was not a factor. Okay....congratulations on your semantic victory. Fact still remains: Africans became believers of their own choice and free will in the New Testament, properly negating any idea that their only conversions came about as forced proselytization. Not everything is a Conrad novel, boys.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2018 21:30:27 GMT
It doesn’t matter what I think. We can speculate about what RACE the Bible authors were trying to imply without ever mentioning skin color. But race is something they didn’t discuss (because it was irrelevant). What was relevant were locations and customs, not color. Race was not a factor. Okay....congratulations on your semantic victory. Fact still remains: Africans became believers of their own choice and free will in the New Testament, properly negating any idea that their only conversions came about as forced proselytization. Not everything is a Conrad novel, boys. Total and utter nonsense. ( you are lucky I didn't say bullshit!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 21:34:07 GMT
Okay....congratulations on your semantic victory. Fact still remains: Africans became believers of their own choice and free will in the New Testament, properly negating any idea that their only conversions came about as forced proselytization. Not everything is a Conrad novel, boys. Total and utter nonsense. ( you are lucky I didn't say bullshit!) You can say bullshit. But what you can't do is leave me in the dark. So which part do you mean? Or are you just mad that I relegated my response to the boys?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2018 21:39:46 GMT
Total and utter nonsense. ( you are lucky I didn't say bullshit!) You can say bullshit. But what you can't do is leave me in the dark. So which part do you mean? Or are you just mad that I relegated my response to the boys? Leaving the sexist nature of your response aside, I have two comments to address both the conflicting possible interpretations of this post. 1. You have just agreed with a prior poster that race is not an issue in the Bible...AT ALL yet you maintain nonsense about black people. 2. Should you be referring to previous reference to black people having been forcefully converted to Christianity due to missionaries and slavery, it is still nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 19, 2018 21:40:13 GMT
Okay....congratulations on your semantic victory. Fact still remains: Africans became believers of their own choice and free will in the New Testament, properly negating any idea that their only conversions came about as forced proselytization. Not everything is a Conrad novel, boys. Total and utter nonsense. ( you are lucky I didn't say bullshit!) In what other ways are black people absolute idiots?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2018 21:41:44 GMT
Total and utter nonsense. ( you are lucky I didn't say bullshit!) In what other ways are black people absolute idiots? WTF? Your words not mine!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 21:45:09 GMT
You can say bullshit. But what you can't do is leave me in the dark. So which part do you mean? Or are you just mad that I relegated my response to the boys? Leaving the sexist nature of your response aside, I have two comments to address both the conflicting possible interpretations of this post. 1. You have just agreed with a prior poster that race is not an issue in the Bible...AT ALL yet you maintain nonsense about black people. 2. Should you be referring to previous reference to black people having been forcefully converted to Christianity due to missionaries and slavery, it is still nonsense. I think you misunderstood my post with CaptainBryce. "Race not being an issue" in the Bible does not mean that different races didn't partake in its stories. Furthermore, he's wrong in spirit, since there were all kinds of examples of ethnocentric behavior in the Bible. Additionally, many people believe the three races of man to have originated with Noah's sons, but that's a new can of worms that I don't intend to open on this thread because that's not what this thread is about. Fact: black people appear in the New Testament and they do so as initiators of their new faith: Christianity. So....I'm not sure what about that is nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Feb 19, 2018 21:49:04 GMT
Because unlike so many rich, spoiled, privileged yet self-hating sorry ass white Westerns, many black people have seen first hand the real trials and tribulations of this life. That is where Christ lies. With the suffering and the downtrodden. So you’re saying that black people have historically suffered persecution and injustice which gives them a common ground with the Christ character, and makes it more identifiable and easier for them to digest? quite so.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2018 21:50:59 GMT
Leaving the sexist nature of your response aside, I have two comments to address both the conflicting possible interpretations of this post. 1. You have just agreed with a prior poster that race is not an issue in the Bible...AT ALL yet you maintain nonsense about black people. 2. Should you be referring to previous reference to black people having been forcefully converted to Christianity due to missionaries and slavery, it is still nonsense. I think you misunderstood my post with CaptainBryce. "Race not being an issue" in the Bible does not mean that different races didn't partake in its stories. Furthermore, he's wrong in spirit, since there were all kinds of examples of ethnocentric behavior in the Bible. Additionally, many people believe the three races of man to have originated with Noah's sons, but that's a new can of worms that I don't intend to open on this thread because that's not what this thread is about. Fact: black people appear in the New Testament and they do so as initiators of their new faith: Christianity. So....I'm not sure what about that is nonsense. Well, in truth I cannot argue with your alleged greater knowledge of the Bible however I am sure there are others who will question your assessment about 'race' as in 'black people' in the Bible and their willingness or otherwise of adopting the Christian faith. It is understandable that you think it is so marvellous that it was a good thing and you must agree that others might have an opposite viewpoint?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 19, 2018 21:56:29 GMT
I think you misunderstood my post with CaptainBryce. "Race not being an issue" in the Bible does not mean that different races didn't partake in its stories. Furthermore, he's wrong in spirit, since there were all kinds of examples of ethnocentric behavior in the Bible. Additionally, many people believe the three races of man to have originated with Noah's sons, but that's a new can of worms that I don't intend to open on this thread because that's not what this thread is about. Fact: black people appear in the New Testament and they do so as initiators of their new faith: Christianity. So....I'm not sure what about that is nonsense. Well, in truth I cannot argue with your alleged greater knowledge of the Bible however I am sure there are others who will question your assessment about 'race' as in 'black people' in the Bible and their willingness or otherwise of adopting the Christian faith. It is understandable that you think it is so marvellous that it was a good thing and you must agree that others might have an opposite viewpoint? The viewpoints are irrelevant when they contradict what is known. You are flat out rambling on about things you don't know & it's kinda hilarious. At least Bryce is smart enough to not actually talk about stuff. You two should start dating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 21:58:33 GMT
I think you misunderstood my post with CaptainBryce. "Race not being an issue" in the Bible does not mean that different races didn't partake in its stories. Furthermore, he's wrong in spirit, since there were all kinds of examples of ethnocentric behavior in the Bible. Additionally, many people believe the three races of man to have originated with Noah's sons, but that's a new can of worms that I don't intend to open on this thread because that's not what this thread is about. Fact: black people appear in the New Testament and they do so as initiators of their new faith: Christianity. So....I'm not sure what about that is nonsense. Well, in truth I cannot argue with your alleged greater knowledge of the Bible however I am sure there are others who will question your assessment about 'race' as in 'black people' in the Bible and their willingness or otherwise of adopting the Christian faith. It is understandable that you think it is so marvellous that it was a good thing and you must agree that others might have an opposite viewpoint? Go back and look at my post history in this thread. My first post is a direct response to these comments made by Terrapin: Because it's very doubtful that any blacks would have historically been Christians. But crusaders, slavery and missionaries either brought them into other cultures or brought other cultures to them and socially pressured them to adapt (at least publicly--people often publicly say stuff that they don't privately believe). So that's how Christianity spread to some blacks. It's basically the result of an ideological war, of social pressure to "believe my shit instead of the shit you were believing."
His argument is that black believers had no organic way of knowing Christ. That it was all slavers, colonials and missionaries' influence. I merely responded that the Bible itself provides at least two examples of the origin of African Christian faith. Neither of which were proselytizations. Both African gentlemen came to Israel and both sought to worship Christ of their own accord. This doesn't negate the idea that most of the spread of Christianity into Africa was due to missionaries, etc. It does, however, negate the idea that it could only be missionaries, etc.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2018 22:08:16 GMT
Well, in truth I cannot argue with your alleged greater knowledge of the Bible however I am sure there are others who will question your assessment about 'race' as in 'black people' in the Bible and their willingness or otherwise of adopting the Christian faith. It is understandable that you think it is so marvellous that it was a good thing and you must agree that others might have an opposite viewpoint? The viewpoints are irrelevant when they contradict what is known. You are flat out rambling on about things you don't know & it's kinda hilarious. At least Bryce is smart enough to not actually talk about stuff. You two should start dating. Well, I like hilarious and I can't help it if I am not black like you guys and think that the Bible is bullshit! Does it count that my husband has Jamaican slave blood? In that case I think Bryce is out, on the dating front since I am married. He is also gay, I think NOT that that is a bad thing, butt problematic. He is also GI. I have seen his pic though and he is very cute and I don't mean GI like ex-military, more GI like in Geographically Impossible since I live in Australia and he lives in the United States somewhere though I don't know where, NOT that it matters because I like Americans except when they are either stupid or full on fanatical about Make America Great Again or fundy religion when they have the biggest dickhead at the helm and he is making America the laughing stock of the world except when we are shit scared of being nuked... AND he is a sexist racist bastard and I bet he wouldn't invite my husband to the White House because he is part black and Australian and he is so liberal that he ( my husband- so maybe he should be POTUS except he is part Jamaican and Australian) wouldn't stop Muslims going into America and build a stupid wall and.....I so don't ramble you loser!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2018 22:09:43 GMT
Well, in truth I cannot argue with your alleged greater knowledge of the Bible however I am sure there are others who will question your assessment about 'race' as in 'black people' in the Bible and their willingness or otherwise of adopting the Christian faith. It is understandable that you think it is so marvellous that it was a good thing and you must agree that others might have an opposite viewpoint? Go back and look at my post history in this thread. My first post is a direct response to these comments made by Terrapin: Because it's very doubtful that any blacks would have historically been Christians. But crusaders, slavery and missionaries either brought them into other cultures or brought other cultures to them and socially pressured them to adapt (at least publicly--people often publicly say stuff that they don't privately believe). So that's how Christianity spread to some blacks. It's basically the result of an ideological war, of social pressure to "believe my shit instead of the shit you were believing."
His argument is that black believers had no organic way of knowing Christ. That it was all slavers, colonials and missionaries' influence. I merely responded that the Bible itself provides at least two examples of the origin of African Christian faith. Neither of which were proselytizations. Both African gentlemen came to Israel and both sought to worship Christ of their own accord. This doesn't negate the idea that most of the spread of Christianity into Africa was due to missionaries, etc. It does, however, negate the idea that it could only be missionaries, etc. Gee, two? That is indeed impressive compared to the number of forced conversions to the millions of slaves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 22:15:32 GMT
Go back and look at my post history in this thread. My first post is a direct response to these comments made by Terrapin: Because it's very doubtful that any blacks would have historically been Christians. But crusaders, slavery and missionaries either brought them into other cultures or brought other cultures to them and socially pressured them to adapt (at least publicly--people often publicly say stuff that they don't privately believe). So that's how Christianity spread to some blacks. It's basically the result of an ideological war, of social pressure to "believe my shit instead of the shit you were believing."
His argument is that black believers had no organic way of knowing Christ. That it was all slavers, colonials and missionaries' influence. I merely responded that the Bible itself provides at least two examples of the origin of African Christian faith. Neither of which were proselytizations. Both African gentlemen came to Israel and both sought to worship Christ of their own accord. This doesn't negate the idea that most of the spread of Christianity into Africa was due to missionaries, etc. It does, however, negate the idea that it could only be missionaries, etc. Gee, two? That is indeed impressive compared to the number of forced conversions to the millions of slaves. But when one is debating origins, one or two is all that matters. As I've conceded, far more proselytizers went to Africa than Africans went elsewhere. But beside that point is the undeniable possibility that Christianity in Africa originated from self-seekers.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2018 22:25:44 GMT
Gee, two? That is indeed impressive compared to the number of forced conversions to the millions of slaves. But when one is debating origins, one or two is all that matters. As I've conceded, far more proselytizers went to Africa than Africans went elsewhere. But beside that point is the undeniable possibility that Christianity in Africa originated from self-seekers. No. Bullshit. You wish.
|
|