Almost certainly.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
BlueMoonRisin’
Well-Known Member
If he hasn't he should be for starting another shite thread; )Have you been in prison?
urban genie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2008
- Messages
- 32,641
I don't think you're absorbing my point.
No physical images were attach to the accepted deity of western religion until White people decided to attach one... in their image. And, yes, they appropriated one from other religious/ spiritual text.
'Zeus' could be 'St Nicholas' being all mystical and 'magic'.
Y'all ain't original, y'all!!
I never mentioned western religion though when I said beardy bastard, you automatically associated my comment with early european christianity and it's depictions, and brought the in his own image bit into the conversation unecessarly, I called him a beardy bastard, because most senior deities in history have been bearded not because of the modern Abraham/Jehovah/yahweh image (whose first cavings were copies of eastern religions images)
Anyway this distracts from the thread topic tbh.
Last edited:
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
I completely disagree.
I don’t think white people can be blamed for changing Christanity, in fact the Bible is translated from Greek into old English and it hasn’t been manipulated into being Westernised.
It’s just the image of Christ that’s some times displayed, which most ethnic groups depict him as being closer to them.
Christianity isn’t a white man’s religion nor a black man’s religion, the Gospels say all ethnicity is sacred.
Of course you can blame it on white people, it'd be unfair to blame it on anyone else. Many claim the Jesus was black which nowadays just means that he wasn't white, get your head around that one if you can?
The amount of identity politics on every subject today is hilarious, even arguing what colour the "Son of God" was, like it's real and important. One thing is for certain I'll not be flagellating myself on the cross of woke revisionism any day soon.
He was certainly an atheist, he co wrote a book called “Grand Design” which said as much.He did not and never began to accept the possibility of a god. That’s an outright lie.
.
I didn’t agree with the general premise, in one part he said there’s no free will, what we all do is decided by cause and effect but he couldn’t have been more of an atheist anyway.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
I completely disagree.
I don’t think white people can be blamed for changing Christanity, in fact the Bible is translated from Greek into old English and it hasn’t been manipulated into being Westernised.
It’s just the image of Christ that’s some times displayed, which most ethnic groups depict him as being closer to them.
Christianity isn’t a white man’s religion nor a black man’s religion, the Gospels say all ethnicity is sacred.
The Bible that is mostly read today is still the King James' version of the Bible.
It was translated, transcribed and filled in as best they knew how. So some of it has changed.
*edit - I had to see if recalled seeing it somewhere and this small piece was near enough my reading on it at the time
In 1604, England's King James I authorized a new translation of the Bible aimed at settling some thorny religious differences in his kingdom—and solidifying his own power. But in seeking to prove his own supremacy, King James ended up democratizing the Bible instead.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere, years ago, that there are parts not complete because of the language of unknown text. Remember, the Bible was written over a huge amount of time.
Even just to separate what I wrote above, there's this too about why 'The Book of Enoch' is not there:
The Book of Enoch was considered as scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4) and by many of the early Church Fathers, such as Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Tertullian, who wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ.
The Bible, as text, was controlled by whomever wanted the use of its power. You should read up on what works are missing from it and question who gets to decide what went in and why as opposed to why things were left out and to what end.
This, to me, is what explains why the Bible and the Qur'an seem so contradictory at points.
You shouldn't believe all you see or read. People subvert history ALL the time, telling the version they want to be out there.
I believe there's a general line that ties both, but it's lost within the padding of text and belief systems.
You should read beyond the surface.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
I never mentioned western religion though when I said beardy bastard, you automatically associated it with early european christianity and it's depictions, and brought the in his own image bit into the conversation unecessarly, I called him a beardy bastard, because most senior deities in history have been bearded not because of Abraham/Jehovah/yahweh image (whose first cavings were copies of eastern religions images)
A fair point.
"A beardy bastard" was extremely general without the context you put on it so, therefore, one has to extrapolate for the most common image to compensate.
urban genie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2008
- Messages
- 32,641
Dunno this docs reputation but he has mamy videos explaining all this stuff on youtube
The Gospels haven’t been changed by anyone in the West other than to translate, which is the main argument against his point.Of course you can blame it on white people, it'd be unfair to blame it on anyone else. Many claim the Jesus was black which nowadays just means that he wasn't white, get your head around that one if you can?
The amount of identity politics on every subject today is hilarious, even arguing what colour the "Son of God" was, like it's real and important. One thing is for certain I'll not be flagellating myself on the cross of woke revisionism any day soon.
I am well aware of the Book of Enoch and that there are more texts outside of what’s considered Canon, I’m also not a fundamentalist that does believe word for word, certainly not the Old Testament.The Bible that is mostly read today is still the King James' version of the Bible.
It was translated, transcribed and filled in as best they knew how. So some of it has changed.
*edit - I had to see if recalled seeing it somewhere and this small piece was near enough my reading on it at the time
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere, years ago, that there are parts not complete because of the language of unknown text. Remember, the Bible was written over a huge amount of time.
Even just to separate what I wrote above, there's this too about why 'The Book of Enoch' is not there:
The Bible, as text, was controlled by whomever wanted the use of its power. You should read up on what works are missing from it and question who gets to decide what went in and why as opposed to why things were left out and to what end.
This, to me, is what explains why the Bible and the Qur'an seem so contradictory at points.
You shouldn't believe all you see or read. People subvert history ALL the time, telling the version they want to be out there.
I believe there's a general line that ties both, but it's lost within the padding of text and belief systems.
You should read beyond the surface.
My point is that the West, specifically white people, didn’t try and change the religion to suit them as Westerners, King James merely put his version of the Bible together to give some consistency, but scripture wasn’t changed and certainly doesn’t benefit any ethnicity over another.