|
Since: Jan 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Osirica wrote: Actually Christianity is not Judeo-white.
You need to do some history.
You can "define" white all you want to mean half of East Africa and most of Asia.
But the fact is, that's not white.
Learn where Christianity spread BEFORE Rome became the "offical city of the Christian church"
<quoted text> I know that when Christianity reached Italy it was an underground religion and those who were caught practicing it were placed as fighting gladiators etc etc etc. The Roman leaders realized that growing numbers of people were practising Christianity so they decided to use it to control the masses by mixing it with roman beliefs and from there this is where the Roman Catholic Church started to form. I know this sh!t. My f@cking point was that Black Africans were initially not Christian, Muslim or whatever. Why are Blacks Christian if White Christians don't accept them as equals? If Blacks don't like it, then they shouldn't be associated with the religion.
|
|
Osirica
Oak Park, MI
|
Judged:
1
1
Wait your point was that black africans were initially not Christian? OH well ALLOW ME TO RETORT White Europeans were initially not Christian EITHER. SECONDARILY: And think REAL CLEAR ON THIS ONE. WHAT THE F--- MAKES YOU THINK THAT ANY CHRISTIAN HAS TO BE VALIDATED BY ALL THINGS... ALL THINGS... WHETHER OR NOT SOME "WHITE CHRISITAN" ACCCEPTS THEM??? That's the OPPOSITE of what JEsus teaches. It's what Hitler and the KKK teach: "You're only Christian if we the white race validates you are". I just THREW your angry comment back at you. TAKE THAT CRAP OUTTTA HEREEE!!! I SWATTED IT! AussiPino wrote: <quoted text>
I know that when Christianity reached Italy it was an underground religion and those who were caught practicing it were placed as fighting gladiators etc etc etc.
The Roman leaders realized that growing numbers of people were practising Christianity so they decided to use it to control the masses by mixing it with roman beliefs and from there this is where the Roman Catholic Church started to form.
I know this sh!t. My f@cking point was that Black Africans were initially not Christian, Muslim or whatever. Why are Blacks Christian if White Christians don't accept them as equals? If Blacks don't like it, then they shouldn't be associated with the religion.
|
|
Osirica
Oak Park, MI
|
Judged:
1
1
And as additional destruction to your argument I offer you this: Ethiopia became a Christian nation BEFORE the Roman Empire did. Not that it matters "who came first" but just to add salt to your stupid wound. BOOM. Whites don't OWN Christianity. I don't care if every white person in the world rejects me as a Christian, GOD will reject them in heaven and validate me in their faces and they will probably, if saved at all, lose whatever respect God MIGHT Have had for them otherwise. But more important than that, I, and any Black person with an ounce of self respect bases their faith in God ON THEIR OWN, not on some white numbskull racist. This is ANOTHER reason WHY Chistianity is NOT like Mormonism. This entire notion you raised, would FEEL right in a Mormon church NOT in a Christian church. AussiPino wrote: <quoted text>
I know that when Christianity reached Italy it was an underground religion and those who were caught practicing it were placed as fighting gladiators etc etc etc.
The Roman leaders realized that growing numbers of people were practising Christianity so they decided to use it to control the masses by mixing it with roman beliefs and from there this is where the Roman Catholic Church started to form.
I know this sh!t. My f@cking point was that Black Africans were initially not Christian, Muslim or whatever. Why are Blacks Christian if White Christians don't accept them as equals? If Blacks don't like it, then they shouldn't be associated with the religion.
|
|
Since: Jan 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Osirica wrote: And as additional destruction to your argument I offer you this:
Ethiopia became a Christian nation BEFORE the Roman Empire did.
Not that it matters "who came first" but just to add salt to your stupid wound.
BOOM.
Whites don't OWN Christianity. I don't care if every white person in the world rejects me as a Christian, GOD will reject them in heaven and validate me in their faces and they will probably, if saved at all, lose whatever respect God MIGHT Have had for them otherwise.
But more important than that, I, and any Black person with an ounce of self respect bases their faith in God ON THEIR OWN, not on some white numbskull racist.
This is ANOTHER reason WHY Chistianity is NOT like Mormonism.
This entire notion you raised, would FEEL right in a Mormon church
NOT in a Christian church.
<quoted text> Well here is one thing for sure. Blacks shouldn't be religious anymore because it is slowing their social progress. Have you noticed that those who a religious tend to not get ahead in life compared to those who are more Atheist? I've noticed African-Americans who are more Atheist tend to succeed more in life than those who are overly-religious. Practical common sense and hard work are keys to social success, not religion. BTW. The Mormon Church is technically a Christian Church despite being a cult.
|
|
Osirica
Oak Park, MI
|
Oh Gee, single out blacks for being religious. Look AUSSI, you figure out your Aussi (stralian or strian) people's goal in life. I notice that the religious ones get ahead much more often than the athiests. So you'll have to show some objective data, because once again, just because you say you observe, i'm not going to assume you're giving accurate info. OH should I? Why? Because you're white or something? Gee whiz Aussie, you just walked into that one. IF the Mormon church is a Christian Church, then Islam is also a Christian cult. Yea, they believe in Jesus, God, the Father, YADDA YADDA YADDA! Mormonism GOT their ideas from Islam... you know the Apostacy argument against Christianity, the "I saw an angel give me a restored testament" riff, oh and of course Chiasmus! Yaaaay!!! yea, Islam the Auntie of Mormonism. AussiPino wrote: <quoted text>
Well here is one thing for sure. Blacks shouldn't be religious anymore because it is slowing their social progress. Have you noticed that those who a religious tend to not get ahead in life compared to those who are more Atheist? I've noticed African-Americans who are more Atheist tend to succeed more in life than those who are overly-religious.
Practical common sense and hard work are keys to social success, not religion.
BTW. The Mormon Church is technically a Christian Church despite being a cult.
|
|
Since: Jan 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Osirica wrote: Oh Gee, single out blacks for being religious.
Look AUSSI, you figure out your Aussi (stralian or strian) people's goal in life.
I notice that the religious ones get ahead much more often than the athiests.
So you'll have to show some objective data, because once again, just because you say you observe, i'm not going to assume you're giving accurate info.
OH should I? Why? Because you're white or something? Gee whiz Aussie, you just walked into that one.
IF the Mormon church is a Christian Church, then Islam is also a Christian cult.
Yea, they believe in Jesus, God, the Father, YADDA YADDA YADDA!
Mormonism GOT their ideas from Islam... you know the Apostacy argument against Christianity, the "I saw an angel give me a restored testament" riff, oh and of course Chiasmus! Yaaaay!!!
yea, Islam the Auntie of Mormonism.
<quoted text> Regardless. Mormon's are technically are Christian. Mormons are Christians WITH regard to Mitt Romney's presidential prospects, I agree with Jeffrey Goldberg that his Mormonism shouldn't matter and that the question of whether Mormons are Christians probably isn't all that important. The people who would vote against Mr Romney because of his religion aren't likely to set aside all of their objections to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints just because a theologian decided it was kosher. It is, however, an interesting analytical question. I disagree with Mr Goldberg's conclusion that Mormonism isn't Christian: "Today’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn’t resemble a cult in any meaningful way. But its relationship to Christianity is similar to Christianity’s relationship to Judaism.Christianity grew from Judaism, but it soon distanced itself in fairly dispositive ways (that whole business about God having a son, for example). Mormonism reached escape velocity from Christianity virtually at the moment of its creation. Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, told me that in his view, most Mormons are “socially and culturally Christian,” but theologically they are a thing apart". It's always been my understanding the necessary and sufficient condition of being a Christian is that you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour.(Romans 10:9: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.") Many people cite an additional criterion, that Christians must be baptised.(Mark 16:16 quotes Jesus saying the following, post-resurrection: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.") But that has been debated for centuries and most Christians will allow at least some exceptions. Beyond that, most Christians have additional beliefs and the denominations may set their own standards for membership, as indeed Mormons do. But under the standard given above, Mormons are clearly Christians. Link: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...
|
|
Moliner
Enterprise, AL
|
Judged:
1
1
Osirica wrote: Actually Christianity is not Judeo-white.
You need to do some history.
You can "define" white all you want to mean half of East Africa and most of Asia.
But the fact is, that's not white.
Learn where Christianity spread BEFORE Rome became the "offical city of the Christian church"
<quoted text> I suggest you follow your own advice and cure your ignorance. http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity....
|
|
Since: Jan 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Osirica wrote: Oh Gee, single out blacks for being religious.
Look AUSSI, you figure out your Aussi (stralian or strian) people's goal in life.
I notice that the religious ones get ahead much more often than the athiests.
<quoted text> You knew what I meant. Anyone from any ethnicity who are less-religious tend to be more practical in life compared to those that are overly-religious. Whites, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Polynesians, Middle Easterners etc. Typical Black deflective response. Always thinking that anyone who is not Black is being a racist when discussing topics like this. No wonder why African-Americans are not assimilating into Middle Class America.
|
|
|
|
Osirica
Oak Park, MI
|
I like how he uses "technically" Listen, as long as they have that curse of cain crap and "skin of blackness" mark of cain crap... As long as they say "we don't know why God prohibited blacks from being priests in his church" crap. Then Mitt Romney will be a racist hold over that should not represent me, or any other American. His religion is dog crap pile racist garbage. And if you don't believe that is what they teach, look at the other threads on the matter. I'm tired of pulling the quotes IN context. Mormonism teaches crap about blacks being marked from cain and they got that, not from a revelation as they claim, but the fact from history that it was a widely held folk tale in America prior to Smith being born. AussiPino wrote: <quoted text> Regardless. Mormon's are technically are Christian. Mormons are Christians WITH regard to Mitt Romney's presidential prospects, I agree with Jeffrey Goldberg that his Mormonism shouldn't matter and that the question of whether Mormons are Christians probably isn't all that important. The people who would vote against Mr Romney because of his religion aren't likely to set aside all of their objections to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints just because a theologian decided it was kosher. It is, however, an interesting analytical question. I disagree with Mr Goldberg's conclusion that Mormonism isn't Christian: "Today’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn’t resemble a cult in any meaningful way. But its relationship to Christianity is similar to Christianity’s relationship to Judaism.Christianity grew from Judaism, but it soon distanced itself in fairly dispositive ways (that whole business about God having a son, for example). Mormonism reached escape velocity from Christianity virtually at the moment of its creation. Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, told me that in his view, most Mormons are “socially and culturally Christian,” but theologically they are a thing apart". It's always been my understanding the necessary and sufficient condition of being a Christian is that you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour.(Romans 10:9: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.") Many people cite an additional criterion, that Christians must be baptised.(Mark 16:16 quotes Jesus saying the following, post-resurrection: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.") But that has been debated for centuries and most Christians will allow at least some exceptions. Beyond that, most Christians have additional beliefs and the denominations may set their own standards for membership, as indeed Mormons do. But under the standard given above, Mormons are clearly Christians. Link: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...
|
|
Since: Jan 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Moliner wrote: <quoted text> I suggest you follow your own advice and cure your ignorance. http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.... Thanks for that. I just can't believe the ignorance of individuals here. This is what religion does to people. It suppresses people's worldly thinking. It keeps them from thinking outside of the box.
|
|
Osirica
Oak Park, MI
|
Look my friend, You can make all the dancing you want about this issue. Religiousness or a lack thereof does not translate into economic advancement. Maybe people who are overly religious like cultic zealots, yes, but so are cynical athiests who view the world as a complete waste of time. And be honest, you've never seen any statistical measurements. You're just assuming. Now go look them up, find one or two that might support your view, and then pretend you always knew of them. Here's mine, recent article from the ASA. Got your hands full now... http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-0... AussiPino wrote: <quoted text>
You knew what I meant. Anyone from any ethnicity who are less-religious tend to be more practical in life compared to those that are overly-religious. Whites, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Polynesians, Middle Easterners etc.
Typical Black deflective response. Always thinking that anyone who is not Black is being a racist when discussing topics like this. No wonder why African-Americans are not assimilating into Middle Class America.
|
|
Osirica
Oak Park, MI
|
LOL You sit here and try to canonize a racial system of humanity while talking about thinking outside the box. That link is so debunked... But its beautiful how you jumped on the bandwagon with it... What's next? You're going to explain the bell curve book to me while explaining why it "makes sense" that they didn't use a control group of whites (based on hair color, or skull shape) with lower IQ scores than the white average? That was BRAVO!!! DUMB ASSES AussiPino wrote: <quoted text>
Thanks for that. I just can't believe the ignorance of individuals here. This is what religion does to people. It suppresses people's worldly thinking.
It keeps them from thinking outside of the box.
|
|
Since: Jan 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Osirica wrote: Look my friend,
Religiousness or a lack thereof does not translate into economic advancement.
Got your hands full now.
<quoted text> You ignoramus specimen. Wealthier countries tend to be more secular and less religious than poorer countries who have more devout believers in religion. Just give up. I'm right and you have your hands full now.
|
|
Osirica
Oak Park, MI
|
Listen, I get it, you send a link describing human groups that ADAPTED to their environment. That's all fine and dandy. But the cut and dry categories are far from reality. "Greater than 60%" and you have Caucasians being "Dravidian" AND "Nordindid", "SAHARID"... And you know what I really like? The objectivity! I mean one group is defined by "Sub-Saharan" and has a very Small group.. right? It is defined by merely NOT being outside the relatively small geographic confines set by the author. But the other Caucasoid. MAN look at that BEAUT! It goes to all the continents, it has all this detail. I mean WOW! DRAVIDIANS! WOW! Look at that Mediterranid group. I mean the region is SO Much smaller than "sub-sahara" right? But man just about every other village near the Caspian and Black sea has it's own sub race! and so I wonder, who makes this site? http://www.racialcompact.com/ Oh RICHARD MCCULLOCH! MY BOY!!! Hey, just curious are you guys part of the FOreningen for Folkens Fratmid? The Swedish KKK? Because they just LOVE his work! Moliner wrote: <quoted text> I suggest you follow your own advice and cure your ignorance. http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity....
|
|
Osirica
Oak Park, MI
|
Judged:
1
I sent you a link. Your friend sent you a Richard MCcullough klan site link. I win, you lose. Dravidians are not Caucasoids. You can define Caucasoid to be whatever you want and you'll have the entire race being "Caucasoid" except some isolated village in Central Africa. I know all the tricks. FFF-u AussiPino wrote: <quoted text>
You ignoramus specimen. Wealthier countries tend to be more secular and less religious than poorer countries who have more devout believers in religion.
Just give up. I'm right and you have your hands full now.
|
|
Osirica
Oak Park, MI
|
Moliner and Aussipino Two dimwits running to Carelton Coon and Richard McCullough for answers. Oh and you know what else? While your site goes on and on about "all" races right? You have a "wide ranging" interview conducted with EUROPEAN correspondents! WOW, that's SO SO wide ranging!!! ONE racial point of view! LOL CLOWNS!
|
|
Since: Jan 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
Osirica wrote: I sent you a link.
Your friend sent you a Richard MCcullough klan site link.
I win, you lose.
Dravidians are not Caucasoids.
You can define Caucasoid to be whatever you want and you'll have the entire race being "Caucasoid" except some isolated village in Central Africa.
I know all the tricks.
FFF-u
<quoted text> Caucasoids are not white per se. They tend to be darker than Caucasians. Dravidians are the indigenous populations of India before the Indo-Europeans started coming in. They are the ones who created the Caste System.
|
|
Since: Jan 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Osirica wrote: Moliner and Aussipino
Two dimwits running to Carelton Coon and Richard McCullough for answers.
Oh and you know what else?
While your site goes on and on about "all" races right?
You have a "wide ranging" interview conducted with EUROPEAN correspondents!
WOW, that's SO SO wide ranging!!! ONE racial point of view!
LOL
CLOWNS! In the first place, I was talking about how Blacks are not considered equals in Christian churches and this is related to this topic. Mormons are Christians you typical ghetto f@ck. I just don't like anyone who is ghetto regardless if they are Black, White, Yellow or whatever. You are playing the race card again. You do this because you are losing the argument. BTW, you still assume that I'm White. Tanga at baliw ka talaga eh.
|
|
“Lord Raimundo di Cabano, ”
Since: Jan 10
Black Italian Knight
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
CaptainPeaceful wrote: <quoted text>Well we do have evidence of satan. What else could have created Michelle Obama? The same thing that created Susan Boyle.
|
|
Moliner
Enterprise, AL
|
Osirica wrote: Moliner and Aussipino
Two dimwits running to Carelton Coon and Richard McCullough for answers.
Oh and you know what else?
While your site goes on and on about "all" races right?
You have a "wide ranging" interview conducted with EUROPEAN correspondents!
WOW, that's SO SO wide ranging!!! ONE racial point of view!
LOL
CLOWNS! Alright Dipstick.......... Choose a source.......... search for races of mankind. You want to use Wiki, Merriam, Yahoo, Ask? Caucasian, IE: caucasiod, is defined as: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India: If you were as informed as you are ignorantly opinionated you'd not even be posting here.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Aquarius
