I'm looking for someone to have a conversation with

[chozen1 10+ year member]

Not just anyone. Specifically someone of the Christian belief, and someone mature. Someone not ignorant to the that fact that other religions, and other societies exsist independantly-and successfully, on their own.
Basically I would like to talk to Zane, as it seems nowadays.

Anyway, I want to have a Q and A with you. Similar to Socrates style of questioning. I'd like to discuss right and wrong, gay and lesbianism, and the idea that we can discuss a Christian God that could potentially be wrong. That is to say, someone who realizes that even though they believe their religion to be true, that other religions can also believe thiers is true, co-exsisting with yours, or theirs is right and yours is wrong.

It sounds stupid, and it sounds retarded, but I have been discussing it with myself from both angles, and I cannot get very far. I figured if I had a QnA with someone who would be able to give me the right answers, but at the same time wasn't ignorant, and maybe help me learn something.

dude read the bible

read the king ames version,the old testiment,and the new testiment

and if u feel u need more info or u just not getting something

read the karan(yeah rite)

 

[blackgeltabs 5,000+ posts]

Have you ever heard of a society called the Yanamamo? Or studied any other indian(not neccessarily american) cultures ever? Specifically the roles of homosexuals in those tribes/groups of people/ societies.

Yes I have heard of them and its atually spelled Yanomamo. Yes I have studied many other indian tribes, but none on a homosexual level.

Do you agree that "gender" is learned? That is to say, we "learn" to become a boy or girl. People "teach" us through socialized learning.

Yes gender is somewhat learned, id say its more idealized and sculpted to meet our societies fabrication. I also beleive that we still have animals instincts in us that inherintly give us traits that our parents can not teach.

Do you agree that race/gender are products of what our society has created? Back when whites needed the power, they created what "the black man" should look like, and tried to create "races" of people, publishing "what the negro ear looks like" and bullshit like that, to try to create this idea of different races of people, when in reality, most white people have 1/24th drop of blood in them, as opposed to the 1/32nd drop of blood at the time such laws were implimented.

We didnt create what they look like we created how races are viewed. Specifically by you asking that question you are answering your question. If we truely had equality of gender/race then this wouldnt be a question, would it?

What I am saying is that, white people basically created the idea of a different race of people, so that they could make other white people feel superior, simply because they are black, and that the laws used to hold black people down (1/32nd law) - white people were actually more "black" than they thought, which proves what scientists have been saying- that people are more closely linked that we think. Did you know that as simple DNA as flys have, they are 10x more similar(related) that we are, on a dna level?

Yes white people throughout history have a tendencay of holding themselves in the highest regard. It didnt matter if they were black, indian, muslim, had something we wanted, or just not christian. Remember some of the worst wars in history were fought over religion, white people have a habit of spreading our social ideologies specifically religion. As for laws and such holding black people down yes there is, but D.C. will never tell you that. Thing about everything you have heard of the govenrnment creating the huge crack boom of 87-88, and where did that effect the most???

I dont understand the last piece of who bing closely related to flys on a DNA level?

 

[marleyskater420 5,000+ posts]

The reason I havent typed a good respone is that I haven't had the right time to write everything out. So here is just my temporary response. I've been busy, so bear with me.

dude read the bibleread the king ames version,the old testiment,and the new testiment

and if u feel u need more info or u just not getting something

read the karan(yeah rite)

I went to a christian school my entire life. I have had many courses in world religions, and would like to consider myself fairly knowledgeable when it came to Biblical matters. Why would reading the bible solve my questions if I've already studied the bible, and still have questions?

LOL yet you hate Philosophy. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/tongue.gif.6130eb82179565f6db8d26d6001dcd24.gif
Some food for thought marley, Socrates was the one who did the questioning... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

I think you need to ask the right questions and be a little more focused in your intent. You are jumping from religion, to social norms, to history. Take one at a time and slow down. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif

They are not so much different than you think. They are all related, I simply have yet to show you how I related them, and it what context I am reffering to them.

blackgeltabs-

My bad on the the spelling.

I agree with what you are saying about gender. I feel it is part instinctive, but we also reinforce it with society.(we learn what is gay, what is not, etc.)

No, we didn't create what they look like, but we attributed what they look like, to their "race". Ever notice attributes black people have, white people do also? There is no definate "black people look like this" is there? We learned what "black" people look like, throughout history. Jim crow laws anyone? In the early 1900's, "scientists" would put out articles on "The negro ear" or "The negro mouth", trying to show that all black people have the same type of ear, or whatever,so that we could identify people of color as not only people of color, but having these attributes. These attributes were then given a negative connotation, even though white people have the same attributes as people of color. Do you see now what I mean by race was "created"? There is no definate definition of race, other than what society has said. What does a true black person look like?What does a true asian person look like? We can find exceptions to all, which shows that there is no difinitive answer here, and that people just made these generalizations (white scientists) to help distinguish blacks from whites, and make poor white people feel like they were different then the poor blacks.(this is all ties in with much greater things, such as the government's systematic oppression of black people in the early stages of our nation.I'd rather not go into depth,because of its elongated nature, but I can if need be.)

1/32nd law- At one point in america, you were considered "black" if you had 1/32nd drop of blood in you that was of african desent(sp). That means if your great grandma was black, and noone else(in your family) was, you were considered black. What this did was broaden the gap between whites and blacks, and basically made as many people as black as they could do, so that more whites could have greater privelage. Think about it, if more people were black, then the government (at the time) would have more domination over the, because of the laws that were in place at the time in america. What I was saying that even though back in the day, the government said you had to have 1/32nd and you were black, it was proven that most white people of the day actually had 1/24th african american in them. Again, reinforcing the fact that people are more similar than we think(tying into no real race, only what we created).

 

[marleyskater420 5,000+ posts]

If any of this seems odd to any of you, or you think I am crazy, please do not retort in a negative manner, but simply make a post saying that you disagree, and state reasons for this.

Please do not simply say "I do not agree" and do not give a reason. I would just as much like to know your reasoning, as your opinion, that way, we could maybe come to a greater understanding of the subject at hand.

Thank you for your respect.

 

[Big-Cat 10+ year member]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif here look up these philosophers they will make u wonder and u will succeed in finding your answers with them. john locke, thomas hobbes,Georg wilhelm friedrich hegel,like u said socrates, Plato, Aristotle, CONFUCIUS, John stewart mill, David hume,

 

[marleyskater420 5,000+ posts]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif here look up these philosophers they will make u wonder and u will succeed in finding your answers with them. john locke, thomas hobbes,Georg wilhelm friedrich hegel,like u said socrates, Plato, Aristotle, CONFUCIUS, John stewart mill, David hume,

Thank you for the suggestions. I have studied a few of those, bout 5 of them.

What I am looking for is not really a question, but this is all rather a process by which I will eventually prove a point.

A one point in time I would like to be able to say that I have fully expressed what I wish to convey, within the confines of this thread.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

The only philosophy that ever interested me was Dostoevsky, Camus and Sartre. The brothers Karamazov was the best fcking book. When i read 'the grand inquisitor', i had to book the down for a few months. If your looking for a critique of Christianity look no further and read it. (full excerpt)

http://www.bibliomania.com/0/0/235/1030/frameset.html

Here is the wikipedia summary for the lazy,

In the tale, Christ comes back to earth in Seville at the time of the Inquisition. The people recognize him, and he is arrested by Inquisition leaders. The Grand Inquisitor visits him to tell him that the Church no longer needs Him, and that he has not understood human nature. He has burdened humanity with too much freedom.

The Grand Inquisitor poses a hypothetical question: What would happen if Jesus were to return to Earth during the Inquisition? As Dostoevsky tells it, Christ returns and performs a number of miracles, the Grand Inquisitor of the Court of Law places him under arrest, and declares that he will be burned at a stake the next day. The main portion of the text is the Inquisitor explaining why Jesus must not return to work his miracles.

The Inquisitor states that Jesus, in giving men freedom to choose, doomed humanity to fight amongst each other and to suffer. This is because Jesus resisted the three temptations of Satan in the wilderness. By giving men freedom to choose the "bread of heaven", to worship him, or to war, Christ fortold the whole of human history.

The Inquisitor implies that the Church and Inquisition now follow the Other, the Devil, Satan, for he, through compulsion, provided the tools to end all human suffering and unite under the banner of the Church, which is guided by the few who are strong enough to take on the burden of freedom. He says that under him, all humankind will live and die happily in ignorance, and so access Heaven. The Inquisitor will be a self-martyr, spending his life to keep choice from humanity. He states that "Anyone who can appease a man's conscience can take his freedom away from him."

The segment ends when Christ, who has been silent throughout, kisses the Inquisitor on his lips instead of answering him. On this, the Inquisitor releases Christ but tells him never to return. Christ, still silent, leaves into "the dark alleys of the city".

 

[blackgeltabs 5,000+ posts]

My bad on the the spelling.
I agree with what you are saying about gender. I feel it is part instinctive, but we also reinforce it with society.(we learn what is gay, what is not, etc.)

No, we didn't create what they look like, but we attributed what they look like, to their "race". Ever notice attributes black people have, white people do also? There is no definate "black people look like this" is there? We learned what "black" people look like, throughout history. Jim crow laws anyone? In the early 1900's, "scientists" would put out articles on "The negro ear" or "The negro mouth", trying to show that all black people have the same type of ear, or whatever,so that we could identify people of color as not only people of color, but having these attributes. These attributes were then given a negative connotation, even though white people have the same attributes as people of color. Do you see now what I mean by race was "created"? There is no definate definition of race, other than what society has said. What does a true black person look like?What does a true asian person look like? We can find exceptions to all, which shows that there is no difinitive answer here, and that people just made these generalizations (white scientists) to help distinguish blacks from whites, and make poor white people feel like they were different then the poor blacks.(this is all ties in with much greater things, such as the government's systematic oppression of black people in the early stages of our nation.I'd rather not go into depth,because of its elongated nature, but I can if need be.)

1/32nd law- At one point in america, you were considered "black" if you had 1/32nd drop of blood in you that was of african desent(sp). That means if your great grandma was black, and noone else(in your family) was, you were considered black. What this did was broaden the gap between whites and blacks, and basically made as many people as black as they could do, so that more whites could have greater privelage. Think about it, if more people were black, then the government (at the time) would have more domination over the, because of the laws that were in place at the time in america. What I was saying that even though back in the day, the government said you had to have 1/32nd and you were black, it was proven that most white people of the day actually had 1/24th african american in them. Again, reinforcing the fact that people are more similar than we think(tying into no real race, only what we created).

Yes I agree with everything thats said. Basically it is the inner workings of our government that created these ideas. They paid people to write these articles. 1/32nd law seems like it was put in place to keep the wasps waspier if you know what I mean. Make already powerful people even more powerful, less distrobution of wealth.

 

[Big-Cat 10+ year member]

marley then u need to either be a preist of a philosopher. most likely a philosopher if ur not that spiritual. if i were to belive in a religion it would be ghondis

 

[Hundreth 10+ year member]

They are not so much different than you think. They are all related, I simply have yet to show you how I related them, and it what context I am reffering to them.

You should definately show us haha...

Even so, how do you take over a country? Divide and conquer.

 

[Big-Cat 10+ year member]

u follow in preident bush's foot step's (an idiot, our president is)

 

[saywhat? 5,000+ posts]

That's about the most ignorant statement I've heard on this subject.
The natural response to your "great observation" is:

Evolution is a joke. Just a bunch of wild theories from ordinary people in white lab coats. Ordinary people just as capable of error as you and I. No proof.

------------

The truth, both religion and evolution can fit the obvious facts. It's up to you to decide which you have more faith in.

i dont believe in evolution either. i dont believe that god is the end all of end all either. i believe there is a higher power, but not someone who walked the same earth i do.......what makes him a higher power than someone these days. i mean, we walk the same ground, why is he better? higher power yes....do i call it god...no

 

[marleyskater420 5,000+ posts]

Faulk- I'm talking about a crituque of Christianity using different methods. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Yes I agree with everything thats said. Basically it is the inner workings of our government that created these ideas. They paid people to write these articles. 1/32nd law seems like it was put in place to keep the wasps waspier if you know what I mean. Make already powerful people even more powerful, less distrobution of wealth.

Exactly.

Did you know when it came time to distribute land to Native Americans, they said you had to be at least 50% native. Less people that are native, less land the government uses.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

yeah, but seriously dude...check out at least 'the grand inquisitor' very good.

Dostoyevsky was a pimp, reading it still gives me chills.

Thou didst crave for free love and not the base raptures of the slave before the might that has overawed him for ever. But Thou didst think too highly of men therein, for they are slaves, of course, though rebellious by nature. Look round and judge; fifteen centuries have passed, look upon them. Whom hast Thou raised up to Thyself? I swear, man is weaker and baser by nature than Thou hast believed him! Can he, can he do what Thou didst? By showing him so much respect, Thou didst, as it were, cease to feel for him, for Thou didst ask far too much from him—Thou who hast loved him more than Thyself! Respecting him less, Thou wouldst have asked less of him. That would have been more like love, for his burden would have been lighter. He is weak and vile. What though he is everywhere now rebelling against our power, and proud of his rebellion? It is the pride of a child and a schoolboy. They are little children rioting and barring out the teacher at school. But their childish delight will end; it will cost them dear. They will cast down temples and drench the earth with blood. But they will see at last, the foolish children, that, though they are rebels, they are impotent rebels, unable to keep up their own rebellion. Bathed in their foolish tears, they will recognise at last that He who created them rebels must have meant to mock at them. They will say this in despair, and their utterance will be a blasphemy which will make them more unhappy still, for man’s nature cannot bear blasphemy, and in the end always avenges it on itself. And so unrest, confusion and unhappiness—that is the present lot of man after Thou didst bear so much for their freedom!

 

[JAZN 5,000+ posts]

Gender consists of the social connotations of how a male and female should behave, it is NOT synonymous with your biological ***.

Race and gender are social products. The term race specifies that different ethnicities have a biological basis. It has been proven that there is NO genetic difference between different "races." Genders are social constructs, such as boys should play sports, be strong, brave, etc; whereas women are more fragile, cook, sew, etc. On the other hand, biological *** is concerned with primary and secondary ****** characteristics like genitalia, breasts, facial hair, etc.