Can you be Christian and Greek?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by 33girl

caucasoidal

Is this a word?

What does the race card have to do with being Greek?

Do playing cards come in different races in different countries?

I'm so confused.

I think the intersection between race and religion (particularly Christianity) is interesting... dekeguy seems to want to diminish the effect that slavery and Christianity's use as a tool in slavery still has on the African American Christian community today, and that could include membership in Greek Life Organizations.

For example, this sentence:

I would however suggest that if you are going to propose your interpretation of Christianity and its origin and development you might want to support your argument with historical fact clearly traceable through 2000 years rather than by simply playing the race card.

Is highly dismissive of the slave experience in America.

I find myself understanding Andre Turner's posts but that understanding might be greatly enhanced by paragraph breaks.

[DrPhil]

Caucasoidal (or caucasoidial) is just an extension of Caucasoid. I never disagreed with the redundant yet larger point that Andre Turner is making. It is simply the case that this has all been said tons of times over the years and such an analysis of Christianity (and Greekdom) is unnecessary to discuss whether Christians can be Greek. Given the history of Christianity (and religion, in general) in the African Diaspora, many people of the African Diaspora around the world are still Christian. Given the history of Greekdom and the exclusion of people of the African Diaspora, some people of the African Diaspora are members of GLOs. Yeah...cool....

Originally Posted by 33girl

And on another note, the stained glass windows in my church showed Jesus as a brunette, and a somewhat swarthy brunette at that. (This is in a community of people with predominantly German ancestry.) Like naraht, the first time I saw a picture of Jesus looking like his name should be Lars Holmgren I think my initial thought was "who on earth is that?"

Images of Jesus.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by agzg

I think the intersection between race and religion (particularly Christianity) is interesting... dekeguy seems to want to diminish the effect that slavery and Christianity's use as a tool in slavery still has on the African American Christian community today, and that could include membership in Greek Life Organizations.

Religion is the great opiate of the masses. What better tool to teach folks that their servitude and low status is acceptable than by teaching (by force if necessary) that it is ordained by a higher being who will punish all of those who refuse to concede the point?

American slavery certainly wouldn't be the first time religion or even Christianity was used for such a purpose. It certainly won't be the last. In the context of history, there's nothing all that special about American slavery in that regard.

I find myself understanding Andre Turner's posts but that understanding might be greatly enhanced by paragraph breaks.

I find myself thinking that he needs to get over it. I'm not sure how Jesus' race is relevant to anything in the Bible unless you're looking for a reason to establish victimhood.

Was Christianity at one time widely interpreted to allow slavery? Of course. Is it now? Nope. That single point might be the only point on which Christianity as a whole has monolithically evolved to. So yes, historically, religion was used as a tool of oppression for American slaves, for European serfs, for Roman slaves, etc. It isn't anymore.

So outside of the context of historical discussion, how is any of this relevant today?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Images of Jesus. . . .

LOL.

You left out:

[Kevin]

Or this...



(this is probably the most relevant image of Jesus if you're considering modern American evangelical Christianity)

[nparkerlawrence]

hello everyone! i'm natalie!

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Religion is the great opiate of the masses. What better tool to teach folks that their servitude and low status is acceptable than by teaching (by force if necessary) that it is ordained by a higher being who will punish all of those who refuse to concede the point?

American slavery certainly wouldn't be the first time religion or even Christianity was used for such a purpose. It certainly won't be the last. In the context of history, there's nothing all that special about American slavery in that regard.

Of course not.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I find myself thinking that he needs to get over it. I'm not sure how Jesus' race is relevant to anything in the Bible unless you're looking for a reason to establish victimhood.

Telling someone to get over things like this has certainly always ended well in the past.

It's not his race in the Bible - his race is not relevant (in the Bible). The depictions/lens through which we think of Jesus now and the lens of who is and has been telling/teaching/depicting him historically to other groups (does he look like you? do you look the same as your audience? does he look like your audience?) is where the discussion is coming from - at least that's what I get from Andre's posts. And I think it does make a difference

Originally Posted by Kevin

Was Christianity at one time widely interpreted to allow slavery? Of course. Is it now? Nope. That single point might be the only point on which Christianity as a whole has monolithically evolved to. So yes, historically, religion was used as a tool of oppression for American slaves, for European serfs, for Roman slaves, etc. It isn't anymore.

So outside of the context of historical discussion, how is any of this relevant today?

It would be irrelevant if we lived in a vacuum, but considering the historical discussion for things like religion tends to influence the current reality, it's extremely relevant. Just look at dekeguy's post - he's encouraging people to cite 2,000 years worth of historical discussion to explain why Christianity is an influence for individuals today.

Now, whether or not that means you can or can't be Greek... I don't know any GLOs to be outside of Judeo-Christian values but then I only know the ritual for one.

[dekeguy]

[QUOTE=Andre Turner;2160649]No, I am not pulling any race card, sir.
============================

Peter: Gee, you could have fooled me! Your whole argument is about playing the race card and attacking Christianity as a racist tool for oppression. You ignore the historical truth that Christians have suffered persecution for many many centuries in defense of the rights and dignity of all humankind.
============================

Andre: If I was, what would be wrong with me pulling the race card? Your people have been pulling the race card for the past four centuries and still continue to pull the race card that seems to always be in your favor.
============================

Peter: My people? Who are they, pray tell, who have been playing the race card for four centuries? I am an American, incidentally of mostly French origin and liniage. I am a Roman Catholic both by accident of birth and by considered and informed choice. The card I play is my obligation to follow the two great commandments given by Jesus. That card has been around for about two thousand years.
===========================

Andre: Now, you tell me, how many people with blonde hair and blue eyes were living in the Middle East during the time of Jesus? It is impossible for there to have ever been a blonde hair, blue eyed Jesus... something that the slave master instilled in the minds of black people.
============================

Peter: I suppose you missed my comment about the historical Jesus being swarthy complected, dark curley haired semite? No way was He a blond, blue eyed, scandinavian.
============================

Andre: My people were also directly and indirectly taught (by the slave master) to hate their natural black selves. "Black is bad". Wear white to weddings, and black to funerals. Devil's food cake is black and angel's food cake is white. If I know something bad about you, I could "blackmail" you. You can tell a little "white lie", but you better not tell a big bold "black lie". Do you see the psychology in this? My people were conditioned (by the slave master) to hate everything about themselves that was natural and black. We hate our black beauty because we were taught to define our own beauty according to these white, anglo, caucasoidal, European, westernized, beauty standards. As an example: a white, blonde hair, blue eyed Jesus. This means that anything less than blue eyes and blonde hair is considered less than beautiful. The further you get away from blonde hair and blue eyes, the uglier you get. This is what we were taught. This means that if you got black eyes, black, tight, nappy hair and dark black skin, you are the ugliest thing on the planet. What is sad is the slave master was successful in the brainwashing of black people and this still continues to this very day. As an example: Chris Rock’s "Good Hair" movie. The question I have to my people is why do we want to look like the slave master?...the murderous, cold-blooded, rapist "mutha-fucka". I said rapist "mutha-fucka" for a reason, not just to use foul language. I am speaking the truth. Let me define what a "mutha-fucka" is. A "mutha-fucka" is an individual who is the "fucka of muthas". The white man is a historical "fucka of muthas" around the world. A historical rapist. He was the "fucka" of our "fore-muthas". This is why we come in so many different shades of black now. I find it to be sad that we want to look like, and worship (the image of a white Jesus), the same image type of people who hung us from trees. I'm not arguing your religious beliefs. What I am saying is we have been taught that Jesus is white, with blue eyes, and blonde hair, when that is impossible.
===========================

Peter: Your argument seems obsessed with race. I was never taught to worship a vanilla Jesus. I was taught that Jesus was the Son of God who came to deliver ALL humankind and offer us ALL the gift of salvation.
So, following your argument, I suppose because I have dark hair and dark eyes I am ugly? I never thought I was great looking but I never thought I was ugly either. I would suggest that we both know and appreciate many women of great beauty who just happen to be Black, White, Asian, or any of the many variations in the range of humankind. Same goes for our male side of the human race.
I never worshiped a blond blue eyed Jesus because even when I was a little kid it seemed obvious that He looked more like an Egyptian than a Guy from Norway. In any event it didn't seem to matter, either He was who I believed He was or there was no point to it. What he looked like was an irrelevance when measured against Who He is.
I have no sympathy for oppressive slave masters who I figure had a lot of explaining to do when they faced Jesus, but I have great admiration for the countless thousands who proclaimed their belief in Christ at the cost of their lives over all of the many centuries that Christians have been persecuted for the faith.
==========================

Andre: I am not using any race card, sir, I am only speaking the truth. I have not lied about anything here.
==========================

I did not suggest that you lied, only that your argument seems based on unsupported and inflammatory statements. I suggested that you might want to approach the question of 21st Century Christianity in light of two thousand years of carefully preserved multi-source historical Christianity.
You might remember that some of the greatest fathers of the church were not Northern European but Asian and African. The greatest philosopher of the early church was Saint Augustine of Hippo, African bishop of an African diocese.

[dekeguy]

[QUOTE=agzg;2161218]I think the intersection between race and religion (particularly Christianity) is interesting... dekeguy seems to want to diminish the effect that slavery and Christianity's use as a tool in slavery still has on the African American Christian community today, and that could include membership in Greek Life Organizations.

For example, this sentence:

"I would however suggest that if you are going to propose your interpretation of Christianity and its origin and development you might want to support your argument with historical fact clearly traceable through 2000 years rather than by simply playing the race card."

Is highly dismissive of the slave experience in America.
==============================================

Hmmm... "Highly dismissive of the slave experience in America". OK, I find this statement quite interesting. Rather broad and inflammatory but unsupported statements are made regarding a major World Religion which statements approach it from a very narrowly focused point of view. This view proposes that Christianity in the 21st Century is a construct of a filtered version of 18th and 19th Century white slave masters apparently designed to keep slaves "in their place".
Absent any compelling evidence supporting this argument yet to be provided by the author I am challenging him to support his argument by offering evidence drawn from the whole sweep of the Christian history and tradition as well as secular history and tradition over two thousand years that Christianity is a whip in the hands of these white slave masters.
I do find this pointedly offensive as it dismisses the message of Christ as nothing but rhetoric of oppression. It ignores the facts of history and the two greatest commandments given by Christ that we "Love the Lord our God and that we love our neighbors as ourselves".
I do not propose to tell anyone what they should believe but I will rise to the defense of what I believe.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Hmmm... "Highly dismissive of the slave experience in America". OK, I find this statement quite interesting. Rather broad and inflammatory but unsupported statements are made regarding a major World Religion which statements approach it from a very narrowly focused point of view. This view proposes that Christianity in the 21st Century is a construct of a filtered version of 18th and 19th Century white slave masters apparently designed to keep slaves "in their place".
Absent any compelling evidence supporting this argument yet to be provided by the author I am challenging him to support his argument by offering evidence drawn from the whole sweep of the Christian history and tradition as well as secular history and tradition over two thousand years that Christianity is a whip in the hands of these white slave masters.
I do find this pointedly offensive as it dismisses the message of Christ as nothing but rhetoric of oppression. It ignores the facts of history and the two greatest commandments given by Christ that we "Love the Lord our God and that we love our neighbors as ourselves".
I do not propose to tell anyone what they should believe but I will rise to the defense of what I believe.

Good God, learn to quote. Your posts are ridiculously obnoxious to read (in fact, worse than those without paragraph breaks).

No one is attacking your beliefs. It's just that different groups and individuals have different experiences with Christianity and expressing those experiences is not an attack.

[Andre Turner]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Religion is the great opiate of the masses. What better tool to teach folks that their servitude and low status is acceptable than by teaching (by force if necessary) that it is ordained by a higher being who will punish all of those who refuse to concede the point?

American slavery certainly wouldn't be the first time religion or even Christianity was used for such a purpose. It certainly won't be the last. In the context of history, there's nothing all that special about American slavery in that regard.



I find myself thinking that he needs to get over it. I'm not sure how Jesus' race is relevant to anything in the Bible unless you're looking for a reason to establish victimhood.

Was Christianity at one time widely interpreted to allow slavery? Of course. Is it now? Nope. That single point might be the only point on which Christianity as a whole has monolithically evolved to. So yes, historically, religion was used as a tool of oppression for American slaves, for European serfs, for Roman slaves, etc. It isn't anymore.

So outside of the context of historical discussion, how is any of this relevant today?

Typical response from an arrogant white man. Getting over slavery is not possible, when my people are still slaves. Many people believe that the enslavement of black men, women and children is a thing of the past. The world believes that America has set her black slaves free from the bondage of their white slave masters. Even some black people in America believe that they are actually free from the mastery and control of their white oppressors. In fact, most black people in America today have been psychologically duped into believing that they actually operate according to their own will. These misled perceptions cannot be further from the actual truth. We are still indeed, in thought, and in fact, still a slave.

Does the slave master still have to whip, chain, and beat us? No. The slave master does not have to chain us down or beat us anymore, because we (as black people) are not doing anything, and we (as black people) are not going anywhere. We have freedom in name, but not in definition.

Your arrogant typical response to what I said doesn't surprise me. It also tells me that you do not even know what the word "slave" means. The word "slave" means "one who is dominated by some outside influence and having no personal rights or freedom."

The questions I have for my people are these: Are we dominated by some outside influence other than our own influence? Do we have our personal rights and our true freedom? Do we really know and understand what freedom actually is? Have we ever truly experienced true freedom? Do we even remember what true freedom was all about? What do we know other than what white people have told us? Nothing. What do we know other than what black folks have told us that they heard from other white folks? Nothing.

Yes, the physical slavery is "somewhat" over, but what about the biological slavery? What about the economical slavery? What about the sociological slavery? What about the spiritual slavery? What about the psychological slavery?

The physical chains were just one aspect amidst the many horrors of slavery. The chains are off our hands, but we are not producing anything. The chains are off our feet, but we are not going anywhere. This is because those physical chains were the least of our worries. We still have the biggest chain of all wrapped around our minds, hearts, and souls. Our minds are still locked-down, and it is our mind that controls our hands and our feet. Once you have the mind, the body will follow, which is what 4 centuries of bondage and oppression has done. Your arrogance, and ignorance explains why you would just tell somebody to "get over" 4 centuries of bondage, control, abuse, murder, rape, and oppression from your people. What your people have done, still very much so effects black people right now. So it relevant today.

Originally Posted by dekeguy

No, I am not pulling any race card, sir.
============================

Peter: Gee, you could have fooled me! Your whole argument is about playing the race card and attacking Christianity as a racist tool for oppression. You ignore the historical truth that Christians have suffered persecution for many many centuries in defense of the rights and dignity of all humankind.
============================

Andre: If I was, what would be wrong with me pulling the race card? Your people have been pulling the race card for the past four centuries and still continue to pull the race card that seems to always be in your favor.
============================

Peter: My people? Who are they, pray tell, who have been playing the race card for four centuries? I am an American, incidentally of mostly French origin and liniage. I am a Roman Catholic both by accident of birth and by considered and informed choice. The card I play is my obligation to follow the two great commandments given by Jesus. That card has been around for about two thousand years.
===========================

Andre: Now, you tell me, how many people with blonde hair and blue eyes were living in the Middle East during the time of Jesus? It is impossible for there to have ever been a blonde hair, blue eyed Jesus... something that the slave master instilled in the minds of black people.
============================

Peter: I suppose you missed my comment about the historical Jesus being swarthy complected, dark curley haired semite? No way was He a blond, blue eyed, scandinavian.
============================

Andre: My people were also directly and indirectly taught (by the slave master) to hate their natural black selves. "Black is bad". Wear white to weddings, and black to funerals. Devil's food cake is black and angel's food cake is white. If I know something bad about you, I could "blackmail" you. You can tell a little "white lie", but you better not tell a big bold "black lie". Do you see the psychology in this? My people were conditioned (by the slave master) to hate everything about themselves that was natural and black. We hate our black beauty because we were taught to define our own beauty according to these white, anglo, caucasoidal, European, westernized, beauty standards. As an example: a white, blonde hair, blue eyed Jesus. This means that anything less than blue eyes and blonde hair is considered less than beautiful. The further you get away from blonde hair and blue eyes, the uglier you get. This is what we were taught. This means that if you got black eyes, black, tight, nappy hair and dark black skin, you are the ugliest thing on the planet. What is sad is the slave master was successful in the brainwashing of black people and this still continues to this very day. As an example: Chris Rock’s "Good Hair" movie. The question I have to my people is why do we want to look like the slave master?...the murderous, cold-blooded, rapist "mutha-fucka". I said rapist "mutha-fucka" for a reason, not just to use foul language. I am speaking the truth. Let me define what a "mutha-fucka" is. A "mutha-fucka" is an individual who is the "fucka of muthas". The white man is a historical "fucka of muthas" around the world. A historical rapist. He was the "fucka" of our "fore-muthas". This is why we come in so many different shades of black now. I find it to be sad that we want to look like, and worship (the image of a white Jesus), the same image type of people who hung us from trees. I'm not arguing your religious beliefs. What I am saying is we have been taught that Jesus is white, with blue eyes, and blonde hair, when that is impossible.
===========================

Peter: Your argument seems obsessed with race. I was never taught to worship a vanilla Jesus. I was taught that Jesus was the Son of God who came to deliver ALL humankind and offer us ALL the gift of salvation.
So, following your argument, I suppose because I have dark hair and dark eyes I am ugly? I never thought I was great looking but I never thought I was ugly either. I would suggest that we both know and appreciate many women of great beauty who just happen to be Black, White, Asian, or any of the many variations in the range of humankind. Same goes for our male side of the human race.
I never worshiped a blond blue eyed Jesus because even when I was a little kid it seemed obvious that He looked more like an Egyptian than a Guy from Norway. In any event it didn't seem to matter, either He was who I believed He was or there was no point to it. What he looked like was an irrelevance when measured against Who He is.
I have no sympathy for oppressive slave masters who I figure had a lot of explaining to do when they faced Jesus, but I have great admiration for the countless thousands who proclaimed their belief in Christ at the cost of their lives over all of the many centuries that Christians have been persecuted for the faith.
==========================

Andre: I am not using any race card, sir, I am only speaking the truth. I have not lied about anything here.
==========================

I did not suggest that you lied, only that your argument seems based on unsupported and inflammatory statements. I suggested that you might want to approach the question of 21st Century Christianity in light of two thousand years of carefully preserved multi-source historical Christianity.
You might remember that some of the greatest fathers of the church were not Northern European but Asian and African. The greatest philosopher of the early church was Saint Augustine of Hippo, African bishop of an African diocese.

I didn't say anything about the Bible not being true based on its history. What I said was that there is truth in the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. But, the true teachings of Jesus is not what the slave master taught us. There is truth in the Bible if you can break through all of the symbolism. The teachings of Jesus are very valuable, but that is not what the white man taught us. I said earlier that this is not the teaching that the slave master has given the preacher to preach.

No, I am not obsessed with race. Your people seem to be the only people obsessed with race,to the point where it looks to be a sickness to me. What I am doing here is telling the truth. The first thing a white man wants to say is that it isn't his fault. No it is not your fault, but are you reaping the benefits of white America, sir? Yes, you are. Since you are French why don't you refer to yourself as a European American? Most of your people are of European decent. Since this is true, why do your people refer to every other race of people that are not white, as African American, Asian American, etc. and even refer to Americans themselves as Native American, but yet refer to yourselves as white, or Caucasian?

No, what you do not understand is that we have been taught Christianity by the slave master. Is King James a Saint? Why does he have the authority to add his two cents to the Bible? This is what we were taught. We were taught this and we accepted this with no questions asked. We have accepted the sun-up to sun-down hard slave labor, with no questions asked. We have accepted our own families being broken-up and sold away with no questions asked, the very reason why black families are still to this very day, broken-up. We have accepted the brutal raping of our mothers and our sisters, with no questions asked. We have accepted the beating, dismembering, hanging, lynching, of our brothers and our fathers with no questions asked. Yes, and from the same man who has given us all this pure hell, we accepted "his teachings" of Christianity with no questions asked. Yes, this is the absolute truth, sir!

So you and I both know that we did not receive the "true" word of the "true" God from your people. Think about it. Why would a white man, who spends more than half of his time trying to kill us and our minds (which he has succeeded in doing), turn around to spend the other half of his time trying to bring our minds back to life? That wouldn't make any sense, at all. How could the same man, who has taken on the mind, heart, and will of a devil, turn around and show us the straight and narrow path to God? Think about that real good. I would be a fool to believe anything a devil says to me about God, based on "his teachings".

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I find myself thinking that he needs to get over it.

This is foul as hell.

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by agzg

Good God, learn to quote. Your posts are ridiculously obnoxious to read (in fact, worse than those without paragraph breaks).

No one is attacking your beliefs. It's just that different groups and individuals have different experiences with Christianity and expressing those experiences is not an attack.

Good God, Learn to read! Unsupported opinion comments designed to define Christianity as a tool of the White Slave Master are very reasonably seen as an attack.
You describe my posts as ridiculously obnoxious to read yet you attack, and like the original author of this issue hurl unsupported opinion in the form of insult. Well, hurl away, your comments generally do provide mild amusement.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Good God, Learn to read! Unsupported opinion comments designed to define Christianity as a tool of the White Slave Master are very reasonably seen as an attack.
You describe my posts as ridiculously obnoxious to read yet you attack, and like the original author of this issue hurl unsupported opinion in the form of insult. Well, hurl away, your comments generally do provide mild amusement.

Unsupported? What? You want to argue whether or not Christianity was taught to slaves through their master's lens? "The Curse of Ham" was a common justification for slavery in its American iteration. Do you really not think that the slaves were taught this?

Lots of religions have been used to justify terrible stuff. Lots of cultural value sets have been used to justify terrible stuff. In this case, we're talking about Christianity. Just because Christians have been oppressed doesn't automatically absolve them of all the oppression they carry out in the Lord's name.

I can read just fine, thanks, you're the one coming to a facts fight with idiocy.

ETA: thanks for fixing your quoting function.

[DrPhil]

Team Andre Turner.

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Good God, Learn to read!

Praise Jewish Jesus, you learned how to quote.