What if Jesus was Black?

You don’t have to do so, @ajshep. As you will see, I don’t need your response in order to show that what you’ve written is both untrue and nonsensical.

The problem is that you are misremembering the challenge that I gave you.

The original challenge was based on @Timo’s assertion, and my response, below:

@Timo didn’t reply, as is typical, but you jumped in. You and I had this exchange, then, we also had this one.

Now, I know that, after the forum closed, you went back into the latter response, and wrote a whole bunch of new text; the overwhelming majority of it. Thus, presumably, like Jean-Claude Van Damme in a Pablo Francisco joke, you’ve declared yourself the winner, again.

This is within your right, of course. However, again:

a) I didn’t see your replies, because, the forum had closed. So, I didn’t get to tear apart your answers and improve them.

b) Apparently, by that point, you did not recall, or misunderstood, the details of my challenge to @Timo, which you’d taken up.

The outcome, thus, is that, now, you suffer the misfortune of plying @Jaray with this obscene conjecture—“Harry is actually quite the racist. … just because you do not have power, does not mean you cannot be a racist in your mind.”

In other words, :rofl: I’m a mind racist. (Sounds like a MCU superhero!)

Plus, also, as a result, now, you’ve got poor @GeorgeTichy riffing off of your balderdash, above. (I’ll get to his response, momentarily.) (EDIT: Did So!)

My argument was not, as you contrived,

This sounds silly. I can’t say enough bad about it. I hope that you don’t perform this weird, alternative version of prooftexting when assembling your sermons. :grinning:

My argument, as I stated to @Timo, is simple:

If you say there are “hundreds of millions of DAILY white-black exchanges that are clearly not racist,” you should be able name at least one—though, probably, at least two, actually, since you claim a plurality.

You should do this while being able to both a) explain why it’s not racist, and b) do so within a definition of racist that bears falsification. Like mine.

Peace be unto you.


Hey, @GeorgeTichy!

I’ve offered to jump in, on @ajshep’s behalf, and respond to your post.

See below….

I’m thrilled that you now, have communion with @ajshep, @GeorgeTichy, and that I’ve played a role in driving you both into the same corner.

Plus, “painter…portrait….” @GeorgeTichy, you’re actually going for some poetry here. I appreciate it. It adds variance to your replies, which are typically unresponsive and machine-like.

What I mean is that when you post to me, you don’t engage what I say, but merely repeat the worn catchphrases you’ve probably always held, but that have been outdated by better ideas. It’s as though you simply don’t know how to respond.

It’s unfortunate. You sound like Richard Dawkins, bowing out of a debate with William Lane Craig by feigning outrage over Craig’s theological position on the conquest of Canaan, instead of merely admitting Craig would cream him like corn.

I wish you’d just say, “I don’t know how to reply to these arguments,” since, by your monotony, it’s becoming obvious you don’t.

It also seems prideful. It’s as though you think you can’t learn anything, or are so infuriated by my claims that, now, all you can do is say I’m a racist.

(Note: I have never said that you are a racist. This gives me a kind of rhetorical advantage that, if you’re honest, you must acknowledge; see, by analogy, Godwin’s Law.)

Name-calling, ad hominem attacks, etc. are not only laughable, but a sign of weakness. I suspect that you are above this. :slightly_smiling_face:

This is not worthy of a response, at this point.


For as long as anyone replies to posts that are nonsensical and a truly vicious attack on ALL white people (racism at work!), we will see the repetitive posting of the same attacks over and over again.

I am curious to see how many times will Spectrum allow the repetition of the same Beautiful Statement saying that all whites are racists, and only whites are racists… Seventy times seven???


The encounter in Jerusalem between Paul and Cephas as recorded in Acts 15 was by all accounts an epic blow-out. And by your own acknowledgement of opposing “all you you to your faces” “like Paul to Cephas,” your words, proves what I have said earlier that you all along have denied, that you are one angry person. I tell my patients not to say anything while angry as it can only exacerbate the situation. Let us pass. As God told Cain, control your emotions or it will control you.

Has it occurred to you what is behind your anger?


Thanks, @elmer_cupino. :slightly_smiling_face:

If the people who share meatspace with me were to see this, they would all have a good laugh.

No one who knows me thinks of me as “angry.” It’s not a temperamental charge that’s ever levied against me.

What you’re responding to is the feel of my words. You might say that my written words do the work that my metabolism avoids.


ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …

Wow. :upside_down_face:

You don’t have to do so.

I say racism is white supremacy; i.e., that this is it’s only functional matrix.

All you have to do is present a stronger argument for what you say is true. Should be easy.


Odd: A stronger argument will do the work against that from which you’re hoping Spectrum will save you!

Where’s yours?


This is exactly the mechanism behind those of who are verbal and emotional abusers. But the equation implies that you can only give what you have. No one gives out apples if they only had oranges. It is a fantasy to think otherwise.


@GeorgeTichy, we have yet to see @Harry_Allen say “all whites are racists.” If you have a direct quote you can send us or if you are referring to someone else, please let us know. As for the idea that “only whites are racists,” this is an opinion, and one that is shared by a large number of sociologists and other academics who study this issue. You don’t have to agree with it, but it is not an ad hominen attack. However, what some of the commenters have been doing toward Harry are ad hominen attacks. Shall we delete those? Shall we close this entire thread early because several of you seem unable to remain civil toward each other?

You may not like that Harry responds at length to other people’s comments, but having read his comments for several years now, I have yet to find where he has engaged in ad hominen attacks against anyone; where he has been anything less than respectful even when he disagrees.

No one is forcing you to engage with him. Or to engage around him in the way you did in this comment by trying to call on us to suspend/ban him. You don’t get to curate the comments section to just those people you agree with. That’s not conversation. I don’t know either you or Harry personally, but I can say I 100% prefer his way of communicating in this comment section over yours. Seeing both of you comment over the years, I’ve only seen him push forward or against ideas, while you frequently belittle and make fun of commenters who disagree with you, pull threads wildly off-topic, and make numerous comments like this one, asking us to intervene, simply because you disagree with someone. It’s inappropriate, and frankly, I’m tired of it. Stop trying to manipulate the moderators into turning the comment section into a place that’s only welcoming to you and those you agree with.

I would ask that you take a hard look at your own behavior here before pointing the finger at someone else again.



George, @GeorgeTichy

I see you gave my a “like.“ Thank you very much. However you might want to reconsider your gift of “like” as that is exactly how I got our good friend Harry’s @Harry_Allen attention. He was against my privilege of exercising my God-given right of self expression. You are welcome to “cancel” your “like” without repercussions. “Cancel culture” has been the recent theme these days.

1 Like

I read your post attentively a couple of times. Thanks for the input.
Just a few brief comments on a few issues:

Absolutely! Any ad hominem comment should be deleted. Start with mine,please.

That was NOT the call. You are putting words in my mouth. My point was - and still is - about having the idea that only whites are racist being defended over and over again when it’s an absurd concept. Apparently you support it, even saying that it, “is shared by a large number of sociologists and other academics who study this issue.
Apparently I missed something in my readings and working with people throughout my entire life. Yet to be seen…

Manipulate? Are you kidding? Anyone knows that you guys cannot be manipulated, and I wouldn’t try that either. My comment was not about manipulation or a suggestion for suspension. Repeating an opinion is not a violation in itself, I know that. Anyone has the right to do it without incurring in any violation of rules. My comment was based on the belief that a baseless concept was being presented/defended continuously/unendingly. I was not aware, though, that the concept had solid foundation. I am glad you clarified it, because there was not one single other voice that I saw defending the idea; so many frequent posters just became completely silent on the issue, they gave up discussing the matter. Which I am going to do as well.

Thanks, again, for your input and reprimand. I will certainly submit to the rules of this site.


Elmer, I will double-down and sustain the “like.” :+1:


Dear WebEd,

You are correct, he never says those words, but has clever ways of implying it is so. Here is an entry where he describes “Racist”. I personally cannot see how any white could be excluded! Btut I leave that to you. It is from One Ask Behind:

Racist =

(1) A white person who, directly or indirectly, speaks and/or acts, in a manner that helps to establish, maintain, expand, and/or refine, the practice of White Supremacy (Racism), at any time, in any place, in any one or more areas of activity, including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex, and/or War.

(2) A White Supremacist.

(3) A person [white] who practices White Supremacy (Racism).

(4) Any white person, who is mentally or physically able to speak, and/or act, to eliminate White Supremacy, but who does not do so.

Racist Suspect, and/or Suspected Racist =

(1) Any person classified as “white,” and/or “Caucasian,” who exists any place in the known universe, at the same time that any person classified as “non-white” exists, and functions, in direct or indirect subjugation to persons who practice White Supremacy (Racism).

(2) Any person classified as “white,” and/or “Caucasian,” who exists, and/or who had existed, during a time when White Supremacy (Racism) is, and/or was, practiced among the people of the known universe.

(3) Any person classified as “white,” and/or “Caucasian,” who, during any socio-material condition dominated by White Supremacists (Racists), has not proven, by both word, and deed, to the Victims of White Supremacy (nonwhite people), that he, or she, is not a White Supremacist.

(4) Any person classified as, and/or generally functioning as, “white,” and/or “Caucasian,” who is suspected of practicing Racism (White Supremacy), by any person who is “non-white.”

(5) Any white person who receives social and/or material “benefits” as a direct or indirect result of White Supremacy (Racism), but, who does not utilize all of those social and/or material “benefits” to help to eliminate White Supremacy.

(6) Any person classified as “white” and/or “Caucasian,” who, during any socio-material condition dominated by White Supremacy (Racism), attempts to engage in any form of sexual intercourse, and/or “sexual play,” with any non-white person.


In he known universe”!

I gave the example of me cleaning my black tenants’ toilets, when sewage covered the floor of the apartment. He said that came under ‘5’ above, and was racist. (I am still working on the benefit) No. 4 in the first section is pretty inclusive.

Scoiolgists and Academics are always arguing. Here is an interesting chart from an article saying that about half of all studies are erroneous:

Espeically in he humanities are many papers just opinion.

I just noticed the table itself is misleading! The relative risk are small on the present side, and large on the cause side! better watch what I post! I will leave the table up though, for it demonstrates a point.


Good observation.
I’ve noticed at least 2 things
When the subject comes up, people seem to get defensive.
People get quiet. (notice my questions weren’t answered)
The system (capitalism) is almost a fundamental belief with some.
Makes me wonder - a lot.
I’m starting to wonder if it’s similar to the sale of indulgences of old. (It was the sale of indulgences that built St. Peter’s in Rome).
The capitalism being practiced today is not unlike the days leading up to the Great Depression. A few people at the top controlling the wealth.

Money continues to talk

1 Like

Very interesting table and other info, Allen.
Thanks for spending some time searching for it.


Maybe we can get Arkdrey into the conversion, but his posts on this are a bit obscure.

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system devised. Whether it is the American brand or Chinese brand, it works. It has to managed. But billions have been lifted. It is an amazing system.

The down side is that often a few control much wealth. But the lower classes still benefit immensely. There has been nothing like it.


@Arkdrey, Where art thou, my brother?

Agreed - to a point.
In a way you’re illustrating an earlier point, that criticizing capitalism brings up all kinds of references to communism etc, as though it is an either/or.
Can improvements be made to make it more equitable for all.
Is it possible to make the field more level?
Is it right that 2 people own more wealth than half the rest of the population?
Those of us that benefit from these inequities are naturally going to be slow to make change.
Do you need your champion to argue for you?
Might does not make right.
Thanks for your reply.
Sorry, I came on a little strong. Impulsive.
You mentioned it needs to be managed, I agree, and really that is a central issue. After the Great Depression, capitalism began to be managed and then were the people lifted out of poverty. The 1950s were some of the most prosperous times in our history.
I don’t like the idea of the lower income people waiting for crumbs to fall from the tables of the rich. How is that not serfdom?


Good reading especially when one suffers from insomnia. :wink:

1 Like

Hmm. I’m going to jump in again . I don’t believe all whites are racists, and that is my opinion. Reading various articles online, it seems that racism by definition involves having power or dominance over other people of a different race (skin color ). So what is being stated is that ONLY whites can be racist. If at some time a different group became the dominating race group in terms of power and control, then ONLY that group could be racist, instead of whites/caucasians . If I understand all this correctly, people with white skin color can only feel people of other colors are" prejudiced "against them, as opposed to “racist” or “reverse racist”. So if we all agree to the correct definitions of words, maybe we could understand each other better?


A clever and talented writer is able to arrange words is such a fashion that the reader can only draw one conclusion while at the same time giving themself deniability.
In my opinion while there is a time and place for this approach it also can be a cowardly act. I happen to oppose labels or painting individuals with a broad brush. Having said the above, I support freedom of speech and find you practicing that right. We have disagreed in the past and probably will disagree again down the road but I have never felt either of us practiced hiding behind implication using words.