A Black Pope???
 

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...0,5478,7436416^401,00.html


This oughtta separate the chaff from the wheat! If the present Pope retires or dies the contender is a Nigerian.

If they elect a black Pope I wonder how many people will join or leave the Catholic Church.

If I recall history right he won't be the first black pope. If I recall the earliest popes were black.

First one of you to say 'Holy Shit!' gets hit with a broken wiffle bat. :)

Mwhaha.

I read this thread title wrong thought it was 'A Black Poop' :1orglaugh

There were quite a few African popes in the past. Now, an Asian or American pope...now that would be different.

"Is the pope black?"...Doesn't quite have the same ring to it huh?:winkwink:

Yep, I think there were more than the ones listed too. What's weird is that way back then people weren't racist or predjudiced against skin color but they'd cut your throat if you were of a different religion or country or dress code.

Bet the fundamentalists and bible belters are cringing in their shoes.

interesting.

They've said for political reasons that the next pope that is elected may be from a developing country that doesn't have a large catholic population.

If I was truly interested, combing through the nationalities of the cardinals might say quite a bit about whether there is any truth in that...

Thats because America turned christ into a white man. Christ is said to have been schooled in Egypt and Africa, yeah he was a blond haired blue eyed man. hahaha

Christ wasnt white, let alone the first people to preach his word.

Its the dumb whites who turned christ into a white man and now they suffer the fear that accompanies racism.

heh, im probably as racist as anyone here and I dont mind at all. Its the left that keeps blacks down. condi rice and powell both have more powerful positions than any black liberal in history. I believe everyone should be treated equal and held to the same standard of personal responsiblity.

lol.

Evidently you do not believe in personal responsibility. Don't worry, most of the "Left" and "Right" don't either.


(emphasis added, "evidently..." added)

This has a higher likelihood in happening NOW than at anytime before the Second Vatican Council. With Pope John Paul II's record number of cardinal appointments in the past decade, he definitely has insured a VERY racially diverse College of Cardinals. This is the same body that will elect his replacement upon his passing.

Good chance of a non-white pope. Not so good to dismal chance of a liberal pope.

I don't think it is weird... I mean people just can't live in peace.. they get bored of it maybe?

Interesting indeed. Who will be next...


An older South American for 10 or so years, than a younger Asian pope.

A South American pope would probably be the easiest for people to accept. Soldify the church's base in South America and the spanish speaking American population.

Don't know...interesting though...I wonder what sort of silent campaigns are going on.

Politics ... without sex!!! Jeez!!!

I can see why they'd want an African Pope.

Africa is probably the weathiest land mass on the planet. 1000s of miles of choice beach and fishing is awesome. They even have fish that were supposed to be extinct 30 million years ago.

There's oil up the wazoo, diamonds out the ass, rubies, emeralds, gold, platinum, uranium... you name it, they got it by the bucketloads.

Problem is they've been at war with other countries for so long they never had the chance to develope it.

Africa's no joke on the lifeform issue either. They've got bugs and shit over there that would roll a can of RAID up in a ball and put it in a crack pipe, take two totes and then kick your ass.

Sure, as long as the playing field is fair. Which it ain't been for a lonnnnng time.

Every race and ethnic group gets a beat down in the U.S. but most can assimilate into the main anglo culture except blacks because they're so visually recognizable. Add that and Hollywood's portrayal of them as gangsters, crooks and buffoons and you wonder why people treat them as they do. People have to get their heads outta the tv sets when evaluating life.

America???

Dude, I studied under the best theologians and archeaologists and anthropologists on EARTH. This altering of Christ's appearance happend lonnnnng before there was a U.S.

If you study the early Christian church you'll see the paintings of Christ and Mary and the Apostles as dark skinned people. What's amazing is that their eye color is odd. Some have blue, green, hazel, brown eyes yet dark skin like Brazilians.

Hair color too. There are black people with blonde, red hair as well. Who knows what it was like back then and the paintings from that time are the only evidence outside of forensic evidence.

It doesn't mean that Christ was like Shaquille O'Neal black but the ONLY written document of his appearance comes from a Captain of the Roman Army who was sent by Rome to meet with him to find out what all the beef was in that region. He described him as a tall man with bright eyes, brown skin and sandy brown hair.

Outside of that it's all conjecture.

Obviously.

But my point still stands that America still believes christ to be white.

The change obviously took ahold long ago, since the last African Popes happend only 500 years after christ.

Mary Magdalene has been denied her existence as an apostle you think the hypocrisy would stop there?

:winkwink:

jesus was the greatest spammer ever

he has the largest optin list in the history of the world
and he gets a grip more people every day

we have a lot to learn from him

not all of us..

but then again "white" covers a lot of ground.

America is a fucked up place...but a lot more of the modern racism against blacks stems from reconstruction after the Civil War. (whole 'nother ball of wax)

As far as religion...

American slaves were robbed of there culture...and their Gods were killed. (like the drama :glugglug )

Most converted to a bastardized version of Christianity, which had a powerful effect on self-image.

So, I agree if that's what you were talking about in regards to Christianity and America.

I'd probably get killed for it, but one of the biggest problems in Black America besides negative self-images and portrals...is the church.

Fucking baffons like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson...where do they get their pseudo authority.

well persumably a black pope would still be catholic ;)

Look, the African slave trade was in full force millenia before there was a U.S. Notice however abolishment began to occur soon as the Revolutionary War was under way and 80 years later done.

Europeans, Asians, Africans were all into the slave trade on BOTH sides of the fence.

Religion was used as a justifier for it by greedy men and women and institutions.

I thought we had the new pope...


http://thughosting.com/www/diary/juicy_pope.gif

holy shit

Where are all these African popes?! I tougth JPII was the first pope not to be Italian.

Honestly, he might be the best man for the job that but it will never happen.

fuck the pope.

fuck religion.

fuck god, fuck allah,

and FUCK YOU.

who cares what the pope looks like ?

white pope = bible puppet with a medium cock
black pope = bible puppet with a large cock

No, the first popes weren't Italian. Most were of different countries different races. Rome didn't become Christian til much later.

a black pope is like a black guy on the jetsons...
youll never see one.











isnt the future great?:winkwink:

Holy Shit!

I don't need a history lesson on slavery ;)
Although interesting, not really what I had in mind...

The point on the African slave trade is a given; however, most historians will point out the differences between historical slavery and slavery as carried out in the U.S. colonies. (etc..., again that is given...the history of slavery discussion wasn't the point)

The whole point of Fletch's post was Christianity in America (U.S. I'm assuming), was the influence on race relations.

Mine was specifically confined to U.S. race relations and the historical roots.

If you look at religious history and the Civil War, I'm sure you will find the importance in the cultural differences between the Northern and Southern colonies (Aristocratic/Plantations v. Republic/Industrial).

In the south you had leaders in all phases that made up the "planter class." They were both religious, business and judicial leaders. In essence, the planters made up the elite in ALL phases of southern society. Slavery made tons of money, and a great deal of economic sense in the south, for various obvious reasons.

The Northern colonies were never able to adapt slaves to be of any use. They needed factory workers who also had a decent stream of income to support their economies. They had great industries going and they needed consumers not slaves with no income.

The differences in culture that lead the Northern/republicans to support the abolition of slavery. The primary motives where economic, to contain the Southern econmic base...slavery. Contain that, and you contain their growth, and you don't risk losing trade with the rest of the world. The wealth of the south, quite literally was measured in slaves. End slavery, destroy the south's wealth.

Clearly for the south, as you can see by MS declaration of cessestion slavery was their life blood. Again end slavery, destroy the south.

Up to this point, the primary reasons behind slavery (though justified by religion/culture etc.) are economic...whether in Africa/America/Europe. Came down to money. Race made it easier to justify, but it was nothing new.

The whole "Southern Culture," bit was a farce to get the masses of white southerns to fight. The war changed from a war about slavery/economic systems to a war about culture, specifically to justify the masses of poor whites to fight for the elite planter class.

The horror was they were fighting for a system that didn't have much in it for them.

To keep it brief, the South loses the war but creates a "Religion of the South," or alternatively "The Lost Cause." In which they glorify the Confederacy etc., and to a large extent racism.

All to justify the horrible war, and the total economic devestation of the south, where no one had anything, and former slaves were now enfranchised citizens, and the planter elite class was gone...enter reconstruction and deprivation of the new black citizens right to equal protection under the law etc...
and shit didn't change until the 1960s, nearly 80s years later.

It's very sad, twisted, and makes me laugh a great deal about how the rich/elite classes lose everything at their disposal to fool the poor.

The moral of the story: it is good to be rich.


Anyways...a lot left out due to bombay and ice.

Let's chat about religion again, I'm considering an MA in philo or religious studies.

I love religion within the context of history.

:glugglug :glugglug

:thumbsup :winkwink: :thumbsup

I want names of these individuals. I call bullshit.

http://www.christianseparatist.org/o...hitejesus.html

The use of a Jewish source to prove Jesus was white.

Jesus was not black, the whole fucking idea is absurd.

I was raised Catholic, if you ask my mom we still are, even if we haven't been to church in 10 years... a black Pope would be fine with me... I'm all for anyone that can do their job, no matter who and what they are :thumbsup

You are the type of guy that reads one things and immediately believes it, huh? You don't research things, read different opinions, etc...huh?

I can give you some articles stating the world is flat, if you would like.

It was a statement about the "race" of Jesus via quotes from the book of Revelation, the Torah, and from the Jewish Historian Josephus. What the fuck else are you gonna use as a valid reference point for the "race" of Jesus? Some toon guy on a message board?

Make a valid point or shut the fuck up.

I have the hologram jesus portrait like in 'born in east la'

hahaha

picked it up in la one day years ago.

took a picture on new years on the cam

heh.

<img src=http://www.fletchxxx.com/images/jesus.jpg border="1">

Sometiems the shit i find on my computer spooks me out. I disconnected my cam long ago. hehe

:1orglaugh

Are you stating that regilous books never were edited or changed through the centuries? You think what we read now is the very first copy? If so, you are a moron.

Things change through the centuries to adapt to the times. Most religous scholars now say that the New Testament was simply written to put the fear of god into citizens that were gaining too much power at the time...thus, making the book bullshit.

And you are stating one Jewish historian. I am sure you can find more that gives the same statements. But I guess very quickly, I could find researchers that state otherwise.

http://www.insearchofjesus.org/faceo...tml#composites

This computer-generated image was produced for the Discovery Channel's "Jesus: The Complete Story." It was created to suggest what Jesus' face might have looked like, contrary to the fair-skinned and fine-featured image familiar since medieval times. The new image was created by a forensic artist at the University of Manchester using the 2,000-year-old skull of a Jewish man from Israel. Cues on hair and skin tone were taken from frescoes of Jewish faces painted in the third century. The result is a dark-skinned, curly-haired man with a round, robust face and a stout nose.



http://www.goacom.com/overseas-diges...esuswhite.html
The evidence for a dark Jesus
a) Biblical lore: Soon after Jesus was born, Herod is believed to have sent his soldiers to seek and kill him as an infant. To hide the Christ child, we are told his family fled with him to Egypt but pre-Arab Egypt was a society of dark-skinned Africans (as evidenced in their own hieroglyphs) and it would be folly to try hiding an Aryan baby there of all places. The land was referred to as Kemet (the Black land), for thousands of years, and themselves as "Kemetcu" (the black humans). The "father" of modern history, Herodotus, himself acknowledged as much when he said "the Egyptians, Colchians and Ethiopians have thick lips, broad nose, wooly hair and are of burnt skin." Elsewhere, he actually referred to them as "black?.


b) History: Tim Wise, progressive writer from Nashville, Tennessee points out that the earliest representations of Jesus, Mary, and Christ's disciples appear in the catacombs of Rome, where the first Christians, known as Essenes buried their dead. All of these portrayals show a dark-skinned Messiah. In addition, the Roman Empire under Emperor Justinian II minted a gold coin that pictured Jesus. This coin, which today can be viewed in the British Museum, shows a man with clearly non-white facial features and tightly curled hair, consistent with the description of Christ in the Book of Revelations, wherein it is stated that Jesus had hair like wool, feet the colour of burnt brass, and resembled jasper and sardine stones: both of which were brown in colour.



c) New Research: In April 2001, the BBC reported fresh historical and archeological evidence in a 3-part TV documentary entitled Son of God. It had taken 16 months to make. The research team (including a forensic expert) studied ancient Jewish skulls and examined Jewish faces from the 1st century and then proceeded to make models using the latest computer techniques. They concluded that Jesus was much stockier and darker than depicted in classical European paintings and graphic experts generated a computer model of the face of Jesus, a face that Asian and Arab peoples can be comfortable with.



Everyone can believe what they want. Just pointing out there is always a different opinion and this will going on forever. Just don't be a moron and totally close minded. For a long time everyone believed the world was flat, that Columbus was the first to discover America, etc....things always get proved wrong over time.

Dumbass. Josephus is the historian that lived around the same time as Jesus. Born AD 30. So yes, he is a little more valid a reference than a historian 300 years later. Make sense?

Well considering that early manuscripts do exists to compare and contrast with, it is you who is the moron.

Most religious scholars? Give a source and not your own personal uninformed opinion.

The New Testament was written? The "New Testament" is a compilation of several authors works. And it was only put together to scare people? Gee and all this time most people thought it was a complilation of works that were gathered up and decided upon at the Council of Nicea in order to better help govern the growing church during a time when there were a wide variety of early church manuscripts spreading about the diaspora and everyone was relatively clueless as to which to use.

Fuck me, pick up a book.

Read a few posts above, close minded asshole.

FYI, I am not religous and don't believe there was even a Jesus existed that is depicted today and for a long time. Just stating the morons like you always try to push what they believe on everyone, and don't consider other "facts".

Do you believe in science and evolution? If so, then you can't believe what scholars in the past have written, right? I believe more in modern science that what someone wrote in the past, because you don't know what they were trying to influence at the time.

Maybe you are right. Maybe what others say that "Jesus" was a black or dark skinned man. Maybe he was a woman. No one will ever know...but be smart enough to realize that you might not be exactly correct in your thoughts.

I'm withholding comment until Rush Limbaugh makes a statement about it.

"Call me back when you take the bone out of your nose."

Facts? What facts? You posted facts?

You seem to claim otherwise in the end of this post:

Correct in my thoughts? All I said was that Jesus was not black and posted a link to someone that quoted the Jewish historical sources to prove that Jesus was anything but black.

But now we know that you view all historical sources as bogus... as you are a firm believer in "science".

You have got to be kidding me.

Because I believe in science and evolution I cannot believe historical sources? As if history is just a mish mash of unverifiable halftruths and conjecture? The writings of every great historian of the past, invalid. You do realize there are sciences that exist to prove or disprove history correct? Archaeology for one.

It is ignorant remarks like the one above that render any point you have to make completely null and void. You are so ill informed and ignorant of the subject matter it is pointless even debating the subject with you.

I showed facts just as much as you showed facts.

You asked for experts that said Jesus wasn't white, and I showed some. You showed your "facts" that he was white.

What is the problem?

http://www.topnotchhoes.com/tdfgown.jpg


i am the pope...dress included

I see it

Read this: <a href=http://books.reviewindex.co.uk/reviews_uk/0552143308.html>The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ</a>

The best part of that book is where, as Adorno above, speaks of people at the time who were more equipt to give a description of christ.

The best thing I found was there is no public record of christs execution, but THERE IS public record of John The Baptists beheading which has lead to the belief that Christ was the #2 in John The Baptists congregation and when JOhn was beheaded (which we KNOW to be true unlike christs crucifiction) christ took it upon himself to keep the faith alive and twisted everything to suit him.

I have more books on this than my favorite subject. 'The Devil'

:glugglug

You still locked out of the dump? Shoot me an icq, Ill be back in an hour or so.

hehehe

:glugglug