CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Technically Jesus was caucasian because his race falls into that category . Caucasian isn't just white people. I think that's what Megyn Kelly was trying to say but she just said it unintelligently.
Well its true that Jesus did exist but being that the bible seems almost certainly to contains fiction, the question is what fiction is most effective in perpetuating the idea of Christianity. The majority of Christians are white so giving them pictures of a white man to worship makes the messiah seem more like them. If he seems more like them they are more likely to worship him (being that human are naturally egotistical). Therefore, Jesus, as a symbolic religious figure must be white to most effective perpetuate christian's religious fiction.
Is that actually correct? I cannot find a consolidated statistic on adherents by race/ethnicity, however a breakdown of demographics of the 10 countries with most Christian adherents (source) indicates that while Caucasian might be the larger minority there is no prevailing majority. 18.8% belong to a predominantly Caucasian country (including the U.S. which has a significant non-white Christian population), while 29.0% belong to predominantly non-Caucasian countries.
So, really, Jesus should be a different race depending on the country and maybe even the church. Or, perhaps, Jesus should be racially ambiguous or even mixed race?
There is no way that he could have been any other color, because if he was black he would have been a slave and not have been able to spread his word like he did.
However, in the context of the thing to which she was arguing, I agree with her, in that sense. There is no need to change the image of Jesus, nor of Santa, to that of another color. The only part where she is wrong is about Jesus historically being white. But, that is irrelevant to the argument, in my opinion.
There is no need to change the image of Jesus, nor of Santa, to that of another color.
What if the depiction of Jesus and Santa was that of a black man? Would you as a white person want it changed to something more neutral?
OK lets imagine that we are in a alternate universe, in this universe Blacks were the oppressors, blacks invaded native American land, blacks enslaved white people and forced there way of life on the whites with there version of history, there version of religion, there version of black Santa, there version of black Jesus, there version of morality, pretty much controlled and doctored all of American history up until this point, as a equal free white man or women how would you feel about a black Jesus and a black Santa?
So should if be changed Yes, why because contrary to popular belief the world is not centered around white people, at least not any more, should Santa and Jesus be blacks, no but at least a neutral color, both are just traditional figures and keeping them white would not be a problem if it was just that, but America and its white Christian rules took it upon themselves in the 1950's to make Christmas a national holiday, so now that blacks are no longer sitting in the back of the bus, white Santa must change, as well of white Jesus.
The image of these people is what is important, not being politically correct. If the image of Jesus was black, and I had been oppressed by blacks, then I wouldn't want it changed. The image of Jesus would have been that of black, which would have been what I had grown up with. Being politically correct only makes both sides unhappy.
We should remember that the ethnic makeup of that region 2000 years ago was quite different. The darker skinned arab genes wouldn't make a major appearance for quite a while. Rather, Jesus probably looked something like a modern day Serbian (though with dark eyes and curly hair).
IF, I guess you could say that about any other ancient figure, like Ceaser, Augustus, Socrates, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Plato, Cyrus the Great.
The list can go on and on. Jesus existed, weather you choose to accept him as the son of God is another matter, but Jesus was real.
You do realize the almost nothing survived that period as far as official documents go. The Romans crucified thousands of Jews and didn't record it in their official records.
You seem to be implying that everything in the Bible is false. The Bible does mention by name Pontius Pilate. In 1961, an archaeologist team, led by Dr. Antonio Frovo found a Roman concrete tablet with Pontius name on it, proving his existence.
I have to admit, that would be one fucking lucky guess by an author of the Bible if he was just making up stuff, would it not?
Pontius Pilate, to come up with a name like that and later find out the guy existed? What are the odds?
So tell me, is everything in the Bible a fabrication?
I'm sure the bible is based on some truth but the vast majority is plagiarized literature built on primitive humans trying to explain the unexplained wonders of our very own existence.
Socrates, Aristotle, Plato and Alexander the Great were born in modern day greece, so they would like like a tan-white person. Same with Augustus and Ceaser. Cyrus the Great was a Persian leader (modern-day Iran), if you Zico20 would understand ancient history. SO Cyrus would look like a Iran.
I don't think he was white. I imagined him as some kind of arab enthicity, but skin color is really irrelevant.
I was surprised by this whole santa is white thing. He is a fictional, holiday figure. He is not real, we could say he if blue if we really wanted to and it would not change the effect of him.
Not exactly. Racially, they are Caucasian, but Semitic as opposed to Anglo. Anglo-Caucasians are "white", Semitic are the middle-easterners, which is a bit more ethnic than truly racial, but significant enough to be considered a different group.
No, they are identified as Caucasian. "White" is most typically the Anglo-Caucasian branch, which is somewhat distinct from the Semitic-Caucasian branch. Granted, there is some dispute in the actual practice. But racists identify them as a different race, most modern surveys have a special box for it, and plenty of non-racist people identify them differently.
In the long run it doesn't matter to me at all, but I find it extremely rare for anyone to call them "white". Not unheard of, but not common.
On almost all surveys that incorporate race questions, white comprises peoples of European and Middle Eastern descent. For instance, on the 2010 Census, there is no option for Semitic or Middle-Eastern, which leads me to believe that most Middle-Eastern people would select "white".
I understand what you're saying, but I do not think what Megyn Kelly said was as inaccurate as many people believe.
True. It really comes down to perceived authenticity. As guitarguy's recent debate points out, actual descriptions of Jesus in Bible are absent so we may never know. What we do know is that a man born at the time and place he was purportedly born in almost certainly wouldn't have light skin and brown hair, and would be unlikely to have the features we often see in paintings of him. The genetic mixing of the Semitic and Anglo branches of Caucasian that we have today wouldn't have started occurring until a few centuries later, and the Semitic people would have been more likely to procreate with Africans, keeping their skin tones, hair and facial features more distinct from Anglos.
The other side of the coin is that Christianity was eventually largely removed from Western Asia and Northern Africa, and replaced with Islam. Instead Christianity found a new stronghold in Europe and became basically a predominately white religion, a fact that is only recently starting to change to any degree. So one could say that without a Biblically backed description, it was inevitable that he be depicted to resemble the people who most commonly followed his teachings.
All of that being said, I could really care less. I am not a Christian, am not convinced that he existed (or at least not as often portrayed), and even if I was, race would be a lot less important to me than his message, which should be universal if true.
In the time of Jesus the majority of people from the Middle East were darker skinned than they are now so it is most likely that Jesus was dark skinned or Black so the depiction of him as a White man is incorrect, on the other hand the story of Santa is believed to have started with the Norse god Odin who used to ride his six legged horse across the sky distributing presents to children, Odin was always depicted and described as being White with a long white beard so the depiction of Santa as being White is correct
The reason why most images of Jesus depict him with Ango-Saxon features is because Christianity was traditionally practiced in Europe, therefore many European Christians depicted him as white.
The same way that most depictions of Buddha are that of a fat east asian man when he was most likely a skinny indian guy, because Buddism was largley practiced in East Asia.
The story of Jesus' birth give us the answer, Mary was returning to her hometown for the census, Roman law had every citizen to their birth town for the census, in Palestine so Mary probably looked like a Middle Eastern, dark skin. Jesus was born in modern day Israel where the ethnic Israelis have dark skin. So Jesus would look like the American stereo-type of a "terrorist" not Angelo-Saxon.