it's strange how within religious circules there's a great deal of special pleading with regards to how a religion is meant to be interpreted. texts written thousands of years ago meant to be understood univocally and with no room for openness or dissent, all wraped up in a neat and closed narrative about how religious institutions, power structures and beaurocrats know best. it's an epistemological joke, is what it is.
that's the sort of naievity behind those who come down on cornel west.
Also the constatinian vs. prohetic Christianity is a little laughable. Typical liberal chirstianity with roots at least all the way back to the 19th century. Historians have mostly rejected the idea that Constatine ruined christianity and the real christianity was more ethical in nature than metaphyscial.
@MrBlackhaw he is not talking about that.He is saying how christianity was intergrated into a society that persucuted the first Christians.Christianity in actuality is both ethical and spiritual.Like Buddism except the face that Christian actually worship a divine figure
Vatican II "ushered in a new era in the history of the Catholic Church," theologian Hans Kung wrote. Latin American bishops adopted "the preferential option for the poor."Thus the bishops renewed the radical pacifism of the Gospels that had been put to rest when the Emperor Constantine established Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire "a revolution" that in less than a century converted "the persecuted church" to a "persecuting church," according to Kung.-Noam Chomsky
interesting that Jesus really did not go agaisnt the Toman empire as much as many of those around him wanted him to. He really argued mroe against hte pharisees and other jews than agaisnt the roman empire.
Leave it to reductionists on the left to distill the history of Christianity to a religion of liberation before Constantine's conversion and a tyranny afterwards.
@natmanprime I agree, but i would say faith is nonrational. Just because faith is not rational doesn't mean it's against reason. it just means it's not reason.
Constantinian Christian is a red herring. Christians---Popes included---fought with kings for nearly two thousand years trying to show that the State was / is not ultimate and that the idea that it utlimate is a perennial temptation to idolatry. The Vatican gave up all of England rather than allow---against the teaching of Jesus--- that Henry VIII could have his divorce for that sweet thang, Ann Boelyn.
@orbis2009 Constantinian Christian is a reference to a theological/religious tradition rooted in Western Europe. Orthodox churches (e.g. Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian) are not Constantinian. Furthermore, even within the Western World, versions of Christianity emerged that were not bound to "Constantinian" commitments. The Christianity fashioned by African peoples in the US to resist enslavement, for instance, resisted "Constantinian" imperialism.
Jesus has been dead for a couple of thousand years. It's time for humanity to grow the hell up and stop whining about a long-dead Jew with his head in the clouds. Can we finally live in the here and now and stop believing in fairy tales? Christianity is just like every other religion: a breeding ground for fools and madmen.
This whole clip is bullshit! Not a Constantinian Christian? Then I guess he doesn't subscribe to the Trinity which was clearly influenced by Constantine. Secondly you don't have to appeal to Constantine for imperialism and unethical stances within Christianity, the bible is riff with them...hell when did Jesus take a principled stance against slavery??? Why were there 12 male apostles and not any women(Yes there were females followers but not apostles!)? Cornel is full of it!!!
Mr. West is on to something. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that Jesus lived his life in the age of the Roman Empire, and eventually killed for his views.
"We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice."- Friedrich Hayek
he just sumed it up foir me black intellectuals have a lot of style as well as knowledge and morality and white one slike noam have that carmness but there are a lot of liars on both "by the way i aent seperating black from white i am just remarking upon the cultural differences that influence the style of talk of intellectuals"
Transformer217. He is criticizing Gibson's film and the forth Gospel. I do not think from Wests writings that he believes in the Jesus of the Bible or that he is more than just an extraordinary human as he says I am not a Constantinian Christian. In other places he is a Chekhovian Christian which he never gives a satisfy answer to its meaning or make any sense of it. I think he just likes the sound of it. .
@neomax117 to understand what a Chekhovian christian is....search out the root word....Chekhov....Anton Chekhov was a Russian novelist who (I think) once described his own personal form of Christianity...I'm guessing Cornel aligns himself with specific strain of Christianity.
@Ravengaurd6. I know Chekhov's work well. But Chekhov was a rare Russian writer that really was not a believer. It is just West just making up stuff as he goes along. I hope that people do not take this guy too serious. Many other real scholars to cut your teeth on than this goof.
@neomax117 I dont think West ever claimed Chekhov believed in God. He wants to correlate Chekhov's work with his view of Jesus as an "existential exemplar." I'm not convinced West himself is a theist.
@godisanegro neomax is right though. West is a goof. He's "smart" but he's one of the many scholars who is more wrapped up in proving what he WANTS to prove than really learning and teaching. he's an agenda driven, racially motivated idealist who doesn't allow himself to truly prcess that which doesn't conform to his worldview.
@mamacornettesmoney I don't mean to come off as facetious, but what do you mean by "racially motivated idealist?" What does he say in this vid that is "goofy" or fits your description of him and his work?
@godisanegro Not just in this video. I've followed him for years. He's a goof who is so wrapped up in image and race that he comes across as FAR too narrow minded to take seriously.
@mamacornettesmoney That's fine, but since this is a comment thread on this video, I'm curious, what does he say here that you consider to be "goofy?"
@bdenoon I would start with all the early historians especially Flavius Josephus (Jewish history) Eusebius, Saint Bede the Venerable. Modern: Henry Chadwick, Jaroslav Pelikan, Peter Brown, J. N. D. Kelly, Rodney Stark, Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright to name just a few.
Have you ever read Cornel's writings Transformer217? Unfortunately, I have read most his corpus and I would agree with Leon Wieseltier when he wrote that West was an intellectual empty suit whose writing is noisy, tedious, slippery sectarian, humorless, pedantic and self-endeared." So you go ahead and believe what you like I but I think this pseudo-intellectual gas bag gives real scholars a very bad name.
This is one of the chapters in his book Democracy Matters. It's amazing how he can infuse his own personal(though I strongly agree with them) views into an issue of history and politics.
Christianity has never been Constantinian. The Church presided over its funeral. But it takes a long time to shed some things that are cultural (like forms of slavery, also indentured white Irish servants, todays Walmart serfs)....we can always grow and do better. None of us "have it" completely. We are all always "on the way". Usury oppressed the poor too, crushed them for millenia. It still does do.
What the hell is this guy saying? West is so full of hot air. It is amazing how some individuals are allowed to be professor these days. Mr. West, have you had any more luck figuring out what prophetic Christianity is? I know you tried to define it in every book you have ever written (his books are all the same but with different prophetic titles) but it still sounds like tripe. Moreover, have you written a peer reviewed article or work that every University professor is required to do?
@neomax117 He's talking about the hypocrisy on what America is doing, in trying to preach about Christ, and yet falling into the same path of the Roman Empire that actually persecuted Jesus.
West is a highly intelligent man. So to say that he's full of hot hair is purely idiotic on your part.
@TheBlackLesbian i agree slavery was abhorent, BUT lets talk about what is going on today, blacks are still enslaving blacks in africa, shocking isnt it, and they have been doing so long before whites, or even the arabs who enslaved them before whites, whites where enslaved by arabs too you know sold to them by vikings, you have this thought that blacks are only shit because of whitey interaction, you dont need us to tip u in that direction its your natural state.
@GiggleHz shut up you lying, faggot, homosexual, peckerwood cracker. what does any of that long blast of wind have to do with what the black lesbian typed? you crackers just quote the same lame, tired talking points over and over even when they have no relevance to the discussion, point raised or random comment. i guess you feel if you repeat it enough times you'll actually start to believe it, or that it'll somehow justify your long history of death, chaos and destruction. not a chance.
Who cares. Why do Africans in America listen to a homosexual professor at an all-white university? One who pretends to speak and/or fight for our issues? Who's fault is that? Same goes for Tavis, Eric Michael Dyson, Al Sharpton, Messy Jesse, The Congressional Black Coma, TD Snakes, Creflo, TOM Joyner, Bill Cosby, the list goes on. NONE of these cartoon characters talk of building a nation for AAs in Africa. Sissies!!!
"masochistic voyeurism ", great! im not relegious at all, but i respect people like West, who are at least true followers of their faith, and not some phoney christian (90%)
if Dr. West calls the Passion "sadomasochistic voyeurism" then he is not a very good student of Roman history, or history in general. He also doesn't understand who the Romans were in history. The Romans tortured people. That happened.
Was "Roots" "sadomasochistic voyeurism"? Of course not, when you agree with the agenda, everything is fine. When will someone call out people like this who teach propaganda instead of actual theory?
In my eyes it is quite evident that West's comment is not concerned with, i.e. not questioning, whether the Roman s actually tortured people or not, but with the description of the violence in the movie, primarily with the purpose of Gibson's discription of this violence. Torture happened, yes, but the display of violence in the movie is surely not so much about historical accuracy, as about violence as a means of propaganda. It's on this ideological level that we should understand West's view
But there are good, positive things associated with those myths. The man may or may have not walked the earth, I don't know. But the more I think about it, the more I like most of what he taught, as opposed to Paul and the crap in the Old Testament. In other words, pick and choose the good, uplifting positive things.
No, that is just foolishness. Do you not realise that according to myth, Jesus said condemned all non believers to an eternity in hell? You call that noble? Do you call that moral? That is despicable and foolish. Remember, religious people will push their views on your society and government. Stem cell research, equal rights, science and even common sense are trodded on by christians - it must be fought in spite of any charitable (proselytization IMO) acts.
Well, I would agree with you there. I was pointing more towards hanging out with the "scum" of society, overturning the money changers, calling out the religious leadership of the day for their hypocrisy, speaking truth to power, healing the sick free of charge. Basically what I'm saying is that we should take the positive things, and leave out the rubbish. I think John Shelby Spong is a good example of this.
Romans 8:1 "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Jesus never once in the gospels mentioned heaven or hell specifically. So it is not foolish, it is not despicable. The fact is that Jesus did not come to condemn but to save. Its the only religion in the world that claims that. Yes, Christianity is falsely represented across the world in many instances, but the truth is, Christianity is NOT, and has never truly been about Condemnation
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Romans 8:1. Never once in the gospels did jesus specifically mention heaven or hell. Jesus did NOT come to condemn, but to save. Its not foolish, its not despicable. The truth is, Christianity is the only religion that is less concered with what you do, and more concered with what has been done (the passion). You don't have to believe it, but at least know that NEVER ONCE in his life did Jesus preach condemnation
My comment goes to the open forum here on youtube we in society have found that we as people have two spirits working at all times evil vs good. Now the question here is who really do you think was working through society during the period of any crimes or rather ill tratment towards humankind. The evil has always won its way in our minds to believe that which is true unto law is right I beg to differ man makes the rules so who is leading them. We can not allow thought to provoke right.
How do you keep a people down? You 'never' let them 'know' their history.
The 7th Cavalry got their butts in a sling again after Little Big Horn, fourteen years later, the day after the Wounded Knee Massacre. If it wasn't for the 9th Cavalry Buffalo Soldiers, there would of been a second massacre of the 7th Cavalry. Read, and visit site/history, rescue at pine ridge. com
The Brits did until the US become the lone world superpower in the wake of WWII and the Cold War. Doesn't seem like it will be that way for long though.
What constitutes an Empire? I thought it was possessing lands overseas or beyond your defined borders. Having other territories flying your flag. By this definition America is not an Empire, but a technological, militarily, and financially wealthy and powerful Nation State. Similar to Japan. A Superpower doesn't equal Empire. Please explain.
Rome not only controlled many kingdoms and lands, but it also infiltrated the society, culture, and politics outside its direct rule. Many kingdoms were "satellite" states of Rome, in which Rome exercised indirect control (Rubicon by Tom Holland should help).
American culture today seeps into every pore of global society. The term 'globalization' is a direct result of the United States. It is the Americanization of the globe. Historically speaking, the 1890s say a rise in american imperialism..
The war with Spain in 1898 witnessed and American victory and the acquisition of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the 'liberation' of Cuba, which only became a satellite state of the US. Economic power over nations is just as effective as holding them as actual territory. The U.S. may not be a territorial empire in most contexts, however, economically, politically, and culturally, it is an empire.
The old concept of god is stupid anyway. Imature and devoid of reality all together. The truth is, god is Reality; what You are and I am, and We is, and what everything been for now and ever. What is more profound than You right now, that being so? How much empowerment does that bestow. You are not all of Reality, but Reality is all of Us. Forget everything you think you know. We are what we are, but not what we think we are. Thank you.
You seem to be living under the dilusion that African Americans are or were the sole slaves of the world, and that your previous comment defeats the notion of racial equality.
Slave ownership was a norm of the time, and the responsibility between slave and master was shared: the slave's obligation was to serve their master; the master's obligation was to treat their slave according to Christ's teachings: love, compassion, altruism. Tell me, Mr. America, is that how those masters were?
"Perhaps one of the most tragic ironies of history - the African American embrace of Christianity; a type of Mass Stockholm effect."
The above was the post you seem nominally to be responding to. If you could elaborate on what you understood it to mean it might help me phrase it in a way less open to widely divergent and unintended interpretation.
Gladly. My immediate interpretation of it is this: that in the Bible quote you left, the implication is that slaves were required by Jesus's teachings to obey their masters. By your comment preceding the quote, you seem to imply that an African American embrace of Christianity is invalid because of their strong anti-slave stance; that because they do not believe in being held slaves -- and, indeed, rebelled against it -- they are not qualified to be Christians.
The Stockholm Effect is a term given to the phenomenon of hostages identifying with their captors.
African Americans became the worst victims of the longest running crime against humanity in recent human history -the middle passage.
Christianity was not only the religion of our captors but clearly condones slavery. Yet we embraced it and out of denial, ignorance or stupidity continue to uncritically embrace it . That is both tragic and ironic.
That's a little different, and it leads me to a different point: because Christianity was the religion of the captors does not mean in any way that they were good Christians. Christianity does not condone slavery in the sense that you're thinking; I explained that in my first reply. If slave-owners were to act as perfect Christians, the only thing defining slavery as such would be the lack of pay, but it would be made up for with the hospitality, generosity, etc. "Christ-like values."
Your posts are deeply instructive of what informs the mechanism underlying the phenomenon that is at the heart of the point I'm making.
"Slave ownership was a norm of the time..." Indeed it was. And the Bible accepts it as such. There in lieth the rub. That is its catastrophic ethical failure. Tepid attempts to mitigate its brutality only add insult to injury: This is how it is folks, let's just be nice and make the best of it.
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. " Ephesians 6:5
"Masters, treat your slaves the same way. Do not threaten them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." Ephesians 6:9
A slave trader could not have wished a more useful apologia to hide behind nor could he have improved upon it writing it himself.
I think you misunderstand my message. I see your point: that the requirement of someone to accept suffering under the justification that they will be paid back for it after they die reeks of exploitation.
We then get back to the Christ figure, though, and this is where it makes a difference depending on whether you believe in him or not: Christ made it very clear how he thought of hypocrites. Slave-traders could easily use that apologia, but the core figure of Christianity would despise them
Now, I do not deny your claim against said slave-owners, or the claim that the Bible served them a perfect way to exploit their slaves. My message, though, is that their actions are not intrinsic to Christianity. They don't care, obviously, and so the doctrine makes them capable of great evils, but that does not make the doctrine itself evil.
proof that even the most enlightened can have beliefs and concepts so ingrained into the fiber of thier existence that despite the fact the you have concrete and empirical evidence in front of you a blind eye is turned from it...ignorance in some instances is a synonim for faith and I am not purposefuly being disrespectful to those of faith.
This is funny...anti-higher-powerists, wether they're athiests, agnostics, whatever, tend to always argue: there is no proof, therefore it is fictional.
There is no proof that Jesus definitively did not exist, nor is there proof that there is not a God. If I were to use the so-called "enlightened" arguement; the "rational" one, I would say that there is no proof of the absence of a God; therefore there is a God.
Actually, the consensus even among secular scholars appears to be that there was such an historical figure or at least a composite thereof of the Jesus referred to in the bible.
Of course, that does not automatically make the supernatural claims made, true. Moreover, some of the most venerable traditions of mass delusion inconveniently and annoyingly either dismiss these out of hand entirely -Judaism or in part - Islam.
In that sense, we are in agreement. I am a Christian, but it is a matter of faith/belief, not necessarily of reason. I am not attempting to "prove" the supernatural, I am merely attempting to defeat the notion that it most certainly does not exist.
the burden lies upon the one who makes the claim that something is there... so prove it.
your same argument could be used in the following way: "There is no proof of the absence of a giant marshmellow man existing behind the sun... therefore the marshmellow man exists."... the burden of proof would lie upon me to prove that such a thing exists.. that logic is counter-intuitive with reasonable and logical thought.
I am not trying to prove it, nor am I trying to force you to believe it. I am exercising the right to my own belief, reasonable or not.
That comment was left a while ago, and I understand what you're saying about my argument and the hole in it: that it is illogical to require proof of a negative. There's a whole different hole in the strict belief that a lack of empirical evidence proves false, however, but that's something else.
Actually its been historically proven that jesus was real and was crucified by the romans...whether or not you believe he was the son of god is a different story
I don't call Yeshua by a fictonal name, The Jesus you worship is named Cesar Borgia. And all the facts of Jesus's life were stolen from Horus, Krishna, And Mithra...
the facts of Jesus' life were stolen but i think ur confused about cesare borgia- some of the paintings of jesus made during borgia's lifetime were based off of borgia but he wasnt jesus christ... this only appies if thats what you meant by saying jesus is named cesare borgia
yea the paintings of jesus are cesar borgia and i'm an atheist so i don't care if you believe jesus was god anyway, i think its all bullshit but whether he's fictional or not is beyond me
@djjlcl That may very well be but I cannot in good conscious take your word for it. In the same way that a scientific paper requires a source. Show me some proof that Jesus existed and was crucified and ill look at it and make up my mind. But from what I've seen and heard there is no proof that I know of. Usually I hear these kinda of comments from religious people which honestly doesn't make me believe them because they are obviously biased.
@djjlcl has it been? they found the body? they found dna evidence? I think all they have is hearsay, and stories passed down. I believe he did exist and was crucified by the roman empire as well, but I do not think it has been historically proven yet
This is an excerpt from an hour long conversation. That's not the host, she's Toni Morrison with just as much to say as Cornel West. Watch the whole thing. There's LOTS of rational inquiry going on. :)
I am absolutely not at all SURPRISED that the above happened. It seems that the youth know nothing of relevance such as what Dr. West presents. It is indeed a SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS. Just think that is somewhat a representation of the future. Would you ask that person for help in a dyer emergency.........GOD I HOPE NOT!!!!!!!!
for him to infer that the salvation of the crucifixion is relevant to good sense is a selling us out because then there is unprecedented guide to attention to this story which was previously irrelevant,seek truth find truh and pray but read first and read last
he aint sayin shit that aint nobody else gonna think about but why dont we as peoplre of the u.s. society stik to a story that doesnt take inference from conjecture as if its true,c'mon dont sell us out,if niggas in the hood aint gettin no salvation from no jesus why is the next concept a crucifixion fa some sins n nobody has a question?n he act like he dont witness the effects of this brainwashing n thats what pisses me off,house niggas on the down low
He's actually speaking about how many of us have been "brainwashed" to believe that Jesus' crucifixion is connected to the suffering of poor people today.
he wants to give you thought to a previously irrelevant topic,n thats why its not the same b.e.t. from 2001 or some shit,think you finna see crooked officer on throwbak 106th n park?yeah its best fa dem to let him babble
he should speak fo his self unless he knows of a collective desire amongst blak people to make us content or hes a blabberin bafoon usin these irrelevant stories to seem smart
if the story aint right to him than how is he defending someone under wat those defended people would agree?he doesnt care its jus another chance fa him to seem pro blak under a concept blak americans aint in agreement of no way
Bravo, the great champion of Liberation Theology, Dr. Cornel West! Obama, unless you are betraying your base, put Dr. West into your cabinet instead of the accomplice to war crimes Clinton!
The fact is:It was the Father's will for the Son to die. It doesn't matter if it were the Jews,the Muslims,the Hindus,the Voodoos...it was the Father's will that He be crushed as a penalty for ALL of our sins. Now that He died and rose again,it's our job to fulfill His will on this earth. Why waste time with Christian politics? Who cares who crucified Him,because that very PERSON or PEOPLE can be redeemed. Don't let the enemy distract you enough with COLOR that you lose the point of the cross.
he speak of slavery n shit like dat as if its important to cherish a particular freedom as a result of those who pikked cotton but where is his prrof?emancipation proclamation?maybe fa brainwashed christians who are really christolators
didn't really understand your comment on my comment, b/c all i was saying is that every human has his or her part in the crucifiction b/c of each persons sinful nature.....but remember HE chose to go up on the cross for you and i and everyone else....debated his color is kinda pointless, b/c what HE IS breaks every barrier including color
nigga please,they alternate between all this benefit from christianity then it be death fa sins,b4 i was born,yea rite,google christolatry definition then text me
how did i know if i jus thought about this subject and how blak people jus fed shit that he would be available and sure enough there his nappy head ass was,we should be able to identify house niggas by now
every man and woman had an equal part in the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ....so the leaders who wanted him dead were Jews, that really misses the point...Jesus died on the cross and rose from the grave b/c you and I were a sinful people, regardless of our race, color, or anything else...to say the Jews killed Christ is wrong and just gives the devil more power b/c we continue with the lie
On a site critical of Alcoholics Anonymous, Reinhold Niebuhr (eminent theologian and author of Serenity Prayer) is included criticizing Oxford Group founder Frank Buchman in 1936. AA came from the Oxford Groups. Niebuhr wrote: "...The sickness of that society is the sickness of sin; and if a word of God is to be spoken in such an hour as this let it be the woe of Christ upon his Jerusalem or the prophecy of judgement which an Amos or Jeremiah pronounced upon their civilization.
For reasons other than historical accuracy however, the question doesn't matter, because Jesus took upon Himself the sins of ALL mankind, and so it can be said that we are all responsible.
In fact, Pontius Pilate pleaded with the Jewish chief priests and their people to allow him to let Him go. It was at their beckoning and intimidation that He was crucified.
It is as wrong to deny that the Jews had anything to do with the Crucifixion as it is to say that they alone were responsible.
So a threatened penalty of 20 years in prison under an ambiguous and arbitrary definition of disability. Like explained further below, anyone with less of a physical impairment than Stephen Hawking could be susceptible to being charged with Social Security fraud. Government harassment to keep me detained from writing a book? Well I've just about written one here! Ha ha. No, seriously, be careful. This is a means of oppression against the poor. May God be with us.
"Public Agencies Opposed To Social Security Entrapment, et al": When you search Social Security entrapment that's all that comes up--the "Public Agencies Opposed...", and that on legal court case documents. But The "Public Agencies..." does not have a website. Nor are there any corresponding articles that would lead one to believe such an organization is, or would be, necessary. They had me sign a statement under penalty of perjury stating I cannot work. Penalty? Possible 20 years in prison.
Oops--when I said "they had me sign a statement, I was referring to Social Security Administartion, not the "Public Agencies Opposed....". Shoot, I can't even locate the latter anywhere in cyberspace besides on court documents.
Sorry, I know I'm posting alot. This last post: What I'm describing below is what anyone could be experiencing. Fighting for healthcare while fighting a debilitating disease and fighting to gain welfare so as not to be paralyzed on the streets. All the while mistrusting the gov't because the same who grant welfare are behind those who deny medical treatment due to cost (or who gave me medicine that caused my disease; remember Tuskegee). Cornel West is the only leader speaking to these things.
In case it is helpful to other poor people: What I'm trying to say is the definition of disability, allowing us welfare when disabled, is ambiguous. It is not that you are unable to do the work you did before, but can you do any work. Since Stephen Hawking works, fully paralyzed in a wheelchair, that would mean any physical disability less than his could be put one at risk for welfare fraud should a person accept the payments and later be determined to not actually have been *disabled enough*.
But doesn't SSA make the determination? Indeed. But they also can, and do, later charge fraud even though it was SSA who determined the person disabled. They say well you actually weren't disabled even though we found you disabled based on the information provided us. You were capable of working. Even if the person had not misled them, the person is then at a point where they can be railroaded. It is this ambiguity and arbitrariness that causes insecurity, not security.
Pardon me, a bloggopotamus, but last note: Although my legs seem to slowly be going paralyzed (numbness in all four limbs actually but legs worst), was able to walk some in Francis Marion National Forest (Swamp Fox Trail) about 2 years ago. Quit due to symptom flareup. Homeless, so a church called police and they took me out to a rural area homeless place. It was all African Americans. The police warned me it could be dangerous. But for the brief time there it was like angels ministering to me.
Finally, beware Social Security. I could very well be experiencing SSA entrapment related to the Lyme disease, etc. Doesn't seem there is a law against SS entrapment, and the gov't can do as they will. I could be in prison soon. Clean & sober since 7/18/85, no criminal record but lots of social activism.
Cornel West is the best leader in this country as far as I can tell. I like Hugo Chavez/Evo Morales but they're in foreign countries. Pray for me please. Bruce Deile
Re; SSA, be careful: It seems whether one can or cannot work is decided arbitrarily. Stephen Hawking paralyzed in a wheelchair works. So who decides who can and cannot work? My disability is physical impairment (Lyme or antibiotic induced Lupus) and political/religious persecution. Law probably doesn't consider the latter. Your latter might be racism, ageism, sexism, etc. But it may prevent you from maintaining employment. Try and prove that. Pray for me. Thank you.
Continued from below: But as I'm homeless w/ only one year of community college education, unable to affirm Cornel West here with intellectual argument. But I agree 100% with as much as I know from life experience. I'm white but as a child I saw the shacks the Af. Am.'s lived in during 1970; North Charleston, SC. We lived in a brick home; my father was Air Force. Pepperhill subdivision. 1st grade field trip (Alice Birney elementary): Fort Sumter.
it's strange how within religious circules there's a great deal of special pleading with regards to how a religion is meant to be interpreted. texts written thousands of years ago meant to be understood univocally and with no room for openness or dissent, all wraped up in a neat and closed narrative about how religious institutions, power structures and beaurocrats know best. it's an epistemological joke, is what it is.
that's the sort of naievity behind those who come down on cornel west.
fede2 1 month ago
@Blunic: Please explain your point.
itube316 1 month ago
makes a good point that will be largely ignored by most who hear it
mcshair21 3 months ago
Also the constatinian vs. prohetic Christianity is a little laughable. Typical liberal chirstianity with roots at least all the way back to the 19th century. Historians have mostly rejected the idea that Constatine ruined christianity and the real christianity was more ethical in nature than metaphyscial.
MrBlackhaw 6 months ago
@MrBlackhaw he is not talking about that.He is saying how christianity was intergrated into a society that persucuted the first Christians.Christianity in actuality is both ethical and spiritual.Like Buddism except the face that Christian actually worship a divine figure
EstacadoConstantine 6 months ago in playlist Cornel West Speaks on the mind we may waste
@MrBlackhaw What is laughable is that one might think it is possible to determine a "real" Christianity. Good Luck!
plarpusan12 3 months ago
@plarpusan12 I guess I would just look at the basic or mere christianity that the church has taught for over 2 thousand years.
MrBlackhaw 3 months ago
Vatican II "ushered in a new era in the history of the Catholic Church," theologian Hans Kung wrote. Latin American bishops adopted "the preferential option for the poor."Thus the bishops renewed the radical pacifism of the Gospels that had been put to rest when the Emperor Constantine established Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire "a revolution" that in less than a century converted "the persecuted church" to a "persecuting church," according to Kung.-Noam Chomsky
plarpusan12 3 months ago
interesting that Jesus really did not go agaisnt the Toman empire as much as many of those around him wanted him to. He really argued mroe against hte pharisees and other jews than agaisnt the roman empire.
MrBlackhaw 6 months ago
Leave it to reductionists on the left to distill the history of Christianity to a religion of liberation before Constantine's conversion and a tyranny afterwards.
powereddrive 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please look up on YouTube:
Dr. Cornel West & Carl Dix On Gay Marriage
Dr. Cornel West Urged To Run For President By Jeff4Justice
jeff4justice 8 months ago in playlist Cornel West Speaks on the mind we may waste
This has been flagged as spam show
Please look up on YouTube:
Dr. Cornel West & Carl Dix On Gay Marriage
Dr. Cornel West Urged To Run For President By Jeff4Justice
jeff4justice 8 months ago
West wrote the theory of the entabulator.
tnekkc 10 months ago
Why is Cornel West a Christian? He's seems clever enough not to be.
alifeofreason 11 months ago
@alifeofreason
Maybe...or maybe you're too slow to actually understand what constitutes "cleverness".
periechontology 10 months ago
@periechontology ....... Or maybe I'm wise enough to know that reason and faith are absolutely opposed. The latter is irrational and worthless.
alifeofreason 10 months ago
@alifeofreason WRONG it's irrational, but not worthless.
natmanprime 9 months ago
@natmanprime I agree, but i would say faith is nonrational. Just because faith is not rational doesn't mean it's against reason. it just means it's not reason.
godisanegro 9 months ago
@godisanegro irrational isn't necessarily a dirty word yknow. you can just say irrational.
ratio means 'to measure'. so it means 'immeasurable'.
it's just that we live in a rationalist society.
thas what makes it an insult.
natmanprime 9 months ago
@natmanprime i hear you. I'm borrowing that language from Paul Tillich. I wanted to clarify the distinction.
godisanegro 9 months ago
i would agree that god is indeed a negro, except that i would say 'goddess' not 'god'.
i'm talkin jet black now.
: )
natmanprime 11 months ago
@natmanprime Very well!
godisanegro 11 months ago
Constantinian Christian is a red herring. Christians---Popes included---fought with kings for nearly two thousand years trying to show that the State was / is not ultimate and that the idea that it utlimate is a perennial temptation to idolatry. The Vatican gave up all of England rather than allow---against the teaching of Jesus--- that Henry VIII could have his divorce for that sweet thang, Ann Boelyn.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009 Constantinian Christian is a reference to a theological/religious tradition rooted in Western Europe. Orthodox churches (e.g. Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian) are not Constantinian. Furthermore, even within the Western World, versions of Christianity emerged that were not bound to "Constantinian" commitments. The Christianity fashioned by African peoples in the US to resist enslavement, for instance, resisted "Constantinian" imperialism.
godisanegro 1 year ago
West surcame to scoundralism.
tnekkc 1 year ago
Jesus has been dead for a couple of thousand years. It's time for humanity to grow the hell up and stop whining about a long-dead Jew with his head in the clouds. Can we finally live in the here and now and stop believing in fairy tales? Christianity is just like every other religion: a breeding ground for fools and madmen.
ponyboy314 1 year ago
@ponyboy314 : Jesus was dead for three days. He has been alive and well for a couple thousand years now.
SummerSunshine1988 1 year ago
This whole clip is bullshit! Not a Constantinian Christian? Then I guess he doesn't subscribe to the Trinity which was clearly influenced by Constantine. Secondly you don't have to appeal to Constantine for imperialism and unethical stances within Christianity, the bible is riff with them...hell when did Jesus take a principled stance against slavery??? Why were there 12 male apostles and not any women(Yes there were females followers but not apostles!)? Cornel is full of it!!!
taichi197137 1 year ago
@taichi197137
European christianism is bullshit.
-
Your trinity concept as taught by mainstream churches is not an original Christian teaching.
-
You asked "when did Jesus take a principled stance against slavery?" Perhaps you missed his first recorded public speech in Luke 4:18.
Perhaps you missed that whole "deliverance to the captives" and "set at liberty them that are bruised" thing.
celestialnubian 1 year ago
Mr. West is on to something. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that Jesus lived his life in the age of the Roman Empire, and eventually killed for his views.
Manolo1013 1 year ago
well said mr west
timetochilli 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice."- Friedrich Hayek
09geauxtigers 1 year ago
he just sumed it up foir me black intellectuals have a lot of style as well as knowledge and morality and white one slike noam have that carmness but there are a lot of liars on both "by the way i aent seperating black from white i am just remarking upon the cultural differences that influence the style of talk of intellectuals"
timetochilli 1 year ago
What a complete idiot this guy is.
Sivels 1 year ago
Yes, the real Jeaus Christ of Nazareth, as perfectly recorded in the biblical sciptures and particularly the gospel books of Mark and Matthew
TheLookAtSeries 1 year ago
Transformer217. He is criticizing Gibson's film and the forth Gospel. I do not think from Wests writings that he believes in the Jesus of the Bible or that he is more than just an extraordinary human as he says I am not a Constantinian Christian. In other places he is a Chekhovian Christian which he never gives a satisfy answer to its meaning or make any sense of it. I think he just likes the sound of it. .
neomax117 1 year ago
@neomax117 to understand what a Chekhovian christian is....search out the root word....Chekhov....Anton Chekhov was a Russian novelist who (I think) once described his own personal form of Christianity...I'm guessing Cornel aligns himself with specific strain of Christianity.
Ravengaurd6 1 year ago
@Ravengaurd6. I know Chekhov's work well. But Chekhov was a rare Russian writer that really was not a believer. It is just West just making up stuff as he goes along. I hope that people do not take this guy too serious. Many other real scholars to cut your teeth on than this goof.
neomax117 1 year ago
@neomax117 I dont think West ever claimed Chekhov believed in God. He wants to correlate Chekhov's work with his view of Jesus as an "existential exemplar." I'm not convinced West himself is a theist.
godisanegro 1 year ago
@godisanegro neomax is right though. West is a goof. He's "smart" but he's one of the many scholars who is more wrapped up in proving what he WANTS to prove than really learning and teaching. he's an agenda driven, racially motivated idealist who doesn't allow himself to truly prcess that which doesn't conform to his worldview.
mamacornettesmoney 10 months ago
@mamacornettesmoney I don't mean to come off as facetious, but what do you mean by "racially motivated idealist?" What does he say in this vid that is "goofy" or fits your description of him and his work?
godisanegro 10 months ago
@godisanegro Not just in this video. I've followed him for years. He's a goof who is so wrapped up in image and race that he comes across as FAR too narrow minded to take seriously.
mamacornettesmoney 10 months ago
@mamacornettesmoney That's fine, but since this is a comment thread on this video, I'm curious, what does he say here that you consider to be "goofy?"
godisanegro 10 months ago
@godisanegro HE is goofy. I can't take anything he says seriously. when you destroy your own credibilty, that happens.
mamacornettesmoney 10 months ago
@mamacornettesmoney Did you even watch/listen to the video?
godisanegro 10 months ago
@neomax117 who are the real scholars you speak off? I want to know them. please and thank you.
bdenoon 1 year ago
@bdenoon I would start with all the early historians especially Flavius Josephus (Jewish history) Eusebius, Saint Bede the Venerable. Modern: Henry Chadwick, Jaroslav Pelikan, Peter Brown, J. N. D. Kelly, Rodney Stark, Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright to name just a few.
neomax117 1 year ago
Have you ever read Cornel's writings Transformer217? Unfortunately, I have read most his corpus and I would agree with Leon Wieseltier when he wrote that West was an intellectual empty suit whose writing is noisy, tedious, slippery sectarian, humorless, pedantic and self-endeared." So you go ahead and believe what you like I but I think this pseudo-intellectual gas bag gives real scholars a very bad name.
neomax117 1 year ago
@neomax117 pseudo intellectual gas bag...i am sure you'd agree with what ever favored you and yours
universalconnections 1 year ago
This is one of the chapters in his book Democracy Matters. It's amazing how he can infuse his own personal(though I strongly agree with them) views into an issue of history and politics.
edcba321ful 1 year ago
Christianity has never been Constantinian. The Church presided over its funeral. But it takes a long time to shed some things that are cultural (like forms of slavery, also indentured white Irish servants, todays Walmart serfs)....we can always grow and do better. None of us "have it" completely. We are all always "on the way". Usury oppressed the poor too, crushed them for millenia. It still does do.
orbis2009 1 year ago
What the hell is this guy saying? West is so full of hot air. It is amazing how some individuals are allowed to be professor these days. Mr. West, have you had any more luck figuring out what prophetic Christianity is? I know you tried to define it in every book you have ever written (his books are all the same but with different prophetic titles) but it still sounds like tripe. Moreover, have you written a peer reviewed article or work that every University professor is required to do?
neomax117 1 year ago
@neomax117 He's talking about the hypocrisy on what America is doing, in trying to preach about Christ, and yet falling into the same path of the Roman Empire that actually persecuted Jesus.
West is a highly intelligent man. So to say that he's full of hot hair is purely idiotic on your part.
Transformers217 1 year ago
blacks are fuckin hilarious, mute the sound and it looks like hes giving an invisible rhino a gyno exam.
GiggleHz 1 year ago
@GiggleHz Don't be such an idiot. Stop being wicked.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009 i am tireless in my distaste for blacks.
GiggleHz 1 year ago
Don't be denial about history.
TheBlackLesbian 1 year ago
@TheBlackLesbian i agree slavery was abhorent, BUT lets talk about what is going on today, blacks are still enslaving blacks in africa, shocking isnt it, and they have been doing so long before whites, or even the arabs who enslaved them before whites, whites where enslaved by arabs too you know sold to them by vikings, you have this thought that blacks are only shit because of whitey interaction, you dont need us to tip u in that direction its your natural state.
GiggleHz 1 year ago
@GiggleHz shut up you lying, faggot, homosexual, peckerwood cracker. what does any of that long blast of wind have to do with what the black lesbian typed? you crackers just quote the same lame, tired talking points over and over even when they have no relevance to the discussion, point raised or random comment. i guess you feel if you repeat it enough times you'll actually start to believe it, or that it'll somehow justify your long history of death, chaos and destruction. not a chance.
FuckUtube2008 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who cares. Why do Africans in America listen to a homosexual professor at an all-white university? One who pretends to speak and/or fight for our issues? Who's fault is that? Same goes for Tavis, Eric Michael Dyson, Al Sharpton, Messy Jesse, The Congressional Black Coma, TD Snakes, Creflo, TOM Joyner, Bill Cosby, the list goes on. NONE of these cartoon characters talk of building a nation for AAs in Africa. Sissies!!!
aiynaiy 1 year ago
"masochistic voyeurism ", great! im not relegious at all, but i respect people like West, who are at least true followers of their faith, and not some phoney christian (90%)
markodon 1 year ago 26
@markodon
uhh, West is not a Christian, he is a Communist that relishes the "Christian vocabulary".
Aphoresis 10 months ago
@markodon What is truth? Enlighten us on your notion of Truth?
LASALLIONSTALLION 10 months ago
if Dr. West calls the Passion "sadomasochistic voyeurism" then he is not a very good student of Roman history, or history in general. He also doesn't understand who the Romans were in history. The Romans tortured people. That happened.
Was "Roots" "sadomasochistic voyeurism"? Of course not, when you agree with the agenda, everything is fine. When will someone call out people like this who teach propaganda instead of actual theory?
vaeates 2 years ago
In my eyes it is quite evident that West's comment is not concerned with, i.e. not questioning, whether the Roman s actually tortured people or not, but with the description of the violence in the movie, primarily with the purpose of Gibson's discription of this violence. Torture happened, yes, but the display of violence in the movie is surely not so much about historical accuracy, as about violence as a means of propaganda. It's on this ideological level that we should understand West's view
DrIchabod 1 year ago
I want to see this whole conversation. That link doesn't work.
drumma4lyfe06 2 years ago
@drumma4lyfe06 sorry, fixed...
godisanegro 1 year ago
jesus myths belong to the dark ages.
newfagscanttrif0rce 2 years ago
But there are good, positive things associated with those myths. The man may or may have not walked the earth, I don't know. But the more I think about it, the more I like most of what he taught, as opposed to Paul and the crap in the Old Testament. In other words, pick and choose the good, uplifting positive things.
Antiks72 1 year ago
No, that is just foolishness. Do you not realise that according to myth, Jesus said condemned all non believers to an eternity in hell? You call that noble? Do you call that moral? That is despicable and foolish. Remember, religious people will push their views on your society and government. Stem cell research, equal rights, science and even common sense are trodded on by christians - it must be fought in spite of any charitable (proselytization IMO) acts.
newfagscanttrif0rce 1 year ago
Well, I would agree with you there. I was pointing more towards hanging out with the "scum" of society, overturning the money changers, calling out the religious leadership of the day for their hypocrisy, speaking truth to power, healing the sick free of charge. Basically what I'm saying is that we should take the positive things, and leave out the rubbish. I think John Shelby Spong is a good example of this.
Antiks72 1 year ago
Romans 8:1 "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Jesus never once in the gospels mentioned heaven or hell specifically. So it is not foolish, it is not despicable. The fact is that Jesus did not come to condemn but to save. Its the only religion in the world that claims that. Yes, Christianity is falsely represented across the world in many instances, but the truth is, Christianity is NOT, and has never truly been about Condemnation
rockyracoonist 1 year ago
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Romans 8:1. Never once in the gospels did jesus specifically mention heaven or hell. Jesus did NOT come to condemn, but to save. Its not foolish, its not despicable. The truth is, Christianity is the only religion that is less concered with what you do, and more concered with what has been done (the passion). You don't have to believe it, but at least know that NEVER ONCE in his life did Jesus preach condemnation
rockyracoonist 1 year ago
My comment goes to the open forum here on youtube we in society have found that we as people have two spirits working at all times evil vs good. Now the question here is who really do you think was working through society during the period of any crimes or rather ill tratment towards humankind. The evil has always won its way in our minds to believe that which is true unto law is right I beg to differ man makes the rules so who is leading them. We can not allow thought to provoke right.
TheThatzwhatzup 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the lips of the righteous teach many, but the ways of the ungodly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
keeway2 2 years ago
the lips of the righteous teach many, but the ways of the ungodly shall perish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
keeway2 2 years ago
Unrelated, but godDAMN, Cornel West is the best-dressed academic I think I have ever seen in my entire life.
jayaism 2 years ago
And the perhaps the most on-point
TSquared2001 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How do you keep a people down? You 'never' let them 'know' their history.
The 7th Cavalry got their butts in a sling again after Little Big Horn, fourteen years later, the day after the Wounded Knee Massacre. If it wasn't for the 9th Cavalry Buffalo Soldiers, there would of been a second massacre of the 7th Cavalry. Read, and visit site/history, rescue at pine ridge. com
poshportia62 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Q. What do you call a black man with a Ph.D. from Harvard?
A. Nigger
HippieKillingMonster 2 years ago
I thought the British had the biggest empire since the Romans.
ThatGuyJinn 2 years ago
The Brits did until the US become the lone world superpower in the wake of WWII and the Cold War. Doesn't seem like it will be that way for long though.
godisanegro 2 years ago
What constitutes an Empire? I thought it was possessing lands overseas or beyond your defined borders. Having other territories flying your flag. By this definition America is not an Empire, but a technological, militarily, and financially wealthy and powerful Nation State. Similar to Japan. A Superpower doesn't equal Empire. Please explain.
ResearchKnowledge123 2 years ago
Rome not only controlled many kingdoms and lands, but it also infiltrated the society, culture, and politics outside its direct rule. Many kingdoms were "satellite" states of Rome, in which Rome exercised indirect control (Rubicon by Tom Holland should help).
American culture today seeps into every pore of global society. The term 'globalization' is a direct result of the United States. It is the Americanization of the globe. Historically speaking, the 1890s say a rise in american imperialism..
Blackiechan543 2 years ago
The war with Spain in 1898 witnessed and American victory and the acquisition of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the 'liberation' of Cuba, which only became a satellite state of the US. Economic power over nations is just as effective as holding them as actual territory. The U.S. may not be a territorial empire in most contexts, however, economically, politically, and culturally, it is an empire.
Blackiechan543 2 years ago
Interesting take. Not sure I agree, but thanks for the insight. I now see why people consider the US an empire.
ResearchKnowledge123 2 years ago
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and other "lands overseas" Overseas=over the seas. America has had an influence over the World. Like Rome.
lsivels 2 years ago
god loves everyone no matter what you do. we all go to the same place when we die.
pryormusic 2 years ago
Dr. West is one of the greatest minds of modern day......He is all mind!
From :El Chicano
nicomateo23 2 years ago
The old concept of god is stupid anyway. Imature and devoid of reality all together. The truth is, god is Reality; what You are and I am, and We is, and what everything been for now and ever. What is more profound than You right now, that being so? How much empowerment does that bestow. You are not all of Reality, but Reality is all of Us. Forget everything you think you know. We are what we are, but not what we think we are. Thank you.
phvalue323 2 years ago
Wao lot of racist comments here
gino07770 2 years ago 2
Perhaps one of the most tragic ironies of history - the African American embrace of Christianity; a type of Mass Stockholm effect.
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. " (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
fctchk 2 years ago
wow dude...*deep sighs* you aint gonna like hell
8jahson7 2 years ago
and your point is? assuming you understood mine which does not seem to be the case.
fctchk 2 years ago
It's all brainwashing, I'm black, I'm not offended..
RAIDENGTK 2 years ago
Indeed. Including the concept of "race".
Science has concluded that the concept of race has no biological validity and that race is a social invention of relatively recent origin.
There is only homo-sapiens who evolved physical traits such as skin color adapted to the environment they happened to live in.
It would behoove the likes of the influential Mr.
West to weave that into his narrative to expose the absurdity of racism, not just the injustice which he appears to be so fixated on.
fctchk 2 years ago
You seem to be living under the dilusion that African Americans are or were the sole slaves of the world, and that your previous comment defeats the notion of racial equality.
Slave ownership was a norm of the time, and the responsibility between slave and master was shared: the slave's obligation was to serve their master; the master's obligation was to treat their slave according to Christ's teachings: love, compassion, altruism. Tell me, Mr. America, is that how those masters were?
Acfeiln 2 years ago
"Perhaps one of the most tragic ironies of history - the African American embrace of Christianity; a type of Mass Stockholm effect."
The above was the post you seem nominally to be responding to. If you could elaborate on what you understood it to mean it might help me phrase it in a way less open to widely divergent and unintended interpretation.
fctchk 2 years ago
Gladly. My immediate interpretation of it is this: that in the Bible quote you left, the implication is that slaves were required by Jesus's teachings to obey their masters. By your comment preceding the quote, you seem to imply that an African American embrace of Christianity is invalid because of their strong anti-slave stance; that because they do not believe in being held slaves -- and, indeed, rebelled against it -- they are not qualified to be Christians.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Acfeiln 2 years ago
Thanks, that helped. What I meant was:
The Stockholm Effect is a term given to the phenomenon of hostages identifying with their captors.
African Americans became the worst victims of the longest running crime against humanity in recent human history -the middle passage.
Christianity was not only the religion of our captors but clearly condones slavery. Yet we embraced it and out of denial, ignorance or stupidity continue to uncritically embrace it . That is both tragic and ironic.
fctchk 2 years ago
That's a little different, and it leads me to a different point: because Christianity was the religion of the captors does not mean in any way that they were good Christians. Christianity does not condone slavery in the sense that you're thinking; I explained that in my first reply. If slave-owners were to act as perfect Christians, the only thing defining slavery as such would be the lack of pay, but it would be made up for with the hospitality, generosity, etc. "Christ-like values."
Acfeiln 2 years ago
Comment removed
Acfeiln 2 years ago
Your posts are deeply instructive of what informs the mechanism underlying the phenomenon that is at the heart of the point I'm making.
"Slave ownership was a norm of the time..." Indeed it was. And the Bible accepts it as such. There in lieth the rub. That is its catastrophic ethical failure. Tepid attempts to mitigate its brutality only add insult to injury: This is how it is folks, let's just be nice and make the best of it.
fctchk 2 years ago
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. " Ephesians 6:5
"Masters, treat your slaves the same way. Do not threaten them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." Ephesians 6:9
A slave trader could not have wished a more useful apologia to hide behind nor could he have improved upon it writing it himself.
fctchk 2 years ago
I think you misunderstand my message. I see your point: that the requirement of someone to accept suffering under the justification that they will be paid back for it after they die reeks of exploitation.
We then get back to the Christ figure, though, and this is where it makes a difference depending on whether you believe in him or not: Christ made it very clear how he thought of hypocrites. Slave-traders could easily use that apologia, but the core figure of Christianity would despise them
Acfeiln 2 years ago
Now, I do not deny your claim against said slave-owners, or the claim that the Bible served them a perfect way to exploit their slaves. My message, though, is that their actions are not intrinsic to Christianity. They don't care, obviously, and so the doctrine makes them capable of great evils, but that does not make the doctrine itself evil.
Acfeiln 2 years ago
Good Question... Where is the evidence?
RAIDENGTK 2 years ago
proof that even the most enlightened can have beliefs and concepts so ingrained into the fiber of thier existence that despite the fact the you have concrete and empirical evidence in front of you a blind eye is turned from it...ignorance in some instances is a synonim for faith and I am not purposefuly being disrespectful to those of faith.
dacooz3 2 years ago
Concrete and empirical evidence for what?
oneluv66 2 years ago
This is funny...anti-higher-powerists, wether they're athiests, agnostics, whatever, tend to always argue: there is no proof, therefore it is fictional.
There is no proof that Jesus definitively did not exist, nor is there proof that there is not a God. If I were to use the so-called "enlightened" arguement; the "rational" one, I would say that there is no proof of the absence of a God; therefore there is a God.
Anti-faith is a synonym for fear.
Acfeiln 2 years ago
Actually, the consensus even among secular scholars appears to be that there was such an historical figure or at least a composite thereof of the Jesus referred to in the bible.
Of course, that does not automatically make the supernatural claims made, true. Moreover, some of the most venerable traditions of mass delusion inconveniently and annoyingly either dismiss these out of hand entirely -Judaism or in part - Islam.
fctchk 2 years ago
In that sense, we are in agreement. I am a Christian, but it is a matter of faith/belief, not necessarily of reason. I am not attempting to "prove" the supernatural, I am merely attempting to defeat the notion that it most certainly does not exist.
Acfeiln 2 years ago
the burden lies upon the one who makes the claim that something is there... so prove it.
your same argument could be used in the following way: "There is no proof of the absence of a giant marshmellow man existing behind the sun... therefore the marshmellow man exists."... the burden of proof would lie upon me to prove that such a thing exists.. that logic is counter-intuitive with reasonable and logical thought.
kedrick06 2 years ago
not sure who you're responding to...
godisanegro 2 years ago
I am not trying to prove it, nor am I trying to force you to believe it. I am exercising the right to my own belief, reasonable or not.
That comment was left a while ago, and I understand what you're saying about my argument and the hole in it: that it is illogical to require proof of a negative. There's a whole different hole in the strict belief that a lack of empirical evidence proves false, however, but that's something else.
Acfeiln 2 years ago
Could someone tell the good doctor Jesus was FICTION!
RAIDENGTK 2 years ago
Actually its been historically proven that jesus was real and was crucified by the romans...whether or not you believe he was the son of god is a different story
djjlcl 2 years ago 7
I don't call Yeshua by a fictonal name, The Jesus you worship is named Cesar Borgia. And all the facts of Jesus's life were stolen from Horus, Krishna, And Mithra...
RAIDENGTK 2 years ago 2
the facts of Jesus' life were stolen but i think ur confused about cesare borgia- some of the paintings of jesus made during borgia's lifetime were based off of borgia but he wasnt jesus christ... this only appies if thats what you meant by saying jesus is named cesare borgia
XXcornflakez215XX 2 years ago
The dude in the painting is ceasar borgia, There was no Jesus, he is a fictional character, period.
RAIDENGTK 2 years ago
yea the paintings of jesus are cesar borgia and i'm an atheist so i don't care if you believe jesus was god anyway, i think its all bullshit but whether he's fictional or not is beyond me
XXcornflakez215XX 2 years ago
Versions of the story existed even before Horus...
godisanegro 2 years ago
That's well and good, but at the same time, it's all myth, but the most evidence of the plagiarism is in Kemet...
RAIDENGTK 2 years ago
@djjlcl
Bullshit it has. Where the fuck is the evidence for the existence of Christ?
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@djjlcl There's no proof of Jesus, you're living in a fantasy.
gibbsies 1 year ago
@djjlcl How was it proven?
bfoaliali 1 year ago
@djjlcl That may very well be but I cannot in good conscious take your word for it. In the same way that a scientific paper requires a source. Show me some proof that Jesus existed and was crucified and ill look at it and make up my mind. But from what I've seen and heard there is no proof that I know of. Usually I hear these kinda of comments from religious people which honestly doesn't make me believe them because they are obviously biased.
PS THE BIBLE IS NOT A SOURCE/PROOF
timh1982 1 year ago
@djjlcl has it been? they found the body? they found dna evidence? I think all they have is hearsay, and stories passed down. I believe he did exist and was crucified by the roman empire as well, but I do not think it has been historically proven yet
eastbaybochat 1 year ago
dr. cornel west is an awesome man of God. he's on my heroes list
eraContraband 2 years ago
The host of the show merely accepts the view provided by West in her comment "yeah, that's pretty much what it ..."
That's not rational inquiry... that's an "amen corner".
AntiAntiAmerica 2 years ago
This is an excerpt from an hour long conversation. That's not the host, she's Toni Morrison with just as much to say as Cornel West. Watch the whole thing. There's LOTS of rational inquiry going on. :)
sammyb334 2 years ago
Cornell West still dropping science on people about the dynamics and hidden correlations between ancient societies and the modern American one.....
BIGDO13 2 years ago
cornel west is amazingly smart just for christians
breathingthebreath 2 years ago
this man is amazingly smart. I find him an inspiration not only to the black community but to america as a whole
jtkalehua 2 years ago
A white friend asks a black 19y.o. Friend
WF: Who do you idolize or admire ?
BF: Jigga cos he is that nigga, he got ill rhymes plus he got swagg 4sho
WF: Well I admire and Idolize Cornel West because he is very Intellectual and don`t is a positive guy who you can learn something profitable from.
BF: Who tha fuck is Cornel West? Kanye West`s "white" Cousin or something? he got any sick joints?
True story that happened last Friday.
Which kid is you? and remember it`s not about race but mentality
RealDefentertainment 3 years ago
I am absolutely not at all SURPRISED that the above happened. It seems that the youth know nothing of relevance such as what Dr. West presents. It is indeed a SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS. Just think that is somewhat a representation of the future. Would you ask that person for help in a dyer emergency.........GOD I HOPE NOT!!!!!!!!
ducky811 2 years ago
shutup.....smh....
BIGDO13 2 years ago
Tell your fucken mother to slap you for me! Dumb prick
RealDefentertainment 2 years ago
for him to infer that the salvation of the crucifixion is relevant to good sense is a selling us out because then there is unprecedented guide to attention to this story which was previously irrelevant,seek truth find truh and pray but read first and read last
diversysveryown 3 years ago
he aint sayin shit that aint nobody else gonna think about but why dont we as peoplre of the u.s. society stik to a story that doesnt take inference from conjecture as if its true,c'mon dont sell us out,if niggas in the hood aint gettin no salvation from no jesus why is the next concept a crucifixion fa some sins n nobody has a question?n he act like he dont witness the effects of this brainwashing n thats what pisses me off,house niggas on the down low
diversysveryown 3 years ago
He's actually speaking about how many of us have been "brainwashed" to believe that Jesus' crucifixion is connected to the suffering of poor people today.
godisanegro 3 years ago
he wants to give you thought to a previously irrelevant topic,n thats why its not the same b.e.t. from 2001 or some shit,think you finna see crooked officer on throwbak 106th n park?yeah its best fa dem to let him babble
diversysveryown 3 years ago
he should speak fo his self unless he knows of a collective desire amongst blak people to make us content or hes a blabberin bafoon usin these irrelevant stories to seem smart
diversysveryown 3 years ago
Clever guy and from what I've seen elsewhere quite funny as well.
RStrangeness 3 years ago
A brilliant and articulate mind like Cornel West should not even mention a lowly, stupid, disturbingly violent, anti-semitic drunk like Mel Gibson.
fluffynoses 3 years ago
they are both media stage fronts n you aint know?
diversysveryown 3 years ago
mel gibson is a clown who parades around with his beyond idiotic father masquerading as some "holy figure."
cornel simply put him in his place. gibson's passion of the christ was the worst garbage i've seen in a while
fluffynoses 3 years ago
if the story aint right to him than how is he defending someone under wat those defended people would agree?he doesnt care its jus another chance fa him to seem pro blak under a concept blak americans aint in agreement of no way
diversysveryown 3 years ago
Bravo, the great champion of Liberation Theology, Dr. Cornel West! Obama, unless you are betraying your base, put Dr. West into your cabinet instead of the accomplice to war crimes Clinton!
tom500k 3 years ago
this man is too cool. we need more people like him
owl975 3 years ago
The fact is:It was the Father's will for the Son to die. It doesn't matter if it were the Jews,the Muslims,the Hindus,the Voodoos...it was the Father's will that He be crushed as a penalty for ALL of our sins. Now that He died and rose again,it's our job to fulfill His will on this earth. Why waste time with Christian politics? Who cares who crucified Him,because that very PERSON or PEOPLE can be redeemed. Don't let the enemy distract you enough with COLOR that you lose the point of the cross.
yasmine181 3 years ago
Amen! Very Good Point!
knowpitbull 3 years ago
Color has nothing to do with this interpretation of crucifixion
godisanegro 3 years ago
he speak of slavery n shit like dat as if its important to cherish a particular freedom as a result of those who pikked cotton but where is his prrof?emancipation proclamation?maybe fa brainwashed christians who are really christolators
diversysveryown 3 years ago
didn't really understand your comment on my comment, b/c all i was saying is that every human has his or her part in the crucifiction b/c of each persons sinful nature.....but remember HE chose to go up on the cross for you and i and everyone else....debated his color is kinda pointless, b/c what HE IS breaks every barrier including color
soulija4christ21 3 years ago
nigga please,they alternate between all this benefit from christianity then it be death fa sins,b4 i was born,yea rite,google christolatry definition then text me
diversysveryown 3 years ago
how did i know if i jus thought about this subject and how blak people jus fed shit that he would be available and sure enough there his nappy head ass was,we should be able to identify house niggas by now
diversysveryown 3 years ago
I would like it if you put the whole thing on here.
msscott73 3 years ago 2
every man and woman had an equal part in the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ....so the leaders who wanted him dead were Jews, that really misses the point...Jesus died on the cross and rose from the grave b/c you and I were a sinful people, regardless of our race, color, or anything else...to say the Jews killed Christ is wrong and just gives the devil more power b/c we continue with the lie
soulija4christ21 3 years ago
how do yall speak on crucifixion n then determine who is responsible from centuries later?you people must have no shame
diversysveryown 3 years ago
On a site critical of Alcoholics Anonymous, Reinhold Niebuhr (eminent theologian and author of Serenity Prayer) is included criticizing Oxford Group founder Frank Buchman in 1936. AA came from the Oxford Groups. Niebuhr wrote: "...The sickness of that society is the sickness of sin; and if a word of God is to be spoken in such an hour as this let it be the woe of Christ upon his Jerusalem or the prophecy of judgement which an Amos or Jeremiah pronounced upon their civilization.
Azorka82 3 years ago
(cont'd)
For reasons other than historical accuracy however, the question doesn't matter, because Jesus took upon Himself the sins of ALL mankind, and so it can be said that we are all responsible.
tvflux 3 years ago
The Romans had no desire to crucify Christ.
In fact, Pontius Pilate pleaded with the Jewish chief priests and their people to allow him to let Him go. It was at their beckoning and intimidation that He was crucified.
It is as wrong to deny that the Jews had anything to do with the Crucifixion as it is to say that they alone were responsible.
tvflux 3 years ago
So a threatened penalty of 20 years in prison under an ambiguous and arbitrary definition of disability. Like explained further below, anyone with less of a physical impairment than Stephen Hawking could be susceptible to being charged with Social Security fraud. Government harassment to keep me detained from writing a book? Well I've just about written one here! Ha ha. No, seriously, be careful. This is a means of oppression against the poor. May God be with us.
Azorka82 3 years ago
"Public Agencies Opposed To Social Security Entrapment, et al": When you search Social Security entrapment that's all that comes up--the "Public Agencies Opposed...", and that on legal court case documents. But The "Public Agencies..." does not have a website. Nor are there any corresponding articles that would lead one to believe such an organization is, or would be, necessary. They had me sign a statement under penalty of perjury stating I cannot work. Penalty? Possible 20 years in prison.
Azorka82 3 years ago
Oops--when I said "they had me sign a statement, I was referring to Social Security Administartion, not the "Public Agencies Opposed....". Shoot, I can't even locate the latter anywhere in cyberspace besides on court documents.
Azorka82 3 years ago
Sorry, I know I'm posting alot. This last post: What I'm describing below is what anyone could be experiencing. Fighting for healthcare while fighting a debilitating disease and fighting to gain welfare so as not to be paralyzed on the streets. All the while mistrusting the gov't because the same who grant welfare are behind those who deny medical treatment due to cost (or who gave me medicine that caused my disease; remember Tuskegee). Cornel West is the only leader speaking to these things.
Azorka82 3 years ago
In case it is helpful to other poor people: What I'm trying to say is the definition of disability, allowing us welfare when disabled, is ambiguous. It is not that you are unable to do the work you did before, but can you do any work. Since Stephen Hawking works, fully paralyzed in a wheelchair, that would mean any physical disability less than his could be put one at risk for welfare fraud should a person accept the payments and later be determined to not actually have been *disabled enough*.
Azorka82 3 years ago
But doesn't SSA make the determination? Indeed. But they also can, and do, later charge fraud even though it was SSA who determined the person disabled. They say well you actually weren't disabled even though we found you disabled based on the information provided us. You were capable of working. Even if the person had not misled them, the person is then at a point where they can be railroaded. It is this ambiguity and arbitrariness that causes insecurity, not security.
Azorka82 3 years ago
Pardon me, a bloggopotamus, but last note: Although my legs seem to slowly be going paralyzed (numbness in all four limbs actually but legs worst), was able to walk some in Francis Marion National Forest (Swamp Fox Trail) about 2 years ago. Quit due to symptom flareup. Homeless, so a church called police and they took me out to a rural area homeless place. It was all African Americans. The police warned me it could be dangerous. But for the brief time there it was like angels ministering to me.
Azorka82 3 years ago
Finally, beware Social Security. I could very well be experiencing SSA entrapment related to the Lyme disease, etc. Doesn't seem there is a law against SS entrapment, and the gov't can do as they will. I could be in prison soon. Clean & sober since 7/18/85, no criminal record but lots of social activism.
Cornel West is the best leader in this country as far as I can tell. I like Hugo Chavez/Evo Morales but they're in foreign countries. Pray for me please. Bruce Deile
Azorka82 3 years ago
Re; SSA, be careful: It seems whether one can or cannot work is decided arbitrarily. Stephen Hawking paralyzed in a wheelchair works. So who decides who can and cannot work? My disability is physical impairment (Lyme or antibiotic induced Lupus) and political/religious persecution. Law probably doesn't consider the latter. Your latter might be racism, ageism, sexism, etc. But it may prevent you from maintaining employment. Try and prove that. Pray for me. Thank you.
Azorka82 3 years ago
Continued from below: But as I'm homeless w/ only one year of community college education, unable to affirm Cornel West here with intellectual argument. But I agree 100% with as much as I know from life experience. I'm white but as a child I saw the shacks the Af. Am.'s lived in during 1970; North Charleston, SC. We lived in a brick home; my father was Air Force. Pepperhill subdivision. 1st grade field trip (Alice Birney elementary): Fort Sumter.
Azorka82 3 years ago