Skin Invision By L!th!uM




Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Slaves From West Africa?, Or Are we the real "Jews"
Wee Tony
Posted: May 21 2009, 11:36 AM
Quote Post


Punching above his weight
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4730
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Points: 232
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 461
Joined: 13-November 04



QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 03:40 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 02:48 PM)
JUST LIKE THE FIRST ORGANIZED CIVILIZATION AND UNIVERSITY WAS IN TIMBUKTU, WEST AFRICA..........THEY DONT TEACH THAT TO THE YOUNG ONES COMING UP


More misperceptions.
The cradle of civilisation was neither black nor white, but Arabian. The region of Mesopotamia shows the earliest signs of agriculture and writing anywhere in the world by thousands of years.
The University you are talking about is the University of Sankore. It is very widely accepted that it was one of the earliest medieval Universities dating from the 11th century. And sorry to knock the chip off your shoulder, but it was neither black nor white who pioneered higher education - it was the Chinese, again beating the rest of the world by thousands of years.

And the University of Sankore was founded by muslims, so it is of a complete irrelevance to a thread discussing Judaism.

QUOTE

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES


You seem to be having a hard time posting without relying on myths and stereotypes. As highlighted by you posting a misunderstood history aswell as your stereotype about white people.

I MENTIONED NOTHING ABOUT BLACK NOR WHITE


Yes you did. It's there in my original quote, but just to refresh your memory...
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009 @ 02:48 PM)

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES


QUOTE
..............I REFERRED TO AN AREA/REGION IN WEST AFRICA. 

That would be Mali.

QUOTE

SHIT LIKE THIS SCARES WHITE PEOPLE DUE TO THEM THINKING THEY ARE SUPERIOR.


Yet another startling generalisation.
QUOTE

I KNOW MY HISTORY VERY WELL SIR AND DONT NEED ANY LESSONS FROM YOU. THANKS


No you don't, apparently you do, and you're welcome maryluvs_happy.gif


-------~~~~--------
QUOTE (John Lennon)
Free yourselves
PMEmail PosterMSN
Top
Jay Luv
Posted: May 21 2009, 12:30 PM
Quote Post


U + Me
****

Group: Members
Posts: 11910
Gender: Male
Location: Carolina
Points: 11826
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 2462
Joined: 29-August 07



QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 10:26 AM)
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 03:40 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 02:48 PM)
JUST LIKE THE FIRST ORGANIZED CIVILIZATION AND UNIVERSITY WAS IN TIMBUKTU, WEST AFRICA..........THEY DONT TEACH THAT TO THE YOUNG ONES COMING UP


More misperceptions.
The cradle of civilisation was neither black nor white, but Arabian. The region of Mesopotamia shows the earliest signs of agriculture and writing anywhere in the world by thousands of years.
The University you are talking about is the University of Sankore. It is very widely accepted that it was one of the earliest medieval Universities dating from the 11th century. And sorry to knock the chip off your shoulder, but it was neither black nor white who pioneered higher education - it was the Chinese, again beating the rest of the world by thousands of years.

And the University of Sankore was founded by muslims, so it is of a complete irrelevance to a thread discussing Judaism.

QUOTE

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES


You seem to be having a hard time posting without relying on myths and stereotypes. As highlighted by you posting a misunderstood history aswell as your stereotype about white people.

I MENTIONED NOTHING ABOUT BLACK NOR WHITE


Yes you did. It's there in my original quote, but just to refresh your memory...
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009 @ 02:48 PM)

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES



That would be Mali.

QUOTE

SHIT LIKE THIS SCARES WHITE PEOPLE DUE TO THEM THINKING THEY ARE SUPERIOR.


Yet another startling generalisation.
QUOTE

I KNOW MY HISTORY VERY WELL SIR AND DONT NEED ANY LESSONS FROM YOU. THANKS


No you don't, apparently you do, and you're welcome maryluvs_happy.gif

WOW THIS LOOKS CRAZY blink.gif

I DIDNT FEEL LIKE READING ALL THIS BUT UMMM............

THANK YOU FOR THE CRITIQUE AND ANALYSIS OF EVERY LINE I WROTE


BORED MUCH maryluvs_whistling.gif


-------~~~~--------
user posted image

PMEmail Poster
Top
Wee Tony
Posted: May 21 2009, 03:18 PM
Quote Post


Punching above his weight
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4730
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Points: 232
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 461
Joined: 13-November 04



maryluvs_rolleyes0.gif Who let the fuckwit into the intellect forum?


-------~~~~--------
QUOTE (John Lennon)
Free yourselves
PMEmail PosterMSN
Top
Rhapsody In Blue
Posted: May 21 2009, 05:39 PM
Quote Post


H A R L E P O L I S
****

Group: Members
Posts: 20662
Gender: Female
Location: Chicville
Points: 100011629
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 54
Joined: 14-June 04



Alright Tony.

Alot of Jews pull the Anti-Semitism card to attack Arabs, when ALOT of them are not descendants of Semitic people. Mind you ALOT not ALL, because there're many Arab Jews, in fact they're the 1st Jews.

How can Arabs be Anti-Semitism when they're the ORIGINAL semitic people? Its all in your bible by the way.

That was my point.


-------~~~~--------
user posted image
PMEmail Poster
Top
Wee Tony
Posted: May 21 2009, 06:36 PM
Quote Post


Punching above his weight
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4730
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Points: 232
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 461
Joined: 13-November 04



QUOTE (Madame X @ May 21 2009, 10:29 PM)
Alright Tony.

Alot of Jews pull the Anti-Semitism card to attack Arabs, when ALOT of them are not descendants of Semitic people. Mind you ALOT not ALL, because there're many Arab Jews, in fact they're the 1st Jews.

How can Arabs be Anti-Semitism when they're the ORIGINAL semitic people? Its all in your bible by the way.

That was my point.

Yeah, I see your point, but at the same time, I worry about the generalisations that people might read into it (I almost did myself).

And I agree with you to some extent - the anti-Semitic label has been applied to so many people that it is a nonsense term. Hardline Israelis call Arabs anti-Semitic, when they'd be more correct to call them anti-Zionist. But problems arise, cos many non-Israeli Jews are also anti-Zionist. And it's far easier to attract 'aid' from America if America thinks Israelis are the victims of racism rather than just another country who doesn't get on with their neighbours. (BTW I'm not transposing the terms Israel and Judaism, I'm separating them).

The bit that caught my eye was your remark about Jews from Europe not being Semitic. I'm not sure if you have followed the history of Jews in Europe (after the bible, but before the holocaust), but they were an ethnic group from the Middle East who emigrated to Europe. And due to their custom and local bigotry directed toward them(inter-marriage was not common at all), their community and gene pool over all this time is largely intact. And being surrounded on all sides by hostile Europeans, they zealously protected their culture. So from their point of view, they have retained what made them semitic: religion, culture, genes, but they have not retained the land. Generally, Arabs on the other hand have pretty much done the opposite: they retained the land (until recently), but all other elements of who they were have evolved into something new e.g. some Arabs stayed Jewish, most moved to Islam. It's not as if there was a recruitment drive in Europe where new Jews were recruited - it was just the original ones reproducing.

The problem with generalisations is that it paints an unnecessarily black and white picture. We're not talking about original people here, we're talking about the descendants of original people, both in the Middle East and elsewhere. The original people are all long dead, their descendants are where they are by accident of birth.


-------~~~~--------
QUOTE (John Lennon)
Free yourselves
PMEmail PosterMSN
Top
DeeJay
Posted: Jun 5 2009, 03:46 PM
Quote Post


Senior
****

Group: Members
Posts: 12279
Gender: Male
Location: YAY AREA
Points: 1666
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 138
Joined: 23-June 04



QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 05:26 PM)
QUOTE (Madame X @ May 21 2009, 10:29 PM)
Alright Tony.

Alot of Jews pull the Anti-Semitism card to attack Arabs, when ALOT of them are not descendants of Semitic people. Mind you ALOT not ALL, because there're many Arab Jews, in fact they're the 1st Jews.

How can Arabs be Anti-Semitism when they're the ORIGINAL semitic people? Its all in your bible by the way.

That was my point.

Yeah, I see your point, but at the same time, I worry about the generalisations that people might read into it (I almost did myself).

And I agree with you to some extent - the anti-Semitic label has been applied to so many people that it is a nonsense term. Hardline Israelis call Arabs anti-Semitic, when they'd be more correct to call them anti-Zionist. But problems arise, cos many non-Israeli Jews are also anti-Zionist. And it's far easier to attract 'aid' from America if America thinks Israelis are the victims of racism rather than just another country who doesn't get on with their neighbours. (BTW I'm not transposing the terms Israel and Judaism, I'm separating them).

The bit that caught my eye was your remark about Jews from Europe not being Semitic. I'm not sure if you have followed the history of Jews in Europe (after the bible, but before the holocaust), but they were an ethnic group from the Middle East who emigrated to Europe. And due to their custom and local bigotry directed toward them(inter-marriage was not common at all), their community and gene pool over all this time is largely intact. And being surrounded on all sides by hostile Europeans, they zealously protected their culture. So from their point of view, they have retained what made them semitic: religion, culture, genes, but they have not retained the land. Generally, Arabs on the other hand have pretty much done the opposite: they retained the land (until recently), but all other elements of who they were have evolved into something new e.g. some Arabs stayed Jewish, most moved to Islam. It's not as if there was a recruitment drive in Europe where new Jews were recruited - it was just the original ones reproducing.

The problem with generalisations is that it paints an unnecessarily black and white picture. We're not talking about original people here, we're talking about the descendants of original people, both in the Middle East and elsewhere. The original people are all long dead, their descendants are where they are by accident of birth.

That's all well and good but Being that Jews are God's chosen people, the only reliable source as to who they are should come from his word, the bible.
And in God's word when the Jews are being described they are described as having 'Dark skin'. The people that are calling themselves Jews and are inhabiting Israel don't even fit the description of Jews in the bible. And at the same time the bible warns us of the 'fake Jews' AKA 'synagogue of satan' Revelation 2:9.

So unless you can find something in God's word that says otherwise, it's irrelevant.



-------~~~~--------
user posted image
PMEmail Poster
Top
Wee Tony
Posted: Jun 5 2009, 06:41 PM
Quote Post


Punching above his weight
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4730
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Points: 232
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 461
Joined: 13-November 04



QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 5 2009, 08:36 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 05:26 PM)
QUOTE (Madame X @ May 21 2009, 10:29 PM)
Alright Tony.

Alot of Jews pull the Anti-Semitism card to attack Arabs, when ALOT of them are not descendants of Semitic people. Mind you ALOT not ALL, because there're many Arab Jews, in fact they're the 1st Jews.

How can Arabs be Anti-Semitism when they're the ORIGINAL semitic people? Its all in your bible by the way.

That was my point.

Yeah, I see your point, but at the same time, I worry about the generalisations that people might read into it (I almost did myself).

And I agree with you to some extent - the anti-Semitic label has been applied to so many people that it is a nonsense term. Hardline Israelis call Arabs anti-Semitic, when they'd be more correct to call them anti-Zionist. But problems arise, cos many non-Israeli Jews are also anti-Zionist. And it's far easier to attract 'aid' from America if America thinks Israelis are the victims of racism rather than just another country who doesn't get on with their neighbours. (BTW I'm not transposing the terms Israel and Judaism, I'm separating them).

The bit that caught my eye was your remark about Jews from Europe not being Semitic. I'm not sure if you have followed the history of Jews in Europe (after the bible, but before the holocaust), but they were an ethnic group from the Middle East who emigrated to Europe. And due to their custom and local bigotry directed toward them(inter-marriage was not common at all), their community and gene pool over all this time is largely intact. And being surrounded on all sides by hostile Europeans, they zealously protected their culture. So from their point of view, they have retained what made them semitic: religion, culture, genes, but they have not retained the land. Generally, Arabs on the other hand have pretty much done the opposite: they retained the land (until recently), but all other elements of who they were have evolved into something new e.g. some Arabs stayed Jewish, most moved to Islam. It's not as if there was a recruitment drive in Europe where new Jews were recruited - it was just the original ones reproducing.

The problem with generalisations is that it paints an unnecessarily black and white picture. We're not talking about original people here, we're talking about the descendants of original people, both in the Middle East and elsewhere. The original people are all long dead, their descendants are where they are by accident of birth.

That's all well and good but Being that Jews are God's chosen people, the only reliable source as to who they are should come from his word, the bible.
And in God's word when the Jews are being described they are described as having 'Dark skin'. The people that are calling themselves Jews and are inhabiting Israel don't even fit the description of Jews in the bible. And at the same time the bible warns us of the 'fake Jews' AKA 'synagogue of satan' Revelation 2:9.

So unless you can find something in God's word that says otherwise, it's irrelevant.

Don't you see the circular logic there?
And even if I did take the Bible as a reliable resource, it stopped recording events in the 1st century. I'm unsure as to what this line of thought is setting out to achieve?

Do you know how white people came about? How the transition from black to white occurred in the human genome, and how long it took to occur?
The amount of pigment in the skin is an irrelevancy of the highest degree - we're all children of Africa.



But to tackle the actual subject matter of the original post... considering the geography of where JC lived, and that Joseph and Mary were poor, it's pretty unlikely that he was a Roman. Of the other ethnicities that were in the area, there were people who looked like modern day arabs/palestinians, and people who looked like modern day africans. Nobody seems to be contesting the almost certainty that Jesus was dark-skinned, so why the need to resort to a contested book to try to prove a non-contested issue? Remember that the Bible has been translated dozens of times, and it was written by men, regardless of the source of the actual inspiration behind it....

Remember that missionaries have a long history, in other religions as well as Christianity, to depict their central figure(s) as looking like the people that they're trying to convert, and that it has a lot to do with people being leery of anything new... one less thing to worry about. I suggest you look at the differences between Japanese, Chinese, and Indian depictions of Buddha, and how the Chinese representations of Siddartha look Chinese. It's a normal cultural thing and not exclusive to Judaic religions.

Finally, the movie Dogma beat the original post to the point... in it, Chris Rock's character came back to earth from Heaven on a quest to have the Bible changed to reflect that Jesus was black.


-------~~~~--------
QUOTE (John Lennon)
Free yourselves
PMEmail PosterMSN
Top
DeeJay
Posted: Jun 5 2009, 08:37 PM
Quote Post


Senior
****

Group: Members
Posts: 12279
Gender: Male
Location: YAY AREA
Points: 1666
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 138
Joined: 23-June 04



QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jun 5 2009, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 5 2009, 08:36 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 05:26 PM)
QUOTE (Madame X @ May 21 2009, 10:29 PM)
Alright Tony.

Alot of Jews pull the Anti-Semitism card to attack Arabs, when ALOT of them are not descendants of Semitic people. Mind you ALOT not ALL, because there're many Arab Jews, in fact they're the 1st Jews.

How can Arabs be Anti-Semitism when they're the ORIGINAL semitic people? Its all in your bible by the way.

That was my point.

Yeah, I see your point, but at the same time, I worry about the generalisations that people might read into it (I almost did myself).

And I agree with you to some extent - the anti-Semitic label has been applied to so many people that it is a nonsense term. Hardline Israelis call Arabs anti-Semitic, when they'd be more correct to call them anti-Zionist. But problems arise, cos many non-Israeli Jews are also anti-Zionist. And it's far easier to attract 'aid' from America if America thinks Israelis are the victims of racism rather than just another country who doesn't get on with their neighbours. (BTW I'm not transposing the terms Israel and Judaism, I'm separating them).

The bit that caught my eye was your remark about Jews from Europe not being Semitic. I'm not sure if you have followed the history of Jews in Europe (after the bible, but before the holocaust), but they were an ethnic group from the Middle East who emigrated to Europe. And due to their custom and local bigotry directed toward them(inter-marriage was not common at all), their community and gene pool over all this time is largely intact. And being surrounded on all sides by hostile Europeans, they zealously protected their culture. So from their point of view, they have retained what made them semitic: religion, culture, genes, but they have not retained the land. Generally, Arabs on the other hand have pretty much done the opposite: they retained the land (until recently), but all other elements of who they were have evolved into something new e.g. some Arabs stayed Jewish, most moved to Islam. It's not as if there was a recruitment drive in Europe where new Jews were recruited - it was just the original ones reproducing.

The problem with generalisations is that it paints an unnecessarily black and white picture. We're not talking about original people here, we're talking about the descendants of original people, both in the Middle East and elsewhere. The original people are all long dead, their descendants are where they are by accident of birth.

That's all well and good but Being that Jews are God's chosen people, the only reliable source as to who they are should come from his word, the bible.
And in God's word when the Jews are being described they are described as having 'Dark skin'. The people that are calling themselves Jews and are inhabiting Israel don't even fit the description of Jews in the bible. And at the same time the bible warns us of the 'fake Jews' AKA 'synagogue of satan' Revelation 2:9.

So unless you can find something in God's word that says otherwise, it's irrelevant.

Don't you see the circular logic there?
And even if I did take the Bible as a reliable resource, it stopped recording events in the 1st century. I'm unsure as to what this line of thought is setting out to achieve?

Do you know how white people came about? How the transition from black to white occurred in the human genome, and how long it took to occur?
The amount of pigment in the skin is an irrelevancy of the highest degree - we're all children of Africa.



But to tackle the actual subject matter of the original post... considering the geography of where JC lived, and that Joseph and Mary were poor, it's pretty unlikely that he was a Roman. Of the other ethnicities that were in the area, there were people who looked like modern day arabs/palestinians, and people who looked like modern day africans. Nobody seems to be contesting the almost certainty that Jesus was dark-skinned, so why the need to resort to a contested book to try to prove a non-contested issue? Remember that the Bible has been translated dozens of times, and it was written by men, regardless of the source of the actual inspiration behind it....

Remember that missionaries have a long history, in other religions as well as Christianity, to depict their central figure(s) as looking like the people that they're trying to convert, and that it has a lot to do with people being leery of anything new... one less thing to worry about. I suggest you look at the differences between Japanese, Chinese, and Indian depictions of Buddha, and how the Chinese representations of Siddartha look Chinese. It's a normal cultural thing and not exclusive to Judaic religions.

Finally, the movie Dogma beat the original post to the point... in it, Chris Rock's character came back to earth from Heaven on a quest to have the Bible changed to reflect that Jesus was black.

To read the bible and actually comprehend it requires a belief and relationship with it's author. The bible isn't a novel, you just can't read it and understand it on your own reconnaissance. The bible was originally written in Hebrew & Greek, (Men have taken that text and translated it as they see fit) which as of last week I am beginning to learn both languages so that I can read the bible in it's original text. Most people who doubt the validity of the bible hasn't read it to begin with, yet alone have read it having a relationship with it's author.

And where do you think they got the idea that Jesus was black from?

But the original purpose of the thread was to challenge the whole "African American" or "Black" tag that the descendants of slaves have been given in this country.

I just have a hard time believing that all the slaves were just random West Africans who were either sold by their King or captured by some mercenaries and sold.




-------~~~~--------
user posted image
PMEmail Poster
Top
Wee Tony
Posted: Jun 5 2009, 10:52 PM
Quote Post


Punching above his weight
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4730
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Points: 232
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 461
Joined: 13-November 04



QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 6 2009, 01:27 AM)
To read the bible and actually comprehend it requires a belief and relationship with it's author. The bible isn't a novel, you just can't read it and understand it on your own reconnaissance. The bible was originally written in Hebrew & Greek, (Men have taken that text and translated it as they see fit) which as of last week I am beginning to learn both languages so that I can read the bible in it's original text. Most people who doubt the validity of the bible hasn't read it to begin with, yet alone have read it having a relationship with it's author.


I'm well aware that the bible isn't a novel, but neither is it an accurate historic document.
There are theologians who will tell you that some of the New Testament (thought to be originally Koine Greek) were in fact translated from Aramaic with the original texts long lost. We don't have an original bible - we have documents that are close, but not original. Original traditions were largely oral and liable to the 'Chinese whisper' effect. And what we have of original texts is very open to interpretation e.g. there are no vowels or punctuation in the original documents - they were all added.
Punctuation can make a massive difference - take this example:
In punctuating, “Woman without her man is nothing”
The men write: “Woman, without her man, is nothing.”
The women write: “Woman: Without her, man is nothing.”
A little punctuation can make a big difference. Imagine that unpunctuated statement carried the weight that a biblical quote did.

After having being brought up in a fervent religious family and school, I am very familiar with the bible, and its authors, so that attempt to dent my credibility is null and void, but this is beside the point.
When making a historical claim, it requires historical evidence, rather than a contested source and cherry-picked history.

QUOTE

And where do you think they got the idea that Jesus was black from?

Geography?

QUOTE

But the original purpose of the thread was to challenge the whole "African American" or "Black" tag that the descendants of slaves have been given in this country.

I just have a hard time believing that all the slaves were just random West Africans who were either sold by their King or captured by some mercenaries and sold.


I'm all for the empowerment of the descendants of slaves - I fully support this, but only when it is based on hard facts. What's the point in trading one set of cultural myths for another set?
In fact, I'd go one further and say the tags 'black' and 'African-American' should be actively opposed. As while they are used, they perpetuate division rather than embracing common ancestry.

Your view seem to hold an American-centric take on things as it seems to be dealing with issues that are almost exclusively American. Does addressing these problems really require dragging a Bronze age family feud into the modern world?
Slaves were never exclusively from West Africa - no one (with any credible knowledge) would claim otherwise. However, the American experience will place greater emphasis on this part of the world as this is where the Europeans drew the majority of their slaves from at that particular time, which coincided with the invasion of America (at least 1500-5000 years after the events described in the bible). They also justified these terrible actions with what they had interpreted from the bible (in its Greek and Hebrew forms).
Using the bible to claim racial superiority is as abhorrent in the 21st century as it was in the 16th - regardless of the race perpetrating it. Considering this, there is an irony in the original post.


-------~~~~--------
QUOTE (John Lennon)
Free yourselves
PMEmail PosterMSN
Top
DeeJay
Posted: Jun 6 2009, 03:54 AM
Quote Post


Senior
****

Group: Members
Posts: 12279
Gender: Male
Location: YAY AREA
Points: 1666
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 138
Joined: 23-June 04



QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jun 5 2009, 09:42 PM)

I'm well aware that the bible isn't a novel, but neither is it an accurate historic document.
There are theologians who will tell you that some of the New Testament (thought to be originally Koine Greek) were in fact translated from Aramaic with the original texts long lost. We don't have an original bible - we have documents that are close, but not original. Original traditions were largely oral and liable to the 'Chinese whisper' effect. And what we have of original texts is very open to interpretation e.g. there are no vowels or punctuation in the original documents - they were all added.
Punctuation can make a massive difference - take this example:
In punctuating, “Woman without her man is nothing”
The men write: “Woman, without her man, is nothing.”
The women write: “Woman: Without her, man is nothing.”
A little punctuation can make a big difference. Imagine that unpunctuated statement carried the weight that a biblical quote did.

After having being brought up in a fervent religious family and school, I am very familiar with the bible, and its authors, so that attempt to dent my credibility is null and void, but this is beside the point.
When making a historical claim, it requires historical evidence, rather than a contested source and cherry-picked history.

QUOTE

And where do you think they got the idea that Jesus was black from?

Geography?

QUOTE

But the original purpose of the thread was to challenge the whole "African American" or "Black" tag that the descendants of slaves have been given in this country.

I just have a hard time believing that all the slaves were just random West Africans who were either sold by their King or captured by some mercenaries and sold.


I'm all for the empowerment of the descendants of slaves - I fully support this, but only when it is based on hard facts. What's the point in trading one set of cultural myths for another set?
In fact, I'd go one further and say the tags 'black' and 'African-American' should be actively opposed. As while they are used, they perpetuate division rather than embracing common ancestry.

Your view seem to hold an American-centric take on things as it seems to be dealing with issues that are almost exclusively American. Does addressing these problems really require dragging a Bronze age family feud into the modern world?
Slaves were never exclusively from West Africa - no one (with any credible knowledge) would claim otherwise. However, the American experience will place greater emphasis on this part of the world as this is where the Europeans drew the majority of their slaves from at that particular time, which coincided with the invasion of America (at least 1500-5000 years after the events described in the bible). They also justified these terrible actions with what they had interpreted from the bible (in its Greek and Hebrew forms).
Using the bible to claim racial superiority is as abhorrent in the 21st century as it was in the 16th - regardless of the race perpetrating it. Considering this, there is an irony in the original post.

I wish I had an opportunity to go to school overseas. The education here is sugar coated, watered down, and steadily declining. I enjoy having discussions with you. You challenge my way of thinking.
maryluvs_bye1.gif


-------~~~~--------
user posted image
PMEmail Poster
Top
Wee Tony
Posted: Jun 6 2009, 10:41 AM
Quote Post


Punching above his weight
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4730
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Points: 232
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 461
Joined: 13-November 04



QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 6 2009, 08:44 AM)

I wish I had an opportunity to go to school overseas. The education here is sugar coated, watered down, and steadily declining. I enjoy having discussions with you. You challenge my way of thinking.
maryluvs_bye1.gif

Why thank you - you've made my day wub.gif

The opportunities to study overseas are there (and bizarrely, it's a LOT cheaper than a second rate education in the States maryluvs_confused1.gif ). You should look into it. I know a Maryluvs that went to Italy - I'm not saying it's easy, but it isn't impossible. A lot of European countries have a falling population and are giving all sorts of incentives to attract students (e.g. free education).

I had quite a few Americans on my courses and they had the time of their lives. In fact, I know of one who liked it so much, he stayed here after the course finished.


-------~~~~--------
QUOTE (John Lennon)
Free yourselves
PMEmail PosterMSN
Top
DeeJay
Posted: Jun 6 2009, 11:41 PM
Quote Post


Senior
****

Group: Members
Posts: 12279
Gender: Male
Location: YAY AREA
Points: 1666
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 138
Joined: 23-June 04



QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jun 6 2009, 09:31 AM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 6 2009, 08:44 AM)

I wish I had an opportunity to go to school overseas. The education here is sugar coated, watered down, and steadily declining. I enjoy having discussions with you. You challenge my way of thinking.
  maryluvs_bye1.gif

Why thank you - you've made my day wub.gif

The opportunities to study overseas are there (and bizarrely, it's a LOT cheaper than a second rate education in the States maryluvs_confused1.gif ). You should look into it. I know a Maryluvs that went to Italy - I'm not saying it's easy, but it isn't impossible. A lot of European countries have a falling population and are giving all sorts of incentives to attract students (e.g. free education).

I had quite a few Americans on my courses and they had the time of their lives. In fact, I know of one who liked it so much, he stayed here after the course finished.

Professor? what is it that you teach? maryluvs_hmm.gif


-------~~~~--------
user posted image
PMEmail Poster
Top
Josh
Posted: Jun 7 2009, 01:32 PM
Quote Post


Senior
****

Group: Members
Posts: 32788
Gender: Male
Location: Ancienne Belgique
Points: 93622427
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 46
Joined: 14-June 04



QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 6 2009, 03:27 AM)
as of last week I am beginning to learn both languages so that I can read the bible in it's original text. Most people who doubt the validity of the bible hasn't read it to begin with, yet alone have read it having a relationship with it's author.


Why don't you start with the U level English and after that Spanish, French, or German?? I mean both Ancient Greek and Herbrew have different alphabetes and modern day people who speak the relative languages don't even understand them properly. unsure.gif The ancient languages won't get you a job and/or better life standard.

And no, unless I'm unaware of something, these days there could hardly be anyone who has a relationship with those who wrote the bible. Trust me, or better read an encyclopedia article on those who translated the bible, they had a profound knowledge of what they did. Yet they are only humans, too.

Articles for you to read:

Polysemy
Interpretation
Translation

That's where you start.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Josh
Posted: Jun 7 2009, 01:40 PM
Quote Post


Senior
****

Group: Members
Posts: 32788
Gender: Male
Location: Ancienne Belgique
Points: 93622427
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 46
Joined: 14-June 04



QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jun 6 2009, 05:42 AM)

I just have a hard time believing that all the slaves were just random West Africans who were either sold by their King or captured by some mercenaries and sold.

True, the Arabs captured millions of slaves in East Africa and Europe long before Europeans ventured into slave trade. This is also a fact that is not much talked about.
PMEmail Poster
Top
DeeJay
Posted: Jun 7 2009, 05:28 PM
Quote Post


Senior
****

Group: Members
Posts: 12279
Gender: Male
Location: YAY AREA
Points: 1666
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 138
Joined: 23-June 04



QUOTE (Josh @ Jun 7 2009, 12:22 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 6 2009, 03:27 AM)
as of last week I am beginning to learn both languages so that I can read the bible in it's original text. Most people who doubt the validity of the bible hasn't read it to begin with, yet alone have read it having a relationship with it's author.


Why don't you start with the U level English and after that Spanish, French, or German?? I mean both Ancient Greek and Herbrew have different alphabetes and modern day people who speak the relative languages don't even understand them properly. unsure.gif The ancient languages won't get you a job and/or better life standard.

And no, unless I'm unaware of something, these days there could hardly be anyone who has a relationship with those who wrote the bible. Trust me, or better read an encyclopedia article on those who translated the bible, they had a profound knowledge of what they did. Yet they are only humans, too.

Articles for you to read:

Polysemy
Interpretation
Translation

That's where you start.

I appreciate the lesson and except the spirit in which it was given.

However if you have read the bible (in this case I will assume you have) John 1:1-5 says what? In God's own complex simplicity he lets you that He is indeed the AUTHOR of the word. So if continue reading John chapter 1 He also lets you, the reader know that if you have any questions or doubts about His word. Get to know My son Jesus. After all He was the word made flesh and lived among men. Because God's word is his son Jesus, So in order for you to comprehend His word you must have his spirit inside of you (Acts 2:38). I'm not belittle you or come for you (lol), see the beauty of his word is that it's a double edged sword it cuts both ways maryluvs_bye1.gif


-------~~~~--------
user posted image
PMEmail Poster
Top
Josh
Posted: Jun 7 2009, 05:34 PM
Quote Post


Senior
****

Group: Members
Posts: 32788
Gender: Male
Location: Ancienne Belgique
Points: 93622427
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 46
Joined: 14-June 04



QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 8 2009, 12:18 AM)

However if you have read the bible (in this case I will assume you have) John 1:1-5 says what?

I'm sorry, unlike Tony I haven't coz I have many better books to read. Where I live religion is not very popular. maryluvs_bye2.gif
PMEmail Poster
Top
DeeJay
Posted: Jun 7 2009, 05:49 PM
Quote Post


Senior
****

Group: Members
Posts: 12279
Gender: Male
Location: YAY AREA
Points: 1666
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 138
Joined: 23-June 04



QUOTE (Josh @ Jun 7 2009, 04:24 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 8 2009, 12:18 AM)

However if you have read the bible (in this case I will assume you have) John 1:1-5 says what?

I'm sorry, unlike Tony I haven't coz I have many better books to read. Where I live religion is not very popular. maryluvs_bye2.gif

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Having a relationship with Jesus isn't religion or religious. You are religiously on this site. It is what it is, a RELATIONSHIP. God has shown us how much he loves us by making Himself flesh and dying on the cross for our sins so that we may once again be worthy to be in his presence for eternity. You wouldn't want to spend the rest of your life with someone you don't know and neither does God want to spend the rest of eternity with those who don't know His Son, Jesus.


-------~~~~--------
user posted image
PMEmail Poster
Top
Josh
Posted: Jun 7 2009, 05:59 PM
Quote Post


Senior
****

Group: Members
Posts: 32788
Gender: Male
Location: Ancienne Belgique
Points: 93622427
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 46
Joined: 14-June 04



QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 8 2009, 12:39 AM)
QUOTE (Josh @ Jun 7 2009, 04:24 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 8 2009, 12:18 AM)

However if you have read the bible (in this case I will assume you have) John 1:1-5 says what?

I'm sorry, unlike Tony I haven't coz I have many better books to read. Where I live religion is not very popular. maryluvs_bye2.gif

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Having a relationship with Jesus isn't religion or religious. You are religiously on this site. It is what it is, a RELATIONSHIP. God has shown us how much he loves us by making Himself flesh and dying on the cross for our sins so that we may once again be worthy to be in his presence for eternity. You wouldn't want to spend the rest of your life with someone you don't know and neither does God want to spend the rest of eternity with those who don't know His Son, Jesus.

I do think it's too obscure for me. I think I'll better let this this thread rest. maryluvs_bye2.gif
PMEmail Poster
Top
DeeJay
Posted: Jun 7 2009, 06:04 PM
Quote Post


Senior
****

Group: Members
Posts: 12279
Gender: Male
Location: YAY AREA
Points: 1666
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 138
Joined: 23-June 04



QUOTE (Josh @ Jun 7 2009, 04:49 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 8 2009, 12:39 AM)
QUOTE (Josh @ Jun 7 2009, 04:24 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 8 2009, 12:18 AM)

However if you have read the bible (in this case I will assume you have) John 1:1-5 says what?

I'm sorry, unlike Tony I haven't coz I have many better books to read. Where I live religion is not very popular. maryluvs_bye2.gif

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Having a relationship with Jesus isn't religion or religious. You are religiously on this site. It is what it is, a RELATIONSHIP. God has shown us how much he loves us by making Himself flesh and dying on the cross for our sins so that we may once again be worthy to be in his presence for eternity. You wouldn't want to spend the rest of your life with someone you don't know and neither does God want to spend the rest of eternity with those who don't know His Son, Jesus.

I do think it's too obscure for me. I think I'll better let this this thread rest. maryluvs_bye2.gif

Well your still alive, I'm sure Jesus will reveal himself to you. maryluvs_bye1.gif


-------~~~~--------
user posted image
PMEmail Poster
Top
Wee Tony
Posted: Jul 2 2009, 07:55 AM
Quote Post


Punching above his weight
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4730
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Points: 232
Member Inventory: View

Member No.: 461
Joined: 13-November 04



Seen this article from the BBC.

Thought it might be of some interest to some people on this thread...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8117258.stm


-------~~~~--------
QUOTE (John Lennon)
Free yourselves
PMEmail PosterMSN
Top

Topic Options Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 


Google
 
Web maryluvs.clicdev.com
Skin By L!th!uM sur PlanetGrafiK
Web Statistics