"black folks are spiritual people by nature" That is a super interesting comment of yours, but maybe for a different thread. But yes, you had to be lead to your answer until you stated that the jury was still out, and then pointed to the church and the liquor store keeping you poor. Therefore you see religion, particularly Christianity, as a tool of oppression. Sorry you were ever given the Bible. Does that go on the reparations list?
I am not sure what it is a tool of, that is why I asked the question. I don't believe any slaves got off the boat with it under their arms. Depends.
Well since you blamed the church for keeping "black folks" poor, I think you answered your own question.
And for sure there are certain individuals who are not crazy. - - - Updated - - - whats that? - - - Updated - - - my bad, iforget this forum is not for chatting.
As an author it is imperative to be a little crazy. If youre not crazy then writing is not the arena for you.
White slave holders Banned the drum, the languages, the religions that there chattel brought with them from Africa. Don't BS yourself.
It all comes down to what you consider to be 'white'. The vast majority of jewish israelis typically have darker features than europeans, regardless of their denomination (ashkenaz or sefarad). Both of these modern jewish groups cluster genetically closest with middle easterners and are also of mediterranean descent and look middle eastern even though they lived in europe for centuries. Its similar to how african americans lived in the western world, the americas, for centuries. They didn't become 'white' just because they lived in a predominately 'white' country or countries. Many native palestinians (a poor term, but I use it for the sake of convenience) look identical to jewish israelis, the only difference is religion and language. The Jews speak (and spoke) hebrew, among other jewish languages but the palestinians speak arabic. In my opinion, the best population to compare to modern jewish israelis is the samaritans (who can be israeli or palestinian, depending on where they are born). The israeli druze are another good population to compare to, they cluster very closely with modern jews. Keep in mind too that many palestinians and samaritans, syrians, iraqis, and iranians have light features as well. So if a jew has fair skin and light eyes, its not indicative of european ancestry. "European Jews" (again, not the best term) cluster closest with other iraqi jews, iranian jews, armenians, druze, basically with other middle easterners.
Because the Bible is not a history book, it is a book or morals. - - - Updated - - - That is of course, ridiculous...
Yes and no. The Bible is actually one of the most accurate historical books ever written. Not all of the bible is history, but many of the events depicted in both the old and new testament are corroborated by archaeological evidence and other historical data. The bible provides very good genealogies, king lists, correct outlines of historical events (particularly the assyrian and babylonian captivities in 722 BCE and 586 BCE.) Even Isaiah 20:1 mentions Sargon II by name. Prior to the 19th century historians denied he ever existed until Botta discovered Khorsabad (dur-sharrukin) in the 1840s. This turned out to be the palace of Sargon II and on the slabs of its walls and in the annals it details many historical battles including the sacking of samaria and the deportation of nearly 28,000 israelites. Jehu of the house of Omri is also mentioned in the Bible and exists in the texts of Shalmeneser III. Other important historical references are made in the bible to king hezekiah of judah and sennacherib of assyria. The achaemenian and hellenistic periods are also outlined in the bible. Do I believe that the Bible is infallible? Certainly not, but it is indeed one of the most important and comprehensive historical documents ever written. Many parts of the old testament are highly accurate, and the new testament provides some valuable resources as well, regardless of one's religious background.
Thats why I said: Not all of the bible is history, but many of the events depicted in both the old and new testament are corroborated by archaeological evidence and other historical data. Again, the existence of several mesopotamian kings and leaders was denied by skeptics for decades. Isaiah 20:1 just had to be an error, it had to be, because prior to the 1840s' no external verification was found. (Thats very poor logic) Until Botta discovered Khorsabad.... Belshazzar, yeah he couldn't exist either....it all had to be a myth due to the absence of corroborating archaeological findings. The book of Daniel just HAD to be written by several different scholars of the maccabean/late hellenistic period..lol. Interesting how you left out the examples I provided in quoting me. You also left out this statement of mine: Do I believe that the Bible is infallible? Certainly not I am agnostic, I have no bias in this.
Agreed. That is obvious and I never disputed that. However, the same could be said of Sargon II prior to the 1840s, so that doesn't prove that these figures did not exist. The city of Akkad/Agade is mentioned in genesis. Guess what? It has never been found. But scholars now have every reason to believe that it existed. Compare the Tanakh to the Qur'an and the Tanakh wins hands down in terms of which book is more historical.
This statement makes no sense in response to me already stating the obvious several times, that there is no evidence as of yet, that these figures existed. However, again, as I just said several times, as is seen in past examples, a lack of extra-bliblical corroborating evidence does not prove these figures to be mythological. This is simple logic, its not hard to understand.
