Ahhh damn... Can I gat a amen?

originally posted by: Wifibrains
a reply to: Logarock

Which man?

Who decided to make this decision?

Any particular sex, group or organisation?

Looks like a joint effort as far as gender goes.

a reply to: Logarock

Gangsta!

Looks after his own, so did not create everything, thus not true creator.

a reply to: Logarock

Group? Organizionation? Lol

originally posted by: Wifibrains
a reply to: Logarock

Gangsta!

Looks after his own, so did not create everything, thus not true creator.

The two are really not mutually exclusive. He has even said as much.

originally posted by: Wifibrains
a reply to: Logarock

Group? Organizionation? Lol

Just a couple or three dumbasses that lost their minds.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Wifibrains
a reply to: Logarock

Gangsta!

Looks after his own, so did not create everything, thus not true creator.

The two are really not mutually exclusive. He has even said as much.

To who?

Just a couple or three dumbasses that lost their minds.

Thread title is hilarious

I've found it's fun to say as enthusiastically as possible.

Star and flag for that alone.

a reply to: GoShredAK

Lol I'm wondering how many people have said it aloud in a southern accent just for fun...

#Ahh Dayum...

a reply to: Logarock

Troll thread.

a reply to: randyvs

Just for trolls...

Brings em out da woodwork...




Hehe...

There has been justification of barbaric acts and the pointing out of hypocrisy...

It's all in jest guys.

a reply to: Wifibrains
Greetings Wifibrains,

Thank you for presenting this Youtube video for our consideration. Do you have any info on who this speaker is, or what particular group he is associated with?

In the absence of information to the contrary, my impression is that he's part of a growing movement of "getting back to cultural roots". If that is the case, then I think for the first time I get it. Sticking with the man-made bible deity is a no-win proposition for any and all not of the in group.

Some of the verses of the bible not read but alluded to may have been already familiar to the audience.

Genesis 9 New International Version (NIV)
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”

This in conjunction with the following chapter 10 of Genesis ( genealogy of mankind ) were the primary source of Christian justification for slavery in the Americas.

The Europeans saw themselves as Japheth and Africans as Hamites, therefore fully following the will of the bible god by enslaving the "cursed people". A segment of English Christians of the Puritan persuasion full on identified themselves as Israelites and considered the continent as the new land of Israel. Therefore they (the English colonists) had every right, nay, the obligation, to kill and take and conquer the continent in the name of their deity.

a reply to: pthena

Do you have any info on who this speaker is, or what particular group he is associated with?

I don't, it's not a theory I subscribe to so haven't followed or looked it up. One of my youtube subscriptions mirrored it. There is more info and website link at the original video link, but have not looked. I just liked the beginning of this video and shared it off of that. It seem to be a preview teaser to a DVD from the description.

Original link.. youtu.be...

a reply to: Wifibrains

The Europeans saw themselves as Japheth and Africans as Hamites, therefore fully following the will of the bible god by enslaving the "cursed people". A segment of English Christians of the Puritan persuasion full on identified themselves as Israelites and considered the continent as the new land of Israel. Therefore they (the English colonists) had every right, nay, the obligation, to kill and take and conquer the continent in the name of their deity.

Similar to Americas? Did the biblical god have a favourite colour too? The next new bible might take care of that eh?

If laws can be written to say these things are allowed they can be written to say these things are not allowed or were never allowed. All it needs is for the authority to become self evident. "His word" would be undeniable, no matter what "His-story" said.

a reply to: Wifibrains
I'm so slow at writing that sometimes I fear that some one will beat me to the punch. Oh well.

The name is Ray Hagins, formerly Pentecostal Christian pastor of New Ephesus Missionary Baptist Church in St. Louis, Missouri, currently Chief Elder and Pastor of The Afrikan Village. It seems that when he converted from Euro-centric Christianity to worship of an ancient Egyptian deity, he retained much of his Christianity and even Monotheist creator-god concepts.

His Personal Story Here

Much more that I wanted to comment on, but at the moment I have a splitting head-ache, must take a break.

a reply to: Wifibrains

The next new bible might take care of that eh?

rewind. . . You wrote:

It must be this law that needs to be changed. I was not written by god but was written by freewill.

So there you have it. Although many "holy" books have been written, what is truer still is that which we allow to change as we learn previously unknown to us points of view.

Once upon a time I was called for jury duty. The case involved the non completion of a building contract. The Assistant DA was attempting a novel approach by prosecuting a civil case in criminal court with a charge of felony theft.

I was asked the question: "If there was a law on the books that stated that wearing green socks on Tuesday constituted theft would you be able to vote guilty in the case of some one found to be wearing green socks on a Tuesday?"

My answer was, "I wouldn't want anything to do with a case like that."

"Then you are dismissed from jury duty", was the decision of the assistant DA.

On my way out, I could be heard saying, "This is an inappropriate use of the courts. Laws may change, whereas a felony conviction sticks to a person for life."

I wonder some times why I've never been asked to serve on a jury.

- - -

I'll have to look up the lyrics of the songs you posted. My song comprehension isn't as good as it should be.

Oh no! "lyrics coming soon" on the web page.

a reply to: pthena

Interesting, sounds like they were only looking for the children of the "bondswoman"... Was/is everyone asked that or similar question?

a reply to: Wifibrains

Was/is everyone asked that or similar question?

Having spent some time reviewing my faulty memory, I would have to say that a more accurate account would be that the question was asked by the ADA to all the potential jurors at the same time, such as:

"Would any of you have a problem [ insert afore mentioned green sock scenario here]" and I was the only one to raise my hand and voice my wish to not be associated with such a thing. Also, it was actually the defense attorney who asked the judge to have me dismissed.

sounds like they were only looking for the children of the "bondswoman"

Based upon the demeanor of the parties: ADA, Defendant, Defense Attorney, and Judge, I got the distinct impression that the outcome of the trial was already prearranged in order to get a precedent into the public record with the added weight of a jury's endorsement. So yes, I believe that it would be accurate to describe the process as "looking for children of the bondswoman" to rubber stamp, in a way that would seem to be free decision, something whose outcome was prearranged.

a reply to: pthena

Good on you! According to the good book you appear to not be circumcised of the spirit...

Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

originally posted by: Wifibrains

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Wifibrains
a reply to: Logarock

Gangsta!

Looks after his own, so did not create everything, thus not true creator.

The two are really not mutually exclusive. He has even said as much.

To who?

Just a couple or three dumbasses that lost their minds.

Frankly what you said is not a logical conclusion even. You need to prove that because He looks after His own disqualifies Him as creator of all.

a reply to: Logarock

Can it be proven that he looks after his own? Is there logical proof or just faith in things unseen that seem to make things happen?

I can't prove the existance of him (we are talking biblical god right) at all so there is nothing to disqualify. But I could bring counter arguments and we can play hot potatoe.

I could take the words of a book to prove the existance but that would have to be taken as faith on my part which does not constitue as proof.

Do you have any proof of the six days of creation other than what is written? I made a universe in just 5! Is it logically possible?

If this method of creation can be proven it would bolster your claim that it is indeed his creation. If not? It could just as much be a story made up to hush and quell the enquisitive. The belief in such things is a consensus no?