Political Corrective ness...Kiss my butt.

Political Corrective ness has become incorrect.
A thirty year history teacher was showing his class a piece of American history. It was a time when white actors, and singers would make up their faces like black people. It was a time in American history when those in control of the law, said what was politically correct. It is good that the corrective ness has been changed. It is bad that history is put in the darkness, like it never happened.
This past week I was on a religious forum. We were talking about what Ham (son of Noah) did to his father. I posted a scripture that showed, Noah cursed Hams son, and all his seed. It is history that Ham went to the land now known as Africa, and started the black race. I noted that religion of the past two hundred years, took these scriptures, to justified slavery.
For this I was asked by the mod, to explain why I was a racist? I explained I was not a racist, but only posting what the Bible, and American history said. A second mod joined the first. The two insisted I was insulting black members of the forum, and that I had to retract my post, or be banded. I asked, "Do you want me to change history? Am I a racist because I said, This was the thinking of those past? The result, I was banned.
It seems people want to change history. If I were to say, "The forefathers of the United States were traitors to their country, (England) would be Un-American?
I was raised to believe, "Those who forget things of the past, will repeat the past." What has happened to reasoning? I do understand this world is gone crazy…but am I alone in my thinking? Yes I know…men marry men, and women marry women…that is good thinking. A man who marries a women…is sick thinking. I’m old. I thank God I won’t have to see much more of this bullshit.

There was an excellent documentary on NOVA or Discovery channel that traced the origins of the human race through bones and DNA.  The conclusion from the scientific evidence was that the original human species, long before the advent of the biblical events, had black skin, brown eyes and black hair and originated in Africa.  Further back than that, our skeletal structure is similar to fish that came out of the water and became land animals.  Not that we came directly from fish, but their framework went into some ancestor that split off during God's creation process.

For me, this fits well with biblical teaching because God still made man in a day - who defines the length of God's day?  Who else could create the fantastic evolutionary journey our species has taken? Or the evolutionary processes that took place as he created the human species.  Since we have continued to evolve, I don't think he waved a magic wand and there we were white as snow.  Nope, if he did wave that magic wand, our skin was black, our eyes were brown and our hair black.  Our features included a wider nose (better to cool the hot African air - good of him to think of that) and thicker lips.

As humans migrated in search of food, they went further north into other climates. Those who adapted survived in the new climates.  Adaptation included lightening of the skin and all related parts (hair and eyes) to better take in vitamin D in the colder climates, further from the direct sun.

Adaptation is a genuine part of God's natural order of things.  We see it in the Galapagos Islands and Australia in animals.  Even the Chameleon changes color for safety. 

I see the bible as a record of history as men understood at their time of writing.  As science advanced using God-given brains, a broader understanding of the mystery and magnificence of God's work can be understood in modern times and through modern understanding and language.  We don't throw out the old, just develop a broader frame of reference for the stories.

Broader perspectives and communication open the mind to accept changing ideas (change is life; not to change is death - God's creations all change, including us.  Every cell in our body changes.) and ways of life for other people.  We do not need to adapt those new ways to our own lives unless we choose to do so.  We can find like-minded people and not be bothered with other lifestyles so long as we recognize that we do not sit in judgment.  We are all God's children and in his likeness - even with our differences, flaws and strengths.  To condemn a human being is to condemn God.

I am using the word "God" but I do not see the spiritual power in the universe as a painting of an old white man with a flowing white beard.  In fact, if I personify God after the NOVA Discovery documentary I see a black man or woman of unknown age smiling at his or her creation like an artist with a palette.

As far as justifying slavery - nations were in the habit of enslaving the conquered peoples from their wars.  The U.S. slavery was an aberration - enslaving people without war for profits.  There was no justification but a profit motive.

God created the human species in his image.  There was no division into races, religions, sexual orientation, gender, etc.  We did that.  Not God. He did give us the power to destroy ourselves through hate and greed.  He could take that one back.

Lol..hahahaha...oh God, how much longer do we have to hear this stuff? I've even heard some say, Our universe is a speck of something stuck right in the center of a cows ass. If they are right, God,  could you please have the cow pass wind?

Excellent posts, DK.

It has been known for some time that the earliest skeletal evidence of human existence show our origins to be in Africa.  The adaptations of evolution occurred after we moved north, when the pigmentation in our skin became weaker for the reasons you pointed out, and that also led to lightening hair and eye color.

It has been written that God created man people in His own image, but the truth is more that people perceived God in their image.  It is understandable.  Humans recognized the existence of this Powerful Other, and tried to define It.  In the beginning, it was assumed that the Other was female, since it was women who gave birth.  After a time, as humankind evolved and "progressed,"  It was decided that this God had to be male.  It's a little like the reversal of skin pigmentation beliefs, which decided that people were originally white.

Lately, I have a hard time thinking of that Ultimate Power in any anthropomorphic terms.  Paul Tillich, the Lutheran theologian, calls that presence the Ground of Being - Being Itself as opposed to created "beings."  That resonates with me.

The discovery of the quantum in physics, I believe, will soon lead to a reconciliation between science and religion.  Classical scientists still fight it, but as more and more hypotheses prove to be true, that will change.

The authors of the Bible, for the most part, genuinely believed what they wrote.  Before them, those who passed down the oral traditions did the same.

But, we have long known the saying:  "To the victors belong the spoils," and the compilation, over time, of the sources that contributed to what we know as the Bible, has been a result of that truth.

It is imperative that we know and remember the past, but in doing so, we must apply reason.  We must remain aware that our historians and theologians worked from limited perspectives, that history was written from the perspective of the victors, and that, as we have evolved over time, the old interpretations must be recognized as just that, so that we can glean the essence and let go of the dross.  This, I believe is what Christ meant when he said that the chaff must be separated from the grain.  It was not about separating "bad" people from "good" people so mush as recognizing that all people have a core of "goodness"  that can be separated from the stuff that they have accumulated over the course of their lives that leads them into mistaken conclusions and actions.

That core is our connection to the Whole that is "God":  Our Consciousness, our True Selves, our Soul or Holy Spirit, or whatever else we might call that Oneness - that "At One-ness" or "atonement" with our Source.

Quantum physics makes much of the "observer effect."  Waves of energy only collapse into particles of matter when they are observed, and the perspective of the observer determines the form the particles will take on.  We, as observers, then become the creators of our reality.  But, since our perceptions are incomplete, our pictures of reality are somewhat distorted.  That is why it is so important to be able to let them go when we are confronted with a greater truth.

We will never achieve peace until we are ready to let go of our prejudices against what we see as "other."  It is not about being "right" or "wrong."  It is about putting our limited perspectives together so that we can see a larger portion of a whole that is beyond our ability to grasp.

Just me.

Domenic, you were banned because you trolled. To survive on public forums, you have to follow the rules. Discussions with opposing views are necessary; discussion threads quickly die if everyone agrees. Trolling is an extreme way of disagreeing that causes annoyance. Moderators on forums have the tools to ban people, which they use when they think it is appropriate. The need for moderating tools would not arise if forum members followed the rules, but they don't.

I agree Shelagh that we need opposing views - opposing views supported with information not emotional name-calling. It is also nice to have complex discussions where there are facts that form a common basis of understanding.

I think there are several people who post on this board who feel similar to Ann and me regarding our origins and the nature of spiritual understanding. 

Fortunately, I attend Unity of Bonita Springs, a fine church that supports these beliefs also.  It is not a perfect church.  It was funny on Sunday.  The minister said there was a  meeting that followed a belief that a man in the 1800's channeled Jesus Christ.  The minister didn't agree or disagree; he just said if that if we were interested, he was sharing the meeting info and there was a sign up sheet. He would not be attending.

A lot of the sermon was based on the teachings of Buddha and Confucius.  He traced the "golden rule" back to ancient beginnings.  He talks about things that peak curiosity and leave it up to the congregation to learn more or pass.

I find Dominic's posts interesting most of the time and are glad for them until he gets stuck and lets loose with unpleasantness.

Shelagh wrote:

Domenic, you were banned because you trolled. To survive on public forums, you have to follow the rules. Discussions with opposing views are necessary; discussion threads quickly die if everyone agrees.     Trolling is an extreme way of disagreeing that causes annoyance. Moderators on forums have the tools to ban people, which they use when they think it is appropriate. The need for moderating tools would not arise if forum members followed the rules, but they don't.

Shelagh, true at times On far left, or far right. And yes I name call when people say things about me that are untrue. Here is what took place on that forum. Jacquline, and Peter are mods. Somehow, by saying how people thought in the 1800's, was taken as I was saying...this is my feelings.:











Domenic Pappalardo

[url=http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/anointed/comment-page-11/ / comment-309040]May 24, 2014 at 12:13 pm[/url] [url=http://www.publishedauthors.org/anointed/comment-page-11/?replytocom=309040 / respond]· Reply[/url]

Hank,
In the 1800's it was believed the black were of the seed of Cain. This was taken from Ham, (son of Noah) being of the dark skin. The two seed teaching was accepted as truth in the 1800's, as it was in Jesus day. Some how the two seed teaching has been put aside as a theory, and even as a false teaching?
The Bible when compared to the Scrolls, proves the Bible was changed to the fairy tail of eating a fruit. Since Cain can be proven to be a child from Satan’s seed, the many scriptures together prove we have two different types of people on this earth today…those from Satan, and those from Adam. Jesus did not come to save those of Satan’s seed…only those of Adams.

Chuck Maly

[url=http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/anointed/comment-page-11/ / comment-309072]May 24, 2014 at 12:52 pm[/url] [url=http://www.publishedauthors.org/anointed/comment-page-11/?replytocom=309072 / respond]· Reply[/url]

Dominic,
Your statement just now sounds extremely racist in my opinion. My father asked me about the black race coming from Cain as he had heard growing up in a very racist period of our history. It was an interesting conversation to say the least. I can only hope he does not now believe such hate speech and understands we are all Gods children. As for the "scrolls" you keep mentioning. A thousand years from now if one was to look at all the current (2014) literature circulating on religion, one could come to many conclusions about current belief. But I believe the Holy Scriptures are the inspired word of God and he has protected them for a reason. He had his own reason for using who he did to compile them. The "scrolls" are no more than the fairy tale you talk about. People with different beliefs and superstitions. Some acuracy may be in them but if there was even a bit of untruth, our Lord made sure they were not included. Again, this is my opinion but I certainly stand by it.
In Christ,
Br. Chuck

Domenic Pappalardo

[url=http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/anointed/comment-page-11/ / comment-309131]May 24, 2014 at 1:42 pm[/url] [url=http://www.publishedauthors.org/anointed/comment-page-11/?replytocom=309131 / respond]· Reply[/url]

The Catholic religion can be proven to be false. The Catholic church took the Bible from the Scrolls…if they did it word for word, it should match…the truth is, it does not match. In Jesus time, he quoted from the Scrolls…there was no Bible as we have today. It is a true statement, much of the bible matches the Scrolls…it is also a true statement, many of the scriptures from the Scrolls which are in the bible, have been change, or left out. God has many servants on this earth, in the past, and present…why would he use a false religion to compile his word? God gave us his truth in the Scrolls, why would he have to again give us the same words with changes…are you saying God made a mistake when he had the Scrolls written? All religions are false. Why would any one trust what the present as Gods truth? Read the Scrolls, and you will see they are different from some of the Bible. If my statement sounds extremely racist, I have just stated what history has said, and what the Bible has said. I grew up in a racist America. No I am not racist…and yes, this country is still racist. That being said, just because America has been, and still is a racist country, does not white wash what history, and the bible says.

Jacqueline

[url=http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/anointed/comment-page-11/ / comment-309169]May 24, 2014 at 2:23 pm[/url] [url=http://www.publishedauthors.org/anointed/comment-page-11/?replytocom=309169 / respond]· Reply[/url]

Domenic I normally ignore your 2 seeds theory most of the time but not now. You say: Cain is child of satan and black people are from Cain. You SAY : Adam is father of everyone else and redeemed by Our Lord Christ.
Now do you see why we don’t comment on what you say about your two seeds.
Divine providence allowed us to discuss this so your thoughts would be clear. I for one will continue to ignore you. And racist comments will not be approved , so please refrain if this is how you personally feel. Thank you

Peter K. (admin)

[url=http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/anointed/comment-page-11/ / comment-313415]May 27, 2014 at 1:29 pm[/url] [url=http://www.publishedauthors.org/anointed/comment-page-11/?replytocom=313415 / respond]· Reply[/url]

Domenic – I have been removing your recent comments. You keep pushing your two seed agenda even when no one wants to discuss it. You name call and come across as a bully. I will give you one opportunity to explain. You seem to be saying that black people are the seed of Satan, Cain and Ham and that Jesus did not die for that seed – black people. That is a terribly a racist and false teaching. Is this what you believe??? Please be very clear in what your view is of black people. If there is any misunderstanding, this is your opportunity to explain and vindicate yourself.

Domenic Pappalardo

[url=http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/anointed/comment-page-11/ / comment-313491]May 27, 2014 at 2:34 pm[/url] [url=http://www.publishedauthors.org/anointed/comment-page-11/?replytocom=313491 / respond]· Reply[/url]

I did not say black people were of Satan’s seed. I did say, "In the 1800's religions were saying that, and where they came to that was from Ham being of the dark skin. The Bible does not say black people are of Satan’s seed, nor do I.
I did say Ham had sex with his mother, (Noah’s wife.) Ham uncovered his fathers nakedness. Here is what uncovered nakedness means…from the Bible;

Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Jacqueline called me a racist…which I am not.
As to who Jesus died for; He died for all that would believe in him. He did not die for the sons of the angels, nor those who reject him.
This forum teaches ALL will be given life. That is not what the Bible teaches. If all were to be given life, God would not have to destroy all living things on earth, and Gods people would not have to spend seven years burying the bones. Telling people, "All will be saved," is giving people a free pass to do anything they want…this I will never believe.
And yes, I do believe there are two seeds on this earth as the Bible teaches.
The above is my stand, and it will not change.

Nothing new here.  Religion and/or politics continue to be controversial subjects.  People read into statements and understand what they want.  When one mentions the Bible, Christ, God and Israel, consider that a red light is flashing.  Black and White have become red light subjects.  I believe that the Native American gave a more accurate description of the white man when he called him “paleface”.  Have you ever seen a “white” man?  There are shades of light as well as dark.  In my view, the word “colored” was a good description for a non-white, but someone decided that it was racial.  What color is the basis for comparison?  When there is a crime, a witness is asked for the description of the person.  They are expected to indicate color as well as facial features.  To say the perpetrator of the crime was a human form is a beginning, if in fact it was a human.  It certainly doesn’t help the investigator without more detailed description as to color of skin, large/small nose, hair (kinky or straight) and color.  Any other identification marks. 
Reference the word “man” or “men” and it becomes a sensitive term for some females.
It is generally understood what is meant by “man” as in man kind.  In German, the word, “Mensch” is used that can be male or female – a person.  Interpretation continues to play a role as we know when a Biblical source is used.  What is meant by black, white, red, yellow or just plain man is part of all this crap.

Quote :

Myth

Long afterward, Oedipus, old and blinded, walked the 

roads. He smelled a familiar smell. It was 

the Sphinx. Oedipus said, 'I want to ask one question. 

Why didn't I recognize my mother?' 'You gave the 

wrong answer,' said the Sphinx. 'But that was what 

made everything possible,' said Oedipus. 'No,' she said. 

'When I asked, What walks on four legs in the morning, 

two at noon, and three in the evening, you answered, 

Man. You didn't say anything about woman.' 

'When you say Man,' said Oedipus, 'you include women 

too. Everyone knows that.' She said, 'That's what 

you think.'

Muriel Rukeyser 

Abe wrote:

 In my view, the word “colored” was a good description for a non-white, but someone decided that it was racial.  

That "someone" would be the majority of Black Americans.  "Colored" was a mark of segregation.  It was written on the doors of restrooms, theater entrances, and water fountains.

My belief is that defining a skin color is a difficult matter.  What about a person with a very dark suntan?  An Asian?  An Indian from India?  Amd Abe is correct that "white" isn't so unless an Albino.  A Brazilian?

Color does not describe ethnic heritage.  My friend is more Irish and English than African yet her skin has the dark color.  She is white, right?  Since race is a matter of white or black?

What about Brazilians and Jamaicans who are every color of the rainbow?  The whole skin color associated with race paradigm needs to be discarded.

When I was teacihing at the ACE Center, we were required to do an ethnic count several times a year since the school was developed as part of a way to deal with a Supreme Court ruling which said that the district was not complying correctly with integration regulations.

I did not enjoy filling out those reports, and told my students so.  When they asked why, I told them about my summer-school student who had light brown skin, kinky red hair, green eyes, and whose name was Rodriguez.  "Where," I asked them, "was I supposed to put him?"

One of my students replied, "under 'Other.'"

I look forward to a day when all of us are "other."

I think there ought to be a revolution and every person mark "other."  Why do we need to know what ethnic races we have except to further separate with funding etc.  If we have an equal system for all, then we don't need to have more or less depending on race.

I think it's insulting to pick a race and to have quotas.  We have laws.  If people feel discrimination, then they need to file under a law, regardless of discriminatory reasons.  People who use prejudice and bias to make work decisions need to be reprimanded and face consequences for violating laws.

I wholeheartedly agree.  This situation occurred in 1978, when the Supreme Court learned that this particular school district had an all white high school 3 miles from an all black one.  It was a direct violation to the Civil Rights act to end such segregated schools.  The directives to the district were that the two schools had to merge into one, and that the old Black high school be used in a specified way.  The magnet school, ACE, was the accepted solution, but the counts had to be taken and turned in for the SC to be satisfied that the orders were being met.

Then, during the late 90's the residents of the area petitioned to get their school back.  They were disillusioned with the results of forced integration.  A compromise was reached by saying that residents' children cold choose whether to go to the magnet school or the formerly all-white campus, and the name of the magnet school was changed back to GW Carver HS and the name, ACE, was dropped.  By that time, I was at the night school, so I don't know that much about how it all worked out.

I do think that forced integration, during the 60's and 70's was a necessary step, and I worry that maybe the whole "white-flight" thing that is going on now is a problem when it comes to seeing to it that all students get an equal opportunity education.

dkchristi wrote:

My belief is that defining a skin color is a difficult matter.  What about a person with a very dark suntan?  An Asian?  An Indian from India?  Amd Abe is correct that "white" isn't so unless an Albino.  A Brazilian?

Color does not describe ethnic heritage.  My friend is more Irish and English than African yet her skin has the dark color.  She is white, right?  Since race is a matter of white or black?

What about Brazilians and Jamaicans who are every color of the rainbow?  The whole skin color associated with race paradigm needs to be discarded.

I agree!

alj wrote:

When I was teacihing at the ACE Center, we were required to do an ethnic count several times a year since the school was developed as part of a way to deal with a Supreme Court ruling which said that the district was not complying correctly with integration regulations.

I did not enjoy filling out those reports, and told my students so.  When they asked why, I told them about my summer-school student who had light brown skin, kinky red hair, green eyes, and whose name was Rodriguez.  "Where," I asked them, "was I supposed to put him?"

One of my students replied, "under 'Other.'"

I look forward to a day when all of us are "other.

I like this!  LOVE iT

Alice is back!! 

Going home  with the grands next Monday--can't wait.

I used to be Italian. My first trip to Italy was a business trip north of Rome. My third day, I asked an Italian business man, Alberto Greoni, "People I meet seem to be afraid of me?" He said it was because of my name. "You have a Greek name. That means you are Sicilian." "So?" I asked. "They are Negro. Italians don't trust negro's."
I came back home not knowing what the hell I was?