Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, I’ve only read the first couple of pages (12 pages x 30 posts/page) is a lot of reading. I think “primordial” is the wrong word here. I’ve heard of the primordial soup out which life crawled and evolved, but man was not present for that. In fact, we didn’t show up on the scene until billions of years later. Primitive man, perhaps? At the beginnings of beginnings, the question of did man have consciousness seems like a moot point. Further, there is no single defining moment at which either mankind or our current form of consciousness began to appear. Adam and Eve is a myth which even the RC church acknowledges. It is a fable designed to explain the beginnings of awareness of good and evil, or consciousness in a general sense of the word, but it clearly has all the hallmarks of any other fable. It is symbolic storytelling an not meant to be taken literally. Which makes your question even more intriguing: at what point in man’s evolutionary progress did consciousness emerge? I always like the Arthur C. Clarke version where the monololiths suddenly inspire a human to kill a pig instead of just graze alongside. But finding a definitive moment is pretty tough. In one age we lacked consciousness, in another age there it was. What caused it to emerge? One could argue that we as a species may not even have consciousness yet compared with what’s to come.
[quote=“Mickiel, post:355, topic:695247”]
Careful there. If God can evolve, that would imply that He is less than perfect. It’s semantics. It’s like asking if God could create a boulder that He Himself could not lift. Fun question for mental amusement, but it undermines the God concept, at least for certain religions.
As Tevye once said, you know, you are also right.
You cannot know that from experience, since it has never happened.
Actually, no. There may be evidence that is bad and evidence that is good, but it must be evidence of a particular thing. You have offered a lot of (mostly bad) evidence about what humans believe about gods–while no one here would deny that such beliefs exist. But evidence of a belief is not evidence of a fact or an event. That is not what the word evidence means and what you have offered is different than what you claim to have offered.
One aspect of a decent debater is to refrain from posting utter bullshit. Ezekiel 23:20 says nothing about black people. Chapter 23 is a long metaphor that explicitly refers to Jerusalem and Samaria, making a lot of rude comments comparing them to whores. In verse 20, Jerusalem recalls her whoredom in Egypt with a reference to the sexual organs of asses and horses. There is, however, no reference to black people in the entire passage.
When you post nonsense that is easily disproved, you call into question the rest of your posts. When you post nonsense that appears to be a gratuitous swipe at people relying on racist stereotypes, you further call into question the quality of your posts.
Nonsense, no; you just don’t understand. Many Egyptians and Babylonians were considered black back during the period of Ezekiel 23, and I am a black man myself, my post was not racist, your implication is.
[quote=“Biffster, post:362, topic:695247”]
God most definitely is evolving in many ways, and in other ways he will never change; which is why he is a mystery. And I am not in a religion, nor are my views religious.
Would it be fair to say that God is perfectly imperfect?
No, but it would be fair to say that he definitely uses imperfection in his plans.
When he does that, does he do it perfectly?
Nonsense, yourself.
Provide a citation that anyone in the Levant, (or, more importantly, in Mesopotamia), considered Egyptians “black” in the sixth century B.C.E. or just admit that you really have no idea what you are talking about. (I am aware that there is a minor bit of foofaraw among a few people, today, regarding whether Egyptians were
“black,” but it was never an issue at that time.)
As to Babylonians being considered “black,” that is utter nonsense that is not even claimed among the most far out Afro-Centrists.
I also note that you have let stand the correction that you have no experience of a thread being closed because anyone was offended by your silly claims.
Further, I note that my correction to your odd beliefs regarding “evidence” stand.
I think that depends on if he wants to or not; God is not limited to doing everything perfectly, or human bodies would not exist.
I also recommend this book;
And this;
And there are still Black Babylonians until this day;
I was going to suggest that you’ve led a sheltered life, but Mikiel beat me to it:
You need to venture into the wilderness where the [redacted] most* interesting* folks reside.
:rolleyes:
Recent Afro-Centrist nonsense.
Your first link does not even discuss the “black” nature of Egyptians until a butchered cut-and-paste excerpt from a nineteenth century effort to claim that Turkish people conquered all of the M.E.N.A. region has some additional text added to make claims that the original author did not make.
Your second link is nothing more than another Afro-Centrist diatribe that makes unsupported claims.
Note that neither one points to any primary sources of the sixth century B.C.E. identifying Egyptians, (much less Babylonians), as “black” or as being the same peoples as those on the Upper Nile.
As the primary site of nearly all migrations from Africa to Asia and from Asia to Africa, Egypt would certainly have a substantial amount of sub-Saharan ancestry prior to the Graeco-Macedonian and Roman invasions. The Kush Empire occasionally overran Egypt (and was , in turn, overrun by Egypt). However, those battles were distant history by the sixth century and the Kushite people were recognized as separate from the Egyptians. You have still failed to provide any evidence that the peoples of the sixth century regarded Egyptians as being the “same” as Kushites or Nubians or Ethiopians.
:rolleyes:
From YOUR link:
1,000 years ago gets us back to 1014 C.E., not 593 B.C.E.
You are wrong by around 1600 years. You do not even understand your own links.
At last we agree on something.
(Emphasis mine)
I think the correct word is “inconceivable.” This entire thread could be summarized as “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”
“Part of him is 7 revealed " Great Spirits”; unknown what they exactly are and do"
If we don’t know what they are or what they do, how can they be called “great”? Seems kind of presumptuous.
To be safe, let’s call them “might be pretty good, but we’re not quite sure” spirits (based on some hearsay we are aware of, we are kind of giving them the benefit of the doubt).