By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - If humans first appeared in Africa, does that mean God is a brother?

Busted on 12 March 2013
AbbathTheGrim said:
Busted said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
Busted said:

They say God is love, therefore ->|God = Love|

They say love is blind, so |Love = Blind| therefore -> |God = Blind|

First man was african, africans are black, so |First Man = Black| God created man to his image, therefore |God = Black|

Blind + Black = 2.God

Stevie Wonder is blind and black, Therefore |Stevie Wonder = 2.God|

Conclusion: Stevie Wonder is 2 Gods in the same body at the same time just in case someone doubted about his omnipotence.

 

/Thread.

Holy shit. Fuck me sideways and call me a bitch.

I think we're going too fast...

What do you mean? Do you want me to put my boxers back on?

No, get out of the car just like that and never call me again, i should have known better...



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 12 March 2013
AbbathTheGrim said:
dsgrue3 said:
If we're discussing the God of the Bible, Jesus would be the most logical depiction. Jesus was brown/tan, not black.


But maybe Jesus appeareance was intended to fit with the Jerusalem people. Imagine if He would have been black in Jerusalem, maybe things wouldn't have worked out well, not ending up getting nailed to the cross and stuff.

No, because they were "His people". If "His people" were black, he wouldn't have been involved with Jerusalem at all.



d21lewis on 12 March 2013

We had visitors at my job from Africa (South Africa, I think) a few weeks ago. Out of six, only one of them was black. Blew my mind. Apparently, Africans come in a ton of colors.



AbbathTheGrim on 12 March 2013
dsgrue3 said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
dsgrue3 said:
If we're discussing the God of the Bible, Jesus would be the most logical depiction. Jesus was brown/tan, not black.


But maybe Jesus appeareance was intended to fit with the Jerusalem people. Imagine if He would have been black in Jerusalem, maybe things wouldn't have worked out well, not ending up getting nailed to the cross and stuff.

No, because they were "His people". If "His people" were black, he wouldn't have been involved with Jerusalem at all.

I don't get this reasoning. So black people are not the people of God?

d21lewis said:
We had visitors at my job from Africa (South Africa, I think) a few weeks ago. Out of six, only one of them was black. Blew my mind. Apparently, Africans come in a ton of colors.

I recall there are a lot of white people in South Africa.



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

Dr.Grass on 12 March 2013
AbbathTheGrim said:
Dr.Grass said:

The intersection of people that believe man evolved from an African ape-like creature AND that a God caused it all is already pretty small.

Then you had to go and assign a genetic make-up to this all-powerful creator based on the small variations shown by our species on this planet, assuming that this all powerful God would resemble the earlier variants.

Completely ignoring the fact that we as humans are pitiful in most respects, you ascribe to this eternal, transcendent person a designation which holds no value whatsoever in any actual sense.

Not to mention your omission, or rather unbeknownst acknowledgement that even though evolution is a continuous process in the vein of calculus, you for some reason assign more value to a later-developed specimen and somehow ignores the numberless species that came before. This is a tremendous paradox as you are assigning a type of godliness to the first men, but not to the species before them. The only solution to this paradox is to designate later-developed humanoids as more godly, otherwise we eventually end up at the "God is a single celled organism" (or something of the like) statement.

Of course you could be flying the "He made is in His image" flag, but if you will be quoting from 2000 year old texts to make (what I have tried to show up till now) no point at all, then I'd have to throw hundreds of quotes from that self-same text right back at you that are no-doubt in direct contradiction with (at least some of) your inherent belief systems; Effectively shattering your concept of reality.

So what is it you are trying to do?

So God is either a single cell organism or we need to wait and keep developing right before the moment of Rapture to have an idea of how God looks? I like that part of shattering my reality, how does that go? Do you always write your post like this or are you trying to look sofisticated in here?

 

"So God is either a single cell organism or we need to wait and keep developing right before the moment of Rapture to have an idea of how God looks? "

Neither. The entire argument points to the fact that the very idea of surmising qualities of God in the way you have done is fallacious.

" I like that part of shattering my reality, how does that go?"

That part is dependent on your adherence to biblical statements.

" Do you always write your post like this or are you trying to look sofisticated in here?"

I didn't try to do anything. I refuse to dumb myself down so that people who can't even take the time to learn the only damn language they're supposed to know properly can feel more adequate. Being stupid is a choice. I made no extra effort in writing that; It happened quite quickly tbh.

Your lack of appreciation for my argument isn't surprising since I'm poking fun at your topic.



Around the Network
SxyxS on 12 March 2013
AbbathTheGrim said:
SxyxS said:
no-this means god is a sister.

Considering human origin from ape and apes skin color seems not to be black but red.
I never shaved an ape therefor I don't know apes skincolor but as long as the sun does not reach apes skin because of the hair apes skin should not be black.
chimps ass is red-red skin=not brother/sister but manitou

But if the ape evolved from another species we should go even before that... like back to microorganisms! That means God ought to have the form of a microorganism. No wonder why I can't see Him or hear Him when I call Him in my prayers.


Well-depends wether we talk about god as a religious mystery(god made man like him)we can't go much further back than ape in evolution.

As these thread is mixing religious claims (implies god looks like man) with science(man oringinated from africa instead of garden eden)it is not possible to give a precize answer.

A neutral god won't have a gender or skincolor-no preferred race.People just made him look like they are.

eg .Christianity make jesus look white,though he is from an arab/persian region=semite.Semites are not white.

 

 

god to have a form of an microorganism?

yes,as long as you consider every little thing to be him as part of his creation than a human look is just one part of his shape.

not from scientific view-as human you still consider to give him a kind of (live)form you know.

But our Universe and all that stuff existed long time before the first microorganism occured=he will more look like atoms,planets and suns.

before atoms,planets and suns there's supposed to be what? big bang.

the big bang was pure energy,pure energy=light= god is the light.

 

 

the fact that you can't see god and he is not talking to you i pretty logical.

 

As long as you don't know wether there is a god or not,you can act in a free way.

You can do bad or good things just as you want to.It's your decision-no manipulation,just reason,knowledge and enlightment to make you choose the right way.Not knowing wether you'll be rewarded or not.

Being 100% sure that there is a god you would not act free.You'll just pretend to be a good guy or so without ever realising what this really  means.Acting good just because you try to save your soul,to live forever in garden eden,shangri la,heaven etc is based on fear and egoism,not on reason ,altruism and knowledge.

 



d21lewis on 12 March 2013

That had to be an awesome time. You could just walk out of your front door and see God walking down the street. Must have been pretty amazing.



AbbathTheGrim on 12 March 2013
Dr.Grass said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
Dr.Grass said:

The intersection of people that believe man evolved from an African ape-like creature AND that a God caused it all is already pretty small.

Then you had to go and assign a genetic make-up to this all-powerful creator based on the small variations shown by our species on this planet, assuming that this all powerful God would resemble the earlier variants.

Completely ignoring the fact that we as humans are pitiful in most respects, you ascribe to this eternal, transcendent person a designation which holds no value whatsoever in any actual sense.

Not to mention your omission, or rather unbeknownst acknowledgement that even though evolution is a continuous process in the vein of calculus, you for some reason assign more value to a later-developed specimen and somehow ignores the numberless species that came before. This is a tremendous paradox as you are assigning a type of godliness to the first men, but not to the species before them. The only solution to this paradox is to designate later-developed humanoids as more godly, otherwise we eventually end up at the "God is a single celled organism" (or something of the like) statement.

Of course you could be flying the "He made is in His image" flag, but if you will be quoting from 2000 year old texts to make (what I have tried to show up till now) no point at all, then I'd have to throw hundreds of quotes from that self-same text right back at you that are no-doubt in direct contradiction with (at least some of) your inherent belief systems; Effectively shattering your concept of reality.

So what is it you are trying to do?

So God is either a single cell organism or we need to wait and keep developing right before the moment of Rapture to have an idea of how God looks? I like that part of shattering my reality, how does that go? Do you always write your post like this or are you trying to look sofisticated in here?

 

"So God is either a single cell organism or we need to wait and keep developing right before the moment of Rapture to have an idea of how God looks? "

Neither. The entire argument points to the fact that the very idea of surmising qualities of God in the way you have done is fallacious.

" I like that part of shattering my reality, how does that go?"

That part is dependent on your adherence to biblical statements.

" Do you always write your post like this or are you trying to look sofisticated in here?"

I didn't try to do anything. I refuse to dumb myself down so that people who can't even take the time to learn the only damn language they're supposed to know properly can feel more adequate. Being stupid is a choice. I made no extra effort in writing that; It happened quite quickly tbh.

Your lack of appreciation for my argument isn't surprising since I'm poking fun at your topic.

1) Then I am interested to know in what way you think God created man on His image.

2) Then you assumed beforehand that you would shatter my reality without having certainty that you could actually be able to accomplish such a thing. :P

3) So you think that English is the only language people are "supposed to know properly". That is a very limited way of looking at things. I am not lacking appreciation for your argument, I think you fail to see the seriousness behind my OP to begin with. 



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

walsufnir on 12 March 2013
ROFLMAO said:
Morgan Freeman=God.


Of course

 



SxyxS on 12 March 2013
dsgrue3 said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
dsgrue3 said:
If we're discussing the God of the Bible, Jesus would be the most logical depiction. Jesus was brown/tan, not black.


But maybe Jesus appeareance was intended to fit with the Jerusalem people. Imagine if He would have been black in Jerusalem, maybe things wouldn't have worked out well, not ending up getting nailed to the cross and stuff.

No, because they were "His people". If "His people" were black, he wouldn't have been involved with Jerusalem at all.


@abb

1)why should a black skin colour have saved him.

Do you think they would have said:"well.we want to kill you,but because of your black skin we will let you live"????))))

2)from a christian god perspective things turned exactly that way they should.

jesus said he came to die for the people.Without being crucified,there would be no cross symbol,no christianity.

@dsgrue

jesus was jewish at first,his followers were jews,

black jews are one of the first jews ever,there were black jews living in jerusalem at that time and today black jews are still living in jerusalem."his people" could habe bern black