truth... INFO CONCERNING BLACK PEOPLE Forward to friends

  • View author's info Posted on Feb 22, 2006 at 05:44 PM


    There were those, who were led out of slavery, who died in the dessert, that were members of God's people. If they were black what difference does it make; since, they didn't keep God's word?

    God will allow or kill an original man, just like anyone else.

    Through the disciples, he spreaded his word to all nations. Now, the white man can be favored over the black man and vice versa. Race or color is not an issue, Faith is.

    "I chastise all that I love" says the Lord our God.

    We all must be careful what we pride.

    Racial issues, which are just one of the tactics to divide man, is a distraction from the real issue: Good versus evil.
  • View author's info Posted on Feb 22, 2006 at 12:07 PM



    beanpie write:
    Subject: excert from, MESSAGE TO THE BLACKMAN, in America
    It is time for us to learn who we really are, and it is time for us to understand ourselves. That true knowledge is here for you today whether you accept it or reject it. God has said that
    we are members of the original people or black nation of the earth. Original means first.
    Historian J. A. Rogers points out in his book that beyond the cotton fields of the South and long before the white man himself was a part of our planet,
    we were the original people ruling the earth
    , and according to the Holy Qur?an, we had governments superior to any we are experiencing today. Trace over the earth.
    Check back 5,000, 10,000, or 20,000 years ago. Look at history. Who were those people? They were our people.
    Today, we are confronted with proof of who the original people are and who shall live on this earth and call it their own.

    by Mr. Elijah Muhammad>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JESUS is very clear as to who will live on this earth and call it their own QUOTE..."blessed are the MEEK for they will INHERIT the earth "... ..... BRIAN .....
  • View author's info Posted on Feb 21, 2006 at 04:35 PM


    Can anyone provide evidence, the Caucasian has been on earth, more than 6k years?

    If so, please, do.
  • View author's info Posted on Feb 21, 2006 at 01:04 PM


    Thank you, Samantha!
  • View author's info Posted on Feb 20, 2006 at 08:57 PM


    Nice parable MIDLOVE!
    =D
  • View author's info Posted on Feb 20, 2006 at 05:05 PM


    4.4 million-year-old human ancestor is found
    1994



    Tim White, Berhane Asfaw, and Gen Suwa, who have long worked together unearthing and analyzing fossils in Africa, made a new and remarkable discovery in 1993. In Ethiopia, they found hominid skull, jaw, and arm bones plus a few teeth that dated back to 4.4 million years ago. That would make these the oldest hominid ancestors yet identified, and the most primitive hominid species known.

    Announcing these fossils in 1994, the group named them Australopithecus ramidus, putting them in the same genus as the 1.75-million-year-old Australopithecus boisei and the 3-million-year-old "Lucy." But eight months later, the researchers changed the name to Ardipithecus ramidus, moving the species represented by the fossils into a different genus. They did not fully explain the change, but were continuing to analyze the fossils and planned publication of their findings within a few years. (According to naming convention, discoverers have the right to name the species, but acceptance of the genus they suggest depends upon the agreement of other workers in the field.)

    The species looked to be a link between ancient African apes and Australopithecus.It shared physical features of both groups. Paleontologists Meave Leakey and Alan Walker write that "Ardipithecus, with its numerous chimplike features, appears to have taken the human fossil record back close to the time of the chimp-human split."

    Discussion continues over whether Ardipithecus is a hominid or not, whether it walked on two feet or not, and what its relationship is to the 3.9?4.2 million year old fossils found in 1995 by Meave Leakey and Alan Walker in Kenya (Australepithecus anamensis). These latter show clear signs of walking upright and of living in a wooded area, throwing into doubt the usual explanation of bipedalism as an adaptation to living in the savannah. These recent discoveries provide important evidence in the search for human origins, but points out Walker, "As with so many scientific discoveries, this one also provokes more fascinating questions."
  • View author's info Posted on Feb 20, 2006 at 05:04 PM


    4.4 million-year-old human ancestor is found
    1994



    Tim White, Berhane Asfaw, and Gen Suwa, who have long worked together unearthing and analyzing fossils in Africa, made a new and remarkable discovery in 1993. In Ethiopia, they found hominid skull, jaw, and arm bones plus a few teeth that dated back to 4.4 million years ago. That would make these the oldest hominid ancestors yet identified, and the most primitive hominid species known.

    Announcing these fossils in 1994, the group named them Australopithecus ramidus, putting them in the same genus as the 1.75-million-year-old Australopithecus boisei and the 3-million-year-old "Lucy." But eight months later, the researchers changed the name to Ardipithecus ramidus, moving the species represented by the fossils into a different genus. They did not fully explain the change, but were continuing to analyze the fossils and planned publication of their findings within a few years. (According to naming convention, discoverers have the right to name the species, but acceptance of the genus they suggest depends upon the agreement of other workers in the field.)

    The species looked to be a link between ancient African apes and Australopithecus.It shared physical features of both groups. Paleontologists Meave Leakey and Alan Walker write that "Ardipithecus, with its numerous chimplike features, appears to have taken the human fossil record back close to the time of the chimp-human split."

    Discussion continues over whether Ardipithecus is a hominid or not, whether it walked on two feet or not, and what its relationship is to the 3.9?4.2 million year old fossils found in 1995 by Meave Leakey and Alan Walker in Kenya (Australepithecus anamensis). These latter show clear signs of walking upright and of living in a wooded area, throwing into doubt the usual explanation of bipedalism as an adaptation to living in the savannah. These recent discoveries provide important evidence in the search for human origins, but points out Walker, "As with so many scientific discoveries, this one also provokes more fascinating questions."





    .
  • View author's info Posted on Feb 20, 2006 at 07:33 AM


    One day I went out to the garden and seen that there were weeds growing amongst the crops, even attempting to outgrow and smother them, which would also attract other types of predators, if left unattended. So, I, effectively, chopped the weeds down.

    Later, I went back out to the garden and seen that the weeds were growing back, regardless of how effectively I dealt with them before.

    Weeds seem to have no fear of rejection, regardless of how strongly their objective is unwanted due to its unfruitfulness in logical and moral deed. Therefore, weeds can be anything that resists or does not adhere to constructive logic or a productive and moral demeanor.

    Are there weeds in society?
  • View author's info Posted on Feb 18, 2006 at 06:04 AM


    * ISAIAH 8:20 to the law and to the TESTIMONY : if they speak NOT according to this word, it is because THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM * .....BRIAN...
  • View author's info Posted on Feb 18, 2006 at 05:20 AM


    we can only get a very sketchy picture of the races BEFORE ADAM was upon the earth which was about 6,000 years ago because the interpretations and conclusions based upon the evidence we have managed to unearth is very doubtful in many cases .i,e this expert? will give one opinion and that expert ? will give another opinion..the further BACK in time you go ,i,e 20,000, 30, 40, 50 thousand years and so on, the more difficulty you have in getting a reasonable assesment of the FACTS about those races..in most cases we end up with ASSSUMPTIONS which later on will be changed or altered by OTHER EXPERTS? in those fields.....BUT when we come to ADAM only 6,000 years ago THEN we have the most ACCURATE evidence of all ! we have the records in the BIBLE written down by a man who was given the information directly from GOD, see EXODUS 24 verse 4 and verse 7 ..verse 4 and MOSES wrote ALL the words of the LORD ... verse 7 and he took the BOOK of the covenant and read in the audience of the people,,,,,,you can see very clearly that MOSES had in his possession a BOOK and in that book he had written down ALL that the LORD had instucted him to write, which has been seperated into the 5 books of MOSES which we have with us today which is without doubt a far more ACCURATE--TRUTHFUL --DETAILED account of the beginings of OUR races today (which are descended from ADAM) than any record or assesment or interpretation of remains from times that were thousands of years BEFORE ADAM and EVE were upon the earth.. why waste time examining the dusty decaying DEAD remains of races that were on this earth thousands of years before ADAM ,when you and i can examine the LIVE WORDS OF SPIRIT written approx 6,000 years ago, dont make the mistake of putting more importance on examining the witness of the DEAD (interpreted in many cases by people who themselves are SPIRITUALY DEAD) but instead why not examine the witness of the LIVING.! BRIAN !
  • View author's info Posted on Feb 17, 2006 at 11:29 AM


    Beanpie,
    Religous texts are not "proof."
    SCIENCE (scientific methodology) is PROOF.
    Or rather, the best, most accurate proofs humanity has at present.

    Oh, and at the risk of helping certain of your unscientific posts SEEM a bit more credible...
    the word is EXCERPT,
    not excert.

    Definition provided by The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright ? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Other important copyright information here.

    excerpt:
    Noun
    A passage or segment taken from a longer work, such as a literary or musical composition, a document, or a film.
    Transitive verb
    Inflected forms: ex?cerpt?ed, ex?cerpt?ing,
    ex?cerpts(*k-s?rpt') 1. To select or use (a passage or segment from a longer work). 2. To select or use material from (a longer work).
    Etymology
    From Middle English, excerpted, from Latin excerptus, past participle of excerpere, to pick out : ex-, ex- + carpere, to pluck; see kerp- in Indo-European roots.

    Beanpie, using language accurately goes far toward lending an air of seeming plausibility to your arguments.

    *Sama gives a wry little chuckle*
  • View author's info Posted on Feb 17, 2006 at 03:21 AM


    according to the holy QURAN GOD has NO SON..so the QURAN is USELESS as regards to teaching us about TRUTH, ..as to the advice to check back on history 10,000 or 20,000 years ago, in regards to BLACK people ,i myself would be very interested to see ANY evidence from those time periods that would give us A CLEAR picture of those races ,and would that evidence show whether those races were good or evil .and if they were removed by GOD because they were EVIL.then please tell us just exactly WHAT there is to be PROUD about...QUOTE from GENESIS.."and the earth came to be FORMLESS and VOID" ..WHY ? .. BRIAN ...
Follow - email me when people comment