Mormons Change References To Blacks, ...

Mormons Change References To Blacks, Polygamy

There are 291 comments on the nhpr.org story from Mar 17, 2013, titled Mormons Change References To Blacks, Polygamy. In it, nhpr.org reports that:

The Four Standard Works, which contains the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, are the holy scriptures of the Mormon Church.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at nhpr.org.

David

Collierville, TN

#61 Apr 23, 2013
Nope.

Thhere you go with the joint and several again...

"some" scholars state they were made up. And the only story in question is the book of Genesis.

And the other stupid notion you overlook is that the "first" of those two books predated the second of those two books by at least 800 years.

And the last revolt agianst the Romans took place about 100 after Jesus lived... unless of course you'd say it wasn't the Bible you refer to.

So scholars say this and that, but in the end it's about truly going back into analyzing the intent and experience of people 2000 years ago

Not a fraud who PRETENDED to find books that HE WROTE HIMSELF passing itself off as ancient writings.

or let me put it to you another way since you are too dense...

Joseph Smiths credibility is easily shattered by the fact that he was recent enough and his technique was obvious enough to be examined for what it was. So the writings themselves are easily broken down.

But trying to put the Bible itself on the same level as Joseph Smith's fraudaulent activity is impossible since

1. We KNOW those writings were at least 2000 years old.
2. The founders did not generate a religion to enrich themselves.
3. There is one God and the writings were made to reaffirm that, not make us think there were other gods.
4. There wasn't an attempt to capitalize on people's doubt.
5. Again, Genesis doesn't claim to be the first source of all the stories therein.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianities core teachings come from two books. Both books scholars state were made up and fabricated by men copying stories from Mesopotamia and men fabricating a Jewish man that led the last revolt against the Romans. They claim the geographical information was used to validate their fabricated stories about men with superpowers that none of the rest of humanity has ever had. Those scholars claim these writings were put together into two halves to create the Christian Bible as a whole book to deceive people into thinking a god with magical powers exists and that this god with magical powers can give us magical powers, especially if you give the Christian church your $:)
Now what?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#62 Apr 23, 2013
David wrote:
And there he goes changing the subject... also known as giving up.
"the ground is cursed from you, when you till the land it will not yield forth it's strength to you"
"believing that Jesus is black is just as bad as teaching that black people were cursed"
Believing that Jesus had any skin color is not an issue, and is not relevant in the Bible.
ALTERING THE BIBLE TO EXPLOIT PEOPLE and lying about curses placed on races of people...
Now that is Mormon, that is blasphemy, that is heresy.
<quoted text>
There he goes changing the subject to justify his racism that God is his colour and no other colour.
Racism is racism no matter how you justify it. You justify your racism as well and good and claim the racism of Mormon teachings isn't good and well.
Hypocritical racist and you're real good at being that. Nice job.
David

Collierville, TN

#63 Apr 23, 2013
And there he goes with the long story that we are already familiar with, as if telling it gives him credibility regarding the stuff I've refuted.

Ok so the long story of the what the Septuagint is... and he says "the curse of cain story" is in it right?

Whatch audience, whatch how in slow motion you can see his slight of hand.

We were discussing the notion that the curse of cain being black skin was taught in those days.

But (watch that left hand), he said earlier that it was taught during that time...he said that it was IN the Septauagint OF 200 BC.

Now while he does his hocus pocus, watch the right hand... slow motion...
He goes on to explain how the curse of Cain story was debated and contined the word for cursed in it... and that last long paragraph goes on about that.

So now you were looking at the right hand... watch the left...

"Therefore it's a correct statement to declare that "The curse of Cain story has been dated back to the Septuagint of 200 BCE." Because it was in the Septuagint."

And presto, you forgot that the discussion was whether or not the notion of BLACK SKIN and BLACK PEOPLE BEING THE RESULT OF THE CURSE was taught by Jews during the time of the Septuagint...

He said earlier it was... but now he's saying the obvious.

Left hand has nothing in it:

After all, the curse of cain has been discussed long before 200BC since it's been around since 1000BC

that's obvious... but no where in those discussions do black people being involved in the curse or mark come in.

It's MAGIC how it had got in there in the first place!
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.
I said "The curse of Cain story has been dated back to the Septuagint of 200 BCE." That's a fact. Twist it any way you want to, feel free to.
The curse of Cain story was in the Septuagint. The curse of Cain story contains the Hebrew word for curse(d). Regardless if a person thinks by opinion by translation the curse was a Hebrew letter burned into Cain's hand and forehead or if it was a emblem on a flag God made him carry by attaching it to a stick God made grown from his hand, what the curse was DOESN'T MATTER was my point in saying the curse of Cain is generally a hebrew story. It came from Hebrew sources and was written down in the hebrew language. That information and those Hebrew writings were translated into Greek into a volume of writings called the Septuagint. The story of the curse of Cain was PART of those Greek writings in the book of Genesis.
Therefore it's a correct statement to declare that "The curse of Cain story has been dated back to the Septuagint of 200 BCE." Because it was in the Septuagint.
Understand?
David

Collierville, TN

#64 Apr 23, 2013
So you are reminding everyone that they've been discussing what the curse and mark of cain could be.

Yet no where in those days did black people, black race being punished or banned come up...

But you say it was... because they were discussing many options. So your assumption is that because the black stuff came later, it must have been there before...

EVEN THOUGH you have NO evidence to support that notion.

But you want to force your assumption through with your joint and several statements and slight of hand motions about the Septuagint.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianities core teachings come from two books. Both books scholars state were made up and fabricated by men copying stories from Mesopotamia and men fabricating a Jewish man that led the last revolt against the Romans. They claim the geographical information was used to validate their fabricated stories about men with superpowers that none of the rest of humanity has ever had. Those scholars claim these writings were put together into two halves to create the Christian Bible as a whole book to deceive people into thinking a god with magical powers exists and that this god with magical powers can give us magical powers, especially if you give the Christian church your $:)
Now what?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#65 Apr 23, 2013
David wrote:
We were discussing the notion that the curse of cain being black skin was taught in those days.
But (watch that left hand), he said earlier that it was taught during that time...he said that it was IN the Septauagint OF 200 BC.
Now while he does his hocus pocus, watch the right hand... slow motion...
He goes on to explain how the curse of Cain story was debated and contined the word for cursed in it... and that last long paragraph goes on about that.
The story of Cain killing his brother and being cursed by God for killing his brother is in the Septuagint. That's a fact. That's not my fact. And you can't comprehend that information somehow...oh well.
Next. Israelite rabbis, scholars, mystics, elders, Sadducees and Pharisees today and 500 years ago and a thousand years ago and 1500 years ago and 2000 years ago and before read the Torah, the first five books of the Old testament and debated the meaning of the stories. Historical writings show that from today to 2000 years ago scholars Jew and non-Jew considered what that curse was. They still debate it.
Your position is that no one even was curious about the curse Cain received now or 2000 years ago EXCEPT the Mormons.
Your position is that no one questioned what that curse was.
Your position is that no one ever thought the curse was a skin colour cursing because you say no one ever considered that except Mormons and a few led astray Christians.
Your position is that for 2000 years or more when anyone read that story, no one but the white guy ever imagined the curse was a skin cursing.
Your position is that everyone that read that story for the last 2000+ years they immediately thought the curse was a sign on a pole Cain carried or a letter or number on his forehead or a coat of many colours or a halo or some magic sign that floated above him in the air anywhere he went but it's your belief that only the stupid prejudicial European thought it was a skin cursing.
Did I miss anything?
David

Collierville, TN

#66 Apr 24, 2013
Racism is not painting a picture of Jesus any specific skin color.

Racism is insisting that painting him any specific skin color is required to acknowledge

And you're trying to change the subject, and I am changing it back.

The distorted interpretation of the Mark of Cain, a hallmark of Mormon theology, which introduced the pre-existence philosophy of Mormonism to the world.

That blasphemous theology of lies that never occurred, where your prophets try to explain and justify the suffering of black people, by blaming them for the sin of Cain, or some pre-existence...

That crap, those lies are not just racism. They are extreme sinful blasphemy.

No one is concerned with the issue of painting Jesus any color or thinking Jesus was this color or that.

But trying to prevent people from becoming a priest, enslaving them, lying, trying to alter the bible text, and claiming that all of that came from Moses and God.

THAT is thousands of times more destructive, because it is evil from the heart, and contempt for others.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
There he goes changing the subject to justify his racism that God is his colour and no other colour.
Racism is racism no matter how you justify it. You justify your racism as well and good and claim the racism of Mormon teachings isn't good and well.
Hypocritical racist and you're real good at being that. Nice job.
David

Collierville, TN

#67 Apr 24, 2013
Now he's trying to say he didn't just try to perform a magic trick:

No one has been disputing or CARING about whether or not the story of Cain killing his brother and being cursed by God was in the Septaugint. We all know it's there.

The trickery of yours is in the sleight of hand detail. This time you have the 2000 years in your hand... so here you're second trick attempt is being broken down:

What SPECIFICALLY we discussed was the curse and mark being related to black people. Something you're trying to justify Mormonism engaging in...

THAT was not being discussed and debated 2000 years ago. You will not find one rabbitical text, not one scrap of paper or reference to any B.C. discussion about Cain and Kushites.

But yes, oh slight of hand... OTHER things about Cain, unrelated to that.... yes they were discussing various OTHER possible meanings of the mark.

Now, you say my position was that "no one debated what the curse was"....

Another slight of hand... because where you had 2000 years ago mentioned earlier, you then omit it.

My position is that "no one debated that the curse was related to black people 2000 years ago"

You gotta add "the black people" and "2000 years ago" in the same sentance.

Yea you missed two main things. You seem to avoid mentioning them... and then your distraction: " belief that only the stupid prejudicial European thought it was a skin cursing."

Europeans and Muslim/Arabs.

Was there another race of people involved in this teaching that promoted it for any benefit?(before you answer that, try to put 2000 years and black people and the curse of cain in the same coherent sentence).
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The story of Cain killing his brother and being cursed by God for killing his brother is in the Septuagint. That's a fact. That's not my fact. And you can't comprehend that information somehow...oh well.
Next. Israelite rabbis, scholars, mystics, elders, Sadducees and Pharisees today and 500 years ago and a thousand years ago and 1500 years ago and 2000 years ago and before read the Torah, the first five books of the Old testament and debated the meaning of the stories. Historical writings show that from today to 2000 years ago scholars Jew and non-Jew considered what that curse was. They still debate it.
Your position is that no one even was curious about the curse Cain received now or 2000 years ago EXCEPT the Mormons.
Your position is that no one questioned what that curse was.
Your position is that no one ever thought the curse was a skin colour cursing because you say no one ever considered that except Mormons and a few led astray Christians.
Your position is that for 2000 years or more when anyone read that story, no one but the white guy ever imagined the curse was a skin cursing.
Your position is that everyone that read that story for the last 2000+ years they immediately thought the curse was a sign on a pole Cain carried or a letter or number on his forehead or a coat of many colours or a halo or some magic sign that floated above him in the air anywhere he went but it's your belief that only the stupid prejudicial European thought it was a skin cursing.
Did I miss anything?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#68 Apr 24, 2013
David wrote:
Racism is not painting a picture of Jesus any specific skin color.
Racism is insisting that painting him any specific skin color is required to acknowledge
And you're trying to change the subject, and I am changing it back.
The distorted interpretation of the Mark of Cain, a hallmark of Mormon theology, which introduced the pre-existence philosophy of Mormonism to the world.
That blasphemous theology of lies that never occurred, where your prophets try to explain and justify the suffering of black people, by blaming them for the sin of Cain, or some pre-existence...
That crap, those lies are not just racism. They are extreme sinful blasphemy.
No one is concerned with the issue of painting Jesus any color or thinking Jesus was this color or that.
But trying to prevent people from becoming a priest, enslaving them, lying, trying to alter the bible text, and claiming that all of that came from Moses and God.
THAT is thousands of times more destructive, because it is evil from the heart, and contempt for others.
<quoted text>
Racism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster …
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
Definition of RACISM. 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a ...etc.

You have stated God is a black African.
You have state Israelites 2000 years ago were black Africans, not middle easterners.
You have stated Jesus was a black African.
You therefore have painted an evolutionary picture of the physically perfect and true human being as being a black African.
You have therefore defined all other races as sub-races and less perfect and less true as to what God is and to what God originally designed as his perfect and true child, a black African.
That is racism 101 as defined by any dictionary.
Now science has shown by DNA of ancient skeletal remains that Jews were a mixture of many races called Mediterranean and Middle eastern. Their skin colour was usually a variety of browns. But common ancient skeletal remains of Israel of 2000 years ago do not and have not shown facial characteristics of black Africans or Asians or Europeans. Israelites of 2000 years ago facial features looked like what they were at that time, a mixture of races from that area.

“me! chee hoo! LOL!”

Level 6

Since: Oct 09

New Zealand

#69 Apr 24, 2013
My goodness.. No wonder athiest hate us.. When do we christans stop preaching.. Lol

“me! chee hoo! LOL!”

Level 6

Since: Oct 09

New Zealand

#70 Apr 24, 2013
Question to mormorns.. Whats with the pole.. On top of ur churches

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#71 Apr 24, 2013
Samoan Irish wrote:
Question to mormorns.. Whats with the pole.. On top of ur churches
You mean the ward churches? That was once primarily put on ward houses as a lightening rod. Most buildings have them in various sizes. Some Christian churches have a really tall spiked pole for the same purpose.
Of the temples, you'll see the same spiked poles on some. On all of them that statue of Moroni with the trumpet was also designed as a lightening rod.
David

Collierville, TN

#72 Apr 24, 2013
I did not state that God is a black African. What planet are you on? You confusing me with someone again?

God is a spirit, and is not a physical being you dimwit.

Secondly, if you are discussing what he looks like, the fact is, it doesn't matter. You see, the thing is, the physical appearance of Jesus is not the point. We do not worship Jesus body. We do not worship his physicality. Oh wait that's another MORMON teaching... isn't it?

Obviously the Jews are not black Africans, they are a mixed multitude of people. There are Black Jews, white Jews, and so on. You're a real mindless numb bucket. They came out of Egypt and certainly mixed with some Egyptians and Nubians.

by the way, brown people looking like middle easterners 2000 years ago is what... Chris Brown? Tina Turner, Rihanna? Black people don't have this obsession with racial purity by looking like they ARENT mixed. And neither did Jews. Only white Europeans had that obsession... and maybe Japanese.

But I laughed my ass off on this one.... How are you going to say their skeletal remains don't show facial characteristics...

their SKELETAL REMAINS.

I know of no religion other than the Nation of Islam that teaches Black superiority... and they are a heretical group OF a heretical group (Islam).
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Racism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster …
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
Definition of RACISM. 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a ...etc.
You have stated God is a black African.
You have state Israelites 2000 years ago were black Africans, not middle easterners.
You have stated Jesus was a black African.
You therefore have painted an evolutionary picture of the physically perfect and true human being as being a black African.
You have therefore defined all other races as sub-races and less perfect and less true as to what God is and to what God originally designed as his perfect and true child, a black African.
That is racism 101 as defined by any dictionary.
Now science has shown by DNA of ancient skeletal remains that Jews were a mixture of many races called Mediterranean and Middle eastern. Their skin colour was usually a variety of browns. But common ancient skeletal remains of Israel of 2000 years ago do not and have not shown facial characteristics of black Africans or Asians or Europeans. Israelites of 2000 years ago facial features looked like what they were at that time, a mixture of races from that area.
David

Collierville, TN

#73 Apr 24, 2013
Hey,

you spend time answering stuff that is so irrelevant. Then you try to go on about what "some" omitted people did or did not do. Yet you don't really address what is actually discussed.

You've been stating in your own evasive way that blacks came from Cain... but without saying it. Yet you try to defend why the Mormon church teaches it and how it's a legitimate possibility because "anything" is possible.

You're basically sanctioning racism. But you're excuse? Some black people have their own opinions of Jesus skin color?

Well golly gee, is there a black version of the Book of Mormon, with a black prophet calling all white people came from the mark of Cain? Based on a teaching that was used to enslave whites in the 1800s? And did they go through such lengths to get power in this country? Telling lies about Native American heritage, and trying to insist that oh lets see, the Greeks were partakers of a curse on Cain and Canaan? And did they have a man running for president who has a majority of black men voting for them across the South?
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the ward churches? That was once primarily put on ward houses as a lightening rod. Most buildings have them in various sizes. Some Christian churches have a really tall spiked pole for the same purpose.
Of the temples, you'll see the same spiked poles on some. On all of them that statue of Moroni with the trumpet was also designed as a lightening rod.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#74 Apr 25, 2013
David wrote:
I did not state that God is a black African. What planet are you on? You confusing me with someone again?
God is a spirit, and is not a physical being you dimwit.
Secondly, if you are discussing what he looks like, the fact is, it doesn't matter. You see, the thing is, the physical appearance of Jesus is not the point. We do not worship Jesus body. We do not worship his physicality. Oh wait that's another MORMON teaching... isn't it?
Obviously the Jews are not black Africans, they are a mixed multitude of people. There are Black Jews, white Jews, and so on. You're a real mindless numb bucket. They came out of Egypt and certainly mixed with some Egyptians and Nubians.
by the way, brown people looking like middle easterners 2000 years ago is what... Chris Brown? Tina Turner, Rihanna? Black people don't have this obsession with racial purity by looking like they ARENT mixed. And neither did Jews. Only white Europeans had that obsession... and maybe Japanese.
But I laughed my ass off on this one.... How are you going to say their skeletal remains don't show facial characteristics...
their SKELETAL REMAINS.
I know of no religion other than the Nation of Islam that teaches Black superiority... and they are a heretical group OF a heretical group (Islam).
<quoted text>
Bull crap. I know what you use to say under another name. We debated for weeks. You're the only black person of your age from your city and town that has posted rants about the curse of Cain and foul it's 'skin cursing' interpretation is to you.
So say any thing else you wish in denial. But if you have changed your stance than great, we all have a chance to correct our thoughts if they are indeed obviously incorrect etc.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#75 Apr 25, 2013
David wrote:
Secondly, if you are discussing what he looks like, the fact is, it doesn't matter. You see, the thing is, the physical appearance of Jesus is not the point. We do not worship Jesus body. We do not worship his physicality. Oh wait that's another MORMON teaching... isn't it?
David
Oak Park, MI (in response to poster Independence is Liberty)
Jul 12, 2012

Be impressed with this asshole

FOr eons, humans were brown and dark, and white people came about so recently. Over the past 600 years or so you started to want to purify yourselves by separating yourselves by your small region in the west hinterlands of Eurasia. You then try to steal Christanity by turning it into a white mans' religion. Thank God for the fact that elsewhere in the world it was already taught before you got your hands on it.
David

Collierville, TN

#76 Apr 28, 2013
I do not care what you think.

First of all, this is from Mormon scriptures, that black people came from the Curse of Cain or Ham, or whomever.

So you do the following:

You deny it or you deny that the LDS church denies it.

or you avoid making a direct response to it, or to how the Church used it, and instead try to do such a childish thing like relate me to some other user, or focus on whether or not I have a black Jesus on my wall

It's funny because at one point you defend people having pictures of Jesus of their race, but then you accuse black people of being racist for having one.

IN the end, you're just one of those guys that live on here tirelessly trying to win an argument even though you've lost a thousand times. Some of your posts are stupid, where you go on about whether or not someone is lying and you forget what you were even talking about.

But really, I could care less if you think I am __________ Have fun with it, but Mormonism is still a racist lie.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull crap. I know what you use to say under another name. We debated for weeks. You're the only black person of your age from your city and town that has posted rants about the curse of Cain and foul it's 'skin cursing' interpretation is to you.
So say any thing else you wish in denial. But if you have changed your stance than great, we all have a chance to correct our thoughts if they are indeed obviously incorrect etc.
David

Collierville, TN

#77 Apr 28, 2013
That sounds pretty harsh, but in the end it's accurate.

Actually I'd say that white separation mentality didn't start until sometime in the mid 1800s in Europe. He might be referring to the USA. In the USA it got that bad. And with Hitler and all that's when it got totally out of control. But yea, there was a time when white people tried to own and control Christianity all over the world and make it like blacks were inferior. Maybe not "every single" white person, but just about every institution where white people made decisions that affected everyone else.

Also, it seems pretty clear that the city where you post from isn't going to show up as your own city. I've posted in Detroit, not Oak Park, but I live pretty close to it.

But again, no moderator, and no other poster cares who is or was who. No one is coming in here going "Good job No Surprise, that bad David posted before and won't admit it". I mean, no one cares.

You don't own the internet, you don't own this forum, and you are weak.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
David
Oak Park, MI (in response to poster Independence is Liberty)
Jul 12, 2012
Be impressed with this asshole
FOr eons, humans were brown and dark, and white people came about so recently. Over the past 600 years or so you started to want to purify yourselves by separating yourselves by your small region in the west hinterlands of Eurasia. You then try to steal Christanity by turning it into a white mans' religion. Thank God for the fact that elsewhere in the world it was already taught before you got your hands on it.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#78 Apr 28, 2013
David wrote:
I do not care what you think.
First of all, this is from Mormon scriptures, that black people came from the Curse of Cain or Ham, or whomever.
I told this to you before. I'll tell this to you again.
There are people on this earth with dark skin and even black looking skin and it's not a result of any "mark" from God. It's a result of environment and or race mixing for thousands of years.
The Bible states Cain was marked.
Christians claimed the mark was dark/black skin as certain Africans are disposed to and no others. Not dark/black asians, Indians, Islanders, etc. Christians took the genealogy from Cain to Ham's wife to Ham's descendants and into Africa.
That is the Christian history that reaches back for an unknown amount of time.
I personally don't care.
I don't care if Caucasians are the result of a mark that through Bible genealogy can be traced to the Caucasus mountains of Russia.
I really don't care.
If you wish to keep this in the mode of a discussion I don't mind.
David

Collierville, TN

#79 Apr 28, 2013
And I will tell you this and hopefully won't need to tell you again:

Every person on earth with dark skin is NOT the result of any mark from God, Cain, Canaan, or anyone else.

See how I put "EVERY" instead of just saying "there are"?

There exists no such thing as a person on Earth who has or had dark skin because of a mark by God.

But you are right Christians did... but you left out "many" which implied that as a group "all"...

Many Christians did teach this and guess what happened... MORMONS took that belief, copied it, codified it as canon and passed it off as revelation by God... to such a point they tried to rewrite the Bible to include it and put it in a writing that they allege came from Moses and Abraham.

meanwhile just about all of the Christian groups that did this heinous thing renounced it. Mormonism, still teaches it.

So guess what? I don't care that you don't care. I'm going to make sure the conversation has the facts in place so those besides you get it. If you're the lone holdout, oh that's not a problem for me. LOL
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I told this to you before. I'll tell this to you again.
There are people on this earth with dark skin and even black looking skin and it's not a result of any "mark" from God. It's a result of environment and or race mixing for thousands of years.
The Bible states Cain was marked.
Christians claimed the mark was dark/black skin as certain Africans are disposed to and no others. Not dark/black asians, Indians, Islanders, etc. Christians took the genealogy from Cain to Ham's wife to Ham's descendants and into Africa.
That is the Christian history that reaches back for an unknown amount of time.
I personally don't care.
I don't care if Caucasians are the result of a mark that through Bible genealogy can be traced to the Caucasus mountains of Russia.
I really don't care.
If you wish to keep this in the mode of a discussion I don't mind.
David

Collierville, TN

#80 Apr 28, 2013
Oh the short version:

No black skinned person has black skin due to a mark by God.

Or to put it to you in a way that is undeniable...

there is no white person in the world that was marked by God to become white.

there is no black person in the world that was marked by God to become black.

Mormonism taught and still teaches that there was
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I told this to you before. I'll tell this to you again.
There are people on this earth with dark skin and even black looking skin and it's not a result of any "mark" from God. It's a result of environment and or race mixing for thousands of years.
The Bible states Cain was marked.
Christians claimed the mark was dark/black skin as certain Africans are disposed to and no others. Not dark/black asians, Indians, Islanders, etc. Christians took the genealogy from Cain to Ham's wife to Ham's descendants and into Africa.
That is the Christian history that reaches back for an unknown amount of time.
I personally don't care.
I don't care if Caucasians are the result of a mark that through Bible genealogy can be traced to the Caucasus mountains of Russia.
I really don't care.
If you wish to keep this in the mode of a discussion I don't mind.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Primates ("whites") MAD that Africa and Blacks ... 4 min Sbt 11
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min Fitius T Bluster 1,581,897
more white people born wit downsyndrome then bl... (Aug '12) 36 min No Filter 12
Black "heterosexual" men on Plenty of Fish/Soci... 1 hr Curiousdoll 4
News Republicans have courted racists for years. Why... 2 hr Retribution 75
News Trump's lack of moral compass leaves America on... 2 hr Ms Mack 212
Why Asians hate BM their destructive 2 hr JIM CROW RETURNS 3
The Myth of the Kindly General Lee 4 hr FireFellow44 41
Tomi Lehren dating a Black Man!!!! 4 hr Dan Snow 109
More from around the web