Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History

historyplace.com ^ | 1996 | Mary Lefkowitz

[FormerLib]

Well, you know these intellectually-superior nihilists. They can't get through breakfast without trolling for an argument with the faithful.

[FormerLib]

Those documents are collectively viewed as the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind.

No, that would be the Koran (Quran).

You question whether there is any support for the use of force to turn the heathen to Christ. I would agree with that question and suggest the answer to be in the negative. This is what happens when men try to bend revealed truth to their flawed reason.

However, the Koran explicitly supports that God approves of this. That, to me, is the great fraund. And the greater modern threat.

[mafree]

Hey wassup Race?

[Cleburne]

Silly boy! The Gaels were the originators of all things important in our world. Why, the MacNeils for instance (but a small tribe on Barra) rode out the great Deluge in their own boat, then took over Egypt (the great river there was named after Niall) and propogated knowledge and advancement the world over. Tired of that (and after centuries of intellectual and cultural advancement, who wouldn't?) they retired to a small island west of Scotland and sat about in kilts sipping whiskey and blaring bagpipes- or conversing in Gaelic, the language of Eden you know- at last having found the highest summit of cultural achievment.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

You're right!! I'm from clan MacDonald as well!

(You're not a Campbell, are you?)

[Cleburne]

If I were a Campbell would I tell people? Well, down here, as longas they didn't fight for the North back in the War nobody's worried about it...

Besides MacNeil, I can trace back to the Kirks down n the Borders region. They were among the first Scots to come to America, settled n Virginia and helped Europeans get lung cancer. Despite King James' unendearing remarks concering the "filthy weed". But then, Scots on both sides of the pond where known to skirt about cumbersome government "ideas" concerning tarrifs and what not, silly stuff you know, so I doubt they hardly cared what the king thought all that much...

[RaceBannon]

As a person concerned for the tuth, I was sure you would find this interesting! :-)

[thegreatbeast]

Calm down, Ladies and Gentlemen. Prof. Lefkowitz is a most reluctant warrior on the battlefronts that so many of us enjoy. I read her book years ago and can only describe it as tepid. Her only interest is as a trained, old-fashioned classicist. Her interest in these matters is strictly relegated to what she knows of her area of study. Thankfully, her passion for her discipline demands that she stand up for historical accuracy. Greater political or cultural matters are of no interest to her. She doesn't write about historical revisionism in general but simply revisionism that assails what she knows of the ancient Greek & Egyptian cultures.

[GeekDejure]

Great Post!!...Now hear this...JESUS WAS BLACK, GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS BLACK, THOMAS JEFFERSON WAS BLACK, SANTA CLAUS, THE EASTER RABBIT, THE TOOTH FAIRY...ALL BLACK! SLICK WILLIE...THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT!...any questions?

Nope . . . No qustions . . . But thanks for making it possible, at long last, for me to understand why I keep on hearing, "Jungle Balls - Jungle Balls - Jungle All The Way -- Oh What Fun It Is To Mess With Whitey's Mind Today" . . . blasting out loudly around Christmas time !!! ;-))

[mafree]

Oh yes, it's very interesting.

[Havoc]

There are many people throughout history that have done things for Christians and Christianity. That Constantine is one of them no more makes him a Christian than it made Microsoft a division of IBM because they helped IBM become the leader in business pcs.

Had the Bishops been able to get together to solve their own problems, the Emperor would not need to involve himself.
Solving the Arian problem was not a feather in his hat - he didn't do it. Constantine forced the issue and forced the
leaders to discuss it. But religious preferentialism was not on his agenda. Unity was. He preferred the Arians but allowed the bishops to make the call on the issue though he lost in a bid to resolve it himself. It was Constantines language that was rejected - remember. Though he had the authority as Emperor to call the Bishops together, he didn't
force his decision upon them.

Unity, is the key here. Constantine was emperor; but, He wouldn't be an emperor for long if he couldn't get warring factions within the empire to stop fighting one another.
He was attempting to pull together a disintegrating empire and hold it together. He preferred the Arians which you duly note; but, he expelled Arius to maintain peace in the empire so he could focus on what was important to him - his rulership. Constantine was an exempliary politician. There is nothing to confirm he was a christian. Giving preference to the dominant religion of the empire is Roman to the core. Anyone who's studied Rome to any extent is fully aware of this. And to not be aware of it displays a lack of understanding of Roman Culture. So, again, saying that the emperor preferred a religion or clung to it because he operated in that sect's favor is a major knard.
Political oportunism is not religious zealotry.

As for whether it was some kind of Holy "Eccumenical" coucil or not is quite another thing. When the Emperor requires the presence of the leaders of a sect within the empire to come into the office to settle things, they aren't being settled because the leaders were moved by the spirit to get together and settle things. They're being settled because the emperor sees they're mucking up the works and need to get it resolved before he has to act.
He gave them lattitude and ultimately resigned himself to their decision because he was seeking unity. Until they reached a decision, they were going nowhere. It ultimately served neither side well. Constantine didn't get unity, he got a comfortable majority - not the same thing. And the leaders only came away sure that anyone who didn't believe as they did was heretical - which is to say the entire christian world if you believe the number of sects they ended up destroying as time went on. That's another story.

As far as my orthodoxy, I have a very good understanding that when three ingredients are required in something, they have to all be present before the oject can exist that is being created. Simple scientific method. A+B+C = D. A, B and C must be present to equal D if we follow the logic of the equation. You're giving us B and saying that suffices.
It's akin to saying if you have paper with writing on it and bind it, it's a book. But if you just have the paper, that too is a book. Doesn't take long to paint such an absurdity for what it is. However it doesn't fit well into the fable to hover about such unpleasantries as demonstrable
errors in the story. It really further exascerbates things to mention that Eusebius had no real objectivity and very little understanding of the difference between fact and fiction. If fiction served the story, then fiction becomes the history. And there isn't a Historian who's given Eusebius a proper look that doesn't say this - even if grudgingly so. I stand by the facts and tell us Constantine was not a Christian. He was an Emperor who used a religion to further his political ambitions. No different than any of the Ceasars and just as bloody.

The religious aspects of this can be a little difficult for non-christians to follow; but, the Apostles taught and practiced confession + baptism of the spirit. In practice, they included water baptism. Christ did not. Christ in practice taught the requirement of belief + confession and spirit baptism. The record says Constantine was baptised.
That is all it says. But it's said by someone with no real credibility on the subject. And with no support from anywhere else to confirm it. Essentially, it is the only basis upon which to say Constantine was Christian. When the credibility of that is shown, there no longer is a basis - tenuous as it is to begin with.

In short, You say you have a warehouse full of eggs, I investigate and show the warehouse to be empty, It matters not how you decorate your sentances describing the eggs - even assuring us they are ten feet tall and a feast for 2000. Unless they're there, it's all elementry. Trying to fill the warehouse a hundred years later through remanufactury of the evidence don't cut it. Which is why Isidore and Gracian are so insidious. But, I have to address that with another. Have fun.

[Havoc]

No, that would be the Koran (Quran).

Cute jest; but, that's not what the historians say. The Koran is one book. The Decretals and Gracian together comprised numerous forged books, documents and extensive histories including manufactured biographical information on the actions of 'early Bishops'. They were used to decieve Europe and the middle east on matters of law and faith for centuries on end before caught. That is a betrayal via fraud that is heretofore unmatched in history.

You question whether there is any support for the use of force to turn the heathen to Christ. I would agree with that question and suggest the answer to be in the negative. This is what happens when men try to bend revealed truth to their flawed reason.

I didn't question it, no such real support exists rather than by fraud.

However, the Koran explicitly supports that God approves of this. That, to me, is the great fraund. And the greater modern threat.

A lie is a lie. I did not pretend to differentiate on the impact of a lie being past present, dead or extant. Lying about anything is bad. Lying about history is common. But some have elevated it to an artform and even an industry.

[Havoc]

Some religious types choose to see a bigotted boogeyman behind every statement that their group has done something wrong - especially when it's a documented fact. The facts speak for themselves. But pointing out they exist is a crime against humanity that must be intolerance and bigotry.
Kinda like liberals.. do to good a job pointing out where they're wrong and they race bate and say you want to kill old people or at least make them eat pet food.. Pretty absurd isn't it.

[FormerLib]

Some religious types choose to see a bigotted boogeyman behind every statement that their group has done something wrong ...

And some religious types note that some folks can't talk about the weather without taking a shot at another's faith.

Ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe it.

[Havoc]

You know, if you want to play games. Go play your games. I've got no use for anyone that wants to wine because facts
impede there ability to be comfortable with their popular lie. That's part of what the article here is about. I'm sure a lot of black people out there feel the same way, you're a racist bigot because you're casting aspersions on their currently held beliefs - sacred to them because it builds their self esteem. If you don't want to debate the issue or talk about it openly, fine. Don't sit here and pretend it's all about the Catholic religion - an irrelevancy to the discussion. It's the act that is relevant. And it's no different than the actions of the 'PLO' and it's historical lies about Israel and a place called Pallestine that has never existed.

When you feel like discussing something rather than trying to bait a fight. You're free to talk. As yet, all ya'll have done is cast aspersions about the fact that a Catholic fraud was mentioned as if pointing out catholic error is illegal or something. German error is fine. Islamic error is fine, etc. But Catholic error is hateful speach and bigoted. The others have the same propaganda. If you have a material problem with the facts as stated, you can challenge them. But I doubt you even know the name of the man that exposed the fraud, his religious standing or that he nearly faced an inquisitional tribunal for doing so - and not because he was wrong. His case was proven then. It didn't have to wait till modern times. Which shows how poor the forgeries ultimately were.

Perhaps you can actually converse rather than try to discredit by slander. You know - maybe actually present a case or engage in the discussion. Maybe throw in another (here's a really neat idea) lie about history that maybe some of us here aren't aware of? What an idea in a thread about the very topic. How novel.

[Mo1]

VOTE THE RATS OUT!!

DONATE TODAY. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Aquinasfan]

I encountered some of these myths back in my college days - particularly the Library of Alexandria theft story

Wow. Parents have no idea what's going on in these alleged institutions of higher education.

[Aquinasfan]

Did Luther remove books from the Bible?

[Havoc]

Well I'm scotch-irish and German. Three great groups that have fought the Brits at one time or another. And here I sit in America - the greatest group of rebels against imperial British rule that ever was and arguably one of the greatest nations on the planet. Actually, there's a tiny bit of blue-blood Limy in me too - must account for my sense of humor. I find it interesting that history has all the bloodlines that came together to make me have been at war with one another at some time or another - and I'm just a meek little fuzzball with a love for fact and justice. Must be the Wallace blood ROFL.

[Havoc]

A more proper question might be if he removed books from cannon. An even more proper question might be if all the books in the cannon are inspired and can be proven against one another. What's your point and how does it relate to the topic. Did Luther create a forged history that I'm unaware of - if so please enlighten. If not - it's irrelevant to the discussion and to me.