If You Get Offended Easily Dont Read This.........

[Chainsaw1234]

The European has twisted and turned everything to fit his warped way of thinking. He has made himself the center of the world, indeed of the universe.

Have you ever heard the words Oriental and Occidental?

Orient means East and Occident means West. Now heres the twist. Europe, as put forth by the European, is the center of the world. Therefore, anything to its east is Oriental, while anything to its West is Occidental. This is what is meant by Eurocentric.

If Europe is not the center of the world then what is?

When a baby is born the most essential thing needed for survival is...Food...and where does this come from? The mother, therefore the Mother is central to the baby.

The cradle of civilization is Afrika. Afrika is the motherland. Therefore, Afrika is central to all of humanity. Now those whom we know today as Europeans are actually mutants who left the safe confines of the Motherland and evolved in Europe. Their food for survival was doctored by an unnatural mother. The side effects of their development outside of the natural womb has been albinism,aggression, and universal weakness predicated on their minority status in the world.

Unfortunatly its not as simple as just telling people whats going on.

I guess you have heard of the words Mankind and Human? We know that hue is Colour....human....hue-man... colour-man, man of colour. So that means humans are people of colour (thats brown,red,yellow et cetera.....) And melanin is the ingredient that produces skin colour. Europeans, mutants.

Mutants = something produced from...or an out-growth of ...anyway, these mutants dont have any melanin therefore they are colourless (White). As White is colourless its abnormal because the majority of the worlds people are hue-man. Which means they are ,as mutants , a kind of man, therefore mankind.

Look brothas.. alot of us are weak because mankind has cut off our nutrition from the Motherland. He has twisted the world so that Europe, the Mad Doctor, looks like the center. And we look abnormal.

:rasta: Oh its deeep:rasta:

[Hamlet]

Ya lost me on that one. I'm picturing a redneck Afrikan spitting beechnut and proclaiming 'and if whitey doesn't like it he can go back to Europe!'

[Inferius]

Ya lost me on that one. I'm picturing a redneck Afrikan spitting beechnut and proclaiming 'and if whitey doesn't like it he can go back to Europe!'

Rofl.... hahahahahahaha:p

[WeedGremblin]

Im cool with being a mutant instead of a human.

Its obvious that the white man AKA mutant rules this world (Atleast for now, I have a deep feeling that this will change) So maybe being a mutant is a good thing, I have had a mutant BB plant and it was mind blowingly potent, atleast 2x more potent that others, it just looked funny and I had to feed it differently.

Whi...Mutant Power!!


If you want to return to the motherland then pursue it with psychedelics, its out there in hyperspace.

[Binzhoubum]

Wow! :smokin:

If I thought your logic made any sense at all, I would admit myself to the local rehab center as quick as possible because I must be smoking crack.

[SpiritLevel]

Chainsaw1234 I agree with you. Your post ought to have been longer. I can see what you have tried to do, but do bare in mind how things have become as they are today. A sketchy account only reaches the minds of those who are all too familiar with the subjects in hand. Those who are unfamiliar will certainly find amuzement in your entertainment.

[geoffrowley19]

africa*

[CultureCherryPopper]

I am at a loss of words for what appears to be the worst attempt at word association. You started off well until you began on the whole mother aspect, from which it all just went to pieces and became mindless rabble. So many aspects of that statement are absurd, from a mother being essential to survival, which mothers are not, to Europeans not containing melanin, which all but albinos do (and albinos aren't mutants either). Yeah, that's deep, real deep.

Skin deep....

[kiwiglowbug]

Some people think to much

[Polymirize]

Some people think to much

or not enough.

[Binzhoubum]

I am at a loss of words for what appears to be the worst attempt at word association. You started off well until you began on the whole mother aspect, from which it all just went to pieces and became mindless rabble. So many aspects of that statement are absurd, from a mother being essential to survival, which mothers are not, to Europeans not containing melanin, which all but albinos do (and albinos aren't mutants either). Yeah, that's deep, real deep.

Skin deep....

Or the part where he claims that the etymology of the word human comes from "hue" meaning color...that is BS too. :smokin:

In fact, so much of it was BS that I didn't want to waste my time dissecting it.

[graymatter]

I don't know... it's sort of creative, in a Spike Lee meets the Cohen brothers script way.

[OnionsOfLove]

sorry, but what youre talking about is evolution.

black men once ruled "afrika," the center of the world as you call it. proof is in the face of the sphinx, which is undoubtedly african american.

as they migrated around the world, people lost pigment but gained knowledge.

they changed the "center of the world" to what they thought WAS the center of the world. the atlantic was to the west and there was land to explore to the east. once the eastern lands began to be explored, america was discovered and the "center of the world" changed. however, due to the fact that language is slow to evolve once it has been set in place, the orient has not yet been given another name.

the word hue has absolutely nothing to do with the word human. The word human is from "humanus", the adjectival form of "homo". Homo refers to a genus in which humans are the only species. The other species in the genus Homo have all gone extinct, which yet again points towards the truth: evolution.

allow me to throw one more thing into the mix:

there are erosion marks on the sphinx that indicate the existance of incredibly high water levels, especially considering that the sphinx is in a very very large valley that empties into the mediterranean. there are cities perched high above mountaintops in peru that are OBVIOUSLY port cities...the evidence is so collectively large that there is no way to doubt it. could the story of moses and the ark be true? it certainly could be. perhaps there was a period of global warming on "pre-flood" earth. and if this period of global warming caused the ice caps to melt, then people obviously would have perished in a great flood. would it have been very hard for someone to realize the changing weather patterns and decide to build a boat? of course not. also... isnt it funny that macchu picchu was built an indescribable amount of years ago on a very high mountain peak? could it be that a giant flood couldnt reach that high?

personally, i choose to believe things that have been written down for thousands of years and have slight geographic proof. at least i can feel like i am dreaming in the correct direction.

cheers

[Hamlet]

uh, Noah and the ark...unless you're talking about the ark of the covenant. Indiana Jones: "didn't you guys go to Sunday School!".....lol

But the Noah story even being close to factual is a little far fetched. They believe they know the older Babylonian story it was based on which was pretty much something about high water in the river and a king floating down to the next fort with some of his livestock on board. (think Paul Bunyan and you get the picture about how such stories evolve). Flood anxiety though is a cultural phenomenon and there's always a lively yarn to be found to go along with it.

[OnionsOfLove]

im simply saying that in the bible there is reference to a large flood.

there is also reference to a large flood in other holy books and records around the world.

there is a whole undersea city off the coast of asia that cannot be dated because it sustains incredible amounts of erosion. whatever the case, it is old.

there are port cities at 12,000 ft in peru, and there is water damage on the sphinx.

Perhaps (AND JUST OPEN YOUR MIND FOR THREE SECONDS PLEASE) humanity has been on earth for longer than we think.

the truth is that no one really knows whether or not there was an ark. the fact that some people choose not to believe it is a prime example of close-mindedness. why not believe it?

people who tell lies are quickly thwarted by someone who asks questions. if you ask a question to someone and they cannot answer it, they are either lying or talking about something that they do not know. how do you know that the person who tells you that the ark never existed is lying or not? the only way to know something is to find out for yourself, and the only way to begin finding out for yourself is accepting that you are ignorant except for the garbage that you have been fed your entire life.

i for one choose to believe things until they are proven wrong, just like math, the language of truth.

cheers

[Breukelen advocaat]

im simply saying that in the bible there is reference to a large flood.
there is also reference to a large flood in other holy books and records around the world.
there is a whole undersea city off the coast of asia that cannot be dated because it sustains incredible amounts of erosion. whatever the case, it is old.
there are port cities at 12,000 ft in peru, and there is water damage on the sphinx.
Perhaps (AND JUST OPEN YOUR MIND FOR THREE SECONDS PLEASE) humanity has been on earth for longer than we think.
the truth is that no one really knows whether or not there was an ark. the fact that some people choose not to believe it is a prime example of close-mindedness. why not believe it?
people who tell lies are quickly thwarted by someone who asks questions. if you ask a question to someone and they cannot answer it, they are either lying or talking about something that they do not know. how do you know that the person who tells you that the ark never existed is lying or not? the only way to know something is to find out for yourself, and the only way to begin finding out for yourself is accepting that you are ignorant except for the garbage that you have been fed your entire life.
i for one choose to believe things until they are proven wrong, just like math, the language of truth.
cheers

Nobody denies that arks existed, but there is no way that a pair of every species of beast and insect on earth were all on an ark. This would be physically impossible, even today, on modern vessels.

The bible also tells us that a whale swallowed a man to save him from drowning, a snake talked, people came from "dust", and all sorts of other nonsense. To reject these claims is not "ignorant".

[OnionsOfLove]

rejecting these claims without considering them first is completely ignorant.

you must ask:

is it not possible for a whale to swallow a man? if it were possible, the air in the whale's body would keep a man alive, would it not? so how could you say that it has never happened?

obviously a snake talking is a metaphor that isnt MEANT to be taken at face value. we both know what it was MEANT to be taken as.

the energy that holds together molecular bonds cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. when a person dies they decompose into the earth that they lived on their entire lives. the energy that once fueled that person changes form into soil nutrients and other random stuffs. plants suck nutrients out of soil and humans eat plants. how could it not be possible that humans come from dust? if you say it is impossible, you are doubting modern science.

to reject these claims is completely ignorant. rejection of anything without complete analyzation of possibilities arrives at a premature discovery of an incorrect truth.

[Breukelen advocaat]

rejecting these claims without considering them first is completely ignorant.

you must ask:

is it not possible for a whale to swallow a man? if it were possible, the air in the whale's body would keep a man alive, would it not? so how could you say that it has never happened?

If it ever happened, which is unlikely, it was purely an accident, and the whale did NOT do it to save the man.


obviously a snake talking is a metaphor that isnt MEANT to be taken at face value. we both know what it was MEANT to be taken as.

No, I don't assume anything. Nowhere in the bible does it say that that Genesis was a metaphor.

the energy that holds together molecular bonds cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. when a person dies they decompose into the earth that they lived on their entire lives. the energy that once fueled that person changes form into soil nutrients and other random stuffs. plants suck nutrients out of soil and humans eat plants. how could it not be possible that humans come from dust? if you say it is impossible, you are doubting modern science.

Modern science is quite different from the ravings of the ignorant, naked, half-starved, savages that were responsible for the myths of the Old Testament.

to reject these claims is completely ignorant. rejection of anything without complete analyzation of possibilities arrives at a premature discovery of an incorrect truth.

There are thousands of absurd things in life that people could claim have merit, and we must judge that some of them are so stupid as to be worthless. The superstitious claims of the bible fall into this category. They are not worth the time and effort that it would take to disprove them - because it's already been done.

[OnionsOfLove]

If it ever happened, which is unlikely, it was purely an accident, and the whale did NOT do it to save the man.

If it did happen, the man was saved. The whales intentions will always be unknown, but someone can interpret them as having been to save the man.


No, I don't assume anything. Nowhere in the bible does it say that that Genesis was a metaphor.

can snakes talk? of course not. could it have been a metaphor that actually teaches people that their brain has the power to make them think that snakes talk? yes. i am a person who has the ability to reason and i do not differ physically from the person who wrote genesis. i have the ability to explain hard-to-grasp things using complex forms of imagery and metaphor, but i first have to accept that someone will not take me for an idiot. if you actually think that someone wrote "and the snake spoke..." because they were trying to say that "snakes can talk" then you are a very shallow thinker.


Modern science is quite different from the ravings of the ignorant, naked, half-starved, savages that were responsible for the myths of the Old Testament.


yes indeed modern science is quite different, but i just told you a way that modern science can prove exactly what was written in the bible that you call false. please read it again and re-evaluate it. the "ignorant, naked, half-starved savages" that you speak of are the same ones that built the pyramids, invented wine, came up with the mathematical concept of zero, and wrote the bible. if you were to open your mind for a whole three seconds and IMAGINE that those people were ACTUALLY SMART and that they were trying to TELL YOU SOMETHING you would have something to GAIN from their writing, especially if you were one of them. the old testament was something that almost brought together every single person at one time in the earth's history. it almost made everyone think for a split second that perhaps its true and perhaps we are all the same. imagine the possibilities that would be realized if everyone on earth TODAY were to UNITE.


There are thousands of absurd things in life that people could claim have merit, and we must judge that some of them are so stupid as to be worthless. The superstitious claims of the bible fall into this category. They are not worth the time and effort that it would take to disprove them - because it's already been done.

everything that someone experiences in life has merit because something can be learned from every situation in someone's life. the problem is that people are so ignorant that they choose ignorance.

unless something has been proven mathematically people still have the ability to imagine the possibilities.

cheers

[Hamlet]

As metaphor the old myths are great stuff for sure. If you put yourself in the times its not hard to see how they came about. You're a goat herder in charge of a group of goat herders. You're old and wise, and probably pretty smart since dumb didn't get you very far in those days. Now the young people are admiring your wisdom and asking you some really impossible questions about some really extraordinary things. Well, all you really know is goats, a flood you saw once, and that time you wandered into Ur with the really strange carvings. So what do you do? You get creative! ...and just like the birth of the Blues something totally original is born! All those archetypes and symbolisms kick in and we have stories to tell around the campfire for hundreds of years. They're important stories because they tell us about ourselves, our cultures and how we came along. Even about how our minds and imaginations work....wonderful stuff really if you want to peek below the surface.

I don't think Matsu Petchu (sp?) was a sea port though. I kinda keep up with that sort of crap and I feel I would have heard something. Any time you're reading about the pyramids and inca ruins it's important to keep your New Age/UFO bullshit filter on. They love that stuff and have no problem inventing myths of their own :)

[Breukelen advocaat]

If it did happen, the man was saved. The whales intentions will always be unknown, but someone can interpret them as having been to save the man.
can snakes talk? of course not. could it have been a metaphor that actually teaches people that their brain has the power to make them think that snakes talk? yes. i am a person who has the ability to reason and i do not differ physically from the person who wrote genesis. i have the ability to explain hard-to-grasp things using complex forms of imagery and metaphor, but i first have to accept that someone will not take me for an idiot. if you actually think that someone wrote "and the snake spoke..." because they were trying to say that "snakes can talk" then you are a very shallow thinker.
yes indeed modern science is quite different, but i just told you a way that modern science can prove exactly what was written in the bible that you call false. please read it again and re-evaluate it. the "ignorant, naked, half-starved savages" that you speak of are the same ones that built the pyramids, invented wine, came up with the mathematical concept of zero, and wrote the bible. if you were to open your mind for a whole three seconds and IMAGINE that those people were ACTUALLY SMART and that they were trying to TELL YOU SOMETHING you would have something to GAIN from their writing, especially if you were one of them. the old testament was something that almost brought together every single person at one time in the earth's history. it almost made everyone think for a split second that perhaps its true and perhaps we are all the same. imagine the possibilities that would be realized if everyone on earth TODAY were to UNITE.
everything that someone experiences in life has merit because something can be learned from every situation in someone's life. the problem is that people are so ignorant that they choose ignorance.
unless something has been proven mathematically people still have the ability to imagine the possibilities.
cheers

The bible is supposed to be the inspired word of god, and millions of people have been killed or oppressed due to it's teachings.

If there was a supreme being, why has he allowed his teachings to bring about murder, burnings, genocide, wars, oppressive laws, corruption, etc.?

Do you believe that the authors of this travesty were divinely inspired?

Since I know that the bible should not be used as a guide to life, does that make me "ignorant"?

What parts of the bible do you think could be helpful for humans to "UNITE"?

If the authors were "ACTUALLY SMART", wouldn't they just say straight-out what the truth is? If these authors were divinely inspired, would it matter whether they were "smart" or not, as they were just copying what god told them to write?

Isn't the real message of Adam and Eve, upon eating the fruit of knowledge, that their creator preferred them to be ignorant? Have not the churches and priests followed this path, with regards to thier followers?

In the libraries of the future, the bible will sit alongside books about witchcraft and voodoo.

[TheBudBuster]

Very interesting thread. You guys are really smart i like reading all this but im not the best at responding sorry if i come across weird. I believe what is fact but fiction makes me smarter. Peace
btw its 1pm and i just killed a fat morrocan spliff. really makes me sleepy that stuff

[CultureCherryPopper]

OnionsofLove, I cannot tell whether you are a Christian who defends the Bible, or someone who chooses to play devil's advocate. But never the less, you put a lot of stock into a book that: advocates rape, portrays mindless revenge against children by god, demands poor treatment of women, and founds the human race on incest. The bible is a record of history, and has a few good messages, but it's a document of antiquated facts and ideas, and for one to hold more than a little conviction in it without a grain of salt is really what is ignorant. To believe that man will not and cannot covet another man's wife is a foolish tenet on a supposed piece of stone, and has caused an unaccountable number of deaths over the ages. In a forum such as this, you would think that the want to spread love and happiness would abound, and that for anyone to fully defend the bible would be absurd. I am not advocating hedonism or mindless nymphomania, but surely we should question our beliefs in monogamy. Why is it so hard to accept that there are many wonderful people in the world to love, and to devote yourself to just one other is selfish and completely narrow-minded? I believe the message of the bible was lost in translation when mortal men attempted to transcribe the word of god, but is still worth looking for in its text. Just don't place all your faith in its words, but instead in love.

[amsterdammed]

sorry, but what youre talking about is evolution.

black men once ruled "afrika," the center of the world as you call it. proof is in the face of the sphinx, which is undoubtedly african american.

i'm sorry, are you trying to say the face of the sphinx is african/american?

african yes, northern africa, as in egypt that's correct, considering it's the face of a pharaoh. america as we know it wasn't even know of when the sphinx was made so how on earth can it be american. not everything in this world is american you know.

[SpiritLevel]

The European has twisted and turned everything to fit his warped way of thinking. He has made himself the center of the world, indeed of the universe.
How relevant!

[SmokingPlatypus]

Your logic is tenuous at best.

[OnionsOfLove]

oh yeah wow.. i meant african like plain african.

dont know how that one passed me by.

[Hamlet]

"Your logic is tenuous at best."

hehe...not sure which post this statement applies to but I'm guessing all of them?.....lol :)

[SpiritLevel]

lol @ Hamlet, had me wondering too

[SmokingPlatypus]

That was meant to be directed at Chainsaw.

[Oneironaut]

Ummm...in case you haven't noticed, Africa is not populated by one homogeneous race of "black people". The sub-Saharan Africans are extremely genetically diverse; try comparing a Khoi, a Pygmy and a West African Bantu sometime, and telling me they're all the same race. It's like looking at a Chinese person, a Swede and an Eskimo and saying they belong to the same Americo-Eurasian race.

[SpiritLevel]

Am I making this up?

No it isn't Oneironaut (http://boards.cannabis.com/member.php?u=35179). Modern inhabitants of many parts of Afrika over the past 20,000 years have been subjected to unfavourable genetic diversity through genetic mutation caused by inter-racial sexual relations which have produce mongrels. Lightening of skin has also occured through circumnavigation and settlement in different regions of the planet, but Africoid features are very much still apparent and the lightening of Pigment has not been such that Black people have become caucasian.

The original bloodline of those Africans who where telepathic and connected to the Earth in most instances has been corrupted by invaders. There is no simily or comparison that can include both Black and White people where discussing the race of origin. Chinese, Swede and Eskimo are near the end of the line of mutants. In fact the original Chinese, an exterminated population aging more than 100,000 years, consisted of a race of what they call 'Little Black People'. Chinese historians admit themselves that they are not the original inhabitants of the land they occupy. The Chinese historians will also admit that practices of Martial Arts, knowledge of Chi, and Fighting techniques gained by studying animal movements was developed by Jet Black people a long long time before they became recognised by the world as being skilled in handling weapons and hand to hand combat. The next of kin of 'The Little Black People' are still alive today and are said to be diminutive Africoids and are variously called Pygmies, Negritos and Aeta. They are found in the Philippines, northern Malaysia, Thailand, Sumatra in Indonesia and other places.

"A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without its roots", said our "most valuable Black Man" of the early 20th century, Marcus Garvey. If we (Afrikans) don't wake up to face the artificial complexities of this fabricated world, to become ourselves, we will thenceforth remain a people just copying other people's identities, cultures and "knowledge" and will remain at war with and within ourselves.

Oneironaut (http://boards.cannabis.com/member.php?u=35179), when comparing Khoi, Pygmy and Bantu what am I looking for? Evidence that Broad Noses and Big Thick Lips in combination have been on the planet 73 Trillion years longer than white people? Thas all there is to find.

What is a plain Afrikan OnionsOfLove (http://boards.cannabis.com/member.php?u=49632)? You dig a hole when all you needed to have said was the Sphinx's Africoid features were destroyed by Napolean. And how can you put "loosing pigment by travelling" and "gaining knowledge" in the same sentence as if "loosing BlaKness is somehow relative to gaining knowledge"? The technology of today is a spit in a bucket (new term for me) compared to the technology of 50,000 years ago. Thing is these days our technology is purely based, or more poised, on destroying life. America has never been discovered; at least not in any timeframe relative to the existence of mongrels derrived from Martians and Reptilians from outer space.

Hamlet (http://boards.cannabis.com/member.php?u=51402) Do you not think so-called extra terrestrials or entities from other planets and dimensions could exists?

Chainsaw1234 (http://boards.cannabis.com/member.php?u=8435) Europeans didn't have a choice about leaving Africa. They were sent to the Causasus Mountains, according to legend, because their melaninless state promted a spiritual de-unification between individual and Earth and produced a beast like person who had no concept of connectedness to the universe which was dangerous as you can see with modern politics and who holds the trigger. They were there for around 2000 years before an Afrikan left the Mother Continent with a book to civilise the cave man. When white people learned from the book, they further evolved into beasts. Soon enough they learned how to build vessels to move around and commence the world wide bloodbath which has been slowly escalating for around 6000 years. Afrikan Libraries that contained REAL knowledge were Torched by invading Europeans because they couldn't understand the content. But today when we visit the Great British Museum in the capital of England we find lots of prehistoric African arftifacts that assist in putting the picture together. There are also artifacts deemed unsuitable for public viewing that remain under lock and key. The Illuminati do their best to ensure that the facts DO Not Escape because they have built their war machine on teachings that came out of Afrika; though Afrikans were never a war-like being even though Zulu are famous for being Great Warriors GEEEE

Time for a breather, so much diarrhea there ain't enough space for me to let it all out

[weirdo79]

I get it spirit knows more than any geneticist , anthropologist and archeologist and has evidence that the rest of the scientific community doesnt have....You should start sharing that stuff bud. Or , whatever it is you've been smoking, pass it here!

I loved the part about knowing humans used to be telepathic towards the earth...for some reason captain planet theme music went through my head at that moment....

[OnionsOfLove]

what spirit posted is what ive been trying to explain this entire post... the world is not as it seems and humans are not acting like humans should probably be acting, referring especially to the amount of time people spend doing nothing with their lives. or the amount of hate that travels around in circles in our western society. or any of the innumerable things that are obviously amounting to nothing in everyone's life.

when i said losing pigment and gaining knowledge i did not mean to imply that i was correlating the two. what i meant is that when people leave their place of origin they gain knowledge of other places and animals and climates. the knowledge they gained about the places they went is what allowed early people the chance to stay somewhere long enough to become genetically accustomed to it.

i dont think ill be posting here in the future as it seems everyone is a skeptic. perhaps that is the problem of the world today - everyone's ego is so large that they automatically assume that new knowledge is false knowledge. people are artificially happy with the current state of affairs in their mind and they are not willing to rewire their thoughts according to new beliefs and understandings. the truth is contained collectively within the minds of the people of the world, and the only way to find it is to accept that you dont know anything and start opening your mind.

referring specifically to the governments around the world: why do people still allow themselves to be ruled? ultimately the intentions of the ruler (or democratic government) are completely unknown. Why are we in the middle east? it might as well be because we are chasing the infamous space alien murderer named magnos III. no one knows, and the government does whatever it wants. when will people break the chains?

cheers

[OnionsOfLove]

before someone tries to break my post apart again, i was not referring to the middle east for any reason other than to make an example of it. i do not care why we are there because the truth is that NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE.

[graph]

.
i dont think ill be posting here in the future as it seems everyone is a skeptic. perhaps that is the problem of the world today - everyone's ego is so large that they automatically assume that new knowledge is false knowledge.

Or maybe it's that people have grown content with not thinking for themselves.

Everyone is a skeptic, which is a brilliant thing in itself. Could you imagine a world where everyone accepted everything at face value? Now that would be some sort of hell.

[SpiritLevel]

I get it spirit knows more than any geneticist , anthropologist and archeologist and has evidence that the rest of the scientific community doesnt have....You should start sharing that stuff bud. Or , whatever it is you've been smoking, pass it here!

I loved the part about knowing humans used to be telepathic towards the earth...for some reason captain planet theme music went through my head at that moment....

If attempting to win people's hearts and have them totally discard my statement by suggesting that I think I am more knowledgable than the world of Geneticist, Anthropologists and Archeologist, as well as having a Captain Planet's theme tune going through your head, is the only reaction you get, then those Geneticists, Anthropologists and Archeologists that you know of and communicate/associate with haven't allowed you to learn anything that can be presented as an opinion that can oppose what I said on the subject. You are simply trying to discredit my opinion/assassinate my character without even offering a reasonable opinion of your own on the subject. All I see you do around the boards is create a cloud of confusion as to whether or not what a person says is right or wrong by throwing a spanner in, you don't even offer an alternative; just your half-witted personal account of someone's legitimacy to offer their perspective on a subject. Keep in mind that lots of people who came up with particular theories have cause great changes to our daily lives; the theories they presented in those times hit the ears of others pretty much the way in which you responded. Today I am a jerk-off, tomorrow I could be right about yesterday. The end!

[SpiritLevel]

..I dont think ill be posting here in the future as it seems everyone is a skeptic. perhaps that is the problem of the world today - everyone's ego is so large that they automatically assume that new knowledge is false knowledge...

You should continue to make contributions everywhere IMO. People do have the right to think what they want to think. People have the right to protest against people's thought and opinions. This not only helps to better oneself but in the course of information exchange as conclusions can be drawn that were not necessarily to the objective of the original subject. I criticised your point on 'Plain Afrikans' but also decided to throw you a rope too only because I am quite familiar with some aspects of Afrikan presence in the world that date back long ago (some people call it history). Giving up is a sign of weakness, especially if you believe you are right and your only problem is with people who think you are wrong. People who seldom take heed of information run on the spot, while people who build with information progress and gain direction.

[WimpyChimp]

all these big words,im suprised you can still know this and talk like this and smoke weed

[WalkaWalka]

not to racist but this has to be said
I agree Africa is the womb of mankind and look what happens when you shit where you eat.....

[Binzhoubum]

I still think what I posted earlier makes the most sense.

OK...so you believe in evolution. So what?

Just because the cradle of civilization is located there why does it make it the end all, be all of existence and civilization as we have come to understand it?

Every society, culture, and civilization is basically preaching the same shit with a different story. Prove me wrong. :smokin:

[Lucifuge]

Just close this thread already, it's only a pointless argument about which race is better with no real reason why. So what if your people have done some extraordinary things, what the fuck have you done that makes you better than anyone else?

[likemclever]

Don’t you dare close this thread. It’s one of the best threads I’ve seen in a while. ^ did you even read this thread. It’s sort of punctuates the point of this thread and I find it mildly ironic. People often rush to judgment before they even know what their judging.

[MelT]

Just a small point. A whale could never swallow a man. They have a tiny throat and eat Krill, small shrimp, to survive.

Secondly man *appears* (there are opposing ideas on this) to have evolved into his current form in africa. That doesn't make it the cradle of civilisation, but just a place where we've found the first evidence of modern man. The cradle of civilisation is actually in the middle east and northern India at places like Mohenjo Daro, where the first farming and writing were developed. There are no equivalents in africa until much, much later.

MelT

[Green Love]

Your logic is demeaning.

[MelT]

Your logic is demeaning.

Whose and why?

MelT

[MWT15.06.91]

In America we hardly give a shit about Europe. We like to think we are better than most. =/ well... some of us

[SmokeTheReEfer]

the logic of this...it burns

[S.P.Q.R.]

I guess you could say that... but;

I'm not a mutant, i'm a Greek :cool:

[Pass That Shit]

You guys want christians to prove that the bible is accurate, how about some proof on your part that the bible is wrong?

Prove to me that the waters God sent for forty days and forty nights on the earth did not take place? Science is a testimony that every peak on earth has been covered by water.

Prove to me that the writers of the epistles didn't witness jesus' death and then see him after his resurrection? Prove that to me bro? What proof do you have to call these men liars? NONE

[MelT]

You might all be interested in this site, which is pro-christianity, as it shows many, many things wrong in the Bible. Here's an excerpt:

During the celebration of Christmas, familiar images are recalled in hymns and scripture about the birth of Jesus. In the popular mind, the appearance of herald angels, shepherds abiding in the fields, the star of Bethlehem, the virgin Mary giving birth in a stable, and the adoration of the Magi, have all been melded into one Christmas story. In reality, there are in the gospels, two distinct and at times contradictory stories of Jesus' birth. A careful reading of the Bible itself reveals that so much about this celebrated birth is myth.

Dating December 25 as the birthday of Jesus, is known to have gained popularity only by the mid-fourth century in order that Christians could have an alternative to a popular pagan festival at this time of year. December 25 was the winter solstice according to the old Julian calendar, and it was on that day that Mithraism, a chief rival to Christianity, celebrated the birth of the god, Mithra. It is unlikely that we shall ever know exactly when Jesus was born (scholars estimate sometime between 12 and 4 B.C.) or the real circumstances surrounding his nativity. We can, however, attempt to separate historical fact from literary fiction.

The doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus, so central to the traditional Christmas story, was not part of the teaching of the first Christians, whom it should be remembered, also remained within the Jewish faith (Luke 24:52-53). The apostle Paul makes no reference to the virginal conception by the mother of Jesus when speaking of Jesus' origins and divinity. His epistles were written during the 50's A.D. and predate all of the four gospels. Although Paul never met Jesus (who died about 30 A.D.), he personally did know James, the brother of Jesus. Yet despite this eye-witness link to Jesus, Paul apparently knows nothing of the virgin birth, for he states only that Jesus was "born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4) and was "descended from David, according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), thereby implying a normal birth.

The earliest written gospel was Mark, which was likely composed in the early 70's A.D. in southern Syria. Mark does not consider the birth of Jesus worth mentioning. The silence of the earliest Jewish-Christian authors about the miraculous birth of Jesus seems strange, given that they were trying to convince their readers that Jesus was divine. This silence raises doubts about the authenticity of the later nativity stories with which we are so familiar.

The gospel of John, likely written in northern Syria sometime in the first decade of the second century, asserts that Jesus existed from the beginning of creation. John states that the pre-existent Jesus is the eternal Word, and that he was begotten of the Father and made human at a particular point in time (John 1:1-14). This gospel also claims that Jesus was the son of Joseph (John 1:45) and chooses to ignore or reject the birth stories in the earlier writings of Matthew and Luke. Only the gospels of Matthew and Luke refer to the biological miracle of a virgin woman being made pregnant by an act of God, and giving birth to a baby boy. Matthew was likely written in northern Palestine sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, and Luke in Asia Minor sometime during the late 90's, both about a century after his birth. Just how reliable are the Matthew and Luke birth narratives?

For many Christians, to question the description of Jesus' birth as related in the Bible is unthinkable. They believe that the Bible is the "word of God", an infallible record of the Almighty's influence on his creation, and therefore to be taken at face value. However, a careful study of the nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke indicate that the supposedly unerring "word of God" is full of contradictions and inventions. The most plausible conclusion is that the familiar Christmas stories in Matthew and Luke are religious myths, awkwardly grafted onto an earlier non-miraculous tradition about Jesus' birth.

They appear to be legends recorded by later Jewish-Christian apologists who were attempting to explain the origins of a man whom they considered divine. In this sense, the authors employed the familiar Jewish practice of the time known as "midrash" to illustrate and prove their points; that is to say, they liberally interpreted and expanded on texts and prophesies in the Jewish scriptures. The miraculous birth stories also served other purposes, namely, to rebut the contemporary inferences about the illegitimate birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:18-19, Mark 6:3, John 8:41) and to counter charges that he was possessed by the devil, rather than the spirit.

One of the first examples of things not ringing true can be found in the attempts by the authors of Matthew and Luke to trace the ancestry of Jesus back to the Jewish king David. It was from the royal house of David that the messiah was expected. However, upon close examination, the tables of descent in these gospels become transparently artificial, with many errors and downright contradictions. For example, the two gospels cannot agree on the lineage of Joseph, the father of Jesus. Matthew has 28 generations between David and Jesus, while Luke has 41 for the same period of about 1,000 years. In Matthew's gospel, Joseph's father (i.e. Jesus' grandfather) is said to be Jacob, while in Luke it is claimed that he is Heli. They cannot both be right....."
To read more, go to: http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm

MelT

[Pass That Shit]

"You might all be interested in this site, which is pro-christianity, as it shows many, many things wrong in the Bible"

Unlike the bible, your comment contradicts from the start. A true Christian is one who believes that the words of God are true. So if your doubting any of Jesus' writings, are you really a christian? If you say that any of the word of God is untrue, then you are calling Jesus a liar. One who believes in him, does not call him a liar. Based on your opening comment, I would not bother with those "pro christians".

Keep in mind, that lack of spritual understanding on your part, does not make the bible incorrect. There are many teachings in the info that you consider contradictive. Do you have proof that jesus did not raise from the dead? Do you have any proof that I will NOT raise from the dead? The point is, you can't disprove FAITH.

As far as December 25 being the birth date of Jesus. I don't know where religion came up with that date, cause it's not givin in the scriptures. The christmas holiday has nothing to do with Christ.

[MelT]

LOL! I'm certainly NOT a christian.

You asked for any contradictions in the Bible, I've given you some and your response is to say that there can't be any, because the Bible can't be wrong? LOL! That's pretty funny.

Yep. Goood debating skills you got there...:)

MelT

[Krogith]

modern religion is not Following what the bible teaches, is what he was saying. pointing out what the christian chirch has done wrong is just proveing the fact that people who follow them are blind sighted. Following what Jesus tought also includes leaveing chirches and pratices that are False Behind. Get out of Babylon if you want to save your self. False religion is going to Fall.

[Pass That Shit]

"Yep. Goood debating skills you got there..."

Do you have proof that jesus did not raise from the dead? Do you have any proof that I will NOT raise from the dead?

Where are your debating skills?

Unbelief is pure speculation and theory. It's a lack of wisdom and knowledge. FAITH can't be touched.

[MelT]

"Yep. Goood debating skills you got there..."

Do you have proof that jesus did not raise from the dead? Do you have any proof that I will NOT raise from the dead?

Where are your debating skills?

Unbelief is pure speculation and theory. It's a lack of wisdom and knowledge. FAITH can't be touched.

LOL! And this is the real problem. People like you ask for proof that the bible is wrong, or proof that jesus didn't exist, but when any is offered that you can't cope with you immediately resort to the idea that faith is all you need negate that proof. It's sad, and not really exactly proof of anything, is it? 'I believe it's so and that's the end of it'. That's not a debate, that's a closed statement.

You don't want to be believe anything other than what you've already blindly accepted. You're not prepared to accept any other authority than the bible and your own faith, which immediately makes any debate with you impossible. You're not here to debate and see the merit and faults in yours and others arguments, you're just here to tell us how right and infallible christianity is. You're welcome to believe whatever you want to, but don't be at all surprised when some here find it funny.

Me, I find it beyond funny. I find it bigotted and terrifyingly closed-minded - it also worries me that you represent a whole swathe of people with similar beliefs. "I am right because I am a christian." Is that a truly christian approach?

How many people have christians killed over the last couple of thousand years? Millions. Most not because they weren't christians, but for supporting the wrong form of christianity! For a religion of peace and understanding that's a pretty poor track record.

Of the 3,500 forms of christianity, how many kinds do you *personally* think are real representations of your faith? One? Two? And does that make all the other forms wrong? Are Catholics real christians to you? Mormons? Are Jews? All worship the same god, but are separated from you (only because you've been told that this is the case) purely by dogma. Dogma so important that you hate even your own christian, god-worshipping fellow men if the words of their prayers, or their route to heaven differs from yours. I say again, not a good track record for a religion of peace, is it?

If there is a god, my prayer is that he save me from his followers and their bigotry.

MelT

[Pass That Shit]

I don't think you understand. I have the substance and the evidence inside me. You can't take that from me, but neither can I convince you of it. I speak what I feel. If you don't want to believe me, DON'T. Your beliefs are not offensive to me, so don't let my faith bother you. If you know that I'm wrong, why you bugged? Be happy that you know the TRUTH.

"And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me"

[graph]

"You might all be interested in this site, which is pro-christianity, as it shows many, many things wrong in the Bible"

Unlike the bible, your comment contradicts from the start. A true Christian is one who believes that the words of God are true. So if your doubting any of Jesus' writings, are you really a christian? If you say that any of the word of God is untrue, then you are calling Jesus a liar.

Is it possible that man, in his forever lasting fallacy, has construed the Word of God? Man wrote the bible, and Man messes a lot of things up.

Eager to learn your views, mi amigo.

[Pass That Shit]

Graph,
If there were any mistakes, it would be in the translations. But even in the different translations, the same points are carried out in all the scriptures. Even if the exact word is not used to translate the original hebrew and greek writings, the same spiritual lesson comes across. There are NO mistakes by the authors themselves in the original writings. Even though man wrote the bible, I believe they were inpired and written with the finger of God. That's why biblical writings don't contradict. The bible has ONE author and ONE gospel. Moses' writings are Jesus' words. It's called the word of God for a reason.

[halosin8r]

I guess I fit in the.. Christian Other... but I prefer looking at the philisophical view of things and except the universe as always been and always will be.

[jimbobster]

The European has twisted and turned everything to fit his warped way of thinking. He has made himself the center of the world, indeed of the universe.

Have you ever heard the words Oriental and Occidental?

Orient means East and Occident means West. Now heres the twist. Europe, as put forth by the European, is the center of the world. Therefore, anything to its east is Oriental, while anything to its West is Occidental. This is what is meant by Eurocentric.

If Europe is not the center of the world then what is?

When a baby is born the most essential thing needed for survival is...Food...and where does this come from? The mother, therefore the Mother is central to the baby.

The cradle of civilization is Afrika. Afrika is the motherland. Therefore, Afrika is central to all of humanity. Now those whom we know today as Europeans are actually mutants who left the safe confines of the Motherland and evolved in Europe. Their food for survival was doctored by an unnatural mother. The side effects of their development outside of the natural womb has been albinism,aggression, and universal weakness predicated on their minority status in the world.

Unfortunatly its not as simple as just telling people whats going on.

I guess you have heard of the words Mankind and Human? We know that hue is Colour....human....hue-man... colour-man, man of colour. So that means humans are people of colour (thats brown,red,yellow et cetera.....) And melanin is the ingredient that produces skin colour. Europeans, mutants.

Mutants = something produced from...or an out-growth of ...anyway, these mutants dont have any melanin therefore they are colourless (White). As White is colourless its abnormal because the majority of the worlds people are hue-man. Which means they are ,as mutants , a kind of man, therefore mankind.

Look brothas.. alot of us are weak because mankind has cut off our nutrition from the Motherland. He has twisted the world so that Europe, the Mad Doctor, looks like the center. And we look abnormal.

:rasta: Oh its deeep:rasta:

Sounds like a load of Bullshite lol, have you been reading them stupid Farakhan books or Dr Malachi coz they both are fake ass wankers and chat the most amount of bullshite on this planet:)

[Garden Knowm]

we can all sit still.. and not react... and get the truth for oneself..

[fikusroot]

"Yep. Goood debating skills you got there..."

Do you have proof that jesus did not raise from the dead? Do you have any proof that I will NOT raise from the dead?

Where are your debating skills?

Unbelief is pure speculation and theory. It's a lack of wisdom and knowledge. FAITH can't be touched.

That's just not true. Unbelief is supported by more facts than any religion could hope to be based on. Faith can't be touched? Faith in itself is ignoring facts and being led by an imaginary friend into an escape world where death isn't a problem and someone is looking out for you. You need to have faith because you cant take reality. The best part is hearing the retaliations the faithful give to my cold bullets of truth.

[Krogith]

prove to me the big bang or what ever idea you have to show where you came from.

[fikusroot]

I dont need to prove anything to you. I HAVE FAITH!

[Krogith]

your faith that complex atoms exsist forever, but what caused them? where did the basic stuff come from? what explnation do you have? I am just tring to understand your point of view not trying to argue :)

[fikusroot]

Actually, my statement was ment to be satirical of myself, in that both sides of the argument or both based of some form of faith. It's me taking a shot at myself.

[Krogith]

to jump from the idea that complex atoms could exsist and somehow caused a huge exploshion that made more matter and masses, to the idea that these things were created and life was given to us and were allowed to choose ither to draw close to the creator or reject the idea and die. I do not see that as a giant leap.

faith in all matter just happening to come about and form all the complex forms of life we see, is blind to not see that just the vastness of life and complex design of everything proves that it could not just come about. We all are allowed to look at what exsists and choose to except a creator and that we are in subjection to him or to choose to run our lifes for our selfs.

It's just the fact that all who choose to serve them self, all die and never come back. But thats why were here being allowed to choose the World or to choose God's way wich promises a paradice earth in the future.

[JaggedEdge]

Jesus did not write the bible.

Men wrote the bible.

Men don't always speak the truth.

You can't argue that the bible doesn't contradict itself, nor can you argue that the book is orginal.

Many other faith and old myths speak of "A great flood" along with other similar stories in the bible. Ever read Giglimesh? Not exactly a work of faith, but non-the-less predates the bible. A true Cristian with debate skills can argue the contradictions found in the bible, however no one thinking for themselves can say they don't exist.

Bottom line, Jesus did NOT write the bible, therfor he did not once say Jesus lied.

I can't stand blind faith. People need to learn to think for themselves rather than believing all the bullshit they are fed. No this is not proof that a god doesn't exist, but seriously people stop following things so blindly...

[fikusroot]

Yes! I agree. You nailed it on the last line.

[Krogith]

by following the bible you learn a peaceful life. and you learn that if all followed by the same rules we would all live a better life. so how is that so blind? I would love to live in harmony with everyone and live forever. all in peace and without greed.

Greed and hate have created this system we live in and not following what god has said got us here. you like this system of things?

[JaggedEdge]

by following the bible you learn a peaceful life. and you learn that if all followed by the same rules we would all live a better life. so how is that so blind? I would love to live in harmony with everyone and live forever. all in peace and without greed.

Greed and hate have created this system we live in and not following what god has said got us here. you like this system of things?


You can learn peace without following the bible. Not to mention many evil acts have come as a result of relgion and the bible. The crusades?

Bush is a strong believer, it hasn't tought him peace? People shouldn't need this book to lead good lives. I think it bible is simply an old book. No different than Giglimesh or The Iliad. People shouldn't need the bible to teach them how to live a good life. Not to mention it fails at what you say. Priests molesting children, a god fearing president waging war, and the "head" of the Catholic Church insulting and provoking extremist muslims. Yes please, let's speak of all this good the bible as taught.

Religion is becoming outdated. I don't need a fear of God to treat my fellow man with respect. I have respect for my brothers because I live in a halfway civilized society, not because I'm in fear of spending eternity in the fire pit.

Religion was invented to control the populace and I firmly believe it is an evil and negative istitution. As for the bible, it shouldn't be needed to teach tolerance or peace.

Most Christians don't know how to treat others with respect. As I said I grew up around them. Look at the way's they view homosexuality... Yes I can see how great a job the bible has done teaching these people the meaning of respect and equality.

[Krogith]

just because humans decide to NOT follow the bible and Kill one another ( the Crusades) this proves it false? how so they are false not it's teachings. the cross is a idol. the ones who use it as a idol and justifucation for war are following satan. the bible says being gay is wrong. so suporting it is following satan again....

Following what the bible says means aplying it. thoses who don't are chooseing that path.

[JaggedEdge]

The bible also say's none of us has the right to judge another for we have all sinned, yet it also tells us to judge the homo's because they take it from behind? Again you want to say that the bible teaches good yet you are saying it has given promission to treat a group of human beings like shit? Their is also a point in the bible where god strikes down a man and a woman because he spilled his seed on the ground. Do you have sex? Do you wear a condom? Do you masturbate? You are commiting a horrible sin according to the beloved bible. If you answer yes to any of this you are no better than the Homo's.

[Krogith]

god designed a man and a woman. going agenst what he has set for you is chooseing your path. we are all here right now able to choose our paths. God created all and has a right to set rules and ways for things to be done.

find me that scripture please. the seed on the ground

[JaggedEdge]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan


I'm getting ready for bed so I went to my favorite website, wikipedia.com
I have pasted the contents below, but is much better to view it at the website. I hate the way things look when I just paste it.

Wikipedia states...

Onan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For the Major League Baseball pitcher, see Onan Masaoka.
For Onan generators for RV, marine, home, commercial mobile, portable and APU applications see Cummins.

Onan (אוֹנָן "Strong", Standard Hebrew Onan, Tiberian Hebrew ʾÃ?nān) is a person described in the book of Genesis in the Bible.
[edit]

Narrative

Onan was the second son of Judah. After his older brother Er died, Onan was required by the tradition of levirate marriage to marry Er's widow Tamar. According to Genesis 38:7-9, when he had sexual intercourse with Tamar he "spilt his seed upon the ground" because the resulting child would be considered his late brother's, not his. In response to this transgression, God killed Onan. The transgression was disobeying God.
[edit]

Interpretations

The earliest interpretations were straightforward. What Onan had done was dishonor his dead brother and shirk his obligations. Exactly how he frustrated the purpose of levirate marriage was irrelevant. The text emphasizes the social or legal setting, with Judah describing what Onan has to do and why. The plain reading is that Onan's sin was refusal to provide his dead brother with an heir.

Medieval Catholic authors understood the activities of God in this story as a condemnation of contraception. This interpretation was held by important figures in the early Church, such as St. Jerome who makes explicit reference to Onan's sexual act:

But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? (Against Jovinian 1:19, A.D. 393)

Clement of Alexandria, though he does not make explicit reference to Onanism, certainly reflects an early Christian view of the abhorrence of "spilling seed":

Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted. (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 A.D. 191)

To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature. (The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3)

However, some modern Biblical scholars assert that Onan's primary sin was to violate the rules of levirate marriage. Possibly, the main purpose of these verses was to denote the punishment for violating the rules of levirate marriage, which was a divine law, rather than for practicing either coitus interruptus or masturbation. Most also understand the passage to refer to coitus interruptus.

More evidence against interpretation of Onan's sin as masturbation is contained in Leviticus 15, which discusses the ritual impurity resulting from heterosexual intercourse (verse 18) separately from that resulting from ejaculation (verses 16-17), implying that masturbation is not a capital offense.

The Book of Deuteronomy was written by Moses, (Deuteronomy 25:5-10 describes a way for the brother to decline this responsibility) who wrote long after the time of Onan. Onan was the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the Son of Isaac, The Son of Abraham. The time that has been estimated in which this occurence took place was the year 1729 B.C., Whereas the giving of the Law concerning the Brothers Duty, was given in 1451 B.C., 278 years seperate those events.
[edit]

Popular culture

Dorothy Parker quipped that her parakeet was named Onan because he spilled his seed.

David Foster Wallace in Infinite Jest depicts a future North American society governed by the Organization of North American Nations or O.N.A.N. Those opposed to the foreign policy of said government are known as anti-O.N.A.N.ists.

Momus, on his album Stars Forever, had a song titled "Onan the Barbarian".

The Catholic Church's teachings concerning birth control were the inspiration for the song, "Every Sperm is Sacred" in the movie, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.

Mel Brooks describes a character named Onan in his recording (with Carl Reiner) of the 2013 Year Old Man. "Onan was falling one day and grabbed on to himself and fell in love."

In the computer game Enter The Matrix, after Ghost spars with Trinity, Trinity asks about getting Ghost a girlfriend, to which he responds that he responds to a higher power, namely "Onanism."
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan"

Category: Torah people

[Krogith]

read the whole passage of genesis 38 you will see that he was told to have relations with his sister inlaw and because the offspring was not going to be his own he decided to not have any and directly disobay god by waisting his seed. thus his death

[Krogith]

the law then was if your brother died and left a widow then you have to marry her and her 1st born will still be of your brothers line. he decided to not follow gods law. hence death.

we also need to undrstand that after jesus were under the new laws. no longer are men to have muti wifes. after jesus death were under the new covnent. Thats why we do NOT do burnt offerings anylonger ( jesus was the perfect offering to atone for our sins wich adom has passed to us)