Noah

My point is that it would have been impossible for the flood to be global, so please improve your reading comprehension before making silly posts like that.

 

Whether it was global or not isn't central to the story so why does it matter? It is like watching a documentary about the Titanic and focusing on how man deck chairs there were instead of the events.

 

Are you saying that the scope of the flood that allegedly wiped out all of humanity (with the exception of a select family) is not relevant? How so?

A) Strawman much?
B) Despite the strawman, I will attempt to improve your oversimplified analogy by saying it is more like discussing watching a documentary about the titanic and focusing on whether the iceberg was actually an ice cube.

 

You use a strawman argument then claim one....oh the irony.

The geographical details of the story are not as important as much as why it happened. That is the whole point.

 

I pointed out that your position was a strawman, and attempted to improve your fallacious analogy. The fact that you can't grasp this is somewhat pitiful.

By all means, feel free to clarify your belief of why it allegedly happened.
Was it to wipe out mankind, with the exception of Noah's family, like some sort of supernatural do-over?

 

Whatever it was you were attempting to do you failed at doing it.

What does the Bible say about that?

 

How does that equate to racism in your mind.

Racism- the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Racist- a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

The entire premise of a studio or a production company is to create a product that is profitable, and promotional. They are telling a story and they need not only for the cast to be talented, which people of color definitely are, but it has to be a marketable commodity. When they cast John Wayne as Genghis Khan it wasn't that they hated Mongolians or felt superior to them, there just wasn't and isn't that many Mongolians who could do the job or make the film as marketable as using a headliner like 'the Duke'. As it turns out the movie was a piece of trash that never should have been done, but to claim it is racist, seems a bit naive and shallow.

Let's say they used an all American, middle eastern decent cast, is there anybody you can think of who would be as big of a draw as Russel Crow? Why would they even attempt to put so much money into a production that would most be likely a failure at the box office?

 

So how much of the Bible story of Noah's Flood can we ignore? or "isn't central"?

 

Yes I've been scratching my head on this rational as well.

 

This is the problem. Why not cast Will Smith as Noah? Surely he is as bigger pull as anyone. Yet, this would never happen because of racism in america. It is racism because it is deliberately distorting history in order to create a false image of the 'superiority' of europeans. It is the same as when they portray the messiah as a european, again deliberately distorting the truth, the same as the sistine chapel depicting Yah as a white man. It is creating false images in order portray a false sense of superiority. Yah created man and the messiah is the salvation of man, this is why europeans are hell bent are pretending to the bible that the salvation is through the white man.

 

Will Smith is the extreme opposite of what you are complaining about, and just as false. Jesus was not black, but a Jewish middle eastern. Like this picture depicts.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186

Think with a good tan.

That is the image that has been accepted for almost a thousand years. Created by Italians/Romans if you will. Hollywood didn't create that image for political or racist reasons. It is simply the common, acceptable rendition.

 

No, you need to stop right there. Dont begin to come across as naive or worse, racist. Stating the messiah was not 'black' because he was 'jewish' is simply put, retarded thought processing. For a start, the messiah is not depicted as so-called black in the media, you have just created the very definition of a strawman.

 

Accepted by europeans for sure and therein is the racism. The romans created that false image for this very purpose. They crucified him, you really think they now revere him, hardly. roman racism is still with us, its just become fashionable like being homosexual, still wrong.

 

Did you look at the picture I posted based on the type of person living in that region at the time in question? He was a Jewish/middle easterner, and people indigenous to that area are not black.

I am sure that some Europeans created an image that they could hold up as an example, but that doesn't mean the people who came later are automatically racist because they accept an image they have come to know as the truth. More people just have to spread the truth so in another thousand years from now it will be more closer to the truth. In reality we will never know what Jess looked like. At best it would be a guess. Two things we know for sure, he wasn't black and he wasn't blonde with blue eyes.

 

Ive seen the pic before. The indigenous to the region were not so-called black??? Wow. You are either very naive or have inherited some bizzare racist ideology. So-called blacks are indigenous to near all regions on earth never mind the levant lol. The levant is Afrikan territory up until relatively recent history. Since Kemet [Israel] collapsed the region has become over run by all comers from all corners. The natufian were the first ppl in the levant and in biblical terms the cannanites who were descended from Ham, the progenitor of all tribes on the Horn of Afrika, Somali's, Kenyans, Sudanese etc, all so- called black ppl from time immemorial.

 

This is your very definition of a strawman. We are not discussing whether the messiah was so- called black because guess what? he isnt depicted as such in the media. He is depicted as a lily white boy and this is what we are up against, the racist agenda written and manipulated by and for europeans only.

 

"lil white boy"????

why do you have to use such racist language?

- - - Updated - - -

it is possible, that Jesus was black.

but unlikely, as very few Jews back then were black.

- - - Updated - - -

Canaan was black, but Shem was not.

 

I guess that illustrates that your strawman was simply too ridiculous to fix...

Since you made the assertion:

Why don't you stop dodging the question and answer?

 

Jesus was dark skinned very much in the shade of Egyptian's.

AboveAlpha

 

Another strawman....

Already answered.

 

I made an oversimplified analogy of your position and then attacked it in lieu of your actual position? Where?
Are you just using the word "strawman" any time you don't have a valid response, without any real understanding of what it means?

Then you wouldn't have any difficulty doing so again, or at least providing a post number...

 

So you don't like when others point out your flawed logic? Too bad.

Why should I? Can't you read?

 

I don't know, you have yet to illustrate a flaw.

That's a sad attempt at a dodge.

 

Pot meet kettle....

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure that I did illustrate a logical fallacy in the below: