Accepting Race vs Denying Race

1. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   We are all of different tribes, cultures and customs. After all, before the invention of air travel, the differing cultures/races were not all mixed up as they are today. Now, it seems we have to deny there are inbuilt and inherited differences. We are expected to present skills, intelligence, common sense and customs equally. Those who do not comply and say politically incorrect things are immediately labeled "racist" by the politically correct souls who witness and are mortified by such "slip-ups." It is a confusing issue today, which the airplane and jet have greatly contributed to.
   
   Even before air travel, (for instance) ships brought different racial tribes to the shore of the "new" land, America. The indigenous people could not fight off the tribes who had sailed across the great ocean from other lands. In fact, some Indigenous tribes tried to get along with these foreign tribes. Well, as we know it did not work out. The tribes from Europe had guns and technology never seen by the indigenous before, due to their isolation. This did not mean the white tribes where superior to the red tribes. This meant one had a technological advantage.
   
   Anyway, the issue of tribes is an interesting one and I think we should acknowledge and accept our cultural differences, rather than hide them under the rug.
   The rug which one can either walk on or be walked on.

   replyreport
2. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   "Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (11 May 1752 – 22 January 1840) was a German physician, naturalist, physiologist, and anthropologist. He was one of the first to explore the study of the human being as an aspect of natural history. His teachings in comparative anatomy were applied to his classification of human races, of which he claimed there were five, popularizing the term Caucasian for people of those of generally found in Europe, western Asia, India, north Africa, and the Horn of Africa (including Somalia and Ethiopia)."
   
   He divided the human species into five races in 1779, later founded on crania research (description of human skulls), and called them the Caucasian or white race.
   Blumenbach was the first to use this term for people of European, Middle Eastern, and North African origin ...
   
   the Caucasian or white race.
   the Mongolian or yellow race, including all East Asians and some Central Asians.
   the Malayan or brown race, including Southeast Asian and Pacific Islanders.
   the Ethiopian or black race, including sub-Saharan Africans.
   the American or red race, including American Indians.
   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Fr … Blumenbach
   
                          
                                       VS
   
   
   
   Charles Robert Darwin,12 February 1809 – 19 April 188, was an English naturalist, geologist and biologist, best known for his contributions to the science of evolution. His proposition that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors is now widely accepted, and considered a foundational concept in science. In a joint publication with Alfred Russel Wallace, he introduced his scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, in which the struggle for existence has a similar effect to the artificial selection involved in selective breeding.
   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

   replyreport
   1. 58

      The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with 98% of that, KLH, the 2% I disagree with is "race." Unless we divide "man" into 'human and woman' meanings "minds unable to comprehend all things or exceed the ability of earth and everything hereon" and 'man' meaning "minds able to comprehend all thing and exceed the ab slitty of earth and everything hereon" our specie is the "race". If we make the foregoing distinctions then race would be the correct term, otherwise, the term to use would be ethnics.
      
      What "Johann Friedrich Blumenbach" revealed through his studies I concluded by interpreting the metaphors, allegories, parables and symbol-types of the Bible. It suggests the hairy man we were prior to civilization, the Adam and Eve story symbolizes, lost their hair and over time migrated to the various parts of the earth. It suggests Asians were the first to loose their hair which the Flood of Noah's time and Tower of Babel represent human/woman-en-mass, upon discovering them, loss their hair and and spread to the four corners of earth with Asians remaining in the east, American Natives went west, Africans went south and Europeans into the cold north to become lighter than Asians. All other ethnics are a mixture of those.
      
      So you gets no argument out of me, I'm in agreement except your title could have been "Race vs Ethnics."

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Well, thanks! As I said. I am confused about this issue regarding race, which, actually, most people probably are, as well.
         
         Why do employment forms and such ask what race you are?
         Or are they asking what ethnicity you are?

         replyreport
         1. 58

            The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            We are in the "Mystery Land of Confusion" where word definitions are changed to control its people. If they say ethnics that would mean they consider everyone man of their equal, by saying they are a race it means "they are a different specie". A trick they play on words.
            
            That is the same reason African-Americans hate to be called boy when the term is referring to an adult, they make believe "boy" is belittling although they go around saying they themselves are "good old boys". They refuses to even use the word "adolescent" because it means the time when every child is supposed to leave home and begin their "education" by bringing forth from within via objective observing, participating for different outcomes, reasoning the differences and being able to explain their findings". Those are just tricks they play on the ignorant they are able to get to swallow it.

            replyreport
      2. 60

         Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I just read this comment. This has to be a joke.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            most of what he writes ... but it is creative!

            replyreport
         2. 78

            Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            others believe, (supported by the OT,) some races were created by aliens from other worlds ... even better!

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               The old Testament supports pretty much anything you want to believe. If you take it out of context and cherry pick.
               
               My primary chuckle in that post came about his comments about men and women.  Only a man could believe anything so ridiculous.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  what? "hairy men" = the cave men and women ... right? I'm sure cave women were hairy too!
                  no?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     No the part about women not being able to understand all things, but men can. Sounds like a repressive cult in the making.

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        "Ask and you shall receive" so if you want an explanation ask or read some of my hubs where it is explained.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           I'm not interested in reading bs. Thanks anyway. Nor am I interested in sexist ramblings.

                           replyreport
                           1. 58

                              The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              Nothing I said has anything to do with genders. I was writing actual word definitions that this "mystery land of confusing it's people" deliberately schools us to accept as representing genders in order to use desertion between We The People.
                              
                              People who seek understanding would realize that genders for "mankind" (human, woman and man) are boys and girls and, according to their purposes, is only to be recognized once any of mankind reaches puberty. Prepuberty mankind are fetus, baby, children and adolescents.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 To make certain I understand you...you are saying that the ridiculous ( by my standards) comments you made concerning women and men, you believe of adult individuals and that comment clearly defines woman as a biological female and man as a biological male.
                                 
                                 Correct?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 58

                                    The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                    Leave to learn, human and woman have the same definitions, "hu" = hew or cut from man and "wo" = woven from man by what I read. When something is "cut from" or "woven from"  something neither are complete. The word man has the meaning of "mind able to comprehend all things" derived from "homo sapiens" which means "mind able to become wise" and there's wisdom was in everything. The Bible say man have dominion, (exceed the ability of) the earth and everything hereon. So, when Adam named them both "woven from man" it meant they didn't have the ability to be wise nor exceed the ability of earth and everything, is my reasoning. If you looked a Genesis 2:24, as I paraphrase it it reads "to return to being man woman must leave their parents teachings and reintegrate the wife (feminine or masculine attribute) and they both shall be in each one's flesh".
                                    
                                    If you read Adam's words said as soon as he woke up from his dream to see Eve, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man", along with the foregoing one can reason the meaning of woman is "incomplete mind".
                                    
                                    Aren't man's children called babies, children and adolescents, because they are not old enough to reproduce and once they reach puberty they become boys (sperm producers) and girls (egg producers) for reproducing. So how do you expect to "learn" if you don't reason with what you read?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                       You really go around your butt to get to your elbow on that one.
                                       
                                       I'll be honest. I think one reason Christ had to come was because people spent too much time reading too much into simple concepts. I guess, because they want to think they can know the mind of God, thus putting themselves spiritually above others, in their own minds.
                                       
                                       People. They never learn.

                                       report
                                    2. 58

                                       The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                       That Christ came doing the same thing I'm doing, interpreting, the events, symbols, prophetic types, parables and giving other information on how to comprehend the last day's events. Without his Gospels and Revelation's additions I would not be able to comprehend that today's events are lest than 10 years from the beginning of the first of seven millenniums before the "Alternate earth with alternate people are produced for the alternate civilization" (Rev. 21). I would not recognize the USA is the bible's most prophesied nation exceeding while including many about the nation of Israel. I would never have followed his 18 years of wondering (John 3:8) he told us the "born again" would be like which, because of the "great commission," has brought me the understanding of life I have.
                                       
                                       His instructing us to "observe all thing I've commanded you" does not mean to just look at them but to tear them into words, phrases and contexts (like I taught my step-son how to understand what he read before I left for this life) to see what is said, what is not said, to whom it is spoken and why.
                                       
                                       If someone is living to learn, I would suppose, they would at least know that much.

                                       report
                                       1. 60

                                          Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                          LOL. You keep making up nonsense. I'll keep ignoring it. Thanks for the laugh. This conversation is over, but it's been a hoot.

                                          report
3. 60

   Live to Learnposted 4 years ago

   I don't know what you mean by accepting, not hiding, our cultural differences. What does culture have to do with race?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "The term culture refers to ideas, behaviors, beliefs, and traditions shared by a large group of people and transmitted between generations. While cultural differences may also include racial differences, much diversity exists within one culture and within one race."
      
      https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guide … e-and-race

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         You have to clarify exactly what you are driving at. What differences, exactly? I haven't noticed anyone attempting to hide or ignore cultural differences.  So, give us examples of what you are referring to, please.

         replyreport
4. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   It seems to me that culture, customs and race are very much intwined. Should we only discus culture in relation to tribes of people who are of the same race??
   
   
   I am actually quite confused by all this talk, (the constant discussion,) of racism.

   replyreport
5. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   Tim Truzy info4u wrote:
   " ...Research has demonstrated that White and Black kids on par with each other in math until about fifth grade. What happens then? Research has shown these children of color begin to receive subtle signals that they cannot perform math, etc. Likewise, meeting and seeing role models who are successful plays a part in success. The positive reinforcement must be ongoing. Also, these children of color are penalized for not having specific cultural knowledge as opposed to a true measurement of intelligence."
   
   I have been trying to understand his point of view:
   
   My response:
   
   "We need to know WHO (what race of people) exactly, is treating blacks in the manner you describe.
   The answer, of course, is obvious.
   
   So, white teachers expect their black students to understand white culture and measure up to white standards.
   
   You indicate that white teachers need to use a "true measurement of intelligence" for their black students.
   
   What would that true measurement be?
   (I think we need that "true measurement" for ALL races of students.")
   
   https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/343 … ion?page=3

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That sounds fairly racist.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly ... but  W H Y?
         
         
         On the other hand there ARE distinctions to deal with as Tim wrote ...
         
         
         Right?

         replyreport
6. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   Personally, I prefer the thought that we are all spirits and children made in the Image of God and have done with it.
    
   If you are an American citizen, you are an American.
   
   For instance, why should I have to mark "Caucasian" when filling out forms?
   Or that one is some other race, such as Pacific Islander or African American or Asian ...
   Or any race at all?
   
   There something political about it all, I suppose.
   
   ... But wouldn't it be better for American society if there were no racial distinctions to deal with?

   replyreport
   1. 58

      The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It's like it's said, there is money to be made where there is dissension between the people so they want to control human-en-mass and keep them money dependent by keeping things for them to desire that money can buy.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Yep.

         replyreport
7. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   "Diversity in NIH, (National Institutes of Health) Programs
   
   NIH encourages institutions to diversify their student and faculty populations to enhance the participation of individuals from groups identified as nationally underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral and social sciences.  These groups include: individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds and women at senior faculty levels in biomedical-relevant disciplines.  See more at: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/not … -053.html.  This Notice clarifies the definitions for each racial and ethnic group as reflected in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.
   
   Racial and Ethnic Categories
   
   In 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued the Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. See, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/om … standards.  These standards are commonly used for federal data collection purposes, not only in the decennial census, but also in household surveys, on administrative forms (e.g., school registration and mortgage lending applications), and in medical and clinical research. The revised standards contain five minimum categories for race: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. There are two categories for ethnicity: "Hispanic or Latino" and "Not Hispanic or Latino."
   
   Definitions for Racial and Ethnic Categories
   
   The Revisions to OMB Directive 15 defines each racial and ethnic category as follows:
   
   American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
   Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
   Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as "Haitian" or "Negro" can be used in addition to "Black or African American."
   Hispanic or Latino. A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term, "Spanish origin," can be used in addition to "Hispanic or Latino."
   Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
   White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa."
   
   https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/not … 5-089.html

   replyreport
   1. 58

      The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Here again, categorizing in order to treat them according to the biases established for each category. The same is true for saying "there are three (four if one count the American/Alaskan Natives) worlds". The first world is Europeans, the second are Asians and the third African, they don't even recognize the American/Alaskan naives since they already hav e complete control of their lands.
      
      All of that is designed to keep the people from uniting so they can be controlled by the Europeans.

      replyreport
8. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th … l-progress

   replyreport
9. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   On the other hand, Obama accepted the challenge straight on with My Brother's Keeper.
   
   "President Obama launches a new effort aimed at empowering boys and young men of color, a segment of our society that too often faces disproportionate challenges and obstacles, to success."
   February 27, 2014.
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_8EHR8Kklg

   replyreport
10. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    University of Virginia: BMOC
    "This is a multi-university collaboration focused on engaging developing scholars to focus on positive youth development approach to studying effective development of boys of color. Senior investigators with rich, pertinent longitudinal data sets are collaborating with scholars across the stages of career to undertake secondary analyses to improve the quality and extent of empirical knowledge about this important and under-studied population."
    https://curry.virginia.edu/faculty-rese … goes-right
    
    Interestingly, Virginia did not adopt Common Core
    The Commonwealth of Virginia did not adopt the Common Core because they have already invested large amounts of money and time in developing Virginia Standards of Learning (the SOLs)—standards they believe to be superior to Common Core standards.
    https://curry.virginia.edu/uploads/reso … _Color.pdf

    replyreport
11. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    So, if a Caucasian president had implemented programs for African American males "of color," and identified them such, would they be so well accepted?
    
    
    Wondering

    replyreport
12. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    On the other hand,
    If  a n y  POTUS, (no matter what genetic make-up,) creates programs featuring, research, funding, cooperation and inspiration for educational and psychological progress, for ALL children regardless of race or ethnicity, wouldn't that be even
    
                      B E T T E R ?

    replyreport
    1. 58

       The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       Definitely!!!

       replyreport
13. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    Can't we all just be AMERICANS and start there?

    replyreport
    1. 58

       The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       Not until the Constitution is used by all governors, including corporations'.

       replyreport
14. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    No, because some poor souls are from areas (neighborhoods, towns and cities) which feature LESS $$$$$$$
    
                           We have to have EQUITY!!!!
    
    Its the NEW LAW OF THE LAND, apparently.
    
    ... and its going against natural law.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       That's where Article 1.8.1 comes into play, stop the military's offensive attack pretending to defend our nation and use that money to "generalize the nation's welfare" nation wide.

       replyreport
15. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    I say:
    Let each neighborhood work out it's own troubles in the way they see fit.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       That circumvents Article 1.8.1.

       replyreport
16. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    Article 1.8.1.
    "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    
    
    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
    
    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
    
    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
    
    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
    
    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"

    replyreport
17. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    What is "general Welfare,"  e x a c t l y ?

    replyreport
    1. 58

       The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       "General" means the entire population of people including visitors; "Welfare" means the foods and services necessary to sustain the established living conditions. They require an equal distribution of goods and services needed by everyone to sustain themselves comfortably.
       
       In order to achieve that a Uniting (to make no difference among man for any reason) of everyone so that classes don't exist, wealth wealth is equally distributed and all laws are to ensure that happens.

       replyreport
       1. 78

          Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I do not think so. It means the general, overall, well being of all Americans.
          Not specific dole-outs for those who are unemployed, etc.

          replyreport
          1. 58

             The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

             In a Democracy as this nation claims and as the Preamble reads, there are no person higher than any other and they all work together to maintain the whole, thus, "general welfare" is written.
             
             That was why the various Native groups furnished the Constitution's concepts to the nation's founders, it was what they wanted them to see. That was also what Washington was saying when he said "let us raise a standard only the wise and honest can repair..." he knew they had the selfish nature their being from a cold climate that had a short growing season, especially in those colder days, endowed them with so they could not implement it. Thus, we pledged an allegiance to it without comprehending what the words means.
             
             The natives lived democratic.

             replyreport
             1. 78

                Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                In a Democracy as this nation claims and as the Preamble reads, there are no person higher than any other (really)? and they all work together to maintain the whole, (NO! You have to be kidding!) thus, "general welfare" is written. (You are really mistaken.)
                
                "That was why the various Native groups furnished the Constitution's concepts to the nation's founders, it was what they wanted them to see."
                (No, I do not agree. Only a few concepts. The Constitution is based on a  profound knowledge of history and understanding of the philosophical writings of the enlightenment period.)
                
                "That was also what Washington was saying when he said, "Let us raise a standard only the wise and honest can repair..." ( In reference to what standard?)
                
                He knew they (who?) had the selfish nature,( their being from a cold climate that had a short growing season, especially in those colder days,) (really?) endowed them with, (what?) so they could not implement it. (implement what?)
                
                Thus, we pledged an allegiance to it (what?) without comprehending what the words meant. (I do not know what words you refer to.)
                
                The natives lived democratically. (This was not the reality of all of them. Many tribes had tyrannic and brutal chiefs.)

                replyreport
                1. 58

                   The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                   Washington's statement was referring to the Constitution. The "who" represent most of the nation's founders.
                   
                   The pledge "was" to the nation that doesn't even attempt to govern constitutionally and unite. The pledge of all government officials are to protect the Constitution but they must mean only the document and not its laws.
                   
                   I been among many Native tribes and they all are crying about how the tribes generally lived as a single family with everyone doing whatever needed to be done. They cry about how their European schooling and tricks brought division between tribes since there were few tribal fights among them before the last finding of this land and renaming it America.

                   replyreport
                   1. 78

                      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                      You did not live amongst the Apaches of old.

                      replyreport
       2. 96

          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          A common misconception, promoted by socialists that wish to redistribute income and wealth from those that earned it to those that did not.
          
          In reality the "general welfare" is exactly what it says; the welfare of the state, and it's people, in general; it does not refer to individuals at all, only the whole and there is no mention or intent to try and "equalize" every person with every other.  Not even to an "established living condition", allowing everyone to exist "comfortably" from the efforts of others.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

             I will point out that any system in place will eventually end up with the top 10% having more, collectively, than the bottom 90%
             
             The tree has to be shaken, occasionally.

             replyreport
             1. 58

                The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                L to L, according to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZxv-0LxG_A whoever get the seat when Trump is removed will "drain the swap" of CORRUPTION that Biblical prophecy say will be the messiah then the end of the world comes.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                   The US is not so important that the Bible predicted what happens after Trump.

                   replyreport
                   1. 58

                      The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                      Can you prove that to me? Then do it.

                      replyreport
                      1. 60

                         Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                         You must prove it is, to support your claim. You asking me for proof is like me claiming I have a trex as a pet. I don't get to expect you to take it as gospel just because I claim it.
                         
                         This is the problem I have with 'epiphanies' people claim. Parts sound fairly reasonable and then, the bizarre claims emerge. You can't expect reasonable people to agree with irrational thought processes.

                         replyreport
                         1. 58

                            The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                            Is a person unreasonable to study prophecies written in symbols reflecting the time and place they live in or is a person irrational to disbelieve to the degree that they will not study something because human-en-mass believe it's divine?
                            
                            When I studied and meditated on the epiphany of the one called Jesus in relation to historical facts I realized some the things didn't pan out; many of the things in the book reflects the nation I live in, the USA, so I couldn't turn my back on a book, although I have seen it change during my 74 years of life since my "gut" said keep studying. So I've devoted my life to understanding it since "stuff" and "money" were never things of value too me.
                            
                            My meditative studies caused me to analyze many things I though were lies about me I has said as an adolescent and saw they have manifested exactly as spoke years later which encouraged me to keep studying the book. By that studying the book I see how most of the events in it has very similar manifestations and some said exactly some of the thing this nation has become. So, it is not my fault that people who "live to learn" are not willing to devote time to learning but instead will read something and reject it right out. Because I am a "Philosophy" my love of wisdom doesn't allow me to reject anything but directs me to put them in my mental "to be proven file" to see how/if it manifests.
                            
                            Thus, the symbols are proof enough for me to reveal my findings to others to do with whatever they want. I see the correlation you say isn't there so why don't you study it to show me my errors that I may correct them. Don't make statements contradicting someone's findings unless you show reason why.

                            replyreport
                            1. 60

                               Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                               If your revelation includes bull about men seeing all and women incapable I would think the fact that reality refutes you would serve as proof enough your ideas don't stand up to any rational review.

                               replyreport
             2. 78

                Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                why?

                replyreport