I think GA pointed this out earlier but it bears repeating because all of us are called by H.I.M to education and at no time did either he or Marcus Garvey make an exception. Some of us are talking about theories without understanding that a scientific theory is different from a regular theory.
quote:
A scientific theory is a structured explanation to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world that often incorporates a scientific hypothesis and scientific laws. The scientific definition of a theory contrasts with the definition most people use in casual language.
"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Emerson College in Boston. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
- https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
Science is often scoffed at by believers because it makes no attempt to pass off even the best explanations as if proven. The big bang cannot be proven any more than the story of creation and yet there is tons more evidence to support it than one of many creation myths. While science is HONEST about what it cannot prove, religion is not because it relies upon belief. Therefore religion attacks science simply because it wants people to believe a man-made story regardless of evidence. So most people who believe utilize, as evidence, the credibility of the bible. But here's the problem. That is circular logic because what people are saying is "I don't need evidence to believe the bible because it came from God". Why do you assume that it did? Because someone with an agenda told you they talked to God. You have ZERO evidence to prove this. And so your belief that the bible came from God is based on your belief in God (1) and your belief man spoke to God (2). Both of these cannot be scientifically tested. Both of these depend on humans being credible because it was a human who told you about God in the first place.
And they believed in gods based on superstition. They didn't have any other explanations. And so they assumed and created a story that they could be comfortable with. Human beings are uncomfortable not knowing. No one told the first human believer. The first believer had no holy book to base some kind of credibility on. But they told a story about what they thought happened. You can't prove this person any more trustworthy than Hitler or Mao. It should be obvious that such behavior isn't special and is rather derived from a set of circumstances. That's why Moses said you could beat your slaves.
But because you agree with the ancient believers you fail to notice how your own bias got involved. If the ancient writer was from a different tribe... somewhere else in Africa and he talks about different gods involved in creation you dont believe him. Why not? It is because you don't fear his gods. You don't fear his gods because he hasn't conquered you and has no power. We assume the biblical narrative is true because so many people believe it. This is a logical fallacy based on how many people accept it as true. But everyone accepting it as true isn't demanding proof. Why? Because it is enough for them that so many others believe it. It's "viral".
And so yes, the religion of Moses was powerful because it forced itself onto an entire nation. They were not allowed to disagree and they were punished for having any other belief. When other nations adopted this, whether conquered or not, they adopted part of the intolerance of other views, making it an echo chamber for ONE narrative. And so this is why you don't talk about other African creation myths; only this one. But again, it is NOT because it has demonstrated itself to be true. It is because it has demonstrated itself to be powerful because it was used to oppress by powerful people.
You talk about oppression like it's a bad thing and I agree that it is bad. But you give a pass to Moses because you share his beliefs. And there too did the Nazis share the belief of Adolf Hitler. But if you are against oppression you must be against it in ALL forms. ALL. You can't say Moses wasn't oppressive and ignore the fact that many were slaughtered in the story of Exodus. And if the Israelites didn't tolerate disbelief or other gods then why should Christians? Who do you think they learned their behavior from?
So I'm saying that if you want to use the logic of X is bad because people who believed X oppressed others... Then you need to shift where you yourself are in that equation.
The logic of X (belief or idea) is bad because Y (people) oppressed Z (others)
If you are Z then your bias works against X. If you are Y then your bias supports X. Do you see?
He that hath an ear, let him hear.
Often I hear people talk about savagely about whites as if they (being a small minority of those who could) are the only ones who have savagely oppressed others or committed genocide. But this is not true and this is only our recent memory speaking. If you go raid Canaan and you're spying out the land and launching a surprise attack against its people, how are you any different from the Europeans invading the lands of the native Americans? And the justification used was exactly the same. Manifest destiny. The idea that God gives the land to those who are or represent his "chosen people". But it's always the victors and aggressors who turn out to be the chosen people because no other historical narrative would survive. Think about it. What if the Canaanites were the true chosen people and were in communication with the true God? Would the Israelites tell you about it? Would they say they were wrong? Would they say they slaughtered "God's people"? Of course not. It's no different from Europeans not wanting to teach their own history (the parts where they enslaved and oppressed millions of Africans because a Catholic priest suggested we were cursed).
If you choose a narrative based on being on the same side as the "protagonists" of the narrative, you're doing the same thing. Because the ONLY difference is who gets to tell their own story. When black people don't get to tell the story, whose story is it? The bible does NOT represent the whole story. It represents the incredible bias of a people who were led to believe that their leader was chosen by God to judge and execute (oppress) them if they disagreed.
So you can't really have a free mind without escaping the weight and gravity of the bias of being the oppressor. The oppressor ALWAYS think they are righteous and justified.
|
|
