bcspace wrote:For some reason you do not address my concern?
I'm quite certain I did.
Have it your way. I'm learning more about you :-)Do you think equating "blackness with spiritual condition" is correct for us to do today?
I don't see why not. Consider:
First we should be careful about color references to lightness and darkness in ancient texts.....
Avoidance of the issue? I'm not that concerned with "ancient texts". "Ancient texts" root a lot of our social/political/economic and personal psyche problems today. Having historical knowledge of them, as you seem to have, without seeing their 'evils' is simply, IMSCO, a perpetuation of those "evils"...The Amorite people, according to Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, I:84, were "depicted ... with fair skins, light (also black) hair, and blue eyes" on Egyptian monuments. Yet, the Sumerians said they were "dark" savages (William F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, p. 166
Read above bolded again.
An interesting verse set along these lines is Daniel 11:35, 12:10
Notice in Lamentations 4:6-8 that whiteness is equated with goodness before a moral fall and a black appearance with sin.
As in the Book of Mormon also. That such was written in whatever books, by whomever does not make the premise correct. It simply reveals a prejudice of those people in their times and places. In being recorded they are historical. They are not morally correct, although they might have served a social purpose. A purpose that most today--such as I--consider nefarious. Do YOU agree with that "nefarious" conclusion?
BCS, you seem to be some what of an independent-thinker. I guess what I'm trying to determine is how independent, and under what parameters?
Ludwigm, good thoughts from Europe :-)
Harmony, luv yer impatience, Sis :-)
Roger