Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectIsis Papers
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=13559
13559, Isis Papers
Posted by Chike, Fri Jun-01-01 06:07 AM
As promised, here's a chance for those who loved it to defend it and those who hated it to attack it.

The cross thing offended me.

The ball game stuff, I found ludicrous.

But what sticks out the most when it comes to why I'm not down with Dr. Frances Cress Welsing is stuff like "The Neurochemical Basis For Evil".

A genetic condemnation of an entire race? Call me Uncle Tom, but I'm not feelin' that. It seems to me that the goal of this book is to grapple with a much-grappled-with question: how can one people wreak so much havoc and long-lasting destruction in the world? Talk to me about traditional African ethics vs. traditional European ones, I'll agree. But to imagine we're just built that way and they're not? I blame the European's path on history and the way society works and the way power in society works to propagate itself. I think people would agree if they look at something like Rwanda. Are Africans just predisposed to slaughter one another? Hell no! You're not making excuses for crimes against humanity by admitting different historical factors led up to horrid lack of humanity displayed by people trying to exterminate each other.

I guess you could say I'm more nurture than nature.

Anyway, speak your mind on the book...
13560, Nurture?
Posted by k_orr, Fri Jun-01-01 06:25 AM

So you're suggesting that thousands of years of how they live their life, hasn't affected their biology.

Natural selection perhaps?

don't know, and could care less.
We spend too much time worry about what white folks have done, and continue to do, and not what we're doing and what we will do.

It's like the constant discussion of white folks on a hip hop board, counter productive.

k. orr
13561, know thy enemy
Posted by urbgriot, Fri Jun-01-01 06:38 AM
13562, what don't we know
Posted by k_orr, Fri Jun-01-01 07:01 AM
at this point though?

Know thyself

k. orr
13563, I take your point
Posted by Chike, Fri Jun-01-01 06:39 AM
Not about biology, but about talking so much about what whites have done, etc.* Still, I think evaluating what some respected and/or controversial commentators on the African's people position in the world and in history have said is not without value. Thanks anyway for your comment.

*Check BooDah's post about Black people bitchin'...
13564, it has value
Posted by k_orr, Fri Jun-01-01 07:14 AM
but it's a belabored point.

I can tell you what all those books are gonna tell you

White folks are evil.
here is the evidence.

Black folks are good.
here is the evidence

Now show me where any of them are putting together strategies and real life tactics about how to get us out our predicament.

Obviously a call for unity hasn't worked.
Obviously direct political action has run it's course.
Obviously economic/financial initiatives started by others has limited effect.

Let's figure out what has worked for us, and expand on them.

I already know that I live in a culture that will do everything it possibly can to resist me. It will inflitrate my food, water, culture, news, land, et cetera. There is nothing you can tell me that won't just re-iterate that fact.

Now that I'm mad at white folks, what am I gonna do now?

Look at the history of the NOI. What have they done?
couple a speeches, a few marches, some newspapers, get some brothers out of "the life". But where are our factories, farms, and department stores? what about elected officials?

of not opting into the system, how are they opting out?
Where are the afrikan intellectual exchanges?

it's a shell game. they keep trying to confuse about the real issue.

k. orr
13565, RE: it has value
Posted by Chike, Fri Jun-01-01 07:23 AM
That sounded cathartic. All that you said resonates with me and many, I'm sure, but you seem to feel like there's something we missed in terms of finding avenues towards change. I'm not sure there is. It is the TALKING instead of DOING that is the problem, I would venture to say.
13566, talking vs doing
Posted by k_orr, Sat Jun-02-01 05:39 AM

I don't do anything until I've researched it. So talking about it, discussing it, seeing the possible ramifications of my actions, is very much apart of the way I do things now. I've jumped in head first 2 at least a couple of local efforts. It was until I was deep in the mix, when I realized that I was either not doing anything positive, or actually doing harm.

Deliberated and conscious decisions.

where in the deliberation part now.

k. orr
13567, this is exactly what
Posted by LexM, Mon Jun-04-01 03:54 AM
>Look at the history of the
>NOI. What have they
>couple a speeches, a few marches,
>some newspapers, get some brothers
>out of "the life".
>But where are our factories,
>farms, and department stores?
>what about elected officials?
>of not opting into the system,
>how are they opting out?
>Where are the afrikan intellectual exchanges?

I was asking someone the other day about the 5%ers. 5% of the population (that they claim to have in their ranks) is an awful lot of people. if that many people are that righteous, then what are we still doing in the situation we're in...

~~~SPITFIRE (NEW DATE): AUGUST 23, 2001~~~
Wanna know more? Hit me up: carameldom@hotmail.com
(((check the flyers: http://www.geocities.com/bmorestreetwise/flyers.html)))

http://www.welcome.to/okaypoets (u ain't a real okayplayer if u ain't been here)

"cats pop champagne/over misery and pain/like slaves on the ship/talkin 'bout/who got the flyest chains" ~~Talib Kweli

"you can't fool me! I'm too stupid!" (c) a random warner bros. cartoon character
13568, RE: Nurture?
Posted by Ape Redwood, Fri Jun-01-01 06:51 AM
>So you're suggesting that thousands of
>years of how they live
>their life, hasn't affected their
>Natural selection perhaps?

But realize how easily the same argument can be, scratch that, IS flipped by white pseudoscientists. Besides, even if white people are prediposed to evil, that wouldnt mean that ALL of them are evil. Just like saying, I dont like girls with flat booties so I'll never date an Asian girl. Then when an Asian cutie with junk in her trunk comes along you'll miss out. Anyway, I'm just arguing for argument's sake, I dont like to waste calories defending my felow white people when they really need to be broken down.
13569, No doubt.
Posted by k_orr, Fri Jun-01-01 07:09 AM

>But realize how easily the same
>argument can be, scratch that,
>IS flipped by white pseudoscientists.

I was just raising the point. You could argue nature/nurture. You could argue how elites who happen to be whites have a vested interest. You could argue that the true culprit is money/greed/avarice?

But at the end of the day, once you've completely analyzed the next man, when are you gonna turn to yourself and those like you?

k. orr
13570, Isis Papers IS PROOF!!....
Posted by mcbadfeet, Fri Jun-01-01 06:41 AM
...that europeans don't have a monopoly on psuedo-science.
-representin the real since tuesday
-illified illustrated.word.fresh.

FROM THE GROUND UP- ROOTS 2nd CD- BUY NOW: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000073F6/qid=989953006/sr=1-1/202-6163542-0903066

OKAY...now i am recognizin that the choice to rhyme for self is urgin me to to put the wealth not quite as high upon the shelf/ for me wisdom is decisions made aside from what ya'll like/ so just clean up all of your ears/ these are my views and you will find that/we revolutionize it with the kick and the snare.....(c)thisghettovocalist

MY LATEST RAP ALIASES- mcbadfeet aka: the mayor goldie wilson of rap, aka big chris the juicebox, aka jesus jones retired messiah, aka the black jamie lawson of rap, aka thurgood killabitch the IV, aka brooklyn jackson from queens, aka homer pimpson, aka alex p. cheatin, aka benny ill, aka stank sinatra, aka michael j. rocks
13571, RE: Isis Papers IS PROOF!!....
Posted by bluetiger, Fri Jun-01-01 07:12 AM
>...that europeans don't have a monopoly
>on psuedo-science.


↑ yours

"unadulterated hate, so ugly" - binlahab

ô & © & ∆

*Alter Your Ego*
13572, the original muthafka n/m
Posted by rgv, Fri Jun-01-01 06:58 AM
ruling goddess of venus
risin growin victoriously
really gettin vexed
rude girl virgo
13573, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by guest, Fri Jun-01-01 07:07 AM
if it isn't true,then why are scientists trying to find the gene for evil as well as the gene that makes people criminally deviant?they have decoded the entire human genome(or so they say)and it is obvious that we are not who we are only because of our environment,but because of what is in our genes also.
13574, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by cued, Fri Jun-01-01 11:37 AM
I started reading them.

and then I put them down

what a bunch of crock... I mean... what is she doing that is so... awe inspiring? She makes little to no sense. Her writing style is horrible. Her analysis is based on Eurocentric methods...

All that said, I would suggest that people read them. Why? Because even in sheer lunacy truth exists.

However, finding myself laughing at her, disagreeing with her (I hated her analysis of Black gay men... it nearly pissed me off), and agreeing/seeing/feeling her... I was going through too many changes to learn anything useful, I felt.




Uplifting thoughts:

"We are the end result of our ancestors prayers as they died. We you are the sum total of their answered prayers."

"I am because we are; we are because I am."

"falling in love with somebody's soul...their essence their personality their walk their talk the way they speak and smile...no matter what the physical outer body is..male or female...is a temptation i hope i am never foolish enough to resist." - Hot Damali

13575, With a grain of salt
Posted by Nettrice, Fri Jun-01-01 06:28 PM
Okay, so I dusted off my copy of "The Isis Papers" and took another look at some of what she asserted about white supremacy. The book was actually helpful for me to reject some of the images portrayed in the media.

I am a sometime conspriracy theorist and I am a visual artist so I see symbols of white supremacy in lots of instances, especially in the media. I agree with white supremacy as "the basis of a negative self image and concept of the self..." I also believe that these images are so ingrained in the psyche that it hard to separate reality from the "white" socio-political dream.

I also strongly agree that "the length of time required to neutralize global white supremacy will be inversely proportional to 1) the level of understanding of the phenomenon; plus 2) the evolution of self-and group respect, the will, determination and discipline to practice the appropriate counter-racist behaviors- on the part of the non-white victims of white supremacy."

I take some of Welsing's other assertions about symbols with a grain of salt. The cross and male genitalia concept is interesting if unimportant. The point is to reject or re-assess all the of the images we are bombarded with by the media.

"The Neurochemical Basis of Evil" may be contrived but the overall point is that the enslavement and oppression of African people and their decendants is insidious (even more so because racism thrives). I was especially interested in "Black Fear and the Failure of Black Analytical (Idealogical) Commitment". I was looking for a way to explain the behavior of some of the Black people I interacted with as a college student activist.

The cross and balls theories watered down the overall book but was interesting to read about, nonetheless.

Back to images and symbols:

I presented an illustration in class about negative or false images in advertising and it was a recreation of an 1920s advertisement featuring a watermelon-eating Black man with saucer eyes and exaggerated lips. I was determined to prove that the white people in my class would not recognize the ad as a negative image. I was successful. The professor and some in the class asked me what the negative image was. I had just read "The Isis Papers".

One of my recent paintings features dancers with dark skin and "natural" hair (afros). One of my older white co-workers saw it and said she loved the piece and she, too, collected monkeys. She saw African dancers and equated them with monkeys.

Part of my activism is creating images that address some aspect of the legacy of the African diaspora- from heritage, to the middle passage, to heroes and I have had to explain to some Black people why I paint only Black people. The way people respond to these images supports Welsing's theory about "symbols and brain process". It helped me to understand that people are brainwashed to reject, or resist any image that counters the ones created in the "white supremacist system".

I am glad I read the book.

"Know thyself"

"Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, "I will never leave you or forsake you". So we may boldly say, "The Lord is my helper, I will not fear. What can man do to me?"
-- Hebrews 13:5,6

"There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path"
--Morpheus in "The Matrix"

"It's our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities"- Dumbledore to Harry Potter "Chamber of Secrets"
13576, I'm glad I read the book
Posted by Nettrice, Fri Jun-01-01 06:33 PM
But I moved on, grew up and only took from the book what helped me understand that there is something deep within the psyche of many people that perpetuates white supremacy.

"Know thyself"

"Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, "I will never leave you or forsake you". So we may boldly say, "The Lord is my helper, I will not fear. What can man do to me?"
-- Hebrews 13:5,6

"There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path"
--Morpheus in "The Matrix"

"It's our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities"- Dumbledore to Harry Potter "Chamber of Secrets"
13577, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by osoclasi, Sat Jun-02-01 09:31 AM
Boy, you really went old school in your topic of books. I had to go find my copy. Man I have'nt looked at this book in years. So let me quickly give a brief summary of what I think. Well obviously Dr. Welsing is not a theologian because whenever she uses Christianity to back her point she always takes it out of context or just makes up something to back up her argument. Like for instance look at pg 68 where she says that "Jesus, the black man, was then hung on a cross, a peculier invention of the Romans (white) pysche. Actually the Romans didn't invent the cross the Persians did. It was even practice in Phonicia,Carthage, and Egypt. It was used as a way of public display so others would not want to share the same fate. It was not a fallic symbol and heres how . The Persians lifted the person off the ground because they thought that the person guilty should not be on the ground since the ground represted one of there gods. The Romans used spikes five to seven inches long and would charge them threw the victims median nerve. The reason why the victim was hung that way was because the person would die of something called asphyxiation, the reason is that the stress on the muscles and diaphragm put the chest into the inhaled position; basically, in order to exhale, the individual must push up on his feet so the tension on the muscles would ease for a moment. In doing so , the nail would tear through the foot, eventually locking up against the tarsal bones. After managing to exhale, the person would then be able to relax down and take another breath in.As the person slows down his breathing, he goes into what is called respiratory acidosis. This leads to an irregular heartbeat. This is why the cross is the way it is not because it is a fallic symbol.

Then she gets way off on pg 26 when she says that Adam and Eve's original sin was because of sexual intercourse. God command them to be fruitful and multiply. It was'nt because of sexual intercourse it was because of disobedience. Then on pg 27 she says that the fall is a symbolic expression of mutation. No it is not a expression of mutation but it is a way of saying that we have fallen from Grace. She also tries to turn Christianity into a race issue and you simply can't. The Bible never mentions the word race throughout the entire book. So on pg 68 where she says that Christ died for whites and shed blood for whites then that meanst the verses like Matt 28 where it says Baptise all nations in the name of the Father, Son , and Holy Ghost is a contridiction. Or Gal 3:26 where God makes it clear we are all the same in his eyes.
13578, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by cartier_allah1, Sun Jun-03-01 08:39 PM
frist and formost the cross was a roman creation the p shaped x was a roman piece. the recent cross is a combination of the roman and kemitian cross. second if you knew anything about kemit you would know that the snake in kemtian myth represented knowledge adam and eve sin was becoming educated. although people take it truth to word. frist think of when the bible was created 327 ad after the thrid ecumencial council. the principle of the book was to keep the people from questioning the theology it had nothing to do with the historical characters of adam and eve. and finally god infact did and was bias toward on grouping of people infact the hebrew where his people of choice he hated if you read the final book of revealation you will see. will i do agree with you in the fact that she might be a little on the ethno she's breakin thru to the people more than i can say for uncle tom cornell west.
13579, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by cartier_allah1, Sun Jun-03-01 08:46 PM
to continue on the adam and eve shit.when i mean educated they became notstics they possed the esoteric understanding of god which pissed him off. remind you the qoute ingnorance is bliss qouted out of the bible "the wisdom in the world is evil and foolishes is a good thing" 1 cor 1:25-6 this was a clear poly to prevent the followers from questioning.
13580, 1 cor 25-26
Posted by osoclasi, Mon Jun-04-01 04:58 AM
Actually, this passage is refering to the wisdom of the world vs the wisdom of God. So to man Gods wisdom is foolish, they can't understand it. But in actuallity the foolishness of God is superior to the wisdom of man. It should be noted that in the day when corinthians was written Philosphy was a big deal in the Greek mindset. They would sit around for hours debating not for an answer but simply to show their intellect. This is what Paul wants us to avoid worldy wisdom.
13581, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by osoclasi, Mon Jun-04-01 04:53 AM
>frist and formost the cross was
>a roman creation the p
>shaped x was a roman

Responce: No, it was a persian invention the Romans copied it.

the recent cross is
>a combination of the roman
>and kemitian cross. second if
>you knew anything about kemit
>you would know that the
>snake in kemtian myth represented
>knowledge adam and eve sin
>was becoming educated.

Responce: Now, why would becoming educated be considered a sin?
The Lord told them not to eat but they ate it anyway. Disobediance. The Bible never tells us to stay ignoranct in fact it says otherwise. Matt 22:37 lave the Lord with all your heart and your MIND. Isa 26:3-Rom 12:2 Isa 1:18

although people
>take it truth to word.
>frist think of when the
>bible was created 327 ad
>after the thrid ecumencial council.

Responce : No the bible was not created in 327 Ad. There is reason to believe that all of the gospels were written before AD 70. The council your referring to probably were trying to figure out the canon of scripture, not the bible itself.

>the principle of the book
>was to keep the people
>from questioning the theology it
>had nothing to do with
>the historical characters of adam
>and eve.

Responce:what book are you talking about the bible or the isis papers? the bible has everything to do with Adam and Eve because if there was no fall then there would be no need for a Messiah.

and finally god
>infact did and was bias
>toward on grouping of people
>infact the hebrew where his
>people of choice he hated
>if you read the final
>book of revealation you will
Responce: I have read revalations. God was not bias toward any group of people.As a matter of fact if you don't have a huge background in the old testament you might want to leave revalations alone.

will i do agree
>with you in the fact
>that she might be a
>little on the ethno she's
>breakin thru to the people
>more than i can say
>for uncle tom cornell west.

13582, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by cartier_allah1, Mon Jun-04-01 09:56 PM
look the princpal reason for the nicean council of 325 was to settle a debate between to factions the eastern orthodoxy and the western chruch. the problem lied in there interpretation of the nature a christ. if the bible was constrcted in 70ad then this would not have been a problem. because the trinty is cleary stated in the maunal scrpit. but since the tradtion was still an oral one. the western viewed christ as a devine while the eastern view him as a man with a devine intent. so the council of nicea was set up to stop this bickering. the comprimise was set by at the time leader of the western side of rome constantnie he made the mandate that jesus's nature was that of a man with a devine soul meaning he was god on earth. my main point is how would you have a devision of christ nature when in the bible it's clearly stated. this types of arguments happen usally with oral tardtions.

second. adam and eve sin was become learn. thatz why god broke his language down into many to devide the knowlede wich adam and eve possed. think about why didn;t the kemitians have a written langauged and use hyrogphics instead of phonetic symbols. the answer is simple langauge prohibits infinte descriptions 26 letters alpha-beta they prevent ideas out of the phonetic combination to become realized. adam and eve possed such wisdom and that why the snake is used to represent the kemtian form of expression.
13583, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by Jennyfer, Tue Jun-05-01 03:44 PM
>second. adam and eve sin was
>become learn. thatz why god
>broke his language down into
>many to devide the knowlede
>wich adam and eve possed.

When Adam and Eve were around there was only one language....Centuries later at the tower of babel is where the language were changed. This was after the Great Flood.
Adam and Eve disobied God that's what caused the fall.

the answer is
>simple langauge prohibits infinte descriptions
>26 letters alpha-beta
>they prevent ideas out of
>the phonetic combination to become

All alphabets dont contain only 26 letters.....if im not mistaken in japanese there is over 1000 of them.

13584, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by cartier_allah1, Wed Jun-06-01 08:25 PM
sista my point is that language limits capacity for imagination. you can only come up with with what your language allows you too. and the reason the japaness is a thousand or so charatacers is because it;s not phono-ideographs they themsleves are pictures
13585, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by osoclasi, Fri Jun-08-01 07:58 AM
>look the princpal reason for the
>nicean council of 325 was
>to settle a debate between
>to factions the eastern orthodoxy
>and the western chruch. the
>problem lied in there interpretation
>of the nature a christ.
>if the bible was constrcted
>in 70ad then this would
>not have been a problem.
>because the trinty is cleary
>stated in the maunal scrpit.
>but since the tradtion was
>still an oral one. the
>western viewed christ as a
>devine while the eastern view
>him as a man with
>a devine intent. so the
>council of nicea was set
>up to stop this bickering.
>the comprimise was set by
>at the time leader of
>the western side of rome
>constantnie he made the mandate
>that jesus's nature was that
>of a man with a
>devine soul meaning he was
>god on earth. my main
>point is how would you
>have a devision of christ
>nature when in the bible
>it's clearly stated. this types
>of arguments happen usally with
>oral tardtions.

Responce: No, the very nature of Christ was at stake. A man by the name of Arius was trying to denounce Christ Diety. But just because there is a dispute does'nt mean it was due to oral tradition. In this case it was due to a disageement.
>second. adam and eve sin was
>become learn. thatz why god
>broke his language down into
>many to devide the knowlede
>wich adam and eve possed.

Responce: Where are you getting this from certainly not the Scriptures. Adam and Eve were dead by the time God broke all of the languages up. Whats your source?

>think about why didn;t the
>kemitians have a written langauged
>and use hyrogphics instead of
>phonetic symbols. the answer is
>simple langauge prohibits infinte descriptions
>26 letters alpha-beta
>they prevent ideas out of
>the phonetic combination to become
>realized. adam and eve possed
>such wisdom and that why
>the snake is used to
>represent the kemtian form of

Responce: where are you getting this from? and how do you know that Adam and Eve used egyption heiroglyphics?

13586, What are you talking about, cartier?
Posted by Chike, Fri Jun-08-01 04:46 PM
osoclasi already responded to you about this, but I have to express my confusion about where you came up with this:

>second. adam and eve sin was
>become learn. thatz why god
>broke his language down into
>many to devide the knowlede
>wich adam and eve possed.

Original sin = disobedience; yes, the result was knowledge of good and evil, but that doesn't mean God was condemning learning.

God makes one language many = the Tower of Babel. That's the part of your comment that really made me scratch my head. Anyway, carry on...

13587, I feel you!!!!!
Posted by osoclasi, Sat Jun-09-01 08:10 AM
These argument that he comes up with are vey confusing and disorganized. Some of this stuff I can't make heads or tails of. His thoughts are wierd.( No insult)
13588, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by cartier_allah1, Mon Jun-04-01 10:00 PM
thrid the cross was not a persian invention becuse the persians where pagan thatz why muhammed was so pissed at them he believe in a montheics god while the persians worshiped many a gods. second persian or what in the acient times was called phonicea was a kemitan province up in till the conquest of alexander the greek
13589, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by osoclasi, Fri Jun-08-01 07:52 AM
>thrid the cross was not a
>persian invention becuse the persians
>where pagan thatz why muhammed
>was so pissed at them
>he believe in a montheics
>god while the persians worshiped
>many a gods. second persian
>or what in the acient
>times was called phonicea was
>a kemitan province up in
>till the conquest of alexander
>the greek

Responce: what does prophit mohammed bieing upset with the persians have to do with whether of not they invented the cross?

13590, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by cartier_allah1, Sun Jun-17-01 09:45 PM
13591, Council of Nicea
Posted by osoclasi, Mon Jun-18-01 04:30 PM
>look the frist of my
>arguments is begot from two
>neoplatonist one that was in
>the 3 century and another
>druing the 4 century. these
>men are celsus and prophyry
>clesus agrument was the ecumenial
>councils (the nicean councils)

Responce: Celsus was a 2nd century pagan philospher not 3rd century. He defeared by a man named Origen. He wrote a discourse known as The True Doctrine.

>if you where going to
>disect my agrument you should
>have also add to it
>how i stated that my
>agrument is proved to the

Responce: With you so far.


Responce: Well we all know that Arius was debating Alexander, Hosius and Athanasius correct. Lets see what Anthanasius says " Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that a person reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announed in divine scripture.

So you see they had the scripture to read right in front of them the thing that Arius did was read into the text what he wanted them to say.


Responce : Yawn.

13592, RE: Council of Nicea
Posted by cartier_allah1, Wed Jun-20-01 01:25 PM

by James R. White


The Council of Nicea is often misrepresented by cults and other religious movements. The actual concern of the council was clearly and unambiguously the relationship between the Father and the Son. Is Christ a creature, or true God? The council said He was true God. Yet, the opponents of the deity of Christ did not simply give up after the councilís decision. In fact, they almost succeeded in overturning the Nicene affirmation of Christís deity. But faithful Christians like Athanasius continued to defend the truth, and in the end, truth triumphed over error.

The conversation intensified quickly. "You canít really trust the Bible," my Latter-day Saints acquaintance said, "because you really donít know what books belong in it. You see, a bunch of men got together and decided the canon of Scripture at the Council of Nicea, picking some books, rejecting others." A few others were listening in on the conversation at the South Gate of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City. It was the LDS General Conference, and I again heard the Council of Nicea presented as that point in history where something "went wrong," where some group of unnamed, faceless men "decided" for me what I was supposed to believe. I quickly corrected him about Nicea ó nothing was decided, or even said, about the canon of Scripture at that council.1

I was reminded how often the phrase "the Council of Nicea" is used as an accusation by those who reject the Christian faith. New Agers often allege that the council removed the teaching of reincarnation from the Bible.2 And of course, Jehovahís Witnesses and critics of the deity of Christ likewise point to that council as the "beginning of the Trinity" or the "first time the deity of Christ was asserted as orthodox teaching." Others see it as the beginning of the union of church and state in light of the participation of the Roman Emperor, Constantine. Some even say it was the beginning of the Roman Catholic church.


Excepting the apostolic council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15, the Council of Nicea stands above other early councils of the church as far as its scope and its focus. Luther called it "the most sacred of all councils."3 When it began on June 19, 325, the fires of persecution had barely cooled. The Roman Empire had been unsuccessful in its attempt to wipe out the Christian faith. Fourteen years had elapsed since the final persecutions under the Emperor Galerius had ended. Many of the men who made up the Council of Nicea bore in their bodies the scars of persecution. They had been willing to suffer for the name of Christ.

The council was called by the Emperor Constantine. Leading bishops in the church agreed to participate, so serious was the matter at hand. To understand why the first universal council was called, we must go back to around A.D. 318. In the populous Alexandria suburb of Baucalis, a well-liked presbyter by the name of Arius began teaching in opposition to the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. Specifically, he disagreed with Alexanderís teaching that Jesus, the Son of God, had existed eternally, being "generated" eternally by the Father. Instead, Arius insisted that "there was a time when the Son was not." Christ must be numbered among the created beings ó highly exalted, to be sure, but a creation, nonetheless. Alexander defended his position, and it was not long before Arius was declared a heretic in a local council in 321.

This did not end the matter. Arius simply moved to Palestine and began promoting his ideas there. Alexander wrote letters to the churches in the area, warning them against those he called the "Exukontians," from a Greek phrase meaning "out of nothing." Arius taught that the Son of God was created "out of nothing." Arius found an audience for his teachings, and over the course of the next few years the debate became so heated that it came to the attention of Constantine, the Emperor.

Having consolidated his hold on the Empire, Constantine promoted unity in every way possible. He recognized that a schism in the Christian church would be just one more destabilizing factor in his empire, and he moved to solve the problem.4 While he had encouragement from men like Hosius, bishop of Cordova, and Eusebius of Caesarea, Constantine was the one who officially called for the council.5


The Council of Nicea was mostly Eastern. According to tradition, 318 bishops were in attendance, though most historians believe this number is a bit high. The vast majority came from the East, with less than a dozen representing the rest of the Empire.

The council was divided into three groups. Arius was in attendance, at the command of the Emperor, along with a few supporters. Most notable of these were two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, as well as Eusebius of Nicomedia. This group represented the viewpoint that Christ was of a different substance (Greek: heteroousios) than the Father, that is, that He is a creature.

The "orthodox" group was led primarily by Hosius of Cordova and Alexander of Alexandria (accompanied by his brilliant young deacon, and later champion of the Nicene position, Athanasius6). They represented the view that Christ was of the same substance (Greek: homo-ousios7) as the Father, that is, that He has eternally shared in the one essence that is God and in full deity.

The middle group, led by Eusebius of Caesarea (and hence often called the "Eusebian" party), distrusted the term homoousios, primarily because it had been used in the previous century by the modalistic8 heretic Sabellius and others who wished to teach the error that the Father and the Son were one person. This middle group agreed with the orthodox party that Jesus was fully God, but they were concerned that the term homoousios could be misunderstood to support the false idea that the Father and Son are one person. The middle group therefore presented the idea that the Son was of a similar substance (Greek: homoiousios) as the Father. By this means they hoped to avoid both the error of Arius as well as the perceived danger of Sabellianism found in the term homoousios.

Party/Leaders View of Christ
Arian/Arius of a different substance ó heteroousios
Orthodox/Alexander, Hosius, Athanasius of the same substance ó homoousios
Eusebian/Eusebius of Caesarea of a similar substance ó homoiousios


We are dependent, in large measure, on the words of Eusebius of Caesarea for our knowledge of many of the events at the council. This is somewhat unfortunate, because Eusebius, the first "church historian," was a partisan participant as well. Historians recognize that his viewpoint is influenced by his desire for the favor of the Emperor and by his own political and theological goals and positions. Philip Schaff, in reproducing Eusebiusís description of the entrance of the Emperor into the council, speaks of Eusebiusís "panegyrical flattery."9 Eusebius presents Constantine in the highest possible terms so as to enhance his own position.

What really was Constantineís role? Often it is alleged (especially by Jehovahís Witnesses, for example) that, for whatever reasons, Constantine forced the "same substance" view upon the council,10 or, at the very least, insured that it would be adopted. This is not the case. There is no question that Constantine wanted a unified church after the Council of Nicea. But he was no theologian, nor did he really care to any degree what basis would be used to forge the unity he desired. Later events show that he didnít have any particular stake in the term homoousios and was willing to abandon it, if he saw that doing so would be of benefit to him. As Schaff rightly points out with reference to the term itself, "The word...was not an invention of the council of Nicea, still less of Constantine, but had previously arisen in theological language, and occurs even in Origen and among the Gnostics...."11 Constantine is not the source or origin of the term, and the council did not adopt the term at his command.


The truth of how the council came to use the term is not difficult to discern. Athanasius notes that the gathered bishops truly desired to express their faith in primarily scriptural language, and they tried to do so. But every time they came up with a statement that was limited solely to biblical terms, the Arians would find a way of "reading" the statement so as to allow for agreement.12 They were forced to see that they needed to use a term that could not be misunderstood, that would clearly differentiate between a belief in the full deity of Christ and all those positions that would compromise that belief. Therefore, they focused on the term homoousios as being completely antithetical to the Arian position, and at the same time reflective of the scriptural truth that Jesus Christ is not a creature, but is fully God, incarnate deity.

The "orthodox" party had to express clearly to the "middle group" that by the use of the term homoousios they were not in any way attempting to give aid and comfort to the modalists and Sabellians in the East who continued to teach their errors even in the days of Nicea. They were not compromising the existence of three Persons, but were instead safeguarding the full deity of the Persons, and in particular, the Son.13 The resulting creed, signed by all but Arius and two bishops, was quite clear in its position:

We believe...in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all things were made....

The creed also contained the "anathema" (i.e., condemnation) for those who rejected these truths, and for the first time, such anathemas carried with them civil repercussions. Arius and some of his followers were banished, even though for a short time. This set a precedent that eventually would have tremendous impact on culture and church, but it is also a separate issue from the theological proclamation of the council.

Nicea did not come up with something "new" in the creed. Belief in the deity of Christ was as old as the apostles themselves, who enunciated this truth over and over again.14 References to the full deity of Christ are abundant in the period prior to the Council of Nicea. Ignatius (died c. 108), the great martyr bishop of Antioch, could easily speak of Jesus Christ as God at the opening of the second century. More than once Ignatius speaks of Jesus Christ as "our God."15 When writing to Polycarp he can exhort him to "await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, (who for our sake became visible!), the Impalpable, the Impassible, (who for our sake suffered!), who in all ways endured for our sake."16 Ignatius shows the highest view of Christ at a very early stage, when he writes to the Ephesians: "There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord."17

Melito of Sardis (c. 170-180), a much less well-known figure, was tremendously gifted in expressing the ancient faith of the church regarding the deity of Christ:

And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was provided too, to indicate who was being killed. Who was it? It is a heavy thing to say, and a most fearful thing to refrain from saying. But listen, as you tremble in the face of him on whose account the earth trembled. He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place. He who made all things fast is made fast on the tree. The Master is insulted. God is murdered. The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand.18

Nicea was not creating some new doctrine, some new belief, but clearly, explicitly, defining truth against error. The council had no idea that they, by their gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority.

This can easily be seen from the fact that Athanasius, in defending the Nicene council, does so on the basis of its harmony with Scripture, not on the basis of the council having some inherent authority in and of itself. Note his words: "Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faithís sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture."19

The relationship between the sufficient Scriptures and the "Nicene Bishops" should be noted carefully. The Scriptures are not made insufficient by the council; rather, the words of the council "remind" one of the "religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." Obviously, then, the authority of the council is derivative from its fidelity to Scripture.


While the creed of the council was its central achievement, it was not the only thing that the bishops accomplished during their meeting. Twenty canons were presented dealing with various disciplinary issues within the church. Of most interest to us today was the sixth, which read as follows:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.20

This canon is significant because it demonstrates that at this time there was no concept of a single universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else. While later Roman bishops would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at this time no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final authority. This is important because often we hear it alleged that the Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, is a "Roman Catholic" concept "forced" on the church by the pope. The simple fact of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West.21


Modern Christians often have the impression that ancient councils held absolute sway, and when they made "the decision," the controversy ended. This is not true. Though Nicea is seen as one of the greatest of the councils, it had to fight hard for acceptance. The basis of its final victory was not the power of politics, nor the endorsement of established religion. There was one reason the Nicene definition prevailed: its fidelity to the testimony of the Scriptures.

During the six decades between the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople in 381, Arianism experienced many victories. There were periods where Arian bishops constituted the majority of the visible ecclesiastical hierarchy. Primarily through the force of political power, Arian sympathizers soon took to undoing the condemnation of Arius and his theology. Eusebius of Nicomedia and others attempted to overturn Nicea, and for a number of decades it looked as if they might succeed. Constantine adopted a compromising position under the influence of various sources, including Eusebius of Caesarea and a politically worded "confession" from Arius. Constantine put little stock in the definition of Nicea itself: he was a politician to the last. Upon his death, his second son Constantius ruled in the East, and he gave great aid and comfort to Arianism. United by their rejection of the homoousion, semi-Arians and Arians worked to unseat a common enemy, almost always proceeding with political power on their side.

Under Constantius, council after council met in this location or that. So furious was the activity that one commentator wrote of the time, "The highways were covered with galloping bishops."22 Most importantly, regional councils meeting at Ariminum, Seleucia, and Sirmium presented Arian and semi-Arian creeds, and many leaders were coerced into subscribing to them. Even Liberius, bishop of Rome, having been banished from his see (position as bishop) and longing to return, was persuaded to give in and compromise on the matter.23

During the course of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had become bishop of Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed from his see five times, once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the front door while he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years old, was likewise forced by imperial threats to compromise and give place to Arian ideas. At the end of the sixth decade of the century, it looked as if Nicea would be defeated. Jerome would later describe this moment in history as the time when "the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian."24

Yet, in the midst of this darkness, a lone voice remained strong. Arguing from Scripture, fearlessly reproaching error, writing from refuge in the desert, along the Nile, or in the crowded suburbs around Alexandria, Athanasius continued the fight. His unwillingness to give place ó even when banished by the Emperor, disfellowshipped by the established church, and condemned by local councils and bishops alike ó gave rise to the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world." Convinced that Scripture is "sufficient above all things,"25 Athanasius acted as a true "Protestant" in his day.26 Athanasius protested against the consensus opinion of the established church, and did so because he was compelled by scriptural authority. Athanasius would have understood, on some of those long, lonely days of exile, what Wycliffe meant a thousand years later: "If we had a hundred popes, and if all the friars were cardinals, to the law of the gospel we should bow, more than all this multitude."27

Movements that depend on political favor (rather than Godís truth) eventually die, and this was true of Arianism. As soon as it looked as if the Arians had consolidated their hold on the Empire, they turned to internal fighting and quite literally destroyed each other. They had no one like a faithful Athanasius, and it was not long before the tide turned against them. By A.D. 381, the Council of Constantinople could meet and reaffirm, without hesitancy, the Nicene faith, complete with the homoousious clause. The full deity of Christ was affirmed, not because Nicea had said so, but because God had revealed it to be so. Niceaís authority rested upon the solid foundation of Scripture. A century after Nicea, we find the great bishop of Hippo, Augustine, writing to Maximin, an Arian, and saying: "I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both ó the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."28


Why do Christians believe in the deity of Christ today? Is it because they have been forced to do so by legislated theology from councils and popes? No, it is because the Scriptures teach this truth. When orthodox believers affirm the validity of the creed hammered out at Nicea, they are simply affirming a concise, clear presentation of scriptural truth. The authority of the Nicene creed, including its assertion of the homoousion, is not to be found in some concept of an infallible church, but in the fidelity of the creed to scriptural revelation. It speaks with the voice of the apostles because it speaks the truth as they proclaimed it. Modern Christians can be thankful for the testimony of an Athanasius who stood for these truths even when the vast majority stood against him. We should remember his example in our day.

James R. White is Scholar in Residence at the College of Christian Studies, Grand Canyon University, an adjunct professor at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (AZ Campus) and Faraston Theological Seminary, and Director of Ministries for Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona.


1The Council of Nicea did not take up the issue of the canon of Scripture. In fact, only regional councils touched on this issue (Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397) until much later. The New Testament canon developed in the consciousness of the church over time, just as the Old Testament canon did. See Don Kistler, ed., Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995).
2See Joseph P. Gudel, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., and Dan R. Schlesinger, "Reincarnation ó Did the Church Suppress It?" Christian Research Journal, Summer 1987, 8-12.
3Gordon Rupp, Lutherís Progress to the Diet of Worms (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1964), 66.
4Much has been written about Constantineís religious beliefs and his "conversion" to Christianity. Some attribute to him high motives in his involvement at Nicea; others see him as merely pursuing political ends. In either case, we do not need to decide the issue of the validity of his confession of faith, for the decisions of the Nicene Council on the nature of the Son were not dictated by Constantine, and even after the Council he proved himself willing to "compromise" on the issue, all for the sake of political unity. The real battle over the deity of Christ was fought out in his shadow, to be sure, but it took place on a plane he could scarcely understand, let alone dominate.
5Later centuries would find the idea of an ecumenical council being called by anyone but the bishop of Rome, the pope, unthinkable. Hence, long after Nicea, in A.D. 680, the story began to circulate that in fact the bishop of Rome called the Council, and even to this day some attempt to revive this historical anachronism, claiming the two presbyters (Victor and Vincentius) who represented Sylvester, the aged bishop of Rome, in fact sat as presidents over the Council. See Philip Schaffís comments in his History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 3:335.
6Athanasiusís role at the council has been hotly debated. As a deacon, he would not, by later standards, even be allowed to vote. But his brilliance was already seen, and it would eventually fall to him to defend the decisions of the Council, which became his lifelong work.
7The Latin translation is consubstantialis, consubstantial, which is the common rendering of the term in English versions of the final form of the Nicene Creed.
8Modalism is the belief that there is one Person in the Godhead who at times acts as the Father, and other times as the Son, and still other times as the Spirit. Modalism denies the Trinity, which asserts that the three Persons have existed eternally.
9Schaff, 3:624.
10The only basis that can be presented for such an idea is found in a letter, written by Eusebius of Caesarea during the council itself to his home church, explaining why he eventually gave in and signed the creed, and agreed to the term homoousios. At one point Eusebius writes that Constantine "encouraged the others to sign it and to agree with its teaching, only with the addition of the word Ďconsubstantialí ." The specific term used by Eusebius, parakeleueto, can be rendered as strongly as "command" or as mildly as "advise" or "encourage." There is nothing in Eusebiusís letter, however, that would suggest that he felt he had been ordered to subscribe to the use of the term, nor that he felt that Constantine was the actual source of the term.
11Schaff, 3:628.
12Someone might say that this demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church; that is, that it denies sola scriptura. But sola scriptura does not claim the Bible is sufficient to answer every perversion of its own revealed truths. Peter knew that there would be those who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction, and it is good to note that God has not deemed it proper to transport all heretics off the planet at the first moment they utter their heresy. Struggling with false teaching has, in Godís sovereign plan, been a part of the maturing of His people.
13For many generations misunderstandings between East and West, complicated by the language differences (Greek remaining predominate in the East, Latin becoming the normal language of religion in the West), kept controversy alive even when there was no need for it.
14Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1, John 1:1-14, Col. 1:15-17, Phil. 2:5-11, etc.
15See, for example, his epistle to the Ephesians, 18, and to the Romans, 3, in J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds., The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 141 and 150.
16Polycarp 3, The Apostolic Fathers, 161.
17Ephesians 7, The Apostolic Fathers, 139.
18Melito of Sardis, A Homily on the Passover, sect. 95-96, as found in Richard Norris, Jr., The Christological Controversy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 46. This homily is one of the best examples of early preaching that is solidly biblical in tone and Christ-centered in message.
19Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, as found in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), IV:453.
20Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, XIV:15.
21For those who struggle with the idea that it was not "Roman Catholicism" that existed in those days, consider this: if one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion hostís total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a "Roman Catholic" church? Of course not. Yet, the church of 325 had none of these beliefs, either. Hence, while they called themselves "Catholics," they would not have had any idea what "Roman Catholic" meant.
22Ammianus Marcellinus, as cited by Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), III:632.
23For a discussion of the lapse of Liberius, see Schaff, III:635-36. For information on the relationship of Liberius and the concept of papal infallibility, see George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959), 425-29, and Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), I:176-78.
24Jerome, Adversus Luciferianos, 19, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, 6:329.
25Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, 4:453.
26I credit one of my students, Michael Porter, with this phraseology.
27Robert Vaughn, The Life and Opinions of John de Wycliffe (London: Holdworth and Ball, 1831), 313. See 312-17 for a summary of Wycliffeís doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.
28Augustine, To Maximim the Arian, as cited by George Salman, The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959), 295.

This article first appeared in the Spring 1997 issue of the Christian Research Journal.

CRI, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Phone (949) 858-6100 and Fax (949) 858-6111

13593, RE: Council of Nicea
Posted by cartier_allah1, Wed Jun-20-01 03:52 PM
my point for writing this although not stated was the fact that the word bible was left out. hence admiting to the fact that their argument stems form different oral teachings. the fact that the latter-day saints know that the bible was begin constrcuted was another point to which we have to look at the whole argument is the nature of christ and the only reason it happend was because there was no written doctrine until the cannons became part of the actual scriptures. but this raises another point isn't it amazing that the same cannon of jesus is dvinty is found in the bible but before hand it wasn't and hence it had to be formatted in.....

13594, RE: Council of Nicea
Posted by cartier_allah1, Wed Jun-20-01 10:14 PM
second arius was debating alxeander and only alexander he was also defended by eusebius of cesera and theonas of marmarica. all them agreed with him.
13595, RE: Council of Nicea
Posted by osoclasi, Thu Jun-21-01 12:06 AM
>my point for writing this although
>not stated was the fact
>that the word bible was
>left out. hence admiting to
>the fact that their argument
>stems form different oral teachings.

Responce: James White is a really good guy, man I love his work on the Roman Catholics, he is excellent. Ok you're saying that the actual word Bible was left out but the scriptures existed? So your saying that the teachings of these people were different? Look, there is early evidence that the New Testament was being cited in the FIRST century, cleament of Rome cited Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians in 95 and 97. Ignatius referred to six Pauline Epistles in about 110, and between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four gospels, Acts and 1 corithians. This shows that the gospels were complete before the end of the first century.

>the fact that the latter-day
>saints know that the bible
>was begin constrcuted was another
>point to which we have
>to look at the whole

Responce: Latter day saints were not around when the council of Nicea took place.

is the nature of
>christ and the only reason
>it happend was because there
>was no written doctrine until
>the cannons became part of
>the actual scriptures. but this
>raises another point isn't it
>amazing that the same cannon
>of jesus is dvinty is
>found in the bible but
>before hand it wasn't and
>hence it had to be
>formatted in.....

Responce: It was not formatted in the bible clearly states that Jesus is God even in the Old Testament.

13596, Neely Fuller
Posted by ya Setshego, Tue Jun-05-01 08:14 AM
Anybody who has read the Isis Papers, whether you loved it, or hated it should move onto Neely Fuller's Compensatory Code for Victims of White Supremacy. It serves as a cogent companion-read to the Isis Papers, because Dr. Welsing based her theories on his work. He is located in D.C., and books can be purchased through him, or the Race Relations Institute of Fisk University in Nashville, TN, 37208.


"Don't Hate the PLAYA Boy...hate the GAME," Granddad Freeman of the Boondocks(7-11-99)

*Twenty-three percent of women are "autoerotic singles" ó they prefer to achieve sexual satisfaction alone(source-bet.com)

*If U have won a Grammy, one of two things are at play: 1. Your shit is TIGHT
2. U are white

"'Cuz U answer the phone 'peace' that means U not a freak?"-The Questions(c) Common

13597, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by guest, Tue Jun-05-01 07:48 PM
Illiptical 360: yo
Illiptical 360: you ever read the isis papers?
M O bilarity: nah, but i pretended like i did, when we had debates about them at my school
M O bilarity: No ones ever read "the isis papers".....they just pretend to have read them, after reading the Abstract, and realizing that lady was on some 5 percent shit
Illiptical 360: haha
Illiptical 360: you ever read the bell curve ?
M O bilarity: just the chapter that you're prolly referring to...Chapter 8 i think??
M O bilarity: because the rest of the book had nothing to do with anything that people (who haven't read it) claim the entire book is about.
13598, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by okayyac, Mon Jun-18-01 04:58 AM
i just think that blaming all of todays problems on society centuries ago seems worthless. true, slavery caused a lot of problems, and i can see that, but on other problems, we need to stop lookin back and tryin to change what we cant, and look ahead to the future. thats what most positive people have done....tried to change what it is now, and accepting what happened.

"Just waitin 'till the rain turn to sunshine" Tupac Shakur
13599, 1 last push...n/m
Posted by wbgirl, Wed Jun-20-01 04:24 AM
(you can't say i didn't warn you: take
any issues to my inbox)
http://www.chicagoactivist.org (under
so it's l.a. next year, right? start saving now!
"'I wonder,' Pearline says, 'what would happen if every time a colored woman opened her mouth she told the truth.'
'She might say something go down in history,' Vennie decides."
(c) Joyce Carol Thomas "House of Light"
13600, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by peace3, Wed Jun-20-01 05:38 AM
>I guess you could say I'm
>more nurture than nature.
>Anyway, speak your mind on the



13601, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by Chike, Wed Jun-20-01 08:41 AM
That was real deep. By the way, it's Chike.
13602, What Dr. Cress was talking about was....
Posted by peace3, Wed Jun-20-01 08:11 AM

"THe living temple is man, as he embodies cosmic principles and functions. Through these teachings you are led to the knowledge that we call salvation or redemption-triumph over death....Our rationalistic mentality is oriented toward the acquisition of technological data and its utilitarian application. Under the pretext of facilitating life, the unbridled search for new inventions hones man's egotism and leads him to destruction. Oppose the extreme, the pharaonic mentality, based on a gnosis (knowledge of causes), shows its certitude by the aim and directives it assigns to earthly existence....SYMBOLISM. True progress in human thought can be made only if we call upon the symbolizing faculty of intelligence, this faculty was developed and refined in Kemit and reflected in heiroglyphs and other symbology. Symbology frees us from our present intellectual impasse, while symbolism must be recognized as the intuitive means of overcoming the limitations of reason....See the analytic, mechanistic mentality of modern science and the synthetic,vitalist mentality of ancient kemitan Sacred Science (Science of Life) are two opposing views. Only a symbolic mentality, like that cultivated in Kemit, can think without objectifying and therefore can synthetically conceive the paradoxes inherent in the intimate life of matter, or nature in its ongoing genesis. Modern Science has evolved to a new opening of consciousness confronted witn paradoxes that reason alone cannot contend with. It will have to rise to a symbolic mode in order to intergrate the complements in vital phenomena."

So in terms of ALLAH ARM LEG LEG ARM HEAD=human being geometrically encompassed is symbolic of the perfect man. Having knowledge of man's physical and spiritual anatomy. It's what we work towards as humans...divinization. Right? Not saying you will become GOD but you will return to him and rejoin him, but not without progressing through proper stages. THIS GOES FOR BLACKS AND WHITES.

"Intelligence of the Heart, the innate, functional consciousness or way of thinking that is in harmony with Nature ans so enables one to understand life and living things. Like the pratice of imagination is a way of evolutionary development...The intelligence is independet of the senses and belongs to the vast totality called life. As the term was originally used by Kemits Inner Temple, it represented that which allows man to move toward the divine...all of this is a not a matter of learned knowledge but intuitive capacity...The process of becoming relates to consciousness and is revealed in all of nature; the relationship of apparent life and the life behind appearances; the kinship between man and the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms; the stages of awareness leading to cosmic consciousness; and the formation of substance into matter."

"Listen my child: a day will come when mankind will know how to worhsip God in the spirit; then they will no longer need temples, nor myths to symbolise the working of the divine thoughts; no longer will the y need statues to represent the various states of his power; nor will they need mysterious scriptures to tell the secret meaning of the divine science tothose who have eyes to see and ears to listen....

Many of you are deceived by the triviality of ancient inscriptions and math when studied from the Shell of the fruit. You only refer to the effects, and in no way to their deeper causes. There is no shame in mistakes made because one lacks some essential elements. Your personal observations enrich the material to be studied by others; all conscientious research disposes the intellect to the clear formulation of problems, which then deserve to receive a solution.

"Note that this solution will be unintelligible to those who are accustomed to rely on appearances only, and who have not cultivated their wisdom of the heart. This is another way: it can be offered but never imposed, for its demands a suitable mentality, but the understanding depends upon it."
13603, RE: Isis Papers
Posted by KOONTZILLA, Wed Jun-20-01 10:30 AM