Skip to main content

I have Faith that the Bible is THE Word of God
I have HOPE that the Bible is THE WORD of God

If you are a Champion of any religion you are supposed to believe in that religion wholeheartedly. Also, if one is assertive about their beliefs that does not necessarilly mean that they are religously intolerant of other beliefs. There happens to be this urgent anti-cultural movement of a passive religous tolerance that is being imposed on American thought, which ultimately deteriorates American values, giving everyone a one way ticket to nihilism. Coming for the Black Church, it is not only my individual right, but my cultural and religous right as well, to believe that the Bible is the word of God.
quote:
If one is assertive about their beliefs that does not necessarilly mean that they are religously intolerant of other beliefs.
And so there should be no problem or difficulty or conflict over this simple question:

For those who believe that the Bible is the word of God - do you believe that God's word is also represented in other traditonal holy texts?

Nothing in that question takes away from your "right" to firmly assert your faith or belief. But, I dare say, it does show the degree of tolerance for other religions if addressed with such tolerance.

Nothing in that question, again, takes away from your faith or shouldn't. Nor is there anything in that question that should be hard to answer, honestly... Nothing that should be hard to address when reflecting on human history and the arrival time of the Bible, etc.

quote:
Coming for the Black Church, it is not only my individual right, but my cultural and religous right as well, to believe that the Bible is the word of God.
Big Grin

I'd really like to know what makes the Bible, the one you're reading from, a cultural artifact of the Black Community or the Black Church.

I mean, I didn't know Martin Luther King Jr. was like a Martin Luther. I didn't know some figure in Black [American] History provided and distributed a "Black" translation/version of the Bible.
quote:
do you believe that God's word is also represented in other traditonal holy texts?


No... I do not believe that God's WORD is represented in other traditional holy texts.

I believe that we may share similar spiritual values, much of spiritual morality is common knowledge anyway.

quote:
I'd really like to know what makes the Bible, the one you're reading from, a cultural artifact of the Black Community or the Black Church.

I mean, I didn't know Martin Luther King Jr. was like a Martin Luther. I didn't know some figure in Black [American] History provided and distributed a "Black" translation/version of the Bible.


More like a cultural yardstick. It is the yardstick that MLK used, and the yardstick that we still use today. Indisputably it is the only weapon that was effecient in bringing to light the absurdity of the racial oppression that we had to bear. It is the symbol of our freedom as Americans of African descent. It is the only WORD/LANGUAGE that our oppressors could (I'm sorry chose to) comprehend. It is the symbol of Liberty and Justice for all, of ONE nation under GOD.

Bible = The only WORD powerful enough to break the chains

Bible = The Word of God that is being nurtured, cultivated, and refreshed by the Black community and its culture.
quote:
Allah did not free us
Buddah did not free us
The Tao de Ching did not free us
Yada... Yada... Some would say Abe Lincoln did. So what are you talking about?
quote:
It is the only WORD/LANGUAGE that our oppressors could (I'm sorry chose to) comprehend.
Again, what are you talking about?

quote:
It is the cultural yardstick that MLK used, and the yardstick that we still use today.
What are you talking about?YARDSTICK?

None of that addresses what I said:
I'd really like to know what makes the Bible, the one you're reading from, a cultural artifact of the Black Community or the Black Church.

What part of that don't you understand?

quote:
I believe that we may share similar spiritual values, much of spiritual morality is common knowledge anyway.
So what distinguishes the Bible from other "holy" texts? Common Knowledge and all...

And what did people have before there was a Bible? What? God didn't speak before then? And God only spoke to certain people?

Please explain this...

Also... I didn't know some figure in Black [American] History provided and distributed a "Black" translation/version of the Bible.
quote:
quote:
Allah did not free us
Buddah did not free us
The Tao de Ching did not free us
Yada... Yada... Some would say Abe Lincoln did. So what are you talking about?


Sorry about that. That wasn't to be taken literally. It was a response to the statement you made that resembled something along the lines of 'since when is the Bible part of the Black culture/ Afro-American experience?
Nothing more nothing less.
quote:
It was a response to the statement you made that resembled something along the lines of 'since when is the Bible part of the Black culture/ Afro-American experience?
What I said was clear:

I'd really like to know what makes the Bible, the one you're reading from, a cultural artifact of the Black Community or the Black Church.

I mean, I didn't know Martin Luther King Jr. was like a Martin Luther. I didn't know some figure in Black [American] History provided and distributed a "Black" translation/version of the Bible.


None of that says or denies whatever part or role the Bible and Christianity played in the Black Experience. Again, my point was clear. And that's why you did not respond to it in earnest.

ARTIFACT = something created by humans usually for a practical purpose; something characteristic of or resulting from a human institution or activity.

The Bible is not an Black American Cultural ARTIFACT. Period. Black people in America didn't create the Bible nor did they(we) receive the original revelation (since we're talking about "holy" scriptures).

As I said, Black people in America did not produce a Black version of the Bible you reference or produce a particular Black translation of the original manuscripts, etc.

Again, the Bible is not a Black Cultural ARTIFACT no matter how much Black "Theology" developed from it. So what are you talking about when you say your "cultural right"??

Also, it's pretty odd to credit the Bible and Christianity as you do (or tried to do) when the Islam that Africans brought to this country and their own indigenuous religions were not afforded the opportunity that Christianity/Bible were.

So, without taking anything away from our rich spiritual/religious Christian tradition, it's hardly something to credit when the credit is one earned by default.
By default?

It's all we had...

It's all we've got

Also...

Holy Bible as the Word... and Holy Bible as the center of the black culture...

I'll stick with one.

Bible = Word of God

Honestly I believe that the Word of God is alive. The Bible has a beginning and an ending. God's Word, has an unknown orgin and a destination that is beyond human comprehension.

moving along...

The bible has actual historical Acts of God as told by those that were enlightened by God.

So the question should be. Did God really perform those acts or, were those acts myths used to promote the superiority of the Semitic culture and it's religous exclusiveness?
Last edited {1}
quote:
So explain the reasoning behind:

Allah did not free us
Buddah did not free us
The Tao de Ching did not free us


The reasoning behind this is that it is our CULTURAL belief that JESUS freed us. It is our cultural belief that the EXODUS of the JEWS shares a striking resemblance to the EMANCIPATION of Blacks.

Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, and numerous other freedom fighters were and still our representations of modern day Moses's.

quote:
It is the only WORD/LANGUAGE that our oppressors could (I'm sorry chose to) comprehend.
Again, what are you talking about?


Whites didn't speak Suras's or I Ching...

quote:
It is the cultural yardstick that MLK used, and the yardstick that we still use today.
What are you talking about?YARDSTICK?


The Bible is how we(Blacks) determined who was virtuous and who wasn't, it is the foundation of what/whom we chose to pattern our cultural character after.
quote:
Can we consider Ol' Negro Spirituals and Gospel music to be black cultural artifacts, that we created as our own cultural interpretation of the Bible as it relates to the Black experience?
Where is the refrain, "It was all we had..."??

See? At one point you want it to be special even when you acknowledge "that we made do" (a pretty good do, as you seem to note) "with what we had." You know, "all we had."

Jazz = Black Cultural ARTIFACT. It is a creation of Black Culture. You may be able to say that about Spirituals and Gospel but neither of them make the Bible a Black Cultural ARTIFACT. The Bible pre-dates "Black Culture" and so the the Biblical stories.

quote:
Bible as African American Culture

sorry couldn't resist...
Ummm... Sorry. Doesn't make sense.

quote:
The reasoning behind this is that it is our CULTURAL belief that JESUS freed us.
"OUR"? "OUR"?
ANd "Jesus"?? OMG...

SOrry. Doesn't make sense.
quote:
It is our cultural belief that the EXODUS of the JEWS shares a striking resemblance to the EMANCIPATION of Blacks.
Although I think I know what you're trying to say.... Sorry. Doesn't make sense. Exodus = Emancipation? C'mon...

quote:
Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, and numerous other freedom fighters were and still our representations of modern day Moses's.
Still doesn't make THE BIBLE a Black Cultural ARTIFACT. Again, the Bible pre-dates "Black Culture" as do the Biblical stories. Those Biblical themes may have a very strong thread... but that does not make the Bible a Black Cultural artifact. Black Culture did not create the Bible or the Biblical stories referenced.

quote:
Whites didn't speak Suras's or I Ching...
RELEVANCE??? What do you really think you're saying? That Black folk used the Bible to appeal to the good Christian heart of White folk - i.e. "speaking their language" - and that's what changed things? Our ability to "speak their BIBLICAL language"??? Hmmmm.... Now the Bible is... THEIRS?

Make up your mind, Heru. Say something with some substance. Arguably, it was MLK speaking the language of Thomas Jefferson "all men created equal" (hardly Biblical, especially in any version Whites read) that was instrumental.

So that historical fact, clearly understood, makes a lie out of your declaration:
Indisputably it is the only weapon that was effecient in bringing to light the absurdity of the racial oppression that we had to bear.

And there, again, was this making the Bible et al "special" ("it was the only weapon efficient [enough]...") when, curiously, you've had to admit that "it was all we had." Those two ideas don't mesh, Heru. The idea that "it was all we had" is not consistent and rather contradicts this idea that there were several "weapons" available but the Bible was the [most] "efficient" one among them.

quote:
The Bible is how we(Blacks) determined who was virtuous and who wasn't, it is the foundation of what/whom we chose to pattern our cultural character after.
And still none of that makes it, the Bible, a Black Cultural Artifact. As you suggested THE BIBLE is "theirs." It had to be. It was apparently "written in their language." And as you say, in essence, "we" took it and learned how to "speak THEIR language."

Hmmmm....

Now with language being a major component of culture... Us "speaking THEIR language" says what about the Bible being a Black Cultural Artifact? Note: You likened the use of the Bible, Biblical themes, etc. to "speaking THEIR language" which, again, places the Bible as, ultimately, "THEIR" possession.

Please explain how it is both THEIRS and OURS at the same time.
quote:
Again, the Bible pre-dates "Black Culture" as do the Biblical stories

Confused

So how does it predate Black Culture? Are we only talking about African AMERICAN culture?

The bible spans the time since the beginning of creation. Is Black culture only recent culture then?

Blacks are a major part of the Bible. There are black and white Christians and black and white Jews. Jew are not a race of people it is a religion.

Please explain.
quote:
So how does it predate Black Culture? Are we only talking about African AMERICAN culture?
That is the context here.

quote:
The bible spans the time since the beginning of creation.
NO! The Bible can be dated as a book or collection of books with a definite date that doesn't span all time, in all regions among all people. That is the point.

Where are the Native Americans in the Bible. Where are the Ancient Egyptians in the Bible? You know, the Dynasties that existed before there were Jews/Hebrews?

Seriously...
quote:
Blacks are a major part of the Bible.
And that is relevant HOW??

quote:
HERU SAID:
  • Can we consider Ol' Negro Spirituals and Gospel music to be black cultural artifacts, that we created as our own cultural interpretation of the Bible as it relates to the Black experience?

  • Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, and numerous other freedom fighters were and still our representations of modern day Moses's.
  • Those things HERU said set the context. Please gear your comments to and within the CONTEXT.

    And, since you want to comment, you can address this, forthrightly:
    I'd really like to know what makes the Bible, the one you're reading from, a cultural artifact of the Black Community or the Black Church.

    And, no...
    Blacks are a major part of the Bible.
    - AND -
    There are black and white Christians and black and white Jews.

    Are not intelligent responses to that. If you have no responses directed to that then you are talking about something altogether different. If you have to ask "Are we only talking about African AMERICAN culture?" then obviously you're not paying attention (see what I quoted from HERU again).
    EP:

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Melesi is working with flawed logic because he is re-hasing typical "orthodox" Christian apologetics.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    This is the genetic fallacy: don't trust melesi because he is "orthodox Christian," (and you know what their apologetics is like).

    I am not saying that we shoudl "put faith in the Council who decided whta the Bible should be like." I would never say that because it's wrong. That's not "typical" Christian apologetics, it's bad history.

    The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the contents of the Bible. The 200-some-odd bishops were called together because of the unrest in the Church and the Empire caused by the teaching of Presbyter Arius who denied the divinity of Christ ("There was when he was not"). The Council also argued at great length over jurisdictional authority of various churches. They did not discuss the canon. Where you got that idea I do not know, but you really ought to throw that little fish back. It's out of season for Internet urban legends, even ones on ancient history.

    You will also note that I appealed to no Council in my posts, so where did you get the idea that that's what I was doing? Unless...no, it couldn't be, not you...unless (oh, I shudder to think it) you concluded on the basis of no evidence because...because...you wanted to believe it.

    In fact, in this discussion I never brought up the Council of Nicaea, and in every discussion I did talk about it here, it's always been to counter this enduring falsehood, that the Council determined the canon of Scripture.

    Now, go back and read what I actually did write, ok?
    Come on now. I'm sure that you understood that what I referred to wasn't related to tracing the written Bible back to the original ancient text but to the CONTENT of the Bible i.e. it starts with beginning of creation and mankind.

    And I take it that Black Culture = African American culture? Ok

    So if the Bible is a record for the beginning of mankind and all people stem from the first two humans that make ALL groups i.e. Indians, Egyptians etc. part of the human family along with the Hebrews. The bible chronicles one particular group (the Hebrews/Jews) and their relationship with God as his chosen people.

    My question to you was from the perspective of the content. But since you want to stay within the context of what Heru stated....

    quote:
    I'd really like to know what makes the Bible, the one you're reading from, a cultural artifact of the Black Community or the Black Church.


    I don't know if I agree with that statement either since a cultural artifacts is a man-made object which gives information about the culture of its creator and users. And as you pointed out the African American did not create the Bible.

    This might be said of the Black CHURCH which is what I think HERU is trying to say?
    quote:
    Originally posted by Melesi:
    umbrarchist,

    Look up the meaning of the term and understand it. Then we'll talk about it.


    Which term?

    "orthodox Christian"
    "genetic"
    "logical"

    Since you don't see a problem with Jude containing a quote of Enoch, who is mentioned in Genesis, but the statement isn't anywhere else in the Bible. You say the Bible is not edited yet Enoch's statement is in the Book of Enoch which is not in the Bible.

    We have a problem with what you regard as "logical."

    This is the reason I brought up the terms

    believe
    logic
    rationalization


    with kresge in the second post in this thread. Believers are not logical but they will dish out rationalizations forever and claim they are logical.

    umbrarchist
    umbrarchist,

    You could drive a saint to drink.

    The term is "genetic fallacy." Look it up.

    Once more: I did not say that teh Bibile is not edited. MOre than once I said that the Bible was edited. I said that my thesis is, "So what?" Many things that are true are edited, and many things that are edited are true. Editing does not falsify a text. I say that your objection has no merit.

    Where do "we" have a problem with what I regard as logical?
    quote:
    So if the Bible is a record for the beginning of mankind and all people stem from the first two humans that make ALL groups i.e. Indians, Egyptians etc. part of the human family along with the Hebrews.
    RELEVANCE... Relevance to what you said or to what the context is here?

    Hmmmm.... You say all that then you negate it with the obvious truth:
    quote:
    The bible chronicles one particular group (the Hebrews/Jews) and their relationship with God as his chosen people.
    Now please make some sense of your conclusive statement that ALL groups are part of the human family along with the Hebrews.

    Confused HUH??? Confused

    What was your point?

    quote:
    The bible spans the time since the beginning of creation.


    The fact that the Bible primarily records the saga of ONE people and merely includes some scant, general and vague story about the first humans then basically skips all over time periods unknown where Abraham, Moses and others appear on the scene with no clear idea of what happened in between the time of the first humans and their time... It's the Time Spans that are problematic and actually make the Bible less credible as a RECORD of events from the beginning.

    Okay... Adam & Eve... THEN WHAT?? A few scant, vague and general stories here... A few scant, vague and general stories there. And ummm... there are tons of Creation stories the world over, no doubt, in various religious texts/traditions each perhaps just as vague as the Bible but demonstrating that the Bible creation story doesn't record anything unique.

    So, again, what was your point?
    quote:
    I'm sure that you understood that what I referred to wasn't related to tracing the written Bible back to the original ancient text but to the CONTENT of the Bible i.e. it starts with beginning of creation and mankind.
    Again, there are tons of Creation Stories the world over. YOUR POINT??

    At this point, I have no idea what you thought you were trying to say - what observation you thought you were making.

    The fact that the Bible "starts with that beginning" is suppose to mean... WHAT???
    What is it suppose to mean when, as you said, the Bible chronicles the saga of ONE people (primarily)?
    You stated:
    quote:

    NO! The Bible can be dated as a book or collection of books with a definite date that doesn't span all time, in all regions among all people. That is the point.

    Where are the Native Americans in the Bible? Where are the Ancient Egyptians in the Bible? You know, the Dynasties that existed before there were Jews/Hebrews?


    So it seems to me that you are addressing the bible solely from the history of how it came to written down and I'm speaking of the history contained IN the Bible.

    But if as a Christians I see it as a book that records the history of man and you see it as some scant, general and vague story about the first humans then basically skips all over time periods unknown where Abraham etc then....

    So the point, from my perspective, is that the Bible IS a historical record of mankind. ALL of mankind comes from the first two people. And, yes, we know the Bible speaks about the relationship that God has with the Hebrews and the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. But we say we ALL part of the HUMAN race. Therefore, Native American, Egyptian, Hebrews etc are all related. Judaism is a religion not a race. Hebrew means to cross over and refers to the Semitic people crossing over the Euphrates River. It could also mean "the dusty ones", the tribe that came across the desert. And I say that because I don't believe that Jews are ONLY white.

    Also, since it is also a historical record of mankind from the perspective of the Hebrews, why the question about Native Americans? Do any other religions documented by a particular culture include ALL the other cultures in the world? Do Buddhist or Muslims?

    quote:
    Again, there are tons of Creation Stories the world over. YOUR POINT??


    And your point is...?

    Am I to have less faith in my beliefs in the Bible's version of the" creation story" because there are other stories?
    quote:
    Therefore, Native American, Egyptian, Hebrews etc are all related.
    And that means WHAT?? That is relevant HOW? THere is certainly nothing contending that all human beings are not related. So what makes that a point?

    I mean what is the logic or revelation there?

    quote:
    Do any other religions documented by a particular culture include ALL the other cultures in the world?
    Ha! Ha! That's the point. You attempt to say some curious stuff about everyone being related is a silly attempt to say, in essence, that the Bible relates or somehow includes ALL people when it doesn't and you've had to admit as much. And the idea of the Bible being an actual historical record of even Hebrews is suspect.

    When the Bible's story about the Hebrews speaks about Egypt, one place/culture that has plenty of history written about it, and the Bible merely calls the rulers of Egypt "pharoah" (for the most part) as if the pharoahs didn't have names... then the history within is suspect. At the very least, when the Bible characters come in contact with other people there should be information, since you believe the Bible to be a historical record, that informs us of who they came in contact with and, roughly, at what time in history the Bible character did.

    quote:
    Do any other religions documented by a particular culture include ALL the other cultures in the world?
    No wonder why you have problems following CONTEXT. You have no regard for it.

    I SAID, and I quote:
    There are tons of Creation stories the world over, no doubt, in various religious texts/traditions each perhaps just as vague as the Bible but demonstrating that the Bible creation story doesn't record anything unique.

    That was stated in response to you saying "the CONTENT of the Bible... starts with beginning of creation and mankind" (as I quoted you before and after my statement). And, as underlined, particularly with respect to the scattered, scant, vague and general Bible stories in the beginning of the Old Testament, the idea that the Bible "starts at the beginning" is, again, nothing special or unique and really reveals little that is special or unique which seems to be your reasoning behind stating that the Bible "starts at the beginning." I never had the faintest idea of what you thought your point was and, apparently, you don't either. I guess it sounds good... Roll Eyes

    You're the one who jumped in this conversation with no respect to the CONTEXT. So it's incumbent upon you to demonstrate why your interjections are important or necessary. I've told you how the notion that the Bible "starts at the beginning... etc., etc." is really not that important. It doesn't say much, if anything important at all. Plus, it had nothing to do with THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT.

    When other Creation Stories also start with the first humans... then what??? What makes the Bible special or even a legitimate historical record of the first humans?

    Hmmm.... That's why you're asking me stupid stuff about your faith or having less faith in your beliefs... YOUR BELIEFS in the Bible or its version of creation. Was that the CONTEXT in which I addressed your comments? NO. And you know it.

    Whatever issues you have with your faith/belief in the Bible when factual information is presented are issues you have to deal with and issues that are born of your own... well, issues. I don't care what type of faith you have, more or less, in the Bible or the Bible's creation story. My mentioning other Creation Stories was not said to question your belief in the Bible's... I called into question the relevance and importance of you thinking that the idea that the Bible "starts at the beginning" was some feature that made/makes the Bible some important historical document... particularly as it relates to the first humans and the human family that sprang from those first humans.

    But go ahead... run down that Bible "history" (and mere stories, legends even, hardly amount to history)... go ahead and run down the Bible "history" starting with Adam and Eve and then their children then their children's children and so on as to give us a clear picture (as opposed to a vague, scant and general picture) of what those earlier generations did, where they settled... WHERE THEY SETTLED and how those families, those earlier generations became the cultures we see today.

    But I'm getting ahead of myself. Just tell me what the Bible says about those early generations and WHERE THEY SETTLED... And hey... tell us how the world got populated as it did. You know, which brother slept with which sister and how those families branched off and WHERE THEY SETTLED.

    How many generations of direct descendants of Adam & Eve does the Bible record? Somewhere I read that there were 10 generations between Adam & Noah. With all types of lineages in the Bible... well, when we talk about certain Hebrews, at least... What does the Bible say about Adam & Eve's direct family tree for say... over the first five generations?

    I mean, you wouldn't come back to me and say the Bible's record of those first five generations are SCANT, vague (if even present) would you?

    quote:
    How many children did Adam and Eve have?
    The Bible does not give us a specific number. Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). With likely hundreds of years of child-bearing capability, Adam and Eve likely had 50+ children in their lifetime.

    When were Adam and Eve created?
    If Old Testament history and the ages in Genesis chapter 5 are traced, Adam and Eve were likely created in approximately 4000 B.C.

    http://www.gotquestions.org/Adam-and-Eve-questions.html
    HUH??? 4000 B.C.???

    quote:
    Like most of Egyptian culture, we have gleaned much of our knowledge from what the deceased were buried with, and in this case, we have several clay models of houses discovered in the graves that resemble the rectangular clay brick homes of the Old Kingdom. This shows that the idea of individual dwellings, towns, and "urban planning" started around 4500 BC!

    http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm
    Hmmm.... They were already building houses and cities in Egypt when Adam & Eve "were likely created"??? Eek
      LEGEND: a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable

      MYTH: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

      HISTORY: a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes; a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events
    Seems you are confusing those distinguishable things...
    Last edited {1}
    I have not encountered the term "genetic fallacy" before. When I use the word genetic I am talking about something related to DNA. It is an obvious error in thinking on the order of "guilt by association" I don't see the point in giving it a name.

    The "orthodox Christian" concept however is on the same level as "military intelligence" a virtual contradiction in terms. Orthodox means straight thinking or straight opinion. How can it be straight when the information is unreliable. Straight thinking means the number of women discovering the Ressurection is irrelevant because the Gospels contradict each other. If the Book of Enoch can be missing from the Bible how can we be sure something else isn't missing that no one allive today ever heard of? We know that some of the material discovered at Nag Hammadi was burned by the mother of the person that found the scrolls. You need kindling to start a fire. Who cares what is written on it?

    How can anyone "think straight" with information of questionable accuracy and completeness? That is why I say Heisenberg Heretic. Genetic Fallacy, sounds like Unintelligent Evolution. LOL

    Try this for Orthodoxy:

    quote:
    Challenging, stimulating, and, in its way, very spiritual., November 11, 2005
    Reviewer: CHR (NY) - See all my reviews
    Dr Ehrman has provided the general reading public with a superb book that simply, clearly, and concisely reports and analyzes the many issues that confront anyone seeking to better understand the words and teachings of Jesus in particular and of the New Testament in general. With the seemingly never ending popularity of the fictional "Da Vinci Code" a corresponding interest in what really happened in the decades and centuries following the deaths of the apostles has also arisen. Since much of what Dan Brown includes in his novel is historically unreliable, a book like this from Dr Ehrman is especially helpful to the general reader. He demonstrates how the plethora of variant readings and manuscripts of the Greek New Testament have, from the beginning of church history, produced difficult challenges to sincere followers of Jesus, challenges that are not made less of a problem by either fundamentalist biblicism or evanagelical absolutism. He further demonstrates that prior to the rise of Nicene orthodoxy the Christian community was quite diverse and that the attempt to establish a uniformity among those who called themselves Christians did, in more than a few instances, influence how the text of the New Testament was copied and transmitted to succeeding generations. Evangelical Christians in particular ought to read this book and pay particular attention to Dr Ehrman's autobiographical essay at the beginning. Many thanks to Dr. Ehrman for writing a book that is at once challenging, stimulating, and, in its way, very spiritual.


    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/103-7606764...62?v=glance&n=283155


    umbrarchist
    The Philosophy of Oya, wife of immortal Shango!

    The natural structure of this universe is a black man made it. This is proved because all life emerged out of the Bosum of Africa. The first human settlements were in Africa. Since this is acknowledged by the learned the black man is the first cause of this universe. He made it. Olodumare the infinite State made this universe through the will of immortal Shango. It's all in my Book The Philosophy of Olodumare and Shango, available for purchase at Barnes and Noble.com, and iUniverse.com. How could Jesus Christ wield mystic power in this universe and he's a white man! Jesus Christ was a God and he ain't Got no mystic power. That Bible is foul and egregious. It is nothing but lies from beginning to end. I am a Black Philosopher and I am spreading this philosophy all over the world wide web. God is the white man. It is the metaphysical structure of the European. He is a God and he ain't got no mystic power. Olodumare the infinite State and immortal Shango, along with the other Orishas such as Obatala, Oschun, Ogun, Ifa, Eshu, Oya, and hot tempered Shango has the mystical power. Look at the sun. What you all think you can over turn the natural structure of that sun. Give it a shot! I'll like to see some one do it. Go to the web sites and buy the book, ans start reading. Right now!
    When in the context of Natives Americans and other not being in the bible, my belief is that they are part of mankind which is covered in the Bible. Therefore, in my view, Native Americans and all people are addressed in the Bible – even if indirectly. So that is the relevance to me. And I did concede that it does not directly and specifically address the history of ALL peoples but only that of the Hebrews.

    And your point that the bible being an actual historical record of even Hebrews is suspect is a fair assessment. But many things can be and are suspect. I didn't state the bible starts at the beginning of creation to show it signified something unique or special when compared to other culture, religions beliefs or stories about the creation. It was said in support of MY view, that ALL people are indirectly addressed in the Bible – starting with the creation of mankind.

    Also I feel I addressed the original context issue:

    quote:
    But since you want to stay within the context of what Heru stated....


    quote:
    I'd really like to know what makes the Bible, the one you're reading from, a cultural artifact of the Black Community or the Black Church.


    I don't know if I agree with that statement either since a cultural artifacts is a man-made object which gives information about the culture of its creator and users. And as you pointed out the African American did not create the Bible.

    This might be said of the Black CHURCH which is what I think HERU is trying to say?


    The 4000 vs. 4500 fact is interesting. And that means...what?

    Don't get me wrong. I am not a person that dismisses rigorous scientific research in order to uphold my beliefs.

    Not that you do not have a valid point, but as stated earlier everything can be suspect. If we still believed "research" made by some (so called) scientist, we would believe that black people are inferior, that Blacks have never had an advanced civilization, that there is nothing more then the atom that makes up matter etc.

    Currently held beliefs change all the time. It was once believed that Stonehenge was built by the Druids. Now that has changed. The Sphinx is now being dated as older then originally thought.

    So some may choice to see the story of Adam and Eve as ONLY allegory, myth, and legend, I choice to see it as more:

    quote:
    A theory of a single male and female human ancestor is almost completely contradictory to most modern synthesis of the theory of evolution, which posits that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, gradually. Nevertheless, in modern genetic studies a female individual has been identified who was the female ancester of every single person alive today. Detected via the DNA of mitochondria, which are only inherited matrilineally, she has become named Mitochondrial Eve, after the biblical figure. Similarly, a single male ancestor has been identified for all humans that are now living, via the Y chromosome, which is only passed patrilineally. Hence this male is known as Y-chromosomal Adam after the Adam of the bible
    quote:
    Not that you do not have a valid point, but as stated earlier everything can be suspect. If we still believed "research" made by some (so called) scientist, we would believe that black people are inferior...
    Who the heck is "we"??

    I mean, please say something that means something.

    "Everything can be suspect."

    Really? What is that stuff about?
    There is nothing in dispute, nothing to doubt about the "interesting fact" of 4000 vs. 4500. When it came to the pseudo-science of racial superiority/inferiority, there were living contradictions to that BS, both scientifically (in terms of the methodology, etc.) and among those very persons who disproved any such theories.

    To talk about what "we" would still believe is pretty ridiculous because there were sure to be a sizeable contingent of Africans/African-Americans among whom any amount of pseudo-science wasn't about to convince them otherwise. Again, the were Living Contradictions to that theories with obvious socio-political motives.

    What are the motives in pointing out how Ancient Egypt is historically mapped out to have existed well before the given estimate the Bible gives for (according to the calculations cited) the existance of mankind?

    The point is, this means that the Biblical claims and hence your claims that the Bible actually "starts at the beginning" in any substantive way is, at best, problematic.

    quote:
    Your point that the bible being an actual historical record of even Hebrews is suspect is a fair assessment. But many things can be and are suspect.
    And you and I both know your very own statement there is, indeed, suspect. LOL... You went from saying "Many Things" to saying "Everything"... CAN BE "suspect."

    MLM, no need for the Mealy Mouth. CAN BE doesn't mean a thing. Don't tell me what many things or everything (hmmm...) "CAN BE." Tell me what it is.

    quote:
    Currently held beliefs change all the time.
    Ummm... How about talking about things that are being talked about? What part of the TOPIC and the CONTEXT of that TOPIC makes it hard for you to stay focused on and keep your comments within those things?

    We're not talking about Many Things, for one. And we're definitely not talking about Everything. And nowhere has Creation vs. Evolution came up in this discussion so don't talk about how "some" may choose to see the story of Adam & Eve. Stay on the topic - i.e. make sure you comments either logically flow from what's been discussed or logically contends with what has been said.

    You've had serious problems with that throughout.

    CASE IN POINT:
    "When in the context of Natives Americans and other not being in the bible, my belief is that they are part of mankind which is covered in the Bible... So that is the relevance to me."

    Ummm.... I questioned the RELEVANCE of your statement to what I posted - i.e. what you called yourself responding to.

    quote:
    So if the Bible is a record for the beginning of mankind...
    Hmmm... Do you really what to ask what the 4000 vs. 4500 means? Or do you just want to continue saying superfluous BS?

    I mean, that little factoid (again going by those calculations the estimated the total span of time the Bible records via the ages of Bible characters) debunks any implications based on the mere reference to but one of many Creation Stories that the Bible actually records events from the beginning of mankind, as accurately as can be done.

    When you say *IF*... that's conditional. Obviously, with that little 4000 vs. 4500 factoid, with what you can present, the Bible has not met that condition, in a number of ways.

    And to be frank, this is not even remotely coherent:
    So if the Bible is a record for the beginning of mankind and all people stem from the first two humans that make ALL groups i.e. Indians, Egyptians etc. part of the human family along with the Hebrews.

    Not only do you want me to buy your "IF" statement (to act like the Bible is a legitimate "record of the beginning of mankind") but you're wanting me to jump on board with something that you still cannot make sense of. Something you still cannot demonstrate in terms of the relevance of that statement to what I said.

    I mean, do you see what I see? The best you can come up with is stuff like "IF" and "INDIRECTLY"... and "CAN BE." Nothing definite. Nothing defintive. Nothing direct. Everything weak... if at all relevant.

    I mean what is the revelation or the relevance of this statement of yours:
    ALL people are indirectly addressed in the Bible – starting with the creation of mankind.

    Seriously, that addresses the central question of this thread... HOW???
      For those who believe that the Bible is the word of God - do you believe that God's word is also represented in other traditonal holy texts?
    Plain and simple, within the context of this thread, when and if you're going to talk about other people, you know, the people who are NOT directly involved in the Bible, etc.... if you're going to talk about those people then you have to address their traditions.

    As noted in too many ways, the Bible is culturally specific. It reflects a particular worldview. The worldview and story of a particular people and, as you said, their relationship with God, etc. Well, in the big broad world, there is more than just one worldview. As such, the different points where the various people viewed themselves and their God warrant more than just an INDIRECT inclusion into someone else's worldview. Into someone else's Bible. Weakly and pathetically indirect, at best...

    It is contrary to respecting the God-given human agency and dignity to speak about them as INDIRECTS. It is even more disrespectful when some of those "INDIRECTS" (as suggested by the 4000 vs. 4500 factoid) are the ELDERS of the Hebrews/Jews.

    But go ahead, please address DIRECTLY the central question:
      For those who believe that the Bible is the word of God - do you believe that God's word is also represented in other traditonal holy texts?
    Now that was the only thing the came close to questioning your faith... and that's the only thing you remotely have to defend your beliefs against. But apparently you have no beliefs concerning that besides classing people besides the Jews as INDIRECTS.

    And ummm... How many Native American Jews are there?? LOL
    Ummm... An answer to the Central Question:
    quote:
    For those who believe that the Bible is the word of God - do you believe that God's word is also represented in other traditonal holy texts?


    It logically follows from the title question and, seems to me, by virtue of your answer... it will prove exactly how ALL parts of the human family are addressed in the Bible and the religions/beliefs that flow from it.

    I don't know what's hard about the question or what's so difficult about elaborating on the HOW's and WHY's to whatever answer one can offer.
    quote:
    Originally posted by kresge:
    I am particularly interested in the orientation with respect to the Bible "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."


    When we ask questions like these Brother Kresge, I think we sometimes forget that Black people are notoriously religious people. We always have been. Undoubtedly, some readers will make arguments against this historical fact, but African people were the first people to have a holistic relationship with God, the universe, and the enviornment. Therefore, being spiritual is very important to us. It is what completes us and what defines us as a people. Therefore, regardless of what religion African people claim, whether its African-oriented or European-oriented, we have always had strong convictions about what we believe.

    However, if we want to get Black people to start thinking critically about their beliefs and begin challenging what they have been told, this is fine too. But then you must go behind this instruction and provide them with alternative ways to express themselves spritually. Presently, we are seeing a growing number of Christian critics, but many of them are not providing any acceptable alternatives to a traditional Christian lifestyle. This is the reason why many Black Christians remain bound by the idea of "going to church on Sunday" and "reading nothing but the Bible" because they are simply not aware of any other viable alternatives to what they have grown accustomed. It's like telling people to stop eating McDonald's and junk food, but then you don't make nourishing alternatives easily accessible.

    Heru touched on this point earlier in the discussion, but I will piggyback off his comments by stating that the traditional Black church, for hundreds of years, was, and STILL is, the only place in America where the masses of African Americans can go to express themselves spiritually. Again, because churches are plentiful. Therefore, to approach Black Christians and say to them, "Ok ya'll, slavery is over, time to wake up, come out of it, snap, snap!!!" and expect for them to denounce their faith and beliefs as a result of hearing your announcement is unrealistic.

    I think as more and more Black people raise their awareness and become more interested in world cultures and international affairs, we will become a lot less narrow-minded and isolated in our thinking and focus. However, what I find the most baffling about our condition as Black people in America is that considering how badly we are and have been treated (because of our differences), you would think of all the minorities in America, that Blacks would be a lot more religiously tolerant of religious/cultural differences. Instead we seem to be the least tolerant when it comes to accepting other people's cultures/religions. Go figure. Roll Eyes

    Pick up your copy of Holy Lock Down by Jeremiah Camara
    Are you on holy lock down?
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    However, what I find the most baffling about our condition as Black people in America is that considering how badly we are and have been treated, you would think of all the minorities in America, that Blacks would be a lot more religiously tolerant. Instead we seem to be the least tolerant when it comes to accepting other religions. Go figure.


    IMO, I credit this to the competitive and oppositional nature of blacks in general. Also, to many blacks, the black church is THE truth. And without these viable options/alternatives that Rowe mentioned being pushed into the community, the truth as we know it in the black church becomes exclusive. Hence the reason for the question 'is the Bible the exclusive word of God?'.

    I would just like to interject that, in the defense of exclusivity, what we call 'the word of God' can't be shared amongst religions. We focus way to much attention on comparing the similarities instead of contrasting the inconsistencies and contradictions. The contrast I like to use is, Jesus says 'turn the other cheek', Mohammad says 'strike them back harder than they struck you', Buddha says 'no worries, kharma, they'll get theirs'. The differences in how these sages approached dealing with our trangressors speaks magnitudes.

    Add Reply

    Post
    ×
    ×
    ×
    ×
    Link copied to your clipboard.
    ×