Skip to main content

quote:
I will not answer your post in detail since it puts a lot of words into my mouth. I do not object to service. I do not object to protecting my woman or myself.


You must object to the above since you reject "control". Is there a way to protect and serve outside of control?

Is there?

quote:
I do object to giving lip service or intellectual assent to a number of religious doctrines which have nothing directly to do with service, protection, or unity. For example,

12. WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims


I am a Fruit Of Islam serving in the Nation Of Islam. I cannot speak for other faiths, but I am certain that the NOI's doctrine is premised upon service, protection, and unity, among other things.

What does Master Fard Muhammad have to do with this?

quote:
I just believe it absurd and even suicidal (from a group perspective) to rush into these religious groups and demand everyone else believe this stuff too or else they're unclean, or unworthy, or not as evolved or something.



I agree.

Fortunately, the NOI makes no such claims.



Kai
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
Agreed HB -

People, please defend your position without setting up strawman arguments.

What is wrong with HB's statements. How did NOI, UNOI, and the Five Percent Nation come to be? Disagreement in the methodology of acheiving a common goal. Unless you consider one or more of the following: Minister Farrakhan, Solomon (Royall), AND Clarence 13X (RIP) to be wrong, why challenge HonestBrother for having a different take?

The concepts of service, unity, & protection may be used by a social or religious group, but such organizations are not the sole custodians of such concepts.


The idea here is that these groups promote service, unity and protection, and therefore should be applauded, not mocked.

if you do not believe in the doctrine, fine, however, there is no wrong in respecting the good which has come from these groups.

Honest Brother seems to promote the idea that we as the children of slavery should reject organization since being united and organized would mean being controlled in some way.

If I can serve alone, can I not serve with 100 others of like mind? How about 10,000 others? Is there something wrong with organizing such a force once it is assembled?



Kai
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
quote:
I do object to giving lip service or intellectual assent to a number of religious doctrines which have nothing directly to do with service, protection, or unity. For example,

12. WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims


I am a Fruit Of Islam serving in the Nation Of Islam. I cannot speak for other faiths, but I am certain that the NOI's doctrine is premised upon service, protection, and unity, among other things.

What does Master Fard Muhammad have to do with this?


Yes. NOI may be premised on service, protection, and unity AMONG OTHER IDEAS. Are you going to tell me that NO other ideas are involved?

And as for Fard Muhammad: Can't you friggin read???. One of the ideas in addition to service, protection, and unity is that this man is God. And that's from the official NOI website.
quote:

The idea here is that these groups promote service, unity and protection, and therefore should be applauded, not mocked.


But service, unity, and protection at any cost isn't worth a farthing.

Fascists promote service, unity, and protection among themselves...

Yes I do acknowledge the good. In fact, I've worked with members of NOI... my critique is more complex than you acknowledge and I'm tiring of your silly verbal games...
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
I have read on UNOI thayfen & virtue - I wasn't looking for a primer from either of you - just further elaboration on earlier statements.
My opinion is a primer for those that do not know....... I choose to give factual information as much as I can or direct one to where they can find it..... this is how I respond....
quote:
Too many people make matters of faith untouchable in critical discussion.
Agreed..... that's why this forum where so many people feel free to post whatever is on their minds regarding whatever subject they choose to wish, typically in the best manner, is such a great resource..... hmmm.. and many here tend to use it......
quote:
If anyone here is too sensitive to participate in this portion of the discussion, he/she can willingly bow out. All opinions are welcome.
Thank you.... this is a statement I feel many here are aware of ....... but sometimes may forget that we have the right to give our opinion or bow out if we are sensitive...... where would we be without your being here to remind us....... however, it is my humble opinion that many here already adhere to such a philosophy......

virtue- Do you think this:
quote:
all? .... there are plenty of women left that do not want structure or an accountable moral environment.....

is a fair statement? yes....
quote:
Are you suggesting that UNOI (or similiar groups) is the only way to acquire "structure or an accountable moral environment"?
No...

quote:
Also, this submission to structure seems contrary to the notion of a god creating whatever he desires. Please reconcile the discrepancy for me?
I do not see a discrepancy..... could you please elaborate on the discrepancy you see.... perhaps I can better answer your question... Smile


Peace,
Virtue
When I read the exchange last night - HB & thayfen were withdrawing from the discussion because of this:

quote:
Okay....

I do not mean to offend you...

You were attacking an institution I hold dear....

I try not to attack anyone or put them on the spot regarding their beliefs or things that they hold dear....

I would not....

Please let's not continue to argue...

This is why I made the statement I did - IMO, this was an appeal to emotion to shut down the road the discussion went down. I would still respectfully maintain that the uncomfortable parties should withdraw from a discussion rather than attempt to shut it down. Just my opinion - we can move past that.

quote:
Originally posted by virtue:

Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Why does it seem that all of our women (or a goodly portion of them) are looking to these strict, authoritarian (and paternalistic) religious organizations (whether Christian or Islamic matters not to me) which are basically throwbacks to bygone eras?

all? .... there are plenty of women left that do not want structure or an accountable moral environment.....


In the context of HB's post, you set up a dichotomy. Women who want structure & moral accountability (in the context of the groups described by HB) or women who do not desire structure & moral environments. These are not the only possibilities, so framing the issue as either/or is not intellectually honest IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
quote:
Also, this submission to structure seems contrary to the notion of a god creating whatever he desires. Please reconcile the discrepancy for me?
I do not see a discrepancy..... could you please elaborate on the discrepancy you see.... perhaps I can better answer your question... Smile


Peace,
Virtue


I'll rephrase, then leave it be if the question is still unclear:

How can a man be a "god, creating whatever he desires" if he is following the structure created by another man? Elsewhere, you commented on the corporate world and the law of nation/state and that a man following the structure of these was essentially a "renter". How is the man following Min. W. Fard or Royall not a "renter as well?
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
quote:
I will not answer your post in detail since it puts a lot of words into my mouth. I do not object to service. I do not object to protecting my woman or myself.


You must object to the above since you reject "control". Is there a way to protect and serve outside of control?

Is there?


Since I'm tired of you asking the same dumb question repeatedly I'll repost:

quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
As descendants of slave we must learn to be free, how to exercise our will, or to not execise our will, to strive for a goal, or not strive for a goal - in short, how to control ourselves - and how to freely choose our destiny...


This sounds like a "god" to me....
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
When I read the exchange last night - HB & thayfen were withdrawing from the discussion because of this:

quote:
Okay....

I do not mean to offend you...

You were attacking an institution I hold dear....

I try not to attack anyone or put them on the spot regarding their beliefs or things that they hold dear....

I would not....

Please let's not continue to argue...

This is why I made the statement I did - IMO, this was an appeal to emotion to shut down the road the discussion went down. I would still respectfully maintain that the uncomfortable parties should withdraw from a discussion rather than attempt to shut it down. Just my opinion - we can move past that. Wow... I didn't realize you were so in tune with my intentions that you could speak for me....

Nice...

Well, dear Brother.... since you insist on making that a point....

That was an attempt not to shut the conversational topic down.... it was an attempt to shut down the emotional climax that was about to happen and I didn't know how that would turn out..... so instead of speaking to the emotional build up.... I spoke "around" it......

That was my intention.....

I have no problems with the topic...... except that the topic really doesn't belong here.... if we are going to debate about the validity or opinions regarding the beliefs of one's institution then we really should take it to the religion forum..... IMHO....


quote:
Originally posted by virtue:

Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Why does it seem that all of our women (or a goodly portion of them) are looking to these strict, authoritarian (and paternalistic) religious organizations (whether Christian or Islamic matters not to me) which are basically throwbacks to bygone eras?

all? .... there are plenty of women left that do not want structure or an accountable moral environment.....


In the context of HB's post, you set up a dichotomy. Women who want structure & moral accountability (in the context of the groups described by HB) or women who do not desire structure & moral environments. These are not the only possibilities, so framing the issue as either/or is not intellectually honest IMO.
No it wasnt.....

It was a very simple response.......

HB generalized.... I offered not an either or alternative.... just an alternative....

Just my opinion..... but perhaps you're reading way too much into what you think are my intentions.......

If someone says all apples are green.... and I say well there's always the red ones.... that's not a hard fast either or situation..... just an option..... there should be no implied cut off.... unless you make it so..... one may not know that there are yellow apples... but the response is not cutting off that possibility... just not addressing it....


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
quote:
Also, this submission to structure seems contrary to the notion of a god creating whatever he desires. Please reconcile the discrepancy for me?
I do not see a discrepancy..... could you please elaborate on the discrepancy you see.... perhaps I can better answer your question... Smile


Peace,
Virtue


I'll rephrase, then leave it be if the question is still unclear:

How can a man be a "god, creating whatever he desires" if he is following the structure created by another man? Elsewhere, you commented on the corporate world and the law of nation/state and that a man following the structure of these was essentially a "renter". How is the man following Min. W. Fard or Royall not a "renter as well?
My intention here was not general..... it was specific type of relationship.....

ummm..... Man whose culture has systemically tried to break the Black Male down to nothing for centuries.... almost since his own time has recorded him on the planet....

I was simply saying...... this man rules.... and many are comfortable with it... because they see a place for themselves here.....

Its this type of thinking that is a little distateful.... for what my definition of what a man should be.......

You are comparing apples and oranges.....

In other words.... Let's take hypothetical "Malik" whose been harrassed and beat up consistently by a bully ever since he entered high school....... Malik used to be popular but allowed the bully to mess up his reputation and his standing..... now Malik is no longer looked up to.... he's pitied and tolerated at best.... but always having to cow tow to the bully who stripped him of his standing...... and his dignity....

The bully doesn't stop.... he pesters him subtley and occasion will leave him alone when he's tired..... and even on some occassions will even allow him to hang out with the new popular crowd....

Something inside Malik feels degraded hanging out with him...... although in the present climate he may feel he has no choice.....

"Malik's" relationship with the bully at school is different from his relatiionship with the man who helped him learn how to fight......


the person on the outside looking in....

may look at Malik and think this is nothing more than making quick peace on the playground.... offering the bully an olive branch if you will...... and not see the other implications of this.....

or one can look at Malik and see that his manhood is at stake..... and he needs to fight for deeper reasons.....

or one can expend and enormous amount of energy trying to "talk" to the bully

or one can realize the bully is not going to change at this moment..... and will stomp poor Malik if he doesn't get enough courage to stand up for himself..... by himself.....

one should be able to recognize the difference unless he identifies too much with the bully.....

perhaps because he's gained too much benefit from hanging around the bully and doesn't want it to end or doesn't see how the ruling popularity could change into his favor.....or doesn't see himself in that position.... just doesn't see it.... too blinded by the "benefits".....

So blinded he forgets that Malik is his brother... and he too could feel the same amount of pressure if he stood up for himself....

Just doesn't want to.... too much pain involved.... not worth it.... even for dignity's sake....

JMHO.....



Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Why does it seem that all of our women (or a goodly portion of them) are looking to these strict, authoritarian (and paternalistic) religious organizations (whether Christian or Islamic matters not to me) which are basically throwbacks to bygone eras?


HB generalized.... I offered not an either or alternative.... just an alternative....


Not to start anything, but for the record, I did not generalize... I very clearly wrote "all of our women (or a goodly portion of them)"

I think the statement is absolutely true as it stands. Perhaps the following is a purely subjective judgement on my part, but from where I stand too many of our people (male and female) are into to "these strict, authoritarian (and paternalistic) religious organizations."

And it's no secret but black women are the most Jesus praising group of women in the country.

Generalizations? What generalizations?
quote:

all? .... there are plenty of women left that do not want structure or an accountable moral environment.....


And I will add, so that there is no doubt, that given my initial statement: OF COURSE, I favor a middle ground where people want accountable moral environments BUT take responsibility themselves for creating them.

One doesn't need to be a member of a religious organization to either desire or have an 'accountable moral environment.'
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:

all? .... there are plenty of women left that do not want structure or an accountable moral environment.....


And I will add so that there is no doubt, that given my initial statement: OF COURSE, I favor a middle ground where people want accountable moral environments BUT take responsibility themselves for creating them.

One doesn't need to be a member of a religious organization to either desire or have an 'accountable moral environment.'
Okay....


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Yes. NOI may be premised on service, protection, and unity AMONG OTHER IDEAS. Are you going to tell me that NO other ideas are involved?


Baby steps....Definitely baby steps...

Okay c'mon...

Your gripe was not against ideology, it was against "systems of control". Your statements indicated a broad indictment of all institutions which exercises control over it's members.

You specifically indicated in your argument that we should be self governed.

I have raised the issue of unity to counter some of what you asserted.

Do not get me wrong, I am for self governance in most instances, however, I am also a man who understands the need for unity. Further, I understand that the mechanics of unity include allowing others to have some say over how I will live. I consent to being governed in such systems of control.

If you are saying that you are for control, however, not when it requires you to join on to others who do not share your ideas, then fine...You should say that...Because thus far...You sound kinda Loopy...

quote:
And as for Fard Muhammad: Can't you friggin read???. One of the ideas in addition to service, protection, and unity is that this man is God. And that's from the official NOI website]

Is this suppose to be some explosive revelation?

Are you shocked by the claim that God is a man? Perhaps you should do a little research on the history of Anthropomorphism, and God, before you try and shock us. Perhaps the idea of God being a man is not so strange after all....


Careful sonny....



The Saracen Knight

Kai
This is not a religion debate - it so happened that Rowe mentioned men on "another level" being able to avoid women that may suffer from cognitive dissonance. The phrase suggests a superiority over other men (remember - I'm trying to "unload" these loaded phrases). When I inquired about what makes these men superior and their common traits, she mentioned UNOI. So IMO, the discussion of strict, authoritarian religious groups (in HB's words) in relation to what Black women want from Black men is relevant. There is a non-congruence between the desire to have your man dress & behave like Europeans (see Rowe's many comments on mulitple threads about things White men wear & do that brothers should adopt) & the type of man she described in this thread. I did not issue any attacks, I asked questions that were on my mind.

Perhaps you should ask Kai & HB if they are debating religion away from the context of this thread.

At any rate, thanks for your attempts to help me improve my understanding...
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
quote:
Originally posted by RadioRaheem:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
I'm truly beginning to believe that your selection is also going to be strongly determined by where you live. Here in Kentucky there are plenty of single professional women but after you weed out the hyper-Christianized Bible thumping church goers you really don't want to have anything to do with the thug lovers who are left...

There really honest to God doesn't seem to be anything else here....


stay put bruh. DC area, Atlanta area, baltimore area, NYC area are pretty much all that same pool that you have there in KY. I hear rural South women maybe be better choices, maybe I'll look into that someday, but Big city women giveup


It's not that bad in the A - you have more variety in the pool.


true, ATL is cool, but I just hate dealing with nasty attitudes. It's a form of disrespect
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
Kai


You are full of hot air ... and seem to be deliberately misconstruing my posts.

You asked me what I had against unity, protection, and service. My response was nothing. But what I objected to were the other unrelated doctrines which have not a damned thing to do with unity, protection, or service. But which nevertheless demand assent from members of the organization and whose ONLY function is intellectual control...

You asked what I had against unity, protection, and service and my response was and remains that I embrace these ideas. What I do not embrace are the other doctrines. I gave as an example the doctrine about Fard Muhammad - the ONLY reason why I even brought it up: as an example of a debatable doctrine unrelated to unity, protection, or service...

I'm not debating the correctness of these doctrines - nor am I "shocked" by them ... but I'm merely questioning whether or not they are necessary to achieve unity, protection, and service...

My contention is that they are not... that they are in fact unnecessarily destructive of "unity" as there is always room for disagreement over such doctrines... AND MOREOVER THEY SERVE NO OTHER FUNCTION THAN CONTROL OVER MEMBERS... And even more than that, they needlessly discriminate against good brothers and sisters who have great contributions to make to the collective and whose only crime is to refuse to submit their minds to wacky (at the worst - at the best debatable) ideas ...

I will not accept "UNITY" at any cost... Since Fascists frequently value and are able to achieve "UNITY"...

You seem to be deliberately changing the subject... And you are ticking me off...

* I would appreciate if in your next response to me you demonstrate some reading comprehension * Thank you... hat
Last edited {1}

Add Reply

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