quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
[QUOTE]
Melesi: The Romans persecuted Christians simply because it was so different they sometimes thought it a danger to the cohesiveness of the Empire.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
What you are not accepting Melesi is that every cultural group has a spiritual identity, a belief system, a set of world-views, a spiritual existence that is ultimately responsible for directing and organizing the people that create it and follow it. Beliefs, customs, traditions, ideologies, moral and ethical standards of living, etc. are all established inside a cultural construct. The arguments that you have provided, against this reality, defies all common sense and logic. Its almost as if you are simply creating defensive arguments for the sake of arguing and you are not at all concerned about whether or not your arguments make any sense.
Well while it is certainly a "Reality" that different cultures usually have different religions (exceptions abound; for instance other-country conversions to Islam, Buddhism, Christianity or Judaism), I'd like to point out that while a person may grow UP in a culture and a certain religion, THAT PERSON IS BY NO MEANS BOUND TO IT FOR ETERNITY IF THEY CHOOSE ANOTHER PATH. An East Indian need not be a Hindu or Sikh; A white person need not be atheist humanist or Christian; a person from an indigenous society need not worship the gods or ancestors associated with their heritage. A person converting from one faith to another will NOT cause the universe to cave in. Some people make TOO BIG A DEAL of the attempt to persuade others to broaden their minds and accept different teachings. If a person is WILLING to be convinced, then he will be convinced, if a person is NOT willing to be convinced then nothing can change that. In the meantime, no harm done. (This is in a context WITHOUT the threat of force).
Rowe you're totally ignoring the reality that at the beginning there was only ONE "religion", ONE culture, ONE "ethnic group" (for lack of a better description) and it all branched out into what we see today. Assume for arguments sake that this ONE 'religion' is the one that lead to Judaism/Christianity. Then that means that EVERYONE'S natural ancestral religion is the one with the True God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And since we're all about getting back to our ROOTS here, WHY NOT GO BACK ALLLLLLLLLL THE FRIGGIN' WAY?!
quote:
Melesi: If it were part of the culture, or if it were merely a vehicle of the culture, then either Rome or Jerusalem would have accepted it, but neither did.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: There could have been a number of reasons why Rome or Jerusalem did not want to accept someone else's culture and beliefs.
Rome had a conflict of interest any time the Emperor had delusions of self-divinity. Roman religion was just as intolerant as the Spanish Inquisition, if not more so. Loyalty to Emperor and Country meant worshiping the Emperor as a Living god. Failure to do so meant you really weren't a Roman. Certainly Emperors of such a mindset as to declare themselves divine were more often than not a few fries short of a Happy Meal (like Domitian, Nero, and others) and it went beyond mere intolerance against other religions. They took it personally and exercised their wrath against what they saw as treachery and disloyalty.
Jerusalem was a bit of a different story. No Pharisee or High Priest claimed to be God. In fact, the Jews who didn't believe in Christ at the time tried to STONE him for blasphemy--because he CLAIMED to be God (which was when he said "Before Abraham was, I AM")! The Jews of the day weren't looking for a spiritual savior to erase their sins; they wanted a political leader to help them ditch Roman Rule. When Jesus didn't measure up to their expectations they said forget him. Jesus took the Pharisees to task over ADDITIONS to the Word of God and commandments, and they in their powerhungryness got mad and decided to kill him because he threatened their power over the people--the power to FREE them of the Pharisees' hypocrisy and unnecessary dictates.
quote:
Melesi: When the first missionaries traveled to other culutres, they didn't set out ot change the culture, nor did thye take a culture with them. It didn't matter what else the people did as long as they worshipped and followed Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: African people are notoriously religious.
Yeah, I don't suppose you'd find too many ATHEISTS among them...shamanic parlor tricks seem to keep lots of people convinced...(not just Africans but people all over the world)
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Religion is so much apart of the culture that there isn't really an African word for "religion." Because every act, thought, and traditional decision is religious.
Does this mean you have to ask some spirits' permission before you take a $#**?
:P
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Therefore, if someone comes to them with the suggestion to worship and follow a "jesus christ" rather than the traditional African gods that they have been worshipping for hundreds of years, then what you are asking them to do is completely disrupt and deconstruct their culture, lives, and belief system.
That depends. If a person's whole life is in thrall to some spirits that tell them loads of $#** to keep them compliant (via the local Shaman, who really isn't any better than the POPE--because you get the same problem with ONE person interpreting a "spirit" and their wishes as you did back in the middle ages when priests and the popes were the only ones who could read the Bible and thus tell the people what God wants. And as the priests of the Middle Ages could get away with telling the people absolute BULL$#**, so can a select few among the people (the shamans/spirit-contactors whatever the traditional term for them are) have the opportunity to fill some gullible people's minds FULL OF HORSE $#** and the people would have NO way of knowing whether the shaman was full of $#** or not.
The problem with traditional animistic and spiritistic religions is that usually only a select few have the "power." I'd feel a lot better about it if the spirits talked to EVERYONE on an equal basis instead of hiding behind potentially corrupt shamans.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
A belief system and culture that has been in existence long before your arrival.
I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but whatever system and culture, no matter where, of EVERY religion except Judaeo-Christianity, CAME LONG AFTER Man talked freely with God as one person talks to another person. So in effect, the Roots of Christianity far predate your precious tribal religions. If you wanna go back to your ROOTS, man, the TRUE BEGINNING, you have to go THAT FAR back. Not just a few measly centuries or millenia. ALL THE WAY BACK. And stop with this
argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy you're using (the logical fallacy that something is good because it is old: Fallacy Name:
Appeal to Age
Alternative Names:
argumentum ad antiquitatem
Category:
Appeals to Emotion and Desire
Explanation:
The Appeal to Age fallacy goes in the opposite direction, by arguing that the when something is old, then this somehow impacts the value or truth of the proposition in question. The most common form of this is:
6. It is old or long-used, so it must better than this new-fangled stuff.
There are quite a few people out there who are under the mistaken impression that the age of an item, and that alone, is indicative of its value and usefulness. Such an attitude is not entirely without warrant. Just as it is true that a new product can provide new benefits, it is also true that something old may have value because it has worked for a long time.
However, it simply isn't true that we can assume, without further question, that an old object or practice is valuable simply because it is old. Perhaps it has been used a lot because no one has ever known or tried any better. Perhaps new and better replacements are absent simply because people have accepted the fallacious Appeal to Age. )
and the
Argumentum ad Misercordiam (Appeal to emotion: The argument generally has this form:
1. Unfortunate or lamentable situation S is described. Therefore, conclusion C should be accepted.
By appealing to people's ability to pity others, a powerful emotive force can be created. Unfortunately, however serious another person's problems are, that does not automatically make their claims any more true. My sympathy for that situation does not create a reasonable basis for believing their claims.).
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Essentially, you are asking them to abandon their god(s), for yours.
Yeah, but what have they done for them LATELY?
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
And my question to you is WHY IS IT OK FOR YOU TO ASK OTHERS TO TURN THEIR BACKS ON THEIR GODS AND TRADITIONS, BUT ITS NOT OK FOR SOMEONE ASK YOU TO DO THE SAME!
Oh it's OK, you are welcome to TRY. Nobody ever said nobody could ask us to do that...they'd just have to give a GOOD ENOUGH reason...
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
The problem with Christians, and Americans in general, is that their understanding of religion and spirituality is quite inorganic and superficial. Americans think of religion as something that is apart from an individual's lifestyle and should be treated as such,
Can't argue with you there. A lot of people who call themselves Christian think that way. I don't, however.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
whereas indigenous people's (Africans, American Natives, Asians, etc.) understanding of religion and its role in our lives is the total opposite. We think that religion should be at the forefront of our lives and so integrated in our lives that one cannot possibly tell the difference between our "religion" and our "culture."
Actually you may not realize it but THAT'S the way Christianity is SUPPOSED TO BE.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
That is why you are not able to successfuly grasp the concept of religion and culture being one of the same. Your cultural and societal grooming won't allow it.
While a great many people might think that way, it does not necessarily mean EVERY Christian thinks that way. Evangelical Christians and Fundamentalists certainly don't. (Why else would you hear people complain about the "Religious Right" 'trying to impose their morality on everyone'? It's PRECISELY BECAUSE real Christians DO NOT BELIEVE that culture and religion should be separate, at least in THEIR lives and in the country at large.
quote:
Melesi: Will this new belief change their culture? Yes, but all cultures change anyway. No culture has ever been static.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: And what qualifies you to be the agents of change? The problem is Europeans are incredibly altruistic. They feel that its their responsibility to police societies looking for "changes" that they think should be made. And if they find any, they feel as if THEY, and them alone, should be the ones to take credit for having made the changes. Even if someone's religion did need to be "changed" (which is a white person's code word for, destroyed and wiped out), why should your religion take precedence?
Well leaving out the "force" factor and leaving it up to individual choice, our religion should take precedence prolly cuz it's TRUE.
IT is true that many religions have taboos that prevent people from exploring their world in scientific ways. There's a cave on Vancouver Island here that the native Indians would not go into because the cold air rushing out of it (due to temperature difference, easily explained by SCIENCE) was strange to them and they thought EVIL SPIRITS dwelled within. Many indigenous cultures believed that the birth of twins was an evil omen; that one was real and the other was a demon. This led these people (some of which belonged to AFRICAN tribes! This also occurred in the Americas) to either kill one of the babies--the one they thought was the demon or evil child--or at least leave it out for the wild animals. Animism teaches there are spirits in everything, including the inanimate rocks, and water. Scientific studies would be awkward if not outright taboo for fear of offending the spirits. The First Nations Indians believe that a body that is tampered with after death causes the spirit of that body to wander the earth in torment instead of finding peace. This has resulted in DNA testing AND Autopsies being STRONGLY opposed by First Nations who actually still believe the old teachings, and it makes murder investigations that much more difficult. And, it has hampered the scientific study of the 9,000 year-old Kennewick Man skull, which researchers believe is Caucasoid and not Indian at all. (And the Indians, in addition to the teachings about bodies, are scared STIFF that Kennewick Man is evidence of "White" (or Caucasoid of a darker color, no one can tell) people being in America BEFORE THEM.)
quote:
Melesi: And the changes that this religion makes in a culture are good ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: Again, what makes you think that the cultures and religions created by African people for African people are not already "good." What qualifies you to tell me or anyone else in the international world that our religions and cultures need changing because they are "bad?"
Let's see: as to the BENEFITS of religion-change...no traditional African culture developed cars, refrigerators, flush toilets, vaccines, antibiotics, air conditioners, or water treatment implements. No African Religion ADEQUATELY addresses the topic of Evil; most are happy to live in a state of that RIVER IN EGYPT, you know, DE NILE (denial). African religions are no different from standard not-hardly-Christians who believe all they need to do is be a good boy and try their hardest and nothing bad will happen to them in the afterlife.
As to what was bad, see above; I beleive I already addressed that.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Who are you to tell us that!
Well you seem comfortable with telling US how wrong you think WE are, so what the hell is the big deal?
quote:
Melesi: What do you want to see happen, women given an equal place with men, or do you want an equitorial African culture that says, oh, that women cannot play musical instruments nor do other things that men can?
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: Even if these statements were accurate, it is still not your responsibility to tell people how to organize their lives.
Well we are entitled to make some FRIGGIN' SUGGESTIONS...free speech man.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
You cannot police the entire world. People have to think and live for themselves according to what is best for them.
What is BEST for them, man, is NOT being LOST for all eternity in the netherworld.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
You will find in every culture, certain customs and traditions that are different from yours.
That's not a big deal.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
That should not cause you to become an intolerant and self-righteous snob. Your arrogant thinking is precisely the reason why everyone hates Americans and whites.
Well arrogance is the trait of many a human, be they black, white or brown, American, Canadian, Polack, Indian, etc. BTW, if this is your reasoning why "everyone" hates Americans and Whites, why does "everyone" hate black people?
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
You all simply cannot have relationships with people and respect people for who and what they are. You always have to try and make someone over until the whole world thinks, appears, talks, and live out their lives in the exact same ways that you do.
I dunno about "you all"...would you PLEASE stop trying to stereotype all whites & americans, it makes you just as bad as people who wrongly stereotype ALL BLACK PEOPLE.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
And its unrealistic for you to think that you can accomplish this.
That's a fact...
quote:
Melesi: The culture of Europe oppressed women just as much as many other cultures did and do, but it was the Christian cultures that had to freedom to change because they believed in men and women being equal.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: That is incorrect. Of all the women in the global community, European women were assigned the least amont of respect from European men and were denied some of the most basic human rights compared to the rest of the world's population of women.
Incorrect. Australian Aborigines' treatment of women at least ranks right up there with that, if not beyond--the SACRED DIGERIDOO instrument (u know, that thing shaped like a blowgun that goes "waow-waow-waow-waow") IS NOT TO BE TOUCHED BY WOMEN BECAUSE THEY ARE UNHOLY AND THEIR TOUCH WILL DEFILE IT. Madonna really got in trouble when she touched a digeridoo that had been presented to her by someone who didn't know, or give a $#**, about the traditional taboo of the Digeridoo against WOMEN.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
That is the reason why white women had to eventually drudge up the "Feminist Movement" in the first place. What's worse, Christianity, after white men got a hold of it, became THE MOST chauvinistic and male-centered religion on the planet.
Actually, there's room for debate there. We've got a couple contenders here, including radical Islam and traditional Aborigine religion...
The difference being, Christian women would not be killed for their feminism (at least not usually) while feminist aborigine women would be an oxymoron without Christian influence (because the shamanic parlor tricks of their religion keep them in line) and radical muslim men would just kill any heretics including feminists as par for the course. Or at least torture the F*** out of them...
Incidentally, it was a Black guy who became a Knight (and was Christian), who came up with the idea of CHIVALRY. St. Morris, I believe the guy's name was.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
All one has to do is read Genesis to learn about the position and role of women (according to Christianity).
Yeah, because she was not to be trusted to run $#** HERSELF because of her gullibility. Her husband was to keep her stupid ideas in check (while her smart ideas would be affirmed, in an ideal world). However in Israelite times, there was a Female Judge (Deborah), and women weren't always into the hard knock life people imagine they were. Proverbs speaks of the good wise wife, "She considers a field, and BUYS it." Looks like not much has changed in 3000 years--wife with the hands on her husband's bank account...
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
In Genesis, the first sin which is a precursor to the so-called "fall of man"
"Man" as used here is GENERIC and means humankind in general, NOT merely the male sex of humans. It wasn't a precursor, it WAS the fall of "man"! It began when Eve started adding crap to what God said. God never said they could not TOUCH the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, just not to eat of its fruit. Eve was pretty much pwned the minute she added "nor may we even TOUCH it..."
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
is conveniently blamed on a woman.
MAYBE because it
WAS HER FAULT?! Doesn't anyone recognize responsibility for actions anymore?
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
And Adam is given "dominion over the earth" while Eve is assigned the job of being "Adam's helper." Please. Subsequently, all througoht the bible a woman is either a slut, a man's downfall (Samson and Delilah), or treated as if she's an irrelevant and unimportant waste of human flesh.
That's bull$#** and you know it. Mary, mother of JESUS, for crissakes! She was NOT treated like ANY of that in the Bible! Elizabeth, her cousin, mother of St. John the Baptist, same deal! Deborah the Judge! Ruth! Esther! Mary and Martha, Jesus' buddies! Dorcas (in Acts)! I could go on...
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Hence, its quite clear what a Christian woman is to a Christian man: a suitable helper that should defer to the decisions and choices made by the Christian man.
A smart Christian man will listen and agree if his wife is making a good point. However you can't have anarchy in a relationship. Husbands are commanded to love their wives and treat them as if they were his own body.
But more than that, these teachings are a TEST. Godly women will pass this test, a test to see if they trust God.
quote:
Melesi: In God's sight, as it says in Genesis 1 and shows Paul's letters where he addresses some women as leaders and just as important as the men. That was a bit radical in the Empire, too.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: Women are also not allowed to preach and/or take up ministry in this religion.
They are not allowed to be ordained preachers. This means they are not to have any religious authority over man. This however does NOT mean they cannot share their faith privately with a man in a non-authority situation.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Women are in fact instructed to be silent in the presence of men.
BEWARE! DO NOT TWIST THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE!!!!!! It says they were to be silent IN THE CHURCH. NOT "in the presence of men"!!!! Ladies were prolly TOO BUSY GOSSIPING TO EACH OTHER AND NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE SERVICE.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Now when I was a Christian, I distinctly remember seeing and reading that in the Bible.
Either you got a BAD translation or you remember it WRONG. IT DOES
NOT say that women are to be silent in the presence of men.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
That doesn't sound like leadership to me. That sounds like domestication.
That's in the CHURCH, not regular life. There's a difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
On the other hand, African women were not only allowed to speak, but allowed to take charge of wars and govern military alliances.
Women generally suck at multitasking military decisions. I should know, I am one.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Many of them fought consecutive battles against European invaders who persistently sought to occupy Africa and monopolize its precisious and rare resources. Furthermore, no prince can become a King until his lineage is tied to and approved by a woman, who is traditionally the matriarch of the Royal Family. What people are unfortunately doing is rather than researching information themselves, they cheat! They cheat by listening to and accepting half-truths and sometimes outright bogus lies provided to them about Africa, often times from an European perspective.
I hate to break this to you, but the pre-christian Pagan CELTS of what is now Britain had a similar setup to what you are describing. They had women leaders, women shamans, women in the military. And look where it got them...
(Yeah, the Romans beat them back...and later they got Christianized!)
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Excision, which is female circumcision, is believed by Americans, to be an indication that African women are being treated poorly. That is simply not true. Both African boys and girls are circumcised. Traditionally at the age of fifteen to mark their passage from childhood to adulthood. It is not done to make young women more submissive to men or turn them into prostitutes like people have been saying. Too often, the people that spread these lies are the least qualified to speak about Africa and its customs in the first place.
And yet here YOU are, LYING about Christianity, not understanding that which you criticize, and you are among the LEAST qualified to discuss the subject with any honesty.
(BTW, we know it's the muslims that once they got ahold of excision, turned it into the brutality that Americans hear about in regards to "female circumcision.")
quote:
Melesi: The message of Christ confronts every culture and it is not bound by any. Therefore the message of Christ is not culture.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: Every religion starts out as a form of beliefs and where exactly do you suppose the Christian's form of beliefs came from Melesi? The sky? What are the religion's origins, who were the first groups to identify with it? You simply must be more analytical and inquistive about culture Melesi and what it entails.
Christian form of beliefs originally began with Adam and Eve chatting it up with God in the Pre-Fallen state. THE FALL is what led to the diversity of religions and cultures as a result of rebellion and rejection of the TRUE God. Christians merely want to reintroduce the True God as He is revealed, which was lost so long ago to many civilizations.
quote:
Melesi: What you see as errors on the part of the religion was really an error on the part of those who allowed a culutre to become bigger than their religion, and therefore they were not good Christians as they did that.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: Again, we find the passing the buck among Christians. When you all want to take the credit for having made a positive difference in the world, you want to stand united. But when someone assigns characteristics to you that are not so favorable, you want to say, That's "those Christians" over there, and not us. Whether you identify with them or not, they belong to your sect and their behaviour is representive of the arrogance that you have expressed thus far. Have you ever heard the old saying, "Birds of a feather flock together???"
Dude, you're a racist idiot and ignorant at that. Christianity has MANY sects; it in and of itself is not a "sect." Christians stand with all TRUE Christians; those who are false and using religion for their own power rather than to glorify God are NOT Christians at all; they are the wolves in sheeps clothing we were warned about. What have I or Melesi taken credit for on other people's/religions backs? Didn't happen. Nuff said. Quit putting words in our mouths. Most people who argue like you are the ones that don't try to listen. They are just mad.
Your generalization makes about as much sense as if someone were to say to YOU, that when some black people do something realllly wonderful, you all want to stand together, but if some black people do something bad, "Oh no, that's them black people over there" and the other person saying to you "But they're of your continental ethnic group. Their behavior is representative of something...and by the way, birds of a feather flock together."
Which is to say, it makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.
quote:
Melesi: It doesn't matter that the key word is "IN AFRICA." To a real extent there is no "Africa." There is a collection of peoples that European geopolitical taxonomy calls "Africa." but that is an arbitrary grouping that nobody there did until outsiders came to do it.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: You are absolutely correct. Europeans assigned the name "Africa" to the continent when they arrived. No one really knows, but some historians claim that the natives called the continent by another name, they apparently called it Alkebu-lan, according to the research done by Dr. Yosef Ben-Jochannan, an authority on African History.
no comment needed...
quote:
Melesi: When Africans attacked each other, you can bet that teh ones attacked did not say to each other, "It's ok--they're Africans."
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: Again, internal conflicts refer to those conflicts that had taken place on the continent. In any case, my contention is that it is not customary for an African native belonging to one remote tribe to impose her or his religion on a neighboring tribe. Because African religion carries the tribe's traditions, experiences, and personal beliefs. Therefore, one cannot be "converted" into a traditional African religion like one can be converted into a Western religion.
Dude conflict is conflict; regardless if it's over religion, ethnic group status, or a chunk of property.
I would disagree about one not being able to be "converted" to an African religion, as it is an absurd notion to the extreme, especially in the context of the peoples of the continent are all derived from a common ancestor, and thus AT SOME POINT, their collective ancestors ALL shared ONE tradition/culture/religion. Besides, why should some poor modern soul be beholden to what some guy MADE UP 4000 years ago?
quote:
Melesi: Do I think that being a Christian is the right way to believe and live? Yes. Will I try to somehow force you to become one? No.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: Good. Welcome to humanity and human decency.
Whaddaya mean "welcome", she was there the WHOLE time!
quote:
Melesi: That there are many different religions does not mean--in fact it is logically impossible--that they are all right, nor are they good even for those who practice them, for they would be false, and it is never good to follow a false concept.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: Why does a religion have to be "right?" I say again, who are you and the people you represent to tell someone that their religion is "not right?" Or that your religion is "good" and mine is "bad." Our religions are acceptable to us and that's all that matters. You are not us and we have to lead our own lives. You cannot do it for us. I don't subscribe to dichotomies like these anyway, nor does the rest of the non-white world. You really need to grow up and mature in your reasoning. Realize how you sound. You sound like a selfish and bossy child that has developed into a religious bigot lacking an ounce of tolerance for someone that different from you. Grow up.
When you say "we", could you please list the names of the people you are speaking for? Because, this is your issue. YOUR OWN MIND. Do you realize this?
IN THEORY, your religion most likely does not have a solid background. (Oral traditions are VERY subject to BS changes.) Why would you even consider those "gods" as bringing any sort of benefit when there are no recorded anything about them, primarily we have documentation (The Bible), you do not. I would at least expect some sort of documentation and not this traditional pagan sort of worship which is well-documented in the Bible as being WRONG. So where do you stand?
quote:
Melesi: But since we're asking about respect, why cannot you respect my freedom to practice my religion, which includes telling other people about Christ?
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: I don't have any problem with Christians, or any other cultural group, UNTIL they approach me with this self-righteous attitude that I had better become one of them, or else, UNTIL they express this mentality that thier religion is superior and mine is inferior.
NOT "Superior / Inferior"! RIGHT AND WRONG!
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
The problem is you can't understand that a person's (a African person's) religion is intimately tied to our identity. Its everthing and all that we stand for. Its everything to us. Its who we are. You cannot simply come on our continent, tell us to abandon everything that defines us and expect us to not to at least question your nerve and audacity.
Are you claiming that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an "African" to retain their identity and convert to ANOTHER religion? What a steaming pile of horse crap.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
You all are so fake and phony when it comes to religion. You just "attend to" your religion on "Sundays" and "Holidays" inside your "churches"
Well people who ain't living it day to day are hypocrites, that's for damn sure...
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
and "mosques."
You keep the muslims out of this. this aint about them.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
For us Africans, Spirituality is EVERYWHERE. Spirituality is in the food, in the air, in the trees, in the water, in our children, in the very breath that we breathe.
DUDE I know what Animism is all about. You believe there's spirits in the f***ing ROCKS for crying out loud. There's no spirits that are inherently tied to rocks! It's a demon who is PRETENDING that's how things are! You call it spirituality, I call it unnecessary beholden-ness to Principalities that DO NOT GIVE A $#** whether a person burns in hell or not. You call it spirituality, I call it letting "spirits" (demons) RUN YOUR F***ING LIVES. YOU ARE LISTENING TO LIARS (the spirits, whose King is the FATHER OF LIES) AND THEY ARE TELLING YOU LIES (via their agents, the shamans) and here you are regurgitating exclusionary bullcrap that REQUIRES people to remain in bondage to highly treacherous (smile in your face as they stab you in the back) "spirits" in order to maintain an "identity"! It's all a ruse so these spirits can drag as many souls DOWN WITH THEM as they POSSIBLY can! They like nothing better than to maintain division within Humanity. That's where you get garbage about religion being tied to identity. They want to KEEP you enslaved TO THEM! The slaves' bodies may have been freed from temporal slavery, but a whole pile of them CONSENTED to ETERNAL slavery at the beck and call of the siren song of the demon spirits that trick humans, masquerading as the spirit of that rock over there, or of the spirit of dear old aunt Martha, who has come to tell the shaman that you CAN'T be an African without African Religion.
NOW IF IT WORKS FOR YOU GUYS WHY THE HELL DOESN'T IT WORK THAT WAY FOR US??? That seems illogical.
Spirits/Spirituality in everything = Pagan worship again. Needless to say, if someone starts something, someone has to continue it. Certainly GOD would not let it become overly prolific. Otherwise, we just might have lawlessness because we know "Africans" and your religion were not fortunate.
You probably are an atheist or someone who makes this up in attempt to form a tangible argument because you don't need to explain your religion which would be too easy to hack, since traditional tribal religions more often than not hide behind "secrecy". You have no argument, just admit it. We just know that you are making a fool of yourself by arguing with us.
quote:
Melesi: And it certainly doesn't say that all religions are equal. They are not, and I would rather follow the truth even if it's hard than a lie even if it's comfortable.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: All religions are not meant to be equal Melesi. No wonder you are a bigot.
It's got NOTHING to do with "bigotry"! How can one be "bigoted" against LIES? Are we not to cast lies aside, after all they are HARMFUL and DESTRUCTIVE?!
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Someone has been filling your head with a load of bull about your religion being superior to others, when it simply is not.
Truth is truth, superiority need not enter the equation.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
It is not better. It is just different. That is all. Repeat this to yourself daily: MY RELIGION IS NOT BETTER, IT IS DIFFERENT. Again, the only thing that makes one religion more superiot to another are the people that believe it.*
Let's see you say that again when you're standing before the Lord God of Hosts on Judgment Day and see if He buys that nonsense. His chances of buying it are slim to none and slim went home.
quote:
Melesi: What I have said is that this is truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Rowe: TRUTH is subjective. Truth is not universal.
TRUTH is "Subjective"? If I say the banana is yellow, and the banana is IN FACT yellow, is it EQUALLY TRUE to say the banana is blue? NO. Am I being intolerant by telling you that the banana is not blue, and you'll have to take those stupid vision-distorting sunglasses off in order so you can SEE that it's yellow? HELL NO!
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Someone once told me that "truth" is 95% perspective and 5% fact.
They are wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Everyone's idea of truth is different.
Dude subjectivity ONLY belongs in the taste category. I can say I don't like bananas and that would be correct. Another person could say they love bananas and they'd be correct. But religion is not taste-testing fruit. Religious truth is not a case of a banana tasting good. It is a case of a banana being a certain shape, color, size, diameter, etc. THESE are OBJECTIVE truths that NOBODY can HONESTLY deny.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Most importantly, this world belongs to all of us. Each of us has a mind to think, reflect, and judge clearly for ourselves. We learn from each other, not one person (or one group) do all the teaching while the rest of us do all the listening and obeying. It simply does not work that way. The purpose of a debate is to share perspectives and thoughts, not tell people what to think.
WE have the right and ability, but we have the ability to choose WRONGLY as well as choosing the right things. Our feelings cannot tell us what is right; they can ONLY tell us what we FEEL we are comfortable with.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
The same goes with culture and religion.
It is better to learn from others than to teach them.
IN the case of culture, might be OK. Case of religion, not necessarily. If YOU REAAAAALLY think it's better to learn than to teach, then WHY THE F*** AREN'T YOU LEARNING FROM CHRISTIANITY??? Hypocrite.
Personally I believe one should learn all they can about other religions, so they can HACK them ACCURATELY. But it is NOT better to learn than to TEACH. Learning about other religions gets a Christian NOWHERE (in terms of salvation or eternal life). Learning about Christianity gives a person an opportunity to gain eternal life that they wouldn't have otherwise.
However, there is a gap between learning, and ACCEPTING. One isn't the other (though one can lead to the other).
