Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by IMMORTAL LOGIC:
That although you hear many voices, calling to you in the form of various religions, there are only two beings calling your name. One is him, and one is a ventriloquist of sorts. Who takes on many voices. And your even given the end results, one is on a hill called "Shamayin"(heaven) and for treason, and and attempting to overthrow the most high, one is on there way to "sheol"(hell).


I can appreciate your metaphorical explanation. It was indeed helpful in providing a synopsis of this discussion. However what Shitphony and others under the influence of Christianity fail to realize is that it is not their responsibility to give a world a religion. Religion is intimately tied to culture and each culture has a different set of spiritual needs and goals. Therefore, to tell someone that because they do not claim Christianity as their religion that they are destined for a Christian hell is ridiculous. Its the mentality of a religious nut. In fact, many of the proverbs and stories that are meant to draw attention to basic principles of morality and wisdom can be found within the belief systems of almost every culture on this planet (i.e., give to the poor, do not steal, do not commit adultery, abstain from violence, etc.) But as far as conversion and proseltyization are concerned, this behavior is unique to Christians. Led by whites, who have proven to be incapable of harmoniously interacting with anyone who is not white, this religion requires its devotees to recruit more Christians and convert the world over into Christianity in attempts to "save" folks their own cultures and identities. Meanwhile, while they claim to be the best examples of morality the world has to offer, the society in which they dwell happens to be the most violent, requiring the most military defense to protect itself compared to any other country on this planet, the most sexually amoral and perverted to say the least, and is the least supportive of its children's education and overall well-being. How they can possibly explain away this degree is hypocrisy is anyone's guess. They have no idea about what it means to be a community, to care for others, or to live wholistically. This is why I become so incensed when I read the religiously self-righteous and arrogant arguments made by people like Shitphony because the people for whom she represents are NOT in the position to make judgements against those they seek to convert, who are often times more trustworthy and spiritually consistent than the average Christian could ever hope to be. Its no wonder they experience so many problems with trying to market their religion to others. The religion has proven to do absolutely nothing in regards to elevating their own decency and spirituality beyond stagnation.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by IMMORTAL LOGIC:
That although you hear many voices, calling to you in the form of various religions, there are only two beings calling your name. One is him, and one is a ventriloquist of sorts. Who takes on many voices. And your even given the end results, one is on a hill called "Shamayin"(heaven) and for treason, and and attempting to overthrow the most high, one is on there way to "sheol"(hell).


I can appreciate your metaphorical explanation. It was indeed helpful in providing a synopsis of this discussion. However what shitphony

Shebakoby, nor anyone one this site doesn't need me to defend them, but I think this is a bit much. As far as I can tell everyone on this site is a college educated adult. That was my main attraction to this site. So wouldn't it be nice if/don't you think we could, have a debate, no matter how heated, minus insipid name-calling, and manipulations of screen names. I'm not here that often, and I've read very little of your post. But what I have read, I know that juvenile little things like this are not only beneath you, but beneath the whole board.

and others under the influence of Christianity fail to realize is that it is not their responsibility to give a world a religion.
Well, I"m actually a Messianic Hebrew Israelite. Which has some similarities to Christianity,Judism,and a little Islam (or rather they have similarities to us I should say). So I'm not hear to defend christians, but my Lord & Master. While it is not anyones job to "give religion" It is the job of YAH's people to spread his word, and do his bidding. You see, when you are truly one YAH's people, you are a priest/priestess...or at least your supposed to be. And a priest is defined as "an agent,emisarry,or representitive,of a particular deity." What you ARE required to do is just go from town to town, spreading his word...that's it. So that no one can claim that they weren't given knowledge of, or that a particular offer was never extended. Just give the info, explain the offers and those of his among the masses will follow to learn the sacred teachings,history,etc. And deviation from this is most unacceptable.

Religion is intimately tied to culture

To a degree, some things will go, some will not. Like moving to another country, most of what you usually do is fine, but if your talking forced female circumsion, child scarafication or marrying a minor, that has to go for you to enter. And let's be honest, just because something is culturally acceptable doesn't make it right, I read once that when the husbands died, the vikings used to bury the wife alive with him, so that she serve him in the after life. And they would excavate graves where it looked as if the wife died via suffucation while trying to dig her way out. So yes if you enter into a religion expect certain changes based on those beliefs

and each culture has a different set of spiritual needs and goals.

Speculative.

Therefore, to tell someone that because they do not claim Christianity as their religion that they are destined for a Christian hell is ridiculous.

Unless it's true. I mean come on now, what is the probability of every world religion being right. Like I said before,we all are free to follow whatever,but if wrong be ready to live with that decision. Are some of YAH's people arrogant? Yes,and the bible clearly states it's stance on arrogant/highminded individuals. But do not always mistake confidence and faith, for arrogance and haughtiness. What most are saying is we've made our choice, and will stand by it. So bring on the mystery of who is god. We are prepared.

Its the mentality of a religious nut.

Opinion,and again, unless it's true.In which case claiming ignorance to the fact is not an option.

In fact, many of the proverbs and stories that are meant to draw attention to basic principles of morality and wisdom can be found within the belief systems of almost every culture on this planet (i.e., give to the poor, do not steal, do not commit adultery, abstain from violence, etc.)

Didn't you just say "each culture has a different set of goals and spiritual needs."

But as far as conversion and proseltyization are concerned, this behavior is unique to Christians.

False. Most religions Try/have tried to gain converts by force. Islam and Budhism (sp) being two of, but always get of the hook for some reason...hmm. In addition, Most of the people in the world acknowledge the bible as truth to some degree, and in some form. The 3 major religions Chrisianity, Islam,and Judism all acknowledge the God of the bible and His story of creation, Shamayin, and Sheol.As well as hebrew Israelies, and even satanist acknowledge this! The big 3 bicker over details, and the new testiment. While satanist freely admit that,"yes,there is a heaven and yes he is that god, but we are the disciples of he that will purge god, and start a new order. "(or some say he already has. But I didn't look that deeply into that variant). So never the less there is a stronger basis than most, for those beliefs,regardless if you agree or not.

Led by whites,
Partial truth. The first 2 nation to convert were Ethiopia and Nubia,in that order. But with the invasion of Islam the peaceful/intended way to YAH ended. And roman catholic era began.

who have proven to be incapable of harmoniously interacting with anyone who is not white, this religion requires its devotees to recruit more Christians and convert the world over into Christianity in attempts to "save" folks their own cultures and identities. Meanwhile, while they claim to be the best examples of morality the world has to offer, the society in which they dwell happens to be the most violent, requiring the most military defense to protect itself compared to any other country on this planet, the most sexually amoral and perverted to say the least, and is the least supportive of its children's education and overall well-being. How they can possibly explain away this degree is hypocrisy is anyone's guess. They have no idea about what it means to be a community, to care for others, or to live wholistically. This is why I become so incensed when I read the religiously self-righteous and arrogant arguments made by people like Shitphony because the people for whom she represents are NOT in the position to make judgements against those they seek to convert, who are often times more trustworthy and spiritually consistent than the average Christian could ever hope to be. Its no wonder they experience so many problems with trying to market their religion to others. The religion has proven to do absolutely nothing in regards to elevating their own decency and spirituality beyond stagnation.
A bit broad in the strokes, but for the most part you'll receive no argument from me,(although, throughout the ages arab cultures have been just as violent). But YAH clearly states,several times, that those nations will be taken care of when he passes judgement on the nations(see my sig. for one). This is also one of the reasons why he states that the gate of Shamayin are narrower than people think. And on the the day of judgement a great many who most would think are getting in will not.
Immortal Logic: I know that juvenile little things like this are not only beneath you...

Rowe: Thank you, but I will decide what is beneath me.

Immortal Logic: But if you're talking forced female circumsion, child scarafication...

Rowe: As an outsider, it's definitely not your place to decide what is "right" for a group of people with whom you have no historical relation or cultural ties. More importantly, one cannot make judgements about what goes on in another group's culture especially when they are completely ignorant about that culture and its traditions. As far as African female circumcision is concerned, this ancient tradition is an anticipated and expected rite of passage for African women who come of age. This procedure is not done to simply tortue and demean women. This is a distorted, ignorant, and narrow-minded LIE about African traditions. For your information, Female Circumcision is an African tradition that is the equivalent of male circumcision, which is a common procedure performed in the West. Both FEMALE and MALE circumcision however are practiced in some parts of Africa. And likewise, male circumcision is painful and completely unncesseary in terms of male functioning and reproduction, but even today, it is a commonly performed procedure in many hospitals in America because of TRADITION. Its so typical of Americans to fail to see the similarities between the traditions of other people's cultures and their own. Once again!, their self-absorbed arrogance clouds their common sense and judgement leading them to make the most moronic and absurd observations about other people's traditions. They spread distortions and lies about everyone else's civilizations while putting their own on a high pedastal.

Immortal Logic: I mean come on now, what is the probability of every world religion being right.

Rowe: What's "right" for you in your culture may be all wrong for me in my culture. Again, it is not your place to decide what is right for me and my people or anyone else's people for that matter. WE will decide how WE want to worship and what kind of relationship that WE will have with the Creator. It is not your place to do this for us. You certainly would not appreciate it if I were to tell you that your religion is ALL WRONG and that its traditions are PRIMITIVE, BACKWARD, and STUPID. SO DON'T DO IT TO ME! Treat people humanely, the way you and yours would want to be treated. Now of course I see nothing wrong with spreading objective wisdom of which anyone can certainly appreciate, such as "Respect Others," "Share your Prosperity With The Poor and Needy" or "Be Considerate of Others," but attempts to completely demolish, reorganize, and restructure someone's culture and traditions is not humane.

Immortal Logic: The 3 major religions Chrisianity, Islam,and Judism all acknowledge the God of the bible and His story of creation!

Rowe: According to major authorities on Theology and Religion Studies, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are considered the three 'Major Western Religions' even though ironically, all of these religions can certainly trace their heritage and history back to Ancient African wisdom and religions since African people are the first organizers of religion and the first to populate the earth. Therefore, any responsibility that the Muslim, Jew, and even younger Christian claims for being "spiritually enlightened" can be credited to ancient African people. Thus, turning your noses up at them or looking down upon them as if they are spiritually and morally backward is unneccessary. If anything, African people can certainly teach YOU a thing or two about how to worship and what genuine, authentic spirtuality is all about, compared to the average Christian who has a temporal and convenient relationship with their religion.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
_Immortal Logic: I know that juvenile little things like this are not only beneath you... _

Rowe: Thank you, but I will decide what is beneath me.
Am I right in assuming my statement had you bent out of shape? What I was implying was, the few post of yours that I read of yours were well thought out,and most articulate. So I don't see what the need for retrograde name calling is all about. What do you hope to accomplish with it? What fruit will it bare?
_Immortal Logic: But if you're talking forced female circumsion, child scarafication..._

Rowe: As an outsider, it's definitely not your place to decide what is "right" for a group of people with whom you have no historical relation or cultural ties.
You seem to have missed the point I made, so I'll say it again. When you ENTER into a religion you have to give up certain aspects of your culture. If you are not entering, than don't worry about it. If you enter into Islam or judism than yes pork chops are out of the question. All religions have there guidelines period. And secondly how do you know I have no historical/cultural ties? In order for you to make that statement you'd have to know me personally.


More importantly, one cannot make judgements about what goes on in another group's culture especially when they are completely ignorant about that culture and its traditions.
Are you saying that I personally am completely ignorant to these cultures, or western society?

As far as African female circumcision is concerned, this ancient tradition is an anticipated and expected rite of passage for African women who come of age.
Anticipated by whom the men, or the females going to have their clitoris removed
This procedure is not done to simply tortue and demean women. This is a distorted, ignorant, and narrow-minded LIE about African traditions. For your information, Female Circumcision is an African tradition that is the equivalent of male circumcision,
O.K. and for your information, the equivalent of a female circumcision would be castration.

which is a common procedure performed in the West. Both FEMALE and MALE circumcision are practiced in some parts of Africa. And likewise, male circumcision is also very painful and completely unncesseary in terms of male functioning and reproduction, but even today, it is a commonly performed procedure in many hospitals in America because of TRADITION.
But when men undergo circumcision they loss their foreskin not half or more of the penis. I've read articles were female circumcision is so severe te women can no longer stand on there own and must be assisted or use a wheel chair, if you wanted me to post the article let me know and I'll see if I can find it. Women are'nt protesting for the fun of it. Also, culture is defined as "The totality of socially transmitted behavoir patterns characteristic to a people ." So to be a culture wouldn't all people involved have to be willing participants? If you have any article about african women being pro circumsion share it. And being that the bible is an African book,and many of Of the regions that practice this proceedure practice an older form of christianity, or it's forerunner which is still based on the bible. Or the koran, and female circumsion isn't in either what is your point?

Its so typical of Americans to fail to how certain traditions in their culture are similar to others. Once again!, their self-absorbed arrogance clouds their common sense and judgement leading them to make the most moronic and absurd observations about other people's traditions. They spread distortions and bad news about everyone else's civilizations while putting their own on a high pedastal.
No argument on that.

_Immortal Logic: I mean come on now, what is the probability of every world religion being right._

Rowe: What's "right" for you in your culture may be all wrong for me in my culture.Again, it is not your place to decide what is right for me and my people or anyone else's people for that matter.
1)Show me were I said it was my place to decide! If you'd read again you'd see I said, TO INFORM, and leave it at that.
And 2)The point you missed was almost every religion has it's own take on the afterlife so what are the chances of them all being correct. You have to make a decision and live with it!


WE will decide how WE want to worship and what kind of relationship that WE will have with the Creator.
That's right. But don't fault others for the sharing of concepts,teachings and beliefs. I CAN and WILL inform whoever I am told! That is one of the mandates I must follow. And if they decide to accept our reject...that is their choice.

It is not your place to do this for us.
Again, show me where I said it was.

You certainly would not appreciate it if I were to tell you that your religion is ALL WRONG
But is'nt that what you did basically. with you "religious nut" statement?

and that its traditions are PRIMITIVE, BACKWARD, and STUPID. SO DON'T DO IT TO ME! Treat people humanely, the way you and yours would want to be treated. Now of course I see nothing wrong in spreading objective wisdom of which anyone can certainly appreciate, such as "Respect Others," "Share your Prosperity With The Poor and Needy" or "Be Considerate of Others," but attempts to completely demolish, reorganize, and restructure someone's culture and traditions is not humane.

_Immortal Logic: The 3 major religions Chrisianity, Islam,and Judism all acknowledge the God of the bible and His story of creation! _

Rowe: According to major authorities on Theology and Religion Studies, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are considered the three 'Major Western Religions' even though ironically, all of these religions can certainly trace their heritage and history back to Ancient African wisdom and religions since African people are the first organizers of religion and the first to populate the earth.
Hebrew Israelites already live in this knowlege. Christianity is the teachings of YAH mixed with pagan roman beliefs, Islam with ancient sumerian/babylonian if I remember correctly, Judism with ancient Yiddish and I'm currently studying what else.

Therefore, any responsibility that the Muslim, Jew, and even younger Christian claims for being "spiritually enlightened" can be credited to ancient African people.
Are you directing this statement directly at me, or are you just making a general statement? Because if it's toward me show me where I said/implied otherwise

Thus, turning your noses up at them or looking down upon them if they are "religiously backward" is unneccessary.
1)Yet again, show me where I said/implied any of this at african people.
2)You put "religiously backward" in quotation marks as if I said it, if I did then post it. But since I did not do not attribute it to me.
And 3)You seem to go on the assumption that you have to inform me on the african orgins of spirituality, but in order for you to do so, you'd have to know to what extent my study on the subject. Which you do not.


If anything, African people can teach YOU a thing or two about how to worship and what genuine, authentic spirtuality is all about
And still yet again, you base your criticism on an assumption,of a person you've never met. What makes you think the teachings of YAH aren't african in origin? What makes you so sure that I am not currently, or have never been in contact with african peoples,for you to make that statement? Again, you are basing your argument on a speculative assumption.
.
Immortal Logic: When you ENTER into a religion you have to give up certain aspects of your culture.

Rowe: Your religion is your birth right. It should not require "entering" or "induction" or "conversion" in the first place. A religion is not a girlscouts club or social meeting where "applying " for membership is a requirement and others who are not a member are ostracized. Perhaps this is how Westerners relate to religion, but everyone else does not. Your religion is your CULTURAL IDENTITY. Its who you are and who you will always be. Its in your blood and in your lineage. Its who your family and ancestors were and the lives they apsired to live.

Immortal Logic: Are you saying that I personally am completely ignorant to these cultures, or western society?

Rowe: Did you not just make an uninformed and judgemental observation about African traditions involving female circumcision, scarfication, and the marriage of "minors" as not being "right?" Did it ever occur to you that outsiders who arrive to this country and see the unneccessary and disgusting ways that Americans carve up their bodies during plastic procedures in order to satisfy some childish obsession with looking "youthful" is also "not right?" Or what about Americans marking up their bodies with ridiculous tatoos stating "I Love Mommy" and other body piercings which have no tribal significance or cultural meaning whatsoever? What about the child pornography problem that continues to plague this country as well America's glorified pedophiles who call themselves "religious leaders" while perpetually sexually abusing its youth in the church and behind the scenes? Why isn't any of this "not right?" Because its done in America, that's why! Somehow, because Americans do it, that makes it ok. You all have to be the most self-absorbed and conceited people this world has ever seen. Why is it that you all can see everyone else's faults, but you cannot see your own?

Immortal Logic: Anticipated by whom the men, or the females going to have their clitoris removed?

Rowe: What's the reason for having male infant's foreskin removed? The foreskin doesn't prevent reproductive functioning, so why is it removed? Its anticipated by whom the women, or males going to have their foresking removed?

Immortal Logic: O.K. and for your information, the equivalent of a female circumcision would be castration.

Rowe: In order for that to be correct, it would have to prevent the woman from functioning reproductively. However, female circumcision does not do this. After the female circumcision procedure, the woman, much like the male enduring the circumcision procedure, are still able to function reproductively. She has not been "mutilated," which is a common misconception about female circumcision. The woman is still able to produce and bear children.

Immortal Logic: I've read articles were female circumcision is so severe te women can no longer stand on there own and must be assisted or use a wheel chair.

Rowe: Listen buddy, I'm not going to waste my time arguing over apples and oranges. The point is, you could learn to exercise something that is called cultural tolerance and Cultural Relativity. Cultural Relativity is an anthropological term which warns observers, particularly anthropology students, against perceiving and judging the cultural traditions and behaviors of others through the lense of your own culture.

Immortal Logic: But don't fault others for the sharing of concepts,teachings and beliefs. I CAN and WILL inform whoever I am told!

Rowe: When it involves Christians, there's a very fine line between "sharing" and "imposing," especially if it is your intention to exorcise people from their traditional religions and cultures. Think about it. What makes you think that these people are not just as satisfied with their belief system as you are with yours?

Immortal Logic: What makes you think the teachings of YAH aren't african in origin?

Rowe: I'm not familar with the teachings of Yah. My statement was in response to your description of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. If the teachings of Yah have any relationship to either of these religions, then its likely that it is African in origin.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
_Immortal Logic: When you ENTER into a religion you have to give up certain aspects of your culture._

Rowe: Your religion is your birth right. It should not require "entering" or "induction" or "conversion" in the first place. A religion is not a girlscouts club or social meeting where "applying " for membership is a requirement and others who are not a member are ostracized. Perhaps this is how Westerners relate to religion, but everyone else does not. Your religion is your CULTURAL IDENTITY. Its who you are and who you will always be. Its in your blood and in your lineage. Its who your family and ancestors were and the lives they apsired to live.

1)The irony of of this statement is, it is filled with western ideals. It is western to assume that you are what your parents are. A person who rarely, if ever attends a church service, will still refer to themselves as christian, because their parents go. You might be expected,or assumed to practice. But throughout most of the east, to truly be part of a religion takes years of study. That is why it is called "practicing religion" Religion, is following a particular path set on guidelines and principles, believed to be spiritually divine. In most of the eastern world, if you do not follow those guidelines, and ignore those principles, then your not that religion. It's rare to see individuals doing what the like, then declare themselves to be the religion of there parents in public, because their would be an outrage.
2)Yet again you fail to see your own hypocrisy. In order for you to make that statement, would mean the entire planet would have to be born and die without individual freedom of choice,and religion is thrust upon you based on region of birth. By saying,your religion is "who you are and will always be" and is the "cultural identity" for one, and there entire your family, would put you,personally, in the position of defining people, and families for them. If a person of japanese lineage living in japan is'nt practicing shintoism then they are no longer japanese or of that culture? No one appointed you to that position. People from all over the world,east and west, worship various religions not native to there lands and indiginous cultures. Muslims in the south pacific & Afica, European Buddhist,etc. Plus, people can and do practice one religion and still maintain their cultural identity. I've seen footage on PBS of different cultures celebrate the same day of religious observance, in two totally different ways. One with a solemn dignified ceremony, the other, with an loud outdoor festival. One religion, Two cultures,two ways of observing. It's odd how you said "It's not your place to decide what is right for me and my people or any one else's people for that matter". But you just did. If you want to rage against the self-righteous so badly start with the one in your mirror.



Immortal Logic: Are you saying that I personally am completely ignorant to these cultures, or western society?_

Rowe: Did you not just make an uninformed and judgemental observation about African traditions involving female circumcision, scarfication, and the marriage of "minors" as not being "right?"

1)You again missed the point. I was illustrating how one can change religions (even without your permission), and maintain most, if not all of their culture,depending on that culture and the religious laws by drawing parallels to moving from one country to another. If one where practicing these rituals in there own land, but decided to move to Canada, for instance, they know going into the situation, what is, and what not is permitted in that new land, and must've been o.k. with it for the most part if they are in Canada. If not,they would'nt have decided to go from one to the other. Sometimes to get to where you, personally, want to be some degree of sacrafice must be endured, and laws must be obeyed once there. So is true of nations so is true of religions(again, with or without the approval of rowe.)
2)You can with no degree of certainty, say what I am, and am not,informed on. Yet another assumption.


Did it ever occur to you that outsiders who arrive to this country and see the unneccessary and disgusting ways that Americans carve up their bodies during plastic procedures in order to satisfy some childish obsession with looking "youthful" is also "not right?" Or what about Americans marking up their bodies with ridiculous tatoos stating "I Love Mommy" and other body piercings which have no tribal significance or cultural meaning whatsoever? What about the child pornography problem that continues to plague this country as well America's glorified pedophiles who call themselves "religious leaders" while perpetually sexually abusing its youth in the church and behind the scenes? Why isn't any of this "not right?" Because its done in America, that's why! Somehow, because Americans do it, that makes it ok.You all have to be the most self-absorbed and conceited people this world has ever seen. Why is it that you all can see everyone else's faults, but you cannot see your own?

I'm beginnig to see the pattern here. The weaker your argument the more pronounced your accusations and assumptions. You go off on a rant then try to attribute it to me. I guess in order to maintain your argument you must periodically make up statements, then attach them to others. post where I endorsed any of the above. Look, if your just keep posting to have the last word then say so. Just state that you like having the last word...that's it. But to keep put words in someones mouth...why?

_Immortal Logic: Anticipated by whom the men, or the females going to have their clitoris removed?_

Rowe: What's the reason for having male infant's foreskin removed? The foreskin doesn't prevent reproductive functioning, so why is it removed? Its anticipated by whom the women, or males going to have their foresking removed?
Your not honestly going to equate the removal of foreskin to the removal of an organ(clitoris)are you. You don't see the difference in the two?

_Immortal Logic: I've read articles were female circumcision is so severe te women can no longer stand on there own and must be assisted or use a wheel chair._

Rowe: Listen buddy, I'm not going to waste my time arguing over apples and oranges.
Lookie here, ol' pal o mine. you talk at great lengths all over the board, but the second your asked for your source(s) of information it becomes "apples and oranges" not worth your time? Here are just three of my sources.article one article two Article threeNow where are yours? And after your done reading you catch a flight out, there and tell those sistas how the removal of foreskin is the same thing. And to suck it up, in the name of tradition.

The point is, you could learn to exercise something that is called cultural tolerance and _Cultural Relativity_.
The point was,(which still again you didn't grasp). Can it be "right" if half the people in that very culture, do not wish to tolerate it.

Cultural Relativity is an anthropological term which warns observers, particularly anthropology students, against perceiving and judging the cultural traditions and behaviors of others through the lense of your own culture.

_Immortal Logic: But don't fault others for the sharing of concepts,teachings and beliefs. I CAN and WILL inform whoever I am told!_

Rowe: When it involves Christians, there's a very fine line between "sharing" and "imposing," especially if it is your intention to exorcise people from their traditional religions and cultures.
We already went over all of this.

Think about it. What makes you think that these people are not just as satisfied with their belief system as you are with yours?
But who's to say they should not be introduced to new beliefs and make there own choices?
_
Immortal Logic: What makes you think the teachings of YAH aren't african in origin? _

Rowe: I'm not familar with the teachings of Yah. My statement was in response to your description of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. If the teachings of Yah have any relationship to either of these religions, then its likely that it is African in origin.
Yes Rowe, because the Teachings of YAH were given to black people(hebrews), making them African in origin.
quote:
Originally posted by Fagunwa:
What makes you think the teachings of YAH aren't african in origin?

What makes you think that the teachings of JAH ARE African in Origin? Not trying to get in the middle of this I'm just interested in this one aspect of your discussion.
Fagunwa, I wanted to respond to this in a more personalized way, but I spread the hours in my day out far to thin. Which is why your getting this so late. while I live for black folks to ask me this, I'm everywhere as usual, so I'm going to give you a link to look through. DO NOT take this link as me just just giving you a quick answer and a brush off. I figured it would be better for you read as much as you like than a quick rundown. Back in 02, I researched and came to a great many conclusions that seemed out of the box, and when I found this place our conclusions and evidence supporting were 95% the same Hebrew Israelites
Fagunwa, I wanted to respond to this in a more personalized way, but I spread the hours in my day out far to thin. Which is why your getting this so late. while I live for black folks to ask me this, I'm everywhere as usual, so I'm going to give you a link to look through. DO NOT take this link as me just just giving you a quick answer and a brush off. I figured it would be better for you read as much as you like than a quick rundown. Back in 02, I researched and came to a great many conclusions that seemed out of the box, and when I found this place our conclusions and evidence supporting were 95% the same http://www.hebrewisraelites.org/physicalapp.htm[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the link it made for some strange reading of which I am a big fan. Unfortunately nothing I read answered my question unless one accepts the yehudi "bible" as history and the stories of ham etc. as facts. I do not. Thanks anyway though.
The teachings of Yahweh are hardly "African" in origin, because at the Beginning, "Africa-as-we-know-it" did NOT exist. Adam was not "African", he was the First man and contained ALL the necessary genes (barring those originating from mutation, of course) to make all kinds of people, be they black, white, yellow, red, or what have you.

The Hebrews were NOT "black" in the sense of being Hamitic/African. They were Semitic. Skin color has NOTHING to do with "race". There are some very VERY black descendants of Japeth (Hindus/Sikhs of India, for instance--I know a Sikh guy that is darker than Yaphet Kotto, ffs). There are some very white aZns and some very dark aZns.
quote:
Originally posted by IMMORTAL LOGIC:
Fagunwa, I wanted to respond to this in a more personalized way, but I spread the hours in my day out far to thin. Which is why your getting this so late. while I live for black folks to ask me this, I'm everywhere as usual, so I'm going to give you a link to look through. DO NOT take this link as me just just giving you a quick answer and a brush off. I figured it would be better for you read as much as you like than a quick rundown. Back in 02, I researched and came to a great many conclusions that seemed out of the box, and when I found this place our conclusions and evidence supporting were 95% the same http://www.hebrewisraelites.org/physicalapp.htm


quote:
Originally posted by Fagunwa:
Thank you for the link it made for some strange reading of which I am a big fan. Unfortunately nothing I read answered my question unless one accepts the yehudi "bible" as history and the stories of ham etc. as facts. I do not. Thanks anyway though.


There would have been some intermarriage among the Israelites in Egypt (one guy who was mean to his parents in the Exodus had an Egyptian parent, for example).

This idea that it all came out of "Africa" is backwards. Hebrews were about as "African" as the Aussie Aborigines. The direction of migration as to who went where is all wrong when considering where "Africans" came from.

Egyptians did not originate in Africa, they CAME to Africa (Egypt), and while they had quite a number of what we now call "African" features, this does not make them "African" in origin. The Ark landed in Ararat's mountains, which is in Turkey. Therefore it makes more sense to call everyone "Turkish" in origin (lol) than "African."

There is NO reason (other than individual biases that have nothing to do with actual facts) to NOT believe the Bible is recorded history. Many archaeologists have discovered and unearthed locations that were ONLY known in the writings of the Bible (in regards to documentation anyone could access), and in other instances the Bible confirmed other documents as to city locations, etc.

The fact that the Hebrews were NOT "light-skinned" doesn't mean they were of the same direct root as the Egyptians. Dark skin isn't the sole indicator of "race" (which is a bull$#*t concept anyway in regards to Humans--all humans are the SAME "RACE"!!!!!) They all do have a common ancestor (Noah, with Adam being the farthest back as to common ancestry).
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
No wait, I want to understand this. Shebakoby, what is the difference between your beliefs and those of a fundamentalist? From your use of the capital F, I gather you distinguish yourself from a specific organized movement. But is there a difference between you and a fundamentalist with a little-F? Little-F meaning a person not aligned with a traditional evangelical movement, but who nevertheless fits the definition of a person who insists on the literal word of the Bible being the literal truth, who insists that any other way, and any other belief, leads to hell? That sounds a lot like you to me, and to Kweli and Oshun, so I'm curious what the difference is, from your perspective.


No, that is NOT the definition of fundamentalist. The term has been distorted by the media.

THIS is the REAL definition of fundamentalist:

-the doctrines of a fundamentalist church are based on certain "fundamentals"--_WHICH DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT IS TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE_. An example of a "fundamentalist" doctrine that is not based on what the Bible actually says is the idea that the bread and wine of the sacrament of holy communion are ONLY SYMBOLS. Whereas, the Roman Catholics beleive in transubstantiation (transformation from bread and wine to body and blood) while LUTHERANS ALONE believe that both bread and wine and body and blood are present (after the pastor is done "sanctifying" it. We call this the "real presence."

"Legalism" is a hallmark of fundamentalism. Fundies also usually reject infant baptism (if they are Baptists).

You seem to be confused as to what 'literalism' actually entails. Some people do not have a common-sense idea of it. Most people accuse fundamentalists of beleiving that everything in the Bible is literally literal, including clear instances of metaphor. If a PLAIN READING indicates plain language (meant to be taken "literally"), then that's what it says. Cases of metaphor are easily identified and taken into context.

For instance:

In Psalms, Job, and other places, metaphoric language is clearly used. In these cases (such as the "storehouses of ice and snow" (Job 38:22, NIV; the KJV has a better translation, rendering "treasures" instead of "storehouses"), what God is saying makes a point but does not indicate (at least in regards to the NIV translation) that there are literal buildings filled with ice and snow.

Your definition of fundamentalist clearly falls flat especially considering that "fundamentalists" DON'T take Christ literally when he says "this IS my body." They rationalize it away. This is a clear indication that the fundamentalists DON'T always take every piece of scripture "literally"!

And the belief that Christ is the only way to Heaven hardly makes one a "fundamentalist." Other churches who do not have fundamentalist doctrines also believe this.

I think you'd better read up on Lutherans before you decide to start flinging around the "fundamentalist" moniker.

Are you Missouri or Wisconsin Synod?


Neither. LCC (Lutheran Church-Canada), baby. (Closest to Missouri, that's what we used to be).
Hey fagunwa, yeah it's definietly...flavorful. but accurate as far as I see. I guess it wouldn't seem as strange to me, being that our conclusions,and reasons for, mirrored each others. Sorry you did'nt find the answers to your questions. I forgot to warn you that it was a looong read. So I'll give you the breif rundown.

**taking deep breath** Abraham the patriarch of the hebrews, is from an area that ancient historians and ruins confirm, were once black domain. I'm sure I don't have to tell you the ancient egyptians were black. To Moses, were were given the first four books of scripture. Moses, was passed off by the eyptian royal family as a member of their house. Now, if moses were not black african, but indeed white, or anything else, it would/could not be believed by anyone. A religion, given to a people, of black african origin, makes that religion, black african in origin.

Romans who once occupied Yirael, and others who knew The people of Yisrael, at that time, all decribed them as belonging to the Ethiopian race(black). When they turned from YAH He turned from them, until they were ready to return. Hebrews intentionally,decided to forget there ways. While others intentionally decided to hide, manipulate, & distort them. The arab, Indian ocean/european, trans-atlantic slave trades spread the hebrews to the bottom rung of the nations as foretold. Leaving a group of turkish-europeans,mentioned in the book of Revelation 2:9 & 3:9, to somewhat, adopted & distort the ways of the hebrews as do the early roman church. Ushering in the "day of clouds" a.k.a "the times of the gentiles" a.k.a, The era of "false teachings/teachers". Passing themselves off as hebrews, to the rest of europe, and through euro conquest,the world. Until the time of the gentiles is over. **whew** I hope somewhere in there is the answer to your question brotha man, peace.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
No wait, I want to understand this. Shebakoby, what is the difference between your beliefs and those of a fundamentalist? From your use of the capital F, I gather you distinguish yourself from a specific organized movement. But is there a difference between you and a fundamentalist with a little-F? Little-F meaning a person not aligned with a traditional evangelical movement, but who nevertheless fits the definition of a person who insists on the literal word of the Bible being the literal truth, who insists that any other way, and any other belief, leads to hell? That sounds a lot like you to me, and to Kweli and Oshun, so I'm curious what the difference is, from your perspective.


No, that is NOT the definition of fundamentalist. The term has been distorted by the media.

THIS is the REAL definition of fundamentalist:

-the doctrines of a fundamentalist church are based on certain "fundamentals"--_WHICH DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT IS TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE_. An example of a "fundamentalist" doctrine that is not based on what the Bible actually says is the idea that the bread and wine of the sacrament of holy communion are ONLY SYMBOLS. Whereas, the Roman Catholics beleive in transubstantiation (transformation from bread and wine to body and blood) while LUTHERANS ALONE believe that both bread and wine and body and blood are present (after the pastor is done "sanctifying" it. We call this the "real presence."




Sheba, the definition I put forth comes from the dictionary. Where did yours come from?


The dictionary doesn't always get it right. Dictionaries are written by people, people who are fallible, and who often have no clue what the terms they are defining really mean. Case in point: Fundamentalist.

People who do not go to church or know anything about religion to any significant degree are not going to know the intricacies or niceties of what actually makes one "fundamentalist." And this is definitely the case here.

Dictionaries often have simplified definitions. And in this case it is oversimplified. While the "inerrancy" of the Bible is something that some Christians have IN COMMON with fundies, THIS ALONE DOES NOT MAKE THEM "FUNDY." The dictionary people did not bother to go around and ask what actually makes a person "fundy."

My definition comes from the Church itself; the Lutheran Church, because words mean things and the Lutheran Church's teaching are very specifically defined, as are the teachings of a "fundy" church. And it happens that the very things that the Lutheran Church differs from the fundy churches is the things which actually define "fundamentalist".

I mentioned earlier that LEGALISM is a hallmark of Fundamentalism. Legalism means two things:

a) Emphasis on obedience to and sovereignty of God (Emphasizing LAW over GOSPEL in a DISPROPORTIONATE WAY)

and b) making bull$#*t rules ("made by Men") for the Church.

Where the Lutherans differ here is that Lutherans have freedom in the Gospel based on Justification by Faith. Lutherans are NOT into Legalism at all and overemphasis of LAW over GOSPEL is B.S. If one is NOT Legalistic, one CANNOT be "Fundamentalist."

Fundies don't believe in Separation of Church and State. Lutherans had a concept of "Separation of Church and State" before anyone else did.

Back when I was growing up I went to a "non-denominational" private school for 6 years that was run by the Christian Reformed Church. They are Calvinist. I dunno if they were specifically fundy but they were legalistic. They even had a bull$#*t rule amongst themselves: "We can't pay on Sunday." This was because to "pay" someone on Sunday meant they were "making" someone work on Sunday. It was a goofy rule.
quote:
Originally posted by IMMORTAL LOGIC:
Hebrews intentionally,decided to forget there ways. While others intentionally decided to hide, manipulate, & distort them.


And since the very Helio Biblio is the product of this distortion of the original African teachings...Then how can it be taken literally?

P.S. Moses("Mose" is a Kemetic/Egyptian title by the way) was learned in all the ways of Egypt per the Helio Biblio...So are we supposed to believe he came up with similar principles that he was learned in(Ma'at) on his own?

I guess if someone records, millenia after my supposed existance, that I rewrote a simplified version of the U.S. constitution, and claimed it was the inspired word of God, people are expected to believe that too. Even if they have historical evidence that the U.S. constitution was taught to me in my lifetime and the principles therein predated my existance...
Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by IMMORTAL LOGIC:
That although you hear many voices, calling to you in the form of various religions, there are only two beings calling your name. One is him, and one is a ventriloquist of sorts. Who takes on many voices. And your even given the end results, one is on a hill called "Shamayin"(heaven) and for treason, and and attempting to overthrow the most high, one is on there way to "sheol"(hell).


I can appreciate your metaphorical explanation. It was indeed helpful in providing a synopsis of this discussion. However what Shitphony and others under the influence of Christianity fail to realize is that it is not their responsibility to give a world a religion.

awww you got yo own widdle pet name fo me. LOL I'm flattered. I may be constipated, but I ain't "phony". Wink

We aren't "giving the world a religion", we are spreading the Gospel. Christianity is NOT a "religion"--it is not man reaching out to God. It is God reaching out to man. While legalistic fundies might get carried away, the truth is that we are only to preach and teach, not force people to believe. Giving people a choice here is key. We cannot convert people anyway. The Holy Spirit does that. It is our responsibility to spread the Gospel, because God told us so.

Interestingly enough, St. Paul commented that if Christianity is hypothetically not the "right" religion (if Christ did not rise from the dead)"

1Cor.15
[17] And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
[19] If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable!


quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Religion is intimately tied to culture and each culture has a different set of spiritual needs and goals. Therefore, to tell someone that because they do not claim Christianity as their religion that they are destined for a Christian hell is ridiculous. Its the mentality of a religious nut.


While religion can be arbitrarily tied to culture, it is not of necessity tied to culture in a way that prohibits another religion gaining a foothold, or in a way that negatively affects the populace.

And your statement about Christianity and Hell is based on misconceptions. A person who fears for the souls of others is not a "religious nut." Eternal punishment is a very serious thing indeed. Denial of the existence of Eternal Punishment (be it embodied in Hell, Purgatory, or any other alternative) is merely sticking one's head in the sand. One side of the family had a relative who had a very scary "near-death" experience. They found themselves in complete darkness and just wailing and moaning and nothing else. The person was not a religious person at all, but that scared the crap out of them.

It's not merely that someone doesn't claim Christianity as their religion that sends a person to Hell. It's the fact that the person's sins condemn them. The only way for those sins to be dealt with is through Christ.

It really would be a Cosmic Joke of monumental proportions if particular religions are to be inherited, not "believed" in an individualistic sense of acceptance based on something other than "well my mommy was a somethingist, my grandma was a somethingist, therefore I am a somethingist."

quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
In fact, many of the proverbs and stories that are meant to draw attention to basic principles of morality and wisdom can be found within the belief systems of almost every culture on this planet (i.e., give to the poor, do not steal, do not commit adultery, abstain from violence, etc.)


This is because the Law was written on Man's heart! Therefore Man has NO excuse not to obey the Law.

quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
But as far as conversion and proseltyization are concerned, this behavior is unique to Christians.


not true. (And quite ignorant, I might add.) Have you forgotten Islam and Judaism? While modern Judaism makes no such effort in today's world, it did in the past! Specifically, in Jesus' day.

Matt. 23: [15] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Islam has a rather open track record of forced conversion, even more blatant than Christianity.

The Canaanites sure did proselytize to the Israelites. Mind you, their idea of proselytization was Intro To Sacred Orgy 101...

Buddhism also has "Missionaries" who proselytize out there.

quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Led by whites, who have proven to be incapable of harmoniously interacting with anyone who is not white,


Hey Rowerowrow your boat. Your bias is showing.

People's inability to interact harmoniously has nothing to do with Skin Color. Some fighting is internal.
"Africans" fight "Africans" (coughcoughhutusandtutsiscoughcough).
Indians fought Indians.
Whites fight whites.
aZns fight aZns.

And it is untrue and unfair to generalize whites as this bunch of racist f*cks. Generally speaking, however, the philosophy of DARWINISM (and its predecessors, for Darwin wasn't the first person to think of this crap) is most responisble for "racism" as seen being practiced by "whites". Charles Kingsley, author of the idiotic "The Water Babies" and cheerleader of Charles Darwin himself, thought that the Irish were evolutionarily inferior to the English and called them "white chimpanzees." It is of interest that Liberals in the Church (people who by and large reject the truthfulness of the Bible on average) were Darwin's most vocal supporters in his day.

quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
this religion requires its devotees to recruit more Christians and convert the world over into Christianity in attempts to "save" folks their own cultures and identities.


Ummm no. We aren't 'saving' people from their own identities. Cultures are malleable and change over time, regardless of outside influence or lack thereof. We aren't doing the saving, God is. We don't make the decision for the person.

Some denominations believe in this "decide TODAY that you are going to follow Jesus" line. This is called "Decision Theology" and Lutherans reject it. We believe that we CANNOT by our own reason or strength believe in Jesus, but that the Holy Spirit works to help the person do that.

quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Meanwhile, while they claim to be the best examples of morality the world has to offer, the society in which they dwell happens to be the most violent, requiring the most military defense to protect itself compared to any other country on this planet, the most sexually amoral and perverted to say the least, and is the least supportive of its children's education and overall well-being. How they can possibly explain away this degree is hypocrisy is anyone's guess.


Boy oh boy. You've been listening to legalistic garbage haven't you? No wonder you have a warped idea of what Christianity is all about. Christians do NOT claim to be the most moral people on the planet--at least the ones which aren't into Legalism.

The society itself and its condition is NOT to be blamed on Christianity. There are a great deal of irreligious people in America (and even more in Canada!), and it is through a good number of them that sexual immorality, violence, etc, is rampant. This is not "hypocrisy"! This is freedom of choice at work! People can choose not to be religious (let alone Christian) and it shows in their influence. While Christians TRY to be moral (while at the same time recognizing they are not perfect and perfection is impossible), these irreligious or outright atheist guys don't always think they have to be.

Children's education is a totally separate issue that deals with socialism (a political philosophy), not religion.

And the military protection is common sense. Militant islamists like Bin Laden make the "worst" Christian Fundies seem like a basket of kittens.

quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
They have no idea about what it means to be a community, to care for others, or to live wholistically.


Again, this situation has JACK to do with Christianity being around. Individualism is a philosophy, not a religion.

Add to that the fact that people who do NOT care for others are NOT following the teachings of Christ, and you really can't blame this on Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
This is why I become so incensed when I read the religiously self-righteous and arrogant arguments made by people like Shitphony because the people for whom she represents are NOT in the position to make judgements against those they seek to convert, who are often times more trustworthy and spiritually consistent than the average Christian could ever hope to be. Its no wonder they experience so many problems with trying to market their religion to others. The religion has proven to do absolutely nothing in regards to elevating their own decency and spirituality beyond stagnation.


ROFLMFAO. Dude, you have a warped picture that needs straightening out. People who were raised as (or exposed to) such fundy sects as Baptist might get a warped idea of Christianity in general, especially if Legalism is in effect rather than a balance of Law and Gospel.

I am NOT making judgments here. The morality of one versus the other is not an issue here. What IS an issue is TRUTH. I am not here to "convert", I cannot do that. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. I'm just the messenger, please do not shoot lol.

Christianity is a difficult religion to accept, which is why seems to have "marketing problems." This is not the fault of Christianity itself, but of Man, which is inherently evil and wicked to the core. While the Law is written on Man's heart, there will always be rationalization. And people can rationalize just about anything if they try hard enough.

This mistaken notion that Christianity is less "spiritual" than other religions is a curious one. Proto-Judaism and Christianity alike were forbidden from contacting 'spirits'. This is because the spirits in question are deceivers. They will tell you anything you want to hear. It is indeed strange to claim that one gets more intimate with "god" by contacting spirits that are NOT the "supreme god".
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
While religion _can_ be arbitrarily tied to culture, it is not _of necessity_ tied to culture in a way that prohibits another religion gaining a foothold, or in a way that negatively affects the populace.



Only a European could choose not to see the myriad of ways how forced conversion to Euro-Christianity has negatively affected non-European people.
quote:
Originally posted by IMMORTAL LOGIC:
Hey fagunwa, yeah it's definietly...flavorful. but accurate as far as I see. I guess it wouldn't seem as strange to me, being that our conclusions,and reasons for, mirrored each others. Sorry you did'nt find the answers to your questions. I forgot to warn you that it was a looong read. So I'll give you the breif rundown.

**taking deep breath** Abraham the patriarch of the hebrews, is from an area that ancient historians and ruins confirm, were once black domain. I'm sure I don't have to tell you the ancient egyptians were black. To Moses, were were given the first four books of scripture. Moses, was passed off by the eyptian royal family as a member of their house. Now, if moses were not black african, but indeed white, or anything else, it would/could not be believed by anyone. A religion, given to a people, of black african origin, makes that religion, black african in origin.

Romans who once occupied Yirael, and others who knew The people of Yisrael, at that time, all decribed them as belonging to the Ethiopian race(black). When they turned from YAH He turned from them, until they were ready to return. Hebrews intentionally,decided to forget there ways. While others intentionally decided to hide, manipulate, & distort them. The arab, Indian ocean/european, trans-atlantic slave trades spread the hebrews to the bottom rung of the nations as foretold. Leaving a group of turkish-europeans,mentioned in the book of Revelation 2:9 & 3:9, to somewhat, adopted & distort the ways of the hebrews as do the early roman church. Ushering in the "day of clouds" a.k.a "the times of the gentiles" a.k.a, The era of "false teachings/teachers". Passing themselves off as hebrews, to the rest of europe, and through euro conquest,the world. Until the time of the gentiles is over. **whew** I hope somewhere in there is the answer to your question brotha man, peace.



IM
As you are always respectful in your posts I return respect and address you like I'm speaking to a person with the intelligence you always display.
I do not believe in abraham, isaac or jacob. I do not believe that the hebrew "bible" is relevant to people of African decent at all. I do not measure the history of my people, wherever they come from, through the prism of the bible at all. The bible for me is the story of the hebrew water god and as such has nothing to do with me as I am a Nago man from the OYO (yoruba) people of Ile Ife, Nigeria.
With continued respect I don't believe that the "bible" has revelance for ANY African derived people on the face of the earth, but that is just my belief. Why would a people who, as OA said, have the original revelation buy into the so-called religion of their slave masters and oppressors?
Fagunwa,
As always an intriguing and thoughtful post. It has got me thinking again about the substance of African American religiosity as different/distinct from African traditional religion.

You very eloquently state that for you "the bible for me is the story of the hebrew water god and as such has nothing to do with me as I am a Nago man from the OYO (yoruba) people of Ile Ife, Nigeria." But as Brother Jim is so found of recounting, those of us in the Diaspora often have no way of particularizing our ancestry to such an extent, we are of undetermined African ancestry.

Indeed, in the work of noted African American historian of religion, Charles Long, African Americans have experienced a "second creation." We are in some respects the incarnation of Africa, indigenous America, as well as the Europe. If as one author suggests that a persons God(s) should as the sweat that oozes from their pores, how do African Americans find (their)God.

It seems to me that there are several options, each frought with difficulty:
1. They, as you suggest, adopt the religious practices and beliefs of someone else. This could be one of any number of African, European, Asian, or Indigenous.

2. They create their own religion. There are those who say that this is exactly what enslaved Africans have done and continue to do and that one of the manifestations of this is the Black Church, which although it bares resemblance to Western Christianity, is just as indebted to the West African traditions, and quite possibly indigenous communities. Thus, it cannot, or should not be assumed that master and slave are praying to the same God or share the same faith.

3. Finally, there are those such as my advisor who feels that African Americans should strive to reject theism in all its forms and embrace what he refers to as African American humanism which involves the search for complex subjectivity. In other words, all we have is us, and it is up to us to define ourselves and to make a place for ourselves in the world without appeals to some transcendent reality.

Thoughts - Comments?
I know this comment wasn't directed towards me, but I feel compelled to comment...

quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
Indeed, in the work of noted African American historian of religion, Charles Long, African Americans have experienced a "second creation." We are in some respects the incarnation of Africa, indigenous America, as well as the Europe.


I beg to differ, enslavement did not "create" anyone...For who was the "god" of chattle slavery? ...The European... That is not our god is it? So how could that god create us? Were "we" not around prior to this god? We may have different "influences"...but I think it is spiritually and socially dangerous to say a temporary experience, as de-humanizing as enslavement, has "created" any human being.

Accept nothing but God - Akan expression

quote:

It seems to me that there are several options, each frought with difficulty:
1. They, as you suggest, adopt the religious practices and beliefs of someone else. This could be one of any number of African, European, Asian, or Indigenous.


How are traditional West African religions the practices of "someone else"? Are they not the religion of our ancestors? Are we not our ancestors? It is this seperateness in identity that disturbs me so... especially when dealing with spirituality... The concept itself is so un-African... and simultaneousely we identify with colonially influenced Europeanized X-tianity? Is this not THE epitomy of identifying with "someone else"?

quote:
2. They create their own religion. There are those who say that this is exactly what enslaved Africans have done and continue to do and that one of the manifestations of this is the Black Church, which although it bares resemblance to Western Christianity, is just as indebted to the West African traditions, and quite possibly indigenous communities. Thus, it cannot, or should not be assumed that master and slave are praying to the same God or share the same faith.


The West African spiritual "practices" largely influenced the "Black Church"... The form that rituals took have been influenced, but not the essense IMO. The teachings are largely those of the slave master/colonizer's re-interpretation of already heavilly hellanized X-ianity(Baylon religion to the Rastas...at least they figured that much out). IMO, this is backed up and evidenced by "our"(meaning those in the U.S.) spiritual developmental reality(or lack thereof) when speaking in terms of the masses.

The proof is in the pudding.

P.S. Not that this should be or is the objective...but...How does one derive an "African-American" humanism, spirituality, or religion ect. when a people completely leave out the "AFRICAN" component outside of form?

quote:
3. Finally, there are those such as my advisor who feels that African Americans should strive to reject theism in all its forms and embrace what he refers to as African American humanism which involves the search for complex subjectivity. In other words, all we have is us, and it is up to us to define ourselves and to make a place for ourselves in the world without appeals to some transcendent reality.


This at least is somewhat logical...but the presence of our ancestors is too strong for me to do so. Hence I'm not a Humanist/Agnostic as my parents are. Our ancestors will cry out until they are acknowledged and their memory, culture, ways, and beliefs...which is and was their very EXISTANCE...their very LIVES...are known and defended by their legacy...us.

Was there existance, which BTW is the only way that we came to be, that unimportant? What ungrateful children we have become. This saddens me to no end.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
This at least is somewhat logical...but the presence of our ancestors is too strong for me to do so. Hence I'm not a Humanist/Agnostic as my parents are. Our ancestors will cry out until they are acknowledged and their memory, culture, ways, and beliefs...which is and was their very EXISTANCE...their very LIVES...are known and defended by their legacy...us.

Was there existance, which BTW is the only way that we came to be, that unimportant? What ungrateful children we have become. This saddens me to no end.

A quick follow up:
1. Creation does not need to be ex nihilo, i.e., it does not negate continuity. As I use it, it does mean, however, that a metamorphisis does take place once the African goes through the Middle Passage and lands on this continent. There is continuity, but it is fractured and fragmented. Thus African peoples in the United States, though informed by their history, also create and adapt to their new situation.
2. The issue of ancestors crying out is a difficult one for me to engage. Numerous questions arise, that I was attempting to address when I referred to the practice of someone else. Perhaps I was to broad in my characterization, so let me be specific. Fagunwa is Yoruba, and thus practices the tradition of his people. But which ancestors am I beholden to and which ones do I mute or ignore. Even bracketing out my European ancestors, my paternal great grandmother was Cherokee. Do I ignore that part of my lineage? Indeed, as I grew up in on land that was once theirs, one might also add that there is a spacial/geographical/organic imperative to worship in the fashion of those ancestors in that place. As for other influences, do I follow the Yoruba traditions or those of the Ibo, the Hausa, the Akan, the Kanuri? Do I blend them and if so, does that not do violence to the integrity of each?
3. I have a number of issues with the Black Church. Yet, despite its numerous flaws, at its best it has been a source of strength and sustenance for generations of African Americans. Though critical of religion, I can not simply dismiss when one of the elders in the congregation stands up and testifies that Jesus made a way out of no way, that he healed their body, put clothes on their back and food on their table. Are you suggesting that I tell them that they are decieved. That they are victims of an opiate, a pathology. Do I reject the history of people like Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vessey, Nat Turner, Sojourner Truth, Jarena Lee, Henry McNeal Turner, Martin Delany, Alexander Crummell, Howard Thurman, Martin King, Fannie Lou Hamer? Are they not also my ancestors?

These are just some of the issues which percipitated my questions.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
Fagunwa,
As always an intriguing and thoughtful post. It has got me thinking again about the substance of African American religiosity as different/distinct from African traditional religion.

You very eloquently state that for you "the bible for me is the story of the hebrew water god and as such has nothing to do with me as I am a Nago man from the OYO (yoruba) people of Ile Ife, Nigeria." But as Brother Jim is so found of recounting, those of us in the Diaspora often have no way of particularizing our ancestry to such an extent, we are of undetermined African ancestry.

Indeed, in the work of noted African American historian of religion, Charles Long, African Americans have experienced a "second creation." We are in some respects the incarnation of Africa, indigenous America, as well as the Europe. If as one author suggests that a persons God(s) should as the sweat that oozes from their pores, how do African Americans find (their)God.

It seems to me that there are several options, each frought with difficulty:
1. They, as you suggest, adopt the religious practices and beliefs of someone else. This could be one of any number of African, European, Asian, or Indigenous.


Kresge
Were I really involved in this discussion this would be my pick for my prejudice (I am Nago) and my heart (my wife is AA as are my children and grandchildren)wants to see this choice.

2. They create their own religion. There are those who say that this is exactly what enslaved Africans have done and continue to do and that one of the manifestations of this is the Black Church, which although it bares resemblance to Western Christianity, is just as indebted to the West African traditions, and quite possibly indigenous communities. Thus, it cannot, or should not be assumed that master and slave are praying to the same God or share the same faith.

Kresge
This one I have a problem with. The master and the slave are indeed praying to the same god, the same christ using the same scripture and until recently embracing the same images for the diety, a white man. The black church IMHO no longer serves as an progressive place for AA's or native born Africans, neither for that matter does the Mosque. These institutions have been co-opted by the political forces who are our oppressors everywhere we exist. they all preach a gospel of "git mo".

3. Finally, there are those such as my advisor who feels that African Americans should strive to reject theism in all its forms and embrace what he refers to as African American humanism which involves the search for complex subjectivity. In other words, all we have is us, and it is up to us to define ourselves and to make a place for ourselves in the world without appeals to some transcendent reality.

Thoughts - Comments?


The trancendent is reality. It needs no appeal. What we all attempt is to have as real a connection with it as we can. For me that is Ifa. As you have read from me before, African Americans must choose for themselves what they will be and to hell with what I or anyone else thinks. I just have a vested interest in the outcome and I feel that african spiriuality is an area that has not been accurately or fully explored here. I also feel that African Spirituality has as much theological depth as any other culture, if not more, on the face of the earth. I just would like to see my family (AA's) check it out! If it's not for you OK. But I'm so tired of hearing about how I decended from ham I could burst asunder. hope I answered if not hit me back!
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
Though critical of religion, I can not simply dismiss when one of the elders in the congregation stands up and testifies that Jesus made a way out of no way, that he healed their body, put clothes on their back and food on their table. Are you suggesting that I tell them that they are decieved. That they are victims of an opiate, a pathology. Do I reject the history of people like Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vessey, Nat Turner, Sojourner Truth, Jarena Lee, Henry McNeal Turner, Martin Delany, Alexander Crummell, Howard Thurman, Martin King, Fannie Lou Hamer? Are they not also my ancestors?

These are just some of the issues which percipitated my questions.


How the practices of the more recent ancestors, who were victimized by a process of dehumanization, negate thousands of years of other ancestors just doesn't make sense to me. When we know better we do better. And now we know better. These ancestors took lemons and made lemonade. But why do we have already sweet fruits and refuse them? We as a people now are CHOSING to stay almost comlpletely ignorant of African traditional practices and philosophies...that is ridiculous...and demonstrates a quite frightening mentality IMO.

I second what Fagunwa says...
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
How the practices of the more recent ancestors, who were victimized by a process of dehumanization, negate thousands of years of other ancestors just doesn't make sense to me. When we know better we do better. And now we know better. These ancestors took lemons and made lemonade. But why do we have already sweet fruits and refuse them? We as a people now are CHOSING to stay almost comlpletely ignorant of African traditional practices and philosophies...that is ridiculous...and demonstrates a quite frightening mentality IMO.

I second what Fagunwa says...

OA,
But what about the 2nd part of my follow up.
quote:
Originally posted by Fagunwa:
The trancendent is reality. It needs no appeal. What we all attempt is to have as real a connection with it as we can. For me that is Ifa. As you have read from me before, African Americans must choose for themselves what they will be and to hell with what I or anyone else thinks. I just have a vested interest in the outcome and I feel that african spiriuality is an area that has not been accurately or fully explored here. I also feel that African Spirituality has as much theological depth as any other culture, if not more, on the face of the earth. I just would like to see my family (AA's) check it out! If it's not for you OK. But I'm so tired of hearing about how I decended from ham I could burst asunder. hope I answered if not hit me back!

I am probably just as tired as you with the Ham/Canaan story or any other kind of simplistic, biblicistic, literalism. You know that I do not endow myth with the status of historicity.

I also understand encouraging AA's to pursue the study of African traditional religions if the Black Church does not do it for them. Not to disparage anyone, but it is fascinating, for example, that many AA's gravitate to traditions such as Hinduism or Buddhism before looking at African spirituality.

As for me, I have often spoken about my own love/hate relationship with the Black Church and hankerchief head, chicken wing eaten, jackleg preachers. And yet, I identify as a Christian (albeit one that brings to bare a critical hermeneutic) because I experience the transcendent, "ultimate reality" or "ground of being" in this context. This is also why I do not see myself becoming a humanist despite my advisors prodding to do so.Wink

Thanks for the feedback.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
And since the very Helio Biblio is the product of this distortion of the original African teachings...Then how can it be taken literally?

P.S. Moses("Mose" is a Kemetic/Egyptian title by the way) was learned in all the ways of Egypt per the Helio Biblio...So are we supposed to believe he came up with similar principles that he was learned in(Ma'at) on his own?

I tried to keep on truckin' and and handle some stuff, but this just kept gnawing in the back of my head so... The problem with this is, for one people go on the the notion that the whole of hebrew culture & religion began with Moses, which it did not. the offcial state records and laws as you might say, was given to moses were given to Moses. hebrew religion existed both before Moses & out of Egypt. The name of YAH is used in the names of hebrews long before Moses, And Gen 43:32 tells that the The egyptian would not sit with Yacob (jacob) or his brothers because they were hebrew also before the time of Moses.

The other point is, People tend to go on this notion that everything began with Egypt, which is not the case. Egypt, or khemet, came out of a larger society that covered the majority of Africa, which the bible states and science supports. I don't know if you've ever seen it, but there's a documentary that comes on Discovery science channel from time to time, called "Mystery of the Black Mummy" about a mummy of a little boy that predates egypt. And science has found that egypt, does in fact come out of a larger society. Egypt even acknowledged others before them. Popular opinion is because Egypt was a country, while the hebrews were still nomadic herders, that egypt was a society first. Which is not the case. Egypt could have just as easily been influenced by hebrew ways. Or, they could've been recounting the same events. Except one, was recorded before the other being that hebrews were mostly illiterate nomads passing tradition orally. But was that the case?

The bible tells us that Ham begat cush, and Cush begat Nimrod. And that Nimrod was "a mighty hunter BEFORE the Lord" or as some biblical scholars believe the word "paniym" or "before" actually translates into "against". So Nimrod(or "Ninus" as was his name to some) was the "mighty hunter AGAINST the lord" who as the bible states, founded many cities one of which was babel. Now, Flavius Josepus, in "The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus" remarked in great detail, That I'm to tired to type out that "Nimrod who had excited an affront and contempt on god". And Alexander Hislops clssic book "The Two Babylons"states that the egyptians worshiped him as Osiris(p.20-22),And as Thammuz in later babylonian. Him, along with his father Cush,(Who was "hermes" to the greeks) the son of Ham, the book also says were woshiped under many names, Bel, Baal, Thoth etc. Now The Two babylons(p.25)tells us that "Her" in ancient chaldee is synonomous with Ham or Khem. And "Mes" shows geneaology to an applied name in both chaldee and egyptian, like "Ramese" is "son of RA" So who was right who was wrong? Whom distorted whom?

I'm going to assume that you know who the Freemasons are, and that they've practiced many forms of occults, as far back as anyone can recall. Especially Egyptian and Babylonian. A quote from "The Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Kindred science" by Albert G. Mackey 33 degree p.322. "Hermes in,all the old manuscript, records, which contain the legend of the craft, mention is made of hermes as being one of the founders of Masonry." He goes on to say "He found one of the two pillars of the stone, and found the science written therein and taught it to other men" and "the egyptians called him Thoth". Same book vol.2 p.518 "The legend of the craft in the old constitutions refer to Nimrod as one of the founders of Masonry". Now this is a independent party to this discussion, who've studied and kept secret the "secret sciences & mysteries" as they say, now they validate The existence of Biblical figures being distorted into Egyptian deities.

A breif history of Albert Pike. Albert Pike was 33 degree Mason, (now the thing is here is, the higher your "degree" with masons the more secrets are revealed) Confederate general, and honored by masons as "The Prince Adept, mystic,poet and scholar of Freemasonry". Though described as not a very good general, he is the only confederate general to receive a statue on federal property in D.C. for his work as a Freemason. And according to "The Encyclopidia of Religion and Ethics" vol.12 p.204 he was also the head of a group of luciferians known as the "Pallaidst",who were said to adore lucifer, who was the foe of ADONAI YAHWEH, he was also the Freemasons. As well as head of the Illuminati in the U.S. and head of all things theosophical overall in the Illuminati(I'm going to also assume you know of them, if not do an engine search). So to keep it short he was head to all secrets, of both the Illuminati and Freemasons. Let's see what he had to say in his book "Morals and Dogma",(p.13). "Our fathers of the north woshipped Odin the All father, Frea the mother, And Thor the son. the mediator. But above all of these was the supreme god the author of all that existth,The eternal the ancient the living and awful being, that searchth for the concealed things..." He goes on to say on page 375. "In all the histories of the gods & heroes lay couched and hidden astronomical details and the histories of the perations of visible nature; and those in turn were head of a higher profounder truths. None but the rude, uncultivated intellects could long concider the sun the stars and power of nature divine. Fit objects of human worship." There, in his own words, the head of the Freemasons,Illuuminati, and the palladist head master of all things occult for his time, admitting that all other gods (but the one he and the illuminati loaths) are all fronts for lucifer. Again, one entity with many voices. All sources are listed, and there page numbers for verifacation.
IMMORTAL LOGIC,

It's hard to discuss what you have brought up because you aren't looking at anything outside of the Biblical goggles. This is circular logic IMO.

First off...When I refer to Egypt/KMT I am talking about the African civilization that has predated papyri that the Hebrews obviousely derived a lot of their mythology from... The one most lay Biblical scholars are familiar with. This is strictly for ease of discussion.

I could go on ad infinum about the Great Lakes region and Nile valley complex peoples and cultural/spiritual systems that KMT was based upon(The Kemetic texts give ommage to the Twa peoples from "up" the Nile, Up actually being South in their world view. Check the neteru Bes as the archetype). The problem is NONE of these systems are studied by our people as valid because the highly manipulated Bible says they are "evil" ect... Have you read the papyrus of Ani? If not why not? Isn't it only fair to compare different spiritual systems by actually studying them?...ESPECIALLY when they are African systems...Now, why don't our people do that? Hhhmmmm...Let's take a wild guess.

The fact you could use literal and historical Biblical logic to state that the Egyptian Neteru were copies of the LATER RECOREDED Biblical/Hebrew characters is laughable IMO(no offense)...It demonstrates how, even when there is irrifutable evidence prooving which culture predates the other...The Biblical blinders are still on our people.

The Hebrews version of things would not actually admit that another culture originated their own principles...Most cultures won't do that...even though in the ancient world, many cultures actually validated themselves by associating themselves with the Kemetic peoples...

It reminds me of when certain people say Elvis is the King of Rock n Roll... What people are saying this? The victors...the ones in control..the same folk that oppress us. Elvis came later, we all know that... Now, if the current victors remain in control for a couple hundred years, and contiue to rewrite and supress the true history of Rock 'n Roll...I can guarantee, all of a sudden, Elvis will be the originator...while we will be the copiers...Sound familiar?... It's already happening to a large extent... It is much like the Hebrew version of things...But we refuse to akcnowledge this very simple fact. Because the people who teach history like to inoctrinate us with their version. And because we are trying to connect ourselves and validate ourselves through them and remain stuck in the Helio Biblio, that we refuse to think outside of the box.

As far as the Masonic, Priory of Sion, Knights Templars, Roscicrucian,...a.k.a EUROPEAN "perversions"(IMO) of the ancient Kemetic "mystery systems" (and who would they be a mystery too but outsiders?)...Mixed with the Babylonian (and other cultures) LATER adaptations of the Kemetic mystery systems...That's a whole different subject...and former obsession of mine. That I can ONLY discuss with those who look at things outside of the Biblical perspective...No offense...but anything else would frustrate me to no end...

On top of all of this...Our (if you are a diaspora born African) ancestors DID NOT have the Bible until the colonizers and enslavers came... And I personally don't think they needed it(of course)...Now why aren't we studying the spiritual systems of our direct ancestors?

I had to study the Kemetic and other Nile Valley cultures to break my head out of the Biblical bond... Plus I find it interesting to deconstruct the Euro-centric version of his-tory. But IMO I, nor my people should have had too...It was a stepping stone in my development. But "we" came from West Africa for God's sake! Now how many people know ANYTHING about the traditions of our people DIRECTLY before we were captured? And what kind of mentality prevents us from wanting to know?
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by IMMORTAL LOGIC:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
And since the very Helio Biblio is the product of this distortion of the original African teachings...Then how can it be taken literally?

P.S. Moses("Mose" is a Kemetic/Egyptian title by the way) was learned in all the ways of Egypt per the Helio Biblio...So are we supposed to believe he came up with similar principles that he was learned in(Ma'at) on his own?

I tried to keep on truckin' and and handle some stuff, but this just kept gnawing in the back of my head so... The problem with this is, for one people go on the the notion that the whole of hebrew culture & religion began with Moses, which it did not. the offcial state records and laws as you might say, was given to moses were given to Moses. hebrew religion existed both before Moses & out of Egypt. The name of YAH is used in the names of hebrews long before Moses, And Gen 43:32 tells that the The egyptian would not sit with Yacob (jacob) or his brothers because they were hebrew also before the time of Moses.

The other point is, People tend to go on this notion that everything began with Egypt, which is not the case. Egypt, or khemet, came out of a larger society that covered the majority of Africa, which the bible states and science supports. I don't know if you've ever seen it, but there's a documentary that comes on Discovery science channel from time to time, called "Mystery of the Black Mummy" about a mummy of a little boy that predates egypt. And science has found that egypt, does in fact come out of a larger society. Egypt even acknowledged others before them. Popular opinion is because Egypt was a country, while the hebrews were still nomadic herders, that egypt was a society first. Which is not the case. Egypt could have just as easily been influenced by hebrew ways. Or, they could've been recounting the same events. Except one, was recorded before the other being that hebrews were mostly illiterate nomads passing tradition orally. But was that the case?

The bible tells us that Ham begat cush, and Cush begat Nimrod. And that Nimrod was "a mighty hunter BEFORE the Lord" or as some biblical scholars believe the word "paniym" or "before" actually translates into "against". So Nimrod(or "Ninus" as was his name to some) was the "mighty hunter AGAINST the lord" who as the bible states, founded many cities one of which was babel. Now, Flavius Josepus, in "The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus" remarked in great detail, That I'm to tired to type out that "Nimrod who had excited an affront and contempt on god". And Alexander Hislops clssic book "The Two Babylons"states that the egyptians worshiped him as Osiris(p.20-22),And as Thammuz in later babylonian. Him, along with his father Cush,(Who was "hermes" to the greeks) the son of Ham, the book also says were woshiped under many names, Bel, Baal, Thoth etc. Now The Two babylons(p.25)tells us that "Her" in ancient chaldee is synonomous with Ham or Khem. And "Mes" shows geneaology to an applied name in both chaldee and egyptian, like "Ramese" is "son of RA" So who was right who was wrong? Whom distorted whom?

I'm going to assume that you know who the Freemasons are, and that they've practiced many forms of occults, as far back as anyone can recall. Especially Egyptian and Babylonian. A quote from "The Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Kindred science" by Albert G. Mackey 33 degree p.322. "Hermes in,all the old manuscript, records, which contain the legend of the craft, mention is made of hermes as being one of the founders of Masonry." He goes on to say "He found one of the two pillars of the stone, and found the science written therein and taught it to other men" and "the egyptians called him Thoth". Same book vol.2 p.518 "The legend of the craft in the old constitutions refer to Nimrod as one of the founders of Masonry". Now this is a independent party to this discussion, who've studied and kept secret the "secret sciences & mysteries" as they say, now they validate The existence of Biblical figures being distorted into Egyptian deities.

A breif history of Albert Pike. Albert Pike was 33 degree Mason, (now the thing is here is, the higher your "degree" with masons the more secrets are revealed) Confederate general, and honored by masons as "The Prince Adept, mystic,poet and scholar of Freemasonry". Though described as not a very good general, he is the only confederate general to receive a statue on federal property in D.C. for his work as a Freemason. And according to "The Encyclopidia of Religion and Ethics" vol.12 p.204 he was also the head of a group of luciferians known as the "Pallaidst",who were said to adore lucifer, who was the foe of ADONAI YAHWEH, he was also the Freemasons. As well as head of the Illuminati in the U.S. and head of all things theosophical overall in the Illuminati(I'm going to also assume you know of them, if not do an engine search). So to keep it short he was head to all secrets, of both the Illuminati and Freemasons. Let's see what he had to say in his book "Morals and Dogma",(p.13). "Our fathers of the north woshipped Odin the All father, Frea the mother, And Thor the son. the mediator. But above all of these was the supreme god the author of all that existth,The eternal the ancient the living and awful being, that searchth for the concealed things..." He goes on to say on page 375. "In all the histories of the gods & heroes lay couched and hidden astronomical details and the histories of the perations of visible nature; and those in turn were head of a higher profounder truths. None but the rude, uncultivated intellects could long concider the sun the stars and power of nature divine. Fit objects of human worship." There, in his own words, the head of the Freemasons,Illuuminati, and the palladist head master of all things occult for his time, admitting that all other gods (but the one he and the illuminati loaths) are all fronts for lucifer. Again, one entity with many voices. All sources are listed, and there page numbers for verifacation.



IM
You are to intelligent a person not to have understood what was posted in this thread. Here is the short version; the bible, albert pike, freemasons,hebrews,muslims are mere children compared to what is available on the continent from which your ancestors, I assume,originate. Some of us do not measure our history or spirituality by the prism of the hebrew,the european or the arab,if you do that's fine, for you. You are wasting your time using these sources as "proof texts" they mean nothing to people like us.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
IMMORTAL LOGIC,

It's hard to discuss what you have brought up because you aren't looking at anything outside of the Biblical goggles. This is circular logic IMO.

First off...When I refer to Egypt/KMT I am talking about the African civilization that has predated papyri that the Hebrews obviousely derived a lot of their mythology from... The one most lay Biblical scholars are familiar with. This is strictly for ease of discussion.

I could go on ad infinum about the Great Lakes region and Nile valley complex peoples and cultural/spiritual systems that KMT was based upon(The Kemetic texts give ommage to the Twa peoples from "up" the Nile, Up actually being South in their world view. Check Bes). The problem is NONE of these systems are studied by our people as valid because the Euro colonial manipulated Bible says they are "evil" ect... Have you read the papyrus of Ani? If not why not? Isn't it only fair to compare different spiritual systems by actually studying them?...ESPECIALLY when they are African systems...Now, why don't our people do that? Hhhmmmm...Let's take a wild guess.

The fact you could use literal and historical Biblical logic to state that the Egyptian gods were copies of the LATER RECOREDED Biblical/Hebrew characters is laughable IMO(no offense)...It demonstrates how, even when there is irrifutable evidence prooving which culture predated the other...The Biblical blinders are still on our people.

It reminds me of when certain people say Elvis is the King of Rock n Roll... What people are saying this? The victors...the ones in control..the smae folk that oppress us. Elvis came later... Now if the current victors remain in control for a cople hndred years and contiue to rewrite the history of Rock n Roll...I can bet all of a sudden Elvis will be the originator...while we will be the copyers...Sound familiar?... much like the Hebrew version of things...But we refuse to akcnowledge this very simple fact. Because the people who teach history like to inoctrinate us with their version. And because we are trying to connect ourselves and validate ourselves through them and remain stuck in the Helio Biblio, that we refuse to think outside of the box.

As far as the Masonic, Priory of Sion, Knights Templars, Rosecrucian,...a.k.a EUROPEAN "perversions"(IMO) of the ancient Kemetic "mystery systems" (and who would they be a mystery too but outsiders?)...Mixed with the babylonian suand other LATER versions of the Kemetic mystery systems...That's a whole different subject...and obsession of mine. That I can ONLY discuss with those who look at things outside of the Biblical perspective...No offense...but anything else would frustrate me to no end...


OA take me back please! upfro
Shebakoby: It is our responsibility to spread the Gospel, because God told us so.

Every religious organization has a set of characteristics that encompasses that particular faith and one of the salient characteristics of the Christian faith is to arrogantly operate with the presumption that no one, irregardless of their cultural origin, will be spiritually content until they accept the Christian gospel. It does not matter that you give someone a proverbial "choice" in the matter, the damage has been done. Its the nerve of you to think that my religion is worthless and that I need your gospel to "save" me from it. If someone were ever to approach you in this manner, you would never find this acceptable, so why should I? Its the same religious bigotry that is responsible for the creation of racism, which is why, as I read some your responses to others, there is clear evidence of you struggling with racism toward Africans and African Americans. And considering your Christian conditioning which ultimately has caused you to develop indifference toward those that are different from you, particularly towards "non-Christians," I'm not the least bit surprised. What you need to understand is that because people's identities are so closely tied to their religion, for you to disrespect someone's religion is to disrespect those people. I won't address your other comments (most of them completely misinformed and incorrect accounts of history) because they all tie into to this fundamental problem.
Last edited {1}
IMMORTAL LOGIC: But who's to say they should not be introduced to new beliefs and make there own choices?

The problem is that whenever Christians talk about introducing "new beliefs," its usually their beliefs that take precedence. Everyone else has something to gain and/or learn from you all, but you never have anything to gain from others. And the only pathetic explanation that you all can ever come up with to justify your thinking and behavior is, "Because God told me so."
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
IMMORTAL LOGIC,

It's hard to discuss what you have brought up because you aren't looking at anything outside of the Biblical goggles. This is circular logic IMO.

First off...When I refer to Egypt/KMT I am talking about the African civilization that has predated papyri that the Hebrews obviousely derived a lot of their mythology from...

The fact you could use literal and historical Biblical logic to state that the Egyptian Neteru were copies of the LATER RECOREDED Biblical/Hebrew characters is laughable IMO(no offense)...It demonstrates how, even when there is irrifutable evidence prooving which culture predates the other...The Biblical blinders are still on our people.

The Hebrews version of things would not actually admit that another culture originated their own principles...

This is the beauty of my "proof text". not only DO they have a biased , it is an EXTREME bias against everything I believe. But still validate them. Two outside sources (of which there are many) without "biblical blinders",confirming the same story of my sacred teachings. If you'd like to know what your doing right, listen to the slander of your enemies. And like the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." So my enemy tells me I'm on the right track.

As far as the Masonic, Priory of Sion, Knights Templars, Roscicrucian,...a.k.a EUROPEAN "perversions"(IMO)

But do you have any evidence to back this up? Every book and website I've ever seen agree that the freemasons can be traced back to about the time the tower of babel was built by Nimrod (so god could not flood them out again). I've read their journals of the birth of Thutmoses IV and they are HIGHLY detailed. As are most of their writings. so if you have an other source that sats different, put it up. I would be MOST interested in reading it for myself. And how is it that an amalgam of secret societies, which have been around in one form or another for milliniems,working on one single goal and spending a near myriad amount of money, and now fall under/ and including the Illuminati can "steal" so much from ancient Kemet but never discovered that the god that wage war against(documented proof, again, mostly in their own words), the sworn enemy of their "god" was just a mythical "Water god" of a childlike religion. You dont really believe them so stupid and ilinformed do you? And if so, can you put up some resources. I put up my sources with the deliberate purpose of scrutiny. So now I would like to do the same. The only reason I put up the few sources I did is because I get between 3-4 a.m. on average, I have a host more of resources if you don't care for those two. And put up your source on babylon lerning from kemet everything I read was the opposite. And just so you have general info most people in the occult refer to there practices as "mystery systems" not because it IS a mystery.

On top of all of this...Our (if you are a diaspora born African) ancestors DID NOT have the Bible until the colonizers and enslavers came... And I personally don't think they needed it(of course)...Now why aren't we studying the spiritual systems of our direct ancestors?

No. That not true at all. The Lemba people to the south, Bet Yisrael to the east, And more the one ancient arab historian that refers to the hebrews migrating sub-saharan, Or detailing capturing hebrew peoples in africa and forcfully converting them to islam. You might want to look farther into this statement.

Last edited {1}
Rowe, I don't even why you put that post up. I already told you, if having the last word makes you feel like a bigshot them just say so. I've come to realize that your not here for an exchanging of ideas, or meaningful conversation, just to be bedazzled by the sound of your own voice. your post were ripe with assumptions and contradictions. Until you eventually you became tangled up in them. So now your just going to take it from the top? Start back all over again? By yhe way I'm still waiting for your incredibly informed articles on all these african sistas waiting in anticapation to have there clitoris removed.
quote:
Originally posted by IMMORTAL LOGIC:
No. That not true at all. The Lemba people to the south, Bet Yisrael to the east, And more the one ancient arab historian that refers to the hebrews migrating sub-saharan, Or detailing capturing hebrew peoples in africa and forcfully converting them to islam. You might want to look farther into this statement.


LOL...I feel like I am debating one of my Rastafarian friends...Before they knew better. But you are now being a trickster...The Lemba people are from the area that is now referred to as Zimbabwe. The Beta Isreal are in/from Ethiopia(and they are confused enough to think that their "home" is the modern Zionist state of Isreal!)...The Beta Isreal had the Torah...but the Lemba didn't have any Helio Biblio...just similar practices. Niether areas, or their people were involved in the trans atlantic slave trade that got us diasporans here...and you know this!...So why prey tell did you mention them? Tisk, tisk...You knew niether were our direct Western African ancestors...

Everything you mentioned in your post is a form of validating African spirituality and cultural practice by connecting ourselves to spirituality via the Helio Biblio. Most of the websites(and books...which I have read most) on the secret societies and mystery systems have the same Euro-centric flaw...which is understandable because most are created and ran by Europeans, and most other sites referrance the historical work of Europeans/Arabs without identifying their biases and capitalist/imperialist agernda for re-writing or emphasizing and ommitting certain hisotical info...I don't expect them(Euros and Arabs) to take their own cultural and motivational blinders off(although I know Europeans that have) BUT WE DEFINATELY MUST!

African people from the Great Lakes Region and the Nile Valley complex were practicing the spiritual systems that Judeo-Christianity-Islam copied much later...The African systems were Millenia prior to what you are talking about...much like the African people were around millenia prior... The Lemba are seeing THEIR practices as similar to Judaism...when it is actually the reverse. THEY were first(Bantu and Nilotic people)...But they were/are colonized...much like we were enslaved. So they are looking through the referrence point of the oppressors... The Asante and Akan of Western Africa(that have been colonized) make the same mistake...Thinking they got their practices from Judaism...rather than the other way around. The systems spread from Lake Victoria and the Nile out...not the other way around. Much like the flow of humanity.


Here's a good site...I'll post other referances if you are truly interested...But I suggest reading Dr. Yosef Ben-Jochannan, he'll clear it all up for you.(and save me a ton of typing...which honestly I won't do until you read further) He was born a Beta Isreal, he is a 360 degree initiate into "the Craft" of Luxor, as well as an Egyptologist and Biblical scholar...He is a wise man and NOTHING, no site, no book I have ever read, or person I have met compares with him or his works on ancient African history and spirituality.

http://www.africawithin.com/

You still haven't answered my questions, have you read The Papyrus of Ani? And if not, why not? It was written around 4100 B.C.E...

Are you even familiar with the spiritual systems of Western Africa? Ask yourself why you aren't, if you aren't.

We are the mothers and fathers of this all...We need to stop studying our children's version of things and get back to our homework assigned by our ancestors. Study the MDW NTR it is the Zep Tepi of everything you speak of.

Like I said before...no disrespect, but dialoguing with someone who clings on to the Biblical perspective frustrates the hell out of me. But it takes me back though...When I used to listen to the Black Isrealistes and Rastafarians preach to passer-bys on Venice Beach as a child...ahhhhh, memories...

One thing though. I see you are on the right track...keep searching.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by IMMORTAL LOGIC:
No. That not true at all. The Lemba people to the south, Bet Yisrael to the east, And more the one ancient arab historian that refers to the hebrews migrating sub-saharan, Or detailing capturing hebrew peoples in africa and forcfully converting them to islam. You might want to look farther into this statement.


LOL...I feel like I am debating one of my Rastafarian friends...Before they knew better. But you are now being a trickster...The Lemba people are from the area that is now referred to as Zimbabwe. The Beta Isreal are in/from Ethiopia(and they are confused enough to think that their "home" is the modern Zionist state of Isreal!)...The Beta Isreal had the Torah...but the Lemba didn't have any Helio Biblio...just similar practices. Niether areas, or their people were involved in the trans atlantic slave trade that got us diasporans here...and you know this!...So why prey tell did you mention them? Tisk, tisk...You knew niether were our direct Western African ancestors...

Okay, everything I've ever read or heard on the lemba people, they always stated that they were from Yemen originally, or hebrew communities from egypt. they also have stated that their sacred text were destroyed by arabs. So no, I'm not a "trickster" your just wrong, sis. And don't mistake Ethiopian hebrews desperation with confusion. And the fact still remains that Ethiopia and Nubia were already studying old and new scriptures while the majority of europe were still with their tribal deities. The point is, africans had these text in there posession long before europeans. And their are still historians who track the migration of hebrew from east to west. The lemba people. West african women claims her hebrew roots I put more up later...if you want.

Everything you mentioned in your post is a form of validating African spirituality and cultural practice by connecting ourselves to spirituality via the Helio Biblio. Most of the websites(and books...which I have read most) on the secret societies and mystery systems have the same Euro-centric flaw...which is understandable because most are created and ran by Europeans, and most other sites referrance the historical work of Europeans/Arabs without identifying their biases and capitalist/imperialist agernda for re-writing or emphasizing and ommitting certain hisotical info...I don't expect them(Euros and Arabs) to take their own cultural and motivational blinders off(although I know Europeans that have) BUT WE DEFINATELY MUST!

Sooo...do you have proof of these societies being knock offs, or are you just stating opinion again?

The Lemba are seeing THEIR practices as similar to Judaism...when it is actually the reverse.

Are these your words & opinions, or theirs? because if it's their I'd really love to read it

Here's a good site...I'll post other referances if you are truly interested...But I suggest reading Dr. Yosef Ben-Jochannan, he'll clear it all up for you.(and save me a ton of typing...which honestly I won't do until you read further) He was born a Beta Isreal, he is a 360 degree initiate into "the Craft" of Luxor, as well as an Egyptologist and Biblical scholar...He is a wise man and NOTHING, no site, no book I have ever read, or person I have met compares with him or his works on ancient African history and spirituality.

http://www.africawithin.com/

You still haven't answered my questions, have you read The Papyrus of Ani? And if not, why not? It was written around 4100 B.C.E...

Are you even familiar with the spiritual systems of Western Africa? Ask yourself why you aren't, if you aren't.

We are the mothers and fathers of this all...We need to stop studying our children's version of things and get back to our homework assigned by our ancestors. Study the MDW NTR it is the Zep Tepi of everything you speak of.

Like I said before...no disrespect, but dialoguing with someone who clings on to the Biblical perspective frustrates the hell out of me. But it takes me back though...When I used to listen to the Black Isrealistes and Rastafarians preach to passer-bys on Venice Beach as a child...ahhhhh, memories...

One thing though. I see you are on the right track...keep searching.
Thank you for the site I'm going to start reading when I get in.If the papri of ani isn't there I'll do an engine search and give you my opinion later. But as for my "blinders", just because one disagrees with you doesn't mean they have blinders on. The "proof text" I provided are anything but biblical. But but still verify the bible. To me it seems you are the one who dismisses all writings from various sources if they don't fit your beliefs with little to to verify those claims (i.e.blinders). Like I said I have quotes from ancient historians (non biblical)as well as numerous illuminati factions to back up all I say
quote:
Originally posted by IMMORTAL LOGIC:
I already told you, if having the last word makes you feel like a bigshot them just say so.


If I were interested in having "the last word," I would not have waited I think it was four or five days before I responded to your last post. So busy discussing matters in the Sista's Spot, I forgot that I was even participating in a discussion over here. On the subject of "articles," anyone that has a credible education knows that simply providing people with articles to read is not sufficient evidence to prove that what you believe is true. Articles are written by people with biases and personal perspectives. And often times, people will selectively choose to rely on the testimony of those who have the same ideals and values that they have and filter out and/or ignore the perspectives of those whose values and perspectives are unfamilar. This is why you are experiencing trouble acknowledging your egocentric attitude with respect to African traditions. Someone you trust has shared an opinion with you that is indifferent to this aspect of African tradition, you have adopted and accepted their opinion into your "schema" of knowledge, and your acceptance is preventing you from thinking differently. Yet as an American who has no relationship to African customs, it honestly does not matter whether or not you approve of female circumcision. It is apart of African tradition so you need to respect that, period. Just as those who live outside of America are expected to respect American women who pierce, enlarge, and tatoo their clitoris for "fun."
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
I have real trouble with anyone (or anything) that says, "I had a vision (or my god spoke to me). I'm right and you're wrong." Never mind the fact that what I'm "right" about just happens to support my position.


Good point. The problem is religious enthusiasts and fanatics are really mental patients in waiting. They are always the first to give people great moral advice and the last to follow it. Their main objective is to gain contol, control over the ways in which the world believes and worships. They have no respect for cultural individuality or the concept of culture period, especially the cultural identities of blacks, who they assume are instintictively morally inferior in all matters, hence the need to "save" them from their "heathenistic tendencies" to worship "false gods" and "idols." These people are nothing more than victims of ignorance. As outsiders, they base their justification for religious imperialism on judgemental inferences and observations about African cultures, and for them, that's all that's needed to draw their conclusions. For instance, the average ignorant white American would look at Oshun's avatar and automatically assume that the black woman depicted in the avatar is "worshipping snakes," "having sex with the snake" and/or some other dumb ass observation about "Africans worshipping snakes and having sex with snakes." The first observer will then spread this observation around to other dumb whites who wouldn't know the difference between a truth and a lie if it bit them on the ass. Another white person, of the "professional type" will then find some other scholarly bigots to agree with him and prepare an "article" full of additional distortions and observations which ultimately is suppose to "confirm" the lies and print them as if they were "true." (Since people will believe anything that is printed) Next thing you know, I'll have someone like 'Immortal Logic' referring me to the article with the expectation for me to believe what is written in it because it has been written as an "article."
Last edited {1}

Add Reply

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