Several times in the Bible the Apostle Paul comes right out and admits that he lied to the people. Several times he calles his story his own. He told Timothy "Jesus Christ was raised from the dead according to MY gospel." Yet people continue to believe this admittedly false story. Why? There are no Roman Catholics killing those who don't believe. There is no Spanish Inquisitor or crusader holding a blade to our throats. So what is it that keeps people believing what they know is not true?

The church has fastidiously placed filters in the mind of believers. Whenever the truth about the bible and christianity comes to light the christian has all these other things to think about: What will my friends think of me if they know I am asking these questions? What will become of my ministry (privilage, prestige, position) in the church? Am I strong enough to throw away my crutches and think for myself? Who am I to be so bold?

Many questions. It is easier to just emerse oneself in church activities, go out and buy something or recite the carefully selected memory verses to banish doubt than to explore the possibility that what the man has been telling you might be wrong. After all, you love the man. You respect him. You look up to him from the pew every Sunday morning. How great a disruption would it be in your life to take too close a look at what this man is saying. But others have faced the truth about christianity and their life goes on.

We cannot grow in our comfort zone. True growth requires struggle. That's why they arre called growing pains. The baby that refuses to fight his way into the world will die in the womb and kill his mother along with him.

The truth about the bible and christianity is glaringly evident. But as long as we value anything in this world, whether it be money, opinions, pride in the strength of our faith, posessions or whatever, the price of truth will always be more than we are willing to pay.

The baby that refuses to fight his way into the world will die in the womb and kill his mother along with him.For some odd reason, reading this line made me think about the "african american" and Africa!

Tell us about it brotha anAfrican

Because nobody has showed me any of the so called contradictions or lies yet!

Because nobody has showed me any of the so called contradictions or lies yet!How about the "fact" that the "First Coming of Jesus" was foretold as a method of attempting to get "the people" to come back to God?

How about the fact that "christianity" is about "reverance" to a human being instead of to God?

How about the fact that that celebration of the violation of "thou shalt not kill" features symbolic ritual cannibalism?

How about the question of "why would God need armies?".

How about all the killing, wars, inquisitions "in the name of God"?


Oops, sorry; it's kinda "tacky" of me to seek to present logic, and reading comprehension, to folks that want to toss out the entirety of the original works, eh?

Dear Slowly,

You have already admitted to knowing that the Bible contradicts itself in it’s depiction of the death of Judas. And I have asked you how a book which errs in such a simple earthly matter can be trusted to accurately reveal the secrets of God. Yet here you say no one has shown you any errors. How many errors is your god allowed to make? God does not make errors and any book that claims to be from God must reflect that fact.

We talked about this in another thread and I showed you contradictions. The seventy elders who went up the mountain and saw God whom Paul says no one has seen.

Now here is the Apostle Paul coming right out and admitting to having lied and deceived people. If you can walk away from this still convinced that christianity is true then it’s not the lie no one can show you but the lie you refuse to see that is keeping you in this religion that has shackled the bodies and minds of our people for two thousand years.


2 Corinthians 12:16
16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
2 Timothy 2:8
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

According to Paul’s gospel. According to the word of an admitted liar Jesus was raised from the dead. The Bible tells us that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established yet not one person gives witness to Paul as an apostle.

Think,. Why are you so afraid to use the brain that you know is from God and want to defend this book that somebody told you was from God. And that somebody raped killed and enslaved your ancestors. There is nothing a slave master will give you that is designed to set you free. And I am not just talking about the white American slave masters I am talking about Moses who told the Jews that it is okay with their God to enslave the Canaanites.

Sister River, It appears here that Paul was asking the question: Did I lie to you? And I think Paul was about 40 years behind Christ, right? So he wasn't there. And you really have to be careful regarding Paul. A lot of those writings aren't his, he just translated the stuff and delivered or had it delivered.. In many places in the writings attributed to Paul, he states these are inspired instructions, and in many places he just stuck his two cents in. And this is what I think about, Who really knows anything about anything. What if, all writings were destroyed, but 50,000 years from now they dig up pieces of "Lord Of The Rings or Star Wars" books. What will they think?

Sister River, It appears here that Paul was asking the question: Did I lie to you? And I think Paul was about 40 years behind Christ, right? So he wasn't there. And you really have to be careful regarding Paul. A lot of those writings aren't his, he just translated the stuff and delivered or had it delivered.. In many places in the writings attributed to Paul, he states these are inspired instructions, and in many places he just stuck his two cents in. And this is what I think about, Who really knows anything about anything. What if, all writings were destroyed, but 50,000 years from now they dig up pieces of "Lord Of The Rings or Star Wars" books. What will they think?

This is just another excuse to continue to believe in the lie.

Several times in the Bible the Apostle Paul comes right out and admits that he lied to the people. Several times he calles his story his own. He told Timothy "Jesus Christ was raised from the dead according to MY gospel." Yet people continue to believe this admittedly false story. Why? There are no Roman Catholics killing those who don't believe. There is no Spanish Inquisitor or crusader holding a blade to our throats. So what is it that keeps people believing what they know is not true?

The church has fastidiously placed filters in the mind of believers. Whenever the truth about the bible and christianity comes to light the christian has all these other things to think about: What will my friends think of me if they know I am asking these questions? What will become of my ministry (privilage, prestige, position) in the church? Am I strong enough to throw away my crutches and think for myself? Who am I to be so bold?

Many questions. It is easier to just emerse oneself in church activities, go out and buy something or recite the carefully selected memory verses to banish doubt than to explore the possibility that what the man has been telling you might be wrong. After all, you love the man. You respect him. You look up to him from the pew every Sunday morning. How great a disruption would it be in your life to take too close a look at what this man is saying. But others have faced the truth about christianity and their life goes on.

We cannot grow in our comfort zone. True growth requires struggle. That's why they arre called growing pains. The baby that refuses to fight his way into the world will die in the womb and kill his mother along with him.

The truth about the bible and christianity is glaringly evident. But as long as we value anything in this world, whether it be money, opinions, pride in the strength of our faith, posessions or whatever, the price of truth will always be more than we are willing to pay.

We need more threads like this
Hotep!

:welldone:

Sister River, It appears here that Paul was asking the question: Did I lie to you? And I think Paul was about 40 years behind Christ, right? So he wasn't there. And you really have to be careful regarding Paul. A lot of those writings aren't his, he just translated the stuff and delivered or had it delivered.. In many places in the writings attributed to Paul, he states these are inspired instructions, and in many places he just stuck his two cents in. And this is what I think about, Who really knows anything about anything. What if, all writings were destroyed, but 50,000 years from now they dig up pieces of "Lord Of The Rings or Star Wars" books. What will they think?
Slowly please stip kidding yourself. You know Paul was making a statement not asking a question. Why does reading the bible have such an adverse effecct on people's reading comprehension skills?

Because they take it a line at a time and you shouldn't do that. If you add the 10 lines before and after it will turn into a question.

Because they take it a line at a time and you shouldn't do that. If you add the 10 lines before and after it will turn into a question.
Sistah Khnumet, you don't mind if I interrupt your thread for a second, do you! (Smile)

Alright, now a question for Slowly:

Read the following "Bible" selection please...

Matthew 22 - Talking about the Parable of the Wedding Banquet

1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.

4"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'

5"But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.

13"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

NOW READ VERSE 14...

14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
Now based on what you said in the previous post, do you mean to tell me that Verse 14 has something to do with the previous 13 verses? Or is it not right, and should be read/recognized line-by-line?

Better yet - if they are sequential, Why does the whole "Bible" have numbers by the scriptures in the first place, if it is not to be read line-by-line?

Just curious. Answer as you please.

KD

ello Kobena, good to see you.

Slowly, here is the entire chapter, There is nothing in it which suggests that verse 16 is a question. He does not begin to ask questions until verse 17 but by then he has already let the cat out of the bag. Once a man admits to telling lies can he come back and say he lied about that but now he will tell the truth?

Why does reading the bible have such an adverse effecct on people's reading comprehension skills?It is a requirement of that christianity cult. Otherwise they would recognize that "The Word of God" is only the first five books (Torah, Penteteusch, Books of Moses), and all the rest are recounts of the way that the Word was/is ignored. And that all this "new testament" stuff is an even further "Falling Away From Grace". But why let a silly little thing like truth/facts/honesty get in the way of mind control?

Rhetorically, he asked, "How can there be a "New Covenant" without a new creation? How would you feel if your "only begotten son" set out to convince everybody to stop paying attention to "your" rules and established a set of his own?"

Sistah Khnumet, you don't mind if I interrupt your thread for a second, do you! (Smile)

Alright, now a question for Slowly:

Read the following "Bible" selection please...
Matthew 22 - Talking about the Parable of the Wedding Banquet

1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.

4"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'

5"But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.

13"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

NOW READ VERSE 14...

14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."


Now based on what you said in the previous post, do you mean to tell me that Verse 14 has something to do with the previous 13 verses? Or is it not right, and should be read/recognized line-by-line?

Better yet - if they are sequential, Why does the whole "Bible" have numbers by the scriptures in the first place, if it is not to be read line-by-line?

Just curious. Answer as you please.

KDOh, drat! <sigh> Oh, Kobena; I would so much wish that you meant to say "nothing" instead of "something"?

Verse 14 would be the "moral" to this parable, and ties oh so exactly into what I was just saying in my previous post. In fact, this particular parable is exactly what happened that allowed/required a "new testament" in the first place! "In my Father's House are many Mansions", but everybody seems to be so content to "stand and the door and knock" rather than to come in. (And, yeah; I'd be the guy that is "dressed wrong" for this modern day christianity cult! And I LIKE it!!)

(OK, I'll come out of the closet, here: I got introduced in the second grade and it all made sense to me from the first. So much so, that I was "called" to "minister" to His Children that have been cast out (into the mean streets of today). No, I'm not the least bit interested in "bringing them to the chruch ... er .. "church", but to remind them that "God would not bring on nothing that God hadn't prepared them to stand up to/deal with". I've encountered folks that were completely at the end of their rope and just knew that they couldn't go on. Between us, they came/come to realize that that strength that keeps them from going ballistic, rather than feeling like being crushed under it all, IS the Truth of themSelves. I don't ever seek to "fix their problems", and don't/won't, but remind them that they have the strength to continue to deal with the mess. And, generally, they turn around and look at the same mess that they were crushing under, notice that it has gotten a bit heavier, and go right back into it singing!! (yes, "singing", not "swinging".) It is a truly good feeling when they get there ... for both of us!! 22 years of this stuff! Ain't gonna change a thing about it, either!)

(Oh, and lest you find conflict with this, and my stance regarding "religion": One of the things that I have noticed, as I cruise around the many rooms of Father's Mansion, is that that Mansion exists within a realm; it is not the entirety of the Realm. There is an "outside" to this box too!)

Better yet, how does one account for a story that was told 16 different times in different cultures thousands of years BEFORE THE BIRTH OF JESUS ? Clearly somebody has to be lying, and since the story of Jesus is the 17th such story of the previos 16, it should be clear who is lying.

Gimme a minute, I'll be back.

QUOTE=Keita]Better yet, how does one account for a story that was told 16 different times in different cultures thousands of years BEFORE THE BIRTH OF JESUS ? Clearly somebody has to be lying, and since the story of Jesus is the 17th such story of the previos 16, it should be clear who is lying.[/QUOTE]
That's an interesting question because although Jesus is careful to watrn his disciples about the christs who would come after him he neglected to mention the ones who came before him.
If I told you to believe a story because
Let me correct myself. because Jesus himself did not write one single word but according to this author and that Jesus said so an so.

If I told you that according to Jack something happened and I want you to believe the story the first thing any reasonably intelligent person would want to know is who the H. E. double toothpick is Jack. We cannot even verify the existance of men named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Yet we believe a story that was compiled hundreds of years after the events were supposed to have taken place. Compiled and edited by 120 Roman Catholic bishops who murdered everyone who disagreed with them and destroyed the original manuscripts from which they copied.

There are those who defend christianity and there are those who examine it and I have never known them to be the same people.

Madam River, Paul was not an Apostle. He was self-appointed Apostle. A false apostle.

Here Paul is speaking in Romans, chapter 3 verse 7 : But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

Falshood will never take you anywhere ..Paul . Only the truth will go to heaven .

See post ; Christianity's true founder, Paul, admits fabrication.

Bless you all

Madam River, Paul was not an Apostle. He was self-appointed Apostle. A false apostle.

Here Paul is speaking in Romans, chapter 3 verse 7 : But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

Falshood will never take you anywhere ..Paul . Only the truth will go to heaven .

See post ; Christianity's true founder, Paul, admits fabrication.

Bless you all
Yes Sheqhem, I am fully aware that no biblical writer supports Paul's claim to apostleship. The Mosaic law tells us that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Yet Paul's apostleship is not established by even one witness outside his own mouth.

I found your post about Paul's fabricated missionary journeys so fascinating. This is a prime example of the blindfold church puts on people. I have heard preachers teach on these passages for 25 years and nobody ever said wait a minute. We thought like chickens in church--waking up to a new world everyday. o what the preacher said one week did not have to agree with what he said last month. Our love and respect for the preacher immediately squelched any questions our minds tried to ask us.

And people wonder why I speak out against christianity. They wonder why I don't let people make their own choices. How can you make a choice when you have no knowledge about what you are choosing? Who would give somebody $100,000 for a house without going through escrow--just take it on faith that the house actually exists? Yet we give our lives and our minds far more carelessly than we give our money.

Our people are being anihilated all over the world and I am just supposed to keep quiet while our potential warrors are being anesthetized in this cesspool of undigested lies called the Church?

Keep doing whatcha doing, High Priest.

Better yet, how does one account for a story that was told 16 different times in different cultures thousands of years BEFORE THE BIRTH OF JESUS ? Clearly somebody has to be lying, and since the story of Jesus is the 17th such story of the previos 16, it should be clear who is lying.


Pope Leo X, "What profit has not that fable of christ brought us!"

:luvv:

Madam River, Paul was not an Apostle. He was self-appointed Apostle. A false apostle.

Here Paul is speaking in Romans, chapter 3 verse 7 : But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

Falshood will never take you anywhere ..Paul . Only the truth will go to heaven .

See post ; Christianity's true founder, Paul, admits fabrication.

Bless you all

Paul wrote, “Being crafty, I caught you with guile”…”for if the truth of God hath more abounded through my LIE unto his glory; why yet am I adjudged a sinner?”

Paul lie is pale in comparison with the actions of mercenaries such as Moses, Joshua and David. David was trained by the Philistine warlords. Abram lied on more than one occasion about his wife being his sister, yet he was a man of God. David murdered Uriah’s wife and yet he was a man after God’s own heart, so why is Paul not an Apostle of Jesus because of his lie which bore fruit for the kingdom of God? Abram did it not to advance the kingdom of God, but for his own profit, but Paul did it for God.

2 Samuel 5 v 8 (King James Version), “And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain.”

In other words, anyone who is able to slaughter the cripples and those who cannot move about because of impaired vision should be slaughtered, and after they have successfully completed this wonderful, righteous, Godly act, they would then be promoted in God’s righteous army.

Someone once said, “If you want to see man at his worst observe what he does to follow men in the name of God.”

Maybe the statement should have been, “if you want to see man at his BEST observe what he does to follow men in the name of God.” The extremist Hebrew religion and its imitative Christianity derivative are the only religions ever known on earth based on and maintained by systematic persecution, murder and lies.

Paul was an Apostle and a man of God just like all the mercenaries of the Old Testament, who pleased their God, by lying, slaughtering and robbing others at the instruction of their God.

It is no wonder that when the pagans came in contact with the followers of the Judeo-Christians religion they prayed, “God protect me from your follower.” The same should have been our prayer during slavery, but instead we bought Christianity hook, line and sinker - we swallowed the bait.

Paul wrote, “Being crafty, I caught you with guile”…”for if the truth of God hath more abounded through my LIE unto his glory; why yet am I adjudged a sinner?”

Paul lie is pale in comparison with the actions of mercenaries such as Moses, Joshua and David. David was trained by the Philistine warlords. Abram lied on more than one occasion about his wife being his sister, yet he was a man of God. David murder Uriah’s wife and yet he was a man after God’s own heart, so why is Paul not an Apostle of Jesus because of his lie which bore fruit for the kingdom of God? Abram did it not to advance the kingdom of God, but for his own profit, but Paul did it for God.

2 Samuel 5 v 8 (King James Version), “And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain.”

In other words, anyone who is able to slaughter the cripples and those who cannot move about because of impaired vision should be slaughtered, and after they have successfully completed this wonderful, righteous, Godly act, they would then be promoted in God’s righteous army.

Someone once said, “If you want to see man at his worst observe what he does to follow men in the name of God.”

Maybe the statement should have been, “if you want to see man at his BEST observe what he does to follow men in the name of God.” The extremist Hebrew religion and its imitative Christianity derivative are the only religions ever known on earth based on and maintained by systematic persecution, murder and lies.

Paul was an Apostle and a man of God just like all the mercenaries of the Old Testament, who pleased their God, by lying, slaughtering and robbing others at the instruction of their God.

It is no wonder that when the pagans came in contact with the followers of the Judeo-Christians religion they prayed, “God protect me from your follower.” The same should have been our prayer during slavery, but instead we bought Christianity hook, line and sinker - we swallowed the bait.

(standing in ovation)

You are burnt to a crisp, baby. You are sizzling!

These cats were so low they had to get up to get to the gutter. And check this out--the Jebusites were the original inhabitants of Jerusalem. No wonder David wanted them slaughtered.

I never knew that verse was in the bible. They always taught me that God loved and protected the disabled. I don't want to hear anyone else defend the bible This is simply indefensible.

that Christianity -- a hybrid religion -- hold a Godspell over people like you would not believe.

Gimme a minute, I'll be back.




My belief was in God period, forget (at this time), the bible and the mysteries it contains. But I met this girl who was into church so I started going, mostly to meet her. About five months into my church attendance something happened, my son and I were leaving my job two cities away when suddenly all I could do was breathe in but not out. I fought staying conscious because I couldn't park with my then 13 year old(mentally handicapped) on the freeway. I found a spot where we could get off the freeway, but all the **** houses were too far way. I tried beating my chest on my pick up truck, but I could not breath out. I don't know how long it was but eventually I could not stand any longer and collapsed on the grass beside my truck. I will never forget the look of fear in my son's eyes. He was my best Bud at the time. I started thinking about how I was a baby Christian and was God gonna let me die in front of my son like this. So I started calling on God like a person who was about to die. GOD DID NOTHING! But He did give me a vision. I saw my grandmothers little white 'Philco Ford' radio. You know the little white AM radio with the white case and clear dial with gold numbers, all our parents and grandparents had one. And out of this radio came the words: I am the way, the truth, and the life : no man come unto the Father except by me. That's when I started asking Jesus for help. It was January, about 28 degrees here in the Pacific Northwest, and I was sweating like a pig. A cool breeze started blowing and I thought: Well, at least I'll be comfortable when I die. A piece of grass caught by the breeze just landed under my nose and sat there twirling. The first sneeze caused me to sit up. The second sneeze revived me completely. It's time to get my son off this freeway, NOW! I rushed us home and checked myself into the emergency room. I was released out the hospital a week later. You gonna call this coincidence, I'm gonna call it faith. Hey, if I'm wrong, I still had fun. But if the bible's right, Heaven's assured.

Beggin your pardon, Bro; but "I gotta laugh" at this!! But ONLY because IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENED TO ME!!

But, in my case, it was The Big Boss that answered .. well, it was The Big Boss that was doing the "interview" in the first place. I "got out of it" by saying "Ok, God: I'm Your boy; I'll take the Job!", and suddenly I could breathe again!!

Personally, I just can not understand why folks will not go on beyond "the door, the truth and the life"? Go on through that Door!!

I swear that there must be something in the notion that we live in "God's Country" up here!! All over the place, that's what folks feel/live/Be. But looking over the fact that we have just about every environment that this planet has to offer, I'd say that it is true. Love the PNW!

(I almost did that one, myself, but I might have over-thought it: on the one hand, what better place to meet a Lady, but on the other, it just seemed to me to feel as if I were "using" God's House in a slightly "odd" way ... or something ... I get caught up in "analysis paralysis" a lot!)
My belief was in God period, forget (at this time), the bible and the mysteries it contains. But I met this girl who was into church so I started going, mostly to meet her. About five months into my church attendance something happened, my son and I were leaving my job two cities away when suddenly all I could do was breathe in but not out. I fought staying conscious because I couldn't park with my then 13 year old(mentally handicapped) on the freeway. I found a spot where we could get off the freeway, but all the **** houses were too far way. I tried beating my chest on my pick up truck, but I could not breath out. I don't know how long it was but eventually I could not stand any longer and collapsed on the grass beside my truck. I will never forget the look of fear in my son's eyes. He was my best Bud at the time. I started thinking about how I was a baby Christian and was God gonna let me die in front of my son like this. So I started calling on God like a person who was about to die. GOD DID NOTHING! But He did give me a vision. I saw my grandmothers little white 'Philco Ford' radio. You know the little white AM radio with the white case and clear dial with gold numbers, all our parents and grandparents had one. And out of this radio came the words: I am the way, the truth, and the life : no man come unto the Father except by me. That's when I started asking Jesus for help. It was January, about 28 degrees here in the Pacific Northwest, and I was sweating like a pig. A cool breeze started blowing and I thought: Well, at least I'll be comfortable when I die. A piece of grass caught by the breeze just landed under my nose and sat there twirling. The first sneeze caused me to sit up. The second sneeze revived me completely. It's time to get my son off this freeway, NOW! I rushed us home and checked myself into the emergency room. I was released out the hospital a week later. You gonna call this coincidence, I'm gonna call it faith. Hey, if I'm wrong, I still had fun. But if the bible's right, Heaven's assured.

My belief was in God period, forget (at this time), the bible and the mysteries it contains. But I met this girl who was into church so I started going, mostly to meet her. About five months into my church attendance something happened, my son and I were leaving my job two cities away when suddenly all I could do was breathe in but not out. I fought staying conscious because I couldn't park with my then 13 year old(mentally handicapped) on the freeway. I found a spot where we could get off the freeway, but all the **** houses were too far way. I tried beating my chest on my pick up truck, but I could not breath out. I don't know how long it was but eventually I could not stand any longer and collapsed on the grass beside my truck. I will never forget the look of fear in my son's eyes. He was my best Bud at the time. I started thinking about how I was a baby Christian and was God gonna let me die in front of my son like this. So I started calling on God like a person who was about to die. GOD DID NOTHING! But He did give me a vision. I saw my grandmothers little white 'Philco Ford' radio. You know the little white AM radio with the white case and clear dial with gold numbers, all our parents and grandparents had one. And out of this radio came the words: I am the way, the truth, and the life : no man come unto the Father except by me. That's when I started asking Jesus for help. It was January, about 28 degrees here in the Pacific Northwest, and I was sweating like a pig. A cool breeze started blowing and I thought: Well, at least I'll be comfortable when I die. A piece of grass caught by the breeze just landed under my nose and sat there twirling. The first sneeze caused me to sit up. The second sneeze revived me completely. It's time to get my son off this freeway, NOW! I rushed us home and checked myself into the emergency room. I was released out the hospital a week later. You gonna call this coincidence, I'm gonna call it faith. Hey, if I'm wrong, I still had fun. But if the bible's right, Heaven's assured.
I don't call it coincidence, Slowly. There are people of other religions that God has used those religions to draw the people to himself. Like Paul said hey so I lied--I got you to throw awaay your idols and worship God didn't I. If your girlfriend had been a muslim and took you to a mosque where you heard the Koran instead of the bible that voice coming out of the radio would have quoted something from the Koran because that's all you had in your subconscious. That's why the church doesn't want us to read any other book so we won't find out that there is nothing unique or original about the christian message. To see and know God you have to look beyong the means by which you came to him.If christianity is the crutch that you need right now then hold it as long as you need it. and no longer.

Also, if you are wrong and the muslims are right then you are in trouble because the Koran sees it as blasphemy to believe that God has a son--blasphemy that will be punished by hell fire. So there is no playing it safe.

I don't call it coincidence, Slowly. There are people of other religions that God has used those religions to draw the people to himself. Like Paul said hey so I lied--I got you to throw awaay your idols and worship God didn't I. If your girlfriend had been a muslim and took you to a mosque where you heard the Koran instead of the bible that voice coming out of the radio would have quoted something from the Koran because that's all you had in your subconscious. That's why the church doesn't want us to read any other book so we won't find out that there is nothing unique or original about the christian message. To see and know God you have to look beyong the means by which you came to him.If christianity is the crutch that you need right now then hold it as long as you need it. and no longer.

Also, if you are wrong and the muslims are right then you are in trouble because the Koran sees it as blasphemy to believe that God has a son--blasphemy that will be punished by hell fire. So there is no playing it safe.
Actually Sister River, I was a devout Buddhist with very little Christian experience when Jesus first approached me. As a buddhist I did my best to dispel this myth contained in the bible. I don't think I had enough knowledge of how Christ works in the bible to allow Him to approach me the way that He did.
And as far as other religions are concerned, why don't they ask for people of all faiths to come together to worship the one true God, as Paul did?

Sister our people still continue to follow Christian Doctrine for several reasons. One of the main reasons is we don't know who are. If you don't know who are then you are who others tell you you are. By doing this they will tell you who your god is as well. If you are told something for long enough by enough people and no one else tells you any different eventually you will believe what they are saying. You will not only believe you will apply this doctrine to your life. This doctrine will become a part of your life and take over the better part of your life. This is a part of the conditioning process. The most successful form of conditioning is that done by your own kind or those who love you. As a result of conditioning we begin be living a dream, we make excuses for that dream and we will pass on that dream to others keeping it alive. I use the word dream because to the dreamer the dream is real. Also dreams are more powerful than lies because they have the appearance of truth added to them yet they are illusions. I'm not saying we should not have hopes and dreams. What I'm saying is that our hopes and dreams should be our own and serve our purposes and not someone elses. I can say with most certainty no one that dreams enjoys waking up from a good dream. This is what I equate Christian Doctrine to, a good dream or better yet someone else's good dream. The thing with a dream is one must be sleep or disconnected from reality inorder to dream. Some us daydream while others are in deep REM state sleep. Either way the dream is good. One thing about dreaming is eventually we wake up. When we wake up we are faced with full blown reality and quite simply we are not ready to face it. Therefore what we do is go back to sleep and continue to dream and fantasize. So sister in a world where we have been made to believe we have no power or no control over our lives a dream alternative seems better than the stark reality. So we continue to sleep.


Peace....

Most excellent, RF! I can't think of a better response to this thread. You hit this one right between the eyes!

Sister our people still continue to follow Christian Doctrine for several reasons. One of the main reasons is we don't know who are. If you don't know who are then you are who others tell you you are. By doing this they will tell you who your god is as well. If you are told something for long enough by enough people and no one else tells you any different eventually you will believe what they are saying. You will not only believe you will apply this doctrine to your life. This doctrine will become a part of your life and take over the better part of your life. This is a part of the conditioning process. The most successful form of conditioning is that done by your own kind or those who love you. As a result of conditioning we begin be living a dream, we make excuses for that dream and we will pass on that dream to others keeping it alive. I use the word dream because to the dreamer the dream is real. Also dreams are more powerful than lies because they have the appearance of truth added to them yet they are illusions. I'm not saying we should not have hopes and dreams. What I'm saying is that our hopes and dreams should be our own and serve our purposes and not someone elses. I can say with most certainty no one that dreams enjoys waking up from a good dream. This is what I equate Christian Doctrine to, a good dream or better yet someone else's good dream. The thing with a dream is one must be sleep or disconnected from reality inorder to dream. Some us daydream while others are in deep REM state sleep. Either way the dream is good. One thing about dreaming is eventually we wake up. When we wake up we are faced with full blown reality and quite simply we are not ready to face it. Therefore what we do is go back to sleep and continue to dream and fantasize. So sister in a world where we have been made to believe we have no power or no control over our lives a dream alternative seems better than the stark reality. So we continue to sleep.


Peace....

Sister our people still continue to follow Christian Doctrine for several reasons. One of the main reasons is we don't know who are. If you don't know who are then you are who others tell you you are. By doing this they will tell you who your god is as well. If you are told something for long enough by enough people and no one else tells you any different eventually you will believe what they are saying. You will not only believe you will apply this doctrine to your life. This doctrine will become a part of your life and take over the better part of your life. This is a part of the conditioning process. The most successful form of conditioning is that done by your own kind or those who love you. As a result of conditioning we begin be living a dream, we make excuses for that dream and we will pass on that dream to others keeping it alive. I use the word dream because to the dreamer the dream is real. Also dreams are more powerful than lies because they have the appearance of truth added to them yet they are illusions. I'm not saying we should not have hopes and dreams. What I'm saying is that our hopes and dreams should be our own and serve our purposes and not someone elses. I can say with most certainty no one that dreams enjoys waking up from a good dream. This is what I equate Christian Doctrine to, a good dream or better yet someone else's good dream. The thing with a dream is one must be sleep or disconnected from reality inorder to dream. Some us daydream while others are in deep REM state sleep. Either way the dream is good. One thing about dreaming is eventually we wake up. When we wake up we are faced with full blown reality and quite simply we are not ready to face it. Therefore what we do is go back to sleep and continue to dream and fantasize. So sister in a world where we have been made to believe we have no power or no control over our lives a dream alternative seems better than the stark reality. So we continue to sleep.


Peace....

Very nicely put Rad!:spinstar:
How are things going for you on your journey?:spinstar:

Very nicely put Rad!:spinstar:
How are things going for you on your journey?:spinstar:


I still travel and commune with my Spiritual Parent. My priority lies with my people. Anything that doesn't lift up my family and my people and leads us out of a system of white supremacy is my enemy...


Peace....

I still travel and commune with my Spiritual Parent. My priority lies with my people. Anything that doesn't lift up my family and my people and leads us out of a system of white supremacy is my enemy...

...I share your sentiment(s)!

KD

Peace....

Row Row your boat gentily down a stream merily,merily,merly ,life is but a dream. It is there soundtrack:bullseye:

Hotep

There is nothing what ever good, honorable, dignified, liberating or otherwise that can or will ever come out of being "Indoctrinated" in the "Christianity" concocted by the Europian system of White Superimacy that converts the "Indiginis" original (so-called African) people of the earth in-to "Low-Life" ignorant "Negros".
Ware is "Negro" land?? What is a Negro? Who on earth including the Negro him or her self...respects or pays any real attintion to a "Negro". Some of us call ourselves "Black"...ware is Black Land located on the Earth?? There is no such place and the only reason there is no such place is because the word "Negro" or "Black" is not our name by any way shape or form...it is also a "Concocted" word that is in accord with all the other "Sanctified" Racist indoctrination "Lies" tought to indoctrinate the minds of the so-called African into the "Mentality" of a "Slave". Every one on Earth knows that the Former so-called Africans in Amerikkka who have been "Converted" into Christian Euro-Negros are nothing more than ignorant "Slaves" who are not worthy of Respect. This is the reasons "All" who come into our "Communities" from other countries...set up business that "Take" all of the "Wealth" out and away and put "Nothing" back and "We" say nothing, do nothing, expect nothing and even "Support" their efforts to get "Rich" off of "Us". This is "Evidence" of the "Condition" of a Slave. We have more "Christian" churches in our Communities across Amerikkka than any other people including the "Owners" and "Controlers" of your "Mind Controling Religion"...none other than the White Europian People who owns you and made you a Religion to keep you their "Slaves" and control you to the point that you will even allow yourself and your children to go and give their Lives to protect your Masters who Own Your, your children, your job, approves your degrees, supplies you with food, clothing, shelter, mis-education, transportation, communication, entertainment and most of all your "Spiritual-Death". You today...hate your self and love your enemies so to day you turn the other cheek when it comes to your enemy but will even kill your own brother or sister for the same things. Ware is the Evidence that you are "Saved" except in your Illusional concepts given to you by the Authors of the Books your read and follow, worship, quote and other wise back-slide when you are still and will continue as long as you are lost in your Biblical Myths that are all Concocted by the Europians who owns your "Spiritual-Death" as a so-called African. If you are not honoring your own so-called African Ancistors, If you continue to be Ashamed of who you are and only imitate you Slave Masters in every way, If you think you are on the right path and something inside of you knows that you are not...then you are not saved, you are not going to any heaven no matter how "Devoted" or "Dedicated" you and all of those before you were to the White Washing made up by the "Serapis" worshipers who later changed their Concoctions name to "Jesus the Christ" in the year 325 BC in the City of Nica in Europe...then you are lost and the very opposit of Saved and are wasting your time and life and only giving it to the System of White Superimacy...in the name of the Religions they gave and forced on "Us" you. The Europians have Deceived the World...who only honors their white ancestor Potolomy who became "Serapis" who later became Jesus the Christ and then forced down your Collective throuts and calling it Religion or Christianity. You have been warned...wake up...Read, Read, Read, study deep and know for your self what you and your great, great, great grand parents have been Hoodwinked and Bamboozeled in and have you Foolishly thinking your are remotely "Saved".
People Know Your Self !

Ase`

Note: Christianity is made up to keep you a slave to the system of white superimacy. Not one contributer is African but only Europians. Study the (5) councels...then see and know for your self that every thing with out exception said here is absolutely true as a warning to my "Sleeping" African brothers and sisters to wake up! You will not go to hell if you challenge white folks lies called Religions.

I still travel and commune with my Spiritual Parent. My priority lies with my people. Anything that doesn't lift up my family and my people and leads us out of a system of white supremacy is my enemy...


Peace....
Brotha Rad, you have become such an inspiration to everyone. See when we wake uu from the dream we don't wake up to dispair--we wake up to action once we are fully awake. But it takes time. I remember once I was taking a nap with my husband and I was dreaming that I was talking to him. I woke up in the middle of the conversation. Somehow I knew I had been dreaming but it took me a while to fully grasp that I was in another state of consciousness. So I looked at him and said "Well that's what you wanted anyway, right," He said "Whatchu talking 'bout, girl?'

It takes time to wake up and you and Cedric (Kobena) make me glad that we took the time. Then you both came back with your own observations. Stuff I didn't know--Zorastrianism--oh boy.

Keep doing whatcha doing, brotha.

It takes time to wake up and you and Cedric (Kobena) make me glad that we took the time. Then you both came back with your own observations.


Let me tell you-

I have to be very grateful for [especially] the both of you. If I could be "religious" for a moment :lol:, it must be mentioned that the Creator used Sistah River (Khnumet), Sistah Karma (Bless her Heart), Brotha Sam, Brotha Sek, and Brotha Info to not necessarily wake me up, but save me from walking into that "ChrisTrap!" (Christian Trap) From there, every 'Mind shackle' hooked to me was broken, and I eventually began to wake up! It was one year ago when that happened, and I can remember it like it was yesterday. I will thank those [mentioned] Brothas and Sistahs everyday as long as I live, because since that happened, I have lived better, ate better, slept better, worried less, and I feel much better serving my Divine purpose! Then to know that all of this happened over the Internet...just goes on to show how Powerful of a Creator we serve!

Oh, and let me not forget about Brotha Rad - that Man has been there since I first came to the Destee Family/Community! Not to mention, he is still here...

I know this wasn't the thread for this, but I just had to admit how I truly felt. Let us continue to strive toward the Knowledge of Self, and make an impactful contribution toward the Liberation of our People!

KD

I know this wasn't the thread for this, but I just had to admit how I truly felt. Let us continue to strive toward the Knowledge of Self, and make an impactful contribution toward the Liberation of our People!

KDThere never was a thread created that "wasn't the thread for" tossing up "HeartBeat Props"!

One year ago, huh. Then we need to get brotha RICH to announce your birthday in the Open Forum.

Have a birthday that's swell
Have a birthday that's great
And blow out the candles
But don't spit on the cake

:D:D:D:D:D

Brotha Rad, you have become such an inspiration to everyone. Stuff I didn't know--Zorastrianism--oh boy.

Keep doing whatcha doing, brotha.

Here check out what Wikipedia says about Zorastrianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorastrianism

I became interested in this by watching a program on the History channel about Angels and Demons. The concept of Cherubs and four legged wings creatures found in Old Testament scripture came from Babylonian origins and manifested themselves in scriptures. The concepted on winged deities predated even the Babylonian era but I don't need to tell you that because you know that as with many others.

After a while I couldn't ignore the facts. Many Christians would say what does this have to do with anything? Well I say if you took a glass and filled it with 90% pure water and 10% snake venom no matter how diluted by water the liquid in the glass is it would still be poisonous. Just something to think about...

Peace...

Paul was an Apostle and a man of God


Paul was self-appointed Apostle. A man of God ?

Galatians 1, verse 13:14 ; 13: For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.


Acts 8 , verse 3 :But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.


Acts 9, verse 1-2 :But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priestand asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.


Acts 22 verse 4-5 : I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women, as the high priestand the whole council of elders bear me witness. From them I received letters to the brethren, and I journeyed to Damascus to take those also who were there and bring them in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished.


This self-appointed apostle ( Paul), also approved the killing of Mister Stephen a true Apostle.

So the Angel of the Most High told me ; High Priest of the Most High, read Acts 22 verse 20 : "And when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by and approving, and keeping the garments of those who killed him.'

This Paul, was a kind of Bin Laden a terrible terroriste terrorizing terrifically people those days.

May the Most High bless you all

This thread and others like it always imply a professed Christian is neccessarily blind and therefore cannot possibly know "truth" nor the "real" God.

I disagree.

If God can work through the dogon, or through Kemetian philosophy, or through buddhism, or through islam, then surely God can and does work through chrisitianity.

What kind of God is it that can ONLY reach those who study the proper books and perform the proper rituals?

Many christians who seek to live a christ-like life, as they know it, sustain their faith not because of any impeccable logic found within the english translation of the bible, but because they've had personal experiences where God has spoken to them, moved them, answered prayers, guided their decisions.

Personally, I do not care which book you happen to claim as your Truth.

If it works for you so be it.

It will NEVER displace the personal relationship I have with God, and you will never convince me that the ONLY Right way to God is through YOUR book and YOUR ritual.

Chrisitanity is one of many vehicles to experience God's power, and since many original christians were indeed black there is no reason it has any less legitimacy for the black community than the Medu Neter or anything else.

There may be some elements of the "religion" christianity that are forgeries, but people who have experienced God's power KNOW...first hand....there is nothing fake about that.

Paul was self-appointed Apostle. A man of God ?

Galatians 1, verse 13:14 ; 13: For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.


Acts 8 , verse 3 :But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.


Acts 9, verse 1-2 :But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priestand asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.


Acts 22 verse 4-5 : I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women, as the high priestand the whole council of elders bear me witness. From them I received letters to the brethren, and I journeyed to Damascus to take those also who were there and bring them in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished.


This self-appointed apostle ( Paul), also approved the killing of Mister Stephen a true Apostle.

So the Angel of the Most High told me ; High Priest of the Most High, read Acts 22 verse 20 : "And when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by and approving, and keeping the garments of those who killed him.'

This Paul, was a kind of Bin Laden a terrible terroriste terrorizing terrifically people those days.

May the Most High bless you all
Yes and he was a an of the same god who told Moses to slaughter his father in law's people--the same low level regional manager who became wroth when King Saul did not kill everyone as he was commanded to do.

But this is not the Supreme Being that we honor when we say God.

This thread and others like it always imply a professed Christian is neccessarily blind and therefore cannot possibly know "truth" nor the "real" God.

I disagree.

If God can work through the dogon, or through Kemetian philosophy, or through buddhism, or through islam, then surely God can and does work through chrisitianity.

What kind of God is it that can ONLY reach those who study the proper books and perform the proper rituals?

Many christians who seek to live a christ-like life, as they know it, sustain their faith not because of any impeccable logic found within the english translation of the bible, but because they've had personal experiences where God has spoken to them, moved them, answered prayers, guided their decisions.

Personally, I do not care which book you happen to claim as your Truth.

If it works for you so be it.

It will NEVER displace the personal relationship I have with God, and you will never convince me that the ONLY Right way to God is through YOUR book and YOUR ritual.

Chrisitanity is one of many vehicles to experience God's power, and since many original christians were indeed black there is no reason it has any less legitimacy for the black community than the Medu Neter or anything else.

There may be some elements of the "religion" christianity that are forgeries, but people who have experienced God's power KNOW...first hand....there is nothing fake about that.

Brother Kemetkind ... i so agree with you.

We spend so much time trying to prove each other's spiritual life choices wrong, when in my opinion, it is such a personal choice, having very little to do with others.

I can't help but think of all those before me who believed in Christianity with their whole heart. They died believing it. They encouraged me to believe, took me to Sunday school, and all that stuff. For me to now come into some new understanding, that provides evidence supporting all that they believed was wrong ... who am i to point a finger at them ... when i am here because of them? I would think it to be so disrespectful, hypocritical even, for me to badger Christians, when my own Ancestors could be called the same, and i have the highest regard and respect for them. To what great detriment could Christianity possibly do or be, if their lives were full of it, and i was created within it, and i exist now, in spite of it?

I don't think it's really that big of a deal ... well ... perhaps, no bigger than one allows it to be.

:heart:

Destee

Brother Kemetkind ... i so agree with you.

We spend so much time trying to prove each other's spiritual life choices wrong, when in my opinion, it is such a personal choice, having very little to do with others.

I can't help but think of all those before me who believed in Christianity with their whole heart. They died believing it. They encouraged me to believe, took me to Sunday school, and all that stuff. For me to now come into some new understanding, that provides evidence supporting all that they believed was wrong ... who am i to point a finger at them ... when i am here because of them? I would think it to be so disrespectful, hypocritical even, for me to badger Christians, when my own Ancestors could be called the same, and i have the highest regard and respect for them. To what great detriment could Christianity possibly do or be, if their lives were full of it, and i was created within it, and i exist now, in spite of it?

I don't think it's really that big of a deal ... well ... perhaps, no bigger than one allows it to be.

:heart:

Destee

I agree,
However I'd rather leave this earth with truth.
To be honest why can't we just believe in GOD and that's it!
What's with the many many religions seperating,ignoring historical facts,science,and evolution!
Why ignore the fact that what you were taught be true , just might not be true!
Yesterday everyone came to my house to barbecue and my grandfather again as usual da**** everybody to hell because we all dont believe what he believes.
He said all religions except christianianity will be casted out the book and sent to hell.
Him and my grandmother will be the only ones going to heaven while we burn in the lake of fire.
I'm curious where is this heaven? the lake of fire? where is this book with everyones name in it?
Oh man than he read us the book of revelations and caught the holy ghost on my couch.
I ask what is all of this for?

No it's not about which book you read. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. I am asking questions trying to get people to think. I'm not depriving anyone of the right to make a choice. But I ask how can your choice be personal--I mean truly your own choice--if you have no knowledge about the thing you are choosing? We are where we are today--in poverty, killing each other, on drugs, self hatred--because of the influence of those who urge us to make choices based on our feelings rather than our knowledge. I can't imagine that our ancestors who now know the truth more intimately than I or any of us on Earth does would feel disrespected at me for bringing light to what has proven itself to be a lie.

If it weren't for slavery most of us would probably be caught up in the genocide that's ravaging Africa right now and our children would never be born. Shall I then out of respect for my ancestors who went through slavery not speak out against it ? Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us--so many songs that have helped us to follow God were born because of this dark past. Could the things that made our past dark have bneen that bad?

The christianity practiced today is nothing like the christianity practiced in it's original form. Our ancestors in Ethiopia knew nothing of the Paulianity that developed in Rome. The christianity we practice today was given to us by our slavemasters and there is nothing a slavemaster will give you that is designed to set you free. They don't even worship the same Jesus they gave us.

I understand that some people get tired of hearing the truth. Nobody likes to be told there is a hole in the back of their pants after they've been walking around all day not knowing it. But so many of our would be warriors are sitting by the wayside because they've been led to believe that it will all be better in the sweet by and by. Empowerment is more than a good feeling. Am I a disrespectful hypocrit because I want people to know that?

...I understand that some people get tired of hearing the truth...

Sister River you (and others) imply you are preaching the "truth", but rarely do you address the notion that "truth" in matters of spiritual relationships is a personal, not universal matter.

If this is so, and you know the "truth", and know it so well that none should get tired of hearing it from you, why don't you spend more time elevating your "truth?"

What is the "truth" with respect to spirituality that everyone should believe

Can you break "the truth" down for me?

I mean other than calling christians frauds what "truth" are you representing?

What is the name of the God that works for you but isn't powerful enough to work through those fraudulent Christians?

How is this God supposed to be worshipped?

Please answer me this because I'm not being sarcastic I'm sincerely interested to know...what, specifically, (now as opposed to a few years ago when you were Christian), makes YOUR spirituality, YOUR personal relationship with God, your OWN version of "truth" better than any others.

If I'm a bible-thumper and I convert to ATR and quickly commence to metu-neter thumping what has really changed?

Am I still not claiming to perpetually be in possession of the "Truth?"

Did the "truth" change, outside of my contextual understanding of it?

What about when I find some contradictions in the logic, or run across some foul practitioners of my ATR, or run across some new philosophy that seems to make more sense, and decide to switch to something else...If I start again thumping my latest "knowledge" as the "truth"...and start denouncing any who "continue to believe" in ATR as fools...did the "truth" change again?

I agree that people are allowed to worship in what ever forum . I have a question though when is it okay for make belive to become a way of life. I attended burnside baptist church for the greater part of my life. I experienced and indept struggle within my self when my looking for a greater understanding of jesus lead me to the truth and facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. The beauty and stragedy of our nubian brothers and sisters is our loyalty and faith we compose. Some feel as in my case that they were betraying their only source of hope and faith when they are presented with the facts about chirst ti anity. However when i began to see that the orginators of the dicipline (cosmonology) where nubian brothers and sisters whom dealt with the true connection to the creator and that is nature and now the whole world follows thier lead. Once u know the truth and hide it u become a deceiver. What about santa claus, the elves, the tooth fairy etc. Everyone deserves a chance to make a decesion for themselves in the matrix the symbology was the green and red pill. I choose to deal with the truth. Some may choose to stay asleep.Our ancestors lived cosmonolgy imagine a nation full of nubian scientist, kemistry experts etc. That is what the rest of the world is scared of however the momentum is already starting and cannot be stopped ! Wake up sleeping mummies when need u.!

I agree that people are allowed to worship in what ever forum . I have a question though when is it okay for make belive to become a way of life. I attended burnside baptist church for the greater part of my life. I experienced and indept struggle within my self when my looking for a greater understanding of jesus lead me to the truth and facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. The beauty and stragedy of our nubian brothers and sisters is our loyalty and faith we compose. Some feel as in my case that they were betraying their only source of hope and faith when they are presented with the facts about chirst ti anity. However when i began to see that the orginators of the dicipline (cosmonology) where nubian brothers and sisters whom dealt with the true connection to the creator and that is nature and now the whole world follows thier lead. Once u know the truth and hide it u become a deceiver. What about santa claus, the elves, the tooth fairy etc. Everyone deserves a chance to make a decesion for themselves in the matrix the symbology was the green and red pill. I choose to deal with the truth. Some may choose to stay asleep.Our ancestors lived cosmonolgy imagine a nation full of nubian scientist, kemistry experts etc. That is what the rest of the world is scared of however the momentum is already starting and cannot be stopped ! Wake up sleeping mummies when need u.!


You chose to elevate your understanding of the truth...as most do as they grow through life.

Until you can demonstrate, with any means at your disposal, that your current understanding of truth is any better than any other, then the only valid claim you can make about that truth is that it is your own.

Your claim to deal with "THE" truth is no more or less substantiated than anyone else's claiming to be dealing with "THE" truth.

When you take the next step and profess those that don't share your truth as "sleeping mummies", you are doing two things: 1) doing a disservice to whatever truth you think you may possess and 2) expressing the moral equivalency of your average bible thumper.

I have not seen any evidence practictioners of ATR or cosmonology or astrology are any better adjusted as a group, any better equipped to deal with white supremacy, nor any better positioned to lead black people than practitioners of islam, buddhism, or...chrisitianity.

What matters is one's conviction, purpose and strength gained through their spirituality, not what "religion" that spirituality happens to be practiced within.

Gosh Brother Kemetkind ... you leave me with almost nothing to say ... :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

:heart:

Destee

however when i say truth i mean the direct plagarization of hours and isis as maddona and child same pose and gesture woman breast feeding her child. I think the problem starts with religion and cosmonlogy being compared when one is non fiction and the other is fiction cruci-fixtion etc. However when a christian is presented with facts that they do not want to face because it hurts them they allways turn to "how is that helping your life do you u live better now because of your truths?" my response is how is the world currently coping now under religion. They are all focusing on who's version of a lie is better. Facts are facts and cannot be comprised there is only one version. A lie has many as repesented throught the various forms of religion around the world . Cosmonology is based upon things that can be detected by our senses see hear smell touch etc. A sun is a sun moon moon etc that is what i am dealing with. If people need to hear things they should not do and discuss the same characters on sunday that is there choice i am not here to argue that. However when the source of all religions is found to have nothing to do with beliefs only facts about physical things it should be presented especially when the originators are nubian. It scares me to think that there are indivduals who are turned off by what our ancestors created if i called it science would u be more comfortable

Here are some questions within this question. How can someone follow religious doctrine that separates and divides people and still have an open view of what the truth is? "God" and religion are two separate things. "God" encompasses everything. Religion is about allegiance to religion and religious doctrine. Knowing this is it better to say that one should be in allegiance with "God" rather than religious groups? Bottomline is religion is the path chosen by people. When people say you are going to burn in hell for not choosing to follow the religious doctrine I follow then there is a problem. It's even more hurtful when the person condemning you to hell shares a greater bond with you than some religious doctrine....


Peace....

QUOTE=kemetkind]Sister River you (and others) imply you are preaching the "truth", but rarely do you address the notion that "truth" in matters of spiritual relationships is a personal, not universal matter.

If this is so, and you know the "truth", and know it so well that none should get tired of hearing it from you, why don't you spend more time elevating your "truth?"

What is the "truth" with respect to spirituality that everyone should believe

Can you break "the truth" down for me?

I mean other than calling christians frauds what "truth" are you representing?

What is the name of the God that works for you but isn't powerful enough to work through those fraudulent Christians?

How is this God supposed to be worshipped?

Please answer me this because I'm not being sarcastic I'm sincerely interested to know...what, specifically, (now as opposed to a few years ago when you were Christian), makes YOUR spirituality, YOUR personal relationship with God, your OWN version of "truth" better than any others.

If I'm a bible-thumper and I convert to ATR and quickly commence to metu-neter thumping what has really changed?

Am I still not claiming to perpetually be in possession of the "Truth?"

Did the "truth" change, outside of my contextual understanding of it?

What about when I find some contradictions in the logic, or run across some foul practitioners of my ATR, or run across some new philosophy that seems to make more sense, and decide to switch to something else...If I start again thumping my latest "knowledge" as the "truth"...and start denouncing any who "continue to believe" in ATR as fools...did the "truth" change again?[/QUOTE]
I do not doubt the sincerity of your questions, brotha Kem. I just don't understand why you are asking me these things. It is the christians who claim to have the only true God and everyone who doesn't believe their doctrine is going to hell.

I am not even talking about spirituality, which is indeed personal. I am talking about religion. When people are killed, cultures destroyed. lives disrupted in the name of religion, when we are told that if we don't believe in that religion we will go to hell. be ostricized by our family and friends and even kicked our of jobs and clubs and God won't bless us because we don't believe in the resurrection, then there is NOTHING personal about that religion.

I am not attacking people. I am attacking a religion that has for centuries attacked my people--deprived them of their own concept of god and forced on them a god who thinks there is no good thing in them. . Everything that I have said involves the history of christianity and the falsehood of the things the church tells us are historical. Are you going to tell me I have no right to question a book that was designed to obscure the history of my own people? Archeological science shows that my ancestors had civilizations tens of thousands of years ago. Many of us won't accept this because the bible says the Earth is only 6000 years old. So we don't know who we are. We don't know where we came from and we accept oppression because our oppressor looks just like the god we were given to worship. But when we wake up and say no this isn't true then all of a sudden it's about personal belief so no one is supposed to touch it They should have been respecting personal belief when they bullwhipped my anccestors for building Orishas.

Because some people don't want to admit that we are the original peoples of the Earth I am supposed to respect their lies just because they disguise them as religious belief? Come on brotha, I know you better than this.

Brother Kemetkind ... i so agree with you.

We spend so much time trying to prove each other's spiritual life choices wrong, when in my opinion, it is such a personal choice, having very little to do with others.

I can't help but think of all those before me who believed in Christianity with their whole heart. They died believing it. They encouraged me to believe, took me to Sunday school, and all that stuff. For me to now come into some new understanding, that provides evidence supporting all that they believed was wrong ... who am i to point a finger at them ... when i am here because of them? I would think it to be so disrespectful, hypocritical even, for me to badger Christians, when my own Ancestors could be called the same, and i have the highest regard and respect for them. To what great detriment could Christianity possibly do or be, if their lives were full of it, and i was created within it, and i exist now, in spite of it?

I don't think it's really that big of a deal ... well ... perhaps, no bigger than one allows it to be.

:heart:

Destee

Just because our ancestors were Christians (they were forced to be so), doesn't mean that we much honor Christianity while honoring them.

Our people were also enslaved and subjugated as well, but that does not mean that we should honor such an institution.

Wrong is wrong.

As my Sister Sheqheti has stated, we cannot, in good conscience, speak about all those things that serve by both function and intent, to hinder our progress as a people, and not add the religion of Christianity to that list of things that needs to be addressed.

PEACE

Just because our ancestors were Christians (they were forced to be so), doesn't mean that we much honor Christianity while honoring them.

Our people were also enslaved and subjugated as well, but that does not mean that we should honor such an institution.

Wrong is wrong.

As my Sister Sheqheti has stated, we cannot, in good conscience, speak about all those things that serve by both function and intent, to hinder our progress as a people, and not add the religion of Christianity to that list of things that needs to be addressed.

PEACE


Samurai, you've missed my central point in this thread.

The "religion" most of our immediate ancestors practiced is of lesser importance than the spiritual strength and legacy they left behind.

It is common knowledge that black christians existed prior to slavery, but even those that encountered it during slavery, managed to still find and connect with the essence of God, despite the trappings of the religion.

There is a case to be made that the version of christianity they created in the midst of slavery was something new all together, and an even stronger case that it sustained, nourished and united them.

The matter of not honoring them includes the foul name calling and disrespectful arrogance displayed towards their existence.

If God, the creator, or whatever title you use, is only universal enough to work within 1 religion, and is only geniuinely experienced through 1 set of rituals, then threads like these make a lot of sense. Otherwise....

Good to see you back brother. Your presence has been missed.

peace

Hotep

We spend time exposing the truth about the origins of croud controling white superimist religion because you sould know the truth and be given a chance to choose after knowing the "Facts". Some claim that their ancistors were Christian...ware are they from (in Africa) and what people are you claiming as your ancistors. The so-called Christians in Africa did not fall down on their faces and nees for a White Creature that never existed in the first place except in the Fabricated Lies of the so-called White Man. The first so-called Followers of Christ called them self (the Bishops of Serapis) that but there was no one by the name of "Jesus" (yet) at that time in history...only later after they concocting a new white image from "Serapis" then and only then was the new creature presented to the world by the name of "Jesus the Christ". There has never been any person ever in the history of the world...a real person by the name Jesus Christ. Think African!!...way are there no statues, coins, artifacts of any kind or even a mention of a Jesus by any historians of 2006 years ago?? If you choose to 'Ignore' the truth and facts because you are too afraid to look into what is the origins of the false-hoods that you follow...then that is totaly on you and there is no one else to blaim because you chose to Ignore there fore making yourself a person who is Ignorant. There is no spirituality what ever in a system that is based on a false Prophet that never existed! Ware is the proof that a man by the name of Jesus Christ ever existed?? There is none except that...that is only under the absolute control of the white "Pope" and other white Europian Religious Controlers of the Mind control system of White Superimacy. If you Claim to be a true beliver...then you owe it to your self to know the truth and not continue to "Blindly" waste your life on something you were given as a Child by those family members who also did not know but were "Hoodwinked" as those (Slaves) before them. Hint: Any Religion that places the woman in a inferior and negative position (Eve) is False. Any Religin that is based in Europe is False. Any Religion that is Claiming to have a White Prophet is Absolutely False. Before you dis-agree for the sake of dis-agreement...Read, Study, Reserch the Historical Origins of Christianity and the Councils that created it in Secret...starting with the Council of Nicea in the year 325 A.B.C.E. Life is all about choices...so choose wisely. After the Chick leaves the Shell of Ignorance it can never go back.......People Know Thy Self

Ase`

Note: Why is it that there is no one in the world that can defend any of the worlds big Three Religions againts the truth about their origins and their Fabricated beginnings and who was the europian participints of those secret meetings starting with the council of Nicea in 325 A.B.C.E.....Don't you want to know?

There is no spirituality what ever in a system that is based on a false Prophet that never existed!

Provide one shred of evidence this statement is true.

Explain in clear terms to me, how you can know with such certainty when and where spirituality can exist. Are you the Creator?

I suspect you have no means to support that statement.

I also suspect, since you are telling me about the council of nicea as if it's news, you are both underestimating the study I have done and ignoring the point of my presence in this thread.

At the end of the day, whether you tote the metu neter around or the bible or some other book claiming it as the most original, your relationship with the creator is still between you and the creator.

If you cannot elevate your thinking enough to respect others personal relationship with the creator, you are not nearly as advanced in your wisdom as you purport to be.

Samurai, you've missed my central point in this thread.

The "religion" most of our immediate ancestors practiced is of lesser importance than the spiritual strength and legacy they left behind.

I understood your point, I just didn't necessarily agree.

Our people created spirituality. Since we have established that spirituality and religion are mutually exclusive, then it makes little difference what religion we had, because our spirituality supercedes our religious practices throughout the ages.

It is common knowledge that black christians existed prior to slavery, but even those that encountered it during slavery, managed to still find and connect with the essence of God, despite the trappings of the religion.

Then that, as I'd stated, has nothing to do with their religious practices, but only because we are an inherently spiritual people.

And, as you stated, our spirituality has persisted inspite of whatever religion we practiced, and not because of it......And therefore, my point still stands.

There is a case to be made that the version of christianity they created in the midst of slavery was something new all together, and an even stronger case that it sustained, nourished and united them.

"Something new", in comparison to what? What the same Christiantiy that they practiced, not the same one that Constantine created?

What "nourishment" does this Christianity give us?

*It taught us to eat all the wrong foods. Is this physically nourishing?

*It taught us to worship the image of the Slave master. Is this psychologically nourishing?

*Since nothing in the Bible teaches respect for women (just the opposite, in fact), then is this socially nourishing?

These are the points that I and others are arguing against. Christianity has never been good for us.

The matter of not honoring them includes the foul name calling and disrespectful arrogance displayed towards their existence.

When and where has that happened? And by whom?

If God, the creator, or whatever title you use, is only universal enough to work within 1 religion, and is only geniuinely experienced through 1 set of rituals, then threads like these make a lot of sense. Otherwise....

That's my point: God does not work through "religion". God works through spiritual upliftment and enlightenment.

Good to see you back brother. Your presence has been missed.

peace

Thanks, and I've missed you all as well.

PEACE

Provide one shred of evidence this statement is true.

Explain in clear terms to me, how you can know with such certainty when and where spirituality can exist. Are you the Creator?

I suspect you have no means to support that statement.

I also suspect, since you are telling me about the council of nicea as if it's news, you are both underestimating the study I have done and ignoring the point of my presence in this thread.

At the end of the day, whether you tote the metu neter around or the bible or some other book claiming it as the most original, your relationship with the creator is still between you and the creator.

If you cannot elevate your thinking enough to respect others personal relationship with the creator, you are not nearly as advanced in your wisdom as you purport to be.

Not to speak for our Brother, as he is more than eloquent in his expression.....

But you still seem to be confusing one system with another, and any of them with spirituality as a whole.

If we are about the eradication of anything that continues to hold Black people down, then how do you not add Christianity to such a list?

As far as the "false Prophets", while there may not be sufficient evidence to support this, there is also not sufficient evidence to support a claim in the opposite direction either.

Why place faith on something that the jury is still out on?

In the meantime, while we are eradicating the various destructive ideologies that remain deterants to our upliftment, we should also replace them with productive mechanisms that will promote our growth on the mental, physical, social, and especially spiritual levels.

PEACE

Provide one shred of evidence this statement is true.

Explain in clear terms to me, how you can know with such certainty when and where spirituality can exist. Are you the Creator?

I suspect you have no means to support that statement.

I also suspect, since you are telling me about the council of nicea as if it's news, you are both underestimating the study I have done and ignoring the point of my presence in this thread.

At the end of the day, whether you tote the metu neter around or the bible or some other book claiming it as the most original, your relationship with the creator is still between you and the creator.

If you cannot elevate your thinking enough to respect others personal relationship with the creator, you are not nearly as advanced in your wisdom as you purport to be.

Hotep

The overwhelming Evidence is you and "Us" the Condition of Africans in Amerikkka needing Absolute Liberation! The fact that we are still waring the names of the Slave Masters. The fact that every one is culturly connected but us, The fact that every one on the planet knows who they are but us. How is it posible to derive any Spirituality fom a system that keeping you a Slave to it?? Spirituality absolutely does not allow itself to ever be a Slave or Subject to any other than the Creator. And in order to be a slave to another...one must be Spiritaly Dead first!

Ase`

I understood your point, I just didn't necessarily agree.

I think you did agree...by your own admission.


Our people created spirituality. Since we have established that spirituality and religion are mutually exclusive, then it makes little difference what religion we had, because our spirituality supercedes our religious practices throughout the ages.

You've encased it in more flowing terms, as you're prone to do, but you've just restated my entire point in this thread.






Then that, as I'd stated, has nothing to do with their religious practices, but only because we are an inherently spiritual people.

Exactly. And as an inherently spiritual people, it's ridiculous to proclaim any religion is powerful enough to disconnect black people from their spirituality.

One cannot claim an 80-year-old devout deaconess who has been christian her entire life is devoid of spirituality because of fabrications in the religion which she practices.




And, as you stated, our spirituality has persisted inspite of whatever religion we practiced, and not because of it......And therefore, my point still stands.

A point which is not significantly different than my own brother.


"Something new", in comparison to what? What the same Christiantiy that they practiced, not the same one that Constantine created?

This is tangential to why I'm posting in this thread. I'm not here to debate the merits of Christianity. I'll just say, yes, it was different, in that it was Africanized, and it was used as more than just worship, but as a means of coded communication.




What "nourishment" does this Christianity give us?

Through our gatherings, we communicated escape plans. We created a music that mocked the false piety of our masters. We nutured an ethical framework that allowed our family units to remain intact despite the most deplorable of circumstances. We emerged from slavery and went about the business of building schools, businesses, and the future of our race in a foreign nation.

The superior spiritual foundation and morality of our people remained in tact until the 1930's.

We dealt with and overcame the practical realities of the most barbaric holocaust ever known to have been visited upon a people.

I think it unreasonable to suggest such a people could have done all that without a tremendous spiritual fortitude.


*It taught us to eat all the wrong foods. Is this physically nourishing?
Slavery as an institution required us to eat poor foods.


*It taught us to worship the image of the Slave master. Is this psychologically nourishing?
I suppose some did worship the image of the slave master, but it is recorded that african slaves displayed the "white" images and "white" songs as fronts behind which they worshipped according to their own designs.

Today, significant scholarship is available on the black origins of the three judaic religions and the principal characters therein.



*Since nothing in the Bible teaches respect for women (just the opposite, in fact), then is this socially nourishing?

It is not my goal here to defend the bible.

If you care to delve into it more deeply, you will find scriptures that in fact teach reverence for women.

Practically, black women have always been leaders within the black church.



These are the points that I and others are arguing against. Christianity has never been good for us.

I'd admit blind allegiance to any particular "religion" has not been good for us.

On an individual level, people are capable of spiritual mastery independent of the context of any religion...a christians spiritual power cannot be discounted any more than a cosmologists spiritual power can be assumed.



That's my point: God does not work through "religion". God works through spiritual upliftment and enlightenment.
Again, your point is no different from mine.

I am simply using the term religion to denote a group of people who believe in similar dogma and worship in a similar manner.

By that definition, the ATR proponents are pushing a religion just as much as anyone else.

If anyone can show evidence the spirituality of ATR has produced to any great degree ANY practical difference in the condition of black people in the last 100 years I'd be willing to listen to arguments that it is "BETTER" for us than anything else.

Until such time, I'll continue to understand one's religion, and one's spiritual fortitude, are personal matters, worthy of discussion if desired, but unworthy of hierarchical judgement by others.

Spirituality absolutely does not allow itself to ever be a Slave or Subject to any other than the Creator. And in order to be a slave to another...one must be Spiritaly Dead first!



Brother Moorfius, are you implying ALL of our ancestors who were forced into slavery were spiritually dead first?

I hope not. But if so, this is exhibit A for what I mean by the arrogant disrespect shown for our ancestors in threads such as these.

Please clarify.

Btotha Kem,

What is your point? I find it more than a convenient sidestep that you have totally ignored my post
http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=442600&postcount=53

Your attempts to check bros Samurai, emanuel and Moorfius fall utterly flat because it is YOU who is missing the point. I explained my point and the point of this thread. I guess it is because you have nothing legitimate that you can say that you have chosen not to say anything. That was a wise decision. You should have made the same decision about responding to these brothas then maybe you wouldnt have revealed your inability to comprehend the point of a discussion..

But since you are the one trying to get me and others to remain silent about christianity the burdenn of convincing proof is on you not usl.

Btotha Kem,

What is your point? I find it more than a convenient sidestep that you have totally ignored my post
http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=442600&postcount=53

Your attempts to check bros Samurai, emanuel and Moorfius fall utterly flat because it is YOU who is missing the point. I explained my point and the point of this thread. I guess it is because you have nothing legitimate that you can say that you have chosen not to say anything. That was a wise decision. You should have made the same decision about responding to these brothas then maybe you wouldnt have revealed your inability to comprehend the point of a discussion..

But since you are the one trying to get me and others to remain silent about christianity the burdenn of convincing proof is on you not usl.


Sister, I'm not trying to convince anyone to remain silent on anything, nor am I trying to "check" anyone or "prove" anything.

I'm sorry you have chosen to degrade the discussion to that level, and given your emotionalism on this issue since your conversion, I do agree it's wise for me to let you continue your rants without my interference....this is why I chose not to respond to you...no offense intended.

I was reading through an old thread on melanin and found this jewel posted by Blackbird over two years ago...it rather powerfully sums up "What is my point" in this thread.


For many of us, there is no balance and no internal environment for us to live up to our potential. Our ancestors built pyramids, temples, and monuments, but as you said, we are now battling with internal challenges that will not allow us to rise up. Our ancestors had an intricate and intimate connection to the spirit and now it seems to me, we have a deep love for self-denial, suppression and despiritualized reality. Our world was once magical and teeming with life - we lived our humanness, however, in this present-day, our world is very mundane and reeked with death - we assert our humanness. Some of us can remain Christian or what not because that is their destiny - like you perhaps, but for others, including me, a return to our traditional beliefs is what uplifts us. At some point in time, there must come some level of understanding, that each of us were all born with a specific mission and path. Everything is not just black/white - there are some gray areas as well. We can not fall into the trap of overgeneralization.

I will end with this: I have a godbrother who was brought up and raised in the Pentacostal church. His life was bad - going to jail, homeless, hungry, basically nothing worked for him. He suffered. He was very religious. A day came when he was facing 15 years Fed time, but he had a friend in the ATRs (African Traditional Religions) and his friend told him to go to a babalawo (priest) to see if anything could help him. The babalawo said yes and told him what to do. My godbrother never went to jail, eventhough they had over 6 months of investigated evidence on him. He was told he must initiate, but he was too religious. He battled with making a decision because it went against his Christian upbringing, but eventuallyl he decided he would initiate. What did he have to lose. He went to a spiritual investigation and one of the spirits came down and told him he wasn't born a Christian, he was born a priest. The spirit said that was why he had so many problems in life. All of this was less than 6 years ago. Today, he was a roof over his head, isn't hungry, has no problems with jail or police and has peace (internal) in his life. People now come to him for advice, help and work. My godbrother is 27 years old. I have a similar story and I'm 28. He says his spirits back him up in everything. That was his path, as well as, mine. We both have strong testimony.

Don't get me wrong - Christianity is good if it makes a change in your life and improves you for the better, but not all Black people were born to be Christian. If we could ever agree we are not born to be the same thing, we would be a lot further along than we are. Stop preaching, proselytising and converting - let's start teaching, sharing and living. In the end, all glory is given to the Creator, by whatever name we call It.

Ase!
Blackbird

http://destee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21411&page=5

Sister, I'm not trying to convince anyone to remain silent on anything, nor am I trying to "check" anyone or "prove" anything.

I'm sorry you have chosen to degrade the discussion to that level, and given your emotionalism on this issue since your conversion, I do agree it's wise for me to let you continue your rants without my interference....this is why I chose not to respond to you...no offense intended.

I was reading through an old thread on melanin and found this jewel posted by Blackbird over two years ago...it rather powerfully sums up "What is my point" in this thread.



http://destee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21411&page=5
Again your attempts to come across as the reasonable party fall flat. You have consistently failed to address the point of this discussion directly but have come in with some off the wall nonsense about what you imagine we are implying. Anyone reading this thread can see that the emoting and obfuscation has been on your part.

Tell me what is this spirituality I am supposed to be pushing off on others? What God am I saying that others must worship? What are the rituals you claim I have said that others must practice? Do you know enough about this alleged spirituality to say that it is not the truth? I know enough about christianity to say it is not the truth. All I have to do is quote the man who started it when he himself admitted to telling a lie.

I can't imagine why you would quote Brotha Blackbird here. His post hardly maked your point. This is just abother rouse to avoid addressing what I have said which you still have not done.

Provide one shred of evidence this statement is true.

Explain in clear terms to me, how you can know with such certainty when and where spirituality can exist. Are you the Creator?

I suspect you have no means to support that statement.

I also suspect, since you are telling me about the council of nicea as if it's news, you are both underestimating the study I have done and ignoring the point of my presence in this thread.

At the end of the day, whether you tote the metu neter around or the bible or some other book claiming it as the most original, your relationship with the creator is still between you and the creator.

If you cannot elevate your thinking enough to respect others personal relationship with the creator, you are not nearly as advanced in your wisdom as you purport to be.

True , it is hard to let go even when you find truth.
I find myself reading the bible again and metu neter.
When I call upon the creator I say GOD but sometimes I call on jesus out of habit.
The one thing I know about religion or spirituality is it is something that seeks you and when you have chosen to believe in it, it is your journey alone.
You can't take the world with you.
But some religious fanatics will definately try.

True , it is hard to let go even when you find truth.
I find myself reading the bible again and metu neter.
When I call upon the creator I say GOD but sometimes I call on jesus out of habit.
The one thing I know about religion or spirituality is it is something that seeks you and when you have chosen to believe in it, it is your journey alone.
You can't take the world with you.
But some religious fanatics will definately try.
Yes sista Heart,

The emotional programming and force of habit in christianity is very strong. Without knowledge there is no way for anyone to descern what is truely spirituality and what is mere emotion. Paul's open admission to having lied and the violense and errors I find in the bible keep me from allowing my emotions to get the best of me.

Yes sista Heart,

The emotional programming and force of habit in christianity is very strong. Without knowledge there is no way for anyone to descern what is truely spirituality and what is mere emotion. Paul's open admission to having lied and the violense and errors I find in the bible keep me from allowing my emotions to get the best of me.

You know as a child we read the bible but we didn't fully read and understand it.Being that we weren't given anything else to acknowledge us this was the only thing we knew.
Now knowing the truth, I feel enlightened but at the same I feel like I have turned my back on GOD.
I know that I haven't but it just feels that way.
Especially when you have people around you totally rejecting what you have acknowledged.

I think you did agree...by your own admission.

I really don't think you're fully understanding my point here:

Just because Spirituality supercedes religion, does not that the latter cannot serve as a hinderance to the former.

We, as Black people, by and large, have gone from Pyramid Builders, to Gang-Bangers.

What was the cause of this?

You've encased it in more flowing terms, as you're prone to do, but you've just restated my entire point in this thread.

And still, I disagree. I humbly think that your point is a bit clouded by some misunderstandings.


Exactly. And as an inherently spiritual people, it's ridiculous to proclaim any religion is powerful enough to disconnect black people from their spirituality.

You are obviously not taking into consideration some of the most blatant events in history.

Right about now, who kills more Black people, other than Black people? Who are some of the most socially destitute, disunified, economically powerless, physically unhealthy people on the face of the earth?

What spiritual aspiration do you know of, that promotes these conditions?

In fact, I think that is what is at issue here: we may be operating at different POV's, as to just what spirituality is.

This, more or less, is my definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality#Spirituality_and_science

What's yours?

One cannot claim an 80-year-old devout deaconess who has been christian her entire life is devoid of spirituality because of fabrications in the religion which she practices.

Devoid, no....But certainly not at the pinnacle of spiritual ascendancy, nor is she equipped with the proper means to achieve such.

A point which is not significantly different than my own brother.

Again, I disagree. Spirituality in and of itself is not a premise that cannot be helped or harmed by outside stimuli.

This is tangential to why I'm posting in this thread. I'm not here to debate the merits of Christianity. I'll just say, yes, it was different, in that it was Africanized, and it was used as more than just worship, but as a means of coded communication.

Whether this is/was your mission or not, if you intend to speak in that very subject (since that is indeed the purpose of/for this thread), then it might behoove you to honor the subject by speaking explicitly on it.

Otherwise, I'd have to ask you to concede the point.

Through our gatherings, we communicated escape plans. We created a music that mocked the false piety of our masters. We nutured an ethical framework that allowed our family units to remain intact despite the most deplorable of circumstances. We emerged from slavery and went about the business of building schools, businesses, and the future of our race in a foreign nation.

And where in Christianity did it teach us to do this? Which was (and continues to be) my initial question.

The superior spiritual foundation and morality of our people remained in tact until the 1930's.

What does this have to do with what Christianity taught us? And what happened in the 30's that caused our downfall, if Christianity wasn't at fault from the very beginning?

We dealt with and overcame the practical realities of the most barbaric holocaust ever known to have been visited upon a people.

And Christianity was responsible for our perserverance?

I think it unreasonable to suggest such a people could have done all that without a tremendous spiritual fortitude.

You're creating a Straw-Man argument here. I've said nothing about the spiritual fortitude of our people....In fact, I've agreed with that point all along.

Yet again, in honor of the subject of this thread, I have only been talking about the detrimental aspects of a certain religion, and nothing else.

Slavery as an institution required us to eat poor foods.

And Christianity was not the main, driving mechanic of the institution of slavery?

I suppose some did worship the image of the slave master, but it is recorded that african slaves displayed the "white" images and "white" songs as fronts behind which they worshipped according to their own designs.

Yes, but that is not crux of this thread, which is "WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN CHRISTIANITY?"

That is speaking of what is taking place right now, and not necessarily during slavery times.

I doubt that most devout Christians of modern times, many of whom still honor the image of the White Jesus, do so as a "front" to some other hideen belief.


Today, significant scholarship is available on the black origins of the three judaic religions and the principal characters therein.

I agree, however we both know that most devout religious followers are not interested in the academic aspects of their religions......Thus that point becomes moot.

It is not my goal here to defend the bible.

If you care to delve into it more deeply, you will find scriptures that in fact teach reverence for women.

Scriptures, such as........? Regardless, that is not the main focus of Bibical teaching, which has always been misogyny at it's worst.

Practically, black women have always been leaders within the black church.

Practically, however that is not what is taught within Christianity.

I'd admit blind allegiance to any particular "religion" has not been good for us.

So are you arguing for your own point, or against it? :confused:

On an individual level, people are capable of spiritual mastery independent of the context of any religion...a christians spiritual power cannot be discounted any more than a cosmologists spiritual power can be assumed.

And yet again, we are obviously operating off of 2 different ideas of what spirituality is.

Please elaborate on what your perspective on what spirituality is.

I am simply using the term religion to denote a group of people who believe in similar dogma and worship in a similar manner.

I agree, but I also know that religion is much more than that.....And the further understanding beyond your rather simplified definition is what is being discussed.

By that definition, the ATR proponents are pushing a religion just as much as anyone else.

What they are "pushing" is immaterial to what is detrimental or beneficial to the people that it is being pushed upon.

If ATR's are detrimental to the spiritual growth and ascendency of our people, then they should very well be tossed by the way-side, just like any other belief system.

If anyone can show evidence the spirituality of ATR has produced to any great degree ANY practical difference in the condition of black people in the last 100 years I'd be willing to listen to arguments that it is "BETTER" for us than anything else.

It's interesting, that you seek to talk about "the last 100 years", when it comes to ATR's, yet you spoke solely about times remotely prior, when it comes to Christianity.

Why the duplicity?

However, just to honor your question:

ATR's are no longer practiced "to any great degree" any more.....Certainly not within the last 100 years.

However, those of us who do practice them, are indeed benefitting from such practices, on multiple levels.

Until such time, I'll continue to understand one's religion, and one's spiritual fortitude, are personal matters, worthy of discussion if desired, but unworthy of hierarchical judgement by others.

And thus, we'll continue to work against ourselves, by striving to cure ourselves of a sickness, yet overlook the causes of that very illness.

PEACE

We don't need to go back and forth on this.

This comprehension tactic by you and River is amusing, but beneath both of you.

It's very simple.

People continue to believe in christianity because it is one of the means through which they experience their spiritual relationship with God.

That spiritual relationship, however you want to define it, is what is sought by most people in any belief system.

I do not believe it is possible for an ATR proponent to tell a buddhist, a christian, a muslim or anybody else that there can be NO valid spiritual relationship formed with the creator through any belief system other than ATR.

If you and those similarly minded find peace in believing otherwise, so be it, that's your belief.

But if you are under the impression the creator is incapable of guiding the life of a Christian, nothing I can post on a message board can move you from your sanctimonious judgements.

I find it arrogant to limit the creator in such a fashion, and have NO doubts that anyone claiming their beliefs are the only path to God is working with suspect understanding.

My very simple point is spirituality is personal. You cannot agree it is independent of religion but then claim christians must be devoid of it.

And since you cannot possibly be privy to the details of the spirituality of any person based on their "religion," we should should respect other's beliefs.

You and others apparently don't agree, and feel your disrespect is justified by reason of your claims to the "truth." lol. We'll have to agree to disagree as nothing further is to be gained here.

peace

You know as a child we read the bible but we didn't fully read and understand it.Being that we weren't given anything else to acknowledge us this was the only thing we knew.
Now knowing the truth, I feel enlightened but at the same I feel like I have turned my back on GOD.
I know that I haven't but it just feels that way.
Especially when you have people around you totally rejecting what you have acknowledged.
Yes, that is hard. Your mind is telling you one thing and your feelings are telling you something else and everybody that you love is in agreement with your feelings.

You are right, we have been given no other concept f God outside the bible. When we acknowledge the truth about this god we are left with no concept. Maybe this is good. Maybe God wants us to throw away all concept, all crutches and just "be still and know he is God."

I never said the whole bible is worthless. Only now I measure what I read by the truth that is in me rather than twisting truth to fit into what I read.

I agree,
However I'd rather leave this earth with truth.
To be honest why can't we just believe in GOD and that's it!
What's with the many many religions seperating,ignoring historical facts,science,and evolution!
Why ignore the fact that what you were taught be true , just might not be true!
Yesterday everyone came to my house to barbecue and my grandfather again as usual da**** everybody to hell because we all dont believe what he believes.
He said all religions except christianianity will be casted out the book and sent to hell.
Him and my grandmother will be the only ones going to heaven while we burn in the lake of fire.
I'm curious where is this heaven? the lake of fire? where is this book with everyones name in it?
Oh man than he read us the book of revelations and caught the holy ghost on my couch.
I ask what is all of this for?

Sister CursedHeart ... we all have the ability, to some degree, to leave this earth with whatever understanding we choose. Likewise, you are free to believe in God and that's it, as are we all. Again, it's a personal choice, with each of us being given that choice by God to do it as we see fit. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they are ignoring fact.

In regard to your GrandFather, is your religion greater than your respect for him? To me, religion / spirituality is nothing, if it has me presenting my very own GrandFather in a negative, krazee light, as though he is some lunatic for Christianity ... yet without him, there would be no you. What does this say about your truth, and your respect for those things before you? To me, honoring my Elders is my religion, giving them their due respect, to do and be however they see fit ... to lift them high and honor them ... for God has surely done the same, by blessing their life to even become an Elder. To me, this is God. To me, this is truth.

:heart:

Destee

No it's not about which book you read. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. I am asking questions trying to get people to think. I'm not depriving anyone of the right to make a choice. But I ask how can your choice be personal--I mean truly your own choice--if you have no knowledge about the thing you are choosing? We are where we are today--in poverty, killing each other, on drugs, self hatred--because of the influence of those who urge us to make choices based on our feelings rather than our knowledge. I can't imagine that our ancestors who now know the truth more intimately than I or any of us on Earth does would feel disrespected at me for bringing light to what has proven itself to be a lie.

If it weren't for slavery most of us would probably be caught up in the genocide that's ravaging Africa right now and our children would never be born. Shall I then out of respect for my ancestors who went through slavery not speak out against it ? Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us--so many songs that have helped us to follow God were born because of this dark past. Could the things that made our past dark have bneen that bad?

The christianity practiced today is nothing like the christianity practiced in it's original form. Our ancestors in Ethiopia knew nothing of the Paulianity that developed in Rome. The christianity we practice today was given to us by our slavemasters and there is nothing a slavemaster will give you that is designed to set you free. They don't even worship the same Jesus they gave us.

I understand that some people get tired of hearing the truth. Nobody likes to be told there is a hole in the back of their pants after they've been walking around all day not knowing it. But so many of our would be warriors are sitting by the wayside because they've been led to believe that it will all be better in the sweet by and by. Empowerment is more than a good feeling. Am I a disrespectful hypocrit because I want people to know that?

Sister River ... i never said you were pointing fingers at anyone, or that you were a hypocrite. I spoke only of myself, and how i would consider myself, based on my doing or not doing these things.

For you to suggest that folk are making choices with no knowledge, is a bit arrogant, as you can't fully assess another's knowledge based on posts on a discussion forum ... and truly ... it would be quite easy for someone to say the same about you, with no more information about the knowledge you possess, as you have about others.

We are here today, suffering all that you mentioned, not just because of choices made based on feeling, but due to a combination of all the weapons of mass destruction put upon our people, and our continual perpetuation of them.

No one faults you for sharing what you believe is truth ... in my opinion, the fault lies in the presentation of that truth ... there is a proper and balanced way to do all things ... and if you must tear down another Brother or Sister ... make them feel bad for being a victim of the weapons of mass destruction that all of us have suffered ... then this might be a clue that there is a better way, and we should seek it. This thread speaks directly to Christians (Sisters and Brothers), not to Christianity.

Sister River ... if our Ancestors had not been enslaved, we would be caught up in genocide in Africa ... ?? ... Sister ... how can you make such a claim? Who amongst us is qualified to say what would have been, if ... ??

I understand your analogy, but would like to offer you this one in its stead ... rather than a hole in the back of our pants, we have a gaping wound in our torso, blood pouring out, and you come along and vigorously pound your truth into the hole, to plug it up ... causing the pain to double for the injured ... never asking how they feel, never acknowledging their fear and pain ... but simply wanting to get your truth in them. That's how i liken this situation. Yes, i acknowledge that many of our people are sitting by the wayside, not sure which way to go ... but the best and proper way, in my opinion, to get them off the sidelines, is to love them through whatever and wherever they are ... allowing them to make the same informed choices, travel their journey, as we all must do. Not out of guilt and shame heaped upon them, but because the truth was presented in the best of manners, with living examples of how to interact and love those most in need, most injured ... and they be moved in their Spirit, and follow.

To me, that is God.

:heart:

Destee

Sister River you (and others) imply you are preaching the "truth", but rarely do you address the notion that "truth" in matters of spiritual relationships is a personal, not universal matter.

If this is so, and you know the "truth", and know it so well that none should get tired of hearing it from you, why don't you spend more time elevating your "truth?"

What is the "truth" with respect to spirituality that everyone should believe

Can you break "the truth" down for me?

I mean other than calling christians frauds what "truth" are you representing?

What is the name of the God that works for you but isn't powerful enough to work through those fraudulent Christians?

How is this God supposed to be worshipped?

Please answer me this because I'm not being sarcastic I'm sincerely interested to know...what, specifically, (now as opposed to a few years ago when you were Christian), makes YOUR spirituality, YOUR personal relationship with God, your OWN version of "truth" better than any others.

If I'm a bible-thumper and I convert to ATR and quickly commence to metu-neter thumping what has really changed?

Am I still not claiming to perpetually be in possession of the "Truth?"

Did the "truth" change, outside of my contextual understanding of it?

What about when I find some contradictions in the logic, or run across some foul practitioners of my ATR, or run across some new philosophy that seems to make more sense, and decide to switch to something else...If I start again thumping my latest "knowledge" as the "truth"...and start denouncing any who "continue to believe" in ATR as fools...did the "truth" change again?


did the "truth" change again?

Oh My Gosh Brother Kemetkind ... this is a very very very very deeeeeep post! :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

In my opinion, it should have ended the discussion, for you have certainly added the period!

Like our Ancestors before, believed what they believed, and we believe what we believe, it would not surprise me one bit, if our children, and their children, are blessed with even more information, more knowledge, that blows a complete hole in all that we're talking about today ... a greater truth!

It's amazing to me, the fact that we have virtually just been allowed to read and write in this country. For all the years before that, white folk have had the opportunity to alter, hide, and delete whatever information they so desired. Once they let us start reading and writing, made knowledge available to us ... we have simply lost our minds in it ... wallowing in that which those before us (our enslaved Ancestors) did not have ... and now we have set ourselves above them ... for surely we know more than they ever did (right?) ... when it could be that the very information they allow us to have ... they who have stolen all, and then presented it back to us in the manner they chose ... that they gave us this too, to keep us moving in circles ... to keep us from uniting.

Does truth change ... i don't believe so.

:heart:

Destee

Just because our ancestors were Christians (they were forced to be so), doesn't mean that we much honor Christianity while honoring them.

Our people were also enslaved and subjugated as well, but that does not mean that we should honor such an institution.

Wrong is wrong.

As my Sister Sheqheti has stated, we cannot, in good conscience, speak about all those things that serve by both function and intent, to hinder our progress as a people, and not add the religion of Christianity to that list of things that needs to be addressed.

PEACE

I never said that you must honor Christianity. For that matter, i never said you must honor anything.

This thread speaks directly to Christians, not Christianity.

Likewise, if a thread was started speaking directly to our enslaved Ancestors, rather than the institution that enslaved them ... i would be saying the same thing as i am now ... probably even more.

:heart:

Destee

Samurai, you've missed my central point in this thread.

The "religion" most of our immediate ancestors practiced is of lesser importance than the spiritual strength and legacy they left behind.

It is common knowledge that black christians existed prior to slavery, but even those that encountered it during slavery, managed to still find and connect with the essence of God, despite the trappings of the religion.

There is a case to be made that the version of christianity they created in the midst of slavery was something new all together, and an even stronger case that it sustained, nourished and united them.

The matter of not honoring them includes the foul name calling and disrespectful arrogance displayed towards their existence.

If God, the creator, or whatever title you use, is only universal enough to work within 1 religion, and is only geniuinely experienced through 1 set of rituals, then threads like these make a lot of sense. Otherwise....

Good to see you back brother. Your presence has been missed.

peace

Brother Kemetkind ... i am simply in awe of you ... :love:

:heart:

Destee

We don't need to go back and forth on this.

This comprehension tactic by you and River is amusing, but beneath both of you.

It's very simple.

People continue to believe in christianity because it is one of the means through which they experience their spiritual relationship with God.

That spiritual relationship, however you want to define it, is what is sought by most people in any belief system.

I do not believe it is possible for an ATR proponent to tell a buddhist, a christian, a muslim or anybody else that there can be NO valid spiritual relationship formed with the creator through any belief system other than ATR.

If you and those similarly minded find peace in believing otherwise, so be it, that's your belief.

But if you are under the impression the creator is incapable of guiding the life of a Christian, nothing I can post on a message board can move you from your sanctimonious judgements.

I find it arrogant to limit the creator in such a fashion, and have NO doubts that anyone claiming their beliefs are the only path to God is working with suspect understanding.

My very simple point is spirituality is personal. You cannot agree it is independent of religion but then claim christians must be devoid of it.

And since you cannot possibly be privy to the details of the spirituality of any person based on their "religion," we should should respect other's beliefs.

You and others apparently don't agree, and feel your disrespect is justified by reason of your claims to the "truth." lol. We'll have to agree to disagree as nothing further is to be gained here.

peace

Brother Kemetkind ... here i am again ... whew ... :toast:

:heart:

Destee

We don't need to go back and forth on this.

This comprehension tactic by you and River is amusing, but beneath both of you.

I can't say for certain, but it sounds as if you are confusing my choosing to disagree with your perspective, with a lack of comprehension of it. If that is indeed the case, then I would say that you are definitely incorrect.


It's very simple.

People continue to believe in christianity because it is one of the means through which they experience their spiritual relationship with God.

Simple to you perhaps...........But yet again, I disagree with what you are saying.

That spiritual relationship, however you want to define it, is what is sought by most people in any belief system.

Disagree.

Spirituality, based on how I define it, cannot be found in any belief system, despite their search for it therein.

Here is where I continue to ask what your particular definition of spirituality is, especially since you have yet to tender it here, despite my initial request.

At one point, you attempt implicitly link spirituality as being synonymous with religion, and then at another point, you attempt--just as implicitly--to separate them, in your ambiguous recognition of the superlative nature of spirituality over that of religion.

Which is it?

If it's the latter, then let's all bear witness to the notion that some religions are more inclined to reach a spiritual goal over others.

If it's the former, then, pending your own definition and criteria of just what spirituality is, please give examples of how this works.

I do not believe it is possible for an ATR proponent to tell a buddhist, a christian, a muslim or anybody else that there can be NO valid spiritual relationship formed with the creator through any belief system other than ATR.

And that is not what is or has been done here. Because, that is not within the doctrine of any ATR to make such a claim. However, ironically, by the sheer nature of the doctrine and dogma of Christianity, that is in fact what a Christian would tell any other religious adherant.

And therein lies the dilemma; despite Destee's claim of this being about the believers and not the belief itself, the very dogma of Christianity teaches intolerance for anything or anyone that does not profess allegiance and belief in Christianity.

Don't Christians believe that anyone who is not a Christian is going to hell? From my knowledge, no other belief system teaches this.

Thus, by very virtue of your personal credo, Christianity as a belief and an institution is "disrespectful".

If you and those similarly minded find peace in believing otherwise, so be it, that's your belief.

I know that I have been gone for a while, but I would hope that one of the things that you would have remembered about me previous to my departure, is that I don't "believe" in anything.

Now, to clarify the ATR perspective, as one who practices such a system for the purpose of spiritual development:

We do not, nor would not tell a Christian that their beliefs are "wrong". However, we do know and recognize that, as people who are working to free ourselves and our people from physical, mental, and spiritual bondage, Christianity only serves to keep us in such a place. This understanding has nothing to do with personal "beliefs", but rather an understanding of history.

Now, with that being said, the "rightness or wrongness" of that belief is strictly up to the individual.

If you seek to go to church because you like to dress up on Sunday, then so be it. If you like to here and watch the Preacher's antics, then OK. If you like to scream and shout and do cart-wheels up and down the isles, that's cool. If you go to give your tithes every week, because that's the place that you choose as a tax write-off, then have at it.

However, none of these things should be misconstrued at spiritual development.

But if you are under the impression the creator is incapable of guiding the life of a Christian, nothing I can post on a message board can move you from your sanctimonious judgements.

The only person making "sanctimonious judgements" here, is you.

It doesn't take a spiritual aspirant to know (even your basic religious believer knows this) that the Creator guides the direction of all people, and all things in the universe.

The Creator keeps the raining falling, the rivers flowing, the birds flying, and the fish swimming.

However, with this I must restate 2 points:

#1) I have already stated that religious preference is always superceded by spirituality. For you to throw that "sanctimonious judgement" statement in, shows that the only person here utilizing a "comprehension tactic" (whatever that actually is), is you.

#2) None of this has anything directly to do with the spiritual development of humanity.

I find it arrogant to limit the creator in such a fashion, and have NO doubts that anyone claiming their beliefs are the only path to God is working with suspect understanding.

I agree with you with this; I find it arrogant also. Good thing no one here (certainly not I) is doing that.

My very simple point is spirituality is personal. You cannot agree it is independent of religion but then claim christians must be devoid of it.

You are creating a Straw-Man argument here.

Yes, spirituality is personal, but it is also universal. Spiritual development does not occur without some sort of governing laws and/or rules. The same Creator that controls how many moments transpire between the tick of every second, would not have us haphazardly stumbling about without a Universe guideline.

Now with that said, this has nothing to do with religion. The Cosmos has been spinning on its axis (a spiritual event) long before Man has ever exsisted, and certainly long before there was ever anything called "religion".

While I am intelligent enough to know that there are some aspects of virtually all religions that jibe well along the lines of what the Creator has planned, I am also equally smart enough to recognize that there are many aspects of at least some religions that contradict the mandates of the Universe.

Thus, it's not (necessarily) my argument that Christianity is "devoid" of anything, but that the nature of the system as a whole serves as a hinderance to our reaching our true spiritual potential.

You mentioned the 80 year old woman before: while I recognize that she is not without her own spiritual fortitude, can you in turn fathom where she might be, has she not been hindered by the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual (the latter encompasses all of the formers) stymies that Christianity by design presents?

Where would we all, as a People, be right now?

And since you cannot possibly be privy to the details of the spirituality of any person based on their "religion," we should should respect other's beliefs.

I disagree. I think people mistake respecting a person apropo, and respecting their right to believe whatever they wish, with respecting the belief itself.

You do not have to respect ATR's, or any other belief for that matter. All that I ask, is that you respect me as your fellow human being, and my choice of "belief", and I shall do the same to you.

Further, it should be understood that not respecting someone or something, is not disrespecting them/it by default. These are 2 totally separate, independent and mutually exclusive acts.

I respect the White man as a part of Creation, and I even respect his part that he plays within it. But I will NEVER respect his belief that I as a Black man am a "monkey", that anyone who is not white should be enslaved or destroyed, etc.

If you feel that you must respect all "beliefs", then by all means, do you. But that does not make you more admirable of a person, than me or others who do not wish to do so.

You and others apparently don't agree, and feel your disrespect is justified by reason of your claims to the "truth." lol. We'll have to agree to disagree as nothing further is to be gained here.

peace

With this, I'm going to say that you have idea what you are talking about, "lol".

You have spent this last post of yours putting words in people's mouths, oversimplifying our perspectives, all the while never really taking the time to reach and understanding with what is being said.

In the meantime, you never bothered to answer any of my questions that I posed to you, so that I might gain a true understanding of just what it is that you think/feel.

But C'est La Vie.

PEACE

I never said that you must honor Christianity. For that matter, i never said you must honor anything.

I realize what you said, along with what you did not say.

This thread speaks directly to Christians, not Christianity.

I beg to differ. The very title of this thread speaks about Christianity, and that is what was being addressed--both by myself, as well as others here--including you.

Likewise, if a thread was started speaking directly to our enslaved Ancestors, rather than the institution that enslaved them ... i would be saying the same thing as i am now ... probably even more.

:heart:

Destee

OK, but that was not the nature of this thread.

This would be no different than someone asking "with all that you know about cigarettes, why do people continue smoke?"

The subject then, would be cigarettes and smoking, not necessarily people.

PEACE

the Creator guides the direction of all people, and all things in the universe.....


All that I ask, is that you respect me as your fellow human being, and my choice of "belief", and I shall do the same to you.


I do think you've gottten my point, and further, seems you agree with it.

Some things deserve to be simplified.

This needs to be no more complicated than an agreement to respect each other's choice of belief, since we've already acknowledged the creator guides us all.

I never said that you must honor Christianity. For that matter, i never said you must honor anything.

This thread speaks directly to Christians, not Christianity.

Likewise, if a thread was started speaking directly to our enslaved Ancestors, rather than the institution that enslaved them ... i would be saying the same thing as i am now ... probably even more.

:heart:

Destee
That's not the same things Destee. Our ancestors had no choice about being slaves. They also had no choice about having christianity forced on them. But now that they have a choice tell me what is wrtong about me asking them to make a knowledgeable choice and question the choices they have made without knowledge but through emotions. Yes people have a right to make choices based on emotions within reason. I also have a right to ask them why. I said it before I will say it again people ask us to make choices based on emotion rather than knowledge so that they can manipulate us into making the choices they want us to make.

What kemetkind is saying is a lot of heartfelt philosophising that has nothing to do with my purpose nor does he in anyway address the issues that I've raised but instead he attacks what he falsely assumes I am implying. His comments are better addressed towards christians. I am not the one telling people if they don't believe what I believe they will go to hell. I am not the one offering God's exclusive blessings only to those who worship him as I do. If he were really tired of people pushing their religion on others why is he spending so much energy defending out continued adherance to a religion which does just that?.

Have you read my posts? Did you try to understand my views? Giving kem the props is letting me kknow you think he is wonderful but it's not convincing me that I was wrong. Feel free to adress my views directly based on what I said not what you think I am implying then we can have a productive discussion. Show me where I have attacked christians. I asked them questions. I raised points about the reasons I have seen people cling to christianity. I gave them something to think about. And after they have thought about it and researched it they can make a decision based on knowledge not emotions. You and kem did not address this at all but came in with your own emotional reaction to what you thought was an attack on christians. I expect much better, much more maturity than this of you. sista. Let's talk okay.

Sister River ... i never said you were pointing fingers at anyone, or that you were a hypocrite. I spoke only of myself, and how i would consider myself, based on my doing or not doing these things.

For you to suggest that folk are making choices with no knowledge, is a bit arrogant, as you can't fully assess another's knowledge based on posts on a discussion forum ... and truly ... it would be quite easy for someone to say the same about you, with no more information about the knowledge you possess, as you have about others.

We are here today, suffering all that you mentioned, not just because of choices made based on feeling, but due to a combination of all the weapons of mass destruction put upon our people, and our continual perpetuation of them.

No one faults you for sharing what you believe is truth ... in my opinion, the fault lies in the presentation of that truth ... there is a proper and balanced way to do all things ... and if you must tear down another Brother or Sister ... make them feel bad for being a victim of the weapons of mass destruction that all of us have suffered ... then this might be a clue that there is a better way, and we should seek it. This thread speaks directly to Christians (Sisters and Brothers), not to Christianity.

Sister River ... if our Ancestors had not been enslaved, we would be caught up in genocide in Africa ... ?? ... Sister ... how can you make such a claim? Who amongst us is qualified to say what would have been, if ... ??

I understand your analogy, but would like to offer you this one in its stead ... rather than a hole in the back of our pants, we have a gaping wound in our torso, blood pouring out, and you come along and vigorously pound your truth into the hole, to plug it up ... causing the pain to double for the injured ... never asking how they feel, never acknowledging their fear and pain ... but simply wanting to get your truth in them. That's how i liken this situation. Yes, i acknowledge that many of our people are sitting by the wayside, not sure which way to go ... but the best and proper way, in my opinion, to get them off the sidelines, is to love them through whatever and wherever they are ... allowing them to make the same informed choices, travel their journey, as we all must do. Not out of guilt and shame heaped upon them, but because the truth was presented in the best of manners, with living examples of how to interact and love those most in need, most injured ... and they be moved in their Spirit, and follow.

To me, that is God.

:heart:

Destee
Sista Destee. where and at what point did I do all this? The question posted is "Why do people continue too believe in christianity?" I could understand if I had asked "Why are you so gullible?" or some other such put down which would indeed be an attack on the person. But I write with the knowledge that those who maybe asking questions themselves might want to ponder the reasons and look within themselves. Sometimes we can't see stuff until someone points it out. Also when we see that others have had the strength to take an honest look at things then we might find the strength to do the same.

. Those who are not interested or would be injured by my questions probably would not even be reading a thread so titled and if they do the back button is always at their disposal. Just like if I saw a thread entitled "Why aren't you a Muslim" I might go in with an intellectual curiosity as to what it is about Islam that I should consider it. But if I already have an emotional response to religion why should I go in there and get my feelings hurt when I already know what it's about?

I do not make my obsevations based on what I read on this board or any board but based on first hand observation and also on my own experience. I had been a student of the bible for 25 years but my many pastors had done such a good job of steering me away from the contradictions, errors and moral violence in the bible that when I did read past the carefully selected memory verses I was astonished. If I lived on another planet and were a creature of a different species it would indeed be arrogant for me to think that others might share my experiences and benefit from what I have to say. But every person who opens his/her mouth to teach is expressing a basic assumption that his/her listeners might not have knowledge about what is being taught. If such an assumption makes me arrogant then I guess we are all labled as such. The only way around being arrogant is to teach those who already have full knowledge of a subject.

Again, I ask where did I attack anyone? You have accused me of some very vicious and heartless behavior. Where did I put anyone down?

Brother Moorfius, are you implying ALL of our ancestors who were forced into slavery were spiritually dead first?

I hope not. But if so, this is exhibit A for what I mean by the arrogant disrespect shown for our ancestors in threads such as these.

Please clarify.

Hotep

There are no impications here that are not absolutely correct. Why is it when some of us enter a thread...we think we are at "War" and must have the last word to protect Ego, false pride and to cover up what we don't know and should know? We are hear to "Learn" and not support some one in a frivilis effort to make up what ever they can think up. Once agin..."If" you are going to take it apon yourself to try and teach a whole generation...then you damb well better be correct. What ever you don't know travil, experience, learn, read, study, meditate and know it for your self as it must be done for all of us to know. When the "Facts" are given in plain view and still are mis-read, mis-understood and most of all resented because it is not what some want to hear or see...let it be known that this is only the beginning.

Ase`

Note: "May the Spirits of the Divine African (KMT) Ancistors continue to Bless "Us" with the "Light" of "Overstanding" the Understanding.........AMUN*

Hi River!

People, especially the black collective~~appear to be caught up in a slave mentality that they do not want to cut loose. Diet is one aspect and Chiistianity is another...

Hotep

There are no impications here that are not absolutely correct. Why is it when some of us enter a thread...we think we are at "War" and must have the last word to protect Ego, false pride and to cover up what we don't know and should know? We are hear to "Learn" and not support some one in a frivilis effort to make up what ever they can think up. Once agin..."If" you are going to take it apon yourself to try and teach a whole generation...then you damb well better be correct. What ever you don't know travil, experience, learn, read, study, meditate and know it for your self as it must be done for all of us to know. When the "Facts" are given in plain view and still are mis-read, mis-understood and most of all resented because it is not what some want to hear or see...let it be known that this is only the beginning.

Ase`

Note: "May the Spirits of the Divine African (KMT) Ancistors continue to Bless "Us" with the "Light" of "Overstanding" the Understanding.........AMUN*

What facts have been misread?

What facts have been misunderstood?

Have you noticed that I have not chosen to engage AT ALL in discussing my personal beliefs....entirely consistent with my position that spirituality is personal.

You assume by my defense of christians and their right to be respected in these threads that I must be christian.

You assume I have no knowledge of other belief systems and do not know what I "should" know. Lol.

I do know this. It did not take until my 30's for me to begin my search for truth.

I did the same as those in this thread appear to be doing... stumbled upon a little knowledge and then proclaimed everyone else blind and ignorant and too "afraid" to wake up to my new understanding.

But I was 13. These folks are grown.

My point in this thread is not to debate the merits of any belief system, but to assert in plain terms that we should respect the choices others make with regards to their own beliefs.

Why?

Because it is CHILDISH to allow religion or spirituality to be the source of division and contempt between black people.

If you want to proselytize, speak on your own beliefs and the merits you perceive of them.

But if spend all your time trying to discredit those who believe in one particular religion...especially one which you yourself believed in just a short time ago...you make yourself appear afflicted with a silly obsession.

Hi River!

People, especially the black collective~~appear to be caught up in a slave mentality that they do not want to cut loose. Diet is one aspect and Chiistianity is another...

Is it true that all christians are caught up in a slave mentality? Is it true that all christians have a poor diet?

Is it true that all one has to do to get out from the "slave mentality" is declare themselves anything other than christian and eat a nutritous diet?

This "slave mentality" you speak of appears to be negative. Are you referencing African slaves who are the recent ancestors of black people in the united states? Are you implying they all had the same mentality?

Just a few questions.

That's not the same things Destee. Our ancestors had no choice about being slaves. They also had no choice about having christianity forced on them. But now that they have a choice tell me what is wrtong about me asking them to make a knowledgeable choice and question the choices they have made without knowledge but through emotions. Yes people have a right to make choices based on emotions within reason. I also have a right to ask them why. I said it before I will say it again people ask us to make choices based on emotion rather than knowledge so that they can manipulate us into making the choices they want us to make.

Sister River ... the example used, was given by Brother SAMURAI. If you have a problem with it, you'll have to take that up with him.

Sister, it is your opinion that others are making decisions based on emotion, surely you can't know that to be fact for all. Perhaps you do. Psychic or something. Maybe basing your assumption on the fact that your decision to be a Christian, when you were, was based on emotion, so you've surmised that all Christians do this. I don't know, but no matter, you're certainly entitled to have that opinion, and voice it. I've done nothing to hinder you from doing that.


What kemetkind is saying is a lot of heartfelt philosophising that has nothing to do with my purpose nor does he in anyway address the issues that I've raised but instead he attacks what he falsely assumes I am implying. His comments are better addressed towards christians. I am not the one telling people if they don't believe what I believe they will go to hell. I am not the one offering God's exclusive blessings only to those who worship him as I do. If he were really tired of people pushing their religion on others why is he spending so much energy defending out continued adherance to a religion which does just that?

Sister River ... i happen to whole-heartedly agree with all that Brother Kemetkind is saying. No harm, no foul. We can agree with whomever we please. I don't remember him saying he was tired of anything, but just like you question him spending so much energy defending others, it could be questioned why you spend so much energy attempting to prove others wrong. I suppose the answer will probably be, because yall want to ... which is fine with me.


Have you read my posts? Did you try to understand my views? Giving kem the props is letting me kknow you think he is wonderful but it's not convincing me that I was wrong. Feel free to adress my views directly based on what I said not what you think I am implying then we can have a productive discussion. Show me where I have attacked christians. I asked them questions. I raised points about the reasons I have seen people cling to christianity. I gave them something to think about. And after they have thought about it and researched it they can make a decision based on knowledge not emotions. You and kem did not address this at all but came in with your own emotional reaction to what you thought was an attack on christians. I expect much better, much more maturity than this of you. sista. Let's talk okay.

Yes Sister, i have read your posts, and i even understand your views. My giving props to Brother Kemetkind is just that, giving him props. If you want to make it be more, like you have been proven wrong, then you can do that, but that's not what i was doing.

I take issue with the fact that you present Christians in a negative light, as though they are only capable of making emotional choices, while you and those who believe some more acceptable doctrine (in your eyes), make informed decisions. How can you know such a thing, without being inside of them? It brings the discussion to a personal level, without ever calling someone's name. For example, if you were vegetarian, but talked negatively of meat-eaters, i'd be saying the same thing (probably). You could go on and on about how their eating choices are emotional, uninformed, etc., but i think your effort would be better served by touting the greatness of eating vegetables only. Sharing all of the great improvement in your health and life that resulted directly from giving up meat ... instead of telling them how lost they are for still eating it. Does that make sense?

Basically i'm saying, rather than show all the reasons why they shouldn't be Christians, why not show all the reasons why they should be what you think they should be ... lift up your "way of life" ... instead of tearing down theirs.

:heart:

Destee

Is it true that all christians are caught up in a slave mentality? Is it true that all christians have a poor diet?

Is it true that all one has to do to get out from the "slave mentality" is declare themselves anything other than christian and eat a nutritous diet?

This "slave mentality" you speak of appears to be negative. Are you referencing African slaves who are the recent ancestors of black people in the united states? Are you implying they all had the same mentality?

Just a few questions.

...Not to "inter-ject," but when you claim something, and you choose to get involved in something that you have no Knowledge of, Brotha Kemetkind, What would you classify that as? (Just asking out of Curiousity)

As far as diet, some of us eat food and don't even know what is in it, or where it comes from.

(Nevermind - I will save the rest)

KD

Sista Destee. where and at what point did I do all this? The question posted is "Why do people continue too believe in christianity?" I could understand if I had asked "Why are you so gullible?" or some other such put down which would indeed be an attack on the person. But I write with the knowledge that those who maybe asking questions themselves might want to ponder the reasons and look within themselves. Sometimes we can't see stuff until someone points it out. Also when we see that others have had the strength to take an honest look at things then we might find the strength to do the same.

Sister River ... i understand the question, and while you've not come right out in this thread and said "why are you so gullible?" ... you did say the following to Brother Slowly ... "Think,. Why are you so afraid to use the brain that you know is from God ... " ... which sorta sounds like you're calling him gullible to me.

I'm of the school of thought, that you get more bees with honey than vinegar. I suppose some number of bees can be caught with vinegar though, so please feel free to continue.


Those who are not interested or would be injured by my questions probably would not even be reading a thread so titled and if they do the back button is always at their disposal. Just like if I saw a thread entitled "Why aren't you a Muslim" I might go in with an intellectual curiosity as to what it is about Islam that I should consider it. But if I already have an emotional response to religion why should I go in there and get my feelings hurt when I already know what it's about?

Well, at least you realize it might hurt them ... that's a beginning ... i think.


I do not make my obsevations based on what I read on this board or any board but based on first hand observation and also on my own experience. I had been a student of the bible for 25 years but my many pastors had done such a good job of steering me away from the contradictions, errors and moral violence in the bible that when I did read past the carefully selected memory verses I was astonished. If I lived on another planet and were a creature of a different species it would indeed be arrogant for me to think that others might share my experiences and benefit from what I have to say. But every person who opens his/her mouth to teach is expressing a basic assumption that his/her listeners might not have knowledge about what is being taught. If such an assumption makes me arrogant then I guess we are all labled as such. The only way around being arrogant is to teach those who already have full knowledge of a subject.

Sister River ... you said Christians are making choices with no knowledge. It is that, that i considered arrogant. Making the determination ... based on what i do not know ... that your choices are based on knowledge, and others are not. If you are in fact trying to win them over, this might be counter-productive. I know i'd not be very receptive to this method.

During those 25 years Sister River, were there people telling you how ignorant you are (making decisions with no knowledge)? How you were making poor choices based on emotion? When you were in the midst of Christianity, how receptive would you have been, at that exact time, to this same presentation? Perhaps you might have been immediately moved to throw away your Bible, and jump ship. I don't know. I am aware that everyone responds to different things, so it isn't that i don't believe your way of doing this has no place, it's just not what i'd respond to positively ... that's all i'm saying.


Again, I ask where did I attack anyone? You have accused me of some very vicious and heartless behavior. Where did I put anyone down?

Sister River ... i would consider it an attack, for someone to suggest that they know i make decisions with no knowledge ... or that i don't think ... don't use the brain God gave me. While you've not called anyone's name, and are only speaking of Christians, it would probably be quite easy for it to be taken personally. I've not accused you of very vicious and heartless behavior. As i said, i understand what you're saying, and what you're trying to do ... i just think there's a better way to do it.

:heart:

Destee

Is it true that all christians are caught up in a slave mentality? Is it true that all christians have a poor diet?

Is it true that all one has to do to get out from the "slave mentality" is declare themselves anything other than christian and eat a nutritous diet?

This "slave mentality" you speak of appears to be negative. Are you referencing African slaves who are the recent ancestors of black people in the united states? Are you implying they all had the same mentality?

Just a few questions.

I am not a negative person, however--I do speak the truth.

If, slave mentality were not the operative state of being~~the black collective~~would have discovered the true origin and purpose of Christianity loooooog before now...

If, slave mentality were not incorporated in culinary habits--the black collective--would not continue to eat pork as though it were an entree'

Entree' -- [noun] 1. a dish served as the main course of a meal.

Unfortunately the black collective as a whole continues to adhere and hold on to concepts that are outdated and worthy of a major overhaul....

I am not a negative person, however--I do speak the truth.

If, slave mentality were not the operative state of being~~the black collective~~would have discovered the true origin and purpose of Christianity loooooog before now...

If, slave mentality were not incorporated in culinary habits--the black collective--would not continue to eat pork as though it were an entree'



I understand you speak THE truth sister, not too many in these spiritual threads think they speak anything else.

But do you consider it "slave mentality" to proclaim ownership of THE truth and use said truth to stand in judgement of your own brothers and sisters?

I dont. By many (slave narrative) accounts, slaves stuck up for and did all they could to take care of each other!

I see this term "slave mentality" hurled as an insult way too often from the lips of the descendants of slaves.

Given that our ancestors managed to not only survive slavery, but emerge from it with STRONGER families than we have today, I'd propose the "slave mentality" may be something we lost long ago, and this new-fangled mentality full of judgemental piety is the one needing replacement.


Unfortunately the black collective as a whole continues to adhere and hold on to concepts that are outdated and worthy of a major overhaul....

I couldn't agree more. One of those concepts needing an overhaul is the notion that spiritual beliefs trump racial solidarity.

Black christians aren't going anywhere anytime soon, neither are muslims, neither are ATRs...somewhere along the road we'll need to figure out how to set our religious affiliations aside and deal, collectively, with the practical matters facing our people.

I just want to say this, when a man admits to having lied and deceived people, as the apostle Paul has done, yet folks still believe him it is neither arrogant nor psychic to hold the opinion that this belief is based on emotion or lack of knowledge just as I and many others did not even know this scriptuire was in the book on which we based our lives.

I am not trying to win anybody over to anything. I asked questions. Since christianity is the only religion that I know of which condems other religions and discourages its believers from reading other's scriptures and teaches that the good people find in other religions is a deception of the devil it is not enough merely to show people what is good in other belief systems. I can speak with kknowledge about this not because of some psychic vision into people's hearts but because this is what the church has been teach ing for the last seventeen hundred years. The church teaches the fear of other religions and down plays the value of knowledge. Now there are some here who say I am being arrogant when I ask people why they still adhere to such teachings. I guess I will just have to be arrogant then. Putting a label on my actions without convincing me that my actions were wrong is another subtle form of name calling. Meanwhile I conitinue to hold the same opinion. My opinion is not and has never been about the person of Black christians themselves but about the institution and my knowledge of how that institution works on people's minds. It is my opinion that when encouraged to ask questions people can free themselves to make informed choices. I understand that there may still be some who will want to insist that I am attacking christians. If we can't agree then maybe we oughtta agree to disagree.

...Not to "inter-ject," but when you claim something, and you choose to get involved in something that you have no Knowledge of, Brotha Kemetkind, What would you classify that as? (Just asking out of Curiousity)

As far as diet, some of us eat food and don't even know what is in it, or where it comes from.

(Nevermind - I will save the rest)

KD

Broter Ced, I'd need your question made more explicit.

What does claiming "something" and getting "involved in something you have no knowledge of" have to do with the questions I posed to Sister fine or my central point in this thread?

Brother is there something specifically I've claimed you find to be untrue?

Brother is there something specifically I've written you think I haven't the knowledge to speak on?

Yes Brother Ced, I agree many people, christian and otherwise, eat food without knowledge of where it came.

Unless you only consume food you've grown or raised, you're likely one of them.

peace Brother.

I do think you've gottten my point, and further, seems you agree with it.

Some things deserve to be simplified.

This needs to be no more complicated than an agreement to respect each other's choice of belief, since we've already acknowledged the creator guides us all.

Yes, I did get your point, though I don't totally agree with it.

And I also think that there is a such thing as oversimplification, which is what I think you have done here--especially with regards to my perspective--a perspective, which I don't think you quite understood.

Further, it's really not fair to simplify your perspective in one turn, and then continue to add to it at another.

Case in point:

Given that our ancestors managed to not only survive slavery, but emerge from it with STRONGER families than we have today, I'd propose the "slave mentality" may be something we lost long ago, and this new-fangled mentality full of judgemental piety is the one needing replacement.

I'm going to add the following question to the growing list of questions that I have asked you in this thread (those previous, I have yet to receive an answer):

What is your evidence that we have lost the slave mentality:

Do we not continue to be divided? Do we not continue to worship the slave master's image? Do we not continue to eat the worst foods? Do we as men, not continue to be absent fathers?

Just as with spirituality, I ask that you demonstrate what your understanding of "slave mentality" is, and how it differs from what was as a people continue to suffer from.

I couldn't agree more. One of those concepts needing an overhaul is the notion that spiritual beliefs trump racial solidarity.

Here is where I again ask you what definition you are using for "spiritual". I would have no qualm with this statement, had you said "religious beliefs", because religion by very nature, instigates division on numerous levels, the foremost being within race.



Black christians aren't going anywhere anytime soon, neither are muslims, neither are ATRs...somewhere along the road we'll need to figure out how to set our religious affiliations aside and deal, collectively, with the practical matters facing our people.

And again, you revery back to saying "religious" as opposed to "spiritual". Are you using these terms synonymously?

You make the assertion that I am understanding your point, and then agreeing with it.

In all honesty, I am having trouble doing either.

PEACE

Yes, I did get your point, though I don't totally agree with it.
Interesting, because I made care to actually retype your own words when I used the phrase "choice of belief." So now you don't agree with your own words?

All that I ask, is that you respect me as your fellow human being, and my choice of "belief", and I shall do the same to you.


And I also think that there is a such thing as oversimplification, which is what I think you have done here--especially with regards to my perspective--a perspective, which I don't think you quite understood.
I have not tried to address your perspective, except on the common ground of whether there should be a basic respect for the "choice of belief" of others....or not.

Show me what words I have written which imply I've misinterpreted anything you, or anybody else, has written here.



What is your evidence that we have lost the slave mentality:


Samurai, "slave mentality" is usually used as a negative insult and I contend we should cease and desist with it.

Yes we are divided, but what is your evidence that slaves were as divided as we are today?

Did they not band together to PHYSICALLY rebel against their masters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellion
http://www.johnhorse.com/

Do we do revolt today?



Do we not continue to worship the slave master's image?

What is your evidence we worshipped the slave master's image then? In almost every case where we were forced into christianity, we melded it with the african traditional religions, and used it as a framework to converse about our liberation.

In fact many slave masters were concerned about what the y called a "leveling effect" of christianity, and that slaves would become more rebellious after conversion.

Many fought against conversion of slaves, and laws were enacted to prevent our reading....aimed primarily at religious text...despite this, we read anyway, and we formed our own hybrid religion in spite of obstacles.

We attended their church and then we held our OWN church, in secret, at night, under the penalty of physical punishment.

Fast forward to today, we no longer have a "slave mentality" since we no longer fight, scratch, claw and risk death to read or acquire knowledge. Today we act as if we abhor it.

The mentality we have now does not do justice to the slave mentality, and I believe it is myth that the majority of slaves privately worshipped the image of the slave master.

Check out...

http://www.amazon.com/Slave-Religion-Invisible-Institution-Antebellum/dp/0195027051/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/104-7291170-0471135?ie=UTF8



Do we not continue to eat the worst foods?


Yes, we eat bad foods and too much of them. But that is not exclusive of Christians nor of descendants of slaves; the obesity epidemic is global.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3964693.stm



Do we as men, not continue to be absent fathers?

Again, what makes this slave mentality?

What evidence do you have that the predominant family composition during slavery was that of absentee fathers and single mothers as we have today?

All the evidence I have seen indicates exactly the opposite.

Below is an excerpt from one of many sources that allude to this...

http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Chariot-Household-Nineteenth-Century-Louisiana/dp/0807845906/sr=8-1/qid=1158006920/ref=sr_1_1/104-7291170-0471135?ie=UTF8&s=books

"The story of the O'Connor slave community provides an example of the natural tendency among enslaved folk to form stable families, households, and communities; the extreme vulnerability of even the most stable slave communities; the great value slaves placed on family ties and community cohesion; a sometimes reluctant but obvious recognition by owners of their slaves' intense familial attachments; and a persistent urge within a fragmented slave community to reunite or rebuild despite the pain associated with such efforts and adjustments."



Just as with spirituality, I ask that you demonstrate what your understanding of "slave mentality" is, and how it differs from what was as a people continue to suffer from.
You'll never see me use the phrase "slave mentality" as an insult to put down a black person, so I believe you'll need to ask this question of those who insist on doing so.


Here is where I again ask you what definition you are using for "spiritual". I would have no qualm with this statement, had you said "religious beliefs", because religion by very nature, instigates division on numerous levels, the foremost being within race.
My definition of "spiritual" is not pertinent to my position in this thread.

What matters is whether or not I can respect someone else's belief system through which they choose to express their spirituality, however it is defined...


And again, you revery back to saying "religious" as opposed to "spiritual". Are you using these terms synonymously?
No, we've already agreed (several times) they are independent of each other with different meanings.

You stated earlier that I have confused the two when I have clearly indicated (several times) they are seperate concepts and one has more value than the other.

In fact the whole POINT of my argument is that religion is NOT powerful enough to supercede spirituality, and that you cannot know very much of one's spirituality by means of knowing something about their religion.

When I referred to an "affiliation" I'm referring to a religion, which is why I implied we need to move beyond our "religious affiliations" when it comes to racial solidarity.

I did not put spiritual because I do not happen to believe that at the end of the day the entity on the end of my spiritual relationship with God is any different than that on the end of yours. The name may be different, rituals maybe, doctrine maybe, but there is one creator...powerful enough to guide your life and mine.

That's my belief, you don't have to agree.

But my point in this thread is that regardless of any disagreement we should work from a minimum baseline of respect.



You make the assertion that I am understanding your point, and then agreeing with it.

In all honesty, I am having trouble doing either.

PEACE
LOL. You're grandstanding. River is already in love she don't need you to prove anything. ;)

Nothing I've posted here is difficult to follow and there is nothing inconsistent.

I made the assertion you understood my point because you typed the exact same thing I've been saying the entire thread...save one distinction...that we should respect other's choice of belief not necc. the belief itself. I appreciated that distinction, which is I why I retyped it.

But apparently you slept on it, and now you disagree with the Samurai36 who posted yesterday.

You even disagree with the Samurai36 who started this reply, since the one who started it understood my point, and the one who finished it is having trouble with it.
Yes, I did get your point,...

Not much I can do about that.

peace

Because nobody has showed me any of the so called contradictions or lies yet!

This cannot be true if you've been on destee, but you may be interested in a Christian scholar's take on the Bible and the theology:

Link to Book by Patricia Eddy on the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/Who-Tampered-Bible-Patricia-Eddy/dp/1555235735/sr=8-1/qid=1158011193/ref=sr_1_1/103-9809825-8815858?ie=UTF8&s=books)

I am not trying to win anybody over to anything. I asked questions.

Now there are some here who say I am being arrogant when I ask people why they still adhere to such teachings. I guess I will just have to be arrogant then. Putting a label on my actions without convincing me that my actions were wrong is another subtle form of name calling.....

I understand that there may still be some who will want to insist that I am attacking christians.

Sister River, and I do mean that in the most affectionate of terms as I do respect and appreciate your views on a number of topics. But sister, you're not being honest with yourself when you propose that you do not attack christians.

This thread is one of many that you've started with a similar theme, but in this thread itself I'll list SOME of the statements that can be considered disrespectful and arrogant.


It is easier to just emerse oneself in church activities, go out and buy something or recite the carefully selected memory verses to banish doubt than to explore the possibility that what the man has been telling you might be wrong. After all, you love the man. You respect him. You look up to him from the pew every Sunday morning.


Are you talking to christians, or are you talking about christianity? What man do you speak of that all christians look up to?





If you can walk away from this still convinced that christianity is true then it’s not the lie no one can show you but the lie you refuse to see that is keeping you in this religion that has shackled the bodies and minds of our people for two thousand years.

Did Christianity shackle our minds and bodies, or did White and Arab conquerors do it?


Think,. Why are you so afraid to use the brain that you know is from God and want to defend this book that somebody told you was from God.

So when you reject the bible you are using your brain, but otherwise you're not? So essentially, one is ONLY thinking if they come to the same conclusions as you?


Slowly please stip kidding yourself. You know Paul was making a statement not asking a question. Why does reading the bible have such an adverse effecct on people's reading comprehension skills?

Same theme...aimed at a black person, not at christianity.



There are those who defend christianity and there are those who examine it and I have never known them to be the same people

Notice a pattern yet? To be christian you imply one has to be incapable of critical thinking.



And people wonder why I speak out against christianity. They wonder why I don't let people make their own choices. How can you make a choice when you have no knowledge about what you are choosing?

This almost speaks for itself. What is it in your belief system that gives you access to the knowledge other people have about their choices?

You say you don't "LET" people make their own choices.

What makes you think you have ANY control over anyone other than yourself?

I'm not calling you names, but this STATEMENT seems to me profoundly arrogant.


I am just supposed to keep quiet while our potential warrors are being anesthetized in this cesspool of undigested lies called the Church?

Cesspool of undigested lies called the Church?

Which Church is anesthetizing our warriors?

Churches like this one? http://shrine.reachfarther.com/church.aspx

Sister River, and I do mean that in the most affectionate of terms as I do respect and appreciate your views on a number of topics. But sister, you're not being honest with yourself when you propose that you do not attack christians.

This thread is one of many that you've started with a similar theme, but in this thread itself I'll list SOME of the statements that can be considered disrespectful and arrogant.



Are you talking to christians, or are you talking about christianity? What man do you speak of that all christians look up to?




Did Christianity shackle our minds and bodies, or did White and Arab conquerors do it?



So when you reject the bible you are using your brain, but otherwise you're not? So essentially, one is ONLY thinking if they come to the same conclusions as you?



Same theme...aimed at a black person, not at christianity.




Notice a pattern yet? To be christian you imply one has to be incapable of critical thinking.




This almost speaks for itself. What is it in your belief system that gives you access to the knowledge other people have about their choices?

You say you don't "LET" people make their own choices.

What makes you think you have ANY control over anyone other than yourself?

I'm not calling you names, but this STATEMENT seems to me profoundly arrogant.

Brotha Kem,
I respect and appreciate you also.

This latest post of yours still fails to make any relevant points. When a man admits to lying and I show people where he said he lied and, for you to question how I can have such knowledge is a clear indication that it is you who are not being honest.

Yes, I asked my questions to christians. But before you tell me that these are attacks why don't you go to a church and tell the minister he or she is attacking christians when he calls them God robbers when they use their tithing money to pay rent. Christians sit up week after week being bludgeoned over the head with the idea that they are nothing, that in them dwells no good things, that they can't question the preacher because he is God's annointed, that if they don't believe what the church says they will go to hell. What have you ever said to set our people free from such ideas?. Instead you're trying to convince us thaqt people can listen to this week after week and not be negatively affected. Come on Kem, this doesn't require a doctorate in psychology or psychic powers to see what the church is doing to our people. The church teaches us that our brain is nothing and that's okay with you. I ask people to use their brains and you're all up in my face accusing me of attacking people.

You call me arrogant and say you are not calling me names You are calling me a name and attacking me. You have also attaked samarai, moorfius, emanuel, and everybody else who disagrees with christianity and dares to say why they disagree. You attack us by your own definition of attack. Since you have taken it upon yourself to define what constitutes an attack and insist that that is what I am doing then you turn around and do the same thing. What is that?

Brotha Kem,
I respect and appreciate you also.


I'm glad we're starting from a position of mutual respect.


This latest post of yours still fails to make any relevant points.

You claimed you weren't attacking christians, only attacking the religion of christianity.

I posted specific statements in this thread that appear to be attacks on christians.

Are we working with different definitions of relevant?

How are the words you've used implying to be christian is brainless NOT relevant to this thread?


When a man admits to lying and I show people where he said he lied and, for you to question how I can have such knowledge is a clear indication that it is you who are not being honest.

Sister I didn't question anything you said about Paul, I specifically questioned how you can say Christians "have no knowledge" about the religion they choose.

Your specific words:
And people wonder why I speak out against christianity. They wonder why I don't let people make their own choices. How can you make a choice when you have no knowledge about what you are choosing?


You call me arrogant and say you are not calling me names

You are calling me a name and attacking me.

Sister I thought I made it clear I'm NOT calling you arrogant but your statements (including the not "letting" others make their own choices).


You have also attaked samarai, moorfius, emanuel, and everybody else who disagrees with christianity and dares to say why they disagree. You attack us by your own definition of attack. Since you have taken it upon yourself to define what constitutes an attack and insist that that is what I am doing then you turn around and do the same thing. What is that?

Are you sure I've attacked anyone here sister?

Have I implied that to disagree with me is to be brainless?

Have I called anyone blind, or ignorant, or hoodwinked or sleep?

Have I called anyone's belief system a cesspool of undigested lies?

Have I claimed anyone in posession of a "slave mentality?"

How can you say I've attacked all these people in this thread, when all I've been saying is the same thing over and over...namely, respect other's beliefs, later refined to "choice" of belief.

Even Samuria, before he recanted, agreed with that.

Show me what statements I've made that attacked anyone sister River.

If I'm making the same mistake and brow-beating folks upside the head with my version of "THE truth" then I want to know about it, so I can change my approach.

I am not trying to win anybody over to anything.

I am just supposed to keep quiet while our potential warrors are being anesthetized in this cesspool of undigested lies called the Church?

Sister River ... you're not being honest with yourself. Of course you are trying to win them over, notice the 2nd quote above?

You aren't sharing all of this information to save yourself, for you are obviously already "saved."

You want them to change their minds, their choices ... convert them ... to that which you believe and find more acceptable.

This is really not a whole lot different than Christianity teaches ... (perhaps you can take the Christian out of Christianity, but you can't take Christianity out of the Christian??) ... folk are encouraged to go out and save the world, except now ... you've just simply switched camps ... and instead of doing it for Christianity ... browbeating people into submission ... you are doing it for another "way of life."

All of this when Christianity, Islam, ATR, none of them have proven themselves able to free us ... at least not yet ... so your choice in "Spirituality / Religion" at this point ... has proven no better than any of the rest ... so why not let folk wallow where they want to ... when the end result, our people maintaining the bottom of every economic ladder known to mankind, is all the same?

What has your "Religion / Spirituality" done ... in terms of proven tangible results for our people ... that Christianity has not?

:heart:

Destee

WE who are in the know must take a step back and overstand the emotional connection with thier belief system. It continues to be a close and dear friend with whom they call on in need. However we must be humble and remember when we were first introduced to some thing that was the oppisite of how we were brought up. It took a lot of reading to get to the truth and alot of dilligence. A paragraph of insight cannot replace alot of study and introspect. There are very little individuals whom have read the literature regarding our history form a non european point of view and no do not overstand it's profound importance. time must pass. I must caution my christian brothers and sisters. It would be a shame to leave this earth without indept study it is vital to your mental and physical health. Develop your own truth system -maat- and she will guide u to the way. Do not be afraid of our ancient doctrines because when u look at the temples u see us in full glory. Fighting just aint gonna get it!!!!

Are you sure I've attacked anyone here sister?

Have I implied that to disagree with me is to be brainless?

Have I called anyone blind, or ignorant, or hoodwinked or sleep?

This is in fact what you stated:

This comprehension tactic by you and River is amusing, but beneath both of you.

This is a sublime attack, and whether you intended it that way or not, that was how it was taken.

Even Samuria, before he recanted, agreed with that.

Once again, you're putting statements in other people's mouths. When and where did I recant anything in this thread? My perspective remains the same.

Show me what statements I've made that attacked anyone sister River.

See above.

If I'm making the same mistake and brow-beating folks upside the head with my version of "THE truth" then I want to know about it, so I can change my approach.

You'd done it althroughout this thread. You ask questions of people, expecting answers of them, yet when questions are asked of you, you blatantly evade them.

You give the impression that your perspective is the only one that's relevant (re: "simple"), whilst the rest of ours is far less so, since you refuse to at least entertain them out of respect for others.

I've seen you do all of this before, in past discussions that I've had (or, attempted to have) with you; when the tough questions are asked of you, your interest in the discussion seems to fizzle out, as does your participation in it.

Your tactic is far less than infallible; far less so than you attempt to portray yourself here.

We can agree to disagree, and that's fine, but if your only POV here is to attack the perspectives of others while never really addressing them, then you lost ground in this discussion before you ever entered it.

PEACE

WE who are in the know must take a step back and overstand the emotional connection with thier belief system. It continues to be a close and dear friend with whom they call on in need. However we must be humble and remember when we were first introduced to some thing that was the oppisite of how we were brought up. It took a lot of reading to get to the truth and alot of dilligence. A paragraph of insight cannot replace alot of study and introspect. There are very little individuals whom have read the literature regarding our history form a non european point of view and no do not overstand it's profound importance. time must pass. I must caution my christian brothers and sisters. It would be a shame to leave this earth without indept study it is vital to your mental and physical health. Develop your own truth system -maat- and she will guide u to the way. Do not be afraid of our ancient doctrines because when u look at the temples u see us in full glory. Fighting just aint gonna get it!!!!

This is not an easy thing to do.
I was raised on christianity as well.
I have meter neter vol1 and two along with other books on our history/truth.
I'm also rereading the bible again.
Not because I am afraid but because somestimes I am unsure.
When things go wrong in life you were taught to pray to GOD call on jesus and nothing more.
You can't possibly think that people will change over night after centuries of mental slavery and programming.
I explained the lucid like dream/awake episodes I had and I was mocked for it.Now if I follow what my ancestors practiced I'm unsure how or where this will lead me.
I had a very strong one in which I mentioned on another thread and I told my mother and she stated it's because I'm doubting religions.But I have been having these since I was 5yrs old.
So does that mean that since I don't believe entirely in the bible evil has stepped in?
And since I have been reading truth I have had more trance like dreams,sometimes I'm afraid to go sleep.

This is in fact what you stated:

Originally Posted by KEMETKIND
This comprehension tactic by you and River is amusing, but beneath both of you.

This is a sublime attack, and whether you intended it that way or not, that was how it was taken.

I apologize if you took that as a sublime attack. It was nothing of the sort.

The "comprehension tactic" I referenced was you and river claiming not only that I did not comprehend your points in this thread, but that I haven't the ability to comprehend.

RE:


I guess it is because you have nothing legitimate that you can say that you have chosen not to say anything. That was a wise decision. You should have made the same decision about responding to these brothas then maybe you wouldnt have revealed your inability to comprehend the point of a discussion..

If you can show me (with a quote) where I've done anything similar I'd appreciate it.


Once again, you're putting statements in other people's mouths. When and where did I recant anything in this thread? My perspective remains the same.

Did you read my post? I thought I used your own quotes to show where you recanted from the time you started one reply to the time you finished it.



You'd done it althroughout this thread. You ask questions of people, expecting answers of them, yet when questions are asked of you, you blatantly evade them.

The only question I've evaded is you asking me what is my definition of spirituality. That is not a "tough question", it's one I care not to have a discussion about, since I've had them many, many, many times before, and do not see in this context where it will serve my principal goal in this thread.




You give the impression that your perspective is the only one that's relevant (re: "simple"), whilst the rest of ours is far less so, since you refuse to at least entertain them out of respect for others.

Give me a quote where I've implied my impression is the only one relevant.

You'll likely find it far easier to find a quote where I imply we should respect each other's choice of belief, if not the belief itself.

At no time have I said those who believe it is justified to disrespect others are ignorant, blind, fools, sleep, slaves, unable to comprehend, or irrelevant. I may have characterized the fact that we allow religion and sprituality to be such a divisive force "childish" but that certainly wasn't an attack on any one religion, or any one person, but an indictment of us all.



I've seen you do all of this before, in past discussions that I've had (or, attempted to have) with you; when the tough questions are asked of you, your interest in the discussion seems to fizzle out, as does your participation in it.

It's convenient for you to characterize your questions as "tough"; I don't agree.

I will say it again, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with what I'm proposing in this thread.

Is that the only fault you can find, that I won't engage in a never ending battle over whose beliefs are more original or correct? You have plenty of threads with music producer and others where you've already done that. Even if you'd like another one you'll have to find someone who thinks that exercise is worth their time.


Your tactic is far less than infallible; far less so than you attempt to portray yourself here.
Portray myself? Brother am I pretending about something?



We can agree to disagree, and that's fine, but if your only POV here is to attack the perspectives of others while never really addressing them, then you lost ground in this discussion before you ever entered it.


This is unbelievable coming from you because the pre-hiatus Samurai was much more precise.

River says she didn't attack anyone and I posted quotes that most would agree are attacks.

I shouldn't single her out because the list of attack quotes would be a lot longer for some others in this thread.

But the only quote you've been able to produce indicating I attacked anyone was in fact an attempt to DIFFUSE one of those attacks, namely that I cannot comprehend a point.

Nah brother until you or river can put a quote up where I've attacked anyone you might as well cease with that rhetoric. Unless you are saying the very act of disagreeing with any of you represents an attack, I just don't see it.

Bottom line, which I still contend IS simple, either we agree that we should respect other's choice of belief... or not.

I apologize if you took that as a sublime attack. It was nothing of the sort.

The "comprehension tactic" I referenced was you and river claiming not only that I did not comprehend your points in this thread, but that I haven't the ability to comprehend.

If you can show me (with a quote) where I've done anything similar I'd appreciate it.

While I stand by the Sheqhet's statement in that instance, please know that I was not the one who made it, neither implicitly or explicitly. You lumped me together with her (not that there's anything wrong with that), in accusing me of making an assertion that I had not made.

That is an error on your part.


Did you read my post? I thought I used your own quotes to show where you recanted from the time you started one reply to the time you finished it.

I've read all your posts. Which post are you referring to?

And I maintain, that unless I have explicitly stated that I have recanted, then there is no reason whatever for you to insinuate that I have.

Again, my position remains the same in this thread, from its inception up to now.


The only question I've evaded is you asking me what is my definition of spirituality. That is not a "tough question", it's one I care not to have a discussion about, since I've had them many, many, many times before, and do not see in this context where it will serve my principal goal in this thread.

Incorrect.

I've asked you numerous questions in this thread, none to which I've yet to receive an answer.

Thus, I'll return your question to me, back to you:

"Did you read my post?"

Would you like for me to re-post all the questions I've posed to you, that you have failed to answer?

Please understand, I'm not trying to be funny here. I notice that alot of times, people underestimate the problems that the lack of proper communication can cause.


Give me a quote where I've implied my impression is the only one relevant.

Sure.

In post #80, you stated:

I do think you've gottten my point, and further, seems you agree with it.

Some things deserve to be simplified.

This needs to be no more complicated than an agreement to respect each other's choice of belief, since we've already acknowledged the creator guides us all.

You said this, while not acknowledging any other aspect of my post. You only sought out that part which (in your view) "agreed" with your sentiment, while commenting on the need for "simplification".

You also stated in post #70:

We don't need to go back and forth on this.

This shows me that you are not really all that interested in carrying along with the dialogue--especially not to answer any of my questions.

This says to me, that you are implying that anything is not simple, is not relevant in your view.


You'll likely find it far easier to find a quote where I imply we should respect each other's choice of belief, if not the belief itself.

That's fine, but this has nothing to do with my perspective here. It only has something to do with yours.

Again, I'm saying that you seem to only concern yourself with your perspective here, and only acknowledge those perspectives of others, that you feel run congruent with yours.

You've stated your perspective over and over here--even "simplified" it. What then, is your purpose in this thread?

At no time have I said those who believe it is justified to disrespect others are ignorant, blind, fools, sleep, slaves, unable to comprehend, or irrelevant. I may have characterized the fact that we allow religion and sprituality to be such a divisive force "childish" but that certainly wasn't an attack on any one religion, or any one person, but an indictment of us all.

Perhaps not, but you have referred to it as "sanctimonious" (post #70):

But if you are under the impression the creator is incapable of guiding the life of a Christian, nothing I can post on a message board can move you from your sanctimonious judgements.

Why make this statement, when all of us (RIVER and myself, specifically) had from the very beginning made the implicitation that spirituality supercedes religion.

Thus, for you to make that statement, implies:

*You haven't been listening to us (RIVER asked that same question from before)

*You somehow do not believe what we are saying

*You simply find what we are saying to be irrelevant.

It's convenient for you to characterize your questions as "tough"; I don't agree.

OK then, so why not simply answer these "not-tough" questions?

I will say it again, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with what I'm proposing in this thread.

Fair enough.

Is that the only fault you can find, that I won't engage in a never ending battle over whose beliefs are more original or correct?

When and where had I made any such implications here in this particular thread?

You have plenty of threads with music producer and others where you've already done that. Even if you'd like another one you'll have to find someone who thinks that exercise is worth their time.

I'll ask again, then, as I have asked before: What then is your purpose in this thread?

You've stated over and over, that we should all just "get along". You've even "simplified" this point.

What then?


Portray myself? Brother am I pretending about something?

Who knows? But I'm sure that you are aware that a portrayal does not equate to a pretense.


This is unbelievable coming from you because the pre-hiatus Samurai was much more precise.

I'm sure that somewhere in this statement, belies a compliment. :?:

River says she didn't attack anyone and I posted quotes that most would agree are attacks.

I shouldn't single her out because the list of attack quotes would be a lot longer for some others in this thread.

I'm curious: though I'll be the first to admit that the Sister and I are often congruent in our perspectives--and neither of us tries to hide this fact--it is also well known, that both of us are totally capable of standing independently, and representing our own perspectives as such.

You mentioned my hiatus; I've been gone for months now, and she has been holding it down, with no word of when--or if--I was returning.

Yet, more than once here, you have addressed your statements to both "River and me"?

Why? Just because her perspective mirrors my own in many ways?

If that's your logic, then since Sister DESTEE has been giving your the " :bowdown: " in agreement with much of what you say, should I then address everything to "Destee and you"?


But the only quote you've been able to produce indicating I attacked anyone was in fact an attempt to DIFFUSE one of those attacks, namely that I cannot comprehend a point.

I've quoted more than one statement thus far.

Nah brother until you or river can put a quote up where I've attacked anyone you might as well cease with that rhetoric.

More "You and "River". :rolleyes:

Unless you are saying the very act of disagreeing with any of you represents an attack, I just don't see it.

You're right, it doesn't. Good thing that no one is doing that.

Bottom line, which I still contend IS simple, either we agree that we should respect other's choice of belief... or not.

Ah yes, the infamous "bottom line".

That's the bottom line for you. Not for us. And since it's not for us, and since also that we have more to address here (that you apparently find no relevance in doing so), I again ask you: what is your further purpose with this thread?

To be continued.....

Interesting, because I made care to actually retype your own words when I used the phrase "choice of belief." So now you don't agree with your own words?

What I don't agree with, is how you've misrepresented my words, even as you have claimed to have "made care to actually type them".

Here is what I'd stated:

All that I ask, is that you respect me as your fellow human being, and my choice of "belief", and I shall do the same to you.

Notice the quotation marks. Usually, when a word or words is quoted in such a manner, there is usually a specific or implied meaning there.

I made the assumption that you would have understood the inference, without me having to explain it to you.

Pardon my mistake.

Show me what words I have written which imply I've misinterpreted anything you, or anybody else, has written here.

LOL, see directly above.

I have not tried to address your perspective, except on the common ground of whether there should be a basic respect for the "choice of belief" of others....or not.

You'll never see me use the phrase "slave mentality" as an insult to put down a black person, so I believe you'll need to ask this question of those who insist on doing so.

Ahh, and here we come to the meat of my issue here with your presence in this thread.

You have openly admitted that you have not addressed any sentiment that does not run congruent with yours.

Thank you for this admission.

And you do not view this in the slightest bit offensive? Or, you do not see why others would feel so?

Samurai, "slave mentality" is usually used as a negative insult and I contend we should cease and desist with it.

Yes we are divided, but what is your evidence that slaves were as divided as we are today?

Did they not band together to PHYSICALLY rebel against their masters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellion
http://www.johnhorse.com/

Do we do revolt today?

Notice, how you did not answer my question, even as you only super-imposed your question upon mine.

However, to answer your Q:

I'm sure you realize, even as you offer this as an "answer", that not all slaves rebelled--not even most of them.

You act as if slavery consisted of one big rebellion. If that were the case, then slavery as an institution would never have been as successful as it was.

I'd wager to say, that the same amount of Black people that "revolt" today, equates to the same amount that revolted back then.

Speaking about the division, I'm sure you are familiar with the "WILLIE LYNCH" concept.

Are you implying that this mandate was not for the most part successful?

What is your evidence we worshipped the slave master's image then? In almost every case where we were forced into christianity, we melded it with the african traditional religions, and used it as a framework to converse about our liberation.

Again, you did not answer my question--only disregarding it, for your own self-perceived relevance of ytour own Q.

But, I will in fact, answer your question, though I have no hope of receiving an answer to mine:

The psychological impression of the White Jesus has been engrained within our Black minds since slavery.

Not all slaves had duplicitous intentions with Christianity, as you have mentioned here. That was actually a minority.

Many slaves accepted the White Jesus out of fear, and eventually that fear turned into acceptance.

I don't know if you are keeping this in mind, but Slavery as an institution was a generational one. It didn't end with the first slaves that got off the boat. Their children, and their children's children.......Right on up to us today. We all have elements of that brainwashing.

Do people today worship the image of the White Jesus, yes or no? And if so, then where do people--specifically our Black people--get such a notion from?

Did the white Jesus pop up yesterday?

By the way, you ask for my evidence of my perspectives on this matter:

This has been discussed ad nauseum by Black scholars such as DR BEN, JOHN HENRY CLARKE, and others.

In fact many slave masters were concerned about what the y called a "leveling effect" of christianity, and that slaves would become more rebellious after conversion.

Many fought against conversion of slaves, and laws were enacted to prevent our reading....aimed primarily at religious text...despite this, we read anyway, and we formed our own hybrid religion in spite of obstacles.

We attended their church and then we held our OWN church, in secret, at night, under the penalty of physical punishment.

Fast forward to today, we no longer have a "slave mentality" since we no longer fight, scratch, claw and risk death to read or acquire knowledge. Today we act as if we abhor it.

The mentality we have now does not do justice to the slave mentality, and I believe it is myth that the majority of slaves privately worshipped the image of the slave master.

Check out...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...steedesignpubl

I'm quite familar with all of this. I'm also familiar, as I'd just previously stated, that this perspective that you tender was not the bulk of the slave mental state during those times.

Are you familiar with precisely how many rebellions took place from 1555 to 1865?

Very few.

Slavery was a "smashing success" (no pun; that's what the British would say), from its inception, on up to now.

Yes, we eat bad foods and too much of them. But that is not exclusive of Christians nor of descendants of slaves; the obesity epidemic is global.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3964693.stm

LOL, you are making not answering my questions a habit.

Here you say that unhealthy dietary habits is a global issue, yet the only place you offer as an example, is perhaps the one place in the world where Blacks have suffered worst than us: SOUTH AFRICA.

Are they not victims of that very same "slave mentality" that I have been speaking of?

Again, what makes this slave mentality?

What evidence do you have that the predominant family composition during slavery was that of absentee fathers and single mothers as we have today?

All the evidence I have seen indicates exactly the opposite.

Below is an excerpt from one of many sources that allude to this...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...steedesignpubl

"The story of the O'Connor slave community provides an example of the natural tendency among enslaved folk to form stable families, households, and communities; the extreme vulnerability of even the most stable slave communities; the great value slaves placed on family ties and community cohesion; a sometimes reluctant but obvious recognition by owners of their slaves' intense familial attachments; and a persistent urge within a fragmented slave community to reunite or rebuild despite the pain associated with such efforts and adjustments."

You continue to confuse me. You need to identify which period in slave history you are speaking about.

One moment, you seem to be talking about the "plantation times", and other tims, you seem to be speaking about periods thereafter.

During the "plantation times", there was really no such thing as the "slave family unit". Blacks were forced to breed amongst each other--even amongst their siblings--to breed the biggest and best slaves.

Men were separated from whatever familial scenarios that had been developed; women were forced to watch their men breed with other women at the Master's whim.

Are you saying that this information is not correct?

You'll never see me use the phrase "slave mentality" as an insult to put down a black person, so I believe you'll need to ask this question of those who insist on doing so.

And once again, you did not answer my question.

You do not define a word, by defining what it is not.

"What is an orange"? "Well, and orange is not blue."

Am I wasting my time posing questions to you? And yet another case in point:

My definition of "spiritual" is not pertinent to my position in this thread.

How utterly disrespectful.

My question to you, was not "pertinent" to what you feel was "pertinent".

Again, you accuse others of "arrogance", and then tender it in your own right. Yet, you then accuse others of falsely accusing you of anything.

What matters is whether or not I can respect someone else's belief system through which they choose to express their spirituality, however it is defined...

That's what matter.........TO YOU.

That is not what solely matter to others in this discussion.

No, we've already agreed (several times) they are independent of each other with different meanings.

You stated earlier that I have confused the two when I have clearly indicated (several times) they are seperate concepts and one has more value than the other.

This means nothing, when you refuse to define the term(s), simply because you do not find it "pertinent" to do so.

Do you understand what it means to define something?

Saying "this is different from that" is not in any way a definition.

"What is an orange?"

"An orange is not an apple".

How does my knowing that an orange is not an apple, help me to know what an orange in fact is?

In fact the whole POINT of my argument is that religion is NOT powerful enough to supercede spirituality, and that you cannot know very much of one's spirituality by means of knowing something about their religion.

When I referred to an "affiliation" I'm referring to a religion, which is why I implied we need to move beyond our "religious affiliations" when it comes to racial solidarity.

I did not put spiritual because I do not happen to believe that at the end of the day the entity on the end of my spiritual relationship with God is any different than that on the end of yours. The name may be different, rituals maybe, doctrine maybe, but there is one creator...powerful enough to guide your life and mine.

That's my belief, you don't have to agree.

But my point in this thread is that regardless of any disagreement we should work from a minimum baseline of respect.


You're becoming redundant.

Pray tell, do you at all know what our point in this discussion is?

I'll bet bon-bons to buttercups, that you don't.

OL. You're grandstanding. River is already in love she don't need you to prove anything.

This is your response to what I'd stated? I think you're the only one that finds that funny.

Nothing I've posted here is difficult to follow and there is nothing inconsistent.

Weren't you the one complaining about us using the so-called "comprehension tactic"?

You're losing here, and the sad thing is, you can't even see it.

I made the assertion you understood my point because you typed the exact same thing I've been saying the entire thread...save one distinction...that we should respect other's choice of belief not necc. the belief itself. I appreciated that distinction, which is I why I retyped it.

And...?

Apparently you feel that distinction is not significant enough to consider my point from being different from yours.

Again, I do not agree.

But apparently you slept on it, and now you disagree with the Samurai36 who posted yesterday.

Why don't you just come out and say "you are not comprehending what I am saying"? Saying that would read a bit more honestly.

You even disagree with the Samurai36 who started this reply, since the one who started it understood my point, and the one who finished it is having trouble with it.

Your condescension is beoming a bit fatiguing.

Not much I can do about that.

Or much else, I'd imagine.

PEACE

While I stand by the Sheqhet's statement in that instance, please know that I was not the one who made it, neither implicitly or explicitly. You lumped me together with her (not that there's anything wrong with that), in accusing me of making an assertion that I had not made.

That is an error on your part.

Nah, I didn't take the time to dig up the quotes brother, but river was just regurgitating a tactic you've used in other threads.

I could go find the quotes, if needed, but rest assured you've almost verbatim accused myself, and others who do not agree with you, of an inability to comprehend.


I've read all your posts. Which post are you referring to?

The post where you started by saying you "got" my point and finished by saying you were having difficulty doing so.



And I maintain, that unless I have explicitly stated that I have recanted, then there is no reason whatever for you to insinuate that I have.
If you state one thing, then state the opposite a few paragraphs later, I don't need for you to "explicitly state" that you recanted. If you shoot yourself in the foot, must I wait for you to explictly state you just shot yourself, when I can already see your foot bleeding?



Again, my position remains the same in this thread, from its inception up to now.
OK.


Would you like for me to re-post all the questions I've posed to you, that you have failed to answer?

If I've failed to answer any question that is prohibiting you from understanding my position in this thread, by all means, post them, if you deem it worth your time.


Please understand, I'm not trying to be funny here. I notice that alot of times, people underestimate the problems that the lack of proper communication can cause.


Brother I think you and me both, along with many others here, could stand to improve our mastery of "proper communication."

I'm aware enough to recognize my shortcomings in this regard, for too often I can alienate which overshadows what I'm trying to communicate. But do you not see that my position in this thread addresses that same issue?

How best to encourage someone to believe something other than what they believe?

Is it by beating them over the head questioning their comprehension and calling them brainless? Or would a more "proper communication" be more effective?



This shows me that you are not really all that interested in carrying along with the dialogue--especially not to answer any of my questions.

This says to me, that you are implying that anything is not simple, is not relevant in your view.

You are reaching. You've just chastized me for insinuating you recanted and here you are contorting your logic to make connections that don't exist.




Again, I'm saying that you seem to only concern yourself with your perspective here, and only acknowledge those perspectives of others, that you feel run congruent with yours.
Which perspective have I not acknowledged?

Provide some details on me refusing to acknowledge anything (quotes preferred).


You've stated your perspective over and over here--even "simplified" it. What then, is your purpose in this thread?

Good question. I'm still here in this thread because I think it is a critical issue, and I want to see the eventual outcome.

If we cannot come to a simple agreement on whether to respect each other's beliefs, then that calls into question our ability to do anything of substance with anyone other than those who already believe as we do.

If that is the case, the audience for this forum will constrict and in short order, become extremely narrow.

It will consist of the kemetic ATR proponents who bark the loudest, meanwhile the majority of black people who do not share that belief system will be disrespected, subjected to condescending remarks, and turned off by the tone of the dialogue.

In such an environment, there can be little growth.



Perhaps not, but you have referred to it as "sanctimonious" (post #70):
Sanctimonius was a poor word choice, and did not illustrate anything additional in my point.

Thank you for pointing out to me an instance where I could have chosen better language to facilitate proper communication.

If others could agree to similarly evaluate their language, IMO, we'd be taking a big step forward here.


Why make this statement, when all of us (RIVER and myself, specifically) had from the very beginning made the implicitation that spirituality supercedes religion.

Thus, for you to make that statement, implies:

*You haven't been listening to us (RIVER asked that same question from before)

*You somehow do not believe what we are saying

*You simply find what we are saying to be irrelevant.

Reaching again. See Above. No one other than me, you, and Destee has implied (so far in this thread) that we should respect each other's choice of beliefs.





Yet, more than once here, you have addressed your statements to both "River and me"?

Why? Just because her perspective mirrors my own in many ways?
Only you and river have stated in this thread that I've attacked anyone.

In my entire years on this earth, it is only you and river that has ever concluded I have an inability to comprehend. LOL. Honestly, I'm mentioning you and river in the same breath as playful teasing more than anything.


If that's your logic, then since Sister DESTEE has been giving your the " :bowdown: " in agreement with much of what you say, should I then address everything to "Destee and you"?
LOL. I wouldn't mind. But if I were you, I wouldn't. :lol:




I've quoted more than one statement thus far.

Nah, just 1, the word sanctimonious, that's it. I'll do better.



More "You and "River". :rolleyes:

OK, OK, if you feeling all shame now and thangs...:lol:.. I'll stop. It's not that serious.




That's the bottom line for you. Not for us.


OK, you have more to discuss, of course, this is a discussion board. But before you do, and since I've invested my time already in this exercise, can you please re-state for me your current position on whether you deem it worthy to respect the choice of other's belief or not?

Just curious.

Nah, I didn't take the time to dig up the quotes brother, but river was just regurgitating a tactic you've used in other threads.

I could go find the quotes, if needed, but rest assured you've almost verbatim accused myself, and others who do not agree with you, of an inability to comprehend.

I'd like very much for you to do that.


The post where you started by saying you "got" my point and finished by saying you were having difficulty doing so.

We're going in circles here.

Initially, I did "get" your point. However, you'd said some statements later on, that make me rethink what I thought I "got".

If you state one thing, then state the opposite a few paragraphs later, I don't need for you to "explicitly state" that you recanted. If you shoot yourself in the foot, must I wait for you to explictly state you just shot yourself, when I can already see your foot bleeding?

I'm going to say again: My perspective in this thread remains the same. As you say, what you think my perspective is or has morphed into (but really hasn't), "is not pertinent to my point".

If I've failed to answer any question that is prohibiting you from understanding my position in this thread, by all means, post them, if you deem it worth your time.

I love how you create a perameter in which only your perspective can thrive, while all others fall by the way-side.

#1) none of my questions are geared to what your position is, nor to the understand of such. Perhaps you would get a bit further, by taking the time to fatom what someone else is saying, vs. being concerned only with what you are saying.

My questions were geared towards you gaining and understanding of my position, not vice versa.

What makes you think I am having trouble understanding your redundant position of "can't we all just get along"?

#2) If you are not interested in doing that, then quite obviously it would not be "worth my time".

And thus, thank you for coralling me into reaching the conclusion that you wanted me to reach. :rolleyes:

Brother I think you and me both, along with many others here, could stand to improve our mastery of "proper communication."

At least you can recognize this, when before you portrayed yourself, as well as your perspective, as untennable.

I'm aware enough to recognize my shortcomings in this regard, for too often I can alienate which overshadows what I'm trying to communicate. But do you not see that my position in this thread addresses that same issue?

I have no idea.

Not once in this thread, have you made anything that remotely resembles the sentiment of "I (KEMETKIND) understand where you are coming from".

I've seen you continuously beat us all over the head with your perspective, trying to "simplify it" for us, and then repeat it over and over again, all the while ignoring the perspective of any others.

How best to encourage someone to believe something other than what they believe?

And therein lies your issue. I thought the purpose of discussions such as these, is to learn from each other?

I'm not here to encourage you, nor anyone else to do anything. I'm only here to share and gain information.

Is it by beating them over the head questioning their comprehension and calling them brainless? Or would a more "proper communication" be more effective?

And you don't see yourself as doing this?

You are reaching. You've just chastized me for insinuating you recanted and here you are contorting your logic to make connections that don't exist.

Save it, man. Just answer the questions. Why is that so hard to do? You made the claim that my questions are not that "tough". So why not take a stab at them, for gentleman's sake?

Which perspective have I not acknowledged? Provide some details on me refusing to acknowledge anything (quotes preferred).

I tell you what: go back to every post I've made in this thread--specifically those made to you, and look for any statement from me, that ends in a question mark ("?").

You've already admitted that you had not interest in answering my questions in your previous post....So why are you pretending that you have no idea what I'm talking about now?

Good question. I'm still here in this thread because I think it is a critical issue, and I want to see the eventual outcome.

You think what is a "critical issue"? Are you speaking about why people still believe in Christianity? Because that's the only "issue" being discussed here. Any other issue that you could possibly be speaking of, is one that you've added here needlessly, and it totally irrelevant to the discussion.

If we cannot come to a simple agreement on whether to respect each other's beliefs, then that calls into question our ability to do anything of substance with anyone other than those who already believe as we do.

Back to this again...... And I suppose you are going to tell me that I agree with this, or that I have recanted my position because I don't agree with what you just stated, yes?

I'd wager that you couldn't even tell me why I don't agree.

If that is the case, the audience for this forum will constrict and in short order, become extremely narrow.

It will consist of the kemetic ATR proponents who bark the loudest, meanwhile the majority of black people who do not share that belief system will be disrespected, subjected to condescending remarks, and turned off by the tone of the dialogue.

In such an environment, there can be little growth.

While I for the most part agree with this, I do not agree with the reasons why.

Again, I bet you do not know nor understand why.

Sanctimonius was a poor word choice, and did not illustrate anything additional in my point.

Fair enough.

Thank you for pointing out to me an instance where I could have chosen better language to facilitate proper communication.

You're welcome.

If others could agree to similarly evaluate their language, IMO, we'd be taking a big step forward here.

OK.


Reaching again. See Above. No one other than me, you, and Destee has implied (so far in this thread) that we should respect each other's choice of beliefs.

Firstly, you have not once implied any such thing.

Only you and river have stated in this thread that I've attacked anyone.

Firstly, the initial time in which you had lumped me with sister RIVER (again, not that this is a bad thing. :) ), you had done so incorrectly, for I had not done what you had accused me of.

That is why it's good to speak to individuals as individuals--on their own individual merit.

In my entire years on this earth, it is only you and river that has ever concluded I have an inability to comprehend. LOL. Honestly, I'm mentioning you and river in the same breath as playful teasing more than anything.

Uh-huh.

Well, I honestly don't think that this is the appropriate time/place for such "teasing".


LOL. I wouldn't mind. But if I were you, I wouldn't. :lol:

I'm not certain what you're "LOL"ing at, but I think that in doing so, you may have missed the point I was trying to establish.

Nah, just 1, the word sanctimonious, that's it. I'll do better.

I'm convinced that you are not reading all that I post. You don't even take the time to acknowledge all that I say. You've repeatedly skipped over the parts of my posts that are significant, while choosing to acknowledge the trivial.

Go back and read all that I have posted here.


OK, OK, if you feeling all shame now and thangs...:lol:.. I'll stop. It's not that serious.

Then why keep doing it? I don't particularly find that funny.

OK, you have more to discuss, of course, this is a discussion board. But before you do, and since I've invested my time already in this exercise, can you please re-state for me your current position on whether you deem it worthy to respect the choice of other's belief or not?

Just curious.

You continue to prove my point. You are only interested in the perspectives of others, so long as they bear relavance to your own point.

#1) I'm not interested in whether people respect each other's beliefs--at least not right now, not only since that is supposed to be a given, but also because that is not the crux of this subject.

#2) Since this is not the crux of this subject, you have in effect done very little to further the actual topic at hand.

Do you know why people continue to believe in Christianity? Yes or no?

Notice the quotation marks. Usually, when a word or words is quoted in such a manner, there is usually a specific or implied meaning there.

I made the assumption that you would have understood the inference, without me having to explain it to you.

Pardon my mistake.

Are you joking? You putting "belief" in quotes surely did not serve to negate your statement....did it? Should we respect each other's choice of "beliefs" or not?




You have openly admitted that you have not addressed any sentiment that does not run congruent with yours.

Thank you for this admission.


Wow, this is eye-opening. I have admitted no such thing. I'm beginning to think you may be right, and my purpose in this thread HAS been served, if it has come to this.




And you do not view this in the slightest bit offensive? Or, you do not see why others would feel so?
I do not see it offensive for me to advance a position that we respect each other, and to advance that position without engaging in banter about my own spiritual belief system.

If you find that offensive, your offense is noted.



You continue to confuse me. You need to identify which period in slave history you are speaking about.

One moment, you seem to be talking about the "plantation times", and other tims, you seem to be speaking about periods thereafter.


The reference I posted is one of many that provide details on the family structures slaves maintained...during slavery.




During the "plantation times", there was really no such thing as the "slave family unit".

Scholarship in this area clearly refutes this. Not sure on what grounds you're making this assertion.





Blacks were forced to breed amongst each other--even amongst their siblings--to breed the biggest and best slaves.

Men were separated from whatever familial scenarios that had been developed; women were forced to watch their men breed with other women at the Master's whim.

Are you saying that this information is not correct?
I'm saying despite all of this, slaves still managed to maintain strong, usually two parent, family units.





And once again, you did not answer my question.

You mean I did not answer to your satisfaction. I gave an answer to all of these questions, you did not appreciate them. But there is no logic in in claiming I've dodged your questions based on your not liking my responses.





You do not define a word, by defining what it is not.

"What is an orange"? "Well, and orange is not blue."


In the particular case in question, we're talking about slave mentality.

A slave mentality = the orange. If you call me an orange, but mean it in a derogatory way, and I do not acknowledge an orange as a derogatory concept, then ONE way for me to define an orange, as I see it, is to give you examples of what I think an orange is.

I gave examples of what I think slave mentality was, and in those examples, I noted an strong sense of family, an adaptive flexibility with regards to religion, and a willingness to rebel.

Your scenario implying I answered "what is an orange", with "well it's not blue" does not apply to the exchange you're attempting to apply it to.

This is what I mean by the pre-hiatus Samurai seemed more precise.


Am I wasting my time posing questions to you?

I'm getting close to the conclusion we're both wasting our time with this...


My question to you, was not "pertinent" to what you feel was "pertinent".

Again, you accuse others of "arrogance", and then tender it in your own right. Yet, you then accuse others of falsely accusing you of anything.

Despite your attempts to turn this into a battle, that's not my purpose.

Again if you took my being unwilling to put my own spiritual beliefs into the domain of this discussion as an affront, your offense is noted.


Do you understand what it means to define something?

Saying "this is different from that" is not in any way a definition.
You are being condescending, as well as inaccurate, for it is a common technique in definition of a concept to distinguish how that concept is different from other concepts.

But again, see above, I have not done that in this case, and further, you're trying to degrade this discussion into haggling over minutia, as you are prone to do, with little focus on the central matter at hand.


"What is an orange?"

"An orange is not an apple".

How does my knowing that an orange is not an apple, help me to know what an orange in fact is?

You're becoming redundant.

I am becoming redundant? Or is it your response?


Pray tell, do you at all know what our point in this discussion is?

I'll bet bon-bons to buttercups, that you don't.

Who is "our?" You and River? :lol: Sorry, couldn't resist. Tell me who our is and maybe I can muster all my reading comprehension skills enough to give it a whirl. :lol:


This is your response to what I'd stated? I think you're the only one that finds that funny.
Think again.




You're losing here, and the sad thing is, you can't even see it.

Losing what? Is this a contest? You mean we have to go through this all over again (getting you to understand these discussions are not contests with winners and losers)?




Why don't you just come out and say "you are not comprehending what I am saying"? Saying that would read a bit more honestly....

Your condescension is beoming a bit fatiguing.


Can you see the duplicity in those two paragraphs...so close together?




"Not much I can do about that"



Or much else, I'd imagine.

OK. We've officially descended to the level of bickering. It's childish of us, especially given the reason for my entering the thread in the first place.

I'd like very much for you to do that.

When I have time, if it's worthwhile, I may.


Initially, I did "get" your point. However, you'd said some statements later on, that make me rethink what I thought I "got".

Are you serious?



What makes you think I am having trouble understanding your redundant position of "can't we all just get along"?


I don't think you have trouble understanding it. That's why I said you got my point. See above, didn't you just say you had to rethink because you werent sure "what you got."

Precision man! This is not like you, leaving so many wide open holes and contradictions in your statements.




At least you can recognize this, when before you portrayed yourself, as well as your perspective, as untennable.

Untennable? I did?



Not once in this thread, have you made anything that remotely resembles the sentiment of "I (KEMETKIND) understand where you are coming from".

Maybe you are reading my statements through a jaded lens Brother.



I've seen you continuously beat us all over the head with your perspective, trying to "simplify it" for us, and then repeat it over and over again, all the while ignoring the perspective of any others.

Again, you have failed to point out what perspective I've ignored, you've simply stated that I'm ignoring them.




And therein lies your issue. I thought the purpose of discussions such as these, is to learn from each other?

I'm not here to encourage you, nor anyone else to do anything. I'm only here to share and gain information.
Well, I suspect that is why you initially typed that you'd "respect other's choice of 'belief'"

If your goal is to convert people from their way of thinking, and not simply enlighten them, then obviously you cannot respect another's choice, because your aim is to point out enough problems with their beliefs so that they discard it.

You and sister river appear divergent on this topic, for she has justified why she will NOT respect other's choice of belief.



Save it, man. Just answer the questions. Why is that so hard to do? You made the claim that my questions are not that "tough". So why not take a stab at them, for gentleman's sake?


I tell you what: go back to every post I've made in this thread--specifically those made to you, and look for any statement from me, that ends in a question mark ("?").


You ask me to go through this thread and find every comment you listed with ending in a ?

I choose not to do so. If you have a question you need answered, pose it.


You've already admitted that you had not interest in answering my questions in your previous post....So why are you pretending that you have no idea what I'm talking about now?

Nonsense brother, and you know it. I stated I'm not here to discuss the details of my personal concept of spirituality.
I've not dodged any other question.




You think what is a "critical issue"? Are you speaking about why people still believe in Christianity?

Because that's the only "issue" being discussed here. Any other issue that you could possibly be speaking of, is one that you've added here needlessly, and it totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Certainly the question of respect has been added, but I disagree that it is needless or irrelevant to the original discussion.





Well, I honestly don't think that this is the appropriate time/place for such "teasing".
We all take ourselves too seriously sometimes.




I'm not certain what you're "LOL"ing at, but I think that in doing so, you may have missed the point I was trying to establish.
You're beginning to sound like a broken record Brother.






I'm convinced that you are not reading all that I post. You don't even take the time to acknowledge all that I say. You've repeatedly skipped over the parts of my posts that are significant, while choosing to acknowledge the trivial.

Brother, you know we rarely respond to every word of every post. You don't, I don't, I don't think anyone here does.

If parts of your post are trivial and shouldn't be responded to then you should make clear which parts are trivial and which parts deserve acknowledgement.





Then why keep doing it? I don't particularly find that funny. OK. Noted. If I'm truly offending you I'll take care not to mention you and river in the same sentence again.





.

#1) I'm not interested in whether people respect each other's beliefs--at least not right now, not only since that is supposed to be a given, but also because that is not the crux of this subject.


Interesting. That is supposed to be a given now?

Why then have you spent all this time engaging me about it? Why not just say, yes Kemet, your mindboggingly redundant position that we respect each other's beliefs is supposed to be a given, now do you care to discuss christianity?

I would've said thanks, and no, not really, and we're done.

You then move on to blast christianity, and either do it respectfully according to your word, or not.

We didn't need to go through all this did we?



Do you know why people continue to believe in Christianity? Yes or no?

No, I do not know why "PEOPLE" continue to believe in christianity... I can't speak for "people."

I've given my opinion as to why I think people believe in christianity, and I've suggested they are the same reasons anyone else has for clinging to their belief system.

Are you joking? You putting "belief" in quotes surely did not serve to negate your statement....did it? Should we respect each other's choice of "beliefs" or not?[quote]

I have already answered this. Please stop pestering me with the same question over and over.

And once again, my quoting "belief" was not without specific inference. If you weren't sure as to the meaning, then you hold it upon yourself to ask for clarification.

Such is the nature of an inferred statement. Again, I'd made the assumption that you would have understood this. That was my only error, in that instance.

[QUOTE]Wow, this is eye-opening. I have admitted no such thing. I'm beginning to think you may be right, and my purpose in this thread HAS been served, if it has come to this.

C'mon man, are you serious? You specificially stated:

I have not tried to address your perspective, except on the common ground of whether there should be a basic respect for the "choice of belief" of others....or not.

Why would you purposefully and consciously not try to address my perspectives?

You don't see that as being irreverent and condescending??

I don't agree with your perspectives, but at least I've acknowledged and addressed them.

I do not see it offensive for me to advance a position that we respect each other, and to advance that position without engaging in banter about my own spiritual belief system.

If you find that offensive, your offense is noted.

Wrong, that is not what you have been doing, even by your own admission.

You have been advancing your position, at the forsaking of all others. All as the poorly guised auspices of altruism. And that is what I find offensive.

The reference I posted is one of many that provide details on the family structures slaves maintained...during slavery.

C'mon man, I'm trying to give you more credit than that. I know you understood the question I asked you.

Slavery spanned a period in excess of 3 centuries. Some would say that it never really ended.

Surely, you're not suggesting that the dynamic of slavery was the same.....static even, from the time that our people first disembarked from the boat, till the time that we were "supposedly" freed?

What time period during slavery are you speaking about?

If you are talking about the entire time, then please say that.

Otherwise, this is yet another example of your communicative flaws.

Scholarship in this area clearly refutes this. Not sure on what grounds you're making this assertion.

I've already named my sources. Go back and check my previous posts.

I'm saying despite all of this, slaves still managed to maintain strong, usually two parent, family units.

Now please understand: I'm not saying that this never took place, only that this was not prevelant.

Some things have improved since slavery, some things have gotten worse, and some things have remained the same.


You mean I did not answer to your satisfaction. I gave an answer to all of these questions, you did not appreciate them. But there is no logic in in claiming I've dodged your questions based on your not liking my responses.

No you haven't, and you know this. It's here for all to see. I asked you a question, and your only response to this, was yet another question.

A proper answer to any sentence ending in "?", is not another sentence ending in "?".

I've deduced that I'm not going to get answers from you, for my questions, even now as you try to pretend that you have somehow already answered them. :rolleyes:

In the particular case in question, we're talking about slave mentality.

A slave mentality = the orange. If you call me an orange, but mean it in a derogatory way, and I do not acknowledge an orange as a derogatory concept, then ONE way for me to define an orange, as I see it, is to give you examples of what I think an orange is.

Then you do not have the slightest incling of how to define something. The crux of a definition is not "giving examples of what you "think" something is".

I gave examples of what I think slave mentality was, and in those examples, I noted an strong sense of family, an adaptive flexibility with regards to religion, and a willingness to rebel.

Examples by definition, do not constitute a definition.

This is what I mean by the pre-hiatus Samurai seemed more precise.

Is this the same "pre-hiatus SAMURAI" that you claimed challenged people's comprehension skills when they didn't agree with him? (still waiting for a quote of that, BTW).

I'm getting close to the conclusion we're both wasting our time with this...

What was your first clue? Mine was when you chose not to answer my very first question to you in this thread.

Despite your attempts to turn this into a battle, that's not my purpose.

And once again, I'm asking you what your purpose is....? You've told us over and over, that we "should all just get along". We heard you the first time.

Now what?

Again if you took my being unwilling to put my own spiritual beliefs into the domain of this discussion as an affront, your offense is noted.

You haven't noted anything, because that's not my issue here. Perhaps if you actually go back and READ what my initial question to you was, then you would know why I'm offended.

This says to me, that you don't know why I'm offended, and you don't care. You offer a reason that has nothing to do with anything I've said (I don't care what your spiritual beliefs are, and I have never asked), solely to satiate your perspective, and no one else's.


You are being condescending, as well as inaccurate, for it is a common technique in definition of a concept to distinguish how that concept is different from other concepts.

Show and prove. Right now.

I challenge you to pull 10 consecutive words from Webster's Dictionary (or any other, for that matter), where the word is explicitly defined by differentiating it from another term(s).

I'll bet you can't do it.

But again, see above, I have not done that in this case, and further, you're trying to degrade this discussion into haggling over minutia, as you are prone to do, with little focus on the central matter at hand.

I've tried my hardest to focus on the "central matter at hand", which is why Blacks continue to believe in Christianity.

Not one time, have I see you do this, yet you accuse me of lacking focus.

So now my perspectives are "minutiae" (correct spelling)? And here, I didn't think you could belittle my perspective any more than you already have.

I am becoming redundant? Or is it your response?

Yes, you are, and my response is contingent upon yours. How many times have you told us that "we should respect each other's beliefs", and that this is your "bottom line".


Who is "our?" You and River? :lol: Sorry, couldn't resist. Tell me who our is and maybe I can muster all my reading comprehension skills enough to give it a whirl. :lol:

There seems to be quite a bit that you "can't resist".

"Our" refers to anyone who has been attempting to stay true to the topic. So yes: myself and RIVER, among a few others.


Think again.

Show and prove. You are the only one wearing this "joke" out. You are the only one I see with :lol: 's in reference to it.

Unless you know something I don't, then you are indeed the only one who thinks this is funny.

Losing what? Is this a contest? You mean we have to go through this all over again (getting you to understand these discussions are not contests with winners and losers)?

You are losing credibility. I would think this would be important to you, as someone who wants to "advance" his perspective here.

Can you see the duplicity in those two paragraphs...so close together?

Nope. Feel free to explain it to me.

OK. We've officially descended to the level of bickering. It's childish of us, especially given the reason for my entering the thread in the first place.

All the more my point. Have you stopped to consider that your reason for entering this thread, as it does not run parallel with the purpose of the thread, should be questioned?

PEACE

When I have time, if it's worthwhile, I may.

I've yet to ascertain how you judge something as "worthwhile", and I suspect that I'll never know.


Are you serious?

When am I ever not?

I don't think you have trouble understanding it. That's why I said you got my point. See above, didn't you just say you had to rethink because you werent sure "what you got."

In all honesty, I have no idea what you are talking about, and it's really now "worthwhile" for me to know.

Precision man! This is not like you, leaving so many wide open holes and contradictions in your statements.

....Says the person with "so many wide open holes and contradictions in his statements.".

Untennable? I did?

You tell me.

Maybe you are reading my statements through a jaded lens Brother.

And maybe not. And maybe you really do not come off as altruistic and sincere in your communication as you think you do.

But somehow I suggest that such a notion is beyond consideration. Am I right?

Again, you have failed to point out what perspective I've ignored, you've simply stated that I'm ignoring them.

I'm tired of quoting you. I've already advised you to go back to read my initial question to you.


Well, I suspect that is why you initially typed that you'd "respect other's choice of 'belief'"

Uhhh........Huh? What are you talking about now?

If your goal is to convert people from their way of thinking, and not simply enlighten them, then obviously you cannot respect another's choice, because your aim is to point out enough problems with their beliefs so that they discard it.

And what precisely are you talking about? I just stated (which you quoted from me) that I'm not trying to convert anyone. Only to share and gain knowledge.

My goal is to "simply enlighten them". So what are you talking about? Or, of more import, who?

You and sister river appear divergent on this topic, for she has justified why she will NOT respect other's choice of belief.

And....? All the more reason I'd told you not to lump us together prematurely. Perhaps you now see your folly in this respect.

You ask me to go through this thread and find every comment you listed with ending in a ?

I choose not to do so. If you have a question you need answered, pose it.

Actually that's not what I'm asking to you do. Go back and read the statement you just quoted from me. That's the second time in this thread alone, that you've quoted me, and then mistated what you yourself quoted.

The purpose of quoting someone, goes far beyong slapping the {quote} function around what someone said.

Furthermore, you wouldn't have to do that, if you had shown me enough courtesy to answer these Q's as I had posed them, and not created some reasoning as to why you choose not to now.

Nonsense brother, and you know it. I stated I'm not here to discuss the details of my personal concept of spirituality.
I've not dodged any other question.

I dare you to go back and read my first question to you. How hard is it to do that? I'm not asking you to embark on some great journey. I'll even give you a hint: it's on page 7 of this thread.

Certainly the question of respect has been added, but I disagree that it is needless or irrelevant to the original discussion.

Added by you, no less.....Thus making it obvious as to why you don't find it needless.

However, it does nothing to further the original topic.

We all take ourselves too seriously sometimes.

Your judgement on how I take myself is unwelcomed. How's about simply taking me seriously, if you are going to take me at all, until otherwise requested.

You're beginning to sound like a broken record Brother.

And the sentiment has long since become mutual.

Brother, you know we rarely respond to every word of every post. You don't, I don't, I don't think anyone here does.

Once again, you have not read anything that I've typed here.

I've given you courtesy to quote and respond to everything that you've said in this thread.

I'd taken it upon myself, to respect your perspective enough to consider everything you have typed to be of relevance, lest you would not have taken the time to type it. Are you not the person who has constantly made mention of what is "worthwhile"?

If parts of your post are trivial and shouldn't be responded to then you should make clear which parts are trivial and which parts deserve acknowledgement.

Your irreverence continues to demonstrate itself. Based on what I just stated immediately above, why would you not extend me the same courtesy?

Since you did not, I say this for all people who read this, and who might choos to respond to anything I say in the future:

Anything I take the time to type, is relevant and not trivial. I ask that everyone treats it as such, and I will do the same for you.

OK. Noted. If I'm truly offending you I'll take care not to mention you and river in the same sentence again.

Thank you.

However, it's a bit extreme to not mention myself and River in the same sentence. Just not for the reasons that you have done so thus far.

Interesting. That is supposed to be a given now?

Had you actually been reading my statements since the time I first mentioned that, then you would have known that it was in fact a given.

Why then have you spent all this time engaging me about it? Why not just say, yes Kemet, your mindboggingly redundant position that we respect each other's beliefs is supposed to be a given, now do you care to discuss christianity?

See above. Beyond that, I was hoping that somewhere amidst these responses, was lies someone who was actually interested in what I had to say on the matter, and was even slightly interested in discussing it with me.

Based on this following response:

I would've said thanks, and no, not really, and we're done.

I see that I was mistaken.

You then move on to blast christianity, and either do it respectfully according to your word, or not.

I haven't "blasted" Christianity. I simply give the info as I know it. If it's wrong, then I'd expect someone to correct me.

Instead, I've had to spend needless time "blasting".........you. And of course, I've been doing it "respectfully, according to my word".

We didn't need to go through all this did we?

Apparently not. You could have saved yourself from being "blasted".

No, I do not know why "PEOPLE" continue to believe in christianity... I can't speak for "people."

You weren't expected to.

I've given my opinion as to why I think people believe in christianity, and I've suggested they are the same reasons anyone else has for clinging to their belief system.

Not that it matters now, but I disagree.

PEACE

And once again, my quoting "belief" was not without specific inference. If you weren't sure as to the meaning, then you hold it upon yourself to ask for clarification.

Such is the nature of an inferred statement. Again, I'd made the assumption that you would have understood this. That was my only error, in that instance.

I don't know of any form of effective communication, save poetry, where the onus is upon the reader to magically ascertain inferred statements where the inference is not in fact presented in any logical construct.

You made no inferred statement.

If I said where ever there is an metu neter thumper, there is conflict, and there lies a metu neter thumper...then without saying it, I am inferring there is conflict.

All you did was put the word "belief" in quotes when stating you will respect my beliefs, and now you are claiming I should have derived some (inferred) meaning from the use of those quotes.

Since you've later gone on to admit it should be a "given" that we should respect other's beliefs, whatever special meaning you claim to have inferred (when in reality you haven't inferred anything), did not change the final meaning of your sentence.


Why would you purposefully and consciously not try to address my perspectives?

Don't take my statements out of context.

I've chosen not to address your perspectives on spirituality because central to my position is that your spirituality is YOUR business, not my business, and vice versa.

There's no value in me going around in circles about spirituality when it took 3 pages just to get agreement whether or not a baseline respect is in order.


You don't see that as being irreverent and condescending??

No, if I were advancing my beliefs without being willing to address yours then certainly.

But since I'm simply saying you, I, and everyone else deserve a forum free of attacks, there is nothing irreverent about me declining an invitation to argue about spirituality itself.


I don't agree with your perspectives, but at least I've acknowledged and addressed them.
Except for any discussion about how you personally define spirituality, I can say the same.




You have been advancing your position, at the forsaking of all others. All as the poorly guised auspices of altruism. And that is what I find offensive.
Pooly disguised auspices of altruism?

Again, you make reference to me portraying myself as something other than I am. It is ridiculous Brother.

Since you say it is poorly guised, what is the real motive I have for insisting we respect each other's beliefs? What do you see beneath the guise? What game am I playing?


Surely, you're not suggesting that the dynamic of slavery was the same.....static even, from the time that our people first disembarked from the boat, till the time that we were "supposedly" freed?

What time period during slavery are you speaking about?

Refer to the text I presented, it addresses periodicity and the changing dynamics of slave families. There is significant scholarship that refutes the notion that slave family units were non-existant that document the antebellum 19th and 18th centuries...the text I referred to deals with over 300 years of slave families.


I've already named my sources. Go back and check my previous posts.


No, in fact you didn't name any source to support the following statement:

During the "plantation times", there was really no such thing as the "slave family unit".

Prior to that you had named dropped Dr. Ben and Clarke (without mentioning specific texts) as references after you made a slew of statements, so I have no idea which ones you're purporting are supported in the work of those scholars and which ones are your own interpretations.

I'm interested to know whether Dr. Ben or Clarke have texts which support your conclusion that black slaves who maintained a separate version of christianity were the minority.


Now please understand: I'm not saying that this never took place, only that this was not prevelant.


Many scholars say it was indeed prevalent.

According to many, the existence of a slave family unit was the norm, not the exception.


And once again, I'm asking you what your purpose is....? You've told us over and over, that we "should all just get along". We heard you the first time.

Now what?

I've not said we should all just get along, but yes, hopefully, that would be an admirable outcome out of the respect we've been debating about.



You haven't noted anything, because that's not my issue here. Perhaps if you actually go back and READ what my initial question to you was, then you would know why I'm offended.

OK. I took your offer, I went back and found your initial question to me in this thread (PAGE 6 Post #58)[
It was as follows:

"Something new", in comparison to what? What the same Christiantiy that they practiced, not the same one that Constantine created?

You claim I've ignored your question, when I'm certain I answered it (hence the amazon link).

You made it known you were offended at my references to you and the other un-named person, so why am I supposed to try guessing about what you're offended by now?



This says to me, that you don't know why I'm offended, and you don't care. You offer a reason that has nothing to do with anything I've said (I don't care what your spiritual beliefs are, and I have never asked), solely to satiate your perspective, and no one else's.


See above MAN. If you are offended about something say it. Geez. This is getting beyond silly.



Show and prove. Right now.

I challenge you to pull 10 consecutive words from Webster's Dictionary (or any other, for that matter), where the word is explicitly defined by differentiating it from another term(s).

I'll bet you can't do it.

I don't need to pull any words from the dictionary.

We are engaged in a discussion, a largely rhetorical one at that. In those types of discussions, a definition can go beyond a simple webster's listing.

What is often being defined, as in this case, are claims making up arguments, not singular words. Examples can be used to identify qualifiers, or exceptions, or to distinguish between them. Most people do this naturally but a philosophical framework for it can be found in the Toulmin method.


I've tried my hardest to focus on the "central matter at hand", which is why Blacks continue to believe in Christianity.

Not one time, have I see you do this, yet you accuse me of lacking focus.

I'd agree I've focused more on the question of respect, but you cannot (honestly) say that "not one time" have I addressed river's original topic...I have in fact addressed that topic SEVERAL times, including in the initial post I made in this thread (#42)


Many christians who seek to live a christ-like life, as they know it, sustain their faith not because of any impeccable logic found within the english translation of the bible, but because they've had personal experiences where God has spoken to them, moved them, answered prayers, guided their decisions.

I went back and started counting, counted 3 other posts where I addressed this, and decided to give it up.

I've concluded you're making these sweeping and errant generalizations such as "not one time" out of emotionalism, since it can't possibly be based on the facts of what has been written here.


So now my perspectives are "minutiae" (correct spelling)? And here, I didn't think you could belittle my perspective any more than you already have.
:lol: This is too funny. Were you doing that on purpose?

Don't tell me you seriously mean to correct my spelling of "minutia", to its plural of "minutiae", and then go on to claim I belittled your perspective when I stated you are dragging the discussion into minutia? :lol: Classic.

(I'm inferring your correcting my spelling is minutia(e) ;))


Show and prove. You are the only one wearing this "joke" out. You are the only one I see with :lol: 's in reference to it.
We all take ourselves too seriously sometimes.

I think the dynamic between you and the un-named other person is cute brother, had I known you'd react so belligerently, I'd have never mentioned it.



You are losing credibility. I would think this would be important to you, as someone who wants to "advance" his perspective here.

If I lost credibility on the basis of this discussion it was a credibility I didn't deserve, or desire, in the first place.

If the price of the credibility you speak of is to go along with the flow and nod heads in agreement with the status quo here, feel content in calling my own brothers and sisters ignorant, slaves, sleep, brainless, incapable of comprehension and what not....I ain't buyin....it costs too much.




All the more my point. Have you stopped to consider that your reason for entering this thread, as it does not run parallel with the purpose of the thread, should be questioned?

Sure why not? It (my purpose here) has been questioned....and answered....several times.

As for why I continue to engage you though you and I both know it's pointless (especially since you have now admitted the point I've been making was a "given" all along), well, that's ez...ego.

I don't yet have the spiritual maturity to recognize my purpose is done here and ignore your further responses.

Maybe I'll step away and pray on it, and I'll come back prepared to do so.

PEACE

This is not an easy thing to do.
I was raised on christianity as well.
I have meter neter vol1 and two along with other books on our history/truth.
I'm also rereading the bible again.
Not because I am afraid but because somestimes I am unsure.
When things go wrong in life you were taught to pray to GOD call on jesus and nothing more.
You can't possibly think that people will change over night after centuries of mental slavery and programming.
I explained the lucid like dream/awake episodes I had and I was mocked for it.Now if I follow what my ancestors practiced I'm unsure how or where this will lead me.
I had a very strong one in which I mentioned on another thread and I told my mother and she stated it's because I'm doubting religions.But I have been having these since I was 5yrs old.
So does that mean that since I don't believe entirely in the bible evil has stepped in?
And since I have been reading truth I have had more trance like dreams,sometimes I'm afraid to go sleep.

Take your time, this is a process that has to go at your own pace. I do not expect anyone to do anything in respose to thier own spirutual base. I cannot only concentrate on mine which is currently at it's infancy stage at best. The most important thing to do is to continue to study an feed yourself. You will find out that in most cases you have such a long way to go. DO not develop any un necessary fear in relation to your visions trust and feel the love and affection of your ancestors and they will do the rest.

I don't know of any form of effective communication, save poetry, where the onus is upon the reader to magically ascertain inferred statements where the inference is not in fact presented in any logical construct.

Really?

Let's try:

*Mystery
*True Crime
*Suspense
*Drama

You made no inferred statement.

You don't know what you're talking about, and the proof of this lies in a proceeding statement that I'll point out shortly.

You mention "ego" towards the end of your post..... You've demonstrated your ego many times in this thread, and this is one primary example.

Because you were not able to glean the inference, that means (for you), that there is no inference to be gleaned.

As I'd stated, numerous times in this section, I've made reference to my thoughts on "belief". People who frequent this section (rarely do I see you in this section, so I can see why you missed the inference; I was being sincere when I asked to be pardoned for making the assumption that you would get it) know and/or understand this, and thus when I say "belief", it's with a specific knowledge.

If I said where ever there is an metu neter thumper, there is conflict, and there lies a metu neter thumper...then without saying it, I am inferring there is conflict.

I am smart enough to see what the actual inference here is. That is, afterall, the point of an inference.

All you did was put the word "belief" in quotes when stating you will respect my beliefs, and now you are claiming I should have derived some (inferred) meaning from the use of those quotes.

Since you've later gone on to admit it should be a "given" that we should respect other's beliefs, whatever special meaning you claim to have inferred (when in reality you haven't inferred anything), did not change the final meaning of your sentence.

This is where you prove my point from above:

I have never stated that I will respect your beliefs, nor those of anyone else's.

You are proving that you haven't even read anything I've stated (certainly not with the intent to understand what I am saying), inferences or otherwise.


Don't take my statements out of context.

...Says the person who has been taking mine in the very same manner this entire time.

I've chosen not to address your perspectives on spirituality because central to my position is that your spirituality is YOUR business, not my business, and vice versa.

Therein lies the issue: I've never asked you to discuss your spirituality, or mine.

I simply asked you for a definition of what spirituality is. Are you telling me that you cannot do the latter, without being forced to do the former?

In my first post in which I defined spirituality, that definition had nothing whatsoever to do with my own spiritual orientation.

You mentioned Toulmin: can you not discuss philosophy proper, without discussing a specific philosophical model?

Can you not discuss politics, without discussing your own personal political allegiance (Repub, Demo, etc)?

Can you not discuss sports, without even mentioning your favorite teams?

You continue to tell on yourself.

There's no value in me going around in circles about spirituality when it took 3 pages just to get agreement whether or not a baseline respect is in order.

It took YOU 3 pages to do this. If you had treated it like a given, like everyone else here had done, then we would not be here.

I've been trying to move this discussion forward for the past few pages/days, to no avail. I'm not interesting in debating if respect is in order because:

*That should be, and has always been a given
*That is not the point of this discussion

Stay on topic. If you want to talk about respecting people's beliefs, then why not create a new thread about it?


No, if I were advancing my beliefs without being willing to address yours then certainly.

But that's all you've done here. When do we get to discuss anything other than what you want to talk about?

But since I'm simply saying you, I, and everyone else deserve a forum free of attacks, there is nothing irreverent about me declining an invitation to argue about spirituality itself.

Then once again, I ask: ego notwithstanding, why are you here?

Except for any discussion about how you personally define spirituality, I can say the same.

Do you realize that you are wasting people's time here?

Pooly disguised auspices of altruism?

Again, you make reference to me portraying myself as something other than I am. It is ridiculous Brother.

Since you say it is poorly guised, what is the real motive I have for insisting we respect each other's beliefs? What do you see beneath the guise? What game am I playing?

Since you've stated that "ego" is one of your driving motives for remaining this discussion, then I'm finding it difficult to "believe" (did you catch the inference this time?) that you are really concerned about how people view each other here.

Refer to the text I presented, it addresses periodicity and the changing dynamics of slave families. There is significant scholarship that refutes the notion that slave family units were non-existant that document the antebellum 19th and 18th centuries...the text I referred to deals with over 300 years of slave families.

Uh-huh. I'm not interested in discussing this with you.

No, in fact you didn't name any source to support the following statement:

And then you say:

Prior to that you had named dropped Dr. Ben and Clarke (without mentioning specific texts) as references after you made a slew of statements, so I have no idea which ones you're purporting are supported in the work of those scholars and which ones are your own interpretations.

I'm interested to know whether Dr. Ben or Clarke have texts which support your conclusion that black slaves who maintained a separate version of christianity were the minority.

Is it that I'm not smart enough to name a new source if I was talking about someone different than those mentioned?.........Are is it that you're not smart enough to realize this?

Either way, I'm not furthering that discussion.

Many scholars say it was indeed prevalent.

According to many, the existence of a slave family unit was the norm, not the exception.

I've not said we should all just get along, but yes, hopefully, that would be an admirable outcome out of the respect we've been debating about.

Semantics.

That whole "we should respect each other" shpeel is what I was talking about--just attempting to be facetious about it.

What, you're the only one who can make un-funny jokes?

"We often take ourselves a bit too seriously." :rolleyes:

You made it known you were offended at my references to you and the other un-named person, so why am I supposed to try guessing about what you're offended by now?

See above MAN. If you are offended about something say it. Geez. This is getting beyond silly.

Actually, how you've handled this entire discussion, I find rather distasteful.

You've spent an excessive amount of time coralling this discussion in whatever direction you've seen fit, trivializing any perspective that doesn't match yours, by either ignoring it or naming as such.........And all the while pretending that you weren't doing any of this.

I don't need to pull any words from the dictionary.

We are engaged in a discussion, a largely rhetorical one at that. In those types of discussions, a definition can go beyond a simple webster's listing.

I asked you to define spirituality. A simple Webster's consultation would have sufficed.

That's what I gave you.

If you couldn't define the word, you should have just said so.

What is often being defined, as in this case, are claims making up arguments, not singular words.
"Spirituality" is not a "single word"?

Examples can be used to identify qualifiers, or exceptions, or to distinguish between them. Most people do this naturally but a philosophical framework for it can be found in the Toulmin method.

Says the person who admonished me earlier, for not making things "simplistic enough". :rolleyes:

I'd agree I've focused more on the question of respect, but you cannot (honestly) say that "not one time" have I addressed river's original topic...I have in fact addressed that topic SEVERAL times, including in the initial post I made in this thread (#42)

Uh-huh...

I went back and started counting, counted 3 other posts where I addressed this, and decided to give it up.

I've concluded you're making these sweeping and errant generalizations such as "not one time" out of emotionalism, since it can't possibly be based on the facts of what has been written here.

Sure.


:lol: This is too funny. Were you doing that on purpose?

Don't tell me you seriously mean to correct my spelling of "minutia", to its plural of "minutiae", and then go on to claim I belittled your perspective when I stated you are dragging the discussion into minutia? :lol: Classic.

(I'm inferring your correcting my spelling is minutia(e) ;))

You're extremely petty, in addition to being egotistical.

I'm amazed at how you chose to focus on my pointing out your misspelling--something that I in no way presented in a significant fashion--while choosing to ignore my admonishment of your calling my perspective minutiae in the first place.

But please, continue to tell on yourself. We're all watching. :picture:

We all take ourselves too seriously sometimes.

I think the dynamic between you and the un-named other person is cute brother, had I known you'd react so belligerently, I'd have never mentioned it.

I love your choice of wording.

I didn't act "belligerently". I acted offended. Are these yet more words that you need help defining?

The dynamic betwixt myself and this person is not only not your concern, but also not relevant to this discussion.....Unless you are going to somehow convince us all that it is?


If I lost credibility on the basis of this discussion it was a credibility I didn't deserve, or desire, in the first place.

Then I'll ask you one more time, what you are doing here.

A person who doesn't seem to have much respect for even one or 2 people, doesn't shouldn't "deserve or desire" to be calling for it in the first place.

If the price of the credibility you speak of is to go along with the flow and nod heads in agreement with the status quo here, feel content in calling my own brothers and sisters ignorant, slaves, sleep, brainless, incapable of comprehension and what not....I ain't buyin....it costs too much.

#1) See above.

#2) Says the person who has simply found a more submersive way to do these very same things.

Sure why not? It (my purpose here) has been questioned....and answered....several times.

As for why I continue to engage you though you and I both know it's pointless (especially since you have now admitted the point I've been making was a "given" all along), well, that's ez...ego.

I don't yet have the spiritual maturity to recognize my purpose is done here and ignore your further responses.

Maybe I'll step away and pray on it, and I'll come back prepared to do so.

PEACE

G'night everybody!!! :hi:

Take your time, this is a process that has to go at your own pace. I do not expect anyone to do anything in respose to thier own spirutual base. I cannot only concentrate on mine which is currently at it's infancy stage at best. The most important thing to do is to continue to study an feed yourself. You will find out that in most cases you have such a long way to go. DO not develop any un necessary fear in relation to your visions trust and feel the love and affection of your ancestors and they will do the rest.

Thank you brother I needed to know that:spinstar: :spinstar: :spinstar:

I noticed you only responded to selected statements from post, which as I said before, you've been doing the whole time in this thread...along with everyone else.


This is where you prove my point from above:

I have never stated that I will respect your beliefs, nor those of anyone else's.

Since I don't "believe" (those quotes don't imply any inference, unless you're smart enough to find one that doesn't exist) you to be a forgetful brother, my only conclusion is you are intentionally fabricating both my sentiments and yours, or you are stumbling over your own claims and have lost sight of all that you've said here.

You stated two things: in [post #108, pg 11]


#1) I'm not interested in whether people respect each other's beliefs--at least not right now, not only since that is supposed to be a given, but also because that is not the crux of this subject.

So even though it is supposed to be a "given" that "people" respect other's beliefs, you are not stating you SHALL respect my belief, nor SHALL you respect those of any others.

Even if that is barely logical does it make sense?

Now maybe you meant to type "choice of belief", and that's supposed to be the "given"....even so, you stated on [page 6, post 78]


All that I ask, is that you respect me as your fellow human being, and my choice of "belief", and I shall do the same to you.

So you SHALL respect MY choice of belief if I respect yours, and it should be a "given" that people should respect other's beliefs, but you NEVER stated you will respect my beliefs nor anyone else's.

And you wonder why I keep asking you the same question?

Because you wiggle your way into different answers to it every other post!

How can you lay any claim to logical cohesion of your argument if you spend a paragraph explaining to me your distinction between respecting "choice of belief" and respecting "belief" (a distinction which I publicly agreed with), and proclaim you'll not respect beliefs, but only choices of beliefs, but then turn around a few posts later and say it is a "GIVEN" that people respect other's beliefs?

As I mentioned before, I don't know why you took your hiatus, but though I disagreed with much of your posts before, at least they were logically consistent (more often than not).


You are proving that you haven't even read anything I've stated (certainly not with the intent to understand what I am saying), inferences or otherwise.
See above...further, you don't even know what you've posted...on what page was that initial question you claim I ignored because it was too "tough" again?



Therein lies the issue: I've never asked you to discuss your spirituality, or mine.

I simply asked you for a definition of what spirituality is. Are you telling me that you cannot do the latter, without being forced to do the former?

Again, you don't accurately portray what you have stated in this thread. You didn't ask for any arbitrary definition of spirituality, you asked for MY definition of spirituality.

It is doubtful there is a way for me to discuss MY definition of spirituality without discussing MY spirituality.


In my first post in which I defined spirituality, that definition had nothing whatsoever to do with my own spiritual orientation.
All you did was post a link to wiki article on spirituality.

If that's what kind of definition you were looking for then sure, nothing in that definition conflicts with mine.

But I could not define my spirituality in any comprehensive way with a wiki link.


Can you not discuss politics, without discussing your own personal political allegiance (Repub, Demo, etc)?
sure, but it would difficult to discuss your personal political philosophy without doing so, which is a more precise analogy for this scenario.



You continue to tell on yourself.

adds nothing to the discussion.



It took YOU 3 pages to do this. If you had treated it like a given, like everyone else here had done, then we would not be here.
Show and Prove. Right Now. lol.

Show me what evidence you have that EVERYONE in this thread has taken respecting other's "beliefs" OR respecting other's "choice of belief", as a GIVEN.

I submit direct evidence exists to the contrary.

I'd bet this will be one of statements which you decline to respond.




But that's all you've done here. When do we get to discuss anything other than what you want to talk about?

No mod has shut down anything here.



Then once again, I ask: ego notwithstanding, why are you here?
asked and answered.



Do you realize that you are wasting people's time here?
People read what they choose to read. I cannot be wasting anyone's time who does not desire to have it wasted.


Since you've stated that "ego" is one of your driving motives for remaining this discussion, then I'm finding it difficult to "believe" (did you catch the inference this time?) that you are really concerned about how people view each other here.
That's your belief. So be it. I do not "believe" that you held any different "belief" before you ever entered this thread.

It is not mutually exclusive for one to have a too-large ego
and still care about his/her people.

Marcus Garvey was said by many to be an extraordinarily egotistical man, none too many question his concern for black people.


Uh-huh. I'm not interested in discussing this with you.

that's your choice. I can respect it.



Is it that I'm not smart enough to name a new source if I was talking about someone different than those mentioned?.........Are is it that you're not smart enough to realize this?
Irrelevant to the issue.

The fact remains you didn't name a source for your statement about the composition of slave family units.

If you did, show and prove.

(didn't you just say you weren't interested in discussing this?)


Either way, I'm not furthering that discussion.

Oh I see. Your choice... again. I respect your right to engage and disengage as you see fit.




Actually, how you've handled this entire discussion, I find rather distasteful. It could've been handled better on both our parts, but it is what it is. So now we deal.



You've spent an excessive amount of time coralling this discussion in whatever direction you've seen fit, trivializing any perspective that doesn't match yours, by either ignoring it or naming as such.........And all the while pretending that you weren't doing any of this.
I disagree. I haven't trivialized anything, I've chosen to engage on my own terms and on those things I care to engage about. Every participant in a discussion has the ability, and responsibility, to do the same.




I asked you to define spirituality. A simple Webster's consultation would have sufficed.
the wiki you posted is fine with me for a generic definition of the term. You asked me for MY definition, which I declined to give, but if you're truly interested in sticking to River's initial topic you'd see that has nothing to do with it.




If you couldn't define the word, you should have just said so. adds nothing.



Says the person who admonished me earlier, for not making things "simplistic enough". :rolleyes:
no such admonishment exists.





You're extremely petty, in addition to being egotistical.
. Noted. That's your belief. You're entitled to it. You're half right, though it's sad to see the new samurai reduce himself to blatant name calling.



I'm amazed at how you chose to focus on my pointing out your misspelling--something that I in no way presented in a significant fashion--while choosing to ignore my admonishment of your calling my perspective minutiae in the first place.
I didn't ignore it, did you actually read my post? Go back and read the paragraph in question again.



But please, continue to tell on yourself. We're all watching. :picture: adds nothing




I didn't act "belligerently". I acted offended. Are these yet more words that you need help defining?
I contend you acted as both...but this is irrelevant.



The dynamic betwixt myself and this person is not only not your concern, but also not relevant to this discussion.....Unless you are going to somehow convince us all that it is?
Noted. And already retracted....irrelevant.





Then I'll ask you one more time, what you are doing here.

Please stop pestering me with questions I've already answered.



A person who doesn't seem to have much respect for even one or 2 people, doesn't shouldn't "deserve or desire" to be calling for it in the first place.
Agreed.

But I challenge you to provide evidence of who that person might be based on specific quotes in this thread.

I could lay down overwhelming evidence, but it would have no import because despite your incredible claims otherwise, those doing the fruitless name calling are not calling for respect of any kind.

Since you are on record, recently, as referring to your own brother as making a "fool" of himself, you are without doubt included in that category....but then, I knew that when I started this, and unfortunately not much has changed.

PEACE

........

Oh I'm sorry. Were you looking for a response to this? :confused:

........

Oh I'm sorry. Were you looking for a response to this? :confused:

Lol. Only If any choose to do so.

Sorry, I'm declining.

Somehow, us telling each other how terrible of persons we are, has begun to lose its magic.

However, I'm up for a healthy discussion on spirituality, if you are. :)

PEACE

Sorry, I'm declining.

Somehow, us telling each other how terrible of persons we are, has begun to lose its magic.

However, I'm up for a healthy discussion on spirituality, if you are. :)

PEACE

Nice.

A wise lady advised me last night that the energy in the spiritual forum can be harnessed for our own good, if we can figure out how to do it.

As for my personal engagement, it will be sporadic, as I am currently studying a couple different belief systems.

Since they (one of them at least) is likely to be presented here, I cannot fully engage before having at least a precusory grasp of their teachings.

Nice.

A wise lady advised me last night that the energy in the spiritual forum can be harnessed for our own good, if we can figure out how to do it.

As for my personal engagement, it will be sporadic, as I am currently studying a couple different belief systems.

Since they (one of them at least) is likely to be presented here, I cannot fully engage before having at least a precusory grasp of their teachings.

That's peace.

But I still think that a precursory defining of what spirituality is for you, would be helpful if we are to discuss it.

It's my personal view that spirituality proper tends to be misconstrued and misdefined the world over.

One popular misconception, is that some of the things that we attribute to being "spiritual", are in actuality not spiritual at all. Oftentimes they are emotional.

I'm (mostly) prepare to give my understanding of spirituality, from the etymological to the historical. None of which should ever be taken trivially, especially if we all are striving for any sort of spiritual elevation.

It is without irony that all of this lends itself to very topic of this thread. That's why I kept stressing a return to my original point; that of defining what spirituality is.


PEACE

That's why I kept stressing a return to my original point; that of defining what spirituality is.


PEACE

There was nothing in the link you posted I found conflicting with my concept of spirituality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality#Spirituality_and_science

There was nothing in the link you posted I found conflicting with my concept of spirituality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality#Spirituality_and_science

Cool.

But, before we proceed here, I was wondering what happened to your last post in the "WHITE SUPREMACY" thread. I was preparing to respond to it, and then it was gone.

PEACE

Cool.

But, before we proceed here, I was wondering what happened to your last post in the "WHITE SUPREMACY" thread. I was preparing to respond to it, and then it was gone.

PEACE

I deleted it.

I concluded, after I posted, my interaction in it would only end up where we've already come to in this thread.

I'll need to try a different approach.

:couple: I'm glad this ended peacefully because I was about to take my househoe off:uzi:

This is not an easy thing to do.
I was raised on christianity as well.
I have meter neter vol1 and two along with other books on our history/truth.
I'm also rereading the bible again.
Not because I am afraid but because somestimes I am unsure.
When things go wrong in life you were taught to pray to GOD call on jesus and nothing more.
You can't possibly think that people will change over night after centuries of mental slavery and programming.
I explained the lucid like dream/awake episodes I had and I was mocked for it.Now if I follow what my ancestors practiced I'm unsure how or where this will lead me.
I had a very strong one in which I mentioned on another thread and I told my mother and she stated it's because I'm doubting religions.But I have been having these since I was 5yrs old.
So does that mean that since I don't believe entirely in the bible evil has stepped in?
And since I have been reading truth I have had more trance like dreams,sometimes I'm afraid to go sleep.
Yes, I know it is hard, sista heart. And I know it doesn't happen over night. If we could just remember that the God we so desparately need to pray to is not the god of any certain book or religion. Remember Music Producer believes that white supremecy and all the troubles we have as a people are because we DO worship Jesus. Then we got people saying it's because we DON'T worship Jesus. All these interpretations but the bottom line is we sometimes feel like there is no bottom. That's when we have to reach out to our Creator who was there before any man ever wrote a book or built a temple.

Yes, I know it is hard, sista heart. And I know it doesn't happen over night. If we could just remember that the God we so desparately need to pray to is not the god of any certain book or religion. Remember Music Producer believes that white supremecy and all the troubles we have as a people are because we DO worship Jesus. Then we got people saying it's because we DON'T worship Jesus. All these interpretations but the bottom line is we sometimes feel like there is no bottom. That's when we have to reach out to our Creator who was there before any man ever wrote a book or built a temple.

Very true!
Alot of us donot know how to do this without referring back to a book or a temple.

Very true!
Alot of us donot know how to do this without referring back to a book or a temple.
Nothing wrong with that. Books aare here to remind us of what is inside of us because sometimes it is so deep inside--so buried under a lot of other garbage from our lives that it takes reading it or hearing it to remind us and then we say "yes i know that's right." One of my favorite passages is Hebrews 13 and I think verse 7

Let your conversation (lifestyle) be without covetiousness but be content with such things as you have for he has said "I will never leave you nor forsake you" so that we may boldly say "The Lord is my helper, I shall not fear what men shall do unto me."

How do I know that is true? Becaause the bible says so or because the Creator has already shown me and this verse is there to remind me when the circumstances of my life seem to challenge me?

River wrote: ''... in the Bible the Apostle Paul comes right out and admits that he lied to the people.''

Q. About what?

River wrote: ''According to the word of an admitted liar Jesus was raised from the dead.''

Qs River. By admission or omission have you ever lied? Can an ''admitted liar'' tell the truth?

As a result of Paul's ministry, the number of coverts to Christianity grew exponentially.

Qs. Who would knowingly risk life and limb for a pundit of prevarication armed with his own false gospel?
Who would subject oneself to mayhem and martyrdom for what they know to be a lie?
Paul was reportedly a logician, not a magician.


So now, what do we make of the following passages?


2 Corinthians 12:16 - But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

2 Timothy 2:8 - Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:


Alone, the Apostle Paul's discourse is indefensible (as River suggests). However, in lieu of logic, the premise advanced in this thread by its author simply put:
Doesn't fit the facts. Read for yourself the passages prior to the verse in question:

''... I will not be burdensome to you; for I do not seek yours, but you. For the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved. But be that as it may, I did not burden you.'' (Thus far does this sound like a man who's about to confess he's a liar?) Now the verse in question:

''Nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you by guile''.

Notice that in light of the passages that proceed it, this verse appears completely incongruous, doesn't it? Which generally means a little ethos is in order.

The Apostle Paul was in Cornith to take up an offering for Christians suffering in Judea. Paul's critics (mostly the chief apostles of Cornith) were in the ministry impart for financial gain. They used craft, cunning, and guile to dupe the Corinithian believers. As is often the case, your accuser will slander you with innuendo and with what they themselves are guilty. In this case, Paul was the target of their innuendo and accusations. So,

How did Paul diffuse the slanderous word bombs of his detractors? He couches their innuendo in a statement punctuated with a pinch of sarcasm and promptly ask the people of Cornith a series of rhetorical questions.

Note the sarcasm: ''Nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you by guile''. It's as if Paul is saying: ''You know, being a liar and all, I used guile to gain your trust--right? Wrong!'' (Because here comes his immediate refutation of this ''slanderous innuendo'' via these rhetorical questions):

''Did I take advantage of you by any of those whom I sent to you? I urged Titus, and sent our brother with him. Did Titus take advantage of you? Did we not walk in the same spirit? Did we not walk in the same steps?''


Given the proper context, one may argue with relative certainty that the Apostle Paul was seizing the moment at hand to absolve himself of all innuendo and accusations against him. Next, Re:

2 Timothy 2:8 - ''Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel.'' In the interest of time, you will find a summary of ''Paul's Gospel'' here: (Romans 1.1-5)&(1 Corinthians 15.1-4).


River wrote: ''So what is it that keeps people believing what they know is not true?''


There is neither enough time nor bandwidth here to adequately address this question. Nevertheless,

''No two beliefs, doctrines, or statements that completely contradict one another can be true at the same time in the same sense. Each can be wrong, but each cannot be right. Truth must be tested for Experiential relevancy, Empirical adequacy, and Logical consistency.''

Peace

What has your "Religion / Spirituality" done ... in terms of proven tangible results for our people ... that Christianity has not?

Sister River ... i asked the above question, in this post (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=443380&postcount=100).

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but would love to hear your response to the above, if you don't mind.

Thanks Sister.

:heart:

Destee

River wrote: ''... in the Bible the Apostle Paul comes right out and admits that he lied to the people.''

Q. About what?

You answered this in your very next statement.


River wrote: ''According to the word of an admitted liar Jesus was raised from the dead.''

And here is your answer.

Qs River. By admission or omission have you ever lied? Can an ''admitted liar'' tell the truth?

An admitted liar is, by admission, not telling the truth about the subject that he is lying about.

As a result of Paul's ministry, the number of coverts to Christianity grew exponentially.

And this means what, exactly?

If a liar leads someone down the wrong path willfully based on his lie, then who becomes at fault?

Qs. Who would knowingly risk life and limb for a pundit of prevarication armed with his own false gospel?
Who would subject oneself to mayhem and martyrdom for what they know to be a lie?

Your syllogism here leaves much to be desired. There have been many a leader that has willfully led his followers down a wrong path for clandestine and sinister reasons.

We happen to have one such individual, currently occupying the American Presidential Office.

Paul was reportedly a logician, not a magician.

Actually, by his own admission, he was reportedly a politician, and neither of those things that you allege.


So now, what do we make of the following passages?


2 Corinthians 12:16 - But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

2 Timothy 2:8 - Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

In and of themselves, very little.


Alone, the Apostle Paul's discourse is indefensible (as River suggests). However, in lieu of logic, the premise advanced in this thread by its author simply put:
Doesn't fit the facts. Read for yourself the passages prior to the verse in question:

''... I will not be burdensome to you; for I do not seek yours, but you. For the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved. But be that as it may, I did not burden you.'' (Thus far does this sound like a man who's about to confess he's a liar?) Now the verse in question:

''Nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you by guile''.

It seems that you are picking and choosing verses, and interpreting them as you see fit. Now, I'm sure that the same could be said of those who oppose your view here....But that does not negate the fact that you yourself are doing such.

But since you are throwing out verses to be independently scrutinized, allow me to do the same:

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Here, this verse alone makes the sole admission, on Paul's behalf, that he is indeed lying, and that the lie he is telling, is directly in reference to "his" (Christ's) glory.

And what of this:

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

What office is being spoken of here?

Well, since Paul was originally a politician in the Roman employ, it stands to recon that since he had transferred his doctrin of redemption to the Gentiles (see both preceding and proceeding verses of the above), all in direction contradiction of what Jesus himself taught, this is a clear indicator of motive.

Notice that in light of the passages that proceed it, this verse appears completely incongruous, doesn't it? Which generally means a little ethos is in order.

The Apostle Paul was in Cornith to take up an offering for Christians suffering in Judea. Paul's critics (mostly the chief apostles of Cornith) were in the ministry impart for financial gain. They used craft, cunning, and guile to dupe the Corinithian believers. As is often the case, your accuser will slander you with innuendo and with what they themselves are guilty. In this case, Paul was the target of their innuendo and accusations.

I wonder why? :?:

So,

How did Paul diffuse the slanderous word bombs of his detractors? He couches their innuendo in a statement punctuated with a pinch of sarcasm and promptly ask the people of Cornith a series of rhetorical questions.

And what of the Romans? Was he doing the same to/for/against them?

Note the sarcasm: ''Nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you by guile''. It's as if Paul is saying: ''You know, being a liar and all, I used guile to gain your trust--right? Wrong!'' (Because here comes his immediate refutation of this ''slanderous innuendo'' via these rhetorical questions):

''Did I take advantage of you by any of those whom I sent to you? I urged Titus, and sent our brother with him. Did Titus take advantage of you? Did we not walk in the same spirit? Did we not walk in the same steps?''


Given the proper context, one may argue with relative certainty that the Apostle Paul was seizing the moment at hand to absolve himself of all innuendo and accusations against him.

Next, Re:
2 Timothy 2:8 - ''Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel.'' In the interest of time, you will find a summary of ''Paul's Gospel'' here: (Romans 1.1-5)&(1 Corinthians 15.1-4).

What it sounds like, is that Paul, being a politician, was playing political games with other Politicians.

Is this was Jesus would have done? I think not.


River wrote: ''So what is it that keeps people believing what they know is not true?''


There is neither enough time nor bandwidth here to adequately address this question. Nevertheless,

''No two beliefs, doctrines, or statements that completely contradict one another can be true at the same time in the same sense. Each can be wrong, but each cannot be right. Truth must be tested for Experiential relevancy, Empirical adequacy, and Logical consistency.''

Peace

This sounds like Fascism in the worst of ways. The truth or truths are not limited to one pespsective(s). There is truth in all things, and often times a considerable amount of fallacy in all things as well.

For instance, the only "truth" uttered from Paul, is his admission to lying. But it is a truth nonetheless, and not an insignificant one.

PEACE

Hi sister :heart:



i would like to respond .....

but first i have to understand youre question...

what do you mean with...

""christianity""


mean with "" people continue ro believe in christianity "

christianity Or continue to believe in Christ ....?
the body of christ...

or continue to believe in jezus the son of god and his works as a revealing of gods love showing to this earth....

or continue to read the word ..wich was written trough the hands of human like you and i who were not perfect cause no one is (like mozes hit a man dead but brought the 10 comends wich were from god) but wich was inspiret by gods holy spirrit .In wich people who believe, believe that no word that will comes from him will fade but is everlasting and stand strong for that is called truth....

help me to understand....? the question..





Loveauroraflower:heart:

Sister River ... i asked the above question, in this post (http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=443380&postcount=100).

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but would love to hear your response to the above, if you don't mind.

Thanks Sister.

:heart:

Destee
Hi sista Destee,

I'm not going to interpret this question as your beating a dead horse. That would be a negative start when I know we are on the same page about the really crucial, central issue.

Okay I will try to answer this question .

1. Afrocentric religious traditions have shown us our heritage as African peoples. Christianity has not. If one has faith in a book that says the Earth is only 6-10 thousand years old then one must of necessity reject the idea of civilizations existing many tens of thousands of years ago, There is no place for Tasmania in the bible. There are those who try to fit Africa into the bible but the Africans one finds in the bible are always servents or enemies of God.

2. Afrocentric spiritual systems open our eyes to the evils of white supremacy. I was reading a survey of 120 ministers taken during the nineteenth century and they unanimously said that there is absolutely nolthing in the bible that prohibits slavery. Yet I know of several scriptures that justify it.

When I go to a white church the man is using the pulpit as a soapbox for George Bush. When I said something against Bush on a white christian message board the other members all in unison rolled their emoticon eyes at me.

But when I go to a Black church the preacher says "Yawl don't worry about what George Bush is doing. Just feed the hungry refugees." In other words ignore the man behind the curtain. And when I suggested that maybe it was the neglect of the levee and not Katrina that caused the disaster there was a look of fright in their eyes as they hushed me into silence.

3. Afrocentric spiritual systems teach us to protect what is ours. Christianity teaches us that nothing is ours so we should turn the other cheek and forgive the white men who stole what was not ours to begin with.

Sista Destee, I am not going by what I believe nor by what I have divined to be in the hearts of christians. I am going by what I have seen and been taught in the many churches that I have attended in six different states.

Hi sister :heart:



i would like to respond .....

but first i have to understand youre question...

what do you mean with...

""christianity""


mean with "" people continue ro believe in christianity "

christianity Or continue to believe in Christ ....?
the body of christ...

or continue to believe in jezus the son of god and his works as a revealing of gods love showing to this earth....

or continue to read the word ..wich was written trough the hands of human like you and i who were not perfect cause no one is (like mozes hit a man dead but brought the 10 comends wich were from god) but wich was inspiret by gods holy spirrit .In wich people who believe, believe that no word that will comes from him will fade but is everlasting and stand strong for that is called truth....

help me to understand....? the question..
Loveauroraflower:heart:
Hi sista Auroraflower,

Thanks for your response.

By christianity I mean the doctrines taught in the bible and by the church. By christians I mean those who believe and teach that the bible is the only authoritative communication from God to man who weigh everything by whether it agrees with the bible and who believe that anyone who disagrees with them is going to hell.

@Samurai,

My initial questions were for River. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence here to suggest that River can speak for herself. For the purpose of my questions, anything short of that is completely unsatisfactory.


Lokman: As a result of Paul's ministry, the number of coverts to Christianity grew exponentially.

Samurai wrote: ''And this means what, exactly?''

Lokman: Few will risk life and limb for what they know to be a lie. One has to rape rhyme and reason to do so. Yet, insofar as Paul was able to achieve his aim in mass, this is exactly what happened. Given the fact that the premise being advanced here is that Paul is an ''Admitted Liar'', the rapid spread of Christianity is all the more unusual.


Lokman: So now, what do we make of the following passages?

2 Corinthians 12:16 - But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

2 Timothy 2:8 - Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Samurai wrote: ''In and of themselves, very little.''

Lokman: Thank you for re-enforcing my point.


Samurai: ''It seems that you are picking and choosing verses, and interpreting them as you see fit. Now, I'm sure that the same could be said of those who oppose your view here....But that does not negate the fact that you yourself are doing such.''

Lokman: On the contrary. I simply included the passages immediately before and after the verse in question in order to establish the context in which Paul was speaking. The members here can decide for themselves what they believe.

Lokman: ''No two beliefs, doctrines, or statements that completely contradict one another can be true at the same time in the same sense. Each can be wrong, but each cannot be right. Truth must be tested for Experiential relevancy, Empirical adequacy, and Logical consistency.''

Samurai: ''This sounds like Fascism in the worst of ways. The truth or truths are not limited to one pespsective(s). There is truth in all things, and often times a considerable amount of fallacy in all things as well.''


Lokman: My post is not about any one of your 5 senses. Conversely, Samurai, you can find the genesis of your ideas on truth in the writings of German philosophers Kant, Hegel, and Fuhrbach. Over time, their philosophical dialectic was co-opted by a cabal of Nazi Germans and their anointed Fuhrer. An incubation period later, their dialectical ideas on truth metastasized into full-blown Fascism.

Presently this world view is pervasive throughout America: where truth has fallen in the street and equity cannot enter. As a result, the Fourth Reich has the "Divided States of America" on the ropes in a Philosophical Chokehold.


Samurai: ''The truth or truths are not limited to one pespsective(s). There is truth in all things, and often times a considerable amount of fallacy in all things as well.''

Samurai: ''For instance, the only "truth" uttered from Paul, is his admission to lying.''

Lokman: How ironic, given your Worldview on truth, you would end with what you believe to be an absolute truth. And about the idea there is such a thing as absolute truth: We agree.


Until,

If Christianity, or Afrocentric Religious Systems (which there are many)...or Buddhiism (which I am one)....
brings a man peace and contentment....
allows him to conduct him/her self with dignity and respect.....
teaches them compassion for those less fortunate......

then I don't see what the problem is with Christianity. Or any relgious / philosophical system.

The easiest thing to do is to pick and find faults in any religious system.....then proceed to make the practitioners of that religion feel small-minded or outdated.
Now regardless of what religion you practice, that is what I find un-spiritual...or un-holy.

I may sound truly stupid here, because Im not listing quotes and scriptures.....but I keep it simple......there are good and bad people in every religion on earth. There may be aspects of a certain religion I dont approve o.
But if that religiion has revitalized that person's life, (and the lives of others)....brings them a sense of peace and copassion, and love......then woulld'nt it just be a feature of my EGO to try to diminish or belittle this person? And to go on a public hate campaign against the entire religion?


it is not the cup that quenches your thirst...it's the water within.

@Samurai,

My initial questions were for River. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence here to suggest that River can speak for herself. For the purpose of my questions, anything short of that is completely unsatisfactory.


Lokman: As a result of Paul's ministry, the number of coverts to Christianity grew exponentially.

Samurai wrote: ''And this means what, exactly?''

Lokman: Few will risk life and limb for what they know to be a lie. One has to rape rhyme and reason to do so. Yet, insofar as Paul was able to achieve his aim in mass, this is exactly what happened. Given the fact that the premise being advanced here is that Paul is an ''Admitted Liar'', the rapid spread of Christianity is all the more unusual.


Lokman: So now, what do we make of the following passages?

2 Corinthians 12:16 - But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

2 Timothy 2:8 - Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Samurai wrote: ''In and of themselves, very little.''

Lokman: Thank you for re-enforcing my point.


Samurai: ''It seems that you are picking and choosing verses, and interpreting them as you see fit. Now, I'm sure that the same could be said of those who oppose your view here....But that does not negate the fact that you yourself are doing such.''

Lokman: On the contrary. I simply included the passages immediately before and after the verse in question in order to establish the context in which Paul was speaking. The members here can decide for themselves what they believe.

Lokman: ''No two beliefs, doctrines, or statements that completely contradict one another can be true at the same time in the same sense. Each can be wrong, but each cannot be right. Truth must be tested for Experiential relevancy, Empirical adequacy, and Logical consistency.''

Samurai: ''This sounds like Fascism in the worst of ways. The truth or truths are not limited to one pespsective(s). There is truth in all things, and often times a considerable amount of fallacy in all things as well.''


Lokman: My post is not about any one of your 5 senses. Conversely, Samurai, you can find the genesis of your ideas on truth in the writings of German philosophers Kant, Hegel, and Fuhrbach. Over time, their philosophical dialectic was co-opted by a cabal of Nazi Germans and their anointed Fuhrer. An incubation period later, their dialectical ideas on truth metastasized into full-blown Fascism.

Presently this world view is pervasive throughout America: where truth has fallen in the street and equity cannot enter. As a result, the Fourth Reich has the "Divided States of America" on the ropes in a Philosophical Chokehold.


Samurai: ''The truth or truths are not limited to one pespsective(s). There is truth in all things, and often times a considerable amount of fallacy in all things as well.''

Samurai: ''For instance, the only "truth" uttered from Paul, is his admission to lying.''

Lokman: How ironic, given your Worldview on truth, you would end with what you believe to be an absolute truth. And about the idea there is such a thing as absolute truth: We agree.


Until,
The bible tells us that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Outside of Paul's on claims there is no witness establishing any aspect of his doctrine or his ministry. Without that establishment nothing that he says about himself can be taken as fact. Except the fact that he lied because one cannot say that he was lying when he said he lied.

It does no good to ask whether someone who has lied can turn around and tell the truth. We are talking here about words written in a book which its propoments claim to be divine truth in its entirety. There can be no insignificant little lies that do not affect the whole.

Furthermore in the epistle to the Galatians he gives a sworm afidavit that while the other christians were suffering persecution in Jerusalem and Rome he was in Arabia doing Lord knows what so there is absolutely no basis to the idea that he sufferred anything for the lie he admitted to telling. Couching his admission in words of love is a common trick. Claiming that he was the only one that cared about the people can also be expected from a man who no other apostle vouched for, not even Barnabas after it became clear that his doctrines were not the doctrines of the original twelve apostles.

Sam does not have to apologize for answwering this question Nothing about it pertained to me personally so he did right and he answered quite well.

@Samurai,

My initial questions were for River. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence here to suggest that River can speak for herself. For the purpose of my questions, anything short of that is completely unsatisfactory.


Lokman: As a result of Paul's ministry, the number of coverts to Christianity grew exponentially.

Samurai wrote: ''And this means what, exactly?''

Lokman: Few will risk life and limb for what they know to be a lie. One has to rape rhyme and reason to do so. Yet, insofar as Paul was able to achieve his aim in mass, this is exactly what happened. Given the fact that the premise being advanced here is that Paul is an ''Admitted Liar'', the rapid spread of Christianity is all the more unusual.


Lokman: So now, what do we make of the following passages?

2 Corinthians 12:16 - But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

2 Timothy 2:8 - Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Samurai wrote: ''In and of themselves, very little.''

Lokman: Thank you for re-enforcing my point.


Samurai: ''It seems that you are picking and choosing verses, and interpreting them as you see fit. Now, I'm sure that the same could be said of those who oppose your view here....But that does not negate the fact that you yourself are doing such.''

Lokman: On the contrary. I simply included the passages immediately before and after the verse in question in order to establish the context in which Paul was speaking. The members here can decide for themselves what they believe.

Lokman: ''No two beliefs, doctrines, or statements that completely contradict one another can be true at the same time in the same sense. Each can be wrong, but each cannot be right. Truth must be tested for Experiential relevancy, Empirical adequacy, and Logical consistency.''

Samurai: ''This sounds like Fascism in the worst of ways. The truth or truths are not limited to one pespsective(s). There is truth in all things, and often times a considerable amount of fallacy in all things as well.''


Lokman: My post is not about any one of your 5 senses. Conversely, Samurai, you can find the genesis of your ideas on truth in the writings of German philosophers Kant, Hegel, and Fuhrbach. Over time, their philosophical dialectic was co-opted by a cabal of Nazi Germans and their anointed Fuhrer. An incubation period later, their dialectical ideas on truth metastasized into full-blown Fascism.

Presently this world view is pervasive throughout America: where truth has fallen in the street and equity cannot enter. As a result, the Fourth Reich has the "Divided States of America" on the ropes in a Philosophical Chokehold.


Samurai: ''The truth or truths are not limited to one pespsective(s). There is truth in all things, and often times a considerable amount of fallacy in all things as well.''

Samurai: ''For instance, the only "truth" uttered from Paul, is his admission to lying.''

Lokman: How ironic, given your Worldview on truth, you would end with what you believe to be an absolute truth. And about the idea there is such a thing as absolute truth: We agree.


Until,

It's interesting that you cut the grsitle from my last post, choosing to ignore the prime cut.

Your response to my statements reads like a bad by-line from the NY TIMES.

I bid you, please go back to my post, and respond to it in its entirety.

PEACE

*EDIT*

Allow me to respond to this post a little more in-depth:

Lokman: As a result of Paul's ministry, the number of coverts to Christianity grew exponentially.

Samurai wrote: ''And this means what, exactly?''

Lokman: Few will risk life and limb for what they know to be a lie. One has to rape rhyme and reason to do so. Yet, insofar as Paul was able to achieve his aim in mass, this is exactly what happened. Given the fact that the premise being advanced here is that Paul is an ''Admitted Liar'', the rapid spread of Christianity is all the more unusual.

"Unusual" does not translate into inaccurate. What assertion (beyond supposition) can you tender, that might refute this perspective?

Also, it is very seldom that politicians (who are notorious for being liars) "risk life and limb" for anything.

Lokman: So now, what do we make of the following passages?

2 Corinthians 12:16 - But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

2 Timothy 2:8 - Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Samurai wrote: ''In and of themselves, very little.''

Lokman: Thank you for re-enforcing my point.

Your point, which was....?

I don't think that you understood my point, in order to assert that it is re-enforcing yours.

I made very little of those verses, because all those verses do, is serve as a rebuttal to Paul's opponents--something that politicians are notorious for.

A rebuttal in a political debate (more like a scandal) is not the equivolent of demonstrating integrity.

As I have earlier referenced, GW BUSH had bickered back and forth with his rivaling candidates in the past, and in doing so, all he did was take the spotlight off of himself, and place it onto his opponents.

Samurai: ''It seems that you are picking and choosing verses, and interpreting them as you see fit. Now, I'm sure that the same could be said of those who oppose your view here....But that does not negate the fact that you yourself are doing such.''

Lokman: On the contrary. I simply included the passages immediately before and after the verse in question in order to establish the context in which Paul was speaking. The members here can decide for themselves what they believe.

Are you sincerely saying that your demonstration of these passages is not without your own particular perspective regarding them? Is your perspective an objective, bi-partisan one?

If not, then you are doing the same thing that everyone else is doing, which is conveying your perspective for group scrutiny.

Lokman: ''No two beliefs, doctrines, or statements that completely contradict one another can be true at the same time in the same sense. Each can be wrong, but each cannot be right. Truth must be tested for Experiential relevancy, Empirical adequacy, and Logical consistency.''

Samurai: ''This sounds like Fascism in the worst of ways. The truth or truths are not limited to one pespsective(s). There is truth in all things, and often times a considerable amount of fallacy in all things as well.''


Lokman: My post is not about any one of your 5 senses. Conversely, Samurai, you can find the genesis of your ideas on truth in the writings of German philosophers Kant, Hegel, and Fuhrbach. Over time, their philosophical dialectic was co-opted by a cabal of Nazi Germans and their anointed Fuhrer. An incubation period later, their dialectical ideas on truth metastasized into full-blown Fascism.

Your divergent diatribe about Fascism notwithstanding, my point here continues to be amiss.

The truth, as it pertains to human understanding, is all about the 5 senses (though I had not explicitly mentioned them here).

Besides, I had never stated that Fascism is not without its own aspects of truth. But no system all on its lonesome represents an Absolute Truth. That is a fallacy.

Presently this world view is pervasive throughout America: where truth has fallen in the street and equity cannot enter. As a result, the Fourth Reich has the "Divided States of America" on the ropes in a Philosophical Chokehold.

Now this, I do agree with.

I would even venture a bit further to say, that this was the intent of this "DSA" that you mentioned, from its very onset.

Lokman: How ironic, given your Worldview on truth, you would end with what you believe to be an absolute truth. And about the idea there is such a thing as absolute truth: We agree.

Actually, you are putting words into my mouth.

Nothing within my statement (whether explicit nor implicit) would lead you to such a conclusion about my personal perspective.

I adhere to the mindset that there is a Universal Truth, not an Absolute one. I'm sure, given your philosophical inclinations, that you are able to fathom the difference.

PEACE

hi sister :heart:


thank you for youre responding:heart:....


as i readed youre responding i found the deeper message in youre question..

i would like to respond at youres...:heart:
I think that everyone here has a message a purpose,(its inportent to know who you are ,where you stand and what you have tribut as good into the community and world....everyone here has a gift ,a tallent ,a calling,and purpuse ,we should always take everyones serius ,even if i would not agree





Believe is a personal matter.....

though the bible was written...
I do believe god continues to communicate trough and to people still....(and he chooses whom he wants)
it is there in the bibel to ..."'in the last days god will cast out his spirrit trough and to man daugthers and sons..."' (the holy spirrit) and some have inportent messages for his or and the people.........
and is for us to filter is to see and to believe what is truth ...and what is light and brings us fruits and makes us move forwards...
Jezus said "i will send you the comforter...the holy spirrit whom will guide you and show the future (correct me of i didnt put it right,,,)
But we have to watch out cause he also talked about fals teachers...
Whom even reveals somthimes in preachers.....
people whom reject the truth because they can take it..
or people whom twist the truth because of their own good...





Than the question they ask but what is truth....?(Cause you have a LOT of fals Truths:mad: wich does not make people move forward ,keeps them there)
and there for it is a personal matter ...for i believe ..the word ...and that what is everlasting trough all times is the truth....wich comes from god .
and wich that comes from him is strong like a 2 cutted sword ...


I know i have been there to ,people sumthimes ad not nice things to sumthing that is beautifull...."'ways "' systems"" "'acts""things that people ad to sumthing or take away for their own ways ...not gods way......

but that is why he says (its in the bibel to) "'seek trough and behold the good"'

And i am not going to turn my eyes aways from this word. (,because it is also beautifull alive brings you spirritual food to eat ,and a lot of people take a lot of wisdom from it, and a lot of religions came out of it but yet some attac it..........not you sister :heart:...cause i know you have an other message for us wich is serius and it takes a lot of curiage and i love you ) because people spoilled it trough their walk........

For example ,that Thing about Going to HELL WICH PEOPLE SAY ...IS NOT FOR US TO DECIDE.....
WHOM GOES OR NOT......
He is the final judge.....

Somthimes people say ........."youre saved !'' than i say yes ..but i still have to go a long way and i still have to stand before him ""HELLO"'
he still will open a BOOk that day "HELLO""


I do take that Hell part serius...For myself ,for i do want to fear him in a way of respect ...
Because God Does what he wants ,...For he is god....





I think what is inportend to know is....
i do read that in the translations of the bibel to different language there are little errors and changes wich can cause a major difference in the interpatations ....."'we have to watch out for that"'..
but that is why we always have to pray to god when we read the word to understand it "'to open the word"' it is not just a book .you just read like that ...its alive''

and the second thing that is inportent to know is

that in the last page of the bible...

the words are written of about the matter ....

if people would ad sumthing to it ...
and or take sumthing from it....




that god will deal with that also ....
and how ...
it is explained in there as well...



i totaly agree with you sister ...
that we still do need a lot to learn ....
and that a lot of things still go verry verry wrong....
and its beautifull to see ....
that a sister in her walk wants to do sumthing about it...
and stands up....or speaks about it wich takes curriage.....
and dont think i dont know what you are talking about ..i do...
,but my advise for you is not to turn away from the word but to use it to bring changes......there where it is needed....
for you have to have that wisdom that stands like a rock....
other wise in the mits of the storm or struggle you will fly away...

cause there were ...people preach a part of the bibel ..they forget the other part....
so in youre walk he is always looks for youre rightiusness.....
Some peopel say the bibel is opposite ....
no it is beautifull....

maybe we may not understand it all ..
but there for we are not God ......
but human...



sister river ...
God has planted sumthing in you everyone has a gift:spinstar:keep youre light shinning
and though people may not always understand you ...
God does.........




and that is the beauty of his love...






Maybe you think you really didnt answer my question ..LOL.
or you got personal....

well ,sis ...:ilu: it was nothing but love:blush: ..
and sumthing that was on my heart.....



Loveauroraflower:heart: