|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
A1 |
Dang Rap... You hit the nail on the head... Sounds familiar... the deification of ancestors... Nothing new... Very African... IS being done today. But when we have a dominant culture is telling us that only the empires 'pre-approved literalized allegory of the sun' is THE way, have fun getting this accomplished by the masses. Cultural imperialism is an MF. Basically, what you are requesting is exactly the process that the X-ianizing of us as a people STOPPED.
Egbe Egunfewa There are people doing ancestor work all the time... The challege is to get the rest of us 'back to this'...
Egungun, Egungun ni t'aiye ati jo! Ancestos, Ancestors come to earth and dance! "I'm sick of the war and the civilization that created it. Let's look to our dreams, and the magical; to the creations of the so-called primitive peoples for new inspirations." - Jaques Vache and Andre Breton "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." -John Maynard "You know that in our country there were even matriarchal societies where women were the most important element. On the Bijagos islands they had queens. They were not queens because they were the daughters of kings. They had queens succeeding queens. The religious leaders were women too..." -- Amilcar Cabral, Return to the Source, 1973    |
|||
|
A5 |
 Makes me think... How important is tax exempt status where positively affecting lives is consern?
>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><< "Study the people who took you out of history. Then you'll understand -your history." "For your survival, draw on the intellectual heritage of the whole world, but always start with your own intellectual heitage". --Dr. John Henrik Clarke "Revenge knows few limits when the privileged and powerful are subjected to the kind of terror they regularly mete out to their victims." --Noam Chomsky "Sure there are a few good whites just as much as there are a few bad Blacks. However what we are concerned here with is group attitudes and group politics. The exception does not make a lie or the rule - it merely substantiates it." --Steve Biko |
|||
|
A1 |
Instead of rewriting the Bible, how about we rewrite our personal life stories. Instead of condemning the Bible, how about we condemn the thoughts, words, and actions, that aren't consistent with righteousness, and being conscious.
We shouldn't be focused on changing the Bible, because the Bible is basic fundamentals of conscious living. We should be focused however, on expounding on the Bible and dedicating ourselves to surpassing "fundamentals". I don't see anything that is so FUNDAMENTLY wrong with the Bible, that is becomse WORTH rewriting consciousness and starting over from scratch. Aside from the ridiculous "condoning" slavery assesment, I feel that being humble in servitude is necessary. I mean, servitude is BASIC. We start with serving our parents. We then serve our teachers. Next our bosses... In fact, we are slaves of our genetics. Hereditary impediments/weaknesses, ailments, illnesses. Whether it be diabetes or, basic eye-glasses. Part of life is being humble and living righteously inspite of the cards you were dealt. Why is Servitude so taboo? To serve is to be human. -------------------------------------------- Ancestor worship is no different than Ancestor Servitude. We can't humbly worship an ancestor without serving their principles, lowering ourselves, and exalting their memory. THAT TYPE OF HONESTY IS BELOW MY PAYGRADE. |
|||
|
|
A5 |
Servitude as it is implied and defined in this thread will reveal why servitude is "taboo". Should there come a time when black people decide to to re-write the book to reflect us and our experience, and are looking for personal stories that inspire and possess a message beneficial to our spiritual upliftment and all that good stuff, heru, will you submit a copy of your personal experience that could benefit us? The Book of HeruStar! I like the sound of that. Not only your book but your picture and proof that you are the one who wrote it so 5000 years from now, there will be no mistake or debating who wrote the book of HeruStar. Yes or no, would you be interested for I'm assuming that you have something to share. Forget assuming, I believe you got something to share. ...So say you Heru? Will you serve when called upon by people who 'look' like you to do that? You're in or you're out? >>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><< "Study the people who took you out of history. Then you'll understand -your history." "For your survival, draw on the intellectual heritage of the whole world, but always start with your own intellectual heitage". --Dr. John Henrik Clarke "Revenge knows few limits when the privileged and powerful are subjected to the kind of terror they regularly mete out to their victims." --Noam Chomsky "Sure there are a few good whites just as much as there are a few bad Blacks. However what we are concerned here with is group attitudes and group politics. The exception does not make a lie or the rule - it merely substantiates it." --Steve Biko |
|||
|
|
A1 |
I'm out, because of the motivation behind writing such a book. Militancy is empty. Especially modern militancy because it lacks an objective other than rebelling for the sake of rebelling. It would essentially lack a theme that is relevant to universal consciousness.
It's peculiar how one can vehemently reject proseltyzing, and yet brainstorm ways to proseltyze what they think WE (as in African-Americans) should know. THAT TYPE OF HONESTY IS BELOW MY PAYGRADE. |
|||
|
|
A5 |
Okay, cool Heru.  Kresge, your thoughts? Vox, your imput is always welcome. >>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><< "Study the people who took you out of history. Then you'll understand -your history." "For your survival, draw on the intellectual heritage of the whole world, but always start with your own intellectual heitage". --Dr. John Henrik Clarke "Revenge knows few limits when the privileged and powerful are subjected to the kind of terror they regularly mete out to their victims." --Noam Chomsky "Sure there are a few good whites just as much as there are a few bad Blacks. However what we are concerned here with is group attitudes and group politics. The exception does not make a lie or the rule - it merely substantiates it." --Steve Biko |
|||
|
A1 |
Raptor, as you note, this is not the first time that this has been suggested. Various people adapted the text for their use. Thomas Jefferson had his own version of the Bible, as did the famous feminist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton. I have a somewhat different tact. I believe that a version that takes into account the best in terms of historical accuracy from those manuscripts deemed the best by contemporary scholarship should be maintained. However, for the purpose of liturgy, devotion, and worship, the canon should be open and adaptable. I am also a supporter of the project of Vincent Wimbush who has turned the focus on the study of the Bible on how it is and has been used within the African American community. The authoritative tradition includes literature, speeches, sermons, art, music (hymns, spirituals, blues), etc. It is a critical tradition, that has critiqued the Bible's view on slavery and racism. Unfortunately, it has to date not been particularly insightful with respect to matters of gender and sexuality/sexual orientation. Finally, even more important than a set canon, in my opinion, is the teaching of a critical hermeneutic (method of interpretation leading to understanding) for examining any texts, traditions, rituals, or practices that claim to be authoritative. Such a critical hermeneutic should also emphasize an aspect that is self-reflective and discursive. Truth is undoubtedly the sort of error that cannot be refuted because it was hardened into an unalterable form in the long baking process of history... Michel Foucault Hope begets many children illegitimately and prematurely. Allie M. Frazier Beware the terrible simplifiers... Jacob Burckhardt  |
|||
|
A1 |
My position is that, if the Bible was supposed to be the "inspired word of God," and if it was intended to be the authoritative text for the Christian world, then there is something illogical in the idea that scholarly interpretation -- especially historical or cultural interpretation -- is needed in order to understand the truth behind what it states. Otherwise, God has intentionally placed the unlearned individual at the mercy of biblical scholars, which creates a dangerous separation between the believer and his holy text.
For this reason, I am a firm believer in the idea that whatever the Bible says in direct statements, or whatever it purports to teach through parables and stories, should be interpreted in plain, reasonably simple terms. It should be interpreted in a "strict construction" kind of way, with logical allowances for parables and other passages that are obviously intended to be fictional vehicles for instruction. Thus, if the Bible says that it's an abomination to engage in homosexuality, then it means to say that the act of homosexuality is wrong. Otherwise, what meaning would such passages hold for those who are not scholars? Further, if the bible condones slavery, then it means to imply that slavery is not sinful or wrong at all. To suggest that the passages on slavery must be read in its cultural context is to contemplate the Bible as not being entirely useful to the ordinary Christian in the absence of access to that kind of scholarship, or of the inclination to employ that kind of thinking to matters of faith. In the face of this, there is a strong drive on the part of many Christians to maintain the relevance of the Bible by touting the need for cultural interpretation and a sound hermeneutic. This is not to disparage that drive or those conclusions. But there came a point in my life -- and admittedly I was never strongly religious to begin with -- when I concluded that it's unnecessary. I can accept God, and accept the idea of an unchanging metanormative standard of morality and ethics, while rejecting the Bible's "word of God" status. Once I did that, I found that a couple of things happened. First, right and wrong became much clearer (although I was never much of a bad-ass to start with), and my spirituality deepened. Second, I realized how easy it is, for the most part, to live up to that metanormative standard. Morality, when not obfuscated by what I see as "the word of Man" (including the Bible), is liberating, rather than constrictive or oppressive. But again, for those who feel that the Bible is the authoritative word of God, then it's obvious to me that the only real conclusion you can logically come to is that society has strayed from what you see as the bedrock principles, rather than that the bedrock principles are obsolete and need to be "rewritten." The solution is to conform your life to the Bible, not the other way around. So in my view, the most principled approaches are either treat the Bible as authoritative and try to live in accordance with it in its most logical strict construction, or reject the notion of its "Godly inspiration" and take it for what it is in the absence of any holy status. I, of course, chose the latter. ____________________________________________________ |
|||
|
|
A1 |
One quick observation Vox. You have no text without scholars of some sort involved. Otherwise, all you have is a miscellaneous assortment of fragments of texts in basically dead languages. What average person do you know that can read Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek, Ugaritic, Ge'ez, etc. Further, anyone who knows more than one language also knows that somethings simply do not translate from one to another. There is always interpretation built into translation. Also, for me, religion is fundamentally a social phenomenon, and in every tradition, there are classes of individuals and a kind of division of labor with respect to the preservation, dissemination, and interpretation. Whether one is Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, or a practitioner of Santeria, Palo, Voudon, or Candomble, this seems to be the case, at least in the main. In itself, I do not see this to be a problem. Truth is undoubtedly the sort of error that cannot be refuted because it was hardened into an unalterable form in the long baking process of history... Michel Foucault Hope begets many children illegitimately and prematurely. Allie M. Frazier Beware the terrible simplifiers... Jacob Burckhardt |
|||
|
|
A1 |
This is all true, but I feel like you're supporting my point. If the original author of what became a book of the Bible was inspired by God when he wrote it, shouldn't the compilers -- those who decided what would be in the Bible -- also have been inspired by God? And then, shouldn't the translators also have been inspired by God? If what I'm reading, as an English speaker, is still the inspired word of God by the time I get ahold of it, then everyone in that chain needed to be inspired by God when they engaged in their contribution. If anyone of them wasn't, then the entire purpose of God inspiring any one of them has been defeated. What this would also mean, I would think, is that any scholarly analysis of the Bible's meaning, to the extent necessary in order for a worshipper to understand the true meaning, would similarly have to be divinely inspired. If an original passage, written in such a unique cultural context that the meaning can't easily be gleaned without a scholarly analysis, was divinely inspired when written, divinely inspired when compiled, and divinely inspired when translated into my language, then if the modern scholarly interpretation I receive on the meaning is not also divinely inspired, then the purpose of it has been defeated, as to me and my worship. This seems inordinately tenuous. Why wouldn't God simply inspire all of us to innately understand the meaning as we read it? Worse still, you are no doubt well aware that many church leaders do indeed neglect to do the cultural interpretation that you've written about here and in numerous other threads. Or, they do an incomplete and/or biased job. Today, millions of Christians, and probably the vast majority of them, have no one to communicate to them the kind of scholarship you speak of. So if scholarly interpretation was supposed to be necessary, then there has been a serious breakdown somewhere. So to me it seems more likely that, once the text has already been translated into a particular language, it was never likely that any further scholarship would be necessary, as it was never reasonable to figure that is would be readily available to the masses of Christian speakers of a given language.
____________________________________________________ |
|||
|
Phoenix Rising |
Believe it or not Vox... I agree with you.. you spoke my sentiments exactly...
Peace, Khalliqa "The Goddess emerges as the evanescence of the inferior dissipates.... " |
|||
|
|
A1 |
Should read, "that IT "... Tut mir leid. ____________________________________________________ |
|||
|
A4 |
I say go for it Raptor. Feel free to start your own religion. I have always argued in here that ultimately religion is about persuasion whether that religion is right wrong or indifferent. Persuasion being loosely interpreted as convincing someone to do, think, or say something that they previously would not have done thought or said minus coercive means. |
|||
|
|
A4 |
Kresge, a man of such learning as yourself should recognize the basic flaws of this process. It inherently invalidates one form of faith for another form of faith, but essentially each rest upon faith. For example the very concept of "historical accuracy" is a misnomer. History is filtered through the eyes of those who study history and the particular paradigms and referent material in which they analyze it. There is no such thing as an unbiased study of history, so the concept of 'historical' accuracy is a flawed concept. It is more like historically generally accepted, or best guested which is still driven by group paradigms and accepted methodology. I like the idea of a critical hermeneutical approach to the bible. But this also takes a paradigmic framework for it to be of any use. If I am a socalled "literalist" that structures my critical hermeneutical approach to the bible. If I was a non-literalist then that approach would likely lead to different conclusions. So we return again even to the point of faith to determine the paradigm by which we observe, critique and acquire information on the religious text. For the most part there is no way to determine truth that ultimately isn't riddled by circular logic. So then in my opinion truth must be outcome based. What are we trying to achieve with what we perceive to be the truth. It doesn't have to be one thing specifically, for example I have no doubt that some white people really believed that they were righteously following God and that slavery was not wrong in the way the practiced it. Christianity was used to achieve both a spiritual / emotional perspective, and a social / functional perspective. What exactly made them wrong other than the fact that our people were the victims and how through any methodology anyone outlined in this thread can it be proven that their perspective was wrong outside of faith in a different paradigm or perspective? |
|||
|
|
A1 |
Urbansun, A quick comment. I did misspeak by using the term historical accuracy. My first point was simply that as a scholar, I believe that a canonical record should be maintained and preserved instead of done away with. Moreover, I see a place for a version of the bible that represents the best scholarly work in terms available manuscripts, codexes, etc. I did not wish to make claims about historical accuracy of the contents of said manuscripts. If I communicated such a belief, I certainly needed to be chastised. Truth is undoubtedly the sort of error that cannot be refuted because it was hardened into an unalterable form in the long baking process of history... Michel Foucault Hope begets many children illegitimately and prematurely. Allie M. Frazier Beware the terrible simplifiers... Jacob Burckhardt |
|||
|
|
A4 |
I do agree with this somewhat. But who is the determinant of "the best". The older I get the less I trust, the more open minded I become, and the less certain I become. So from that standpoint why should I have more faith in modern scholars than historical scholars? Would they not come in with their own set of biases as well opening the text up to just as much critique say 500 years later? |
|||
|
|
A5 |
It's not about me starting my'"own religion". Like it wasn't about any one hebrew or one washitaw or one roman or any one zim starting their "own religion". When speaking in terms of [cult]ure, we are talking about a group of people and how they live and go about their lives and what not. It is within these groups that ultimately gave birth to what many call religion. I Never heard of a one man cult. Don't get it twisted... If the idea of [your] religion evolving or morphing into another state doesn't tickle your fancy, then call it as such. Ain't no thang. So, Knowing that many religions have evolve/morphed, inpart my recalling what you've stated some time ago, then why should religion hold static, today as in this point onward? This may not be the case, however, let me state that I'm not disputing whether, or not, you are content with where (your's or anyone's) religion is at the present. I put it out there to get anyone's take on it. Anyone who's interested, that is.
>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><< "Study the people who took you out of history. Then you'll understand -your history." "For your survival, draw on the intellectual heritage of the whole world, but always start with your own intellectual heitage". --Dr. John Henrik Clarke "Revenge knows few limits when the privileged and powerful are subjected to the kind of terror they regularly mete out to their victims." --Noam Chomsky "Sure there are a few good whites just as much as there are a few bad Blacks. However what we are concerned here with is group attitudes and group politics. The exception does not make a lie or the rule - it merely substantiates it." --Steve Biko |
|||
|