|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
A1 |
 "...The Bible imposes such an unquestioning soberness and obedience on its believers that most believers do not see where such a sacred mystical book can be discussed academically. As a result, most of these people are not aware of scholastic biblical studies. To most believers, the only person with the "divine" authority to discuss the Bible is the preacher, and the only day such discussion can take place in "holiness" is Sunday. To these believers, bringing out logical and academic issues in the Bible makes them uncomfortable because the interpreting and controlling class of the Christian mind has told them that such discussions are "unbiblical" and even downright blasphemous. As a result of such teachings, the Bible has always been in the background of people's minds and imaginations in every discussion and undertaking.Currently, invoking the Bible seems to be the final word on social and moral issues in many societies in the Christian world. That is the magnitude of the control this book has had and continues to have over the lives of millions around the world..." - PAGE 1, "THE AFRICANS WHO WROTE THE BIBLE" BY DR. NANA BANCHIE DARKWAH. -------------------------- UNTIL NOW!  If you are awake then read, absorb, comment and share. However, if you are asleep -----> turn this alarm off, turn over and go back to sleep since searching for the truth outside the European "lying lore of Christianity" is not for you!  Maat'-Hetep "GOD SAID READ" Those who know only one book know no books at all!" http://www.thirdeyeasia.org/books_to_read .htm © Fine1952-2008 |
||
|
A2 |
In my view, Christianity and Islam are both absolutist religious systems that are tools of colonialism and imperialism used by Arabs and Europeans. They also spread the cultural values of Arab and European culture to the peoples that are subjected to these religions.
My response is that this really has more to do with cultural domination via religion than religion itself. And I mean, really, if these two religious systems I just brought up are NOT designed for the benefit people of African/Asian descent, then what is?? Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods, or tactics, or strategy. We have to keep in mind at all times that we are not fighting for separation. We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society Malcolm X, 1965 |
|||
|
A1 |
 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    |
|||
|
A2 |
No. Some people just expect too much out of what is simply a human frailty. People walk around expecting a specific religion to be an end all be all instead of simply being one tool out of many that a person has at his or her disposal to make life more meaningful and less problematic. I'd rather be hated for what I am than loved for what I'm not. - Chuck D. |
|||
|
A5 |
But aren't religions promoted in that fashion? As the "end all be all"? For instance, what person(s) of either of the abrahamic-faiths, is gonna say, 'This is just one way of getting to: heaven - god - enlightnement - truth etc'? And not say or think, if one goes another spiritual route, their entrance into heaven is, as it is often stated on the pc tip, "is not assured". ...So if its to be promoted on such level, then the 'expectation' should compliment the promotion, no?
I have no disagreement with that assessment.
>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><< "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 |
|||
|
A4 |
I graduated from an evangelical university and there was quite a bit of academic discussion on the bible. In fact more than I would ever want to go through again. However like any discipline their are bias, some stronger than others...in this case it is the role of Christ in salvation.
Also I think the academic level of discussion is like anything else, there is a difference between lay members and clergy, professors and practictioners. For example, a basketball coach most likely will be much more 'academic' about basketball than the couch potato, the hairstylist generally knows more about cutting hair than the one using the service etc. A broader question in relation to any religion is what should the ultimate aim be an why? This is where I get confused by many post in here and why I really haven't bothered in a while. My questions: 1. If there is not after life then why care who believes what all things are relative to the individual who believes and will die and descend into nothingness. 2. If religion is universal in that to a degree there are multiple ways to get to God, or that all sincere practitioners will be embraced by God then again, what is the point of critique because that leads into the same critique as point 3 which is: 3. If there is a singular way to get to God then how exactly can you know outside of faith, and if you can only know by faith then how do we know that an absolutist religion is correct or incorrect? That is why my opinion ultimately is that religion is like beauty and exist in the eye of the beholder. All other debates and discussions are efforts for persuasion to a different believe system... So what makes you right and them wrong? |
|||
|
|
A2 |
I agree with this assesment that the religious systems do promote that they are the only way to the path of enlightenment/heaven etc. Thank you for the excellent point Raptor. |
|||
|
|
A2 |
But this is what I was already referring to. Let me just be more clear about this. I do not agree with the doctorine of any religion, including my own, and I'm straight Southern Baptist, where one religion is the end all be all. All religions are fundamentally the same. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, similarities and differences and should be regarded as such. I can understand someone having fervor about their religion but to try to impose their faith on someone else, particularly, some of another faith or worse, try to put someone else's religion down ( with the exception of cult's and some non-denominational churches) in favor of theirs is unacceptable in my opinion. Speaking for myself I may be proud to be a Christian but I also respect other religions (Judaism, Muslim, Catholicism, Methodist, etc.) and most definately would not put down another religion in favor of mine. And I most definately would not impose my faith on someone else. You'll never catch me walking around asking someone: "Have you been saved?" which implies that I don't approve of someones way of life firstly, and secondly, I'm imposing my faith as the best solution to that person's 'distress'. No matter how 'lost' someone is all people have a sense of what is right and wrong. If they want to be 'saved' or helped they will eventually find their way. If not, then so be it. Even if someone would turn to me for guidance, which has happened, I wouldn't use my faith as a solution to their problem(s). I would offer a pleathora of solutions and only employ Christianity as a tool if that person inquires about Christianity. Even then I would only give them highlights that I feel may best suite them for the time being but I would suggest they find a good bible based church for a more in depth understanding. I'd rather be hated for what I am than loved for what I'm not. - Chuck D. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
The 'purpose' of said religions are given by those rligions no?... and they do vary/differ.
Not all religions/spiritual systems are exclusively concerned about an afterlife... or concerned at all about an afterlife for that matter. Most have 'theories' about what goes on outside of this plane of existace, but to say their 'main concern' is that of an afterlife is projecting and frankly incorrect.
Conversly how could the absolutist religious follower know wether their religion is correct/incorrect, particularly for others, since faith is basically personal/individual conjecture and is not based on fact. Many spiritual practices are not exclusivist precicely because of this...
Nah, persuasion out of literalist exclusivism maybe(read religious bigotry), but not persuasion to 'convert'... That comes from the exclusivists themselves. Many people discuss religion to LEARN too you know. 
Ask the exclusivists that one... 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 |
|||
|
A2 |
1. If there is not after life then why care who believes what all things are relative to the individual who believes and will die and descend into nothingness.
It really is not a matter of an afterlife or not, it is how people will behave in this life, and that is based on their particular take on an afterlife or the idea of pleasing or displeasing a deity and the consequences or benefits of that action. How people view religion, their often is a large influence on how they will treat other people. 2. If religion is universal in that to a degree there are multiple ways to get to God, or that all sincere practitioners will be embraced by God then again, what is the point of critique because that leads into the same critique as point 3 which is: While religion may be universal, religions are a lot less so. They are just tools and how you use them is up to the user, yes? Given the choice between self improvement (what is that?) and controlling others, it is easy to go with controlling others as most people will use religion to that end. 3. If there is a singular way to get to God then how exactly can you know outside of faith, and if you can only know by faith then how do we know that an absolutist religion is correct or incorrect? The idea that we have to 'get' to God is an odd one in itself. God is pretty unavoidable,if you beleive in the Omni-ness of God. What you are attempting to do is really manipulate God (lets face it, that is what it is). You follow one set of precepts or another with the hope that doing so will please God and God will find favor with you or at least not get pissed at you and get to smite'n that ass (haha). Knocking jockeys off the lawn for over 50 years |
|||
|
|
A4 |
Sorry I took so long to get back to this thread, been busy. Since we are discussing this academically, let me start here:
Indeed religion may not be simply about the afterlife. That is not altogether the point. The point is moreso the fact that there is no basis outside of faith for determining the validity of ANY said religion. Therefore for the exclusivist and the non-exclusivist are in the same camp. Belief by faith provides basis for truth which is contingent on faith. It is circular. The faith sets up the context for "t"ruth, and truth is reinforced by the constructs of faith. The point of contention is that the exclusivist defines their "t"ruth simply in a narrower fashion than the non-exclusivist. Secondly, logically, the non-exclusivist can not say that the exclusivist is incorrect without falling in to the absolutist concept that is at the core of exclusivism just at a much more fundamental level. To assert that something is NOT true means that there is a basis for defining "t"ruth, which in religion resorts back to faith - truth- reinforced by faith. So a non-exclusivist making a definitive statement that an exclusivist religion is not true is in effect exclusivist. This to me means that the non-exclusivist who is truly a non-exclusivist must acknolwedge the possibility that the exclusivist could be correct in their exclusitivity. If this logic is correct the only difference between the exclusivist and non-exclusivist is their concept of faith. The exclusivist holds to a positive view of faith, in that faith is based in action towards a specific absolute position. The non-exclusivist holds to a negative faith in that individuals can pursue their faith free from absolutist restrictions. However, as stated, both version of faith are circular, and neither can claim "t"ruth outside of faith, which is an individual choice. That is why I argue: 1.That faith changes through some form of persuasion (hard or soft) only. 2.Everyone who claims "faith" in a religion or religious concept to the exclusion of others even the exclusion of the exclusivist is fundamentally an absolutist. 3.That when examined logically, the only material difference between the exclusivist and the non-exclusivist is not the foundation of religion, faith "t"ruth faith, but the expression of the religion in human social dynamics (IE such as religious oppression, etc) which can only be evaluated as right or wrong by faith "t"ruth faith even if it is only philosophical faith (IE humanism). |
|||
|
|
A1 |
I'm at a loss for why you brought up what is or is not 'correct'/'truth' in religion... and then argued against it. That concept comes from a particualr worldview that not all share. 'Faith'(devoid of reason/fact/knowledge) is something particular to certain religions... It is not commen to all. 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 |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | AfricanAmerica.org | ||
| Servlet | eve1da005 | ||
| Version | 1.3.0 build 9383 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Main Site Body Style" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
© AfricanAmerica.org 2002 - 2008