|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 16, 2010 16:17:11 GMT -5
LOL @ bolded! You think you know me, but you don't. I did state with my orginial post where I feel my creator comes from, and you took something in it and went an entirely different way. And in the process of conversing about what you stated, I want to get that last word?  Really? I thought we were having a discussion that you started when talking about the human race, not a futile whatever. It is what it is. I am NOT saying Jesus did that. Show me in the Bible where Jesus sang on the chior? Um if Christianity was truly only about what Jesus did we would not be here today typing about all this. And really I am not in the mood for this word play or this circular debate. We know what missionaries seek to do. That thread does not surprise me, but I am not saying it shouldn't surprise others because honestly I don't care. lol I just don't care what others think about every little facet of Christianity. All I was saying was ---that to pretend that Christianity--- the organized religion---not the actions of Jesus(which is what it really should be about ) does not frown upon other religious beliefs ESPECIALLY those considered satanic is unrealistic. But that's from my perspective. The debates on this board become futile, IMO. This is because I think we turn away from looking for truth in favor of winning debate. I am not saying we have to agree, but to grasp straws is tedious and exhausting. And then knowing personalities like playing a video game...VP will argue with you even if you are agreeing with him, AKAD will always seek to get the last word until she says"You can have the last word", Damie will watch how the thread is going, think and attack once he's formed a solid theory ihm, Outtie will complain about people not agreeing with he all the while saying it's wrong to complain about people not agreeing with one another. lol It's the same stuff over and over again overlooking facts and favoring attacks. And really I just wanted to know what folks thought about their creator. lol Outtie, show me in the bible, give me the book(s), chapter(s), and versus(s) where Jesus did that. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 16, 2010 16:22:51 GMT -5
My point in a nutshell: it seems unfair to single out Christians for rigidity (even if you only say "some") because we are rife with denominations (and resulting doctrines) and that the crime of any one group (i.e. those in the Voodooist thread) becomes the sin of all - "Christians".
-- Frederick Douglass, "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro"
Team don't even go there with that one. lolLOL - and somehow it didn't prevent Frederick from becoming an ordained minister. I'll say that again. Ordained Minister, AME.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 16, 2010 16:35:55 GMT -5
My point in a nutshell: it seems unfair to single out Christians for rigidity (even if you only say "some") because we are rife with denominations (and resulting doctrines) and that the crime of any one group (i.e. those in the Voodooist thread) becomes the sin of all - "Christians".
-- Frederick Douglass, "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro"
Team don't even go there with that one. lolLOL - and somehow it didn't prevent Frederick from becoming an ordained minister. I'll say that again. Ordained Minister, AME. Do your research... Fredrick Douglass was an ordained minister in 1839. OBVIOUSLY The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro was written after the fact. Stop playing man lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 16, 2010 16:43:16 GMT -5
Christianity Justifies Slavery. To them we are the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans. Our heritage and race justifies what was done to us by their book. So it didn't need people to do it. If you read the old testament that is the justification. The passover was all about us. Killing our first born black males and babies.
Jeremiah 13:23Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
If folks wanna have a discussion on how the bible through a play of words justifies the enslavement of black people.... we can do that with your scriptures all day. Just ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Mar 16, 2010 17:05:56 GMT -5
What they are saying is "I will no longer be able to help you if you continue to practice that witchcraft!" They feel justified because they believe it goes against Christianity and they will be in violation if they continue to support such people. This is a typical practice. Haiti was a missionary hotspot long before the earthquake. Those missionaries were there with one purpose...conversion. Why would they change course now? This is exactly what I am talking about. This has definitely evolved, devolved and fractured into different topics, but in response to this thread within a thread... I understand you're only saying that it's unrealistic to suggest that this practice doesn't happen, especially when there is this glaring example of the Haiti group in everyone's face. That fact can't be denied. However, the reason justifying these actions might be a problem is IMO, Christians shouldn't be doing things with the expectation that THEIR works are what causes conversion. Paul says in I Cor. 3: 6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. KJV How I understand that is, that it's not what he did or what Apollos did to gain or win disciples, it's ultimately God who converts the person. So do what you do, spread love, good cheer and be merry while representing God and Jesus, right? and the hope is that the people who Christians interact with might be compelled to know Jesse, I mean Jesus. Therefore IMO, taking the extra step to condemn someone to hunger and nekkidness bc they don't honor your lord is not the job of the Christian or any follower of any religious group. Proselytizing shouldn't be the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades, or Slavery or Abolition for that matter. carry on... |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 16, 2010 17:27:15 GMT -5
Team how isn't it fair when the greatest crime against humanity was perpetuated by Christians. Bruh - you are demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. Yes people used Christianity to justify slavery. People also used Christianity to abolish slavery. One out of every 8 stops on the underground rail road was a what? A church. Modern Day Civil Right was coordinated and executed partially through what? The Church. Many of it's leaders came from? The Church. But what does Christianity get credit for? Slavery. The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors.... For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by these Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke put together have done!
-- Frederick Douglass, "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro"
Team don't even go there with that one. lolLOL - and somehow it didn't prevent Frederick from becoming an ordained minister. I'll say that again. Ordained Minister, AME. Do your research... Fredrick Douglass was an ordained minister in 1839. OBVIOUSLY The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro was written after the fact. Stop playing man lol.
Right is of no Sex — Truth is of no Color — God is the Father of us all, and we are all brethren
That was AFTER 1839 right? LOL - Team let it go. The argument wasn't hinged just on Frederick Douglass and even if you run with that it doesn't work. Like I said, Civil Rights, Underground Railroad, Abolition, Sufferage, etc. The point is that alot of things have been done in the name of Christianity - let's tell the whole story Bruh. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 16, 2010 19:18:02 GMT -5
Do your research... Fredrick Douglass was an ordained minister in 1839. OBVIOUSLY The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro was written after the fact. Stop playing man lol.
Right is of no Sex — Truth is of no Color — God is the Father of us all, and we are all brethren
That was AFTER 1839 right? LOL - Team let it go. The argument wasn't hinged just on Frederick Douglass and even if you run with that it doesn't work. Like I said, Civil Rights, Underground Railroad, Abolition, Sufferage, etc. The point is that alot of things have been done in the name of Christianity - let's tell the whole story Bruh. What "God" was he talking about? lol. Seriously you can't say Christianity was what freed our people Damie. Your ancestors were not heathens. They didn't need the bible to know their inherent right to be free. If that were the case then there wouldn't have been any rebellions, and planning before hand. Thats a disservice to those who came before them. Basically slave rebellions were happening 137 Years before there was a Gabriel Prosser. What powered them? Understand these white "Abolitionist mainly Quakers " saw the power of Vudu in Haiti. They knew if Africans here did the same thing, there would be no place for them. Again do you research. Next you will be telling us to forgive Christian Slave holders who freed their slaves upon death. Not buying it. This is another argument another thread. Speaking on who created the creator we first must ask a question. If we are going to use the Genesis account, then it must be broken down bit by bit. We can't says its fact then when asked to provide proof we use faith. Umm Umm |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 16, 2010 19:50:29 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I must interject, but where did ANYONE in this thread state that our ancestors didn't know they were suppose to be free until they were taught Christanity?
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 16, 2010 20:20:30 GMT -5
Also Matthew chapter 10 is where Jesus is commissioning and giving instructions in the ministry to the 12 disciples. He is telling them where to spread the Gospel and preparing them for what will happen when they do. With the scriptures quoted, if you read ALL of chapter 10, I'm seeing it as saying you will have your own family that will turn against you because you follow Him, and if you deny Him for your family, woe unto because no one should be put before Him. Versus 37-42 goes on to explain this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 16, 2010 20:35:48 GMT -5
I've also read all of Jeremiah 13, and based off what was quoted, I interept as saying, though you can't change where you were born, nor the history and customs of your civilizatons that worship things that are not of God, that doesn't mean you have to do so. You can't change where you come from, but you can change who you worship from your kinsmen.The example of one not being able to change their skin hue or a leopard being able to change their spots further explains this as an example. This is my interpretation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Highly Favored on Mar 17, 2010 8:39:52 GMT -5
I agree. Approach and timing are everything. (The rest of this I am saying, not because I've taken anything that you or anyone else has said in this thread personally, but just to use myself as an example.) Speaking from personal experience, I don't think that I am guilty of calling people names and labelling them. I do not try to force what I believe on anyone. In fact, SOME Christians might say that I don't say enough about what I see others doing wrong. But I've still been called judgemental, which is an unfair judgement of who I really am as a person. I've been excluded from things because others perceive that I think I am "too holy" or "too goody good". All just for standing firmly in my beliefs and sharing what I believe is the truth of God's word. It doesn't offend me anymore, because if we have God's spirit in us, that is bound to happen. The Holy Ghost is here to reprove the world of sin. It is what it is. I also agree self-examination is important in these things. If we are offending people all the time, we need to ask ourselves why. My last comment on judging as it pertains to what is already in this thread. Please understand that I do believe that as Christians we are here to support one another. Therefore if someone is seeking guidance in a particular area I see nothing wrong with encouraging them and pointing them to scripture. I also see nothing wrong with explaining to them our interpretations of the Word and firmly explaining what we stand for( and consequently will not stand for). However, calling folks names (even when we feel it appropriate), coming at folks with a haughty spirit of being correct and having to "put people in their place", having a "how could you even go there attitude",shunning people, having a holier than thou approach ( even if it's subtle), saying you want to know info about people to pray but really your heart is criticizing their situation, frowning upon people....all that and some more is not Christ-like. Too..way too many of us are guilty of this behavior. We deny it therefore we can never address it. "Oh no not me. That's them other Christians" I know for myself I had a hard to realizing this and accepting why people responded to me as they did. That's why I try not to get frustrated when I am amongst that behavior often...on the net and off the net. I just know I do agree with it any longer. That's why I think I get a lot of slack from *"Pauline Christians". I am seen as one who should be chastised or even questioned if I truly believe because I am philosopher at heart . I truly believe at the core of Jesus' ministry is the concept of loving one another and treating others with respect we want for ourslves. (Paul recognized this in Jesus' ministry so much that he dedicated almost an entire book to it in 1 Corinthian 13) I don't feel convicted to be rigid on many things other Christians see fit to be strict about. I'm not gonna get on somebody about fornicating when I know I need to work on my my smart mouth. Just not gonna do it. Now if someone asks is fornicating wrong I will give my perspective and point to scripture. Matthew 7 : 1-5 NIV Judge not, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be used unto you Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's. ^^^ y'all should have saw that one coming lol. I posted the full scripture instead of the tagline because there is much room for various interpretations and I welcome any dialogue that may result from it. * This is not an official group or segment of Christians(or to say that Paul opposed Jesus) It is my response to being labeled a Jesus Christian(one who relies heavily on the red letters so to speak) as I notice folks quoting heavily from the Pauline epistles when stating their core beliefs. I appreciate the Pauline epistles , I value them in my Christian walk and I do not pick the Bible apart to say one book is more important than the other. However my core beleifs come overwhelming from the red letters so to speak. |
|
|
|
Post by Highly Favored on Mar 17, 2010 8:48:32 GMT -5
I also agree that we should be able to discuss our beliefs with others and explain why we believe as we do, as well as listen to what they believe and why. I don't think it is necessary to become defensive when we are questioned.
And, in all of this, I have not answered the original question... (lol)
I think Genesis 1:1 ("in the beginning, God...") sums it up for me. Since the Bible is the basis for my belief in my Creator and it does not explain that He was created, but yet existed, I have no answer about how He came into existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 17, 2010 10:36:17 GMT -5
And the motto of the North Star was what? LOL.
Right is of no Sex — Truth is of no Color — God is the Father of us all, and we are all brethren
That was AFTER 1839 right? LOL - Team let it go. The argument wasn't hinged just on Frederick Douglass and even if you run with that it doesn't work. Like I said, Civil Rights, Underground Railroad, Abolition, Sufferage, etc. The point is that alot of things have been done in the name of Christianity - let's tell the whole story Bruh. What "God" was he talking about? lol. Seriously you can't say Christianity was what freed our people Damie. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 17, 2010 10:44:49 GMT -5
What "God" was he talking about? lol. Seriously you can't say Christianity was what freed our people Damie. Good points Damie, especially the first one. I would exhalt you, but ahhhh, don't feel like it  LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 17, 2010 11:24:14 GMT -5
But how does one tell the difference? Isn't it in the eye of the beholder? Some lurker could come to this board read this exchange and conclude that you are being dogmatic. In your mind are you though? Is protecting beliefs against unfair attacks likely to be seen as such or as rigidity? I do hear what you are saying, and I actually don't disagree... I think they are different in precisely the way you described... but how they are perceived becomes what they are, and I don't think we have as much control over that as might be implied. We can be proactive (which may be what you're advocating) but the judgement call is still made by the outside observer.
But if you HAVE taken the time to explore other information and have found it lacking credibility, you will still be counted among the closed-minded. Failure to listen to perspectives outside of our own is not the definition of closed-mindedness... it's failure to be receptive to those ideas. And for every belief system there is at least one (if not more) ideas that go completely contrary to the entire belief system as so to be unreceivable.
I concur with you that asking a sincere question about any religion should not be the impetus for flipping out. A sincere question should be met with a sincere answer and desire to give the best information. It's an opportunity not an attack. I have said as much myself on this very site (actually it might have been the old OO, but I know I said it). I have also taken flak for being a red-letter Christian because it seems odd to me that the focus of a Christian should not be centered on Christ (I don't know if anyone else recalls but that was like the first debate myself and Denounced got into). And I didn't reach that conclusion based on teachings of the church... so believe you me, I agree with that idea of questioning what you believe - but that questioning can only effectively be done internally. Which is why I agree with the notion that you convert people by how you behave - not by your words.
Now... all that said Most Respectfully, this thread was not a what if, it asks a question with an embedded "idea" already there - that our Creator had a Creator. That's not asking someone about their beliefs, it's effectively re-writing it and presenting us with an unrecievable idea. True, that doesn't mean a defensive response is warranted, but it shouldn't be altogether unexpected (for any belief system). That's not to imply you didn't know this - I'm just making a general statement.
It seems to me that it would require one to judge to discern this. It's all in the eye of the beholder (at least IMO). But exalt for a good topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Mar 17, 2010 11:42:14 GMT -5
Ok...so I've taken a few days to think about this and read other responses all to come up with a conclusion that pisses me off, because it is not definitive. However, I will share it anyway. My answer to the original question, "Who created the Creator?" is the Creator. Bear with me...
I believe something or someone is created when someone is aware of it. "The Starry Night" was created when Van Gogh had knowledge of it, or saw it in his mind's eye and it was manifested when he painted it. "I'm in Love with a Stripper" was created in T-Pain's brain and it manifested when he laid down the tracks.
In that same vein, let's start with you and go back. You could say that you were created when you were aware of yourself, but that would be wrong. You could point to your parents who were aware of you much longer before you could be aware of yourself. So you could say that you were created when they had knowledge of you and you were manifested in the womb.
However, believing in a spiritual realm and Creator who had knowledge of you way before any of that, you could argue that you were created when that Creator was aware of you, at an infinite time in the past.
So, with that in mind who was first aware of the Creator? This is where it can go into an infinite loop, so let's say the Ultimate Creator, no one higher than that. That Creator had to become aware of him/herself, and that is when he was created. He was made manifest however when he created the universe.
Make sense? If not, ask questions and maybe I can make myself more clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 17, 2010 11:55:18 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I must interject, but where did ANYONE in this thread state that our ancestors didn't know they were suppose to be free until they were taught Christanity? Damie used abolitionist that were Christians who influenced some that aided our ancestors to freedom. This gives the predisposition that without knowing about the "gospel" our ancestors didn't know they had the inherent right to be free. There were slave rebellions before any person decided to preach the "gospel" to your ancestors. Furthermore if folks wanna ride with that then lets look at the type of Christians who were the original abolitionist to drive my point home. Who were these Christians that spoke out against slavery? Well they called themselves The Religious Society of Friends or The Children of the Light. You may know them by the name of Quakers. Now some Quakers owned slaves which caused a divide within their society( like William Penn) but for the most part they were seen as heretics. Their women were thought of as Witches. Every time a Friend(as they like to be called) was arrested they were checked for marks to confirm if they were practicing witchcraft. They were in opposition to what the church had put forth. Basically the pariahs of Christiandom at the time were those who reached out to your ancestors. Did they do this because of faith or simply to cause trouble to the establishment? It could have been "Hey no fruit cup for us well lets rile up the niggers and bring all this chit down... " or maybe there was a connection with black people and our ways of channeling into the invisible world. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 17, 2010 12:07:39 GMT -5
Also Matthew chapter 10 is where Jesus is commissioning and giving instructions in the ministry to the 12 disciples. He is telling them where to spread the Gospel and preparing them for what will happen when they do. With the scriptures quoted, if you read ALL of chapter 10, I'm seeing it as saying you will have your own family that will turn against you because you follow Him, and if you deny Him for your family, woe unto because no one should be put before Him. Versus 37-42 goes on to explain this. Matthew 10 is Jesus speaking to his disciples on what he wants to do and his purpose for existing. You can't say Jesus is about Love when it is shown if you don't love him or follow him then he will bring division. This love is conditional. So the ministry wasn't about love it was about selfishness, bitterness, and division. Matthew10: 37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.Yeah your Jesus can kick rocks with that above bullchit. Again you were saying? Lets look again Luke 12:49I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Again you were saying? We can't expect religious tolerance from people who believe in doctrines like those above. There isn't an  interpretation to be had. It's really plain. Either you are for Jesus or you are not. So doubling back on the Voodooist(what ever the hell that is) thread the people who were there are following the book by the very letter. Do you really understand who your Jesus was and is? |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 17, 2010 12:11:07 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I must interject, but where did ANYONE in this thread state that our ancestors didn't know they were suppose to be free until they were taught Christanity? Damie used abolitionist that were Christians who influenced some that aided our ancestors to freedom. This gives the predisposition that without knowing about the...
My point was that Christianity is readily recognized for when it's used for unjust causes, but almost never recognized when it's used for those in line with the teachings of Jesus. That's it. I make no implications about our ancestors at all. The examples I used extended well beyond slavery and do not imply anything about our ancestors capacity to understand freedom.
If you just want to start that as a new topic of dialogue so be it, but it can't be in response or refutation to anything I said... because I didn't say it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 17, 2010 12:48:01 GMT -5
I've also read all of Jeremiah 13, and based off what was quoted, I interept as saying, though you can't change where you were born, nor the history and customs of your civilizatons that worship things that are not of God, that doesn't mean you have to do so. You can't change where you come from, but you can change who you worship from your kinsmen.The example of one not being able to change their skin hue or a leopard being able to change their spots further explains this as an example. This is my interpretation. Why use a people and beast as akin to those whom its stated can't do good during a threat of captivity and damnation? Do you believe that the examples given of the Ethiopian and Leopard did not also include the perceived behavior? If so can you show in the bible other than the Eunich where the Ethiopian isn't perceived as a heathen? Show me in the bible where Ethiopians are not in the fire of your God. Even if you are able to pull one verse it will be a glaring contradiction because the Ethiopians are shown to be of flawed character. The Ethiopian is shown to be uncompromising when it comes to your God. What of the leopard? How is the leopard portrayed in the bible? Is it an animal that is liked? Why not say can a Ram lose its horns? Can't say that can they because the Ram is revered. What does the Beast of the Sea look like in the Book of Revelation? You guessed it a Leopard. The portrayal of the leopard and Ethiopian in the bible was justification of there usage during Jeremiah's damnation. Kinda simple really again no room for interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 17, 2010 13:15:33 GMT -5
Ok...so I've taken a few days to think about this and read other responses all to come up with a conclusion that pisses me off, because it is not definitive. However, I will share it anyway. My answer to the original question, "Who created the Creator?" is the Creator. Bear with me... I believe something or someone is created when someone is aware of it. "The Starry Night" was created when Van Gogh had knowledge of it, or saw it in his mind's eye and it was manifested when he painted it. " I'm in Love with a Stripper" was created in T-Pain's brain and it manifested when he laid down the tracks.In that same vein, let's start with you and go back. You could say that you were created when you were aware of yourself, but that would be wrong. You could point to your parents who were aware of you much longer before you could be aware of yourself. So you could say that you were created when they had knowledge of you and you were manifested in the womb. However, believing in a spiritual realm and Creator who had knowledge of you way before any of that, you could argue that you were created when that Creator was aware of you, at an infinite time in the past. So, with that in mind who was first aware of the Creator? This is where it can go into an infinite loop, so let's say the Ultimate Creator, no one higher than that. That Creator had to become aware of him/herself, and that is when he was created. He was made manifest however when he created the universe. Make sense? If not, ask questions and maybe I can make myself more clear. Bold part, I couldn't get pass that, LMBO! |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 17, 2010 13:22:20 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I must interject, but where did ANYONE in this thread state that our ancestors didn't know they were suppose to be free until they were taught Christanity? There were slave rebellions before any person decided to preach the "gospel" to your ancestors. Furthermore if folks wanna ride with that then lets look at the type of Christians who were the original abolitionist to drive my point home. Who were these Christians that spoke out against slavery? Well they called themselves The Religious Society of Friends or The Children of the Light. You may know them by the name of Quakers. Now some Quakers owned slaves which caused a divide within their society( like William Penn) but for the most part they were seen as heretics. Their women were thought of as Witches. Every time a Friend(as they like to be called) was arrested they were checked for marks to confirm if they were practicing witchcraft. They were in opposition to what the church had put forth. Basically the pariahs of Christiandom at the time were those who reached out to your ancestors. Did they do this because of faith or simply to cause trouble to the establishment? It could have been "Hey no fruit cup for us well lets rile up the niggers and bring all this chit down... " or maybe there was a connection with black people and our ways of channeling into the invisible world. Bolded part, how you came to that conclusion based off what Damie was saying, I don't know, but that isn't what I precieved from it at all, and I don't think that is what Damie was implying either, but I'll let Damie speak for himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 17, 2010 13:25:45 GMT -5
Also Matthew chapter 10 is where Jesus is commissioning and giving instructions in the ministry to the 12 disciples. He is telling them where to spread the Gospel and preparing them for what will happen when they do. With the scriptures quoted, if you read ALL of chapter 10, I'm seeing it as saying you will have your own family that will turn against you because you follow Him, and if you deny Him for your family, woe unto because no one should be put before Him. Versus 37-42 goes on to explain this. Matthew 10 is Jesus speaking to his disciples on what he wants to do and his purpose for existing. You can't say Jesus is about Love when it is shown if you don't love him or follow him then he will bring division. This love is conditional. So the ministry wasn't about love it was about selfishness, bitterness, and division. Matthew10: 37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.Yeah your Jesus can kick rocks with that above bullchit. Again you were saying? Lets look again Luke 12:49I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Again you were saying? We can't expect religious tolerance from people who believe in doctrines like those above. There isn't an interpretation to be had. It's really plain. Either you are for Jesus or you are not. So doubling back on the Voodooist(what ever the hell that is) thread the people who were there are following the book by the very letter. Do you really understand who your Jesus was and is? I do understand, and just as I have read for myself the scriptures you listed to see if there was any validty for me on what you were saying (which for me there wasn't), that is not what I get from it. If you do, that's you. I don't, soooooooooooo. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 17, 2010 13:26:48 GMT -5
Damie used abolitionist that were Christians who influenced some that aided our ancestors to freedom. This gives the predisposition that without knowing about the...
My point was that Christianity is readily recognized for when it's used for unjust causes, but almost never recognized when it's used for those in line with the teachings of Jesus. That's it. I make no implications about our ancestors at all. The examples I used extended well beyond slavery and do not imply anything about our ancestors capacity to understand freedom.
If you just want to start that as a new topic of dialogue so be it, but it can't be in response or refutation to anything I said... because I didn't say it. Damie I call bullchit. You stated and I quote "It never seems to work in reverse though. People note that the Bible was used to justify slavery, but make no mention that the Bible was also used by Abolitionists." I stated your point gave the PREDISPOSITION (yanno inclination) that abolitionist were the only ones who were against slavery. It's coming at the thought that it was Christians who used the bible to free people from Slavery. I ask Damie going by the book can the bible really be used against slavery? See this is funny because the method you are trying to use are the same methods being used in Haiti right now. Give up your Gods for ours and we will help you. NO bruh. Thats the bullchit. If you stay with your Gods can you still be helped? I say NOPE. Furthermore lets highlight some verses in your bible which talks about how slaves are supposed to act and slave masters as well. Slave Master can beat his slave but just not kill him or her Exodus21:20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.Slave Master Rules Leviticus 25:44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. To Slaves Col 3:22Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;Titus2:9Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; 10Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. I could go on but I'll stop here. This is where the Sunday school teachings come crashing down. Instead of lying to you that the Bible was used to free your ancestors, I have given you the truth. The truth is the perceived heretics, witches, and devil worshipers whom believed in Jesus reached out to your ancestors. They called them Quakers, the derogatory term used describing how they were going into convulsions while connecting with the inner light of the invisible world. Again don't take my word for it. Research who were the founders of the Abolitionist movement. Basically the only way you could use the bible against slavery by the book is if those who you were rescuing GAVE UP THEIR GODS. Give up your ways for ours and I will deliver you. This is a common theme throughout the entire bible. Again doubling back to the Voodooist thread....per the book they are justified. I will no longer circle jerk this thread because the topic is interesting to say the least. If someone would like to create another thread on Christianity and Slavery by all means do so and I will participate. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 17, 2010 13:26:53 GMT -5
Damie used abolitionist that were Christians who influenced some that aided our ancestors to freedom. This gives the predisposition that without knowing about the...
My point was that Christianity is readily recognized for when it's used for unjust causes, but almost never recognized when it's used for those in line with the teachings of Jesus. That's it. I make no implications about our ancestors at all. The examples I used extended well beyond slavery and do not imply anything about our ancestors capacity to understand freedom.
If you just want to start that as a new topic of dialogue so be it, but it can't be in response or refutation to anything I said... because I didn't say it. Underlined and this post, yeah, this further justifies what I was saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 17, 2010 13:29:04 GMT -5
I've also read all of Jeremiah 13, and based off what was quoted, I interept as saying, though you can't change where you were born, nor the history and customs of your civilizatons that worship things that are not of God, that doesn't mean you have to do so. You can't change where you come from, but you can change who you worship from your kinsmen.The example of one not being able to change their skin hue or a leopard being able to change their spots further explains this as an example. This is my interpretation. Why use a people and beast as akin to those whom its stated can't do good during a threat of captivity and damnation? Do you believe that the examples given of the Ethiopian and Leopard did not also include the perceived behavior? If so can you show in the bible other than the Eunich where the Ethiopian isn't perceived as a heathen? Show me in the bible where Ethiopians are not in the fire of your God. Even if you are able to pull one verse it will be a glaring contradiction because the Ethiopians are shown to be of flawed character. The Ethiopian is shown to be uncompromising when it comes to your God. What of the leopard? How is the leopard portrayed in the bible? Is it an animal that is liked? Why not say can a Ram lose its horns? Can't say that can they because the Ram is revered. What does the Beast of the Sea look like in the Book of Revelation? You guessed it a Leopard. The portrayal of the leopard and Ethiopian in the bible was justification of there usage during Jeremiah's damnation. Kinda simple really again no room for interpretation. OK, Vudu, if you say so. I do believe your interpretations on things are very far fetch (like what you tried to do with what Damie was saying) but hey, that is you. I'm not going to debate your interpretations, but I'm not seeing what you seeing. No where near it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 17, 2010 13:49:17 GMT -5
Ok...so I've taken a few days to think about this and read other responses all to come up with a conclusion that pisses me off, because it is not definitive. However, I will share it anyway. My answer to the original question, "Who created the Creator?" is the Creator. Bear with me... I believe something or someone is created when someone is aware of it. "The Starry Night" was created when Van Gogh had knowledge of it, or saw it in his mind's eye and it was manifested when he painted it. "I'm in Love with a Stripper" was created in T-Pain's brain and it manifested when he laid down the tracks. So which point are you telling this from? Are you a Christian? If so when did Jehovah become aware of his Godship? How about Jesus? Okay I can agree with that Kinda but then we must ask ourselves the purpose of the creator existing. If the Creator created itself then that gives the inclination there was a time when the creator didn't exist. This is why the question has problems. If you believe the creator is self created then we must also ask about the purpose. Why did he/she create themselves. Where did the power come from to self create? This will only be a problem for those who feel there is only one creator or one universe. If we feel the creator always existed then this question is irrelevant all together. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 17, 2010 14:11:20 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I must interject, but where did ANYONE in this thread state that our ancestors didn't know they were suppose to be free until they were taught Christanity? Damie used abolitionist that were Christians who influenced some that aided our ancestors to freedom. This gives the predisposition that without knowing about the "gospel" our ancestors didn't know they had the inherent right to be free. There were slave rebellions before any person decided to preach the "gospel" to your ancestors. Furthermore if folks wanna ride with that then lets look at the type of Christians who were the original abolitionist to drive my point home. Who were these Christians that spoke out against slavery? Well they called themselves The Religious Society of Friends or The Children of the Light. You may know them by the name of Quakers. Now some Quakers owned slaves which caused a divide within their society( like William Penn) but for the most part they were seen as heretics. Their women were thought of as Witches. Every time a Friend(as they like to be called) was arrested they were checked for marks to confirm if they were practicing witchcraft. They were in opposition to what the church had put forth. Basically the pariahs of Christiandom at the time were those who reached out to your ancestors. Did they do this because of faith or simply to cause trouble to the establishment? It could have been "Hey no fruit cup for us well lets rile up the niggers and bring all this chit down... " or maybe there was a connection with black people and our ways of channeling into the invisible world. Underlined part, all my ancestors weren't Chrisitans. Some of them practiced Voodoo, thought I'd throw that out there since you were referencing my ancestors. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 17, 2010 14:27:30 GMT -5
Team let me stop you there. You arguing a point that no one made. I said NOTHING about what our ancestors did or didn't know about the concept of freedom.
My point was that Christianity is readily recognized for when it's used for unjust causes, but almost never recognized when it's used for those in line with the teachings of Jesus. That's it. I make no implications about our ancestors at all. The examples I used extended well beyond slavery and do not imply anything about our ancestors capacity to understand freedom.
If you just want to start that as a new topic of dialogue so be it, but it can't be in response or refutation to anything I said... because I didn't say it. Damie I call bullchit. You stated and I quote "It never seems to work in reverse though. People note that the Bible was used to justify slavery, but make no mention that the Bible was also used by Abolitionists." I stated your point gave the PREDISPOSITION (yanno inclination) that abolitionist were the only ones who were against slavery. It's coming at the thought that it was Christians who used the bible to free people from Slavery.
1. How one interprets the Bible usually says more about that person than the actual Bible
2. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Do you understand that that predisposition you are talking about is yours? I never said abolitionist were the only ones who were against slavery. Never said anything about the undertanding of freedom of our ancestors. These ideas result, literally, out of YOUR own predisposition. You are jousting with phantoms and arguing things that you are thinking, but that no one else was actually saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 17, 2010 14:51:11 GMT -5
OK, Vudu, if you say so. I do believe your interpretations on things are very far fetch (like what you tried to do with what Damie was saying) but hey, that is you. I'm not going to debate your interpretations, but I'm not seeing what you seeing. No where near it. Not far fetched at all. Show me in the bible where the Leopard and Ethiopian are shown in a good light. Can you? Justify your stance. lol . Just saying "Well I don't see it or that interpretation is far fetched" isn't saying much. Here is where I stand concerning Ethiopians Isa 45:14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.We can go on all day pulling verses from your bible showing the Ethiopians in a bad light. Show me otherwise. |
|
Outtie, show me in the bible, give me the book(s), chapter(s), and versus(s) where Jesus did that.
Really? I thought we were having a discussion that you started when talking about the human race, not a futile whatever.
{=}http://s2.images.proboards.com/cool.gif{/=}
LOL!