Rasta Nicks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

No news is good news!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic: Adam and Eve the firsT?  (Read 8926 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I ELIJAH I

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 15
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2423
  • Its a Foolish Dog That Bark at a Flying Bird
Re: Adam and Eve the firsT?
« Reply #45 on: April 13, 2008, 07:38:37 AM »

Idren who are you to call anyone a heathen when you came here with such a hedonistic mind?
About repping Egypt, it was an angel of God who told Joseph to take Jesus to Egypt, the very place you seem to have disdain for. By the time the rabbis found him, Jesus is supposed to be 9 or 10 (maybe 12?), yet already he was amazing the rabbis with his wisdom...where ya think he got it from?? So yes I rep Egypt cuz that's where the original came from! The very idea of Iternal life is Egyptian!

I am Rastafari to call all the ones "worshiping their blackness" ignorant heathen. You don't know your own mind so step off before you really get bun. You have no place calling me "Idren" u fake internet empress. Rep Egypt and Rastafari will keep burning it. Where'd Tafari get his wisdom? Musta been TREE NATTY right? Keep your "Idea" of eternal life. I and I take the real thing. Commoner.
Logged
Fear the terrible g-d of Israel.

EmpressCarla

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 11
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1255
  • Rasta wombman live up!
Re: Adam and Eve the firsT?
« Reply #46 on: April 13, 2008, 10:35:21 PM »

Blessings

I am Rastafari to call all the ones "worshiping their blackness" ignorant heathen. You don't know your own mind so step off before you really get bun. You have no place calling me "Idren" u fake internet empress. Rep Egypt and Rastafari will keep burning it.

You are right, you are not my Idren. How silly of me to come reason with you in Love, knowing that even if we disagree you are STILL my brother. But since you want to be disraspectful, I leave you to be just that but I won't return it in kind. I will, however, continue to address you as long as you post nonsense on this forum seen.

Fake internet empress? How long you been wanting to say that? LOL! Sticks and stones man...sticks and stones.   ::)

Truth is, for the umpteenth time you have disregarded the content of my post only to respond with insult and ridicule. Because you cannot argue against truth. All you will continue to do is repeat Christian rhetoric, which apparently you must've just learned in the last year cuz you wasn't saying any of it before that.

And as far as anything burning me, YOU have absolutely nothing to do with it! You are a weak man, so how could you burn me with your mere internet chat?

Furthermore, the Fiyah been bunning me daily...so let it! I don't fear the fiyah. Let it burn me up until I am made better, smarter, kinda, wiser, WHOLE! I decree it and so it is!

It is you who reject the Spiritual Fiyah, and it is you who will be burned to NOTHING.


Where'd Tafari get his wisdom? Musta been TREE NATTY right? Keep your "Idea" of eternal life. I and I take the real thing. Commoner.

Idren...ooops, I mean Eli-hah...I am anything but common. Know this! ;)  :-*

One Love STILL!
« Last Edit: April 13, 2008, 10:39:22 PM by EmpressCarla »
Logged

I ELIJAH I

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 15
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2423
  • Its a Foolish Dog That Bark at a Flying Bird
Re: Adam and Eve the firsT?
« Reply #47 on: April 13, 2008, 10:50:24 PM »

How silly of me to come reason with you in Love, knowing that even if we disagree you are STILL my brother.

True.

Quote
Fake internet empress? How long you been wanting to say that?

I'm surprised I even bothered.

Quote
All you will continue to do is repeat Christian rhetoric,
 

G-d vexes pagans.

Quote
I am anything but common. Know this! ;)  :-*

He who says does not know. He who knows does not say.

Logged
Fear the terrible g-d of Israel.

EmpressCarla

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 11
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1255
  • Rasta wombman live up!
Re: Adam and Eve the firsT?
« Reply #48 on: April 13, 2008, 10:52:11 PM »

Blessings

@Eli-hahahahahahaha
You really need to get a life dude.  ::)

One Love Still
Logged

I ELIJAH I

  • Veteran User
  • *****
  • Karma: 15
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2423
  • Its a Foolish Dog That Bark at a Flying Bird
Re: Adam and Eve the firsT?
« Reply #49 on: April 13, 2008, 10:55:37 PM »

Yeah "Dude", "Cool".....
Logged
Fear the terrible g-d of Israel.

Joey Reborn

  • Standard User
  • *
  • Karma: 1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
Re: Adam and Eve the firsT?
« Reply #50 on: April 17, 2008, 11:50:56 PM »

BUT why NOT believe the Bible as a whole when the parts I could test were absolutely true?

Because Bible means 'library'. If you went into the non-fiction section of the library, read A Brief History of the Romanticism, which told you that Wordsworth was born in 1770, and you went and checked that in the English birth records and affirmed it to be true, you wouldn't then assume that every other book in that library was also 100% factually accurate, would you? You would have to make the affirmations book by book, and I am sure you have looked at certain books and found factual inaccuracies. If you haven't then just take a look at almost any scholarly thread on this forum and you will find them. Homogenisation of the Bible is the root of blind faith. Just find the place in the Bible where it says it is the word of God and you will see it refers to the 'Scriptures': the Bible had not even been constructed at this point so it is impossible that 'Scriptures' means 'Bible'.

Also, the lines of the Bible are blurred. Some books are in the Catholic Bible but not in the KJV. Do you live by these? Some books were only just voted out (e.g. Enoch) and others only just voted in (e.g. Hebrews). If you look into this you will see the Bible for what it really is: a library. And just like a library, it had librarians who decided which books were on the shelves and which were not. Were they guided by God you might say? It does not matter. It still does not qualify a homogenisation of the Bible as being one text with one function and one, easily-identifiable truth.

You must know the Bible inside and out to be able to live by it, so you should be the most keen to absorb the religious history facts and theories put forward by the elders of this site, as should you Elijah who also lives by the Scriptures. But, for nattythreads who I know is worried by some knowledges, don't worry. Jesus asked of you to be child-like, and so if religious knowledge is appropriate for you then fine, if not, don't let it worry you. Just live as you were instructed to: with a focus on your wisdom, not your knowledge. All I will say though is that if this is the path of one's life, that comes part and parcel with an acceptance that you can never tell anyone else that they are wrong, especially in historical debate, which is something even the elders should bear in mind. We are all ignorant, to different degrees, but for those of us striving to become less ignorant, this means constant challenge which is the Fiyah of places like RasNick's so let the debates continue with ferocity!

Joey
Logged

natty threads

  • Senior User
  • ****
  • Karma: 11
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 481
Re: Adam and Eve the firsT?
« Reply #51 on: April 18, 2008, 04:08:45 AM »

The Torah hasn't changed. It is the same from one ancient text to the next.

MANY of the old books are absolutely true.

Look at how Heinrich Schliemann was vindicated when he found the actual site of Troy.
He dressed his wife in the same gold worn by Helen of Troy and gazed upon the face of Agamemnon under his funeral mask before it disintegrated into nearly 3000 year old dust.


HOW MUCH MORE TRUE IS THE BIBLE!

Nineveh, once an allegorical city, has now been excavated.
Jericho, once an allegorical city, has now been excavated.

Sodom and Gomorrah not only exist but are now excavated.

Ur has most definitely been excavated.

Coral encrusted chariot axles and wheels have been found and filmed in the Red Sea, strewn a mile into the ocean across a shallow undersea "bridge."

And speaking of birth records, there are ancient written genealogies for most European kings, even pre-Christian era kings, that trace directly to Noah and hence Adam, usually through Japheth, that have been a much ignored matter of public record and public display, at least through the eighties when I was in college. They are, of course, dismissed as "pious frauds", though why a pagan king, especially before Christ, would falsify a biblical genealogy is never explained. ;)

The bible is not just generically any old collection of books.
There are, of course, a variety of collections referred to as "the bible", but NONE is random, and to imply that they are is faulty logic.

Once I had ascertained that a certain publisher is reliable, I would more readily accept that publisher's books than others.
Once I had ascertained that a certain author is reliable...

And just as ANY collection of short stories by ANY publisher has a SLANT, an ANGLE, a POINT OF VIEW, the BIBLE has a HOMOGENOUS and CONSISTANT party line.

Because the similarity and consistency is not recognized by all does mean it is not there.

OF COURSE the collection published by the Catholic Church is different from that of the Jews from that of the KJV.
Any collection of Poe or of Thurber will "feel" different from any other collection. BUT YOU WILL ALWAYS KNOW WHOSE IS WHOSE.

The lines of the bible are not "blurred."
Catholics have no doubt about what is and what is not "bible."
Protestants have no doubt about what is or is not "bible."
Jews have no doubt about what is or is not "Torah."

They DISAGREE or choose differently, but none is confused. There is no doubt whose bible contains which books.

Because someone has an "angle on God" in their holy book does not necessarily mean it is inaccurate.

Because people view God in different ways does not necessarily mean that one is wrong.
Logged

Joey Reborn

  • Standard User
  • *
  • Karma: 1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
Re: Adam and Eve the firsT?
« Reply #52 on: April 18, 2008, 06:44:42 PM »

HOW MUCH MORE TRUE IS THE BIBLE!

What is your definition of truth? It seems that you mean 'historically true' and you gave some handy little chunks of evidence to support your statements. You can pick out the fact that Sodom & Gomorrah existed, but no evidence to suggest it was destroyed by the God of Israel (such evidence could never exist). You can pick out the fact that chariot wheels were found in the Red Sea but not that there is no evidence of Hebrew slaves having built the cities of 'Pithom and Rameses' or any evidence to suggest that there were a number of Hebrew slaves at all. In fact, if you look into Egyptologist studies of Egyptian construction, you will see that they did not even need slaves to build their cities (I'll let you look into this one, it's only a side-point). I won't debate every piece of evidence you provide because I personally believe some details of the OT are correct, but one correct detail in a book not even written by one person but by many (i.e. Genesis) does not prove that everything in it is historically true.

The bible is not just generically any old collection of books.
There are, of course, a variety of collections referred to as "the bible", but NONE is random, and to imply that they are is faulty logic.


I made no such implication. It was in fact not a random compilation process, but it was a process in which certain books were chosen and unchosen on several factors to make sure, as you say, the slant is maintained. Think about books like Enoch which though are quoted in the Bible (Jude) are not included. Why? Because the church did not want people to worship angels instead of God, whether or not they considered the book as 'true'.

The lines of the bible are not "blurred."
Catholics have no doubt about what is and what is not "bible."
Protestants have no doubt about what is or is not "bible."
Jews have no doubt about what is or is not "Torah."


This has missed the point I was making. I'm not saying the lines of the Bible are blurred because of these discrepancies, though this is part of it. Firstly, the fact that Catholics and Protestants disagree on what is the word of God is important. The doubt isn't in which Bible has which books but in why there is more than one Bible? Plus, you say Catholics have no doubt about what is and what is not 'bible' but this is only true post-Constantine. Before that, Christians did not know what was and wasn't the Bible, that's why they had to vote on it. Go back in time and be a Christian in 400AD-1000AD, you will not read the same thing, you will not act the same way, you will not believe the same things. The fact that the religion had to be consolidated (some would argue invented) by councils affirms that it, and its canon, are blurry.

Because people view God in different ways does not necessarily mean that one is wrong.


Perhaps not wrong, due to lack of evidence either way, but certainly less likely. If someone bases their beliefs about the 'facts of God' on sources which are unreliable, perhaps because they have purposefully been constructed to mislead, or even just to lead, or have been mistranslated, etc., then their beliefs will generally be less based in logic or experiential empricism and therefore less likely to be true. Why let movements carry you along? I say: book by book, idea by idea, speaker by speaker.

Joey
Logged

natty threads

  • Senior User
  • ****
  • Karma: 11
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 481
Re: Adam and Eve the firsT?
« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2008, 01:32:53 AM »

I would be more concerned if everyone agreed about God.

At some point I had to quit overtly testing every point of OT scripture and just start taking it on faith.

I agree not to let movements carry you along.
Many will argue that it is an immortal soul at stake- could there be a greater cause?

Myself, I am not convinced.

What I am convinced is that God IS and that God WANTS something out of us.
It is our job as people to fulfill what God wants, reward or no reward, eternal or otherwise.

Very few people look at it this way.

There is no movement to carry me along, oh that there were.

This constantly having to think can be quite tiring.

I just don't see that what is absolutely true about God to me is even important to many other people, and what many others value about God leaves me lacking. OF COURSE we all see God differently. To me that makes Him MORE true.

;)

Bless up,
Joey Reborn.

Jennifer

Logged

Joey Reborn

  • Standard User
  • *
  • Karma: 1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
Re: Adam and Eve the firsT?
« Reply #54 on: April 19, 2008, 05:57:58 PM »

Thank you, Jennifer, for your intelligent and gentle reasoning.

I have the same view as you that our focus for study should not be 'eternal life'. I also grow tired of having to think and rethink the things I read and believe, but that is simply the burden of the intellectual. And it is healthy to live by faith and not test every point of every book you read but as long as you live by the message (your interpretation of them) and not the facts (sometimes unknowable) and bear in mind that your views are fallible (and malleable), you will no doubt feel the contentment of true 'religion.' The problem is that some people get so comfortable that their message is threatened by other people's facts and that leads to the anger in reasoning as we see on RasNick's at the moment.

but anyways, to further the debate:

I just don't see that what is absolutely true about God to me is even important to many other people, and what many others value about God leaves me lacking. OF COURSE we all see God differently. To me that makes Him MORE true

There is still an inherent problem in this view: that you refer to your beliefs as 'absolutely true [...] to me' which is a paradox. What is absolute should be so for anyone; discrepancies would only come from people with limited information. You then refer to other people's beliefs as 'what [they] value about God', as if they have the same view as you but with a different emphasis. This skirts around people who believe things contrary to your personal 'absolutes': the very things that might make your conception of God less 'true'/likely to be true.

as for my view of truth (in its literal sense), here is how I see it: The most superior form of truth is a priori arguments (arguments that answer themselves) and logical 'certainties', i.e. mathematics/phrases like 'all bachelors are unmarried'. Then there is empirically-based assumptions, i.e. conclusions drawn from solid evidence (these we tend to call 'facts'). Then there is logical assumptions, i.e. assumptions made on the basis of evidence and/or logic. It is with this hierarchy I approach the concept of God, as experiential knowledge (he who feels it knows it), in my view, proves nothing (it is not an access to literal truth) but is still comes before all over them because it is only way to be certain of anything which is an illusion which is necessary to construct in order to come into contact with God. This is what I believe you are doing, and I appraise that, but I also argue it is not a mode towards knowledge but towards God only (assuming as I do that He even exists). That is the 'Hebrew way' of philosophy. The first is the 'Greek way' of philosophy. To bring it back to Kemet, I see this tradition as seeming to fall in between the two (as it educated both), but perhaps an elder might be able to elaborate on this or knock this down for me? Haven't thought about it too much...

Joey
Logged

natty threads

  • Senior User
  • ****
  • Karma: 11
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 481
Re: Adam and Eve the firsT?
« Reply #55 on: April 19, 2008, 08:31:30 PM »

Thank you, Jennifer, for your intelligent and gentle reasoning.

I have the same view as you that our focus for study should not be 'eternal life'. but anyways, to further the debate:

I just don't see that what is absolutely true about God to me is even important to many other people, and what many others value about God leaves me lacking. OF COURSE we all see God differently. To me that makes Him MORE true

There is still an inherent problem in this view: that you refer to your beliefs as 'absolutely true [...] to me' which is a paradox. What is absolute should be so for anyone; discrepancies would only come from people with limited information. You then refer to other people's beliefs as 'what [they] value about God', as if they have the same view as you but with a different emphasis. This skirts around people who believe things contrary to your personal 'absolutes': the very things that might make your conception of God less 'true'/likely to be true.

Joey

Joey- don't get caught up in Aristotelian syllogisms being the only way to run a rational argument.

Western logic is infallible, in its limited sort of way, but God isn't limited by Aristotelian logic.

There's a philosophy joke. Well, it's a true thing. It's called peasant logic.

SO the story goes that if one approaches a peasant herding his sheep and teaches him Aristotelian logic, he can learn it well enough but refuses to apply it in actual situations.

Philosophical anthropologist-

"Everyone who lives in the village herds sheep.
John lives in the village.
Does John herd sheep?"

Prosaic peasant-

"I don't know.
I don't know John."

I don't have a paradox where you do.
I understand what you are saying and I'm a whiz at logic.
That was actually one of the hardest things to give up- the dedication to verbal proofs.

I am somewhat open to changing my view of God a bit- not much- but very little of what I believe is "dedicated" belief.

I have a central core to my "model" of God, but a lot of the peripheral stuff I cannot even begin to form a solid opinion about, and most of what I do have opinion about I realize is opinion and am not afraid of changing it.

I don't see differences in belief as necessarily discrepancies as much as a demonstration of how God can embrace and encompass opposites within Him.
Look at it like the blind men and the elephant (I think you already are). Where one person is saying one thing about God and another the polar opposite, it may be that they are standing at different ends of the elephant.

So rereading your post, we are saying exactly the same thing.

You cannot logic yourself into belief unless you already want to go there.
If you don't want to go there, the mind can come up with any number of alternatives-

And there are many demons/daimons willing to help us do exactly that.
LIMITED are the daimons that are actually trying to lead us TO love and truth.

Socrates' would be one with which I might not argue-

It helped him (Plato- whichever) reason that there IS a god, that that god is all-powerful, and that there can be but one.

Bless up, Plato.
Bless up, Socrates.

Bless up prosaic peasants,
Bless up philosophical anthropologists.

And bless up Joey Reborn.

Jah love us all.
Jennifer
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
 

Page created in 0.121 seconds with 21 queries.