|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 31, 2018 23:44:56 GMT
True. But many Africans were already Christian, when they were forced into slavery in the USA & the Caribbean. Then slavery should have been a good indication to them that it was a false religion unworthy of embracing. Or, it should have indicated to them that their European persecutors did not follow their faith, accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 31, 2018 23:45:56 GMT
The irony there is, a)Muslims have enslaved Africans too, & b)even Islam is not the Native African religion. Africa was actually made up of HUNDREDS of native religions, such as Voodoo, Yoruba, etc. Voodoo is not an African religion. Yes it is. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 31, 2018 23:52:22 GMT
That's actaully why Nation of Islam gained a following, a rejection of the "white man's" religion (Christianity) in favor of a more Native African religion (Islam). Though it's really more of a political movement than a religious one (I get the feeling a bunch of them don't actually legitametly believe in Islam) They’re not real Muslims. Most of them don’t know any Arabic, have only a rudimentary understanding of the Quran, and know little about the Prophet Muhammad and his history. I have a black friend named Malik who grew up in Chicago NOI. My white friend who actually lived in Egypt for years and spoke fluent Arabic tried to have a conversation with him about the Holy Quran in Arabic, and Malik didn’t know what he was saying. Even when Mike switched to English, Malik was clueless about Middle Eastern history or the teachings of the Prophet. He said he didn’t grow up learning that stuff, only about how the white devil has oppressed African Americans and forced the white religion onto them. So while I agree that the white man ultimately forced black Americans into false religion (Christianity), NOI is nothing more than a racist black cult with the name “Islam” in the title. About the only thing that makes them Muslim is their attire and the fact that they don’t eat pork. But many of them drink, curse, and do all sorts of things prohibited by the Quran. Real Muslims from the Middle East and Northern Africa would not consider them “Muslim” at all. When you study the various denominations, sects, cults of major religions, you will notice the more they splinter off, and the further away from when the particular religion was founded, they tend to stray, way off from the original doctrines & practices of the original denomination of the particular religion. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 1, 2019 2:20:32 GMT
Then slavery should have been a good indication to them that it was a false religion unworthy of embracing. Or, it should have indicated to them that their European persecutors did not follow their faith, accordingly. The bible absolutely endorses slavery! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 1, 2019 2:34:13 GMT
They’re not real Muslims. Most of them don’t know any Arabic, have only a rudimentary understanding of the Quran, and know little about the Prophet Muhammad and his history. I have a black friend named Malik who grew up in Chicago NOI. My white friend who actually lived in Egypt for years and spoke fluent Arabic tried to have a conversation with him about the Holy Quran in Arabic, and Malik didn’t know what he was saying. Even when Mike switched to English, Malik was clueless about Middle Eastern history or the teachings of the Prophet. He said he didn’t grow up learning that stuff, only about how the white devil has oppressed African Americans and forced the white religion onto them. So while I agree that the white man ultimately forced black Americans into false religion (Christianity), NOI is nothing more than a racist black cult with the name “Islam” in the title. About the only thing that makes them Muslim is their attire and the fact that they don’t eat pork. But many of them drink, curse, and do all sorts of things prohibited by the Quran. Real Muslims from the Middle East and Northern Africa would not consider them “Muslim” at all. When you study the various denominations, sects, cults of major religions, you will notice the more they splinter off, and the further away from when the particular religion was founded, they tend to stray, way off from the original doctrines & practices of the original denomination of the particular religion. You also tend to find that the reason the original groups break off is due to the corruption and "unholiness" going on in the original denomination. |
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 1, 2019 3:05:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 1, 2019 3:57:35 GMT
Or, it should have indicated to them that their European persecutors did not follow their faith, accordingly. The bible absolutely endorses slavery! Absolutely it does!!! Just take a look at what God Did to the Egyptians, in the Book of Exodus, to see how much the Bible endorses slavery!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 1, 2019 4:00:13 GMT
When you study the various denominations, sects, cults of major religions, you will notice the more they splinter off, and the further away from when the particular religion was founded, they tend to stray, way off from the original doctrines & practices of the original denomination of the particular religion. You also tend to find that the reason the original groups break off is due to the corruption and "unholiness" going on in the original denomination. Not to mention, the disagreements over the various theologies, philosophies, and doctrines, of the original denomination.  |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Jan 1, 2019 5:05:25 GMT
That's actaully why Nation of Islam gained a following, a rejection of the "white man's" religion (Christianity) in favor of a more Native African religion (Islam). Though it's really more of a political movement than a religious one (I get the feeling a bunch of them don't actually legitametly believe in Islam) How can Islam be a more "Native African religion" when it originated in Asia, Arabia? The Muslims swept across north and west Africa and destroyed the native "pagan" religions. Before Islam reached African Egypt there was already a Coptic Christian church in full operation there. And Christians did not gain a foothold in Egypt as a result of conquest like Mohammad and Islam. It grew there naturally during the Roman Empire long before Mohammed. Furthermore, the closest thing to a native African monotheistic church in black Africa is the Ethiopian Coptic Church which began before the 4th century AD. Coptic Christianity is surely more native to Africa than Islam. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 1, 2019 8:18:28 GMT
That's actaully why Nation of Islam gained a following, a rejection of the "white man's" religion (Christianity) in favor of a more Native African religion (Islam). Though it's really more of a political movement than a religious one (I get the feeling a bunch of them don't actually legitametly believe in Islam) Well, it had more to do with the acceptance of Islam and even then there would be caution for non-African Americans. Nation of Islam is not Islam because it focuses on race & ethnicity more than the religion. It's not much different than the KKK being a based on a weird offshoot of Christianity except they had far less power and influence. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 1, 2019 8:18:53 GMT
It's silly to take slavery as an example of what Christianity thinks of black people. It never started with white people and it won't end with them. At the same time there were Christians who had slaves in the south, the majority of Americans did not and yet Christianity somehow spread throughout the entire country among African Americans?
Why?
Because it was the best option, so they chose it.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 1, 2019 10:19:29 GMT
The bible absolutely endorses slavery! Absolutely it does!!! Just take a look at what God Did to the Egyptians, in the Book of Exodus, to see how much the Bible endorses slavery!!!! Please tell me you’re not this retarded. Do you really think ^this qualifies as a proper defense against the Bible endorsing slavery when it flat out says it’s okay to own slaves? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 1, 2019 10:21:29 GMT
You also tend to find that the reason the original groups break off is due to the corruption and "unholiness" going on in the original denomination. Not to mention, the disagreements over the various theologies, philosophies, and doctrines, of the original denomination. Yeah, thus demonstrating their unreliability. Do you have any idea how many popes were corrupt? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 1, 2019 10:29:31 GMT
It's silly to take slavery as an example of what Christianity thinks of black people. It never started with white people and it won't end with them. At the same time there were Christians who had slaves in the south, the majority of Americans did not and yet Christianity somehow spread throughout the entire country among African Americans? Why? Because it was the best option, so they chose it. What Christianity “thinks” of black people is not relevant to the discussion (even if we were to assume that this wasn’t completely a nonsensical statement). The fact is, Christianity was the only option for blacks as it was forced onto them by the white slave masters. Christianity in America DID start with the white man (and it should also end with them). The reason Christianity spread among African Americans is because they were ALL descendent from slaves who had it forced on them. Some African Americans like to pretend that they were no descendants of slaves (we might refer to them as Uncle Toms), but the reality is, unless they immigrated here, their ancestors were slaves. The Bible endorses slavery, and it’s sad and pathetic that a black man who is the descendant of slaves would endorse it. ^Brainwashed negro! |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 1, 2019 15:37:52 GMT
Absolutely it does!!! Just take a look at what God Did to the Egyptians, in the Book of Exodus, to see how much the Bible endorses slavery!!!! Please tell me you’re not this retarded. Do you really think ^this qualifies as a proper defense against the Bible endorsing slavery when it flat out says it’s okay to own slaves? It doesn't condone slavery!!! The Holy Bible makes it quite clear that we are all children of the Heavenly Father, and thereby should treat one another with dignity!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 1, 2019 15:41:28 GMT
Not to mention, the disagreements over the various theologies, philosophies, and doctrines, of the original denomination. Yeah, thus demonstrating their unreliability. Do you have any idea how many popes were corrupt? Yes, but, there were far more good Popes than there were corrupt ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 1, 2019 16:07:00 GMT
Yeah, thus demonstrating their unreliability. Do you have any idea how many popes were corrupt? Yes, but, there were far more good Popes than there were corrupt ones. There's an awful lot of Popes. Is your assertion based on any kind of historical research? (Of course it would have to offer some guidelines for what constitutes "corrupt".) Or are you just assuming (and hoping) it's true? |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 1, 2019 16:15:21 GMT
Yes, but, there were far more good Popes than there were corrupt ones. There's an awful lot of Popes. Is your assertion based on any kind of historical research? (Of course it would have to offer some guidelines for what constitutes "corrupt".) Or are you just assuming (and hoping) it's true? |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 1, 2019 16:31:15 GMT
There's an awful lot of Popes. Is your assertion based on any kind of historical research? (Of course it would have to offer some guidelines for what constitutes "corrupt".) Or are you just assuming (and hoping) it's true? It seems like somebody has actually tried to tackle the question. "In all that time, there have been wonder-working saints, lecherous murderers, and many, many, mediocrities on the Papal throne—every kind of human being imaginable." But I saw nothing in that link supporting the assertion that there were many more good Popes than corrupt ones. But again defining "corrupt" is key here. For example, is a Pope who did some good things but also was having sexual relations (after it was against the rules) a good Pope or a corrupt one? Anyway, it's not my intention to debate the issue - but rather to just point out the problem of an historical assertion as casual as yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Jan 1, 2019 16:43:25 GMT
|
|
