Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List
 

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=5948&start_row=11


Astrotheology

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 27
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: Ark I Sent: 1/13/2015 11:27:53 PM
Reply

How do people know that ancient people who worshipped the Sun didn't think it was actually God? Is there some kind of evidence that shows that they didn't? I am not saying they did our didn't, it would just be a guess if I chose one or the other. I am just curious because I haven't found anything yet that shows any evidence of that.


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/14/2015 6:01:33 AM
Reply

For one, the word and idea of God didn't come into existance yet. We have a habit coming from a Christian background of labelling this thing as God when God is very specific....... For example many Hindus would have a problem describing Brahman (who is probably closer to the ancient perception of the divine) as 'their God'. It is an example of white supremacy in action to presume your view of whatever it is one is trying to describe when saying God, is shared throughout the world and its history as the standard. Taken from the reference below 'Brahman is not God' - they don't stand for it and neither will we


http://hinduism.about.com/od/basics/a/brahman.htm


I wouldn't say they 'worshipped' the sun either..... Such a horrible way to put it.

To give a better answer. Neter or Netjer I don't believe to be such a coincidence that it is so close to the word nature. MDU Neter, divine text, which has clearly been constructed from a wide observation of nature. In the Christian world we are told of the nature of God...... But does God have a nature or IS 'God' nature??

This is how the ancients dealt with it


Messenger: Ark I Sent: 1/14/2015 10:01:06 PM
Reply

I know, I needed to write quickly and I hesitated to say worship, and I had a feeling the I would point it out.

The word God doesn't just mean the Christian concept of God. It is a more general term.

And that article is from a European that took up Hinduism, so what he says isn't necessarily the common belief in Hinduism. It is true that Brahman could not be equated to some man-like figure in the sky, but in the general meaning of the word God, it still could fit.

And I have spoken to various Hindus in the past, including a few Sadhus, and they didn't have issue with the word God, they used it when speaking in English about their Deities.

Nature comes from the word nasci (to be born), would it still fit with MDU Neter? Sometimes words in different languages that sound the same are related, either derived from each other, or both derived from another languages word, but that is not the case with many words.

I have tried to find evidence to explain why a person like the person in that article would think that they could make such a general statement to say that "no people of the ancient world believed the Sun to be God." While that may be true for some or even many ancient people, to say "no people of the ancient world", seems a bit presumptuous. And I wonder if he is doing the same thing as the people who thought that ancient people saw the Sun as God.

It is not really far-fetched to think that at least some people of the past might have regarded the Sun as God. It is the source of our Life, without it, we wouldn't exist. Like I said, I am not making a claim about ancient people one way or the other. But before making or supporting a statement like "no people of the ancient world believed the Sun to be God.", people should do the research needed to ensure that it is true. And in the case of that statement, people could continue to research for the rest of the existence of human beings, passing that research on generation after generation; and they would still never be able to prove that statement is true, because they will never know the thoughts and beliefs of all ancient people of all time and place.

Even the idea that Jesus Christ (Yeshua, Eashue etc.) did or did not exist. Nobody can really prove that either way. They can maybe prove that certain things written about him never happened, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist. It is not uncommon for people to exaggerate and add untrue events when writing stories about a person they look up to. And in their stories, they could even write things that are similar to other stories or myths. People often equate people they look up to as deities or heroes of the past.

There are so many people in history that have done great things and inspired people, and either they were not written about, or whatever was written about them was destroyed or just lost to decomposition. So while Jesus Christ may never have existed, the fact that there are stories about him, whether or not completely accurate, makes it possible.

It really doesn't matter to I whether or not Jesus existed. I Intention in Life is to improve Iself and Live more Iritual and Righteously as I grow. From I perspective, that is the most important thing and the Foundation of all other Works, so the existence of Jesus make no difference in that.

The point I am getting at in all this is that I and I should not make the same mistakes as the people I and I point out the mistakes of. If the blind belief in Jesus Christ, the Bible, God etc., without even attempting to figure out if it is true is something a person criticizes; then they should refrain in the blind belief of anything else, no matter how logical or probable it sounds to them. Those things can be Reasoned about, but with no assumption of truth, unless it is actually proven. Otherwise, it is just replacing one belief system with another belief system.




Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/15/2015 5:48:45 AM
Reply

I didn't say the etymology of nature was Neter. I was simply making a point. MDU Neter utilizes the observation of nature for its 'hola script'. And is a way of understanding how the ancients dealt with the divine.

But the whole point is the word God came from Germany less than a few hundred years ago. How can we apply this to what the Ancients were doing >3000 years ago. How can I prove they didn't believe in God? Because there was no God in those times!

God is not a universal thing, only in the Western world. Maybe the Sidhus and Hindus you spoke of were being respectful as they were in the West or talking to westerners they used the language..... this is appropriation and is understandable. But in the company of their own, back in India, I doubt the God references are as frequent. Or putting it differently, if there had been no imperial contact with India (and Africa) from Europe.... there would be NO God talk, as simple as. The concept is European, and recent. And the meaning and inferences the European has attached to his word, has no right to be applied as the 'standard.'

Again is God nature or does God have a nature?



God
ɡ;;;;;;;;ɒ;;;;;;;;d/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.



- This standard definition shows the word cannot escape its christian connotations. Thats just how it is. Also words like Superhuman....... supernatural....... supreme Being................. etc etc. Too much is being assumed and enforced onto Ancient spirituality if we apply the word God to describe how they saw what is divine; which is unfair. No power over nature nature is the power.


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/15/2015 6:02:19 AM
Reply

Just as nobody in the Ancient world ever walked around with a man named Jesus as that name (letter J) has not come into existence yet. Nobody in the ancient world was talking about God as there was no such word.

Whether or not there was still a Christ with a different spelling to his first name / whether or not the Ancients believed in supernatural is a DIFFERENT argument. But the statement they didn't worship God is 100 right and correct

To ASSUME because they believed in some sort of divinity that it MUST be 'God-like' is a mighty assumption to make without evidence.


It's not that deep


Messenger: Black Christ Salvation Sent: 1/15/2015 8:29:10 AM
Reply

Give thanks for bringing forward this good read Honourable Zion Mountain, I full joyed Reading it.

Bless Up!


Messenger: Ark I Sent: 1/15/2015 9:18:28 AM
Reply

Those are not the only definitions associated with the word God.

So I guess that prior to 100 years ago, nothing was Ital, and nobody was ever downpressed, there was no Yood on earth to eat. Just because a word comes to existence at a later time, doesn't mean that the definition doesn't apply to things that existed before the word.



Messenger: Bobobinghi Jahcub Sent: 1/15/2015 9:38:40 AM
Reply

The I said god is relativley new german word, is it not a possibility that the ancients had different words meaning the same thing but then as time has progressed people used words non native words to where they are living. for example many english people say ' lets have a rendez-vous' rendez vous is french for meeting, but just because one says a different word it doesnt mean it is not being used with the same intention as the more native words. the word god connotes to many a man in the sky amongst other things, surely the concept of a sky god in the clouds etc didnt come into existance when the german people made up the word god,surely it is an older idea than that,that would mean there are older words to describe the same thing,so how far back does it really go,the I saying Kemet didnt see the higher power in this way so who were the first people to do this,if the I know? or is it another 'nobody truly knows' question? also how can we say there was no Kmt ones who didnt believe this, looking today within Rastafari there are many of InI who see Haile Selassie as the son of and/or the sky god and many don't, so perhaps this variance in perspective existed from wayyyyy back, how do we really know?


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/15/2015 10:40:16 AM
Reply

Il explain why that doesn't work. We represent the Maafa. Rastafari is a redemptive trod. So the word God is not as the word Ital or Food. Surely the word for which we may or may not choose to represent the divine has a little more significance then these other things? We, REFUSE, to accept and use EUROcentric models to do this. We are looking into OUR history and choose NOT to use words, ideas and concepts which are foreign to US when describing and reasoning on OUR divine aspects of our history. Especially seeing as our relationship with GOD has been one of nothing BUT downpression.

And its for that VERY reason why we come up with words like DOWNPRESS, ITAL in the first place. So we don't have to use European methods of explaining our very unique situation.

It is not only prejudice, but an example of white supremacy to ASSUME that we must automatically mean what you mean when you talk about divinity, and that our ancestors from a time before Europe had even developed past the hunter gather stage, mean't what the Germans mean't when saying God.

So what did the Germans / do the Europeans mean when saying God? Is this really different? Well again lets look. I reject the claim that the definition changes...... at least the parts I have issue with don't

Oxford:

God
Line breaks: God
Pronunciation: /ɡ;;;;;ɒ;;;;;d /
Definition of God in English:
NOUN

1(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
EXAMPLE SENTENCES
2 (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:



Websters:

GOD
1
God [singular]
a : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe
Does she believe in God?
(May) God bless us all.
(May) God rest her soul. [=I pray that God will give her soul peace now that she has died]
I pray to God that no one was seriously injured in the accident.





Wiki
In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[1]






So to say the Ancients believed in a 'singular/ 'being' / creator of 'HEAVEN' and earth / supernatural / ruler or has power over nature - one would have to find evidence of this. Show me heaven in Kemet. Show me them worshiping any of a singular supreme supernatural being.

We know they believed the natural world around them was IT. No being or God needed.


Self definition is Key here. And again, I reject the idea that the spiritual 'mystery' system of Kemet promoted the idea of heavenly beings, supernatural powers, and singularity. I am a firm believer that they were no Gods in Ancient Kemet, and to assume so is to show a lack of overstanding.


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/15/2015 10:58:05 AM
Reply

Aside from that, in all honesty, if I go around the world and talk about God it is almost always assumed, one is talking from a JudeoChristianIslamic mindset. Correct or incorrect?

Rasta not talking from any of dem mindset


1 - 1011 - 2021 - 27

Return to Reasoning List




RastafarI
 
Haile Selassie I