Realize in discourse on the subject race DOES matter. The reason why is because at least some parties interested and involved in discussing and researching such things are of the belief that cultures, societies and accomplishments are an accurate reflection of a nation's inate abilities. I use the word "nation" here in the literal sense, steming from "natal," infering a people linked by birth, blood. Third world nations are such because it is what the people comprising it are capable of. The same is true of first world nations. You can whine and whine and whine about "Buh da ebil white man beenz keepin us down all dis time!"

In my opinion the fiendish desire of some black to convince that they are of a relation to the ancient egyptians stems from a BURNING jealousy and hatred over the notion that without AE, they have accomplished NOTHING of note in relation to the european and asiatic races. Well guess what? You have not.

Call me a "racist" and a "hater" all you want, I care not. I and countless others LAUGH in your faces when you claim you are "equals" the the european and asiatic races. You are not. Have no doubt, your attempted THEFT of other race's culture and accomplishments is seen as unbecoming by all those outside your race. You shame all your kin, and we notice.

Hi Thought_Node,

You can speak to me in a veiled, condescending tone all you like, I care not. I do not, and did not claim what I posted was in any way "new." I am simply posting it in my own words to help show a pattern of not some, but many, who are of such a mindset.

Also, I am of not such a simple minded nature that I would be contented by searching through literally thousands of posts to see if I am covering specifically what I said. I found this forum, browsed the first few pages, and posted what I was compelled to by what I encountered here. I am my own voice, not that of others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought_Node:
If not, reply specifically to the contents of my comments or ignore them, please.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AFROCENTRIST32:
unfortunately da ebil white-man beenz liin to us too...
he tolded us dat nigroes neber builted notin eder; when in fact,dem ugly darkies builteded 72 pyramids before de lawd sposed to had ebum made da urgth.............and that in fact, without the civilizing hand of Alkebulan, "da ebil suicidal guilt-ridden white boys", would have killed each other off, which as harsh as it may seem may have been just as well since the caucasian has been little more than a nuisance and source of conflict since his first appearance on the scene.

---

“The necessary reeducation of Blacks and a possible solution of racial crisis can begin, strangely enough, only when Blacks fully realize this central fact in their lives: the white man is their bitter enemy. This is not the ranting of wild-eyed militancy, but the calm and unmistakeable verdict of several thousand years of documented history.”

--Chancelor Williams--

Even from the remotest times in Caucasian Europe where the populace primarily lived on flesh, milk and cheese, each man’s neighbor was considered to be his enemy - robbery, theft and vandalism outside the boundary of one’s immediate habitat was approvingly looked upon as a normal way of life. Affirming this fact the Encyclopedia Britannica states, “Each man saw an enemy in his nearest neighbor; war was a normal condition, not only between groups that differed one from another in custom and language.
but also and even more frequently, between little neighboring tribes who were conscious of a common origin. .“

Hi AFROCENTRIST32,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought_Node:
Hi AFROCENTRIST32,

Your garbled, incoherent comments might be of some interest in a rudimentary ebonics class, but they have no value to the civilized other than as an object of laughter.

---

It was meant to be funny

Dummy

1. If you understood the message, it would seem that it at least had that much value.

2.I personally think the concept of ebonics is commical.

3. show me any english script prior to the romans......what's that? ......you can't .....uh...uh...
believe me I take no pride in communicating with this barbarric language of songs... I simply use it to the best of my ability....I do however speak 3 others......light-weight.

4. Don't assume that you matter.....even to yourself......there are 6 billion people in this little ball.....very few are "ebil white men".......INFERIOR

and oh yeah.... I almost forgot

it was meant to be funny

It seems you have decided to to go the ol' cut n' paste route, perhaps to present something more understandable than what you personally are capeable of creating. If so thank you.

I'm sorry, but despite your wishes, I have never before this day posted on this site.

I'm sorry, but I don't find ebonics comical. Here in america it is patheticallyand unfortunately the first and only language (if you can call it that) that many blacks know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought_Node:

I'm sorry, but I don't find ebonics comical. Here in america it is patheticallyand unfortunately the first and only language (if you can call it that) that many blacks know.

.

---

Holy sh*t what a stupid comment! You know the dialect of Gweedo?

If you don't go down on any pier in NJ, NY, or Mass and ask a local if they know how to speak Mafia.

Its the same reasoning in that aweful comment of yours!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought_Node:
Hi AFROCENTRIST32,

It seems you have decided to to go the ol' cut n' paste route, perhaps to present something more understandable than what you personally are capeable of creating. If so thank you.

Unfortunately, your decision not to adress a specific point that your cut n' paste job was ment to comment upon makes it not worthwhile to in turn comment upon. It seems like you have taken an arbitrary piece of info from the whole X race vs. X race debate thrown out in an off key manner.

---

so you are saying that I should respond to this

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought_Node:

Your garbled, incoherent comments might be of some interest in a rudimentary ebonics class, but they have no value to the civilized other than as an object of laughter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought_Node:

your decision not to adress a specific point that your cut n' paste job was ment to comment upon.

---

what does this mean.......?
I know I speak ebonics and everything......
but....didn't you say something about coherence?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought_Node:
Hi AFROCENTRIST32,

I'm sorry, but I don't find ebonics comical. Here in america it is patheticallyand unfortunately the first and only language (if you can call it that) that many blacks know.

I also don't really get what you are trying to say by bringing up the origin of the english language. Yes, It did not begin to evolve into what it has become untill the time of the romans, be we are long past that now. Please be more precise with the points you are trying to make. If you, or anyone else here I communicate with, are not soundly versed in english, I appologise for any miscommunication. I mean no offense over it and am willing to work through it.

---

too late.....the ebonics thing has me sold on what type of person you are.......

you are waaaaaay underqualified to speak to the issue of what language blacks know ......hell I'm black and I sure don't know....ebonics...even the term didn't exist until the early 1990s so what the hell are you talking about........in as much as the common white english dialect in this country is based on history and experience, so to is that of the blacks....unfortunately our history and experience is a "little" bit different.

silencio

you know not what you speak of.

what does being soundly versed in english mean??????????????
I happen to be soundly versed in astro-physics; I think it is equally relevant...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought_Node:
I always find myself laughing and rolling my eyes when one person or another finds it in themselves to make the claim regarding Egypt that "It doesn't matter what race they were anyways." It is not surprising that this claim comes almost exclusively from blacks who are of the belief that the ancient egyptians were also blacks. Of course, these same people don't really believe that it doesn't matter what race they were, they are just trying to open up as many doors as possible to be able to associate themselves with the glory of the ancient egyptians. It's really a cop out for having to prove that the Egyptians were blacks, which clearly they are and were not.

Realize in discourse on the subject race DOES matter. The reason why is because at least some parties interested and involved in discussing and researching such things are of the belief that cultures, societies and accomplishments are an accurate reflection of a nation's inate abilities. I use the word "nation" here in the literal sense, steming from "natal," infering a people linked by birth, blood. Third world nations are such because it is what the people comprising it are capable of. The same is true of first world nations. You can whine and whine and whine about "Buh da ebil white man beenz keepin us down all dis time!"

In my opinion the fiendish desire of some black to convince that they are of a relation to the ancient egyptians stems from a BURNING jealousy and hatred over the notion that without AE, they have accomplished NOTHING of note in relation to the european and asiatic races. Well guess what? You have not.

Call me a "racist" and a "hater" all you want, I care not. I and countless others LAUGH in your faces when you claim you are "equals" the the european and asiatic races. You are not. Have no doubt, your attempted THEFT of other race's culture and accomplishments is seen as unbecoming by all those outside your race. You shame all your kin, and we notice.

---

First of all Thought_Node, not everyone in here is black. I am Asian!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought_Node:
I always find myself laughing and rolling my eyes when one person or another finds it in themselves to make the claim regarding Egypt that "It doesn't matter what race they were anyways." It is not surprising that this claim comes almost exclusively from blacks who are of the belief that the ancient egyptians were also blacks. Of course, these same people don't really believe that it doesn't matter what race they were, they are just trying to open up as many doors as possible to be able to associate themselves with the glory of the ancient egyptians. It's really a cop out for having to prove that the Egyptians were blacks, which clearly they are and were not.

Realize in discourse on the subject race DOES matter. The reason why is because at least some parties interested and involved in discussing and researching such things are of the belief that cultures, societies and accomplishments are an accurate reflection of a nation's inate abilities. I use the word "nation" here in the literal sense, steming from "natal," infering a people linked by birth, blood. Third world nations are such because it is what the people comprising it are capable of. The same is true of first world nations. You can whine and whine and whine about "Buh da ebil white man beenz keepin us down all dis time!"

In my opinion the fiendish desire of some black to convince that they are of a relation to the ancient egyptians stems from a BURNING jealousy and hatred over the notion that without AE, they have accomplished NOTHING of note in relation to the european and asiatic races. Well guess what? You have not.

Call me a "racist" and a "hater" all you want, I care not. I and countless others LAUGH in your faces when you claim you are "equals" the the european and asiatic races. You are not. Have no doubt, your attempted THEFT of other race's culture and accomplishments is seen as unbecoming by all those outside your race. You shame all your kin, and we notice.

---

Trust me, we are laughing at you insecure Social Darwinists and Racial Nationalists with your cliche tripe about economics and race and your vain attempt to live vicariously through the success of other people much harder than you are laughing at us.

When it is all said and done despite your crime statistics, historical revisionism, scare-mongering tactics and vain attempts to prove the innate inferiority of other people there are always going to be people smarter and more economically successful in the groups that you have disdain for.

I will be the first to tell you that race matters only so far as we allow racism to exist in our society. Race was not of importance in the time of the Pharaohs because the concept did not exist but the feeling of superiority was there. Discrimination and feeling of superiority are natural. That does not make the reasons for them facts.

The fact remains that despite your typically hateful perceptions of history the world as we know it and the positions of the various "races" of the world are not as they have always been. During the age of the Pharaohs Black Africans were the rulers, the pinnacle of civilization was found in Africa and White Europeans were what we would today consider to be primitive savages.

I know to you this is ideological blasphemy and because you hate the Black race so much you will never be able to look a statue in the face and agree that it is that of the race that you hate. You will never be able to read a scientific study on Egyptian remains from a peer reviewed journal and nod your head in acknowledgement. To do so would be the epitome of blasphemy.

The people who say that race doesn't matter do not do so out of insecurity for being a member of the race they are classified as belonging to they do it because they are not racists. But then again you already knew that, you are afterall a troll and by rule a troll secretly knows they are wrong they simply delude themselves into thinking they are right when the people well grounded in reality know and recognize the truth.

Well sorry Mr. Troll but people of African descent will continue to study their heritage and learn all they can about their past, your silly thoughtless dribble will not stop us and your generalizations will not diminish our resolve. My advice to you is to deal with your own insecurities about yourself and come to terms with this illness you have that makes you believe you in and of yourself are innately superior to people because of the socio-economic factors that shape society today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought_Node:
Call me a "racist" and a "hater" all you want, I care not. I and countless others LAUGH in your faces when you claim you are "equals" the the european and asiatic races. You are not. Have no doubt, your attempted THEFT of other race's culture and accomplishments is seen as unbecoming by all those outside your race. You shame all your kin, and we notice.

---

The problem here is that you are starting a debate based on a comparison of racial groups found in a particular geographical location. Can you say that European and Asiatic races have developed a superior culture to African races knowing that Egypt is in the set of African races? This is the actual argument you are making and it sounds somewhat absurd. I think what you meant to say is that Blacks have not played a large role in Western civilization. However, Black is a racial term that has no geographical, genetic or even phenotypical meaning that is consistent. You are far better off looking at ethnic groups and making a statement such as: Pygmies, Bushmen and etc, etc, have played an insignificant role in world civilizations. This is a much clearer argument, that would still be controversial, but at least containing language that you can actually perhaps find some supporting evidence. Else you will be caught up in an endless debate over semantics.

So I cannot call you a racist since you didn't even define which race you were referring to but if you meant the African races then certainly your point is based on clear ignorance. Though I suppose in terms of technology, religion and science we Americans are certainly far more advance than Egyptians and the Cushitic speaking peoples of Africa. But I doon't think that was your point was it?

As for the rest of your point about racial identity theft. I am a Jew and I contend that Egypt was a Black civilization. There are many Whites that support this contention. I suggest you read Black Spark White Flame.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Not in a mood to entertain an ignorant thread such as this, but one quick question: Osirion, how do you define what determines a more "advanced" religion?

[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 04 October 2005).]

---

Ahh, but that is a different thread isn't it? Simply put, an "advanced" religion supports "advanced" civilizations. It would be difficult to live in a technologically advance civilization and be weighed down by superstitious religious beliefs. Also, religions that promote vengence would not be conducive to advanced civilization legal systems that maintain a semblance of stability (yes, the was a bit of a knock at Islam and the support of terrorism that it is fostering today - but then there are always those that abuse religions for ill causes).

Western thought examples -

Advance religions:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Intermediate religions:

"Eye for an eye."

Barbaric religions:

"Take their eyes before they can take yours."

-------------------------

Advancement in the sacredness of all human souls as equals. A creator of supreme love of all. Etc, etc, etc. I need another thread if you would like more.

We have advanced as a civilization considerably.

Richard Poe

Also a conservative Republican. Not exactly an insecure Black man trying to steal someone else's culture:

Black Spark, White Flame, by Richard Poe

WERE THE ANCIENT Egyptians black? Did Egyptian explorers land in Greece some 4,000 years ago? Did they plant colonies, establish royal houses and teach the arts of civilization to Europe's savage tribes? Did the secret rites of their temple cults later resurface among the Knights Templar and the Freemasons?

These questions have long been a source of furious controversy, much of it centered around the issue of race. Ask most African-Americans whether the Egyptians were black, and they'll say yes. Ask most whites and they'll deny it. Like the O.J. Simpson trial, the Afrocentric debate draws a bitter line between blacks and whites, liberals and conservatives.

In Black Spark, White Fire, Richard Poe seeks to transcend the passions and politics surrounding this subject. He examines the issues objectively and reaches conclusions that some may find startling.

Based upon seven years of research, including in-depth interviews with leading scholars and scientists, Black Spark, White Fire has been praised by experts as varied as Temple University professor Molefi Kete Asante, Cornell University historian Martin Bernal and Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl. With all the suspense of a mystery thriller, Black Spark follows a slender trail of clues that leads from the highlands of Ethiopia to the barrows of the Russian steppes. It pieces together the forgotten story of an Age of Exploration that ended nearly 3,000 years before Columbus -- a time when Egypt ruled the waves, Africa was the seat of learning and power, and Europe a savage frontier.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

Ahh, but that is a different thread isn't it? Simply put, an "advanced" religion supports "advanced" civilizations.

---

...hence, my question of what determines an "advanced" religion.!

quote:

---

osirion:
It would be difficult to live in a technologically advance civilization and be weighed down by superstitious religious beliefs.

---

Which beliefs do you consider "superstitious", and which ones do you not consider "superstituous"?

quote:

---

osirion:
Also, religions that promote vengence would not be conducive to advanced civilization legal systems that maintain a semblance of stability (yes, the was a bit of a knock at Islam and the support of terrorism that it is fostering today - but then there are always those that abuse religions for ill causes).

---

Really! What do you think about the death penalty? Do you think religion has nothing to do with such "legal" actions in any degree?

quote:

---

osirion:

Western thought examples -

Advance religions:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Intermediate religions:

"Eye for an eye."

Barbaric religions:

"Take their eyes before they can take yours."

---

So this is what determines what religion is advanced and what isn't?

Throughout the book Poe would use evidence, then acknowledge the critics of that evidence and provide more evidence for why he disagreed.

Writers like Poe are the worst enemies of these Social Darwinist, ethnocentrists and racial nationalists because they would rather have Black writers who write with the stereotypical emotional, rhetoric that they hope will not be taken seriously by the mainstream. You don't even have to be an extremist just being Black is enough to get the media to discedit you and stereotype you as "just another eccentric Black writer for Black people".

But when White writers do the same thing they can no longer claim its just another Black person crying for dignity for his race they fear that their books might be accepted as true history. Here is an interview with Richard Poe concerning his book.

quote:

---

Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? An Interview with Richard Poe

by Hisham Aidi
Ancient Egypt has long held tremendous fascination and symbolism for African Americans as a source of identification and pride. Ancient Egyptian imagery appears in African American popular culture and religion, and narratives of ancient Egyptian grandeur and glory hold a special resonance for many African Americans. On any given day on Harlem's bustling 125th Street, for example, one might encounter a religious group called the Islamic Hebrew Nubians who don "Pharaonic" robes and turbans and preach to pedestrians about the lost tribes of Egypt, while young African Americans shop for clothing at Nefertiti Fashions or marvel at the artifacts displayed in a store called Yaiqab's Treasures of Egypt.

Although many African Americans seem to take Egypt's African heritage for granted, scholars have long debated the origins of ancient Egyptian culture and society. Confronted with the archaeological remains of an obviously impressive and advanced ancient culture in Africa, many 19th century European scholars insisted that Egyptian civilization must have originated in Europe or the Near East. This idea has been challenged by many subsequent researchers, perhaps most influentially by Martin Bernal, whose Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Vol. 1 (Rutgers University Press, 1989) triggered numerous debates. Bernal not only rejected the idea that ancient Egypt was a poor cousin to ancient Greece, as had often been proposed, he argued that in fact, Greek civilization was massively indebted to African and Asian influences, primarily to the Egyptians and Phoenicians. Recently, Bernal's thesis has received strong support from unlikely quarters, from conservative political commentator Richard Poe.

In Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? (Prima Publishing, 1999), Poe, an award-winning author, follows historical and archaeological clues from southern Egypt as far north as ancient Colchis, the modern nation of Georgia. He demonstrates that the ancient Egyptians were a seafaring people, who traveled as far as southern Russia and colonized parts of southern Europe, including Greece. Poe scrutinizes the words of the ancient Greek historian Herodotus (450 BC), who observed that the Colchians looked like the Egyptians (he described them as "melagchroes," which means "black-skinned," and "onlotriches," which means "woolly-haired") and, like them, practiced circumcision. Poe discusses archeological evidence including Colchian linen, which, like Egyptian linen, was woven on "a vertical two-beam loom, whose distinctive pyramid-shaped weights have been found in abundance in Georgian archaeological sites." In light of such evidence, Poe asks, "If the Egyptians would sail 250 miles to buy pine wood in Byblos, and 900 miles to obtain gold, incense, and exotic beads of Ethiopia, why would they not have sailed 560 miles to Greece in whose markets all the riches of Europe could be found? Scholars have never provided a satisfactory answer to this question." Poe draws our attention to astonishing evidence of an Egyptian presence in ancient Greece, including the Pyramid of Amphion. Towards the latter part of his 500-page book, Poe addresses another explosive topic: the race of the ancient Egyptians. "Were the Egyptians black?" Poe asks, echoing a question long debated by scholars. The answer to this question, Poe argues, depends on what standard or definition of blackness is adopted; if the "one-drop rule" commonly used in the US is used, then most Egyptians would have qualified as black, he argues. He states emphatically, however, that the ancient Egyptians were "biologically African," and musters cultural, archaeological, and scientific evidence to demonstrate that the original Egyptians evolved in Africa, not, as had been argued by some scholars, in the Near East or Mediterranean. Poe also highlights Egyptian customs which came from regions further south, including the Egyptian habit of mummifying the dead, ancestor worship, circumcision, and clapping and wearing animal masks during religious rites. "The evidence is strong -- and stronger all the time -- that large portions of Egyptian culture can indeed be traced to the heart of Africa," Poe writes.

Finally, Poe argues that since white Americans often tend to lay claim to ancient Greece, African Americans should have every right to identify with ancient Egypt, offering a powerful rebuttal of conservative and liberal attacks on Afrocentrism. Prof. Molefi Asante of Temple University, one of Afrocentrism's key theorists, has described Poe's book as "Brilliant...a classic volume." I recently spoke to Richard Poe by phone in New York City.

Black Spark, White Fire is an intriguing, powerfully argued book, but one of the things that made it particularly interesting to me, and which readers may not know, is that you're a self-proclaimed conservative. Is that right?

I am a conservative. I'm a libertarian -- I believe that government is best which governs least.

How has Black Spark, White Fire been received by the public in general, and the African American community in particular?

As Martin Bernal says, there are different phases of reaction to a controversial idea. The first step is: ignore. The major media, the New York Times Book Review and other major publications, have ignored the book, which is noteworthy because I had some glowing academic reviews. The book was warmly received in the black community, for which I am very grateful. However, I envisioned the book for an audience far beyond the black community, reaching a white audience.

The book is designed to convince the most skeptical European-American. As a conservative, I know people who are virulently opposed to these ideas. The book is trying to defuse and disarm the critics but it's not getting mass media publicity.The main criticism leveled at Bernal's argument, which can also be said of your book, is that you both rely heavily on myth and legend, for example, in your use of Herodotus.

That is a bogus criticism. Neither Bernal nor I rely on legends. We use legends as a line of inquiry to corroborative evidence. British anthropologist Arthur Evans discovered the Palace of Minos in the same way. He was led in part by the legends and folk beliefs of the Cretan people. Heinrich Schliemann's discovery of Troy was guided by Homer.

Your discussion of the Pyramid of Amphion in Greece is fascinating - why haven't the pyramids of Greece received more attention from Afrocentrists or scholars of other persuasions?

The Greek archaeologist Theodore Spyropoulos showed us around one pyramid. It occupies a commanding position overlooking the plain of Argos, where many legends took place. On the highway outside Argos, a sign says, "The Pyramid of Elenizo," but no explanation is given. They say it's a mystery who built it. The site itself, unlike others, is overgrown with grass. Spyropoulos thinks the pyramid is being deliberately ignored for political reasons. Greeks don't like the idea of others having built their civilization. There's a "we did everything" attitude, a knee-jerk nationalism, not so much racism.

While excavating in a pyramidal structure near Thebes, Spyropoulos found areas underground, subterranean tunnels and channels, which he felt were tombs. He thought he could find belongings and royal treasures but he was prevented from proceeding. This was the 1970s, a dictatorship was in power, and he was ordered to leave Thebes. Most Afrocentrists are not even aware of the Greek pyramids. I give credit to Bernal who mentions them in Black Athena II. There is a book out in Greek called The Pyramids of Greece. I haven't read the book, but I'm told it is skeptical and downplays Egyptian influence.

You say there's a double standard at work when white critics of Afrocentrism say it's wrong for black Americans to identify with ancient Egypt. As you write, "an Anglo-Saxon descended from wild Germanic tribes could legitimately take pride in his cultural inheritance -- however distant and tenuous -- from ancient Greece. But a black African must not take pride in ancient Egypt." Can you elaborate on this point?

The standard talking point of people who attack Afrocentrism is, "I'm Scottish, I don't claim a Greek civilization." That's a lie. Speaking as a European American myself, the European Americans who say they don't think of themselves as European, as not considering Europe as their heritage, are lying through their teeth. Every white European American has a claim to every European civilization.

In the introduction to Black Spark, White Fire, I say I'm proud of European culture. I say that in my opinion, The Iliad and The Odyssey are the two greatest works of literature. I don't set out to beat up on either of the two cultures [European and African]. Any person who does not have self-respect, respect for their own heritage, cannot respect others.You address the question of whether the Egyptians were "black," and you conclude that whether the ancient Egyptians were "black" depends on how you define black. But you make a strong case that the Egyptians were "biologically African." Can you discuss this distinction?

Africa is a distinct entity. Historically there has been limited access to the continent. People on the African continent are genetically distinct. The fact that people look different -- that there is a gradation in skin color and hair fuzziness the more north you get - is less important than the evidence provided by Shomarka Keita [a bio-anthropologist at Howard University] that Egyptians evolved in Africa, and have more in common with other Africans than with non-Africans from Asia or Europe.

Sickle cell anemia, thought to be limited to Africa, comes up in southern Europe. Cases have come up in Greece and Italy. So are North Africans more like Europeans or are Europeans more like North Africans? Europe was peopled by Africans, who have been seafaring since the Stone Age. So, of course, it all comes down to one's definition of blackness and that's where anti-Afrocentric arguments become problematic.

Loring C. Brace is often cited as someone who's proven that the ancient Egyptians weren't black. He measures skulls and runs craniological evidence through computers, and concludes that sub-Saharan Africans are black, and Egyptians are in a group more similar to Europeans -- but he also considered Nubians and Somalis more like Europeans. And yet the evidence is there to be seen. Many modern Egyptians, many of them descendants of ancient Egyptians, look black. Why measure skulls and use a computer for this conclusion? Ethiopians and Somalis have been described as Caucasoid before; there is a double standard here, too.

Scholars cannot have more than one definition of blackness - the one-drop rule for the US, and for Africa the 19th century standard of the "true Negro" of the original black race with the darkest of complexions and the most Negroid of features. In the 19th century, people in Africa without the most pronounced Negro features were not considered black. The Somalis were considered Hamitic. The differences you see in Africa were not caused by marriage with [non-African] outsiders -- Africans evolved that way. Do Somalis look more European with their features or do Europeans look more like Somalis?

Would you call yourself an Afrocentrist?

I'm wary of the phrase "Afrocentrist," just as I'm wary of any political label. I wouldn't call myself an Afrocentrist. I'm not about being Afro-centered. I'm Euro-centered. My book is Eurocentric, it's about the colonization of Europe by Egyptians. Europe is the center of my intellectual world. But my book is sympathetic to Afrocentrism. And again, you don't have to beat up on another culture to be proud of your own. I'm proud to be Russian Jewish and Mexican American, and I have no problem with the idea that Africa colonized much of Europe.

Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
So this is what determines what religion is advanced and what isn't?

---

Essentially, what use to be religions that supported a single culture or tribal systems has to now be able to support multiple cultures and challenging perspectives of constructive paradigms encompassing dichotic systems and yet maintain consistent values that are universally recognized and conducive to large civil populations.

Religions have advanced along with our civilizations.

quote:

---

Written by Super Car:

Really! What do you think about the death penalty? Do you think religion has nothing to do with such "legal" actions in any degree?

---

Most religions have statutes that enforce procedures by which a central body can act to protect itself against harm. The act of executing someone is an act of self defense and not vengence. It is conducted by a unbias party that is primarily concerned with stability. Essentially, these statutes have to be enforced blindly so that even if someone murdered a person that the populace thought deserved to be killed, the punishment is still the same. You may argue that the Death Penalty is unnecessary and is more of a punishment which is used as a deterrant. This is also true in some cases and is seen as an attempt by society to maintain stability which has its weaknesses in logic. However, our prison system do not completely protect us, people do escape, and in certain cases it is certainly safer to eliminate the threat of some psyhcopaths from getting back into society via the death penalty.

However, I already made the point that less advanced religions believe in an Eye for an Eye. "Turn the other cheek" is a far more advanced approach that we as a society are not even remotely close to emulating.

quote:

---

osirion:
Essentially, what use to be religions that supported a single culture or tribal systems has to now be able to support multiple cultures and challenging perspectives of constructive paradigms encompassing dichotic systems and yet maintain consistent values that are universally recognized and conducive to large civil populations.

Religions have advanced along with our civilizations.

---

The question was, what determines an "advanced" religion, and what doesn't determine one!

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Most religions have statutes that enforce procedures by which a central body can act to protect itself against harm. The act of executing someone is an act of self defense and not vengence.

---

Executing someone, who has committed a crime by killing another, isn't a form of vengence? What do you think that any religion that suggests such consequences for certain actions, make that suggestion for? Can't it be said that here too, it is meant to be a detterant and self-defence? How does this become more advanced than say, for example, "an eye for an eye"?

quote:

---

osirion:
It is conducted by a unbias party that is primarily concerned with stability.

---

Who is this "unbiased party" supposed to be? Can't one also say that religion also acts as an "unbiased party", in that, if you don't do the crime, then, you don't face the consequences? and that...its [religion] rules don't single out any individual. The rules apply to all.

quote:

---

osirion:
Essentially, these statutes have to be enforced blindly so that even if someone murdered a person that the populace thought deserved to be killed, the punishment is still the same.

---

Checkout what I just mention moments ago, about religious "laws".

quote:

---

osirion:
You may argue that the Death Penalty is unnecessary and is more of a punishment which is used as a deterrant. This is also true in some cases and is seen as an attempt by society to maintain stability which has its weaknesses in logic. However, our prison system do not completely protect us, people do escape, and in certain cases it is certainly safer to eliminate the threat of some psyhcopaths from getting back into society via the death penalty.

---

I have already responded in advance to this point, and asked follow up questions pertaining to "vengence", "deterrance", or "self-defence". Again, please check it out!

quote:

---

osirion:
However, I already made the point that less advanced religions believe in an Eye for an Eye. "Turn the other cheek" is a far more advanced approach that we as a society are not even remotely close to emulating.

---

Just to make sure we are on the same page: So you are saying this statement alone determines what religion is "advanced" and what isn't?

quote:

---

The question was, what determines an "advanced" religion, and what doesn't determine one!

---

My answer was clear. Religions that transcend culture, ethnic divisions, national borders and technological change are more advance than ones that do not. Such religions will survive where others will fail. I cannot explain it any better than that. I would point out that many choose to ignore these aspects of their own religions.

quote:

---

Executing someone, who has committed a crime by killing another, isn't a form of vengence?

---

The way it is practiced by advanced civilizations, it is more a form of self-defense and also as a deterrant (which is also a form of self-defense to prevent instability).

quote:

---

Who is this "unbiased party" supposed to be?

---

The court system is "supposed" to be unbias. Obviously you can argue that it isn't and give plenty of examples that I am aware of. However, just with the fact that I know that if I go in for a surgical procedure at a hospital I might die, the same is true with my opinion about the court system - malpractice may occur but it is still worth the risk. Do I agree with the way the deal penalty works in America? For the most part, yes, there are numerous exceptions. Keep in mind I am a conservative Republican of Jewish heritage. From that you can somewhat gleam an understanding of my religious and political viewpoints.

quote:

---

So you are saying this statement alone determines what religion is "advanced" and what isn't?

---

I am sure I could come up with a great deal more points about the differences between primitive religions and advanced religions. Most religions have a primitive foundation and you can follow its evolution.

Religions have pretty much evolved to meet the needs of complexed societies.

quote:

---

osirion:
My answer was clear. Religions that transcend culture, ethnic divisions, national borders and technological change are more advance than ones that do not. Such religions will survive where others will fail. I cannot explain it any better than that. I would point out that many choose to ignore these aspects of their own religions.

---

If your answer was clear, I wouldn’t have had to reiterate the question. For instance, you gave examples of sayings, and claimed that these were what determined what religion was “advanced” and which wasn’t. In fact, I asked you a question again, on that claim.

If the above is what you are going by, as to what determines an “advanced” religion, then the follow up question would be, which religions transcend culture, ethnic divisions, national borders and technological change, and which ones don’t. And what are the specific determinants for this?

quote:

---

osirion:
The way it is practiced by advanced civilizations, it is more a form of self-defense and also as a deterrant (which is also a form of self-defense to prevent instability).

---

What practice would be that, by “advanced” civilizations, which would make it more a form of self-defense and a deterrent, than say a religion, as you put it, which advocates “an eye for an eye”, or “"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." ?

quote:

---

osirion:
I am sure I could come up with a great deal more points about the differences between primitive religions and advanced religions. Most religions have a primitive foundation and you can follow its evolution.

---

Good, because I am all ears.

quote:

---

osirion:
Religions have pretty much evolved to meet the needs of complexed societies.

---

In what ways have “well known” religions evolved?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
In what ways have “well known” religions evolved?

[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 05 October 2005).]

---

Create another thread and I will continue this discussion but not here. Besides, you don't strike me as someone that has a lot of knowledge about religions of the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Create another thread and I will continue this discussion but not here. Besides, you don't strike me as someone that has a lot of knowledge about religions of the world.

---

Red herrings are a signal of a coward trying avoid the issue(s) on the table, by making baseless presumptions about people you have no idea you are dealing with. On the other hand, you don't strike me as someone who knows what he/she is talking about; any objective reader can see that, your inadequate responses to carefully framed questions are testament to this!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Red herrings are a signal of a coward trying avoid the issue(s) on the table, by making baseless presumptions about people you have no idea you are dealing with. On the other hand, you don't strike me as someone who knows what he/she is talking about; any objective reader can see that, your inadequate responses to carefully framed questions are testament to this!

---

Do you really want this stupid thread title constantly popping up. Man you can be thick! If you want to talk religion with me start another thread! Just keep in mind that my backgroud is a son of a missionary and I have traveled the world. And it is real easy for me to compare religions based on the impact that have on different cultures.

For instance: Hinduism is a very interesting religion but has a weakness. It does not transcend cultures and actually creates ethnic divisions by supporting caste systems. It also enforces dietary restrictions that are so rigid to certainly cause stifling of cultural diversity. The tenets of this religion are primarily unknown to the masses that consider themselves Hindu because much of the religion is in a language that very few know.

Any religion that cannot be passed from one culture to another without significantly requiring the abandonment of the culture it is being passed to is an intermediate or primitive religion.

Buddhism is an example of a rather advanced religion. It is flexible enough to allow for various cultural differences without significant loss to the adoptee culture and is inclusive enough not to cause ethnic strifes. It is a philosophical and individualized religion that is primarily introspective in nature rather than intrusive. The idea of findings one's own path to enlightenment through awareness of the needs of others by learning to get out of self is one of the most advance concepts of humankind. True spiritualism that actual can be considered extreme. The main weakness with this advanced religion is that it is too philosophical and often attempts to explain the nature of things that with science has been proven wrong. The thing that is very intriguing is the idea of creation of the universe which fits rather neatly with quantum physics explaination of how things came to be. Essentially in Buddhism it is called - the emptiness that emptied itself out into somethingness. This is similar to what scientist are calling vacuum fluxuation theory. However, there are numerous beliefs in Buddhism that, like many of the philosophies from Ancient Greece, sound rather silly to us. One of these is the idea that light comes out of our eyes and provides the ability to see. Somewhat like our soul reaching out and reflecting back into ourselves.

Frankly the greatest religious teachings have had the more quantifiably effective impact on a society. Our society is a great exapmle of the impact of a simple man from Nazareth with some very advance spiritual concepts. Do we practice the teachings of Jesus as it is clearly taught? We do not come close but at least it has an influence. Such an influence that has helped govern this country of monkeys playing with a blow torch.

Christianity as it has been documented, not as it is practiced, is still the most advance, culturally transferable, ethnically neutral and socially effective religion ever. It is a simple religion of love and charity. There no deep philosopies it is real simple stuff: Love thy Neighbor as they self, pray for those that persecute you, turn the other cheek, judge not lest ye be judge, etc. Understable by all and universal enough to be practiced in every culture in the World. It was built upon a intermediate religion of Judaism which many confuse as part of Christianity - it is not.

For Moses taught you, an Eye for an Eye, but I say, if someone slaps you on one cheek turn the other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Do you really want this stupid thread title constantly popping up. Man you can be thick!

---

You are point blank, an idiot!

quote:

---

osirion:
If you want to talk religion with me start another thread!

---

Stop whinning about it like a little baby, and start another one if you wish. I really could care less, which route you take!

quote:

---

osirion:
Just keep in mind that my backgroud is a son of a missionary and I have traveled the world.

---

I couldn't care if you had divine powers; questionable claims get called on!

quote:

---

osirion:
And it is real easy for me to compare religions based on the impact that have on different cultures.

---

Maybe now, you'll do just that, instead of resorting to red herrings.

quote:

---

osirion:
For instance: Hinduism is a very interesting religion but has a weakness. It does not transcend cultures and actually creates ethnic divisions by supporting caste systems. It also enforces dietary restrictions that are so rigid to certainly cause stifling of cultural diversity. The tenets of this religion are primarily unknown to the masses that consider themselves Hindu because much of the religion is in a language that very few know.

---

So Hinduism supposedly doesn't transcend different cultures, because of language "barrier" and "deitary restrictions"? What are these "deitary restrictions" that are manageable for folks in "certain" cultures to handle, and so difficult to the point that other cultures cannot possibly adopt it...for what reasons?

quote:

---

osirion:
Any religion that cannot be passed from one culture to another without significantly requiring the abandonment of the culture it is being passed to is an intermediate or primitive religion.

---

What culture does "Hinduism" specifically come with? Is it only found in one culture?

quote:

---

osirion:
Buddhism is an example of a rather advanced religion.

---

Wasn't Buddhism also recorded in a certain language that wasn't just as widely available to the diverse cultures of the world?

quote:

---

osirion:
It is a philosophical and individualized religion that is primarily introspective in nature rather than intrusive. The idea of findings one's own path to enlightenment through awareness of the needs of others by learning to get out of self is one of the most advance concepts of humankind. True spiritualism that actual can be considered extreme.

---

Ah yes, for example, reducing suffering and reaching enlightenment through self-restraint. Don't various religions teach this to some degree, in some form or another; for instance, "fasting" in Islam? Moreover, for those cultures where a central deity, or a variety of deities are looked upon as a very important part of the society, can you honestly say that these folks wouldn't be putting such cultural values to the backseat by adopting Buddhism, where deity really isn't a very important issue?

quote:

---

osirion;
The main weakness with this advanced religion is that it is too philosophical and often attempts to explain the nature of things that with science has been proven wrong. The thing that is very intriguing is the idea of creation of the universe which fits rather neatly with quantum physics explaination of how things came to be. Essentially in Buddhism it is called - the emptiness that emptied itself out into somethingness. This is similar to what scientist are calling vacuum fluxuation theory. However, there are numerous beliefs in Buddhism that, like many of the philosophies from Ancient Greece, sound rather silly to us. One of these is the idea that light comes out of our eyes and provides the ability to see. Somewhat like our soul reaching out and reflecting back into ourselves.

---

Well, all religions have teachings that are questionable to others. This is one reason I question your claims about "advance" and "primitive" religions.

quote:

---

osirion:
Frankly the greatest religious teachings have had the more quantifiably effective impact on a society. Our society is a great exapmle of the impact of a simple man from Nazareth with some very advance spiritual concepts. Do we practice the teachings of Jesus as it is clearly taught? We do not come close but at least it has an influence. Such an influence that has helped govern this country of monkeys playing with a blow torch.

Christianity as it has been documented, not as it is practiced, is still the most advance, culturally transferable, ethnically neutral and socially effective religion ever. It is a simple religion of love and charity.

---

Which well-known religion teaches hate, and if so, what specific literal evidence do you have for this? And which well-known religion says that you have to only be of a certain ethnic background, in order to practice its teachings?

quote:

---

osirion:
There no deep philosopies it is real simple stuff: Love thy Neighbor as they self, pray for those that persecute you, turn the other cheek, judge not lest ye be judge, etc. Understable by all and universal enough to be practiced in every culture in the World.

---

Again, many religions supposedly teach love, charity and peace, and not one of a bully. Is Christianity compatible with cultures where the worshipped deities differ from those of Christianity? Could it be possible that you are confusing "popularity" with the term "advance"?

quote:

---

Super car:

You are point blank, an idiot!

---

So is rudeness taught by your religious beliefs? Very advance idealogical approach to a disagreement.

quote:

---

Super car:

So Hinduism supposedly doesn't transcend different cultures, because of language "barrier" and "deitary restrictions"? What are these "deitary restrictions" that are manageable for folks in "certain" cultures to handle, and so difficult to the point that other cultures cannot possibly adopt it...for what reasons?

---

Thats not what I said. Go read what I said again. Once you figured out what I meant then make your point against it. I am not going to explain it to you any better. As for the dietary aspect of religions, they certainly do have an impact on how transferable a religion is between different cultures.

Example: As a Masai I would have a hard time being a Hindu due to cultural dietary practices that are useful for the environment I live in. Those dietary practices ing Hinduism promote vegetarianism. Think of Eskimos that have absolutely no access to plant matter. Not a very flexible approach and certainly not inclusive of environment needs of certain cultures.

quote:

---

Super Car:

What culture does "Hinduism" specifically come with? Is it only found in one culture?

---

To actually follow Hinduism one would find themselves adopting cultural practices that would be significantly different than say European or African. Buddhism is a reformation of Hinduism that allows for a more culturally portable religious viewpoints. Buddhism is an example of religious evolution due to cultural transmutation.

quote:

---

Super Car:

Wasn't Buddhism also recorded in a certain language that wasn't just as widely available to the diverse cultures of the world?

---

It still is and is rather inaccessible to the masses. Few Buddhist have read all of their mantras. I never said that there were not translations I said that the vast majority of Hindus do not have deep knowledge of the tenets of their religion. They are quite aware of the ritualistic and cultural aspects but this is not the same as having read the vast collection of religious mantras that are mostly written in SAnscript. There is also an issue with literacy amongst Hindus.

quote:

---

Super Car:

Ah yes, for example, reducing suffering and reaching enlightenment through self-restraint. Don't various religions teach this to some degree, in some form or another; for instance, "fasting" in Islam?

---

We wouldn't call them a religion if they didn't teach self discipline. Self discipline is not the same a spiritualism and is far from enlightenment. Intermediate religions teach kindness to your neighbor as in your own kind. Example: It was considered wrong for a Christian to enslave another Christian and the same being true for someone who was Islamist. However, as a Christian, if you really did unto others as you would have them do unto you - could you enslave anyone? Most Christians follow the intermediate and less evolved version of their religion which is Judaism. Judaism and Islam share many similarities in this respect.

quote:

---

Super Car:

Well, all religions have teachings that are questionable to others. This is one reason I question your claims about "advance" and "primitive" religions.

---

The example I gave was not an issue of subjectivity or philosophical differences. The idea that our eyes project out light in order for us to see is simply incorrect and there is no interpretation to make it right. The story of Adam and Eve stands up far better to scrutiny than such obvious incorrect philosophical theories. NOTE: I said stands up better which is far from actually standing up...it simply can be reintepreted to fit into scientific theories.

quote:

---

Super Car:

Which well-known religion teaches hate, and if so, what specific literal evidence do you have for this? And which well-known religion says that you have to only be of a certain ethnic background, in order to practice its teachings?

---

I know a man from Bombay India. A good friend of mine and I spent many years discussing religion with him. He comes from a sect in his society called the "untouchables". He is also essentially a Black man in terms of color and some physical traits but he is considered White in America. Hindu does indeed create ethnic divisions and teaches certain attitudes towards the various groups. A religiously enforced caste system. Islam is far more advance in this regard not to speak of being monotheistic.

quote:

---

Super Car:

Again, many religions supposedly teach love, charity and peace, and not one of a bully. Is Christianity compatible with cultures where the worshipped deities differ from those of Christianity? Could it be possible that you are confusing "popularity" with the term "advance"?

---

Intermediate religions like Islam, Hinduism and Judaism actually allow and in many cases advocate violence against those that are either not part of their religion or are of a particular ethnic heritage.

Show me where in Buddhism that Buddha taught a form of Jihad or violence for the purpose of taking over a land mass? Also, show me where Jesus specifically taught violence. I can say that Moses taught violence and so did Mohammed.

Advancements of religions has been a process of evolutionary steps of cultural and ethnic inclusiveness. This has been effective in uniting people under a common set of accepted moral codes. These reformations were necessary due to the expansion of cultural contacts between social groups. Each evolutinary step can be seen has a adaptation to cultural flux and complexity.

quote:

---

osirion:
So is rudeness taught by your religious beliefs? Very advance idealogical approach to a disagreement.

---

I could have sworn that was your religious values, from the way you approached me. I approach folks at their own “ideological” level, if that is what you were referring to.

Super car questioned:
So Hinduism supposedly doesn't transcend different cultures, because of language "barrier" and "deitary restrictions"?

Osirion stated:
The tenets of this religion are primarily unknown to the masses that consider themselves Hindu because much of the religion is in a language that very few know.

Pray tell, what are you then saying here?

quote:

---

osirion:
Example: As a Masai I would have a hard time being a Hindu due to cultural dietary practices that are useful for the environment I live in. Those dietary practices ing Hinduism promote vegetarianism. Think of Eskimos that have absolutely no access to plant matter. Not a very flexible approach and certainly not inclusive of environment needs of certain cultures.

---

I reiterate; all religions have practices that others question. In your personal opinion, you can’t deal with vegetarianism, but who are you to say that there aren’t many others who can’t cope with this? It appears to be more of a personal issue, it seems to me.

quote:

---

osirion:
It still is and is rather inaccessible to the masses. Few Buddhist have read all of their mantras. I never said that there were not translations I said that the vast majority of Hindus do not have deep knowledge of the tenets of their religion. They are quite aware of the ritualistic and cultural aspects but this is not the same as having read the vast collection of religious mantras that are mostly written in SAnscript. There is also an issue with literacy amongst Hindus.

---

Not unique to Hinduism. Same can be said of the likes of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

quote:

---

osirion:
We wouldn't call them a religion if they didn't teach self discipline. Self discipline is not the same a spiritualism and is far from enlightenment.

---

What do you consider “spiritualism” and “enlightenment”?

quote:

---

osirion:
The example I gave was not an issue of subjectivity or philosophical differences.

---

That wasn’t the point; the point that was being made, pertains to the very reason you soon point out…

quote:

---

osirion:
The idea that our eyes project out light in order for us to see is simply incorrect and there is no interpretation to make it right.

---

quote:

---

osirion:
The story of Adam and Eve stands up far better to scrutiny than such obvious incorrect philosophical theories. NOTE: I said stands up better which is far from actually standing up...it simply can be reintepreted to fit into scientific theories.

---

Certainly not the Biblical interpretation of how in started out!

quote:

---

osirion:
Hindu does indeed create ethnic divisions and teaches certain attitudes towards the various groups. A religiously enforced caste system. Islam is far more advance in this regard not to speak of being monotheistic.

---

Does Hindu state that if you are black, or white, or brown, or yellow, that you can’t practice it? That was where I was going with my question. As far as being “monotheistic”, are you stating that “monotheism” is a determinant for being advanced; what intelligent reasoning could have brought you that conclusion?

quote:

---

osirion:
Intermediate religions like Islam, Hinduism and Judaism actually allow and in many cases advocate violence against those that are either not part of their religion or are of a particular ethnic heritage.

---

How do Islam or Judaism advocate violence against others who aren’t part of the religion. What are the literal evidences for this?

quote:

---

osirion:
Show me where in Buddhism that Buddha taught a form of Jihad or violence for the purpose of taking over a land mass? Also, show me where Jesus specifically taught violence. I can say that Moses taught violence and so did Mohammed.

---

The onus is on you, who claims to be an expert on religion, to show us where specifically Moses and Mohammed claim that their followers can just go out there and mete out violence on “non-believers”. I have heard that if an enemy attacks you, you have the right to self-defense, which I suspect, even if religion doesn’t advocate, people would do anyway. I’ve also heard that if someone commits violence against you, you should try at all cost, to restrain yourself, but in the event that you can’t do this, then do unto the other what they did unto you…no worse than that. Pretty much follows the line of “an eye for an eye”, which if I am not mistaken, is also advocated in Christianity.

quote:

---

osirion:
Advancements of religions has been a process of evolutionary steps of cultural and ethnic inclusiveness. This has been effective in uniting people under a common set of accepted moral codes. These reformations were necessary due to the expansion of cultural contacts between social groups. Each evolutinary step can be seen has a adaptation to cultural flux and complexity.

---

Osirion, you know, I asked you earlier a question relating to this statement, and never received a meaningful response. So I ask again, how have the well known religions, such as Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam evolved since their “inception”?

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

I already said Buddhism was an evolutionary step of inclusiveness relative to Hinduism. I also said Christianity was an evolutionary step of advancement over Judaism. Both are advancements due to inclusiveness that allows for poratability of the basic principals of the religion.

I you are not going to bother reading or understanding what I am saying I see no point of continuing. You are wasting my time.

---

Both are advancements due to inclusiveness that allows for poratability of the basic principals of the religion.

....

don't u mean .....that allows for the profitability in the basic principals of the religion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AFROCENTRIST32:

Both are advancements due to inclusiveness that allows for poratability of the basic principals of the religion.

....

don't u mean .....that allows for the profitability in the basic principals of the religion.

just kidding

---

Portability is quite profitable.

Free market system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

I already said Buddhism was an evolutionary step of inclusiveness relative to Hinduism. I also said Christianity was an evolutionary step of advancement over Judaism. Both are advancements due to inclusiveness that allows for poratability of the basic principals of the religion.

I you are not going to bother reading or understanding what I am saying I see no point of continuing. You are wasting my time.

---

I not sure you even understand what it is you are saying, and hence, feel that others are at the same level. How the hell does "inclusiveness" become the bar with which "advancement" can be measured?

You failed to answer my question about Christianity being "inclusive" in societies, where the deities differ from that of Christianity!

You failed to answer the question on whether societies, in which a central deity or several deities are considered a very important part of culture, aren't putting such values in the backseat by adopting Buddhism, which doesn't consider such s matter too important.

You failed to address the question on how well-known religions of today, such as Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism, have evolved through time, since their inception.

Buddhism wasn't always as peaceful as many people think! Even Buddhist history has periods of violence. This comes as a surprise to many who think of Buddhism as some pacifistic peaceful idea. But how do you think Buddhism spread over so great an area? Buddhism was popular even among warriors. Buddhism became most prominent in India during the Ashoka period. It spread among nomad tribes of Central Asia.

One thing to note is how the cultures and especially religions were affected by Buddhism. In Tibet for example is the perfect situation of the patriarchal Buddhism suppresing and dominating the older matriarchal religions even through means of 'mystic' violence. Many Buddhist nomads kill to protect the clergy. etc etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Just to let you guys know, ALL religions especially if they are world religions, have biases!!

Buddhism wasn't always as peaceful as many people think! Even Buddhist history has periods of violence. This comes as a surprise to many who think of Buddhism as some pacifistic peaceful idea. But how do you think Buddhism spread over so great an area? Buddhism was popular even among warriors. Buddhism became most prominent in India during the Ashoka period. It spread among nomad tribes of Central Asia.

One thing to note is how the cultures and especially religions were affected by Buddhism. In Tibet for example is the perfect situation of the patriarchal Buddhism suppresing and dominating the older matriarchal religions even through means of 'mystic' violence. Many Buddhist nomads kill to protect the clergy. etc etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
I not sure you even understand what it is you are saying, and hence, feel that others are at the same level. How the hell does "inclusiveness" become the bar with which "advancement" can be measured?

---

It allows the religion to function in a more complex society that has a greater set of diversity. Can't you think things through for yourself!

quote:

---

You failed to answer my question about Christianity being "inclusive" in societies, where the deities differ from that of Christianity!

---

I said Cultural and Ethnic inclusiveness not Religious inclusiveness. There is a difference! That being said, how could missionaries go to pagan countries and teach Christianity without the allowance of inclusiveness of other religions? If Christians didn't try to convert other religions but ignored them and simply considered them heathens, then it wouldn't be Christianity it would be Judaism! The call to convert people to Christianity via missionaries is a form of inclusionary evolution of Judaism!

quote:

---

You failed to answer the question on whether societies, in which a central deity or several deities are considered a very important part of culture, aren't putting such values in the backseat by adopting Buddhism, which doesn't consider such s matter too important.

---

I failed to answer a question you did not ask!

quote:

---

You failed to address the question on how well-known religions of today, such as Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism, have evolved through time, since their inception.

---

First of all, I said that Christianity is a evolutionary step not Islam of Judaism. Christianity evolved out of Judaism and provides for a religion of significantly greater inclusiveness. #1 primary example is that people can become Christian through conversion even though they are heathens or pagans which was not possible under Judaism. Islam and Judaism is an evolutionary step over the fractitious pagan religions in the Middle East. Islam united the Arabic people and brought about the Islamic Renaissance that created one of the greatest civilizations man has ever known. Before there was Islam the Arab were just a bunch of warring tribes fighting over desert ponds. They had little unity and were a very fractured people with fractured religious beliefs.

quote:

---

Above all, you failed to provide a coherent thought on what supposedly determines "advancement" and what doesn't.

---

You are being misleading here. You started out complaining about my supposition that inclusiveness is the so called BAR of advancemeant:

quote:

---

what you wrote:
How the hell does "inclusiveness" become the bar with which "advancement" can be measured?

---

And yet I clearly stated that one main unit of measure is inclusiveness of religions. The issue is your lack of imagination. It is really rather simple. What religious beliefs can be taken to every culture in the world without requiring significant cultural modification but still provide a universal moral code? As far as I know, none can accomplish this but some are better than others. Why is this important? Simple, I shouldn't have to feel as if I am part of an inferior culture or an inferior ethnic group because I don't follow certain cultural customs of a religion.

Example: If I am Greek and I am not circumcised and I like to eat pork I am still equally able to be Christian. And I am equal to Jewish Christians that hold to Judaic customs.

quote:

---

What I have from you, basically boils down to an attempt of gauging the degree of popularity among the various religions you mentioned.

---

Bull! Never said anything about popularity. It is a matter of portability without the need to degrade the recipient of the religion or cause ethnic divisions or heirarchies based on cultural customs. The better a religion can avoid this the more advance it is.

quote:

---

You have attempted to say, if not flat out said, that certain religions actually promote voilence on dissidents, for which I have yet to see any evidence.

---

Read the Old Testament and the Quran. I am not wasting my time on something that is common knowledge.

quote:

---

Face it, there are a lot of holes in argument, precisely because various religious beliefs are subjective, and not necessarily objective. Moreover, various religions seem to have been influenced by one or other cosmological sources, and hence similarities in thought.

---

Religions of the world are similar, especially Judaism, Christianity and Islam. However, they are not all equally inclusive. Whether you want to accept it or not, some religions have more cultural customs tied to them than others.

In Christianity: There are no pilgrimages to go on, no dietary rules, no groups called the untouchables, no heirarchies or calls for Jihad. No special clothing requirements other being relatively reasonable for a given culture, no special physical tortures you have to perform on yourself. Of course you can say that it does teach these things, but in actually you are referring to Judaism - Eye for an Eye is not Christian it is Judaic. Turn the other Cheek - that is Christian. Live peacefully with other with all that is in you. Self defense is the last recourse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Just to let you guys know, ALL religions especially if they are world religions, have biases!!

Buddhism wasn't always as peaceful as many people think! Even Buddhist history has periods of violence. This comes as a surprise to many who think of Buddhism as some pacifistic peaceful idea. But how do you think Buddhism spread over so great an area? Buddhism was popular even among warriors. Buddhism became most prominent in India during the Ashoka period. It spread among nomad tribes of Central Asia.

One thing to note is how the cultures and especially religions were affected by Buddhism. In Tibet for example is the perfect situation of the patriarchal Buddhism suppresing and dominating the older matriarchal religions even through means of 'mystic' violence. Many Buddhist nomads kill to protect the clergy. etc etc.

---

You are referring to how the religion was practiced and not on how it is written. The most published and reproduced book in the world is the Bible. It is find in more languages than any other book. Unfortunately, if you go to Buddhist countries you will not find the same level of distribution of Buddhist texts. It is even worse for Hinduism. Just like in the Middle Ages when the Bible was unavailable to the masses, the clergy abused their authority! People simply didn't know any better. They still don't in many places in the world.

quote:

---

osirion:
It allows the religion to function in a more complex society that has a greater set of diversity. Can't you think things through for yourself!

---

It isn’t the question of what I think, but more of a question of whether you are thinking at all, and whether you know what the hell you are talking about. You’ve fallen short so far!

quote:

---

osirion:
I said Cultural and Ethnic inclusiveness not Religious inclusiveness.

---

You keep spinning in circles, without actually answering questions. Again, what cultures do any of the religions that you keep using as an example, come with, and are they only found in a single culture? And how does this suddenly make them "advanced"?

quote:

---

osirion:
That being said, how could missionaries go to pagan countries and teach Christianity without the allowance of inclusiveness of other religions? I

---

You tell me! Does Christianity include local deities that are different from those of Christianity?

quote:

---

osirion:
I failed to answer a question you did not ask!

---

Your blindness is your problem, not mine…

Moreover, for those cultures where a central deity, or a variety of deities are looked upon as a very important part of the society, can you honestly say that these folks wouldn't be putting such cultural values to the backseat by adopting Buddhism, where deity really isn't a very important issue?

Just several posts ago…don’t even need to look elsewhere. Its right here in this thread.

quote:

---

osirion:
You are being misleading here. You started out complaining about my supposition that inclusiveness is the so called BAR of advancemeant

---

What has that do with "coherency"? You claim that "inclusiveness" allows a religion to be portable to many cultures, and hence, easily adopted in complex societies without much strife. Apparently you haven’t studied enough, the history of the spread of many of today’s well known religion! Many of the well-known religions of today haven’t spread without people high-jacking religion to incite violence.

As far as portability is concerned, well, most societies are complex, whether you realize it or not, and if people in complex cultures had to "convert" in order to adopt a religion that was different from their original one, then it means that something isn’t being inclusive, doesn’t it? It would be your personal opinion, to downplay the impact of such "non-inclusiveness".

And then, you go onto selectively zero in on what you perceive as being "negative" in selected religions, and leave out the negative aspects of others. All religions have practices or teachings that are questionable to others; hence, others can pick out stuff they perceive as being negative, that wouldn’t otherwise be perceived as such, by the practitioners of the said religion. Most religions are more subjective than objective!

quote:

---

osirion:
Bull! Never said anything about popularity. It is a matter of portability without the need to degrade the recipient of the religion or cause ethnic divisions or heirarchies based on cultural customs. The better a religion can avoid this the more advance it is.

---

Never said you "said" anything about popularity, but I did however say, that is what it "boils down" to. If a religion is portable and transcends many cultures, then surely the testament to this, would be the religion being present in different cultures. Wouldn’t it?

How does a religion "degrade" its recipient? Could the textual degradation of women in Judeo-Christian religions be an example of this?

quote:

---

osirion:
First of all, I said that Christianity is a evolutionary step not Islam of Judaism.

---

Who said otherwise?

quote:

---

osirion:
#1 primary example is that people can become Christian through conversion even though they are heathens or pagans which was not possible under Judaism.

---

As an example, the developments in the Nile Valley, make a mockery of this claim.

quote:

---

osirion:
The issue is your lack of imagination.

---

What you casually perceive as "lack of imagination", is actually a tool to determine whether you possess "imagination". There’s no evidence that you do.

quote:

---

osirion:
Read the Old Testament and the Quran. I am not wasting my time on something that is common knowledge.

---

The responsibility lies on you to provide textual evidence to support claims that are very questionable. Your non-response can best be described as being rooted in "logical fallacy".

quote:

---

osirion:
In Christianity: There are no pilgrimages to go on, no dietary rules, no groups called the untouchables, no heirarchies or calls for Jihad.

---

There are no restrictions in Christianity, is that what you are getting at? For example, you don't have to pray, do it in a certain way, or that you don't have to go at least the so-called Sunday mass? Most priests and nuns for example, don't have to stay celibate? What about "homosexuals"; they aren't considered "untouchables" here?

What do you know about Jihad? What textual evidence do you have, that suggests that Islam calls for, or makes it the duty of every Muslim to go out there and hurt others, simply because they are non-followers, or in order to convert them?

quote:

---

osirion:
no special physical tortures you have to perform on yourself…Turn the other Cheek - that is Christian. Live peacefully with other with all that is in you. Self defense is the last recourse.

---

Which religion forces you to physically torture yourself? And of course, you still have yet to answer the question pertaining to which religion actually claims that you have to go out there and attack people, and not in self-defence as a last resort, and which doesn’t teach "living peacefully with others". You sound like a biased crackpot, that is all.

quote:

---

There are no restrictions in Christianity, is that what you are getting at? For example, you don't have to pray, do it in a certain way, or that you don't have to go at least the so-called Sunday mass? Most priests and nuns for example, don't have to stay celibate? What about "homosexuals"; they aren't considered "untouchables" here?

---

Now you have actually attempted to provide evidence to counter my position. First, I didn't say there were no restrictions, of course there are. I said the restrictions are not based on cultural customs such as dietary rules. As for the Catholics and there rituals, I do not consider them to be Christian at all. No where in the Bible does Jesus tell people to remain celibate. As for Homosexuals, they are not an Ethnic group. Homosexuality is a peverted form of sexuality that can be practiced by anyone of any ethnicity! It is also not a cultural custom.

The rest of your weak counter points where plain lacking any intelligence. I already stated that inclusiveness in religions does not mean inclusiveness of other religions accept in the sense of living peacefully with people of other religions. So Christianity does not include pagan idols and such. Don't waste your Red Herrings on me. And this crap about how well known religions today caused strife as they spread is also a lot of idiotcy. Intermediate religions caused strife as they spread. The more advanced a religion is the less strife if properly practice it will have. It doesn't mean that people actually practived the religions correctly. There is a difference. Again another Red Herring. You know very well there's a difference between what a religion says to do and what people actually do! Also, Christianity evolved out of an intermediate religion and therefore there are those that try to merge the intermediate with the more advanced versions to their social advantage.

I will simply say it again: advanced religions are more inclusive of cultural and ethnic diversity. If practiced correctly they will not degrade the recipient of the religion by making them feel inferior to the culture that provided the religion. Nor will it make the recipient feel superior to those that do not have the religious position simply based on cultural differences.

On the point of Christianity in particular - there are very few real Christians.

quote:

---

osirion:
Now you have actually attempted to provide evidence to counter my position.

---

Not so much my intention to counter you, than it is, to understand you.

quote:

---

osirion:
First, I didn't say there were no restrictions, of course there are. I said the restrictions are not based on cultural customs such as dietary rules.

---

Well, if you hand pick several “restrictions” of “unnamed” religions, what is your point, when you single out Christianity, which itself has its own restrictions? If celibacy of Nuns, for example, isn’t cultural, I don’t know what it is!

quote:

---

osirion:
As for the Catholics and there rituals, I do not consider them to be Christian at all.

---

You don’t, but they do! Moreover, the clerical celibacy this isn’t unique to Catholics, “lest” you are under that impression.

quote:

---

osirion:
No where in the Bible does Jesus tell people to remain celibate.

---

Doesn’t prevent several Christian sections from practicing it! You see, that seems to be the problem with you. Religion has and, I suspect, will continue to be used as a pretext for doing things, that aren’t necessarily written in religious texts.

quote:

---

osirion:
As for Homosexuals, they are not an Ethnic group. Homosexuality is a peverted form of sexuality that can be practiced by anyone of any ethnicity! It is also not a cultural custom.

---

Non-sequitur. My claim was in response to your selective use of …

Osirion:
no groups called the untouchables, no heirarchies or calls for Jihad.

Where does it state here “ethnic” or “cultural“?

quote:

---

osirion:
The rest of your weak counter points where plain lacking any intelligence.

---

I guess intelligence has escaped you; there is no “counter points”; there is however, a desire to know whether you know what you’re talking about.

quote:

---

osirion:
I already stated that inclusiveness in religions does not mean inclusiveness of other religions accept in the sense of living peacefully with people of other religions.

---

You grasp at straws. Which religion [or at least its followers] doesn’t claim to do that? And why the need to “convert” them, if the intent is to “include” people of other religions?

quote:

---

osirion:
Don't waste your Red Herrings on me.

---

I have none to waste on you, when you are busying engaging in them.

quote:

---

osirion:
And this crap about how well known religions today caused strife as they spread is also a lot of idiotcy.

---

"Sense" is idiocy only to an idiot, who talks of religions being “inclusive without much ethnic strife”, without actually taking the time to learn the history of expansions of the said religions. This is what led to your miscalculation of Buddhism, as Djehuti appropriately demonstrated.

quote:

---

osirion:
Intermediate religions caused strife as they spread. Intermediate religions caused strife as they spread. The more advanced a religion is the less strife if properly practice it will have.

---

In light of your use of the term “intermediate, provide an example of a religion that hasn’t seen ethnic strife take place, during its expansion! Of course, just about any religion promotes the idea that, if it is properly practiced, then their will be less strife; but clearly, that is never the case.

quote:

---

osirion:
You know very well there's a difference between what a religion says to do and what people actually do!

---

I do, but do you? I am not sure you do, judging from your constant prattling about Jihad, without any foundation whatsoever!

quote:

---

osirion:
I will simply say it again: advanced religions are more inclusive of cultural and ethnic diversity. If practiced correctly they will not degrade the recipient of the religion by making them feel inferior to the culture that provided the religion. Nor will it make the recipient feel superior to those that do not have the religious position simply based on cultural differences.

---

And I’ll say this again: What religions are these, in terms of what you just claimed, and what makes them exceptional from other subjective religions? Maybe this time you’ll actually provide answers.

quote:

---

osirion:
On the point of Christianity in particular - there are very few real Christians.

---

I bet there are a whole lot people from other religions, who think along that same line.