JAH - Know your bible - View Messages

Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=1884&start_row=11

Know your bible

1 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 26

Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)

Messenger: 505Rasta

Sent: 5/27/2007 10:07:04 AM

Well bred this is how I understand animal sacrifices. I think they were to remind people of what they have done. It makes it so they cant hide away from their sin but have presented right in front of them. Iman dont think they are necessary(sp?) but simply a tool for people to see what they have done. And stonings and such are because the person revolted against Jah. He is our Father who must keep us disciplined and inline. By doing such things he was showing everybody else that God is real. That He is our Great and Terrible God Jah Jahovia RastafarI.

Messenger: Ten

Sent: 5/27/2007 11:49:10 AM

Give thanks Empress Nzingha that was a good iditation that helped to put things into perspective. Holy times never stop and the Bible is only one record of JAH works, they are reflected in every part of Creation as the I say. The Bible is also a book to be analysed like any other piece of literature because I n I is on a quest for spiritual knowledge so hence the questions of violence. Although I know somethings were to avenge wickedness, its difficult to reconcile that to JAH's overwhelming love, a love you feel from within and you know there is no way the Most High can ever be a cruel God. JAH is so good to I and its a blessed thing to walk in HIS counsel. My faith in HIM is not based on the writings of the Bible but I read to get a deeper understanding. The Bible, Quran, Torah or any other book of faith is a spiritual source too...The qsn why the violence - is it enough to say its to punish the wicked? Why would JAH wipe out the whole earth and save only Noah and his family while the rest of the world perished? Was this order of life that had been pre-ordained as JAH's destiny for the earth and not really a cruel act? In Psalm 58 I chanted today David asks God to break the teeth of his enemies (v.6), and then says, "the righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked" (v.10). I n I is seeking the way of JAH and even in times of jihad I never think of rejoicing in the blood of mine enemies. I can't associate that image with Sellasie I so my interpretation is of David calling to JAH to save him, that was David's way of praying graphic as it is, just as my way is different too. I cant fully explain the violent things but I overstand they happen because people do it to themselves like the fall of Judah, it wasn't JAH who made the kingdom fall but the people themselves because of their evil ways - what goes around comes around?

Messenger: HIMrulesWEall

Sent: 5/27/2007 11:57:42 AM

Greetings with Love Idren, Jah Bless, RasTafarI.

there no point to ask questions, especially why. The I a soon come to find that "why" not a good question. Just have acceptance for the fact of whats gwon on in the Ime InI live in and Ime Once past. Acceptance will give One overstanding for the fact that Jah manifested what Once was and what is. The way I see it, for the grusome things in the Ible, that just the way it is/was. dont vex over it Iyah.

Jah Bless Itinually.
RasTafarI
Iver Livin, Iver Faithful, Iver sure.

Messenger: Ras power

Sent: 5/27/2007 12:10:20 PM

The wages of sin is death. Jah is just and has given every man his reward not punishment.moses.said the lord is a man of war exo15v3 rev19v11 said in rightiousness do he judge and make war. Man love the notion of doing anything and paying no price. For all you rastas who have that thought i recomend his majesty's autobiogrophy the chapter on his corination under law and constitution

Messenger: Empress Nzingha

Sent: 5/27/2007 12:36:21 PM

Bredren, why is the only question worth asking. If you don't ask the question how can you expect the answer? Now if you don't want to know, don't need to know, then that is your choice, but for those of us seeking the divine knowledge that is our birthright someone must ask the question.
As for the violence...
Men have always fought wars. Over women, territory, food, honor and principle. The problem is that far too often men fight wars because they believe that there is only one way and that those who do not follow that one way are evil, wicked, uncivilized, etc. Testosterone is an agressive chemical. Estrogen is an emotional chemical. When testoterone rules the world there will be violence, there really isn't any way around that. The cruelty of the Bible reflects a masculine concept of power, a concept that believes a blind man has sinned against God simply because he cannot see. Ignorance and machismo is what causes people to believe that those who disagree should die a painful death. Ignorance and machismo is what causes people to believe that a loving God would allow "sinners" to burn for eternity in a pit of brimstone and magma. You see a God who is merciful and full of grace is a god who is in fact a goddess. The Bible promotes testosterone and denounces estrogen, at evey turn. Promotes chastity, obedience and bondage. The Bible was written by men who did not value a womb and who had little more than tolerance for the woman who carries it. A man who does not value his wife or his daughters is a man who does not cry, is not gentle, has no love of feminity and in fact removes all traces of it from his image of God. Takes the womb out of the ankh and makes it a cross that his savior must bear. His savior who is born of a virgin, never takes a wife and never makes love to a woman. Check how the deciples critize Jesus for concerning himself with the plight of women. Check how the lineage of kings never mentions a mother unless the father had more than one wife. Check how daughters are not listed at all. Check how prophets and holy men are born somehow outside of the normal interaction between a man and woman.
Rastafari is not Christianity. Too often Rastas forget that.

Messenger: Ten

Sent: 5/27/2007 6:57:09 PM

Praises,
Its true that the Bible has been used to serve a patriarchal order and enforce gender oppression. It was written by men because men had access to the writings as its was passed down through a male lineage. Not many women are a part of it as a result, but this has made it a way for people to discriminate against others on the basis of gender in the same way ethnicity, race ad sexuality are used to downpress others. However if we now shift the gaze from a male-centred to female-centred worldview, although this would give voice to women would it not be a replacing of one empowered gendered group with another? I'm more for a humanistic perspective of God, one that sees beyond gender as God does not claim to be of any gender. He might have walked upon this earth as male, but that does not mean He only lives in the hearts of men. Besides He came through a woman....

Messenger: Ten

Sent: 5/27/2007 7:09:07 PM

I have quested more on the subject of violence with my sister and she offers a reasoning that people often put God as the figure in times of crisis, happiness or sadness. In these times God takes different shape and when we are happy JAH is the greatest, in sadness we cry JAH why have you forsaken I? And in times of crisis people also say its God's doing. So in a crude way you might say people use JAH as a scape goat or as a tough discplinarian when in fact its the actions of people or its a natural disaster that had been destined to happen - as the Most High's fate. Noah and the flood, was a natural disaster but interpreted as God punished the people - a way of using God to discipline people yet maybe God had nothing to do with these people. It was just their way of seeing things. Could we say the same about the tsunami in Thailand? That God was punishing the Thai people, no. We might say it was an act of nature or an act of God but not place responsibility upon the Most High. I think the more we say God punishes we continue to interpret HIM through the Bible that was written by people, it was their point of view not God's. Its a dangerous way to think because its the way dominant religious views have used the Bible to keep the people down, to enslave, kill and also impoverish through theft...
God might have a different take on the matter or none at all so maybe its better not to take everything as literal. The Bible was written as people's memories of an event, its been translated, diluted, edited and has huge parts missing so its more that I n I draw on the God within. That's how I come to know God, that's how I praise HIM, its from within, HE is the third eye no book can ever fully write, because HE is I living story. Blessed Love.

Messenger: Empress Nzingha

Sent: 5/27/2007 8:11:51 PM

If God is punishing man when a natural disater occurs then God must be punishing the flora and fauna too. All the plants that are ripped up from the root, all the animals who are displaced or killed are just as much a part of the landscape as the buildings and humans.
The patriarchal view is self serving, it has the most comfortable person at the top and everyone else's comfort is based on their relationship to him. The patriarch is a man who God loves and prefers, one person/family He pours his affection on. Everyone else recieves blessings based on the king's opinion of them. In this viewpoint those who are the opposed to the king are killed or banished to life without the love of God.
In a matriarchial society everybody is taken care of as long as the person at the top is able to function properly. As long as you show affection for the queen and contribute to the whole in some way, you are taken care of by the family. Nobody is allowed to break the chain and the group doesn't function without the consent of it's quuen.
Women grow children, the are able to do many things well at one time and often function better that way. Men plant children, they are able to do one thing well or many things fractionally at one time. If a women produces children from more than one man they are siblings; if a man produces children from more than one woman they are family. A tribe of many women and one man functions as one mind, a tribe of many men and one woman can only fight war.
Ideally a tribe should be centered around a couple, a mother and a father. This tribe can defend itself as well as produce goods and services for itself. It can barter with other tribes for the goods it is unable to make internally and to dispose of unwanted material. It can maintain a balanced and varied diet and heal sickness. It can specialize and balance it's atttributes into a configuration that makes most of the people happy most of the time. It can also, and most importantly, utilize the surrounding environment to it's greatest potential. It knows it's own strengths and weaknesses. The reason is because every man has a family to protect and every woman has a family to provide for, children are able to learn from the community without fear of lack or imminent danger.
Seek balance, not dominance.

Messenger: Ten

Sent: 5/28/2007 12:30:48 AM

I agree with most of what you are saying, a matriarchal society does have a humanistic focus because it seeks to involve the community. It ensures all people are taken care of. But when it comes to God, I differ there and see the Most High as non-gendered and all gendered - after all gender is a social term created by people to distinguish social roles between the sexes. But then because its also about power and domination, its been used to oppress women in the most horrific ways. In a matriarchal system the chances of a woman getting raped are so low, its a random crime but the world in which we live the rape rate is so high and its frightening.
..."Ideally a tribe should be centred around a couple" that's in a society where a nuclear order exists, which is mostly in the Western world. But within a tribe its a communal focus, hence the African saying it takes a village to raise a child. We've been socialised into roles as men and women and even within the mythology system too, male and female gods play different roles. The only way I see those roles changing in order to gain equity is to allow each to re-define their own roles, let women relate their experiences rather than speak for them. The absence and stifling of women's voices is something characteristic of patriarchal societies in general and even the Emperor chants this. Religion has been used as a seperatist and oppressive tool for too long, its up I n I to change that - one way to begin is to abandon some of those biased rules in Rastafari that are claimed to be the way of the Nazarite. A man is no closer to JAH than a woman, we all come to JAH light because HIM dwells in each of us.

Messenger: Empress Nzingha

Sent: 5/28/2007 12:55:27 PM

Bredren, you can't peacemeal a statment and call it a dissagreement. For instance:
"But when it comes to God, I differ there and see the Most High as non-gendered and all gendered - after all gender is a social term created by people to distinguish social roles between the sexes"
Where in my statment do I make a statment that differs from this statment? I spoke about the patriarchal concept of God. I showed the problem that exist with the view of punishment in the form of natural disasters. That's it.
Then you take a fraction of a sentance to create a statment;
"..."Ideally a tribe should be centred around a couple" that's in a society where a nuclear order exists, which is mostly in the Western world. But within a tribe its a communal focus, hence the African saying it takes a village to raise a child."
The sentance reads "Ideally a tribe should be centered around a couple, a mother and a father;" a couple who is family. The paragraph concludes by saying: "The reason is because every man has a family to protect and every woman has a family to provide for, children are able to learn from the community without fear of lack or imminent danger." To furrther define couple as family.
I can't think of a more communal society than a family centered around the oldest living mates. What do you think villages are? When a new couple wishes to enter the village they must get the approval of the elders. Usually a cheif's closest advisors are siblings and other close relatives, by blood or marriage. In a society such as this children are tended much the way herds are keept, left much to their own devices as long as they are not needed or misbehaving. The main point being that both the male and female heads of house are equally important and all of the children are equally raised.

1 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 26

Return to Reasoning List