Also, it confuses people as it leads readers to think henotheism is something shared only by Afro-asiatic Afrasan when it is widespread in African traditional religions. And hence terms like traditional African Islam are fundamental in defining the African reality in classical African and contemporary history: Now I am not inclined to this simplification and would argue no such "generalizations" exist, but still the lead needs to identify key commonalities, just like ALL religions have certain things in common.
If Africa is a "ghetto", the problem is very much in the real world, see Human Development Index and not with Wikipedia.
It should be a section on religious reconstruction, not the basis for the entire article. I admit I have not been able to locate the new resources that have been recently added on this topic, but it seems a very simplistic way of looking at things.
So let me justify my oppinion: To avoid fetishising logic, it may be desirable for us to do some reading in basic epistemology. That is to say, what do we appeal to when we are trying to rightly suggest that something is wrong?
The best person to tell you the ins and outs of being African is probably an African scholar. I came here today to start including the relvant stuff from Ehret's fantastic book and find to my pleasure that somebody has already started doing so.
But, there's a balance you seek. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. It's just that when it comes to Ehret, because you recognize the name and dislike your impression thereofany and everything he writes deserves wholesale erasure???
Only later circa the seventh millennium BCE would the early Cushites adopt the Sudanic concept of Divinity into their existing belief system.
When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Because it is possible to hate something, even a nonexisting something, for what it represents -- in this case, horrifying CGI for a horrifying product.
So then now my understanding of the controversy surrounding Ehret is that it has to do with things he's done WITHIN the more-or-less collectively-agreed-upon amongst members of the African linguistic community 'Joseph Greenburg-ian' language families of Africa.
The article "Traditional African Religion" should be emptied, stating only that this term is used to lump distinct African religions together.
You or I might attribute the low numbers to atheists' failure to win converts to their unbelief, but atheists say the problem is persecution so relentless that it drives tens of millions of God-deniers into a closet of feigned faith, like gays before Stonewall.
All I said was that you would find more people agree with you if you argued more calmly, more politely, and more rationally. There are five distinct religious traditions in Africa Khoisan, Koman, Niger-Congo, Sudanic and Afrasan, another one, Aksumitic religion with Asian origins should also be mentioned.
How does that address my objection?
In African Traditional Religions it would be considered offensive and even dangerous to employ the term when praying to a specific deity for intercession.
Since some elements of the Afrasan religion like priest-chiefs and the belief in dangerous spirits where retained, one can call it a syncretistic religion that inherited something from both sides, but I think the main element is Sudanic.
That, however, is a historical question that is rather parenthetical to this article. These real problems aren't going to go away if you simply decide that Africa is only in your head, and damn the politically offensive bastards who keep insisting you cannot define your own dream-Africa.
But what do you do? The message in many paragraphs seems to be this: I do think the lede could better explain these beliefs because script is not a serious factor in classification of traditional religions. So religious people don't hate God. The different waves and factors impacting native beliefs.
I cannot help but be confused over the contention that "might makes right", that because God will punish us if we don't, we should follow His commands.
Euthyphro's dilemma operated under the assumption of many gods. My opponent contends that God has a property thats means that He can determine morality. I am personally working on anther project now. I am discussing the effects of the belief set against the effects of non-belief.
The public decides what it likes to see, and so set's the "meta". So why should we believe you? One of the primary purposes of this book was to show that the Western practice of putting African religions at the bottom of the religious evolutionary pyramid was primarily an attempt to suggest that their religions were inferior and unevolved; perhaps this article shouldn't be repeating these myths?
Logic cannot prove that the conclusion there is false. I think all African devout followers of the old religion who are specialist in this field should come to the rescue of this article. The lead mentions the link to the indigenous stuff. That is not a requirment of objectivity.
In fact, I agree with my opponent, that if God timelessly commanded murder to be moral, and morality was dependent on God's commands, that murder in fact would always be right.That's what I've been saying all along, Science does not address religion, because there are no facts to examine.
Sure, many of the religious feel threatened. Mar 16, · [quote="victrolatim, post:1, topic"] Anyhow, the individual was ranting about how religion is "child abuse" and how indoctrinating children and teaching them that "fables are facts" leads to closed-minded and weaker minded individuals who are prone to be taken advantage of.
Pretty much the question says it all but I will go a bit further just in case my phrasing isn't the best. Is it necessary to read and finish the. SLF is a a religious ranting on the topic of existence of a deity major white-matter tract that a creative essay on the topic of slavery interconnects.
The superior longitudinal fasciculus a biography of carl philipp emanuel bach a german composer (SLF). The phrase "atheists hate god(s)" (AHG) is a fallacious anti-atheist argument which attempts to label atheism as a mere emotional opposition to god(s), rather than a.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.Download