Marcus Garvey and ?
Options
Comments
-
I can't see that. I'll have to get out my kindle. I'm going to the cafe first though to see what they got to eat.
Give me a synopsis.
In this video of marcus very famous speech he basically states his belief in ? the son, ? the father and ? the holy ghost. the ? of ethiopia, there is no twisting of words there he is direct in what he says. so his religious beliefs line up with what we would call normal christian teaching for his time.Doesn't matter. It's not relevant since I never said he didn't believe in a ? . In fact, my opening post says that he does believe in a ? . This thread is a debate on the specifics of his beliefs in ? . What part of that don't you get?
He does not believe in just A ? he believed in the ? of abraham. That same ? who knows all things and gives all knowledge so all intelligence comes from him. man's unitary intelligence is not pieces of ? . It is small pieces of his knowledge that he has given to us. intelligence as used by garvey here does not mean self awareness he's not using the word like that.
he means knowledge or understanding the paragraph gives an example of this.
By the way your source was compiled and edited by other people not garvey himself but the speech i dropped garvey spoke with his own mouth.
[img]http://weknowgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/mah-? -gif.gif[/img] -
"We believe in the ? of Ethiopia, the everlasting ? , ? the Father, ? the Son, and ? the Holy Ghost, but we shall worship Him through the spectacles of Ethiopia"
~ Marcus Garvey
/thread......... -
In this video of marcus very famous speech he basically states his belief in ? the son, ? the father and ? the holy ghost. the ? of ethiopia, there is no twisting of words there he is direct in what he says. so his religious beliefs line up with what we would call normal christian teaching for his time.
By the way your source was compiled and edited by other people not garvey himself but the speech i dropped garvey spoke with his own mouth.
That speech is from a PBS documentary entitled, Look For Me In The Whirlwind. The voice you're hearing is not Garvey, but actor Ron Bobb-Semple, as the video description says. It's like Denzel Washington playing the part of Malcolm X, only in a documentary. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. You're naive if you think that documentaries aren't edited either.That same ? who knows all things and gives all knowledge so all intelligence comes from him. man's unitary intelligence is not pieces of ? . It is small pieces of his knowledge that he has given to us.
You would have a greater argument had Garvey not said.. "All the unitary intelligence of the universe goes to make ? ". Thus, all intelligence is ? . ? , to Garvey, is the totality. Garvey said, "No part is greater than the whole. The whole is always greater than any single part and man is only a single part of ? ". Garvey did not say that ? is a being with intelligence. Garvey said ? is universal intelligence, period; without any personification.. That means nothing in the way of being a person or acting like a person.
I've already demonstrated in detail Garvey's thoughts on the trinity. You need not even go there; it's already been established (by me) and that is not what I'm debating. -
Basically what I'm saying is, his conception of ? is different from yours or even orthodox Christianity, not that he didn't believe in ? or that he didn't believe in the trinity.
-
Christians don't even know how to worship yahweh or agree on how he should be revered or what he is. It's the most broken religion.
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »Christians don't even know how to worship yahweh or agree on how he should be revered or what he is. It's the most broken religion.
..which is why it's logical to deduce that he doesn't exist. -
In this video of marcus very famous speech he basically states his belief in ? the son, ? the father and ? the holy ghost. the ? of ethiopia, there is no twisting of words there he is direct in what he says. so his religious beliefs line up with what we would call normal christian teaching for his time.
By the way your source was compiled and edited by other people not garvey himself but the speech i dropped garvey spoke with his own mouth.
That speech is from a PBS documentary entitled, Look For Me In The Whirlwind. The voice you're hearing is not Garvey, but actor Ron Bobb-Semple, as the video description says. You're naive if you think that documentaries aren't edited either.That same ? who knows all things and gives all knowledge so all intelligence comes from him. man's unitary intelligence is not pieces of ? . It is small pieces of his knowledge that he has given to us.
You would have a greater argument had Garvey not said.. "All the unitary intelligence of the universe goes to make ? ". Thus, all intelligence is ? . ? , to Garvey, is the totality. Garvey said, "No part is greater than the whole. The whole is always greater than any single part and man is only a single part of ? ". Garvey did not say that ? is a being with intelligence. Garvey said ? is universal intelligence, period; without any personification.. That means nothing in the way of being a person or acting like a person.
I've already demonstrated in detail Garvey's thoughts on the trinity. You need not even go there; it's already been established (by me) and that is not what I'm debating.
the words of the speech were written down and said by garvey so just because it was preformed by someone else does not make it invalid and is still a much better source than what you have brought. Also you don't debate by telling someone what you have established especially when what you claim to have established is wrong. Who the ? do you think you are?? ? please.
Garvey is using the intelligence to mean ? 's knowledge and universal intelligence means all knowledge not that ? itself is only knowledge.the bible affirms that all knowledge comes from ? and ? having all knowledge of course the whole would be greater than the single part of knowledge that ? has giving man.
In the very first paragraph it reads ? is "spirit and intelligence" spirit does not mean soul in christain theology,a spirit is more like a personality and ? has a male like personality and that is why he is personified as a male in the bible garvey would know this. This is a poem written by marcus
Christ The Way
Oh, with the Spirit as of old,
I chant a prayer to my ? ;
The Being, precious, more than gold
That Croesus has ever had.
I lift my soul to Him above,
And sing the angel's happy praise;
The song of life in joy of love
That men from earth to Heaven raise.
There's joy in Paradise for me,
Although a weary child of sin;
The penitent on Calv'ry's tree
May find the way to enter in.
My hopes are good, in Christ, the Lord;
On Him I rest my cares of heart;
He will so bridge the Heavenly Ford
To show the way ere I depart.
Do you want more ether i can give it to you. -
Who here is agnostic or an atheist?
-
I don't think anyone is arguing that Garvey said ? was a being with intelligence.......
You are just stuck on the preconception of ? as a man or being........
[img]http://byhisgrace211.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/? -loves-you_1_.gif[/img]
Again......Hark, now, let every creature hear,
"Time never was when man was not."
"The thoughts of Allah cannot be circumscribed. No finite mind can comprehend things infinite. All finite things are subject unto change. All finite things will cease to be because there was a time when they were not."
The bodies and the souls of men are finite things, and they will change, yea, from the finite point of view the time will come when they will be no more. "But man himself is not the body, nor the soul; he is a spirit and a part of Allah."
HOMAGE: NOBLE DREW ALI -
"It is only the belief and the confidence we have in a ? why man is able to understand his own
social institutions, and move and live like a rational human being. Take away the highest ideal:
faith and confidence in a ? , and mankind at large is reduced to savagery and the race
destroyed."
-
the words of the speech were written down and said by garvey so just because it was preformed by someone else does not make it invalid and is still a much better source than what you have brought.
The words of the book I'm referencing were also written by him and unlike the speech, the book goes into detail about his theology. The documentary was edited just like the book. The book is a better source than the documentary because the book is a written copy of lessons given personally by Garvey to students in the UNIA.Also you don't debate by telling someone what you have established especially when what you claim to have established is wrong.
Why not? I've already said Garvey believed in the trinity. In fact, I was the first to bring it up in this thread so I'm not denying that fact. That's not what I'm debating. So my point is that you using that fact as a basis for your counter argument is unproductive.In the very first paragraph it reads ? is "spirit and intelligence"
Yeah, not a spirit with intelligence. There's a difference.a spirit is more like a personality and ? has a male like personality and that is why he is personified as a male in the bible garvey would know this.
Garvey said ? is universal intelligence and as such, ? has no personage. It's there in the book. -
Basically what I'm saying is, his conception of ? is different from yours or even orthodox Christianity, not that he didn't believe in ? or that he didn't believe in the trinity.
All it takes to be a mainstream christian is a belief in the existence of the trinity and the teaching of christ as being the truth, it is that which make christianity what it really is.
get the stereotypes of christianity out of your ? head and you'll understand why i keep telling you marcus garvey was a christian and not a pan-theist or any of that other ? you would like to make him out to be. -
Basically what I'm saying is, his conception of ? is different from yours or even orthodox Christianity, not that he didn't believe in ? or that he didn't believe in the trinity.
All it takes to be a mainstream christian is a belief in the existence of the trinity and the teaching of christ as being the truth, it is that which make christianity what it really is.
get the stereotypes of christianity out of your ? head and you'll understand why i keep telling you marcus garvey was a christian and not a pan-theist or any of that other ? you would like to make him out to be.
I never said he wasn't a Christian. Actually, I said he was. My original claim was that he wasn't a Christian IN THE SENSE that you are; not that he wasn't a Christian at all. Following from that, I'm saying also that his conception of ? was not orthodox Christianity.. and that his conception was different from yours. -
the words of the speech were written down and said by garvey so just because it was preformed by someone else does not make it invalid and is still a much better source than what you have brought.
The words of the book I'm referencing were also written by him and unlike the speech, the book goes into detail about his theology. The documentary was edited just like the book. The book is a better source than the documentary because the book is a written copy of lessons given personally by Garvey to students in the UNIA.Also you don't debate by telling someone what you have established especially when what you claim to have established is wrong.
Why not? I've already said Garvey believed in the trinity. In fact, I was the first to bring it up in this thread so I'm not denying that fact. That's not what I'm debating. So my point is that you using that fact as a basis for your counter argument is unproductive.In the very first paragraph it reads ? is "spirit and intelligence"
Yeah, not a spirit with intelligence. There's a difference.a spirit is more like a personality and ? has a male like personality and that is why he is personified as a male in the bible garvey would know this.
Garvey said ? is universal intelligence and as such, ? has no personage. It's there in the book.
You are contradicting yourself if you say garvey believed in the trinity then you cannot turn around and say garvey only knew ? as being universal intelligence. because central to the belief of the trinity is the belief that ? was personified as christ.
I don't disagree with you ? is universal intelligence that means ? is all knowldge but that does not mean ? has no personality. The conculsions that you are getting from that one paragraph are wrong. -
Basically what I'm saying is, his conception of ? is different from yours or even orthodox Christianity, not that he didn't believe in ? or that he didn't believe in the trinity.
All it takes to be a mainstream christian is a belief in the existence of the trinity and the teaching of christ as being the truth, it is that which make christianity what it really is.
get the stereotypes of christianity out of your ? head and you'll understand why i keep telling you marcus garvey was a christian and not a pan-theist or any of that other ? you would like to make him out to be.
I never said he wasn't a Christian. Actually, I said he was. My original claim was that he wasn't a Christian IN THE SENSE that you are; not that he wasn't a Christian at all. Following from that, I'm saying also that his conception of ? was not orthodox Christianity.. and that his conception was different from yours.
But you don't know my conception of what the christian ? is, you only think you do and that is the problem. My conception of ? lines up pretty well with garvey because he believed in the trinity and so do I.
What do you think is "orthodox christianity" you don't know what i believe -
You are contradicting yourself if you say garvey believed in the trinity then you cannot turn around and say garvey only knew ? a being universal intelligence. because central to the belief of the trinity is the belief that ? was personified as christ.
No, Garvey believed that the Holy Spirit was inherent in all men, being parts of it, but that it was up to man to identify with it. Christ was a man who set an example in identifying himself with his true nature; that is, being one in the whole of the holy spirit. In his own words:
"The life of Christ is intended to show man that by obedience he can lift himself to the highest soul expression in keeping with the Holy Spirit of ? , of which he is a part"
http://books.google.com/books?id=tMkPehHDd-wC&pg=PA52&dq=marcus+garvey+in+the+vilest+man,+there+is+the+holy+spirit&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cXzjUfiDMcvi4APXh4GoAw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=marcus garvey in the vilest man, there is the holy spirit&f=falseI don't disagree with you ? is universal intelligence that means ? is all knowldge but that does not mean ? has no personality. The conculsions that you are getting from that one paragraph are wrong.
"There is a ? and ... He is not a person nor a physical being"
http://books.google.com/books?id=chR4mGJNCS0C&pg=PA221&dq=marcus+garvey+lesson+5+? &hl=en&sa=X&ei=bXrjUbX1Mq-z4APvp4DIBA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=marcus garvey lesson 5 ? &f=false
-
Being a Christian is believing that Jesus (or whatever his proper name is) is the Christ; the Son of ? that through his life, death and ressurection he saved the world from sin.
According to these readings, Garvey does not acknowledge this. -
alissowack wrote: »Being a Christian is believing that Jesus (or whatever his proper name is) is the Christ; the Son of ? that through his life, death and ressurection he saved the world from sin.
According to these readings, Garvey does not acknowledge this.
Garvey believed all of that. -
Basically what I'm saying is, his conception of ? is different from yours or even orthodox Christianity, not that he didn't believe in ? or that he didn't believe in the trinity.
All it takes to be a mainstream christian is a belief in the existence of the trinity and the teaching of christ as being the truth, it is that which make christianity what it really is.
get the stereotypes of christianity out of your ? head and you'll understand why i keep telling you marcus garvey was a christian and not a pan-theist or any of that other ? you would like to make him out to be.
I never said he wasn't a Christian. Actually, I said he was. My original claim was that he wasn't a Christian IN THE SENSE that you are; not that he wasn't a Christian at all. Following from that, I'm saying also that his conception of ? was not orthodox Christianity.. and that his conception was different from yours.
But you don't know my conception of what the christian ? is, you only think you do and that is the problem. My conception of ? lines up pretty well with garvey because he believed in the trinity and so do I.
What do you think is "orthodox christianity" you don't know what i believe
You believe ? is a conscious being with intelligence who created man separate from himself.
Garvey believed each man's intelligence was merely a unitary part of the totality, or the universal intelligence, called ? . His ? was not a person (keep in mind I've said person, not human being).
In Garvey' s view, we are parts of ? who is the whole.
In orthodox Christianity, we are not parts of ? but creations of ? . -
alissowack wrote: »Being a Christian is believing that Jesus (or whatever his proper name is) is the Christ; the Son of ? that through his life, death and ressurection he saved the world from sin.
According to these readings, Garvey does not acknowledge this.
Garvey deep belief in christ and every thing you just said can clearly be seen in his poems
The call of heaven
I've come to learn the story
Of Jesus in His bright glory;
That home for sinners set so free
By love for you and -love for me.
I bow to Thee, Son most Holy;
In truth Thou art King of Glory.
So save my soul and make me good
That I may be where Eli stood.
Thy journey through grim Bethany
Led to the Cross' sad agony;
But now Thou art the Lord of Host,
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Now send to me, Light of Glory,
The message good, true and holy;
For I am ready now for home,
No longer in this vale to roam. -
Basically what I'm saying is, his conception of ? is different from yours or even orthodox Christianity, not that he didn't believe in ? or that he didn't believe in the trinity.
All it takes to be a mainstream christian is a belief in the existence of the trinity and the teaching of christ as being the truth, it is that which make christianity what it really is.
get the stereotypes of christianity out of your ? head and you'll understand why i keep telling you marcus garvey was a christian and not a pan-theist or any of that other ? you would like to make him out to be.
I never said he wasn't a Christian. Actually, I said he was. My original claim was that he wasn't a Christian IN THE SENSE that you are; not that he wasn't a Christian at all. Following from that, I'm saying also that his conception of ? was not orthodox Christianity.. and that his conception was different from yours.
But you don't know my conception of what the christian ? is, you only think you do and that is the problem. My conception of ? lines up pretty well with garvey because he believed in the trinity and so do I.
What do you think is "orthodox christianity" you don't know what i believe
You believe ? is a conscious being with intelligence who created man separate from himself.
Garvey believed each man's intelligence was merely a unitary part of the totality, or the universal intelligence, called ? . His ? was not a person (keep in mind I've said person, not human being).
In Garvey' s view, we are parts of ? who is the whole.
In orthodox Christianity, we are not parts of ? but creations of ? .
These are your views on what garvey teachings but not what garvey said.
This is what garvey said:
The example set by our Lord and Master nineteen hundred years ago is but the example that
every reformer must make up his mind to follow if we are indeed to serve those to whom we
minister. Service to humanity means sacrifice. That has been demonstrated by our blessed Lord
and Redeemer whose resurrection we commemorate this day. As Christ triumphed nearly two
thousand years ago over death and the grave, as He was risen from the dead, so do I hope that
400,000,000 Negroes of to-day will triumph over the slavishness of the past, intellectually,
physically, morally and even religiously; that on this anniversary of our risen Lord, we ourselves
will be risen from the slumber of the ages; risen in thought to higher ideals, to a loftier purpose,
to a truer conception of life.
from the philosopy and opinions of marcus garvey -
These are your views on what garvey teachings but not what garvey said.
This is what garvey said:
The example set by our Lord and Master nineteen hundred years ago is but the example that
every reformer must make up his mind to follow if we are indeed to serve those to whom we
minister. Service to humanity means sacrifice. That has been demonstrated by our blessed Lord
and Redeemer whose resurrection we commemorate this day. As Christ triumphed nearly two
thousand years ago over death and the grave, as He was risen from the dead, so do I hope that
400,000,000 Negroes of to-day will triumph over the slavishness of the past, intellectually,
physically, morally and even religiously; that on this anniversary of our risen Lord, we ourselves
will be risen from the slumber of the ages; risen in thought to higher ideals, to a loftier purpose,
to a truer conception of life.
from the philosopy and opinions of marcus garvey
I already established that...[the soul] passes away if it is bad and lives on like Christ if it is good.... the thing that sins in man is the man's individual soul, which is his mind.
-
Only 3 ? discussing this or the others are just too ? stupid to answer?
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »Only 3 ? discussing this or the others are just too ? stupid to answer?
What do you think about it?
-
alissowack wrote: »Being a Christian is believing that Jesus (or whatever his proper name is) is the Christ; the Son of ? that through his life, death and ressurection he saved the world from sin.
According to these readings, Garvey does not acknowledge this.
Garvey deep belief in christ and every thing you just said can clearly be seen in his poems
The call of heaven
I've come to learn the story
Of Jesus in His bright glory;
That home for sinners set so free
By love for you and -love for me.
I bow to Thee, Son most Holy;
In truth Thou art King of Glory.
So save my soul and make me good
That I may be where Eli stood.
Thy journey through grim Bethany
Led to the Cross' sad agony;
But now Thou art the Lord of Host,
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Now send to me, Light of Glory,
The message good, true and holy;
For I am ready now for home,
No longer in this vale to roam.
His poems do not reflect his "other" writings. If Oceanic's posts about Garvey are correct, he has this "I can save myself" mentality; that he has ? figured out and suggests that others should do the same. He treats Jesus's ministry as a mere example on how to live instead of Jesus being "the Life". Now, this is just based on the findings on this thread and could be a misrepresentation of where his life was when he wrote these things. He could just be a believer. I just don't see how he could be from my skimmings through the thread.
