# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Native American Prayers - critical analysis

## Atehequa

Mod note: these post are in reference to this prayer thread, which should be left as a prayer thread.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-and-Blessings



Greetings all.

I'm Atehequa, newly arrived here.

Meaning no disrespect, but I find much of this content as being rather odd. It seems to portray indigenous people of the western hemisphere in a flowery, fantastical if not stereotypical manner. You do realize there are hundreds of nations, tribes and bands of very diverse American Indian people?

Images of tipis, war bonnets, painted ponies, dream catchers and lovely maidens in beaded buckskin finery with mystical 'three wolf moon' backdrops add much to misrepresenting us.

Many of the of these "Native American" prayers, ten commandments and other such seemingly moving words of wisdom did not even originate from indigenous sources. Much this misrepresentation for various reasons is circulated by non-NDN people and sadly enough, others embrace it as being factual.

----------


## acptulsa

> Greetings all.
> 
> I'm Atehequa, newly arrived here.
> 
> Meaning no disrespect, but I find much of this content as being rather odd. It seems to portray indigenous people of the western hemisphere in a flowery, fantastical if not stereotypical manner. You do realize there are hundreds of nations, tribes and bands of very diverse American Indian people?
> 
> Images of tipis, war bonnets, painted ponies, dream catchers and lovely maidens in beaded buckskin finery with mystical 'three wolf moon' backdrops add much to misrepresenting us.
> 
> Many of the of these "Native American" prayers, ten commandments and other such seemingly moving words of wisdom did not even originate from indigenous sources. Much this misrepresentation for various reasons is circulated by non-NDN people and sadly enough, others embrace it as being factual.


I believe you.  Absolutely.

The ignorance is astounding.  I've seen it.  I've seen self-styled 'enlightened' people come to Oklahoma and say, 'I brought the kids to see the Indians.  Where's the teepees at?'  How do you explain to them that few Indians ever used them, and none at all have since whites killed all their bison and forced them into a non-nomadic lifestyle (or, to put it another way, since whites abandoned mud brick huts)?  Especially in front of their kids?

What this thread needs is some expertise.




> 'Little progress can be made by merely attempting to repress what is evil.  Our great hope lies in developing what is good.'--_Calvin Coolidge_


Please, please, post the real thing.  Right here.  Don't just tell us we're doing it wrong.  We don't want to stop; we want to do it right.  Show us.

----------


## Atehequa

> I believe you.  Absolutely.
> 
> The ignorance is astounding.  I've seen it.  I've seen self-styled 'enlightened' people come to Oklahoma and say, 'I brought the kids to see the Indians.  Where's the teepees at?'  How do you explain to them that few Indians ever used them, and none at all have since whites killed all their bison and forced them into a non-nomadic lifestyle (or, to put it another way, since whites abandoned mud brick huts)?  Especially in front of their kids?
> 
> What this thread needs is some expertise.
> 
> 
> 
> Please, please, post the real thing.  Right here.  Don't just tell us we're doing it wrong.  We don't want to stop; we want to do it right.  Show us.


Greetings.

I'm puzzled by your use of "us" and "we". It has me thinking of someone conversing across barriers like a river, gorge or gap with a group of others. Being here am I not with you and those you speak for?

----------


## acptulsa

> Greetings.
> 
> I'm puzzled by your use of "us" and "we". It has me thinking of someone conversing across barriers like a river, gorge or gap with a group of others. Being here am I not with you and those you speak for?


I have 32,974 posts and you have five.

Yes, we have journeyed.  We have fought what we believe to be the good fight, we have had victories and disappointments, we have taken our lumps.  I, for one, would be pleased to have you journey with us.  Welcome.

----------


## Atehequa

> I have 32,974 posts and you have five.


Why do you suppose that would have a bearing upon me? 

I do sincerely thank you for your welcome.

----------


## Atehequa



----------


## acptulsa

> Why do you suppose that would have a bearing upon me?


I'm hopeful it answered the question you asked...

----------


## moostraks

> Greetings all.
> 
> I'm Atehequa, newly arrived here.
> 
> Meaning no disrespect, but I find much of this content as being rather odd. It seems to portray indigenous people of the western hemisphere in a flowery, fantastical if not stereotypical manner. You do realize there are hundreds of nations, tribes and bands of very diverse American Indian people?
> 
> Images of tipis, war bonnets, painted ponies, dream catchers and lovely maidens in beaded buckskin finery with mystical 'three wolf moon' backdrops add much to misrepresenting us.
> 
> Many of the of these "Native American" prayers, ten commandments and other such seemingly moving words of wisdom did not even originate from indigenous sources. Much this misrepresentation for various reasons is circulated by non-NDN people and sadly enough, others embrace it as being factual.


This thread is a positive thread. If you would like to debate then create your own thread. Otherwise feel free to share positive and uplifting Native American prayers and blessings. Thanks for respecting the original intent of this thread. Peace on your path~~~

----------


## Atehequa

> This thread is a positive thread. If you would like to debate then create your own thread. Otherwise feel free to share positive and uplifting Native American prayers and blessings. Thanks for respecting the original intent of this thread. Peace on your path~~~


But I am being positive, for like minded NDN people and their friends. In regards to them and their honor I wrote this -

*To those of the Donkey, Elephant and Porcupine*

Colorful gift wrap, props, a clever theme
An exotic garnish to enhance one's scheme
It sometimes seems this is all we are to you
Our plight already being part of your American dream
Now a mockery of us goes into your religious stew


Some of us have remained and serve to remind
Our reasons to be wary when around your kind
Having yet to heal from your ignominious past 
Deceived by feigned friendships, your treaties we signed
Long coming to know such friendships will never last


Expected to cooperate or do nothing at all
Surviving your empire's rise, decline and fall
As you greedily apply our old words and names
While you blatantly ignore the injustices it pains us to call
Angered when we are able to figure out your games


Now wanting what is left of our homelands
More power and money in your greedy hands
To your founding fathers we were enemies
Defending our sense of being and deemed hostile bands
Obstacles to be removed by their punitive remedies 


We are now expected to happily dance and sing
Loosen our grasp on the ways to which we cling
In buckskins and feathers, you want us to cater
While having an inclination of what feigned friendships bring
Assisting you for now, but only to be knocked off later

----------


## moostraks

> But I am being positive, for like minded NDN people and their friends. In regards to them and their honor I wrote this -
> 
> *To those of the Donkey, Elephant and Porcupine*
> 
> Colorful gift wrap, props, a clever theme
> An exotic garnish to enhance one's scheme
> It sometimes seems this is all we are to you
> Our plight already being part of your American dream
> Now a mockery of us goes into your religious stew
> ...


You don't seem to be listening to what I am saying. If you wish to be divisive you may start your own thread. I have had the game tried to be played enough times with my threads by people who want to be disruptive and negative. It is against forum rules to not respect the intention of the op. If you wish to be argumentative create your own thread but this thread is not the thread for negativity. No race is above disrespecting the sacred space of another. Playing the victim card is not going to gain tolerance for your attempt to derail my thread. Peace on your path~~~

----------


## Atehequa

> You don't seem to be listening to what I am saying. If you wish to be divisive you may start your own thread. I have had the game tried to be played enough times with my threads by people who want to be disruptive and negative. It is against forum rules to not respect the intention of the op. If you wish to be argumentative create your own thread but this thread is not the thread for negativity. No race is above disrespecting the sacred space of another. Playing the victim card is not going to gain tolerance for your attempt to derail my thread. Peace on your path~~~


Notha wekeela? -


Mechtacoosia wiyuchee, motchittehechkee?

----------


## TER

Ἐὰν ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαλῶ καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, γέγονα χαλκὸς ἠχῶν ἢ κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον.

----------


## moostraks

> Notha wekeela? -
> 
> 
> Mechtacoosia wiyuchee, motchittehechkee?


Shawnee, eh? So I ask of you to not be divisive and this is your response? Seems as though you need an education in both private property and collectivism. This forum is private property and as such you, as well as I, are required to comply by the rules set for by the property owner to enjoy the privilege of posting here. Don't like it, then don't expect to remain a member with posting privileges. You are not entitled to disrupt a thread just because you feel entitled to do so. And blaming an entire group for being something based upon color/ethnicity is not going to get you very far in life much less this forum. Seems as though you are trying to perfect the art of speaking out both sides of your mouth. While you are whining about "Americans" collectivizing with their expectations you feel they are demanding maybe you should take a look in the mirror and think just what exactly is it that you are doing in return? Now, if you wish to continue and truly wish to effect a change, then feel free to start your own thread for discussion. If it is more than a racist rant, great! This thread was meant as a means for finding peace in a section of this forum that has seen more than its fair share of anger and hatred. Please cease trying to derail it and respect the intent of the OP. 

Peace on your path~~~

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Looking behind, I am filled with gratitude,
> looking forward, I am filled with vision,
> looking upwards I am filled with strength,
> looking within, I discover peace."
> ~ Quero Apache Prayer


Yes, false religions find their peace within rather than finding it in Christ.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes, false religions find their peace within rather than finding it in Christ.


Whereas Christianity maintains that Christ is within.

So if you have Jesus in your heart but no peace within, I guess we may assume you're at war with Jesus?

No wonder you're always in such a rush to denounce things before you even look for evidence of God's divine touch within them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Whereas Christianity maintains that Christ is within.
> 
> So if you have Jesus in your heart but no peace within, I guess we may assume you're at war with Jesus?
> 
> No wonder you're always in such a rush to denounce things before you even look for evidence of God's divine touch within them.


Sometimes I feel peace within, and sometimes I don't.  Like anyone else, I get stressed or frustrated.  I do not place my assurance in my emotional state.

----------


## acptulsa

> Sometimes I feel peace within, and sometimes I don't.  Like anyone else, I get stressed or frustrated.  I do not place my assurance in my emotional state.


Well, if Jesus is within you, maybe you should listen to Him now and then.

I know a native Christian or two who could teach you how to do a better job of that.  Of course, they use some of their traditional philosophy in the process, so you might be scared to try.

There's a word for being afraid of things you don't understand.  It's called superstition.  And refusing to try to understand _anything_ because you _assume_ it isn't Godly is not a Godly act.  Yea though I walk through the Valley of Death I ain't such a chicken, myself.  I'm willing to _risk_ a deeper understanding.

And I thought you had me on ignore.  You surely weren't _lying_ to us about that, were you...?

----------


## acptulsa

Thomas claimed that Jesus once said that to blaspheme God was forgivable, and to blaspheme Jesus was forgivable, but to blaspheme the Holy Spirit was unforgivable--a truly deadly, irredeemable sin.  The native Americans reserve their highest reverence for the Holy Spirit (or Great Spirit, or however you care to translate their languages).  To understand that the earth was given to us as our mother, and nourishes us through her fertility is to have a foundation of rock, not sand, upon which to build an understanding of God.  And to fail to understand that the devil is not a warrior like a wolf, but a Trickster like the coyote, is to leave yourself ill-equipped to fight him.

God is where He is.  He doesn't wait for your Pharisee preacher's stamp of approval before He goes where He will.

So, I _am_ curious.  Are you saying God was incapable of revealing Himself to ancient Americans and leaving the fact that He did so out of the Bible, or that He had no right to?  Because Indians will tell you that the Bible didn't contradict their ancient beliefs, but gave them a deeper understanding.  Too bad some of us can't handle a deeper understanding.

If we could, maybe we could come into threads like this with the love and understanding He expects of us, rather than the hate and intolerance He abhors.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes, false religions find their peace within rather than finding it in Christ.


I have already informed your kind this is not a thread for hate filled nonsense. 

Luke 6:31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. 32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. 33And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. 34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. 36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Luke 17:20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God comes not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, See here! or, see there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

I John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is [a]born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love

----------


## monte

> Yes, false religions find their peace within rather than finding it in Christ.


In Luke 17:21 Christ says that the Kingdom of God is within.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 


Just to state the obvious:  Native American paganism is a lie from Hell and a true Christian hates every way that this paganism asserts itself against the truth of Christ.  

The "Great Spirit" or "Mother Earth" is an idol that cannot save.  If a person does not believe that Jesus is God and that He _alone_ is the only salvation from God's wrath against sin, he is not saved and will spend eternity in darkness away from the presence of the Lord.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Do these Native American belief systems even touch on the topic of Salvation in the first place?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Attachment 2836


*



			
				2 Corinthians 6:14-17 

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? 

Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial ? 

Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? 

For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”    

Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”
			
		

*

...

----------


## moostraks

> ...


4)
• Posts should respect the intent and desires of the Topic Starter

You have already had posts removed from this thread for this off topic nonsense. If you wish to debate start your own thread. This is not the thread for this type of off topic discussion. Take your hate and GO! It is not the purpose of this thread to shame or humiliate those that disagree with your self promoting belief structure.

----------


## jllundqu

> ...


Once again... your prosthelytizing is not welcome.  Unless you care to add to this thread, please show yourself the proverbial door.  Preach to people who actually care to hear it.  I am not Christian and do not appreciate your constant intrusions.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I for one would not be so eager to pronounce God's covenant with Noah as being pagan or ungodly.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 4)
> • Posts should respect the intent and desires of the Topic Starter
> 
> You have already had posts removed from this thread for this off topic nonsense. If you wish to debate start your own thread. This is not the thread for this type of off topic discussion. Take your hate and GO! It is not the purpose of this thread to shame or humiliate those that disagree with your self promoting belief structure.



Do you want me to create a thread that gets 30,000 views and 10,000 replies about this?  I can do it if you want.  

I just thought I would give the Christian view of this and then leave it alone.

----------


## otherone

> Do you want me to create a thread that gets 30,000 views and 10,000 replies about this? * I can do it* if you want.


ALL HAIL

LUCIFER

----------


## Kevin007

he got banned again? sheesh.....

----------


## Jamesiv1

"Throughout the universe, there are millions of names for God, and all of them are holy."

-- A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

----------


## Kevin007

lol, why he get banned again?

----------


## moostraks

> Do you want me to create a thread that gets 30,000 views and 10,000 replies about this?  I can do it if you want.  
> 
> I just thought I would give the Christian view of this and then leave it alone.

----------


## moostraks

> Do you want me to create a thread that gets 30,000 views and 10,000 replies about this?  I can do it if you want.  
> 
> I just thought I would give the Christian view of this and then leave it alone.


Proverbs 16

Contrast the Upright and the Wicked

1The plans of the heart belong to man,
            But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.
      2All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight,
            But the LORD weighs the motives.

      3Commit your works to the LORD
            And your plans will be established.

      4The LORD has made everything for its own purpose,
            Even the wicked for the day of evil.

      5Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD;
            Assuredly, he will not be unpunished.

      6By lovingkindness and truth iniquity is atoned for,
            And by the fear of the LORD one keeps away from evil.

      7When a mans ways are pleasing to the LORD,
            He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.

      8Better is a little with righteousness
            Than great income with injustice.

      9The mind of man plans his way,
            But the LORD directs his steps.

      10A divine decision is in the lips of the king;
            His mouth should not err in judgment.

      11A just balance and scales belong to the LORD;
            All the weights of the bag are His concern.

      12It is an abomination for kings to commit wicked acts,
            For a throne is established on righteousness.

      13Righteous lips are the delight of kings,
            And he who speaks right is loved.

      14The fury of a king is like messengers of death,
            But a wise man will appease it.

      15In the light of a kings face is life,
            And his favor is like a cloud with the spring rain.

      16How much better it is to get wisdom than gold!
            And to get understanding is to be chosen above silver.

      17The highway of the upright is to depart from evil;
            He who watches his way preserves his life.

      18Pride goes before destruction,
            And a haughty spirit before stumbling.

      19It is better to be humble in spirit with the lowly
            Than to divide the spoil with the proud.

      20He who gives attention to the word will find good,
            And blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.

      21The wise in heart will be called understanding,
            And sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.

      22Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it,
            But the discipline of fools is folly.

      23The heart of the wise instructs his mouth
            And adds persuasiveness to his lips.

      24Pleasant words are a honeycomb,
            Sweet to the soul and healing to the bones.

      25There is a way which seems right to a man,
            But its end is the way of death.

      26A workers appetite works for him,
            For his hunger urges him on.

      27A worthless man digs up evil,
            While his words are like scorching fire.

      28A perverse man spreads strife,
            And a slanderer separates intimate friends.

      29A man of violence entices his neighbor
            And leads him in a way that is not good.

      30He who winks his eyes does so to devise perverse things;
            He who compresses his lips brings evil to pass.

      31A gray head is a crown of glory;
            It is found in the way of righteousness.

      32He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty,
            And he who rules his spirit, than he who captures a city.

      33The lot is cast into the lap,
            But its every decision is from the LORD.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> lol, why he get banned again?


I probably would not have, but I can guess that he was "violating the conditions of his parole" or some such, by immediately jumping back in and calling out everyone he hated again.  If someone around here kept going after Muslims or Jews the way this guy goes after Catholics and Free Will Baptists they would probably be just as banned.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Do you want me to create a thread that gets 30,000 views and 10,000 replies about this?  I can do it if you want.


Jiminy crickets, S_F. It doesn't count when it's the same old couple of fellers yappin back and forth.

----------


## RJB

> Do you want me to create a thread that gets 30,000 views and 10,000 replies about this?  I can do it if you want.


We should focus on quality, not quantity, my friend.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I probably would not have, but I can guess that he was "violating the conditions of his parole" or some such, by immediately jumping back in and calling out everyone he hated again.  If someone around here kept going after Muslims or Jews the way this guy goes after Catholics and Free Will Baptists they would probably be just as banned.


I don't agree with SF on everything but I frankly don't see "hatred" in those posts.  More like genuine concern.

I don't hate Catholics.  I don't view them as Christians, but that doesn't mean I hate them.  And I don't assume that everyone who thinks that I'm wrong about this, that, or the other thing also hates me.

Really, I think a lot of this forum has fallen for liberal political correctness and that's a big part of the problem right there.  Religion is a contentious subject.  Politics is to, but since this is a political forum it is neutered a bit by the fact that pretty much all of us like Ron Paul.  Similarly, religion is not going to be as contentious on a Catholic forum or a Reformed forum... it doesn't mean everyone is going to agree on everything all the time, but having that common idea built into the forum's purpose is going to reduce quibbling.  We are all to varying degrees small government types, but on religious issues we're as different as night is from day at times.  Its going to be contentious, it just is what it is.  

The mods either need to learn to deal with that, or just kill the religion forum.  Its mostly pointless "as is" because the guidelines are overly strict, applied differently by different mods, and not applied equally across the board. 

Also, this thread is full of bad philosophy, and allowing to to be posted without allowing it to be critiqued is blatantly unfair.  I mean, can you imagine if Sola had taken his "three reasons why Arminians are not saved" thread, and then said Arminians weren't allowed to defend their position?  How ridiculous would that have been?  It would never have been tolerated.   




> lol, why he get banned again?


I asked Bryan and he doesn't know.  He's looking into it.  I suspect it was another stupid mod getting trigger happy.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't agree with SF on everything but I frankly don't see "hatred" in those posts.  More like genuine concern.
> 
> I don't hate Catholics.  I don't view them as Christians, but that doesn't mean I hate them.  And I don't assume that everyone who thinks that I'm wrong about this, that, or the other thing also hates me.
> 
> Really, I think a lot of this forum has fallen for liberal political correctness and that's a big part of the problem right there.  Religion is a contentious subject.  Politics is to, but since this is a political forum it is neutered a bit by the fact that pretty much all of us like Ron Paul.  Similarly, religion is not going to be as contentious on a Catholic forum or a Reformed forum... it doesn't mean everyone is going to agree on everything all the time, but having that common idea built into the forum's purpose is going to reduce quibbling.  We are all to varying degrees small government types, but on religious issues we're as different as night is from day at times.  Its going to be contentious, it just is what it is.  
> 
> The mods either need to learn to deal with that, or just kill the religion forum.  Its mostly pointless "as is" because the guidelines are overly strict, applied differently by different mods, and not applied equally across the board. 
> 
> Also, this thread is full of bad philosophy, and allowing to to be posted without allowing it to be critiqued is blatantly unfair.  I mean, can you imagine if Sola had taken his "three reasons why Arminians are not saved" thread, and then said Arminians weren't allowed to defend their position?  How ridiculous would that have been?  It would never have been tolerated.   
> ...


It is easy to not see hatred when you are not the target of it.

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't agree with SF on everything but I frankly don't see "hatred" in those posts.  More like genuine concern.


Oh come on,,

He just jumped into one of mine. Said it wasn't scriptural sound. it wasn't in the Bible. Blaa bla bla,,

He was soundly and correctly refuted from well known scripture by several people.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It is easy to not see hatred when you are not the target of it.


Sola's blasted me rhetorically too





> Oh come on,,
> 
> He just jumped into one of mine. Said it wasn't scriptural sound. it wasn't in the Bible. Blaa bla bla,,
> 
> He was soundly and correctly refuted from well known scripture by several people.


What does that have to do with hatred?

----------


## pcosmar

> Sola's blasted me rhetorically too
> 
> What does that have to do with hatred?


Because that is what he does in every direction,, he radiates hate.

Might focus of anyone that posts anything,, Had favorite targets but attacked his defenders as well.

pretty deliberately decisive.

His first posts were directed to another poster who is banned and could not possibly answer.. bringing up threads that had long died.

----------


## Kevin007

I don't post here much at all because its boring if everybody agrees.

----------


## RJB

> I don't post here much at all because its boring if everybody agrees.


Do you think there was total agreement in the last month on the religion forum!?  Actually there was a healthy bit of discussion between Atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc. in the last month without the usual rancor.  There was some, but it didn't get over the top.

Debate without unnecessary drama is not agreement-- that's a soap opera.  Nor does bad manners make a compelling argument-- that's just rude behavior.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't post here much at all because its boring if everybody agrees.


I've mostly been staying out of the religion forum for the same reason.  If I said the things I wanted to say I'd just get banned again.  And I don't really feel like doing that because I want to be able to comment in the political forums.  



> Do you think there was total agreement in the last month on the religion forum!?  Actually there was a healthy bit of discussion between Atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc. in the last month without the usual rancor.  There was some, but it didn't get over the top.
> 
> Debate without unnecessary drama is not agreement-- that's a soap opera.  Nor does bad manners make a compelling argument-- that's just rude behavior.


Maybe its not "total agreement" but its certainly censorship of the hard conversations.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> _O' GREAT SPIRIT_ help me always to speak the truth quietly,
> to listen with an open mind when others speak,
> and to remember the peace that may be found in silence.


This is blatant idolatry.

----------


## acptulsa

> This is blatant idolatry.


Or it's someone praying to the Holy Spirit.

You're not even an expert on their languages, much less their religions.

So, either you have a private back door line to God that none of us know about and through which God has chronicled every journey the Holy Spirit ever took or you're talking out your ass.  Or, worse, you're telling God He had no right to be 'everywhere'--i.e. in North America--before Christians (actually, in your case, probably Calvinist Christians at that) showed up here.

You didn't even get past the first three words to see if the rest was compatible with Jesus' teachings before you condemned it.




> The first peace, which is the most important, is that which comes within the souls of people when they realize their relationship, their oneness, with the universe and all its powers, and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells Wakan-Taka (the Great Spirit), and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us. 
> This is the real peace, and the others are but reflections of this. 
> The second peace is that which is made between two individuals, and the third is that which is made between two nations. 
> But above all you should understand that there can never be peace between nations until there is known that true peace, which, as I have often said, is within the souls of men.


If the Holy Spirit never touched him, how could he sound so much like Jesus?  And if the Holy Spirit _did_ touch him, where's your alleged idolatry?  And if you can't answer either question, yet made the judgment you did, why wouldn't God have right and reason to judge _you_ for it?

----------


## moostraks

> This is blatant idolatry.


• Work to promote a peaceful, freedom loving, compassionate society.
• Be respectful of others' religion or lack there of.
• Posts should respect the intent and desires of the Topic Starter

I have informed you and your kind numerous times what the purpose of this thread is for and requested that all off topic discussion (such as the validity of Native American spirituality) take place on another thread so that some may find love and peace in this thread without senseless, hate-filled attacks on their beliefs. If you and your kind could learn some respect for rules (much less comply with simple, common courtesy) and respect the rights of others to converse without constant interference and confrontation, it would be most appreciated. We cannot be lights in the darkness with regards to liberty if we fail to realize that others are entitled to the same freedom as we expect for ourselves.

----------


## Deborah K

> This is blatant idolatry.


Where is your proof that this prayer is not to the same God?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Where is your proof that this prayer is not to the same God?


I doubt that it was a prayer to the Holy Spirit.

----------


## moostraks

> I doubt that it was a prayer to the Holy Spirit.





> Bigotry is the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
> 
> 
> The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie (bigotry) in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite". This meaning still survives in Italian, in the cognate word bigotto. The exact origin of the word is unknown, but it may have come from the German bei and Gott, or the English by God.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

Found this wiki entry interesting and pertinent. How loving of a Christian to make such proclamations. Better to be thought a fool then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. No proof FF so you are just spreading hate again and calling it Christianity.This thread ain't the place for your nonsense so move along. There are plenty of other threads you have corrupted for your "religion". Take it up there or start a new one.

----------


## acptulsa

> Where is your proof that this prayer is not to the same God?





> I doubt that it was a prayer to the Holy Spirit.


And you're completely willing to condemn millions of souls to Hell because you have doubts.

Thank God you're not Jesus.




> I travel these lands much these days,
> my ancestors went these same ways.
> Back when you could still see the border of where Heaven and Earth lies
> when the eagles glare still ruled the skies.
> Back when we roamed like the bears,
> hunting and gathering without a care.
> Back when this was my land,
> before I was a savage man.
> 
> ...

----------


## moostraks

Thank you for the split. It seems as though some are intent on creating division in any thread that attempts to promote peace. Hopefully this will keep discussion appropriately divided from those who to be uplifted and not attacked.

----------


## jllundqu

> This is blatant idolatry.


This is why I don't post here or anywhere near here anymore.  People like you and SF do more harm to religion on one day than anyone I interact with.  THis thread was started for one reason and it was successfully hijacked AGAIN.  I want ONE THREAD, JUST ONE THREAD where people can talk about NON-CHRISTIAN spiritualism, esoterics, native american philospy, and prayer, without the religious nuthouses coming in on their "holier than thou" horses telling everyone they are 'wrong' and 'idolatrous' or whatever.

Shame on you and people like you.

----------


## osan

> Mod note: these post are in reference to this prayer thread, which should be left as a prayer thread.
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-and-Blessings
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings all.
> 
> I'm Atehequa, newly arrived here.
> 
> ...


The average American is an idiot.  Why would you think or possibly expect them to hold any reasonable knowledge of Indians?

I used to sweat often with my pals in AZ and WA.  Most were Indian.  Most were pretty loused up... mainly with alcohol.  The one thing they all hated, however, was being called "native American".  "We're Indians, not native $#@!ing Americans," was the way my friend Two Feathers put it.  I have no idea if that was his real name, but he answered to it, drank like a sorrowful bastard, and was a real man and because of it I liked him a whole lot.

If sub/urban Americans saw some of the real religious $#@! that Indians do, they'd $#@! and petition to have them all institutionalized or exterminated.  Sundance comes to mind.  Facing death is not an idea a typical American nitwit can grok.  They just assess you mentally defective and call the "authorities".

Yeah, there's a lot of bull$#@! out there, but Indians are not the only ones on the short end of it.  At the end of the day, a huge plurality of human beings are intolerable dumb-asses.  That is just the way the world of humans is at the moment.  Of course, that "moment" has been going on for thousands of years, which says nothing good about the race, by and large.

We sorely need a reset event.

----------


## osan

> This is blatant idolatry.


And this is why so much of the world hates Christians.  But don't feel picked on because they hate Muslims and Jews every bit as much.  Your words suggest that you think you have God tied to your sleeve, which in my experience is very common among them, while they will almost universally deny such beliefs.  The hubris of the three so-called "great religions" is mind boggling.  What is truly amusing about them, Christians and Muslims in greater particular, is that they make God so tiny, so limited, so wickedly and sadistically petty.  I have to say that the irony of this makes me chuckle.  Whoever or whatever God may be, it is clear that we were bestowed with the means of navigating the lives of men and yet so many of us steadfastly refuse to make use of them beyond the formulaic imperatives and interpretations of a trio of silly books whose authority is of eminently questionable provenance.  Seriously, that just slays me.  Most self-identifying adherents to these religions are so wildly inconsistent in their beliefs, so inarticulate, and endlessly self-contradicting, and yet they seem too blind to see it.

Not to worry though; you just keep on keeping on as you do. Not a whit of it matters in the least.  God is what it is regardless of what you may think or the good book might say.

----------


## TER

> And this is why so much of the world hates Christians.


John 15

15 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;[a] and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.

5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will[b] ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.

9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

11 “These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full. 12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. 17 These things I command you, that you love one another.

18 “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. 25 But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’[c]

26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. 27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.

----------


## osan

This proves nothing.  Firstly, the people who authored these verses were highly intelligent and perhaps very crafty.  It requires nothing of genius to contrive such passages for the very psychological effect this sort of thing will have.  That is not to say that this is what was done or that what is written here is untrue, but only that its mere assertion proves nothing.  I can write in a book "the moon is of green cheese", bury it, and if in 5K years it is discovered and deciphered, who will accept it as true?  No doubt some, simple because it is deemed ancient, but does that make the moon a great chunk of cheese?

This is what people tend to do.  It is ancient... it must be part of a wisdom that has been lost... we must study and learn its ways.  Nice sentiment - great attitude, but sadly it is naively pursued.  It is the nature of language, communication, and the ways in which a given people at a given time employ their powers of cognition that lead to all manner of obstacles to understanding that which came before them.  It is inherent to our fabric as living intellects precisely because of the ways in which we are structured.

Every last word in that book may be strictly true as per the belief and cognition of the authors.  It does not follow that another reader is able to understand what was written in the same way the author did.  If one understands it perfectly, there is a better than middling chance that it is so by chance.  Ask 10 Christians to define what it means to be a Christian and you will get at least 11 responses. 

All that aside, the fact that the bible says "expect to be hated" really tells us nothing definite of truth in that regard.  This is all innuendo to my eyes.  Besides, the hatred part has nothing much to do with what the bible says, but a whole lot to do with how people behave.  The Roman church butchered and burned its way through the world for 1300 years at least.  That left a mark.  The Muslims were no better, if somewhat more contained geographically.  The world has reacted against them with just reason and the continuing hubris of these groups does nothing to endear them to the rest.  Unfortunately, those of the persuasions in question who are not bad actors get sucked in with the rest, and that is yet another very unfortunate aspect of the human midbrain, which was designed for living in trees and not cities.

Religion as most commonly practiced is just another rotten product of Empire.  The intentions may be good, but the results have been bad enough.  Intentions count for little, and rightly so.




> John 15
> 
> 15 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;[a] and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
> 
> 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will[b] ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.
> 
> 9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
> 
> 11 “These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full. 12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. 17 These things I command you, that you love one another.
> ...

----------


## TER

_Or_ the words are true and Christ is the Son of God and you are paddling up $#@!'s creek with the things you have said and done.  My logic, wisdom, and gut tells me that is the case.  Of course, you believe what you will and I will believe what I will.  I guess we will find out in the end.  Personally,  I'll err on the side of Christ than on you.

Matthew 10

32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’[e] 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

----------


## acptulsa

TER, he's not railing against all Christians and you should know it, if you read what he typed.  Idolatry is a problem among Christians.  Evil does get done in God's name.  It's no bad thing to rail against it, or to try to stop it.

osan, you know what you typed is not true of all religious people.  Maybe you should learn to stick the word 'some', or the word 'many', into your sentences.

The devil has you at each others' throats, and I don't believe either of you is the bad guy.  I thought you were both too smart to let the devil get the best of you this way.

----------


## Terry1

> This proves nothing.  Firstly, the people who authored these verses were highly intelligent and perhaps very crafty.  It requires nothing of genius to contrive such passages for the very psychological effect this sort of thing will have.  That is not to say that this is what was done or that what is written here is untrue, but only that its mere assertion proves nothing.  I can write in a book "the moon is of green cheese", bury it, and if in 5K years it is discovered and deciphered, who will accept it as true?  No doubt some, simple because it is deemed ancient, but does that make the moon a great chunk of cheese?
> 
> This is what people tend to do.  It is ancient... it must be part of a wisdom that has been lost... we must study and learn its ways.  Nice sentiment - great attitude, but sadly it is naively pursued.  It is the nature of language, communication, and the ways in which a given people at a given time employ their powers of cognition that lead to all manner of obstacles to understanding that which came before them.  It is inherent to our fabric as living intellects precisely because of the ways in which we are structured.
> 
> Every last word in that book may be strictly true as per the belief and cognition of the authors.  It does not follow that another reader is able to understand what was written in the same way the author did.  If one understands it perfectly, there is a better than middling chance that it is so by chance.  Ask 10 Christians to define what it means to be a Christian and you will get at least 11 responses. 
> 
> All that aside, the fact that the bible says "expect to be hated" really tells us nothing definite of truth in that regard.  This is all innuendo to my eyes.  Besides, the hatred part has nothing much to do with what the bible says, but a whole lot to do with how people behave.  The Roman church butchered and burned its way through the world for 1300 years at least.  That left a mark.  The Muslims were no better, if somewhat more contained geographically.  The world has reacted against them with just reason and the continuing hubris of these groups does nothing to endear them to the rest.  Unfortunately, those of the persuasions in question who are not bad actors get sucked in with the rest, and that is yet another very unfortunate aspect of the human midbrain, which was designed for living in trees and not cities.
> 
> Religion as most commonly practiced is just another rotten product of Empire.  The intentions may be good, but the results have been bad enough.  Intentions count for little, and rightly so.


The reason so many interpret the Bible differently is because many read it without being spiritually led by the Lord.  Debating the *fact that the Bible is interpreted differently by so many is simply a no-brainer because the Spirit of the Lord is what leads us to understand what God is actually saying in the scriptures.  

When one can read the word of God seeing that every line of text reconciles with the other and there are no apparent contradictions--that's pretty much an indication that the Lord is leading you in His truth and you are walking in the spirit of the Lord.  But--when some blatantly attempt to force the word of God to fit their theology and there are glaring contradictions--then you know that particular theology and teaching is wrong.  

This is a good rule to follow if one is true to themselves and honestly seeking the will and truth of God in His word.  If that person is living in denial and worships his/her theology more than the Lord, then their belief and thinking will always be a stumbling block hindering them from growing in faith and keeping them from understanding what the Lord is trying to show them.  This is called *pride*.

I believed in and came to the Lord before I ever was able to read or understand the words in the Bible.  This is how it works.  Until we are spiritually regenerated--the Bible is nothing more than another book to be interpreted any numbers of ways by those who try to understand it absent the spirit of the Lord.

This is how and why the Spirit of the Lord recognizes that same spirit in another person who has that same spirit of the Lord--because they agree and have been shown the truth in that very same light that God has revealed it to them.  Gods truth does not change from person to person or theology to theology--His truth changes not--the same as God changes not.

----------


## phill4paul

Peace _through_ religion. Lol.

----------


## TER

> Peace _through_ religion. Lol.


Existence without a Creator.  Lol.

----------


## TER

> TER, he's not railing against all Christians and you should know it, if you read what he typed.  Idolatry is a problem among Christians.  Evil does get done in God's name.  It's no bad thing to rail against it, or to try to stop it.
> 
> osan, you know what you typed is not true of all religious people.  Maybe you should learn to stick the word 'some', or the word 'many', into your sentences.
> 
> The devil has you at each others' throats, and I don't believe either of you is the bad guy.  I thought you were both too smart to let the devil get the best of you this way.


I am responding to his argument which is that the Scriptures and the testimony of the saints prove nothing.  I am saying that he might be right *or* he might be wrong with that regard, but as for me I am choosing the saints over him and the teachings they transmitted to be from the very lips of Jesus Christ.  So, while they prove nothing _to him_ doesn't mean he is right about his position.  I might be wrong, and I accept the consequences. As should he.

As for the rest of the things he wrote, they are just extensions of his unbelief and poor understanding of the Church, whereby he equates the weakness of men and their sinfulness as a way to discredit Christ and the saints.  Because men are sinners and the Church is full of them does not mean the Scriptures are make-belief and Jesus Christ is not Who He says He is.  Everyone chooses who they will follow and what (or who) they believe.  My post was pointing out that I have chosen Christ and according to Christ osan is harming himself by denying Christ.  I remind him in the hopes that he might learn something and remove his doubt in case he didn't know or forgot the words Christ said about those who deny Him.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The reason so many interpret the Bible differently is because many read it without being spiritually led by the Lord.  Debating the *fact that the Bible is interpreted differently by so many is simply a no-brainer because the Spirit of the Lord is what leads us to understand what God is actually saying in the scriptures.  
> 
> When one can read the word of God seeing that every line of text reconciles with the other and there are no apparent contradictions--that's pretty much an indication that the Lord is leading you in His truth and you are walking in the spirit of the Lord.  But--when some blatantly attempt to force the word of God to fit their theology and there are glaring contradictions--then you know that particular theology and teaching is wrong.  
> 
> This is a good rule to follow if one is true to themselves and honestly seeking the will and truth of God in His word.  If that person is living in denial and worships his/her theology more than the Lord, then their belief and thinking will always be a stumbling block hindering them from growing in faith and keeping them from understanding what the Lord is trying to show them.  This is called *pride*.
> 
> I believed in and came to the Lord before I ever was able to read or understand the words in the Bible.  This is how it works.  Until we are spiritually regenerated--the Bible is nothing more than another book to be interpreted any numbers of ways by those who try to understand it absent the spirit of the Lord.
> 
> This is how and why the Spirit of the Lord recognizes that same spirit in another person who has that same spirit of the Lord--because they agree and have been shown the truth in that very same light that God has revealed it to them.  Gods truth does not change from person to person or theology to theology--His truth changes not--the same as God changes not.


I was led to the truth by first seeing it in the creation, discerning the Seven Spirits of God, and then following it back to the scriptures where I saw that the guy who wrote about these Seven Spirits I had seen had wrote a Gospel.  I was totally convicted reading John's Gospel, and then I was brought directly to James, where every word was written straight to me, and so I gave my life soul and whole eternal disposition into the hand of Messiah, whom I had wounded and killed in my sins.

So one can become caught up in the Spirit, and brought to the scripture wherein they are then born again.  

A point I want to highlight though, is the nature of scripture to lose all contradictions from an eternal perspective.  It is as if (and likely is) that temporal contradictions that disappear from an eternal perspective were written in to the Word on purpose, to hide it from those unenlightened to the nature of the eternal realm.  A stumblingblock for the blind.

Truly, without the Spirit one cannot grasp the real nature of eternity, so that the mechanism for separating an understanding of the Word is the recognition of eternity, well, it equals your parsing perhaps with an added definition.

I would say that even believers can take different ideas off the same passage, but that every divergence is created by a blind spot within that individual soul. The existence of blind spots does not imply a lack of salvation; we are all unique 'snowflake gemstones' each with our own flaws and blind spots.  A blindness in one specific truth will distort the image, leading to a somewhat different theology.  Proportional to the degree and depth of that blindness.

In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, so they say.  Having blind spots and being completely blind are two different things.  "_For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known._" What parts we don't know are the blind spots, and like an interstellar black hole, they distort light rays around it and lead to an obscuring of the picture, which can lead to an obscuring of the end theology.

----------


## acptulsa

It's very unfortunate, TER, but I think he understands _some_ churches all too well.

But he obviously either doesn't understand _all_ churches, or he forgot to specify that he wasn't talking about _all_ churches.

I think you both made good points.  I'd hate to see either one lost in the noise of continued pointless sniping.  That's all.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I became very interested in the deuterocanonical seven archangels, because their natures aligned (without precisely matching) perfectly with each of the Seven Spirits I had already witnessed, according to the order presented in the Name of the Messiah.  I brought this to a Catholic Priest, considering it was they who kept the deuterocanon, and he wasn't even the least bit interested. "If it brings you closer, good. Goodbye."

I never did follow up on the archangels though and how they align ideologically and in order with the Seven Spirits in the Name of Christ, because I was looking for a sounding board who was familiar with the ontology of these deuterocanonical seven archangels.  I suppose in retrospect that one of the Orthodoxies (Greek/Eastern) would have been a better resource for archangels than the Catholics.

----------


## TER

> I became very interested in the deuterocanonical seven archangels, because their natures aligned (without precisely matching) perfectly with each of the Seven Spirits I had already witnessed, according to the order presented in the Name of the Messiah.  I brought this to a Catholic Priest, considering it was they who kept the deuterocanon, and he wasn't even the least bit interested. "If it brings you closer, good. Goodbye."
> 
> I never did follow up on the archangels though and how they align ideologically and in order with the Seven Spirits in the Name of Christ, because I was looking for a sounding board who was familiar with the ontology of these deuterocanonical seven archangels.  I suppose in retrospect that one of the Orthodoxies (Greek/Eastern) would have been a better resource for archangels than the Catholics.


A good study you might be interested in would be _The Celestial Heirarchy_ by Dionysius the Aeropagite found here: http://www.aren.org/prison/documents...Areopagite.pdf

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Whether or not the American Aboriginals knew Christ would depend on the presence of His True Name in their ontological/spiritual ideas.

As I hope we all agree, His True name is not any collection of syllables uttered by the tongue of man.  Some say the Names of God are ultimately ineffable.  I say His names are built in ideas, and the True Name of Christ is a series of seven ideas (mostly/usually) in order.

יש ---- Yes(h) -- [The Word] -------------------- Je(s)
וע ----- (s)Hu --- [Created(-tion) flesh] -------- su(s)
מש --- Mosh ---- [Eternal(-ity) Holy] ---------- Chr
יח ----- Iach ---- [ground(-ing) of Sacrifice] --- ist(o)
עמא -- Ema ----- [giving fellowship] ----------- Emma (with)
נו ----- Nu ------ [providing life] ---------------- Nu (us)
אל ---- El ------- [sealed in Spirit] -------------- El (God)

I, for one, came to Christ by first seeing these these seven "ideas" (Spirits)  operating in conjunction out in the creation, and then following those Seven Spirit back to the Word of God which was opened to me, and I was directed through it.  There is not one doubt in my military mind, however, that anyone operating within the conjunction of those seven ideas, is operating in the Name of Christ, whether they have been fortunate to have received a collection of syllables, a book of holy text, or not.  In the lack of a scriptural text, these who have seen and given themselves to those same Seven Spirits discernable in the Creation (as I have discerned them) may even have been led to the regeneration, which again, is also a collection of ideas rather than syntax and text.  If not, then they will stand before the Great White Throne and be judged according to the covenant that God made with Noah, for God is Just and Right.  The symbol for the covenant of Noah, being the rainbow set in the cloud.  The true rainbow, of seven colors, representing the Seven Spirits. Representing the True Name of the Messiah.  

So if somewhere is found in the American Aboriginal religions, the above seven ideas (more or less) in order (not necessarily precisely so), then I will say that the author of that particular piece at least has been acquainted with the Name of Christ, even if that piece was conceived long before the first missionaries touched foot onto the New World.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Those seven ideas, in basically (more or less) that order, are prevalent in the all the works of the canon from Genesis to Revelation, by the way.

----------


## phill4paul

> Existence without a Creator.  Lol.


  I wasn't debating the existence or none existence of a creator. I was merely mocking how religious disparities lead to anything but peace. As they always have. As they continue to do in this particular sub-forum.

----------


## osan

> TER, he's not railing against all Christians and you should know it, if you read what he typed.  Idolatry is a problem among Christians.  Evil does get done in God's name.  It's no bad thing to rail against it, or to try to stop it.
> 
> osan, you know what you typed is not true of all religious people.


Of course not, and I tried to make that point clearly.  The problem is not religion per sé, but rather its application.  I have found an enormous plurality of people who are full of hubris where their "faith" is concerned.  I quote "faith" because such are _not_ people of faith but rather those of _certainty_ and act and speak as if God were their little lap dog.  Honestly, I find it a bit disgusting to witness such rank presumptuousness.




> Maybe you should learn to stick the word 'some', or the word 'many', into your sentences.


Did I not effectively do this when I mentioned that the "good" get sucked down the crapper along with the rest?  The implication should be pretty clear there.  I've known many fine people of, say, the Christian faith - and fine as Christians.  Such people have been notably and most remarkably different from Christians of the run-of-the-mill variety - what my fabulous wife refers to as "60-minute Christians", whom she despises for their shallowness and hypocrisy.  I'm sure you know the type - shows up like, well, religion to church every Sunday and once out the door runs over to screw his mistress behind his wife's back.




> The devil has you at each others' throats, and I don't believe either of you is the bad guy.  I thought you were both too smart to let the devil get the best of you this way.


Oh, I'm not at anyone's throats, but I do have a habit of pointing out the blatant weaknesses in words, whether yours, Ter's, or my own.  And I stand by my assessment that the average Christian is no better than anyone else in his inability or unwillingness to treat faith as faith and not as certainty, which at least tacitly places one into the frame of mind that bespeaks superiority.  That's a very dangerous way of thinking, IMO.  I've had to bite my tongue at times to keep myself from bursting out in maniacal laughter when I've been told by someone that they're saved and blah blah blah...  Is there not something in the bible against bragging and assuming that about God which one knows nothing?

There are core precepts and there are the perceptions and (mis)understandings of them.  The two are often at wide variance with each other and perhaps nearly as often as not, "religious" people turn out to be real dicks.  I've met some real winners.

----------


## TER

Osan, there is a fine line between steadfastly appealing to correct another out of love and concern on the one side and acting smug and superior to another.  It is a fine line and in the heat of arguments, it often gets crossed which is wrong.  I admit I do this and it is a fault of my own.  I do not have the skill, the meekness, and the patience to offer advice from my heart as those who are more spiritually gifted.  I hate that I often times give the Church a bad name because of my own weaknesses and sins.  Sometimes I am better at it (usually when my prayer life is better, when I am disciplining myself through fasting and silence, and when I am more living the Orthodox life as it should be).  Most of the times I blunder and mess up.  

But I have never said I was saved nor would I.  I honestly fear the moment I will stand before Christ and answer for the things I have said and done.  Neither would I say that another person is condemned nor would I, for God alone is Judge and knows the hearts of people.  

But all that being said, I believe in my heart of hearts that I have found the path even as I keep stumbling on it.  I truly believe that the Orthodox Church is the Church described by St. Paul and the Scriptures and carried down unbroken since the first century.  To me, it is the greatest pearl of great price I have found, that is, to identify that in this Church Christ can be encountered and known and understood and rightly glorified and worshiped.  

So following His commandments, I do what I can to share this great pearl.  Not to brag or to show off, as if to say, 'look at me!  look how great I am that I found the Way!' but rather so that I can say 'Come and share with me this great pearl!  Come and see for yourself the beauty and wonder and truth of this great prize!'   My aim is to spread the good news that the Church of the Scriptures exists, always has, and it is open to all who wish to enter into it.

Discussion forums have a limit to how we can interact with one another.  We are limited to words, or perhaps a picture or video.  But it does not constitute the best medium for fellowship or real dialogue and relationship.  Me and Sola would get into arguments, but if we lived next door and saw eachother face to face we might become best friends.  When I needed help with changing the brakes on my car, he would extend his charity and assist me.  If he wasn't feeling well and needed medicine, I could prescribe him something.  And in this, we might further grow into greater love and understanding of one another.  But as we have it, we are left with words on a screen which can often betray our real selves and motivations.  That is why there is no substitute to face to face communication.  Not through a screen, but in the same room and breathing the same air and within touching distance of one another.

The Church provides this modality.  It offers real encounter with Christ through our real encounters with one another.  It provides nourishment for our body and healing of our souls.  It is the place where sinners go who are sick so that they might see the face of God in those who have chosen to give themselves for others.

It is this Church which I have found.  It is this Church which I incessantly speak about.  Not because it benefits me, but so that it might benefit the other.  And in this way, the fullness of communion and love can be shared between me and my neighbor which translates ultimately to the fullness of communion and love between both of us and our Creator.

----------


## TER

This was posted today in a blog and speaks a little to what I am trying to get at:

*Orthodox Truth in an Age of Relativism*

by Gabe Martini 





It is not loving to affirm a person in their sin.

 It is not loving to affirm a person in their rebellion against both  God and his created, natural order—not “supernatural,” or “unnatural,”  but the way nature was always intended to be, revealed most perfectly in  Jesus Christ and the Mother of God and all the Saints.

 It is not loving to affirm a person in their beliefs or perspectives  that run contrary to the blessings offered us in both Christ and his  one, holy Church.

 It is not compassionate to ignore truth in order to affirm a person in lies.

 It is not compassionate to let people live a life contrary to the author of Life.

 It is not compassionate to revise, ignore, or trample under foot the  essential truths of our Church in order to curry favor with public  opinion, the winds and waves of doctrine, cultural trends, the fools—for  the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God—of the Academy, and  those with the largest checkbooks.

 It is not compassionate to tell God’s people that asceticism,  restraint, and self-control somehow only apply to one gender, or even  one “sexual orientation.” There are no “orientations”; there are choices  and free will, as we are all created after the Image of God (let’s be  plain: to deny this is Christological heresy). Some struggle with one  sin more than others, but we are all called to a life of asceticism and  repentance, no matter our lot in life (this is simply lived out and  expressed in unique, and varying ways, according to our portion and  place).

 It is not loving, nor is it compassionate, to only say things and  believe things that you know will receive a favorable response. This is  called being a coward and even a charlatan. We should not be ashamed of  the Gospel. This applies doubly to our clergy, but no less to us laity.

 In all of this, we can act, speak, and believe in a manner that is  not only loving and compassionate, but also fully in line with the  commandments of Christ, and the traditions of our one, holy Church (and  there _is_ only one, true Church—this is _also_ tied to orthodox Christology).

 There is no need for compromise;
there is no need for false accusations of extremism;
there is no need for being unloving or overly critical;
there is no need for false dichotomies;
there is no need for looking at the sins of others more than our own;
there is no need for cynicism alone;
there is no need for ignoring the clear commands of Christ and the  apostles to judge—and be judged—by those within the house of God.

 Ignoring all the cliches, categories, and politics of our age, there  is only a need to be unapologetically, lovingly, and charitably  Orthodox. Regardless of what the world thinks or says, and regardless of  what this means for our success, fame, and fortune.

 Truth is not a spectrum of opinions, perspectives, and paradigm  shifts; it is not culturally conditioned; it is not relative for each  new age, thought, or situation. Truth is a Person. Truth is the Logos,  the Divine Word and Truth of God, even our Lord Jesus Christ—who is the  same yesterday, today, and unto ages of ages.

A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see  someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, “You are mad; you  are not like us.” —St. Anthony the Great

----------


## osan

> I am responding to his argument which is that the Scriptures and the testimony of the saints prove nothing.


That is not quite what I wrote.  I wrote that parading a passage about proves nothing and I listed, albeit very superficially, why.  I have studied semantics and the nature of language very carefully.  Initially, it was to understand things philosophical, including religious materials such as the bible.  I later studied it with closer scrutiny during my time as the designer of programming languages in order to be able to understand what was required of a complete and correct rubric.  I also was "tutored" after a fashion by an ex-Jesuit, my gf's father.  Robert was an unusually brilliant man who specialized in philosophy as it applied to his Roman Catholic roots.  He was expert in ancient Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin.  A more erudite man you would be very hard pressed to find anywhere, any time, may he RIP.

He forgot more about the nature of language than you and I will likely ever know, put together.

I will go into no big story here, but one of the most important things to which he lead me was the fact that linguistic semantics is a very slippery creature and because of this it is likely that nobody walking the earth really knows what the bible meant to those who wrote the originals.  It is even clear that the people of that time and place had trouble understanding.  This is precisely the case because spoken and written language is a devilish, if very beautiful, thing.  We would go chapter and verse on how and why this is the case, but I'm not here to convince you of anything, but rather only to offer you a different point of view from someone who has studied these issues formally.




> I am saying that he might be right *or* he might be wrong with that regard,


That is a very circumspect attitude.  Good on you for that.




> but as for me I am choosing the saints over him and the teachings they transmitted to be from the very lips of Jesus Christ.


Choose as you please, of course.  I cannot claim to be privy to the means by which you come to your understanding of things and would not presume to question their validity, but I can raise issues of reason and that is largely what I have done, perhaps imperfectly.




> So, while they prove nothing _to him_ doesn't mean he is right about his position.  I might be wrong, and I accept the consequences. As should he.


I am not convinced that we are in a right and wrong dichotomy here.




> As for the rest of the things he wrote, they are just extensions of his unbelief and poor understanding of the Church


Here you presume too much.  You are not privy to my beliefs and fro you to call my understanding of the church "poor" would require some supporting evidence, or are you claiming that the Roman church has not acted atrociously for centuries?  We could go down a long litany of items that would press you very hard to the wall in terms of explaining away how the church was righteous in their actions.  One simple example was the sale of dispensations by priests with the full knowledge of the See.  This was one of the key points that had Martin Luther's undies in a very tight bunch.  Another was the burning of heretics "for the sake of their salvation".  If we are infinitely generous and assume that the intentions were all pure and good all of the time, we still come up snake-eyes in the burning-at-the-stake department for several reasons.  For one thing, those good intentions buy no wine as the flesh begins to sizzle on the still-living victim's bones.  It is the individual who has his relationship with God and not through the intercession of the so-called "vicar of Christ on earth".  Come now pal, if that bit doesn't stink literally to high heaven, then nothing does, yet another point Luther made.




> , whereby he equates the weakness of men and their sinfulness as a way to discredit Christ and the saints.


I have done no such thing.  I have precisely laid the failings of men at their own feet, the religious framework notwithstanding.  It was precisely one of my points that the pure religion (whatever that might actually mean... just trying to be conversationally convenient here) and its practical manifestations are most often in some notable conflict.  I also point out that saints and Christ may not be knowable by any means other than blind happenstance.  We cannot even establish Christ's literal, physical existence, which renders belief in Him a matter of faith, which is not what I see from many self-professed Christians.  They express certainty and that in itself is a topic into which we could plumb some serious depths.




> Because men are sinners and the Church is full of them does not mean the Scriptures are make-belief and Jesus Christ is not Who He says He is.



Correct, but the converse is also true.  The textual assertion of His reality does not establish the truth.  Once again, faith v. certainty.  If you are certain and express that certainty, you had best be well armed with unbreakable fact and logic to prove your case.  Otherwise, you make a jackanapes of yourself in the most egregiously embarrassing manner imaginable.  But if you express faith as faith, the landscape alters most remarkably and nobody able to attack you with any ease.

However, those flesh and blood sinners are the ones who flayed the innocent, burned living men to ash, butchered countless millions of innocents (e.g. Montsegur, Jerusalem, and so forth ad nauseum) told people they were absolved after receiving payment and as if they had any idea of what they were doing, and so forth.  This is what the world remembers about the "church", rightly or wrongly.  The litany of horrors to which those men are accountable cannot be traversed for its impossible length, and the question does arise as to whether "the church" can in fact be meaningfully separated from the people who comprise it.  The answer there depends largely upon one's assumptions.





> Everyone chooses who they will follow and what (or who) they believe.  My post was pointing out that I have chosen Christ and according to Christ osan is harming himself by denying Christ.


You choose to believe I harm myself, which is fine.  But you fail in assuming denial that I have not expressed, nor will I.




> I remind him in the hopes that he might learn something and remove his doubt in case he didn't know or forgot the words Christ said about those who deny Him.


And I remind you to take some care in the assumptions you make because it can get one into situations.  Nothing here to worry about, but not everyone is as kindly disposed as am I.  But as always, do as you see fit.

----------


## osan

> This is blatant idolatry.


Naked assertion == FAIL.

Now, explain to us why it is idolatry.  Begin with a definition of the term, then launch your demonstration.  When that is done, I would request you give the basis for your tacit claim that idolatry is bad, or have I misread your tone?

----------


## TER

> That is not quite what I wrote.  I wrote that parading a passage about proves nothing and I listed, albeit very superficially, why.  I have studied semantics and the nature of language very carefully.  Initially, it was to understand things philosophical, including religious materials such as the bible.  I later studied it with closer scrutiny during my time as the designer of programming languages in order to be able to understand what was required of a complete and correct rubric.  I also was "tutored" after a fashion by an ex-Jesuit, my gf's father.  Robert was an unusually brilliant man who specialized in philosophy as it applied to his Roman Catholic roots.  He was expert in ancient Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin.  A more erudite man you would be very hard pressed to find anywhere, any time, may he RIP.
> 
> He forgot more about the nature of language than you and I will likely ever know, put together.
> 
> I will go into no big story here, but one of the most important things to which he lead me was the fact that linguistic semantics is a very slippery creature and because of this it is likely that nobody walking the earth really knows what the bible meant to those who wrote the originals.  It is even clear that the people of that time and place had trouble understanding.  This is precisely the case because spoken and written language is a devilish, if very beautiful, thing.  We would go chapter and verse on how and why this is the case, but I'm not here to convince you of anything, but rather only to offer you a different point of view from someone who has studied these issues formally.


I appreciate and agree with what you wrote here.  The Scriptures is a tool only as good as the one using it.  The Scriptures, as important they are in transmitting in written words revelations about our Savior, do not constitute the only or even ultimate expression of the faith.  Rather, it is the Church which was illuminated through its members on the Day of Holy Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came down from Heaven and sanctified (even, deified) the early leaders of the Church.  It is then through these baptized members in the likeness of Christ and empowered by the very Holy Spirit of God (in a word, the Church) which is the pillar and foundation for the truth (this is the teachings of the Scriptures).  Not because of the men and women, but because of the men and women illuminated by the Holy Spirit of God.

The Holy Scriptures are man made expressions of the revelations of God, similar to how icons are man made expressions of the revelations of God, but they do not constitute the reason why God came into the world.  Christ did not come to write a book or to draw a painting, He came to establish His Church and give it eternal life and communion with the Father.  Just as people were not made for the Sabbath, likewise, the Church was not made for the Scriptures but rather the Scriptures were made for the Church, as a tool in its ministry to bring people to God.




> Choose as you please, of course.  I cannot claim to be privy to the means by which you come to your understanding of things and would not presume to question their validity, but I can raise issues of reason and that is largely what I have done, perhaps imperfectly.


It is based on Scriptural reading, historical research (especially of the early Church and the saints of those years), much prayer and experiencing the sacraments. 




> Here you presume too much.  You are not privy to my beliefs and fro you to call my understanding of the church "poor" would require some supporting evidence, or are you claiming that the Roman church has not acted atrociously for centuries?  We could go down a long litany of items that would press you very hard to the wall in terms of explaining away how the church was righteous in their actions.  One simple example was the sale of dispensations by priests with the full knowledge of the See.  This was one of the key points that had Martin Luther's undies in a very tight bunch.  Another was the burning of heretics "for the sake of their salvation".  If we are infinitely generous and assume that the intentions were all pure and good all of the time, we still come up snake-eyes in the burning-at-the-stake department for several reasons.  For one thing, those good intentions buy no wine as the flesh begins to sizzle on the still-living victim's bones.  It is the individual who has his relationship with God and not through the intercession of the so-called "vicar of Christ on earth".  Come now pal, if that bit doesn't stink literally to high heaven, then nothing does, yet another point Luther made.


I am not Catholic, so I have no vicar on Christ nor can you pin me with papal infallibility, indulgences or the Spanish Inquisition.  Those things which unfortunately happened are travesties in the Roman Church which occurred after they broke themselves from the those who hear the word of God and observe it.", holy, and apostolic orthodox Church (that is, the remaining 4 great Patriarchates of the time who, incidentally, still remain in communion until today. Republics work better then dictatorships.  





> I have done no such thing.  I have precisely laid the failings of men at their own feet, the religious framework notwithstanding.  It was precisely one of my points that the pure religion (whatever that might actually mean... just trying to be conversationally convenient here) and its practical manifestations are most often in some notable conflict.  I also point out that saints and Christ may not be knowable by any means other than blind happenstance.  We cannot even establish Christ's literal, physical existence, which renders belief in Him a matter of faith, which is not what I see from many self-professed Christians.  They express certainty and that in itself is a topic into which we could plumb some serious depths.


  Every Divine Liturgy, the Church establishes Christ's literal, physical existence in the Holy Eucharist.  This is a great mystery of the Church since the days of the Apostles.  Of course, mysteries such as this requires faith and it is faith which Christ said would be the foundation of His Church.




> Correct, but the converse is also true.  The textual assertion of His reality does not establish the truth.  Once again, faith v. certainty.  If you are certain and express that certainty, you had best be well armed with unbreakable fact and logic to prove your case.  Otherwise, you make a jackanapes of yourself in the most egregiously embarrassing manner imaginable.  But if you express faith as faith, the landscape alters most remarkably and nobody able to attack you with any ease.
> 
> However, those flesh and blood sinners are the ones who flayed the innocent, burned living men to ash, butchered countless millions of innocents (e.g. Montsegur, Jerusalem, and so forth ad nauseum) told people they were absolved after receiving payment and as if they had any idea of what they were doing, and so forth.  This is what the world remembers about the "church", rightly or wrongly.  The litany of horrors to which those men are accountable cannot be traversed for its impossible length, and the question does arise as to whether "the church" can in fact be meaningfully separated from the people who comprise it.  The answer there depends largely upon one's assumptions.


Again, I am not Catholic, so the Crusades do not apply to me.  In fact, the Orthodox Church was a victim of the Fourth Crusade.  And back then and even until today, according to the canons of the Orthodox Church, killing a man, even if by accident or if 'justly' in war or in self defense requires repentance, penance, and confession before communing again of the Holy Eucharist.




> You choose to believe I harm myself, which is fine.  But you fail in assuming denial that I have not expressed, nor will I.


Then I ask for your forgiveness.  I presumed more than I should have.




> And I remind you to take some care in the assumptions you make because it can get one into situations.  Nothing here to worry about, but not everyone is as kindly disposed as am I.  But as always, do as you see fit.


Speaking with you now and getting to know you a little better, I will be more careful in the future.  My goal is not to distance ourselves but to bring ourselves closer.  Sometimes I know my mistakes and sins cause me to actually do the former and not the latter.

----------


## osan

> Mod note: these post are in reference to this prayer thread, which should be left as a prayer thread.
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-and-Blessings
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings all.
> 
> I'm Atehequa, newly arrived here.
> 
> ...


This is not really a prayer, but an invocation - supposedly Shoshone.  There are numerous references to it on the net.  Mickey Hart also used it on _Rolling Thunder_.  I have silently made use of this before sweating, whilst offering tobacco.

To the east, where the sun rise
To the north, where the cold comes from
To the south, where the light comes from
To the west, where the sun sets
To the father sun, to the mother earth


BTW, if you like brass, dig what Mickey Hart did with Tower Of Power.  The brass is pure power, and it is outstanding.  The fireworks begins ca. 3:11.

----------


## osan

> I am not Catholic


I did not mean to imply that you were, though I did wonder.





> Then I ask for your forgiveness.  I presumed more than I should have.


There is nothing to forgive, but if you must have it, consider yourself forgiven. 




> Speaking with you now and getting to know you a little better, I will be more careful in the future.  My goal is not to distance ourselves but to bring ourselves closer.  Sometimes I know my mistakes and sins cause me to actually do the former and not the latter.


I think we're good here.

----------


## TER

Thank you. . I started the day arguing with someone I respect, my grandpa in the forums, which I feel like $#@! about.  Your forgiveness has brought me some solace for tonight.

----------


## Atehequa

> Shawnee, eh? So I ask of you to not be divisive and this is your response? Seems as though you need an education in both private property and collectivism. This forum is private property and as such you, as well as I, are required to comply by the rules set for by the property owner to enjoy the privilege of posting here. Don't like it, then don't expect to remain a member with posting privileges. You are not entitled to disrupt a thread just because you feel entitled to do so. And blaming an entire group for being something based upon color/ethnicity is not going to get you very far in life much less this forum. Seems as though you are trying to perfect the art of speaking out both sides of your mouth. While you are whining about "Americans" collectivizing with their expectations you feel they are demanding maybe you should take a look in the mirror and think just what exactly is it that you are doing in return? Now, if you wish to continue and truly wish to effect a change, then feel free to start your own thread for discussion. If it is more than a racist rant, great! This thread was meant as a means for finding peace in a section of this forum that has seen more than its fair share of anger and hatred. Please cease trying to derail it and respect the intent of the OP. 
> 
> Peace on your path~~~


My path or our path? Collectively speaking of course.

----------


## Atehequa

> This is not really a prayer, but an invocation - supposedly Shoshone.  There are numerous references to it on the net.  Mickey Hart also used it on _Rolling Thunder_.  I have silently made use of this before sweating, whilst offering tobacco.
> 
> To the east, where the sun rise
> To the north, where the cold comes from
> To the south, where the light comes from
> To the west, where the sun sets
> To the father sun, to the mother earth
> 
> 
> BTW, if you like brass, dig what Mickey Hart did with Tower Of Power.  The brass is pure power, and it is outstanding.  The fireworks begins ca. 3:11.

----------


## moostraks

> My path or our path? Collectively speaking of course.


No one can get inner peace by pouncing on it, by vigorously willing to have it.  Peace is a margin of power around our daily need. Peace is a consciousness of springs too deep for earthly droughts to dry up.  Peace is the gift not of volitional struggle but of spiritual hospitality.  Peace is an awareness of reserves from beyond ourselves, so that our power is not so much in us as through us.

Harry Emerson Fosdick

----------


## Atehequa

> The average American is an idiot.  Why would you think or possibly expect them to hold any reasonable knowledge of Indians?
> 
> I used to sweat often with my pals in AZ and WA.  Most were Indian.  Most were pretty loused up... mainly with alcohol.  The one thing they all hated, however, was being called "native American".  "We're Indians, not native $#@!ing Americans," was the way my friend Two Feathers put it.  I have no idea if that was his real name, but he answered to it, drank like a sorrowful bastard, and was a real man and because of it I liked him a whole lot.
> 
> If sub/urban Americans saw some of the real religious $#@! that Indians do, they'd $#@! and petition to have them all institutionalized or exterminated.  Sundance comes to mind.  Facing death is not an idea a typical American nitwit can grok.  They just assess you mentally defective and call the "authorities".
> 
> Yeah, there's a lot of bull$#@! out there, but Indians are not the only ones on the short end of it.  At the end of the day, a huge plurality of human beings are intolerable dumb-asses.  That is just the way the world of humans is at the moment.  Of course, that "moment" has been going on for thousands of years, which says nothing good about the race, by and large.
> 
> We sorely need a reset event.


What strikes me as odd are those who toss around the title or name - 'Great Spirit' as if all the hundreds of diverse nations, tribes and bands worshiped a common supreme male in gender deity. It is an erroneous notion to say the least. The term Great Spirit which began being used widely in the 19th century has it's origins with missionaries who utilized it in the conversion process of people who were mostly animistic. It was also used by 19th century writers such as James Fenimore Cooper. To many traditional indigenous  people it is an attempt to connect our many different spiritual beliefs with the Abrahamic Christian god. That's not to say we didn't believe and revere creator spirits, but they were not supreme and all powerful over mother earth or all other spirits.

There can be no father without the mother.
There can be no heaven without the earth.

----------


## acptulsa

> What strikes me as odd are those who toss around the title or name - 'Great Spirit' as if all the hundreds of diverse nations, tribes and bands worshiped a common supreme male in gender deity.


I personally think anyone who assigns a disembodied, omnipresent spirit being a gender is an idiot.  But I try to be polite enough not to say so, unless someone is _gauche_ enough to bring the subject up.

Pity English assigns gender to all its pronouns.  I don't know much about native languages, but know enough about Muscogee to appreciate its gender neutrality.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm puzzled by your use of "us" and "we". It has me thinking of someone conversing across barriers like a river, gorge or gap with a group of others. Being here am I not with you and those you speak for?


In your OP you referred to something as "this content." I don't know what content you were talking about, but it was clear that it was something from people of whom you did not consider yourself one.

----------


## Atehequa

> I personally think anyone who assigns a disembodied, omnipresent spirit being a gender is an idiot.  But I try to be polite enough not to say so, unless someone is _gauche_ enough to bring the subject up.
> 
> Pity English assigns gender to all its pronouns.  I don't know much about native languages, but know enough about Muscogee to appreciate its gender neutrality.


Indeed. Personally it's more difficult for me to think of such spirits even having human forum or characteristics, unless of course I'm referring to the ancestor spirits especially those of human kin or what my people refer to as 'Our Grandmother' or Kokumthena, our creator spirit who is thought of as female and often appears to us as an old woman. Again, this creator spirit is not beholden as all powerful over everything else.

----------


## Atehequa

> In your OP you referred to something as "this content." I don't know what content you were talking about, but it was clear that it was something from people of whom you did not consider yourself one.


And who are the people you refer and state I am not one of?

----------


## erowe1

> And who are the people you refer and state I am not one of?


I didn't refer to any such people. You did. All I did was point that out. And then when somebody else merely continued with the distinction you had already drawn, you got all holier-than-thou.

Since you ask, that's a good question. What did you mean by "this content"?

----------


## Atehequa

> I didn't refer to any such people. You did. All I did was point that out. And then when somebody else merely continued with the distinction you had already drawn, you got all holier-than-thou.
> 
> Since you ask, that's a good question. What did you mean by "this content"?


My first post here was not the opening post as this thread has been altered from it's original form. Perhaps you were not aware of this?

----------


## erowe1

> My first post here was not the opening post as this thread has been altered from it's original form. Perhaps you were not aware of this?


I wasn't. Thanks.

----------


## Atehequa

> I wasn't. Thanks.


No problem and by the way, Greetings to you, erowe1.

----------


## RJB

Interesting video.  I’m guessing, in your eyes, an equivalent would be Native Americans  deciding to explore Christian spirituality.  Instead of reading the bible and living and praying as Christians, they watch TV and copy every stereotype they see.  Occasionally they get together on odd weekends dressed with a lot of make-up like Tammy Faye Bakker, poofy hairdos, a few people wear huge bishop’s hats, someone dances with rattlesnakes,  some people wear fake long beards.  They speak in the rhythm of motivating TV preachers,  cry out, “donate money until it hurts,” etc.  They re-name themselves "Jesus Mary Joseph", "Yahweh,"  "Jehovah," etc.





>

----------


## Atehequa

> Interesting video.  I’m guessing, in your eyes, an equivalent would be Native Americans  deciding to explore Christian spirituality.  Instead of reading the bible and living and praying as Christians, they watch TV and copy every stereotype they see.  Occasionally they get together on odd weekends dressed with a lot of make-up like Tammy Faye Bakker, poofy hairdos, a few people wear huge bishop’s hats, someone dances with rattlesnakes,  some people wear fake long beards.  They speak in the rhythm of motivating TV preachers,  cry out, “donate money until it hurts,” etc.  They re-name themselves "Jesus Mary Joseph", "Yahweh,"  "Jehovah," etc.


Greetings RJB.

Interesting 'shoe on the other foot' imagery. Of course there are many American Indians who are Christians. 

One point I was attempting to shed a light upon is the stereotyping of indigenous spirituality. Another is how some non-indigenous people strive to reinvent indigenous spirituality as well as culture. The previously removed "Native American Prayers and Blessings" thread is an example of just that. It seems many see us all as flowery Plains Indian-like people who are often pictured in the company of wolves. Oddly enough if one goes to Google Images and types in "Native American" such misrepresenting stereotypes is mostly what he or she sees. It's rather obvious that many non-indigenous people only want the 'pretty' when it comes to indigenous spiritualty instead of reality which in our case is not always so pretty.

----------


## Atehequa

> No one can get inner peace by pouncing on it, by vigorously willing to have it.  Peace is a margin of power around our daily need. Peace is a consciousness of springs too deep for earthly droughts to dry up.  Peace is the gift not of volitional struggle but of spiritual hospitality.  Peace is an awareness of reserves from beyond ourselves, so that our power is not so much in us as through us.
> 
> Harry Emerson Fosdick


You call it pouncing while I refer to it as one who came and not only spoke the truth, but stood up for the traditional beliefs of America's indigenous people. Rather reminiscent of the old days of manifest destiny you would have me removed. So as an expert on indigenous spirituality(prayers/blessings) of what nation, tribe or band are you?

----------


## moostraks

> You call it pouncing while I refer to it as one who came and not only spoke the truth, but stood up for the traditional beliefs of America's indigenous people. Rather reminiscent of the old days of manifest destiny you would have me removed. So as an expert on indigenous spirituality(prayers/blessings) of what nation, tribe or band are you?


 Persecution complex much? It's a quote by Henry Emerson Fosdick. It is a quote on obtaining peace which is a "gift not of volitional struggle but of spiritual hospitality...an awareness of reserves from beyond ourselves". You defend _your_ beliefs as though there is a consensus with you being the arbitrator. The original thread was not removed. This off topic nonsense for the purpose of causing friction was separated from the original thread. 

~~peace on your path

----------


## Atehequa

> Persecution complex much?


Deem my words as whatever works for you for whatever reasons, but it does nothing to make your misrepresentations of indigenous spirituality as being factual.

----------


## moostraks

> You call it pouncing while I refer to it as one who came and not only spoke the truth...





> Persecution complex much? It's a quote by Henry Emerson Fosdick.





> Deem my words as whatever works for you for whatever reasons, but it does nothing to make your misrepresentations of indigenous spirituality as being factual.


You have a reading comprehension problem. Try to follow a complete thought if you are going to whine and complain and throw around accusations. You cannot tell the difference between a quoted work and a posted statement by a member it seems. I have misrepresented nothing but offered quotes of interest from various sources to which you wish to be the defining authority on beliefs. Take it up with the authors of the quotes. And the fact you are still whining about the pictures, well we can toss up some pictures of the darker side of the culture but seems a bit ridiculous to the context and not worthy of the effort just to please a professional internet complainer...

Here, I think you dropped this:

----------


## Atehequa

> You have a reading comprehension problem. Try to follow a complete thought if you are going to whine and complain and throw around accusations. You cannot tell the difference between a quoted work and a posted statement by a member it seems. I have misrepresented nothing but offered quotes of interest from various sources to which you wish to be the defining authority on beliefs. Take it up with the authors of the quotes. And the fact you are still whining about the pictures, well we can toss up some pictures of the darker side of the culture but seems a bit ridiculous to the context and not worthy of the effort just to please a professional internet complainer...
> 
> Here, I think you dropped this:



All you can do is belittle people who don't agree. Odd, you post "Native American" prayers and blessings, but when an NDN shows up to question your misrepresentations he is admonished. Surely not the romanticized, flowery, mystical stereotypical "Native American" you envision or use to make yourself appear other than what you truly are. 

I can take your bias and anger, but wouldn't want to deprive you of all that you have.

----------


## moostraks

> All you can do is belittle people who don't agree. Odd, you post "Native American" prayers and blessings, but when an NDN shows up to question your misrepresentations he is admonished. Surely not the romanticized, flowery, mystical stereotypical "Native American" you envision or use to make yourself appear other than what you truly are. 
> 
> I can take your bias and anger, but wouldn't want to deprive you of all that you have.


Belittle? No, just not rolling over to the professional victim who seems to have no purpose other than to try to stir the pot. I ain't the one pushing collectivist hatred and acting as though everyone should defer to me. Nice bait and switch on who is pushing what here. 

As the Irish saying goes: "May those who love us love us.And those that don't love us,May God turn their hearts.And if He doesn't turn their hearts,May he turn their ankles,So we'll know them by their limping."

----------


## TER

> All you can do is belittle people who don't agree. Odd, you post "Native American" prayers and blessings, but when an NDN shows up to question your misrepresentations he is admonished. Surely not the romanticized, flowery, mystical stereotypical "Native American" you envision or use to make yourself appear other than what you truly are.


If you have any friends who can better fit that stereotype, can you have them come here and share the wonders and wisdom of your faith?  Because right now, it seems like the only one promoting it is a Christian.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> If you have any friends who can better fit that stereotype, can you have them come here and share the wonders and wisdom of your faith?  Because right now, it seems like the only one promoting it is a Christian.


I don't understand the question, TER. Or maybe I missed something. I haven't read the whole thread, mind you, but I am a native. I've probably mentioned it there and about.

----------


## TER

> I don't understand the question, TER. Or maybe I missed something. I haven't read the whole thread, mind you, but I am a native. I've probably mentioned it there and about.


What I mean my friend is that this new friend would do much more to promote his faith if he spent more time expounding on the wisdom in the sayings moostraks posted and less time critiquing the manner and style of what they are wearing.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What I mean my friend is that this new friend would do much more to promote his faith if he spent more time expounding on the wisdom in the sayings moostraks posted and less time critiquing the manner and style of what they are wearing.


I don't think that he came here to promote anything. There is no need, really. I imagine we won't even see him again. Which is unfortunate. I wanted to have a chit chat with him. A private one, though. I just noticed this thread a few minutes ago.

----------


## TER

> I don't think that he came here to promote anything. There is no need, really. I imagine we won't even see him again. Which is unfortunate. I wanted to have a chit chat with him. A private one, though. I just noticed this thread a few minutes ago.


It appears he came here to promote his position which is that these apparent stereotypes in the original thread misrepresent the true spirituality of the Indians.  In that case, he should tell us about this true spirituality.  All he did in this thread was post a video with a man ranting against the modern white man and attacking the only person who had brought any awareness at all about Indian spirituality, namely moostraks, who is also a friend of mine.  It seems to me she has brought more honor and respect in her mischaracterization of Indian spirituality than he has in his protesting about it.  The only worker bee in the garden and he is shooing her away.

Personally, I hope he doesn't leave and can share the wonders and riches of his faith.  I am interested in learning about all different faiths, including the many and diverse faiths of the Indian nations and tribes.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It appears he came here to promote his position which is that these apparent stereotypes in the original thread misrepresent the true spirituality of the Indians.  In that case, he should tell us about this true spirituality.  All he did in this thread was post a video with a man ranting against the modern white man and attacking the only person who had brought any awareness at all about Indian spirituality, namely moostraks, who is also a friend of mine.  It seems to me she has brought more honor and respect in her mischaracterization of Indian spirituality than he has in his protesting about it.  The only worker bee in the garden and he is shooing her away.
> 
> Personally, I hope he doesn't leave and can share the wonders and riches of his faith.  I am interested in learning about all different faiths, including the many and diverse faiths of the Indian nations and tribes.


I know what moostraks was trying to do. And I believe that she is genuine in her reason for it. It's why, I, myself, added a couple. Here is what I'm going to say. And I mean no harm to anyone by saying it but I'm going to say it. It's probably not the misrepresentation itself that he was offended by (because it's a common phenomenon) but a brand of "respect" that is the very substance of a way of thinking or being that is derived from this misrepresentation that he does not accept in whole for what is  a host of reasons. And that's a very vague way of saying it, I know. At the same time, I respect moostraks as well and so I don't want to really get over involved with it. 

Let me just ask you a very vague question, TER. And I know that it's off the wall but do consider answering the best way that you can.

From a human perspective (and you may even consider any religious or spiritual aspect in your answer) if you were to start a fire, what would your relationship be with that fire? What would it mean to you?

----------


## TER

> I know what moosetraks was trying to do. And I believe that she is genuine in her reason for it. It's why, I, myself, added a couple. Here is what I'm going to say. And I mean no harm to anyone by saying it but I'm going to say it. It's probably not the misrepresentation itself that he was offended by (because it's a common phenomenon) but a brand of "respect" that is the very substance of a way of thinking or being that is derived from this misrepresentation that he does not accept in whole for what is  a host of reasons. And that's a very vague way of saying it, I know. At the same time, I respect moosetraks as well and so I don't want to really get over involved with it. 
> 
> Let me just ask you a very vague question, TER. And I know that it's off the wall but do consider answering the best way that you can.
> 
> From a human perspective (and you may even consider any religious or spiritual aspect in your answer) if you were to start a fire, what would your relationship be with that fire? What would it mean to you?


Before we get into my relationship with fire, I want to be clear with my previous point.  Going back in this thread, there have been others who have outright called Indian spirituality blasphemous and demonic, and they were not apparently a point of contention or debate for our new friend, but moostraks who in goodness tries to share some beauty and wisdom regarding Indian spirituality, she herself becomes the target?   Is that what she is?  Kindling?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Before we get into my relationship with fire, I want to be clear with my previous point.  Going back in this thread, there have been others who have outright called Indian spirituality blasphemous and demonic, and they were not apparently a point of contention or debate for our new friend, but moostraks who in goodness tries to share some beauty and wisdom regarding Indian spirituality, she herself becomes the target?   Is that what she is?  Kindling?


I still haven't even read the thread, TER. It's not that I'm lazy, I just do that sometimes. For whatever reason I prefer to work backwards. I think it comes from my distaste for "sources" and so I like to debate the arguments first. Not that I want to debate you here. I don't. Just wanted to chit chat about why all the hub-bub, I suppose, before actually seeing the hub-bub.

But _aaanyway_...that's exactly the thing. Those calls of spiritual blasphemy and demonism were genuine and from the heart. Thy were _meant_ to show hate. And so you won't ever get any kind of contention. Now, this, that we see in the other thread is a bit of a different scenario. Because although genuine in appearance, and even genuine from the heart, it is a mischaracterization in a way that would stimulate a false respect. It's kind of like the old kill them with kindness meme. If that makes sense. Even though you aren't killing them, per se. At least not _physically.

_And, no...moostraks is notKindling.  As I said, I understand why she was doing it.

----------


## TER

> I still haven't even read the thread, TER. It's not that I'm lazy, I just do that sometimes. For whatever reason I prefer to work backwards. I think it comes from my distaste for "sources" and so I like to debate the arguments first. Not that I want to debate you here. I don't. Just wanted to chit chat about why all the hub-bub, I suppose, before actually seeing the hub-bub.


As an offer of friendly advice, you might want to change the way in which you approach arguments.




> But _aaanyway_...that's exactly the thing. Those calls of spiritual blasphemy and demonism were genuine and from the heart. And so you won't ever get any kind of contention. Now, this, that we see in the other thread is a bit of a different scenario. Because although genuine in appearance, and even genuine from the heart, it is a mischaractarization in a way that would stimulate a false respect. It's kind of like the old kill them with kindness meme. If that makes sense. Even though you aren't jkilling them, per se. At least not physically.


I can understand what you are saying. But my qualm is not that he feels like these mischaracterizations are harmful (I honestly can understand this), my qualm is with his approach.  If he wishes me to see that there is a mischaracterization, then present the true characterizations because of yet I haven't seen any.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> As an offer of friendly advice, you might want to change the way in which you approach arguments.


Well 9 3/4 times out of 10 I'm in a_ political_ discussion and so it works well.





> If he wishes me to see that there is a mischaracterization, then present the true characterizations because of yet I haven't seen any.


Think about that. Reeeally think about what you just said there. To a NDN.

----------


## TER

> Think about that. Reeeally think about what you just said there. To a NDN.


I don't know what it means because I know very little about it.  Can someone tell me what the true spirit and characterizations are of the Indian faiths?  I don't even know what NDN means.

I know that the things moostraks posted seemed full of spiritual wisdom, but apparently those posts mischaracterized Indian spirituality.  Can you provide any hint?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I don't know what it means because I know very little about it.  Can someone tell me what the true spirit and characterizations are of the Indian faiths?  I don't even know what NDN means.
> 
> I know that the things moostraks posted seemed full of spiritual wisdom, but apparently those posts mischaracterized Indian spirituality.  Can you provide any hint?


Well, there is a reason that we like to use the term NDN. It is so that we don't mischaracterize actual Indians...from India. You see? 


Although, I do sometimes say "Indian" just because I don't feel like explaining it to people I'm discussing such things with. Scwewy, I know.

But I'm not mad at moostraks. I like moostraks.

As far as spiritual wisdom from that thread, it's spiritual wisdom that conforms to a way that doesn't particularly support the spirituality of the NDN but what it does do is that it supports thee idea that a Christian can be respectful in Christian_ terms_. If that makes sense. Which is where the question about sparkin up a fire came from.

----------


## TER

> Well, there is a reason that we like to use the term NDN. It is so that we don't mischaracterize actual Indians...from India. You see? 
> 
> 
> Although, i do sometimes say "Indian" just because I don't feel like explaining it to people I'm discussing such things with. Scwewy, i know.
> 
> But I'm not mad at moostraks. I lke moostraks.
> 
> As far as spiritual wisdom from that thread, it's spiritual wisdom that conforms to a way that doesn't particularly support the spirituality of the NDN but what it does do is that it supports thee idea that a Christian can be respectful in Christian_ terms_. If that makes sense.


And what is this spirituality of the NDN so that I can better understand it?  That is my confusion, if that makes sense.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> And what is this spirituality of the NDN so that I can better understand it?  That is my confusion, if that makes sense.


You didn't answer my question, TER.  See? Now you're doing the very same thing that you just got done giving me advice about. Heh.

----------


## Natural Citizen

TER, I have to be in Philly in the morning so I'll get back with you tomorrow some time. I need some sleep.

----------


## TER

> You didn't answer my question, TER.  See? Now you're doing the very same thing that you just got done giving me advice about. Heh.


I honestly don't know which questions you are talking about.  Looking back, I see you edited your post and added it.

With regards to your question about the fire, I am not sure I understand.  I will think on it tonight.  Perhaps tomorrow we can get more into it.  Good night and have a wonderful day in Philly tomorrow.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> With regards to your question about the fire, I am not sure I understand.  I will think on it tonight.  Perhaps tomorrow we can get more into it.  Good night and have a wonderful day in Philly tomorrow.


That was the one. I'm hitting the sheets, TER. Thanks. Peace...

----------


## moostraks

> Well, there is a reason that we like to use the term NDN. It is so that we don't mischaracterize actual Indians...from India. You see? 
> 
> 
> Although, I do sometimes say "Indian" just because I don't feel like explaining it to people I'm discussing such things with. Scwewy, I know.
> 
> But I'm not mad at moostraks. I like moostraks.
> 
> As far as spiritual wisdom from that thread, it's spiritual wisdom that conforms to a way that doesn't particularly support the spirituality of the NDN but what it does do is that it supports thee idea that a Christian can be respectful in Christian_ terms_. If that makes sense. Which is where the question about sparkin up a fire came from.


Thanks for the support both of you. None of what I posted was meant to mislead anyone. New poster was perfectly within bounds to postulate at will within confines of intent, which was to say not go attack another race to perpetuate stereotypes about "Americans". As long as folks were not being disrespectful they could have taken it anywhere of a positive nature. It went in a particular direction because of how posters took the discussion. It was an attempt to give an outlet to some lesser viewpoints for the purpose of discussion of the beauty of faith. If folks want the dialogue to be accurate to their viewpoint then it is necessary to contribute. (Again with the intention being a positive not disparaging thread)

Now, I don't have a problem with less mainstream practices and I can see (and chose to focus on) the hand of peace and love at work. (Intentionally not included were darker aspects of real practices because that was not the intent of the thread but we can have a separate discussion on the matter if one chooses just as I suggested S_F was within rights to go off and discuss) My choice to accept the positive of diverse beliefs generally gets me into hot water with those who feel a need to defend their own faith at my expense. (Such as I am such and such because I share something I find interesting or uplifting I run across) I know what it feels like to be humiliated and mistreated for one's faith. The Spirit is there for all peoples imo and we see through lens colored by our own experiences...

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Thanks for the support both of you. None of what I posted was meant to mislead anyone. New poster was perfectly within bounds to postulate at will within confines of intent, which was to say not go attack another race to perpetuate stereotypes about "Americans". As long as folks were not being disrespectful they could have taken it anywhere of a positive nature. It went in a particular direction because of how posters took the discussion. It was an attempt to give an outlet to some lesser viewpoints for the purpose of discussion of the beauty of faith. If folks want the dialogue to be accurate to their viewpoint then it is necessary to contribute. (Again with the intention being a positive not disparaging thread)
> 
> Now, I don't have a problem with less mainstream practices and I can see (and chose to focus on) the hand of peace and love at work. (Intentionally not included were darker aspects of real practices because that was not the intent of the thread but we can have a separate discussion on the matter if one chooses just as I suggested S_F was within rights to go off and discuss) My choice to accept the positive of diverse beliefs generally gets me into hot water with those who feel a need to defend their own faith at my expense. (Such as I am such and such because I share something I find interesting or uplifting I run across) I know what it feels like to be humiliated and mistreated for one's faith. The Spirit is there for all peoples imo and we see through lens colored by our own experiences...


Yep. Damned if you do and damned if you don't . Heh. Ah, well.I know that it was not your intention to mislead anyone, moostraks.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I  Perhaps tomorrow we can get more into it.


We could probably just chit chat about it offline if you want. I don't really want to debate anyone on it.

----------


## acptulsa

Well, I was going to say something, but moostraks didn't seem to need any help.  Then I was going to say something, but TER obviously didn't need any help.  But it's odd that us pink people have been treated with deference, but not the person most closely related to him.

Yes, I'd like to hear more, too, so I can see for myself if his objections have any merit...




> 'Little progress can be made by merely attempting to repress what is evil.  Our great hope lies in developing what is good.'--_Calvin Coolidge_





> "You can't beat an administration by attacking it.  You have to show some plan of improving on it."--_Will Rogers 1924_


...but he seems more interested in convincing people who know to keep it secret than in setting the record straight.  He _seems_ to feel that way.  I hope I misunderstand.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yes, I'd like to hear more, too, so I can see for myself if his objections have any merit...


And you get to decide this? Please...

----------


## acptulsa

> And you get to decide this? Please...


For myself?

Why, yes.  Yes, I do.

For you?  Wouldn't presume.  But when I see for myself, I do often decide for myself, yes.  Guilty.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> For myself?
> 
> Why, yes.  Yes, I do.
> 
> For you?  Wouldn't presume.  But when I see for myself, I do often decide for myself, yes.  Guilty.


Which kind of brings us back to square one but whatever. If Atehequa isn't going to check in on his thread then I'm probably not going to continue debating it, though.

----------


## acptulsa

I'm more likely to bump the original thread, which I think is excellent.  Hardly a Library for Advanced Studies, but a nice source of wise quotes and a vehicle for tolerance and the seeds of understanding.

I personally think there is One God.  Saying, 'Your god isn't my God,' is easy.  Looking at your beliefs and saying, 'Does this enable me to understand God a little better?' is hard.  I prefer the hard road.

I sure don't see what he's talking about with the art used for those memes.  Most of it is photography, and while the portrait of Tecumseh may have been painted by a white, I put that in the same category as photography.  Some of it is unquestionably by native artists.  And yes, living in the same town as Gilcrease Museum, I feel educated enough to say that.

----------


## Atehequa

> Which kind of brings us back to square one but whatever. If Atehequa isn't going to check in on his thread then I'm probably not going to continue debating it, though.



Oh I've been checking on it, but this is not my thread even though someone else saw fit to make it such. Originally I just posted a civil disagreement only to have someone come back at me in an uncivil manner. 

Victim Card? Of course the indigenous people have been victimized before there was a United States of America on this continent and after 1776 and now there is an attempt to lump all the many diverse tribal beliefs into a perceived "Native American" version of old world monotheism. 

I stand by my words.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Oh I've been checking on it, but this is not my thread even though someone else saw fit to make it such. Originally I just posted a civil disagreement only to have someone come back at me in an uncivil manner. 
> 
> Victim Card? Of course the indigenous people have been victimized before there was a United States of America on this continent and after 1776 and now there is an attempt to lump all the many diverse tribal beliefs into a perceived "Native American" version of old world monotheism. 
> 
> I stand by my words.


I apologize, but I think that is far too simplistic.  If there is one God, or one Great Spirit, then those who perceive Him truly will come to similar conclusions.  It is not one bending to the other in either direction, it is a demonstration of a commonality that recognizes that what is spoken is right and true, that transcends time and space.

There is one universe, and the Power over it is the same power that is over everyone, no matter who has the best perception of the Spirit.

If all those who seek the Spirit in truth, reach similar conclusions from vastly different origins in belief, culture, space, and time, then to me it is encouraging, and I can only understand that it would be encouraging to both, for it bears witness to the very truth that all have borne.

----------


## moostraks

> Oh I've been checking on it, but this is not my thread even though someone else saw fit to make it such. Originally I just posted a civil disagreement only to have someone come back at me in an uncivil manner. 
> 
> Victim Card? Of course the indigenous people have been victimized before there was a United States of America on this continent and after 1776 and now there is an attempt to lump all the many diverse tribal beliefs into a perceived "Native American" version of old world monotheism. 
> 
> I stand by my words.


The attempt was not to make it seem anything. It is still an open thread and as long as you post within the intent of the OP (positive, respectful posts), you may add what you like but you chose instead to try and derail the original thread and complain about "Americans" making sweeping derogatory generalizations whilst demanding respect for native diversity. One should not throw stones unless they are prepared to have them handed back.  The thread was split because of the attempt to derail which is against forum rules, but you were courteously given your own thread for edifying the masses. So? Gonna keep playing victim or gonna enlighten folks on your perspective?

The only reason the original thread appears to be slanted in one direction is because you are taking from it what you perceive rather than any real agenda of intentional misrepresentation. I have shared what I found edifying or interesting and others did likewise. It was never intended to be an intense workshop on native spirituality, but as stated native prayers and blessings.

----------


## Atehequa

Many American Indians feel as if they are being pushed into a modern industrial society which allows them less and less of their traditional ways of life. They are expected to live in a society where wealth and property replace humans beings as being central. 


Here at this particular venue of conversation fraught with certain views and values as well as many images of the Pauls, I have to ask what would be in store for American Indian people in a Libertarian America? 


I've already notice the stereotypical misrepresentation of various and diverse tribal spirituality and the rebuttal that came with an NDN's questioning of such. I've also heard and read Rand Paul's statements regarding our sovereignty, relationship with the federal government and plans for reservation land. Upon other such venues I've read about our expected assimilation into the Libertarian sense of being. Words of getting NDNs off the rez, and getting them to live as others of this Libertarian sense of being. A good many of us remember what happened to reservation Indians decades ago when they relocated into more urban settings and towards mainstream American society. Terrible conditions and segregation which produced the urban Indian leaders who formed A.I.M. 


What brought me here was seeing a thread title while doing a search which read -


'How does Ron Paul feel about repairing relations with Native Americans'


There was some banter of legalizing weed, one which struck me as odd - 


"Ron Paul likum repair relations with Native Americans. Also make legal smokum peace pipe" Didn't know the ghost of Jay Silverheels posted here. Reading more I came upon this - 


" This is something I've always wondered about too, not the individuals, since we all fall under the liberty banner, but the actual nations and tribes which treaties were broken with 100 times over.


All I know is he


- wants to end the Department of Interior (which contains the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which manages native lands and education).
- wants to reduce Indian Health Services (which provides health services to natives, no duh) by 20% of 2006 levels.
- wants to reduce federal government power is just about every way (which MIGHT include giving Native American nations more autonomy like he wants to do with states)"


In my opinion some drastic changes in the BIA and our relationship with the federal government would be greatly appreciated, but the loss of reservation lands and our further assimilation into mainstream society, current or envisioned would do much to take away from a sense of tribal unity. Most Indian people I know want to be who they are and not what others want them to be, especially in anyone's envisioned future. 


I'm sure there are those who are going to read my words and question what they have to do with 'Peace through Religion', but to many of us every aspect of life is spiritually connected. Our sense of being and the welfare of our relations. As far as my landing upon this particular thread which I was 'removed' from and 'allotted' another with a somewhat similar name? Believe me I would not of landed upon a thread regarding Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or even Hindu prayers in a similar manner out of respect for the beliefs of others. But a thread featuring appropriated and embellished indigenous prayers seemed to be a sturdy enough  place to perch. 


Now here upon my allotted thread perhaps we can converse in a more civil and hospitable manner lacking the demeaning remarks and images of victim cards when an Indian comes among your people. If not then just go ahead and ban me as I'm here to converse and not stridently debate for the sole purpose of besting or winning. Think of it as an old Sharp Shinned Hawk landing at a place where people talk about birds.

Not meaning to pull out my NDN victim card, but -




We are rather wary after everything that has happened so far.

----------


## Rond

> Many American Indians feel as if they are being pushed into a modern industrial society which allows them less and less of their traditional ways of life. They are expected to live in a society where wealth and property replace humans beings as being central.    Here at this particular venue of conversation fraught with certain views and values as well as many images of the Pauls, I have to ask what would be in store for American Indian people in a Libertarian America?    I've already notice the stereotypical misrepresentation of various and diverse tribal spirituality and the rebuttal that came with an NDN's questioning of such. I've also heard and read Rand Paul's statements regarding our sovereignty, relationship with the federal government and plans for reservation land. Upon other such venues I've read about our expected assimilation into the Libertarian sense of being. Words of getting NDNs off the rez, and getting them to live as others of this Libertarian sense of being. A good many of us remember what happened to reservation Indians decades ago when they relocated into more urban settings and towards mainstream American society. Terrible conditions and segregation which produced the urban Indian leaders who formed A.I.M.    What brought me here was seeing a thread title while doing a search which read -   'How does Ron Paul feel about repairing relations with Native Americans'   There was some banter of legalizing weed, one which struck me as odd -    "Ron Paul likum repair relations with Native Americans. Also make legal smokum peace pipe" Didn't know the ghost of Jay Silverheels posted here. Reading more I came upon this -    " This is something I've always wondered about too, not the individuals, since we all fall under the liberty banner, but the actual nations and tribes which treaties were broken with 100 times over.   All I know is he   - wants to end the Department of Interior (which contains the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which manages native lands and education). - wants to reduce Indian Health Services (which provides health services to natives, no duh) by 20% of 2006 levels. - wants to reduce federal government power is just about every way (which MIGHT include giving Native American nations more autonomy like he wants to do with states)"   In my opinion some drastic changes in the BIA and our relationship with the federal government would be greatly appreciated, but the loss of reservation lands and our further assimilation into mainstream society, current or envisioned would do much to take away from a sense of tribal unity. Most Indian people I know want to be who they are and not what others want them to be, especially in anyone's envisioned future.    I'm sure there are those who are going to read my words and question what they have to do with 'Peace through Religion', but to many of us every aspect of life is spiritually connected. Our sense of being and the welfare of our relations. As far as my landing upon this particular thread which I was 'removed' from and 'allotted' another with a somewhat similar name? Believe me I would not of landed upon a thread regarding Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or even Hindu prayers in a similar manner out of respect for the beliefs of others. But a thread featuring appropriated and embellished indigenous prayers seemed to be a sturdy enough  place to perch.    Now here upon my allotted thread perhaps we can converse in a more civil and hospitable manner lacking the demeaning remarks and images of victim cards when an Indian comes among your people. If not then just go ahead and ban me as I'm here to converse and not stridently debate for the sole purpose of besting or winning. Think of it as an old Sharp Shinned Hawk landing at a place where people talk about birds.  Not meaning to pull out my NDN victim card, but -  
> 
>   We are rather wary after everything that has happened so far.


  Are you comfortable with the ghetto?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> ...Most Indian people I know want to be who they are and not what others want them to be, especially in anyone's envisioned future.


You know, this is usually what I mean when I mention how I do so loath the contemporary concept of the political PAC and the damage they do to the structure of people to remain independent or self defining. Or their sense of natural being. PAC structure and pack structure are two completely diferent and opposing phenomenon.

What has happened is that we have not only lost our sense of spirituality (when I say we, I mean white men) but have compounded it by losing our very personhood. Or, to be clear, handing it over. Blindly.

----------


## dannno

> Here at this particular venue of conversation fraught with certain views and values as well as many images of the Pauls, I have to ask what would be in store for American Indian people in a Libertarian America?


The government wouldn't own land so you could homestead and/or travel freely among unused land.

----------


## jllundqu

> Just to state the obvious:  Native American paganism is a lie from Hell and a true Christian hates every way that this paganism asserts itself against the truth of Christ.  
> 
> The "Great Spirit" or "Mother Earth" is an idol that cannot save.  If a person does not believe that Jesus is God and that He _alone_ is the only salvation from God's wrath against sin, he is not saved and will spend eternity in darkness away from the presence of the Lord.


As long as I don't have to spend eternity with your prosthelytizing ass, I'm ok with the above.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> As long as I don't have to spend eternity with your prosthelytizing ass, I'm ok with the above.


I've always tried to be respectful to S_F but I have to say that when he typed that I was very disappointed with him. Angry even. I've never bashed his spiritual philosophy (and that's all it is. A philosophy) but for him to say that was probably one of the most disrespectful things that I have ever read here. 

 "Native people" as we say don't separate themselves from the heavens and the Earth as would the so called _organized_ feller who has been taught to do just that very thing. All that does is stimulate acceptance and further growth of a slave minded society. Nope. Order to the so called "Native" demands that he remembers that he is both the heaven and the Earth. And both are him. And because of that he never loses his identity in the way that the organized man has and does/will continue to do.

I suppose that what I mean by identity is what some men would refer to as order. Unfortunately, that brand of order often comes as a product of morality which, as I've mentioned before, is a product of his infantile need for centrality. And so morality becomes subjective.

Of course, I've discussed this in much greather depth elswhere here on the forums many times and so I'm sure everyone knows my reasoning behind it without going there again.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Many American Indians feel as if they are being pushed into a modern industrial society which allows them less and less of their traditional ways of life. They are expected to live in a society where wealth and property replace humans beings as being central. 
> 
> 
> Here at this particular venue of conversation fraught with certain views and values as well as many images of the Pauls, I have to ask what would be in store for American Indian people in a Libertarian America?


Well, to begin with, how about the right to be left alone?  How about the right to be sovereign in your own people and tell fedgov to butt out?

Too much of the tragedies that have been brought to your people have come from government claiming power that it had no right to bear. Government aid sounds nice but it always comes with strings, and those are the very strings that are drawing your people away from their traditional lives.

You get so much money for sending your children to this American college.  this is an incentive to depart from the culture.  If YOU really had the sovereignty over education they could be taught even better than American college, without the indoctrination.  But why bother when the US Government pays you money to do it their way?  Some of what you are defending is the very thing that is stealing your culture.

And I had controversial votes in the legislature.  The Haliwa-Saponi were corralled into a land that does not perk.  I fought for State and Federal recognition for the primary purpose of a sewer project. My argument being that they did not inhabit that land by choice, but because they were pushed into the spot on all sides, and it is almost impossible to come out of 3rd world poverty type conditions on land that does not perk. As a sovereign people, corralling them onto land that doesn't perk is unjust. So I fought for recognition to correct a wrong that was done to them.  In North Carolina, recognized tribes operate as sovereign nations, by treaty with the State Governor.  So recognition was a push towards more sovereignty.

When the time came to renew the Treaty with the Eastern Band of the Cherokee, there was an enormous controversy amongst Republicans, and one of the reasons I was redistricted out of the seat.  The Cherokee wanted to add live dealers to their casino in the mountains, and the social conservatives were aghast at the expansion of gambling.  My position was that if the Cherokee People were sovereign, why on Earth should they have to come to me to ask what they could and couldn't do? So I fought hard for everything the Chief wanted, and we won.  That is completely separate from whether I think hiring live dealers was a good idea or a bad idea.  It doesn't matter.  That's not my decision to make.  That decision belonged by right to the Eastern Band of the Cherokee, so I fought for that outcome and won.

This is not to try and glamorize what i have done, but hopefully to add a new perspective.  Just because someone does not want to add more money to the government agency for converting you to White European Medicine, does not mean that they are working against your interests.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Yeah, you're right down there in Carolina, Huh. I forgot about that.

That's me, Gunny. Eastern Cherokee.

----------


## Atehequa

> Are you comfortable with the ghetto?


I don't live in a ghetto. My father took my mother from agency lands in Oklahoma when he joined the military at the start of WWII. I grew up near a base on the east coast. Now I live near my wife's people who reside on a state reservation. 

Are you comfortable making assumptions about people you've never met?

----------

