Are Rastafaris Christian?

[junobet]

19 minutes ago, Ezra said:

So should worship of Haile Selassie (or whoever they currently worship).

Rastafari is an Abrahamic belief which developed in Jamaica in the 1930s, following the coronation of Haile Selassie I as Emperor of Ethiopia in 1930. Its adherents worship him in much the same way as Jesus in his Second Advent, or as God the Father.^[

Well, wikipedia is the first page I went to when wondering about the Rastafari-religion. It didn't really answer my question. (Is it somehow overly fussy of me to bother with quotation-marks and sources when citing?)

Personally I try to be very careful with my condemnations lest I should be condemned.

Love,

junobet

[post]

the bottom line of Rastafarianism is that adherence hinges on accepting Selassie as the Messiah. 
false Christ = not Christian. 

there are, however, many people who have left Rastafarianism for the true Christ. it may be 'urban legend' but it's even said that on his deathbed, Bob Marley converted to Christianity and confessed Jesus Christ as the Messiah. so just because you see someone with dreadlocks praising "Jah" -- don't write him off as Rasta. "Jah" is actually found throughout the Psalms, probably as a shortened form of the tetragrammaton. 

in re: OP -- if you still like reggae/soca/dancehall style music, there's plenty of Christian reggae out there. maybe i'll start a music thread. i love that style; to me it speaks of joy & peace. there's a user on youtube called "DiscipleDJ" that regularly posts compilations of current & recent gospel reggae music from his radio broadcasts; there's as good a place as any place to start a search. 

 

[post]

to Selassie's credit, he flatly rejected the idea that he was the Messiah, for his entire life. 

some sources may tell you that some percentage of "Rastafarians" accept Jesus as Christ, while some other percentage point at Selassie. 
in my view - and i guess it comes to definitions again - one is no longer a Rastafarian if they don't say Selassie was the Messiah, any more than one is not in any way a Christian if they do not confess Christ. 

IMO -- it's always important to be careful about definitions. it can spare a lot of argument, and clear up a lot of misunderstanding. you'd hardly know the difference between a Mormon and a Christian by talking to them, if you weren't clear about definitions, for example. so all the talk pages back about religion vs not religion -- well, that depends on what you call "religion" -- the Faith is "religion" in the sense that we worship God, and do so by the ordinance of love. it's not however "religion" in the sense that it is made up of strict adherence to ritual and ascetic law. and i think it's pretty hard to argue that Judaism is not "religion" - though it should be obvious as Bible-literate believers that our Faith is the apex, goal and fulfillment of Judaism, expressed through the life, death and resurrection of Yeshua our Savior and the Redeemer of both the Gentile and of Israel. in that sense, Christianity is "religion" as well -- as James calls it, pure and undefiled; the expression of God's love through us towards others.  

 

[Guest Thallasa]

14 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

I agree.  Just like the Pope, we are not authorized by God to determine another's salvation. 

 I'm glad , because it happens too often, on both sides .

[Guest Butero]

16 hours ago, angels4u said:

15 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

If we take someone's words out of context, then we can  say anything we want about what they say and make it look like its relevant.

The walls around the Vatican have no relevancy to the walls he was speaking of in relationship to immigration at the border between the US and Mexico.  They belong to two totally different contexts and context is everything.

It is non sequitur that the walls or fences or any barriers where anyone lives should have to come down because they are against Trump's idea of a wall at our border.   The walls, barriers, fences signify completely different concepts.

I have fences around my property - does this have anything to do with immigration?

No.

Should I tear down my fences because I am against a wall at our border?

No.

My fences serve a completely different function than what Trump wants to build a wall for.

 

It is completely and totally non sensical to tell me I must tear down my fences because I am against Trump's idea of a wall at our border.

And I don't believe he's a christian either.   

 

Jesus said:

Matthew 7

• A Tree and its Fruit
  15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.

  
  Matthew 7:20
  Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

   

  Matthew 12:33
  "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.

   

  Luke 6:43
  "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.

   

  Luke 6:44
  Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers.

   

  Galatians 5:22
  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,  23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Do you see these as the predominate fruits?

 

 

 

Jeff, those things happen everywhere , God is the judge of who is a true believer and who is not, when we enter heaven we might be surprised who we meet and miss the  people who we think should be there?

Just saying , it makes no sense to judge religions.

The walls around the Vatican are there to protect it's borders, therefore it is exactly the same thing as building a wall to protect our southern borders.  I would imagine you have fences to protect your property from unwanted trespassers.  Why should you have fences?  Why not let people that don't have any right to your property camp out there and take up residence?  It is the exact same thing except on a smaller scale. 

[MorningGlory]

12 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

I have no idea why when I tried to quote you it is acting up so badly -  but there's nothing there lol

So I'm pasting it in 

Think about it.

Quote

The Vatican walls were built almost  a millennium before it became a city state.    They weren't "borders" when they were built.   Just like the castle I provided a picture of has walls, should something of antiquity be destroyed because someone lives inside of them who disagrees with Trump?

No.  I was only pointing out that the Pope himself lives within a walled country, even though he didn't buid those walls.

Quote

So do you believe I should remove all my fences on my property because I don't believe we should put up a wall on the border?

No.  Again, it's only about what the Pope said.  Has nothing to do with tearing down any fence or wall anyehere but, rather, the building of one.  Not sure how one has anything to do with the other.

 

Quote

I said I don't believe.   I didn't say I know.

Okay, I see what you're saying.

 

 

 

[thereselittleflower]

1 hour ago, Butero said:

The walls around the Vatican are there to protect it's borders, therefore it is exactly the same thing as building a wall to protect our southern borders.  I would imagine you have fences to protect your property from unwanted trespassers.  Why should you have fences?  Why not let people that don't have any right to your property camp out there and take up residence?  It is the exact same thing except on a smaller scale. 

Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge the word "ONLY" in the quote?

Only means ONLY.

ONLY building walls - which means to the exclusion of other actions (such as building bridges).

 

And why are people ignoring that the word before "wall" is "BUILDING"  - present tense -  not past.

 

He spoke of those who are thinking of ONLY building walls in the now.   He wasn't speaking of anyone else or walls built in centuries past.

 

How is that hypocritical?

For this to be hypocritical then the Pope must be thinking of ONLY building (present tense) walls too, and then condemn the same thought in others.

 

Where is there any evidence that the Pope is thinking of building walls at all, let alone ONLY building walls?

 

There is none.

 

Is the Pope building physical walls?

I don't see him having walls built.    Do you?

I don't see him advocating for walls that don't exist yet to be built.  Do you?

 

I don't see him saying here we must tear down walls.  Do you?

 

So who are the ones being hypocritical here?

Through the deliberate misconstruing of his words by the press, those so eager to denounce him any chance they can get have run with what the press' slanted reporting of it and have not critically examined it for themselves, because of bigotry and bias.

It seems to me the true hypocrisy I am seeing is the double standard he is being held to by the twisting of his words.    

 

All of those attacking him because he happens to live in an ancient city with ancient walls are really off base.   I am very disappointed by the level of reasoning and logic I see being exercised in this thread.

 

 

[Guest Butero]

1 minute ago, thereselittleflower said:

Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge the word "ONLY" in the quote?

Only means ONLY.

ONLY building walls - which means to the exclusion of other actions (such as building bridges).

 

And why are people ignoring that the word before "wall" is "BUILDING"  - present tense -  not past.

 

He spoke of those who are thinking of ONLY building walls in the now.   He wasn't speaking of anyone else or walls built in centuries past.

 

How is that hypocritical?

For this to be hypocritical then the Pope must be thinking of ONLY building (present tense) walls too.

 

Where is there any evidence that the Pope is thinking of building walls at all, let alone ONLY building walls?

 

There is none.

 

Is the Pope building physical walls?

I don't see him having walls built.    Do you?

I don't see him advocating for walls that don't exist yet to be built.  Do you?

 

I don't see him saying here we must tear down walls.  Do you?

 

So who are the ones being hypocritical here?

Through the deliberate misconstruing of his words by the press, those so eager to denounce him any chance they can get have run with what the press' slanted reporting of it and have not critically examined it for themselves, because of bigotry and bias.

It seems to me the true hypocrisy I am seeing is the double standard he is being held to by the twisting of his words.    

 

Did we also take his comments on birth control and homosexual marriage wrong?  The Pope should have stayed out of this.  He was clearly opposed to Trump's plan to build a wall.

[thereselittleflower]

1 minute ago, Butero said:

Did we also take his comments on birth control and homosexual marriage wrong?  The Pope should have stayed out of this.  He was clearly opposed to Trump's plan to build a wall.

Don't change the subject Butero.

 

People are welcome to their opinions of course, but that does not extend to making false accusations.

 

 

[Guest Butero]

15 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

Don't change the subject Butero.

 

People are welcome to their opinions of course, but that does not extend to making false accusations.

 

 

He was clearly speaking of Trump and his plan to build a wall at the border.  There is nothing false about that.