If Afrocentrics claim North Africa/ancient Egyptians/the Moors, then why is Donatism completely ignored?

No Afrocentric claims Catholicism or mentions Saint Augustine or Donatus, Bishop of Carthage. I know that Catholics were pro slavery, but so were Muslims(NOI), Egyptians (Coptic Christians), Jews(Hebrew Israelites). Here’s some facts :
• Donatism, which began in North Africa, taught that Christians were called to asceticism and personal purity and that holiness was proved in one’s faithfulness in enduring persecution. Those whose faith wavered under threat of death were impure and not worthy of being members of the church. The Donatists considered theirs as the only true church and refused to acknowledge ordinances administered in other churches.
• The background of Donatism involves the Roman persecution of the church. In AD 303 Emperor Diocletian mounted a severe persecution against all Christians. All churches and Christian Scriptures were to be destroyed. During the persecution, many Christians betrayed other Christians to the Romans or handed over their copies of the Bible. These traitors became known as “traditores,” or Christians who turned in other Christians to the government.
• By the 2nd century CE Christianity was divided into two driving forces in the West, theRoman and North African churches, with the latter the more dynamic of the two. Themindsets of each were fundamentally different. The Christianity of North African was very different to any other form.
• A brilliant early father, Tertullian of Carthage write prodigiously on hisinterpretation of Christianity. His tracts bear comparison with many recent tracts by uncompromising Islamists but are free of violence. His position on dress reflected Roman beliefs on clothes expressing virtue, and while also immersed in the Roman concern withclothes and sexual virtue symbolized his belief in salvation of the flesh. Although clearly influenced by Classical thinking and Stoic ideas, he attacked both repeatedly claiming his only influence was Jerusalem or Judea.
 
@Omar del Sur And Islam is also considered our kindred spirits. As Donatism, named after the great Bishop famed for his writings whose reign began it seems after the persecution had ended, prospered most in Numidia, a fairly un-Roman is a part of North Africa, suggests it was largely an internal development with nationalism as one of its core drives. Religion was perhaps the focus of Numidian rejection of Roman dominance. Another, similar or Marxian view, is that Donatists represented the native poor and dispossessed and Roman Catholics rich Romans but this is probably a simplification. A number of wealthy people became Donatist as well. Although the nature of Donatism, apparently the reverse of Catholic complexity, seemed ableto draw in uneducated members of the North African population its leaders were cultivated-that is highly educated. An often repeated complaint was that Donatus the Great knew toomuch secular (Classical) literature. Donatist writings were eloquent and widely read, even it seems in southern Gaul.The Donatist schism, a name given to any religious breakaway group that does not replacethe primary cult, occurred during the Roman persecutions from Decius to Linicuos, reaching its worst atrocities under Diocletian. During the prosecution, many Christians gave up Christianity when threatened with death and torture but reassumed it when the persecutions ended. The Catholic Church reacted with mildness towards the apostates inflaming those wholost so much by sticking to the Faith. Church officials in Carthage took a severer approachand were only willing to receive the apostates before death. Fixated on this different approachto betrayal the Carthage Church began to move away from Rome designating itself the True Church
 
@Omar del Sur My question is why Afrocentrics would never bring this up ? They mentioned Hannibal, but never Pope Victor I, a latinized Berber who established Latin as the official language of the Catholic Church in 195 A.D. There’s actually a Berber dialect of Latin.
My theory is that it’s too conservative and patriarchal for AAs. The pro black organizations in the USA support values that clash with the beliefs of Donatism. One of Donatism’s main beliefs is that Christian clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid. A majority of mentors in the AA community are Ex-cons.
 
Why do you listen to these hoteps or Afrocentrists? They don't have any real knowledge of Africa or African history and live in fantasy land. I would not take them seriously.
 
Why do you listen to these hoteps or Afrocentrists? They don't have any real knowledge of Africa or African history and live in fantasy land. I would not take them seriously.
My mum is one of them. We clash a lot. I hate how their ideology has ruined my mum’s and sister’s lives. Unfortunately, and weirdly that super mixed ones are super pro black.
 
My mum listens to Chrissy. Why do pro black chicks think that women being submissive is a white thing ? Most traditional African cultures are patriarchal. Yes, there were African female rulers and warriors but they were still feminine. And actually, wasn’t feminisms started by white women ? So wouldn’t that mean Chrissy is conforming to whites ? If African Americans mainly descended from Nigerians and Nigerian women are traditionally submissive to men, doesn’t that mean her beliefs are whitewashed/anti-black ?
 
You know why matriarchies haven't existed in any meaningful sense?

It's because they were quickly conquered by their chauvinistic patriarchal neighbours lol
 
You know why matriarchies haven't existed in any meaningful sense?

It's because they were quickly conquered by their chauvinistic patriarchal neighbours lol
It’s happening in Chicongo. https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7ch...ce-anjanette-young-mark-flessner-raid/8946112
The African American community is matriarchal society. Most of the city/state jobs are held by bw. It’s horribly ran. The problem is that every policy are mainly emotionally based. This city literally rewards you if you’re a f*ck up.
 

Omar del Sur

RETIRED
VIP
@Lady Mudblood

From the Catholic standpoint, it does not matter if you are Berber, Italian, Brazilian, etc.

The church is the church, the pope is the pope. If you are within the Catholic church, according to Catholicism, the Catholic church is your church and the pope is your pope.

Furthermore, according to Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible.

If you do not recognize the Catholic Church headed by Pope Francis (or at least the historical institution- there are some Catholics who don't recognize Francis) then you are not a Catholic.

You cannot say "oh, I am with a super obscure variant of Catholicism with rules that you've never heard of and that you cannot find any information about"- within Catholicism you can have different local archbishops, for instance and there can be some local variation.

But whether in Phillipinnes, Portugal, Peru, etc.- all the Catholics belong to the same church.

Catholics in Portugal don't have a different church than Catholics in the Phillipinnes. The pope is the same pope.

So Catholics in North Africa would be a part of the same church, same pope. They could have local archbishops and clergy and some local stuff they mix in but the church and religion are the same. A Muslim in Indonesia might practice somewhat differently than a Muslim in Mali but they both follow the same religion.

So if you are a Catholic, according to Catholicism, you must recognize the same pope, same church. There's not a special pope for Catholics in North Africa. It's not like the Ethiopians or Egyptians where they actually have their own church. If the people are North African Catholics, then they are like a local branch of the larger franchise. The manager at a local McDonalds might be different than the manager at another but they're part of the same franchise.

So if you believe in Catholicism, you believe in Catholicism- not Berber Catholicism, French Catholicism, Italian Catholicism, whatever.

Catholicism is Catholicism.

According to Catholicism, the pope is infallible.

Pope Francis cannot be infallible. It makes no logical sense. The Popes a hundred years ago were hardline conservatives. Pope Francis is a hardcore sjw.

How can a 1920's hardcore conservative Pope and a 2020's hardcore SJW Pope both be infallible?

It makes no logical sense. Those are completely contradictory ideologies. They cannot both be infallible at the same time. For the pope to be infallible is therefore a logical impossibility.

You cannot duck that by appealing to being of a North African ethnic group. Catholics in North Africa don't have a different pope. They don't have their own pope in Phillipinnes or Brazil.

Catholicism cannot be the true religion.

You should become Muslim. Catholicism means the Catholic Church and the Pope. Look at the state the Church and the Pope are in. Catholicism is not the right way. Islam is the right way.

Islam is the right way for all people. Allah is your Creator regardless of ethnicity, nationality, tribe, etc. The Quran is for all people.

Popes and churches can become corrupt. The Quran is truly infallible, will never be corrupt and is right guidance for all eternity.

At the end of day, nationalism and nationality are not enough. Humans need God. We were created to worship Allah.

It is Allah who is the Rabb over all the worlds. We are not going to be asked about ethnicity or how of our ancestry is from this or that group in the grave.

How can anyone who puts nationality before dīn be a monotheist? It is a violation of monotheism.

Therefore, if you want to study your ethnic heritage that is fine but Islam is the right religion for all people and it is the dīn that is really important at the end of the day.

What matters in the ultimate sense is not whether you are Berber or Tuareg but whether you are Muslim.

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sent as a mercy for all of humanity.

Pope Francis and the Catholic church cannot give you the correct religious guidance. It is Islam that is the correct religious guidance for all of humanity and even the jinn.

Furthermore, even besides the various problems with Catholicism in particular- Christianity of all denominations suffers from fatal problems.

The Bible is not reliable. Those texts have been tampered with and even the secular academic acknowledge this.

Furthermore, Jesus (peace be upon him) is not Allah and worshipping Jesus (peace be upon him) and believing that he is Allah are violations of monotheism. It is paganistic type ideology like ancient Greek or Roman mythology.

We do not need mythological man-gods or corrupt popes. We don't need a Bible that has been so tampered with that we don't know what has been inspired and what is pure man-made concoction.

Human beings were not created for no reason. Life has definite, precise, objective meaning. We has humans have needs beyond the material. We have spiritual needs, we need guidance from God.

The Quran and Sunnah provide the right guidance for humanity. Islam is the right way and Islam is the solution for all of humanity and even the jinn.
 
According to Catholicism, you would have to believe Pope Francis is infallible. I have nothing personal against Catholics but Catholicism is not the right way. The Bible is corrupt. The pope is corrupt. The church is corrupt.

Islam is the right way.
History likes to paint Donatism as heresy, but my ancestors were right. We believe the Christian clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid. This position was declared a heresy at the Synod of Arles in 314 CE, where it was decided that the validity of ordination and baptism were not dependent upon the merit of the administrator in question. Emperor Constantine agreed with the ruling, but the people in North Africa refused to accept this and Constantine tried to impose it by force, but he was unsuccessful.

This is why not only the Catholic Church is corrupt, but there’s a lot of sexual abuse in the black Baptist churches and Mormons. I believe it’s why the Maghreb became Muslims during the 8th century.
 
@Omar del Sur As for blindly obeying the Pope, nope. The amazigh fought against the Arabs, even though they converted to Islam . The Umayyad dynasty ruling proxies alienated the Berbers by taxing them heavily; treating converts as second-class citizens; and enslaving the southern and weaker nomadic tribes.
As a result, widespread opposition took the form of open revolt in 739-40 under the banner of Kharijite Islam. The Kharijites had been fighting Umayyad rule in the East, and many Berbers were attracted by the sect's egalitarian precepts. The issue at hand is the same Numidians had fought against with the Romans (State Religion) whereby the control of the faith as an inherited right of those in control of the state.
The new sect known as Kharijism was born on the premise that any suitable Muslim could be elected caliph without regard to race, station, or descent from the Prophet Muhammad.
 

Omar del Sur

RETIRED
VIP
History likes to paint Donatism as heresy, but my ancestors were right. We believe the Christian clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid.
The Umayyad dynasty ruling proxies alienated the Berbers by taxing them heavily; treating converts as second-class citizens; and enslaving the southern and weaker nomadic tribes.
As a result, widespread opposition took the form of open revolt in 739-40 under the banner of Kharijite Islam. The Kharijites had been fighting Umayyad rule in the East, and many Berbers were attracted by the sect's egalitarian precepts. The issue at hand is the same Numidians had fought against with the Romans (State Religion) whereby the control of the faith as an inherited right of those in control of the state.
The new sect known as Kharijism was born on the premise that any suitable Muslim could be elected caliph without regard to race, station, or descent from the Prophet Muhammad.

You are directly copying and pasting from Wikipedia.

"Donatists argued that Christian clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid"

"the Ummayad Dynasty—which held control over most of the Islamic Caliphate. Their ruling proxies alienated the Berbers by taxing them heavily; treating converts as second-class citizens; and enslaving the southern and weaker nomadic tribes. As a result, widespread opposition took the form of open revolt in 739-40 under the banner of Kharijite Islam. The Kharijites had been fighting Umayyad rule in the East, and many Berbers were attracted by the sect's egalitarian precepts. The issue at hand is the same Numidians had fought against with the Romans (State Religion) whereby the control of the faith as an inherited right of those in control of the state. The new sect known as Kharijism was born on the premise that any suitable Muslim could be elected caliph without regard to race, station, or descent from the Prophet Muhammad."



You are rejecting Islam so that you can identify with information that you read on Wikipedia? Your ancestral knowledge was passed down by Wikipedia articles?

The Donatists were an ancient sect that split off from the Catholic in ancient times. They are an extinct sect that doesn't exist anymore. You are rejecting Islam for an extinct historical sect that doesn't exist anymore? That's like saying you're a member of an extinct Muslim sect that went extinct in 900 years ago.

You are therefore a follower of a one-woman sect of Christianity?

Why try to dig up ancient, obscure, extinct Christian sects based on Wikipedia articles rather than follow the religion of your Muslim ancestors?

Islam is a real religion. It is the second-largest religion on earth with over a billion followers. It is not an obscure sect that went extinct in 900 ad.

There are mosques. There are Muslim countries. There are over a billion Muslims. There are Muslim scholars and preachers. It is a living way of life. It is the greatest nation in the entire world!

Why reject that in favor of a one-person religion?

How is identifying with an extinct Christian sect from ancient times going to fulfill your innate religious needs?

There is no Donatist church. There are no Donatist clergy. There is no Donatist Zakir Naik. There is no Donatist religious body. I don't think there are even any Donatist books for you to read. You would literally be a one-woman religion. That is not enough to fulfill the religious needs of a human being. Nor could it be enough to give religious and moral guidance.

I could say one of my ancestors was a viking and say I'm going to follow ancient viking religion. Ancient viking religion doesn't even exist anymore. It's not even known how they actually practiced their religion. So it wouldn't even be possible to actually follow it even if someone wanted to- it would be larping based on fragments of what is known.[/QUOTE]
 

Trending

Latest posts

Top