Racism in the Bible

a reply to: Seede

Matthew 5:17-19
(17) Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. (19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
You error greatly and don't understand. Bashing Paul will not change the law.

I hope that you and your Christian friends stay away from cotton/rayon blends, shrimp cocktails and lobster bisque. Where do you take your mouthy and rebellious teenagers and non-virgin unmarried girls to stone them to death?

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: peter vlar

Is not Torah in the Christian Bible? Who mentioned Talmud? I believe you did. I certainly did not.

Nice way of defelcting and avoiding the bigger issue and the actual questions! I was merely pointing out that your whining about someone focusing on the Christian holy book and not those of other faiths was baseless as the topic of the thread and title are very clear that the subject matter is "Racism in the Bible" Everything I mentioned was simply exemplars of other faiths that had nothing to do with the OP, invalidating your rant.

Simply because some heterosexuals engage in anal sex does not mean they are not also booty pumpers. It is still a filthy diseased ridden unnatural act to me and to my God.

Yes...to YOU. As your god has never written anything, it's a pretty long stretch of the imagination for you to speak for him/her/it. As far as unnatural, you couldn't be farther from the truth. It is a frequent occurrence in the animal kingdom. Including some of our closest relatives like Bonobos. Bonobos are a matriarchal society and use Lesbian behaviors and homosexuality for many purposes.

Regardless of how you are offended does not make it acceptable to Christianity and the Christian God. The slurs towards Christ Jesus and His God are just as offensive to me and many others as well as my slurs are offensive to you. I am not into political correctness.

And here you demonstrate that you are a Christian in name only and don't actually follow Christ's teachings. Kudos to you for being an exemplar of Christian hypocrisy!

Mainstream bibles do include the OT as well as NT and almost always directed at Christians or Jews. So to say it does not include Jesus is not convincing at all.

Whatever makes it easier to rationalize your pathetic and petty hatred for other people who are also born in gods image.

It is impossible to separate Jesus from the NT as well as separating Jesus from Torah. The NT authors are the very same before and after the letters were compiled so if they were racists after the NT was compiled then they were racists before the NT letters were compiled. Your opinion not mine.

not an opinion, a fact. bigots run rampant through Christian texts. Jesus on the other hand accepted that people were born gay and were loved by his father. Maybe you should follow Christ's example if you want to call yourself a Christian?

How could you know my thought process and whether it be theologically induced or not?

You demonstrate with amazing frequency what your thoughts are and even admit it above. Now you want to deny your bigotry? Interesting approach indeed.

Are you gifted to know this when you have never met me nor are qualified even if you had met me? I hardly think so.

Now who's making assumptions? How do you know what my background is and whether I am qualified to judge the origins of your bigoted and sad view on other people?

And to reason that I hate people simply because I hate the unnatural act of booty pumping is ridiculous.

Your judgmental replies in this thread indicate otherwise. On top of being a bigot, you're delusional and rationalizing your hatred through circular reasoning.

You have judged me without a cause

Not at all, I'm judging you based on your own words. If you can't stand behind them you should think before you speak/type.

and you did that with the teaching of the very books that you also judge as bogus. Is not that hypocritical?

I'm a hypocrite for pointing out that you rationalize and justify your ignorant and hate filled rants with scripture when you seem to ignore all the scripture based on Christ's teachings that contradict your point of view? Pot, meet kettle.

Once again your admission is not in accordance with the bible. In fact it is totally against the Christian bible.

Please quote something Jesus said that supports your views.

By this also shows your intent in defense of the unnatural acts of both man and woman.

If by unnatural acts, you mean allowing two people to love one another then YUP!. You are aware that the Catholic Church allowed same sex marriages to be performed in the church by priests until the 13th century aren't you? If the church that is the basis for all western versions of Christianity allowed this practice from the 2nd through the 13th centuries, well over 1000 years, then it would seem that all self professed Christians are ignorant hypocrites if they are so against these "unnatural acts" which have occurred in Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and Rome for thousands of years as well as being rampant through the animal kingdom.

That is why I said that no more could be said by me. You endorse perversion while I do not and it is that simple.

No, I endorse love between consenting adults. Just like the Church did for over 1000 years.

Call it whatever you want but to my God it is unnatural and filthy.

Again, where does "Your God" say this? If you are a Christian, where does Jesus say this? Pathetic, hypocritical and hiding behind scripture that you have yet to quote.

Your clinical explanations mean nothing to God but then your God is not my God by your own admission.

Who exactly is my god then? where did I admit such? please remind me of this exchange that I'm having difficulty recalling.

Does hating an act of sin mean that one hates the sinner? No, by no means does it mean that. You judge and expect no judgment.

I'm fine with judgment. In fact I welcome it. I live my life far more in accordance with Christian principles and doctrine than the majority of people of your ilk I come across. It's nauseating that in this day and age there are so many people who can't be bothered to learn about the past and instead rely on some preachers or family members interpretation of text to guide their way through a forest of hate and ignorant hypocrisy because they clearly haven't read the bible and familiarized themselves with the Gospels and teachings of their alleged lord and savior.

You are no Christian, of that I'm quite certain.

a reply to: peter vlar

Technically wouldn't that make him an A Typical Christian?

a reply to: Akragon

Haha. Too true unfortunately. At least it's exemplary of most Christians in America. Not sure how they are across the pond. Luckily I know and am friends with some Christians who actually try to love in accordance with the message in the gospels. They are sadly too few in numbers though and the rest make them look bad by association.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This topic has been done over and over soooo many times.I wish people
would stop stirring this poo pot and focus their attention on other topics.

a reply to: peter vlar

I believe Jesus warned of these people...

Remember he did say "the path is narrow, and few find it"...

Christianity is light years from a narrow path...

So many pages. Not going to read them all, but I have one simple statement/question.

In the OP, were they really different "races"? Just because my neighbor belongs to a different family tree, does that make him of a different race?

originally posted by: whatmakesyouright
So many pages. Not going to read them all, but I have one simple statement/question.

In the OP, were they really different "races"? Just because my neighbor belongs to a different family tree, does that make him of a different race?

I suppose the answer to that depends on just how pedantic you want to get. At the end of the day though, does it really matter if the term 'race' is a valid biological classification for taxonomies or merely a social construct? As long as someone perceives these divisions to be true and sees one 'race' as superior or inferior to others then that's really all that matters, the perception of such by those involved.

Now to get down to brass tacks and answer your question, from a biological perspective race is a matter of classifying people based on phenotypic expression to identify groups of people as distinct from one another based on shared physical or genetic traits both real and perceived.

In Anthropology, we tend to discount and not use race as a classification or identifier as there tends to be much more genetic variation within a given group of people than there is between them. In anthropology, all humans today are Homo Sapiens Sapiens regardless of distinct morphological characteristics. Said characteristics are indeed used to identify people and determine of they may or may not be from a particular geographical region for example but as far as Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid...those terms are seldom used in this day and age.

As to how all of this is germane to the bible, 1800-3500 years ago when these various works were being compiled, modern science and its definitions had no part in how Romans or people of Judea viewed others. More so the farther back in the timeline you look and the Israelites were still attempting to conquer more territory from their neighbors. We need to look p[ast modern viewpoints and try to understand how bronze age Hebrews viewed the rest of the world around them, which was with an air of superiority as gods chosen people.

originally posted by: whatmakesyouright
So many pages. Not going to read them all, but I have one simple statement/question.

In the OP, were they really different "races"? Just because my neighbor belongs to a different family tree, does that make him of a different race?

Just as different as the "races" today..... But of course, race is a 100% man made thing. A European and an African might be a closer genetic match then two Europeans or two Africans.

However, that wasn't the veiw of anchient man. Irish (for example) and Italians were considered seperate races. Same with the English and French. Exc exc

a reply to: windword

originally posted by: windword

The only apostle that ever condemned "homosexuality" was the self proclaimed apostle who never met Jesus, if he existed, in the first place, Saul of Tarsus, A Roman citizen.

It's funny how you think that society has deteriorated so badly. During the first century, homosexuality was way more popular and accepted than it is today. Nero married a transsexual man, for crying out loud! Men had sex with young boys, all the time, and the biblical Jesus never said a word about it.

Jesus never said anything against homosexuality, but he did speak against the abuse of children:

"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." - Luke 17:2

Strange, how the torah/ "old" testament teaches the opposite, as well as approving slavery. Yet, many people still promote torah/old testament and claim Jesus approved of it despite this difference (and many other teachings of Jesus opposing the dark, destructive words of the ot).

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Thing that our faithful blind friends don't see is that most of atheists and agnostics actually love more human race/people then they do, because we don't care about imaginative difference created by belief and religion.

I care for all humans, even those that don't mean good to me and my family and I am firm believer that if we help them with their life, education and health, world would be much better and safer place.

How can you make statements about what 'all atheists and agnostics' feel? Don't you think that's a rather arrogant statement to make? Clearly some people care more than they think as they have to keep making posts on ATS about their own thoughts on things they apparently don't actually care about.

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: RobinB022
a reply to: Entreri06

Those are my own words. It does say that you will know them by their works I believe, but the rest is well... you will know them by their works.

I don't debate the Bible-only try to learn from it.

Yea but your latching onto the passages that are "good" and ignoring the passages that are in no way moral!

Such as where Paul told a slave who (obviously) wasn't happy about being a slave. He told the slave to " obey your master as if it were a sin against Jesus not to."

Or

"Tho shalt not suffer a witch to live" (which was responsible for hundreds of deaths).


The bible is racist and aggressive, because it was written by racist aggressive men just like me and you. (Not you or me specifically being aggressive racists, mankind as a whole).

Referring to the slave comment, it's specifically stating that Christ was not building a kingdom on Earth - I thought that was well known and is very similar in concept to the 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesars' analogy.

For the thou shall not suffer a witch to live (King James translation), it's thought of as a convenient mistranslation for what it's worth, but as it's from Exodus and is therefore more around Jewish law of the time it's hard to understand your point...

www.facebook.com...

a reply to: uncommitted

Firstly, most is not the same as all. Of course in this case I am talking about atheist I know, from my personal experience and no, not all of them are as good.

Reason I wanted to point this is simple, we (atheists) have one part that makes it easier, no rules, no boundaries made by religion itself.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Barcs
Did true Christians even exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

I feel like this is an interesting question given the way that Christians think that "True Christians" should behave. I feel like it could easily be a thread of its own.

I think it's equally interesting how some atheists/agnostics have they own opinions of how Christians (other religions are available but for some reason are typically ignored) behave or should behave.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: uncommitted

Firstly, most is not the same as all. Of course in this case I am talking about atheist I know, from my personal experience and no, not all of them are as good.

Reason I wanted to point this is simple, we (atheists) have one part that makes it easier, no rules, no boundaries made by religion itself.

That's not even most then is it? You are basing it on only the people you personally know, and then you concede that even within that very small pool not all of them meet the standards you appear to have set..... and yet you are happy to judge millions of people as all having a lower set of moral values, hmmm.

By the very definition of the term, the only commonality between atheists is the lack of belief in a deity - nothing else, so how you can make any assumptions about any other aspect of someone's attitude or opinion is a little puzzling.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I notice you failed to mention your position on divorce and having children out of wedlock.

You seem to be well versed in the entire NT so what does the Apostles teach concerning divorce and procreating bastards? Does that word offend you and your political correctness? Is divorce against God? Is a out of wed lock child called a bastard? Being that this is your platform suppose you tell me.

Offend? No. Sad? Yes. Only a religious person would condemn the child for the sins of the parents...

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If only it worked out that way... But like I pointed out in the bible, people who believe as you do tend to try to use their beliefs to change laws and discriminate against these people then hide behind your religion claiming "Freedom of religion" like the 1st amendment gives you carte blache to keep someone else from having equal rights.

I noted your anger. Is that because you know that you are mistaken? What laws do you accuse me of changing? It seems that when I was a youngster that the laws were discriminating homosexuality in the U.S. but now have become the platform of righteousness. Isn't it a fact that abortion was also regarded as shameful and considered murder but now is the permissive will of the people? Discriminate? I have no discriminative power. As I said you have the right to be a homosexual and kill babies. That right is protected by the law of the land. Don't become so upset with an old geezer with one foot in the grave. I have no power to infringe upon your rights to sin.

That's because people such as I have been vigilant in getting these laws off the books and stopping them when new ones spring up. It's not like y'all just woke up one day and decided to be more tolerant of each other. Y'all have been fighting tolerance every step of the way. You're doing it now by defending the bible's accounts of intolerance.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Barcs
Did true Christians even exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

I feel like this is an interesting question given the way that Christians think that "True Christians" should behave. I feel like it could easily be a thread of its own.

I think it's equally interesting how some atheists/agnostics have they own opinions of how Christians (other religions are available but for some reason are typically ignored) behave or should behave.

I think it is rather banal that Christians continually ask questions such as this considering most Western born atheists/agnostics would have a high probability of being familiar with the Christian religion, what it says, what it teaches, and how a Christian should behave. Failing that, knowledge of the Bible is regularly supplied by overwilling Christians all the time.

What IS interesting is why Christians seem to think that when someone leaves their religion, that person just forgets how a Christian is supposed to behave like it hasn't been drilled into his head his whole life.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Barcs
Did true Christians even exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

I feel like this is an interesting question given the way that Christians think that "True Christians" should behave. I feel like it could easily be a thread of its own.

I think it's equally interesting how some atheists/agnostics have they own opinions of how Christians (other religions are available but for some reason are typically ignored) behave or should behave.

I think it is rather banal that Christians continually ask questions such as this considering most Western born atheists/agnostics would have a high probability of being familiar with the Christian religion, what it says, what it teaches, and how a Christian should behave. Failing that, knowledge of the Bible is regularly supplied by overwilling Christians all the time.

What IS interesting is why Christians seem to think that when someone leaves their religion, that person just forgets how a Christian is supposed to behave like it hasn't been drilled into his head his whole life.

'Overwilling Christians', 'drilled into his head his whole life' - two very telling phrases. You are I guess going by personal experience and assuming it must be the same for everyone. I'm not sure that being familiar with a religion boils down to being able to quote selectively from a book and then place your own opinion of a particular passage out of context of both the book as a whole, when it was written and the society it reflected, but maybe that's just me being rational.

What IS interesting is the comments in this thread that appear to suggest a moral standard the majority of atheists/agnostics adhere to which sets them apart from people who have aligned themselves to a faith (not you, others in this thread) when there is no logic to support such a statement.

originally posted by: uncommitted
That's not even most then is it? You are basing it on only the people you personally know, and then you concede that even within that very small pool not all of them meet the standards you appear to have set..... and yet you are happy to judge millions of people as all having a lower set of moral values, hmmm.

By the very definition of the term, the only commonality between atheists is the lack of belief in a deity - nothing else, so how you can make any assumptions about any other aspect of someone's attitude or opinion is a little puzzling.

I think that people I know I can use for good sample, knowing not only atheists, but many believers of 3 major religions. Religion was always kind of interest to me, even I never had any early childhood religious education and I was raised in atheist surrounding, thankfully. I actually made sure that my parents knew how much I am thankful for missing that and I am rising my kids in the same environment.

But as I have already said, you are missing point that I was making from my sample of people I know and I gave a reason for it. Religion is set of rules design to control, manipulate and it was used in such a manner for centuries while in some parts of earth is still used in the same purpose, and today we know that our ex president pretty much attacked another country on premises that he had revelation...

Don't you hate a feeling of catching a straws?!