Racism in the Bible

The Abrahamic religions all include 'racism' (tribalism) in various guises, as their method of gaining control of people was grouping under belief systems that were either sold to the people, inherited or enforced. As such, quashing competition was the name of the game. Sadly it has persisted even thousands of years on, hence today we see wars rooted in religion.

Ironically, all the African tribes living subsistence hunter gatherer existences arranged as tribal communities, when first 'discovered' by Caucasian were cited as 'uncivilized savages' where the more technologically and culturally developed Caucasian wasn't exactly evolved from such tribalist mentalities, just practicing it in more advanced ways.

Religious belief systems are essentially organized control systems, control of the physical person, the things they do and the very thoughts they are allowed to think and which people to like, love or hate. It is the opposite of spiritual and emotional freedom and under such constraints emotional intelligence and true cognitive function cannot thrive, thus restraining true development of the individual and true cultural development of the community.

Here is an example:

Once upon a time I was in a long terms relationship, a really evil ex boyfriend (common law husband) I was very young and naive and didn't realise I was being used and that he (and his 'secret' other woman) were involved in nefarious activities. When I found out and he realised his life and livelihood was threatened he found a way of taking from me by way of theft and attempts at turning friends and family against me (as they would be on my side if they knew the truth of his ways) by means of lies, physically attacking me, destroying my belongings, forcing me out of my own property and being isolated.

Religion (tribalism) has since forever used the same ways.

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: SuperFrog

1.I did say for the most part women are always right.My husband is very grateful
for having a very loving and devoted wife.
2.Being gay, in my opinion, will always be a lifestyle choice.
3.We live by grace because everything else was nailed to the cross when Yeshua
was crucified.

# 1 - sure... that is why we discuss the book mostly (if not completely) written by males... Interesting...

#2 - 'in your opinion' being a key word... what do you base your opinion on? Not on scientific findings that being a gay is not choice and that homosexuality is not just limited to humankind?!

#3 - and we don't even have single proof outside of bible that he ever was crucified...

I have a feeling that this is not going very well for you, is it? Still no answer to my previous post?

Atheism is an established dogma, just like relativism is a religion.

Once we've established that, this debate will be far more honest.

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
Atheism is an established dogma, just like relativism is a religion.

Once we've established that, this debate will be far more honest.

How can you call something that main idea is not believing in set of authority by anything dogma?

Do you understand meaning of the word dogma??

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true

Religion is dogma, while atheism is opposite of that...

Honestly...

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
Atheism is an established dogma, just like relativism is a religion.

Once we've established that, this debate will be far more honest.

How can you call something that main idea is not believing in set of authority by anything dogma?

Do you understand meaning of the word dogma??

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true

Religion is dogma, while atheism is opposite of that...

Honestly...

I don't know what to tell you friend. You believe that the inexistence of a God is incontrovertibly true. Guys like Dawkins are your authority.

a reply to: SuperFrog

I am going to stick to the question that is the most important to answer.
Yeshua/Jesus was crucified on the cross! Yeshua/Jesus was not a prophet
He was God in flesh!

originally posted by: DiggerDogg

I don't know what to tell you friend. You believe that the inexistence of a God is incontrovertibly true. Guys like Dawkins are your authority.

But, what did even Dawkins say when asked if God exists??

There is no proof for his existence as well there is no proof for his non-existence.



Overall, all points, including our history that we created God(s), we have actual evidence in ancient religions, stories being mixed between religions... I would use that as more evidence pointing to non existing God, but no, neither I can be sure 100%.

It is interesting, if showed evidence, even top scientist would believe it, but when showed evidence for many mistakes in bible, all non believers close their eyes and ears... blockade...

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: SuperFrog

I am going to stick to the question that is the most important to answer.
Yeshua/Jesus was crucified on the cross! Yeshua/Jesus was not a prophet
He was God in flesh!

You could just say - I will not answer your question.

I know, it's hard to think that you might be alone...

There is part of you that know that your belief system has bad ground, but you just will try to avoid questions like mine.

And as for this last comment, not even all Christians agree with you... and still no evidence for either one.

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: SuperFrog

I am going to stick to the question that is the most important to answer.
Yeshua/Jesus was crucified on the cross! Yeshua/Jesus was not a prophet
He was God in flesh!

According to a book written by men who, being men, are usually wrong in your opinion.

originally posted by: DiggerDogg

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
Atheism is an established dogma, just like relativism is a religion.

Once we've established that, this debate will be far more honest.

How can you call something that main idea is not believing in set of authority by anything dogma?

Do you understand meaning of the word dogma??

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true

Religion is dogma, while atheism is opposite of that...

Honestly...

I don't know what to tell you friend. You believe that the inexistence of a God is incontrovertibly true. Guys like Dawkins are your authority.

Very few people actually believe that. I know I don't. If tomorrow undeniable proof of god appeared then I'd be a believer. Though I'm pretty positive that the Christian god doesn't exist. It just seems highly unlikely that a deity like that exists. It's too... human...

originally posted by: DiggerDogg

I don't know what to tell you friend. You believe that the inexistence of a God is incontrovertibly true. Guys like Dawkins are your authority.

Sorry to nit pick here, but inexistence is not actually a word. More to the point however...Acknowledging that from a scientific standpoint there is simply not enough evidence to convince one of the existence of a god or gods is a rational point of view to take. The main difference between a "true believer" and an atheist or agnostic is that if the evidence were to present itself, the atheists and agnostics are open minded enough to allow for being wrong and changing their outlook. Can you say the same thing? Are you willing to admit the possibility of your god not actually existing? That you are wrong about something that has shaped your worldviews for so long? That scripture is not a divinely inspired work and is just a method of controlling the masses?

As for your statement about 'guys like Dawkins are your authority'. Poppycock. In religions there is an organized hierarchy and a system of accountability. For the Atheist or Agnostic, there is no sort of power structure, no accountability and nobody to answer to. The philosophies couldn't be any farther from an 'established dogma' as you claim them to be.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DiggerDogg

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
Atheism is an established dogma, just like relativism is a religion.

Once we've established that, this debate will be far more honest.

How can you call something that main idea is not believing in set of authority by anything dogma?

Do you understand meaning of the word dogma??

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true

Religion is dogma, while atheism is opposite of that...

Honestly...

I don't know what to tell you friend. You believe that the inexistence of a God is incontrovertibly true. Guys like Dawkins are your authority.

Very few people actually believe that. I know I don't. If tomorrow undeniable proof of god appeared then I'd be a believer. Though I'm pretty positive that the Christian god doesn't exist. It just seems highly unlikely that a deity like that exists. It's too... human...

Anthropomorphism is a common mistake for people who aren't properly schooled in monotheistic religion. Trying to ascribe human characteristics to God isn't really in line with traditional theology. We often have to use "human" terms to describe him because of our limited understanding, and that is acceptable. But to attempting to reduce God to having a "human" essence is very, very wrong.

At least, that is the philosophy behind it. We know of God through our interactions with Him, and this by itself would tend to limit our understanding, because He has to interact with us in a way that is comprehensible to the human mind.

originally posted by: DiggerDogg

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DiggerDogg

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
Atheism is an established dogma, just like relativism is a religion.

Once we've established that, this debate will be far more honest.

How can you call something that main idea is not believing in set of authority by anything dogma?

Do you understand meaning of the word dogma??

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true

Religion is dogma, while atheism is opposite of that...

Honestly...

I don't know what to tell you friend. You believe that the inexistence of a God is incontrovertibly true. Guys like Dawkins are your authority.

Very few people actually believe that. I know I don't. If tomorrow undeniable proof of god appeared then I'd be a believer. Though I'm pretty positive that the Christian god doesn't exist. It just seems highly unlikely that a deity like that exists. It's too... human...

Anthropomorphism is a common mistake for people who aren't properly schooled in monotheistic religion. Trying to ascribe human characteristics to God isn't really in line with traditional theology. We often have to use "human" terms to describe him because of our limited understanding, and that is acceptable. But to attempting to reduce God to having a "human" essence is very, very wrong.

Oh so it is just because I haven't been "properly schooled in monotheistic religions" that when I read passages such as these:

Psalm 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
Nahum 1:2 A jealous and avenging God is the LORD; The LORD is avenging and wrathful. The LORD takes vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserves wrath for His enemies.

I mistakenly see god having the human emotions of anger, jealousy, and vengeance.

At least, that is the philosophy behind it. We know of God through our interactions with Him, and this by itself would tend to limit our understanding, because He has to interact with us in a way that is comprehensible to the human mind.

We know of god because some guy ripped the ideas off of previous religions, added his new bit of flair and stamped it monotheism. We can trace the evolution religion. All religion does the "steal from older religions" shtick. Christianity is no different.

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
Anthropomorphism is a common mistake for people who aren't properly schooled in monotheistic religion. Trying to ascribe human characteristics to God isn't really in line with traditional theology. We often have to use "human" terms to describe him because of our limited understanding, and that is acceptable. But to attempting to reduce God to having a "human" essence is very, very wrong.

Does your religious book that you believe in has something like this:

Genesis 1-27
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

If not God's essence, what essence God created humans in??

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
At least, that is the philosophy behind it. We know of God through our interactions with Him, and this by itself would tend to limit our understanding, because He has to interact with us in a way that is comprehensible to the human mind.

I strongly agree that if God exists, it is 'He', no way that 'She' God would screw up this much by sending so many different messages to his children, have them wage wars, nor 'She' would kill firstborn children, give humans black death, kidney stones and many different diseases... or kill children in millions every year...

But back to serious discussion, interaction on personal level... interesting. What makes you so sure?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world!

To all others on this thread...
We all have our own ideologies,points of view and ways of thinking that don't
always agree with each other. That is what makes us all unique and all human.
Until the next thread here that will keep stirring this old poo pot,good-bye!

a reply to: mamabeth

Well ok then. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean exactly in context to what I said, but of course that has been par for the course with your responses throughout the thread. Just distract from the points being discussed with meaningless sayings that mean little to the discussion at hand.

Psalm 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

One has to remember the archaic nature of such writings and the mindset of those times

For example this is a translation into English ... translations often loose the originally meaning or context
Example the word Gay has a different meaning to what it originally had ...

It is matter of interpretation for example if I was a Christian with true Christian values I would personally interprate the above as meaning ... That God being God has knows one inside out ... and that it displeases God that there are ones who are wicked ... Wickedness being those who trespass against their neighbours in many ways

Psalm 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

Judgement being in understanding what is good and what is evil ... Anger being displeasure against those who are wicked ... those who harm others

Nahum 1:2 A jealous and avenging God is the LORD; The LORD is avenging and wrathful. The LORD takes vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserves wrath for His enemies.

God does not favour idolatry and false doctrines and Karma comes into play to see that true justice is done ... All bring Karma good or bad upon themselves ... Karma being a learning tool sometimes we all have to face hard lessons

As I said the scriptures are archaic and stem from a time when Christianity was a new force and very much up against the mindset of the times ... such passages would bolster the spirit of those who were being oppressed

Just my personal view

originally posted by: mamabeth
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world!

To all others on this thread...
We all have our own ideologies,points of view and ways of thinking that don't
always agree with each other. That is what makes us all unique and all human.
Until the next thread here that will keep stirring this old poo pot,good-bye!

I know, so unfair that gravity rules it all...

Couple of nights ago there was interesting coverage of 'Hate Class of 2015'. You got to love it, how well it connects to this topic...

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: DiggerDogg

I don't know what to tell you friend. You believe that the inexistence of a God is incontrovertibly true. Guys like Dawkins are your authority.

Sorry to nit pick here, but inexistence is not actually a word. More to the point however...Acknowledging that from a scientific standpoint there is simply not enough evidence to convince one of the existence of a god or gods is a rational point of view to take. The main difference between a "true believer" and an atheist or agnostic is that if the evidence were to present itself, the atheists and agnostics are open minded enough to allow for being wrong and changing their outlook. Can you say the same thing? Are you willing to admit the possibility of your god not actually existing? That you are wrong about something that has shaped your worldviews for so long? That scripture is not a divinely inspired work and is just a method of controlling the masses?

As for your statement about 'guys like Dawkins are your authority'. Poppycock. In religions there is an organized hierarchy and a system of accountability. For the Atheist or Agnostic, there is no sort of power structure, no accountability and nobody to answer to. The philosophies couldn't be any farther from an 'established dogma' as you claim them to be.

Well, maybe not in your lexicon. I recall reading it a few times in some older texts. Perhaps it's considered an archaic term now.

As for open mindedness, I consider myself an unaffiliated theist. I do sometimes study scripture, but I've always been far more interested in the philosophical aspect of religion. To be clear, I am only interested in the idea of creation. If someone were to tell me that scripture is not a divinely inspired work, I wouldn't argue. It's simply not what I concern myself with.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DiggerDogg

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DiggerDogg

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
Atheism is an established dogma, just like relativism is a religion.

Once we've established that, this debate will be far more honest.

How can you call something that main idea is not believing in set of authority by anything dogma?

Do you understand meaning of the word dogma??

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true

Religion is dogma, while atheism is opposite of that...

Honestly...

I don't know what to tell you friend. You believe that the inexistence of a God is incontrovertibly true. Guys like Dawkins are your authority.

Very few people actually believe that. I know I don't. If tomorrow undeniable proof of god appeared then I'd be a believer. Though I'm pretty positive that the Christian god doesn't exist. It just seems highly unlikely that a deity like that exists. It's too... human...

Anthropomorphism is a common mistake for people who aren't properly schooled in monotheistic religion. Trying to ascribe human characteristics to God isn't really in line with traditional theology. We often have to use "human" terms to describe him because of our limited understanding, and that is acceptable. But to attempting to reduce God to having a "human" essence is very, very wrong.

Oh so it is just because I haven't been "properly schooled in monotheistic religions" that when I read passages such as these:

Psalm 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
Nahum 1:2 A jealous and avenging God is the LORD; The LORD is avenging and wrathful. The LORD takes vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserves wrath for His enemies.

I mistakenly see god having the human emotions of anger, jealousy, and vengeance.

At least, that is the philosophy behind it. We know of God through our interactions with Him, and this by itself would tend to limit our understanding, because He has to interact with us in a way that is comprehensible to the human mind.

We know of god because some guy ripped the ideas off of previous religions, added his new bit of flair and stamped it monotheism. We can trace the evolution religion. All religion does the "steal from older religions" shtick. Christianity is no different.

What, do you mean Zarathustra? Zoroastrians were no more "wrong" or "right" than Christians were, in my mind. I have quite a bit of respect for those teachings- they were unprecedented. And of course, the direct influence that it had on later monotheistic religions can't be denied.

a reply to: DiggerDogg

Christianity stole concepts from more religions than just Zoroastrianism. Literally every Christian holiday is really a pagan holiday of some sort. Hell is really tartarus from Hellenistic culture. Heck the Jesus account may actually be a retelling of the Torah's story of Joshua.

Though I admit that much of the core tenets of Christianity do come from Zoroastrianism. Good vs Evil. The final battle against good vs evil. God judging the wicked.

Here's a chart that shows the evolutionary progress of all the world's major religions