Racism in the Bible

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

Matthew 15:26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

Children here being "God's chosen" and bread being Jesus' superpowers. Basically he is saying that his superpowers are wasted on the unworthy.

And in 15:24 he mentions the lost sheep of Israel - if you want to mix metaphors, at least be consistent!

a reply to: uncommitted

I'm not sure what you mean there. That is clearly just another analogy where Jesus is saying that his super powers would be wasted on the non-worthy. In this passage, Jesus is basically saying that his only purpose is supposed to be to help Israelites who have lost their way and need help. This lady nor her daughter is a "lost sheep of Israel". They are Canaanites.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

I'm not sure what you mean there. That is clearly just another analogy where Jesus is saying that his super powers would be wasted on the non-worthy. In this passage, Jesus is basically saying that his only purpose is supposed to be to help Israelites who have lost their way and need help. This lady nor her daughter is a "lost sheep of Israel". They are Canaanites.

Ok, I thought you would get it. You implied he called her a literal dog, and I said that meant he also implies Israelis are literally sheep.

I hate to tell you this, but most faiths like most politicians, nations etc, tend to look to their own first. In this case 'their own' means Israelis or what I'd assume we refer to as Jews of which Jesus was. Should he be above that? He proved he was when she professed faith to God - it's not that hard is it?

originally posted by: uncommitted
I hate to tell you this, but most faiths like most politicians, nations etc, tend to look to their own first. In this case 'their own' means Israelis or what I'd assume we refer to as Jews of which Jesus was. Should he be above that? He proved he was when she professed faith to God - it's not that hard is it?

Yes he SHOULD be above that. Jesus is supposed to be without sin, and here we see him judging people as more worthy than others.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted
I hate to tell you this, but most faiths like most politicians, nations etc, tend to look to their own first. In this case 'their own' means Israelis or what I'd assume we refer to as Jews of which Jesus was. Should he be above that? He proved he was when she professed faith to God - it's not that hard is it?

Yes he SHOULD be above that. Jesus is supposed to be without sin, and here we see him judging people as more worthy than others.

.....and when she proclaimed faith he did what was asked of him. It's a bit tricky to use your argument in isolation - you are aware of the 'those of you without sin, cast the first stone' bit?

a reply to: uncommitted

Should he be above that? He proved he was when she professed faith to God - it's not that hard is it?

Did he? Or did he give her "table scraps".

Mark 7:24
After Jesus left there, he went to the region of Tyre. When he went into a house, he did not want anyone to know, but he was not able to escape notice. 25 Instead, a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him and came and fell at his feet.

26 The woman was a Greek, of Syrophoenician origin. She asked him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 He said to her, “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and to throw it to the dogs.”

28 She answered, “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” 29 Then he said to her, “Because you said this, you may go. The demon has left your daughter.” 30 She went home and found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

Table scraps! Give the dog a bone!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wow. Krazysh0t, I would have expected better of you

It's really clear in the Old Testament that God's issue (as portrayed in the OT, setting aside the question of whether or not God exists) was with sin and worshipping false gods. A lot of different people were exempted from God's congregation (which, as I understand it, wasn't "being with God" but rather public worship) and these exceptions weren't connected with race, as you yourself point out, but with familial behavior. Shoot, the Moabites and Ammorites were related to the Jewish people according to the Bible, so they were ethnically similar! If you want to start a thread on how God is unfair to people because of what their parents did, that's fine, but it's not the same as racism.

If the writers of the Bible were racist, then they certainly wouldn't have incorporated ways for non-Jews to convert and join the Jewish people, and they definitely wouldn't have had David (you know, the "man after God's own heart") descended from a Moabitess...to say nothing of Jesus, who was descended from the same person, who is arguably the foremost feminine hero of the entire Bible and one of the most positively portrayed people in the entire book.

As far as the New Testament goes, the tradition throughout the NT was to preach first to the Jews, and then also to the non-Jews (Romans 1:16) but it is equally clear that "God is no respecter of persons" and "there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek." (Romans 10:12.) The Jews had priority treatment because (as I understand it) they were the people who had the original covenant with God that was supposed to bring about the Messiah. And remember, the Jewish people accepted converts, so this idea that the "Chosen People" bit is racist is foolish, especially considering how nationality and ethnicity were often basically the same thing at the time, at least as far as I can tell.

Furthermore, while we're on the subject of racism, it's well-established that "scientific racism" was all the rage back in the day, just as much as the Bible was used to justify it (which was despicable, by the way.) The point isn't "you did it so we can do it to" but rather that people will twist anything to justify their horrible views.

There's a lot of good argumentation to be done on the subject of the Bible, but people seem to waste their time cherry-picking passages that fit their preconceived notions rather than doing serious study of the book and the religious traditions surrounding it. It's just like certain people who cherry-pick passages from the Koran and run abut saying "Muslims are evil" or "all genuine Muslims should be terrorists" without committing themselves to serious (or even cursory) study of the Koran and it's religious traditions.

I guess the one thing I've gained from this sort of stuff is a fresh perspective on how Muslims must feel.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: uncommitted

Should he be above that? He proved he was when she professed faith to God - it's not that hard is it?

Did he? Or did he give her "table scraps".

Mark 7:24
After Jesus left there, he went to the region of Tyre. When he went into a house, he did not want anyone to know, but he was not able to escape notice. 25 Instead, a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him and came and fell at his feet.

26 The woman was a Greek, of Syrophoenician origin. She asked him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 He said to her, “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and to throw it to the dogs.”

28 She answered, “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” 29 Then he said to her, “Because you said this, you may go. The demon has left your daughter.” 30 She went home and found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

Table scraps! Give the dog a bone!

Blimey, we are all being a bit literal aren't we? It's heavy with analogies and metaphors. The long and short is, she accepted God and was in turn accepted. I'm not really sure what all the fuss is - but I guess that's why people continue to read it to try and understand it further.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Back during the depression there were many people wandering the country side willing to work for food .As a slave owner you had a investment you needed to secure not only with food but lodging as well . There are many today that work for wages that barley provides them with those essentials .In fact it usually takes two bread winners to sustain a household .

We have another form of slavery today but it's the same old same old just with different cloths on . I had a conversation with a black friend about slavery . I introduced him to the Irish slaves .I reading on that part of history is a eye opener . My friend although always being very vocal in the past tuned it down after that . I guess it's all about context and social norms of the day . Even trying to bore down into a ancient culture to understand biblical text is a process . The Hebrew's were a unique group and have many remembrance celebrations that have significant meaning to them and them alone . Trying to unravel them 3000 years later and understand them in the 21st century is a alien thing to do . But if you want to understand the bible then that is exactly what needs to be done .

a reply to: StalkerSolent

That is an excellent post which I've starred - I love it when people can talk of such matters without being overtly biased one way or another but with their own perspective on both the subject and the historical context. I must look out for your other posts.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wow. Krazysh0t, I would have expected better of you

It's really clear in the Old Testament that God's issue (as portrayed in the OT, setting aside the question of whether or not God exists) was with sin and worshipping false gods. A lot of different people were exempted from God's congregation (which, as I understand it, wasn't "being with God" but rather public worship) and these exceptions weren't connected with race, as you yourself point out, but with familial behavior. Shoot, the Moabites and Ammorites were related to the Jewish people according to the Bible, so they were ethnically similar! If you want to start a thread on how God is unfair to people because of what their parents did, that's fine, but it's not the same as racism.

If the writers of the Bible were racist, then they certainly wouldn't have incorporated ways for non-Jews to convert and join the Jewish people, and they definitely wouldn't have had David (you know, the "man after God's own heart") descended from a Moabitess...to say nothing of Jesus, who was descended from the same person, who is arguably the foremost feminine hero of the entire Bible and one of the most positively portrayed people in the entire book.

Yes religious persecution has already been pointed out already. I even admitted that the title "Bigotry in the Bible" would have been a better title.

As far as the New Testament goes, the tradition throughout the NT was to preach first to the Jews, and then also to the non-Jews (Romans 1:16) but it is equally clear that "God is no respecter of persons" and "there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek." (Romans 10:12.) The Jews had priority treatment because (as I understand it) they were the people who had the original covenant with God that was supposed to bring about the Messiah. And remember, the Jewish people accepted converts, so this idea that the "Chosen People" bit is racist is foolish, especially considering how nationality and ethnicity were often basically the same thing at the time, at least as far as I can tell.

Furthermore, while we're on the subject of racism, it's well-established that "scientific racism" was all the rage back in the day, just as much as the Bible was used to justify it (which was despicable, by the way.) The point isn't "you did it so we can do it to" but rather that people will twist anything to justify their horrible views.

I agree. I'm just trying to show hypocrisy in the bible's teachings here. People will be intolerant and use whatever means they can to do so. The key is to recognize when that has happened (including in your own Bible) and call it for what it is.

There's a lot of good argumentation to be done on the subject of the Bible, but people seem to waste their time cherry-picking passages that fit their preconceived notions rather than doing serious study of the book and the religious traditions surrounding it. It's just like certain people who cherry-pick passages from the Koran and run abut saying "Muslims are evil" or "all genuine Muslims should be terrorists" without committing themselves to serious (or even cursory) study of the Koran and it's religious traditions.

I guess the one thing I've gained from this sort of stuff is a fresh perspective on how Muslims must feel.

Oh so it's ok for believers to cherry pick the bible to suit their needs, but when non-believers do it, it's not ok?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted
I hate to tell you this, but most faiths like most politicians, nations etc, tend to look to their own first. In this case 'their own' means Israelis or what I'd assume we refer to as Jews of which Jesus was. Should he be above that? He proved he was when she professed faith to God - it's not that hard is it?

Yes he SHOULD be above that. Jesus is supposed to be without sin, and here we see him judging people as more worthy than others.

.....and when she proclaimed faith he did what was asked of him. It's a bit tricky to use your argument in isolation - you are aware of the 'those of you without sin, cast the first stone' bit?

How is admitting that dogs eat the crumbs leftover from the children, professing faith?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko

Mary and God never had relations in the physical sense.

BS! It was physical enough for her get pregnant!

Mary and Joseph were living in sin as adulterers. Mary was already (willfully) committed to God, had relations and bore his child. Adultery is no greater a sin that gay sex. Joseph and Mary were no better than any other sexually immoral people, that Christians may perceive.

Just like the Catholic Nuns are already married to Jesus, ALL OF THEM, so again, there goes your one man and one woman detail.

Shhhh...that goes against their whole argument!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I agree. I'm just trying to show hypocrisy in the bible's teachings here. People will be intolerant and use whatever means they can to do so. The key is to recognize when that has happened (including in your own Bible) and call it for what it is.

You'd have to do a whole lot more research and demonstrate more understanding of the Bible to show hypocrisy, I think. You're not looking at the Bible as a homogenous whole, you're finding parts that clash with how you perceive it as being widely presented and airing them. It's great for selling books, but these sorts of low-hanging-fruit attacks that ignore the Bible's nuances and traditions are sort of ho-hum by now, I should think.

Oh so it's ok for believers to cherry pick the bible to suit their needs, but when non-believers do it, it's not ok?

No, I'm saying the opposite. And secretly swearing to research Islam so I don't put my foot in my throat.

When I say that there is good argumentation to be done about the Bible (if that's what you're referring to) then what I mean is that you can look at the Bible as a cohesive whole, through the lens of church tradition, and still disagree with it and write threads about how you disagree with it. Basically, what I'm saying is that I wish people would do research and do substantive threads on this type of thing in an informed manner rather than reading their particular pet peeves into the Bible.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: StalkerSolent

That is an excellent post which I've starred - I love it when people can talk of such matters without being overtly biased one way or another but with their own perspective on both the subject and the historical context. I must look out for your other posts.

Thanks

Not to argue with any specific point that you made; but bigots will find something to support their bigotry in anything, the Bible, Quran, back of a box of Wheaties...take your pick.

What people usually get from an experience strongly reflects the mentality they take into it.

Garbage in, garbage out.

a reply to: uncommitted

The long and short is, she accepted God and was in turn accepted.

No. The long and short of it is, she got table scraps and was sent away. She wasn't accepted, i.e. offered to eat from the table. At best, Jesus was amused, granted her wish and waved her along.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

When I say that there is good argumentation to be done about the Bible (if that's what you're referring to) then what I mean is that you can look at the Bible as a cohesive whole, through the lens of church tradition, and still disagree with it and write threads about how you disagree with it.

The Bible as cohesive whole is contradictory, at best. But the one theme that continually runs through it, from Genesis to Revelation is "Us against Them", "Either you're with us or you're against us".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted
I hate to tell you this, but most faiths like most politicians, nations etc, tend to look to their own first. In this case 'their own' means Israelis or what I'd assume we refer to as Jews of which Jesus was. Should he be above that? He proved he was when she professed faith to God - it's not that hard is it?

Yes he SHOULD be above that. Jesus is supposed to be without sin, and here we see him judging people as more worthy than others.

.....and when she proclaimed faith he did what was asked of him. It's a bit tricky to use your argument in isolation - you are aware of the 'those of you without sin, cast the first stone' bit?

How is admitting that dogs eat the crumbs leftover from the children, professing faith?

I think she was suggesting humility, and I think you are trying to read this way too literally with a 21st Century sensibility. I don't know why, but I can see the metaphor the passage is making - not sure if you just can't or are choosing not to.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: uncommitted

The long and short is, she accepted God and was in turn accepted.

No. The long and short of it is, she got table scraps and was sent away. She wasn't accepted, i.e. offered to eat from the table. At best, Jesus was amused, granted her wish and waved her along.

Soooooo............ I sometimes wish we could do this as a proper debate. There was no literal table to eat at, you do get that, right? The passage quoted was effectively saying why should I give (help) those who do not believe, she professed faith and he said good enough for me, your daughter is cured. Can you really not see that?