Racism in the Bible

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?

A later addition. Not in the oldest, and most reliable manuscripts.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

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".

There's more than one theme that runs through the Bible...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It would seem to me that in this statement here by the op-"As we stand today, many Christians use the bible to justify their intolerance of homosexuals. This is done through outright denouncing being gay as sinful and a disgrace to God or through denying them the ability to get married to someone of the same sex. To me though, this highlights a very REAL problem with Christianity that no one seems to talk about much. That the Bible not only ALLOWS racism, but endorses it. This is why bigots have continually used the bible to justify their intolerance then try to hide behind religious freedom when people get upset at their intolerance."---that your whole purpose of this thread is about intolerence of gays and has nothing to do with racism. If you were a normal person like the 98.5% of the world would you not feel sickened by the very idea of 2 guys getting it on sexually? what really sucks is that alof of the 1.5% of estimated gays work in the Entertainment industry and have alot of control of what our kids see on television these days, pushing there ideas on to the children of the world. Christian or not this is a very big concern.

originally posted by: Klassified

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?

A later addition. Not in the oldest, and most reliable manuscripts.

Sorry, which bit is that, the cast the first stone bit? Really? I've not heard about that, but I'll admit to being a layperson on such things. Could you provide further info please?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Klassified

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?

A later addition. Not in the oldest, and most reliable manuscripts.

Sorry, which bit is that, the cast the first stone bit? Really? I've not heard about that, but I'll admit to being a layperson on such things. Could you provide further info please?

Sorry. I should have been clear. Yes. The woman taken in adultery...

The story of the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1-11) is one of the most popular and widely cited gospel stories today, yet this was not always so. Missing from the earliest extant copies of the Gospels and only rarely cited by early Christians, most biblical scholars regard this passage as a later addition to the text of the New Testament.

The woman caught in adultery...
A short, but interesting read.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree with all my heart in principle and spirit... to the extent that is true. I have seen comments made in the name of God and/or Jesus that make me cringe, and not just about racial issues. I have also seen the words of the Bible twisted and contorted in the most hateful and judgmental ways, with some Biblical "abominations" (like usury) rationalized away, while others (like homosexuality) are conflated and magnified beyond all reason. I cannot reconcile it with the one and only commandment Jesus gave us: To love one another as He loved us. Not to mention the many proverbs and parables and admonitions telling us to basically just be good to each other.

At the same time, I have also seen quite hateful and judgmental comments towards and about Christians in particular and people of all faiths in general. I have seen many judged and condemned for the actions -- or even the thoughts -- of the few, with no credit or respect given to the many who think and live to a higher and more noble standard. For every evil committed in the name of "God," there is at least one noble act performed in the name of "God" -- if not many.

But it's always the hatefulness that gets the attention. And there's always someone ready, willing and able to be that hateful person... on both sides of the coin. I always wonder how much is by nature and how much by design. How many instigators does it take to get the bandwagon going? (Divide-and-conquer)

The Bible was divinely inspired, but it was written, edited and compiled by men for men, and is therefore incomplete and fallible in accordance with our own human limitations and failings, in many ways. But we are all works in progress -- that's the good news and the bad news. We can always do better; that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water though.

I'm sure you put alot of time and thought into your research for this thread, and I appreciate your effort. So you've shined a big bright spot light on a problem, put all these hateful thoughts and scriptures out into the ethers, with lots of people of faith feeling attacked and defensive... and what good does it do? What if you had spent that same time researching the many many times love and peace and respect and righteousness are stressed in the Bible? How many hearts and minds might you have changed if you had addressed people of faith -- and their holy book -- with respect? How many hearts and minds would be opened if you had provided alternative scriptures from their holy book to consider?

Maybe nothing would have changed. I don't know.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
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.

You think so? Why can't the bad parts be analyzed? Everyone goes on and on about how great the Bible is, well then we should be able to analyze the bad parts to see how "good" it really is. I'm not surprised that the Christians find this topic uncomfortable, to be honest. They are told from when they are children that the Bible is infallible and totally good. Well it isn't.

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.

What pet peeves? My OP is a list of passages from the Bible, word for word. It's not like I'm distorting anything.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What if you had spent that same time researching the many many times love and peace and respect and righteousness are stressed in the Bible? How many hearts and minds might you have changed if you had addressed people of faith -- and their holy book -- with respect? How many hearts and minds would be opened if you had provided alternative scriptures from their holy book to consider?

Maybe nothing would have changed. I don't know.

Rather than critizing someone for their opinion and approach to a thread...perhaps you should take the alternative approach yourself. just sayin....

originally posted by: uncommitted

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.

Humility? Jesus acted like a douche to her and it was only after his disciples begged him to even talk to her AND she admits that she is below the Israelites that Jesus deemed to help her. If the Bible were a bit more descriptive, I'm sure it would have included a long sigh from Jesus followed by a groan while he healed her.

a reply to: atslagsifnotmember

Uh... More than 1.5% of the world is gay there buddy, and no I don't get offended when I see people of the same sex enjoying each other. It's really not that weird.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

...and?

Not exactly why this matters one bit in the world of today. Every religion has some manner of historical superiority complex based on race and gender. Hell, the American Medical Association (SCIENTISTS!) barred black doctors and hospitals from membership for 150 years and joined with the American Psychological Association (SCIENTISTS!) to use black folk as guinea pigs for all manner of medical testing throughout the 1900s...

Oh, but wait, you don't wanna hate on science here, just on a religion you're threatened by. OK, carry on with the inane nonsense, then.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

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.

Humility? Jesus acted like a douche to her and it was only after his disciples begged him to even talk to her AND she admits that she is below the Israelites that Jesus deemed to help her. If the Bible were a bit more descriptive, I'm sure it would have included a long sigh from Jesus followed by a groan while he healed her.

Ahhh, dear. You disappoint me sometimes. You really do wear that 21st century hat and apply your morals or thoughts to a book a couple of thousand years old - a book (New Testament) about a person you don't even acknowledge existed, and you are now even adding your own element to it. If you look again he didn't heal 'her', the passage says it was her daughter that was healed. You really ought to get over this, not good for your health.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I'm sure you put alot of time and thought into your research for this thread, and I appreciate your effort. So you've shined a big bright spot light on a problem, put all these hateful thoughts and scriptures out into the ethers, with lots of people of faith feeling attacked and defensive... and what good does it do?

Hopefully opens peoples eyes that maybe the Bible isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

What if you had spent that same time researching the many many times love and peace and respect and righteousness are stressed in the Bible?

The religious do that enough already. Most everyone is already familiar with all the messages of love and peace in the bible. Christians fall over each other to post those quotes all the time. I'm trying to show the other side for once.

How many hearts and minds might you have changed if you had addressed people of faith -- and their holy book -- with respect? How many hearts and minds would be opened if you had provided alternative scriptures from their holy book to consider?

None. As I said already, the pro-religious are already familiar with the good passages in the Bible. I've also gone about these discussions before. This time I wanted to try something similar to what YECers do when they pick apart evolution. If a religious person takes offense to my OP, that is their problem. I didn't write the bible. They, the religious, have to come to terms with what is written themselves. Most Christians don't even know passages such as the ones in the OP even exist.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

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.

Humility? Jesus acted like a douche to her and it was only after his disciples begged him to even talk to her AND she admits that she is below the Israelites that Jesus deemed to help her. If the Bible were a bit more descriptive, I'm sure it would have included a long sigh from Jesus followed by a groan while he healed her.

Ahhh, dear. You disappoint me sometimes. You really do wear that 21st century hat and apply your morals or thoughts to a book a couple of thousand years old - a book (New Testament) about a person you don't even acknowledge existed, and you are now even adding your own element to it. If you look again he didn't heal 'her', the passage says it was her daughter that was healed. You really ought to get over this, not good for your health.

21st century hat? Jesus' words are "treat others as you want to be treated". How many people do you know that like being ignored or be compared to a dog when they request assistance for their ailing child?

By the way, I could break that story down further. For instance, Jesus never appears to lay hands on the daughter. He never confirms if the girl is demon possessed. He just simply says that the demon is gone and continues on his way. Such an account seems fishy to me, but I left that part out because you could claim that Jesus knew through his super powers that the girl was cured or whatever. I'm trying to discuss Jesus' actions BEFORE the "healing".

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

...and?

Not exactly why this matters one bit in the world of today. Every religion has some manner of historical superiority complex based on race and gender. Hell, the American Medical Association (SCIENTISTS!) barred black doctors and hospitals from membership for 150 years and joined with the American Psychological Association (SCIENTISTS!) to use black folk as guinea pigs for all manner of medical testing throughout the 1900s...

Oh, but wait, you don't wanna hate on science here, just on a religion you're threatened by. OK, carry on with the inane nonsense, then.

The difference here being that scientists have moved on from such bigotry. Christians use some of those very passages to continue to hate on others.

a reply to: Barcs

I'd guess it's for the reason that many Christians that post here deliberately attack science and atheism using ignorance. It's funny you always hear this tolerance bit when they are being portrayed in a negative light, but when they viciously and ignorantly attack science, and belittle folks that accept science as valid, they are in the right, yet still play the victim card when people correct their false claims. I guess they just can't win. It's likely because instead of promoting the positives of the religion, they attack other views instead. I'd like to see some rational modern day prominent Christian leaders come forward and denounce that type of fundamentalist behavior

That reason would then be provocation based on intolerance ... tit for tat ... an eye for an eye ...
it only breeds more division ... who gains by this ... does it make the world a better place ....

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

...and?

Not exactly why this matters one bit in the world of today. Every religion has some manner of historical superiority complex based on race and gender. Hell, the American Medical Association (SCIENTISTS!) barred black doctors and hospitals from membership for 150 years and joined with the American Psychological Association (SCIENTISTS!) to use black folk as guinea pigs for all manner of medical testing throughout the 1900s...

Oh, but wait, you don't wanna hate on science here, just on a religion you're threatened by. OK, carry on with the inane nonsense, then.

It matters because Christianity is the dominant religion in western society, and claims moral superiority. They have been, and are a real threat(dominionism) to those of us who reject Christianity. Scientists aren't knocking on my door, or assaulting people on a street corner asking if I know of any black people they can experiment on, as disgusting as that is. Nor has science claimed the moral high ground, or told me I'm going to hell if I don't believe them, and convert to scientism. Our sciences have plenty of issues, which I have approached before, but they have nothing on Western Christianity.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

You think so? Why can't the bad parts be analyzed? Everyone goes on and on about how great the Bible is, well then we should be able to analyze the bad parts to see how "good" it really is. I'm not surprised that the Christians find this topic uncomfortable, to be honest. They are told from when they are children that the Bible is infallible and totally good. Well it isn't.

I think the "bad parts" should be analyzed. I just think your analysis is poor and based on cherry-picking, rather than a systemic analysis.

My OP is a list of passages from the Bible, word for word. It's not like I'm distorting anything.

Firstly, it's not word for word, you're using a translation. Secondly, you are distorting things.

For instance, you say

Here we have "God" telling the Hebrews to spare no consolation to any other tribe of people they meet.

And yet later in Deuteronomy, God says "That shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land." (23:7) Deuteronomy 10:19 instructs the children of Israel to minister to the strangers in their land, not murder them. But you shouldn't even need those verses to realize that the verses you quoted were only referring to a certain number of other nations–seven to be exact–because the verse you quote says that! God certainly isn't telling the children of Israel to destroy "any other tribe of people they meet."

You clearly haven't committed yourself to the research needed to thoughtfully critique the work. And I'm no Bible scholar, either, just a thoughtful reader.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What if you had spent that same time researching the many many times love and peace and respect and righteousness are stressed in the Bible? How many hearts and minds might you have changed if you had addressed people of faith -- and their holy book -- with respect? How many hearts and minds would be opened if you had provided alternative scriptures from their holy book to consider?

Maybe nothing would have changed. I don't know.

Rather than critizing someone for their opinion and approach to a thread...perhaps you should take the alternative approach yourself. just sayin....

I really wasn't trying to criticize the OPs opinion; I agree. Even if I believed that God personally condoned and/or commanded racism during Old Testament days (and I do not), I would say the covenants have changed. So no, I'm not criticizing the OPs opinion. I'm not even really criticizing the approach, so much as lamenting the ever-increasing focus on the negative, rather than a stronger focus on the positive. For whatever reason, I am more acutely aware than ever that we are so quick to find the ugliness, including myself, but so slow to find answers. I even conceded that it might not change anything at all.

Perhaps I will start a thread with that approach myself. But is this not a discussion forum? Should I post a new thread in response to every other thread I have thoughts about... and just ignore that thread itself? Is that how discussion forums work? The OP took the time and energy to research and create a thoughtful post about something important; I sincerely asked why that approach, mentioned my concerns, and asked about an alternative approach. I thought I was frank but respectful. Perhaps you could share with me where you think I went wrong?

a reply to: uncommitted

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,

No. That's not what he said. He said he needed to "save his gifts", to paraphrase, for "his children", and he insinuated that she wasn't even human let alone not family, by calling her a dog. (Did she literally have six tits and a tail? NO!)

she professed faith and he said good enough for me, your daughter is cured. Can you really not see that?

She heard a rumor that healer was in town and she went for it, as any loving mother would. She didn't say anything about repenting or converting. She made no apology for who she was. She cleverly argued that even dogs get crumbs.

29 Then he said to her, “Because you said this, you may go. The demon has left your daughter.”

Jesus was clearly amused by her answer, accepting his analogy of her being a dog and cleverly arguing from a dog's stand point. He didn't even tell to "Go an sin no more"! She clearly wasn't accepted as "family".