Racism in the Bible

a reply to: Generation9

The Bible is about not only preservation of the human species, but refinement by selecting the best traits.

The book of Revelations is about the preservation of human species? That's not the message I got.

The Bible is a guide for the tending of God's garden.

I can agree with that...the crops are guilt, fear, elitism of the chosen, and bigotry. Bitter fruit indeed....

a reply to: peskyhumans

You either believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God, or you don't. If it's the word of God then you must believe the entire thing. If you don't believe the entire thing, then you must admit that you do not believe it is the word of God.

Christianity is strictly an exclusive religion. Some people get saved, everyone else goes to Hell.

I read this, and then I paused and thought, "No - this member MUST be kidding..."
Then I continued reading:

The depravity of liberalism is only growing stronger in this country and increasingly more Christians are being faced with a choice

And I threw up a little bit in my mouth.
(No worries, it didn't get on my keyboard).

Christians have EVERY BIT AS MANY CHOICES AS ANYONE IN THIS COUNTRY. Get over yourselves.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

It was an immaculate conception

Sorry, Storm...but, no.

The "immaculate conception" was when "The Virgin" Mary was conceived. That's why she was innocent of 'original sin' -
her conception in her mother's womb somehow rendered her immaculately clean and free of original sin.

That's the only explanation for how a woman (a filthy, deceitful, whoring, lustful, idiotic, diabolic girl) could possibly gestate and "birth" the 'Son of God'.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

What about the Inquisition?

As far as I know, they didn't persecute ethnic groups for being ethnic groups. They persecuted people for the whole not-being-Christians thing.

But some of the passages I quoted made it a sin for being BORN as one of these groups of people.

Oh, gosh, no, that's *not* what it does. That part you were quoting is (I believe) is part of ceremonial law. It certainly didn't say they were sinners for being born as part of those groups of people. Gosh. Generally when in the Bible God finds someone sinful, He comes out and says it. You neglected the people who were born with mutilated body parts, who were right there beside the Moabites. It's not about sin, it's about ceremonial cleanness, which is different. And if you'd read the Old Testament closely, you've have taken the time to notice the difference between sin and ceremonial tradition. I'm not even an expert on this stuff, but I can assure you, it doesn't say that.

Don't you find anything wrong with that?

What I find wrong is your careless exegesis.

Why do you think it is ok for the Bible to proclaim that the children of sinners are also guilty of their parents' and forefathers' sins?

It doesn't. Sometimes consequences for people's actions affects their children, but the Bible makes it clear people's sin, while it has consequences for other people, is only morally visited upon the person who committed the action. (Check out Ezekiel 18:4.) Old English (and probably other) legal codes had similar concepts.

Of course that is what racism is. Doesn't mean it isn't still occurring though. And I don't like making blanket statements about groups of people. That is where racism comes from. If I did that about Christians, I'd be a hypocrite.

So you retract your statement that "Christians STARTED the racism in the first place." (Or did I misread you?)

Atheism didn't really exist as a thing back then. I'm sure there were people who didn't believe in God or mainstream religion, but there wasn't a term called "atheism" back then.

Back when eugenics was a thing? Yeah, it certainly did. I'm reasonably confident that Margaret Sanger was an atheist, though I could be wrong.

Why would they tell them that when many of their arguments could be derived FROM the bible itself?

Probably because the Bible doesn't go far enough in establishing the "final solution" to the "Jewish problem." And there's that whole "peace" and "love your neighbor" stuff. So regressive.

originally posted by: Klassified

It's quite interesting that so often the defense in response to the OP's observations, as well as any other critique of scripture is to compare Christianity against all those other people who did it too. I've seen this repeatedly in numerous threads.

The problem with that defense is that Christianity claims moral superiority over the whole human race. There is no comparison. If you're the "moral majority", then you don't have the same excuse as those you consider lost and eternally condemned.

Those guys did it too, is not a defense.

Just to be clear (because I've mentioned that "other people did it too") I don't think this is a defense of the actions. Just a defense against the "they did it *because* they were Christians attack.

And, also, "Christianity claims moral superiority over the whole human race..." What? All the Christians I know are the first to admit they've screwed up and don't have it together. Not sure where you got that from. Definitely not true as a whole, regardless of what a few self-righteous persons may believe.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is a price that must be paid to have this conversation.

This one sentence may say it all. I don't know. Right now I want to believe we can -- and must -- find a better way... because... well, because we must. We need to find ways to work together -- not against each other -- to find solutions. I may not agree 100% with you here, but I also know it's going to be the ones who really care, like you and other ATSers, who will be the ones to find the solutions.

I have far more questions than answers at this point, but I'm going be thinking on it.

a reply to: Boadicea

right now I want to believe we can -- and must -- find a better way... because... well, because we must. We need to find ways to work together -- not against each other -- to find solutions. I may not agree 100% with you here, but I also know it's going to be the ones who really care, like you and other ATSers, who will be the ones to find the solutions.

yay!! Hoot, whistle, applause......

I'm so glad to read this.


Here, come sit beside me.......

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
As far as I know, they didn't persecute ethnic groups for being ethnic groups. They persecuted people for the whole not-being-Christians thing.

That just looks like a semantic difference to me. It's still "us vs them" thinking.

Oh, gosh, no, that's *not* what it does. That part you were quoting is (I believe) is part of ceremonial law. It certainly didn't say they were sinners for being born as part of those groups of people. Gosh. Generally when in the Bible God finds someone sinful, He comes out and says it. You neglected the people who were born with mutilated body parts, who were right there beside the Moabites. It's not about sin, it's about ceremonial cleanness, which is different. And if you'd read the Old Testament closely, you've have taken the time to notice the difference between sin and ceremonial tradition. I'm not even an expert on this stuff, but I can assure you, it doesn't say that.

Then explain Deuteronomy 23:2-4 from the OP where it CLEARLY says that no Ammonite or Moabite shall be with god for TEN generations. And the rationale is because they didn't give water to Moses and crew during the Exodus. To ME that is definitely holding the children accountable for the sins of the parents (though I find the "sin" itself rather shallow, and this looks more like a decree made out of spite than an actual honest decree).

What I find wrong is your careless exegesis.

Why is it careless? Because it comes to a conclusion that you don't like? To me it's a good balance against all the pro-Christianity exegesis attempts made by theologians who are already predisposed to agree with the bible.

It doesn't. Sometimes consequences for people's actions affects their children, but the Bible makes it clear people's sin, while it has consequences for other people, is only morally visited upon the person who committed the action. (Check out Ezekiel 18:4.) Old English (and probably other) legal codes had similar concepts.

Again, that passage in Deuteronomy CLEARLY says that ten generations of descendants will never be able to be with god. If that isn't being punished for the sins of the parents I don't know what is. Then we have the example of ethnic cleansing from Nehemiah using that Deuteronomy passage as justification.

So you retract your statement that "Christians STARTED the racism in the first place." (Or did I misread you?)

I think you misread that. I wasn't trying to imply that Christians were the first group of people who were racist or bigoted. That is a foolish statement. I was pointing out that many of the racist opinions that Christians worked to dispel, were started themselves by Christians.

Probably because the Bible doesn't go far enough in establishing the "final solution" to the "Jewish problem." And there's that whole "peace" and "love your neighbor" stuff. So regressive.

Again, I'm not trying to paint the bible as a hate manifesto. I'm TRYING to show that the bible isn't just a collection of stories telling people to love everyone else. It is dark and at times hateful. Then I am trying to say that certain Christians (not all) use those passages to spread hate and intolerance. I'm not trying to deny that atheists do this or anything either.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

And, also, "Christianity claims moral superiority over the whole human race..." What? All the Christians I know are the first to admit they've screwed up and don't have it together. Not sure where you got that from. Definitely not true as a whole, regardless of what a few self-righteous persons may believe.

Yeah, but -- see? They see themselves as trash, who can't help but screw up, and project that same esteem onto their children....they claim they don't have it together, but AT LEAST they are going to be saved.......
where all the other [even worse] people are going to BURN IN HELL.

a reply to: Boadicea

Word. Thanks for keeping an open mind about these things and not immediately jump to attacking me like so many others in this thread. If you can't recognize the faults in your own philosophy, how can you fix your problems? I always welcome critical judgment of my beliefs. And my beliefs have changed as others have pointed out things I didn't know or shown where there is errors in my thinking. I WANT to work together with others, but it would be great if so many people didn't mistake critical analysis for an attack against them.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Here, come sit beside me.......

With pleasure... we can figure this out... and this is how it happens!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Word. Thanks for keeping an open mind about these things and not immediately jump to attacking me like so many others in this thread. If you can't recognize the faults in your own philosophy, how can you fix your problems? I always welcome critical judgment of my beliefs. And my beliefs have changed as others have pointed out things I didn't know or shown where there is errors in my thinking. I WANT to work together with others, but it would be great if so many people didn't mistake critical analysis for an attack against them.

I'm glad you realized that I wasn't trying to attack you. I've always known you to be fair, albeit tough, and hoped you would accept my questions in the spirit it was intended.

a reply to: StalkerSolent
Note I said "Christianity", not Christians. The one question that I have heard so many times, I wish I had a dime for each of them is: "You're an atheist/agnostic/other? What do you base your morality/ethics on then? Christianity teaches us the morals to live a good life pleasing to god." More times than I can count, I've heard Christians talk about the superiority of Christian morals vs. other religions. I know. I used to be one of them.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

That just looks like a semantic difference to me. It's still "us vs them" thinking.

While I understand the difference between being killed for ethnic reasons and being killed for religious reasons probably appears semantic from the perspective of the people who are being killed, it's not semantic at all. There's a difference between racism and religious bigotry. The Inquisition are primarily known for the latter.

Then explain Deuteronomy 23:2-4 from the OP where it CLEARLY says that no Ammonite or Moabite shall be with god for TEN generations.

I just did. I wish you had read a commentary or something so I didn't have to.

And the rationale is because they didn't give water to Moses and crew during the Exodus. To ME that is definitely holding the children accountable for the sins of the parents (though I find the "sin" itself rather shallow, and this looks more like a decree made out of spite than an actual honest decree).

That's different from saying "it's a sin to be born a Moabite."

Why is it careless? Because it comes to a conclusion that you don't like?

No, because you didn't bother to, say, read commentaries, check the Hebrew, read up on the difference between ceremonial law, or generally do any research as far as I can tell beyond skimming the text.

To me it's a good balance against all the pro-Christianity exegesis attempts made by theologians who are already predisposed to agree with the bible.

So, it's cool to do sloppy research because it's for a good cause?
Seriously. If you want to attack this stuff, at least try to figure out how it is understood by the theologians. Not only will it spare you embarrassing mistakes, it will help your arguments.

Again, that passage in Deuteronomy CLEARLY says that ten generations of descendants will never be able to be with god. If that isn't being punished for the sins of the parents I don't know what is. Then we have the example of ethnic cleansing from Nehemiah using that Deuteronomy passage as justification.

Reread what I said. I said that the children weren't *morally* culpable for the sin, not that there weren't consequences for them as a result of their father's screw-ups.

I think you misread that. I wasn't trying to imply that Christians were the first group of people who were racist or bigoted. That is a foolish statement. I was pointing out that many of the racist opinions that Christians worked to dispel, were started themselves by Christians.

Ah, OK, that makes more sense.

Again, I'm not trying to paint the bible as a hate manifesto. I'm TRYING to show that the bible isn't just a collection of stories telling people to love everyone else. It is dark and at times hateful. Then I am trying to say that certain Christians (not all) use those passages to spread hate and intolerance. I'm not trying to deny that atheists do this or anything either.

Why?
Not saying you shouldn't, but I'm curious as to why you would bother. You don't have any alternatives, as far as I can tell.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Yeah, but -- see? They see themselves as trash, who can't help but screw up, and project that same esteem onto their children....they claim they don't have it together, but AT LEAST they are going to be saved.......
where all the other [even worse] people are going to BURN IN HELL.

Um...you don't understand Christian doctrine.
You're probably going to come back shortly and tell me that you totally do, but you don't. Sorry

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Note I said "Christianity", not Christians. The one question that I have heard so many times, I wish I had a dime for each of them is: "You're an atheist/agnostic/other? What do you base your morality/ethics on then? Christianity teaches us the morals to live a good life pleasing to god." More times than I can count, I've heard Christians talk about the superiority of Christian morals vs. other religions. I know. I used to be one of them.

Oh, you mean Christian morality. Yeah, ours is pretty legit. But it'd be a pretty poor religion that didn't claim to have a good moral system, wouldn't it? I was thinking of some sort of High Pulpit of Christianity that proclaimed its superiority to everyone else. My bad

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Um...you don't understand Christian doctrine.
You're probably going to come back shortly and tell me that you totally do,

Nope, I won't. Because there is no "understanding" of it that everyone agrees on.....

but you don't. Sorry

Neither do you.


Just keep swimming.....

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
While I understand the difference between being killed for ethnic reasons and being killed for religious reasons probably appears semantic from the perspective of the people who are being killed, it's not semantic at all. There's a difference between racism and religious bigotry. The Inquisition are primarily known for the latter.

That's why I expanded the scope of the thread to include bigotry.

That's different from saying "it's a sin to be born a Moabite."

Not really. Intolerance is intolerance, regardless of the reasons. Would you agree with white people born today having to be held accountable for slavery?

No, because you didn't bother to, say, read commentaries, check the Hebrew, read up on the difference between ceremonial law, or generally do any research as far as I can tell beyond skimming the text.

Why should I do any of that? The bible is the bible. I'm supposed to read it and understand it myself. I shouldn't need supplemental lessons from other learned scholars on how to read it. Isn't the whole point that the Bible should be as accessible as possible so that as many people as possible are exposed to the truth?

So, it's cool to do sloppy research because it's for a good cause?
Seriously. If you want to attack this stuff, at least try to figure out how it is understood by the theologians. Not only will it spare you embarrassing mistakes, it will help your arguments.

Ok. Let's humor you. How about posting some links then?

Reread what I said. I said that the children weren't *morally* culpable for the sin, not that there weren't consequences for them as a result of their father's screw-ups.

In the end, what's the difference? They still aren't allowed to be with god for whatever reason.

Why?
Not saying you shouldn't, but I'm curious as to why you would bother. You don't have any alternatives, as far as I can tell.

Because it needs to be done.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Nope, I won't. Because there is no "understanding" of it that everyone agrees on.....

Well, sure, but there's no "understanding" of anything that everyone agrees on. You can still find flat earthers out there

But there is a broad understanding of Christian doctrine that most Christians agree on. And one of those things is that salvation has nothing to do with the sins you commit and that worthiness doesn't get you into heaven.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Yeah, but -- see? They see themselves as trash, who can't help but screw up, and project that same esteem onto their children....they claim they don't have it together, but AT LEAST they are going to be saved.......
where all the other [even worse] people are going to BURN IN HELL.

Um...you don't understand Christian doctrine.
You're probably going to come back shortly and tell me that you totally do, but you don't. Sorry

I think what she is referring to is, verses like Isaiah 64 and Romans 3, and other such verses in the old and new testament. By the biblical God's "standards", humans are a rancid bunch, and their hearts are dark and irredeemable. Unless of course, they become Christians.