Is Christianity racist?

[Mike Cl]

I find it really hard to take Catholics seriously. I don't buy the claim that Peter was the first pope or that Mary died a virgin. The Bible says Jesus had siblings, for crying out loud. I don't see any reason to consider the Catholics to be more credible because they've been around longer.

Mainly, I take the Protestant Bible more seriously because Protestants take it more seriously. There's no point in pointing out flaws in a version of the Bible when those flaws could just be shrugged off. Some Protestants treat the Bible as a fallible source too, but the ones who claim it to be absolutely perfect are usually Protestant, at least in my experience. There are also fewer contradictions in the Bible without the Apocrypha in it, which makes it a little more credible.

Okay--but those are simply matters of degree.  If one cannot trust any bible to be 'the bible', then one flaw or 1000 flaws matter not.  One is enough to bring the whole thing down.

And I do not take the religious arguments as being valid because they are serious, or sincere, or a little more credible.  I deal in facts and reasoning and thinking--not beliefs or faith. 

[Blackleaf]

Okay--but those are simply matters of degree.  If one cannot trust any bible to be 'the bible', then one flaw or 1000 flaws matter not.  One is enough to bring the whole thing down.

And I do not take the religious arguments as being valid because they are serious, or sincere, or a little more credible.  I deal in facts and reasoning and thinking--not beliefs or faith.

Fair enough. My position, though, has been to consider the best possible explanation that an opposing opinion can have. Some people like to look for the weakest link instead, but that doesn't prove anything for me. So when people say things like, "The Bible is pro-slavery," I tend to reply, "Is it really, or is it simply not outright against slavery?"

[aitm]

"Is it really, or is it simply not outright against slavery?"

can you imagine all the problems that could have been solved if, say, someone or something will a higher intelligence, you know, far greater that the intellect of goat herders, maybe the Chinese since they had mathematics a thousand years previous, had written the book so even the goat herder could understand it? Wow. What an idea. Maybe that is why the whole book of Duet is about how to pay the preacher…LOL gotta love good old god and his sense of humor eh?

[Mike Cl]

Fair enough. My position, though, has been to consider the best possible explanation that an opposing opinion can have. Some people like to look for the weakest link instead, but that doesn't prove anything for me. So when people say things like, "The Bible is pro-slavery," I tend to reply, "Is it really, or is it simply not outright against slavery?"

When you called yourself Christian why did you believe the bible had any authority at all? 

[peacewithoutgod]

Alright. I'll give you that one. However, the Bible that I am most familiar with is the Protestant Bible. Catholics don't seem to consider their Bible to be infallible, though, so they can just ignore anything they don't agree with. Additionally, the Apocrypha introduces many concepts that contradict the books they and Protestants have in common. So when arguing over the authenticity of the Bible, I take the Protestant Bible a little more seriously than the Catholic one. As for the Syrian and Coptic Bibles, I have no background with them and cannot give an opinion of them. I do understand, though, that there is no one universally agreed upon Bible.

Catholics don't take their bible as infallible? They got into a mighty schism with the Egyptians and the Byzantines over the accuracy of their book. However, it should be noted how much it wasn't really the Roman book, and more than the empire which they once held, and at that point had been taken by the Byzantines was ever truly theirs. Their unwillingness to compromise with those with ultra-minor and morally insignificant theological interpretive differences came down to the arrogance of emperors and their sense of sour grapes.

On the other hand it should be noted that xtianity was agreed to have been first effectively promoted by Peter, who eventually found his way to Rome, where he was executed. He is regarded by xtians as the first pope, not that he was there for long, much less when the schism began two centuries later. He didn't write most of the NT either, therefore any claims to origninality based on the Roman edition are unfounded. Differences with the Egyptians and the Byzantines are only two examples of biblical differences with the Romans, and they don't even cover the books which were written long after Peter was dead!

Take for example the Gospel of Thomas. It is dated at around 340 CE, around the time that all the then-existing books were being examined for recognition in Nicea and Constantinople. It obviously wasn't written by an eyewitness to any of the events which are said to have happened in the bible, but then neither were the gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, nor the book of Acts (which is believed to have been written by Luke). The earliest was by Mark, in 70 CE, so why didn't the 4th Century church officials select that one exclusively, leaving out the others which came later? What about the gospel tellings which came earlier than Mark, which cannot be read because they were destroyed? What about literally thousands of other gospels which were written, and not included in the bible? So what if the four which were included were relatively consistent, this doesn't mean they were true! They were significantly varied with their story elements and how they say these happened, and they are in no way consistent on the geneologies they cited. You should know that the burning of books was a favorite pastime of church officials throughout the time that xtianity was gaining power in Europe, in fact that is exactly how it became so powerful - when you can monopolize knowledge, which is very easy to do when most books are stored within the repositories of a few large libraries, then you become the defacto monopoly on world knowledge and wisdom. Scholars preferred the centralization of their books - they did not mind travel to these libraries, in towns where most of them lived anyway, because in a time without remote communication systems the central locations facilitate discussion among themselves over these works.

Finally, on to the Protestants who you look to as being more interested in the accuracy with their biblical publications. What do you really know of their translations from Hebrew and Greek? http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/virgin.htm Funny how books in these languages said nothing of a virgin birth actually happening in the NT! This was hardly the only point which Kings Henry VIII and James fudged, never to be called out during their time because the Vatican had already been making such claims (their congregants didn't read these books, so how would they know). So don't know why you think you can trust people who come so late to the party, and with a vested interest in maintaining the power of existing doctrine to care more about biblical accuracy.

[Baruch]

Blackleaf ... I know where you are coming from.  I used to be Messianic Jewish myself.  I have some small ability with both Hebrew and Greek, and I know the ins and outs of the history that is not in the Bible, but is critical for understanding it.  All I can say is ... keep on digging.  I understand both the Catholic and Protestant viewpoints on Biblical authority ... and clearly any rabbi could run wheelies around either regarding the Tanakh or the relevant history and culture.  In fact a Messianic rabbi can run wheelies around most Gentile interpretation of the NT if they are sufficiently Jewish.

But my point as a theist is ... if you don't know G-d directly (and yes scripture can be inspiring at times) .. .then you have to keep digging ... or give up.  Of course if G-d doesn't exist, then it is smarter to give up sooner.  But I don't give up easily, because I know G-d directly ... and I don't like it at all.

[Blackleaf]

When you called yourself Christian why did you believe the bible had any authority at all?

The easy answer is that that was what I had been told by my family and most of the friends I was allowed to have as a homeschooled kid. But when my faith became my own, in the early half of my college career, I had a few reasons to believe that the Bible must have authority. First, I didn't believe that God would leave us in the dark, so the Bible should be the one source we could trust. Second, if the Bible were fallible, then everything about it would be questionable. How would we possibly know which parts were true, and which were false? If the source of Christian faith were not trustworthy, then that would put the whole religion on unstable ground.

[Baruch]

Ah, but what is the source of Christianity today?  Personal relationship with G-d (Jesus perhaps), authority of scripture, authority of clergy past and present (that would then include all past decisions of synods etc?  Of course these aren't mutually exclusive ... and my life has been influenced by all three.  Of course I am chauvinistic about my own development ;-)  And of course there is variation as to what a personal relationship might mean, what scripture is, and what clergy is.

[Mike Cl]

The easy answer is that that was what I had been told by my family and most of the friends I was allowed to have as a homeschooled kid. But when my faith became my own, in the early half of my college career, I had a few reasons to believe that the Bible must have authority. First, I didn't believe that God would leave us in the dark, so the Bible should be the one source we could trust. Second, if the Bible were fallible, then everything about it would be questionable. How would we possibly know which parts were true, and which were false? If the source of Christian faith were not trustworthy, then that would put the whole religion on unstable ground.

Very well put.  That is how I see it.  I also know some who have lived this idea for all their lives.  And they will not change it no matter what; and for some, the destruction of their faith would be the destruction of them. 

For me, the bible was not just a mystery, but an unknown until about the 5th grade.  That's when we moved from Oregon to Alabama.  I learned of the bible only because so much of Alabama was concerned with it.  So, I began going to bible school, Sunday school and church mainly because the other kids were too.  My parents did not push me one way or the other.  After about a year of that, I sort of drifted away and spent the rest of the Sundays there playing football--the true religion of Alabama.  As an adult curiosity drove me to investigate the bible.  It has a very interesting history and I still enjoy researching it.

So, Blackleaf, have you ever had doubts about the trustworthness of the bible--if so when and why did that doubt occur?

[Babytooth]

in Christianity all men came from one man, and we believe all men were created equal. the thought of racism is actually a very shallow view to think we are the skin we live in. and that skin separates us   its stupid because in reality were are all spirits the true divider is believer and non believer.

[Termin]

in Christianity all men came from one man, and we believe all men were created equal. the thought of racism is actually a very shallow view to think we are the skin we live in. and that skin separates us   its stupid because in reality were are all spirits the true divider is believer and non believer.

  You need to check up on both your bible and your biology :)

[Babytooth]

dna proves one source

[Termin]

dna proves one source

Actually it proves two

It takes two to make a thing go right
It takes two to make it outta sight


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phOW-CZJWT0

[Mike Cl]

in Christianity all men came from one man, and we believe all men were created equal. the thought of racism is actually a very shallow view to think we are the skin we live in. and that skin separates us   its stupid because in reality were are all spirits the true divider is believer and non believer.

Ahhh..............I love it when the spotlight of intelligence and intellect are brought to shine on a topic.  Too bad, baby, you have neither. 

[Babytooth]

one man one woman proves two that's right. not multiple races even the one source is the one man one woman.