Is Christianity racist?

[Blackleaf]

for a person who apparently suggests they know what the babble says, but then obviously has not actually read the babble..being "fair" seems a rather long shot for someone who "isn't a christian"….nice try…we were all just born yesterday.

Are you suggesting that I'm lying about not being a Christian? I've been a Christian most of my life, and spent a lot of time defending the Bible. Is it so strange that now that I'm not a Christian, I'd want the arguments against Christianity to not be based on a flimsy understanding of what the Bible teaches?

[Mike Cl]

The reason interpretations are necessary is because the Bible was not written in English. When you want to know what the Bible actually teaches, you have to go to the source: Scripture as presented in the ancient manuscripts. Word study and knowledge of historical and Biblical context are very important to obtaining an accurate picture of the Bible. While some verses are unclear in their meaning, often times there are clear answers as to what interpretation is right.

From what I've seen, New Testament references to homosexuality are based on assumptions, which is why they weren't there until the 19th century. Christians believe that homosexuality is evil, so they interpret the Bible in a way that supports that belief, even though sexual orientation is not a concept that was well understood at the time that the Bible was written.

Yes, Jesus didn't write the Bible. For the sake of the argument, I am assuming that the second-hand accounts are accurate, which may well not be the case. When I defend the Bible or Christianity, it is because I want the arguments against them to be fair.

Blackleaf, I can understand your point of view.  I used to say the same.  But the more I've looked into the history of the bible and Jesus, the more I realize neither are relevant.  What do I mean?

The bible.  None of the autographs (what the students of textual criticism call originals), are in existence.  Not one.  That alone tells us that nobody knows what was in the original writings, and would give one a good reason to question anything about the bible.  And you must know that there is not one 'bible', since the contents of the bible is really a compilation of a bunch of writings selected from a much larger set of writings.  So, each edition of the bible is simply another group of selected writings.   Why those particular writings were selected was generally political in nature.  And not much of the NT prior to 100 ad has been found.  So, trying to interpret what a particular verse is supposed to imply is more often than not what the interpreter wants it to mean.

Jesus.  Jesus is a mythical figure.  His history was supplied by those who had a stake in making him be a real person.  There is no proof that he existed.  So, quoting him is like quoting the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.  The only 'proof' for him is bibical.  There is no writer, other than a bibical writer, writes about him.  And there over 100 who wrote about history and society in his part of the world during his supposed life.  There have been some that mentioned him, but they have been proven to be material that was added at a later date.

From my view, their arguments are all based on wind and smoke.  There are no facts for them to refer to.  How can arguments based on beliefs be valid? 

[Cocoa Beware]

Don't confuse the religion with the religious. Jesus taught that people should be selfless, gentle and generous to an extreme. He cared for the people that were the outcasts of society, including prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, and the demon possessed.

He is the example you guys should be following, but unfortunately there have been very mixed results.

I think the problem is that the Bible says a lot of other things that do not seem to convey a very tolerant attitude:

Timothy 2:12
And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination

Matthew 23.37,38
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!  Behold your house is left unto you desolate

.

My advice is that if you really want to follow Christ's example, mind only what he teaches and and toss the Bible, then abandon your denomination.

[aitm]

I'd want the arguments against Christianity to not be based on a flimsy understanding of what the Bible teaches?

OF course you do…this is why your an ex-christian….sure.

The first problem you have is not understanding the audience your are talking to. The majority of us are ex-nutjobs, most of us know the babble a whole lot better than you think we do. Lastly, is the whole slippery slope of "flimsy understanding"…..either god almighty gave mankind the exact words he wanted or it was written by males who were establishing a new religion that amazingly enough agreed with their beliefs of how society should be. The babble says exactly what it says. Every time science contradicts it, apologists contort themselves to announce that, "parts of the babble are actually allegorical or parables or plain bull-shit except for the parts that have not been dis-credited yet…….yeah. defend it at your risk, it a piece of shit that we are all to eager to shove up the apologists ass.

[stromboli]

The New Testament was written in Greek- not an ancient language. They still speak it. Hebrew/Aramaic are well known and have been studied by scholars- many of them-  for generations. Christians are right about one thing; the Bible is one of the most studied books of all time. And a number of modern historians have labeled it as essentially fiction.

I was born a Mormon and read the Bible as one, became a Christian and read it again. I have studied it off and on for more than 20 years. The Old Testament of today is actually compiled from 4 different versions written prior the Babylonian captivity. Prior to that, it was a polytheistic religion that believed in 3 gods. The Garden of Eden is allegory borrowed from earlier myths, Noah's Ark comes from the Mesopotamian 3rd dynasty dating from 2100 BCE. The Exodus myth has no supporting evidence it ever happened. Archaeologists and historians have determined Judaism evolved from tribes in Canaan before the Babylonian captivity, and afterward became a monotheistic religion.

You better understand that many people on here have been debating this for a very long time, and we know what we are talking about.

[Blackleaf]

Blackleaf, I can understand your point of view.  I used to say the same.  But the more I've looked into the history of the bible and Jesus, the more I realize neither are relevant.  What do I mean?

The bible.  None of the autographs (what the students of textual criticism call originals), are in existence.  Not one.  That alone tells us that nobody knows what was in the original writings, and would give one a good reason to question anything about the bible.  And you must know that there is not one 'bible', since the contents of the bible is really a compilation of a bunch of writings selected from a much larger set of writings.  So, each edition of the bible is simply another group of selected writings.   Why those particular writings were selected was generally political in nature.  And not much of the NT prior to 100 ad has been found.  So, trying to interpret what a particular verse is supposed to imply is more often than not what the interpreter wants it to mean.

Jesus.  Jesus is a mythical figure.  His history was supplied by those who had a stake in making him be a real person.  There is no proof that he existed.  So, quoting him is like quoting the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.  The only 'proof' for him is bibical.  There is no writer, other than a bibical writer, writes about him.  And there over 100 who wrote about history and society in his part of the world during his supposed life.  There have been some that mentioned him, but they have been proven to be material that was added at a later date.

From my view, their arguments are all based on wind and smoke.  There are no facts for them to refer to.  How can arguments based on beliefs be valid?

I am aware of all of these things, however I do not believe that it is as hopeless to derive an accurate interpretation of the original writings. There is a process experts use to determine which parts of the manuscripts were deviations of the original by comparing them to each other. If one manuscript has some verses that are not found in others, older manuscripts are given a higher degree of trust. Experts also look at what the majority of manuscripts say. If something exists in only a handful of manuscripts, and is absent in all of the others, then it is safe to say that the minority are wrong. Many Bibles have notes in them, which tell you which verses were likely not in the original writings, based on these things.

One amusing (at least to me) example of this is with the mark of the beast. Most manuscripts say that it is 666, while others have 616. Some have made the observation that letters in the original language were also used for numbers, and that the name Nero Caesar adds up to the number 616. However, the Hebrews called him Neron Caesar, which adds up to 666. It's thought that some of the people who copied the manuscripts caught onto this and changed the number from 666 to 616 so that its hidden meaning would be made clearer for a wider audience.

[Mike Cl]

I am aware of all of these things, however I do not believe that it is as hopeless to derive an accurate interpretation of the original writings. There is a process experts use to determine which parts of the manuscripts were deviations of the original by comparing them to each other. If one manuscript has some verses that are not found in others, older manuscripts are given a higher degree of trust. Experts also look at what the majority of manuscripts say. If something exists in only a handful of manuscripts, and is absent in all of the others, then it is safe to say that the minority are wrong. Many Bibles have notes in them, which tell you which verses were likely not in the original writings, based on these things.

One amusing (at least to me) example of this is with the mark of the beast. Most manuscripts say that it is 666, while others have 616. Some have made the observation that letters in the original language were also used for numbers, and that the name Nero Caesar adds up to the number 616. However, the Hebrews called him Neron Caesar, which adds up to 666. It's thought that some of the people who copied the manuscripts caught onto this and changed the number from 666 to 616 so that its hidden meaning would be made clearer for a wider audience.

Yes, I've read that about the number 666.  And I am aware that textual critics do have tools to figure out what the autographs must have been.  Then you must be aware as well, about the many different combos of writings that is called 'the bible'?  They Syrian church has one, the Coptics have another, the Roman Catholic has another and all the protestant denominations favor one over another, there is the Latin Vulgate, and you must have heard of the textus recepticus that led to the King James and all the problems that created?  So, how can one really claim there is 'the bible'?  Should it not be the Bibles?  Then which one is 'the one'?!  And how do you know?  Why give authority to any of that for anything? 

[Blackleaf]

The New Testament was written in Greek- not an ancient language.

The fact that it's still used doesn't make it any less old. I understand that most of you have had a background in Christianity, and your knowledge of it is probably above average, but that doesn't mean you have anything left to learn about it. The question is if you care to learn about it, or if you'll greet any new information with the attitude of, "I don't care. The Bible is stupid anyway."

[aitm]

There is a process experts use…….  If one manuscript has some verses that are not found in others…………... Experts also look at what the majority of manuscripts say.
…. Most manuscripts say that it is 666, while others have 616. ……….Nero Caesar adds up to the number 616. However, the Hebrews called him Neron Caesar, which adds up to 666. ………………. so that its hidden meaning would be made clearer for a wider audience.

LOLOLOL……almighty god made a 14 billion light year universe, the human eyes, and a bloody vagina, but by god he could not figure out how the fuck to write a book……LOLOLOL…. what a fucking joke.

[Blackleaf]

Yes, I've read that about the number 666.  And I am aware that textual critics do have tools to figure out what the autographs must have been.  Then you must be aware as well, about the many different combos of writings that is called 'the bible'?  They Syrian church has one, the Coptics have another, the Roman Catholic has another and all the protestant denominations favor one over another, there is the Latin Vulgate, and you must have heard of the textus recepticus that led to the King James and all the problems that created?  So, how can one really claim there is 'the bible'?  Should it not be the Bibles?  Then which one is 'the one'?!  And how do you know?  Why give authority to any of that for anything?

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.

[aitm]

I do understand, though, that there is no one universally agreed upon Bible.

tsk tsk…poor god…. probably left that job to some underling and he fucked it all up , and god….being busy and all, decided that humanity, his chosen, would be able to figure it out…… LOLOLOL…god I love the xians what stumble through here puking stupid all over themselves.

[stromboli]

The fact that it's still used doesn't make it any less old. I understand that most of you have had a background in Christianity, and your knowledge of it is probably above average, but that doesn't mean you have anything left to learn about it. The question is if you care to learn about it, or if you'll greet any new information with the attitude of, "I don't care. The Bible is stupid anyway."

I also have a background in languages. An "old" language is one no longer in use, not because it has been around a long time. Greek is very easy to translate into English because it is one of the base contributing languages. Now Sanskrit, the first language from which proto-European languages come from, is no longer in common use and is old. A modern day Greek can read the the biblical Greek as it was written in the 2nd century. There are no translation issues, other than archaic terms no longer in use, but otherwise known.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramiac and translated into Greek. There are translation issues there, but well known and understood. One big example would be calling the mother of Christ the virgin Mary.

http://www.2think.org/hii/virgin.shtml

Several years ago I read that the word 'virgin', in the New Testament, was mistranslated from a Hellenistic Greek word or phrase. The correct translation was said to be 'a woman of marrying age' (or something similar), not the 'haven't had sex' definition. I think the Greek word/phrase began with the letter 'b' or the equivalent. How could such an error occur; isn't Hellenistic Greek well understood? Is the word correctly translated in the Old Testament texts?

I am unable to remember the original source of this claim/disclaim. Nor have I found any mention of it on the current Atheist/Biblical Web Sites.

Does anyone know of authoritative references which provide more information on this subject?

There are two hebrew words usually translated 'virgin' in English. 'Bethulah' means virgin in the sense that we understand it. It was used, for example, in Isaiah 62:5. 'Almah' (the word used in Isaiah 7:14) simply means a young woman. Although it is sometimes used in the sense of a sexually pure woman, this is not it's exclusive usage. The context will usually point out the correct usage.

The confusion arose when the Greek Septuagint used the greek word 'parthenos' to translate Isaiah 7:14. This word, in Greek, does denote a sexually pure woman, and was the inspiration for the gospellers myth of the Virgin birth.

A look at the context of Isaiah 7:14 will quickly reveal that the woman that Isaiah was referring to was probably *already* pregnant, thus pointing out which sense of 'almah' was intended. In any case, the point of Isaiah's prophecy was that before the child reached the age of accountability, both Israel and Syria would be desolated. (A prophecy which was only partly fulfilled, by the way). The use of the word 'virgin' is not germane in Isaiah's prophecy. The 'sign' was the child, not a miraculous conception.

In short, Isaiah's 'sign' was fulfilled in it's own context, hundreds of years before anyone thought to apply it in a different sense.

so apparently you came on here to school us dumbasses? Aw gee thanks.

[Mike Cl]

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.

That fact alone made me doubt the existence of the christian god.  It seemed beyond belief that such a powerful being could not make it's message known in a very clear and concise manner.  As an aside, I would think that the Catholic bible has much more of a chance of being closer to the autographs than the protestant versions.  Why?  The catholic church is much older and the authors of the NT are thought to be catholic.  But then the Syrian and Coptic bibles are equally as old as well. 

If, as you say, there is no one universally agreed upon bible, why give one more authority than any other???

[Blackleaf]

I also have a background in languages. An "old" language is one no longer in use, not because it has been around a long time. Greek is very easy to translate into English because it is one of the base contributing languages. Now Sanskrit, the first language from which proto-European languages come from, is no longer in common use and is old. A modern day Greek can read the the biblical Greek as it was written in the 2nd century. There are no translation issues, other than archaic terms no longer in use, but otherwise known.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramiac and translated into Greek. There are translation issues there, but well known and understood. One big example would be calling the mother of Christ the virgin Mary.

http://www.2think.org/hii/virgin.shtml

Interesting. I enjoy learning from people who are capable of reading scriptures in their original languages. In the past, I've learned from a few Messianic Jews who were capable of doing that. Sounds like you might be one of those to pay special attention to.

so apparently you came on here to school us dumbasses? Aw gee thanks.

I never said that. I may claim to be open to learning more, I may claim to have a higher than average understanding of the Protestant Bible (which isn't saying much), but I wouldn't claim to be an expert.

[Blackleaf]

That fact alone made me doubt the existence of the christian god.  It seemed beyond belief that such a powerful being could not make it's message known in a very clear and concise manner.  As an aside, I would think that the Catholic bible has much more of a chance of being closer to the autographs than the protestant versions.  Why?  The catholic church is much older and the authors of the NT are thought to be catholic.  But then the Syrian and Coptic bibles are equally as old as well.

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.

If, as you say, there is no one universally agreed upon bible, why give one more authority than any other???

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.