White People and Christianity

[Robert Treder]

Am I going crazy, or does this really not make any sense?

Christian Fundamentalists are invariably white (ethnically European, whatever you want to call 'em...you know what I'm talking about).

Why is that? As far as I can tell, the few times the Bible mentions Europeans, it doesn't portray them in a very good light. In fact, white fundies will vehemently berate the Romans, who were whiter than Jesus was.
Obviously, I'm not advocating racism, and it's obviously no shocking news that fundies are appallingly hypocritical, but I just found it odd that this aspect of their hypocrisy isn't touched on much.

Let's take a look at who fundies are (generally...I realize there are crazies among the crazies, but allow me this generalization if you will):
Well, the term that comes to mind is WASP. The W and the P are at least generally accurate.
Who's the Bible about? Hebrews, Arabs, various variations thereof, and the occasional Roman. Jesus didn't even know that Germanic people existed, and even if he did, and even if he met one, and even if they were professed fundies, he would fucking hate them (remember his views on Caananites).

That should be a major disincentive to fundies to interpret the Bible literally. Wait, that would be a major disincentive to them if they had any brains. That they're considering literally interpreting the book in the first place betrays their lacking in the brains department.

I'm just saying, if you're white, and you want to be Christian, don't be a strict interpretationist...because the Bible's racist...and guess what...Jesus hates you.

[Mr Bean]

if you're white, and you want to be Christian, don't be a strict interpretationist...because the Bible's racist...and guess what...Jesus hates you.

I'm half way tempted to toss that in my sig

Thats always a point the fact Jesus was probably as black as MLKJ or at least as dark as the avarage Arabian. Funny as hell then to see these ego tripping European scollers holding up a bleached verision of Jesus with a brown or similarly colored little beard. At least Mohammad was honset about what he looked like..

[Faram]

In my sig now.

Hope you don't mind Robert Treder

[Alyrium Denryle]

That will be going into my sig as well.

[Mr Bean]

New and updated sig and I'm inculding it

[buzz_knox]

Anyone who is racist cannot truthfully call himself or herself a Christian. They might coopt the religion for their own benefit, but racism is anathema to the basic principles of the religion. The parable of the good Samaritan was intended to demonstrate that a person of another race can be of superior moral character to one who is of the "chosen" race.

As for the comments about Jesus hating whites, it's cute but utterly flawed. The great commission called for Christians to minister to the entire world, regardless of race.

[David]

Thats always a point the fact Jesus was probably as black as MLKJ or at least as dark as the avarage Arabian.

Not if he was Jewish. If he was Jewish he was probably either nearly an olive color or white. There is a very clear distinction, as far as color, between ethnic Jews and all of the Arabs in the Middle East.

[Darth Wong]

Anyone who is racist cannot truthfully call himself or herself a Christian. They might coopt the religion for their own benefit, but racism is anathema to the basic principles of the religion. The parable of the good Samaritan was intended to demonstrate that a person of another race can be of superior moral character to one who is of the "chosen" race.

And yet Jesus instructed his disciples to preferentially heal Jews in Matthew 10:5. He also referred to Canaanites as "dogs" and rebuffed a Canaanite woman begging him to heal her sick child in Matthew 15:26. In a similar incident involving a Greek woman in Mark 7:26, he refused to help her (again, calling her a "dog") but was eventually swayed by much pleading and begging. He may have felt other races could be saved, but he obviously didn't think they were equal, and we call that racism.

As for the comments about Jesus hating whites, it's cute but utterly flawed. The great commission called for Christians to minister to the entire world, regardless of race.

It did not, however, state or even vaguely suggest that all races should be considered equal. Anything but racial equality is considered racism, and Jesus was a racist. Deal with it.

[Lagmonster]

Anything but racial equality is considered racism, and Jesus was a racist. Deal with it.

What's interesting is how truly resilient the church is. Despite such clearly negative tenets and rediculously evil representatives, they've managed to survive violent cultural and political upheavals and paint themselves (the church, not the individual nutheads who follow it) as a pacifistic, morally upright defender of human rights and equality.

[Darth Wong]

What's interesting is how truly resilient the church is. Despite such clearly negative tenets and rediculously evil representatives, they've managed to survive violent cultural and political upheavals and paint themselves (the church, not the individual nutheads who follow it) as a pacifistic, morally upright defender of human rights and equality.

The original spin-doctors.

[buzz_knox]

And yet Jesus instructed his disciples to preferentially heal Jews in Matthew 10:5. He also referred to Canaanites as "dogs" and rebuffed a Canaanite woman begging him to heal her sick child in Matthew 15:26. In a similar incident involving a Greek woman in Mark 7:26, he refused to help her (again, calling her a "dog") but was eventually swayed by much pleading and begging. He may have felt other races could be saved, but he obviously didn't think they were equal, and we call that racism.

You should finish reading the section before making such a sweeping statement:

Matthew 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Matthew 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

He "rebuffed" her yet healed her daughter? The passage was designed to show that faith leads to rewards for the supposed lowest and the highest. Mark 7:26 is to the same effect, as demonstrated by Mark 7:27-28, where Jesus stated that the daughter was healed by and through the mother's faith.

As for Matthew 10:5, it was common for missionaries to go to one area to the exclusion of another. The same essential commandment is given in Acts. But the areas excluded at that point were picked up later in the journeys. While you're at it, why don't you look at Matthew 10:4, where the "racist" Jesus had Simon the Canaanite as a disciple.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

I don't believe every single Christian fundamentalist is white. There are plenty of black fundamentalists that preach on TV and in the South.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Actually, now that I think of it, there is that one famous black fundamentalist: Al Sharpton.

http://www.jewishpost.com/jewishpost/jpn201g.html

[Mr Bean]

Not if he was Jewish. If he was Jewish he was probably either nearly an olive color or white. There is a very clear distinction, as far as color, between ethnic Jews and all of the Arabs in the Middle East.

Much like some Medeterrian groups

The Jewish Blood-Line has undergone quite a few changes, There was an aritcule around here some-where where todays *white Jew is acutal a result of heavy European inter-breeding and a Jew of 50 BC would look not that far removed from his Arab counter-parts due to the heavy breeding and sometimes inbreeding done between *native Jews and the cultures they reside in through-out the year
I belive National Geo did a story on major cultural blood lines awhile back(Including the fact that Japan today is about six generators removed from Koreas yet Japanish people look down on Koreas and declare themsleves Japanish, despite the fact the only native Japanise live on one of the Islands much as the Amish live in America today)

I'll see if I can find a on-line counter-part to it but frankly trying to find information that Jesus was black is like trying to find information about Hitler's Fun time Child Care Center, Yep that hard(And not hard to guess who's responsible for the represson)

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Actually, now that I think of it, there is that one famous black fundamentalist: Al Sharpton.

http://www.jewishpost.com/jewishpost/jpn201g.html

Yeah, Al Sharpton's a hypocrite. If he ever read that site, he's sue them. And use the money on Big Macs.

[Darth Wong]

You should finish reading the section before making such a sweeping statement:

Matthew 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Matthew 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Precisely. She had to beg him to heal her despite her inferior status as a non-Jew, ie- a dog who eats of the crumbs which fall from the master race's table.

He "rebuffed" her yet healed her daughter? The passage was designed to show that faith leads to rewards for the supposed lowest and the highest.

I love the way Christians defend even the most heinous sentiment if it's found in their precious Bible. Do you realize what you're saying? The passage shows that faith and pleading can get rewards for the "lowest and the highest?" Why should her Canaanite race make her "the lowest" unless Jesus believes in a racial hierarchy, hmmm?

Mark 7:26 is to the same effect, as demonstrated by Mark 7:27-28, where Jesus stated that the daughter was healed by and through the mother's faith.

Despite her status as a "dog", ie- a member of an inferior race. And you don't see why this is racist?

As for Matthew 10:5, it was common for missionaries to go to one area to the exclusion of another. The same essential commandment is given in Acts. But the areas excluded at that point were picked up later in the journeys. While you're at it, why don't you look at Matthew 10:4, where the "racist" Jesus had Simon the Canaanite as a disciple.

Are you fucking stupid, or are you blinded by your faith? I already said that Jesus is willing to accept members of "inferior races", but he treats Jews preferentially. You have utterly failed to disprove that, and all you've done is produce stock responses designed to attack a strawman distortion (obviously, you seem to think that I said Jesus refuses to help non-Jews, rather than merely treating them as inferiors).

[Defiant]

Its been my experience that some people have lives that are so dull and boring, they need to introduce an element of 'adversity' and 'difficulty', so they can thump their chests and proclaim how moral and righteous they are for picking an issue they can sink their teeth into.

But here's the funny thing. Do they volunteer their time to make less fortunate people's lives better? Probably not. What do they do instead? They proclaim themselves 'Christians' and cry about how 'sinful' and 'immoral' everything around them is, and how difficult their lives are because they are lonely islands of Christianity and goodness in a sea of sin.

To all the Christian fundamentalists, here's a challenge. Put the Bible down for a second, and try to help someone else.

You'll notice that I didn't mention race here, even though that's part of the subject of this thread. I purposely left it out because all Christians are capable of this. White, black (like me), asian, hispanic, it doesn't matter. I've said it before: But the Bibles down and DO SOMETHING!

[lgot]

well, for the topic, its a matter of your perception. Not all fundamentalists are white-europeans like. This may be true from your point of view, but that even goes against the most clear logic: Intolerance and ignorance does not pick a particular skin color to exist. There is fundamentalists everywhere. Here in brazil for example, the most fundamentalists are those of the protestant churches who have the tendencie to pick they devotes in the most low level lawyer of society, which does not fit in the "european-white" kind. You could say that There is not rich fundementalists here...Of course there is, but then the majority of brazil population cannt be ever called "white european", there is big chance to find many and many fundamentalists outside this pradon.

As per the Jesus is racist treat, i think its a bit of exageration. Also, the four Jesus are characters of 4 different authors. Mathews wrote a Jew Jesus, which still belong to them, so to him there is the usual "purism" of Hebrew society. Is a little different, since Jesus himself did not belong to the top groups and was himself a victim of this "purism". But yes, Mathews give to him voice to the prejudice and ways of the Hebrews, who are a bunch of purists.
But the other books, who are usually already a writting to separate Jesus of the Hebrews we found a more expansive Jesus, accpeting more the others groups, hence that showed the desire of the new church to grow and they had to accept everyone - The Romans among those, which make great part of the NT a book for them, no more the reform of that small group.
But the OT, no one must doubt, Its for Hebrews only.

[Lagmonster]

As per the Jesus is racist treat, i think its a bit of exageration. Also, the four Jesus are characters of 4 different authors.

Unfortunately, this means that you have to take the stories as a whole. Me, I actually believe that a man did exist way back when, name of Jeshua ben Joseph. I believe he did attract followers, philosphize and talk about prophesies. I don't believe he was any godly representative. I don't believe he had magic powers. That all said, the New Testament is a storyteller's account of what the guy did and said. The fact that the stories were written be people who had just heard it thirty years later from someone who heard it from someone who was there, it's remarkable there is ANY truth to the stories. The man himself HAD FLAWS which became documented in the stories. He was born and raised by parents who probably had the same prejudices, fears, and beliefs as he did.

It is far more than likely that the man was not all-loving and all-accepting, just doing what he thought was right through fulfilling the fairy tales and morality stories and prophecies he'd heard in his life. He believed that he was doing good by the people he talked to, but that doesn't mean he believed that the people he talked to were good. Even he was quick to say that he was addressing and curing *sinners*. That's paramount to a Christian walking up to you and saying, 'Hey, you're a crummy, rat-shit heathen who's going to burn in hell. But we love you and want to help you'.

[Mr Bean]

'Hey, you're a crummy, rat-shit heathen who's going to burn in hell. But we love you and want to help you'.

So accurat of the Christian Position its not even funny

[lgot]

Unfortunately, this means that you have to take the stories as a whole. Me, I actually believe that a man did exist way back when, name of Jeshua ben Joseph.

Well, I have nothing against your interpretation of a hystorical Jesus. But I have not been saying about him, but the Jesus character of those books. There we can see the variations caused by the different authors's aim and message. I believe seeing the four books as the same is the same mistake the christians do, because four books written in the different period of time by 4 completelly different authors cannt be the same, unless you use their interpretation of God's guidance. Since I do not believe in this, the logical is see the difference between then.

[Enforcer Talen]

-notes he's mildly being persuaded-

-mildly-

[Lagmonster]

Well, I have nothing against your interpretation of a hystorical Jesus. But I have not been saying about him, but the Jesus character of those books.

Right...let me see if I follow you, because I honestly may be missing your point. It sounds to me like you're saying that Christians don't worship the activities of an actual, real live person who existed on the planet, they worship a make believe composite of that man who had magic powers and destinies ascribed to him by four really bad historians. And that those same historians made Jesus appear to be racist for some unknown reason?

So you're confirming that the New Testament is actually a composite biography written by spin doctors? Clarify if I've got you wrong, here.

[lgot]

Right...let me see if I follow you, because I honestly may be missing your point. It sounds to me like you're saying that Christians don't worship the activities of an actual, real live person who existed on the planet, they worship a make believe composite of that man who had magic powers and destinies ascribed to him by four really bad historians. And that those same historians made Jesus appear to be racist for some unknown reason?

I really do not understand you. You said you believe the existence of a Jesus, but a normal one without godlike powers and stuff. Then what is those books ? The made up story about a normal human who did human acts. This is the only thing : The Christians follow the story of a man who turned in a myth by his worships and four different writters, which are not historians at all, but storytellers.
But I have not said they made Jesus apper racist. I said Mathews wrote the history from the view of hebrew and he tryied to portrait Jesus as a member of this comunity at best. So, Mathews Jesus is the one that more often quote the OT, its the one with the most usual views of hebrew society, which is a societity worried with purism which is a form of discrimination.
The other authors have wrote to different public; Luke for example wrote to the non-hebrews in search of new adepts, John and Mark for the different hebrew groups who , by them, are already out of hebrew society and building up the new religion. To this their vision of hebrew society is more critic, since they are not more members of this (after all, Jesus was a failure, since his intention was to reform the Hebrew Religion society, not to split from them) so, the Jesus was "less hebrew" and more open to all other groups, since the first christians needed this group to grow up in numbers. So, if you take off the hebrew bias and join with the Jesus tolerance preaching, you do not have a racist.

So you're confirming that the New Testament is actually a composite biography written by spin doctors? Clarify if I've got you wrong, here.

They are biography written by 4 different persons in four different societies and sittuation to four different publics. They do have differences and different message. You can middly join them in one history to make sense, but that was not the intention of the writters back them. I am not confirming anything. That is the logical conclusion, unless someone believe they are bound together in unity by God will.

[Durandal]

To all the Christian fundamentalists, here's a challenge. Put the Bible down for a second, and try to help someone else.

One of my favorite little anecdotes is from one of my sister's friends at college. He was walking through the university quad, and a Bible-thumper came up to him and started preaching. My sister's friend stopped the guy in mid-sentence and said, "Hang on. See that guy over there? He hasn't eaten in who knows how long, and he's homeless. Go buy him a sandwich, then come back and talk to me."