Does Christianity support and/or teach racism?

[The Barbarian]

The fundamental problem here is that you are making racial what the Bible understands as Covenantal.

Today's winner.

 

[linux.poet]

In fact, I don't even take the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis as offering anything in the way of literal history, fully reflective of what "actually" transpired in history in the A.N.E. during the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th millennia B.C

I should start off by saying that I tend to take a less literal approach to the pre-Abrahamic narratives in Genesis. I don't think they are meant to be taken strictly literally, but that's an entirely different discussion.

I'm of the same mind

This seems to be the key issue. I believe the entirety of Genesis to be literal history from beginning to end of the book. To believe otherwise sounds more like Richard Friedman’s Who Wrote the Bible? than actual correct Scripture interpretation. If you read that book, you’ll realize quickly that the point of taking OT historical narratives non-literally in secular criticism is to discredit Biblical prophecy.

I need to look at the passage in question more closely, but aside from the Gibeonites, the Caananites were never slaves, while slavery has dogged the entirety of African history, even before the Europeans did it in the Americas. I studied the history of Darfur as part of my closing paper for my degree, and that area was a slave trading hub for thousands of years. Did Noah utter a useless curse over Caanan that somehow affected Cush, another one of Ham’s son’s? It’s basically more of the same, discrediting Noah’s prophetic utterance and how it affected history going forward, the same way scholars try and discredit Daniel by moving his writings later in time. They are just trying to discredit the existence of God.

I do think you are all Christians, but I am admittedly surprised to read this as the majority opinion. My church has warned us against taking historical narratives non-literally at various points throughout the years. Meanwhile, my literary scholar temperament agrees that we should interpret the Bible according to its literary forms. That means history as history, poetry as poetry, prophecy as prophecy, symbol as symbol in prophecy and poetry that is meant to conceal as much as reveal, biography as biography (in the case of the Gospels). If one starts taking the Bible non-literally where it demands to be taken literally, that goes down the road to unbelief, discrediting the Bible as literal Truth, and throwing the whole thing out.

What else is symbolic? Did Christ literally did for my sins? Can I actually Trust him? If I trust God to die for my sins and save me from hell, can I at least afford the same God the respect of believing Him when He tells me about history? Since when does God respect modern racial sensibilities? Do we have the right to put Him in our box? He is the Authority to whom we must respond.

I mean, does one actually believe the Bible is true if they don’t respect its forms? At the very least, it would seem to me that one who doesn’t is missing out on a lot, the subtleties of how biblical prophecy operates throughout time, the richness of God’s relationship to human beings revealed in Isaiah and Hosea, and the incredible gift of understanding God’s consistent character from Genesis to Revelation.

Are you Calvinistic in your present view of how the Bible should be interpreted?

I’m not good enough to know that. I interpret it how I interpret it, how my churches and scholarship have led the Holy Spirit, but I don’t know if I agree with Calvin.

I’ll let this go for a few more posts because this seems to be the issue behind the issue of how we are interpreting the curse of Ham passage, but if this balloons out on its own I may need to make yet another new topic to split the discussion lol. Debate linux is running away from mod linux haha.

 

[essentialsaltes]

while slavery has dogged the entirety of African history

You seem to be taking the fact of African slavery as evidence that enslaving Africans was specifically Biblically ordained. Deserved.

Couldn't the two pieces be 'coincidental'? Like the historical fact of Greek slaves in Rome [or Greeks from one city-state enslaved by another]. I assume the Greeks weren't cursed by Noah (or were they?)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This seems to be the key issue. I believe the entirety of Genesis to be literal history from beginning to end of the book. To believe otherwise sounds more like Richard Friedman’s Who Wrote the Bible? than actual correct Scripture interpretation. If you read that book, you’ll realize quickly that the point of taking OT historical narratives non-literally in secular criticism is to discredit Biblical prophecy.

I have that particular book by Friedman, along with a lot others from various positions on the spectrum of historical significance. It's not really a case of EITHER/OR.................we EITHER take the Bible literally OR we will take it completely and utterly as an ancient myth. No, no, no. There's a lot more to this area of study than being forced to take one of two positions, and I say this since this is one of my main areas of study. Although I'm no expert myself, my degree overlaps into historical studies and I engage a lot of scholars who are historical experts.

I need to look at the passage in question more closely, but aside from the Gibeonites, the Caananites were never slaves, while slavery has dogged the entirety of African history, even before the Europeans did it in the Americas. I studied the history of Darfur as part of my closing paper for my degree, and that area was a slave trading hub for thousands of years. Did Noah utter a useless curse over Caanan that somehow affected Cush, another one of Ham’s son’s? It’s basically more of the same, discrediting Noah’s prophetic utterance and how it affected history going forward, the same way scholars try and discredit Daniel by moving his writings later in time. They are just trying to discredit the existence of God.

From my critical perspective on the history of the tragic Atlantic Slave Trade era and how the Bible was used (rather...misused) to justify it, I'd begin instead with the following:

Goldenberg, David M. The curse of Ham: race and slavery in early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Princeton University Press, 2009.​

​

Curse of Ham - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And no, the two books I provided you in my previous post are definitely NOT generally aligning with the Wellhausen or Friedman positions.

I do think you are all Christians, but I am admittedly surprised to read this as the majority opinion. My church has warned us against taking historical narratives non-literally at various points throughout the years. Meanwhile, my literary scholar temperament agrees that we should interpret the Bible according to its literary forms. That means history as history, poetry as poetry, prophecy as prophecy, symbol as symbol in prophecy and poetry that is meant to conceal as much as reveal, biography as biography (in the case of the Gospels). If one starts taking the Bible non-literally where it demands to be taken literally, that goes down the road to unbelief, discrediting the Bible as literal Truth, and throwing the whole thing out.

I didn't say that I think the first 11 chapters of Genesis are utter fictions. No, I think they are prophetic and represent what was seen as the "past" for the writer(s) who lived at the time they were compiled and/or written during the later Bronze Age, and who likely incorporated earlier books we no longer have into the Old Testament literature as we now have today, and from which perhaps some original traditions and teaching were handed down from Moses.

And no, there is little or no cogency for a "Slippery Slope Argument" to be insisted upon in this historically appraised set of literary issues dealing with the historiographical development of the Tanakh. If anything, if someone insists on injecting a Slippery Slope Argument, I'm fully game to insist upon injecting my own "Escalator Argument," where we start with zero assumptions about the Old Testament, dig through what we find there and see how much we can resist what then turns up in favor of the Ancient Israelite/Later Jewish literary synthesis when we plow through archaeological considerations of all kinds.

What's more, that first book I mentioned in my previous post is actually one that represents a Maximalist position, a very far cry from the Minimalist position of total unbelief in the historical evaluation of the Old Testament literature. I'll list it here again for safe measure so as not to be misunderstood:

Grisanti, Michael A. Giving the Sense: Understanding and using Old Testament historical texts. Kregel Academic, 2003.​

What else is symbolic? Did Christ literally did for my sins? Can I actually Trust him? If I trust God to die for my sins and save me from hell, can I at least afford the same God the respect of believing Him when He tells me about history? Since when does God respect modern racial sensibilities? Do we have the right to put Him in our box? He is the Authority to whom we must respond.

This line of speculative questioning is actually----and despite the contestations of folks like Carrier or the various MythVision sorties----doesn't coherently line up. These questions you pose, historically considered, do not follow one another in some kind of domino affect. They are non-sequential, and furthermore, assuming that anyone should assess historical legitimacy and meaning to any one literary document or story in this way doesn't reflect how modern historical evaluations works. The way it works is that each exhibit of literature, i.e. each individual book or letter, stands or falls by itself under the scope of historical study, not in tandem by necessity with all of the others. Assessing the Biblical works isn't an EITHER/OR historical journey of critical assessment, but a reductionistic or (even ignorant) view of history might make that mistake and alot everything into one 'pot.'

Secondly, the whole race and slavery issue, when considered from additional extra-biblical angles in history and hermeneutics and fuller biblical exegesis and studies, shows that when this issue is applied to African peoples, it has been ignorantly misapplied.

I mean, does one actually believe the Bible is true if they don’t respect its forms? At the very least, it would seem to me that one who doesn’t is missing out on a lot, the subtleties of how biblical prophecy operates throughout time, the richness of God’s relationship to human beings revealed in Isaiah and Hosea, and the incredible gift of understanding God’s consistent character from Genesis to Revelation.

Which books and scholars do you think provide the "official" working praxis for doing biblical interpretation? I have about 30 from various scholars of various denominations. I've already given you one in my previous post that makes a good, even if not final, starting point.

I’m not good enough to know that. I interpret it how I interpret it, how my churches and scholarship have led the Holy Spirit, but I don’t know if I agree with Calvin.

No, you're good enough. You just haven't had the time (and peace) to engage these topics. I agree we need to be led by the Holy Spirit, but I never assume that just because fellow Christians say something in any church, or in any book I have, that THAT is somehow the definitive leading of the Holy Spirit. It can't be because there are too many different opinions about what different passages and verses of the Bible "mean," but each church leader who gets up and says, "The Holy Spirit told me it means this..........." is riding on the edge of humanity in saying that.

I’ll let this go for a few more posts because this seems to be the issue behind the issue of how we are interpreting the curse of Ham passage, but if this balloons out on its own I may need to make yet another new topic to split the discussion lol. Debate linux is running away from mod linux haha.

Oh, don't run and hide. There's very little to be afraid of.

 

[linux.poet]

enslaving Africans was specifically Biblically ordained. Deserved.

I never said it was deserved. The Book of Job and Romans 9 defend God’s right to treat people how He wishes to treat them, with no “deserving” implied.

Couldn't the two pieces be 'coincidental'?

It is possible, yes. It would be a pretty big coincidence though.

My intuition has simply latched onto a historical pattern, and while I may need to peel said intuition off this wrong idea like one might peel the plastic off a new CD case, I’m more than willing to correct my intellect, rewire the erroneous set of associations, and edit my worshipful emotions to match reality. Yes, it’s a pain, but I will reprocess this section of my system, because the alternative is insanity.

Like the historical fact of Greek slaves in Rome [or Greeks from one city-state enslaved by another]. I assume the Greeks weren't cursed by Noah (or were they?)

The difference, at least to my brain, is that the Greeks, Romans, Americans, and Jewish people have largely ditched slavery, oppression, tyranny, and poverty, at least on the surface. Previously we did it, but we have moved on. The Africans can’t really seem to move on.

To have a fair and balanced view, I would need to admit geographical, political, historical, and psychological reasons for why Africans have historically sold their own people as slaves to other lands and why they are still suffering from poor governments, oppression, and poverty (not universal, Nigerians are not impoverished nor necessarily everyone in South Africa either but I think the point is made). RealLifeLore wanted to blame geography and politics and I think he made some valid points there.

Obviously, though, I’m the one making the errors in this debate and I probably have let my trifold liabilities of intuition, emotion, and worse, imagination, the dreaded child of both, get away from me. My remarks are not an indication of what Christians believe, as you might have noticed from the fact that three of my own disagree with my rather erroneous remarks.

agree we need to be led by the Holy Spirit, but I never assume that just because fellow Christians say something in any church, or in any book I have, that THAT is somehow the definitive leading of the Holy Spirit. It can't be because there are too many different opinions about what different passages and verses of the Bible "mean," but each church leader who gets up and says, "The Holy Spirit told me it means this..........." is riding on the edge of humanity in saying that.

I agree with this. I cannot type today. I meant that the teaching of others and scholarship are part of how the Holy Spirit has led me personally.

To some degree I need to believe in the sovereignty of God to interpret what my intuition is telling me, otherwise I just go insane from my brain endlessly questioning itself and I cannot function. On the other hand, intuition is a good servant of the intellect but a poor master, as it just tells the intellect what needs to be investigated. When a lazy intellect doesn’t investigate and instead tries to fill in the gaps, you saw what just happened.

Curse of Ham - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whoops. Alrighty, I am quite through darkening counsel with words without knowledge. All of those references are going on my “acquire and read” list. What scholarly quagmire have I walked into indeed?

 

[ViaCrucis]

This seems to be the key issue. I believe the entirety of Genesis to be literal history from beginning to end of the book.

Lots of Christians have taken a literal interpretation throughout history without ever trying to shoe-horn race into it.

It's not until the early modern period, when we begin to see the emergence of the idea of "race" in a predominantly Euro-centric and European-dominated imperial and colonial era of Western history, that anyone began to try to tie "race" to Noah's kids. Because the very idea of "race" didn't exist until then. And it arose in order to justify European colonial imperialism. It's okay to subjugate indigenous people, it's okay to kidnap Africans and sell them into generational chattel slavery, because Europeans saw themselves as being of a preferable racial stock. And it's why this idea of "the curse of Ham" having anything to do with Africans and the enslavement of Africans only came about in this period of modern history.

Plenty of Christians have believed in a literal Noah and flood without ever tying race into it. That's a distinctively modern Euro-centric interpretation that existed purely in order to justify racism. It serves no other purpose except to justify a white supremacist world view.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ophiolite]

Lots of Christians have taken a literal interpretation throughout history without ever trying to shoe-horn race into it.

It's not until the early modern period, when we begin to see the emergence of the idea of "race" in a predominantly Euro-centric and European-dominated imperial and colonial era of Western history, that anyone began to try to tie "race" to Noah's kids. Because the very idea of "race" didn't exist until then. And it arose in order to justify European colonial imperialism. It's okay to subjugate indigenous people, it's okay to kidnap Africans and sell them into generational chattel slavery, because Europeans saw themselves as being of a preferable racial stock. And it's why this idea of "the curse of Ham" having anything to do with Africans and the enslavement of Africans only came about in this period of modern history.

Plenty of Christians have believed in a literal Noah and flood without ever tying race into it. That's a distinctively modern Euro-centric interpretation that existed purely in order to justify racism. It serves no other purpose except to justify a white supremacist world view.

-CryptoLutheran

That sounds more akin to an opinion than the expression of the current consensus of experts. I trust you to tell me which it is, or where it lies on the spectrum between the two extremes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That sounds more akin to an opinion than the expression of the current consensus of experts. I trust you to tell me which it is, or where it lies on the spectrum between the two extremes.

In your present view, what is the current consensus of experts? I have to ask just in the case I've somehow fallen behind in keeping up with the cutting edge.

 

[Ophiolite]

In your present view, what is the current consensus of experts? I have to ask just in the case I've somehow fallen behind in keeping up with the cutting edge.

I have no idea. That was why I asked @ViaCrucis. My recollection is that their posts are well considered and on point, but I felt there was a certain ambiguity suggestion it might be opinion - well informed opinion, but opinion nonetheless. Or - perhaps more accurately - an overstressing of one aspect of a complex issue. So I was seeking clarification. My reading on this aspect of history is very limited. Your post suggests you are/were in close agreement with their comments. Correct?

 

[Freth]

If we judge it by racial mix, we see it's all over the board.
Note: Atheists and Agnostics are less diverse than many religious groups. It's also interesting that some of the most "liberal" churches are the least diverse. (Episcopal, UMC, etc.) Pew Research

View attachment 363973

(see attached above for context)

I grew up in the 70's and 80's in the Seventh-day Adventist church, and I can attest to the diversity. Even my own small town church was quite diverse. If you look at our church service streams on YouTube, you'll see the diversity across the board. The stark contrast between my denomination and others is shocking to me. How does one explain the difference in diversity in the other denominations?

 

[linux.poet]

How does one explain the difference in diversity in the other denominations?

Language, for the most part. In my neck of the woods, we have a large Hispanic population, and many of them prefer to have church services in Spanish. Same deal with the local Vietnamese population.

With that being said, I've seen people of all colors at my church, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Different churches in my community appeal to different people based on the services they offer, not anything having to do with skin color.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That sounds more akin to an opinion than the expression of the current consensus of experts. I trust you to tell me which it is, or where it lies on the spectrum between the two extremes.

While Wikipedia isn't great, it's probably a decent enough point in the right direction:

Historical race concepts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I was also able to find this essay by Prof. Leonard Lieberman, an anthropologist from the American Anthropological Society:

Wayback Machine

Everything I have ever read on the subject points to race, as we understand it today, as a social construct that arose in the early modern period.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

If we judge it by racial mix, we see it's all over the board.
Note: Atheists and Agnostics are less diverse than many religious groups. It's also interesting that some of the most "liberal" churches are the least diverse. (Episcopal, UMC, etc.) Pew Research

View attachment 363973

I have to admit - I do see a lot of diversity in most Adventist churches I have attended.

That chart - backs up my observation