Does Christianity support and/or teach racism?

[linux.poet]

Seriously? Pages of writing and engaging in (at least some) of your claims is the same as a one word post?

It's not quite exactly the same, I think you have made some interesting points. But emotional non-argument opposition can be expressed in many words or one word.

 

[linux.poet]

And here I thought apathy was based on not caring about something. Whatever.

I'm trying not to laugh. That is a beautiful construction of two sentences.

As I said earlier, it was perhaps a mistake to ask for details. I guess I forgot how much I dislike literary theorists.

If it's any consolation, the feeling is mutual. People who accuse Christians of being racists do not endear themselves to my affections, and being forced to wade through postmodern nonsense to obtain a technical education in fine writing has led me to utterly despise the existence of literary theorists. Why they can't leave budding writers alone is beyond me.

Which naturalist? Me?

I'm not allowed to directly implicate anyone as believing anything they don't acknowledge they believe, as that is against the rules of the forum under the calling out rule. I meant "person who believes in naturalism in general" and nothing more.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm trying not to laugh. That is a beautiful construction of two sentences.

If it's any consolation, the feeling is mutual. People who accuse Christians of being racists do not endear themselves to my affections, and being forced to wade through postmodern nonsense to obtain a technical education in fine writing has led me to utterly despise the existence of literary theorists. Why they can't leave budding writers alone is beyond me.


I'm not allowed to directly implicate anyone as believing anything they don't acknowledge they believe, as that is against the rules of the forum under the calling out rule. I meant "person who believes in naturalism in general" and nothing more.

So, @linux.poet and @Hans Blaster, are we all clear now that the Bible doesn't teach racism?

 

[linux.poet]

So, @linux.poet and @Hans Blaster, are we all clear now that the Bible doesn't teach racism?

I was clear on that from the beginning. The Bible does not teach racism. Do I need to cite Galatians 3:28 again?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was clear on that from the beginning. The Bible does not teach racism. Do I need to cite Galatians 3:28 again?

I'll take that as a 'yes' to my previous question.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's not quite exactly the same, I think you have made some interesting points. But emotional non-argument opposition can be expressed in many words or one word.

For some posters it is all they muster.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm trying not to laugh. That is a beautiful construction of two sentences.

Thanks, and the second "sentence" was intended for humorous effect.

If it's any consolation, the feeling is mutual. People who accuse Christians of being racists do not endear themselves to my affections, and being forced to wade through postmodern nonsense to obtain a technical education in fine writing has led me to utterly despise the existence of literary theorists. Why they can't leave budding writers alone is beyond me.

I have no experience with being an English major or understanding of how they build there curriculum, so I don't know why they get caught up in these weird things. Not a fan of postmodern anything. (I find modernism more appealing, especially in architecture.)

I'm not allowed to directly implicate anyone as believing anything they don't acknowledge they believe, as that is against the rules of the forum under the calling out rule. I meant "person who believes in naturalism in general" and nothing more.

In review, I think it was your use of "one naturalist" rather than "a naturalist" that sparked my confusion. No problem.

 

[RileyG]

Do you recognize that? Basically that is what your argument against my intellectual argument amounts to. “I’m not interested” and “which is a silly thing to say” are just as much as emotional non-arguments as “Rubbish!”. Apathy is an emotional response - namely lack of emotion- and it usually has fear as a root, not caring about the danger in order to maintain mental function in face of a threat that needs mental capacity to defeat.

I established that literary thinkers want to blame racism on Christianity and I properly situated their opposition in anti-Christian philosophy and a veneer of historical argument. Your posts have repeatedly declared disagreements with the finer points of my analysis and a lack of interest in the whole. At any point one had the option to stop participating, and if I was annoying, I did not twist anyone’s arm. One has an infinite capacity to reject what one does not like; that proves nothing.

In any event, naturalists are not racists because there are multiple scientific studies that prove that race does not exist biologically - there is no correlation between skin color and internal make-up. I have no idea why one naturalist would care if some Christians agreed with them on that point. Maybe because it pokes a hole in the naturalist/psychoanalytic idea that Christians are lacking in intelligence.


One of the advantages that non-denominational Christianity has in situating authority in Scripture as opposed to the papacy is that we can easily reject or criticize people who preach anti-Scriptural teachings. It doesn’t take us hundreds of years to repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery. I hate to say it, but Catholic historical blunders have given credence to Christianity’s detractors, so much that I ended up distancing myself from Catholicism in order to clarify that I am not a racist for believing in Christianity in the academic situations I referred to above. It was the easier course, though perhaps not the best.

On the other hand, the Vatican has repudiated said doctrine, and the Church calls racism an intrinsic evil, so I think Catholicism has learned their lesson there. Collective sanctification of the Catholic papacy has been very visible and public over the years, including their faults, but we do believe that believers in Christ should be afforded the opportunity to repent and turn from evil, and if they do correct their mistakes, that should be recognized and respected and not brought up again. Secular scholars are just not so forgiving.

This does not mean that the Catholic approach is without its advantages either; the flaw of the non-denominational approach is that it situates a person’s faith in the psychological performance of each individual. This allows emotional abuse to run rampant in families because of the internalized criticism for lack of Scriptural compliance, forcing people to “perform” gender roles instead of just understanding gender via body understanding as in Catholic theology. Another glaring flaw is to blame circumstances on lack of Scriptural compliance and performance - using 1 Thessalonians 3:10 to abandon the poor and needy, for example. The cruelty is horrific. But hey, at least we’re not racist!

I honestly think that Christians have a lot to learn from each other. Maybe in the hypothetical unified Christian church of the future we should leave caring for the needy to the former Catholics and academic battling of the Rousseauist postmodern rascals to the former non-denominational folks.

With non-denominational Christianity, there are indeed thousands upon thousands of Churches who aren’t affiliated with each other that have different interpretations on Sacred Scripture. Each leader is its own interpreter.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There are still Christian churches that oppose interracial marriages.

And what percentage of Christian Churches in the U.S. do you think your 'stat' applies to?

 

[Kathleen30]

Far as I know there was only ever one race of people known as humanity mixed with a variety of cultures

 

[essentialsaltes]

And what percentage of Christian Churches in the U.S. do you think your 'stat' applies to?

A small one.

 

[Jipsah]

Short answer: no, Christianity does not support or teach racism.

Correct. "There is neither Jew nor Greek..." and implicitly no differences between other racial and ethnic groups from God's perspective. Various Christian sects have tried to justify racial discrimination based on OT Scriptures, but they had no basis in orthodox Christian thought.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Correct. "There is neither Jew nor Greek..." and implicitly no differences between other racial and ethnic groups from God's perspective. Various Christian sects have tried to justify racial discrimination based on OT Scriptures, but they had no basis in orthodox Christian thought.

No it implies that God will not prefer to save one believer over the other based on being "of the people" or "greek". It doesn't make a claim against humans having ethnic preferences/prejudices any more than the next phrase, which indicates that being enslaved won't stop the believer's salvation, prohibits or teaches against the practice of slavery.

 

[stevevw]

I think fundementally this is a battle of ideologies and spirituality which is tied to morality. It seems to me that this has been the emerging theme of church and state battling it out over how we should order society.

It use to be the church and then the church got political and power hungry. People fought back which is fair enough because the church over stepped their mark. They are not a leader in the world but an example of Christ to the world. If they become like the world then how do people see Christ.

I think that was the disposition of the early church which came out of the first couple of centuries. They did not but into the politics or pagan world and were cultivating a church seperate from the world. Even to the point of dying for not conforming to the pagan system.

But I think back then and as is now becoming apparent that the world outside Christs church was not neutral as far as ideological belief about the world and beyond and had their own set of morals and norms that went along with their belief.

In that sense this was and is about a spiritual battle between God and humans who want to be gods as in controlling their own world order. That is why the bible speaks about the invisible forces and principalities are war with each other between world governments and powers and God.

So I think in one way or another there will be some sort of 'ocracy' whether thats a theocracy or some other (ocracy or ism) such as liberalism or conservatism. Which is an philosophy or ideology about how the world is ordered in the spiritual sense. Which is something based on belief about what is reality and how the orld is and beyond.

But I think Christianity and Christ church cannot be any of these and thats why its different and not part of any worldly idea about how things 'should' be ordered. As Christs church we have to sit on the sidelines. Actually be in the middle but not a part of the politics. Which is hard and a fine line.

I think the church is to blame for becoming political but this did not negate Christs church which I think is somewhere within the Catholics and/or Orthodox churches. But as a reaction to the church the protestants have gone to far and thrown the baby out with the bath water.

I think protestantism in some ways cultivates political ideology as it seems to allow religion to form compartments or tribes which will compete against each other. Which often decends into legalistic and ideological arguements. Especially with the developments in the early US settlements.

I think this laid a foundation of politics and religion which led to the seperation of church and State. America I think is like no other nation in this regard with a strong history of religion and politics.

But I also thing this is now happening throughout the world. Generally the political has become the religion or the ideology the world is fighting for. In that sense fundementally its a spiritual battle. There are only two sides the world and Christs church which is seperate from the world. At the moment it is the world who is the (ocracy) but in time it will be Gods kingdom.