Test

[Svigor]

one that wasn't racism because God doesn't show prejudice

He may not now, but He certainly did in the past. I don't need to find quotes about God choosing the Hebrews as His chosen people (complete with holy seed and all), or about how God hands down collective punishment against peoples as peoples, with none to be spared, do I? Surely that's racism, to collectively judge a people right down to the last man, woman, and child? Surely proclaiming one particular blood-kin-group as His chosen people is racist?

If He was worried about sin and not race, He could've told the Hebrews "I'll mark all the sinners and you will put them to the sword." That's not what He did; He just told them, "kill them all, I'll sort them out."

I remember at least one instance where He said (I'm paraphrasing), "kill all the men, and do not take their sons or daughters amongst you as husbands or wives." He could've left some wiggle room, you know, like "make sure their sons or daughters are righteous before you bring them amongst you" or somesuch, but He didn't; He marked the entire race/people/tribe/whatever as scum. If that's not racism, what is?

Really, what's the difference between saying "I hate all blacks," and "I hate all blacks, not because they're blacks, but because they're criminals"? Sure, there's a difference, but who'd argue one as racism and not the other?

Btw, it's possible to argue that any given race that God targeted for genocide was indeed guilty (of sin deserving violent death, mind you), right down to the last man, woman, child, and babe in the womb, but I think that's a pretty hard sell. That's just contrary to common sense; we all know that all groups have their good and bad members, even if they do vary in frequency depending on which group we're talking about.

it was possibly an example to the disciples of how it was common for the jews to treat gentiles to show them how they were acting to thus convict them and show them their error. You can see God isn't racist by:

That's possible, but totally speculative since you've shown no evidence.

His plan for salvation for all

God (or a Christian, for that matter) can want salvation for all and be a racist too.

That Romans quote is interesting, I'll take a look at it and respond later.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Obviously there's a limit, unless one can lovingly, blessedly do good to someone by whipping him out of a temple.

More to the point, God certainly didn't always love his enemies, or bless them, or do good to them, etc. There's a moral lesson there, but a hard rule? I dunno about that.

Also, this seems to be something that Christians naturally take as philosophy, not prescription, in every other context; I don't see many Christians arguing for an end to the criminal justice system, or the military, for example.

Even more to the point, none of that stuff precludes racism per se, even if taken literally.

Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

"Neighbor" is a problematic phrase. Christ's The Good Samaritan definition of neighbor certainly doesn't lend itself to the common modern Christianity interpretation, as I showed above.

Joh 15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.

Again, this isn't a proscription vs. racism, for a variety of reasons expounded above.

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

I'll read that for context too; the first thing that springs to my mind is that "justified" is pretty vague.

Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

Yes, but that doesn't mean the context is the same. Given precedent (God's chosen people, targeted genocide, dual morality, etc.,), I think something a bit more explicit is in order. Otherwise the conclusion seems to be that yes, God is supreme so of course He rules over the gentiles (word means "heathen," btw)...and the Hebrews will be His government and so too rule over the gentiles.

 

[Mling]

Svigor, out of curiosity, what race are you?

 

[Svigor]

Why are you curious? I answer with a question because of the ole ad hominem thing...

 

[Mling]

Mostly just trying to figure out where you are coming from. If you were talking about sexual orientation or religion or tribal affiliation I would be similarly curious.

At this point, keeping the question hypothtical is getting a little awkward.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

He may not now, but He certainly did in the past. I don't need to find quotes about God choosing the Hebrews as His chosen people (complete with holy seed and all), or about how God hands down collective punishment against peoples as peoples, with none to be spared, do I? Surely that's racism, to collectively judge a people right down to the last man, woman, and child? Surely proclaiming one particular blood-kin-group as His chosen people is racist?

That’s wrong. If you look in the Bible, God says He is the same and doesn’t change. So to say He was one way but isn’t now is basically calling God a liar.

Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of tur

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

No…because again, it had nothing to do w/ their race, it had to do w/ them either being in the Land that belonged to Israel or fighting against Israel which is basically fighting God. God chose Israel not because of their worthiness or race, but as an example to all. And, since God is the same, the fact that He grafted in the Gentiles…which is what those scriptures I said, explained…that shows it has nothing to do with race or favoritism. For one, God judged Israel as well, not just other nations. And if you look around, you see Christians being used of all cultures and races.

If He was worried about sin and not race, He could've told the Hebrews "I'll mark all the sinners and you will put them to the sword." That's not what He did; He just told them, "kill them all, I'll sort them out." I remember at least one instance where He said (I'm paraphrasing), "kill all the men, and do not take their sons or daughters amongst you as husbands or wives." He could've left some wiggle room, you know, like "make sure their sons or daughters are righteous before you bring them amongst you" or somesuch, but He didn't; He marked the entire race/people/tribe/whatever as scum. If that's not racism, what is?

He’s God and judges however He wants. That’s not racism. Plus, He came to save the world and destroying all sinners would include the Hebrews because they sinned too…perhaps you should examine the laws they had for the mere fact of them being liable to sin and how they continually went against the laws numerous times and brought judgment on themselves. Also…He said not to take them amongst them as spouses…God knows if folks are righteous or not. He’s God. So He doesn’t need man to check since He already knows it.

Really, what's the difference between saying "I hate all blacks," and "I hate all blacks, not because they're blacks, but because they're criminals"? Sure, there's a difference, but who'd argue one as racism and not the other?

God hasn’t said that. Again, God didn’t hate those folks…judgment isn’t hate…it’s judgment. Actions have consequences. And those nations did actions that had consequences. To call that racism is absurd especially since God did judgments on the Hebrews as well.

Btw, it's possible to argue that any given race that God targeted for genocide was indeed guilty (of sin deserving violent death, mind you), right down to the last man, woman, child, and babe in the womb, but I think that's a pretty hard sell. That's just contrary to common sense; we all know that all groups have their good and bad members, even if they do vary in frequency depending on which group we're talking about.That's possible, but totally speculative since you've shown no evidence.
God (or a Christian, for that matter) can want salvation for all and be a racist too.
That Romans quote is interesting, I'll take a look at it and respond later.
Obviously there's a limit, unless one can lovingly, blessedly do good to someone by whipping him out of a temple. More to the point, God certainly didn't always love his enemies, or bless them, or do good to them, etc. There's a moral lesson there, but a hard rule? I dunno about that.

Common sense…may I remind you God’s knowledge and wisdom is vastly beyond ours. So to say that it’s wrong simply because it doesn’t ‘make sense’ is a very weak argument against a God who is higher than us. Again…calling God racist is basically calling God a liar. You either believe Him or not. That’s false. To say God had to hate those who hate Him is again going by human reason. He doesn’t. Just because man may be subject to that in no way means a perfect God is. Well, you can’t say God didn’t bless them or etc.

Also, this seems to be something that Christians naturally take as philosophy, not prescription, in every other context; I don't see many Christians arguing for an end to the criminal justice system, or the military, for example.

And that applies to this how? Christians are for justice. God performs justice. I see no contradiction here.

Even more to the point, none of that stuff precludes racism per se, even if taken literally.[
"Neighbor" is a problematic phrase. Christ's The Good Samaritan definition of neighbor certainly doesn't lend itself to the common modern Christianity interpretation, as I showed above.
Again, this isn't a proscription vs. racism, for a variety of reasons expounded above.
I'll read that for context too; the first thing that springs to my mind is that "justified" is pretty vague.Yes, but that doesn't mean the context is the same. Given precedent (God's chosen people, targeted genocide, dual morality, etc.,), I think something a bit more explicit is in order. Otherwise the conclusion seems to be that yes, God is supreme so of course He rules over the gentiles (word means "heathen," btw)...and the Hebrews will be His government and so too rule over the gentiles.

That’s totally unbiblical…perhaps you should examine the rest of scripture…both old and new testament a bit more closely.

 

[MikeMcK]

I think the best example is that of Jesus. In this culture, Jesus was dealing with all sorts of people. The white Romans, the Jews, Samaritans, African slaves, black, white, swarthy,etc and there was never any difference in the way that He treated them.

Skin color is just a matter of pigimentation. The true story is told in the heart. The truth is that there are only two kinds of people: those who know Jesus and those who need to know Jesus.

When we were kids, we used to sing, "Red and yellow, black and white/they are precious in His sight".

Maybe we ought to sing that as adults to remind us just how God sees us.

 

[Svigor]

The white Romans, the Jews, Samaritans, African slaves, black, white, swarthy,etc and there was never any difference in the way that He treated them.

What evidence is there to support that statement?

Above I show a very explicit example of Christ treating someone very differently than he'd treat a member of his own group.

Christ also has some pretty sharp things to say about some not-very-different groups (Pharisees).

 

[MikeMcK]

What evidence is there to support that statement?

Above I show a very explicit example of Christ treating someone very differently than he'd treat a member of his own group.

Christ also has some pretty sharp things to say about some not-very-different groups (Pharisees).

OK. Show us where Christ treated anyone any differently because of their race.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Pharisees are Jewish folks who were being hypercritical (spelled wrong LOL...but basically saying one thing and doing another) and just plain out critical...perhaps you should actually read the scriptures for WHY God did stuff rather than just assume it's racist out of premeditated assumptions

 

[MikeMcK]

Pharisees are Jewish folks who were being hypercritical (spelled wrong LOL...but basically saying one thing and doing another) and just plain out critical...perhaps you should actually read the scriptures for WHY God did stuff rather than just assume it's racist out of premeditated assumptions

Not to be a nitpicker, but Pharisees weren't just "hypoercritical Jewish folks". They were an order of priests and there actually were many good Pharisees. There seems to be this myth built up that they were bad people. They weren't. The truth is, they were doing exactly what God told them to do, they just did it to as to neglect God's reasons for having them do these things. And, because of this, factions developed and they started competing with one another to see who could be more holy. That's where it got ugly and that's more or less where Jesus picks up the story.

I know that doesn't seem to be a big deal and it isn't, as far as this conversation goes, but to say that they were just hypocritical Jewish folks could be confusing later on as we try to understand the nuances behind Jesus' dealings with them.

Otherwise, I enjoy your posts very much.

PS.

As much as I hate to play the "Grammar Police", "hypercritical" and "hypocritical" are two different things.

Sorry. I seem to have a real bug up my backside this morning.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Not to be a nitpicker, but Pharisees weren't just "hypoercritical Jewish folks". They were an order of priests and there actually were many good Pharisees. There seems to be this myth built up that they were bad people. They weren't. The truth is, they were doing exactly what God told them to do, they just did it to as to neglect God's reasons for having them do these things. And, because of this, factions developed and they started competing with one another to see who could be more holy. That's where it got ugly and that's more or less where Jesus picks up the story.

I know that doesn't seem to be a big deal and it isn't, as far as this conversation goes, but to say that they were just hypocritical Jewish folks could be confusing later on as we try to understand the nuances behind Jesus' dealings with them.

Otherwise, I enjoy your posts very much.

PS.

As much as I hate to play the "Grammar Police", "hypercritical" and "hypocritical" are two different things.

Sorry. I seem to have a real bug up my backside this morning.

I know they are two different things...that why I said it was spelled wrong and then gave a definition of what I meant because I couldn't figure how to spell it.

Well, yes, they did the law outwordly word to word and thus saw themselves as more holy...that's selfrighteousness which isn't good, but sin. There were some good ones...but a lot of selfrighteous hypocritical )) ones and that's why the Lord rebuked them. They were for pleasing man rather than God and that's sin, plain and simple.

Anywho...thanks!

 

[levi501]

OK. Show us where Christ treated anyone any differently because of their race.

Are you not reading this thread?
He showed Jesus refusing to help a woman solely because she was a canaanite.

 

[Svigor]

Mostly just trying to figure out where you are coming from. If you were talking about sexual orientation or religion or tribal affiliation I would be similarly curious.

At this point, keeping the question hypothtical is getting a little awkward.

I don't see what's awkward about it...maybe if you explained the difficulty?

He may not now, but He certainly did in the past. I don't need to find quotes about God choosing the Hebrews as His chosen people (complete with holy seed and all), or about how God hands down collective punishment against peoples as peoples, with none to be spared, do I? Surely that's racism, to collectively judge a people right down to the last man, woman, and child? Surely proclaiming one particular blood-kin-group as His chosen people is racist?

That’s wrong. If you look in the Bible, God says He is the same and doesn’t change. So to say He was one way but isn’t now is basically calling God a liar.

So what's your point, that God is still a racist?

It's pretty obvious that God does change, at least in His behavior. How could it not be so, when God interacts with humans, who obviously do change? I.e., in the OT God is nice when people behave the way He likes, and He's vengeful when they don't.

If God's behavior doesn't change, then why is the OT chock full of wrath of God, but the NT shows nary a hint of it?

No…because again, it had nothing to do w/ their race, it had to do w/ them either being in the Land that belonged to Israel or fighting against Israel which is basically fighting God.

Again, in common parlance, calling out a race as a group is racism. Justify it however you want, there's zero tolerance for that sort of thing these days. If God came down and said, "thou shalt kill the Asians, for they are wicked and doing wrong," He'd be a racist according to the term as it exists in popular use.

Again, if God had a problem with people squatting on His land, or fighting His people (racist term), He could've said "thou shalt kill those on the land I've chosen for my people," or "thou shalt kill those who oppose you this day," etc. He didn't do that. He called out a specific race/nation/tribe for extermination/punishment/whatever.

How is that any different from "oh, those (insert racial group here)s, they're all the same." It isn't different, it's 100% the same thing.

Lol, just think about the concept "fighting against (insert racial group here) is basically fighting God." Now, if that isn't racist I don't know what is!

God chose Israel not because of their worthiness or race, but as an example to all.

That's semantics. How can one choose a race, but choose it not because of its race? That's like picking out a car to buy and saying "I choose this not as an automobile, but as an example to all."

And, since God is the same, the fact that He grafted in the Gentiles…which is what those scriptures I said, explained…that shows it has nothing to do with race or favoritism.

I'll have to take a look at that, as I said.

For one, God judged Israel as well, not just other nations.

Yes, He judged them separately: Israel as his chosen people, the rest as not-chosen peoples. I.e., one rule for one race, another rule for another race, etc., sorta like Jim Crow laws.

And if you look around, you see Christians being used of all cultures and races.

I'm sorry I don't follow.

If He was worried about sin and not race, He could've told the Hebrews "I'll mark all the sinners and you will put them to the sword." That's not what He did; He just told them, "kill them all, I'll sort them out." I remember at least one instance where He said (I'm paraphrasing), "kill all the men, and do not take their sons or daughters amongst you as husbands or wives." He could've left some wiggle room, you know, like "make sure their sons or daughters are righteous before you bring them amongst you" or somesuch, but He didn't; He marked the entire race/people/tribe/whatever as scum. If that's not racism, what is?

He’s God and judges however He wants. That’s not racism.

That makes no sense to me. It seems that you're saying that we can't judge God's actions as racist because that would mean God sinned, but I'm making no such argument; that's your strawman.

Plus, He came to save the world and destroying all sinners would include the Hebrews because they sinned too…

Okay, then He could've just marked the sinners in some way. He is God after all. The point is He marked a race out for collective punishment/genocide/whatever, which is practically the definition of racism (in common coinage).

perhaps you should examine the laws they had for the mere fact of them being liable to sin and how they continually went against the laws numerous times and brought judgment on themselves.

Even the babies in the womb? Even the toddlers?

Also…He said not to take them amongst them as spouses…God knows if folks are righteous or not. He’s God. So He doesn’t need man to check since He already knows it.

My point was if He was worried about righteousness, He could've identified the unrighteous. Instead He chose to identify races for punishment. That's clearly racist, no?

Really, what's the difference between saying "I hate all blacks," and "I hate all blacks, not because they're blacks, but because they're criminals"? Sure, there's a difference, but who'd argue one as racism and not the other?

God hasn’t said that. Again, God didn’t hate those folks…judgment isn’t hate…it’s judgment. Actions have consequences.

You're dodging, but fine, I'll rephrase: really, what's the difference between saying "Indians must all be punished" and "Indians must all be punished, not because they're Indians, but because they're criminals"? Sure, there's a difference, but who'd argue one as racism and not the other?

And those nations did actions that had consequences. To call that racism is absurd especially since God did judgments on the Hebrews as well.

God singles out races for collective treatment, for good (usually just his chosen race) or ill (usually non-chosen races), but that isn't racism? I'll need to have that one explained to me.

Common sense…may I remind you God’s knowledge and wisdom is vastly beyond ours. So to say that it’s wrong simply because it doesn’t ‘make sense’ is a very weak argument against a God who is higher than us.

Lol, don't conflate yourself and God. I called arguments by Christians in this thread wrong. Nice try, though.

Again…calling God racist is basically calling God a liar.

Huh? How do you figure that?

To say God had to hate those who hate Him is again going by human reason. He doesn’t.

That's a bit of a non-sequitur, since I said no such thing.

Just because man may be subject to that in no way means a perfect God is. Well, you can’t say God didn’t bless them or etc.

I can certainly say that, based on the OT, God did not turn the other cheek to His enemies (you might try to say He had no enemies, but above you equate the enemies of Israel with the enemies of God), He smote them and sent plagues against them and so on and so forth. Are there any instances of God turning the other cheek when non-Hebrews angered him? If there are, I bet they're vastly outnumbered by the number of times He smote them (directly or indirectly).

Also, this seems to be something that Christians naturally take as philosophy, not prescription, in every other context; I don't see many Christians arguing for an end to the criminal justice system, or the military, for example.

And that applies to this how? Christians are for justice. God performs justice. I see no contradiction here.

I was responding to the following quote:

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

My purpose was to ask why this should be a law regarding racism when clearly most Christians don't take it for law in many other contexts.

That’s totally unbiblical…perhaps you should examine the rest of scripture…both old and new testament a bit more closely.

Forgive me I can't just take your word for it.

You seem to be assuming that I mean "evil" or "wicked" or "wrong" when I say "racist." I do not. My point is that God constantly did all sorts of things that today would be considered racism. For example, he called the Hebrews a "stiff-necked" people. That's precisely the sort of thing that's being taught in schools today as intolerable bigotry and racism. It makes no difference whatsoever whether the judgement is justified; the judgement is considered ipso facto unjustified and unjustifiable because it's a group judgement based on race or ethnicity.

My essential point is that Christianity and anti-racism are mutually incompatible. You seem to think that my conclusion is that people should drop Christianity and keep anti-racism, when in fact it's the opposite. I think that's a big part of why some folks get upset over this, because (not you Lilly, I'm just speaking from experience) some "Christians" value their leftism (and therefore, their anti-racism) more than their Christianity. This dovetails with my point that common modern Christianity is only anti-racist because society is.

 

[Svigor]

Not to be a nitpicker, but Pharisees weren't just "hypoercritical Jewish folks". They were an order of priests and there actually were many good Pharisees.

More to the point, I very much doubt they were an open group. They were probably as much a blood-caste (i.e., ethnic or racial group or sub-group if you will) as a religious persuasion, just like the Hebrews in general.

 

[DiscardedTruths]

OP=Original Poster?

 

[HisEagle]

OP=Original Poster?

Yes. It also means simply "Original Post".

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

So what's your point, that God is still a racist?

It's pretty obvious that God does change, at least in His behavior. How could it not be so, when God interacts with humans, who obviously do change? I.e., in the OT God is nice when people behave the way He likes, and He's vengeful when they don't.

If God's behavior doesn't change, then why is the OT chock full of wrath of God, but the NT shows nary a hint of it?

So you call God a liar…I needn’t respond to the rest of this part then. But to your last question…God is the same in both. In the OT you see his love and mercy too, if you actually read the books…just skimming over them will make you miss it. Also, in the NT…you can see God’s wrath…try reading Revelations. Also God Himself explains of judgments and etc…So there is no difference, God is exactly the same…

Again, in common parlance, calling out a race as a group is racism. Justify it however you want, there's zero tolerance for that sort of thing these days. If God came down and said, "thou shalt kill the Asians, for they are wicked and doing wrong," He'd be a racist according to the term as it exists in popular use.

Well, God isn’t. The fact is, many of the cultures (ex: Canaanites, Ammonites, etc) were the same skin color and way as the Hebrews anyway…they simply worshiped other gods and had a different culture. It had to do w/ them being on the land or somehow being an enemy of the Hebrews. And the way they were differentiated were by actually having names and by those names you could identify them and their different way of culture. Sorta like in Africa…they are mostly all the same skin tone…but there are loads of different languages, cultures, names of tribes and groups, etc…

Again, if God had a problem with people squatting on His land, or fighting His people (racist term), He could've said "thou shalt kill those on the land I've chosen for my people," or "thou shalt kill those who oppose you this day," etc. He didn't do that. He called out a specific race/nation/tribe for extermination/punishment/whatever.

So. The fact is He didn’t. If you have a problem with that, then that’s your own problem. Don’t just go and call it racists ‘cause it’s not. That’s like the US thinking Cuba has bombs and wanting them specifically to get rid of them is racism…even though other countries may have them. Obviously that isn’t.


How is that any different from "oh, those (insert racial

group here)s, they're all the same." It isn't different, it's 100% the same thing.

Lol, just think about the concept "fighting against (insert racial group here) is basically fighting God." Now, if that isn't racist I don't know what is!

Because that’s not how God did that or what He even said. Why do you think God had specific nations judged and whatnot? Hello…he didn’t just go and destroy all other nations and cultures for fun. He even blessed foreign kings and gave them right to overtake Israel/Judah as judgment to the Hebrews. That’s not racism. No…it’s not racist because anyone who went again God’s chosen is going against God. It’s like that now…if you serve God and folks are doing stuff to you, then they are doing that to God since you are His and God’s judgment will befall them….just read the bible and you can see that.

That's semantics. How can one choose a race, but choose it not because of its race? That's like picking out a car to buy and saying "I choose this not as an automobile, but as an example to all."

Because God can. Again…you are limiting God to human conditions and ways. Just because YOU may have to do that in no way means God does.

I'll have to take a look at that, as I said.

Yes, He judged them separately: Israel as his chosen people, the rest as not-chosen peoples. I.e., one rule for one race, another rule for another race, etc., sorta like Jim Crow laws.

Israel had laws to follow…the others didn’t so Israel had more STRICTER judgments and conditions and such than the other nations…not vice versa.

I'm sorry I don't follow.

That makes no sense to me. It seems that you're saying that we can't judge God's actions as racist because that would mean God sinned, but I'm making no such argument; that's your strawman.

Yes you are. You say God is racist. God said He shows no partiality…so you are saying God lied and thus sinned….it’s that simple.

Okay, then He could've just marked the sinners in some way. He is God after all. The point is He marked a race out for collective punishment/genocide/whatever, which is practically the definition of racism (in common coinage).

Even the babies in the womb? Even the toddlers?

My point was if He was worried about righteousness, He could've identified the unrighteous. Instead He chose to identify races for punishment. That's clearly racist, no?

ALL are unrighteous! Even the Hebrews thus all would get killed! God knows what He is doing. Plus, lets assume the Hebrews weren’t in blatant sin at that time (which doesn’t negate their unrighteousness) then you still need to identify those who are to be judged. The fact is, God didn’t need to judge all humans…who are ALL unrighteous, just some for a specific reason that had nothing to do w/ race. You are simply assuming it does.

You're dodging, but fine, I'll rephrase: really, what's the difference between saying "Indians must all be punished" and "Indians must all be punished, not because they're Indians, but because they're criminals"? Sure, there's a difference, but who'd argue one as racism and not the other?

The latter is for a reason other than race because they did an action. Now w/ God…if the Hebrews did that same thing as these other nations judgment befell THEM…and way more harsher as well since they knew better. God was equal and judged everyone, even the Hebrews. Now if he just let the Hebrews go and do whatever and never punish them...then that's partiality and racism.

God singles out races for collective treatment, for good (usually just his chosen race) or ill (usually non-chosen races), but that isn't racism? I'll need to have that one explained to me.

No it’s not and it’s already been explained.

I can certainly say that, based on the OT, God did not turn the other cheek to His enemies (you might try to say He had no enemies, but above you equate the enemies of Israel with the enemies of God), He smote them and sent plagues against them and so on and so forth. Are there any instances of God turning the other cheek when non-Hebrews angered him? If there are, I bet they're vastly outnumbered by the number of times He smote them (directly or indirectly).

Yes there are and He allowed other nations and etc to come to them, and allowed all kinds of stuff to come upon them and even several times many were sent off to other countries w/ nothing but a remnant left. As I said…God is equal.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd like to hear from Christians about the scriptural basis (bases?) of their "anti-racism." As long as it's scripture, more is better. Thanks in advance.

Oh, and hello to all.

Hello back

[bible]Galatians 3:28[/bible]

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Christianity certainly is all about acceptance but the Bible in general, from a distinctly modern and "politically correct" kind of look the Bible has a good deal of racism in it. God does, after all, have a chosen people.

 

[AV1611VET]

God does, after all, have a chosen people.

God indeed has a "chosen people", but he chose them for a reason, and that was in order to bless all the people of the earth through them.

Note why He specifically chose them:

[bible]Genesis 22:18[/bible]

[bible]Deuteronomy 7:7[/bible]