Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Absolute truth

Racism & Christianity !

Recommended Posts

By Omar Dunlap

 

Racism in the Holy Book ?

We can trace arguably some of the first racist theologies to the Bible itself. But, before tackling this issue, let me ask our Christian brethren, if I were to proclaim the white race as the holy race, is this racism? Would this be denounced as anti-Christian based on its ridiculous prejudice and racism? Would you bring a book into your house that was titled:

"THE WHITE RACE IS THE HOLY RACE " and leave such a book on your coffee table for all to read?

Racism is defined as The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Now, if one race considers itself alone as holy, would this not be racism, by DEFINITION? The answer is, of course, YES, it is racism.

As it turns out, the Israelite writers of the Old Testament have referred to themselves as the HOLY RACE:

  • “They (the Jews) have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.” (Ezra 9:2 NIV version)

We have read 2 important things in this passage:

1. That the Bible discriminates racially, and that

2. Mingling the “Holy Race” with other peoples is forbidden (i.e., interracial marriage)

My friends, this is where it all starts. The racism of the Jewish authors of the Old Testament. We begin to see why Terrorist Christians have developed the theology against interracial marriage and why racism is integrated into their faith.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

The Bible and the Racism ascribed to Jesus ?

These inherently racist beliefs of the Jews easily leaked into Jesus’ doctrines according to the Bible. But again, before I begin, let me ask our Christian brethren a question. If I called a helpless woman a dog because she was not of my race….is this racism? Recall the definition of racism as defined earlier. Of course, such an action is considered racism. And unfortunately, if we read what the Bible says of Jesus’ teachings, we see that he had such an attitude:

"A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, 'Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon- possession.’ Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, 'Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.' He [Jesus] answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.' The woman came and knelt before him. 'Lord, help me!' she said. He [Jesus] replied 'It is not right to take the children's [Jews] bread [blessings and miracles reserved for them] and toss it to the dogs.' 'Yes, Lord' she said, 'but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus answered, 'Woman, you have great faith!

Your request is granted.' And her daughter was healed from that very hour.”

(From the NIV Bible, Matthew 15:22-28)

Here we see some disturbing aspects of Jesus’ teachings (If we go on the Bible, that is.)

A non-Jew woman came up and pleaded with Jesus, the verse says she came “crying out” -She was PLEADING PLEADING PLEADING with Jesus (SAAS). Jesus’ response: Well, the Bible says, as you read: Jesus did not answer a word. He didn’t even acknowledge her. The disciples wonder why, and Jesus (SAAS) responds to them, “I was sent only to the lost sheep OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.” In other words, He only cares about the HOLY RACE. Not these other lesser races.

But still the woman pleads and pleads, “Lord help me!” She is still crying out. But still, Jesus turns an icy shoulder. “It is not right to take the children’s bread and TOSS IT TO THE DOGS.” He calls the woman a dog. But why? Well, Jesus (SAAS) told you why. He was only sent to the House of Israel. The House of Israel = the HOLY RACE.

The House of any other race = DOGS.

The woman is thus convinced that she is not equal to the Jews. She is beaten and admits that this doctrine is correct. She calls herself a dog, and admits that all she wants is some little crumbs: 'Yes, Lord' she said, 'but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table. –What is she saying here? “Yes, you are right, I am a dog.” This is what she is saying, “I am not a member of the Holy Race, but can I have some table scraps anyways?” You see, she has humiliated herself by believing in a racist doctrine. And out of pity, after having humiliated the woman in front of his disciples, Jesus finally heals her daughter. –Of course the reward only comes after she is humiliated and admits that she is a dog only worthy of crumbs from the table of the HOLY RACE.

Is this the Jesus (SAAS) you know and love? This is certainly not the Jesus (SAAS) I know and love. What does the Qu’ran say of Jesus? Let us read a quote from Jesus (SAAS) found in the Qu’ran:

"I am indeed a servant of God. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He hath made me) kind to my mother, and not overbearing or unblest; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!" (Quran 19:30-33).

Here we see that according to the Qur’an, Jesus is not overbearing in his message. Jesus is seen as blessed, and as having come with a message of peace. But is racism a message of peace? Is calling a member of another race a dog a message of peace? It seems that the true peace-loving Jesus as propagated by the Christians can only be found in its true form in the Qur’an.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jews and Gentiles Together At Last

After the Jewish racism of the Old Testament, and the Jewish racism of Jesus in the Gospels, the letters of the New Testament begin to take on a different tone. No more calling non-Jews dogs, and no more referring to the Jews as the Holy race. Paul, a Jew who converted to Christianity, tries to open up his religion to the Romans, that is, the gentiles. In order for his attempt to be successful, he must replace these old racist doctrines and open it up for the Romans. And we see in many areas of Paul’s writings,

that he has done exactly that:

“And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles…” (Galatians 2:2 NKJV)

We see that he is trying to open up Christianity to the Gentiles, which if we go by the Bible, is impossible. Furthering this point, Owen Chadwick, an award winning historian, writes:

“This is what Christians did. They were Jews who turned Judaism from a faith for the few to a faith for all…” (Chadwick 14)

 

You see, what Paul and his followers are doing are changing things. Adding in new ideas. They are changing the doctrines of Jesus (SAAS) and the Prophets before him. Covering that old racism up so that Jews and Gentiles, that is, whites, can now be arm in arm. But this is not to say that Paul is devoid of Racism. No, Paul makes it perfectly clear what his views on races other than whites and Jews are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul’s Racism

We have seen that Paul wanted to open up what was clearly racist doctrines to apply to whites as well as Jews. But I implore the reader to not be misled, Paul was by no means free from racism. We read in Paul’s letter to Titus, the following:

“A prophet from their own people said of them "Cretans are always liars, wicked brutes, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true.” (Titus 1:12-14)

Here is an instance where Paul quotes someone who has said that “Cretans are always liars.”

This is a negative generalization of an entire group of people, (the Cretans, a race from the island of Crete.)

And Paul says that “this testimony is true.”

Paul agrees with this assertion, that indeed it is true that EVERY SINGLE CRETAN IS A LIAR, and Paul also teaches that it is ok to over-generalize an entire group of people.

To stereotype them. Paul also claims that people should imitate him: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ,” (I Corinthians 11:1)

We now begin to see where some of the racist Christian sects are getting their doctrines. It is a simple case of racist teachings producing racist people. Paul does not forego the previous belief that the Jews are a Holy Race, but instead includes White people, the Roman Gentiles, in this ‘everlasting covenant.’

But what does he say of non-Jews and non-whites? He says they are “always liars, wicked brutes, lazy gluttons…”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genocide against the Unholy Races ?

We now see where much of the racism of the 350,000 Christian terrorists in America comes from. The Bible. But what of their belief that it is ok to enact violence and terrorism, what of their belief in the use of weapons of mass destruction? Biblical? The answer, unfortunately, is YES. In the Old Testament we see the Jewish army, firm in their belief of being the Holy Race, marching from town to town, killing man, woman, and child:

Murder and Rape of the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead:

"So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan." (Judges 21:10-11)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rules of War: Non-Jews have 2 options, become SLAVES OR DIE:

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.

But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. (Duet 10-15)

More Genocide:

You must completely destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the LORD your God has commanded you.

(Duet. 15-18)

More Genocide:

During this period, Joshua destroyed all the descendants of Anak, who lived in the hill country of Hebron, Debir, Anab, and the entire hill country of Judah and Israel. He killed them all and completely destroyed their towns. Not one was left in all the land of Israel, though some still remained in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. So Joshua took control of the entire land, just as the LORD had instructed Moses. He gave it to the people of Israel as their special possession, dividing the land among the tribes. So the land finally had rest from war. (Joshua 11:21-23)

 

It now becomes clear that the terrorists from among the Christians have no problem with wiping out entire races, man, woman, and child with all the weapons of mass destruction stockpiled as their possessions, and that this belief they derive from the Bible alone. No outside sources, no brainwashing, just old fashion biblical adherence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slavery of the Unholy Races

It is no doubt that when slavery was enacted in America, Christians used the Bible to justify this practice. In the 1800’s thousands of Africans were put into bondage, and worked for white Christians for no pay. The Christians, in defense of their belief of the ‘divine institution of slavery’ cited several passages from the Bible. This is impossible to ignore, indeed, it is a historical fact. In 1852 Jossiah Priest published a book called "Bible defence of slavery". The worldbook reference book, under the title “slavery” states:

During the early 1800's, abolitionists started a crusade to end slavery. Southerners then began to defend slavery in what became known as the proslavery movement. Some Southerners in the movement argued that slavery reflected "the law of nature" that permitted the strong to rule the weak. Others insisted that the Bible supported slavery.

Of course, at this time in America, slavery was a racial issue. The black slaves were forced into extremely harsh conditions, and this practice was defended, at the time, by the white Christian majority. Their defense was the Bible. But what does the Bible really say about racial slavery? Allowed or not? Let’s take a look:

The UNHOLY RACES (non-Jews) can be slaves, but NOT the HOLY RACE:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-

46)

Furthermore, the practice of whipping slaves is condoned by the Bible as well: When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

In this law we see that beating a slave is ok unless the slave dies immediately, but if the death is not immediate, there is no harm done. The shocking treatment of African Slaves in the U.S. was clearly condoned by these passages.

Jesus (SAAS) also clearly approves of the beating of slaves in the New Testament:

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Now after reviewing all of this material on the Christian terrorists/racists that exist, let us examine some other quotes we have mentioned in this document:

“A relatively new tenet gaining popularity among some radical Christian Identity believers justifies the use of violence if it is perpetrated in order to punish violators of God's law, as found in the Bible and interpreted by Christian Identity ministers and adherents. This includes killing interracial couples, abortionists, prostitutes, and homosexuals.”

Does the above sound like a far-fetched group of psychos, or a terrorist group based on strict interpretation of the Bible?

Racist theology has today found itself powerful and influential voices. Of these, most prominent would be David Duke, former Ku Klux Klan leader, who was elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives. Duke proclaims that he has always been a believing Christian and that an integral part of his Christianity has been a theology of racial segregation. We read in his own work that in the name of race preservation, God has commanded genocide, segregation and anti-miscegenation, and today forbids racial intermarriage and the crossing of racial boundaries.

Is this at all shocking coming from a proclaimed ‘Christian nation’ given what we have learned in this document? We see that the Bible promotes racism against all non-Jews and non-whites. It is crystal clear. We see that the Bible promotes genocide against foreign nations, and racial slavery, (including the whipping and beating of slaves.) Even the New Testament condones slavery (as seen in Ephesians 6:5 and 1 Timothy 6:1-2) We see that if what the Bible says about Jesus (saas) is true, then he considered anyone not of his race DOGS and the apostle Paul considered the non-Jew and the non-white a liar, wicked brute, and lazy glutton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Church also supported the slave trade. The Spaniards saw in it an opportunity of converting the heathen, and the Jesuits, Dominicans and Franciscans were heavily involved in sugar cultivation which meant slave-holding. The story is told of an old elder of the Church in Newport who would invariably, the Sunday following the arrival of a slaver from the coast, thank God “that another cargo of benighted beings had been brought to a land where they could have the benefit of a gospel dispensation.” – [R. Terry, Some Old Papers relating to the Newport Slave Trade (Bulletin of the Newport Historical Society, July, 1927), 10.]

In fact, Christianity and the Negro slave trade had become so synonymous that famous British authors and writers were documenting their close cohesion within their societal framework:

In 1750 Horace Walpole wrote scornfully of “the British Senate, that temple of liberty and the bulwark of Protestant Christianity,….pondering methods to make more effectual that horrid traffic of selling negroes. – [P. Cunningham (ed.), The Letters of Horace Walpole (London, 1891, II, 197. To Sir H. Mann, Feb. 25, 1750.)]

 

……..another Liverpool slave trader, Foster Cunliffe, contributed largely. He was a pioneer in the slave trade. he and his two sons are listed as members of the Liverpool Committee of Merchants trading to Africa in 1752. Together they had four ships capable of holding 1,120 slaves, the profits from which were sufficient to stock twelve vessels on the homeward journey with sugar and rum. An inscription to Foster Cunliffe in St. Peter’s Church describes him this: “a Christian devout and exemplary in the exercise of every private and publick duty, friend to mercy, patron to distress, an enemy only to vice and sloth, he lived esteemed by all who knew him….and died lamented by the wise and good….” – [For Cunliffe, see Bourne, op. cit., II, 57, Botsford, op. cit., 122; Enfield, op. cit.,43, 49; Donnan, op. cit., II, 492, 497.]
 

Not only was this man praised by the Church for having the capability from one voyage to transfer 1, 120 slaves, he was praised for his service and deemed a friend to mercy, such to the extent this was inscribed on a Church! Unless Mr. Edwards has somehow developed amnesia, there is no excuse for his blatant disregard and misrepresentation of his faith when it’s this deeply related to slavery.

https://callingchristians.com/tag/can-a-disciple-of-christ-be-racist/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bible is atleast in it’s complete form 700 years before the advent of African slavery, however Christians by and large (as demonstrated above) did in fact, use Bereishit (Genesis) 9:21-24 as a means of promoting slavery and distilling the gospel among the negro peoples:

The bells of the Bristol churches pealed merrily on the news of the rejection by Parliament of Wilberforce’s bill for the abolition of the slave trade. The slave trader, John Newton, gave thanks in the Liverpool churches for the success of his last venture before his conversion and implored God’s blessing on his next. He established public worship twice every day on his slaver, officiating himself, and kept a day of fasting and prayer, not for the slaves but for the crew. “I never knew,” he confessed, “sweeter or more frequent hours of divine communion than in the last two voyages to Guinea.” – [Larimer, op. cit., 100. & S. H. Swinny, The Humanitarianism of the Eighteenth Century.]

Many missionaries found it profitable to drive out Beelzebub by Beelzebub. According to the most recent English writer on the slave trade, they “considered that the best way in which to remedy abuse of negro slaves was to set the plantation owners a good example by keeping slaves and estates themselves, accomplishing in this practical manner the salvation of the planters and the advancement of their foundations.” The Moravian missionaries in the islands held slaves without hesitation; the Baptists, one historian writes with charming delicacy, would not allow their earlier missionaries to deprecate ownership of slaves.74 To the very end the Bishop of Exeter retained his 655 slaves, for whom he received over 12,700 compensation in 1833. Church historians make awkward apologies, that conscience awoke very slowly to the appreciation of the wrongs inflicted by slavery and that the defence of slavery by churchmen “simply arose from want of delicacy of moral perception.” – [ Mackenzie-Grieve, op. cit., 162., G. R. Wynne, The Church in Greater Britain (London, 1911), 120., H. of C. Sess. Pap., 1837-8, Vol. 48. The exact figure was 12,729.4.4 (pp. 19, 22)., Wynne, op. cit., 120; C. J. Abbey and J. H. Overton, The English Church in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1878), II, 107. and its results, in F. S. Marvin (ed.), Western Races and the World (Oxford, 1922), 130-131.]

The very first person to propose enslaving Africans was a Christian. Christian priest, Bartholomew de la Casas, whom himself had slaves, proposed the use of Africans to ease the suffering of the slavery of the Amerindians.

Roughly 1200 years before any of these figures existed, Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded the freeing of slaves through the revelation of the Qur’aan:

Indeed We have created man (to live) in hard struggle. Does he think that no one has power over him? He says, “I have spent a lot of wealth.” Does he think that no one has seen him? Did We not make for him two eyes, And one tongue and two lips, And showed him the two ways? Yet he did not make his way through the steep course, And what may let you know what the steep course is? It is freeing the neck of a slave.

In fact the Qur’aan clearly details removing slavery:

…..And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess – then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.

It was even the Muslims who compelled the British to remove slavery from being legal, they even did so themselves, leading by example in Morocco:

Moorish envoy to England, in 1813, from Mulai Sulaiman, Emperor of Morocco (1794-1822), in whose reign Christian slavery was abolished in Morocco. His son Meïr Cohen Machim visited England in the same capacity in 1827.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×