The Bible Speaks on Racial Reconciliation
- Apr 11, 2007 - 39
“From one man He has made every nation of men to live all over the earth. . . . ”
Acts 17:26
The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary defines racial tension as “unrest and division among people caused by differing racial origins” and reconciliation as “‘change’ or ‘exchange’. The idea is of a change of relationship, an exchange of antagonism for goodwill, enmity for friendship. Attitudes are transformed and hostility ceases.”
Reconciling two parties that are estranged or in dispute is an absolutely biblical idea. While Scripture is replete with accounts of reconciliation, the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ the Son that reconciles believers to God the Father is the ultimate example.
The Christian standard must be one that reflects the biblical standard. “What Would Jesus Do” (WWJD) is a somewhat overused but valuable slogan in Christian circles. As believers examine through Spirit-filled eyes the nature and patterns of Jesus’ actions and attitudes, we are compelled to acknowledge that His way was always the way of love, respect, affirmation, and ultimately reconciliation. In fact, Jesus would not accept the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of those who excluded, ignored, abused, or misused people simply because of race, class, or economic distinctions. Beggars and wealthy, Jew and Gentile, learned and unlearned, male and female, old and young, physically healthy and terminally ill, strong and weak, average citizen and royalty, publican (tax collector) and priest, Pharisee and Sadducee, fisherman and thief, leper and demon possessed, adulterer and widower, Samaritan and Corinthian, murderer and jailer—none was ignored, marginalized, overlooked, or considered not worthy for salvation in Jesus’ practice and the subsequent teaching of His disciples.
We must acknowledge that several of Jesus’ disciples had difficulties accepting and affirming those unlike themselves, but the Jesus way, the Christian way, demands a more excellent way. What is required is more than tolerance. Civilized people have been conditioned to tolerate almost anything. For several decades we have been bombarded with a secular philosophy of “let alone to get along.” For public order we are taught to accept others’ differences. The secular world has its own brand of tolerance for practically anything and everything, including sinfulness. This approach to life has resulted in a kind of tolerance for anything and everything much of which is detrimental to our people and surely at odds with the revealed word of God.
The Christian mandate is a much higher calling. We are not called to ignore that there are obvious differences among the Lord’s creation. In God, we are all of one blood. We all have the same parents, Adam and Eve. I have had individuals say to me with sincere intentions, “I don’t see any colors; all of us are the same”. Although I appreciate the spirit of the statement, I strongly disagree with it. When I see someone of another race, a part of what I observe is his or her racial distinction. To see the glorious handiwork of an awesome God is something about which we should marvel and offer praise. To affirm and understand that the Lord made no mistakes in creating the races is also to acknowledge that no one race is superior to another. The higher calling for the Christian is not to tolerate others from different races but to affirm the worth of all God’s creation.
Being truly in Christ means laying aside culturally learned and sinful biases and prejudices. The Apostle Paul was correct in writing to the Corinthian believers regarding controversy surrounding distinctions in the God-given spiritual gifts. Paul declared under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that there is a more excellent way, which also is the key to racial reconciliation issues. The key is only effective, however, when one has had a genuine conversion experience.
The Bible indicates that during Jesus’ earthly ministry many were very religious but showed no evidence of transformation of the heart. The Old Testament contains many accounts of religious people who were devoted to their beliefs but were not in tune with the ways and heart of Jehovah. We in our time recognize many who have been baptized in water, who have united with a local body of believers, who give financially to support the ministry, who actually serve their church in some capacity, but still hold onto prejudices and biases not in line with God’s Word. Only God, however, can judge who is authentically adopted into His family.
In First Corthinthians 13, Paul vividly describes the more excellent way:
“If I speak the languages of men and of angels, but do not have love, I am a sounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so that I can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I donate all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient; love is kind. Love does not envy; is not boastful; is not conceited; does not act improperly; is not selfish; is not provoked; does not keep a record of wrongs; finds no joy in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for languages, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when the perfect comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put aside childish things. For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known. Now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.”
When asked by some Pharisees which commandment in the Law is the greatest, Jesus responded, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” He went on to say the second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself ” (Matt. 22:37-39).
These simple principles—loving God and loving your neighbor—are still the keys to authentic racial reconciliation.
T. Vaughn Walker is Professor of Christian Ministries and Professor of Black Church Studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He also serves as pastor of First Gethsemane Baptist Church in Louisville.
Faith & Family Impact: Racial Reconciliation is a dynamic resource designed to provide biblically grounded information and insight on the issue of racial reconciliation. Each 4-page publication, sized for easy placement in most church bulletins, can be used as a stand-alone informational handout and includes specific prayer points, action steps and the plan of salvation. Sold in sets of 100 for $12 (price includes S & H). (For more than 5 sets, please call 1-800-475-9127 for a special discount.) Other resources on racial reconciliation are available at http://erlc.com/products/race.
Further Learning
Learn more about:
39 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Apr 11th, 2007, at 3:10pm, steve wrote:
Why is there a need for this article to be published on this site?
Surely the author doesn’t believe that the Southern Baptists who for so long used the bible to support their racist views on slavery and integration still need alternative bible passages to convince them the secular view on this issue is the correct one.
Remember, the bible on the whole supports racism. The Israelites being regarded as God’s chosen people is the ultimate racist sentiment. And mosaic law is riddled with racist intent. Even the Christian cornerstone, the 10 Commandments, promotes racism - why is it only thy neighbour’s wife that thou should not covet?
I am an atheist and I abhor racism. I also recognize that many Christians also abhor racism. I just find it a little disturbing that some Christians feel the need to have their abhorrence affirmed through reference to a book of fables written by ignorant men in unsophisticated days.
2 On Apr 12th, 2007, at 3:42pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Steve said,
I’ve seen you make this statement multiple times on ERLC.com posts.
On what do you base these claims?
You’ve made 3… the Bible is…
1 - a book of fables
2 - written by ignorant men
3 - in unsophisticated days
I have reasons why I believe the Bible (I may post here soon), but what do you base your claims on?
(FULL DISCLOSURE: Matt is on Staff at ERLC.)
3 On Apr 14th, 2007, at 2:59pm, steve wrote:
Matt, thanks for the question.
I say the bible is a book of fables because there is no scientific or historical evidence to support the key stories. All attempts by Christian apologists to prove things such as the creation story, the flood, and even the existence of Christ himself have failed. Even the bible itself tells you it’s not to be believed…
When did the planes crash in to the twin towers? I bet you know the answer. So its fair to suggest that if you’d witnessed Christ ascending into heaven you’d also be pretty clear on the time and date. So Matt, when did Christ ascend into heaven?
Was it on the day of his resurrection as per Luke 24 1:51 and Mark 16: 9-19? Or was it at least 8 days later as per John 20:26? Many days later (Acts 13:31) or 40 days later (Acts 1: 2-3,9)?
Surely if a book were ‘inerrant’ it would at least be consistent on a matter as significant as the ascension. What do you say Matt?
4 On Apr 14th, 2007, at 4:16pm, steve wrote:
Matt, when I say the bible was written in unsophisticated days I’m referring to the ethics that were in place at the time. I’m hoping that even you don’t believe that executing people for being homosexual, adulterous or a naughty child is regarded as ethical today but it certainly was to the biblical authors.
The ethics driving the authors of the bible were far less sophisticated than those we use today - as such the bible has no place in today’s decision making process.
5 On Apr 15th, 2007, at 12:36am, eric wrote:
“Reconciling two parties that are estranged or in dispute is an absolutely biblical idea.”
El-wrongo! [again] Native American cultures used extensive structures of negotiation, reconciliation, and consensus-building long before they were ‘liberated from their heathen ways’ at musket-point, by the selfless fur-trader / missionaries. :~( Is there nothing that the Christian faith [and its merry band of theives, opportunists and rascals] will not attempt to steal?
“To affirm and understand that the Lord made no mistakes in creating the races is also to acknowledge that no one race is superior to another.”
“Being truly in Christ means laying aside culturally learned and sinful biases and prejudices.”
Too bad you can’t face the same reality when it comes to homosexuals. Statistically, at least ONE of the disciples was gay. I guess God only errs big-time when there is a political advantage to be had, and social status to be earned by creating dissention and hatred.
6 On Apr 15th, 2007, at 1:11am, eric wrote:
Matt: Steve certainly needs no help from me, but I’m going to have a go, if I may.
He claims that the Bible is: [definitions from OCD, 1964, unless noted.]
1. a book of fables
fable, n. story, esp of supernatural character, not founded on fact, (collect.) myths, legendary tales, idle talk, false statement, lie, thing only supposed to exist, short story, esp with animals for characters, conveying a moral, apologue, plot of a play, etc.
Just what part of this do you wish to tackle, Matt? If the Bible were not supernatural, it would be just another Harry Potter book. If you could produce empirical evidence if the legends, you wouldn’t need ‘faith’ to believe. Of course these are legends; many primitive societies have similar tales. Are you claiming that the stories do NOT convey a moral? I thought that unprovability was a requirement for faith, not a complete collapse of reason.
more 2 come
7 On Apr 15th, 2007, at 1:35am, eric wrote:
part 2
2. written by ignorant men
3. in unsophisticated days
This may surprise those who presume that community colleges have always been with us, but there was a time when the human intellect went untested, untrained and, for the most part, unused. I’m presuming that Steve used ‘ignorant’ in the sense of ‘unschooled’, or ‘untrained’. To such a mind, God and His minions were everywhere; A bolt of lightning? No mere static discharge that, but the voice of the almighty! A closer strike? God clearly chastising the mortal. [not unlike the statements of some that God smote New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina]
8 On Apr 15th, 2007, at 1:45am, eric wrote:
part 3
A volcanic eruption? Chuck a couple of virgins into the caldera to appease the Gods; vulcanology and plate tectonics are years away. Vernal equinox, a time for planting, and appeasing the multiple deities involved in crop production; rain, wind, sun, etc. [stolen by early Chriatians, for their ‘Easter’ celebrations] Autumnal equinox; harvest and rejoicing. The solstices, summer and winter involved great festivities, and many deities, depending upon the civilization in question. The degree of accuracy in some of the ancient sites’ orientation to sun and stars indicates that these ‘ignorant men’ were well versed in observing natural phenomena; they had to be, to survive. [the Mayan solar models are still accurate today]
Am I going to live my life based on the writings of unknown ancients? Not likely. Will I allow others to force me to live by these precepts? Also not likely.
9 On Apr 16th, 2007, at 11:03am, steve wrote:
I say that the authors of the bible were ignorant because they hade no idea as to the scientific principals that we take for granted today (you’d really think that God would have given them some insight as to how the world works if he wanted his book to be ‘inerrant’). Some examples:
Snakes eat dust - Gen 3:14
Hares chew the cud - Lev 11:5-6
Bats are actually birds - Lev 11:13,19
Dragons existed - Deut 32:33
Unicorns existed - Deut 33:17
Astrology is true - Judges 5:20
The sun goes around the earth - Judges 5:31
Stars are just little lights that can fall to the ground - Rev 6:13
The world is flat - Luke 4:5
Epilepsy is caused by devils - Luke 9:39
The moon produces its own light - Ezekiel 32:7
Satyrs existed - Isaiah 34:13-14
The value of pi is 3 - 2Chronicles 4:2
For a more detailed list of examples refer to skepticsannotatedbible.com
10 On Apr 16th, 2007, at 2:29pm, Keith B. wrote:
Eric, the 5th post, along with the others, is inaccurate. I mean really, just because you found an example of “negotiation” in a context that is not biblical, does not mean that the idea is not biblical.
Was it not you, Eric, who said, “some (ideas) are ‘universal truths’ of ALL faiths and societies”? If some things are universally true, then aren’t those things going to be found universally?..like the concept of justice, which is that which negotiation strives for? Since you, as a non-Christian, believe in universal truth, does it follow, according to your logic, that the Bible and Christians stole your idea—that it is not a biblical idea because someone who does not believe in the Bible believes it?
11 On Apr 17th, 2007, at 10:09am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Hahaha… wow, I guess I hit a nerve. Granted, I asked for it. :-)
Now this gives us something to work with, so thank you for answering my question. I’m confident there is a response for each of those claims.
I plan to respond to these claims as I have time. However, I have one request of you (Steve and Eric). That is, I ask you to refrain from continuing to call people of faith ‘deluded’ (or otherwise) during all future posts to this site. Attack the argument, not the person.
We don’t mock you for your unbelief, so please don’t mock us for our belief.
More to come.
(Matt is on staff at ERLC.)
12 On Apr 17th, 2007, at 3:21pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
A great resource for anyone who has honest questions regarding the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of Christian belief is Lee Strobel’s site. Specifically his section titled Investigating the Bible.
Lee Strobel is a former atheist, Yale Law grad and journalist (Chicago Tribune) who decided to investigate the Bible as a journalist.
Lots of video at the above link.
More to come…
13 On Apr 17th, 2007, at 4:01pm, steve wrote:
Matt, ‘a delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception’ (Wikipedia).
When I use the term delusion, deluded or delusory etc I am not mocking you. I’ve told you that I am an atheist and, as such, I don’t believe in your belief of God. By definition this means I believe your belief to be delusional - particularly in light of the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support your belief.
You’ve said this site welcomes opposing viewpoints because open discussion will lead to the truth. Well the truth at the moment is that you believe in God and I don’t. I think the best word to describe the gap in this dichotomy is ‘delusion’. I have no objection at all if you call my lack of belief a delusion - why are you so sensitive?
14 On Apr 18th, 2007, at 7:41pm, eric wrote:
Matt, you wrote, “I have one request of you (Steve and Eric). That is, I ask you to refrain from CONTINUING to call people of faith ‘deluded’ (or otherwise) during all future posts to this site. Attack the argument, not the person.” [caps mine]
I have not used the term ‘deluded’, to my recollection. Thus, I cannot agree to discontinue its use. If you can cite my use of this, you are justified in your request, and I will be happy to comply. If not, an apology in in order. [unless, of course, you, like Dr. Land, George Bush and the Pope, are infallible]
15 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 10:20am, Keith B. wrote:
Steve, don’t trip as you stumble backward.
Certainly, calling someone deluded is an arrogant affront. You are making a judgment regarding another’s intellectual capacity—you are calling someone ‘stupid’. What you have implied is that if we only had the exalted view from which you perceive reality, all of this, God and what not, would become obvious to us—we would immediately be as wise as you.
Steve, if I were to ascribe a negative adjective to you for your belief that 2+2=5, what would I be mocking, the ‘idea’ that 2+2=5, or you for believing that 2+2=5? Obviously, with something as self evident as this we would mock anyone who is of a sound and mature mind for believing something so clearly wrong.
You are mocking Christians for being so stupid (deluded) that they cannot see what is obviously self-evident…that God does not exist. I don’t care if you think we are stupid, Steve, just don’t try and pretend otherwise…and don’t make it so obvious.
16 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 11:55am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
I like how Voddie Baucham states his belief...
This comes from a man who didn’t hear anything about the Bible or Jesus until he was a freshman in college. He grew up in South Central Los Angeles. His (single) mother was a practicing Buddhist. He didn’t grow up with any knowledge of the Bible.
Yet, as an adult (and Rice U. grad), he chose, based on the evidence and reason, to believe the Bible.
Listen to Voddie ‘unpack’ his above claim on our radio broadcast.
(Matt is on staff at the ERLC.)
17 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 4:21pm, steve wrote:
Keith, you really don’t like me do you. If I were to think that you holding on to a belief was stupid then I would say it was stupid. There are clear psychological reasons why Christians hold on to their beliefs that, given that these beliefs are not valid, means that delusion is the word to use - not stupid.
You said “You are making a judgment regarding another’s intellectual capacity”. That’s not true but I am making a judgement about someone’s ability to use their intellectual capacity in a meaningful way. It truly saddens me when I see people with incredibly high intellects wasting it on promoting religion. It’s a real waste of human resources.
18 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 3:23pm, steve wrote:
Matt, I listened to the Voddie broadcast and I can see why you’re impressed. He is indeed a talented speaker but he doesn’t add anything new to the argument. The fact he was raised a Buddhist is irrelevant - people convert to and from Christianity everyday. The point is he continues on with the circular argument that the bible says its true so it must be because the bible says so. Just because someone can make their view known forcefully doesn’t mean their view is right.
Talking about viewpoints there are plenty of loose ends on this thread that you said you’d reply to. Doesn’t worry me if you don’t but I’d hate you to simply forget.
19 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 10:15pm, eric wrote:
Steve: You have asked some excellent questions, most of which have, indeed gone unanswered. I too, have had seminal questions ignored. A coincidence or a trait of those unable to answer?
On one thread, Dr. Land himself [or someone using his name] weighed in on some item of interest. I adressed a question directly to him, and received no answer. Perhaps the ‘cut and run’ response bleeds down from the top…
20 On Apr 23rd, 2007, at 8:43am, Keith B. wrote:
Steve, you indicated that a deluded person is one who holds “a fixed false belief”. However, it is not demonstrable that God’s existence is indeed false, if it were, then anyone believing in God would be justifiably considered deluded, just as he who believes 2+2=5.
Your most fundamental assumption is what I dislike most. As if ‘thinking it through’ one would arrive at the revelation that God does not exist. Many of the great thinkers of Western Culture, Aristotle, Plato, Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, Kant, etc. must have been deluded; for they demonstrated proofs for the existence of God or Supreme Being.
You believe that Christians hold a fixed false belief, but it is far from a fixed false belief—the one who believes 2+2=5 has a fixed false belief.
21 On Apr 23rd, 2007, at 9:46am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Steve from post 19
Thanks for the reminder, but I haven’t forgotten. I do intend to respond, but as we’re a small staff I must pick and choose what threads I post to (and when I post). I do have other responsibilities around here. :-)
I will respond.
Matt
P.S. Me thinks Eric spends more time posting comments on our articles than ERLC staff spends posting the initial article… not that there’s anything wrong with that. :-)
22 On Apr 23rd, 2007, at 2:23pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
I’ll start at the top…
Steve (post 1) said,
I suspect a lot of that was rhetorical, but I’ll respond anyway.
First: it’s part of our job at the ERLC (as commissioned by the SBC) to speak to moral concerns. As Christians, we see racism as a moral issue.
Second: your criticism of Southern Baptists’ views as ‘supporting racism’ requires a selective acknowledgement of SBC history… like ignoring the past 30 years.
To quote a 1995 resolution,
By the way, Dr. Land and the ERLC were instrumental in that resolution coming about.Your criticism is typical of one will criticize a people (SBC in this case) for being on the wrong side of an issue (in this case racism, segregration), but when those people correct their position (as the SBC has over the past 30+ years), you won’t commend them for correcting themselves, rather you either impune impure motives to their actions or ignore their actions entirely. Forgive me if I see this type of criticism as rather unfair and disingenuous.
Third: Most people in America agree that racism is still an issue here in the US. (Need I cite the shameful case of radio host Don Imus over the past few weeks?) Since we believe racism is a current and moral issue, this gives us reason to post articles on the subject.
It might also be of interest to note that over the past 30 years the membership of the SBC has grown from a virtually all-white group to a membership that is now (approx) 20% ethnic minorities.
(more to come...)
23 On Apr 23rd, 2007, at 4:18pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Still on post 1:
Sure, perhaps now many secularists agree with people of faith on this, but please explain to me when (and who), from a secularist point of view, led reform on this issue. For that matter, how do you define ‘correct’ or ‘truth’ from a secular point of view? You’ve made a truth claim. How do you know it’s true?
more to come…
24 On Apr 23rd, 2007, at 4:57pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Also from post 1 (Steve),
That’s absurd.
Look, if your goal is to argue with a (protestant) Christian about the Bible “on the whole” (your words), than you must actually consider the whole Bible which includes the New Testament verses referenced in the article above. The Old Testament is part of the Bible, but it’s not all of it. Though I’m also quick to add that your OT criticism is largely out of context (post 9). (more on that later)
It’s precisely when people (believers included) over-emphasize one part of the Bible, to the exclusion of other parts, that things go awry.
Steve, I know you don’t believe the Bible, but I expect someone with your admiration of intellect to treat the Bible at the very least as you would any other literature. That includes…
1) understanding context of each book (of the Bible),
2) understanding it’s relationship to other books (in the Bible) and
3) granting that, while some portions may seem to conflict, it is possible that they may indeed be complementary, not necessarily contradictory.
(more to come...)
25 On Apr 23rd, 2007, at 6:01pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Yes, still on post 1 (Steve),
Sheer and utter nonsense.
1) I presume, then, that you’ll explain to all the readers of this post why the Jewish people (aka Israelites) have been one of the people groups most plagued by racism, genocide and discrimination over the course of their history?
2) Again, I suggest stuying more of the Bible “on the whole.” Example, Galatians 3:28-29:
FYI: the author, Paul, was a Jew (read: Israelite).
3) I’d be fascinated to hear the reaction your above statement would receive from the wide range of non-white pastors, both here in the US and across the world.
Martin Luther King Jr. clearly didn’t think the Bible to be racist. But perhaps you think of MLKJ as ‘deluded’, as you call it. (your post 13, among others)
I’m sure contemporary (and non-white) pastors such as Ken Hutcherson, Samuel Rodriguez, and Bishop Harry Jackson would be enlightened to know that you, Steve, have stumbled across “the truth” that the Bible is racist. Surely they’ve missed this “revelation” during the entirety of years of their own personal, seminary, and professional study. But perhaps you can free them from their ‘delusions’, as you put it. (post 13)
(more to come, but this concludes my reply to post # 1...)
P.S. Next up: my reply to post # 9, but not likely today.
26 On Apr 23rd, 2007, at 6:47pm, eric wrote:
Re post 24
“It’s precisely when people (believers included) over-emphasize one part of the Bible, to the exclusion of other parts, that things go awry.”
So homosexuals, atheists, and sundry others that the SBC has attempted to exclude, denigrate, and marganalize are likely to see a change in attitude? Perhaps they could acheive the same respect as those who work on Sunday, or who wear poly/cotton blends?
“Steve, I know you don’t believe the Bible, but I expect someone with your admiration of intellect to treat the Bible at the very least as you would any other literature.”
‘Literature’ ranges from Chaucer to Harry Potter. [via Daniele Steele] Nobody is attempting to write civil law by the precepts of those writings. Are you indicating a parity between J k Rowling and the ancient scribes responsible for the Bible? Hardly what I had expected, but we may be getting somewhere…
27 On Apr 24th, 2007, at 5:21pm, steve wrote:
Matt re post 22. My question as to the need for the article was not rhetorical. I really was interested in who the target audience was. I had assumed that most of mainstream America, including the SBC (as pointed out in your reply), had come to grips with the “self evident truth” of the ugliness of racism.
The key point I added in my post was that being “self evident” there is no need to refer to biblical scripture to support it. Of course, I did make an additional comment about the racist nature of the bible and I stand by that comment. The fact remains that your tribe used the ‘inerrant word of God’ for many years to support racist views. It was only when political reality caught up with you that your theologians were put to work to create a new spin. (just like you’ll have to do again with your views on homosexuality).
As to ethnic participation: have you ever noticed on Christian TV that the majority of American congregations tend to be the same color as the preacher?
28 On Apr 24th, 2007, at 6:10pm, steve wrote:
Matt Re post 23: I can’t talk for other secular humanists but I think some words familiar to you pretty well sum up our stance “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” - even MLK thought they did a good job of summing up the situation.
Your question then of course is - why or how do things become ‘self evident’? Well I’m no expert but I have no problem in accepting that it’s simple social evolution - a self centred premise that led the cave men to realise that when they stopped banging each other over the head their lives seemed to get a lot easier. This is quite a natural occurrence throughout the animal kingdom. Many animal species have evolved complex communal structures. None of these species need a bible to tell them that ‘you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours’ has some merit.
29 On Apr 24th, 2007, at 7:51pm, steve wrote:
Matt, Re post 24: Life’s too short to get caught up in the mesmerizing world of spin doctoring that you guys go through to try and make your book of fiction relevant in today’s world. You seem to acknowledge that the OT is racist but that somehow the NT counteracts this. But look at the biblical references in the article in question - hardly an overt attack on racism! Your Jesus is quoted as saying ‘love they neighbour’ but we both know that in the Jewish context that a neighbour only refers to another Jew.
In terms of asking me to look at the bible as I would other literature - I do. It is you who doesn’t. You believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god and beyond reproach and you probably believed this like most other Christians before you even read it. Hardly an intellectual approach to literature.
30 On Apr 25th, 2007, at 12:55pm, steve wrote:
Matt, Re: post 25. Deuteronomy 14:2 says “For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth”. Sounds pretty racist to me. The fact that Jews have been persecuted doesn’t change the wording.
When it comes to thinking Christians are deluded, I don’t discriminate. And so yes even the great MLK falls into this category. The whole point of a seminary is to take people who are already committed to their faith and give them the ammunition to fight off ratbags like me. They certainly don’t promote free thought with regard to religion but that doesn’t mean that these people can’t go out and do great secular work a la MLK.
As for me being able to “free them from their ‘delusions’” (your words) - I can’t. Such change can only start from inside the individual. Maybe it’ll happen to you one day Matt.
31 On Apr 25th, 2007, at 2:33pm, Jacob wrote:
Hold on a minute! Let’s allow Jesus to answer for himself on this one. Remember, Jesus sometimes did and said things that were a little outside of Jewish expectations.
In Luke 10:29, Jesus is asked the question, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replies with the parable of the Good Samaritan. This story cannot be construed as Jesus saying your neighbor is only another Jew. Samaritans were looked down on for their ethnic impurities. The point of the story is that your neighbor is anyone in need - that’s who you are to love - and conversly, you are a neighbor to anyone you help.
To be fair, we Christians often fall flat in this area, to our shame, but this is the goal for many Christians I know, myself included. Let’s not assume what Jesus meant, especially when he explained it.
32 On Apr 26th, 2007, at 9:31am, steve wrote:
Jacob, I beg to differ. Samaritans are actually of Jewish descent and even use the Torah as the basis of their belief. The antagonism between them and mainstream Jews was pretty much along Catholic-Protestant lines- it had nothing to do with ethnicity.
You know, if the story were called ‘The Good Centurion’ then maybe you’d have a point.
33 On Apr 26th, 2007, at 1:05pm, Jacob wrote:
That is half-way correct. The Samaritans were of Jewish descent, but they were mixed with the Assyrians. It was a racial distinction - kind of like the slavery system in the United States considered people with mixed black and white descent to be considered slaves (down to the octoroon level).
The Samaritians were also considered to have religious impurities, so I see where the Catholic-Protestant comparison comes in. The difference is that Catholics generally do not consider Protestants to be impure.
34 On Apr 30th, 2007, at 2:51pm, steve wrote:
Jacob, the fable surrounding the good Samaritan is all about religious rather than racial tolerance.
Just think. The author of this story was a Christian but not a gentile. Samaritans were also not regarded as gentiles. So if the author could get mainstream Jews to think twice before being critical of Samaritans then the flow on effect for the new Christian sect would be quite substantial. It was all about politics.
The new interpretation (spin) of the story by modern Christians is also political. The fact that it is now used to construe that your Christ thinks racism is bad is of itself not a bad thing. But remember it was only used this way once Christians were lead screaming and kicking to the political reality that racism was no longer a tenable option.
35 On May 1st, 2007, at 4:51pm, Jacob wrote:
Steve, that is an interesting argument, and I must admit that you keep me on my toes. Your comment got me thinking, and I’m not sure you did much research into the authorship of Luke.
Now, you can argue, if you’d like, that the author was not Luke, the companion of Paul, but then your assertions about his intentions would be even more of a stretch. So, lets look at Luke. I’ll admit that there are arguments on both sides of this, and it really doesn’t matter to me either way, but tradition says that Luke was, in fact, a Gentile. Like I said, you can argue the opposite, but there are at least some compelling reasons to cause scholars to doubt that he was a Jew. Without even discussing that the author was quoting Jesus in this instance (which I’ll assume you would assert he is not), that puts your argument on very shaky ground. Would you care to restate if I’ve misunderstood?
About Christians using the Bible to defend racism: has it happened? Yes. Let’s be fair, though, that was mainly done by southern christians in America. I have inherited that legacy as a southern baptist, and I am greatly ashamed of it. It was not so long ago that southern baptists issued a formal apology on the subject - a seemingly insignificant gesture when compared to slavery and segregation. Just allow me to say that I know very few Christians that do not whole-heartedly believe that racism is wrong. There is nothing political about it - regardless of how you view American politics.
Is there something bad with people seeing that they were wrong about something? I would think you would applaud that instead of attacking us for past failures.
36 On May 2nd, 2007, at 12:13am, steve wrote:
Jacob, whether the author of Luke was a gentile or not does not change my argument. The good samaritan parable was written by a Christian apologist with a view to neutralising mainstream jewish intolerance toward the early Christian sect.
You said: “Just allow me to say that I know very few Christians that do not whole-heartedly believe that racism is wrong”. It concerns me that you would know any Christians that didn’t hold this belief.
You also said: “Is there something bad with people seeing that they were wrong about something? I would think you would applaud that instead of attacking us for past failures”. Well no Jacob, there is nothing wrong with people admitting they were wrong and I have not attacked you - I am attacking your belief system (in so much as you are trying to make it public policy).
You’ve apologized for past racist beliefs, the Pope did the same re Galileo - what next? I suspect your current views on homosexuality. But isn’t your book inerrant?
37 On May 2nd, 2007, at 9:28am, Jacob wrote:
It’s getting hard to take your arguments seriously, as they keep shifting around and play loose with the facts for support. That’s ok though, as you revealed something very important:
Wow. Impressive honesty. Saying you’re attacking my belief system but not attacking me is like me shooting you in the leg and saying that I didn’t shoot you. I can’t separate the two (sure the belief system can be removed, but I think I’d be a different person because of it).
I think you have confused the Bible’s inerrancy with Christians’ inerrancy. We have never claimed the later.
And I’m bowing out of this thread, you can have the last word. I believe I’ve made my points.
38 On May 3rd, 2007, at 9:45am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Ok, so I know I said my next post would be to post 9, but Steve said something in post 28 that I just have to highlight…
In response to my question about knowing truth Steve said,
Yep, they’re familiar alright. But I find it most amusing that a self-described atheist would cherry pick the US Declaration of Independence as an argument for knowing the truth apart from God.
The problem is Steve left out the rest of the sentence, specifically the next phrase which affirms God…
(Not to mention the fact that even the part Steve did quote ("are created") points to ‘a’ creator.)
I would recommend, purely from a debate point of view, that it is in the best interest of an atheist to not reference works which affirm the existence of a Creator, especially in the same sentence. (Note: the capitalized ‘Creator’ is original to the Declaration.)
(Matt is on staff at ERLC.)
39 On May 3rd, 2007, at 1:28pm, steve wrote:
Matt, if you’re going to quote me then quote me accurately! How did you delete the word ‘sum’ from my statement? (you do use ‘cut and paste’ don’t you?). The effect of your error makes the paragraph almost meaningless.
To your point …
Who are you to tell me what literature I should choose to quote from? You asked me to define truth from a secular point of view and I gave you an answer based upon the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” What’s your problem? These words describe my point of view. There are words in the bible that also describe my point of view eg “thou shat not kill” but that doesn’t mean in using these words I have to accept all the other guff around them. If my use of the word ‘created’ (as in kids are created by their parents) irritates your sensibilities then in future I’ll substitute ‘born’.
Come on Matt, get on to the good stuff - explain to me why god wants us to believe bats are birds (post9).