New Testament: bigotry, cruelty, sexism, slavery, racism, etc.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Exodus 21:7 (pre-Jesus Bible God): If a man sells his daughter as a slave she will not leave (after six years) like male slaves, unless she does not, please her master, if not then she must be allowed to be sold back to the man. 

Luke 12:46-47 (Jesus): The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder and that servant, shall be beaten with many stripes. 

Epistle of Paul to the Colossians 3-22: Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters and in whatever your task, work heartily.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple (jesus talking).” – Luke 14:26

“Identifying logical weaknesses in an argument can serve as an effective way of analyzing its ideas.”

Master List of Logical Fallacies

Is the Christian God Evil? Evidence from Scripture and Nature

By Vexen Crabtree

1. The Old Testament God is Evil
   1. God Creates Evil Regardless of Human Free Will
   2. Satan and God are Interchangeable
   3. Fear God
   4. Adam and Eve and Original Sin: The Immoral Schemes of God
   5. Violence and Murder Endorsed in the Old Testament
   6. The New Testament Tells us that the Old Testament God is Evil
2. The New Testament God is Also Evil: More Genocides and Divine Incitements of Murder
3. God Destroys Families
   1. Rebellious and Stubborn Sons
   2. Jesus and the New Testament
4. Jesus and the Crucifixion – A Trick
5. No Free Will in the New Testament
6. Sowing Seeds of Confusion – Not the Antics of a Good God
7. The Problem of Evil
8. Links

No Free Will in the New Testament

“The Bible teaches that there is no free will. Examining Exodus, Ecclesiastes 7, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, Matthew 5:45, Acts 13, Romans 8, Roman 9, 2 Timothy, 2 Thessalonians, Titus 3:4-5and Revelations, we see that God’s plan overrides our free will; those that do good do the specific good that God predestined them to do, and all others are ruled by Satan because God sends “powerful delusions” to them. The Christian Bible frequently states that God creates our future and decides our fates, no matter what our own will is. It constantly denies that we have free will. Some of the foremost Christians in history have taught that there is no free will, including St. Augustine (one of the four great founders of Western Christianity₁₃), Martin Luther (founder of Protestantism) and John Calvin.”

“Biblical Christianity Denies Free Will” by Vexen Crabtree (2005)

The doctrine of predestination is like the doctrine of original sin. They affirm that God is not just, not moral, and is actively evil and arbitrary. Not only do god’s plans override free will, but, God also punishes those who it has predetermined to be punished. There is no grand moral plan to god’s will. It makes no sense to say that this is the behavior of a good god. The New Testament makes more sense if its schemes are the plan of an evil god, rather than a good one.

New Testament: cruelty

Cruelty in the New Testament

Skeptics Annotated Bible.com

Matthew

1. Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned “with unquenchable fire.” 3:10, 12
2. Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17
3. Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30
4. Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14
5. Those who fail to bear “good fruit” will be “hewn down, and cast into the fire.” 7:19
6. “The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 8:12
7. Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: “Let the dead bury the dead.” 8:21
8. Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32
9. Cities that neither “receive” the disciples nor “hear” their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen 19:24).10:14-15
10. Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few “prophecies” in the Bible that has actually come true). “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” 10:21
11. Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and “able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” 10:28
12. Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” 10:34-36
13. Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. 11:20-24
14. Jesus will send his angels to gather up “all that offend” and they “shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” 13:41-42, 50
15. Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7
16. “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” 15:13
17. Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it’s better to be “maimed” than to suffer “everlasting fire.” 18:8-9
18. In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. The parable ends with this: “So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you.” If you are cruel to others, God will be cruel to you. 18:23-35
19. “And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors.” 18:34
20. God is like a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and rents the vineyard to others. 21:33-41
21. “Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” Whoever falls on “this stone” (Jesus) will be broken, and whomever the stone falls on will be ground into powder.21:44
22. In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn’t have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and “cast him into the outer darkness” where “there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 22:1-14
23. The end of the world will be signaled by wars, famines, disease, and earthquakes (6-7). And that’s just “the beginning of sorrows” (8). Next believers will be hated and killed by unbelievers (9), believers will hate and betray each other (10), false prophets will fool people (11), iniquity will abound and love wax cold (12). But hey, if you make through all that, you’ll be saved (13).Only one more thing will happen before the end comes: the gospel will be preached throughout the world (14). Well, that and the abomination of desolations will stand in the holy place (15), many false Christs and false prophets will show great signs and wonders (24), the sun and moon will be darkened and the stars will fall (29), the sign of the son of Man will appear in the sky, everyone on earth will mourn, and then, finally, the great and powerful son of Man will come in all his glory (30).Oh, and all these things will happen within the lifespan of Jesus’ contemporaries (34).Or maybe not. Jesus was talking about things he knew nothing about (36). (See Mark 13:32.) 24:3-51
24. Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It’ll be just like that when he returns. 24:37
25. God will come when people least expect him and then he’ll “cut them asunder.” And “there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 24:50-51
26. The parable of the cruel and unjust master
    The kingdom of heaven is like a rich man who distributed his wealth to his servants while he traveled. He gave five talents (a talent was a unit of money, worth about 20 years of a worker’s wages) to one servant, two to another, and one to a third. When he returned, the servant with five talents had made five more, the servant with two made two more, but the servant with one talent only had the talent his master entrusted to him. The master rewarded the servants that invested his money (without his permission — what would have happened if the stock market went down during their master’s travels?) and took the talent from the single-talent servant and gave it to the one with ten talents. “For unto every one that hath shall be given .. but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” Then the cruel and unjust master cast the servant who carefully protected his master’s talent into the “outer darkness: [where] there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 25:14-30
27. The servant who kept and returned his master’s talent was cast into the “outer darkness” where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 25:30
28. Jesus judges the nations. 25:31-46
29. Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an “everlasting fire.” 25:41
30. Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46Mark
31. Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12
32. Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13
33. Any city that doesn’t “receive” the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11
34. Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) 7:9-10
35. Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49
36. God is like a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and gives the vineyard to others. 12:1-9
37. Jesus tells his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. 14:22-24
38. Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don’t will be damned. 16:16Luke
39. Zechariah asks the angel Gabriel how his wife Elizabeth could become pregnant, since she is “stricken with years.” Gabriel makes him “dumb” just for asking. 1:20
40. Those who fail to bear “good fruit” will be “hewn down, and cast into the fire.” 3:9
41. John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned “with fire unquenchable.” 3:17
42. Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. 8:27-37
43. Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants “thrust down to hell” for not “receiving” his disciples. 10:10-15
44. Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5
45. Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves “with many stripes.” 12:46-47
46. “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” 13:3, 5
47. According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where “there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13:23-30
48. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31
49. Jesus believed the story of Noah’s ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody. 17:26-27
50. Jesus also believes the story about Sodom’s destruction. He says, “even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed … Remember Lot’s wife.” This tells us about Jesus’ knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32
51. In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn’t sow. The parable ends with the words: “bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me.” 19:22-27
52. Jesus tells his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. 22:19-20John
53. Jesus believed the stupid and vicious story from Numbers 21. (God sent snakes to bite the people for complaining about the lack of food and water. Then God told Moses to make a brass snake to cure them from the bites.) 3:14
54. “God so loved the world, that he gave his His only begotten Son.”
    As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16
55. People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36
56. The “wrath of God” is on all unbelievers. 3:36
57. Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to “sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” 5:14
58. Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6
59. Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for “many of his disciples” and “walked no more with him.” (They are called Protestants nowadays.) 6:53-66Acts
60. Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23
61. Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10
62. Peter has a dream in which God show him “wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls.” The voice (God’s?) says, “Rise, Peter: kill and eat.” 10:10-13
63. Peter describes the vision that he had in the last chapter (10:10-13). All kinds of beasts, creeping things, and fowls drop down from the sky in a big sheet, and a voice (God’s, Satan’s?) tells him to “Arise, Peter; slay and eat.” 11:5-10
64. The “angel of the Lord” killed Herod by having him “eaten of worms” because “he gave not God the glory.” 12:23
65. David was “a man after [God’s] own heart.” 13:22
66. The author of Acts talks about the “sure mercies of David.” But David was anything but merciful. For an example of his behavior see 2 Sam 12:31 and 1 Chr 20:3, where he saws, hacks, and burns to death the inhabitants of several cities. 13:34
67. Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas (the sorcerer) blind. 13:8-11Romans
68. Homosexuals (those “without natural affection”) and their supporters (those “that have pleasure in them”) are “worthy of death” – – along with gossips, boasters, and disobedient children. 1:31-32
69. The guilty are “justified” and “saved from wrath” by the blood of an innocent victim. 5:9
70. God punishes everyone for someone else’s sin; then he saves them by killing an innocent victim. 5:12
71. “If … we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”, then God is truly a monster. 5:101 Corinthians
72. If you defile the temple of God, God will destroy you.   3:17
73. Paul claims that God killed 23,000 in a plague for “committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab 10:8
74. If you tempt Christ (How could you tempt Christ?), you’ll will die from snake bites. 10:9
75. If you murmur, you’ll be destroyed by the destroyer (God). 10:102 Corinthians
76. The terror of the Lord 5:11Galatians
77. If anyone dares to disagree with Paul on religious matters, “let him be accursed.” 1:8-9Ephesians
78. We are predestined by God to go to either heaven or hell. None of our thoughts, words, or actions can affect the final outcome. 1:4-5, 11
79. God had his son murdered to keep himself from hurting others for things they didn’t do. 1:7
80. The bloody death of Jesus smelled good to God. 5:2
81. Those who refuse to obey will face the wrath of God. 5:6PhilippiansColossians
82. God bought us with someone else’s blood. 1:14
83. God makes peace through blood. 1:19-201 Thessalonians
84. God is planning a messy, mass murder in “the wrath to come” and only Jesus can save you from it. 1:10
85. Christians shouldn’t mourn the death of their fellow believers. They’ll be OK and you’ll see them later in heaven. The people you should mourn are dead nonbelievers. They have no hope (because they’re going to hell). 4:132 Thessalonians
86. Jesus will take “vengeance on them that know not God” by burning them forever “in flaming fire.” 1:7-9
87. Jesus will “consume” the wicked “with the spirit of his mouth.” 2:8
88. God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-121 Timothy2 TimothyTitusPhilemonHebrews
89. “That which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.”
    Apostates will burn in hell with the other non-believers. 6:8
90. “Melchisedec … met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him.”
    God showed his approval of “the slaughter of the kings” with Melchisedec’s blessing of Abraham. (Genesis 14:17-18) 7:1
91. God will not forgive anyone unless something is killed for him in a bloody manner. 9:13-22
92. “A certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.”
    God will soon destroy non-believers in a fiery hell. 10:27
93. Those who disobeyed the Old Testament law were killed without mercy. It will be much worse for those who displease Jesus. 10:28-29
94. “Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord.” 10:30
95. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” 10:31
96. “Abraham … offered up Isaac … his only begotten son.” (And this was a good thing? How fucked up is that?) 11:17
97. The Israelites kept the passover and sprinkled blood on doorposts so that God wouldn’t kill their firstborn children (like he did the Egyptians in Exodus 12:29). 11:28
98. God saved Rahab because she believed. (He killed all the non-believers in Jericho.) 11:31
99. “Time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets.”
    The heroes of faith: Gideon, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel. It would be hard to find a more monstrous group than these guys. 11:32
100. “Others were tortured … that they might obtain a better resurrection.” 11:35
101. God ordered animals to be “stoned, or thrust through with a dart” if they “so much as … touch the mountain.” 12:20
102. “Ye are come … to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things that that of Abel.” 12:22-24James
103. James says Abraham was justified by works (for being willing to kill his son for God); Paul (Romans 4:2-3) says he was justified by faith (for believing that God would order him to do such an evil act). 2:211 Peter
104. We are all, according to Peter, predestined to be saved or damned. We have no say in the matter. It was all determined by “the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.”1:2
105. “The precious blood of Christ … was foreordained before the foundation of the world.”
     God planned to kill Jesus from the get-go. 1:19-20
106. God drowned everyone on earth except for Noah and his family. 3:202 Peter
107. God drowned everyone else on earth except for Noah and his family. 2:5, 3:6
108. “Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes” 2:6
109. God will set the entire earth on fire so that he can burn non-believers to death. 3:7
110. When Jesus returns, he’ll burn up the whole earth and everything on it. 3:101 John
111. Christians are washed in the blood of Jesus. 1:72 John3 JohnJude
112. “The Lord destroyed them that believed not.” 5
113. God sent “eternal fire” on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for “going after strange flesh.” 7-8Revelation
114. Jesus “washed us … with his own blood.” 1:5
115. Everyone on earth will wail because of Jesus. 1:7
116. Jesus has “the keys of hell and death.” 1:18
117. Repent — or else Jesus will fight you with the sword that sticks out of his mouth. (Like the limbless knight in Monty Python’s “Holy Grail.”) 2:16
118. “I [Jesus] will kill her children with death.” 2:23
119. “Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” God created parasites, pathogens, and predators for his very own pleasure. One of his favorite species is guinea worms. 4:11
120. “Thou art worthy … for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” 5:9
121. God gives someone on a white horse a bow and sends him out to conquer people. 6:2
122. God gave power to someone on a red horse “to take from the earth … that they should kill one another.” 6:4
123. God tells Death and Hell to kill one quarter of the earth’s population with the sword, starvation, and “with the beasts of the earth.” 6:8
124. The martyrs just can’t wait until everyone else is slaughtered. God gives them a white robe and tells them to wait until he’s done with his killing spree. 6:10-11
125. God tells his murderous angels to “hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of your God on their foreheads.” This verse is one that Christians like to use to show God’s loving concern for the environment. But the previous verse (7:2) makes it clear that it was their God-given job to “hurt the earth and the sea” just as soon as they finished their forehead marking job. 7:3
126. 144,000 Jews will be going to heaven; everyone else is going to hell. 7:4
127. Those that survive the great tribulation will get to wash their clothes in the blood of the lamb. 7:14
128. God sends his angels to destroy a third part of all the trees, grass, sea creature, mountains, sun, moon, starts, and water. 8:7-13
129. “Many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.” 8:11
130. The angels are instructed not to “hurt the grass [how could they? He already had all the grass killed in 8:7] … but only those men which have not the seal of God on their foreheads.” God tells his angels not to kill them, but rather torment them with scorpions for five months. Those tormented will want to die, but God won’t let them. 9:4-6
131. God makes some horse-like locusts with human heads, women’s hair, lion’s teeth, and scorpion’s tails. They sting people and hurt them for five months. 9:7-10
132. Four angels, with an army of 200 million, killed a third of the earth’s population. 9:15-19
133. Anyone that messes with God’s two olive trees and two candlesticks (God’s witnesses) will be burned to death by fire that comes out of their mouths. 11:3-5
134. God’s witnesses have special powers. They can shut up heaven so that it cannot rain, turn rivers into blood, and smite the earth with plagues “as often as they will.” 11:6
135. After God’s witnesses “have finished their testimony,” they are  killed in a war with a beast from a bottomless pit. 11:7
136. The bodies of God’s witnesses will lie unburied for three and a half days. People will “rejoice over them and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another.” After another three and half days God brings his witnesses back to life and they ascend into heaven. 11:8-12
137. When the witnesses ascend into heaven, an earthquake kills 7000 men. This was the second woe. “The third woe cometh quickly.” 11:13-14
138. “The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”
     God planned to kill Jesus before he created the world. 13:8
139. Those who receive the mark of the beast will “drink of the wine of the wrath of God … and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone … and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.” 14:10-11
140. Jesus sits on a white cloud with a sharp sickle in his hand. When the angel tells him to reap, he kills all the people with his sickle. 14:14-18
141. “The great winepress of the wrath of God … was trodden … and the blood cam out of the winepress, even unto the horses bridles.” 14:19-20
142. Seven angels with seven plagues are filled with the wrath of God. 15:1, 7
143. The seven vials of wrath: 1) sores, 2) sea turned to blood, 3) rivers turned to blood, 4) people scorched with fire, 5) people gnaw their tongues in pain, 6) Euphrates dries up, 7) thunder, lightning, earthquake, and hail. 16:1
144. “There fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast.” 16:2
145. “The second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.” 16:3
146. “The third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.” 16:4
147. God gave the saints and prophets blood to drink. 16:6
148. Another angel tells God how righteous he is because he gives saints blood to drink. 16:7
149. “Power was given unto him [the fourth angel] to scorch men with fire.” 16:8
150. Those who were being burned to death by God didn’t repent “to give him glory.” 16:9
151. “The fifth angel poured out his vial … and they gnawed their tongues for pain.” 16:10
152. Even after being burned alive, those nasty people wouldn’t repent! 16:11
153. Christians will fight in the war between Jesus and those allied with the beast. 17:14
154. “They shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire.” (Are they going to eat her first and then burn her?) 17:16-17
155. To punish her God will send plagues and famine, and “she will be utterly burned with fire.” 18:8
156. God will send plagues, death, and famine on Babylon, and the kings “who have committed fornication with her” will be sad to see her burn. 18:8-9
157. Jesus makes war. 19:11
158. Jesus’ clothes are dipped in blood and his secret name (“that no man knew”) is “The Word of God”. (I bet you thought it was Jesus!) 19:13
159. With eyes aflame, many crowns on his head, clothes dripping with blood, a sword sticking out of his mouth, and a secret name, Jesus leads the faithful in heaven into holy war on earth. 19:14-15
160. “Come … unto the supper of the great God.” An angel calls all the fowls to feast upon the flesh of dead horses and human bodies, “both free and bond, both small and great.” 19:17-18
161. The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest were killed with the sword of Jesus. “And all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” 19:20-21
162. God will send fire from heaven to devour people. And the devil will be tormented “day and night for ever and ever.” 20:9-10
163. Whoever isn’t found listed in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire. 20:15
164. All liars, as well as those who are fearful or unbelieving, will be cast into “the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” 21:8

New Testament: sexism

Women’s inequality

Usbible.com

¹⁶To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen. 3:16)

¹⁹“When a woman has a discharge of blood which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.
²⁰And everything upon which she lies during her impurity shall be unclean; everything also upon which she sits shall be unclean.
²¹And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. (Lev. 15:19-21)

¹⁹“You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. (Lev. 18:19)

¹⁹It is better to live in a desert land than with a contentious and fretful woman. (Proverbs 21:19)

³But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor. 11:3)

³⁴the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
³⁵If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

²²Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord.
²³For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
²⁴As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. (Eph. 5:22-24)

¹²I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
¹³For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
¹⁴and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
¹⁵Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Tim. 2:12-15)

CHURCH AUTHORITY: To accuse and execute women as witches

Usbible.com

¹⁸“You shall not permit a sorceress to live. (Ex. 22:18)

³¹“Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek them out, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God. (Lev. 19:31)

⁶“If a person turns to mediums and wizards, playing the harlot after them, I will set my face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people. (Lev. 20:6)

²⁷“A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned with stones, their blood shall be upon them.” (Lev. 20:27)

¹⁰There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer,
¹¹or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. (Deut. 18:10-11)

¹⁹And when they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?
²⁰To the teaching and to the testimony! Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn. (Isaiah 8:19-20)

¹³You are wearied with your many counsels; let them stand forth and save you, those who divide the heavens, who gaze at the stars, who at the new moons predict what shall befall you. (Isaiah 47:13)

Against the ordination of women

Usbible.com

³But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
⁷For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
⁸(For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
⁹Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) (1 Cor. 11:3, 7-9)

⁸I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; (1 Tim. 2:8)

¹¹Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
¹²I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. (1 Tim. 2:11-12)

Against the marriage of priests

Usbible.com

¹⁰The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” (Matt. 19:10)

¹²For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” (Matt. 19:12)

¹Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. (1 Cor. 7:1)

²⁵Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
²⁶I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is. (1 Cor. 7:25-26)

Against abortion

Usbible.com

¹³“You shall not kill. (Ex. 20:13)

¹³For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb.
¹⁴I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are thy works! Thou knowest me right well;
¹⁵my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. (Psalm 139:13-15)

⁵“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jer. 1:5)

⁴¹And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
⁴²and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! (Luke 1:41-42)

To regulate clothing and hairstyles

Usbible.com

⁵“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deut. 22:5)

²I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
³But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
⁴Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
⁵but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head-it is the same as if her head were shaven.
⁶For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil (1 Cor. 11:2-6)

⁴Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
⁵but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head-it is the same as if her head were shaven.
⁶For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. (1 Cor. 11:4-6)

¹³Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
¹⁴Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him,
¹⁵but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (1 Cor. 11:13-15)

⁹also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire
¹⁰but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. (1 Tim. 2:9-10)

THE WAY THINGS OUGHT TO BE: in marriage

Usbible.com

In every case, marriage is defined as a commitment between male and female. It precludes gay marriages.

Against divorce under any condition

⁶But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
⁷‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
⁸and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.
⁹What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:6-9)

⁶So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt. 19:6)

¹⁰To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband
¹¹(but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)-and that the husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Cor. 7:10-11)

²⁸Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. (Eph. 5:28)

A woman shall remain with her husband even if he is an unbeliever.

¹³If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
¹⁴For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. (1 Cor. 7:13-14)

But the unbelieving husband may dissolve the marriage with his wife.

¹⁵But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.
¹⁶Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife? (1 Cor. 7:15-16)

The man should be head of the household and the woman submissive.

²⁴As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
²⁵Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
²⁶that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, (Eph. 5:22-26)

One should marry rather than risk promiscuity.

⁹But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. (1 Cor. 7:9)

Shotgun marriages or a money substitute are justified.

¹⁶“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall give the marriage present for her, and make her his wife.
¹⁷If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equivalent to the marriage present for virgins. (Ex. 22:16-17)

Divorce is justified on grounds of extramarital sex.

³²But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matt. 5:32)

A man may initiate divorce from his wife, but there are no provisions for a wife to initiate divorce.

¹“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,
²and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, (Deut. 24:1-2)

If a man divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery.

⁹And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:9, Mark 10:12)

Adultery violates one of the Ten Commandments.

¹⁴“You shall not commit adultery. (Ex. 20:14)

Adultery is punishable by death.

¹⁰“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. (Lev. 20:10)

A man may take a wife as the spoils of war.

¹¹and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife,
¹²then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails.
¹³And she shall put off her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
¹⁴Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her. (Deut. 21:11-14)

Polygamy is justified because David had two wives. Later he married third, Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11:26-27).

³And David dwelt with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his household, and David with his two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel, and Abigail of Carmel, Nabal’s widow. (1 Sam. 27:3)

Polygamy is justified because Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

¹Now King Solomon loved many foreign women: the daughter of Pharaoh, and Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women,
²from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods”; Solomon clung to these in love.
³He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. (1 Kings 11:1-3)

Interracial marriage is condemned because God intended to keep the races separate.

⁸So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. (Gen. 11:8)

Interracial marriage is justified because Moses married a black woman.

¹Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman; (Num. 12:1)

Sexism in Christianity (New Testament)

1 Corinthians 11:2-10 “For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head.“

1 Corinthians 11:3 “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man.”

1 Corinthians 11:7 – 9 “For a man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

1 Corinthians 14:34 – 35 “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience. In addition, if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

Colossians 3:18 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.”

Ephesians 5:22 – 25 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.”

1 Peter 3:1 -3 “Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel.”

1 Peter 3:5 -7 “For after this manner in the old-time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”

Revelation 14:3-4 “No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste.”

Romans 7:2 “For the woman who hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.”

1 Timothy 2:9 – 15 “In like manner also, those women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame faceless and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which become women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

Titus 2:4-9 “Train the young women to be submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited.”

Click Here for: 

Sexism in Judaism (old Testament), Sexism in Catholicism, Sexism in Protestantism, Sexism in the BIBLE: chapter and verse!

Rape, Sexism and Religion?

Sexism is that evil weed that can sadly grow even in the well tended garden of the individual with an otherwise developed mind. Which is why it particularly needs to be attacked and exposed; and is why I support feminism. 

Feminist atheists as far back as the 1800s?

New Testament: slavery

New Testament on Slavery

Slavery is approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show

Paul gave household rules in Ephesians 6 and Colossians 4 not only for Christian slaves but for Christian masters as well.

Need to see more?

Slavery in the Bible?

In contemporary times, slavery is almost universally reviled; while human trafficking and similar practices are still far too common, people generally no longer argue that human beings should be owned like property. However, through most of human history, well into the 19^th century, slavery (notwithstanding the opinions of the enslaved) was broadly accepted as an economic and social necessity. Slavery was an important facet of life in biblical times. Both the Old and the New Testaments have instructions regarding slaves which contemporary Jews and Christians generally disregard, and which Christian apologists frequently attempt to play down or deny. Some fringe Christian Biblical literalists, notably those who believe in Dominionism, argue that biblical instructions regarding slavery and its institutions are still relevant. The Bible identifies different categories of slaves including female Hebrew slaves, male Hebrew slaves, non-Hebrew and hereditary slaves. These were subject to different regulations:

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers and enslaved for life (Exodus 21:7-11), but there were some limits to this. Female Hebrew slaves were to be treated differently from males. Parents could sell their daughters into slavery. (Exodus 21:7-11 NASB)

⁷If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. ⁸If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. ⁹If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. ¹⁰If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. ¹¹If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Male Hebrews could sell themselves into slavery for a six-year period to eliminate their debts, after which they might go free. However, if the male slave had been given a wife and had children with her, they would remain his master’s property. They could only stay with their family by becoming permanent slaves (Exodus 21:2-5). Evangelical Christians, especially those who subscribe to Biblical inerrancy, will commonly emphasize this debt bondage and try to minimize the other forms of race-based chattel slavery when attempting to excuse the Bible for endorsing slavery. 

Exodus 21:2-6 (NASB):

²If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. ³If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. ⁴If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. ⁵But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ ⁶then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

It is interesting to note that if a slave wishes to remain with his wife and family he must submit to his master for life.

On the other hand Hebrew slaves — and only those Hebrew slaves who entered slavery “voluntarily” — got some severance package as described in Deuteronomy 15:12-15 (NASB):

¹²If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. ¹³When you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. ¹⁴You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. ¹⁵You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

Non-Hebrews, on the other hand, could (according to Leviticus 25:44) be subjected to slavery in exactly the way that it is usually understood. The slaves could be bought, sold and inherited when their owner died. This, by any standard, is race- or ethnicity-based, and Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly allows slaves to be bought from foreign nations or foreigners living in Israel. It does say that simply kidnapping Hebrews to enslave them is a crime punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:7), but no such prohibition exists regarding foreigners. War captives could be made slaves, assuming they had refused to make peace (this applied to women and children — men were simply killed), along with the seizure of all their property (Deuteronomy 20:10-15). Leviticus 25:44-46 (NASB) suggests how Israelites can utilize the full human resources of slaves: ⁴⁴As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. ⁴⁵Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. ⁴⁶You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Hereditary slaves were born into slavery and there is no apparent way by which they could obtain their freedom. The children of slaves were born into slavery. Exodus 21:4d (NASB): If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.

So the Bible endorses various types of slavery, see below — though Biblical literalists only want to talk about one version and claim that it wasn’t really so bad. Beating slaves was regulated under the following rules:

Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB): ²⁰If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. ²¹If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

Exodus 21:26-27 (NASB): ²⁶If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. ²⁷And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.

Hebrews were not allowed to abduct fellow Hebrews and sell them.

Exodus 21:16 (NASB): ¹⁶He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

Given that the Hebrews were instructed in Leviticus 25:44 to obtain their slaves from the people around them, it is evident that this injunction to not abduct people referred to Hebrews and not non-Hebrews. Obtaining and selling non-Hebrews was evidently not a problem. Deuteronomy 24:7 specifies that only the abduction of Hebrews to enslave them is a crime. An escaped slave could not be handed over to his master, and would gain full citizenship among Israelites:

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 (NASB): ¹⁵You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. ¹⁶He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.

However, as the BibleTrack commentary puts it regarding Deuteronomy 23:15:

The New Testament makes no condemnation of slavery and does no more than admonish slaves to be obedient and their masters not to be unfair. Paul, or whoever wrote the epistles, at no time suggested there was anything wrong with slavery. One could speculate that this might have been because he wanted to avoid upsetting the many slave owners in the early Christian congregations or to keep on good political terms with the Roman government. Or, more probably, he simply thought slavery was an acceptable fact of life as did practically everyone else at the time.

Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): ⁵Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; ⁶not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. ⁷With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, ⁸knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

Christian slaves were told to obey their masters “for the sake of the cause” and be especially obedient to Christian masters:

1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): ¹All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. ²Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.

There are instructions for Christian slave owners to treat their slaves well.

Ephesians 6:9 (NASB): ⁹And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Colossians 4:1 (NASB) ¹Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.^[6]

One passage often cited by apologists as supposed evidence for New Testament condemnation of slavery is 1 Timothy 1:10. However, as the King James Version accurately translates, this condemnation is of “men stealers” (Greek: andrapodistais),^[7] i.e. slave raiders who kidnapped and sold people as slaves, not slave traders or slave holders in general. So Paul only singled out slave raiders to be considered “lawless and rebellious”, and to be categorized with murderers, homosexuals, liars and oath breakers.

The rather bland admonishment to slave masters by Paul is more than balanced by the demands for absolute obedience made of slaves. It is also rather telling that the masters are likened to God and Jesus, while the masters are simply told that they have a higher lord. So much for Jesus as the embodiment of the underdog — Paul could have pointed to Jesus’ imprisonment and death as a cautionary tale to slave masters that even humble(d) characters can be important.^[8]

Before the apologist plays the “but Jesus didn’t condone slavery”-card, following all these Pauline examples, try reading Matthew 18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51). This is probably one of the clearest example of religious moral relativism. Most modern Christians prefer to avoid, or are unaware of, these sections of the Bible. If forced to explain Biblical justification for slavery, they may come up with something, but fortunately Christians as a group think it would be wrong to reintroduce slavery. Christian attempts to justify what is in the Bible can lead to them sanctioning things that most moral humanists, and even most Christians, would say are wrong, as can be seen from the quote below. Here is a recent Christian attempt to justify slavery:

“They ‘shall be of the heathen’ is the key phrase here. God approved of slavery in this instance only because it was His hope that those who became slaves of the Israelites from foreign nations might “be saved.” Even though they would lose their earthly freedom, God hoped that they would gain eternal freedom by coming to know Him, which is far more important.”^Ref

Attempts to justify the Bible’s slavery passages?

Argument 1: “Slavery in the Bible was more enlightened than that of 17^th-19^th century America and other ancient Near East cultures.”

• Even granting this point for the sake of argument, this fails to answer the simple question: is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property.

Argument 2: “They could be let go after 6 years” or “It was a mechanism for protecting those who could not pay their debts.” (A.k.a. “Debt bondage”)^[10]

• Only some Hebrew male slaves were to be freed in the 7^th year (Exodus 21:2). Slaves from surrounding countries could be kept as property forever (Leviticus 25:44-46). A further exception pertains to women whose fathers sold them into slavery, and for whom there was no release after six years (Exodus 21:7).

Argument 3: The Bible restricted slave owners’ actions (Exodus 21:20).

• Exodus 21:20 does mandate punishment for a master who kills a slave with a rod, but the very next verse says “But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property” (NRSV). The NIV, by contrast, translates this verse as “if the slave recovers after a day or two”, which changes its meaning. Either way, the emphasis is that the slave is first and foremost property, and therefore the greatest loss is to the owner, whose slave was “as good as money”. ^[11]

Argument 4: “Slavery was allowed by God because of the time period, but was not the ideal will of God.”

• There are many ways a creative, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity could make it clear that slavery is immoral while, for instance, giving the Israelite economy a grace period to let slavery “wind down”, should that be necessary. The passages concerning slavery from the Pentateuch (e.g. Exodus 21:2-7, Leviticus 25:44-46), by contrast, provide guidelines that allow for slavery to continue indefinitely. New Testament writers, too, who had an opportunity to overturn or clarify the Pentateuch’s instructions, did not do so.

• Also it seems improbable that a God who was capable of assassinating Israelites by the thousand if they did not follow his instructions to the letter would balk at telling them to give up slaves.

Argument 5: “The term ‘slave’ is a poor translation. It should be ‘servant’.”

• This may be plausible in some contexts, but not for Leviticus 25:46, which specifically allows that slaves are property who may be inherited by the owner’s children and kept for life. This passage makes no sense unless they are discussing slavery — permanent ownership of one human by another — as we know it today.
• Jesus’ Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23) makes no sense if said “servant” is not a slave, since the master has the power to sell both the “servant”, his wife and his children (Matthew 18:25).
• It also makes little sense in the case of Matthew 24:51 in which these “servants” may be not only beaten by their master (as in Luke 12:47), but that the master “shall cut him asunder” in the words of the King James translation.

Slavery and Racism in the Bible

Thoughtco.com

Jesus never even comes close to expressing disapproval of the enslaving of other human beings, and many statements attributed to him reveal a tacit acceptance or even approval of that inhuman institution. Throughout the Gospels, we read passages like:

A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)

Although Jesus is using slavery to illustrate larger points, the question remains why he would directly acknowledge the existence of slavery without saying anything negative about it?

The letters (rightly or wrongly) attributed to Paul are even worse, making it clear that the existence of slavery is not only acceptable but that slaves themselves should not presume to take the idea of freedom and equality preached by Jesus too far by attempting to escape their forced servitude.

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. (1Tim. 6:1-5)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)

What are we to make of passages such as those quoted above? We must conclude that the author(s) did not disapprove of the institution of slavery and probably regarded it as an appropriate part of society. Again, slavery was common in all contemporary societies, and it would be surprising to find condemnation here. But if those authors were indeed divinely inspired, as is commonly thought by Christians, then we must conclude that God’s attitude towards slavery is not particularly negative.

Christians are certainly not prohibited from owning slaves, and anyone who does not agree is directly condemned. There is, then, no conflict between being a Christian and being an owner of other human beings.

No “common sense” interpretation can deny such things without doing violence to the text itself, and nothing can be criticized as having been “taken out of context.” Christians should perhaps consider admitting that their Bible was written in a primitive, barbaric age and as such represents the primitive, barbaric attitudes of that age.

EARLY CHRISTIAN HISTORY

How did the early Christians deal with the issue of slavery? There was almost universal approval of slavery among church leaders. Christians vigorously defended slavery (along with other forms of extreme social stratification) as instituted by God and as being an integral part of the natural order of men. At all points, their reasoning was clearly and easily supported by the Bible passages quoted above.

Let’s allow them to tell us in their words:

The slave should be resigned to his lot, in obeying his master he is obeying God… (Saint John Chrysostom)

…slavery is now penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance. (Saint Augustine)

These attitudes continued throughout European history, even as the institution of slavery evolved and in most cases, slaves became “serfs” – little better than actual slaves and living in a deplorable situation which the church declared as being divinely ordered.

Not even after serfdom disappeared and full-fledged slavery once again reared its ugly head was it condemned by Christian leaders. Edmund Gibson, Anglican Bishop in London, made it clear in the 18th century that Christianity freed us from the slavery of sin, not from earthly and physical slavery:

The Freedom which Christianity gives, is a Freedom from the Bondage of Sin and Satan, and from the Dominion of Men’s Lusts and Passions and inordinate Desires; but as to their outward Condition, whatever that was before, whether bond or free, their being baptized, and becoming Christians, makes no manner of Change in it.

AMERICAN SLAVERY

The first ship bearing slaves for America landed in 1619, beginning over two centuries of human bondage on the American continent, the bondage which would eventually be called our “peculiar institution.” This institution always received theological support from various religious leaders, both in the pulpit and in the classroom.

For example, through the late 1700s, Reverend William Graham was rector and principal instructor at the Liberty Hall Academy, now Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. Every year, he lectured the senior graduating class on the value of slavery and used the Bible in his defense of it. For Graham and the many like him, Christianity was not a tool for changing politics or social policy, but instead to bring the message of salvation to everyone, regardless of their status of freedom. In this, they were certainly supported by biblical text.

As Kenneth Stamp wrote in The Peculiar Institution, Christianity became a way to add value to slaves in America:

…when southern clergy became ardent defenders of slavery, the master class could look upon organized religion as an ally …the gospel, instead of becoming a mean of creating trouble and strive, was really the best instrument to preserve peace and good conduct among the negroes.

Through teaching slaves the message of the Bible, they could be encouraged to bear the earthly burden in exchange for heavenly rewards later on – and they could be frightened into believing that disobedience to earthly masters would be perceived by God as disobedience to Him. Ironically, enforced illiteracy prevented slaves from reading the Bible themselves. This is ironic because a similar situation existed in Europe during the Middle Ages, as illiterate peasants and serfs were prevented from reading the Bible in their language – a situation which was instrumental in the Protestant revolution. Now, Protestants were doing much the same thing African slaves: using the authority of their Bible and the dogma of their religion to repress a group of people without even allowing them to read the basis of authority on their own.

DIVISION AND CONFLICT

As Northerners decried slavery and called for its abolition, southern political and religious leaders found an easy ally for their pro-slavery cause in the Bible and Christian history. In 1856 Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, a Baptist minister from Culpepper County in Virginia put the pro-slavery Christian message succinctly in his “A Scriptural View of Slavery:”

…Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties… I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction…

Of course, Christians in the North disagreed – and some denominations, like Quakers, appear to have never been afflicted by slavery. Interestingly, most abolitionist attacks were based on the premise that the nature of Hebrew slavery differed in significant ways from the nature of slavery in the American South. Although this was meant to argue that the American form of slavery did not enjoy Biblical support, it nevertheless tacitly admitted that the institution of slavery did, in principle, have divine sanction and approval so long as conducted in an appropriate manner.

In the end, the North won on the question of slavery. Although the Southern Baptist Convention was formed to preserve the Christian basis for slavery before the start of the Civil War, they did not feel it necessary to bother apologizing until June 1995. The reason was that even though the question of slavery had been settled, the question of race still burned.

REPRESSION AND SUPERIORITY

The later repression and discrimination against the freed black slaves received as much biblical and Christian support as the earlier institution of slavery itself. This discrimination and the choice to enslave blacks only was made primarily on the basis of what has become known as the “sin of Ham” or “the curse of Canaan.” Occasionally there would also be defenses of the inferiority of blacks by asserting that they bore the “mark of Cain.”

We read in Genesis, chapter nine, that Noah’s son Ham comes upon him sleeping off a drinking binge and sees his father naked. Instead of covering him, he runs and tells his brothers. Shem and Japheth, the “good” brothers, return and cover their father. In retaliation for Ham’s “sinful act” of seeing his father nude, Noah puts a curse on his grandson (Ham’s son) Canaan:

“Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers” (Gen 9:25)

Over time, this curse came to be interpreted that Ham was literally “burnt,” and that all his descendants had black skin, marking them as slaves with a convenient color-coded label for subservience. When and how this gained widespread acceptance is questionable, but anti-slavery religious and political leaders have worked to refute it for more than a century. Today, biblical scholars note that the ancient Hebrew word “ham” does not have to be translated as “burnt” or “black” – but there is unfortunately little consensus on how the name and passage should be interpreted. Further complicating matters is the position of some Afrocentrists that Ham, although not cursed (despite what the Bible says!) was indeed black, as were many other characters in the Bible. Once again, people end up reading the passage as supporting their racial assumptions.

Although many Christians today would be horrified at using the Bible as a support for racism, they should recognize that it was used in just such a fashion by Christians in America in the same way and with the same justification as Christians today use the Bible in their defense of their favorite ideas. Even as recently as the 1950’s and 60’s, Christians vehemently opposed desegregation or “race-mixing” for religious reasons. The “curse” of poor Ham lingered on in the minds of white Christians who fought to preserve a constant separation of the races.

A corollary to the inferiority of blacks has long been the superiority of white Protestants – something which has not yet dissipated in America. Although “Caucasians” are not to be found anywhere in the Bible, that hasn’t stopped members of Christian Identity groups from using the Bible to prove that they are the true “chosen people” or “true Israelites.” This may seem bizarre, but it has long been popular among American Protestants to see themselves as being “divinely appointed” to tame the American wilderness despite the “demon Indians.” Americans are supposed to be blessed with a special destiny by God, and many read an American role in Armageddon in the book of Revelations. I am ever amazed at the degree to which Christianity encourages extreme egotism and inflated sense of self-importance or personal destiny.

Christian Identity is just a new kid on the block of White Protestant Supremacy – the earliest such group was the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Too few people realize that the KKK was founded as a Christian organization and still sees itself in terms of defending true Christianity. Especially in the earliest days, Klansmen openly recruited in churches (white and segregated, of course), attracting members from all strata of society, including the clergy.

Although Klan ceremonies have varied greatly, one common form will include an American flag, a cross, and a Bible opened to Romans 12, exhorting Christians to “godly conduct, godly nature.” Also common is a sword representing the war against all enemies of the Christian life and the American “Christian Nation.” Opening and closing prayers may often include “The living Christ is a Klansman’s criterion of character.” The origin of a burning cross is unclear – it may stem from the ancient Scottish tradition of burning a cross on a hill to call together the clans, or it may be representative of spreading the light of the True Cross in an effort to promote Christian faith.

INTERPRETATION AND APOLOGETICS

The cultural and personal assumptions of the pro-slavery Christians (and pro-slavery biblical authors) quoted above are probably obvious to all of us now, but I doubt that they were obvious to slavery supporters at the time. Similarly, today, I’m sure that few people are aware of the cultural and personal baggage which they bring to their readings. They assume the truth of what they believe and are determined to find divine sanction for their beliefs in their holy book. I think that these Christians would be better off defending their ideas on their own merits, but I quite honestly doubt they are capable of it. Perhaps they doubt themselves too, and that’s why they don’t try.

My recommendation is against ever accepting any sort of “common sense” defense of any biblical interpretation. Throughout history, the idea that someone’s interpretation is just “common sense” has been used on every side of every issue, including today’s topic of slavery. Defense of an interpretation can only be done via rational, logical argument. Unfortunately for Christians, that has been used effectively on every side of every issue, too – including slavery.

Maybe that means that using the Bible isn’t automatically a valid defense of an idea? Could be…

New Testament: racism

New Testament: White Supremacy?

Usbible.com

¹I appeal to you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
²Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
³For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him. (Rom. 12:1-3)

¹⁹Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
²⁰No, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.”
²¹Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:19-21)

¹⁸For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ. (Phil. 3:18)

New Testament: White Supremacy thinking leading to a belief in the Inferiority of blacks?

Usbible.com

²⁰Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard;
²¹and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent.
²²And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
²³Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.
²⁴When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him,
²⁵he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers.”
²⁶He also said, “Blessed by the LORD my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.
²⁷God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.”
²⁸After the flood Noah lived three hundred and fifty years.
²⁹All the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died. (Gen. 9:20-27)

²²And if you say in your heart, ‘Why have these things come upon me?’ it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you suffer violence.
²³Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.
²⁴I will scatter you like chaff driven by the wind from the desert.
²⁵This is your lot, the portion I have measured out to you, says the LORD, because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. (Jer. 13:22-25)

by Robert Nielsen

Some might say that was all in the past, that Jesus replaced this hate and bigotry with love. However, even Jesus looked down on other people.

“And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying; Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.” Matthew 15:22-8

Strangely I have heard Christians use this story to claim Jesus was not racist. Apparently the fact he healed a Canaanite was proof of his tolerance. In fact I remember being told this story as a child, except I was told the disciples wanted to send her away but Jesus overruled them. However, he initially refuses to even speak to her merely because she is different. He then declares that he only cares about Israelis, only they will be saved. He then compares her to a dog. All this vicious and disgusting racism coming from our saviour, the son of God. It is only after she is forced to beg, grovel and compare herself to a dog eating crumbs that Jesus decides to help her. If that’s not racist then I don’t know what is.(Mark 7:25-30 tells the same story except the woman is Greek according to him.) Christians do point to the loving words of Jesus like, “Love your neighbours” or “Treat others as you would like them to treat you.” How do we square the tolerance of Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” with the vicious bigotry mentioned above? Part of this is because of the contradictory nature of the Bible. You can take almost any declaration and find another one that directly contradicts it. Matthew 10:5-6 tells the preachers to avoid Samaria as the word of God is only for the Israelites. Yet Acts 15:3 says the preachers did go to Samaria and converted many people. (For more examples click here) For this reason, we should not try to base our lives or government on a book that you can use to justify literally any position. We should not pretend it is “The Good Book”. Morality and  tolerance does not come from the Bible, it comes from society itself. We cannot worship nor blindly accept something that contains such blatantly racist comments. We should use our own ethics to judge the Bible not the other way around. Though, in doing so we are admitting that the Bible is redundant.

Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 1 – Genocide

Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 2 – Sexism

Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 3 – Homophobia

Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 4 – Slavery

Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 5 – Racism

Terrible Parts Of The Bible Part 6 – Anti-Semitism

The Bible’s racist monstrosities: How the “word of God” has been — and still is — used to oppress

KARL W. GIBERSON

White folks and colored folks, you listen to me. You cannot
run over God’s plan and God’s established order without
having trouble. God never meant to have one race. It was not
His purpose at all. God has a purpose for each race.
—BOB JONES SR.

Martin Luther King Jr. famously said in 1963, “It is appalling that the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o’clock on Sunday morning.” Fifty years later this remains true as America’s churches lag behind its schools, businesses, military, and almost every other institution in escaping old taboos about mixing the races. Compare the diversity in the pages of Christianity Today to that of Sports Illustrated. The greatest humiliation of American Christianity is its long endorsement of slavery, and even longer endorsement of racism—a dark cloud still clearly visible at eleven o’clock on Sunday mornings. And many other places besides churches on Sunday morning as well: open any issue of Christianity Today—the flagship magazine of evangelical Christianity—and you will see almost exclusively white faces, most of them male. In yet another centuries-old context extending into the present, we find Christians looking to Genesis to make sense of race, even questioning the humanity of tribes that did not appear to be descended from Adam. How did the corners of the earth become populated with so many different tribes if humanity began with two people in the Middle East fewer than ten thousand years ago? How was the earth populated so rapidly that Adam’s son Cain could travel to Nod and build a city? And how could Adam’s descendants in a few thousand years have turned into Eskimos, Pygmies, Aryans, and Aborigines? The unwelcome answer that emerged in the nineteenth century was that the received biblical history was not history at all. The early chapters of Genesis were ancient Near Eastern myths, bearing no relation to the origin of humanity. The earth was much older than the Bible suggested; humanity did not originate in the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve; and Noah’s ark never held every living human. Wrestling with these concerns, however, was a task embraced by few Christians of that period. Even today, most evangelical denominations avoid the conversation, with disastrous results. One of these disasters is the wholesale rejection of science by young-earth creationists. I want to look at an even more unfortunate disaster, that of racism and slavery; I want to engage the disturbing truth that white Christians once appealed to the Bible to justify owning, whipping, and lynching black people. The story begins with a biblical explanation for the planet’s rapid population growth based on the great ages assigned to the first generations. “Adam,” we read in Genesis 5, “lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.” That eulogy creates the puzzle of human longevity before the flood. Eve, we presume, enjoyed a comparably long life, although the Bible omits this information for her and for other women. Adam was a typical antediluvian patriarch in terms of his longevity. Noah’s grandfather, the venerable Methuselah, lived to be 969 years old. Almost three hundred years ago, the London minister Thomas Ridgley (1667–1734) used these great ages to counter emerging claims that Adam was not the first man. In a massive work titled “Body of Divinity,” published in 1731, he targeted the “bold writer” (La Peyrère, whom we met in an earlier chapter) for suggesting that Adam was not the first man. To protect the biblical story from charges of implausible claims about population growth, Ridgley argued that Adam and Eve were incredibly prolific. If they had children at the typical rate of one every two years or so, and did not lose their procreative prowess until late in life, say forty years before they died, they could have produced hundreds of children. By the time Eve was pregnant with her tenth child, for example, her first daughter could be pregnant with the first child of the third generation. Her hundredth child would be born into a gigantic extended family. Such “hyper-fecundity,” as historian of science David Livingstone calls it, could populate the entire Middle East in no time, and account for the origins of Cain’s wife, the posse that chases him when he murders Abel, and the citizenry to populate his city in Nod. The incestuous character of all this gave some pause, of course, but this was Adam and Eve, the first humans who walked with God in the cool of the evening. Surely their offspring could have borne children together without complications. Primordial fecundity, then, eliminates the need to invoke other non-Adamic tribes. But what of the variations cataloged by the explorers? How do we account for white Northern Europeans, olive-skinned Mediterraneans, and black Africans? They can’t all be descended from the same white Adam, can they? Some argued, of course, that not all these people were descended from Adam; but most Christians insisted on the universality of the human condition implied by their theology—the “brotherhood of man,” which would become a key emphasis of the abolitionists. Climate was invoked to explain the different-toned races. Descendants of Adam in hot regions were blackened by the local climate. Just as an individual grows darker by exposure to the sun, so a tribe grows darker after generations of such exposure. The skin of the African was in fact a darkened skin—colored would become the standard term—that had once been white when the tribe had migrated from the Middle East. Those in cooler regions retained their primordial white skin. And those in temperate regions like the Mediterranean were in between. The process that darkened Adam’s white offspring was quite mysterious. Dark tans were presumably passed on to offspring through Lamarck’s “inheritance of acquired characteristics” explained in the previous chapter. Although the details are obscure, many believed that as women were more attracted to the darker skin of their mates, they psychically influenced the lives in their wombs so they were born darker still. The mysterious mechanisms were powerful: “It is not improbable that people of the fairest complexion, when removed into a very hot climate, may, in a few generations, become perfect negroes.” The French philosopher Montesquieu (1689–1755) used climate to explain everything from courage to cunning, from the tendency toward alcoholism to a preference for different religious practices. Montesquieu claimed without foundation that heat affected the “fibres” in human cardiovascular systems, altering the blood flow in ways that made white Europeans robust, energetic, and successful, and black Africans lazy, dull, and inclined toward drunkenness. The influential French naturalist Buffon also argued that climate was responsible for human diversity: “It is the same identical being who is varnished with black under the Torrid Zone, and tawned and contracted by extreme cold under the Polar Circle.”

The Biblical Roots of Racism

By Karl Giberson, Ph.D

Unfortunately, the Bible is not very helpful when it comes to race issues. Many have found within its pages justifications for slavery, abuse of African-Americans and segregation. Unfortunately, the divisions between the races are exacerbated, not diminished, by Christianity. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said in 1963, “It is appalling that the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o’clock on Sunday morning.” Fifty years later, this remains true, as America’s churches lag behind its schools, businesses, military and almost every other institution in escaping old taboos about mixing the races. Compare the diversity in the pages of Christianity Today to that of Sports Illustrated or Rolling Stone. The single greatest humiliation of American Christianity is its long endorsement of slavery and even longer endorsement of racism — a dark cloud still clearly visible at eleven o’clock on Sunday mornings — a cloud that mocks the vision of Martin Luther King and the leaders of the civil rights movement. The fundamentalist Bob Jones University in South Carolina proudly flew the racist torch as long as possible until it was forced by the IRS to integrate in 1971 or risk losing its tax exemption. It complied by admitting only married blacks to discourage racial mixing. It was not until 2000 that the University, in the midst of a great uproar, reversed its policy on interracial dating. Bob Jones Sr., the university’s founding president, had famously said, “White folks and colored folks, you listen to me. You cannot run over God’s plan and God’s established order without having trouble. God never meant to have one race. It was not His purpose at all. God has a purpose for each race.” Jones’ warning shaped the university at an official level until recently and continues to shape it informally. The University has, however, officially rejected it racist heritage, and is struggling to free itself from its own bondage to a terrible ideology. Bob Jones University is just one example of how American Christians have used the Bible to promote racism. When the Northern and Southern Baptists split in 1845 over the issue of slavery, Southern Baptists were using an obscure reference in Genesis to justify owning slaves — the so-called “Mark of Cain.” In Genesis 4, we read of God placing a visible “mark” of some sort on Cain for murdering his brother and lying about it when God asked what had happened. As early as the fifth century, Cain’s curse was interpreted as black skin, and millions of Christians have used it to justify slavery. A bit later in Genesis, we read of Noah cursing his son Ham, declaring that his offspring would henceforth serve those of his brothers. The “Curse of Ham” was another Biblical justification for slavery. One particularly disturbing appeal to the Bible argued that Noah and his family on the ark were all white, so any blacks on the ark must have been among the animals. Christian slave owners in the United States operated within a tradition that provided biblical justification for owning slaves in the same way that one owned horses. The arguments were varied: The Ten Commandments instruct us not to “covet our neighbor’s manservant (= slave),” but make no comment about our neighbor owning a slave in the first place. We are also told not to covet his donkey. The great patriarch Abraham — Kierkegaard’s “Knight of Faith” — owned slaves. The apostle Paul returned a runaway slave to his master. Jesus did not condemn the widespread slavery in the Roman world. If slavery was wrong, why does the Bible not condemn it? The prevailing view was, unfortunately, quite logical, or at least Biblical. If God created the races in their present forms, as most evangelical Christians believe and which must be true if the earth is just a few thousand years old, why did He create separate races? Assuming the separate races are a part of God’s plan, should we not join Bob Jones Sr., in his warning that we must maintain God’s divinely ordained races by preventing interracial marriage? Biblically-based assaults on blacks have waned over the years, thankfully, but never fully disappeared. In a highly significant and symbolic move, the Southern Baptists did apologize in 1995 for their endorsement of slavery, segregation and white supremacism. And in 2012, the sixteen-million-member body elected its first African-American president to preside over an encouragingly diverse community. So there is hope. But as long as a literally interpreted Bible remains the authority for millions of Christians, we will be struggling with its mixed messages about the meaning of the races. – Adapted from “Saving The Original Sinner: How Christians Have Used the Bible’s First Man to Oppress, Inspire and Make Sense of the World,” by Karl. W. Giberson (Beacon Press, 2015).

Racism Hate, is Psychological/Emotional Violence?

Slavery, Racism, Religion and the Confederate Flag

Taxonomy of Race? Construct or a biological reality?

The “But That’s Just the Old Testament!” Cop-Out

loonwatch.com

There are numerous reasons the “But It’s Just the Old Testament!” Defense doesn’t do the trick:

1) There is no explicit or categorical textual proof from the New Testament that supports the idea that the Old Testament (or the Law) “doesn’t count”.  For every verse cited to prove such a claim, there is another that can be cited for the opposite view.  In fact, it seems that the textual proof for the opposite view is greater, even overwhelming.  For example, Jesus says in the Gospels:

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And Jesus also said:

Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one dot of the Law to become void.

There are other verses that similarly seem to affirm the importance of keeping the Law.  On the other hand, the evidences used to counter this view are less explicit and less direct.

2)  Both the Old and New Testament are considered by all mainstream branches of Christianity to be “just as inspired as the New Testament.” The New Testament itself affirms the accuracy of the Old Testament:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

3:17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

“All Scripture – This properly refers to the Old Testament…it includes the whole of the Old Testament, and is the solemn testimony of Paul that it was all inspired.” More importantly, as Catholic.com says (emphasis is ours): “Scripture — all of Scripture — is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.”

[Update I: A reader pointed out the following: Christians see Jesus as God. That means that he was also the God of the Old Testament. The same God who commanded all those killings and the author of all those violent and disgusting commands as listed in your previous articles. So the violence Jesus supports and predicts is not only evident in the New Testament, but he is supposedly also the author of said violent commands in the Old testament as well. Not only then is the Old Testament “an expression of the will of Christ”–it isChrist.]

Protestant Christianity, as seen on this popular Evangelical site, also agrees with this assessment:

Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God’s will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).

3)  On this note, Jesus Christ himself is depicted in the New Testament as being very violent during his Second Coming (see part 5).  Even if we completely sweep the Biblical prophets and the Old Testament under the rug (which is exactly what anti-Muslim Christians do in debates with Muslims), it doesn’t change the fact that Jesus in the New Testament is very violent: he promises to kill or subjugate all of his enemies, which includes those whose only crime is to refuse to believe in him.  So, even if we completely disregard the OT, this wouldn’t solve the “problem”.

More importantly, the fact that Jesus promised to kill his enemies (a promise he made during his First Coming)–even if he is yet to fulfill this promise–shows that Jesus did not reject the violent ways of the earlier Biblical prophets.  He simply was not in a position of authority or power to carry out these acts of unbridled violence.  He wouldn’t have promised violence if he truly rejected the OT’s violence.

When we published an article about the violent Second Coming of Christ, many critics cried “you can’t compare Jesus’ supposed violence in the future with what Muhammad actually already did!”  (How quickly anti-Muslim Christians can turn something they believe in with all their might and which they believe is central to their faith–the Second Coming of Christ–into a “supposed” event makes us wonder if this is not Christian taqiyya?)  Yet, it was during his First Coming that Jesus made the promise to kill all those who did not believe in him; the action–a violent threat to ruthlessly slaughter infidels (i.e. Luke 19:27)–has already been made.

4)  Christians not only routinely cite the Old Testament, but they specifically cite it with regard to Jesus.  Various prophecies in the OT are attributed to Jesus: these prophecies depict the Messiah as a violent conquering king who brutally vanquishes his enemies.  (Please read the section entitled “Christians Affirm Militant Old Testament Prophecies” in part 5 of the Understanding Jihad Series.)  This reinforces point #3 above: Jesus is seen as fulfilling, not rejecting, the violence of the Old Testament.  After all, the violence of the OT was “an expression of the will of Christ.”

5)  The official views of the Church itself do not endorse the idea of “tossing the Old Testament aside”: even when it comes to formulating a doctrine in regards to war, the OT must be taken into consideration.  It is argued that there is concordance, not dissonance, between the Old and New Testaments.  As the esteemed theologian Prof. Samuele R. Bacchiocchi concluded:

An attentive study shows that the NT complements, rather than contradicts the teachings of the OT regarding warfare…A balanced reading of the NT texts suggests that there is a basic agreement between the Old and New Testaments on their teaching on warfare.

The violent wars in the OT are reconciled by arguing that Biblical Israel was justified in its declarations of war and was only acting in self-defense: “At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms.” Of course, this is not supported by the facts: the Israelites were clearly the aggressors, annihilating and/or running off the indigenous populations of a land that they believed was divinely given to them.  They were only “defending themselves” insofar as any aggressive occupier will “resist” those they occupy.

6) The fact of the matter is that all mainstream Christian groups affirm both the Old and New Testament as canon.  The Church fought off any attempts to “throw away the Old Testament”.  In the second century of Christianity, Marcion of Sinope rejected the Old Testament because of the violence, war atrocities, and genocide contained therein.  He was denounced by the Church, and his views towards the Old Testament were officially damned as heresy.  Tertullian, the Father of Western Christianity, issued a rebuttal against Marcion.

We read:

Marcionism. Marcionism owed its existence to Marcion, an individual who gained popularity in Rome in 140-144. His theology was influenced heavily by the Gnostics, and he denied the power of the God of the Old Testament. He promulgated the use of a limited form of the New Testament, including Luke’s Gospel and Acts, and many of the Pauline epistles, the former since Luke was a Gentile and the latter since he was sent to preach to the Gentiles. He found the God of the Old Testament contradictory and inhumane. The “orthodox” Christianity of the time rejected his argumentation, upheld the value of the Old Testament, and dutifully began the work of canonization of the Old and New Testaments. The specter of Marcion loomed large enough so as to merit refutation by Tertullian at the end of the second century; nevertheless, Marcion’s movement mostly died out or assimilated into other Gnostic groups.

Marcionism died out, thanks to the Church and its insistence of the Old Testament’s validity.  The Catholic Encyclopedia calls the Marcionist sect “perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known.”  Today, there are some modern-day believers, called New Testament Only Christians, who reject the Old Testament due to its inherent violence, war atrocities, and genocide.  This group is a very small minority, a “heretical” group that is at odds with the main body of Christianity.

So, unless you happen to be a New Testament Only Christian, the “But That’s Just the Old Testament!” Defense simply doesn’t apply to you.  The existence of the New Testament Only Christians, however, is actually indicative of just how violent the Bible is: it couldn’t be reconciled, so more than half of it had to be jettisoned.

* * * *

None of this is to say that Christians must interpret the Bible in a violent manner.  But what we are saying is that a softer reading of the Bible requires textual acrobatics, convoluted argumentation, and theological mind-bending.  The reasons given why the Old Testament Law are no longer in effect are far more complex to grasp then the simple, straight-forward understanding one gets from reading Jesus’ seemingly simple, straight-forward statements, such as:

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Tenets of Secular Ethics?

My Atheistic (socialist-anarchist) Humanism?

How We Think is as Important as How We Behave.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

People don’t commonly teach religious history, even that of their own claimed religion. No, rather they teach a limited “pro their religion” history of their religion from a religious perspective favorable to the religion of choice. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref 

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

“How have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity

“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworld. Ki and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religion. Egyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation, destruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref

“Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref

“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Týr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref

Tutelary deity

“A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of “tutelary” expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Korean shamanism, jangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the Seonangdang. In Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonás, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Māori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwan‘s term for spirit), Hyang (Kawi, Sundanese, Javanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Māori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Māori mythology, Tiki is the first man created by either Tūmatauenga or Tāne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). ” ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States 

“Historical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and Ur; Ancient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as Florence, Siena, Ferrara, Milan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen Itza, Tikal, Copán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coast; Ragusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.” ref

“The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.” ref

“Chinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” ref

“Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.” ref

“Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.” ref

“The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as “tower-crowned” represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.” ref 

Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)

“A household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity – typically a goddess – often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.” ref

“The second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.” ref

“Household deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as “household gods” in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.” ref

“In many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:

• Brownie (Scotland and England) or Hob (England) / Kobold (Germany) / Goblin / Hobgoblin
• Domovoy (Slavic)
• Nisse (Norwegian or Danish) / Tomte (Swedish) / Tonttu (Finnish)
• Húsvættir (Norse)” ref

“Although the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.” ref

“For centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Luther‘s Tischreden have numerous – quite serious – references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.” ref

“In contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, Émile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freud’s Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.” ref

“William Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II “The House Spirit”, Section 1, he states:

The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was … the spirit rule of dead ancestors.” ref

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. …

In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. … [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. … The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. … In [England] … [h]e is the Brownie. … In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

Hinduism around 3,700 to 3,500 years old. ref

 Judaism around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (The first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew” dated to around 3,000 years ago Khirbet Qeiyafa is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Elah Valley. And many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed around 2,500) ref, ref

Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (“Paleo-Hebrew” 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)

“Judaism is an Abrahamic, its roots as an organized religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. Some scholars argue that modern Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, by the late 6th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.” ref

“Yahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel, essentially polytheistic, with a plethora of gods and goddesses. Heading the pantheon was Yahweh, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah, with his consort, the goddess Asherah; below them were second-tier gods and goddesses such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte, all of whom had their own priests and prophets and numbered royalty among their devotees, and a third and fourth tier of minor divine beings, including the mal’ak, the messengers of the higher gods, who in later times became the angels of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Yahweh, however, was not the ‘original’ god of Israel “Isra-El”; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name “Israel”, and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh).” ref

“El is a Northwest Semitic word meaning “god” or “deity“, or referring (as a proper name) to any one of multiple major ancient Near Eastern deities. A rarer form, ‘ila, represents the predicate form in Old Akkadian and in Amorite. The word is derived from the Proto-Semitic *ʔil-, meaning “god”. Specific deities known as ‘El or ‘Il include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period. ʼĒl is listed at the head of many pantheons. In some Canaanite and Ugaritic sources, ʼĒl played a role as father of the gods, of creation, or both. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, ʾil mlk is understood to mean “ʼĒl the King” but ʾil hd as “the god Hadad“. The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾAlāh, ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning “gods” is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm “powers”. In the Hebrew texts this word is interpreted as being semantically singular for “god” by biblical commentators. However the documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament (corresponds to the Jewish Torah) developed originally in the 1870s, identifies these that different authors – the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source – were responsible for editing stories from a polytheistic religion into those of a monotheistic religion. Inconsistencies that arise between monotheism and polytheism in the texts are reflective of this hypothesis.” ref

Jainism around 2,599 – 2,527 years old. ref

Confucianism around 2,600 – 2,551 years old. ref

Buddhism around 2,563/2,480 – 2,483/2,400 years old. ref

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:

• Around 2,600 years ago, Ajita Kesakambali, ancient Indian philosopher, who is the first known proponent of Indian materialism. ref
• Around 2,535 to 2,475 years ago, Heraclitus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor or modern Turkey. ref
• Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, according to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals, and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. ref
• Around 2,490 to 2,430 years ago, Empedocles, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. ref
• Around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, Democritus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. ref
• Around 2,399 years ago or so, Socrates, a famous Greek philosopher was tried for sinfulness by teaching doubt of state gods. ref
• Around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago, Epicurus, a Greek philosopher known for composing atheistic critics and famously stated, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ref

This last expression by Epicurus, seems to be an expression of Axiological Atheism. To understand and utilize value or actually possess “Value Conscious/Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care responsibilities. Because value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic/psychopathic evil.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com