Is the bible used to justify prejudice?

[marco]

People have their prejudices but what a blessing it must be if the bible encourages them. Jews killed Christ - let us hate Jews. Suffer not a witch to live - let us kill witches. If man lies down with another man, let them both perish - let us kill gays!

If we read enough into what is written biblically I suppose we can find a justification of any prejudice. There's a good passage that justifies hurting people, even family members, by shunning them. Matthew 10:14 tells us: "And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet." So if you have your own religious views and somebody doesn't agree, then God tells you to shun them. What a bonus!

Does the bible pander to prejudice?
How can we tell that biblical interpretation is not just a reflection of our own hates and prejudices?

[JehovahsWitness]

Opposing crime has nothing to do with bigotry or intolerance.

I agree. Then the example provided was not evidence of "bigotry" since it refered to a national law and outlined the punishment for criminal action under that specific penal code. One can't just point to a law, scream the word "bigot" and think that ends (or even begins) the discussion, especially as opposing crime has nothing to do with bigotry or intolerance.

Some passages in the Bible do seem to support bigotry.

They might seem to, but they don't. Most of them refer to national or "church" law. Opposing crime has nothing to do with bigotry or intolerance


JW

[marco]

Then the example provided was not evidence of "bigotry" since it refered to a national law and outlined the punishment for criminal action under that specific penal code. One can't just point to a law, scream the word "bigot" and think that ends (or even begins) the discussion, especially as opposing crime has nothing to do with bigotry or intolerance.

You are confusing several issues. We are citizens of the 21st century and when you talk of violating a law and committing crime we are not talking about appearing on the king's highway with a blackened face, which attracted a penalty of death. Less so are we discussing the ways of the Medes and the Persians. If there are parts of the bible that have no relevance today, then it is wrong for people to quote them. Leviticus on homosexuality might no longer have any relevance, involving as it does a crime of ancient days, so when people use such texts to justify present day treatment they are doing exactly what is described in the OP. Your defence is without merit.

They might seem to, but they don't. Most of them refer to national or "church" law. Opposing crime has nothing to do with bigotry or intolerance

Well this is just an ordinary mistake you're making. It is not criminal to disobey church law. There is no national law that says we should kill homosexuals. As I said, the passages in the bible that do condemn may in the distant past have been law, but if people use them today, then they are displaying prejudice.

The passage in the NT about shunning those who do not listen does not involve national law or crime. So again your defence has no merit.

[SallyF]

People have their prejudices but what a blessing it must be if the bible encourages them. Jews killed Christ - let us hate Jews. Suffer not a witch to live - let us kill witches. If man lies down with another man, let them both perish - let us kill gays!

If we read enough into what is written biblically I suppose we can find a justification of any prejudice. There's a good passage that justifies hurting people, even family members, by shunning them. Matthew 10:14 tells us: "And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet." So if you have your own religious views and somebody doesn't agree, then God tells you to shun them. What a bonus!

Does the bible pander to prejudice?
How can we tell that biblical interpretation is not just a reflection of our own hates and prejudices?

Biblical propaganda actively promotes "put them to the edge of the sword" prejudice.

I know of no society, ancient or modern, where biblical prejudice would NOT be considered prejudice.

We find biblical reflection of our own hates and prejudices (and positivities) by cherry-picking the bits of human-written "scripture" that suit US.


And making excuses for those that don't.

[JehovahsWitness]

If there are parts of the bible that have no relevance today, then it is wrong for people to quote them.

I think there are a few historians, just turned over in their graves ( or "La-Z-Boys").

Quoting something is never wrong. It might sometimes be inappropriate (especially if one is quoting intimacies not meant for public consumption) and occasionally illegal ( State secrets ) but quotes n general contribute to our collective knowledge and knowledge is good as it lifts us up to a higher plane. Even quoting what seems to have no relevance is not "wrong" (I say "seems" because most thing are relevant if only in connection with what we used to believe was relevant).

I am surprised to read that there are those that want to censor what can be quoted and what cannot, what next book burnings?



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Leviticus on homosexuality might no longer have any relevance, involving as it does a crime of ancient days, so when people use such texts to justify present day treatment they are doing exactly what is described in the OP.

History is always "relevant" if only to show us were we came from ( or what not to do); the past is inextricably linked to the present. ... but as for your point that "when people use such texts to justify present day treatment they are doing exactly what is described in the OP. "

That would depend on what kind of treatment they are using it to justify. If they are using it ( or any bible text) to justify ILL treatment/ mistreatment, abusive unkind treatment... of others, then I agree. In fact my initial comment in this thread read as follows ...

Yes, certainly. Human nature seems capable of twisting anything (atheism, nationalism, belief in evolution... ) to justify malicious aims with or without a valid basis. Sadly the bible is no exception, which is tragic as it doesn't support prejudice of any kind

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

It is not criminal to disobey church law.

It is for some churches, my own included. Are you perhaps under the impression that Federal or State laws are the only laws that exist? I checked what "criminal" means and it is simply someone that breaks a law.

LAW

the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

The passage in the NT about shunning those who do not listen does not involve national law ...

Did I say it did ?

There is no national law that says we should kill homosexuals.

Did I claim there is?



JW

[SallyF]

Biblical propaganda - old and new - has it that certain races are inferior to the "Chosen".

A human prejudice from human writings that is with us still.


Slaves are to obey their masters out of respect for Jehovah.


Christianity also promotes docile obedience to human oppression in the names of Jehovah and Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

Arguing against Christianity is justified.

And considering just how diluted the inherent prejudice of the Christianities is these days, the arguments are effective.

[marco]

If there are parts of the bible that have no relevance today, then it is wrong for people to quote them.

I think there are a few historians, just turned over in their graves .

Have you forgotten the subject of the OP? Using bible passages as an excuse for prejudice. You have mistakenly taken my words to apply to historians whose job it is to study texts and they have nothing to do with the subject of prejudice. But I am flattered to hear that dead historians are gravely influenced by what Marco might write.

Quoting something is never wrong.

It is if you quote it in the wrong place in order to mislead or use your quote to justify murder. (The bible told me to do it!)

I am surprised to read that there are those that want to censor what can be quoted and what cannot, what next book burnings?

Don't be. It is just another misunderstanding in what has turned out to be a rather difficult topic. To keep you right, we're discussing religious people who quote the bible to justify their wrong actions. Do you know of any? We are not discussing Cyrano de Bergerac of indeed Marie Antoinette - at least not yet.

Is the bible used to justify prejudice? Your point about the sleepless corpses of historians doesn't really do much to answer this question.

[marco]

It is not criminal to disobey church law.

It is for some churches, my own included. Are you perhaps under the impression that Federal or State laws are the only laws that exist? I checked what "criminal" means and it is simply someone that breaks a law.

My goodness this topic has caused lots of confusion. A person who breaks some church rule is not a criminal, since he has not committed a crime. Criminal is the adjective from crime. The law referred to is the law that defines crimes, not church law.


So if you think that somebody who does not pray according to what is prescribed is a criminal then I can do nothing about this other than say you are wrong. There is no need to inform me of definitions: I am not the one making mistakes. The consequence of the confusion over what a criminal is has been to move us a good distance from the discussion on prejudice arising from the bible.

Let's return to the question I set and leave old Mrs Brown who has used the wrong rosary beads with her reputation of not being a criminal intact.

[JehovahsWitness]

Criminal is the adjective from crime.

Thank you, very helpful knowing what words mean.

CRIME

An action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law.

LAW

the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.