Anonymous #1 1d

It’s baked into the book.

85

Anonymous #3 1d

Racism?

28

Anonymous #4 1d

That too.

39

Anonymous #3 1d

no, it’s literally not? just say you have not read the Bible with any type of understanding

117

Anonymous #5 1d

It's not in the Bible, but it's a huge part of Christianity. Race only exists because of Christians in the slave trade, Christians created race and racism to justify owning black people, it's where monkey became a racial insult, white people were closer to divine and black people were closer to beasts. Racism exists because of Christians and the used the Bible to justify it. So you're right the Bible doesn't say that, but it justifies slavery in general and race itself was created by Christians

51

Anonymous #9 1d

africans had slaves long before “christianity” did.

28

Anonymous #10 1d

I didn't say slavery was created by Christians, you don't know how to read

62

Anonymous #9 1d

I also like the implication that Africa didn’t have Christianity

40

Anonymous OP 1d

I didn't say they didn't...

17

Anonymous #9 1d

You can have correlation without causation. Racism and slavery aren’t Christian things, but people in a predominantly Christian area can be racist for other reasons. If you can’t separate these things then you have to also conclude that slavery is an Indian, black people, and white people thing. As well as all other races. But it’s clearly not because of their race, so you have to be able to distinguish simple correlation from causation.

35

Anonymous #9 1d

“Africans had slaves long before Christianity did” implies the two are mutually exclusive, which I thought was funny

6

Anonymous #7 1d

Racism is a Christian thing look it up, created by Christians.

-12

Anonymous OP 1d

I didn't say that you're talking about a different person

-5

Anonymous #9 1d

Racism is not a Christian thing, I have looked it up. Christians did not create racism. There are Christians that are racist, but you could say that about any group of people. It isn’t because they’re Christians.

34

Anonymous #7 1d

It's created by Christians, it used Christianity to explain why, and they justified it. You're not looking up shit.

-18

Anonymous #8 1d

U seem like the type of person to see a black man get murdered and say “well what was he doing?”

21

Anonymous #9 1d

That’s not Christianity inventing racism, that’s racist people who are Christian. People will use any system of beliefs to justify their biases, but that doesn’t actually reflect on the system of beliefs

24

Anonymous OP 1d

then it sounds like you’re implying christianity created slavery, which is so wrong LMAO 😭

12

Anonymous #9 1d

you’re assuming christianity created racism, with no inherent evidence for your claim, people have ALWAYS treated those who look different, different.

8

Anonymous #10 1d

I said Christians created it and used Christianity to justify it and it became a huge part of Christianity in America which were still seeing today.

9

Anonymous #10 1d

It's still a systemic problem amongst Christians, and was the Christian norm at one point. It is not a few bad eggs

5

Anonymous #10 1d

I literally never said that or implied that (because I don’t believe it) lol

1

Anonymous OP 1d

OP, you're not paying attention to who's commenting what to whom, please bud out, you're not contributing

0

Anonymous #9 1d

Bro is writing racism fanfic

4

Anonymous #9 1d

What😭 I agreed with you hello?😭

2

Anonymous #7 1d

Racism is Christian fan fic. This is history you're denying

-1

Anonymous #9 1d

Racism existed way way before Christianity dude

6

Anonymous OP 1d

They were replying to me and you've commented to me disagreeing multiple times. Pay attention at least

-3

Anonymous #7 1d

No it didn't. Racism as an idea itself did not. Mistreating others because of their skin did but not the idea of race itself. Basic research would do you wonders

-2

Anonymous #3 1d

no… but okay lol

0

Anonymous #11 1d

Bro it was a joke😭, I obvi don’t support racism

1

Anonymous #9 1d

What’s the difference between mistreating others because of the color of their skin and racism? I thought discrimination was defined at discrimination on the basis of race. That’s what you’re describing

1

Anonymous #9 1d

crazy take… so if i were german i would automatically be a nazi?

10

Anonymous #7 1d

Race isn't a real thing, it isn't biological it's social and was created to justify slavery by Christian slavers. Before this humans were not separated into distinct categories. White people were considered the closest to divine. Do you think monkey as an insult just came out of nowhere? Do research

1

Anonymous #7 1d

the way you’re getting downvoted 😭 people are so mad you’re right

-2

Anonymous #10 1d

how😭😭😭

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Did I say If you were Christian you were automatically racist? No I just said they tend to go hand in hand given the history, bud out if you can't read

1

Anonymous #5 1d

I have read the buybull cover to cover. Not a fan.

0

Anonymous #9 1d

I think it is to justify people looking different in different areas because racism is a LOT older than Christianity. We’re talking thousands of years older

1

Anonymous #9 1d

So if someone only hates people with black skin regardless of their social enclave that person isn’t racist? Damn here I was thinking that these mfs who hate all black people were racist. Silly me

5

Anonymous #7 1d

They would be racist today yes, but race didn't exist as a concept before hand. Hating a race isn't as simple as hating a skin color. There's more to race than that…

1

Anonymous #4 1d

Race it's self as a concept only existed since the 17th century with the rise of chattel slavery in the new world

1

Anonymous #9 1d

Do you think it’s only racism/race if the word “race” is used? Like do you think that if someone is functionally racist but doesn’t use the word race to describe that group of people then they aren’t racist?

6

Anonymous #9 1d

correlation doesn’t equal causation… and i made the comment why would i bud out of a convo I started LMAO

5

Anonymous #9 1d

And do you think Christianity began in the 17th century?! If racism is a part of Christianity then it would begin with Christianity right?

6

Anonymous #7 1d

https://www.racepowerofanillusion.org/articles/origin-idea-race/ I'm done talking to you. There's an article No Christianity didn't begin in the 17th century that's not what I said.

0

Anonymous #7 1d

You do realize that Christians created race at a later date right? I never said when the Bible was written racism was created. You're slow if you think I said that

1

Anonymous #9 1d

But you said racism didn’t exist before then. And you said Christianity is inherently racist. So if Christianity is inherently racist then racism would have to at least be as old as Christianity. I know what you’re referring to with the “idea of race” and when it was popularized as an idea, but that didn’t mean it didn’t exist before then. You can’t just read an article but to have to actually interpret it.

1

Anonymous #7 1d

The idea of race was created by Christians. That's what I said

1

Anonymous #7 1d

The idea of race didn't exist before Christianity. Humans weren't defined into broad categories like that

-3

Anonymous #9 1d

What do you think race is? What is your definition?

1

Anonymous #7 1d

“a human categorization based on shared physical or perceived social qualities” It is not just skin color, and these social qualities weren't separated into distinct races until European colonialism and chattel slavery

-1

Anonymous #9 1d

And you don’t think that people were categorized based on shared physical or perceived social qualities before the 17th century? Just because that’s when the phrase was coined and people started philosophizing on it then, doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before.

2

Anonymous #9 1d

Race and racism have existed for all of human history

7

Anonymous #7 1d

No, not in the way they were now and not In a formalized written way like it was then. People were only separated by these classes to justify some fucked shit. Simple as that, and it was Christians who made it formalized and used it systemically and We still see it today. Race is and was never biological and scientists agree it is social based.

0

Anonymous #9 23h

#9 bro OP was commenting AGREEING WITH YOU and pointing out that the person you were arguing with was making a stupid point. they weren't saying "you said africa didn't have christianity" they were saying "isn't it silly that this other person was implying africa didn't have christianity?" and you assumed they were trying to argue with you and picked a fight with them. then u have the gall to tell them THEY need to pay attention??? bro i can't 💀

10

Anonymous #12 23h

Right lmao #7 has made so many factually incorrect statements that I just haven’t even addressed because #9 was so weird😭

7

Anonymous #9 22h

You literally did say it was created by Christians and now you're saying you didn't say it ??

8

Anonymous #9 22h

Me if I was stupid: anyway the slave bible had verses omitted by slave owners because they wouldve changed the slave owning narrative

5

Anonymous #9 22h

Definitely wouldn’t say it’s apart of Christianity but I am aware of how many “Christian’s” participated in things like this which taints the image so bad. I’m a Christian myself but it’s so embarrassing to say it to ppl not bc I’m ashamed of following God but I’m embarrassed of being associated with false Christian’s. People call themselves Christian’s to make themselves feel like good ppl. But the truth is you can’t call yourself a Christian without actually following Christ.

3

Anonymous #15 22h

This is true, the movements involving “christians” that devolve into racist supremacy groups have to fundamentally ignore basic Christian dogma and teaching. Funny enough, theres an entire section of the NT that covers something akin to racism and why its bad. A large part of the new testament was people like Peter and Paul coming to terms with and teaching other people that superiority is NOT an ideal God should be associated with

7

Anonymous #5 22h

Atheists are so weird

0

Anonymous #16 21h

“Atheists are so weird” Meanwhile…

8

Anonymous #9 21h

Do you mean like the word? Race definitely existed as a concept back when the fucking Neanderthals were around. Perhaps it was intuited rather than verbally said but race definitely existed as a concept as soon as two races discovered each other. I’m sure I could find plenty of references to races before the discovery of the new world. Separate race as a legal definition from race as a concept, because the concept existed as soon as two different color people saw each other

1

Anonymous #9 20h

The word “slave” exists from the root word “Slav,” and was originally because of the Arabic slave trade labeling people of a different race, the Slavs, as such. Laughably incorrect ngl

8

Anonymous #5 20h

Don’t need the bible, history already goes against your defense

6

Anonymous #17 20h

Slav isn’t a race btw

1

Anonymous OP 20h

The term “Slav” does refer to a race sometimes. It refers to a few things. One of them being race. You can go further back to find racism in history though. Some time from 2,000-3,000 BC there are artifacts found showing the Egyptians being racist against other races nearby such as the Nubians.

2

Anonymous OP 20h

It is lol. You do realize that there are more races than black and white, right? Slavs consider themselves distinct, and were racially oppressed by the Arabs during the slave trade. Jews self identify as racially different, so do Slavs, so do many different races.

1

Anonymous #9 19h

why are you blaming all christians instead of colonial europeans? europeans dont have a monopoly on christianity. or are you trying to say the ethiopian orthodox church, a black african church almost as old as christianity itself, created racism too?

1

Anonymous #22 16h

I feel like you’re someone who bitches about “anti-white racism” for some reason

11

Anonymous OP 16h

No i just find it funny. I dont give a flying fuck

-3

Anonymous #22 16h

What a luxury

18

Anonymous OP 16h

Y u so angy🥺😔😔

-2

Anonymous #9 14h

Brother we do a whole deep dive into racism the Greeks exhibited in a 1000 level RLCL class. Please learn a bit more human history before blaming racism as an idea on a religion. It traces back to human tribalism, not a religious belief.

1

Anonymous #9 11h

Ah yes, quite the intellectual. Aside from the fact that not only was Jesus not white but also the fact that a whole plot line was about freeing the Israelite slaves from the Africans and escaping Africa makes this entire paragraph you wrote ludicrous. For your own sake I hope that this is just rage bait in which case I applaud you. Race exists because it is simply a fact humans adapted traits to where they lived hence melanin the less sun you get in your living area the lighter your skin

1

Anonymous #24 11h

This also is why without supplements 3/4 of Africans will be vitamin d deficient in a place like Sweden they did a study on this melanin is just sunscreen aside from that I won’t waste words on what is either genius ragebait or intellectual disability.

1

Anonymous #9 10h

Race isn’t from Christians

1

Anonymous #9 4h

Have you read the bible at all?? Ever heard of The Exodus? The Jews and the Gentiles? Romans, Greeks, theres racism all throughout and before Christ. Christianity did not create racism 😭😭😭. Thats the craziest thing ive ever heard

0

Anonymous #26 4h

The exodus never happened so not a good example.

3

Anonymous #26 2h

sounds like ethnocentrism or tribalism to me. it’s not racism unless it’s about race, which is a concept colonial europeans created to justify exploiting other groups of people based on phenotype, like black africans for example

4

Anonymous #24 2h

race is a social construct, it's not biological. not only is africa the most genetically diverse continent, but grouping phenotypes doesn't work. there are brown passing white people, white passing brown people, brown passing black people, and etc. people dont cleanly fit into racial categories

6

Anonymous #21 1h

Sort of but no kinda all people today are homosapiens but Europeans carry Neanderthal DNA, Asians, carry denisovan dna, and Africans carry dna from an archaic ghost lineage of hominid lineages that never left the African continent. And all these additions change how people are related kind of like dog breeding and give the different modern people different traits depending on the ancient group the are mixed with, of course everyone has differing amounts of this ancient dna.

1

Anonymous #24 1h

Now it’s not clean racial categories because of how easy and common it’s become for people to share dna between people on different continents who would never have originally met and shared dna thousands of years ago

1

Anonymous #9 1h

That definitely contradicts the many Christians who used the bible to denounce slavery.

1

Anonymous helpmereletpls 1h

I mean, the book itself never says anything against it, not even close to abolishing it… just how to do it and how to beat them. 🫩

1

Anonymous #3 1h

Regulation vs. Endorsement. There are also laws that are against kidnapping people to be your slave.

1

Anonymous #3 1h

Imma need you to read the New Testament with a study bible so nothing is misconstrued 🙂‍↕️

1

Anonymous #24 1h

yeah no this isn’t based on science. yes we have small admixture with other humans but the phenotypical features you see in different ethnic groups are just adaptations to their environment, some of which happened in recent human history. you’re taking a small bit of info and creating your own theories off of it. modern science says race has no genealogical basis. 95% of genetic variation exists within local populations. only 5% accounts for different geographical groups

1

Anonymous #21 1h

You’re using big words to make yourself seem more knowledgeable but the average person knows that the most knowledgeable people can take these big ideas and find a way to express them with small words. Then you also consider that a super small difference in genetics can result in a large physical difference. If you apply all that to what you just said then you get a big nothingburger of a statement and you didn’t really say anything at all. Fuck the conversation, that alone bothers me.

0

Anonymous helpmereletpls 1h

I’ve read the entire book cover to cover. It doesn’t move to abolish slavery. Regulation of slavery is still endorsement of slavery.

1

Anonymous #7 1h

holy literacy crisis, what big words did i even use 💀literally just look up what i said, this is what actual scientists have concluded. my point was that race is a social construct, not biological, and i used what’s already been established to explain why. 5% of genetic variation based on geographical differences in no way proves that race is genetic. you’re ignoring that 95% of genetic variation is non-phenotypical. again, you’re arguing with science because these are their conclusions

1

Anonymous #24 59m

there absolutely was admixture happening between continents back then, it just wasnt as common as it is today. for example, the natufian back migration ten thousand years ago led to ancient levantines mixing with ancient northeast africans. additionally, europeans were dark until 8000 years ago because the agricultural revolution changed their diet. they no longer were getting adequate vitamin d in their diet which is why they became fair, not because of neanderthals

1

Anonymous #3 58m

It was indentured servitude, and every 50 years people were released and all debts were cleared anyway. English is limited, so they used the best substitute, but it’s genuinely not chattel slavery. These are people who owed money, and were released when things were paid or jubilee came.

0

Anonymous #21 56m

scientists*

1

Anonymous #21 49m

i'm kind of lost with the 95% and 5% thing. what does it mean for 95% of variation to exist in local populations and how is that the same as being non phenotypical? i'm not arguing ur point i just want clarification there

1

Anonymous helpmereletpls 48m

In some situations, sure, but in others it was outright chattel slavery without debt. They’re both pretty shit. Slavery is never acceptable, in any form. Exodus 21:4, the man may go free but wife and child stay. 21:5-6, family used to keep the man as a slave forever, marked like cattle— i.e., chattel. Women slaves were frequently sold, taken as sex slaves (or “wives” as the buybull calls them at times), frequently taken as property in sieges. “Regulation” of slavery is endorsement.

1

Anonymous #21 48m

also small nitpick, "arguing with science" is like. the definition of science. science is the process of proving oneself and each other wrong until you get to a point where whats left is likely true

1

Anonymous #7 47m

like when were admixture, genealogical, and phenotypical “big words” for college students. we’re literally talking about race and genealogy, obviously i’m gonna use words associated with them. literally how did that make you mad 💀 and the “nothingburger” you’re talking about are evidence based conclusions from people who actually study this, not just some random theory i personally made up. you’re literally angry because you’re illiterate and incapable of basic google searches

3

Anonymous #21 45m

i'm not saying that the ppl in this thread rejecting your conclusion are being scientific abt it, but it just bugs me when people say stuff like "believe science" or "you're arguing with the science" because it makes science seem to laypeople like a religion rather than a method of inquiry

1

Anonymous #12 21m

arguing with science by taking random facts and creating an entire theory out of it with no actual scientific method behind it isn’t the point of science. if they went and tested their hypothesis and found it to be supported by evidence, then it would be scientific. and the high majority of the 95% i’m talking about are both non-phenotypical and non-coding. they’re basically an instruction manual or switchboard for coding dna

4

Anonymous #21 15m

i know i tried to clarify that in my response, i dont disagree that the person was being dumb which is why i said it was a small nitpick, it was more that i think the phrasing of "arguing with science" lends to a misunderstanding of what science is. though you could reasonably argue that it isn't your problem if someone thinks that based on what you said. again, not trying to argue with you as i agree with what you've said so far & also think you sound well educated.

1

Anonymous #21 12m

if i may ask, what do you study? you seem to have a decent understanding of geneology as well as some historical knowledge regarding religion and race science and i'm curious if that's just based on independent research or if you've been taking classes on that type of thing

1