Racism is certainly a social construct. If racism is a sin, then the Bible is full of the sin of racism. God of the Old Testament having “a chosen people” is inherently racist.
So, according to your own logic, “God of the Old Testament having ‘a chosen people’ is inherently racism”.is merely a social construct of your own manufacture.
That’s a very interesting confession, Patrick. I appreciate your honesty.
2 Likes
Not my manufacture, but their’s. They created the inherently racist God of the Old Testament who chooses them as their God’s chosen people. This was an inherently racist social construct. The Old Testament is full of racism that can’t be glossed over. The God of the Old Testament kills, destroys people and livestock of other races just because they are a different group of people, not of the chosen race.
1 Like
To reiterate a point which has been made endlessly for centuries: the people of the Covenant is NOT a race in the modern English language sense. (Today we say that Jewish people are not a race.)
In both ancient times and modern times, anyone can choose to become a Jew by converting. Can someone convert to another race? Of course not!
Converts to Judaism have traditionally been called proselytes (based on a Septuagint word.)
The Bible describes the Children of Israel as the people God chose to initially introduce his blessings to all people. Accordingly, these blessings are described in the New Testament as offered and extended to all people through the Gospel:
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
— 1 Peter 2:9 (NIV)
5 Likes
You are trying to sanitize the inherent racism of the Old Testament just like what has been done with slavery. All the people who were not part of the Covenant were considered enemies and needed to be destroyed and or killed. Whole cities, whole groups of people. The God of the Old Testament was invented by the people of the Covenant to distinguish THEMSELVES as their God’s chosen people. They asked their God to destroy all those people who were not part of the Covenant. That is racist to the core, and the God of the Old Testament is a genocidal racist. And proud of it.
1 Like
Patrick, what you are describing would sound much more like nationalism rather than racism.
This is an inherently racist statement!
No, because this small kingdom in small area of the world during the times of the Bible writings wasn’t a nation at all. It was a backward land between two big empires.
How can what you call a kingdom not also be a nation? Patrick, you are playing games with the English language. Here’s a standard definition of nation:
a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.
Byer’s Point™ reached.
4 Likes
Using the definition of nation, when was the people of the convenant a stable nation? You know history of the Middle East. Please give me dates, territory, ethnicity and common culture. Contrast that with the empires of Assryia and Egypt.
And compare it with the rest of the world. And of the rest of world history. The Old Testament is about a little speck of time and territory in world history. And it is about a minuscule number of people considering the world population prior and after.
I don’t usually comment in a thread after the Byer’s Point™ is reached—but I’ll make an exception:
Ancient Israel existed as a nation (by any definition!) far longer than the United States of America has existed. (Patrick, is the USA a “stable nation”?) From Joshua’s leadership around 1400 BC to the end of Israel’s Unified Monarchy in 930 BC is nearly 500 years. It even conquered additional territory during the monarchy. After the split, the northern kingdom of Israel existed as a nation from 930 BC to 725 BC, another 205 years. The southern kingdom of Judah existed from 930 BC to 590 BC., another 310 years.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
— Daniel Patrick Moynihan
1 Like
You got the end point right 930 BC for a unified monarchy. And the northern kingdom and southern kingdom were under the domain of much more powerful states during that time period. They were certainly not independent nations as we define today.
The band of wanderers under Joshua’s leadership was NOT a nation. Another myth not support by historical facts.
Realize that millions of humans lived in this area of the world for over 120,000 years. The time period and territory of actual historical fact is tiny and insignificant in world history of mankind.
Absolutely, this band of wanders is not a nation. We are just a rowdy group of people advancing science by engaging the grand questions.
Who says we are a nation?
1 Like
Nice subtle tongue-in-cheek turn-of-phrase on Patrick’s reference to Joshua! (However, casual readers may miss it. But insider humor is a good thing. I enjoy it.)
3 Likes
Good one!
Someday maybe we could be Joshua’s Science Protection Nation. 
1 Like
Only after 36 years of marriage. 
1 Like
Somehow that almost sounds like a gang name. Or a rapper’s posse.
1 Like
Okay, let’s get back to serious discussion. Can you put a date as to when this chosen nation of the Old Testament is supported by factual history?
Then as now, some people choose to interpret the words to suit their own politics.
4 Likes