New Indian-Chennai News + more

JESUS THE RACIST

SUMMARY: http://www.antisupernatural.com/jesustheracist.html

The gospels report the following story.  Jesus was once approached by a Gentile or non-Jewish woman who wanted him to cast a demon out of her daughter.  He ignored her.  She persisted.  Finally he listened.  He said he would not take the food of the children to throw it to the dogs.  She said that dogs have scraps off the table and for her answer he listened to her and healed her daughter.  The Jews believing in accordance with their scriptures, claiming to be inspired by God, held themselves to be the top race in the world and the only race chosen by God.  They referred to non-Jews as dogs or inferior human beings.  Jesus did this as well.  The early Church had more success among non-Jews than Jews.  Indeed the apostles of Jesus commissioned to teach for him and to whom he promised his inspiration so that they would not err said that these non-Jews were turned into Jews spiritually in God's reckoning.  So you still have to be part of this racist Church of Judaism to be a Christian.  Christianity has racism at its core.

Christians lie that Jesus' treatment of her was about her religion even though the story says nothing about that.  She could have been studying to join Judaism for all we know.  The gospels mention her race.

If God is love, then Jesus was not God for he was a racist.  If Jesus was a racist then how could the pope be the Vicar of Christ when he is not of Jewish descent?  How could the Church be for all nations and peoples?  How could the Church be Catholic?  Jesus did not found the Catholic Church.

JESUS THE RACIST

The person who kicks a person when they are down is found revolting in our society both for their bullying nature and for their cowardly brutality. 

Many in our society still have the barefaced cheek to honour a person who did just that as the Son of God or at least a wise moral philosopher.

The Jewish scriptures were full of racism so Jesus definitely had to have been a racist for he said these scriptures came from God so everything they said had to be obeyed whether it made sense or not. 

A Canaanite lady asked Jesus to have mercy on her and to save her daughter from the distress that a demon inflicted on her.  “But he did not answer her a word.  And his disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us”.

Jesus’ silence was rude.  Nobody can say he was otherwise engaged for the text says he did not answer her not could not answer her.  He did have a minute to speak to her when he was in earshot of her.  He did not chastise his disciples for what they said for all of them asked him to get rid of her which suggests they knew he had the time to speak to her when he had time to give them his attention.  They knew he was an evil man when they presented such a request to him though he had preached love and patience and knew it only took three seconds to say a word of comfort and cure the daughter.  That is very important.

 “He answered, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”.  Since this was a reply to their request to send her away it means, “I was not sent to help her”.  He encouraged the disciples’ cruelty. The Gospels expect us to believe that such callous men would not lie about religion and miracles.

But the woman again begged him to help her.  “And He answered, it is not right (proper, becoming or fair) to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs”. 

This was snappy.  The Jews called non-Jews dogs.  Little was a further fist in her face.

All Christians can say about this episode in which a man who boasted that he was meek and gentle (Matthew 20:28) is that he was joking.  He was not for the woman had to insist for him to help.  She didn’t think he was kidding.  And it was no time for joking.  To joke then and that way would have been most uncouth indeed.  She was in distress and would have been hurt to hear herself and her daughter being called animals just because they belonged to another religion and race.

There is no hint in the passage that Jesus was joking.  There is no evidence for a sense of humour in the gospels at all which makes it probable that he was serious.

When Jesus went to the trouble to explain why he could not help her he must have been serious.  He explained instead of taking three seconds to heal her daughter. 

The woman replied that even pups eat from the master’s table.  She is saying that she and her daughter are dogs, inferior to Jews.  She is sanctioning Jesus’ racism.

Then Jesus said, “O woman, great is your faith!  Be it done for you as you wish”.  We read that her daughter got better from that moment.  Jesus refused to notice her faith until she degraded herself and her daughter to please him.  He was not rewarding her for her belief that he could cure for she had that before and he knew that and ignored her.

He was rewarding her for being willing to hold that a black crow was white if he said so.

Jesus said it was wrong to help a pagan though he helped the pagan centurion’s servant and later commanded that the gospel be preached to all.  Christians say that Jesus is God and since we are his creatures he can do what he likes with us.  But Jesus said it was right to be nice to your enemies to bring them to God.  It is not right to treat persons in an undignified way and that holds true even for a creator God.

Jesus said that it was not right to do the healing and then he did it.  He admitted that he could do wrong.  The woman even said he would be giving crumbs off the table if he helped her or wasting a miracle or doing an illegitimate one and he approved of what she said so much that he blessed her for it by making her daughter better.

This man admitted that his miracles were evil and merely superficially good.  He believed in evil miracle powers and these were the powers he used.  He was baptised in the powers of darkness.

Some would say, “We cannot say that Jesus did what he thought was wrong in healing her for her display of faith and her pandering to his humiliating ways changed the circumstances for him and made it right.”  But he saw her faith before for she was shouting for him and making a nuisance of herself and believed despite his cruel behaviour.  She already treated herself as a dog before Jesus got her to call herself one.

Perhaps he treated her that way for some indirect good?  No for he told her it was not right to help her.  His helping her only when she showed him her faith shows that he did not have the magical knowledge to consider that good.  And the gospel never mentions Jesus ever working for the indirect good so it is most likely it never thought of it.  You can explain any evil miracle that way so we need to be told that the indirect good was before we can use that excuse. 

The miracle was done to verify the woman’s faith which impressed Jesus and this faith was that she was not a Jew and so was inferior in the eyes of God.  Christians would attribute such a miracle to the Devil.  It is evidence for Jesus’ satanic connections. 

The racist interpretation of this event is right for there are other hints of Jesus’ racism.  Haley said that the texts which say that Jesus came to minister only to the Jews (Matthew 19:1; Mark 7:26,27) are not contradicted by the places where Jesus preached to the heretical Samaritans (page 119) for these exceptions proved the general rule that he was to preach only to Jews.  Exceptions only prove the rule when you cannot keep the rule for heaven’s sake!  Jesus lived in a Jewish country and had enough Jews to work with so he didn’t have to meet non-Jews.  He could be two-faced.  Jesus knew it was wrong to be racist but didn’t let that stop him.

The Infidel Delusion page 104 states that the episode was not about race but about religion.  It says Jesus did not want to help the woman because she was a pagan.  The implication is that pagans are necessarily bad and should not be helped for they will only misuse that help.  The implication is that Jesus did not use the term dogs in the Jewish racist sense.  But even if it is not racist, does that improve the story?  Is a person who discriminates against a person because of their religion better than one who discriminates against other races?  If you would do one you would do the other.  Christians say that as she was a pagan she could convert to Judaism so Jesus' attitude to her was not racism.  But racism can take different forms.  Sometimes a person hates for example gypsies until one marries into his family and becomes a settled person.  She is only accepted because she is not a gypsy any more.  The man is still a racist. 

There is something else about the story.  I have to print this in capitals to shout it out to everybody.  THE GOSPELS GIVE NO INDICATION THAT IT WAS ABOUT RELIGION NOT RACE.  The gospels say the woman came from another country.  It does not say she was pagan.  She could have been studying to become a Jew for all we know.  Her belief in Jesus the Jew's power might indicate that she was at least considering conversion.  Or she might have just lived her life without religion.  The gospels put the story in the context of where she came from and what race she was.  Religion is not mentioned.

Jesus was a racist. 

Whoever says the gospels are true and God's word is being indirectly racist at the very least.