Race and Religion

T

The Dude

Guest
As much as people try to overlook it these days race plays a significant role in many religions. Certainly there are religions such as Bahaism, Islam and Sikhism that specifically preach that race does not matter but most other religions do express some sort of racial preference or bias.

Having lived in various and diverse parts of the world and further having lived in various social and economic strata of society I am not sure that having no racial bias whatsoever is accurate or even a good idea.

In my estimation Mormonism takes things too far especially when it depicts Jesus as being blond. Similarly Hinduism goes too far when it describes Krishna as being the dark skinned one. If you ask me I think that the Buddhists got it right with their description of the future Buddha having brown hair, blue eyes and a Copper Tone tan.
 
Krishna is blue skinned

what are you going on about?
 
Sikhs say race not important? Try dating a Sikh girl then ;)
 
It is said in the US that Sunday is the most segregated day. There are tons of all black or all white churches. And then there are Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and Hispanic churches as well.

Most everyone's church has a few token whatever others in it.

The church I've attended for the past dozen years has been just about as close to 50/50 as it could be. (black/white that is) We've got a few hispanics, I can't think of any oriental descent, a couple Persians, no Continental Indian that I'm aware of. When I started coming we were about 65-80 any given Sunday and now upto 120-140, we've always had a couple interacial couples and in the past few months I've noticed we are leaning more black, don't know why that is. Perhaps they are proselytizing more??? We actually don't go in for much of that, but folks do invite others to church.

I don't have race issues and worldwide don't know how much there is of that. It appears most religions have crossed racial boundaries as they left their area of origination.
 
Mirko said:
Krishna is blue skinned

what are you going on about?
Click to expand...


yes thats what I thought

Shri%20Krishna.jpg
 
No offense but this talk about Krishna being blue is pretty darn ignorant. Krishna and other incarnate Hindu deities are depicted as blue to differentiate them from regular people. It is akin to the halos that are often drawn on Jesus and other saints.

There have been many actual historical incarnations of Krishna none of these real people had blue skin just as none of the saints actually walked around with visible halos on their heads.

On the other hand Krishna is well known for literally having dark skin (not to mention 14,000 girlfriends).
 
wil said:
It is said in the US that Sunday is the most segregated day. There are tons of all black or all white churches. And then there are Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and Hispanic churches as well.
Click to expand...

That is a good point but in terms of Judeo-Christianity I am more so talking about how the Bible condones slavery and sets one race or people above another.
 
The Dude said:
Having lived in various and diverse parts of the world and further having lived in various social and economic strata of society I am not sure that having no racial bias whatsoever is accurate or even a good idea.
Click to expand...
Whatever, Dude. :rolleyes:

Similarly Hinduism goes too far when it describes Krishna as being the dark skinned one.
Click to expand...
Well, if I'm not mistaken, the Sanskrit word Krishna means "dark," or "black." {Will someone with a better understanding of Sanskrit please correct me if I'm wrong?}
 
I've said elsewhere that I think that religion is, for all intents and purposes, a sub function of nationalism. Within identity politics, which includes institutional religion structures, racial and ethnic cohesion themes are universal building blocks.

Chris
 
Christian aren't supposed to judge by race at all, but unfortunately too many of them do. The New Testament even has quotes against racism, but they can so very easily be taken out of context.

Here is one of them from 1John:
1Jn 4:20 If a man says, I have love for God, and has hate for his brother, his words are false: for how is the man who has no love for his brother whom he has seen, able to have love for God whom he has not seen?
Click to expand...
 
I'd like to notice one thing. And I strictly disagree with China Cat Sunflower to have said following:

"I think that religion is a sub function of nationalism"

It's just ridiculous to look at! Everyone knows each religion tries to become more and more widespread. So does Islam, Christianity, even Buddhism as well... Their missionairs always want everyone think as they do. It's well-known fact. What nationalism can survive in such conditions? None, I guess.

Even more, The Dude was very much correct (in a some aspect) when saying following phrase:

"Krishna and other incarnate Hindu deities are depicted as blue to differentiate them from regular people. It is akin to the halos that are often drawn on Jesus and other saints."

Every god or goddess in an enormous Hindu pantheon are described as blue-skinned. It's again not a secret. "It is akin to the halos that are often drawn on Jesus and other saints", I repeat The Dude's. What nationalism can anyone see here? And how those 'gopi girls' could have made him blue? They were just gopi, 'cowgirls' (like cowboys). I guess seattlegal won't mind if I say gopala in Sanskrit is 'one who looks after cows, their manager'. But I don't think that meaning of krishna will help with blue-skinned problem. Krishna is 'black', Arjuna - his pupil - is 'white'. And again, it is said 'black' - not 'blue'!

Who told you, The Dude, that
"There have been many actual historical incarnations of Krishna" ?

As you know, Krishna himself was 'just' an incarnation of Vishnu. The latter had many incarnations, but Krishna was born only once.
 
The Dude said:
That is a good point but in terms of Judeo-Christianity I am more so talking about how the Bible condones slavery and sets one race or people above another.
Click to expand...
Those portions of the bible have been outgrown in the literal sense.

The declaration of independence also condoned slavery. How is that for an oxymoron? 3/5 of a man, give me a break.

When I was a child I had childish thoughts....

Our interpretation of scripture hopefully has grown. There is much in the bible that we don't advocate today, despite the fact that we still try to use the next line to keep another form of our collective bigotry alive..
 
The Dude said:
in terms of Judeo-Christianity I am more so talking about how the Bible condones slavery and sets one race or people above another.
Click to expand...
actually, that's not what the bible does at all. that's what some people seem to think, but the reality of the Torah status of an "'AeVeD" (normally translated as "slave") has virtually nothing in common with the slavery practiced by, say, the greeks, romans, persians, or americans - or still practiced today in some parts of the world. they had *enforceable rights* to such a degree that the sages said in the Mishnah: "he who acquires an aeved has actually acquired a boss".

this just goes to show what the real oxymoron is - it's the adjective "judeo-christian". if you're going to use it, at least let the "judeo-" part of it be based on knowledge not on assumption and ignorance. judaism is not christianity without jesus. it's a completely different integrated system.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top