Why have we believed everything white people -or should I say Europeans,have told us about Christianity? Have we bothered to check the bible for ourselves? If what I write about here can be described as “White Lies�, then there is a certain amount of “Black Gullibility� that is needed to give those lies any credence. What causes mythical and unjustified interpretations of the Christian bible, even those that put down black people, to be believed even among black people? Are we really under a curse, or have we failed to re-evaluate the Christian scriptures objectively - to spy out “the thief in the candle� and make it known?


When I was a child, I can always remember feeling different because of my skin colour. I always felt that it made me inferior or dirty in someway. I can remember talking to a white girl (who I loved) about slavery. I told her it was wrong that white people had invaded Africa and done such damage to that place and its people in pursuit of wealth. This girl told me that the Africans were under a curse, and that they were heathens, this was the reason why she believed they had been enslaved, and why Africa had so many troubles. As she was a Christian belonging to a church I knew of, I believed her. It was at this point in my life, because I BELIEVED what the girl had told me WITHOUT verifying it, that I questioned if God really cared about black people at all, and I wondered what consequences this would have for my life.

Yes, as a child sometimes I did not reason or evaluate things properly, children are innocent, and generally believe what they are told. So, the images of a white, long-haired, blue eyed Jesus (Yeshua) confused me, looking at Africa and those stereotypical images of poverty saddened and disillusioned me, experiencing racism angered me - so in my mind I had a very negative self image. At that time I rejected Christianity without really coming to understand what it was FOR MYSELF, I had just relied on listening to the second-hand opinions of others, which many years later I realised were FALSE.

I am not a person who believes that white people are evil, neither do I believe white people are cursed, neither are black people, or indeed anybody else. What I feel is that many people BELIEVE things without REASONING and EVALUATING to see if they are true. As children, we can be like this because we are young, immature and we have time to grow and learn, but as adults we should not think like children in this respect, have you heard this scripture before?

When I was a child, I talked like a child; I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. (1 Corinthians 13:11)

It is high time for black people, and not only black people, to become mature in their thinking about the Christian scriptures; and, for those who are not Christians to think again about the myths and untruths they have been taught, or have been led to believe are true. Could it be that you have rejected Christianity based on the false teachings or assumptions of others? I probably can’t convert you to Christianity by what I write here, but at least I can get you to see Christianity for what it actually is, rather than as an ugly, evil set of beliefs and ideals designed to suppress black people.

Therefore, what I want to do through the course of this essay is to look at some of the common teachings that have been taught within the church, and that have been believed by black people, and have been identified by black people as being examples of God’s “prejudice� or ill favour toward black people. I want to look at these objectively, reasoning, evaluating in order to arrive at a truth which sits more consistently with the overall teachings of the bible than some interpretations of these scriptures do at present.

NOTES

I have used the New International Version (NIV) of the bible, you may have or choose to use another version of the bible. Bible versions are designed for several reasons, but generally they help to enhance the readability of scripture. Thus, the NIV is a modern language translation which is needed because the King James Version (KJV) is a 17th century translation that many present day readers would find hard to understand (because of the changes in the English language that have occurred during that time). Also we have children’s bibles which are written in a language style suitable for children. We also have bibles which try to bring out points specific to a particular audience, Life Application bibles, Young’s Literal Translation etc, each has it strengths and I wouldn’t condemn any. All in all the bible remains the same, some scholars and theologians will dispute over the tense, mood and meaning of words, but these differences of opinion do not drastically affect the agreement concerning the sense of the scriptures when comparing translations, and I would say that 99%+ of scripture agrees throughout translations. However, please note that a translation is different to a paraphrase.

Elsewhere in this essay you will see references like; ‘Ecclesiastes 12:13′. These appear to help you find the scriptures quoted in your bible (whichever version you use). You are encouraged to do this so that you can read the original context of the scripture. In the example, ‘Ecclesiastes’ is the ‘book’ of the bible, (a list of ‘books’ can be found on the contents page at the start of your bible). The ‘12′ represents ‘chapter 12′. The ‘:13′ represents ‘verse 13′. Elsewhere you will see similar references like ‘:9-12′ after the chapter number, this is an instruction to read from verse 9 up to and including verse 12. In most bibles, the chapter numbers are in large bold type, and the verse numbers are in small type

“THE CURSE OF HAM�

Let’s begin by taking a look at what is termed as the curse of Ham. The scripture reads as follows:

[20] Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. [21] When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. [22] Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside. [23] But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father’s nakedness.
[24] When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, [25] he said,
“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.�
[26] He also said,
“Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem. [27] May God extend the territory of Japheth;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his slave.� (Genesis 9:20-27)

From the perspective of my argument, the background on this is that Japheth’s descendants were believed to have inhabited Eurasia (Europe and Asia), Shem’s descendants are believed to have inhabited much of the Middle East (they are the ancestors of the Jews/Israel), and Ham’s descendants are believed to have inhabited Africa. Cush was Ham’s eldest son (Genesis 10:6), and the name Cush came to represent the colour black. On the basis of this some people have produced a theology that states all people with black skin are cursed.

Firstly, the curse was spoken by Noah, he had been drunk, he was probably now "sober", was he hungover do we know? But we are sure Noah was displeased with his son Ham’s actions. Noah was not lead by the spirit of God to utter what he did. So in fact God did not curse Ham, or Canaan. Neither did God ratify or confirm what Noah spoke. Lets look at what happened when Moses became angry, and perhaps rightly so. To explain my point of view, we need to examine some other scriptures. This scripture tells a small part of the story concerning the Israelites nomadic journey after they left Egypt.

[2] Now there was no water for the community, and the people gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron. [3] They quarrelled with Moses and said, “If only we had died when our brothers fell dead before the LORD! [4] Why did you bring the LORD’s community into this desert, that we and our livestock should die here? [5] Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to this terrible place? It has no grain or figs, grapevines or pomegranates. And there is no water to drink!�
[6] Moses and Aaron went from the assembly to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and fell facedown, and the glory of the LORD appeared to them. [7] The LORD said to Moses, [8] “Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink.�
[9] So Moses took the staff from the LORD’s presence, just as he commanded him. [10] He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, “Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?� [11] Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank.
[12] But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in me enough to honour me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them.�
[13] These were the waters of Meribah, where the Israelites quarrelled with the LORD and where he showed himself holy among them. (Number 20:2-13)

It is believed that Moses was punished by God for striking the rock instead of doing exactly what God said (speak to it), and perhaps also for speaking angrily with the Israelites. In scripture we read:

[19] My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, [20] for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. (James 1:19/20)

Noah had become drunk, and we all have our failings - yet preachers of righteousness, which Noah undoubtedly was should have been more careful about their behaviour. Notice what the bible states about wine:

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. (Ephesians 5:18)

Being filled with wine is contrary to being filled with the Spirit (of God), that is why the prophets who declared revelations from God, especially the Nazarites, were forbidden to drink wine (note Numbers 6:1-3, Amos 2:11/12). Therefore I believe it was entirely likely that Noah’s curse was a) spoken in anger, b) not born of the Holy Spirit, and therefore unjustified, the Proverbs state:

[2] Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse does not come to rest. (Proverbs 26:2)

Also:

[20] There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins. (Ecclesiastes 7:20)

Besides this, even if the descendents of Ham were cursed somehow, curses uttered by God himself were not indefinite or eternal, Deuteronomy 23:2/3 shows that punishments often lasted up to 10 generations, and even the commandments of the law (Exodus 20:5/6) show that God would punish the descendants of those that hate him to only to the third or fourth generation.

Objectively speaking, surely the punishment has to fit the crime? How can it be that those who opposed God’s people (Ammonite and Moabites), took them captive (Babylonians), or warred against them, escaped more lightly than the descendants of someone who dishonoured his father by not covering him with a blanket and instead mocking his nakedness? This was not the worst action carried out against a parent by their child either before or after that time even within the context of the Christian scriptures.

This is not to demean the status of Noah because he was a preacher of righteousness, neither am I suggesting that we should mock our parents for their failings, but for those who believe the curse of Ham to be a valid argument to support the suppression of black people, I just question if the cursing and punishment of billions of people over countless generations and thousands of years really can stem from this one incident, when it is clear far worse things have been done as detailed by the same Christian scriptures that didn’t merit such a punishment.

In addition to this, if we read scripture, the irony is that the next thing we read about is not the descendants of Ham becoming the slave of Shem or Japheth, but the descendants of Shem becoming the slaves of Ham through the line of Cush! Read Exodus 1:8-13 to check this out for yourself, doesn’t this just prove that Noah’s curse was of none effect?

How is it therefore, that we have this theology or doctrine promoting the idea that black people are cursed by God, even today when the majority of the Christians in the world live in Africa, and Africa still has major problems. Is God still punishing them even though many of them now believe in him? If that is the case why have other parts of the world escaped God’s wrath when less of them are believers?

In addition to this, at a conservative estimate we are 50-60 generations after Yeshua, and he abolished the curses attached to the teachings of the law (the scriptures found in the Old Testament) where other nations are cursed, or excluded them from drawing near to God because of their actions against God’s people Israel, and this accounts for only a tiny fraction of the Old Testament scriptures. In reality these restrictions were lifted long before Yeshua came, and other Old Testament scriptures prove this. However, Yeshua and the teachings of the apostles in New Testament put an emphasis on the fact that everybody can enjoy the same status if they believe in Yeshua. Here are the true teachings of the Christian church:

[11] Here [in the Christian church] there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
[12] Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. [13] Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. [14] And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. (Colossians 3:11-14)

[3] Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. [4] There is one body and one Spirit– just as you were called to one hope when you were called, [5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism; [6] one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:3-6)

And Yeshua himself said this speaking of his disciples who would bring the gospel to the world:

[20] “My prayer is not for them [the disciples] alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, [21] that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. [22] I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: [23] I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:20-23)

These are the true teachings of Christianity, oneness, unity. I feel that those scriptures alone should prove that no one is condemned by God because of the colour of their skin or ancestral lineage. Since 33AD when Yeshua died, it is a matter of personal choice whether one decides to be a part of God’s kingdom or not, this is why Christians preach the gospel. Whether one is from one nation or another, speaking whatever language, with whatever colour of skin, disability, gender, it does not matter at all! The scriptures state that people from every nation, tribe, people and language will enter heaven:

[9] After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. (Revelation 7:9, note Revelation 19:6-10)

Therefore, it is impossible for black people to be cursed on the basis of their skin colour or lineage.

THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE

The scriptures mentioned in the latter part of the last section concerning oneness and unity between peoples of various origins when they are part of the church had been in existence for well over a century before the Atlantic Slave Trade started (Colossians 3:11-14, Ephesians 4:3-6, John 17:20-23). However when I was young I was told that slavery was as a consequence of what the bible teaches about slaves and black people, not just by white people, but black people also.

It is true that Israel invaded a land not their own, and drove out the inhabitants, but we see that this was because God specifically promised the land to Abraham’s descendants (Genesis 12:1-7, 13:14-17, 15:17-20), and the original inhabitants of the land performed things like child sacrifice and religious cult prostitution (Genesis 15:16, Deuteronomy 18:9-13). These are scriptural truths tied to a specific place and time period in history, and should not be confused with teachings and theologies such as “British Israel Theology�.

British Israel Theology would seek to put forward the idea that the blessings of Abraham are passed on to Anglo Saxon peoples, because according to this theology, some Israelites during the exile of Israel from their homeland ventured northward into Europe (note Jeremiah 29). However, no such promises were made to either to Israelites who were expelled from Israel or to Anglo Saxons, either explicitly or by proxy in scripture. It is also clear from scripture that the people who became exiled from the land of Israel were exiled because of their unfaithfulness to God, and therefore the promises concerning land do not apply to them.

Also, the Israelites did not enslave nations for hundreds of years, travelling thousands of miles in order to take over lands God had not promised them. In fact the scriptures that relate to the plunder and looting of communities, oppression and captivity, in this context, condemn the practices (note Amos 1:6-10, Habakkuk 1:5:-11 & 2:4-17, Isaiah 14:16/17, Jeremiah 22:13, Psalm 52:7, Psalm 73:6-9, Psalm 49:11, Psalm 62:10, Proverbs 28:15/16). If you read only a portion of these scriptures, one can see that God is a God of justice, not an enforcer of oppression. Can one really take from the bible that it condones the actions of those who war and plunder by force of arms to obtain slaves?

The Israelite laws concerning slaves were similar to other countries laws concerning the holding of slaves at that time. People became slaves because of defaulting on debts, and slaves were allowed to be treated as property through civil legislation and the due process of law. Although slaves were allowed to be treated harshly according to Old Testament scriptures (Exodus 21:20, 26/27), this attitude of violence was not always adhered to (read the book of Ruth). Many slaves, referred to as servants in scripture, had good relationships with their masters. Besides this, the teachings of Yeshua and the prophets in the New Testament displayed a new attitude in terms of doctrine toward slaves:

[5] Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. [6] Obey them not only to win their favour when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. [7] Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, [8] because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
[9] And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favouritism with him. (Ephesians 6:5-9).

This is not condoning slavery, but acknowledging that it exists, yet some people twist the scripture to suggest that it promotes slavery, when in fact it is an exhortation specifically to Christians to bear up under the yolk of slavery, even harsh slavery (note 1 Peter 2;18), because of the greater hope we have. Consider the following:

[19] For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. [20] But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. [21] To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

[22] “He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.�
[23] When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. [24] He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. [25] For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (2 Peter 2:19-25)

In addition to this, Paul writes that if a slave can gain his freedom he should do so (1 Corinthians 7:21), and you may also like to read the book of Philemon to see how Paul and Philemon treated the slave Onesimus, this is a far cry from the way slaves were treated under the Regime of the Atlantic Slave Trade. When thinking of the bibles relation to slavery one should always realise that the slavery the bible speaks of and the mode of slavery practices as Atlantic Slave Trade are completely different. Biblical slavery comes about by civil legal legislation and the due process of law, and the slavery identified by The Atlantic Slave Trade by illegal plunder and exploitation. One situation built relationships, the other destroyed lives.

So for well over a century before the Atlantic Slave Trade started Christian teaching held that the only biblical exhortation to slave owners was that they should not treat their slaves harshly or even threaten them (Ephesians 6:9). Therefore it is clear that the bible never condoned the actions of Europeans who plundered slaves from Africa, or the greedy Africans who sold their brothers into slavery in some cases.

Besides greed, avarice violence and bloodthirsty wickedness, it seems that the Christian theology behind the Christian churches misguided and corrupt involvement in the Atlantic Slave Trade was based on a very warped view of scripture, as well as ignoring scriptures such as these.

[3] If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, [4] he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions [5] and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
[6] But godliness with contentment is great gain. [7] For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. [8] But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. [9] People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. [10] For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (1 Timothy 6:3-10)

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers–not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:1-4).

[3] As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer [4] nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work–which is by faith. [5]The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. [6] Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. [7] They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. (1 Tim 1:3-7)

[9] But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. [10] Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. [11] You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. (Titus 3:9-11)

At every point British Israel Theology, or whatever the ideology was behind the Atlantic Slave Trade tramples on scripture in order to pursue its own ends. British Israel theology promotes the idea that the Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II, is a descendant of the house of Judah and king David (from whom Yeshua, Christ Jesus descended), and therefore asserts that the throne of England is David’s Royal Throne. Tracing these lineages is not the work of faith according to the above scriptures, because one is not justified before God on the basis of their ancestry, but on what we do, whether we have faith and are obedient to God, doing the things that please him (note Romans 2:12-24).

Distorting the scriptures for the sake of illicit gain, let alone enslaving nations is something God condemns in scripture, as has already been pointed out in the scriptures I have quoted. In addition to this, non-believers were not to be threatened or mistreated, Christian teaching exhorts people to live in peace.

[17] Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. [18] If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. (Romans 12:17/18)

[12] Live such good lives among the pagans [non-believers] that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. (1 Peter 2:12)

British Israel Theology, used scripture to suppress people, so that those who believed in it could pursue the agenda of making Britain and it’s European counterparts empires “great�. In order to do this, the people who supported this theology had to distort scripture so that they could demean and mistreat certain groups of people, who would be regarded as the underclass in their commonwealth. A chilling testimony to this is that there is a mass grave of black slaves right near America’s most potent symbol of freedom, the Statue of Liberty.

It is clear that it is not the Christian scriptures that are at fault, because if one reads the bible objectively and thoroughly, they can see there is no pretext for the actions of those involved in instigating the Atlantic Slave Trade. Christian doctrine is about reconciling ourselves to God and one another through our faith in Yeshua and obedience to God’s commandments, which promotes peace not war, and justice rather than oppression. Those who chose to distort the truths of the bible and ignore its warnings are the ones to be held at fault, not God or his word.

Part of the legacy of slavery is, that for black people there has been the lasting effect of being mentally enslaved, which has lasted much longer than the chains of physical slavery, and still serves the purpose of suppressing black people, and in conjunction with our historical past, it contributes toward our negative self image, and this is something we have to conquer. White people will not give up or even change the constructs of knowledge and teachings that uphold their place and status in society, black people have to educate themselves to crush the lies that suppress who we are, and who we rightfully can be.

Now the major elements of distorted Christian teachings that serve to suppress people have been uncovered in this essay (and I am not the first to write about this), the question is, what do we do? Do we perpetuate falsehood, or redefine ourselves to take in this new knowledge and use it to our advantage? If we can know and can speak the truth it helps to conquer ignorance.

CONCLUSION

With all that said, the question of why black people were enslaved, and why Europeans felt perhaps felt they had the right to do this has not been answered fully. Having looked at the worldly motivation for slavery, lets examine the spiritual motivation.

Consider the following scripture:

[4] all because of the wanton lust of a harlot,
alluring, the mistress of sorceries,
who enslaved nations by her prostitution
and peoples by her witchcraft. (Nahum 3:4)

This is the language of metaphor, and the Old Testament uses it a great deal. This scripture is not talking about a literal woman, but all false systems of religion. To understand this we have to understand some concepts in scripture. The church is represented metaphorically as the bride of Christ (Rev 21:2,9,17, & note Revelation 19:7&8), and obviously a harlot has no husband, or if she does she is unfaithful to him, and in the context of biblical teaching this implies two things.

Firstly, there is the possibility that the harlot does not have a husband to be married to, and as the husband represents Yeshua (Jesus Christ), whom the bible teaches is God alone, this means that the religion of the harlot is a false religion because it is joined (by marriage) with no God. Here the bible works on the principle that there is only one overall creator God, and all other God’s are worthless, (note Isaiah 44:6).

Secondly, the possibility exists that the harlot, if she does have a husband is unfaithful to him, this would represent the Christian Church that we have been discussing in this essay. That is to say, those in the Christian Church who have fallen away from the guide to faith expressed in the scriptures are regarded as “spiritual harlots�, and therefore they also represent the “harlot�. Faithfulness to God is depicted in the bible as obedience to his word, the disobedient are termed “unfaithful� and are considered to have “prostituted themselves� to other religions or no religion at all.

Notice this verse from a Psalm quoted earlier:

Those who are far from you will perish;
you destroy all who are unfaithful to you. (Psalm 73:27)

Some people are only open to the idea that conflict on this earth it between races, nations, belief systems, religions, but are not open to the fact that conflict also takes place on a spiritual level. Ephesians 6:11-18 talks about this conflict, it is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities in the heavenly realms that devolve their power to the peoples of the earth.

The verse from Nahum also talks about sorcery and witchcraft, these powers are at work in people tapped into powers in a domain beyond this physical world. The bible teaches that the great force behind these powers of sorcery and witchcraft is ultimately Satan himself. Satan’s throne is referred to as Babylon by scripture, not a literal kingdom, but a spiritual one. Satan is known as the “father of lies�, a “murderer�, not “holding to the truth� (John 8:42-47). Satan is a perpetrator of falsehoods, slander, and division - he seeks to divide mankind and obscure the truth, setting us at war with each other so that we can not draw close to God. As much as I despise the actions of those who participated in the Atlantic Slave Trade, I can not help but pity them for the fact that they became so captive to Satan to perform his will.

To tie this up, the system of falsehood that false religion teaches, and that intangible power that keeps us believing and feeding on it is what Nahum terms “sorcery� and “witchcraft�. Revelation chapters 13/17/18 and Isaiah 47 are important scriptures to contextualise what I have just written. They show how Satan, his final chosen ruler - the Anti-Christ, and Babylon as a great harlot/prostitute and depict her punishment, but these scriptures are far too long for me to go into in this essay. I just want to present an overall pointer as to why the actions of the apostate/harlot church should not be regarded as any indicator of what Christianity is in truth, and also to point out the destiny of those Christians who have distorted and/or turned away from the truth’s in the Christian bible.

Peace to all,
Anthony.

It occured to me, after reading my intial essay over (above) that I made a slight error concerning my statement in the conclusion as regards the "harlot", and her "not having a husband", because it is clear that she does!

[8] "Now then, listen, you wanton creature,
lounging in your security
and saying to yourself,
`I am, and there is none besides me.
I will never be a widow
or suffer the loss of children.'
[9] Both of these will overtake you
in a moment, on a single day:
loss of children and widowhood.
They will come upon you in full measure,
in spite of your many sorceries
and all your potent spells. (Isaiah 47:8/9 )

In the context of that I wrote, basically the "Harlot" has become the bride of Satan, and God will not return to her as a husband because she is unrepentant. Note Jeremiah 3:1-5 (in the context of not returning to a woman once divorced), which contrasts with the message of Hosea where God clearly shows he is willing to forgive those who repent (see ch14). The latter chapters of Revelation show how Satan is destroyed, thus the "Harlot" to who Satan is married in the spirit becomes a widow, for it is clear that God will never be conquered by death or subject to it.

Peace to all,
Anthony.

Hmmm...is this thread an attempt to redeem the Christian slave religion?

Enslaving the African was not an idea introduced by Europeans. It was an integral part of Hebrew/Israelite folklore and culture. Let me demonstrate...

The first example of this is here:

[suP]25[/suP]So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servantsHe shall be to his brothers."
[suP]26[/suP]He also said,"Blessed be the LORD,The God of Shem;And let Canaan be his servant.
[suP]27[/suP]"May God enlarge Japheth,And let him dwell in the tents of Shem;And let Canaan be his servant."
~Genesis 9:25-27

It is clear here that Canaan, which allegorically represents African people, is to be enslaved by Shem (Semites) and Japheth (Indo-Europeans). This verse evenindicates that Semites have clear favor with God in the passage "blessed be the LORD, The God of Shem." It is clear that "the LORD" was the God of Shem (Semites), but not that ofAfricans. This same God was to "enlarge" the Indo-European (Japheth)peoples; yet, the African (Canaan) was to be slaves to both. This is written in thevery firstbook of the Tanakh,within thebooks of Law, therefore are integral to Abrahamic religion.Let's not play Replacement Theology here.

The second example is here:

Thus says the LORD,"The products of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush And the Sabeans, men of stature,Will come over to you and will be yours;They will walk behind you, they will come over in chainsAnd will bow down to you;They will make supplication to you:'Surely, God is with you, and there is none else,No other God.'"
~Isaiah 45:14

In case you don't realize this, but at the time Isaiah was written (ca 600 BCE) Kemet, Kush, and Saba/Sheba were the three most powerful African nations in the world at the time. Is it not interesting how the Black Power of the time were to be enslaved, put into chains, and walk behind serving the Hebrews/Israelites? Why no mention of Babylon, Persia/Assyria, or the White Powers that be?

This is why I try to educate my African people about the Bible with respect to Africa. We have tried to justify our endorsement of the Bible by falsely claiming that the racism present was invented by Whites/Europeans. It has always been there. These same Jews generations later wrote in their religious commentaries (the Talmud) the following as the words of Noah:

"Now I cannot beget the fourth son whose children I would have ordered to serve you and your brothers. Therefore, it must be Canaan, your first born, whom they enslave. And since you have disabled me doing ugly things in the blackness of night, Canaan children shall be born ugly and black. Moreover, because you twisted your head around to see my nakedness, your childrens hair shall be twisted in kinks and their eyes red. Again, because lips jested at my misfortune, theirs shall swell. And because you neglected my nakedness, they shall go naked and their male members shall be shamefully elongated. Men of this race are call Negroes. Their forefather, Canaan, commanded them to love theft and fornication; to be banded together in hatred of their masters and never to tell the truth."
(Quotation taken from “Hebrew Myths� by Graves and Patai, from following original religious sources: B Sanhedrin 72a-b, 108b, B. Pesahim 113b; Tanhuma Buber Gen. 49-50; Tanhuma Noah 13,15; Gen. Rab 341.)

Shemsi,

I noticed your inability to correctly read and comprehendin the last thread that I debated with you. All your agruments have been answered by the opening post. THE CURSE OF HAM was referred to specifically, try answering the points raised about that.

Concerning Isaiah 45. Firstly Judaism can not be regarded as a racist religion, for it is clear there are black Jews, and some people also beleive Yeshua was black (not myself - besides the point). The point about the scripture you quoted is not that the nations specified would be plundered and enslaved because they were black, but because they do not worship the one true God and they were at war with Israel, as also were other nations NOT in Africa, and the same happened to them. So seeing as you know Isaiah was written at least 6 centuries before Yeshua, why are you applying that prophecy which was alsready fulfilled to events that happened 2000+ years later???

You also need to read what I said about the CHANGE OF COVENANTS. Isaiah is an old covenant scripture, the curses attached to the Old Covenant expired when Yeshua died on the cross. This is a known Christian teaching, therefore it is impossible for your argument to apply to events that happened approximately 1400 years after Yeshua died and was resurrected. That argument is completely false, and you should know better than to believe such errors if you want to provide a credible critque of the bible.

What we are trying to do here is look at the scriptures objectively, and to make reasoned factually based judgements. Even if you do not beleive the bible is true and you have no time for Christianity that is fine. Regard the text of the bible as you would do a book or a film and evaluate it with the same rigour and precision you would do to any of those. In that way the text can be understood to make a coherent argument, and the lies taught by the Christian church become exposed and one can see what Christianity SHOULD actually be, rather than the distortion of it that underpins the harlot church.

As it is, to put it bluntly, your argument reads like somebody who claims to have watched or read a three part trilogy, who in actual fact missed part two and therefore presents an argument about the narrative that omits important facts.

Thankyou for your contribution, it points out exactly what I was saying in the opening part of my essay:

What I feel is that many people BELIEVE things without REASONING and EVALUATING to see if they are true...

Peace to all,
Anthony.

Brother, with all due respect, your analysis is devoid of all reasoning given you are using Replacement Theology to affirm your already preconceived assertions. When the Hebrews wrote the Tanakh, or what you call the "Old Testament", none of your "New Testament" horse-poo was in mind. You are using your Johnny-come-late doctrine in attempt to qualify your Replacement Theology of the original meaning to the Hebrew/Israelite doctrine.

Conjecture Exhibit - A: "Firstly, the curse was spoken by Noah, he had been drunk, maybe he was now sober, do we know? But we are sure Noah was displeased with his son Ham’s actions. Noah was not lead by the spirit of God to utter what he did. So in fact God did not curse Ham, or Canaan. Neither did God ratify or confirm what Noah spoke."

You then go on to qualify this assertion with the New Testament...

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. (Ephesians 5:18)

There are righteous people drinking all throughout the Bible, so your stance is rather flimsy especially considering it does not come out of the text of the Hebrews. Secondly, Jesus is even noted turning water into wine for his disciples, yet you go quote this horse-poo in attempt to deny the racist elements of the Bible. The Torah, first 5 books of the Bible, are reverred as the most holy and pillar of Hebrew/Jewish/Israelite belief. You should also take note that the Noah story states that Noah was asleep because of his drunkeness. He was no longer drunk when he awoke. That was the point of him sleeping, to sleep off the inebriation.



Conjecture Exhibit - B: "This is not to demean the status of Noah because he was a preacher of righteousness, neither am I suggesting that we should mock our parents for their failings, but for those who believe the curse of Ham to be a valid argument to support the suppression of black people, I just question if the cursing and punishment of billions of people over countless generations and thousands of years really can stem from this one incident, when it is clear far worse things have been done as detailed by the same Christian scriptures that didn’t merit such a punishment."

Who are you to say what is offensive to the Hebrew/Israelite cracker-god? Who are you to attempt toexplain anything with yourweak logic thus far? Your cracker-god is supposed to be omnipotent and all-knowing, am I correct? So why isit that when this god was "with the Hebrews", theycouldn't defeat a people because they hadiron chariots.

Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots. ~Judges 1:19

I find this to be rather hilarious. Your cracker-god claims to drop the walls of Jericho by simply marching around it, without even touching them, yet all it takes to stop your god is a war machine (chariot)made of iron. Does this make much sense either? No, so save your speculation for people who don't think, mindless drones, or perhaps the people you go to church with.

Your entire thread-starter, as well as your posts in the past, were full of this type of speculation and conjecture that is not fruitful to rehash.I have the tendency when reading togloss overspurious claims and speculation as thatwhich runs wild in your writing.

Shemsi,

You seem like a person loosing an argument and clutching at any straw that might make it look like you actually have a credible argument. You wrote:

Brother, with all due respect, your analysis is devoid of all reasoning given you are using Replacement Theology to affirm your already preconceived assertions. When the Hebrews wrote the Tanakh, or what you call the "Old Testament", none of your "New Testament" horse-poo was in mind. You are using your Johnny-come-late doctrine in attempt to qualify your Replacement Theology of the original meaning to the Hebrew/Israelite doctrine.

As I understand it replacement thrology symbolically anhilliates Israel and replaces it with the Church. I would ask you to provide a specific quote that you actually beleive substantiates your claim that I am using replacement theology, because in all honesty I do not see how you could infer that from what I am written. In actual fact I am strongly against replacement theology, and believe what the scriptures state in Romans 9-11.

I use Old Testament and New Testament distinctions on this board because I do not expect the audience to have a knowledge of the hebrew designations of scripture, at least braodly speeking these terms refer to the same portions of scripture.

Right from the start of the commandments (Ex 12:19, 48/49, 20:10, 22:21, 23:9, the references include at least another 50 and I won't include them all so as not to embarrass you), you will see that non-Isrealites were invited to follow the same commandments, many books of the bible go on to affirm this including Isaiah which you quoted from earlier (note chapters 49/56, and the whole book of Ruth). So I believe you are wrong, it was always the intention of God to include non Israelites in his kingdom, both in the earthly one and the heavenly one to come as the "new testament" scriptures indicate.

You suggested this is conjecture without stating why:

"Firstly, the curse was spoken by Noah, he had been drunk, maybe he was now sober, do we know? But we are sure Noah was displeased with his son Ham’s actions. Noah was not lead by the spirit of God to utter what he did. So in fact God did not curse Ham, or Canaan. Neither did God ratify or confirm what Noah spoke."

The scripture does detail that the curse was spoken by Noah, that he had been drunk, and was laid uncovered because of his drunkeness. Surely he had been displeased with Ham's actions, if he hadn't why did he curse him? If Noah had spokend by the Spirit of God wouldn't his curse have been confirmed by scripture, BUT INSTEAD WE SEE THAT THE DESCENDENTS OF SHEM AND JAPETH BECOME THE SLAVES OF HAM EX 1:8-13.

You make a point about drunkeness which is invalid, Noah got drunk that IS NOT just about drinking but drinking to excess, to the extent that he laid uncovered. This is not the kind of thing that Yeshua and others you mention did. You have made a point by saying that Noah was not drunk because he had slept off his drunkeness, but he may have had a hangover (abstinence from drink is important in terms of prophecy), and in any case we do know that the curse that Noah spoke did not come to rest, and even if it were a valid curse, it could not have come to rest by the issues put forward in your argument because the law that cursed foreigners ended 1400 years before slavery started, and the use of these scriptures to justify such actions is therefore totally amd utterlyinvalid.

The fact is you want the bible to support the supression of black people so that you can continue to demean Christianity. I want white people to know that if they use the bible to support the supression of black people that they do not have a validargument, and I also want black people to take note of that too. Why argue to give a race of people the right to use a powerful text like the bible to subjugate another race. Are you a white supremacist in disguise?

Concerning Judges 1:19, note that throughout the period that Judges covered Israel was in near rebellion against God (read some background commentary if you doubt my statement), and Judges details some of the worst times for the Israelites. My point is that God was with the Israelites for the accomplishment of the promise he had already made to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-7, 13:14-17, 15:17-20), to give them the land but not necessarily to defeat their enemies at every opportunity, neither totally. Read what follows directly after the scripture you have quoted in chapter 2, and remember what I keep saying to you, context is everything. There is another important scripture to remember on this point, and I will provide it later because I am unable to locate it right now.

Peace to all,
Anthony.

Shemsi,

This is the scripture I was looking for:

[22] The LORD your God will drive out those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you. (Deutermonomy 7:22 )

On the book of Judges...

Israel failed to comply with God's commands (Dt 7:1-5; 20:16-18) to drive the Canaanites out of t