Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

What is skin color?

Expand Messages
  • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
    Again, the lingering effects of evolution is found in many a Christian. But what is the truth about skin color? Listen to a scientist that is also a
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment

      Again, the lingering effects of evolution is found in many a Christian.  But what is the truth about skin color?  Listen to a scientist that is also a Christian, one that believes the Bible first and interprets science in light of biblical truth.

      Skin deep

      by Jerry P. Moore

      Many people still think that 'light' skin is somehow tremendously different from 'dark' skin, in spite of the scientific evidence that shows overwhelming biological similarity among all the people of the world.

      However, over the past four decades, sophisticated studies of human skin pigmentation using special stains and the electron microscope have shown that the differences in skin pigmentation among the so-called races of mankind are only very minor.

      A world-renowned authority in clinical dermatology, Dr Anthony du Vivier at London's King's College Hospital, accurately sums up present scientific knowledge on the subject: 'There are the same number of melanocytes [pigment-forming cells] to be found in both Negroid and Caucasian skin.'1

      Other experts agree; the differences in colouration arise from the way in which melanin (the dark pigment found in the skin of all people) is packaged. The melanosomes (tiny melanin-packaging units) are slightly larger and more numerous per cell in dark-skinned than light-skinned people. They also do not degrade as readily, and disperse into adjacent skin cells to a higher degree.2,3

      This means that the differences are at a subcellular level; that is, there are minor variations in very minute areas, called organelles, residing in the pigment cells. These variations are under the control of the normal principles of genetics. Genetic information in people has been constructed by the Creator so as to allow a remarkable capacity to vary the pigmentation of the skin and hair.

      Actually, skin and hair colour result from the relative levels of two types of melanin pigment: the dark-brown pigment discussed above, and a reddish version of the pigment. All people produce the red pigment, but red-headed people lack the ability to produce normal levels of the dark pigment. This is now thought to be due to a mutation in one of the genes involved in pigment manufacture in the skin cells.4

      Not only do red-heads lack the ability to produce much protective dark pigment, but their red pigment reacts directly with sunlight to produce chemicals which cause damage to their DNA, which leads to skin cancer. Red-heads must therefore be doubly careful in their exposure to the sun. Red hair may be beautiful, but the condition almost certainly arose from a mutation causing the loss of ability to produce dark pigment. Eve was not a red-head!

      GENES FOR ALL SKIN COLOURS

      The family which survived the Flood would have to have had sufficient genetic variability to account for the full range of normal skin colours in their descendants — thus they would have likely had middle-brown skin. Such people would have had a mixture of genes which code for light and dark skin — giving them brown skin. When the genes for light skin came together in their children they would be lighter in colour than their parents; when genes for dark skin came together the children would be darker than their parents. The red-head condition almost certainly arose some time later.

      It took an event like the confusion of languages and the resultant dispersion at Babel to break humanity into smaller separated groups. Because each group would have been much smaller than the entire population, each would therefore have had less ability to vary than the original population and so would have had a more consistent skin colour.

      Social preferences could also have developed with discrimination against variant skin types for marriage, resulting in even more consistent skin colour developing. People living in tropical areas could have realized that light skin was detrimental to health (and ability to work in the sun) and so persons with light skin would come to be seen as undesirable candidates for marriage. Conversely, people living at high latitudes could have developed discrimination against dark skin because of its association with rickets in the low-light environments.

      EVOLUTIONARY RACISM

      For a long time, evolutionists held that the visible differences between groups of people arose through long time periods in which they were isolated from each other. This teaching has given rise to many racist ideas, as it implies that one group may have evolved more slowly than another, and thus be somehow less human. If true, it would also suggest that the differences were biologically substantial.

      From the Bible's account of man's origins one would predict, on the other hand, that even the seemingly obvious differences between various groups would be biologically trivial, which is exactly what we find in all respects.

      The accompanying series of photographs of skin taken through an ordinary light microscope should dispel the notion that there are any radical differences between 'black' and 'white' skin.

      Fig. 1 is a low magnification view of skin from a 32-year-old with so-called Caucasoid, or 'white' skin. There is little visible pigment at the boundary between the dermis (D) and the epidermis (E).

      Fig. 2 is a higher magnification view of the same sort of skin. Little pigment is visible in the epidermis, although several cells (arrowed) with a clear area (cytoplasm) around a darker central nucleus have the appearance of melanocytes (cells which produce pigment).

      Fig. 3 is a low magnification view of skin from a young African. There is abundant pigmentation within numerous cells in the epidermis, especially at its boundary with the dermis (arrows).

      Fig. 4 shows the same sort of darkly pigmented skin at the higher magnification. The arrow shows a cell which has the appearance of a melanocyte. There are innumerable granules of the pigment itself which, having been produced in one of the melanocytes, have diffused into other cells (keratinocytes), mostly those at the boundary.

      Even within the same individual, skin colour may change. 'White' skin can undergo an increase in pigmentation. There is of course the normal tanning response to sunlight, which increases the production of melanin. Also, in some clinical conditions 'white' skin can become virtually indistinguishable from black skin. Equally, black skin can lose pigmentation to look the same as 'white' skin.

      Fig. 5 looks at chronically inflamed skin from the leg of an African. On the right side (horizontal arrow) depigmentation is nearly complete. Toward the middle and left of the picture, spotty, irregular pigmentation persists (arrows). The skin colour varied in this same person from black to brown to nearly white.

      Fig. 6 shows skin from a 'white' person, from a portion affected by a disease called lentigo simplex. Almost all the cells along the boundary (see arrows) are very deeply pigmented, much as in normal skin of an African, as shown in Fig. 3. There is also a condition of deficiency of function of the adrenal gland in which the entire skin of a Caucasian can become deeply pigmented. This would have the same sort of appearance under the microscope.

      Since such simple fluctuations in pigment granules can change black skin to 'white' skin and vice versa, this again emphasizes the trivial nature of the differences.

      In short, a close look at our skin is totally consistent with Paul's famous address at Mars Hill, in which he reminded his audience of the Genesis truth that God has 'made of one blood [i.e. from one man] all nations of men'.5 What a difference it would have made to the course of history, even in pre-Darwinian times, if people had taken the Creator's account of our origins seriously enough to realize that we are all very closely related.

      REFERENCES

      1. Anthony du Vivier, Atlas of Clinical Dermatology, Gower Medical Publishing Ltd, London, 1986, p. 23.2.

      2. A. Bernard Ackerman, Histopathologic Diagnosis of Skin Diseases, Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, 1978, p. 44.

      3. Walter F. Lever, and G. Schaumberg-Lever, Histopathology of the Skin, 7th edition, J.B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, 1990, pp. 18-20.

      4. Philip Cohen, 'Redheads come out of the shade', New Scientist, 30 September, 1995, p.18.

      5. The Holy Bible, Acts 17:26.


      see http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/skin.asp for the pictures.

      In many scientific circles, it is customary to refrain from ascribing 'purpose' to any biological feature. In the case of melanin (see main article), it is difficult to avoid appreciating its positive function. Du Vivier well states:

      'In addition to skin and hair coloration, melanin pigment is of extreme importance for protection against the injurious properties of ultraviolet radiation.'1

      The likely middle-brown colouration of Noah's family (and before them, Adam and Eve) would have afforded good protection against moderate sun exposure. In contrast, the pigment-depleted skin of Caucasoids is so vulnerable to sun damage that Lever said:

      'No white person past 40 years of age has normal elastic tissue in the skin of the face.'3

      Increased skin 'aging', and vulnerability to various types of skin cancer are among the disadvantages for whites due to their lesser amount of melanin. This pigment is only one of the marvellous protective mechanisms that an all-wise Creator built into the information that makes up humans.

    • jparnellm@usxchange.net
      ... normal levels - This is a bit too politically correct for my taste. What is not normal in Africa is very normal in Europe. And I daresay the average
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 30, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        >All people produce the red pigment, but red-headed
        > people lack the ability to produce normal levels of the dark pigment.

        "normal" levels - This is a bit too politically correct for my taste. What is
        not normal in Africa is very normal in Europe. And I daresay the average life
        expectancy of red heads in the world is higher than that of black heads. So it
        must not be that much of a "disadvantage".

        >Red hair may be beautiful, but the condition almost
        > certainly arose from a mutation causing the loss of ability to produce dark
        > pigment. Eve was not a red-head!


        I beg to differ. This makes assumptions about pre-Fall conditions that are not
        proved. eg, was there really harmful radiation getting through the earth's
        atmosphere at that time?






        GENES FOR ALL SKIN COLOURSThe family which
        > survived the Flood would have to have had sufficient genetic variability to
        > account for the full range of normal skin colours in their descendants — thus
        > they would have likely had middle-brown skin.

        Again, wrong. Evidence indicates Japheth was fair-skinned and Ham was
        dark-skinned, and Shem was presumably somewhere in between.




        >Social preferences could also have developed with discrimination
        > against variant skin types for marriage, resulting in even more consistent
        > skin colour developing. People living in tropical areas could have realized
        > that light skin was detrimental to health (and ability to work in the sun)
        > and so persons with light skin would come to be seen as undesirable
        > candidates for marriage. Conversely, people living at high latitudes could
        > have developed discrimination against dark skin because of its association
        > with rickets in the low-light environments.


        I think a more likely scenario is that "birds of a feather **tended** to flock
        together". For most of human history, life has been very tribal in nature.
        "every kindred, tribe and tongue", after all . World empires can for a time
        reduce that tribalism, but it tends to spring right back. From what I can
        tell, the black tribes (like the Fomorians) that ventured into Europe were
        slaughtered by the white tribes of Europe, while remnants would have inter-bred
        with the whites.




        >In contrast, the pigment-depleted skin of Caucasoids
        > is so vulnerable to sun damage that Lever said: 'No white person past 40
        > years of age has normal elastic tissue in the skin of the face.'3Increased
        > skin 'aging', and vulnerability to various types of skin cancer are among the
        > disadvantages for whites due to their lesser amount of melanin. This pigment
        > is only one of the marvellous protective mechanisms that an all-wise Creator
        > built into the information that makes up humans.
        >

        again, much too politically correct, and containing half-truths

        Pre-Fall I seriously doubt God was allowing lots of harmful radiation to get
        through the atmosphere (protecting it via various possible mechanisms) and
        Post-Fall mankind is to be covered (no, not every square inch of skin, but
        sufficient to cover nakedness and protect from undue amounts of sun. eg, People
        should not be sun-bathing for hours on a beach.)

        But I will grant this, if a white and a black sin by wasting hours sun bathing
        on a beach, unless the white wears plenty of sun tan lotion, the effects of his
        foolishness will certainly be more obvious than on the black.





        - Parnell McCarter
      • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
        Parnell, ... variability to ... descendants — thus ... was ... I want to thank you for reminding me, us, that about Noah s 3 sons. Adam and Eve s skin color
        Message 3 of 8 , Dec 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Parnell,

          You wrote in response to:

          > GENES FOR ALL SKIN COLOURSThe family which
          > > survived the Flood would have to have had sufficient genetic
          variability to
          > > account for the full range of normal skin colours in their
          descendants — thus
          > > they would have likely had middle-brown skin.
          >
          > Again, wrong. Evidence indicates Japheth was fair-skinned and Ham
          was
          > dark-skinned, and Shem was presumably somewhere in between.
          >

          I want to thank you for reminding me, us, that about Noah's 3 sons.
          Adam and Eve's skin color may have been brown though and from that
          tone color I have read in other places that would account for the
          variety of shades of pigmentation that would come from that. Like
          wolves and dogs, they are the same kind, but a variety of "species"
          come from both, all the while they remain the same kind. You will
          never get a cat from a wolf and pitbull mating, for example. As for
          skin defenses, when I was going through training for the Hazardous
          Waste Emergency Response Team, I remember the instructor talking about
          the defense mechanism of the skin and the pigmentation. He was saying
          that a lighter skinned fellow's skin would burn more quickly than that
          of one that is darker if they would both enter an environment that had
          acid in the air. Actually he had some science proving that mostly
          Irish people's skin burns the quickest and that people that are more
          Mayan blooded, thier skin takes the longest to burn under similiar
          conditions.

          Be that as it may, your responses to some of the other things on that
          article are good. I would say though, that scientist that are
          Christians still need to pose theories and attempt to prove them. What
          I like about this ministry is that they tend to use Presuppositional
          Apologetics and take the Bible first and science is interpreted in
          light of the Bible. But, as you know, we are all subject to errors or
          to not write as clearly or spell things out in such a way as to remove
          apperant errors from coming across in communication.

          My whole point with the articles is to show from a Biblical and
          scientific manner that 1. The Bible teaches that Christians are to
          marry in the Lord, regardless of the skin color and culturally
          different backgrounds of the man and woman, i.e. "racial" inter-
          marriage is legit, and that the only marriages disapproved in the
          Bible are those between a Christian and a non-Christian, again
          regardless of skin and cultural differences. 2. To demonstrate that
          the teaching of separation of so-called races and forbidding the
          intermarriage of people who have different skin color and culture is a
          Darwinian and evolutionary racist doctrine that should be extirpated
          from all God fearing people and erased from the Church. Christians
          should NEVER advocate segregation of this sort, it is evil.

          Thanks,

          Edgar Ibarra
        • Cheryl Grenon
          In the FWIW file, it is known by those who work with pregnant and birthing women that redheads tend to have lower painthresholds and their skin damages more
          Message 4 of 8 , Dec 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            In the FWIW file, it is known by those who work with pregnant and birthing women that redheads tend to have lower painthresholds and their skin damages more easily when things like breastfeeding isn't going well than those of darker complexion.
             
            My personal experience with family members who hold to racial segregation has not been a happy one.  It fosters racial superiority and contempt for the other races even amongst brethren.
             
            Cheryl
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:01 PM
            Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] What is skin color?

            Parnell,

            You wrote in response to:

            > GENES FOR ALL SKIN COLOURSThe family which
            > > survived the Flood would have to have had sufficient genetic
            variability to
            > > account for the full range of normal skin colours in their
            descendants — thus
            > > they would have likely had middle-brown skin.
            >
            > Again, wrong.  Evidence indicates Japheth was fair-skinned and Ham
            was
            > dark-skinned, and Shem was presumably somewhere in between.
            >

            I want to thank you for reminding me, us, that about Noah's 3 sons. 
            Adam and Eve's skin color may have been brown though and from that
            tone color I have read in other places that would account for the
            variety of shades of pigmentation that would come from that.  Like
            wolves and dogs, they are the same kind, but a variety of "species"
            come from both, all the while they remain the same kind.  You will
            never get a cat from a wolf and pitbull mating, for example. As for
            skin defenses, when I was going through training for the Hazardous
            Waste Emergency Response Team, I remember the instructor talking about
            the defense mechanism of the skin and the pigmentation.  He was saying
            that a lighter skinned fellow's skin would burn more quickly than that
            of one that is darker if they would both enter an environment that had
            acid in the air.  Actually he had some science proving that mostly
            Irish people's skin burns the quickest and that people that are more
            Mayan blooded, thier skin takes the longest to burn under similiar
            conditions.

            Be that as it may, your responses to some of the other things on that
            article are good.  I would say though, that scientist that are
            Christians still need to pose theories and attempt to prove them. What
            I like about this ministry is that they tend to use Presuppositional
            Apologetics and take the Bible first and science is interpreted in
            light of the Bible.  But, as you know, we are all subject to errors or
            to not write as clearly or spell things out in such a way as to remove
            apperant errors from coming across in communication.

               My whole point with the articles is to show from a Biblical and
            scientific manner that 1. The Bible teaches that Christians are to
            marry in the Lord, regardless of the skin color and culturally
            different backgrounds of the man and woman, i.e. "racial" inter-
            marriage is legit, and that the only marriages disapproved in the
            Bible are those between a Christian and a non-Christian, again
            regardless of skin and cultural differences.  2. To demonstrate that
            the teaching of separation of so-called races and forbidding the
            intermarriage of people who have different skin color and culture is a
            Darwinian and evolutionary racist doctrine that should be extirpated
            from all God fearing people and erased from the Church.  Christians
            should NEVER advocate segregation of this sort, it is evil.

            Thanks,

            Edgar Ibarra





          • trygvesson@aol.com
            In a message dated 12/1/2005 4:08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, cheryl@grenon.org writes: In the FWIW file, it is known by those who work with pregnant and
            Message 5 of 8 , Dec 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 12/1/2005 4:08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, cheryl@... writes:
              In the FWIW file, it is known by those who work with pregnant and birthing women that redheads tend to have lower painthresholds and their skin damages more easily when things like breastfeeding isn't going well than those of darker complexion.
               
              My personal experience with family members who hold to racial segregation has not been a happy one.  It fosters racial superiority and contempt for the other races even amongst brethren.
               
              Cheryl
              Cheryl,
               
              Aye, as well in the FWIW file, the redheads are also the ones to most often pass out from postural hypotension right after birth when attempting to sit up or stand. :-)
               
              As premature babies go, little white males are the least likely to survive, especially if they had to recieve surfactant and/or mechanical respiration, whereas black females do the best under those conditions. Things then turn as they get older, with blacks being more susceptible to heart disease, IDDM, HTN, or born with much higher rates of Sickle Cell, etc etc. Different races have differing medical strengths and weaknesses.
               
              Amen to your comments regarding racial superiority and an unjust contempt for the other races. We are all sons of Adam, Sons of Noah, born with a sin nature, and only redeemed through sovereign grace, through the judicial ground established in the death and perfect obedience of Christ. And only on the basis of that judicial ground can the Spirit of Christ deliver us from the law of sin and death, it is all from God alone, not as regards our race or ourselves.
               
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              Christopher Coombes
              Lynchburg Reformed Presbyterian Fellowship,
              Lynchburg, VA
              Member, Triangle RPC
              RPCNA


                                                                              _
                                                                             /)
                                                           (\__/)         ( (
                                                            )    (           ) )
                                                         ={      }=       / /
                                                            )     `-------/ /
                                                           (               /
                                                            \              |
                                                            ,'\       ,    ,'
                                                            `-'\  ,---\   | \
                                                               _) )    `. \ /
                                                              (__/       ) )
                                                                        (_/
            • jparnellm@usxchange.net
              ... Edgar, I quite agree with the importance of addressing science, etc. from a Christian presuppositional perspective. I also quite agree concerning the sin
              Message 6 of 8 , Dec 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                >What
                > I like about this ministry is that they tend to use Presuppositional
                > Apologetics and take the Bible first and science is interpreted in
                > light of the Bible.

                Edgar, I quite agree with the importance of addressing science, etc. from a
                Christian presuppositional perspective. I also quite agree concerning the sin
                of marrying outside the Lord.

                But my hunch is that the arguments presented in the posts will do little to
                persuade those who hold a contrary position concerning racial inter-marriage
                for the following reasons:

                - Evolutionists who hold a contrary position will reject the arguments because
                they reject scripture.

                - Christians who hold a contrary position will reject the arguments because the
                arguments do not adequately address the reasons why they hold from scripture
                their belief.

                > the teaching of separation of so-called races and forbidding the
                > intermarriage of people who have different skin color and culture is a
                > Darwinian and evolutionary racist doctrine that should be extirpated
                > from all God fearing people and erased from the Church. Christians
                > should NEVER advocate segregation of this sort, it is evil.

                As much as I despise Darwin and really do not want to be his defender, I think
                it
                would be unfair to pin the notion "of separation of so-called races and
                forbidding the intermarriage of people who have different skin color and
                culture" all on him. Black slavery in America and views discouraging
                inter-racial marriage, for example, existed long before Darwin was around. And
                I can assure you that the Presbyterian theologian Dabney was no Darwinian.

                Lest I give people the wrong impression, I suppose I should mention for those
                who do not know me that I am very happily married to an Asian, and I am one of
                those "disadvantaged mutant" whites with blond/red hair that fry in the sun.
                So
                obviously I do not believe it is a Biblical principle that it is a sin ever to
                marry outside one's race or culture.

                Just 2 additional points for now:

                1. Those who want to address the views of men like Dabney, etc. should do so
                fairly, and not by pinning the charge of "Darwinian evolutionist" on them.
                Dabney and others have made arguments totally removed from Darwinism.

                2. Modern political correctness regarding race will fall (including political
                correctness dominant now in the Western Christian community), just as Dabney's
                view fell. They both ignore various Biblical realities.

                - Parnell McCarter
              • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                Parnell, True, racism existed before Darwin and such. However it is true that Darwinian evolutionary philosophy helped fuel racism and for many to call it
                Message 7 of 8 , Dec 1, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Parnell,

                  True, racism existed before Darwin and such. However it is true
                  that Darwinian evolutionary philosophy helped fuel racism and for
                  many to call it scientific research when they were slaughtering the
                  natives of Australia. Even on of the articles I posted states that
                  racism existed before Darwin:

                  "In the 1800s, before Darwinian evolution was popularized, most
                  people, when talking about `races,' would be referring to such
                  groups as the `English race,' `Irish race,' and so on. However, this
                  all changed in 1859, when Charles Darwin published his book On the
                  Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation
                  of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

                  Darwinian evolution was (and still is) inherently a racist
                  philosophy, teaching that different groups or `races' of people
                  evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like
                  their ape-like ancestors than others. The Australian Aborigines, for
                  instance, were considered the missing links between the ape-like
                  ancestor and the rest of mankind.1 This resulted in terrible
                  prejudices and injustices towards the Australian Aborigines.2 The
                  leading evolutionary spokesperson, Stephen Jay Gould, stated that
                  `Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859,
                  but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance
                  of evolutionary theory.'3

                  Racist attitudes fueled by evolutionary thinking were largely
                  responsible for an African pygmy being displayed, along with an
                  orangutan, in a cage in the Bronx zoo.4

                  As a result of Darwinian evolution, many people started thinking in
                  terms of the different people groups around the world representing
                  different `races,' but within the context of evolutionary
                  philosophy. This has resulted in many people today, consciously or
                  unconsciously, having ingrained prejudices against certain other
                  groups of people."

                  And though I would analyze Dabney outside and removed from the
                  Darwinian philosophy, since Dabney pre-dated him, many of the
                  Separatists groups around today have Darwinian underpinings to their
                  views that they also bring to the Bible. This is especially the
                  case amongst white separatists and supremicists as they think they
                  are superior due to nature or God creating them superior to others,
                  as they teach, and they use modern Darwinian science to "show" this.

                  All that aside, a Christian would be hard pressed to show that two
                  Christians from two different cultures and tribes could not marry in
                  the Lord. More than that, they would never find that in the Bible.

                  Rehab, the harlot of Jericho, was not an Israelite but is in
                  Christ's geneology. Ruth was a Moabites, not a Jew, but is in
                  Christ's geneology, Christ was born of a Jewish woman.

                  That is the main thesis of my posts. In Christ there is no
                  respect of persons and if you are washed in the crimson blood of
                  Jesus and are His, there is no distinction of persons. Therefore a
                  black man that is a Christian can marry a white lady who is also a
                  Christian and they will have a godly offspring, covenanted unto the
                  Lord. One more beautiful aspect of the glorious Gospel. Love knows
                  no color.

                  Your brown-skinned
                  brother in Christ,

                  Edgar Ibarra
                  married to a
                  Mexican Christian
                  beautiful woman
                  w/ 5 covenant children
                • jparnellm@usxchange.net
                  Edgar, I would essentially agree with what you write below, but merely expand upon it. Specifically your correct statement: In the 1800s, before Darwinian
                  Message 8 of 8 , Dec 2, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Edgar, I would essentially agree with what you write below, but merely expand
                    upon it. Specifically your correct statement:

                    "In the 1800s, before Darwinian evolution was popularized, most people, when
                    talking about `races,' would be referring to such groups as the `English race,'
                    `Irish race,' and so on."

                    This is a form of "racism", albeit not racism based upon Darwinian evolution.
                    The question is this: is any form of this "racism" Biblically justified? It is
                    closely tied with this question: can national preservation (and by national I
                    mean ethnic, cultural, etc.) ever be Biblically justified?

                    Let me give examples where some of my ancestors were part of the immigrants:

                    1. Should the (Christianized) Britons have been morally compelled to allow
                    (pagan) Anglo-Saxons to immigrate to Britain in the period pre 600 AD?

                    2. Should the primarily Anglocized Americans have been morally compelled to
                    allow Irish to immigrate to America in the 18th-19th century?

                    3. Should the Spanish/Mexicans have been morally compelled to allow Anglos from
                    the USA to immigrate to Texas pre-1836?

                    Here would be some pertinent more contemporary questions:

                    1. Should the Afrikaaners of South Africa been allowed to form an Afrikaaner
                    state **if** they had **fairly** divided South Africa into various states
                    (Zulu, Xhosa, Afrikaaner, etc.)?

                    2. Should the Jews be allowed a separate state of Israel?

                    3. Should the Palestinians be allowed a separate state?

                    4. Should England, France, etc have felt morally compelled to take in
                    substantial numbers of immigrants from the former colonies, including many
                    immigrants who were Muslim?


                    Let's pretend (though I think one day it will be a reality) a reformed world.
                    Will nations be allowed, each covenanted to Christ, of having certain
                    unique dominant ethnic and cultural characteristics on matters that are not
                    immoral (eg, England speak English and eat fish&chips, but Mexico speak Spanish
                    and eat salsa)? Or should such be obliterated, with each nation being a
                    melting pot of all the other nations?

                    I'll briefly give my opinion: No Protestant or even predominantly Protestant
                    nation should ever allow non-Protestants to immigrate into it, based upon a
                    melting pot argument. The worldwide brotherhood in Christ does not imply a
                    nation has to allow foreigners of another race and religion to become citizens.
                    Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church is using immigration to de-Protestantize
                    countries, and those are being called racial bigots who object to this Romish
                    strategy.

                    - Parnell McCarter





                    Quoting "Edgar A. Ibarra Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@...>:

                    > Parnell,
                    >
                    > True, racism existed before Darwin and such. However it is true
                    > that Darwinian evolutionary philosophy helped fuel racism and for
                    > many to call it scientific research when they were slaughtering the
                    > natives of Australia. Even on of the articles I posted states that
                    > racism existed before Darwin:
                    >
                    > "In the 1800s, before Darwinian evolution was popularized, most
                    > people, when talking about `races,' would be referring to such
                    > groups as the `English race,' `Irish race,' and so on. However, this
                    > all changed in 1859, when Charles Darwin published his book On the
                    > Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation
                    > of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
                    >
                    > Darwinian evolution was (and still is) inherently a racist
                    > philosophy, teaching that different groups or `races' of people
                    > evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like
                    > their ape-like ancestors than others. The Australian Aborigines, for
                    > instance, were considered the missing links between the ape-like
                    > ancestor and the rest of mankind.1 This resulted in terrible
                    > prejudices and injustices towards the Australian Aborigines.2 The
                    > leading evolutionary spokesperson, Stephen Jay Gould, stated that
                    > `Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859,
                    > but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance
                    > of evolutionary theory.'3
                    >
                    > Racist attitudes fueled by evolutionary thinking were largely
                    > responsible for an African pygmy being displayed, along with an
                    > orangutan, in a cage in the Bronx zoo.4
                    >
                    > As a result of Darwinian evolution, many people started thinking in
                    > terms of the different people groups around the world representing
                    > different `races,' but within the context of evolutionary
                    > philosophy. This has resulted in many people today, consciously or
                    > unconsciously, having ingrained prejudices against certain other
                    > groups of people."
                    >
                    > And though I would analyze Dabney outside and removed from the
                    > Darwinian philosophy, since Dabney pre-dated him, many of the
                    > Separatists groups around today have Darwinian underpinings to their
                    > views that they also bring to the Bible. This is especially the
                    > case amongst white separatists and supremicists as they think they
                    > are superior due to nature or God creating them superior to others,
                    > as they teach, and they use modern Darwinian science to "show" this.
                    >
                    > All that aside, a Christian would be hard pressed to show that two
                    > Christians from two different cultures and tribes could not marry in
                    > the Lord. More than that, they would never find that in the Bible.
                    >
                    > Rehab, the harlot of Jericho, was not an Israelite but is in
                    > Christ's geneology. Ruth was a Moabites, not a Jew, but is in
                    > Christ's geneology, Christ was born of a Jewish woman.
                    >
                    > That is the main thesis of my posts. In Christ there is no
                    > respect of persons and if you are washed in the crimson blood of
                    > Jesus and are His, there is no distinction of persons. Therefore a
                    > black man that is a Christian can marry a white lady who is also a
                    > Christian and they will have a godly offspring, covenanted unto the
                    > Lord. One more beautiful aspect of the glorious Gospel. Love knows
                    > no color.
                    >
                    > Your brown-skinned
                    > brother in Christ,
                    >
                    > Edgar Ibarra
                    > married to a
                    > Mexican Christian
                    > beautiful woman
                    > w/ 5 covenant children
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.