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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] What is skin color?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.