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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] What is skin color?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Dec 1, 2005
      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 2 of 8 , Dec 1, 2005
        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 3 of 8 , Dec 1, 2005
          >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 4 of 8 , Dec 1, 2005
            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 5 of 8 , Dec 2, 2005
              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.