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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] What is skin color?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.