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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] What is skin color?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.