-
Guilty.
-
Christianity isn’t the problem. European culture is. Therefore culture is. Therefore anthropology, sociology, psychology; biology - evolution. Is.
Maybe I was wrong in saying it was a story, now that I think about it, it was a parable, because the way some people don’t understand it, it makes me believe it was a parable. My Jewish friend once told a guy who asked him this question, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?" Then he said, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'” So with all the people being confused about whether man is an animal or not an animal, it must be a parable that people aren’t meant to really understand, of course, unless The Word Of Science can reveal all TRUTH to us.
Now this Jewish friend put himself forward as one who had knowledge and authority on the creation of mankind. He once made this statement about man being created at the beginning, “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” I use to be inclined to believe him, but since he isn’t a scientist and was schooled in the ANE traditions I don’t know if I can trust him anymore. The Word Of Science or the word of this Jew, which way do I go?
Parables are specific didactic stories, and some people think Genesis 1-6 is some type of one. Not me personally. I still don’t quite understand your rhetorical move in bringing it up this way, if you want everyone to take it as a historical account of a scientific reality. Aren’t you kind of acknowledging it could be a “riddle” whose meaning isn’t on the surface. That’s exactly what I think, and why I don’t expect it to be describing common descent. Science can’t tell you what theological truths the Bible is talking about. That’s a silly caricature and shows that you haven’t been listening to anyone around here, you’ve been too busy cutting and pasting Bible verses to actually engage in meaningful dialogue. That’s too bad.
Who is confused about whether or not humans are animals. I’m not. We are part of the animal kingdom. We are not “mere” animals though.
Who around here says anything close to “I don’t get anything out of Jesus’ teaching because I trust science”? No one who claims to be a Christian.
This was meant to be a reply to Christy, but when I did that a side not encouraged me to include more people, so i’ll send it out as a general reply.
Warning: there will be multiple cut and paste scriptures as they have more authority than my words. But my words are in-sync with the scriptures.
I found this forum while I was searching for information on radiometric dating; I was trying to understand if it was fact. During my perusing the different threads I was overwhelmed with all the diverse opinions on mans origins that Christians were presenting, not only here but other places also. When did mankind come into existence is a common topic. There are opinions from 6000 years ago to a million or so years ago. Every now and then a new bone pops up that changes the date or some new gene technology that changes the date. There is such a muddled confusion of opinions out there. This whole structure of man evolving is built on a continual foundation of shifting sand built by mans limited and changing understanding of this physical world and one scientist apposing another. There is no “Thus Sayith The Lord”.
Yet when I hear what God says in Genesis, then what Jesus tells us that He heard from the Father and what Paul says by the Spirit, it becomes very clear. My foundation is built on a rock, sure and secure.
**“IT IS WRITTEN”**
GOD SAID
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen 2: the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,'for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
JESUS SAID
Matt 19:4 “Haven’t you read,(It is written)” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
PAUL SAID
1 Cor 11:8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Neither Jesus nor Paul by the Spirit considered Genesis to be a riddle or a simple way of explaining a difficult scientific explanation of creation. As Jesus said, “have you not read”. No person should put the theories of man over the plain and yes I said plain, Word of God. Jesus only said what the Father told Him and He points to Genesis 1 and 2 as the Beginning and mankind was Created at that time. There is no way a person can gather that the beginning of the earth and the beginning of mankind can be called The Beginning when they are supposedly a billion years apart. The hurdles and hoops a person has to jump through to try and line up a billion years of naturalism to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles is mind boggling and totally unsuccessful.
So by trusting in Jesus words and the Spirits through the apostles more than mans ever shifting sands of knowledge about God’s creation, my foundation does not shift, it is founded on, “It Is Written”.
Mankind did not evolve. God created mankind totally independent from animals. Because God saw there was no suitable mate for Adam, He removed a part of Adam and formed a woman for Adam as a companion. A woman (Eve) came out of the first man (Adam). I don’t have to consider the style of writing of Genesis, the time period of our history that it was written in or the fact mankind was ignorant of whatever we consider advance science. I have “God said”, “It is written”, I have the Word of God (Jesus) telling me the truth. So because of this, the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles is much clearer. The very first original man (Adam), the one who God physically removed a part of him and formed the original, very first woman (Eve) brought death into the world by his sin. The real second Adam (Jesus), whose genealogical history can be traced back to the first Adam, by His obedience to God, brings eternal life to all who trust, love and obey Him.
IT IS WRITTEN!Sorry to have gotten off of topic, but it’s not actually off topic. As others have said, there is only one race. Paul makes it clear when he says, Acts 17:26 “From one man (or blood) he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.” So from Adam as Paul makes clear in other places, all mankind has been produced.
There are many nations that God filled the earth with, with the expectation they would seek Him and find Him. Those who are in the Kingdom of Heaven are one in His Spirit. Those outside of the Kingdom as all of us who Love Jesus used to be, are enemies of God. For it is written that “the carnal mind is not subject to the Law of God and can’t be”. Our mission is to proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven and faith, love and obedience to Jesus to all nations, so that those who are humble and meek will receive it and be saved from sin and God’s wrath on sin.
Guilty of what, Martin? Bank Robbery? Murder!!!? Did you sneak more cookies out of the cookie jar last night when nobody was looking!?
I swear … you give us way too much credit as mind readers. At least include some quote snippet of whatever (or whoever) it was you were responding to. Context. Words. Such great tools to have … and to use!
2 Likes
Tell that to black people. Racism is all about appearance and the appearance of being black is determined by the amount of melanin in your skin.
It is a difficult position to hold to say that we are not animals.
No, it’s not. You could educate yourself on this if you wanted to.
If it really was just about melanin, these folks would not be identifying as black:
By now you have probably already caught up to here. Did that answer your objection?
Biologically animal but by virtue of our humanity also persons with all that that entails. But you may prefer the way Christy phrased it.
Ouch! What a put down.
I don’t see anything in the Guardian article which negates what I am arguing. People will experience racism based on the color of their skin. People who have some black heritage but appear white will be less likely to experience that racism. Racism is not the only basis for prejudice, but it is what we are addressing in this thread.The Bible teaches us that racism is abhorrent to the Christian Faith and a denial of the implications of our baptism; Nature teaches us that white racism is stupid and not in the best interests of our progeny when viewed at a societal level.
1 Like
Not possible. Genetic studies of remains of those in Europe in the Mesolithic age (10,000-5,000 BC) show that they had dark skin, blue eyes and Lactose intolerance. Lactose tolerance came next from an influx those with horse and wheels from the steppes of Russia. White skin appears to be more recent evolutionary development after that throughout Europe, Russia, and Asia. Notice that the Far East Asians got the lighter skin without the blue eyes and lactose tolerance. There is some speculation that white skin actually came from from a convergence of three different genetic sources and that a high survival advantage for those living in the north brought a fairly rapid natural selection for this in these areas.
It is a remote possibility that blue eyes came from the Neanderthals but it more likely that they are just the source for red hair color.
I was responding to questions 1. & 2. in the OP, sorry.
The Guardian article is less about racism and more about how people view their family histories, which has been influenced by the historical “one drop of ‘black blood’” policies.
The white-looking people in the article would not be discriminated against by strangers who don’t know their claims of self-identifying as black. They would not be profiled for driving a nice car or followed by store security for simply shopping. They may experience self-inflicted racial problems by insisting they are what they don’t look like, but that is not the same as the racism experience by a person with dark skin and other features common in people of African ancestry.
The article is interesting as a tangent, but it adds little or nothing to understanding the story.
The problem is that Race as we know it and practice it is not about skin color, and it is not about genes. It is about ethnicity and cultural heritage and about how we treat people who are different from us.
It is about “Who is our neighbor?” which is the question that brought the reply of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Please do not trivialize ethnic identity and heritage. by making it scientific or physical or genetic. It is not. For better or for worse it is part of our who we are, which makes it mental and spiritual, but because it is mental and spiritual it can be changed in a way that the physical cannot. That is why Jesus gave us the example of the Good Samaritan, even though the Samaritans and the Jews were enemies.
2 Likes
It’s not a putdown, it’s an observation and an encouragement to do some reading. You have said a few things in this thread that show your understanding of what race is is not the same understanding other people have which is going to lead to a lot of miscommunication.
I’m kind of at a loss because the article went into great detail on how race in this case was a social identity not at all related to physical features, and the people absolutely did experience racism because of their racial identity and cultural heritage, no matter how white they looked like. The whole article is an example of the opposite of what you are saying. There are hardly any people in East Jackson who have dark skin. But…
“The kids there didn’t want to bother with us,” she says. “I went to school dressed as good as any other kid in Waverly. I think it was just where we had come from.”
“Until Oiler was born in 1954, when residents of East Jackson went into Waverly, they were not allowed to use bathrooms in town, her mother told her.”
"“Huh, well, I guess you are pretty smart.’ That’s what we got,” Oiler snorts, the memory stinging nearly 50 years later.”
"Being treated like outsiders and identifying as people of color, Oiler and Shreck, like many in this township, have chosen to stand behind their identities. They do it proudly, despite having heard people refer to their community as trash and the slums as long as they can remember. Even today, Oiler says: “They say East Jackson has negroes. But they don’t say negroes.”
It was pretty clear that accepting those racial identities has led to continued racism when they stay in East Jackson. The point is that race is just not about phenotypes and it is certainly not just about some genetic or genealogical reality. It’s about your place in a social order. Racial categories are often imposed on people or willingly embraced even if the details like “skin color” don’t match up.
Multiple studies have shown this. If a person calls a landlord on the phone and speaks in an African-American dialect, he or she is significantly more likely to be told the apartment or house is no longer available than if the same person calls and asks in standard English. It’s not their skin color that is triggering racism. If identical resumes are sent out, one with the name LaToya Johnson and one with the name Karen Johnson, Karen will get called for an interview far more often than LaToya. It’s not skin color triggering the racism.
The thread title talks about a perspective on race and then people have gone on to conflate race with melanin. If the discussion is just about factors that affected the genes that regulate melanin over the course of evolution, then the discussion isn’t about race. If people are unclear on that, then they should become more educated on the topic, and it’s not tangential at all, because race and racism have been brought up throughout.
I disagree.
Dialects, certain names, even certain automobile wheels can be used to tell a person is black or brown.
The listener on the phone recognizes the person’s skin color with a high probability of being correct without seeing the person.
Dialects and wheel choices are cultural, reflecting cultural identification and bias. Watch a little BBC.
2 Likes
I watch BBC everyday.
You can’t tell an African-American by the sound of his voice?
I can. I am rarely wrong.
One time I was wrong was listening to the theme song of Curious George. Dr. John did sound black.
And wheel choices? Well, I can provide details if you’d like.