A combination of genes from 3 different sources means that white skin didn’t previously exist. And the important question becomes why should an unusual combination of these three different genetic components come to dominate the Northern portion of Eurasia? That strongly points to a cause in natural selection. AND the Neanderthals were not the source of these three components because the timing is wrong as shown by the genetic evidence that Neolithic Europe (5000-10000 BC) was inhabited by a dark skinned blue eyed people.
But I will grant you that a good argument can be made for Neanderthals being lighter skinned than Homo Sapiens and contributing one of those three genetic components. After all this possibility of red hair is found in white skinned people so some connection there is reasonable. However, I should mention that there are Africans who have red hair, but this seems to come from an African version of albinism.
Whatever point Paul is trying to make about a woman’s modesty or obedience and the customs of that time is secondary to my point; what Paul does is he points to the facts (not a story) of creation. God made Adam and from there He took a part of Adam and formed Eve. Paul is not using a story as a foundation for what he is saying; he spoke the facts of what was contained in IT IS WRITTEN.
When Jesus spoke about divorce, He went to God’s Word, Genesis 1 and 2 as the authority for what He said. When He opposed Satan in the wilderness He went to the scriptures. Three times Satan tempted Him and each time He quoted God’s Word with this preface, IT IS WRITTEN. It was the authority of God’s Word that had been written, that Jesus rebuked Satan with.
The things that happened in Genesis are actual events. Jesus and Paul based some of their teaching on it. Please don’t say “it’s not actual history, but we can still trust in the concepts laid out in it”. The progression of events in Genesis continue from Adam at the beginning, then to Abel and on and on to Abraham to Moses and the Law that God personally spoke with His own voice, even the people of Israel heard Him. The history continues with the prophets, then to Jesus (so much so that one of the genealogies goes from Jesus back to Adam, this is used as proof of His linage), then the disciples and on till now. There is no made up break between chapter 11 and 12 as some proclaim. Abraham is not the start of reality.
If I teach my kids about marriage I can speak with the authority of God by saying, “IT IS WRITTEN. When God made the first man Adam, there were no creatures in all of creation that were compatible with him, so God took a part of Adam and made a woman, Eve, as a helper for him. So what God has joined together let no one separate. You don’t have sex before marriage because that woman is not yours yet and you don’t divorce her because God made that woman you married as a helper for you, so you stay faithful to her.” If I am tempted to lust I can with faith say,” IT IS WRITTEN” to rebuke Satan and to gain control over the flesh. This is Jesus in reference to marriage, Mark 10:6" But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. ’ -(Did you hear that? At the beginning! ) 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Jesus didn’t say, IT IS WRITTEN when He spoke of Jonah, but He used what is recorded in history of what Jonah did when he preached to the Ninevehites as an actual, historical account to warn those who did not believe in Him. The Nenevhites where a historical people and so was the Queen of the South that He mentioned right along with Jonah. Some believe Jonah is just an “inspired” story too as they do Genesis.
People want to talk about the style of the writing, the time it came from and what they think the people of that time needed to hear and how they needed to hear it. But when Jesus spoke about divorce and referenced Genesis 1 and 2 together as one unit, He gave us a clear understanding what the truth is in Genesis. As I have quoted in multiple threads, Jesus said, John 8:28"When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and th at I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him." It was the Father that told Jesus what to say and He went to Genesis, our beginning, a “THUS SAITH THE LORD” to show what marriage is.
Now if we evolved from apes, which ape was first, the male or female? Go back further to what apes supposedly evolved from, which one of those creatures was male first? Or if you don’t want to look at it that way, what if, as some suppose, after humans finally evolved, they were not quite human yet because God had just not breathed into them yet a spirit, soul or His Image, would you then say when He did it was a male first? Then would you say God took out of that creature something and made a woman. There are too many possibilities to dream up and debate over. No, it’s none of those. In the beginning God made Adam and then Eve out of Adam to become one flesh, just as Jesus said. If we trust Jesus, He will clear up the confusion of mans millions of opinions about what God stated. Some may say, “But you ignore the facts about stuff being billions of years old and evolution”. No I ignore the opinions and conclusions that people come up with from the information they gather. If an opinion or conclusion opposes Christ, I don’t want it to have any place in me.
Jesus, Paul and the other Apostles can help clear up mankind’s foggy mind about the origins of mankind. They use Genesis to support major doctrines of the Kingdom of Heaven. Where sin came from, how death entered the world, mankind needing a Savior and more. Since I have heard Jesus and the Spirit through the Apostles, I have a foundation that cannot be moved. All the information and opinions that come from what man can gather about the things in the ground or sky, is a foundation built on sand. It changes whenever a new rock, bone, date, starlight or whatever is discovered by someone. If I go down the rabbit hole of naturalism it’s a bottomless pit. Filled with a million side tunnels that lead to dead ends. You don’t need to go far to see the absolute confussion and disagreement than right here on this forum. One person say this, another that. They each use their own set of “facts” to support their precious belief system. The only way out of this rabbit hole is to look to the light from Heaven, Jesus.
Jesus is my refuge from all the opinions and doctrines of man.
Jesus put His trust in “IT IS WRITTEN” and I put my trust in Him.
OP? There was an OP? Those two questions were posed to Middleton on Facebook. The response was his. Still, I agree with your synopsis. I don’t know if we can limit it to European culture or theology, though. The Russian Orthodox Church was certainly complicit with the aristocracy in providing theological “cover” for serfdom. I could probably think of more examples if I was a total history nerd.
I stopped following every post when it ran off the rails. If you want to summon the Kraken, you need to tag him (@Jay313).
The simple fact that differences between people can be physically observed doesn’t negate the fact that race is a cultural concept. An observation that “this is different from that” doesn’t come with the attached cultural baggage of value judgments. Watch Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. That’s a start.
I have been forbidden from repeating my view, but I will say that I am familiar with Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, and Daniel Tiger (as well as the aforementioned BBC).
Hi! I was invited to write a summary essay on the concept of race from a historic, scientific and Christian perspective. I see that someone already posted it within this discussion. I hope that may be of some value here. I’ve skimmed through the excellent discussion that’s been going on here. Here’s some of my reactions.
I’m glad a number of folks point out that every people - sinners all - tend to create categories of who is inferior and who is superior. The people who benefit usually come to believe it’s obviously true. Those kind of belief and cultural systems fit the “strongholds” - Paul says our non-military war is with (II Cor. 10:1-5). I grew up as a child in a place and time when it was considered a settled fact that European peoples with lighter skins were superior to African peoples with darker skins. One of the most angry, racist men in my neighborhood - loudly using the N word for effect in sentences spoken to others when black people were in earshot, for example - was also a militant atheist who was convinced - perhaps in part from H.G.Wells’ Outline of History (1920) that science had established the superiority of Europeans. It hadn’t and neither they or any other peoples are deeply distinct genetically.
Sometimes it’s surprising how many people in general society don’t fully realize how genetically similar the whole human race is. So, when the topic comes up, the teacher in me wakes up and I try to explain what genomics has shown us. The Bible strongly follows a theme of the unity of the human race, although Christians are as easily prone as anyone else to build walls with people who are “different” in one way or another.
In the US, “race” is no longer believed to be any kind of biological reality - as it was for centuries, including by much of the intellectual elite across the political spectrum. The issue raised by the murder of George Floyd is about correcting the failure of American laws that are already on the books. Our criminal justice system is based on the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, through “due process of law”, which includes safeguards such as “rules of evidence” etc. Bryan Stevenson and the Equal Justice Initiative has done a great service, exonerating men sentenced to death in trials that violated US. law. The anger that has built because of blatant disregard of our established legal procedures for lawful justice, has boiled over massively. One part of restoring confidence and making our system work better, is just plain civics - how and why the criminal justice system is supposed to function as part of our rights - and another, as a Christian, is stately clearly that God cares about the poor and about justice for the poor, and will judge those who abuse public trust. Most “whites” in the US don’t think of themselves as racist, and probably aren’t at many levels. But many need to understand better the disparities in experience with the legal system, health care or education. I pray for Christians all across the US to realize the opportunity to help correct the disparities.
An unrelated historical example: I read Ben Franklin’s Autobiography as part of last summer’s reading. It intrigued me how, for much of his life, Franklin intuitively thought of himself as a loyal British citizen, proud to be British. Disillusion grew as various British Lords who were sent to prevent a French conquest of the colonies, disregarded - with overt arrogance - the advice of the colony leaders in ways that in some cases cost the lives of many British and American troops. It became apparent to Franklin and others, that the ruling authorities in England truly viewed the colonists as ignorant bumpkins who needed managed. The Americans lobbied hard to be given representation as British citizens, as per what they believed was British law. That was all they wanted - to be treated equally as citizens. Had they been treated seriously in their very legitimate request…who knows?
I hope that example helps in some way. The original issue in the riots is unequal application of lawful due process to all American citizens. With enough years of frustration, and often arrogant response by authorities, the frustration has finally been expressed as rage. .
Given everything that has been going on, I finally begun reading Generous Justice by Tim Keller. I’ve a lot of respect for Tim in the way that he has managed to marrying his thoroughly Reformed theology with a concern for societal change, as well as an openness to science and philosophy. Suffice it to say, I was looking forward to reading this book.
I must say, even though I am only halfway through chapter 1, I am finding it an immensely challenging read. Previous I would have flatly denied I was racist by any stretch of the imagination. However, this section from the introduction has been a broadside torpedo to that notion:
When I [Timothy Keller] went to seminary to prepare for the ministry, I met an African-American student, Elward Ellis, who befriended both my future wife, Kathy Kristy, and me. He gave us gracious but bare-knuckled mentoring about the realities of injustice in American culture. “You’re a racist, you know,” he once said at our kitchen table. “Oh, you don’t mean to be, and you don’t want to be, but you are. You can’t really help it.”
He said, for example, “When black people do things in a certain way, you say, ‘Well, that’s your culture.’ But when white people do things in a certain way, you say, ‘That’s just the right way to do things.’ You don’t realize you really have a culture. You are blind to how many of your beliefs and practices are cultural.”
We began to see how, in so many ways, we made our cultural biases into moral principles and then judged people of other races as being inferior. His case was so strong and fair that, to our surprise, we agreed with him. *Timothy Keller, Generous Justice (2010), xvii
Whilst I would still say that I’m an not an a consciously racist person, ie. I don’t treat people of colour differently in a premeditated or malicious way. I think I am beginning to understand areas of structural racism I unconsciously support because of my received cultural values. Values that I have been subconsciously operating from/expecting others to operate from, without realising that might impact underrepresented groups and/or people of colour. The simple reason for not realising this being that i didn’t even know they were there.
Perhaps, if I am using the terms correctly, I have been up until this point ‘non-racist’ and, by God’s grace, understanding the need to be ‘anti-racist’.
Yes, I think “racist” is such a loaded term, it’s hard to convince people they are at a subconscious level. Maybe it’s better to try to convince people they are complicit in perpetuating racism. That makes racism a problem that can be owned up to, not a negative character trait or identity.
Let’s join you in those prayers. In what has been a tumultuous year so far, perhaps we can look optimistically to seeing the good that God can bring from it. It is often said that things may never return to normal. In this area of life at least we can celebrate that renewed reality.
Yes. I think that is a helpful observation. The conversation becomes less confrontational with the ‘ordinary person’ at that point. The narrative changes to from ‘your part of the problem’ to a ‘do you see how you are unconsciously maintaining the problem.’ That’s not quite what i’m trying to say but hopefully you get what I mean.
It certainly takes the sting of shame out of the conversation which A. Makes people more willing to own up and open up, and B. Less likely to react with an irrational defensive attitude.
It seems the discussion is centered on how much genetic diversity is appropriate for determining that there are different races. It also seems a certain amount of subjective exists in setting the criteria.
I’m curious about this, Phil: Since it is now well known that genetic differences are greater even within the so-called “races” than they are between them and that there is no “DNA” distinction that can be made, does this mean if blood (DNA) was found at a scene, the forensics investigators would be unable to use that DNA to determine if it belonged to a “white” person or a dark skinned person?
I am not all that familiar as to how closely physical appearance can be determined as many characteristics are multi-factorial, but am sure some determination can be made. I think the distinction is that such things as skin color are not enough differences geneticallyto actually call for separate races. Sort of like black labs, chocolate labs and yellow labs are all still Labrador retrievers, maybe from the same litter.
In a population where there are only 1968 Chevrolet Chevelles, 1968 Dodge Chargers, and 1968 Ford Torinoes:
We cannot categorize them as Chevelles, Chargers, or Torinoes.
That is because
a) there is more diversity among Chevelles than there is with the others and
b) there is more diversity among Chargers than there is with the others and
c) there is more diversity among Torinoes than there is with the others.
All have internal combustion engines, four wheels, seat 4 comfortably, seat 5 uncomfortably, and came with warranties (except for the special 426 racing Hemi).
The diversity among Chevelles is broad. There are many colors, engine sizes, leather or cloth or vinyl, with or without radios and eight tracks, and so much more. Carburetor choices range from single barrel to dual fours.
The diversity is just as broad in Chargers and Torinoes.
It is immaterial that experienced gearheads can immediately see the difference and immediately see a Chevelle or a Charger or a Torino. To use those outdated categories is wrong, as we now understand the diversity inside those inappropriate groups is greater.
I get what you are trying to say, but I think you analogy has a logic flaw. In the case of cars, at some point the manufacturer said “This is a Ferrari” or “this is a Chevy” and so all future Ferraris and Chevys have features that were present in their archetypes. That’s why people can say “oh look, a Ferrari!”
The difference is that race is an imposed category. There is no archetypal white person whose features are used to distinguish all other white people. Same of black and even more so Asian, since Asia includes both India and Japan whose residents don’t look or sound anything alike.
Instead the cultural ‘we’ created labels and then assigned people a label based on criteria that ‘we’ established as being indicative of those people. Criteria that tended to be lowest common denominators, like skin colour (black, white) or the continent they hailed from (Asia, Latin America, etc.).
There are many ways we could divide up vehicles … we could group them by color. All the red ones are of one type, all the green ones of another, and so forth.
Or we could divide them into trucks, cars (sedans, and coups).
We could divide them into high mileage vehicles, medium mileage, and low mileage. We could divide them into expensive … cheap. You get the idea. Which of those feature we choose to try to distinguish them on is entirely our choice … and if we decided that all red cars are owned by impetuous young drivers who need to be pulled over and ticketed (actually - that’s not entirely hypothetical!) then suddenly, and by social contract - or social mis-application or abuse, red-carism suddenly becomes “a thing”.
So just as there is no “big nosed” race or “small-nosed” race, and there isn’t a “red haired race” and a “blond haired race” … in the same way there are no dark-skinned or light skinned races except as socially constructed choices that attempt to see them that way. It isn’t denying the reality of big or small noses, of hair or skin color, or even of descent along various lineages. It’s just showing that there is no basis among any of that to think there is somehow a “distinct race”. At least that’s how I understand it … which is making a lot more sense to me than what you seem to be proposing. Others correct me here if I misrepresent something.
Origins has to do with nationalities not race. A persons parents or skin colour is irrelevant to where they believe they are from. If I were to ask one of the children at my church where they are from, they are far more likely to reply Ashford than Africa despite their parents being migrants from an African nation.
And biologically speaking, one does originate from Africa, one originates from one’s mother and father.
Yeah, we don’t usually use the term “breeders” to describe human parents-- if used, it’s usually derogatory.I remember one time a gay co-worker told us that gays in Provincetown refer to straight people as “breeders,” clearly meant as an insult. (Interestingly, it isn’t that unusual for gays to have children.)
Those two questions were posed to Middleton on Facebook. The response was his. Still, I agree with your synopsis. I don’t know if we can limit it to European culture or theology, though. The Russian Orthodox Church was certainly complicit with the aristocracy in providing theological “cover” for serfdom. I could probably think of more examples if I was a total history nerd.