# The Bible and Race



## Theognome (Oct 14, 2008)

Years ago, I participated on a board that became extremely Reconstructionist and downright goofy. A fervor for racial separation and 'Kinism', as it was called, became a battle cry there. The board is no longer in existence, but recently, I met a gentleman who adhered to these principles. This reminded me of a paper I was working on but never completed- a biblical perspective on the topic of race and race issues. I'll post here what I did write, and ask if this is a paper worth completing.

***This paper, as mentioned below, was way too long and full of garbage. I will re-post it when I complete appropriate corrections. My apologies for any inconvenience or offense.

Theognome


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 14, 2008)

Shorten this, and I'll read.


----------



## Quickened (Oct 14, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Shorten this, and I'll read.



Sometimes thoughts are better conveyed in more meaty in-depth forms. Imagine the substance we'd lose by trying to make a cliff notes version of important literary works.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Oct 14, 2008)

Ironically, it was before I became a Christian that I had some interaction with proponents of British Israelism or Identity Christianity. It was only after I became a Christian and familiar with orthodox theology that I realised just how unsupported biblically and historically their theology was.

I've cut, pasted, and printed your posting to read on my commute to work tomorrow. Don't worry, I don't drive, but instead take the train.


----------



## raekwon (Oct 14, 2008)

Quickened said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Shorten this, and I'll read.
> ...



Yeah, but this is an internet message board. Not exactly a medium conducive to reading long contiguous blocks of text.


----------



## TimV (Oct 14, 2008)

> On the other hand, the Theonomist (Adherent of Covenant Theology) tends to see the physical differences between men and elevate those distinctives as equal to any spiritual reality. To deny the differences between men is to the Theonomist a denial of God’s sovereignty and diversity within His creation.



I'll save you time and effort. The paper is garbage. Rush was regularly spoke against any separation of Christians. He would have called that (and the vast majority of those who read this would be unaware of this) blue-eyed theology.


----------



## Theognome (Oct 14, 2008)

TimV said:


> > On the other hand, the Theonomist (Adherent of Covenant Theology) tends to see the physical differences between men and elevate those distinctives as equal to any spiritual reality. To deny the differences between men is to the Theonomist a denial of God’s sovereignty and diversity within His creation.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll save you time and effort. The paper is garbage. Rush was regularly spoke against any separation of Christians. He would have called that (and the vast majority of those who read this would be unaware of this) blue-eyed theology.



The first half-dozen paragraphs dealt with some of the nonsense going on that board, and you're right- it's over-the-top and if I do pursue completing it, should be reworked or removed all together. But I must admit I don't understand how the whole of the work proposes separation, as that is what I was writing against. 

Theognome


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Oct 14, 2008)

I'm not able to read the whole thing, but I do and am seeking my Ph.D in the study of public opinion and identity politics (racial and religious). One comment and one question. 

You stated



> It has been said that as recently as 50 years ago in the United States, stating physical differences about races and making judgments about them was not generally considered to be socially unacceptable.



This would place us at 1958 during which time it was completely socially acceptable to distinguish between the races. The eugenics movement still influenced thinking and manifested itself throughout mid 20th century thinking. Some dates place this movement beginning from the late 19th century to around the 1970's, where we saw a flip flop in public opinion attitudes and at that time could say it no longer became socially acceptable.

And for my question, you stated



> All of the above nations were biologically Caucasian.


Referring to (i believe) all of the descendants of Noah. Speaking purely biologically, I thought that lighter skin was a recessive and not dominant trait. So wouldn't it be more reasonable to believe that these people were either darker or just had a wider variation of skin tones? It was posited (by whom I do not know) that Adam and Eve's genes composed of all variations of skin tones which means they would have possessed dominant and recessive traits. For instance if AABBCC equaled the darkest skin tone in the human family, Adam and Even had AaBbCc. I'm not sure if this hypothesis is valid, but it makes more sense to me. 

Thanks. 

Oh, and I think you should continue your paper, interesting stuff methinks =)


----------



## TimV (Oct 14, 2008)

> The first half-dozen paragraphs dealt with some of the nonsense going on that board, and you're right- it's over-the-top and if I do pursue completing it, should be reworked or removed all together. But I must admit I don't understand how the whole of the work proposes separation, as that is what I was writing against.



You were encouraged by three veterans of the board to make the article less long. If you would have done this, and in addition learned a bit more about the subject matter, it would have been more helpful. But as it is, when you ignorantly slandered a large group of people, including several of us, you lost credibility.


----------



## Theognome (Oct 14, 2008)

TimV said:


> > The first half-dozen paragraphs dealt with some of the nonsense going on that board, and you're right- it's over-the-top and if I do pursue completing it, should be reworked or removed all together. But I must admit I don't understand how the whole of the work proposes separation, as that is what I was writing against.
> 
> 
> 
> You were encouraged by three veterans of the board to make the article less long. If you would have done this, and in addition learned a bit more about the subject matter, it would have been more helpful. But as it is, when you ignorantly slandered a large group of people, including several of us, you lost credibility.



Fair enough. Thank you for your honest rebuke.

Theognome


----------



## TimV (Oct 14, 2008)

> All other biological distinctives spoken of in the Scripture are made on an individual level.



No, they're not. Hebrew ideals of typical beauty in the Song of Songs speaks of dark eyes and dark hair. Ethiopians are presumed to be black "Can an Ethiopian change his skin?"


----------



## Ivan (Oct 14, 2008)

Biologically, there is one race, the human race. Spiritually, there are two races, those who are in Christ and those who are not.

Period.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Oct 15, 2008)

ericfromcowtown said:


> Ironically, it was before I became a Christian that I had some interaction with proponents of British Israelism or Identity Christianity. It was only after I became a Christian and familiar with orthodox theology that I realised just how unsupported biblically and historically their theology was.
> 
> I've cut, pasted, and printed your posting to read on my commute to work tomorrow. Don't worry, I don't drive, but instead take the train.



It sounds like you spent a lot of time on the article, but I'd leave this one undone. Too vague in its purposes and too many unwarranted conclusions.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 15, 2008)

Theognome said:


> Years ago, I participated on a board that became extremely Reconstructionist and downright goofy. A fervor for racial separation and 'Kinism', as it was called, became a battle cry there. The board is no longer in existence, but recently, I met a gentleman who adhered to these principles. This reminded me of a paper I was working on but never completed- a biblical perspective on the topic of race and race issues. I'll post here what I did write, and ask if this is a paper worth completing.
> 
> ***This paper, as mentioned below, was way too long and full of garbage. I will re-post it when I complete appropriate corrections. My apologies for any inconvenience or offense.
> 
> Theognome



Thanks Bill! No offense taken, just a moment of crossed eyes 

Look forward to the abbreviated edition.

Cheers,


----------

