# Genetic differences and racial differences and the sons of Ham



## Pergamum

Hello,

I had a friend that asked this to me:


Should we expect to see genetic differences, and ethnic and racial differences between the 3 broad streams of mankind that came from the sons of Noah (i.e. the sons of Ham, the sons of Shem and the sons of Japheth)?

Do current world situations reflect those differences?

This friend pointed out that since pre-history the sons of Ham have never produced an advanced civilization and black Africa is still a mess today. I pointed out the Cushites, Nubians, and the traders in Mali and Central Africa, but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated. I pointed out that some of the Pharaohs of Egypt appeared to have black, african features, but he denied this.

Of course, I could not deny that Africa does appear messy and Melanesia is the same, but this talk of racial differences does make one uncomfortable.

He also pointed out that westerners (the greeks, then the romans, then the europeans) have led world advance. White,westerners climbed on top due to certain character traits that made them dominant. Thus, it was only natural that world history would have turned out like it is turning out, with the Western European nations doing the exploring and the colonizing.

Certain sports are dominated by certain races, too, he says. I did have to admit that I don't see many blacks in ice hockey, and Kenyans do seem to dominate marathons.

He mentioned the Bell Curve book, but I have read that book and am unconvinced and even unsure of the whole concept of IQ at all since the tests are all biased towards the dominant culture. But he thinks IQ varies by race as well (of course, the Bell Curve puts Asians on top, and this guy is a white american, a middling sort even by the Bell Curve book's conclusions).

He pointed out that the Chinese, from even pre-history, had the ability to organize, but the Africans and Melanesians to this day have a tribalistic mentality that allows crime and fighting to run rampant. They will never have a decent and well-ordered society he says, unless helped out by the advanced nations or colonized by them.

This friend stated that this was one of the characteristics of the sons of Ham.

I don't know if he is a kinist. Does he sound like one? 

He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.

He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.

How do I respond to him?

What is the history of "the theology of racial differences." How has the church historically dealt with race?

Rae's thread on the kinists has me curious - how prevalent are these attitudes and how do they justify them? Why are most of them Reformed?

What is the exegesis involved? 

And, if I reject his opinions, what alternate explanation do I propose for the disordered state of African and Melanesian cultures? How far can we generalize concerning race, ethnicity and different people-groups?

-
-
-
P.s. I realize this might be a controversial thread. But, I am sure that some others of us have also met folks who hold to these views.


----------



## Skyler

I don't have a problem with saying that different "races" are better or worse at different things. Some of it is definitely because of genetic factors, while other effects seem to stem more directly from cultural or ethnic roots.

I would hesitate to say that this implies a superiority of a particular ethnic group or groups over another.

That said, it is also true that Paul says the Jews had an advantage over the Gentiles, because of their special treatment by God in giving them the Law. I don't think we can immediately rule out the possibility.


----------



## Rufus

Traders in Mali and Central Africa aren't pre-history if they are recorded. You could make the same arguement for many Asians and the Native Americans, and some white ethnicity's. Looking back at the Bible, Ethiopia. Don't know much about them but the Ashanti Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Ghana Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, this whole list List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 

A lot of this could have to do with geography and other factors that make living in Africa much more difficult than the West.

But I don't have all the answers.


----------



## Skyler

By the way, I would argue that what Africa needs is not help from "advanced" nations so much as it is the transformative power of the Gospel. There's nothing inherently wrong with a tribal lifestyle.


----------



## TimV

> but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated.



Sounds like your internet scholar isn't aware that Egyptians are descendants of Ham.....So, how do you argue with someone with strong opinions about subjects they know nothing about???? That's the biggest question.


----------



## Pergamum

Rufus said:


> Traders in Mali and Central Africa aren't pre-history if they are recorded. You could make the same arguement for many Asians and the Native Americans, and some white ethnicity's. Looking back at the Bible, Ethiopia. Don't know much about them but the Ashanti Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Ghana Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, this whole list List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> 
> A lot of this could have to do with geography and other factors that make living in Africa much more difficult than the West.
> 
> But I don't have all the answers.



Yes, it is hard to have complex societal structures in a highly malarial region. However, this man pointed out the Norse and the Dutch, who prospered despite environmental harshness.


----------



## Andres

Pergamum said:


> He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.
> 
> He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.



And? So because some theologians and/or missionaries before us were racist means absolutely nothing. Why are you giving this argument any weight? We can find quotes that make groups say all kinds of things. 



Pergamum said:


> I don't know if he is a kinist. Does he sound like one?


Yes he does and I don't know why you'd even entertain this kind of thinking. Come on Perg.


----------



## Pergamum

TimV said:


> but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like your internet scholar isn't aware that Egyptians are descendants of Ham.....So, how do you argue with someone with strong opinions about subjects they know nothing about???? That's the biggest question.
Click to expand...


He had enough know-how to quote several of the reformed. I am trying to engage him without merely saying, "racist, begone."

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 AM ----------




Andres said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.
> 
> He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? So because some theologians and/or missionaries before us were racist means absolutely nothing. Why are you giving this argument any weight? We can find quotes that make groups say all kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if he is a kinist. Does he sound like one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes he does and I don't know why you'd even entertain this kind of thinking. Come on Perg.
Click to expand...


Not all racists are kinists, right? Even some secular scientists have defended racial differences. So, I need to give him solid answers, instead of "Come on man, stop being racist."


----------



## TimV

If a Reformed person doesn't know Egyptians are from Ham, and that they had hugely successful empires, they're stupid. And what of the Philistines? Gold workers, navigators, centuries of lording it over Semites. He's got to put up or shut up. Ask him about those two descendants of Ham and see if he's willing to admit he's wrong on the empire deal. If he's man enough to do so, continue talking. But if not....


----------



## Pergamum

He stated that, though the Philistines were dominant for a time, they could not resist the will of God and the Jews conquered them in a short time. I did not ask him for descendants of Ham, because I don't think I remember many of them off-hand right now either without looking in the Bible... (Cush.....and then mostly blanks....)


----------



## ChristianTrader

Here is an article by probably the most prominent living Reformed Theologian to hold to some form of Kinism - http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/nri/nri.pdf


----------



## Andres

Pergamum said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like your internet scholar isn't aware that Egyptians are descendants of Ham.....So, how do you argue with someone with strong opinions about subjects they know nothing about???? That's the biggest question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had enough know-how to quote several of the reformed. I am trying to engage him without merely saying, "racist, begone."
> 
> ---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.
> 
> He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? So because some theologians and/or missionaries before us were racist means absolutely nothing. Why are you giving this argument any weight? We can find quotes that make groups say all kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if he is a kinist. Does he sound like one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes he does and I don't know why you'd even entertain this kind of thinking. Come on Perg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all racists are kinists, right? Even some secular scientists have defended racial differences. So, I need to give him solid answers, instead of "Come on man, stop being racist."
Click to expand...


No, but all kinists are racists. This means quite a bit.

Perhaps I have too much invested in this fight, but when I read your OP, it sounds like you are almost entertaining this man's ideas. That bothers me a lot. And I don't see any problem with saying, ""Come on man, stop being racist." Racism is hate. He's not going to listen to reason until he puts away his racism, so instead of pandering to him, call him out on his sin. If he was advocating raping some woman and he gave you some good quotes to back up why he thought it made sense, I doubt you'd try to get all intellectual with him before you called him out on his sin. Why is this different?


----------



## Philip

Might do to mention the Berbers---Augustine's people.


----------



## Pergamum

Andres said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like your internet scholar isn't aware that Egyptians are descendants of Ham.....So, how do you argue with someone with strong opinions about subjects they know nothing about???? That's the biggest question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had enough know-how to quote several of the reformed. I am trying to engage him without merely saying, "racist, begone."
> 
> ---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.
> 
> He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? So because some theologians and/or missionaries before us were racist means absolutely nothing. Why are you giving this argument any weight? We can find quotes that make groups say all kinds of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if he is a kinist. Does he sound like one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes he does and I don't know why you'd even entertain this kind of thinking. Come on Perg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all racists are kinists, right? Even some secular scientists have defended racial differences. So, I need to give him solid answers, instead of "Come on man, stop being racist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but all kinists are racists. This means quite a bit.
> 
> Perhaps I have too much invested in this fight, but when I read your OP, it sounds like you are almost entertaining this man's ideas. That bothers me a lot. And I don't see any problem with saying, ""Come on man, stop being racist." Racism is hate. He's not going to listen to reason until he puts away his racism, so instead of pandering to him, call him out on his sin. If he was advocating raping some woman and he gave you some good quotes to back up why he thought it made sense, I doubt you'd try to get all intellectual with him before you called him out on his sin. Why is this different?
Click to expand...


I am trying to understand his points and engage him point-by-point rather than merely cry racist and shut him off. 

Also, as he pointed out the differences between Africa and New Guinea versus Europe, there are discernible differences in standard of living, peace, etc, and so there is SOMETHING that accounts for those differences. Something is clearly wrong in much of Africa.

Therefore, I need to give him evidences that this "something" is not merely race but worldview (religion, etc) and environmental and not racial in origin.

Also, I am not sure that rape and the belief that the races vary in qualities are analogous sins.

---------- Post added at 03:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 AM ----------




ChristianTrader said:


> Here is an article by probably the most prominent living Reformed Theologian to hold to some form of Kinism - http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/nri/nri.pdf



Yes, your link sounds very much like this man's arguments.

Do you know if anyone has written a rebuttal or a critique?


----------



## smhbbag

> Perhaps I have too much invested in this fight, but when I read your OP, it sounds like you are almost entertaining this man's ideas. That bothers me a lot. And I don't see any problem with saying, ""Come on man, stop being racist." Racism is hate. He's not going to listen to reason until he puts away his racism, so instead of pandering to him, call him out on his sin. If he was advocating raping some woman and he gave you some good quotes to back up why he thought it made sense, I doubt you'd try to get all intellectual with him before you called him out on his sin. Why is this different?



Where is the racism in the OP? And what is racism, anyway?

To bring out the racism charge, I think you need something stronger than the view in the first post. 

Has he denied that we are to bring the gospel to all peoples with fervency? Has he denied the inclusion of any race in the people of God? Has he denied the human status of certain races? Would he be less outraged at the murder, rape, or plundering of a person of one race than another? Would he deny eligibility for church office to any race (because, hey, they'll just screw it up)? Is one race less condemned from birth by the stain of Adam? Are any in less (or more) need of Christ for redemption or forgiveness? Would he withhold the Word from people who he thinks don't deserve it?

Then you have a charge that sticks. Until then, you just have a guy who thinks some groups are generally less gifted in intelligence, social stability, time preference, etc. by nature.

You can call him wrong or stupid. But racism takes more.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Let's just grant, for a minute, that certain people-groups are less inclined to "organize," and others more so. What is the upshot? Apparently, the "approved result" is that the highly organized ones dominate, crush, or enslave the less organized.

Oh, boy. I guess the lesson of history is that the evolutionists are correct. Darwin must have been on to something, eh? with his little book, *On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.*

Obviously, this whole line of reasoning is post-hoc nonsense. However, if any of us belong to a genetic group that (apparently) has abused its organizational predisposition to"dominate" other people, if we happen to believe that this is the truth, I think we ought to recognize that *sinful* potential in ourselves, and hate and forsake it, because it is displeasing to God.

And besides, the main advantage to the Euros (who are of mixed ancestry), was their geographic proximity to the gospel spread, the then-current dominance of Rome (in the providence of God). As has already been pointed out, NorthAfricans are Hamitic, and they also benefited from the gospel early. The Ethiopian culture has been Christianized for almost as long as any other, and it shows--although their relative isolation is another factor in their makeup. Isolation external and internal, non-navigable rivers, and perhaps other environmental factors also affect sub-Saharan Africa's development as a "region" with a certain "people group" (by Providential ordering).

And I think it can be decisively shown that the main tool of dominance had and continues to have NOTHING to do with genetics, and about EVERYTHING to do with technology. Philosophical/religious advantages aside, we can take world-societies back to about AD 1000, and world-over, the main groups of people or nations are about technologically equal. Sailing technology is hardly any different in European waters as they are in African waters, or Chinese waters, etc. Different places use their building materials and must consider their weather-requirements for housing. But a typical house in England uses grass for its roof, the same as a hut in Africa!

After half millennium more, there is a technological surge in Europe (there's bound to be studies on the combination factors that contribute to it, genetics probably plays next to no role), and suddenly we get a handful of Conquistadors--with a bit of "luck" and some acquired immunity to smallpox--who suddenly take the rule of a pre-existing empire in the New World (Aztecs). The competing (not cooperating) countries in Europe seek to press this technological advantage all over the world. But it takes a LONG LONG time to make inroads into Africa because of geography, weather, diseases, etc. Not until the 1800s does this closed-continent get opened up to the outside, by outsiders. Inside, are we to believe that the plethora of languages, the diseases-issue, the geographical isolation of people-groups had less to do with Africa's lack of "organization" than genetics? Please.

South Africa? When the Boers, and later the English, came to S.A., there wasn't anyone there. There were fewer dark-skinned people in that territory than there were dark-skinned people in the territory that became the 13 Colonies. The native-African populations were moving southward, in expansionary movement, even as the Euros were landing on the coasts, and moving northward and inland. Once again, it was technology that gave the Euros their advantages, and philosophy/religion, and the fact that the African tribes were not internally unified, but warred with one another. The Euros had a common goal of colony, but the irony is that those "tribes" ended up warring with each other also (the Boer Wars)! 


Cutting to the chase, this genetic junk is plain stupid and toxic. The "Hamites" are not just dark-African, but are the native Egyptians, and other northern-African peoples, and possibly a good many others. And there is mixing that has gone on forever, so no group is "pure." Sub-saharan Africa is actually a relatively small geographic area, and it happens that it is isolated from other population centers on earth, and has internal features that isolate pieces inside it. Welcome to the world of a subset of Hamites. These are peoples who were not brought the gospel early (except for the Ethiopians), but late--and by the time it came, the mercantilists were just as likely to get there first as the missionaries were. And even when the came later, they still imposed an outside order on these native populations (except in the New Word, where we tended to war with them).

All I see, when I see "empire" and "survival-of-the-fittest" in the world's terms (dominating, colonizing, using and exploiting), is one version of sin's ugly tendency to magnify evil, and ruin humanity. When we read Daniel and Revelation, we are presented with a "beastly" description of organized, sinful man. If we never observe a unified, dominating power emanating from a Hamitic-origin again, we might wish we could have had that advantage ourselves.


----------



## MW

Acts 17:26, "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation."

There is only one race -- humankind.


----------



## Pergamum

Dr. Nigel Lee states in the link above:



> When one considers Extra-Biblical History, it is remarkable that all the great monotheistic
> world religions started in the tents of Shem -- namely, pure Old Testament religion among the
> Semitic Jews; early pure Christianity among the Semitic Ex-Judaists; and later even apostate
> Islam among the Semitic Arabs. It is also remarkable that God truly enlarge the Caucasian or
> Japhethitic white race -- which, by and large, has until recently progressively more and more
> dwelt in the religious tents of Shem since making the acquaintance of Christianity. And it is
> equally remarkable that the dark-skinned races of the world have, on the whole, been culturally
> and especially technologically backward -- alienated from the spiritual blessings of the tents of
> Shem, and until very recently the colonial servants of the Japhethitic white race and the vassals
> of the Semitic Arab slave-traders.39
> 
> There is general agreement that Shem is indeed the father of the Semitic peoples who
> inhabited the early Middle East. The Bible too tells us that Shem is the father of "all the children
> of Eber" (probably the H-Ebr-ews) -- and of "Elam and Asshur (or Assyria) and Aram (or Syria)"
> etc.40 The question in dispute is as to whether Ham is really the father of the dark-skinned races,
> and Japheth the father of the Caucasian or white race.
> 
> As far as one can still ascertain, this is indeed the case. For the Bible tells us that the sons
> of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras and (looking westward
> from Palestine) "the isles (or 'coasts') of the Gentiles" and their descedants41 -- which probably
> includes the Germans, Russians, Persians and Greeks (all of the white race). The Bible also tells
> us the sons of Ham were Cush, Misraim, Phut and Canaan and their descendants42 -- which
> definitely includes the Egyptians, the dark-skinned Ethiopians and the early Palestinians, and
> which probably includes the Lybians and other early African peoples too.





More specifically:




> And it is equally remarkable that the dark-skinned races of the world have, on the whole, been culturally
> and especially technologically backward -- alienated from the spiritual blessings of the tents of
> Shem, and until very recently the colonial servants of the Japhethitic white race and the vassals
> of the Semitic Arab slave-traders.



What this friend of mine told me almost sounds word for word what Dr. Lee puts forth.

Is this a common view, or a historical view among the Reformed? Or at least a strong minority view in the past? Also, what denomination do the kinists belong to, are any in mainstream denominations?


----------



## TimV

There's general agreement that Shem is the Semites. Now if what Lee says and implies is true then you have to start

Ham being basically Africans
Japheth being basically Whites

and he elaborates

Ham being backwards dark skinned people colonial servants, which makes them Africans and North and South American Indians and a few others 
Japheth being White.

The question then is where are the bulk of the earth's populations, the Asians? If North and South American dark skinned colonized people are Ham, then that includes the Thais and Chinese and Japanese, so there goes the theory. Or, Thais and Chinese and Japanese are Shem, which means every linguistic and genetic study ever been done is false.

---------- Post added at 05:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 AM ----------

I should add that in the Baptist church I grew up in some people resolved the problem of that theory ignoring 75 percent of the worlds population by saying Asians came from a civilization circling the sun that went nova to announce the birth of Christ. The idea was that God felt obligated to give them a new planet since he destroyed their home world when the Bethlehem star went nova. You pretty much have to come up with a theory of that sort to support Lee's view of anthropology.


----------



## Peairtach

The tribes of the British Isles were running around with their bottoms dyed blue before Christianity came to these shores. 

"Africa" - and that's a big generalisation - won't always be behind the rest of the world in terms of peace, prosperity and economics.

There are parts of Africa ahead of parts of Europe in terms of Christianity.

---------- Post added at 01:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 PM ----------




TimV said:


> There's general agreement that Shem is the Semites. Now if what Lee says and implies is true then you have to start
> 
> Ham being basically Africans
> Japheth being basically Whites
> 
> and he elaborates
> 
> Ham being backwards dark skinned people colonial servants, which makes them Africans and North and South American Indians and a few others
> Japheth being White.
> 
> The question then is where are the bulk of the earth's populations, the Asians? If North and South American dark skinned colonized people are Ham, then that includes the Thais and Chinese and Japanese, so there goes the theory. Or, Thais and Chinese and Japanese are Shem, which means every linguistic and genetic study ever been done is false.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 05:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 AM ----------
> 
> I should add that in the Baptist church I grew up in some people resolved the problem of that theory ignoring 75 percent of the worlds population by saying Asians came from a civilization circling the sun that went nova to announce the birth of Christ. The idea was that God felt obligated to give them a new planet since he destroyed their home world when the Bethlehem star went nova. You pretty much have to come up with a theory of that sort to support Lee's view of anthropology.



Where _do_ the Asians fit in re the sons of Noah? Henry Morris had some theory about this in his book on Genesis, which I don't have?


----------



## Theoretical

TimV said:


> I should add that in the Baptist church I grew up in *some people resolved the problem of that theory ignoring 75 percent of the worlds population by saying Asians came from a civilization circling the sun that went nova to announce the birth of Christ. The idea was that God felt obligated to give them a new planet since he destroyed their home world when the Bethlehem star went nova.* You pretty much have to come up with a theory of that sort to support Lee's view of anthropology.



 That's ludicrous.


----------



## Peairtach

Arthur Custance gives another take on this subject and on the curse of Noah on Ham:
Noah (Vol.1) - Frontpage


----------



## TimV

Richard, next time you see a Jew, an Assyrian or a Lebanese ask yourself whether they look more White than Black or Asian.


----------



## Jack K

Race, as we understand it, is not even a biblical construct. The Bible divides people into "nations" and "tribes" and "tounges," prefering to focus on cultural differences while maintaining that we are biologically one, all descended from Adam. Besides, whatever inherent differences we might have, believers are brought together in Christ anyway. So all told, it's silly for Christians to think in racial terms.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Rev Winzer and Jack K. are correct theologically and biology vindicates their statements as well. Quite a few recent studies have demonstrated that there are no significant genetic differences between races when viewed on a population-wide scale. And what differences are there are not specifically linked to race. In other words, people of different races may respond differently to medication or have increased risk for certain diseases, but that is more a function of mating patterns over the years rather than skin color. Race is a social construct, not a biological or theological one. 

I find that conservative Christians often try to make these claims about racial genetics not so much out of racism, but to somehow cast history in a more positive light. Such claims are baffling to me since men liker Hitler and Stalin came from white Europe and not black Africa.


----------



## Andres

smhbbag said:


> Perhaps I have too much invested in this fight, but when I read your OP, it sounds like you are almost entertaining this man's ideas. That bothers me a lot. And I don't see any problem with saying, ""Come on man, stop being racist." Racism is hate. He's not going to listen to reason until he puts away his racism, so instead of pandering to him, call him out on his sin. If he was advocating raping some woman and he gave you some good quotes to back up why he thought it made sense, I doubt you'd try to get all intellectual with him before you called him out on his sin. Why is this different?
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the racism in the OP? And what is racism, anyway?
Click to expand...


Racism is defined as - The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

Here are some quotes from the OP which directly fall under that definition. 

“White,westerners climbed on top due to certain character traits that made them dominant.”
“he thinks IQ varies by race as well”
“Africans and Melanesians to this day have a tribalistic mentality that allows crime and fighting to run rampant”
"Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa”
“He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations.”



smhbbag said:


> Until then, you just have a guy who thinks some groups are generally less gifted in intelligence, social stability, time preference, etc. by nature.”



No he doesn't just think some groups are less gifted, he thinks blacks are less gifted. This line of thinking is racism! I’m baffled at how it’s not! Perg’s friend is saying that black people are less intelligent than white people. He specifically said that blacks have a propensity for crime. Seriously, what am I missing here because to me it’s pretty clear this is racist thinking.


----------



## Skyler

@Andres: Relax. Calm down. It's gonna be okay. =)


----------



## goodnews

Let's remember our Reformed, evangelical, commitments and simply acknowledge (from Genesis 9) that the tribe of Canaan was cursed by God from very early on to be mastered by his brothers. If that's true then it was something done by God and not b/c one race is inherently superior.


----------



## Andres

Skyler said:


> @Andres: Relax. Calm down. It's gonna be okay. =)



I'm calm, but I take racism seriously and therefore your comment isn't appreciated.


----------



## Rufus

Pergamum said:


> Yes, it is hard to have complex societal structures in a highly malarial region. However, this man pointed out the Norse and the Dutch, who prospered despite environmental harshness.



The Norse where not successful until about seven hundred years ago, the Dutch where originally "barbarians" to the Romans. Its also a lot easier to keep warm than it is to avoid malaria.


----------



## py3ak

*[Moderator]* This is obviously a sensitive topic. Let's do our best to be conciliatory and to ask, BEFORE WE POST, if what we have to say is assuming the best of our interlocutors. *[/Moderator]*


----------



## Andres

okay, but just FYI, I had to look up what interlocutors meant!


----------



## Skyler

Andres said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Andres: Relax. Calm down. It's gonna be okay. =)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calm, but I take racism seriously and therefore your comment isn't appreciated.
Click to expand...


That's fine. It just seems like people get a whiff of "racism" (particularly against blacks--not so much when it comes to other groups) and then lose their heads. Maybe it's because I'm not as "exposed" as some people are, but it seems from my perspective to be a heavily lopsided response.


----------



## Redness

Pergamum said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know if anyone has written a rebuttal or a critique?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Schwertley had a great series of sermons called The Kinist Heresy (I think) available on sermonaudio.com. I don't remember who he was responding to though. Hope this helps. I think the issue of slavery has so scarred the image of the white protestant that it has damaged our effectiveness in certain parts of the world even in America... then again God is Sovereign over ALL things so...? History can be baffling! We shall understand it better by-and-by.
> 
> Btw, Brian Schwertley is a classical presbyterian (my designation) and extremely thorough in his teachings. When he refutes you, you've been soundly refuted!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Andres

Skyler said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Andres: Relax. Calm down. It's gonna be okay. =)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calm, but I take racism seriously and therefore your comment isn't appreciated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine. It just seems like people get a whiff of "racism" (particularly against blacks--not so much when it comes to other groups) and then lose their heads. Maybe it's because I'm not as "exposed" as some people are, but it seems from my perspective to be a heavily lopsided response.
Click to expand...


I understand where you are coming from and I assure you that I am just as offended when whites are discriminated against and treated unjustly. I assure you that I deplore the Nation of Islam's bigoted hatred just as much as I hate the kinists and as such if someone started a thread where the Nation of Islam's propaganda was spouted, I would vehemently condemn it as well. By your own admission, if you haven’t ever been discriminated against then you may not be able to relate completely. I understand and I certainly don’t hold that against you. But I would ask that as someone who’s witnessed discrimination and who’s experienced it, it is very hurtful.


----------



## smhbbag

> No he doesn't just think some groups are less gifted, he thinks blacks are less gifted. This line of thinking is racism! I’m baffled at how it’s not! Perg’s friend is saying that black people are less intelligent than white people. He specifically said that blacks have a propensity for crime. Seriously, what am I missing here because to me it’s pretty clear this is racist thinking.



He doesn't just believe blacks are less intellectually gifted. He also thinks whites are less intellectually gifted than Asians, as per the reference to The Bell Curve. I am not offended by either assertion. That doesn't make it true, but in and of itself it is not Biblically problematic. 

Many genuine racists use the same line of logic, but they go farther than that. If the chain of thought stops there, then you still have someone who believes in a united, diverse Church, and a gospel that must go everywhere without exception. 

As I said, if the man would not deny church office, status as a human, protected legal rights, redemption in Christ, etc. to any group, then you don't have a racist.



> Racism is defined as - The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races



He doesn't even meet this definition. He did not say that any race is superior to another. He said some races are generally superior to others _at_ some things. That "at" makes all the difference.

No race has more rights, less condemnation in sin, less need of Christ, or permission to dominate others by force than any other. When he says some nations dominate others because they are more intelligent, that is a descriptive statement about what generally happens in the real world, not an excuse for the "smart" ones to be right in what they've done. When he says that crimes against 'lower' classes of people are alright, or at least less wrong, then we would have a BIG problem.

I really like what Rev. Buchanan said above - if that superiority in intelligence does exist and brought about some of the injustices of the past, it should be a cause for mourning and not celebration.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Canaan was cursed by Noah. Canaan was probably the (one) guilty party, of what exactly we must "read between the lines," but on the whole, the Scripture is vague, and we must not transgress it.

But one thing is certain, Ham isn't cursed, nor is he blessed. Canaan is cursed (and he IS the "youngest son" of Noah who has been mentioned thus far in the text, see v18); Shem and Japheth are blessed.

A great deal has been "read-back" into those obscure lines of Gen.10:24-27, most of which borrows from "the assured results" of science, history, etc. In other words, nothing but post hoc fallacies, as far as the eye can see. Canaan was cursed, and that curse was fulfilled in the book of Joshua. Case closed.


----------



## proregno

Someone above mentioned it already: we must clearly define our terms, biblically, historically and socially, or else we gonna miss each other big time. 

If 'racism' means: one group is inherently/genetically better than another because of their skin color, then yes, I reject it wholeheartedly. But if 'racism' means (what it is mostly used for today, i.e. 'political correctness'): you may not cultivate and protect your own history, culture, customs, patriotism, etc, but be some kind of 'neutral non-sexist non-patriotic only one language speaking worldling', then I reject that also wholeheartedly. 

Therefore I agree with 'both' truths of Acts 17:26, "And hath made of one blood all nations ...", i.e. 'one blood' and 'all nations', both must be acknowledged to honour His Name in all languages and cultures, not create a one world culture for all (the new age ideas, which I think is by far the greatest problem in our day, than patriotism). 

What is the reason that some 'races' are more 'advantaged/civilized' than others, why some peoples accept Christianity more than others, at least till the 20th century ? The reason is not race/genetics, but God's grace and predestination: 

Canons of Dordt, chapter 2 rejection: 
Synod rejects, Who teach: That the reason why God sends the gospel to one people rather than to another *is not merely and solely the good pleasure of God, but rather the fact that one people is better and worthier than another to which the gospel is not communicated. *; For this Moses denies, addressing the people of Israel as follows: Behold, unto Jehovah thy God belongeth heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth, with all that is therein. Only Jehovah had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all peoples, as at this day (Deu 10:14-15). And Christ said: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes (Mat 11:21). 

My people, the Boer Calvinist Afrikaners were not better than the pagan black nations because of our skin color, but only because of the 'sole pleasure of God' and His purposes, who gave our Dutch, French and English forefathers (via Europe) the Gospel that transformed and created our people here at the south point of Africa. 

BTW, I try myself to speak ethnically/culturally in South Africa, i.e. Zulus, Xhosas, Sotho's, Afrikaners, etc, and not 'black and white', but the last terms are so historically and socially fixed, it is difficult not to use it. So we use it to distinquish between groups and differences, not because of 'racism'. 

I have not studied dr. Lee's work in detail, but I think he wants to acknowledge that there are races, and that all races must serve Him in their languages, cultures, customs, etc. Thus all Christians are one in the Lord, but it does not mean we all 'must' be one in language, culture and customs. I do not have a problem with such a view, but I would prefer, as I mentioned above to speak about ethnic nations/cultures/peoples, etc. and not 'race groups'. I think the biblical case for the first is much stronger than the latter.


----------



## proregno

Here is a quote of one of the ‘apartheidthinkers’, dr. HG Stoker, a Calvinist Afrikaner philosopher from SA (who were also a good friend of dr. Cornelius van Til), in which he writes about the SA situation, back in 1957: 

”The European group, however, is not prepared to sacrifice its rights of existence as a separate national and racial entity, and is determined to retain control of its own destiny. Accordingly, racial friction and animosity will result, if the policy of liberalism is effectively put into practice.

On the other hand, the policy of apartheid intends to ensure for each group the fullest opportunity for self-expression and realisation of its aspirations, and an unfettered existence. The execution of this policy will accordingly not necessarily result in race tensions and clashes, but will provide a better guarantee of mutual respect, understanding, peace and friendship. It accepts the duty of creating and of helping to create the separate opportunities for development of the Bantu group ('Bantu' was another name for black people - slc) to a control of its own affairs in all human spheres. It expects of the advanced Bantu individuals to identify themselves with, to seek as leaders the welfare of their group and to acquire within their group the privileges and positions that Europeans enjoy within their group.

It is clear, that, on account of its cultural superiority (not ‘racial superiority’ – slc), for the foreseeable future the Europeans will remain the leading group. *But the ultimate ideal of apartheid *— when the differences of cultural development between these groups has been appropriately diminished is that both groups together (e.g. as self- governing states) on a basis of equivalence (resp. equality) will have to control in sonic form of allied or federated co-operation the destiny of South Africa. There is no middle way between apartheid and integration, as it would lead to assimilation. In the present racial crisis the only and inescapable choice is that between apartheid and integration.
I may add that the overwhelming majority of Afrikaans- as well as English- speaking South Africans are in favour of apartheid; that the majority of urbanised Bantu leaders favour integration and assimilation; and that the Bantu chieftains in the Bantu areas increasingly appear to favour the Government’s policy apartheid.” 

Source: Oorsprong en Rigting, deel 1 (Kaapstad, Tafelberg Uitgewers, 1967), bl.216. This article by Stoker first appeared in April 1957, under the title: “At the Crossroads: Apartheid and University Freedom in South Africa”. 

Unfortunately, especially since the 1970's, the urbanized black people (who were heavily influenced and motivated by marxist liberal white politicans and theologians and churches, from the inside and outside of SA), rejected the 'Bantu chieftains' and other moderate black leaders who wanted to work together with the white government for a peaceful solution. The revolutionary liberals and communists won the day, and therefore Marxist leaders like Mandela and liberation theologians like Desmond Tutu and Alan Boesak are the heroes and idols of the new SA. 

Yes, my Afrikaner people were also guilty of many sins, and there were biblical and other problems with apartheid, but now we have it even worse. Moving from forbidding people to live and trade in some places (apartheid old SA), to forbidding people to live as such (abortion new SA) is in no way 'reconciliation, peace, and reformation'. 

I myself do not prefer to move back to the old SA, I do reject the racism-problems of the past (which were more a social evil than a government policy), but I do believe that under Hendrik Verwoerd, whom the black leaders respected very much, they were much more hopeful than both the later 'Vorster apartheid years' and the hell we have now called the 'new SA'. But Verwoerd were assasinated ...

May our Lord have mercy on all His children among all nations here in SA, that in Christ we will have godly leaders one day again from all our nations, who repect both the unity 'and' diversity we all have in Christ our Lord and Saviour. 

For those interested, here is the best balanced and biblical reformed critique I have seen thus far of apartheid: 

South African Tragedy Restored ?


----------



## Pergamum

Rufus said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is hard to have complex societal structures in a highly malarial region. However, this man pointed out the Norse and the Dutch, who prospered despite environmental harshness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Norse where not successful until about seven hundred years ago, the Dutch where originally "barbarians" to the Romans. Its also a lot easier to keep warm than it is to avoid malaria.
Click to expand...


Tis true. Plus winters seem to kill off many microbes. Yet, the norse became a great civilization with sagas and kingdoms whereby other cold weather tribes, like the eskimos and laps, merely remain a sort of curiosity. 

---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 AM ----------

How I may have left an open door to this fellow whereby he felt free to express to me his true opinions:

The genesis of my conversation with this man was when I began to talk negatively about the books of Jared Diamond (_Guns, Germ and Steel_) whereby Dr. Diamond asserts that all differences in the world are due to environment and external factors, eg, all peoples and races are where they are at today merely due to what sort of grains grow in their region and what sort of natural resources exist there and what sort of diseases exist in their region. I.e., the story of the world is due to non-mental, non-cultural and non-religious factors and this explains why some peoples are dominant over others. 

So, I strongly fought against this view and asserted, instead, that religion, culture and worldview were pivotal in whether a culture ascended or declined and fell. 

Environment shapes man, but even moreso in the history of the world, man shapes his environment. 

Strangely enough, I was contending against Christians who were also evolutionists of a theistic type and the man who most agreed with me seems to be turning out to be a reformed kinist of some sort.

...So I pointed out the great organization of the Roman Empire, etc. A culture rises or falls based mostly on societal organization, which heavily involves cultural, religious and worldview considerations.

This third man, then, volunteered to me, "Don't stop at merely saying that religion, worldview and social factors play a part in determining which cream rises to the top - you must also consider race and genetic stock of a people as well." He then stretched my argument and added his own wrinkle, that inherent racial and genetic differences also played a part in why some cultures rose and others fell. 

He, too, was fighting against an evolutionary and merely physicalist view of world history and so I lent him my ear. Ironically, we were on the same side of the battle even though he may have taken his arguments too far by adding race instead of worldview, religion and societal (non-physical) factors...and he merely replaced an evolutionary determinism of environment with a sort of racial determinism, which is equally unhelpful.

---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 AM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> Arthur Custance gives another take on this subject and on the curse of Noah on Ham:
> Noah (Vol.1) - Frontpage



Wow, very interesting!


----------



## Philip

> Environment shapes man, but even moreso in the history of the world, man shapes his environment.



The interplay of ideas and technology and how they have influenced one another historically is fascinating. The more I study it, the more convinced I become that technologies are as dangerous as ideas.


----------



## TimV

> Yet, the norse became a great civilization with sagas and kingdoms whereby other cold weather tribes, like the eskimos and laps, merely remain a sort of curiosity


.

Then don't compare them to the Eskimos, compare them to the Mongols who in every measurable way of looking at things made the Norse to look like a bunch of small time losers.

This is getting frustrating. Sorry. But surely and educated man like you knows that the Eskimos and Mongols are both of the same basic race. Surely an educated man knows the kingdom/empire of Ghengis, Tamurlane etc.... was 20 times as big and had 100 times the people and lasted 3 times longer than the Norse Kingdom.

Forgive me, but put my mind at ease and tell me you know that the Mongol empire dwarfed the Norse empire in every single way possible for one group of people to be superior to another. And please, please tell me why you used Eskimos instead of Mongols.

Sometimes you play the devil's advocate. Please tell me this is one of those times and you're really actually heard of Ghengis Khan, and you are aware it gets just as cold in Mongolia as Norway.


----------



## Pergamum

TimV said:


> Yet, the norse became a great civilization with sagas and kingdoms whereby other cold weather tribes, like the eskimos and laps, merely remain a sort of curiosity
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Then don't compare them to the Eskimos, compare them to the Mongols who in every measurable way of looking at things made the Norse to look like a bunch of small time losers.
> 
> This is getting frustrating. Sorry. But surely and educated man like you knows that the Eskimos and Mongols are both of the same basic race. Surely an educated man knows the kingdom/empire of Ghengis, Tamurlane etc.... was 20 times as big and had 100 times the people and lasted 3 times longer than the Norse Kingdom.
> 
> Forgive me, but put my mind at ease and tell me you know that the Mongol empire dwarfed the Norse empire in every single way possible for one group of people to be superior to another. And please, please tell me why you used Eskimos instead of Mongols.
> 
> Sometimes you play the devil's advocate. Please tell me this is one of those times and you're really actually heard of Ghengis Khan, and you are aware it gets just as cold in Mongolia as Norway.
Click to expand...

 
Sorry my neglect of the Mongols causes you such mental distress.

-
-
-
.....Ghengis who?


----------



## TimV

That's better!!!!!!!!!! We'll make a Presbyterian of you yet. I just get so irritated when good, solid men get caught up in this fundy baptist style loading on piles of data as if bulk is the same as quality. 

Sure, Eskimos weren't as advanced as the Norse (although they killed them off in Greenland  )

Hey!!! I know!! The Slovenes haven't had a successful Empire or great inventors or famous poets for a long time!!! Well, the Japanese have, there for since the Japanese have had larger Empires, more succesfull inventors and more famous poets than the Slovenes I WILL WRITE AN ARTICLE PROVING THAT ASIANS ARE SUPERIOR THAN WHITES in warfare, science and art!!!!!

And that's of course the same thing you are doing. Right?


----------



## Pergamum

Timv: 

Yes, I've been meaning to read more on the Slavs for quite a while. they seem a great people smashed in the middle of other great people and sort of down-trodden throughout history.

What can I say, imma jus an ignoran' bab-dist.


----------



## TimV

No, you're a first class intellect unfortunately dealing with a bunch of losers. With the occasional breath of fresh air.

But seriously, you can see why the deal about cold weather and Whites and achievement as put forth by that well meaning deficient isn't taken seriously by educated people even in the American South?


----------



## Pergamum

TimV:

A counter-argument that I might anticipate from him:

"But we stilll have the sagas and great Norse tales, and democratic assemblies, showing the productive energy of the Norse. And the Dutch were very constructive as well despite small numbers, whereas the Mongols and Chinese were vast hordes which were parasitic upon other civilizations and expanded through mere conquest and numbers (any idiot can do that)."

So, I guess my counter-move would be to dig up the achievement of Tamur the Lame, etc.

And China and the Far East was highly advanced and much more advanced than Europe at the time of the travels of Marco Polo, but they soon after retreated into an isolationism (as did Japan a little later....which still perplexes me as to exactly why)....

Every version of this man's view of history has whites coming out on top due to mental superiority. God, after all, ordained the boundaries and gifts of certain peoples. And he also seems to include the Greeks and Romans as whites as well, despite their shading being a bit darker than the Norse. He doesn't seem to be aware of the glories of Byzantium, either.

P.s., China and India are only catching up to the West now due to Western technology being globalized and we did Japan a favor by being guilted into rebuilding their nation after we bombed them into submission (the Japanese only did so well in WWII at the start, anyway, due to their extreme cruelty...the Asians are like ants that do not respect individualism or the rights of individuals, like the asiatic-like clones on Stars Wars), and it was very convenient that those bombs cleared out all that factory space for expanding industrialization. P.s.s. We also "rescued" the blacks in the US from heathenism, and US blacks (former slaves) ought to be thankful they were carried over here instead of being left in Africa, American Black Chattel slavery turning out to be a long-term blessing upon US blacks.

So, this is the worldview of this reformed christian. At least he is not an evolutionist and he sided with me as I critiqued the views of Jared Diamond. But, he wants to add quite a bit more to my assertions than I am comfortable with.

-
-


P.s.s.s. This topic causes a lot of heat. But, have churches ever disciplined their members for views such as this? Have churches ever disciplined members for "racism" and why, if this topic causes so much heat, is it tolerated? Is the amount of heat these discussions generate proportional to the amount of heinousness of these views?

---------- Post added at 03:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 AM ----------




Andres said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Andres: Relax. Calm down. It's gonna be okay. =)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calm, but I take racism seriously and therefore your comment isn't appreciated.
Click to expand...


Andres, 

What should the Church do to combat racism? 

Can one espouse racial differences and superioties/inferiorities in specific fields without being racist? What if one of those fields involves intellectual pursuits or giftedness at societal organization?

If a member espouses beliefs such as I have described, and if those beliefs are racist, should they be disciplined by their church or denomination?


----------



## TimV

> A counter-argument that I might anticipate from him:
> 
> "But we stilll have the sagas and great Norse tales, and democratic assemblies, showing the productive energy of the Norse. And the Dutch were very constructive as well despite small numbers, whereas the Mongols and Chinese were vast hordes which were parasitic upon other civilizations and expanded through mere conquest and numbers (any idiot can do that)."



I would expect such an argument from him as well, since he's a half-wit. Even today Mongolia has 3 million people while Norway has 5 million people. And the proportions would have been the same back 1000 years ago. So, the man would be saying 5 million is a small number and 3 million a vast horde. It's a cheap shot, I know, but in Reformed circles he'd be ignored as an uneducated conspiracy nut.


----------



## Pergamum

What is the proper church response to people with "kinist" views?


----------



## Andres

Pergamum said:


> P.s.s.s. This topic causes a lot of heat. But, have churches ever disciplined their members for views such as this? Have churches ever disciplined members for "racism" and why, if this topic causes so much heat, is it tolerated? Is the amount of heat these discussions generate proportional to the amount of heinousness of these views?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Andres: Relax. Calm down. It's gonna be okay. =)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calm, but I take racism seriously and therefore your comment isn't appreciated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andres,
> 
> What should the Church do to combat racism?
> 
> Can one espouse racial differences and superioties/inferiorities in specific fields without being racist? What if one of those fields involves intellectual pursuits or giftedness at societal organization?
> 
> If a member espouses beliefs such as I have described, and if those beliefs are racist, should they be disciplined by their church or denomination?
Click to expand...


Perg, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue civilly about this sensitive subject. I apologize if I came off as being “overly-sensitive” to the subject, but as I mentioned, it holds a lot of weight for me. For some reason, what I consider racist views, have too-long been either swept under the rug at best or justified at worst in the church. Consider the fact that men who would call themselves biblical Christians would even attempt to rationalize their bigotry and call it kinism. Or consider the fact that many people still champion theologians such as Dabney, even though he spewed some blatantly racist ideas. And for those who would contend that this was in the past, I personally know of a pastor (who is white BTW) who left a reformed pastorate in Mississippi approximately 10 years ago because people in the church, including leadership, held discriminatory views against blacks. 

Now to answer your questions, what should the church do to combat racism? Well first, we should treat it for what it is, sin. How does the church handle other sins? First, we always point men to Christ, the sinless one, who is the only answer for our sinful natures. Next, we preach/teach the whole counsel of God, which condemns the sinfulness of discrimination, judgementalism, and hatred and also shows us how we are all one body in Christ. And finally, yes, I think church discipline should be a reality for those who refuse to repent of racist views. Consider how damaging racism is to the church…if a member discriminates against any type of ethinicity, then a pastor can pretty much guarantee that the church will never have any members of that ethnicity in their church. 



Pergamum said:


> Can one espouse racial differences and superioties/inferiorities in specific fields without being racist? What if one of those fields involves intellectual pursuits or giftedness at societal organization?


Frankly, I don’t understand why it’s so imperative that we espouse racial differences and superioties/inferiorities. Do you want to be judged based solely upon your skin color? I certainly don’t. I’m not saying that we can’t embrace and celebrate differences in cultures, but when we say this ethnicity is ______, it’s offensive because it’s just not always true. I’m sure we can all think of Godly,successful blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc just as we can all think of pagan, criminal blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc. I’m certainly not a MLK Jr fan, but I would have to agree with him that we should judge people on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Andres said:


> Frankly, I don’t understand why it’s so imperative that we espouse racial differences and superioties/inferiorities.



Exactly. The relative "success" of largely white, western societies has nothing to do with skin color. The reason the white societies have been dominant for the past few centuries is a complex almagamation of factors ultimately directed by God's sovereignty. Did the Greeks beat the Persians at Marathon or Salamis simply because they had slightly lighter skin? Did the Europeans defeat the Native Americans simply because the former has white skin while the latter has darker skin (a trait the early explorers found immensely appealing)? Of course not! Many, many factors centuries in the making come in to play in these situations. Reducing such analysis to skin color or simple genetics is intellectually hollow.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Pergy*


> How I may have left an open door to this fellow whereby he felt free to express to me his true opinions:



It's a big subject and involves a lot of historical "what ifs" that only the Lord knows. E.g. What if Christianity took root in Africa in the first century and only took root in Europe in the nineteenth century?

What if Roman Catholicism took root in North America in the seventeenth century, and Protestantism took root in South America in the sixteenth century?

Sometimes these historical thought experiments lead to fruitful conclusions and lessons.


----------



## Philip

> American Black Chattel slavery turning out to be a long-term blessing upon US blacks.



Doesn't make it right, though.



> Or consider the fact that many people still champion theologians such as Dabney, even though he spewed some blatantly racist ideas.



And did some great things in spite of it. Winston Churchill also had some fairly racist views. We shouldn't whitewash our history, but learn from it and learn to learn from people, warts and all. All saints are sinners. Dabney was a white southerner during the Civil War and reconstruction era---cut him some slack.



> What if Christianity took root in Africa in the first century



It did. Carthage and Alexandria were two of the most important centers of Christian scholarship in the early centuries. They were just wiped out by Vandals and Muslim hordes.


----------



## Andres

P. F. Pugh said:


> Or consider the fact that many people still champion theologians such as Dabney, even though he spewed some blatantly racist ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And did some great things in spite of it. Winston Churchill also had some fairly racist views. We shouldn't whitewash our history, but learn from it and learn to learn from people, warts and all. All saints are sinners. Dabney was a white southerner during the Civil War and reconstruction era---cut him some slack.
Click to expand...


It would be helpful if you left in the name of the person you're quoting so as to limit confusion. 

I knew that if I brought Dabney’s name up, that someone would defend him here. This idea of “cut him some slack” is exactly what I’m talking about. Why should we cut Dabney some slack in this area? Look I’m not saying he was the devil or that there is nothing we can ever learn from him, but he was unashamedly racist. And so what if he was a white southerner during the Civil War and reconstruction era. Would someone living in Sodom get a pass if they condoned homosexuality since it was the majority view in that context? In Christian circles, sin is usually called sin and is rejected, but for some reason racism seems to get a pass.


----------



## Philip

> Why should we cut Dabney some slack in this area?



Because he's a sinner like us, and he's part of our theological heritage, like it or not. Kuyper was an imperialist, Dabney defended slavery, Luther railed against Jews. Our theological heroes often have dark sides---why's that a reason to categorically reject them?



> Would someone living in Sodom get a pass if they condoned homosexuality since it was the majority view in that context? In Christian circles, sin is usually called sin and is rejected, but for some reason racism seems to get a pass.



I'm not saying "give it a pass" I'm saying it's not a reason to reject Dabney _in toto_ as you seem to suggest. It's a fallacious _ad hominem_. I find Dabney a good and useful theologian in spite of his racism.


----------



## Peairtach

*Philip*


> What if Christianity took root in Africa in the first century
> 
> 
> 
> It did. Carthage and Alexandria were two of the most important centers of Christian scholarship in the early centuries. They were just wiped out by Vandals and Muslim hordes.
Click to expand...


Touche!

I meant, What if it took root flourished all over the continent and then African missionaries and colonisers took the message of the Gospel to Europe and colonised Europe centuries after receiving it themselves?


----------



## Pergamum

Andres said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> P.s.s.s. This topic causes a lot of heat. But, have churches ever disciplined their members for views such as this? Have churches ever disciplined members for "racism" and why, if this topic causes so much heat, is it tolerated? Is the amount of heat these discussions generate proportional to the amount of heinousness of these views?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Andres: Relax. Calm down. It's gonna be okay. =)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calm, but I take racism seriously and therefore your comment isn't appreciated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andres,
> 
> What should the Church do to combat racism?
> 
> Can one espouse racial differences and superioties/inferiorities in specific fields without being racist? What if one of those fields involves intellectual pursuits or giftedness at societal organization?
> 
> If a member espouses beliefs such as I have described, and if those beliefs are racist, should they be disciplined by their church or denomination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perg, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue civilly about this sensitive subject. I apologize if I came off as being “overly-sensitive” to the subject, but as I mentioned, it holds a lot of weight for me. For some reason, what I consider racist views, have too-long been either swept under the rug at best or justified at worst in the church. Consider the fact that men who would call themselves biblical Christians would even attempt to rationalize their bigotry and call it kinism. Or consider the fact that many people still champion theologians such as Dabney, even though he spewed some blatantly racist ideas. And for those who would contend that this was in the past, I personally know of a pastor (who is white BTW) who left a reformed pastorate in Mississippi approximately 10 years ago because people in the church, including leadership, held discriminatory views against blacks.
> 
> Now to answer your questions, what should the church do to combat racism? Well first, we should treat it for what it is, sin. How does the church handle other sins? First, we always point men to Christ, the sinless one, who is the only answer for our sinful natures. Next, we preach/teach the whole counsel of God, which condemns the sinfulness of discrimination, judgementalism, and hatred and also shows us how we are all one body in Christ. And finally, yes, I think church discipline should be a reality for those who refuse to repent of racist views. Consider how damaging racism is to the church…if a member discriminates against any type of ethinicity, then a pastor can pretty much guarantee that the church will never have any members of that ethnicity in their church.
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can one espouse racial differences and superioties/inferiorities in specific fields without being racist? What if one of those fields involves intellectual pursuits or giftedness at societal organization?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frankly, I don’t understand why it’s so imperative that we espouse racial differences and superioties/inferiorities. Do you want to be judged based solely upon your skin color? I certainly don’t. I’m not saying that we can’t embrace and celebrate differences in cultures, but when we say this ethnicity is ______, it’s offensive because it’s just not always true. I’m sure we can all think of Godly,successful blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc just as we can all think of pagan, criminal blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc. I’m certainly not a MLK Jr fan, but I would have to agree with him that we should judge people on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
Click to expand...



Andres:

Do you consider me to be at fault because I did not really get angered at this guy but merely got really curious and asked more clarifying questions? Should I have gotten a healthy dose of righteous anger, and did I sin due to my desire for him to explain more and explore his views deeper?

---------- Post added at 11:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 PM ----------

Andres:

If Dabney lived today, should he be church disciplined?


----------



## Skyler

> Yet, the norse became a great civilization with sagas and kingdoms whereby other cold weather tribes, like the eskimos and laps, merely remain a sort of curiosity



Pergamum: The secret is dragons.

Eskimos and Lapps just had seals and caribou. The Chinese had dragons; the Greeks and Romans had dragons; the Norse had dragons; England had dragons. That's what they all have in common. That must be the secret to their success.


----------



## Pergamum

Skyler said:


> Yet, the norse became a great civilization with sagas and kingdoms whereby other cold weather tribes, like the eskimos and laps, merely remain a sort of curiosity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum: The secret is dragons.
> 
> Eskimos and Lapps just had seals and caribou. The Chinese had dragons; the Greeks and Romans had dragons; the Norse had dragons; England had dragons. That's what they all have in common. That must be the secret to their success.
Click to expand...


Got it! I just wrote that down in my notes, "Dragons trump seals and deer of any kind..."


----------



## Philip

Skyler said:


> Yet, the norse became a great civilization with sagas and kingdoms whereby other cold weather tribes, like the eskimos and laps, merely remain a sort of curiosity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum: The secret is dragons.
> 
> Eskimos and Lapps just had seals and caribou. The Chinese had dragons; the Greeks and Romans had dragons; the Norse had dragons; England had dragons. That's what they all have in common. That must be the secret to their success.
Click to expand...


But the Welsh had dragons and they got stomped on by the English . . . .


----------



## Notthemama1984

Perg,

Although I am not Andrew, I would say that Dabney should be under church discipline if he were alive today. How can you read the following and not think so?



> It is well known, that, as a general rule, [Negroes] are a graceless, vagabondish set, and contribute very little to the support of the State by which they are protected. They are not citizens, never can become citizens, and wherever found in large numbers they are an expense and a source of trouble…
> 
> The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity…
> 
> The offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjugation, which they desire to fix on the South.


----------



## TimV

> But the Welsh had dragons and they got stomped on by the English



Until they got tired of it and the Welsh Tudors just took over and then called themselves English. The Welsh are a bit sneaky. In fact the rumor has it that the Devil is Welsh, what with Davy Jones being as Welsh as Welsh can be. In fact, while the English pray on their knees, the Welsh prey on their neighbors. I'm proud to have a Welsh name. After all, we produced Celestius and Pelagius as well as Jones.


----------



## Andres

P. F. Pugh said:


> Why should we cut Dabney some slack in this area?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he's a sinner like us, and he's part of our theological heritage, like it or not. Kuyper was an imperialist, Dabney defended slavery, Luther railed against Jews. Our theological heroes often have dark sides---why's that a reason to categorically reject them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would someone living in Sodom get a pass if they condoned homosexuality since it was the majority view in that context? In Christian circles, sin is usually called sin and is rejected, but for some reason racism seems to get a pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying "give it a pass" I'm saying it's not a reason to reject Dabney _in toto_ as you seem to suggest. It's a fallacious _ad hominem_. I find Dabney a good and useful theologian in spite of his racism.
Click to expand...


Are you really going to contend that because we're all sinners, it makes it okay to sin? Surely you don’t really believe what you’re positing above. As for rejecting Dabney as a whole, I have not suggested this. What I have suggested is calling his racism what it is and rejecting that. 

Let me use another example and see if you agree with me here. I mentioned earlier that I didn’t care for MLK Jr. The reason being is that he was an adulterer and he held to some aberrant theology. Now, did he do wonderful things for civil rights in this country? Resoundingly yes, and I therefore very much respect and appreciate him _in this area_. However, I cannot ignore the adultery and poor doctrine and as such, I regularly let folks know about this side of King Jr’s life when he comes up. It’s simply a matter of being honest about the man and the facts surrounding him. We should applaud King Jr’s and Dabney’s commendable contributions, but we should also condemn their sins.

---------- Post added at 09:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 AM ----------




Pergamum said:


> Andres:
> Do you consider me to be at fault because I did not really get angered at this guy but merely got really curious and asked more clarifying questions? Should I have gotten a healthy dose of righteous anger, and did I sin due to my desire for him to explain more and explore his views deeper?


You are an intelligent man and I don’t doubt for a second that you are more than capable of handling yourself in a discussion. I don’t see how listening to someone, even if what they are saying is wrong/stupid/sinful, would constitute sin on the hearers part. I would expect someone who hears a view contrary to theirs, especially when it comes to the scriptures, to oppose said view though. Perg, have you at any point let this man know you disagree with him? Perhaps, I should back up…do you disagree with him?

Let’s use a different example: If a man explains to me that Jesus wasn’t God, but was simply a wise teacher and He was actually married to Mary Magdalene, how should I react? Sure, I could listen to his explanations, but at some point am I expected to correct this gentleman? Don’t I at least owe it to our Lord’s honor to speak up? 



Pergamum said:


> Andres: If Dabney lived today, should he be church disciplined?


Racism is a sin. If a church member is living in unrepentant sin, my understanding is that church discipline is to be exercised. Therefore I affirm, yes, Dabney should be disciplined if he refused to repent of his sin. 

Perg, do you consider racism a sin? Do you think Dabney’s views on African-Americans were racist?


----------



## kvanlaan

First off, the Welsh simply didn't have enough dragons to advance their society to a point where they could withstand the more heavily-dragoned English. There was a dragon gap that was simply insurmountable.

Secondly, the Ethiopians were the only African nation not to be colonized/conquered until the Italians came along and with airplanes and tanks finally beat foot-soldiers with rifles of questionable pedigree. That dynasty stood until 1974 when it was toppled by a combination of famine and communism.


----------



## Philip

* TimV*


> After all, we produced Celestius and Pelagius as well as Jones.



Not to mention St. Patrick (who was a Briton, and therefore Welsh).

And as for dragon superiority:

1) The English stole their dragons from the Welsh

2) The Welsh are the only country in the world with a dragon on their flag

3) The Welsh don't just have dragons: they have _Pendragons_



> Are you really going to contend that because we're all sinners, it makes it okay to sin?



Obviously not. I have not said or implied this. My point is that we should note that Dabney was in error on this issue, that he was deceived in the peculiar sin of his time here, and then move on.



> We should applaud King Jr’s and Dabney’s commendable contributions, but we should also condemn their sins.



Agreed---I just prefer not to dwell on the sin.



> Therefore I affirm, yes, Dabney should be disciplined if he refused to repent of his sin.



If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't be racist. Let's also recognize that the church of his time was guilty of the sin of racism. I understand this, and I speak as one very much conscious of a rich heritage in Southern Presbyterianism (my family has a first edition of Dabney's lectures that was owned by my great-great-great gandfather, who pastored a church in Clarksville, VA during the Late Unpleasantness). Yes, Southern Presbyterianism has a long history of racism that we're still getting over, in some places---but let's recognize that racism was a peculiar sin of the 19th century. We can't expect anyone to rise too much above their time.


----------



## py3ak

> If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't be racist.



That's a charitable speculation, but still a speculation.


----------



## Philip

py3ak said:


> If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't be racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a charitable speculation, but still a speculation.
Click to expand...


If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't have 19th-century sensibilities, but 21st-century sensibilities. This is what I meant. If I had lived through the Late Unpleasantness and Reconstruction in the South, I would probably be a racist too. Certain sins are peculiar to certain eras.


----------



## Andres

P. F. Pugh said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't be racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a charitable speculation, but still a speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't have 19th-century sensibilities, but 21st-century sensibilities. This is what I meant. If I had lived through the Late Unpleasantness and Reconstruction in the South, I would probably be a racist too. Certain sins are peculiar to certain eras.
Click to expand...

 
It's funny because you seem to really think you're defending your views, but with each post you type, you just reinforce what I've been saying over and over.


----------



## Philip

> It's funny because you seem to really think you're defending your views, but with each post you type, you just reinforce what I've been saying over and over.



Andres, I've learned that it's a good idea to refrain from judging a man too harshly until you've walked in his shoes a bit. Just a lesson I learned from Atticus Finch.

Not saying racism's ok, just saying that I understand the kind of circumstances, both cultural and experiential, that would make me likely to sin in this regard. Dabney was no worse a sinner, for his racism, than you or I. Thanks be to God that one day all of that will be gone.


----------



## Rufus

TimV said:


> But the Welsh had dragons and they got stomped on by the English
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until they got tired of it and the Welsh Tudors just took over and then called themselves English. The Welsh are a bit sneaky. In fact the rumor has it that the Devil is Welsh, what with Davy Jones being as Welsh as Welsh can be. In fact, while the English pray on their knees, the Welsh prey on their neighbors. I'm proud to have a Welsh name. After all, we produced Celestius and Pelagius as well as Jones.
Click to expand...


My last name is Scottish. We produced Presbyterianism and Knox, you can say thank you later. Therefore I presume that the Scots are genetically superior to Welsh heretics (with the exception of Lloyd-Jones).



> If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't have 19th-century sensibilities, but 21st-century sensibilities. This is what I meant. If I had lived through the Late Unpleasantness and Reconstruction in the South, I would probably be a racist too. Certain sins are peculiar to certain eras.



Agreed, my Dad watched cartoons that have since been banned growing up and never thought anything of it as being racist as a child, and slavery was common in the 19th century, Whitefield owned slaves (although he actually believed they had souls and treated them well), and my family could have very well owned slaves (Georgian).


----------



## Andres

P. F. Pugh said:


> Thanks be to God that one day all of that will be gone.



For all our differences, we can certainly agree on this.


----------



## py3ak

P. F. Pugh said:


> If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't have 19th-century sensibilities, but 21st-century sensibilities. This is what I meant. If I had lived through the Late Unpleasantness and Reconstruction in the South, I would probably be a racist too. Certain sins are peculiar to certain eras.



No; certain eras may be characterized by greater acceptance of certain sins than others, but the root of those sins are present in all times. I don't believe any sin is confined (as the word "peculiar" suggests) to a certain era. Just as there were non-racists during that era, so there are racists now. Furthermore, Dabney had a strong and independent mind: likely not be in lockstep with his contemporaries on all points. And finally, the very fact that sensibilities change from era to era shows that there are catalysts to change in the eras in question - people not dominated by the prevailing zeitgeist.


----------



## Philip

> Furthermore, Dabney had a strong and independent mind: likely not be in lockstep with his contemporaries on all points.



Are you suggesting that he thought independently of his historical context? Every thinker writes in a context and to take him out of that context and pretend that he should somehow have been "above it" is to fail to realize the way that we are shaped by culture, strong and independent minds included. Yes we shape culture, and it shapes us. The independent thinker is the one who sees a little ahead. Even people like Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain who had fairer views on race would still be considered racist by today's standards. 

Perhaps "peculiar" is the wrong word to use, but certainly the 19th century was a century where racism was more prevalent.



> Just as there were non-racists during that era



Like who? I might think of Booker T. Washington or any number of early black leaders in the postbellum era, but I can't think of any major white thinker of that era of whom I can honestly say "not racist." The best I can say is "fair for his day."


----------



## Andres

P. F. Pugh said:


> Furthermore, Dabney had a strong and independent mind: likely not be in lockstep with his contemporaries on all points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that he thought independently of his historical context? Every thinker writes in a context and to take him out of that context and pretend that he should somehow have been "above it" is to fail to realize the way that we are shaped by culture, strong and independent minds included. Yes we shape culture, and it shapes us. The independent thinker is the one who sees a little ahead. Even people like Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain who had fairer views on race would still be considered racist by today's standards.
> 
> Perhaps "peculiar" is the wrong word to use, but certainly the 19th century was a century where racism was more prevalent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as there were non-racists during that era
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like who? I might think of Booker T. Washington or any number of early black leaders in the postbellum era, but I can't think of any major white thinker of that era of whom I can honestly say "not racist." The best I can say is "fair for his day."
Click to expand...


So if we're just products of our environments, can't the sinner stand before God on judgment day and say, "well God, you had me born in ____ during ____ time, so I couldn't help my sinfullness!


----------



## Rufus

Andres said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, Dabney had a strong and independent mind: likely not be in lockstep with his contemporaries on all points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that he thought independently of his historical context? Every thinker writes in a context and to take him out of that context and pretend that he should somehow have been "above it" is to fail to realize the way that we are shaped by culture, strong and independent minds included. Yes we shape culture, and it shapes us. The independent thinker is the one who sees a little ahead. Even people like Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain who had fairer views on race would still be considered racist by today's standards.
> 
> Perhaps "peculiar" is the wrong word to use, but certainly the 19th century was a century where racism was more prevalent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as there were non-racists during that era
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like who? I might think of Booker T. Washington or any number of early black leaders in the postbellum era, but I can't think of any major white thinker of that era of whom I can honestly say "not racist." The best I can say is "fair for his day."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if we're just products of our environments, can't the sinner stand before God on judgment day and say, "well God, you had me born in ____ during ____ time, so I couldn't help my sinfullness!
Click to expand...


Or they could not have recognized it as sin as we do today.


----------



## py3ak

P. F. Pugh said:


> Are you suggesting that he thought independently of his historical context? Every thinker writes in a context and to take him out of that context and pretend that he should somehow have been "above it" is to fail to realize the way that we are shaped by culture, strong and independent minds included. Yes we shape culture, and it shapes us. The independent thinker is the one who sees a little ahead. Even people like Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain who had fairer views on race would still be considered racist by today's standards.
> 
> Perhaps "peculiar" is the wrong word to use, but certainly the 19th century was a century where racism was more prevalent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as there were non-racists during that era
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like who? I might think of Booker T. Washington or any number of early black leaders in the postbellum era, but I can't think of any major white thinker of that era of whom I can honestly say "not racist." The best I can say is "fair for his day."
Click to expand...


No; if you thought I was suggesting that you might want to look at my post again. It does make it sound like you give too much weight to the influence of culture if you take a remark to the effect that it is not absolute to indicate a total denial of its influence: it's a continuum, not an on/off switch. You may also want to reconsider whether today's standards are in all points the most reasonable. I think you might find Thomas Peck to be a good example from among the circle of Dabney's acquaintances, and a little while later B.B. Warfield takes a strong and clear stand against racism, and I think also, going earlier, that it might be difficult to convict Thomas Chalmers of racism.


----------



## Philip

*Andres*


> So if we're just products of our environments, can't the sinner stand before God on judgment day and say, "well God, you had me born in ____ during ____ time, so I couldn't help my sinfullness!



Absolutely not. However, Dabney stands under the same blood of Christ that we do and as such, we ought to extend the same charity to him as has been extended to us.

*Ruben*


> You may also want to reconsider whether today's standards are in all points the most reasonable.



I don't think so, in fact. Part of my whole point about charity is a stand against chronological snobbery. I'm not any more enlightened than Dabney, Chalmers, Warfield, or anyone. Any light that I have is from the Holy Spirit.

At the same time, Lincoln (from his words) clearly thought blacks inferior to whites, as did Theodore Roosevelt, US Grant, and others who advanced the cause of black liberation and the end of racist policies (actually, some of the fairer figures of the era were Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, both of whom favored ending slavery on moral grounds).

I just find it hard to judge these kinds of blind spots too harshly when I have my own blind spots that I can't see.


----------



## py3ak

If you can find in my words advocacy for judging others harshly, please point it out. I don't think you should lump Dabney and Warfield into the same category on this point, however, given that one of them was a racist and one of them wasn't. No one is implying that you are more enlightened than either of those men; but it is still wrong to suggest that everyone is totally enslaved to their time, or that all are equally unenlightened. Universal egalitarianism is also a fallacy.


----------



## Philip

> I don't think you should lump Dabney and Warfield into the same category on this point



I don't think I did. In listing them together, I was not trying to imply that their views are similar on this point.



> but it is still wrong to suggest that everyone is totally enslaved to their time



Yet we're all products of it. Those who see beyond their time generally do so in response to it. All I'm trying to argue for here is a bit of charity for those who are no worse than you or I, and who were saved in spite of their racism. I'm not trying to imply that you are being overly harsh, just that it's easy to be harsh in hindsight. The whole Southern Presbyterian tradition sinned in this respect and we shouldn't try to whitewash it. But we should also try to extend some charity to those caught up in it who were, nonetheless, saved by grace alone.


----------



## py3ak

Fair enough, Philip. Since Dabney was the criticized theologian in question, you can see how listing him along with Warfield as people than whom you are not more enlightened can come across as implying an equivalence between their views that doesn't exist.

Charity can be extended to their persons; and I haven't seen anyone here arguing that Dabney was not saved by grace. But if we extend charity to their aberrant positions as such we put ourselves in the realm of excusing what ought to be opposed, and what someone in Dabney's same tradition, like Girardeau, did oppose. Dabney did have Scripture; and he could have and should have learned from Scripture that racism was sin. In many things we offend all: and yet the light of the word still reveals what sin is, and calls upon us to oppose it. If you place the force of historical influence too high on the continuum, the effect is to excuse characteristic failings and imply the impossibility of reform - even though it is often just the characteristic failings of an age that God's church successfully opposes.


----------



## Pergamum

Andres:

You wrote:


> You are an intelligent man and I don’t doubt for a second that you are more than capable of handling yourself in a discussion. I don’t see how listening to someone, even if what they are saying is wrong/stupid/sinful, would constitute sin on the hearers part. I would expect someone who hears a view contrary to theirs, especially when it comes to the scriptures, to oppose said view though. Perg, have you at any point let this man know you disagree with him? Perhaps, I should back up…do you disagree with him?
> 
> Let’s use a different example: If a man explains to me that Jesus wasn’t God, but was simply a wise teacher and He was actually married to Mary Magdalene, how should I react? Sure, I could listen to his explanations, but at some point am I expected to correct this gentleman? Don’t I at least owe it to our Lord’s honor to speak up?
> Perg, do you consider racism a sin? Do you think Dabney’s views on African-Americans were racist?



In the discussion we were having, we were mainly discussing Jared Diamond's views that environment shapes man instead of man primarily shaping environment. So, strangely enough, he was on my side of that argument. While I advocated that religion and worldview and the societal ability to organize, plus the strength and numbers of one's enemies determined the rise or decline of a culture, he went me one further and added racial and genetic factors, stating that some cultures AND races, were in fact, less apt to organize and some just inherently were more prone to tribalism. He then pointed to the situation in Africa and in Melanesia, and I had to admit that, yes, presently, these two black areas did seem socially disorganized. Then I mentioned, "What about the white balkans...I think you are filtering the data through your own beliefs..." Then I asked some clarifying questions, and he answered with more theory, to which I merely replied, "Hmmmm..interesting." and moved on to further discuss diamond's _Guns, Germs and Steel_.

So, I didn't really engage him and I wasn't really offended by his views at that time, just...more like curious....asking myself later (like right now) whether his views were merely a solitary abberation or more representative of wider currents of thought, especially from reformed people.

Indifference when confronted by some sins is, itself sin, so how would I judge my own lack of strong feeling? More than that, I actually wanted to hear more (I was intrigued) and asked him several clarifying questions in order to hear more. 

You asked me about racism. Truthfully, it is not clear to me what racism exactly is. 

I believe that Kenyans make better marathoners than eskimos, and some of this might be due to their body-type (i.e. genetics). Also, while I disagree with the conclusions of the _Bell Curve_, I am not angered that scientists would actually study IQ differences among the races, as the media was. Such things ought to be studied, I believe. While I believe in the equality of all man in his worth, I do see cultural and societal differences, but am not ready to say that these differences are also racially and genetically determined (for that is just another form of determinism, even worse than Jared Diamond's determinism of external environmental factors only).

Is racism a sin? Hmmm...I don't know...

If one posits that there are, in fact, genetic differences among the races, but that all races are equal in worth even though not equal in all abilities, this may or may not be sin.

If one acts in a way which treats any person or any class of person in a way which demeans their inherent worth, this appears to be sinful racism and must be acted against. 


Last question/observation: Reading through 19th Century British journals concerning missions to Africa there was sort of a Christian paternalism, like we were the parents trying to help out an ignorant child (the Africans). I am not sure this was racism, especially since it was the christians and missionaries that worked hardest to end the slave trade in Africa, but certain statements even by these certainly can be shocking to 21st-Century ears. Victorian attitudes towards "the savages" don't seem very politically correct and this also impacted missions to Africa as well, though, on the whole, the missionaries were usually the most ardent defenders of the human rights of the Africans. It seems very plausible that such views that blacks had genetic differences which disallowed tidy social organization and that they needed the leadership of whites was a very widespread opinion in those days, and may still persist among some.

Andres, what do you think of Dr. Nigel Lee's linked article?

---------- Post added at 12:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 AM ----------

Andres: p.s. I looked up some Kinist stuff against inter-racial marriage on the web and strongly disagree, though I was not angered by it, because their arguments seemed so silly.


----------



## ChristianTrader

I think a more interesting question than whether or not Dabney would be under church discipline is, would Dr. Nigel Lee be put under church discipline for the views expressed in his article and if he tried to teach others to believe the same way?

CT


----------



## TimV

Putting someone under church discipline for those sorts of beliefs would be like doing the same for fundy baptist style JKO thinking or that the government brought down the twin towers or Obama wasn't born in the US or the nazis have bases on the moon. You can't discipline conspiracy nuts except on divisiveness issues, and that's where normally the "trying to teach others" would come in.

Crazy medical advice is my pet irritation in Reformed circles. The lady that has her kid wear amber around his neck to ward off disease is one thing, but if a person were to say to someone impressionable that they should go off meds because Western medicine is a big hoax etc.. and the person dies or becomes very sick would be a likely candidate for church discipline I think. I'm about ready to file a case as a matter of fact.

View about differing IQs in race aren't subject to discipline since it would get thrown out on appeal. After all it's true. Views about different races having genetic advantages to organise aren't subject to discipline even though it's a sign of a lack of education. Really, to say Romans had a genetic predisposition towards organisation when it took a Mussolini to get Italian trains to run on time is just nut job stuff, like the Norse cold weather empires being superior to the Mongol cold weather empires.

The way the predisposition towards organising could get disciplined if it were used to, say, campaign to vote against an Hispanic for elder or deacon on those grounds. But not on anything not practical, at least not an any denomination with an historic court system. Independent Baptists of course can do anything they want.


----------



## Andres

Pergamum said:


> Is racism a sin? Hmmm...I don't know...
> 
> If one posits that there are, in fact, genetic differences among the races, but that all races are equal in worth even though not equal in all abilities, this may or may not be sin.
> 
> If one acts in a way which treats any person or any class of person in a way which demeans their inherent worth, this appears to be sinful racism and must be acted against.



I would agree with you on your above definitions. I don’t have a problem with science showing different people have different genetic make-ups. I might disagree with some of these conclusions, so I can’t say I affirm their conclusions 100%. Where the problem comes in is when any of these supposed “differences” is used for discriminatory purposes. I have no idea if there is in fact scientifically a difference between IQ’s of different ethnic groups. The problem comes in when someone takes this info and says, “I won’t let my daughter marry X ethnic group because science shows their IQ is lower”. Perhaps a better word to use than racism is discrimination or bigotry. This type of thinking/behavior is without a doubt sin. 





Pergamum said:


> Andres, what do you think of Dr. Nigel Lee's linked article?
> 
> Andres: p.s. I looked up some Kinist stuff against inter-racial marriage on the web and strongly disagree, though I was not angered by it, because their arguments seemed so silly.



I didn’t read Dr. Lee’s article and nor do I care to. Unless I have been mislead or misunderstood, Dr. Lee is a kinist. I feel that I am already familiar enough with kinists to know that I won’t agree with them. I consider them racist in the sense that they believe certain ethnic groups are devalued based solely on skin color. Again, I don’t think I need to entertain the arguments of every group that I disagree with. I fall back on my previous example that if someone told me Jesus wasn’t God, but only a good teacher who was married to Mary Magdalene, I doubt I’d read any article they put out either. Sometimes you just know something is wrong/false without having to explore it in-depth. Another example is when Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons leave stuff on my porch, I throw it away without ever looking at any of it. 

Glad you strongly disagree with the Kinist’s too. That’s really all that matters to me. I don’t need you to be angry and I don’t need you to weep. You react however you want, as long as you disagree.

---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 AM ----------




TimV said:


> Putting someone under church discipline for those sorts of beliefs would be like doing the same for fundy baptist style JKO thinking or that the government brought down the twin towers or Obama wasn't born in the US or the nazis have bases on the moon. You can't discipline conspiracy nuts except on divisiveness issues, and that's where normally the "trying to teach others" would come in.



I disagree Tim. As stupid as thinking the government brought down the twin towers, that Obama isn't American, or that there are Nazi bases on the moon, I don't see any of these as being sinful. Holding to racist, discriminatory views is indeed sinful. Unrepentant sin is to be dealt with through church discipline, right? Plus Kinism is directly attempting to argue that the scriptures teach inferiority of certain ethnic groups. Essentially this is heresy. Surely a session would have to step in if a member were advocating heresy. The session has to protect the purity of the church.


----------



## TimV

> Holding to racist, discriminatory views is indeed sinful. Unrepentant sin is to be dealt with through church discipline, right? Plus Kinism is directly attempting to argue that the scriptures teach inferiority of certain ethnic groups. Essentially this is heresy.



The trouble is defining racism. Kinism is from what I can tell a flavor of the month nut job magnet, and the term can't be used to describe, say, someone who holds that certain relatively homogeneous ethnic groupings have higher levels of intelligence than others. I can say Armenians and Lebanese Arabs are on average more intelligent than Australian Aborigines and Melanesian Highlanders (PS Pergy if you read up on it you will learn that both are traditionally classified as White rather than Mongoloid or Negroid) and it's a plain and simple scientific fact. I'll never get disciplined for that in a PCA or OPC church even though some may call that racist.


----------



## Andres

TimV said:


> Holding to racist, discriminatory views is indeed sinful. Unrepentant sin is to be dealt with through church discipline, right? Plus Kinism is directly attempting to argue that the scriptures teach inferiority of certain ethnic groups. Essentially this is heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble is defining racism. Kinism is from what I can tell a flavor of the month nut job magnet, and the term can't be used to describe, say, someone who holds that certain relatively homogeneous ethnic groupings have higher levels of intelligence than others. I can say Armenians and Lebanese Arabs are on average more intelligent than Australian Aborigines and Melanesian Highlanders (PS Pergy if you read up on it you will learn that both are traditionally classified as White rather than Mongoloid or Negroid) and it's a plain and simple scientific fact. I'll never get disciplined for that in a PCA or OPC church even though some may call that racist.
Click to expand...


Well perhaps I should define some terms then. Yes, I agree that no one would ever be disciplined, for contending differences in ethnic groups. However, if their view of differences in ethnic groups plays out to where they discriminate, then that is where it becomes sinful and is cause for church discipline. Using your example, say someone holds to the belief that Armenians and Lebanese Arabs are on average more intelligent than Australian Aborigines and Melanesian Highlanders. No problem there. However, let's say that an Australian Aborigine starts attending the church. If the first person begins treating the Australian Aborigine in a discriminatory manner or makes disparaging remarks toward them, then this is a problem and needs to be dealt with by the session.

So when we were discussing Dabney, the reason I said that if he were alive today and he remained unrepentant in his views of African-Americans, then he should come under discipline. Dabney didn't just advocate there were genetic differences, he thought that blacks were somehow subhuman. He thought less of them based simply on the fact that they were black. This is sinful thinking and would need to be dealt with.


----------



## py3ak

Andres, church discipline is for scandal, not simply for sin; otherwise we would all be constantly under discipline (as distinguished from discipling).

However, I wonder if thinking of IQ tests as an objective measure of intelligence isn't actually a pretty unintelligent thing to do. FTR, I don't recall ever taking one, so that remark isn't motivated by the desire to reassure myself after a low score.


----------



## Andres

py3ak said:


> Andres, church discipline is for scandal, not simply for sin; otherwise we would all be constantly under discipline (as distinguished from discipling).



I tried my best to specify unrepentant sin in all my posts dealing with church discipline. This unrepentant sin is what leads to scandal. My apologies if I was unclear.


----------



## J Miles

> Last question/observation: Reading through 19th Century British journals concerning missions to Africa there was sort of a Christian paternalism, like we were the parents trying to help out an ignorant child (the Africans). I am not sure this was racism, especially since it was the christians and missionaries that worked hardest to end the slave trade in Africa, but certain statements even by these certainly can be shocking to 21st-Century ears. Victorian attitudes towards "the savages" don't seem very politically correct and this also impacted missions to Africa as well, though, on the whole, the missionaries were usually the most ardent defenders of the human rights of the Africans. It seems very plausible that such views that blacks had genetic differences which disallowed tidy social organization and that they needed the leadership of whites was a very widespread opinion in those days, and may still persist among some.



The idea of Christian paternalism in the 19th century in Africa and in other areas of the world were focused on improving the spiritual and intellectual darkness that the tribes were frozen in. Any movement stating that whites maintained some prior superiority through inheritance I would consider a flaw in either the culture of the person, or fallacy of Darwin. To me it would seem that if Missionaries actually thought that tribes in a dismal state were so because of inheritance from prior generations they would not bother to help educate them because any progress made, according to such a theory would, would render their attempts futile after the first generation. And if they thought that the Europeans were superior to the Africans by birth they would have never tried to end the slave trade. 

As with other Victorian British attitudes on anything, they are making yet another rash judgment. They are part of the reason people in the West see Puritans as ignorant which burners (which was the common practice in Europe) instead of the persons who set up the foundations of democracy in the United States.

Editing Reason:
The extended version of my post contained inaccurate details and ideas which had to be removed.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> I can say Armenians and Lebanese Arabs are on average more intelligent than Australian Aborigines and Melanesian Highlanders (PS Pergy if you read up on it you will learn that both are traditionally classified as White rather than Mongoloid or Negroid) and it's a plain and simple scientific fact. I'll never get disciplined for that in a PCA or OPC church even though some may call that racist.



It's not racist; it's just plain ignorance. It doesn't require church discipline; but perhaps a sound thrashing might help.

I have had numerous dealings with Australian Aborigines and they are as intelligent as any other human being I have met. I think the problem with many western civilised ideals of intelligence pertains to the cultural limitations and stereotypes which the westerners have created. A tribal situation exhibits all the characteristics of organisation and order which are to be found in complex western urban centres. It expresses itself differently and takes a different shape; that is all.


----------



## TimV

> It's not racist; it's just plain ignorance. It doesn't require church discipline; but perhaps a sound thrashing might help.
> 
> I have had numerous dealings with Australian Aborigines and they are as intelligent as any other human being I have met. I think the problem with many western civilised ideals of intelligence pertains to the cultural limitations and stereotypes which the westerners have created. A tribal situation exhibits all the characteristics of organisation and order which are to be found in complex western urban centres. It expresses itself differently and takes a different shape; that is all.



That's simply not true, unless by cultural limitations you mean what those two ethnic groups have have attained. A Lebanese Christian Arab is the richest man on earth. Name me one AA that runs one of the biggest 10,000 companies on earth. What you mean by "a different shape" in Melanesian cultures is a 30 percent mortality for kids under 5. A poor Armenian community can't even imagine that.


----------



## J Miles

proregno said:


> Someone above mentioned it already: we must clearly define our terms, biblically, historically and socially, or else we gonna miss each other big time.
> 
> If 'racism' means: one group is inherently/genetically better than another because of their skin color, then yes, I reject it wholeheartedly. But if 'racism' means (what it is mostly used for today, i.e. 'political correctness'): you may not cultivate and protect your own history, culture, customs, patriotism, etc, but be some kind of 'neutral non-sexist non-patriotic only one language speaking worldling', then I reject that also wholeheartedly.
> 
> Therefore I agree with 'both' truths of Acts 17:26, "And hath made of one blood all nations ...", i.e. 'one blood' and 'all nations', both must be acknowledged to honour His Name in all languages and cultures, not create a one world culture for all (the new age ideas, which I think is by far the greatest problem in our day, than patriotism).
> 
> What is the reason that some 'races' are more 'advantaged/civilized' than others, why some peoples accept Christianity more than others, at least till the 20th century ? The reason is not race/genetics, but God's grace and predestination:
> 
> Canons of Dordt, chapter 2 rejection:
> Synod rejects, Who teach: That the reason why God sends the gospel to one people rather than to another *is not merely and solely the good pleasure of God, but rather the fact that one people is better and worthier than another to which the gospel is not communicated. *; For this Moses denies, addressing the people of Israel as follows: Behold, unto Jehovah thy God belongeth heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth, with all that is therein. Only Jehovah had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all peoples, as at this day (Deu 10:14-15). And Christ said: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes (Mat 11:21).
> 
> My people, the Boer Calvinist Afrikaners were not better than the pagan black nations because of our skin color, but only because of the 'sole pleasure of God' and His purposes, who gave our Dutch, French and English forefathers (via Europe) the Gospel that transformed and created our people here at the south point of Africa.
> 
> BTW, I try myself to speak ethnically/culturally in South Africa, i.e. Zulus, Xhosas, Sotho's, Afrikaners, etc, and not 'black and white', but the last terms are so historically and socially fixed, it is difficult not to use it. So we use it to distinquish between groups and differences, not because of 'racism'.
> 
> I have not studied dr. Lee's work in detail, but I think he wants to acknowledge that there are races, and that all races must serve Him in their languages, cultures, customs, etc. Thus all Christians are one in the Lord, but it does not mean we all 'must' be one in language, culture and customs. I do not have a problem with such a view, but I would prefer, as I mentioned above to speak about ethnic nations/cultures/peoples, etc. and not 'race groups'. I think the biblical case for the first is much stronger than the latter.





I agree with you 100% culture is different than skin color and should be in some way protected from the dangers of Marxism. And I do not agree withe the modern views of political correctness.
In my experience the term "racism" is used out of bounds in this area.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> That's simply not true, unless by cultural limitations you mean what those two ethnic groups have have attained. A Lebanese Christian Arab is the richest man on earth. Name me one AA that runs one of the biggest 10,000 companies on earth. What you mean by "a different shape" in Melanesian cultures is a 30 percent mortality for kids under 5. A poor Armenian community can't even imagine that.


 
The western materialistic ideal shines through as the predominating quality of the "intelligence" which you are exalting. Quite unbefitting a person who is "light in the Lord."


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can say Armenians and Lebanese Arabs are on average more intelligent than Australian Aborigines and Melanesian Highlanders (PS Pergy if you read up on it you will learn that both are traditionally classified as White rather than Mongoloid or Negroid) and it's a plain and simple scientific fact. I'll never get disciplined for that in a PCA or OPC church even though some may call that racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not racist; it's just plain ignorance. It doesn't require church discipline; but perhaps a sound thrashing might help.
> 
> I have had numerous dealings with Australian Aborigines and they are as intelligent as any other human being I have met. I think the problem with many western civilised ideals of intelligence pertains to the cultural limitations and stereotypes which the westerners have created. A tribal situation exhibits all the characteristics of organisation and order which are to be found in complex western urban centres. It expresses itself differently and takes a different shape; that is all.
Click to expand...



I do not believe in IQ tests, since they are biased towards the culture of the creators of any such test.

However, 

It is simply not true that tribal societies "exhibit all the characteristics of organisation and order which are to be found in complex western urban centres. It expresses itself differently and takes a different shape; that is all." 

A written language, a well developed system of song and musical instrumentation, a sense of history that goes back further than 50 years, a system of established laws and order, these are just a few of the things lacking in many Melanesian societies. My area has no written language, no system of authority outside the immediate clan, no agricultural besides semi-nomadism, no musical instrument besides the mouth harp, no sense of their own history, no classifications of their own plants or animals beyond the simplest designations, etc.

I believe that some peoples and tribes may, in fact, be appropriately classified as "degraded" or "simple" instead of technologically advanced. They do not exhibit the same social order and level of complex organization as the "advanced nations."


----------



## TimV

> The western materialistic ideal shines through as the predominating quality of the "intelligence" which you are exalting. Quite unbefitting a person who is "light in the Lord."



I feel awkward since I respect you so much, but I, like Pergy, doubt your practical understanding of the situation there. Sure, I'm exalting a child mortality rate lower than 30 percent. Those guys are pretty rough, pastor. And there's never been a recorded difference. We can compare Romans under Caesar and Mussolini, but not those two groups I mentioned since they're illiterate and backwards and unsuccessful.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> A written language, a well developed system of song and musical instrumentation, a sense of history that goes back further than 50 years, a system of established laws and order, these are just a few of the things lacking in many Melanesian societies. My area has no written language, no system of authority outside the immediate clan, no agricultural besides semi-nomadism, no musical instrument besides the mouth harp, no sense of their own history, no classifications of their own plants or animals beyond the simplest designations, etc.


 
Item one -- a written language. Why is the written language regarded as more intelligent than the ability to relate details in imagery or orally? And what is a written language to western civilisations where the majority prefer the sound byte and flashing image over the discipline of reading and studying.

Item two -- song and instrumentation -- is highly developed in its own sophisticated way in many tribal situations. If it is not developed it might be owing to the cultural priorities of the people. I know many western businessmen who couldn't care less about the highly sophisticated Mozart.

Item three -- law and order can be more efficient in the authority structure of a tribe, and it can break down into anarchy in the blink of an eye in a suburban area. Besides who on this board is satisfied with the law and order of our free states?

Seriously, our western analytical intelligence should have taught us that we need to go broader than anecdotal evidence in order to draw conclusions about some of these things. At least to my analytical brain the evidence appears to be compromised by the finger-prints of those who are conducting the investigation.


----------



## hrdiaz

"I don't know if he is a kinist. Does he sound like one?"

He sounds like a fool.


----------

