Genetic differences and racial differences and the sons of Ham

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.

:ditto:

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.
 
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."
 
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.


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

He sounds like a fool.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top