to know the righteousness of your stance, look at who stands with you.

Bushido216 · #11 1st February 2004, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Nova

lucaspa in a post just up above presented the following statement:
For instance, racism has been justified based on both creationism and evolution. So, if we look at how this philosophy affects society, we would reject both creationism and evolution and any facts connected with them

I was curious, just how was special creation Genesis style used to justify racism?

"God created some races inferior."

There ya go.

Bushido216 · #12 1st February 2004, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Nova

I was reading somemore of Lucaspa's post and I came across this statement presented by him:
And this is where I have some of my problems with creationism. There is no 'humble' there. It is a very arrogant "my literal interpretation of the Bible is correct and I won't listen to anything that says different." Humans try to figure out their existence. And part of that is to examine critically those attempts to figure out our existence

Often we Christians are called arrogant because the bible literally says that Jesus Christ is the only way in which man can receive salvation.
I think you all know the verses I talk about.

The question I have is this, if we take the salvation verses as literal, because the bible says so then why not take Genesis with the same the bible says so "arrogant" attitude?

Personally lucaspa I don't really see a differance. if your a bible believing christian then why do you allow one form of arrogance then disallow another?

Keep in mind I don't believe that either is arrogance. I was just trying to use your words in your it's one or the other presentation to try and quite the Young Earth Creationist.

You're forgetting that you need to take God's creation into account when interpreting God's word. They're complimentary, not contradictory. God's creation says that the earth is older than 6,000 years and that species are not immutable. Therefore, we can take a new look at God's word and see the deeper meaning behind the text. If we focus too much on the literal meaning we loose the message behind the text.

Bushido216 · #13 1st February 2004, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Nova

magusAlbertus presented the following:
I wasn't actually defending creationism, as I’m sure we can all agree that no matter the situation God did create the universe in a directed and intentional manner leading to the creation of man kind, having done so by speaking the universe into existence... right?

You must remember that some of the things of the universe were spoken into existance, ex-nihlo, while God used already created material to make other objects such as the making of man from the dust on day 6

As opposed to speaking us into existance?

Bushido216 · #14 1st February 2004, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by MagusAlbertus

We all agree that it takes faith to believe in God and to disbelieve in God. It's the agnostics that are those of little faith... the relative merit of foolish thinking is only found in those that haven't the life experience to know the depths of that foolishness; unfortunitly it takes many much to long to come humbly to the Lord.

Read my signature. I think you'll get why agnostics exist.

Nova · #15 1st February 2004, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Bushido216

"God created some races inferior."

There ya go.

I was under the impression that God created just one race. The human race.

Nova · #16 1st February 2004, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Bushido216

You're forgetting that you need to take God's creation into account when interpreting God's word. They're complimentary, not contradictory. God's creation says that the earth is older than 6,000 years and that species are not immutable. Therefore, we can take a new look at God's word and see the deeper meaning behind the text. If we focus too much on the literal meaning we loose the message behind the text.

I really don't see how they are complementary.
For example the book we call Genesis tells of a special creation. Man from dirt, six days then a day of rest etc. None of which sounds a bit like evolution.
I can even point out other examples of this special creation in other books of the bible. If you have a chapter and verse that presents evolution could you please present it?

Perhaps I need to insert material between the lines in Genesis to understand this deeper meaning you speak of.

Do you think you could also spell out some of the biblical message you claimed we lose with a literal interpretation?

Nova · #17 1st February 2004, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Bushido216

As opposed to speaking us into existance?

last time I read the bible it claims Adam was formed from the dirt.
I believe it is mentioned twice in the bible, probably 1/2 a dozen times if I really look.
So to claim Adam was spoken into existance appears to be an error. Perhaps the dirt Adam was made from was spoken into existance but not Adam. Certainly not Eve who was made from Adams rib, or side as some like to say.

MagusAlbertus · #18 1st February 2004, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Nova

last time I read the bible it claims Adam was formed from the dirt.
I believe it is mentioned twice in the bible, probably 1/2 a dozen times if I really look.
So to claim Adam was spoken into existance appears to be an error. Perhaps the dirt Adam was made from was spoken into existance but not Adam. Certainly not Eve who was made from Adams rib, or side as some like to say.

right, Adam wasn't exo nillo, but from dirt.. dirt and light and divine intervention. but all animals and plants are made of dirt, and to dirt they will return.. i never would intend to say otherwise.

if you think of the smallest thing that makes a human, human.. the chromosomes, you'll notice that the double XX of the woman is a man with a 'peace' *literal translation that's usually translated rib* removed and added to the woman.

I think it's awesome how this biology proves the bible right, and I’m sure that theirs more to be found… even if it was evolutionary science showing the order of creation to be the same as the word of God.

If our interpretation of what's happened, and what we interpretation the bible to say conflict... we can be sure that it's our impetration that's in error.

lucaspa · #19 1st February 2004, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Nova

lucaspa in a post just up above presented the following statement:
For instance, racism has been justified based on both creationism and evolution. So, if we look at how this philosophy affects society, we would reject both creationism and evolution and any facts connected with them

I was curious, just how was special creation Genesis style used to justify racism?

You really want to know?

The view of creationists on racism has not been consistent. However, there are more books claiming that separation of the races is sanctioned by the Bible than there have been creationists who ascribe racism to evolution. The former is listed below:

Isaac de la Peyere, Preadamitae, 1655, English edition, Men Before Adam, 1656. Peyere was a French theologian and Huguenot. The book claimed that Adam was not the first man and that the Bible is not the history of mankind, but only the history of the Jews. He was censured by the Pope but kept looking for support for his theory. Part of his rationale came from his interpretation of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. His pre-Adamite theory later became the basis for 19th century theories of polygenism and modern racism. You can see the thread yourself in the works below--other races not descended from Adam, just the white race. A discussion of this work can be found in Encycl. Judaica, 1972. So the idea of races did not originate with Darwin, but with a card-carrying Christian. And the concept of racism came over 200 years *before* Origin of the Species was written.

Charles Carrol The Negro a Beast; or, In the Image of God, 1900 American Book and Bible House. "The Negro created a beast, but created with articulate speech, and hands, that he may be of service to his master -- the White man" "All scientific investigation of the subject proves the Negro to be an ape, and that he simply stands at the head of the ape family." (of course, he is wrong about the science, since evolution shows all the races to belong to the same species) Genesis prohibits mating with "beasts" [Negroes]: they were created a different "kind". God destroyed mankind in the worldwide Flood because man had corrupted his kind by amalgamation with Negro beasts. Negroes were taken on the Ark along with other animals. Has a chapter "The Theory of Evolution Exploded; Man was Created a Man, and Did Not Develop from an Ape" Says there are only 2 origin theories, and they are in "absolute conflict": biblical creation and atheistic evolution.

The Carrol book was so "good" that it served as the basis of a Destiny Publishers book, In the Image of God, 1967, Destiny Publishers. "The Bible stands as an impregnable bulwark against Christendom's modern slogan that all men, regardless of color, are blood brothers ... The simple truth regarding the origin of races demonstrates conclusively that the Negroes and the white race do not have a common ancestry." (quite a contrast to evolution, which says they do and are the same species) The book goes on to cite many Bible passages proving the "beasts" are bipedal servants of "man" and distinct from other animals. Presents scientific evidence of physiological differences which demonstrates that Negroes were created to be beasts of burden. Cites A Hislop's The Two Babylons, 1916, to prove that Nimrod--founder of all false religions--was black. The "atheistical theory of evolution" is a "spurious doctrine" which aligned itself with apostasy and led to "disbelief in the scientifically accurate but simply-worded statements of the Bible."

Walter T. Galusha Fossils and the Word of God, 1964, Exposition Press. God divided man into four colors and wants them to stay separate. The Devil, however, "will try to get them to unite and in this way defeat God's purpose." Is standard creationist fare for the rest, including support for creation of Adam and Eve and Noah's Flood (2130 BC according to book).

Gottlieb C.H. Hasskarl, The Missing link, or, the Negroes Ethnological Status, 1898, Democratic News. The title says it all. Hasskarl also wrote The Terrible Catastrophe, or, Biblical Deluge; illustrated and corroborated by mythology, tradition, and geology, to which is added a brief interpretation of the creation, with notes from theologians, philosophers, and scientists.

James Laurence Hutton, Acts: Deluge--The Other Cheek and the Dragon, 1969, Priv. pub. Cain's evil race mixed with Seth's (the Sons of God), corrupting their blood. "The Bible proves that when races mix, it is a perfect set-up for Satan."

Charles Lee Magne, The Negro and the World Crisis, 1974, New Christian Crusade Church. Explicitly states that KJV is inerrant. There is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the White Nordic Israel race by using "Negroes". Whites are descended from Adam, but Negroes are the top animals--members of the ape family and are a pre-Adamic creation. His creationists tendencies are shown by favorable quotations of Rousas J. Rushdoony, author of The Mythology of Science and instrumental in getting Whitcomb and Morris' Genesis Flood published.

W. Clyde Odeneal, Segregation: Sin or Sensible?, 1958, Destiny Publishers as a reprint of original article in Destiny magazine. Asserts that God created races after their own kind; nature attests to this "Divine Law" "Segregation is an Anglo-Saxon principle because more than all the other races combined, the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and related races are predominantly the Bible-reading, Bible-disseminating peoples of the world." States that "miscegenation was the principle [sic] sin which brought on the great flood of antiquity." Says that racial equality is a communist notion; notes that leading anti-segregationists are non- or anti-Christian. And give the de riguer anatomical differences between whites and blacks.

B.H. Payne, The Negro: What Is His Ethnological Status?, 1867. Carroll cites this one as the originator of the theory that Genesis describes a pre-Adamic creation of "Negroes". According to Payne, Negroes are the most cunning of the "beasts" and were "created" to be servants of the Adamic (white) race.

Keen Polk Everything After Its Kind (pamphlet), 1932, private publication. "A new and critical study of the origin of the Negro, according to Holy Scriptures." Keen thinks that blacks are the "beasts of the field" of Genesis. The Adamic line (whites again) interbred with the blacks as referred to the sons of God and daughters of men of Genesis 6. Reads Leviticus as specifying the death penalty for sexual relations with "beasts", who are the "Negroes" of Keen's definition. "The Negro has been put here upon earth by God for some purpose. We may rest assured that purpose was not racial or social equality."

Alfred Rosenberg, Myth of the Twentieth Century, 1930 (latest edition 1982, Noontide Press) Rosenberg was the official Nazi philosopher and editor of the nazi newspaper Der Volkische Beobachter. Rosenberg presents a racial view of history. God created man as separate races--not as individuals or mankind as a whole. Only the race has a soul, and no two have the same soul. The higher races must rule over the lower, not interbreed with them. Cross-breeding destroys the literally divine combination of physical heredity and spirit. Rosenberg "proves" Egyptian, Libyan, and Indian rulers were pure Nordics. Jesus was also a pure Nordic untainted by Jewish blood.

Alexander Schiffner, The Origin of the Races; and Pre-Adamic Man, 1968, Prophetic Herald. According to Schiffner, once again the "Negro" is the "beast" of Genesis, and was created, along with "the yellow race" before Adam. Once again with Genesis 6, Schiffner says that the "sons of God"--the white men--mated with Negroes. God punished them for this sin with the worldwide Flood, but Negroes (presumably a pair) were taken on the Ark with the "other" animals.

Alfred P.K.E. Schultz, Race or Mongrel, 1908, L.C. Page. "A brief history of the rise and fall of the ancient races of earth; a theory that the fall of nations is due to intermarriage with alien stocks; a demonstration that a nation's strength is due to racial purity; a prophecy that America will sink to early decay unless immigration is rigorously restricted. Schultz also wrote The End of Darwinism: Not Change But Persistence is Characteristic of Life.

Gerald Burton Winrod, Science, Christ and the Bible, 1929, Fleming H. Revell. This book is based upon Winrod's sermons. Winrod was described by Marsden as a vocal anti-Communist, anti-Semitic, and pro-Nazi fundamentalist. "Between the proved facts of science and the truth of Christianity there is perfect harmony, but between the guesses of scientists and the dogma of religionists there is discord." "Noah prophesied that Ham's descendants --the black race -- would be a servant people." Says that Nimrod was black. Favors the Anglo-Israel doctrine that America and England descended from the Israelite tribes of Mannasseh and Ephraim.

lucaspa · #20 1st February 2004, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Nova

I was under the impression that God created just one race. The human race.

Not all Christians share that view. Many have viewed blacks and other non-whites as non-human creations.