- Dec 15, 2004
- 2,326
- 53
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
"Kinsmen according to the flesh" does not mean RACE. Stop spreading the RACE lie DaveW. Do not continue this deception.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You said that word was not found in the bible. I showed you it was.
Take it up with the translators of the NIV.
RACE IS A HUMAN CONSTRUCT. A MYTH. AN EVIL RUSE PUSHED ON HUMANITY BY SLAVE MASTERS IN ORDER TO MAKE BETTER SLAVES.
The translators of the NIV used the term "race." That was not ME. I would not have used that word there."Kinsmen according to the flesh" does not mean RACE. Stop spreading the RACE lie DaveW. Do not continue this deception.
I have a question for you: Who exactly made some humans with dark skin, others with light skin, some with round eyes and others with flap that slants their eyes?
Hint: It was not humans that did that.
Wrong answer.Well, actually humans did do that indirectly and unconsciously through the process of evolution.
Race is a social construct, but our biology interprets it as real -- not in the sense that we intuitively know that someone is a caucasian and and another a negroid, but that differences in appearance preconsciously determine reactions. These reactions can be blunted through learning, but I don't think they can ever be erased completely. This is an evolutionary thing; we're evolved to associate with those who share the most genes with us, i.e., who look most like us. But this can be overcome through reframing and willing, not to mention finding cultural similarities that can bond people of different "races" together.
Idk if race is a construct.
I mean, yeah you didn't have "black people" until the colonization of the New World and the institution of slavery, rather you just had Ethiopians, Kenyans, Bantu, etc.
However, the Bible mentions three races: the Shemites, the Hamites, and the Japhethites and it lists the traits of each race and were further divided into smaller races (Jews and Arabs are both descendants of Shen).
The modern human races can be traced back to the three original human races.
Wrong answer.
It occurred at the Tower of Babel. God not only confused the languages; but if you look at the pattern of "scattering," it pretty much reflects the racial diversity we see today. God did it.
Specifically - correct. But as I said - follow the dispersion pattern listed in the wake of the language break down. It follows the genetic pattern of the "races."The Babel story is specifically about language differences, not about genetic differences.
Specifically - correct. But as I said - follow the dispersion pattern listed in the wake of the language break down. It follows the genetic pattern of the "races."
Do you know what the name Phinehas means? (Aaron's grandson) "Black Face."I mean, yeah you didn't have "black people" until the colonization of the New World and the institution of slavery,
No. "Race"--which is the idea that skin color or eye color or lip shape has any connotation beyond aesthetics is not only a social construct, it's only a modern construct. Ancient people saw physical differences only in the aesthetic sense. There is zero evidence of any such evolutionary repugnance--if anything, the fact that Europeans have Neanderthal DNA rather disproves that.
Yes, prejudice has always existed, but the prejudices people ascribe to "race" today were ascribed to nationality in ancient time. It was a prejudice against "that tribe over there" regardless of skin color.
The evolution of prejudice is what I'm talking about, not that race is an evolutionary construct, whatever that means. I think the prejudice is biologically against difference, and there's plenty of room for environmental factors to shape which differences stand out the most to us. It's adaptive to stay with those who most resemble us in primitive contexts. The problem now is we have the instinct of being repulsed by differences that needs to be "learned over" again and again in a non-primitive context.
I agree.The evolution of prejudice is what I'm talking about, not that race is an evolutionary construct, whatever that means. I think the prejudice is biologically against difference, and there's plenty of room for environmental factors to shape which differences stand out the most to us. It's adaptive to stay with those who most resemble us in primitive contexts. The problem now is we have the instinct of being repulsed by differences that needs to be "learned over" again and again in a non-primitive context.
Accepting them as people is the same thing as accepting their practices.
What do you say to people who take pride in their racial heritage?
Good point. I wonder if those here who say that race is a social construct would say that next February, during Black History Month?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?