What is the Christian theological response to racism?

[Calminian]

I don't condone and I don't think the Bible condones racism or superiority of one race over another. But I have known in my personal experience some people use the curse of Ham in the OT as a basis for saying that blacks are inferior and "cursed" among the races, by pointing back to that story in the Bible.

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dmg2/comsalz3 as publ. with additions.pdf

This is a long read but if anyone wants to see where the origin of racism by actual Christians (misguided as they were and still are imo) was found, that's a nice bit of enlightenment.

I think a thread (if there isn't one already) on ancestral curses would be an interesting and worthwhile topic of discussion as they were written about in the Bible. Do I believe people can become cursed by unrepentant sin and turning away from God? Yes, do I think they can pass that on to their offspring? Maybe so. I'd like to see what other people would have to say on that topic, but as far as the racism here goes, it's simply not biblical to think oneself superior over another person based on the color of ones' skin. And that goes both ways, as I know blacks who are racist against whites and would sooner have themselves be over them (as a payback of sorts and revenge) from when there were white slaveholders in the past. Do I think I need to be judged and punished for the sins of my great-grandfathers? No, but you see people feeling those sort of ways to any white person they see. And then of course you have the white people, especially baby boomers, who have racism ingrained in them from when the country did segregate by color. I think racism is a sin everyone should repent of if they have it, whether they realize it or not, and it is really a sin of judging and hatred, aren't we called to love everyone? and to treat others how we ought to be treated?

Thoughts?

Indeed. The Canaan curse was fulfilled by Jacob conquering their land. And the cruse was not racial, but behavioral. Nothing about skin colors is mentioned. The Canaanites, a single nation from Ham, were very wicked. All nations are wicked, some worse than others, but the use of this text against African people groups is wrong.

It would seem God called out Canaan, knowing the the Canaanites would persist in the type of wickedness Ham, their forefather, was engaged in. The other sons of Ham were not singled out, perhaps meaning their wickedness would not rise to the level of Canaan's.

When you look at the significance of the land of Canaan where Israel would settle, and Messiah would be born, it helps us understand the importance of this prophesy.

 

[Yeshua1]

As well as polygamy - they were given a vision to end it when Congress said no Statehood until Utah outlawed polygamy!

And yet MANY held on to it as a practice of God years after the edict of 1890 went forth, and Mormons still hold to polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom for today!

 

[Salty]

Now the Democrats are including in their rhetoric that the Confederates were Traitors. Deliberately provocative rhetoric designed to divide the nation even further. The Democrats despise and seek to destroy America. They are doing Satan's bidding.

By their loose and deviant interpretation, All Americans would be Traitors for rebelling against the British. Which is exactly what King George labeled our founding fathers.

The only difference between Gen Lee and Gen Washington is that Washington won the war (with the assistance of the Southern States)

Here is an interesting article as to why NC made the decision it did.

 

[Calminian]

does not say race! and there are at least a dozen blood types - so when I get time......

in fact - if given the wrong blood type - it could kill you

Neither does Scripture, that's the point. And Scripture says there is one blood, not multiple bloods. Modern distinctions of blood types have nothing to do with anything. You're making a nomenclature error. Scripture holds that human blood is human blood (distinct from animals bloods), and we have all descended from one man.

Even science acknowledges that all humans are of the same species and even subspecies. We are one in the flesh.

 

[Calminian]

Also, interestingly, blood types transcend modern racial distinctions.

Distribution of blood types

O A B AB
Aborigines 61 39 0 0
Ainu (Japan) 17 32 32 18
Albanians 38 43 13 6
Grand Andamanese 9 60 23 9
Arabs 34 31 29 6
Armenians 31 50 13 6
Asian (in USA ) 40 28 27 5
Austrians 36 44 13 6
Bantus 46 30 19 5
Basques 51 44 4 1
Belgians 47 42 8 3
Bororo (Brazil) 100 0 0 0
Brazilians 47 41 9 3
Bulgarians 32 44 15 8
Burmese 36 24 33 7
Buryats (Siberia) 33 21 38 8
Bushmen 56 34 9 2
Chinese-Canton 46 23 25 6
Chinese-Peking 29 27 32 13
Chuvash 30 29 33 7
Czechs 30 44 18 9
Danes 41 44 11 4
Dutch 45 43 9 3
Egyptians 33 36 24 8
English 47 42 9 3
Eskimos (Alaska) 38 44 13 5
Eskimos (Greenland) 54 36 23 8
Estonians 34 36 23 8
Ethiopians 43 27 25 5
Fijians 44 34 17 6
Finns 34 41 18 7
French 43 47 7 3
Georgians 46 37 12 4
Germans 41 43 11 5
Greeks 40 42 14 5
Gypsies (Hungary) 29 27 35 10
Hawaiians 37 61 2 1
Hindus (Bombay) 32 29 28 11
Hungarians 36 43 16 5
Icelanders 56 32 10 3
Indians (India ) 37 22 33 7
Indians (USA) 79 16 4 1
Irish 52 35 10 3
Italians (Milan) 46 41 11 3
Japanese 30 38 22 10
Jews (Germany) 42 41 12 5
Jews (Poland) 33 41 18 8
Kalmuks 26 23 41 11
Kikuyu (Kenya) 60 19 20 1
Koreans 28 32 31 10
Lapps 29 63 4 4
Latvians 32 37 24 7
Lithuanians 40 34 20 6
Malasians 62 18 20 0
Maoris 46 54 1 0
Mayas 98 1 1 1
Moros 64 16 20 0
Navajo (N. Am.) 73 27 0 0
Nicobarese 74 9 15 1
Norwegians 39 50 8 4
Papuas (New Guinea) 41 27 23 9
Persians 38 33 22 7
Peru (Indians) 100 0 0 0
Philippinos 45 22 27 6
Poles 33 39 20 9
Portuguese 35 53 8 4
Rumanians 34 41 19 6
Russians 33 36 23 8
Sardinians 50 26 19 5
Scotts 51 34 12 3
Serbians 38 42 16 5
Shompen (Nicobars) 100 0 0 0
Slovaks 42 37 16 5
South Africans 45 40 11 4
Spanish 38 47 10 5
Sudanese 62 16 21 0
Swedes 38 47 10 5
Swiss 40 50 7 3
Tartars 28 30 29 13
Thais 37 22 33 8
Turks 43 34 18 6
Ukrainians 37 40 18 6
United Kingdom (GB) 47 42 8 3
USA (US blacks) 49 27 20 4
USA (US whites) 45 40 11 4
USA Blood Types 44 42 10 4
Vietnamese 42 22 30 5

 

[Salty]

Neither does Scripture, that's the point. And Scripture says there is one blood, not multiple bloods. Modern distinctions of blood types have nothing to do with anything. You're making a nomenclature error. Scripture holds that human blood is human blood (distinct from animals bloods), and we have all descended from one man.

Even science acknowledges that all humans are of the same species and even subspecies. We are one in the flesh.

-

Yes, same subspecies- but different races - and that does NOT mean it is derogatory - there is nothing negative about that.
No need to make more of this than it is.

How about, Dr. Vernon McGee has a very interesting perspective on this verse 26 starts at about 1:40

and finally - next time you have to fill out a form - govt or otherwise - when it come to the
block for race - are you going to fill in "Human"? (really waiting to hear your answer on this)

 

[church mouse guy]

As well as polygamy - they were given a vision to end it when Congress said no Statehood until Utah outlawed polygamy!

And just a few days ago Utah decriminalized polygamy very quietly.

 

[Calminian]

-

Yes, same subspecies- but different races - and that does NOT mean it is derogatory - there is nothing negative about that.
No need to make more of this than it is.

Negative? maybe you're mixing me up with another poster.

I don't think modern nomenclature is wrong or negative. The problem is when you falsely apply it to biblical nomenclature.

I do think it would be helpful to get rid of some unnecessary distinctions. I think that's what MLK wanted.

and finally - next time you have to fill out a form - govt or otherwise - when it come to the
block for race - are you going to fill in "Human"? (really waiting to hear your answer on this)

Again, you've missed the point. I don't deny modern nomenclature and modern classifications. Some can be helpful. Some maybe should be dropped. I do, however, advocate using it in its correct modern context, and not applying it to biblical interpretation.

Nomenclature errors can lead to many serious errors in bible interpretation.

 

[church mouse guy]

-

Yes, same subspecies- but different races - and that does NOT mean it is derogatory - there is nothing negative about that.
No need to make more of this than it is.

How about, Dr. Vernon McGee has a very interesting perspective on this verse 26 starts at about 1:40

and finally - next time you have to fill out a form - govt or otherwise - when it come to the
block for race - are you going to fill in "Human"? (really waiting to hear your answer on this)

There are not different races.

 

[Calminian]

There are not different races.

I agree. And I think modern science has born this out. Humans are the same species and subspecies. Race is an obsolete distinction, that appears to be based solely on appearance.

 

[church mouse guy]

I agree. And I think modern science has born this out. Humans are the same species and subspecies. Race is an obsolete distinction, that appears to be based solely on appearance.

Thank you!

Was it Gould who said that there was racism before Darwin but Darwin made it worse?

 

[Salty]

Okay - I know this wont convince you - but for those who want to expand their knowledge

 

[Calminian]

Thank you!

Was it Gould who said that there was racism before Darwin but Darwin made it worse?

He did.

I like Answers in Genesis' suggestion. We should refer to people groups, rather than races. distinctions in people groups are made from the beginning of history. Shem Ham and Japheth fathered different people groups. Would we really, however, think of them as being difference races?

 

[Calminian]

Okay - I know this wont convince you - but for those who want to expand their knowledge

I'm very convincible, just not by bad arguments. You're continually advocating the mixing of biblical and modern scientific nomenclature. Posting more scientific classifications shows you're missing the point I'm making to you.

 

[Calminian]

Salty, do you acknowledge there is a definitional difference between the biblical word star, and the modern scientific word, star? Do you think confusing those definitions could cause confusion in biblical interpretation?

 

[church mouse guy]

Okay - I know this wont convince you - but for those who want to expand their knowledge

Political bunk. Genetical differences are not races. The primary genetic marker used by politicians in contradiction of God is melanin.

Here is the real science:

 

[Reynolds]

How exactly can you accurately decide who is descended from these people that, according to you, still carry a curse?

peace to you

People who take showers in cow urine are probably cursed.

 

[Reynolds]

And where does the Bible say that we currently are one race?






.

I think it came from a Garth Brooks song. Not The Bible.

 

[church mouse guy]

People who take showers in cow urine are probably cursed.

Wait, Muhammad PBUH said to drink camel urine to cure any ailment and Greear said that we worship the same god as Muhammad PBUH did so lets have a little something or other in the name of ERLC and syncretism forever!

 

[Particular]

Race is a sociological word created by ignorant white people who needed a simplistic system of separating people so they could lord it over others.
There is no such thing as race, yet our government still uses the process in our census. This is why I refuse to answer that question. That question is a perfect example of systematic separation by skin color (race). It's disgusting.