OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 04:05:57 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What is "the human race" according to Christianity?  (Read 868 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
visitor
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Let's just leave it at a Canonical one, okay?
Posts: 110


« on: July 31, 2010, 12:59:23 PM »


This discussion has been split from the thread titled, Anne Rice's Rejection of Christianity  which is here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29089.0.html


Northern Pines, Religious Topics Forum Moderator






Cafeteria Christians and social and/or political liberal Christians have a problem when they try to reconcile their personal inclinations and preferences with their faith. Sometimes it is hard. Other times it becomes impossible...I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

I can’t buy this post in its entirety.  Being “anti-artificial birth control”, “anti-Democrat”, or “anti-science” aren’t yardsticks by which one measures their Christianity.  I don’t believe that science and faith are mutually exclusive, and thankfully, neither does my doctor, I’m not opposed to preventative birth control, I’m socially and politically liberal on a lot of issues, especially those involving so-called “race”, I believe in equal pay and opportunities for progress for women, and I vote Democrat most of the time, and I’m also an Orthodox Christian.  There’s no conflict there at all for me, and I have no trouble reconciling any of my views with those of the Church.
Yes, I agree with Antonious on this. I don't see economic leftism as harder to match with Christianity, since most of Our People were working-class immigrants in the labor movement.

It seems that libertarians would have the hardest time, because they are culturally liberal (eg. strong "feminist"), while downplaying organized charity and providing for people's social welfare.
Nonetheless, I don't think Christianity is necessarily anti-feminist, pro-racist, anti-science, or theocratic, which she suggests. For one of her biggest issues, I had been taught a certain way in a private highschool, and then talked about the topic with my priest and was persuaded by him. So it seems we cannot simply rule out that the church is actually right or insightful and declare ourselves unChristian based on some disagreements, which aren't core to Christianity anyway. I think you should talk with people and priest before making this decision.

All excellent points, Rakovsky.  It seems to me that a person who would characterize Christianity as pro-racist, anti-feminist, or anti-science is perhaps limited in their scope of experiences with Christianity, and I suppose this also ties into that troublesome and false juxtaposition of Catholicism/Orthodoxy on the one hand and Evangelical Protestantism as Christianity en toto on the other.

If all an individual has been exposed to in terms of "Christianity" is the kind of theological refuse spewed by Bob Jones University types, prattling on about how "interracial dating violates the natural boundaries established by God" and trying to back that up by twisting Scripture to suit their erroneous claims, then that person is going to think that "Christians" are racists.  But if that same individual ever encounters Orthodoxy, which is antithetical to such nonsense, then they'd quickly see that they'd been judging "Christianity" by very narrow standards indeed.

The term "Christian" has a certain connotation in this country that is employed by elements on the right and left to suit their own political and social agendas, and unfortunately, it often goes unchallenged by those of us who are actually trying to live out our lives in a Christian fashion, because many of us, believe it or not, are not big politicos.  I think Ms. Rice is seizing on and taking advantage of this, perhaps for publicity purposes.  She knows she'll get an "Amen!" from the militant atheist far left, and get the rise she wants out of the perpetually angry, red-faced, Archie Bunker element of the far right, get a heap of free publicity and sell a bunch of tawdry books, and meanwhile, the "silent majority" of Christians (Orthodox or otherwise) will keep chugging along, focusing on our salvation and the kingdom that is to come.

Right, well the ideal of "the human race" is itself transcendental and primarily Christian because it was of import was the soul. The "human race" is a race which shares a particular type of spiritual composition.

There is a real question at this point, however, when the term "the human race" is used, because it is primarily materialist propagandists who use the word--(and probably no one has benefitted more from the single-race theory than the advertisers of Madison Ave.). The reason why even atheists will talk about "the human race"--which would otherwise be completely incoherent due to the fact that they do not believe in anything transcendental--is because there is a real drive in economically-centered cultures toward communism in every category of human concern. In purely materialist terms, the phrase "the human race" makes no more sense than does the idea that all dogs are of one breed. The differences, from a materialist perspective, really are all measurable (a fact which it is literally a crime to discuss in some places now) and taken generally tend to constitute phenomena which can be divided into general groups and subgroups.

I know that in Dutch, for example, the word for the noun "breed" is a cognate for the English word, "race." And I would never say that an Alsatian and a Basenji are of one breed, "the canine breed." And to expect either dog to be interchangable for the other is simply stupid.

Now here come the Marxists, who want us to communize everything. Do you imagine that race and religion are excluded? And the motivation behind it all is utopian. They would prefer that all the Churches and every source of natural or historical difference be broken down to their bare bones (or bare dust) and then assembled into one, whole, and extremely vague ethos where the subversive tendency THEY call holiness can be distributed according to need...

I am not saying that Christians must be racists. But I am saying that we should know what we are playing into when we start assuming that Christianity necessarily means the communization of any "social capital," because it may be that we are basically leading our faith into extinction with a smile on our face and a song in our heart. It's come very close to happening elsewhere before. And in some very large American and European cities it has been more or less completely successful, in the defined context of certain concerns, typically within four generations.

...So let's not start patting ourselves on the back just yet. These phyletists around here really are trying to preserve something that cannot be regained once it is gone, and it may be a crime against God that they are resisting.


« Last Edit: July 31, 2010, 02:16:46 PM by NorthernPines » Logged
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,803


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2010, 01:45:42 PM »

Cafeteria Christians and social and/or political liberal Christians have a problem when they try to reconcile their personal inclinations and preferences with their faith. Sometimes it is hard. Other times it becomes impossible...I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

I can’t buy this post in its entirety.  Being “anti-artificial birth control”, “anti-Democrat”, or “anti-science” aren’t yardsticks by which one measures their Christianity.  I don’t believe that science and faith are mutually exclusive, and thankfully, neither does my doctor, I’m not opposed to preventative birth control, I’m socially and politically liberal on a lot of issues, especially those involving so-called “race”, I believe in equal pay and opportunities for progress for women, and I vote Democrat most of the time, and I’m also an Orthodox Christian.  There’s no conflict there at all for me, and I have no trouble reconciling any of my views with those of the Church.
Yes, I agree with Antonious on this. I don't see economic leftism as harder to match with Christianity, since most of Our People were working-class immigrants in the labor movement.

It seems that libertarians would have the hardest time, because they are culturally liberal (eg. strong "feminist"), while downplaying organized charity and providing for people's social welfare.
Nonetheless, I don't think Christianity is necessarily anti-feminist, pro-racist, anti-science, or theocratic, which she suggests. For one of her biggest issues, I had been taught a certain way in a private highschool, and then talked about the topic with my priest and was persuaded by him. So it seems we cannot simply rule out that the church is actually right or insightful and declare ourselves unChristian based on some disagreements, which aren't core to Christianity anyway. I think you should talk with people and priest before making this decision.

All excellent points, Rakovsky.  It seems to me that a person who would characterize Christianity as pro-racist, anti-feminist, or anti-science is perhaps limited in their scope of experiences with Christianity, and I suppose this also ties into that troublesome and false juxtaposition of Catholicism/Orthodoxy on the one hand and Evangelical Protestantism as Christianity en toto on the other.

If all an individual has been exposed to in terms of "Christianity" is the kind of theological refuse spewed by Bob Jones University types, prattling on about how "interracial dating violates the natural boundaries established by God" and trying to back that up by twisting Scripture to suit their erroneous claims, then that person is going to think that "Christians" are racists.  But if that same individual ever encounters Orthodoxy, which is antithetical to such nonsense, then they'd quickly see that they'd been judging "Christianity" by very narrow standards indeed.

The term "Christian" has a certain connotation in this country that is employed by elements on the right and left to suit their own political and social agendas, and unfortunately, it often goes unchallenged by those of us who are actually trying to live out our lives in a Christian fashion, because many of us, believe it or not, are not big politicos.  I think Ms. Rice is seizing on and taking advantage of this, perhaps for publicity purposes.  She knows she'll get an "Amen!" from the militant atheist far left, and get the rise she wants out of the perpetually angry, red-faced, Archie Bunker element of the far right, get a heap of free publicity and sell a bunch of tawdry books, and meanwhile, the "silent majority" of Christians (Orthodox or otherwise) will keep chugging along, focusing on our salvation and the kingdom that is to come.

Right, well the ideal of "the human race" is itself transcendental and primarily Christian because it was of import was the soul. The "human race" is a race which shares a particular type of spiritual composition.

There is a real question at this point, however, when the term "the human race" is used, because it is primarily materialist propagandists who use the word--(and probably no one has benefitted more from the single-race theory than the advertisers of Madison Ave.). The reason why even atheists will talk about "the human race"--which would otherwise be completely incoherent due to the fact that they do not believe in anything transcendental--is because there is a real drive in economically-centered cultures toward communism in every category of human concern. In purely materialist terms, the phrase "the human race" makes no more sense than does the idea that all dogs are of one breed. The differences, from a materialist perspective, really are all measurable (a fact which it is literally a crime to discuss in some places now) and taken generally tend to constitute phenomena which can be divided into general groups and subgroups.

I know that in Dutch, for example, the word for the noun "breed" is a cognate for the English word, "race." And I would never say that an Alsatian and a Basenji are of one breed, "the canine breed." And to expect either dog to be interchangable for the other is simply stupid.

Now here come the Marxists, who want us to communize everything. Do you imagine that race and religion are excluded? And the motivation behind it all is utopian. They would prefer that all the Churches and every source of natural or historical difference be broken down to their bare bones (or bare dust) and then assembled into one, whole, and extremely vague ethos where the subversive tendency THEY call holiness can be distributed according to need...

I am not saying that Christians must be racists. But I am saying that we should know what we are playing into when we start assuming that Christianity necessarily means the communization of any "social capital," because it may be that we are basically leading our faith into extinction with a smile on our face and a song in our heart. It's come very close to happening elsewhere before. And in some very large American and European cities it has been more or less completely successful, in the defined context of certain concerns, typically within four generations.

...So let's not start patting ourselves on the back just yet. These phyletists around here really are trying to preserve something that cannot be regained once it is gone, and it may be a crime against God that they are resisting.




So are you advocating racial separation then?  The maintenance of “separate breeds”?  And do you imagine this might be a Christian thing to do?

I don’t care why materialists, capitalists, communists, or anyone else would utilize the term “human race”.  I utilize it because I am an Orthodox Christian, and I know that it is God’s truth and not a “theory”.  Whether they agree or disagree with the Faith on this point is immaterial.

I am of the opinion that the stories in Genesis concerning the origins of humanity and the various reasons for our ethnic, linguistic, and physical diversity can, to a large extent, be borne out by modern archaeological, historical, and even scientific investigation.  My training as a historian has done little to erode my faith in the Biblical accounts of Adam and Eve, Noah and his sons, and the Tower of Babel.  As a Christian, and a man exposed to some degree of academic learning, I acknowledge our modern and ever-fluctuating notion of race as a sociological reality but an ontological, biological, and theological fallacy, an artificial creation of human vanity and avarice designed to consign certain groups to a caste like state of perpetual inferiority.  (Of course, race is a useful 'short word' for indicating human biodiversity, but the two concepts must not be conflated.)

There is no doubt in my mind that, as Pope Shenouda III has written, "All men who have ever lived in the world are descendants of Adam and Eve...therefore, they are of the same race...All men in the present world are also descendants of one of Noah's sons...After the flood, the whole of the earth was of one language and one speech..." until the post Tower of Babel period, when God changed the speech of man.  The Pope continues, "This must have been a divine physiologic miracle, an instant change in those centers of the brain controlling speech, so that each family suddenly found itself identifying different sounds with various objects and actions than other families used..."

Your dog analogy is somewhat off-base.  You couldn’t use a basenji to perform the guard duties of an Alsatian, but you could use an African scientific genius to fill a role formerly occupied by a European scientific genius of the same training.  Is there a specific role that one could play that you think the other could not?  Is there some role that you feel I would be unable to fulfill simply because of my African heritage?  What are the measurable “natural differences” that you’re speaking of specifically?  Who is deficient in what category?

I also don’t believe it follows that if all men are united in Christ, in whom there is no Greek or Jew, African or European, that this will play into the communization of “social capital” or some tinfoil hat theory of conspiracy to create a one world government with nefarious aims.

So what is this crime against God that the phyletists are trying to forestall?  What is it that can’t be regained once it’s lost?  And why is their being phyletists a good thing?




Edited to modify the title/subject to fit with the title of the new thread.

Northern Pines, Religious Topics Forum Moderator


« Last Edit: July 31, 2010, 02:23:51 PM by NorthernPines » Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2010, 02:02:00 PM »


Right, well the ideal of "the human race" is itself transcendental and primarily Christian because it was of import was the soul. The "human race" is a race which shares a particular type of spiritual composition.  . . .  the phrase "the human race" makes no more sense than does the idea that all dogs are of one breed. (snipped for clarity and length)

Just what are you talking about? It seems to  as if you're doing a lot of hairsplitting and playing on semantics and using the term "human race" in a manner in which almost no other person on earth actually uses the term. for all I know you might be technically correct in your assertions, however the vast majority of people who use the phrase "human race" simply mean "human species" or if you will, homo sapiens sapiens. Why not just stick to the common usage of the term human race and be done with it?


Quote
The differences, from a materialist perspective, really are all measurable (a fact which it is literally a crime to discuss in some places now) and taken generally tend to constitute phenomena which can be divided into general groups and subgroups.

What "measurable" differences are you refering to? What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?


Quote
I know that in Dutch, for example, the word for the noun "breed" is a cognate for the English word, "race." And I would never say that an Alsatian and a Basenji are of one breed, "the canine breed."

You're confusing breed of dogs with species.


Quote
And to expect either dog to be interchangable for the other is simply stupid.

Uh . . . . but they ARE "interchangable" genetically speaking. Any breed of dog can breed with any other breed of dog. Even in cases where it doesn't appear to be physically possible, (like say a Yorky and a Great Dane) it is genetically possible, though not preferable in cases such as that. (for obvious reasons)

 Dogs of whatever 'breed' are known as as canus lupus familiaris, which is simply a sub species of canus lupus, the grey wolf. Wolves and dogs can breed, golden retrievers can breed with great danes, and poodles can breed with labs, giving us the "labridoodle". Smiley

They can all breed because genetically speaking they are of one species, canus lupus.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Anne Rice, but you definitely need to catch the Westminster Kennel Club dog show the next time it comes on TV, just to catch you up on some of this stuff. BTW it airs usually in February! Smiley




« Last Edit: July 31, 2010, 02:13:19 PM by NorthernPines » Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2010, 02:18:41 PM »



This is just a reminder that this is the Religious Topics board, and so let's keep this thread free from political discussions, or it will be moved to the private boards. Thanks!

Northern Pines, Religious Topics Forum Moderator
Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2010, 02:26:11 PM »



So are you advocating racial separation then?  The maintenance of “separate breeds”?  And do you imagine this might be a Christian thing to do?

I don’t care why materialists, capitalists, communists, or anyone else would utilize the term “human race”.  I utilize it because I am an Orthodox Christian, and I know that it is God’s truth and not a “theory”.  Whether they agree or disagree with the Faith on this point is immaterial.

I am of the opinion that the stories in Genesis concerning the origins of humanity and the various reasons for our ethnic, linguistic, and physical diversity can, to a large extent, be borne out by modern archaeological, historical, and even scientific investigation.  My training as a historian has done little to erode my faith in the Biblical accounts of Adam and Eve, Noah and his sons, and the Tower of Babel.  As a Christian, and a man exposed to some degree of academic learning, I acknowledge our modern and ever-fluctuating notion of race as a sociological reality but an ontological, biological, and theological fallacy, an artificial creation of human vanity and avarice designed to consign certain groups to a caste like state of perpetual inferiority.  (Of course, race is a useful 'short word' for indicating human biodiversity, but the two concepts must not be conflated.)

There is no doubt in my mind that, as Pope Shenouda III has written, "All men who have ever lived in the world are descendants of Adam and Eve...therefore, they are of the same race...All men in the present world are also descendants of one of Noah's sons...After the flood, the whole of the earth was of one language and one speech..." until the post Tower of Babel period, when God changed the speech of man.  The Pope continues, "This must have been a divine physiologic miracle, an instant change in those centers of the brain controlling speech, so that each family suddenly found itself identifying different sounds with various objects and actions than other families used..."

Your dog analogy is somewhat off-base.  You couldn’t use a basenji to perform the guard duties of an Alsatian, but you could use an African scientific genius to fill a role formerly occupied by a European scientific genius of the same training.  Is there a specific role that one could play that you think the other could not?  Is there some role that you feel I would be unable to fulfill simply because of my African heritage?  What are the measurable “natural differences” that you’re speaking of specifically?  Who is deficient in what category?

I also don’t believe it follows that if all men are united in Christ, in whom there is no Greek or Jew, African or European, that this will play into the communization of “social capital” or some tinfoil hat theory of conspiracy to create a one world government with nefarious aims.

So what is this crime against God that the phyletists are trying to forestall?  What is it that can’t be regained once it’s lost?  And why is their being phyletists a good thing?

I nominate this for Post of the Month!

Logged
visitor
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Let's just leave it at a Canonical one, okay?
Posts: 110


« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2010, 04:28:24 PM »

The fact that people are both hysterical about this topic and uninformed about its sociological history speak volumes.

First, I am not "advocating" anything. Give me a break. I am saying that people don't know more about creation that God does. Period. The ideal of "The human race" is a spiritual thing; it assumes that the human spirit is of one essential type. Racial communism for political reasons, on the other hand, has been shown to be corrosive to features of culture, including religion. It's a modern world out there, and all the Popes and canons in the world will not help you to understand it. That's just a fact.

As for science. Did you know that academics are not allowed to publish on non-subversive issues relating to race? Marxist "praxis" theorists are really, really big on suppressing the study of performance differences and "geomapping." But you wouldn't know that, because they don't tell you...

Besides, the whole purpose for getting hysterical about race in the first place is to generate an ethos to replace religion---be it national, or "fairness" obsessed. LOL. So if you think that any kind of communism is good enough for Christianity to back it, then I suppose you are likely to find a lot of people who will freak out and agree with you. I don't care. Get seduced by a gimmick, don't be surprised when you become one yourself.
Logged
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,803


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2010, 05:29:06 PM »

The fact that people are both hysterical about this topic and uninformed about its sociological history speak volumes.

No one seems to be getting hysterical here but you.  I answered your post coldly and rationally, and asked you a series of direct questions which you declined to answer, opting instead to rant on in your usual fashion about Marxist conspiracies which have nothing to do with the substance of the discussion.

As to being “uninformed about its sociological history”…bunk.  I’m sure we’re all well informed as to the many, various, and ever changing historical and pseudo-scientific definitions of race over the centuries, most of which conflict with both Christian theology and science.

First, I am not "advocating" anything.

Your post seemed to imply very strongly that you might be.  Being that this is a discussion board, further discussion and questioning was merited.

Give me a break.

No.

I am saying that people don't know more about creation that God does. Period.

That is what Pope Shenouda has so eloquently proven above.

The ideal of "The human race" is a spiritual thing; it assumes that the human spirit is of one essential type.

It is also a physical thing.  Humans were created as a psychosomatic whole.  We were bodies first, and then life was breathed into us and “man became a living soul”.  We were created from one man and one woman, hence one race in the physical as well as spiritual sense.  Thus, the concept of the human race is not merely a spiritual one.


Racial communism for political reasons, on the other hand, has been shown to be corrosive to features of culture, including religion.

What do you mean by this.  Be specific.  Don’t just throw generalities out there and then snap at people when they probe you with follow-up questions.  What do you consider to be “racial communism”?  Who degraded whose culture and religion by integrating with them?  Courage, man!  Out with it!

Or will you shy away from this as you shied away from my questions:

*what is this crime against God that the phyletists are trying to forestall

*What is it that can’t be regained once it’s lost? 

*And why is their being phyletists a good thing?

*You couldn’t use a basenji to perform the guard duties of an Alsatian, but you could use an African scientific genius to fill a role formerly occupied by a European scientific genius of the same training.  Is there a specific role that one could play that you think the other could not? 

*Is there some role that you feel I would be unable to fulfill simply because of my African heritage? 

*What are the measurable “natural differences” that you’re speaking of specifically? 

*Who is deficient in what category?

It's a modern world out there, and all the Popes and canons in the world will not help you to understand it. That's just a fact.

No it’s not.  The dichotomy you’re trying to create between science and religion on this matter is a false one.  That man is of once race, homo sapiens, confirms the Biblical creation story.  It does not refute it.  Or are those who believe in the literal truth of the Scriptures not “moderns” in your book?  I suppose we’re superstitious primitives clinging to the robes of our popes and our musty pedalions.

As for science. Did you know that academics are not allowed to publish on non-subversive issues relating to race? Marxist "praxis" theorists are really, really big on suppressing the study of performance differences and "geomapping." But you wouldn't know that, because they don't tell you...

How convenient!  Most modern geneticists and archaeologists worth their salt have concluded that human beings are for the most part homogeneous in our genetic sequences and have a single origin and ancestry, as the Bible tells us, but that’s all lies and the truth has been suppressed by the Marxist boogeyman, who of course supports the Scriptures.

So tell us, once again, what are these “performance differences” you’re on about?  Be specific.  Who’s out performing who?  Who’s superior and who’s inferior?  Don’t be a coward.  Pull back the curtain that the Marxists and our Popes have drawn and enlighten us!

Besides, the whole purpose for getting hysterical about race in the first place is to generate an ethos to replace religion---be it national, or "fairness" obsessed.

Right, because one couldn’t possibly find fairness and impartiality in Christ.  Anyone on about such things must be an atheistic communist.


So if you think that any kind of communism is good enough for Christianity to back it, then I suppose you are likely to find a lot of people who will freak out and agree with you.

Whoever said anything like that?  The straw man you carry in your pocket for arguments just such as these?


I don't care. Get seduced by a gimmick, don't be surprised when you become one yourself.

What gimmick?  All I’ve ever advocated was the teaching of the Church and the veracity of the Scripture.  Is that a gimmick?

Make sure in your next reply you answer the questions put to you, so we’ll know you’re not just blowing hot air.
Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2010, 02:18:41 PM »

The fact that people are both hysterical about this topic and uninformed about its sociological history speak volumes.

Nice way to dodge every question asked of you; just call someone who asks a tough question hysterical and bingo, off the hook!

Quote
First, I am not "advocating" anything. Give me a break. I am saying that people don't know more about creation that God does. Period. The ideal of "The human race" is a spiritual thing; it assumes that the human spirit is of one essential type.

You do realize you're saying something that is in fact not entirely Orthodox, don't you? The Church of Christ has maintained for 2000 years that the human race, (or if you will, human species) is both spiritual and physical. This is the historic teaching of both the Old and New Covenants, of the Prophets and of Jesus the Incarnate Logos Himself. We are both spirit and flesh. You on the other hand appear to be saying that on in the flesh, we are all different "things" but in spiritual terms we are one. That is essentially a Gnostic teaching. I can't imagine what Orthodox theologians or Church fathers you've been reading to get this idea from, perhaps you can tell us?


Quote
As for science. Did you know that academics are not allowed to publish on non-subversive issues relating to race?

I'm sorry, but that is just not how science works.  There is no scientific hierarchy "out there" anywhere in the world deciding what does and does not get published. Anyone who is willing to actually go do science can get published. Period. This includes you, me, your grandma, anyone. But one must actually go do the science. One cannot just invent a wild hypothesis without testing the hypothesis in experiment after experiment. I cannot for example claim that the earth's core is made up of aloe vera gel and expect to get published in a scientific journal, unless I've actually done the science to support my hypothesis. Assuming in fact that my experiments and observations actually gave credence to my hypothesis that the earth's core is made up of aloa vera gel, I then can write about my experiments, show what experiments and observations I did, and put the evidence for this in writing. THEN I can get published. If I've actually followed the scientific method, I'll get published. And THEN other scientists will look at my work and try to duplicate it, falsify it, and if they too come to the conclusions that the earth's core is made up of aloe vera gel, and not iron, I get to go down in history as the next Einstein, Or Gallileo as I've just overturned a long held theory about the earth's core and what it is made of. These steps are known as the scientific method and ANYONE who is willing to do the science can publish them. It is that simple. That is in fact how many of our greatest scientific theories came to be defined. Einstein was a Patent Clerk. The gentlemen who discovered plate techtonics was laughed at for decades, until eventually his hypothesis was proven a theory. On and on. Scientists love nothing more than to try and disprove an accepted theory, and if they can do the science anyone can get published. Of course this is all really hard stuff to do, this thing called science. And no, not any Joe Shmoe can put something into a scientific journal. And some crackpots who claim "oh Scientific American refuses to publish my work, that's not fair!" always, and I mean ALWAYS leaves out the fact that he simply didn't do the science. But if one is dedicated, why don't you just go do the science and prove whatever it is you believe? Einstein did it, why not you?


Quote
Marxist "praxis" theorists are really, really big on suppressing the study of performance differences and "geomapping." But you wouldn't know that, because they don't tell you...

You almost seem to be cryptically refering to Eugenics and actually supporting some of the science behind the social theory.

Quote
Besides, the whole purpose for getting hysterical about race in the first place is to generate an ethos to replace religion---be it national, or "fairness" obsessed. LOL. So if you think that any kind of communism is good enough for Christianity to back it, then I suppose you are likely to find a lot of people who will freak out and agree with you. I don't care. Get seduced by a gimmick, don't be surprised when you become one yourself.

become what? What are going to become? You claim to be Orthodox yet are saying things that are in direct contrast to Orthodox teaching. Just what are you proposing anyhow?

Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.085 seconds with 35 queries.