Hello,

I had a friend that asked this to me:


Should we expect to see genetic differences, and ethnic and racial differences between the 3 broad streams of mankind that came from the sons of Noah (i.e. the sons of Ham, the sons of Shem and the sons of Japheth)?

Do current world situations reflect those differences?

This friend pointed out that since pre-history the sons of Ham have never produced an advanced civilization and black Africa is still a mess today. I pointed out the Cushites, Nubians, and the traders in Mali and Central Africa, but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated. I pointed out that some of the Pharaohs of Egypt appeared to have black, african features, but he denied this.

Of course, I could not deny that Africa does appear messy and Melanesia is the same, but this talk of racial differences does make one uncomfortable.

He also pointed out that westerners (the greeks, then the romans, then the europeans) have led world advance. White,westerners climbed on top due to certain character traits that made them dominant. Thus, it was only natural that world history would have turned out like it is turning out, with the Western European nations doing the exploring and the colonizing.

Certain sports are dominated by certain races, too, he says. I did have to admit that I don't see many blacks in ice hockey, and Kenyans do seem to dominate marathons.

He mentioned the Bell Curve book, but I have read that book and am unconvinced and even unsure of the whole concept of IQ at all since the tests are all biased towards the dominant culture. But he thinks IQ varies by race as well (of course, the Bell Curve puts Asians on top, and this guy is a white american, a middling sort even by the Bell Curve book's conclusions).

He pointed out that the Chinese, from even pre-history, had the ability to organize, but the Africans and Melanesians to this day have a tribalistic mentality that allows crime and fighting to run rampant. They will never have a decent and well-ordered society he says, unless helped out by the advanced nations or colonized by them.

This friend stated that this was one of the characteristics of the sons of Ham.

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

He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.

He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.

How do I respond to him?

What is the history of "the theology of racial differences." How has the church historically dealt with race?

Rae's thread on the kinists has me curious - how prevalent are these attitudes and how do they justify them? Why are most of them Reformed?

What is the exegesis involved?

And, if I reject his opinions, what alternate explanation do I propose for the disordered state of African and Melanesian cultures? How far can we generalize concerning race, ethnicity and different people-groups?

-
-
-
P.s. I realize this might be a controversial thread. But, I am sure that some others of us have also met folks who hold to these views.

I don't have a problem with saying that different "races" are better or worse at different things. Some of it is definitely because of genetic factors, while other effects seem to stem more directly from cultural or ethnic roots.

I would hesitate to say that this implies a superiority of a particular ethnic group or groups over another.

That said, it is also true that Paul says the Jews had an advantage over the Gentiles, because of their special treatment by God in giving them the Law. I don't think we can immediately rule out the possibility.

Traders in Mali and Central Africa aren't pre-history if they are recorded. You could make the same arguement for many Asians and the Native Americans, and some white ethnicity's. Looking back at the Bible, Ethiopia. Don't know much about them but the Ashanti Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Ghana Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, this whole list List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A lot of this could have to do with geography and other factors that make living in Africa much more difficult than the West.

But I don't have all the answers.

By the way, I would argue that what Africa needs is not help from "advanced" nations so much as it is the transformative power of the Gospel. There's nothing inherently wrong with a tribal lifestyle.

but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated.

Sounds like your internet scholar isn't aware that Egyptians are descendants of Ham.....So, how do you argue with someone with strong opinions about subjects they know nothing about???? That's the biggest question.

Originally Posted by Rufus

Traders in Mali and Central Africa aren't pre-history if they are recorded. You could make the same arguement for many Asians and the Native Americans, and some white ethnicity's. Looking back at the Bible, Ethiopia. Don't know much about them but the Ashanti Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Ghana Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, this whole list List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A lot of this could have to do with geography and other factors that make living in Africa much more difficult than the West.

But I don't have all the answers.

Yes, it is hard to have complex societal structures in a highly malarial region. However, this man pointed out the Norse and the Dutch, who prospered despite environmental harshness.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.

He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.

And? So because some theologians and/or missionaries before us were racist means absolutely nothing. Why are you giving this argument any weight? We can find quotes that make groups say all kinds of things.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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

Yes he does and I don't know why you'd even entertain this kind of thinking. Come on Perg.

Originally Posted by TimV

but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated.

Sounds like your internet scholar isn't aware that Egyptians are descendants of Ham.....So, how do you argue with someone with strong opinions about subjects they know nothing about???? That's the biggest question.

He had enough know-how to quote several of the reformed. I am trying to engage him without merely saying, "racist, begone."

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Andres

Originally Posted by Pergamum

He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.

He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.

And? So because some theologians and/or missionaries before us were racist means absolutely nothing. Why are you giving this argument any weight? We can find quotes that make groups say all kinds of things.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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

Yes he does and I don't know why you'd even entertain this kind of thinking. Come on Perg.

Not all racists are kinists, right? Even some secular scientists have defended racial differences. So, I need to give him solid answers, instead of "Come on man, stop being racist."

If a Reformed person doesn't know Egyptians are from Ham, and that they had hugely successful empires, they're stupid. And what of the Philistines? Gold workers, navigators, centuries of lording it over Semites. He's got to put up or shut up. Ask him about those two descendants of Ham and see if he's willing to admit he's wrong on the empire deal. If he's man enough to do so, continue talking. But if not....

He stated that, though the Philistines were dominant for a time, they could not resist the will of God and the Jews conquered them in a short time. I did not ask him for descendants of Ham, because I don't think I remember many of them off-hand right now either without looking in the Bible... (Cush.....and then mostly blanks....)

Here is an article by probably the most prominent living Reformed Theologian to hold to some form of Kinism - http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/nri/nri.pdf

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by TimV

but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated.

Sounds like your internet scholar isn't aware that Egyptians are descendants of Ham.....So, how do you argue with someone with strong opinions about subjects they know nothing about???? That's the biggest question.

He had enough know-how to quote several of the reformed. I am trying to engage him without merely saying, "racist, begone."

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Andres

Originally Posted by Pergamum

He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.

He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.

And? So because some theologians and/or missionaries before us were racist means absolutely nothing. Why are you giving this argument any weight? We can find quotes that make groups say all kinds of things.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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

Yes he does and I don't know why you'd even entertain this kind of thinking. Come on Perg.

Not all racists are kinists, right? Even some secular scientists have defended racial differences. So, I need to give him solid answers, instead of "Come on man, stop being racist."

No, but all kinists are racists. This means quite a bit.

Perhaps I have too much invested in this fight, but when I read your OP, it sounds like you are almost entertaining this man's ideas. That bothers me a lot. And I don't see any problem with saying, ""Come on man, stop being racist." Racism is hate. He's not going to listen to reason until he puts away his racism, so instead of pandering to him, call him out on his sin. If he was advocating raping some woman and he gave you some good quotes to back up why he thought it made sense, I doubt you'd try to get all intellectual with him before you called him out on his sin. Why is this different?

Might do to mention the Berbers---Augustine's people.

Originally Posted by Andres

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by TimV

but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated.

Sounds like your internet scholar isn't aware that Egyptians are descendants of Ham.....So, how do you argue with someone with strong opinions about subjects they know nothing about???? That's the biggest question.

He had enough know-how to quote several of the reformed. I am trying to engage him without merely saying, "racist, begone."

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Andres

Originally Posted by Pergamum

He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.

He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.

And? So because some theologians and/or missionaries before us were racist means absolutely nothing. Why are you giving this argument any weight? We can find quotes that make groups say all kinds of things.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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

Yes he does and I don't know why you'd even entertain this kind of thinking. Come on Perg.

Not all racists are kinists, right? Even some secular scientists have defended racial differences. So, I need to give him solid answers, instead of "Come on man, stop being racist."

No, but all kinists are racists. This means quite a bit.

Perhaps I have too much invested in this fight, but when I read your OP, it sounds like you are almost entertaining this man's ideas. That bothers me a lot. And I don't see any problem with saying, ""Come on man, stop being racist." Racism is hate. He's not going to listen to reason until he puts away his racism, so instead of pandering to him, call him out on his sin. If he was advocating raping some woman and he gave you some good quotes to back up why he thought it made sense, I doubt you'd try to get all intellectual with him before you called him out on his sin. Why is this different?

I am trying to understand his points and engage him point-by-point rather than merely cry racist and shut him off.

Also, as he pointed out the differences between Africa and New Guinea versus Europe, there are discernible differences in standard of living, peace, etc, and so there is SOMETHING that accounts for those differences. Something is clearly wrong in much of Africa.

Therefore, I need to give him evidences that this "something" is not merely race but worldview (religion, etc) and environmental and not racial in origin.

Also, I am not sure that rape and the belief that the races vary in qualities are analogous sins.

---------- Post added at 03:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 AM ----------

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Here is an article by probably the most prominent living Reformed Theologian to hold to some form of Kinism - http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/nri/nri.pdf

Yes, your link sounds very much like this man's arguments.

Do you know if anyone has written a rebuttal or a critique?

Perhaps I have too much invested in this fight, but when I read your OP, it sounds like you are almost entertaining this man's ideas. That bothers me a lot. And I don't see any problem with saying, ""Come on man, stop being racist." Racism is hate. He's not going to listen to reason until he puts away his racism, so instead of pandering to him, call him out on his sin. If he was advocating raping some woman and he gave you some good quotes to back up why he thought it made sense, I doubt you'd try to get all intellectual with him before you called him out on his sin. Why is this different?

Where is the racism in the OP? And what is racism, anyway?

To bring out the racism charge, I think you need something stronger than the view in the first post.

Has he denied that we are to bring the gospel to all peoples with fervency? Has he denied the inclusion of any race in the people of God? Has he denied the human status of certain races? Would he be less outraged at the murder, rape, or plundering of a person of one race than another? Would he deny eligibility for church office to any race (because, hey, they'll just screw it up)? Is one race less condemned from birth by the stain of Adam? Are any in less (or more) need of Christ for redemption or forgiveness? Would he withhold the Word from people who he thinks don't deserve it?

Then you have a charge that sticks. Until then, you just have a guy who thinks some groups are generally less gifted in intelligence, social stability, time preference, etc. by nature.

You can call him wrong or stupid. But racism takes more.

Let's just grant, for a minute, that certain people-groups are less inclined to "organize," and others more so. What is the upshot? Apparently, the "approved result" is that the highly organized ones dominate, crush, or enslave the less organized.

Oh, boy. I guess the lesson of history is that the evolutionists are correct. Darwin must have been on to something, eh? with his little book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Obviously, this whole line of reasoning is post-hoc nonsense. However, if any of us belong to a genetic group that (apparently) has abused its organizational predisposition to"dominate" other people, if we happen to believe that this is the truth, I think we ought to recognize that sinful potential in ourselves, and hate and forsake it, because it is displeasing to God.

And besides, the main advantage to the Euros (who are of mixed ancestry), was their geographic proximity to the gospel spread, the then-current dominance of Rome (in the providence of God). As has already been pointed out, NorthAfricans are Hamitic, and they also benefited from the gospel early. The Ethiopian culture has been Christianized for almost as long as any other, and it shows--although their relative isolation is another factor in their makeup. Isolation external and internal, non-navigable rivers, and perhaps other environmental factors also affect sub-Saharan Africa's development as a "region" with a certain "people group" (by Providential ordering).

And I think it can be decisively shown that the main tool of dominance had and continues to have NOTHING to do with genetics, and about EVERYTHING to do with technology. Philosophical/religious advantages aside, we can take world-societies back to about AD 1000, and world-over, the main groups of people or nations are about technologically equal. Sailing technology is hardly any different in European waters as they are in African waters, or Chinese waters, etc. Different places use their building materials and must consider their weather-requirements for housing. But a typical house in England uses grass for its roof, the same as a hut in Africa!

After half millennium more, there is a technological surge in Europe (there's bound to be studies on the combination factors that contribute to it, genetics probably plays next to no role), and suddenly we get a handful of Conquistadors--with a bit of "luck" and some acquired immunity to smallpox--who suddenly take the rule of a pre-existing empire in the New World (Aztecs). The competing (not cooperating) countries in Europe seek to press this technological advantage all over the world. But it takes a LONG LONG time to make inroads into Africa because of geography, weather, diseases, etc. Not until the 1800s does this closed-continent get opened up to the outside, by outsiders. Inside, are we to believe that the plethora of languages, the diseases-issue, the geographical isolation of people-groups had less to do with Africa's lack of "organization" than genetics? Please.

South Africa? When the Boers, and later the English, came to S.A., there wasn't anyone there. There were fewer dark-skinned people in that territory than there were dark-skinned people in the territory that became the 13 Colonies. The native-African populations were moving southward, in expansionary movement, even as the Euros were landing on the coasts, and moving northward and inland. Once again, it was technology that gave the Euros their advantages, and philosophy/religion, and the fact that the African tribes were not internally unified, but warred with one another. The Euros had a common goal of colony, but the irony is that those "tribes" ended up warring with each other also (the Boer Wars)!


Cutting to the chase, this genetic junk is plain stupid and toxic. The "Hamites" are not just dark-African, but are the native Egyptians, and other northern-African peoples, and possibly a good many others. And there is mixing that has gone on forever, so no group is "pure." Sub-saharan Africa is actually a relatively small geographic area, and it happens that it is isolated from other population centers on earth, and has internal features that isolate pieces inside it. Welcome to the world of a subset of Hamites. These are peoples who were not brought the gospel early (except for the Ethiopians), but late--and by the time it came, the mercantilists were just as likely to get there first as the missionaries were. And even when the came later, they still imposed an outside order on these native populations (except in the New Word, where we tended to war with them).

All I see, when I see "empire" and "survival-of-the-fittest" in the world's terms (dominating, colonizing, using and exploiting), is one version of sin's ugly tendency to magnify evil, and ruin humanity. When we read Daniel and Revelation, we are presented with a "beastly" description of organized, sinful man. If we never observe a unified, dominating power emanating from a Hamitic-origin again, we might wish we could have had that advantage ourselves.

Acts 17:26, "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation."

There is only one race -- humankind.

Dr. Nigel Lee states in the link above:

When one considers Extra-Biblical History, it is remarkable that all the great monotheistic
world religions started in the tents of Shem -- namely, pure Old Testament religion among the
Semitic Jews; early pure Christianity among the Semitic Ex-Judaists; and later even apostate
Islam among the Semitic Arabs. It is also remarkable that God truly enlarge the Caucasian or
Japhethitic white race -- which, by and large, has until recently progressively more and more
dwelt in the religious tents of Shem since making the acquaintance of Christianity. And it is
equally remarkable that the dark-skinned races of the world have, on the whole, been culturally
and especially technologically backward -- alienated from the spiritual blessings of the tents of
Shem, and until very recently the colonial servants of the Japhethitic white race and the vassals
of the Semitic Arab slave-traders.39

There is general agreement that Shem is indeed the father of the Semitic peoples who
inhabited the early Middle East. The Bible too tells us that Shem is the father of "all the children
of Eber" (probably the H-Ebr-ews) -- and of "Elam and Asshur (or Assyria) and Aram (or Syria)"
etc.40 The question in dispute is as to whether Ham is really the father of the dark-skinned races,
and Japheth the father of the Caucasian or white race.

As far as one can still ascertain, this is indeed the case. For the Bible tells us that the sons
of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras and (looking westward
from Palestine) "the isles (or 'coasts') of the Gentiles" and their descedants41 -- which probably
includes the Germans, Russians, Persians and Greeks (all of the white race). The Bible also tells
us the sons of Ham were Cush, Misraim, Phut and Canaan and their descendants42 -- which
definitely includes the Egyptians, the dark-skinned Ethiopians and the early Palestinians, and
which probably includes the Lybians and other early African peoples too.

More specifically:

And it is equally remarkable that the dark-skinned races of the world have, on the whole, been culturally
and especially technologically backward -- alienated from the spiritual blessings of the tents of
Shem, and until very recently the colonial servants of the Japhethitic white race and the vassals
of the Semitic Arab slave-traders.

What this friend of mine told me almost sounds word for word what Dr. Lee puts forth.

Is this a common view, or a historical view among the Reformed? Or at least a strong minority view in the past? Also, what denomination do the kinists belong to, are any in mainstream denominations?

There's general agreement that Shem is the Semites. Now if what Lee says and implies is true then you have to start

Ham being basically Africans
Japheth being basically Whites

and he elaborates

Ham being backwards dark skinned people colonial servants, which makes them Africans and North and South American Indians and a few others
Japheth being White.

The question then is where are the bulk of the earth's populations, the Asians? If North and South American dark skinned colonized people are Ham, then that includes the Thais and Chinese and Japanese, so there goes the theory. Or, Thais and Chinese and Japanese are Shem, which means every linguistic and genetic study ever been done is false.

---------- Post added at 05:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 AM ----------

I should add that in the Baptist church I grew up in some people resolved the problem of that theory ignoring 75 percent of the worlds population by saying Asians came from a civilization circling the sun that went nova to announce the birth of Christ. The idea was that God felt obligated to give them a new planet since he destroyed their home world when the Bethlehem star went nova. You pretty much have to come up with a theory of that sort to support Lee's view of anthropology.

The tribes of the British Isles were running around with their bottoms dyed blue before Christianity came to these shores.

"Africa" - and that's a big generalisation - won't always be behind the rest of the world in terms of peace, prosperity and economics.

There are parts of Africa ahead of parts of Europe in terms of Christianity.

---------- Post added at 01:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 PM ----------

Originally Posted by TimV

There's general agreement that Shem is the Semites. Now if what Lee says and implies is true then you have to start

Ham being basically Africans
Japheth being basically Whites

and he elaborates

Ham being backwards dark skinned people colonial servants, which makes them Africans and North and South American Indians and a few others
Japheth being White.

The question then is where are the bulk of the earth's populations, the Asians? If North and South American dark skinned colonized people are Ham, then that includes the Thais and Chinese and Japanese, so there goes the theory. Or, Thais and Chinese and Japanese are Shem, which means every linguistic and genetic study ever been done is false.

---------- Post added at 05:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 AM ----------

I should add that in the Baptist church I grew up in some people resolved the problem of that theory ignoring 75 percent of the worlds population by saying Asians came from a civilization circling the sun that went nova to announce the birth of Christ. The idea was that God felt obligated to give them a new planet since he destroyed their home world when the Bethlehem star went nova. You pretty much have to come up with a theory of that sort to support Lee's view of anthropology.

Where do the Asians fit in re the sons of Noah? Henry Morris had some theory about this in his book on Genesis, which I don't have?

Originally Posted by TimV

I should add that in the Baptist church I grew up in some people resolved the problem of that theory ignoring 75 percent of the worlds population by saying Asians came from a civilization circling the sun that went nova to announce the birth of Christ. The idea was that God felt obligated to give them a new planet since he destroyed their home world when the Bethlehem star went nova. You pretty much have to come up with a theory of that sort to support Lee's view of anthropology.

That's ludicrous.

Arthur Custance gives another take on this subject and on the curse of Noah on Ham:
Noah (Vol.1) - Frontpage

Richard, next time you see a Jew, an Assyrian or a Lebanese ask yourself whether they look more White than Black or Asian.

Race, as we understand it, is not even a biblical construct. The Bible divides people into "nations" and "tribes" and "tounges," prefering to focus on cultural differences while maintaining that we are biologically one, all descended from Adam. Besides, whatever inherent differences we might have, believers are brought together in Christ anyway. So all told, it's silly for Christians to think in racial terms.

Rev Winzer and Jack K. are correct theologically and biology vindicates their statements as well. Quite a few recent studies have demonstrated that there are no significant genetic differences between races when viewed on a population-wide scale. And what differences are there are not specifically linked to race. In other words, people of different races may respond differently to medication or have increased risk for certain diseases, but that is more a function of mating patterns over the years rather than skin color. Race is a social construct, not a biological or theological one.

I find that conservative Christians often try to make these claims about racial genetics not so much out of racism, but to somehow cast history in a more positive light. Such claims are baffling to me since men liker Hitler and Stalin came from white Europe and not black Africa.

Originally Posted by smhbbag

Perhaps I have too much invested in this fight, but when I read your OP, it sounds like you are almost entertaining this man's ideas. That bothers me a lot. And I don't see any problem with saying, ""Come on man, stop being racist." Racism is hate. He's not going to listen to reason until he puts away his racism, so instead of pandering to him, call him out on his sin. If he was advocating raping some woman and he gave you some good quotes to back up why he thought it made sense, I doubt you'd try to get all intellectual with him before you called him out on his sin. Why is this different?

Where is the racism in the OP? And what is racism, anyway?

Racism is defined as - The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

Here are some quotes from the OP which directly fall under that definition.

“White,westerners climbed on top due to certain character traits that made them dominant.”
“he thinks IQ varies by race as well”
“Africans and Melanesians to this day have a tribalistic mentality that allows crime and fighting to run rampant”
"Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa”
“He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations.”

Originally Posted by smhbbag

Until then, you just have a guy who thinks some groups are generally less gifted in intelligence, social stability, time preference, etc. by nature.”

No he doesn't just think some groups are less gifted, he thinks blacks are less gifted. This line of thinking is racism! I’m baffled at how it’s not! Perg’s friend is saying that black people are less intelligent than white people. He specifically said that blacks have a propensity for crime. Seriously, what am I missing here because to me it’s pretty clear this is racist thinking.

@Andres: Relax. Calm down. It's gonna be okay. =)

Let's remember our Reformed, evangelical, commitments and simply acknowledge (from Genesis 9) that the tribe of Canaan was cursed by God from very early on to be mastered by his brothers. If that's true then it was something done by God and not b/c one race is inherently superior.

Originally Posted by Skyler

@Andres: Relax. Calm down. It's gonna be okay. =)

I'm calm, but I take racism seriously and therefore your comment isn't appreciated.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Yes, it is hard to have complex societal structures in a highly malarial region. However, this man pointed out the Norse and the Dutch, who prospered despite environmental harshness.

The Norse where not successful until about seven hundred years ago, the Dutch where originally "barbarians" to the Romans. Its also a lot easier to keep warm than it is to avoid malaria.

[Moderator] This is obviously a sensitive topic. Let's do our best to be conciliatory and to ask, BEFORE WE POST, if what we have to say is assuming the best of our interlocutors. [/Moderator]

okay, but just FYI, I had to look up what interlocutors meant!

Originally Posted by Andres

Originally Posted by Skyler

@Andres: Relax. Calm down. It's gonna be okay. =)

I'm calm, but I take racism seriously and therefore your comment isn't appreciated.

That's fine. It just seems like people get a whiff of "racism" (particularly against blacks--not so much when it comes to other groups) and then lose their heads. Maybe it's because I'm not as "exposed" as some people are, but it seems from my perspective to be a heavily lopsided response.

[QUOTE=Pergamum;879689][QUOTE=Andres;879681][QUOTE=Pergamum;879673][QUOTE=TimV;879665]

Do you know if anyone has written a rebuttal or a critique?

Brian Schwertley had a great series of sermons called The Kinist Heresy (I think) available on sermonaudio.com. I don't remember who he was responding to though. Hope this helps. I think the issue of slavery has so scarred the image of the white protestant that it has damaged our effectiveness in certain parts of the world even in America... then again God is Sovereign over ALL things so...? History can be baffling! We shall understand it better by-and-by.

Btw, Brian Schwertley is a classical presbyterian (my designation) and extremely thorough in his teachings. When he refutes you, you've been soundly refuted!

Originally Posted by Skyler

Originally Posted by Andres

Originally Posted by Skyler

@Andres: Relax. Calm down. It's gonna be okay. =)

I'm calm, but I take racism seriously and therefore your comment isn't appreciated.

That's fine. It just seems like people get a whiff of "racism" (particularly against blacks--not so much when it comes to other groups) and then lose their heads. Maybe it's because I'm not as "exposed" as some people are, but it seems from my perspective to be a heavily lopsided response.

I understand where you are coming from and I assure you that I am just as offended when whites are discriminated against and treated unjustly. I assure you that I deplore the Nation of Islam's bigoted hatred just as much as I hate the kinists and as such if someone started a thread where the Nation of Islam's propaganda was spouted, I would vehemently condemn it as well. By your own admission, if you haven’t ever been discriminated against then you may not be able to relate completely. I understand and I certainly don’t hold that against you. But I would ask that as someone who’s witnessed discrimination and who’s experienced it, it is very hurtful.

No he doesn't just think some groups are less gifted, he thinks blacks are less gifted. This line of thinking is racism! I’m baffled at how it’s not! Perg’s friend is saying that black people are less intelligent than white people. He specifically said that blacks have a propensity for crime. Seriously, what am I missing here because to me it’s pretty clear this is racist thinking.

He doesn't just believe blacks are less intellectually gifted. He also thinks whites are less intellectually gifted than Asians, as per the reference to The Bell Curve. I am not offended by either assertion. That doesn't make it true, but in and of itself it is not Biblically problematic.

Many genuine racists use the same line of logic, but they go farther than that. If the chain of thought stops there, then you still have someone who believes in a united, diverse Church, and a gospel that must go everywhere without exception.

As I said, if the man would not deny church office, status as a human, protected legal rights, redemption in Christ, etc. to any group, then you don't have a racist.

Racism is defined as - The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

He doesn't even meet this definition. He did not say that any race is superior to another. He said some races are generally superior to others at some things. That "at" makes all the difference.

No race has more rights, less condemnation in sin, less need of Christ, or permission to dominate others by force than any other. When he says some nations dominate others because they are more intelligent, that is a descriptive statement about what generally happens in the real world, not an excuse for the "smart" ones to be right in what they've done. When he says that crimes against 'lower' classes of people are alright, or at least less wrong, then we would have a BIG problem.

I really like what Rev. Buchanan said above - if that superiority in intelligence does exist and brought about some of the injustices of the past, it should be a cause for mourning and not celebration.

Canaan was cursed by Noah. Canaan was probably the (one) guilty party, of what exactly we must "read between the lines," but on the whole, the Scripture is vague, and we must not transgress it.

But one thing is certain, Ham isn't cursed, nor is he blessed. Canaan is cursed (and he IS the "youngest son" of Noah who has been mentioned thus far in the text, see v18); Shem and Japheth are blessed.

A great deal has been "read-back" into those obscure lines of Gen.10:24-27, most of which borrows from "the assured results" of science, history, etc. In other words, nothing but post hoc fallacies, as far as the eye can see. Canaan was cursed, and that curse was fulfilled in the book of Joshua. Case closed.

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.

Here is a quote of one of the ‘apartheidthinkers’, dr. HG Stoker, a Calvinist Afrikaner philosopher from SA (who were also a good friend of dr. Cornelius van Til), in which he writes about the SA situation, back in 1957:

”The European group, however, is not prepared to sacrifice its rights of existence as a separate national and racial entity, and is determined to retain control of its own destiny. Accordingly, racial friction and animosity will result, if the policy of liberalism is effectively put into practice.

On the other hand, the policy of apartheid intends to ensure for each group the fullest opportunity for self-expression and realisation of its aspirations, and an unfettered existence. The execution of this policy will accordingly not necessarily result in race tensions and clashes, but will provide a better guarantee of mutual respect, understanding, peace and friendship. It accepts the duty of creating and of helping to create the separate opportunities for development of the Bantu group ('Bantu' was another name for black people - slc) to a control of its own affairs in all human spheres. It expects of the advanced Bantu individuals to identify themselves with, to seek as leaders the welfare of their group and to acquire within their group the privileges and positions that Europeans enjoy within their group.

It is clear, that, on account of its cultural superiority (not ‘racial superiority’ – slc), for the foreseeable future the Europeans will remain the leading group. But the ultimate ideal of apartheid — when the differences of cultural development between these groups has been appropriately diminished is that both groups together (e.g. as self- governing states) on a basis of equivalence (resp. equality) will have to control in sonic form of allied or federated co-operation the destiny of South Africa. There is no middle way between apartheid and integration, as it would lead to assimilation. In the present racial crisis the only and inescapable choice is that between apartheid and integration.
I may add that the overwhelming majority of Afrikaans- as well as English- speaking South Africans are in favour of apartheid; that the majority of urbanised Bantu leaders favour integration and assimilation; and that the Bantu chieftains in the Bantu areas increasingly appear to favour the Government’s policy apartheid.”

Source: Oorsprong en Rigting, deel 1 (Kaapstad, Tafelberg Uitgewers, 1967), bl.216. This article by Stoker first appeared in April 1957, under the title: “At the Crossroads: Apartheid and University Freedom in South Africa”.

Unfortunately, especially since the 1970's, the urbanized black people (who were heavily influenced and motivated by marxist liberal white politicans and theologians and churches, from the inside and outside of SA), rejected the 'Bantu chieftains' and other moderate black leaders who wanted to work together with the white government for a peaceful solution. The revolutionary liberals and communists won the day, and therefore Marxist leaders like Mandela and liberation theologians like Desmond Tutu and Alan Boesak are the heroes and idols of the new SA.

Yes, my Afrikaner people were also guilty of many sins, and there were biblical and other problems with apartheid, but now we have it even worse. Moving from forbidding people to live and trade in some places (apartheid old SA), to forbidding people to live as such (abortion new SA) is in no way 'reconciliation, peace, and reformation'.

I myself do not prefer to move back to the old SA, I do reject the racism-problems of the past (which were more a social evil than a government policy), but I do believe that under Hendrik Verwoerd, whom the black leaders respected very much, they were much more hopeful than both the later 'Vorster apartheid years' and the hell we have now called the 'new SA'. But Verwoerd were assasinated ...

May our Lord have mercy on all His children among all nations here in SA, that in Christ we will have godly leaders one day again from all our nations, who repect both the unity 'and' diversity we all have in Christ our Lord and Saviour.

For those interested, here is the best balanced and biblical reformed critique I have seen thus far of apartheid:

South African Tragedy Restored ?

Originally Posted by Rufus

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Yes, it is hard to have complex societal structures in a highly malarial region. However, this man pointed out the Norse and the Dutch, who prospered despite environmental harshness.

The Norse where not successful until about seven hundred years ago, the Dutch where originally "barbarians" to the Romans. Its also a lot easier to keep warm than it is to avoid malaria.

Tis true. Plus winters seem to kill off many microbes. Yet, the norse became a great civilization with sagas and kingdoms whereby other cold weather tribes, like the eskimos and laps, merely remain a sort of curiosity.

---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 AM ----------

How I may have left an open door to this fellow whereby he felt free to express to me his true opinions:

The genesis of my conversation with this man was when I began to talk negatively about the books of Jared Diamond (Guns, Germ and Steel) whereby Dr. Diamond asserts that all differences in the world are due to environment and external factors, eg, all peoples and races are where they are at today merely due to what sort of grains grow in their region and what sort of natural resources exist there and what sort of diseases exist in their region. I.e., the story of the world is due to non-mental, non-cultural and non-religious factors and this explains why some peoples are dominant over others.

So, I strongly fought against this view and asserted, instead, that religion, culture and worldview were pivotal in whether a culture ascended or declined and fell.

Environment shapes man, but even moreso in the history of the world, man shapes his environment.

Strangely enough, I was contending against Christians who were also evolutionists of a theistic type and the man who most agreed with me seems to be turning out to be a reformed kinist of some sort.

...So I pointed out the great organization of the Roman Empire, etc. A culture rises or falls based mostly on societal organization, which heavily involves cultural, religious and worldview considerations.

This third man, then, volunteered to me, "Don't stop at merely saying that religion, worldview and social factors play a part in determining which cream rises to the top - you must also consider race and genetic stock of a people as well." He then stretched my argument and added his own wrinkle, that inherent racial and genetic differences also played a part in why some cultures rose and others fell.

He, too, was fighting against an evolutionary and merely physicalist view of world history and so I lent him my ear. Ironically, we were on the same side of the battle even though he may have taken his arguments too far by adding race instead of worldview, religion and societal (non-physical) factors...and he merely replaced an evolutionary determinism of environment with a sort of racial determinism, which is equally unhelpful.

---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Arthur Custance gives another take on this subject and on the curse of Noah on Ham:
Noah (Vol.1) - Frontpage

Wow, very interesting!