WHY do they teach that ...

[kthydvs]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

All men living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and are derived from a common stock...Biological differences between human beings are due to differences in hereditary constitution and to the influence of the environment on this genetic potential. In most cases, those differences are due to the interaction of these two sets of factors. Differences between individuals within a race or within a population are often greater than the average differnces between races and populations quote from A Statement on Race, comvened by UNESCO.

A race is simply one of partially isolated gene pools into which the human species came to be divided during and following its early geographical spread. Roughly one race has developed on each of the five major continental areas of the earth...man did indeed diverge genetically during this phase in history and we can measure and study results of this divergence in what remains today of the old geographical races. As we would expect, divergence appears to be correlated with the degree of isolation. Thus early in human history, when a group of people were isolated from others and married within the group, certain distintive combinations of genetic traits were emphasized in their offspring.

now it seems we have a choice here. Is it creation or evolution that brought about the diffent races of mankind. If we believe it is evolution, then the flood is nothing but a fairystory. But if we believe the creation theory, then the resulting explanation for the different races is easily understood as the various races are merely facets of the total variation possible in mankind

[jedi]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Kumba nice work, I have an article which shows that all humans come from the same woman. I have to find it. This was discovered by genetic studies done on a wide cross section of different races. Of course when such discoveries are made immediately the study is stamped "inconclusive".

[kthydvs]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

as a scientist i have to say that all our studies are theories. but which ever way you take this argument, be it evolution or creation we have one common ancestor. both sides agree with that.

[Mutty]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb]Originally posted by Fledgist:

If so, I apologise.

However, you need to explain a long tradition of interpreting it exactly thus.

-----------------------------------------------
From Mutty:

No prob.

Now I am not sure where and when this idea started that God cursed Ham and thus black people. You've got me there. All I know it had to have begun with someone who simply disliked black people and found this as a great tool to use even though the scripture is VERY clear about what went on.

Now you and Servant can begin the fistacuffs. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [/qb]

You mean he tells lies, and then seeks to avoid the consequences?[/qb]

When and where did I say that. You and Servant's got your own thing going. I'm sticking with the subject.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by fOrTyLeGz:
[qb]Tim and Witchy, you all do a good job presenting your picture of what happened there in that family so long ago. But Ham didn't tell everyone, he only told his brothers.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

How could Noah know (on waking) that Ham had told his brothers, and so also know "what his younger son had done unto him.(?)"

And, even so, is it a reasonable response that Noah then said "(25), Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."?
He should have apologized, and thanked his sons for covering him. but he got furious![/qb]

Insofar as whom Ham "broadcast" his tale (about his father's state of dishabille)... that he broadcast it to ANYone, rather than keeping it to himself was a sin because he was disrespecting his father -- a grievous sin for the ancient Jews. That he told "only his brothers" isn't the point (and it wasn't the point to ancient Jews); He SHOULD have told NO ONE AT ALL, and merely silently rectified the situation (as his brothers did)!

Now, you ask ME how it is the Noah knew what transpired when he was supposed to be passed out in a drunken stupor?!! Beats the dukey outta ME how Noah knew, but, it says in the Scripture that he DOES know... (I'm good... but not THAT good! ... I could try to contact Noah's spirit with my crystal ball, how's that? [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] )

And, you ask why Noah got angry??? I suggest that, being human, as we all are, and being prone to fualt, as we all are, that... Noah was embarrassed at being found in such a state, and he took it out on his son. Like we all, at times, do... (Again, I could try to contact Noah's spirit, and ask him. Short of that, all we can do is speculate!)

[dahjah]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Mutty your link doesn't show mi anyting besides supm weh smaddy figgah it should be.

To me it look exactly like wah dem pastors have been saying. Dat Japheth was yt, Ham was black and Shem was a semite meaning arab/jew.

Do you have any brothers or sisters from your same parents who are of a different race?

[wonbyone]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by fOrTyLeGz:
[qb]Tim and Witchy, you all do a good job presenting your picture of what happened there in that family so long ago. But Ham didn't tell everyone, he only told his brothers.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

How could Noah know (on waking) that Ham had told his brothers, and so also know "what his younger son had done unto him.(?)"

And, even so, is it a reasonable response that Noah then said "(25), Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."?
He should have apologized, and thanked his sons for covering him. but he got furious![/qb]

The bible does not mention the entire conversation but only says that Noah found out. Since ham indiscrimanantly told his two brothers it is not hard to figure out who told Noah. Yes, Noah was furious. Ham knew better than to do what he did. Jewish laws and customs were not taken lightly.

[Mutty]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by King dahjah:
[qb]Mutty your link doesn't show mi anyting besides supm weh smaddy figgah it should be.

To me it look exactly like wah dem pastors have been saying. Dat Japheth was yt, Ham was black and Shem was a semite meaning arab/jew.

Do you have any brothers or sisters from your same parents who are of a different race?[/qb]

I figured you would say that but look again. Do you see the names of the various sons of Shem, Ham, and Japheth and where they settled? No one "figured" they should be there. That is actually where they settled and populated the post-flood earth perhaps after the Babel incident where probably more than language was confused. Think about what Kumba said here:

"A race is simply one of partially isolated gene pools into which the human species came to be divided during and following its early geographical spread. Roughly one race has developed on each of the five major continental areas of the earth...man did indeed diverge genetically during this phase in history and we can measure and study results of this divergence in what remains today of the old geographical races. As we would expect, divergence appears to be correlated with the degree of isolation. Thus early in human history, when a group of people were isolated from others and married within the group, certain distintive combinations of genetic traits were emphasized in their offspring."

As man spread apart from a central location and became isolated in arid and hot regions like Africa or cold regions like northern Europe and began to marry "within" their isolated tribes, the features isolated within those circles is what took precedence. Look at St.Elizabeth. For years the folks down there had children within their own ranks keeping their "white" genes alive. then when the younger generations began mixing with the local black population, the "browning" Jamaican arose.

Now I know what you are stumbling over. You are wondering how white, black, Chinese, Indian could all have derived from three brothers who you assume looked the same in complexion and other features. It IS possible in the world of genetics. You do know it is possible for black parents to have a white child (albino) but white parents cannot have a black child. So consider that if the first peoples were black or at least of a darker or suave shade.

But now I ask you the question. If these three brothers looked the same and say they were ebony black or chocolate brwon in complexion, where do you think the other races of people come from?

[Mutty]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

I'm just curious about one thing. Why are we referring to Jewish laws in respect to Noah and his sons when the Jews and their laws were not even in existence yet? Would it be better to say ancient patriarchal laws?

[servant]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Why don't we skip all your heavy breathing and get to the heart of the matter:

"You are trying, with complete dishonesty, to make a matter of taste one of racism."

Fledgist, are you, a college professor and a social scientist, prepared to say before all in this forum, that you were unaware that the term "inner city youth" is often used in reference to ethnic minorities when you described their manner of dress as "tasteless" ?

[Fledgist]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by servant:
[qb]Why don't we skip all your heavy breathing and get to the heart of the matter:

"You are trying, with complete dishonesty, to make a matter of taste one of racism."

Fledgist, are you, a college professor and a social scientist, prepared to say before all in this forum, that you were unaware that the term "inner city youth" is often used in reference to ethnic minorities when you described their manner of dress as "tasteless" ?[/qb]

Hardly. You are, however, trying to make a matter of taste one of racism -- and that is dishonest and despicable. But what else is one to expect of a coward?

[servant]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Servant: "Fledgist, are you, a college professor and a social scientist, prepared to say before all in this forum, that you were unaware that the term "inner city youth" is often used in reference to ethnic minorities when you described their manner of dress as "tasteless" ?"

Fledgist: "Hardly."

Given this admission, (the first honest thing you have said so far in this regard) I take it then, that you were aware that you were characterizing the manner in which young ethnic minorities dressed as "tasteless".

[Fledgist]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by servant:
[qb]Servant: "Fledgist, are you, a college professor and a social scientist, prepared to say before all in this forum, that you were unaware that the term "inner city youth" is often used in reference to ethnic minorities when you described their manner of dress as "tasteless" ?"

Fledgist: "Hardly."

Given this admission, (the first honest thing you have said so far in this regard) I take it then, that you were aware that you were characterizing the manner in which young ethnic minorities dressed as "tasteless".[/qb]

*Sigh*

'Servant', since you've been consistently dishonest and dishonourable, it's pretty clear that you're continuing in the same way. However, if you want to accuse me of dishonesty have the decency to do so to my face.

I happen to think that dressing in baggy trousers which expose the underwear is tasteless. That many young black, Hispanic, and white people dress in this way is a fact. Pointing this out is not racist.

On the other hand, touting a religion forced on your forebears by the criminals who enslaved them is certainly an insult to the memory of those forebears. Especially since that religion commands slaves to obey their masters -- surely one of the most anti-human and evil commandments ever given in the name of the fictional creator. Perhaps we could even characterise it as racist.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb]I'm just curious about one thing. Why are we referring to Jewish laws in respect to Noah and his sons when the Jews and their laws were not even in existence yet? Would it be better to say ancient patriarchal laws?[/qb]

Yeah, okay, Mutty, my old friend... Point taken.

Read: "ancient patriarchal laws" wherever it is appropriate above. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[servant]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

'Servant', since you've been consistently dishonest and dishonourable, it's pretty clear that you're continuing in the same way. However, if you want to accuse me of dishonesty have the decency to do so to my face.”

Done. You are dishonest.

”I happen to think that dressing in baggy trousers which expose the underwear is tasteless. That many young black, Hispanic, and white people dress in this way is a fact. Pointing this out is not racist.”

Aaah. Now we have the sudden appearance of “and white people” even having admitted, in this same thread no less !, that the term “inner city youth” refers to young ethnic minorities.

What a weasely and cowardly thing to do. What a breathtaking piece of intellectual dishonesty. You should be ashamed of yourself !

”On the other hand, touting a religion forced on your forebears by the criminals who enslaved them is certainly an insult to the memory of those forebears.”

“A fine Tu Quoque” as you would say.