The Race Question is a Godly Question

[bbyrd009]

I never heard this, Adam was the first man period.

No one seems to be weighing in on this guy’s claim, weird.

he isnt presenting it as gospel though, yeh? Well i mean all the statements are hegelian, so ya...but you dont have to read it that way? Might be some good in there? Same with this one, which i post with some um trepidation, understand i dont necessarily agree with all this, or even most of it; more like a good exercise to open oneself to the possibilities, imo bc men did not begin to call on the Name of God until a certain point, and if you stop reading the Bible chronologically, even just for contemplation, it begins to become clearer that...there is maybe a better order to read in, other than "chronological," more like "orders of complexity" or something, like recognizing the fractal nature of life? I forget the term, sorry. But the point there is "Adam was the first man period" put with "that is where men first began calling upon the name of the (Lord)" dont really go together so good, right?

 

[bbyrd009]

Can no one answer my question, is not all Europe White?

sorry, i didnt bc it is a moot question imo, "white" is an imaginary distinction, at least as near as i can tell? The definition varies according to where you mean? What does "white" mean to you iow?

 

[bbyrd009]

Same with this one, which i post with some um trepidation, understand i dont necessarily agree with all this, or even most of it; more like a good exercise to open oneself to the possibilities

which i forgot to post lol,
The amazing name Noah: meaning and etymology
So, "Noah" was a woman anyway, see; and maybe some
What God is and what God is not
just for good measure

 

[JohnPaul]

Wrong!!!!He slept with his wife...

Genesis 9:22 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without."

Canaan is mentioned again as being the son of Ham, yet his birth has not come yet.

Genesis 9:23 "And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and sent backward, and covered the nakedness of the father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness."

What this is saying is that only Ham took part in this sinful act. The "Nakedness of their father", is the term for their mother. Ham performed the sex act with his mother. This is why it is important for us to mature in our minds and not let the fairy tales of the Kenites deceive us here. Shem and Japheth took a blanket and turned their heads, as they went in to cover their mother, after she had been defiled by Ham.

The child, Canaan was the result of Ham's sinful act, and this is not the start of the African American, nor is it the start of any other people racially, for both Ham and his mother were of the same, they were "Adamic" or Caucasian. That is what our Genesis study is all about, following the purity of the bloodline that the Christ child would be born to.

Many seminaries today still turn out those "one verse preachers" that teach the damnable lie that this was where the African American came from. There is no manuscript of any language that takes this position, in any form, that a race [kind] was created by a sinful act. All races were created on the sixth day, and they were all good, and that includes the entire African American race. They came before the Adamic race, and that is why God commanded Noah to take "male and female of every kind" aboard the ark.

God does everything in a natural order. The sinful act of Ham was very unnatural, and it is against both the nature and character of God, to allow the creation of any people of racial difference to come from sin. It is against the laws of God. In Leviticus 18 we read:

Leviticus 18:7, 8 "The nakedness of they father, or the nakedness of they mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness." [verse 7] "The nakedness of they father's wife shat thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness." [verse 8]

Leviticus 20:11 "And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

This law was not in affect when Ham took his mother, and this is why Canaan was named before he was ever born. Canaan was conceived while Noah was drunk, and his wife could have very well also been drunk. Again there is no way that people of the same race, or kind, can lie with each other and reproduce another race. God created all animals to reproduce after their own kind. No race ever came from an incestuous affair, and to believe it is to believe a lie.

There is no curse put on any race of men, for God would never create any life form and put a curse upon it. The only curse God puts on a person, is on the individual soul for his own personal act. God put the curse on Esau's soul, for the acts that he committed in that first earth age.

Why would Noah's wife let her own son have sex with her and bore Ham a son? It doesn't make any sense.

I've always known it for Ham to have committed a homosexual act on his father and that's why he was cursed.

 

[JohnPaul]

Again there is no way that people of the same race, or kind, can lie with each other and reproduce another race. God created all animals to reproduce after their own kind. No race ever came from an incestuous affair, and to believe it is to believe a lie.

There is no curse put on any race of men, for God would never create any life form and put a curse upon it. The only curse God puts on a person, is on the individual soul for his own personal act. God put the curse on Esau's soul, for the acts that he committed in that first earth age.

They can if God chooses so and makes it so, so that race of people will suffer for that act until God chooses to lift the curse.

Did God not punish the Jews and their descendants for crucifying Christ?

 

[JohnPaul]

sorry, i didnt bc it is a moot question imo, "white" is an imaginary distinction, at least as near as i can tell? The definition varies according to where you mean? What does "white" mean to you iow?

White to me means people of European blood, all of Europe, fully European.

 

[Enoch111]

What an empty response. That is what that tells me. Nothing but a facade hiding your error.

No matter what you think, Christians cannot be racists (by definition), and racists are not Christians. So you have to decide what you prefer -- White Supremacy or God's Sovereignty.

There is no question that there was a huge amount of hypocrisy in the Southern states during the prevalence of slavery (and perhaps in many northern states) when Christians believed that they could be BOTH racist and Christian. Since God says that all mankind is of "one blood", those who deny this in their hearts and lives oppose God and Christ.

At the same time, there is no question that there is also Black Racism in the USA which is corroding race relations, and should be roundly condemned. The blacks have made tremendous progress, and received tremendous opportunities, which would not have happened other than in the USA. And a lot of their problems are self-inflicted, and also through the negligence, incompetence, and plain corruption and stupidity of their politicians. To see black politicians supporting open borders to undermine their own people is simply madness, but their hatred for Trump overrides plain common sense and decency.

Then we have former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke showing his anti-semitism and stupidity by endorsing Democrat Tulsi Gabbard (of Indian origin) for President, because she is anti-semitic and supports boycotting Israel (along with Muslims Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, who have been barred from entry into Israel just recently). It is simply astounding that White Supremacists, Black Racists, Radical Muslims, and unhinged Left-Liberals are all joining hands to destroy America. America used to be a *melting pot* but now it has become a *madness pot*.

 

[Stranger]

No matter what you think, Christians cannot be racists (by definition), and racists are not Christians. So you have to decide what you prefer -- White Supremacy or God's Sovereignty.

There is no question that there was a huge amount of hypocrisy in the Southern states during the prevalence of slavery (and perhaps in many northern states) when Christians believed that they could be BOTH racist and Christian. Since God says that all mankind is of "one blood", those who deny this in their hearts and lives oppose God and Christ.

At the same time, there is no question that there is also Black Racism in the USA which is corroding race relations, and should be roundly condemned. The blacks have made tremendous progress, and received tremendous opportunities, which would not have happened other than in the USA. And a lot of their problems are self-inflicted, and also through the negligence, incompetence, and plain corruption and stupidity of their politicians. To see black politicians supporting open borders to undermine their own people is simply madness, but their hatred for Trump overrides plain common sense and decency.

Then we have former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke showing his anti-semitism and stupidity by endorsing Democrat Tulsi Gabbard (of Indian origin) for President, because she is anti-semitic and supports boycotting Israel (along with Muslims Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, who have been barred from entry into Israel just recently). It is simply astounding that White Supremacists, Black Racists, Radical Muslims, and unhinged Left-Liberals are all joining hands to destroy America. America used to be a *melting pot* but now it has become a *madness pot*.

Oh, (by definition) you say. And whose definition are you going by. Man's or God's. It is easy to see, you are going by man's as all others do also.

You give lies about the Southern States, but you don't know what you are talking about. I have already told you, one blood does not mean one race.

The modern Klan for some reason is anti-semitic. It does not represent the original Klan in this.

Why do you not use terms such as Black supremacists. Or muslim surpremacists? Why is white the only 'supremacists'. Why? Because that looks good before man. Gets the praise of man.

You, and others like you are part of this what you call, 'madness plot'. You recognize there is a problem but you don't have the guts to say what it really is. You still want to stay in the protected confines of the world's gospel.

You don't like David Duke, former KKK grand wizard. How about the leader of the NAACP. I haven't heard you say any bad thing about him yet. Why not? I will tell you why not. Because that won't make hay. Won't look good before man. And my how we like the praise of men.

Stranger

 

[Enoch111]

Oh, (by definition) you say. And whose definition are you going by. Man's or God's.

Let's stick to God's definition: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many... For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.(1 Cor 12:13,14; Gal 3:27,28)

In view of these passages, a Christian -- by definition -- cannot be a racist. That would be an outright denial that God and Christ have obliterated all distinctions within the Body of Christ. The Bible shows us that the first converts of Christ were the despised Samaritans!

You give lies about the Southern States, but you don't know what you are talking about.

Do you need chapter and verse to confirm that there were a huge number of Southerners who sincerely believed that they could be both racist and Christian?

"During college, a friend brought an African-American student to a church I attended in North Carolina. The next Sunday, the pastor announced that because of “last week’s racial incident” (the attendance of a Black), church leaders had voted to maintain their longstanding policy of racial segregation. Thereafter, any Blacks attending would be handed a note explaining the policy and asking that they not return. I was outraged and left the church."
Christianity and Racism – Was Jesus a Racist?

How about the leader of the NAACP. I haven't heard you say any bad thing about him yet.

To tell you the truth, I do not pay attention to this organization. But they were actively anti-Trump, which means they were pro-Hillary, and that speaks volumes. Black Americans (in general) have not woken up to the fact that the Democrats are actually their worst enemies and Trump is their best friend.

 

[JohnPaul]

That is hardly relevant. The divisions that exist within Europe are ancient and will never disappear. A good example is the Balkans. The French, the British, and the Germans all believe that each one is superior to the other. And so it goes, on and on. Every one of the Europeans believe that they are better than the others.

Exactly and it’s why the EU will never work out and never be truly United.

 

[Stranger]

Let's stick to God's definition: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many... For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.(1 Cor 12:13,14; Gal 3:27,28)

In view of these passages, a Christian -- by definition -- cannot be a racist. That would be an outright denial that God and Christ have obliterated all distinctions within the Body of Christ. The Bible shows us that the first converts of Christ were the despised Samaritans!

Do you need chapter and verse to confirm that there were a huge number of Southerners who sincerely believed that they could be both racist and Christian?

"During college, a friend brought an African-American student to a church I attended in North Carolina. The next Sunday, the pastor announced that because of “last week’s racial incident” (the attendance of a Black), church leaders had voted to maintain their longstanding policy of racial segregation. Thereafter, any Blacks attending would be handed a note explaining the policy and asking that they not return. I was outraged and left the church."
Christianity and Racism – Was Jesus a Racist?

To tell you the truth, I do not pay attention to this organization. But they were actively anti-Trump, which means they were pro-Hillary, and that speaks volumes. Black Americans (in general) have not woken up to the fact that the Democrats are actually their worst enemies and Trump is their best friend.

Foolish. The verses you give speak to the Church only. God's prophecies do not speak to just the Church.

I have no problem with that Southernors could participate in the slave trade as everyone else did, and be right with God. Do you?

O gee, you had a friend that had a story. So that dictates everything. Give me a fiddle and a bottle of whine.

Stranger

 

[n2thelight]

Why would Noah's wife let her own son have sex with her and bore Ham a son? It doesn't make any sense.

I've always known it for Ham to have committed a homosexual act on his father and that's why he was cursed.

Leviticus 20:11 "And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Genesis 9:22 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without."

Canaan is mentioned again as being the son of Ham, yet his birth has not come yet.

Genesis 9:23 "And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and sent backward, and covered the nakedness of the father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness."

What this is saying is that only Ham took part in this sinful act. The "Nakedness of their father", is the term for their mother. Ham performed the sex act with his mother. This is why it is important for us to mature in our minds and not let the fairy tales of the Kenites deceive us here. Shem and Japheth took a blanket and turned their heads, as they went in to cover their mother, after she had been defiled by Ham.

The child, Canaan was the result of Ham's sinful act, and this is not the start of the African American, nor is it the start of any other people racially, for both Ham and his mother were of the same, they were "Adamic" or Caucasian. That is what our Genesis study is all about, following the purity of the bloodline that the Christ child would be born to.

Many seminaries today still turn out those "one verse preachers" that teach the damnable lie that this was where the African American came from. There is no manuscript of any language that takes this position, in any form, that a race [kind] was created by a sinful act. All races were created on the sixth day, and they were all good, and that includes the entire African American race. They came before the Adamic race, and that is why God commanded Noah to take "male and female of every kind" aboard the ark.

God does everything in a natural order. The sinful act of Ham was very unnatural, and it is against both the nature and character of God, to allow the creation of any people of racial difference to come from sin. It is against the laws of God.

 

[n2thelight]

I disagree with your idea that men existed outside of Adam. Which idea you set forth in your post #(109). When it says, 'no man' in (Gen. 2:5) it means there were no men.

Well you disagree with the Word,not my problem!!!

What do you mean there were no men????

 

[Stranger]

Well you disagree with the Word,not my problem!!!

What do you mean there were no men????

(Gen. 2:5) "...and there was not a man to till the ground."

Stranger

 

[JohnPaul]

All of this incestuous talk.

Leviticus 20:11 "And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Genesis 9:22 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without."

Canaan is mentioned again as being the son of Ham, yet his birth has not come yet.

Genesis 9:23 "And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and sent backward, and covered the nakedness of the father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness."

What this is saying is that only Ham took part in this sinful act. The "Nakedness of their father", is the term for their mother. Ham performed the sex act with his mother. This is why it is important for us to mature in our minds and not let the fairy tales of the Kenites deceive us here. Shem and Japheth took a blanket and turned their heads, as they went in to cover their mother, after she had been defiled by Ham.

The child, Canaan was the result of Ham's sinful act, and this is not the start of the African American, nor is it the start of any other people racially, for both Ham and his mother were of the same, they were "Adamic" or Caucasian. That is what our Genesis study is all about, following the purity of the bloodline that the Christ child would be born to.

Many seminaries today still turn out those "one verse preachers" that teach the damnable lie that this was where the African American came from. There is no manuscript of any language that takes this position, in any form, that a race [kind] was created by a sinful act. All races were created on the sixth day, and they were all good, and that includes the entire African American race. They came before the Adamic race, and that is why God commanded Noah to take "male and female of every kind" aboard the ark.

God does everything in a natural order. The sinful act of Ham was very unnatural, and it is against both the nature and character of God, to allow the creation of any people of racial difference to come from sin. It is against the laws of God.

This doesn't answer my question, it's a repeat of what you said before.

 

[bbyrd009]

White to me means people of European blood, all of Europe, fully European.

As long as you understand that that is irrelevant, cool. Latinos are considered "white" too.

 

[shnarkle]

Leviticus 20:11 "And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Genesis 9:22 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without."

Canaan is mentioned again as being the son of Ham, yet his birth has not come yet.

Genesis 9:23 "And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and sent backward, and covered the nakedness of the father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness."

What this is saying is that only Ham took part in this sinful act. The "Nakedness of their father", is the term for their mother. Ham performed the sex act with his mother. This is why it is important for us to mature in our minds and not let the fairy tales of the Kenites deceive us here. Shem and Japheth took a blanket and turned their heads, as they went in to cover their mother, after she had been defiled by Ham.

The child, Canaan was the result of Ham's sinful act, and this is not the start of the African American, nor is it the start of any other people racially, for both Ham and his mother were of the same, they were "Adamic" or Caucasian. That is what our Genesis study is all about, following the purity of the bloodline that the Christ child would be born to.

Many seminaries today still turn out those "one verse preachers" that teach the damnable lie that this was where the African American came from. There is no manuscript of any language that takes this position, in any form, that a race [kind] was created by a sinful act. All races were created on the sixth day, and they were all good, and that includes the entire African American race. They came before the Adamic race, and that is why God commanded Noah to take "male and female of every kind" aboard the ark.

God does everything in a natural order. The sinful act of Ham was very unnatural, and it is against both the nature and character of God, to allow the creation of any people of racial difference to come from sin. It is against the laws of God.

Very few people ever pick up on the fact that "the nakedness of the father" is one's mother. The sages of Judaism refer to it only in passing, but they nonetheless acknowledge the fact. It's ironic that the movie with Russell Crowe alludes to the problem before the flood itself, but then drops the ball altogether afterwards.

 

[JohnPaul]

As long as you understand that that is irrelevant, cool. Latinos are considered "white" too.

@bbyrd009 I’m sorry yes, Latinos Of European ancestry, if they’re mixed with Indian or black then I don’t think they themselves would want to be classified as White, this is the reaction I get from South American people.

 

[bbyrd009]

@bbyrd009 I’m sorry yes, Latinos Of European ancestry, if they’re mixed with Indian or black then I don’t think they themselves wouldn’t want to be classified as White, this is the reaction I get from South American people.

the point being pretty much everyone has a different definition, yeh

 

[JohnPaul]

the point being pretty much everyone has a different definition, yeh

Pretty much bbyrd009.