Race, Culture, and Perception

[Just_A_Guy]

Does the concept of "believing blood" have any relevance here?

[Mike]

39 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Does the concept of "believing blood" have any relevance here?

I suppose it might depend upon how one seeks to righteously evaluate whether or not someone else possesses it.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Mike

[Happy Hiker]

We're about to find out that race is real.  Charles Murray is the Copernicus of our day.

It is important that we handle the information with love and respect for all of God's children.  

The prevailing orthodoxy is going to tumble soon as the genome is more completely untangled.  

 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Does the concept of "believing blood" have any relevance here?

That was the seed -- when you first mentioned it a while back.  But I've been thinking a lot more about "related" topics since then.

Without a racial element, I still don't understand why only Levites were allowed to carry the Ark of the Covenant.  "He had to choose someone..." only means that it was perfectly acceptable (and righteous) for the Lord to use "race" as a basis for callings.

If it was perfectly acceptable to use that as the basis, what does race actually mean from that perspective?

None of this is intended to mean any race is superior to another (although we all know that "The Korean is the most perfect being every to grace his footstep upon the sand." --Remo Williams reference). -- Yes, I'm kidding about Koreans being perfect.  But there are different roles we are to play just as there is a difference in the sexes.  This in no way diminishes either sex, nor should it diminish any particular race.  But the admission that there are differences would help understanding what this is all about.

That said, I don't know how much difference there is anymore since virtually all races have intermarried now.  And therefore, whatever differences there are would seem to have been dilluted to the point where no scientific data could possibly be obtained.

[zil]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That was the seed -- when you first mentioned it a while back.  But I've been thinking a lot more about "related" topics since then.

Without a racial element, I still don't understand why only Levites were allowed to carry the Ark of the Covenant.  "He had to choose someone..." only means that it was perfectly acceptable (and righteous) for the Lord to use "race" as a basis for callings.

I don't see this as race related, but family related.  And if you buy into the Shem, Ham, Japheth theory of the origins of our races, then you can see why it might appear to be race related, but actually be family related.  Regardless of that theory, I still think the Lord selects families to certain work, not races.

[Guest]

Just now, zil said:

I don't see this as race related, but family related.  And if you buy into the Shem, Ham, Japheth theory of the origins of our races, then you can see why it might appear to be race related, but actually be family related.  Regardless of that theory, I still think the Lord selects families to certain work, not races.

I'll go back to a previous question: what is the difference between a race and a family?  Population. by the time of Moses, it was not just a family.  It was a race.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Guest

[zil]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I'll go back to a previous question: what is the difference between a race and a family?  Population. by the time of Moses, it was not just a family.  It was a race.

You think the Levites were a different race than say the Josephites?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

You think the Levites were a different race than say the Josephites?

Now, here is where we're getting into semantics.  I think it is incorrect to call a group that large a "family".  If you're so distant that you don't even know each other when you come across one another on the street, how much of a family are you.

There's a saying about cousins.  Your first cousin is your cousin.  Your second cousin is a "kissin' cousin" (a relative well known enough to be given a kiss at greeting).  Beyond that is a stranger.

But let's keep it all in the context of the thread.  The idea is that genetic patterns can have effect on our lives to the point that there are emotional, mental, and spiritual differences.  As I develop my hypotheses, I'm leaning more toward this "roles" idea.  I never leaned towards superiority/inferiority.  And I never advocate for hating anyone  (unless they really deserve it -- kidding.  I just need to do some repenting).  But there must be something to it because I've seen the Lord do it.

[zil]

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Now, here is where we're getting into semantics.  I think it is incorrect to call a group that large a "family".  If you're so distant that you don't even know each other when you come across one another on the street, how much of a family are you.

In that case, if you're going to use terms in a way other than commonly understood, you need to start with something like: "For the purposes of this thread, I am defining race as ....."  Then we don't have to get bogged down in figuring out what the devil you're thinking.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, zil said:

In that case, if you're going to use terms in a way other than commonly understood, you need to start with something like: "For the purposes of this thread, I am defining race as ....."  Then we don't have to get bogged down in figuring out what the devil you're thinking.

Actually, that is what I thought a 'race' was:

Quote

1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology.

• (no longer in technical use) any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid,and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physicalc haracteristics.
• an arbitrary classification of modern humans,sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
• a socially constructed category of identification based on physical characteristics, ancestry,historical affiliation, or shared culture: (Her parents wanted her to marry within her race.)
• a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

4.a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage:
5. any people united by common history, language,cultural traits, etc.:

That's what's in the dictionary.  Not just for this thread.  I was talking about ALL of the definitions (most recently the first, second, and fourth ones).  But I was also taking into account the third one which is apparently the one you were talking about.  I ignored the 5th definition.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Now, here is where we're getting into semantics.  I think it is incorrect to call a group that large a "family".  If you're so distant that you don't even know each other when you come across one another on the street, how much of a family are you.

There's a saying about cousins.  Your first cousin is your cousin.  Your second cousin is a "kissin' cousin" (a relative well known enough to be given a kiss at greeting).  Beyond that is a stranger.

But let's keep it all in the context of the thread.  The idea is that genetic patterns can have effect on our lives to the point that there are emotional, mental, and spiritual differences.  As I develop my hypotheses, I'm leaning more toward this "roles" idea.  I never leaned towards superiority/inferiority.  And I never advocate for hating anyone  (unless they really deserve it -- kidding.  I just need to do some repenting).  But there must be something to it because I've seen the Lord do it.

 

20 minutes ago, zil said:

In that case, if you're going to use terms in a way other than commonly understood, you need to start with something like: "For the purposes of this thread, I am defining race as ....."  Then we don't have to get bogged down in figuring out what the devil you're thinking.

@zil is right about this.

You're confusing me.  Korean is not a race.  Even Asian is a confusing word when used to denote race.  Filipinos are Asians but they're not the same race as Koreans.  Race is White, Black, Mongols, Austronesian.  Family is a better categorization especially when we're talking about the gospel.  There's no "size limitation" to family.  Family is related by blood or adoption and a set of traditions - a shared history.  There can be different races inside a Family.  Families form ethnicities.  Korean can be both a nationality and an ethnicity.  Filipino is a nationality but not an ethnicity.   Filipinos have diverse ethnicity.  As ease of travel moved families all over the planet, ethnicity has become a better categorization of these shared blood/tradition as it provides an ease of reference more so than family.  The Jews, for example, put a very heavy importance on blood and preserved it through family genealogies.  The Bible puts importance on it.  That goes all the way until today.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

@zil is right about this.

You're confusing me.  Korean is not a race...

See my post with the definitions.

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Actually, that is what I thought a 'race' was:

That's what's in the dictionary.  Not just for this thread.  I was talking about ALL of the definitions (most recently the first, second, and fourth ones).  But I was also taking into account the third one which is apparently the one you were talking about.  I ignored the 5th definition.

This definition of race that is a bastardization of race and ethnicity came about because of socio-political census.  They needed to put more divisons than White, Black, Brown so they can separate Native Americans from Asians for political reasons.  If you notice, the census doesn't separate Black Afrians from Black Islanders or White Irish from White Greeks.  But they do separate Hispanics from their White or Black or Brown racial anthropology and make them a group.

This categorization of race is not useful in your OP.  What is useful for the OP is ethnicity.  This is the better categorization that separates Whites and Blacks into their own ethnicities and separates Filipinos from Koreans and yes, it separates Jews from Gentiles and even their tribes as far as it is preserved.

Edited July 21, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This definition of race that is a bastardization of race and ethnicity...

I don't know how people can argue that I was using the wrong definition when I was using exactly what was in the dictionary.  I was not playing with semantics as you seem to be doing here.  I was using the exact, logical, and technically correct definitions of the word.  And my position was perfectly applicable to MULTIPLE definitions.  But apparently that isn't enough for you.

[Mike]

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was using the exact, logical, and technically correct definitions of the word.  And my position was perfectly applicable to MULTIPLE definitions.

After reading the definition and noticing it said that the traditional categories are no longer in technical use, I think that's a good thing and (alot of) time will perhaps excoriate them from memory--I personally think they are of little use and counter-productive. 

[Mike]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

What is useful ... is ethnicity.  This is the better categorization that separates Whites and Blacks into their own ethnicities and separates Filipinos from Koreans and yes, it separates Jews from Gentiles and even their tribes as far as it is preserved.

I agree with this.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Mike

[anatess2]

On 7/21/2017 at 11:05 AM, Carborendum said:

I don't know how people can argue that I was using the wrong definition when I was using exactly what was in the dictionary.  I was not playing with semantics as you seem to be doing here.  I was using the exact, logical, and technically correct definitions of the word.  And my position was perfectly applicable to MULTIPLE definitions.  But apparently that isn't enough for you.

Correct word usage is not simply definition.  It is also connotation or context.  For example, saying "Eat your food" is very different from "Consume your food" even as Eat and Consume have shared definitions.  Throw a football has a completely different definition than Throw a party even as it is the exact same word.

Race, in the context of American socio-political word usage, is entirely different from Race in an anthropological context.  Your OP has nothing to do with American socio-politics and has more to do with anthropology.

And I don't know why you always get upset at me and throw silly phrases like "apparently it isn't enough for you" when your ideas get challenged.  Ad hominems just muddy the water and make it much harder to discuss anything.

Edited July 22, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

On 7/21/2017 at 3:51 AM, Happy Hiker said:

We're about to find out that race is real.  Charles Murray is the Copernicus of our day.

It is important that we handle the information with love and respect for all of God's children.  

The prevailing orthodoxy is going to tumble soon as the genome is more completely untangled.  

 

Wait... someone is claiming that Race is not real?  Is it the same guy that said there's no such thing as male or female?

[Sunday21]

19 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Wait... someone is claiming that Race is not real?  Is it the same guy that said there's no such thing as male or female?

Received prompting to remove

Edited July 23, 2017 by Sunday21