How to End Racism

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Stipulate that the Bible is true. Given that stipulation, you must believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans. Logically, then, Cain married a sister - or possibly a niece or something like that.

The argument I've heard against that is that nowhere in the Bible does it say God didn't create any other humans separately from Adam & Eve after the Fall. So Cain's finding a wife could be implying that God created other humans in other regions.

What am I doing? It's all a bunch of hooey!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Possibly Noah's wife, or the wives of his sons, were of a different race?

Presumably one of his son's wives would have to be...but they hardly could account for ALL the different races that have arisen since the supposed Flood (which, according to Biblical chronology, would had to have been c. 2350 BCE).

I think the Tower of Babel, which was post-Noah, is the only hope of a Biblical explanation for the sheer number of different races.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Stipulate that the Bible is true. Given that stipulation, you must believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans. Logically, then, Cain married a sister - or possibly a niece or something like that.

Stipulate the Bible isn't true. Cain didn't go to the land of Nod to find a wife, therefore we aren't having this discussion.

If you want to argue from the Bible, though, my explanation is the only one which can be correct. If you want to argue the Bible isn't true, go ahead, that's another debate, and it's fairly irrelevant as to our specific question.

I don't think it's an either/or question. I happen to believe there are some things in the bible that are true, and others that are not.

[Ramo]

I don't know about you Imran, but most of the women I know wouldn't like the 'equality' that would be afforded to them under an Islamic society. And when I mean Islamic, I mean one of those countries like Iran under the 'enlightened' rule of the imams.

Most Islamic societies aren't theocratic. I find it interesting that the three largest Islamic countries have had women heads of state (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh), while the same can't be said of the three largest Christian countries.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Wasn't the Tower of Babel meant to be one explanation? While it doesn't explicitely say God created different races, it can be inferred by his other actions.

I can't remember...did this supposedly happen before the flood? If so, then we are back to a single couple - Noah and his wife.

Of course, many argue that the "Mark of Cain" is dark skin, i.e. all dark-skinned peoples are descendants of Cain. This is nonsensical, however, because if you take the Bible at face value, God slaughtered everyone except Noah and his family during the Flood, so its from them that all humanity would share its origin...

Yep.

[David Floyd]

The argument I've heard against that is that nowhere in the Bible does it say God didn't create any other humans separately from Adam & Eve after the Fall.

I suppose that's a possibility, although it brings up an interesting question. Were these humans created with a sin nature, and with original sin? Remember, these things were a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, and passed on to their offspring. I don't know why God would have created this inherent in a "new" human, unrelated to Adam and Eve.

The other possibility is that God created an entirely new Garden of Eden, new Adam and Eve, etc., but this doesn't make a lot of sense, either. Presupposing free will, which is Biblical, the possibility would exist that the "new" humans would NOT sin, and a set of "perfect" humans would coexist with "fallen" humans. God would of course have known the final outcome, but he would also have created the "new" Adam and Eve with the ability to choose - ie, they would not have been created with an INABILITY to choose. God would have just known their choice in advance.

This does not seem to make a lot of sense, honestly.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ramo
Most Islamic societies aren't theocratic. I find it interesting that the three largest Islamic countries have had women heads of state (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh), while the same can't be said of the three largest Christian countries.

Zing...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Presumably one of his son's wives would have to be...but they hardly could account for ALL the different races that have arisen since the supposed Flood (which, according to Biblical chronology, would had to have been c. 2350 BCE).

I think the Tower of Babel, which was post-Noah, is the only hope of a Biblical explanation for the sheer number of different races.

Ah, sorry, I posted before seeing this.

[David Floyd]

I don't think it's an either/or question. I happen to believe there are some things in the bible that are true, and others that are not.

Then what source "above" the Bible differentiates the two? If part of the Bible is false, you can't use any part of the Bible to justify any other part of it.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I suppose that's a possibility, although it brings up an interesting question. Were these humans created with a sin nature, and with original sin? Remember, these things were a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, and passed on to their offspring. I don't know why God would have created this inherent in a "new" human, unrelated to Adam and Eve.

The other possibility is that God created an entirely new Garden of Eden, new Adam and Eve, etc., but this doesn't make a lot of sense, either. Presupposing free will, which is Biblical, the possibility would exist that the "new" humans would NOT sin, and a set of "perfect" humans would coexist with "fallen" humans. God would of course have known the final outcome, but he would also have created the "new" Adam and Eve with the ability to choose - ie, they would not have been created with an INABILITY to choose. God would have just known their choice in advance.

This does not seem to make a lot of sense, honestly.

The whole idea of original sin makes no sense. It's incompatable with the idea of a just and loving God.

[Wernazuma III]

Most often, The Qur'an talks definitely only to men, whereas women are not addressed directly. He talks about, but not to women.
That's especially bad in the case of seperation, where Qur'an only talks about how men seperate from women, but not the other way around. (2, 226ff)
2, 228 clearly states that men stand above women.
Sure, the Qur'an also says positive things about women (or their character, but definitely they aren't treated in the scripture as being equal to men.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Then what source "above" the Bible differentiates the two? If part of the Bible is false, you can't use any part of the Bible to justify any other part of it.

I think truth can be discerned without necessarily having other sources. For example, the idea that Jesus was required as a blood sacrifice to convince a supposedly just and loving God to forgive his earthly children seems obviously false to me.

[our_man]

Well, considering last time I heard Ms. Bhutto is living in exile, and can be charged with treason if she returns to Pakistan, I hardly think that she's the best example to give Ramo.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I suppose that's a possibility, although it brings up an interesting question. Were these humans created with a sin nature, and with original sin? Remember, these things were a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, and passed on to their offspring. I don't know why God would have created this inherent in a "new" human, unrelated to Adam and Eve.

This goes into a whole theological thing of the importance of Original Sin and such...but that's not really relevant if one takes the Biblical Flood account literally, because it implies all those other humans were wiped out, and what we have left are only those descendant from A&E and thus have Original Sin.

[Ramo]

Well, considering last time I heard Ms. Bhutto is living in exile, and can be charged with treason if she returns to Pakistan, I hardly think that she's the best example to give Ramo.

Because she was the head of one of the two major opposition parties (the same happened with the head of the other opposition party, a man) to Musharraf's dictatorship. Not because she was a woman.