Obama says racism is genetic

[whitestone]

What were the Canaanites like at that time?

They were ungodly,,,,But the reasoning we are given in scripture for taking a wife from his own tribe Abraham states in verse 7,,,(an unbroken tribal seed)

 

[bybee]

I think you and I've known enough old embittered bigots to know sometimes you mellow and sometimes you ossify.

Yes, the spirit of forgiveness in Charleston was quite powerful. And the murderer's actions didn't spark a race war, but did result in the (overdue) stigmatization and banishment of a symbol that did represent a war fought in large part over race. Silver linings and all that.

They lit a candle against the dark and I want to keep it burning.

 

[musterion]

They were ungodly,,,,But the reasoning we are given in scripture for taking a wife from his own tribe Abraham states in verse 7,,,(an unbroken tribal seed)

Why do you assume what we call racism was behind it? There's the best possible reason the line had to be pure from end to end: Messiah would result from it and the Lamb had to be without spot or blemish.

There are only hints of this in Scripture but it is possible that all through early Genesis, pagan tribes had become so physically, mentally and spirutually debased that everyone born to them was somehow diseased or defective. But in his day, Noah's line alone was said to be pure (Genesis 6:9). Looks to me that that purity was deliberately preserved by God right down the line, right up to Christ.

 

[whitestone]

Fair question.

What were the Canaanites like at that time, as far as we can tell from Scripture?

What tended to happen over the centuries whenever the men of Israel took pagan wives? Did those wives tend to abandon their pagan idols and come to the One True God, or did the opposite tend to happen?

Why did God ultimately forbid the men of Israel from taking such wives?

Also see Genesis 26:34-35.

Yes I'm saying this as a dispensationist,,, that is we say that at the end of this dispensation a "blood line" that has kept it's self pure(not mixed) will be in the next disp.(mill.)

So we believe that they(Israel) will remain pure in their genealogies to be able to do so. If they do not remain pure then when this disp. is ended then there will not be any tribe that can truthfully say that they are of this tribe and the prophecies cannot continue.

Now being blinded until the fullness of the times of the gentiles they themselves believe that Jesus was not the Messiah and so they themselves seeing(in their religion) that the Messiah is still to come(be born) then they must take the approach of maintaining an unbroken blood line from Abraham.

So is it proper for us to say it is incorrect for them to do this? Should we let one race be immune from the laws we pass as a government (because we believe our faith) and we see the necessity that this one blood line remain pure so they can fulfill the prophecies we believe in?

 

[musterion]

I have no idea what you're asking.

 

[Tinark]

Young children don't generally exhibit such behavior nor do the elderly, generally.

A large number of the elderly I know seem to be quite bigoted.

As for the young, they can quickly take on tribalistic behavior.

You ever hear of Jane Elliott's blue eyes/brown eyes experiment where she divides her class of eight-year-olds up into groups based on eye color:

She then asked the children if they would like to try an exercise to feel what it would be like to be treated the way a person of color is treated in America. She decided to base the exercise on eye color rather than skin color to show the children what segregation would be like. The children agreed to try the exercise.[3]

On that first day of the exercise, she designated the blue-eyed children as the superior group. Elliott provided brown fabric collars and asked the blue-eyed students to wrap them around the necks of their brown-eyed peers as a method to easily identify the minority group. She gave the blue-eyed children extra privileges, such as second helpings at lunch, access to the new jungle gym, and five extra minutes at recess. The blue-eyed children sat in the front of the classroom, and the brown-eyed children were sent to sit in the back rows. The blue-eyed children were encouraged to play only with other blue-eyed children and to ignore those with brown eyes. Elliott would not allow brown-eyed and blue-eyed children to drink from the same water fountain and often chastised the brown-eyed students when they did not follow the exercise's rules or made mistakes. She often exemplified the differences between the two groups by singling out students and would use negative aspects of brown-eyed children to emphasize a point.

At first, there was resistance among the students in the minority group to the idea that blue-eyed children were better than brown-eyed children. To counter this, Elliott lied to the children by stating that melanin, which is responsible for making children blue-eyed, was also linked to their higher intelligence and learning ability. Shortly thereafter, this initial resistance fell away. Those who were deemed "superior" became arrogant, bossy, and otherwise unpleasant to their "inferior" classmates. Their grades on simple tests were better, and they completed mathematical and reading tasks that had seemed outside their ability before. The "inferior" classmates also transformed – into timid and subservient children who scored poorer on tests, and even during recess isolated themselves, including those who had previously been dominant in the class. These children's academic performance suffered, even with tasks that had been simple before.[4]

The next Monday,[3] Elliott reversed the exercise, making the brown-eyed children superior. While the brown-eyed children did taunt the blue-eyed children in ways similar to what had occurred the previous day, Elliott reports it was much less intense. At 2:30 on that Wednesday, Elliott told the blue-eyed children to take off their collars. To reflect on the experience, she asked the children to write down what they had learned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott

 

[whitestone]

I have no idea what you're asking.

I posted the response in the incorrect thread(sorry),I contacted admin. and they are working to fix it (I apologize to all concerned)

 

[Town Heretic]

Racism [groundless, ungodly hatred] is a sad, antibiblical attitude that is adopted and nurtured for various reasons, none of them good and with nothing figurative or metaphorical about it. It's thoroughly bad.

Bad as a posture and worse as a practice, since it takes an inward corruption and injures others willfully when empowered to do so. And the law's concern with it is entirely about that latter point. And that's the distinction between this moral wrong and one that only damages the person who invites it.

Yet we're all expected to make an exception for sodomy, to applaud it, while damning racism.

I don't think anyone is asking anyone else to applaud it who doesn't feel like it.

...when Obama lifts up and defends one behavior as a thing of pride and beauty while damning the other, even though both are (if only potentially) "ingrained" through sin, he's being a hypocrite.

No, he would be a hypocrite if he believed as you do and acted as if he did not.

 

[musterion]

I don't think anyone is asking anyone else to applaud it who doesn't feel like it.

Been asked to bake a cake lately?

No, he would be a hypocrite if he believed as you do and acted as if he did not.

Correct me if I'm wrong but he ran stridently opposing sodomy ceremonies and has never officially rescinded that position.

 

[The Berean]

You are reading him like a fundamentalist might do, I believe.

You're taking Obama literally, I think.

If you can stretch your mind out to see racism as something that is passed down culturally, then a statement like "It's in our DNA" could be taken as an effective metaphor for the origin and spread of racism.

You've mentioned many times that you have some negative racist views of some black people. Was this passed down to you culturally or by family? :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

Been asked to bake a cake lately?

It isn't celebratory to sell the goods and provide the services you hold out to the general public. And it isn't serving a legitimate business practice to withhold them from one particular group, unless that group or its practice/use is known to be illegal and you are aware of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but he ran stridently opposing sodomy ceremonies and has never officially rescinded that position.

Seriously? That's how you want to dissent...okay, to go into the problems with the rhetoric you've chose to represent your position: first, the President's former position was against altering the traditional notion of marriage. Second, instead of citing that you make a stretch that fails to accurately reflect that position by omitting its impact on half those affected, lesbians. Did the President change his position? Obviously, at least his public one. Was he running under a false flag on the issue prior, is he now, or did he simply change his mind along the way? Who knows? I'd guess the former stance was more a matter of politics than principle.

 

[The Berean]

I read a short sci-fi story back in the '90s about a Muslim scientist who found a breakthrough weapon that targeted some specific gene carried by Jews. Very interesting but utterly outlandish and meaningless at the time.

At the time.

There was a Star Trek: TNG episode with a similar plot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vengeance_Factor

 

[The Barbarian]

I read a short sci-fi story back in the '90s about a Muslim scientist who found a breakthrough weapon that targeted some specific gene carried by Jews. Very interesting but utterly outlandish and meaningless at the time.

That would be rather difficult:

 

[musterion]

It isn't celebratory

Does it have to be?

It's one thing to be a clerk at Lowe's and ring up a homosexual customer while having no clue he/she is homosexual. Or even knowing that they are. But is it not something else entirely to be placed under threat of heavy legal fines for not providing the means for someone else to celebrate something you're convinced God detests?

Seriously? That's how you want to dissent...okay, to go into the problems with the rhetoric you've chose to represent your position: first, the President's former position was against altering the traditional notion of marriage.

Thanks for confirming that.

Second, instead of citing that you make a stretch that fails to accurately reflect that position by omitting its impact on half those affected, lesbians.

Wha?

Did the President change his position? Obviously, at least his public one. Was he running under a false flag on the issue prior, is he now, or did he simply change his mind along the way? Who knows? I'd guess the former stance was more a matter of politics than principle.

Very likely it was. But where did I stretch? He's done a dime 180° on the issue and no one in the MSM addresses it (afaik). To listen to them, he's ALWAYS been for sodomite ceremonies and never against them, and he allows that perception to persist. Of course he would: he's a politician and a leftist. But you really don't find that hypocritical?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Obama is the most racist president we have ever had, everything is about race to him, he forgot about all the guilty white people who voted him into office.

 

[Quetzal]

Obama is the most racist president we have ever had, everything is about race to him, he forgot about all the guilty white people who voted him into office.

Racist in what way? How do you quantify it? How do the other presidents rank? Evidence?

 

[whitestone]

The quote from the o.p.,,,,"and thats still part of our d.n.a THAT'S PASSED ON",,,,that is he either spoke without thinking or else it is his opinion that Darwin was correct the entire time ,,that is if he believes that this is something genetic,if it is genetic then one race of mankind can evolve at different rates. The black race has struggled for years to convey the thought that they were not inferior to the other races and that they should not be looked upon as such nor enslaved as animals. Now Obama made the comment that it is "passed on through d.n.a."

So who should be the most angry at him for this miss-spoken comment,if it is true it then helps the white race because it gives them an excuse for what they did/do "it's in their d.n.a." but it damages everything the black race has fought so hard to solve that is that they are not inferior(less evolved) than the other races. Now if I was black the statement would be an extremely racist remark against blacks made by the president,,,,or maybe he just spoke without thinking.

 

[bybee]

Racist in what way? How do you quantify it? How do the other presidents rank? Evidence?

The Daily News?

 

[PureX]

If that's true, then racists are simply being who they naturally are because it's what they are. That means racism is perfectly normal, cannot be helped, should never be judged, and you're a bigoted racistphobe if you judge them.

I believe he meant that metaphorically; as in our 'cultural DNA'. But I realize that inerrant literalists don't recognize metaphor, which is why you could not understand this.

 

[Granite]

Obama is the most racist president we have ever had, everything is about race to him, he forgot about all the guilty white people who voted him into office.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

If we want to talk about real, actual racists, let's tackle the slaveowners who were presidents. Or that vile scumbag Woodrow Wilson. Or Andrew Jackson, perpetrator of genocide. Or any number of men who actually were racists and who didn't have the temerity of offending delicate white folk by pointing out this country has a real problem with race relations.

Calling Obama a "racist" is so clueless, so utterly out of touch with reality, that it comes close to self-parody.