WHY DID GOD MAKE THE VARIOUS RACES?

[2Dbunk]

This summer it seems we are in a war between two races. Donald Trump would add another race (to the south of our border). If God is so loving and compassionate why is there so much disparity between blacks and whites? (Let the Hispanics out of it for now.) Is this violent clashing of the races for "His" entertainment? Is He playing us?

I dont think so because a wonderfully loving Creator wouldnt have mankind at each others throats " so, there is the answer: This god that everyone talks about just does not exist!

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[marco]

Most Muslims didnt kill Christians.

Even in the Muslim Middle East, Orthodox Christians arent required to pray towards Mecca five times a day.

Is "most Muslims don't kill Christians" a commendation? The important point is that those who are in a position of control are the ones that matter. We are plagued here with Imams and preachers advocating violence. When Salman Rushdie published the Satanic Verses, the all-powerful, highly respected Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against him. The Muslim shopkeeper murdered in Glasgow a few weeks ago was guilty, it seems, of blasphemy, and an ordinary, devout taxi-driver travelled miles to kill him. Belief in a God can do this.

Christians aren't required to pray towards Mecca - no, but non-Muslims may not enter Mecca.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 38 by Danmark]

Quote by bluethread:

No, physical differences are not social constructs. Giving them significance is. Biological "race" is not as defined as has been promoted. Human diversity is a range, ie. the constructs of bi-racial and multi-racial to maintain the integrity of the "race" concept. Isolation creates monoculture and when isolated communities have occasional interaction, those differences are noted and significance is applied to them.

You must be a lawyer.

Danmark says:

No. I AM a lawyer, and a lawyer first looks at the facts. Your entire thread is based on a false premise, that there are separate races. There is only one race, the human race. Bluethread is right, the concept of race IS a 'social construct.' Some people have blue eyes, others brown. Some are blonde, others have dark hair. We ALL have skins of colors that differ. Some bigot, or groups of bigots, hundreds or thousands of years ago decided these insignificant differences were significant enough to call those who they thought looked different, "THE OTHER."

I generally disagree with Bluethread. I am not on his 'side.' I see no evidence of some god of popular theism. But he is dead on correct here. Your argument is based on a false claim. You might as well ask "Why did God make some people tall and others short;" or "Why did god give some blue eyes and others hazel or brown."

I quite disagree that "There is only one race, the human race." The only correction I would make to my OP is that Hispanic would probably qualify as a sub race, similar to Melanesian as an example.

Homo Sapiens are a Species. You and bluethread are wrong -- and a bit sight challenged. My OP is not based on a false premise. As Marco has pointed out, there are four distinct races: Caucasian, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid. These races are further divided into many sub races. Sure, they are social constructs -- necessarily so as their homelands dictate. But, whatever you want to call them, their differences are apparent and those differences are what drives the unending discrimination.

bluethread says that "significance" has arisen only because of "interaction" of the__________ (you guys fill in the word you want to use). Where does the fault lay in the interaction of the ___________ ? Why did "God" create and then separate them in the first place? The poll is valid!!

Before you continue this argument, you should first make the case that there actually are different races of homo sapiens.

I rest my case on the above, counselor.

[Donray]

Muslims and Christians think that killing is wrong. Do you take issue with their interjection of beliefs into laws and forcing you to abide by laws informed by those beliefs?

Tell me why Christians killed between 60,000 and possible 500,000 woman for being witches if Christians think killing is wrong. Tell me why the majority of army people are Christians and kill people if killing is wrong? Tell me why the Christians god killed everyone except for 8 by drowning?

Tell me why Muslims want to KILL anyone that makes a cartoon of Mohamed? Tell me why the majority of mass killing are done by Muslims hoping that Allah will provide a nice afterlife?

Tell me why God/Allah does not say something about the killing in there names?

[Danmark]

Before you continue this argument, you should first make the case that there actually are different races of homo sapiens.

I think anthropologists have already made this case, Danmark. I have no wish to walk unarmed between two battling armies, but I understand that homo sapiens is divided, generally, into 4 races: caucasian, mongoloid, negroid and australoid.

The word race generates lots of heat so perhaps we should speak of ethnicity. Obviously there are differences in appearance and in language between peoples on the planet and it would be absurd to deny this. The question is, why would God opt for such diversity? In Peter Pan I believe they ponder the question: What made the red man red? Perhaps the OP is merely an extension of this fascinating question.

No, Marco, you are wrong. Absolutely and completely wrong. Anthropologists do NOT agree homo sapiens are divided into 4 'races.' You assume this, but you cite no authority. I have. I'll cite more:

There is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable.
Lieberman, L.; Kaszycka, K. A.; Martinez Fuentes, A. J.; Yablonsky, L.; Kirk, R. C.; Strkalj, G.; Wang, Q.; Sun, L. (December 2004)

Here is a clear statement from the American Anthropological Association:
"There is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them."

Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
....
The idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.

From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery.
....
Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.
http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWi ... umber=2583

So, Marco, please document current thinking among professional anthropologists that agrees with your claim, or retract it. The entire concept of race is a myth, biologically. It is a social construct that had its genesis in colonization and slavery.

[marco]

No, Marco, you are wrong. Absolutely and completely wrong. Anthropologists do NOT agree homo sapiens are divided into 4 'races.' You assume this, but you cite no authority.

I did not say that anthropologists "agree". Apparently thy don't. I didn't invent the terms I used and I accept that modern American anthropologists have come up with theories more in line with correct political thinking. If this solves problems legally and socially, so be it. The boy who commented on the Emperor's clothes would nonetheless observe that people are of different colours and use different languages. The OP asks why a God would model folk in this way. A fair theological point, though anthropologists might weep over it.

My Encyclopedia Britannica gives five, not four categories but apparently the African group can be placed in one, rather than two. I may be at variance with learned opinion - neither of us are anthropologists so we rely on reference sources - but I would hesitate to believe my wrongness is absolute.

I have amused myself with reading about homo erectus and homo sapiens and Coon's theories on race but I see no profit for me in attempting to cover the entire literature on race. Though legal minds might not like the word -it has currency and meaning and I see no reason why we should avoid discussing it. Have a good day, Danmark - it is always interesting when we appear to disagree.

[2Dbunk]

Okay, say racial differences are a social construct. Obviously these are differences that the social constructors have adopted as visible credentia. As has been stated we are not anthropologists and both of you cite pretty legitimate stuff. But is this argument not moot in the face of the "spirit" of the OP as opposed to the more constrictive "letter" of the OP.

Danmark, as ineloquent as I may have drafted the OP, I think you understand what I'm saying. In your insistence "race" is not the correct term. Then what is the correct term? How would you better word my premise? I am trying to bring to the attention of religionists that visible __________ differences are seemingly their god's construct.

bluethread says that my OP is totally flawed. You seem to agree. So what? a dozen or so other participants haven't made mention of my supposed bad. They seem to find some merit in my premise, five of them voting in the poll and some voicing agreement with #3 but not voting. I don't purposefully post something that is flawed. Perhaps it should be worded differently but I think the spirit of my intended question is not too hard to understand.

[Strider324]

It seems you guys have devolved the thread to these niggling anthropological points of irrelevancy.

Back on topic - why would a God create people with black skin, epicanthic folds, white skin, and other obvious physical differences - knowing that it would lead to discrimination and bigotry? Theists have implied that blacks are the descendants of Ham and their pigmentation is a mark of inferiority in the eyes of some god. Modern day theists use skin color and bible logic to justify hate and opposition to inter racial marriage.

Isn't this the real topic here?

[marco]

It seems you guys have devolved the thread to these niggling anthropological points of irrelevancy.

You are right, of course, Strider, to call us back to the fold. In the endless, important search to see which race is the best, one should mention the argument that the Master Baker tried three times: first he took people out too early, and made them white; next he left them in too long and burned them black; finally, since experientia omnia docet, he tried again and produced the perfect golden specimens.

I'm not sure which colour Adam was.

[tam]

If people did not discriminate on the base of race, they would discriminate on the basis of something else. So there is really no need for God to 'make various races' as a test, though our discrimination/etc, on the basis of appearance, can still reveal something about us.

But people still would (and have) discriminated on the base of lineage, or country of origin, or religion, or tribe, or economic status, etc.

Take Israel for example. Israel was one 'race' (even though people of other 'races' left with Israel from Egypt, and other 'races' could be adopted into Israel). Israel was divided into 12 tribes, all united under David and also Solomon, but then no more. 10 of those tribes warred against 2 of those tribes (not on the basis of race), and so we got the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel. Judea and Samaria - with Jews discriminating against Samaritans (and probably also vice versa), but not on the basis of 'race'.



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

Back on topic - why would a God create people with black skin, epicanthic folds, white skin, and other obvious physical differences - knowing that it would lead to discrimination and bigotry?

Since it hasn't lead to "discrimination and bigotry" in myself and I am confident that I am not the only person on the planet, it seems that the premise ie variety will inevitably lead to discrimination, is false. And unless you yourself believe you are a "discriminating bigot" you too can testify to that fact.

Further, the bible narrative (I refer to the bible narrative because the question itself is, imo, supposing that there is a God that created humans as per the bible narrative) indicates that humans were given a perfect start and that had they continued on that way humanity would not have seen anything but beauty in our variety of physical features. That in fact was "the plan".

In short the problem doesn't lie in having brown skin or white skin, blue eyes or green, the problem lies in mankind forgetting a fundamental fact about the human race, ie. that we are all descendants from the same man and woman and are for all intents and purposes brothers and sisters, members of the same family; there should be no "in family" hatred.

Jehovah's Witness live by the above principle.

JW