You mean like the Bible tells us?  Women must lie beneath the man and subject themselves to his will. 

By the way...race is a construct of society, NOT A SCIENTIFIC CLASSIFICATION!  The closest science comes to race is a subspecies like the eastern and western bluebirds.

Very nice way to support Godwin's Law.    Darwin=Hitler!  Scary, evolution must be wrong!

Nazis were Nazis...leave it at that.  Just because they used something to justify their atrocities doesn't make the idea itself evil.  They also believed in organic food...is that inherently evil?

 

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean inherent worth is better...it deals with what is able to survive and reproduce successfully.  There's nothing racist about it.  Society is caught up on race, that's the issue and as with anything they look for justification for it in whatever they can.

~Zoo

Did you ever see the movie Idiocracy? If not, go rent it.

I'll wait.

It's a scary movie.

~Zoo

No, but I want you both to go see "Expelled when it comes out in April.  But com'on SC you can do better than this.  Give me some feedback here. 

Then why the original title?  Did you NOT know that Darwin was a racist? 

I agree with that. 

Did you read this article Zoo?  Didn't I just say the beliefs of men here were not coming from the bible?  Where does it say in the bible women were inferior?  Jesus, in fact elevated women quite often.  It was to women he first showed himself after the resurrection.  The men didn't or wouldn't believe them because of the culture but scripture NEVER puts women down.  In fact there are some pretty good strong women stories in scripture.

I can see you're probably trying to throw in the "submission" thing?  Do you even understand the context to that?  It has nothing to do with inferiority by the way.  No more than Jesus was being submissive to his father's will which he kept telling us.  No more than we are to submit to one another in love.  It has to do with roles, not superiority.  A woman is "superior" to man when it comes to childbearing, right?  Does that make her better because she can give birth and men can't? 

So show me where women are inferior to men in scripture.  I can show you where it does say that we are all equal.  Men, women, slave, and free.  All are created equal.  Abraham Lincoln knew that and wrote about it.  It doesn't mean man listened but scripture says differently. 

 

 

Yeah, but you'll never laugh so hard at being scared so badly. It's the most horrifyingly humorous movie EVER MADE.

Okay, I'm really done. Just waiting.

Tee hee! Yes I agree with Zoo, equating evolution with racism is a bit of a stretch indeed.

The bible practically does preach different races, namely the divide between jews and gentiles. According to the bible they are God's chosen people. Why? Why is a specific cultural group of humans more favoured than all other humans by the creator of the entire universe? Because some people a few thousand years ago made some decisions that pleased the creator of the universe and because of it their offspring are the chosen ones for the rest of time? Sounds kind of fishy to me.

Let's get this straight right away, I'm about as far away from being anti-semitic or racist as possible, but let's explore this-

In order for the Jews to be God's chosen people (across multiple generations), it has to be because of their genetic heritage passed on between generations. If it was simply because of culture, morals or religion anyone could convert to the Jewish culture/faith and be recognized as a jew. While you can marry into the culture and can convert to the religion, you're never really a 'real' jew, because you don't have the blood in you.

There is a divide in the bible between gentile and jew, and the only way to be a jew is to be born into it. So therefore, it has to be because of something unique in their genetics. That, or it's simply because their forebears made such great decisions in their short lifespans that God decided to reward them and their offspring for the rest of time. Yeeeeah, I'm sure the creator of the universe decided to do that.

Sorry SC...can't watch it and you're gonna laugh at me.....(what's new?)   but......do you know why?  I just checked it out online and found out it was R rated.  I don't see R rated movies unless it's historical as in historical violence only. 

Can you tell me why it's scary/funny tho.  I'm naturally curious. 

I just found this on Wiki to go along with the Loving Vs Virginia story

In 1966, the Presbyterian Church took a strong stand stating that they do not condemn or prohibit interracial marriages. The church found "no theological grounds for condemning or prohibiting marriage between consenting adults merely because of racial origin". Months before the Supreme Court ruling on Loving v. Virginia the Roman Catholic Church joined the movement, supporting interracial couples in their struggle for recognition of their right to marriage.

 

Yes, but you're mixing up the spiritual with the physical.  The reason for the divide was religion.  The only thing we are told to do is to NOT marry outside our faith.  In other words we are to be equally yoked spiritually.  It says nothing about race. 

Again, it's about internals not externals.  See the difference? 

 

 

Unfortunately in todays society (American), people associate the message with the messenger.  I think it is stupid as well.  Just because a person has bad traits does not mean that their work - in whatever field- is then descended from that bad trait.  Yet we do it all the time.

We must examine the work for itself and decide whether it is flawed by the prejudices.  Not throw it out because we do not agree with the views of the researcher.  But I hold out no hope for that happening as we have even seen here recently.

Not many people know that the National Birth Control League was co-opted by Margaret Sanger, a well-known supporter of Hitler's "purification" plans.  She changed the organization's name and goal.  Under her leadership, "Planned Parenthood's" goalwas to reduce the number of Black people (and other "unfit" people) in America.

“It now remains for the United States government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or a yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. . . . [A]sk the government to first take off the burdens of the insane and feebleminded from your backs. Sterilization for these is the remedy”  ~~Margaret Sanger on the Federal Government's role in eugenics.

Here's more to go with what Ted said: 

Darwin and his disciples were not only pseudo-scientists, but they were also radical, rabid racists! Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin, who laid the foundation of racism and imperialism that resulted in Hitler's racist regime.

Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."

The major haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men like Nietzsche (who often said God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race, and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, and Stalin were all outspoken evolutionists, and these people and their theories have been responsible for the slaughter of multi-millions of people, and the destruction of freedom all over the earth. It is amazing that so many liberals, radicals, fascists, communists and the easily impressed worship at Darwin's shrine.

Yes, the foundation of racism, hatred and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching.

For the whole article go here:  http://www.cstnews.com/Code/BasisForRacism.html

Plenty of racism, hatred, and violence has been based on false religious teachings, too, which I'm sure some kind person will come and point out as if we believed that the inquisition or the crusades were a good idea...

So too were much of the clergy of "the new world" Which decided that many of the native cultures were savages and needed to be forcefully converted, wiped out or controlled, whether by the sword or other means of coercion.

Millions of aboriginals were wiped out or enslaved in Africa and the Americas long before Darwins' work had permeated much of popular western schools of thought.

And, there were the crusades of course in which the European empires decided that Jesus wanted them to go on a rambo-esque rampage through the holy land. Cause' you know he was only kidding when he said love your neighbour as yourself- what he REALLY meant to say was take what you want and stomp the daylights out of anyone who gets in your way! At least, that's the way the church seemed to be selling it in those days.

Now does this mean I'm anti-christian? Not at all. What it does mean is that people will always try to take a concept and twist it to make it fit or justify their ideological beliefs. Evolution, yes, has been used as an excuse to do terrible things but so have multiple religious and political systems down through the ages.

The spanish inquisition was one such church sponsored gem in which lotsa people were rounded up and tortured to confess (and then killed). Lotsa love was in the room there!

These are also the same folks who killed Galileo for stating that the earth revolved around the sun.

But anywho- at it's core, there is absolutely nothing racist about evolution. It's a theory, and actually doesn't contravene creationism or preach inequality at all. Darwin was actually a pretty religious guy. He was just trying to explain the mechanism behind how we got here. As to his personal beliefs about other races, I can't speak to it. If he was a racist, than that is indeed sad, and is not defensible in any way. Truth is down through history most citizens of empires that were expanding their reaches have always been pretty racist. It's difficult to justify expanding one's empire through war, slavery and subjugation if you see other cultures as equal human beings.

What we do know for sure is that the world is a heck of a lot older than 5,000 years. And no, the dinosaurs were not wiped out at the same time that noah climbed into his ark- they were here looong before men were. And no, man has definitely not been here since a few days after the beginning of the world. Woulda been a tad too hot for us, and we would have had to be able to survive on an iron-rich diet of molten magma for millions of years..... hhhhmmmm...... magma......

Thanks.

I don't care if he was racist or not.  His ideas and theories are the important meat of the matter.  What does his being racist have to do with the theory of evolution?  Not a darn thing.

Now...the Bible has women submit to men.  To be submissive.  This gives men power over women...more power= more superiority. 

You don't see many(if any) stories focused on women and what they do to contribute to God's word.  They either play a supporting character or a vague one dimensional aside.  No story comes to mind where the woman was in control, where she called all the shots, spread the gospel.  Seems to me God always talked to the man...man always came first: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jesus and all the apostles, and many many more.  All I ever hear them mentioned as is baby carriers or a cause of conflict.

Not very "empowering."  Also there's the entire practice of slavery.  How is a slave equal to an owner again? 

Here's a nice bit from Leviticus equating slaves to property...not people, but possessions.

25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that [are] with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Equality, huzzah!

~Zoo