Other Existence of race

[Roosh]

When you have groups of Orthodox clergy kowtowing to the powers that be, like in statements like this, what's the valid alternative? Orthodoxy is not found in obeisance to the state.

Here's a portion of the statement:

That “all nations of men” are “of one blood” clearly indicates that any biological differences between so-called “races” are superficial at best. “Race,” when used as a classification based on external characteristics (such as skin color, facial features, and differences in eye and hair color), is a largely artificial construct that has never been used as a legitimate ethical or theological category within the Church. When we speak of race within the Church, we speak of the fallen “race of Adam,” and the “Christian race.” There are no races, in the sense of there being an objectively definable category of "race" as we commonly use the term—only humans with any number of different phenotypical descriptors. Most emphatically there is not a “Caucasian race” or a “Negro race” or an “Asiatic race.” There are nationalities, linguistic groups, cultural associations, and so forth, but these have only an accidental relationship to phenotype.

[Delete]

 

[Basilus of Moro]

Here's a portion of the statement:

[Delete]

Yes, I remember that statement. In context, some of those priests - perhaps just one - were trying to avoid persecution by saying they were not racist. I know one such signatory who was in that boat, but he was "fired" by his bishop anyway, so it didn't help him much. That said, the statement is incorrect, surely. God made ethnos, dividing the peoples of the world into their respective tribes, and of course solidified these distinctions, distinctions that are not oppositional in the Church, through racial differences. The differences are very deep, and mysterious, finding root even in various sins that becomes deeply embedded character traits that can only be overcome with much prayer and fasting. Metropolitan Neophytos writes,

"He talked about the cerebral memory, that is, that every brain has a memory; the cellular memory—Saint Porphyrios said that every cell has its own brain, its own memory full of information. Each cell intends, for example, to become this or that, a nose, or a kidney. The cell then has its own particular genome. This is what Saint Porphyrios was saying as I heard him in 1985. Geneticists discovered as much just two years ago, that is, that there is a second genome within each cell. Lastly, there is a third kind of memory, as John Romanides says in his Theology. This is the memory of the heart, that is, the memory of God. But it also holds the memory of all of our ancestors, which slowly go from our cellular memory into our heart. We must repent for our own sins, passions, and mistakes, but also for our ancestors’ as well."

And yes, there is only One who is sinless. That said, we should distinguish between those guides who do not error in any matter of the faith-- these ones do exist in our times--and those who struggle well, but perhaps have various errors in subtle matters. It's best not to dwell on that, though. The issue of race is one that many people are unaware of. For some of these older American priests, the above statement you quoted is read like, "People are part of the Church no matter their race. In reality, we are all from Adam." Although it is in fact a denial of the deep effects of sin, and God's decision to divide the nations by more than mere externals, it comes from a good disposition for some of the signatories.

 

[JustinHS]

Here's a portion of the statement:

[Delete]

I don’t see anything wrong about what that statement said, far from leftism. Race was historically tied to ethnicity, and specifically which god you worship (pre-modernism). It wasn’t until the 1800s that race shifted into being about melanin content (modernism) and connected to Darwinism.

This is why post-modernism is a double edged sword, because it questions and deconstructs modern beliefs, but inadvertently returns some false modern beliefs back to pre-modern, and in our case: what the Church has always believed because it retains the Orthodox phronema (pre-modern).

 

[JustinHS]

Also, to piggyback on the race issue: Fr. Stephen wrote in Religion-Apostles that Caleb was genetically Egyptian, yet he was counted among the race of Israel because of his faith. St. Paul says the same thing. Our race is Christian, not Semitic, not black, not brown, etc. St. Peter has a vision of all animals being co-signed by God, so he baptized Cornelius’s whole family (Acts 10). Making race about genetics is falling into the Darwinist frame.

 

[DanielH]

Also, to piggyback on the race issue: Fr. Stephen wrote in Religion-Apostles that Caleb was genetically Egyptian, yet he was counted among the race of Israel because of his faith. St. Paul says the same thing. Our race is Christian, not Semitic, not black, not brown, etc. St. Peter has a vision of all animals being co-signed by God, so he baptized Cornelius’s whole family (Acts 10). Making race about genetics is falling into the Darwinist frame.

Race is materially real, it has implications for climate preference, cold/heat tolerance, bone structure, muscle type and function, cartilage structure, hair color and form, skin pigmentation, disease resistance and susceptibility, gestation duration, childhood development, mean IQ (though many things impact IQ), and behavioral tendencies. Medicine dosage sometimes needs to be adjusted based on race. There are also problems with mixed race marriages and mixed race pregnancies tend to be less healthy.

Race is spiritually not real in that it doesn't matter as far as participation in the Church. No race is superior. In the eyes of the Church there is no race that matters. Yes, the mixed peoples in Exodus were freely allowed to join Israel. This is a type of the gentiles joining the Church. We shouldn't care whether someone is Jew/Gentile, White or Black, when considering their ability to join or lead in the Church. The mixed peoples in Exodus were a type of this.

Spiritual concerns are superior to material concerns. Both are real. Nobody is afraid to say what I wrote in my second paragraph. Many are afraid to say what I wrote in my first paragraph. It is no less correct.

 

[Basilus of Moro]

Also, to piggyback on the race issue: Fr. Stephen wrote in Religion-Apostles that Caleb was genetically Egyptian, yet he was counted among the race of Israel because of his faith. St. Paul says the same thing. Our race is Christian, not Semitic, not black, not brown, etc. St. Peter has a vision of all animals being co-signed by God, so he baptized Cornelius’s whole family (Acts 10). Making race about genetics is falling into the Darwinist frame.

This is a good topic deserving of its own thread, and one I'd be very interested in seeing what others think, or what they can find in the Fathers. I remember a quote from St. John Chrysostom that went something like, "Before Christ, the different races or ethnicities hated each other; now we love one another." - or something like that.

I do not believe, nonetheless, that this entails the decimation or dissolution of race in the Church. We still retain those features, even in paradise (think of the nations worshipping around the throne of God in St. John's Apocalypse), and perhaps there are natural gifts that certain races or ethnoi have that are offered up to God in thanksgiving. As the quote from Metropolitan Neophytos stated, and by extension, St. Porphyrios, the sins of our ancestors affect our hearts, so that we need to repent of these things. Similarly, the virtues of our ancestors vivify and uplift our hearts, as we learn happened with the Theotokos through her righteous ancestors. We are told indeed that mothers must pray and preserve a peaceful disposition while child bearing, and breast feeding, to ensure her children receive God-pleasing purity. Additionally, parents should try to procreate with as much purity of heart and on the days the Church has ordained to avoid issues. The key is that the Church renders distinct things no longer opposed by virtue of the conquering of enmity and death that sin (and the devil who wields it) puts between all of Creation. Man is no longer opposed to woman, and vice versa. Jew is no longer opposed to greek, etc..

There's a really instructive quote from St. Nikodemos in "Unseen Warfare" on character faults, which are not acquired, but things one is born with. These require a deeper kind of asceticism to uproot. I think this is something that races/ethnoi have as well.

 

[JustinHS]

Race is materially real, it has implications for climate preference, cold/heat tolerance, bone structure, muscle type and function, cartilage structure, hair color and form, skin pigmentation, disease resistance and susceptibility, gestation duration, childhood development, mean IQ (though many things impact IQ), and behavioral tendencies. Medicine dosage sometimes needs to be adjusted based on race. There are also problems with mixed race marriages and mixed race pregnancies tend to be less healthy.

Race is spiritually not real in that it doesn't matter as far as participation in the Church. No race is superior. In the eyes of the Church there is no race that matters. Yes, the mixed peoples in Exodus were freely allowed to join Israel. This is a type of the gentiles joining the Church. We shouldn't care whether someone is Jew/Gentile, White or Black, when considering their ability to join or lead in the Church. The mixed peoples in Exodus were a type of this.

Spiritual concerns are superior to material concerns. Both are real. Nobody is afraid to say what I wrote in my second paragraph. Many are afraid to say what I wrote in my first paragraph. It is no less correct.

If I were able to like posts I would.

Wasn’t the term “race” co-opted by darwinists to support their thesis of Anglo superiority as a “favored race”?

So, I wonder if what you essentially described as phenotypes in the first paragraph was called something else in pre-modern times? “Peoples,” perhaps?

 

[Basilus of Moro]

If I were able to like posts I would.

Wasn’t the term “race” co-opted by darwinists to support their thesis of Anglo superiority as a “favored race”?

So, I wonder if what you essentially described as phenotypes in the first paragraph was called something else in pre-modern times? “Peoples,” perhaps?

Is there a thread devoted to this? Someone should start one if not. These are questions I have as well, but lack the answers. I know, for example, the germans didn't have a word for race. I think they merely had the word "volk" or people. The Greeks as well prior to a certain period called everyone who wasn't a Greek a barbarian. Generally, though, it seems there has always been an acknowledgement that families are different, tribes are different, and this gets more and more general the broader the category (naturally). The important point is that all of these stratifications are real. Sometimes it seems people doubt their existence merely because they are somewhat vague, but vagueness doesn't entail the lack of a thing. Beards are vague too, that is, the point at which hair becomes a beard is not precise, but of course beards do exist. For Orthodox Christians, we have the concept of logoi, which are not identical with logical relations between terms, but are in fact the Divine orderings, patterns, categories, etc. that are all directed to, in and through Christ. The nations have roles to play in history, and so they have logoi.

 

[SeanGarrison]

Forgive me for adding to the derail. This is worthy of a separate thread.

Racial identifiers (White, European, or specific ethnic labels) are defined by the degree of outgroup contrast. A rural town in Minnesota may consist of Finnish, Swedish, and German inhabitants who identify as such, but when you add an equal number of Somalis and Guatemalans to the town, those original sub-groups then identify along the boundary of a new common denominator (European/White), as do the new groups (Brown/Black). The degree of outgroup contrast exceeds the differences between the sub-groups themselves.

I take specific issue with the notion that writing off innate differences and dissolving ethnic boundaries promotes peace and prosperity. The forced cohabitation of competing groups within a defined area and suppression of group identity (an inevitability in any such environment) is a source of chronic tension and conflict. It's difficult to identify wars and genocides throughout history that weren't influenced by these factors.

If our goal is peace on earth, why promote the exact opposite of what fosters peace?

 

[Roosh]

Racial threads have historically gone very bad on the forum. I shouldn't have added to that discussion in the first place. Let's halt that discussion for now.