Thank you Alan.
Enjoy.
God, the Bible, the BNP and the C of E
Introduction
Following criticisms of the BNP by at least nine ordained clergy, Lee Barnes, owner of the 21st Century British Nationalism blog, has kindly asked me to forward an article in response to these criticisms from my perspective as a professing, New Testament Christian believer.
I am very happy to oblige. My purpose in so doing is to show that these clerical critics are wholly (and unholily) at odds with the scripture in castigating the Party as they have done.
As official clergy, they therefore don’t have a critical leg to stand on and Party members ‘have a right to know,’ as the MSM would say.
As a professed NT Christian believer, I should point out that I believe the 1611 Authorized King James Holy Bible to be the pure and complete word of God, given by inspiration of God, preserved by Him without error and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
The AV1611 will therefore be my basis for answering the Party’s clerical critics, because it has rightly been described as the anvil that breaks all the hammers. It will do the same with these apostate clergy. Not all readers will agree with this approach but I trust it will be seen to be consistent.
Some over-arching Biblical observations are therefore in order and they follow below.
Note that emphases in Bible texts quoted are mine throughout this article. I may of course be falsely accused of wresting the scriptures, 2 Peter 3:16, i.e. taking them out of context but even the false accusers can’t deny that the various Biblical statements cited in this article were actually made.
Over-arching Observations
The main plank of the clergy’s criticisms is that the British National Party is un-Christian. It is right and proper to ask, therefore, just how ‘Christian’ are these critics? And just what do they mean by the term ‘Christian?’
Unfortunately, the second question above must remain unanswered because not one of the critics defines what a Christian is and how an individual becomes a Christian. Yet such a definition is surely germane to all their criticisms of the Party.
To get the scriptural perspective of a Christian, however, St John in his Gospel provides the Biblical definition of a NT Christian.
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” John 1:12.
In other words, a NT Christian is an individual in whom the Lord Jesus Christ lives, spiritually, by invitation. As the context of John 1 reveals, the Lord Jesus Christ is God incarnate and He has the power to indwell believers, spiritually, thereby transforming them, generically, into “sons of God.”
Such a definition clearly has no bearing on BNP membership. These clerical critics therefore have no business declaring anyone ‘un-Christian’ simply for BNP membership. They themselves are unbiblical in this respect and therefore un-Christian. (At worst, it’s ‘pots and kettles.’)
Secondly, these clerics are incapable of substantiating their diatribes against the BNP with even one verse of scripture. This is surprising because no fewer than seven of these nine anti-BNP clergy are Anglicans and Article VI of the Church of England’s Articles of Religion, entitled Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation plainly states, my emphases:
Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church [39 OT Books, 27 NT Books, 66 Books in all].
Since these clergy’s anti-BNP calumnies are uniformly lacking ‘Chapter and Verse,’ they can be summarily dismissed as unbiblical, un-Christian and contrary to the basic tenets of the national church itself.
Thirdly, each of these clergy accepts the title Reverend. Yet this title appears only once in scripture.
Psalm 111: 9b states “holy and reverend is his name” i.e. God’s.
It is therefore the height of presumption for any ordained member of the clergy to take unto himself (or herself) a term that in scripture is reserved for God only.
Yet that is precisely what these anti-BNP clergy do.
Fourthly, one of the six clergy is a woman, Rachel Poolman, yet NT church officers are uniformly male, as St Paul makes clear.
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” 1 Timothy 2:12.
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife” 1 Timothy 3:2.
“Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife” 1 Timothy 3:12.
Rachel Poolman cannot fulfil any of the above criteria. She has no business even being an ordained minister, let alone abusing that role to inveigh against a legitimate political party.
Fifthly, each of these clergy wears the clerical collar.
Yet the clerical collar has been a standard symbol of sun worship in all heathen religions since 1,000 BC (Mark of The Beast, by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1960, p 20).
In the Old Testament, the penalty for sun worship was death by stoning, Deuteronomy 17:2-5. Verse 5 states, “Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.”
Just as well for these collared clerics that the NT has superseded the Old but they are certainly unbiblical and un-Christian in adopting the dog collar.
In sum, these anti-BNP clergy are unbiblical and un-Christian in all five of the above respects. I shall now address the specific criticisms from the clergy in turn. To do so, I’ve selected extracts of their statements from the web logs where they appeared i.e. Lee’s and Simon Darby’s, where the critics most plainly contrast Christian belief and the BNP. The extracts are in Italics, with the first mention of the clergy’s names in bold and my responses are in Regular text, with accompanying scriptures in Italics.
Extracts from 21st Century British Nationalism leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/ blog article:
Why Jesus Would Never Have Been in the C of E
leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-jesus-would-never-have-been-in-c-of.html
The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dr John Sentamu, Lord Archbishop of York, at his inauguration as chancellor of University of Cumbria [said]:
“...Jesus would not support the BNP, nor would he appreciate his name being used to promote the party...[via a BNP billboard campaign]”
Chapter and verse? Sorry, none. John Sentamu is merely speculating.
“...BNP policies would have turned Jesus, Mary and Joseph away from their party and our shores. The Christian vision of society is one where each person is treated with dignity and respect, whatever their race or religion...”
The BNP would regard “Jesus, Mary and Joseph” as model asylum seekers.
They emigrated to the nearest safe country when danger threatened and returned to their homeland when the danger was past. Matthew 2:14-15, 19-22 describe what Joseph did when Herod the Great attempted to kill the child Jesus and then after Herod’s death, in obedience to God.
“He took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
And was there until the death of Herod... But when Herod was dead... he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel”
As for dignity and respect, regardless of race or religion, consider the words of the Lord Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry, first in reference to a Hamitic (black) woman, then to a habitually erring church member, then to the religious leaders of His day, whom He also repeatedly called “Hypocrites,” “Blind guides,” “Fools and blind” in the same chapter and finally in reference to the notion, apparently espoused by John Sentamu that ‘all religions are the same.’ (Publicans were Jews who collected taxes for the occupying Romans, like the EU-imposed VAT. They were hated.)
“Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs” Matthew 15:25-26.
“And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” Matthew 18:17.
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves” [i.e. by their religion] Matthew 23:15.
“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” [i.e. thanks to their religion] Matthew 23:33.
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” John 14:6.
Whichever “Christian vision” John Sentamu is referring to, it isn’t the one held by Christianity’s Founder.
The outgoing Bishop of Carlisle, the Right Reverend Graham Dow...told The Cumberland News that...
“The BNP’s message is a travesty of the truth...Jesus was inclusive. He taught us to love all people and he sent his disciples out to share the good news with every nation...”
This is what the Lord Jesus Christ said about ‘inclusivity,’ loving “all people” and “the good news.”
“He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” Matthew 12:30.
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” Luke 14:26
“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” Mark 9:43-44
“The good news” has some caveats to it.
Graham Dow goes on, nevertheless.
“A fundamental Christian principle is that the human race is one.”
It is not.
“And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem [Oriental], and Ham [black], and Japheth [white]: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread” Genesis 9:18-19.
“The human race” has three ancestors, not one. The BBC’s Dr. Alice Roberts is wrong, too. For example, the descent of early British, Anglo-Saxon, Danish, Norwegian and Irish Celtic kings can be traced back to “Japheth the elder” Genesis 10:21, i.e. a white European as distinct from either Oriental or African ancestry. “Japheth” means fair, i.e. light-skinned or white. See After the Flood, by Bill Cooper, New Wine Press, 1995.
Graham Dow goes on regardless.
“Jesus Christ sought to bring us back together again...I always like mixed marriages. They are a testament to God bringing people together...”
Not according to the Jesus Christ of the Bible.
“Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three” Luke 12:51-52.
“And a man's foes shall be they of his own household” Matthew 10:36.
Mixed marriages are a testament to God’s judgement of “the flood upon the world of the ungodly” 2 Peter 2:5. This is lengthy but bear with it.
In the pre-flood world, Cain, the son of Adam, murdered his brother Abel, Genesis 4:8. To avoid revenge killings, “The Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him” Genesis 4:15. This mark, which had to be visible from a distance, was passed to Cain’s descendants because in Genesis 4, the name of the offspring e.g. Cain, Abel, Seth, Adam’s third son, is synonymous with the term “seed” as in verse 25.
Thus the expression black mark is with us today, as are Cain’s lineal descendants, through Noah’s youngest son Ham, the name meaning burnt one or black. Adam’s other descendants, through Seth and ultimately Noah and his second son, Shem, were light-skinned and ruddy of hue, like David and Solomon historically, 1 Samuel 16:12, Song of Solomon 5:10, noting that Adam means ground and is associated with the name Edom, meaning red, Genesis 25:25, 30. That Shem evidently preserved Adam’s racial lineage intact, to judge by David and Solomon’s appearance, may be one reason why he was given a name that means renown or fame.
After God’s marking of Cain therefore, the pre-flood world consisted predominantly of two races, red or ruddy and black. That both races became increasingly mixed in the generations leading up to the flood is apparent first from Noah’s three sons, who were each racially different from the others. However, they all came from one couple, Mr and Mrs Noah, because Noah is said to have had only one wife, Genesis 7:7.
But in God’s providence, although Noah’s sons were racially different from each other, they each represented a pure racial stock (or gene pool).
This is apparent from Genesis 6:9, which states that “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.”
Of the pre-flood population, therefore, only Noah’s descendants could preserve separate, not integrated, racial identities. Even Mrs Noah was of mixed racial stock (though apparently her daughters-in-law weren’t), as the racial differences between her sons clearly show. However, because her husband “walked with God,” God in His mercy preserved those distinctions intact for replenishing the post-flood world, Genesis 9:1, because mulattoes, like mules, are eventually sterile.
It appears that in so doing, God clearly had to allow or impose a disproportionation in Noah’s offspring that concentrated Adam’s original bloodline (genes) in Shem and Cain’s in Ham. God could have wiped out the whole of the earth’s pre-flood population and made another man out of ground like Adam, Genesis 2:7 but instead, God honoured Noah’s righteous obedience, Genesis 6:9, 22 (“Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” Genesis 6:8) by preserving Noah’s descendants.
Some obvious questions arise.
Noah and Mrs Noah produced offspring not only from both pre-flood racial groups (Shem, red or ruddy, from whom are the Semitic and Oriental peoples, and Ham, black or burnt, from whom are the negroid peoples) but from a third group (Japheth, fair, from whom is the white race).
How, therefore, (or why) does a third race emerge? And how (or where) did these three sons apparently get wives of the same race for each of them such that their three racial groups were preserved in the post-flood era?
Complete answers aren’t possible but the scripture gives some indications.
God’s judgements always spare a remnant. For example, speaking of Israel’s survival as a nation, Isaiah states “Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah” Isaiah 1:9. Sodom and Gomorrah were two of “the cities of the plain” that God destroyed by “brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven” because their citizens “were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly” Genesis 13:13, 19:24, 29.
Noah’s daughters-in-law probably came from “a very small remnant” of world’s population that was otherwise becoming highly racially integrated. This remnant may well-nigh have died out by the time of the flood.
As for Japheth, he seems blessed with great resilience as the eldest son, as Jacob (founder of Israel’s twelve tribes) says of his eldest son, Reuben.
“Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power” Genesis 49:3.
Shem’s descendants (with few exceptions, e.g. Inuits, formerly Eskimos) inhabit temperate areas where tent-dwelling is possible year round, Genesis 9:27 and Africa (Egypt), with its warm climate, is the Biblical land of Ham’s descendants, where most of them still live, Psalm 105:23, 27, 106:22 and where year-round tabernacle or tent-dwelling is also feasible, Psalm 78:51. However, as God foresaw, Japheth’s descendants inhabit the harsher climes of northern Europe, where they need greater resilience to survive, which they received from their progenitor as the firstborn.
Blessed therefore with such greater prowess, Japheth’s descendants are best suited to fulfilling Jesus’s Great Commission, as stated in Mark 16:15.
“Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
Even though the Commission was originally given to Shemites, i.e. Jesus’s disciples, it was fulfilled globally by English-speaking Japhethites during the era of the British Empire, upon which the sun never set; Carey, Judson, Taylor, Brainerd, Livingstone, Paton, Martyn, Studd etc.
As forecast by Noah’s prophecy concerning his eldest son, the fulfilment of which was essential for the global spread of the Gospel.
“God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan [the son of Ham] shall be his servant” Genesis 9:27.
Note that Japheth was meant to journey to the lands of Shem and Ham, not the other way around. It is not surprising, therefore, that Japhethites, with their God-given worldwide missionary responsibility, should, in God’s wisdom, look different from Shemites and Hamites, to head off any possible ‘sibling rivalry’ that might hinder the Gospel. The first post-flood war in the scripture, Genesis 14, was between Hamites and Shemites, who remain natural enemies to this day, witness the perennial Arab-Israeli conflict.
The only way that God could prevent this antagonistic rivalry would be to make Japheth’s descendants fair i.e. white, thus showing no partiality to either of the other races that could exacerbate resistance to the Gospel. A white complexion of course is fine for Japheth’s northern homelands.
This is probably the most practical explanation for the three major racial groups as extant in the world today, from a scriptural perspective.
Moreover, this explanation underlines in part why God drowned out the pre-flood world. It had reproductively doomed itself, as Genesis 6:12-13 show.
“And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”
The corruption in verse 12, which is the second scriptural indicator of pre-flood race-mixing, Noah’s progeny being the first, indicates degeneration through race-mixing leading to mule-ism and sterilisation. The violence, verse 13, suggests that the antagonistic racial groups (red and black), having intermingled, were killing each other’s males, ravaging the females and producing a (sterile) mongrel race in a race war. This is the large-scale reality of race-mixing. So what Graham Dow likes, God abominates.
“And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God” Luke 16:15.
All this is far beyond the understanding of the BNP’s clerical critics, of course but it does show that their support of collective race-mixing is unbiblical and un-Christian.
Reverend Rachel Poolman...is president of the United Reformed Church in Cumbria...[She said]:
“...The BNP work by trying to play on people’s fears. They talk about having a Christian country, which implies that non-Christians are not welcome...”
No, it implies that Christians should witness to non-Christians about the salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ and help non-Christians to become Christians according to
John 1:12, which see. Silly woman.
Reverend John Goddard, Baptist network minister for Cumbria, said of the BNP campaign: “...There is no justification to use His name and image for their [billboard] propaganda. I genuinely believe Jesus would offer a welcome to all people whatever their ethnicity...”
Not necessarily.
“But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” Matthew 15:24.
See also Matthew 15:25-26 and associated comments above.
John Goddard’s “Jesus” is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible any more than Graham Dow’s.
Extract from Simon Darby’s blog simondarby.blogspot.com/ article:
Whirling Dervishitus
simondarby.blogspot.com/2009/04/whirling-dervishitus.html
The Rev Ian Bishop, of St Michael and All Angels Church, in Hightown, Middlewich: “In my opinion to vote BNP is to oppose Christian values and the Christian Church.”
Mr Bishop’s opinion is irrelevant. “What saith the scripture?” Romans 4:3.
Mr Bishop (Psalm 111:9b) continues.
“I have made it abundantly clear that I cannot see how it is possible to call yourself Christian and vote BNP. The Archbishop of York was recently quoted saying: ‘A vote for the BNP is like spitting in the face of God’.”
See remarks above on John 1:12. In addition, the only individuals recorded in scripture who actually spat in the face of God were “the chief priests, and elders, and all the council” Matthew 26:59a and members of the occupation forces of the Roman Empire, an early form of the EU.
“Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him” Matthew 26:67a.
“And the soldiers led him away into the hall...And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him” Mark 15:16a, 19a.
That is, the spitters were the apostate clergy and the heathen foreigners they were allied to, which clearly is of relevance for Britain today.
The Rt Rev Dr Alastair Redfern, the Bishop of Derby has signed a statement ahead of June’s European and county council elections...jointly with the Bishop of Repton, Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, and the Bishop of Sherwood.
Their joint statement says: “...We...confirm that the core beliefs and policies of the BNP are inconsistent with the teaching and example of Jesus Christ.”
St Peter succinctly expresses “the teaching and example of Jesus Christ.”
“For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously” 1 Peter 2:19-23.
On balance, BNP members who’ve endured wrongful arrests, intimidation, threats, false accusations, summary dismissal and even physical violence appear from the above to have followed “the teaching and example of Jesus Christ” a lot better than their critics like Dr Alastair Redfern.
Conclusion
The falsehood, false teaching and unbiblical, unethical and un-Christian prejudice against the BNP on the part of the nine clerics listed above has been amply demonstrated. In every respect, the AV1611 Holy Bible has soundly rebuked them. It remains only to issue a final Biblical admonition to each of them, from none other than the Lord God Almighty Himself.
“These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes” Psalm 50:21.
Alan O’Reilly
North Yorkshire, May 2009
Brilliant Alan, thank you very much, fantastic stuff.
ReplyDeleteFourthly, one of the six clergy is a woman, Rachel Poolman, yet NT church officers are uniformly male, as St Paul makes clear.
ReplyDelete“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” 1 Timothy 2:12.
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife” 1 Timothy 3:2.
“Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife” 1 Timothy 3:12.
Rachel Poolman cannot fulfil any of the above criteria. She has no business even being an ordained minister, let alone abusing that role to inveigh against a legitimate political party.--AlanOreilly
We shall agree to disagree on your implications regarding the racial aspect of things. We've gone over it in length via email already...not to mention it's fairly simple for readers to figure out. But the above represents a more plausible and widely accepted view held by too many church leaders (especially white ones).
As a woman who has become decreasingly race identified and increasingly gender identified, I'm naturally disturbed by what you are implying here. Then again, I've always been a bit troubled by Paul's writing re: women and women in the bible in general. At any rate, you've isolated one passage of scripture to show that women are to be silent and not exercise any authority where (teaching) men are concerned. Before I refer to any more passages, have you taken into consideration that Paul was focusing on his own directive (he said "but I suffer" not "God does not suffer a woman to teach").
Re: the husband of one wife issue. I notice each of the passages focus on the number "one" which suggests to me that it's teaching against multiple wives rather than the gender issue.
Care to elaborate on the gender aspect of your post?
Superb article Alan, superb.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read such an excellent and concise article as this before which succinctly addresses the arguments of the liberals and PC CofE Churchmen in their attacks on both the BNP and British Nationalism in general.
You provide good ammunition for Nationalists to use against the enemy when they use such religious attacks on the BNP and British Nationalism.
I think, though, that you could have used some more scriptural arguments and relevent Biblical passages that one could use in counter-argument against the PC liberal multicult Church brigade, particularly on the racial issue. I hope that you will follow this up Alan and do a follow-up.
Although a solid scriptural defence against our enemies, I would disagree with you on some historical points, in particular regarding women. In this I agree with Lormarie who expresses some concern as to the perception that Christianity is unfavourable to the role of women in the Church.
I see this as primarily the bias of Paul (who, in my opinion, took the embryonic Jesus Movement and transformed it into a projection of his own personal crisis and pagan/Jewish religious mixture, into a parallel religion that was a rival to the Jesus Movement, the religious movement whose dynasty still operated from its base in Jerusalem). Paul was a misogynst and was plainly hostile to the authority role of women in his movement (which could be termed Paulianism).
The role of women in early Christianity is clear as a perusal of historical sources illustrate. Women played an important role within the Jesus Movement, inclusing the much-maligned Mary Magdalene, whilst in Christianity's early missionary phase women, particularly women of means, played a very significant role and sometimes helped lead the movement.
It is to the anti-female and male chauvinist Roman Catholic Church that we must turn to to see the institutionalisation of the anti-female bias in Christianity.
Thanks, Andraste, you're welcome.
ReplyDeleteThanks, also, Lee, for the platform of your blog.
Hello, Lormarie
I figured you'd be prompt with a comment. Basically, it comes down to whether you believe the Book or you don't. That is something for the individual to decide but the Book will out in the end, Matthew 24:35.
But to address what I think are your main two points, first, women in the church.
Some more passages of scripture are of course 1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Corinthians 14:34-36. So the passage I took was in no way isolated, simply chosen for brevity.
Re: St Paul, you seem to imply he was speaking for himself and not by the Spirit of God. If so, St Peter would disagree with you, 2 Peter 3:16, as would St Paul himself, 1 Corinthians 7:40b.
Re: One wife, multiple wives, the passages should legitimately be taken both ways and either way Rachel Poolman fails to qualify, for the simple reason that she is the wrong gender, according to the passages.
There is little room for re-interpreting the word "husband(s)" to mean anything other than 'husband(s).'
Graham Dow said:
ReplyDelete"Jesus Christ sought to bring us back together again...I always like mixed marriages. They are a testament to God bringing people together...”
The argument against race mixing in marriage comes across as rather complicated in Alan's article. The usual argument against interacial marriage comes from Genesis 28:1, "And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan(who were black). Rather than accept this for what it is, modern interpreters of the Bible will try and say the prohibition was based on religious, not racial differences.
Like everything else in the Bible there is good reason to take the Bible at its word.
Negro genes are dominant over that of the White by a four-to-one ratio. This means that any offspring from such a union will always favor the Black parent. Therefore, inter-breeding of the races destroys civilisations.
Prime examples are India, (where the Aryans interbred with the dark skinned Dravidians of the South), Egypt (where the Caucasian builders of the Pyramids inter-bred with their Nubian / Sudanese slaves) and Brazil.
Carthage and the other great White civilizations of North Africa all vanished due to inter-breeding with the Negro.
Surprisingly, as late as 1950, mixed marriage between Whites and Negroes (or Asiatics) was banned in most of the United States including California, Texas, Arizona and most of the Southern states. In the Southern states, this ban continued until outlawed by a liberal Supreme Court on June 12, 1967
Regarding the role of women in the Church. The 12 apostles of Jesus Christ were all males, and those later appointed to be overseers and ministerial servants or deacons in Christian congregations were males.
It's not just catholics who don't allow women to preach from the pulpit, Jehovah's Witnesses don't either.
First I should say that the jury's still out on what I believe about women's role in the church. At this time, I'm inclined to believe that Paul's writing relates to the cultural mindset of his time that was necessary and right. It simply isn't beneficial today. But I have a few questions:
ReplyDelete1 Corinthians 14:34-36
34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
What if a woman isn't married (nor chooses to be married). Who should she ask if she wants to learn anything about the faith?
And also, what law was Paul speaking of when he said women should be under obedience? Was there a separate cultural law for the Corinthians? Was he speaking of the Mosaic Law?
1 Timothy 2:9-11
9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
Do you also believe that women should not wear jewelry, braided hair (even white women wear the french braid), or expensive clothes?
15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.What if a woman cannot or does not want to have children?
So shall I assume you believe that women should be silent according to the passage that you brought in? You once mentioned Dr. Rebecca Yoder in a previous conversation. I've had the pleasure of hearing her speak and teach both men and women in church.
But let's just say your assertion is correct. I don't have to teach men about religion nor do I want authority over them. But I can certainly teach women not to allow men (or women) with misogynistic leanings to direct them on their life paths, including their spiritual lives. Male only leadership in the churches has been detrimental to women in many cases. Thus, I think it's crucial for women to be church leaders.
What is the official BNP position on religion. I read Lancaster Unity and they claim that pagin/Odin worship is their belief of choice...covertly. If so, How do you feel about that? If it's not the religion of choice, does the BNP speak out against pagan worship? If not, how do you feel as a Christian aligning yourself with an organization that respects a religious practice that God hates?
These passages show that Paul did speak from his own personal views at times, from God at other times:
ReplyDelete6But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband
12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
25Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
Or this:
40But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
Of course. He had the Spirit of God to offer personal wisdom appropriate for his audience.
oops! unforgivable spelling error. pagin should be pagan...
ReplyDeleteRather than accept this for what it is, modern interpreters of the Bible will try and say the prohibition was based on religious, not racial differences.--Graham
It was certainly about religion since similar outrage was directed at "relations" with the women of Moab...Moabites were kin to the Hebrews if I'm not mistaken. Ruth was a Moabitess. Also, there were a couple of Canaanite women who ended up in the bloodline of Christ. I'm guessing that didn't matter because what was important was that He descended from David and Judah...female heritage likely didn't make a difference since women basically had no real identity back then. If one wants to argue against IR the best thing to do is use your example of genetics. Biblical arguments simply do not work since arguments can be made to favor IR.
Lastly, if you believe in taking verses as they are, do you also believe that you should cut off your right hand if it offends you? (Matt 5:30)
What do you think about the verse that says two men were in bed together one taken (to heaven I presume) the other left behind. (Luke 17:34). To take it for what it says would cause us to rely on what it means in today's world (gays) rather than what it might have meant back then.
Lastly, you all seem to be assuming that the major players in the bible were white. I say they weren't. And no, I'm not saying they were black either.
Thanks, Mr Potter, much appreciated. A follow-up article at some point may be feasible, I would hope, as issues arise that Lee draws our attention to.
ReplyDeleteRe: Women in the church, clearly I'll address this again when answering Lormarie's comments.
However, for now, just a couple of observations:
The Pauline Epistles are the main plank for NT Christian belief, especially the Book of Romans, in the full exposition of the Gospel of Christ.
That is, it's Paul's teaching that mainly shapes attitudes and perceptions and therefore behaviour, in countries where Christian belief prevails, or used to (e.g. the UK).
How, then, does this apply to women in the church and in society generally? I believe that the answer is both clear and extremely positive, for women.
My reasoning is thus:
To appreciate Paul's view of women and marriage, one only has to look at the position of women in nations where the Bible is believed and preached, especially Pauline doctrine, compared to those where it is not, i.e. bride burning (India), female circumcision (Africa), honour beatings and killings, paedo gangs, rapine and plunder (any Muslim country plus Muslim enclaves in the UK).
Also, Paul did espouse all the scriptures, not only his own writings, Romans 15:4, 1 Corinthians 10:11. Proverbs 31:10-31, which Paul would therefore have endorsed, is an astonishing testimony of a godly woman who successfully combined career, marriage, home-making and child-rearing - in about 1,000 BC, a much more patriarchal world than today.
Also, we find Paul ministering graciously to various women in scripture and commending them as his sisters in Christ; Lydia, the converted damsel of divination (like rescuing a vulnerable young girl from a Muslim paedo gang, she was being used for spiritual prostitution and apart from Paul and Silas and their companions e.g. Luke, nobody at the time gave two monkeys' about the girl's plight, quite the opposite), Acts 16, Phebe, Mary, Priscilla, Acts 18, Romans 16, Lois, Eunice, 2 Timothy 1.
Though Paul was called to the single life, a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven, Matthew 19:12, he endorsed all that the Lord taught about marriage, Ephesians 5:31 with Matthew 19:5. No-one's ever accused the Lord Jesus Christ of being a woman-hater. It seems a bit scathing, therefore, to accuse Paul of the same, epsecially when he exhorted "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" Ephesians 5:25.
That's the standard. Would sure help mend the 'broken (or breaking) society' if more husbands took it seriously.
I agree with you entirely about the RC Church and women. See The Priest, the Woman and the Confessional by Charles Chiniquy, The Convent Horror by Barbara Ubryk, Behind Locked Doors by Maria Monk, Sister Charlotte's Testimony, House of Death, Gate of Hell by L.J. King (hard to get but well worth the effort) as well as the Alberto series, by Chick Publications. Much of the material is 19th and 20th century accounts, i.e. not Middles Ages.
Hi Anon 02:42
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, most informative.
Re: Genesis 28:1 (and 27:46). You're quite right.
The main reason I back-tracked to Genesis 4, 6 was to pull together scriptures on the origins of race-mixing and the terrible consequences of it in the pre-flood world (worse happened, also but that was beyond the scope of the article).
All else stems from that.
For another example, note the sheer horror with which men of God reacted at 'the pluralistic society' writ large in Ezra 9, 10, Nehemiah 13, where "the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those [foreign] lands" Ezra 9:2.
Nehemiah's 'pastoral visit' to the offenders was 'something else' as you say over there, Nehemiah 13:25. Can't imagine John Sentamu doing likewise.
This may also be of interest.
Paul Broca published a study in 1864 on hybridity in the human race. He found that, in South Carolina, where white Anglo-Saxon males had cohabited with negresses, the mulatto offspring were "little prolific and short-lived."
See here.
Hope the link works, haven't checked it for a while.
He also reported that "the union of the Caucasian women with negroes is very frequently non-productive."J.H. Van Evrie, M.D. reached the same conclusions after studying "several thousand cases of mixed blood" and published the results of his research in 1868. A CD entitled Vatican Assassins 3rd Edition, by American Baptist writer Eric Jon Phelps, summarises Van Evrie's work and is obtainable via ebay.
Van Evrie concludes that the mulatto progeny of white males and negresses, who then inter-breed with other hybrids, are by the 4th generation "as absolutely sterile as muleism...it may be assumed as the natural and impassable barrier of this abnormal and exceptional being."He adds that "it is in the female hybrid that this tendency to decay...is most apparent. Many of them are incapable of nourishing or taking care of their offspring, and together with miscarriages and the numerous forms of disease connected with maternity, they are often found to have had a large number of children, not one of whom reached maturity."The BNP, of course, seeks to preserve the identity of the white race. In so doing, it also seeks to preserve that of other races. It is really today's race-mixers, therefore, who are the destroyers of all races, by aiding and abetting the Devil in removing "the bounds of the people" Isaiah 10:13, see also Acts 17:26.
What I find revealing in debates about the role of women in the church is how leftist/liberals rant and rave about the church being sexist, backward, not inclusive, etc. etc, and yet these very same leftist idiots never ever say anything about the blatant suppression of women in Islam. Quite interesting that.
ReplyDeleteHello again, Lormarie
ReplyDeleteRe: At this time, I'm inclined to believe that Paul's writing relates to the cultural mindset of his time that was necessary and right. It simply isn't beneficial today.Not according to St Paul, my emphases.
"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" 1 Corinthians 14:37.
"The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations" Psalm 33:11.
Paul's comments are not confined to the cultural mindset of his time. They are for all time and therefore necessary and right for all time.
Re: What if a woman isn't married (nor chooses to be married). Who should she ask if she wants to learn anything about the faith?Easy. The pastor, Jeremiah 3:15.
"And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding."Or a brother in Christ who is able and willing to provide answers to scripture questions.
Like a single lady in the US, who, thanks to the advantages of modern communications, has been emailing me with scripture q's since December last year virtually every day on all NT passges from John 15 to Revelation 22, inclusive and from Genesis 1 to 22, thus far. (I'll be addressing her latest q's when I get done here.)
Re: law, I believe it is the whole sweep of the OT, likewise endorsed by St Peter, my emphases.
"Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?" Genesis 18:12.
"Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." 1 Peter 3:6.
Chronologicaly, the historical Books of the English OT end with the Book of Esther. Here we have a universal decree laid down by a world ruler and never rescinded in either Testament.
"For he [King Ahasueru] sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people" Esther 1:22.
Church obedience of the woman is simply an extension of household obedience. See Ephesians 5:22-24.
This appears to be "the law" that NT writers, Peter and Paul, each endorse, across the whole sweep of OT history.
Re: "Do you also believe that women should not wear jewelry, braided hair (even white women wear the french braid), or expensive clothes?"1 Timothy 2:9-11 has to do with adorning, not wearing. None of the items mentioned are forbidden to be worn.
Paul is simply exhorting women to project godliness, not self, 1 Peter 3:4. Note the detailed passage in Isaiah 3:16-24. Here the issue, as in 1 Timothy 2:10, 1 Peter 3:4, is the heart attitude, which was rebellious towards God, and manifested first inwardly as haughtiness of spirit before the exhibitionist outward appearance was adopted, Mark 7:22 and note the reference to "pride."A black preacher once said, wisely, "The Lord doesn't care what you do. What the Lord cares about is, why are you doing it?"Likewise: "The Lord doesn't care what you wear. What the Lord cares about is, why are you wearing it?"
Re: 1 Timothy 2:15 and child-bearing, the passage simply refers to the situation where child-bearing is imminent and the associated difficulties, e.g. Genesis 3:16. Where the woman is not in a child-bearing situation, the problems don't arise.
Re: Male only leadership in the churches has been detrimental to women in many cases and associated comments.
Where this has happened, then the men weren't following scripture. If you want to see what is detrimental to women, try living under Qur'anic Law for a few years.
Re: The BNP and covert Odin worship and the question how do you feel as a Christian aligning yourself with an organization that respects a religious practice that God hates?For a start, this has nothing to do with the topic in hand, i.e. C of E criticisms of the BNP.
So I don't feel obligated to answer.
However:
You mean how do I feel about aligning myself with not one but two nations (Britain and Australia) where a huge proportion of their respective populations has no more time for God's Person, God's holiness, God's majesty, God's Book, God's church, God's salvation and God's Son than they have for a dead horse?
Slightly inconsistent.
A sense of proportion is needed in this respect, Lormarie. I'll try to explain.
Regardless of what happens clandestinally within the BNP, I know (and Lee could elaborate on this much better than I can) the Party has officially endorsed the UK's documents of State, starting with Magna Carta, 1215 and continuing with those of the 1688 Glorious Revolution under William III.
It would have to uphold them, therefore, if/when it came to power. Not to do so would be political suicide.
By contrast, the 'old gangster' parties have about as much regard for our country's constitutional documents as they have for last week's Beano (popular children's comic book of long standing in the UK). (But I still pay taxes to the gangster regime in charge and am not about to stop - more inconsistency, I guess.)
So for a Christian, who has the priviledge, not the right, in Western (nominal) democracies of participating to a considerable extent in those countries' governances, Romans 13, the BNP is really the only political show in town, whatever its faults.
In some respects, though, BNP policies, intentionally or otherwise, nevertheless match scripture quite well, e.g., encouraging 'workfare' not 'welfare' as far as practicable.
St Paul again, my emphases:
"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat" 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
I think most BNPRs, Odinist, Christian, Catholic, Jewish or non-aligned, would go along with that.
Hello yet again, Lormarie
ReplyDeleteRe: 1 Corinthians 7:6, 12, 25, 40 and Paul ostensibly speaking, "not the Lord."These are basically God-given booby traps set at various places in scripture to uncover the heart attitude of the reader.
Romans 4:2 and James 2:21 are two more examples.
My emphases again.
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" Hebrews 4:12.
As indicated in my first comment, God is concerned to distinguish (discriminate) between those who'll believe His Book and those who won't.
"For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word" Isaiah 66:2.
Apparent contradictions or inconsistencies in scripture are an excellent way of distinguishing this sort of man (or woman).
That way, it is apparent (to the people of God), who are the people of God and who aren't, 1 John 2:19.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."Essentially, person 'goes out' when they stop believing the Book. Figuratively speaking, God gives them "a writing of divorcement" Matthew 19:7 (which just happens to be a 'biblion apostasion' - an apostate's bible, e.g. an NIV or some other modern corruption).
But to answer your assertion, Paul was consistent throughout in speaking the Lord's commandments, as indicated in 1 Corinthians 14:37.
All he is saying in the 1 Corinthians 7 passages is that the Lord Jesus Christ didn't have anything specific to say on these issues that was recorded.
So, through His apostle, the Lord is saying them now, as the Lord Himself promised during His earthly ministry.
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now" John 16:12.
So to insist that Paul sometimes gave only his own personal views i.e. parts of his letters are not scripture, is in contradiction with the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and the scriptures themselves.
Re: the prohibition was based on religious, not racial differencesIt was both. See Ezra 9:2.
ReplyDeleteRe: there were a couple of Canaanite women who ended up in the bloodline of ChristExceptions prove the rule. They don't overthrow the rule.
Re: If one wants to argue against IR the best thing to do is use your example of genetics. Biblical arguments simply do not work since arguments can be made to favor IR.Invalid because you don't advance any genetic arguments. I did. See comments on the work of Broca and Van Evrie.
But genetics will never contradict scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Author of both.
Re: Lastly, if you believe in taking verses as they are, do you also believe that you should cut off your right hand if it offends you? (Matt 5:30)The Lord Jesus Christ believed it. That was the issue in the article.
Re: "What do you think about the verse that says two men were in bed together one taken (to heaven I presume) the other left behind. (Luke 17:34). To take it for what it says would cause us to rely on what it means in today's world (gays) rather than what it might have meant back then."You are wresting the scriptures, 2 Peter 3:16. When the scripture wants to delineate sodomites, it does so, e.g. Jude 7. Here no such delineation exists or needs to be inferred. Luke 17:34 is simply another boody trap that reveals the mindset of the reader.
Re: Lastly, you all seem to be assuming that the major players in the bible were white. I say they weren't.I'm assuming nothing of the kind. They were Shemites, not Japhethites i.e. "white and ruddy" Song 5:10.
Check Romans 3:2.
"unto them [the Jews] were committed the oracles of God."Neither your opinion on the matter nor anyone else's really matters, in the light of Romans 3:2.
"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" 1 Corinthians 14:37.
ReplyDeletePaul's comments are not confined to the cultural mindset of his time. They are for all time and therefore necessary and right for all time.--AO
25Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment,
So was Paul wrong when he stated that some ideas were based on his own opinions rather than God's commandments? Was he lying in the passage in 14:37?
Regarding your comments:
Paul is simply exhorting women to project godliness, not self,--AO
Re: 1 Timothy 2:15 and child-bearing, the passage simply refers to the situation where child-bearing is imminent and the associated difficulties--AO
Sometimes I ask questions simply to prove a point. I notice you rely on assumptions that are the most logical to you since neither passage explicitly confirms what you are saying. I'm not even going to claim that you are wrong about them. In fact, I agree 100% with your conclusion re: braids, jewelry, etc. The problem is that you allow yourself flexibility when it comes to the literal meanings that don't sit well with you. You don't appear to allow the same flexibility when it comes to issues that you believe fits into your personal worldview (women's roles in the church, race).
."A black preacher once said, wisely, "The Lord doesn't care what you do. What the Lord cares about is, why are you doing it?"Likewise: "The Lord doesn't care what you wear. What the Lord cares about is, why are you wearing it?" --AO
Oh really? Ask him how he would feel if his young female members came to church looking as though they are dressed to appear in a rap video. Is such a look appropriate for a Christian woman? Also, if God doesn't care what we do, why does the concept of sin exist?
Where this has happened, then the men weren't following scripture. If you want to see what is detrimental to women, try living under Qur'anic Law for a few years.--AO
I'll pass. In fact, I could probably lecture you on the dangers of Islamic rule. I'm still getting violent hate email over my post here: http://lormarie.com/2008/06/14/the-prophet-muhammads-crying/ most of which I don't post. Anyway, isn't this about the C of E?
PS: Agreed that such men aren't following scripture. I simply believe that male only leadership often leads to straying from scripture at the expense of women.
Re: The BNP and covert Odin worship and the question how do you feel as a Christian aligning yourself with an organization that respects a religious practice that God hates?For a start, this has nothing to do with the topic in hand, i.e. C of E criticisms of the BNP.
So I don't feel obligated to answer.AO
This wasn't supposed to be a bible study either but it has turned into such. Whatever the case, that was a "nice dance." I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the issue, though. You submitted something that I included on my blog previously...that post still gets hits. The OT has a lot of info on pagan worship...
In some respects, though, BNP policies, intentionally or otherwise, nevertheless match scripture quite well, e.g., encouraging 'workfare' not 'welfare' as far as practicable--AO
For some strange reason, your comment above brought back a quote an old preacher would say a lot:
The devil will lead you to 99% of the truth in order to trick you into believing one lie.
Re: Rev. Rachel Poolman, I don't think you would have had a problem with her if she came out in support of the BNP.
Lormarie
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. Re: dance, a good analogy. If the music has stopped, let me make a few clarifying comments as I escort you to the refreshment stand.
Re: So was Paul wrong when he stated that some ideas were based on his own opinions rather than God's commandments? Was he lying in the passage in 14:37?No, on both counts. He was speaking by the Spirt of God, Who cannot lie, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Titus 1:2. That some of Paul's comments appear to be personal simply means that the Lord's people are individuals, not automatons, robots or droids. See 1 Corinthians 15:10, where Popeye got his famous saying from but which verse shows God-given individuality and spirituality in harmony.
You don't become a complete individual until you receive the Lord's Christ, Luke 2:26 (yes, there's more than one of them around), Colossians 2:10.
Regarding your comments:
Re: I notice you rely on assumptions that are the most logical to you since neither passage explicitly confirms what you are saying...Both passages, 1 Timothy 2:9, 15, were exposited, though briefly and specific application was made. This is not the same as assumption. It remains to be shown that the expositions contradicted the scriptures cited.
Re: The problem is that you allow yourself flexibility when it comes to the literal meanings that don't sit well with you. You don't appear to allow the same flexibility when it comes to issues that you believe fits into your personal worldview (women's roles in the church, race).The scriptures don't ever contradict, i.e. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul..." Psalm 19:7.
That may account for the perceived inconsistency, which I don't believe exists. See remarks above about Paul as both an individual man and a spiritual man. When he said, "I, not the Lord" 1 Corinthians 7:12, the meaning that he was speaking as an individual only is out with Paul's own testimony, Galatians 1:16 and Peter's endorsement of Paul, 2 Peter 3:16 and therefore cannot be correct.
I believe that women's roles in the church and issues of race are well defined in scripture, Titus 2:3, 4, Genesis 9:25-27 and the only world view that counts is the scripture's, Matthew 24:35.
Re: Oh really? Ask him how he would feel if his young female members came to church looking as though they are dressed to appear in a rap video. Is such a look appropriate for a Christian woman?I think that proves the very point of Isaiah 3:16 and haughtiness, actually. The apparel is worn to glorify the Devil, "a king over all the children of pride" Job 41:34, not God.
Re: Also, if God doesn't care what we do, why does the concept of sin exist?Sin is not a concept, Lormarie. It is a reality. Never forget that, Psalm 51:5. Sin also begins in the heart, Jeremiah 17:9, 10. That is the issue, e.g. what's wrong with eating fruit, aren't we supposed to eat 5 pieces a day? Well, it's wrong if God says it is, Genesis 2:17. See also, Mark 7:20-23, which answers the question about acts that are genuinely evil.
The preacher, being a wise man no doubt, possibly said it that way to provoke the very reaction you came out with and encourage the breaking up of some fallow ground, Jeremiah 4:3.
Re: I'm still getting violent hate email over my post: here.Cowards. Though par for the course with that ilk.
Re: Anyway, isn't this about the C of E?That's where it started.
Re: I simply believe that male only leadership often leads to straying from scripture at the expense of women.As Brethren assemblies sometimes bear witness, even where they are Pre-millennial and KJB. They forgot that Christ is the Head, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Colossians 1:18. The church of Ephesus, Revelation 2:1-6, is an example of a church that dies because it becomes too formalised, which would be detrimental to women, even though it retains sound doctrine.
Re: This wasn't supposed to be a bible study either but it has turned into such. Whatever the case, that was a "nice dance."Agreed. Thank you.
Re: I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the issue, though. You submitted something that I included on my blog previously...that post still gets hits. The OT has a lot of info on pagan worship...Re: blog hits, that's good. Re: BNP thoughts, one simplistic answer is, "If you find the perfect church (or political party), don't join it because you'll spoil it."In practice, alliances in this world, of any kind, are likely to involve inconsistency. For example, I am a member of a 'Health Club' (gym) that plays incessant rock music that God hates as much as if not more than heathen religions. But there aren't any 'Christian' gyms locally that I know of.
I don't like 'pragmatism rules OK' but until the Second Advent, it's often likely to be the case.
If you'd like me to expand any such thoughts further, feel free to give me an invitation by email.
Re: The devil will lead you to 99% of the truth in order to trick you into believing one lie.The version I heard was the pint of poison in the lake of truth. If you want something about victory over the Devil, I could forward it at some point (not immediately). But be careful. The enemy doesn't his cover being blown, 1 Peter 5:8.
Re: Rev. Rachel Poolman, I don't think you would have had a problem with her if she came out in support of the BNP.Of course I wouldn't have. I only have problem with her being an ordained minister, as shown by the scriptures cited in that part of the article - and I'd still have that problem even if she was one of that select band known as 'BNP super-activists.'
my comments are bold.
ReplyDeleteRe: there were a couple of Canaanite women who ended up in the bloodline of ChristExceptions prove the rule. They don't overthrow the rule.
Do you think God would have made an exception if one of the ancestors of Christ wanted to marry another man? Serve other gods, etc?Re: If one wants to argue against IR the best thing to do is use your example of genetics. Biblical arguments simply do not work since arguments can be made to favor IR.Invalid because you don't advance any genetic arguments. I did. See comments on the work of Broca and Van Evrie.
But genetics will never contradict scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Author of both.
First of all, there are plenty of scientist who will disagree with you, especially among those who are atheist. At any rate, I should make it clear that I personally do not agree with the genetics argument. I'm simply implying that people are more likely to believe that instead of your interpretation of biblical texts.Re: Lastly, if you believe in taking verses as they are, do you also believe that you should cut off your right hand if it offends you? (Matt 5:30)The Lord Jesus Christ believed it. That was the issue in the article.
Ok, now I'm confused. This post was directed at a guy name Graham. Your answering as though you wrote it. Do you honestly take that verse literally?Re: "What do you think about the verse that says two men were in bed together one taken (to heaven I presume) the other left behind. (Luke 17:34). To take it for what it says would cause us to rely on what it means in today's world (gays) rather than what it might have meant back then."You are wresting the scriptures, 2 Peter 3:16. When the scripture wants to delineate sodomites, it does so, e.g. Jude 7. Here no such delineation exists or needs to be inferred. Luke 17:34 is simply another boody trap that reveals the mindset of the reader.
If you're going to be arrogant about this, there's no need to respond. The crazy thing is, you know exactly what my point is. You allow yourself to dig a little deeper to find the real meaning but not when it doesn't suit your worldview (i.e. women's roles in the church).Re: Lastly, you all seem to be assuming that the major players in the bible were white. I say they weren't.I'm assuming nothing of the kind. They were Shemites, not Japhethites i.e. "white and ruddy" Song 5:10.
And the "white and ruddy" still doesn't mean they were white as we know it today. Just as the female love interest isn't black as we know it today. 5I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.
Check Romans 3:2.
"unto them [the Jews] were committed the oracles of God."Neither your opinion on the matter nor anyone else's really matters, in the light of Romans 3:2.
I'll admit that mine doesn't matter. I bet you could not admit that yours doesn't.
Lormarie, see below
ReplyDeleteRe: Do you think God would have made an exception if one of the ancestors of Christ wanted to marry another man? Serve other gods, etc?No. The exceptions were predicated on a commitment to the God of Israel, as in the case of Ruth.
"And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me" Ruth 1:16, 17.
Re: First of all, there are plenty of scientist who will disagree with you, especially among those who are atheist. At any rate, I should make it clear that I personally do not agree with the genetics argument. I'm simply implying that people are more likely to believe that instead of your interpretation of biblical texts.I trust that they are God's interpretation, Genesis 40:8. Every Christian has access to this facility via God's Spirit, John 16:13.
As for scientists who disagree with me, not a problem. If they disagree with scripture, they come under the heading of "the oppositions of science falsely so called" 1 Timothy 6:20.
The scientists of Noah's day probably didn't think it could possibly rain. They were wrong.
What you have to remember is that not everyone can be a geneticist but anyone can be a Bible believer. That will therefore give anyone a proper handle on genuine science because the scripture accurately expresses the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamis, upon which all true science, including genetics, is founded, Nehemiah 9:6, Isaiah 51:6.
They can therefore have confidence in what the scripture says about race, even if they don't know a gene from a jean.
Re: Ok, now I'm confused. This post was directed at a guy name Graham. Your answering as though you wrote it. Do you honestly take that verse (Matthew 5:30) literally?Of course but note that the verse is NOT recommending self-amputation as a way to heaven. Note it says "IF." The Lord is simply trying to underscore the punishment of hell. IF self-mutilation (verses 29, 30) would get you right with God (by then receiving Christ, John 1:12), it's better to suffer it* than go to hell.
*The only case resembling it in scripture (not a self-inflicted one) is "the idol shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17, who does go to hell, Revelation 19:20. Disablement, for whatever reason, therefore doesn't imply disciplement (coined word).
The godly Archbishop Cranmer, when burnt at the stake by Catholic Queen 'Bloody' Mary Tudor in 1556, thrust his right hand into the fire and held it there until it dropped off. He declared "Thou unworthy right hand", because with it he had signed his recantation of the Protestant faith, after which he'd repented, re-embraced it and therefore been incinerated.
He wanted to make sure that nothing marred his testimony when he stood before God, so in a sense he did apply Matthew 5:30, though his salvation wasn't an issue.
Re: If you're going to be arrogant about this (Luke 17:34, 2 Peter 3:16, Jude 7), there's no need to respond. The crazy thing is, you know exactly what my point is. You allow yourself to dig a little deeper to find the real meaning but not when it doesn't suit your worldview (i.e. women's roles in the church).Arrogant with you, Lormarie? Never, surely (well, hardly ever).
If I understand you correctly (not sure I do), you think I should concede that someone today is at liberty to read into those verses whatever they like according to a 'modern' worldview e.g. endorsement of 'gay rights' so-called, or set aside any verses that appear to be 'down' on women in the church. They are not. The Bible is God's Book and He determines both what it says and what it means, Genesis 40:8, for all time, Psalm 33:11.
Re: And the "white and ruddy" still doesn't mean they were white as we know it today. Just as the female love interest isn't black as we know it today. 5I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.White and ruddy means white and ruddy, not white and fair like the northern European. Black means black, probably like Hagar, who was Egyptian, Genesis 16:3. However, as you cited, note the phrase "black BUT comely," my emphasis, implying the two characteristics weren't usually associated in the eyes of an Israelite male of Solomon's time (sorry if that's a possible racial slur). So this Egyptian princess is clearly another exception, the typology being that Christ gets a gentile bride out of the world, Ephesians 5, typified by Egypt in scripture, Deuteronomy 4:20.
Re: I'll admit that [my opinion] doesn't matter. I bet you could not admit that yours doesn't.Of course it doesn't. That's why I've not given it once in 8 comments. I've only given you the scripture. You dispute some of my comments on the scripture but you haven't shown how they are inconsistent with scripture, or that my alleged worldview is out with scripture either.
May I have this next dance, or do you want to sit this one out?
Re: Do you think God would have made an exception if one of the ancestors of Christ wanted to marry another man? Serve other gods, etc?No. The exceptions were predicated on a commitment to the God of Israel, as in the case of Ruth...."And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me" Ruth 1:16, 17.First I want to make it clear that I DO NOT believe the bible supports same-sex rights, marriage or whatever. I'm just using these questions to prove a point. With that said, I have another question. What if let's say, King David married a man who demonstrated a commitment to God. Would that provide an exception in God's eyes? Would you classify that as a Godly union? (Even if you did, I doubt you would say so, LOL). My point is this: Do you realize that you are in a sense supporting the argument that the restrictions were based on religion and not race?
ReplyDeleteThe scientists of Noah's day probably didn't think it could possibly rain. They were wrong.
...the scripture accurately expresses the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamis, upon which all true science, including genetics, is founded, Nehemiah 9:6, Isaiah 51:6.I'm not an expert on all things scientific. I've witnessed many formal debates between Christian and scientifically inclined atheists so I must admit something. Scientists tend to outperform the Christians when it comes to scientific arguments and the bible. They often demonstrate that some biblical assertions are flat out wrong when it comes to fully tested, peer reviewed evidence...like the age of the earth. The debates get so intense to a point where theists often adjust their view to fit science rather than the other way around. It's no surprise that most scientists are atheists.
If I understand you correctly (not sure I do), you think I should concede that someone today is at liberty to read into those verses whatever they like according to a 'modern' worldview e.g. endorsement of 'gay rights' so-called, or set aside any verses that appear to be 'down' on women in the church. They are not. The Bible is God's Book and He determines both what it says and what it means, Genesis 40:8, for all time, Psalm 33:11.See first set of comments.
White and ruddy means white and ruddy, not white and fair like the northern European.Understood. But I think the term "white" simply means that he was a light skinned man.
Black means black, probably like Hagar, who was Egyptian, Genesis 16:3. However, as you cited, note the phrase "black BUT comely," my emphasis, implying the two characteristics weren't usually associated in the eyes of an Israelite male of Solomon's time (sorry if that's a possible racial slur).--AO
That's not a slur since it was this dark girl who was used as such a prestigious example from a spiritual standpoint. Do you or a black guy or Asian guy feel it's a racial slur that I find men from Latin or happas backgrounds to be the most physically attractive among men? Just making a point. The only thing that bothers me about this girl is that she was one out of possibly 1000 women Solomon had. That's another biblical issue that bothers me.
Of course it doesn't. That's why I've not given it once in 8 comments. I've only given you the scripture. You dispute some of my comments on the scripture but you haven't shown how they are inconsistent with scripture, or that my alleged worldview is out with scripture either.Again, see the first set of comments. *For the record, I don't agree with Poolman regarding relishing at the site of mixed couples. Then again, I'm from the US. Mixed unions say very little about the state of race relations...at that's he case in the US, IMO. I've simply never heard a credible argument against it using the bible.
May I have this next dance, or do you want to sit this one out?Well you believe in racial stereotypes, right? According to them, white men can't dance.
Re: Do you realize that you are in a sense supporting the argument that the restrictions were based on religion and not race?No, I'm not. They are still based on both. In Ruth's case, the restrictions were lifted because she followed the true God of Israel. On the racial aspect, God took care of any potential reproductive problems because "the Lord gave her conception" Ruth 4:13.
ReplyDeleteRe: Scientists and Christians in debate. I haven't seen any US debates, or ones over here, either. However, I do know that Professor Andy MacIntosh, Chair of Combustion Engineering at Leeds University, UK and also of the Creation Science Movement in the UK, has taken part in such debates and I believe is a formidable opponent (Prof. Richard Dawkins, the Oxford Uni. evolution guru over here, fights shy of him). I know that he has an extensive speaking ministry in the US, so he's one to keep alert for. On the age of the earth, a lot of the CSM material is good, check their site, as is The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell. Peer review sounds impressive until you realise that the peers are all evolutionists, so any biblical approach is likely to get short shrift.
Re: light-skinned. Also ruddy, that's why that qualifying adjective is there.
Re: The only thing that bothers me about this girl is that she was one out of possibly 1000 women Solomon had. That's another biblical issue that bothers meUnderstandably. It ruined both Solomon and his nation, 1 Kings 11:1-8. The typology w.r.t. Pharaoh's daughter remains, though, because she was the only one of that 1,000 to have a Book written about her.
Re: Mixed unions say very little about the state of race relations...at that's he case in the US, IMO. I've simply never heard a credible argument against it using the bible.Perhaps it is not pc to do so in the US. It is also the case of whether or not you believe the scripture to be credible. Ezra 9:2 (again) and Nehemiah 13:24 denounce the mingling of seeds and the emergence of a "mixt multitude" Numbers 11:4 as distinct from any religious objections, though the scripture addresses these as well, Nehemiah 9:26.
Re: Well you believe in racial stereotypes, right? According to them, white men can't dance.This one doesn't, actually.
I believe in racial distinctions as stated in scripture, Genesis 9:25-27.
That said, I'd better call for a taxi...
P.S. I will send you some preliminary stuff asap on heathen (pagan) religions. Watch that space.
However, I do know that Professor Andy MacIntosh, Chair of Combustion Engineering at Leeds University, UK and also of the Creation Science Movement in the UK, has taken part in such debates and I believe is a formidable opponent (Prof. Richard Dawkins, the Oxford Uni. evolution guru over here, fights shy of him). --AO
ReplyDeleteI'll be sure to look him up and maybe do a post. I'm sure the atheists who come to my blog will come out swinging.
Re: Mixed unions say very little about the state of race relations...at that's he case in the US, IMO. I've simply never heard a credible argument against it using the bible.Perhaps it is not pc to do so in the US.--AO
Actually, you'll find many people who agree with your view on race. It just so happens that most people reject the idea that the bible forbids it...even among those who are against mixing, IMO.
Ezra 9:2 (again) and Nehemiah 13:24 denounce the mingling of seeds and the emergence of a "mixt multitude" Numbers 11:4 as distinct from any religious objections, though the scripture addresses these as well, Nehemiah 9:26.--AO
But the scripture I gave you about the "two men in bed together" was distinct from any sodomy objection.
BTW, Ezra 9 (the entire chapter) suggests it is a matter religion/lifestyle rather than race as you say.
Nehemiah 9:26--I don't see your point here. It appears to be in reference to Israel's disobedience after conquering land owned by another group.
Nehemiah 13:24-- When the Jews mixed with those people, the children took after the practices of the pagans (heathens) However, verse 26 provides the reason:
Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.
26Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin.
Phrases:
mixt multitude-- that appears a couple of times in the bible. No indication is given that this is a negative thing all by itself. Especially in light of Rev. 7:9 where it also speaks of a mixed multitude. There appears to have been a "mixed multitude" in Acts. My conclusion is that it depends on the situation rather than "mixed multitudes" being the problem.
Holy seed-- that appears to be nothing more than a term of endearment rather than a biological mandate. See Isa. 6:13
I believe in racial distinctions as stated in scripture, Genesis 9:25-27.-- AO
If that floats your boat. For others, there are more serious things to be concerned about...as stated in Scripture:
1 Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
I got your email about paganism. I'll read and post it ASAP. I also created one losely based on our conversation here (since we are the only ones talking about it here).
Re: But the scripture I gave you about the "two men in bed together" was distinct from any sodomy objection.If you take the verse as it stands, yes.
ReplyDeleteRe: BTW, Ezra 9 (the entire chapter) suggests it is a matter religion/lifestyle rather than race as you say. It is both. Note the use of the word "mingled" in verse 2. Note also the use of the word in Daniel 2:43. That doesn't simply refer to religion and lifestyle, though these are two of the negative effects for Israel that stemmed from the original race-mixing.
Re: Nehemiah 9:26, 13:26 was the verse that should have been cited, sorry for any confusion.
Re: Nehemiah 13:24-- When the Jews mixed with those people, the children took after the practices of the pagans (heathens) However, verse 26 provides the reason:Yes, it does. It provides the religious reason, in addition to the cultural reason (verse 24) and the racial reason. All three combine to destroy nations via race mixing, which is why God set up bounds, Acts 17:26, which the Devil takes down, Isaiah 10:13.
Note that, like the "mixt multitude" of Numbers 11:4, the mixed children of verse 24 drop off the radar and never form a nation of any significance.
This is usual for racially mixed populations of the post-flood era, as various texts show, unless God mercifully intervenes, as He does on exceptional occasions.
But that is the ethnic or racial downside of 'integration,' along with the others.
Re: mixt multitude-- that appears a couple of times in the bible. No indication is given that this is a negative thing all by itself. Especially in light of Rev. 7:9 where it also speaks of a mixed multitude. There appears to have been a "mixed multitude" in Acts. My conclusion is that it depends on the situation rather than "mixed multitudes" being the problem."Mixt multitude" as such occurs in Numbers 11:4, with the variant "mixed multitude" in Exodus 12:38 (as a matter of report) and in Nehemiah 13:3. They were characterised by lust and complaining (which spreads). That is negative. In Nehemiah 13:3, the separation was physical, not simply ideological. It's as near to a 'whites-and-ruddies only' text as you'll get in scripture for enforced segregation or 'ethnic cleansing.'
Again, the connotation of "mixt(ed) multitude" is negative.
Revelation 7:9 refers to "a great multitude" not a mixed one and the partitions are clearly given, as in Acts 2, where distinctions are drawn on national lines.
You should review your conclusion, therefore.
Re: Holy seed-- that appears to be nothing more than a term of endearment rather than a biological mandate. See Isa. 6:13
Not with the use of the word "substance" and the first uses of the word "seed," as it relates to humans, Genesis 3:15, 4:25, first usage always being important. See also comments on Daniel 2:43.
The term cannot be dismissed as merely figurative.
Re: If that floats your boat. For others, there are more serious things to be concerned about...as stated in Scripture:
1 Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.Racial distinctions are not the same as genealogies. You are conflating (mingling) two quite separate issues.
Moreover, without the racial distinctions of Genesis 9, you would not have the Saviour i.e. "blessed be the Lord God of Shem" verse 26. I believe that is of paramount importance.
Note that the "endless genealogies" of 1 Timothy 1:4 are associated with "fables," i.e. they are not biblical genealogies.
By contrast, racial distinctions are real. You ignore them at your peril.
Re: posts etc., that is good, thank you.
By contrast, racial distinctions are real. You ignore them at your peril.--Alanorei
ReplyDeleteI certainly will ignore them just as I happily ignore all sorts of man made mandates (like giving 10% if your income to the church or else you will be cursed by God, LOL--yup, Christians make up all sorts of crazy mandates)...thanks anyway.
Genesis 9 is not manmade.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you're welcome.
LorMarie wrote: I certainly will ignore them just as I happily ignore all sorts of man made mandates (like giving 10% if your income to the church or else you will be cursed by God, LOL--yup, Christians make up all sorts of crazy mandates)...thanks anyway.I too ignore man-made mandates, that is why I completely reject politically correct rubbish. However what is interesting to observer is how leftists are quick to attack Christianity as somehow being untrue and yet they adhere like the most pious fanatics to the scripture of political correctness - I guess they have simply replaced one religion with another (not that they could ever admit that).
ReplyDeleteAdraste,
ReplyDeleteFirst I should say that I was not implying that the bible is man made. I was referring to Alan's interpretation regarding race. It's no different than other things that christians come up with (like the tithing issue I mentioned).
Whatever the case, that's not the deal breaker for me. I have problems embracing Christianity because of biblical issues that ARE true (book of Job, some Mosaic laws that might be considered child abuse today, blind faith, the lack of clarity on baptism vs. spiritual salvation, unpardonable sin, polygamy, position of women etc).
Most exChristians who reject the bible do so not because of PCness. They do it because they are repulsed by what they read or because of scientiic study.
Think about it... Why did catholics discourage members from reading anything other than psalms or the NT?
Real faith isn't blind. It's believing what God promised, as Abraham did, Romans 4:20, 21.
ReplyDeleteThe basic reason for rejecting the Bible is found in John 3:19. The rest is a smokescreen.
Re: race, as yet, the material in the C of E article has not been refuted, only denied.
As for science, I suggest read True Science Agrees With the Bible by Malcom Bowden of the Creation Science Movement, or any of the CSM material. Pseudo-scientists have been trying to find scientific errors in the KJB for decades, if not centuries. They haven't yet (and won't).
Re: Catholics. Check Why I Left the Church of Rome by ex-priest Charles Chiniquy, friend of Abraham Lincoln. He said this:
"If [Rome] could be free to fulfil her own laws...you would be burnt on a scaffold for that Bible."Anything the pope says about the scripture is one manmade decree you can ignore.