January 03, 2006

You Make The Call: The KKK vs. Reformed Kinists (& Some Southern Reformed Theocrats)--What's the difference? Really?


If it walks like a duck AND quacks like a duck. . .

Reformed kinists in various Calvinist associations say this: "In the attempt to create a One World, Babylonian government, a relentless campaign is now underway throughout the world to eradicate racial and ethnic distinctions. White Christians are the foremost targets of this campaign.

Kinism is the belief that the ordained social order for man is tribal and ethnic rather than imperial and universal. Mankind was designed by God to live in extended family groups. The Jacobin doctrine of Equality is destructive, is antithetical to liberty, and is ultimately unachievable. Blood ties are the only natural and workable basis for a healthy society not subject to the ideologies of fallen man. We believe this is the normative system for our people.

We at the Kinist Institute believe that our White people have a God-given right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as a distinct nation. This is primarily to be achieved by converting our people to the religion of our only Savior, Jesus Christ. Therefore, we denounce the sin of miscegenation as a violation of Godís created order which has permanent consequences for every heritable trait. We appeal to Godís creation mandate of kind after kind. It is the obligation of both church and state to forbid mixed unions according to biblical laws prohibiting unequal yoking."

The White Camelia Knights of the Klu Klux Klan say this:

White Christian Israelites are under Godís law and covenant. The other peoples of the earth are under natureís law, which God also created. One good example of this would be the Japanese or Asian people. The Japanese have always practiced racial separation and have always taught against race mixing. In fact the Japanese have stated that Americaís biggest problem is due to integration of the races. The Japanese or Asian people are not directly under the lawís of God as the Israelites are, they are how ever under the law of nature and they have segregated themselves to maintain their racial purity and national sovereignty.

Natureís law, which is a creation of YAHWEH, dictates that kind reproduce after kind. The different people of the world were never supposed to mix. Even the different animals and species of our world practice natures law of reproduction "Kind after Kind".

Integration of America is a key component in the destruction of our race and nation. If one were to merely look at the economic structure of America and Japan you would recognize our biggest failure has been our interracial policies.

This is the reason why the Japanese economy far exceeds Americaís. While the Japanese have kept their markets restricted, thus maintaining their high lifestyle. America has opened our markets to international trade which has cost us jobs and is lowering our living standards. The Federal Government is constantly attacking Japan for restrictive trade policies failing to understand that the Japanese are more concerned about their peopleís economic national sovereignty. On the other hand the Federal Government is more concerned about the international economy than our U.S. national economic sovereignty.

If this treason continues the American people will suffer because of lowering labor standards and lowering wages. America is on the road to racial and economic destruction. In the near future the term "Third World Nation" which is a code phrase for a non-White sub-standard nations, will fit America."

So what's the difference between the two groups? Browse both websites and you make the call.

Now if your church associations had known klansmen actively participating that would be a problem for some people but the kinists are merely tolerated. This is unfair. So some guys wear suits and ties on Sundays and others wear white robes and hoods.

Most conservative churches would not allow people to come to church with their white robes and hoods but they have known kinists and yet do nothing. However,I am open to correction if someone can tell me the difference between the two groups.

You make the call. . .

I'll probably posts this seperately later:

The Klu Klux Klan says this:

Racial suicide all in the name of equality is insane. In the Klanís opinion, it shows a lack of love and caring for the White Race. The Klan believes Whites are superior to the Non-Whites. When someone comes to a Klansman and makes the comment, Ďwe are all Godís creation and the only difference in the Raceís is the color of the skiní, we tell them that they are partially correct. God is the creator, and he did create us all, but there is a world of difference between the races besides skin color.

Reformed, Calvinist Kinist H. Seabrook says this:

When we say we love the South, we mean that we love the Southern people. And make no mistake Ė the Southern people are white Christians descended from the north and west of Europe; the very same Americans who founded and sought to preserve the old republic. Take them away and the South ceases to be Southern. Likewise, when white Christians have ceased, Western Civilization will have ceased. There is nothing particularly wrong with Mexicans, Asians, and blacks, but donít expect them to carry our heroes, myths, and traditions into the 22nd century. They have heroes, myths, and traditions of their own. No one else is going to maintain the culture we inherited from our ancestors. No one else is interested. Mexicans, Asians, and blacks are not going to be impressed by anyone waxing nostalgic about the good old days of Anglo-Protestantism, and they certainly could not care less about the Confederacy.

Posted by anthony at January 3, 2006 08:05 PM | TrackBack

Why do you even care? Demand that they live their own lives, and not bother you, or your people. That's the only way. Klansmen, Kinists, Black Power types all must obey the law. If they have problems with other groups, they must stay away from those groups and, keep to themselves.
You get angry and, bothered about groups that are small minorities. Of course, you have said that you favor the development of an Afro-Centric
culture away from whites. Many of the Kinists want the same. Nothing wrong with either point of view.

Posted by: Zrazys at January 3, 2006 09:42 PM

Zrazys, ah, I never said I favored "the development of an Afro-Centric culture away from whites." Where did I say that. That perspective belongs to the various afro-centric schools that exist.

Actually, Zrazys they have been 'bothering me' directly for over a year--so that's why I care.

Here's some helpful background for you: http://anthonybradley.worldmagblog.com/anthonybradley/archives/021292.html#comments

Posted by: Anthony at January 3, 2006 09:56 PM

Here's what I don't get. The idea of white people as a family is complete idiocy. Until a very short time ago (in terms of the history of the human race), all of Europe was divided into various tribes. If the kinists truly believe in tribal distinctions, they must further segregate us according to our various European heritages.

I, for instance, would belong to six different tribes, three if you count the British Isles as one tribe (but try telling a die-hard Irishman that). I'm pretty certain that my Norwegian, German and British ancestors did not like each other very much at one point and were at war with each other off and on for a very long time.

If the kinists truly are in favor of tribalism, then they're trying to attain the impossible. There is no white race, just as there is no blonde race. And, dare I say it, no black race. Both continents are or were made up of hundreds of tribes. To claim that their beliefs are founded on a tribal view of the human race is completely crazy.

Posted by: Vida at January 3, 2006 11:15 PM

"conservative churches" thats an oxymoron! These bigots and racists are not christians! Small and fear filled men, little more. I would extend sympathy. Darkness is a lonely place to live out life.
Jesus was a BLACK man, not some white, blue eyed blonde european.

Posted by: glen at January 3, 2006 11:27 PM

Mr. Bradley,

Your the theologian who teaches Christian apologetics at a Reformed seminary. If YOU can't tell the difference in the two statements, your the one I feel sorry for.

Posted by: David at January 3, 2006 11:50 PM

Jesus was black? That's news to me. I was under the impression that he was Jewish, a rather Arabic-looking man.

But yes, the depiction of him as an Anglo-Saxon has always bothered me.

Posted by: Vida at January 4, 2006 12:00 AM


Your right. Jesus was a man of Jewish decent and would have looked very similar to those who live there today. He's wasn't black or white.

Posted by: David at January 4, 2006 12:07 AM

Mr. Bradley,

If you were really interested in learnig about Kinism, why don't you talk to one? I've tried contacting you on several occasions (Matt 18), but you've ignored my attempts. But I will try, since you've opened it up for discussion, to respond to some of what you've wrote.

THE KKK says,

"White Christian Israelites are under Godís law and covenant.The other peoples of the earth are under natureís law, which God also created. "

There are so many things wrong w/ this statement, I'm not sure where to begin. All people are equally responsible to keep God's law, and all are equally unable to do it. That's why God sent His Son to fulfill the Law perfectly for us. There is nothing in Scripture that supports "White Christian Iseralites" is even as legitimate biblical category.
Kinist certainly don't make those distinctions.

The KKK compares themselves with Japan. Kinist believe they must compare what they believe and do with God's word. It is easy for the KKK to compare themselves with other fallen men, but as Christians, we are called to live our lives based on God's Holy Word. Kinist would reject this false form of comparison. There are many more differences I could point out, but since this is probably going to be deleted anyway, I'll stop here for now.

If you wish to discuss this further, I'd be more than willing to do so.


Posted by: David at January 4, 2006 12:18 AM

The Ku Klux Klan compares what they believe and do with God's word:


Posted by: Anthony at January 4, 2006 12:54 AM

Lay down your fear and share your hurts. You are welcomed and invited to participate in life. Do not be fooled into believing that old garbage that's regurged over and over by petty men. catholic and summarian, christian and muslim, all belong and have much to share. atheist or theologian, it does not matter. How we live our lives, the "content of our character" that is what matters. These groups always look for excuses for anger and hate, better to live life fully without limits.
best regards

Posted by: glen at January 4, 2006 12:58 AM


Thank you for the link, I'll check it out

Posted by: David at January 4, 2006 09:04 AM

HA!HA!HA!HA! Glen And Anfernee - two reprobate peas in a li'l ol' reprobate pod! Gal. 3:28 makes everyone, Chrisitan, Muslim, and athiest, the same, doncha know! HA!HA!HA!HA!

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 4, 2006 09:54 AM


Thank you for reference to that KKK site. It is good to know what type of things are actually out there. I would gladly stand beside you, as a Kinist, in rejecting what they are saying. Anyone that has to use that degree of exegetical gymnastics to prove what their teaching should be avoided.

Let me point out three, of the several problems I find with their intepretation of the bible.

1. Was Jesus a Jew? Of course he was. They would DENY this, Kinist wouldn't. Jesus couldn't fulfill His role as kinsmen redeemer if he in fact was "kin" to the Jewish people. So, Kinist would reject this view of Christ held be them.

2. Their view of Jesus' Sheep/Goats parable is completely wrong. There is no warrant to make that imply racial seperation. That is a soteriological passage dealing with eternal desinity, not race. Kinism would reject that understanding of this passage.

3. The KKK tries to limit Christians to the White race "Christian Identity". Kinist reject this as well. The gospel of Jesus Christ is availiable to anyone (regardless of race) who calls om His name. Trying to limit salvation to one race, limits both the scope and intent of the work of Christ in His atoneing work. Kinist would reject this view of salvation as well.

Rather the gospel is for people of all races, nations, tribers and tounges. God created all the races and therefore all men are made in HIS image, and therefore beautiful.

Again, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you, Anthony, or anyone in opposing this manipulation of God's Word.

Posted by: David at January 4, 2006 10:00 AM

Given the isolation these kinist wish, isn't it funny how much prostelitizing they feel compelled to do? Why the explanations? If in fact the dna of us all really originates from a single family in africa, doesn' that stop much of that nonsense? More exposure to radiation over time means more melinin in the skin. Why are there no historically black populations the furhter away from the equator populations live? I would argue that tribalism is a bad hangover from hunting and gathering populations in the past. Evolution will continue to weed that out of the population pool, thank god. There is the percieved pressure or pursecution of the extremes of religion to consider. Christians control the largest part of the religious world. How is it that the majority is somehow persecuted? The facts are clearly against such ignorance. The christians have many sins to answer for. slavery being the most readily at hand example. Of course this same blather by folks has been repeated with regularity since the reformation in one vien or another. I would suspect the holy roman church prosecuted many of these same branches of thinking. (of course up until the late era of the reformation the church controlled history...more tightly?!)
I would reccomend authors like funk, or spong as the only real way forward for the rest of christianity. Marcus Borg did publish some very good scholarship related to this issue at oxford I think, I would have to do some more digging but that is possible. Hate groups, and back to the good old way movements, never seem to quite die. The near extinction of native american culture, the genocide of aboriginal cultures. Social justice at the end of a gun. Missionary zeal?
Only in america can such predudice and hate still find footholds. Driven by the greatest fear of all...reality!
best regards

Posted by: glen at January 4, 2006 12:18 PM

There are def. differences b/n kinists & the Klan. The Klan has a long history of violence & terror. Kinism is a relatively new movement whose adherents propose seperation & hatred but have as yet taken no action. Kinism is a heresy that needs to be confronted & opposed by all believers.

Posted by: R Leverett at January 4, 2006 02:13 PM

"Black Kids Need Afro-Centric Education Away From Whites"

That title quote was the reason I believed that you said that "the development of an Afro-Centric culture away from whites."

The next sentence then states that is essentially the view of that institute in Atlanta. I personally don't see any reason to be alarmed by their philosophy, and if you don't agree with them, that's fine as well.

Posted by: Zrazys at January 4, 2006 05:39 PM

You are dead wrong. Kinists do not propose hatred. Our purpose in separation is to preserve the races in all their beauty. This is something Anfernee is against, as are most diversity-fascists, as Anfernee and his ilk hate White people and wants the race done away with. Furthermore, separation does not mean isolation.

All races, including the White race, should be preserved. All races will be represented in Heaven, despite Anfernee's desire to do away with them, especially the White race, which he hates with every fiber of his being

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 4, 2006 05:52 PM

Mr. Smith, what, exactly, is the "white race"? Skin color is a very superficial distinction between people groups; a white person's ancestry could be anything from Portuguese to northeast Russian. See my comment above for more.

Posted by: Vida at January 4, 2006 07:03 PM

I can see why you care, especially those that refer to you as "Anfernee." In addition, I've seen some comments about interracial couples on a few sites, refering the white women as whores,even when they were married, along with other rude comments.

Posted by: Zrazys at January 4, 2006 07:07 PM

I'm not a kinist, but it's easy for anyone to see what the white race is. Blacks see it, many whites see it, Asians see it, Hispanics see it. You have really try to invent ways to not see it. The issue isn't that race doesn't exist, but what the various races do about it.

Posted by: Zrazys at January 4, 2006 07:14 PM

More like a scab that just won't heal, these frightened little men pick at it. Every few years thier hatred erupts violently and does more harm. We need to do whatever we can in the U.S. to isolate and identify the more extreme groups. Our country desparately needs to have a national dialogue and a lot of listening. I suspect the kinsist view themselves differently. The theocracies in iran have alot in common with the theocracies here in the states.
best regards

Posted by: glen at January 4, 2006 07:43 PM


You're missing my point. I can certainly see the different between white, black, Hispanic, etc. Those who want to keep the white race pure, however, are deluding themselves when they justify their views by throwing out some excuse about tribalism or what have you. My ancestors, although all white, did not all coexist peaceably as one big happy tribe; many hated each other and fought and killed each other. That's what I mean by it being a superficial distinction.

Posted by: Vida at January 4, 2006 07:45 PM

I don't expect the kinsist can understand it but futayama set the dna question to rest, the human genome project sort of sealed the package. Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html the link for a more thourogh discussion of modern sythesis. The common ancestor we all share is not questioned anymore.We have 130 years of agreement in biology and empirical evidence that should put these arguments to rest. The remaining questions are why are the theocrats and thier ilk so desparate? What can be gained( or lost) from honest dialogue? Reality is white euro-centric men have dominated and abused a good part of the rest of the world. Thier greed and lust have been exposed for the petty selfishness it is.If we intend to move forward much accounting is due. Even more forgiveness is needed.
best regards

Posted by: glen at January 4, 2006 08:17 PM

Read this:


This study was done by Stanford University, hardly a bastion of support for White people.
But, even without the study, we have God's word, which says that in Heaven all races will be represented, and certainly that includes the White race, regardless of Anfernee's hatred thereof. I think I know what you're getting at, though, that race is more than skin color - much more. I agree with you all the way down to the Celtic cockles of my potato-eatin' heart (I hope you get the joke!). But, skin color IS a part of race. It is only the most visible part of one's God-given racial identity. And one's racial identity should be respected, not "tolerated", respected, something Anfernee should learn. And only reprobates like Anfernee want to dilute the races to nothing more than a mass of creamed coffee-colored Genericans.

The races exist. They are all beautiful. And they should stay beautiful.

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 4, 2006 08:42 PM

How about it Mr. Smith? That is a good study...It means that people are able to identify thier race and are usually acurate. It lends evidence to the arguement that doctors don't need to rely only on" expensive genetic testing to tailor treatment." I would appriciate it if mr.smith would expand on his reason for citing it as an arguement for eugenics.
best regards

Posted by: glen at January 4, 2006 09:07 PM

Glen, you half-wit, I said nothing whatsoever about eugenics.

If you want to continue posting, stay off the drugs.

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 4, 2006 11:19 PM

Ooh, I am hurt. Why so much anger? I merely point out that your arguements for the study didn't seem to bare at all any of reason for using it. No, I am sorry, you did not say eugenics. Your arguements seem to be the same arguements that Rudin,Ploetz and Frick used. Your purity blather is racial hygiene with a different wrapper, nothing more.
I would share a cold one with you given the circustances.
best regards

Posted by: glen at January 4, 2006 11:43 PM

I'm not angry at all! I was giggling when I read your posting. The misspellings, the innovative grammar, the non sequiturs, it all made for a very funny little blurb.

Judging from your misspellings, innovative grammar, and non sequiturs, it's clear that you've already been imbibing a few too many cold ones, and I don't want to be accused of encouraging the delinquency of a minor.

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 5, 2006 09:29 AM

Ha, no great skills with the english language for sure. A programmer not a linguist. I can usually convey my intented question or thought though. So are you going to write an answer to the question or attack my admitted failure with english? How about, another name for racial purity or hygeine or just a lot wishing it was the good old days? I enjoy the historical novelty. I admit some blindness in historical research, but the accusation of racsism and bigotry are accurate. Violence and hatred is the end result.
best regards

Posted by: glen at January 5, 2006 10:26 AM

Sure Glen, I'll answer your question, insofar as I'm able to figure out what you're asking, what with the grammatical train wreck your writing presents.

But, you must first define "eugenics", "bigotry", and "racism". Without these defintions, I am completely unable to address your question.

By the way, one need not be a linguist to construct simple sentences that are grammatically correct or to spell simple words.

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 5, 2006 01:57 PM

mr.smith, there is no reason to be ...obtuse. It just doesn't seem like you want to be direct. Here are some wiki links and a link to the united nations report on racism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hygiene
Your definitions for my questions are different than these? Without sounding umm...windy?? Answering a question with a question is distracting. Wouldn't it save us both some typing, if you just wrote the definitions in your own words? We could talk about history or intent. History definitely is on my side. Wouldn,t it be better to speak about intent? I am evidently more liberal than you. I support the green party. I really beleive this nation must begin to have a dialogue about the future before there is not a future to talk about.
best regards

Posted by: glen at January 5, 2006 02:53 PM

You are avoiding me. I don't care how wikipedia defines anything. I can see why you like it though. Anyone can edit anything in wikipedia at anytime. One definition today can be quite different tomorrow. Of course, that serves the purposes of folks like yourself and Anfernee perfectly: as soon as someone shows the foolishness of your arguments, you can simply change the definitions. And the United Nations? Get real, Glen.

This is our discussion. Not wikipedia's, not the United Nations. I need to know how YOU define racsim, eugenics, and bigotry. I want to make certain we're talking about the same things. As things are now, racsim means so many things that it means nothing. Just tell me what you mean by those words, and we can go from there.

I'm perfectly willing to answer your question. I'm giving you the opportunity to set the parameters; a wise debater wouldn't pass up such an opportunity. It should be a simple thing for a liberal guy like yourself, since liberals see racism behind every tree; especially if that that tree has White bark, if you know what I mean. Get to it.

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 5, 2006 10:19 PM

mr.smith, usually liberals see cowards with guns hiding behind trees. Some of my earlier posts in this thread reveal my dislike for social justice at the end of a gun. Let me be more specific with my questions. Please expand them as you wish. do you beleive that race determines culture and ability? Is there a superior race? Do you believe the bible gives any race an elevated position? Are there any cultural practices that make your(catholic not personal) racial heritage more or less acceptable in gods eyes? Are there any physical characteristics that kinists abhor? Where does kinism stand on the evolution of species ? Is there a fixed point in history kinist prefer as the ideal? Are kinist prosecuted
in the united states for thier religious beliefs? Is a theocracy the political ambition of kinism? Should laws be passed to prevent interracial marriages? Who should decide what constitutes an interracial union? Can you define an aryan race?
My questions go on and on. Is there a definitive authority on racism that you repect? I would assert that the united nations is the most credible. I expect you would read some of the report. it clearly details some of the violence and destruction being perpetrated in the name of tribe and kin.

Posted by: glen at January 5, 2006 11:44 PM

It's obvious that you're a good disciple of Anfernee, because you're scared to death of defintions. I can understand why you folks are so afraid to define your terms - defintions "lock you in", and more often than not, your own definitions condemn you. Anfernee won't define racism because he knows that any reasonable defintion with which he can come up will apply to himself. The same is probably true of you. If I'm wrong, then prove it by defining the words we've been discussing.

In any case, I'll go ahead and answer your questions.

Yes, race determines, to an extensive but not necessarily exhaustive degree, culture and ability. For example, American Negros do not behave exactly as African Negros do, but there are similarities between the two. Same For Whites in America and, say, Germany. No, there is no superior race. No, the Bible does not give any race an elevated position. I won't answer your question about cultural practices, because I'm not certain I know what you mean. I will say that there are indeed some cultures that are not acceptable in God's sight, because Paul wrote about them and the Old Testament is filled with such examples. There are no physical characteristics that Kinists abhor. Kinism rejects Darwinism. Every culture has a point in its history that it feels was ideal, a "Golden Age," and they are entitled to have such a notion. "Prosecuted" is a legal term. Do you actually mean "persecuted"? If you mean taken before a civil magistrate, then no, Kinists have not been prosecuted - yet. I expect someone to try it, though. If you mean persecuted, then yes, Kinists have been persecuted, even by Anfernee, who very despicably posted on this blog the location where some Kinists live and go to church, thereby endangering them and their families by making them accessible to anyone who might be possessed of a less than stable temperament and a desire to do them harm. Also, a group of thugs at Covenant College posted Harry Seabrook's address, phone number, and photos of his home all over the internet, and encouraged people to harass and threaten him. They did so with a vengeance. They made threatening calls to his wife and children; they threatened to burn down his home; they drove by his home shouting threats at his wife and children; they took pictures of his home. So, yes, Kinists have been persected, are being persecuted, and will continue to be persecuted. Every civil government is a theocracy to some degree. The only question is that of which religion will dominate and to what degree. So, yes, Biblical Christian theocracy is the political ambition of Kinism. I won't answer the question of outlawing miscegenation, because I don't believe marriage should be a legal matter. I can not define an Aryan race, because there is no such thing. No, I respect no defining authority on racism, for at least three reasons. First, as I wrote earlier, there are so many definitions of racism that there is obviously no agreement on a defintion. Second, the most widely propagated defintions are usually skewed to have only one application - White people. Third, the notion of racism was developed by Karl Marx as a means of keeping people angry with and suspicious of each other. Kinists want no one to be angry with or suspicious of anyone. Besides, of all the people in the world who are worthy of emulation, Karl Marx is not one of them. Christians should avoid even the appearance of agreeing with him, especially when it comes to adopting such an awaful notion as "racism." Of all the organizations in the world, the UN is probably among the least credible.

I suspect that from my answers, you can still construct a nice little definiton that makes me a racist, right?

Also, will you extend to me the same courtesy that I've given you?

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 6, 2006 09:58 AM

all of us have to stand accountable for ourselves. I try( not always successfully) to let others answer for themselves. Are you a racist? I served in the army honorably, believing I was fighting communism in central america. Greed and power are the driving forces of conflict. Race has been used as an excuse by many political systems. I would reject out of hand race being a part of thier manifesto. Marx was an intellectual whose ideas were and are used by blood thirsty killers. Many of the murdering criminals of history have claimed the bible as thier own too. This country was built on the backs of blacks, here in the south. Indentured servants in the north sweated and died to a lesser extent but, just as dead. The indians of mexico and central america were likewise driven to thier deaths for greed and power. I disagree with you about skin and culture, evil selfish men come in every stripe. If you would judge a man for skin or cultural habit, then you are a racist. If on the other hand you measure a man by the content of his character, then you are not. By my understanding works and deeds are the measure of a man and any nation. Where he comes from or who he sleeps with, matters not at all. We owe a great debt to the blacks in this country, compensation due for the theft of so much! I would argue the native americans deserve a share of our penitence.
The weak can never forgive.Forgiveness is an atribute of the strong. Intolerance via the kinists only betrays the lack of faith in one's own cause.
The earth is not flat. What agency can men turn to then for relief? The U.N. has been spectacularly successful in many arena's, with the exception of adequate funding. The united states does not see much of that success because we are wildly rich compared to any other known civilization. We are 5% of the world's population, yet we consume 23% of the productive resources of the globe. We possess outright or control 60% of the world's resources. As a percentage of GDP we are the stingeist member of the united nations. We must begin to have a real dialogue in the u.s. We cannot long survive as a nation of hate.

Posted by: glen at January 6, 2006 05:48 PM

I answered your questions. But I am completely stumped as to how your response relates to my answers.

1) "all of us have to stand accountable for ourselves. I try( not always successfully) to let others answer for themselves. Are you a racist? I served in the army honorably, believing I was fighting communism in central america. Greed and power are the driving forces of conflict. Race has been used as an excuse by many political systems. "

How do all of these sentences relate to each other? They just don't follow.

2) "Race has been used as an excuse by many political systems. I would reject out of hand race being a part of thier manifesto.

If you acknowledge that "[r]ace has been used as an excuse by many political systems," how can you say in the next line that you "reject out of hand race being a part of thier manifesto"? In the first line you say "they do X", and in the next line you say "they don't do X".

I'm not trying to be sarcastic. Really. Your thought's are just not making any sense. And I'm ready to admit the possibility that maybe I'm just missing something.

3) "Many of the murdering criminals of history have claimed the bible as thier own too."

True. But, I submit that at least as many people, and probably more, have been killed as a result of atheistic political theories such as Socialism and Communism. The list is long and gruesome: Pol Pot's killing fields, the "Worker's Paradise", to which quite a few American Negros went and have never been heard from since, the Soviet Gulags, the Chinese Cultural Revolution and their prison camps, Stalin's Blood Purges, the Russian Revolution, and so on. Furthermore, there are reprobates teaching in so-called "Christian" seminaries who claim the Bible's approval of their anti-God doctrines. Anfernee and Coven Seminary are examples of a reprobate and reprobate seminary teaching anti-Christian doctrines.

4) "This country was built on the backs of blacks, here in the south. Indentured servants in the north sweated and died to a lesser extent but, just as dead."

I'm pretty sure a lot of White people did a lot of the work, too. Remember, very people in the South owned slaves, and that there were lots of slave-owners who were - shock of shocks - Negros! That's right - there were slave holders who were Negros! But, all that aside, what did I have to do with slavery? What does anyone today have to do with slavery? Nothing! There hasn't been a slave (such as you're thinking of) for 150 years, Glen. Slavery is gone. Well, it's gone in America; Negros in Sudan are still buying and selling slaves, but for some reason, that gets ignored. It's the slavery that ended 150 years ago that 's important. Weird.

5) "I disagree with you about skin and culture, evil selfish men come in every stripe."

I agree with you. I never wrote otherwise. You're disagreeing with me over something I didn't write.

6) "If you would judge a man for skin or cultural habit, then you are a racist."

I didn't write that I judged anyone by their skin. But it is fair and Biblical to judge cultures. Paul did it. The Old Testament prophets did it. They weren't racists, and neither am I. By your definition of racist, I can prove with one simple question that you're a racist: Generally, do Jews, believe the New Testament? If you answer truthfully, you'll have to say, "No, Jews generally do not believe the New Testament," and you have made a judgement of a culture, thus making you, Glen, a racist. Truthfully, any time you use ethnic titles, you're making judgements, because you have to make generalizations about them in order to name them as groups. This you have done plenty. Look at your words: "blacks", "indians of mexico and central america", "Reality is white euro-centric men have dominated and abused a good part of the rest of the world. Thier greed and lust have been exposed for the petty selfishness it is.", "Jesus was a BLACK man, not some white, blue eyed blonde european." By your defintion, Glen, you are a racist.

7) "The earth is not flat. What agency can men turn to then for relief?"

How does that last sentence follow the first?

Glen, I could go on. But, you're just not making any sense, and your own words have made you guilty of your own accusation. Let's just end this here. we're not going to convince each other of anything.

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 6, 2006 06:55 PM

mr.smith, I will continue to pray for your soul.I hope that you continue to talk to "Liberals like me." I especially hope you are not hurt in the violence that inevitably comes to groups like you defend. I wrestle with my sin every day. I hope that I can be more christ like every day. I fail that often. Governments are only as good as the people who control them. I post to my blog regularly, if you want to continue the discussion in the future.
best regards

Posted by: glen at January 6, 2006 07:46 PM

No thanks, Glen. You're obviously not in full command of your limited resources. I've adequately proven that you're guilty of your own accusation against me. That was my goal.

Have a nice life.

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 6, 2006 11:25 PM

True, my resources are limited mr. smith,
course the more you defend racism and hate, the more exposed you become. More time light and you may get a tan. Careful of that solar radiation, it causes dna mutations. LOL!
See ya'

Posted by: glen at January 6, 2006 11:56 PM


As a conservative Christian I ask that you please ignore Winston. He may be a hate-filled bigot but he represents a very small minority.

You seem to think only ultra-liberals who deny the reserection like Borg and Spong are the only non-hateful Christians. There are plenty out there who are loving without compromising fundemental doctrine.

Its true Gods people have always made huge mistakes with respect to loving neighbors. I think we all need to collectively repent for that. And I apologize for people like Winston and other kinists being allowed to infest American Christianity.

Have you every read John Piper, he has some good stuff on improving race relations, and he stays true to the bible.

Posted by: Big Drew at January 7, 2006 01:35 AM

forgive me if my tone seems rough,drew.
I don't have anything against conservatives.We all have some gift to bring to the table. It is impossible for me to ignore 300 years of modern biblical scholarship. Bishop Spong and many of the scholars at the Westar Intitute impress me with thier arguements. I have heard of John Piper, though I haven't read him. I was raised roman catholic and left for a long time. I came back to the Episcopal church because of humanitarians like spong. Our community has room for many folks of all stripes. I think the church has abandoned christ. Rather than snipe from the edges, I hope my witness will help my sons see the church thru different eyes.
folks like winston have always been lost on me. I hope he has some personal experience that lets love back into his life. his hatred will die in the light. I do not express myself well in short bites, so I am at a disadvantage in such exchanges. Our country has a big stick in our collective eye where race is concerned, I feel like we have a lot of listening to do.

Posted by: glen at January 7, 2006 09:09 AM

Your own words comdemn YOU as the racist here, by your own definition. You're a racist and a hypocrite, by your own words.

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 7, 2006 02:25 PM

I would conclude from your remarks that you are not? I try to acknowledge my sin on a regular basis. I prefer to live my life without illusions about my quilt. I hope someday you can see thru the hate and fear that blinds your kinist.
best regards

Posted by: glen at January 7, 2006 03:00 PM

No, Glen, I am not a racist. I answered your questions earlier, and there is nothing in my answers that makes me a racist. I hate no one because of their race. Scripture teaches that God Himself created the races for our benefit. I therefore believe that one's race is a gift from from God. I believe all the races are truly beautiful and that all the races will be represented in large numbers in Heaven. I see it as sinful to try to undo God's work by eliminating the races He created for our benefit, as Anfernee wants to do and as you want to do. Furthermore, I want no one to be injured or their blood to be shed, especially because they are of a specific race.

I am well aware of my sinfulness, But racial hatred just isn't one of them. I do not hate any race, Glen. Your being a racist (by your own definition) makes you think everyone else is a racist, because you think everyone else is just like you. Following your thinking, a child molester can accuse you of being a child molester because he thinks everyone else is just like him. It's just stupid to think that way, Glen. Not everyone is just like you.

If you accuse me of racism, then you're bearing false witness. I do not hate any race. I'll say it again - all the races are God's creation and they are all beautiful. Anfernee absolutely hates at least one race - the White race - and it appears he hates all the races that God created, because he wants to eliminate them.

You've written that I'm a racist: "If you would judge a man for skin or cultural habit, then you are a racist." If that is your defintion, then Paul was a racist. He condemned entire cultures because of their habits. He made generalizations about them and he found them to be unacceptable. I've never found any race to be unacceptable, but I do make generalizations about races and cultures. If that makes me a racist in your thinking, then it makes you a racist, too. I'll tell you again - you make generalizations about races. That's how you name them. Here are your words again, Glen: "blacks"; "indians of mexico and central america"; "white euro-centric men have dominated and abused a good part of the rest of the world. Thier greed and lust have been exposed for the petty selfishness it is."; "Jesus was a BLACK man, not some white, blue eyed blonde european." You have made judgements about races, Glen. And by your words -"If you would judge a man for skin or cultural habit, then you are a racist." - you are a racist.

I answered several of your questions, Glen. Now, you answer two of mine:

1) If you believe your words - "If you would judge a man for skin or cultural habit, then you are a racist." - and you have made sufficient judgements of groups of people to call them "blacks", "Indians", "White Euro-centric", and "blue-eyed blonde Europeans", how are you not a racist?

2) Do you believe the Bible is God's perfect and inerrant written revelation of Himself to man? Just answer yes or no. Do you believe the Bible is God's Word?

I answered several of your questions. Answer just two of mine.

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 7, 2006 04:51 PM

It is very hard to be perfect. I have admitted more than once, in this thread, that I fall short in many areas. I know I am not perfect and ask forgiveness when it is brought to me.It is very saddening to me that your anger and hate hides so much hurt and fear. I cannot change the past, but we can try to influence the future.
Are we talking about the same paul who had a warrant to prosecute jews that followed joshua? Or someone else? Perhaps you would like to tell me what scholarship you can claim in regrads to your inerrant word of god question.I don't have a simple yes or no. I especially enjoy the writings of Bishop John Spong, Marcus Borg, Elaine Pagels, Rowan Williams and Karen Johnson. I would highly reccomend them to you and yours. If it would help inform your reply I do not think the 1611 king james version of the bible is an accurate translation.

Posted by: glen at January 7, 2006 05:23 PM

I answered your questions clearly and succinctly. All I ask is that you do the same:

1) Are you or are you not a racist by your definition?

2) Do you believe the Bible is God's Word? I'll even narrow the focus and ask if the original autographs of the books and letters that comprise the Bible are the Word of God. It's a yes or no question.

Glen, I made a major concession in answering your questions. I answered clearly, succinctly, and quickly. I'm simply asking you to return the courtesy. The questions I'm asking are simple enough. To the first one, just write either, "Yes, I am a racist by my own definition," or "No, I am not a racist by my own definition." To the second question simply write, "Yes, the books that comprise the Bible, in their original autographs, are the Word of God," or "No, the books that comprise the Bible, in their original autographs, are not the Word of God,"

I've done the hard work for you. Pick the answers, highlight them, copy them, and paste them in a message on this board.

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 7, 2006 05:59 PM

I have answered your questions yes, affirmatively, many times and in I hope a clear way. I consider myself guilty as any man. Any man who could claim perfection is probably not amongst us. I have said clearly that the 1611 kjv we possess is not an acurrate translation. since we do not have any of the originals, how can we know? I am not an idol worshipper nor I am arrogant enough to make a claim either way. What about you? Is thier a translation you feel is accurate? Which language is it written in? Are you a scholar?
best regards

Posted by: glen at January 7, 2006 06:37 PM

"I have answered your questions yes, affirmatively, many times and in I hope a clear way."

No, Glen, you have not. Only now, at last, you have. Only now have you admitted, in no uncertain terms, that you are a racist. Now, allow me to comfort you as a fellow sinner. You are not a racist if all you do is make generalizations about the races. The only time your generalizations become unacceptable is when you claim for yourself God's perogative by declaring that a particular race is so reprobate and beyond salvation that no one from that race will be seen in Heaven. Only God can make such a declaration, and he has done so in the past. But, again, such a determination is not for us to make. I don't think you've done that. To me, you are not a racist. Do as I do, and focus on ridding yourself of the sins that do actually possess you, of which racism is not one.

I never asked you or anyone else to claim perfection.

"since we do not have any of the originals, how can we know? "

With that statement, your de facto assertion is that the Bible is not the Word of God, and that really explains everything else about you, such as why you believe that Christians, Muslims, and atheists are all the same. Everyone here, all of Anfernee's followers, should be suspicious of their agreement with you, because they all agree with a Christ-denier.

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 7, 2006 08:06 PM

I cannot help but be curious, do you really believe this vile hatred you seem bent on defending? Surely you are a smarter, more compassionate person. Is your heart so frozen? Is it just the debate, the thrill of the arguement made well? Tell us you your not really this angry and afraid? I wish you no ill will, but I grow fearful for your anguish caused by this indefensible hurt you continue to hold close. Didn't anyone warn you about standing close to the fire?
best regards

Posted by: glen at January 7, 2006 08:12 PM

winston smith, kuti akum, do you know what ,"midrashic teaching" refers to? What is it that causes your blindness to hurt and suffering? Can I say any words that would comfort the pain you must surely feel? Does expressing such anger and fear eat at your conscience? I would hope you find whatever salve or ointment you need.Even if your real name is different I will be sure to add you to the prayer list at mass tomorrow.

Posted by: glen at January 7, 2006 08:47 PM

Glen, you're a riot! Let's just end this with a hearty "Mizpah!" You go towards the well-watered plains of Sodom, and I'll to my people. We both have things to pursue that will certainly be more fruitful.

Posted by: Winston Smith at January 7, 2006 11:22 PM

Εκείνοι που ζουν από τον κύβο ξιφών από το ξίφος που ελπίζω τα λειωμένα μέταλλα καρδιών σας σύντομα.

Posted by: glen at January 7, 2006 11:35 PM

That will not make a bit of sense. Those that live by the sword ? I hope your heart thaws someday.

Posted by: glen at January 7, 2006 11:54 PM

Ancient greek,
most of the online translations will not convey the meaning. I should have checked a greek translator before I posted that. I urge you mr.smith to have some honest dialogue, with real scholars.
see ya'

Posted by: glen at January 8, 2006 12:01 AM


Posted by: MEXICAN PRIDE at June 7, 2007 02:04 PM

White People need a Caucasian-centric education away from Blacks,sort of like Ireland has.

Posted by: Miss KK at September 23, 2007 01:50 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?