Feminism is an applied Unitarian heresy - and so is "anti-racism" [Archive]

View Full Version : Feminism is an applied Unitarian heresy - and so is "anti-racism"

Petr

11-15-2005, 02:50 PM

Many non-Christians may not realize just how rich and relevant doctrine Trinity really is. It is not a small matter - it is fundamentally related to the basic way men view their relation to the Divine and towards other men.

Actually Trinity is a sublime example of the principle "separate but equal (before God)" in action!

Here is a piece from just "averagely" conservative (but "non-racial") Christian blog, followed by an un-PC commentary from Little Geneva blog:

Feminism and the Trinity

One of the central idolatrous ideologies of our day is feminism. Although it is just one of the hydra heads (the monster being egalitarianism), it is nevertheless one of the most important hydra heads. This is because God created us male and female, and our sexual identity is right at the center of the image of God in us. Therefore, even though egalitarianism is the general error, when the error is applied to something as important as sexual identity, the results can be disastrous. Apply egalitarianism to something like money, and you get the inequities and imcompetencies of socialism. Apply egalitarianism to sexual identity and you get Michael Jackon.

So feminism is the one of idols of the day that must be toppled, an idol that must come down. Every faithful Christian must oppose feminism, root and branch.

But unfortunately, many traditionalist Christians have assumed that feminism can be effectively opposed with something that might be called "not feminism." A moment's reflection should reveal the problem here. There are many things that are "not feminism" that are also "not biblical." Take the Saudi view of women for just one example. Take rape for another.

Feminism is actually a Trinitarian heresy, but unfortunately many of the Christian world's "not feminism" reactions are equally heretical. Within the triune Godhead, we learn that authority and submission on the one hand, and equality on the other, are ultimately harmonious. At the point of ultimate reality, the Son of God is begotten by the Father and submits to His will. At the same time, Paul tells us in Philippians that Jesus did not consider His equality with God something to be grasped. Consequently, for the Trinitarian Christian, submission and equality together are not examples of trying to square the circle.

Our gender heretics feel like they have to pick one or the other. The feminists choose equality and so they think they must reject submission. The "masculinists" choose submission and so they think they have to reject equality. The feminists are modalists, who think that all the persons of the Godhead are the same, morphing into one another, depending on the circumstances. Whenever we hear of sex change operations, we should understand it as an idolatrous attempt to mimic a false understanding of god. Psalm 115 makes it very clear that we become like what we worship.

The so-called traditionalists are Arians, believing that if Jesus Christ was submissive to his Father, He must therefore be created, and ontologically inferior to the Father. This is why Unitarian cultures (like the Muslim world) are so readily hostile to women, and contemptuous of them. And this is also why any "Christianized" form of contempt for women is evidence of a functional Unitarianism in our midst. It is not enough for our answer to feminism to be "anything but feminism." Sabellianism is not Arianism, but they are both heretical.

Posted by Douglas Wilson - 6/18/2004 12:10:46 PM

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=257

////////////////////////////////////////////////

Here Doug Wilson rightly calls feminism a trinitarian heresy because it is sexual egalitarianism. His problem is in understanding that another form of biological unitarianism that we like to call neo-Babelism is also a trinitarian heresy; it is racial egalitarianism. Recall that race is not accepted by the Babelists as a legitimate divider among men because of their interpretation of Galatians 3:28, which is the very interpretation that logically undercuts their rejection of feminism and sodomy.

Because they have twisted themselves into a logical pretzel, it is not surprising to read rubbish like this from Dougs Wilson and Jones. Quite frankly, this is one of the most bizarre articles ever printed in Credenda (and that’s saying a lot). It even surpasses the sophistry that emanates from CCL, but it shouldn’t be surprising to any of us. Sodomite marriage is the latest chapter in anti-Christian debauchery, but its logical progression is not what most would expect. Most Christians would like to connect it to another great act of judicial tyranny, Roe v. Wade. They forget about the Loving v. Virginia decision which outlawed the ban against miscegenation, and they forget about it precisely because they think it was just. Badonicus points out that the Massachusetts court cited Loving 25 times in their decision but mentioned Roe in passing only four times. The very heart of the decision was based on the illegal Fourteenth Amendment, which was cited 13 times. So if you’re looking for a logical progression, it is to be found in the religion of Equality: citizenship was granted to ex-slaves, therefore interracial marriages may not be forbidden, therefore sodomite marriages may not be forbidden. It all makes perfect sense if you have the courage to open your eyes.

If you don’t open your eyes, you might find yourself nodding in agreement with the Dougs. They say that homosexuality "is not a typical sin that cultures face like theft, lying, or murder" but is "the sign of God’s abandonment of us," that it "is primarily a judgment against the Church… God’s curse of homosexuality is a special judgment against His people… Christian fathers are a primary cause of the curse of homosexuality… We should, therefore, ‘own’ homosexual sin… So we openly accept homosexual marriage in the civil realm as God’s means of undermining that civil realm, and we accept that He has done this in judgment for wicked fathering within the Church." They even go so far as to say that "we mean we must accept the fact of [homosexuality] as just… we should own the curse of same-sex marriage and not fight it so far as it concerns them." In other words, we should not proclaim biblical law. We should pretend that God has not prescribed the means of dealing with this particular sin. Instead, I should gaze at my navel and cry that Jimmy and Steve are down at the courthouse getting married because I’ve been a poor father. We must accept this state of affairs "as a just judgment on us and our culture"! "In the brewing culture wars, we ought not to stand with those seeking to ban same-sex marriage (or with those seeking to impose it). We ought to declare publicly (frustrating both sides) that we embrace this curse." They actually say that "gay-baiting" (whatever that is) is as bad as sodomy! When punishment is severed from the crime, it shows that we don’t really believe there is a crime. All Christians pray that sinners will repent of their sin, but God told us how we are to deal with certain sins. Christ Church is apparently content to ignore these commands. They have abandoned every pretense of theonomy.

Perhaps the most ironic passage of all: "At its root, homosexuality is a love of sameness rather than difference. Jehovah teaches us to love difference, and in this fallen world obsessed with finding ways to deface God, homosexuality rejects difference in order to spite God." If only they could extend this principle to miscegenation. God created a diverse and beautiful world. Why are so many people trying to destroy that diversity, and why are ministers of the gospel assisting them? The Dougs complete their metamorphosis by lapsing into utter absurdity at the end of the article, calling true marriage "queer" because men and women are different. Actually, this is the most ironic statement: "we confess our disobedience in refusing to see the world in Trinitarian ways." Amen!

http://littlegeneva.com/?p=169

Petr

Petr

09-16-2007, 12:29 AM

Bumping...

Sulla the Dictator

09-16-2007, 12:55 AM

I think it is more reasonable to focus on heresy in general, rather than concern ourselves with which heretical sect is most heretical.

Kodos

09-16-2007, 07:05 AM

I think it is more reasonable to focus on heresy in general, rather than concern ourselves with which heretical sect is most heretical.

Something like the catholic church would be fine if it were run by an American and HQed in America. But its an anti american foreign power that hates us.

Hartmann von Aue

09-16-2007, 08:06 AM

Feminism isn't based on Unitarianism, it's based on Satanism.

After all it was Satan that gave Eve the fruit.

Woman ruling over man is a reversal of the natural order.

Sulla the Dictator

09-16-2007, 09:37 AM

Something like the catholic church would be fine if it were run by an American and HQed in America. But its an anti american foreign power that hates us.

The Catholic church is one of many links in a chain from Washington to Rome. To ignore it or dilute it for the sake of Lutheran or snake handling or Mormonite heresies is foolish.

2,000 years of tradition serve as an excellent crown for a nation born in admiration of Roman Republican virtue.

Petr

09-16-2007, 12:00 PM

Feminism isn't based on Unitarianism, it's based on Satanism.
Well, if we want to go all the way back, Unitarianism/Arianism is based on satanism as well.

"Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son. Whosoever denies the Son, the same has not the Father: but he that acknowledges the Son has the Father also."

- 1st Epistle of John, 2:22-23

Petr

Arminius

09-16-2007, 12:59 PM

After all it was Satan that gave Eve the fruit.

The interpretation that the serpent was Satan is false. The serpent was just trying to find some prey, and that slut, Eve, tried to lay the blame on him. Just like women. Of course God was super smart... he didn't believe her because he knew serpents can't talk.

Kim Jong Tha Illest

09-19-2007, 01:06 AM

Something like the catholic church would be fine if it were run by an American and HQed in America. But its an anti american foreign power that hates us.

Are you a christian? If so, you might want to think of better criterion for choosing a church than the correspondence of her teachings with the whims of caesar.

Petr

10-29-2008, 06:53 PM

New material. I think that a quite good case could be made that many, if not most of those modern Christians who dogmatically oppose all manifestations of racialism are driven by semi-heretical presuppositions.

Pagans emphasize the duality between matter and spirit, but the duality that should truly matter instead to Christians is that of between Creator and creation.

http://spiritwaterblood.com/2008/10/outer-space-and-inner-vacuity/

Berry identifies this sad state of affairs as dualism. It is

a cleavage, a radical discontinuity, between Creator and creature, spirit and matter, religion and nature, religion and economy, worship and work, and so on… the dualism of body and soul…
It leads one to believe falsely that the soul is pure and divine, and the flesh is base and wicked; that the soul is owned by God and the flesh is owned by the devil.

You would have to be blind to miss the racial implications. Opposition to Kinism comes almost entirely from those dualistic “Christians” who have borrowed from gnosticism and asceticism in their understanding that overcoming the lusts of the flesh necessarily involves a rejection of the flesh, when in fact the flesh has been redeemed, making us whole once again. As Rushdoony writes on p. 166 of The One and the Many, “Matter and spirit are both created by God, both fallen in Adam and under the curse, and both objects of saving grace and the resurrection.” Dualistic, neo-Babelistic Christians also borrow from neoplatonists in their quest to make idea conquer matter or the soul to conquer the body. This is what has led to the whole concept of a proposition nation, as well as a laundry list of other theological heresies, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with actual Christianity.

I’ll let Mr. Berry explain the twisted, dualistic, and non-Kinist version of Christianity.

They conclude that the formula for man-making is man = body + soul. But that conclusion cannot be derived, except by violence, from Genesis 2:7, which is not dualistic. The formula given in Genesis 2:7 is not man = body + soul; the formula there is soul = dust + breath…
The flesh is a part of the soul, not removed from it. You’ve heard that every theological heresy begins with a false view of the Trinity, and this is true. It is equally true that heresies spring from a false understanding of ourselves.

The dominant religious view, for a long time, has been that the body is a kind of scrip issued by the Great Company Store in the Sky, which can be cashed in to redeem the soul but is otherwise worthless. And the predictable result has been a human creature able to appreciate or tolerate only the “spiritual” (or mental) part of Creation and full of semi-conscious hatred for the “physical” or “natural” part, which it is ready and willing to destroy for “salvation,” for profit, for “victory,” or for fun. This madness constitutes the norm of modern humanity and of modern Christianity.
He calls this burning one’s house for the insurance.

Modern Christianity, then, has become as specialized in its organizations as other modern organizations, wholly concentrated on the industrial shibboleths of “growth,” counting its success in numbers, and on the very strange enterprise of “saving” the individual, isolated, and disembodied soul…
The idea should be foreign to a Christian that our salvation is eternal and not also temporal. The resurrection is physical as well as spiritual. When this proper and holistic balance is rejected, wayward men go in search of false messiahs.

Despite its protests to the contrary, modern Christianity has become willy-nilly the religion of the state and the economic status quo. Because it has been so exclusively dedicated to incanting anemic souls into Heaven, it has been made the tool of much earthly villainy. It has, for the most part, stood silently by while a predatory economy has ravaged the world, destroyed its natural beauty and health, divided and plundered its human communities and households. It has flown the flag and chanted the slogans of empire. It has assumed with the economists that “economic forces” automatically work for good and has assumed with the industrialists and militarists that technology determines history. It has assumed with almost everybody that “progress” is good, that it is good to be modern and up with the times. It has admired Caesar and comforted him in his depredations and defaults. But in its de facto alliance with Caesar, Christianity connives directly in the murder of Creation. For in these days, Caesar is no longer a mere destroyer of armies, cities, and nations. He is a contradicter of the fundamental miracle of life. A part of the normal practice of his power is his willingness to destroy the world. He prays, he says, and churches everywhere compliantly pray with him. But he is praying to a God whose works he is prepared at any moment to destroy. What could be more wicked than that, or more mad?

Petr

04-23-2010, 10:07 AM

Another Kinist argues that race-mixing (the promiscuous confusion of ethnicities) and sexual revolution (the promiscuous confusion of sexualities) are intimately connected, and that conservative Christians cannot consistently oppose the latter while heartily approving the former:

When the liberals rhapsodize about the 1960’s they usually list the civil rights movement and the sexual revolution as the great accomplishments of the sixties’ radicals. Christians of a more conservative bent usually applaud the civil rights movement and deplore the sexual revolution. Neo-pagans usually deplore the civil rights movement while enjoying and celebrating the sexual revolution. Seldom do we see a Christian condemning the civil rights movement or a neo-pagan condemning the sexual revolution, but the two movements were part of one, united, satanic attack on the mystical body of Christ. Christian Europeans should oppose both.

The mixed-race movement (which is what the civil rights movement was) and the sexual revolution were both grounded in the utopian thinking of European intellectuals, exemplified by Rousseau’s The Social Contract and Voltaire’s Candide respectively.

The mixed-race movement was the precursor of the sexual revolution. When a European embraces race-mixing, he must not only reject the authenticity of the Bible, he must also reject the traditional wisdom of the European people. He must believe that the strictures against interracial marriage and the desire to live with one’s own kind were the prejudices of a sick and demented people. Henceforth the new European will emerge, free of prejudice and free from any ties to kith or kin. His is a universal tie to all mankind.

The tie that binds the new European to all mankind is an intellectual abstraction. He loves a theory of unity, but he has no flesh and blood connection to a particular race of people. But the utopian’s intellectual denial of his blood cannot change reality; a man needs something to stir his blood. If he refuses to be inspired by the traditional sentiments that fired the blood of the antique European -- attachments to kith and kin – he will need something else to stir his blood. That something else is sex. It is sex unconnected to love. Blood will out; if the European renounces the ties of blood that enoble and elevate a man, he will end up a slave to the urges of the blood that debase and debauch a man. Interracial coupling is a necessity to a man who has no blood connection to a particular people or a particular God. And who becomes the utopian’s God? The people who can stir his blood.

Racial Babylon and Sexual Babylon are fraternal twins. The one precedes the other but only by an infinitesimal fraction of a hair. They both come from the same parent. Satan loves and wills racial and sexual diversity because it kills the image of God in man.
http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2010/04/beyond-tears.html

Petr

Petr

04-23-2010, 11:30 AM

And when you think of it, you do observe how racial and sexual egalitarianism have often kept close company.

Some of the early radical abolitionists like Fanny Wright were also pioneers of modern feminism:

Her father James Wright was a wealthy linen manufacturer and political radical and was also the designer of Dundee trade tokens. He knew Adam Smith and corresponded with French republicans including Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette. When James Wright and his wife Camilla Campbell died, they left three children. Fanny was orphaned at the age of three, but was left with a substantial inheritance. Fanny was taken to England and raised in the guardianship of her maternal aunt. Upon her coming of age, she returned to Scotland and spent her winters in study and writing, and her summers visiting the Scottish Highlands. By the age of 18, she had written her first book. She emigrated to the United States in 1818, and with her sister toured from 1818 to 1820. She believed in universal equality in education, and feminism. She also attacked organized religion, greed, and capitalism. Along with Robert Owen, Wright demanded that the government offer free boarding schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Wright

Some aspects of Wright's community were extremely controversial, especially her decision to encourage sexual freedom. She came to believe that miscegenation was the ultimate solution of the racial question. Wright saw marriage as a discriminatory institution and started advocating free love.

Wright also developed her own dress code for women. This included bodices, ankle-length pantaloons and a dress cut to above the knee. This style was later promoted by feminists such as Amelia Bloomer, Susan Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Wright spent her entire personal fortune on her Nashoba co-operative community. She hoped it would become economically self-sufficient but this did not happen and in 1828 she was forced to abandon her experiment. Wright and Robert Dale Owen arranged for the former slaves to be sent to the black republic of Haiti.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REwright.htm

Petr

Columnist

04-23-2010, 11:43 AM

And when you think of it, you do observe how racial and sexual egalitarianism have often kept close company.

Some of the early radical abolitionists like Fanny Wright were also pioneers of modern feminism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Wright

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REwright.htm

Petr
Fanny Wright doesn't sound Jewish. So much on VNN.

harjit

05-12-2010, 05:06 PM

Petr

05-12-2010, 05:11 PM

Codswallop.

In order for this to be a logical argument, the 'ties of blood' referred to in that article need to be rigourously defined. First of all, people aren't normally marrying their blood relatives. Beyond that it is one of those things that people are free to define as subjectively as they want. Are Greeks and Finns 'one people'? If a Cambodian and a Laotian paired up in an L.A. suburb, would that be considered evil race-mixing worthy of Babylon in your little fire-and-brimstone world?
Looks like I've gotten under the skin of our little rootless-cosmopolitan Hindu.

Petr

Monty

05-12-2010, 05:34 PM

Are Greeks and Finns 'one people'?

That depends on whether two people can build a family with a coherent heritage. If they were both assimilated Americans out in the heartland, maybe.

If a Cambodian and a Laotian paired up in an L.A. suburb, would that be considered evil race-mixing worthy of Babylon in your little fire-and-brimstone world?

Are they of a separate race?

The anti-miscegenation laws, good or bad, were not intended to hash out every ethnic dilemma. It was mainly intended to stop white/black unions because they were perceived to have the greatest difficulties.

Petr

05-12-2010, 05:47 PM

More Kinist doctrinal exposition that I myself do not find much fault with:

http://spiritwaterblood.com/2010/03/better-fifty-years-of-europe-than-an-eon-of-china/

3. The Bible calls the love of money the root of all evil. The typical white nationalist calls the Jew the root of all evil. But how is their race-worship and self-worship any different than the race cult known as Talmudism? Christians (i.e., Kinists) oppose Jews because they are anti-Christs. Most white nationalists seem to oppose them out of envy. No one who is at odds with actual white history is going to save the white race. At best, they are trying to save their own genes out of a Darwinistic selfishness. The Kinist has a completely different mentality. We certainly do want to preserve our people, but for the glory of God, who both created us and redeemed us from the curse of death, not for our own vanity. “From this broken hill all your praises they shall ring, if it be your will to let me sing.”

Still, there are some nuggets of gold to be unearthed at AltRight, none more radiant than James Kalb’s articles here and here. Kalb makes the very good point that the distinguishing characteristic of liberalism is that it tries to make the particular and universal absolute. As Kinists, this is our primary complaint with the churches of today; even the “conservative” churches are liberal. When J. Gresham Machen saw liberalism overtaking the Church about ninety years ago, he correctly identified it as another religion entirely. And so it is; it is basically the substitution of unitarianism for trinitarianism. Neo-Christians no longer seem to understand that true unity is not monolithic. Nor is true love to be found in the absolute One. Even God Himself is a diversity of persons who needs no one but Himself to both give and receive love. This is why we say “God is Love,” and it is why pagan religions have no adequate explanation for the origin of the cosmos. (If God is God, He must be eternal, but even pagans agree that eternity would be a lonely existence for a solitary being.)

Kalb shows that liberalism has had disastrous consequences for manhood. Emasculated by liberalism, a man becomes a purely private individual or a cog in the social wheel, but not a Man, with all the complexity that the mightiest name given to creatures entails. “The net effect is that we’re free to be you and me, as long as the differences never matter.” Monistic absolutism “either crushes the particular, as in Maoism, or turns it into an illusion, as in some Oriental religions.” The upshot is that “modernist—secularist, rationalist, reductionist—alternatives to liberalism don’t work.” By “making the world smaller and simpler than it has to be for us to inhabit,” they “end up as crazy as liberalism and probably more violent.”

Obviously, balance is needed. Race (as we see among white nationalists) and the “indivisible nation” (as we see among patriotards) become stand-ins for something that is big enough to unite factions but small enough to be grasped as a unity. Kalb realizes that the imbalance remains: the individual still disappears into the thicket while the race still lacks a relation to the universal. The elements that once contributed to positive unity then turn reactionary, and unity comes to be defined by its animosity to foreigners and other threats. (All you have to do, to see if your favorite cause is reactionary, is ask yourself what would sustain it if its enemies were to magically disappear.)

“Instead of Duty we have particular duties to attend to.” Yet Duty, as an abstraction, provides us with the framework to see our role in what is larger than ourselves. Likewise, Race is an abstraction, but it is a crucial abstraction that helps us to understand the importance of our people in relation to mankind. Stability is achieved at the intersection. The balance is and has always been found in faith. “Universals provide the setting that determines the nature and significance of particulars. Particulars give universals reality and function. Intermediate arrangements look both ways. From one direction they bring universals down to earth and make them particular standards individuals can deal with.” This is straight out of the Bible. There are no standards without universals, and contrary to the pagans, universals are not given birth by particulars. What particular circumstances could have created the laws of logic? And if the universal is hostile to the particular, as pagans claim (they hate universals because universals impose limitations), why do the universal principles of logic not dictate that the local must be sacrificed to the global?

All believers can be spiritually united in faith, but to pretend, as our lying preachers do, that particular races and nations and borders have been rendered “insignificant” and dissolved into the “nation” of the Christians of the world is madness. It is every bit as mad to agree with Greg Johnson that “our race is our religion.” Kinship, severed from faith in the true God and dependence upon His revealed Word, has no intersection point between the universal and particular. Kalb’s whole point is that without a metaphysical reference point, we are cut adrift; our “kinship” will never rise above belligerence and tyranny because it will never transcend the natural. This is precisely the point we made in the Alex Linder thread here. Grace is alien to nature. Nature is red in tooth and claw. We are not animals; we are created in God’s own image.

harjit

05-12-2010, 06:43 PM

Looks like I've gotten under the skin of our little rootless-cosmopolitan Hindu.
Well, not really, as you haven't been able to address my post.

Monty

05-12-2010, 07:18 PM

Well, not really, as you haven't been able to address my post.

Let me try. First let's deal with your assumption that a cosmopolitan world, where different tribes constantly share intimacy, is normal.

redknight

05-16-2010, 08:49 PM

Petr

05-22-2010, 06:52 PM

Here are some great Southern political cartoons from the "Civil Rights" struggle era - pictures speak more than thousand words:

http://spiritwaterblood.com/2010/05/the-race-set-before-us/

http://spiritwaterblood.com/pix/leftofchrist.png

http://spiritwaterblood.com/pix/mixdixie.png http://spiritwaterblood.com/pix/stringpullers.png

Petr

09-18-2010, 02:24 PM

A Kinist parable:

http://spiritwaterblood.com/2010/09/i-do-love-a-good-hater/

You might recall how Christ, in Matthew 21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2021:23-27&version=NKJV), shut down the Pharisees on another occasion when they tried to trap Him. They counted on His inability to identify the fear at the root of their presuppositions, and of course they failed. The same logical tactic can be employed for other flawed premises. For instance, in the debate between Kinists and anti-Kinists, Kinists will always bring the question of race back to the level of the family. (This is why James McDonald knew that he had to counter us with what turns out to be nonsense: that the family is not a “people group.”) So you can imagine a conversation along these lines:

Then, verily, did the Pharisees and hypocrites of Mangina Presbytery bring railing accusations against the brethren, and did reproach Kerry Kinist, saying, “By what authority do you claim that ‘race,’ which is never to be typed without quote marks or spoken without Richard Nixon-style finger curls, is an extended family?”

From the direction of the rafters came the shrill voice of one Johannes Lofton: “Show me one verse!”

Kerry Kinist did answer the vipers and impastors with a query of his own, saying, “Are children to honor their father and their fathers, or be libertarians, and by whose authority do you answer?”

The serpents conferred with one another, making hissing noises and spittle. “If we say that the family is not a related people group, we shall be bitterly mocked and pilloried on the Interconnected Webs. But should we agree in any respect with the rank heretics, we fear the spirit of the age, and the sainted prophets, Marx and King. Lest the wrath of the kosher media o’erwhelm us and all our works be turned to stubble, we must obfuscate!”
This is essentially what has happened, but it’s obvious that if, like the Pharisees, they really had a multitude of Kinists to fear, as was the case in the last century, they too would plead ignorance. For now, they are bold.

WillieBrennan

09-18-2010, 02:43 PM

NCC World Order Study Conf.=

National Council of Churches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Churches#History)