@all Christians

[Professor John Frink]

In short: what do you make of this long-winded screed?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/OneBlood/intro.asp

I know that their conclusions are by no means the concensus among the various Christian communities, but I'd still like to hear your take on the issue.

[Petr]

Today, even many well-meaning Christians have imbibed the influence of humanist culture surrounding them, and are therefore jes' plain embarrassed by some of the Biblical teachings.

For example, like that slavery is permitted under certain circumstances and that apostle Paul said slaves should have a harmonious and not a rebellious attitude towards their masters.

More here on that subject:
http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19243&page=2&highlight=abolitionist+jacobin

(But Christian masters are likewise forbidden to behave abusively towards their slaves/servants)


Also, while the Bible says that taking care of our own before strangers (I Timothy 5:8) is good and natural, it also warns us from turning our clan or race into an all-important idol.

Michael Hoffman puts it well in here:

"My desire for the maintenance of racial boundaries is a means for making the world a happier, lovelier and more just place for everyone.

However, contrary to the Hollywood propaganda, our ancestors did not make an idol of race. It was high on the list, but it was not supreme. The exalted position was reserved for truth and justice."

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg1997/zg9701/970116.html


From this website you will probably find some capable rebuttals of AIG's political correctness:

http://www.littlegeneva.com/

For example, check out this essay:

"One of the most raped texts of Scripture in the Bible today is, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28)."

http://www.littlegeneva.com/gal328.html


Petr

[Professor John Frink]

Thank you.

Here is the book index (with a summary of the chapters), btw:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/index.asp

[Petr]

Today, even many well-meaning Christians have imbibed the influence of humanist culture surrounding them, and are therefore jes' plain embarrassed by some of the Biblical teachings.

For example, like that slavery is permitted under certain circumstances and that apostle Paul said slaves should have a harmonious and not a rebellious attitude towards their masters.

The systematic abolitionism was started by Quakers, whom I do not consider to be Christians any more than I do Jehovah's Witnesses, and it was largely Unitarians who picked up their torch in the 19th century.

Neo-Pelagians like Charles Finney were also among main players.


From David Chilton's book Productive Christians In An Age Of Guilt Manipulators - A Biblical Response to Ronald J. Sider (1986), available online in here, pages 85-88:

http://www.freebooks.com/docs/html/dcpc/dcpc.html


"Committed as he is to liberation from slavery, Ronald Sider is not ignorant of past attempts. One movement particularly revered by him is the Abolitionist activity of the nineteenth century. He especially applauds the radicalism of the preacher Charles Finney, who founded Oberlin College as a haven for abolitionism and feminism. Jonathan Blanchard, an early student at Oberlin, went on to become Wheaton College’s first president, and Sider mourns that Wheaton eventually declined from its original position as a hotbed of social activism. However, it is Sider’s statements on Finney and Abolitionism which are of special interest. Writing in the Christian Century, he claims that “Charles Finney’s evangelical abolitionists stood solidly in the biblical tradition in their search for justice for the poor and oppressed of their time.”4 Expanding on this theme, he writes elsewhere:

Finney was the Billy Graham of the nineteenth century. He led evangelistic crusades throughout the country. The filling of the Holy Spirit was central in his life and preaching. He was also one of the leading abolitionists working to end the unjust system of slavery. Church discipline was used at his church at Oberlin College which he founded against anyone holding slaves. Finney and his students practiced civil disobedience to protest unjust laws. Over Christmas holidays, Finney’s students went out by the scores to hold evangelistic meetings. And they preached against the sin of participating in slavery as well as personal sins. Recent study has shown that the abolitionist movement in many states of the mid-West U.S. grew directly out of these revival campaigns by Finney and his students. I dream of that kind of movement in the church today. . . .

The abolitionist movement was, it is true, a religious movement. But its religion was antichristian humanism. Otto Scott, in his masterful study of the conspirators who financed John Brown’s murderous exploits, shows the development of the abolitionist campaign — a description which may contain a prophecy of Sider’s evangelical liberationist as well:

“The new religion had started with arguments against such relatively harmless sins as smoking and drinking, had then grown to crusades denouncing and forbidding even commerce with persons whose morals were held to be invidious; it had expanded into antislavery as the answer to every ill of humanity; and it had finally come to full flower in the belief that killing anyone – innocent or guilty — was an act of righteousness for a new morality.”6

American abolitionism took a very different route from that of the British, who were able to eliminate colonial slavery in a lawful, peaceful manner, without the shedding of blood. The British process was gradual, and over a period of years the slaves were apprenticed and enabled to earn their own keep, while slaveholders were compensated for their financial loss. But the abolitionists in the United States refused to acknowledge any law but their own. Although they knew that most Southerners were not slaveholders, they agitated for chaos and revolution. As John Brown put it: “If any obstacle stands in your way, you may properly break all the Decalogue in order to get rid of it.”

...

"The atmosphere in which abolitionism thrived was produced by such men as the creedless Unitarian crusader, William Ellery Charming, who called for “guerrilla war . . . at every chance.” Charming was a major influence on young Ralph Waldo Emerson, the chief exponent of New England pantheism and transcendentalism - and a considerable warmonger as well. To many, his pacifistic nature-worship seems harmless: the very mention of Emerson conjures up serene visions of gurgling brooks, sparkling dew on new-folden leaves, and Henry David Thoreau behind bars. The sophoric calm is shattered as we read such lines as these, uttered by the venerable Sage of Concord:

“If it costs ten years, and ten to recover the general prosperity, the destruction of the South is worth so much.”11

The benign mask dropped altogether when Emerson and Thoreau compared the terrorist John Brown, murderer of innocents, to Jesus Christ. The gallows on which he was hanged became “as glorious as the Cross.” And Charles Grandison Finney, “the Billy Graham of the nineteenth century,” was at the heart of the movement. Theologically, he was a Pelagian, a heretic. Bennet Tyler observed, in 1854, that

“no orthodox body of Christians could receive him into their pulpit. No doubt he published works that contained rousing and startling truths; but even truth was given forth alongside of much error which counteracted all. And now he seems to be drifting no one can tell whither. . . . He adjusts whatever he finds in the Bible to his own preconceived metaphysical determinations, instead of submitting his metaphysical musings to the test of unerring wisdom.”



For more on C.G. Finney's doctrines, see here:

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm


Petr

[infoterror]

Petr, I think "chattel slavery" differs from Biblical slavery. People were being bought and sold and bred as animals for purposes of excess profit, not survival. I'm no humanist but I wouldn't want to raise my kids around such a system.

[Petr]

Petr, I think "chattel slavery" differs from Biblical slavery.

Indeed it does, and here is a more or less impartial (and Biblical, not humanistic) critique of Southern slavery:

http://www.freebooks.com/docs/html/gncf/Chapter02.htm


"Never did the Old School invoke ecclesiastical sanctions on the basis of the biblical passages on slavery relating to the South's practices: no legal marriages for slaves; the widespread legalized adultery--no negative sanctions--and fornication of white owners with slave girls; the absence of any appeals court above the masters, either Church or State, contrary to Exodus 18 and Matthew 18:15-18; the absence of any State-legislated means for a slave to buy his way out; legalized maiming of slaves, contrary to the Mosaic law;(33) and the annulment of the inter-generational slave law of Leviticus 25:44-46 by Jesus' fulfillment of, and therefore annulment of, the Mosaic law's jubilee year (Luke 4:18-21).(34) The Old School sat as the three pagan monkeys sit: hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil. Evil rejoiced in the South. This silence delivered the North after 1860 into the hands of the Unitarian-abolitionist crusaders. After 1865, it delivered the South into Reconstruction's judicial revolution against the Constitution and Social Darwinism's revolution against Christendom. Evil rejoiced in the North. It is still rejoicing."


Petr

[infoterror]

Yes, and the North - especially Northeast - parts of America are cultureless voids that could be smote by nuclear weapons without loss to those of us in civilized areas.

[Petr]

Yes, and the North - especially Northeast - parts of America are cultureless voids that could be smote by nuclear weapons without loss to those of us in civilized areas.
Quit polluting this thread, dumb nerd.


Petr

[infoterror]

Do NOT repeat this stunt in highbrow.

Stan

[The Retard]

In short: what do you make of this long-winded screed?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/OneBlood/intro.asp

I know that their conclusions are by no means the concensus among the various Christian communities, but I'd still like to hear your take on the issue.

It's far too long to read, but I will tell you it's a steaming pile of dog shit.

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/5733/ch5marriages3my.gif (http://imageshack.us)
According to the Bible then, which of the impending marriages in the illustration (below, right) does God counsel against entering into?
Impending marriages illustration

The answer is obvious—the third one. According to the Bible, the priority in marriage is that a Christian should marry only a Christian.

Sadly, there are some Christian homes where the parents are more concerned about their children not marrying someone from another ‘race’ than whether or not they are marrying a Christian. When Christians marry non-Christians, it negates the spiritual (not the physical) oneness in marriage, resulting in negative consequences for the couple and their children.

;)

[Lenny]

Forget what is said on that site, the fact is that white Christians (especially Protestants) are far more likely to marry other whites than are white atheists or white members of some non-Christian religion. Atheists and other non-Christians are much more likely to inter-marry

[Petyr Baelish]

Atheists and other non-Christians are much more likely to inter-marry

Do you have any evidence for this?

[Lenny]

Do you have any evidence for this?I dont have statistics if that's what you mean. But atheist and non-Christian whites are certainly more liberal on the whole than Christian whites are, and leftists are far greater race-mixers than are non-leftists, as we all know. Plus I think it's fair to assume that, on average, atheists and whites who join up with alien religions like Islam have a weaker sense of loyalty to other things besides just religion (other things e.g. race/ethnicity).

There are definitely a lot of white Christians who would mix too, but a greater percentage of the white atheist/non-Christian group would

[jcs]

There is nothing inherent in Christianity that discourages miscegenation, nor anything in non-Christian attitudes toward religion encouraging miscegenation. Trends are basically unimportant: with 're-education,' all good Christians could become mulattos.

[infoterror]

There is nothing inherent in Christianity that discourages miscegenation, nor anything in non-Christian attitudes toward religion encouraging miscegenation. Trends are basically unimportant: with 're-education,' all good Christians could become mulattos.

Individualistic materialist interpretations of spirituality tend toward the kind of ego-drama that produces miscegenates.