A Racist Gets Schooled

Okay so I am dumb and don't really understand what exactly this guy did. Can you explain...

You just earned some cold, hard treasure in Heaven, Josiah! Way to shut down those poser-Christians!

stina, click on the screen shots of his original post. if there are special places in hell, this guy will have one that's nice and hot.

...but I thought Israel was irrelevant?

I can't read it. It's too little.

If you can't read it, roll your mouse over the image and hold it there - an icon with arrows should appear at the bottom right of the image. Click on it - it should expand the image to full size.

Man, Josiah, what a find - it makes me physically ill.

After about 15min of boiling anger I've calmed down just a bit on this one and have migrated to an odd mixture of pity and contempt. This guy is offensive on so many fronts it's nearly comical - unfortunately there's nothing funny about hate or watching someone act out on their lunacy.

I hope he has some clinical diagnosis that explains the level of insanity that runs through his site. It seems like a bad dream - some bizarro cult that's feed by corrupt blend of psudo-Reformed thought, fear, LSD and dementia.

Harry Seabrook's Patriarch's Path Profile

He likes chili

Harry apologizes for something

Look, you morons, Harry didn't post that stuff. I did. He hosts my site, he doesn't write it. Not that he's too worried about some pansy driving by and taking a picture of his house. And that last freakin' commenter is obsessed. You folks need to get a grip. Show me where I'm wrong from the Bible. Yeah, that would be a good start. Or just keep calling Harry, who never even wrote the stuff, a Nazi.

You guys rock.

Josiah, thanks for giving Steve and me a good laugh with the images you used as replacement. Very clever.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to pin a neat clinical diagnosis on this kind of hate? Borderline personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder--some label to explain why such evil exists. For some reason, blaming a psychosis seems to make us feel a little safer. Not to discount the validity of psychological disorders, but unfortunately the more obvious and likely diagnosis is two words: total depravity. This man is unrestrained by God's grace in his life and is embracing his sin nature.

Instead of trying to pin a neat clinical diagnosis on me, it would be really "nice" if you could just show me from the Bible where I'm wrong, and where I've said anything that's untrue, that you somehow seem to think constitutes "hate". You hate me and call me names for saying the same things that RL Dabney, the great Presybterian theologian said, and for believing what virtually all our people believed for centuries and centuries, up until about 50 years ago.

Hey Badonicus, if Harry doesn't mind his address posted, how 'bout you give us your real name and address? You in the Naples area too?

Why don't you post yours Kathryn?

No offense (well, maybe lots of offense) to one of the 4 theologians you've ever read, but R.L. Dabney was a racist too.

No shit, Sherlock. Now, for the fourteenth time, can you do anything to refute the things he said besides call him a name?

Badonicus, can you post a link to your beliefs about the types of relationships that you believe are appropriate between white and black people? Both romantic and non-romantic ones.

never mind - I think I've found a great deal of it.

I was reading your friend Harry's response to RC Sproul Jr. In it, he admits more than once that the Bible does not call interracial marrying a sin. If that is the case, then I don't understand the opposition to it. Simply noting that interracial marriage is rare does not, to me, provide much help either (which seemed to be one of the things Harry emphasized in his response to Sproul). If it is not a sin, then why the hostility towards it? Why even bother to get worked up over it - particularly since you're ridiculing a family who are not even in your own state, and who are believers and therefore (presumably) have a connection to you that should transcend race.

Harry has refined his views since he wrote that, and believes, just as almost all of our ancestors believed, that interracial marriage is a wicked sin.

The Gospel transcends race, but it certainly doesn't obliterate it. And if it did, then how could we argue against gay marriage? For the Gospel transcends gender just as it does race, according to Galatians 3:28

IR marriage used to be illegal in this country, until the Supreme Court invalidated those laws. At the time, something like 85% of people disapproved of IR marriage. Bigger majorities than those today who disapprove of homo marriages.

We all know that if it weren't for the laws against IR marriage being tossed, we wouldn't even be having a discussion about gay marriage, let alone seeing them actually taking place. Ignoring the distinctions that God has created is not wise, and when you saying race isn't important, it won't be long until people start saying sex isn't important. People are just people, man. The only thing that matters is if 2 people love each other. That's what we were told about IR marriage, and that's what we're being told about gay marriage.

And should anyone be foolish enough to deny that legalizing IR marriage led directly and ineluctably to gay marriage, let them go read the actual decision of the Mass. Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. In it, they referred to the Loving v Virginia case 25 times. That's the case where the Supreme Court invalidated all laws against IR marriage.

Hmmm Cant find direct reference in scripture about Pigment and the way it relates to uor station in life hmmmmm... maybe the good Lord above is letting us figure out that one on our own

Badonicus, let's start with the language - if that's not spewing hate, I'm not exactly sure how to characterize it. It's certainly not love, compassion or concern, all of which you would seem to be injoined to show to others by the religion you claim to honor. Psalm 1 says, "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers." If you aren't "mocking" people what are you doing? It seems like you are mocking people.

It also might be a good idea to acquaint you with linking law in terms of permissible uses and re-uses of content that you did not create yourself. I'd suggest some folks get themselves a lawyer. Seems like an ideal opportunity for pro bono work.

Acts 18:26 and 27 states, "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth. And has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us."

Thanks for posting that, Og. Yes, God appointed their boundaries, and we've messed with them. F Nigel Lee has discussed this, and said it wasn't wise. But he's probably a racist, too, huh?

Ed, if what I wrote is "hate", then what in the world would you say about Nehemiah? He didn't just criticized racemixers; he cursed them, beat them, and ripped their hair out.

Address "one blood " u avoider u

"One blood" is a bigger problem for you than it is for me. I've never claimed that racial groups have different kinds of blood. But you seem to be implying that if all men share "one blood", it therefore means that there aren't any significant differences between people, and that therefore it's wrong to oppose multiracialism, integration, and IR marriage. Clearly, this passage encompasses the much maligned pair "Adam and Steve". Well, God made Adam and Steve of "one blood", and if "one blood" means there's no such thing as racial differences, it must also mean there's no such thing as gender differences. If it all boils down to blood, it all boils down to blood. Period.

You haven't really addressed my question about mocking. Please tell me how you aren't mocking.

In terms of Nehemiah, you've got to look at the whole passage of Nehemiah 13. To really want to apply Nehemiah, you'd have to say that we should only marry Jews and those who adopt Judeism since that's what he believed at the time. Nehemiah was not punishing them for leaving Christianity, but for abandoning the God of Israel. Let's not cherry-pick scripture here. I'm fairly certain you wouldn't agree that we should only marry the Children of Israel, but that's exactly what Nehemiah demanded. It's also important to notice that the reason given that he rebuked, cursed, and beat some of them is not because they were of another race, but because, "Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know how to speak the language of Judah." (Neh. 13:24) and "Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned?" (Neh. 13: 26a) Note that it doesn't say that Solomon's marriages were sin, but that it was because of his marriages (where the wives did not share Solomon's faith) that he sinned?

Wow your logic is realy bad , No I think Adam and Steve are not compatable for a whole set of different reasons ... One is obvious B. can u guess what that is? Yipes I just realized my time is up for chatter with u. Life must go on

It's also important to notice the context of the whole passage, the results of intermarriage on faith and observance thing was important to Nehemiah, but it's mentioned in the midst of a much larger list of issues. This is also not a passage dealing with commands, but instead is a narrative of what happened and what he did. What Nehemiah did is not explicitly endorsed by the text or made normative

I think you're really discounting the transforming power of Jesus and the result of His transforming power on our view of the law. Jesus has fulfilled the law - setting us free from its tyranny and told us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Who is your neighbor? It's illustrated perfectly in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Please note that the Samaritan's are exactly who Nehemiah is referring to, yet the Lord picks this race, dispised and hated by the Jews of His day, to be represented by the one who shows us what a true neighbor is.

no sense "reasoning" with this guy. "pearls to swine" and all that. I'm sure he's enjoying the attention too.

Lots of godly men in the Bible mocked. Look at Elijah. There are many others. The passage you refer to is talking about those who mock God. Get yourself some good commentaries.

I hate to break it to you, but, uh, Nehemiah didn't practice Judaism. He was a Christian. Read your Bible. Judaism is the perversion of OT Christianity, or Phariseeism, which is what modern day Orthodox Jews practice. I'm curious-what sort of church do you go to that teaches that Nehemiah practiced Christ denying Judaism, and not Christianity? Has your pastor never read in the New Testament where it says they followed Christ in the wilderness?

And you say that NH was only upset about the language? Right. Then why did he tell them to divorce their wives, and abandon their mixed race kids? Pretty harsh measures over a little diversity. All he had to do was tell them to spend time on language instruction. And what did the little kids do to deserve to have their dad walk out on them? Especially the infants, who didn't even speak any language? But do you see any exceptions, where NH told them to hang on to the little ones? No, he simply told them to abandon their IR marriages and mixed children. Pretty harsh. Besides, the very crowd attacking me would no doubt insist that bilingualism is one of the "blessings" of diversity.

"I think you're really discounting the transforming power of Jesus and the result of His transforming power on our view of the law. Jesus has fulfilled the law - setting us free from its tyranny and told us to love our neighbors as ourselves."

Really? Jesus fulfilled the law and set us free from it? But gay marriage is wrong? Or did Jesus only overthrow those sexual laws that you don't like, and just happened to endorse the ones you do like?

Oh, yes. I've failed to mention that I am a homosexual, and Jesus is pretty clear about giving a big "thumbs up" to rabid faggotry.

Look, if there's any love, kindness or concern for others coming out of you, it's hiding itself pretty well. For someone claiming Christ, it seems that you don't take his commands about loving your neighbor, your enemies, etc. very seriously.

A number of the "learned men" you seem to love to quote would have attempted to have civil discourse, but it seems that's not really possible at this point. If this is a conversation about who is angrier or who can just spew invective longest, I'm glad to concede. You win that battle - it wasn't the one I was fighting. I was hoping we could discuss on a level somewhere beyond a spitting contest, but spit away if you choose. I'm engaging with the second half of the "Love your enemies" verse at this point.

I'm absolutely blown await that you find my comments on this thread "angry" and characterize it as "spewing invective". I really am blown away. I think that says a lot more about you than it does me. When did Christians become a bunch of pansies?

And, in case anyone is too dumb to figure it out, I didn't post the comment above claiming to be a fag.

Hey arent we all a bit mixed already?
If you are "pure race" please go ahead and stay that way. Do you have papers by the way?

But seriously B. I wonder how do you feel about, say a 1/2 Italian 1/2 Swed marrying a 1/2 Irish 1/4 English 1/4 bloggers choice?

Speaking of mixed... did anyone notice the family pic Harry posted of his wife & kids? Kinda dark aren't they? Makes one wonder...

Hey Barb! How's it hangin'?

Thank you so much for this lovely entry. Anyone is welcome to drive by my house anytime, wherever it may be, and take a nice picture of my Glock. Please drive by slowly because my aim is sometimes erratic but my 8yos has a much steadier hand.

The reasons for prohibitions against interracial marriage in the OT have nothing to do with interracial marriage being inherently evil - just like the prohibitions against eating pork have nothing to do with pork being inherently evil.

If you actually bother to read the contexts surrounding the OT prohibitions against mingling with other races, you will find that the issue is religious, not racial. The Jews are God's unique and holy people, and they are not to marry into Gentile races and cultures, just as they are not to allow Gentiles to worship with them, or eat pork.

This finds NT fulfillment in the prohibitions against marrying unbelievers, since the people of God in the NT are defined by faith in Christ, not a nationality like the OT.

And calling the religion of the OT "Christianity" is highly suspect; it would make a lot more sense to call Christianity "Judaism," and claim modern Judaism is a result of infighting.

Tell it to Nehemiah, Phil. If it was a religious issue, and not a racial issue, the book makes no sense. If what you say is correct, then why didn't Nehemiah simply tell the husbands to instruct their wives and half breed kids in the covenant? Why did he tell them to ABANDON them instead? And if it was a religious issue, then how in the world could Nehemiah justify kicking infants and toddlers out of the covenant? They surely weren't old enough to be practicing idolatry.

Oh, and Phil, you're extremly confused and bibilically ignorant if you really believe what you wrote about Christianity and Judaism.

Not a good sign.

Bardonicus has a good question to Phil, but I think I see a reasonable answer. God told his people to abandon the idolaters and their children because he wanted to purify his people. Israel had been (and will again be) corrupted by marrying idolaters and then being overcome by the darkness of the idolatry. God told them to abandon the idolaters because he knew that his people were too weak to not be negatively effected by them.

aduff,
How were 6 month old and two year old children practicing "idolatry"? And how are grown men so weak that they would be overcome by the idolatry of two and three year old kids?

I don't think the children were a direct problem (i.e. they were practicing idolatry). It's the fact that they were children of an idolatrous parent that made them a problem. The Israelites, just like many modern Christians, were great at bending God's rules (Israelite Man: "God said to abandon the idolaters, but surely he wouldn't want me to get rid of my son's mother, so I think it'll be o.k. to keep her around"). It seems to make sense that God wasn't giving them much room to bend his rules by telling them to get rid of the children as well.

I don't oppose gay marriage, so I don't see the relevance of bringing it up. I'm also not a theonomist, so that may be part of it..

And can you provide me with where you're getting the 85% statistic which states that that many people oppose interracial marriage? Even if that statistic was true, it would still not ultimately help your argument. After all, what percentage of the United States do not support theonomic ethics, yet presumably in your mind, theonomic ethics is correct regardless of its popularity. So tell me why it should matter, from the point of view of ethics, what percentage of the people support or oppose anything.

And its a logical fallacy to say that legalizing interracial marriage led to gay marriage. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right? Establishing causality is not so easy as simply quoting a course case.

Interesting that your friend Harry now believes interracial marriage is a sin when, not too long ago, he explicitly said in his correspondence with RC Sproul Jr. that it was most certainly not a sin. Do you happen to know, off hand, what percentage of Reformed theologians support that view - not simply among living folk, but historically? That does seem the more relevant thing for you, and I cannot imagine that it would be anything more than a fraction. After all, the bible's condemnations of Israel intermarrying - which I believe must be where you and he are getting the idea that it's wrong - can and always has been interpreted as typological language. That is, we are not to be unequally yoked with the non-believer. . But even in Israel, if an individual wished to convert to Judaism, and they underwent the appropriate prescribed ceremonies, they could marry that person, despite the difference in background. Boaz and Ruth come immediately to mind, but there are more general descriptions of how this is to be accomplished in the ceremonial laws. I seem to remember a section discussing marriage to conquered people - ie, after Israel has defeated an enemy, and the people are taken as slaves, a man could take as a wife one of the women, only after she underwent extensive ceremonial cleansing. Once that occured, she was grafted into the community of God's people, receiving more or less full rights appropriate for her gender in that time of redemptive history, and they were married. That law seems to undermine any racial argument, which if were correct, would lead me to think that even after conversion occured, racially different individuals could never marry. But we see this being allowed.

Badonicus, you never answered the question about a "1/2 Italian 1/2 Swed marrying a 1/2 Irish 1/4 English 1/4 bloggers choice?"

Is that wrong too?

Okay, Badonicus!

New City Fellowship is out of your league. You could never understand the good this Church does.

I have known Pastor Nabors for more than ten years and I must warn you, you can never measure up.

I no longer even attend NCF but only because I feel the Lord wants me where I am now, not because I don't want to be back.

I'll add you to my prayer list.

Scott,
I'm not your secretary. You can look up the facts about opposition to IR marriage yourself. They're not difficult to find at all. And I didn't hang my argument on them, I was simply pointing out that Judeochristian family value types, which would include many of the readers here, love to point out that most people oppose gay marriage, and use that to bolster their case against gay marriage.

Speaking of which, if you're so far gone that you can't figure out why homo marriage should be opposed, I really don't have much interest in discussing anything with you.

If you're really interested, dig through the archives at my blog. But I have no time to waste on someone who thinks fag marriage should be legal.

This is completely off subject, but I can't help but rant on comments like Gregg's last (I'll add you to my prayer list). This type of comment is something I see often during the course of Christian discussion. I think that they are rarely genuine; rather, they communicate a "I'm good, you're bad and I'm going to help you" attitude that is pompous and devoid of any real compassion or love.

Gregg,
Are you honestly going to pray for Badonicus? If so are you going to do so in a spirit of dependence, love, and humility?

yes, I am

I ask others to pray the same for me

Mrs. Seabrook that's really cool you have a glock. And I'm sure Harry has a steadier aim.

as for the gay marriage issue...

ever heard, "hate the sin, not the sinner?"

as for the gay marriage issue...

ever heard, "hate the sin, not the sinner?"

What the hell are you babbling about? Now it's "hate" if we believe fags can't get married? You people are sick. We don't let brothers and sisters or grandfathers and granddaughters get married to each other, so I guess that's HATE too?

That's why I laugh when imbeciles call me a Nazi. Terms like "nazi", "racist", "antisemite" are simply slurs we put on people who haven't bought into quite as much liberalism as we have. Check out my archives, and you'll find an article about a web forum for newspaper copy editors, where they discuss what to do with letters from "hatemongers". And who are the hatemongers they're talking about? Well, they list several-racists, antisemites, people opposed to illegal immigration, people opposed to gay marriage, and members of Concerned Women for America.

Anyone who disagrees with a liberal is a racist antisemitic Nazi.

And now we've got "Christians" who say that opposing gay marriage is "hating the sinner".

Your pastors must all be real proud.

Bad, you're guilty of being a hatemongering anti-semtic nutjob not because you oppose marriage, and not because you oppose liberalism, but because you hate, categorically, and extend that hate into some socio-religious political schema. That stuff is going to eat you alive, and my hope is that you'll be the only one it destroys and kills before you implode.

Not everyone here believes that gay marriage should be permitted by the church. Nor do we all label someone a Nazi as the only possible alternative to liberalism. Certainly, there is a rampant demoralizing of the church all in the name of "tolerance" (which is indeed sad), but gay marriage and IR are NOT the same thing.

Your habit of taking scripture out of context is the true offense, here. I'm sure your pastor is equally proud.... or maybe he IS.... which is worse.

Q,
You wouldn't have any idea what Biblical hate even is. Preferring my own people, and wanting to see them prosper, isn't hate. Neither is criticizing other groups, or pointing out differences. And you're against "hate", but you've posted personal information about a family of people, including several small children, who had nothing to do with my posts. And you're encouraging people to hassle them. And they're doing it. They got a harassing phone call at 2AM this morning. But encouraging people to do that isn't "hate". That's just Christian love in action, right?

Badonicus,

From your blog:

"Orthodox Jews, who proudly practice Phariseeism, are dangerous lunatics."

Yeah, you're just "pointing out differences", and we're doing the hating....

Right....

Whethery it makes you cry or not, that's simpy a fact. Read the article. They think it's a sin to turn the stove on during the sabbath or Passover, so they leave open flames burning for up to a week in their apartments. That's lunacy.

They've had thirty five fires in a couple months in one apartment complex because of this. And the other day, 3 kids died because of it. So it's very dangerous.

In what way are people who leave open flames burning in small apartments for a week at a time NOT dangerous lunatics?

No crying here, Bad... just pity.

My comment was meant to show how you do just as much "labeling" as you accuse others of doing to you....

You would do well to spend a little more time reading the gospels and studying the character of Jesus. You claim to follow him and his precepts.... How closely do you think your behaviors fall in line with his?

Would you care to answer the question?

One more time.

In what way are people who think it's a horrible sin to turn on the stove on the sabbath or Passover, but think it's perfectly alright to leave open flames burning for a week at a time to get around the rule, and cause 35 fires in one complex in a few months, and cause 3 kids to die...in what way are they NOT dangerous lunatics?

I'd be happy to.... I believe that open flames in apartment complexes are very dangerous, and I believe it shows a lack of judgement on the part of the individuals that did this.

HOWEVER, lack of judgement is not a racially distinct characteristic. I'm sure you can sympathize.

....are you also willing to label white/anglo-saxons as lunatics were they to commit a similar offense?

Or are white people not capeable of evil...?

For people who all claim to follow Christ we sure like to throw around pointless insults. How about we pray for our words to be seasoned with grace and love?

Bad,
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my last post.

These guys are tards that want attention...yep definately a case of pearls to the swine here.

just checked out Badonicus' site and I realized that his post of JQR's info and pics reminds me of what Islamic Jihadists would do to Christian Missonaries when they would go there to preach the gospel. Print their address, picrures all in an effort to have Chritian hating radicals assasinate them.

You're messin with the wrong group of people Buba badonicus.

heh..."do you have papers" that's for awesome.

and Mr. Seabrook, your glock sucks if you can't fire it right you should look into maybe a colt defender .40.

This conversation has really gotten off course, which conveniently for some, turns attention away from the original problem: the degradation of the Huffine's website, blog, and family picture. Sure, this Badonkadonkas guy has bought into all sorts of bad theology and has a handful of comebacks and criticisms that he's no doubt memorized for times such as these, but the real issue is that he attacked (without cause and with malice) people he doesn't even know. Of course someone like this is incapable of being persuaded by truth, reason or love...especially when arguing over the specifics of a soapbox he is so dedicated to standing on. Regardless of your thoughts, beliefs, or biblical interpretation, the Huffine's deserve an apology for having to be unwilling recipients of your "opinions," if nothing else...or does the bible free us from repenting for such flagrant wrongdoing?

ya, he got my name, address, and phone number wrong too. That's what really ticks me off.

Micah, You are right. However, I doubt the Huffines will get an apology from Badonicus until Mr. Huffine repents and leaves his evil wife and child.

I don't have to tell Nehemiah it's a religious issue. He already says it in 13:25-27 - the issue with Israel and foreigners is that foreigners lead Israel away from YHWH. Notice the direct comparison with King Solomon. This is what Nehemiah is so upset about - love and diplomacy with foreign nations led to the tolerance and adoption of their gods. If this is purely a racial issue, then why does Nehemiah bring up Solomon, and why does he repeat several times that the issue was that the foreigners caused him to sin?

Note also the prior verses where he is upset at how the Israelites are being absorbed into the culture of Ashdod. This is coupled with his lament over Sabbath observance. In other words, Israel is losing their identity as the people of God, and they are becoming like the other nations.

How can you read the entirety of Nehemiah where his complaint is coupled with Sabbath observance and foreign gods and come away with the problem being purely racial?

In the OT, there is no distinction between ethnicity and spirituality. You are either Jewish and God's holy nation, or you are a heathen that is not to be a bedfellow (metaphorically or literally) with God's people.

This is probably why Nehemiah doesn't suggest "covenant nurture" or whatever the hell you said. Jews in the OT are not evangelistic, although rare converts did exist. No, what we see is Nehemiah's attempt to "purify the church," and this is done, in this passage, by ousting all foreign influences. In fact, given the comparison with Solomon, it seems that Nehemiah's position is that the foreigners are leading Israel to their gods, and are not interested in being Jewish.

This is why the NT fulfillment is a prohibition against marrying unbelievers. Where is the NT prohibition against interracial marriage?

Also, you never said why my assertion about Christianity being a reform of Judaism was somehow more ignorant than calling a group of people Christians who existed millennia before Christ. You just said it was an ignorant assertion without any argumentation to back it up.

That's no way to argue your point. Unless of course, your point has no logical support.

Perhaps not even then. It blows my mind that Heaven and the Gospel might actually be big enough for liberals like me and hardcore theonomists like this guy...it's much more tempting to think that everyone interprets the bible like I do, but that's obviosuly not the case. There are of course various issues we all sort of agree to disagree on, but when I saw and read what this guy was doing to NCF and the Huffine's...and all in the name of some twisted form of christianity? I'm anxious for the day we all see glass that is no longer dimly lit...

For anyone in the Charlotte, NC area looking for an incredible church that has an african-american senior pastor and a caucasian associate (my brother-in-law), check out www.christcentralchurch.com.

Harry, I cannot find the name of your church on your blog. Are you a member of a PCA church, and if so, would you mind posting its name?

Harry? Who are you talking to? I'm not Harry, and if you want to ask him something, email him, or go to his website.

Whether or not Harry Seabrook initially posted the attack on the Huffines and NCF is irrelevant, because once he discovered what Bad wrote, he then posted his own little rant, including reference to the "ugly Huffines" and praising Bad for what he posted. And, Bad is obviously a coward given that he is allowing Seabrook to take the heat while refusing to identify himself.

By the way, I think it's absolutely hilarious that a bunch of white supremists decided to set up shop in Florida, of all places. Would have thought they'd pick somewhere a little whiter, like Montana or something. Instead, they pick a state where the governor's wife is Mexican and the governor speaks Spanish at home. Go figure.

Would you care to answer the question?

My bad. Can you post your church's name? I could not find it listed on your blog.

I already answered it, but it got deleted.

But yes, if you find me a group of WASP's that believes it's a horrible sin to turn on the stove on the sabbath, but it's just fine to leave an open flame burning in their apartment for a week to get around the rule, I'll be happy to call them dangerous lunatics.

Good luck finding a group of WASP's like that. Because, that sort of thing is peculiar to Judaism. It's why Jesus hated and denounced the Pharisees, because they had perverted the law. Modern Orthodox Jews will proudly tell you that they practice Phariseeism. And the Bible isn't their holy book. Their holy book is a collection of rabbinical sayings called The Talmud. You may have heard of it. It's what Jesus referred to as "the traditions of men".

Why do you want my church's name?

So, are we giving up on Nehemiah?

If someone so biblically ignorant and confused as I am can swat your "exegesis" so easily, just imagine what a smart guy could do to it!

"Whether or not Harry Seabrook initially posted the attack on the Huffines and NCF"

Calm down, girlfren'! What attack? Criticism is not attacking. Pointing out that someone proudly posts evidence of his sin on the web is not attacking. Calling something a sin is not attacking. Nobody attacked NCF or the Huffines. "Ugly family"? It's not a reference to their looks. We'd say the same thing if two women "married" each other had kids, no matter how pleasant to look at they are. But there's no getting around it, White are far more beautiful than blacks and other races. And right there is all the reason you need not to mix your genes with theirs.

Dear God, can I watch as you spew these people from your mouth on judgment day?

amen

[-p]

You're right.... I'm sure no WASP has ever started a fire. I'm sure no WASP has ever fired a gun. I'm sure no WASP has ever raped or murdered anyone, stolen property, abandoned their family, lied, cheated, or harmed anyone in any way.

It doesn't take a genius to find evil in this world. But it's pure ignorance to try to assign it to a particular race or creed. We are ALL SINNERS in desperate need of God's forgiveness. That means me, that means you, and anyone else who ever drew breath.

I wanted to contact your pastor and ask him if he knew you posted this material publicly. I also was curious as to whether he shared your beliefs. And I was also wondering if it was a PCA church (my denomination).

Ah...there it is. You can dress it up, but sooner or later the "systematic thought" charade will collapse to the outright vitrioloc hate it really is.

Let me get this straight. You have no problem with sodomite "marriage", and you want to turn me in for opposing interracial marriage? And you're a member in good standing of the PCA?!

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

I rest my case.

You're right.... I'm sure no WASP has ever started a fire. I'm sure no WASP has ever fired a gun. I'm sure no WASP has ever raped or murdered anyone, stolen property, abandoned their family, lied to anyone, cheated anyone, or harmed anyone in any way.

It doesn't take a genius to find evil in this world, but it's pure ignorance to try to assign it to a particular race or creed. We are ALL SINNERS, and in desperate need of God's forgiveness. That means me, and that means you, and that means anyone who ever drew breath.

And I quote from here:

"...since Jews hate Jesus Christ and his Word, they have to go..."

"...Jews hate White people, and they really, really, hate Jesus Christ. And they're in charge now. So get used to it. Because they're going to start rubbing it in our faces..."

"I thought the standard story was the Germans were slaughtering Jews; now it turns out that it was half breeds that had Hitler's panties in a bunch."

"...there's always the inconvenient fact that Jews were wailing about a "holocaust" of SIX MILLION dead Jews..."

"...Thoroughly modern, as in thoroughly Jewish, as would be expected in any product of the Time-Life empire. And just like the rest of the Jewish media, it's hellbent on normalizing and glamorizing anything that's ugly, alien, perverted, pornographic, crude, etc., and marginalizing and ridiculing the good, the wholesome, the normal. Oh, it's got some inoffensive stuff in it, but that's just there as filler."

"...And the woman they chose to honor on their cover is currently starring in an ad campaign for The Gap which is all about miscegenation-tens of millions of White girls have seen her dressing provocatively for, dancing seductively with, being held by, and grinding up against Negro rock star Lenny Kravitz. That's what the Jews at LIFE and HBO want your daughters talking about and doing; the last thing they want is them marrying while they're young and having lots of White babies. And if, God forbid, your daughters are hateful enough to bring more White babies into the world, well the Jews at LIFE are prepared for that contingency, too. Near the back of the magazine is a guide to the weekend, and one feature is "Guest Critic", where they invite a celebrity in to review a movie. The inaugural issue features Rufus Wainwright reviewing Mean Girls. And who is Rufus Wainwright? Why, he's the faggot folk rocker who told the New York Times last year that he has fantasized about sex with children. All this in a "mainstream" family publication. Welcome to Main Street, in the new improved, diversity enhanced, Jewish America."

Nuts.

The moron laughs

[-p]

I said this:

"Calm down, girlfren'! What attack? Criticism is not attacking. Pointing out that someone proudly posts evidence of his sin on the web is not attacking. Calling something a sin is not attacking. Nobody attacked NCF or the Huffines. "Ugly family"? It's not a reference to their looks. We'd say the same thing if two women "married" each other had kids, no matter how pleasant to look at they are. But there's no getting around it, White are far more beautiful than blacks and other races. And right there is all the reason you need not to mix your genes with theirs."

Q replied:

"Ah...there it is. You can dress it up, but sooner or later the "systematic thought" charade will collapse to the outright vitrioloc hate it really is."

So, exactly what did I get wrong? You keep throwing out terms like "hate" and "vitriol" and "nazi", but you never show me where I'm wrong about anything.

Why is that exactly? When did calling someone a name become an argument?

"White are far more beautiful than blacks and other races. And right there is all the reason you need not to mix your genes with theirs." -- Badonicus

And there it is, folks: thinly-veiled foolish, militant ethnocentrism (read: racism).

"Why is that exactly? When did calling someone a name become an argument?"

"Oh, and Phil, you're extremly[sic] confused and bibilically[sic] ignorant if you really believe what you wrote about Christianity and Judaism."

They aren't named Bubu they're defenitions...defenitions of what you are and what you believe in.

[-p]

Phil: I believe he was talking about the "bibilical" cord. You know, that thing that hangs out of your KJV 1611 that you use to mark pages.

"thinly-veiled foolish, militant ethnocentrism"

Actually, it just happens to be the absolute truth. And we all know it. And you just make a fool of yourself when you argue that the black race is just as aesthetically attractive as Whites. That's insane. All you're saying is you've rejected any standards of physical beauty. Which, as I say, is insane.

What about an ugly WASP? Or are there not any of those either.....

BADONICUS: If the Bible is your absolute standard for discerning what Truth is, then kindly point out to me the red letters where Jesus explicitly decrees that black people are less "aesthetically attractive" than white people.

You can't?

That's what I thought.

And who said I was advocating the rejection of "standards of physical beauty?" I'll wager your own "aesthetic appearance" is less than satisfactory.

Oh, and I like the way you always capitalize "Whites" and write "blacks" in lowercase.

Really damned cute.

I, get lost. You keep repeating the same argument, which has nothing to do with my positions at all. I explained to you why I called Orthodox Jews whose crazy religion is constantly causing fires "dangerous lunatics". And you won't admit that they're dangerous lunatics, And when I point out that their dangerous lunacy flows right from their antiChrist religion, you come back with a line about some white people have started fires too.

Now beat it.

What about the Jewish race? Are they, in your mind and based on your opinion (be careful, that which you're confusing with "truth" is actually subjective), as equally unattractive as the african-american race? Wasn't Jesus Jewish? How do you handle or dismiss this?

Because a person disagrees with you that the black race is as aesthetically attractive as the white race, they've "rejected any standards of physical beauty"? Where did you find this standard, just out of curiousity?

now we are on to beauty?

I was always taught to look for inner beauty instead of physical beauty. Even the beautiful people (as attributed by their physical looks) can be ugly if their heart is in the wrong place.

That aside, I think Badonicus should forfeit his church name & contact info. I think that anyone not ashamed of their beliefs, should have no problem providing that sort of information. I think we should all pass out our church credentials (id start, but i have no membership right now).

We might all do well to consider Christ's words in Matthew:

Matthew 5:22-24

22"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

23"Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,

24leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

In one sense Bad it boils down to different assumptions and different heart commitments. I think your actions, words, and thoughts fall outside of historic Christianity and the Gospel. To be frank I have a hard time believing you love and have faith in the same Jesus Christ I do that I read about in His Word and commune with via the Lords Supper, The Spirit, and the Body.

Heck, in the most practical sense, I'd put even money that you attend a "house church" and rarely, if ever, can be found darkening the doors of a local body of worship. I'd also put even money that you got to that point through a pattern of attending churches, becoming more and more radical and contrarian, and "church hopping" or "church splitting" until you ended up at home. That's my read on the situation, if you're an adult married male.

My point is that it seems like name calling from varying sides because we're talking about different brute assumptions about the world and Christ. You approach and interpret the world through a harsh and rigorous set of rules, comprised of stringent neo-Reformed theonomy and racial purity.

It makes perfect sense then that you would see me, and Huffine, and a majority of the world as somehow corrupt and utterly evil. It fits with where you're coming from.

Huffine and I, and a vast majority of the PCA, OPC, and the "church" for the most part don't see the world so black and white, at least not on those issues. Life and Christ aren't things that can be summed into is brute Reformed theological assertions and racial purity. Those aren't OUR assumptions.

I think we for the most part go about our lives in an interesting and diverse dynamic of what it means to love Christ more and love one another more, because we have the brute assumption and heart commitment which is faith in Jesus Christ.

And I have a hard time when reading my Bible, looking at Christ and His life and works, coming up with anything even remotely close as to what your suggesting, in fact, it seems downright contrary. Hence, the majority of the Church and the World is oddly unified on the conclusion that you're a hateful, vitriolic, racist nutjob. It's a completely understandable conclusion to draw, because our brute assumptions about the World are so diametrically opposed.

My hope is that somebody, somewhere, will be patient enough to show you that your thinking isn't in line with the Church tradition and isn't in line with Scripture. I'm certainly not sanctified enough to pull it off. It takes a certain level of spiritual maturity to have ones friends called ugly in a hateful fashion without wanting to take a bat to the insulter-s head. I'm just not that person.

But again, I do think this whole wacky situation is ultimately a good one, because alot of people are now personally aware that fruitloops like you do exist, and that sooner or later the Church is going to need to figure out a way to really minister to you and your "kin" as you call it. Because ultimately we want you and yours to be part of the Kingdom that isn't of this world, that isn't bound by race or class or geography, or denomination or any earthly, material, created definitions.

Anyways, in my mind that's real kinship.

NO, I will not "admit" that THEY are lunatics, because the article involved only a few INDIVIDUALS. Read my post.... I acknowledged that the INDIVIDUALS showed lack of judgement. But this is not race specific, and it's pure ignorance to say that it is.

You're only irritated with my repitition because you've got NOTHING worthwhile in reply. You're the one who can't admit that all of your arguments are subjective.

It's funny how you told Jimmy to "beat it," like he was on the front porch of your house. You're such a bully Badonkadonkas...it's makes me laugh. Do you borrow your monkier from the Battle of Mons Badonicus? Why not use your real name once in a while...it would be much more personal. Still no answer of where or if you go to church...that's a let down.

I thought it was funny how he told "I" to "beat it" like Michael Jackson. Now there's another cat with race issues.

Excellent comments, Siah. I might just add the clarification that I don't think this is about being too theologically precise or the existence of clear-cut theological categories, because I do believe that such things exist, and I'm pretty sure you do as well.

In fact, one of my problems with Yoantisemite Sam here is that he has no theological basis whatsoever, but as you can see, having any kind of biblical support (or umbilical support - thanks Jim) just isn't important to him. I find that the more rabidly racist someone is (and, I hate to say it, the more rabidly theonomic someone is), the less the Bible actually matters. It's the angst that matters.

As far as I'm concerned, there's not a lot left to say. Many people have capably challenged his theological and logical claims, and he's yet to put up any kind of defense other than to troll.

I'm sure I speak for virtually everyone when I say that my arms are getting tired from handing this guy's aesthetically-superior white ass to him.

Indeed, Phil.

Hey Bad,
Do you hold to the Athanasian creed even though it was written by a black Christian and even though it is heralded as a triumph of theological confession?
Do you herald Moses as a Covenant Mediator even though his wife Zipporah was black (Midianites are black, research your archaeology if you don't know this).
Do you ever stop to think that the vast majority of Christians that have lived in this world were and are not white? White Christians are the minority these days worldwide. Does it trouble you that God reached out to races that are not white? Does it trouble you to know that it was non-whites who actually brought the Gospel to uneducated Barbarians (i.e. your European ancestors) who were white?

Hey Baddy,

I'm curious what you think about this tid-bit:

1 Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite. 2 "Has the LORD spoken only through Moses?" they asked. "Hasn't he also spoken through us?" And the LORD heard this.
3 (Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.)

4 At once the LORD said to Moses, Aaron and Miriam, "Come out to the Tent of Meeting, all three of you." So the three of them came out. 5 Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood at the entrance to the Tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam. When both of them stepped forward, 6 he said, "Listen to my words:
"When a prophet of the LORD is among you,
I reveal myself to him in visions,
I speak to him in dreams.

7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.

8 With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the LORD.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?"

Sure seems like God was OK with this.

"White are far more beautiful than blacks and other races. And right there is all the reason you need not to mix your genes with theirs." -- Badonicus

If that is true, then how do you explain Halle Berry?

I guess Calvin was nuts. He said Moses' wife was not black. We've discussed this thing many times on my blog and Harry's blog, and we've both got a search feature. Knock yourself out. Same thing about Athanasius. There's no evidence at all that he was a Negro, or anything but White. Same deal with Augustine-he may have been born in Africa, but he most certainly was not Soul Brutha #1. And Phil says he's tired of refuting me? LOL. That's a good one. And when I defend my position, I'm just trolling. You guys slay me.

Oh Ray...take it easy man, some of us are at work. Do you think former Atlanta Brave standout David Justice ever kicks himself for leaving that amazing woman? How I wish I was a woman (and not a married man) so I could confess to a girl-crush...

Damn good point, Ray.

It wouldn't be the first time that Calvin was wrong about something. I believe he also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

For one thing, Halle Berry is half White. She hit the genetic jackpot, a one in a million shot. Of course, her black dad walked out on her, but then that's neither here nor there, is it?

And we're talking about billions and billions of people. Of course there will be exception, but the general rule still obtains. I know a woman who's 6' 6' tall. And I STILL say men are bigger and taller and stronger than women, and so does everyone who's not hopped up on semitical correctness. The same thing applies to aesthetics. We all know Whites are far more attractive than blacks. Heck, just read what the Bible says about light and darkness. Is light preferable to darkness in the Bible, or are they equal?

Hello, Josiah. We obviously disagree on this matter, and there are high emotions on both sides. I propose that we respect our right to free speech and stop encouraging harrassment, as you did in your blog post. I will remove your contact information if you will remove mine. When I saw the picture of your family posted at Little Geneva, I began to worry that this might get out of hand. It seemed pretty funny before that.

Joanna Veith at World Magazine pulled Anthony Bradley's link to this page because she recognizes it as incitement.

But it is entirely within your right to believe that our "actions, words, and thoughts fall outside of historic Christianity and the Gospel." I just hope that this shouting match evolves into something more biblically substantive. We can have an honest debate if we try because we all (I think) recognize the supreme authority of Scripture.

Please consider my offer and let me know what you think. I would have emailed you privately, but I couldn't find your address.

HOLY OUT-OF-CONTEXT, BATMAN!!!!!

"Heck, just read what the Bible says about light and darkness. Is light preferable to darkness in the Bible, or are they equal?" -- Badonicus

What does the light have to do with race? That's a preposterous semantic stretch that digs far into the territory of lunacy.

AGAIN, If the Bible is your absolute standard for discerning what Truth is, then kindly point out to me the red letters where Jesus explicitly decrees that black people are less "aesthetically attractive" than white people.

"Slay you"? Don't tell me you're borrowing your lines from Geico commercials...we expect better from you Badonkadonkas. Man, when did Calvin become the final word on all things archeological and historical? Calvin was flawed, Athanasius was flawed, I'm flawed, you're flawed...besides, Moses certainly wasn't caucasian...come on, your brain might be washed whiter than snow, but you can look at a map and spot the Middle East, Greece, Rome, Israel...the Old Testament (which seems to be the only part of the bible you've highlighted) didn't take place in France or Germany.

You still havene't answered my question about the Jewish (Jewish like Jesus) race...are they beautiful?

"I guess Calvin was nuts. He said Moses' wife was not black."

So, since Calvin was a good theologian, it also means that he is an authoritative anthropologist, or did he whip out the Calvinscope and look back through time and see that she wasn't black?

Even if that were true THE POINT IS it was still an interracial marriage.

You also still have yet to defend your view of Nehemiah 13 or the covenant fulfillment of the ethnic-spiritual change from OT to NT. You have yet to show any NT laws against interracial marriage, which you won't find, because the significance of ethnicity has given way to faith in Christ as the "racial" dividing line, not Jew or Gentile, etc.

Instead of actually making a point, you are wasting oxygen trying desperately to convince people that ancient Africans were white.

You, sir, are a moron, and a disgrace to the heritage of Southern intellectualism.

Bad,
Are you relying on Calvin for your historiographical information? Give me a break. Surely, you must realize that WHITE people did not live in the area of the early church, they lived way to the north. I thought you Arian nation folks were all about Hitler's chosen race of pale skin and blue eyes. If so, I hate to tell you this, but you are either guilty of tolerance (you're letting people who aren't white into your category of being white) or your guilty of presentism (reading your own time period into another time period). I hate to tell you this, but the writers of the Bible were not white, in fact, there are no white people in the Bible. The white people were in places like Germania which sorry to say seriously lacked in education and culture in comparison to their darker brothers further down south.

white mother + black father = genetic jackpot

No wonder I'm so lacking in the looks department, both my parents were white! Damn providence...

There's no reason to believe that people like Alan Dershowitz and Woody Allen and Bette Midler are any relation to Jesus.

Call it hate, but I find my own people the most beautiful. I can't believe anyone would even have a problem with that. It's mind boggling that you folks are attacking us because we want to see our people survive, and not turned into browns and blacks through intermarriage.

I cannot understand how you're able to devote so much time and energy to even caring this much about who other people marry.

Funny.... I wonder if "they" feel the same way....

"I just hope that this shouting match evolves into something more biblically substantive. We can have an honest debate if we try because we all (I think) recognize the supreme authority of Scripture."

I have doubts you recognize the supreme authority of Scripture, and the way your boy has abandoned Scripture for anthropological arguments about white Africans demonstrates this to be true. You have commitments to a position, and you have found Scripture that "supports" your pre-established commitments. You did not derive them from exegesis.

This seems to indicate that your own views hold supreme authority, and Scripture is a secondary authority to which you will turn while it is convenient. This leads me to believe real debate is impossible. I'm just doing this for kicks. *waves at crowd*

Harry,

You seem like a calmer, more rational person (though still horribly misguided); can you please point out to us where God has revealed that IR marriage is a sin?

I know, I know--you've written tomes about it on your blog--but I don't have time read through your corpus right now. Just a few clear texts would be helpful. Thanks a ton.

So, Bad, would you say that white Europeans are the true Hebrews then?

Oh Badonkadonkas...you are a rascal! I never know when to take you seriously. It's so funny when you pretend to be scared about the survival of the white race...yes, we as white people are endangered...one day we'll be in museums. You're so tongue in cheek, so hyperbolic...it's a riot (but not like the R.I.O.T that contemporary christian music singer Carman brought about in the early 90's - that was a righteous invasion of truth). Why is culture so frightening to you? Why must you surround yourself only with people who look like you? What do you about the unattractive white people?

Paul, thank you for asking. I think this is what you're looking for:
http://littlegeneva.com/interracial.html

But I want to stay out of the debate. I'm more concerned about the posting of personal information and think that this should be out of bounds. I hope the rest of you agree.

By the way - and then I'll really leave - Badonicus is a very rational person. Ask him a sensible question (as Kathryn, who has a lovely voice, just did) and he'll answer it directly. If you throw ad hominem at him, he throws ad hominem back, and so do I.

That's a tough question. Why don't you just start calling people at 2am until you get the answer to your question?

So, Bad, would you say that white Europeans are the true Hebrews then?

Posted by: kathryn at May 4, 2005 03:35 PM

That's a tough question. Why don't you just start calling people at 2am until you get the answer to your question, Kathy?

Harry,
I'd be interested in a discussion of the question "Is it Biblically justifiable to marry across racial lines?"

Badonicus wrote: festering swill.

Harry Seabrook wrote: festering swill with a happy face.

In these two persons is proof that some fools not only drink from the toilet, but find their meals there too.

The Little Geneva cult uses the Bible the same way Jehovah's Wittnesses do- tear out little chunks and scream their moronic babble from them, whilst wiping their arse with the rest of the Word. No need to argue from scripture with them- they don't give a rat's ass about what God says.

There's no need to treat them like Christians- It's okay to mock them in true Carmel fashion.

Come on, Hairy! Come on, Badonprickus! Is this all you got?!? You haven't created the perfect Christian community yet! Maybe you haven't used the right kind of spray paint to color your neighbors properly, or perhaps you haven't found enough idiots to brainwash into your cult.

Harry, don't bother attempting to be respectable here or anywhere else. You haven't a shred of honor left. You host and endorse St. Nimrod, and claim him as your 'patron saint'. You've turned away from the authority given to the Church in the Word, and have made yourself a maverick- something that a Christian cannot be. You are scum below the scum. To hell with you, for that's where you are bound.

Badonicus- I'm happy that you are obviously an unmarried man, for the idea of you breeding is a detriment to humanity. However, I'd be happy to loan you some cash if you need it. You desperately need to get laid, as your blue balls are affecting your ability to reason. heck, even a blow-up doll might help.

Perhaps the problem is that Badonicus is actually JEWISH! Have you ever seen him refer to this mythical book called the New Testament? No, not Jew badonicus- only the Tanakh is in his library. Fight the power, Jewboy!

Crossguard

What do you about the unattractive white people?-- Micah Carver

That's me!

/me eagerly awaits the answer

"Ask him a sensible question (as Kathryn, who has a lovely voice, just did) and he'll answer it directly. If you throw ad hominem at him, he throws ad hominem back, and so do I."

K: So, Bad, would you say that white Europeans are the true Hebrews then?

B: That's a tough question. Why don't you just start calling people at 2am until you get the answer to your question?"

LOL! You could NOT write this stuff if you tried.

Harry,
I tried asking Badonicus sensible questions but I was ignored. I think he is more interested in being involved in the ad hominem contest.

Crossguard, that doesn't help much....

aduff, I do remember you were pretty sensible. But I was banned for a couple hours and lost track of the thread. Ask me again and I'll try to answer.

I didn't call anybody at 2am, and even if I did, how's that come anywhere near posting the Huffine's pictures all over the internet and saying the things that you all said about them.

Now, answer my question, are Europeans the true hebrews?

"Ask him a sensible question (as Kathryn, who has a lovely voice, just did) and he'll answer it directly. If you throw ad hominem at him, he throws ad hominem back, and so do I."

K: So, Bad, would you say that white Europeans are the true Hebrews then?

B: That's a tough question. Why don't you just start calling people at 2am until you get the answer to your question?"

LOL! You could NOT write this stuff if you tried.

Posted by: Phil at May 4, 2005 03:48 PM

Phil, you're such a tool. I asked Kathy that question for a very specific reason. Why don't you ask her what I'm talking about, and ask her how Harry has any idea what her voice sounds like since they've never met? M'kay, Phil? Get a clue, will ya, bro? Will ya just do that for me? Thanks!

We were discussing the nature of God's commands to not intermarry in Nehemiah. Here's the last part of the discussion.

B: If it was a religious issue, and not a racial issue, the book makes no sense. If what you say is correct, then why didn't Nehemiah simply tell the husbands to instruct their wives and half breed kids in the covenant? Why did he tell them to ABANDON them instead?

A: Bardonicus has a good question to Phil, but I think I see a reasonable answer. God told his people to abandon the idolaters and their children because he wanted to purify his people. Israel had been (and will again be) corrupted by marrying idolaters and then being overcome by the darkness of the idolatry. God told them to abandon the idolaters because he knew that his people were too weak to not be negatively effected by them.

B: How were 6 month old and two year old children practicing "idolatry"? And how are grown men so weak that they would be overcome by the idolatry of two and three year old kids?

A: I don't think the children were a direct problem (i.e. they were practicing idolatry). It's the fact that they were children of an idolatrous parent that made them a problem. The Israelites, just like many modern Christians, were great at bending God's rules (Israelite Man: "God said to abandon the idolaters, but surely he wouldn't want me to get rid of my son's mother, so I think it'll be o.k. to keep her around"). It seems to make sense that God wasn't giving them much room to bend his rules by telling them to get rid of the children as well. God understands that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough". Leaving the children there would give the Israelites an excuse to leave the women there as well.

...once again... can't answer a question because he has nothing to say.

"I didn't call anybody at 2am"

Oh, is that right?

"and even if I did,"

You just said you didn't. Which is it?

"how's that come anywhere near posting the Huffine's pictures all over the internet and saying the things that you all said about them."

Um, waking someone's wife up at 2am to harass her and say terrible things to her is a little different than what I did. I didn't post anything "all over the internet". I posted their pic, which is freely available on the web, on my site. I said what they were doing is wrong, and their church is wrong. I never encouraged anyone to harass them or bother them in anyway. They're proud of the picture-that's why it's on the net. I simpy linked to it and discussed it. I didn't bother them, or post where they live, and I sure as hell didn't call his wife at 2am to harass her.

Some more Scripture for those who care about these sorts of things:

Titus 3:1-5

1 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2 to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy

Zing! Badonkadonkas you never quit do you? You and your "specific reasons," that's clever in so many ways...especially the evasive ones. And "Kathy?" What is this, casual Friday? I like how you use e-words like "m'kay," it shows me that you're internet savvy. If I had to guess your age I would say...nineteen. Tell me if I'm high or low. I'm basing my guess of your blind exhuberance and misplaced issue-specific passion, which is most often seen in neophytes who have just recently learned a bit of knowledge and are anxious to throw their pseudo-intellect weight around.

Bad: You NOT post their pic on your site. You hotlinked to those photos and STOLE bandwidth.

Well, if I stole bandwith, it was unintentional. I'm no techie. I link to pics all the time, and no one has ever told me it's stealing bandwith.

okay, after that..., I just had to...

Then you'll not having any problem taking the picture down then...will you? It would be awesome of you just to remove that whole thread/post from your blog as well...just as a favor.

Well, maybe you should apologize for your theft to the Huffine family.

"Phil, you're such a tool."

Yes. A racist-moron-argument-dismantling tool.

I am, however, glad you've dropped all pretense of this being about what the Bible says. It helps keep the discussion honest.

The imperfect internet race. Those who don't what bandwith is should be shipped away. HA! You suck dude.

Where in the Bible does it say not to call people at 2am?

Hey Harry,

I talked with Joanna after your wife did, and Anthony post's will be coming back up soon without your information on it.

As to whether or not I'll take your info off, I'm not so inclined to do it, largely because all of your personal information about me is incorrect, and even then, it doesn't worry me too much, and part of me feel good (most likely a sinful part) that you and yours are getting some crap for your racist beliefs.

But cooler heads, namely a few good friends have recommended I take it down. So I will because I respect them and trust their judgement.

"Then you'll not having any problem taking the picture down then...will you? It would be awesome of you just to remove that whole thread/post from your blog as well...just as a favor."

The picture's been down for quite some time. Well over 24 hours. And you people think I'm not internet savvy?

aduff, I haven't forgotten your questions. I'll get to them!

Don't forget mine:

I don't have to tell Nehemiah it's a religious issue. He already says it in 13:25-27 - the issue with Israel and foreigners is that foreigners lead Israel away from YHWH. Notice the direct comparison with King Solomon. This is what Nehemiah is so upset about - love and diplomacy with foreign nations led to the tolerance and adoption of their gods. If this is purely a racial issue, then why does Nehemiah bring up Solomon, and why does he repeat several times that the issue was that the foreigners caused him to sin?

Note also the prior verses where he is upset at how the Israelites are being absorbed into the culture of Ashdod. This is coupled with his lament over Sabbath observance. In other words, Israel is losing their identity as the people of God, and they are becoming like the other nations.

How can you read the entirety of Nehemiah where his complaint is coupled with Sabbath observance and foreign gods and come away with the problem being purely racial?

In the OT, there is no distinction between ethnicity and spirituality. You are either Jewish and God's holy nation, or you are a heathen that is not to be a bedfellow (metaphorically or literally) with God's people.

This is probably why Nehemiah doesn't suggest "covenant nurture" or whatever the hell you said. Jews in the OT are not evangelistic, although rare converts did exist. No, what we see is Nehemiah's attempt to "purify the church," and this is done, in this passage, by ousting all foreign influences. In fact, given the comparison with Solomon, it seems that Nehemiah's position is that the foreigners are leading Israel to their gods, and are not interested in being Jewish.

This is why the NT fulfillment is a prohibition against marrying unbelievers. Where is the NT prohibition against interracial marriage?

Also, you never said why my assertion about Christianity being a reform of Judaism was somehow more ignorant than calling a group of people Christians who existed millennia before Christ. You just said it was an ignorant assertion without any argumentation to back it up.

That's no way to argue your point. Unless of course, your point has no logical support.

Thanks, Josiah, and I'm glad to hear that Anthony will be sticking around. He's a rich source for material.

You can go ahead and continue giving us "crap" for our "racist" beliefs. I certainly don't want to hold you back (your artwork is very funny). I'm only concerned (both for your family and mine) that we eliminate all threatening language. There are some unstable people out there, and it really should worry you if it doesn't. I don't want to see anyone get hurt.

With that said, continue firing away, everybody!

AGAIN, BADONICUS: You did NOT post their pic on your site. You hotlinked to those photos and STOLE bandwidth.

You should apologize for your theft. I don't give a rat's ass if you think they're all hellbound deviants or whatever.

A theft is a theft is a theft, and whether or not you "knew" you were stealing is of no consequence.

Apologize, at least.

And you're in no way "savvy."

So, once again, why will you not answer my question: Are white Europeans the true Hebrews?

You're such a word twister Badonkadonkas...I told you that you were internet savvy, remember (it was because you used the e-word "m'kay," indicating to me that you do most of your communicating from the secrecy of the world wide web, and are therefore at least mildly fluent in the lingo of IM, etc.)?

You still never told me if Jewish people are attractive or unattractive (the answer will have to be based on your subjective opinions though...I have this sinking feeling that God hates it when you mock his word by removing the ever-important context).

And what of your church? Maybe Josiah was on target with his home church estimation. I just want to get to know you and I feel like you're hiding so much. Tell me your most embarrassing moment...

Allow me a quick "shout out" (isn't this what our rhythmically superior african-american brothers and sisters call it) to all the people who might remember me from the old days (prior to my transfer) at Covenant College. I know "Po Po" does...where's Kevin Courter, or Marcus Todd?

AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! This is crazy. Bad. should not be even responded to. He is a case to study, he should be in a museum. We should be talking about him not to him. This is the kind of guy that should be sent to psychology labs and discussed and whatnot. He is insignificant outside of a purely educational context. He is nothing, and his views are nothing, and us trying to make sense out of them, Bible or no Bible is only making us stupider. He has no nutritional value, he is a marshmellow. Fun to eat, but worth nothing. One day he will die and the world will forget him, unlike the saints that he claims to be in line with. He will turn to dirt just like the black person who I hope he is buried next to, and after he dies he will learn his lesson but not from us. Talking to him is like watching TV, we should stop talking to him and read a book.

John,
Wow. How can you justify saying "he is insignigicant" and "he is nothing"? He is made in the image of God, dude.

Largely, I agree with you... but I still can't help feeling sad for where he's going to end up. Fortunately, we serve a soverign God who is in control of all these things....

haha that's the funniest thing I've read thus far John.

[-p]

John,
Wow. How can you justify saying "he is insignificant" and "he is nothing"? He is made in the image of God, dude. It's one thing to disregard a person's ideas and another to disregard a person.

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the statistically proven fact that black males have on average larger penii than white males.

I think this is the real crux of the white supremist racist nutjob's angst:

the deeply-rooted fear that their wives were once satistfied -or one day in the future might be satisfied- on a far greater level by a superiorily hung black man, then they with their inferior white penii could ever provide.

ha!, i KNEW that name sounded familiar.

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that "Little Geneva" is the title of a song by Muddy Waters.

Ha!

Look me up in an old (98 or 99) Tartan...I'm right there! There's no denying that I, at one time, attended Covenant College. I wasn't an exceptional student, I was on chapel probabtion, my last year, but the ladies loved me and I always had a home on Team 13 (man on the hall indeed...). KP - I hope you still have your nickname spelled out on the windshield of your car...

I hope that some of you have kept up with Eric Spieker.

Ralph wrote: I'm surprised nobody has brought up the statistically proven fact that black males have on average larger penii than white males.

Nay, he wouldn't. If you ask a hooker, they'll tell you that it's a myth. And, since that's the kind of folks he associates with (er, patronizes would be the proper term), he wouldn't be aware of the 'fact' you presented.

He isn't insinicant when it comes to educational purposes. Like I said, I think we can learn alot about the human race from studying people like this guy. In that way he has a lot to offer. BUT, he is also like an old bitter man who lives in a cabin out in the woods, never takes care of his own problems, never betters the world, never has successful communication with anyone and dies alone. In that way, he is insignificant.

I may be in error.

Badshlongingus has made it clear that to him, racial mixing is a far greater sin than homosexuality. Add that to his lack of knowledge concerning black penises and his obvious clinging to the Tanakh, and we have the whole picture-

Baddonginchus MUST be a homosexual Jewish black-penisphobe! It all seems so clear now...

Crossguard

HaHaHa! That Ralph.Epstein is a hoot. Don;t you agree, JosiahQ?

;-)

Totaly off topic but,...

A military judge Wednesday threw out Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea to abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, saying he was not convinced the Army reservist who appeared in some of the most notorious photos in the scandal knew her actions were wrong at the time.

Um, she did not know what she was doing was wrong? rrrrrrright

you said you wanted pictures right?

Been quiet for a minute...lickin their wounds it seems.

[-p]

You're a little late there, Image. Somebody named Thomas posted a link to Google maps for that address. Thanks for chiming in, though.

WOW!

I know J.Q.R. a little, and enjoy reading his blog from time to time -- but this comment thread is unlike anything I have ever seen before.

I'm just glad that I'm neither religious or a racist, and therefore have no stake in any of this. I'm concerned by the level of hostility in many of these posts however; this ceased to be a "debate" long ago, and is now really sad and destructive -- from all sides.

I always thought Christanity was about 'love your neighbor' and 'everyone is created in God's image' and all that stuff. Looking through these posts though is only a reminder why I am not religious.

Crap! I just realized
I am sort of peach with a pinkish hue.
And I am going home to examine my wife..... very carefully. Shhh I think she is a bit more peachy than I.... no worrries I will expose her and all her wretched mostly peach with more of a hmmmm
olive undertoned family. I think I have seen them grow darker during the longer sunlight of summer.
The truth will be mine bwahahaha.
I really want your papers dammit!
and I think " pearls before swine ' is offensive if one is indeed the swine. Crap arent they pink!

Man I am mad I may have been "mixing my genes" all along. What to do ... What to do...hmmm. Who could I possibly find to bear children with that my genes ,"being good and rightly genes"would NOT mix. blechhhy.
I asked my sister what she thought since she had all that fancy genetic type science stuff in college, but dangdest thing.... she ran screaming.

P.S. I apologize for cursing in the previous message

A Grand Wizard goes to a doctor to hear the results of some blood work he has done.
The Doc says, "I have some good news and some bad news."
The good news is that you are going to die."
"That's the good news?" the KKK boy asks.
"What's the bad news?"
The Doc responds, "you have sickle-cell anemia."

Ain't nobody pure blood, nobody.

No Crm,
Christianity is about a Perfect and Holy God making a promise to redeem his very sinful and bad children. Through no act of theirs but by providing a mediator that would reconcile His people to Him.
He delivered that mediator prophesied throughout scripture in His Son.
Also, we are created in His "image" not like him.
But, yes you are correct we are called to love because" He first loved us " 1John 4:19
I for one do not hate Badonicus but I do disagree and enjoy the humor in what I find to be an impossible set of racial standards. I find it obvious in
scripture that God forbiding IM (when He did ) was for spiritual and prophetic reasons , not genetic, having nothing to do with white people.
Finally, I am no less a sinner than Badonicus "O,wretched man I am" Romans 7:24a
and fully in need of my savior.

1. Ben was working with me all afternoon. He was a little agitated, but he never lost his cool. We even worked out some really complicated database schema.

2. Laini wrote maybe the best piece on this subject: http://chattablogs.com/laini/ . Kind of humbling, though probably not for the right people.

3. Talk about genetic jackpot: have you seen ol' J-Ron lately?!? Man, whether you're talking brains or brawn, we're looking at presidential material here.

4. It's been nice not having Josiah argue with ME for the past couple of days!

5. For a completely different take on the whole racial bias thing, check out http://blackpeopleloveus .com . It's hilarious. Until you realize (if you're white) that it's poking fun at YOU! It's surprising how many stupid little racist idiosyncracies are ingrained into the most enlightened of us.

6. A blue-haired dyke-on-a-bike posted on Badboy's website and he probably didn't even know it. Speaking of, I'm still trying to figure out the relationship between the moniker "Badonicus" and lesbians. Something about a battle. I didn't quite get it in the 25 seconds I spent researching it, so if you can fill me in, please do.

7. You back-swamp Naples folks are welcome to visit us here in the St Elmo neighborhood of Chattavegas whenever you want. It's a great place to live, somewhere where blacks, whites and rednecks (and the occasional Latino) live next door to each other and generally get along fine. Birkenstocks, Bobcats and Boom trikes - they're all cool here!

CRM,
I'm with you. Christians can be real assholes in the name of Christ sometimes. It's like they feel justified in being jerks because they wrap religious language and feeling around their abuse.

CRM -

You're right, and maybe sometimes we crossed the line. Humans do that, sometimes.

But I think the anger is mostly coming from the fact that these people are claiming to be Christians, then proceeding to teach terrible things in the name of Jesus.

For example, imagine someone went around your town beating up women with a baseball bat, claiming to be you. Obviously, the action itself would be very upsetting, but wouldn't it have an extra edge because he was pretending to be you - associating you with these deeds in the eyes of the public?

That's what these people are doing. By pretending to be Christians, they are asociating our name and the name of Jesus with their own prejudices and agenda for racial purification. That's why it makes me mad, anyway. If they want to believe that stuff, I still hate it, but it's their right. But to believe that stuff and proclaim it's Christianity, that makes it virtually a personal slander.

What I have to keep in mind is that these people are just pawns of a very wicked kingdom, and largely cannot help themselves. They are not the real enemy.

It's too bad Badonicus isn't in the body of Christ, because he'd make a perfect asshole.

Og,
What message should CRM listen to from you? The one that you show through your attitudes and actions that communicates it is o.k. to abuse and discount someone if you diagree with them or your Christian rhetoric ("I am no less a sinner than Badonicus") that says you're no better than Badonicus? Actions speak louder than words, man. Sometimes I am ashamed to be called a Christian.

B: If it was a religious issue, and not a racial issue, the book makes no sense. If what you say is correct, then why didn't Nehemiah simply tell the husbands to instruct their wives and half breed kids in the covenant? Why did he tell them to ABANDON them instead?

A: Bardonicus has a good question to Phil, but I think I see a reasonable answer. God told his people to abandon the idolaters and their children because he wanted to purify his people. Israel had been (and will again be) corrupted by marrying idolaters and then being overcome by the darkness of the idolatry. God told them to abandon the idolaters because he knew that his people were too weak to not be negatively effected by them.

MY REPLY. Well, that doesn't really answer the objection, aduff. Are they corrupted by practicing idolatry, or by being married to foreigners? It's 2 different issues. We're talking about a vast multitude of people here, and Nehemiah doesn't say put away your strange wives, unless they don't practice idolatry. Keep the believing ones, and send the idolaters away. No, he just says abandon your mixed wives. Surely you wouldn't argue that out of the vast multitudes there weren't at least a few wives that weren't idolaters? It's not like this was a single generational thing-many of the people sent away had been part of the group for decades, and there was much mixing going on.

*****************************

B: How were 6 month old and two year old children practicing "idolatry"? And how are grown men so weak that they would be overcome by the idolatry of two and three year old kids?

A: I don't think the children were a direct problem (i.e. they were practicing idolatry). It's the fact that they were children of an idolatrous parent that made them a problem.

MY REPLY Really? You seem to be saying the problem wasn't religious practice, but genetics. A minute ago the problem was those who practice idolatry, and when I ask you why then cast out month olds, and 2 and 3 year old, you say it's because they're related to idolaters. So it's a genetic problem, too? If the problem was unbelief and idolatry, why didn't Nehemiah tell the men to instruct their wives and children in the law, and circumcise the boys? You seem to be saying that Israel was genetically disposed to follow God, and others were genetically disposed to follow false gods.

*************************

The Israelites, just like many modern Christians, were great at bending God's rules (Israelite Man: "God said to abandon the idolaters, but surely he wouldn't want me to get rid of my son's mother, so I think it'll be o.k. to keep her around"). It seems to make sense that God wasn't giving them much room to bend his rules by telling them to get rid of the children as well. God understands that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough". Leaving the children there would give the Israelites an excuse to leave the women there as well.

MY REPLY-So the "leaven" is genes, and not religion. Because there were probably hundreds, if not thousands, of small children who had no clue about the covenant, or false gods, etc. And yet you say they had to go because they were leaven, and would leaven the whole loaf. You keep trying to have it both ways, but you can't. Either it was religion, or it was race, that was Nehemiah's standard for exile. Wasn't it? Or can you show me anywhere where he says dump all your unbelieving wives and children regardless of their race? No, you cannot, and yet if false religion was the only measure, he would've had to.

And, really, does this make any sense-God called Israel to be a separate people, and keep themselves racially separate from others, so that He could use them to send Jesus to teach the world that race doesn't make a lick of difference about anything? That makes no sense to me.

And if some of these people had been alive when the Gospels were written, they would've been calling the authors of the gospels "racists" and "haters" for bringing up Jesus' blood lines; the genealogies, you know, his race? Jesus had to be from the line of David because race doesn't matter?
Sorry, that makes no sense to me.

But I'm done here. I've deleted the original post, and this is my last comment over here. If you have any more questions, you know where to find me.

Badonicus,
It seems that you're reading your view into my argument rather than reading what my argument actually says. That makes for difficult discussion.

You brought up one point that should be addressed. You seem to think that the call for separation could not be an issue of religion because the Israelites were told to separate themselves from a people group, not a religious group. This is a reasonable point if you can't equate the two, but it seems like it may be appropriate to do so. These people groups surrounding the Israelites were all worshipping idols. They knew nothing but idolatry. It seems there wasn't one in the bunch that was seeking the true God. Because God wanted to protect his people from the snare of idolatry he told them to separate from the idolaters. This view is consistent with the teachings and actions of Christ. The view that God wants his people to be racially pure (as opposed to spiritually pure) presents several problems with looking at who Christ is and what he as done.

ONE MORE TIME, BADONICUS: If the Bible is your absolute standard for discerning what Truth is, then kindly point out to me the red letters where Jesus explicitly decrees that black people are less "aesthetically attractive" than white people.

You haven't answered this question because you can't. Of course Jesus never made such a ridiculous assertion.

All you've got to support your racism is blatant distortion of Scripture and semantic twists not unlike the original "Is it really true that God said" question by the Serpent in Genesis 3:1.

By carving God's Word to fit your own racist views, you are little more than a mouthpiece of the Deceiver. Your forked tongue spouts naught but venomous lies, seasoned with only the barest morsels of truth so as to make it palatable to the most impressionable among fools.

You have nary a leg to stand on.

Crawl back to your hole, snake.

How many posts on this thread could have been authored by Jesus? What would Jesus post?

I am not Christian, or Jewish, or Islamic, or Buddhist, or Hindu -- although I think the spirit of these religions is beautiful. And it is not because I haven't been exposed to Jesus's teachings. I've read the Bible several times, and attended Christian churches (Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, Church of God, etc.) until I was 19. I've also read the Qu'ran (in English), and about every religion and comparative religion book I could get a hold of for a long time. I learned about Jesus bucking the Jewish orthodoxy of the time, associating with beggars, frauds, whores, and leppers (and I doubt he would have considered race a boundary) while I watched deacons at various churches kick homeless people out of worship services becase "they stink."

I see the same thing here. It makes me angry, but more than anything it makes me sad and less hopeful about our future as humans, as spirits.

I don't believe that believing in Jesus (or whoever) is enough. It may be a start for some, but simply believing that Jesus was a righteous dude is not, in and of itself, enough. It does not make you a righteous dude. I personally (and remember, I'm not religious) don't think Jesus would care if you believed in him or not: he wanted you to epitomize him, or at least try. He wants you to live as he did. And, as I understand it, that means to realize that everyone, no matter how much you disagree with them, no matter how much they disgust you, is just as good as anyone else. This is the spirit of Christianity, and it is beautiful, and in my mind true.

I do not see the Bible as the word of God. It was written by humans, and much of it (surprise surprise) is metaphorical. It is poetry meant to inspire the hearts of man. The New Testament wasn't written to drive people apart, but to bring them together. It's message is unambiguous. But here, on this thread, are people so preoccupied with the letter of the Bible they have dismissed it's spirit, and are letting a work meant to bring people together with love divide them with hate.

I choose not to be religious for this very reason. Because it is easier for me to love people universally without belonging to a group of people telling me who I should hate.

This will be my final post on this thread. All I ask is that you try to tap into the spirit of Christianity, and stop focusing on the letter so much. Believing in Jesus is not enough. Try to be like Jesus. Try to love those you hate. Try to turn the other cheek. Try to be so overflowing with love that people want to crucify you.

With Love,
CRM-114

CRM,
You've probably said some of the most Christ-like things in this discussion and you don't even claim to be a Christian. Given what I've seen here I think I'd much rather spend some time talking to people like you than I would some of these "Christians". What good is all of this "truth" flying around if it isn't seasoned with love, humility, and grace? My soul is attracted to those things, not to venemous, hateful, comments that dismiss the humanity of a person. Jesus loved those who hated him. He asked God to forgive those who killed him, and here are these "Christians" who rather than loving their enemies seek to hurt them. Thank God for his grace.

Gee, I feel like having a big group hug now.

I'm just adding a post so we can break the 200 mark.

I'll contribute to that cause...

Wow, what an amazing thread!!

I've been avoiding commenting this thread, a choice based upon a growing distaste for online aggression and a strict policy of not engaging in rhetoric with psychotic people who want to kill me. (It's bad form.) I'm just going to pop in with one comment, then leave:

CRM makes a valid, difficult point about being so filled with love (by which I assume he means charity toward the suffering, endurance under cruelty, and compassion for one's enemies) that Jesus can be seen in your actions. But he ignores a complication, one that I don't think even Phil has addressed. What are we to do when others are being oppressed, especially when hatred manifests itself in holy clothing and turns violent?

Make no mistake: the Little Geneva crew is not an unusual Reformed Christian grouping with a few theological eccentricities. They are "purists": white supremicists with a boundless loathing for blacks and Jews (traditionally, they see blacks as at least mildly subhuman and Jews as unbridled, frothing evil). They are bigots in a long tradition that begins in pre-Christian Europe, and has always been disguised with the most convenient holy texts. Believers in this tradition, with its Chronicles of the Learned Elders and arguments about black brain size, have historically shown themselves willing and eager to commit violent acts on the basis of race. They are not simply wrong. They are dangerous. They say evil things, and they express desire to do evil things -- to innocent victims.

So it's right and good to strive to show the compassion of Christ. But when that phrase becomes merely a code for aiding and abetting the spread of vitriolic, vile hatred, it is not Christlike. It is not moral. I don't think CRM has considered this problem with enough seriousness -- and aduff has shown herself eager to ignore it.

Aduff suggests that people who use harsh language in confronting hate are substandard Christians, an embarrassment to the faith. This is the purest hogwash, a mindless declaration. It is tolerating cruelty with a smile and a prayer, so long as the vile beliefs are shared with a sunny disposition. It is wrong.

I said my last comment would be my last: sorry.

The problem Mesh points out is very real.

It is not a matter of tolerating cruelty. The Little Geneva crew thrive on hatred. It is an addiction for them. Fundamentalism usually thrives in economically (Sp?) challenged areas with poor education. In our climate of mass media and pure capitolism the messages from mass media seem completely foreign to people in these areas. They are receiving so many conflicting messages from the media and society that they feel the only way to find something that is "true" is to read the "Word of God" literally. The problen is that the "Word of God", in this case the Bible, also has many conflicting messages. How do you deal with those issues from a fundamentalist mindset?

My message may have sounded a little naive, but it was intended to. The word of Christ is naive, because being hopeful is now considered naive. Loving people who hate is considered naive.

People who hate have an addiction. They need hatred as fuel. And it doesn't need to be hatred that matches up with their view. Any hatred will do.

Can you imagine what would have happened if, instead of people trying to "prove" Badonicus wrong, and hating him back, and throwing fuel on the fire of hatred -- if people had said Badonicus we love you and we are so sorry for the way you feel? Badonicus we love you and we want you to get better and stop hating people. Badonicus tell us how we can help you.
Badonicus we love you and want you to be more like Jesus.

Hatred needs fuel, and it was generously fueled on this post. It is not a matter of tolerating cruelty. It is a matter of extinguishing hate with love and understanding. Badonicus is not a hateful person because he is a bad person. He has an addiction to hate and needs help. Don't give him fuel.

You're absolutely correct that we as Christians are obligated to respond with love, but our responsibility goes much deeper than that:

2 Timothy 4:2 - preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching.

Titus 1:13 - This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,

2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Luke 17:3 - Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him;

1 Peter 3:15 - but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;

As Christians, we are called to righteousness with patience... not tolerance... particularly when we are faced with one who claims to be a believer, and proudly trashes God's word.
Jesus didn't tolerate this, and we shouldn't either. This does not mean that we have clearance to be abusive, but we can't shy away from truth. This is pure evil and we need the guts to call a spade a spade.

Mesh,
You raise a good question. We are called to "turn the other cheek" when we are abused. I believe that this is because, ultimately, justice belongs to the Lord, and if we are his people we can trust that, in the end, his purposes will be accomplished. But how does that apply to situations when it is not you but others that are the ones being attacked, abused, or mistreated?

I think we're given some guidance when we're told to “take care of the orphans and the widows”; that is, to help the powerless and to encourage the oppressed. I see the wisdom in these commands. In fact I hope to eventually make a career out of doing my part to "help the orphans and widows".

So we help the helpless, but we also have to remember that we are told to "hate the sin but love the sinner". I often times see Christians, in the zeal for hating the sin, throw the sinner right in the pot with the sin and hate them all.

I think the organization that I would eventually like to work for (IJM) does, in general, a good job at balancing these commands. They prosecute those would take advantage of little girls for profit, but at the same time they pray for these people. They are moved so much by the darkness of the sin of those who would rape children that they actually spend their time and resources trying to stop it from happening, but they also try and pray for the people who are actually raping children. As they are working to put these people in jail they actually pray that their hearts would be changed!

When I look at how this situation has been responded to I see people who are zealous to stand up for what they believe is right, and that's good, but I would hope that in making that stand we wouldn't lose our credibility in front of people like CRM because we stand without any real love. I hope that we wouldn’t fight to “win the argument”, to hurt the enemy, or to make ourselves look and feel real smart. I hope we wouldn’t hate the sinner with the sin.

I don't think that evil should be ignored or tolerated, but much of what I’ve seen here goes beyond standing against evil. Much of it was driven by pride, a desire to hurt, or an attempt to win.

I see Jesus having a hatred for evil, but I also see Jesus having a great love and patience. I think that what we’ve seen in the comments here is a remembrance of the former quality of Christ while forgetting the latter.

Amen mesh. That was truly beautfiul.

        /\
       /   \
     /  oo \  -- Hi, Folks! I'm Badonicus!
    /          \

        /\
       /   \
     /  oo \  -- Anybody wanna do a Bible study?
    /          \

        /\
       /   \
     /  oo \  -- I'm really traditional and insightful.
    /          \

        /\
       /   \
     /  oo \  
    /          \

        /\
       /   \
     /  oo \  -- Anyone?
    /          \

That is so funny it's dizzying.

        /\
       /   \
     /  oo \  -- No, I'm serious. I'd love to spread the love
    /          \   with like-skinned people.

        /\
       /   \
     /  oo \  -- And make the Lord proud by sharing
    /          \   my superior whiteness.

  /\
 /   \
  oo \  -- I'll be right back.
         \

Near the beginning of this blog, I saw a comment refering to how people might view christians if they saw the hateful things that Badonicus was writing. I just wanted to let everybody know that people can make the distinction between extremist anti-semites such as Badonicus, and yourselves.

On another note, I think that you guys are getting way too worked up about this. Clearly Badonicus misguided to say the least. He makes many outlandish claims and hides behind misinterpreted scripture. However, you should realize that it is just funny. The fact that this guy actually believes the things that he is saying a absolutely hilarious. Don't take it so seriously, and just let him live his sad, pathetic life constantly hating everybody.

And you can take solace in knowing that he will never be able to be happy, and will probably die alone. This is not meant as an insult, but when you are filled with that much hate, it is going to consume you, and you will no longer be able to think about anything else.

Just my two cents worth.

Well folks, it seems that you "God loving" people have some terroristic thought patterns.So, slow down and think for a moment(hopefully that won't be to long for you) about the ways that the Jewish fathers instructed their children to find mates.All of them sent their sons to find wives of their own kindred, and it had nothing to do with spiritual condition, since all their brides were pagan.
Another thing that we seem to forget is that the Jews were forbidden to marry outside of their tribes(Duet.)Ask
most interracial famlies and you will learn that the offspring have a hard time identifying with a culture,and this always leads to an enternal struggle within the family( I have witnessed this in the personal lives of friends of mine).Be compassionate always and think ahead and with your head,not your emotions.

Scott, two things,

First, the people of the Old Testament were separated by nationalities, not race as we talk about it today. What they called race (the Israelites) could consist of any number of races with any number of skin tones. Most nationality lines were drawn at the "what god do you serve" criteria.

Secondly, we no longer live under the law that those in the Old Testament lived under. The advent of Christ’s death freed us from having to live legalistic. We now live under grace and with the pretense that Christ saw all men as equal and therefore not only came to save his own people but the gentiles as well.

[-p]

Mesh,
Btw I'm a dude...not a chick. At least I hope so. Otherwise my wife is going to be real upset ;)

The tenor of this blog thread is yet another example of my claim that--despite all the claims to the contrary (mostly made by those enamoured of President Reagan)--the United States did not really win the Cold War.

While at work, to take a break, I routinely check the posts on LittleGeneva.com. Most of the time, I have found them to be very edifying, as do my colleagues.

I work at the Pentagon; so why don’t you drive by my office slowly and take some pictures? See how that works for you.

Quote your Scripture, but remember Dante: The lowest ring of Hell is reserved for traitors.

Go soak your head, schizo.

        /\
       /   \
     /  oo \  -- Salyer's good peoples! He helps our
    /          \   drug-addicted white brethren!

I'm somewhat loathe to post here; a) because I probably won't be back to review comments, and b) because certainly the debate has deteriorated. I just wanted to make some observations.

First of all, I am extremely UN-impressed by the responses to Bad and/or Harry. People who decry the hate that they believe the see in their writings manage to respond with their own combination of hate and, more frequently, immaturity.

In fact, many of the tactics demonstrated here are quite un-Christian, and very definitely liberal/fascist. By way of example...

1) Replacing the linked photos with the dictators above. First, immature. Second, aside from humor value that may or may not exist, it's a pure propaganda technique: attempt to generate an immediate negative connotation prior to any thought on the subject. Purely an ad hominem attack, really--make use of "guilt by association" to prevent people from reading what Bad and/or Harry have to say.

2) Posting addresses and contact information. Again, immature. Let's suppose Bad and/or Harry are wrong (not saying they are)... you figure then that it's permissible to subject their families as well to possible danger as well?

3) With that in mind, a note about aforementioned danger... What's the reason for posting the contact information? I can think of a couple. The first is to intimidate Harry and his family; perhaps convince Harry to remove his site or something. This is pure and simple intimidation--so how exactly is intimidation a Christian virtue? The second is that you actually wish him and his family harm; another impressive example of Christian virtue. With that in mind... let's look at the assumptions behind the idea that posting Harry's contact info would put him in danger. He and/or Bad post writings that you believe are racially wicked. You post his contact info, so some crazy (of a different race even, perhaps?) will be facilitated in endangering him. I suspect your own preconceptions and beliefs are closer to theirs than you wish to admit.

4) The comment about trailer homes from the satellite image... I have no idea what Harry's house looks like... but how is it relevant anyway? Or maybe it's easier to conduct personal attacks if you can paint someone as some stereotypical white-trash trailer-park-living person. Heck, maybe then we could say he hasn't been blessed financially enough to show that he's a real-live Christian-living man!

5) I've seen some interesting comments regarding the Law. Several things are very clear from the NT: Christ fulfills the Law, but he does not abolish it; not one iota of the Law will pass away; justification is by faith. So, we are justified by faith, not Law. That doesn't mean that the Law disappears. Am I saved by observance of, for example, the Ten Commandments? No! I'm saved because by the grace of God a n abject sinner was purchased by the blood of Christ and born again of the Holy Spirit. So, can I then transgress the Ten Commandments at will? May it never be so! Or, to continue the analogy of Paul w/ respect to the Law as a tutor... do you forget what you've learned at school once you've departed? (Certainly, some do!)

Truly, it seems to me that the term "legalism" has been misappropriated for a long time. I agree that I would be "practicing legalism" if I believed in salvation by adherence to the law... which I don't. It is not legalism, however, to recognize and obey God's laws as being both (a) good for us, and (b) the mechanisms by which he teaches us and accomplishes our sanctification.

I would argue, ultimately, that the only portion of the law that can be outright disregarded (as far as our obedience, not our instruction) are ceremonial law--portions of the Law intended to indicate the Hebrews' holiness (state of being set apart by God) and point the way to Christ.

6) Finally... there was some talk of "Christianity" vs "Judaism" w/ respect to the Hebrews of the OT. I think the important issue, over and above naming (for the moment) is the religion itself. To paraphrase Augustine, there has always been and only ever will be one true religion... only recently (from Augustine's perspective) has it become known by the name of "Christianity." This sentiment has its basis in both Galatians and Hebrews (and others, certainly) where the writer declares that we are of the same faith as Abraham; where he nearly explicitly calls Moses a Christian (looking forward to Him who was to come); and so forth.

Well, that ought to be enough from my keyboard for today.

-Scrape

        /\
       /   \
     / (oo)\  -- Astute observations, my pale brother!
    /          \   

I'm somewhat loath for you to post here too.

1) I'd love to know the standards of "immaturity" of which you're appealing too.

2) Posting their semi-correct personal info: irresponsible, sure. Immature, perhaps, and I guess I'm just ok with that. The information I posted is easily available too, so its not as if anything "private" were issued.

3) I think you're thinking too hard about this whole thing. My involvement motivationally speaking stems soley from the fact my good friend and co-worker & his "race-mixing" family was attacked. I sortof have this loyalty thing I have a hard time shaking. Surely you can appreciate it on those grounds, his "race" aside.

Given the somewhat incompetent method by with Badonkadonkus went about using the images of Huffine's family, it was just too good of an opportunity to pass up to have a little fun, my primary intention, the second being to see a little hornest nest get stirred up, and boy did it ever.

4) I don't think Harry is white trash. He's a laundry list of other things, but not white trash. He doesn't have the necessary authenticity to warrant the title white trash.

The scary think about Harry and your ilk. is that their hate is focused on, or, their enemy is other ethnic groups, while the intense emotions expressed by the "other side" were a response to your particular belief system.

I think there's something important to that distinction: that the enormous distaste expressed by one side is against something mutable, namely, held beliefs, while on the other its against something immutable, namely the color of their skin.

My point is that its pretty dang stupid & *cough* immature to get your theological and ideological panties in a bunch over something you can't change like somebodies ethnic heritage. It's kindof a collosal waste of time. The best you can do is marginalize yourselves more and more. Looks like you're doing a good job of it.

        /\
       /   \
     / (oo)\      POOT
    /          \    /

I was talking with some of my black friends last night, and they said they know of at least one white woman that isn't as attractive as the average african-american woman. Can't argue with the facts there.

JosiahQ,

I obviously led off incorrectly, as here I am responding again.

1) I grant the humor aspect, depending on your view. The propaganda effect I take more issue with--that is, the fact that such images have a tendency to skip the rational thought process and appeal to emotion, which does very little for any discussion.

2) I agree the information is [relatively] easily available. You facilitated its dissemination, however, and I'm curious as to precisely what outcome you would intend by such.

3) Your loyalty to your friend is commendable. I don't know your friend and thus have no need to comment regarding him. May your friendship prosper.

"The scary thing about Harry and your ilk..." That actually caught me a bit of guard, I admit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I said anything in my post that reflects directly on agreement or disagreement with particular viewpoints. Aside from some commentary on the Law, I mainly attempted to point out poor discussion techniques. Although I agree with Badonicus on certain underlying principles (eg, that we are no more brethren with the Jews of today than we are with Muslims--and Arabs are every bit as semitic, if not more so, than today's Jews--that is a simple biological fact that makes the anti-Semitic label so often thrown around rather ludicrous), I nonetheless find much of his writing rather too strong. Likewise, Harry's site I've found invaluable to my growth in the Reformed faith; nonetheless, in my mind he could choose his words more carefully so that people don't lose sight of an important point: that Harry in fact does recognize the inherent God-given beauty of all races and wishes each to prosper. Differences aside. I've told Harry that I won't be one of the people who secretly reads his blog every day and yet derides him publicly; and so I won't. That is my loyalty, which I admit is and ought to be less highly esteemed than yours for your friend (as I've never actually met Harry in person).

So, I would have to say that your last couple of sentences are misdirected, because hatred of other races has never been something that Harry has espoused. I have friends of other races, and enjoy their company; and I do in fact recognize that they are "black" or "Hispanic" or whatever race they may be; that distinctiveness is part of what makes each friendship unique. Now, all of this is said in the vacuum of the internet, so obviously you can believe what you wish about me.

As to that last sentence, nobody (except liberals who wish for a "purple" world) wants to change someone's ethnic heritage. No one's "theological panties" are in a bunch here--no one thinks certain races can't be Christians, or that they have bad theology, or whatever.

-Scrape

Rob

1) It wasn't my intention with this post to encourage discussion, it was meant to be humorous. In terms of propoganda, I don't think you have to worry about too many people be swayed against Harry n' Co. by those "propoganda" images. I'm not worried about people stumbing upon LittleGeneva and be swayed by their arguments; odds are they were already heading down that path to begin with. I think your underlying assumption is that I think there can be some kind of healthy "sharpening iron" between myself and Little Geneva. I don't, at least, I don't think I have the stamina and spiritual maturity to pull it off. And right now I'm still working it out on whether or not discourse is even valuable with their types.

2) not really sure about the outcome of the personal information question. It was definitely an emotion driven act, and I do think there's something somehow just in identifying a cadre of racists and putting a face to them, but I dunno. There's a tension there I can't quite resolve there, but I'm ok with that.

3) Yes, you didn't say anything in your post identifying yourself with Harry n' co, but you're certainly admiring of him in your writings elsewhere.

Your point about the anti-semitic label is an aside, but its also irrelevent if you're willing to concede a "common use" definition to certain terms, which I'm thinking you're unlikely to do. Whether or not we're bretheren to the Jews if today doesn't have anything to do causally or even incidentally with whether or not one is guilty of hating Jews, or as its commonly called "being anti-semitic".

Further, I appreciate how upfront you were about your loyalty to Harry and even its somewhat qualitative difference between other friendships given its online base. My hope then is that one day you'll realize the very dangerous and evil nature of many of his beliefs, and as his friend, take him to task for it.

Part of the problem is that Harry never comes outright and says "I hate blacks", but one can hate anyone or anything without saying explicitly "I hate X", and I'm sure you'd agree. The problem is that its fairly agreed upon by many that acts such as calling New City Presbyterian Church "perverted" because of its emphasis on racial reconciliation, is a hateful act.

Further Harry, by publically supporting Badonkadonkus in his tirade against the Huffine family, is again engaged in hateful acts and speech.

All of that is completely contrary to the Gospel of Christ. And as much as they'd like to play exegetical jumping jacks through weak textual arguments like those referenced in Nehemiah, it doesn't change the fact that those acts are clearly motivated by hate, hate inspired, and hateful in and of themselves.

They can claim,all they want that "we're just critiquing" or "we're just calling it like it is" or whatever sortof lame-duck response they want to offer. But the vast weight and authority of the Church and the vast weight of the Gospel speaks contrary to the manner of living in which they've engaged. There's simply no Biblical justification for their behavior, or for spending any sortof time like they are into this "issue". It's quite silly really. I don't recall Christ or Paul ever bothering to bitch and moan so extensively about this race n' that.

And by "bitch and moan" and "panties in a bunch" I mean the enormous amount of time and energy put into developing and fostering a theological system which is wholly about complaining and attacking and hating. That just seems like an inordinate amount of time to be spent on something so, even if you assume racial "differences", trivial.

I mean, why aren't they spending their time doing what Christ and the Apostles did? Caring for the poor, spreading the Gospel, caring for widows, loving one another, etc. etc. I think the problem with these people is a problem with the Church & American Christianity as a whole: we're immensely bored.

Bad n' Harry and the Kinist nutjobs need to hit a third world country or the inner city or the dirt poor rural South and start thinking about how to really love and serve those people. I'd surmise that they'd quickly have no time for their racist junk, and in a matter of months they'd suddenly be very, very embarassed for the immature & evil words and deeds.

JosiahQ,

A tendency I'm discovering in myself is that I often revel in "the battle." Perhaps this has led to my chosen career; regardless, I perhaps ought not so to pursue "the battle" as frequently as I do, so I'll attempt to finish up here (that, and despite it being my week off, I have a meeting at work in a little bit... shucks).

As to common usage of terms... yes, there's merit to that, and language does evolve. On the other hand, it's a favored method for subtly changing how people think, so as a counter, I prefer precision in language. Feel free to take me to task for my own inadequacies in that regard. Anyhow, I've just returned from a month in an Arab nation in the Middle East among actual semitic people. They are good people, quite friendly, and far better at establishing and maintaining personal relationships than we are. This is more-or-less irrelevant to the discussion, I just wish to provide at least a tiny bit of an example of why precision in terminology is important to me.

I won't comment on the racial reconciliation part, as I've not read much about it; pretty much my entire short involvment in this story has been due to my perception of the "state of discussion." I will say that a definition of hatred is probably in order any time we talk about hatred. From Webster's 1913: "Strong aversion; intense dislike; hate; an affection of the mind awakened by something regarded as evil." To say that Harry hates black people, for example, you would have to be able to say that Harry intensely dislikes them, perhaps even that he regards them as evil. I believe that this would be entirely inaccurate with respect to Harry (or Bad, for that matter, though I don't read him nearly as often and thus am not able to comment as easily).

As to the vast weight of the Gospel on a matter... obviously that's what's under discussion. I'd be careful about referring to "the vast weight and authority of the Church", however, because that might bite you. Chesterton characterized tradition as democracy extended through time, or, in other words, if you lean on the weight of the church--quite often a valid thing to do--you are guilty of severe oversight if you fail to consider adequately the historical views of the Church.

As to what Harry does or doesn't spend his time doing... you have little basis for making such assertions regarding his wealth or lack of charity and benevolence. I presume your knowledge of how he spends his time is based on your assessment of his blog, which is hardly a viable analysis. You know nothing of Harry's wealth or lack thereof, and you know nothing of how he disposes of it... nor should you, really. I imagine, however, that Harry is rarely "bored" while raising a family of 8 (maybe it's 7, can't recall exactly).

I grew up in South Florida, hardly rural or poor, and I don't know much about Naples, so I can't comment as to that. I do think that in a poor area of society (eg among the various third-country nationals that do the vast majority of menial labor for very little pay in a country like the UAE), certain boundaries, whether racial or otherwise, are important.

The point there is simply that in a forum such as the Internet, where very little personal knowledge of participants exists, making "I bet that..." statements about "what if they saw how it really is" is largely irrelevant, because you have no way of validating whether a point-of-view does or doesn't actually work out in the "concrete" world. Maybe that limits the ultimate utility of this particular medium of discussion...

Anyhow, I need to go to work.

-Scrape

Again, its an aside, but at a certain point a claim to an insistence upon "precision" in your language might eventually find yourself unable to communicate because definitions have shifted. You could say something that 50 years ago people would have understood, but now would have no idea understanding what you meant. You might be more "precise", but impotent to achieving the whole point of language to begin with.

I don't think the boundaries of the definition of "hate" are as simple as saying "intensely dislike", largely because I thin the issue is far, far more complicated than that and because I think that the Gospel does not maintain a strict dichotomy between the heart & actions when it comes to moral responsibility and definitions. Christ was pretty clear about murder not just being to kill somebody but that you're guilty of the same in essence if you've hated your brother in your heart.

My point is that even if Harry in his heart doesn't "hate" other ethnic groups, his actions and words speak otherwise. He's certainly by convention definitions a racist, but I can see that one can be a racist without some overwhelming emotion behind it (like is still common everywhere in sinful hearts).

The problem is that Harry & Bad on their blogs don't act incidentally racist or hate-filled on their blogs, they're pretty dang proactive about it. You certainly can't deny that these guys are passionate about what they believe. In fact, you more or less allude to this fact on your blog on why you enjoy reading them.

As to the "vast weight and authority of the Church" I'm speaking very much of the whole kit n' kaboodle from day 1. Harry n' Bad seem to think they've got some kindof historical precedent on their side, but if there's one thing "good" presbyterians are, and "good, theonomic, kinist, federalist, presbyterians" are, is that they play extremely fast n' loose with who they pick for their "ancestors" and "the historic church". Somehow the Church to them stops at Augustine, picks back up at Calvin, does a pit stop at the Divines, does dinner with Dabney, and then reaches its glorious fullness in Rushdooney/North cum Van Til. Its just so silly and ignorant.

And finally, even if I don't "know" these things by your definition of "know" concerning Harry n' Co, they're still stuff I'd put good money on, and just 'cause I don't "know" doesn't mean I'm wrong.

And I'd probably be less inclined to think that Harry was bored with his family if he didn't spend more time posturing about it.

With all of your making of hateful graphics and making Harry and his family the target of violence in the name of love, how do you find the time to visit third world countries and inner cities and the dirt poor in the south and love and serve them?. Why not visit the dirt poor in the north? Actually, if you really loved them, you wouldn't visit them. You would live among them for a long period of time, perhaps the rest of your life, and sink down some roots. You would become one of them. You would, that is, if you loved them. You've obviously done the sorts of things that you are demanding of Harry and Bad, otherwise you'd be a hypocrite. So please, favor us with a few of the many examples of your work among the persececuted Christians in Sudan and in Israel (those poor Christians in Israel are REALLY suffering, because the Jews there hate them and their Savior). Tell us about the time you've spent improving the lives of inner-city children. Tell us about how you've gone about helping impoverished southerners and northerners. You said that these are the things that Christians should be doing, so here's your chance to show us how it's done. Please be specific. Lots of time has been spent here on name-calling and speculation. It's time for you to show everyone just how different you are from those you hate (yes, you are at least as hateful as the people who you have branded with the title).

You've set the standard. Show us how you measure up to it.

Rob, the problem is that what you're accusing Josiah of is exactly what is so dangerous about the belief system of Harry 'n Co.
You say that Presbyterians shouldn't hang their hat too heavily on Church traditions; true enough, but you'll notice that whenever Harry 'n co. got backed into a corner by the presentation of the truth of scripture (a church "tradition" we should all hang our hats on), they kept reverting to trivialities like national polls, personal aesthetic preferences, and the empty teachings of other sad, misguided humans along with their own sad, misguided traditions.
When confronted with the character of Jesus, or when asked to present any hard evidence from his life or his teachings that was consistent with their viewpoint, you couldn't get anything out of them!! They simply curled up in a ball of self-congratulatory horsewaste, and began spewing the hate that you claim you don't see in their writings. You don't even have to go to their websites to see it. They've given a fabulous representation right here.

I'm departing the debate (so I say, at least). Read whatever you want into that. I've got a date with my wife, regardless.

Just a clarification for "I"... I didn't, per se, declare that Presbyterians shouldn't hang their hat too heavily on church traditions... my intent, rather, was to point out that anyone who -does- revert to the authority of the Church takes into account -tradition- rather than simply what the vast majority of -today's- church may or may not be saying. The point of some degree of reliance on tradition is that we give credence to the thoughts of others on Scripture, just like we do every time we pick up the latest and greatest piece of Christian 'candy' writing.

Josiah, as to who we look to for the authority of the church, obviously if you're (any of us, that is) adhering to a Protestant faith, you're going to consider certain parts of the historical church to be "outside the pale."

Anyhow... I've probably said nothing of import. C'est la vie.

-Scrape

        /\
       /   \
     /  nn \  -- Woo-hoo! A date with your wife!
    /    O   \   Churn out some li'l White babies!

        /\
       /   \         C'est la vie, man!
     /  oo \  -- Speaking all that Frenchie-talk
    /    O   \     will woo her, cajun-style!

What a sad day it is to see supposed Christians lying about other Christians like you do Badonicus and Harry. I wish instead of hurling your verbal abuses at them you would honestly and openly inquire as to their beliefs. Better yet, this whole conversation should shift into a forum of what the Bible says about the subject of race. Your verbal assault on the heralds of truth who consistently appeal to the Scriptures and to antiquity (I garauntee your own ancestors would agree with Harry and Bad) is simply shameful. Do not despise truth, embrace it. Shame on all of you who do not honestly inquire with an open heart to God's Word.

Dave,
Perhaps the folks on this blog could have honestly considered Harry's and Bad's positions before they posted the hateful graphic depicting Harry and Bad as Nazis. The pathetic and hate-filled people here have not even begun to honestly consider what Harry and Bad believe. Instead of searching the Scriptures, they have reacted with standard knee-jerk PC mantras and epithets, and then they have taken the very cowardly and utterly despicable step of placing Harry and his family in danger by posting their address and phone number on this site and encouraging their rabble to harass and threaten them. No rationalization can excuse such cowardice and treachery. John has revealed himself to be an hypocrite by making demands of Harry that John himself is unwilling to fulfill. Since many of the people here are associated with Covenant College, we now know the reason why the PCa is in an irreversible nose-dive toward becoming a laughable footnote in the history of American Christianity.

I don't condone all of what was said to Bad, or the manner in which some things were delivered. But, it is a sad day indeed when racists are depicted as nice guys and those who stand up against their destructive and heretical ideologies are termed "pathetic" and "hate-filled." It boggles my mind that a comparison is even being drawn between the two--that winston can call JOSIAH as "at least as hateful" as Bad & Harry, simply for standing up against their overtly malicious attack on his friend (and HIS entire family). And it boggles my mind that seemingly intelligent individuals are defending Bad & Harry's actions and beliefs. I guess it's just naive to think that intelligent people would be above believing their repugnant and destructive ideas.

And winston, in case you didn't catch it above, his name is Josiah, and you have absolutely no basis for your statement that he has placed demands on Harry that he himself is unwilling to fulfill. You are obviously full of assumptions yourself.

Abbie,
I stand corrected about Josiah's name. Thank you. The demand that Josiah has placed upon Harry and Bad is that they should be in serving poor people in third world countries and in the south. HE set the standard. Here are HIS words:

"I mean, why aren't they spending their time doing what Christ and the Apostles did? Caring for the poor, spreading the Gospel, caring for widows, loving one another, etc. etc. "

"Bad n' Harry and the Kinist nutjobs need to hit a third world country or the inner city or the dirt poor rural South and start thinking about how to really love and serve those people."

There you have it. Josiah himself has set the standard. Unless Josiah is doing the things he lists, he's an hypocrite and his words are worthless.

And then there's the indefensible - posting Harry's address and phone number and encouraging people to harass and terrorize them. Trying to rationalize it with, "Well, that information is out there, anyhow" would be laughable if it wasn't so offensive. For crying out loud, the idiot that did it can't even explain what effect he had in mind when he did it. I venture to say that he knew precisely that Harry and his family would be threatened and possibly harmed, and he wanted it to happen because he hates Harry. If you can find love in the loser's actions, please point it out. He acted without thinking, which is EXACTLY what you people are doing when you recoil like vipers and agree with someone when they scream, "Oh my gosh! Harry hates black people!" I have known Harry for a long time, and there is not a single person that he hates. He doesn't hate any race. He believes that ALL races are beautiful, and that they should stay that way. Do you agree that Negroes are beautiful? I do, and I want them to retain their beauty because God made them. Do you believe that Asians and Hispanics are beautiful? I do, and I want them to retain their beauty because God made them. Do you believe that Caucasians are beautiful? Horror of horrors, I do, and I want them to retain their beauty because God made them. Any other race can assert their right to exist as a race, and a plethura of sociocrat bobble-heads will nod approvingly. But, let white people assert the same right, and somehow that's racism. God made the races, period. We have no right to destroy them so that we might pursue some pretty egaltarian pipe dream of "unity" or "diversity".

Now, Abbie, the burden is on you. Explain how Harry is a racist. Naturally, you will have to define racism. Be careful - Karl Marx invented the word in order to keep people fighting because he knew that his damnable ideas, which have cost millions their lives, take root more easily when people hate each other. By using Marx's words and ideas, you league yourself with him and approve of what his ideas have wrought upon the world. You will also have to explain how Harry's ideas are heretical, which means you will have to search out what the Scriptures say about race. Finally, I am most interested in knowing how preserving the races and preventing bloodshed is such a repugnant and destructive idea to you. The historical fact is that when the races keep separate, they respect each other and mutually benefit each other. On the other hand, when the races are forced to associate with each other, no matter how mild and pretty-sounding the coercion, people die. If you want to discuss it, we can do so via email. I would prefer it that way. Every time I come to this site, I feel like I need a shower, and my heart breaks over the miserable caricature the PCa has become.

And the world is only 6000 years old, right? Abraham lived alongside the dinosaurs; the world is flat.

I know you religious nuts think of science as the devil's work (because you are all freakin' delusional!), but if you knew the slightest bit of genetic science you would know that there is no such thing as a pure race. You could take the whitest family on earth, drop them off on a remote island near the equator, and, in a few generations, they would be as black. That is what determines skin color -- the amout of UV radiation a person's ancestors were exposed to on a regular basis. But of course to understand an idea like this you'd have to consider evolution a possiblity. I think for some, like the Little Geneva crew, evolution is an impossiblity. You people are from the stone age, yo; dinosaurs yourselves.

It is fact that the amount of genetic diversity available in a breeding pool is directly proportional to the health and intelligence of the offspring. The same way mutts have fewer health problems than pure breeds in dogs. Eugenics -- i.e. believing that there are "pure races" such as Little Geneva does, such as Hitler did -- is a load of crap. And you inbred, feces covered, hillbillies in Florida are prooving that you are not Alpha breed material. You are CroMagnons; quivering, inbred Chihuahuas.

I'm a white male and, hell yes, I'm attracted to women of other races. I'm sure about any woman would be preferable to that 300 pound, 68 IQ point monster that undoubtedly lurks in your trailer home; that is is the finance company hasn't repossesed it yet. So set your gimp free, get a vasectomy, and leave the good people of Chattanooga alone!

Hopefully we can now move beyond this race issue and focus on some issues that really matter.

Let's start here:

www.stopclownpornnow.org

Winston,

The definition for racism from dictionary.com is:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

I think that's a pretty good definition, except I might want to make sure the word "discrimination" had its negative connotation. Just because you say, "John is Chinese," doesn't make you a racist.

Having said that, over on Harry's own website, he has link after link of articles and essays portraying blacks, specifically, in a negative light, using such captions as "Black politicians are hysterical idiots," and trying to prove that the LAPD is no longer an effective police force because of their inclusion of minorities. The point of these links is not to objectively report the news, but to build support for his point: white people are better than black people. You'll note his website is completely free of Sen. Zell Miller's hysterics, for example, or any other crimes or anti-social behavior committed by white people.

If you look over Bad's posts here, you will see that he quite clearly posits the superiority of whites over both blacks and Jews in scopes from the moral to their physical attributes.

In other words, the evidence will not allow you to argue that Harry and Bad are simply saying, "All races our great, we just like ours and don't think they should mix." The message is clear, "Our race is superior to other races, who are largely responsible for crime, bad politics, and other social ills. We should not mix, because to mix would be to jeopardize the purity of the race which is clearly superior and the only hope for the survival of America."

That makes them racists. Karl Marx never even used the term "racist" because he wrote in German, but even if he had somehow used the word, so what? That doesn't mean everyone who thinks racially-motivated prejudice is a communist, any more than Moses was actually a Ra-worshipper because he built an Ark of the Covenant and the Egyptians were the first ones to do that. It's a logical fallcy.

Finally, what irritated me was the claim that Scripture supported their positions along with some token proof texts. When their position was refuted Scripturally, they escaped in a squid-like fashion in a cloud of their own invective.

The thing that gets me about all this, though, is the very point Abbie was making. Bad is the one who took it upon himself to, on the Internet, insult a very Christian family and very Christian congregation on racial grounds. People got upset about it, and now Harry, Bad, et al have some kind of martyr complex.

Did some people react in some ways they should apologize for? Probably, but I really have a hard time seeing how the opposition to Badonicus are the bad guys in this story.

Sorry, that phrase should be:

"That doesn't mean everyone who thinks racially-motivated prejudice EXISTS is a communist..."

Winston, I appreciate your willingness to talk with me, but I honestly have no interest in discussing the issue with you. You have done nothing to demonstrate that you are any different from those you would accuse of being "at least as hateful" as Bad & Harry. You have heaped your own share of venom and scorn on those people (referring to Josiah as "idiot" and "loser”) while making no attempt to really discuss the issue at hand (except for your appeal to “all races are beautiful and should stay that way because God made them” which is a weak argument at best, and hardly Biblically persuasive).

As for your statement that “Harry doesn’t hate any race….he believes that ALL races are beautiful.” I know no such thing about this man—he posted a response to Bad’s blog about the Huffines, referring to them as the “ugly Huffines” and commending Bad for his post. And I certainly know that your statement is not true of Badonicus. Here is a direct quote from one of his post’s above (which, by the way, includes a horrendously obvious misinterpretation of Scripture):
“…The same thing applies to aesthetics. We all know Whites are far more attractive than blacks. Heck, just read what the Bible says about light and darkness. Is light preferable to darkness in the Bible, or are they equal?”

Here are some more quotes (that Jimmy posted on May 4th, quoted directly from Bad’s blog):
"...since Jews hate Jesus Christ and his Word, they have to go..."
"...Jews hate White people, and they really, really, hate Jesus Christ. And they're in charge now. So get used to it. Because they're going to start rubbing it in our faces..."
"I thought the standard story was the Germans were slaughtering Jews; now it turns out that it was half breeds that had Hitler's panties in a bunch."
"...there's always the inconvenient fact that Jews were wailing about a "holocaust" of SIX MILLION dead Jews..."

This certainly does not sound like two people who do not hate any race and who find all races beautiful. I don’t need to define racism, or discuss Karl Marx with you—Bad & Harry’s comments and actions speak for themselves. And I have no desire to explain to you how Harry's ideas are unscriptural—I feel that many capable, intelligent people have already done so (see Scott Cunningham’s posts, or Phil’s posts, or Ed Sunder’s posts for a start—none of whom spoke to Bad in an offensive manner) and Bad was unable to give an intelligent, theological defense. But perhaps you could do better. Please. Go ahead. Surprise me.

Ok. I'm going to contradict myself and go ahead and explain to you why Harry's ideas are unscriptural. They are such a gross offense against the gospel that I can't just let it go undiscussed. In rejecting the Christian liberty to marry another believer irregardless of their skin color, you are rejecting the gospel. You are rejecting Christ and His ministry and His finished work on the cross. When Christ died on the cross He obliterated all the race and class distinctions. The veil of the temple was torn asunder signifying that all men, irregardless of race and class distinction, have access to God. Paul, a Jewish missionary to the Gentiles, continuoulsy wrote about tearing down the barriers between Jews and Gentiles. Jews kept themselves separate from the Gentiles through the observance of many cultural and religious barriers. The most potent symbol of separation was an actual physical wall in the temple. Non-Jews were never permitted to enter the temple courts past that wall, and a further wall separated Jewish men from Jewish women. In Eph. 2:14 Paul talks about how Christ utterly destroyed the “wall of separation.”

And in Christ’s people, those who are the true children of God, there is no racial distinction, there is no Jew or Gentile, no male or female. Read Galations 3:26-4:7. Gal. 3:28 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” By still living your lives according to “race” distinction, allowing it to dictate who you marry, you are rejecting Christ’s work. Eph 2:18, 19 “For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the HOUSEHOLD of God” (and you would have different “races” not be a part of the same household here on earth). And in I Cor 7, when Paul makes an in-depth discussion of the principles of marriage, he makes no restrictions contingent on race. The restriction to believers is to marry in the Lord, not in the flesh. I Cor. 7:37, “…But if her husband dies, she is at liberty to marry whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

Also, let me remind you who the first attacker was—Bad (and Harry through his direct endorsement of Bad’s actions). Bad stole bandwidth and posted an innocent family’s photos on the web while ridiculing them and their ministry. And yes, Josiah posted Harry’s info in a defense of his friends, but Harry had no qualms about returning the favor.

And if it makes you feel better (or perhaps worse), I am not, nor have I ever, been a member of a PCA church, nor did I attend a PCA college. So please do not give the PCA all the credit for standing against heresy.

addendum: And for the record, I recognize that I made an incorrect statement at the beginning of my post that I did not want to discuss the issue further with you. When I began writing, I thought I would leave it at the first paragraph, but for various reasons found myself incapable (or unwilling) to do so.

"I'm sure about any woman would be preferable to that 300 pound, 68 IQ point monster that undoubtedly lurks in your trailer home; that is is the finance company hasn't repossesed it yet. So set your gimp free, get a vasectomy, and leave the good people of Chattanooga alone!"

There you have it! Covenant College scholarship and PCa polemic at its very finest. Little wonder the PCa has become a pliable tool in the hands of the ememies of Christ. You people simply don't have intellectual wherewithal to form a good argument, so the enemies of Christ can easily prey upon you. That's how the enemies of of Christ were able to make the PCa apologize for something with which that church had absolutely nothing to do (in violation of the 9th Commandment). Covenant College and the PCa - you go, girls!

". . .there is no such thing as a pure race." So, then I suppose there's no reason to try to preserve the races. Following your "thinking", there's no such thing as a sinless Christian, so there's no need to try to be holy.

"The definition for racism from dictionary.com is:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race."

Go ahead - get your theological definitions from dictionary.com. True Christians prefer to get their theological definitions from the Bible. Perhaps if you get away from Covenant College and/or the PCa, the Holy Spirit will be able to correct all the damage that's been done to you.

"Winston, I appreciate your willingness to talk with me, but I honestly have no interest in discussing the issue with you." Fair enough. But, if you're not willing to discuss the issue, at least try to retain a smidgen of respectability, and refrain making pronouncements upon a subject to which you've given no thought. If you prefer to discuss it only with people who don't want to offend the enemies of Christ, with people who respond with pavlovian PC epithets and mantras, or with people who get their theological defintions from dictionary.com rather than from the Bible, then don't claim to know anything about the subject. But, I think you're better than that .

The basic problem you poor people have is that you're ashamed of the Scriptures you claim to believe. This calls into question your salvation. If you're a Christian, then you have no reason to be ashamed of anything that the Bible teaches. You claim that Harry is a racist, and your defintion of racism comes from dictionary.com, rather than from the Bible. Furthermore, your accusations and lack of supporting proof thereto place the accused in the position of having to prove a negative, something no honest debater would do because it's impossible to prove a negative. You are not honest debaters. Following your example, I could accuse you all of being witches, and it would be up to you to prove that you're not, rather than it being up to me to prove that you are. You come from a church that has publicly violated the 9th Commandment and probably the 5th (but then, you DO believe that Christ abolished the Ten Commandments; where there is no Commandment, there is no violation. Right?).

Abbie, and all of you, please, ask God to forgive you for despising His Word. Ask Him to forgive you for associating with people and so-called churches that have so terribly shamed His Name. If you won't, then please, stop claiming to be one of His.

"I'm sure about any woman would be preferable to that 300 pound, 68 IQ point monster that undoubtedly lurks in your trailer home; that is is the finance company hasn't repossesed it yet. So set your gimp free, get a vasectomy, and leave the good people of Chattanooga alone!"

"And you inbred, feces covered, hillbillies in Florida are prooving that you are not Alpha breed material. You are CroMagnons; quivering, inbred Chihuahuas."

There you have it! Covenant College scholarship and PCa polemic at its very finest. Little wonder the PCa has become a pliable tool in the hands of the ememies of Christ. You people simply don't have intellectual wherewithal to form a good argument, so the enemies of Christ can easily prey upon you. That's how the enemies of of Christ were able to make the PCa apologize for something with which that church had absolutely nothing to do (in violation of the 9th Commandment). Covenant College and the PCa - you go, girls!

". . .there is no such thing as a pure race." So, then I suppose there's no reason to try to preserve the races. Following your "thinking", there's no such thing as a sinless Christian, so there's no need to try to be holy.

"The definition for racism from dictionary.com is:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race."

Go ahead - get your theological definitions from dictionary.com. True Christians prefer to get their theological definitions from the Bible. Perhaps if you get away from Covenant College and/or the PCa, the Holy Spirit will be able to correct all the damage that's been done to you.

"Winston, I appreciate your willingness to talk with me, but I honestly have no interest in discussing the issue with you." Fair enough. But, if you're not willing to discuss the issue, at least try to retain a smidgen of respectability, and refrain making pronouncements upon a subject to which you've given no thought. If you prefer to discuss it only with people who don't want to offend the enemies of Christ, with people who respond with pavlovian PC epithets and mantras, or with people who get their theological defintions from dictionary.com rather than from the Bible, then don't claim to know anything about the subject. But, I think you're better than that .

The basic problem you poor people have is that you're ashamed of the Scriptures you claim to believe. This calls into question your salvation. If you're a Christian, then you have no reason to be ashamed of anything that the Bible teaches. You claim that Harry is a racist, and your defintion of racism comes from dictionary.com, rather than from the Bible. Furthermore, your accusations and lack of supporting proof thereto place the accused in the position of having to prove a negative, something no honest debater would do because it's impossible to prove a negative. You are not honest debaters. Following your example, I could accuse you all of being witches, and it would be up to you to prove that you're not, rather than it being up to me to prove that you are. You come from a church that has publicly violated the 9th Commandment and probably the 5th (but then, you DO believe that Christ abolished the Ten Commandments; where there is no Commandment, there is no violation. Right?).

Abbie, and all of you, please, ask God to forgive you for despising His Word. Ask Him to forgive you for associating with people and so-called churches that have so terribly shamed His Name. If you won't, then please, stop claiming to be one of His.

Finally, nothing Harry has written or done warrants subjecting his family to violence. What you people did to his family was evil, low, despicable, vile, and unChristian. Harry pulled the picture of the mixed family very quickly and admitted his mistake. And he NEVER encouraged people to terrorize the family, as you people have done to Harry's. Your actions are as indefensible as you theology is poor.

You think everyone that posts here and doesn't agree with you is from Covenant? All you need is about a fourth grade education to see that you are a steaming pile.

Winston -

You asked for a definition of racism, and I gave you one. You did not ask, "Give me a definition of racism that comes directly from God." If you had asked such a thing, then I would be unable to answer you, because the Bible never says, "This is racism: x, y, and z." And were I to try to concoct a definition of racism from choosing bits and pieces of Scripture and fabricating a definition of racism that served my own ends, then I would be guilty of mishandling the Word of God to support my own agenda, and we both know that's wrong, correct?

Correct?

Anyway, I'm a long way from Covenant College as it turns out, and I'm not in the PCA either.

I also note that you have no refutation for the clear evidence summoned against you as to Harry and Bad's examples of slandering other races - something you forthrightly claimed they do not do. Instead, you decided to mock me with some ad hominem about the idiocy of using a dictionary to define a word (although I'm still not entirely sure how using dictionaries to find definitions is such a terrible thing - you need to develop that argument more) and how my mind has been warped by Covenant College, and how I need to repent and ask God for being ashamed of His Word (although you have yet to demonstrate how this is the case).

Sadly, this is the classic mode of operation for your side so far:

1) Make untrue claims.
2) Be shown clearly how the claims are untrue.
3) Insult person who brought up counter evidence, but do not deal with the actual arguments.
4) Complain about other people being mean to you when you did nothing to deserve it.

It is not enough to be able to make assertions, Winston. In order for your position to be true, it has to withstand critique, and so far, I have yet to see any capable defense. I actually read Harry's "academic paper" on the subject, and it is rather easy to refute at virtually every point. The only person who would find it convincing is someone who had already decided to believe it in advance.

But we both know that deciding something is a teaching from the Scriptures prior to examining the Scriptures is wrong.

Right?

I guess the closest thing to a Biblical defintion of racism is that Paul instructs us in Gal. 3:25-29:

"But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

I suppose one could say that thinking, speaking, or behaving in ways contrary to the truth that all believers in Christ are Abraham's offspring could be seen as a Biblical version of racism, but once again, the Bible simply doesn't spell out what racism is.

This whole argument is preposterous. It's like trying to explain color theory to a stone.

"The basic problem you poor people have is that you're ashamed of the Scriptures you claim to believe. This calls into question your salvation. If you're a Christian, then you have no reason to be ashamed of anything that the Bible teaches"

Aren't you ignoring that Jesus’ covenant wiped away many of the laws and mores adhered to in the OT? Laws that are only faithfully adhered to by the Jews you so despise.

You can't claim to have Christ in your heart, but start quoting Leviticus to claim that your hate mongering is divinely inspired when you feel like it. You cast the first stone by placing a picture of a family that you know nothing about on the web, and calling for people to see them as unchristian. Then you claim to be "sinless?"

People despise you Winston, Harry, Bad, et al, not only because you have hate filled hearts, but also because you claim the vitriol you espouse corresponds to the word of Christ. You have not been able to support any aspect of your argument citing texts from the NT. You hate people that you've never spoken to because of the color of their skin. You are a racist, and that is not a Christian virtue.

I lost my uncle in the World Trade Center attacks. Because people like you, who twisted their holy texts to give credence to their hate, decided to take his life away. And you claim to be sinless. Winston I would tell you to go to hell, but it is clear that you already reside there. I know, as well as you, that if you had been alive at the time of Christ you would have been cheering on his crucifixion, claiming him to be a heretic. You are not sinless, but worse yet you refuse to even acknowledge your sins, and tell the victims of your hateful acts that they have shamed the Lord. Your heart is so black that you could not even feel shame. Talking to you is an exercise in futility. I’ll pray that God let you know love, and peace, and yes, shame.

Suppose Badonicus posted a comment and no one replied. Like a tree falling in the woods...

1) "All you need is about a fourth grade education to see that you are a steaming pile."
Again, more Covenant College/PCa polemic. Truly skillful, truly artful, and, unfortunately, truly typical.

2) "You asked for a definition of racism, and I gave you one."
You used a non-Biblical dictionary in a discussion about Christianity. The fact that you forgot what we were discussing was your mistake, not mine. Keep your head in the game.

"I would be unable to answer you, because the Bible never says, "This is racism: x, y, and z.""
The fact that the Bible doesn't mention racism at all should tell you something. It's a worthy example to follow. It took Karl Marx to give us the word, and you people have adopted it as your own. Congratulations - Marx is your man!

"I also note that you have no refutation for the clear evidence summoned against you as to Harry and Bad's examples of slandering other races"
As I said, to try to refute your acusation is to try to prove a negative, which any educated debater knows can't be done, and all honest debaters avoid doing because it proves that they are out of ammunition. You people aren't out of ammunition - you never had it to begin with. That's why you resorted to having other people do your dirty work for you in harassing and terrorizing Harry's family.

"Instead, you decided to mock me with some ad hominem about the idiocy of using a dictionary to define a word (although I'm still not entirely sure how using dictionaries to find definitions is such a terrible thing - you need to develop that argument more)"
It wasn't ad hominem. I pointed out that you used a worldly dictionary in what is essentially a discussion about Christian truth. One way the world makes inroads into the church is by co-opting language. The world is not a friend of Christ. If you let the world decide the language you use when you talk about Christ, then it won't be long before the world removes Christ from your language and finally your thoughts. That's why we should get our definitions from the Bible and not dictionary.com or Meriam-Webster or anyone else. This is all very basic, and I wonder why you haven't been trained in these things. The Bible defines its terms.
In these degenerate days, the charge of an ad hominem attack has itself become an ad hominem attack, much like the charge of racism, and it's a sign of a debater who's losing. It's a cheap attempt to silence those who disagree with you. I'm not attacking you. What you people did to Harry and his family was an attack.

". . .then I would be guilty of mishandling the Word of God to support my own agenda"
Yeah, like you people have done with Gal. 3:28. You have a certain skill at doing it.

"I actually read Harry's "academic paper" on the subject, and it is rather easy to refute at virtually every point"
Then do it. Refute away. Write a paper, post it at Little Geneva, and subject it examination. If this subject is important to you, and if you believe that what Harry wrote is so harmful, then you are obligated to take it on for the sake of Christ and His Church. Or, you could take the RC Sproul jr. route, say Harry's bad, watch people nod in agreement, and walk away congratulating yourself that you've "done battle." And when Harry challenges you to debate, you can say, "I don't have time." (This is what RCjr did.) Of course, if you do this, then it explains why you squeal "ad hominem!" every time someone disagrees with you.

3) Ah, yes, good ol' Gal. 3:28. Next to 1 Cor. 11, it's probably the most raped passage in the NT. If, as you mistakenly believe, the Gal. 3:28 does away with ALL distinctions, then you are unable to say that there is anything wrong with queer "marriage", because in Christ there is neither male nor female. Furthermore, if Gal. 3:28 does away with ALL distinctions, then you are unable to say that there is anything wrong with organizations like NAMBLA, because in Christ there is neither adult nor child. I am certain that you've used Gal. 3:28 to justify women preachers and women elders. But, if you'd just look at the passage in its context, then you'd see that the passage has NOTHING whatsoever to do with church order, governance, or race. It refers to spiritual blessings we have from our salvation in Christ. But, never let it be said that Covenant College students and PCa members let basic Biblical hermenutics stand in the way of accommodating the latest feel-good trend that the enemies of Christ are foisting upon society through ill-trained church members.

4) "I suppose one could say that thinking, speaking, or behaving in ways contrary to the truth that all believers in Christ are Abraham's offspring could be seen as a Biblical version of racism"
Spiritual offspring, yes. Ethnic offspring, no way. Abraham sent a servant all the way back to the land of his people to find a bride for Isaac. Abraham wouldn't allow his son to marry a woman who wasn't like him. Abraham was a kinist.

5) "Aren't you ignoring that Jesus’ covenant wiped away many of the laws and mores adhered to in the OT? Laws that are only faithfully adhered to by the Jews you so despise"
Jesus did away with the ceremonial laws of salvation. He did not do away with the moral law. If he had done away with the moral law, then there would be no such thing as sin. Besides, Jesus actually affirmed the moral law: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. . .etc". This is from the moral law.
Despise Jews? Me? I don't despise anyone. However, Jews believe that Jesus, our Savior, is boiling in hot excrement in a hell that's too good for him (or, so says the Jewish Talmud). Are you okay with them believing that about your Savior? Do you owe anything good thing to Jews who believe that about the Son og God? I don't. Also, you should do some research on how Jews in Israel treat Christians there. You'd shocked and infuriated.

6) "You can't claim to have Christ in your heart, but start quoting Leviticus to claim that your hate mongering is divinely inspired when you feel like it."
Once again, I don't hate anyone. By saying I do, you place yourself on the same level as God, who alone can see into people's hearts. Shame on you for claiming to be like God. You're not like God. Repent. And once again, your saying so is to try to force me to prove a negative. And again, it proves that your a dishonest debater and out of ammunition.

7) "You can't claim to have Christ in your heart, but start quoting Leviticus to claim that your hate mongering is divinely inspired when you feel like it."
An EXTREMELY cheap shot. I'm sorry that you lost your uncle, but I had nothing to with it, and I am the arch-enemy of the use of force, you know, the sort of force you people here tried to unleash against Harry and his family. You people are FAR more closely related to the animals that perpetrated the 911 attacks than I am. I've never advocated the bloodshed of anyone; you people have.

*Note to readers- I'm not part of the PCa, and I wouldn't join a PCa church if you paid me.

Harry is not a racist, he's just an anti-christ who is well versed and doesn't tolerate people that aren't his blood relatives; inbreeding and such.

Badonicus isn't a racist, he's just a sex-starved Jew that's running for cover. He doesn't want Harry to find out he's milatto and lose his site hosting.

There. It's all pretty simple.

Winston Smith? Who?

Of all the comments on this thread, I think this one here is hands down the winner in the the unfreakinbelievable contest:

"I lost my uncle in the World Trade Center attacks. Because people like you, who twisted their holy texts to give credence to their hate, decided to take his life away. And you claim to be sinless. "

When did any of us claim to be sinless, or anything of the kind? But forget that. What makes this so outrageous is that your dead uncle would still be alive today if people like us were in charge. People like would never have let the Arabs over here to begin with. It is you who celebrates the death of your uncle and three thousand others every time you celebrate diversity, and say "racism" and "xenophobia" are wrong. If our country hadn't scrapped our "racist" and "xenophobic" immigration and visa laws back in the sixties, those Arabs would never have been allowed in to kill your uncle and three thousand others. And that's the facts. Diversity kills your uncle, and you have the gall to lay the murder of your uncle at the feet of those who would've prevented it. You're not only a genius, but a real class act to twist your uncle's murder into a plea for more diversity. I'm sure he'd be real proud.

You are a sick fuck.

No, I'm right, and you know I'm right, and it burns you up. And rather than admit it, you just prefer to call me a sick fuck.

"Harry is not a racist, he's just an anti-christ who is well versed and doesn't tolerate people that aren't his blood relatives; inbreeding and such."

"Badonicus isn't a racist, he's just a sex-starved Jew that's running for cover. He doesn't want Harry to find out he's milatto and lose his site hosting."

"You are a sick fuck"

My, my, these are some very tight, well-constructed, and persuasive arguments! If Paul had only had your rhetorical skill when he appeared before Agrippa, he surely would have been successful in persuading him. But then, Paul never attended Covenant College nor was he a PCa member. Although, in his pre-conversion behavior, he did engage in some pretty despicable behavior, such as trying to kill and even successfully killing some of those who disagreed with him. Say, those of you who terrorized Harry and his family, you're a lot like Saul the persecutor before he became Paul the Christian! Why don't you follow Paul's example and repent? Why don't you take link to Harry's contact information off of this site? Why don't you stop spreading Harry's contact info all over the internet to incite misguided people such as yourselves to bring harm to Harry's family? What you're doing is sinful. It's WRONG. You have NO justification or defense for it. You're trying to cause harm to a man and his family because you disagree with him. And then, you have the gall to try to link US to the 911 attackers? It's YOU who want to kill people, and it's YOU who are leagued with those barbaric sub-humans. You've demonstrated it by your actions. Your behavior bears witness against you, and the indictment is very ugly.

Get on your knees and ask God to forgive you and cleanse you of the hate that your behavior shows is in in your hearts. Ask God to help you escape from the people who are keeping you in bondage by preaching a false gospel to you. Ask God to show you the truth of His Word, because you're not getting it from the charlatans who claim to be teaching you. God will forgive you, and He will heal you.

>> 2) "You asked for a definition of racism, and I gave you one."
>> You used a non-Biblical dictionary in a discussion about Christianity. The fact that you forgot what we were discussing was your mistake, not mine. Keep your head in the game.

No, you asked for a definition of racism, so I gave you one from a dictionary. If there's a "biblical dictionary" you'd like to use, then we can use it. Feel free to offer your own definitions and we can critique them. If the only problem you have with my definition is that it came from a dictionary, then your hatred of dictionaries will probably cause you a hard road in academic circles.

>> "I would be unable to answer you, because the Bible never says, "This is racism: x, y, and z.""

>> The fact that the Bible doesn't mention racism at all should tell you something. It's a worthy example to follow. It took Karl Marx to give us the word, and you people have adopted it as your own. Congratulations - Marx is your man!

Well, now I'm confused. Are you criticizing me because I didn't use the Bible to define racism, or are you agreeing with me that the Bible doesn't define racism?

Please show me in Marx's writings where he uses the word "racism." This will be difficult, since it's in German, but you are obviously staking a lot on this point, so I think it's only fair you actually prove it.

>> "I also note that you have no refutation for the clear evidence summoned against you as to Harry and Bad's examples of slandering other races"

>> As I said, to try to refute your acusation is to try to prove a negative, which any educated debater knows can't be done, and all honest debaters avoid doing because it proves that they are out of ammunition. You people aren't out of ammunition - you never had it to begin with. That's why you resorted to having other people do your dirty work for you in harassing and terrorizing Harry's family.

No, you should be trying to prove your assertion. You said that Harry and Bad don't have any bad feelings toward other races. Abbie and I pointed out direct quotations where they said bad things about other races. I'm not asking you to prove a negative; I'm asking you to prove your assertion, which appears to be false in light of direct quotations from your own side. Show how the evidence we've listed allows for your assertion that Harry and Bad don't hate other races.

If offering counter evidence is dishonest debate, then why discuss?

>> That's why we should get our definitions from the Bible and not dictionary.com or Meriam-Webster or anyone else.

Please define "Euclidean geometry" from the Bible. Please define "tachyon" from the Bible. And do it in the original Greek or Hebrew, please.

The Bible doesn't define a lot of terms; there are many terms you have to understand in order to understand the Bible. If you don't know what any words mean, how will the Bible help you?

>> What you people did to Harry and his family was an attack.

I didn't do anything to Harry or his family. Please don't change the subject. We're discussing the merits of your assertion that Harry and Bad don't hate other races. This is an argument YOU introduced into the debate. People have produced evidence to the contrary, which, I might add, you have yet to address.

>> If, as you mistakenly believe, the Gal. 3:28 does away with ALL distinctions, then you are unable to say that there is anything wrong with queer "marriage", because in Christ there is neither male nor female.

No, that specific passage in Galatians is specifically dealing about how there is no longer any difference between Jew and Gentile when it comes to how they should be treated within the body of Christ. Christ has removed all separation between Jew and Gentile - including, I might add, the Torah.

Paul is also clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. Where in the NT is interracial marriage forbidden?

Finally, I would add that the only reason I threw the passage out there is that you seemed insistent that I find some definition of racism tucked away in the Bible, so I just cited the closest I could find to a New Covenant addressing of the topic. I don't think the Bible defines racism.

>> Abraham wouldn't allow his son to marry a woman who wasn't like him.

Do you understand the significance of race in the OT? It is spiritual. It is covenantal.

When race ceases to become a factor in the covenant, all those little isolated incidents you mention become totally absent. If I am wrong, show me. Show me where there's a prohibition against interracial marriage in the New Covenant. I can show you prohibitions against gay marriage in the NT, show me the racial ones.

Or are you going to ask me to prove a negative?

>> Jesus did away with the ceremonial laws of salvation. He did not do away with the moral law. If he had done away with the moral law, then there would be no such thing as sin. Besides, Jesus actually affirmed the moral law: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. . .etc". This is from the moral law.

Jesus did not do away with any laws at all, but he did fulfill all of them, as well as the covenant which they administrated.

I will commend you for your few sentences on Galatians. That is the closest to an actual argument you've made thus far.

/\ /\
/ \ / \ Did ya'll know that we fit the
/ oo\ / oo\ -- biblcal definition for "douchebags"
/ O \ O \

1) "The Bible doesn't define a lot of terms"
Here is one of your basic problems. You are saying that there are some discussions of Christian thought for which the Bible is inadequate. I couldn't disagree more. In all the years since we've had a Bible, it alone has been recognized as the last Court of Appeal. Christians affirm that in a discussion of Christian ideas, then the Bible defines its own terms. We're discussing Christian ideas here, and you reject the authority if the Bible to explain itself, and instead accept the definitions of dictionary.com. Since I do not accept dictionary.com's definitons of Biblical ideas, we need not waste each other's time. You'll never convince me to trust anything but the Bible to explain the Bible.

2) "Feel free to offer your own definitions and we can critique them. "
I'm not going to offer a definition of racism because I haven't accused anyone of racism. You and your ilk are the ones making the accusation, and you're saying that the Bible condemns racism. The Bible should then be able to define that which it condemns (it does in many places). You say that your whole argument against what you say is "racism" is essentially Biblically-based. It's up to you to show how the Bible defines its idea of racism. On the one hand, you're saying the Bible condemns racism, and on the other hand you're saying that the Bible says nothing about racism. And then, you run to a secular dictionary to help the Bible define racism. And from the secular dictionary, you say that the Bible says that Harry is a racist. Man, if you're going to call yourself a Christian and try to discuss Biblical ideas, do the Christian thing and rely on the Bible. Remember - "Sola Scriptura." Do they teach that at Covenant College or in the PCa anymore?

3) ". . .your hatred of dictionaries will probably cause you a hard road in academic circles. "
I don't hate dictionaries (there you go, accusing me of hatred again). I make my living with dictionaries! I love 'em!

4) "Please define "Euclidean geometry" from the Bible. Please define "tachyon" from the Bible. And do it in the original Greek or Hebrew, please."
You've proven my point very nicely, thank you. They're not in the Bible, just like racism isn't in the Bible. So, you have no business trying make the Bible speak about something that it doesn't speak about, meaning racism.

5) "Well, now I'm confused. Are you criticizing me because I didn't use the Bible to define racism, or are you agreeing with me that the Bible doesn't define racism?"
Both. Yes, you are confused. That's why we're doing what we're doing.

6) "I didn't do anything to Harry or his family. Please don't change the subject."
The response wasn't meant for you. But, since you brought it up, this is a very large part of the subject. You people here are saying that Bible says that Harry is a racist, and that his alleged racism somehow justifies the owner of this site posting Harry's contact information and encouraging people to harass and terrorize him and his family. There is a connection between the "thinking" and the behavior. Have you condemned what was done to Harry and his family? Would you join me in demanding that the owner of this board remove the link to Harry's contact info? Would you join me in demanding that people on this board stop posting Harry's contact info on other sites? I hope so. But the episode shows a fundamental hypocrisy of the people here. They are trying to associate Kinism with Hitler, the 911 attackers, and the blood-letting those sub-humans perpetrated, even though no one in the Kinism community has EVER advocated blood-letting. The people HERE have put the lives of Harry and his family in peril. If there's an association between Hitler, the 911 attackers, and anyone, then it's between the the people here, Hitler, and the 911 attackers. It's YOU'RE colleagues here who are advocating bloodshed. Do you agree that your colleagues here committed a terrible wrong against Harry and his family, or do you agree with what they've done and are doing? All of this is not a changing of the subjectt; it's a natural part of the subject.

7) "No, that specific passage in Galatians is specifically dealing about how there is no longer any difference between Jew and Gentile when it comes to how they should be treated within the body of Christ. Christ has removed all separation between Jew and Gentile - including, I might add, the Torah."
I was responding to Phil, not you. But, since you brought it up, I'm glad that you agree with me that Gal. 3:28 should not be used to support such unBiblical things as women preachers and women elders. Perhaps you might tell your PCa friends to please keep Gal. 3:28 in its context. But, be careful - a lot of women of both sexes won't like you very much if you tell them that. They might call you a sexist or even - horror of horrors - a racist.

8) ". . .you seemed insistent that I find some definition of racism tucked away in the Bible,"
I still do insist. If you say that the Bible condemns racism, then you're obliged to prove it. Part of that proof necessarily includes a Biblical definiton of what the Bible condemns.

9) "Do you understand the significance of race in the OT? It is spiritual. It is covenantal."
Yes, I understand it. So did Abraham. That's why he sent a servant all the way back to his own people to find a wife for his son. If race was spiritual only, then Abraham would have taken the easy route, found a local girl, told her to convert, and be done with it. He didn't do that. He wanted one of his own for his own. He wanted his grandchildren to be like him. And you know what? All races instinctively want the same. The strong desire to race-mix is a uniquely American thing, and specifically, it's encouraged only among American Caucasians. Other races discourage race-mixing. They instictively want to remain as pure as possible, and no one accuses them of racism. It's only when American Caucasians desire racial purity does the charge of racism come out.
You and your friends here are the ones who don;t understabd the significance of race in both Testaments.

10) "Show me where there's a prohibition against interracial marriage in the New Covenant."
Do a search at Little Geneva. You'll find all the proof you need. We discuss it extensively.

The bottom line is that you people here have accused a man of racism based upon a Biblical defintion of racism, all the while admitting that the Bible doesn't define racism, and then you've placed his family in danger based upon your accusation of racism. It should be apparent that we're going nowhere, as you people here are obviously firmly in the grasp of a feel-good social agenda that despises the Bible, wants "diversity" over Biblical truth, and wants to have a church, any church, call them Christians. You've made a deal with the devil. In your unthinking pursuit of "diversity" your denomination has publicly violated at least two Commandments. The best responses you can muster to your defense are logical fallacies ("prove you're not a racist!"), vulgarites ("You are a sick fuck", "you are a steaming pile", "you inbred, feces covered, hillbillies"), and outrageous guilt by associations ("I lost my uncle in the World Trade Center attacks. Because people like you, who twisted their holy texts to give credence to their hate, decided to take his life away."). What say we just go our separate ways so that Covenant College and the PCa can continue their journey away from the God of their fathers and into the waiting arms of the enemies of Christ? I'll pray for you, that God might show you that His Word and His Spirit are sufficient for life and Godliness, and I'll NEVER hope that harm comes to you or your family or incite anyone to cause you harm. As long as you breathe, there's hope for you. Please try to redeem some small part of yourself, and urge your friends here to stop trying endangering Harry and his family.

" /\ /\
/ \ / \ Did ya'll know that we fit the
/ oo\ / oo\ -- biblcal definition for "douchebags"
/ O \ O \"

One more example of one your finest brethren. Are you people here proud of this guy? Are you glad the he's one of you?

As I write this there are over 260 comments on this thread. I've never seen a thread this long on a personal blog before. It's uncanny.

At this point it should be quite evident that no amount of logic, or goodwill, or badwill, is going to change the minds of those at the little geneva camp. I'm wondering, from a communications perspective, what this thread can teach us about blogging, its impact, immediacy, and its limitations. I have a few thoughts, and if you have any more thoughts on what this thread can teach us about blogging, that might be a better direction to take this thread (maybe past the 300 mark).

First: I'm surprised that people have tried this long and hard to try to appeal to those at little geneva with logic and textual arguments. You can't be surprised when those at the forefront of a white supremacy movement don't want to engage in a calm and reasoned discourse. Otherwise they wouldn't be leaders of hate groups, or however you would like to phrase it.

Second: Was anything positive achieved through this discourse, or lack thereof? I'm not sure. I'm with aduff when he states that most people who stood against the little geneva crew on this thread wanted to stand for what they think is right and Christian. But is posting on a blog thread any kind of real stand?

Third: I think we would have more of an obligation to change the hearts of the little geneva folks if we actually knew them personally, and saw goodness in them. If we can see that a person is basically good, but has problems, and wants to change, we can help them. A person has to want to change. As much as it boggles my mind, the little geneva folks really believe what they are saying on this thread, and have no desire to change. And even if they did, it is going to take a lot more than a few comments on a blog to change the heart of someone in a hate group.

Fourth: I've read, and I'm not sure if it's true, that over 70% of communication in a conversation is nonverbal -- talking with your hands, eye contact, the tone, timbre and cadence of speech. None of this occurs when you're scrolling through blog comments, so no real emotional or spiritual bond is formed; maybe rarely, but I'm sure it's much less likely.

Fifth: It was kind of morbidly entertaining to watch this unfold, and I'm kind of troubled by this. Why was this blog thread so sickening, yet sort of thrilling. It was a game -- the open minded vs. the close minded. Is there a way to declare a winner of this game? Did playing this game make little geneva stronger and more entrenched in their beliefs? I'm afraid the answer to this may be yes.

Sixth: If the little geneva folks persist on posting pictures of families they don't know, calling them names, and making them the potential targets for hate crimes, some action should be taken legally. They have a constitutional right to operate their blog, and say what they want to, and be as wrong as they want to be, but making innocent families potential hate crime targets crosses the line. It may in the law as well. Does anyone know a constitutional lawyer, perhaps in Florida where there may be state legislation on this, who knows the laws regarding malicious tactics by hate organizations?

Seventh: A lot of people read your blog JQR -- you should sell ads.

Peace Out, CRM-114

"It was a game -- the open minded vs. the close minded."

Yes, that's somewhat correct. You poor, misguided souls here are indeed closed-minded. That's why your first resort was to incite violence on Harry and his family. Instead of thinking, you decided to put their lives in danger. Wanting to shed blood is a very closed-minded thing to do, and I'm glad you recognize that. "[B]ut making innocent families potential hate crime targets crosses the line." This is what YOU people did, and yet you keep trying to say that Harry did it. You have a bad case of projection, and some psychological help, as well as spiritual help, is definitely in order. Harry placed no one in danger; you people did, and are still.

"Did playing this game make little geneva stronger and more entrenched in their beliefs? I'm afraid the answer to this may be yes."
I doubt it will, but perhaps it will teach you to be more careful about venturing unarmed into the arena of ideas. You're better off in your trendy little feel-good churches, listening to ankle-deep sermons, trying find ways to ingratiate yourselves with the enemies of Christ so that they won't say bad things about you. How many rounds of "Kum By Yah" do you folks sing before you encourage each other to terrorize someone?

But, God is gracious. Given enough time, perhaps your hermetically sealed minds may one day be opened by the Holy Spirit.

I don't think Harry was trying to incite violence against Huffine's family, at least not in his support of Bad's postings. Nor do I think necessarily that Bad was trying to incite violence against the Huffine family.

But I also wasn't trying to incite violence against Harry's fam. Asking folks to take pictures, even humorously, doesn't quite qualify as violence.

And I suppose from your or the kinist perspective we (the adamantly non-kinist) would seem close minded in that we aren't open to kinist thinking, and in fact, find it dangerous and evil.

But I pointed all this out awhile ago: that we and you have fundamentally different assumptions about not just the issue of race, but ultimately of the Gospel. That's why I think the deepest issue here is a salvific one for Harry, Bad, and youself.

I don't think your thinking false within the bounds of historic Christianity. I don't think it fits within Scriptural teaching. I also don't think Harry or Bad or the average kinist are actively attending and submitting to a local body of worship that they themselves haven't formed in their own houses.

All that to say: you've done all you can to distance and seperate yourselves from the established Church, so in my mind, there's little reason if any to consider you within the bounds of Christian fellowship. You may profess the name of Christ, but actions, words, deeds, etc. show otherwise. If only you had a session you were under that we could appeal to.

Winston,

I think we're having trouble understanding each other on this issue of definition. Let me clarify what I meant and see if that doesn't help.

When I said the Bible doesn't define what racism is, I meant it in the same way that the Bible doesn't define what heresy is or what the Trinity is. There is no verse that says, "Racism is: ..." just like no such verse exists for heresy or the Trinity.

However, I do know that heresy is wrong and that the Trinity is a true doctrine that must be proclaimed. How can I know this? Because the Bible sets forth truths and obligations that I, as a person, can use to hold up against an idea of "Trinity" or examine a view to determine whether or not it is heresy.

Likewise, even though the Bible does not explicitly state what racism is, from what I know of the Scriptures, I can listen to what a person says and make a determination as to whether or not such attiudes are compatible with the views that God wants me to have, regardless of what you want to call it.

When somebody says, "Whites are a superior race to blacks. Blacks are primarily responsible for all social ills," call it "racism," call it "blooglegorp," whatever term you're going to be ok with, and I say it's incompatible with the mind of Christ, and we can go to the Scriptures to figure out whether such an attitude indeed comports with what Christ wants from his followers, or whether it is hostile to such things, or whether indifferent.

THAT is what I meant. I hope that clarification helps you.

So, the issue at stake really is:

Do Harry and Bad have and promote views that fall under the category of what is antipathetic to how Christ commands us to think, act, and proclaim?

I believe that Harry and Bad have amply demonstrated that they have views that run counter to how a Christian should view the other peoples of the world, and the error primarily takes the form of an arrogance and/or hatred based on racial grounds. I am calling that "racism," but if you aren't comfortable with that definition, then you can call it whatever you like. Whatever we're going to call it - mushymushygoolepumpism or whatever - that's what I've got a problem with, that's what I believe the Scriptures have a problem with.

What is my basis for this? The Galatians passage is one point of examination, specially since this whole thing started with an attack against the Huffines, who are Christians. The Galatians passage clearly disallows an idea of ethnic superiority in the body of Christ.

Or how about Philippians 2, which does explicitly define the mind of Christ. "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves."

I can call up as many passages like this as you want. At the very least, we have proven that a person who has the mind of Christ will esteem all other believers better than themselves, and show no preference based on race, socio-economic class, etc.

Both Harry and Bad have made quotations, shown to you, that they esteem themselves to be better than blacks. You have yet to refute this.

Now that we have clarified where I stand and hopefully have dismissed these rather lame tactics of trying to make it sound like I don't believe the Bible.

I also notice you've dropped the Karl Marx thing. I commend you. If you can't prove your assertion, you shouldn't make it.

Let's review some of your specific complaints:

>>You are saying that there are some discussions of Christian thought for which the Bible is inadequate.

I hope I've explained my position clearly enough on that. The Bible does not explicitly address every situation for which we might have a question, true. However, I can still bring a biblical perspective to those issues.

>> I'm not going to offer a definition of racism because I haven't accused anyone of racism.

That's your prerogative, but it appears to be something of a cop-out that you will outright refuse to do what you so adamantly demand of others.

>> Do they teach that at Covenant College or in the PCa anymore?

I am a long ways away from Covenant College and I am not in the PCA. This is the third time I've had to clarify this for you. Please abandon your commitment to making snappy comebacks, because it is obscuring your ability to interact with what I'm saying.

>> So, you have no business trying make the Bible speak about something that it doesn't speak about, meaning racism.

That's not very Van Tillian of you, but I might be assuming too much, there - you've never professed a loyalty to Van Til, it's just that's usually common among theonomy types.

You know, the Bible doesn't tell me how to run a business either, but that does not mean I'm free to employ every business tactic that might work to my advantage. If you are looking for the Bible to spell out in explicit detail every ethical situation you'll ever face, then you can get away with all kinds of things.

>> Do you agree that your colleagues here committed a terrible wrong against Harry and his family, or do you agree with what they've done and are doing?

I don't agree with everything everyone has done in response to this situation, but I haven't lost sight of the fact that the whole thing started because Bad posted something on the Internet slandering Christians. I'm sorry, but Christians are my "kin." They are more my kin than white non-Christians. They are more my kin than white non-Christian family members.

So, no, I don't like everything that's been done. I don't even like everything I said, either. But you folks are not martyrs, here. None of this would ever even have happened if Bad had just decided to, um, NOT attack a congregation and a specific family within it.

>> I was responding to Phil, not you.

What?

>> I'm glad that you agree with me that Gal. 3:28 should not be used to support such unBiblical things as women preachers and women elders.

I do not believe Gal. 3:28 justifies those things because I believe there are New Covenant prohibitions against such things (even there, I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but obviously I don't think I am, or I would think something different). If you could muster up even a single, New Covenant prohibition that races should not marry, or that Christians should just promote their own race and not look out for the interests of other races, or that whites are the superior race, then you will have a telling point, for me anyway.

Because I am committed to Christ even when what he says is unattractive to me in my flesh.

However, were it NOT for the prohibitions that clarified issues like women ministers - if those prohibitions did not exist, then I would certainly allow women ministers and Gal. 3 would be a fine basis for it. But Paul has clarified himself on that specific issue.

Where has he made such "clarifications" on race? Everywhere I see him address the subject of race, all he does is talk about how it is no longer a factor for the people of God. If I am wrong, all you have to do is show me the verse.

Show it.

>> If race was spiritual only, then Abraham would have taken the easy route, found a local girl, told her to convert, and be done with it. He didn't do that.

Sir, the ancient near east is not like present day America, where people just convert freely from religion to religion. Race, national boundaries, families, languages, and cultures are all tied up with a god or gods, and the Hebrews are exactly the same way. The Israelites do not evangelize. Abraham doesn't try to convert *anybody* for *any* reason. Proselytes are an exception, not the rule.

Why does the early church have so much trouble with Gentile inclusion in the covenant? Why? Why not just say, "Oh, hey, Gentile converts! Terrific!"

It's because the covenant for Israel is comprehensive - ethnic, social, geopolitical, as well as religious. It is all an inseparable piece. Even proselytes had limitations placed upon them. The idea of a non-Jewish person being a full participant in the worship of YHWH would have been unconscionable in the Old Testament.

So, I'm not trying to say it's "purely spiritual;" I'm saying that there is no difference between spirituality and race from the OT perspective. Otherwise, what makes James sermon on Amos so radical?

If you miss this comprehensive covenant identity of Israel, then you are going to miss a lot in terms of the continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments.

A big part of the "radicalness" of the New Testament is that God's covenant takes in members from all nationalities and ethnicities, and excludes people from all nationalities and ethnicities - even Israel itself!

I mean, Winson, you seem like a fairly critical thinker - do you really not see this? Do you really not see how the ethnicity of Jewishness gives way to the ethnicity of the "new humanity" determined by faith in Christ? It is literally *all over* the New Testament.

Please search the Scriptures. Forget what Harry has taught you. Forget what I have taught you, if it helps. Just read what Jesus and his Apostles have to say about ethnicity and true religion and see if you arrive at anything like racial separatism.

>> Do a search at Little Geneva. You'll find all the proof you need. We discuss it extensively.

You could save me hours of research by just quoting me a verse. That's all it takes. Do it. If you truly represent continuity with Jesus and the Apostles, show me something from their lips or pens that confirms the positions advocated be your side. It should be easy, if indeed you are in continuity with their thought.

I love the way this man's name, Winston Smith, is the same as the main character for George Orwell's "1984." His name really is Winston Smith. I could tell you more about this man, but there's really no point in republishing information that's already readily available on the Big Brothernet if one knows where and how to look. Mr. Smith may share his name with an Orwell character, but he certainly doesn't work for the Ministry of Truth.

Prophets of the Apocalypse: White Supremacy and the Theology of Christian Identity
2001
By Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth

Abstract

Many white supremacist organizations in the United States (such as Posse Comitatus, Aryan Nations and innumerable militia groups) draw their inspiration from a theology known as Christian Identity, which argues that the white race of North America is descended from the lost tribes of Israel and is hence the Chosen People spoken of in the Bible. This philosophy also posits that Jews are the direct descendants of the Devil and that blacks are the product of interbreeding between people and animals. This paper discusses the main theoretical principles of Christian Identity, and how its absolutist belief system encourages high activity forms of organization, in-group favoritism, and the demonization of all out-groups. The paper argues that the underlying ideology of Christian Identity and its organizational manifestations are inherently cultic. In this context, fundamental principles of social psychological theory concerned with attribution, stereotyping, prejudice formation, and uncertainty reduction are applied to the Identity milieu to explain its apparent hold on significant numbers of people.

The influence of far right groupings has grown during the past two decades. Significant numbers of people are now attracted to organizations (e.g. Aryan Nations, Posse Commitatus) that might properly be regarded as cultic. The theology of the Christian Identity movement in particular is implicated in the growth of right wing militias and Neo-Nazi organizations.

Although considerable academic material has been published on the far right, previous researchers have failed to explicitly address Identity theology and the organizational forms to which it gives rise from a cultic perspective. Moreover, few have applied research from social psychology to explain far-right phenomena. Some writers have emphasised personality issues (e.g., Adorno et al, 1950) in which support for the right is seen as inherently irrational and hence susceptible only to personality based interpretations (see Wilcox, 1992, for an extended discussion of problems with this viewpoint). Others have stressed the sociological issues involved (e.g., Bruce, 1995). Our contribution is to apply theoretical principles drawn from social psychology and the analysis of cults in a way that has not previously been attempted.

We have studied the Web sites of many far right organizations and of various bodies who monitor their activities, to gauge the nature of Identity theology and the extent of its organizational influence. We make frequent reference to these sources in the pages that follow.

We argue that the basic tenets of this theology are so sharply focused on the creation of in-groups and out-groups that it inherently facilitates high activity forms of organization, conformity, and cultic dynamics. In particular, its emphasis on imminent catastrophe (the Armageddon paradigm) creates a psychologically receptive context for the apocalyptic fantasies characteristic of many cult organizations in a wide variety of ideological fields.

Flowing from this, we explore the psychological dynamics that allow such apocalyptic fantasies to gain a serious hold on the imagination of Identity followers. Key ideas looked at include expectancy effects, uncertainty reduction theory, and the dynamics of stereotyping.

We also consider the possibility that those attracted to organizations heavily influenced by Identity theology may be able to exert an influence beyond their current small size.

___________________________________________

(Kinism is not exactly the same as the Christian Identity movement but they share alot of common ideas)
___________________________________________

[excerpt from full article]
The Rise of the Christian Identity Movement
Christian Identity is sometimes known as British Israelism, Israel identity, and Kingdom message. Its origins lie in mid-19th century Britain. The most basic idea animating its adherents is that white Christians are the true Israelites of the Old Testament and are God's chosen people (see Bushart et al., 1998, for fuller discussion). In its modern, American incarnation, Christian Identity argues that the US is the Promised Land spoken of in the Bible. Identity supporters believe that ten lost tribes of Israel migrated to Europe, Great Britain and eventually the USA. They argue that fundamental differences distinguish one race from another and therefore that they should not co-mingle. Miscegenation is the ultimate horror, threatening to dilute the pure bloodstock of the Aryan master race.

This prejudice is cast in Biblical mode. Non-whites were created with other animals before Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden of Eden. Hence, they are not fully human. The theory of different origins enables many believers to claim that they are not racists at all. In contradiction to the general thrust of their propaganda, they argue that the races are not necessarily inferior or superior. They are just different, in the same way that cattle are different to dogs or humans, and have different roles, rights, and entitlements. Tim Houser, an Identity follower, has said:

Identity is not racist. Jews and blacks are what they are. God chose to... make blacks with the animals, we didn't. I have to believe God, and he spelled it out clear in the Bible. I'd give the shirt off my back to a black man if he came to my door. But I can't make him the same as me (Cited by Dyer, 1998, p.94).

Nevertheless, it follows that American cities will go up in flames, as race war escalates, and that Christian Identity followers will then reconstruct a new Israel in America (Zeskind, 1986; Katz and Popkin, 2000). Thus, the creation of in-groups versus out-groups is at the very heart of Christian Identity theology. It is this dynamic, unleashed by the belief system, which inherently points its proponents in the direction of cultic forms of organization.

Of course, the reluctance of many Identity followers to accept that their belief system is racist, a term with powerfully negative connotations is a useful means of avoiding cognitive dissonance. In essence, we are motivated to imagine that our feelings, attitudes, and behavior are much more consistent with each other than they actually are (Cialdini, 2001). When an apparent contradiction within this trinity arises we experience an unease that has been described as dissonance (Festinger, 1957). For many supremacists an acceptance of the term "racist" would jar with their self-image as a righteous and God-fearing people, creating dissonance. However, if they can avoid attaching racist labels to their belief system it becomes possible to maintain two objectively contradictory positions at once - a racist perspective, and a self-image as practicing Christians motivated by a love for humanity. What Orwell memorably termed "Doublethink" thrives precisely through such Olympian displays of linguistic gymnastics. The disavowal of negative labels may also have the effect of facilitating ever more extreme behaviors and attitudes, since the rejection of clear linguistic categories ensures that nothing disturbs the person's positive self-image.

Within the Identity movement, Jews are regarded as having an even worse point of origin than people of color. They are depicted as the direct biological offspring of the Devil. Either the Devil or one of his underlings had sex with Eve in the Garden of Eden. Cain was the progeny of this union, and Jews are viewed as his direct descendents. This means that they have an unalterable capacity for evil. It is in their blood, and even conversion to Christianity is not sufficient to change it. This strand of Identity theology has a long genealogy, but was firmly in place by the early 1960s. Since then, it has become ever more dominate. As Barkun (1994) has pointed out, it distinguishes the bigotry of Christian Identity from even the most virulent plagues of anti-Semitism in previous periods of human history. In the past, it was frequently argued that Jews were the products of interbreeding between people and animals. Their continued existence would lead to the defilement and degradation of the human race. Nevertheless, they were at least granted a common point of origin among the species of this world. The distinctive contribution that Christian Identity makes to anti-Semitic theory is viler and potentially more destructive than any of its racist precursors.

In the world of the far right, religion and politics are inseparably intertwined. For example, a creedal statement produced by the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations and the tautologically challenged Church of Jesus Christ Christian declares:

WE BELIEVE that there are literal children of Satan in the world today. These children are the descendants of Cain, who was a result of Eve's original sin, her physical seduction by Satan. We know that because of this sin, there is a battle and a natural enmity between the children of Satan and the Children of the Most High God...

WE BELIEVE that there is a battle being fought this day between the children of darkness (today known as Jews) and the children of light (God), the Aryan race, the true Israel of the Bible. (Cited by Barkun, 1994, p.189)

In part, this explains the fascination that so many on the far right display for the person of Hitler. His photographs frequently adorn white supremacist sites on the Internet. Aryan Nations is a fan club for Hitler, but one that seeks to move beyond homage and achieve the enactment of his program in modern day America. Hence, Jews are not only demonized for their alleged satanic origin. It is also argued that they are engaged in a tightly organized and well-advanced conspiracy to take over the world. In some cases this conspiracy is presented as having already come to fruition. The US Government is often referred to as ZOG - the Zionist Occupation Government. Hate literature offers what its authors take to be indisputable evidence for this assertion, such as long lists of Jews who have belonged to President Clinton's cabinets. During his presidency, Clinton himself was frequently described as "President Klinton."

It follows that Jews routinely engage in inhuman practices. Aryan Nations produces a paper entitled Calling Our Nation. It has regularly published accounts of Jews committing human sacrifices as a normal part of their religious rituals.

Once such attitudes are acquired, those infected by them seek out evidence that supports their belief system and ignore anything that suggests they might be mistaken. This practice (of selective attention) is central to the maintenance of uncritical enthusiasm for all cultic belief systems. It is also a cognitive defect that is widely shared and afflicts among many people who would be appalled by the suggestion that they harbored racist ideas. Researchers have found that most of us interpret minor differences between groups, such as skin colour, as a barometer of much greater difference (Brown, 1995). It has also been found that even those whites outside the Identity tradition, who observed or heard about a solitary black person's negative attitudes, had their critical outgroup perceptions strengthened (Henderson, 1996). In addition, they were more likely afterwards to avoid contact with black people or minimise the duration of such contact when these proved unavoidable. Furthermore, a single negative event involving a black person was sufficient to lead participants into expressing in-group favoritism.

This may be partly because unusual events stand out in our memory, precisely because they are unusual (Dawes, 1994). However, when an action out of the ordinary is performed by a member of a minority group it stands out all the more both because the event is unusual and because the source is a member of a minority group (Brown, 1995). The Christian Identity milieu is clearly predisposed to highlight "bad" behaviors on the part of those who belong to the stigmatised out group, claim that it is typical of everyday behaviour by all concerned, diminish instances of normal functioning by such people, and claim that the exceptional events they highlight as typical constitute a terminal threat to the survival of the white race.

Accordingly, those influenced by Identity theology now assume that the Jewish conspiracy has assumed vast proportions. It involves the International Monetary Fund, the Federal Reserve, the United Nations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Taxation is generally viewed as a threat to individual freedom. The primary aim of the conspiracy is to erode white rights. Identity followers believe that gun control is nothing more than a cunning ploy to render whites helpless in the face of the Zionist enemy.

Thus, in-group favoritism (e.g,. "American whites are the chosen people") is inexorably combined with the stigmatization of out-groups (e.g., "Jews and blacks are at best sub-human"). What others see as random or unrelated events are depicted as part of an orderly conspiracy, directed with great cunning by the designated out-groups. The result is an overwhelming sense of moral righteousness, persecution, isolation and contempt for mainstream society. If all the institutions of the state are indeed as nefarious as is depicted, then it also follows that elitist and high activity forms of organization are necessary for salvation: nothing less than the future of humanity is at stake.

Hey, kids! It's time for "Fun Anagrams for Badonicus!"

BAD COUSIN -- The Badonicus battle cry as he wards off incest!
SCUBA ODIN -- Silly Norse god! You're not supposed to be in the ocean!
CUBA DO SIN -- Everyone's favorite commies are totally, like, ungodly!
BAD US ICON -- Badonicus is bad all-around, but he's hardly an icon!
ACID BONUS -- You found the secret stash!
NO ACID BUS -- Whatever will the hippies ride?
CASINO BUD -- There's nothing like a cold one in a gaming establishment.
USA CON BID -- Somebody, gimme a dollar for this fine specimen of American inmate!
I DO USA, NBC -- With Brian Williams!
I'D COB ANUS -- I'll bet you would!

Be sure to join us next week for more fun Badonicus anagrams like "I SNUB CODA" and "I DUB NO SAC!"

I have read a lot of very interesting things here, and it has taught me a lot about my own religion.

As it has been shown in here, becoming Jewish changes my skin color. I mean, I am always told how white and pale I look, but it must just be because they are ignorant of biblical texts. I mean, I know this guy who is going to convert to Judaism, and I suppose that I should warn him that this will change his genetic structure. Who knows, it could be painful. Best to prevent that.

Also, I learned that I hate Christ. I mean, here I was thinking that he was a holy man. What could I have been thinking?!

Oh, and let us not forget those times when I drank human blood for religious practices. I had always assumed that blood-letting was proven to be propaganda spread by those who were ignorant of the Jewish faith. Then again, what do I know, compared to the vast knowledge accumulated by those in here.

Let us not forget that I, as a Jew, can tell the future. At least, my forefathers could when they wrote the Talmud before Christ was born to teach hate against him. I can use those powers to help people like Bad out of a Jam. Hmmm.... I see a white hood, and a red neck.... I wonder what it means.

Lastly, I would like to thank Harry, Badonicus, Winston, and any others that I have forgotten who have shown me the light. You guys are true American heroes, and I salute you for making this world safer.

P.S. Can I become attractive by converting to Christianity, and will this make me a full human, instead of a sub-human? I would really like to know, so please get back to me as soon as you can. The sooner you respond, the sooner I will stop hating your Lord.

Please understand that when you try to make rational arguments towards irrational people you end up becoming frustrated, irritated and lose your peace. Badonicus and his ilk are button-pushers. That's what they revel in. You don't need to prove to them that G-d loves the Jew and the black and other minorities. The truth is the truth. Pray for them and in doing so, you will heap hot coals on their heads.

Please note that what I said was completely out of humor. I have said it before, I find Badonicus humorous. The fact that he actually believes what is coming out of his mouth is hilarious.

I apologize if I come off as mean spirited, frustrated or irritated.

Here's the record of Little Geneva's Harry Seabrook getting his butt whipped for using "Neo-Babelist" as a pejorative to describe racial "sin.":

March 23rd, 2005 at 4:31 pm
16. Harmon Says:
If language was "used a means to accomplish an end," and "diversification," that is, the hardening of racial distinctions, was God's will, then what was the purpose behind scattering, by language, elements within the colour groups? Was it to prevent Objibwa from interbreeding with Salish, Koreans with Japanese, Finns with Danes, Zulu with Kikuyu, etc.? The diverse bodies of mutual noncomprehension existing within racial divisions not only shows that the post-Babel scattering was language-centered, but that it actually frustrated the intermixing of those who shared blood (i.e. racial nationality).

March 25th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
27. Harmon Says:
Harry, where we disagree has to do with how the text itself is read, not with how we interpret it. You read the divine intervention at Babel as a race-generating event containing a prohibition against miscegenation. From this spinnage you've concocted the term "Neo-Babelist" to condemn proponents of race-mixing (the 'biological unitarians'. I read how the God of Glory defeated the powermongering, unitary ambitions of the human race by confusing their language and scattering them, in linguistically distinct communities, across the face of the earth. The name "Babel," itself, bespeaks the lingual (not racial) character of the episode: "Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." Since scripture has defined Babel as a language-based scatter, the expression "neo-Babelist," rejects your racial semantic.

March 28th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
30. harmon Says:
We know that the language confusion at Babel eventually produced distinctive populations of yellow, white, brown/black which had not been assigned race-specific languages. Unable to communicate even within their "kind," the cultures they developed were keyed to language, not looks.

Read Old Testament history over and over again and, apart from the Lord's jealous concern for Israel's elective, Messianic separation (which was also a separation from their Semitic neighbours), you won't find any impenetrable, racial walls. Nowhere are the physical boundaries of race described. Nowhere are the nations admonished to guard their body-type distinctiveness. Nowhere are they told not to learn foreign languages-the precursor to intermarriage. Nowhere are we warned about the world lapsing into a brown, look-alike uniformity.

In the New Testament, nowhere do the Lord Jesus, John the Baptist, the apostle Paul, or disciples, John and Peter, teach the inviolability of racial types. The scripture rejects your eisegetic tinkering, no matter how many lines of Old South nostalgia you snort.

Read and reread Philippians 3:1-9, where the apostle Paul lays out his peerless racial resume for the boastful flesh-workers who trouble him. He names his parental bloodlines, his tribal credentials, his ethnic purity and refers to his zealous, righteous work on behalf of these values:

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any
other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust
in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the
tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching
the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the
righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

For the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Paul gives it all up, that is, "for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord." In verse 8, he refers to these fleshly confidences as "skubalon," or dung. Your obsession with 'righteousness by race' doesn't smell any better, Harry.

The Bride of the Lord Jesus Christ is drawn from the entire spectrum of the one-blood, human race; the marriage of the Lamb, therefore, will be the ultimate inter-racial union... and the neo-Dungists from Little Geneva won't be there to call the Bridegroom a "neo-Babelist."