ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, May 08, 2013

The Diversity Gospel

WATYF pointed out one of the many problems with John Piper's claim of a Biblical mandate for diversity:
I think the most logical argument against "diversity" is found in Paul's admonishment in Romans 12 where he says, "As far as it depends on you, live at peace with all men". He tells us that we should act in such a way that would promote peace. Well, we know from several studies that "diversity" leads to a LACK of peace amongst men. We know that it leads to less trust, more animosity, and in many cases of very high levels of diversity, outright violence. If we truly want to live at peace "as far as it concerns us", we would seek to promote peace between us and others, and that would be by preferring a homogenous society.

The real question is, "Why should we promote diversity?" According to what Biblical standard should it be pursued? If we can't come up with one (which, as far as I know, there isn't one in scripture), then we should consider just accepting the simple facts of the matter and doing what's prudent.
There is another, related argument, which is Matthew 7:15-16.  "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?"

Consider the present fruits of diversity in Nigeria:
A fresh load of battered corpses arrived, 29 of them in a routine delivery by the Nigerian military to the hospital morgue here. 

Unexpectedly, three bodies started moving.

“They were not properly shot,” recalled a security official here. “I had to call the J.T.F.” — the military’s joint task force — “and they gunned them down.” 

It was a rare oversight. Large numbers of bodies, sometimes more than 60 in a day, are being brought by the Nigerian military to the state hospital, according to government, health and security officials, hospital workers and human rights groups — the product of the military’s brutal war against radical Islamists rooted in this northern city. 

The corpses were those of young men arrested in neighborhood sweeps by the military and taken to a barracks nearby. Accused, often on flimsy or no evidence, of being members or supporters of Boko Haram — the Islamist militant group waging a bloody insurgency against the Nigerian state — the detainees are beaten, starved, shot and even suffocated to death, say the officials, employees and witnesses. 

Then, soldiers bring the bodies to the hospital and dump them at the morgue, officials and workers say. The flood is so consistent that the small morgue at the edge of the hospital grounds often has no room, with corpses flung by the military in the sand around it. Residents say they sometimes have to flee the neighborhood because of the fierce smell of rotting flesh. 

From the outset of the battle between Boko Haram and the military, a dirty war on both sides that has cost nearly 4,000 lives since erupting in this city in 2009, security forces have been accused of extrajudicial killings and broad, often indiscriminate roundups of suspects and sympathizers in residential areas. 
That's precisely what history teaches us diversity brings.  Social science, too, has very reluctantly concluded that diversity is a powerful societal negative:
In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory, distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. In contrast, contact theory proposes that distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as "hunkering down," avoiding engagement with their local community—both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:

  •     Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
  •     Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.
  •     Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
  •     Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
  •     Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
  •     Less likelihood of working on a community project.
  •     Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
  •     Fewer close friends and confidants.
  •     Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life. 
So, there is no Biblical justification for Piper's invented mandate and a clear connection to massive, wide-scale violence as well as a whole host of observable evils.  Moreover, Piper's teachings on the matter are contrary to that of his father and consistent with the beliefs of a broad spectrum of evil individuals from the African slave traders to the secular globalists.  It should be readily apparent at this point that "Christian Diversity" is a false and ascriptural teaching.

Moreover, in the discussion it was easy to see how The Responsible Puppet immediately resorted to evasive dishonesty in defense of his "Christian" position.  His claims to ignorance were remarkable given his insistence that diversity must be intrinsically good; a nonsensical position given his claims to know nothing about racial differences.  It took repeated questions before he would even admit to the utterly obvious fact that European civilization is superior to other civilizations, so great is his worldly fear of admitting that there are substantive differences between different human sub-species.  He openly declared that he had to be very careful about saying anything about the subject.  "What I'm doing is answering the question very carefully, which I think is warranted in this situation. And I'll continue being careful...."

This, too, is another relevant argument.  Why is such care warranted?  Why must he be so careful?  Why is he afraid? Something gave him that spirit of fear.  And yet, Timothy 1:7 says: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

The Diversity Gospel asserted by Piper and exhibited by the Puppet is fearful, weak, and weak-minded.  And therefore we know it does not come from God.

Labels:

177 Comments:

Anonymous Eric May 08, 2013 4:50 PM  

Maxim number something: Diversity + proximity = war

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 08, 2013 4:51 PM  

Further, God created the nations, shows throughout scripture a focus on the integrity of the nations He created (especially the Hebrew one before Christ's condescension, but even afterwards speaks of nations as something that is and shall be), holds us accountable as nations, judges nations and the individuals that they belong to even down to the final days, expects us to evangelize nations, and the saints around the throne will be identifiable as coming from distinct nations:

"After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; " Revelation 7:9

"This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." Mat. 24:14

Blogger Res Ipsa May 08, 2013 4:52 PM  

You can't have "diversity" in a social construct without stronger ties to some central belief. It's like saying "those Jews and Muslims could live together in peace if they would just act like good Christians".

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 08, 2013 4:53 PM  

It seems like they have it backwards: God expects diversity of nations, and it is a beautiful thing that, for example, Chinese Christians worship as Chinese Christians, not American Christians, but it seems this "Diversity is Great" is a Satanic mantra indeed when it is taken to mean - destroy the differentiation and co-mingle everything so that, when that throng assembles before the throne, they shall all look and act the same. If we aren't to respect God's institution of the nations, then why do we fear a one-world government as a Satanic device?

Blogger Res Ipsa May 08, 2013 4:57 PM  

If you are a bible believing Christian, “Diversity” was God’s idea as a method to combat evil in the world, and you should accept it, not construct a theology designed to embrace it.

Anonymous allyn71 May 08, 2013 5:01 PM  

God made his position clear in the story of the Tower of Babel. Pretty sure he decided there would be unique nations for a reason. There is no doubt that "mult-culturalism" has to be evil based on that alone.

Much easier to have one world government when you support/force interacial marriage until you have one world hybrid population.

Can't have any of the whitey's getting uppity and thinking they are better than an somali.

Anonymous Daniel May 08, 2013 5:01 PM  

4000 dead on both sides is an interesting figure. If there is a "steady flood" of bodies - 29 this day, sometimes as many as 60, I think it is safe to assume that they average (easily) more than 5 bodies a day. That one hospital alone says it is 14 to 15/per day on average.

Three years since the start of the conflict = 1095 days. * 5 corpses = a very conservative 5475 on one side alone.

Perhaps Piper would argue that the mass slaughter has resulted simply because Jesus has bored of tornadoes?

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 5:07 PM  

I had to laugh when I read this post. Knowing that you and Jamsco go back a long way, this does have a very funny aspect to it. One can only imagine how it must be for Jamsco - all those years having you around to jump on his every irrational utterance, like a pit bull never letting up on him.

It is no surprise he has issues with you. I'm not accusing you of anything, Vox, I just think the underlying personal dynamics involved here is quite funny. I have a similar situation with my sister.

We usually just talk about the weather or sports. Every other subject has the potential of her making stupid remarks and me calling her on it.

But poor, weak, sad little Jamsco - he has a large kool-aid stain all around his mouth. It's totally Biblical, you know.

Blogger jamsco May 08, 2013 5:14 PM  

Sorry, Vox. Just saw this and am now on my way to church. I'll respond tomorrow, or perhaps later tonight.

Blogger tz May 08, 2013 5:15 PM  

It depends on where the diversity lies. Much like Marriage, giving it to the secular, or worse, pagan state will result in mishandling and untold evils and sorrows - they cannot make people love nor even tolerate one-another. All they can do is threaten force when some action happens they don't like, and it ends up with everyone playing victim.

For the Church, everyone ought to be welcome "who holds to the testimony of Jesus Christ and obeys his commandments".

Too much of the church today is about accepting unconverted or sinful hearts - that is no more mercy than accepting cancer or some other fatal disease, for sin is the cancer of the soul.

How many "diverse" people did John Piper bring into full communion, in full conversion, baptism, and out of love obeying the commandments of the church?

The Roman Catholic church has had to handle diversity across the millennia. Even today it is growing in Africa and Asia. But although I would love those brothers as I would love any other in Christ, but I accept Christ has to transform them first and then their culture, just as I have to attempt to transform mine. Our "Mammon and Molech" society is hardly Christian, and if I don't try to stop the abortion, banksters, and corruption here, I can't preach to them about what they tolerate and have to live with to simply live in their home countries. But those habits might not be compatible even if not sinful.

Unity in Christ, diversity in externals, charity in all.

Anonymous VD May 08, 2013 5:17 PM  

Just saw this and am now on my way to church. I'll respond tomorrow, or perhaps later tonight.

NP. No hurry.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera May 08, 2013 5:22 PM  

Daniel,

My thought exactly. Thanks for explaining it.

That's not a "war", that's just a government doing what governments do.

Anonymous peterw May 08, 2013 5:25 PM  

Wasn't one of the first church conflicts in the NT over whether Greek widows in the church were getting their "fair share" of the resources devoted to helping those who needed it? Paul spent some time beating people over the head for formiing cliques and treating each other differently. It seems to be a normal tendency of sinful people.

Reading a little criminology, it seems that social cohesion and pressure to conform is one of the strongest predictors of crime rates.I'm prepared to argue that skin-colour has little or nothing to do with it, and culture (call it ethnic identity if you like) almost everything.

In Australia we have a situation in which aboriginals who insist on setting themselves apart have a shockingly high rate of violent crime, poor health and illiteracy. Those who have fully intergrated are virtually indistinguishable from the rest of society.

As a believer n personal choice, I believe that we should have the ability to make "cultural" choices, but that we need to be held fully accountable for our choices. Cultures are NOT all equally valid and we should not pretend that they are. As a society, we should not support bad choices....... Which is what happens now.

Personally, I think I prefer some turbulance to a state-imposed monoculture. The counter argument is that a society with a high degree of social control produces a high rate of suicide , so there is no free lunch.

Anonymous Move Zig May 08, 2013 5:30 PM  

Wasn't the Tower of Babel somewhat akin to diversity.
Yes I believe it was. Didn't God destroy that tower?

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 5:32 PM  

In Australia we have a situation in which aboriginals who insist on setting themselves apart have a shockingly high rate of violent crime, poor health and illiteracy. Those who have fully intergrated are virtually indistinguishable from the rest of society.

If aboriginals are like whites in every way, except skin color, and fit in so well into white society, then why, exactly, didn't the aboriginals create a similarly civilized society for themselves in the first place?

Anonymous Daniel May 08, 2013 5:33 PM  

peterw, you are confusing Christians with cultures, though. Paul wasn't telling non-Christians to stop forming cliques, nor was he telling Christians to unite with cliques outside their fellowship.

Diversity is a state-imposed monoculture, and even the highest suicide rates are insignificant vs. even the average genocidal diverse society.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 5:40 PM  

I've had dogs, cats, turtles, bunnies, a horse, even a monkey - they are fit in very well into our household, some even lived in the house with us. One would think they were just furry little members of our family. I'm quite sure if the humans had left, they would have been able to manage just fine and nothing would have changed at all.

Anonymous Daniel May 08, 2013 5:42 PM  

Relatively speaking, diversity is far less deadly in Nigeria than simply surviving childbirth for more than 24 hours. They lose 246 newborn babies every day. Women and minorities hardest hit, you know. If only they were more diverse, they wouldn't have such lousy infant mortality stats. They need to open the floodgates of Japanese immigration...

Anonymous Noah B. May 08, 2013 5:53 PM  

@Anonagain

Well, they were isolated on an island with a relatively harsh environment that, for the most part, doesn't lend itself to primitive agricultural methods and long term settlement. Without this, they simply didn't have the abundance necessary to accommodate occupational specialization and technological development. Compare their land and climate with Europe's or Japan's -- there's a vast difference. The fact that they were mostly isolated meant that they didn't acquire new technologies from war, trade, and migration, unlike most of Europe and Asia.

Anonymous DonReynolds May 08, 2013 5:53 PM  

Add Mike Huckabee to the list of Republicans who insist that their Christian beliefs require that they SUPPORT AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS. Strangely, we get some pretty Liberal ideas from those who claim to be conservative Christians. Watch out for Huckabee. He is absolutely a deceiver.

Anonymous KG May 08, 2013 6:00 PM  

There is a group of hmongs that rent my church building and hold services in the afternoon. On Easter we merged services and had a bunch of Hmong people there. Our elders were saying it is like a little slice of heaven, because in heaven there will be people from every nation worshipping together. While I dont think they are wrong to say this, I think the multicultural worship in heaven will be significantly different considering the lack of sin. For now, here on earth, I doubt worshipping with Hmongs is what heaven will really be like at all.

Anonymous bw May 08, 2013 6:03 PM  

And I'll continue being careful...."

Holy Fu*^ing Sh*t.

This is exactly why we're where we are. Follow the $ in early 20th century Seminaries.
The Social Gospel is murder of the Natural human spirit.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia May 08, 2013 6:04 PM  

WATYF:

The real question is, "Why should we promote diversity?" According to what Biblical standard should it be pursued? If we can't come up with one (which, as far as I know, there isn't one in scripture), then we should consider just accepting the simple facts of the matter and doing what's prudent.


This above.

I would like for jamsco, or anyone that wishes to, to make the positive Biblical case as to why we should (imperative) have diversity.

And along with this, why is it only the West, Europe/US, that must have this diversity.

Should we not actively seek to emmigrate whites to all of the other countries, Japanese to all other countries, India, China, Mongol, Paki, Afghan, etc. etc. from their own countries to all of the others as well.

Why is this only one way diversity? Why is this only one way immigration/emmigration?

Please provide the positive case as to why this should be.

If you can't show it Biblically, then show it in any other way logically/reasonably.


No more, "you are (fill in the blank) because you believe in relative homogeneity"

Positive argumentation for only.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 08, 2013 6:10 PM  

"Diversity" = "get Whitey". Plain and simple.

Once a White neighborhood, or a White-built university, becomes majority Muslim, or majority negro, or majority Chinese, or majority cockroach, mysteriously there are no further clamors to increase its "diversity" by importing lots of Russians and Slovaks and Danes. Diversity is always a one-way street, and it always equals white genocide.

And who is pushing hardest for all this diversity, by the way? What do they stand to gain from it? Professor Jewstein, and Professor Evilberg, could you perhaps give us your views on the matter? You always seem to be very vocal about the whole thing, perhaps you could address the White Students Union, and the Raped White Womens Shelter, and tell us your opinions? Oh, what's that, you sadly have a meeting to attend in another building? You seem to have those unfortunately-scheduled meetings rather often, it appears.

Diversify the synagogues and the shuls, then we'll talk.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 6:11 PM  

Well, they were isolated on an island with a relatively harsh environment that, for the most part, doesn't lend itself to primitive agricultural methods and long term settlement.

Right. And what's the excuse in Africa?

Blogger JDC May 08, 2013 6:15 PM  

I doubt worshipping with Hmongs is what heaven will really be like at all.

I worked with a Hmong church in St. Paul years ago. What was funny was that our program coordinator went on and on about multiculturalism and how it is the gold standard in God's kingdom. She would then pick on the poor Germans - and how, years ago they refused for a time to hold worship services in English, and on account of this they were naughty in God's sight.

The irony was that the Hmong elders did the same thing. They did not want their liturgy in English...even when we pointed out to them that the young people (who didn't understand Miao and didn't want to). Of course, according to the program coordinator, they were an exception and simply trying to preserve their culture.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 6:15 PM  

@Noah

Is New Zealand a harsher environment than Japan?

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 08, 2013 6:20 PM  

"Well, they were isolated on an island with a relatively harsh environment"

Right. And then whites showed up on this dreadful island with the relatively harsh environment, and then suddenly, by magic, the environment turned incredibly pleasant instead of harsh, and all of a sudden a lot of negroes, Arabs, Indians and Chinese who never would have thought before to emigrate to this turrrible harsh environment, were magically struck with the desire to move there.

Same way all those Nigerians and Vietnamese are struck with a mysterious desire to suddenly pack up and move to damp, cold, rainy islands... but somehow they always seem to pick Ireland instead of Sakhalin. Odd, that.



Anonymous Noah B. May 08, 2013 6:20 PM  

Africa and the Americas were a completely different story.

Blogger tz May 08, 2013 6:25 PM  

Are there more abortions among the Aboriginals than the Whites? Or is it merely how we define "violent crime"?

Violence is more honest than fraud, as Dante explained in Inferno. Are there Aboriginal banksters? Or perhaps there would be except for the high rate of violence - maybe they know how to handle those who would defraud better?

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 08, 2013 6:29 PM  

How come all those great White universities that the Asians and Jews always want to cram into, always seem to be located in such unpleasant, cold, damp, snowy places? Is there some weird correlation between "harsh environments" and advanced learning? Maybe Nigerians should go build universities in Nova Zemblaya, so that everyone will want to go learn from the Nigerians. No? Why not? Are you a raaaaaacist?!?!?!?

Anonymous Sheila May 08, 2013 6:41 PM  

Noah B.,
I believe that Jared Diamond already made that argument in his overlong book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel." You know, iteration #1,000,000,027 of "The reason for unequal social and civilizational development is that Whites took all the best stuff and they won't share!"

This claim, predicated on the belief that had the Aborigines settled North America then they, too, would have constructed a successful and evolved civilization, seems slightly disingenuous to say the least.

Similarly, your dismissal of innate racial differences as mere "skin color" makes one wonder if you are truly that ignorant of the massive amount of genetic research which has proven, incontrovertibly I would argue, that there are distinct racial groups with distinct differences owing to different genetic makeups. "G" is a product of heredity. Culture is a product of race.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 6:53 PM  

Africa and the Americas were a completely different story.

Not really. It's all the same actually. Regardless of environment, all these areas were/are populated by uncivilized savages who have no will, desire nor ability to create societies similar to those the white man has created.

And yeah, savages do fit in very well into our nice, comfortable society. Duh. Except, don't ask them to pull their own weight, because they can't and won't. But they are quite content to be parasites off it.

Blogger stareatgoatsies May 08, 2013 6:57 PM  

Right. And then whites showed up on this dreadful island with the relatively harsh environment, and then suddenly, by magic, the environment turned incredibly pleasant instead of harsh,

This is just dumb. Obviously, these white settlers weren't suddenly, by magic, stricken with cultural amnesia the moment they arrived in Australia either. Being part of the British Empire probably helped.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 7:11 PM  

This claim, predicated on the belief that had the Aborigines settled North America then they, too, would have constructed a successful and evolved civilization, seems slightly disingenuous to say the least.

That's right. All those indigenous tribes populating North America were right on the verge of the most wondrous advancements when the white devils came along and put a stop to it. One can only imagine what a glorious civilization they would have created by now, if only...

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 08, 2013 7:12 PM  

"Being part of the British Empire probably helped."

And where, pray tell, did the British Empire come from? Some cold, wet, damp, isolated, dreadful island with a relatively harsh environment, I'm guessing.

"This is just dumb."

As you were.


Anonymous scoobius dubious May 08, 2013 7:21 PM  

In the 1300s, while whites in Europe were building things like this

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

greasy Aztec morons in Mexico were building pyramids, --PYRAMIDS!!, you heard me!!-- an architectural style which had been abandoned as moronic in the Old World roughly 4,000 years previously. A style which is basically a great big heap of rocks, piling one smaller heap of rocks on top of the larger heap beneath, in the basic confidence that it probably can't fall over. Compare a flying buttress. Compare the interior that the flying buttress was intended to shelter.

AZTEC ARCHITECT: I don't understand. What's an "interior"?

MYSELF: It's the reason you and your filthy greasy ninos have no business living amongst us, shit-boy. Now go rape your puta wif a burrito.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 7:36 PM  

Moral of the Age:

If the white man built it,
they will come
and take it away from him.

Blogger stareatgoatsies May 08, 2013 7:36 PM  

It's the reason you and your filthy greasy ninos have no business living amongst us, shit-boy. Now go rape your puta wif a burrito.

You said the quiet part loud.

Blogger stareatgoatsies May 08, 2013 7:41 PM  

And where, pray tell, did the British Empire come from?

the point is it existed... Magic or whiteness is a false dichotomy.

Anonymous Dot connector May 08, 2013 7:48 PM  

VD is spot on. Been observing this phenomena for years. The crimigants cling to their culture/family ties despite any Christian/Catholic profession, cling to their native tongue and then set out to establish their ethnic ghetto's all the while causing problems for the natives. So libtard the point to "globalization" is what again? Better for these peoples to just stay homogenous in their respective territories its way more harmonious for everybody involved.

The last empire in Revelation was a mixture of iron and clay.

Anonymous DT May 08, 2013 7:49 PM  

I've had dogs, cats, turtles, bunnies, a horse, even a monkey...I'm quite sure if the humans had left, they would have been able to manage just fine and nothing would have changed at all.

If you could ask the cats, they would likely claim it would be better with the humans gone.

Anonymous Toolbox May 08, 2013 7:53 PM  

Considering that the natural result of obeying God's clear civil laws as a structure for a civilization will result in homogeneous thought processes, values, cultures, I would say Christianity is very clearly unifying of peoples, not cultures. God's commands war against all cultures, calling to the called to obey and give up the worldly. The very natural result is not diversity. Everyone will be agreeing to the same rules, encouraged to think the same way.

The issue might not as much be skin color as it is a vast gulf of change that needs to happen. I am not, in any way, saying ra-ra 'merica or western civilization as some sort of holy thing, in and of itself. Rather, the good in it can be traced to the obedience to the specifics of Biblical civil laws.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 8:03 PM  

The issue might not as much be skin color

Why the bloody fuck do people keep referring to skin color as if that's the only goddam difference in races? I could sunbath every day until my skin was darker than an Indian's, and I'd still be white. I could could soak in a vat of grape juice and come out all purple, and I'd still be white. I could get jaundiced and turn all yellow, and I'd still be white.

It is not the color of the skin, it has never been about the color of the skin. The color of the skin is simply the wrapping. It's what's inside that makes people incompatible with each other, and that inside is genetic - of which the most superficial of all traits happens to be the color of the skin.

Anonymous Toolbox May 08, 2013 8:16 PM  

@ Anonagain:

Skin color, penis length, gut size, brain waves. Whatever.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 8:28 PM  

Skin color, penis length, gut size, brain waves. Whatever.

Right, because those are really the differences that make people of different races incompatible. You can't even bring yourself to mention the actual differences, such as IQ, personality, disposition, tendency to violence, laziness, fastidiousness, talents, abilities, and how overall evolved each race has demonstrated itself to be based on the cultures they've created for themselves.

There are a whole lot of whatevers that go beyond physical characteristics. That was my point, which you apparently failed to grasp.

Anonymous Van May 08, 2013 8:32 PM  

Being a banksta first requires the development of a rather sophisticated and complicated society, or at least the ability to function in one. So, no, there are few to no aboriginal bankstas.

Anonymous tinlaw May 08, 2013 8:43 PM  

@Anonagain - I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that some races are not able to obey God?

Anonymous Meelhama May 08, 2013 9:04 PM  

" Anonagain May 08, 2013 5:32 PM In Australia we have a situation in which aboriginals who insist on setting themselves apart have a shockingly high rate of violent crime, poor health and illiteracy. Those who have fully intergrated are virtually indistinguishable from the rest of society.

If aboriginals are like whites in every way, except skin color, and fit in so well into white society, then why, exactly, didn't the aboriginals create a similarly civilized society for themselves in the first place? "

and Sheila's ""G" is a product of heredity. Culture is a product of race."

How about this: culture is a product of cultic practice (religion). Monothesism is a precursor to all great civilizations (culture). Aboriginals didn't build their own civilized society because they never had and do not have good culture (cultic practice). Caucasians have the benefit of several hundred years of the best cultural soil; the cultic practice of Christianity. Remember, prior to the gospel spilling out of the middle east, caucasians were a bunch of, naked-fighting, back-woods, may-pole-circling, celts, practicing Wicca.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 9:04 PM  

Anonagain - I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that some races are not able to obey God?

When I made my point, there was absolutely no mention of some races being inherently unable to obey God, not even a hint of it. Why you would imagine that is beyond me, unless your cunning plan is to corner me into admitting that there is absolutely no reason that every Christian, black, brown, pink, orange, purple and polka dotted, should not all join hands in one big love fest and sing Kumbaya all day long.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 9:29 PM  

How about this: culture is a product of cultic practice (religion). Monothesism is a precursor to all great civilizations (culture).

I am no historian, actually, I'm quite pathetically lacking in historical knowledge, but from my understanding, both the Roman and Greek civilizations were pre-Christian, and not monotheistic. Christianity likely thrived thrived because Rome was already established as a great, advanced empire. Would you classify Romans and Greeks as Caucasians?

Do you really imagine that if Jesus Christ had been born among the Sioux Indians of North American or some black tribe in Africa that Christianity would have thrived and that North America or Africa would have become Europe instead of Europe becoming Europe?

Anonymous tinlaw May 08, 2013 9:41 PM  

@Anonagain - if your point is "There are a whole lot of whatevers that go beyond physical characteristics", why did you direct that at Toolbox? Do you find it relevant to what he said? He was saying that a culture that is biblical, drawn from God's instructions about living together in civility, is its own unique culture and is not dependent upon "skin color". So what that he also didn't go on to say that it isn't dependent upon IQ, personality, disposition, tendency to violence, laziness, fastidiousness, talents, abilities, and how overall evolved each race has demonstrated itself to be either? Recognizing that race goes beyond skin color does not mean that it has to be pointed out in every post. I apologize for reading into your post, I am trying to understand how what you said was in response to what Toolbox said. Just because someone refers to skin color as A difference between races, it doesn't follow that that person believes it to be the ONLY difference. What are you expecting people to do? Define "race" in every post?

Anonymous Toolbox May 08, 2013 9:47 PM  

@ Anonagain:

Your above post about Kumbaya is pretty much exactly where I was going. But, what we currently see is a vast gulf between the races (however you want to define them) due to this gulf of obedience and lack of renewed mind - culture changed by religious practice. Kumbaya around the fire describes Heaven somewhat...the ultimate goal. The stated purpose of Christ in building the Church is one church, certainly not any diversity there unless you're talking genetic diversity.

You seem to be under the impression I am not willing to admit some sort of genetic differences in humans. However you want to define the genetic differences, the truth remains the same: the religious requirements of man placed on him by God are not diminished because someone's genes are contributing to his sin. We are all born sinners, born into sin.

I think it is quite obvious that people who do not think alike or have the same religion should probably keep a safe distance apart. It's also probably not a good idea to force two together who have widely separated IQs. Personally, I can hardly stand people of certain Christian denominations. Not a good idea to get too close to me, or live in community with them if I can help it.

So, I don't think I'm pussy-footing genetics. When it applies to a Christian understanding of our duties, it's just not actually relevant.

I like what Meelhama had to say about cultic practice. I find it not surprising that the blessings of the Law passes to all who obey it, even in part, even on accident. Similarly, the curses of the Law pass to those who disobey, in ignorance or accident. I think we're seeing that in the West at this point.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter May 08, 2013 9:47 PM  

Unexpectedly, three bodies started moving.

Unexpectedly, the economy was moribund.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 10:00 PM  

Just because someone refers to skin color as A difference between races, it doesn't follow that that person believes it to be the ONLY difference. What are you expecting people to do? Define "race" in every post?

The context in which skin color was used certainly indicated skin color to be the defining difference between the races. It is all too often used in this misleading manner.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 10:35 PM  

When it applies to a Christian understanding of our duties, it's just not actually relevant.

Truth is always relevant. Leftists are attempting to undermine Western Civilization. One of the tools they are using is diversity. It is our Christian duty to stand up to these godless SOBs, not bow down to their BS.

Whites may not be the superior race by every standard, but whites are certainly superior within their own civilization, especially white males - they built the damn thing - it is their world. But Leftists demand we pretend every little dark creature on the planet is as capable as whites, even having the right to rule over us.

We would not be having this discussion if it weren't for the milquetoast Christians being so eager to offer up their society as a show of their Christian tolerance and magnanimity. They are being played like fools by those who hate them and everything they stand for.

Instead of one big happy Christian rainbow family, you are going to have a social disaster which will usher in a totalitarian nightmare. Your Christian duty then will be to STFU or die.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 08, 2013 11:26 PM  

"Truth is always relevant. Leftists are attempting to undermine Western Civilization."

For "Leftists" place "Jews and their mind-bots", and you've got the beginnings of an accurate analysis.



Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 08, 2013 11:44 PM  

What diversity? We're all related to each other. All Europeans are related to each other through common ancestors that lived only one thousand years ago, and you don't have to go back much farther to find the common ancestors of everyone.

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/07/18107175-all-europeans-are-related-if-you-go-back-just-1000-years-scientists-say?lite

So pack up your right wing reactionary hate and embrace your fellow neighbors, who are also your relatives. Black, brown, white and yellow. It is a great time not to be a bigot.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 11:45 PM  

For "Leftists" place "Jews and their mind-bots", and you've got the beginnings of an accurate analysis.

I'm with you, Scoobius. I consider Leftists to be the larger set in which the smaller subsets of Jews and their mind-bots are contained. Arabs would be another subset contained in the Leftist set, but not intersecting the Jews subset.

Anonymous peterw May 08, 2013 11:55 PM  

In regard to my use of the term, you are entirely incorrect....

And did you miss my point that those aboriginals who had assimilated into the more beneficial culture, acted like other members of that culture - regardless of their genetic makeup - and received the reward of vastly improved health and reduced crime rates.?

That is before we even start to account for those who are 1/2 , 3/4 or some greater fraction "white" yet adopt the culture and practices of the primitive abo,,, and reap the whirlwind. It becomes more and more obvious that appealing to genetics to explain an appalling culture is a cop-out. An excuse for those who wish to deny that they are personally responsible.

Anonymous Anonagain May 08, 2013 11:58 PM  

All Europeans are related to each other through common ancestors that lived only one thousand years ago, and you don't have to go back much farther to find the common ancestors of everyone.

...It is a great time not to be a bigot.


You are a special kind of tard, aren't you? By your metric, the best time not be a bigot would have in the past. As more time passes, it becomes a better time to be a bigot. Tomorrow it will be even better.

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 12:02 AM  

And did you miss my point that those aboriginals who had assimilated into the more beneficial culture, acted like other members of that culture - regardless of their genetic makeup - and received the reward of vastly improved health and reduced crime rates.?

And if all the whites were to leave, would those same aboriginals continue that beneficial culture all by their little selves?

Anonymous MikeM May 09, 2013 12:05 AM  

To biblophiles such as myself, I refer to the Bible in this instance, there is only one race and many cultures. Diversity does not have to do with so-called races, but accepting that all cultures are equal or equally relevant. This is clearly not so.

Christianity is designed by God to be cross-cultural in the gospel of Christ. Christians never raised arms against the Roman empire prior to Constantine and his son.

While Christians should evangelize all people groups, this does equate to all people groups having equal or beneficent cultures.

The present immigration, as Vox has pointed out many times, is being done by people who have zero desire to assimilate to whatever is left of mainstream culture in the US.

Multi-culturalism is a political issue and not a biblical one, period. Bible believing Christians should have no part in this discussion on the basis of what the bible does not say in the New Testament epistles, also period.

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 12:06 AM  

You are a special kind of tard, aren't you? By your metric, the best time not be a bigot would have in the past. As more time passes, it becomes a better time to be a bigot. Tomorrow it will be even better.

No, now that we have studies showing us the truth of our relatedness it is a better time not to be a bigot. In fact, there is no reason to. Inclusivity backed by scientific studies. Anyway since we're really cousins removed to the nth degree, what I'd really like to do is kick your ass like a stubborn, bratty, stupid little brother.

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 12:13 AM  

Anyway since we're really cousins removed to the nth degree, what I'd really like to do is kick your ass like a stubborn, bratty, stupid little brother.

Be my guest. Fratricide would be my preferred method of dealing any brother who was a Leftist retard like you.

Blogger mmaier2112 May 09, 2013 12:25 AM  

"No, now that we have studies showing us the truth of our relatedness it is a better time not to be a bigot."

Well when you get savages to understand that FIRST, I'll be more welcoming on my rude-ass, raping, thieving, murdering brethren.

Since we're all related, I'm sure they'll "get it" right quick. Unless you're an evil bigot and think they're somehow... different.

Blogger The Observer May 09, 2013 12:33 AM  

"No, now that we have studies showing us the truth of our relatedness it is a better time not to be a bigot."

Even assuming that this is true and not full of "science" like Gould's "studies", clearly we can conclude a chihuahua is as good as a collie when it comes to herding sheep, and bulldogs are equally predisposed to violence as pomeranians.

They all shared a same distant ancestor, amirite?

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 1:08 AM  

"Well when you get savages to understand that FIRST, I'll be more welcoming on my rude-ass, raping, thieving, murdering brethren."

Which savages are you talking about? Whites are responsible for more bloodshed than any other race.

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 1:17 AM  

Large numbers of bodies, sometimes more than 60 in a day, are being brought by the Nigerian military to the state hospital, according to government, health and security officials

Those niggers are truly revolting. It's in their nature! We whites know how to live in peace and harmony right? It's all about our superior IQ and civilization building skills.

Wait, wasn't it just a few decades ago that white people killed each other to the tune of about 60 million? That must've been black people dressed up as white or something right? We're still superior right? Just ignore that little blip in the history books.

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 1:33 AM  

That must've been black people dressed up as white or something right?

Go to Africa, tard, then tell us how much more civilized niggers are than whites. Do you have any idea how many niggers have slaughtered each other in the bloody history of Africa?

Niggers chimp out on each other and every other race as well. Whites have wars and kill each other. No shit, Sherlock. Niggers do it because they're niggers. Individually, in small groups, in large groups - niggers gonna nigger. Oh, and they rape babies to get rid of their AIDS as well. How very civilized of them. Whites have not yet achieved that level of peace and harmony.

Anonymous Toby Temple May 09, 2013 1:39 AM  

Although I was expecting a continuation of your debate with Nate...

This is one great post about diversity. Quoting Tim 1:7 just made it perfect.

Anonymous kh123 May 09, 2013 1:48 AM  

"If aboriginals are like whites in every way, except skin color, and fit in so well into white society, then why, exactly, didn't the aboriginals create a similarly civilized society for themselves in the first place?"

In all fairness, we could also ask what the Britons would've been without the Romans, and why hadn't they moved on from cerulean asses to senatorial discussions by the time Pax Romana arrived. Of course, by the time Rome left, they were apparently carving and composing dactylic hexameter poetry, in Latin, in reverse (that is to say, backmasking a more artistic secondary line into an otherwise straightforward grave epitaph), and this during the supposed Dark Ages. And, as well, they had their share of bloody internecine struggles for centuries afterwards.

It all depends on which end of the stick one holds.

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 1:49 AM  

BTW, tardness, if whites are so evil and this civilization isn't so great, why haven't all the blacks moved back to Africa by the boatload?

I'd be more than happy to pay for a nigger's fare, and include and extra one for a retarded Leftist like you.

Blogger IM2L844 May 09, 2013 1:59 AM  

All Europeans are related to each other through common ancestors that lived only one thousand years ago

If you read the actual study, you will see a lot of speculation and fudge factors introduced throughout. I wouldn't bet the farm on the fidelity of their conclusions.

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 2:20 AM  

If you read the actual study, you will see a lot of speculation and fudge factors introduced throughout. I wouldn't bet the farm on the fidelity of their conclusions.

That's why I didn't bother. Anything a Leftist cites in support of his position is bound to be full of crap. The entirety of their ideology is 100% dependent on covering up the truth, not discovering or uncovering it.

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 2:45 AM  

Let's put this way, if blacks had never existed, the world wouldn't be much different, except Africa wouldn't be a giant wasted continent languishing in its groidness. If whites had never existed, the world would be vastly different. We wouldn't blogging right now, that's for damn sure.

Blogger IM2L844 May 09, 2013 2:49 AM  

Anything a Leftist cites in support of his position is bound to be full of crap.

Right. It's a left/right issue more than a race issue. Look, as a white person, I'm not ashamed to admit that we have our own set of undesirable proclivities. Ask just about any black person and they will probably provide a laundry list of things that are wrong with white people. I'm okay with that. Many of them would probably be true. That's all beside the issue. If they want to pay to put me on a boat back to Europe, I could figure out a way to live with that. Just don't try and force me to pretend everything is just going swell for all white folks when it clearly isn't.

Blogger IM2L844 May 09, 2013 3:05 AM  

I was on the verge of ranting and had to go have a smoke. The point is that fundamental racial differences exist intrinsically. Everybody will be happier if we just stop pretending they don't.

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 3:11 AM  

I'm not ashamed to admit that we have our own set of undesirable proclivities.

That's because you're white. Whites have many great assets as well. Just look around you.

Ask just about any black person and they will probably provide a laundry list of things that are wrong with white people.

Yeah, they're so gosh darn honest. Ask just about any black about their own undesirable proclivities and see how long that laundry list is.

I'm okay with that. Many of them would probably be true.

How okay would any black be if you provided them with your laundry list of their undesirable proclivities?

Remind me not to count on you when the race war breaks out. You don't seem to get it. Blacks hate whites. They always will.

Anonymous DonReynolds May 09, 2013 3:41 AM  

sciencewillprevail..."Wait, wasn't it just a few decades ago that white people killed each other to the tune of about 60 million? That must've been black people dressed up as white or something right? We're still superior right? Just ignore that little blip in the history books."

Do you actually believe that WWII was a war between different groups of white people and 60 million died? Lemmie guess, you are black and anyone who is not black is....wait for it.....white?

Anonymous VryeDenker May 09, 2013 3:43 AM  

There will be no frontline in this war because the enemy already lives next door to you.

Also, mixing shit and ice cream might improve the appeal of the shit, but there's no advantage for the ice cream.

Blogger Markku May 09, 2013 6:17 AM  

There will be no frontline in this war because the enemy already lives next door to you.

This war will be crowdsourced.

Anonymous PeterW. May 09, 2013 6:20 AM  

The following link is to the first of a series of articles on violence in Aboriginal communities.

The point I make is not that Aboriginals are uniquely violent, but that all humans have the capacity to learn and adopt superior culture.... IF THEY HAVE THE INCENTIVE. The reverse is also true, as the Romans demonstrated when Roman culture became Roman decadence (and some parts of Western culture are showing that this still happens).

What this shows is the result of treating a culture as a "sacred cow",,, something must must be preserved at all costs, regardless of the consequences.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/bennelong-papers/2013/05/yabbered-to-death-part-i

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 6:34 AM  

As the US has become more diverse, has it also become more Christian?

That's a rhetorical question. Unless one has been in a coma for the last 40 years, it is plainly evident that Christianity is much weaker today, if not on the verge of being marginalized, despite the great increase in diversity.

In effect, the Diversity Gospel has been clearly anti-Christian. More of it will continue to prove more detrimental for Christianity in the West, probably at an accelerated rate of decline, due in large part to the increase of the influx and influence of Muslims - directly attibutable to diversity.

One can only conclude that those who proclaim this ruinous gospel are wolves in sheep's clothing. Their brainless and blind followers are indeed puppets, but not responsible ones, more like clueless aiders and abettors of their own destruction. Why else would they continue to parrot a gospel that is directly responsible for undermining Christianity?

Diversity Gospel has the foul stench of a Leftist tactic. Those who preach it are either scheming or unwitting enemies of Christianity.

Blogger mmaier2112 May 09, 2013 6:54 AM  

sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 1:08 AM

Which savages are you talking about? Whites are responsible for more bloodshed than any other race.


Look up inter-racial crime statistics in the US and let me know what you discover, genius.

"Savages" is being kind.

Anonymous VryeDenker May 09, 2013 8:03 AM  

Unless one has been in a coma for the last 40 years, it is plainly evident that Christianity is much weaker today, if not on the verge of being marginalized, despite the great increase in diversity.

Fun fact: the USA is only #86 on the list of countries with the highest density of Christians.

Anonymous Van May 09, 2013 8:05 AM  

That "study" simply looks atthe doubling of ancestors per prior generation, compared to the estimated world population at a given point in history, and says, "not enough people per the expected doubling rate, so they all shared relatives."

It ignores higher mortality rates, complete extinction of lineages, and the proven fact that certain population groups were completely isolated froom each other for tens of thousands of years until just a few hundred years ago.

It's nonsnese, and anyone quoting it exposes his own scientific and intellectual shortcomings. I know, they did some genetic analysis showing Europeans being more closely related than previously thought, but this data is not relevant in the "doubling ancestor" hypothesis discussed in the same article. Interesting that genetic discoveries are now showing racial groups to be less similar than previously believed (for example, the "more variation among groups than between" belief, while already a logical fallacy, has been disproven).

Anonymous Van May 09, 2013 8:26 AM  

"among groups" should be "within groups"

Anonymous Van May 09, 2013 8:43 AM  

Put another way, the statement "all Eropeans share a common ancestor 1,000 years ago and all people 3,000 years ago" is not a conclusion resulting from any study, it's a hypothesis. And it can be immediately discarded based on known genetics and physical anthropology.

Anonymous Stilicho May 09, 2013 8:53 AM  

Add Mike Huckabee to the list of Republicans who insist that their Christian beliefs require that they SUPPORT AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS. Strangely, we get some pretty Liberal ideas from those who claim to be conservative Christians. Watch out for Huckabee. He is absolutely a deceiver.

And he always was. Jimmy Carter with a guitar. As for those who assert that Christianity compels them to support amnesty, ask them a few questions: 1)Why didn't your Christianity compel you to help them in Mexico? Why aren't you there "helping" right now? 2)Why does your Christianity compel you to steal from your neighbors in order to pay for invaders? Please cite chapter and verse supporting this position. 3) Why doesn't your Christianity compel you to help them return to Mexico and support them there?

Amnesty has become a litmus test for feel-good leftist churchianity. By their works ye shall know them...indeed.

Blogger IM2L844 May 09, 2013 9:20 AM  

How okay would any black be if you provided them with your laundry list of their undesirable proclivities?

Yes. Leftist hypocrisy was the point.

You don't seem to get it. Blacks hate whites.

Oh, I get it. I just don't care who hates me. Make no mistake, I know who the enemy is and it's not just blacks. I hope it never comes to that, but if another civil war breaks out it won't be a simple race war and I'm both mentally and materially equipped for it.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 09, 2013 9:27 AM  

Christians:
1) Are to treat others as they would like to be treated by others.
2) We are not to grant special privileges to a person just on account of wealth, especially when it comes to worshiping.
3) We are to take care of our own family first.to marry other Christians and not be unequally yoked.
5) We are to pursue God's kingdom on Earth but we are not the ones to establish it.
6) We are to judge righteously; weight with true scales.
7) We are to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

Diversity is not an end onto itself. God's kingdom is from among all nations but it is not until Christ establishes His direct rule on the new Earth that all nations become one nation, under the [absolute good] despot LORD. (yes, Christ will be an absolute ruler and, besides, Paul himself uses the word)

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 09, 2013 9:33 AM  

Forgot to mention that Peter's vision, on the rooftop, was Christ's message to go to the gentiles. Certain rules concerning separation were no longer applicable with Christ's fulfilled the Law. Now, the Gospel is not to be constrained to a small group of a people bearing His light.

So, I think it is clear that the New Testament does view diversity in a positive way.

Blogger IM2L844 May 09, 2013 9:46 AM  

Now, the Gospel is not to be constrained to a small group of a people bearing His light.

It hasn't been. The Great Commission has been fulfilled.

Anonymous . May 09, 2013 9:51 AM  

Do you actually believe that WWII was a war between different groups of white people and 60 million died?

What's the reason to think less (or more?) died?

Since the decisive front of the war was white on white (Germany vs Soviet Union) and two thirds of the deaths occurred in Europe, yeah, it pretty much was a war between different groups of whites. The Japs wouldn't even have been in it if the European war hadn't started.

Anonymous Alexander May 09, 2013 9:52 AM  

Go to the gentiles, not allow the gentile hoards to come to you, overwhelm your society, drink your booze and dance with your women, then call you raciss.

Anonymous Alexander May 09, 2013 9:53 AM  

Hordes. Unless these particular gentiles are packrats...

Anonymous Jeromus May 09, 2013 10:06 AM  

I am sorry but Paul deals with the race issue in Ephesians. He speaks of Christ tearing down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. Racial division is dealt with adequately in scripture.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia May 09, 2013 10:16 AM  

There seems to be confusion here.

"Diversity of people is good" can be a generic biodiversity is good statement. Fine, fine.

Yet nobody has made the positive case as to why, biblically (religious) or secularly(rational, logical, whatever), diversity of the population is a desirable and positive goal.

I would like for jamsco, or anyone else that wishes to, to make the positive case (religious or secular) as to why we should (imperative) have diversity.

Please provide the positive case as to why this should be.

No more, "you are (fill in the blank) because you believe in relative homogeneity"

Positive argumentation "For" only.


Also:

And along with this, why is it only the West, Europe/US, that must have this diversity.

Should we not actively seek to emmigrate whites to all of the other countries, Japanese to all other countries, India, China, Mongol, Paki, Afghan, etc. etc. from their own countries to all of the others as well.

Why is this only one way diversity? Why is this only one way immigration/emmigration?

Please explain why this diversity would a be (or not be)a positive goal for all of Asia, Africa, S. America, N. America., etc. because, if it is a positive goal for the US and Europe, then it must be a positive goal for all, correct?

Anonymous Josh May 09, 2013 10:17 AM  

The Great Commission has been fulfilled.

I don't think it can ever be fulfilled...it's something we're called to be continuously doing.

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 10:32 AM  

If whites had never existed, the world would be vastly different. We wouldn't blogging right now, that's for damn sure.

Lol, what an excellent counterpoint!

Sure we murdered each other in horrific ways to a scale never before seen in history, but iphones!!

Sure we were on the brink of nuclear annihilation for fifty years, but blogging!!

The hate is rotting your brain, man.

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 10:37 AM  

Do you actually believe that WWII was a war between different groups of white people and 60 million died?

What's the reason to think less (or more?) died?


Moreover, would it really matter if we shift the tally by 10 or 15 million this way or that? It was brutality and insanity on a scale we've never seen before, and after that we went into the cold war, where white people threatened to turn the entire face of the earth into glass. But hey, we invented minivans and fast food too, so take that niggers!

Anonymous Alexander May 09, 2013 10:37 AM  

Let's take a minute to appreciate 'sciencewillprevail' trivializing the group that discovered and advanced the overwhelming majority of that thar science.

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 10:42 AM  

I mean, at the very least diversity and multiculturalism has to be a positive because it refocuses white insanity and hatred away from other whites over petty ideological or religious issues and onto the minorities where at least it can't escalate to the same degree, and where at least there are some sane whites to curtail the bloodlust of people like the kind that you see here.

Anonymous Van May 09, 2013 10:46 AM  

It's impossible to wage modern warfare if you're incapable of developing and maintaining weapons of modern warfare. Obviously, if a population's most advanced weaponry is the spear and the big rock, their wars will be less destructive than a population whose technology includes ICBMs, stealth bombers, tanks, etc.

If you're arguing that primitive societies are morally superior than whites, fine. But at least admit to the other side of the coin - modern medicine, most modern agriculture, etc, etc.

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 10:53 AM  

But at least admit to the other side of the coin - modern medicine, most modern agriculture, etc, etc.

We have enough of those kinds of "admissions", how about admitting to the negative side too. Yeah, inner city violence, gangs, drugs, hoodlums. But don't forget the SS, the cold war, the rack and everything else.

Blogger IM2L844 May 09, 2013 11:01 AM  

I don't think it can ever be fulfilled...it's something we're called to be continuously doing.

Maybe, but Paul said the gospel "was preached to every creature which is under heaven" (Colossians 1:23) and "made known to all nations" (Romans 16:26)

It's not a deal breaker. I still share when I get the chance.

Anonymous Van May 09, 2013 11:04 AM  

White warfare is on a grander scale due to development of superior technology that only whites have invented. Same for white medicine, agriculture, etc. To conclude moral superiority because blacks have never waged war to the extent of whites is either idiotic or dishonest. Blacks have waged war to the level their technological advancement (the spear and the big rock) allows. They are in no position to choose for or against modern warfare, just as they are in no position to choose to develop the polio vaccine.

But when two populations are comparable in their technology - such as non-military with civilian level small arms, there is no comparison.

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 11:20 AM  

But when two populations are comparable in their technology - such as non-military with civilian level small arms, there is no comparison.

Lol, right, let's just exclude military conflicts, cause, like, uh, it would be convenient?

Anonymous Van May 09, 2013 11:22 AM  

I believe the point I'm making here has something to do with variable control. A science expert should understand.

Anonymous My Take May 09, 2013 11:23 AM  

The question that must be asked first. Why was the United States able to become the greatest, most successful nation state in the entire history of the world? It is because were a God fearing Christian people. Only Christians (through the power of the Holy Spirit) have the ability to overcome the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. This is necessary to produce a civilization that holds self evident truths. That considers the other persons well being to be as equal to or greater than one’s own. That realizes that the blessing of a just and Holy God would permit a single individual to chase ten thousand. This and only this is the reason why.
Sadly, we have stood by and watched the state become more and more the god we worship. This has created all sorts of physical as well as social ills. No longer do we say thanks for our food, and the garbage we consume is rapidly killing us. No more do we pray for forgiveness and repentance and so the state forces us to accept homosexuality as not only a viable “lifestyle” but maybe a preferred one. The passing of laws by our so called “elected” officials that grant special status to the transgendered and the same sex couples that flaunt their peculiar deviancy as an everyday occurrence. The very lowest and most vile actions that in an earlier America would confine them to a dungeon in prison, now represents an “alternative” viewpoint.
Why then do we question the forced assimilation of greater and greater numbers of persons that are different? We have not had very much trouble with immigration in the past. However: we are beginning to slowly realize, that the culture we once had is not compatible with such a tremendous influx at the same moment in time. The shrill, leftist shouts of DIVERSITY and RACISM have drowned out all of the reasonable voices that have been attempting to present an opposing opinion. Until we again place our trust first in God and place the state in its proper place, we will continue to lose these battles. For the sake of the nation, I pray we do not ultimately fail.

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 11:24 AM  

If you want to turn the clock back on technology because firebombing campaigns against civilian targets and nuclear weapons are unfairly "advanced" (lol), no problem, we have the napoleonic wars and the thirty years war. Small arms, no tanks, no ICBMs, plenty of people killed brutally. But hey, we're better because niggers like rap.

Anonymous Van May 09, 2013 11:26 AM  

I've already addressed the issue with military conflicts, so you are either dense or dishonest. No point continuing further with the latest incarnation of Tad, A Man, etc.

I believe you have been asked a direct question twice, by the way. I propose limiting this latest Tad puppet to five comments per thread.

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 11:35 AM  

What exactly is the "issue" with admitting military conflicts?

Anonymous Sciencewilleatpeanutbutter May 09, 2013 11:36 AM  

George. Washington. Carver. Bitches. And...

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 11:37 AM  

Oh oh, he's getting to me, better appeal to the rules! Section 4V subsection xiv clause 3i says you're not allowed to talk unless you answer everything I demand of you! LOL.

Anonymous Stilicho May 09, 2013 11:44 AM  

There is no issue with "admitting" military conflicts, moron. The feral races simply aren't as good at it. They do try though; see, e.g. Rwanda. Now run along to your grass hut and grind some millet you little carbuncle on the ass of the internet.

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 11:58 AM  

There is no issue with "admitting" military conflicts, moron. The feral races simply aren't as good at it.

In other words, because whites are superior at organizing a killing force and then proceeding to kill millions upon millions, they are superior, period, right? You guys need to get out and get some fresh air, huffing each other's farts has impaired your ability to see things more clearly.

Anonymous Stilicho May 09, 2013 12:04 PM  

I can typing /= reading comprehension short bus.

Anonymous Toby Temple May 09, 2013 12:08 PM  

Isn't Mao Asian? So is Stalin? Their Asians, right?

Dammit... I'm Asian.. We Asians are evil mofos when we are atheists and in power.

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 12:14 PM  

I can typing /= reading comprehension short bus.

Were you expecting me to echo your simplistic thoughts? Try thinking to the implications of your statements rather than expecting your opponents to merely echo them, I know debate around here is like playing checkers in kindergarten but you might learn something trying to think say, one move ahead occasionally.

Anonymous ZhukovG May 09, 2013 12:15 PM  

Stalin was Georgian, which I think is considered European. But, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Ghengis Khan....

Anonymous GodWillPrevail May 09, 2013 12:19 PM  

In other words, because whites are superior at organizing a killing force and then proceeding to kill millions upon millions, they are superior, period, right?

No! In other words, you keep missing the point that your original snarky comment "that white people killed each other to the tune of about 60 million" is utterly vaccuous and irrelevant.

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 12:30 PM  

No! In other words, you keep missing the point that your original snarky comment "that white people killed each other to the tune of about 60 million" is utterly vaccuous and irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant in the most airy, abstract, academic, pseudo-intellectual way. In the real world those people all died. To say that we can't compare mass slaughter on that scale to the petty crimes of inner city blacks is laughable. It's actually much worse. To say that, well, you can't make a direct comparison because you can't account for the effect advanced technology might have in black hands is equally retarded. It doesn't matter, whether whites invented it or not, the fact is that when they wielded it they did more damage than any sane man can imagine.

Oh, blacks don't have the technology? And how did whites acquit themselves with it? At this point, the best thing to say is that no one should have it. If you're going to take on the task of developing it, it goes without saying that you are also taking on the responsibility of using it constructively. Whites have failed massively in that respect.

Anonymous kh123 May 09, 2013 12:44 PM  

Van: "(for example, the "more variation among groups than between" belief, while already a logical fallacy, has been disproven)."

You have any lit on that.

Blogger jamsco May 09, 2013 12:47 PM  

Why is such care warranted? Why must he be so careful? Why is he afraid? Something gave him that spirit of fear. And yet, Timothy 1:7 says: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

I must be careful because if I do this poorly, or in a way that people could take out of context or incorrectly, bad things could happen. One sentence imprecisely worded could result in me being reprimanded at church or fired. But I think those things are fairly unlikely. Significantly more likely - If I do this poorly or misrepresent this position, it could cause people to move away from truth and peace and more toward mistrust and hate.

But everyone has their fears. You recommend that people be fearful of adopting a black baby into their family. This, despite the fact that every white Christian family that says yes to this reduces the likelihood of a black baby being in Foster care, or in an orphanage, or aborted. It also increases the likelihood that one more child will become a follower of God. You recommend fearing this because it might increase the likelihood of serious loss to your family. But doing godly things often comes with costs, or potential costs.

So you have your fears and so do I. But I think you'd agree that God isn't against fear of any kind, right? So some clarification might be helpful.

The next verse is this: Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God.

If you can show that my words here and in previous posts have shown shame of the testimony about our Lord, than you would have good reason to apply 1 Timothy 1:7 against me. Otherwise, you do not.

By the way, would you like to hear a song I wrote to the words of the first verse? Warning: Kids singing.

Anonymous Van May 09, 2013 12:48 PM  

"Any lit on that"

No direct link. Believe I read it on Gene Expression, a blog on discovery.com.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 09, 2013 12:53 PM  

An Athonite priest-monk addresses the issue of nationality and the Church here. He also makes some interesting observations about immigration in the comment thread.

It is a slow, fitful and corruptible process, but eventually the nation's Church evolves from its beginnings as a missionary outpost to an august institution, wedded to her people thru liturgies in the vernacular and a multi-generational chain of baptisms, weddings, burials ad seriatim. Eventually, the nation's Church declares its autocephalic status (which may or may not be recognized) and takes her place among her peers in the worldwide Church Militant. It took Russia twenty-one generations to attain this. (One of the great tragedies of history was Rome unable to let go of universal jurisdiction, and Henry VIII deciding to make a church up as he went along. The English could indeed have had their own Church instead of the current farce.)

America, no longer being a real nation, will probably never have a real Church. Or rather, deracinated, propositional America is wedded to deracinated, propositional protestantism. The American national church has three tracks: you either become a Jew, you become a unitarian-universalist, or you sit in your living room on Sunday morning playing the guitar and reading your KJV.

Blogger jamsco May 09, 2013 12:56 PM  

The Responsible Puppet immediately resorted to evasive dishonesty in defense of his "Christian" position. His claims to ignorance were remarkable given his insistence that diversity must be intrinsically good; a nonsensical position given his claims to know nothing about racial differences.

You on the other hand don't really consider precision in your words something to strive for. I haven't been dishonest. It didn't take repeated questions, it took one. And you still got it wrong as to what I agreed to.

I don't claim to know nothing about racial differences. I claim to have incomplete knowledge about the relative superiority of traits of a given race.

I'd like to repost what I said at the beginning:

I believe that Pastor John believes the following: One should not be discouraged from interacting with someone based on race.

This includes:
Marriage,
Child Adoption,
Allowing into a church,
Hiring as an employee,
Accepting as a brother in Christ,
Sharing the gospel with.

One should be encouraged to share the gospel with, accept as a brother in Christ and allow into your church, people of a different race.


That's what I meant by, "Diversity is good". I said I hoped you agreed, but I guessed that you didn't and my guess was correct.

So my phrase "Diversity is good" was imprecise. In my defense, it was in an email to you and was supposed to be a somewhat headline-ish. But obviously people mean wildly different things when they say diversity. When you talk about me (and more importantly Pastor John), don't assume or suggest that I mean more than the above statement.

Many of the comments on these posts have assumed more about me that is true.

But here's my main point: Further clarification about traits that make the races superior or inferior to each other won't change my view on these issues. If you were to show me convincing proof that (for example) blacks are inherently more violent, and even if I agreed with it, I'd still (for example) encourage churches to welcome black people to attend their services and become members.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 09, 2013 1:08 PM  

Wow. Is jamsco even real?

every white Christian family that says yes to this reduces the likelihood of a black baby being in Foster care, or in an orphanage, or aborted.

Sure, pal. And while you're giving away your family's living space, your family's resources and your family's claim on your stewardship, you can just give away your wife's and your daughter's wombs while you're at it.

Anonymous Barnabas May 09, 2013 1:12 PM  

Of course, Paul was a high status member of God's chosen people but he counted it as loss. You may have a high IQ, long-term time horizon, low propensity for violence and your grandfathers may have built Western Civilization and you may still burn in hell for eternity. I agree that multicult may be a bad thing but there's really nothing any of us can do about it and it makes a great distraction from more important things. Pray, witness, run the race well because you will be dead soon.

Anonymous MikeM May 09, 2013 1:12 PM  

I just must return to the original idea that John Piper and others like Huckabee are holding that any good Christian must support amnesty.

I am a bible believing conservative and I hold that their position is nonsense and is not to be followed by anyone except for their own political views. As I said before, the New Testament says nothing about this issue.

This country is doomed for many reasons and the migration of peoples who have no interest in the exceptional American experiment will make it happen as will the economic socialism that is overtaking this country, as well.

Multi-cultural diversity is always destructive. History has proven this over and over. Sparta clobbered Athens, Rome destroyed Carthage, The muslims destroyed Constantinople, etc, etc.

Blogger jamsco May 09, 2013 1:15 PM  

" you can just give away your wife's and your daughter's wombs while you're at it."

I think you cannot show evidence that there is even a small chance that this will happen.

Blogger jamsco May 09, 2013 1:16 PM  

"I just must return to the original idea that John Piper and others like Huckabee are holding that any good Christian must support amnesty."

Where does John Piper do this?

Anonymous randomblackdude May 09, 2013 1:16 PM  

But here's my main point: Further clarification about traits that make the races superior or inferior to each other won't change my view on these issues.

The pet hobby of veiled racists like Vox: figuring out in exactly which ways blacks are inferior, and by precisely what margin (the greater the margin, the better). Well at least there are some things that don't require too much investigation. Blacks clearly are better at attracting women, and whites clearly are better at programming computers. So let's just stick to our individual strengths and live in peace and harmony!

Blogger IM2L844 May 09, 2013 1:29 PM  

It doesn't matter, whether whites invented it or not, the fact is that when they wielded it they did more damage than any sane man can imagine.

YOU are the one trying to make it a comparative, but, as everyone keeps pointing out, it has an absolute value of zero as a comparative. It's apples to rainbow colored unicorn farts.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 09, 2013 1:35 PM  

I think you cannot show evidence that there is even a small chance that this will happen.

Really? Even when your cute little black trophy-babies morph into teenagers (puberty and physical development is way faster in blacks) and start looking at female family members with whom they share not a single drop of blood in common? There are adoption horror stories out there.

As far as God's own green Nature is concerned, adoption is just another form of cuckoldry, so chew on that up there on your high horse.

Blogger jamsco May 09, 2013 1:41 PM  

"There are adoption horror stories out there."

Also with adopting white babies. Are you against all adoption?

So you're saying it doesn't matter if you can bring up this child in the fear and admonition of the Lord, there's a 0.78 greater chance he will rape a family member, so forget it.

Yes, that is living in the spirit of fear, not of power and love.

Anonymous sciencewillprevail May 09, 2013 1:43 PM  

YOU are the one trying to make it a comparative, but, as everyone keeps pointing out, it has an absolute value of zero as a comparative. It's apples to rainbow colored unicorn farts.

Obviously if you are pointing out the bad behaviour of one race it behooves you to compare it to the behaviour of your reference race. That they are operating under different environments with different tools at their disposal really makes no difference in this case. Under both circumstances the behaviour is bad. Trying to cancel out the variables to make an apples-to-apples comparison is retarded because you are engaging in a calculus of the absurd. Would blacks have killed 20 million more in a ww2 style conflict or 20 million less? Only an idiot would consider that an important metric. The bottom line is that no one looks very good here and before you start throwing rocks your should make sure your house isn't made of glass.

Anonymous Josh May 09, 2013 1:51 PM  

Sure, pal. And while you're giving away your family's living space, your family's resources and your family's claim on your stewardship, you can just give away your wife's and your daughter's wombs while you're at it.

You're being a bit hysterical about this. I have to agree with jamsco on adoption.

Anonymous Barnabas May 09, 2013 1:52 PM  

Obviously immigration is not in the best interest of ourselves or our country. Where does this leave the Christian since we are called on not to seek our own best interest? I think its helpful to make a parallel with charity. It is a moral good for me to give to the poor, it is not a moral (either for me or my neighbor) to force my neighbor to give to the poor. Thus it may be a moral good for me to give away my home to a family of immigrants. It is not a moral good to use my vote or my advocacy to force my neighbor to give up his job, home, or safety to benefit immigrants. And I agree with everything Jamsco has said about the church.

Anonymous Barnabas May 09, 2013 1:54 PM  

EDITED
Obviously immigration is not in the best interest of ourselves or our country. Where does this leave the Christian since we are called on not to seek our own best interest? I think its helpful to make a parallel with charity. It is a moral good for me to give to the poor, it is not a moral good (either for me or my neighbor) to force my neighbor to give to the poor. Thus it may be a moral good for me to give away my home to a family of immigrants. It is not a moral good to use my vote or my advocacy to force my neighbor to give up his job, home, or safety to benefit immigrants. And I agree with everything Jamsco has said about the church.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 09, 2013 1:58 PM  

Also with adopting white babies. Are you against all adoption?

I would leave that up to the individual, just as I leave the decision to juggle flaming torches up to the individual. At the very least, these exotic, trans-national adoptions without the slightest genetic bond with the adoptee are unhealthy.

Also, you really are the typical Puritan, arrogantly confident that what black babies need more than anything else is to spend as little time as possible with black parents. This idea of a crucial age of early intervention is beginning to reach absurd lengths, even beyond pre- and nursery school, culminating with your goal of raising black babies in white families.

The logical next step is to make sure we raise pre-natal black babies in white wombs, as the crucial age of early intervention gets pushed back to eight months and 29 days (but not a day earlier!).

Blogger jamsco May 09, 2013 2:02 PM  

"Also, you really are the typical Puritan, arrogantly confident that what black babies need more than anything else is to spend as little time as possible with black parents."

Why do you say that? I encourage black families to keep their kids and I encourage black families to adopt if they are in the position to do so.

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 2:07 PM  

The hate is rotting your brain, man.

How utterly typical. A simple observation that whites developed the vast majority of all technology is perceived as hate and completely misconstrued. Leftist tards are nothing if they're not projecting their own vileness and pettiness onto others.

Anonymous Van May 09, 2013 2:09 PM  

Assisting the less fortunate is good; assisting the less fortunate at the expense of one's own family is bad. Donating time to help at a halfway house is good; converting your own home into a halfway house, bringing struggling drug addicts and ex-cons into your home among your children, using family resources to help others while your chidren go without, is bad.

If bringing significant numbers of immigrants into a society damages that society, then doing so is bad, and could not possibly be what God had in mind. If one acknowledges the reality that blacks and browns have much higher crime rates, much higher welfare dependency rates, and are much more likely to vote for political policies that destroy individual liberty, one cannot possibly argue that third world immigration is good.

The undeniable effect of third world immigration is the destruction of Western Civilation; something God would never demand.

Blogger IM2L844 May 09, 2013 2:10 PM  

Only an idiot would consider that an important metric.

You're making my point for me. For a more accurate picture, let's compare FBI crime statistics and then normalize it for racial demographics with 12.6% of the population being black or African American and 72.4% of the population being white or European American. I take it you can do the math? Math is hard, you know.

How about them apples?

Anonymous Stilicho May 09, 2013 2:17 PM  

The bottom line is that no one looks very good here and before you start throwing rocks your should make sure your house isn't made of glass.

Then there is no valid reason to import diverse elements to the West. In fact, since you think whites are such evil murderers, the only logical position for you would be to support the mass exodus of those feral diversities back whence they came so that they can live in peace, love, happiness, and grass huts far from the dangerous Westerners.

After all, apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Or, from a different perspective:

Take up the White Man's burden,
And reap his old reward--
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 2:28 PM  

I encourage black families to adopt if they are in the position to do so.

Should black families adopt white children? Should there be a racial consideration when several families of different races want to adopt the same baby? Of course, that's a hypothetical situation with a remote possibility of occurring. In reality, I imagine that whites are by far the majority of adoptive parents. There's a reason for that and it's purely racial. There are more whites who are more stable and thus able to adopt a child. That ain't no fluke.






Anonymous Barnabas May 09, 2013 2:28 PM  

"The undeniable effect of third world immigration is the destruction of Western Civilation; something God would never demand."
I get the feeling you haven't read the Bible much. Not only would he demand it, he's doing it now. Why would he repeatedly destroy Isreal for their rebellion and spare "Western Civilization"?

And yes, he demands sacrificial giving as well. I'll leave it to you to find your own balance between 1 Timothy 5:8 and Luke 21:1-4.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 09, 2013 2:40 PM  

I get the feeling you haven't read the Bible much. Not only would he demand it, he's doing it now. Why would he repeatedly destroy Isreal for their rebellion and spare "Western Civilization"?

Indeed not. I bet you got this part committed to memory by now:

3 When the people heard the law, they separated from Israel all those of foreign descent
...
23 In those days also I saw Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab; 24 and half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but spoke the language of various peoples. 25 And I contended with them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair; and I made them take an oath in the name of God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves. 26 Did not King Solomon of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless, foreign women made even him to sin. 27 Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?”
28 And one of the sons of Jehoiada, son of the high priest Eliashib, was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite; I chased him away from me. 29 Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, the covenant of the priests and the Levites.
30 Thus I cleansed them from everything foreign, and I established the duties of the priests and Levites, each in his work; 31 and I provided for the wood offering, at appointed times, and for the first fruits. Remember me, O my God, for good.


--Neh. 13

Anonymous Ferd May 09, 2013 2:46 PM  

I suppose what amazes me that will all the death that takes place in Syria, Mideast in general and all of Africa they seem to reproduce and replace the hoards of bodies at a rapid pace.

Look at Mexico. We are told how many die each month yet there seems to be more replacements.

Chicago, Detroit and Oakland with scores shot each month appear to have enough votes to put Miss Obama back in the White House.

Truly, humans are prolific!!!

Anonymous Van May 09, 2013 2:48 PM  

It wasn't my intention to single out WesternCiv as chosen; only that it is Western societies that are being destroyed. If your question re Isreal meant WesterCiv is in rebellion and therefore being destroyed, perhaps you are right. But that would be different from a society in good standing with God being instructed to import its own destruction in an effort to do God's will.

The widow gave all the money she had; it doesn't say she took food from her family, allowed rapists into her home, put her children in danger, or in anyway damaged the integrity of her society. She certainly didn'y demand that ousiders who have a tendency towards violence and dependency, and who prefer the polcies of government sanctioned theft, be allowed into the society and given a voive in government.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 09, 2013 2:49 PM  

Truly, humans are prolific!!!

Indeed, you could even say some of 'em breed like rabbits.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia May 09, 2013 3:06 PM  

Jamsco,

A black, 1 month old baby is up for adoption.

There is a good, white family looking for a child to adopt and a good, black family looking for a child to adopt.

Which family should be awarded the 1 month old, black baby and why?

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 3:13 PM  

Blacks clearly are better at attracting women

Blacks are clearly better at raping women. As for the ones they actually attract, they're either white trash, or those with an animal fetish.

I'm a woman, and no black savage will ever touch me. You can take you delusions of sexual magnetism and stick them up your black ass. Of course, with your low IQ and infantile emotionalism, it is no surprise you'd be prone to such fantasies.

Blogger IM2L844 May 09, 2013 3:13 PM  

What about it, short bus? Have you figured it out yet? How many murders should we expect if the entire population of 308 million were black and how many murders should we expect if all 308 million were white and from that, can we draw any conclusions about which race is more inclined toward violence?

When we're done with murders we'll move on to assault and then rape and then robbery.

Anonymous Barnabas May 09, 2013 3:18 PM  

To Anti-Gnostic
My comments were directed towards Van. I don't see anything useful coming from getting into it with you. (By that I mean you're a troll)

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 3:44 PM  

Which family should be awarded the 1 month old, black baby and why?

Wise counsel instructs that the child be cut in half.

Anonymous ZhukovG May 09, 2013 3:45 PM  

Barnabas,

By dismissing Anti-Gnostic's reference to God's Word as 'trolling', you have lost considerable credibility.

I humbly suggest you reconsider your response.

Anonymous ZhukovG May 09, 2013 3:46 PM  

Aha! Anonagain, you are the child's mother.

Blogger jamsco May 09, 2013 3:52 PM  

"Which family should be awarded the 1 month old, black baby and why?"

Generally speaking, it's the birth mom who decides the answer to the question. If you want to know how I would advise her, it would completely come down to specific situation.

In other words, I would not make a blanket statement on that issue.



Anonymous Van May 09, 2013 3:55 PM  

Barnabas -

I don't consider myself a Biblical scholar by any means. One thing I have learned, while typically not able to quote chapter and verse off the cuff, is that the more extreme sounding lines about giving, not judging, accepting, etc. are taken out of context - either direct context (a sentence plucked from a verse) or overall context of the Bible. If you believe the Bible to be the word of God, there can be no contradiction in it. There can be no contradiction between the order to take care of one's family first and the story of the widow who gives all she has to charity.

So how can they both be true?

First, the issue of taking care of one's family is the much more forceful, almost a commandment (although that word is not used), while the widow with the charitible giving is a story of someone doing something nice. The first is an order, the second an illustration. Notice that the second does not include an order to give all that one has; only that doing so more substantial even if the amount given is less that what a wealthy person gives. She is to be congratulated.

But what did she sacrifice? In the context of the first order to take care of one's family, we must assume that she did so prior to giving what she had left. Otherwise she would be in violation. If you assume she forced her family to go without so she could give to charity, and was congratulated for it, you have introduced a contradiction in teachings from God; something that can't happen.

Assisting one person to the extent that others are harmed; bringing in outsiders to improve their quality of life while destroying the civilization already here, would seem to be be a larger version of this issue.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 09, 2013 4:02 PM  

Ah come on, Barney. Lay some of that First-Place-in-the-Adairsville-Bible-Bowl schoolin on me.

Anonymous Yoda May 09, 2013 4:05 PM  

In other words, I would not make a blanket statement on that issue.

Answer or do not. There is no "it depends".

Fearful this one is. Fear is the path to the dark side.

Blogger Stuart Paul May 09, 2013 4:07 PM  

I think the gospel is for all people. However, when people get upset because their church or community isn't culturally diverse enough, I don't share the same opinion. Your church doesn't need token minorities.

Now, if black people don't feel welcome around you or at your church, that's an issue. If you only reach out to those of the same skin color, that's a problem.

But if you don't have a lot of black people in your circles and most of the people in your local congregation don't either, so what?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia May 09, 2013 4:27 PM  

Generally speaking, it's the birth mom who decides the answer to the question. If you want to know how I would advise her, it would completely come down to specific situation.

In other words, I would not make a blanket statement on that issue.


Answer the question. Don't throw out a red herring. Don't reinvent the question with unnecessary gibber.

Just answer the simple question, and explain why, simply.

Anonymous Barnabas May 09, 2013 4:34 PM  

Van, that's why I said that there needs to be a balance between those verses. You said above that helping the less fortunate at the expense of my own family is bad. In the world's calculus anything that I give away will be at the expense of my own family. But I may be blessed by God in response to my faithfulness. Missionary families go into foreign countries often at great risk to themselves and their children. Are they doing wrong? I don't think so. The apostles left their families to follow Christ. I'm not saying that everyone is called upon to make those kinds of sacrifices but I'm certainly not going to criticize them and I admire their faith.

@ Zhugov - Since neither AG nor I are Israelites living in Palestine prior to the incarnation of Christ the scripture he quoted has no bearing. There are several strings of interchange going on here an I'm not obligated to debate someone who I think is arguing in bad faith (based on the totality of his comments not the one). That would be wasting my time and his.

Anonymous Barnabas May 09, 2013 4:54 PM  

"Assisting one person to the extent that others are harmed; bringing in outsiders to improve their quality of life while destroying the civilization already here, would seem to be be a larger version of this issue."
I don't think that we disagree on this as I said above...

"Thus it may be a moral good for me to give away my home to a family of immigrants. It is not a moral good to use my vote or my advocacy to force my neighbor to give up his job, home, or safety to benefit immigrants."

Forcing others to sacrifice is not a moral act or is actually an amoral act.

I do think that I've been called to be faithful to the extent that I may harm myself (to lay down my life for my brother). To guard to closely against harming my family could easily become an excuse to give very little. If I lay down my life, who will care for my kids but the command still stands. Am I then forcing my kids to sacrifice and contradicting myself? Well, I would certainly provide for them before I provide for myself. I could give away 95% of my income and still keep my kids in rice and beans so my charity is not limited by the fear of family harm.

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 5:04 PM  

Just answer the simple question, and explain why, simply.

Jamsco's failure to answer the simple question is the answer. He's afraid of saying the wrong thing lest he be stigmatized for holding opinions contrary to the Diversity Gospel.

I am reminded of how the Pharisees must have spoken. Always slippery, legalistic, with an answer for everything yet carefully avoiding saying anything that would reveal their motives, ever mindful of not tripping up.

Anonymous Barnabas May 09, 2013 5:25 PM  

No Jamsco is a real person with a real public name and face and a real ministry to protect not a faceless internet malcontent. You should give him credit for taking the risk to even post on this blog. The gospel is offensive enough without our adding offense. On the internet (and in life in general) those who speak truth are rare and those who speak truth with grace are almost unheard of. In these parts of the internet people like to throw out truths in the most shocking graceless way possible and Jamsco does not need to get caught up in that. To see what truth looks like without grace see the Westborough Baptist Church.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia May 09, 2013 6:06 PM  

This is truly a simple question, that is, if one does not choose to artificially muck it up so as to avoid actually giving a response:

A black, 1 month old baby is up for adoption.

There is a good, white family looking for a child to adopt and a good, black family looking for a child to adopt.

Which family should be awarded the 1 month old, black baby and why?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia May 09, 2013 6:23 PM  

No Jamsco is a real person with a real public name and face and a real ministry to protect not a faceless internet malcontent. You should give him credit for taking the risk to even post on this blog.

I will not give him credit for anything other than what he shows of himself.

The only thing I give is general respect as he is a long time visitor here and a {friend} of VD.

I posted here for quite a long time under my name. But have gone with my blog name when I began it (a blog mainly, for my own, to store others' interesting blog posts and a blogroll of interesting blogs).

Anonymous Anonagain May 09, 2013 6:37 PM  

You should give him credit for taking the risk to even post on this blog.

Now that's kind of bizarre and pathetic.

For someone who appears to be so concerned with grace, Barney boy, you are certainly quick to brand someone a troll. It appears you value truth only as far as it conforms to your delicate sensibilities. As such, you may certainly ignore my comments. I'll be sure to do the same with yours.

Blogger William Smith May 09, 2013 6:57 PM  

Vox,

While I'm not particularly interested in cultural diversity as a goal, I see it as a given in certain contexts. With that given in mind, the command of Jesus to "make disciples of all nations" seems relevant. Part of the gospel is the body of Jesus' teachings. The resurrected Jesus was/is certainly aware that some nations are or would become diverse. Or rather (as εθνη might mean something more like "linguistic group") he was aware that various geographies might contain diverse linguistic groups. So if the few original apostles were traveling about making disciples of all nations, it had to be known that at least individual church communities would be culturally diverse and that Jewish Christians and various types of Gentile Christians(ala 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1, Romans 14-15, Colossians 3:11) would have to learn to live under Christ's reign together.

I do not take this as a demand for all discrete cultures to aim for diversity. But it is a demand for Christians to recognize that cultural distinctions are not normative for the church.

That's how I see it anyhow.

Geoff

Blogger jyoti May 10, 2013 6:09 AM  

Dallas Divorce Lawyers Dallas Divorce Lawyer Serving North Texas for 15 Years as a family law attorney handling divorce, custody, support and modification issues dedicated to fighting harder for you with positive results restoring your dignity and happiness. Hey this is really nice information. I was looking for something similar like this. Thanks for this useful information.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 10, 2013 9:24 AM  

Well, I would certainly provide for them before I provide for myself. I could give away 95% of my income and still keep my kids in rice and beans so my charity is not limited by the fear of family harm.

Just the fact that you're posting on the internet shows surplus time and resources so get busy and start giving you selfish pig. Empty your pantry. Give the homeless your house keys. Leave your car in the street. Disperse your family to the four winds. Now you have nothing left to give, so lay down and die.

People like you are why interpretation of the canon is reserved for the Church.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts