Help! White nationalism and the human pecking order

Here’s the thing: we humans, similar to small-brained chickens, have this need to know our place in the pecking order. Most want to peck our way to the top, uncaring of the damage we do to others in the process.


Dear Thoughtful Pastor: Is White Nationalism in any way compatible with Jesus’ Commandments?

No.

I suppose I should expand on that answer.

Ruling the roost, photo courtesy of Unsplash
Ruling the roost, photo courtesy of Unsplash

Adherents and apologists for White Nationalism suggest that there should be a nation set aside where “whites,” however defined, hold primary privilege.

Those who fit the definition of “white” hold all the major power posts and carry special privileges accorded to those on top of the human pecking order and denied to those defined as “non-white.”

Non-whites can live and work in the nation but with fewer privileges.

Saudi Arabia could serve as a possible example. Saudis, especially Saudis from the extensive royal family (Saud), will always be in charge. However, the nation imports many thousands of laborers from other countries, primarily India and Pakistan right now. These imports do the menial and lower paying work to support the societal and racially pure leisure class.

Historical precedent for the pecking-order society

Many nations functioned historically under similar racial-supremacy arrangements. It can be a clear, efficient and effective way to sort out societal roles. The classes stay separate. The rules strongly discourage or even forbid marriage outside class lines, although procreation across the lines is standard practice.

But to go to your question: can a system like this find compatibility with what Jesus taught?

Let’s look at the words Mary, mother of Jesus, sang upon hearing the confirmation that she is to be the mother of the Savior. (Luke 1:51-55)

Among other things, she states,

He [i.e., God] has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, according to the promise he made to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.

Thus the “The Great Reversal.” In the kingdom of heaven, normal earthly patterns with the wealthy and powerful on top turn upside down.

Jesus lived that out. He had this thing for hanging out with the powerless, the down-and-outers. His words of critique were leveled ONLY at those who occupied the top of the societal/religious/political ladders, i.e, the racial supremacists of the day.

In one of my favorite stories, found in Luke 15, Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven in a series of stories that feature three “uncleans.”

First, we have the shepherd with the lost sheep–forever barred from the religious rituals as there was no adequate cleansing from his pollution of constant association with sheep.

Second, we have the woman with the lost coin, like all women generally deemed unclean and unfit for public power roles.

Third, we have the patriarch with the lost son. This man discarded all his dignity and station in favor of this rebellious kid who had insulted him with words of the greatest disrespect, bankrupted him and who ended up feeding pigs.

Those normally considered last in society end up being those who best portray the nature of God.

Who is my racial neighbor?

Look at how Jesus interpreted this summary of all commandments:  “You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind and with all your strength and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

In Luke 10,  a man who wants above all to inherit the kingdom of God asks Jesus for advice.

This request prompted the “The Good Samaritan” story. You want God’s blessing? Then you go out of your way to care for your greatest enemies–and other races.

Here’s the thing: we humans, similar to small-brained chickens, have this need to know our place in the pecking order. Most want to peck our way to the top, uncaring of the damage we do to others in the process.

Kingdom of heaven teaching, that which Jesus offered us, asks us to stand firm against this tendency.

However, this whole “the last shall be first” idea is possibly the toughest of all Jesus’ teachings. Nothing in our society supports it. We fight to be first, first in line, first in prestige, first in power, first in nations. And each time we must be first, we start seeing those who are last as slightly, or even more than slightly, less than human.

The moment we dehumanize the other, we have crossed over to evil.

We dehumanize when we call others “stupid” or “ignorant” or “losers” or “vermin” or “rapists and murderers” or “haters” as though one word can fully describe another. We dehumanize others when we sexual slang words for women or label the physically or mentally different as “strange.” We dehumanize when we insist in any way that someone is deficient as a human being.

So, no.  No racial supremacy movement can find legitimacy in the teachings of Jesus.


ask-the-thoughtful-pastor[Note: a version of this column is slated to run in the Feb 10, 2017, edition of the Denton Record-Chronicle. The Thoughtful Pastor, AKA Christy Thomas, welcomes all questions for the column. Although the questioner will not be identified, I do need a name and verifiable contact information in case the newspaper editor has need of it. You may use this link to email questions.]

"Excellent post. Picking up for UM Insight."

Abused Children Ask: Why Didn’t God ..."
"Actually Jesus was qouting what Adam said in the allegorical garden of Eden. Likewise Paul ..."

Mean, Clean Paulianity: The Nashville Statement
"Very insightful on abused children and God. Thanks."

Abused Children Ask: Why Didn’t God ..."
"Good post, and I particularly like the way you bring out the themes of God's ..."

Abused Children Ask: Why Didn’t God ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Linda Coleman Allen

    Great eye opening article. Wonderful examples of scripture combined with years of study and teaching.

    • Strongs119

      Multifaith diversity is condemned in Exodus 23:33, while 1 John 2:22 states that those who deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, meaning the followers of non-Christian religions and atheists, are antichrist’s. 2 John 9-11 and 2 Corinthians 6:16-18 instruct Christians to separate themselves from the followers of non-Christian religions.

      Racial segregation and racial heirarchy, are supported by God, and enforced by the Israelites in Numbers 25:6-13, Deuteronomy 17:15, Deuteronomy 23:2-3, Ezra 9:1-2, Ezra 10:2-3 and Hosea 5:7.

      • Roy Hobs

        Hey Strongs………You ok? Been a couple days without a comment. Hope you are well.

        • Strongs119

          Hi, all is well, thank you for asking. Had a very busy week, but should be less hectic this week…I hope, lol.

          • Roy Hobs

            Good to hear it!

  • Brandon Roberts

    nobody with half a brain takes actual white nationalist (or any racial nationalist argument) for segregation seriously cause racial nationalists are idiots pretty much anyone can disprove their arguments

    • Strongs119

      There are many examples in the bible where racial segregation is demanded by the Lord God, and enforced by the Israelites.

      In Numbers 25:6-13 the Israelite Phinehas took a javelin in his hand, and ran through an Israelite man and an Midianitish woman who were race mixing. In return Phinehas was rewarded by God with an “everlasting priesthood.”

      In Deuteronomy 17:15 the Lord God forbids the Israelites to set a stranger as King over their people, instructing them to pick a King from among their brethren. This verse supports racial hierarchy.

      In Deuteronomy 23:2-3 the Lord God states that the offspring of interracial relationships between Israelites and Ammonites or Moabites, will not enter God’s Kingdom.

      In Ezra 9:2 God is angered at the Israelites for mixing their “holy seed” with the non-Israelite races, and in Ezra 10:2-3 the Israelites purge the foreign blood from their race by expelling their own wives and children because their wives were not Israelites, they were Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites (Ezra 9:1) and their children were the mixed race offspring of these interracial marriages.

      In Hosea 5:7 the Lord God condemns the Israelites for producing racially mixed offspring, saying that “they dealt treacherously against the Lord: for they have begotten strange children:

  • Roy Hobs

    Bizarre how Christians constantly declare — God never changes; God doesn’t change etc., etc.
    Below, Strongs119 lays out a Scriptural precedent that Israel should remain “separate”, and race mixing is condemned. Now all of a sudden God changed!
    Genesis 5:1 is compatible with Matthew 15:24.
    Christy Thomas declares herself to be an opinionated Jesus-Follower and a questioner of everything. Prove it………….

    • IrenaSerena1984

      Ridiculous. Separation is nothing to do with race per se but with cultic purity. Else how would Caleb the Kennizite take a leading role in Israel? And if Deuteronomy 17 means what your pal says it means, then King David is in a pretty tight spot given his Moabite great-grandmother (and Canaanite great+grandmother, Rahab). The same applies to his son, King Jesus. The family tree of the Saviour of the world is of mixed ethnicity.

      • Roy Hobs

        Do some research on the racial identity of various characters of the Bible from other researchers and then come to your own conclusion. Kind of like the holofraud. If you only hear one side…………….

        • IrenaSerena1984

          There’s no doubt that Ruth is a Moabite and that she’s the grandmother of Jesse. None at all. You (and the fools you follow) are just reading your own 19th century social-Darwinian bigotry into texts that are making an entirely different point.

          • Roy Hobs

            is Moabite a race?

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Your racist friend Strongs seems to think so:

            “In Deuteronomy 23:2-3 the Lord God states that the offspring of interracial relationships between Israelites and Ammonites or Moabites, will not enter God’s Kingdom.

            In Ezra 9:2 God is angered at the Israelites for mixing their “holy seed” with the non-Israelite races, and in Ezra 10:2-3 the Israelites purge the foreign blood from their race by expelling their own wives and children because their wives were not Israelites, they were Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites (Ezra 9:1) and their children were the mixed race offspring of these interracial marriages.”

          • IrenaSerena1984

            If Moabite is not a ‘race’ then it seems that God’s prohibition on mixing is not to do with ‘race’ per se but with something else, right?

          • Roy Hobs

            Is an Arab living in Germany a “German”?

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Nice try. She’s not an ethnic Israelite living in Moab (that’s what her first husband and mother-in-law are). She is a Moabite, by nature not one of the chosen people, but taken in. This is obvious in what she says to Naomi: “your people shall be my people, and your God shall be my God”. Come now…

          • Roy Hobs

            But is she an Adamite.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            But then on your own racist presuppositions, the Bible has nothing to say about the ‘sin of racial mixing’ in the passages cited by Strongs below. If all those people groups are ‘Adamites’, they are of the same race and therefore not ‘mixing’… what am I missing?

          • Roy Hobs

            If all those people groups are ‘Adamites’
            This is not what I implied. Is a Mexican a Californian? My answer is no. Where others might say ‘yes’.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            In your analogy Ruth is a Mexican living in California. Except she isn’t. She is an ethnic Moabite living in Moab.

            You didn’t imply she was an Adamite, you said she was. Why is she an Adamite but other Moabites are not Adamites?

            Truly, truly you tie yourself in knots.

          • Roy Hobs

            We are back to our “Moses married a black woman because she was from Ethiopia”.
            What is your interpretation of “No bastard shall enter the congregation of the Lord.” If you don’t mind.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Silly verse to point to, given that it’s talking about the child of any illicit union (much wider than mixing with other nations). Solomon is one of those and his father David should have died according to the Mosaic Law for his adultery and murder. Why that didn’t happen is a complex matter.

            But there is *nothing* whatsoever in these texts about ‘purity of race’ in the way racists understand it. Again, it’s to do with cultic purity.

            So we’re back to ‘Ruth was an ethnic Israelite living in Moab’ again? Make up your mind.

          • Roy Hobs

            I guess it comes down to the interpretation/translation of “mongrel/bastard” and how it was used as in context.
            How do you interpret “I only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel?”

          • Roy Hobs

            If this interests you —

            It is unfortunate that many preachers, in their ignorance, teach so many false doctrines. One such false doctrine is the statement that Yahshua was not of pure Israelite blood, they say one of His ancestors was Ruth, a Moabitess. From the use of this term they believe that she was racially, not just geographically, a Moabite, in this they are greatly mistaken………
            Just put that into google and I’m sure you will get the page. Not sure if this site allows ‘links’.

          • Roy Hobs

            I have a blog discussing an issue that I believe is the most important doctrine in today’s “failed” version of Christianity — areyoumarried dot wordpress dot com
            Humor me with a comment. And take the polls

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Your link about Ruth is just preposterous. How did Ezra expel Moabite women if they’d been completely erased from the earth in the time of Joshua?? If Moab was populated by ethnic Israelites, then Ezra’s anger would have had nothing to do with ‘racial purity’. Either way, you lose because either there are Moabites in the time of Ezra or Ezra is concerned with something other than ‘racial purity’.

            Just because a bunch of lone nutters say something about Ruth’s ethnicity, it doesn’t make it true. Check out the plethora of commentaries on biblehub, for example. Every single scholar from multiple eras in the church (long before modern multiculturalism) say that she was a ethnic Moabite without any hesitation at all.

          • Roy Hobs

            Check out the plethora of commentaries on biblehub, for example.
            Popularity means little to me. The road is narrow……..not broad. Many will seek to enter but fail.
            God would sure be a hypocrite if He says “No Moabites shall enter the congregation”…………………. There is an explanation.
            I guess some day soon we just may find out who is “silly”.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            It’s not popularity. It’s the humility to recognise that if you hold a view that no one else has ever dreamed of before you, you are in all likelihood wrong. Unless you’re privy to extraordinary, unique spiritual insight…

          • Roy Hobs

            Here is an article from a non-Christian Identity person stating the same conclusion —

            http://12tribehistory.com/was-ruth-a-moabite/

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Think I’ll stick with the Targums, Chrysostom and almost everyone else who has looked into the issue.

            With respect, it looks like a crackpot website and she completely begs the question: I can’t make sense of Ruth’s clearly stated ancestry therefore the text can’t mean what it says. If you’re a ‘Scripture interprets scripture’ man, you’ll know that clear passages interpret difficult passages. And Deuteronomy 23 is a classic ‘difficult’ passage because famous examples appear to contradict its meaning. One could just as easily work the other way: we know that David is part Moabite, therefore Deut 23 cannot be saying that Moabites cannot become proselytes.

            Again, I’m sticking with the unanimous voice of the Church throughout the ages on this one.

          • Roy Hobs

            I’m sticking with the unanimous voice of the church…”
            I thought you would.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Anyway. Let’s leave it at that. Happy to let you have the last word (which means I won’t reply however tantalising it might be to refute your error).

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Ruth 1:4, the Targum interprets: `they transgressed the decree of the Lord, and took to them strange women.’

            And Chrysostom: For he hath made mention of the wife of Uriah, and of Thamar, and of Rahab, and of Ruth, of whom one was of a strange race, another an harlot, another was defiled by her near kinsman, and with him not in the form of marriage, but by a stolen intercourse, when she had put on herself the mask of an harlot; and touching the wife of Uriah no one is ignorant, by reason of the notoriety of the crime.

          • Roy Hobs

            I’m confused………………is this an argument against the contents at areyoumarried dot wordpress dot com?

          • IrenaSerena1984

            No. It’s an argument against the Ruth link you sent. Far more illustrious saints than ‘some-dude-noones-heard-of’ have argued that Ruth is a gentile.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Thank you for the invite, but I’ll take leave of these discussions now. Hope that’s ok.

            It’s been interesting if sad to hear such views. But I don’t think we are making any headway. My only hope is that if any fair-minded person finds their way into the underbelly of this blog they’ll be edified.

          • Roy Hobs

            It’s been interesting if sad to hear such views.
            What view is “sad”……………. the racial discussion; or the content at areyoumarried dot wordpress dot com?

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Moabites could never hold office in Israel, even if they’d lived there for 10 generations. But if they did what Ruth did – make the Israelites her people and Yhwh her God – then they are no longer Moabites but Israelites. That’s what happened to Caleb. He waz the son of a Kennazite and yet he became an Israelite (certainly this happened through circumcision, through which he was included in the covenant). And that’s what is almost certain to have happened to the “mixed company” who left Egypt with the Israelites (Expdus 12:38).

          • Strongs119

            There are different translations for Ruth 1:16, where “shall be” is replaced by “is”, for example in the New King James Version of Ruth 1:16 we see “shall be” used, while in Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy bible and in the Wycliffe Bible, we see “is” used instead of “shall be.” Replacing “shall be” with “is” changes the implications of Ruth’s ancestry completely.

            (New King James Version) Ruth 1:16 But Ruth said: “Entreat me not to leave you, Or to turn back from following after you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, And your God, my God.”

            Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) of Ruth 1:16 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ruth+1%3A16&version=YLT

            Ruth 1:16 And Ruth saith, `Urge me not to leave thee — to turn back from after thee; for whither thou goest I go, and where thou lodgest I lodge; thy people [is] my people, and thy God my God.

            ♦ NOTE: “Thy people [IS] my people” in no way contradicts Ruth being a descendant of the Israelites who settled in the land of Moab – (which had earlier been conquered by the Amorite King Sihon, see Numbers 21:26, who enslaved many Moabites, see Numbers 21:29) – after exterminating every last inhabitant of Moab, (See: Deuteronomy 2:32-34) during the wars against the Amorite King Sihon, and similarly killing all of the people of Amorite King Og, (Numbers 21:33-35 and Deuteronomy 3:1-3)

            Wycliffe Bible (WYC) translation of Ruth 1:16 And Ruth answered, Be thou not against me, that I forsake thee, and go away; whither ever thou shalt go, I shall go, and where thou shalt dwell, I shall dwell together (with thee); thy people is my people, and thy God is my God; (And Ruth answered, Be thou not against me, that I should desert thee, and go away from thee; wherever thou shalt go, I shall go, and where thou shalt live, I shall live with thee; thy people is my people, and thy God is my God;) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ruth+1%3A16&version=WYC

          • Strongs119

            Biblical scholar Robert Young published Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) of the Holy Bible, using the Textus Receptus (TR) and the Majority Text (MT) as the basis for his translation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_Literal_Translation

            Majority Text is one of several text-types used in textual criticism to describe the textual character of Greek New Testament manuscripts. It is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, though not in the oldest. The New Testament text of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Patriarchal Text, is based on this text-type. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type

            Textus Receptus (Latin: “received text”) is the name given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament. The biblical Textus Receptus constituted the translation base for the King James Bible, and other bible versions, originating with the first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516 – a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar, priest and humanist Desiderius Erasmus. This edition of the New Testament represents the tradition of manuscripts of the New Testament as the one that the Orthodox Church has received and used without interruption since the 4th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

          • Strongs119

            Ruth was an Israelite living in the geographic region of Moab, the Israelites settled the old land of Moab (after having exterminated its original Moabite inhabitants) and were then themselves referred to as Moabites. This is made clear in the bible verses shown below. Calling Ruth a Moabite is like Anglo Saxon Americans living in California today, calling themselves Mexicans simply because they live in the former Mexican territory of California, which was usurped from Mexico by the US government in 1847.

            The Moabites first inhabited the rich highlands at the eastern side of the Dead Sea, extending as far north as the mountain of Gilead. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moab

            The Amorites, led by King Sihon, conquered and occupied the kingdom of Moab driving the Moabites south of the river Arnon. (See Numbers 21:26). ♦ Many Moabites were enslaved by the Amorite King Sihon during this military campaign, (See Numbers 21:29).

            ♦ The Israelites defeated the Amorite King Sihon, conquering his land, (which included significant territories of Moab that King Sihon had occupied in Numbers 21:26), and exterminated all the people they found there (See Deuteronomy 2:32-34), this of course included all the Moabites who had been taken into captivity by King Sihon earlier, in Numbers 21:29.

            ♦ The Israelites then advanced northward into the land of Ammon ruled by Og, the Amorite king of Bashan, they did battle with the Amorite King Og, defeated him, and killed all of his people, none were left alive. (See Numbers 21:33-35 and Deuteronomy 3:1-3) King Og’s kingdom Bashan, extended from Gilead in the south to Hermon in the north, and from the Jordan river on the west to Salcah on the east. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashan

            ♦ These two military victories against the Amorite Kings Sihon and Og gave the Israelites possession of continuous land east of the Jordan, from the Arnon to the foot of the Hermon. (See Deuteronomy 3:8). ♦ This entire area of the Jordan river was then settled by the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh, after all the original inhabitants, Moabites and Ammonites, had been killed or driven out. (See Deuteronomy 3:12-16).

            ♦ From this time on, all this territory was controlled and populated purely by Israelites, as the original Moabite and Ammonite inhabitants of Moab and Ammon had been completely exterminated by the Israelites as is recorded in Deuteronomy 2:32-34, Numbers 21:33-35, and Deuteronomy 3:1-3) mentioned above. THEREFORE Ruth was an Israelite living in the Israelite colonised/settled former territories of Moab.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            So the ‘Moabites’ referred to in Deut 23 and Ezra are actually ethnic Israelites?

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Check mate. No wonder you won’t answer. You say,

            “the original Moabite and Ammonite inhabitants of Moab and Ammon had been completely exterminated by the Israelites… therefore Ruth was an Israelite”

            But this *utterly* contradicts your earlier statement…

            “In Ezra 9:2 God is angered at the Israelites for mixing their “holy seed” with the non-Israelite races, and in Ezra 10:2-3 the Israelites purge the foreign blood from their race by expelling their own wives and children because their wives were not Israelites, they were Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites (Ezra 9:1) and their children were the mixed race offspring of these interracial marriages.”

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Moreover, you are an ill-disciplined Orthodox who argues like a sectarian radical-Protestant. The Catholic consensus is totally against you:

            “For this end he hath mentioned Ruth also and Rahab, the one an alien, the other an harlot, that thou mayest learn that He came to do away with all our ills… See, for instance, what befell Ruth, how like it is to the things which belong to us. For she was both of a strange race, and reduced to the utmost poverty, yet Boaz when he saw her neither despised her poverty nor abhorred her mean birth, as Christ having received the Church, being both an alien and in much poverty, took her to be partaker of the great blessings”
            Chrysostom, Homilies on St. Matthew

            “Thus Thamar is mentioned, who is censured for her sin with her father-in-law; Rahab who was a whore; Ruth who was a foreigner; and Bethsabee, the wife of Urias, who was an adulteress”. Thomas Aquinas ST

            I could go on…

          • Roy Hobs

            Rahab was most likely an Inn-Keeper. Faulty translation. A simple google search will provide plenty of articles. Harlot contradicts Scripture. Inn – keeper keeps Scripture harmonious.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Irrelevant to the discussion about Ruth. But still.

            Hebrews 11:31, “by faith the inn-keeper Rahab”… oh, wait! The descriptive word for Rahab is πόρνη (porne)

          • Roy Hobs

            Not for you Serena………..just in case someone else

            is following this thread………….

            https://saxonmessenger.christogenea.org/pdf/rahab-and-ruth-who-were-they

          • Roy Hobs
          • IrenaSerena1984

            These lonely musings about what certain Hebrew words *might* mean are worthless when Hebrews puts the matter to bed – Rahab was a prostitute (11:31). Unless the writer to the Hebrews was also wrong…

          • Roy Hobs

            Was Rahab the Harlot in the Line of Jesus?http://www.outsidethecamp.org/rahab.htm

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Opinions aren’t true by the mere virtue of being on a website. So now you’re conceding that Rahab in Joshua was a prostitute but not that she was related to Jesus… Can’t keep up with the pace of your vacillation!

          • Roy Hobs

            Instead of whining, you ought to spend some time and refute the evidence of either theory. Since I wasn’t there, I have to review the evidence and make an educated decision as to what transpired and ‘who’ we are talking about. I hadn’t visited this topic in awhile……..but I knew there were opposing theories so I included both. Take it or leave it. Clearly you will leave it. Anything that makes the Lord Jesus look incompetent, and or frail, you will believe. Why? Because you want to. You want to believe in a Creator who is a contradiction and doesn’t care about sin. I laugh at those who say 1 Timothy 2:14 is only a “cultural” thing. Ha!

          • IrenaSerena1984

            If I spent time refuting every idiotic theory that has been rejected by the Church I’d never stop. I have reviewed the evidence and don’t take the articles you present as serious.

            And no, I don’t think 1 Timothy 2:14 is only a “cultural” thing. You’re the one who rejects Scripture and the historic consensus of God’s people — literally every element of your racist ideology is the product of a “cultural” social Darwinian anthropology that is fundamentally pagan and at odds with historic Christian faith. Except it’s based on defunct, 200 year old “cultural” assumptions that not even pagans take seriously.

            Lastly, Christ’s weakness and frailty has nothing to do with his own sin or tolerance of sin. He came to a crooked world and a crooked humanity to make it straight. Basic Christian orthodoxy.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Anyway, let’s leave it there. Your friend has dropped the mic, as will I. It’s been fun to utterly destroy your ridiculous arguments and to expose your invincible ignorance. Given your constant shift in position, it’s obvious that you have no desire for truth and that you’ll cling to your bitter racism no matter what anyone says. I pray that at some point in your life things will change.

          • Roy Hobs

            You just can’t help yourself. Zero restraint and self control.

          • Roy Hobs

            He came to a crooked world and a crooked humanity to make it straight.

            And how did He make it straight? You see, I will use this as an example relevant to your attack or defense of your theology….

            The ‘church’ has historically taught Penal Atonement. Which is not true based on faulty historical translation.

            Does this affect Salvation? Maybe. I’d say eventually yes. It leads to Universalism if one is intellectually honest; and it leads to Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved. Eternal Security understood as OSAS will lead a man into the arms of the devil through unrepentant and unaware sin i.e., adultery, because the church has not taught true Biblical marriage. When your average person walks the aisle and says the prayer, they are taught that ‘all the way to heaven is heaven’ . No need to examine one’s life to see if there is sin present that one will need to repent from.

            Paul said that savage wolves would infiltrate the church as soon as he leaves. Paul warned Timothy of those who will “tickle” the ears of the gullible. Deception entered the “fellowship” in the first century. And you take comfort in “historical precedence”.

            The Scriptures teach against “tradition” and warn all believers to be on guard daily.

            Back to my original question — “How did He make it straight”? Did He make it straight by teaching that, even though we are still sinners, we are saved? Or did He make it straight by giving us the power to abstain from sin and to forever avoid those sins which will strip us of Grace?

            I will assume that you believe the first statement? Please forgive me if I have assumed wrongly. But even if you believe in the second statement, I wonder if you have accepted the false doctrine of Penal Atonement because of ‘tradition’?

            Popularly and or “tradition’/”orthodoxy” means squat as Jesus and His apostles have given us ample warning that “deception” looms right around the corner day in and day out. The devil seeks to “deceive the whole world”. Few will enter. Etc., etc.
            One should never lean on popularity.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            *yawn*. All these years… the Church was waiting for Roy Hobs to come and set things straight.

          • Roy Hobs

            Or how about the biggest elephant in the room — The origin of the races.

            Are you to tell me that the 3 primary races all come from Adam and Eve?

            Church “tradition” says yes. Talk about silly or ‘crackpot’……..those adjectives you love…………….this teaching/theory has got to be the most ludicrous of them all! But yet the church swallows it whole hook line and sinker. And I’ll just assume again that you do as well. Please forgive me if I have assumed wrongly.

            Feeling tired are you serena.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            We thought the Lord’s command to baptise every ‘ethne’ meant precisely that. Lo and behold we’ve been baptising into the Last Adam people who were never members of the First! So glad that Roy Hobs has come to clear up this universal, 2000 year old misapprehension. *yawn* again

          • Roy Hobs

            this is your explanation for the origin of the 3 primary races? Very scientific, thank you.

            I suppose you believe Cain’s wife was also exiled from the garden. I will use your terminology — that’s just silly. Crackpot theory no less.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            No. It’s an example of why the Lord clearly does not agree with your theory of human origins. Can you stop asking more questions please. I’m not interested.

          • Roy Hobs

            Stop responding then. Your explanation for the origin of the primary races is sorely inadequate. It is uncomfortable I know so it is just easier to accept what ‘tickles’ the ear. Let’s not address the hard questions. Like “how” one marries for another example. Let’s just trust tradition.

            Enjoy the comfort of popularity serena irena.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            No problem. I’ll assume that you don’t have any answer to what I’ve said.

            A quick google of British Israelism shows it and it’s surrogate ideas to be the very definition of crackpottery.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

          • Roy Hobs

            to be the very definition of crackpottery
            LOL. Ad Hominem much?

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Ad hominem… hmm. Are you the author of the website? Is ‘British Israelism’ a person that I’ve attacked?

          • Strongs119

            British Israelism and Christian Identity (C.I) are two very divergent religious doctrines, Christian Identity rejects the doctrines espoused by British Israelism. There is no allegiance, nor any agreement on theology between these two doctrines, in fact many C.I adherents are quite hostile to British Israelism, and vice versa. Perhaps you already were aware of this, but thought I’d post this reply in case you weren’t.

          • Roy Hobs

            Are we to believe serena has never learned something from a questionable source? I highly doubt it. The expression “Eat the meat and spit out the bones” comes to mind. I have my problems with B.I. and C.I., but I have learned from both. Serena is so smart that she doesn’t need anything to study the bible. Must be nice. (sarcasm)

          • Strongs119

            Speaking of Orthodox Christianity, here is a bible verse addressing race-mixing from the book of the Septuagint, revered by both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
            Tobit 4:12 “Beware, my son, of all immorality. FIRST OF ALL TAKE A WIFE FROM AMONG THE DESCENDANTS OF YOUR FATHERS and DO NOT MARRY A FOREIGN WOMAN, WHO IS NOT OF YOUR FATHER’S TRIBE; for we are the sons of the prophets. Remember, my son, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers of old, all took wives from among their brethren. They were blessed in their children, and their posterity will inherit the land.”
            https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Tobit-4-12/

            https://orthodoxwiki.org/Tobit
            Tobit is a book of the Septuagint (Old Testament) for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism containing 14 chapters. It was probably originally written in Aramaic, as four fragmentary copies of the Aramaic text were found at Qumran. The author of the book is unknown. This book tells the story of a righteous Israelite of the Tribe of Naphtali named Tobit (whose name means, “(YHWH is) my good”, Heb. טובי or טוביהו, Gr. Τωβίτ) living in Nineveh after the deportation of the northern tribes of Israel to Assyria in 721 BC under Sargon II.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Strongs deliberately scatters his responses all over the comments section so that it looks like he has the final word on an issue. That couldn’t be further from the truth. His racist and childish use of Scripture has been refuted all over this thread.

            Instead of engaging in discussion, he floods comments with rehashed copy-pastes of old blog entries with douzens of citations. When you respond to one his citations and ask a counter-question, he merely floods you with another douzen in order to obscure. An utter troll with a tiny brain.

          • Strongs119

            “For just as each animal mates with its own tribe, so it is right that EACH NATION SHOULD MARRY AND COHABIT NOT WITH THOSE OF ANOTHER RACE and tongue but with those of the same tribe and speech.” –Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Page 75 of the English translation of “DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO.”

            “If it is a source of joy and glory to men to have children like unto themselves – and it is more agreeable to have begotten an offspring then when the remaining progeny responds to the parent with like lineaments (characteristics)– how much greater is the gladness of God the Father, when any one is so spiritually born that in his acts and praises the divine eminence of race is announced!” – The Treatises of St. Cyprian of Carthage, p 1012.

            St. Cyprian’s message on the source of joy and glory to men, and the gladness of God when children are born by parents of the same race, CONTRASTS WITH THE SADNESS described by this white mother of a mixed-race baby. “I love my mixed race baby – but why does she feel so alien?” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-467787/I-love-mixed-race-baby–does-feel-alien.html

          • Strongs119

            Father Stanley Harakas, “The Church holds that nations were created by God. Consequently, total intermarriage would destroy the races which God created. The Church has never advocated or encouraged racially mixed marriages.

            https://orthodoxwiki.org/Stanley_S._Harakas

            Sirach 13:14-16 “Every creature loves its like, and every person his neighbor; all living beings associate by species, and a man clings to one like himself.”

            I provide the words of one of the twentieth century’s foremost theologians. Father Dumitru Staniloae, helps us understand in his Orthodoxy and Nationalism:

            A man pure, without nationality (race) is an abstraction. Since there cannot be an apple without the genetic determination of a certain kind, it is more evident that there cannot be a man without individual national (racial) determination.”

          • IrenaSerena1984

            None of your (biblical/patristic) quotes say what you want them to say. The way you strain Cyprian and his very innocuous point is particularly laughable. And you don’t answer the plain words of Chrysostom: that he (along with others) disagrees with you regarding Ruth’s ancestry.

            I thought you’d dropped the mic. I wish you would. Reading your simplistic comments is nausiating. And the little explanations you give (“revered by both Orthdodoxy and Catholicism”) only show the ignorance of the circles in which you mix.

          • Strongs119

            What is laughable is that you pretend not to notice that the words, “DO NOT MARRY A FOREIGN WOMAN, WHO IS NOT OF YOUR FATHER’S TRIBE;” in Tobit 4:12 oppose race-mixing and praise those who marry within their race and produce children within their race.

            So what is your interpretation of these words in Tobit 4:12 IrenaSerena? Do they oppose interracial marriage, YES OR NO???

            Tobit 4:12 “Beware, my son, of all immorality. FIRST OF ALL TAKE A WIFE FROM AMONG THE DESCENDANTS OF YOUR FATHERS and DO NOT MARRY A FOREIGN WOMAN, WHO IS NOT OF YOUR FATHER’S TRIBE; for we are the sons of the prophets. Remember, my son, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers of old, all took wives from among their brethren. They were blessed in their children, and their posterity will inherit the land.”
            https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Tobit-4-12/
            https://orthodoxwiki.org/Tobit

          • IrenaSerena1984

            I’ve already answered your foolish use of Scripture, uncountenanced in the history of the Church. Again, you present basic information about the apocrypha as though it were some high level of knowledge.

            You’re the one who disagrees with the plain words of Chrysostom regarding Ruth. The treatise on the Jews is aimed at disobedience of the gospel not at race per se. How could it be? Unlike you, Chrysostom (and all the Fathers) presuppose racial *continuity* between the Jews of the Old Covenant, the Jews of Jesus’ time and the Jews of today (the time of writing). How else would it be a scandal that they reject the gospel unless they were the selfsame people of the Old Covenant?

            Please stop addressing questions to me. I’m not interested in your repeated copy-pasting of old messages, putting in information that doesn’t say what you want it to say. I won’t reply again if you do.

          • Strongs119

            You pretend to look up to Saint John Chrysostomos, but you don’t even have the courage to state online that you agree with his statement: “For he who has no limits in his love of Christ must have no limits in his battle with those who hate Him, I hate the Jews.” — Instead you pivot to explaining why he made that statement. Spineless.

          • Strongs119

            I don’t care if you reply, but your falsehoods won’t be left
            without response. Your claim that you answered the cited scripture in my comments are false and laughable, all you
            ever do is respond with vague, all sweeping statements, usually laced with insult, just like you did right now.

            ♦ Recent examples of your vague, unspecific, all sweeping statements, that don’t address the specifics of the scripture I posted:

            “I’ve already answered your foolish use of Scripture” — Vague, no specifics, pathetic.

            “None of your (biblical/patristic) quotes say what you want
            them to say.” — Vague, no specifics, pathetic.

            “You fill in a lot of gaps with wild assumptions” — Vague, no specifics, pathetic.

            “including the use of hyperbole in “extermination”. — Here you expose your cluelessness on scripture by alleging that Deuteronomy 2:32-34, Numbers 21:33-35, and Deuteronomy 3:1-3 don’t describe extermination, when in fact they absolutely do, as I showed in 2 comments to you below, which unsurprisingly, you didn’t respond to.

          • Strongs119

            You purposely ignore the references to RACE and GENETICS in the statements of prominent ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIAN Father Dumitru Staniloae , and SAINT CYPRIAN, the message of Sirach 13:14-16 that “all living beings ASSOCIATE BY SPECIES, and a MAN CLINGS TO ONE LIKE HIMSELF,” and you have no response to the OPEN CALL TO SHUN INTERRACIAL MARRIGE MADE IN Tobit 4:12.

            The book of Tobit is Catholic and Orthodox biblical canon, pronounced canonical by the Council of Hippo (in 393), Councils of Carthage of 397 and 417, Council of Florence (in 1442) and confirmed for Roman Catholics by the Council of Trent (1546). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit

          • Strongs119

            By falsely calling Tobit 4:12 apocryphal, you expose your poor knowledge on Orthodox Christendom’s and Roman Catholicism’s stance on specific scripture. You demean the book of Tobit by labelling it apocryphal, thus you have more in common with sectarian radical protestants than you do with Orthodox Christianity or Roman Catholicism, IrenaSerena! Roman Catholics often refer to the book of Tobit as deuterocanonical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit Deuterocanonical books are considered canonical by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East, but are considered non-canonical by most Protestants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

            READ and LEARN.

            The book of Tobit is Catholic and Orthodox biblical canon, pronounced canonical by the Council of Hippo (in 393), Councils of Carthage of 397 and 417, Council of Florence (in 1442) and confirmed for Roman Catholics by the Council of Trent (1546). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit

            A biblical canon or canon of scripture is a list of texts (or “books”) which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Strongs deliberately scatters his responses all over the comments section so that it looks like he has the final word on an issue. That couldn’t be further from the truth. His racist and childish use of Scripture has been refuted all over this thread.

            Instead of engaging in discussion, he floods comments with rehashed copy-pastes of old blog entries with douzens of citations. When you respond to one his citations and ask a counter-question, he merely floods you with another douzen in order to obscure the issues. An utter troll with a tiny brain.

          • Strongs119

            My statement “revered by both Orthodoxy and Catholicism” regarding Tobit 4:12, was alluding to the fact that Tobit 4:12 is accepted as valid and is thus honored, as holy scripture by both Orthodox and Catholic Christendom. Do you disagree IrenaSerena ???

            https://orthodoxwiki.org/Tobit
            Tobit is a book of the Septuagint (Old Testament) for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism containing 14 chapters. It was probably originally written in Aramaic, as four fragmentary copies of the Aramaic text were found at Qumran. The author of the book is unknown. This book tells the story of a righteous Israelite of the Tribe of Naphtali named Tobit (whose name means, “(YHWH is) my good”, Heb. טובי or טוביהו, Gr. Τωβίτ) living in Nineveh after the deportation of the northern tribes of Israel to Assyria in 721 BC under Sargon II.

          • Strongs119

            “If it is a source of joy and glory to men to have children LIKE UNTO THEMSELVES – and it is more agreeable to have begotten an offspring then when the remaining progeny responds to the parent with like lineaments (characteristics)– how much greater is the gladness of God the Father, when any one is so spiritually born that in his acts and praises the DIVINE EMINENCE OF RACE is announced!” – The Treatises of SAINT CYPRIAN of Carthage, p 1012.

            Here Saint Cyprian is saying that when one considers the joy of a father who has produced children from among his own race, one can imagine the even greater gladness of God at this man’s progeny. Saint Cyprian’s words: that in his acts and praises the DIVINE EMINENCE OF RACE leave little doubt that “men to have children like unto themselves” refers to race.

            ♦What is your interpretation of SAINT CYPRIAN’S words, “Divine eminence of RACE” IrenaSerena ???

          • Strongs119

            Father Dumitru Staniloae, was a Romanian Orthodox Christian priest, theologian and professor. He worked for over 45 years on a comprehensive Romanian translation of the Greek Philokalia, a collection of writings on prayer by the Church Fathers, together with the hieromonk, Arsenie Boca, who brought manuscripts from Mount Athos. His book, The Dogmatic Orthodox Theology (1978), made him one of the best-known Christian theologians of the second half of the 20th century. He also produced commentaries on earlier Christian thinkers, such as St Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Maximus the Confessor, and St Athanasius of Alexandria.

            FATHER DUMITRU STANILOAE WRITES:A man pure, without nationality (race) is an abstraction. Since there cannot be an apple without the GENETIC determination of a certain kind, it is more evident that there cannot be a man without individual national (racial) determination.”

            Here Father Dumitru Staniloae uses the word, “GENETIC” underscoring the importance of genes, DNA, to a persons INDIVIDUAL NATIONAL (RACIAL) IDENTITY as he puts it.

            It is of course common sense, and reminds me of GOD’S LAW OF “Kind after Kind,” found in Genesis 1:11-12, Genesis 1:21, Genesis 1:24-25, Genesis 6:20, Genesis 7:14, Genesis 8:19, Genesis 39:19, Leviticus 11:14-16, Leviticus 11:19, Leviticus 11:22, Leviticus 11:29, Deuteronomy 14:13-15, Deuteronomy 14:18.

          • Strongs119

            That’s rich coming from you, when in a comment you posted (see disqus link below) you aligned yourself with Protestants, by labelling the book of Tobit, “apocryphal.” https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thethoughtfulpastor/help_white_nationalism_and_the_human_pecking_order/#comment-3187205388

            Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism consider the Book of Tobit to be canonical. Roman Catholics often refer to the book of Tobit as deuterocanonical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit
            Deuterocanonical books are considered canonical by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East, but are considered non-canonical by most Protestants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

          • IrenaSerena1984

            *yawn*

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Strongs deliberately scatters his responses all over the comments section so that it looks like he has the final word on an issue. That couldn’t be further from the truth. His racist and childish use of Scripture has been refuted all over this thread.

            Instead of engaging in discussion, he floods comments with rehashed copy-pastes of old blog entries with douzens of citations. When you respond to one his citations and ask a counter-question, he merely floods you with another douzen. An utter troll with a tiny brain.

          • Strongs119

            It contradicts ABSOLUTLY NOTHING, read and learn. We know there were no racial Moabites living in the former Moabite territories NORTH of the river Arnon, because Deuteronomy 2:32-34, Numbers 21:33-35, and Deuteronomy 3:1-3, clearly state that the Israelites exterminated every last man, woman and child residing in those territories after defeating the Amorite King’s Sihon and Og in Numbers 21:26 and Numbers 21:33-35 respectively. The Moabites that were enslaved by Amorite King Sihon in Numbers 21:29, when he had conquered Moab, were among those slain by the Israelites when they subsequently defeated King Sihon and killed ALL of the inhabitants in his land, as I just described). The Moabites however, DID NOT COMPLETELY CEASE HAVING A KINGDOM, they continued to control the portion of their original country, based SOUTH of the river Arnon, having been driven there by Amorite King Sihon in Numbers 21:26. This remnant of Moabite controlled territory bordered the land given to the tribe of Reuben in the north, Deuteronomy 3:12-16 and by Edom in the south.

            Ruth was the descendant of Israelite settlers who colonized the former Moabite territory situated NORTH of the river Arnon, having first completely exterminated its inhabitants, as explained above. ♦ The Moabites described in Deuteronomy 23:2-3, and Ezra 9:2, could only have been from the surviving Moabite Kingdom SOUTH of the river Arnon as the Israelites had already killed all the Amorites and Moabites previously residing north of the river Arnon as verified by the bible verses discussed above. This small remnant Moabite Kingdom South of the river Arnon was later conquered by Israelite King David in 2 Samuel 8:1-2 “And after this it came to pass that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines. 2 And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites became David’s servants, and brought gifts.”

          • IrenaSerena1984

            You fill in a lot of gaps with wild assumptions. There are much simpler explanations to the passages you cite, including the use of hyperbole in “extermination”. But I’ll leave you to think that you know better than the Church Fathers

          • Strongs119

            Speaking of the Church Fathers, I asked you 11 days ago on infowars, (see below disqus link) when I first came across you, what is your opinion on the writings of Orthodox Christian Saint John Chrysostomos’ views concerning Jewry and YOU NEVER REPLIED? Will you respond this time?
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/nfocom/red_alert_total_martial_law_takeover_in_america_alex_jones_infowars_theres_a_war_on_for_your_mind/#comment-3168748337

            The Orthodox Christian Church counts Saint John Chrysostomos among the Three Holy Hierarchs.
            https://orthodoxwiki.org/John_Chrysostom

            Saint John Chrysostomos (his name means “golden mouthed” in English) stated: “For he who has no limits in his love of Christ must have no limits in his battle with those who hate Him, I hate the Jews.” This reminds me of Psalm 139:21-22 “Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.”

            Saint John Chrysostomos wrote the “8 HOMILIES AGAINST THE JEWS” which helped shape Christian views on Jewry.

            Against the Jews: Preface to the online edition
            Homily 1
            Homily 2
            Homily 2 (missing portion)
            Homily 3
            Homily 4
            Homily 5
            Homily 6
            Homily 7
            Homily 8

          • Strongs119

            Let’s look at the verses I cited and see if my use of the word “extermination” is accurate, or if it is hyperbole, as you claim it is in your reply.

            Deuteronomy 2:32-34 “Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

            Numbers 21:33-35 “And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and og the king of bashan went out against them, he, and all his people, to the battle at edrei.34 And the Lord said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.35 So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land.”

            Deuteronomy 3:1-3 “Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. 2 And the Lord said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. 3 So the Lord our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.

            Clearly extermination is an accurate description, it is not hyperbole, you are once again shown to be a liar, you are unable to respond with logic, so you pivot to lies, and slander. Pathetic!

          • Strongs119

            Coward.

            You stated that my use of the word extermination was hyperbole, and now in typical IrenaSerena fashion you run away and won’t respond after I showed you to be a clueless liar, by pointing out that Deuteronomy 2:32-34, Numbers 21:33-35, and Deuteronomy 3:1-3 do indeed describe extermination:
            “and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:” — From Deuteronomy 2:32-34
            “So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive:” — From Numbers 21:33-35
            “and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.”. — From Deuteronomy 3:1-3

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Strongs is a troll. He deliberately scatters his responses all over the comments section so that it looks like he has the final word on an issue. That couldn’t be further from the truth. His racist and childish use of Scripture has been refuted all over this thread.

            Instead of engaging in discussion, he floods comments with rehashed copy-pastes of old blog entries with douzens of citations. When you respond to one his citations and ask a counter-question, he merely floods you with another douzen in order to obscure the issues. An utter troll with a tiny brain.

          • Strongs119

            To anyone reading the comments thread of this article, I find it sad that IrenaSerena has in her anger resorted to using smear tactics in an attempt to taint readers perception of me.

            She wants readers to think I am a troll in the hope that you will then read my comments with a negative perception of me already set in your minds, or that you will not read them at all.

            I sincerely hope that anyone who happens to read this comments thread, reads all the comments here, both IrenaSerena’s and my own, prior to deciding for themselves as to who is making an honest effort to address the content of the other person’s comments, and who has chosen to go down the path of all sweeping generalizations and character attacks. Thank you.

          • jekylldoc

            Irena, while it is heartening to see your determination in resisting this spew, it is really not necessary to “refute” scriptural justifications for white supremacy with scripture. Both strands are present in the ancient Hebrew culture: ethnic cleansing, on one hand, and inclusiveness and openness, on the other. The notion that there is one right answer laid out for us in scripture simply leads to the sort of endless back and forth visible here between you and Strongs (and Roy Hobs).

            Instead, we need to place our faith in the love of Jesus and the grace of God, and discern, with the help of the Holy Spirit, the truth for our situation and our time.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Thanks, Jekyll. I don’t seek to deny that the OT is full of violence and the extermination of groups. What I reject is the crazy notion that Israelite antipathy towards others is motivated by colour of skin or social darwinian notions of ‘race’ (as Strongs and Roy think).

            Certainly when Christ returns there’ll be a good deal more destruction, both individual and collective. To imply otherwise is to be supremely selective in our reading of the NT. But again… that won’t have anything to do with race.

          • jekylldoc

            Thanks for responding. Yes, trying to bridge from Bronze Age aggression, with its claims to religious justification, to modern oppression claiming the same material as justification, is crazy and nails Christ to the cross all over again. I pray that these people will be shown even a fraction of the hurt they cause, and find it in their hearts to repent.

            As to whether race is part of the end-times judgment, it may be that White people will be held responsible for allowing the weak and the vulnerable to perish, I don’t know. “You did it unto me” is Jesus’ only indication of judgment on those who are not leaders.

            I don’t think it is a good idea, though, to revel in whatever destruction may happen at the end of the ages. Death and destruction are to be mourned, and never to be pointed to as vindication. Resurrection is the way God vindicates.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            Yes, and I think it’s only in the context of utter evil like the slave trade and the systematic murder of innocents that the judgement of God makes sense. In the face of our capacity for evil we have no hope other than that God will come and declare his almighty “No!” to our selfishness.

            “”You did it unto me” is Jesus’ only indication of judgment on those who are not leaders”.

            Only if you forget John’s Gospel and the epistles of his apostles.

          • Strongs119

            Matthew 5:22 “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

          • IrenaSerena1984

            “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you”. Galatians 3:1

            Calling out a fool with good reason is not the same as doing so “without a cause”. It is the latter that the Lord forbids.

            Please answer the question below: are the ‘Moabites’ in Deuteronomy 23 and Ezra ethnic Israelites?

  • jekylldoc

    Whew. The other comments below are a revelation of the human passion for pecking order described in your post. To borrow from Thomas Friedman, the Olive Tree is on display in the passion of claims for one ethnicity over another, but the future of humanity is with the Lexus of educated, human-rights based civilization.

    So, I am searching for 1) non-antagonistic ways to reassure the ethnic nationalists that they can put their faith in the love of God, rather than in institutions of privilege; and 2) economic solutions which can deliver on the promise of win-win relations in the marketplace. In the end I have a feeling the two quests are intertwined, each to some extent dependent on the other.