|
|
|
Kinism: The One and the Many This piece is authored by my friend DanielJ, who is someone I am proud to say I have met and like, and regard as a brother in the cause if not, as he might regard me despite myself, in Christ (or perhaps he wouldn’t!) The article appeared yesterday in the Summer 2010 edition of The Kinist Review. KINISM:THE ONE AND THE MANY DanielJ
Adam was created directly by God in the express image and likeness of God. The Godhead conspired to create, and after naming man, declared that the express purpose in their creation of man was the ruling, classifying, dominance and administration of creation. Although God created man in His own image and His own likeness, Adam has left to us—his children—a legacy of death and a fallen nature. After the fall, Adam and Eve gave birth to children that were born in their own image and in their own totally depraved likeness rather than the direct likeness and image of God. This is an account of the births of Adam: In the day of God’s preparing man, in the likeness of God He hath made him; a male and a female He hath prepared them, and He blesseth them, and calleth their name Man, in the day of their being prepared. And Adam liveth an hundred and thirty years, and begetteth a son in his likeness, according to his image, and calleth his name Seth. (Gen 5:1-3) We are, therefore, born into a covenant of death under a covenant head who has passed unto to us nothing but sin, death, and decay. We are all, by virtue of this inheritance, corrupt and headed for perdition. We, the many, of every tribe on Earth, are of the Adamic kind and in need of the one—represented in Scripture by Seth—to save us from our sins. Scripture tells us of the battle between these two seeds: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.” (Gen 3:15) Furthermore, Scripture states:
This is the universal human legacy, bequeathed to us by our common ancestor: spiritual warfare fought, by proxy, through human beings and human bloodlines. Still, the fact remains that God is no respecter of persons and we are all unrighteous in His sight and we all, who are elect, undeservedly receive mercy and grace from His hand. The Law says to us:
There is, therefore, a human race that is unified by a depraved descent, a depravity so total that the race is without the capacity to perceive its state and without the faculties or ability to change its miserable condition. However, there is - within the human race - also particular individuals, some of which are destined for eternal life. What we have learned so far about humanity stands as a perfect example for us of the problem that philosophers call the one over many. The Medieval Schoolmen referred to this as the problem of universals. There is, with respect to humanity, a God-given unity in our race; a unity that allows us to predicate things about the entire race. The human kind is composed of individual beings that are genuinely participate in a larger, broader group, circumscribed in its entirety by the traits it received from Adam. What we are able to predicate about our covenant head - what is universal to the human kind - we gather from what the Scriptures say, or predicate about Adam. Adam is the one that resides atop the many. Nevertheless, the essence of humanity cannot itself be either entirely universal or entirely particular. If universality were an essential part of human nature then a particular individual could never fully exemplify it, and, if human nature were particularity, then there could be no universal nature to speak of. That is to say, human beings participate in a shared essence, but they are not a seamless monolith. This fact is the basis for the non-Scriptural, philosophical warrant for consideration of human kind as an organic whole composed of organic, tribal parts. The Kinist believes that a human being participates in a general human nature by his identification with a tribal particularity because he cannot perfectly exemplify particularity individually - by doing so, he would cease to participate in a shared essence - he cannot perfectly exemplify universality individually - by doing so, he would invalidate his individuality. Therefore, consideration of the human race as a tribally subdivided composite maintains the essential dialectical tension of the concept of humanity and enables predication about individual human beings - and groups of humans - that is truthful and rational. We have Scriptural warrant, by deduction from the genetic lineages that feature prominently in the first chapters of the book of Genesis, for this same truth as it is stated above. Adam’s progeny immediately begin differentiation - a kind of speciation - into the many tribes whose stories and characteristics are recounted for us in the opening chapters of Genesis. Cain and Abel took up differing professions and inherited different personalities and traits and represent, for us, variation amongst the human kind, that draws into sharp relief the perennial philosophical problem of the West. Cain’s descendants also go on to divide in the same fashion, yet somehow, remain of Cain. The one constantly and endlessly seems to procreate and divide into the many without a complete severance. The Scriptures declare plainly this truth to us when they state that everything produces after its kind. Cornelius Van Til has said of the problem under consideration that, “The whole problem of knowledge has constantly been that of bringing the one and the many together.” The history of Western philosophy generally testifies to the accuracy of this assertion. We are chiefly concerned, as Kinists, about how this problem relates to theology, and more specifically, to theo-philosophic anthropology. We believe that God - His Law - must rule every aspect of our lives, even down to features of demography that modern man considers merely accidental, inessential, and mutable in humanity. We do not believe that modern man adequately and righteously addresses this question and that he sinfully responds to God’s demands in this area in various ways. The modern “left” rejects God’s word to us in this regard by irrational revelry in and exuberant glorification of particularity. This position is summed up adequately in their slogan: “Celebrate Diversity.” Like all human beings that labor in willful rebellion against God, they are inconsistent. They generally seek to maintain that despite the vast diversity of the human race, we are fundamentally the same. They know that there is a one over many problem and they side with the many. The modern right - “conservatives” is what they are generally, but erroneously called - responds to the problem in an equally sinful way from another direction. They insist that what is fundamental and unifying about man be exalted. They worship abstractions - principles like freedom and unrestrained commercialism - and seek to mute the particular through insistence on a higher-order predication about mankind that does not manifest itself in the particulars. Their creed is summed up adequately in the doctrines of classical republicanism, a tradition with deep roots and adherents of towering intellectual stature, who are nevertheless as lost as their idiotic counterparts on the “left.” Neither side in the debate recognizes that the essential feature of the Adamic kind is unrighteousness. The grand, unifying feature of human nature is its inclination to rebellion. The two traditions are reduced to complete absurdity in the synthesis that is Babylonian America. They’ve come to simultaneous fruition in the neo-liberal and neo-conservative movements: a militaristic, materialistic, consumerist, hedonistic glorification of a shopping mall existence that insists above all on the tearing down of the ancient landmarks and a orderless, borderless, directionless earth populated chiefly by Epicurean libertines. What is the response of the Kinist to this utter madness? Our refrain is that God has established the borders of our habitations and that His Law is His Word to us and that it should be established as the standard and rule of all human activity. God insists this is the case and requires nothing less of our kind. God requires that human kind hold the one and many in dialectical tension. As Kinists we humbly acknowledge that there is no neutrality available to man and that there is no adiophoratic retreat where we may not consider the whole counsel of God. In short, we have theonomy or autonomy in all areas of our lives, including political demography. The solution to the problem is contained in our presuppositional starting point. As Christians, and Kinists, we must presuppose the ontological trinity as our starting point. Turning again to Van Til we read:
Applying this to the question of man’s knowledge of facts, it may be said that for the human mind to know any fact truly, it must presuppose the existence of God and his plan for the universe. If we wish to know the facts of this world, we must relate these facts to laws. That is, in every knowledge transaction, we must bring the particulars of our experience into relation with universals. So, for instance, we speak of the phenomena of physics as acting in accordance with the laws of gravitation. We may speak of this law of gravitation as a universal. In a similar way, if we study history instead of nature, that is, if we study the particulars of this world as they are related to one another in time as well as in space, we observe certain historical laws. But the most comprehensive interpretation that we can give of the facts by connecting the particulars and the universals that together constitute the universe leaves our knowledge at loose ends, unless we may presuppose God back of this world. It is of the greatest moment to make clear that the ultimate subject of our predication is not the universe, reality, or being in general, in which God is the universal, and historical facts are the particulars. If such were the case, God and the universe would be correlative to one another. And it is precisely in order to set off the Christian position against such correlativism that the equal ultimacy of the one and the many within the Godhead, prior to and independent of its relation to the created universe, must be presupposed. As Christians, we hold that in this universe we deal with a derivative one and many, which can be brought into fruitful relation with one another because, back of both, we have in God the original one and many. If we are to have coherence in our experience, there must be a correspondence of our experience to the eternally coherent experience of God. Human knowledge ultimately rests upon the internal coherence within the Godhead; our knowledge rests upon the ontological Trinity as its presupposition. The Kinist understands that the human race is a reflection - a derivative - of the one and many that exists eternally inside the Godhead. The non-Christian takes the position that we observe directly the only one and many by our sense experience rather than indirectly by derivation from the eternal and necessary one and many contained within the ontological Trinity. He has no God to presuppose back of this world and consequently his worldview reduces to absurdity and irrelevance. The non-Christian seeks, therefore, to eliminate the tension that is extant in the universe - by the very nature of the ontological trinity - by creating an alternative presuppositional starting point. The non-Christian seeks to account for the amazing diversity of the universe, naturalistically, by resort to a common ancestor for all living things and by simultaneously embracing the unity and diversity of all living things destroying the possibility of predication in the process. The many simply springs forth from the one in a miraculous and irrational fashion in the mind of the non-Christian. He can give no true account of the universe this way. Having established the nature of humanity, Kinists presuppose, along with Paul, that God has righteously made many nations out of one blood, that these nations represent another derivative one and many, and that these racial distinctions are bound up within the very ordo salutis. The passage in question goes on to state: “to seek the Lord, if perhaps they might feel after Him and find Him, though indeed He is not far from each one of us.” -implying that the division of the races is a providential necessity which God has instituted in His plan of salvation. We find abundant evidence in the Scriptures that this is indeed the case from the initial division of the tribes of man found in the book of Genesis (Gen 10:32 “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations. And from these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.“) to the glorification of all the believers of all tribes that occurs in Revelation. The Kinist insists that we not join together what God has separated. God declares that we acknowledge this reality in our missions: Having established the nature of humanity, Kinists presuppose, along with Paul, that God has righteously made many nations out of one blood, that these nations represent another derivative one and many, and that these racial distinctions are bound up within the very ordo salutis. The passage in question goes on to state that “to seek the Lord, if perhaps they might feel after Him and find Him, though indeed He is not far from each one of us”, implying that the division of the races is a providential necessity which God has instituted in His plan of salvation. We find abundant evidence in the Scriptures that this is indeed the case from the initial division of the tribes of man found in the book of Genesis (Gen 10:32 “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations. And from these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.“) to the glorification of all the believers of all tribes that occurs in Revelation. The Kinist insists that we not join together what God has separated. God declares that we acknowledge this reality in our missions:
And also:
The preached word is to be declared to the nations. Many are called in this fashion and of them, God has chosen some individuals. Although salvation occurs in specific individuals, the Lord deals with us in a corporate (through the visible church) and tribal (by acknowledging the reality of tribe) fashion and the Scriptures reflect this fact. The Lord doesn’t instruct us to invite all nations to come and hear but to go to all nations and preach and make disciples. The Lord also says in the Psalms that it is the nations that rage! We also know from the Scriptures that we participate in the universal human kind through this other-than-universal—derivative—kind; our race, our tribe, our nation. There is a natural harmony that humanity resonates at when we adhere properly to our God-given boundaries, boundaries that are more than territorial and deeper than mere resource competition. The Scriptures say of Cain—a type representing reprobate man—that he dwelt in the Land of Nod. The word Nod means vagrancy, wandering and exile. How do we reconcile this with the simple fact that Cain was a builder of a city? Cain, paradoxically, had roots in the land of exile. He immediately set to work to building a city in a land away from the presence of God. City building is the sin of the Babylonian:
This Babylon prefigures the modern megalopolis. This is humanity as it now exists in America, a dissonant and unsettled human arrangement. It sinfully seeks to imitate, poorly, the ontological Trinity by forcing the unity and “oneness” of geographical proximity, ideological conformity onto the many particular kinds of humans that inhabit the city. It is an ugly, disorderly cacophony that is only sustained by tyranny. Tribal humanity is the humanity that ought to be. Humans generally settle naturally - when not coerced into other arrangements - by founder effect. When Cain leaves to settle East of Eden he demonstrates this fact by being the originator of a line of tool makers and users. Cain’s line is a line full of homo faber, and his descendants are fabricators, manufacturers, musicians and husbandmen. Each particular line of Cain’s descendants has their own specific type of Founder Effect and specialization - the division of labor - occurs through a type of speciation.
Comments:2
Posted by Thunder on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:31 | # Before too many scoffers pile in (and forgive me if I have disparaged anyone’s argument) I would like to say I find this type of discussion interesting. I am not a man of faith but I have often wondered about the many great minds that are and were…Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, etc. What do they see that I cannot? It is an area that I appreciate others exploring. Having said that I am still angry at the destructiveness that organised Christianity has wrought on our communities..support for ‘refugee’ families, third world immigration etc. But, if in the context of this site, some here can shed a different light on the whole issue of religious belief I would be grateful. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:39 | # Gorb, Glad you liked that one, at least. I can say with some relief, actually, that this is one thread to which I have little prospect or desire to contribute. Note that: the atheist-materialst-Darwinist-onto-nationalist has no desire to pull down the faith-centric worldview ... doesn’t need to belittle it, downgrade it or otherwise render it ineffective. It is not a threat to the thoughts that whirl inside my head, in which thoughts there is a place for it. Now, a victim’s question: Why can’t you reciprocate? Why this powerful appetite for driving faith and the objects of faith into every skull, no exception permitted? 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:41 | # Thunder: What do they see that I cannot? It is also the other way round. 5
Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:33 | # GW: I’ll answer ASAP: tomorrow. meantime, Thunder’s question is perfectly understandable. Your little question resolves itself to: “What do they miss that I see?” As you don’t have access to the totality of the contents of Aquinas’s or Thunder’s minds, you can’t tell us how much tit-for-tat there should be between them. But you DO have access to your mind, despite all the stuff about consciousness and absence, so please tell us THREE important things in which you can instruct St. Thomas and Descartes. Thunderer is right to ask the question: you must not seem to dismiss it merely because Aquinas didn’t have a cafetiere or Descartes hadn’t come up with the Categorical Imperative. Sorry to sound confrontational again: but if you look in at Trainspotter’s TRIBE thread you’ll see I’ve been quite conciliatory. Hope you read the article! 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:03 | # Gorb,
What an impossible man you are! What if there was one thing, say, that I could teach Dr Angelicus and ten I could teach the Frenchman. Do you really think I’d start spouting off about them for your benefit? My dear fellow, let the ideas speak. If you desire to critique them do so because you understand them and find them wanting. But please don’t rope me into the criticism. I am no one. I do not matter. Only “we” matter, and ideas about how we might win back our life. 8
Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:26 | # 1) Sorry GW it was a bad joke. I was all in when I put that up. How bloody stupid. Now it’s time to shut the gadget down I revived a bit, read yours, blinked and felt just a tad uncomfy: must have been on auto. 2) No, hold on - I could just cover my arse by saying what I really meant was, name three seriously disabling features of A’s and D’s worldviews that seriously or even fatally damage thier putative claims to be taken seriously as philosophers. 3) GW: “Sir, you have a neurotic tendency to disagree!” Self: “I disagree!” 4) And, as it used to say on a little brass plaque in my old local, “Why be difficult when with a little more effort you can be IMPOSSIBLE! I’d try Thomas and Rene on animals - they were both bit shaky on what animals actually are. AND on what they’re for. 9
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:17 | # It is a well written piece, no doubt about it. And a lucid presentation of the Kinism view of Christianity. But therein lies the problem. There are just so many varying views and interpretations possible. If you’re going to go the religious route, why not go for full on Christian Identity? With that you have the added bonus of believing that non-Whites are soulless beings created on the sixth day, as opposed to Adam (the White man) created on the 8th day. ... 10
Posted by danielj on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:33 | # If you’re going to go the religious route, why not go for full on Christian Identity? You know full well the reasons don’t you? Do you really believe that the CI view is defensible? 12
Posted by Rollory on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:38 | # “Do you really believe that the CI view is defensible?” There is no Christian intellectual position that I find fully coherent and defensible. Unfortunately. The liberal Evangelicals insisting that Christianity comes first and nationality comes second base their arguments on evidence that seems to me of equal substance to yours. From there the only way to go is “but obviously it isn’t” or “you haven’t studied it enough” or things like that, which boils down to shouting louder and louder. Anyway, regardless of whether our goals are similar, much of the argument in this piece is premised so completely on biblical interpretations and nothing else whatsoever as to just make absolutely no sense to me. But that’s just my take. If it is targeted at Christians who do take the arguments seriously, it may have some traction. I don’t know because, as I said, the arguments make no sense to me. 13
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:35 | #
Historically and commonsenseically (my own word)? No. Biblically? Sure. Two separate creations of mankind would certainly explain a lot of things. The, roughly, six thousand year history the bible gives back to Adam and the hundreds of thousands of year old artifacts from other civilizations would gel. It would explain what Nod was and how Cain acquired a wife and founded a city. The serpent seed doctrine would certainly explain the behavior of the jews towards Europeans. and so on…
If that kind of doctrine were to be taught and embraced by our people it would certainly be a welcome advantage and would render the battle, half-won. All I’m saying is, if we wish to go the Christian route, why not use the denomination that is MOST conducive to our goals? You’d still get the essential doctrines of the faith.
14
Posted by danielj on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:37 | # Two separate creations of mankind would certainly explain a lot of things. It isn’t in the text. Sola Scriptura dog. You’d still get the essential doctrines of the faith. Not really. They aren’t exactly orthodox on other issues. If that kind of doctrine were to be taught and embraced by our people it would certainly be a welcome advantage and would render the battle, half-won. All I’m saying is, if we wish to go the Christian route, why not use the denomination that is MOST conducive to our goals? What is wrong with my route? You haven’t really addressed the piece. You’re side stepping it brother. 15
Posted by danielj on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:42 | # There is no Christian intellectual position that I find fully coherent and defensible. Unfortunately. The liberal Evangelicals insisting that Christianity comes first and nationality comes second base their arguments on evidence that seems to me of equal substance to yours. From there the only way to go is “but obviously it isn’t” or “you haven’t studied it enough” or things like that, which boils down to shouting louder and louder. My tactic, for now, is to insist on a right reading of Jeremiah 29.
Despite our journey ending in Heaven and a resurrected body we are to pray and seek the good on Earth in the nations we live in. The “Christians” we all know and despise will be held to account for their false doctrines and nation wrecking. 17
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:24 | #
Debatable. Sixth day Adam is plural. Eighth day Adam is singular. And both are given different commands on what they are two eat. It implies the sixth day man are hunters or scavengers and eighth day man is a gardener. Singular Adam means, ‘to show blood in the face’, implying White skin. And, it was on the eighth day after birth that the Hebrew children were to be circumcised, which signified the covenant which symbolically set them apart from the nations.
It’s slower and thus less certain of outcome.
No, I just didn’t want to be rude and appear to be throwing rocks. But, if you want a critique,
Interestingly enough, throughout the entire expanse of the Bible’s narrative, from Genesis to Revelation, never once does it touch upon the ‘why’ of creation. Why did God create? Seems an obvious question, yet never brought up or even hinted at. Genesis (the origins book) seems mostly concerned with the mechanics after the fact; why are there rainbows, why is a cow called a cow (cause that’s what Adam named it) and so on. But if you were to take the text at face value, you have to consider that Man was restricted or confined to the garden only, and not free to roam the earth generally. In Genesis it’s clear that God intended no special relationship or purpose for man, aside from that of employee-employer. At that point, Man was without sin and stood in the presence of God, walking and talking with him. According to the New Testament, THAT is the exalted state of hallelujah for which eternity strives towards returning and which Jesus died for. Yet in Genesis, God suggests that un-Fallen Man is alone and lonely. In other words, un-Fallen -sin free- Man has no special relationship with his creator, nor is he intended to. Of course, I always thought that one of the most humorlessly ironic passages, is that God declares Man’s alone-ness to be “not good”. Then offers his solution, Woman, which causes Man’s downfall! It does pose an interesting question though, Which is better? Lonely bachelor in paradise? Or married dirt-farmer in the waste lands? Seriously, I never understood why, if the whole point of Jesus’s death was to restore our potential for a personal relationship with God as sin-free servants in Paradise, how Adam could be called “alone” as he was a sin-free servant in Paradise who had a personal relationship with God??? As I said, it’s a well written article and any critique is going to look like nit-picking. ... 18
Posted by danielj on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:44 | # Why did God create? First question of the Westminster Confession. Man’s chief end is to glorify God and fully enjoy Him forever. God created to bring more glory to himself. Of course, some things are still a mystery and that is the consequence of the finite encountering the infinite. Sixth day Adam is plural. Because it is referring to Adam and Eve and, by implication, to all mankind where eighth day Adam is a more detailed recounting of the events of the sixth day and specifically about the creation of the Garden of Eden. Singular Adam means, ‘to show blood in the face’, implying White skin. I know. As was King David, who had rosy cheeks as well. The Israelites were white and unless their was much commingling, Jesus was probably white too. But, I don’t really have a dog in that fight so I don’t care. or were you looking more for a critique of Kinism as it might relate to the movement? I just wasn’t sure what you were getting at. Kinism itself will be more beneficial for the movement than Identity or Anglo Isrealism in my opinion just because it is nowhere near as much of a leap and it can be entirely within the bounds of orthodoxy. 19
Posted by Gorboducp on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:20 | # danielj: how do you move from sola scriptura to the Westminster Confession? Did the Westminster Assembly, a body of divines convened by Parliament, somehow inherit the promises made by Christ to Peter “...aedificabo ecclesiam meam…” which Catholics claim conferred on Peter and on his successors - as head(s) of the church, not as Bishop(s) of Rome - which position he/they did not yet occupy - the sole right of a) determining the canon of scripture, b) interpreting that scripture, c) “binding” and “loosing” etc.? The first question-answer and pair in the Catholic Catechism which I learnt at primary school is: Q. Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, love Him and serve him in this world and to be happy with Him for ever in the next. 20
Posted by A - Theist on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:06 | # Those who believe in God, i.e, a divine creator, are just silly. Every ‘smart’ person knows the universe came into existence via the Big Bang…....subsequently evolution ran its course. Hence we are here typing out comments on our computers and posting them at a website named Majority Rights. Right? Believer in Christ asks: Before the Big Bang was set into motion, how did the extremely condensed ball of matter/energy and infinite space come into existence? Atheist answers: It was always there. == A neutral bystander can plainly see which of the two is more rational. 21
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:17 | # As you say, ‘smart’. Over here that adjective is often associated with phrases like “smart aleck” or expanded into terms like “smartypants” It’s not treated as conveying much respect, I’m afraid. 22
Posted by A Theist on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:13 | #
My point is it’s atheists that come across to normal people as smart alecks and smartypants. Ironically they base their faith on ridiculous assumptions - not too smart imo. They also are some of the most despised people, especially here in America. Eg Michael Newdow. My larger point is: If WN is ever going to gain traction, the hip super-cool atheists (those that seem to dominate the “WN movement”) should refrain from their hip super-cool activities such as romanticizing Nazis, engaging in Holocaust denial, fantasizing about deporting all non-whites from white homelands, and last but not least: bashing Christianity. 23
Posted by John on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:25 | # “A neutral bystander can plainly see which of the two is more rational.” It does not follow from the “more rational answer” that the Jew book is the inspired word of God and the zombie is his son. 24
Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:25 | #
If Christians didn’t want their beliefs criticized they shouldn’t parade them in public. 25
Posted by John on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:05 | # “Now, a victim’s question: Why can’t you reciprocate? Why this powerful appetite for driving faith and the objects of faith into every skull, no exception permitted? “ Along with “worshiping” and “praising” god and lack of racial exclusivity, especially and probably the one thing most responsible for its success, whatever it is that drives Christians to bang on my door at 8 am with a bible tract in hand is the thing I hate most about it. Thank Thor atheists don’t try to recruit converts. 26
Posted by A Theist on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:33 | # It’s a funny thing how Christianity doesn’t interfere with the collective racial consciousness in the black community. On the contrary. In fact Black Christian preachers, unlike their white counterparts, preach black racial solidarity along with the Gospel. I contend there is something other than Christianity that compels whites to act against their own self interests. Something else is going on. Maybe….. nay, more likely, there is something inherently wrong with whites. Possibly it’s hardwired in our DNA? No other race demonstrates the sense of fairness and self-sacrifice to the extent whites do. Not even close. These traits, while admirable, are paving the way to our demise. 27
Posted by danielj on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 04:40 | # Thank Thor atheists don’t try to recruit converts. This is because they control all of our institutions, yet still, they don’t cease to ram it down our throats a la Dawkins, The Hitch, Dennett, et al whilst all the while reminding us what a backwards, regressive, slavery justifying, overly conservative force Christianity is. You atheists can’t even agree on what Christianity is or isn’t. You’re way off here. 28
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 05:04 | # Why did God create?
Yeah, there are a lot of theories, but as I said, the Bible itself never addresses the subject. And that’s where it counts.
So God created man(kind) in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. .
In Genesis 2, the plants and animals were formed AFTER the man Adam was formed. In Genesis 2, no such command.
As most Americans are non-denominational (to put it mildly) I don’t think we have to worry about orthodoxy.
Sure. And you can have a group hug. And maybe cry together. And have hot chocolate (with marshmallows of course) and plan your annual bake sale, with the proceeds going to help bring more Haitian orphans into our community. Leave those dastardly old things like facts and history and reality to the menfolk. ... 29
Posted by danielj on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 05:15 | # Yeah, there are a lot of theories, but as I said, the Bible itself never addresses the subject. And that’s where it counts. Yes it does. Read the proof texts for question 1. Re: Gen 1 and 2 One is about the garden. There is no issue there. If you have an issue, Google your way to a resolution. It is no big deal. As most Americans are non-denominational (to put it mildly) I don’t think we have to worry about orthodoxy. For now. When I’m Fuhrer it will all change. 30
Posted by A Theist on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 05:19 | #
Again: “It’s a funny thing how Christianity doesn’t interfere with the collective racial consciousness in the black community. On the contrary. In fact Black Christian preachers, unlike their white counterparts, preach black racial solidarity along with the Gospel. I contend there is something other than Christianity that compels whites to act against their own self interests. Something else is going on. Maybe….. nay, more likely, there is something inherently wrong with whites. Possibly it’s hardwired in our DNA? No other race demonstrates the sense of fairness and self-sacrifice to the extent whites do. Not even close. These traits, while admirable, are paving the way to our demise.” 31
Posted by A Theist on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 05:37 | # Narrator, You’re a pretty smart guy within the sphere of WN. But you need to realize the sphere of WN is but a speck in the larger scheme of things. If we are to make inroads in the mainstream, certain facts must remain unspoken. That’s how politics work. The Tea Party Protesters know this, you should too. 32
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 05:47 | #
Chapter and verse?
I did. http://www.biblestudysite.com/answers18.htm#4 And, on TV every day is good old Arnold Murray, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__SPrMT-uHE&feature=related .... 33
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 05:59 | #
Well, thank you. There is a case to be made for what you say, no doubt about it. But on the other hand there is the case to be made that that very tactic has been employed by the right for the past 30 + years, with disastrous consequences.
It’s not that many people believe this or that and are thus opposed to this position or that. It’s that most are un-informed or misinformed, period. Explain to most most people how America is not a nation of immigrants, since many of us had ancestors who never immigrated to the United States (as there was no United States to immigrate to -it was built by said ancestors) and they’ll acquiesce to the point, which they’d never considered before. With something like the holocaust, for example, it seems to me to be a moral requirement to doubt it since people are being thrown in prison for questioning it. ... 34
Posted by A Theist on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 06:32 | # Narrator said: But on the other hand there is the case to be made that that very tactic has been employed by the right for the past 30 + years, with disastrous consequences. I say the so called “right” were/are actually liberals masquerading as right wingers. Can any serious person believe the Bushes are right wingers? I think not. Therefore a right-wing tactic has yet to be tried in contemporary America. 35
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 06:51 | #
Bush’s followers on the right have long since given up on true conservatism because they believed it would make them look to radical. So ‘certain facts remained unspoken’. That’s how we got Bush to begin with. Compromising principles on the promise of temporary political power. ... 36
Posted by A Theist on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 07:09 | #
I can’t express in words to you how much I agree with that! 37
Posted by John on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:25 | # “It’s a funny thing how Christianity doesn’t interfere with the collective racial consciousness in the black community. On the contrary. In fact Black Christian preachers, unlike their white counterparts, preach black racial solidarity along with the Gospel. “ The meek are on a fast track to fulfilling the prophecy of the author of the Gospel of Matthew. 38
Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:11 | #
Perhaps it has yet to be tried period. If I had to briefly summarize the situation I would say that America has a very unique tradition of subordinating right-wing politics to the point where we may genuinely lack an honest right-wing tradition. For example, our history has seen several movements that tap into the energy of identity politics but only at an implicit level because it is used to fuel the politics of explicitly liberal forms (i.e. the 20th century freedom movements). Perhaps this is a natural consequence of the ideological character of America’s identity being so dominant and the primordial aspect being so undeveloped in the pathetic idea of “Whiteness”. 39
Posted by PF on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:23 | # danielj wrote:
Well, we atheists agree on one thing at least: it doesn’t represent the truth of life as we’ve known it. Once we are assured of our survival we need to effect a split: soulless, infertile, vacillating, rootless, godless white technocrats on the one side. (this will be my side) and the People of The Triune God on the other. This is the meaning of James Bowery’s Free Scientific Society blueprint: so that we never, ever, ever, have to have a discussion like this one again. 40
Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:07 | #
When the U.S. government began implementing forced integration it was met with widespread, and often violent, resistance by the White population. Little Rock, Arkansas had to be integrated at the point of bayonets. Louisville, Kentucky began a program of forced busing in 1975. This action was so unpopular among the white population that the National Guard had to be called out to maintain order. The governor, Julian Carroll, put armed guards on every single school-bus to keep the Whites in check. By the late 1970s 91% of Whites opposed forced busing and 70% strongly opposed it. Whites were always against forced racial integration. The reason that so much of today’s White population is apathetic towards race is because they grew up in all-white schools that were established immediately following integration and forced-busing. They were sheltered from non-whites in daily life yet fed a constant diet of pro-diversity brainwashing. The people who grew up in the 80s and 90s are products of this sheltered lifestyle. Only in recent years have the ‘racially implicit’ political arguments began resurfacing in form of immigration debates. 41
Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:15 | # A Theist,
n/a recently highlighted a paper that affirms the unique moral behavior of Westerners. PF,
You’re talking of a split in the population that we Americans know something about. I know the technocratic half quite well as I’ve spent my entire adult life around them. Let me tell you something about them, they are not nearly so rational as they pretend to be. It is true that unlike their religious brethren they can present their nutty beliefs with a patina of scientific respectability. But try to educate them about the truth of EGI or the absurdity of normative judgments on a materialist metaphysics and you will not find them amenable to reason. Try to educate them about the in-egalitarian nature of our existence and you will see them transform into frothing beasts! At least the religious are more honest in that they hold on to their foolishness as an act of faith. Wouldn’t it be nice if the current Western technocratic elite could could be just as honest? The bad news is that humans are fundamentally irrational, no matter how you divide the population you can never escape this fact. And even amongst the irreligious the worst instincts of religion remain. To wit, is there any real difference between the Salem witch trials and the scientific excommunication of a Mr. James Watson? To even consider the question is to know the answer. To live a life that is truly rational and scientifically informed is to be alone. There do not exist enough copies of James Bowery to constitute a nation and I am sure that he will be the first to agree. But in the words of our local contrarian John, thank Thor that we can at least talk to each other on the internet. 42
Posted by danielj on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 22:07 | # This is the meaning of James Bowery’s Free Scientific Society blueprint: so that we never, ever, ever, have to have a discussion like this one again. There will be no discussion and no grace period after I take period. Just executions. 44
Posted by John on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 23:30 | # There will be no discussion and no grace period after I take power. Just executions. Thor is not pleased. 45
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:08 | # danielj’s long - heralded mental derangement has now come to pass. 46
Posted by danielj on Sun, 15 Aug 2010 04:38 | # Thor almighty! What’s the problem now Al? I’m not polluting an unrelated thread. I’ve been confined to my own post. What are you bitching about? 47
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 15 Aug 2010 07:40 | # So, Danielj? No response? Chapter and verse? .
In Genesis it’s clear that God intended no special relationship or purpose for man, aside from that of employee-employer. At that point, Man was without sin and stood in the presence of God, walking and talking with him. According to the New Testament, THAT is the exalted state of hallelujah for which eternity strives towards returning and which Jesus died for. Yet in Genesis, God suggests that un-Fallen Man is alone and lonely. In other words, un-Fallen -sin free- Man has no special relationship with his creator, nor is he intended to. Seriously, I never understood why, if the whole point of Jesus’s death was to restore our potential for a personal relationship with God as sin-free servants in Paradise, how Adam could be called “alone” as he was a sin-free servant in Paradise who had a personal relationship with God???
48
Posted by danielj on Sun, 15 Aug 2010 15:26 | # So, Danielj? No response? Chapter and verse? I told you it is in the proof texts for the WCF. Look it up. It is on the internet. Read the whole confession and you won’t have to ask me any more silly questions. The Bible addresses the issue many times over. If you are asking where it is in Genesis, I’ve already quoted it. Also, how would you counter the following? It doesn’t logically follow that man mustn’t have a “special relationship” (whatever that means) with his creator simply because God created woman. Man was created to bring glory to God. Man is subject to the law. The world is not anthropocentric but Christocentric. We aren’t special, God is. In Heaven, there will be no potential for a fall. It isn’t a second Garden of Eden. 49
Posted by danielj on Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:29 | # So God is a narcissist and we are his playthings? That’s so encouraging to know. Firstly, wanting others to love and worship you isn’t narcissism. Narcissism is the inability to distinguish between self and non-self. Secondly, no, God is not a narcissist. God is worthy to be praised and worthy of our worship. 50
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:25 | #
Yeah, the mystery of life is “goofy”. Seriously, I wasn’t asking you for your answer. I was asking you if the Bible gives one. And, okay, having read through the WCF it seems the answer is still a solid, no. No, it doesn’t. It gives a few references and then gives denominational-based interpretations.
Wasn’t really the point. The creation narrative and Christ’s mission don’t really compliment one another. ... 51
Posted by danielj on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:56 | # It might not technically be narcissism by the medical dictionary definition, but it is precisely what people mean when they accuse someone of narcissism. Yes. Those people are wrong. Either way, wanting someone to love and worship you and creating them for the sole purpose of loving and worshipping you is sociopathic behaviour. He is the God of the universe. Anything He creates must, of necessity, stand in that relation toward Him. I’m not against Christianity per se. I view it as orthogonal to everything else (i.e. whether it is true or not doesn’t change anything). But talk like this implies not just that you’re religious but that you’ve bought into a bizarre fantasy relationship with an invisible dominatrix Ok. Sure. It gives a few references and then gives denominational-based interpretations. No. It is a Confession of Faith plus proof texts. They are just references to scripture to support the justifiable exegesis of the confession and catechisms. The creation narrative and Christ’s mission don’t really compliment one another. Yes they do. Perfectly. Post a comment:
Next entry: Richard Barnbrook resigns party whip in the Greater London Authority
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:43. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:16. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:42. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:38. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:55. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:26. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:58. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:49. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:00. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:35. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:33. (View) shoney commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:14. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:06. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:28. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View) |
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:03 | #
Danielj: WHAT a relief to see such a piece of transparent, clear, and militant - as opposed to bad-tempered - prose here!
Thank the Lord that you have made a logical presentation of the matter of Creation without recourse to any half-baked and ambiguous - or even meaningless “scientific” terms.
And thank God too that you can write from an already-explored and assured position: none of this “let’s explore this together and see what happens” stuff that I remember from my days at school with masters who hadn’t properly prepared the lesson.
I think you’re possibly a Calvinist, so as a Catholic I don’t agree with your claim of total depravity for all but a few - but let’s let that one go for now!
The difference between the “God made us” school and the “We made God” school and its close relation, the “YOU made God, and we scoff” school is immense.