# LittleGeneva.Com???



## Romans922 (Feb 19, 2006)

What do you guys think about this website and its supporters? 

How should we respond to this website, if we were going to?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 19, 2006)

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_2_204v.gif' alt='Pulling My Hair Out' border=0></a>

Just goes to show what lengths folks will go to in order to legitimize their repugnant ideas with Scripture.

[Edited on 2-19-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 19, 2006)

I wouldn't bother responding. They are so far on the fringe that they pose no real threat.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 19, 2006)

Ignore them. Hopefully American Christians have moved beyond the racism nonsense and won't be affected by the site.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 19, 2006)

Who voted other and what does that mean?


----------



## Craig (Feb 19, 2006)

One of the enemies of kinism is perceived as the "arch nemesis" of this board.

He calls kinists "skinists".

Several people, including myself, have spoken against kinists on our blogs. These men love being hated. They read their bibles selectively when it comes to "race".

For a particularly hateful blog, see this: http://www.xanga.com/white_kgc

This is a fringe group...but you will find these men in our PCA and OPC churches. I think they should be dealt with via church discipline.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 19, 2006)

I voted other because I didn't know what a kinist is. If it's a racist, I'd vote that I'm not one.


----------



## Presbyrino (Feb 19, 2006)

Is kinism synanomous with the klan or other white supremist/white seperatist, or neo-nazi groups? Or is it just a pro-white group without the violence? 

Would a kinist church allow members of non-white, ethnic groups to join their churches? 

What is considered white in kinist group? Only people with anlgo-british descent? So Italians, Dutch, Germans, French would not be welcomed in these group?

There are actual OPC/PCA churches that allow kinist doctrine to be taught in the pulpit, or tolerated amongst it's members?


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I voted other because I didn't know what a kinist is. If it's a racist, I'd vote that I'm not one.



Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 19, 2006)

Here is their defintion of Kinism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2006)

They are the purest definition of a cult: full allegiance or else. They hate me and my friends.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2006)

More specifically:
It is impossible to dialogue with 99% of them. If you tell them they are wrong, or even ask them to clarify their position, they will label you the most hateful of names. Also, they will call people "kinists" who are not even aware of that term.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Here is their defintion of Kinism.


Let me save somebody from reading their definition by summarizing:

"People who say it's OK to marry outside of one's race are heretics....

BLAH BLAH BLAH, use selective Scripture, RANT, RANT, RANT, ...

It's good to stay within one's race, God made it that way, we're not racists, we're kinists, .....

BILE, BILE, BILE, clanging gong, EXCREMENT, EXCREMENT, EXCREMENT"

There you go. I saved you from expending useless calories exerting your eye muscles to scan over the stuff they've written.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 20, 2006)

As G. K. Chesterton said,


> When men stop believing in God, the danger is not that they will believe nothing. The danger is that they will believe anything.


Is it possible to deduce that, since they will believe anything who believe Kinism, that it is not that they believe nothing, but that they don't really believe in God. For is it not God who would make of all nations one race?
Eph 2:13ff But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 
For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 
by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 
and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 
And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 
For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

[Edited on 2-20-2006 by JohnV]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> As G. K. Chesterton said,
> 
> 
> ...


Well said Brother. I think it is one thing to be caught up in the prevailing philosophy of your time and, unknowingly, carry forward some sinful presuppositions concerning race. But, to resurrect such ideas reveals a heart of stone in my estimation.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> There you go. I saved you from expending useless calories exerting your eye muscles to scan over the stuff they've written.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 20, 2006)

This will put it in perspective:
For them, miscegenation is a worse sin that Sodomy. Need we go on?


----------



## Peter (Feb 20, 2006)

My greatest qualms with the Kinists is their individualism, disregard for the historic Reformed faith, FVism, and latent Romanism (sacerdotalism, ritualism, and prelactic tendencies).

My 2nd criticism is the manner they advance their views. Their rhetoric is rancorous, contentious and immature. One of their favorite tactics is blog spam attacks and satire that approaches libel. But, as they point out, they only learned these things from their enemies (Doug Wilson).


----------



## JohnV (Feb 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> My greatest qualms with the Kinists is their individualism, disregard for the historic Reformed faith, FVism, and latent Romanism (sacerdotalism, ritualism, and prelactic tendencies).
> 
> My 2nd criticism is the manner they advance their views. Their rhetoric is rancorous, contentious and immature. One of their favorite tactics is blog spam attacks and satire that approaches libel. But, as they point out, they only learned these things from their enemies (Doug Wilson).



But otherwise, they're not that bad?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 22, 2006)

*walks in*
*looks around*
*nods*
*walks out*


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 22, 2006)

Okay, someone voted that they were a kinist...who???


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 22, 2006)

Like I really expected anyone to admit to that...


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 22, 2006)

@ LadyFlint

I've only seen one littlegeneva.com supporter here before.

Like I've said before.... in light of all the 1 John warnings, it's impossible for someone born of God to be a racist/kinist/whatever. That goes both ways on the spectrum. Body of Christ loves the body of Christ and sees no distinctions based on alleged 'race'. I pray that whoever it is repents before the end of their lives......

I can't even get angry about it, though. Scripture says evil men will grow worse and worse over time, so this is just one more manifestation (albeit a truly sickening one, since it involves twisting scripture extensively) of that.

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by OS_X]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Feb 22, 2006)

> Like I've said before.... in light of all the 1 John warnings, it's impossible for someone born of God to be a racist/kinist/whatever. That goes both ways on the spectrum. Body of Christ loves the body of Christ and sees no distinctions based on alleged 'race'. I pray that whoever it is repents before the end of their lives......



i appreciate with the depth of feelings that this issue provokes. but racism is not a salvation issue, it is possible, even likely in many cultures for genuine and faithful Christians to be racists. I have only to think of R.Dabney to understand that this issue, is not at the level of the core beliefs of the Faith. God saves us despite what foolish and inconsistent things we believe in addition to the Gospel.

nor is it adiaphora as the history of the US 19C demonstrates.
but something between salvation issue and adiaphora.


[Edited on 2-22-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 22, 2006)

I never knew what this phraseology meant until I asked someone a few days ago after finding it on a xanga from a subscriber list. I thought it was another Presbyterian subsect like FV. Than I put 2 + 2 together, after that someone told me. I've got enough _-isms_ in my vocabulary as it is. 

I agree that the body of Christ loves one another... However, I don't think _racism_ is the unforgivable sin... that would only be blasphemy against Holy Spirit. People will always be possessed of an insular mentality and tribal allegiances, and it is not a _white thing_ by any stretch of the imagination. Christ's blood covers a multitude of sins... _racism_ not being least among them. I think it is clear God takes people one on one. There are those obviously so incensed by hatred, that they manifest no fruit of the Spirit. Of course, the vilest haters don't even profess Christ at all and many are followers of Nietzche and Spengler (e.g. avowed Anti-Christians).

And if most people were honest with themselves... they probably have or will find themselves marrying people of their own 'race,' as a preference-- and with the Reformed, probably even the same denomination. It doesn't mean they are mishandling Scripture, or that they are _racist_. I have had Italian friends who admit their families are partisan to them seeking out only Italians. Some among them might be trend setters in thinking about breaking that trend.

I heard creationist Ken Ham speak once, and I do think the reaction of universalism can be a little aggravating and asinine.... Some people think just by amalgamating all the races into one common stock than that will whimsically make the world a better place and hasten the Second Advent. Ham hinted that. If people say they embrace diversity, than why do they advocate eradicating all the nationalities and peoples of the world? Building the _Tower of Babel_, embracing one-worldism, and cosmopolitanism won't transcend man's sinful nature. The communists tried that in Yugoslavia and it didn't work to well-- given the civil war and nationalist aninomosities that erupted after nationality was supressed.

People may rightly be against the Scripture-twisting by these kinist groups, but the political correctness in reaction in extreme cases is a little naive as well. Trotsky conjured up the term _racist_-- and it's frankly part of the Marxist lexicon, and behind it, the Marxists held that the nation-state to be a bourgoesie social construct to be eradicated. The old school Marxists professed that the achievement of egalitarian universalism would end such distinctions in a socialist society...

For whatever reason, God saw fit to ordain nations and distinctive cultures...


> "He made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings."
> -Acts 17:26


While the first five words are important, the distinctions of culture, language, custom are God's handiwork as well. But life is a vapor, we have a Heavenly citizenship and we are sojourners passing through in an alien world. However, I don't think Heaven will be a _homogenous place_ without distinctions anymore than this present world is... Aesthetic beauty is accentuated by contrast and variety. And I think Heaven will be beautiful.


Weren't Moses and Ruth kinists?
:bigsmile:

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 22, 2006)

You're right Kerry...I've also seen kinists from all ends of the spectrum....and I do hope that whomever it is repents.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> 
> 
> > Like I've said before.... in light of all the 1 John warnings, it's impossible for someone born of God to be a racist/kinist/whatever. That goes both ways on the spectrum. Body of Christ loves the body of Christ and sees no distinctions based on alleged 'race'. I pray that whoever it is repents before the end of their lives......
> ...



You think so ?

Reading 1 John 3:10-15, I see:
10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
Love one another
11This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. 13Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. 14We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.

Now taking that as the modus operandi of what a Christian should be, how is it that a person can beat, kick, maim a slave, treat them as less than a person (3/5 of a person for census purposes) and still *legitimately* claim any true Christian faith, no matter how many other doctrines they may hold to in an orthodox fashion ?

Biblically, I do believe there could legitimately be slavery (although not as practiced in most Western Civilizations), but this passage alone (and there are many others) sort of puts a lid on exactly how 'racist' a person could be and still legitimately be a believer. 

Looking at some of Seabrook's rants as well as stuff on the 'sister' site of LG and how they go out of their way to insult, demean and defame folks like Anthony Bradley, I have a hard time seeing any 'love' in that. Thus, my contention remains.

You feel me ?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 22, 2006)

I don't believe racism is the unforgivable sin, either. 

At the same time, I don't believe you can legitimately be a 100% true believer and a 100% racist. There's going to be some 'resistance' because the Spirit of God dwelling within will convict you of that sin, no matter how many smooth sounding philosophical arguments may be used to cover it up and deaden the conscience to the fact that such _is_ sin. There will be some folks who stood by and watched folk who were supposed to be their brothers in Christ get treated like less-than humans who will be in tears before the LORD on the day of judgment.

And no, Moses wasn't a kinist (I know you said that tongue in cheek).  In fact, Moses married a Cushite in Numbers 12. Miriam and Aaron opposed him for it. Miriam spoke out against Moses in other ways because of her disagreement with it..... and the LORD struck her with leprosy.

Now there is a difference between _preference_ of continued family lineage and racism. I'd have no problem marrying a non-black person, if that is who God so steered into my life. I'm not closed off to the possibility. (well, now I am, since I"m courting someone.....  )

At the same time, I look to foster deep relationships with those of other ethnicities around me who profess the same Savior that I do, so that folks can see that the body of Christ is indeed not simply a homogeneous grouping of folks. That's something I don't think, for example, a Harry Seabrook can do, simply because the vile and contemptuous language that spews forth from his blog indicates he has no desire to build relationships with his brothers in Christ. But Galatians 3:28 says differently, in my opinion. 

I think there is something beautiful about the body of Christ _now_ as folk from all different 'tongues, tribes and nations' gather in corporate worship. They can be poor, they can be rich, democrat, republican, etc... but our common bond is Christ. *That* is 100% Biblical. 

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by OS_X]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Feb 22, 2006)

i don't want to get into a discussion where i appear to support places like the OP points to.
read what i wrote at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap6.html

it is a big issue with me, however, i am aware that it is not a salvation issue.
Dabney, despite his pro slavery defense, it a brother inside the boundaries of the church.
likewise are those pointed to by the OP.
inconsistent, wrong, loud, maybe even evil, but yet still within the boundaries of the invisible church (actually since i am PCA, that is probably the visible church)

is murder wrong?
is it a sin that will be punished by God?
is mistreating a slave sin?
will Christians die with mistaken viewpoints and full of sin?
will God save us despite our inconsistency and stupidity?
yes to all.
will having the right thoughts, doing the right things with respect to racism save us?
no. i can treat everyone properly and as a brother and offer my life to their service and still be unsaved. yes.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 22, 2006)

I edited.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> i don't want to get into a discussion where i appear to support places like the OP points to.
> read what i wrote at:
> http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap6.html



I'll check it in a few.



> is murder wrong?
> is it a sin that will be punished by God?
> is mistreating a slave sin?
> will Christians die with mistaken viewpoints and full of sin?
> ...



Let me answer those questions with one simple question (yes, question, singular):

Can true believer, born of the Spirit of God, engage in murder as a continuous lifestyle, unrepentant and even glory in it ?

How about adultery ?
How about fornication and/or open homosexuality ?
How about embezlement ?
How about public drunkeness ?

I have further thoughts (and I do agree with some of what you've written), but I'll table them till I get home and read your blog.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Feb 22, 2006)

> Can true believer, born of the Spirit of God, engage in murder as a continuous lifestyle, unrepentant and even glory in it ?



a excellent question.
it applies to all the soldiers through history, all the politicians that support capital punishment, all the grain merchants who profit from famines, as well as all the slave holders and their supporters over the centuries.

all those guards in the prison systems of the world that destroy humanity, all those in capitalist industries that make products solely for their profit and pollute the environment so that people die, all those in militaristic societies like nazi Germany, soviet Russia, Mao's China that did not speak out against the evil of their governments but paid their taxes and went to war when drafted. all those that support drug company profits of 1000% while people die of TB and AIDS because they can not afford medicine. 

Not just those who support evil institutions but those who consistently walk pass the poor, the hungry, the imprisoned, the wretched without giving everything to alleviate their pain. Those who harbor a grudge against their brethren, who curse their brothers, who wish their neighbors ill will or even death.

i suspect that 19thC Southerns are not the only Christians to walk by on the other side of the path when their neighbors lay bleeding and broken in the ditch. constantly. continuously. proud of it and of themselves. only now we call it capitalism, or justice, or beyond our control. and plead that the issues are not as clear as slavery is to us, now 100 years later.
perhaps our descendents will be more condemning of our lack of actions against global warming, or toxic chemicals in the environment or deforestation. things which we glory in with our smug contentment of our lifestyles and the things we have gained.

yes, you ask a good question, the best question of all---
what doth God require of you?
to do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
...


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Feb 22, 2006)

what am i trying to do with the analogies of slavery to capitalism, capital punishment, pollution, etc?

i am trying to find issues, that are analogous to 19thC slavery. Issues that Christians today seem to have just a small minority opposed to them. Looking back with the advantage of 150 years of hindsight has reversed the numbers. Where maybe 5% of American Christians opposed slavery then maybe 5% would find anything to say about it today.

Take these issues: capital punishment, unbridled capitalism, military, pollution. Project the issues 150 years into the future. I'd be willing to bet that one of those issues will completely reverse itself in the Christian community.

The issue is that these things seem so certain, like the Southerns thought the Biblical justification for slavery so secure, yet there are voices in the Church saying---no.

just as the South justified slavery with Scripture, we today justify these things in such a way that they appear to us just as obviously Christian as did slavery to R.Dabney and perhaps our descendents will condemn us just as we do him.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> 
> 
> > Can true believer, born of the Spirit of God, engage in murder as a continuous lifestyle, unrepentant and even glory in it ?
> ...



No, it doesn't. 
Are you some sort of liberal wacko or something?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> ...


I think he's referring to Caleb for instance. You know Caleb right? He's that soldier that fought in the Army of Israel. At the Lord's Command, he apparently MURDERED men, women, and children.

Also, at the Lord's command, the nation of Israel MURDERED blasphemers, adulterers, witches, ....

Truly, I understand now. God is the author of sin.


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 22, 2006)

You know -- you guys could be nicer and more charitable in your rebukes... 

I've read the _Holiness of God_ and the chapter _The Trauma of Holiness_ and it helps one understand all the wars of Israel, as well how God used Israel's enemies as instrument of chastening. The same applies today. As Bob Jones says, "War is God´s judgment on sin here; hell is God´s judgment on sin hereafter." Lately, God hasn't given any marching orders.

Rich, you're starting to remind me of Major Payne









[Edited on 2-25-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## satz (Feb 22, 2006)

> it is a big issue with me, however, i am aware that it is not a salvation issue.
> Dabney, despite his pro slavery defense, it a brother inside the boundaries of the church.
> likewise are those pointed to by the OP.
> inconsistent, wrong, loud, maybe even evil, but yet still within the boundaries of the invisible church (actually since i am PCA, that is probably the visible church)



I think you have to be careful with where you go with this. For clarifications sake i don't think you can condemn slavery with a bible. Maybe real, biblical slavery has never been practiced in the modern age, but in theory i don't have a problem with saying it is possible to practice slavery righteously.

Racism, however, is a completely different animal. Old testament israel might well have been 'racist' in a sense, but that was because God had specifically rejected all other people (bar some exceptions here and there) in favour of them. Such considerations no longer apply in the new testament.

As for being inside the invisible church, to be honest i don't think that means all that much. A man may very well be one of God's elect, but his beliefs may be so twisted that he is in no way a christian, ie he is not following Jesus Christ in the way Christ asked to be followed. Whilst it is possible we may see some people we might not expect in heaven, that in no way makes them legitimate christians on earth.

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by satz]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> 
> 
> > it is a big issue with me, however, i am aware that it is not a salvation issue.
> ...



to be perfectly honest, after more than a year reading Dabney and Southern defenses of slavery, i can not tell where their defense of slavery ends and their defense of racism begins. The issue is so confused, both in their minds and in subsequent history that i despair of being able to make a statement like:
"_Maybe real, biblical slavery has never been practiced in the modern age, but in theory i don't have a problem with saying it is possible to practice slavery righteously._"
because in doing so you must make that distinction between race and slavery.

_For clarifications sake i don't think you can condemn slavery with a bible._
i have an excellent quote somewhere about how the South won the Bible war over slavery and lost the shooting war. 
...

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Rich, you're starting to remind me of Major Payne



Want me to take your mind off that pain? You might feel a little pressure...


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Lately, God hasn't given any marching orders.



Actually, He has... and in our war, we are to take no prisoners.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2006)

You're right, I probably could be more gentle.

I'm not implying that all soldiers, everywhere, have God's permission to kill people but his statement was incredibly foolish and revealed either a very ignorant understanding of the Scriptures regarding the use of the Sword or a political theory that causes him to reinterpret Scriptural treatment on war and capital punishment as distinct from the act of murder.

BUT WE'RE OFF TOPIC.

Before he made the rash comment, Richard was arguing for this idea: There are Christians who commit sins that are grevious and they get to heaven. Look, even Dabney was pro-slavery, was that an unforgivable sin? Christians commit adultery and they can still be saved...

I'm having a bit of trouble seeing the relevance so let's steer back to the reason why the littlegeneva.com site is bad.

All will grant the case that racism (or as they call it kinism) is not an unforgivable sin. Adultery isn't either nor is polygamy.

What if I become become Biblically convinced that polygamy is OK (Gosh, it's even regulated in the OT!). I'll just create a website where all my fellow "Reformed" polygamists can write articles that show how terribly misinformed and unbiblical mongamy is. I won't even call it Polygamy. I'll call it MULTISPOUSISM. There you go, I just registered http://www.multispousism.org!

What are we defending here? The reason why we're getting after these guys at Little Geneva is because they are fools and they've devoted a site to spreading folly. Are they damned? I don't think anyone has said they are. I have said that it's one thing to hold to certain views when you're raised in a culture that gives you a theological blind spot. It's quite another to resurrect such ideas from the "good ole' days", call it kinism, and then have the gall to say that the prevailing Reformed thought on the issue is all gooned up and that you're the remnant. THAT IS FOOLISH and demonstrates a heart that could well be on a path to destruction.

By the way, I'm all for marrying outside of my "race". My paternal grandfather was 100% Finnish, paternal grandmother was 50% Irish, 50% German, maternal grandmother was 75% Irish, 25% Prussian, and my maternal grandfather descends from folks on the Mayflower (have no idea of his ethnic mix). I think I'm a bit better looking than some of my pure-bred ancestors.

Have you ever noticed how much more attractive people are than the pics you see from the past? My wife is 50% Puerto Rican, 25% Lithuanian, and 25% Irish. She's beautiful. My kids are even more mixed and they're super cute.

So from a very practical level, there is a Providential blessing that all this inter-marrying is creating people that are much easier on the eyes!! 

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## satz (Feb 22, 2006)

> to be perfectly honest, after more than a year reading Dabney and Southern defenses of slavery, i can not tell where their defense of slavery ends and their defense of racism begins. The issue is so confused, both in their minds and in subsequent history that i despair of being able to make a statement like:
> "Maybe real, biblical slavery has never been practiced in the modern age, but in theory i don't have a problem with saying it is possible to practice slavery righteously."
> because in doing so you must make that distinction between race and slavery.
> 
> ...



Hmm..

I admit i am not well read on the subject so i may have missed some of the intricacies of the issue. My reasoning for saying what i did was simply this; The old testament mentions and approves of slavery. The new testament mentions slavery, does not condemn it and even gives instructions to slaves and masters on how to behave. In light of this, i find i hard to say slavery is wrong in principle, even if there may be many issues about how to practice it.

However, i cannot see how the bible links slavery and race, ever. Well, unless you mean one race being defeated by another in war and enslaved, but that doesn't add anything to modern racist arguments either.

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by satz]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 22, 2006)

Moderator's Note:

Let's rein this in, or it is done.


----------



## satz (Feb 22, 2006)

Read more from their site...

Honestly they seem like a bunch of nuts to me.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Read more from their site...
> 
> Honestly they seem like a bunch of nuts to me.



Not seem... are.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Read more from their site...
> 
> Honestly they seem like a bunch of nuts to me.



look at a milder site that teaches much the same thing

http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/
see his:
http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/nations/

i don't believe that dismissing either of the sites as crazy does justice to the depth that their reasoning is self consciously trying to be Scriptural. I have the same relationship with them as i do with Dabney, i "know" that they are wrong, but i don't know how to prove/show it Scripturally. The cultural component is intermixed so throughly that i can't separate the pieces.

....


----------



## satz (Feb 22, 2006)

Richard,

I have a plane to catch in about 6 hours so i don't think i can spend the time reading though that until may a day or two.

I don't want to jump to conclusions without basis, ( which is why i added the 'seem' in my above post) but i really find myself questioning if it is worth our time trying to understand these people more.

What is it about these teachings that makes it necessary to understand them more?

I read though the first page of that document and to be honest my bull---- alarm went off about 12 lines in and there wasn't a single bible verse to turn it off.

I'll try to read the whole thing when i can.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2006)

When a philosophy states that the Bible prohibits inter-marriage then I say to myself: "Self, this site is a waste of your time."

I really don't care to see how smart they are APART from the fact that their philosophy is based on racism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Richard,
> 
> I have a plane to catch in about 6 hours so i don't think i can spend the time reading though that until may a day or two.
> ...


Why? There are plenty of other nuts that we could seek to understand better? Why don't we all spend more time reading what Muslim clerics write about Israel. We're bound to mine some nuggets there and even learn a little more about what makes our enemies tick. As to the site, I agree with you: Why expend the energy to learn more?


----------



## satz (Feb 22, 2006)

> Why? There are plenty of other nuts that we could seek to understand better? Why don't we all spend more time reading what Muslim clerics write about Israel. We're bound to mine some nuggets there and even learn a little more about what makes our enemies tick. As to the site, I agree with you: Why expend the energy to learn more?



To be honest, basically for curiousity i guess.

Just a one time read to see where they are coming from. Definitely not something i would expand a lot of time studying.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 22, 2006)

> _from Rich_
> By the way, I'm all for marrying outside of my "race". My paternal grandfather was 100% Finnish, paternal grandmother was 50% Irish, 50% German, maternal grandmother was 75% Irish, 25% Prussian, and my maternal grandfather descends from folks on the Mayflower (have no idea of his ethnic mix). I think I'm a bit better looking than some of my pure-bred ancestors.
> 
> Have you ever noticed how much more attractive people are than the pics you see from the past? My wife is 50% Puerto Rican, 25% Lithuanian, and 25% Irish. She's beautiful. My kids are even more mixed and they're super cute.
> ...


Yeah, but I wore out my calculator trying to figure it out.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Feb 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Richard,
> 
> I have a plane to catch in about 6 hours so i don't think i can spend the time reading though that until may a day or two.
> ...




for me, the issue is a position of R.Dabney's that i have not solved to any satisfaction. It is the same issue that lies underneath the two sites referred to.

what Dabney said was:


> 1. Equalitarianism.
> 
> Abolitionism was the application of equalitarianism to the institution of domestic slavery. Equalitarianism may be defined as an abstract belief in equality, which holds that all men exist in a state of sameness, and that this excludes any sort of natural rank or authority among them. The goal of equalitarianism is the elimination of all social, political, moral, and economic differences between men. It holds these ideals to be the highest ethical standards to which men can strive. Dabney said it this way,
> 
> ...


from: http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/theocon/part7.htm

there are several others:
equalitarianism and dabney
http://www.littlegeneva.com/gal328.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/theocon/part7.htm
http://www.littlegeneva.com/?p=19


Dabney thought that the equalitarianism from the North was not only going to destroy Southern Christian culture, but was going to distort the message of the Gospel in the south as it had in the north. i understand that i am the heir of that north Presbyterianism that Dabney thought was so defective. But i don't understand his criticism of equalitarianism nor dennisw' nor littlegeneva's same position.


----------



## Ravens (Feb 23, 2006)

This site is so self-evidently vitriolic that people have understandably avoided critiquing their exegesis and what not. However, one thing that has always struck me when this issue pops up is how quickly the kinist points to Babel, and God's separation of mankind, etc.

If that's going to be their "reference point", so to speak, I don't see how they manage to take that in a racial sense, as opposed to a linguistic sense. I mean, if bridging differences, interracial marriage, etc., is rebuilding Babel, then any adult who makes any attempt to be bilingual, so as to communicate with another culture, is trying to rebuild "Babel" in a much more explicit way than those who intermarry.

But anyway. That site was way over-the-top, with a noticeable lack of Christian charity. There was one thing making fun of ebonics that really struck me as lacking in charity and imbecilic.

That being said, my personal opinion is that such *sinful* expressions of cultural pride will continue to pop up in America as long as Caucasians are the only ethnic group that is not allowed to publicly express cultural pride, and as long as public schools and the media continue to act like they have been a heinous blight and curse to all of the indigenous peoples on the planet. JMO.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mudandstars_
> This site is so self-evidently vitriolic that people have understandably avoided critiquing their exegesis and what not. However, one thing that has always struck me when this issue pops up is how quickly the kinist points to Babel, and God's separation of mankind, etc.
> 
> If that's going to be their "reference point", so to speak, I don't see how they manage to take that in a racial sense, as opposed to a linguistic sense. I mean, if bridging differences, interracial marriage, etc., is rebuilding Babel, then any adult who makes any attempt to be bilingual, so as to communicate with another culture, is trying to rebuild "Babel" in a much more explicit way than those who intermarry.


arrugato gozai masen

Run away! He's reversing Babel!!!





[Edited on 2-23-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## satz (Feb 23, 2006)

Richard,

It seems to be the position taken by Dabney, at least from what you have posted, is rather different from that taken by LittleGeneva.

Prehaps you should start a seperate thread if you want to fully discuss the issue. As long as it is within this thread i think people will be distracted by the offensiveness of the site in the OP.

I agree that there are meaningful racial and cultural differences that may affect our political or social decisions. But sites like LG are not where we should go to learn about such issues. The kinists are too busy disgracing bible christianity that any good they might have to say is drowned out.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Richard,
> 
> It seems to be the position taken by Dabney, at least from what you have posted, is rather different from that taken by LittleGeneva.
> ...


Great advice Mark. I was just thinking the same thing today. Poor Dabney having to bear the ignomy of anybody thinking that Little Geneva represents his thought...

The problem with rabbit trails on a thread like this is that people begin to agree with portions of an argument. If you're trying to make a reasonable argument then don't make it on a thread devoted to a site about weirdos making the same point. It's kind of like jumping in on a thread about how stupid gang members are and then extolling the virtues of loyalty. It just harms credibility. Dabney deserves his own voice apart from the weirdos at Little Geneva.

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 24, 2006)

Slightly related story....... 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...rticle_id=377839&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 24, 2006)

AIG has another story of an English couple that had this happen. The mom was black, the dad white. The twins were dramatically different in that case also.

BTW, those were some beautiful little girls. And I agree with one of the previous posters. Between the mixed lineages in hubby's and my background, we've got beautiful babies. Our children range the spectrum from translucent skin/blue eyes/blonde hair through dishwater hair/hazel eyes to brown hair (was black as an infant) and gorgeous true brown eyes!

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Ambrose (Feb 24, 2006)

*Hate you, Jacob?*



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> They are the purest definition of a cult: full allegiance or else. They hate me and my friends.



Jacob, what is that all about? Do you really think I hate you, brother? In all the correspondence you and I had, you never mentioned that you had ought against me. 

Chad


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 24, 2006)

????


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Chad Degenhart_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Chad, this is one of my last posts on PB, and I need to clarify a few things.

I spoke in the extreme when I said 99.9 percent. Undestand my dealings first hand with some in the Kinist camp: Chet has vilified to the most un-christian level me and Steven Wedgeworth. If you even politely disagree with chet, he calls you a "stinking racist pervert." Gratned, as Mark pointed out, Chet does not represent the group. But a rule of thumb: He who speaks loudest is often heard first. 

I ask your apology if I misrepresented you. You have been more than gracious with me. My words were probably quick-spoke, but the context is understandable. I was wrong to associate Chet and Bad with 99.9% of Kinists, but Chet has doen a lot of damage to me and my friends (thankfully, though, it was reparable).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 24, 2006)

This subject is really unfit for this board.

Closing. And the other one too.


----------

