April 24, 2005
April 24, 2005 
132 Comments
I have a treat for you today. Here is The Theory of Race, which is a section found in Richard Weaver’s book, The Southern Tradition at Bay. This book was Weaver’s doctoral dissertation, and it was published posthumously by Mel Bradford. I would like to ask a very simple question, and take your time in answering it. I would like to see just one example of anything found in this excerpt showing that 21st century kinists differ in any way on the subject of race from antebellum Southerners. If no example can be found, it simply means that any criticism leveled at us on this subject is also directed to our forefathers, and that’s an anvil that I would not care to strike with a Wal-Mart hammer. Most curious of all are those colorblind conservatives who will read Ideas Have Consequences but disregard much of Weaver’s wisdom. They only reveal how ignorant they are.
I especially enjoy reading the sarcasm of Georgia Senator Thomas Norwood in 1874. He said he looked forward to the time "when the white man and the black, the mulatto and the quadroon, the coolie and the Digger Indian, shall be gathered together, a united family, in one unbroken circle, around one common soup bowl and using the same spoon, while shielded by the Stars and Stripes and regaled by the martial measure and inspiring strain of – John Brown’s soul is marching on." All differences and distinctions are now recognized as mistakes, he continued, and thus we must vote them out of existence, although not without a show of "decent respect for the opinion of the author of these errors… [T]he flowers of the field might vary in splendor; the lion might be made monarch of the beasts; one star might differ from another in glory, but absolute equality, moral, mental, physical, political, social, in churches, theatres, graveyards, everywhere in the world and out of it, must be ordained among men, women, and children." This sounds like almost every church in the South today, and it was meant as a parody! It sounds like something Peleg might write. I’ve lost count of the Jacobin Christians who show a "decent respect" for Dabney while dismissing him as the author of errors. Again, they only reveal how ignorant they are.
I’m reminded of Chesterton’s poem, Comparisons:
If I set the sun beside the moon,
And if I set the land beside the sea,
And if I set the town beside the country,
And if I set the man beside the woman,
I suppose some fool would talk about one being better.
"The past is not what it was," said Chesterton. He also said that "Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back."
We don’t only prefer our own culture; we prefer our own race. It’s a waste of breath to talk about "our own separate country" unless your lips can be trained to speak the r-word.
Don’t look now, but Rick Saenz, who is a member of RCjr’s church, is turning into a kinist. I’d like to take this whole blog post and put it in the Kinist Review. "Traditions are good because they embody the accumulated wisdom of our forefathers. The binding nature of tradition is good because it frees us from having to revisit every conclusion and determine its rightness for ourselves. We know that it is right because we know that our forefathers figured it out, and we trust them. We know that it is right because tradition separates the wheat from the chaff. We know that it is right because we have always done it this way… Although a commitment to going back to first principles can be portrayed as traditionalism, it is actually a rejection of tradition – at the least a rejection of the traditions that our forefathers derived from those principles." Exactly! We trust our forefathers. It’s really that simple. It is the very same trust on which the fifth commandment is based. We have no intention of forcing each new generation to discover truth and falsehood for itself. Rick is right on target when he says that those who fancy themselves to be conservatives are actually liberals if they disdain tradition. Theirs is a conservatism of their own vain imagination, designed for no more than political expediency. I sure do like the way Rick talks. Agrarians will want to give him their business at Draught Horse Press.
"Embracing your heritage isn’t an act of complacency nor of superiority, but rather an acceptance of your identity. We should not worship our heritage, but neither should we disdain it. Both attitudes are rooted in the sin of pride and are denials of the grace of God. (We may sin in being overly prideful of our heritage, and we may sin in having too high an opinion of our individual selves which causes us to disdain our heritage.)" ~ Nathan Huber
Here’s an audio clip to save and send to friends: RJ Rushdoony and Otto Scott on race. They’re talking about you, RC, Doug & Douger, John Piper, Andrew Sandlin, and you too, Nimrod Martin, who said that Rushdoony would not have endorsed Little Geneva. Face the fact that Rushdoony and Scott are far wiser than you and I. We can’t hold a candle to their brilliance, and yet they are on the side of the kinists, and they expose all of you lying preachers as fools not worthy to stand in the pulpit. You are destroying our people. If you refuse to repent of your foolishness then may history forget that you ever existed. But may the great names of Rushdoony and Scott live on in the hearts of our children’s children. And long live John Weaver and all other ministers of the gospel who love truth more than lies.
Doug Wilson says that it was a colossal mistake to print a mostly truthful book about Southern slavery, and Whirled Magazine feels his pain. He makes it very clear that he denies accusations of plagiarism, and so his sole lament appears to be for acknowledging that the Bible condones slavery. Truth leads to trouble.
Look at these Christians who integrated their school and are now gathered on the lawn in a circle to pray that racial tensions subside. If anything, they’ll only boil over, and the dumbass Christians can look in the mirror if they want to point the finger of blame.
Do the words "private property" mean anything?
The Mrs. and I saw the film Hotel Rwanda over the weekend. It’s excellent, except that Joaquin Phoenix plays a whoremonger, and the film is less than truthful about tribal polarization. It actually suggests that Belgians went around the country measuring the length of noses and stamping "Hutu" or "Tutsi" on identification papers, and that except for this, everyone would be judged on an individual basis. This is a ridiculous load of American mularkey. The Rwandan tribes remained distinct after living together for many hundreds of years, and this could only have happened if most of them abstained from intermarriage. As I said earlier, the Belgians were to blame for stirring up egalitarianism among the inferior Hutus, and this is what led to the explosion of violence in 1994. Predictably, the smartest man in the movie is a Hutu, and he is married to a Tutsi. But aside from all of this, it’s a fascinating true story about how one man saved over a thousand lives in the midst of a genocide of almost one million. It’s the best black movie I’ve ever seen. I give it four out of five plastic bananas.
It’s strange that E=mc2 is attributed to Albert Einstein. Isaac Newton wrote in 1704, "Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another…" Nor did Einstein trust the equation. It led him to incorrectly introduce a cosmological constant into his equations for general relativity because he thought that the universe was static. Scientists eventually came around to what the Bible tells us, which is that God stretches out the heavens. You’ll find this in Job 9:8, Ps 104:2, Is 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13, Jer 10:12, 51:15, and Zech 12:1. It was fatal news for evolutionists.
"Very rare for so numerous a population is adultery… No one in Germany laughs at vice, nor do they call it the fashion to corrupt and to be corrupted…and good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere… Almost singly among the barbarians, they content themselves with one wife… No people are more addicted to social entertainment, or more liberal in the exercise of hospitality… They are pleased with presents, but think no obligation incurred either when they give or receive." ~ Tacitus
The problem is not godlessness; the problem is Cinderella.
If parents do not govern themselves, they can never govern their children.
Five black men lynch a black man. Do you think this would be all over the national news if the attackers had been white?
Black politicians are hysterical idiots.
Racial genocide and political pimpery.
Brits are asked to celebrate the destruction and dispossession of their country.
The Russian Duma has done what the American Congress refuses to do – they have denounced the 1915 Armenian genocide. Our Congress is in the pocket of the Jews, but the Russian Duma is not.
Our immigration policy is, in a word, insane.
Human Rights Watch is reporting "overwhelming evidence that U.S. mistreatment and torture of Muslim prisoners took place not merely at Abu Ghraib but at facilities throughout Afghanistan and Iraq as well as at Guantanamo and at ‘secret locations’ around the world, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the laws against torture."
There was quite a turnout at this week’s Young Republicans convention. Nimrod Martin was the keynote speaker.
In 25 years, nearly half of all Americans will live in the South. "Once half the country moves South and all things Southern become diluted and commodified, the authentic South will be lost again. This time forever."
The new League of the South website looks very nice.
Prophet Bono revives the Social Gospel.
Couldn’t Badonicus have smiled for his driver’s license picture?
Political correctness is now officially out of control. You linked to a story a few days ago about a few Mad Max wannabes who got arrested for parading around in post-nuclear apocalypse desert gear. Today we see the double standard. Not only are Star Wars stormtroopers marching freely around the Indianapolis Convention Center, they’re posing for AP photographs! Unless the Vanguard PAC has lobbied for the rights of Star Wars junkies, I don’t see why this is happening, politically speaking. What’s wrong with Mad Max weirdos? Sure, they’re a bunch of anarcho-capitalists living as they please, but they’re well within the spirit of the Patriot Act. If you remember, the gang in Mad Max 2 was trying to take over an oil rig AND they were attempting to subjugate a desert people. What about this doesn’t George Bush and Rod Martin like? I would think that these Mad Max weirdos would make better soldiers for the Empire than teenage nerds at Star Wars conventions.
Don’t judge me by my driver’s license photo. I’ve since gotten much better at applying my spray on tans.
“It
“…South will be lost again. This time forever.”
I think we all understand whether by design or incompetence the policies of Washington’s tyrants mean the utter destruction of traditional American culture and history.
I’d like to pass on the thinking of economist at UNLV named Hans-Herman Hoppe. Importantly, he advocates
1) Secession; 2) the right to exclude and people to organize and govern themselves in homogeneous groups; 3) the right to self-defense and to be heavily armed.
He advocates the secession of many small entities, like counties and cities, simultaneously from the federal tyranny. These actions, he argues, will be much harder for the federal system to crush.
Anyway, below is a link of lectures if anyone is interested… Some are more interesting than others. I found these interesting: lectures 6 – 9, “Democracy the God that Failed”, “Private Defense: Now More Than Ever”, “The Impossibility of Limited Government: The Prospects for a Second American Revolution”, and “The Myth of National Defense”.
Maybe you’ll find interesting ideas? We must begin fighting the beast in Washington, or nothing will be left.
Here is the link to the audio [scroll down]
http://www.mises.org/media/MediaSearch.asp?MediaContributorID=17&SubAction=Contributor&MediaContributorName=%20Hans-Hermann%20%20Hoppe
Sir Bad wrote:
“Has RCjr begun excommunication proceedings against Rick Saenz? Surely he
It is not entirely clear to me what Doug Wilson is trying to say in his post. I find it very cryptic. The World Magazine article clearly takes it as an admission of guilt on the plagiarism issue. You read it otherwise. I read it the same way you do. It would be nice if he would just say what he means.
Yes, it would be nice. If you read the last couple of posts on his blog, he and Wilkins are adamant that they plagiarized nothing. I don’t really care one way or another. The only thing that interests me is how quickly these guys have backpedaled away from what was a very useful and courageous, though not perfect, book. Now they’ve whittled it down to one chapter of a revised book with the working title Black and Tan. (Even the title is anti-white.) I already know what the new book is going to say, and I haven’t even seen it yet. But one thing is certain: it will be as cryptic as possible.
Your readers might enjoy looking at the following website: http://medicolegal.tripod.com/slaveryillegal.htm
I have been debating this guy for a while, but now I am tired.
Harry, check out the comment thread on WorldMag’s Blog about the Wilson debacle. Wilson has a post there and he says this: he didn’t “plagiarize” because he didn’t know about the citation errors, and because he pulled the book as soon as he heard about them. In other words, he acknowledges that he’s guilty of negligence and shoddy editing, but not plagiarism.
Now, I’d like to know St. Andrew’s policy on plagiarism. I’ve always told my students that plagiarism occurs *regardless of intent*. Ignorance is not an excuse. Wilson’s trying to make a semantic distinction, where plagiarism is an intentional offense. This is partly why it’s so cryptic.
He also says that Black and Tan is not the title anymore. It’s now Regenerate But Unreconstructed.
Yes, and Bad brought to my attention this hatchet site:
http://dougsplotch.com
Much of it is needlessly spiteful and overblown, and I don’t trust the conclusions presented, but it does document various controversies and is of some meager value in gaining an understanding of what has happened.
I hope no one takes the site too seriously, but it does raise questions. In the first place, listen to the audio clip on the front page. You’ll hear Doug Wilson explain implausibly that it was a “refund” to pay off the lender for the casino that was being run in the garage of one of the elders. It’s very interesting that Christ Church agreed to pay off that debt. Why on earth?
While I honestly feel pity for Christ Church and the dilemma they faced, it is interesting to ponder how 501(c)3 tax-exempt status plays a part in this, as does the potential problem of elders receiving income through church entities. I’ve never liked the idea of the church being run as a business. It is too easy for presbyterians to maintain the illusion of a plurality of elders when in fact a single man is calling the shots and using money as his leveraging tool. I’m not saying that happened in this case.
I’ve known about the gambling fiasco for years, and I’ve never commented on it because I can see how it could be one of those things that spirals out of control, especially if there are vicious people who want to sabotage the church. I must admit, however, that it’s all a bit too strange.
I don’t even know what Regenerate But Unreconstructed means. I think he’s trying to say that the South was full of good people who did an evil thing in holding slaves, or some such ignorance. Let’s all keep in mind that Doug Wilson is very knowledgeable and knows full well that the lives of slaves were improved immeasurably as a result of their bondage. He knows what he’s doing, and he knows who butters his bread.
The Trinity of Mammon and Zionism: Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, and . . . Al Goldstein
by Mark Dankof
http://www.markdankof.com/trinity_mammon_zionism.htm
Hmmmm….an $ 83,000 house is worth $ 100,000 in hurt feelings? Sometimes I wish I was black, it just seems like such a good deal.
That’s a pretty disturbing website, Harry. Some of those people in Moscow are really sick, petty, and vicious.
Wilson’s talking about all of that stuff openly now. http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1040
I agree with you. I don’t get why that payment came out of church funds. It sounds like a bad decision that can only lead to trouble, especially for someone who doesn’t need any more of it. Better to have someone pay it off privately, if at all.
Maybe I’m simple, but it seems to me the plagiarism issue should be pretty clear cut. I think what I read said something like “large sections were lifted verbatim without citation.” That should be fairly easy to prove or disprove. That does not sound like a couple of pointy headed academics arguing over whether they cited each new idea separately or some such. It seems to me that Wilson is trying to without saying it point the finger of blame at Wilkins.
I have to disagree, however, that intent does not matter. Oversight is different from negligence which is different from willfully plagiarizing. That intent does not matter smacks of workplace EEO regulations. You know, it is the impact of some comment or policy not the intent that matters.
Yes, petty is a good word for that website. On the other hand, the elders took it upon themselves to sort out the mess, and it came back to bite them. It looks like a cover-up. I appeciate what Wilson says about “the stupid behavior of some of the young men in the church, enamored of ‘Christian liberty,’ while at the same time not understanding the first thing about it.” That’s exactly right. But then he says “we heard grumbling from the foolish young man who had been ‘the house’ that he was not getting his money back.” Of course he grumbled, because when the elders stepped in to do their damage control, they assured him that he would get the $900 he was owed! This is foolishness? It seems to me that word games are truly foolish, such as this: “We were not paying off ‘gambling debts,’ but rather we had required ‘gambling restitution.’” Whatever.
Wilson says that the money paid by the church has since been returned to the church by one of the families involved. This, of course, could have been done at the start. Here’s something to consider: What if the families involved had wanted to handle the problem on their own, but the elders got in the way? I guess we’ll never know, but I can easily believe that this might have happened. Presbyterian churches are so focused on discipline that elders often overstep their bounds. I’ve seen this happen again and again. For instance, I know families who have had to leave churches because the elders were constantly prying into how they spent every minute of the Sabbath. In the case of the Christ Church casino, you can see that Wilson excuses his intervention by saying that these were the children of elders at fault.
Ned, you’re right, the citations were obviously lifted from another book. The excuse given is that they intended to give credit but forgot, or something to that effect. I can see how it might happen, but it does look suspicious. I just don’t see a motive involved. Wilkins has claimed total credit, by the way.
By the way, the endless comments at the WhirledMagBlog are quite entertaining. Some guy named Dave gushes about the communities centered around RCjr, George Grant, Doug Wilson, and Doug Phillips. He has a book coming out and hopes to get each of them to sell it. He then writes, “I know that the Bible mentions slavery (as it also mentions polygamy) in the OT, and even mentions slavery as a given in the NT. However, it also says Christ came so there is ‘now neither…bond nor free.’ Slavery is indefensible…” That’s brilliant. He adds, arguing that “slavery was condoned in Scripture has to be the most pointless exercise I’ve ever seen. I cannot see any point in it whatsoever, except to hurt our Black brethren needlessly, and give ammo to enemies of the Church.” Defending what the Bible actually says aids the enemies of the church? Another guy comments (read to the tune of violin music): “I think about all the black men drowned in slave ships. I think about all the black women raped by masters and masters’ children. I think about all the families torn apart. I think about black men and women and children being burned alive, hanged from trees, whipped with leather. And it makes me sad.” Don’t forget that they were also sent to gas chambers! Another cuts to the quick: “The South was (basically) Christian and approved of slavery. Slavery is bad. Thus the South was bad. Thus Christianity was bad.”
The only interesting part is when Dr. Cal Beisner of Knox Seminary gets involved. He writes that the slavery booklet “is historical trash… [and] makes the stupid error of equating Southern black chattel slavery, which, founded on manstealing, was sinful, with the types of slavery (bonded servanthood, slavery to pay debts, slavery as punishment for crime, or slavery as alternative to death in warfare) countenanced (under carefully regulated conditions) in the Bible.” Now we’re getting somewhere. Beisner is a worthy opponent, but you have to slog through thousands of words to get to the point, and no one takes up the challenge afterwards.
Then Wilson’s son-in-law, Ben Merkle, writes, “The real disappointment is Cal Beisner, who ought to know better. How tedious to see him be so dishonest with the facts.” About the plagiarism, that is. Everyone wants to back away from the slavery issue except for the token fag on the forum.
The problem, as I see it, is that the central argument of the book is not being addressed. The Moscow “Intoleristas” want a confrontation over it, and Christians should meet the challenge. Instead, the “plagiarism” thing is turned into a convenient excuse to rewrite the embarrassing booklet and make its conclusions more politically correct.
Plagiarism isn’t plagiarism.
Paying off gambling debts isn’t paying off gambling debts.
Embracing gay marriage isn’t embracing gay marriage.
Telling slaves to return to their masters is God’s non violent plan to abolish slavery.
Anyone starting to see a pattern here? How can anyone have a fruitful discussion about anything with Doug Wilson, when he has apparently decided that words have no meaning, or only the meaning that he has temporarily assigned to them?
Big deal.
One man’s gambling debt is another man’s plagiarism.
Get off Doug Wilson’s back, Henry.
Paying off gambling debts isn
Ned said: It seems to me the plagiarism issue should be pretty clear cut. I think what I read said something like
Yes, it would have been better if W&W had admitted to unintentional plagiarism from day one. But they do love to play word games, and then they act shocked that so many foes are arrayed against them. Wilson’s latest blog post lists the “most wanted” in his rogues gallery. He feigns innocence, of course, but it really is something to see how many people (who are nothing alike) oppose him.
Peleg,
In law (no I am not a lawyer) intent does matter. That is why we have murder one, murder two, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. all for the same offence of someone being dead.
In the real world, I agree with you that it is hard to know intent. The kid is in front of me and says, “Of yeah. I intended to cite that but forgot.” I would really have no way of knowing if that is the truth beyond my gut. But hypothetically, if I had a lie detector, I would probably let the guy who really did just forget off with a slap on the wrist.
On the slavery booklet, like so many other examples (Trent Lott, Larry Summers), the apology is the worst part. The apologies are so craven and fearful that I think it does nothing but encourage the PC goons. “Look, we made another one buckle.” Makes you wish that they would have just kept their big mouth (or pen) shut in the first place. At least we wouldn’t have to endure the craven apologies.
Re. Beisner: I think he is pilling on with words like “stupid error” and “historical trash” (Another example of the “Look how progressive I am. I’m not one of those types of conservatives.” phenomenon that I have commented on before.) He also unfairly uses the word “Southern” when he should use American because the same type of slavery was practiced widely. An evidence I think of some conscious or unconscious bias on his part. But I tend to agree with his analysis. It is not clear cut that the African slavery that was practiced in America was equivalent to what was regulated in the Bible. I’m interested in your opinion on that Harry.
Beisner says that “Southern black chattel slavery” was founded on sinful manstealing. This is identical to Gary DeMar’s position, but W&W deny it (or at least they did). They write: “The slave trade was an abomination. The Bible condemns it, and all who believe the Bible are bound to do the same. Owning slaves is not an abomination. The Bible does not condemn it, and those who believe the Bible are bound to do the same… Provided he owns them in conformity to Christ
I agree that scripture can not contradict scripture, and people who denounce all slavery as unscriptural are conveniently ignoring parts of the Bible. But we can not make whether one accepts the American verion of African slavery as scriptural a threshold issue of who is friend and who is foe. If we do, we will perpetually meet in a phone booth. I clicked on your link to Dennis Wheeler, for example. He seems to be saying that unless you defend American slavery, you are not defending the South. Well I disagree. We can defend secession, we can defend opposition to muddleheaded Enlightenment egalitarianism, we can defend localism and still be defending the South while admitting flaws. No society is perfect.
Regarding the manstealing vs. slavery issue: isn’t there a fruit of the poison tree issue here. For example, in order for slavery to be just in the case of an alternative to death in a war. Well that would only apply I would think if the war was just in the first place. They attacked you. You successfully defended yourself and win. They become your slave in lieu of death. But if you started a war for the sake of plunder, then if slaves are taken as part of that, that is not just. Otherwise you are making a might makes right argument. So when we were buying African slaves from one African tribe, it is likely we were buying slaves who had been captured for the slave trade. Not slave who were justly in that condition.
You mention Gary DeMar. Does he support secession? If I remember correctly, he does not. If not, he would be a perfect example of the anti-secessionist Reconstructionist that I suggested a few threads back. I believe he has swallowed the “the Constitution is a Christian document” red Kool-Aid. The reason I mention that is that Gary North is at least an anti-Federalist and supports secession. His book on the Constitution that he has for free at http://www.freebooks.com is pretty good and he jousts with DeMar by name. In the grand scheme of things I would consider him a friend of the movement. I think he tries too hard to mesh his Christianity with Austrian economics, but otherwise does more good than harm. What is LGs beef with him?
Ned, I like many who disagree with me about slavery (DeMar) and dislike some who agree. You’re right that many Confederates have opposed it, but I can’t find too many who called it a sin. That’s the point at which I enter the picture. If a person thinks slavery is distasteful or inefficient, you won’t hear a peep from me. If a person says that slavery is sinful, you’ll hear me make a noise.
In your manstealing example, don’t forget the Israelites, who did make offensive war at the command of God, and sometimes took slaves. Otherwise, I agree that we are always to follow the just war theory.
It doesn’t make sense to me to inquire as to how each slave was made a slave before the slave could be purchased. It simply wasn’t known in most cases.
Gary North is one of these people who tells lies about Southern slavery. He has actually said (it angers me to even think about it) that slaveowners fornicated with their slaves, ran breeding farms, and protected this fictitious system by law. The men we criticize here on a regular basis do not simply dislike slavery. They are preaching that it was sinful and are telling lies in the process.
Check out my comment on the World Mag blog. I specifically asked Wilson and Wilkins, both of whom have posted on the thread, if they would clarify to what extent if any they have backed away from the content of the booklet. We shall see if I get a response.
Here is a specific example. Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. Clearly not a just thing to do. Clearly the people that bought him did not know the truth. His brothers were misrepresenting themselves. Was Potipher who owned Joseph sinning? Probably not. But what if he later found out the truth. (Ignoring for a minute how the story actually turned out.) Would he have a positive obligation to free Joseph at that point. I would say yes.
No such thing as “race” — other than the human race. Read your Bible, please.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
Is there also no such thing as family, except for the human family?
Depends on how you define “family”….
That’s quite a vague answer to a simple question, Mr. Lofton. But I don’t think your children and grandchildren would be at all confused by it. Why would you and your posterity consider your mutual obligations to be important, but believe that there is no commonality or mutual obligations among our people, “other than the human race”? Would you say that our Christian forefathers agreed with you or disagreed with you on this?
We would love to hear you cover this subject on your radio show, The American View.
Admin,
Unfortunately Rushdoony, Otto Scott and Sam Francis are dead.
We now have the likes of John Lofton and Tommy Fleming.
Heaven help us!
God save a White Remnant!
Not vague at all. Many people define “family” many ways; what is your definition? And I’ve said none of what you say. Also, there is no salvation in whiteness — none! And Heaven will NOT help racists. God is no respecter of persons and does not judge on the basis of appearance (John 7:24)…
I’ve already told you the family to which I refer: your immediate family. I agree with you that there is no salvation in whiteness and that God is no respecter of persons, but this has nothing to do with your original statement, that there is “no such thing as race.”
Suppose I were to say that membership in the Lofton family has nothing to do with being descended from John Lofton, because God does not judge on the basis of John Lofton’s genes. Suppose I were to say that Heaven will NOT help Loftonians. Are you getting me, or are we speaking different languages?
At any rate, I would love to hear your answer to the question: Would you say that our Christian forefathers agreed with you or disagreed with you that there is no such thing as race?
“Christian forefathers” NOT the standard. God’s Word is…stay focused, please….
Nice evasion.
Nope. REAL direct — right between your eyes…
Are you actually suggesting that our Christian forefathers did NOT use God’s Word as their standard? Surely we all agree with them that we are saved by grace, not by race. I fail to understand why you’re dodging the question. I’ve heard you say to your guests many times, on your show, “A simple yes or no, please!” So how about it?
Which “Christian forefathers” are you talking about?
And some “Christian forefathers” DID depart from God’s Word…
I’m talking about almost every Christian who lived prior to 1950. Oh sure, there are all kinds of people and all kinds of disagreements, but that shouldn’t prevent you from giving a clear answer to a simple question.
“Almost” every Christian, huh? Sounds kinda vague…
What’s vague about 99 percent? And I doubt that even the remaining 1%, when asked about the word “family,” would respond: “Depends on how you define family.”
Obviously, you know the answer, and you’re bobbing and weaving. I think your good friend, R.J. Rushdoony, would not have been so evasive.
Rush most likely would not have responded to you at all….
Admin,
I think Lofton answered your question: “And some “Christian forefathers” DID depart from God’s Word…”
And by some, he means the 99 percent which believed in race, which you alluded to.
And of course a man who denounced interracial marriage as biblically unsound would not have answered your question about whether there is such a thing as race. He has already answered it.
Lofton’s ideas are nothing new. Pray tell where in the Bible does it say that there is only one race, the human race? I’ve also heard the fact that God doesn’t respect persons to mean all sorts of crap. It’s as if this statement proves anything anyone wants it to. God must use unconditional election, since “God is no respecter of persons.” What exactly do you think this statement means? Ultimately Admin’s question boils down to whether or not your relationship to your wife should differ from your relationship with other Christian women. What do you think St. Paul was refering to in 1 Timothy 5:8 when he talks about our own of which our households are a part? If it means the “human race” then this concept is utterly meaningless. Your interpretation is just as implausible as DoctrineWars.
True! My “ideas” are “nothing new” since there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1:9).
And here is where God tells us we are all of one blood: “Acts 17:26: And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” Of course this Bible stuff is, to you, “all sorts of crap” because you are not a believer. You are reacting precisely the way God says in His Word unbelievers will act. Interesting, huh?
Good points, Confed and SF, but I think the Loftonian Babelists would say that “our own” in 1 Timothy 5:8 refers not to the entire human race but to all the Christians of the world. This is equally meaningless though since no human polity could ever successfully place such a global burden upon us. As the saying goes, the government is best which is closest to home. So you’re right, the verse is meaningless if anyone tries to apply a universal template to it. And I would love to hear how providing for all Christians in the world is not itself the very one-world government that conservatives oppose.
Sorry, no “race” in the Bible, other than as an athletic contest. Amazing GRACE, not race…
Mr. Lofton, now we’re “unbelievers,” merely for emphasizing that the second half of the verse you cite carries with it duties to provide for our own people and protect them from going extinct? You can’t be serious.
Sorry, I meant to say that some believe that God doesn’t use unconditional election because He doesn’t respect persons.
Regarding Acts 17:26, a point and a question:
1) It is embarrassing that Lofton used this verse given its strong kinist tones and, thus, historical reference. Any casual amount of study of our literature shows that we use this verse like Bahsnen used Mathew 5:17ff. He obviously hasn’t read the positions that he has dismissed with his sophomoric “No race in the Bible” flick of the hand.”
2) Why did God appoint the nations (ethnos: A multitude, people, race, belonging and living together) their separate (distinct) boundaries even though they came from the same blood (one)? Why was Got the protypical desegregationist?
should read “segregationist.” please change and delete current comment.
It’s funny how Mr. Lofton insinuated that Kinists believe there is salvation in our ‘whiteness.” Some of these “born again Constitutionalists” (which I must confess that I have traveled that road) think the same way about the Constitution. These recovering Neocons (which again I was once guilty of that sin as well) find their new religion in the ‘wisdom’ of the founding documents. “All we have to do is elect Constitutionalists to office and all will be saved,” they yell from their town hall pulpits and on their radio shows. I wish it were that easy. Until the men of God become honorable again, and lead their families as Christian men ought, this nation is doomed. Submission to God’s law is the only answer.
admin, you know he’s dead serious. Lofton and his lot are firmly in charge now. The “Church” belongs to them, and racially aware White Christians are a small, dwindling minority, viewed with total abhorrence by “mainstream” Christians. And by “mainstream”, I mean so-called conservative Evangelicals and uber “conservative” Reformed Presbys and Baptists. Why can’t you people see that, and what in the world makes you think you will ever wrench back control? Because you continue to insist -contrary to all evidence and objective analysis- that Christianity is literally “true”. But, it’s just not, and that is why the world looks the way it does today. The rest of Christendom has moved on and left you guys in the dust. You’re lucky if THEY even acknowledge YOU as Christians, albeit very misguided ones. It’s only going to get worse for you guys, not better. Come on over to the dark side- we have cookies
John, our forefathers did not deny that all nations were ultimately “one blood” but you seem to deny that there are nations! Moreover, Paul teaches that the “nations” have each its appointed bound and place. So let us restore our bound and place as every nation that survived always has or perished.
To say that “one blood” in THAT sense is the same as to deny the existence of RACE in every sense of the word is to commit an elementary linguistic mistake known as totality transfer.
And to be so quick to shout “unbeliever” is rather unseemly in one that is excommunicated from a faithful and true church, as you are.
I’ve said nothing that indicates in any way I do not believe Christians shd, to the extent possible, help other Christians — CHRISTIANS not white people. And Christians will never be extinct. Your racist views are not Biblical.
Mr. Lofton, I’m not sure why what I said makes me an unbeliever. All Kinists are aware that humans derive from one blood. What do you think that race means? Perhaps like Ken Ham you simply think that race is simply a Darwinist construct. The word race can be applied to Adam’s race, but it can also be applied to something like Abraham’s race just as it is in Webster’s dictionary. Interestingly enough your idea that there is only one race is the exact same thing Darwinists such as Christopher Hitchens preach every day! In fact as Tim Harris points out over at First Word Darwinists believe in “one race” with a vengence since all beings descend from the same group of organisms. What’s the purpose of God defining the nation of Israel by heredity in the Old Testament via genealogies if descent and heredity don’t matter? I suppose that Rushdoony and Dabney were just a couple unbelieving racists too.
“Rush most likely would not have responded to you at all….”
When my wife and I visited him, shortly before his death, when the heavyset erstwhile ‘editor’ of the Chalcedon Review was in attendance, he and I talked of racial/cultural issues, and the concept of nationa churches being comprised of the ONE ethnos each nation has- Englishman as Anglicans, Germans as Lutherans, Scots as Presbyterians, etc.
HE would not have responded, simply because he and I were IN AGREEMENT, as far as I can tell, this many years after the blessed visit….. Don’t ‘defame the memory of the dead,’ Mr. L. It’s a crime in some countries, I believe… are you of that ilk as well? lol
I’d also like to add that I have a great deal of admiration for Mr. Lofton as I’m sure many kinists do. We agree on 95% of critical social issues. Even if we disagree about race I don’t think that this makes either one of us unbelievers even though these issues have serious social implications.
I just don’t understand it. It’s like we’re speaking a different language to Lofton. I don’t know how many times I can make hand gestures to convey such simple concepts, like water being wet.
But I certainly second what SF says about admiration. The new Chalcedon site is about to go live, and there will be some excellent videos of Lofton (with full beard) moderating panel discussions. In the meantime, be sure to watch this very entertaining episode of Crossfire (1986) in which Lofton dukes it out with the late pervert, Frank Zappa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc
Someone please tell me how such an able defender of the faith can come here, only to run and hide from simple questions. In his latest comment, he continues slinging words like “racist” and “unbeliever,” even as he implies that we do not wish to help Christians of other races (a vicious but oft-repeated lie). Even worse, he implies that there is something evil (dare we say racist!) about us providing for white people in general, as is our duty, and protecting them from destruction. Christians will never go extinct, he says, but if white people do, it’s clearly not a problem, as far as he’s concerned. This is a blatant violation of 1 Timothy 5:8.
I share John the Recovering Constitutionalist’s dismay at those who think they can elect Ron Paul, or attend a Tea Party, or listen to Glenn Beck, and set all things right. But actually, Lofton does an excellent job of taking such people to task. He has taken Alan Keyes, Richard Viguerie, and other “conservatives” to the whipping post on his radio show. Even better, Lofton rips that murderous fraud, Abraham Lincoln, whenever he gets a chance.
SF, Lofton undoubtedly believes that race is a Darwinist construct because he puts the word in scare quotes. I had to laugh recently when I saw Doug Phillips put the words “white” and “black” in quotes, as though our eyes deceive us.
It is a shame that Mr. Lofton is a “human racist” just like the leftists and the New World Order folks. If he would bother to read the rest of Acts 17:26 he would discover that God divided the nations (ethnic/racial peoples)so that they would seek after Him.
Mr. Lofton, no one here claims that salvation is by race, despite your unjust insinuation. Neither do we believe it is by gender. But does this mean that our God-given gender is irrelevant to God and the order of His creation? If not, then neither is our race. Unlike the Darwinian view, which you oddly seem to embrace in this discussion, race is not a meaningless accident of evolution–but rather the purposeful handiwork of the Creator. It has its place in His scheme of things.
ChopperDan: Thanks for your generous offer, but you can keep your cookies. We Christians prefer to stand for truth, even if it doesn’t make us popular.
As Christians we have no obligation to help people on the basis of their skin color or lack of pigmentation, whether they are “white” or “black.” And if you believe we as Christians do, you are, indeed, speaking a language different from me, a language that has no sanction in Scripture — NONE!
John the Recovering Constitutionalist,
To be fair to Lofton, he wouldn’t say we should elect any old Constitutionalist, but rather a Christian man who (rightfully) is a Constitutionalist and who honors God’s word.
A podcast from Lofton on who should Christians vote for:
http://www.theamericanview.com/dictator/media/1179/show_180.mp3
A podcasts from Lofton taking DeMar to task for sponsoring McCain instead of voting for a God-fearing Christian.
http://www.theamericanview.com/dictator/media/1178/show_179.mp3
Thought you knew your Bible, Mr. “Luther” — NO ‘RACE’ IN THE BIBLE, AS YOU USE THE WORD. And Acts says nothing about “racial peoples.” Stop putting words in God’s Mouth. Stop adding to Scripture.
J. Lo., you’re the one who is reducing the subject to skin color. We’re talking about OUR PEOPLE, and yes, they’re white, just as God created them. They are of one race, despite your denials, and they have the right and the duty to survive. Who are you to take this from them?
You say that we have no obligation to help those of our race, and this is yet more proof that you have violated the commands of Scripture, even though you began this exchange by telling us that WE need to read our Bibles!
I hope you read Luther’s comment and ponder it until you understand. Let’s recast your previous comment in terms of sex so that we can all bask in the absurdity:
“As Christians we have no obligation to help people on the basis of their sex organs or hormones, whether they are ‘male’ or ‘female.’ And if you believe we as Christians do, you are, indeed, speaking a language different from me, a language that has no sanction in Scripture — NONE!”
Now he’s saying that there is nothing about kindreds, tribes, and nations in Scripture!
As Christians, no one is “OUR PEOPLE” because they are white. And no one has a “duty” to survive because they are “white.” And where in Scripture are we, as Christians, obligated “to help those of our race?” Nowhere. Your assertions are unBiblical, so much so you do not even attempt to quote Scripture to support them.
“As a Lofton, nothing is my ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ just because it descends from me. It has no ‘duty’ to survive because of its lineage, and I have no ‘duty’ to feed it. And where in Scripture am I, as a Christian, obligated to include it in my will? Nowhere. It’s obviously unbiblical, so much as there is nothing in Scripture to support blood-based inheritance.”
You are still quoting no Scripture to support your position…
Forgive the oversight. Here you go:
http://spiritwaterblood.com/docs/insaneracesermons.pdf
(Not that this site isn’t covered from top to bottom with scriptural proofs, but I understand that you might not realize it, seeing as how you’ve left these comments on a 5-year-old thread.)
So, why are parts of this document (if you’ll pardon the expression) blacked out?
Just the name and address, no big deal. Let me put it this way: If you can refute the Scriptural exposition in that letter, using Scripture (especially), history, common sense, or any other logical device, you have our word that we will prayerfully consider whatever you would like to teach us. As we’ve already said, we have great respect for you, despite this one disagreement.
Why no real names here?
What makes you think the names aren’t real? The name of the person to whom the letter is written was redacted. This was done as a favor, I suppose. Harry Seabrook wrote it.
Notice that I’m answering your simple questions. I wish you could return the favor.
Talking abt some fo the names here
I don’t know what that has to do with the price of tea in China, but it’s common practice to use pseudonyms online. And when I say common practice, I mean that it’s true on just about every website I visit, especially from that omnipresent commenter named “Anonymous.” Why it would be an issue here is beyond me.
JL: Give me a scriptural argument(s)
SWB: Here you go, check out this paper.
JL: Why the food stains on the pages?
SWB: Pizza sauce, sorry. You’ve ducked for long enough. There’s your proof, now refute it!
JL: Why no clean pages on this document?
Didn’t say it was “an issue.” Just asked. I, for example, am writing under my own name. No guile here. My yes is yes; no, no. Others? Don’t know who I’m talking to…why would anyone prefer a name not his (?) own?
Many reasons, including identity theft. For those who like to discuss controversial subjects, it is most likely because, as Wilmot Robertson once said, a pen name makes one rather invisible to the enemy. I’m sure you’re aware that Christians used to worship in catacombs.
We should be glad that we have the opportunity to discuss these important matters without leveling accusations of “guile,” along with your many other unfounded accusations. I’m very glad to converse with someone who uses a false name, if we are discussing substantive matters. I’ll take that any day over someone like you who uses a real name but is evasive. And while we’re being honest, friend, let’s cut to the chase: As you’re well aware, you have nothing to lose by tooting your horn of political correctness. What do you have to lose by agreeing with every Christ-hater and white-hater out there on the subject of race? If I’m in search of principle, I know where to find it. I go to those who have the most to lose.
I’ve evaded nothing. “White-haters,” huh? You do have “race” on the mind, don’t you? — equating those who hate Christ with those who hate whites. A certain lack of parallelism, I would say. Was Robertson a Christian? And I’ve never been accused of “political correctness.” That was particularly amusing…
Brother John Lofton,
I am also a fan of yours of many years and have been a loyal listener of your excellent radio show since day one. You have been a living testimony of the Faith and your work has been instrumental in formulating my Theocratic politics. I am grateful for your good work and may the blessings of our Sovereign Triune God be upon you and your family.
Why do you evade the good questions posed by several of the Brothers in this blog? For example, Scarborough Fayre asked you this question: “Pray tell where in the Bible does it say that there is only one race, the human race?”. Your fudging and rhetorical comments indicate that you do not have an adequate argument to refute the Kinist Biblical doctrine. As the Admin said, you only come here to “run and hide from simple questions”.
You ask: “As Christians, no one is “OUR PEOPLE” because they are white. And where in Scripture are we, as Christians, obligated “to help those of our race?” Nowhere. Your assertions are unBiblical, so much so you do not even attempt to quote Scripture to support them.” Here is some Scriptures:
“I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 9:1-5)
“I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying , Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” (Romans 11:1-5)
“For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.” (Romans 11:13-14)
Certainly for the Apostle Paul, the Israelites were His people because they were Israelites like him. He uses Kinist terms and phrases like: “according to the flesh”, “my flesh”, “my people”, “my brethren”, “tribe of Benjamin” “seed of Abraham” and “the fathers”. According to the American Melting Pot ideology, the Apostle Paul is a “racist” bigot. As one of the posters alluded, this genocidal Melting Pot idea is a foundational cornerstone of the New World Order. When you have millions of people who do not know their ethnic/tribal heritage and roots, they are far more willing to accept a One World Government that stamps out any Christian ethnic nationalism in the world.
Even so, you are politically correct to a far deeper extent than you are evidently aware. You have both the strengths and the weaknesses of a self-educated man, John.
“I’ve evaded nothing.”
Okay, one more try: Did our Christian forefathers, all of whom, to the best of their abilities, used the Word of God as their holy standard, agree with you or disagree with you that there is no such thing as race?
“‘White-haters,’ huh? You do have ‘race’ on the mind, don’t you? — equating those who hate Christ with those who hate whites.”
Do you deny that there is a vast industry, including such hate groups as the SPLC and ADL, whose most sacred articles of faith are eternal hostility against the Lord Jesus Christ and the white race? Again, I find myself saying, you can’t be serious.
“Was Robertson a Christian?”
I don’t believe so, but are you saying that he could not have been correct unless he was?
“And I’ve never been accused of ‘political correctness.’ That was particularly amusing.”
I’m glad you learned something. You really are, on this topic. Go and pick a random atheist, anarchist, collectivist, liberal, queer, feminist, pro-abortion, or open border advocate from a crowd and ask him if race exists, if everyone should be considered equal, if something called racism is wrong, etc. I predict that you’ll be in complete agreement on racial matters, and in complete disagreement with our saintly Christian forefathers. As I said, you have nothing to lose.
My standard is not the “agreement” of “Christian forefathers.” And no doubt there are those who hate Christ and trans-fats. So, what’s the point? If Robertson not a Christian, he could not have been correct, BIBLICALLY, on anything, now could he? I think being born-again does impact one’s thinking…way of looking at things…
I second Oscar’s respect for you Mr. Lofton. You seem to have strange hang ups in this conversation though. As Tim Harris pointed out your hangups with the word race has more to do with simple linguistic fallacies than the actual meaning. If it helps we could simply talk about nations instead of race. I also don’t know why it matters whether we use pseudonyms. This seems like a big side issue. It may help you to know that many Protestant reformers used pseudonyms when attacking the Roman clergy to avoid unnecessary unpleasantries. Again these seem like very minor issues to get hung up on. Perhaps you could concretely address Oscar’s and Admin’s questions in their most recent posts.
Speaking of weirdo Constitutionalists, up here in beautiful Idaho we have this to deal with: http://www.idahostatesman.com/idahopolitics/story/1029316.html
The Idaho Mormons are taking over politics up here. It’s truly a scary scenerio. One of the reasons I left the Idaho CP is because of the state chairman, who is a black Mormon that moved here from Ohio a couple years ago. Some think he was vetted for the position by high-ups in the Mormon church.
“My standard is not the ‘agreement’ of ‘Christian forefathers.’”
That’s great, because neither they, nor agreement with them, were put forward as the “standard.” Instead, the point is that if you so obviously disagree with them (as everyone can clearly see, you still refuse to answer the question) and agree with all their enemies alive today, you might think to yourself, “Maybe what I’ve been taught in my MLK Bible Study Program is wrong.”
Your position on Robertson is pure silliness, not to mention ad hominem. Why you would shoot past the point made about Christians worshiping in catacombs is, once again, obvious to all. They were there for the sake of prudence, not out of fear.
Self-proclaimed and name-dropping Grand Poobah of Rushdoony implies that Rush would support him in his view that there is just one race, the human race. For the record, here are just a few quotes from Institutes of Biblical Law that might help resolve this question.
“The strongly matriarchal character of Negro life is due to the moral failure of Negro men, their failure to be responsible, to support the family, or to provide authority.” (203)
Sounds like kind of a sweeping generalization? Shouldn’t he say instead, following Gilder and Lofton, government programs have led to the weakening of families, many of whom happen to be black?
“The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish.” (257)
The burden of the law of God is against inter-racial marriage, according to Rush.
“The racial link with crime is very true, but it is far from the answer. No more than sex is the cause of crime can race be said to lead to crime.” (382)
In other words, there is a “racial link,” but being Negro is no more of an excuse for crime than being male is; though of course, such a thing as race is granted.
To [respect the wishes of a gossip] “is to become a party to his slander of another person, group, or race.” ( 590f.)
How could this be if there are no races?
Said nothing abt agreeing or disagreeing; said only they are not my standard. And whether a person (Robertson) is or is not a Christian, is not a silly question; it is a very important question, in fact the MOST important question.
So, is it the position of you folks that it is a sin if a black Christian man marries a white Christian woman? And if that is your position, what law of God would be violated?
I think Lofton may be a little retarded. That could be your problem.
John Jacob – I almost guarantee that the black mormon Idaho CP state rep (married to a white woman) was vetted by the LDS and set up in his position, for the same reasons that Rex is stating in that article. If you’re in the Kootenai area, feel free to email me at silas.von.lindt@gmail.com
Great point, Tim (the top of your head, I mean.) Certainly, among white men today, no “moral failure,” no “failure to be responsible, to support the family, or to provide authority.” If you’re white, you’re right, right?
Mr. Lofton: I thought you knew your Bible. The word nation in the Bible is translated from the Greek word “ethnos,” from which get our word “ethnic.” Nation, according to the Oxford English Dictionary means “breed, stock, race, nation.” It derives from the Latin word “nationem” which in turn derives from the word “nasci” which means “to be born.”
Thus “racial people” is an appropriate translation for the word nation. It does not mean a mere political division. Notice that Christ made the distinction: “Nation will rise against nation and kingdom [a political entity] against kingdom” (Luke 21:10). Furthermore, the Christian faith does not melt all nations into total oneness. Even in Heaven the saved in their nations will continue to exist (Revelation 22:2).
If you say that any sense of duty to our physical kinsmen is wrong, then how do you explain the statement of the Apostle Paul in Romans 9:1-4 that he would be willing to be “accursed . . . from Christ” if it could save his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (Israelites). As he didn’t make this offer to other peoples, would you describe Paul as a nonbeliever and a racist?
Now I would like to pose my previous question again. In your view, are racial characteristics the consequences of evolutionary accidents, or are they the design of a purposeful God? Please answer. Inquiring kinists would like to know.
“So, is it the position of you folks that it is a sin if a black Christian man marries a white Christian woman? And if that is your position, what law of God would be violated?”
I would love to answer this question, but let’s just recap for a second. You kept asking “Where’s the Scripture?” I give you 20 pages of it, and now you’re asking questions that are covered therein? Why would any of us keep writing the same things over and over? And if you would like to ask additional questions, it would only be good manners if you could answer those that have been posed to you.
{tap tap} Is this thing on?
Since you continue to bring up Robertson and continue to evade the example of the catacombs, I’ll give you another example. The redcoats wanted to know why the minutemen kept firing at them from behind rocks and trees. “Why don’t they march out into the open with great pomp and circumstance?” The obvious answer is because the colonists were outnumbered and outspent, but they won because they adapted.
Without hesitation, I agree with you that Robertson should have been a Christian, and whether one is a Christian is the most important question. But you’re all over the map, saying also that what our Christian fathers believed, almost to a man, is less important than how you choose to interpret the Bible through your 20th-century mulatto-shaded spectacles. To do this and then presume that a non-Christian is wrong to not paint a bulls-eye on his chest for the armies of political correctness (the same folks who agree with you on race) is, as I said, pure silliness.
Excellent question, Luther.
“In your view, are racial characteristics the consequences of evolutionary accidents, or are they the design of a purposeful God?”
Alas, I’ve abandoned all hope that Herr Lofton is here for dialogue. So much for the advantages of using A Real Name.
More later (maybe); got a real job, Am doing it.
By the way, J. Lo., I must compliment you on your brilliant evasive maneuver in dismissing the first of Tim’s quotes, ignoring the rest, and then insulting him. Good show, old boy. What sport!
I noticed that Lofton has R.L. Dabney listed as an author on theamericanview.com. (http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=213)
I wonder if John Lofton also agrees with these quotes from Dabney.
“The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity.”
“All our statesmen, of all parties, had taught us, not only that the reserved rights of the States were the bulwarks of the liberties of the people, but that emancipation by federal aggression would lead to the destruction of all other rights. A Clay, as much as a Calhoun, proclaimed that when abolition overthrew slavery in the South, it also would equally overthrow the Constitution. Calhoun, and other Southern statesmen, with a sagacity which every day confirms, had forewarned us, that when once abolition by federal aggression came, these other sure results would follow: that the same greedy lust of power which had meddled between masters and slaves, would assuredly, and for the stronger reason, desire to use the political weight of the late slaves against their late masters: that having enforced a violent emancipation, they would enforce, of course, negro suffrage, negro eligibility to office, and a full negro equality: that negro equality thus theoretically established would be practical negro superiority: that the tyrant section, as it gave to its victims, the white men of the South, more and more causes of just resentment, would find more and more violent inducements to bribe the negroes, with additional privileges and gifts, to assist them in their domination: that this miserable career must result in one of two things, either a war of races, in which the whites or the blacks would be, one or the other, exterminated; or amalgamation. But while we believe that ‘God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell under the whole heavens,’ we know that the African has become, according to a well-known law of natural history, by the manifold influences of the ages, a different, fixed species of the race, separated from the white man by traits bodily, mental and moral, almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus. Hence the offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race… incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjection, which they desire to fix on the South.”
Who knew that being an “editor” for a parachurch “ministry” was a “real job” now? I learn something every day.
No, I am, actually, a member of “the church,” the body of Christ…
Well, uh, er, um cough cough (an excommunicated one) but don’t let’s get bogged down on such niceties as that in the middle of such a nifty debate.
I am a member in good standing at a PCA church in Virginia; stop lying…
No John you stop lying. You are excommunicated from the OPC. Finding a PCA church an hour’s drive away that is as antinomian as you are does not erase that. Get reconciled.
You don’t get excommunicated from just a denomination. You are a theological ignoramus (Latin for really stupid)….
Does excommunication fall under the theology category?
And why is admin still approving comments from this guy? It was entertaining at first, but now it’s getting painfully sad and embarrassing.
Taken one way, Lofton’s last comment makes Tim’s point: namely, that he’s been excommunicated not only from one faithful/legit body, but by all.
Taken another, he’s saying that he’s still on the rolls of heaven’s book of life– which makes us wonder why he enlisted the name of the VA PCA church.
Yes, Silas, it is getting painfully sad and embarrassing.
Yes, excommunication is from the body of Christ just as when you are restored, it is to the body of Christ. You should be cutting me some slack — I’m white, you know…
More totality transfer.
Yeah we’ll cut you some slack; we’ve been substituting rigorous argument for skin pigment all along.
Thx — though I may not be white enough for you….more flesh-colored…..not colored but flesh-colored…
John, I appreciate the honky jokes, but just out of curiosity, does your evasiveness stem from racial intermarriages in your own family? I find this to be the case, 9 times out of 10, in artful dodgers like yourself, and I was just wondering.
If so, and if it’s not pushing the bounds of propriety for me to ask, would you tell us if it was your honest desire, and preferable to white alternatives, or did you just go along with it to be accommodating?
Ah, yes, “the bounds of propriety.” Better late than never, I guess, to have some. But, no, I don’t mind at all answering the question. But, I, first, need some help, please. Is there a way to know, for sure, what “race” a person is? If so, tell me, please — succinctly if possible — so I may find out what I am. Then, I’ll start checking my wife; then other married folks in our family. I ask for this because I do not want to mistakenly misidentify anyone. Thank you.
I thought that was made clear. If you open your Bible to Genesis, you’ll see that the whole book is a story of division. The story of Babel, especially, explains why division is necessary, and later, Paul and other prophets and apostles explain why God separates men for his own glory. We’re also told about inheritance, and the importance of leaving a real future to your children and grandchildren. This depends in many ways on the safety and trust that can only be found in homogeneity.
The word “race” is commonly understood, all around the world and all down through history, and it’s simply another evasion for you to ask for a definition. What you should ask yourself instead is whether you have the right to join together what God has separated. But this just gets back to the question Luther asked, about whether race is by evolution or purpose, and here we go round the mulberry bush. Your feigned ignorance has already answered the question: You believe that racial differences are evolutionary accidents.
Since you agreed to answer my query, let me make it easy for you: Do you have sons-in-law or daughters-in-law who are descended from Africans?
Moderator, once in a while you see someone on the street that you can’t say if it is a man or a woman. So, before asking if I am male or female, would you please explain exactly how one knows the difference between male and female? I suspect this is just a social construct masquerading as fact.
You stumped him!
I have been around long enough to remeber when someone by the name of JOHN LOFTON publicly resigned his “Our Man in Washington” column in the Chalceedon Report because he was “under church disipline”.
I have had lunch at a couple of DC eaterys with someone by the name of “John Loften”.
I have been to the home of a man known as JOHN LOFTON.
A man known as JOHN LOFTON gave me several books by RJR. A man klnown as JOHN LOFTON worked for the same employeer (HP) as I did, back in the day…
I always admired him for his willingness to “speak the truth to power” even when there was nothing in it for him.
On that basis… must say that this is NOT JOHN LOFTON.
Whoever this is must be a person of very low morals & no sense of irony. OR ELSE THIS PERSON WOULD “SPEAK UP”
just say’in
No such thing as “man” — other than the mankind. Read your Bible, please (Gal 3:28).
You are a liar. I did not “resign” my “Chalcedon” column.
J.Lo., you are a rhetorical terrorist, to use Bahnsen’s expression.
First, having seen your repeated evasion if not outright denial of being an Excommunicate, which is publicly verifiable and undeniable, I have no confidence in taking your simple word against John Buchan regarding the resignation, a word which one would normally grant to a principle party. Now, it will need to be checked into.
However, suppose you are right and Buchan is wrong. That does not make him a liar. There could be a wrong memory, or information from a credible source that however proved to be wrong, or human infirmity of certain kinds. Only the assertion of P as true while knowing P is false counts as a lie.
In my own experience, people that are quick to shout “liar,” themselves often seem to have a little problem with fibbing (to say the least).
I suggest you perfect your serious charge of lying dropped several times now or be marked as a slanderer of the saints.
I rarely post here, but sometimes peruse.
This has gone from embarrassing to painful-to-watch. Does Mr. Lofton not realize that his ridiculous display reveals himself to be the living refutation of “White Supremacy?”
Or does he have a Savior Complex, so common among the “read you Bible” mini-furer types?
He did (inexplicably) resurrect (ahem. . .) a five year old thread and then make a big deal about using his real name. Maybe his angle here is to take the “sin” of “racism” onto himself, and thereby attain a more prominent position in the sweet by-and-by in the sky. By appearing asinine on a “hate” board, he can offer himself up as some sort of sacrifice. A Son of Thunder or a Son of Stomach Growl?
The sad part is ChopperDan is right, this joker–who himself is on the fringe of Christianity-as-understood-today–is in the main regarding the denial of human biology.
Lofton’s display looks like just another example of the practice common in the ever dwindling ranks of Patriotards/”Respectable Conservatives”–spit on the guy or gal to the right of you. “He’s a nazi!”
The funny thing is that’s exactly how spoiled children and slaves behave before their master.
But to end on a upbeat, maybe he has doubts about his (absurd) position, and this embarrassing effort is a way for him to test the waters before coming out of his self-created closet.
Just had an epiphany: There are three parties involved in Bibical interpretation.
1) The Word itself, which is held as inerrant.
2) The Reader, who does the interpreting.
3) Reality.
(Note: I’m talking about tangible, scientifically observable, measurable reality, ie, the sky is blue, water runs downhill–not the hocus-pocus “reality” of eastern mystics, diploma mill professors, flat earthers, Jews-in-ovens suckers, and race deniers.)
If Lofton the Interpreter reads in his Bible that water runs uphill (not as a one-off miracle, but as a fact of day-to-day existence) which it does and has not, then Lofton has a choice. He can:
A) believing the Bible inerrant, go on a crusade against the evil Downhill-ists, at which point he becomes Lofton the Fool and renders his beloved Living Word a Living Joke, a Holy Inkblot.
or
B) still believing the Bible inerrant, recognize the error must lie within himself–that is, with his interpretation of the Bible’s meaning. Thus does Lofton both retain his own integrity and affirm that of the Bible.
No legs jokes, please.
I just don’t understand Mr. Lofton. He hasn’t even really tried to defend his position at all. He’s left unanswered the questions asked him and diverted the conversation in several different directions. He’s quoted only Acts 17:26 to support his position. As was pointed out earlier, this is probably the most frequently quoted verse on this website to promote the kinist position. Still no answer on whether the physical differences between the races are by accident or design. No answer on why St. Paul equated his brethren with his kinsmen according to the flesh (Romans 9:3). For good measure I’ll pose yet another question since I have time this weekend break from my “real” job. Why are the Edomites called the brethren of Israel (Numbers 20:14, Deuteronomy 23:7)? Are they brethren in Christ? And where in the world did you ever get the idea that kinists believe that if you’re white you’re right? It seems that you’re substituting Rick Warrenesque jingoism for actual arguements. I can’t imagine how you can walk away from this conversation thinking that you even remotely did a good job. So again, why are the Edomites called the brethren of Israel?
Matt 5:22
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.
(KJV)
It’s like your every move is predicted, John Lofton, not-so-much Recovering Republican.
Not only did we know you would act like any other Republican who in arguing for egalitarianism in a race debate plays the evasive/ad hominem card, but we also knew that you’d go for the kill when finally silenced: we knew you’d pull the hate-speech card.
Reminds me of Benny Hinn, who when criticized by influential and persuasive evangelical leaders, quoted Psalm 105:15: “Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm.”
Is it merely scummy or also somehow not “man-ish” for someone to:
A) Pick an intellectual fight with the most haughty, arrogant, “judgmental” tone imaginable;
B) Make a fool of himself when his position is revealed to be wholly without substance, though conveniently one of the secular sacred stupidities of the present time;
and then
C) Quote Mat 5:22 back at his would-be victims?
Is that not like some little punk at school that picks a fight, gets his nose broken, then cries and tries to “tell” on his would-be victims?
You got it, CL. Lofton is a weasel, beneath contempt.
Admin,
By the way, Lofton did tell us to cut him some slack because he’s white. So it turns out he does know how to detect race (at least whiteness) in his family.
So according to Mr. Lofton, I guess there were no *real* Christians until the post-1950s era. All the others were just a bunch of heretics and “racists”. The audacity of these people astounding me. Lofton joins the sheep.
Matt 7:6
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
(KJV)
I’m kinda feeling sorry for Mr Lofton. I’ve been in the same situation before. Not knowing how to debate the ideas… refusing to establish a clear rebuttal to any who challenge me… throwing random scriptures out and hope people don’t catch on that I’m completely ignorant to the facts.
I’m sure glad I learned my lesson long ago. Never a knife to a gunfight.
Is Lofton actually confessing to being a dog or swine? And warning us not to try to persuade such as him? Is this the “revelation of the method” that Hoffman has been talking about for so long now?