Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Mayflower Compact - A Covenant

Expand Messages
  • Nikolai
    Fred blahous wrote: ... I ve been lurking here for quite some time but statements like this I can t really let to pass by. Fred, I believe this is the
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Fred blahous wrote:

      <snip>

      > the best solution would
      > be national seperation by way of an African-American kingdom,
      > perhaps Michigan.

      I've been lurking here for quite some time but statements like this I
      can't really let to pass by. Fred, I believe this is the most
      outrageously racist statement I have read since I don't remember when
      and this being a Christian list, and a Reformed one to boot, surprises
      me even more. I hope though that you don't really understand what you're
      talking about or what kind of consequences ideas like these bring.

      Nikolai Razouvayev
      Evangelical Presbyterian Church
      Brisbane, Australia
    • puritanone
      ... this I ... when ... surprises ... you re ... Nikolai, please show from scripture why Fred s view is wrong. Calling it outrageously racist is no argument.
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Nikolai
        <psalmos@s...> wrote:
        >
        > Fred blahous wrote:
        >
        > <snip>
        >
        > > the best solution would
        > > be national seperation by way of an African-American kingdom,
        > > perhaps Michigan.
        >
        > I've been lurking here for quite some time but statements like
        this I
        > can't really let to pass by. Fred, I believe this is the most
        > outrageously racist statement I have read since I don't remember
        when
        > and this being a Christian list, and a Reformed one to boot,
        surprises
        > me even more. I hope though that you don't really understand what
        you're
        > talking about or what kind of consequences ideas like these bring.
        >
        > Nikolai Razouvayev
        > Evangelical Presbyterian Church
        > Brisbane, Australia
        >


        Nikolai, please show from scripture why Fred's view is wrong.
        Calling it "outrageously racist" is no argument.

        For example, I see nothing in scripture that would say the
        aborigines of Australia should not be allowed their own separate
        nation on the island of Australia. Do you? Where?

        Don't get me wrong- I am not advocating "racially" pure nations.
        But neither do I see it as sin if a given people want national self-
        determination where non-sinful national characteristics are
        preserved, and not be forced into some melting pot empire. The
        issue is not that one 'tribe' is better than another, but the issue
        is that 'tribes' should not be forced to give up all tribal identity
        simply because they have become Christian. That said, our first
        loyalty must be to Christ and fellow Christians. I have more in
        common with a Zulu Christian than a white American non-Christian.
        But when there are reformed Christian nations, I see nothing wrong
        with there being a predominantly Zulu state and a predominantly
        Afrikaaner state. Do you? Why, for example, must South Africa or
        Zimbabwe be one country where one 'tribe' bullies another 'tribe',
        instead of divided up along 'tribal' lines?

        - Parnell McCarter
      • Nikolai
        ... Parnell, I happen to opine the burden is on Fred to show a scriptural basis for his, again in my opinion, novel idea of racially segregated state. As it
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          puritanone wrote:

          > Nikolai, please show from scripture why Fred's view is wrong.

          Parnell, I happen to opine the burden is on Fred to show a scriptural
          basis for his, again in my opinion, novel idea of racially segregated
          state. As it stands, since I'm not aware of either an explicit
          scriptural command to form racially segregated states or a valid
          deduction by good and necessary consequence from scripture that would
          imply such a command, I think it's only proper to expect, before I may
          raise any objections, to see what grounds, if any, such an idea has.

          I would also be most grateful if Fred clarified his usage of the word
          "race." "Race" could be used in several different ways, the last thing I
          want is to talk about apples while all along we were talking about
          oranges not to mention pears and other fruits might end up being
          discussed without anybody being aware of what's going on.


          > Calling it "outrageously racist" is no argument.

          I agree. I haven't been presenting any arguments. Fred's post appeared
          to be an expression of his personal opinion. But so was my remark. Based
          on the contents of the post, I think his suggestion, as far as I
          understand it, is outrageously racist for it undoubtedly implies racial
          discrimination which is what essentially constitutes racism. Please
          note, I have no problem with discrimination, lawful discrimination that
          is, but obviously not all discrimination is lawful. In other words, all
          racism is discrimination but not all discrimination is racism.

          > For example, I see nothing in scripture that would say the
          > aborigines of Australia should not be allowed their own separate
          > nation on the island of Australia. Do you? Where?

          No I don't, nor do I see anything in scripture that would say uninspired
          poetry should not be sung in worship. That being the case, I assume
          since such worship practice is not commanded, it is therefore forbidden.
          Why forming of states should be done any differently? I understand the
          distinction between worship practice and forming of governments but I
          think it is no simple curiosity matter to ask someone like Fred why
          racial segregation should be employed in forming of a sovereign state?


          > Don't get me wrong- I am not advocating "racially" pure nations.

          OK, what exactly is then being advocated in the post we are discussing?
          It has been suggested that African-American citizens of the United
          States should be given a territory within it to form a new state. Now, a
          trivial question is, why Michigan? On a more serious note, how are we to
          determine, a) what is African-American and, b) once we know what it is
          that makes up an African-American, how do we proceed to separate those
          who are and those who are not such? Perhaps a DNA test? And by the way,
          why African-Americans should have their own state in the US? What about
          Chinese, Italians, Irish, Jews, Russians and whoever else we can put on
          the list? What is it exactly that makes African-Americans in Fred's
          opinion deserving a state but Irish we should leave empty handed? I'm
          sure Russians would love to have certain parts of NYC to be run by
          "brothers" and sometimes even by "sisters" if you know what I mean.


          > But neither do I see it as sin if a given people want national self-
          > determination where non-sinful national characteristics are
          > preserved, and not be forced into some melting pot empire.

          I have no problem with that. I doubt though that Michigan has any
          "national characteristics" distinctively different from those of Florida
          or California. Quebec or Chechnya may have some legitimate claims to
          such distinctives relative to other parts of the given countries, but
          even they never consider their claims to have any racial content,
          although Chechnya should probably be excluded from this remark. The
          separatist movement of Quebec, for example, would have been dead before
          it started if its goal was to create a racially French state (whatever
          that means). The movement is successful precisely because it has no
          racial segregation of any kind in view, or at least not publicly.

          Regards,
          Nikolai
          EPC Brisbane
        • trygvesson@aol.com
          In a message dated 12/2/2005 10:58:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, fritzbau@yahoo.com.au writes: I have argued strictly from a YEC point of view and subscribe to
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 12/2/2005 10:58:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, fritzbau@... writes:
            "I have argued strictly from a YEC point of view and subscribe to Geocentrism."
             
            Fred,
             
            Greetings! I have a few follow ups and add-ons to my prior questions, when I asked yesterday "Just curious, did you come to your geo-centrism in part through any influence from South African Philip Stodt? Also, do you subscribe to the flat earth too?"
             
            I also wanted to ask, are you upholding a pure geocentric system, in which all planets orbit a stationary Earth as proposed by Ptolemy and Aristotle, or are you upholding a very modified geocentric system such as that proposed by Tyco Brahe, in which all the planets orbit the sun, and it is the sun that then orbits the earth, and carries the planets along with it?
             
            It is so rare to meet a live geocentrist that I would like to take this opportunity to further and better understand your view :-)
             
            I met Philip Stodt years ago when, during a Dr. Nigel Lee conference, he did a half day lecture and presentation of geocentrism at Christ College here in Lynchburg Va. I had some opportunity to interact with him, yet did not get to discuss a great deal as I was quite busy at the time. I was not then and am still not persuaded of the view, but I would like to better understand it from one who believes it. I would also like to better understand the difference between those who hold to geocentrism but not a flat earth and those who do who believe the two views to be hermeneutically inseparable.
             
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            Christopher Coombes
            Lynchburg Reformed Presbyterian Fellowship,
            Lynchburg, VA
            Member, Triangle RPC
            RPCNA


                                                                            _
                                                                           / )
                                                         (\__/)         ( (
                                                          )    (           ) )
                                                       ={      }=       / /
                                                          )     `-------/ /
                                                         (               /
                                                          \              |
                                                          ,'\       ,    ,'
                                                          `-'\  ,---\   | \
                                                             _) )    `. \ /
                                                            (__/       ) )
                                                                      (_/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.