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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Protesters say no to the Facist song

Expand Messages
  • Larry Bump
    I believe that the Bible (And of course, God) teaches that there are to be no closed borders unless there is war, but also no welfare state and draconian
    Message 1 of 18 , Mar 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I believe that the Bible (And of course, God) teaches that there are to be
      no closed borders unless there is war, but also no welfare state and
      draconian punishment for crime.
      That would create a nation vibrant and prosperous beyond belief, as it would
      be in line with Biblical law. Toss in established Reformed Presbyterianism,
      and the nation would truly be blessed.

      Larry



      --
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.0 - Release Date: 3/23/2006
    • James
      ... to be ... James replies: Do you have a scripture reference for that? In Christ, James but also no welfare state and ... it would ... Presbyterianism,
      Message 2 of 18 , Mar 26, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bump"
        <lbump@...> wrote:
        >
        > I believe that the Bible (And of course, God) teaches that there are
        to be
        > no closed borders unless there is war,


        James replies:

        Do you have a scripture reference for that?

        In Christ,

        James





        but also no welfare state and
        > draconian punishment for crime.
        > That would create a nation vibrant and prosperous beyond belief, as
        it would
        > be in line with Biblical law. Toss in established Reformed
        Presbyterianism,
        > and the nation would truly be blessed.
        >
        > Larry
        >
        >
        >
        > --
        > No virus found in this outgoing message.
        > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
        > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.0 - Release Date: 3/23/2006
        >
      • Larry Bump
        ... From: James ... All the OT talks about the alien among you . The fact that non-Israelites would live in the land is assumed,
        Message 3 of 18 , Mar 26, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "James" <jim043@...>>
          > James replies:
          >
          > Do you have a scripture reference for that?

          All the OT talks about "the alien among you".
          The fact that non-Israelites would live in the land is assumed, and they are
          protected.

          Larry



          --
          No virus found in this outgoing message.
          Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
          Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.0 - Release Date: 3/23/2006
        • Fred blahous
          G day Larry, It is true that Israel is permitted to allow both strangers in the land and aliens. Notice though, that they are permanently inillegible for
          Message 4 of 18 , Mar 30, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            G'day Larry,

            It is true that Israel is permitted to allow both strangers in the
            land and aliens. Notice though, that they are permanently
            inillegible for citizenship, and certain other restrictions apply.
            No regulation is given though, which would prevent them from
            excluding such folks, so we would have to regard the "zero
            immigration" issue as indifferent, scripturally speaking. Certainly,
            both Israel and the west would benefit enormously by expelling all
            persons of Muslim faith from their lands. Since we have been in a
            state of perpetual warfare with Muslims since the fall of
            Constantinople, and they have yet to give Byzantium, Thrace, Crete
            and Northern Cyprus back to Europe, the war conditions you mention
            could easily be invoked. We also have the issue of sedition and
            subversion from Muslim populations in the west. Jews and Asians
            contribute wealth to us and pose a net benefit, Arabs tend only to
            contribute crime and bombing attacks, as we have seen throughout the
            world, especially in Tel Aviv. If we removed the Muslim threat on
            our own doorstep, their would be no need to keep any troops in the
            Mid East, and they could all go home to their families again.

            All the best,
            Fred.

            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bump"
            <lbump@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "James" <jim043@...>>
            > > James replies:
            > >
            > > Do you have a scripture reference for that?
            >
            > All the OT talks about "the alien among you".
            > The fact that non-Israelites would live in the land is assumed,
            and they are
            > protected.
            >
            > Larry
            >
            >
            >
            > --
            > No virus found in this outgoing message.
            > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.0 - Release Date:
            3/23/2006
            >
          • Fred blahous
            G day again Larry, Just curious. What would you regard as a draconian punishment for crime . I just ask because various punishments outlined in scripture
            Message 5 of 18 , Mar 30, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              G'day again Larry,

              Just curious. What would you regard as a "draconian punishment for
              crime". I just ask because various punishments outlined in scripture
              would appear rather draconian by modern standards. Methods of
              execution in Protestant kingdoms have also been accused of being
              draconian, such as flaying and impalement, drawing and quartering,
              burning by immolation, and even the rather benign practise of
              hanging. I won't try to build the case for Vlad Dracula crime
              prevention techniques, but I would hope you wouldn't exclude
              offenders in faith and morals from civil punishments.

              All the best,
              Fred.

              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bump"
              <lbump@...> wrote:
              >
              > I believe that the Bible (And of course, God) teaches that there
              are to be
              > no closed borders unless there is war, but also no welfare state
              and
              > draconian punishment for crime.
              > That would create a nation vibrant and prosperous beyond belief,
              as it would
              > be in line with Biblical law. Toss in established Reformed
              Presbyterianism,
              > and the nation would truly be blessed.
              >
              > Larry
              >
              >
              >
              > --
              > No virus found in this outgoing message.
              > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
              > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.0 - Release Date:
              3/23/2006
              >
            • Larry Bump
              First of all, note that I have spoken positively of Draconian punishments regarding crime. I think crime should be punished as the Good Book says, no more
              Message 6 of 18 , Mar 30, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                First of all, note that I have spoken positively of "Draconian" punishments
                regarding crime. I think crime should be punished as the Good Book says, no
                more nor less. So, execution of the blasphemer is cool by me.

                "Draconian" does not have its roots in Vlad Tepes, but in a Roman legislator
                named Draco. He was a stern law&order kinda guy. I believe the Bible (God,
                thereby) teaches that the civil magistrate is to punish criminal sins
                harshly and without regard to persons, but otherwise leave the people in
                freedom. A Christian Libertarianism, if you will. Very little prior
                restraint, but harsh and sure punishment for transgression is the pattern.

                Larry


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Fred blahous" <fritzbau@...>
                To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 11:15 AM
                Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Protesters say no to the Facist song


                > G'day again Larry,
                >
                > Just curious. What would you regard as a "draconian punishment for
                > crime". I just ask because various punishments outlined in scripture
                > would appear rather draconian by modern standards. Methods of
                > execution in Protestant kingdoms have also been accused of being
                > draconian, such as flaying and impalement, drawing and quartering,
                > burning by immolation, and even the rather benign practise of
                > hanging. I won't try to build the case for Vlad Dracula crime
                > prevention techniques, but I would hope you wouldn't exclude
                > offenders in faith and morals from civil punishments.
                >
                > All the best,
                > Fred.
                >
                > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bump"
                > <lbump@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > I believe that the Bible (And of course, God) teaches that there
                > are to be
                > > no closed borders unless there is war, but also no welfare state
                > and
                > > draconian punishment for crime.
                > > That would create a nation vibrant and prosperous beyond belief,
                > as it would
                > > be in line with Biblical law. Toss in established Reformed
                > Presbyterianism,
                > > and the nation would truly be blessed.
                > >
                > > Larry
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --
                > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.0 - Release Date:
                > 3/23/2006
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --
                > No virus found in this incoming message.
                > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.3 - Release Date: 3/28/2006
                >
                >



                --
                No virus found in this outgoing message.
                Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.3 - Release Date: 3/28/2006
              • Larry Bump
                ... From: Fred blahous ... By no means were they permanently ineligible; only certain groups were, and those restrictions were
                Message 7 of 18 , Mar 30, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Fred blahous" <fritzbau@...>

                  > G'day Larry,
                  >
                  > It is true that Israel is permitted to allow both strangers in the
                  > land and aliens. Notice though, that they are permanently
                  > inillegible for citizenship,

                  By no means were they permanently ineligible; only certain groups were, and
                  those restrictions were typical. Anyone not a Canaanite or a Moabite (maybe
                  others?) could become an Israelite upon an oath to follow Yahweh's law and
                  becoming circumcised. As long as they followed the God of the Land
                  (typical, now He rules over all nations) they could vote, serve, etc..

                  > No regulation is given though, which would prevent them from
                  > excluding such folks, so we would have to regard the "zero
                  > immigration" issue as indifferent, scripturally speaking.

                  I would be cautious asserting that the nation could impose restrictions
                  other than the one God gave them to follow. As a matter of fact; I would
                  say that they could not do so.

                  > both Israel and the west would benefit enormously by expelling all
                  > persons of Muslim faith from their lands. Since we have been in a
                  > state of perpetual warfare with Muslims since the fall of
                  > Constantinople, and they have yet to give Byzantium, Thrace, Crete
                  > and Northern Cyprus back to Europe, the war conditions you mention
                  > could easily be invoked.

                  See, the difference is that the "strangers/aliens" could *be* anything, but
                  theyt couldn't *do* just anything. Public teaching, public idolatry, even
                  private proselityzing, treason against Yahweh or the king, etc would still
                  be crimes. Anyone calling for Shari'ah law should be executed immediately,
                  for instance. Sharpshooters should drop the muzzeins from the minarets at
                  the call to prayer.

                  And, given the current situation, Christian countries should band together
                  to wipe Islam from the face of the earth. It has blatlantly declared war on
                  Christianity.

                  Larry



                  --
                  No virus found in this outgoing message.
                  Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                  Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.3 - Release Date: 3/28/2006
                • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                  Fred, Just a correction on your classification of people. Just because one is an Arab, that does not mean they are Muslims. Remember the largest Muslim
                  Message 8 of 18 , Mar 30, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Fred,

                    Just a correction on your classification of people.  Just because one is an Arab, that does not mean they are Muslims.  Remember the largest Muslim nation is just north of you, namely Indonesia, and they are NOT Arabs.   There are many Arabs that are Christians, and even Presbyterian/Reformed ones:

                    http://merf.woh.gospelcom.net/

                    So be cautious in your lumping of people groups, especially when violance is advocated.

                    Not only do I pray for the destruction of Papal Anti-Christ, I also pray for the down fall of Islam.

                     

                    War against Rome and Mecca,

                    Edgar

                     

                     

                     


                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous" <fritzbau@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > G'day Larry,
                    >
                    > It is true that Israel is permitted to allow both strangers in the
                    > land and aliens. Notice though, that they are permanently
                    > inillegible for citizenship, and certain other restrictions apply.
                    > No regulation is given though, which would prevent them from
                    > excluding such folks, so we would have to regard the "zero
                    > immigration" issue as indifferent, scripturally speaking. Certainly,
                    > both Israel and the west would benefit enormously by expelling all
                    > persons of Muslim faith from their lands. Since we have been in a
                    > state of perpetual warfare with Muslims since the fall of
                    > Constantinople, and they have yet to give Byzantium, Thrace, Crete
                    > and Northern Cyprus back to Europe, the war conditions you mention
                    > could easily be invoked. We also have the issue of sedition and
                    > subversion from Muslim populations in the west. Jews and Asians
                    > contribute wealth to us and pose a net benefit, Arabs tend only to
                    > contribute crime and bombing attacks, as we have seen throughout the
                    > world, especially in Tel Aviv. If we removed the Muslim threat on
                    > our own doorstep, their would be no need to keep any troops in the
                    > Mid East, and they could all go home to their families again.
                    >
                    > All the best,
                    > Fred.
                    >
                    > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bump"
                    > lbump@ wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ----- Original Message -----
                    > > From: "James" jim043@>
                    > > > James replies:
                    > > >
                    > > > Do you have a scripture reference for that?
                    > >
                    > > All the OT talks about "the alien among you".
                    > > The fact that non-Israelites would live in the land is assumed,
                    > and they are
                    > > protected.
                    > >
                    > > Larry
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --
                    > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                    > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                    > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.0 - Release Date:
                    > 3/23/2006
                    > >
                    >

                  • Fred blahous
                    G day Larry, I wasn t thinking of the term Draconian in relation to the war prince. The title Dracul means Dragon, and was awarded to Vlad by the Patriarch of
                    Message 9 of 18 , Apr 9, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      G'day Larry,

                      I wasn't thinking of the term Draconian in relation to the war
                      prince. The title Dracul means Dragon, and was awarded to Vlad by
                      the Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox church for his skill against
                      the Ottomen.

                      I would agree with you that prior restraint should be minimal, and
                      that this pattern in preferable, generally, however, I also believe
                      a king has liberty to govern indifferent matters according to his
                      will, so I see no grounds for resisting a law not found in
                      scripture, if it is not in opposition to Moses. When James was Rex,
                      he made bad decisions, tobacco tax, failure to defend Morton,
                      banning hunting, license needed to carry weapons, etc, but these did
                      not invalidate his throne. Unless the Mosaic Law is plainly
                      violated, I feel we should endure certain "prior restraints", if
                      legislated.

                      Of course, I would still support civil rebellion by Precisionists on
                      the sabbath amusements issue, and criticise the Rex for his cruelty
                      to Raleigh, and failure to censure Robert Carr. Civil rebellion
                      would also have been warrented if anti-papal laws had been relaxed,
                      as originally intended.

                      All the best,
                      Fred.

                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bump"
                      <lbump@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > First of all, note that I have spoken positively of "Draconian"
                      punishments
                      > regarding crime. I think crime should be punished as the Good
                      Book says, no
                      > more nor less. So, execution of the blasphemer is cool by me.
                      >
                      > "Draconian" does not have its roots in Vlad Tepes, but in a Roman
                      legislator
                      > named Draco. He was a stern law&order kinda guy. I believe the
                      Bible (God,
                      > thereby) teaches that the civil magistrate is to punish criminal
                      sins
                      > harshly and without regard to persons, but otherwise leave the
                      people in
                      > freedom. A Christian Libertarianism, if you will. Very little
                      prior
                      > restraint, but harsh and sure punishment for transgression is the
                      pattern.
                      >
                      > Larry
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: "Fred blahous" <fritzbau@...>
                      > To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 11:15 AM
                      > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Protesters say no to the
                      Facist song
                      >
                      >
                      > > G'day again Larry,
                      > >
                      > > Just curious. What would you regard as a "draconian punishment
                      for
                      > > crime". I just ask because various punishments outlined in
                      scripture
                      > > would appear rather draconian by modern standards. Methods of
                      > > execution in Protestant kingdoms have also been accused of being
                      > > draconian, such as flaying and impalement, drawing and
                      quartering,
                      > > burning by immolation, and even the rather benign practise of
                      > > hanging. I won't try to build the case for Vlad Dracula crime
                      > > prevention techniques, but I would hope you wouldn't exclude
                      > > offenders in faith and morals from civil punishments.
                      > >
                      > > All the best,
                      > > Fred.
                      > >
                      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bump"
                      > > <lbump@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > I believe that the Bible (And of course, God) teaches that
                      there
                      > > are to be
                      > > > no closed borders unless there is war, but also no welfare
                      state
                      > > and
                      > > > draconian punishment for crime.
                      > > > That would create a nation vibrant and prosperous beyond
                      belief,
                      > > as it would
                      > > > be in line with Biblical law. Toss in established Reformed
                      > > Presbyterianism,
                      > > > and the nation would truly be blessed.
                      > > >
                      > > > Larry
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --
                      > > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                      > > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                      > > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.0 - Release Date:
                      > > 3/23/2006
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --
                      > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                      > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                      > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.3 - Release Date:
                      3/28/2006
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --
                      > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                      > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                      > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.3 - Release Date:
                      3/28/2006
                      >
                    • Fred blahous
                      Replies follow; ... the ... were, and ... Moabite (maybe ... law and ... etc.. Those who remained permanently iniligible include Canaanite (African) and
                      Message 10 of 18 , Apr 9, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Replies follow;


                        > > G'day Larry,
                        > >
                        > > It is true that Israel is permitted to allow both strangers in
                        the
                        > > land and aliens. Notice though, that they are permanently
                        > > inillegible for citizenship,
                        >
                        > By no means were they permanently ineligible; only certain groups
                        were, and
                        > those restrictions were typical. Anyone not a Canaanite or a
                        Moabite (maybe
                        > others?) could become an Israelite upon an oath to follow Yahweh's
                        law and
                        > becoming circumcised. As long as they followed the God of the Land
                        > (typical, now He rules over all nations) they could vote, serve,
                        etc..

                        Those who remained permanently iniligible include Canaanite
                        (African) and Moabite (Asian). Curious, that these should be the
                        only ones specifically mentioned? Most likely, when the regulations
                        came in, God was doing it to keep the Israelis permanently seperated
                        from Japeth and Ham. The implication is that all nations should be
                        mono-ethnically formed after the pattern given to the three sons of
                        Noah. If we accept the 1644 premise that all European, Turkic, and
                        Hebrew people share a common blood, (lost Ten Tribes of Israel),
                        then full citizenship as well as marriage rights would be limited on
                        those lines. As for those who were allowed were to join the
                        Gentiles Court. There is no mention of suffrage for them. They would
                        obviously have had their own judges. So back then, there would have
                        been restricted citizenship, even for other tribes of similar
                        appearance to the Hebrews.
                        >
                        > > No regulation is given though, which would prevent them from
                        > > excluding such folks, so we would have to regard the "zero
                        > > immigration" issue as indifferent, scripturally speaking.
                        >
                        > I would be cautious asserting that the nation could impose
                        restrictions
                        > other than the one God gave them to follow. As a matter of fact;
                        I would
                        > say that they could not do so.

                        Clearly, the Regulative Principle is only for worship, and not for
                        the whole of life. As long as they passed no laws explicitly
                        forbidden in the pentateuch, the kings and judges would have a free
                        hand to regulate. If they cannot legislate anything, it makes little
                        sense to retain a magistratical office.

                        > > both Israel and the west would benefit enormously by expelling
                        all
                        > > persons of Muslim faith from their lands. Since we have been in a
                        > > state of perpetual warfare with Muslims since the fall of
                        > > Constantinople, and they have yet to give Byzantium, Thrace,
                        Crete
                        > > and Northern Cyprus back to Europe, the war conditions you
                        mention
                        > > could easily be invoked.
                        >
                        > See, the difference is that the "strangers/aliens" could *be*
                        anything, but
                        > theyt couldn't *do* just anything. Public teaching, public
                        idolatry, even
                        > private proselityzing, treason against Yahweh or the king, etc
                        would still
                        > be crimes. Anyone calling for Shari'ah law should be executed
                        immediately,
                        > for instance. Sharpshooters should drop the muzzeins from the
                        minarets at
                        > the call to prayer.
                        >
                        > And, given the current situation, Christian countries should band
                        together
                        > to wipe Islam from the face of the earth. It has blatlantly
                        declared war on
                        > Christianity.

                        I agree that no-one can suffer prosecution or penalty for being
                        something, but civil and political rights are different from human
                        rights. The latter prevents harrassment, the former confers a
                        conditional privilage. Strictly speaking, a lawful government could
                        exist, even if no-one but the king could make policy, and he were to
                        do that via decree. It wouldn't be the best system, but it would not
                        be unlawful. So mere civil rights, being merely a privilage, may be
                        revoked for cause, or permanently inapplicable. For instance, it
                        would be bad law to allow women to do paid work. Penalties for
                        hiring women to do paid work would certainly be appropriate, and yet
                        a privilage is restricted without it being oppressive. The same
                        could hold true for prosecuting anyone hiring a border jumper. The
                        jobs are intended for men, rather than women. They are also intended
                        for Britains, rather than Spanish Conquistodores, in the case of
                        America. See what I am getting at?
                        > Larry

                        All the best to you,
                        Fred.
                        >
                        >
                        > --
                        > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                        > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                        > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.3 - Release Date:
                        3/28/2006
                        >
                      • Fred blahous
                        G day Edgar, You are right. I shouldn t have confused the two. There are many Christian Arabs out there. Quite a few of them living right here in Queensland.
                        Message 11 of 18 , Apr 9, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          G'day Edgar,

                          You are right. I shouldn't have confused the two. There are many
                          Christian Arabs out there. Quite a few of them living right here in
                          Queensland.

                          All the best,
                          Fred.

                          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
                          Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > Fred,
                          >
                          > Just a correction on your classification of people. Just because
                          one is
                          > an Arab, that does not mean they are Muslims. Remember the largest
                          > Muslim nation is just north of you, namely Indonesia, and they are
                          NOT
                          > Arabs. There are many Arabs that are Christians, and even
                          > Presbyterian/Reformed ones:
                          >
                          > http://merf.woh.gospelcom.net/ <http://merf.woh.gospelcom.net/>
                          >
                          > So be cautious in your lumping of people groups, especially when
                          > violance is advocated.
                          >
                          > Not only do I pray for the destruction of Papal Anti-Christ, I
                          also pray
                          > for the down fall of Islam.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > War against Rome and Mecca,
                          >
                          > Edgar
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous"
                          > <fritzbau@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > G'day Larry,
                          > >
                          > > It is true that Israel is permitted to allow both strangers in
                          the
                          > > land and aliens. Notice though, that they are permanently
                          > > inillegible for citizenship, and certain other restrictions
                          apply.
                          > > No regulation is given though, which would prevent them from
                          > > excluding such folks, so we would have to regard the "zero
                          > > immigration" issue as indifferent, scripturally speaking.
                          Certainly,
                          > > both Israel and the west would benefit enormously by expelling
                          all
                          > > persons of Muslim faith from their lands. Since we have been in a
                          > > state of perpetual warfare with Muslims since the fall of
                          > > Constantinople, and they have yet to give Byzantium, Thrace,
                          Crete
                          > > and Northern Cyprus back to Europe, the war conditions you
                          mention
                          > > could easily be invoked. We also have the issue of sedition and
                          > > subversion from Muslim populations in the west. Jews and Asians
                          > > contribute wealth to us and pose a net benefit, Arabs tend only
                          to
                          > > contribute crime and bombing attacks, as we have seen throughout
                          the
                          > > world, especially in Tel Aviv. If we removed the Muslim threat on
                          > > our own doorstep, their would be no need to keep any troops in
                          the
                          > > Mid East, and they could all go home to their families again.
                          > >
                          > > All the best,
                          > > Fred.
                          > >
                          > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bump"
                          > > lbump@ wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > ----- Original Message -----
                          > > > From: "James" jim043@>
                          > > > > James replies:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Do you have a scripture reference for that?
                          > > >
                          > > > All the OT talks about "the alien among you".
                          > > > The fact that non-Israelites would live in the land is assumed,
                          > > and they are
                          > > > protected.
                          > > >
                          > > > Larry
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > --
                          > > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                          > > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                          > > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 268.3.0 - Release Date:
                          > > 3/23/2006
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                          Fred, Are you a member of or an adherent of Christian Identity? Do you believe that the lost tribes of Israel are the Europeans of today? Oh, if God meant to
                          Message 12 of 18 , Apr 9, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Fred,

                            Are you a member of or an adherent of Christian Identity? Do you
                            believe that the lost tribes of Israel are the Europeans of today? Oh,
                            if God meant to keep Israelis' blood separate from the Moabites (you
                            class them as Asians), then god FAILED, because in Jesus' bloodline
                            there is a Moabitess (Ruth 2:2 & Matthew 1:5).

                            Thanks,

                            Edgar Ibarra

                            Communicant Member-RPNA

                            Albany Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church

                            Albany, New York


                            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous"
                            <fritzbau@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Replies follow;
                            >
                            >
                            > > > G'day Larry,
                            > > >
                            > > > It is true that Israel is permitted to allow both strangers in
                            > the
                            > > > land and aliens. Notice though, that they are permanently
                            > > > inillegible for citizenship,
                            > >
                            > > By no means were they permanently ineligible; only certain groups
                            > were, and
                            > > those restrictions were typical. Anyone not a Canaanite or a
                            > Moabite (maybe
                            > > others?) could become an Israelite upon an oath to follow Yahweh's
                            > law and
                            > > becoming circumcised. As long as they followed the God of the Land
                            > > (typical, now He rules over all nations) they could vote, serve,
                            > etc..
                            >
                            > Those who remained permanently iniligible include Canaanite
                            > (African) and Moabite (Asian). Curious, that these should be the
                            > only ones specifically mentioned? Most likely, when the regulations
                            > came in, God was doing it to keep the Israelis permanently seperated
                            > from Japeth and Ham. The implication is that all nations should be
                            > mono-ethnically formed after the pattern given to the three sons of
                            > Noah. If we accept the 1644 premise that all European, Turkic, and
                            > Hebrew people share a common blood, (lost Ten Tribes of Israel),
                            > then full citizenship as well as marriage rights would be limited on
                            > those lines. As for those who were allowed were to join the
                            > Gentiles Court. There is no mention of suffrage for them. They would
                            > obviously have had their own judges. So back then, there would have
                            > been restricted citizenship, even for other tribes of similar
                            > appearance to the Hebrews.
                            > >
                          • Fred blahous
                            G day Edgar, I am most certainly not an Identity cultist. Unfortunately, certain devious men with hatred for others stole the beautiful Anglo-Israeli teaching
                            Message 13 of 18 , Apr 10, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              G'day Edgar,


                              I am most certainly not an Identity cultist. Unfortunately, certain
                              devious men with hatred for others stole the beautiful Anglo-Israeli
                              teaching and twisted it around into a fascistic creed. The movements
                              of Armstrongism and Kinsmen Redeemer, Identity, et al are based upon
                              premises in diametric opposition to the original teachings of the
                              first Anglo-Israeli movement. Contrast the following;

                              1. Identity believes that Jews are either the product of illicit
                              union between Eve and Satan, or the descendents of Essau (Edom).
                              a. Anglo-Israeli's believe the Jews are the descendents of the Two
                              Tribes of Judah and Benjamin, the former being the Line of Christ.

                              2. Identity believes that other races are "mud people" and not of
                              the lines of Noah's three sons. As such, Christ is not for them.
                              b. Anglo-Israeli's believe all white people are descendents of Shem,
                              all Asiatics are descendents of Japeth, and all Africans are
                              descendents of Ham. Under the New Covenant, no people are excluded
                              from the claims of Christ, and all have equal access. No one is
                              excluded from the obligations to the laws, OT or NT.

                              3. Identity proposes a mere tribal god like the Wodinic cult which
                              is sadly reviving in response to mass apostasy throughout Europe.
                              c. Anglo-Israeli's believe the scope of salvation is universal (not
                              confined to one land), but also local (National Establishment of
                              local church in each kingdom).

                              I think it's important to realise that not all who see Europeans as
                              descendents of the Lost Tribes maintain the hateful teachings of
                              Armstrongism. The original 1644 treatise on the topic was made by a
                              confessional Presbyterian from England, and later taken up by an
                              Episcopal minister in England who wrote the seminal treatise on what
                              is called "British Israel". Cromwell actually made use of the 1644
                              treatise to promote the return of the exiles in 1655, and it is
                              simply appalling to see it used today for the exact opposite purpose
                              from that originally intended.

                              As for Ruth, she is simply referred to as a lady living in Moabite
                              territory, and not as an ethnic Moabitess. This could inferr an
                              Israelite living in Moab.

                              All the best,
                              Fred.

                              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
                              Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > Fred,
                              >
                              > Are you a member of or an adherent of Christian Identity? Do
                              you
                              > believe that the lost tribes of Israel are the Europeans of today?
                              Oh,
                              > if God meant to keep Israelis' blood separate from the Moabites
                              (you
                              > class them as Asians), then god FAILED, because in Jesus' bloodline
                              > there is a Moabitess (Ruth 2:2 & Matthew 1:5).
                              >
                              > Thanks,
                              >
                              > Edgar Ibarra
                              >
                              > Communicant Member-RPNA
                              >
                              > Albany Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church
                              >
                              > Albany, New York
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous"
                              > <fritzbau@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Replies follow;
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > > > G'day Larry,
                              > > > >
                              > > > > It is true that Israel is permitted to allow both strangers
                              in
                              > > the
                              > > > > land and aliens. Notice though, that they are permanently
                              > > > > inillegible for citizenship,
                              > > >
                              > > > By no means were they permanently ineligible; only certain
                              groups
                              > > were, and
                              > > > those restrictions were typical. Anyone not a Canaanite or a
                              > > Moabite (maybe
                              > > > others?) could become an Israelite upon an oath to follow
                              Yahweh's
                              > > law and
                              > > > becoming circumcised. As long as they followed the God of the
                              Land
                              > > > (typical, now He rules over all nations) they could vote,
                              serve,
                              > > etc..
                              > >
                              > > Those who remained permanently iniligible include Canaanite
                              > > (African) and Moabite (Asian). Curious, that these should be the
                              > > only ones specifically mentioned? Most likely, when the
                              regulations
                              > > came in, God was doing it to keep the Israelis permanently
                              seperated
                              > > from Japeth and Ham. The implication is that all nations should
                              be
                              > > mono-ethnically formed after the pattern given to the three sons
                              of
                              > > Noah. If we accept the 1644 premise that all European, Turkic,
                              and
                              > > Hebrew people share a common blood, (lost Ten Tribes of Israel),
                              > > then full citizenship as well as marriage rights would be
                              limited on
                              > > those lines. As for those who were allowed were to join the
                              > > Gentiles Court. There is no mention of suffrage for them. They
                              would
                              > > obviously have had their own judges. So back then, there would
                              have
                              > > been restricted citizenship, even for other tribes of similar
                              > > appearance to the Hebrews.
                              > > >
                              >
                            • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                              Fred, Wrote... ... How do you reconcile your above statements to the very Word of God that contradicts your words: And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee,
                              Message 14 of 18 , Apr 10, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment

                                Fred,

                                Wrote...

                                >
                                > As for Ruth, she is simply referred to as a lady living in Moabite
                                > territory, and not as an ethnic Moabitess. This could inferr an
                                > Israelite living in Moab.
                                >
                                > All the best,
                                > Fred.

                                How do you reconcile your above statements to the very Word of God that contradicts your words:

                                And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people my people, and thy God my God.   Ruth 1:16

                                 

                                And Ruth the Moabitess said unto Naomi… Ruth 2:2

                                 

                                And Ruth the Moabitess said,… Ruth 2:21

                                 

                                An Israelite living in Moab, I think NOT!  That would be Naomi NOT Ruth.

                                 

                                For in Christ there is NO distinction

                                of persons,

                                Edgar Ibarra

                              • Nikolai
                                ... Edgar, even before v16 we find in v4 the national identity of Ruth is clearly stated: And they took them wives of the *women of Moab*; the name of
                                Message 15 of 18 , Apr 10, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Edgar A. Ibarra Jr. wrote:

                                  > How do you reconcile your above statements to the very Word of God that
                                  > contradicts your words:
                                  >
                                  > And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, to return from following
                                  > after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I
                                  > will lodge: _*thy people my people*_, and thy God my God. Ruth 1:16

                                  <snip>

                                  Edgar,
                                  even before v16 we find in v4 the national identity of Ruth is clearly
                                  stated:

                                  And they took them wives of the *women of Moab*; the name of the one was
                                  Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten
                                  years.

                                  "Women of Moab" could never refer to an Israelite woman even if she was
                                  living in Moab at the time.

                                  Nikolai
                                • Cheryl Grenon
                                  How Christian Identity gets around this is to state that earlier in their history, Israelites moved into Moab s land and populated it so that they are really
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Apr 10, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    How Christian Identity gets around this is to state that earlier in their history, Israelites moved into Moab's land and populated it so that they are really Israelites and not Moabites living there.  They are just using the place name to call themselves by.
                                     
                                    Cheryl -- who, unfortunately, has way too good an aquaintance with Christian Identity
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Nikolai
                                    Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 6:00 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Fred, two questions...

                                    Edgar A. Ibarra Jr. wrote:

                                    > How do you reconcile your above statements to the very Word of God that
                                    > contradicts your words:
                                    >
                                    > And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, to return from following
                                    > after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I
                                    > will lodge: _*thy people my people*_, and thy God my God.   Ruth 1:16

                                    <snip>

                                    Edgar,
                                    even before v16 we find in v4 the national identity of Ruth is clearly
                                    stated:

                                    And they took them wives of the *women of Moab*; the name of the one was
                                    Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten
                                    years.

                                    "Women of Moab" could never refer to an Israelite woman even if she was
                                    living in Moab at the time.

                                    Nikolai





                                  • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                                    Ah, yes Nikolai, thank you for pointing that out! I must have missed that when I read the text. Thanks again! ... God that ... following ... lodgest, I ...
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Apr 11, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Ah, yes Nikolai, thank you for pointing that out! I must have
                                      missed that when I read the text.

                                      Thanks again!


                                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Nikolai
                                      <psalmos@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Edgar A. Ibarra Jr. wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > How do you reconcile your above statements to the very Word of
                                      God that
                                      > > contradicts your words:
                                      > >
                                      > > And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, to return from
                                      following
                                      > > after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou
                                      lodgest, I
                                      > > will lodge: _*thy people my people*_, and thy God my God. Ruth
                                      1:16
                                      >
                                      > <snip>
                                      >
                                      > Edgar,
                                      > even before v16 we find in v4 the national identity of Ruth is
                                      clearly
                                      > stated:
                                      >
                                      > And they took them wives of the *women of Moab*; the name of the
                                      one was
                                      > Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there
                                      about ten
                                      > years.
                                      >
                                      > "Women of Moab" could never refer to an Israelite woman even if
                                      she was
                                      > living in Moab at the time.
                                      >
                                      > Nikolai
                                      >
                                    • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                                      Hello my sister Cheryl! I just recently read a C.I. web site the other day, boy the way they quote Calvin & Luther...yuck! anyways, having read the Book of
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Apr 11, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hello my sister Cheryl!

                                        I just recently read a C.I. web site the other day, boy the way they
                                        quote Calvin & Luther...yuck! anyways, having read the Book of
                                        Mormon before, while eating a Burrito with hot sauce, just to make
                                        sure I got a burning in my bossom and therefore get all I could out
                                        of that Book...I found that both C.I. and the Mormons are really,
                                        really good story tellers and excellent historical fiction writers.

                                        hehehehehe.

                                        Your Mexica brother in Christ,

                                        Edgar

                                        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Cheryl Grenon"
                                        <cheryl@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > How Christian Identity gets around this is to state that earlier
                                        in their history, Israelites moved into Moab's land and populated it
                                        so that they are really Israelites and not Moabites living there.
                                        They are just using the place name to call themselves by.
                                        >
                                        > Cheryl -- who, unfortunately, has way too good an aquaintance with
                                        Christian Identity
                                        > ----- Original Message -----
                                        > From: Nikolai
                                        > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 6:00 PM
                                        > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Fred, two questions...
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Edgar A. Ibarra Jr. wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > How do you reconcile your above statements to the very Word of
                                        God that
                                        > > contradicts your words:
                                        > >
                                        > > And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, to return from
                                        following
                                        > > after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou
                                        lodgest, I
                                        > > will lodge: _*thy people my people*_, and thy God my God. Ruth
                                        1:16
                                        >
                                        > <snip>
                                        >
                                        > Edgar,
                                        > even before v16 we find in v4 the national identity of Ruth is
                                        clearly
                                        > stated:
                                        >
                                        > And they took them wives of the *women of Moab*; the name of the
                                        one was
                                        > Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there
                                        about ten
                                        > years.
                                        >
                                        > "Women of Moab" could never refer to an Israelite woman even if
                                        she was
                                        > living in Moab at the time.
                                        >
                                        > Nikolai
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        -------------
                                        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                        >
                                        > a.. Visit your group "covenantedreformationclub" on the web.
                                        >
                                        > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                        > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                        >
                                        > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                        Service.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        -------------
                                        >
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.