"Biblical" Segregation

No. The OP commented on the book's content and response to that followed.

 

Viscious names? What are you talking about? You're right most, if not all of us, have not read the book, however, based on the premise, as laid out in the OP, it does not take a rocket scientist to determine it is un-biblical racist garbage. Anything that defines the mixing of "races", a purely evolutionist term I might add, "necessary for the attendant rise of the antichrist" is. If I am wrong, I will apologize. I do not see how we are possibly misinterpreting the author or his book, though. Unless the OP is being purposefully deceptive about the book, which I highly doubt.

 

Until I know what the author affirmed and denied, I can hardly take Pastor Bob's cursory observations as grounds for defaming a fellow Christian's writing as unbiblical racist garbage and calling him a moron. Just what did the author say and what were his proofs? What positions did he take and what positions did he deny?

And what of his personal life? How many nonwhites has he personally led to the Lord who are still serving the Lord today? What testimony of holiness does he have in front of those who know him best, including any of an ancestry different from his?

I could understand such hatred if you were talking about some theological liberal who quoted the Bible when it served his Marxist ideology, or who claimed to be a preacher while fornicating with everything that produced friction, or who got his school degrees by lying and cheating--but you know essentially nothing about this author or his book. You fancy that you know something, but you don't (barring telepathy).

And yet you would burn him in his cell without even bothering to drag him to the stake.

 

what exactly do you think he means when claiming mixing of the races is "necessary for the attendant rise of the antichrist"? Did you notice that the OP places this in quotes? To me that means it is a direct quote from the book. He very well may be a good Christian, I haven't judged his Christianity. BASED ON THE PREMISE PRESENTED IN THE OP, his theological stance regarding THIS issue is racist and hardly biblical. Frankly, I don't see what is difficult to understand about that? I said if I am wrong I will apologize, but you have yet to show any evidence that the OP was incorrect.

 

Assuming the info in the OP about this book is correct, then is a person intolerant of such views a "bigot?"

 

Of course he is. That tips you off to how amorphous an epithet it is. Like so many others, it's a thoughtstopper word. When you clap your hands once, stomp your foot, and yell "scat!" you expect a cat to run, not to calmly reconsider the error of his ways.

If y'all want to define an idea and attack that idea, you're on defensible ground. But without reading the book, you cannot outline the author's argument, you cannot differentiate it from related positions, you cannot understand his exegetical steps, and you cannot even state how he defines key terms.

And yet it calls forth a cataract of libel the likes of which would be banned if displayed in any other topic.

It's irrational, and it's par for the course when anyone questions the party line.

 

i disagree. The OP said,

I postulated that anyone who holds to that premise is a racist and a moron. I stand by that statement. It is unbiblical, hateful, and derogatory to people created in the image of God.

Granted, I am taking the OP's (pastor bob's) word on the book's premise. Maybe I shouldn't...but the implications of this guy's theology and views on race (not Bob's, but the "Segregationist") are pretty clear to me.

 

==I have heard that kind of stuff before and, to be clear, I believe it is unBiblical trash. It is a satanic attempt to divide the church and it finds its roots in hatred and bigotry. I believe many of the people who believe such things will die and find themselves on the wrong side of eternity.

 

It doesn't matter what his premise, argument, related positions, exegetical steps, etc, might be. Wrong still ends up being wrong. It's like 2+2=4. If someone wants to convince you otherwise, his argument is pointless because you know 2+2=4.

 

Yes. I've noticed that.

 

I remember that guy - he was from New York City . . .

 

I don't know about where they are, but the white supremacists have separated from Christianity with a twisted theology that claims relationship with the Word of God without believing in what He commands us to do.

And they spread hatred throughout the country and the world.

 

I have little reason to think that you have accurately stated his conclusion.

 

I believe that Pastor Bob did more than just 'skim' this book or he would not have posted as he did AND he is not a liar AND he does not post something just to stir up strife.

He simply asked a question...

BTW, the pastor of that church also took the book off of the table after perusing it.

Two men of God removing a book from the church for no good reason? I think not!

 

So does that mean you do?

The premise didn't look to complicated to me. What are we missing?

 

To repeat my earlier statement: if you want to define an idea and attack that idea[/], then you're on defensible grounds. But to define an idea and then attribute it to someone and then deride him disrespectfully for it is not defensible.

Two men of God removed the book. Other men of God affirmed it before the conference began. (That's how it got there to begin with.) What does any of that prove? Nothing at all.

I'm well read in the genre under question. Through the decades I've found a wide variety of interpretations regarding the Bible's statements regarding nations. In this thread I've seen the most virulent and intemperate gnashings against things that may not even be believed by the author in question. But he is accused thereof nonetheless, condemned, and executed. It's a lynching.

And the more I point this out, the larger the fonts become. "Flying flip"? Where on earth did you get such an expression?

 

If blue and italics is offered on here, why would a moderator chastise you for it....?