Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Christ was WHITE. Adam "looked" like Christ. So Adam was WHITE!

Guess which illustrious Church of God leader said the following:

Christ was WHITE. Adam "looked" like Christ. So Adam was WHITE!

The Oriental race is a mutation from Adam's stock...the same is true of the Negro...MAN perverts God's Laws by interbreeding and producing a mongrel or hybrid...

Noah was the ONLY man on earth who was not guilty of this SIN of intermarriage!...

All other human beings were destroyed-PUNISHED for this sin of interracial marriage...

God is the author of SEGREGATION! But man is the author of INTEGRATION!

This was a belief that was firmly entrenched in the Church of God for many decades.   Its not some off the cuff comment by an idiot splinter group leader today. I heard it preached in the Dayton Ohio church and read it in our literature. Do you really believe that God had to wait 1,900 years to reveal this "truth" to Herbert Armstrong?


Anonymous said...

Jesus was Second Adam...Adam is the first Adam..So Adam was Jewish.

Jesus was the Second Adam...Adam had a babe of a wife..So Jesus had a babe of a wife.

Jesus was Jewish...Adam is kind of a Jewish name...So Adam was Jewish

Jesus is a Christ Myth...Adam is a type of Christ..So Adam is a myth

Eve came from Adam's rib...Jesus had ribs...So Jesus has one less rib too

Jesus the Second Adam had no wife...Adam is the First Adam...Adam had no wife and Eve was merely a live in girlfriend.

Anonymous said...

"Noah was the ONLY man on earth who was not guilty of this SIN of intermarriage!..."

That's because like the Apostle Paul , he was butt ugly.

Joe Moeller said...

Did Adam have a belly button ?

Actually, most all other non-Armstrong churches had some form of practical segregation and similar ideas for most of the twentieth century, whether by dejure or defacto.

It took to 1959 for the Boston Red Sox to relent to finally having a black baseball player, and they only had one black player for many years.

In historical perspective, the WCG was similar in its belief and practice as nearly any other church in regards to its race practices.

I am not condoning this, and certainly the WCG was NOT cutting edge in regards to reforming its racial policies IN THE LEAST. However, a little historical perspective is necessary here to get the full picture and context.

Joe Moeller
Cody, WY

Anonymous said...

I presume Jesus wasn't very light skinned being middle eastern but who knows, David was supposed to have red hair, right?
As for Noah, if he were pure white how come he had so many colors of descendents. Don't make sense. WCG used to say that his sons married women of other races. But if the sin was mixing the races then why did god allow those sons and grandchildren on the boat? From what I have read in the Bible the sin wasn't racial mixing but more like species mixing -- evil alien beings desiring beautiful innocent humans. But did the flood get rid of all those inter-alien people? We hear of Goliath much later, now he was a giant (a nephilim?)
It wasn't just Armstrong who believed that racial mixing was a sin, it was most fundamentalists from that time period. Thankfully we have progressed since then and wasn't the garden of Eden in Africa? There are also black Jesus pictures.

Corky said...

Yep, the Aryan (white) race is superior to other races - just ask Hitler.

Head Usher said...

I'll play along. Was it that silly E.W. character?

Some more historical perspective:

HWA was four years old when Plessy v Ferguson established "Separate But Equal," which would be considered constitutional until Brown v Board of Education in 1954, when HWA was in his sixties already. AC did not accept black students until the Civil Rights legislation of the mid-sixties forced his hand. Was HWA happy about the federal government forcing him to accept token black students? I should think not. A couple of weeks ago, E.W. King quoted HWA in Mystery of the Ages (published in the early 80's, shortly before his death) making these same foolish racial claims. Obviously HWA went to his grave believing in segregation, and believing that the white race was superior to the other races. Because of the bible? Probably not. More likely because HWA was a rather typical man of his times, which means that he was only one step away from the viewpoints and beliefs of your typical Klansman.

We know that HWA was no saint (contrary to popular belief of the average COG splinter cult), and as repugnant and unchristian as segregationist viewpoints are to us today, it is at least understandable that it would be very easy for HWA to reflect what was normal for his generation. That in no way excuses him, because if he really was the restorer of true first century christianity after "1900 years of false christianity," then he should have been out in front of the race issue, right? Since the lumbering federal government was ahead of HWA on the race issue, we can probably reject HWA's other claims about being ahead of his time on other issues as well, but I digress.

E.W. King, however, does not get such a pass. In 2013 he is so entrenched in the idolatry of HWA that he can't distinguish baby from bathwater (generously assuming there was any "baby" to begin with). His delusional beliefs in HWA's demigod status and near-infallibility has led him to follow HWA so slavishly that he cannot tell when he has regressed to be at least 50-60 years behind the times in his thinking about race, and he cannot tell how utterly unchristian (not to mention idiotic) white supremacism is. He is so critical-thinking challenged that he cannot tell when he is returning to eat another man's vomit (generously assuming that HWA left anything else to return to).

I hope I didn't mince my words too much.

Anonymous said...

There was never a literal Noah as advertised. It is a Hebrew rewrite of a Sumerian myth. Sheesh

Anonymous said...

Jesus would be as white as a modern day Palestinian

Anonymous said...

Head're going to have to get to the point and stop beating around the bush lol

Byker Bob said...

It'd be nice if these people would apply MLK's paradigm to the Biblical patriarchs, and judge them by their character and accomplishments rather than by the color of their skin.

Let's face it. God incarnate came to planet Earth, shared the best and most advanced information available with humanity, and was then rejected, tortured and died so that our sins could be forgiven.
And, apparently, someone thinks that His skin color while He was human is worthy of remark, or even debate. It takes some awfully small minded, and very chauvinistic or elitist people to even consider such a thing!


Anonymous said...

"Let's face it. God incarnate came to planet Earth, shared the best and most advanced information available with humanity..."

Available? To whom? God or humanity?

Best and advanced? Can you elaborate, Bob? I'm scratching my noggin trying to remember what advanced information was in the Bible. Was it the germ theory of disease? No, that wasn't it. Surely you aren't referring to the teachings of Christ, which was recycled information.

It still boggles the mind of just how psychopathic the god of the Bible really is. He creates a law, that if transgressed, is punishable by death. Mankind is incapable, by virtue of their very existence, of observing this law and so automatically fall under the death penalty. But god, all merciful and loving, decides to release them from this cycle of sin and death that he created and set in motion by 1) killing his son for three days or so, and 2) requiring that all humanity (unless they want to face death and torture in the afterlife) acknowledge that they are rotten and abominable to the core, while he is love and mercy personified. Nut-job!

Paul Ray

Newlife said...

I think you nailed it Paul Ray.

Anonymous said...

(chuckle) Well, I knew one member of the Dayton COG in the 80s, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's still repeating this stuff to anyone who will listen...

Anonymous said...

I remember listening to a archived recorded sermon by HWA. I'm not sure of the sermon's date, but in that sermon HWA mentioned the recent death of Bobby Sands(who died in prison while on a hunger strike on May 5, 1981), so that may help date the sermon.

He was really mad, and ranting about Ambassador's white students dancing with black students. He also mentioned that the Bricket Wood campus was originally slated to be only for black students.

But on another note...
For some comic relief-
Back to the Thiel circus...

Katie Couric interviews Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Katie: " Arnold, I hear you are going to star in a big come-back movie."
Arnold: "Ya, dat is true."
Katie: "What is the movie about?"
Arnold: "It's about Bob Thiel shooting males who want to be in his church but are not appropriate enough."
Katie: "So, it's another action movie?"
Arnold: "Ya, it will be action-packed!"
Katie: "What made you choose this for your big come-back movie?"
Arnold: "Since it's about Bob Thiel, billions and billions of people will watch it. Just like the billions and billions of people who watch his sermons."
Katie: "Wow! Billions and billions! That sounds like a no-brainer!"
Arnold: "Ya. And Bob Thiel is a no-brainer, too."
Katie: "How are you preparing for this role?"
Arnold: "I'm getting properly un-pumped up, and getting in touch with my inner 'girly-man' "
Katie: "Anything else?"
Arnold: "Ya. I punch my book cases to make them crooked, then I put a picture of The Baron on a fluffy heart-shaped pillow and kiss it before I go to sleep."
Katie: "Where will this movie be filmed?"
Arnold: "At a fantastic location in Pasadena, Colleyfornia."
Katie: "Is there a name for the movie?"
Arnold: "Ya. It's The Inappropriator: Blood on the Egrets
Katie: "Wow! Sounds like it will be a cult classic!"
Arnold: "Ya, you don't know the half of it!"
Katie: "Anything else you can tell us?"
Arnold: "Ya. It will be my most fantastic line ever. Even bigger than, 'I'LL BE BACK!', or, 'My nipples are very sensitive' "
Katie: "What line is that?"
Arnold: "After I shoot them and blood splatters on the egrets, I say, "You've just been inappropriated!" "
Katie: "That sounds ... interesting!"
Arnold: "Ya. It will be fantastic and seen by billions."


DennisCDiehl said...

Norm..that makes Arnold the Inapproprianator!!!

DennisCDiehl said...

Or maybe the Maleanator?

Gavin said...

Isn't it ironic that HWA and WCG would ban pictures of Christ Jesus (ya' know those pictures of Him with long blonde hair and blue eyes etc) saying that it was a transgression of the 3rd Commandment and wasn't even historically accurate. And then they'd go on and on about Christ Jesus being white and looking like a modern-day American or Brit!? Seriously who cares what color His skin or hair or eyes were! Isn't it more important to remember what He said and did rather than what He looked like?

On a related sidenote I've heard that Christians of different races who experience near death experiences and claim to have seen or spoken with Christ Jesus say that He appears to them in the same ethnicity as they are. Anyone else heard about this?

Velvet said...

Well, I certainly don't remember any segregation or race issues, and the Toronto East congregation was, at 1200 strong, as multicultural as the city itself, between the 1970s and 1980s.

The Victoria congregation, on the other hand, was as pure white as the driven snow...but some (only a very few) of the Victoria members didn't start spewing the white supremacy the-Jews-killed-Jesus garbage until after the changes.

I do remember hearing lots from the pulpit when I was growing up about how Jesus was Jewish, and He would look Middle Eastern, and the professing Christians won't know Him when He returns because of that, etcetera. Nowadays the Evangelicals in the Church use the same long-haired white hippy Jesus idols that were readily criticized from the pulpit for being unrealistic and just another deception.

I do think the Church changed its stance on the race issue significantly earlier than the rest of the world did, at least according to what ministers both in and out of the Church have said, in sermons over the past few years, recounting how they treated and were treated as brethren, regardless to skin colour, even in the 1960s.

All that said, even though there was no segregation in the Church when I was growing up (and everyone at least seemed to treat each other like brethren, whether their hearts were in it or not), interracial marriage was definitely still a no-no.

So, was the Church perfect? Not by a long shot. But it was definitely my experience in the Church that the neo-Nazi stuff came in with the Evangelicals, not before them. Even now, ministers get away scot-free with saying such terrible, awful anti-Semitic things (especially the "replacement theology" dog feces) from the pulpit, that they would have had the brethren in an uproar after services, back in the day...but it is unfortunately a standard professing Christian "doctrine" so the Evangelicals nowadays don't even blink.

(And for a rundown of the National Association of Evangelicals' storied history in Nazism, read Jeff Sharlet's "The Family" -- the founders of the NAE even managed to get Nazi war criminals released from prison after Germany was defeated. Charming, no?)