Racism Is Inherent in Anglo-Israelism
Lonnie Hendrix
Many of the adherents of Anglo-Israelism have expressed their disbelief that anyone would have the audacity to characterize their teaching as being inherently racist in nature. “It’s not about race!” they indignantly declare. “Ephraim and Manasseh were the product of a mixed marriage (their mother was an Egyptian),” they remind their critics. “Yes, Herbert Armstrong and the old Worldwide Church of God did introduce some racist ideas and policies into the mix,” some of them will admit; but they insist that they have moved beyond such past ignorance and mistakes in their application of the teaching.
As a consequence, I thought it might be instructive to try and explain why the teaching is racist in nature and cannot be redeemed with improved window dressing. To do this, we must first summarize the teaching to understand how it could be racist.
Anglo-Israelism is the notion that the English-speaking peoples of the world represent the modern manifestation of the Israel of the Bible. More specifically, that the British Commonwealth is synonymous with the tribe of Ephraim, and the United States is synonymous with the tribe of Manasseh. According to the proponents of the teaching, these nations are the heirs of the promises of material wealth and power promised to Abraham so long ago, and their preeminent position in the modern world is the evidence that this is true.
So, how could that possibly be considered racist in nature? They reason that God is the source of this wealth and power – that HE gave these things to the English-speaking peoples to fulfill HIS promises to their ancestor Abraham. The problem with this reasoning is that it excuses a whole lot of racist behavior on the part of these people!
Take a moment to think about the history of the rise of these people to the position they have occupied on the world stage. After all, the expansion of British influence around the world was part of the larger movement of European colonialism which resulted in the subjugation of native peoples and the appropriation of their lands. Likewise, it has resulted in the exploitation of the resources and labor (in the form of the institution of slavery) of weaker nations. Moreover, the Americans and British have used their wealth and power to maintain their advantages over other nations. And, finally, all of this has given rise to the notion that their culture, institutions and beliefs (religious and political) are superior to all of the other nations and peoples of the earth.
In the United States, this gave rise to beliefs that God’s saints were planting His kingdom in the wilderness, and that it was the Manifest Destiny of these people to occupy all of the land between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Thus, Native Americans could be butchered and pushed off of their lands, and African slaves could be used to build the infrastructure of a great republic.
Thus, Anglo-Israelism legitimizes all of this clearly racist behavior because it all happened to fulfill God’s promises to Abraham! Moreover, supporting things like the Black Lives Matter movement and immigration from Latin America to the United States and Muslims to Great Britain threatens to change the very nature of the nations who have inherited these blessings and destroy their Israelite character!
Look at the encyclopedic and dictionary definitions of racism and tell me that this teaching isn’t inherently racist in nature! No, Anglo-Israelism is not benign and harmless. By its very nature, without embellishment or overt expressions, it glorifies some of the most racist behaviors and policies ever inaugurated in human history!
55 comments:
Lonnie:
Here is the way I think it is seen by Armstrongists: If British-Israelism were false, it would be racism. It would be a calumny on people of color. People color would be falsely accused of being inferior. But British-Israelism is true. Therefore, it cannot be racism and there is no calumny. People of color really are inferior.
When you level a charge of racism against Armstrongites, their heads spin because they see themselves as just stating the truth. And anyone who challenges it must be anti-truth and anti-God.
When the British government took over India from the Honourable British India Company it viciousely attacked the "honouroble" because of its violent past. It propagated and changed its official mission from trade and conquest to education and a mission to civilize and bring progress through the Christian religion. The Queen got promoted to Empress by the emancipated Jew, Benjamin dIsraeli. And dIsraeli git rewarded an Earl title and therefore access to the true elite. (other than being merely a second rate politician and commoner, a peerage).
This emancipation of the jews from reviled 3rd rate inhabitants to prime ministers of the empire, heiresses of great banking empires marrying into the worlds ruling elites as equal cousins and brothers of the anglo saxons is THE EXACT time stamp BI got into being as an ideology, popularized among the masses through the Anglican Church on its mission civilicatrice in the Empire.
As such it deemed itself a model for other colonizing nations to eminate.
Of course the ugly truth is the reverse. Britain for example was the first nation to abolish slavery, nit because its inherent morality as a great nation, but because by the loss of america they did not profit ftom it anymore and wished to deny their competitors the relative economic advantage. (same for us participation in ww2, only after the loss of markets, which would impact US economic potential.)
Anyway, so yes BI emphasized the ruling ideology and as such was racist. Yet it helped emancipate the jews as acceptable as legitimate part of the ruling class.
God made all those racist covenants and promisses depending on your defenition of racism.
HWA mission was ENTIRELY about education as the solution to all trouble. He was a 19th century Victorian.
Nck
I think everyone is forgetting that the Canaanites were cursed and WCG equated Canaan with the Africans including our black brethren.
I have seen it argued on this site that the Canaanites were the same stock as the Israelites.
Plus some of us believe the flood was a myth - an impossibility.
BI itself is not nearly as racist as the rest of the WCG beliefs about the nations.
Watch YouTube videos on the Philippines. They were disease ridden and illiterate. America pulled them out of the jungle, and when they were educated and civilised enough, gave them their freedom. And not forgetting, freed them from the conquering Japanese during WW2. This is an example of the Anglo-Saxons being the good guys, the guys in white. They lifted up mankind. This racism accusation is utter nonsense. It's like the blacks who make up 13% of the American population, endlessly belly aching about being mistreated. Yet they commit 50% of the murders and 60% of the nations robberies. It's text book gas lighting, ie, giving others a false version of reality. Emotional abusers do this regularly, ie, "it's your fault that I constantly abuse you."
I can't help noticing that the left wing liberals have a black belt in gas lighting. Black is white and white is black etc.
BTW, God's way is that all lives matter.
Ha Lonnie, you swallowed the magic blue pill.
After the Great Flood in Noah's time, God confused the languages of his descendants at the Tower of Babel and geographically segregated the people. The BLACK people ended up in Africa. The YELLOW people ended up in Asia. The WHITE people ended up in Europe.
God gave the USA to the white descendants of Joseph's son Manasseh. Now, as the people of the USA become more godless and sinful, there are increasingly loud calls to flood the USA with foreigners of other colors and religions. Foreigners rising higher and higher while Americans sink lower and lower is one of the prophesied punishments for disobedience.
Racism is an insidious thing - like pride. It is one of those sins that is almost impossible to see in oneself. As someone who once believed in Anglo-Israelism, I know how hard it is to come to terms with just how wrongheaded this one was - it was excruciating for me. Moreover, there was this gnawing feeling that I should have known better.
Perhaps it was so attractive because it sought to explain the blatant inequities that exist in our world - why some folks have so much and others so little. For some of us, maybe it justified for us the fact that we had more than others. And, as flawed humans, it is often exhilarating for our self-esteem to feel superior to others - part of the chosen ones, the elite. Finally, it appealed to our sense of being in the know about world events and understanding what was supposed to happen next.
As someone with Southern ancestry, I had witnessed the ugliness of racism within my own extended family. I had seen people that I loved - people that were sweet and kind most of the time - who hated people who had darker skin than them. Even so, I couldn't even begin to admit to myself that I harbored similar prejudices within my belief system. It was a rude awakening when I began to become aware of the significance and implications of these feelings/views.
And, even though I was a student and teacher of history, I drank the Kool-Aid about the shining city on the hill. Sure, I had studied the trail of tears and Wounded Knee. I had studied the institution of slavery in college and experienced the Old South up close and personal; but I had never really absorbed the fact that all of that negativity was just as much a part of America's story as all of the heroic and good stuff.
As a former Armstrongite, I get how hard this is to come to terms with! I've been there - done that. Yes, it's hard, unpleasant and hurtful; but a clearer and truer perspective is worth the pain. After all, repentance is the first step to forgiveness.
--Lonnie
So, God's a racist? ok
Its time for the COGs to stop diminishing and labeling with prejudice all of the Germanic peoples as the evil "Assyrians".
The sins of Americans and British doesn’t negate the possibility of their descent from Joseph being true anymore than the sins of the north-west European countries negating the possibility of them being descended from the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel.
To claim:
A) Racism is wrong
B) BI is racist
C) Therefore BI is wrong
This ignores the possibility even probability that aspects of BI—as aforementioned above—is true. If you replace BI with Talmudic Judaism then you’d have to come to the same conclusion about Talmudism, that it is racist and therefore wrong as well. Yet, the sins of Israeli Jews doesn’t negate the fact that certain Jews are descended from the patriarch, Israel.
Anonymous (10:15) ". . . and geographically segregated the people."
This is such pure orthodox Armstrongism that I feel like I am being pimped. But here it goes:
First, your statement is loaded with ideas whose interpretation and historicity can be and has been successfully challenged. You now have to live in a vacuum sealed jar someplace to believe that reality is articulated in this way. It would do you well to read beyond church literature. So I will look at just one issue.
You hit a loud "segregation" button (as George Wallace would use the word) in your statement. But Genesis does not say what you wrote. The Bible says God just scattered people. The word for scattered in Hebrew is hepisam. Onto this simple word, you have mapped a segregationist racial policy by stating that God racially segregated people geographically. The word hepisam in the Bible does not say that. Dean Blackwell said that.
From genetics, we know that the human population of the world cannot be broken down into three simple groups: white, black and yellow. And appearance is not a reliable guide. Some groups of people are quit closely related to each other yet yet have dissimilar appearances. And, in reverse, there are people who seem to have similar appearances that are genetically quite distant from each other. My guess is that you think Jesus was White. Jesus was haplogroup J and far removed genetically from the people of Western Europe. His appearance was that of a Mizrahi Jew not an Ashkenazi. This could go on. I don't have time.
You can research this material or continue to believe what you believe. Your decision, your accountability, your future.
NEO said:
"People of color really are inferior."
That's utter ignorance, it has nothing to do with being superior or inferior. All people are the same, it's about being blessed by God.
The left, like Lonnie, love to condemn how this country was founded, but if the bible is true it was founded the exact same way that Israel was founded in the Promised land. Many people were displaced and Israel used the resources of the land produced by those displaced nations.
Whether BI is true or not is moot, the way this country was founded does not prove it couldn't be of God. If anything, since it's similar to Israel's founding it just might prove that BI is correct.
Anyone who thinks that God giving special blessings to anyone makes them superior is just plain dumb. If BI were true then Israel is no better than anyone else, just abundantly blessed by God.
To choose one ethnic group for a specific purpose, is this racist? When he said I lover Jacob, hate Esau, did this mean "I chose one over the other." Is this necessarily racism? Of course, you can justify racist behavior, but is choosing one group over another inherently racist? Abraham was chosen, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau. The chosen one was not always the firstborn, but did have a spiritual sensitivity that the other sibling didn't have. Is it necessarily racism? How can the US be of a specific tribe when it is such a melting pot? There are two subjects here. First is the idea that the US and BC are descendants of these tribes which they aren't. Second, is choosing one over another racist.
UCG is long known to have, within the ranks, a problem with British Israelisim teaching.
Usually the same ones who say believing British Israelisim is racisim are the same ones who say keeping of the holy days deny Jesus Christ.
Anti B.I. obsessives tend to be anti-semitic and not allign themselves to America or Britain.
Anonymous (7:18)
Let me hasten to point out that your quotation of what I wrote seems like a declaration of conviction when it was really parody of Armstrongist thought - for those who do not read back.
". . . the way this country was founded does not prove it couldn't be of God."
A question for you. Do we have a theodicy in which we may cherry pick history for what we believe to be acts of God outside the express decree of the Bible? The colonial Americans exterminated many Native Americans. How does that differ, other than in technology, from how the Germans exterminated many Jews? The Germans intended on dispossessing many European nations in order to find Lebensraum. The Jews were only the beginning. It is breathtaking to believe that somehow America's founding as a clash among peoples and cultures was somehow an unmixed blessing of God. People have always been acquisitive and brutal - no less the Europeans who conquered this continent.
Anonymous (7:21) "To choose one ethnic group for a specific purpose, is this racist?"
No, it isn't, if you are God. If you are Dean Blackwell or George Wallace, it is.
Anonymous at 8:09 AM said...“UCG is long known to have, within the ranks, a problem with British Israelisim teaching. Usually the same ones who say believing British Israelisim is racisim are the same ones who say keeping of the holy days deny Jesus Christ. Anti B.I. obsessives tend to be anti-semitic and not allign themselves to America or Britain.”
Also, UCG is long known to have, within the ranks, a problem with extreme godlessness.
NEO, you can compare the killing of natives with Germany killing Jews all that you want but how do you know that it's not more comparable to how Israel destroyed the inhabitants of the Promised land? You don't know!
Jos 9:24 - And they answered Joshua, and said, Because it was certainly told thy servants, how that the LORD thy God commanded his servant Moses to give you all the land, and to destroy all the inhabitants of the land from before you, therefore we were sore afraid of our lives because of you, and have done this thing.
1Sa 15:3 - Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
NEO,
It was a complete difference in culture and property rights. But, up until the mid 1700s and perhaps late 1700s the native Americans killed more settlers than vice versa. The Native Americans killed one another (not telling you anything new there); many nations of Indians (500 Nations). It was ruthless on BOTH sides. I don't believe it is anywhere as evil as the Holocaust however.
NEO said:
"No, it isn't, if you are God. If you are Dean Blackwell or George Wallace, it is."
How do you know if something is of God or not? You don't know. Do you honestly need something to be spelled out in scripture to believe it? If so then I guess that you don't believe in divine healing or that God is working in Christians today since there is no new scripture that you can verify that with.
What if BI is true and God did ordain the killing of natives and the enslavement of Africans? It's not as if he hasn't ordained this of old.
Gen 9:27 - God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
I can't prove that Africans are Canaan and you can't prove they aren't.
If they are, and slavery was ordained of God, your and Lonnie's condemnation of how this country was founded goes against God.
If not...
Anonymous (12:35) ". . . how do you know that it's not more comparable to how Israel destroyed the inhabitants of the Promised land?"
The answer to this question is straightforward:
1. The Jews were directly commanded by God to destroy the Canaanites of Palestine. No such direct command was ever given to the European settlers in early North America regarding the Native Americans. The words of the ancient command were of sufficient importance to be recorded in the OT. There are no such words recorded for the European Settlers. Nothing about what they did rose to the level of theological import. It was simply geopolitical.
2. The genocide of Native Americans by Europeans happened during the era of the New Covenant. The God of that covenant, Jesus, followed a path of "love thy neighbor." The ministration of death had been long ago superseded by the ministration of the spirit. Why would that God of love issue any kind of command to modern people to follow an example of an OT policy. This would involve the abrogation of the NT as an exceptional case.
The fact is the Europeans destroyed the Native Americans in precisely the same way that the Nazis destroyed the Jews but using Zyklon B instead of blankets infected with smallpox. One of the selling points of Armstrongism is that it makes you feel good about past national sins instead of feeling repentant. Armstrongists can feel great about slavery. They can feel great about Native American genocide. They do not need Jesus. They have HWA, Hoeh and Blackwell to tell them this depravity was not sin but patriotism.
Note: The Native Americans were not without their sins as well. Just as the Ashkenazi who were decimated by the Nazis were not without sins. But I do not think we can use any understanding of the New Covenant, no matter how revisionist, to justify mass murder. And then, of all things, with an unctuous smile to pretend it all came from God.
Anonymous 7/22/20,
May I suggest some reading? Dee Brown's Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee and Vine Deloria's Custer Died for Your Sins
And, may I ask, Do you honestly believe that Almighty God ever instructed anyone to commit genocide? If so, I assume you are a literalist and a fundamentalist? If not, please explain how you came to that conclusion.
NEO
Armstrongist thought condemned any and every atrocity comitted during the execution of "the promises". Whatever and how many times you quote Blackwell or any other redneck texan minister absolving the crimes.
HWA was very clear on the sinful nature of "israel". God had nothing to do with the invention of the Colt pistol or the Remmington rifle. And he will have no part in ww3. It is mans way of executing any godly potential this carnal filth may have. HWA, was very clear on the putrid nature of man. Scottish Calvinist to the core.
Nck
Anonymous (3:49)
Forget that I wrote anything.
God told the Israelites to kill everyone, but later he told them not to intermarry with them. HUH? In the book, Is God a Moral Monster, it states that oftentimes the Bible uses over the top language, much as General Patton did when speaking to his troops. There is the same misunderstanding of the many crimes worthy of capital punishment in the OT. But, in Numbers 35:31 is says, "Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die." Jews say that the other capital offenses were really dealt with by fines, not execution. Why then make them "capital offenses?" To instill in the people the seriousness of their sins. I think we need to try to understand what is written as it would have been understood by the people at the time. Genocide was not committed by the Israelites. The only people left to attack were hard core military personnel, the "innocent civilians" had already been taken out of harms way in most cases. The goal was not to kill them, but to exile them. There were rules of war back then, just as there are today.
Jim,
Native Americans did not share European notions about property, and they weren't subject to English law and traditions. Even so, the Cherokee had adopted English/American notions about constitutions, government and property. Nevertheless, they were tricked, swindled and forcibly removed from their homes and lands and marched West. Moreover, just before the journey to their new "homeland," they were gathered into concentration camps by the army (Ft. Payne, Alabama was the site of one of them for Natives in Alabama). The Cherokee dropped like flies in the camps and many died along the way to Indian Territory (which was also eventually taken from them). Two of my ancestors were killed in attacks by Native Americans, and a Great Uncle slaughtered Native men, women and children at Blue Water Creek in Nebraska. Some of my ancestors owned slaves and others served on the Underground Railroad. Another Great Uncle witnessed the lynching of an innocent black man in Huntsville, Alabama. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were brilliant and great men, but they also owned and mistreated hundreds of their fellow humans. Like all people, America is (and always has been) a mix of good and bad. Any version of history that doesn't recognize this fact is more fairytale than history!
Lonnie
Anonymous (8:28) "God told the Israelites to kill everyone . . ."
This is an oversimplification. It was not God's original intention that the Israelites kill anyone. His original intent was to use a non-lethal means of accomplishing the displacement of the Canaanites:
"And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee." (Ex 23:28)
The fact that Israel had to do the killing later was a form of punishment for faithlessness. Nobody in their right mind would regard it a noble or joyous act to kill a bunch of women and children. Only a scattering of modern day Armstrongists have this sad mindset as we have seen on the blog here. That is why it was so bizarre to have seen someone stand up an Spokesman Club, with an inflated chest and an inflated ego and a White supremacist mentality, brag about how his forefathers killed American Indians and helped found the nation. Being immersed in the OT can lead to some really regrettable and ungodly outcomes. It is as if Armstrongists are totally blinded to the love for humanity that Christ expressed. They live in the fantasy world of British racial superiority blended with Basil Wolverton's Bible Story.
God is just. Wiping out all the men, women and children is a judgement that God passed on many depraved nations. God is no respecter of men, which is why a near genocidal military defeat will be imposed on the Anglo-Saxons as described in the first few verses of Ezekiel 5.
3:49 PM
Your implication is that slavery of blacks as it existed in America was ordained of God. But, nowhere in the Bible does God penalize a person with slavery based on the color of their skin.
Sadly Anon 10:50 the root causes of it all is from within ministry. The membership as a whole are not the problem.
I think we all know racism is wrong. Unfortunately the media has become so biased. & blatantly tells lies that it has become a part in promoting anti -white racism as well. It is just as wrong to hate a person for being white as well as being black, yellow or whatever color you may be.
This is how the Moral Empires convinced themselves that killing was ok and why the formulation of an underpinning ideology was so important. It starts with compartmentalising into US and THEY, which was strengthened by the reality within "
Perception is reality to the point where reality is warped in order to make it comply with their pseudo-reality. Like fanaticism, partisanship untethers the mind from objective reality. Unlike fanaticism, which is temporary and disconnected from rational thinking, partisanship enslaves the rational mind, forcing it to create an alternative reality. This partisan reality is so powerful it blocks out anything that contradicts or disconfirms the alternative reality.
The thing about political murder is it is not irrational. If you truly think the only way your people can survive is to abide by a certain set of rules, then anyone trying to undermine those rules is a direct threat to your survival. Bargaining with such a person or offering them leniency would be no different than bargaining with a killer. The fact that political opposition is not the same as violent assault is the deception. The partisan has become convinced of something that is at odds with reality.
Compounding this strange conflict of realities is the fact the people in each are highly similar to one another, but seemingly incapable of seeing the reality of the other as the other perceives it.
The most extreme version of this are the radicals that go on a murderous rampage in the belief they are defending their cause against dangerous enemies. They quickly move from disagreement to murder, because they quickly create a reality in which anyone showing the least bit of doubt is secretly plotting to kill them. Those who commit political murder do so in the firm conviction they are acting in self-defense. In fact, they have to kill their opponents for the good of society.
So who is NCK and where does he stand?
those looking hard at the world find themselves surround by people from at least two simulations that are derivative of reality, but at odds with it in fundamental ways
nck
Talk about bull shit. It had nothing to do with race, but rather obedience to the Most High. This article is a perfect example of twisting scripture to the point that the real truth is totally overlooked to appear as something totally different.
I surmise that the writer is outright deceptive and cunning.
Banned has fallen several steps in credibility as far as I am concerned.
11:30 I implied nothing, I was merely asking a question.
What if God did ordain it?
As far as NEO wanting a direct communication from God before he accepts that God's hand is in our lives today, well...
So there we have it. City slicker lawyer Nck in his 2.18 AM post has decided to sit on the fence. After all, why offend any potential clients? But the problem with this approach is that to not side with the good, is to effectively aid and abet the evil. It's the sin of omission, as in not giving assistance to a car accident victim.
"The fact that Israel had to do the killing later was a form of punishment for faithlessness."
NEO, how do you know that killing the natives wasn't "a form of punishment" for the founders of this country?
My point is that you don't know if the founding of this country was ordained by God or not, your believing that it wasn't is no more correct than those who think it was.
It's your arrogance, speaking for God, as if you know is the problem.
I personally don't know if it was ordained by God or not, but you do seem to know. What a laugh!
Sit on the fence?
Regarding this debate perhaps.
I was never framed by Bkackwells pseudo reality.
HWA condemned all hunan nature as "putrid", as Scottish Calvinist should.
Especially directed at "Israel" who had rejected god but took his promises as entitlement.
Nck
HWA said "Israel" got blessed DESPITE" their begavior.
I can name all comitted atrocities, yet they will only "prove" that god is a promise keeper, despite........ proving the Chrustian message of redemption even further.
So a pity you "called me out", now I had to prove HWA right again, which I did not set out.
Nck
.
Anonymous (6:43)
What you have raise is a question of epistemology. How do we know what we know?
I have expressed my viewpoint to you and you have expressed your viewpoint to me. So we are at parity. If am arrogant so too are you. I think we can leave it at that.
Sweetblood777 Agree 100% with your comments.
Epistemology pisses me off!
Racism is good. I am a racist myself and I'm very proud of it and I'm proud that I don't belong to one of the low intelligence violent criminal races. Thank God I'm not stupid enough to believe that all races evolved equally. I just look at the evidence, not at the virtue signalling wishful thinking hogwash.
Speaking of NCK, when you complain that NCK can't explain himself clearly he assumes you are a dumb Armstrongite.
The so-called "curse of Canaan" was levied at black folks somehow because Canaan's brother Cush was supposed to have been the father of the inhabitants of what's approximately Ethiopia. This is why writers often claimed that Canaan and Cush's father Ham was black. However, these are often the same people who insist ignorantly that the descendants of Ham's son Mizraim were somehow not black! So I don't really place much weight on such interpretations.
I don't think I ever said that. You seem to confuse me with BB.
Many complaining here are illiterates.
They would read a booklet like 7 laws of success as a flawed self help book, while hwa drives home the point of submission to god.
The same goes with the reading of US&BP as a racist book. Of course it is 19th century philosophy, however HWA incessantly drove the point that god fulfilled his promisses, DESPITE and REGARDLESS of the "Israelites" behavior.
So I had a lot of fun describing the horrid behavior of the Anglo's over the centuries. HWA's point was however the Christian message that God would fulfill his promises and execute his plan regardless of the "putrid waste" he seemed to have created.
You may disagree. But that is Calvinist, Scottish Presbyterianism.
You may ask yourself, why Dennis in his young years applying for AC, looked at AC as "just another" minister training school.
It is because Calvinism and its worldview was not foreign to his thinking.
I can explain myself if I choose to. However NON here can get himself to ask questions. Its a frame. Those who do not ask, will feel ridiculed. However they do not realize they are framed, by whatever framer, perhaps even starting at kindergarten.
Nck
5:43
This Ham framing was a frame used by European slave trading nations, to somehow find an "ideological" basis for their "anti christian behavior" which suddenly could be found in scripture.
Racism as in the black man being lesser is a 17th-19th century invention and classification system that had previously been non existant.
Slaves have existed since forever, but racist classification of sub humans is a recent reading from "christian" philosophy.
A Roman or a Viking would just make an Irish or Russian or Goth girl his slave BECAUSE. (or the rules of conquest)
Not because he needed "animals or subhumans" to do the chores in his Domus.
The classification system is almost proportional to "christian guilt" about the anglo saxon modern slave system.
Hence the violent reaction by reps from florida when a woman like aoc presses on that (feeling of) guilt. In his defense or "apology" this old male immediately starts wallowing about "his love for god". This is a psycological reaction and defense mechanism, completely besides the point aoc was making, irrelevant and not about the question raised.
I do not like AOC at all , I'm using it as an example as how the framing holds a GOP person into grip and is so tight that only (verbal) violence can escape. I placed a large comment that explains that Aoc us framed aswell.
Then some fool accused me of sitting on the fence and the sin of omission.
My only point was, that I am not within either frame.
I regard HWA as a great philosopher, because he aspired to the "god frame".
Unfortunately it seems that even the highest ranking in the system, were kept caught in the racist frame of their environment (blackwell) or made it into a mantra "the bigger picture meredith".
You say, I cannot explain myself, I say you cannot frame me or my postings.
Nck
I’m no fan of the wcg, and i get how BI is prone toward racism, but in my experience in the South and at AC, racism was not an issue beyond dating. A wrong belief, but a belief based in a false philosophy, but the way the members of different races interacted was not racist.
You reveal much nck. But a little genuine humility would go a long way. Perhaps your real job makes you convinced everyone are such idiots.
When in reality no-one is a stupid as people like you assume.
"You reveal much nck. But a little genuine humility would go a long way."
You might have noticed that I have immediately caved in as I regard you as the "black knight" of "the Quest for the Holy Grail". You commanded to be treated as an equal and I yield.
I'm pretty sure that you realize that IF and WHEN you start using real arguments or keep adressing me in one liners you might end up as the black knight, "t'is but a flesh wound", for now I salute you my dear brave knight.
nck
BI a doctrine easily believed but nevertheless incorrect.
https://www.losttribesofisraelmyth.com/
But it is not the GOSPEL.
Take care out there.
Hi Lonnie. My name is Carl and I just pulled my membership from the United Church of God about a month ago. I wrote a paper proving, by the scriptures, that it is Jesus who is king, not queen Elizabeth II. I had all kinds of detail in that paper that I gave to my local pastor. He held on to it so long that I knew he was procrastinating.
As a Black man, I truly tried to not judge the churches of God as racist, but after finding so much evidence online that HWA was prejudiced, I decided that this church was no longer for me.
1. The belief in British-Israelism is not found in the entire Bible.
2. Assyria is not Germany and no language or DNA connection exists. I found that online.
3 Germans came from the north, not the Middle east.
4. There is no historical, archaeological, or any other path to prove that for instance, Dan is the Irish. Everything in that THEORY is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I wrote the church about this and they even admitted I was correct about that fact.
They need to toss that entire belief out because it is not a point of salvation and it only divides people.
Lastly, one of your commentors said that the to displace the Native Americans, enslave Africans and oppress others because they had superior armies was no excuse for what they did. With greater power comes greater responsibility.
Every time I hear that THEORY I am reminded of all the White Supremacist groups right here in America that espouse those same false beliefs. Therefore, I had to leave United because I could never defend that false doctrine.
I also left a Black group that thought they were the true Israelites as well. They also had no evidence. Spiritual Israel is God's church and it doesn't matter where you are from or what color you are.
I am glad I ran into your article.
Carl from Detroit, Mi.
Hi Lonnie. I pulled my membership from the United Church of God about a month ago. I wrote a paper proving, by the scriptures, that it is Jesus who is king, not queen Elizabeth II. He held on to it so long that I knew he was procrastinating.
As a Black man, I truly tried to not judge the churches of God as racist, but after finding so much evidence online that HWA was prejudiced, I decided that this church was no longer for me.
1. The belief in British-Israelism is not found in the entire Bible.
2. Assyria is not Germany and no language or DNA connection exists. I found that online.
3 Germans came from the north, not the Middle east.
4. There is no historical, archaeological, or any other path to prove that for instance, Dan is the Irish. Everything in that THEORY is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I wrote the church about this and they even admitted I was correct about that fact.
They need to toss that entire belief out because it is not a point of salvation and it only divides people.
Ephraim is not mentioned at all in Revelation 7 where the 12 tribes of Israel are sealed. If Eprhaim is Great Britain, why aren't they there at the time of tribulation? Why was this tribe's name taken off the list of the 12?
Lastly, one of your respondents said that the to displace the Native Americans, enslave Africans and oppress others because they had superior armies was no excuse for what they did. With greater power comes greater responsibility.
Every time I hear that THEORY I am reminded of all the White Supremacist groups right here in America that espouse those same false beliefs. Therefore, I had to leave United because I could never defend that false doctrine.
I also left a Black group that thought they were the true Israelites as well. They also had no evidence. Spiritual Israel is God's church and it doesn't matter where you are from or what color you are.
I am glad I ran into your article.
Carl from Detroit, Mi.
Hi Lonnie. My name is Carl and I just pulled my membership from the United Church of God about a month ago. I wrote a paper proving, by the scriptures, that it is Jesus who is king, not queen Elizabeth II. I had all kinds of detail in that paper that I gave to my local pastor. He held on to it so long that I knew he was procrastinating.
As a Black man, I truly tried to not judge the churches of God as racist, but after finding so much evidence online that HWA was prejudiced, I decided that this church was no longer for me.
1. The belief in British-Israelism is not found in the entire Bible.
2. Assyria is not Germany and no language or DNA connection exists. I found that online.
3 Germans came from the north, not the Middle east.
4. There is no historical, archaeological, or any other path to prove that for instance, Dan is the Irish. Everything in that THEORY is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I wrote the church about this and they even admitted I was correct about that fact.
They need to toss that entire belief out because it is not a point of salvation and it only divides people.
Lastly, one of your commentors said that the to displace the Native Americans, enslave Africans and oppress others because they had superior armies was no excuse for what they did. With greater power comes greater responsibility.
Every time I hear that THEORY I am reminded of all the White Supremacist groups right here in America that espouse those same false beliefs. Therefore, I had to leave United because I could never defend that false doctrine.
I also left a Black group that thought they were the true Israelites as well. They also had no evidence. Spiritual Israel is God's church and it doesn't matter where you are from or what color you are.
I am glad I ran into your article.
Carl from Detroit, Mi.
Carl,
Thank you for commenting here. I am glad that you have escaped Armstrongism. It is also instructive to others that you came to this understanding about Anglo-Israelism entirely on your own - just by being intellectually curious and studying more than church literature on the subject.
Fortunately, our salvation is found in Jesus Christ, not in any human organization, doctrine or group of doctrines. I have always found it interesting that understanding is not found among the fruits or evidences of the Holy Spirit given in Scripture.
Again, thank you for taking the time to comment and share part of your story - you may have helped someone else by doing so!
Lonnie
Hi Lonnie
I think that any discussion on BI is difficult because people confuse:
-biblical words from a time of "tribes and clans"
-translations from a time of "principalities"
-BI books from the 19th century a time of the ascending "nation state" as a modern concept
People are discussing BI from "nation state" interpretations like, "Britain", "USA", etc etc etc whilst it is obvious that only parts of certain tribes within the nation states are "blessed" to the level of "abrahamic promise".
The only definite and clear answer will be provided once dna research is done on a 1000 different bronze age bone samples and that is compared to the dna of a 1000 bronze age bones from Ireland and other supposed Israelite areas where tribes settled.
So far I have only seen interesting Stone Age DNA sampling. It seemed many of the Irish (girls) came from (Iberia or the Middle East) and the Kings resembled Egyptian kingship where the elites would intermarry FAMILY.
So far I have only PROVEN that BI mirrors the Stone Age Irish migration story from Spain.
nck
Post a Comment