Dixie
H/T Michael Hill
Faith and Heritage has a great post on Dabney’s take on Northern conservatism as it confronted the women’s suffrage movement in 1897:
“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This [Northern conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy ,from having nothing to whip.”
Here is George Fitzhugh quoting Thomas Carlyle in Cannibals All!, or Slaves Without Masters:
“Further study, too, of Western European Society, which has been engaged in continual revolution for twenty years, has satisfied us that Free Society every where begets isms, and that isms soon beget bloody revolutions. …
Have men considered whither all this is tending, and what it certainly enough betokens? Cut every human relation that has any where grown uneasy sheer asunder; reduce whatsoever was compulsory to voluntary, whatsoever was permanent among us to the condition of the nomadic; in other words, LOOSEN BY ASSIDUOUS WEDGES, in every joint, the whole fabrice of social existence, stone from stone, till at last, all lie now quite loose enough, it can, as we already see in most countries, be overset by sudden outburst of revolutionary rage; and lying as mere mountains of anarchic rubbish, solicit you to sing Fraternity, &c. over it, and rejoice in the now remarkable era of human progress we have arrived at.”
Now we plant ourselves on this passage from Carlyle. We say that, as far as it goes, ’tis a faithful picture of the isms of the North. But the restraints of Law and Public Opinion are less at the North than in Europe. The isms on each side the Atlantic are equally busy with “assiduous wedges,” in “loosening in every joint the whole fabric of social existence;” but whilst they dare invoke Anarchy in Europe, they dare not inaugurate New York Free Love, and Oneida Incest, and Mormon Polygamy. The moral, religious, and social heresies of the North, are more monstrous than those of Europe. The pupil has surpassed the master, unaided by the stimulants of poverty, hunger and nakedness, which urge the master forward.”
Here is Rhett lashing out at the North’s “fondness for novelties, misnamed progress” in the final issue of the Charleston Mercury:
“The South now lived under a despotism of consolidation, the states and their sovereignty abused by Washington. With universal male suffrage it would only get worse. “Swelling the multitude of voters” would not make liberty but be its downfall, while the military Reconstruction now in place attempting “to put the half-savage negro over the civilized Caucasian, may not be forgotten or forgiven.” History would remember it as an act of abject hatred and bigotry. The South, a more tolerant and congenial region, did not like change and revered the past, while the North, “fond of novelties, misnamed “progress,” was the slave of its own dogmatism.”
Note: This was obvious to Rhett and Fitzhugh in the 1840s and 1850s, Dabney in the 1880s and 1890s, Bilbo and others in the 1940s and 1950s, and it is still obvious to us in the 2000s and 2010s. As long as the Union exists, the dystopian slide into BRA will continue.
I don’t even have to watch television to know that Republicans/Conservatism Inc. either have already or soon will surrender on the fiscal cliff, amnesty for illegal aliens, gun rights, climate change, gay marriage, the “Violence Against Women Act,” the “Sequester.” I don’t even have to be told over the phone that their mouthpieces like Sean Hannity are slobbering over the likes of “Dr. Ben Carson” or that idiotic conservatives are behind the “What Would Django Do” campaign.
Every single bit of it has always flowed from the same source: the original mistake made by the Founders, which is the existence of the Union with the Northeast, and the dominance of liberalism over conservatism across that broad swath of Yankeedom in the Northern state.
I just returned for lunch break, and missed some of the best postings on this thread. Picking up where I left off last night: Note that I believe in God’s work of creation and the importance and real meaning of those beginning passages of the Torah, but I do NOT accept the anti-scientific “Creationism” of modern evangelicals, along with their pro-global Zionist misreading of the Apocalypse of John.
Re: “King David was a man of war who killed for profit”:
The only profit that he is known to have killed for was another man’s wife — and so he was called a man of blood and was forbidden to build the Temple.
If “Southron” whites, and ALL Whites, would return to the true, Biblical, orthodox, Christian faith of our fathers, we would stop losing our promised land.
Mosin writes:
“90% of the force was not Welsh.”
While the movie took certain liberties with the actual facts (the worse being the portrayal of Pvt. Alfred Henry Hook as erstwhile shirker and malingerer) the movie overall does justice to the facts of the engagement including an accurate account of the defense of the hospital and the retreat to the final redoubt.
From Wiki:
“While most of the men of the 1st Battalion, 24th Regiment of Foot (1/24) were recruited from the industrial towns and agricultural classes of England, principally from Birmingham and adjacent southwest counties, only 10 soldiers of the 1/24 that fought in the battle were Welsh. Many of the soldiers of the junior battalion, the 2/24, were Welshmen. Of the 122 soldiers of the 24th Regiment present at the Battle of Rorke’s Drift, 49 are known to have been of English nationality, 32 were Welsh, 16 were Irish, 1 was a Scot, and 3 were born overseas. The nationalities of the remaining 21 are unknown.”
And 32 Welshmen in a contingent of 122 infantrymen is 26%; not less than 10%. Many of these Welshmen were in Bromhead’s B Co. 2nd Bn. 24th Regiment of Foot. The Welshmen also seem to have held their own in the awarding of VC’s and Distinguished Conduct Medals if the last names of the recipient’s are anything to go on.
Give the producer and star Stanley Baker and the narrator Richard Burton a break. They are both proud Welshmen.
Plus the depiction of the rifle volley fire by rank was fucking awesome.
Thanks, Rudel. I hadn’t researched it. I seem to remember only 97 when the Zulus attacked, and that there were 10 Welsh at that point, but it is likely they would have sung Men of Harlech, or something, since we like to sing always. Being of Welsh heritage on one side, I especially like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz9_ELpil9w
Mosin: How do you reconcile a loving, good God with a god who would create a for-eat-dog evolutionary, survival of the fittest world? If death was already upon the Earth, then man did not bring it, if man did not bring it,if there is no original sin, if no original sin then no need for a savior.
All the Bible rests on Genesis, if Genesis is not true, then it is mythology, and the whole Bible along with the Torah and Koran are Hebrew mythology.
All things being equal, Nordic, Celtic and Greek mythology is more interesting–and fun!
That won’t be found in Protestantism, so the critiques of American Evangelicalism have a measure of truth in them. But it isn’t Christianity that is at fault. It’s the VARIANT on Christianity.
What variant do you propose for Dixie?
“All things being equal, Nordic, Celtic and Greek mythology is more interesting–and fun!”
My original impression was correct, then. In one of your previous comments, you sounded almost like one of those vaunted Southron Creationists, who never appear on this site. Neopagan fun will be the downfall of many WN.
What did I just write? Stonelifter sounded Creationist.
This is not an argument that any Christian Southron would ever make: “How do you reconcile a loving, good God with a god who would create a for-eat-dog evolutionary, survival of the fittest world? If death was already upon the Earth, then man did not bring it, if man did not bring it, if there is no original sin, if no original sin then no need for a savior.”
Reply: The “death” in the Genesis lesson is understood clearly from the New Testament (Christian) perspective as a spiritual death involving eternal punishment, which has nothing to do with the natural life cycle of biological organisms.
Summary: This long digression from the thread topic has been useful to show how far some contemporary Southron “conservatives” have drifted from the faith of the original Southron settlers and Confederate founders and forefathers.
I am a Creationist
David’s time in the wilderness/ exile and he slew Philistine for fun and profit. Read the Book you claim to believe in
He also worked for the Philistines some of the time, or seemed to be. That’s where you connect, right? Imagining him a mercenary? I see now. Yes, I’ve read that. Still, his biggest prize, or profit, was someone else’s wife, and he was willing to murder one of his non-Hebrew soldiers for it.
If knew you were a Creationist.
There are two other evangelical “first principles” you may assent to: (2) support for endless pro-Zionist global war, and (3) the premillennial (mis)interpretation of the Apocalypse.
It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.
Mosin: Why don’t you just take the Bible for what it says. If a myth was created to explain the single most important event in history, what else is made up too? Was Jesus resurrected or is that some kind of hidden meaning as well? What about Jonah? Did that happen? Jesus said so. Would the Son of God present a fable as fact? Where do you draw the line, Mosin, between where the fable stops and real history starts?
Also, by your standards could I not say that the creation story of the heathen Norse, while not factual, points to some higher meaning.
Typo correct: “I” knew you were….
Returning to the thread topic, the quoted Faith and Heritage article describes Robert Dabney as “a minister at heart” and “one of the most profound and eloquent articulators of conservative and orthodox Christian ideas in the 19th century, and yet so few are aware of his contributions due to their current unpopularity. The Christian orthodoxy that Dabney once defended has been driven into obscurity amidst the tidal wave of ‘seeker sensitivity’ and self-help ‘Christianity.’ “
“Where do you draw the line, Mosin”?
No interpretation is perfect, but some misinterpretations are not innocent mistakes, but parts of various agendas. Is “behold the Lamb of God” to be taken literally, or not? Did they see a literal sheep? When a literal rendering is ridiculous like that, or when it conflicts with “sanctified common sense,” that is where we draw the line.
“What about Jonah? Did that happen? Jesus said so.” I don’t think the story of Jonah was taken literally at all within centuries of its origin, and Jesus did not “say so.” He referred to it.
Some think the Incarnation of the Deity is ridiculous too, and the resurrection….
Mosin: Many were deists who tipped the hat to Christianity because of respect for heritage and because it was, at that time, a very healthy upholder of virtuous society. Darwin didn’t publish his work until long after that.
We are a Christian nation because we are a white/Western one. Modern Christians have chosen to become multicultural, they must also realize that means multi-religious as well. Modern Christians are all in favor of a white minority, I say let them likewise prepare for a Christian minority.
That said, I wish there were special protections for whites and Christianity in our laws. There should be a special place for them as the historic founders of this country.
I also support 100% what Russia did to those sick anti-White lesbos aka Pussy Riot. That is how a sane nation acts to protect the memory of her ancestors.
“I wish there were special protections for whites and Christianity in our laws. There should be a special place for them as the historic founders of this country.”
This sounds as though you think we are museum pieces, and that all Christians are multiculturalists. Neither is true.
Robert Lewis Dabney is rolling over in his grave now, so to speak. How can Southron whites survive without the faith?
I think Noah is the Out Of Africa event. It’s an ur myth, Universal in nature.
When our common ancestors decided to cross over from Africa to modern Yemen they must have travelled by boat, with passengers. Some of the myth is poetically true too.
In the Torah that ubiquitous myth is used to teach a lesson.
I don’t like the term “myth” applied to content of the Holy Scripture however. The Bible is not a collection of entertaining stories, nor history or science.
Flood stories are universal. So much so that it’s a racial memory. You can’t possibly believe that that whole earth was flooded. There’s no geological evidence for it.
Blacks don’t have flood myths, from what I can gather.
The hubris of yankees telling me what I have to believe in.
“That won’t be found in Protestantism, so the critiques of American Evangelicalism have a measure of truth in them. But it isn’t Christianity that is at fault. It’s the VARIANT on Christianity.
What variant do you propose for Dixie?”
Orthodox Christianity, of course. That which England, Scotland, France, Germany, even Norway professed, prior to the Schism.
“The hubris of yankees telling me what I have to believe in.”
Stone (as in heart of…) I’m not saying this to you as a Yankee, but as a pastor. You can’t pick and choose (the great sin of sectarian prots) the Christian Faith, you have to take it ALL.
They tell their people that they’re done for racially if they don’t obey your religion. That goes well beyond putting Christ ahead of your people; it’s well into “screwing over your own kind for a dead Jew on a stick” territory.”
Svigor- that isn’t comment. That’s just plain vulgar.
But, assuming you are correct, do you not realize that the men in the Church (whether Roman, Orthodox, or Protestant) can be led astray, but the Church remains? The fallacy that perfection (even of the Church while on earth) is attainable is not only wrong (for that would mean the Church- as a whole- could err) but is impossible. (for original sin does exist, and is manifested to me every day)
I’ve iterated some of the measures that men and women would need to take to seriously follow YHWH, the God of the Bible, and the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
– That would be: DNA testing for all prospective members, after an initial screening of melanin content by visual examination. [Ez. 9:2, Matt. 5:48, Eph. 5:27]
– Women (deaconesses) preparing the women, and men preparing the men for full-body baptism, to ascertain whether or not ‘cuttings’ (tattoos) are on their bodies, BEFORE the sacrament. [ Lev. 19:28]
But does that mean that such would EASILY be implemented? Heavens, no! The last hundred years has been awash with such overt Christological heresy, that mere personal, bodily heresy is only the last element in our slide down the slippery slope.
But, it’s a start. One cannot expect a Church to be perfect, if one is not willing to at least strive for perfection starting with one’s self, after all.
“King David was a man of war who killed for profit and yet was beloved by God. You are one of those eunuchs and we do not worship the same God. ”
That’s correct. You do not worship the Lord God, whom I have served for more than twenty years as his priest. You worship an idol of your own making, you dog. The hubris is all one sided, Heart of stone. That you would compare your profession as a mercenary killer, to the ancestor of Christ, an Elect Man of God???
And then, You dare assume that your butcherous killing can be compared to the Man of God’s choosing, and HIS actions in war? David did war because he was commissioned by YHWH to do so, for the People of Israel. How is that comparable to a godless nation, that, in assuming the Constitution as the ‘law of the land,’ dethroned God? We elevated an Idol called ‘Man,’ and our own collective will, as our God- how is that to be compared with a Theocratic Kingdom? How, then, can you compare your time in the military, with the soldiers of YHWH GOd in the O.T.? The US is a pagan nation, because it has never ratified the covenant she once held dear, ever since 1789?
http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt1.php
(I’ve just found this recently, and am still slogging my way through his arguments. But, with the election of a Nigger to the Office of President, the Covenant -or what remained of it- was abolished, and the curses of Deut. 28-30 have begun. I now see [with absolutely frightening clarity] that my earlier ‘winking’ at America’s wars for Empire, and, by extension, your ‘occupation’ … was due to a desire to see something of merit in the USA.
I can say that NOTHING which the USA stands for today, is that with which I am in agreement. My own views were severely tried a few years back, by Orthodox writers and websites such as http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com. Even then, I knew subconsciously that they were correct, but I still argued for my homeland. I now see that Orthodox writers’ critiques of the USA, as a ‘protestant nation,’ were completely correct- there is no grace in the USA- the candlestick is being removed- yea, even as we speak- and the USA is without grace- especially in her hubris as a war-mongering Empire, and thus, any military actions taken since at least Korea (quite possibly WWI and II) are IMMORAL, and anyone serving in the Military is both a traitor to God as well as to the construct of a Christian nation. That means men like you, Heart of Stone. But it goes deeper with you. For you kill for profit.
(I’m at least being honest here, to explain why my comments toward you have changed. But your own perversion of ‘just war’ theory to justify yourself, certainly have opened my eyes to your hardness of heart- witnessed to, in times past, by your ungentlemanly actions toward Denise and other women on this board!)
David was an annointed King, and you are not even a common grunt. You are far less than that. You worship the demon of war, as you kill innocent people, while your befouled hands grasp the thirty pieces of silver you take as your blood money. Anathema sit.
“Flood stories are universal. So much so that it’s a racial memory. You can’t possibly believe that that whole earth was flooded. There’s no geological evidence for it.”- John
John, I don’t. Ryan and Pittman’s book “Noah’s Flood,” and Wilson’s “Before the Flood” clearly posit a LOCAL flood theory that is both scientific, true to the Biblical record, and corroborates a non-universalist construct for WHICH race was the people of the Book. And also, why such stories have ‘spread out’ from the area where they first appeared. Not that they were the possession of all those servant races, but because the kernel of Truth of a ‘world flood’ DID destroy the ‘world’ where the Elect of God lived! And, from the Bible’s POV, that’s all that matters. Just as Christ said to go ‘into all the ‘world’ in the Great Commission, the ‘world’ the Apostles knew in their day, was compassed round by the boundaries of the Roman Empire- which roughly translates to all ‘WHITE’ man’s lands- i.e., Greater Europe. THAT was the ‘world’ of the early Church. THOSE are the only ‘men’ Christ said we were to redeem, baptize, and inclusivize into the Body of Christ. It’s only later misapplications of that mindset that have warped the Truth of the first statements. Well, the same thing applies to the Biblical Flood, if you but have eyes for it…
Whitcomb and Morris’ book was an attempt (as they saw it) in the 1960’s to protect the Bible from ‘godless atheism’ – if you weren’t alive then, you have no idea how WELCOME their book was- at first. But as I have documented over at my blog, with the post, ‘Charles and Harriet Sittin’ in a tree’ -both Darwinism and [sic] ‘Scientific Creationism’ are tools for multiculturalism these days, because the truth is that Darwin and Ken Ham are race-smutting bastards, and neither men of science, nor men of God.
FirstWord.us has a good series of deconstructing Ham’s ‘One Race’ heresy, using biblical analysis, and a confessional Christian worldview to do so. I’ve written on it, also.
Not seeing the Biblical record for what it is – the written record of ONE race’s (Caucasoid) creation ‘at the proper time’ – 6-10,000 years ago, as the ‘Adam’ (he who blushes; [visibly] is fair of face) of God- [I Cor. 15:45] even though other ‘hominids’ had been in existence for millennia before that- and their being placed OVER the other ‘lesser races’ – whether behema, chayed, or ‘humanimal’ was a concrete example of the Doctrine of Election, on a racial scale- [Eph. 1:4ff.] cf. also http://www.heretical.com/mkilliam/biblrace.html%5D.
And this ‘Adam’ was created to ‘exercise dominion’ [Gen. 1:28] over the lesser races, as we have seen throughout history where White Men have intervened.
Even a PhD Jewish scientist, Gerald Schroeder, in his book, ‘The Science of God’ clearly points out this fact, and then screws it up, by believing the Khazarian Jew is the ‘Adam’ the Bible was written for- but, hey, even ‘stones cry out’ the Truth that God (and his covenant People) are ONE.
There’s no confusion about the Bible and what it says. The only confusion comes from sinful men trying to ‘horn in ‘ on the Election of God!
Anti-Christians argue that if we can find even ONE “internal contradiction” or any historical or scientific error in any literalist reading of any Scripture, then the Deity and gospel of Christ is deniable and they are excused. They “will not come to the light, and love darkness, because their deeds are evil”! Understanding is volitional: If any “willeth to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it is true.” Interpretation is a serious matter not entirely private, but we rely on two millennia of traditional interpretation.
Thanks to Hunter for allowing such a long religious digression from the topic of the southern preacher, Robert Dabney. This helps regular commenters to know where each other stands, and improves communication. This is unlike some other WN sites where such comments are derided by site masters as “desert religion” or “Jew on a stick” nonsense, or deleted.
Meanwhile, on the Currency front.
(His native language is Russian, I think. Thus, the occasional typos…)
http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-great-currancy-flush.html
There is a remarkable overlap between the start of the biblical narrative and the time frame for things like blue eyes. It is apporx 6,000 years. Similar to the date that Anglican bishop calculated. Coincidence perhaps.
If Jesus cleansed the temple, then he was attacking Judah at the root.
The temple treasury was effectively the financial hub of the Med and Asia Minor. He was doomed the moment he wields the whip in such a place.
“There is a remarkable overlap between the start of the biblical narrative and the time frame for things like blue eyes. It is apporx 6,000 years. Similar to the date that Anglican bishop calculated. Coincidence perhaps.”
Except that blue eyes started appearing 10,000 years ago.
“Anti-Christians argue that if we can find even ONE “internal contradiction” or any historical or scientific error in any literalist reading of any Scripture, then the Deity and gospel of Christ is deniable and they are excused.” They “will not come to the light, and love darkness, because their deeds are evil”! Understanding is volitional: If any “willeth to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it is true.” Interpretation is a serious matter not entirely private, but we rely on two millennia of traditional interpretation.”
Mosin, you have it exactly backwards. It is well known that it is the Christian Fundamentalists are the obsessive nit-pickers who claim any and every gap in the fossil record as somehow invalidating the Theory of Evolution. They aren’t nearly so good at disproving the ample evidence that the speed of light is constant or that universe is ~14 billion years old.
“Understanding is volitional: If any “willeth to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it is true.”
Typical Calvinist hoo-hah, no wonder they have so many conflicting sects trying to impossibly reconcile God’s omniscience and omnipotence with free will.
I think it best that Secessionists of all stripes keep religion out of the political discussion purely as a practical matter or at least finesse the issue in the traditional American (and Southern) way; Virginia disestablished the Anglican church under pressure from Evangelical Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians during the American Revolution.
That’s a good observation on the “nitpicking” Creationists, looking for some excuse to deny the evidence.
I’ve never disputed the fossil record or the evidence for the age of the universe, and have never been a Calvinist or predestinarian of any kind — and it wasn’t any “Calvinist hoohah” I wrote, but I quoted from the fourth Gospel. I think references to religion are perfectly appropriate in discussions on a “Southron” secessionist blog. But Christian-bashing, “Bible-thumper”-bashing, etc. on the other hand are counterproductive, especially since the majority of southerners who could become secessionists tend to be, at least, “Christian oriented.”
I think it best that Secessionists of all stripes keep religion out of the political discussion purely as a practical matter . . .
Southron nationalism will not go anywhere without Christianity. Christianity is essential to Southrons and ignoring it would only alienate the people.
Virginia disestablished the Anglican church under pressure from Evangelical Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians during the American Revolution.
That was huge mistake, as was much of what happened during that outburst of late 18th-century liberalism. A national church binds a nation together; it creates and strengthens a sense of national community and makes it harder for outsiders to infiltrate and find acceptance.
Orthodox Christianity, of course.
That’s a bit exotic to most Westerners, but it sure beats what we have now.
I cannot speak for the other commenter, but I think he means ETHNIC orthodox, not Russian or Greek ethnic orthodoxy, unless it is for Russians or Greeks, but it must be orthodox as opposed to un-Biblical, heretical or apostate. The early “Celtic church” of Britain for example, which was orthodox, and independent of (equal to) Rome, which declined after the loss of Northumbria to Roman Papal direction in the seventh century but continued another four hundred years.
Eunuchs are forbidden in the temple or to serve the Lord. You therefore have never served Him
Stone, it is hard for you to kick against the pricks.
Ps what offends you eunuch is not my hard heart toward non Whites but that I dared call out the foul mouth whore for its foul mouth. Ball-less beta white knight like your self cannot stand it when men call women out, so you have to mount your White horse and play captain save a ho
I walked off the only contract I ever had that pitted me against Christian Whites. Which is something no military man could ever do. All your other belly aching is about your love for niggers, beaners and sand niggers.
Mosin, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Nor do I care. You are the enemy of the South, by your own words. Nothing you can say will change that or lessen your evilness in my eye. You are also one of those full eunuch so called Christians that do our people no good.
To me the bottom line question is this: Does Christianity as practiced today benefit Southern nationalism? It did in the past, but I think not now.
Could it ever go back to as it was before? I do not know, it is very much multi-cultural now.
“Enemy of the South,” by my own words? That must refer to my joking here (after many days of nonstop “damnyankee” bashing) that when the “NETS” (those wealthy, liberal, rootless “Northeast transplants” who cause you so much trouble) move to the south, it’s really GOOD for the conservative people in the northern states — because they’re gone from here — which is very much like saying “Move them niggers NORTH!” is good for the south. No, I’m not an enemy of southern secessionism or culture.
Thank you for refusing to kill Christians directly. But assisting global tyranny in its OTHER endless campaigns might be working to destroy Christians INDIRECTLY! Besides, you are assisting, doing the bidding of the same Federal government that holds sway over the south!
Note well: I have never written or even considered writing ANYTHING here in defense of “niggers, beaners and sand niggers” (Africans, Hispanics and Muslims). There you MUST have me confused with other commenters, some of whom I have agreed with, sometimes, in some of their comments and positions — and yes, I did think that “calling down the woman” thing was overdone and “unseemly,” but I believe man has authority over woman, just as Christ has authority over the church. I don’t take my authority to the point of “honour killing,” physical beatings, “cursing out,” etc.
I won’t feud with anyone. Hatfield gave it up, and McCoy followed. The Preacher said “Wisdom is more powerful than weapons of war” — and Charity is strongest of all, charity never faileth. I counsel you to respect some white people born and bred north of the Line. I hope you understand the point of “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” — that God’s spirit goads us to guide us where we otherwise wouldn’t go.
I was too hard about the Creationism. I shouldn’t have criticised your sincere understanding. I could be wrong myself.
“To me the bottom line question is this: Does Christianity as practiced today benefit Southern nationalism? It did in the past, but I think not now. Could it ever go back to as it was before?”
To me the bottom line is that I believe the Gospel. You seem to be confusing religion with race or southern white nationalism. Christ and the church do not exist to serve Race. The race exists because God sustains it, to serve Him. The truth is still the truth, no matter what corrupted, apostate “churches” do. If you cannot find an uncorrupted church, it is no excuse but it is your right and duty to establish one, as a Christian man and husband in your home and community: “Where two or three are gathered together, there am I in the midst of them….”
Stonelifter called somebody a whore again?
Truth? You are the one who doesn’t believe in Genesis, the foundation of the Christian religion.
It’s close enough… 10,000-6,000
In the broad scheme of the species. History,Myth come about at more or less the same time.