I must mention that I am not completely white, my real mother was full blooded American Indian; so I am not speaking from the point of view of “The White Man’s God”as some would accuse!
The progressives have used their WRONG HEADED definition of Race to stir up the color issue with their voter blocks to gain voters….that’s right its all about the VOTE not the people who vote, their just the dupes who follow like fools and ask “Please sirs, may we have some more free help?”
“Race relations” are the area of sociology that studies the social, political, and economic relations between races at all different levels of society.
This area encompasses the study of racism, and of complex political interactions between members of different groups.
My purpose in writing this is NOT to beat the dead horse of racism but rather to bring to the forefront the true biblical teaching of “The Nations” which is the true idea of who we ALL are before God and man.
It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that this notion that we each come from different “Races” has not helped to bring us together as Human beings,
WHY IS THAT?
Well the first and most obvious one is that the term has LOST its meaning as people have used it as a derisive tool to separate men from other men just like the term “Sex” has become a separator between men and women when its intent was too bring them together!
You can notice within the meanings of these words for RACE the under towing of what race relations have become. Pay close attention to these meanings as they are not describing “race” as we think of it; different types of human beings (Black, White, Red, Yellow…etc..), rather these meanings describe us as having unattainable solutions to our problems.
We have hate filled differences that cannot be overcome thus these differences will forever divide us. This is the state of Race relations and because we term it RACE instead of NATIONS as the bible does, we’re stuck in a limited definition of who we really are as human beings!
According to Thayer’s Definition of Race in the bible means from:
The word “diōkō”
1) to make to run or flee, put to flight, drive away
2) to run swiftly in order to catch a person or thing, to run after
2a) to press on: figuratively of one who in a race runs swiftly to reach the goal
2b) to pursue (in a hostile manner)
3) in any way whatever to harass, trouble, molest one
3a) to persecute
3b) to be mistreated, suffer persecution on account of something
4) without the idea of hostility, to run after, follow after: someone
5) metaphorically, to pursue
5a) to seek after eagerly, earnestly endeavour to acquire :
The word stadion
1) a space or distance of about 600 feet (185 m)
2) a race course
2a) place in which contests in running were held, the one who outstripped the rest and reached the goal first, receiving the prize. Courses of this description were found in most of the larger Greek cities, and were like that at Olympia, 600 Greek feet in length
The word “trechō”
1) to run
1a) of persons in haste
1b) of those who run in a race course
2a) of doctrine rapidly propagated
2b) by a metaphor taken from runners in a race, to exert one’s self, strive hard
2c) to spend one’s strength in performing or attaining something
2d) word occurs in Greek writings denoting to incur extreme peril, which it requires the exertion of all one’s effort to overcome
The word “hustereō”
1a) to come late or too tardily
1a1) to be left behind in the race and so fail to reach the goal, to fall short of the end
1a2) metaphorically fail to become a partaker, fall back from
1b) to be inferior in power, influence and rank
1b1) of the person: to be inferior to
1c) to fail, be wanting
1d) to be in want of, lack
2) to suffer want, to be devoid of, to lack (be inferior) in excellence, worth
The following article says it in a nutshell from a “Nut Job Leftest site”!
These RULES FOR RADICALS form the basis for radical Racism to breed because as long as people deal in skin color rather than the fact we ALL HAVE SKIN AND BONE AND THE SAME HUMAN BLOOD flowing through our veins nothing will or can change….EVER!!
Saul Alinsky and the Lessons He Taught Bill and Hillary
News/Current Events Opinion (Published)
Posted on 03/23/2000 16:22:25 PST by Slyfox
Saul Alinsky wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies:
Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971).
Rules for Radicals opens with a quote about Lucifer, written by Saul Alinsky:
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom” — Lucifer.
In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky says:
Here I propose to present an arrangement of certain facts and general concepts of change, a step toward a science of revolution. He builds on the tactical principles of Machiavelli: The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-not’s on how to take it away.
Rules for Radicals is concerned with the acquisition of power: my aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how ot use it.
This is not to be done with assistance to the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: …[E]ven if all the low-income parts of our population were organized … it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes.
Alinsky advises the organizer to target the middle class, rather than the poor:
“Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America’s white middle class. That is where the power is.”
Alinsky is interested in the middle class solely for its usefulness: Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class.
They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority.
To accomplish this, Alinsky writes that the organizer must begin to dissect and examine that way of life [the middle class lifestyle] … He will know that ‘square’ is no longer to be dismissed as such — instead his own approach must be ‘square’ enough to get the action started.
Rules for Radicals defends belief that
the end justifies the means: to say that
corrupt the ends,writes Alinsky,is to
believe in the immaculate conception of
ends and principles … the practical
revolutionary will understand …
[that] in action, one does not always enjoy the
luxury of a decision that is consistent
both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.
Altogether, Alinsky provides eleven rules of the ethics of means and ends.
They are morally relativistic:
The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s ‘conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action’; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.
The second rule of the ethics of the means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment.
Alinsky elaborates his meaning on this point, saying that if you were a member of the underground Resistance,.. then you adopted the means of assassination, terror, property destruction, the bombing of tunnels and trains, kidnapping, and the willingness to sacrifice innocent hostages to the end of defeating the Nazi’s.
Those who opposed the Nazi’s conquerors regarded the Resistance as a secret army of selfless, patriotic idealists ….
” Rules for Radicals is therefore concerned with how to win. ” …In such a conflict, neither protagonist is concerned with any value except victory.”
“The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the ends justifies almost any means.”
“There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds, he becomes a founding father.”
Rules for Radicals teaches the organizer that he must give a moral appearance (as opposed to behaving morally): “All effective action requires the passport of morality.”
The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends states
“that you do what you can with what you
have and clothe it with moral arguments
… Moral rationalization is indispensable
at all times of action whether to justify the
selection or the use of ends or means.”
Rules for Radicals provides the organizer
with a tactical style for community
organization that assumes an adversarial
relationship between groups of people in
which one either dominates or is
“The first rule of power tactics is:
power is not only what you have but what the
enemy thinks you have.”
“Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.”
“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
It is almost impossible to counterattack
ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
“The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.”
“In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability … the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.”
“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
Saul Alinsky urged the active and deliberate conscious-raising of people through the technique of popular education. Popular education is a method by which an organizer leads people to a class-based interpretation of their grievances, and to accept the organizer’s systemic solutions to address those grievances.
Through the People’s Organization these groups [of citizens] discover that what they considered primarily their individual problem is also the problem of others, and furthermore the only hope for solving an issue of titanic proportions is by pooling all their efforts and strengths. That appreciation and conclusion is an educational process.
Rules for Radicals stresses organizational power-collecting:
The ego of the organizer is stronger and more monumental than the ego of the leader. The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which a man can reach — to create, to be a ‘great creator’, to play God.
Alinsky considered Hillary a terrific organizer and wanted her to become his protege. She declined. She had bigger fish to fry. She learned her lessons well. She and Bill have employed Alinsky’s tactics probably better than anyone else.
If you cannot after reading this garbage from the socialist left see just how RACIST these rules are you are totally blind to life. These kind of people have USED US to hate each other to their evil ends! And what do we do?
We as a church bow to the idol of RACE RELATIONS like its the word of almighty God, we need to wake up and truly study in scripture who we once were….ONE WORLD of people who split off at The tower of babel into many NATIONS; not distinctions of colors, not Black, not Whites, not red men or yellow men BUT ONE HUMAN RACE with only self created national differences !
The next question is Can race be Biblically defined? The term race does not appear in the Bible. The Bible refers to differing peoples in terms such as family, tribe, people and nation.
It groups people according to familial relationships and then into nationalities. An example of familial relationship is found in Genesis 10, where the genealogies listed are grouped by family.
It should be noted that nowhere are the sons of Noah associated with race or color. An important passage on this matter is found in
“By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations” (Gen. 10:5).
We first need to examine the definition of the word race. Race is commonly thought of as being three divisions of mankind; the Caucasian, the Mongoloid and the Negroid races.
Webster’s New World Dictionary provides the following definition:
Any of the major biological divisions of mankind, distinguished by color and texture of hair, color of skin and eyes, stature, bodily proportions, etc: many ethnologists now consider that there are only three primary divisions, the Caucasian (loosely ‘white race ), Negroid (loosely ‘black race ) and Mongoloid (loosely, ‘yellow race ), with various subdivisions: the term has acquired so many unscientific connotations that in this sense it is often replaced in scientific usage by ‘ethnic stock or ‘group .”
It is interesting to note here that the above definition infers that the term is a loose one and that modern science is replacing it with another definition which is, essentially, that“race is determined by physical characteristics”.
Thus the task of defining race is highly subjective and therefore unscientific. We can thus conclude that race is not clearly definable and is not a good term to use in describing variations among people.
The question we must answer is this: Are there separate races of men?
The difficulty of classifying man into races has been shown false by simple common sense. The better term would be varieties of mankind or People Groups.
Even evolutionary thinking will conclude that all existing varieties of man are members of the same species. There are not many species of man on the earth. Inter-racial marriages are common and children are produced daily with no biological difficulties, this one thing ALONE proves that man is a single RACE called human just as God says in his word.
The prominent anthropologist, Ruth Benedict in her book, Race: Science and Politics
Stated the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin. There is NO EVIDENCE that’s biblical that race means what men have made it to mean.
The term Race is more of a commentary on what race boxes us into: pursuing one another in a hostile manner to harass, trouble, molest each other bowing before the god of greed and hatred; propagating our self delusional dogmas of separation and false religion.
We prolong Racism as men have defined it in the name of revenge and call it holy, we assume everything and know nothing about each other using our differences to condemn other differences of men and call it justifiable…this is where we have come and we will go no farther until we wake up as a people and rebel against the false made up meanings of men!
What gives anyone the right to differ based upon skin color? Nothing but pure prideful ignorance. What gives us the right to differ according to sex? Nothing more than base prideful ignorance.
Our differences as the Human Race are what make us the art work of God!
Genesis 10 plainly tells us where we ALL came from. In the dispersion families were grouped together and for the most part migrated in one general direction.
To illustrate, the following is a selected list of names from the genealogies of each of Noah’s sons with the general geographical location associated with each, from the historical record.
The Descendants of Japheth: The Indo-European of western Asia and of Europe.
Probably the Cimmerians which are mentioned by Homer as the people of the far north (Odys. xl. 14). They are believed to be identical with the Cimmerians of Roman times and the Cymry of Wales.
Josephus and Greek writers generally relate them as the Scythians of Southern Europe. Also associated with the Tartars of Russia.
Medes who lived in area of Caspian Sea.
Comes from the term Ionian which means Greeks.
The Descendants of Ham:
The Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Canaanites.
Peoples of central and Southern Arabia. The Ethiopians are shown as being inhabitants of both sides of the Red Sea. Also, they had a skin of a different appearance. (Jer. 13:23) Pictures on monuments show that they were a mixed race, some Negro, some Semite and some Caucasian. This is a very important fact and will be referred to later.
Refers to areas of upper and lower Nile River of Egypt thus a reference to Egyptians.
Generally associated with the Egyptians and more specifically Libya.
The area settled by Canaan and his sons was west of the River Jordan. His first-born Sidon (Zidon) name stood for the whole Phoenician coast.
The Descendants Shem:
The peoples of the Middle East and Southern Asia.
Abraham was the sixth generation of Eber who settled in Mesopotamia in the area of Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11).
Geographically is the region beyond the Tigris River, east of Babylonia. The Elamites became a strong nation and were recognized as sovereign by the Babylonian states.
The Assyrians of the head waters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
The Lydians of Asia Minor.
Aramaeans of Syria and Mesopotamia. From these observations it seems that Shem’s progeny settled in the Middle East, Ham’s people went south into Africa and Japheth’s descendants migrated north into Western Asia and Europe.
It is important to recognize that from the Bible and from history, specific statements cannot be made that Shem fathered all Orientals, Ham all black people or Japheth all white people.