A Litmus Test

A Litmus Test

Thomas Allen

Following is a letter to the editor that appeared in The Franklin Times on Thursday, September 12, 2024. The contents of the letter are extracted from “A Credibility Test” by Thomas Allen. After the letter are a comment made by a reader and my response to his comment. I have made some additions to my response, which are enclosed in brackets. Also, I have added some additional remarks at the end.

Letter

A 'litmus test' for political candidates 

[The Franklin Times title.]

Dear editor:

Now that the election season has arrived, people need a way to discern the credible candidates from the noncredible candidates. This simple test can be used.

Does the candidate believe or act as though he believes:

1)The official story of the Kennedy assassination.

2) The official government conspiracy theory of 9-11.

3) The Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election but won it fairly.

4) The COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective.

5) White replacement is a hoax despite Whites falling from 89 percent of the population in 1950 to 61 percent in 2020 and with fewer Whites living in the U.S. in 2020 than in 2010.

If the candidate answers "yes" to any of these statements, his credibility is questionable. If he answers "yes" to two, he lacks credibility. If he answers "yes" to three or four, he has no credibility. If he answers "yes" to all five statements, he is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid.

Thomas Allen

Franklinton

Comment and Response

Comment by a Reader

Abel

September 17, 2024 at 12:52 pm

1) what?

2) what?

3) No court has found that the Democrats “stole” the election. Anywhere. Just another right-wing conspiracy idiocy. Just because Trump claims it doesn’t make it even remotely true—pretty much the case for anything this conman says, actually.

4) I’ve had 4 covid vaccines — not dead yet, from either Covid or the vaccine. I’m guessing you think that the CDC is bought, lol?

5) Nobody is “replacing” white people. Racial demographics are changing — why is this a problem?

6) Please look up attributes of a “cult” leader, and you will see that Trump has them all.

“Credible” beliefs depend on verifiable facts, not paranoid delusions handed down from conmen and internet blogs that spin nonsensical and hateful conspiracy theories. I know such dubious “sources” make some people feel like they have “special” truths and insights. For those who get pulled into this alternative “reality,” there appears to be no solution to their madness, unfortunately. Whatever.

My Response

tcallen

September 17, 2024 at 8:35pm

No court has ever ruled that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election. No court has heard a case on election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. [Courts have dismissed all cases brought before them without ever hearing the merits of the case. This argument that the election was not stolen because no court has proven that it was is like saying no Kennedy was not assassinated because no court has proven that he was.]

You are lucky [having received four COVID shots may explain his derangement]; Franklin County seems to have gotten the placebo version of the shot. If you have bothered reading the studies and articles on the vaccine that have been published since 2021, you will find that more people have been injured or died from the vaccine than from the virus. Further, vaccinated people have a greater chance of contracting COVID than unvaccinated people. [I have probably read more than a hundred studies and articles, most written by doctors and medical experts, on the COVID issue, so I do not speak from ignorance. I suspect that Abel suffers from believing known liars — almost every governmental official and health authority lied about COVID-19 and its so-called vaccine; Big Pharma  controls them.]

For a person who despises Whites and Western Civilization and the great standard of living that Whites have given people of all races, the disappearance of the White race is of no importance. [Abel is obviously a racial nihilist who practices the new morality. Also, he appears to be an albusphobe.]

Moreover, I am not a disciple of Trump.

Additional Remarks

Abel should stop watching and listening to the oligarchs’ news services. They lie all the time and preach propaganda for the benefit of the oligarchs.

Abel writes, “‘Credible’ beliefs depend on verifiable facts. . . .” Everything that I wrote in my letter is based on verifiable facts. (In the White replacement hoax, I even gave some, which can be verified with US census data.) His sources, which are based on the oligarchs' news services, are not. Their purpose is to promote the oligarchs’ agenda of concentrating all power in their hands. Abel may enlighten himself if he would study some of those blogs that he condemns. Often, they contain much more truth than do the oligarchs' news services. Nevertheless, the oligarchs’ news services do contain some truth, but it is heavily laced with toxins. One has to be able to filter out the toxins. Unfortunately, Abel seems to lack this ability. Moreover, he seems to believe without question known liars.

Further, Abel seems to believe the official story of the Kennedy assassination and the official government conspiracy theory of 9-11. To find out what he has to believe to accept them, see “A Credibility Test” by Thomas Allen.

In conclusion, since Abel believes or acts as though he believes each of the five items of the litmus test, he is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid. Can he overcome his ignorance and see the truth? Or is he irredeemably stupid? I hope that he is able to repent.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

Thomas Allen

In “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 155–164, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses liberal theology, neo-orthodoxy, existentialism, social gospel, Gandhi’s nonviolent tactics, and the influence that they had on him. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King remarks that he was raised in a strict fundamental tradition. However, the theological seminary changed him. He states, “Liberalism provided me with an intellectual satisfaction that I had never found in fundamentalism.” (P. 155.) Thus, he fell in love with liberalism. He writes, “I was absolutely convinced of the natural goodness of man and the natural power of human reason.” (P. 155.)

Later, however, he began to question some theories associated with liberal theology. Nevertheless, the “contribution of liberalism to the philological-historical criticism of biblical literature has been of immeasurable value and should be defended with religious and scientific passion.” (P. 156.)

King “began to question the liberal doctrine of man.” (P. 156.) He “came to recognize the complexity of man’s social involvement and the glaring reality of collective evil.” (P. 156.) (Collective evil rises from the sinful nature of individuals.)

Another problem that King found with liberal theology was that it “overlooked the fact that reason is darkened by sin.” (P. 156.) He discovered that “sin encourages us to rationalize our actions.” (P. 156.) “Reason, devoid of the purifying power of faith, can never free itself from distortions and rationalizations.” (P. 156.) (Thus, King understood the flaws of liberal theology concerning human nature and its underrating sin.)

Although King “rejected some aspects of liberalism, . . . [he] never came to an all-out acceptance of neo-orthodoxy.” (P. 156.) He found liberalism to be too optimistic about human nature and neo-orthodoxy to be too pessimistic. A major problem with neo-orthodoxy is that it “went to the extreme of stressing a God who was hidden, unknown, and ‘wholly other.’” (P. 157.) Moreover, it “fell into a mood of antirationalism and semi-fundamentalism, stressing a narrow uncritical Biblicism.” (P. 157.)

For King, neither liberal theology nor neo-orthodoxy satisfactorily described the nature of man. “A large segment of Protestant liberalism defined man only in terms of his essential nature, his capacity for good; neo-orthodoxy tended to define man only in terms of his existential nature, his capacity for evil.” (P. 157.) King found the truth in a synthesis of the two “that reconciles the truths of both.” (P. 157.)

Then, King discusses his “appreciation for the philosophy of existentialism.” (P. 157.) He was “convinced that existentialism . . . had grasped certain basic truths about man and his condition. . . .” (P. 157.) Existentialism gave King an “understanding of the ‘finite freedom’ of man.” (P. 157.) Also, it gave him an understanding “of the anxiety and conflict produced in man’s personal and social life by the perilous and ambiguous structure of existence.” (P. 157.)

Continuing, King remarks that after entering the theological seminary, he began  “a serious intellectual quest for a method that would eliminate social evil.” (P. 158.) (That is, granting Negroes special privileges and benefits and discriminating against Whites.) He “was immediately influenced by the social gospel.” (P. 158.) (That is preaching socialism and communism instead of the gospel of Jesus and worshiping the state instead of the Father of Jesus.)

Then, King writes, “The gospel at its best deals with the whole man, not only his soul but also his body, not only his spiritual well-being but also his material well-being.” (P. 159.) He chastises religions that express concern for the soul but little concern “about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them.” (P. 159.) These religions are spiritually moribund. (Today, most denominations have followed King’s advice and have focused on man’s economic and social conditions at the expense of focusing on the salvation of his soul and morality. As a result, they have become spiritually moribund.)

Next, King discusses his encounter with the teachings of Gandhi, which taught him about nonviolent resistance. (King was a poor student because nearly everywhere he went, he left a trail of blood and destruction. Basically, his nonviolent tactic was to create a situation that would cause a violent reaction from his opponent. Despite his denial, such a tactic is not nonviolent.) He concludes “that the Christian doctrine of love, operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence, is one of the most potent weapons available to an oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.” (P. 159.) (Contrary to his assertions, King failed at merging love with nonviolence. Never did he show any love for segregationists and seldom for Southerners. Moreover, many of his protests were filled with violence. Most of the others threatened violence if Whites did not surrender unconditionally to King’s demands.)

Although the Montgomery protest was violent, King claimed that it convinced him of the power of nonviolence. (As most of his later protests were violent or threatened violence, he must have been convinced that nonviolence would not achieve his goals. His preaching of nonviolence was for propaganda purposes.) He declares, “Nonviolence became more than a method to which I gave intellectual assent; it became a commitment to a way of life.” (P. 160.) (Based on his action, King gave nonviolence only intellectual assent, but he never committed to it as a way of life — except in words.)

Next, King comments on his pilgrimage to India. He witnessed “the amazing results of a nonviolent struggle to achieve independence. The aftermath of hatred and bitterness that usually follows a violent campaign was found nowhere in India.” (P. 160.) Great Britain and India remained friendly within the British Commonwealth. (First, politically, the British left India. Although King may have wanted many Whites to have no political voice in the United States, he wanted to increase the political voice of Negroes. If India is an analogy for the United States, the Whites, who are the majority, would be the Indians, and the minority Negroes would be the British and, therefore, leave the country or at least eliminate their political influence. Second, King proved that his protests were violent because their aftermath left hatred and bitterness. Only the victors hated and were bitter. Even decades after the Negroes won everything that King fought for and more, the destructiveness of the “peaceful” demonstrations of Black Lives Matter revealed the hatred and bitterness that the victors had for the defeated.)

Then, King notes that following the Montgomery protest, many Southerners were bitter toward the Negro leaders “even though these leaders have sought to follow a way of love and nonviolence.” (P. 161.) (First, the Montgomery protest was violent. King and his followers had created a situation that they knew would result in violence. Second, many Southerners correctly saw that King had initiated a war to destroy the South and its society and culture and eventually to genocide Southerners. Love does not cause people to seek the destruction and genocide of an ethnicity. Since King sought to destroy the South, love did not guide him.)

Continuing, King asserts that the nonviolent approach gives people who are committed to it “new self-respect. It calls up resources of strength and courage that they did not know they had.” (P. 161.) Moreover, “it so stirs the conscience of the opponent that reconciliation becomes a reality.” (P. 161.) (Reconciliation never became a reality. King and other civil rights leaders forced Southerners and later the remainder of American Whites to surrender unconditionally.)

Next, King discusses using “the method of nonviolence in international relations.” (P. 161.) Once, he believed that war “might be preferable to surrender to a totalitarian system.” (P. 161.) However, he later changed his mind because of “the potential destructiveness of modern weapons.” (P. 161.) (How much did his Communist advisors have to do with King changing his mind? Further, when his association with Communists and his Communist training are considered, one must wonder if his definition of peace was a lack of violence or a lack of resisting Communism. Judging from his actions, one must conclude that he meant the latter.) Correctly, he asserts that “we must find an alternative to war and destruction.” (P. 161.) (Unfortunately, King did not find an alternative to war. He and his followers warred against the South and then the rest of the country. Moreover, King’s followers have continued to war against Whites long after Whites had surrendered unconditionally to the Negroes — as Black Lives Matter protests and riots illustrate.)

Correctly, King states that he is no doctrinarian pacifist. (He proved that he was not with his war against the South.) He contends that the church “must call for an end to the arms race.” (P. 161.)

Then, King discusses his sufferings and the lessons that they taught him. Instead of reacting with bitterness, he sought “to transform the suffering into a creative force.” (P. 162.) His suffering drew him closer to God. (Whether his God is Yahweh, the Father of Jesus, is debatable.) 

In closing, King rejoices in his coming victory. However, he errs when he writes, “Old systems of exploitation and oppression are passing away; new systems of justice and equality are being born.” (P. 163.) (Unfortunately, the old system of exploitation and oppression was replaced by a new system of exploitation and oppression. Nevertheless, more equality exists today than when he wrote. However, since equality requires exploitation and oppression, more exploitation and oppression exist today than then. As a result, less justice exists today — for example, sending innocent Whites, such as  Derek Chauvin, to prison. Nevertheless, King would have little objection to today’s exploitation and oppression because Negroes are exploiting and oppressing Whites.)

King has a good understanding of some of the flaws of liberal theology. With a good degree of accuracy, he discusses flaws of both liberal theology and neo-orthodoxy and how each fails to describe correctly the nature of man. Further, he discusses how existentialism influenced him and his journey down the road of the social gospel. Also, he discusses his use of Gandhi’s technique. However, he fails to discuss his Communist training, such as the training that he received at the Highlander Folk School run by Marxist Myles Horton.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Five Yankee Authors

Five Yankee Authors

Thomas Allen

In To the Victor Go the Myths & Monuments: The History of the First 100 Years of the War Against God and the Constitution, 1776 - 1876, and Its Modern Impact (Appleton, Wisconsin: American Opinion Foundation Publishing, 2016), Arthur R. Thompson provides some interesting, but little known, facts about five well-known Yankee authors: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Henry D. Thoreau, and Walt Whitman. All five were anti-Christian Transcendentalists and proponents of the Illuministic New World Order.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Emerson (1803-1882) was a Phi Beta Kappa at Harvard and a Unitarian minister who used the Unitarian Church to promote socialism. Also, he was a leader of the Death of God movement. Moreover, he worked to change the sacraments and to reduce the essence of Christianity to something called God but without Christ.

Furthermore, he was an early leader of Transcendentalism and participated in the Transcendentalist Club. (Transcendentalism substitutes spiritualism for Christianity and provides an intellectual side to socialism. Although it appears to be a rational, reason-oriented philosophy seeking the truth, it is really a transformation from Christ to antichrist.) 

Emerson went to Europe during the Revolution of 1848 and met with many of its leaders. He was a socialist and a radical revolutionist, who praised Mazzini and  Kossuth, both of whom were revolutionary leaders.

Further, Emerson was a contributor to the Democratic Review and the Dail. (The  Democratic Review promoted the agenda of Young America. The Dail was the journal of the Transcendentalist movement in New England. Young America was a movement that advocated social reform, territorial expansion [American imperialism], national unity [nationalism], American exceptionalism, democracy, democratic participation [expansion of suffrage], free trade, and economic interdependence. Also, it supported republican and anti-aristocratic movements abroad and opposed European hierarchical society. [Young America appears to have been the forefather of today's neoconservatives.])

Additionally, Emerson was a speaker for the Boston Lyceon Bureau. (The Boston Lyceon Bureau sought to indoctrinate people to support a socialist new world order.)

Also, he was a founder of the Radical Club, which he later left, and the Free Religious Association. (The Radical Club sought to influence the arts, letters, publishing, etc. Consisting of the most radical of the Unitarians, the Free Religious Association promoted social Darwinism, rejected Christianity, and promoted rationalism theology.)

Emerson also was involved in the Brook Farm, a communist commune.

Nathaniel Hawthorne

Hawthorne (1804-1864) was a Transcendentalist Fourierist, a member of Emerson’s study group, the Saturday Club, and Young America, and was involved in the Brook Farm. (The Saturday Club was a club of free thinkers and socialists whose objective was to dominate American intellectual and publishing pursuits.)

Hawthorne was appointed an assistant collector of customs in Boston. Later, President Pierce, whose biography Hawthorne wrote, appointed him the consul to Liverpool.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Longfellow (1807–1882) was an early leader of Transcendentalism, a member of Emerson’s study group, and a member of the Saturday Club.

Henry D. Thoreau

Thoreau (1817–1862) was an early leader of Transcendentalism and a member of Emerson’s study group and was involved in the Brook Farm. Also, he was a contributor to the Democratic Review and the Dail.

Walt Whitman

Whitman (1819-1892) was an early leader of Transcendentalism and a member of Emerson’s study group. Also, he was a contributor to the Democratic Review.

Further, he was a leader of the Equal Rights Party. (The Equal Rights Party came out of the radical wing of the Democratic Party. It was strongly egalitarian and opposed banks, paper money, and monopolies.)

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel

Thomas Allen

In “Daniel’s 70 Weeks,” which is based on a lecture by Emma Moore Weston, Charles Gilbert Weston gives a different explanation of Daniel’s 70 weeks or 490 years than that given by dispensationalists. (https://www.gospeltruth.net/scofield.htm.)

Daniel 9:24-27 (World English Bible) reads:

24 “Seventy weeks are decreed on your people and on your holy city, to finish disobedience, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.

25 “Know therefore and discern that from the going out of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Anointed One, the prince, will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will be built again, with street and moat, even in troubled times. 26 After the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One will be cut off, and will have nothing. The people of the prince who come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end will be with a flood, and war will be even to the end. Desolations are determined. 27 He will make a firm covenant with many for one week. In the middle of the week he will cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. On the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate; and even to the full end, and that determined, wrath will be poured out on the desolate.”

In Daniel 9:24-27, each day equals a year. The 70 weeks or 490 years began with the Jews returning to Jerusalem from Babylon in 457 BC. Thus, rebuilding Jerusalem accounts for the first seven weeks or 49 years. From the return to Jerusalem until the baptism of Jesus accounts for 69 weeks or 483 years. So far, Weston and the dispensationalists agree. The last week or seven years is where they disagree.

Weston understands the second part of verse 26 (“The people of the prince . . .”) to be a parenthetical statement because it is outside the 70 weeks. Titus is the prince and the Roman soldiers are the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD and turned the country into an uninhabitable desolation.

Verse 27 pertains to the final week or seven years of the 70 weeks or 490 years. This final week is where the principal disagreement between Weston and dispensationalists occurs. Whereas Weston has the final week or seven years immediately following the 69 weeks or 483 years, dispensationalists have a lengthy gap between the 69 weeks and the final week.

Many dispensationalists identify the covenant in verse 27 as a treaty between the Antichrist and the Israelis, who are, according to John, antichrist. After three and a half years, the Antichrist breaks the agreement, and the Great Tribulation begins. Other dispensationalists have the Great Tribulation beginning at the start of the seven years. Most have the Christians being raptured at the Great Tribulation’s beginning whenever it occurs. The Great Tribulation ends when Christ returns.

Weston objects to this explanation. This covenant is the New Covenant that the Messiah makes.

According to Weston, the final week or seven years is “the dawn of the Son of righteousness . . . and the focal point of the Covenants of promise, of typology and of prophecy. . . . This one week is the historical, chronological, moral and redemptive fulcrum of all the ages of the human race.” (P. 29.)

At the end of the 69 weeks or 483 years, God identified Jesus as His Messiah when John baptized him. The 69 weeks or 483 years began in 457 BC with Artaxerxes’ decree and ended in 27 AD when God identified Jesus as His Messiah. In 27 AD, the final week or seven years began. In 34 AD, three and a half years after Jesus was crucified, the final week ended with the death of Stephen and the scattering of Christians in Jerusalem.

Thus, Daniel’s prophecy of 70 weeks or 490 years has been fulfilled. It began in 457 BC and ended in 34 AD.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on Paul’s Letter to American Christians

King on Paul’s Letter to American Christians

Thomas Allen

In "Paul’s Letter to American Christians," Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 145–153, Martin Luther King, Jr. presents an imaginary letter from the Apostle Paul. This letter expresses King’s views and objectives. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

This imaginary letter begins with the imaginary Paul discussing scientific and technological advancements. Then, Paul observes “that your moral progress lags behind your scientific progress, your mentality outdistances your morality, and your civilization outshines your culture. . . . Through your scientific genius you have made of the world a neighborhood, but you have failed to employ your moral and spiritual genius to make of it a brotherhood.” (P. 146.) (Hereafter, I substitute King for Paul because King is the real author of the letter.)

Next, King expresses his concern about Christians giving “their ultimate allegiance to man-made systems and customs.” (P. 146.) They fear being different and want to be accepted socially. For many, “morality merely reflects group consensus. In your modern sociological lingo, the mores are accepted as the right ways. You have unconsciously come to believe that what is right is determined by Gallup polls.” (P. 147.) (King is chastising Christians for supporting segregation instead of integration. They supported segregation because they feared being different and wanted to be socially accepted. Today, many Christians support integration because they fear being different and want to be socially accepted. Would King condemn these Christians? Most likely, he would not. Nevertheless, the Christian segregationists follow the teaching of the Bible while the integrationist Christians do not. [See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen.])

Quoting Paul’s letter to the Romans, King urges Christians not to conform to this world. (Since integration dominates America today, conforming to this world requires one to be an integrationist. That King would condemn conformity today is highly unlikely. More likely, he would rebuke nonconformity because today nonconformity requires one to be a segregationist.)

Thus, King correctly states that a Christian’s “highest loyalty is to God, and not to the mores or the folkways, the state or the nation, or any man-made institution.” (P. 147.) (Since God created humans “and the bounds of their habitation” [Acts 17:26], God is a racial segregationist and not a racial integrationist. Therefore, Christians should support racial segregation and oppose racial integration. King urges Christians to do the opposite of what the Bible teaches.)

Continuing, King remarks that if “any earthly institution or custom conflicts with God’s will,” (p. 147) Christians have to oppose it. (Since segregation is God’s will, then Christians have to oppose racial integration.)

Next, King states, “You must be willing to challenge unjust mores, to champion unpopular causes, and to buck the status quo.” (P. 147.) (For those who lambaste me, I am merely following King’s advice. I am challenging unjust mores of diversity, inclusion, equity, discrimination against Whites, and the genocide of Southerners. I am championing unpopular causes of racial separation, anti-Zionism, and non-interventionism. I am bucking the status quo of integration, amalgamation, American imperialism, and Zionism. Today, King would condemn anyone following his advice because today’s mores, causes [except peace], and status quo are what he advocated.)

Then, King condemns what he considers the misuse of capitalism. He denounces having concentrated wealth in the hands of a few and having “taken necessities from the masses and given luxuries to the classes.” (Pp. 147-148.) However, Communism does not solve this problem because “Communism is based on an ethical relativism, a metaphysical materialism, a crippling totalitarianism, and a withdrawal of basic freedom.” (P. 148.) (At least, King recognizes the evils of Communism. Nevertheless, Communism is the ultimate merger of big business with big government as the two become one.)

King asserts that America’s “powerful economic resources to eliminate poverty from the earth,” must be used to eliminate domestic and global poverty. (Thus, he promotes the redistribution of wealth.)

Next, King discusses the church. He notes, “When the church is true to its nature, it knows neither division nor disunity.” (P. 148.) (When the church replaced the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King, which grew into wokeism, the church became so divisive that many people left it.) He sees the multiplicity of denominations as a tragedy. (A nineteenth Methodist clergyman agreed with King. He believed that all the denominations should unite as one. According to him, when all these denominations agreed that the Methodist doctrines were the correct doctrines, then they could become one.) King is a proponent of ecumenicalism. (So are Communists and Communist sympathizers [ see “Ecumenism” by Thomas Allen].) He endorses the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches and notes that most major denominations are affiliated with one or both councils. (Members of these councils have abandoned the gospel of Jesus and preach the gospel of King, wokeism, amalgamation, and the LBGTQ+ agenda.)

Continuing, King complains about having a White church and a Negro church. (In the South, both Whites and Negroes went to the same church until Negroes wanted to segregate. They wanted to be independent. King wanted to strip them of this independence. Did he prefer Negroes being dependent on Whites?)

Then, King moans about Christians using the Bible to justify segregation and to assert that the Negro is innately inferior. (First, many stories in the Bible teach segregation. Few, if any, teach integration. Second, King does not define what he means by inferior. In surviving and reproducing in the higher latitudes, Whites are superior to Negroes. In surviving and reproducing in the lower latitudes, Negroes are superior to Whites. Turanians are superior to both because they can naturally survive and reproduce in both the higher and lower latitudes. Further, in boxing, Negroes have an advantage over Whites because they have thicker skull bones and a longer arm reach.)

To support his claim that the Bible supports integration, King cites Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (I assume that King is emphasizing “neither Jew nor Greek.” Jews and Greeks are ethnicities of the same race, the White race. So it does not support racial integration. Moreover, if Paul is taken literally, he is endorsing transgenderism and bisexualism —”neither male nor female.” [If Christian integrationists can use this verse to support integration, then LGBTQ+ adherents can use it to support transgenderism and bisexualism. After all, it more clearly supports transgenderism and bisexualism than it does integration.])

Continuing, King cites Acts 17:26: “. . . hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” (P. 149.) (First, whatever blood means in this verse, it is not what King implies. A person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from an analysis of his blood [for a detailed discussion, see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen]. Second, King fails to quote the end of this verse, which reads, “and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” He does not cite it because it supports segregation. More than supporting segregation, it supports racial separation.)

After citing these verses, King urges Americans “to be rid of every aspect of segregation.” (P. 149.) (Americans did get rid of every aspect of segregation. It has granted Negroes benefits and privileges beyond King’s imagination. It has opened its borders to unlimited numbers of nonwhites. Integration has been so successful that some Negroes now seek segregation. White America is dying and traditional American culture is dead. The Constitution is meaningless trash. Queerdom, wokeism, and Zionism, which controls all, now dominate. Black power has replaced White power. Is the country now better off following King than it was before 1960?)

King claims that segregation “destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible.” (P. 149.) (Integration has been far more destructive. America was much more unified under segregation than under integration. Integration is tearing the country apart — that is the mentality behind integration is tearing the country apart.)

Further, King hopes that “the churches of America will play a significant role in conquering segregation.” (P. 150.) (They did, and the country is dying because of their victory.) The church must challenge the status quo. (Since integration is now the status quo, King would object to the church challenging today’s status quo.) “The church must move out into the arena of social action.” (P. 150.) (It did and now the church is dying. That is the price it paid for replacing the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King, wokeism, and social justice.)

Then, King offers Negroes advice on overthrowing segregation. They should “[n]ever succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter.” (P. 150.) (Many did, and many still are although they have won nearly everything that King sought and are now the dominating race in America.) They should “move with dignity and discipline using love as your chief weapon.” (P. 150.) (Few Negroes followed this advice. Even King failed to follow it. He claims that love was his weapon, yet his chief weapons were violence and the threat of violence.) Further, they should never hate. (Again, King and many Negroes failed. He hated most Southerners and all segregationists.)

King writes, “If you sow the seeds of violence in yourself you sow the seeds of violence in your struggle, unborn generations will reap the whirlwind of social disintegration.” (P. 151.) (King and other civil rights leaders sowed the seeds of violence. Now, we are reaping the whirlwind of social disintegration.)

Continuing, King states, “In your struggle for justice, let your oppressor know that you have neither a desire to defeat him nor a desire to get even with him for injustices that he has heaped upon you.” (P. 151.) (King, most other civil rights leaders, and most Negroes wanted Whites to know that the Negro had defeated them. To let Whites know that the Negroes had soundly defeated them, Negroes demanded and Whites gave them benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed even at the pinnacle of White supremacy and Jim Crow. Thus, Negroes got their revenge.)

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Unitarianism Around 1860

Unitarianism Around 1860 

Thomas Allen 

In Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine Father, Son and Holy Ghost; A Course of Lectures (Boston: Walker, Wise & Company, 1860), Frederick A. Farley, describes Unitarianism in the mid-nineteenth century. (Today, like most Trinitarian denominations, most Unitarian denominations believe in woke agnosticism that stresses social justice much more than the message of the Bible. Since man can save himself, the state has replaced Jehovah as the God and savior of mankind. Along with worshiping the state, they also worship Moloch and Gaia.) The following is quoted from his book, pages 255 to 259.

  Christian Unitarianism affirms in the first place — That there is One only God; that He is one Person, One Being; that He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God and Father of all mankind. It lays stress not only on the strict personal Unity of God, but especially on His Divine Fatherhood. “To us, there is but One God, the Father.” (1 Cor. 8:6. )

In the second place it affirms — That Jesus is the promised Christ; the Divinely-appointed Messiah or Anointed of God; pre-eminently the Son of God, preeminently the Son of Man: the most distinguished Messenger and Representative, the brightest visible Manifestation of the Invisible God; second only to God in the glory of that office and rank with which He has invested him; one with God by a moral union and harmony of wisdom, will, holiness, and love; acting with the delegated power and authority of the Supreme; by His indwelling Spirit given him without measure, the infallible Teacher of God’s holy Truth; and exalted with the right hand of God to be a Prince and All-sufficient Saviour, to give repentance and forgiveness of sins. “To us there is . . . One Lord, Jesus the Christ.” (1 Cor. 8:6.) 

In the third place it affirms — That the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God; not a distinct person, or person at all; but by and through which, God is always present with us and ready to help, inspire, succor, comfort, enlighten, and sanctify the spirits of His children, will they but seek the precious Gift. (Luke 11:13.)

In the fourth place it affirms — That all men are born innocent; free at birth from all taint of sin and guilt, as they are destitute of holiness; gifted with a nature of glorious capacities, but exposed to temptation, liable to sin, actually sinners; needing the provision which God in His abounding mercy has seen fit to make in the Gospel of His Son for their regeneration and salvation; but free to choose, and therefore, free to accept or reject the offered grace.

In the fifth place it affirms — That the Atonement — At-one-ment — is the Reconciliation of man to God; not of God to man, for that could not be necessary. As the All-gracious Father, He never needed to be reconciled to his human family; but on the contrary, as the crowning expression of his exhaustless compassion and boundless Love, He sent His only-begotten Son into the world, to teach and bear witness to the truth, to labor, suffer, and die for us, that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9.) The divine instructions, the miraculous works, the sinless and perfect life and example, the sufferings and death, the Resurrection, Ascension, and present Intercession of Christ, being all part and parcel of the means appointed in the counsels of the Infinite Mind, for accomplishing this great Reconciliation and Salvation of the world. (Rom. 5:10; 8:30; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19.)

In the sixth place, it affirms — That the Bible is the History and Record of God’s Revelations to our race; furnishing, especially in the New Testament, the Divine, and therefore sufficient Rule of Faith and Practice to all Christian Believers; the Holy and inestimable Volume, which the Inspiration and Providence of God have caused to be written, preserved, and transmitted, for the Religious Instruction of mankind in every succeeding age.

Finally, it affirms — That the present is a life of moral discipline and probation, introductory and preparatory to a higher and an eternal life, in which a righteous judgment and retribution await all, and God will render to every man according to his deeds.

Thus much for the positive or affirmative side. But while thus on the one hand, in contradistinction to all systems of mere Naturalism or Rationalism, Christian Unitarianism affirms the reality of God’s last and fullest revelation in and by Christ and his Gospel, and these as the chief and leading doctrines of that Gospel; on the other, in contradistinction to the popular or received Orthodoxy of the Church, it denies and rejects the following dogmas, viz.:

1st. A Tri-personal God, or Three co-equal, co-eternal Persons in the Godhead.

2d. The Supreme Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It holds, asserts, maintains as earnestly as any form of faith in the Christian Church, his Divinity — his Divine Mission, Office, and Authority; but denies that he is God over all, the Supreme and Eternal God.

3d. The Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit; denying that it is literally a Person; or God in any sense, except as the spirit of a man is the man himself.

4th. The expiatory, vicarious, and infinite Atonement of Christ; with the entire doctrinal scheme of Calvin.

Upon other points, Unitarians, recognizing in others and claiming for themselves the right of private judgment, do not entirely agree, viz. :

I. As to the metaphysical nature of Christ.

1st. Some believe him to have pre-existed, the first in order of time of all created intelligences [sic]; — 

2d. Some believe him to have been born of Mary, but miraculously conceived;—

3d. And some rest on his own declaration for the present, and await God’s pleasure for further light; — “No man (no one) knoweth who the Son is, but the Father.” (Luke 10:22.)

II. As to the Future Punishment of Sin. While they agree in rejecting the popular belief in the eternal damnation of the impenitent, and all believe in a righteous judgment and retribution hereafter; —

1st. Some believe, that the sufferings or punishment of the impenitent will terminate in their annihilation; — 

2d. Others, that all punishment under the righteous and benevolent government of God, must be disciplinary and remedial; and must finally result in the universal recovery of the lost to holiness and happiness;

Finally, others believe, that while progress is the law of the soul, the eternal consequences of unfaithfulness here will be realized hereafter, in the consciously lower plane on which the unfaithful and impenitent must enter, and forever relatively continue, in “the world to come.”

One important item that Farley does not discuss is salvation. Is salvation by faith and only by faith in Jesus and nothing else? Or, is it by faith plus something else, viz.:

– faith in Jesus plus baptism,

– faith in Jesus plus baptism and repentance,

– faith in Jesus plus good works,

– faith in Jesus plus reliance on and commitment to Jesus,

– faith in Jesus plus obedience;

– faith in Jesus plus perseverance until death,

– faith in Jesus plus membership in the correct church or denomination,

– faith in Jesus plus belief in the Trinity Doctrine,

– faith in Jesus plus believing that Jesus is the one true God, i.e., he is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

– faith in Jesus plus speaking in tongues;

– faith in Jesus plus whatever.

Likely, most Unitarians of this era were like most Trinitarians: Salvation was by faith in Jesus plus something else.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on The Answer to a Perplexing Question

King on The Answer to a Perplexing Question

Thomas Allen

In "The Answer to a Perplexing Question," Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 133–143, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses evil and faith. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King writes, “Human life through the centuries has been characterized by man’s persistent efforts to remove evil from the earth.” (P. 133.) Throughout this essay, he discusses evil. Most people seldom adjust to evil. No matter how much they may relish evil, their conscience lets them know that they are wrong. (This statement is not true for people who have been indoctrinated in wokeism. Much of what they perceive as evil is not evil, and much of what they perceive as not evil is evil. Also, psychopaths, who often occupy high-ranking positions in governments, businesses, and other institutions, have no conscience and, therefore, do not consider their evil actions as evil.)

However, man cannot “conquer evil by his own power.” (P. 134.) He needs the Divine to conquer evil — which is true.

Then, King proceeds to discuss how evil can be cast out. The first way “calls upon man to remove evil through his own power and ingenuity in the strange conviction that by thinking, inventing, and governing, he will at last conquer the nagging forces of evil.” (P. 134.) If people are given “a fair chance and a decent education,” (p. 134) they can save themselves. In the modern world, this approach is the most common. (Contrary to what King would claim, this approach is what he used to overcome segregation. He used the earthly approach of raw, naked force of governments.) Continuing, he discusses how man has used this approach to solve his problems. “Armed with this growing faith in the capability of reason and science, modern man set out to change the world.” (P. 135.)

After describing how science has greatly improved people’s lives, King notes that “in spite of these astounding new scientific developments, the old evils continue and the age of reason has been transformed into an age of terror.” (P. 138.) Despite expanding educational opportunities and enacting more legislative social policies, selfishness and hatred still exist. (First, being sinners, people will never rid themselves of hatred and selfishness. King did not. Second, the public schools and universities indoctrinate their students to hate Whites. Further, selfishness is the primary force behind most legislation – forcibly taking from some and giving to others.) Then, King answers why man has failed: “Man by his own power can never cast evil from the world.” (P. 136.) Correctly, he states the reason that the secular humanist’s approach has failed: It places “too great an optimism concerning the inherent goodness of human nature.” (P. 136.) It has failed because it has forgotten “about man’s capacity for sin.” (P. 136.)

Next, King discusses the second approach to removing evil from the world. “The second idea for removing evil from the world stipulates that if man waits submissively upon the Lord, in his own good time God alone will redeem the world.” (P. 137.) (When it came to replacing segregation with integration, King could not wait on the Lord. He took the humanist approach of violent protest, which he called nonviolent [just as the violent protests of Black Lives Matter were called peaceful protests], and the violent force of governments.) The second approach is based on “a pessimistic doctrine of human nature, this idea, which eliminates completely the capability of sinful man to do anything.” (P. 137.) This approach “was prominent in the Reformation, that great spiritual movement that gave birth to the Protestant concern for moral and spiritual freedom and served as a necessary corrective for a corrupt and stagnant medieval church.” (P. 137.) While the Reformation overstressed the corruption of man, the Renaissance was too optimistic. The Renaissance “so concentrated on the goodness of man that it overlooked his capacity for evil . . . [whereas the Reformation] so concentrated on the wickedness of man that it overlooked his capacity for goodness.”

King condemns a theology that emphasizes “a purely otherworldly religion, which stresses the utter hopelessness of this world and calls upon the individual to concentrate on preparing his soul for the world to come.” (P. 137.) Such theology ignores the need for social reform and divorces religion from the mainstream of human life. (It seems that the more a Christian denomination focuses on social reform, the more that denomination fades into irrelevance.)

According to King, religion should deal with both body and soul. That is, “the church must seek to transform both individual lives and the social situation that brings to many people anguish of spirit and cruel bondage.” (P. 138.)

Then, King writes, “The idea that man expects God to do everything leads inevitably to a callous misuse of prayer.” (P. 138.) (Thus, King justifies his violent nonviolent tactics.) He does not believe that Negroes should wait for God to answer their prayers for integration; they should protest. (That God would answer their prayers for integration is doubtful since God is a segregationist. Consequently, King is correct when he asserts that Negroes need to protest for integration instead of waiting for God.)

For King, prayer is supplemental to his struggle for social justice for his people. (In other words, God is to play a minor role in the civil rights movement so that King could get most, if not all, the credit and glory.) Negroes must not depend on God to bring them social justice. (Social justice means special benefits and privileges for Negroes and discrimination against Whites.) 

Although they should pray, Negroes must organize themselves into violent nonviolent action and employ all their resources to obtain social justice. Likewise, Negroes need to take the same action for economic justice, i.e., a better distribution of wealth, both nationally and globally.

King is convinced that God will not remove evil from the earth even if people do nothing. (His thinking is contrary to the Bible. Evil, sin, remains until Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom. These actions of Jesus depend on God’s will regardless and independent of man’s actions. One of King’s theological problems is that he believes that people are inherently good, especially nonwhites, instead of being inherently sinners — except Southerners and segregationists, who are inherently evil.)

However, King is correct when he writes that “man is neither totally depraved, nor is God an almighty dictator.” (P. 139.) Then, he writes, “How can evil be cast out of our individual and collective lives?” (P. 140.) The answer is that “both man and God, made one in a marvelous unity of purpose through an overflowing love as the free gift of himself on the part of God and by perfect obedience and receptivity on the part of man, can transform the old into the new and drive out the deadly cancer of sin.” (P. 140.) Thus, God works through people in faith. (To accomplish this goal, man would have to become like Jesus, which he cannot do as long as he possesses a sinful nature. Further, it will not work for King’s idea of social justice because his idea is contrary to God’s.)

Then, King describes two types of faith. “One may be called the mind’s faith, wherein the intellect assents to a belief that God exists. The other may be referred to as the heart’s faith, whereby the whole man is involved in a trusting act of self-surrender.” (P. 141.) For King, heart faith is much more important than head faith. (Heart faith is emotional; it is how one feels. Emotions come and go; therefore, heart faith is fickle. Head faith, intellect, is much more stable and changes slowly if at all.)

Continuing, King states, “Racial justice, a genuine possibility in our nation and in the world, will come neither by our frail and often misguided efforts nor by God imposing his will on wayward men but when enough people open their lives to God and allow him to pour his triumphant, divine energy into their souls.” (P. 141.) (From King’s perspective, social justice arrived not long after he died. Except for a guaranteed income, Negroes have received more benefits and privileges than King advocated. Further, God must hate Whites because Albusphobia now fills the planet. Thus, according to King, when God fills a person and that person opens his life by faith in God, the result is overflowing Negrophilia and Albusphobia — at least, that is the result of what he preached.)

Then, King applies his discussion of faith to personal lives. (Based on his womanizing and marriage infidelity, King failed to follow his advice. Did he fail because he tried to eliminate his evil habits on his own without God’s help? Or, did he fail because he expected God to eliminate his evil habits? Perhaps, he did not consider womanizing and marriage infidelity sins, and, therefore, he had no evil habits to eliminate.)

Concluding, King remarks, “Evil can be cast out, not by man alone nor by a dictatorial God who invades our lives but when we open the door and invite God through Christ to enter.” (P. 143.)

In this essay, King discusses evil and faith. However, he gives sinful man too much credit for his ability to eradicate evil from the world. Evil will remain until Christ’s return and the final judgments take place. Furthermore, what King considers good, racial integration, is what God considers sin.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.