King on Transformed Nonconformist

King on Transformed Nonconformist

by Thomas Allen

In “Transformed Nonconformist,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 11–20, Martin Luther King Jr. argues against conforming to the status quo. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

For King, conforming was agreeing with the segregationists. Nonconforming was agreeing with him and the integrationists. Correctly, King writes, “Success, recognition, and conformity are the bywords of the modern world where everyone seems to crave the anesthetizing security of being identified with the majority.” (P. 12.) (Have we not seen this with COVID-19 and its so-called vaccine? Likewise, we have seen this with granting Blacks special privileges and elevating them as the superior race.)

Continuing, King cites Paul urging Christians not to conform to the world. (If he were writing this today and if he were consistent, he would have to condemn integration as conforming with the world and segregation as nonconformity.) Correctly, King writes that we should “be people of conviction, not conformity; of moral nobility, not social respectability.” (P. 12.)

Then, King writes, “When we would yield to the temptation of a world rife with sexual promiscuity and gone wild with a philosophy of self-expression, Jesus tells us that ‘whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.’” (P. 13.) (Regrettably, King did not practice what he preached. He was notorious for his womanizing and infidelity.)

Along with adulterous lust, King cites Jesus’s warning against seeking affluence. Again, citing Jesus, he also condemns choosing comfort over suffering for righteousness.

Next, King quotes Jesus saying that we should love our enemies. (Once more, King falls short of Jesus’s teachings. He displays little love for Southerners and none for segregationists — both of whom he considered his enemies.)

Although Jesus and Paul demanded that people not conform to the world but to live differently, most people are molded by the society in which they live.

Correctly, King writes, “Many people fear nothing more terribly than to take a position that stands out sharply and clearly from the prevailing opinion.” (P. 14.) (Most people fear thinking and having an opinion that differs from those who scream the loudest. Thus, wokeism prevails. King with his “nonviolent” movement was a forefather of today’s wokeism.)

(Although big corporations, primarily through foundations, financed King and other civil rights leaders,) King condemns big corporations and other big institutions. (However, he omits big government from his condemnations.)

Next, King condemns Southerners who oppose segregation and discrimination for not openly stating their opposition. Also, he implies his opposition to the influence of the military-industrial complex and to not allowing Communist China membership in the United Nations. (A few years after King died, Communist China replaced Taiwan in the United Nations.)

Again, King is correct when he writes, “Blind conformity makes us so suspicious of an individual who insists on saying what he really believes that we recklessly threaten his civil liberties.” (P. 15.) (Wokesters fear people who say what they believe and often react violently toward them.) He identifies a person who says what he believes as someone who carries a sign in a protest demonstration. (Some of these people are now serving long prison sentences for protesting the stolen 2020 presidential election.) Included in this group are Southerners who “dare to invite a Negro into his home and join with him in his struggle for freedom.” (P. 15.)

Ardently, King condemns the church because it is “an institution that has often served to crystallize, conserve, and even bless the patterns of majority opinion.“ (P. 15.) (The primary objective of the church before the Reformation was to crystallize, conserve, and bless the majority religious opinion.) He saw the church as the conservator and sanctioner of “slavery, racial segregation, war, and economic exploitation. . . . [T]he the church has hearkened more to the authority of the world than to the authority of God.” (P. 15.) (Since God is a segregationist and even separated the races, the segregationist clergy adheres to the Bible more than the integrationist clergy. Moreover, the Bible does not condemn slavery as a sin. Jesus, Paul, and Peter never ordered slave owners to free their slaves.) Churches should “be the moral guardian[s] of the community.” (P. 15.) (Churches that preach racial segregation were acting as the moral guardians of their communities. They were promoting a policy that preserved the races and, therefore, prevented their genocide. Moreover, churches that were at the forefront of pushing integration and other agendas of King, are now pushing wokeism, sexual perversion [homosexualism, transgenderism, miscegenation, etc.], equality [equity, i.e., equality of outcome and discrimination against Whites], social justice [special privileges and benefits for Negroes], and genocide of the White race [and by that, the genocide of the American Negro].)

Continuing, King condemns preachers who measure their success by the size of their congregation, who are showmen, and who “preach comforting sermons and avoid saying anything from [their] pulpit that might disturb the respectable views of the comfortable members of [their] congregations.” (P. 16.) (Today, such preachers preach the prosperity gospel, preach at mega television churches, or preach the agendas of wokeism and queerdom. Rare is a preacher who teaches the sin of miscegenation. Even rarer is a preacher who teaches the polygenetic origins of the races [species] of humans. Nearly all are evolutionists including those who teach that Adam and Eve are the parents of all races [species of humans]; all of them are monogenists.) 

King argues that integrationists should be nonconformists like the early Christians. (Yet, the early Christians promoted segregation. They wanted to segregate themselves from the pagans instead of integrating with them, which would require them to conform to paganism. Further, because most early Christians never met anyone who was not White, racial issues were of little importance.)

King writes, “Nonconformity in itself, however, may not necessarily be good and may at times possess neither transforming nor redemptive power. . . . Nonconformity is creative when it is controlled and directed by a transformed life and is constructive when it embraces a new mental outlook.” (P. 17.) (Today, the new mental outlook is segregation and separation. Some Negroes and other races are developing this new mental outlook. Most Whites would rather be tortured to death than develop this new mental outlook — at least, openly.)

Next, King argues for “an inner spiritual transformation . . . [to] gain the strength to fight vigorously the evils of the world in a humble and loving spirit.” (P. 18.) (King never seemed to have acquired the inner spiritual transformation.)

Then, King writes, “I confess that I never intend to become adjusted to the evils of segregation and the crippling effects of discrimination, to the moral degeneracy of religious bigotry and the corroding effects of narrow sectarianism, to economic conditions that deprive men of work and food, and to the insanities of militarism and the self-defeating effects of physical violence.” (King’s followers adjusted well to integration, especially King-idolizing conservatives. Most have adjusted to the crippling effects of discrimination against Whites. Many of his Negro followers, such as Black Lives Matter and the Negro rioters of the last 50 years, have adjusted to militarism and physical violence. Instead of being self-defeating, their violence has been highly profitable, especially for the leaders.)

In conclusion, according to King, he and the integrationists were nonconformists. Southerners and segregationists were conformists. Now, the integrationists are the conformists, and the segregationists are the nonconformists. Therefore, since King praised nonconformity, King-idolizers should promote segregation.

Also, King taught that all good Christians are nonconformists and should not conform to the community standards of the majority on racial issues. Since integration is the community standard today, then all good Christians should be segregationists.

If King were alive today, most likely he would condemn nonconformity and urge conformity because most of what he advocated in the 1960s has been accepted and adopted by the majority. When are Whites going to become nonconformists and protest discrimination against Whites using King’s “nonviolent” tactics?

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues.

Miscegenation Is Genocide

Miscegenation Is Genocide

Thomas Allen

Genocide is the systematic destruction of a race of people. If carried to its conclusion, miscegenation results in the destruction of at least one, often both, of the races that are intermarrying. Thus, miscegenation is genocide.

To illustrate this point, let us consider an island with 50 men and 50 women of race M and 50 men and 50 women of race T. The 50 men of race M kill the 50 men and 50 women of race T. What is the result?  Genocide. Race T has ceased to exist.

Again, the 50 men of race M kill the 50 men of race T. They then rape the 50 women of race T, who then have hybrid offspring of mixed-race MT. Or, the 50 women of race T voluntarily become the wives of the men of race M and have children with them. The result is still the same; they have hybrid offspring of mixed-race MT. Finally, if the men of race M have no sexual relationship with the women of race T, the women of race T have no children. What is the result of all three of these scenarios? Genocide. Race T ceases to exist when the last woman of race T dies.

One may say that these are obvious incidents of genocide because violence and murder are involved. However, what one fails to realize is that genocide can occur without violence and can even be voluntary.

Let us return to the example island. The 50 men of race M lust (or desire or whatever verb one wants to use) after the 50 women of race T and marry them while the 50 men of race T lust after the 50 women of race M and marry them. No violence or force is involved. Each man and woman freely and voluntarily chooses his and her mate. The offspring of these mixed marriages are of mixed-race MT. When the last man and woman of race M or race T dies, that race ceases to exist. What is the result?  Genocide. Both races have ceased to exist.

Many definitions include “deliberate” extermination as part of the definition, but not all definitions do. Whether something is deliberate or not is irrelevant if the result is the same. Some definitions use “kill” while others use “exterminate” to show that genocide can be accomplished by means other than killing. 

Now let us look at two definitions of genocide:

1. John Cox: “Genocide aims to not only eliminate individual members of the targeted group but to destroy the group’s ability to maintain its social and cultural cohesion and, thus, its existence as a group.” 

2. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition: “The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.”

According to Jim Cox's definition, miscegenation leads to genocide because it not only eliminates individual members of intermarrying races by eliminating their racial offspring, but it also destroys their ability to maintain the social and cultural cohesion of the race by eliminating the existence of the race.

Miscegenation also meets the definition of the American Heritage Dictionary.  When interracial mating becomes widely accepted, it becomes systematic and widespread and leads to the extermination of the races involved. 

Genocide can just as likely be voluntary as it can be involuntary. It can be murder when one race deliberately kills another. It can be suicide when one race deliberately kills itself by breeding itself out of existence. The only real difference between genocide by murder and genocide by miscegenation is that genocide by miscegenation usually takes longer. In both cases, the results are the same. The race ceases to exist.

Thus, miscegenation is genocide. That it is voluntary does not make it any less evil or sinful. Are homosexual acts any less sinful when they occur between consenting adults? Are adultery and fornication any less sinful when they occur between consenting adults? Is genocide any less sinful when it is voluntary (miscegenation) instead of done by force (murder)? The answer to all these questions is no. They are all sins. 

The only way to avoid the sin of miscegenation and the resulting genocide is to outlaw it and punish those guilty of the crime of miscegenation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on a Tough Mind and a Tender Heart

King on a Tough Mind and a Tender Heart

Thomas Allen

In “A Tough Mind and a Tender Heart,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 1–9, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses tough-mindedness, soft-mindedness, and tenderheartedness. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins with what makes a man strong: “The strong man holds in a living blend strongly marked opposites.” (P. 1.) Accordingly, a strong man is the synthesis of opposites. (Needless to say, King considered himself a strong man.)

King envisioned himself as following Jesus’ directions in Matthew 10:16. He saw himself as being as tough as the serpent but as soft as the dove. So, naturally, he saw himself as having a tough mind and a tender heart. (He had neither. He may have had a stubborn mind, but it was dull. Moreover, he displayed little tenderness toward Southerners and especially segregationists.)

Then, King discusses the characteristics of a tough mind: “incisive thinking, realistic appraisal, and decisive judgment.” (P. 2.) Furthermore, a tough mind is sharp, astute, and discerning. It breaks “through the crust of legends and myths and sifting the true from the false.” (In short, a tough mind requires a level of intelligence and intellect that King lacked. A good example of people who lack a tough mind is those who idolize King. They cannot break “through the crust of legends and myths sifting the true from the false.”)

Correctly, King remarks that a tough mind is one of man’s greatest needs. (Unfortunately, a tough mind is almost absent in Whites concerning race.)

King writes, “Nothing pains some people more than having to think.” (He is being generous. He should have written, “Nothing pains most people more than having to think.”)

Continuing, King notes that gullibility is a sign of a weak mind. (An example of weak-minded gullible people is those who believe the government’s and the establishment media’s lies and propaganda about COVID-19 and its so-called vaccine.)

Correctly, King remarks that “authentic channels of information— the press, the platform, and in many instances the pulpit—do not give us objective and unbiased truth.” (P. 3.) (This claim is even more true today. Few people critically judge what they read and hear to discern fact from fiction. People who idolize King are a good example. Moreover, King illustrates that he lacks the toughness of mind to discern — for example, his reliance on Communists.)

Turning to the soft-minded man, King writes “The soft-minded man always fears change. He feels security in the status quo, and he has an almost morbid fear of the new.” (P.3.) For King, most Southerners and all segregationists were soft-minded. Soft-minded people prefer ignorance to knowledge. (Thus, soft-minded people do not see the world as King thinks that they should. Hence, integrationists are tough-minded, and segregationists are soft-minded.)

Then, King notes that dictators manipulate soft-minded people with emotions to submit to the dictators’ will. (King and other civil rights leaders used emotions to incite their followers, both Black and White, because they knew that their followers were soft-minded people.)

Next, King remarks, “Soft mindedness is one of the basic causes of race prejudice.” (P.4.) On the other hand, tough-minded people evaluate the facts before they reach a conclusion — they postjudge. Soft-minded people reach a conclusion before they evaluate the facts — they prejudge. He writes, “Race prejudice is based on groundless fears, suspicions, and misunderstandings.” (P. 5.) (Consequently, King proves that Southerners are tough-minded people concerning racial issues. Instead of prejudging, Southerners postjudge. Having lived, worked, and associated with Negroes for more than 400 years, Southerners have more than 400 years of experience with and knowledge of the Negro. Their knowledge of the Negro far exceeds that of Northern integrationists. Therefore, Southerners are void of racial prejudices. Since integrationists judge Southerners and segregationists before examining the facts, they are soft-minded people; they prejudge and are, therefore, prejudiced.)

Continuing, King asserts that segregationists, whom he considers soft-minded people, want to perpetuate segregation “because Negroes lag behind [Whites] in academic, health, and moral standards.” (P. 5.) According to King, segregation and discrimination caused Negroes to lag behind Whites in academic, health, and moral standards. (After more than 50 years of integration where Negroes have received vastly more benefits and privileges than Whites ever had during the height of Jim Crow and White supremacy, Negroes still lag behind in academic, health, and moral standards. Consequently, the soft-minded people, according to King, were correct and the tough-minded people were wrong. Whatever caused Negroes to lag was not segregation or discrimination.)

(A tough-minded person would have studied the facts and discerned that the shortcomings of Negroes were innate. Segregation did not cause them, so integration would not eliminate them. Consequently, King proves himself to be soft-minded for failing to realize that genetics causes the Negro’s problem and not segregation. However, if King knew it, he was hypocritically deceiving his followers.)

Next, King discusses tenderheartedness. “Tough mindedness without tenderheartedness is cold and detached. . . . The hardhearted person never truly loves.” (Pp. 5-6.) 

A hardhearted person is a utilitarian who values people according to their usefulness to him. “He is unmoved by the pains and afflictions of his brothers.” (P. 6.) (King, his followers, and integrationists in general were unmoved by the pains and afflictions that they brought upon Southerners. Many even enjoyed causing Southerners pain and afflictions. Therefore, they were hardhearted people.)

King notes that hardhearted people may give to charity, but they never give their spirit. “The hardhearted individual never sees people as people, but rather as mere objects or as impersonal cogs in an ever-turning wheel.” (P. 6.) (King insinuates that Southerners who opposed integration did not care about their Negro neighbors. Otherwise, they would have integrated with them. They merely saw Negroes as cheap labor.  Only, Northerners, especially Northern integrationists, saw Negroes as real people who were equal to Whites. On the contrary, Southerners saw Negroes as real, concrete people. Northern integrationists saw Negroes as abstractions. They were merely tools to execute their Dixiephobic war to genocide Southerners. While most Southerners personally interact with Negroes daily, many Northerners may not personally interact with Negroes for a week or more. According to King’s description of hardheartedness, Northerners were more hardhearted than Southerners.)

Continuing, King writes, “To have serpentlike qualities devoid of dovelike qualities is to be passionless, mean, and selfish. To have dovelike without serpentlike qualities is to be sentimental, anemic, and aimless.” (P. 6.) The two need to be combined. (King’s serpent-like qualities far outweighed his dove-like qualities.)

Finally, King writes, that Negroes “cannot win the respect of the white people of the South or elsewhere if we are willing to trade the future of our children for our personal safety and comfort.” (P. 7.) (Negroes succeeded in destroying the respect that Whites had for the White race. Consequently, Negroes failed to gain the respect of Whites. People who cannot respect their own race cannot respect others.)

Concluding, King urges his (so-called) “nonviolent resistance, which combines tough mindedness and tenderheartedness and avoids the complacency and do-nothingness of the soft minded and the violence and bitterness of the hardhearted.” (P. 7.) (King’s tactics were not nonviolent. They were designed to cause violent reactions, and were highly successful in achieving violent responses to provocations — so much for tenderheartedness.)

In closing, King compares himself and his “nonviolent” tactics to God. The Bible shows God’s “tough mindedness in his justice and wrath and his tenderheartedness in his love and grace.” (P. 8.)

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

A Discussion with an Idiot

A Discussion with an Idiot

Thomas Allen, editor

Below is a discussion between me and an idiot. This discussion resulted from a comment that I made to a comment that another person made to an article. The article is titled “Police Officer Arrests Man Reciting Bible Verse at Pride Rally” at https://wltreport.com/2023/06/06/police-officer-arrests-man-reciting-bible-verse-at-pride-rally/#comment-6210524182. [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s chosen people and their political movement.]

The idiot is somewhat arrogant and a racial nihilist. As a racial nihilist, she does not care about persevering the American Negro and seems to rejoice in the Negro’s demise. On the contrary, she denies that the Negro race, the White race, and any other race exists. (I use “she” and “her” for pronouns for this idiot because she did not specify which one of the 100 plus pronouns is her preferred pronoun.)

Moreover, this idiot is a worshiper of St. Martin Luther King the Divine and probably considers herself a conservative. Further, she is convinced that King had a high moral standard, was a strict follower of biblical morality because that is where King got his morality, and was faithful to his wife. Thus, she has a weird understanding of the Bible and seems to believe that the Bible does not condemn illicit sex. For someone who mentions the Bible as frequently as she does, she has a shallow understanding of the Bible. Also, she understands the Bible through the lens of wokeism.

Moreover, although she idolizes King, her comments show that she knows little about him. One would think that anyone who idolizes King as much as she does would know about his infidelity, which is common knowledge. Either she is too stupid to know or she rejects what she knows is true because it tarnishes her idol.

Originally, I thought that this person was ignorant. Later, I discovered that she was stupid. Ignorance can be fixed with knowledge; stupidity cannot be fixed. However, I did not find her stupid because she disagreed with me. I found her stupid by the way that she disagreed and what she wrote. (I have had many people disagree with me whom I do not consider stupid. An example is King.)

Furthermore, this person is not the only idiot that I have encountered. For example, one moronic person claims that he knows more about what a clause in the Constitution means than does the person who wrote it.

I have left the idiot’s comments and the other comments as they were posted. To one of my comments, I have added some clarification and have enclosed it in brackets. I have substituted “Idiot” for her pseudonym, “Me” for my pseudonym, “Original Commenter” for the person who commented on the article, and “Third Party” for the person who commented during our discussion. 

The comments are not in chronological order but are in the order that they appear in the comment section. The discussion follows.

 Original Commenter: In the Last Days what is good will be called evil and what is evil will be called good. This is a fine example of that scripture. The good man was trying to warn of the consequences of sin. We don’t make the laws, God does and still have consequences for disobedience.

Me: Martin Luther King writes, “An unjust law is one in which people are required to obey a code that they had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote.” Thus, the ten commandments and the other laws that Moses wrote in the Old Testament are unjust because no one had any part in making them. According to King, people should not obey unjust laws.  https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-real-king.html

Idiot: Em, the ten commandments are the laws that God gave mankind for mankind’s benefit. Which of these laws would you propose we not obey, and why? Just curious ...

Thou shall not murder perhaps? Thou shall not bear false witness? Do these seem “unjust” to you?

Me: I did not say that we should not follow the ten commandments. I am saying that the greatest conservative ever, the archconservative St. Martin Luther King the Divine said that no one is obliged to obey any law that they did not help make by voting for those who made the law.

Idiot: oh, btw, Martin Luther King said we are not obliged to follow IMMORAL laws. Big difference.

“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Martin Luther King Jr.

Note the “MORAL responsibility” - WHERE do you suppose REVEREND King got his “morality” from, hmmm?

Idiot: I didn’t say to not follow the ten commandments either.

YOU said any law we didn’t have a part in making, we are not obliged to follow.

We didn’t have a part in making the ten commandments, so we shouldn’t be obliged to follow them.

So I asked YOU which of these laws would you NOT follow?

Soooo?

Me: I did not say that we are not obliged to follow laws that we didn’t have a part in making. King said that. King defines an unjust law as one in which people had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote. According to King’s definition, the ten commandments are unjust because people had no part in making them and, therefore, they are not obliged to obey them.

Idiot: The quote YOU provided was about something totally different. People who are denied the right to vote shouldn’t have to follow laws they had no say in making. We actually fought an American Revolution for this very reason. Britain throwing people in jail without trial by jury and imposing tax laws on Americans when Americans had no say in parliament, where the laws were coming from.

It was a quote about people who are denied the right vote.

Me: But the principle is still applicable to OT laws since people were denied the right to vote and neither the Israelites nor anyone else beyond God had a say in making them. Throughout most of history, all laws have been unjust because people who were required to obey them had no part in making them. Even today, the same is true for minors because they have no part in making laws that apply to them.

Idiot: No, it does not apply. That was not even close to what King was referring to. For one, he definitely said we have a moral responsibility to follow just laws. Where did REVEREND King get his morality, and just laws from? THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Me: “Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.” Then, “I don’t expect that anything I write will change the minds enclosed in concrete already...."

Third Party: You cannot use reason to debate or convince or inform someone who has rejected reason.

If reason is your argument, and he won’t hear it, you are wasting your breath and conceding any hope before you begin.

Idiot addressing Third Party: Yep, you perfectly described why Me has desperately avoided answering where Reverend King got his morality from. :-) When you avoid reasoning and facts you have rejected them. When your mind is that closed, you will never be able to learn anything new. Sad, isn't it?

Idiot: Oh Lord, I don’t want to admit where Reverend King got his morality from! Noooo! It'll make me look stupid!

Me: I don’t know where King got his morality and just laws from, but I do know that he did not get them from the Bible.

Idiot: You don’t know where REVEREND King got his morality from, but you somehow do know it wasn’t from the Bible??????

Liar. You tried to avoid the question because you DO know, and didn’t want to answer. :-)

I suspect that you know exactly where King got his morality from. Everybody else does.

You just exposed yourself, dear. Good job!

Me: Where did King get his morality? Although you seem to think that he got it from the Bible, he did not. King was an integrationist and hated segregationists. The God of the Bible is the great segregationist; therefore, King loathes him. Proof that God is a segregationist: The world’s two greatest segregationist events were the Noachian Flood (where God segregated Noah and his family from the rest of the people) and the Tower of Babel. God was the cause of both of them. Further, God told the Israelites that when they entered Canaan not to integrate with the inhabitants, i.e., segregate themselves. Also, God segregates the saved from the unsaved. Thus, while God teaches segregation, King teaches integration.

According to Acts 17:26, when God created the races, He determined the boundaries of the habitats. Did God create the races of man, or did they evolve? The Bible supports creation; you probably support evolution. King's racial policy of integrating the races leads to amalgamation and, therefore, the destruction of the races. Do you support the deliberate destruction of what God created? God so despises amalgamation that He forbids mongrels, multiracial people, to enter His assembly. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2017/05/commentary-on-deuteronomy-232.html

King seems to have got his morality from Satan, but that is speculation on my part.

Idiot: God forbids “mongrels” and “multi-racial” people from His assembly??

Quote the Chapter and verse FROM THE BIBLE that proves this????

Good luck with that one, dear. :-)

Me: The New Jerusalem Bible reads, “No half-bred may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” The Hebrew word translated “half-bred” means “mongrel.” If you had consulted the link that I gave you, you would have learned this. [I did fail to cite the verse, which is Deuteronomy 23:2; however, it was cited in the link of my previous comment. Obviously, she had not read the linked article.]

Idiot: Once again you have failed. Source? Chapter and verse please.

Idiot: You also know nothing of the Bible but you are revealing yourself in very profound ways.

oh, btw. The Bible NEVER mentions anything about different "races."

Different people groups, such as the Hittites, Cushites (African tribes), Israelites, etc. But NEVER different races because there is only ONE race in the Bible. THE HUMAN RACE.

The ONLY segregationist here honey, is YOU.

God separated the people at the tower of Babel because His plan was NEVER for a “one world order.” Thank God for that!

And different races don’t “evolve.” That's a non-sensical [sic], totally UN scientific statement. DUH! What is WRONG with you???? Doesn’t even relate to “evolution or creation.” The ignorance here is astounding.

And how the hell does God “dispise amalgamation????”

So glad you posted that last post. You discredited yourself beyond repair. My dear, you are your own worst enemy.

Reverend King, and ALL Christians, get their morality from the BIBLE. The living word of God. Period. Now go back to your mummy's basement before you hurt yourself.

Me: Obviously, you suffer from intellectual hernias, racial nihilism, invincible ignorance, terminal ignorance, mental imprisonment, cognitive dissonance, arrested development, delusional psychosis, and dissociation of sensibility. People like you are causing the dying of the country, the decaying of Christianity, and the growing genocide.

Further, your knowledge of the Bible is appalling. Cush is Arabia (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/03/cush-and-ethiopia.html) The Bible NEVER mentions anything about “the United States,” “Russia,” “nuclear war,” and many other things that people find in the Bible. Some translations do use the word race in the sense of ethnicities. Also, the Bible speaks of tribes and nations. Ethnicities, tribes, and nations are monoracial in the biological sense and are subdivisions of a race — thus, implying race in the biological sense.

When God separated the people at Babel, He segregated them; He certainly did not integrate them. “How the hell does God ‘dispise amalgamation”?” He told the Israelites not to integrate (amalgamate) themselves with the people of the promised land; instead, He told them to segregate from them.

I never said that the races evolved. God created them; therefore, we should promote policies that protect and preserve them (segregation and separation) and not policies that genocide them (miscegenation and amalgamation). Why do you want to destroy the races that God created? You must since you oppose policies that protect and preserve them and endorse policies that genocide them.

If King got his morality from the Bible, why was he a fornicator? Why was he, like you, a promoter of policies that resulted in the genocide of Blacks?

Idiot: What makes you think that King was a fornicator? oh, wait, are YOU judging him by BIBLICAL standards?

Whatever. What policies did King promote that resulted in the genocide of Blacks?

Name one. I dare ya.

Me: Since King’s morality comes from the Bible and since King had sex with women other than his wife, then, according to you, biblical morality approves of people having sex with women other than their wives.

King promoted integration. Integration leads to interracial marriages and mating. Interracial marriages and mating lead to the breeding of the races involved out of existence. And that is genocide. King promoted interracial marriages. You also want to genocide Blacks.

Idiot: So according to you, interracial marriage promotes genocide? wow. Just wow. How sick and pathetic.

You also need to educate yourself on the definition of “genocide.”

(Spoiler alert: the definition does not include interracial marriage)

Idiot: I don't know if King was faithful or not. Who was the other woman?

Well?

Idiot: “according to me???” Quote me where I said that the Bible supports adultery.

Waiting ....

Idiot: Em, no. The Cushites are descendants of CUSH. Grandson of Noah, and the father of Nimrod. The land of Cush in the Bible is ETHIOPIA.

The African lands south of Egypt. Please read a Bible before you post.

There is NO translation of the Bible that uses the term "race." Never. None, Nada, Zip, Zilch.

All Bibles were translated from the original Hebrew (and some Aramaic like the Book of Daniel) into the other languages DIRECTLY.

Hebrew > Greek

Hebrew > Latin

Hebrew > English

etc. etc etc.

So we know there is no reference to different “races” at all. Only different tribes. That is just a fact.

And yes you did say the races “evolved.” Try to be more clear and specific because when you pose a question about “creation vs evolution” in the same breath, that is the obvious assumption.

As for your idiotic question, “Why do you want to destroy the races that God created?”

I do not want to destroy anything. But as far as mixed marriages, I have no problem with that.

As for your “ass-umption,” it doesn’t even make sense, : “You must since you oppose policies that protect and preserve them and endorse policies that genocide them.”

What the hell does that even mean? What the hell policies would “protect and preserve races” without being blatantly racist???

And just explain to me how anyone would “genocide races??” Well?

Me: The American Standard Version, which may be the best literal translation of the Bible, uses the word “race.” If you had consulted the link that I gave you, you would have learned that Cush was Arabia and not a region south of Egypt.

Idiot: Actually, the best literal translation is The King James Bible.

And please quote chapter and verse where any Bible uses the word “race.”

Idiot: Whaaa !!! ????

Ok, so explain “intellectual hernias, racial nihilism, invincible ignorance, terminal ignorance, mental imprisonment, cognitive dissonance, arrested development, delusional psychosis, and dissociation of sensibility.”

What does any of that even mean, and how does it intellectually bolster your opinion?

Mmmmm? Waiting ...............................

Me: I thought that you were ignorant and could be educated. However, I have discovered that you are stupid and beyond hope. Therefore, I must follow Mark Twain’s advice.

Idiot: FAIL! Was Mark Twain’s advice to crawl away with your tail between your legs? LMAO!

Cya.

Me: Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. – Mark Twain

I have been arguing with an idiot and do not want to be dragged down to your level.

Idiot: LOL! Look at your posts dear. Do who see whole paragraphs of childish invectives in mine? Nope.

I did not let you drag me down to YOUR level, as evidenced by our posts for all the world to see.

Nice try, no fly. You're done here.

Idiot: Sorry kiddo. We ALL KNOW where pastors and reverends, including Rev. King, get their morality from. THE BIBLE. EVERYBODY already knows that. You cannot deny that and maintain any illusion of credibility or integrity. End of that story.

Me: You claim that pastors and reverends, including Rev. King, get their morality from the Bible. Consequently, homosexual pastors and fornicating pastors like King get their morality from the Bible — really?

Idiot: ??? We all know that Pastors and Reverends get their morality from the Bible, as do all Christians. Once again you are desperately trying to create a diversion to get out of the corner you are painted in to.

Yes, Reverend King got his morality from the Bible. It's that simple.

Idiot: OH Lord, I can’t answer the question, so let me divert with childish ad hominems [sic] so I don’t have to admit how closed my mind is! Worse than concrete! lmao!

Idiot: Actually YOU did say that. And ONLY you since you misquoted King.

Martin Luther King NEVER said we shouldn’t follow laws we didn’t vote for, except in the context of those who were DENIED the right to vote. It wasn’t a reference to the general population.

Martin Luther King said we had a duty to NOT follow *IMMORAL* laws. I provided his quote for you. And this pertained to EVERYONE.

Big difference.

And my question to you, was which laws that we did not vote for (ie; the Ten Commandments) should we not follow, since we obviously didn’t vote for these laws.

THE END

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.