Sunday, July 10, 2016

Homosexuals

    Homosexuals
    Thomas Allen

    Theologians and ministers who teach the acceptance of sodomy, homosexual activity, are deceiving and misleading their students and congregations. They preach and teach that sodomy is not a sin and that the Bible does not condemn it. Moreover, God considers sodomy, homosexual activity, to be a virtue, or at least something that He finds acceptable. They claim that God does not consider sodomy as a sin.
    Contrary to what these theologians and ministers teach, God condemns homosexual activity as an egregious sin. According to the Bible, God’s word, sodomy ranks with murder as a sin deserving death.
    The first Biblical encounter with homosexuals and their sodomy is the story of Sodom in chapters 18 and 19 of Genesis. Their wickedness was so great that God destroyed Sodom and all its inhabitants.

    Leviticus 18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind [homosexual act]: it is abomination.

    In Leviticus 18:22, God declares sodomy, homosexual acts, to be an abomination. Some newer translations, such as the Living Bible and the New Life Version, translate “lie with mankind, as with womankind” as “homosexual act.” Likewise, they translate this phrase as “homosexual act” in Leviticus 20:13.

    Leviticus 20:13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman [homosexual act], both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    In Leviticus 20:13, God declares that homosexual acts are such an abhorrent abomination that those guilty of it are to be executed. (As the author of the Torah of which Leviticus is part, Moses is perhaps the greatest of all Jews. By definition, to disagree with a Jew of Moses’ stature is a blatant act of antisemitism. Therefore, anyone who does not believe that homosexuals should not be executed needs to explain his antisemitism.)

    Deuteronomy 23:18: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore [lesbian], or the price of a dog [male homosexual], into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

    In Deuteronomy 23:18, God again declares sodomy an abomination. Both the Complete Jewish Bible and the Living Bible translate “dog” as “male homosexual.” A male homosexual or sodomite is often called a dog “because of the practice of his vice reminds one of the sexual intercourse of animals.”[1]
    Not only is the homosexual act condemned in the Old Testament, but it is also condemned in the New Testament.

    1 Corinthian’s 6:9-10: [9] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [homosexuals], [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    According to 1 Corinthians 6:9, homosexuals will not inherit, possess, the kingdom of God. (See comment below.) Many modern translations translate “abusers of themselves with mankind” as “homosexuals.”

    1 Timothy 1:9-11: [9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, [10] For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [homosexuals], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; [11] According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

    In Timothy 1:10, homosexuals are listed among the lawless and ungodly. Many modern translations translate “them that defile themselves with mankind” as “homosexuals.”

    Revelation 22:15: For without are dogs [homosexuals], and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

    According to Revelation 22:15, homosexuals are not allowed to enter the New Jerusalem, the Messianic Jerusalem, the eternal city. The Complete Jewish Bible translates “dog” as “homosexual.” (See comment below.)
    As shown, homosexual activity is an abomination. Homosexuals are to be executed. Moreover, they do not inherit the kingdom of God and are not allowed to enter the New Jerusalem.
    Thus, any theologian or minister who teaches or even implies that sodomy is acceptable or that God does not condemn homosexuals is not teaching the Bible, God’s word. He is teaching the doctrines of Lucifer.
    (Comment. Wilkin believes that once a person believes in Jesus, he has everlasting life (John 3:16, 3:36, 5:24, 6:47, 11:26). Furthermore, he cannot lose his salvation once saved (John 10:28-29) regardless of any later sins. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:9-11, he argues that a saved homosexual who continues to perform homosexual acts will not lose his inheritance in the Kingdom of God. He is still allowed to enter the Kingdom of God and still have eternal life.[2]  However, he will have one of the lowest statuses in God’s kingdom. Then he seems to contradict himself with his commentary on Revelations 22:15. He states that “dog” not only includes homosexuals, male prostitutes, but it includes all enemies of God’s word. Thus, sinners will not be part of the New Jerusalem. They are in the lake of fire.[3] Those in the lake of fire endure eternal and unending misery.[4] To endure eternal misery, one must have eternal life. If the saved gain eternal life by believing in Jesus, then in whom or what do the unsaved believe to gain eternal life?)

Endnotes
1. Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Handbook: An Essential Guide to Understanding the Bible (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1966), p. 148.

2.  Robert N. Wilkin, The Grace New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, “Romans – Revelation” (Denton, Texas: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), pp. 729-730.

3.  Ibid., p. 1333.

4.  Ibid., p. 1328.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on religion.

Friday, July 1, 2016

Extinguishing Debt

Extinguishing Debt
Thomas Allen

    Commodity money, such as gold and silver, is real money. Real money is a medium of exchange that extinguishes debt and other financial obligations. Credit money, such bank notes, government notes, gold certificates, checks, and bills of exchange, is not real money. Credit money does not extinguish debt or other financial obligations. It merely discharges the debt or obligation by passing it to another person or entity.
    Although checks, bank notes, government notes, and certificates, are used as mediums of exchange, they are not real money themselves. Only real money can extinguish debt. They are promises to pay money. Under today’s monetary system, the issuer has no intentions of keeping that promise. Therefore, under today’s monetary system only national bankruptcy via hyperinflation or repudiation can extinguish debts.
    When a person buys groceries, he can pay with full-weight gold coins (assuming the gold standard) or with a check or bank note. If he pays with gold coins, no further obligation exists. The grocer has received something that is no one else’s obligation, gold coins. If the buyer pays with a check or bank notes, the buyer’s obligation to the grocer has been discharged. However, it has not been extinguished. The grocer has received a promise to transfer gold to the grocer. The obligation is not extinguished until the grocer presents the bank notes or check to the bank that issued them, and the bank converts the check or bank notes to gold coins.
    Likewise, with debt, a borrower extinguishes the debt when he pays with gold coins. He has paid the lender with money that is no one else’s obligation. If he pays with bank notes or check, he has merely discharged the debt. It has not been extinguished. It has been transferred to the bank. The debt is not extinguished until the lender presents the check or bank notes to the issuing bank, and the bank converts them to gold coins.
    If the buyer or borrower uses governmentally issued notes, like U.S. notes or gold certificates, he has discharged his financial obligation to the grocer or debt to the lender. However, the financial obligation or debt has not been extinguished. It has been passed to the government. The obligation or debt is not extinguished until the government redeems its notes and certificates in gold, that is, commodity money.
    In the United States between 1879 and 1933, gold certificates (first issued in 1882), bank notes, and government notes, which were called U.S. notes and nicknamed greenbacks, were redeemable in gold on demand. (U.S. notes were legal-tender; the other two were not.) If a debtor used one of these forms of credit money to pay his debt, he discharged his debt, but he did not extinguish it. If he paid with bank notes, the obligation was transferred to the issuing bank. If he paid with gold certificates or U.S. notes, he transferred the obligation to the U.S. government. The debt was not extinguished until the bank note, certificate, or greenback was converted to gold. (This conversion permanently retired the bank note and gold certificate. However, it did not permanently retire U.S. notes. The Secretary of the Treasury had a statutory obligation to reissue U.S. notes after they were redeemed.)
    Under today’s paper monetary system, debts and other financial obligations are never extinguished. They are merely passed from one person to another and eventually become an obligation of the government or its central bank. (In the U.S. all debts become obligations of the U.S. government as federal reserve notes are by law obligations of the U.S. government. Since the Bank of England is a department of the British government, its bank notes are obligations of the British government.) Nevertheless, these debts will eventually be extinguished.
    Under a fiat monetary system, debts may be extinguished in several ways. First and most likely, is to inflate the debt away by destroying the value of the money and pushing it to zero. (The Continental, assignat, the Hungarian inflation of 1945-46, and, more recently, the Zimbabwe dollar are examples of this phenomenon.) However, this approached is often forestalled by replacing one fiat paper money with another fiat paper money. (This has occurred often in Latin American countries.) Even countries that have destroyed their paper money with hyperinflation usually choose to replace the old paper money with new paper money. Another way debt can be extinguished under a fiat paper money system is for the issuing country to die as the result of war. (That is what happened to debts denominated in Confederate dollars. When the Confederate States of America died as the result of the War for Southern Independents, their money, which was not legal tender, also died. Along with the death of the money was the extinction of debts denominated in Confederate dollars.) Countries may also extinguish debt by repudiating them as monarchs of the Middle Ages occasionally did. Another approach is to return to a commodity monetary system, such as the gold standard, where paper money is convertible in the monetary commodity. (Great Britain took this approach some years after the Napoleonic Wars when it returned to the gold standard. The United States returned to the gold standard in 1879 after leaving it in 1861.)
    Thus, debt can be extinguished in several ways. One is by reputation. Another is by the death of the currency from inflation or war. The best and least painful way to extinguish debts is with commodity money, such as gold. That is, by paying debt with money that is no one else’s obligations.
    Commodity money, such as gold and silver, extinguishes debts and other financial obligations. Credit money, such as checks, bank notes, government notes, and bills of exchanges, cannot extinguish debts and other financial obligations. They discharge debts and financial obligation by transferring them to another.
    (Bills of exchange were another form of credit money used under the gold standard. A retailer accepted a bill of exchange from a wholesaler. The wholesaler could use the bill to discharge his debt to the manufacturer. When the wholesaler paid with the bill, he was no longer in debt to the manufacturer. He had discharged his debt to the manufacturer with a debt, the bill, which promised to pay gold by a specific date. The wholesaler paid his debt by passing it to the retailer. The debt still existed. Now the retailer had the obligation to extinguish the debt by paying gold to the manufacturer instead of to the wholesaler. When the retailer paid the bill in gold to the manufacturer, he extinguished the debt. The financial obligations represented by the bill, and the bill itself, ceased to exist.)

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More article on money.

Monday, June 20, 2016

What Race Was Adam?

What Race Was Adam?
Thomas Allen

The following is an excerpt from Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Allen (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co., 1998), with some grammatical corrections. The footnotes in the original are omitted.

Creation of Adam
    The last species of men whom God created was Adam, the father of the Aryans. Adam was created about 8,100 B.C. on the Pamir Plateau. With Genesis 1:27 begins the cultural history of man with the creation of Adam.
    Genesis 1:26 reads, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over . . . all the earth.” The Hebrew word in this verse translated as “man” is ̓âdâm. This word is translated as “Adam” in the second chapter of Genesis. More than five hundred times, 'âdâm is translated Adam. If this word had been translated as “Adam” instead of “man,” there would be no doubt that the Bible deals only with the Adamic race. The Adamic, Aryan, or White race, is the race created in the likeness of God and given dominion over the earth.
    A more literal and correct translation of Genesis 1:26 and 27 is “. . . God said, Let us make Adam (̓âdâm) in our image, after our likeness . . . And God created the Adam [or, the Adamite](ha-̓âdâm) in his own image . . . .” This translation clearly shows that Adam and the Adamite are the race whom God created in His own image. If the traditional translation of  ̓âdâm as man is used, these verses should read, “. . . Let us make a man in our image . . . And God created the man in his own image. . . .” Such a literal translation clearly shows that a particular man is being created, not mankind in general. This record of Adam’s creation strongly suggests the existence of other races of men at the time of his creation.
    God created the Adamic race to “have dominion over all the earth.” He created the Adamic race to civilize mankind. As shown below, the Adamic race is the source of civilization. He exalted this race, and other races have recognized it as God’s chosen (Acts 13:17). God also chose the Adamic race as the race from which He would bring His Son, who would be man’s savior.
    The Scriptures do not claim that Adam was the first man or that he is the father of all the races of man. On the contrary, the Scriptures present evidence that other people already existed before Adam was created.
    When God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden, He gave Adam two duties to perform. First, he was to tend or dress the Garden of Eden. Second, he was to protect (keep) it.
    The word translated “keep” in the King James Version is shâmar (Strongs O.T. #8104), which means “to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e., guard; generally to protect, attend to, etc.” Although most versions translate this word as “keep,” the Amplified Bible translates it as “guard and keep,” and Moffatt translates it as “guard.” Those who translate shâmar as “keep,” translate it in the sense of preserving, watching over, and defending if they translate it according to the root meaning of the word.
    From whom was Adam to defend the Garden of Eden? His enemy appeared not to be wildlife, for God brought them to Adam to name. That he was to defend it from Satan is also unlikely. God would not have asked Adam to protect the Garden of Eden from a being more powerful than he. The Bible clearly illustrates that man lacks the power to protect himself, much less anything else, from Satan. (He must rely solely on the power of God for such protection.) So, who was the enemy from whom Adam was to guard the Garden? The most logical answer is that he was to defend it from other men—most likely the ones to whom Cain fled in Nod.
    Another indication that the world was well populated at the time that Cain slew Abel is that Cain lured Abel into the countryside to kill him. He goes into the countryside away from any population center, so no one would witness his murder. If the only people on Earth were Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able, and an unnamed daughter with whom Cain could flee, as the traditionalists claim, Cain would not need to take his brother into the country to kill him.
    Furthermore, in Genesis 4:14, Cain claimed that he would be a fugitive and expressed fear that anyone who found him would slay him. Whom did Cain have to fear if Adam and Eve were the only people alive at that time? From whom would he be a fugitive? No evidence is given in the Bible that Adam and Eve had another child until after Cain had fled. Even if they did, Cain had no more reason to fear his brothers and sisters than his parents — perhaps even less fear since, according to the traditionalists, he married one of his sisters. Cain was not expressing fear of his family. He was expressing fear about people of other races who existed before Adam’s creation. God affirmed this conclusion in His response to Cain in Genesis 4:15 when He told Cain, “Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” Then He placed a mark on Cain. God was acknowledging that many other people were then living who could have slain Cain, and that He would avenge Cain’s death if any of them slew him. If only Adam and Eve were living, and some brothers and sisters, as the traditionalists claim, what purpose would the “mark “ have served? After all, his parents knew their own son. If he had any siblings at the time of his flight, surely they knew their own brother. The “mark” was so that the other people then living could recognize that Cain was under God’s protection. Cain was certainly aware that other people were then living who would delight in killing him.
    Genesis 4:17 provides more evidence that Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman. This verse shows that Cain found a wife, who bore his children. If Adam and Eve were the only people at this time, then how was Cain able to find a wife? No evidence is given in the Scriptures that Adam and Eve had any daughters to whom Cain could marry at the time the Bible describes Cain's marriage. In fact, Adam and Eve do not appear to have had any daughters until well after Cain's marriage. His marriage, the birth of his son Enoch, and his building of a city all occurred before Eve gave birth to Seth. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve had no daughters until after Seth's birth.
    The conventional explanation for Cain’s wife is that he married his sister. If Cain's wife was a daughter of Adam, why should she be punished along with Cain for a crime of which she was innocent? Why should she be banished along with him and forever separated from her parents? Why should her children be denied proper religious training and righteous rearing? The answer to these questions is that Cain’s wife was not a daughter of Adam. The scriptural evidence that Adam and Eve had any daughters for Cain to marry at the time the Bible describes his marriage is lacking.
    Cain did not marry his sister. He married a woman of another race, probably a Turanian. Jude supports the belief that Cain married outside his race. In verses five through eleven, Jude condemns old and new apostates. He compares the new apostates with the old. The most common sin that he identifies with the old apostates is the sin of miscegenation. In verse seven, he states that Sodom and Gomorrah had “given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh.” That is, they lusted after people of a different race. In verse eleven, he states the apostates had “gone in the way of Cain” and had followed “the error of Balaam.” The error of Balaam was his advice to Balak, King of Moab, to destroy Israel by having his mongrel people integrate with the Israelites and intermarry with them. Using Cain’s name in parallel with Balaam, Jude strongly suggests that both of them were guilty of the same sin, miscegenation.
    Further evidence that the world was populated at the time God created Adam is that Cain built his son Enoch a city (Genesis 4:17). The building of a city certainly implies the presence of a large population. Even if this city were no more than a village of huts, as some commentators claim, it still implies a population much larger than would have been the case if all mankind were descended from Adam and Eve. The building of a city strongly suggests that the land to which Cain fled was already inhabited. Why would he bother building a city if the area to which he fled was uninhabited? The dwelling that he, his wife, and son had would surely have sufficed.
    In an attempt to prove that Adam was the first man of all mankind created and the father of all races, theologians who preach the doctrine of the unity of man quote Genesis 3:20, 1 Corinthians 15:45, Acts 17:26, Galatians 3:28, Romans 10:12, and Colossians 3:11. None of these verses, however, support their claims.
    Quoting Genesis 3:20 (“. . . Eve . . . was the mother of all living”), these theologians claim that Eve is the mother of all the species of men. As discussed in detail in the chapter on the Flood, “all” does not always mean the whole number of or every last one. It frequently means many or a large number. In this passage, Eve is being called the mother of the Aryan race, the mother of all Adam’s descendants. She is the mother of all with whom the Bible is concerned, i.e., the Aryans. Expressions like this one that appear to refer to all the inhabitants of the Earth, nearly always only refer to those created in God's image, i.e., Adam’s descendants, the Aryans.
    These theologians are fond of quoting the first half of 1 Corinthians 15:45: “So it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul.” Then they argue that all men are descended from Adam. They overlook the last half of the verse: “The last Adam became a live-giving spirit.” They omit it because it makes no sense considering their doctrine. It immediately raises the question: Who is the last Adam? (The answer, of course, is Jesus Christ, with which nearly all, if not all, theologians agree.) The correct reading of this passage is that Adam was the first man of the Adamic line, not of all the racial lines existing today. Then the answer that Jesus Christ is the last Adam becomes clear. Jesus was born out of Adam through Abraham, Judah, and David. Verse 47 supports this conclusion: “The first man [Adam] is of the earth, earthly: the second man [Christ] is of heaven.” Adam was the “first man” only in the same sense that Christ was the “second” man. Adam was the figure of Christ (Romans 5:14). If these verses are to be interpreted consistently, they cannot be understood as describing Adam in a physical sense. If they are referring to Adam in a physical sense, then Jesus was, according to verse 45, the last man, which is absurd. These verses outline a basic theme of the Bible: death in Adam and life in Christ. This is the light in which these verses should be understood—not as proof that Adam fathered all the races of men.
    Perhaps the favorite verse of the preachers of the doctrine of the unity of man is Acts 17:26: “And he [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” This is the King James Version. The American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Berkeley Version, and The Holy Bible in Modern English, translated by Ferrar Fenton, omit the word “blood.” Weymouth, in his New Testament in Modern English, gives in a footnote the literal translation, “from one,” and notes that “from one blood” is an alternative reading found in some manuscripts. “One blood” appears only in some later manuscripts and, therefore, probably is not in the original.
    This verse does not prove that all the races of men descended from Adam. It does show that God created each race of man. He created them at different times or by “the times before appointed.” He placed each of them in their own specific zoological zone or geographical area (“bounds of their habitation”).
    The preachers of the doctrine of the unity of man also like to quote Galatians 3:28, Romans 10:12, or Colossians 3:11: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew.” The Jew and the Greek referred to in these verses are both descendants of Adam. They are both Aryans. These verses are referring to one race, the Aryan race, living in different countries and conditions, and being united under Christ. They do not prove the doctrine of the unity of man.
    Thus, the verses often quoted to support the doctrine that all races of men descended from Adam fail to support this doctrine. Only the White race descended from Adam.

What Race Was Adam?

    Adam was created White. The name “adam” is ̓âdâm in Hebrew and means a “ruddy human being” (Strong's O.T. #120). It is derived from “adam” (Strong's O.T. #119), or ̓âdam in Hebrew, which means “to show blood (in the face), i.e., flush or turn rosy.” Only one race has the characteristic of blushing or showing blood in the face or skin, and that race is the White or Aryan race.
    Adam was named “Adam” because he possessed a ruddy or rosy complexion. He was fair and White and, therefore, the hemoglobin showed through his nonpigmented skin, giving a ruddy or flushed look. His name described his physical appearance. It is a physical characteristic that appears only in the White race.
    The Bible further proves that Adam and Eve were of the White race with fair and ruddy or rosy complexion by the way it describes their descendants. 1 Samuel 16:12 and 17:43 describe David as being “ruddy and of fair complexion.” 2 Samuel 13:1 describes David’s daughter, Tamar, as “fair.” Genesis 12:11 and 14 describe Sarah as “very fair,” and Genesis 24:16 and 26:7 describe Rebekah as “very fair.” They are descendants of Adam. In Songs of Solomon 5:10, Solomon is said to be “white and ruddy.” In Lamentations 4:7, the Nazarites (consecrated persons) of Judah are described as “whiter than milk” and “more ruddy in body than rubies.”
    Adam and Eve were White. The church has historically always depicted them as White and correctly so. As recorded in the Bible, Adam’s descendants end up being White or at least of a light complexion. This is a fact that no one seriously denies. Yet traditional creationists also claim that all the other races are also descended from Adam.
    Adam was not the father of the human race. He is only the father of the Aryan race. Each race is a distinct and separate creation. God created each race independently of the others and at different times. Hence, each race is a distinct species.
    Scientific evidence suggests a high antiquity of man, along with evidence of definite anatomical differences. Each race of man is descended from a different human pair whom God created with different external and internal characteristics.
    The Scriptures and science agree. The fossil record supports the Bible, and the Bible supports the fossil record. Adam was not the first human that God created. Adam was only the first individual of a new species, the Aryan race of man.
    Although traditional creationists and evolutionists view each other’s theories with enmity, their theories have much in common. Both claim that all races of men have a common origin. Both claim that early man possessed a wide variety of genetic traits that allow for the different races. Both claim that only minor variations exist among the races today. Both claim that the races are the result of climate, environment, natural selection, and group isolation. Both claim one species, race, or kind can produce others—the principle of speciation. Both claim that God did not create the individual races of men. Both claim that no pure race exists because gene flow can and has occurred among the races.
    Only two areas of any real disagreement exist between the traditional creationists and evolutionists. First, the creationists believe in the Divine creation of the initial pair. Evolutionists, for the most part, believe in some sort of spontaneous generation. Second, the creationists believe that the races of men evolved (or developed, as they prefer to say) over a few generations. The evolutionists believe that they evolved over tens of thousands, if not several hundreds of thousands, of years.
    Both the traditional creationists and evolutionists ignore the fact that man can only invent falsehoods in science and religion. True science is nothing more than God’s revelation through His work in nature. New discoveries in science may conflict with religious errors preached over the centuries. With religious truths, however, they can never conflict. Both science and Scripture have the same Author.

Image of God
    “And God created man [Adam] in his own image, in the image of God he created him. . . .”(Gen. 1:27). Adam had the physical nature of the Universe. He possessed life as found in other animals. But he was more. God had made Adam distinctly different. Like other races of men, Adam possessed reason, personality, and free will. Unlike the other races of men, he was created in the image of God. He possessed special qualities of God lacking in other races. Adam was the first man that God made in His own image.
    Pre-Adamic men were not created in the image of God — at least not in the sense that this phrase is used in Genesis. Pre-Adamic men had no closer union with their Creator than do their untutored descendants (Turanians, Negroes, Melanochroi, Khoisans, and Australians) have today.
    Adam, however, was unique. God had made him as a special image of His own eternity. God made Adam immortal (this immortality Adam lost through sin). He was a creature, a species of man, with whom God could visit and have fellowship and communion (this unique fellowship with God, the Adamic race lost when Adam sinned). He possessed a spiritual quality lacking in others. This spiritual quality was directly related to kinship to God. He had the ability to think God’s thoughts in purity and holiness without corruption. Adam had the capacity to commune with God as no other race could. He could reach spiritual heights unattainable to the other species of men. God gave Adam a moral and spiritual nature that enabled him to understand his Creator, to commune with Him in this life, and to look forward to eternal bliss.
    Among the Divine qualities identified by Campbell that God gave Adam was a conscience or moral sense. This conscience in the Adamic race differs entirely from that in the other species of men. In the other races of men, conscience is a perceptive faculty. It provides them with some idea of right and wrong, but it never causes them to feel as though they must do right except where doing right is expedient. When they do wrong, they seem to lack an inward accuser or judge. They seldom show remorse about their crimes or sins; they only have remorse about being caught. In Adamic man, conscience provides moral guidance and protection from sinning. It is an innate part of his moral and spiritual constitution. His conscience convicts him of sin. The conscience of Adamic man is entirely different from that of other men
    Adam’s unique privilege before God was conditioned by his obedience and responsibility to God. God had created Adam and the Adamic, Aryan, race to be his representative and steward on the Earth. God had delegated to Adam a share of His own authority. He made Adam a responsible being. The Divine purpose for the Adamic race was world dominion. (Because of sin, the Adamic race can now only achieve its Divine purpose by the intervention of Christ Jesus.)
    “And Jehovah God formed man [Adam] of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7) Thus, God breathed His spirit into Adam and made him a living soul. This, God did not do for the other species of men. This is what separates Adamic man from the other races. The other races do not possess the ever-living spirit of God as does Adamic man. Unlike other beings, he shared something in common with his Creator.

Copyright © 1998 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on religion.

Friday, June 10, 2016

Views on Race

Views on Race
Thomas Allen

    People’s attitude toward the races of humans falls into one of three primary categories: racial nihilism, racial supremacy, and racial preservation. Many people seem to want to believe or hold two or three of these views simultaneously; thus, they have a garbled, confused view toward the treatment of the races. While in this state of confusion, such people end up supporting, knowingly or unknowingly, racial nihilism.
    Racial Nihilism. Racial nihilism ranges from races do not exist to they do exist but are irrelevant. Racial nihilists believe that races are not worth preserving, especially their own. They consider racial identities irrelevant or something to be eradicated. The most despicable racial nihilists look forward with great delight to the death of their race. Not only do they not object to the races amalgamating into motley mongrel man, but most find such amalgamation desirable. Consequently, racial nihilists promote racial assimilation, racial intermixing; thus, they promote racial genocide and the end of racial identity. Of the three views, it is the most incomparable with Biblical teachings and principles. Racial nihilism is the predominant view in Europe and the United States, especially among Whites, regardless of their political or religious persuasion. Most self-hating Whites are racial nihilists; however, some self-hating Whites are racial supremacists for non-White races.
    A subset of racial nihilism is racial Marxism. Racial Marxism denies the existence of biological races. Genetics does not determine races; therefore, races are not biological. Thus, race is an artificial social construct; races are classes of mankind and are not biological populations. According to racial Marxism, only two races, classes, exist: the White (the oppressor class) and the non-White (the oppressed class). Racist Marxism contends that the “White” race did not exist until Europeans began conquering and colonizing the Americas. Then Europeans, Whites, established themselves as a class to dominate non-Europeans, non-Whites. Consequently, racial Marxism is not about science, but about racial politics.
    Racial Supremacy. Racial supremacists believe that one race, usually their own, should dominate and rule the other races. The most extreme supremacists hold that all but one race should be exterminated. The stereotypical Klansman is an example of a racial supremacist. European imperialists were also racial supremacists: racial supremacy is racial imperialism. Moreover, racial supremacists promote racial segregation, and many hate racial differences. Most non-Whites are racial supremacists. An exception appears to be many self-appoint, self-anointed Black leaders, who act like racial nihilists. Racial supremacy is a poor intermediary between racial nihilism, with which it is closely related, and racial preservation, with which it is alienated. Racial supremacy is the second most popular view of the races among Whites and is the most popular view among the non-White races.
    Racial Preservation. Racial preservation seeks to preserve and protect all human races. All races are worth protecting and preserving. Thus, racial preservationists love and value racial differences and consider them worthy of conservation: Racial differences are important, and their preservation is desirable. Racial preservationists believe that no race should rule or govern another race. (Thus, they follow the Biblical instruction that a nation is not to “set a stranger [nokri, i.e., a person of a different race] over thee, which is not thy brother” [Deuteronomy 17:15]. “Nation” means a people who have a common origin, i.e., of the same race, language, culture, and traditions, and are capable of forming or constituting a nation-state.) Of the three views, it is the most comparable with Biblical teachings and principles. The only way to protect and preserve the races is geographical separation. Consequently, racial preservationists promote the geographical separation of the races. Therefore, each race should have its own monoracial countries with their own independent governments. Unlike racial nihilists, racial preservationists promote the preservation of true racial diversity. Of the three views on race, racial preservation is the least popular.
    Thus, racial nihilism and racial supremacy are negative. Hate guides them; therefore, they are highly destructive. Racial preservation is positive. Love guides it; therefore, it is highly constructive.
    Where racial nihilism and racial supremacy destroy races, racial preservation conserves the races. Americans and Europeans have to choose. If they hate their race and believe that it should be annihilated, then all they need to do is to continue to follow racial nihilism. If they love their race and believe that it should be saved, then they need to change direction and become racial preservationists.
    For a more detailed discussion of racial nihilism and racial preservation, see The Racial Compact at http://www.racialcompact.com/index.html#anchor80549.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More articles on social issues.

Monday, May 30, 2016

Why Can’t We All Get Along?

Why Can’t We All Get Along?
Thomas Allen

    People often ask, “Why can’t we all just get along with each other?  Why can’t people just join hands and sing ‘Kumbaya’? Why is there such a great divide in the country — a divide that has not been seen since the War for Southern Independence?”
    The answer is simple. There are three groups of people: (1) the go-with-the-flow or go-along-to-get-along group, (2) the want-to-be-left-alone group, and (3) the determined-not-to-leave-them-alone group. As long as both of the last two groups exist, peace and harmony cannot exist. One or the other has to cease to exist before peace and harmony can exist.
    The go-with-the-flow group is by far the largest and is irrelevant. People in this group have taken the blue pill and remain in the Matrix. These people will march off to the concentration camps with hardly a grumble. They are the sheeple. No more needs to be said about this group.
    People in the want-to-be-left-alone group just want to live their lives and enjoy the fruits of their labor and their family and friends. People in the determined-not-to-leave-them-alone group are determined not to leave them alone or let them enjoy the fruits of their labor.
    Here is a short list, in no particular order, of what wearies people who just want to be left alone:
    –    They are tired of policies and programs being imposed on them that deliberately destroy their country (geographical territory) and nation (a people of common ancestry, origin, and heritage who have a common language, religion, and culture).
    –    They are tired of others telling them with the force of law how to use their property instead of allowing them to use their property as they see fit as long as they do not trespass against another.
    –    They are tired of the meddlers trying to disarm them so that they cannot resist the programs of the meddlers.
    –    They are tired of being forcibly medicated (water fluoridation, forced vaccination, etc.).
    –    They are tired of being denied medical treatment that the government does not approve even when these treatments have been shown to be superior to those approved by the government.
    –    They are tired of bureaucrats, who risk nothing, dictating to them how to operate their businesses, farms, etc.
    –    They are tired of being labeled “terrorists” because they love liberty.
    –    They are tired of being treated like criminals in order to fly and having their children molested so that they can board an airplane.
    –    They are tired of having the fruits of their labor taken from them via excessive taxation — especially when the revenue is used to control their lives, to impose on them agendas and dogmas to which they object, and to destroy what they value.
    –    They are tired of being forced to support programs with which they vehemently disagree — most of which they find inimical and detrimental to their welfare.
    –    They are tired of incompetent government agencies being rewarded for incompetence by increasing their budget when they fail to do their job, or, perhaps worse, agencies deliberately failing to do their job being rewarded with budget increases.
    –    They are tired of governments and big businesses spying on them.
    –    They are tired of their country and its people and resources being sacrificed for the benefit of other countries and multinational corporations.
    –    They are tired of governmental programs, policies, and agendas designed to reduce their standard of living — these programs and policies have been highly effective at doing this.
    –    They are tired of illegal aliens having more rights and privileges than they themselves have.
    –    They are tired of being forced to pay for a school system that propagandizes and indoctrinates the ruling elite’s dogmas and agendas instead of educating and teaching critical thinking.
    –    They are tired of judges, governmental agencies (usually child protection agencies), and the medical industry taking children from their homes because they disagree with the religion, politics, or medical decisions of the parents or because they merely disagree with the parents.
    –    They are tired of their language being corrupted in the name of political correctness.
    –    They are tired of being forced to take so-called tolerance-diversity courses where they are indoctrinated with the dogmas that people like them cannot be tolerated.
    –    They are tired of being indoctrinated with programs to effeminize men and destroy women with feminist dogma.
    –    They are tired of governments enforcing programs and policies against common sense and decency.
    –    They are tired of having a code of morality (immorality) forced upon them with which they not only disagree, but also find extremely noxious and destructive (a code of morality covers much more than sexual relations; it includes things like theft, murder, fraud, and lying).
    –    They are tired of being forced to participate in the delusions of mentally ill people.
    –    They are tired of being obligated for debts, especially without their consent, that because of their size can never be repaid and that will eventually destroy their country.
    –    They are tired of being laden with ever-increasing regulations and laws designed to control them.
    –    They are tired of governments and politicians lying to them.
    –    They are tired of governments siding with multinational corporations to oppress them.
    –    They are tired of governments serving shysters and special interests instead of the people in general.
    –    They are tired of the US Constitution being replaced with tyranny.
    In short, people who want to be left alone have become extremely weary of Washington bureaucrats and politicians and their owners and their toadies and lackeys in State and local governments imposing their agendas on them. They object to others, i.e., the people who are determined not to leave them alone, claiming that they (the others) know how the want-to-be-left-alone people ought to live their lives and then imposing that lifestyle on them.
    The do-not-want-to-leave-them-alone people have been coercing every item in the above list and much more. Moreover, they are determined to continue to impose these and more.
    To use the Matrix as a metaphor, people who want to be left alone are like Neo and Morpheus. People who are determined not to leave them alone are like Agent Smith; like him, they are driven to cleanse the world of the likes of Neo and Morpheus.
    Many people support Donald Trump because they see him as speaking for and defending people who just want to be left alone. They also see Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as not wanting to leave them alone. They see these two only continuing and expanding control of their lives. Most supporters of Clinton and Sanders have the same view of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders.
    As long as these two antagonistic groups, i.e., people who want to be left alone and people who are determined not to leave them alone, exist, peace and harmony cannot exist. One of these two groups has to perish to achieve peace and harmony.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More articles on politics.

Friday, May 20, 2016

Gold-Backed Currencies

Gold-Backed Currencies
Thomas Allen

    Economic analysts, political analysts, and others are talking and writing about China, Russia, various Islamic countries and possibly other countries instituting a gold-backed currency. They believe that China, Russia, and other countries have been acquiring large quantities of gold in anticipation of going to a gold-backed currency. Some of these commentators imply that instituting a gold-backed currency is returning to the gold standard. Others admit that it is not. These latter commentators are correct. A gold-backed currency without redemption on demand, especially by the common people, is meaningless — except perhaps for propaganda purposes.
    I will use the United States as an example. When the United States ended the gold standard in 1933 and refused to redeem paper money in gold, they still had a gold-backed currency. From 1933 to 1945, Congress required 40 percent of the federal reserve notes to be backed by gold. In 1945, it changed the requirement to 25 percent backing. Then it ended the hypocrisy in 1968 by eliminating all gold backing. However, gold continued to back the U.S. currency and foreign governments and their central banks could redeem their dollars in gold. In 1971, the United States ceased redeeming dollars in gold. (From 1944 to 1971, the United States redeemed dollars under a gold exchanged standard. Under this gold exchanged standard, only foreign governments and their central banks could redeem U.S. dollars in gold.)
    Even after abandoning all pretenses of a gold-backed currency, the United States and the Federal Reserve System continued to back the U.S. dollar with gold.  To the extent that the gold held by them is considered an asset, this gold backs the U.S. dollar. Along with all the land owned by the U.S. government and, more important, the military might of the U.S. government, this gold is part of the “full faith and credit” backing the dollar. (Gold is not really credit as it is no one else’s liability.)
    Likewise, to the extent that a foreign government or its central bank holds gold, its currency is backed by gold. Although it has no statutory requirement to maintain a specific amount of gold to back its currency, its currency is still backed by gold. As shown with the United States, whenever a statutory limit is approached, the law is changed to reduce the requirement.
    Any kind of gold-backed currency is meaningless unless free coinage of gold is allowed and the common people can redeem paper money in gold on demand. Moreover, the country would have to define its monetary unit as a specific weight of gold; it would not be fixing the price of gold. (For example, the Gold Standard Act of 1900 defined the U.S. dollar as 23.80 grains of standard gold, which is 23.22 grains of fine gold. It did not fix the price of gold at $20.67 per ounce.) Furthermore, a country would not have to stockpile gold before returning to the gold standard. It would not need to possess any gold in order to return to the gold standard. All it needs to do is to define its monetary unit as a specific weight of gold, allow the free coinage of gold, and to require paper money to be redeemed in gold on demand by anyone.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More article on money. 

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Skeleton Differences of Human Races



Skeleton Differences of Human Races
Thomas Allen

    This article discusses some of the racial differences in the skeleton. Not discussed is the skull as it deserves an article to itself. A brief description of the races of humans is given in "Species of Men" by Thomas Allen (2015). A more detailed description is given in Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1999),
    Bones differ with race.[1] Their density, size, proportions, and forms vary with race. Negroes have denser bones than Aryans. The volume of the sacral canal differs with race.[2]
    Compared to Aryan children, bones grow faster in Negro children. They grow slower in Turanian children.[3]
    The racial characteristic of the pelvic bones is usually distinct enough to make racial identification possible using only the pelvis.[4] The pelvic bones in Negro women are narrower than those in Aryan and Turanian women;[5] the pelvis of Aryans is absolutely and relatively wider than in non-Aryans.[6]
    Legs and torso of Aryans are medium to long in length. For Turanians, legs are relatively short to medium, and the torso is relatively long to medium. Flattening of the lower leg bones and of upper arm bone (the humerus) is frequent and pronounced. The legs of  the Negro is relatively long, and his torso is relatively short. The Negro’s forearm and lower leg bones are relatively long.[7] Negroes have proportionally longer arms and legs than Aryans. Turanians have long trunks and short arms and legs.[8] Like the Negro, Indo-Australian have relatively long arms.[9]
    The femur, thigh bone, varies with race. Two indexes, the Pilastric index and crural index,  illustrate the difference.
    The Pilastric index represents the linea aspera of the femur. (The linea aspera is a rough longitudinal line on the back of the femur.[10]) The following equation calculates the Pilastric index:

Pilastric index = antero-posterior diameter at middle of shaft x 100/ lateral diameter at middle of shaft

    Turanians have a Pilastric index of 103.5 to 113.1 for males and 99.8 to 108.8 for females. Aryans have a Pilastric index of 107.6 for males and 106.7 for females. Negroes have a Pilastric index of 108.6 for males and 106.5 for females.
    The crural index represent relative length of the thigh to the leg. “The higher the crural index, the longer the leg with respect to the thigh; an index of 100 would represent equal length of both segments.”[11] The following equation calculates the crural index:

crural index = bicondylar length of the tibia x 100/ bicondylar length of femur

    Anthropoids have a crural index of 92.3 for orangutan, 83.5 for chimpanzees, and 80.8 for gorillas.
Negroes have a crural index of 86.5; Turanians, 83.6 to 85.9; Indo-Australians, 88.8; Aryans, 83.5.
    The relative length of the forearms of the races differ. The brachial index represents the relative length of the forearm. The higher the brachial index, the greater the relative length of the forearm to the arm. The following equation calculates this index:

brachial index = length of radius x 100/ length of humerus

(Radius is the bone of the thumb side of the forearm.[12])
    Anthropoids have an brachial index of 79.9 for gorillas and 100.7 for orangutan. Aryans have a brachial index of 73.2 to 74.5; Negroes, 77.0 to 78.5; Turanians, 76.9 to 78.2; Indo-Australians, 78.3.[13]
    The torsion angle vary with race. “The torsion angle is formed by the crossing of two reference lines . . . a) the reference line used for the humeral head passed through the greater tuberosity between the insertion of the supraspinatus and the infraspinatus muscles, b) the reference line for, the distal end of the humerus was the articular axis which passes through the center of both capitulum and of the trochlea.”[14] The torsion angle for Aryans is 164̊. Indo-Australians have a torsion angle of 134.5̊ to 143.9̊. For Turanians (Amerindians), it is 138.5̊ to 150.2̊.[15]
    The frequency of olecranon fossa perforation varies with race and sex. (Olecranon fossa is a depression at the curved process from the ulna [the inner and large bone of the forearm] at the elbow.[16]) Anthropoids have a frequency of 26.3 percent for chimpanzees and 84.0 percent for orangutans. For Aryans, the frequency is 5 percent for males and 17.6 percent for females. For Negroes, the frequency is 11.8 for males and 34.5 for females.  Turanians have a frequency of 17 to 58 percent, and Indo-Australians, 48.5 to 58 percent.[17]
     The arch in the feet of Aryans and Turanians are well-developed. However, the arches in Negroes’ feet are low and often result in flat feet.[18]
    The ability to squat is determined by the angle at the neck of the ankle bone. The greater the angle, the easier it is for a person to squat. For Aryans the angle is 18̊; for Turanians, 20̊; for Negroes, 24̊; for apes, 29̊.[19]
    Exostosis (outgrowth of bones) is common in Aryans, less so in Turanians, and rare in Negroes.[20]
    Although Negroes usually have seven pairs of true ribs, they have eight pairs much more often than Aryans.[21] Also, the shoulder blade, scapula, varies with race.[22]
    The body of Negroes appear well-proportioned while Aryans appear thickset and Turanians even more thickset.[23]
    The vertebral column of races differs. Several indexes are used to describe these differences. These indexes include the Cunningham’s index, the sacrum length-breath index, and the sacrum curvature index.
    Cunningham’s index represents the development of the lumbar curve. The following equation calculates the index:[24]

Cunningham index = sum of posterior height of lumbar vertebrae x 100/ sum of anterior height of lumbar vertebrae

    Cunningham index classification is:
    kurthorachic          up to 97.9
    orthorachic            98 to 101.9
    koilorchic              102 and above

    “Indices above 100 indicate absence of a strongly developed lumbar curve. . . .”[25] Aryans are kurthorachic. Indo-Australians and Khoisans are koilorchic.[26]
    The sacrum is formed by the five vertebrae that follow the lumbar vertebrae. The following equation calculates this index:

length-breath index = maximum sacred breath x 100/ midventral straight height

    Sacrum length-breath index classifications is:
    dolichohieric (narrow sacrum)     up to 99.9
    subplatyhierric                                100 to 105.5
    platyhieric (wide sacrum)             106 and above

    Turanians (Chinese), Negroes, and Khoisans are dolichohieric. Aryans and pygmies are subplatyhierric.  Turanians (Polynesians), Indo-Australians, and Melanochroi are platyhieric.[27]
    The sacrum curvature index represents sacral curvature. The following equation calculates this index:

curvature index = midventral straight height x 100/ midventral curved height

    Anthropoids have an index of 98.7. Indo-Austrailians have an average index of 93.1; Negroes, 92.4; Khoisans,  88.5; Turanians, 85.4; Aryans 84.9 – 86.5.[28]
    As shown above, the skeletons of the races of humans differ significantly. Even absent the skull, a trained person can often identify the race of a person by his skeleton alone.

Endnotes
1. Juan Comas, Manual of Physical Anthropology (Springfield, 1957), pp. 412ff.  Stanley M. Garn, Human Races (Springfield, 1961), p. 27.

2. Garn, p. 27.

3. J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (New Brunswick, 1995), p. 29.

4. Garn, p. 27.

5. James F. Downs and Herman K. Bleibtreu, Human Variation: An Introduction to Race and Racism (Beverly Hills, California:Benziger Bruce & Glencoe, Inc. 1972), p. 261.

6. Vladimir Andeyer, Raciology: The Science of the Hereditary Traits of Peoples, 2nd ed., trans. Patrick Clourier (Moscow, Russia, 2007), p. 182.

7. Robert Bean, The Races of Man: Differentiation and Dispersal of Man (New York, 1932),pp. 89-90.

8. Andeyer, p. 182.

9. Andeyer, p. 181.

10. W.A. Newman Dorland, American Pocket Medical Dictionary (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co., 1945), p. 535.

11. Comas, p. 428.

12. Dorland, p. 803.

13. Comas, p. 428.

14. Comas, pp. 422-433.

15. Comas, pp. 423.

16. Dorland, pp. 388, 676.

17. Comas, pp. 421-422.

18. Robert Bean, The Races of Man: Differentiation and Dispersal of Man (New York, 1932), pp. 89-90.

19. Andeyer, p. 185.

20. Bean, pp. 89-90.

21. Andeyer, p. 181.

22. Comas, pp. 419-420.

23. Andeyer, p. 182.

24. Comas, p. 415.

25. Comas, p. 415.

26. Comas, p. 415.

27. Comas, p. 415.

28. Comas, pp. 415-416.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on anthropolgy.