|
InHisName777
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Caleb
Country: United States
State: Georgia
Metro: Kennesaw
Gender: Male
Interests: I'm horrible at sports but I love the outdoors... hmm let's see. Pizza, writing, swimming, drawing, reading, music (preferrably acappella- gotta love shape notes!), church, youth group, youth camp (FFYC Bethel camp at Crawfordville y'all! represent!!!), current events, Jewish culture and history, Pentecostalism, theology, the Holocaust, pro-life issues, Bible quizzing, discussion, politics, painting, piano, correcting people's annoying grammatical mistakes like confusing "your" and "you're"... being nice to baby-killing liberals! Eating pasta! Eating anything! Jeans and flip-flops! The Heavenly Highway Hymnal with duct tape on the spine! The amazing state of Alabama and its wannabe stepchild Georgia! I'm a One-God Christian and I believe in water baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins.
Expertise: hmmm... let's not and say we did?
Occupation: Student
Industry: History
Message: message meEmail: email me
Website: visit my website
AIM:  KnowHim333
MSN: wbelac88@hotmail.com
Yahoo:  jewbelac88
Member Since:
3/8/2004
|
|
| Not really anything going on. I don't know why I even still write on here, but on facebook to write stuff you have to make a note and that's just too much work and calls too much attention. I'll probably have this xanga site up and operating til the day I die. Or the day we evolve beyond the Internet.
1.) I have to read this book about Vietnam for my US History class and it's totally dumb. The guy writing it has a personal vendetta against the government and the Army and just about everybody else and it makes for a really tiring read after a while. First of all, the guy was a freakin MECHANIC and stationed in THAILAND, not Vietnam, and he never saw combat firsthand yet he seems to want to be an expert on it. And half the book is about his love affair with a Thai prostitute. I put it down tonight and I'm not gonna finish it, even if it is required. The professor should have chosen a better book about Vietnam.
2.) I'm doing my term paper on the history of anti-immigration movements in the US. It's gonna be tedious, but once I start writing it I shouldn't have too big of a problem.
3.) I joined Twitter but I have no idea what the heck is supposed to be happening on that site.
4.) It's miserably cold right now in Georgia. At the end of March. This is utterly ridiculous. But I wouldn't really know, since I've been shut-in at home for the past four days with either a cold from hell or a mild case of the flu. At any rate, it's kept me in my room reading and doing schoolwork whereas I'd normally be driving around doing stupid stuff w/ the bestest.
5.) I'm really considering quitting my job. We had a shift change and I've been placed on the busiest concourse with the heaviest passenger load, and on top of that, it's a Friday-Saturday-Sunday stretch so there goes any off days I had, since I already have class Mon-Thurs. Plus I have class Wed. nite during church so the only time I get to go to church is Sunday, and with the new work schedule that will be gone too. BUT work is really hard to come by these days, so I'm not gonna leave Delta unless I have another job waiting. If I do end up leaving I'll really miss those flight benefits.
6.) I'm prone to crushes.
7.) I find myself moving more and more toward libertarianism in the wake of my disillusionment with party politics. The Republicans are really pissing me off, not to mention Frau Facelift Pelosi and her Democratic horde. The Libertarian Party's a junk heap too, which is why I'm starting to be convinced that the whole political system in this country needs an overhaul. Meanwhile my belief in the principles of little-L libertarianism grow stronger-- let me keep my guns and my money, stay out of my bedroom and my car, keep me safe, and everything will go nicely. But alas, what a dream.
8.) I'm twenty-one now and not totally sure where I'm supposed to stand in the scheme of things.
Later.
| | |
| So I'll diverge from my usual philosophical posts.
There's someone I've been in love with for years. But I forced myself long ago to give up on ever having a chance of being with them. We're on different roads and probably always will be. And there are reasons why I don't think it would ever work out. They're still one of my best friends, even if we don't really talk anymore. I've accepted that I will probably have feelings for this person until the day I die, even if I find "the one." So I have to live with it. I guess it's good and bad.
That's about it.
| | |
| Most people automatically cringe when they hear the term "White Pride", as it conjurs images of Nazis, skinheads, racism, and hate-filled rhetoric. These associations are understandable. But they are just associations. I don't believe you can oppose a concept based simply on what tangible items the concept brings to mind. My opposition to White Pride comes from an understanding of the pointless nature of the concept, not from a disapproval of its associations. Likewise, I proudly call myself an American Nationalist despite whatever associations the term "nationalism" may bring to people's minds; my devotion is to the concept of nationalism itself. I don't allow the negative way people may view Nationalism to dissuade me from wholeheartedly believing in the spirit and ideals of the concept.
I have seen a number of Facebook groups geared toward young whites that have to do with White Pride or some variation of it-- White Power, White Nationalism, etc. The White Pride movement (if it can be called such) has made headway in other Anglo-European countries around the world, particularly Australia and the UK, where young people have felt obliged to defend their traditional way of life against what they perceive to be an encroachment by other ethnic or religious groups. The Cronulla Riots in Australia featured thousands of young white Australians voicing their opposition to increased Islamic presence in their country-- a presence that they see as contrary to the customs, language, and culture of Australia. White Pride groups have found a generous following among young whites who feel threatened by tides of multiculturalism.
This mindset can be found in more subtle forms in the United States, whether in strong resistance to immigration, opposition to a bilingual society, or general fear and mistrust of Muslim Americans. Citizens who feel a decent amount of pride and ownership over the unique national identity of the USA don't respond kindly to the influx of new languages, new religions, and new worldviews into a country that is traditionally English-speaking, Christian, and patriotic.
The truth is, these sentiments have nothing at all to do with what we know as White Pride. They have much more to do with 1.) nationalism and 2.) xenophobia. The dictionary defines nationalism as "the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations; devotion and loyalty to one's own nation." Xenophobia is defined as "an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange." Combine these two ideas (since they can exist separately) and you have a sentiment that many proponents of racism and White Pride are now using to their advantage.
You see, the entire idea of White Pride is a difficult and illogical one. If there is to be a single race that's considered "white", we'd have to choose the Caucasoids. The Caucasoids are spread all over the globe in every manner of country, speaking every manner of language, with every manner of custom, culture, habit, lifestyle, and livelihood imaginable. There is no single entity that can claim a monopoly on "white culture", because white culture does not represent a single form.
Thus, when a White Pride proponent speaks of the effort to preserve white culture, they are only truly speaking of the effort to preserve their own piece of white culture-- a culture shaped by the geography, sociology, and psychology of its own particular making, a unique culture different from what another white person in another part of the world would consider theirs. This is compounded by the fact that the majority of whites do not view their culture as being dependent on their own race, but rather fed by a living mix of influences and figures, white and non-white. A white American can only speak of a culture that has been influenced by many different factors. No "white culture" is only white culture.
When Australian whites took to the streets to protest Islamic influence, they were not fighting for White Pride, although some of them may have claimed to be. They were enacting their own xenophobic tendencies and voicing nationalistic sympathies. When Americans express frustration over bilingualism and the possibility of mosques being erected on a widespread scale, they aren't speaking for White Pride, although some White Pride proponents would like to claim that they are. They are speaking for their own wishes inside a very unique cultural environment-- one foreign to Australia, the UK, and other parts of the world. White Pride can never be a worldwide, united front simply because a united white culture doesn't exist and never will. When white supremacists in the US fly the American flag, they fly the flag of a nation forged by the efforts and struggles of many races.
There is no one struggle or challenge that is common to every white man. When an organization like the Klan claims to speak for the white man, they are in reality only speaking for a very small minority of the white male heterosexual Protestant American population.
The very term "white pride" is nonsensical. To have pride in one's heritage is honorable and sensible. To have pride in one's nation is also honorable. A nation has a distinct set of cultural standards that ought to be preserved-- language and loyalty among them. But a race has no such things. To say that I have pride in my white race is meaningless, because there is no one single common bond that unites every white person, other than the color of skin. To say that I am proud to be white is the same as saying that I am proud to have blonde hair or proud to be right-handed-- there's a comical nature to it, in that you do feel a common bond with others who share that characteristic, but no other factor serves to unite you. Those who claim that the races naturally segregate themselves are hard-pressed to find an example of such segregation that involves race alone and not the socioeconomic differences that may already separate those races-- such as in the American South. Any feeling of commonality with other whites on my part is based on common cultural experiences, not on the likeness of our skin.
This is where White Pride disintegrates and just becomes a xenophobic form of nationalism. Those who still insist on clinging to pride in their whiteness must either be delusional or simply racist. And this is a particularly vicious form of racism that views your own race as superior to another by nature, which only a contorted concept of evolution could possibly support.
To be proud of your nation is admirable. To want to preserve your nation's customs and languages is reasonable. But don't march under a banner of something that doesn't exist. Preserving the customs of white Australia is not preserving customs inherent to the white race. Those customs are a product of your distinct corner of humanity.
In the meantime, the negative connotations of White Pride will continue to dilute the concept, and hopefully the silliness of the concept will lead to its demise altogether. Perhaps nationalism also can be yanked free from its pairing with xenophobia and march on as the noble ideal of the patriot, because it certainly doesn't belong in the camp of the racist. To be sure, nationality and race are both very tangible, physical things, yet the unity of those who belong to the same nation encompasses much more than the physical-- it unites those with the same love and the same passion for ideals cherished by the heart and preserved by steadfast defense.
Be proud of who you are and where you're from. But recognize the unique nature of what you are proud of. Doesn't that make it all the more beautiful? | | |
| So I've only been able to vote for two years, but I grew up in a Republican home (of the Reagan ex-Democrat brand) in the Bible Belt, and have been politically active since my teen years, so I have at least a rudimentary grasp of conservative politics and culture. I've been able to say with some amount of pride that I am a registered Republican. I believe the Republican Party, between the two major parties, most accurately conveys the American ideals of limited government, personal responsibility, national defense, and individual freedom.
However, this pride has become severely tempered recently. I watched with a great amount of disappointment as someone I considered to be only a mediocre candidate was chosen to carry my Party's ticket for the presidency. I then watched as he chose for his running mate a candidate whose foreign and domestic policy experience were limited at best (yes, Sarah Palin is a hottie, but you cannot convince me that she would have been ready for the Presidency in the event of something happening to McCain). John McCain is an American war hero, a patriot, and a great senator. But when I went to the voting box on November4th and voted for him, I found that I didn't have a whole lot of confidence or pride in my decision. I certainly would not have opted for his opponent, but I ended up feeling like the whole Republican campaign for the presidency was poorly run and poorly lost.
Republicans are now at a crossroads. It is clear that the current brand of Republicanism either needs to be majorly reorganized or discarded completely. If we were to lose in 2012 the same way we lost in 2008 (not only the presidency but an appalling number of Senate seats) I doubt the Party would even recover. It's time to accept that the way the Republican Party has operated for the last twenty five years is not conducive to its survival. We found in November that Republican stronghold states like Virginia are no longer reliable, and others like Texas are ceasing to be a factor nationally. College-age Americans are flocking to the Democratic Party in overwhelming numbers. The base of the Republican Party is getting older and older.
There are two camps right now within the Republican Party. Without intending to stereotype, I believe most Americans recognize the first camp as the "Religious Right." This is the major force within the Party-- the white evangelical Christians. They tend to vote on religious beliefs-- anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption, anti-evolution, and anti-safe sex education. They also like their candidates to be Bible-believing, patriotic Americans. Anything less is what they would consider un-American. The Religious Right has controlled the Republican Party for quite some time; so long that many Republican politicians feel indebted to them. Even moderate or liberal Republicans like Giuliani found themselves pandering to the Religious Right during the presidental run-offs. The Religious Right generally supported Huckabee during the primaries, and were at first torn over supporting McCain, whom they believed to be too liberal, but eventually they rallied behind him as the necessary alternative to Obama.
The other camp within the Party is the Moderate/Progressive camp. Their voice within the Party has grown smaller and smaller as the Religious Right has grown in influence. They tend to vote for core Republican ideals, such as strong defense and smaller government, while calling for more open-mindedness on traditional conservative wedge issues like gay rights and immigration. They like their candidates to espouse fiscal conservative ideals without necessarily endorsing religion or traditional social conservative issues. Many oppose the war in Iraq. The Moderate Republicans generally supported Giuliani, McCain, or Ron Paul during the primaries.
These two camps today are grappling over the true identity of the Party. The Religious Right would have you to believe that they are the true representatives of Republican ideals. The Moderates would argue the same thing about themselves. Each blames the other for November's losses.
This is where I'm supposed to say "We just need to unite."
But that isn't what I'm going to say. That's what the Moderates have said for years while being told by the Religious Right that they have no place in conservatism. It's obvious that the Right isn't going to tolerate a Republican candidate who supports gay rights or amnesty for illegals. They have hijacked a party that originally stood on the platform of being an inclusive "Big Tent." The voters continue to identify the Republican Party with the middle-aged conservative white man. I believe that's the major reason the Republicans suffered such an immense loss in November. You could feel the political electricity in the air as Americans spoke of "hope" and "change", and yet they looked at the Republican Party and saw more of the same. The Party has offered nothing new since Reagan.
Am I saying the Democrats are the party of hope and change? Not at all. They continue to preach their age-old Kennedy liberalism. But at least they offered a fresh young candidate who promised to fix the economy. What did the Republicans offer? The same fundamentalist Christian ideology that won Bush the election in 2004. Obviously 2008 was the time for that ideology to fail.
It's high time for the Republican Party to jettison its tiresome platform of trying to establish a Theocracy in the United States of America. The moral high road may have won elections in the past, but the current generation of college-age Americans, who one day will lead this country, are beginning to wish for something else. They vote in increasingly large numbers in support of ideals that the Religious Right considers un-American. And many of them came out on November 4th and voted for their Republican candidates only to be disappointed once again.
I was one of those disappointed college-age Republicans. I love my Party and the core ideals it stands for. I will not leave. But I will no longer stand by while the party of Lincoln and Roosevelt and Eisenhower becomes dried up in a rhetoric that no longer moves hearts and stirs the people of this nation toward greater heights. Republican activists call themselves "pro-family" while blocking any attempt by gay Americans to form family units. They call themselves "pro-America" while supporting the environmental trashing of our land and water. Our words no longer unite; they divide. They no longer speak of full freedom for all men; they only speak of freedom for those who fit our view of what America should look like. Our words no longer call America toward a greater future; they call for a step backward into a past that cannot be resurrected. When will the day come when we can vote for something, not just against something? When will young Republicans have something to hope for and something to be genuinely proud of?
It's time for a little "change" of our own. And I want to be part of it.
CW
| | |
| Many are unaware that until just recently in the UPCI, there was much tolerance for differing viewpoints within the denomination, even concerning the doctrine of salvation. This was a major cause of the controversial events that took place at General Conference in 1992, when pastors who refused to affirm the "Tongues or Hell" teaching were expelled from the UPC. Few young people in the UPCI today are aware of the fact that at one time, their denomination was full of Christians who espoused different doctrinal views but fellowshiped in the unity of the Spirit. I will attempt to give a few examples, from the UPCI's very own documents and pioneers:
"In 1936 the PAJC ratified a five-point agenda with a view toward restarting dialogue with the PCI. The relevant section point was number two. 'That baptism in water in Jesus' name, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues, be recognized as constituting the new birth, and be accepted as one of our fundamental doctrines.' The response of the PCI to this psoposition was brief and unreceptive. The leader of the PAJC, W.T. Witherspoon, had simply to report to his constituency that the PCI was not amenable to the statement on the new birth. Rather than acquiescing in the suggested theological interpretation of New Testament salvation they had insisted that the matter of the new birth be left open to personal conviction." -taken from the official PAJC newsletter, the Pentecostal Outlook.
Bro. C.H. Yadon wrote in his manuscript "Water Baptism": To say that when Jesus told Nicodemus he must be born of water that Jesus actually meant Nicodemus should be baptized by immersion into the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ is an assumption or our interpretation, or putting words in Jesus' mouth he did not say... There is no way you can make John 3:5 and Acts 2:38 synonymous.
Superintendent Howard Goss (at that time the head of the PCI) wrote in the "Apostolic Herald" in 1941 that water baptism occurred because our sins have already been remitted (issue no. 6, June 1941). He would also give his testimony in the magazine one year later and give the year of his salvation/conversion as 1902, before he was baptized (1903) or even filled with the Holy Ghost (1906). He also said this during a sermon he preached at Bro. Haney's church in Stockton in 1957, wherein he said that he was definitely saved prior to baptism or tongues. After the service a young man approached him and asked him why he did not preach Holy Ghost or Hell, to which Goss replied "Son if you're preaching that you're sending too many people to hell." He taught at WABC (now Christian Life College) on occasion and affirmed that trinitarians and Oneness will all "go up together."
Friends of Bro. Goss, Bro. Gurley and Bro. W.M. Greer have testified that these men held to "the less narrow doctrine." Greer was superintendent of the Tennessee district and was often labeled "weak on the message" due to his emphasis on repentance for salvation. He also had a nickname, Pento-Baptist. Greer himself admitted that he did not include the phrase "for the remission of sins" when baptizing converts. The same is said for Bro. John Dearing.
Superintendent of the New Brunswick district, Bro. E.P. Wickens, wrote "I believe that baptism in the name of Jesus is a truth, not the truth. You take a truth and treat it as the truth and you run into heresy. That's what the UPC has done... I was not baptized for the remission of sins. I was baptized because the sins were remitted."
Jackson College of Ministries was also a breeding ground for PCI thought. Members of the faculty who expressed this persuasion included Don Fisher, Daniel Lewis, Joseph Howell and Mark Roberts.
Andrew Urshan openly used terms like "tri-unity", "the blessed threeness of God", and "triune being" to describe the Oneness in his early apostolic organ the Witness of God. Bro. Yadon often let the Assemblies of God church use his auditorium; Harry Fisher of Pocatello, Idaho fellowshiped with both the AG and the Nazarenes; pioneer Frank Ewart often expressed his expectation of being reunited with his trinitarian friends in heaven. Bro. Wynn Stairs practiced open fellowship with the AG and often preached at their campmeetings. John Dearing, who brought the Oneness message to the Canada area, viewed Baptists as brethren. Andrew Urshan is also known to have faithfully attended Baptist meetings.
These are just the tip of the iceberg. And you wonder why Bro. Leon Frost, a firm Acts 2:38 preacher, said in 2000 that "Students don't really need to be taught about their history."
It is truly unfortunate that the UPCI has been hijacked by extremists who say that you must agree with their strict interpretation of the scriptures not only to be a member of the organization, but to be saved at all. I'm not bitter, but it does make me pretty ticked off. | | |
|
