Bnp

[TheLordReigns]

Your grasp of logic is somewhat shallow. The passage has nothing to do with sexual relationships, it has to do with what is important to God, and therefore what should be important to us as Christians. Race is irrelevant. Gender is irrelevant. Social status is irrelevant. We are all bound together and equal in the site of God. It doesn't matter whether we are Jewish, Greek, British or from Pakistan.

Yes, we are all EQUAL in the sight of God (all that are in Christ that is) - that doesn't mean that there are no longer differences between genders etc as you implied. And whether you like it or not, it is you who have displayed illogical reasoning. If gender doesn't matter to God at all - if sex is 'irrelevant', then it doesn't matter who marries who does it? And I suppose Paul was contradicting himself when he limited church leadership to men (but I'm sure you don't believe what he said there). You want to limit the application now to just how God sees us. Yes, so do I - it has nothing to do with immigration policies of nation states. Either you limit the applicability, or you don't. You don't choose when it suits you and then suggest that it is the other person who can't put together a consistent argument.

 

[TheLordReigns]

and y'know being patronising and insulting just doesn't make me thing i'm wrong it just makes me dislike you.

Now you know what we think of you. We patiently bear you insults, your sloppy argumentation, your innuendos, your deliberate misunderstanding of our motives, your accusations, and we come to a point where we say 'answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes'. And then we say the rest of the verse, and we say 'adios'.

 

[sebastian]

Now you know what we think of you. We patiently bear you insults, your sloppy argumentation, your innuendos, your deliberate misunderstanding of our motives, your accusations, and we come to a point where we say 'answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes'. And then we say the rest of the verse, and we say 'adios'.

who's we? you are on your own, and secondly, where have i been insulting?

oh, and that verse means that you should help me to see the error of my ways. not to not talk to me. and the rest of the verse says not to argue with a fool in the same way they argue, not to not talk to them.

 

[TheLordReigns]

who's we? you are on your own, and secondly, where have i been insulting?

oh, and that verse means that you should help me to see the error of my ways. not to not talk to me. and the rest of the verse says not to argue with a fool in the same way they argue, not to not talk to them.

Not so much you - I think you just got caught in the cross-fire. But there isn't much discussion going on here. There have been others on here - including the first poster. I see this all as going nowhere - if people will resort to names (not you), and use a very shallow and inconsistent use of scripture, then there is not more to be said. I'm sorry you don't like my tone today, and nor do I, but I think someone needs to take on the silliness head on. There is nothing wrong with any of the policies of the BNP that I can see. There is an increasingly number of people who are drawn to their policies - sensible, normal people, who are fed up with the way things are going. And yes, there is an increasing number of Christians as well. Exhortations in scripture for individual followers of Christ are not meant to overturn national policy. Like I said, Christians don't try to get the criminal justice system removed because Jesus said 'turn the other cheek'. And yet that has been the argumentation on here - including by you. If you don't believe there should be immigration controls, that is up to you, but you cannot pretend that the Bible is on your side, because it isn't.

 

[sebastian]

Not so much you - I think you just got caught in the cross-fire. But there isn't much discussion going on here. There have been others on here - including the first poster. I see this all as going nowhere - if people will resort to names (not you), and use a very shallow and inconsistent use of scripture, then there is not more to be said. I'm sorry you don't like my tone today, and nor do I, but I think someone needs to take on the silliness head on. There is nothing wrong with any of the policies of the BNP that I can see. There is an increasingly number of people who are drawn to their policies - sensible, normal people, who are fed up with the way things are going. And yes, there is an increasing number of Christians as well. Exhortations in scripture for individual followers of Christ are not meant to overturn national policy. Like I said, Christians don't try to get the criminal justice system removed because Jesus said 'turn the other cheek'. And yet that has been the argumentation on here - including by you. If you don't believe there should be immigration controls, that is up to you, but you cannot pretend that the Bible is on your side, because it isn't.

fine, then lets discuss this properly.

would i be right in saying the subject under discussion is whether or not the BNP is the right political party for a christian to support to change immigration policy?

 

[TheLordReigns]

fine, then lets discuss this properly.

would i be right in saying the subject under discussion is whether or not the BNP is the right political party for a christian to support to change immigration policy?

I was responding to the first poster who said that he was thinking of joining. I am too; not just for their immigration policy (though I think that is important), but for many other reasons. However, I'm not sure any of us can say that a Christian should or must vote one way or another.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Yes, we are all EQUAL in the sight of God (all that are in Christ that is) - that doesn't mean that there are no longer differences between genders etc as you implied.

Once again, you are extending beyond what I have said. I didn't imply there were no differences between genders, I said that as far as God is concerned we are equal. One gender is not better than the other, one race is not better than the other. Gender race and social status are irrelevant in that respect.

And whether you like it or not, it is you who have displayed illogical reasoning. If gender doesn't matter to God at all - if sex is 'irrelevant', then it doesn't matter who marries who does it?

No, that is a logical leap. The bible sets out clearly what a marriage should be elsewhere. It is not referenced in this passage. What this passage says is that the genders are equal, it doesn't matter to God whether you are a man or a woman.

And I suppose Paul was contradicting himself when he limited church leadership to men (but I'm sure you don't believe what he said there).

I don't think he contradicted hisself, I just don't believe your interpretation is correct, and he mentions church leaders who are women, like Priscilla and Phoebe.

You want to limit the application now to just how God sees us.

No, I want to pointy out that according to Scripture your 'nationalism' is not something we as Christians should be indulging it. It is vain pride.

Yes, so do I - it has nothing to do with immigration policies of nation states. Either you limit the applicability, or you don't. You don't choose when it suits you and then suggest that it is the other person who can't put together a consistent argument.

God does not view race as being important. Therefore we should not view race as being important. It really is very simple when you remove all the straw men.

 

[rizzla]

I can understand why you would believe this given your support for a highly centralised European Government; and presumably your feelings against nationalism aren’t exactly helped by supporting a party that came fourth in Scotland, but

nationalism' is not something we as Christians should be indulging it. It is vain pride.

dont you think thats a bit rich coming from someone who choose a kilt and talks about coming down from the Isle of skye on his avatar, flys the cross rather than the jack, and puts 'Scottish' in front of his name?

 

[TheLordReigns]

Once again, you are extending beyond what I have said. I didn't imply there were no differences between genders, I said that as far as God is concerned we are equal.

No, you said that gender was irrelevant. The context is, as you acknowledge, a person's standing before God. It isn't absolute, as you concede. Therefore it has no bearing on a nation's immigration policy, only upon the fact that no-one is less of a human or a Christian than anyone else.

One gender is not better than the other, one race is not better than the other. Gender race and social status are irrelevant in that respect.

Yes, of course, that hasn't been brought into question. However that has nothing to do with a nation's immigration policy.

No, that is a logical leap. The bible sets out clearly what a marriage should be elsewhere. It is not referenced in this passage. What this passage says is that the genders are equal, it doesn't matter to God whether you are a man or a woman.

Yes, and it doesn't matter what race a person is. But that has nothing to do with a nation's immigration policy.

I don't think he contradicted hisself, I just don't believe your interpretation is correct, and he mentions church leaders who are women, like Priscilla and Phoebe.

No, it's nothing to do with Scripture. Your world view is moulded by your humanism, not the Bible. I don't know why you pretend it is otherwise, as though you really base your world view on the Bible. Clearly you don't.

 

[ScottishJohn]

I can understand why you would believe this given your support for a highly centralised European Government; and presumably your feelings against nationalism aren’t exactly helped by supporting a party that came fourth in Scotland, but dont you think thats a bit rich coming from someone who choose a kilt and talks about coming down from the Isle of skye on his avatar, flys the cross rather than the jack, and puts 'Scottish' in front of his name?

It might if those things got in the way of my faith, for example, if my feelings about being Scottish tempted me to vote for a party which despite all attempts to show otherwise is rooted in hatred of others.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, and it doesn't matter what race a person is. But that has nothing to do with a nation's immigration policy.

Sure it does. And any political movement that that is based on discriminating against different races or wanting to cleanse their country of foreigners, goes against the heart of the gospel where God's desire is to united Jews and Gentiles of every nation in Christ. There was bigotry on the early church too and it was of the flesh.

 

[ScottishJohn]

No, you said that gender was irrelevant. The context is, as you acknowledge, a person's standing before God.

Gender is irrelevant. More significant to our discussion - race is irrelevant. It has no bearing on our salvation, and is not a priority.

It isn't absolute, as you concede. Therefore it has no bearing on a nation's immigration policy, only upon the fact that no-one is less of a human or a Christian than anyone else.

My comment wasn't made in relation to immigration, it was made in agreement to the statement that nationalism is bunkum - it is an irrelevance. It is not important to our salvation. It is certainly not worth sacrificing the central principles of our faith in an effort to preserve some transient snapshot of culture. The Christian faith came into being under the Roman culture, which is long gone. British culture too may be a distant memory by the time Christ comes again, and that really will not matter in the slightest.

Yes, of course, that hasn't been brought into question. However that has nothing to do with a nation's immigration policy.

Again, you seek to divert the conversation. I didn't say anything about immigration policies in my comment, I was referencing Nationalism and attitudes to others. The whole principle behind nationalism is pride in your country, belief that your nation is somehow better than others. That is simply wrong.

Yes, and it doesn't matter what race a person is. But that has nothing to do with a nation's immigration policy.

And I didn't say it did. I said it had everything to do with the fact that nationalism and Christianity are incompatible.

No, it's nothing to do with Scripture.

It has everything to do with scripture.

Your world view is moulded by your humanism, not the Bible. I don't know why you pretend it is otherwise, as though you really base your world view on the Bible. Clearly you don't.

Clearly I don't? I at least have referenced the Bible in supporting my stance. You stand on your own.

The fact is that you know nothing about my world view beyond the few brief exchanges we have had on this board. To make the kind of pronouncement you have just made with any kind of authority you would have to spend more time getting to know me. Given your current attitude towards me I think it unlikely that you would be willing to spend the time on doing that.

In response to your accusation, I will simply say that my faith is central to my world view, central to my work, to my marriage, to my life as a whole. You are free to make whatever judgements and pronouncements you like but they will not change that.

 

[Assyrian]

It might if those things got in the way of my faith, for example, if my feelings about being Scottish tempted me to vote for a party which despite all attempts to show otherwise is rooted in hatred of others.

There is so much to celebrate in each nations unique identity. There will be bagpipes playing before the throne of God, and when our ears recover, the Irish uillean pipes and Welsh harp. There will be room for Morris dancers too. And no one will be allowed laugh. But rejoicing in who you are does not mean wanting to kick other nationalities out of your country.

 

[ScottishJohn]

There is so much to celebrate in each nations unique identity. There will be bagpipes playing before the throne of God, and when our ears recover, the Irish uillean pipes and Welsh harp. There will be room for Morris dancers too. And no one will be allowed laugh. But rejoicing in who you are does not mean wanting to kick other nationalities out of your country.

I totally agree. For me, taking part in the cultural identity of your country, and 'Nationalism' are very different things. I enjoy Scottish music, I read Scottish history, I like wearing my kilt, dancing Scottish dances and so on. However none of those things are important when compared to Christ's commands in Matthew 27 amongst which we are told to shelter the stranger. As long as these things are not pulling me in a direction contrary to my faith, then they remain part of the richness of Gods blessings.

 

[rizzla]

In which case your active participation (dancing and dress code) make you more of a nationalist than I am; I define nationalism as taking a pride in the history, arts and achievements of ones country; I dont equate nationalism with vanity nor having a false superiority. And certainly not acting in any such way that would bring shame on Christ.

Amongst the countries which make Britain great, the only one where the BMP have had any form of political influence is England. Which happens to be the only country with a limited national identity; limited insofar as the inhabitants have historically viewed 'English' and 'British' interchangeably & limited as their 'nationalist' movements have traditionally consisted of right-wing nut jobs. So I'm not altogether surprised that the knee-jerk reaction when feeling threatened (by immigration, the EU or whatever) is for them to vote BMP.

Where I think we've misread each other is I dont see British 'nationalism' as being the central problem - not because I agree with the BMP/UKIP/NF etc. Where I see the problem is their inexperience of having to promote /preserve the English identity (and a lack of viable political alternatives). Thats why I cant condemn outright Christians (or anyone else) who would consider voting BMP; 'forgive 'em, for they know not what they do' seems applicable.

- peace -

 

[TheLordReigns]

The whole principle behind nationalism is pride in your country, belief that your nation is somehow better than others. That is simply wrong.

I think we are poles apart, and there isn't much point in saying much more, but I would like to respond to this. I haven't said that I believe that my culture is superior to anyone elses - I don't. Nationalism believes that all nations and cultures are special and unique, and should be preserved. I'm opposed to the policies of China to import large numbers of ethnic Chinese into minority areas like Tibet in order to destroy their unique and God-given cultures. Are you? I'm also opposed to our government doing the same to England. That doesn't mean that England is superior, only unique and worthy to be preserved.

 

[ScottishJohn]

In which case your active participation (dancing and dress code) make you more of a nationalist than I am; I define nationalism as taking a pride in the history, arts and achievements of ones country;

I don't think pride is the right word. I wouldn't say I am proud of being Scottish, it is an accident that I am Scottish, it is not something I have achieved it is something I have recieved.

Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

I think the best way I can describe it is that on occasion it brings me happiness. Just as sharing in the cultural practises of other people makes me happy. It can be a tool to get to know other people better. You can't have a ceilidh by yourself.

I dont equate nationalism with vanity nor having a false superiority. And certainly not acting in any such way that would bring shame on Christ.

As far as I am concerned nationalism is quite a precise term - it was a movement which really begain in the 19th century in Europe and which led to the unification of Germany and Italy and ultimately resulted in fascist governments in both. We both know where that led. I think true nationalism is pride, and any way you cut it, pride in your nation is misplaced.

Amongst the countries which make Britain great, the only one where the BMP have had any form of political influence is England. Which happens to be the only country with a limited national identity; limited insofar as the inhabitants have historically viewed 'English' and 'British' interchangeably & limited as their 'nationalist' movements have traditionally consisted of right-wing nut jobs. So I'm not altogether surprised that the knee-jerk reaction when feeling threatened (by immigration, the EU or whatever) is for them to vote BMP.

Who are still right wing nut jobs. Personally, I don't think English culture is particularly under threat, but yes I can understand that some people who don't do much investigation for themselves, and who are predisposed to xenophobia might feel that there is a justification in voting for the BNP, needless to say I disagree with them.

Where I think we've misread each other is I dont see British 'nationalism' as being the central problem - not because I agree with the BMP/UKIP/NF etc. Where I see the problem is their inexperience of having to promote /preserve the English identity (and a lack of viable political alternatives). Thats why I cant condemn outright Christians (or anyone else) who would consider voting BMP; 'forgive 'em, for they know not what they do' seems applicable.

- peace -

First of all, I consider any kind of 'nationalism' a problem, there are very few instances where it leads to good, more often than not when unchecked it leads to exclusion, violence, racism and lots of people dead.

As far as Christians voting for the BNP, their culture is not under threat. Even if it were, it is not something they should be worrying about protecting, as it is transient and unimportant to their salvation. To say there are a lack of viable alternatives is to display the fact that they haven't bothered to engage and find out what the alternatives actually are. There are a lot of good Christians working very hard in each of the three mainstream parties, and other parties beside. I think it takes a particularly perverse mind to consider the BNP a 'viable alternative'. I would repeat my previous statement and urge any Christians who feel tempted to vote for the BNP to examine why they feel tempted to do so, whether that motivation is at all compatible with their biblical responsibilities, and also to do some real research into the group of people they are thinking about afiliating themselves to.

A question: Do you think it was right for Christians to have voted for Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco? Were their reigns compatible with Christianity?

 

[ScottishJohn]

I think we are poles apart, and there isn't much point in saying much more, but I would like to respond to this. I haven't said that I believe that my culture is superior to anyone elses - I don't. Nationalism believes that all nations and cultures are special and unique, and should be preserved.

Again, as I have said before, Nationalism is a fairly precise term, and is not as you describe it. Nationalism gave rise to Hitler, Mussolini, Franco to mention just a few of the most famous. This is a rogues gallery that the BNP aspire to. Each of these dicatators relied on the support and good will of good people in order to get into power. They did so by appealing to feelings of nationalism, traditional values, cultural preservation, all the things we have been discussing. Look where it led. Where there is true nationalism, violence is not far behind.

I'm opposed to the policies of China to import large numbers of ethnic Chinese into minority areas like Tibet in order to destroy their unique and God-given cultures. Are you?

A movement to actively destroy any culture is distinctly unpleasant. We engaged in a great deal of similar activity during our imperial years, and there is no justification for it.

I'm also opposed to our government doing the same to England.

But they are not. There is no concerted effort to change British culture, there are just a lot of people like the BNP who have wrongfully got it into their heads that there is a British culture which is concrete, and that it is under threat and needs to be protected. The two examples you give are not really fair. In one situation you have a country which for long portions of its history was closed to outsiders - especially Europeans, experts at doing to others what China is doing to Tibet now - Tibet lies in a natural fortress, and is easier to close off. In that sense Tibet was able to develop a fairly rigid culture. Britain by comparison has been a continual grand central station for wave after wave of different people coming to settle here, each bringing something new with them. What some see as a threat to culture, is just that process continuing.

That doesn't mean that England is superior, only unique and worthy to be preserved.

We've been down this road, England's culture isn't particularly unique, and you can't preserve culture without killing it. Culture moves and evelops. What you are suggesting is like taking a wonderful feast and spraying it with preservatives to stop it from going off instead of eating it and moving on to the next meal. You'll end up with something putrid of no use to anyone.

Once again I would urge you to really check out what the BNP are about, look into the difference between the Veneer Nick Griffin is laying over the party and what ultimately lies beneath, and consider this: In Matthew 25 we are given our priorities as Christians. They are far from fulfilled. Don't you think that spending time money and effort on preserving a transient wordly culture, which doesn't even feature on our list of priorities, when there are so many more pressing needs, is sinful?

 

[rizzla]

As far as I am concerned nationalism is quite a precise term - it was a movement which really begain in the 19th century in Europe and which led to the unification of Germany and Italy and ultimately resulted in fascist governments in both. We both know where that led.

Oh come on, you cant seriously be suggesting that until around 1800s no-one had anything other than mere local loyalties? So our national symbols, music, dress, literature & folklore were all a Victorian invention? I’ll agree that extreme forms of irrational behaviour leads to fascism, but its unfair to say ‘nationalism’ is the root of this particular evil.

I think true nationalism is pride, and any way you cut it, pride in your nation is misplaced.

If anything, I’d argue the very opposite. It’s a political/cultural movement that attempts to uphold the liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality and individual rights – our Declaration of Arbroath being a case in point. Yes, of course it was an accident that we’re Scottish, but that’s a xenophobic irrelevance. Is our first Asian MSP proud of Scotland? I’d guess so given that hes a member of the SNP. Am I proud that we have 500,000 Eastern Europeans here without the ‘rivers running red’? Yes. For we’ve obviously doing something right. And yes, I really enjoy having the opportunity (privilege) to experience their ‘culture’ and to adopt those aspects which I personally enjoy.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Oh come on, you cant seriously be suggesting that until around 1800s no-one had anything other than mere local loyalties? So our national symbols, music, dress, literature & folklore were all a Victorian invention? I’ll agree that extreme forms of irrational behaviour leads to fascism, but its unfair to say ‘nationalism’ is the root of this particular evil.

I'm serious - read up on it - until 19th century Nationalism as a movement had really not raised its head. In those days cultural practises were far more localised and varied enormously from village to village. It was far more common for ordinary people to live an entire lifetime within a 10 or 20 mile radius. You just need to see how much the boundaries of Europe have changed since the 18th century to see that the idea of nationalism really took off during that period. It wasn't until you start getting wide scale industrialisation, urbanisation and devlopments like rail transport and national newspapers, all of which didn't exist in any real numbers before the late 18th and early 19th century that the kind of nationalism that we are talking about became possible, also the level of democratic suffrage which allowed ordinary people to take part. And you're not talking about just the Victorians - this movement took place across Europe. It was a lack of nationalism which allowed multi ethnic empires like the Hapsburg Empire and the Ottoman Empire to creak on, and the rise of Nationalism sealed their demise. Don't forget that national dress had to move from being standard everyday clothes to an embellished form of shortbread tin wear. Takes kilts and tartans for example. Sure they existed before the victorian times, but the number of dyes were limited, the patterns limited, the idea of 'Clan Tartans' didn't exist, although there were regional variations and there was nothing like the number of different variations which the Victorians did invent. In fact the kind of tartans we recognise today were not possible to manufacture without a degree of industrialisation. Just one example, but by no means a departure from the norm.

Seriously - read up on it you will be surprised. I was when I first learnt that the idea of nationalism that we are familiar with today was a relatively recent construct, and as soon as it started to appear, it did lead relatively quickly to people like Hitler Mussolini and Franco.

If anything, I’d argue the very opposite. It’s a political/cultural movement that attempts to uphold the liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality and individual rights – our Declaration of Arbroath being a case in point.

Perhaps that is what Nationalism should be. It is not what it actually is.

Just on a side note - you need to read the Declaration of Arbroath in its natural context, and not reinterpret it within our own culture. Understand that when the authors and signitories talk about freedom, they mean something quite different from what you and I would understand - all of Scotland remained under the fuedal system for centuries after the declaration of Arbroath, individual rights were not the rights we have today. Don't confuse the fine words and in some instances politic half truths of a few extremely priveleged men with the truly national movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. Dont forget as well that it was many of the same men changed sides during the Wars of Independence, and their descendants are still known as the Parcel of Rogues. In truth it made little difference to the ordinary man whether his feudal lord was a Scottish Norman or an English Norman, he still had to scrape a living, pay taxes and leave his family behind to be hacked to pieces every time his overlord felt that his power was being threatened.

Just had a wee look into the declaration of Arbroath to satisfy my own interest - here is what I found about the signatories. Of the 39, only 6 were Scottish - all of whose families had married into Norman lines anyway, which made them half or more Norman. One was decended from a Hungarian, two I couldn't figure out - could be either, and the other 30 were Norman.

Yes, of course it was an accident that we’re Scottish, but that’s a xenophobic irrelevance.

Xenophobic how? It is just a fact - we have done nothing to achieve our nationalities, therefore, for all we can enjoy the richness that different nationalities can bring, it makes no sense to be proud of something that is pure chance.

Is our first Asian MSP proud of Scotland? I’d guess so given that hes a member of the SNP.

I don't think the SNP is much to do with pride in Scotland. Like every other nationalist party they try to stir up nationalism to bring them more power, albeit that there is a world of difference between the SNP and BNP.

Am I proud that we have 500,000 Eastern Europeans here without the ‘rivers running red’? Yes. For we’ve obviously doing something right. And yes, I really enjoy having the opportunity (privilege) to experience their ‘culture’ and to adopt those aspects which I personally enjoy.

Good. That is an opportunity the BNP would deny us all.