Hardly.

if Adam and Eve were not racially pure, then neither was Christ, and his fitness for being Messiah is a scriptural impossibility.

http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/of-what-race-are-abraham’s-seed-gal-329/

I wouldn’t go that far. I knew Rush personally, and from his reading choices and his liturgical choice, and from the articles written in Chalcedon Report before his demise, while he may (like I) find the anabaptist, ‘neo-pseudo’ Judaizing tenets of ‘CI’ to be so much drecch, he clearly noted ( as did Tolkien, Lewis, and Belloc) that Christianity is a “White Man’s religion” as it is a EUROPEAN Man’s religion.

The avoidance syndrome going on among those who are trying to call others’ racists’ while acknowledging the superior position intellectually of articles such as this, is absolutely hysterical. Multiculturalism and miscegenationism are heresies founded on a Bolshevik, Jewish racial supremacism, grounded on the fallacy that the ‘jews’ are the CHosen People, when even St. John said, 2000 years ago, that they are NOT!

Focus, focus, focus. If you have an argument of the following form:

1. If Adam & Eve were not mulattoes then Anglo-Israelism theory is true
2. But Anglo-Israelism theory is not true.
3. Therefore, Adam & Eve were mulattoes

If you can show (1) and (2), that would be interesting. However, it would be interesting regardless of what opinions FW has on the subject.

So, study, understand what the subject of discourse is and then IF you have something interesting to contribute, then and only then do so.

We are discussing Ken Ham’s theory that Adam and Eve were mulattoes.

1. Does First Word (FW) hold to the “Christian Identity”/Anglo-Israelism position?

I’m a Calvinistic Baptist so I don’t know much about the goings on among Presbyterians. But I understand that Rushdoony rejected British-Israelism and endorsed the booked titled “Identifying Identity” by Pastor Ovid Need Jr.

2. Does FW hold to the “Seed of Satan” Theory whereby some modern self-identifying Jews are are actually the physical descendants of Eve and the Serpent of Genesis through Cain?

and/or

3. Does FW hold to the the “Thirteenth Tribe” theory popularized by Arthur Koestler which argues that modern Ashkenazi Jews are not true genetic Jews. That is, their ancestors are not Biblical Jews.

I’ve got a 4th question, but I think I’ll leave that for another post.

Ham and company (and I apologize if I lumped you in) seem to have an agenda to undermine parental authority in this area by saying any racial consideration regarding marriage is “racist” and sinful.

I feel a special kinship to my own race not because they are superior but because they are mine.

#3 —

you make a number of assumptions. For example: Model 2 does not require “imperceptible yet incremental genetic miracles (special providence)”. It could have happened all at once, at Babel or some other time (Noah’s sons?) or it could have been gradual. The only requirement for the definition of Model 2 is that it is by some other mechanism than what we observe in the offspring of Mulattos according to modern genetic theory; that being required, because Model 2 hypothesizes that Adam and Eve were not mulattos. Thus (among other problems) this has nothing to do with the Cessationist question. Ham grants — I think he does anyhow — that the language change at Babel was something other than “ordinary linguistic development” such as can be studied wissenschaftlich.

The “Sorites paradox” can be overstated. On a spectrum, you may not be sure of exactly where yellow stops and orange begins, yet not give up on the belief that yellow and orange are real colors. Racial recognition is actually quite instinctively easy, universal, and nearly infallible it seems to me. Borderline cases are almost as rare, and almost as disturbing, as seeing someone on the street and not being able to tell if it is a man or woman.

(BTW mulattos were far more prevalent among free blacks in northern cities than they were on southern plantations. You have been propagandized my friend.)

Much of your meandering about the future of races seems beside the point. You raise some practical issues that would be worthy of further discussion, once we agree on the model to use as the basis for discussion. Some men may feel they don’t belong to any tribe and we need to figure out how to help them; but we should not go from observing orphans to thinking families don’t exist. I think maybe you took my reference to eschatology as implying that every race that has ever existed will exist to the end. That is not the point. The point is to reflect on the teleology of Ham’s Mulatto model. What would the divine intent have been in making man with such a nature? It seems utterly strained to think that there would be this vast diversity of what we today call racial characteristics re-exhibited in each generation, yet “not noticed” by anyone as at all important. Rather than do that, why would God not have simply created a single stable race like in the case of every other creature? So you need to plant your mind at that point in history, i.e. the beginning of history and reflect conceptually as you examine the arguments I have presented in the post. Perhaps your evident commitment to Bible + Natural Law will lead you to the 1B camp which is better than Ham but still sub-biblical in my view because not taking into account covenant and history adequately.