Question and answer concerning God's Law and alien races

By on

Pastor Balaicius, I know that God's Law was given only to true Israel (the Anglo-Saxon and related peoples, not the Jews who masquerade as God's people; they actually being the Canaanites who stole Israel's name and land after God deported His people because of their sins), and not to the other races.  And to violate His Law is a sin.  Therefore if they do not have His Law there is no sin for them.  Does God hold us to a higher standard than He does them?  I think I must be missing Something here. Comments please

----

God gave his Law to Adamkind via word of mouth from the Patriarchs, generation to generation; then to Israel in written form nationally.

God did not give His Law to other peoples via Covenant.  However, a lot of what is in God's Law is common sense and anyone with a brain can figure out that is wrong to murder, steal, violate another man's wife, etc.  Yet nonwhite peoples often historically have considered anything to be "fair game".

I remember the story of some missionaries to some African or South American Tribe (the book and movie "Peace Child" was written about this).  The white missionaries trying to convert these heathen told the story of God sending His son and the people killing the son.  The natives howled and laughed, because deception and betrayal were considered an act of intelligence and greatness.  The missionaries were baffled until studying their culture and beliefs, and then were able to "tailor suit" a suitable story to convince these savages.  These savages were continually at war with each other; however, there was some custom that when two tribes wished to make peace with each other, the king of each tribe would give his newborn infant son to the other tribe to raise, and as long as that child lived there would be peace between the two peoples.  The missionaries then told the natives that the child, the Son of God who was killed was the PEACE CHILD.  The natives sobered up instantly.  Many "accepted Christ".  Though no fruit remains.  The point is not whether heathen can be truly converted, but that in their minds, rape and murder (poisonings are rampant, even Albert Schweitzer--whose 3 books I reprint in 1 volume--shows that; and treachery and betrayal and adultery and drunkenness and violence and war and theft--Schweizter had to build a shack to lock up the medicines or the very blacks he was trying to help robbed from him--and abandonment--many blacks brought their old relatives who were sick or dying to Schweitzer and just dumped them on him to care for, and they went back home many miles away to continue their lives carefree... the point is that savages have a different mindset and always will and that is why our society suffers if we absorb them thinking that they are the same.

God gave Adamkind the Dominion Mandate.  When we fulfill God's Role we ENFORCE God's Law on the rest of the world and keep them from killing and eating each other.  If any lived within our borders as slaves (or later interlopers), they too were required to obey the Law; not in covenant relation, but in subjection.  When clear lines were established and honored and the law was enforced, things operated quite smoothly.

Of course once they were emancipated and once enough of God's people sinned in mongrelizing with their slaves, the situation becomes overblown, like the national debt, and the invasion of the 3rd world, to the point there is no remedy other than God's people repenting so that God will deliver us or we will be destroyed.  Our people have been brainwashed and subverted and are strung out on drugs, amusement, leisure, immorality, and are possessed by apathy and fear and like Stockholm Syndrome, would sooner betray us and side with their captors than do what's right.  In such a situation we are outnumbered; but if God be for us who can be against us?  However, unless we are for God, God will not be for us.

While it may not be sin for them the same way it is sin for us, since they are not in covenant relation, it is wickedness / evil if they violate many laws.  While God said we could not eat animals that died of themselves or were strangled or torn by beasts, we could sell it to the NON-Adamic/NON-ISRAELITE strangers; which shows God made their bodies a bit different and God does not hold them to certain laws of holy and cleanness, because they are themselves unclean.  But if they want to live in our borders or have us maintain law and order in their nations, if we were doing things right, they would have to honor the Sabbath (how could we police them if they did not? if we rested but they did not; they would just then commit all their crimes on the Sabbath when we are resting).

 These and other verses (below) are better understood once one realizes that other peoples have a different relation to God and a different relation to the Law of God.  While the general rules will apply and overlap, the rules that a father gives his own children are different, in nature, extreme, application, and relation, than the rules for a servant and than the rules for any visiting friend of the children.  While the servant and visiting children indeed must obey the same rules that the children obey while they are on the master/father's property or in his house, the relation is entirely different as is the purpose for keeping the law.  Only the father's children will inherit.  Only the father's children are of the father.  If the servant and visiting children keep those righteous rules even when they are out in the world on their own, they will certainly be better people for it, and they will even receive greater grace from the master/father for it; but that will never make them children of the father.  While Adam sinned and death came upon all Adamkind and all Adamkind inherited a sin nature; all creation fell and suffered degeneration and evil when Adam fell.  Why they fell and how they fell and what their nature is, is entirely different than that of Adamkind.  While other people may be evil and do wickedness, they cannot obey the law of God as sons because it was not given to them.  They can observe it and benefit from it and God's limited grace for it, based upon the universal principle of God: you reap what you sow; and based upon the principle of overflow of blessing (but that overflow of blessing is only available to those who recognize their own place, dogs must realize they are not the master's children and they have no rights in the master's house (PETA notwithstanding) and anything they receive is grace and they will only receive grace if they behave).  So they cannot technically sin against the law, sin being transgression of the law, because the law was not given to them by God.  However, the law is forced upon them by nature (to which most of them are deaf) and also by God's people who were given the dominion mandate.  If they refuse to follow the law when we impose it upon them, while that is wickedness, it is not sin, because sin is in relation to God, whereas crime is in relation to man.  Someone who was not party to a contract cannot violate the contract because he never gave his consent to the contract and it was never offered to him.  However, a conquered people can be subjected against their will, and if they rebel it is not violation of the contract to which they were never party.

Deuteronomy 4
7For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? 8And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

I John 2:2
And He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Firstly, understand, the word "world" does not refer universally to the entire world; rarely is it ever used in such a context, except in God's creation, ownership, or judgment; other times it refers to the whole of a particular group within the world.  Caesar did not rule the whole world, but the whole Roman world; Cyrus did not conquer every nation of the world, but only those nations against whom he warred.  Christ came for His Own.  He was prophesied to take away the sins of His people and redeem Adam-Israel.  Thus the word world, by its usage, does not infer universal salvation.

Secondly, John wrote to believers.  I John 2:1 "1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous"  Therefore, when in v.2 John writes, "not for our [sins] only, but also for the sins of the whole world," he is not referring to every last race.  The distinction is between those of God's children who were already converted (the "little children" to whom he wrote) and the greater body of God's true people spread across the world in both geography and future history, who had not yet confessed Christ and been forgiven.

Thirdly, again, only those who had been given the law can sin against the law.  Sin and transgression are the violation of the law by those obligated by God to keep it.  There is, of course, general wickedness of nature that causes others to do evil; but that is of a different nature.

Also, just an interesting point I uncovered yesterday as I was working on my new book Ten Commandments for YOUth,
Hebrews 12:16 says "Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau"

Now, I have long written that Esau was called a fornicator and that, therefore, defines fornication to include race mixing: for Esau's sin was marrying 2 Canaanite women.

However, what I recently uncovered is the intriguing information of what the word translated profane actually means.  The Greek word means, "one who crosses a threshold".  Therefore, this seems to be clearly emphatic concerning the type of Esau's fornication, that of crossing racial boundaries, and thus could be translated as "traitor" or "race-mixer".

It is also interesting to juxtapose this to the very word Hebrew.  Though loosely translated as "colonist" the word literally means, "one who crosses over".  Therefore, the Greek word translated profane, βέβηλος
, BEH-bey-lahs, refers to someone who crosses BACK.  God called His people out of darkness into His Marvellous Light (obedience, righteousness, holiness), BEH-bey-lahs is those who reject the light and cross back into darkness.  God commanded His people to come out from among them [all aliens] and be ye separate and touch not the unclean [not "thing" but PEOPLE] and be holy; therefore BEH-bey-lahs is those who integrate and go back and defile and profane themselves and make themselves abominable by joining with aliens and rejecting God.  It is not that we all came from a common source, which we did not.  We did not evolve from them.  Nothing evolved.  However, as all history has shown, savages tend to crowd around our civilizations for the same reason sea gulls follow a fishing boat: for handouts and whatever they can steal and for a place to hang out and rest and do nothing.  God called us out from among them, not because we evolved or descended from them or a common ancestor, but because they attached themselves to us, or because God scattered us among them in judgment.  If you were carrying a box of plastic toy cowboys and you tripped and scattered them all among a group of tiny plastic toy indians, calling the cowboys out would not suggest that the cowboys and indians were all the same and God just decided he liked them better.  No, they were different by design and their mixing was not from evolution but scattering.