← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust

Pastor Thomas Robb on Christian Identity

Thread ID: 16206 | Posts: 155 | Started: 2005-01-06

Wayback Archive

Okiereddust [OP]

2005-01-06 00:42 | User Profile

[URL=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=109751&page=1&pp=10]SF - Christian Identity[/URL]

Judeo-Christianity VS. Christian-Identity By Pastor Thomas Robb

In recent years there has been numerous news articles that makes mention of what we call Christian Identity. Most news story say something like this, “The Christian Identity religion is an anti-government aberration of Christianity that teaches, Negroes are beasts and Jews are the children of Satan. Christian Identity followers have often been linked to violence.” The first thing that must be understood is that there is no such things a Christian-Identity religion. There is no Christian-Identity headquarters, there is no Christian-Identity spiritual leader, there is no Christian-Identity “Bible,” there is no Christian-Identity revelation, there is no Christian-Identity prophet, there is no Christian-Identity holy place, there is no Christian-Identity membership lists, there are no Christian-Identity rituals, and there is no such thing as a Christian-Identity member. No one can fill out an application to “join” Christian-Identity. [B]Christian-Identity refers to Christian people [I]who believe that the descendants of the ancient people of Israel are today identified with the people of Europe[/I].[/B]

[B]It’s that simple![/B]

Yet, most churches teach that the Jews are the true children of Israel and say that those of us who disagree with them are not true Christians. The foundation of Christian-Identity is an historical study and not a religious one. In other words a person could be an atheist and from migration studies believe the people of Israel migrated into Europe. It would be like claiming that someone is not a Christian because his understanding of the migration of Eskimos is different than theirs.

The assumption is made simply on the knowledge that because there are a people today called “Jews,” then they must be the Israelites of the Bible. However they overlook the fact that today’s Jews are descended from the Khazars which adopted the Talmudic (now called Jewish) religion in 740 BC. Of course this is a part of history that most people do not take time to read. But just because they have never read it does not mean it is not true. Consider the words of Arthur Koestler1, . The fact that Koestler was Jewish adds additional interest to his research, which was in agreement with many others who came to the same conclusion. In his book The Thirteenth Tribe (Random House 1976), Koestler writes, “The large majority of surviving Jews in the world is of Eastern European - and thus perhaps mainly of Khazar - origin, If so, this would mean that . . . they are more closely related to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” A portion of his concluding remarks state, “I have tried to show that the evidence from anthropology concurs with history in refuting the popular belief in a Jewish race descended from the Biblical tribe.”

Modern “Jews” are not really Jews at all but merely adopted the name upon the conversion of King Bulan of the Khazars. Because most people have never heard this they make the assumption that there is no bases for the claim. Although it is not “common knowledge” for most people it is common knowledge for historians of European history. So when Arthur Koestler wrote his book, showing that Jews, as we know them today, are not related to the ancient people of Israel, he was not uncovering some long lost forgotten truth, but was merely writing about facts well known among historians. My copy of the Jewish Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion (Werblowsky, Wigoder - Holt, Rinehart, Winsten Publishers - 1965) also speaks of the great conversion of the Khazars to Judaism. So also does my copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) as well as many others. Jewish sources claim that roughly 97% of all Jews living today are Ashkenaz Jews descending from the Khazars. Robert Kirsch writing in the Los Angeles Times quotes Professor A.N. Poliak of Tel Aviv University (Israeli) claiming also that “the large majority of world Jewry” is descended from the Jews of Khazar.” If this is true, as I believe it is, that modern Jews are not true Israelites it make the claim of a Jewish homeland in Palestine flawed. World Jewry is able to weld considerable power from the Judeo-Christian community who mistakenly believe that the Jews are God’s chosen people. Judeo-Christians and their leaders such as Jerry Falwell, Paul Crouch and Hal Lindsey have continually gone on record stating their unequivocal support for Jews. Going so far as stating that regardless of a persons personal salvation and faith in Jesus Christ, if they do not support the Jews, they will be cursed by God.

Those who understand the historical / religious significance of Europeans identity with Israel usually have more patriotic zeal, racial integrity and commitment to Biblical principal than Judeo-Christians. They are usually more zealous of our national sovereignty, rights of gun ownership, free speech and traditional values. Thus they offer greater resistance to one world government, race-mixing, abortion, gun control and the homosexual agenda than Judeo-Christians who are always fearful that they might offend someone. For that reason there is a consorted effort of the Judeo-Christian crowd to distort and even lie in an effort to prevent people from seriously considering the merits of Christian Identity. For example Viola Larson’s article, Identity: A 'Christian' Religion for White Racists" published in The Christian Research Journal, (Fall 1992, page 20) states, “They appeal to other conservatives concerning such issues as AIDS, abortion, and prison reform. This is where some Christians have been pulled into the circle of Identity.”

Ms. Larson appears to condemn us for doing the very same thing that every other preachers is at liberty to do and is encourage to do. Namely to evangelize their faith to those with open ears and open hearts. David Warren, director of the ADL's St. Louis office, said of Christian Identity, "They look for the disenfranchised, those white people who have a grievance with the world," "Then they just pick, pick, pick at the sore until they have them hooked into Identity."

James Ridgeway, author of Blood in the Face also makes claim that there is something sinister going on when Christian-Identity ministers engage in evangelism. “A Christian-Identity group attempts to widen its base by appealing not just to white power Christian, but to people who don’t like gays, and people who are opposed to abortion.” Ex Catholic priest William Wassmuth of Seattle, Washington is the leader of the Northwest Coalition Against Malicious Harassment and promotes the agenda of non whites and homosexuals. He is also very hateful to Christians who believe in Identity. James Ridgeway quotes Wassmuth, “That’s their (Christian-Identity) thrust these days . . . To find these kind of issues that are on people’s minds and use those issues to get people together . . . it’s a hook to get people in front of them.” Hal Mansfield, director of the Religious Movements Resource Center in Fort Collins, Colorado wrote a lengthy article in Cult Observer, (Volume 14, No. 4, 1997) Briefly, here are some of the tactic that he claims Christian-Identity followers us to trick people into Identity.

“When approached by one of their recruiters, one doesn’t hear about supremacy issues. Instead, talk centers around gun control and other more mainstream issues. Later, the true agendas are presented . . .current recruitment seems to revolve around survival materials, especially at exhibitions . . . When people stop by the booth and talk to the operator, he or she will size a person up to determine if he or she might be recruitment material. If the prospect is deemed to be a possible member, he or she will be given other publications, which are stored under the table.”

“Another popular means of recruitment is through the sale of audio and videotapes. The recruiter will approach prospects and ask them to view a tape that has some "stuff" on it, and have the persons give their opinions . . . if the prospect shows an interest in the one or two that do concern Identity group members, then the recruitment process will go to the next stage . . . “Typically, an Identity group will look and sound like a fundamentalist Bible church, masking what they are really about. Most take an anti-gay stance in the community; some on the extreme side. These groups may also take hard-line stances on other issues, such as obscenity or teen pregnancy, in order to create the false impression that they are just fundamentalist preachers, when in fact they are supremacists. “ The lies and distortion of Judeo-Christian against Christian Identity has had success into two distinct areas: 1) causing people to think negatively of Christian Identity, and 2) causing some Christian-Identity ministries to deny they are Christian Identity thinking they will somehow avoid the controversy.

But we must remember that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has always been controversial. The Prophet of Old were often in the midst of controversy, Jesus Christ was always the center of controversy and we today are often in the center of controversy.

Peter attempted to avoid controversy when he denied he knew Jesus Christ. I cannot control the lies and distortion of Judeo-Christians. But I can help restore faith to Christians who are afraid of being called Christian-Identity. We must remember it is not the name “Christian-Identity” that they hate - it is our faith! We must be willing to stand on the principle of truth regardless of what it is called. To avoid the name Christian-Identity thinking that we will thus avoid controversy is to have our eye upon the wrong focus. When we focus on avoiding controversy we are focusing on fear. When we focus on fear we are teaching fear to others.

As a minister I have a responsibility to those who look to us for teaching. It is said that, “The final test of a leader is the he leaves behind in other people the conviction to carry on.” That is what I want to do, to inspire others to carry on in faith. In fear there is death and defeat, in faith their is hope and deliverance. Remember, “When there is hope for the future there is power in the presents.” I really do not care what name is used, there is no power in any name other then the name of Jesus Christ. But if we allow those to hate us to control us then we become their victim. And Victims can never be overcomers!

*Interesting, non-dogmatic articulation of CI by Thomas Robb. I know some (TD?) are not so sanguine about CI. I wonder what the basis for this doubts are. *

Centinel

2005-01-06 05:06 | User Profile

[url=http://www.watchman.org/profile/Identitypro.htm]The Watchman Expositor: Christian Identity Profile[/url]

Okiereddust

2005-01-06 17:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Centinel][url=http://www.watchman.org/profile/Identitypro.htm]The Watchman Expositor: Christian Identity Profile[/url]

Christian Identity

Publications: Books include Your Heritage, America Free, White and Christian, and The Kingdom of God - Our Heritage. Periodicals include Posse Comitatus Intelligence-Update, America’s Promise Newsletter, The Way, and Scriptures for America Worldwide.
Organizational Structure: Numerous independent groups.
Group Names: Elohim City, America’s Promise, The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations, Kingdom Identity Ministries, Posse Comitatus, Stone Kingdom Ministries, Christian Conservative Churches, Church of Israel, Scriptures for America/LaPorte Church of Christ, and numerous others.
Unique terms: Identity, Anglo-Israelism, Seedline.

History

The public perception of Identity has been shaped by media coverage of skinheads, neo-Nazis, and hate crimes against minorities. However, the Identity movement is far more diverse, embracing a growing number of disaffected people in America’s heartland. The term "Christian Identity" expresses their belief, supposedly based in Christianity, that the "identity" of the White race is that it is God’s chosen people.

The doctrinal seed of Identity was the theory, first popularized by John Wilson’s book Lectures on Our Israelitish Origins (1840), that the "ten lost tribes of Israel" taken captive by the Assyrians in the eighth century BC had been assimilated into the pagan cultures of Europe and especially Britain. Thus, people of Anglo-Saxon descent were identified as heirs of the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament.¹ Anglo-Israel-ism was originally not an anti-Semitic doctrine; its advocates typically viewed the Jews as legitimate descendants of Israel along with the Anglo-Saxon peoples. Not all Anglo-Israelites today are anti-Semitic, nor are they all part of the Identity movement.

In the hands of anti-Semites the doctrine of Anglo-Israelism was transformed into an ideology of hate. Leading the way was William J. Cameron, Henry Ford’s media spokesman and the editor of Ford’s newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. Beginning in July of 1920, Cameron ran a series of widely distributed, defamatory articles called "The International Jew."² The Independent was based on a fraudulent document titled Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The articles were required reading at Ford dealerships across the country and were published in book form. Under public pressure Ford later repudiated the book and closed The Independent in 1927.³

Another merchant of hate, Reuben H. Sawyer, was a Ku Klux Klan member who transformed Anglo-Israelism into a virulent racist theology by linking Judaism with Bolshevism.⁴ A number of Klan leaders have adopted Identity theology.

A series of California conferences beginning in the late 1930s brought together the emerging leaders of the Identity movement. One man, Gerald L. K. Smith, organized and gave voice to the next generation of Identity leaders. Smith called for, "the deportation of all Zionists, abolition of all ‘Jewish Gestapo organizations,’ shipping all black people to Africa, and liquidation of the United Nations."⁵ Many of Smith’s co-workers went on to form their own Identity organizations. William Potter Gale, who died in 1988, was one of the founders of the Posse Comitatus. A number of Posse members have had run-ins with law enforcement, the most notable being Gordon Kahl, a tax protester who died in a shootout with authorities in 1983. The Posse believes there is no Constitutional governing power greater than the county sheriff.⁶

Dan Gayman is head of the Church of Israel in Schell City, Missouri. He is best known for his work in the "seed line," or "serpent’s seed" doctrine. Today Gayman is content to preach Identity, non-violence, and apocalyptic survivalism.

Another leader in the Identity movement is Richard Butler, founder of The Aryan Nations at Hayden Lake, Idaho. Butler’s annual Aryan Nations Congress assembled "racialists" (as they prefer to be called) from across the land. Aryan Nations has been active in outreach into prisons. Its publication, The Way, was influential in the formation of The Aryan Brotherhood, an Identity prison gang. A number of Butler’s followers left his compound in the early 1980s and joined Robert Mathews to form the infamous group, The Order. In the 1990s, Butler has lost his leadership role due to strong rhetoric without accompanying action.⁷

The "Christian" Identity movement is small in number and lacks central organization and leadership. However, its publications, internet presence, and cable broadcasts reach countless numbers of unseen believers. Its influence is accountable for numerous hate crimes by individual adherents.

Doctrines

In general, Identity groups profess to be Christians of a generically Protestant perspective. It is unclear what most Identity followers believe about such essentials as the Trinity or the atonement. What unites these groups is their hostility toward others, notably Jews, Catholics, and people of other races (especially Blacks).

Anglo-Israelism. Identity followers believe that Anglo-Saxons, or more broadly Whites, are the true people of Israel, the true inheritors of the promises made to Abraham and his descendants. For example, Kingdom Identity Ministries teaches:

Pre-Adamite Theory. Identity advocates claim not only that Whites are the true Israel, but also that Whites are the true descendants of Adam. People of all other races are said to be descended from human beings created before Adam. These pre-Adamites are equated in Identity teaching with the "beasts of the earth" that God had made before Adam (Genesis 1:24-25). For example, Bertrand Camparet of Aryan Nations writes:

Serpent’s Seed Doctrine. Most Identity believers hold that Cain was the offspring of Eve and Satan (represented by the serpent). According to this "two seed lines" doctrine, as it is also known, Cain and his descendants intermarried with the pre-Adamites, resulting in a "mongrel" race now known as the Jews. For example, the Aryan Nations Web site states:

Likewise, the Web site of The Posse Comitatus asserts:

Armageddon as an Imminent Race War. God’s warning that there would be enmity between the woman’s seed and the serpent’s seed (Genesis 3:15) is interpreted as forecasting conflict between Whites and non-Whites, especially the Jews. According to Identity belief, there is a centuries-old Jewish conspiracy to control the world. The United States government, the United Nations, and all major social entities are regarded as Jewish puppet organizations. For example, Colonel Jack Mohr of Crusade for Christ and Country has stated:

The Identity movement claims that resistance by Whites to this global conspiracy will eventually result in Armageddon. They typically view America as a kind of new Promised Land and as the place where the Whites’ final stand against the Jews and other races will take place very soon. At an Aryan Nations meeting, Thom Robb, a KKK leader, put it this way:

Biblical Response

Since advocates of the Identity teaching use the Bible to justify their racist views, it is important for Christians to understand what the Bible actually says about these matters. It should be kept in mind, however, that the principal motivations of the Identity movement are political, economic, and emotional.

Anglo-Israelism. The Bible contradicts the idea that the ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel were "lost" when they were conquered by Assyria. The northern kingdom was destroyed, but a remnant of the people of Israel were preserved (Amos 9:9). Some Israelites fled into the southern kingdom of Judah before and at the time of the Assyrian onslaught, a fact confirmed by archaeological excavations showing that Jerusalem’s population swelled at the end of the eighth century B.C.¹⁴  Other Israelites returned to the land years later, either to Judah or the north.

In the New Testament period the people of Israel, not only of the ten tribes but of all twelve, were scattered, but they were not "lost" or missing in unknown parts of the world. Thus, James could address his epistle "to the twelve tribes scattered abroad" (James 1:1). Paul could refer to the resurrection from the dead as "the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God day and night" (Acts 26:6-7). Anna, the prophetess at the Jerusalem temple who recognized the infant Jesus as the Messiah, was "of the tribe of Asher" (Luke 2:36). Obviously, the tribe of Asher was not lost, nor was it to be found across the continent.

Pre-Adamite Theory. The theory that all non-Whites are descended from a pre-Adamite race of human beings is flatly contradictory to the Bible’s teaching. Genesis states, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27). It was "man" as such (that is, mankind, including both "male and female"), not the White man, that God created in his image. That this includes people of all races and nations is clearly affirmed by Paul:

The Identity theory that the non-white races are referred to in Genesis as "the beasts of the earth" (Gen. 1:24-25) is, therefore, utterly false. The term refers generally to land animals and is never used in the Bible to refer to humans of any race.

Serpent’s Seed Doctrine. The idea that Eve had sexual relations with the serpent, or Satan, or that the serpent was in any way responsible for the conception and birth of Cain, is totally foreign to the Bible:

Here the Holy Spirit explicitly identifies Adam as the biological father of Cain, and makes it clear that Eve regarded Cain’s birth as a blessing from God.

Of course, race is completely irrelevant to a person’s standing with God.

Armageddon as an Imminent Race War. Contrary to popular opinion, Armageddon in the Bible does not refer to a kind of "World War III" between rival groups of people. In the Book of Revelation, Armageddon represents the gathering of the demonically inspired powers of the nations of the earth, where God brings his wrath on them (Rev. 16:14-21). Nowhere in the Bible is the final judgment of the wicked presented as a battle between peoples of different races.

The Identity teaching does not merely result in a particularly radical (and often violent) form of racism. It utterly negates the gospel of grace. The message of Christianity is that God graciously extends salvation to people irrespective of anything which they might imagine would make them superior to other people. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The ultimate conflict in this world is not between Whites and non-Whites, but between God and Satan, between righteousness and sin. Our fight is not with "flesh and blood"—with human beings, of any race—but with the spiritual forces of evil that wage war against our souls (Ephesians 6:12). The Identity doctrine perverts Christianity from a redemptive theology into a racist ideology. It is therefore not truly Christian.

¹ Richard Abanes, Rebellion, Racism and Religion: American Militias (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1996): 157-9.
² Jeffrey Kaplan, Radical Religion in America (Syracuse, New York, Syracuse University Press, 1997) 1.
³ James Ridgeway, Blood in the Face, (New York, Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1990): 38-43.
⁴ Richard Barkun, Religion and the Religious Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994): 24-5.
⁵ J. Gordon Melton [Online], URL http://www.americanreligion.org/cultwtch/identity.html.
⁶ Don Black, "The Watchman Has Been Shut Down," {Online}. URL http://www2.stormfront.org/watchman/index.html.
⁷ Kaplan, 5-6, 55-6.
⁸ See "Doctrinal Statement of Beliefs," [Online]. URL http://www.kingidentity.com/doctrine.html.
⁹ Bertrand Camparet, The Cain-Satanic Seed Line (Hayden Lake, ID: Aryan Nations, n.d.), 5, quoted in Abanes, American Militias, 163.
¹⁰ The ARYAN NATIONS website [Online]. URL http: //www.nidlink.com/~aryanvic/index-E.html.
¹¹ "Racial Identity," [Online]. URL http://www.posse-comitatus.org/p2.html.
¹² Jack Mohr, Seed of Satan: Literal or Figurative? as quoted by Viola Larson, "Identity: A ‘Christian’ Reli-gion for White Racists," CRI Journal (Fall 1992): 23.
¹³ Thom Robb, in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 22 July 1986, 9A, quoted in Abanes, American Militias, 167.
¹⁴ Magen Broshi, "Part of the Ten Lost Tribes Located," Biblical Archeology Review, 1 (September 1975): 27.

Resources

American Militias, by Richard Abanes. Abanes documents the infiltration of racism and religious extremism into the movement and offers suggestions for public response to help defuse the volatility. 296 pages $15.

Cults, New Religious Movements, And Your Family, by Richard Abanes. A good overview of modern aberrant religious movements as well as old religions just now gaining influence in the United States. There is a good section on the Christian Identity Movement. 317 pages - $15.00.

    [/QUOTE]Well I don't really know where to begin.  But a writeup that chiefly references shrill leftists like Abanes and people like Kaplan can hardly be viewed as authoritative for people here.

What is most significant here about this writeup though is actualy though that it validates the basicaly sound theological origins of the identity movement. Any movement that originated from Gerald L. K. Smith, an prominent Christian Church minister (a bastion of orthodoxy) is not going to be fundamentally heretical.

All I see fundamentally there in CI theologically is the British Israelism, which by itself (i.e. Garner Ted Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God) is basically considered perfectly innocuous. Sure there seem to be some practitioneers of CI who go overboard in trying to get an explicit rather than an implicit scriptural acknowledgement of racial categories and differences, but the way writeups like this tend to mix different categories of people (like Richard Butler) and categorize the most nutty, weird, and borderline pagan as epitimies of the movement show to my mind just a pitiable lack of real religious insight and excess of politically correct deference. Obviously people like this have let leftists do the research and draw the conclusions for them, out of fear of getting tarred as being not negative enough and covertly sympathetic and racist themselves.

Texas Dissident

2005-01-06 19:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]What is most significant here about this writeup though is actualy though that it validates the basicaly sound theological origins of the identity movement. Any movement that originated from Gerald L. K. Smith, an prominent Christian Church minister (a bastion of orthodoxy) is not going to be fundamentally heretical.[/QUOTE]

Gerald L.K. Smith was an ordained Disciples of Christ minister. Although current CI proponents like to claim him (and the Left likes to label him) as CI, he was most certainly NOT Christian Identity. I've never read anything from Smith that deviated from historical Christian orthodoxy. One may not agree with his politics (in large part I do), but his theology was basically sound.

Sure there seem to be some practitioneers of CI who go overboard in trying to get an explicit rather than an implicit scriptural acknowledgement of racial categories and differences, but the way writeups like this tend to mix different categories of people (like Richard Butler) and categorize the most nutty, weird, and borderline pagan as epitimies of the movement show to my mind just a pitiable lack of real religious insight and excess of politically correct deference. Obviously people like this have let leftists do the research and draw the conclusions for them, out of fear of getting tarred as being not negative enough and covertly sympathetic and racist themselves.[/QUOTE]

I'll grant you that the above Watchman review comes from a rather politically correct angle, but one shouldn't let that take away from the theological points it makes, because there it is correct. You asked me why I'm not sanguine concerning CI and I assure you that it is entirely because of doctrine.

The Left wants to paint men like Gerald Smith as CI, as they probably would any America-first/militia/hard-shell fundamentalist Baptist-type, but that doesn't make them CI. CI is a heretical cult specifically because of its "Serpent Seed" doctrine which results in a theology built around jews, blacks and other coloreds being less than fully human and somehow outside of or beyond the need of salvation like everyone else. That is a gross distortion of the Gospel and we all know what St. Paul said about those who preach any other gospel than the one he preached.

The Anglo-Israelism stuff is just silly in that it is not needed. The Christian Church is the true Israel, end of story. At the foot of the cross, blood just doesn't matter. For all have sinned, fallen short and in need of a redeeming Saviour.

That's pretty much it.

Centinel

2005-01-06 19:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]The Anglo-Israelism stuff is just silly in that it is not needed. The Christian Church is the true Israel, end of story.

Yup. The whole motive behind CI in the first place is a contorted effort to claim that Anglos are the true heirs to God's OT promises, not today's "Khazar" Jews. Even if the archaeological evidence supported this theory from a genealogical stance, it doesn't mean squat in light of the New Testament. Faith in Christ, not bloodline, is what qualifies a person membership in the Israel of God. And oh, BTW, the reward is on the other side, not temporal.

[url=http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9]Galatians 3[/url] is just as devastating to CI as it is to Christian Zionism.

Okiereddust

2005-01-06 19:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Gerald L.K. Smith was an ordained Disciples of Christ minister. Although current CI proponents like to claim him (and the Left likes to label him) as CI, he was most certainly NOT Christian Identity. I've never read anything from Smith that deviated from historical Christian orthodoxy. One may not agree with his politics (in large part I do), but his theology was basically sound. Good starting point.

I'll grant you that the above Watchman review comes from a rather politically correct angle, but one shouldn't let that take away from the theological points it makes, because there it is correct. You asked me why I'm not sanguine concerning CI and I assure you that it is entirely because of doctrine. Reread the article. Like most on CI, its virtually impossible to find any real theological points that aren't smothered in politically correct polemics, which makes it very hard to make any theological interpretation at all.

The Left wants to paint men like Gerald Smith as CI, as they probably would any America-first/militia/hard-shell fundamentalist Baptist-type, but that doesn't make them CI. CI is a heretical cult specifically because of its "Serpent Seed" doctrine which results in a theology built around jews, blacks and other coloreds being less than fully human and somehow outside of or beyond the need of salvation like everyone else. That is a gross distortion of the Gospel and we all know what St. Paul said about those who preach any other gospel than the one he preached.

Like any theological doctrine, not to mention from those far outside the boundaries of rspectable society, CI naturally will acquire a variegated core of preachers and practitioneers. The key in evaluating a movement [B]as a whole[/B] is identifying what doctrines are truly core, central parts of the movement and which are merely peripherial.

That is the issue for instance with NS paganism/atheism. Although some such as Petr make an argument, which I haven't had time yet to fully review, that differing points of view on Christianity still struggled with some success for legitimacy within NS, it does seem that the ideological body of NS, exemplified by Rosenberg and symbolized by Hitler and Himmler, pretty much rejected Christianity ad tolerated it only for tactical reasons.

Does the same situation exist with regard to CI? Is there a recognized core body group or individual around which the "serpent seed" doctrine coalesced to form and define CI? If you maintain that, you must go against both articles like the Watchman and Thomas Robb (who seems to be as much of an authority on today's CI movement as anyone.)

[quote=Thomas Robb]In recent years there has been numerous news articles that makes mention of what we call Christian Identity. Most news story say something like this, > “The Christian Identity religion is an anti-government aberration of Christianity that teaches, Negroes are beasts and Jews are the children of Satan..... ”

He specifically denies such a central place for this "serpent seed" doctrine in CI. [quote=Thomas Robb]The first thing that must be understood is that there is no such things a Christian-Identity religion. There is no Christian-Identity headquarters, there is no Christian-Identity spiritual leader, there is no Christian-Identity “Bible,” there is no Christian-Identity revelation, there is no Christian-Identity prophet, there is no Christian-Identity holy place, there is no Christian-Identity membership lists, there are no Christian-Identity rituals, and there is no such thing as a Christian-Identity member. No one can fill out an application to “join” Christian-Identity. Christian-Identity refers to Christian people who believe that the descendants of the ancient people of Israel are today identified with the people of Europe.

It’s that simple!

The authorities like the Watchman don't make such a claim really, if you examine it. They simply through out some provocative examples for color, then go on to talk about CI's general political stances and marginality. The obvious intent is whatever CI's believe specifically on the serpent seed doctrine, it all ends up amounting to the same thing anyway as manifested in their hardline general and unapologetic anti-semitism.

Conclusions most people find automatic and not subject to question. People on this forum such as you and I though are completely in the other camp - we hold such "arguments" as completely empty of substantive content.

The Anglo-Israelism stuff is just silly in that it is not needed. The Christian Church is the true Israel, end of story. At the foot of the cross, blood just doesn't matter. For all have sinned, fallen short and in need of a redeeming Saviour.

That's pretty much it.[/QUOTE]

True, at the end of the story. However politically its relevence reminds me somewhat of Keynes famous axiom "in the long run we're all dead".

In the next life we all will be equal, I won't argue that. In this one though there's still some issues here we have to deal with. If CI doesn't deal with them adequately, no religious authority in America today seems to do so much better as far as I know.

Okiereddust

2005-01-06 20:02 | User Profile

EDIT: Okie was referencing Gal 3:28:

• 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.*

Now most of the theological world (not to mention our pagan-nationalist "friends" would also say this passage is completely devastating to any form of Christian nationalism whatsoever. How you apply this to CI's yet exempt yourselves is to all but the tiniest fraction of purists such as yourselves today one of the most complete forms of theological obscuritanism imaginable.

EDIT: Sorry I screwed up this post thinking I was replying to it Okie....I was able to save your last paragraph though. --Cent

Centinel

2005-01-06 20:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Now most of the theological world (not to mention our pagan-nationalist "friends" would also say this passage is completely devastating to any form of Christian nationalism whatsoever. How you apply this to CI's yet exempt yourselves is to all but the tiniest fraction of purists such as yourselves today one of the most complete forms of theological obscuritanism imaginable.

From the Lutheran persepctive of "two kingdoms" theology, God has assigned specific responsibilities to Church and state.

The state is responsible for maintaining order, and is really not useful for anything else. It doesn't evangelize, nor is it responsible for instilling Christian values in the hearts of men (which is at odds with the feeling among American evangelicals who think that the Moral Majority and legislation can replace the Church in this regard). Viewed in this light, most nationalistic issues are outside the scope of Church matters.

EDIT: Remember this thread? [url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4361&highlight=weyrich]Paul M. Weyrich On Rethinking Culture Wars[/url]

In fact, today's orthodox Lutherans can point to disastrous consequences within Lutheranism itself when church and state are unbiblically yoked together, such as in Europe

Okiereddust

2005-01-06 20:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Centinel]From the Lutheran persepctive of "two kingdoms" theology, God has assigned specific responsibilities to Church and state.

The state is responsible for maintaining order, and is really not useful for anything else. It doesn't evangelize, nor is it responsible for instilling Christian values in the hearts of men (which is at odds with the feeling among American evangelicals who think that the Moral Majority and legislation can replace the Church in this regard).

Viewed in this light, most nationalistic issues are outside the scope of Church matters. As a libertarian, I can understand your church/state phobia, even if I don't share that myself. Note however that you are using this passage not just in a govermental/political sense, but in a social sense. You seem to be rejecting CI's, asserting Gal 3:26-28 supports you, because they do maintain a stance of absolute racial and gender equality/equivalence.

Based on some of your other views and your memberhip on this forum, even as our representative paleolibertarian, this is a rather unusual position to take.

EDIT: Remember this thread? [url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4361&highlight=weyrich]Paul M. Weyrich On Rethinking Culture Wars[/url]

Yes. So?

In fact, today's orthodox Lutherans can point to disastrous consequences within Lutheranism itself when church and state are unbiblically yoked together, such as in Europe[/QUOTE]Lutheranism is different than the American puritan/covenant type cultural heritage in some respects, which has its good and bad points. But for now that's neither here nor there. As above it seems to me your misunderstanding is on a more basic level.

Texas Dissident

2005-01-06 21:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Reread the article. Like most on CI, its virtually impossible to find any real theological points that aren't smothered in politically correct polemics, which makes it very hard to make any theological interpretation at all. [/QUOTE]

I don't think it's that hard for a discerning reader.

Like any theological doctrine, not to mention from those far outside the boundaries of rspectable society, CI naturally will acquire a variegated core of preachers and practitioneers. The key in evaluating a movement [B]as a whole[/B] is identifying what doctrines are truly core, central parts of the movement and which are merely peripherial.

I agree. In my opinion, the core, central, defining part of CI is 'serpent seed' doctrine.

Is there a recognized core body group or individual around which the "serpent seed" doctrine coalesced to form and define CI? If you maintain that, you must go against both articles like the Watchman and Thomas Robb (who seems to be as much of an authority on today's CI movement as anyone.)

I understand your point, but probably because I am sympathetic with the peripheral political/social issues of some of these folks the line as to what is truly CI and what is say, rural Southern hard-shell Baptist is quite clear to me. Groups like WCOTC are CI. A good bit of the Klan and/or Bob Jones U-sorts are not. Again, it all goes back to the Scriptures and doctrinal orthodoxy.

He specifically denies such a central place for this "serpent seed" doctrine in CI.

He may deny it, but in my opinion that's it.

The authorities like the Watchman don't make such a claim really, if you examine it. They simply through out some provocative examples for color, then go on to talk about CI's general political stances and marginality. The obvious intent is whatever CI's believe specifically on the serpent seed doctrine, it all ends up amounting to the same thing anyway as manifested in their hardline general and unapologetic anti-semitism.

True, but what constitutes a 'cult' is not completely tied to just doctrinal heresy. There are psychological and social dynamics at work, too. i.e. What are the real world psychological and social effects of their particular religious practice and belief?

If CI doesn't deal with them adequately, no religious authority in America today seems to do so much better as far as I know.[/QUOTE]

One might say the same thing about Mormons or Jehovah Witness, as well.

Texas Dissident

2005-01-06 21:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]EDIT: Okie was referencing Gal 3:28:

• 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.*

Now most of the theological world (not to mention our pagan-nationalist "friends" would also say this passage is completely devastating to any form of Christian nationalism whatsoever. How you apply this to CI's yet exempt yourselves is to all but the tiniest fraction of purists such as yourselves today one of the most complete forms of theological obscuritanism imaginable.[/QUOTE]

Not at all, Okie. The scripture is quite clear. St. Paul is talking about spiritual equality. A person couldn't use that scripture to discount nationalism/segregation than they could to support arguments for homosexuality or transgenderism.

annalex

2005-01-06 22:12 | User Profile

The transnational character of Christian theology comes not just from the Galatians verse, but from the entire dynamic of Christ's gradually turning away from Jewish tribalism toward the world of the Gentiles, culminating in the guests at the wedding parable.

Christianity today -- in particular Christian orthodoxy -- is sustained by various non-whites in Africa and Latin America. Its largest growth is in China.

So there is nothing in Christianity that requires European ancestry.

The real question is, does European (including white American) identity require Christianity? It is hard to argue otherwise, since European culture is fundamentally Christian. The classical world has been thouroughly transformed by Christian Rome and then revisited and tranformed some more by the Renaissance. The degenerate secular culture of the 20 sentury is simply not a contender.

But this observation, I think, while validating some Christian Identity premises also removes it from the religious sphere. Educators, politicians and artists would do well to insist on their Christian identity. Pastors should avoid the heresy of tribalism.

Okiereddust

2005-01-06 23:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I don't think it's that hard for a discerning reader. I'll take that as a pass. This article in one sense is just specious - one doesn't have time to go over it point by point. But generally summations of any religion by people with a strong overriding preexisting prejudice are of little value in determining what a religion really is anyway. Especially one without a central authority. You always come up with a completely warped picture if all you rely on is such accounts.

I agree. In my opinion, the core, central, defining part of CI is 'serpent seed' doctrine.

Well it is difficult to evaluate opinions if you don't know what they're based on. Is it just something you've read on the internet like this?

I've been to CI services several times, and I've never once heard the "serpent seed" or "pre-adamite" line discussed. Anglo-Israelism certainly is, but like I say, it is also so in the Worldwide Church of God. So I ask you exactly, how is the CI automatically so much different, except for sharing your political viewpoints (unlike the PC churches)

I understand your point, but probably because I am sympathetic with the peripheral political/social issues of some of these folks the line as to what is truly CI and what is say, rural Southern hard-shell Baptist is quite clear to me. Groups like WCOTC are CI. A good bit of the Klan and/or Bob Jones U-sorts are not. Again, it all goes back to the Scriptures and doctrinal orthodoxy.

I don't know what you are doing here psychologically - but it seems like you are doing some weird contortions theologically/politically, that have something to do with who you think you like and don't like but don't have anything to do. I don't know.

• A good part of the Bob Jones U types aren't CI: Does that mean some are? I bet its news to Bob Jones. Is anyone un-PC now on the verge of being CI? (excluding of course yourself)

• WCOTC? The WCOTC is anti-Christian, a la Neo-Nietzsche and the NA.[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_Movement#Doctrine_of_the_organization]Wilkopedia[/URL]

True, but what constitutes a 'cult' is not completely tied to just doctrinal heresy. There are psychological and social dynamics at work, too. i.e. What are the real world psychological and social effects of their particular religious practice and belief?

Do you mean do they gather round campfires and sacrifice small infants?

I don't think you can really answer that based on media stereotypes. You'd just have to really know some CI people - and I don't mean on the internet.

For someone who has already seen the necessity of adopting views that most people regard the same way as you do CI, you seem puzzling complacent and self-assured about the accuracy of your conceptions about CI, which seem procurred from sources you've already acknowledged as inaccurate.

One might say the same thing about Mormons or Jehovah Witness, as well.[/QUOTE]I guess you're just barking up the cult tree here. Pre-Adamism is an integral part of Mormonism true. (putting aside whether it really is for CI). But "psychologically/socially do you question their legitimacy? Politically and economically they are now quite mainstream.

Centinel

2005-01-07 00:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I've been to CI services several times, and I've never once heard the "serpent seed" or "pre-adamite" line discussed. Anglo-Israelism certainly is, but like I say, it is also so in the Worldwide Church of God. So I ask you exactly, how is the CI automatically so much different, except for sharing your political viewpoints (unlike the PC churches)

Would you consider [url=http://www.kingidentity.com/]Kingdom Identity Ministries[/url] to be an orthodox and respresentative source of Christian Identity doctrine? They seem to have some definite and up-front views on seedline.

They also seem by far to be the most visible proponents of CI doctrine in far-right media. They place print ads in American Free Press, radio ads on Chuck Harder's radio show carried by WHRI, and offer audio content on Soundwaves2000.com via their [url=http://www.soundwaves2000.com/hot/]Herald of Truth[/url] show.

Okiereddust

2005-01-07 01:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Centinel]Would you consider [url=http://www.kingidentity.com/]Kingdom Identity Ministries[/url] to be an orthodox and respresentative source of Christian Identity doctrine? They seem to have some definite and up-front views on seedline.

They also seem by far to be the most visible proponents of CI doctrine in far-right media. They place print ads in American Free Press, radio ads on Chuck Harder's radio show carried by WHRI, and offer audio content on Soundwaves2000.com via their [url=http://www.soundwaves2000.com/hot/]Herald of Truth[/url] show.[/QUOTE]Very good Centinel. Kingdom Identity Ministries is Charles Robb himself BTW so we can see how he spins the facts of his doctrine. And you're right, you can interpret their views on "seedline" and "pre-adamite" man to be pretty much what Watchman Expositor says they are.

I think though you have to though put things in perspective, and view the imagery of their doctrine through the same window as you do that of mainstream Christianity to be fair. At least as nationalists/paleoconservatives who claim we do not exercise prejudice against fellow judeoskeptics you do.

Robb claims CI as identifying "the descendants of the ancient people of Israel..today.. with the people of Europe". (I.e, British-Israelism) Tex by contrast identifies CI with "the serpent seed" doctrine. Whose right? Well they both are.

It isn't surprising on reflection that I all I heard at services were British-Israelism, with nothing of the "serpent seed" or "pre-adamite line". After all when you go to Churches today virtually anywhere you will hear plenty about "sharing the good news" "salvation" or the "blessings of knowing God". You don't hear much explicitly about Hell, Damnation, the inate depravity of man especially the heathen or the exclusion of the damned from the rightous community of believers. But their certainly in the scripture. Thesis requires Antithesis. Lightness shines in opposition to darkness.

But although the negative antithesis is certainly there, and acknowledged by all orthodox Christianity, it certainly is a mistake to focus on these things today as the prominent aspects of today's Christianity, even in the (small o) orthodox Churches. Many observers of today's Churches say these topics are almost avoided like the plague. In the same way I get the impression that the CI churches, whose psychology really appropriates pretty generally from the mainstream religious world (from my personal experience I definitely get this about these Churches) avoid negativity. Robb himself expresses this "The KKK doesn't hate black people, we just love white people"

Now critics of nationalism reject this interpretation of CI in the same way I think that postmodernist/leftist critics of Christianity today in general continue to view it as a bigoted ideology of exclusion and intolerance. So I don't ask you to close your eyes to this aspect of CI. I'd just suggest you need to view it through the same filters as you do regular Christianity and life in general to be fair. Attitudes whose prejudicial lack of we are still prone to pick up from today's culture, even as we here struggle so hard against it.

In some sense the attitudes of CI may seem quaint and paradoxical, but to me they serve a useful purpose, which is to highlight the continuing role God has in the spiritual life and mission of nations - doctrines that because of cultural Marxism have been almost completely eviscerated from mainstream Christianity. Or outright perverted (aka dispensationalist Christian Zionism). An argument can be made for a certain sinister aspect of its doctrines, but I just view it as an example of the natural tendency towards extremism picked up by cultural marginalization. If not for this, I think its quite likely that the dynamics of the movement might have stayed in the orthodox path of Gerald L. K. Smith (I suspect here the Watchman Expositor is accurate), not have developed some of the doctrinal pecularities that movements composed of marginal people on the outskirts of society under great stress often pick up.

I agree there are excesses and failures in CI, as in any Christian group, and in its particular position what one might expect. Overall though I'd say as a patriot Christian honest acknowledment of its and their limitations should not cause me to abandon or turn my back on them. They are your brothers and mine.

But thanks for your good insight and research Centinel. And Texas Dissident also. I agree these things need to be discussed, especially as really they are so rarely discussed by people who are not overtly hostile politically and ideologically, either mainstreamers (hostile to the judeophobic) or mainstream WN types, today rather generally suspicious of any form of Christianity, or anything that even uses the terms "Israel". There is some baggage, but also in CI there is are paradigms in Christianity I think we definetly need to pick up on and learn from for paleoconservatism/nationalism to strengthen. Right now western and particularly American paleoconservatism/nationalism does not really have a reliable religious confession (acknowledging your Lutheran protestations and much undeniably good work Centinel/Texas Dissident, along with the Catholic and Orthodox members here). I don't think we can really afford to be so picky we have to be exclusionary, although there does seem to be a lot of improvment needed in CI for it really to be an authoritative and really credible religious paradigm.

Okiereddust

2005-01-07 02:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I've been to CI services several times, and I've never once heard the "serpent seed" or "pre-adamite" line discussed. Anglo-Israelism certainly is, but like I say, it is also so in the Worldwide Church of God. So I ask you exactly, how is the CI automatically so much different, except for sharing your political viewpoints (unlike the PC churches)[/QUOTE]My correction Tex, thanks kindly to Centinel (see post 15). As usual, you trump me in your yeoman's knowledge of Church doctrine and doctrinal boilerplate. I still am unsure exactly how the "serpent seed" and "pe-adamite man" doctrines actually play out concretely in the dynamics of CI Church/organization life, but I can see and do agree with you that they are valid points of criticism which must be dealt with.

il ragno

2005-01-07 06:28 | User Profile

Fascinating. Here's some more CI material, w/links:

[QUOTE]Delivered-To: [email]mlindste@mo-net.com[/email] Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 06:12:08 -0800 (PST) From: Subject: church To: [email]mlindste@mo-net.com[/email]

Hi, I tried to e-mail you yesterday, but don't think it went. We just moved to the XXXXX, MO area, and haven't been able to find a church or group to associate with. Do you know of any within 25 miles of XXXXX, Missouri?

=============

I really can't help you because I'm not a pastor but rather more of a politician. It also depends upon what church you attend. I'm assuming that since you have asked me, that you are Christian Identity of some kind.

You see, most Dual-Seedline Christian Identity congregations are small, with from one-three families in them meeting in their own homes. They simply do not want to be harassed for their beliefs, and they keep to themselves. I'd have no more idea of who they are or where they meet than you do. I approve of this behavior.

If you were to ask for a list of DS churches that do not mind visitors, I'd suggest Bob Hallstrom of Kingdom Identity Ministries might have a listing:

[url]http://www.kingidentity.com/[/url]

Or Christian Identity Ministries

[url]http://www.christianidentityministries.org/[/url]

also out of Harrison, Arkansas. Harrison Arkansas is, and has been, the place with the largest collection of Christian Identity congregations since the time of Gerald Smith. If you lived within 25 miles of Harrison Arkansas, then you couldn't swing a dead cat by the tail without hitting an Identity congregation or Identity Klan.

I would suggest that under no circumstances do you have anything to do with Dan Gayman, from the area around Nevada, Missouri, as Gayman is entirely greedy, out for none other than himself, took money from The Order, and then testified against them at the Ft. Smith Sedition Trial. The jews are trying to make Gayman 'the Identity pastor' because he is their tool. Yes, Gayman is Eric Rudolph's pastor, yet it is probably because of Gayman that ZOG has decided to make Rudolph an example, because they have a built-in test-i-liar in Gayman. Gayman has cheated his own brother, anyone who was stupid enough to send him money, and as said before, took money from the Order and then when under pressure for his stupidity 'forgot' that he was supposed to fear only YHWH. Gayman should have simply said that YHWH gave him the Order money, said that he didn't ever question the workings of YHWH, and left it at that, but instead the greedy feeb broke and testilied. If Gayman will screw over his own brother, and his supporters, then you are better off simply reading stuff from one of many CI Internet churches linked to my Web page.

A contribution should get you all manner of things. Remember, Christ himself never took a tithe because Christ was not a Levite, but a Judean. If Christ never took a tithe, neither does anyone claiming to be one of Christ's pastors have any right to demand one.

[url]http://www.martinlindstedt.org/llinks.html#CI[/url]

Clifton Emahiser is deemed by the devout scholars in DS-CI to be the most thorough DS scholar living. He publishes a monthly letter with his new study from Fostoria Ohio. Bertrand Comparet by 1969 compiled most of the Dual-Seedline doxology which can be found in the Kingdom Identity Ministies AIT course. But Emahiser adds the chrome. Anyone who considers himself to be Dual-Seedline and wants to be a pastor grounded in DS doxology first has the AIT course as a reference and Emahiser's new studies as continuing education.

Clifton A. Emahiser's Teaching Ministries 1012 N. Vine Street, Fostoria, Ohio 44830 [url]http://churchoftrueisrael.com/emahiser/[/url]

Kingdom Identity Ministries, P.O. Box 1021, Harrison, Arkansas 72602 [url]http://www.kingidentity.com/ait.htm[/url]

Part of understanding Dual-Seedline is understanding that Dual-Seedline belief and practice is mainly about doxology, not in going to church or congregation with scattered others. We don't need someboy confirming that we are believing the right stuff -- we know that we are -- so we don't need company in order to help us to keep our Faith. Thus our congregations are small, scattered, and not advertised to outsiders.

If you are a One-Seedliner, then unlike the Dual-Seedliners, who are separate but who are tied by doxology, then you are bound more by considerations of fellowship. One-Seedliners are notorious in being 'pastor bound.' The largest OSL-CI pastor is Pete Peters. I sometimes attend his Memorial Day doings in Branson, Missouri 80 miles away.

However, there are few One-Seedline congregations because they tend to stick with whatever national radio or Internet pastor they prefer. I like meeting with One-Seedliners when they meet in mass because they are nice people. You might find out if any of them live next to you id you were to attend one of Peters' Branson visits next Memorial Day.

I'd avoid like the plague the Anninius & Sapphira bunch on Stormfront, namely self-ordained 'Pastor&Pastoress' Klunt and Ksludge Downey, at

[url]http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/[/url]

They hate Dual-Seedline Christian Identity. Three years ago, Klunt tried to have banned Willie Martin from an FBI listening post masquerading as a CI jewhoogruppen after the rest of the Dual-Seedliners had been banned. I asked for dirt on this evil bitch, and I found it........... I[/I] In addition, the Downeys are jealous of Pete Peters and slander Peters whenever they can, and while I'm not a supporter of Peters, someone is going to be the predominate One-Seedline pastor, and it might as well be Peters who leaves us Dual-Seedliners alone if we leave him alone. So Ksludge&Klunt Downey are held in suspicion and contempt by Dual-Seedliners, most One-Seedliners, and everyone in the Klan in Washington and parts of Oregon.

So, if you are Dual-Seedline, contact Kingdom Identity Ministries or some other ministers in Harrison Arkansas. If you are One-Seedline, contact Pete Peters for congregations under him.

This was a useful question to answer, so I'll make a public posting of your inquiry, but keep your name private.

--Martin Lindstedt [url]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url] ______[/QUOTE]

Okiereddust

2005-01-07 07:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Fascinating. Here's some more CI material, w/links:[/QUOTE]

Very interesting indeed. Thanks for digging up this material, wherever you found it.

You see, most Dual-Seedline Christian Identity congregations are small, with from one-three families in them meeting in their own homes. They simply do not want to be harassed for their beliefs, and they keep to themselves. I'd have no more idea of who they are or where they meet than you do. I approve of this behavior.

No real mystery here actually. Sounds a little bit like the reason they all meet in small groups is that's the largest groups can get without splitting. Like that old French saying - when you have two Dutchman - you have a church. When you have three Dutchman, you have a schism. :lol:

Interesting also the distinction between One and Dual Seedliners. I'd say that Tex was off about the dual seedliner's defining CI, except for reading Pete Peters no longer calls himself CI, but is till labeled that way just the same. Maybe being in CI is sort of like the Mafia - once there you're stuck, whether you like it or not :lol:.

I do wonder where dual seedlining and all these particular aspects of CI came about, if as it appears according to this CI as a movement if not a coherent ideology originates with Gerald Smith. I'd suspect it's obviously rather clandestine nature from the time of Smith makes tracing its history and evolution of its theology more difficult. I'd say though its fairly evident that dual seedlining and pre-adamitism are things that crept in as the mainstream southern Churches became more skeptical and progressively hostile to racialism, and CI pastors needed easy ways to answer pro-integration arguments from these people. Theologically they seem at best quite ticky-tac, but they do have the advantage of simplicity and easy integration with racialist doctrine in general once you accept their basic premises.

Texas Dissident

2005-01-07 16:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Very good Centinel. Kingdom Identity Ministries is Charles Robb himself BTW so we can see how he spins the facts of his doctrine. And you're right, you can interpret their views on "seedline" and "pre-adamite" man to be pretty much what Watchman Expositor says they are.

Here's another article on CI from the Christian Research Institute (the late Walter Martin's organization): [url]http://www.equip.org/free/DI100.htm[/url]

Again though, some of the cutural/social/political views of the author come from a rather PC mainstream perspective, but hopefully you can see some common theological themes.

I think though you have to though put things in perspective, and view the imagery of their doctrine through the same window as you do that of mainstream Christianity to be fair. At least as nationalists/paleoconservatives who claim we do not exercise prejudice against fellow judeoskeptics you do.

This is a very thoughtful post Okie and I thank you for it. More often than not and especially on-line, whenever terms like orthodoxy and heresy start getting bandied about the discussion quickly descends into bitter polemics. Issues quickly get cloudy and bogged down and we lose sight of the real people that are making the arguments, asking questions, etc. in the first place. I know I'm as guilty as anybody. Couple that with limited time and, well, sometimes I wonder if these internet forums do more harm than good. I hope you don't think I'm attacking, ridiculing or berating anything here because I don't mean to come off that way.

Robb claims CI as identifying "the descendants of the ancient people of Israel..today.. with the people of Europe". (I.e, British-Israelism) Tex by contrast identifies CI with "the serpent seed" doctrine. Whose right? Well they both are...Thesis requires Antithesis. Lightness shines in opposition to darkness.

And orthodoxy is usually defined in reaction to heresy. Think of the how the ancient creeds came about.

From what I know and what I've read from sources I believe to be credible, CI is at-bottom a mix of Anglo-Israelism and dual/serpent-seed doctrine. In my opinion, the former is silly and ultimately just a distraction, but the latter takes one outside the pale of historic, Christian orthodoxy.

Now critics of nationalism reject this interpretation of CI in the same way I think that postmodernist/leftist critics of Christianity today in general continue to view it as a bigoted ideology of exclusion and intolerance. So I don't ask you to close your eyes to this aspect of CI. I'd just suggest you need to view it through the same filters as you do regular Christianity and life in general to be fair. Attitudes whose prejudicial lack of we are still prone to pick up from today's culture, even as we here struggle so hard against it.

These are good points and I understand your position. Even my own Missouri Synod gets hammered from every side imaginable in the cultural and religious wars.

I agree there are excesses and failures in CI, as in any Christian group, and in its particular position what one might expect. Overall though I'd say as a patriot Christian honest acknowledment of its and their limitations should not cause me to abandon or turn my back on them. They are your brothers and mine.

Amen. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't even jump in to this hornets nest if I didn't care for my brothers and potential doctrinal error. I consider these things very seriously. Politics, culture and even societies come and go, but the Word of God will stand throughout eternity. Bottom line, test everything in the light of the Holy Scriptures, the final authority for all belief, doctrine and religion.

Blond Knight

2005-01-08 02:20 | User Profile

An interesting thread.

Some interesting information is contained in the books writen by Richard Kelly Hoskins. He wrote on several subjects from a CI perspective, but the information he presents should be appreciated by all persons concerned about what is happening in the world today, and how we got in the mess we are in.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hoskins' books:[url]http://richardhoskins.com/bklist.htm[/url]

Excerpt from "Our Nordic Race":

Our Nordic Race Chapters one-six

The Nordic - Sect.I

The Nordic - ch.1

We are Nordics - from the North! Norway, Denmark, Northern Germany and Sweden. It was from this small section of northern Europe that our race came in successive waves which poured over distant mountains and valleys, seas and oceans. Today the remnant may be found in colonies, large and small, in the most distant parts of the globe.

We of Virginia pride ourselves on our Anglo-Saxon ancestry. Anglo - from the Angles of Denmark, Saxon - from old Saxony in Germany. Anglo-Saxons are a combination of two subtribes that includes in its Nordic race Norsemen or Vikings, Swabians, Franks, Goths, Vandals, Rus, and many others all calling themselves by different tribal names, but all belonging to the same Nordic race with the same original homeland and ancestors.

Racially there is no difference between an American or Englishman of Anglo-Saxon stock, and a Dane or German of Anglo-Saxon-Swabian stock, a Scot or Irishman of Viking-Celtic-Norman- Saxon stock, and a Swede, South African, or Australian of similarly varied Nordic stock. If it were not for our languages it would be impossible to distinguish between us merely by our looks, simply because as members of one racial family we are alike. Black hair - brown eyes, blond hair - gray eyes, but mostly sandy hair and blue eyes, and compared with other races, tall. Our skin color and facial features are typically our own and cannot be confused with other races.

Whatever the nationality of our ancestors we are all kinsmen belonging to the same Nordic race.

Our History - ch.2

The history of our race is an epic story which should thrill the hearts of our youth who will in turn strive toward further greatness.

Unfortunately, in many of our institutions of learning more emphasis is placed on what was done than on who did it. According to many present-day histories, Darwin was an Englishman, Leonardo Da Vinci an Italian, Thomas Jefferson an American, Frederick the Great a Prussian, Julius Caesar a Roman, and Alexander the Great a Greek. These historical tidbits are true but they are not the whole truth. Individually each of these examples, while interesting, is comparatively trivial when compared with the overpowering greater truth - that these heroes of the past were racial kinsmen, products of the same race. In their veins flowed the very same blood which flows in our veins today, the blood of the Nordic.

The Birth of Nordic Nations - ch.3

At a very early date the first of our Nordic kinsmen swept out of the North down into the Greek peninsula, the Italian peninsula, and into Asia Minor. Killing or driving out the original inhabitants of these lands, they settled and founded the Persian Empire, the Grecian Empire, and the Roman Empire.

These great Empires which our Nordic peoples founded, while impressive, were important only to the extent to which they helped protect the heart of the nations where children could be born and reared, and provided an atmosphere in which the greatest treasure of our race could be brought into practical being.

This treasure, so obvious that it is often overlooked, is nothing more than the simple everyday "idea" or original thought.

With a chance to put their ideas into effect our kinsmen built ships, canals, irrigation ditches, temples, monuments, and aqueducts. They conceived religions of the most advanced sort, medicine and surgery, astronomy, navigation, and a host of other professions, ideas, methods, and things.

It has been suggested that if a group of Nordics were placed almost anywhere, in complete isolation, in a few generations they would produce a thriving civilization.

Thus it was that our Nordic cousins poured over the mountains of northern India, conquered the nation and created the great Indian culture. The same is true of Spain, France, Germany, England, America, Australia and South Africa. In fact, wherever they have gone, ideas, progress and achievements have been their handmaiden.

But there is a note of tragedy in this great story of our race, and it follows a constant pattern. Why is it that Sweden, England and Germany, nations with limited natural resources, can have a progressive, active culture after more than 2,000 years, and such mighty nations as Rome, Greece, Persia, India, Portugal and Spain produce for a few centuries - and fall . . . fall never to rise again under their own efforts?

Some historians blame this on politics, morals, lawlessness, cycle, debt, and a host of other reasons. England, Germany and Sweden have gone through each of these crises scores of times without allowing their countries and cultures to fall into disuse and decay.

To blame the fall of Rome and Greece on their morals, debt or decay, is very like blaming a plow horse for not winning the Kentucky Derby because of the lack of oats, too little exercise, or poor environment. These arguments may have merit, but the fact must be faced that a plow horse has never, can never, and will never win the Kentucky Derby, simply because he is a plow horse.

A Man O' War, if bred to a plow horse, is not likely to produce another Man o' War. The chances are further diminished as each successive generation is bred to other plow horses. Rome and Greece ran their first races as a Man o' War, their last as plow horses. The men who followed the Roman Eagles and served in the Grecian Phalanxes from the birth to Golden Ages of these nations were a different breed - indeed, a different race - from those who ran before their foes in the declining years of these nations. They were no longer Nordics. We are blood kin to the creators of Rome and Greece but not to the breeds that fed on the remains of these nations and fell with them.

How did this happen? It all follows a constant pattern with a few minor differences.

The Ancient World - Sect.II Greece - ch.4

Alexander the Great destroyed Greece. With all of his conquests and glory, he did more to destroy Greece than any man or group of men of his time.

Somehow, probably from one of his teachers, Alexander became fascinated with the illusion that all that was needed to create a paradise on earth was for all non-Greeks to assimilate the Nordic Grecian culture. Putting theories into action, he built temples and centers of learning in the lands of the nations he conquered. He sent hundreds of these conquered half-caste people back to Greece to be trained as teachers and thousands more as slaves.

In a few years jackals roamed in the ruins of these far flung temples, and the thousands of mixed-blood slaves became free and married into the native stock of Greece, changing it from Nordic into something else. In spite of his good intentions Alexander betrayed and destroyed his nation and his race. What the Persian armies and others could not do, he did. It would seem that a man of his high intelligence and training would have known that there has never been a Nordic culture which has outlived its creators. Perhaps it may linger on for two or three generations, or even five or six generations, but the day always comes when weeds grow on the ruins, and half- breed peoples pass by and cast uninterested eyes upon the beautifully sculptured column which is a monument to the vanished Nordic.

Rome - ch.5

No army destroyed Nordic Rome. Nordic Rome destroyed herself before the first enemy entered her gates.

Nordic Rome conquered the world, and in doing so brought the world to Rome - as slaves. Half-breed Greeks, half-breed Egyptians, Asiatics, some Franks, and many Negroes from the slave trading nation of Egypt - all these were added to the population of Rome. Rome became the great melting pot of the world. Efforts were made in both Rome and Greece to keep our Nordic stock pure, but these efforts were to no avail when pitted against the desire to accumulate cheap slave labor. As no Nordic-culture survives its creators, Rome fell - as had been foreseen by her own historians and philosophers. It is from these and other examples that we arrive at a law of genetics which is as true today as it was 5,000 years ago, and as it will be 5,000 years from now.

When a race which produces original thought breeds with a race which produces little or no original thought, the resulting breed is a failure.

The resulting breeds who fell heir to Greece and Rome were comparative failures. Our Nordic race in these nations was betrayed and destroyed by their own Nordic countrymen who, for selfish purposes, became Race Traitors.

Herman - ch.6

(16 B.C. - 21 A.D.) During the days of the Roman Empire it was the standard policy of Rome to recruit soldiers in one part of the empire and send them to garrison outposts in other parts of the empire. Rome was planning the conquest of Germany, which probably meant that Asiatic or African soldiers would be sent to garrison these lands when they were conquered. This news was not well received by Nordic soldiers in the Roman service. One of them, an officer named Herman, determined to do everything he could to prevent it. Using the cloak of official business to travel extensively beyond the Rhine, he aroused the scattered German peoples who formed a confederation to fight the coming invasion.

At last, preparations for the invasion were complete and the crack Roman divisions wound their way across the Rhine into the forests of Germany.

It was in the Teutoberg Forest that Herman and his warriors waited. They knew that the powerful Roman army which wound its way through the forest was less able to defend itself while on the march than at any other time. And, too, in the thickets of the woods the superior fighting ability of the individual Nordic warrior could be used to the best advantage.

When the Romans reached the desired position, Herman had the trumpet sounded - a call which was immediately drowned by the clash of battle axes and swords on shields. The most important battle in the history of our race was on.

Three days later it was over. The Roman divisions were completely annihilated. Caesar wept when he heard the news. The Nordic world rejoiced. If the Roman conquest had been successful, and Asiatic and African troops had been sent to garrison the northern lands, it would only have been a matter of time until our enslaved race would have followed the Roman conquerors into the whirlpool of miscegenation. We owe our existence today to Herman and his brave men who fought in the depths of the Teutoberg Forest nineteen centuries ago.

Okiereddust

2005-01-08 02:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Here's another article on CI from the Christian Research Institute (the late Walter Martin's organization): [url]http://www.equip.org/free/DI100.htm[/url]

Another interesting article, slightly less shrill PC in tone.

Again though, some of the cultural/social/political views of the author come from a rather PC mainstream perspective, but hopefully you can see some common theological themes.

I see the themes, but what for me makes it hard to accept their reasoning when coming through you is their [I]a priori[/I]asumption that the chief problem with CI is its anti-semitism, not its faulty biblical exegesis of Gen Chapters 1-3-11.

As this article points out, CI teachers do differ widely on the interpretation of Gen 1-3-11, (as do, BTW non CI orthodox teachers, let alone modernist ones). What makes them all the same to these people is their end conclusion, which we practically have pretty much come to agree on - the "jewish question" is a valid one, which must be dealt with.

After all a lot of these writers themselves do not take Gen 1-11 athoritatively anyway, interpreting it liberally to suit their own conclusions. They aren't objecting to the liberal process at all, just the anti-semitic conclusions. When one agrees with them in a limited matter one also needs to acknowledge this for perspective.

Arguably, there are a fair number of obscure lineage related declarations and curses in Gen 1-11. It is not unprecendented in biblical history to use them, just to obsess with them. There some judgements of the groups and teacher's nature and maturity are called into play.

This is a very thoughtful post Okie and I thank you for it. More often than not and especially on-line, whenever terms like orthodoxy and heresy start getting bandied about the discussion quickly descends into bitter polemics. Issues quickly get cloudy and bogged down and we lose sight of the real people that are making the arguments, asking questions, etc. in the first place. I know I'm as guilty as anybody. Couple that with limited time and, well, sometimes I wonder if these internet forums do more harm than good. I hope you don't think I'm attacking, ridiculing or berating anything here because I don't mean to come off that way. That's a comon criticism of religious debates in general today, which is perhaps why they've gone out of style. But you've always been scrupulous and meticulous in your judgements. One also needs to be frank, as you note as we have limited amounts of time.

And orthodoxy is usually defined in reaction to heresy. Think of the how the ancient creeds came about.

From what I know and what I've read from sources I believe to be credible, CI is at-bottom a mix of Anglo-Israelism and dual/serpent-seed doctrine. In my opinion, the former is silly and ultimately just a distraction, but the latter takes one outside the pale of historic, Christian orthodoxy.

True, but todays religious process, with regard to history, has no trump card over CI. It's methods largely are as heretical as CI's themselves. That's why they always sort of quickly jump to exegesis parts to the conclusions - CI is [I]per se[/I] bad because it is anti-semitic, whatever the original process of the exegesis was.

To a certain extent I suspect CI's hardline nature reflects a certain mirror image liberalism in response. The religious world develops methods to twist scriptures to "prove" God is a multiculturalist one-worlder. If CI has developed in a liberal fashion some mirror images anti-multicultural doctrines, that may just reflect its theological limitations, but I think you do need to acknowledge some of their good patriotic instincts.

These are good points and I understand your position. Even my own Missouri Synod gets hammered from every side imaginable in the cultural and religious wars.

Amen. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't even jump in to this hornets nest if I didn't care for my brothers and potential doctrinal error. I consider these things very seriously. Politics, culture and even societies come and go, but the Word of God will stand throughout eternity. Bottom line, test everything in the light of the Holy Scriptures, the final authority for all belief, doctrine and religion.[/QUOTE]True. To be theologically credible, ones theology must be more than good politics. Right-wingers in a sense are subjected to a stricter standard here than mainstreamers, but we must just learn to accept it.

That is the lesson of MacDonald after all. To be really of use in a hostile environment, a groups ideology and theology must go overboard to be meticulously reasonable and credible today.

That's obviously where today's CI has its limitations. It may serve as a place where people with a political bias to that effect can study scriptures and know more about the Lord in a way, albeit perhaps in a limited fashion. But it is limited here because of its pecularities. And regarding America as a whole, one isn't certainly isn't likely to be drawn into the movement, changing ones world-view dramatically by studying CI doctrine, they way people are by say studying MacDonald. It just seems too limited, even in its best expositions.

But I do have to admire their dedication in a way when you get to know them. I don't think they're just being opportunists. In today's post-Christian world they could have gone with a number of more flashy ideological paradigms to articulate their national instincts. Sticking with a Christian one, even an obviously imperfect one especially from our view, requires a certain amount of dedication I think on the part of some of them. As you note above, one needs to acknowlege this and their real life efforts, even if by some perspectives including ours there is still a pretty big gap between where they have gone and historic orthodox Christianity if you take a detailed look at their theology.

Blond Knight

2005-01-08 02:49 | User Profile

Near the bottom of the following article Hoskins expounds on some of his CI doctrines:

Saxon Identity: [url]http://richardhoskins.com/2_hr0197.htm[/url]

Blond Knight

2005-01-08 03:09 | User Profile

[url]http://richardhoskins.com/333hr.htm[/url]

Liberal's Reward "Sir Garfield Todd, former Prime Minister of Rhodesia and long- time loyal supporter of Robert Mugabe - and one of the few Whites the dictator recognized as having been a champion of the `liberation' struggle - has been deprived of his Zimbabwe citizenship.

"Earlier, a disillusioned Todd, 93, had attacked Mugabe's seizure of White farms. ... In early February Todd received a registered letter from the home affairs ministry advising that he had ceased to be a Zimbabwe citizen. ...

"Todd now says: `I am horrified by the destruction of our economy, the starving of our people, the undermining of our constitution, the torture and humiliation of our nation by Zanu- PF.'" Aida Parker Newsletter, PO Box 91059, Auckland Park 2006, South Africa, Annual sub airmail U.S. $80.

RKH: Brainwashed liberals are sick people. They are shocked into reality only when looking into the gun barrel of an hereditary enemy whom they selflessly tried to help. Until then, they blindly step over the bodies of their own kinsmen vainly attempting to build the forbidden Tower of Babel

Blond Knight

2005-01-08 03:37 | User Profile

[url]http://richardhoskins.com/332hr.htm[/url]

Solving The Perception Problem It is difficult to promote the integration needed to develop mixed-race Cartel subjects when Saxons perceive aliens as being either criminals or potential criminals.

This problem was solved when the Cartel instructed its media to stop reporting the criminal's race. When the criminal's race is unknown - the criminal is whomever the media says it is. One day, all across the Saxon world, newspapers stopped reporting that most criminals were aliens.

Today, if 100 crimes are committed and 97 are committed by aliens and three by Saxons - the Saxon's crime is reported and lawlessness by aliens is ignored.

This media censorship tends to mold opinion to believe that Saxons commit most violent crimes and those crimes are "hate" crimes. I have never seen a written Cartel document confirming this policy, but I know the policy exists. "Policy" is unofficial - an agreement less visible - but no less binding.

Okiereddust

2005-01-08 05:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Blond Knight]Near the bottom of the following article Hoskins expounds on some of his CI doctrines:

Saxon Identity: [url]http://richardhoskins.com/2_hr0197.htm[/url][/QUOTE[QUOTE]

• The Israel of the Bible has vanished and the churches are now "spiritual Israel" who take the promises and covenants made to Israel as their own. Their tax-exempt ministers speak for God. 
• The answer is that the Israel of the Bible has not vanished. Churches are NOT "spiritual Israel." God's promises were made to our ancestors and their descendants forever, we are those descendants. 

[/QUOTE]

---

Yeah weird really. Pretty much like the arguments of the dispensationalists against orthodox Christianity. Obviously where he got it from.

I dunno. CI in some ways seems just such a weird amalgam of all sorts of things - pull in one thing here and another thing there. Unlike the mainstream I don't see it as sinister at all. In fact I don't see how it really is a threat.

And its confusing to the western mind and I'm sure a lot of other racialists. Here we talking about MacDonald's theories on the Jewish question, and they're saying that on the contrary we are all actually Jews themselves and we should start obeying dietary laws or whatever, etc.

I don't really know what Gerald L. K. Smith was thinking when he introduced Anglo-Israelism, but I suspect he probably thought it wouldn't go as far as people would take it.

---

il ragno

2005-01-08 07:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE]I don't really know what Gerald L. K. Smith was thinking when he introduced Anglo-Israelism, but I suspect he probably thought it wouldn't go as far as people would take it.[/QUOTE]

You can say that about a lot of people, probably including Christ himself.

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-08 21:41 | User Profile

[quote=okiereddust]]I don't really know what Gerald L. K. Smith was thinking when he introduced Anglo-Israelism, but I suspect he probably thought it wouldn't go as far as people would take it. [QUOTE=il ragno]You can say that about a lot of people, probably including Christ himself.[/QUOTE] No, I Christ was not fallible as men are, and those who think he is argue he is and made mistakes feel go in quite a different direction than me err in, re thinking he thought the apocalpyse imminent. Not something men usually argue.

Rather in regards to things like Anglo-Israelism which Smith introduced, he thought of them as matters of political opinion, and didn't see them as becoming elements of rigid religious dogma.

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-09 09:11 | User Profile

“I'd avoid like the plague the Anninius & Sapphira bunch on Stormfront, namely self-ordained 'Pastor&Pastoress' Klunt and Ksludge Downey, at [url="http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/"]http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/[/url] " M. Lindstedt

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Very interesting indeed. Thanks for digging up this material, wherever you found it.

From my perspective, a very questionable source, and hence the reason for my 1st post here. I am a traditionalist, having come from a Methodist background, with a conservative pro-American heartland upbringing. [url="http://women.stormfront.org/writings/women.htm"]I wrote an article about my background[/url], so you can understand where I come from. I am Klaliff at Stormfront, but I go by Lydia at other parts of the Web. The name Lydia is taken out of the books of Acts.

I see intelligent discussion in this thread (and it was this thread that garnered my attention, based on the questionable data in il ragno's posted e-mail). I'm somewhat surprised to still see sexually explicit terms in that post (Klunt?), especially in a forum of what appears to be intelligent traditionalist Christians.

I have been in CI since the mid 70's, so I know more than a little about the CI Movement. Pardon me if I make a couple corrections here: Kingdom Identity Ministries is Mike Hallimore, not Charles Robb. And Charles Robb is not Thom Robb, who was the author of the article of the thread starter. And Martin Lindstedt is not an example of Christian Identity. He is a part of the lunatic fringe that has you all so wary. And indeed, you should be.

The adherents of the Christian Identity Movement have an emphasis of trying to get our people back to God by trying to make them understand our responsibilities as Christians. Yes we have the fringe element, such as the Seedliners. Seedline tends to emphasize who the jews are; non Seedline identifies more who WE are. Seedline is a doctrine within the CI Movement, but it is not the main current.

The main current is people coming from Traditional Christianity who discover an important key in understanding much of what the Bible speaks of. Much of Traditional Christianity has departed from most of the laws of God, except for the Ten Commandments. But the laws are still in effect, except the sacrificial laws (Christ is now our Passover lamb) and the temple ordinances.

Our model is the first century Christian church, in which Christianity is a way of life, rather than an organized religion. We are a Movement, not a religion. We believe in the deity of Christ and what His life, death and resurrection represents for our race (i.e. redeemed by our Savior). Christian Identity has restored the racial message of the Gospels as a result of mainstream churches teaching universalism and multicultural diversity within the last 150 years or so.

You mentioned Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male or female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus". In context it is actually speaking of Judahites in Judea who were one of the twelve tribes of Israel and the Greeks in this verse were the Israelites who were of the 10 tribes dispersed from their Assyrian captivity and migrated to the Greece (and other parts of the Mediterranean). It certainly didn't imply that men and women would become generalists. The last verse in that chapter "And if ye be Christ, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" means spiritual Israelites (those who converted to Christianity) that were within a physical Israel (White race) in the secular world were to inherit the promises of God to which all of the covenants applied.

Regarding the comment, "like that old French saying - when you have two Dutchman - you have a church. When you have three Dutchman, you have a schism" .... My husband wrote that the greatest tragedy [font=Verdana]The greatest tragedy within our Movement is the plurality of lone wolves. There is a problem of proximity to like-minded people, but there is also the problem of [url="http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/TwoPrides.htm"]pride[/url] that prevents our posterity from prospering. People are too stiff necked to let go of what day to worship on, or what name to call God, or how wet to get when we get baptized or who fathered Cain. These are all doctrines that divide our Movement. Part of the problem is that we have a leadership crisis in CI. Martin Lindstedt implied that we were jealous of Pete Peters. It's not jealousy that my husband speaks out against Pete Peters, but his lack of accountability regarding his personal life, as well as his flip-flop theology. We've learned to say no to craziness such as reptilians from outer space and some of the unbiblical rituals (i.e. Pete Peter's Door Days and James Wickstom's animal sacrifices).

We at Kinsman Redeemer have a regular Sunday worship with like minded people, in which we observe communion, sing hymns, worship and fellowship. Our website speaks for itself, as trying to dispense with denominationalism and advance the [/font][font=Verdana]Kingdom[/font][font=Verdana] of [/font][font=Verdana]God[/font][font=Verdana]. If there are those who ostracize us, we have others who are drawn towards it. If such a man as Martin Lindstedt reviles us, then I know we're doing right. If people are attracted to profanity, then there's nothing we can do about that, other than to say that's not how we conduct ourselves as Christians.[/font]

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-09 09:42 | User Profile

Here is a list of websites. It's an old list. ***

Christian Israel Sites ** *

Kinsman Redeemer Ministries: [url="http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/"]http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/[/url]

Christian Separatist Church Society: [url="http://www.christianseparatist.org/"]http://www.christianseparatist.org/[/url]

Wiesman Publications: [url="http://www.seek-info.com/"]http://www.seek-info.com/[/url]

Open Bible Ministries: [url="http://www.1335.com/"]http://www.1335.com/[/url]

Stone Kingdom Ministries: [url="http://www.stonekingdom.org/"]http://www.stonekingdom.org/[/url]

America's Promise Ministries: [url="http://amprom.org/"]http://amprom.org/[/url]

Artisan Publishers: [url="http://www.artisanpublishers.com/"]http://www.artisanpublishers.com[/url]

Covenant Vision Ministry: [url="http://homepage.idx.com.au/fdowsett/"]http://homepage.idx.com.au/fdowsett/[/url]

Gospel Broadcasting Association: [url="http://www.broadcaster.org/"]http://www.broadcaster.org/[/url]

Truth In History Publications: [url="http://www.truthinhistory.org/"]http://www.truthinhistory.org[/url]

Virginia Publishing Company: [url="http://www.richardhoskins.com/"]http://www.richardhoskins.com[/url]

Christian Research: [url="http://www.christianresearch.info/"]http://www.christianresearch.info[/url]

Destiny Publishers: [url="http://destinypublishers.com/"]http://destinypublishers.com/[/url]

Moses Hand: [url="http://www.moseshand.com/"]http://www.moseshand.com/[/url]

The Lord's Work, Inc: [url="http://www.thelordswork.ws/"]http://www.thelordswork.ws[/url]

Christian Israel.com: [url="http://www.christianisrael.com/"]http://www.christianisrael.com/[/url]

Christian Israel.org: [url="http://www.christianisrael.org/"]http://www.christianisrael.org/[/url]

Oracles of Yah: [url="http://www.oraclesofyah.org/"]http://www.oraclesofyah.org/[/url]

Bible Myths: [url="http://www.biblemyths.com/"]http://www.biblemyths.com/[/url]

Debunking the False Church: [url="http://www.debunkingtfc.com/"]http://www.debunkingtfc.com/[/url]

First Century Christian Ministries: [url="http://www.angloisrael.com/"]http://www.angloisrael.com/[/url]

The Lord's Work, Inc.: [url="http://www.thelordswork.ws/"]http://www.thelordswork.ws/[/url]

Where I Stand: [url="http://www.pottsnet.com/stand/"]http://www.pottsnet.com/stand/[/url]

Israel's Regathering: [url="http://www.israelsregathering.org/"]http://www.israelsregathering.org/[/url]

God's Hidden Mysteries: [url="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/9150/"]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/9150/[/url]

Keep Standing For the Truth: [url="http://www.victoryone.org/"]http://www.victoryone.org[/url]

Two Seedline Christian Israel Sites

Anglo-Saxon Israel: [url="http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com"]http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com[/url] (Recommended)

Church of True Israel: [url="http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/"]http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com[/url]

Church of the Sons of Yvhh: [url="http://www.churchofthesonsofyhvh.org/"]http://www.churchofthesonsofyhvh.org[/url]

Children of Yahweh: [url="http://www.childrenofyahweh.com/"]http://www.childrenofyahweh.com[/url]

New Christian Crusade Church: [url="http://www.newchristiancrusadechurch.com/"]http://www.newchristiancrusadechurch.com[/url]

Christian Defense League: [url="http://www.cdlreport.com/"]http://www.cdlreport.com[/url]

Sons of Liberty Bookstore: [url="http://www.sonsoflibertybooks.com/"]http://www.sonsoflibertybooks.com[/url]

Orange County Assembly of Christ: [url="http://www.ocassemblyofchrist.org/"]http://www.ocassemblyofchrist.org/[/url]

11th Hour Remnant Messenger: [url="http://www.televar.com/%7Evb11thhr/index.html"]http://www.televar.com/~vb11thhr/index.html[/url]

Only Christians: [url="http://onlychristians.bravepages.com/"]http://onlychristians.bravepages.com[/url]

The Reformed Church of Israel: [url="http://www.reformedchurchofisrael.com/"]http://www.reformedchurchofisrael.com[/url]

Christian Identity: [url="http://www.christianidentity.org.uk/"]http://www.christianidentity.org.uk[/url]

Get Rude Ministries: [url="http://www.gertrudeministries.org/"]http://www.gertrudeministries.org[/url]

Shepherd's Chapel: [url="http://www.shepherdschapel.org/"]http://www.shepherdschapel.org[/url]

British Israel Sites

Association of the Covenant People: [url="http://associationcovenantpeople.org/"]http://associationcovenantpeople.org/[/url] (Recommended)

British Israel World Federation: [url="http://www.britishisrael.co.uk/"]http://www.britishisrael.co.uk/[/url]

British Israel World Federation(Canada): [url="http://www.british-israel-world-fed.ca/"]http://www.british-israel-world-fed.ca[/url]

Canadian British-Israel Federation: [url="http://cbia.israelite.info/"]http://cbia.israelite.info/[/url]

Orange Street Congregational Church: [url="http://www.orange-street-church.org/"]http://www.orange-street-church.org/[/url]

Covenant People's Fellowship: [url="http://www.covenant.btinternet.co.uk/"]http://www.covenant.btinternet.co.uk/[/url]

British Israel Church of God: [url="http://www.british-israel.ca/"]http://www.british-israel.ca/[/url]

Cry Aloud: [url="http://www.cryaloud.com/"]http://www.cryaloud.com/[/url]

Ensign Message: [url="http://www.ensignmessage.com/"]http://www.ensignmessage.com/[/url] (Recommended)

Revival Fellowship: [url="http://www.trf.org.au/"]http://www.trf.org.au/[/url]

Christian Assemblies International: [url="http://www.cai.org.au/"]http://www.cai.org.au/[/url]

Calling Lost Israel: [url="http://www.lostisrael.com/"]http://www.lostisrael.com/[/url]

Lost Tribes of Israel: [url="http://www.asis.com/%7Estag/losttrib.html"]http://www.asis.com/~stag/losttrib.html[/url]

Ultimate B. I. Church of God Link List: [url="http://www.coglinks.org/britisrael.html"]http://www.coglinks.org/britisrael.html[/url]

Israelite Info" [url="http://www.israelite.info/"]http://www.israelite.info/[/url]

Origin of Nations: [url="http://www.originofnations.org/"]http://www.originofnations.org/[/url]

The Signs Following Ministry: [url="http://www.truth.ministryonthe.powertap.net/"]http://www.truth.ministryonthe.powertap.net/[/url]

The Tribulational Institute: [url="http://www.tribulationalinstitute.com/"]http://www.tribulationalinstitute.com/[/url]

Megiddo Publications: [url="http://www.megiddo.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/"]http://www.megiddo.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/[/url]

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-09 17:25 | User Profile

I will add one more link and that is an in-depth discussion on the differences between Traditionalist Christianity and CI.

[url="http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=110094"]What is the Difference Between Traditionalist Christianity and CI[/url]

Most Traditionalist Christians have a skewed view of CI beliefs because of what they have seen from the Seedline adherents. Most Traditionalists don't understand that CIers do not vary from the basic Christian concepts, with the exception of adding the emphasis on race. In early Christianity, it was understood that non Whites were not on the same level as Whites and so there was not much said about race, other than what Jesus said about not going to any but the lost sheep of the House of Israel. That has now gone way overboard in today's politically correct climate and multiculturalism and judaism (a belief the jews are God's chosen and that God's law is not in effect) are now the norm in our churches.

If you want to see a non-denominational CI belief, my recommendation is that you read the [url="http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/Guidelines.htm"]Church Guidelines for Kinsman Redeemer[/url].

---

il ragno

2005-01-09 20:22 | User Profile

My apologies if anyone was offended.

I happened to see that Lindstedt thing, saw the discussion here on CI, and figured [I]the shoe fit[/I]....

It seems to me, however, that CI - for a movement relatively small in numbers - is fatally beset with infighting factions and subfactions and subsubfactions. So many (and so heated in their intramural squabbling), in fact, that I fail to see how [I]anyone [/I] can claim the mantle of Official Spokesman for the CI "majority".

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-09 21:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]My apologies if anyone was offended.

I happened to see that Lindstedt thing, saw the discussion here on CI, and figured [I]the shoe fit[/I].... Overall it was a very good post, and I appreciate it. Sometimes material from private e-mail lists does though need to be edited for public display, where the world can see, (not saying they will of course, but they can if they want to), especialy when it involves sensitive personal matters. No biggee

It seems to me, however, that CI - for a movement relatively small in numbers - is fatally beset with infighting factions and subfactions and subsubfactions. So many (and so heated in their intramural squabbling), in fact, that I fail to see how [I]anyone [/I] can claim the mantle of Official Spokesman for the CI "majority".[/QUOTE]I.e, its just like the rest of WN in that respect. Actually I don't see how anyone is claiming that mantle anyway.

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-09 23:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Overall it was a very good post, and I appreciate it. Sometimes material from private e-mail lists does though need to be edited for public display, where the world can see, (not saying they will of course, but they can if they want to), especialy when it involves sensitive personal matters. No biggee

I.e, its just like the rest of WN in that respect. Actually I don't see how anyone is claiming that mantle anyway.[/QUOTE] I know I wasn't claiming the mantle, but apparently most of you have had dealings with the present day Seedliners that has made you react in an adverse manner towards the CI camp. That is why I decided to spend a little time informing you of the other side of CI. I used to be Seedline, having learned CI from Butler and Louis Beam. I also studied with Dualist adherent Robert Miles. Never had I heard the emnity line between those who believed in Seedline and those who didn't. It was always about jews vs. Whites. But then someone came out with the theory that those who don't believe in Seedline have tainted blood. They would be wrong.

As I said, we try to tend to the spiritual needs of Christians rather than the political needs, although faith, politics and fellowship all are important to the overall well-being of any activist. In the past few years, my personal observation is that the Seedline adherents are more into politics and jew-hating than bringing people closer to God. I try not to bash it, having known many, MANY good people who believed in the Seedline doctrine.

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-10 00:30 | User Profile

I see Martin Lindstedt has found out that I am here. Time will tell how he will trash your board as he has trashed so many others.

---

Texas Dissident

2005-01-10 01:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=lydia_the_faithful]We believe in the deity of Christ and what His life, death and resurrection represents for our race (i.e. redeemed by our Savior).[/QUOTE]

What about other races?

---

wild_bill

2005-01-10 01:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=lydia_the_faithful]I will add one more link and that is an in-depth discussion on the differences between Traditionalist Christianity and CI.

[url="http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=110094"]What is the Difference Between Traditionalist Christianity and CI[/url]

Most Traditionalist Christians have a skewed view of CI beliefs because of what they have seen from the Seedline adherents. Most Traditionalists don't understand that CIers do not vary from the basic Christian concepts, with the exception of adding the emphasis on race. In early Christianity, it was understood that non Whites were not on the same level as Whites and so there was not much said about race, other than what Jesus said about not going to any but the lost sheep of the House of Israel. That has now gone way overboard in today's politically correct climate and multiculturalism and judaism (a belief the jews are God's chosen and that God's law is not in effect) are now the norm in our churches.

If you want to see a non-denominational CI belief, my recommendation is that you read the [url="http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/Guidelines.htm"]Church Guidelines for Kinsman Redeemer[/url].[/QUOTE]

There are many CI'ers who deny such basics as the Trinity, water baptism, and many are hung up over the King James issue and obsessed with prophesy.

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-10 02:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]What about other races?[/QUOTE] We believe that God holds the answer to salvation, but that God uses mankind as deliverers from the enemies of God. We are commanded to take dominion of the earth, and therefore are not to compromise God's government with the traditions of man. The traditions of man (or the Pharisees) is what Christ soundly denounced. And we have our fair share of modern Pharisees today. God uses the other races as a rod of chastisement. * "Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing?"* Ps. 2:1. The other races can be blessed by God if they know their place within His creation. The same is true of White man knowing his place.

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-10 03:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]There are many CI'ers who deny such basics as the Trinity, water baptism, and many are hung up over the King James issue and obsessed with prophesy.[/QUOTE] We believe in the Godhead (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). We believe in the biblical significance of water baptism. We use the King James in our worship service and Bible studies alongside with other versions.

We believe that all prophecy has been given (but not fulfilled).

Bear in mind, I speak for our ministry and not for all of CI. In regards to all the splits, there have been splits in Christianity through the ages, including Catholic/Orthodox and Protestantism. In the end, we believe in Ephesians where it says, "He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ." Ephesians 4:11-15.

---

Texas Dissident

2005-01-10 06:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=lydia_the_faithful]The other races can be blessed by God if they know their place within His creation.[/QUOTE]

And what is their place vis-a-vis the White race?

---

Texas Dissident

2005-01-10 06:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=lydia_the_faithful]In the end, we believe in Ephesians where it says, "He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ." Ephesians 4:11-15.[/QUOTE]

Sounds great, but what about 2 chapters ahead:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

• Ephesians 2:11-22

---

Franco

2005-01-10 06:46 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]And what is their place vis-a-vis the White race?[/QUOTE]

That whole matter is an ideological trap, as far as I am concerned. As soon as people start equating the races as equal-in-God's-eyes, [I]or even sort-of/almost-equal-in-God's-eyes,[/I] that's when trouble follows [e.g. bogus civil-rights laws that curb the rights of Whites, etc.].

In fact, wondering what God thinks about race at all is ideologically hazardous and should be avoided at all costs. Because how could anyone know what God thinks about race? Just look around and figure out which race is superior.

---

---

Texas Dissident

2005-01-10 07:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]That whole matter is an ideological trap, as far as I am concerned. As soon as people start equating the races as equal-in-God's-eyes, [I]or even sort-of/almost-equal-in-God's-eyes,[/I] that's when trouble follows [e.g. bogus civil-rights laws that curb the rights of Whites, etc.].

Not necessarily, Franco. If I take the Scriptures at face value and believe them when they state that all mankind is sinful by nature and in need of Christ, the redeemer, does that mean I should neglect the needs of my own flesh and blood in order to take care of the kids down the street or across town? Of course not. In fact, the Scriptures are quite clear that a man will be held responsible for his own household/family. So what you suggest here is the practical result of mankind's spiritual equality is really just faulty Biblical exegesis, if anything.

In fact, wondering what God thinks about race at all is ideologically hazardous and should be avoided at all costs. Because how could anyone know what God thinks about race?

Well, to start one could read the Bible. I will grant you that any conclusions drawn will depend on proper hermeneutics. But as a confessing Lutheran, I believe that the totality of Scripture points the way to Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross two thousand years ago. Everything else flows from and out of that.

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-11 00:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] I agree. In my opinion, the core, central, defining part of CI is 'serpent seed' doctrine.

Serpent seed doctrine is not agreed upon by the majority of CIers. If that is all you've had experience with, then I can understand how you came to that conclusion. The area that I live in, I don't know any CIers who subscribe to the Seedline doctrine.

WCOTC is hostile to Christianity. They don't like Christian Identity adherents anymore than they like Lutherans. And we don't like them either.

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-11 01:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]And what is their place vis-a-vis the White race?[/QUOTE] It is our belief that their place is not to be what God has designated for Israel. What He has put forth in the Bible for Israel only does not pertain to the other races. And by that, we know what their place is not. (Romans 9:4 pertains to Israelites).

Additionally, in a perfect world, the other races would have their national integrity with their own borders and their own system of government in place, and therefore, proximity would not be an issue. Part of the problem we have today is that we're in a mixed multitude in a forced egalitarian society and there is confusion (Babylon). God is not the author of confusion and the tower of Babal is not our model.

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-11 01:38 | User Profile

We believe that the book of Ephesians is about Paul's visit to the lost Israelites (gentiles) who had settled in Ephesus after the Assyrian captivity. They had gotten away from the rituals which then made them "unclean" to those who had been following the rituals. But Paul told them that didn't matter, because the New Covenant in Christ Jesus made them as one with those who had been following the rituals.

It's kind of like where we are today in which we disagree on what 'traditional' Christianity is, but we should be at peace with each other through Christ Jesus, because in the end, the New Covenant unifies all of us.

I should say that CI adherents do believe that it was not a new group of people that the New Covenant was given, and that can be substiantiated in more than one place in the New Testament, but in particular, Romans 9:4.

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Sounds great, but what about 2 chapters ahead:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

• Ephesians 2:11-22[/QUOTE]

---

Texas Dissident

2005-01-11 16:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=lydia_the_faithful]It is our belief that their place is not to be what God has designated for Israel. What He has put forth in the Bible for Israel only does not pertain to the other races.

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." - Matthew 28:18-20

And by that, we know what their place is not. (Romans 9:4 pertains to Israelites).

Yes, it does, but please continue to read on and see the plain meaning of the text. St.Paul is lamenting how his racial brothers will not be saved. The text is quite perspicuous and directly opposed to Christian Identity doctrine.

"For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring..."

"For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

---

Texas Dissident

2005-01-11 16:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=lydia_the_faithful]We believe that the book of Ephesians is about Paul's visit to the lost Israelites (gentiles) who had settled in Ephesus after the Assyrian captivity.

Pray tell your source for this, Lydia.

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-11 17:55 | User Profile

Dual-Seedline Christian Identity was introduced into Identity to discredit it, and it has.

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-12 02:23 | User Profile

Texas Dissident,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I see inference that you believe that God changed His mind and now ALL who approach God can be 'saved' through Christ Jesus.

We believe the Bible has a racial message that stayed its course from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21. John 15:16 clearly tells us Who does the choosing. Now you may accuse me that I take that verse out of context, but it fits in the context of the whole Bible: from the everlasting and unconditional convenants given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to Jesus' instructions to His disciples to go ONLY to the lost of the House of Israel in Mt. 10:6 to James who greets "the twelve tribes who are scattered abroad". The parables are meant to be exclusive as explained in Matthew 13:10-17. The reason Christ spoke in parables is so that some wouldn't understand and be converted (v. 15). Verse 12 may not sound quite fair, but that's God. That's where we believe that Christianity has been subverted with the communist ethic of redistribution of wealth and that we are all equal.

From "[url="http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/SomePeopleDontGetIt.htm"]Why Some People Just Don't Get It[/url]" on our website....

"[font=Verdana][size=2] ....

But there is another reason why people just don't get it aside from an unwillingness to understand. That reason comes from God, in His own Word, "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him" (John 6:44). In other words, no man comes to God or understands the things of God, unless God Himself attracts those He chooses. [/size][/font] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Even more astounding to those who just don't get it, is the scriptural assertion of predestination. Nevertheless, that's exactly the premise found in II Timothy 1:9 whereby the Lord has, "Called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." Romans 8:28-30 confirms that those destined by God are an exclusive group. Could it be that only some will be called and therefore others will not understand? That would explain a great deal of the animosities and jealousies of those that haven't gotten the call; or have gotten it and resist it. Consider the plethora of clergy that serve themselves rather than God. Isn't it logical to conclude that they have never been called by God and are impersonating a holy occupation? [/size][/font] [/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]The same could be said about the millions of people who claim to be Christian, not based upon a knowledge of Christianity and what it means, but rather that they attend a church or follow a minister. This would explain the great apostate church of every stripe of self-proclaimed orthodoxy that do not bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom of God. They pontificate incessantly... all for naught, because one brother may be called and chosen and another not. [/size][/font] [/left] [left][font=Verdana][size=2]Paul preaching at Antioch said, "The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt." (Acts 13:17). This was not a choice of the individual, it was a divine decision. Our Savior, Jesus Christ, put it even more succinctly in John 15:16, "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you." Could it be that those who don't get it do so in their own ignorance as they have not been called from the very beginning? They can't get it even if they tried because God has not selected them for His purposes."

[/size][/font][font=Verdana][size=2]....[/size][/font][font=Verdana][size=2]

Regarding your quote of Romans 9:6 [/size][/font]"For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring...", it clearly [u]is[/u] in accordance with CI belief, as it is is talking about the descendents of Esau who misceginated. Verse 8 is a racial message which distinguishes between the children of flesh and the children of the promise (who are counted for the seed, or race) of God: the children of flesh is further explained in Galatians 4:23 and 29, which talks about [size=-1]Ishmael[/size] which distinguishes between the bond woman (Hagaar) and the free woman (Sarah). The descendents of Abraham and Hagar (Ishmaelites) are born after the flesh, but the seedline of the free woman was by promise (and the inference is Sarah - mother of Isaac). Verse 29 makes clear that one was born after the flesh and one was born after the spirit. [/left]

---

wild_bill

2005-01-12 23:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE=lydia_the_faithful]Texas Dissident,

That's where we believe that Christianity has been subverted with the communist ethic of redistribution of wealth and that we are all equal. [/QUOTE]

In what year did this subversion occur? Can you show me any pre-subversion writers who support your position?

I assume you're aware that the New Testament as we know it didn't exist until the fourth century, so presumably the subversion occurred after that. The problem is there's many writings and commentaries from before that time and these don't support the Identity ideas either.

Its very easy to make a vague claim of subversion, but to have any credibility, we need know exactly when this subversion happened and who was the instigator.

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-12 23:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]In what year did this subversion occur? Can you show me any pre-subversion writers who support your position? Now re can disagree about the date but as of today it most certainly has been subverted "with the communist ethic of redistribution of wealth and that we are all equal." as lydia

I assume you're aware that the New Testament as we know it didn't exist until the fourth century, Even the higher critics don't claim that now. I yhink you're saying the NT was the creation of the Church, and not vice versa. Basically you're wrong.

so presumably the subversion occurred after that. The problem is there's many writings and commentaries from before that time and these don't support the Identity ideas either. The general themes of the Church as "the elect" or "the called out" remnant actually certainly are scriptural, as anyone who studies the Bible should know.

---

wild_bill

2005-01-13 20:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Now re can disagree about the date but as of today it most certainly has been subverted "with the communist ethic of redistribution of wealth and that we are all equal." as lydia.

I think most CI adherents allude to something much earlier than the advent of Karl Marx. In any case, whether we're talking about 1860 AD or 190 AD, no writings support these CI theories. That's the point.

Opponents of the original Church like to reference how the Church became "corrupted" (and therefore supposedly lost all claims of legitimacy), but its hard to get these folks to narrow this down to a date.

Even the higher critics don't claim that now. I yhink you're saying the NT was the creation of the Church, and not vice versa. Basically you're wrong.

Who are these "higher critics?" Falwell and Robertson? Some atheist college professor? Maybe we ought to hear the devil's opinion too? LOL!

The general themes of the Church as "the elect" or "the called out" remnant actually certainly are scriptural, as anyone who studies the Bible should know.[/QUOTE]

I'd have to know the context to comment other than to say that the "remnant" usually refers to the small number of Jews representing physical Israel who converted to Christianity in the first part of the first century.

---

Texas Dissident

2005-01-17 20:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=lydia_the_faithful]Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I see inference that you believe that God changed His mind and now ALL who approach God can be 'saved' through Christ Jesus.

Lydia,

I simply believe in what the Scriptures state:

• from Ephesians 1:1-5: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will... and Romans 8:29-30, etc.

• but also from 1 Timothy 2:1-4: Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

In short, we see that God has chosen the elect from the foundation of the world, but also desires all men to be saved. Any speculation or theorizing beyond that on our part takes us further than what the Scriptures plainly state.

We believe the Bible has a racial message that stayed its course from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21.

Of course you do. That is because you are approaching the Scriptures through a pre-conceived, 'racial' lens. Therefore the Word of God is bent and redefined to fit inside your racial hermeneutics. It can be no other way. This is why you make all kinds of twists and turns back to obscure Adamite passages and such when reading St. Paul's crystal clear epistle to Rome concerning salvation being made available to jews (racial) and Greeks (non-jews/gentiles/greeks) alike. With all due respect, you're straining at gnats and missing the entire camel walking right in front of your face.

As Christians, we must let the New Testament interpret the Old as we believe Christ and His Gospel is the event that the totality of Scripture points to. This is what St. Paul is doing in Romans 9, 10 and 11, concerning who is and who isn't the true Israel of God. Like I'm sure most others here, I get baffled as to how you interpret the points concerning the true Israel of God I believe Paul was probably jumping up and down to make in almost all of his epistles, but especially in Romans. And then it becomes clear to me that because you interpret the Scriptures through your racial hermeneutics, you have quite literally redefined all the terms like jew, greek and Israel.

I implore you Lydia and any others mired in Christian Identity groups to begin anew your study of Scripture, but this time being ever watchful not to start off with any pre-conceived notions of race clouding up and distorting the true and beautiful Gospel message, which is most certainly for all men regardless of race or ethnicity. I pray that in His grace and mercy, God will reveal this truth to you.

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-18 01:00 | User Profile

Texas Dissident and wild bill,
Do you believe that all the different races came from Adam and Eve?

---

wild_bill

2005-01-18 01:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Texas Dissident and wild bill,
Do you believe that all the different races came from Adam and Eve?[/QUOTE]

The creation story is primarily an allegory concerning the fall of man, not a biology book.

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-18 01:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]The creation story is primarily an allegory concerning the fall of man, not a biology book.[/QUOTE]

But do you believe that all the races started with the same man and woman?

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-18 01:45 | User Profile

[quote=wild bill]Who are these "higher critics?" Falwell and Robertson? Some atheist college professor? Maybe we ought to hear the devil's opinion too? LOL![QUOTE=wild_bill]The creation story is primarily an allegory concerning the fall of man, not a biology book.[/QUOTE] The higher critics say everything is an allegory of course.

I could get into why the specifics of the creation story are not only important but essential, for things like the fall and every other part of the God-Man story, but first I'd like to know if this is your own personal opinion, or if you got that from the Orthodox Church.

The CI stories of speculations on the creation and "pre-adamite" man certainly seem foreign to what were culturally accostomed to hearing about the Bible these days. But if you don't take the creation stories seriously yourself as a integral part of Christianity and still claim to be a part of historical Christianity, you have no right to complain that someone else's speculations on them by contrast [B]does[/B] exclude them.

---

Walter Yannis

2005-01-18 06:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=lydia_the_faithful]It is our belief that their place is not to be what God has designated for Israel. What He has put forth in the Bible for Israel only does not pertain to the other races. And by that, we know what their place is not. (Romans 9:4 pertains to Israelites).[/QUOTE]

How do you see that in terms of the conversion of the Ethiopian in Acts 8?

[QUOTE]27And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
40But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.[/QUOTE]

I believe that Tradition holds that this was the man who took the Gospel to Ethiopia, the home of one of the most ancient and venerable of all the churches of Christ. The Ethiopans clung fast to the Gospel over 20 centuries, including in the face of terrible Muslim persecutions. The Ethiopian church probably possesses the Ark of the Convenant.

I for one would not wish to say anything that could be construed as counting them out of the Universal Church. That's the sort of thing that could seriously tick off the Big Guy, in my most humble opinion.

Walter

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-20 00:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gabbyrelle]Dual-Seedline Christian Identity was introduced into Identity to discredit it, and it has.[/QUOTE]Dual-Seedline is the CI Orthodoxy. The One-Seedliners are arranged according to who their pastor is. The self-anointed 'Pastor' Downey make hisself a pastor after Larry Blanchard ran off to Tennessee from Port Orchard Washington leaving no forwarding address late 2002. The members of Downey's church is two, counting Downey and Klunt.

Only the stupid Stormfronters believe Klunt and Downey are Christian Identity. Because of their past history, nobody, neither One-Seedliner, Dual-Seedliner, or anyone living in Washington State or parts of Oregon and Idaho have anything to do with the Downeys. Especially if they are Klan or ex-Klan.

Dual-Seedline is simple. The non-whites are 6th Day pre-Adamite man. The jews are the spawn of Satan descended from Satan's seduction of Eve, bearing Cain. There was no world-wide flood, merely a local flood to drown out misceginating, white Adamites. Cain's descendants married into Canaan, and Esau/Edom married two Canaanite females.

Pretty simple. You either believe it or not. Us Dual-Seedliners really don't care if you don't. We prefer it that way. Better to be ignorant than a liar.

The self-serving pastiche making up a bastardized 'Identity' yapped by Klunt and followers is merely something to make fools believe the Downeys are anything other than baal-priests & priestesses. Them dishonest cretins can twist Scripture forever, confounding only other cretins.

I'd stick to good ol' fashioned jew-day-o churchianity before playing with false Identity.

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-20 01:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Sapphira_the_guileful]

Originally Posted by Texas Dissident I agree. In my opinion, the core, central, defining part of CI is 'serpent seed' doctrine.

Serpent seed doctrine is not agreed upon by the majority of CIers. If that is all you've had experience with, then I can understand how you came to that conclusion. The area that I live in, I don't know any CIers who subscribe to the Seedline doctrine.

WCOTC is hostile to Christianity. They don't like Christian Identity adherents anymore than they like Lutherans. And we don't like them either.[/QUOTE]Texas Dissident is correct. The core, central defining part of Christian Identity is Dual-Seedline doctrine. The fake One-Seedliners try to call it 'serpent seed' in order to discredit it. Peters, instead of calling a jew a jew, calls them 'snakes.' However, Peters doesn't bother the Dual-Seedliners as long as we don't bother him. Downey is jealous of Peters because Peters can bring in several hundred to Peters' meetings whereas Downey and Sapphira can only bring in theysselfs. Peters knows all about Downey and so Downey can do nothing but yap like little dogs on yahoo lists and Stormfront against Peters.

Whenever anyone thinks about Christian Identity they think 'Dual-Seedline.' That's the defining doxology. Elsewhere I explained Dual-Seedline as explaining that Adam was the first White man, the other races are Sixth-Day, may have evolved or de-evolved from monkeys. And that Satan is the biological father of Cain, and that there was no worldwide flood, only a local flood to destroy misceginating Adamites. Canaan carried on Cain's line through Esau/Edom. The Khazars are descended from Ashkenaz, Japhet's grandson, but have married into Esau/Edom through Talmudic practices.

Either believe it or don't. We simply don't care. You can't come into the Faith unless Jesus calls you.

Better a typical jew-day-o churchianity believer than a baal-priest pretending to be Identity like the Downeys.

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

Walter Yannis

2005-01-20 07:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I implore you Lydia and any others mired in Christian Identity groups to begin anew your study of Scripture, but this time being ever watchful not to start off with any pre-conceived notions of race clouding up and distorting the true and beautiful Gospel message, which is most certainly for all men regardless of race or ethnicity. I pray that in His grace and mercy, God will reveal this truth to you.[/QUOTE]

Great stuff, and I agree.

The root of the problem is pride. In CI we have individuals - mostly unlearned in ancient languages, history, philosophy, and theology - reading Scripture on their own and drawing ludicrous, ego-feeding conclusions. Interesting that it all redounds to their personal superiority over others, no?

The antidote is even a modicum of Godly humility. The Scriptures themselves come from a long, unbroken Tradition that has spoken to all of these points. Study the Scriptures, but keep in mind that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20 (King James Version))

The Scriptures are to be read in light of the Tradition that produced them. How many CIers have even heard of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, St. Augustine, or St. John Chrysostom? I'm no theologian, but those men most certainly were theologians. They were recognized as such consistently and throughout the ages by the Church, which Scripture itself tells us is "the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15 (King James Version))

We need to study the Scriptures under the tutelage of the great and authoritative Tradition that produced them. CI is a wholly innovative thing, "discovered" 1900 years or so after the Scriptures were written, and contradicting directly positions held consistently and through terrible trial by all the historical Churches from the very beginning. It cannot be taken seriously.

Repent of this pride, my brothers and sisters in Christ. Like the Ethiopian in Acts 8, read the Scriptures with an Apostle - Apostolic Tradition - at your side, informing you of the correct meaning of what you read. This is the only way we can surely add to our faith the virtue of humility, the prerequisite of godly knowledge. (2 Peter 1:5-7)

Walter

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-20 07:49 | User Profile

Originally Posted by **Texas Dissident** *I implore you Lydia and any others mired in Christian Identity groups to begin anew your study of Scripture, but this time being ever watchful not to start off with any pre-conceived notions of race clouding up and distorting the true and beautiful Gospel message, which is most certainly for all men regardless of race or ethnicity. I pray that in His grace and mercy, God will reveal this truth to you.*

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Great stuff, and I agree.

The root of the problem is pride. In CI we have individuals - mostly unlearned in ancient languages, history, philosophy, and theology - reading Scripture on their own and drawing ludicrous, ego-feeding conclusions. Interesting that it all redounds to their personal superiority over others, no? Me and Sapphira are not friends. Nor, since I've never been in the Washington State Klan, lovers.

So are you Christian Identity or not, Walter? If not, then why should we who are even bother to listen to you, particularly since you are not of our faith? Since when do true believers have open minds on anything?

Hearing Texas Dissent claim that we are 'mired down' like hogs in a wallow seems mighty super-silly-ous coming from someone who doesn't know our doctrines and wouldn't give them a fair hearing even if he did.

Race is something that YHWH created. Christian Identity, in both forms, says that race -- bloodline -- matters. Anyone saying anything different seems to reek of popery and jewry. You all have come a great way from simply calling your cotton-picking property the sons of Ham cursed to remain property forever since Noah got off the boat. Now you are all theological racial-entropists.

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] The antidote is even a modicum of Godly humility. The Scriptures themselves come from a long, unbroken Tradition that has spoken to all of these points. Study the Scriptures, but keep in mind that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20 (King James Version))

The Scriptures are to be read in light of the Tradition that produced them. How many CIers have even heard of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, St. Augustine, or St. John Chrysostom? I'm no theologian, but those men most certainly were theologians. They were recognized as such consistently and throughout the ages by the Church, which Scripture itself tells us is "the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15 (King James Version)) Yes, I've heard of them. Popers all. Generally CI comes from the position that Roman Catholicism was the Great Whore of Babylon, mother of harlots (the jew-day-o Protestant churches). Any discussion of the Roman church isn't admiring amongst us CIers.

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] We need to study the Scriptures under the tutelage of the great and authoritative Tradition that produced them. CI is a wholly innovative thing, "discovered" 1900 years or so after the Scriptures were written, and contradicting directly positions held consistently and through terrible trial by all the historical Churches from the very beginning. It cannot be taken seriously.

Repent of this pride, my brothers and sisters in Christ. Like the Ethiopian in Acts 8, read the Scriptures with an Apostle - Apostolic Tradition - at your side, informing you of the correct meaning of what you read. This is the only way we can surely add to our faith the virtue of humility, the prerequisite of godly knowledge. (2 Peter 1:5-7)

Walter[/QUOTE]Walter, nice try. You pray for us. We CIers probably won't return the favor, if you're lucky.

Modern Dual-Seedline Christian Identity from Gerald L.K. Smith through Wesley Swift to Gale or Comparet to Butler. Has none of the 'Traditions of Men.' No Roman talmud. Wouldn't want it anyway.

We simply are what we are. We provide much of the Resistance soldiery.

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-20 13:40 | User Profile

LOL! Crazy Charlie! :wallbash:

---

wild_bill

2005-01-21 02:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]

We simply are what we are. We provide much of the Resistance soldiery.

Where?

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-21 04:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]How do you see that in terms of the conversion of the Ethiopian in Acts 8?

I believe that Tradition holds that this was the man who took the Gospel to Ethiopia, the home of one of the most ancient and venerable of all the churches of Christ. The Ethiopans clung fast to the Gospel over 20 centuries, including in the face of terrible Muslim persecutions. The Ethiopian church probably possesses the Ark of the Convenant.

I for one would not wish to say anything that could be construed as counting them out of the Universal Church. That's the sort of thing that could seriously tick off the Big Guy, in my most humble opinion.

Walter[/QUOTE] Greetings Walter,

There is something to be said about how a country's ethnicity changes. All you have to do is look at America, to see a transformation of cultural identity. America was once was a proud White Christian nation and now it's truly a melting pot of everything being homogenized. And with that change intolerance to tolerance, the various ethnic groups have brought with them their own moral codes, which are in conflict with the traditional anglo-saxon common law that America was founded on. The more influential churches in this country have accomodated this transformation. And because of this, I truly do [u]not[/u] believe that "the Big Guy" (I respectfully call Him God the Father) is blessing our people at this stage in time.

Regarding the eunich, I just posted some recent research of my husband's. I posted it in a different thread, so as not to distract from Thom Robb's article. [url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16374"]Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch[/url]

" ... the story about Philip and the Ethiopian found in Acts 8:26-40. It has been assumed by contemporary seminary trained doctors of divinity that the Ethiopian of 2000 years ago is the same as today, as if to say the demographics remained static. We in Christian Identity respectfully disagree. .... "

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-21 04:46 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]Where?[/QUOTE]Fighting each other :lol:

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-21 05:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Great stuff, and I agree.

The root of the problem is pride.

Walter[/QUOTE] I agree that pride is a problem. But you know that there are two kinds of pride, right? And both prides are not bad. From Kinsman Redeemer, [url="http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/TwoPrides.htm"]The Two Prides[/url]:

[size=2]**[font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]"Let me define bad pride from a variety of sources: an unreasonable conceit of one's superiority in talents, beauty, wealth, rank or elevation in office, which manifests itself in lofty airs, distance, reserve, and often in contempt of others; inordinate or excessive self esteem; disdainful or scorn for inferiors; ostentatious or showy, showing one's appearance as pretentious, cheap and in poor taste. " ....

"[/font][/size][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]So is there any virtue in pride? Let's now turn to what is considered good pride: a reasonable or justifiable self respect; to be extremely joyful and delighted (remembering joy is a fruit of the Holy Spirit); happiness of heart, a noble self esteem springing from a consciousness of worth; exhibiting decorum and distinction (a quality of discriminating differences), having good taste in conduct and appearance. For example, the contrast between something beautiful and ugly. A good pride is glorious and spirited. Pride may be justified or it may be without grounds. Both good and bad pride have the theme of what is reasonable and what is unreasonable; in other words, possessing sound judgment. And what is our judgment? It is the same as God's. We don't judge because God is our King, our Judge and our Lawgiver."[/font]**[font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif] [/font][/size]

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-21 05:51 | User Profile

We simply are what we are. We provide much of the Resistance soldiery.

Where?

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Fighting each other :lol:[/QUOTE]Quite true. However, I've found that if you let us have at each other, as opposed to foolishly favoring one over the other, that usually the Dual-Seedliners always come on top.

It is always the militiants who define the movement, not the petty chislers or camp followers, or Downeys, or the suburban whigger militia-generals vs rural CI militias, or in any case where there is an aura of imputed or real violence.

You see, now that I'm back here in this forum, Sapphira doesn't want to talk over old times for some reason. :taz:

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/ml062103.html"]http://www.martinlindstedt.org/ml062103.html[/url] [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Holy_Wars/surveys?id=308099"][/url]

---

wild_bill

2005-01-21 08:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]

It is always the militiants who define the movement, not the petty chislers or camp followers, or Downeys, or the suburban whigger militia-generals vs rural CI militias, or in any case where there is an aura of imputed or real violence.

Can you provide some specifics on who these militants are and how they're helping our race?

---

Free The Truth

2005-01-21 08:46 | User Profile

There are 2 distinct groups when it comes to the Anglo/Celto-Saxon Race.

CI - Christian Identity BI - British Israelism

I tend to believe in the BI theory more so. I am Christian mind you (well actually Messanic Israelite who was baptized an confirmed Lutheran)...but yeah

---

Free The Truth

2005-01-21 08:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]Can you provide some specifics on who these militants are and how they're helping our race?[/QUOTE] Um letting the White Race know of their past, for instance how we are descendants of the Israelites (a view attacked by Jews, because once they are found out then all their frauds will be discovered)

To fight an enemy, the first thing you have to know is that you are under attack.

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-22 06:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]Can you provide some specifics on who these militants are and how they're helping our race?[/QUOTE]Christian Identity provides much of the theological underpinning of the rural militia units and half of the Klan. The Order was largely Identity. As is the Aryan Nations.

[url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/mmmindex.html"]http://www.martinlindstedt.org/mmmindex.html[/url]

Of course, speaking of Klan, Sapphira was Klan, serving as a camp follower, but I'll leave it at that as she is considered neither Identity nor Klan to those she has come into intimate contact with or those knowing her past history.

Now insofar as The Original Dissent Embalming Society (ODES) is concerned, I'll allow that doing anything other than whine about how somehow our race is in its present mess is already off the table. However, as a political activist I think that White Revolution is the only solution, and I appreciate that Christian Identity is the only Fighting Faith left to the White man. The ODES faithfool are sure to disagree, as they wouldn't want to be intolerant, even though it is toleration that got the White Race in the present predicament.

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

Quantrill

2005-01-22 13:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]Christian Identity provides much of the theological underpinning of the rural militia units and half of the Klan.[/QUOTE] CI did not provide the theological underpinning of the Klan in the period after the War Between the States, which is when it was a valuable and worthwhile institution.

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-22 18:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]So are you Christian Identity or not, Walter? If not, then why should we who are even bother to listen to you, particularly since you are not of our faith? Since when do true believers have open minds on anything? You never read the scripture "always being ready to give an answer for the hope that is in you".

Lydia at least takes her faith seriously as such, trying to defend it theologically and with scripture. You by contrast seem to view at as some secret occultish code for the warrier supermen only.

Hearing Texas Dissent claim that we are 'mired down' like hogs in a wallow seems mighty super-silly-ous coming from someone who doesn't know our doctrines and wouldn't give them a fair hearing even if he did.

You are mired down it seems, and in a lot more than doctrine.

Yes, I've heard of them. Popers all. Generally CI comes from the position that Roman Catholicism was the Great Whore of Babylon, mother of harlots (the jew-day-o Protestant churches). Any discussion of the Roman church isn't admiring amongst us CIers.

Walter, nice try. You pray for us. We CIers probably won't return the favor, if you're lucky. CI on winning friends and influencing people I presume.

Modern Dual-Seedline Christian Identity from Gerald L.K. Smith through ........... [/QUOTE]Hey - wait a minute. Dual seedliners are committing larceny when they try to appropriate the great Smith's name. (Who was basically an orthodox Christian Church preacher) He always said this type of speculation was just "opinion" and should not be codified into dogma.

He also of course was very ecuemenical, reaching out to groups like the Catholics. Nothing at all like Dual-seedlining as you describe it Martin.

But the real lineage of Dual-seedline is of interest to me. It seems quite suspect.

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-22 18:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]Christian Identity provides much of the theological underpinning of the rural militia units and half of the Klan. The Order was largely Identity. The Order? How about all those movies of Robert Matthews giving Heil Hitler salutes?

It's starting to strike me that "Christian Identity" as you describe and define it acts a lot more than a pseudo-pagan blood cult than anything that really takes the "Christian" part seriously, with things like blurring the lines with nazi paganism. I'm a little curious in fact if any of the "CI" got some of their real theological baggage from that old Nazi staple "positive Christianity", even though superficially they seem very different ("positive Christianity" rejected the OT, while it seems like you amost reject the NT).

Now insofar as The Original Dissent Embalming Society (ODES) is concerned, I'll allow that doing anything other than whine about how somehow our race is in its present mess is already off the table. However, as a political activist I think that White Revolution is the only solution, and I appreciate that Christian Identity is the only Fighting Faith left to the White man. The ODES faithfool are sure to disagree, as they wouldn't want to be intolerant, even though it is toleration that got the White Race in the present predicament. [/QUOTE] While as a putative hybrid of religious faith and WN ideology, it seems to a lot that it really doesn't do much real justice to either. And both the mainstream WN (according to Franco) and paleo-Christians pretty much seem to agree on this.And it would seem to explain a lot of the frction within the dual-seedliner camp itself (which at least is one thing you so elequently articulate), between those that take the WR seriously and shortthrift the obligatory religious pieties, and vice versa.

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-22 19:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Hey - wait a minute. Dual seedliners are committing larceny when they try to appropriate the great Smith's name. (Who was basically an orthodox Christian Church preacher) He always said this type of speculation was just "opinion" and should not be codified into dogma.

He also of course was very ecuemenical, reaching out to groups like the Catholics. Nothing at all like Dual-seedlining as you describe it Martin.

But the real lineage of Dual-seedline is of interest to me. It seems quite suspect.[/QUOTE] Why do you say Gerald L K Smith was ecumenical? In the same sense as we understand it today?

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-22 21:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]You never read the scripture "always being ready to give an answer for the hope that is in you".

Lydia at least takes her faith seriously as such, trying to defend it theologically and with scripture. You by contrast seem to view at as some secret occultish code for the warrier supermen only. There is also Christ saying that he was sent ONLY to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, twice, once to his disciples, and another time when Christ likened a Canaanite female to a bitch dog.

There is also the injunction against taking that which is holy doctrine and not force-feeding it to the dogs and swine who won't like it anyway.

You whined a different tune to Sapphira on the Stormfront board when she rewarded you for banning me the first time by simply patting you on the head regarding what was for her the hated Dual-Seedline dogma. She hates Dual-Seedline and Dual-Seedliners, in large part because we know her past history and are not afraid to repeat it. Just as you like to do your own little censorship, remember?

Over 90% of Dual-Seedliners are not born into the Faith, but rather grow into it. Once I was a One-Seedliner until looking at Scriptures and science made the case for Dual-Seedline. As a result, if it is offered, then it is offered on a 'take it or leave it' basis by myself. Unlike the Downeys laying hands upon theysselfs with Jurgens or Crisco to self-anoint theysselfs into pasturd&pasturdess-ship once Blanchard run off to Tennessee leaving no forwarding address, I consider myself a politician first and not a pastor.

Dual-Seedline is only for Whites who are able and willing to learn and perform YHWH's Law. Not something to be peddled like slop for the unworthy who are not called or never can be. We don't bother to run a debating society. What do we possibly have to debate? And once we know what YHWH expects, then what is there to question further?

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] You are mired down it seems, and in a lot more than doctrine.

CI on winning friends and influencing people I presume. Last time I looked, none of Dual-Seedline doxology was ever taken up for a vote.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Hey - wait a minute. Dual seedliners are committing larceny when they try to appropriate the great Smith's name. (Who was basically an orthodox Christian Church preacher) He always said this type of speculation was just "opinion" and should not be codified into dogma.

He also of course was very ecuemenical, reaching out to groups like the Catholics. Nothing at all like Dual-seedlining as you describe it Martin. Gerald L.K. Smith left the 'oafishul' interpretation of his doxology to you personally in his will, did he?

Doubtful.

That's why I call this forum the "Original Dissent Embalming Society." The ODES is dedicated to preserving intact the fossilized dogma of their founding dogs. Can't get a new notion edgewise through this pack of priestly preserving eunuchs.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] But the real lineage of Dual-seedline is of interest to me. It seems quite suspect.[/QUOTE]Join the club. The FiBbIes suspect Christian Identity as well.

--Martin Lindstedt A Defender of the Faith [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-22 21:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]The Order? How about all those movies of Robert Matthews giving Heil Hitler salutes?

It's starting to strike me that "Christian Identity" as you describe and define it acts a lot more than a pseudo-pagan blood cult than anything that really takes the "Christian" part seriously, with things like blurring the lines with nazi paganism. I'm a little curious in fact if any of the "CI" got some of their real theological baggage from that old Nazi staple "positive Christianity", even though superficially they seem very different ("positive Christianity" rejected the OT, while it seems like you amost reject the NT).

You are like those Christ mentioned who would one minute whine because if Christ drank wine then Christ was a wine-bibber and if Christ didn't drink then it was because Christ 'had the devil in him' in that he was abstimous.

If we 'allow' Robert Matthews to make a Hitler salute then we are sinners and if we don't then we are narrow-minded bigots.

So why should we bother to try to dance to your tune? Christ didn't for your fathers, so why should we?

If you wish to claim that we keep none of the New Testament, and that you are wholly 'New Covenant' then pardon us when we mentally add to it the title of 'Cornholer,' and wonder just how quick it's gonna be before you have homosexuals and femnisheviks like Sapphira in the pulpit screetching to us White men departing the estrogen-drip dem[on]ocratic theocracy, ducking flying douche bags while we retreat in good order.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] While as a putative hybrid of religious faith and WN ideology, it seems to a lot that it really doesn't do much real justice to either. And both the mainstream WN (according to Franco) and paleo-Christians pretty much seem to agree on this.And it would seem to explain a lot of the frction within the dual-seedliner camp itself (which at least is one thing you so elequently articulate), between those that take the WR seriously and shortthrift the obligatory religious pieties, and vice versa.[/QUOTE]We answer neither to yourself, nor to Franco, concerning either Identity nor White Nationalism. All Identity Christians are White Nationalist -- not all White Nationalists are Christian Identity.

Franco's 'contribution' seems altogether in allowing Traitor Glenn Miller back within the gates of White Nationalism. I most certainly would not take him as a knowledgeable authority on anything having to do with either WN or CI. Nor yourself, for that matter.

Insofar as we 'short-shrift' either our racial or religious duties, I'd say that this is really none of your concern as an outsider. Sufficient from within is our evil thereof.

--Martin Lindstedt A Defender of the Faith [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-22 21:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]Sufficient from within is our evil thereof.[/QUOTE]Lord knows that's plenty alright :lol:

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-22 22:11 | User Profile

Originally Posted by MartinLindstedt Sufficient from within is our evil thereof.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Lord knows that's plenty alright :lol:[/QUOTE]The Sword of the Lord will purge our House first. Which is as it should be.

That said, are you able to understand why the Identity Christian doesn't pay much attention to unbelievers? What would be the point?

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-23 00:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]Sufficient from within is our evil thereof.

The Sword of the Lord will purge our House first. Which is as it should be. Go right ahead. I'm not complaining. :lol:

That said, are you able to understand why the Identity Christian doesn't pay much attention to unbelievers? What would be the point?

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url][/QUOTE] Point? Just loving your fellow man and obeying the gospel of Christ. At least the true gospel, irregardless of yours.

---

wild_bill

2005-01-23 02:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gabrielle]But do you believe that all the races started with the same man and woman?[/QUOTE]

I don't know.

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-23 07:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Point? Just loving your fellow man and obeying the gospel of Christ. At least the true gospel, irregardless of yours.[/QUOTE]There is never a knee-jerk response neglected here at the Original Dissent Embalming Society.

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-23 15:00 | User Profile

Suppose Satan is Real What Difference Does It Make?

Sermon Notes of Pastor Mark Downey

What seems to be important to us isn't necessarily on the front burner for other people in our Movement. So we need to examine priorities and find the unity that will motivate us to reprioritize a singleness of purpose and overcome the stumbling blocks that splinter us historically and spiritually. You may recognize this title from the often repeated 'Suppose We are Israel - What Difference Does It Make?'. It's a good question, especially if some people put forth a proposition that is paramount to their ideology.

When discussing 'satan', we are not dealing with something as tangible as a race of people claiming to be the Israel of scriptures. In essence, the nuclear message of Christian Identity has always been predicated on the reality of people fulfilling a certain role. The thing that is frustrating our Movement, more than anything right now, is the identification of jews in a proper biblical perspective. Some go so far as to say that you can't understand the Word of God or what's going on in the world unless you accept the satanic seedline of jews.

Very elaborate extrapolations expound at great lengths to convince people of this pressing priority. What's interesting about this premise is the very nature of satan, according to their definitions, and its reality. It does make a very big difference as to how we define this word. In fact, it makes a difference as to whether or not the Hebrew word 'satan' is transliterated or translated, the former of which it was not. Had it been translated properly as 'adversary', we wouldn't have the problem of a fanatical interpretation and an entire theological doctrine dominating a religious movement.

Indeed, the personified Satan preoccupies judeo-Christianity as well, although with far fewer critics as to its supposed reality. The attribute of Satan as a pronoun promotes the concept of a supernatural being. What difference does this make? Well, if it doesn't harmonize with the rest of Scripture, the obvious discrepancy becomes the reality. What do these proponents of a supernatural satan mean by real? We've heard everything from satan being an ugly hook nosed, pointy eared, lizard tailed, horned monster to the most beautiful of the heavenly angels who fell from grace. Maybe he's a changling or shape shifter! You can take your pick from this selection of different realities, but it might get a little confusing if you don't totally accept it. By the way, just to make it perfectly clear, those of us who don't buy into the satanic seedline theory, do believe that there are satans in the world, but they are merely human adversaries.

The antichrist jew is a very real adversary without the supernatural trappings. Hypothetically then, let's suppose that the Satan of the Seedliners is a discernable reality to our five senses within the three dimensions of known science. Otherwise, the reality would be speculative rather than real, would it not? If satan is real, then what characteristics of Christianity distiguishes itself from other religions? Actually, the contrast may not be that great in light of comparative religion courses taught in universities and colleges. Many religions per se of the world, both ancient and contemporary, civilized and uncivilized, hold to the belief in two supreme principles, one good and the other evil.

When asserting opposite terms as dualistic, the intent is not to just acknowledge their dissimiliarity, but primarily to insist that it is impossible to reduce their differences any further. If Christianity is dependent upon a real satan, then the dualism is an absolute. God's Word is absolute, but is Christianity dualism in the sense of two supernatural beings? Ironically, the ancient Persian religion of Zoroaster proclaimed an irreducible opposition between Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord and Angra Mainyu, the Evil Spirit. The first incarnates truth, righteousness and order, while the latter represents the lie, unrighteousness and disorder.

Historically, Christian dogma has denounced dualism as a heresy and condemned it repeatedly, not from the simple fact that there is a radical difference between good and evil or the sacred and the profane. No, the rejection is directed against the metaphysical or supernatural manifestation of some personage spoiling God's creation. This is the stuff of mythologies and superstitions, whereby the priestcraft inculcates a supernatural destroyer and tempter of man. If this Satan is the personification of cosmic evil and not the adversarial agency of man alone, then how can Christianity maintain a monotheistic position?

The first commandment must have meant that "other gods", specifically the supernatural satan types, were real. That would make a difference as to what type of religion Christianity is. If we believe Satan is a real spiritual being, existing outside our normal senses, and God permits this satanic power to coexist in His creation, being able to influence and entice man to sin, not directly, but through our carnal desires, then what difference does that make to our faith and our belief in God? The difference would be who or what is responsible for acting contrary to God. With a vicarious cause for transgression, we can be persuaded to think that something outside of ourselves prompted the sin. We, therefore, can substitute our guilt to a scapegoat that is quite real in our minds. Add the Holy Spirit of God to our every day life, a mentality from God to remove ourselves from evil, and we become the rope in a tug of war between God and Satan. The entire issue is reduced to the mental assent of perceived biblical realities to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction.

This concept of being fully persuaded about the reality of the truth or the truth of a reality is self explanatory in the New Testament as a matter of trust and obeying the simplicity that is in Christ, with the understanding that His Word is the value in which we honor Him. If we don't give God all the praise, glory and honor, which simply means all the attention, credit towards His reputation and recognition of His exclusive power, then someone or something else is receiving attention, credit and recognition that belongs to God alone.

If Satan is real, we have to share our beliefs with two supernatural beings, God and Satan. It's the difference between dualism and monotheism. We cannot believe both of these concepts for that would be double minded. There's an axiom that pertains to this hypothesis that we've been exploring and it is this: When men give anything the power to do great things, that is equal to worshipping that thing.

It is possible that the 'synogogue of satan' referred to in Rev. 2:9 was a form of dualism which applied to some early sects of first century Christianity. The identification of the serpent with the devil lead some of these groups to his worship, to a belief in a real Satan. The Ophites were a branch of the Gnostics during the second century AD, and they attached special importance to Satan as the tempter in view of their great respect for gnosis, the knowledge of good and evil which the Serpent had enabled man to obtain. They said God withheld this knowledge from Adam and that the Serpent was the real liberator of mankind since he taught men to rebel against God (as if man needs any help!). These believers in a real Satan venerated the rebellion of Cain, Esau and Sodomites as heros. They worshipped Korah (one of Esau's sons), and especially Judas Iscariot from freeing mankind from Jesus.

Babylonian dualism was brought into contact with Christian thought through the cult of Manichaeism, circa third and fourth century AD, which reintroduced or reinvented the fantastic fables of ancient mythology. It borrowed from various religions to form an elastic and a convenient eclectic solution to the problem of good and evil. The forbidden fruit of Genesis, which the Gnostics exalted, became the theological source of the dualist doctrine of two coexisting realities, whereby Satan made an incursion into God's Kingdom and penetrated the earthly dominion of Adam-man.

In all the dualist sects, there is a glorification, not praise, but an officially established dogma put on a pedestal of a real supernatural devil, because the essence of dualism is dependent upon placing the devil highly up in status as God's rival, eternal and independent of Him. When their dogmatic perspective of the universe resurfaced in the 10th century, under the guise of the Bogomils and Cathari, their heretical reputation was contained secretly in groups known as Luciferians, who worshipped the devil under the name of Satanael, or of Sammael. This cult is mentioned by the 11th century Byzantine writer Euthymius Zigabenus as prevalent among the Bulgarian Bogomils, who held the notion that Satanael seduced Eve and that he, not Adam, was Cain's begetter.

They also put forth the idea that dualism means the belief that goodness exists only in the spiritual world of the good god; while the material world is evil and was created by an evil god or spirit called Satan and therefore Good and Evil have two separate realities. These doctrines of creation led them to rewrite the biblical story and, like all dualists, they established an elaborate mythology to replace it, and in so doing, reject the canon of scripture as holy and sacred. The dualist's interpretation of history is this constant temptation from Satan and his demonic agents to bind men to evil by means of materialism, carnality, error and false religion. The visible world, as they understand it, is in the realm of the evil one and all contact with matter and flesh, which are the devil's best instruments for gaining mastery over men's souls, should be avoided and denounced. The problem with this drastic theology is a denial of the physical messianic incarnation of Jesus Christ and the Christian concept of material matter as a vehicle of grace. Conversely, dualism advocates that good spirits, or agents of God, can save man, only by imparting to them the true gnosis concerning the forces of nature.

If all of this sounds vaguely familiar, it indeed corresponds to a religious undercurrent in Christian Identity called the Two Seedline theory. The satanic seedliners do not suppose or hypothesize. They, in fact, believe that a supernatural being named Satan is real. They may object to the analogy of dualism or even the troublesome question as to what difference does it make. I think it makes a difference to God as to how we read and believe His Word. That's got to be an important priority, because if we start out on a false premise, our understanding of divine intent will fail us and we will not help towards the advancement of Christianity.

As we study comparative religions that have come and gone, we can identify what was right and wrong. The inspired teachings and principles of scripture compared to the heresies and traditions of man basically remain the same. There is nothing new under the sun; just the magician's illusions in presentation. Thus far, I have not offered any scriptures refuting this inane presumption about satan, because I wanted you to imagine the mindset that it takes to accept it as a reality; to put yourself in the shoes of a dual seedliner. So let us now rephrase the theme by asking: What if Satan is not real? Can Christianity Survive? What saith the Word of the Lord God of Israel?

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-23 15:01 | User Profile

What If Satan Isn't Real Can Christianity Survive?

Sermon Notes of Pastor Mark Downey

Continued from Part 1: "Suppose Satan Is Real. What Difference Does It Make?"

After the classroom hypothesis of supposing satan as a supernatural reality, we are forced to admit that this notion follows the historical theology of dualism and lends itself to the theory of the dual seedlines, or the belief in the satanic origins of jews. This is not an established fact, although Identity seedliners have fused an established world jewish conspiracy with an unestablished cosmic satanic conspiracy.

The Christian Identity community is facing an identity crisis over this 'satan' issue. Who are we . . . as a movement? We know who contemporary jews are, just using the biblical definition of an antichrist. Why do we need to go beyond scriptural parameters and attach extraterrestrial genetics of cosmic evil to the earthly biological enemies of God? Jews may be the epitome of wickedness, but I haven't heard of any devil gene discovered in their DNA.

The majority of churches and seminaries teach that satan is real, but that doesn't say much in an age of apostasy and ecclesiastical corruption. For the most part, that is why the more intellectual adherents of CI discern a problem with a false interpretation of what the word satan actually means. I have to wonder why gnostic dualism is so compatible with the Two Seedline denomination of CI. The late Bob Miles was often confused as being labeled Identity, when in fact he was not Christian at all, but an avowed dualist promoting a modern form of Manichaeanism, including a celestial group of warring angels, fallen astral seed, multiple creations and of course, Satanael, AKA Lucifer, who is as real to the dualists as the true God of heaven is to monotheistic Christians.

Dualists and dual seedliners share a mutual concentric ambivalence between the uncertainties of optimism and pessimism, between light and darkness, not really knowing whether it's going to get better or worse, and offering little resolve in overcoming this supernatural devil who is no mere pesky upstart or rebellious subordinate posed to usurp the Creator of the universe. The point, for them, is that you must believe that satan is real, even though he is a false god. Well, what if satan . . . their satan . . . isn't real? What have the dualists of satanism got to lose? It doesn't make the jewish problem disappear or appear less significant. But it does mean that satanic dualists would have to admit they were wrong; that their speculations do not translate into sound biblical exegesis or respected scholarship; that they have been responsible for decades of meaningless deviations and spoiling the priority of Christian unity within the CI movement.

As a result of these elements, the 'satan is real' crowd has been an impediment to the good news of the CI message. Identity believers know all too well the curse of communicating a schizophrenic theology with the dead weight of a serpent Seedline doctrine. The evidence of this is reflected in our inability to attract proselytes necessary for a mass movement, even if we were to maintain ourselves as a remnant. CI simply meanders, without structure and discipline, thanks to the shifting sands of incompetent leadership. If we were to 'prove all things and hang on to the good' (I Thes. 5:21), we might, as a consequence, deserve the blessings of God's promises. We must resolve the dissonance between our being God's instruments of righteousness and our abject failure to convince others.

If we claim to have the proof or knowledge that Hosea 4:6 says will destroy us for lacking it and also claim that we are being destroyed because of a conspiracy against our identity as Israel, then we should be successful in our great commission to the lost sheep through one thing and that is . . . the truth. Anything else, such as grandiose mythologies, will fall short of our election and birthright.

A supernatural devil producing supernatural jews produces a religion of fears, resentments and hypocrisy. The controversy of Satan points to the basic hermeneutics of Christian apologetics. In other words, the method in presenting the reasons for defending the divine origin and authority of Christian teachings. When faced with such monumental decisions in what we should believe in, from the standpoint of discerning right from wrong or being able to separate the truth from lies, do we stand before the judgment seat, facing God, saying we did what we did because we thought it was right, with the converse reservation that we do nothing because it might be wrong? That was the thinking of dualist apologetics leader Bob Miles.

What should be obvious to any Christian is that we do what we do because of what God's Word tells us is right and we do nothing when God tells us something is wrong. Which leads us to the question, is it wrong to believe that satan is real? This opens the floodgates of scriptures, whereupon we are inundated with very plain prohibitions against other gods, strange gods, idols, heresies, blasphemies, doctrines of devils and witchcraft. If satan is not real, the dual seedliners are not only wrong, they are in grave danger of forfeiting any chance of redemption to enter the Kingdom. It would be better for them to do nothing and shut their mouths, than to be barking 'satan is real' outside the New Jerusalem with the rest of the dogs, idolaters and whosoever loves and makes a lie (Rev. 22:15).

Satan interpreted as a supernatural being is a lie. This nonsensical, unbiblical personification of cosmic evil is a man made invention. "This people draws near to Me with their mouths, and honors Me with their lips; but their heart is far away from Me. But they worship Me in vain, teaching for teachings the ordinances of men" (Mt. 15:8-9). The only real satans in the world are human adversaries who preach another Jesus, another spirit and another gospel, much the same as the religious con man or serpent that beguiled or conned Eve through his subtilty (making a lie appear as the truth) so that her and our minds should be corrupted (II Cor 11:3). Are you being seduced by the serpent Seedline theory? Do you give credence to anything outside of yourself, the power to tempt you to sin? Do you believe all power is given unto Jesus Christ in heaven and in earth (Mt 28:18)? Do you believe that each one of us is tempted when we are carried away and enticed by our own lust; then lust, having conceived, gives birth to sin, and when the sin is fully developed, it brings forth death (James 1:14-15)? This is what impregnated Eve and screws around with our mentality every day.

All temptations of evil are of this world, not some inter-dimensional devil. "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life is not of the Father, but is of the world" (I John 2:16). When it says ALL, does that mean anything else? These three elements are exactly what tempted Christ. The devil in this case, as it was with Eve and ourselves today, is the adversarial mentality to go against God. We can overcome adverse thinking as did Jesus Christ. There was a recent report that the Polish jew Pope John Paul II performed several exorcisms in the last 20 years. Does this mean that diabolical demons from hell are real? Certainly not! What is real in the Catholic mind or the mentality of seedliners is the belief in a lie. "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion" (II Thes 2:11). The delusion is that satan is some kind of tangible creature"Who (the delusional) change the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the creator? " (Romans 1:25)

What is the truth of God? "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no god beside me . . . I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:5, 7). God created evil in the sense of adversity, afflictions, calamities and grief, to be the sure fruits of sin. God brings good out of evil, which man or devils cannot do. When we repent of our sins, instead of blaming Satan for our failures, we are turning to God for our salvation. He died for our sins on the cross (I Cor 15:3).

Sin was the original cause of death. "By one man (not a supernatural devil) sin entered the world and death by sin" (Romans 5:12). So, where in the devil is a real supernatural Satan in all of this? "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested (the Word was made flesh), that He might destroy the works of the devil" ( I John 3:8). But, in verse 5 it says, "He was manifested to take away our sins." "He put away (abolished or destroyed) sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Hebrews 9:26). Well, which is it, the devil or sin?

From the foregoing evidence it is obvious that it is not either/or, but rather synonymous terms. The real satans of the Bible are not fallen angels, but in fact the carnal sin nature of man. "He that practices sin is of the devil" (I John 3:8). In other words, when we transgress the Law of God, it's from our own sin nature, being enticed by our own desires. "For the devil sinned from the beginning", meaning Adam and Eve, and continuing in v. 9, "Everyone having been born of God does not sin, because His seed (God's) remains in him and he (man) does not value sinning . . . by this are the children of God and the children of the devil revealed (v. 10). Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother." The context here is the racial stock of Israel, not satanic Seedline jews. If White people sin, they are the adversaries of God. The qualifier is not an evil infusion of supernatural genetics. It's behavioral in doing what's right according to God.

If you don't love your own race enough to tell a kinsman the truth and cause a brother to be twice the child of hell than yourself, then you can join the 'satan of the month club'. Verse 11 adds, "For this is the message you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain, who was of that wicked one. Cain was not the product of a sexual union between a devil-god and the mother of our race. "And for what reason did he slay him (Abel)? " that he was the literal seed of cosmic evil personified in a superhuman monster called Satan? No, that's not the reason given. It's "because his own works were evil" as the verse concludes "his brothers (works) were righteous."

Now you can capitalize Wicked and One as they do with the alleged pronoun Satan, but that would change the intent of God's Word. Bullinger's affirms that wicked and one are an adjective and noun respectively, explaining the Greek word poneros to mean 'full of labours and pains in working mischief." Once we recognize that the words devil and satan relate to sin and not a fairy tale competitor of God, and that sin always comes from within ourselves, then we can acknowledge that the atoning blood of Jesus is a powerful weapon to defeat all the carnality that is in the world. It conquers the power of sin by providing a means of forgiveness.

Justification imputes to us the righteousness of Christ. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). We can rest assured that our rejection of Satan as a supernatural reality will not affect the integrity of true Christianity. In the real world, acceptance of such fables actually infects and contaminates Christianity with theological cancers. Ironically, the delusional deity of dual seedliners is but a mere reflection of John 8:44 which they are so fond of quoting. Little do they realize the death they bring upon themselves and others for not hearing the truth of God's Word. They too, entertain the possibilities of their precious devil, becoming blind to the purpose of Creation and estranged from the one true God. It is clear that God has no cosmic or earthly competition and that His omnipotence is virtually infinite. Spooks and goblins are best left to spear chuckers living in mud huts.

The contrived forces of darkness have no communion with the shining light of glory. Unless the seedliners snap out of their trance, they will be chasing shadows and be a bloody drag on the CI Movement. Christianity itself cannot survive the hypnotism of apostasy. Pagan concepts have riddled our faith with confusion for far too long. The theater of Two Seedline is an abomination which CI should divorce itself from. Surely, we have higher intellectual standards for the survival of White Christian civilization than the dueling banjos of good and evil. CI is in a precarious stage of development because of a doctrinal anarchy which endangers any semblance of Christian unity.

Romans 1:21 says, "Because, even though they knew God" (who is the 'they'? It is the shepherds, the pastors, the leadership) "they did not joyfully honor Him as God." And here are 4 different Bible versions of the next phrase:

* but became vain in their imagination King James Version
* but they became futile in their speculations New American Standard
* but trifled in their argumentations Ferrar Fenton
* but became vain in their reasoning Anointed Standard Translation

The verse concludes "and their foolish, undiscerning senseless hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." The men of Israel in CI need to identify these devils among us and the real adversaries of God. May the nonsense of twisted interpretations whither on the vine so that we can begin to deal with real problems in the real world. That's the real deal.

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-23 18:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gabrielle]As a result of these elements, the 'satan is real' crowd has been an impediment to the good news of the CI message.

Another fascinating innovation - there is no Satan

CI is in a precarious stage of development because of a doctrinal anarchy which endangers any semblance of Christian unity.

That seems to be true enough. I wonder how they'll solve this?

The men of Israel in CI need to identify these devils among us and the real adversaries of God. May the nonsense of twisted interpretations whither on the vine so that we can begin to deal with real problems in the real world. That's the real deal.[/QUOTE]Or maybe not just let interpretations wither, but identify the real devils and "purge with the Sword of the Lord". That seems to be the implication and real point of all his convoluted reasoning. Uh right.

Certainly doesn't sound like a cheery group to be associated, whichever their multitude of factions you join with.

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-24 01:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]Christian Identity provides much of the theological underpinning of the rural militia units and half of the Klan. The Order was largely Identity. As is the Aryan Nations................................

If we 'allow' Robert Matthews to make a Hitler salute then we are sinners and if we don't then we are narrow-minded bigots.

So why should we bother to try to dance to your tune? Christ didn't for your fathers, so why should we?

[/QUOTE]

Well it doesn't appear here that the Order was a CI organization. CI was just one faction.

"We had Identity Christians, Odinists, Alliance members, Klansmen, and Survivalists from New York to California, from Florida to Idaho all coming together with a common goal. I believe this is what scarred the government the most. They are fond of the "divide and conquer" policy and for one brief year they saw what happens when we set aside our petty differences and unite as one."

And in any event, boasting about your association with an organization who makes the NA seem law-abiding and rational by comparison is pretty telling on both you and your theology. Of course you've stated it yourself that dual-seedline is "the fighting" theology.

Unlike you Robb makes a clear disassociation with both Nazi's and violence, and seems in general to emphasize a message that sounds more Chtristian than hardline racialist. So as with many things in CI, it appears even the dual-seedliners can differ greatly.

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-24 01:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=lydia_the_faithful]Why do you say Gerald L K Smith was ecumenical? In the same sense as we understand it today?[/QUOTE]Well he was ecumenical politically, reaching out to Protestants of a wide spectrum and to Catholics for membership in his America First or Christian Nationalist Crusade.

Theologically however he was always very conservative, worshiping at the Christian Church all his life, through the 70's (leaving the Disciples because it was modernist).

Doctrines like a mythical Satan I'm sure he would have rightly associated with modernism and rejected. But more generally, he just didn't see some of the things that seem to have grown into CI, such as Anglo-Israelism, as being binding in a religious sort of fashion, they were just matters of "opinion".

Its puzzling to see CIers attempt to claim his mantle theologically, although he certainly shared some of the same political sympathies.

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-24 03:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gabbyrelle]Suppose Satan is Real What Difference Does It Make?

Sermon Notes of Pastor Mark Downey

What seems to be important to us isn't necessarily on the front burner for other people in our Movement. So we need to examine priorities and find the unity that will motivate us to reprioritize a singleness of purpose and overcome the stumbling blocks that splinter us historically and spiritually. You may recognize this title from the often repeated 'Suppose We are Israel - What Difference Does It Make?'. It's a good question, especially if some people put forth a proposition that is paramount to their ideology. [/QUOTE]This is nearly as dense of garbage as Downey's 'Leaderless Identity' a couple of years ago. Downey took a self-serving premise, namely that Dual-Seedline was bad, that One-Seedline was too 'universal,' went on to plagarize half the title from Louis Beam's 'Leaderless Resistance' and ended up hinting strongly that the answer was 'Leaderfool Identity' under Downey. This from a feeb which laid hands upon hisself, anointed hisself when Larry Blanchard run off to Tennessee, and has a total of three worshippers, i.e., Klunt, Gabbyrelle, and Downey hisself. An awful lot of pretentious infantile yapping from some fool unable to handle rumor control at a Klan gang-bang.

Give them a chance and after they remove Satan from the Bible, they will get rid of Paul for saying femnishevik wymyn should shut up in congregation. Then they'll have nothing but the Downey Revised Edition to yammer over.

Suppose Satan is Real -- What Difference Does It Make? Well, other than THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

If you wish to do away with the leader of Team Evil, then I suppose Team Good will have to take up some of Satan's attributes. But the only benefit of 'Pastor' Downey's drivel is that no human mind, other than the most mundane, can read more than a paragraph of Downey's drivel before shutting down. It is a universal sophoric.

Let's please ask Gabbyrelle to post Downey's 'Leaderless Identity.' It was easily twice as long as this drivel, and if it wasn't, it certainly seemed that way at the time.

--Martin Lindstedt KlhammerofKlunt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-24 03:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well it doesn't appear here that the Order was a CI organization. CI was just one faction. There was a CI wing, and a non-CI wing.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] And in any event, boasting about your association with an organization who makes the NA seem law-abiding and rational by comparison is pretty telling on both you and your theology. Of course you've stated it yourself that dual-seedline is "the fighting" theology.

Unlike you Robb makes a clear disassociation with both Nazi's and violence, and seems in general to emphasize a message that sounds more Chtristian than hardline racialist. So as with many things in CI, it appears even the dual-seedliners can differ greatly.[/QUOTE]I don't bother to argue with Thom Robb over how he leads his Klan. Thom Robb doesn't tell others how to run their CI congregation. As pointed out above, we Identity Christians don't need to dance to your tune.

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-24 04:42 | User Profile

Quote:

Originally Posted by **Gabrielle** *As a result of these elements, the 'satan is real' crowd has been an impediment to the good news of the CI message.*

Another fascinating innovation - there is no Satan

Quote:

CI is in a precarious stage of development because of a doctrinal anarchy which endangers any semblance of Christian unity.

That seems to be true enough. I wonder how they'll solve this?

Quote:

The men of Israel in CI need to identify these devils among us and the real adversaries of God. May the nonsense of twisted interpretations whither on the vine so that we can begin to deal with real problems in the real world. That's the real deal.

Or maybe not just let interpretations wither, but identify the real devils and "purge with the Sword of the Lord". That seems to be the implication and real point of all his convoluted reasoning. Uh right.

Certainly doesn't sound like a cheery group to be associated, whichever their multitude of factions you join with.

=============

Gabbyrelle is one of three members of Downey's Khurch of the Kast-out Klowns, i.e., Kook Klunt's Klan. There is no "precarious stage of development because of a doctrinal anarchy which endangers any semblance of Christian unity," like Gabbyrelle repeats of Downey's Drivel. There is some unity between the Dual-Seedliners and One-Seedliners in that everyone despises Downey and Downey's Internut church. Downey and his cleft master didn't dare attend Pete Peters' meeting several years ago because of the false gossip and mischief they tried to pull against Peters. I'm no fan of Peters, but someone might as well be the big man amongst the One-Seedliners, and if Peters doesn't yap crap about us, we DSLers don't bother Peters. Live and let live.

Downey hangs around jews and jews like ZOG-kernel Khazardick Niemela tell Downey that the Talmud says that jews are the children of Satan. Of course, then us Dual-Seedliners ask, "Where in the Talmud does it admit jews are the spawn of Satan? We really would like to know where." Of course, then us Dual-Seedliners would then say, "See, even the jews admit in their Talmud that they are Satan's spawn." Of course then the jew and the Downeys shut up for a second, before trying to peddle their lies anew.

You see, the Downeys and Gabbyrelle are out to try to 'prove' Dual-Seedline wrong. Dual-Seedline says that there is a good seed and a bad seed, the Sons of True Man descended from Adam, and the spawn of Satan descended from Cain. So part of their lies and idiocy is yapping about how there is no Satan. No Satan, then no spawn of Satan, i.e., jews. This isn't any 'innovation,' this is merely lies promoted by liars out to pose as Identity in telling their lies to fools knowing nothing about Christian Identity doxology.

Can you see why Identity despises the Downeys? They might as well be jews and probably are jews for the lies they tell posing as Identity. It isn't the truth which they say which hurts, other than allowing them some concealment. It is the lies that since there is no Satan, then there are no spawn of Satan, hence any reason for Christian Identity because if there is no evil seedline then there is no need for a good seedline or even an Israelite nation. And therefore, might as well race-mix at [s]will. We'ze all bro's. Which is common to jew-day-o churchianity akin to the typical Original Dissent Embalming Society & Racial Entropic Baal-Priestery, but is anathema to real Identity Christians, be they One-Seedline or especially Dual-Seedline.

The easiest way to dispose of the Downeys is to simply repeat their didos when they were younger and ran their Klan like it was a temple whorehouse. But that gets me banned unless I hint around. In real life, as shown above, they are spiritual whores as well, out to pretend to be Identity while they try to pervert Identity doxology from within.

"The men of Israel in CI need to identify these devils among us and the real adversaries of God."

I've heard that nonsense whined from both Klunt and Gabbyrelle for years now because I bring up their past, and their present lies and perversions. The men of Israel in Christian Identity have always given the Downeys the bum's rush because they are of the sin-o-gog of Satan. The Downeys hate both Dual-Seedline and they hate even the One-Seedliners. Therefore, they cannot exist either in comfort or at all outside places which are especially set up for them, like Stormfront, or OD when I was banned. When the White man is free to criticise, then the Downeys, like jews, must flee to their Internet ghettos.

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-24 05:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]This is nearly as dense of garbage as Downey's 'Leaderless Identity' a couple of years ago. Downey took a self-serving premise, namely that Dual-Seedline was bad, that One-Seedline was too 'universal,' went on to plagarize half the title from Louis Beam's 'Leaderless Resistance' and ended up hinting strongly that the answer was 'Leaderfool Identity' under Downey.[/QUOTE]Note I got vague vibes of this too. Satan looks suspiciously like the people on the wrong side of you politically. You're halfway to full Caesarism, where your movement itself is divine, and the highest divinity is - guess who? The chosen leader, who also just happens to be the guy who wrote the catechism in the first place

A general problem when people start drawing up religions for political movements. And I suspect there's been a cetain amount of this theological sleight-of-hand/hanky-panky since the formations of CI.

Not that CI theologians of course are unique in this respect. And I can understand you're reluctance to entertain prolonged theological disputations. Whatever the original motives behind CI, whatever you've got now is likely to be only worse if you start playing around with it again, considering the players. Like the Downey's seem to be doing now. Especially when they start attacing the premises of orthodox Christianity in general, like Satan? What's the motive? Probably some WN's still worshipping in non-CI churches they'd like to pry loose, among others.

---

lydia_the_faithful

2005-01-24 08:15 | User Profile

Is this a policy that we can come into your forum as Lindstedt has and start slandering somebody that we don't like, with impunity?

CI is not all traditional theology, as you already know, Okiereddust. Please clearly define Traditional Christianity. Is there a listing of denominations that have a seal of approval here, or doctrines that are recognized as the only ones that are legitimate? Can things be discussed without being slandered?

How much time did you spend in that article? How much research did you do to the scriptures involved in that article? You know there's a part 2, right? When Texas Dissident sent me to a website, I read where he sent me. I tried to understand, and analyze. In our household, we took at least 3 hours reading and studying that article, and then replying in an intelligent and courteous manner.

As a Christian, I rejected the ideas put forth in the Satan article, as well. In fact, for several years, I rejected it. We have, after all, a lifetime of doctrinal beliefs that say there is some big bad antichrist hanging around the corner with a pitchfork, tail and horns. Hollywood (run by who??) continues to feed off our fear, just as Movement charletons feed off the unsuspecting and innocent. The political intent of CI, and indeed our own ministry, is not anything other than to motivate people to understand the government of God, rather than the traditions of man.

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-24 09:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=sapphira_the_dishonest]Is this a policy that we can come into your forum as Lindstedt has and start slandering somebody that we don't like, with impunity?

CI is not all traditional theology, as you already know, Okiereddust. Please clearly define Traditional Christianity. Is there a listing of denominations that have a seal of approval here, or doctrines that are recognized as the only ones that are legitimate? Can things be discussed without being slandered?

How much time did you spend in that article? How much research did you do to the scriptures involved in that article? You know there's a part 2, right? When Texas Dissident sent me to a website, I read where he sent me. I tried to understand, and analyze. In our household, we took at least 3 hours reading and studying that article, and then replying in an intelligent and courteous manner.

As a Christian, I rejected the ideas put forth in the Satan article, as well. In fact, for several years, I rejected it. We have, after all, a lifetime of doctrinal beliefs that say there is some big bad antichrist hanging around the corner with a pitchfork, tail and horns. Hollywood (run by who??) continues to feed off our fear, just as Movement charletons feed off the unsuspecting and innocent. The political intent of CI, and indeed our own ministry, is not anything other than to motivate people to understand the government of God, rather than the traditions of man.[/QUOTE] The problem that the Downeys have is that too many people know them, both in a Biblical sense, and also due to the dislikes and hatreds they stir up. As a result, they can only flourish where they are able to censor, as at Stormfront. Any Dual-Seedliner comes on to their little fake CI section, and unless they grovel they are going to be 'warned' to back off or outright banned. That's how I first met Sapphira Downey was in her effort to finish purging a yahoogroup of Dual-Seedline when she, like Salome, demanded of the probable FBI/ADL plant I nicknamed King Herod, Willie Martin's head. I then went into "I want some dirt on this whore of Babble-on and I want it yesterday." And sure enough, I got plenty about the goings-on after the Klan meeting.

Interestingly enough, for the first year or so, Sapphira never denied a single allegation, merely whined about 'spreading malicious gossip' and trying to figure out where I had gotten the information living over 1500 miles away in SW Missouri. Sapphira got it narrowed down to possibly five or six wifes of ex-Klansmen. Sapphira also 'proved' it was all her ex-husband's (the Grand Dragon's) fault that she had a wifely duty to service the Klan, etc., etc. Perhaps she can enlighten this ODES forum as to her real past, as I found both her evasions and Downey's extreme evasions both enlightening and hilarious.

It is also Sapphira's and Downey's fault that they can't hide their envy of Pete Peters. They, get this, whine about how Peters cannot control his wife. Well, when I met Pete Peters' wife, she was a polite, correct Christian woman who managed to sell Peters' merchandise, tapes, trinkets, etc. at 10-25% over price for the original publisher's price. I ended up paying $20 for Richard Kelly Hoskins' 'Vigilantes of Christendom' when RKH's price is $15. But Peters' wife minded her own business, and isn't 1/666th as bossy and pushy as Sapphira. And I don't think she will ever do as Sapphira has done in the past.

So is it my fault if when Downey and Sapphira make up some particularly malicious gossip I might want to send a copy of it onto Pete Peters notifying Peters about what is being said about him by Sapphira and Downey? After all, I'm Dual-Seedline and since I don't believe in prosletizing any more than most DSLers, Peters doesn't have to worry about me doing some sheep-rustling like Sapphira and Downey seem to want to do.

I've done my dead-level best to keep Sapphira and Downey in their ghetto with their other feeb, Gabbyrelle. In any case, Okie, its not as if I am going to try to convert you to anything. I don't care what you consider to be 'traditional churchianity.' I don't want any part of the jew-day-os. This is the Thom Robb/Christian Identity thread. In it Christian Identity is discussed.

And notice how Sapphira doesn't answer the charges? Dual-Seedline Christian Identity believes in Satan because if there is no Satan, then there isn't any spawn of Satan. No spawn of Satan, then the matter of dual-seedlines sorta becomes irrelevant. And since Sapphira and her feeb self-anointed husband Downey have been yapping this crap for years, since they got drummed out of the Klan, then it is to be expected that there isn't going to be any liking of them on the part of Dual-Seedliners.

Makes sense to me. I used to hate the Downeys for what they tried to pull on a Dual-Seedline pastor. Then I demanded and got dirt on them. Now I read their lying crap and I hate them more and more because of their lying crap. What started out as a mutual Genesis 3:15 enmity -- the founding scripture for DSL -- has grown into bigger mutual loathing. Genesis 3:15 says that I'm supposed to hate them and they're supposed to hate me. But now we really got excellent reason to hate each other. The Downeys are the spawn of Satan. Maybe even the biological, as opposed to adoptive spawn of Satan. All this lying crap about how their daddy, Satan, doesn't exist is really just that -- lying crap. They didn't fool me for a second. :dung:

By the way, there isn't any Dual-Seedliner around who isn't keenly aware of politics. We intend to win and don't much care how many spawn of Satan and sympathizers we have to finish off to win. Why do you think DSL heraldry ALWAYS has a crown and a sword on it? We intend to win the crown by using the sword unstintingly.

--Martin Lindstedt An Offender of the Faith [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-24 09:39 | User Profile

Originally Posted by MartinLindstedt This is nearly as dense of garbage as Downey's 'Leaderless Identity' a couple of years ago. Downey took a self-serving premise, namely that Dual-Seedline was bad, that One-Seedline was too 'universal,' went on to plagarize half the title from Louis Beam's 'Leaderless Resistance' and ended up hinting strongly that the answer was 'Leaderfool Identity' under Downey.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Note I got vague vibes of this too. Satan looks suspiciously like the people on the wrong side of you politically. You're halfway to full Caesarism, where your movement itself is divine, and the highest divinity is - guess who? The chosen leader, who also just happens to be the guy who wrote the catechism in the first place

A general problem when people start drawing up religions for political movements. And I suspect there's been a cetain amount of this theological sleight-of-hand/hanky-panky since the formations of CI. Suspect all you want. Some of your suspicions might well be correct. Us Dual-Seedliners, a rather hard-headed and practical lot, think that religion should be useful to those who worship it. Since we don't like non-whites and jews, can you think of anything more useful than Dual-Seedline dogma in getting to religiously justify either running the non-whites off or exterminating the spawn of Satan? Insofar as this being a 'problem,' from where I sit my Faith seems a tremendous advantage.

Every Identity Christian is a White Nationalist. Not every White Nationalist is an Identity Christian.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Not that CI theologians of course are unique in this respect. And I can understand you're reluctance to entertain prolonged theological disputations. Whatever the original motives behind CI, whatever you've got now is likely to be only worse if you start playing around with it again, considering the players. Like the Downey's seem to be doing now. Especially when they start attacing the premises of orthodox Christianity in general, like Satan? What's the motive? Probably some WN's still worshipping in non-CI churches they'd like to pry loose, among others.[/QUOTE]The Downeys like to think that they are 'players.' They're not. Whenever someone bothers most of us Dual-Seedliners yapping that we want to get rid of the non-whites and jews because of our religion, we look at them like they are idiots for acting as if that is some sort of bad thing.

Why do you think so much of the Movement and Resistance is Christian Identity? Back when I was running a militia, around 40% of the militia was Christian Identity, and an even higher percentage when the suburban whigger militias were sorted out and only the rural militias were considered. Things have changed one bit. The nutty part of White Nationalism is the net-nutzis fighting over which mini-fuerher they want to follow.

In fact, I'm thinking of writing a 'sermon' about how a regular racist or nazi doesn't even have to believe in order to carry out Christian Identity racial religious policy. I've pretty much explained in a paragraph of three sentences exactly what you have to repeat and act upon if you wish to be treated as Christian Identity. Argument concerning matters over the basics is usually judged superfluous. After a while, the more gifted will by osmosis follow CI racial and religious teaching by heart.

No, the problem isn't that AmeriKwa is a 'Christian nation.' It isn't. The real faith of most AmeriKwans is 'Solipsistic Hypocrisy' and the worship of mammon. Get the non-Christian Israelite's mind into the Christian Israelite groove, and soon enough we gain their hearts and minds.

[url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/me-god.html"]http://www.martinlindstedt.org/me-god.html[/url]

Sapphira and Downey are merely thieving jackals trying to get scraps from the newbies. They're the dogs in coyotes' clothing killing the little lambs. A few rocks from the Shepherd, and they'll run howling for the hills, looking for an unguarded flock to molest.

--Martin Lindstedt A Defender of the Faith [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

il ragno

2005-01-24 09:56 | User Profile

Lucky Lindstedt; winning friends and influencing people wherever he goes.

Over at the Phora, somebody asked him what his aim in life was. Here's what Lucky responded with:

[QUOTE]Overthrow ZOG, run off or exterminate any non-whites within the ZOGland, secure a place for Whites by means of nuclear or biological warfare so that no non-White nation can ever be a threat to Whites, exterminate all of the jews, and 90% of the ZOGling whiggers and ALL of the treasonous regime criminals and their spawn, and help set up a theocracy run by Dual-Seedline ayatollahs so that Jesus Christ will be impressed by my zealotry and religious ferver when He returns with a rod of iron so that I can help him whip up into shape those He chooses to resurrect. Amen.

But for now, I think I said it best in my campaign for Sheriff of Newton County last year:

[url]http://www.martinlindstedt.org/md4shrf4.html[/url]

=============== There is no solution except White Revolution to the evils wrought by this mighty Evil Empire. We must exterminate every single regime criminal and its spawn. We must live but let die any and all of the ZOGling (Zionist Occupation Government) whigger (white nigger) herd animals which support this criminal regime. We must use any and all weapons against this criminal regime and regime criminals; from basic prion poisoning by feeding rendered-down deer with Chronic Wasting Disease to uninfected deer hundreds of miles away; spreading man-made and natural pathogens to where non-whites live in the big cities; cutting off supplies of food, power, medicine to any suburban Whites supporting this criminal regime; using nuclear weaponry; or any other act of civil warfare aimed at making it impossible for this mighty Evil Empire to project any power over us within this continent, much less in oppressing the rest of the world. Our goal is to destroy everything and anyone making it possible for the current criminal regime to survive, and then to ensure our everlasting security we exterminate every regime criminal and its spawn. Then we establish a Whites-only Revolutionary regime in which not a single non-white gene, idea, or person is allowed to exist and anyone who would put himself above his community is expelled by death as a punishment for self-serving treason. A community in which every White person has a secure place, with that secure place decided not by accident of birth, or self-serving worship of mammon, but by merit of good character and sound mind.[/QUOTE]

I think he and Walter could do business together.

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-24 10:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Lucky Lindstedt; winning friends and influencing people wherever he goes.

Over at the Phora, somebody asked him what his aim in life was. Here's what Lucky responded with:

I think he and Walter could do business together.[/QUOTE]I can't expect Ill Ragno, a critter of some unknown parentage and address living in jew Yawk City to appreciate Dual-Seedline Christian Identity, especially when it has been deemed one of the spawn of Satan by myself.

Ill Ragno is like the dog dragging the dead skunk back home and rolling in it. The smell can't be expected to be overmuch loved by the fastidious. Just so, it is Ill Ragno which should be blamed for this transgression, not myself.

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

wild_bill

2005-01-24 13:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well it doesn't appear here that the Order was a CI organization. CI was just one faction. [/QUOTE]

Yes, Mattews was an Odinist. I would think such a person would be anathema to an Identity Christian.

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-24 13:50 | User Profile

Gabbyrelle is one of three members of Downey's Khurch of the Kast-out Klowns, i.e., Kook Klunt's Klan. There is no "precarious stage of development because of a doctrinal anarchy which endangers any semblance of Christian unity," like Gabbyrelle repeats of Downey's Drivel. There is some unity between the Dual-Seedliners and One-Seedliners in that everyone despises Downey and Downey's Internut church. Downey and his cleft master didn't dare attend Pete Peters' meeting several years ago because of the false gossip and mischief they tried to pull against Peters. I'm no fan of Peters, but someone might as well be the big man amongst the One-Seedliners, and if Peters doesn't yap crap about us, we DSLers don't bother Peters. Live and let live.

LOL! I never met either one of the two people of whom you speak. I wouldn’t know them if we were sitting at the same table. But I do know this, as Christians, if we debate amongst ourselves, we should NOT slander one another.
I have nothing against ANY CI ministers… if they are wrong about their doctrine, that is between them and God.
Martin, you will get more bees with honey than vinegar. Must you always be so full of hate? Must you always say wicked things about people?? Just debate like a white guy. Let truth be your armor and sword… “Live and let live.”

You see, the Downeys and Gabbyrelle are out to try to 'prove' Dual-Seedline wrong. Dual-Seedline says that there is a good seed and a bad seed, the Sons of True Man descended from Adam, and the spawn of Satan descended from Cain. So part of their lies and idiocy is yapping about how there is no Satan. No Satan, then no spawn of Satan, i.e., jews. This isn't any 'innovation,' this is merely lies promoted by liars out to pose as Identity in telling their lies to fools knowing nothing about Christian Identity doxology.

I am not… I know you are wrong. Big deal… I have been wrong many times… so what? I do not lie and I would NEVER lie as far as God’s Holy Word goes… I don’t want the second death. I truly believe there is not such thing as a devil, as I believe Eve did not mate with ‘him’ or (what ever Satan is supposed to be). I have studied the matter, and this is the conclusion I reached… Does that make me, or anyone else who believes like that, evil?
Lastly, how do you think you make CI look when you start attacking some man’s wife? He loves that woman as much as you love your precious wife. What glory does it bring to our Lord when you act like that? Do you think you are helping the Cause, or damaging it? Please debate like a Christian. :)

---

wild_bill

2005-01-24 15:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt] You see, the Downeys and Gabbyrelle are out to try to 'prove' Dual-Seedline wrong. Dual-Seedline says that there is a good seed and a bad seed, the Sons of True Man descended from Adam, and the spawn of Satan descended from Cain. So part of their lies and idiocy is yapping about how there is no Satan. No Satan, then no spawn of Satan, i.e., jews. This isn't any 'innovation,' this is merely lies promoted by liars out to pose as Identity in telling their lies to fools knowing nothing about Christian Identity doxology. [/QUOTE]

If "Dual-Seedline" not an innovation, please direct me to any credibile Christian writer of, say, the first few centuries after Jesus Christ who advocates such a doctrine. Surely, they would know something of this doctrine.

---

il ragno

2005-01-24 15:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Just so, it is Ill Ragno which should be blamed for this transgression, not myself.[/QUOTE]

Wrong, Lucky. I posted one of your more-restrained text comments here without any judgment or editorial comment of any kind way back on page 2 or so of this thread. You had clear sailing to make your case as best you could.

Seeing how you had already begun taking a ka-ka in your own nest here - as well as tossing "Ill Fagno, FakeTheBitcher's chief brownnose" my way in the Introduction thread - I thought I'd give the OD Assembled an uncut dose of what your CI insanity inevitably leads to. Entirely in your own words, I might add. Although I think that people who begin insulting their hosts ("Original Dissent Embalming Society") before they've even gotten their coats off shouldn't expect very many return invitations.

---

Petr

2005-01-24 15:24 | User Profile

Here is everything you need to refute the "dual-seedliners" and their positively [B]blasphemous[/B] idea of Eve mating with Satan:

[B][COLOR=Red][I]"And [U]Adam knew Eve his wife[/U]; and she conceived, [U]and bare Cain[/U], and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. "[/I][/COLOR][/B]

• Genesis 4:1 (KJV)

Petr

---

wild_bill

2005-01-24 16:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Here is everything you need to refute the "dual-seedliners" and their positively [B]blasphemous[/B] idea of Eve mating with Satan:

[B][COLOR=Red][I]"And [U]Adam knew Eve his wife[/U]; and she conceived, [U]and bare Cain[/U], and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. "[/I][/COLOR][/B]

• Genesis 4:1 (KJV)

[/QUOTE]

They don't think they care about that. All that matters is their mad descent into every vile heresy.

I read that the dual seedline is taught in the Jews' Kaballah!

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-24 16:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]They don't think they care about that. All that matters is their mad descent into every vile heresy.

I read that the dual seedline is taught in the Jews' Kaballah![/QUOTE]

You are so right, Mr.wild bill. That stupid dual seedline is pure wickedness.

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-24 17:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Here is everything you need to refute the "dual-seedliners" and their positively [B]blasphemous[/B] idea of Eve mating with Satan:

[B][COLOR=Red][I]"And [U]Adam knew Eve his wife[/U]; and she conceived, [U]and bare Cain[/U], and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. "[/I][/COLOR][/B]

• Genesis 4:1 (KJV)

Petr[/QUOTE]

Amen

---

Petr

2005-01-24 18:15 | User Profile

And now, Gabrielle, it's time to whack [I]your[/I] heresy in the head with some Scriptural sledgehammer:

[I][COLOR=Red][B]"I truly believe there is not such thing as a devil, as I believe Eve did not mate with ‘him’ or (what ever Satan is supposed to be)."[/B][/COLOR][/I]

Then how do you interpret, say, these Biblical texts:

[B]Matthew 4:1 [COLOR=Indigo]Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. [/COLOR]

...

Revelation 12:7 [COLOR=Blue]And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.[/B][/COLOR]

---

Texas Dissident

2005-01-24 18:29 | User Profile

Ephesians 6:10-12

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

---

Quantrill

2005-01-24 18:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill] I read that the dual seedline is taught in the Jews' Kaballah![/QUOTE] [color=Navy]In Jewish Kabbalistic myth, Adam's first wife was not Eve, but a demoness named Lilith, whom God created from filth. Eve was actually Adam's third wife, because God kept 'failing' to create a woman Adam could be satisfied with. Here is an excerpt from Robert Graves [u]Hebrew Myths[/u]. Note the many aspects of paganism (probably from the Babylonian captivity) that have become intertwined with the original Genesis account.[/color]

   **The follow text is quoted from:
        *Hebrew Myths* by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai (New York:  Doubleday,       1964), pp 65-69.**

          <big>**Chapter 10: Adam's Helpmeets<o:p></o:p>**</big> <o:p></o:p>

(a) Having decided to give Adam a helpmeet lest he should be alone of his kind, God put him into a deep sleep, removed one of his ribs, formed it into a woman, and closed up the wound, Adam awoke and said: 'This being shall be named "Woman", because she has been taken out o f man. A man and a woman shall be one flesh.' The title he gave her was Eve, 'the Mother of All Living''. 1

           <o:p>(b) Some say that God created man and woman in His own image       on the Sixth Day, giving them charge over the world; ***2*** but that Eve did not yet exist. Now, God had set Adam to name every beast, bird and other living thing. When they passed before him in pairs, male and female, Adam-being already like a twenty-year-old man-felt jealous of their loves, and though he tried coupling with each female in turn, found no satisfaction in the act. He therefore cried: 'Every creature but I has a proper matel', and prayed God would remedy this injustice. ***3***<o:p></o:p></o:p>

           <o:p></o:p>(c) God then formed Lilith, the first woman, just as He had formed Adam, except that He used filth and sediment instead of pure dust. From Adam's union with this demoness, and with another like her named Naamah, Tubal Cain's sister, sprang Asmodeus and innumerable demons that still plague mankind. Many generations later, Lilith and Naamah came to Solomon's judgement seat, disguised as harlots of Jerusalem'<o:p>. ***4***</o:p>

           <o:p>(d) Adam and Lilith never found peace together; for when he wished to lie with her, she took offence at the recumbent posture he demanded. 'Why must I lie beneath you?' she asked. 'I also was made from dust, and am therefore your equal.' Because Adam tried to compel her obedience by force, Lilith, in a rage, uttered the magic name of God, rose into the air and left him.<o:p></o:p> </o:p>

Adam complained to God: 'I have been deserted by my helpmeet' God at once sent the angels Senoy, Sansenoy and Semangelof to fetch Lilith back. They found her beside the Red Sea, a region abounding in lascivious demons, to whom she bore lilim at the rate of more than one hundred a day. 'Return to Adam without delay,' the angels said, or we will drown you!' Lilith asked:How can I return to Adam and live like an honest housewife, after my stay beside the Red Sea?? 'It will be death to refuse!' they answered. How can I die,' Lilith asked again,when God has ordered me to take charge of all newborn children: boys up to the eighth day of life, that of circumcision; girls up to the twentieth day. None the less, if ever I see your three names or likenesses displayed in an amulet above a newborn child, I promise to spare it.' To this they agreed; but God punished Lilith by making one hundred of her demon children perish daily; 5 and if she could not destroy a human infant, because of the angelic amulet, she would spitefully turn against her own. 6

           <o:p></o:p>(e) Some say that Lilith ruled as queen in Zmargad, and       again in Sheba; and was the demoness who destroyed job's sons. ***7*** Yet she escaped the curse of death which overtook Adam, since they had parted long before the Fall. Lilith and Naamah not only strangle infants but also seduce dreaming men, any one of whom, sleeping alone, may become their victim. ***8<o:p></o:p>***

           <o:p></o:p>(f) *Undismayed by His failure to give Adam a suitable       helpmeet*, God tried again, and let him watch while he built up a woman's anatomy: using bones, tissues, muscles, blood and glandular secretions, then covering the whole with skin and adding tufts of hair in places. The sight caused Adam such disgust that even when this woman, the First Eve, stood there in her full beauty, he felt an invincible repugnance. **God knew that He had failed once more**, and took the First Eve away. Where she went, nobody       knows for certain.<o:p> ***9***</o:p>

          <o:p></o:p>(g) **God tried a third time**, and acted more circumspectly. Having taken a rib from Adam's side in his sleep, He formed it into a woman; then plaited her hair and adorned her, like a bride, with twenty-four pieces of jewellery, before waking him. Adam was entranced. ***10***<o:p></o:p>

---

wild_bill

2005-01-24 18:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill][color=Navy]In Jewish Kabbalistic myth, Adam's first wife was not Eve, but a demoness named Lilith, whom God created from filth. Eve was actually Adam's third wife, because God kept 'failing' to create a woman Adam could be satisfied with. Here is an excerpt from Robert Graves [u]Hebrew Myths[/u]. Note the many aspects of paganism (probably from the Babylonian captivity) that have become intertwined with the original Genesis account.[/color]* [/QUOTE]

I find it odd that dual-seedliners say they hate the Jews, but yet traffick in all kinds of hideous Talmudic and Kaballah nonsense and myths. I'm suprised they not also consulting the satanic bible for even more heresies and garbage. After all, its author, Anton Levay (Levy), was Jewish.

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-24 19:50 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]And now, Gabrielle, it's time to whack [I]your[/I] heresy in the head with some Scriptural sledgehammer:

[I][COLOR=Red][B]"I truly believe there is not such thing as a devil, as I believe Eve did not mate with ‘him’ or (what ever Satan is supposed to be)."[/B][/COLOR][/I]

Then how do you interpret, say, these Biblical texts:

[B]Matthew 4:1 [COLOR=Indigo]Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. [/COLOR]

...

Revelation 12:7 [COLOR=Blue]And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.[/B][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Default Re: Question for CI: Is there a devil, demons, satan or isn't there? An old post:

Default Re: Luci-Christ Quote: Originally Posted by gwalchgwyn88 Something that has always had me curious. There is a verse in 2 Peter (1.19) where Jesus is called "lucifer" in the Latin translation:In fact, this is the only place where the word Lucifer (Grk phosphoros) appears in the NT.

What are the implications of this?

Great question, gwalchgwyn88! The word ‘day star’ in the Greek is phosphorus, number 5459 in Strong’s Concordance; it means light-bearing (phosphorus), i.e. morning star. In the verse you quoted, it is being used to describe Jesus Christ as the light to the world.

In the old English you would have asked for a Lucifer for your cigar. Today people ask for a light for their cigarettes.

Lucifer is used only once in the King James Bible; this is where people wrongly get their belief of a great Satan, i.e. devil, named Lucifer. In Strong’s Concordance it is number 1966; it simply means ‘the morning star.’ It is found in Isaiah 14:12, where Isaiah is delivering a taunting speech to the King of Babylon from God, because of his false pride. God wanted Isaiah to relay to him that his kingdom was going to be taken from him because he viewed himself as God, and thought he could do whatever he wanted to.

Now lets look at the word Satan; God himself was called Satan in the King James footnotes of 1 Samuel 24:1," And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and 9he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." In Strong’s Concordance the word Satan is number 7854, saw-tawn from 7853 saw–tan attack, accuse; - (be an) adversary. Any one can be an adversary – a satan. If someone steals from you or hurts you, they are your Satan – your adversary! In 1 Samuel 24:1, God was Israel’s Satan – He was a justified Father punishing His rebellious children, but, nonetheless, to His children, their Father was being an adversary [or Satan].

Jesus told Peter, in Matthew 16:23, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” Even though I believe Peter meant well, he was still acting as an adversary, or a satan, to Christ.

The word devil means ‘false accuser, slanderer,’ and is number 1228 in Strong’s Concordance. If I falsely accuse you of something, I become your devil – it does not mean I grow horns or a tail or anything like that.

LOL! Now what do you have to say, Petr? :)

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-24 19:54 | User Profile

Another old post:

So man lieth down, and riseth not; till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep (Job 14:12).

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake … (Dan. 12:2).

… for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be (Job 7:21).

In the original Hebrew of the Old Scriptures the dead were said to go to sheol:

The Hebrew word “sheol” occurs 65 times in the original texts. The translators of the King James Version rendered it “hell” 31 times, “grave” 31 times, and “pit” 3 times. Never once is ‘sheol” depict as a place where the dead suffer conscious torment.

The comparable Greek word in the New Scriptures is hades. When the Judean translators of the Septuagint Bible (280 B. C.) came to the word sheol, they always rendered it with the Greek hades. When the writers of the New Scriptures quoted a passage frm the Hebrew, they rendered sheol as hades. An example:

For thou wilt not leave my soul in sheol (Ps. 16:10).

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hades (Acts 2:27).

---

Petr

2005-01-24 20:07 | User Profile

[I] - [B]"If I falsely accuse you of something, I become your devil – it does not mean I grow horns or a tail or anything like that.

LOL! Now what do you have to say, Petr? [/B]"[/I]

What do I say? I say that you are obviously, regrettably, in the bonds of a [B]stupid [/B], blatantly un-scriptural heresy.

Who was there to "accuse" Jesus Christ when He was alone in the desert? Do you dare to claim that Jesus was talking to Himself, even possibly containing some "satanic" elements in Him?

And what do you say about that story in the book of Revelation?

Petr

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-24 20:11 | User Profile

Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV)

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

---

Petr

2005-01-24 20:18 | User Profile

Amazing: are you more or less admitting that according to your heretical scheme, there was something "satanic" about Jesus Christ!?

[SIZE=4]Evil From the Good? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Does the Bible Teach that God is the Source of Evil? [/SIZE]

[B]James Patrick Holding[/B] [COLOR=Purple]

[I]Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Lamentations 3:38 "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"

Jeremiah 18:11 "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."

Ezekiel 20:25,26 "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts...[/I]

Is God the source of evil, according to these passages? In the first four verses, the word "evil" is ra. This word does indicate moral evil elsewhere. But there are meanings offered in Strong's for this word like "adversity" and words of similar nature. Ra can therefore be used in both senses.

Now with this in mind, how do we determine the proper translation of ra in this case? The answer is simple, once we consider the literary parallel in the verse in question. [B]Note the antithesis in the first part of the verse from Isaiah: light/darkness. The second part of the verse must also be therefore reckoned as an antithesis. The word we translate "prosperity" is a familiar one: shalom. We commonly translate this word "peace" - but it is NEVER used to indicate moral goodness, the antithesis of moral evil! [/B] We must therefore translate "ra" in terms of its specified antithesis, and that is why it is thoroughly proper to give it the meaning of calamity/disaster/adversity here. (Presumably skeptics would "argue by outrage" and say that God has no right to cause us adversity. For more on this, see Glenn Miller's article on this verse.)

The verse from Amos offers a similar parallel, to the blowing of a trumpet -- [B]a sign of calamitous judgment, not moral evil[/B]. The same is the case for Lamentations, where ra is placed in opposition to a word that means "beauty" or "bounty" or joy, and the verse after which asks, "Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?" The verse prior in Jeremiah ("If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.") uses the same word for "good" in opposition.

The verses in Zeke tell us that God handed the Israelites over to their sinful desires when they refused to obey him. God allowed the Israelites to govern themselves by pagan statutes as part of their punishment -- in other words, they "asked for it". God is not the source of this sort of evil; we are![/COLOR]

[url]http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godevil.html[/url]

Also answer to my other inquiries, please.

Petr

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-24 20:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][I] - [B]"If I falsely accuse you of something, I become your devil – it does not mean I grow horns or a tail or anything like that.

LOL! Now what do you have to say, Petr? [/B]"[/I]

What do I say? I say that you are obviously, regrettably, in the bonds of a [B]stupid [/B], blatantly un-scriptural heresy.

Who was there to "accuse" Jesus Christ when He was alone in the desert? Do you dare to claim that Jesus was talking to Himself, even possibly containing some "satanic" elements in Him?

And what do you say about that story in the book of Revelation?

Petr[/QUOTE]

The devil came when Jesus was alone in the desert; of course, once the devil came he was no longer alone until the devil left.

Revelation uses alot of symbolism.

---

Texas Dissident

2005-01-24 20:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV)

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.[/QUOTE]

The scriptures clearly teach that God cannot be the author of evil. James 1:13 states "Let no one say when he is tempted. ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." And further "Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow." (emphasis added) We know that God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Psalm 18:30 tells us "As for God, His way is blameless" and "Thou art not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; no evil dwells with Thee (Psalm 5:4). Also, "The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and kind in all His deeds." (Psalm 145:17)

Now, we know that all of these Scriptures cannot be wrong on the nature of God, so we must re-examine your exegesis of the Hebrew word ra’. Hebrew is an ancient language that was much more limited in scope than say Greek. Frequently, the same words were used in several contexts to mean different things. Why, even in English the word blue could mean a color or someone feeling depressed.

The word ra’ is used throughout the Old Testament with several meanings. It is used many times to mean something morally evil or hurtful (Job 35:12, 1 Sam 30:22, etc.) but it is also used to mean an unpleasant experience (Gen 47:9 and Prov. 15:10). It is used to describe fierce beasts (Lev. 26:6), and even spoiled or inferior fruit (Jer 24:3). Certainly, the figs that Jeremiah was looking at were not evil in the sense of morally reprobate!

In Isaiah 45, the word evil is used in a contrast to the peace and well-being discussed before it. I quote John Haley:

Evil means natural, and not moral evil, or sin. Herderson says "affliction, adversity"; Calvin, "afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences."

…Whichever interpretation may be adopted, none of the above texts, nor any others when properly explained, sanction the revolting proposition that God is the author of sin."(1)

God, in Hebrew thought, is considered the final authority over everything. If wars or famine happen, then God has allowed that to occur, and therefore controls evil. He does not initiate any type of evil. When a man seeks to sin and commit adultery, that is his choice. He should not expect God to protect him, then from any disease or negative ramification of his choice. God’s judgments and the loss of His protection are how he creates afflictions in the lives of men. Judgment is not morally wrong, though. Quite the opposite. Judgment is what we expect of a righteous God.

I hope this helps you to understand the differences in the word ra’ a little more clearly. Let me know what you think.

[url]http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi025.asp[/url]

---

Quantrill

2005-01-24 20:42 | User Profile

When talking about the existence of the devil, one practice of the Greek Orthodox might be of interest, since the New Testament was originally written in Greek. When a traditionalist Greek Orthodox Christian says the Lord's Prayer, he prays -- 'and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-25 06:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]In Jewish Kabbalistic myth, Adam's first wife was not Eve, but a demoness named Lilith, whom God created from filth. Eve was actually Adam's third wife, because God kept 'failing' to create a woman Adam could be satisfied with. Here is an excerpt from Robert Graves [u]Hebrew Myths[/u]. Note the many aspects of paganism (probably from the Babylonian captivity) that have become intertwined with the original Genesis account[/QUOTE]Over on the parent SF thread they both discuss and link to a specific discussion of the "serpent seed" doctrine. There someone also brought up the Kabbalistic "serpent seed" doctrine, which irritated the dual-seedline defender quite noticably.

Considering the number of undercover agents in the Klan, you've got to wonder it owes its origin originally there in some measure to the clever strategy of some [I]agent provocateur [/I], who managed to bamboozle the Klan. The similarities are just too obvious.

Motives? Who knows, but they are part of the general pattern of agent provocateurs to get people to believe, say, and do crazy things, and thus marginalize themselves. And it has a clear and understandable goal - to lesson the influence of Gerald L.K. Smith's types in the regular Churches, so they could be more easly swayed toward dispensationalism and Marxism (and quite successfully I might add).

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-25 07:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gabrielle]LOL! I never met either one of the two people of whom you speak. I wouldn’t know them if we were sitting at the same table. But I do know this, as Christians, if we debate amongst ourselves, we should NOT slander one another. I have nothing against ANY CI ministers… if they are wrong about their doctrine, that is between them and God. Martin, you will get more bees with honey than vinegar. Must you always be so full of hate? Must you always say wicked things about people?? Just debate like a white guy. Let truth be your armor and sword… “Live and let live.” Gabbyrelle is joined to the hip with the Downeys. We've already hoed this row on VNN/TGMNN (Traitor Glenn Miller News Network), and Gabby, as well as Sapphira, having failed to get me banned from there -- the VNN/TGMNNers are never ones to reject dirt on Christers -- then both Gabbyrelle and Sapphira left, if they are different. Gabbyrelle went back to TGMNN to vote for myself as "TGMNN's Dumbest Poster" several weeks ago, although I had already been banned there by means of password modification.

So when Gabbyrelle asks for an end to 'slander,' Gabbyrelle/Sapphira really means "Puh-leeze, Puh-leeze, Puh-leeze stop saying bad things against me by bringing up the past." Of course such courtesy is never extended to Pete Peters or any Dual-Seedliner on Stormfront or jewhoogruppen wherein rule the Semaramis sisters.

What I say about people is meant to be the truth. A truth which has gotten me banned here before. So today I hint as to past history a bit, skirt the edge, and try to get the truth in edgewise. The truth of the matter is that I don't want to catch flies like yourself and Sapphira. I want to eject you from Identity altogether, which to be honest has already been accomplished by yourselves except on Stormfront and where people don't know your past history. It really doesn't matter whether the 'Gabbyrelle' persona is working on behalf of the Sapphira persona, I have a tendency to shoot stalking horses.

And, remember, with us Dual-Seedliners, the First Command we got was Genesis 3:15 -- mutual hatred with the spawn of Satan. So yes, it always comes down to hate, doesn't it?

[QUOTE=Gabrielle] I am not… I know you are wrong. Big deal… I have been wrong many times… so what? I do not lie and I would NEVER lie as far as God’s Holy Word goes… I don’t want the second death. I truly believe there is not such thing as a devil, as I believe Eve did not mate with ‘him’ or (what ever Satan is supposed to be). I have studied the matter, and this is the conclusion I reached… Does that make me, or anyone else who believes like that, evil? Lastly, how do you think you make CI look when you start attacking some man’s wife? He loves that woman as much as you love your precious wife. What glory does it bring to our Lord when you act like that? Do you think you are helping the Cause, or damaging it? Please debate like a Christian. :)[/QUOTE] The matter in a nutshell is that I consider you to be a liar and a probable spawn of Satan. It's not as if you are going to admit being a spawn of Satan. If you did admit to being a spawn of Satan, then you'd look goofier than usual because you just said that Satan doesn't exist.

Secondly, I don't consider Downey to be much of a man, and what Sapphira did as a wife to several men shows her character. Insofar as removing Sapphira and Downey from their role as jackals upon the One-Seedliners, I'm doing them a favor. After all, I have no quarrel with Pete Peters but I do have one with the Downeys because of their activities against fellow Dual-Seedliners.

Us Dual-Seedliners don't forget and we seldom forgive.

Why must you insist on claiming to be Identity? Can't you go back to being Babtists or Episcopalians or Unitarians or jews or wherever you come from that really doesn't care what you did or who you really are -- a jew-day-o baal-priestery with unconditional promiscuous 'love?' Why bother those who you have offended permanently? In everything that I do, I follow Dual-Seedline doxology. You might get me banned for simply operating within DSL parameters, but all that does is to prove that the ODES simply cannot deal with reality when it punches them in the nose and kicks their ass. Yes, Gabby, you're a piece of work, along with Sapphira, but you most certainly are not Identity, the proof being that none of you dare go to either a OSL or DSL congregation where you are known.

--Martin Lindstedt A Defender of the Faith [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-25 08:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]If "Dual-Seedline" not an innovation, please direct me to any credibile Christian writer of, say, the first few centuries after Jesus Christ who advocates such a doctrine. Surely, they would know something of this doctrine.[/QUOTE]I'll direct you to the Bible, wherein Christ tells these Edomite jews that they are of their Father, Satan the Devil, cf. John 8:44. Elsewhere it says that Cain was of the evil one.

Since you won't take Christ's word as to the parentage of the jews, then I'll let you decide whom you consider to be 'credible' Christian writers. There seems to be no point in argument with those whose 'minds' are already made up, especially if they don't claim to be Identity.

In case you haven't noticed, my ire is directed against those who claim to be Identity -- but are not. You are no danger as an unbeliever to Identity.

--Martin Lindstedt A Defender of the Faith [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-25 08:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Wrong, Lucky. I posted one of your more-restrained text comments here without any judgment or editorial comment of any kind way back on page 2 or so of this thread. You had clear sailing to make your case as best you could.

Seeing how you had already begun taking a ka-ka in your own nest here - as well as tossing "Ill Fagno, FakeTheBitcher's chief brownnose" my way in the Introduction thread - I thought I'd give the OD Assembled an uncut dose of what your CI insanity inevitably leads to. Entirely in your own words, I might add. Although I think that people who begin insulting their hosts ("Original Dissent Embalming Society") before they've even gotten their coats off shouldn't expect very many return invitations.[/QUOTE]The point of the matter is that I am talking to a different brand of feeb here in the Original Dissent Embalming Society (ODES) than amongst you phorafags/feebs wherein I'm a 'confined' guest in your Opposition jewlag. When in Rome, Ill Fagno.

So if I am on relatively restrained behavior here on ODES, then why would you want to get me banned here? I'd say you want to cause trouble. While we both know that if I really let rip I'd be out on my ear quicker than snot, Okie already thinks I can't get any meaner. Little does he know.

But as long as I stay on my side of the line here at the ODES, then I shouldn't be judged as to how I rip the phorafags/feebs in another jurisdiction. Here, at ODES, it's like crossing the border into Bolivia or inner Mong[r]ollia. I don't see an extradition treaty, Ill Fagno. I'm just fighting with the fellow 'Identity' undesirables in this red-light thread, Sapphira Downey and Gabbyrelle.

The genuine ODES stiffs shouldn't be caught dead here, if they had any sanctimony, brawling with us irregulars at virtual Storeyville, i.e., the Christian Identity thread. After all, I am a Dual-Seedliner and they ain't going to get anything better out of a Cracker-Jack box anytime quick, Ill Fagno. Sapphira is smarmy and Gabbyrelle is pretty stupid. ODES really needs somebody mean like me who can make them feel so much much better about theysselfs that they ain't testosterone-poisoned racist haters or axe-murdering heretics from their precious estrogen-drip churchianity.

So don't put on airs, my little denizen of jew Yawk, for my didos at phorafags/feebs. When in Rome, do as the ODES do.

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-25 08:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=mild_swill]They don't think they care about that. All that matters is their mad descent into every vile heresy.

I read that the dual seedline is taught in the Jews' Kaballah![/QUOTE]OK, show me where it says in the jew's Kaballah where it says that jews are the spawn of Satan.

Like Sapphira and Gabbyrelle when they associate with Khazardick Niemela and yap about where the jew's Talmud claims that the Dual-Seedline dogma that jews are descended from Satan, there too I'd like the chapter and verse.

After all, if jews want to admit that they are the biological, or even adoptive, spawn of Satan, I and every other Dual-Seedliner will take the jews at their word that once.

--Martin Lindstedt

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-25 08:47 | User Profile

Martin, why were you banned? Who is Khazardick Niemela?

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-25 08:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Over on the parent SF thread they both discuss and link to a specific discussion of the "serpent seed" doctrine. There someone also brought up the Kabbalistic "serpent seed" doctrine, which irritated the dual-seedline defender quite noticably.

Considering the number of undercover agents in the Klan, you've got to wonder it owes its origin originally there in some measure to the clever strategy of some agent provocateur , who managed to bamboozle the Klan. The similarities are just too obvious.

Motives? Who knows, but they are part of the general pattern of agent provocateurs to get people to believe, say, and do crazy things, and thus marginalize themselves. And it has a clear and understandable goal - to lesson the influence of Gerald L.K. Smith's types in the regular Churches, so they could be more easly swayed toward dispensationalism and Marxism (and quite successfully I might add).[/QUOTE]If a Dual-Seedliner was annoyed, then it was because of the silliness at Stormfront, where Sapphira is the moderator. The censorship there makes ODES look good.

Everytime I hear some feeb or jew claim that "Dual-Seedline is taught in the jews' Talmud or Kabballah" I immediately ask them to name the chapter and verse. Which they cannot. jews are at least smart enough to not be caught admitting that they are the spawn of Satan. The feebs listening to jew lies and repeating them are obviously too stupid to figure out that jews don't want to be named or their parentage revealed.

Gerald L.K. Smith is dead, Okie. People took bits and portions of what he taught and incorporated what they found valuable into their own dogma. Even if you had clear title to Smith's preachings, which you don't, I don't think you'll set up any orthodoxy any time soon.

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-25 09:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Martin, why were you banned? Who is Khazardick Niemela?[/QUOTE]I didn't last a message at Stormfront, because Sapphira is moderator at the Stormfront. She doesn't like me revealing the past. Of course, she always censors Dual-Seedliners as a matter of policy.

Here at the Original Dissent Embalming Society, I've been banned before. Ask Okie. In fact, I might be banned again. Same reason. Not backing down from a fight.

ZOG-kernal Khazar-dick (Richard) Niemela is a Finnish jew who retired as a lt. colonel in the early 1970s. Niemela is another one of the jews hanging around with the poseur One-Seedliners the Downeys. Niemela, of course, hates Dual-Seedline like most jews because Dual-Seedline says that jews are the spawn of Satan. Like the other ODES feebs, Niemela claims that the Talmud teaches Dual-Seedline, but always has to shut up when asked by us Dual-Seedliners to name chapter and verse. You see, if the jews were to be caught admitting that they are the spawn of Satan in their Talmud or Kabballah, then us Dual-Seedliners would of course rub it in.

I could dig up old messages wherein Sapphira and Niemela really get into it, until a DSL target is in sight, whereupon the animosities of the moment are forgotten until the DSLer is either vanquished or, in the case of myself, victorious. Sapphira knows who Niemela is. So do you, I bet, Gabbyrelle.

[url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/rrogues.html"]http://www.martinlindstedt.org/rrogues.html[/url]

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-25 09:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]I didn't last a message at Stormfront, because Sapphira is moderator at the Stormfront. She doesn't like me revealing the past. Of course, she always censors Dual-Seedliners as a matter of policy.

Here at the Original Dissent Embalming Society, I've been banned before. Ask Okie. In fact, I might be banned again. Same reason. Not backing down from a fight.

ZOG-kernal Khazar-dick (Richard) Niemela is a Finnish jew who retired as a lt. colonel in the early 1970s. Niemela is another one of the jews hanging around with the poseur One-Seedliners the Downeys. Niemela, of course, hates Dual-Seedline like most jews because Dual-Seedline says that jews are the spawn of Satan. Like the other ODES feebs, Niemela claims that the Talmud teaches Dual-Seedline, but always has to shut up when asked by us Dual-Seedliners to name chapter and verse. You see, if the jews were to be caught admitting that they are the spawn of Satan in their Talmud or Kabballah, then us Dual-Seedliners would of course rub it in.

I could dig up old messages wherein Sapphira and Niemela really get into it, until a DSL target is in sight, whereupon the animosities of the moment are forgotten until the DSLer is either vanquished or, in the case of myself, victorious. Sapphira knows who Niemela is. So do you, I bet, Gabbyrelle.

[url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/rrogues.html"]http://www.martinlindstedt.org/rrogues.html[/url]

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url][/QUOTE]

Martin, I do NOT hate dual seedliners… I just think it is stupid.

Martin, I had no idea who Niemela was until now.

Martin, Klaliff is not my friend.

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-25 10:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Martin, I do NOT hate dual seedliners… I just think it is stupid.

Martin, I had no idea who Niemela was until now.

Martin, Klaliff is not my friend.[/QUOTE]Who do you think you are kidding, other than yourself, Gabby?

Remember voting for me within the past two weeks as VNN's Dumbest Poster? (And, by the way, yes, if one clicks on the poll just right before it closes, one can see who voted. And Gabbyrelle, you are so busted.)

Remember VNN earlier last summer? Your reason for leaving VNN with Sapphira was because of my bringing up old history and the rest of the VNNers, young dumb anti-Christians almost all, reacting adversely to both you and Klailiff's smarmy sanctimony. They don't like me at all, but they liked you both even less, and they never ever feared either of you.

Whether or not you know Niemela, I'll take under (negative) advisement. After all, two out of three lies means that the third one is likely a lie as well.

I'll allow that I'm hated and feared outside Dual-Seedline. But you and the Downeys are merely despised. By both the OSLers and DSLers. Why do you think that is?

Likewise, Dual-Seedline Christian Identity is the most hated religion by the jews and ZOG. They don't consider it 'stupid.' Why do you 'think' that is?

Cut the crap, Gabby.

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-25 12:26 | User Profile

**Who do you think you are kidding, other than yourself, Gabby?

Remember voting for me within the past two weeks as VNN's Dumbest Poster? (And, by the way, yes, if one clicks on the poll just right before it closes, one can see who voted. And Gabbyrelle, you are so busted.) **

It wasn’t me… it was the devil! The devil made me do it! I fought and struggled with the devil for such a long time, but he finally won. :tongue:

Remember VNN earlier last summer? Your reason for leaving VNN with Sapphira was because of my bringing up old history and the rest of the VNNers, young dumb anti-Christians almost all, reacting adversely to both you and Klailiff's smarmy sanctimony. They don't like me at all, but they liked you both even less, and they never ever feared either of you.

That place was a gutter and you know it… remember Dr.Antichrist?

**Whether or not you know Niemela, I'll take under (negative) advisement. After all, two out of three lies means that the third one is likely a lie as well.

I'll allow that I'm hated and feared outside Dual-Seedline. But you and the Downeys are merely despised. By both the OSLers and DSLers. Why do you think that is?

Likewise, Dual-Seedline Christian Identity is the most hated religion by the jews and ZOG. They don't consider it 'stupid.' Why do you 'think' that is?

Cut the crap, Gabby.**

Cut the crap? LOL! I can tell you haven’t been to Stormfront lately. Again, I will tell you…Klaliff and I are NOT friends! Can I make it any plainer for you?

I don’t give two cents who this Niemela guy is either.

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-25 17:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]Everytime I hear some feeb or jew claim that "Dual-Seedline is taught in the jews' Talmud or Kabballah" I immediately ask them to name the chapter and verse. Which they cannot. jews are at least smart enough to not be caught admitting that they are the spawn of Satan. The feebs listening to jew lies and repeating them are obviously too stupid to figure out that jews don't want to be named or their parentage revealed. We just had a chapter and verse Martin. [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=98040&postcount=108]Quantrill's Post[/URL], though I suspect you'll say its not applicable.

..........concerning Gerald L.K. Smith's being a point in the development of Christian Identity. However, Identity has noted him as a point on the road from Bristish Israeliteism to Dual-Seedline. Was Smith Dual-Seedline per se? No. But he did play a role in its development, whether you agree or not.

Gerald L.K. Smith is dead, Okie. People took bits and portions of what he taught and incorporated what they found valuable into their own dogma. Even if you had clear title to Smith's preachings, which you don't, I don't think you'll set up any orthodoxy any time soon.

You seem to be trying to do some things here with Gerald L. K. Smith which are opportunistic and contradictory. You like to lay claim to his name in some sense, but when pressed, you say its not really relevant.

It appears to me fairly obviously that CI gets some of the faint remnant of respectability and legitimate authority it has, both as a religion and as a political/social movement, from association with Smith's name and legacy. Any bunch of crackerjacks in the backwoods can dig up a bunch of verses in the Bible at random and say they have proof the earth was flat, their local landlord is the anti-Christ or whatever. Smith was a great man of substance and promise, with abilities as a preacher and political leader, and accepted personal integrity and decency even among his political enemies. He in other words, is everything CI (at least from what I've seen here), and especially ML is not.

So its a nice try trying to link yourself to Smith's name to give CI a little of his legitimacy, but it won't work. So what if Smith may have been " a point on the road" (slightly different than the "unbroken line" I recall you mentioning, but whatever). Judaism was a point on the road to Christianity, which was a point in turn on the road to Catholicism and later Mormonism, (even Islam). But everyone agrees that Christianity, Mormonism, and Islam are completely different religions (setting aside Catholicism for now).

Quite obviously the current level of CI's isn't remotely the same, whose faults you note with perspicacity on the Downeys. To us though it seems like your infatuation with harassing them personally indicates a certain equivalence of methods, that indicates you somehow feel threatened by them. You may disagree among yourselves which of you is on the highest level. but it cetainly doesn't seem remotely on the level of where Gerald L. K. Smith ever was.

---

wild_bill

2005-01-25 18:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]If a Dual-Seedliner was annoyed, then it was because of the silliness at Stormfront, where Sapphira is the moderator. The censorship there makes ODES look good.

Everytime I hear some feeb or jew claim that "Dual-Seedline is taught in the jews' Talmud or Kabballah" I immediately ask them to name the chapter and verse. Which they cannot. jews are at least smart enough to not be caught admitting that they are the spawn of Satan. The feebs listening to jew lies and repeating them are obviously too stupid to figure out that jews don't want to be named or their parentage revealed. [/QUOTE]

I have seen the reference in print to know that it exists, but its not like I cared enough to write down. Identity is bogus anyway - seedline or otherwise.

There's plenty of reasons to oppose Jews without conjuring-up dubious ones or inventing heretical theologies. If Christ's own words aren't enough, Saint John Chrysostom laid it all out 1600 years ago and this has been supported by other Christian writers and leaders down through history. Nobody needs to turn to Jewish legends or fight over the meaning of any particular word in the Bible means. Christian doctrine was never established by Strong's Concordance or what version of the Bible one used.

Jews and Judaizers have always been a problem for Christians. This is nothing new.

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-25 19:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill][color=Navy]In Jewish Kabbalistic myth, Adam's first wife was not Eve, but a demoness named Lilith, whom God created from filth. Eve was actually Adam's third wife, because God kept 'failing' to create a woman Adam could be satisfied with. Here is an excerpt from Robert Graves [u]Hebrew Myths[/u]. Note the many aspects of paganism (probably from the Babylonian captivity) that have become intertwined with the original Genesis account.[/color][/QUOTE]

The Kabbalistic account is especially interesting to me Quantrill when I look over at the SF threads. People there seem to be actually admitting the Jewish religious influence and defending it.

[URL=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1547613&postcount=29]SF - Dual Seedline Speculation[/URL]

[URL=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1548227&postcount=20]Original Robb Thread[/URL]

And it wouldn't really surprise one at all when you think about it. When the CI people starting from a vague Anglo-Israelism went to serious infatuation with the OT and its laws, why shouldn't they look to the Talmud and other "Jewish catechisms" on the OT for guidance? After all the Jews have been studying the same types of questions for thousands of years. And I bet one of these preachers was happening to read the Kabbala when he stumbled on this passage and said "voila, this is just what I've been looking for". The similarities are just too striking.

In fact it seems the clear dynamics of CI would be to move away from condemnation of religious judaism period, as with evil spiritual forces in general (Satan), toward only jewish like concern over racial purity.

And it makes perfect sense according to MacDonald, who has always argued Judaism was the perfect culture for the adaptation of racial and ethnocentrism. Of all the general tendency of WN to develop as a "mirror-image" form of Judaism, which MacDonald touched upon with NS, (and makes NSers like Triskelion/Jennifer equally mad :lol: CI certainly seems to be the penultimate manifestation of this.

That's what seems to me to be the missing link here, the origins and evolution of CI thought from Smith to its current pseud-Kabbalistic state. I can see that's the one thing Martin hasn't been eager to touch upon.

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-25 19:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]I have seen the reference in print to know that it exists, but its not like I cared enough to write down.

[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=98040&postcount=108]Quantrill's Post[/URL]

Identity is bogus anyway - seedline or otherwise.

There's plenty of reasons to oppose Jews without conjuring-up dubious ones or inventing heretical theologies. If Christ's own words aren't enough, Saint John Chrysostom laid it all out 1600 years ago and this has been supported by other Christian writers and leaders down through history. Nobody needs to turn to Jewish legends or fight over the meaning of any particular word in the Bible means. Christian doctrine was never established by Strong's Concordance or what version of the Bible one used.

Jews and Judaizers have always been a problem for Christians. This is nothing new.[/QUOTE]Pretty much exactly what Ibere said

[URL=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1548227&postcount=20]Original Robb Thread[/URL]

Its amazing that CI seems to have merely evolved into copying the oldest formal heresy known in Christianity.

Somehow culturally CI seems to be just another manisfestation of the amazing infatuation with Judaism underlying American Christianity, as with dispensationalism.

---

Quantrill

2005-01-25 19:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]The Kabbalistic account is especially interesting to me Quantrill when I look over at the SF threads. People there seem to be actually admitting the Jewish religious influence and defending it. I agree. The Kabbalistic Lilith stuff is just too perfect a fit for there to be no connection

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] And it wouldn't really surprise one at all when you think about it. When the CI people starting from a vague Anglo-Israelism went to serious infatuation with the OT and its laws, why shouldn't they look to the Talmud and other "Jewish catechisms" on the OT for guidance? After all the Jews have been studying the same types of questions for thousands of years. [/QUOTE] I think you and Wild Bill have it pegged pretty well. They are, at bottom, just Judaizers, which have plagued the Church since the beginning. The fetishization of the OT laws, the Kabbalistic myths, the disbelief in the devil -- these are all characteristics of Orthodox Judaism.

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-26 03:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Who do you think you are kidding, other than yourself, Gabby?

**Remember voting for me within the past two weeks as VNN's Dumbest Poster? (And, by the way, yes, if one clicks on the poll just right before it closes, one can see who voted. And Gabbyrelle, you are so busted.) **

It wasn’t me… it was the devil! The devil made me do it! I fought and struggled with the devil for such a long time, but he finally won. :tongue:

Remember VNN earlier last summer? Your reason for leaving VNN with Sapphira was because of my bringing up old history and the rest of the VNNers, young dumb anti-Christians almost all, reacting adversely to both you and Klailiff's smarmy sanctimony. They don't like me at all, but they liked you both even less, and they never ever feared either of you.

That place was a gutter and you know it… remember Dr.Antichrist?

**Whether or not you know Niemela, I'll take under (negative) advisement. After all, two out of three lies means that the third one is likely a lie as well. **

I'll allow that I'm hated and feared outside Dual-Seedline. But you and the Downeys are merely despised. By both the OSLers and DSLers. Why do you think that is?

**Likewise, Dual-Seedline Christian Identity is the most hated religion by the jews and ZOG. They don't consider it 'stupid.' Why do you 'think' that is? **

Cut the crap, Gabby.

Cut the crap? LOL! I can tell you haven’t been to Stormfront lately. Again, I will tell you…Klaliff and I are NOT friends! Can I make it any plainer for you?

I don’t give two cents who this Niemela guy is either.[/QUOTE]Gabby's position is that of an experienced liar. Deny everything until caught, and admit with a laugh when she is caught. By juggling the ratio of lies detected as opposed to lies accused of, Gabby thinks that somehow she will be deemed to be truthful. As in Bill Clinton's case, protesting that he hadn't lied because the accusation wasn't specific enough, or an argument over the meaning of the word 'is,' the best thing to do is simply acknowledge that one is dealing with a remorseless liar and move on.

The fact of the matter is that Gabby is a lightweight, so I don't need to use any intensive interrogation techniques in order to understand that she is a harmless feeb, a gnat associated with Sapphira.

Far be it for me to use a flame-thrower on a mere pissant.

--Martin Lindstedt

P.S. By the way, I liked Dr. Anti-Christ for the points of honesty. I see so little character today that I'll give grudging respect even for bad character. As I recollect, he too didn't like you either, and he was on the poll, but you chose to vote for me as opposed to Dr. Anti-Christ. --M.L.

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-26 04:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]The Kabbalistic account is especially interesting to me Quantrill when I look over at the SF threads. People there seem to be actually admitting the Jewish religious influence and defending it.

[url="http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1547613&postcount=29"]SF - Dual Seedline Speculation[/url]

[url="http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1548227&postcount=20"]Original Robb Thread[/url]

Well, thanks Okie. I've asked the jews countless times where it admits in the Talmud that jews are the spawn of Satan. Seems like there is an admission against interest after all.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] And it wouldn't really surprise one at all when you think about it. When the CI people starting from a vague Anglo-Israelism went to serious infatuation with the OT and its laws, why shouldn't they look to the Talmud and other "Jewish catechisms" on the OT for guidance? After all the Jews have been studying the same types of questions for thousands of years. And I bet one of these preachers was happening to read the Kabbala when he stumbled on this passage and said "voila, this is just what I've been looking for". The similarities are just too striking.

In fact it seems the clear dynamics of CI would be to move away from condemnation of religious judaism period, as with evil spiritual forces in general (Satan), toward only jewish like concern over racial purity. Okie is taking some things, like the jews by having to claim to be something they are not -- Israelites -- developing their own twisted traditions and then saying that Christian Identity without the racial kinks, are like jews. And then Okie really steps his foot into it by yapping about CI getting "toward only a jewish like concern over racial purity."

No mamzer, or misceginated bastard can enter the Congregation of the House of Israel, not even after 10 generations. That is the Law. Anyone against that Law should be suspected of having more than a few negroes in his genetic woodpile. The Law has in no way been overthrown -- Christ's job was to fulfill -- and those who teach and preach differently will be "least in the kingdom of God" -- if indeed they make it at all. Matt 5:19.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] And it makes perfect sense according to MacDonald, who has always argued Judaism was the perfect culture for the adaptation of racial and ethnocentrism. Of all the general tendency of WN to develop as a "mirror-image" form of Judaism, which MacDonald touched upon with NS, (and makes NSers like Triskelion/Jennifer equally mad :lol: CI certainly seems to be the penultimate manifestation of this.

That's what seems to me to be the missing link here, the origins and evolution of CI thought from Smith to its current pseud-Kabbalistic state. I can see that's the one thing Martin hasn't been eager to touch upon.[/QUOTE]Why should I touch upon the false claims concerning CI with those too dishonest or disinterested in Christian Identity? Wild Bull quotes some guy who wrote stuff over 1600 years ago as some sort of authority. Okie gets all rabid over the thought of Gerald L.K. Smith having anything to do with Christian Identity. Are they ameniable to any sort of 'proof?' The Kabballah has something of interest for Madonna, a noted religious authority, but not especially for us Identity Christians.

See: Jim Floyd: Madonna -- For jews Only [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/jf092504.html"]http://www.martinlindstedt.org/jf092504.html[/url]

But thanks for the Talmud quote, Okie. I always suspected that the really high-up jews know their daddy.

--Martin Lindstedt

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-26 04:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]We just had a chapter and verse Martin. [url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=98040&postcount=108"]Quantrill's Post[/url], though I suspect you'll say its not applicable.

Old hat, Okie.

The Story of Lilith has been around for some time. Lilith was the world's first femnishevik.

By the way, what is it applicable to, Okie?

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] You seem to be trying to do some things here with Gerald L. K. Smith which are opportunistic and contradictory. You like to lay claim to his name in some sense, but when pressed, you say its not really relevant.

It appears to me fairly obviously that CI gets some of the faint remnant of respectability and legitimate authority it has, both as a religion and as a political/social movement, from association with Smith's name and legacy. Any bunch of crackerjacks in the backwoods can dig up a bunch of verses in the Bible at random and say they have proof the earth was flat, their local landlord is the anti-Christ or whatever. Smith was a great man of substance and promise, with abilities as a preacher and political leader, and accepted personal integrity and decency even among his political enemies. He in other words, is everything CI (at least from what I've seen here), and especially ML is not.

Make Smith your god, if you want, Okie. I've merely said that both pro-CI and anti-CI claim that Smith had a part in the formation of CI dogma. You wish to flail away at common knowledge, then have at it.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] So its a nice try trying to link yourself to Smith's name to give CI a little of his legitimacy, but it won't work. So what if Smith may have been " a point on the road" (slightly different than the "unbroken line" I recall you mentioning, but whatever). Judaism was a point on the road to Christianity, which was a point in turn on the road to Catholicism and later Mormonism, (even Islam). But everyone agrees that Christianity, Mormonism, and Islam are completely different religions (setting aside Catholicism for now).

OK. So?

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Quite obviously the current level of CI's isn't remotely the same, whose faults you note with perspicacity on the Downeys. To us though it seems like your infatuation with harassing them personally indicates a certain equivalence of methods, that indicates you somehow feel threatened by them. You may disagree among yourselves which of you is on the highest level. but it cetainly doesn't seem remotely on the level of where Gerald L. K. Smith ever was.[/QUOTE] So you think my bringing up the history of the Downeys is "with perspicacity" yet my "infatuation with harassing them personally indicates a certain equivalence of methods, that indicates you somehow feel threatened by them."

Well, thanks, I think. I've just been psycho-anal-ized by Okie, on the basis of Okie's notions. And then I'm informed that I am nowhere near on the level of Okie's god, Gerald L.K. Smith.

I'd be crushed, except that until Okie told me so, I had no such ambitions.

Get a grip, Okie. I've mentioned the past history of the Downeys. They are unhappy because they got caught. How do you think I know all about their past history from here in SW Missouri except that some of the aggrieved told me about them?

Insofar as what Okie's great god Gerald L.K. Smith is concerned, I never met the man, or heard anything about him other than what others, both CI and non-CI said or wrote. Okie should take this up with religious scholars, not myself.

--Martin Lindstedt

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-26 04:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]I agree. The Kabbalistic Lilith stuff is just too perfect a fit for there to be no connection

I think you and Wild Bill have it pegged pretty well. They are, at bottom, just Judaizers, which have plagued the Church since the beginning. The fetishization of the OT laws, the Kabbalistic myths, the disbelief in the devil -- these are all characteristics of Orthodox Judaism.[/QUOTE] Maybe Quantrill will make a Dual-Seedliner yet, with his animus against the jews, as soon as he is able to get over listening to what Stormfronters (Sapphira Downey presiding) said.

--Martin Lindstedt

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-26 04:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]Well, thanks Okie. I've asked the jews countless times where it admits in the Talmud that jews are the spawn of Satan. Seems like there is an admission against interest after all. No, it doesn't have your exact version, word for word. Just cutting and pasting a couple of words into the Kabbalah version however certainly doesn't make your theology a unique "Christian" creation. :smartass:

Okie is taking some things, like the jews by having to claim to be something they are not -- Israelites -- developing their own twisted traditions and then saying that Christian Identity without the racial kinks, are like jews. And then Okie really steps his foot into it by yapping about CI getting "toward only a jewish like concern over racial purity."

No mamzer, or misceginated bastard can enter the Congregation of the House of Israel, not even after 10 generations. That is the Law. Anyone against that Law should be suspected of having more than a few negroes in his genetic woodpile. The Law has in no way been overthrown -- Christ's job was to fulfill -- and those who teach and preach differently will be "least in the kingdom of God" -- if indeed they make it at all. Matt 5:19. What a rebuttal, anyone who questions CI must be of "mixed-bloodline" and will of course go to Hell - because you Martin Lindstadt say so. :yawn:

If we're going to get into ancestry, that argument sounds awfully ebonical to me, except I might be insulting the ebonics speakers. :afro:

Why should I touch upon the false claims concerning CI with those too dishonest or disinterested in Christian Identity?

The John 9:34 "argument". :lol: :caiphas:

Wild Bull quotes some guy who wrote stuff over 1600 years ago as some sort of authority. Okie gets all rabid over the thought of Gerald L.K. Smith having anything to do with Christian Identity. Are they ameniable to any sort of 'proof?' The Kabballah has something of interest for Madonna, a noted religious authority, but not especially for us Identity Christians.

See: Jim Floyd: Madonna -- For jews Only [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/jf092504.html"]http://www.martinlindstedt.org/jf092504.html[/url]

But thanks for the Talmud quote, Okie. I always suspected that the really high-up jews know their daddy.

--Martin Lindstedt[/QUOTE]You're welcome, I'm sure you can use it in your next religious tract. Just try to adjust the wording a little, I'd hate to be found responsible for originating CI tracts :lol:

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-26 04:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]No, it doesn't have your exact version, word for word. Just cutting and pasting a couple of words into the Kabbalah version however certainly doesn't make your theology a unique "Christian" creation. :smartass:

What a rebuttal, anyone who questions CI must be of "mixed-bloodline" and will of course go to Hell - because you Martin Lindstadt say so. :yawn:

If we're going to get into ancestry, that argument sounds awfully ebonical to me, except I might be insulting the ebonics speakers. :afro: The John 9:34 "argument". :lol: :caiphas:

You're welcome, I'm sure you can use it in your next religious tract. Just try to adjust the wording a little, I'd hate to be found responsible for originating CI tracts :lol:[/QUOTE]I'm simply saying that I've long suspected that the jews know from hence they derived but don't admit it to Whites.

Secondly, Christian Identity is against the racial entropy common to the jew-day-o's. Anyone heard endorsing such becomes immediately suspect as a probable victim of such practices.

Lastly, if you wish to be hostile toward Christian Identity that is fine. However, if you wish to claim to know anything about our doxology, then it should be admitted that what you think you 'know' is shaded by your hostility.

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-26 05:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]I'm simply saying that I've long suspected that the jews know from hence they derived but don't admit it to Whites. Well I doubt the Kabballah was saying that.

Secondly, Christian Identity is against the racial entropy common to the jew-day-o's. Anyone heard endorsing such becomes immediately suspect as a probable victim of such practices. Dumb

Lastly, if you wish to be hostile toward Christian Identity that is fine. However, if you wish to claim to know anything about our doxology, then it should be admitted that what you think you 'know' is shaded by your hostility. [/QUOTE] :lol:. Coming from Mr. Hostility himself.

(Actually I just think that's your personal style, and I'm not innately hostile to CI's. But they need to admit they're just in waters over their heads.)

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-27 06:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] :lol:. Coming from Mr. Hostility himself.

(Actually I just think that's your personal style, and I'm not innately hostile to CI's. But they need to admit they're just in waters over their heads.)[/QUOTE] So is it Christianity you don't like, or just me? Or both?

Some of the more dedicated can seem a trifle hostile.

--Martin Lindstedt

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-27 06:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MartinLindstedt]So is it Christianity you don't like, or just me? Or both? I told you I love both.

Hate the sin, love the sinner - is that in the CI lexicon, or is it the reverse? :lol:

Some of the more dedicated can seem a trifle hostile.

--Martin Lindstedt[/QUOTE]A trifle :lol:

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-28 05:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I told you I love both. Where's Fred Phelps when you need him?

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Hate the sin, love the sinner - is that in the CI lexicon, or is it the reverse? :lol: [/QUOTE]Genesis 3:15. Hate the sin, hate the spawn of Satan. And the spawn of Satan hates the Christian Israelite right back.

Always remember, Genesis 3:15 is probably the only Law of YHWH that both the Sons of Man and the spawn of Satan obey absolutely.

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

Gabrielle

2005-01-28 15:27 | User Profile

Taken from SF:

For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected lust into her." (Shabbath 146a, The Jewish Talmud)

"When the serpent copulated with Eve, he infused her with lust." (Yebamoth 103b, The Jewish Talmud)

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, etc." (Genes. III, 1.) 'More subtle' that is towards evil; 'than all the beasts' that is, the idolatrous people of the earth. For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve…." (Zohar I, 28b, The Jewish Cabala)

---

G.Larson

2005-01-31 01:27 | User Profile

Quite honestly C.I is the only form of Christianity that matters Thus I respect it and feel no loathing for it as I do all other forms of Christianity that preach that all disgusting groids are eqaul to Aryans and have souls, blech!. C.I is the most logical and truthful Christianity that is in exsistance. And is the only one that is totally concerned with the White race and ONLY the White race. As Whites are the only true people so therefore Double Seedline is the only true Christianity.

I made the mistake of going back to church a day or two ago, and was quickly reminded of why I have a loathing for most of all Christianity I just left as I was being consumed by hatred and was feeling the need to grab a whip and drive the priestcrafter from the pukepit.

---

wild_bill

2005-01-31 01:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=G.Larson]Quite honestly C.I is the only form of Christianity that matters Thus I respect it and feel no loathing for it as I do all other forms of Christianity that preach that all disgusting groids are eqaul to Aryans and have souls, blech!. C.I is the most logical and truthful Christianity that is in exsistance. And is the only one that is totally concerned with the White race and ONLY the White race. As Whites are the only true people so therefore Double Seedline is the only true Christianity. [/QUOTE]

I think the problem is that liberalism (and foolishness) has infected many churches. They take the point that all men, regardless of race, will be judged before God for their sins and imagine falsely that all people and races are equal in intelligence, morality, and the ability to maintain civilization. This is the mistake and a modern innovation. Add in media-induced white guilt and its easy to see why many people are turned off by modern Christianity and may be attracted to things like Identity. But the fact remains that much of what the modern churches teach doesn't come from either the Scriptures or Christian tradition.

Any church that teaches as doctrine the idea that all races are equal and encourages racial destruction through integration and misegination is not teaching traditional Christianity, but liberalism and subversion. Any clergyman who advocates these things is acting outside his authority and teaching doctrines of men.

---

Quantrill

2005-01-31 01:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=G.Larson]Quite honestly C.I is the only form of Christianity that matters Why is that? Because it is the only one that fits with your pre-existing biases?

[QUOTE=G.Larson]Thus I respect it and feel no loathing for it as I do all other forms of Christianity that preach that all disgusting groids are eqaul to Aryans and have souls, blech!. Ah, so your loathing is merely restricted to orthodox Christianity. At least you're broad-minded enough to respect heresy.

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-31 04:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gabbyrelle]Taken from SF:

For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected lust into her." (Shabbath 146a, The Jewish Talmud)

"When the serpent copulated with Eve, he infused her with lust." (Yebamoth 103b, The Jewish Talmud)

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, etc." (Genes. III, 1.) 'More subtle' that is towards evil; 'than all the beasts' that is, the idolatrous people of the earth. For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve…." (Zohar I, 28b, The Jewish Cabala)[/QUOTE]Gabby, if the jews want to admit to being the spawn of Satan, then that is quite all right with me. Or any other Dual-Seedliners.

So now that $turmfront (outside the Sapphira-Seedliner Faction pretending to be Identity) gets it that the jews theysselfs admit to being the spawn of Satan, when exactly are you going to get with the Dual-Seedline Program?

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-31 04:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]I think the problem is that liberalism (and foolishness) has infected many churches. They take the point that all men, regardless of race, will be judged before God for their sins and imagine falsely that all people and races are equal in intelligence, morality, and the ability to maintain civilization. This is the mistake and a modern innovation. Add in media-induced white guilt and its easy to see why many people are turned off by modern Christianity and may be attracted to things like Identity. But the fact remains that much of what the modern churches teach doesn't come from either the Scriptures or Christian tradition.

Any church that teaches as doctrine the idea that all races are equal and encourages racial destruction through integration and misegination is not teaching traditional Christianity, but liberalism and subversion. Any clergyman who advocates these things is acting outside his authority and teaching doctrines of men.[/QUOTE]So, Wild Bill, are you gonna be a milk-bibbing One-Seedliner hanging around Pete Peters for a while or are you going to go for the meat of Dual-Seedline right off the bat?

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

MartinLindstedt

2005-01-31 04:33 | User Profile

Quote:

Originally Posted by **G.Larson** *Quite honestly C.I is the only form of Christianity that matters*

Why is that? Because it is the only one that fits with your pre-existing biases?

Quote:

Originally Posted by **G.Larson** *Thus I respect it and feel no loathing for it as I do all other forms of Christianity that preach that all disgusting groids are eqaul to Aryans and have souls, blech!.*

Ah, so your loathing is merely restricted to orthodox Christianity. At least you're broad-minded enough to respect heresy.

========

Don't you have some 'groids to worship, Quantrill, along with the rest of the jew-day-os and jewnitarians?

--Martin Lindstedt [url="http://www.martinlindstedt.org/"]www.martinlindstedt.org[/url]

---

G.Larson

2005-01-31 05:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Why is that? Because it is the only one that fits with your pre-existing biases?[/QUOTE] Yes, and as for loathing I have a loathing for anything that is harmful to the White race. But then again I care about the White race something which is at all time low these days. So bring on the heresy since being Racially Loyal if your White is heresy anyway, why not add two counts.

---

G.Larson

2005-01-31 05:56 | User Profile

Hello Wild bill, the mainsteam church is always a good gauge to measure current society with for the most part. Being the fact that mainsteam churches have always been a mouth piece of the state. As for "Traditional" Christianity it does not exsist as it is constantly morphing into different Sects with different views. As for Double Seedline it draws people who are already Racial. I do not think it makes White Racists but brings them in. If it was not for my already strong Racial loyality I would not have the attitude I do towards it. Honestly I agree with you any church that teaches Racial death is part of the problem not the solution.

[QUOTE=wild_bill]I think the problem is that liberalism (and foolishness) has infected many churches. They take the point that all men, regardless of race, will be judged before God for their sins and imagine falsely that all people and races are equal in intelligence, morality, and the ability to maintain civilization. This is the mistake and a modern innovation. Add in media-induced white guilt and its easy to see why many people are turned off by modern Christianity and may be attracted to things like Identity. But the fact remains that much of what the modern churches teach doesn't come from either the Scriptures or Christian tradition.

Any church that teaches as doctrine the idea that all races are equal and encourages racial destruction through integration and misegination is not teaching traditional Christianity, but liberalism and subversion. Any clergyman who advocates these things is acting outside his authority and teaching doctrines of men.[/QUOTE]

---

Quantrill

2005-01-31 12:26 | User Profile

Moderator -- Why is my post showing up as being from Martin Linstedt?

---

Okiereddust

2005-01-31 16:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Moderator -- Why is my post showing up as being from Martin Linstedt?[/QUOTE]Which one? You don't mean [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=98853&postcount=150[/url], do you?

---

Quantrill

2005-01-31 17:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Which one? You don't mean [url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=98853&postcount=150"]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=98853&postcount=150[/url], do you?[/QUOTE] Yes, that's precisely the one I mean.

---