mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/29/85)
In article <760@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes: [Quoting Don Black] >> 8. As prophecied in Revelation (Apocalype), in the End Time Days, >> there will be a major battle between the forces of the Antichrist >> and the Christians. Mystery Babylon, the Red whore, will be destroyed >> starting from within. After a period of tribulation from which no >> Christian will escape, Christ will return in triumph to aid His >> Children Israel, and proclaim His Kingdom. >This is a rather common part of Christianity and nothing unique to Identity >Christianity. The way that Black interprets this, based on his bigotry and >wishful thinking preconceptions about the shape of the world, may be >somewhat more radical. But, as I've always been trying to show, such >presumptive beliefs, whether based on Wingate's "true Christian and not >'christian' philosophy" or on Black's Identity Christianity, are terminally >flawed, and neither is worthy of real consideration in terms of the >morality of a nation of independent people. If one is acceptable, so is >the other. I have been trying to show that neither is acceptable in any >way. Let me take this opportunity to try and clear up a few things here. You can roughly divide christianity into three camps on the subject of the Second Coming of Christ. The view that Black espouses is commonly held by fundamentalists and other descendants of the 19th century american tradition. It is typically accompanied by belief that certain signs and portents mentioned in the Revelation and in the book of the prophet Daniel are being fulfilled in these times, and that the Second Coming is coming soon. A second school holds that one should not look to signs and portents. Christ will come suddenly, without warning. I subscribe to this position. A third group claims that the whole thing is metaphorical and that no Divine Invasion is going to happen. In any case, the moral implications of the doctrine of the Second Coming are weak, and the doctrine does not in itself establish and kind of rules. Whether or not we have a 'right' to believe in it is a moot point. >> And they really have no conflict >> with the theology of any established religion (Correction: any >> CHRISTIAN religion). Is it racist? Only mildly so. >A "religion" that considers other religions to be non-established >religions, that considers others worthy of racist attacks dares to ask "Is >it racist?" And to answer "Only mildly so". As if "mild" racism was >somehow OK. Do Christians believe this man to be following the word of >Jesus? He certainly does. Though I tend to doubt that he's ever actually >read it. It does NOT conform to the teachings of Jesus, nor the testimony of the Hebrew bible. His claims about the ancestry of today's Jews do not agree with the testimony of Genesis.In my view, his views are "christian" only in the very weak sense that anyone can claim to follow Christ. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe