black@nisysg.DEC (03/22/85)
>Sounds like a good program. It would be nice if net.religion would >follow the example of this program. If instead of arguing endlessly >why religion X is wrong (or right), people on the net would summarize >their opinion on the religion issues. I don't think it is possible >to debate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a religion or religions, >as different people, when they discuss religion, employ different logic >standards. I propose an alternative. Let each netter summarize his views on >this matter in a short article (long articles tend to be complicated). >I don't think we can convince each other, but we might have a better >chance of understanding each other. [Yosi Hoshen] I couldn't agree more, Yosi. It's rather hard to summarize Christian Identity into a neat package. It's even harder with people screaming "Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!" Sometimes things tend to degenerate into a p***ing contest. So let's cross the Rubicon. Basically, Identity Christians believe that: 1. The United States, based on scriptural reference and description, is the true Promised Land, the Land of Milk and Honey. 2. God knew of the future existance of the United States, since He is omniscient, and, after all, He created the planet, so He should know something about its geography. Christ, being God, obviously knew about it, too, although scripture does not specifically mention America. 3. Christ is not a Jew. (It's sometimes confusing to write about a Person Who exists for all time, but for a period in the past walked as a Man.) As Christ, the Man, He was born as a Galillean of the Israelite tribe of Judah. He followed the Israelite/Hebrew religious practices common to the area. He was sent not to the "Jews," but rather to the lost nations of Israel (one specific reference to this is in Luke 22, I believe.) 4. Christians are the direct descendants of the thirteen tribes of Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel. Now, the Bible usually refers only to TWELVE tribes of Israel. Jacob, of course, had twelve sons, one of whom was Joseph (with the coat of many colors). As Jacob was dieing, he put a special blessing on Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and rearranged the tribe of Joseph as a twin tribe (sort of like having twelve births, one of which is a set of twins, making thirteen children.) Further, at one point the tribe of Levi (the priests) are dispersed amongst the other twelve. 5. God dispersed the tribes because of their failure to trust Him, and their failure to obey His Laws. As part of their punish- ment, He told them they would forget who they were; they would lose their identity. He promised, though, that He would send to them a Light Who would show them the Way, and that through this Light they would know that they are the Children of God, and that they would know who they are, and that they would be known by a different name--His name! (CHRISTians) 6. America (which for our definition includes both the US and Canada) was founded by Christians who knew they were Israelites. They immediately made it perfectly clear that the new nation was founded only for Christian purposes. (Example: the Mayflower Compact.) The laws of the original colonies made it obvious that this was to be a Christian nation, and the original intent was that it would stay that way. The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of 1787 are all based on scriptural law. The Common Law accepted throughout the Nation is scriptural in origin. By comparison, most of the accepted financial policies in use today have their roots in ancient Babylon. This has been shown by secular archeologists. There is scriptural references to today's practices also. 7. Scriptural law, including but not limited to Mosaic Law, is binding upon the Israelites. Christ did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. What He destroyed was the "Traditions of the Elders," the ways of men practiced by the Pharisees. (Boy, did the Pharisees hate losing their strangle-hold on the people!) 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. 9. The Antichrist is anyone who is anti-Christ. Regarding the Jews, we believe: 1. They are the descendants of Esau, the Edomite, who sold his birthright for a bowl of beans. (Read scripture to find out the exploits of Esau.) These people eventually became known as the Canaanites, amongst others. Esau was very prolific. 2. At the time of Christ, these people were known as the Scribes and Pharisees. Christ had absolutely nothing good to say about them. In fact, He even identified them directly as the sons of Satan (in John 8 as I recall). 3. Irregardless of the proclaimation of Vatican II, St. Paul tells us that it was in fact the Jews who nailed Christ to the Cross. (It is a valid point of dicussion as to whether or not modern Jews still bear the responsibility for the Crucifixion. After all, the crime took place two millennia ago. Should the descendents of the criminals be held liable to punishment for crimes of their forefathers? Personally, I don't believe so.) In any event, if the Crucifixion were not to have taken place, we probably would not have Christianity. Christ had to die, and somebody had to kill Him. 4. Modern Jews are the descendents of the Pharisees, who Christ condemned. (Don't quote me, but I believe there is an explicit reference to this in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1925, in which the Jewish author actually admits this. I personnally don't like to cite something unless I have a hard copy in my hands.) 5. The modern Jews, therefore, have no claim to being "Israelites." 6. However, scripture says there is salvation for all flesh that believes in Christ. 7. It would appear that the Talmud probably has its roots in the religious traditions of ancient pagan Babylon. Remember that the Israelites were in captivity in Babylon for a period of time, and many Israelites adopted the religion and practices of Babylon. Christ also condemned the "ancient traditions of men" that were practiced by the Pharisees. Do you see why the Jews hate Identity Christians with a purple passion? This is straight out of scripture, and the dispersion of the Lost Tribes and their migration to western Europe is backed up by archeology, history, and tradition. As I have stated previously, These are VALID religious concepts. They are recognized even by the IRS. And they really have no conflict with the theology of any established religion (Correction: any CHRISTIAN religion). Is it racist? Only mildly so. Is it Nazism? Well, take a look at who's calling it that. Is it "nice?" Maybe not. Is it true? That's up to the individual to decide, after all, it's still a free country, isn't it? Aren't we all committed to keeping it that way? Remember that in a free society, there will be the "Rich Rosens" and the "Don Blacks." If the middle cannot tolerate the ends, then we really don't have a free society, do we? Likewise, if the ends cannot tolerate the middle. Freedom of religion means just that. Freedom of speech means just that. To make it anything different would require a change in the Bill of Rights. And a change in the Bill of Rights invites armed rebellion (and that's a promise!). (By the way, for the Canadian readers, this is the type of material that Ernst Zundel was persecuted for.) Sleep well tonight. Don Black "Ayuh! Love New Hampsha" --Bumper sticker on a car from Massachusetts.
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (03/23/85)
This is really a followup to an article I posted recently with a quote
from Newsweek about the Identity movement. I want to make it very clear
that I feel that Identity Christians are entitled to believe anything
they want. If they feel that American is some kind of new Eden, that
Chr-st was not a Jew and that Aryans are the chosen of G-d that is largely
their business so far as it goes.
When, however, those beliefs are turned into disruptive social action
then I must take a stand. As it appears to me that the Identity movement
with its ties to the Aryan Nations, KKK and other far right groups
committed to remaking this society into their own image is advocating
social action on a grand scale I find I must oppose it with whatever I
can.
If you claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, then I suggest you return
to your Bible and reread the Sermon on the Mount. Decide then who is
Anti-Chr-st.
As for your final reposte: So long as the groups the Identity movement
are associated with are in any way considered respectable or even civilized
I will definitely *not* sleep well. Then that's what your about, isn't
it?
--
Byron C. Howes
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bchtim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/24/85)
Thank you, Don, for proving me correct. I had claimed that the diatribe against the Pharisees in the Gospels was clearly a piece of anti-Semitic trash. While there was some indignation, no Christian tried to show this to be false; they just assumed it was false because it was from the horrible fiend Maroney, and because it cast the Gospels in a bad light. By basing your own anti-Semitism upon it, you proved my point handily. Incidentally, you are correct that modern Judaism descends directly from the Pharisees. (What? Black said something about the Jews and it was ACCURATE? Somebody catch me!) -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/25/85)
In article <1243@decwrl.UUCP> black@nisysg.DEC writes: > 3. Christ is not a Jew. (It's sometimes confusing to write about > a Person Who exists for all time, but for a period in the past > walked as a Man.) As Christ, the Man, He was born as a Galillean > of the Israelite tribe of Judah. He followed the Israelite/Hebrew > religious practices common to the area. He was sent not to the > "Jews," but rather to the lost nations of Israel (one specific > reference to this is in Luke 22, I believe.) Not in my Bible. Jesus at one point says "I was sent only to the lost *sheep* of Israel" to the Canaanite woman, with the clear implication that those he has been teaching and ministering to ARE the house of Israel. (Matt. 15:24) I do not understand why you believe that these people are not the ancestors of todays Jews. > 4. Christians are the direct descendants of the thirteen tribes of > Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel. Now, the Bible usually > refers only to TWELVE tribes of Israel. Jacob, of course, had > twelve sons, one of whom was Joseph (with the coat of many colors). > As Jacob was dieing, he put a special blessing on Joseph's two > sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and rearranged the tribe of Joseph as > a twin tribe (sort of like having twelve births, one of which is > a set of twins, making thirteen children.) Further, at one point > the tribe of Levi (the priests) are dispersed amongst the other > twelve. > > 6. America (which for our definition includes both the US and > Canada) was founded by Christians who knew they were Israelites. > They immediately made it perfectly clear that the new nation was > founded only for Christian purposes. (Example: the Mayflower > Compact.) The laws of the original colonies made it obvious > that this was to be a Christian nation, and the original intent > was that it would stay that way. The Declaration of Independence, > the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of 1787 are > all based on scriptural law. The Common Law accepted throughout > the Nation is scriptural in origin. Grossly wrong. These passages betray a lack of elementary knowledge of Puritan theology and history. The notion of being the new Israel is a metaphor; it was never intended to imply that there was some sort of lineal descent from Jacob. Furthermore, English Common Law is based mostly upon Anglo-Saxon law, whose primary roots are pagan. > Regarding the Jews, we believe: > 1. They are the descendants of Esau, the Edomite, who sold his > birthright for a bowl of beans. (Read scripture to find out > the exploits of Esau.) These people eventually became known as > the Canaanites, amongst others. Esau was very prolific. > 2. At the time of Christ, these people were known as the Scribes > and Pharisees. Christ had absolutely nothing good to say about them. > In fact, He even identified them directly as the sons of Satan > (in John 8 as I recall). He also identifies them as sons of Abraham; clearly the reference is metaphorical. These two statements contradicgt scripture, not to mention alomst every historical account. As far as I know, there is no direct evidence to support these claims. > 4. Modern Jews are the descendents of the Pharisees, who Christ > condemned. (Don't quote me, but I believe there is an explicit > reference to this in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1925, in which > the Jewish author actually admits this. I personnally don't > like to cite something unless I have a hard copy in my hands.) Wrong. The theological traditions of modern jewry derive from pharisiac origins, but the people we now know are the descendants of Jacob, and are the true Israel. No other group, especially a group of Teutons, Saxons, and Celts, has any valid claim to the title. > 5. The modern Jews, therefore, have no claim to being "Israelites." > 7. It would appear that the Talmud probably has its roots in the > religious traditions of ancient pagan Babylon. Remember that the > Israelites were in captivity in Babylon for a period of time, and > many Israelites adopted the religion and practices of Babylon. > Christ also condemned the "ancient traditions of men" that were > practiced by the Pharisees. Another falsehood. It is called the BABYLONIAN Talmud because it was largely compiled in that area (I believe, but I'm not certain on this point). The Talmud does not begin to exist in its present form until the time of Christ and even later. The claim that its contents have anything to do with Babylon is utterly wrong; it is simply a way to hand the whore's name around the Jew's necks. In point of fact, it is quite clear that Babylon in the Revelation is to be identified with ROme, anyway. > Do you see why the Jews hate Identity Christians with a purple > passion? This is straight out of scripture, and the dispersion of > the Lost Tribes and their migration to western Europe is backed up > by archeology, history, and tradition. I cannot believe this. All of the evidence I know of contradicts this. I can understand why the Jews would not like these statements; you are trying to deprive them of the birthright. Your implicit denial of the holocaust tends to indicate that your 'knoledge' of history is rotten to the core. > As I have stated previously, These are VALID religious concepts. > They are recognized even by the IRS. And they really have no conflict > with the theology of any established religion (Correction: any > CHRISTIAN religion). Is it racist? Only mildly so. Is it Nazism? > Well, take a look at who's calling it that. Is it "nice?" Maybe not. > Is it true? That's up to the individual to decide, after all, it's > still a free country, isn't it? Aren't we all committed to keeping it > that way? What an apology. First of all, what you claim certainly contradicts the teachings of the Episcopal Church, the Romans, almost any other protestant group, every Orthodox church.... need I go on? Well, it is apparent to me, at any rate, that this system is fabricated out of a lot of misinformation, at best. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen) (03/25/85)
> 4. Christians are the direct descendants of the thirteen tribes of > Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel. Since when are Christians and not Jews the direct descendants of Jews? I am most confused. > Regarding the Jews, we believe: > > 1. They are the descendants of Esau, the Edomite, who sold his > birthright for a bowl of beans. (Read scripture to find out > the exploits of Esau.) These people eventually became known as > the Canaanites, amongst others. Esau was very prolific. This is another weird genealogical twist, Donnie boy. Where did you get this one? (It ain't in scripture, I'm certain). > > 2. At the time of Christ, these people were known as the Scribes > and Pharisees. Christ had absolutely nothing good to say about them. > In fact, He even identified them directly as the sons of Satan > (in John 8 as I recall). It's certainly true that Christ and the Pharisees didn't get along in scripture. But, again, where do you get the notion that the modern Jews are descendants of the Pharisees who are descendants of Esau??? > > 4. Modern Jews are the descendents of the Pharisees, who Christ > condemned. (Don't quote me, but I believe there is an explicit > reference to this in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1925, in which > the Jewish author actually admits this. I personnally don't > like to cite something unless I have a hard copy in my hands.) More of the same. > > 5. The modern Jews, therefore, have no claim to being "Israelites." > 7. It would appear that the Talmud probably has its roots in the > religious traditions of ancient pagan Babylon. Remember that the > Israelites were in captivity in Babylon for a period of time, and > many Israelites adopted the religion and practices of Babylon. > Christ also condemned the "ancient traditions of men" that were > practiced by the Pharisees. Uh...somebody Jewish correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't most of the Talmud written considerably before the Israelites went to Babylon? And Christ's condemnation of the "ancient traditions of men" is pretty general for you to stick that on Babylonian/?Phariseean practices. > Do you see why the Jews hate Identity Christians with a purple > passion? This is straight out of scripture, and the dispersion of > the Lost Tribes and their migration to western Europe is backed up > by archeology, history, and tradition. I'd sure like to see some reputable archeological/historical background for this. Note I said "reputable". Incidentally, Don, in a previous posting you flamed somebody (Rich, I believe) for using obscenity where there are ladies present. Fuck you. Love, Ellen
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen) (03/25/85)
Okay. I apologize for the perhaps undue flames in my last sentence. Please mentally substitute any emotional bazooka you prefer, but the sentiment remains. Ellen
nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) (03/26/85)
[*] My thanks to Don Black for a clear posting of the beliefs of Identity Christianity. As the net (well, 3 or 4 vocal members) has been clamouring for a response from some other Christian, I'll post my reply. Note that I am totally unacquainted with "Identity Christianity"; I am assuming that Don Black's articles accurately represent the position associated with that label. Before I begin, a query to Mr. Black: Is "Identity Christianity" a position you completely affirm, a position you only partly affirm, or a position you do not hold? If only partly, on what points do you disagree? (Just to clarify the nature of the discussion.) ******************************************************* > Basically, Identity Christians believe that: > > 1. The United States, based on scriptural reference and description, > is the true Promised Land, the Land of Milk and Honey. Personally, I would disagree, but this is the sort of thing that is difficult (impossible?) to verify or falsify, as it is simply the application of a metaphor to "reality". I am interested, however, in the reference to "scriptural reference and description": is it claimed that the U.S. can be demonstrated *based on the Bible* to be the "Promised Land"? I'm skeptical about that; I would like to see such a demonstration. > 2. God knew of the future existance of the United States.... Granted. > Christ, being God, obviously knew about it, too.... I would disagree that the deity of Christ implies his omniscience (Johannine writings notwithstanding), but I think this one is already being argued in net.religion.christian. > 3. Christ is not a Jew.... I need clarification here. Do you mean that Christ the man was not of Jewish descent and/or faith? (That's clearly false.) Or do you mean that Christ as the second person of the trinity is not more closely related to one ethnic group than another? (That would be correct.) > 4. Christians are the direct descendants of the thirteen tribes of > Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel. Again, I need clarification. Do you mean that Christians are biological descendants (false) or "spiritual"/ideological descendants (debatable, perhaps true) of the tribes of Israel? > 5. God dispersed the tribes because of their failure to trust > Him, and their failure to obey His Laws. As part of their punish- > ment, He told them they would forget who they were; they would lose > their identity. He promised, though, that He would send to them > a Light Who would show them the Way, and that through this Light they > would know that they are the Children of God, and that they would > know who they are, and that they would be known by a different > name--His name! (CHRISTians) The first sentence is OK, but the rest sounds strange. Can you justify this? > 6. America (which for our definition includes both the US and > Canada) was founded by Christians who knew they were Israelites. > They immediately made it perfectly clear that the new nation was > founded only for Christian purposes. (Example: the Mayflower > Compact.) The laws of the original colonies made it obvious > that this was to be a Christian nation, and the original intent > was that it would stay that way. The Declaration of Independence, > the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of 1787 are > all based on scriptural law. The Common Law accepted throughout > the Nation is scriptural in origin. I need an American history expert to help me out here. My understanding is that some but not all of the colonies were founded by people seeking religous freedom and that some but not all believed America to be a "Promised Land" or "new Israel". Some colonies (Massachusetts and perhaps Virginia, e.g.) had established churches; some did not. Many of the "founding fathers" were Deists, a faith which is not strictly Christian but has similarities, particularly in ethics, to Christianity. > By comparison, most of the accepted financial policies > in use today have their roots in ancient Babylon. This has > been shown by secular archeologists. There is scriptural > references to today's practices also. This sounds a bit strange, but I have no information about the financial practices of Babylon. > 7. Scriptural law, including but not limited to Mosaic Law, is binding > upon the Israelites.... Sounds OK, unless there is an unexpected double meaning to "Israelite" here. > 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. > > 9. The Antichrist is anyone who is anti-Christ. Interpretation of the escatological writings of the Bible is difficult and probably not worth debating here. The position stated in #8-9 sounds like a reasonable but not unanimously held interpretation of Revelation and other texts. > Regarding the Jews, we believe: > > 1. They are the descendants of Esau, the Edomite, who sold his > birthright for a bowl of beans. (Read scripture to find out > the exploits of Esau.) These people eventually became known as > the Canaanites, amongst others. Esau was very prolific. No. Esau was the brother of Jacob, both sons of Isaac. The descendants of Esau were the Edomites. The descendants of Jacob, renamed Israel, were the Israelites. The nation of Israel divided, after the reign of Solomon, into the nations of Israel and Judah. Israel was conquered by Assyria, Judah by Babylon. During this time of "exile" in Babylon the people of Judah became known as Jews (from the word "Judah"). The Canaanites were distinct from both Israelites and Edomites. > 2. At the time of Christ, these people were known as the Scribes > and Pharisees.... Scribes and Pharisees were only two of several groups within Judaism at that time. > 3. Irregardless of the proclaimation of Vatican II, St. Paul > tells us that it was in fact the Jews who nailed Christ to the > Cross. (It is a valid point of dicussion as to whether or not > modern Jews still bear the responsibility for the Crucifixion. > After all, the crime took place two millennia ago. Should the > descendents of the criminals be held liable to punishment for > crimes of their forefathers? Personally, I don't believe so.) Christ was condemned by *a group of* Jews, and the execution was carried out by the branch of the Roman government in Judea. It is *not* a valid point of discussion whether modern Jews are responsible, though I suppose we should discuss it long enough to dismiss it: THE JEWISH PEOPLE AS A GROUP ARE *NOT* RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF CHRIST. Not even all first-century Jews were responsible, much less modern Jews. > 4. Modern Jews are the descendents of the Pharisees, who Christ > condemned.... See #2: I imagine most of the sects of first century Judaism have modern descendants. Tim Maroney may well be right, however, in claiming that the Pharisees became the dominant group and that it is their thought which "won out". Note that Christ's condemnation of the religious establishment of his time cannot be taken (well, not without substantial further argument) as a condemnation of Judaism in general. > 5. The modern Jews, therefore, have no claim to being "Israelites." "Therefore"? I see no basis for this. > 6. However, scripture says there is salvation for all flesh that > believes in Christ. OK. > 7. It would appear that the Talmud probably has its roots in the > religious traditions of ancient pagan Babylon.... I do not have adequate information to respond on this point. > Do you see why the Jews hate Identity Christians with a purple > passion? I certainly do. They have every right to "hate Identity Christian[ity] with a purple passion". Some of the positions stated above would be very offensive (I expect) to a Jew. > Is it true? That's up to the individual to decide, after all, it's > still a free country, isn't it? Aren't we all committed to keeping it > that way? Yes, it is a free country, and Identity Christians have as much right to life, liberty, and net access as anyone, *assuming* their freedom is not acted upon in such a way as to harm others. > Sleep well tonight. A chilling ending. I will sleep a little less well, perhaps, than I might have. N. L. Tinkham duke!nlt
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/26/85)
> Basically, Identity Christians believe that: > > 1. The United States, based on scriptural reference and description, > is the true Promised Land, the Land of Milk and Honey. > 2. God knew of the future existance of the United States, since He > is omniscient, and, after all, He created the planet, so He should > know something about its geography. Christ, being God, obviously > knew about it, too, although scripture does not specifically > mention America. > 3. Christ is not a Jew. (It's sometimes confusing to write about > a Person Who exists for all time, but for a period in the past > walked as a Man.) As Christ, the Man, He was born as a Galillean > of the Israelite tribe of Judah. He followed the Israelite/Hebrew > religious practices common to the area. He was sent not to the > "Jews," but rather to the lost nations of Israel (one specific > reference to this is in Luke 22, I believe.) The fact that this clearly goes against Biblical scholarship shows its roots in after-the-fact presumption based on the man's hatred for Jews and his ethnocentric beliefs about his own ancestry. But, this is to be expected. So let's read on. > 4. Christians are the direct descendants of the thirteen tribes of > Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel. Now, the Bible usually > refers only to TWELVE tribes of Israel. Jacob, of course, had > twelve sons, one of whom was Joseph (with the coat of many colors). > As Jacob was dieing, he put a special blessing on Joseph's two > sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and rearranged the tribe of Joseph as > a twin tribe (sort of like having twelve births, one of which is > a set of twins, making thirteen children.) Further, at one point > the tribe of Levi (the priests) are dispersed amongst the other > twelve. If this isn't blind wishful thinking, what is? The numerous European tribes throughout the Middle Ages who gradually were converted to Christianity are the lost tribes, or rather those among them who migrated to America are those tribes? Is this pure poppycock or what? > 6. America (which for our definition includes both the US and > Canada) was founded by Christians who knew they were Israelites. > They immediately made it perfectly clear that the new nation was > founded only for Christian purposes. (Example: the Mayflower > Compact.) The laws of the original colonies made it obvious > that this was to be a Christian nation, and the original intent > was that it would stay that way. The Declaration of Independence, > the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of 1787 are > all based on scriptural law. The Common Law accepted throughout > the Nation is scriptural in origin. I guess some people forget freedom of religion and the other freedoms that were put in there. (Note how he carefully says "the Constitution of 1787, which would, if I'm not mistaken, exclude the Bill of Rights that the man apparently has no place for. Think about it. It's so easy to twist history to one's own ends, and this man is showing us how easy it really is. > 7. Scriptural law, including but not limited to Mosaic Law, is binding > upon the Israelites. Christ did not come to destroy the law, but to > fulfill it. What He destroyed was the "Traditions of the Elders," the > ways of men practiced by the Pharisees. (Boy, did the Pharisees hate > losing their strangle-hold on the people!) As certain modern day religionists hate losing their stranglehold on "the people" and come up with the most preposterous lies to sway them back. > 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. > 9. The Antichrist is anyone who is anti-Christ. I.e., anyone who is anti-Identity-Christianity. > Regarding the Jews, we believe: > 1. They are the descendants of Esau, the Edomite, who sold his > birthright for a bowl of beans. (Read scripture to find out > the exploits of Esau.) These people eventually became known as > the Canaanites, amongst others. Esau was very prolific. Again, unsubstantiated, even within the context of the limited verifiability of the Bible. But convenient to say if you happen not to like Jews. > 3. Irregardless of the proclaimation of Vatican II, St. Paul > tells us that it was in fact the Jews who nailed Christ to the > Cross. (It is a valid point of dicussion as to whether or not > modern Jews still bear the responsibility for the Crucifixion. > After all, the crime took place two millennia ago. Should the > descendents of the criminals be held liable to punishment for > crimes of their forefathers? Personally, I don't believe so.) > In any event, if the Crucifixion were not to have taken place, > we probably would not have Christianity. Christ had to die, and > somebody had to kill Him. I'd say that people who place the brunt of responsibility for such an act on ANY entire race of people are worthy of contempt when they flout such beliefs by asking if continuing the placement of "responsibility" is "a valid point of discussion". > 4. Modern Jews are the descendents of the Pharisees, who Christ > condemned. (Don't quote me, but I believe there is an explicit > reference to this in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1925, in which > the Jewish author actually admits this. I personnally don't > like to cite something unless I have a hard copy in my hands.) > > 5. The modern Jews, therefore, have no claim to being "Israelites." Yet, somehow, throught the transmogrified "logic" of Black, he and his kind DO have such a claim. Was there something I missed? Like evidence beyond just assertion? > Do you see why the Jews hate Identity Christians with a purple passion? From your hateful invective, I see no reason not to do so. You've successfully justified any hatred against your beliefs and yourself. Thank you. > This is straight out of scripture, and the dispersion of > the Lost Tribes and their migration to western Europe is backed up > by archeology, history, and tradition. This must be a new definition of the word "straight" with which I hadn't been familiar. > As I have stated previously, These are VALID religious concepts. > They are recognized even by the IRS. Given the rigor involved in proving validity of any "religious concept" I'd say you're right. > 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. > Is it Nazism? Well, take a look at who's calling it that. You mean Jews? Those people who've lied about their heritage (according to you) and spread untruths about a holocaust? Would only their calling it that make it somehow a biased judgment? (Only the people we hate are calling us Nazis! See?) Sorry, it's more than just Jews who see you for what you are. Oh, but wait, by seeing you for what you are, they are "anti-Christ". Never mind. There wasn't much sense in your whole scenario anyway. > Is it "nice?" Maybe not. Is it true? That's up to the individual to > decide, after all, it's still a free country, isn't it? Aren't we all > committed to keeping it that way? I don't think so. Not when YOU are fallaciously and sarcastically using the pronoun "we". By your own admission (regarding the tacit neglect of the Bill of Rights) you are NOT committed to keep it that way, and that speaks for itself. > Remember that in a free society, there will be the "Rich Rosens" > and the "Don Blacks." If the middle cannot tolerate the ends, then > we really don't have a free society, do we? Likewise, if the ends > cannot tolerate the middle. Freedom of religion means just that. > Freedom of speech means just that. To make it anything different > would require a change in the Bill of Rights. And a change in the > Bill of Rights invites armed rebellion (and that's a promise!). Yet such change is exactly what you clearly want and advocate strongly. Yes, I believe in the Bill of Rights. And in free speech. Because it provides a means for assholes like your kind to shoot off their mouths and be shown for the non-thinking tripe that they are. I know you despise my use of "obscenity", but I'd say that your concepts are far more obscene than my words (accurately applied) could ever be. Funny. I never saw myself as one of the "ends". Given that my philosophy states that ALL people should be free to believe and do what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others, I'd say that's pretty much in the middle of such things, with people free on either side of me. You, on the other side, when and if you take action based on your beliefs, go far beyond the limits of such individual rights. > (By the way, for the Canadian readers, this is the type of > material that Ernst Zundel was persecuted for.) > > Sleep well tonight. You're just teetering on the brink of malicious bigotry (though oh so carefully denying and avoiding actual hard statements beyond inference). Perhaps eventually the same fate is in store for you. But I hope not. I hope to see you around for a while, just to make sure there's someone around to showcase what Identity Christianity is all about, and to show that ANY movement like this, even the ones that CLAIM to be benevolent, are just as dangerous. With that in mind, please continue to do what you're doing, making a fool of yourself and your beliefs, and we'll all (the non-Christians, since the Christians are still either afraid to speak up or tacitly agree with you) have plenty to offer to show how full of hot air you really are. -- "Which three books would *you* have taken?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/28/85)
> 3. Christ is not a Jew. (It's sometimes confusing to write about > a Person Who exists for all time, but for a period in the past > walked as a Man.) As Christ, the Man, He was born as a Galillean > of the Israelite tribe of Judah. He followed the Israelite/Hebrew > religious practices common to the area. He was sent not to the > "Jews," but rather to the lost nations of Israel (one specific > reference to this is in Luke 22, I believe.) > How do you define Jew? A person born to the tribe of Judah is by definition Jewish. You could say, possibly ( if you believe in the ressurection) that after he rose he wasn't a Jew, but to categorically deny his being Jewish is wrong. > 4. Christians are the direct descendants of the thirteen tribes of > Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel. Now, the Bible usually > refers only to TWELVE tribes of Israel. Jacob, of course, had > twelve sons, one of whom was Joseph (with the coat of many colors). > As Jacob was dieing, he put a special blessing on Joseph's two > sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and rearranged the tribe of Joseph as > a twin tribe (sort of like having twelve births, one of which is > a set of twins, making thirteen children.) Further, at one point > the tribe of Levi (the priests) are dispersed amongst the other > twelve. > There are twelve tribes of Israel, one each for the sons of Jacob. When the land of Israel was divided amongst the descendants of Jacob a double portion was given to Joseph ( for each of his sons ) and the tribe of Levi did not get a portion ( the Bible gives the reasons for this ). This doesn't mean that there are 13 tribes. Jacob had twelve sons and they are the tribes of Israel. > > 7. Scriptural law, including but not limited to Mosaic Law, is binding > upon the Israelites. Christ did not come to destroy the law, but to > fulfill it. What He destroyed was the "Traditions of the Elders," the > ways of men practiced by the Pharisees. (Boy, did the Pharisees hate > losing their strangle-hold on the people!) > If he came to uphold the law, how come you don't abide by his mission. Much of what is commanded in the Bible, in fact most of it, is ignored by christians. I have yet to meet ( I'm sure there are some, I just haven't met any yet ) a christian who doesn't eat pork because of Biblical prohibition. > Regarding the Jews, we believe: > > 1. They are the descendants of Esau, the Edomite, who sold his > birthright for a bowl of beans. (Read scripture to find out > the exploits of Esau.) These people eventually became known as > the Canaanites, amongst others. Esau was very prolific. Where did this interesting fact come from? Did the Jews get lost on their way down to Egypt and have Esau take their place. Or maybe, on their way into Israel, the Jews took a wrong turn in the desert and Esau took over. Or was it in their exile in Babylon ( where they stayed for only 70 years, hardly long enough to get totally absorbed into a society and have someone else go masquerading around as them )? > > 2. At the time of Christ, these people were known as the Scribes > and Pharisees. Christ had absolutely nothing good to say about them. > In fact, He even identified them directly as the sons of Satan Of course not. Why should he have anything good to say about people who challenged his claims? If he was right, why did he bother with them. The only reason he fought them ( had nothing good to say about them ) could be because they were right and he didn't want those who listened to him to research and see how wrong he was. > > 3. Irregardless of the proclaimation of Vatican II, St. Paul > tells us that it was in fact the Jews who nailed Christ to the > Cross. (It is a valid point of dicussion as to whether or not > modern Jews still bear the responsibility for the Crucifixion. > After all, the crime took place two millennia ago. Should the > descendents of the criminals be held liable to punishment for > crimes of their forefathers? Personally, I don't believe so.) > In any event, if the Crucifixion were not to have taken place, > we probably would not have Christianity. Christ had to die, and > somebody had to kill Him. I thought it was the Roman who killed him? How could the Jews kill anyone, when they didn't have the right to, because the Roman forces wouldn't let them. The reason Vatican II said what they did, was because Paul was wrong. He got a little over-zealous in his hatred of Jews and the council decided to right the wrong. ( as a side point, the word is regardless, not irregardless[ which means with regard to. What you wanted to say, I imagine, is without regard to the council's ideas ] ). > > 4. Modern Jews are the descendents of the Pharisees, who Christ > condemned. (Don't quote me, but I believe there is an explicit > reference to this in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1925, in which > the Jewish author actually admits this. I personnally don't > like to cite something unless I have a hard copy in my hands.) > I don't think there is anything wrong with this statement, and there is nothing to be shameful of, so the author isn't admitting anything, just making a statement. > 5. The modern Jews, therefore, have no claim to being "Israelites." > Only according to you that Jews are really Edomites ( Esau's descendants ). What you don't explain is why the Edomites changed their identity ? Were they tired of being just plain Edomites, and tey wanted a taste of the persecution that Jews lived through? A nation of masocists, what a novel idea. > 7. It would appear that the Talmud probably has its roots in the > religious traditions of ancient pagan Babylon. Remember that the > Israelites were in captivity in Babylon for a period of time, and > many Israelites adopted the religion and practices of Babylon. > Christ also condemned the "ancient traditions of men" that were > practiced by the Pharisees. > How about the Jerusalem Talmud, which in many ways is similar to the Babylonian. Did the sages who stayed in Israel assimilate to Babylonian paganism too ( even though they weren't there ). One other thing. What jesus condemned as the ancient traditions of men was nothing less than Judaism. He couldn't get to te people as long as they practiced the religion of the Bible, so he mocked it and said that it was worthless. Then he says that he comes to uphold the same law he mocked and belittled. > > Do you see why the Jews hate Identity Christians with a purple > passion? This is straight out of scripture, and the dispersion of > the Lost Tribes and their migration to western Europe is backed up > by archeology, history, and tradition. > Yes I do see why the Jews hate identity christians so much. Because they are making false claims to a legacy which isn't theirs. They can't say that the Jews are not G-D's chosen people, so they redefine themselves as Jews and say that the Jews of today aren't really Jews. If you would say that your religion is based on a Jew's teachings and that even though the founder of your religion was Jewish you hate Jews with a passion, oksay. I see where you are coming from and can defend myself. But if you say that you are really Jewish and the Jews aren't, that's trickier to defend against. I have some problems with your theory. Why did it take the identity christians so long to lay their claim to Judaism. Why didn't they come out shouting all through the ages that the Jews are Jews and that they are. Why did the christians always say that the Jews aren't G-D's chosen people any more, that G-D changed His mind. They could have said more simply that they are Jews and those claiming to be Jews aren't. > As I have stated previously, These are VALID religious concepts. > They are recognized even by the IRS. And they really have no conflict > with the theology of any established religion (Correction: any > CHRISTIAN religion). Is it racist? Only mildly so. Is it Nazism? > Well, take a look at who's calling it that. Is it "nice?" Maybe not. > Is it true? That's up to the individual to decide, after all, it's > still a free country, isn't it? Aren't we all committed to keeping it > that way? > It's nice to know that the IRS is the final arbiter on religion. Eliyahu Teitz.
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/29/85)
Before someone jumps down my throat because of my last article on identity christianity, let me clarify one statement. I said I under- stand why Jews hate ic's. What I meant was I could understand why they would. I do not know that any Jew, let alone all Jews, hate ic's. I think they are misguided, uninformed people for the most part ( if they did a little honest research they would see their errors ). Their leaders are either the same as the followers or bloodthistly villians looking to get their jollies picking on a group that has been kicked around alot in the past. Eliyahu Teitz.