This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

This forum is for discussions and questions concerning Christian Identity direction, doctrine and debate.

Re: Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby Kentucky » Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:00 pm

wmfinck wrote:I think Kentucky meant "Ezra-Nehemiah" as in one of those two books.

While Ezra and Nehemiah were chronologically of the same era and contemporaries, I was suggesting to Nayto's wife's friend, that the task at hand was in ancient times as well as now a mandate to separate. No doubt there are overlapping ideas and themes, which were imperative to restoring Israel racially. Nehemiah even refers to the book of the chronicles (12:23). I see these two books (and others) as two or more witnesses to establish the matter. Nehemiah doesn't use the exact wording as Ezra i.e. "to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them" (10:4 KJV), but Ezra 10:11 is a good parallel to Nehemiah 9:2. The thing is: we need a few good Ezra's and Nehemiah's in our land today. It's not just a good idea, it's the Law (of God). I believe that is why God has purposed the Christian Identity movement: to instruct our people as to who they are and what their responsibilities are.

Mark
User avatar
Kentucky
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 am

Re: Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby Nayto » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:20 am

I agree completely. To fulfill such a role we just need to be prepared to be slandered left, right and center.

Thanks for the confirmation.
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby Kentucky » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:04 pm

Nayto wrote:I agree completely. To fulfill such a role we just need to be prepared to be slandered left, right and center.

Speaking of which, there appears to be a Talkshoe program tonight with leading universalists in CI (I know that's an oxymoron) and those who associate with them who will be defining what universalism means (as if one needed an hour, when a couple of minutes would suffice for any self respecting racist). What they should be discussing is the evils of universalism. Maybe they're going to repent because the disassociation is already working. But, I have a feeling it's going to be more of a damage control show and slander that these types are more accustomed to, than dealing with the truth.

Mark
User avatar
Kentucky
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 am

Re: Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby TJ » Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:52 am

wmfinck wrote:What is most tiring is having to convince certain people that they should judge a man for his words and his deeds ...


Agree. This is difficult. Many are quite convinced that we aren't to discern anything at all (judge not ...), and are ill-equipped to make determinations when they try. We are clearly instructed that we have the ability to differentiate according to the fruit that is borne. The only trapping here is defining good. Good is not that which flatters man. Good is that which emanates from Yahweh, pleases Yahweh, and is abode in Yahweh's law. If people become aware that they can pass judgement, but don't understand what they're supposed to be measuring against, it doesn't set them on a proper path.

Is it proper to accept a reprobate because he appears to be on your side? Can you ignore the substance of a man's professions, because he cheers you on and roots for you behind a facade?


No. I define the term good specifically to avoid this. Throughout history kikes have undermined Christian efforts by flattering unvigilant men and being useful to them; while being corrosive to their Godly pursuits.

'The Devil' doesn't need you to worship him. All he needs to get you to turn away from Yahweh is for you to worship yourself.

Praise for good works is appropriate. Undue flattery is to be regarded with the highest of suspicions.

When they refuse to recognize and publicly acknowledge Eli's treachery, either by refusing to look at the evidence, by seeing the evidence but still refusing to acknowledge it, or by acknowledging it and choosing not to discredit the man ... then they are empowering the man to continue in his treachery by giving him creditability.


This is where I had the disconnect. My hypothetical scenario involved two men who agree that the behavior ought to be condemned, but disagree on how to pursue a correction. That disagreement should not cause a quarrel amongst them (lacking a proper church body to govern over these matters).

If one is refusing to condemn a tree that is bearing evil fruit, or worse, refusing to identify the fruit as evil, then the progression of appeals, rebukes, and severance is wholly appropriate.

I would gladly accept any of these people back. On the condition that they publicly recognize the treachery, profess that it is evil, and publicly issue a rebuke of the person committing it. Then I would rejoice and be happy to accept them in my company.


Appropriate and proper. If a man is sincerely seeking to be right with Yahweh, and we refuse him on our own account, we condemn ourselves harshly.


I appreciate the exchange. It benefits me to sit down and articulate my thoughts on these matters. I also like having a group to screen it for error.
Husbands: Love your wives as Christ loved the church.
User avatar
TJ
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:55 pm

Previous

Return to Christian Identity Directions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron