What to reject and what to keep?

[NicoChristian]

One topic that I've been thinking of recently is what we should allow to stay in Christianity and what to get rid of. For example our protestant ancestors tried to rid the church of anything with a hint of Catholicism, which may have seemed like a good idea at the time. But if we look at most of the Protestant churches nowadays they are mostly ultra liberal, very modern in their outlook, I don't get the feeling of being in a church by their atmosphere. Whatever their ancestors did, it doesn't seem to have benefited them nowadays. The Catholic and Orthodox churches are theologically wrong, the main issue would be their acceptance of all races. Catholics have maintained an image of conservatism while becoming thoroughly modernized. The Orthodox church is quite traditional and conservative, but has some flaws, the main one being universalist. The Orthodox church also suffered a lot at the hands of the Turks and the Communists and still suffers many setbacks in this respect. I often feel that in order to build our church it needs to be similar to the traditional churches, but without their flaws and theological errors. I think Christian Identity should be like the national religion, while maintaining the theological soundness. I think a united church would get rid of the problem regarding false identity pastors who simply self-promote themselves and become a leader without any criteria. Having a minimal criteria and a set standard would get rid of infighting and false preachers. Myself and my late friend started the 14 points, kinda of like a bare minimum doctrine around which to unite. 14 basic points that we all agreed on to reduce the infighting.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from and the ideas I wish to get forward. I also wanted to discuss what for example could be kept from the traditional churches. For example rosaries are not really godly, but people having crosses is still popular amongst Protestants. A lot of traditional Christian images are often nice and have nothing wrong with them.

[Kentucky]

Myself and my late friend started the 14 points, kinda of like a bare minimum doctrine around which to unite. 14 basic points that we all agreed on to reduce the infighting.

Have you posted this? I'd like to see it.

Mark

[brucebohn]

While Rome sought “one true church”, to the contrary Paul told the Corinthians that “there must also be sects among you, in order that those approved will become evident among you”, at 1 Corinthians 11:19.

[NicoChristian]

The wording used in the King James is heresies. I hardly think that this means that there should be many divisions and denominations as we have today. There will always be minor differences as it's human nature. Having many divisions is bad for the church, Paul was referring to some of the early divisions amongst the early churches. It isn't theologically necessary to have different sects competing against each other. I'll post the 14 points, but I believe you may have seen it on sf some years ago. The church of Christ is the one true church, there is only one true church. All the rest are either slightly misguided or completely misguided and heretical.

[Filidh]

in 1 corinthians 11:19, the word translated in the kjv as heresies is αἱρέσεις, haireseis (from αἵρεσις, hairesis), means subdivisions, factions, sects, and so on. it's a semi-false-friend to our word heresy.

that being said, i'm interested to see the 14 points.

[NicoChristian]

This draft was done in about 2010, it wasn't the final draft. I'd say I still agree with pretty much all of it as it is. I may have changed on some slight points over the years, I wasn't the sole author, in fact I was only partly responsible for some of it. Nonetheless I support the idea of a unified church and a unified front against the forces of evil.

[Filidh]

most is good, but there is some beef. also, i know you didn't write it all, but you also said you agree with it most all of it. so.

in point 10, the implication is given that missionary work to mongrels is okay, unless it intends the missionary work to refer to nonisraelite adamites such as the slavs, finns, hungarians, basques, and so on. do you agree with that? if so, why?

in point 11, it states that father created the mongrel-hominids who some mistakenly call 'nonwhite races of man'. do you agree with that? if so, why?

in point 14, it states that not all of israel will be saved. do you agree with that? if so, why?

in point 14.2, it states a spiritual rebirth is necessary. do you agree with that? if so, why?

in point 14.4, it states that water baptism is necessary. do you agree with that? if so, why?


i agree with your knowledge of the necessity of unity. together we are strong, and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

also, the spirit of the paper seems to be one of fearful obediance. remember that obediance thru fear lasts only a short while, while obediance thru love lasts forever. father isn't up there tapping his toes saying "when are they gonna get it right". he's up there weeping for our folk, yearning for our obediance thru love. that's why paul relayed his message of putting away the spirit of fear and putting on the spirit of love.

an everdeep everlasting wellspring of love for our father and our folk. hatred burns out quickly, and is thus useful in battles in war, in certain occasions. but if we let hatred consume us, we became as wicked as the evil one. love is forever, and it always wins. thus, the fear-inducing spirit of the paper isn't the best.

most of the rest of the paper is good. i await your response to these questions, brother.

[Joe]

Filidh says

remember that obediance thru fear lasts only a short while, while obediance thru love lasts forever. father isn't up there tapping his toes saying "when are they gonna get it right". he's up there weeping for our folk, yearning for our obediance thru love. that's why paul relayed his message of putting away the spirit of fear and putting on the spirit of love.

I will remember that, nice thoughts and words.
You misspelled obedience however and didn't capitalize Father or Paul, as usual. lol

[NicoChristian]

most is good, but there is some beef. also, i know you didn't write it all, but you also said you agree with it most all of it. so.

in point 10, the implication is given that missionary work to mongrels is okay, unless it intends the missionary work to refer to nonisraelite adamites such as the slavs, finns, hungarians, basques, and so on. do you agree with that? if so, why?

in point 11, it states that father created the mongrel-hominids who some mistakenly call 'nonwhite races of man'. do you agree with that? if so, why?

in point 14, it states that not all of israel will be saved. do you agree with that? if so, why?

in point 14.2, it states a spiritual rebirth is necessary. do you agree with that? if so, why?

in point 14.4, it states that water baptism is necessary. do you agree with that? if so, why?


i agree with your knowledge of the necessity of unity. together we are strong, and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

also, the spirit of the paper seems to be one of fearful obediance. remember that obediance thru fear lasts only a short while, while obediance thru love lasts forever. father isn't up there tapping his toes saying "when are they gonna get it right". he's up there weeping for our folk, yearning for our obediance thru love. that's why paul relayed his message of putting away the spirit of fear and putting on the spirit of love.

an everdeep everlasting wellspring of love for our father and our folk. hatred burns out quickly, and is thus useful in battles in war, in certain occasions. but if we let hatred consume us, we became as wicked as the evil one. love is forever, and it always wins. thus, the fear-inducing spirit of the paper isn't the best.

most of the rest of the paper is good. i await your response to these questions, brother.

First two points you'd have the speak with the author, who is no longer with us. He was purely against mongrels and against mixing, but he used to say that better they are Christian rather than Muslims. Most likely the points referred to non-Israelite Whites. As stated only if all Whites have been preached to then there could be time for mongrels. One way or another I don't think we're here to waste time on mongrels and the idea behind converting them would simply be to stop Islam and other religions, not to bring them in to us.

Last three yes I agree, why would the scum of the earth be saved despite rejecting Christ, denying Him and preaching against him. One cannot be saved unless they have accepted Christ.

Spiritual rebirth, everybody must be born again, change their ways and become a new man in Christ.

Water baptism, John the Baptist baptized Christ, so should we be. The Apostles baptized as well.

I myself may have changed some of my beliefs since the last edition, but my main focus is to create one true church, not many sects.

[brucebohn]

Water Baptism, circumsision, animal sacrifice, were all done away with
by the sacrifice on the cross. "Born Again"? You are either Born from Above,
or Born from Below, { A bastard} "All Israel", shall be saved.