2 Seedline vs. 1 seedliners

[Kentucky]

I refer to those who deny the "2 Seedlines" as 1 Seedliners.

I refer to those who say that as false accusers. You're not paying attention to what Bill or myself are saying.

Mark

[Meggie]

I refer to those who deny the "2 Seedlines" as 1 Seedliners.

I refer to those who say that as false accusers. You're not paying attention to what Bill or myself are saying.

Mark

Hi Pastor,

I wish I had a dollar for every time I tried to explain that to a DSLer who said I was a "single seed liner" and was ignored. I'd have some nice spending cash!

[Nayto]

Nayto wrote

Then I would suggest having listened to most of Bill's work, but particularly Answers in Genesis and Christ Reich series.

I think Nayto was referring to 'Pragmatic Genesis' rather than 'Answers in Genesis'. That will certainly address your question about the flood and two seed-line.

LOL, what a slip up. You are absolutely right, Joe. Thanks!

[Kentucky]

I refer to those who deny the "2 Seedlines" as 1 Seedliners.

I refer to those who say that as false accusers. You're not paying attention to what Bill or myself are saying.

Mark

Hi Pastor,

I wish I had a dollar for every time I tried to explain that to a DSLer who said I was a "single seed liner" and was ignored. I'd have some nice spending cash!

Hi Meggie. I'd take a nickel lol. I pray we all can call ourselves Identity Christians, if not the sole heirs to the namesake of Christian. Recognizing the distinction between us and them is a foremost doctrine, but I care not from whence they originate: they are not us and we are not them... period. That is our unity. Those divisive elements introducing the denomination of another gospel to the concept of two seedlines (i.e. racial purity vs. mongrelization), have no right to disenfranchise any of the sheepfold who love Christ and their brethren. That's my mini sermon for the day

Mark

[Nayto]

Hi Meggie. I'd take a nickel lol. I pray we all can call ourselves Identity Christians, if not the sole heirs to the namesake of Christian. Recognizing the distinction between us and them is a foremost doctrine, but I care not from whence they originate: they are not us and we are not them... period. That is our unity. Those divisive elements introducing the denomination of another gospel to the concept of two seedlines (i.e. racial purity vs. mongrelization), have no right to disenfranchise any of the sheepfold who love Christ and their brethren. That's my mini sermon for the day

Mark

I'm sure I've said this before, but it's worth saying again. Your and Bill's collaboration as well as this forum have gone a long way in theologically uniting the two "camps". It's great to know that there is not longer any need to argue about anything anymore.

[Kentucky]

theologically uniting the two "camps"

The two camps have always been artificially induced having nothing whatsoever to do with seedlines per se. The division has always been about a personified singular fallen angel who went by the name of "Satan." Since Bill came on the scene with unimpeachable scholarship, we have made great strides in eliminating this subject as a litmus test for one's Christian faith. Those who still play the game of divide and conquer, have exposed themselves as disingenuous expositors of Christian Identity and they are, in essence, little mongrel devils.

Mark

[Gaius]

Those who still play the game of divide and conquer, have exposed themselves as disingenuous expositors of Christian Identity and they are, in essence, little mongrel devils.

Mark

Amen to that, Mark.

There's surely plenty of topics for debate as a means of advancing the Kingdom and our people's knowledge. I've just come from listening to Bill's/Clifton's evaluation of Bertrand Comparet's "Fifth Kingdom", some needed correction in a spirit of respect for a CI pathfinder, the same debating apparently genuine differences of opinion in non-fundamental matters. The Christian model.

There's a chalk/cheese difference between the above and hurling emotive torches of discord, and many of our folk increasingly recognise them for what they are ... attempts to get similar emotive responses and reduce debate to a shambles and a laughing stock. It used to be very effective on the likes of stormfront as I remember ... the ego-feeding god of "free speech" ...

[Les]

I will never understand how anybody claiming to be C.I. or white power will spend time trying to crush his own folk when they can spend that same time messaging/talking to other whites that have never heard the truth.

I am lazy when it comes to spreading the C.I. message, even on the internet, and mainly do it when I get really angered by some nitwit that pushes my buttons.
The past few years, been getting slightly better at it.
The older we get, the more self-control we have, and the better our arguments / reasoning.

I still feel angry how I was manipulated when I was younger, like when when phoning into talk-radio programs in the past, and even at the time, a Christian Identity (2 seedline / Aryan Nations) skinhead even warned me to not do it as the radio hosts all were learned in how to control the conversations and, so even if I made excellent, intelligent points, they would hang up on me and ridicule them to still look like they "won".

No surprise, that many radio hosts are jews or jewdeo-christians or "Zionist" sympathizers.

[PhillipWMorrow]

For those who are promoting this same fallacious doctrine of “no-devil”. By promoting this heretical concept, it expunges the foundation of Genesis 3:15 upon which all the rest of the Biblical Gospel story rests. For if there is no Satan, then there was no physical seduction of Eve, and in turn no “seed of the serpent”. And if there was no “seed of the serpent” to bruise the “seed of the woman”. by Clifton Emahiser. Next you'll be telling us there is no Sabbath.

[Kentucky]

For those who are promoting this same fallacious doctrine of “no-devil”. By promoting this heretical concept, it expunges the foundation of Genesis 3:15 upon which all the rest of the Biblical Gospel story rests. For if there is no Satan, then there was no physical seduction of Eve, and in turn no “seed of the serpent”. And if there was no “seed of the serpent” to bruise the “seed of the woman”. by Clifton Emahiser. Next you'll be telling us there is no Sabbath.

Sent: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:23 pm
From: PHILnBOAZ
To: Kentucky
Kindly revoke my membership. Yah Bless.

If you're not happy here, why don't you go over to the the DSL Satan worshiping website run by Geronimo Visser, who likewise tries to interject Clifton's work as a wedge to sow discord among the brethren? Genesis 3:15 is quite secure in it's clear and simple message that there are two separate parties without adding private interpretations. Perhaps you need to read Bill's position on the types of personalities that constitute our community and the real purveyors of heresy. Here's the link for your edification:

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=3765

Mark