List of Impossible Beliefs Held by Judeo Christians

[Kentucky]

if a man lives in a maze his entire life, the man who leads the man out of the maze will be seen as a twister of paths.

That is such a great analogy. Thanks, I'm gonna use it.

Mark

[Staropramen]

The fellow that I met with has sent me some of his bible studies. Currently I am going through a paper he wrote on why he doesn't debate. I'm about halfway through it so far and I have proven how every scripture citation he uses has been either misappropriated or outright twisted like a pretzel. Here's an example with my response;

We see some preach Christ with debate in there hearts.

"Philippians 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:"

XXXXX, you have not read this passage properly. From the Christogena NT;

14 and most of the brethren among the number of the Prince, trusting in my bonds, venture more exceedingly to speak the word of Yahweh fearlessly. 15 Some indeed even because of envy and strife, but some also by approval are proclaiming the Christ.

XXXXX, this passage is talking about fearless preaching in the face of envy and strife and also sometimes in the face of approval. It does not in any way shape or form say that some preach with debate in their hearts!

I know first hand how wonderful it is to fearlessly preach knowing how much the jews want to kill me. Heck, someone laughing like a madman almost ran me over with an automobile last week! That is why XXXXX called you again about us meeting! We become more fearless walking through the fire as we see it cannot harm us. But when we attempt to go around the fire well, then we resort to this sort of preaching. Distorting the meanings of scripture to protect the demon jews!"

This is not the first time that I have encountered this "no debate" argument. It's similar to the "don't judge" doctrine employed by false teachers to curtail all unapproved decision making by their followers. It occurred to me that his paper and my responses, minus a few personal details would make a good study in itself to educate people on how this "no debate" chicanery operates and how to unravel it. Eventually I will post it as a separate thread.

Here is another example of his distortions on this subject from an earlier e-mail exchange;

Dear Allen

Thank you for response on my latest email I do entrust you will search the word to see if these things be true. Now concerning the verse that you refer to (Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.)The Bereans searched the scriptures and also with readiness of mind which means with zeal or inclination study verse to see if Jesus was the Messiah and God. There is no place where they debated the bible

To which I replied;

"Again you are twisting scripture;

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews [Judeans].

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.



The context here is the teaching of Paul and Silas and how the Bereans reacted to what they taught. They searched the scriptures daily to determine if what Paul and Silas taught was supported by the Word. Paul commended them for this practice so it is obvious that we are to learn from this and do the same. Obviously if we search the scriptures to determine if a teacher is sound and we discover some error we are supposed to confront the teacher for clarification. If your "I don't debate" theory were sound doctrine Paul wouldn't have wrote this passage. What would be the point of searching the scriptures if, should someone find a discrepancy they are then supposed to just believe the teacher who is protected from answering by "I don't debate" theology? I'm not saying this is true with you but in my experience the most lazy people that I have ever met are judeochristian clergy. It's no wonder that nonsense like "I don't debate" theology has appeared.


You say "there is no place where they debated the bible". No, in the circumstances reported in those passages there was no debate. There was no need for debate because obviously Paul and Silas had sound theology. But you're attempting to convince me that because there was no debate in that circumstance that debate must never happen under any circumstances! This is intellectually dishonest, XXXXX.

[Staropramen]

Well that was fast. After about 10 hours of formulating responses delivered in a series of 7 e-mails to which he offered no rebuttals this fellow from my wife's church has thrown in the towel. The following responses from me pushed him over the edge I guess;

"Titus 3:9But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.



Debaters try to catch a man by his words and condemn them.

We see this very much in Jesus’ ministry when confronted with the religious of His day"



Titus, like the epistles to Timothy are the ministry epistles. They concern church government and practices. Jews have no part nor lot here. My wife likes to use NT references about genealogies to say that race doesn't matter. But if we look at the various NT passages about this it is clear that Paul is talking about "vain" genealogies. One can see throughout the classic Greek literature that the Greeks were often carried away with strange ideas about their pantheon of gods and they had rather elaborate tales about how their ancestry was connected to these gods. This is what Paul was addressing in his epistles regarding genealogies.



Let's look at Romans 9:6-8;



6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.



Paul is making a distinction between true Israel and the imposters [the mongrel jews]. The mongrel jews can claim a connection to Abraham through the polluted seedline of Esau who married Canaanite and Ismaelite wives. Paul says that not all are children simply because of a connection to Abraham. Rather, In Issac [not Jesus] shall thy seed be called. How can you spiritualize the word seed in scripture with "born again" sophistry when it's clearly talking about Issac here and not Jesus? Paul continues with a clarification of the two race lines: children of the flesh who are NOT God's children! These are the non-white races through Esau who are only born once on earth. Yahweh cannot put the spirits of his children into broken cisterns! He then states that the children of the promise [Jacob's line] are counted for.......what? For believing in Jesus? Nope. They are counted FOR THE SEED! These are the White people that Yahweh places His spiritual children into who were born first in the heavens [born from above!] and then born a second time on earth. Yes, White people must be regenerated to become functional children. But we are counted for the seed, not for being regenerated! Regeneration is relative to rewards not eternal salvation!



Now that we understand who was trying to catch Jesus with His Words to condemn Him we can obviously now put this verse aside as having nothing at all to do with two Christians getting together to ascertain the correct meaning of scripture. This is a very insulting study that you have put together. You are comparing Christians with a healthy sense of wanting to understand to demon jews that deliberately sought to destroy God.


____________________________________________________________________

Isa 29:21That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.



Debaters look to entangle



This entire chapter is talking about the final destruction of the antichrist jewish world system.



From the Septuagint translation by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton;



21"and they that cause men to sin by a word: and men shall make all that reprove in the gates an offence, because they have unjustly turned aside the righteous."


The specific verse that you cite is referring to the destruction of all that Yahweh did not plant by the hands of His children, the regenerated White race. "And they that cause men to sin by a word" probably refers to the various tentacles of jewish controlled mass media which the children of hell use to mold public opinion. "And men shall make all that reprove in the gates an offence because they have unjustly turned aside the righteous". I believe that this part refers to the exposing of heretic white christians who taught race-mixing, jew worship, etc. The following verses seem to support this [vs. 22-24]



"Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the house of Jacob, whom he set apart from Abraam, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall he now change countenance.
But when their children shall have seen my works, they shall sanctify my name for my sake, and they sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.
And they that erred in spirit shall know understanding, and the murmurers shall learn obedience, and the stammering tongues shall learn to speak peace."

It states that "Jacob shall not now be ashamed" [no more white guilt?]. "The stammering tongues shall learn to speak peace". Racism is love because it seeks to preserve that which Yahweh created. Anti-racism is hate because it seeks to destroy what Yahweh created.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I am going to address this at length after I finish with your study on debating. But I was just looking it over quickly and wanted to make one point.

You wrote;

"Genesis 8:9But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.



Here we see the bird a dove could find no rest why? “face of the whole earth”Birds can cover a lot of space please check this out"



XXXXX, the word is eretz, it means a land, not the planet. We see that the second time that Noah sent out the dove it somehow understood to return to Noah with a sign that the waters abated. You're implying that the first time the bird returned it was because it had to because there was nowhere else on the planet to go. This would lend itself to the idea that there was no reason for the dove to return the second time. But she did return. Clearly the dove understood it had a mission. If the dove was able to supernaturally understand that much it's not too much of a stretch to believe that the dove also understood to find an olive branch from the effected area rather than from the other side of the planet thus communicating to Noah that the land was dry.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Finally I received this response to the seven e-mails;

I could choose not to get in a debate with you. I see that you open scripture and enjoy your own interpretation. 1Peter 1:20,21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. See if the word of God is not reading you then you are not reading the word of God. I will not beat around a bush but make it clear to you. Allen you are a sinner you need Jesus to cleanse from all hate, murder, envy, contention, strife, idolatry, heresies and racism . See in the beginning Adam and Eve fell into sin. They broke relationship with God by trying to be like God according to their standards, what we inherited from Adam was not skin color but sin. Allen you are a wretched sinner who needs the grace of Jesus. You got an inheritance of sin and also you were banished from God presence. If you do not repent of your sins you are on a fast pace to hell. The only way God wants to see any man or woman is holy. There is a holy race but there blood is not white, black, yellow or red but the blood is Jesus and His only. Since you hate the word of God said you are a murder (1 John 3: 15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.) Seeing you hate blacks, Jews and so on you are murder. Now seeing the word of God is true and does not lie. You are in need of a savior. I would plea with you to repent of these false teachings and sins which have held you down all your life. Cry out to Jesus. This is what you are in need of.


To which I responded;

I will accept this as an acknowledgment of defeat on your part and no longer spend time attempting to educate you. My wife can draw her own conclusions from your actions. You have not demonstrated with sound doctrine that I utilize private interpretations and therefor you cannot make such an accusation. You are lazily labeling my efforts as private interpretations simply because you don't like the results. Don't worry though, My wife has another "holy one" lined up to take on the task. Though I'm sure it will once again end the same way. It always does.

[Filidh]

i like reading these battle-reports, keep them coming.

[Gideon300]

Our enemies can scoff at how a site such as this where one has to be approved by its administrator before posting, amounts to preaching to the choir and the like, but this format is a far better use of our time than sites that allow non-CI to pretend to have questions but in reality are there to subtly and not so subtly insert things meant to hopefully cause people to doubt the truth of Christian Identity.

It's a blessing as well to not to have to consider what might pass muster with those moderating the site until it becomes stultifying or at times maybe not as effective a message at it could be, in order to keep from having it vanish and/or your account terminated. Bookending CI between Judeo-Christianity and even Atheist and occult subforums further exacerbates the issue. Throw in that the posts you compose are invisible to the majority currently on the site reading it, and the efficacy of focusing one's efforts on this site becomes even more apparent.

[Lang]

These judeo-christians are the most annoying group of society nowadays. They don't argue with you, they just keep repeating their stuff and buzzwords like idiots. Most times they don't even realize the meaning of what they are talking about, they just say it according to the common sense of the church.

Some people tell me to take it easy with them because at last they have a christian awareness at some degree. But I think they are far worse than liberals. While liberalism is visibly evil and a conservative/traditional person can clearly see it, judeo-christianism uses half-truths and is confused with good. An disguised evil is much worse than a clear evil.

Don't take me as a heathen now, but it's possible to see whos wrong and whos right between CI and Judeos also by a non-biblical way. Both CI and Judeos wants to establish a moral and prove it as a true moral. I define moral as a set of social rules which guarantees the physical survival of a people (after all, I believe that Christianity is also the religion of survival). One can say that it must guarantee the physical survival of everybody, nevertheless it would end up being the same thing. If a set of social rules are being agressive to a people (or to all peoples), its a false moral. Following this reasoning, homossexualism is evil because it stops reproduction, therefore not ensuring the survival of a people; feminism is evil, because it decreases the birth rate, therefore not ensuring the survival of a people; race-mixing is worse them both of them, because it not only stops reproduction, but also directly destroys a people or two peoples by mongrelization.

If only judeos studied things out of their doctrine they would realize how they are wrong. But they refuse to do it, they consider any science and any philosophy as evil. They do it probably because its very easy to prove wrong what they teach. Theres no doubt why Judeo churches are overcrowded with stupid people, with zero knowledge, as intelligent ones tends to abandon them soon or later.

Also its interesting to notice how every purpose of life has been taken away from us (our people as a whole group). The jew has taken away from us our identity, our culture, our traditions, our pride, and to some people even their physical (racial) integrity. Thats why so many people are lost in liberal perversions in an eternal search for happiness or the piece that is missing, but they can never find it. Thats what people without a purpose do. Also thats why these churches are making so much money and deceiving so many people... they actively help the jews in taking away our purposes of life, and then replace it with silly purposes (but that people will fully embrace it because they have none) so they can catch a lot of people. I've known some people that after I proved to them that the rapture was not going to happen and that its actually not written in Bible, they just answered that they wanted to believe it no matter what, because if they don't, they would have no more reasons to live (its amazing how people can embrace a silly thing like the rapture as a purpose of life). And then churches yet wants to appear on TV like a goldy, heavenly institution for helping so many poor souless people giving them a reason to live and keeping them away from drugs, alcohol, etc. But nobody says that they had an active part on the reasons to that people being like they are now. They provoke the problem to give the solution. And then we have an apparent struggle between left-wing liberals and right-wing conservatives. But that right-wing is a jewish right-wing and they are all the product of the same thing, just as evil as the other.

[bahr]

Don't take me as a heathen now, but it's possible to see whos wrong and whos right between CI and Judeos also by a non-biblical way. Both CI and Judeos wants to establish a moral and prove it as a true moral. I define moral as a set of social rules which guarantees the physical survival of a people (after all, I believe that Christianity is also the religion of survival). One can say that it must guarantee the physical survival of everybody, nevertheless it would end up being the same thing. If a set of social rules are being agressive to a people (or to all peoples), its a false moral.

We can't define nor establish morality. Morality is already defined and established by Yahweh: obedience to His Laws, by Israel and in Israel, in a loving spirit. The survival of Israel is indeed guaranteed by these Laws and by no others.

Humanism is precisely that: the belief that we can define, control and establish things by ourselves, which is the first lie of the serpent and is, of course, totally false.

Following this reasoning, homossexualism is evil because it stops reproduction, therefore not ensuring the survival of a people; feminism is evil, because it decreases the birth rate, therefore not ensuring the survival of a people; race-mixing is worse them both of them, because it not only stops reproduction, but also directly destroys a people or two peoples by mongrelization.

You are right, but keep in mind that we don't know all things. Maybe there are some other reasons also, unknown by men.

Besides we can see that, like all criminals, sodomites, feminists and race-mixers have a predatory mind; they want to spread their own evil to others so that their crimes could be seen as normal, enabling them to "justify" their behavior. This is also a humanistic trap, because the laws of men are seen as the ultimate justification, and therefore "morality" can "evolve" in time. Evil become good and good become evil.

[Staropramen]

Some encouraging news. I was discussing my comments about Noah and the dove with my wife and rather than get argumentative trying to defend a global flood she instead said that it's also possible that Noah trained the dove to know what to do and where to go. She reminded me of people that we knew in the Czech Republic that trained birds to deliver messages.

[Kentucky]

but this format is a far better use of our time than sites that allow non-CI to pretend to have questions but in reality are there to subtly and not so subtly insert things meant to hopefully cause people to doubt the truth of Christian Identity.

I was visiting this website and read this one for our laugh of the day:

Show me anywhere in the bible where Christ denies his message to someone based on race?

Mark

[Lang]

We can't define nor establish morality. Morality is already defined and established by Yahweh: obedience to His Laws, by Israel and in Israel, in a loving spirit. The survival of Israel is indeed guaranteed by these Laws and by no others.

Humanism is precisely that: the belief that we can define, control and establish things by ourselves, which is the first lie of the serpent and is, of course, totally false.

God's morality can't be unnatural, and it will always guarantee survival to Israel. Maybe I expressed myself poorly. We can see if a morality is true (God's morality) or if it's not (jewish morality), checking out if its natural and if its ensuring our survival. If it goes against nature or against our physical survival, it can't be a true morality (God's morality). I didn't want to invent a new one, LOL.

This is also a humanistic trap, because the laws of men are seen as the ultimate justification, and therefore "morality" can "evolve" in time. Evil become good and good become evil.

This happens when people stop understanding morality and it becomes an abstract term. We start twisting things and "evolving" it because we can't understand it anymore, so it becomes subjective, like liberalism today. Thats why we can't teach a stupid, dogmatic morality with no justification for it, like in judeo-churchianity, that makes it degenerate over time. Rather its good to teach the meaning of morality and how to identify if its godly or not. By this way, people will not only know how to think by theirselves if something is good or not, but also they won't let it degenerate.