Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Identity
Message-ID: <760@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 20:19:44 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.760
Posted: Mon Mar 25 20:19:44 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 06:16:37 EST
References: <1243@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 211

> 	     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