Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why I think SC doctrine is racist/anti-semite Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nice evasion from your misrepresentation of my earlier post. Next time quote me in full, in context or don't bother.

    Already stated my answer to your question. I don't know for sure. Can't say for sure. Trying to determine what Smyrna really believes is like trying to catch smoke with your hands. You're not asking for my assumptions. Can't say absolutely yes, can't say no absolutely. And I don't think you can determine that either. Only God knows smyrna's heart, and mine and yours.

    Some Cult members are too blind to know what end is up! I agree with Stage Director that some of Murray's "students" are racist antisemites.

    But I do know that Arnold Murray is a racist antisemite. And this "student" of Arnold Murray's, Nick Goggin, is a racist antisemite.

    http://www.biblestudysite.com/faith.htm

    Comment


    • Man, talk about evasion. Jeff, let me put it this way. Since you are absolutely certain that the teachings of Arnold Murray are racist/anti-Semitic; wouldn’t it be true that those who embrace such teachings are also racist/anti-Semitic?

      What one believes and embraces defines who they are. Wouldn’t you agree?

      Comment


      • I think I could dig up enough posts of yours where you adamantly state Arnold Murray's teachings are racist and antisemitic. You and we know you have.

        Many in Cults are at different levels of comprehending Cult speak. Many in Scientology today do not believe they are in a mind control Cult and do not know the true teachings of Ron L. Hubbard. Xenu, losers of galactic battle thrown into volcano, their spirits brought to Earth in 747s where they possessed the bodies of primitive Earthlings, passed on to us today... but still those are the teachings of Ron L. Hubbard.

        Many in the Mormon Cult are too new in conversion stages that they have not been brainwashed yet that supposedly God was once a man, that Mormon men now and in the afterlife can progress to spiritual purification like the Christian God supposedly did and become a God themselves, equal to the Christian God, create their own planet inhabited by all of his kinfolk and have thousands of virgin brides. Yet that is Joseph Smith's teachings.

        Arnold Murray is a master at Cult speak. Many in Arnold Murray's Cult do not realize yet that who Arnold Murray is falsely claiming are the devil's physical children are who are known as the Jews. And that by Murray's claiming that Genesis 1 and 2 are two different accounts the irreversible summation is that the Genesis 1 male and female did not have God's spirit blown into them, making them inferior to the Genesis 2, so called 8th day, lily white Adam and Eve.

        Slow drip indoctrination, measured mind control, steadily increasing stove burner's temperature boiling the water in the pot containing the frog, by Cult Leaders ensures that Cult members do not learn too much too soon. So many in Arnold Murray's Cult have not reached full comprehension of what Arnold Murray is teaching. Some will reject and Arnold Murray once they do. Many have. Many testimonials out there of such. In their guts they learned Murray is nuts!

        Many who embrace agnostic, atheist beliefs may today one day reject them and possibly believe in God again. My friend Sharon gives her testimony to that.

        That is why Cults never last forever. Lies are exposed sooner or later. At different times by different folks. Some do the exposing, some do the realizing.

        By exposing Arnold Murray's racist antisemitism publicly it will hasten the day of people's realization of what Murray is really teaching and will also hasten the day when many of his "students" reject Arnold Murray's racism, antisemitism.

        That is not evasion. That is the truth.

        Comment


        • Jeff -- If you can find where I once wrote in posts that Arnold Murray’s teachings are “racist and anti-Semitic,” then I guess that proves people can change their minds. I was wrong. I now believe that these students of Arnold Murray are harmless Christians who think they’ve found a good Bible teacher. I would bet that if you had transcripts of every broadcast Murray recorded over the past ten years you wouldn’t find any evidence of racism or anti-Semitism. But you’ve never listened to Arnold Murray, have you? What you do is rely on what others say, based on things he said informally in audio recordings from decades past. Your rather hysterical rants about Murray being a dangerous Jew-hating neo-Nazi racist are almost surreal, certainly inaccurate; but it’s what you do, it’s obviously your self-appointed task in life. There must be some psychological reward for you, probably in seeing yourself as a brave knight wielding some sort of sword of righteousness in defense of Jews worldwide. I can only guess what lack this compensates for.

          Comment


          • Your insulting me does no good. Never has. In your mind jerks like Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Vaclav Havel, Gandhi, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Joan of Arc ... should have stayed in their native villages and minded their own business, go with the flow, but the world is grateful they didn't. They must have had a great lack in their personal lives they were trying to compensate for. According to you.

            I don't believe you are sincere in your defense of Arnold Murray. You are just painting yourself into a corner of denial, surreality, inaccuracy because you consider me your internet arch enemy and you must defeat me regardless of how reprehensible the topic is you must defend.

            How sad. I have listened to, watched Arnold Murray on tv for many years, many hours. Why do you assume I have not? I have read his writings. Studied as much as I can get my hands on. I don't look at it with an atheist with an agenda eyes. That the wackier a fake Christian is the more important it is for Atheist propaganda to label them as mainstream Christianity.

            From volumes, stacks, of information I have on Arnold Murray there is no doubt in my mind and many others that Arnold Murray is not a Christian, is a blasphemous heretic, a racist antisemite!

            If we disagree, ta ta! But leave your insults and amateur psychoanalyzing me out of it!

            Comment


            • http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/b...tone-twins.jpg



              Is Christianity
              ‘for whites only’?

              A refutation of the
              ‘Christian Identity’ heresy



              by Lita Cosner and Carl Wieland



              12 January 2012




              It may shock some to realize that there is a significant body of people (perhaps several tens of thousands in the US) who call themselves Christians but believe that only white people can be saved. To be more specific, they believe that ‘Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and British’ people are the only ones who are descended from Adam, who they say is the father of the Jewish race referred to in the Bible. The others are thought to be so-called ‘mud people’, people created before Adam and Eve, and without souls. This astonishing heresy teaches that inter-racial marriage is unbiblical, that the ‘white’ race is superior to all others, and that today’s Jews are not descended from the biblical Jewish race at all.

              They are loosely grouped under the heading ‘Christian Identity’, with ties to earlier ideas known as British Israelitism. But after the latter ideology, which embraced today’s Jews, reached American shores, it took on this anti-Semitic flavor.

              Jesus Christ came to save people of all ‘races’ without distinction.

              Bible believers are on extremely solid ground in rejecting the suggestion that the color of a person’s skin has anything to do with their salvation. We affirm on both biblical and scientific grounds that all people are descended from Adam and Eve, and that modern genetics shows ‘racial’ differences to be very minor. So minor, in fact, that ‘race’ (although it still has relevance and meaning in ordinary parlance, of course) is not a particularly meaningful biological classification. Furthermore, Jesus Christ came to save people of all ‘races’ without distinction, and the Bible is clear that people of every ‘tribe, tongue, and nation’ will be in Heaven. There is simply not the slightest biblical justification for CI’s racism.1 And the best refutation of ‘Christian Identity’ and other racist white supremacist heresies is to look at the text of the Bible itself.

              Compromising on origins

              It shouldn’t be surprising that someone who wants to elevate their own people group above others would dispute our common ancestry from one couple, twisting the text of Genesis in the process. In order to escape the clear anti-racist implications of this Bible teaching, the Christian Identity heresy tries to claim that non-whites are not descended from Adam, and do not have souls. Incredibly, they equate non-whites with the ‘beasts’. While some may hold that all beasts were created on Day 6, and distinct from the first couple, the majority appear to be old-Earth creationists of varying degrees. They believe that while Adam was created about 6,000 years ago, non-whites were created at least hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions, of years before that. And they believe that the universe is billions of years old.

              It should go without saying that this is a vile distortion of the Bible’s teaching. Instead, the Bible teaches that all people today are descended from the first couple, Adam and Eve. So clear and self-evident is this teaching, that even secular scholars have conceded that it was a major barrier to the surge in racism that followed the widespread acceptance of evolution following the publication of Darwin’s book.

              One of the few persistent barriers to social Darwinist theory in Australia was the Christian doctrine that all human beings were of ‘one blood.’

              One example is Australian historian Joanna Cruickshank, no defender of biblical Christianity. She was referring to earlier times in Australian colonial history, when social Darwinist theories about human origins were fueling policies detrimental to the continent’s Aboriginal people. They were believed to be ‘less evolved’ than whites. She points out that, “one of the few persistent barriers to social Darwinist theory in Australia was the Christian doctrine that all human beings were of ‘one blood.’”

              Furthermore, the straightforward evidence from modern molecular biology confirms that all people are astonishingly closely related. These findings from observational science were not expected from evolutionary considerations, and theories of human evolution have had to be substantially ‘reworked’ to take them into account. They confirm what the Bible has self-evidently taught. They are also further evidence, if such is needed, of the utterly fallacious and bizarre (not to mention deeply offensive to most reasonable people) nature of Christian Identity’s self-serving fantasy.

              Even simple facts about our anatomy and physiology are enough to refute this notion. So far from their being any fundamental differences between groups, when it comes to the things perceived as differentiating ‘races’, we all have ‘the same stuff’—just differing amounts of it. For example, the brownish pigment melanin—varying amounts of it in the skin give us different shades of the same color. The same pigment, and variations in the amount, are responsible for both brown and blue eyes, as well as brown, black and blond hair.

              Our immensely close relatedness is also the reason why the ‘two-tone twins’ in the photo here make perfect sense—biblically and biologically. If Christian Identity folk saw these two beautiful infant girls in separate prams in the street, to be consistent, they would claim that only the ‘white’ one of them had a soul and could be saved. Why? Because she was descended from Adam, and not the other, in their strange views. Since they are twins, with the same parents, they obviously cannot have different ancestry. Of course, once they knew of their parentage, CI fanatics would have to switch to saying that the ‘white’ baby only looked like that. But in reality she was some sort of (apologies for this, but it comes from their hateful literature) ‘polluted mongrel’.

              Interestingly, this shows that not only evolution, but compromising on Genesis creation to allow for pre-Adamic man, opens the door to racism.

              What does the Old Testament say?The Bible makes it clear that what matters is someone’s belief in God, not any aspect of a person’s appearance. A few racial incidents in Scripture illustrate this very well.

              Moses’ second wife was a Cu****te (a descendant of Ham’s son Cush), and probably had darker skin than the Israelites, who would have had olive-toned skin. In Numbers 12, when Miriam and Aaron spoke out against Moses because of his ‘black’ wife, Miriam is punished by becoming ‘white’—with leprosy. In the same passage, God affirms that Moses is His servant and as such has a special standing before Him. Nowhere is there any indication that Moses’ marriage to the Cu****te is condemned.


              What about the Flood?

              ‘Christian Identity’ says that Noah’s family brought the non-white races onto the Ark—but the Bible is clear that only eight people survived the Flood. But then, CI thinking has already defined non-whites as non-human, so they would presumably claim (shudder) that these were among the creatures sent on board two by two. For more on related distortions of biblical teaching such as the (non-existent) ‘Curse on Ham’, see CMI’s newly-released full-color book One Human Family: The Bible, science, race and culture.

              Rahab was a Canaanite, who was spared because she expressed faith in the true God and hid the Israelite spies. She married Salmon and was an ancestor of Christ (Matthew 3). Likewise, the Moabite Ruth was a proselyte (i.e. a non-Israelite who converted to the faith of Israel). Both of these women were part of ethnic groups that were despised because of their idolatry, but when they expressed faith in God, they were accepted on equal terms into the community, and married Jewish men (more interracial marriages!)

              The concept of race is foreign to the Bible, mainly because we are seen to be one family—descendants of Adam. The nearest idea in the Bible would be ‘nations’. A word search for ‘nations’ in the Old Testament will reveal that the word is rarely used with a positive connotation. It often refers to the rabble of non-Israelites who go after idols, who live in spiritual blindness at best, and at worst are actively hostile to the Living God. The nations come against Israel to enslave her, they sacrifice their children to idols, they curse God. But the Bible also says that “all the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will worship before you. For the earth is the Lord’s, and He rules over the nations” (Psalm 22:27–28).4 The Psalmist can say:

              God sent the Messiah as “a light to the nations” (Isaiah 42:6, also 49:6). Egypt and Assyria are predicted to become peoples of God as well as Israel (Isaiah 19:23–25). God says that He will bless the nations who call on His name (Jeremiah 12:14–17). Zechariah 2:10–11 is even clearer: “Sing for joy and be glad, O daughter of Zion; for behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” declares the LORD.11 “Many nations will join themselves to the LORD in that day and will become My people.”
              There are many more similar passages in Scripture—anyone who reads the OT prophets should be familiar with them. The nations are judged when they are hostile to God—but what sense would it make to judge people who are incapable of a relationship with God? Their rejection is punished as if they could and should worship God, but refuse to do so. And the prophets predict a time when the nations will worship the true God.


              God be gracious to us and bless us,
              And cause His face to shine upon us—Selah.
              That Your way may be known on the earth,
              Your salvation among all nations.
              Let the peoples praise You, O God;
              Let all the peoples praise You.
              Let the nations be glad and sing for joy;
              For You will judge the peoples with uprightness
              And guide the nations on the earth (Psalm 67:1–4).



              What does the New Testament say?

              Some of Jesus’ statements in the Gospels could be said to be racially oriented. Jesus said that He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, and also forbade his disciples from going to the Gentiles. He made statements referring to the stereotypical spiritual blindness and depravity of the Gentiles, warning the Jews not to follow their practices. But only by ripping these individual episodes out of context could someone come up with a Jesus who would condone racism.

              Jesus commended the faith of the centurion and the Canaanite woman—he said the former’s faith was greater than any He had encountered in Israel. Even at a time when He was ministering almost exclusively to Jews, He envisioned a time when salvation would come to the Gentiles. And He explicitly commanded His disciples to go to every nation and evangelize them.
              The book of Acts is largely the story of the early church’s endeavors to obey the Great Commission. At first the Gospel went mainly to Jews and God-fearers, and then to Samaritans. But then the Ethiopian eunuch was converted—a descendant of supposedly ‘cursed’ Ham! Philip doesn’t hesitate to baptize the Ethiopian when he requests baptism. And then Cornelius’s whole family is converted. The church in Antioch quickly becomes an important hub for Paul’s missionary activity, and Paul wastes no time in his attempt to convert all of the Roman empire.

              In one of Paul’s most famous sermons, at the Areopagus, he said, “He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us … ” (Acts 17:26–27). So it is possible for all mankind to seek and find God.

              Paul declares in no uncertain terms that salvation isn’t dependent on sex or race—“neither male nor female, neither Jew or Greek.” What matters is someone’s response to the Gospel.

              Revelation specifically says that people from every tribe, tongue, and nation will be present before the Throne—Heaven isn’t a place that racists would want to be!

              Early Church history

              Early Church history also forbids any racism. If Church tradition is to be believed, Philip went to India and was martyred there. Early Christians made it a priority to spread all over the world to evangelize. Athanasius, one of the great heroes of the faith who battled Arianism5 almost single-handedly, was called the ‘black dwarf’ as a description of his color and stature. Most of the early Christians would be thought of as Middle-Eastern by today’s reckoning. Augustine was from North Africa. The early Alexandrian Christians were responsible for the earliest copies of the New Testament to survive to the present day. In fact, these ‘superior’ Germanic and Anglo peoples were pagan until these ‘inferior’ people groups sent missionaries to them!

              Today, the places where Christianity is growing the fastest are in the ‘global south’, in South America and Africa. These Christians often face persecution and hardship which many Western Christians would find hard to imagine, including Ugandan Christians who routinely have their limbs chopped off. Chinese Christians in underground churches still face persecution and imprisonment. Those who suggest that they are somehow incapable of true faith only reveal their own ignorance and bigotry.


              An encounter with ‘Christian Identity’ teaching Down Under

              More than two decades ago, one of us (CW) was speaking on creation in a small country town in the Australian state of Victoria. Afterwards, it became clear that there was a small group that had planted themselves strategically dispersed so that they could ‘rattle’ the speaker in seemingly random reinforcement of each other’s pointed questions objecting to the speaker’s stance. CMI speakers were already long used to that tactic from certain evolutionist groups, but this time was different. It took a while to realize that where they were coming from was this sort of CI teaching.

              A major plank for them was that the word for Adam is etymologically related to the word for ‘ruddy’ (as in complexion). Ergo, Adam could blush, and, they claimed, only white people can blush, hence only white people are descended from Adam and thus can be saved.

              CW: "Scarcely able to believe such a facile attempt to justify their own ‘superiority’, I explained to them, speaking as a medical doctor, what blushing was—a dilation of the blood vessels causing more blood to flow to the face. And that every group of people can blush, only it is more readily visible to onlookers if one has less of the sunscreen pigment melanin. I had not heard of Christian Identity, but was vaguely aware of one of its threads, British Israelitism, which claims that ‘whites’ are the ‘true Israel’ and today’s Jews are imposters. So I asked them if they included Jews under the heading of ‘whites’, and they said that today’s Jews were not God’s chosen people. Paul was an Israelite, and thus a descendant of Adam, but not a Jew. They seemed to be disinterested in what the Bible taught unless it could be twisted to support their white supremacist and anti-Semitic ideology."


              All ‘races’ one in Christ

              All of humanity has the same sin problem. Our common ancestor Adam rebelled against God, as has every one of his descendants. God sent Christ, the Last Adam, to take the punishment for the whole world’s sins so that anyone who calls on Him can be saved. Christians are commanded to take this message to all nations, without regard for race. The Bible indicates God will bless this effort and will make it successful, because people from every nation and language will be present at His return.





              http://creation.com/ci-refutation
              Last edited by jeff_franklin; 01-17-2012, 03:25 AM.

              Comment


              • In rebuttal to Franklin's irrelevant copy and paste job:

                Racism

                To say that I teach racism or practice racism is another outright lie. We have people of all races that attend and study with the Shepherd's Chapel. It is very simple to prove this statement. We televise our annual Passover meetings including video interviews of many of the thousands who attend. Order a video tape of any of these interviews and you will see people of all races which effectively documents the falseness of any charges that I teach racism (a sample of Passover Interviews is also offered at the end of this document). God's Word directly teaches that our Heavenly Father created all the races and that it was good, (Genesis 1:27-28, 31). People of all nations and races shall be in the Temple of the Lord throughout eternity (Revelation 21:22-27).

                http://shepherdschapel.com/critics.htm



                Note: The ADL and SPLC don't list the SC among CI or hate Groups. See the thread "Finally: A Rational Discussion About Shepherd's Chapel", pg.90

                http://factnet.org/vbforum/showthread.php?23185-Finally-A-Rational-Discussion-about-Shepherd-s-Chapel!/page90

                Comment


                • By the way Frankie:

                  Since you are so into posting irrelevant material, so will I:

                  The two authors that wrote the article you posted, both believe the Earth is only 6.000 years old.

                  I'm still checking to see if they also think it's either flat, hollow, the center of the universe, or all three.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by jeff_franklin View Post
                    Your insulting me does no good. Never has. In your mind jerks like Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Vaclav Havel, Gandhi, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Joan of Arc ... should have stayed in their native villages and minded their own business, go with the flow, but the world is grateful they didn't. They must have had a great lack in their personal lives they were trying to compensate for. According to you.

                    I don't believe you are sincere in your defense of Arnold Murray. You are just painting yourself into a corner of denial, surreality, inaccuracy because you consider me your internet arch enemy and you must defeat me regardless of how reprehensible the topic is you must defend.

                    How sad. I have listened to, watched Arnold Murray on tv for many years, many hours. Why do you assume I have not? I have read his writings. Studied as much as I can get my hands on. I don't look at it with an atheist with an agenda eyes. That the wackier a fake Christian is the more important it is for Atheist propaganda to label them as mainstream Christianity.

                    From volumes, stacks, of information I have on Arnold Murray there is no doubt in my mind and many others that Arnold Murray is not a Christian, is a blasphemous heretic, a racist antisemite!

                    If we disagree, ta ta! But leave your insults and amateur psychoanalyzing me out of it!
                    'How sad. I have listened to, watched Arnold Murray on tv for many years, many hours. Why do you assume I have not? "

                    Because you couldn't possibly be accusing him of the things you accuse him of if that were true.

                    Comment


                    • Using Franklin's Own "Evidence" To Prove The SC Isn't Christian Identity

                      Using snippets from Franklin's "evidence", (presuming this is why he posted it, because he thinks the SC teaches all the things in his copy/paste article) we cn see just how far apart CI is from SC teachings.

                      Here we go:

                      "It may shock some to realize that there is a significant body of people (perhaps several tens of thousands in the US) who call themselves Christians but believe that only white people can be saved."

                      The SC does not teach that, anyone who has spent "many years and many hours" watching the SC program would know this.

                      "To be more specific, they believe that ‘Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and British’ people are the only ones who are descended from Adam, who they say is the father of the Jewish race referred to in the Bible. The others are thought to be so-called ‘mud people’, people created before Adam and Eve, and without souls."

                      The SC does not teach this, anyone who is familiar with the book list can purchase a book called Tracing Our Ancestors
                      which traces the Jews in the Diaspora, through many countries, not just Germany of Britain. And that's the closest the SC comes to actually "teaching" what some call British-Israelism. The SC is a Bible teaching Church,not a history teaching institution.

                      Re: "mud" people: Franklin has been told this many times before, he basically ignores it, but the actual source fpr the teaching of "souless mud people" comes directly from Judaism. Simply Google the word "Golem" and you will find more info. The SC does not teach that either. (see above, SC's answer to critics, on Racism)

                      Re: The flood: Murray doesn't take one side or another on the flood, due to his admission he isn't sure whether Noah's flood was local or worldwide. many scholars take that position. Anyone who says differently truly has not watched the SC program for "many days and hours."


                      "They are loosely grouped under the heading ‘Christian Identity’, with ties to earlier ideas known as British Israelitism. But after the latter ideology, which embraced today’s Jews, reached American shores, it took on this anti-Semitic flavor."

                      That statement is not accurate. From the ADL website, we see not all CI Churches were antisemitic(Plus, ADL does not recognize the SC as a CI Church):

                      "Once on American shores, British-Israelism began to evolve. Originally, believers viewed contemporary Jews as descendants of those ancient Israelites who had never been "lost." They might be seen critically but, given their significant role in the British-Israel genealogical scheme, not usually with animosity. By the 1930s, however, in the U.S., a strain of anti-Semitism started to permeate the movement (though some maintained traditional beliefs - and a small number of traditionalists still exist in the U.S.). http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Chri...m=Christian_ID


                      The rest of the article expounds on irrelevant claims that may be true of CI Churches, but is not true of the SC.

                      The Bottom Line: Franklin is falsely accusing the SC of being a racist CI Church. There may be a few elements of historical data the SC in the opinion of the Murray's may be true, but they neither teach racism or antisemitism.

                      Just an aside, but Franklin has informed us he is Methodist, and that denomination apparently had a very serious problem with racism:

                      http://www.gcorr.org/site/c.mwKWJ9NT...ationships.htm

                      Furthermore, along with two other detractors, Franklin has used racial slurs right here at FactNet, referring to white people as "lily-white" (*see reference below)more than once. You'd think someone as concerned with racism as he would not use such terms under any circumstances.

                      "Then there is the term “lily-white”. When that term is used it always seems to be used in some sort of accusatory manner. As if a group of people or individual persons has done something wrong if they are lily-white."

                      http://seedofjapheth.wordpress.com/2...-white-a-slur/

                      Comment


                      • Excerpt from Arnold Murray's Book list: Tracing Our Ancestors - Frederick Haberman


                        "Aryan therefore means "the noble race." The Aryan is none other than the Adamic race, as we shall see presently. A great gulf of difference seems to exist between the findings of science and the orthodox interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis: scientists can find traces of man existing for a period of fifty or one hundred thousand years with reasonable certainty, while faithful readers of Scripture insist that the Bible says that the first man was created about six thousand years. ago. The mistake, however, has been with the orthodox interpretation of Genesis. Its first passage reads: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." When that beginning was is not stated; it may have been 100, 500 or 1000 million years ago. There is no conflict here with the findings of science. But it must be noticed that there is a great difference between the principal races of mankind; between the Mongolian or Turanian race, the Negro race, and the White or Caucasian race; and there exits little relationship between the three. The White Race were unquestionably the last comers, being in every way superior to the other two and constituting their leaders and teachers. Moreover, an honest investigation of their origin will show that they appeared suddenly and with a high state of civilization.

                        The answer to that question is given in Genesis 1:26, where we read: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over...all the earth." If the Bible translators had translated the original Hebrew word for man, "Adam," as Adam instead of "man," there would have been no doubt that the Bible deals ONLY with the Adamic race, who were created in the likeness of God to have dominion overall the earth, i.e., over all the other primitive races. An examination of "Young's Analytical Concordance" will show that in over 500 cases the Hebrew word for man in the Old Testament is "Adam," making it self-evident that the Old Testament deals only with what its Hebrew says, the Adamites. But unfortunately THE TRANSLATORS HAVE READ THEIR ASSUMPTIONS INTO THE BOOK, as most people do. Thus, the Old Testament gives us the best, and we may be sure the right, explanation of the existence and superiority of the Adamic or White Race. It is also well recognized that the White Race was the agricultural race, while in older times the other primitive races were chiefly nomads and hunters. This also is proven from Genesis 2:5,which states: "And there was not an Adamite to till the ground." In the second chapter of Genesis Verses 7 and 8 should read: "And the Lord formed the Adamite of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the Adamite became a living soul. And the Lord planted a garden in Eden/ and there he put the Adamite whom he had formed."

                        http://www.scribd.com/doc/9168543/Tr...aberman#page=8


                        Good God! Pure Christian Identity, racist White Supremacist GARBAGE! As racist as Wesley Swift's garbage! Arnold Murray is a racist indeed! No question about it! Arnold Murray's doctrines are RACIST!

                        Comment


                        • HABERMAN Genealogy
                          The vast majority of Argentine Jews are descended from immigrants who arrived from Europe. These ashkenazic Jews migrated from small towns or shtetels of Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Germany, Romania or Ukraine, leaving behind most of their Jewish relatives. After two or three generations, those Jewish families lost track of their relatives, having been saved from the war, emigrated to other countries like USA, England or Australia.

                          http://www.hebrewsurnames.com/HABERMAN



                          Franklin, you are gonna have to take that up with the author of the book, who has a Jewish last name. Although he is probably not with us anymore, if so he is quite old. LOL

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jeff_franklin View Post
                            Excerpt from Arnold Murray's Book list: Tracing Our Ancestors - Frederick Haberman


                            "Aryan therefore means "the noble race." The Aryan is none other than the Adamic race, as we shall see presently. A great gulf of difference seems to exist between the findings of science and the orthodox interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis: scientists can find traces of man existing for a period of fifty or one hundred thousand years with reasonable certainty, while faithful readers of Scripture insist that the Bible says that the first man was created about six thousand years. ago. The mistake, however, has been with the orthodox interpretation of Genesis. Its first passage reads: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." When that beginning was is not stated; it may have been 100, 500 or 1000 million years ago. There is no conflict here with the findings of science. But it must be noticed that there is a great difference between the principal races of mankind; between the Mongolian or Turanian race, the Negro race, and the White or Caucasian race; and there exits little relationship between the three. The White Race were unquestionably the last comers, being in every way superior to the other two and constituting their leaders and teachers. Moreover, an honest investigation of their origin will show that they appeared suddenly and with a high state of civilization.

                            The answer to that question is given in Genesis 1:26, where we read: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over...all the earth." If the Bible translators had translated the original Hebrew word for man, "Adam," as Adam instead of "man," there would have been no doubt that the Bible deals ONLY with the Adamic race, who were created in the likeness of God to have dominion overall the earth, i.e., over all the other primitive races. An examination of "Young's Analytical Concordance" will show that in over 500 cases the Hebrew word for man in the Old Testament is "Adam," making it self-evident that the Old Testament deals only with what its Hebrew says, the Adamites. But unfortunately THE TRANSLATORS HAVE READ THEIR ASSUMPTIONS INTO THE BOOK, as most people do. Thus, the Old Testament gives us the best, and we may be sure the right, explanation of the existence and superiority of the Adamic or White Race. It is also well recognized that the White Race was the agricultural race, while in older times the other primitive races were chiefly nomads and hunters. This also is proven from Genesis 2:5,which states: "And there was not an Adamite to till the ground." In the second chapter of Genesis Verses 7 and 8 should read: "And the Lord formed the Adamite of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the Adamite became a living soul. And the Lord planted a garden in Eden/ and there he put the Adamite whom he had formed."

                            http://www.scribd.com/doc/9168543/Tr...aberman#page=8


                            Good God! Pure Christian Identity, racist White Supremacist GARBAGE! As racist as Wesley Swift's garbage! Arnold Murray is a racist indeed! No question about it! Arnold Murray's doctrines are RACIST!
                            Actually Frankie, what I'd like to see is you refute Haberman's facts regarding history. What you do, and for example you noted George Washington Carver, is look for one lone exception among all others in the history books, and hold that one example up as a solid refutation. Carver wasn't born in ancient times and cultivation of plant food has been practiced for thousands of years, so I don't know what you were trying to illustrate with your mention of him.

                            Now there are several problems with your use of Haberman's book as compared to what the SC teaches. One is that if you were to actually view the SC program, rather than just claim you have for many hours, many years, whatever, you'd know that Murray teaches that ALL races were created on the 6th day. That he speculates the Chinese were created first perhaps on the fifth day, not based on racism, but on Chinese history itself, doesn't really interfere with what he actually teaches.

                            Next, among those 6th day races were the race we have come to know as Caucasians. However, since both the descendants of Adam, Cain, and the unnamed from the 6th day white race cannot be separated in any manner by modern man, we have no idea when we, as white people, look in the mirror, we can't tell wheher we are form any of those three specifically.

                            However, I digressed. The point is Haberman's claim that all the non-Caucasian races were created on the 6th day is disputed by Murray, who says representatives of that race were also created on the 6th day. He stated once that it is possible to name that white race, and if "one did their homework" you'd come across the name. I say he meant the Sumerians.

                            Murray has been asked by viewers about some of the books offered, and he freely offers that some of the material he doesn't totally agree with, and that students are intelligent enough to separate what is written in them from what he teaches from God's Word.


                            Now, with that being said Franklin, I still don't see an answer as to why the ADL and SPLC, organizations who would perhaps love to hear this earth shaking revelation of yours, this monumental discovery that Murray offers Haberman's historical book in the SC mail order bookstore, after many years of opportunities to scrutinize the SC, don't list the SC in their lists of hate groups, and Murray is not on the list you frequently re-post of "influential CI personalities" unless you insert his name. They don't list him.

                            So I offer you personally the same challenge I offered Stage Director: gather up all your alleged evidence, (don't forget the article from the two 6,000 year creation folks) and send it to those organizations. Act outraged that they blew an opportunity to label the SC a racist CI heretical antisemitic hate group. I'll give you and email address for you to include with your messages to them, so if or when they reply, I get a copy, (to prevent tampering).

                            And like I told her, that neither of you have apparently ever done this, had you been investigative reporters working for me, you'd be fired for incompetence.

                            Comment


                            • hhhmmm a Jewish man that probably came from a family that converted to Christianity, like many Jews in Germany and other parts of Europe did. Examples: Karl Marx, Wesley Swift's teacher William Potter Gale, who started Posse Comitatus and is known as the grandfather of the modern Christian identity movement, John Kerry's grandparents who escaped the holocaust and last name was Kohn and changed it to Kerry by dropping a pencil onto a map of Ireland, and countless others -

                              writes a book claiming that the Bible only deals with white Adamic people and you're freaking out calling him a racist. Well franlkin, the problem is he has Jewish roots. So what now?

                              Comment


                              • smyrna empty your inbox.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X