Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Seed of man and seed of beast

  1. #21

    Re: Seed of man and seed of beast

    Quote Originally Posted by TheResister View Post
    I'm more of the newbie here and just wanted to say a couple of things related to this:

    I had registered on Finck's discussion board about the same time I found this board. Having made the mistake of commenting on a thread, it became apparent really fast that Finck's disciples do not like to have their views challenged - and honestly, I did not know that anyone had a silly doctrine that blacks are fallen angels and so forth.

    FWIW, God created the beasts of the earth prior to Adam. The serpent in Genesis was a pre-Adamic being (aka a beast), but he was a beast of the field as distinguished as a beast of the earth. Either way, beast only means living thing.

    The serpent was a fallen Angel by the name of Satan (aka the Devil, etc. as can be seen in Revelations 20: 2) and that seedline and none other is who we are in perpetual war with. The race issue is one where it is a symptom of a bigger problem and you have to understand the root cause of evil if you are ever to deal with it.

    The non-white races are simply pre-Adamic beings and there is no direct evidence they were ever in the Garden of Eden. That is my .02 cents worth.
    You need to be careful who you follow in CI because it has been heavily infiltrated. I know this personally because I've been misled in the past. My opinion is Pastor Visser is true DSCI. He doesn't teach any universalism or false doctrines like many others.

  2. #22

    Re: Seed of man and seed of beast

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik View Post
    You need to be careful who you follow in CI because it has been heavily infiltrated. I know this personally because I've been misled in the past. My opinion is Pastor Visser is true DSCI. He doesn't teach any universalism or false doctrines like many others.

    I first got into what is known as Identity back in the late 1970s. My first congregation was Pastor Buddy "Dewey" Tucker's congregation after Temple Memorial Church was burned down and Tucker moved on. Dan Gayman introduced me to the basics and was the glue that held that congregation together.

    While I never met Tucker, I did get to know Dan Gayman, Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr (who helped organize and found the Militia of Georgia AND the Christian Patriots Defense League.) I knew people like Sheldon Emry (who unfortunately did not accept the seedline doctrine) as well as Pastor Richard Butler, Pastor Pete Peters (good material on most subjects except he was blind as a bat on seedline), and a host of the other guys. I have taken Gayman's course and the AIT course (and am currently retaking it since that was so many years ago.)

    In short I've been around the block. Your warnings are sound counsel. Sometimes you think you can appeal to some people and reason with them. My own mind has been changed about a point here and there after debating and discussing the Word as we are admonished to do. It's not to be so with Finck's apostles apparently.

    If we don't agree on every single point, it's not because either of us is intentionally lying. Sometimes we want to believe things and have our own bias based on our experiences. We learn by hearing each other out. And even if we disagree, it doesn't have to be the end of the world. I don't discard everything a person says because one group argues for a Saturday Sabbath while another argues for a Sunday Sabbath. I would not even give up on Finck's followers - or Finck himself if they were open to defending their position. I don't agree with every point that was taught to me by Gayman or AIT... and I'm beholden to them for a lot of education. BTW, I listened to a CD of Arnold Murray a couple of weeks ago and ended up not agreeing with Murray on his efforts to marginalize where I stand on an issue, but found that he still had some relevant and accurate opinions that made me modify what I think. When we do our first sermon in the new year, that will be the subject I'm starting with.

    Thank you for the warning. Being in the company of people who enter Identity with an ulterior motive can lead a lot of people to have headaches down the road - even legal ones. God Bless

  3. #23

    Re: Seed of man and seed of beast

    Quote Originally Posted by TheResister View Post
    I first got into what is known as Identity back in the late 1970s. My first congregation was Pastor Buddy "Dewey" Tucker's congregation after Temple Memorial Church was burned down and Tucker moved on. Dan Gayman introduced me to the basics and was the glue that held that congregation together.

    While I never met Tucker, I did get to know Dan Gayman, Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr (who helped organize and found the Militia of Georgia AND the Christian Patriots Defense League.) I knew people like Sheldon Emry (who unfortunately did not accept the seedline doctrine) as well as Pastor Richard Butler, Pastor Pete Peters (good material on most subjects except he was blind as a bat on seedline), and a host of the other guys. I have taken Gayman's course and the AIT course (and am currently retaking it since that was so many years ago.)

    In short I've been around the block. Your warnings are sound counsel. Sometimes you think you can appeal to some people and reason with them. My own mind has been changed about a point here and there after debating and discussing the Word as we are admonished to do. It's not to be so with Finck's apostles apparently.

    If we don't agree on every single point, it's not because either of us is intentionally lying. Sometimes we want to believe things and have our own bias based on our experiences. We learn by hearing each other out. And even if we disagree, it doesn't have to be the end of the world. I don't discard everything a person says because one group argues for a Saturday Sabbath while another argues for a Sunday Sabbath. I would not even give up on Finck's followers - or Finck himself if they were open to defending their position. I don't agree with every point that was taught to me by Gayman or AIT... and I'm beholden to them for a lot of education. BTW, I listened to a CD of Arnold Murray a couple of weeks ago and ended up not agreeing with Murray on his efforts to marginalize where I stand on an issue, but found that he still had some relevant and accurate opinions that made me modify what I think. When we do our first sermon in the new year, that will be the subject I'm starting with.

    Thank you for the warning. Being in the company of people who enter Identity with an ulterior motive can lead a lot of people to have headaches down the road - even legal ones. God Bless

    Np, brother. We all need to look out for eachother.

    Praise Yahweh you're coming back to DSCI. I started my journey studying DSCI in 2015, so I still consider myself young in the faith. I haven't taken the AIT course yet, but will eventually.

    I pretty much fell into false doctrines because I didn't have a good foundation of Bible doctrine, but this year I've gotten out of a lot of what I thought was true, but wasn't.

    Arnold Murray is one of the few who isn't Christian Identity, but does teach duel seedline. I don't know all his beliefs, but I agree with some.

    Yahweh Bless you too, brother.

  4. #24

    Re: Seed of man and seed of beast

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik View Post
    Np, brother. We all need to look out for eachother.

    Praise Yahweh you're coming back to DSCI. I started my journey studying DSCI in 2015, so I still consider myself young in the faith. I haven't taken the AIT course yet, but will eventually.

    I pretty much fell into false doctrines because I didn't have a good foundation of Bible doctrine, but this year I've gotten out of a lot of what I thought was true, but wasn't.

    Arnold Murray is one of the few who isn't Christian Identity, but does teach duel seedline. I don't know all his beliefs, but I agree with some.

    Yahweh Bless you too, brother.
    I'm glad we breathed new life into this thread.

    Murray believes in angels, a literal Satan, that the offspring of Cain is THE problem. None of what I heard so far from him addresses some other core issues. OTOH, like Finck's beliefs, virtually every preacher who claims to be Identity has some doctrine they brought with them that is connected to some other belief. Read a scathing attack by a Jew against Mark Downey a while ago, but the Jews criticisms opened new doors to expose the beliefs of Canaanites (called Kenites by Murray) and I'm getting the education of a life time doing this research.

  5. #25

    Re: Seed of man and seed of beast

    Quote Originally Posted by TheResister View Post
    I'm glad we breathed new life into this thread.

    Murray believes in angels, a literal Satan, that the offspring of Cain is THE problem. None of what I heard so far from him addresses some other core issues. OTOH, like Finck's beliefs, virtually every preacher who claims to be Identity has some doctrine they brought with them that is connected to some other belief. Read a scathing attack by a Jew against Mark Downey a while ago, but the Jews criticisms opened new doors to expose the beliefs of Canaanites (called Kenites by Murray) and I'm getting the education of a life time doing this research.
    Mark Downey is a single seedliner who doesn't believe in a literal Satan.

  6. #26

    Re: Seed of man and seed of beast

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik View Post
    Mark Downey is a single seedliner who doesn't believe in a literal Satan.
    Thanks for the info. I kept up on a lot of Identity groups until the early 2000s. Lots of stuff has happened since I paid attention to the movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective.) I miss people like Wesley Swift and Bertrand Comparet.

  7. #27

    Re: Seed of man and seed of beast

    Finck is NOT Christian Identity, nor can ever be.

  8. #28

    Re: Seed of man and seed of beast

    Welcome home, Resister. I'm glad you're here for discussion actually.

  9. #29

    Re: Seed of man and seed of beast

    Quote Originally Posted by Thom View Post
    Welcome home, Resister. I'm glad you're here for discussion actually.
    Thank you. I had some developments since yesterday that I'd like to talk to the people about here.

    As I said, I registered on Finck's board at the same time I did this one. Some guy asked a question and we were debating this notion of whether or not God created the beasts. Finck's people believe only the gospel as spewed by Finck. Discussion is not permitted. When Finck got wind of the discussion, he came in trying to belittle me and imply that only his sermon contained the truth on the subject. When people try to tell you that you are stupid for having a different view, they obviously have something to hide. I'm not patient with people in positions of power trying to belittle or demean others, so I told his lordship what I thought of him (basically that what he teaches will ultimately get people sent to jail or Hell if they act / believe that claptrap.)

    When people deny the seedlines, they are denying the very Bible itself. I've had a minor disagreement with the "Identity Movement," that don't change the bottom line, but it does present an opportunity for discussion on this seed of the beast stuff.

    I'm retaking the AIT course for the second time due to the years that have passed between when I was in the ministry and now. Over the years, sometimes viewpoints change on every side, but this is something I've thought about a lot. AIT, like many Identity outlets, say that when Eve went into the Garden of Eden she ate of the fruit - which is supposedly a metaphor for having sex. I think they are in error.

    Genesis 2 16 and 17 read:

    "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

    17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die
    ."

    So, man could go into the Garden of Eden and have sex with these beasts? I don't think so. Let's go to Genesis 3 for a moment.

    "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Genesis 3 : 1

    My position is this:

    God sent Eve into the Garden of Eden and the terminology regarding the word "eat" is a metaphor about gaining knowledge from these beasts of the field (who are living creatures from a place other than earth) that we find out are angelic beings. Satan possessed much more knowledge, beauty, etc. and Eve ignored God's command, which resulted in a sexual act and that had nothing to do with her being able to go into the Garden and "eat."

    There is a basis for this metaphor. For example, look at John 21: 17:

    "He (Jesus) saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

    If you feed the sheep (i.e. provide knowledge and they receive it, then they can "eat" it)

    After Eve was seduced and she enlightened Adam, they suddenly realized they were naked. So they sew aprons made of fig leaves. And God asks Eve who told her she was naked. This, in my mind, precludes the possibility that Eve was told to go into the Garden of Eden where she could "eat" (have sex in the AIT course teachings.) I realize that is popular, but I simply disagree. Eat, in that context was to go into the Garden of Eden, interact with the beasts that are referred to as trees for the purpose of imparting knowledge. Since Angels can answer prayers, take on the form of humans, etc. I remain convinced that when Eve went there to "eat" it was to receive knowledge since no Scriptures existed.

    Instead, she did as God instructed her not to do; she was seduced by the serpent who was more subtil than any beast of the field (representative of the forbidden tree) and she bore Cain.

    It is a minor point. It doesn't change the bottom line to what happened, but the beasts of the field in the Garden of Eden are representative of living things that originated from beyond our understanding (the heavens, for example) while the beast of the earth is the pre-Adamic non - white races that existed and predate Adam.

  10. #30

    Re: Seed of man and seed of beast

    Fink has been worming around Radio Aryan who I'm sure he will ruin. Its a shame I liked them.

Similar Threads

  1. The Mustard Seed
    By talkshoe.com in forum CPM Sermon Specific (2016)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-03-2018, 09:23 AM
  2. Parable of the Seed
    By talkshoe.com in forum CPM Sermon Specific (2016)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-21-2018, 09:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •