These People Are The Real Chosen People of Your GOD (Only They Can Enter The 1,000 Year Kingdom)

[Liquid Reigns]

After having had this brought to my attention, I have taken the board troll off ignore to issue this as a statement to her and others that might have an interest. Reigns is begging for acknowledgment, but she isn't due any from me. Joe Kings summed it up best when he responded to Reigns in post #52 here with these words:

"A man making comments on something they have no idea about, is probably the dumbest thing a man can do. I couldnt imagine the fog you move around with on the daily. Fuckn dumb bitch"

Let's be honest, accurate and fair. Reigns is a for real fed that gets paid to start pissing matches in the hopes of entrapping people for hate crimes. She pretends to know something about subject matter that she knows nothing about. Those she chose to call out owe her nothing and don't bother responding to those desperate attempts to school you on the topics in question on this particular thread.

Her method of operation is to tell you I don't know what I'm talking about. Then she goes to resisters (or whatever other board I might be posting on), Googles words, phrases and names in the vain hope of deceiving people into believing she is a student of history and / or the Bible by giving us her view based on the left wing swill she Googles. After Googling what others are talking about, she pretends to have a monopoly on understanding. She doesn't. I will respond to one criticism just to expose what this individual does. She mentions E. Raymond Capt and cast aspersions on him. Yet Capt was a part of the academia that Reigns claims "debunked" his work. She is lying. Capt lectured at many major universities in the U.S. and abroad all during his life. Until the last 25 - 30 years, the Anglo Israel thesis was not politicized and isn't known today. The majority of people condemning the thesis confuse it with Christian Identity (which is a movement). Because Capt was an archaeologist and a pyramidologist his findings are accepted by seedliners and non-seedliners, not to mention people that are historians, scientists, etc. as opposed to religionists.

EVERYTHING that Reigns said about that individual is pure bloviating. The balance of her puffery is B.S. as well, not deserving of any response. Reigns has stalked me for over 15 years after having lost an initial debate with me. She has to be getting paid because nobody with an IQ above their shoe size would put so much time in following me for free.

This is the only response that our resident federal informant is due. If you really want to know where Reigns got her material from check this out:

https://resisters.freeforums.net/thread/335/bible-1

In the more than fifteen years that Reigns has followed and criticized me, this thread was the FIRST time she mentioned any of the stuff you find in Reply # 2 to the above link. Do you know why? It was the first time I brought up the issues. She didn't even know they existed until that thread. If you want to know why I don't give that POS any more acknowledgment than I have, see this:

You must answer me now | RESISTERS FORUM

Why do you have a fascination with spanking grown men?

resisters.freeforums.net

I didn't give her the courtesy of reading beyond the above quoted post nor will I. All of her criticisms are answered in the threads above along with documentary evidence. She won't access all the facts, but if this topic interests you, I'm sure you know how to click on links.

As I said, they can't refute any of the facts when their claims come from WIKI. Dumb fukn clown.

What does Resister claim: https://resisters.freeforums.net/thread/335/bible-1?page=1&scrollTo=2291

Thank you for specifically mentioning Capt in your post. It came in useful to respond to a troll. It is interesting to note that Capt plays a pivotal role as he and his father were the the two most experienced and relied upon authorities on this subject during their lifetimes. Good article on Wikipedia as well. During my time in Bible college (two full time years) we had to read six books written by Capt and I got to attend four lectures he did at a major university a few decades back. If you haven't read his books Study in Pyramidology and MISSING LINKS DISCOVERED IN ASSYRIAN TABLETS: Lost Tribes I highly recommend them. Finally, for a secular look at the Anglo Saxons as a race check out The History of the Anglo Saxons by Sharon Turner (it has three volumes and lots of pages to read through).

E. Raymond Capt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What's even more laughable is that the WIKI page makes claims that aren't verified by its own citations. Let's look at citation 3 where it claims he received a M.A. in Christian History and Biblical Archaeology from Covenant College in Lake Wales, Florida. There is a Warner University, located in Lake Wales, Florida, which is a private Christian university affiliated with the Church of God (which is probably a simple course to getting ordained in said racist dumb shit religion being how the Church of God is affiliated with the Anglo Israelites). They meant the university affiliated with the Church of God, kind of like how Kingdom Identity Ministries has a Bible course, see here and note that it is the very symbol the Resister uses for his avatar: https://kingidentity.com/ait.htm ). Note KIM is the American Institute of Theology.


Citation 4: Capt was an instructor at the American Institute of Theology. He was on the lecturing staff of the Institute of Pyramidology of Great Britain. the American Institute of Theology links to... wait for it..................................... Kingdom Identity Ministries (where Resister took his study course). It then goes on with the following for the Institute of Pyramidology of Great Britain, which isn't exactly an "archeological or an pyramidoligist in the since of going out in the field and actually doing archeology or actually even touching the pyramids". It refers to theories and theoretical ideological racist stupidity that hey interpreted from "this look similar to this so then this must be this":

Adam Rutherford, a British Israelite, founded an institute called the Institute for Pyramidology in London, England, in 1940. This institute became international with the launch of Pyramidology Magazine in 1941, focusing on “Divine Revelation” and prophecies.

Additionally, British authors such as Basil Stewart, David Davidson, and H. Aldersmith wrote books on pyramidology, exploring the idea that the Great Pyramid of Giza contains encoded predictions, including future events. John Taylor, another British pyramidologist, is often credited as the “founder of pyramidology” due to his 1859 book, which proposed that the pyramid was divinely inspired and built by the Hebrews.

While these individuals and publications demonstrate an interest in pyramidology in Great Britain, there is no conclusive evidence of a dedicated institution or organization specifically named “Institute of Pyramidology of Great Britain” (its like calling a Janitor a Facilities Manager, embellished title to look more important and give credibility where none is due ) or any evidence that they were actual archeologists.

To keep going is laughable. Are these dumb asses truly this fukn stupid?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Resister said:

The debate over this "Christian Identity" name is always getting in the way of a productive discussion regarding what the Bible is about. In the final analysis, nobody cares about the details regarding Christian Identity. It has become a scare term used to dissuade people from thinking about their heritage, culture and destiny. The 1960s and the overwhelming majority of the 1970s were before my time and even the ADL cannot state with a certainty who was the first person to say the term Christian Identity. What IS relevant is that whether one is a seedline believer or non-seedline, the facts regarding the history of the White, Anglo Saxon, Scandinavian, Teutonic, Germanic and kindred people are known by honest researchers, among them being men like E. Raymond Capt and his father before him.

What I can say is that the people who do use the term Christian Identity have decided that I don't qualify. So, who am I to question them? On their side they have Geronimo (Jeremy Visser), Martin Lindstedt, etc. and I will never be breaking bread with them. They do NOT have a direct connection to Wesley Swift, Bertrand Comparet nor the American Institute of Theology and its remaining offshoot Kingdom Identity Ministries. None of them graduated from the American Institute of Theology; I'd bet none of them took any courses from Kingdom Identity Ministries. They don't know the material. THAT has been discussed on the board. Bear in mind that I graduated from Bible college before Mike Hallimore gained control of the American Institute of Theology and the copyrights to Swift's works. I never heard the term "Christian Identity" until years later. While the media might imagine all these great connections between the various groups, none exists. If not for people thinking we share the same religious ideology as other groups the media and mainstream labeled "Christian Identity" I wouldn't give a rat's rear end what they call me. But, I'm not affiliated with those groups, don't know the majority of them, and it is questionable that we believe the same things outside of the history of identifying biblical Israelites.

You will find that there are many variations of those who are labeled Christian Identity, but we are Christian Israelites and subscribe to the seedline doctrine. Other things we believe:

The world was not created in six days, but in six periods of time (as the original word yome, in Genesis translated "days," was used)
The Flood was not worldwide, but limited to the area that was understood by the writers
Pre-Adamites were on the earth for an untold number of years before Adam

In "Christian Identity" they argue over all kinds of things such as whether to observe the Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday; Rapture vs. No Rapture; whether it is okay to celebrate non_Israelite holidays, etc., etc. The Anglo Israelite Christian Church is a separate denomination wherein those who claim to be Christian Identity have stated we are NOT Identity. So, honest writers won't lump us all together and attempt to make a connection that doesn't exist in reality. Case closed.

Your response attempts to distance the "Anglo Israelite Christian Church" from the broader label of Christian Identity, yet the core beliefs you describe—such as the seedline doctrine and the identification of white Europeans as the true Israelites—are fundamentally connected to the same discredited ideologies. The historical and theological claims you make, including those based on the work of E. Raymond Capt, are not supported by credible scholarship.

The attempt to create a distinction between your beliefs and those of Christian Identity appears to be more about distancing from the negative connotations associated with that label than about genuine theological differences. The doctrines you espouse, particularly those related to race and biblical lineage, remain rooted in the same fringe interpretations that have been thoroughly debunked by mainstream historians, theologians, and geneticists.

Furthermore, while you advocate for a non-literal interpretation of certain biblical narratives, such as the creation story and the Flood, these interpretations seem selectively applied to support your ideological positions. This selective hermeneutics undermines the credibility of your theological arguments.

In the end, whether one subscribes to the label "Christian Identity" or "Anglo Israelite Christian Church," the fundamental problem remains: the beliefs are based on a revisionist interpretation of both history and scripture, driven by racial ideologies rather than a pursuit of truth. It is important to engage with scripture and history in a manner that respects both the text and the evidence, rather than twisting them to fit preconceived notions of race and identity.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

JohnDrake said:

Mam

You are not qualified to judge anyone's religion on this forum or any other. You never heard of the people that were mentioned until they were brought up by The Resister. You wait for others to say something and then you become an instant authority.
This may come as a surprise to you but all of us know how to use Google. You might get away with that elsewhere. It will not happen on my watch here. E. Raymond Capt was a for real person and nothing you have posted negates what has been provided on this board. You can blow smoke up someone elses backside but it will not be mine. You continue to make stuff up and you will continue to be exposed. Your bluffing and puffing cannot change reality.

As for theological differences that has been pointed out to you. If you are too stubborn or too stupid to accept reality that is on you. If someone is hiding what they believe or disbelieve you have failed to show where or what it is. The fact that you plagiarize your criticisms detracts from their credibility. You are no more a theologian than I am a nuclear physicist.


Having grown up as a Catholic the Catholic church does not necessarily hold to a six day creation. They leave the issue to Bible scholars and scholars are not in agreement. St. Thomas Aquinas left the door open by quoting St. Augustine on the matter. St. Augustine posited that the earth was created before days were measured. Additionally the Catholic church does not have an official position on whether or not the flood was a universal flood or something localized. You are out of touch with what scholars think and what they do not think as you are throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks.


What can be witnessed from your criticisms is that you tend to project a lot. Anglo Israelism is no more driven by racial ideologies than is the belief that Jews are entitled to a homeland in the Middle East and that they are special in the eyes of God. As someone that has been faced with examining these issues since coming here there has not been a time when race was used to promote superiority. You have been on a crusade here to try and destroy someone that you have not been able to get rid of. You have ignored the many attempts made here to learn what is at the root of it. As an outsider you are not in the same league as the man you are trying to harm. As an outsider if you were sincere you would ask questions rather than jump to conclusions. You have nothing except atheism and hatred driving you. You are wrong and nobody is willing to debate you because here and other boards know that you are trolling. I am sure you remember that other guy posting on another board talking about the fact that you like to talk about stuff you do not know anything about.

JohnDrake, your response is heavy on personal attacks and light on substance. Rather than addressing the specific points I raised, you've chosen to focus on discrediting me personally, which does little to advance the discussion. Let's refocus on the key issues at hand.

1. Expertise and Credibility: The validity of an argument is not solely dependent on the personal qualifications of the person making it, but on the evidence and reasoning presented. While you dismiss my arguments as "bluffing and puffing," you have not provided substantive counter-evidence to the critiques of E. Raymond Capt and other figures associated with Anglo-Israelism. Capt's work is widely regarded as speculative and ideologically driven, lacking the academic rigor required for credible historical analysis.

2. Theological Interpretation: You correctly point out that the Catholic Church allows for a range of interpretations regarding Genesis. However, this does not validate the seedline doctrine or Anglo-Israelism, which are widely rejected by mainstream Christian theologians and scholars. The selective use of theological arguments to support fringe ideologies is a hallmark of these movements, but it does not lend them credibility.

3. Racial Ideology: Your comparison between Anglo-Israelism and the belief in a Jewish homeland is a false equivalency. The modern Zionist movement is based on a combination of historical, religious, and political factors, not on a racial reinterpretation of scripture. In contrast, Anglo-Israelism is fundamentally about recasting biblical narratives to center white Europeans, which is why it has been criticized as a racial ideology.

4. Engagement and Debate: Accusing me of trolling or suggesting that I am on a "crusade" is a way to avoid engaging with the actual arguments I've made. If you believe that Anglo-Israelism or the seedline doctrine has merit, then the appropriate response is to present evidence and arguments that support these views, not to resort to personal attacks.

In conclusion, the core issues I raised remain unaddressed. The historical and theological foundations of Anglo-Israelism and the seedline doctrine are not supported by credible scholarship, and the attempt to distance these beliefs from accusations of racial ideology does not hold up under scrutiny. If you are willing to engage in a substantive discussion, I am open to it, but it needs to be based on evidence and reasoned argument, not on personal attacks and deflections.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Resister said:

Thanks for setting the board troll straight, but I have no interest in what she thinks or what she posts. It is agreed that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

Now that you have inspired me to move forward from the basic message and there is a post in an earlier thread with a single link to 14 hours of Bible study. That should be enough to get that message across. I want to address one thing here and then turn your thread back over to you. The people that criticize the Anglo Israel thesis miss the fact that numerous authorities are having to admit that there is substance to the claim. In one instance a Rabbi of all people admitted that the Irish were descendants of Israel. But that isn't the point. In order to move on it is important for others to know that we owe no human being any explanation for what we believe. I don't seek the validation of critics and when critics pretend that they have a monopoly on human virtue and understanding, the discussion is over. You taught me the value in just avoiding those kinds of people, putting them on ignore and moving on. I do want to point out that the left lies about this "Christian Identity" stuff. To quote one of those organizations the left loves to rely on, let's go to the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. They state:

"The Christian Identity movement developed out of John Wilson’s 19th-century theory of British Israelism."

That was a lie that we debunked already. Then there is this kind of misinformation from the left:

"Many CI followers also propagate what is variously called dual-seedline theory, two-seedline theory, or serpent-seed theory. Dual-seedline believers, or “seedliners”, claim that Cain was created by an ungodly affair with Eve and the Serpent (Satan), while Abel was created by Adam and Eve. ... The deaths of other prominent Christian Identity leaders like Wesley Swift, Pete Peters, and Willaim Potter Gale also contributed to the decline of the traditional CI movement. ...Another designated CI organization, Eurofolk Radio, operates primarily as a website promoting a mixture of white nationalist and CI radio stations, rather than as a structured organization. Therefore, in our research, we did not consider these three organizations to be active Christian Identity organizations."

Okay, in order to be considered Christian Identity you must be a dual seedline adherent according to these crackpots. Yet Pete Peters did NOT believe in dual seedlines. And Eurofolk, which does believe in dual seedline isn't counted. I love being among those that aren't counted. But, the overall message here is that all the crap you find about what some self styled groups may or may not be teaching simply does not apply to the the Anglo Israelite Christian Church nor has it ever. It didn't apply when we were a church under the banner of Kingdom Identity Ministries. The fact about all this is that I had no idea that William Finck was behind the 14 hours of lectures alluded to earlier. But, that stuff is applicable. Finck denies the Trinity so I would have a doctrinal difference with him. Since he is the head monkey and he claims I'm not Christian Identity, I take him at his word. Among the many allegations that the left hurls at their enemy "Christian Identity," most of the top churches have never advocated violence, National Socialism, etc.

Be that as it may we don't owe anyone an explanation; we don't need to justify our religious ideology; we don't need to meet anyone's standards except our own. For everything else, see my byline at the end of this post. Again, thanks for helping to expose that maggot. Now we can get down to business on this board.

The Resister, your response largely sidesteps the substantive issues I raised by dismissing my arguments as irrelevant and focusing instead on reinforcing in-group beliefs. However, the points I made deserve engagement, not dismissal. Let’s revisit the key issues:

1. Dismissing Criticism: Simply stating that you have no interest in what I think or post does not address the validity of my arguments. If your beliefs are as solid as you claim, they should be able to withstand scrutiny. Intellectual honesty requires engaging with opposing views, not shutting them down without consideration.

2. Unquestioned Beliefs: You assert that you owe no explanation for your beliefs. While you are entitled to hold personal beliefs, the moment those beliefs are presented in a public forum, they become subject to critique. This is how dialogue and understanding progress. If your beliefs are based on solid foundations, then they should be able to withstand public scrutiny and debate.

3. Selective Use of Authority: Your mention of an unnamed rabbi who allegedly supports the Anglo-Israel thesis is anecdotal and lacks context. Serious claims require a broader consensus, not isolated statements taken out of context. Moreover, dismissing critiques as "leftist misinformation" without addressing their content is an evasion, not a refutation.

4. Redefining Christian Identity: While it’s important to recognize diversity within movements, the underlying issues of racial ideology and reinterpretation of biblical narratives remain unaddressed. The fact that some within the movement reject violence or certain ideologies does not absolve the movement from the need for critical examination.

5. Engagement with Ideas: You mention that you don’t need to justify your ideology or meet anyone’s standards. While that may be true within your community, it does not hold in a public or intellectual forum. Ideas and beliefs, especially those that claim historical or theological legitimacy, should be open to discussion, critique, and, when necessary, refutation.

In conclusion, my criticisms remain unaddressed. The refusal to engage with them suggests an unwillingness to have these ideas tested against evidence and reasoned argumentation. If you believe in the strength of your positions, I invite you to engage with the arguments directly rather than dismissing them out of hand. This is the only way to foster meaningful dialogue and understanding.

 

[Mungri]

'Entrap for hate crimes' ... This shit exists in the US? WHAT???

Dear feds / uk cuck police - I HATE ALL HUMANS EQUALLY, I'M A FUCKING SATANIST / NIHILIST/ MISANTHROPE YA DUMB PLONKERS.

 

[TheFiend]

After having had this brought to my attention, I have taken the board troll off ignore to issue this as a statement to her and others that might have an interest. Reigns is begging for acknowledgment, but she isn't due any from me. Joe Kings summed it up best when he responded to Reigns in post #52 here with these words:

"A man making comments on something they have no idea about, is probably the dumbest thing a man can do. I couldnt imagine the fog you move around with on the daily. Fuckn dumb bitch"

Let's be honest, accurate and fair. Reigns is a for real fed that gets paid to start pissing matches in the hopes of entrapping people for hate crimes. She pretends to know something about subject matter that she knows nothing about. Those she chose to call out owe her nothing and don't bother responding to those desperate attempts to school you on the topics in question on this particular thread.

Her method of operation is to tell you I don't know what I'm talking about. Then she goes to resisters (or whatever other board I might be posting on), Googles words, phrases and names in the vain hope of deceiving people into believing she is a student of history and / or the Bible by giving us her view based on the left wing swill she Googles. After Googling what others are talking about, she pretends to have a monopoly on understanding. She doesn't. I will respond to one criticism just to expose what this individual does. She mentions E. Raymond Capt and cast aspersions on him. Yet Capt was a part of the academia that Reigns claims "debunked" his work. She is lying. Capt lectured at many major universities in the U.S. and abroad all during his life. Until the last 25 - 30 years, the Anglo Israel thesis was not politicized and isn't known today. The majority of people condemning the thesis confuse it with Christian Identity (which is a movement). Because Capt was an archaeologist and a pyramidologist his findings are accepted by seedliners and non-seedliners, not to mention people that are historians, scientists, etc. as opposed to religionists.

EVERYTHING that Reigns said about that individual is pure bloviating. The balance of her puffery is B.S. as well, not deserving of any response. Reigns has stalked me for over 15 years after having lost an initial debate with me. She has to be getting paid because nobody with an IQ above their shoe size would put so much time in following me for free.

This is the only response that our resident federal informant is due. If you really want to know where Reigns got her material from check this out:

https://resisters.freeforums.net/thread/335/bible-1

In the more than fifteen years that Reigns has followed and criticized me, this thread was the FIRST time she mentioned any of the stuff you find in Reply # 2 to the above link. Do you know why? It was the first time it was brought up. She didn't even know they existed until that thread. If you want to know why I don't give that POS any more acknowledgment than I have, see this:

You must answer me now | RESISTERS FORUM

Why do you have a fascination with spanking grown men?

resisters.freeforums.net

I didn't give her the courtesy of reading beyond the above quoted post nor will I. All of her criticisms are answered in the threads above along with documentary evidence. She won't access all the facts, but if this topic interests you, I'm sure you know how to click on links.

 

[TheResister]

View attachment 221030

You're full of shit as usual, "fiend." If there is a liar amongst us, you are one of the tops.

 

[TheFiend]

You're full of shit as usual, "fiend." If there is a liar amongst us, you are one of the tops.

Love the irony mate

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I didn't give her the courtesy of reading beyond the above quoted post nor will I. All of her criticisms are answered in the threads above along with documentary evidence. She won't access all the facts, but if this topic interests you, I'm sure you know how to click on links.

Understanding What Constitutes Evidence and Fact:
The Resister's assertion that "all criticisms are answered in the threads above along with documentary evidence" reflects a misunderstanding of what constitutes reliable evidence and factual information. Let’s break down what a fact is, what evidence is, and how the theories underlying the Seedline Doctrine and Anglo-Israelism fall short of these standards.

---

1. What Is a Fact?​

A fact is a statement that can be objectively verified and is supported by empirical evidence. For something to be considered a fact, it must be:

• Observable and Measurable: Facts are based on objective data that can be tested and confirmed.
• Consistent Across Time and Space: Facts hold true regardless of who observes them or when they are observed.
• Independently Verifiable: Multiple sources should be able to verify a fact through their own independent investigations.

2. What Is Evidence?​

Evidence consists of data or information that supports or refutes a claim or hypothesis. Reliable evidence must be:

• Credible: Originating from trustworthy, expert sources that adhere to rigorous standards of verification.
• Relevant: Directly related to the claim being made.
• Sufficient: Comprehensive enough to support the claim on its own without requiring significant leaps of logic or interpretation.

---

3. Seedline Doctrine and Anglo-Israelism: Lacking Factual Basis​

Seedline Doctrine:​

The Seedline Doctrine claims that certain racial groups are descended from specific biblical figures, such as Cain or Esau, and that these lineages are cursed or inherently evil. The doctrine further asserts that white Europeans are the true descendants of the biblical Israelites.

• Lack of Genetic Evidence: Modern genetics, particularly studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y-chromosome haplogroups, have thoroughly mapped the genetic relationships among human populations. These studies demonstrate that human genetic diversity does not align with the racial categories proposed by the Seedline Doctrine. There is no credible genetic evidence to support the idea that white Europeans are uniquely descended from biblical Israelites, nor that there is a distinct, cursed lineage as the doctrine claims.
• Misinterpretation of Historical Texts: The Seedline Doctrine relies on highly speculative and often distorted interpretations of biblical texts, taking passages out of their historical and cultural context. Mainstream biblical scholarship, which adheres to rigorous historical and linguistic analysis, overwhelmingly rejects these interpretations.

Anglo-Israelism:​

Anglo-Israelism claims that the Anglo-Saxon, Teutonic, Scandinavian, and related peoples are the true descendants of the ancient Israelites.

• Historical Inaccuracy: The historical record does not support the notion that these groups have any direct lineage from the ancient Israelites. The idea emerged in the 19th century, driven by a combination of nationalistic pride and a desire to connect the British Empire with biblical prophecy. It is widely dismissed by credible historians as a pseudohistorical construct.
• Racial and Ideological Bias: Anglo-Israelism is rooted in a racial ideology that seeks to elevate certain ethnic groups above others based on a distorted view of history. This perspective aligns with broader racist ideologies that have been used to justify discrimination and exclusion.

4. Why These Theories Are Considered Racist:​

• Promotes Racial Superiority: Both Seedline Doctrine and Anglo-Israelism promote the idea that certain races are divinely chosen or superior to others. This is the foundation of many racist ideologies that have been used to justify oppression, segregation, and violence against those deemed "inferior."
• Exclusionary and Divisive: By claiming a divine mandate for racial purity or superiority, these doctrines inherently marginalize and dehumanize those who do not fit their criteria, leading to social division and conflict.
• Rejection by Mainstream Religion: These doctrines are not accepted by mainstream Christian denominations, which typically emphasize the spiritual unity of all believers and reject racial or ethnic divisions as antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

---

Conclusion:​

In conclusion, the claims made by Seedline Doctrine and Anglo-Israelism do not stand up to scrutiny when evaluated against the standards of factual evidence. They are based on speculative theories, historical misinterpretations, and a biased reading of religious texts. These ideologies are considered racist because they promote the idea of racial superiority and exclusion, which has been widely rejected by credible scholars, geneticists, and religious leaders.
Your reliance on what you call "documentary evidence" does not meet the criteria for credible or factual support. Instead, it perpetuates a narrative that is not grounded in objective reality. Engaging with actual evidence requires a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths and to revise one's beliefs in light of new, verifiable information—a standard that the proponents of these doctrines consistently fail to meet.

 

[TheResister]

Love the irony mate

There is no irony there, "mate." BTW, I'm not you mate. You are a liar that enjoys the company of other liars. You're also a chicken shit that uses the Internet for harassing people as entertainment. Just makes you a low life... and a liar.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

There is no irony there, "mate." BTW, I'm not you mate. You are a liar that enjoys the company of other liars. You're also a chicken shit that uses the Internet for harassing people as entertainment. Just makes you a low life... and a liar.

You have yet to prove anybody has lied about you or your comments. If you are posting on a forum, you are open to having your claims tested and scrutinized against facts and evidence. If you can't handle that then the internet isn't for you. You should probably slink away and hide in your basement.

Your other option is to present actual facts and evidence of your claims, not misinterpretation and biased readings, or speculative theory that you claim as factual. "If it's on the internet, it must be true!" SMFH

Learn to do actual research.

 

[TheFiend]

There is no irony there, "mate." BTW, I'm not you mate. You are a liar that enjoys the company of other liars. You're also a chicken shit that uses the Internet for harassing people as entertainment. Just makes you a low life... and a liar.

Again with the irony aye.
Your originality is off the scales mate.

 

[TheResister]

Again with the irony aye.
Your originality is off the scales mate.

That appears to be non-responsive. If you have a personal problem with me maybe you want to take it up in pm or I can make myself available to you some other way. I don't feel insulted by you. I've heard that a man is known by the company he keeps. And you hang with the lowest of the low.

Are you some kind of gay pirate with that aye mate B.S.? You had better have something substantial to say about this thread the next time you post or I will ignore you. You are being disrespectful toward the OP. Like I said, you have an issue with me, take it up somewhere else and show that you have at least a modicum of class.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You had better have something substantial to say about this thread the next time you post or I will ignore you.

Because you have no ability to factually rebut the presented facts disproving your and Kingsolomonswisdom's racist religious claims.

You are being disrespectful toward the OP.

Nah, just you. OP ran away along time ago.

Like I said, you have an issue with me, take it up somewhere else and show that you have at least a modicum of class.

Its funnier to do it in the open, where everybody can see just how full of shit you are.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Resister said:

For quite a number of years I have interspersed our Christian heritage with the goings on in the political realm. About 80 percent of the Bible is about governing and government. The reality before us is that politics is religion in action. Start with the issue of abortion. An atheist wouldn't give two hoots in Hell about abortion. A Christian (or maybe some other religion that believes in a Right to Life) would. The same can be said for anything we deem to be fair or unfair.

The history of our country is beyond dispute despite the attempts by modern historical revisionists to change the facts. We have challenged notions about history like the Masons being responsible for our form of government. For example, the Freemasons themselves state:

"Of the 56 men that signed the Declaration of Independence, it appears that only nine were Freemasons"

freemasoninformation.com/masonic-education/famous/united-states-masonic-founding-fathers/

I found so much wrong with conspiracy thinking on this. There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. Of those 9 are Freemasons which leaves 47 signers that are not Freemasons. Now, I'm not going to say those who were Freemasons didn't have any influence in the Declaration of Independence, but am I expected to believe that 47 men that signed the Declaration of Independence were all idiots? Secondary to that, the Illuminati had not taken over the Freemasons at that point as the Illuminati wasn't formed until May of 1776.

The Deniers of History want to challenge the fact that America was founded on Christian principles. So dishonest are they that they change the meaning of that statement to create a strawman argument and proceed to prove a position that Christians have never made. Christian principles do not make a form of government. Just because most people in the founding and framing era were Christian doesn't mean they started a theocracy just because America was founded on Christian principles. The Deniers of History don't have a leg to stand on. That is why they need to create a false narrative to argue against. And, since error feeds off of error, these people claim that America never was great; was never an example for the world to follow... was nothing special. If you argue against them, they become triggered and fight like a caged animal to keep the facts censored. They are all about transparency and "freedom" until they disagree with what someone else says. What they really fear is the truth. But, what if?

What if, as they claim, America was founded by One Worlders; it has never been great; it has never been anything special; the country is on life support (which is the only point we agree on)? What if that were the correct narrative? If that is true, then the atheists, humanists, One Worlders, Democrats, socialists, left wingers, communists - all those in control currently ARE the problem and America would be due a regime change. What if they were right? The problem is, they aren't right.

1. Misconceptions About Atheism and Moral Issues:The Resister begins with a false dichotomy, suggesting that only religious individuals, particularly Christians, care about moral issues such as abortion. This assertion is not only incorrect but also dismissive of the complex and diverse moral frameworks that exist outside of religious belief. Many atheists and secular humanists oppose abortion on ethical grounds, demonstrating that one’s stance on such issues is not solely determined by religious affiliation.

2. Misrepresentation of American History:The Resister's argument that "America was founded on Christian principles" oversimplifies and misinterprets the complex history of the United States. While it's true that many of the Founding Fathers were cultural Christians, the U.S. Constitution explicitly avoids establishing a state religion, reflecting Enlightenment principles of reason, individual rights, and secular governance. The Treaty of Tripoli (1797), ratified by the U.S. Senate, even states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

• Christian Principles vs. Secular Governance: The Founding Fathers were influenced by a variety of philosophical traditions, including Christianity, but they were also strongly influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu, who advocated for the separation of church and state. This is why the U.S. Constitution does not reference God and why the First Amendment ensures freedom of religion, preventing the establishment of any single religious doctrine as the foundation of American law.

3. Strawman Arguments and Historical Denialism:The Resister accuses critics of creating strawman arguments by claiming that America was never great or special. This mischaracterization ignores the more nuanced criticisms that recognize America’s achievements while also acknowledging its historical failures, such as slavery, the treatment of Indigenous peoples, and systemic racism.

• Critical Examination of History: A critical examination of history is not about denying America’s achievements but about understanding the full scope of its history, both the good and the bad. This is necessary for an honest and informed view of the nation's past and present. Critics of the "America was founded on Christian principles" narrative are not denying history but rather challenging an oversimplified and often mythologized version of it.

4. The Misuse of "Christian Principles":The notion that America was founded on "Christian principles" often serves as a vague catch-all used to promote specific political or religious agendas. However, the principles that shaped the U.S., such as the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the protection of individual liberties, are rooted in a broader philosophical context that includes, but is not limited to, Christian thought.

• Religious Freedom: One of the most important principles established by the Founding Fathers was religious freedom, which includes the freedom not to adhere to any religion. This principle is inherently at odds with the idea of a government based on specific religious doctrines.

5. Anglo-Israelism and Seedline Doctrine as Racist Ideologies:The Resister fails to address the core issue: the Seedline Doctrine and Anglo-Israelism are rooted in racist ideologies. These doctrines are based on the belief that certain races are divinely chosen or superior, a belief that has been used to justify exclusion, discrimination, and violence.

• Racial Superiority: These ideologies are not just about religious or cultural identity; they are about promoting the idea that certain races are inherently superior to others. This is the very definition of racism, and it has no place in a society that values equality and human dignity.

Conclusion:The Resister’s arguments rely heavily on misrepresentations, historical revisionism, and an oversimplification of complex issues. The attempt to frame America as a nation founded on Christian principles ignores the secular and Enlightenment foundations of its government. Moreover, the failure to address the racist underpinnings of the Seedline Doctrine and Anglo-Israelism speaks volumes. Facts and evidence must be grounded in reality, not ideological dogma. Understanding history and moral issues requires a nuanced approach that considers all available evidence, not just selective interpretations that serve a particular agenda.

 

[TheFiend]

That appears to be non-responsive. If you have a personal problem with me maybe you want to take it up in pm or I can make myself available to you some other way. I don't feel insulted by you. I've heard that a man is known by the company he keeps. And you hang with the lowest of the low.

Are you some kind of gay pirate with that aye mate B.S.? You had better have something substantial to say about this thread the next time you post or I will ignore you. You are being disrespectful toward the OP. Like I said, you have an issue with me, take it up somewhere else and show that you have at least a modicum of class.

Mate it's fuckin' comical seeing you talk about class.