You should learn from the Bible, and begin by asking why God created distinct tribes in Israel with exclusive inheritances, and banned intermarriage between them unless the inheritance was surrendered. Then you can come back and explain to us why Kinists don’t understand the Bible.

You also suggest that violent conflicts are more likely to arise among homogeneous peoples. This is so preposterous that I hardly know what to say. Compare Sri Lanka, Sao Paulo, and Dallas to the crime rates of any overwhelmingly white place on earth.

The last line of your comment reveals your own prejudice. You KNOW that interracial mixture leads to violence, and your implicit solution is to mix everyone so that we’re all “of a similar heritage.” This hasn’t worked in the places I mentioned above, and it won’t ever work.

Babel does not drive out Babel, and a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Yea right. If you provide even more segregation of society (globally speaking), it is natural for conflicts to arise between groups.

However, if in those 1000 years ethnic boundries become increasingly blurred, it is much less likely for wars/conflicts to erupt between groups.

This would be due to everyone being of a similar heritage.

The Response to the Lesson is “Then stood Moses before Pharoah and told him: ‘Thus saith the Lord, let my people go, that they may sacrifice to me in the wilderness’.”

Dimitte populum meum, ut sacrificet mihi in deserto.

Therefore it was the LAST STRAW that Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois arranged for Rabbi Rivon Kryger to give the sermon for the Fourth Sunday in Lent at Notre Dame in Paris.

For “The Pharisees and the Jews hold to the Tradition of the ancients” Mark 7:3 DRV or The Tradition of the Elders as it is styled in The Talmud.

And our Lord’s pronouncement on this is:
“You have made void the commandment of God for your tradition.” Matt 15:6; Mark 7:3-13.

So when Rabbi Kryger took command of the lectern at Notre Dame to commit the sacriledge of addressing the Christian faithful on the subject of Moses and the Law, a contingent of young traditional French Catholics “arose as one body and with one voice receited the Apostles Creed and the Rosary aloud in the cathedral.” Michael Hoffman, “Traditional French Catholics Disrupt Rabbi’s Sermon at Notre Dame”, Wed 24, 2010. Revisionist Review Blogspot.

French television cut the transmission but you can still view this great event in the history of the Church and witness the twat control of the officials who drowned out the voice of the Roman Catholic Church with the organ and choir.

Notre Dame de Paris: Catholics Against Zionism (which would be more appropriately titled) Catholics Against Judaism

http://www.gloria.tv/?media=61422
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx-ga2jnzCA&feature=player_embedded

Most fitting to the young French Catholics is the Responsorial Benediction of the Holy Gospel for Laetare (John 6:1-5 on the Loaves and Fishes) and the Homily of St Augustine

“Behold I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way. Beware of him and obey his voice; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies and an adversary unto thine adversaries, for mine Angel shall go before thee.

“Ecce mitto Angelum meum, qui praecedat te, et custodiat semper: Observa et audi vocem meam, et inimicus ero inimicis tuis, et affligentes te affligam: et praecedet te Angeles meus.”

Qui ut Deus.

http://www.americanvision.org/worldviewforum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1548&start=36

Yes! The first Bible in America was racist! But seriously, African slavery was the worst mistake Americans ever made.

Mine was the third comment, posted under “j” accidentally. I did not see a post by “Thomas”?

Good observations about their double speak. Either race exists for purposes of distinctions, or it does not for purposes of multiculturalism and denouncing “racists”.

Of course, the Tzippora, Rahab, and Ruth questions have alternative solutions which are more adequate than the a priori interpretations of race-mixers.

http://www.reformedblacksofamerica.org

This could be a step toward black solidarity mixed with good theology – not that blacks need any help with the solidarity part. But the irony is that they claim to seek “indigenous black leadership” – which would mean separate ecclesiastical structures based on race, which was the policy of those detested white Presbyterians of old.

Did you post on American Vision under the name “Thomas”? Because that was a well-reasoned post. The rest of the debate was mostly what is to be expected when anemic Presbyterian race-deniers are faced with biodiversity.

The Presbyterian race-denier has five arguments:

Tzippora;

Rahab;

Ruth;

“it’s about covenant, not genetics” (whatever that means);

and finally, the phrase “made in the image of God.”

(The funny thing is that by saying that Ruth is a “Moabite” and not an “Israelite,” they are acknowledging that different ethnicities do, in fact, exist! The argument that Israelites practiced interracial marriage only exists if there are, in fact, different races!)

Why, why, why don’t they ever get that you can’t acknowledge the existence of the family and simultaneously deny the existence of race? I’m not even a “Kinist,” per se, but the concept of diversified nations based on common descent – as the names of the tribes suggest! – is so obvious that the DeMarians must be deliberately obtuse not to acknowledge it.

The “young DeMar with a fro” photo does suggest African genes, but I think it’s just the light darkening his bronze Italian features.