“Who a girl from another family marries is none of your business.”

Perhaps, but it certainly may be society’s business, just as in the ethnostate of Israel, it was very much the business of its judges to regulate who might marry whom. We seem to have read of it in the scripture, just as we have read of the regulation against unequal yoking.

Of course, employing a trivializing, reductionistic hermeneutic, you might attempt to divert us from the broader context of this directive, but we are not so child-like as to believe that this law had primarily in view the regulation of which beasts of burden might be teamed to pull a plow.

I am glad to read that you liked my reflection upon Tolkien. I reread his great saga every decade of my life and with every re-reading a new horizon is revealed to my ken. There is no doubt in my mind that he is England’s greatest bard for the post-Christian times.

Of course, now we have moved beyond post-Christian, post everything times. We are in anno Lucifer – the year 2,000 Anno Domine being, 6000 anno (probably that should be ano) Lucifer.

I am a Mrs, btw. And my family is Irish on my husband’s side and Cornish on my side.

Probably the best book on St Patrick is from my parish library Archbishop Healey: Life of St Patrick (1905).

Clan Doyle has some great material on St Padraig (as well as some great Irish harp) http://www.doyle.com.au/saint_patrick.htm.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has distilled much of the oral tradition around St Patrick. And it is to the oral tradition (which will be the Bardic tradition) that I give much credence. See St Patrick
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/1554a.htm.

Moderns have a huge problem with miraculous events. They can not credit Apostolic works and the works of saints whose lives closely model the Acts. I have no difficulty at all with the gist of this lore and the oral tradition.

Long before this was ever written down, the people preserved this tradition of their great bishop in the laodh which was sung at the hearthside.

The fact of history is that entire nations of people together with their kings and chiefs converted to the Gospel in a very short space of time. Ancient and pre-historic peoples were not just sitting there in caves doing nothing and waiting for the Gospel.

In the temptation of Christ, Satan states that all the kingdoms of this age (aeon or age of the world) have been given to himself -”for such have been delivered to me”. And these will he give to Christ – if only Christ will worship him, Lucifer.

The ancient Irish were no different than anyone else B.C. – they were under tribute to Lucifer through a ruling priesthood.

Not just anyone, goes to Ireland in the 4th century Anno Domine and breaks the power of the Druid Bond at the seat of the High King in Tara and persuades all the Clans to throw down the altars of human sacrifice. For this was Lucifer’s entire slave / sacrifice system which terrorized the human race for millenia (and which we are now getting back with interest).

Only the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour and King has the power to do that. And St Padrick was annointed for the mission to Eire by two popes. He went as an apostle and as a successor to the Apostles. By God’s grace, it was given him to manifest the Apostolic charismata against the works of darkness for the salvation of a nation.

And so great were his works of penance and mortification that the Father, (who Alone, as our Saviour states has the knowledge of the times), revealed to St Padraic that He determined the times of the Anti-Christ upon Ireland.

The Angel of the Father revealed to St Patrick that the nation of Eire (claimed for our Lord with such manifestation of great Apostolic charismata as had pleased Him to reveal in St Patrick) would itself be claimed by our Lord by means of the sea before He would yield that land to the Anti-Christ.

And now, as the Great Apostasy widens across Europe, we see the remnant Catholics burning their own cathedrals rather than yield them up to some heretic, sodomite and violator of innocence appointed over them by anti-pope Benedict.

Is this some legend, that the Angel of the Father revealed to St Padrick that our Lord would never yield Eire? I think the Bardic Tradition of Ireland does speak true that the Angel of the Father spoke to St Patrick of His sovereign counsel and foreknowledge. He said that the Day of Judgement itself would be determined upon 7 years from the year that the sea claimed the Island of Saints and Scholars because our Lord never would yield that land to the reign of the Anti-Christ.

So great was the apostolic zeal and charism, penance and mortification revealed for the salvation of Eire by St Patrick, that our Lord reigning until all His enemies are under His feet will never yield Eire – even though the entire world pass under the shadow.

Again I might invoke the “you shall know the tree by its fruits” principle: can one point out any really mixed mulatto-nation that is, or has been, famous for its Christian piety and devotion?

One can examples of one-nation communities – or all races – that have shown true Biblical commitment, but has there been any truly “multicultural” society in history that Christians could look upon as moral inspiration?

Christianity has worked a moral transformation even among former headhunters of Southeast Asia, but nota bene: believers there have not lost their national or tribal identity after their conversion:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3893&highlight=headhunters

“Today, images of Jesus Christ, not desiccated human skulls, adorn Khala’s small house in the hills around Kohima, the capital of India’s northeast state of Nagaland. The region, once notorious worldwide for its savagery, has now become India’s most Christian-dominant area. It’s known as “the most Baptist state in the world.”
…

After India achieved independence in 1947, Naga separatists (many of them Christians) fought fiercely for independence from India. India’s government expelled all foreign missionaries from Nagaland, suspecting them of fueling the Nagas’ desire for independence. Finally, after years of violence, India permitted Nagaland to become a “self-governing” state inside India. But entry into and exit from Nagaland is monitored closely, even today, since Christian rebels still advocate complete independence (their slogan: “Nagalim for Christ”).”

Is it not essentially true that throughout the bible Satan has one, and only one, theme common in his every appearance in the text?

And isn’t that to promote “equality”? His counter-gospel, so to speak?

Isn’t that what he preached to Adam and Eve? Equality, with God?

Wasn’t his attacks upon Job done in effort to prove that Job could be made equal to all others in absence of God’s blessings? (the book of Job is one long sermon against the argument that equal opportunity/circumstance = equal outcome…aka the “social gospel”)

And wasn’t the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness an attempt to get him to surrender his claim as The Christ, thus making him equal with other men?

I think a theological case could be made that the pursuit (and entire point) of “equality” ends with the world agreeing that Jesus was not God incarnate, but just another wannabe philosopher, i.e., equal with the rest of us.

Really, wasn’t that Satan’s downfall? His pursuit of equality with God?

Isn’t THAT the great sin of all the ages? The pursuit of equality with God: the attempt to deny him any special stature and thus make him equal with us.

And you don’t have to elevate the people up to achieve that. You can simply bring Him down amongst them, pat him on the back and call him Ol’ Buddy.

In point of fact I’ve noticed that the more Christians come to embrace the Philosophy of Equality, the more their referential reverence for Jesus declines.
They go from referring to him in awe as the King of Kings and Lord or Lords to casually referring to him as their “Homy”, their “Bestfriend”, their Boyfirend”, their “Buddy”, their “Pal” and other such similar tags which demote him to being “one of us”, thus taking the initial steps towards achieving “equality” with God.

A king ruling over a people who’ve come to embrace equality, has been effectively de-throned.

…

And as a general, observable, historical fact,

In Chaos, all distinctions are blurred.

In Order, all distinctions are enhanced.

…

Hell, I’d settle for Rush’s and a peach white owl, but I’m sick.

It’s the thinly-veiled equivalent of ending a recounting of one’s terrible experience with X by concluding, “But I’m not a racist, my best friend is an albino pygmy.”

In light of the conclusion of the scuffle, I hope you release me from our visit this weekend without accusation.

Ms. Lynda:

I’m inspired by your commentary on Tolkien! I remember being likewise inspired by something you wrote in a lost archive of SWB, and would very much appreciate a further description of St. Patrick’s confrontation of the Pagan magicians in Ireland. In place of further commentary on your part, can you recommend a book on the topic?

Mr. Admin and SFayre:

I agree with your respect and admiration for Mr. McAtee.

I hope you guys will forgive a link to my personal blog. I post it here because its so relevant to the discussion, and hope that my linking is not seen as some sort of shameless self-promotion:

http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/joel-mcdurmon-on-immigration/

Joel McDurmon of American Vision recently did a three-part video series (about 30 min. total) on a Biblical doctrine of immigration. He relies on Hoffmeier’s book “The Immigration Crises: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible” to inform his presentation, (I now own a copy as well, and attest to Hoffmeier’s precision.)

In the link above I have gathered all three clips together for easy access and transcribe, what seems to be, comments that may support a Kinist position on the topic.

But nowhere in scripture, or in the extant works of the church fathers is it so defined. Indeed, the geopolitical nation is a modern novelty, and militates against the very unities of heritage and descent that are conducive of the peace, order, lawfulness, and harmony that are the primary objectives of God-ordained government. Any system of polity that diverts from pursuit of these goals flirts with illegitimacy. The modern imperial state is unified by exactly what, riven as it is with deep divisions religious, ethnic, political, economic? And this is the preferred substitute for the ethnostate? It is a comical suggestion, and indulges in superstitions of the rankest sort.

It is only by the monopoly of force that there is unity in the imperial state. It is an ersatz unity underwritten by violence and the shadow of violence. Such illusory, synthetic congeniality is not to be desired and does not conform to the desideratum of “good government.” The center does not hold, but rather the hegemonic center expands and consumes all, indifferent to the divergences of birth, temperament, and history that form the god-ordained boundaries of biology, time, and circumstance that cause us to seek Him. We Kinists often see references made to the triviality “skin colour,” as though this were the only facet of race. It is to laugh that this is held up as a serious argument. If skin color were the only facet of race, then perhaps these men would have a point. But it is not, and the findings of biological psychology, genetics, and other scientific disciplines cannot be erased by the mere suggestion that race is nothing more than a word to describe a fallacy of hasty induction.

Indeed the drive to total geopolitical unity can hardly be opposed by a doctrine of nations that makes no distinction between the theoretical means and opportunity of salvation and the aforementioned divergences of history -which they call “accident” as if it occurred somehow apart from the will of God- divergences that make us who and what we are. Those who espouse this confusion of categories often suffer from self-induced blindness to the logical imperatives of the position, and often enough fail to see they are making use of the very same exegesis that the Marxist promulgators of Liberation Theology utilize to argue the sinfulness of the nation-state itself, or the evil of property, or the satanic origins of gender distinction.

Your argument, sir, belongs in the same class, and relies on the same presuppositions. We Kinists often find that far from seeking a thoroughly biblical approach to the doctrine of nations, our opponents have a priori socio-political commitments that arise from settled convictions on what the Bible can and cannot mean -irrespective of what it actually SAYS.

There proceeds from this a radical dissonance between the theoretical stance taken, and the realpolitik that is seen in his doxa, or the received common opinions that he cherishes on subjects of immediate practical importance, such as illegal immigration. This dissonance often escalates to existential crisis when he becomes aware of it. From this crisis, Kinists are often born. The Judeochristian would keep the nation, but strip it of its natality, retain gender, but dissipate its meaning, guard borders that are no more meaningful than the lines on a map, signifying nothing of importance.

As the unity of marriage, so the unity of society. Unequally yoked marriages become radically balkanized societies, inevitably. In reality, the contemporary reformed lexicon bowdlerizes the ancient and universally accepted definition of nationality. We could call forth the evidence of nature, the order of the created world, ad infinitum. The entire creation speaks the language “kind after kind.” Is man to exist contra naturam? Hardly, for from dust he came and to dust he shall return. Man is the crown of creation, not radically “other.” He is situated within the creation and partakes of the laws God has ordained to govern it.

This “transitive property” that conflates soteriological universality with absolute biological confluence could not do more violence to the biblical doctrine of nations were it actually intended to do so. And in some cases it is.

We note a dearth of references from the Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine, from the works of the great Reformers, as they speak with one voice on the subjects of natality and marriage.

That said, you seem to be a gracious sort, and so we’ll leave off for now and let you process the objections offered.