Principles of Kinism
Kinism is the belief that the ordained social order for man is tribal and ethnic rather than imperial and universal. Mankind was designed by God to live in extended family groups. The Jacobin doctrine of Equality is destructive, is antithetical to liberty, and is ultimately unachievable. Blood ties are the only natural and workable basis for a healthy society not subject to the ideologies of fallen man. We believe this is the normative system for our people.
We believe that our White people have a God-given right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as a distinct nation. This is primarily to be achieved by converting our people to the religion of our only Savior, Jesus Christ. Therefore, we denounce the sin of miscegenation as a violation of God’s created order which has permanent consequences for every heritable trait. We appeal to God’s creation mandate of kind after kind. It is the obligation of both church and state to forbid mixed unions according to biblical laws prohibiting unequal yoking.
We advocate a natural, chivalrous, hierarchical social order. We honor and celebrate the shared history and distinctives of our people, and we stand or fall with no other.
We believe in treating all men with decency and justice. In life and in death, we oppose all enemies of Jesus Christ and all who seek our collective displacement, dispossession, or subjugation.
“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Wherever the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that one point.” ~ Martin Luther
“Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings… Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things, which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?” ~ Patrick Henry
“If anyone despise my fraternal warning, I am free from his blood in the last judgment. It is better that I should die a thousand times than retract one syllable of the condemned articles. And as they excommunicated me for the sacrilege of heresy, so I excommunicated them in the name of the sacred truth of God. Christ will judge whose excommunication will stand. Amen.” ~ Martin Luther
“Live not by lies.” ~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn
“Our war is not a war of conquest. We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came. We beg no longer; we petition no more. We defy them.” ~ William Jennings Bryan
“Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased, and you inherit the land.”
Exodus 23:30
“For who has despised the day of small things?”
Zech. 4:10
“In spite of failures which I lament, of errors which I now see and acknowledge, or of the present aspect of affairs, do I despair the future? The truth is this: the march of Providence is so slow, our desires so impatient, the work of progress is so immense, and our means of aiding it so feeble, the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope.” ~ Robert E. Lee
“If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ~ Samuel Adams
Forgive my ignorance, but who are the first, fifth and sixth men depicted in your logo banner?
They are John C. Calhoun, Cornelius van Till, and R.J. Rushdoony.
hey…so what if jesus wasnt white….which he probably wasn’t…..who ever made this website is really stupid. Why the hell does it matter how much pigment someones skin produces?
Kin isn’t skin. It’s flesh and blood. And he who trivializes its depth and power knows nothing of human nature.
Jesus probably was white Eric. But, you’re right that it doesn’t really matter.
I think Eric is of the school selling that the Anglo-Saxons were black. Sad is it not? No history, no faith. So you must try to commander or pervert that of another.
Was Jesus white, well the majority of these pro-white sites don’t consider Jews white, not the KKK, not the Arian Brotherhood, certainly not Hitler… and Jesus WAS a BLOOD JEW, son of Mary, descendant of the Tribe of David, so then are Jews white might be the first question…
“white” is defined by american common and case law. In the strict sense, I don’t think it ever excluded jews. “White” was, I believe, was defined by what a person was *NOT* (namely, native american or negro– you need to check this out yourself, starting with one-drop rules). Rachel, you can also help yourself by asking if Jews are a race or religion. This is often something Jews can’t answer, but for our discussion we should think about it. This might clear or confuse things. Meanwhile, you might also consider the difference between “white” and “WASP”. While all “WASP” are ‘white’, not all ‘whites’ are WASP, etc.. The 1920′s klan was specifically a WASP brotherhood. Today’s clan is not WASP.
Rachel, I’d consider the Lord to be Jewish, and not White. But what does it matter? If Whites have no right to boast if Jesus was White, do Jews have a right to boast because He is Jewish? If they do, you have a double standard. If they do not, why are you even bringing it up?
Jesus’ belonging to one race does not annihilate other races. He created our race for His own purpose (may it be to His Father’s glory!), not the purposes of the modern left!
We have the right to love our own race and propagate after our own race. Who defines this as hate, is himself a hatemonger.
This is a joke right? There aren’t seriously people this ignorant are there?
Asks the person who misspells the word “Confused.”
Whoa “Cofused”! That was a stunning rebuttal! It’s really caused me to rethink the direction my life is going. After all, so many people couldn’t be wrong could they? They were smart enough to elect Obango!
And his genteel wife, the Blackie-O of Camelot.
I see no inconsistency at all between following Christ and advocating racial purity and preservation. Preserving your own kin does not have to equal extermination of others, simply a mutual respect of boundaries across which mutual trade can flow to the benefit of both peoples. I find the motivation of those who advocate whites to think apart from race to be highly suspect, seeing as how they do not tell blacks or Asians to diversify themselves out of existence.
First and foremost, I am a white female who was raised with ignorance. I must say that yes, I married outside of my race. I am proud to say that 100% of my family have now let go of all that is evil and 100% accept my husband for the man he is, not the race that GOD chose him to be.
Unequal Yoking that the bible talks of is NOT about race. It is about a christian wedding a non-christian. Just some FYI for you.
I look back at our history, we as “white” race have had a lot of help from native americans and african americans alike. They are who have built the country. Slave owners sat back as “slaves” did the dirty work and the slave owners sat back and to collect a check.
REMEMBER we are ALL children of GOD. And from the bible I read at night, there is only one!
FROM YOUR SITE:
(2) On the whole, have the vast millions of immigrants from Asia, Central America, the Middle East, and Africa improved our lives or worsened them?
When a million Africans come into this country and are granted the political franchise, they have the effect of making us that much more like Africa. When a million Vietnamese enter here and become part of this society, they have the effect of making us that much more like Vietnam. When a million Mexicans enter this country and become part of it, they make the country that much more like Mexico.
Africans can’t build Americas, they can only build Africas. Vietnamese can’t build Americas, they can only build Vietnams. And Mexicans can’t build Americas, they can only build Mexicos. So the present immigration policy assures us of a third-world future unless there is some great change in direction.
THIS IS HILLARIOUS TO ME!
Who went to AFRICA to begin with and took the hundreds and thousands of ARICANS? Who still to this day employees MEXICANS because they will work twice as hard for less money??
LETS GET REAL! Look back and look real hard because yes we did fight, but we faught and took away from people. Not something to be so proud of if you ask me!
You dropped an interesting clue about your violation of the Fifth Commandment.
You said that your family has “now let go of all that is evil and 100% accept my husband…” You mean, of course, that your parents opposed your sinful rebellion, but over time, realizing that they must either accept him or lose you, they have grudgingly learned to live with your autonomous decision. Some who are in their position – and perhaps this is true of your parents as well – conclude that they were wrong to have agreed with our ancestors, because the alternative is to accuse you of wrongdoing, which would risk losing you. Family unity now compels them to ascribe greater importance to your personal rebellious opinions than to the testimony of history. But the fact is that they once stood in the tradition of our ancestors, and with countless Christians whose understanding of the Bible is no longer popular, and you sinned by spurning the wisdom that your parents received from our people, which you now presumptuously label “evil,” as befits a rebel.
You have sinned. There is only one cure for sin, and that is repentance. There’s still hope. Grope for Him and find Him, for He is not far from each one of us (Acts 17:27).
I thought this might be a parody website but it appears that it is serious.
You are certainly entitled to whatever political beliefs you want; you are entitled to whatever religious beliefs you may want to hold.
But you are not entitled to misrepresent Christ or His teachings.
Seperation of races or ethnicities is totally unscriptural and is in itself a sin against God. If you believe yourself to be a Christian, then it is you who needs to repent, not those of mixed race marriages.
Galatians 3:28 tells us that old seperations have been dismantled in Christ Jesus.
The only seperation is for us “to be in the world but not of the world”
“Seperation” – you keep using that word, Reverend Larry. I do not think it is spelled the way you think it is.
“Reverend” Robinson:
SepAration of races might be many things, but it is not “unscriptural.” It occurred many times in Scripture, without one word of negative sanction. If Ezra is writing of anything but racial separation, then where is the catechism? Am I to believe that not one single Israelite taught his mamzer offspring about God or had him circumcised, and yet, in direct contradiction to Paul, the strange wives and their children were sent away.
Galatians 3:28 is the go-to verse for all the christian communists, isn’t it? Am I to assume that given your interpretation, you would gladly marry a man to his sister, or maybe his christian life partner, what with no separation and all that. Did Christ come to destroy the Law, or to fulfill it? What does Deuteronomy 17 say? What does Deuteronomy 23 say?
Caradoc.
1. Christians are not under the law of Moses. Jesus said in Luke 16 that the law of Moses was until the time of John the Baptist, since then the Kingdom of God is preached.
2. As to Galatians 3:28 and your strawman argument; Jesus defined marriage clearly. The ad hominem of “Christian communist” is rather juvenile and a non sequitur.
3. What did the Jerusalem council establish for Gentile believers?
4. Your Deuteronomy questions are also strawmen. I never suggested multiple wives or marrying unbelievers. Both of which are completely unrelated to racist directives about interracial marriage.
“Christian Communist” is not just a baseless slur against you, Mr. Robinson, considering this statement of yours:
“Galatians 3:28 tells us that old seperations have been dismantled in Christ Jesus.”
Do you believe that Christians really, truly have a right to PRIVATE PROPERTY, Larry? Is not the spectacle of one believer living in a fancy palace and another in a hovel most cruel kind of “seperation”?
It is purely arbitrary to dogmatically denounce all forms of discrimination based on flesh and blood and then legitimate other forms of discrimination based on mere banal worldly wealth. All pious race-mixers should prove their spiritual purity by moving from their own well-off White-bread areas and amongst suffering colored brethren in ghettoes.
Many Gnostic-Antinomian sects of both classical antiquity and early Reformation-era were more consistent than you in their heretical egalitarianism, and considered private property to be irreconcilable with Christian piety.
Mr. Robinson:
I presume that you are some kind of dispensationalist, based on your #1 statement. Where are the Old Testament saints? What was the gospel preached to Abraham?
Where did Jesus define marriage, other than a short lesson concerning divorce in Matthew? I believe you meant Paul. Did Paul overturn Ezra? Was Ezra wrong? Is the Bible a unified book, or not? Further, since the Law is off limits for you, I Corinthians 7 is the only place we can find the restrictions on marriage. Maybe you can show us where the prohibitions against marrying your sister or your pet goat are found in the chapter (or anywhere else in the New Testament). If you are opposed to these things, from whence do you draw your opposition? The New Testament is dead silent on the question. Leviticus, however, is not.
What is a Gentile? It is a very interesting Latin root, oddly out of place in a Greek New Testament. It is another word in the Greek. Interestingly enough, everything in the Jerusalem council comes out of the Law. Are just those parts of the Law still valid?
Polygyny is not the issue. This is the issue:
Deuteronomy 23:2 – A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
What is a bastard? What does the Hebrew word mean? Who is the stranger that is not of Israel? There is that hateful separation again.
Deuteronomy 17:14 – When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
15: Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
There is the separation again, in the civil realm, based on strangers and brothers, not catechisms.
Let’s not forget Deuteronomy 32:8, where we can find the “bounds of the people.” Wonder where Paul got the idea for his statement in Acts 17:26? He must not have known that the Law had been destroyed.
Petr,
One of the first evidences of individuals who lack any real cognitive thinking is the repeated use of non sequiturs or Strawman arguments.
Nowhere have I indicated ANY advocacy of egalitarianism. I live my life as libertarian Christian who while obeying the commands to submit to ruling authorities (except where it conflicts with obedience to Chris), look to see Christians live freely and pursue true shalom which means much more than just peace. Shalom means having peace from want, and having abundance as Christ promised. Private property is surely something Christians should obtain if they can.
Carodoc
You have so many twisted and confused doctrinal inadequacies, it’s hard to know where to begin.
1. OT believers who looked for the coming of the Y’shua saw the promise when Jesus went to Sheol which was composed of both Paradise and Torments (Luke 16) and proclaimed Himself after His death on the Cross (Luke 23:43 and 1 Peter 3:18-20; 4:6
“He (Jesus) was put to death in the flesh, but he was raised to life in the Spirit, in which also he went and preached to the disobedient spirits who were in prison in the days of Noah when God waited patiently while the ark was being built…For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead so that, although they have already been judged in the flesh like men, they might have life in the Spirit like God.”
Jesus gathered the righteous OT saints and took them along with Paradise to Heaven
2.Jesus defined marriage in Matthew 19:4,5 as between a man and a woman. Not by race, ethnicity, or nationality. Like most people who have a lack of argument, you bring up specious examples that defy what would be Holy to God. Jesus further clarified that all sexual activity outside of that prescribed relationship was defiling (Matthew 15:18,19).
3.Ezra’s commands had to do with the Jews mixing again with pagans. Every time they did this they also brought in the pagan religious practices and turned away from God.
4.Gentile in the greek is hellenist. It designated for the Jew, everyone whose religious and cultural practices were different from the Jews. Your entire point of question is meaningless to the dialogue. It simply shows more of a confused and disconnected mind.
5.Now to all of your other quotes from Deuteronomy, they go to your overall disconnect from the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The law only holds meaning for righteousness to all who refuse the atonement of Jesus on the Cross. Jesus and the Apostles clearly taught this.
6.Perhaps you lack basic understanding when Jesus says that the cup of communion represents the NEW COVENANT. Those who are in Christ are no longer under the covenant with Israel because we are not part of a blessing to reveal the one true God. He has come and revealed Himself in the person of Jesus who is God in the flesh. For those who believe, we have been “transferred from kingdoms of this world into the kingdom of the Son of His love” Colossians 1:13. Furthermore Paul reinforces the teachings of Jesus on the end of the old covenant in Colossians 2:14,15 we understand that the law itself was nailed to the cross. A commentary from renowned biblical commentators Jamieson Fausset and Brown is attached to help your understanding
http://tinyurl.com/6d7hyxc
In Romans 10:2-4 Paul makes the teaching very clear; “For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”
The New Covenant is a prophetic promise made by God to Israel through the prophet Jeremaiah
“‘The day will come,’ says the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. . . . But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,’ says the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’” (Jeremiah 31:31, 33).
I suggest you read the book of Hebrews which was written to the Jews to explain that the old covenant and priesthood had been replaced with a new covenant and a new High Priest (Jesus)
Hebrews 8:6 “But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is a mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. “
7.Acts 17:26 has NOTHING to do with God wanting to separating the people. In fact just the opposite. That’s why it says “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth”. It simply acknowledges that everything about us is determined by God, including where we are born. It requires a disregard for the person and character of God to translate that into a prohibition for people of different nations, race, and ethnicity to marry.
It was also stated to rebuke the elitist attitude of the Athenians (something you have in common) that they were superior to all other people.
Carodoc
You have so many twisted and confused doctrinal inadequacies, it’s hard to know where to begin. My response will be in two parts.
1. OT believers who looked for the coming of the Y’shua saw the promise when Jesus went to Sheol which was composed of both Paradise and Torments (Luke 16) and proclaimed Himself after His death on the Cross (Luke 23:43 and 1 Peter 3:18-20; 4:6
“He (Jesus) was put to death in the flesh, but he was raised to life in the Spirit, in which also he went and preached to the disobedient spirits who were in prison in the days of Noah when God waited patiently while the ark was being built…For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead so that, although they have already been judged in the flesh like men, they might have life in the Spirit like God.”
Jesus gathered the righteous OT saints and took them along with Paradise to Heaven
2 Jesus defined marriage in Matthew 19:4,5 as between a man and a woman. Not by race, ethnicity, or nationality. Like most people who have a lack of argument, you bring up specious examples that defy what would be Holy to God. Jesus further clarified that all sexual activity outside of that prescribed relationship was defiling (Matthew 15:18,19).
3 Ezra’s commands had to do with the Jews mixing again with pagans. Every time they did this they also brought in the pagan religious practices and turned away from God.
4 Gentile in the greek is hellenist. It designated for the Jew, everyone whose religious and cultural practices were different from the Jews. Your entire point of question is meaningless to the dialogue. It simply shows more of a confused and disconnected mind.
5 Now to all of your other quotes from Deuteronomy, they go to your overall disconnect from the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The law only holds meaning for righteousness to all who refuse the atonement of Jesus on the Cross. Jesus and the Apostles clearly taught this.
My sincerest apologies to the proprietor of SWB. I shall no longer waste any of your bandwidth arguing with someone who can address neither the point, nor what I actually wrote.
I completely understand, Caradoc.
Moses was mentioned a few comments back and I find that interesting. Even more interesting is this: Moses married a black woman.
Are you serious? Why did no one tell me?
Rev. Robinson: You really should read all of the scriptures you quote:
Luke 16:6 does say that “The law and the prophets were proclaimed until John.” But read on: “[I]t is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.”
The New Covenant does abolish the ceremonial law that foreshadows the sacrifice of Christ, but not the moral Law.
Acts 17:26 does say God made the nations from one. But keep on reading, and you will see that He set “boundaries” among them that they should “seek after God.” Nation, derived from Greek and Latin, means a racial, ethnic and cultural group. Division of these groups inclines men to seek after God–a very moral thing I should think.
And Galatians 3:28 does say that in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek. But once again please keep reading. It also says there is neither male nor female. If we take that literally we would have to ignore all the distinctions Paul makes between male and female. What he is really saying is that there is that there is no distinction between Jew and Greek in terms of salvation being offered to both, which he explicitly states in Romans 10:12-13.
“And Galatians 3:28 does say that in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek.”
Actually it does say that, but we are perfectly justified in understanding it in another manner as well – like one can say in one sense that “God is One” but also say that He is NOT “one” in another sense (in unitarian-monadic sense).
As it is well known, apostle Paul elsewhere makes it clear that he does not consider men and women equal (“let your women keep silent in the churches”), and also considers the hierarchical relationship between masters and slaves/servants as legitimate.
So we have a clear Biblical basis for arguing that Paul’s comment in Galatians 3:28 MUST have been metaphorical concerning the relationship between sexes and social classes. Why then should we assume that Paul’s description on the relationship between ethnicities in Christ would have been any more literal than in those two other categories?
I’m curious about this kinism concept.
I understand where you’re coming from as a white American.. Races today are forced to live together in peace and as history shows, it never works out that way.. People of whatever race tend to flock towards one another naturally… it’s genetic. If a black person walks in a room of 100 white and 3 blacks, he will go towards the blacks, obviously..
Also, as a Christian, there is obviously passages that point to race-based concepts, but none of which are entirely clear in my opinion.
From what i’ve gathered, and how it seems, In Christ, race isn’t important. Because in the OT, the Jews were the only group of people who had the Word of God. That was the whole point of Jesus, bringing the Word to everyone.
So when the Jews were in the wrong for marrying outside of their race in the OT, it was due to the fact that if a Jew married a non-Jew, that non-Jew was obviously pagan, and that was wrong.
Now, as society “progresses”, we have seen a major shift in racial harmony, or “forced harmony”.. it doesn’t seem to work exactly.
BUT.. could you shed some light on how the Bible would condemn these racial ties that is still applicable today?
Good question, Derek. Here’s one of several starting points:
http://spiritwaterblood.com/docs/insaneracesermons.pdf
It sounds like you’re 95% of the way to becoming a Kinist. The missing piece in your puzzlement is the same point that Christians in the last 60 years have forgotten, but which was not at all confusing for Christians prior to our time; it is that race is one of God’s creations that gives structure to human relations, and therefore it matters, even though it is no barrier to salvation.
Regarding interracial marriage prior to the cross, don’t forget God’s command: He said don’t intermarry with them. True, by intermarrying with pagans, it was more likely that His people would become pagans. But He did not say don’t intermarry with pagans, strictly speaking. You can see that Ezra and Nehemiah solved the problem of intermarriage by sending strangers away, including the mixed children. There was no stipulation that those who REALLY believed could stay, or that little children who had never worshiped a false idol could stay. The judgment was apportioned by blood.
This is because faith is a seed that grows best in the garden of familiarity. As the West has grown to love miscegenation, faith in Christ has waned, and now we stand on the brink of ruin.
Moses married a black woman.
I don’t think Scripture refers to her as a black woman. She is definitely foreign. But that isn’t the “interesting” issue for me. For me, the “interesting” issue is found in the context.
I’m struck by a couple of things from Numbers 12. First, God supposedly endorses “anti-racism” via sexism: Miriam is punished, and Aaron is not, though their sin is the same. Second, in context, what we’re seeing, God’s endorsement of Moses’ miscegenation, is a special case; God basically says that Moses is a special case, above all the Prophets, his mojo is so strong that he and his foreign wife get special dispensation. He basically says, whatever Moses is up to, that’s between Me and Moses, and you don’t get to criticize. There is no endorsement of miscegenation to be found, aside from that implied for Christians who think themselves on par with Moses.
Many use Moses marrying a Cushite woman as a jumping point for all sorts of nutty claims. If Moses could mix, so it goes, then why can’t we have multiculturalism in America? Further, some see such mixed unions as a mark of holiness.
See here from the Anabaptist folk hero, John Piper:
Oppose interracial marriage, and you will help create a situation of racial disrespect. And then, since there is a situation of disrespect, it will be prudent to oppose interracial marriage.
Here is where Christ makes the difference. Christ does not call us to a prudent life, but to a God-centered, Christ-exalting, justice-advancing, counter-cultural, risk-taking life of love and courage. Will it be harder to be married to another race, and will it be harder for the kids? Maybe. Maybe not. But since when is that the way a Christian thinks? Life is hard. And the more you love the harder it gets.
http://bit.ly/kfClBo
Get that? You see, if you marry a Black person, you are more “God-centered, Christ-exalting” and “justice-advancing” than other people. If you wed your own kind, by Piper’s logic, your marriage is less holy than a mixed union. (You can’t say Coke is better than Pepsi without saying Pepsi is worse than Coke.)
In addition, NT rules on marriage are actually _stricter_ than in Moses’ time. Divorce is strictly regulated. Polygamy is forbidden. Marrying non-believers, even from covenant families, is also banned. So we need more exegesis beyond “Moses did it, so you can” to answer the question of interracial marriage.
Also, Christians routinely restrict marriage based on civil law and custom. People generally don’t complain about laws requiring an age of consent, for example. In fact, many believers based opposition to interracial unions on general equity rather than direct Biblical instruction.
Rev Robinson,
It’s interesting that you accuse Caradoc of having “twisted and confused doctrinal inadequacies” when your argument style seems to consist of quoting Scriptures that are either tangential to your point or outright do not support it.
No one could disagree with the Scriptures you quote, but they also do not explain why forbidding a black and white marriage is a sin, which seems to be your point.
1. If Ezra’s command is due to religious reasons, why did God forbid Levites from marrying foreigners when non Levites are free to marry a convert? For then the religions are the same. Isn’t it obvious that the reason is blood?
2. That the New Covenant is unlike the Old is certainly true, but your interpretation seems to skate on the edge of Antinomianism. I don’t want to misrepresent your position, but it’s as though you lump the ceremonial and moral laws together.
3. It is interesting that you bring up the Jerusalem council, the need for which would have been entirely superfluous if Jesus came to abolish race, or if race had no real meaning. It is known to all that the Lord’s brother Jacob continued to practice the Law, as did Paul and likely Timothy. These people saw no disconnect between remaining ethnic Jews, and passing this on to their children, while being participants in the New Covenant.
4. Galatians 3:28 is not a “strawman argument”. If there is no Jew or Greek, then there is also no Male of Female. Therefore it is hateful of us to forbid same-sex “marriages”. How would your congregation respond if you removed the segregated restrooms and had unisex only bathrooms? I think people would leave your church in droves.
Since male and female are plainly distinct, how then can we reconcile the lack of male, female, Jew, and Greek in Gal. 3:28 with the plain existence of such? Could it be that in Galatians, the context is salvation, now that we non-Jews have been grafted onto the True Vine, and we must no longer be Levites to have the LORD as our inheritance?
This seems to make much more sense, whereas the race-abolishment method leads to a great deal of contradiction with many of the actions of Jesus and the Church Fathers.
5. Luther brought up a great point in Acts 17:26. What is the reason for boundaries among the nations, if nations are merely geographic curiosities?
“Also, Christians routinely restrict marriage based on civil law and custom. People generally don’t complain about laws requiring an age of consent, for example. In fact, many believers based opposition to interracial unions on general equity rather than direct Biblical instruction.”
General equity, good point. That would be “following the voice of nature” like when apostle Paul urges us to do while arguing that long hair is shameful for men.
There have been made many various arguments, pro and contra, concerning how permissible race-mixing is to followers of Jesus Christ. But I do not yet remember seeing an application of this simple practical principle:
“Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” (Matthew 7:12)
So, does the empirical evidence available indicate that race-mixing encourages Christian life? Are racially mixed societies known for their piety?
Rev Larry Robinson– The responses to you, “as in oh well, it does say that but it means something else,” clearly indicates that you cannot reason with fanatics. Thank you for trying.
Too bad you can’t wish your opponent’s arguments away by fiat, odorpass. Next time try actually putting in effort instead of sniping at a thread that has been dead for 3 months and hoping no one notices.
I was just sitting in the car reading IJohn when I came across the words “spirit, water and blood” I thought I’d google them in order to get a better understanding of those words so that I could share what I found with my three sons who are all between the ages of twenty and twelve. They have been unusually attentive in church lately and I wanted to seize this opportunity to pour into their lives as much Godly wisdom as possible. I am so blessed to have children hungry to know God, especially at this stage in their lives. I mean, at this age, most kids don’t really have any interest in the Word. I must say however, I wasn’t expecting to find what I have found on this site. My husband and I have been teaching our three boys as well as ourselves that the most important thing for them to know in this world is that God loves them; He loves them so much that He sent Jesus to die on the Cross and raised him again so that they could be with Him forever. We teach them that He doesn’t look at the outward man but that He looks at the heart.
The internet can be a a powerful tool for sharing the Gospel, especially with our youth. I think as Christian’s, which I am assuming we all are here, we should be a bit more concerned with spreading the Gospel and less concerned with spreading our opinions. We may not be able to agree on everything as brothers and sisters in Christ but we should be able to argee that the Gospel or the Good News is not about race. It’s about HIM. It’s about a God of GRACE not race; a God of mercy, and a God of love, a love we cannot possibly comprehend. That being said, let’s be careful not to reduce the message of the BLOOD of Jesus to a conversation about the blood that runs through our veins. God is so much bigger than that. I think the only person who should be conseling people who to marry is the One who “created them male and female.” If we are about the mission of spreading the GOOD NEWS as Jesus instructed, I believe that God is more than able to speak to the hearts of individuals and instruct them on who to marry.
As I said before, I was looking for something to share with my boys. I didn’t mention the fact that they are African American. Please brothers, don’t limit your relationship with God nor your testimony of who He is. I don’t say that for my sake. I don’t say this for your sake but for the sake of those who are looking for answers and actually want to know who He is.
God Bless
I know how you feel, Padah. The truth can be unnerving, can’t it? But it always sets you free.
padah,
You make a lot of good points about not reducing the Gospel to a race-based doctrine. I agree with all of it. I’d also say today’s churches have swung wildly in the opposite direction, denying that race exists, which is sort of like denying gender exists. Race and gender do not change Christ’s sacrifice, but they still seem pretty important in the Bible and today. I don’t think denying this will improve our relationship with God.
For example, today it is not unheard of for Charismatic preachers to deny that they are human. This is a natural progression from denying that there are races.
We believe that we exist, that this is not an accident, and we do not need any other race to justify our lives. For example, a gathering of White Christians is not evil. It doesn’t need Blacks, or Jews, or Yamatos, or Hans, or even Copts to justify its fellowship. The fact that the Holy Spirit allowed the Jews to maintain their ethnic identity by practicing Mosaic Law after the Resurrection verifies this, and confirms that the Lord did not manifest to annihilate the races. I think that’s what we’re getting at.
God bless you!
I would like to clarify my previous comment: “The fact that the Holy Spirit allowed the Jews to maintain their ethnic identity by practicing Mosaic Law after the Resurrection”.
I’m of course speaking about Jacob and the Jerusalem council verdict in the book of Acts, which would plainly allow Jews to remain Jews. I’m not in any way excusing Jewish denial of Jesus or Talmudism. That is not what I meant by “practicing the Mosaic Law”.