On Kinism
On True Womanhood in the New Millennium, Lynn said,
“Kinism is nothing if not racist."
Kinism is far more than racism, kinism is a blatant and insidious heresy, as it is essentially a deliberate division of the Body of Christ:
Col 3:10 And have put on the new [man], which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.
Kinism in its purest form is the worship of one’s own progenitors, the placing of one’s earthly father ahead of our Heavenly Father and the holding of one’s own bloodline and progeny in preferential place to of the Body of Christ.
We are all kin in Christ:
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
…...because we now have only ONE father. The age of the Patriarchs is passed away, for God Himself is our ONE Patriarch, and there is no other before Him:
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Thus we are all His children, and must be brothers and sisters indeed if we wish to dwell in Him.
Kinism is also a denial of the Holy Ghost, who came on Pentecost to undo the curse of Babel and unite men of all nations and tongues in one Church.
Further, since we have died to the world and the flesh and are alive in the Spirit, the family of God must come first, before mere blood relations.
It follows that Kinism is an abomination: it denies the Father, the Holy Ghost, and also the Son, for Jesus’s prayer for His followers is that they be one, without division:
Jhn 17:20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; Jhn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And, here is Jesus’s answer to Kinism:
Mar 3:31 ¶ There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. Mar 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. Mar 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? Mar 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! Mar 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
AND…
Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
.
“Kinism is nothing if not racist."
Kinism is far more than racism, kinism is a blatant and insidious heresy, as it is essentially a deliberate division of the Body of Christ:
Col 3:10 And have put on the new [man], which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.
Kinism in its purest form is the worship of one’s own progenitors, the placing of one’s earthly father ahead of our Heavenly Father and the holding of one’s own bloodline and progeny in preferential place to of the Body of Christ.
We are all kin in Christ:
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
…...because we now have only ONE father. The age of the Patriarchs is passed away, for God Himself is our ONE Patriarch, and there is no other before Him:
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Thus we are all His children, and must be brothers and sisters indeed if we wish to dwell in Him.
Kinism is also a denial of the Holy Ghost, who came on Pentecost to undo the curse of Babel and unite men of all nations and tongues in one Church.
Further, since we have died to the world and the flesh and are alive in the Spirit, the family of God must come first, before mere blood relations.
It follows that Kinism is an abomination: it denies the Father, the Holy Ghost, and also the Son, for Jesus’s prayer for His followers is that they be one, without division:
Jhn 17:20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; Jhn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And, here is Jesus’s answer to Kinism:
Mar 3:31 ¶ There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. Mar 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. Mar 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? Mar 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! Mar 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
AND…
Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
.
posted by CJ | 7:33 PM
37 Comments:
Excellent response to the subject of kinism. Thank you!
Thanks Cynthia. This is a good synopsis.
How anyone can read the NT and think Kinism is of Christ is beyond me.
It's because we war against principalities and powers, and they have had a lot of millenia to become really GOOD at what they do. We only get 70 years to perfect our game. Thank God that we can do all things through Christ, who strengthens us...
I'm sorry you think that your response addresses the subject?
I think you need to act a little more intellectual and a little less horrified by the idea that perhaps there are people in body of Christ that don't agree with you.
Honest debate without mudslinging is the only way to tackle this.
Calling people that claim to be fellow brothers and sisters in Christ "principalities and powers" and implying you are in a turf war with the Devil is asinine.
Hi Daniel!I am all for honest debate, see my posting, "Dear Nom", for details. And if you read my comment more carefully, you will see that I wasn't referring to my fellow believers as principalities and powers -- none of them are fallen angels who have lived for millenia!
We are indeed in a turf war with the devil, and among the principalities and powers with whom we war are those evil spirits who have decieved our fellow believers into thinking that Kinism is of Christ.
Hi Daniel,
What do you think about the scriptures that Cynthia has listed concerning the subject of kinism? They seem to refute the whole idea of kinism, don't they? Do you have any scriptures that you could share that would help us understand your point of view?
I do believe that the folks over at Kinism.net are acting quite strange. I don't see why they won't just debate you here.
While I am not a Kinist, I am a complete bigot and racist and am converting to Orthodox Presbyterianism right now and would be glad to debate you. After all, you seem like a nice lady.
I will try to address the scriptures you have raised before the end of this weekend.
Firstly, I would like to suggest that the believers here tell me whether they believe that Luke 14:26 literal means that people should hate their fathers and mothers.
I also think it is a strawman to suggest that Kinists are ancestor worshipers since the ideas they espouse are lifted straight out of Covenant theology. I believe they are enraptured with the idea of a continuous family line unbroken by unbelievers.
Best Regards,
Daniel
Sorry, I was logged in as my wife.
That was me.
Rosie, I would be happy to debate you, but (as I told the folks at the Kinism site) not until the latter part of this month, as I am expecting a houseful of company.
And, I would rather conduct any such debate on a neutral, public forum, with a moderator, so as to allow for a more open, public discussion.
I don't wnat to hold such a debate or discussion on my own site, because you see, it's not a "me" thing. It's a Body of Christ thing, and it's about heresy, a heresy which I believe is leading many people astray and hurting the Faith.
What I would like to see is an open, civil discussion between kinists and non-kinists, moderated by someone with a background in theology and logic, who would serve to "keep us all honest", and keep us polite, as well.
And Rosie...you sound like a nice lady yourself, and a straightforward one (I like that in a person!) and I would suggest that you have a talk about racism and bigotry with your new pastor. He likely knows far more about such things as they pertain to Orthodox Presbyterianism than I do -- I'm an Anglican, after all, and it IS his job :).
And I don't mean to pry, but may I ask, out of what denomination you converting ?
Oops... sorry, Daniel. I saw your last comment after I called you a nice lady! But you DO sound like a gentleman. :)
Quite all right.
My comment about the Kinist still stands even after I've heard your conditions.
It doesn't matter where the debate takes place but I think the moderation should have one representative from each side.
How can you have "neutral" moderation?
Although, I know a couple non-Kinists that might be sympathetic to the Kinist cause and have advanced theology degrees.
Heresy is a strong word to denounce such a belief. Simply restating Acts 17:26 (And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;) doesn't seem like heresy to me, but I'm open to debating the point after you have ousted the company from your dwelling :)
I was brought to church at around the age of 12 until I left the house at around age 16. My parents took me to a very modern and liberal non-denominational church affiliated with the Calvary Chapel churches.
They are Armenian, dispensational and preach just about every theological error you can while still claiming to be "Protestant".
As far as racism goes: God recognizes different races, science does too, and so do I.
As far as bigotry goes: certain races have certain characteristics. For instance, black neighborhoods are dangerous (especially if you are white) and I will teach my children that to protect them. I think God would concur.
Best Regards,
Daniel
Daniel,
I just want to thank you for your kind demeanor and your forthright manner of speaking. I don't remember reading that verse in Acts and I am going to take a look at it and study it.
I do hope that some sort of discussion can take place on this so any misunderstandings can be ironed out and there can be more understanding of the real issues.
About Yahoogroups? I agree that it would be hard to find someone truly neutral on this issue, so two moderators, one of each persuasion, is a very good idea.
Another verse to ponder from a probable Kinist blog:
I conclude this article with God’s declared outcome for all nations which parcel off the birthrights of their children to the lowest bidder, for mere mammon:
“Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, and your eyes shall look and fail with longing for them all day long; and there shall be no strength in your hand… So you shall be driven mad because of the sight which your eyes see… You shall beget sons and daughters, but they shall not be yours; for they shall go into captivity… “The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail. ‘Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you.’”
(Deut. 28:32-45)
Daniel, with all due respect, this verse applies specifically to the Jews, and it is what God said would happen to the Jews if they failed to keep the Law of Moses. You can't pull something like this out of its context in the Old Testament and try to make it apply to entirely different situations involving an entirely different people today -- we are not the Jews, and the Law of Moses is no longer in effect. The Law has been fufilled and replaced by the Atonement, by the Law of Love and by grace, and ALL people, not just the Jews, have been "chosen" by God to be ONE nation, under ONE Father and ONE King -- God Himself.
I think you might have missed the point of what I am saying.
God decries the situation.
God declares it a punishment that the foreigner rise higher and higher amongst one's people and that they shall become the lender and those of their own soil the borrower.
God declares deracination itself a negative consequence of disobeying His law.
This in fact, lends credence to some of the notions of the Kinists. That God Himself would destroy racial/ethnic homogeneity as punishment for sin.
As an aside, the Law of Moses is still in effect. Jesus says not one yot or tittle shall pass away.
He is our fulfillment of the Law, not its destroyer.
Lastly, the "Jews" were never chosen as a race unto salvation, but rather, only the elect amongst the Jews. You seem to imply the former.
Best Regards,
Daniel J
Daniel, in the first place, this Scripture has nothing to do with race.
Certainly, as you pointed out, God told the Jews that if they did not keep the Law, that "the foreigner" would "rise higher and higher amongst one's people and that they shall become the lender and those of their own soil the borrower," but whatever makes you think that the Jews were a racially homogenous people?
Race and nationality are two entirely different things, and with only a handful of exceptions, ANYONE from any nation could become a Jew, just like people of all races can become Christians or Jewish (or, secularly speaking, just as people of any race can become American or Congolese or Paraguayan or Canadian) today. For God's opinion on that, just look at what happened to Moses' sister Miriam whet she disapproved of Moses marrying outside of his "race"!
Furthermore, when the Jews sinned and ended up becoming on "their own soil the borrower", that punishment fell upon Jews of multiple races, who all fell into subjection to NON-JEWS.
And as pertains to the Law, Jesus said that not one jot or tittle should pass from the Law, until it was fufilled. Jesus fufilled the Law, we are no longer subject to it.
But, there is a person here online who can explain all about this much better that I can, Daniel. If you will bear with me, I will try to get Met to come here and explain about how Jesus set us free from the Law.
Are you stating that the Jews were not a specifically composed ethnicity at the time of the Exodus and conquest of Canaan?
In one instance, a prophet commands them all to divorce their non-jewish wives? It doesn't say "convert" them to Judaism, but rather to eliminate them.
What makes me think the Jews were racially homogeneous is the Scriptures. I can find hardly any instances of converts and the repeated emphasis in the Law on marrying within the tribe.
Even today the Jews of the world have Jewish specific diseases (e.g. Tay Sachs) and occupy their own place in D.N.A. testing.
Race and nationality are only two different things in the liberalized world of today. There was no such thing as a "nation state" throughout the time of the Old Testament anyway. There were tribes which were nations which were comprised of ethnically similar people.
ANYONE from any nation could become a Jew
Religiously. Not ethnically. Not everyone is a descendant of Abraham in genetics.
just like people of all races can become Christians or Jewish
Christian yes. Christianity is a religion.
Jewish no.
Just read Orthodox Jewish literature. You are severely mistaken on the Jewish question. Only people with ethnically Jewish mothers have the Right of Return.
(or, secularly speaking, just as people of any race can become American or Congolese or Paraguayan or Canadian) today.
Unfortunately. This "birthright citizenship" is the result of the improperly ratified 14th amendment to the Constitution.
Additionally, you are conflating race and modern nationality/citizenship which are two entirely different concepts.
For God's opinion on that, just look at what happened to Moses' sister Miriam whet she disapproved of Moses marrying outside of his "race"!
That wasn't why God found fault with them. Reread the passage from Numbers 12. They (Miriam and Aaron) tried to usurp the right to be prophets of the Lord from Moses. God doesn't condemn them for the "sin" of racism.
Nor am I defending "racism" as such. It isn't o.k. to hate anyone and I feel like that is what you are accusing Kinists of and it is a charge of which they are not guilty of. They are simply guilty of keeping the 5th Commandment.
There is no scriptural evidence and no evidence now that the Jews are comprised of multiple races.
And as pertains to the Law, Jesus said that not one jot or tittle should pass from the Law, until it was fufilled. Jesus fufilled the Law, we are no longer subject to it.
Why did the Law need to be fulfilled? Where does the Bible state we are no longer subject to the Law? We are no longer cursed by the Law if we are saved by grace through the faith of Jesus Christ and His blood. We are not "free" of our obligation to be "perfect, for our Father in Heaven is perfect."
The discussion should be interesting as I'm new to this particular part of Reformed theology and am interested in sharpening my view.
Best Regards,
Daniel J
"As far as racism goes: God recognizes different races, science does too, and so do I."
Daniel, this may be a good place to start. What do you mean by different 'races'?
Negroids, Caucasoids and Mongoloids are the major ones.
I pretty much agree with this statement on race:
Q: What is the definition of ‘race’ or ‘subspecies?’
The terms ‘race’ and ‘subspecies’ are most often used synonymously [1,2] although the former is normally used when talking about human populations. When a distinction is made, ‘race’ generally implies a lower level of differentiation, but because this term is not commonly used in the recent non-human literature, ‘race’ and ‘subspecies’ are used interchangeably throughout this paper.
Much of the debate over the existence of human races stems from how one chooses to define ‘race’ (or ‘subspecies’). No realistic definition can avoid using qualitative terms, yet these invariably invite disagreement in their application: “a group of individuals in a species showing closer genetic relationships within the group than to members of other such groups”[3]; “essentially discontinuous sets of individuals”[4]; “conspecific populations that differ from each other morphologically”[5]; “genetically non-discrete (confluent) populational entities”[6]; “geographically circumscribed, genetically differentiated populations”[7]; or groups identified “by the usual criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection.”[8] Compounding the confusion, still others employ the term ‘race’ in a way more akin to ‘species’ than to ‘subspecies.’[9]
In response to questionable interpretations of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and to help ensure the evolutionary significance of populations deemed ‘subspecies,’ a set of criteria was outlined in the early 1990s by John C. Avise, R. Martin Ball, Jr.[10], Stephen J. O’Brien and Ernst Mayr [11] which is as follows: “members of a subspecies would share a unique, geographic locale, a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Although subspecies are not reproductively isolated, they will normally be allopatric and exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning.” Furthermore, “evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically based traits.”[12] This is known as the phylogeographic subspecies definition, and a review of recent conservation literature will show that these principles have gained wide acceptance.
A number of studies have employed this subspecies definition, and these can be helpful in inferring how the definition is applied in practice. A good example is a paper entitled “Phylogeographic subspecies recognition in leopards (Panthera pardus): Molecular Genetic Variation,”[13] co-authored by Stephen J. O’Brien (one of the definition’s co-authors). From the ranges of the revised leopard subspecies (Fig. 1) we can infer that a ‘unique geographic locale’ does not require that a range be an island, or share no environmental characteristics with another. Rather, it merely requires a subspecies to have a geographical association as opposed to a subset of individuals sharing a trait but drawn from different geographical populations. Conversely, two subspecies will not remain distinct if they occupy the same locale over evolutionary time. Hypothetical human races have been proposed in which members would share a single trait (e.g., lactose tolerance or fingerprint pattern)[14] but not a common geographic locale. These ‘races,’ therefore, would not be valid under the phylogeographic definition.
Whether a population has had a unique natural history can be inferred from its degree of differentiation with respect to other such populations. The arbitrary division of an interbreeding, genetically unstructured group will result in subgroups that are genetically indistinguishable, whereas populations that evolve more or less independently for some length of time will accumulate genetic differences (divergent gene frequencies, private alleles, etc.) such that they “exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning.”
A set of “phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters” is taken to mean several morphological, behavioral or other expressed traits that tend to co-vary within, but differ among, putative subspecies. This indicates that members of the group have evolved together relative to other groups, and may reflect shared demography, local adaptation, sexual selection or other evolutionary effects.
The need for “concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically based traits” requires us to recognize that too much inference from a single trait or single genetic locus is unwarranted. For instance, rather than indicating recent co-ancestry, a trait shared by two populations might have evolved independently in response to some environmental variable, while the potential idiosyncrasies of any single gene can limit its reliability to paint an accurate phylogenetic picture. Most population genetics theory relies on loci that have evolved neutrally (i.e., in the absence of natural selection) so a non-neutral locus may give misleading results. The best way to avoid this potential source of error is to examine a large number of independently-evolving loci.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hebrews 7, 8, and 9 teach that the Old Covenant was made obsolete, and whatever is growing obsolete is getting ready to disappear.
Ephesians teaches that Christ's death tore down the dividing line between Jew and Gentile, and made them into one new man. The wall of separation was the laws of commandments contained in ordinances.
Jesus gave us the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.
Forbidding interracial marriage and establishing territorial boundaries on physical anthropology alone seems not only unbiblical -- at this point in time with all the grandparents and greatgrandparents that it took to get to each of us -- it seems absurd. I cannot read the New Testament, or even the Old, to see where this is something God ordained for mankind to follow.
I'm not forbidding anything.
I think it is rational and not at odds with Scripture to want to marry within one's ethnicity and particular Christian tradition.
God did not change Jewish and Gentile genes after the veil in the temple was rent in two.
Breaking down all the anthropologically based territorial boundaries seems Neo-Babylonian to me.
Jesus gave us the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.
Was the Great Commandment a dictate to marry off your daughter to foreigners and the Great Commission an appeal for every White Christian to go to disease ridden hell-holes to spread a social gospel?
Are you insinuating that it is immoral to love your family more than other families? Your race more than other races?
Does God love every person on this Earth equally?
Jesus did not erase race and neither will I attempt to.
The Devil is the great unifier and monist.
Daniel, you are arguing against yourself. You may not see it, but it is there.
Was it a sin for Moses to marry Zipporah, who was black?
By the way, there is only ONE race descended from Adam then Noah. Noah had a son who was cursed, Ham. But ethnically, he was of NOah and not a different race.
In the NT, we see a whole different view of family than we see in the OT. Jesus said He did not come to bring peace but would divide families over the gospel. When told His mother and brothers were there to see Him, he said, who are my mother and brothers...and then pointing to His disciples, said, Here are my family.
I could go on and on with these kinds of examples in the NT. The Apostles LEFT their families to follow Christ.
EVERYONE who believes is 'grafted in'. There is NO distinction in Christ.
"Are you insinuating that it is immoral to love your family more than other families? Your race more than other races?"
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Paul as a Pharisee, would have considered even eating with a Gentile a sin. As a Jew, he would have avoided them at all costs as unclean. Isn't it ironic that Jesus chose Paul, the dogmatic Pharisee, to convert and take the gospel to the very 'hell hole' people you describe?
Was it a sin for Moses to marry Zipporah, who was black?
No. Who said it was? We already had this discussion. Additionally, if race isn't important than why is she specifically pointed out as being a Cushite. Which by the way, doesn't necessarily mean black. Egyptians weren't black either.
By the way, there is only ONE race descended from Adam then Noah. Noah had a son who was cursed, Ham. But ethnically, he was of NOah and not a different race.
He has made all the nations of one blood. One blood doesn't mean one race. God cursing Canaan has nothing to do with race. It is hard to argue with people that refuse to even read the scriptures in question.
In the NT, we see a whole different view of family than we see in the OT. Jesus said He did not come to bring peace but would divide families over the gospel. When told His mother and brothers were there to see Him, he said, who are my mother and brothers...and then pointing to His disciples, said, Here are my family.
Very simple. Everybody in the Kingdom of God are brothers and sisters in Christ. It is a spiritual thing. It doesn't make you genetic brothers in sisters in which case the prohibition against incest would apply.
The Apostles LEFT their families to follow Christ.
Are you implying that the 5th commandment is null and void? What are you trying to say? There is plenty of verses that speak of disciples of Christ converting and baptizing their entire families and households.
The Apostle Paul states that we should stay with our unbelieving spouses if they will have it.
EVERYONE who believes is 'grafted in'. There is NO distinction in Christ.
Spiritually grafted into the Kingdom of God. I agree.
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?”
The answer of course is no!
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Who would argue with that? I love my family more than anybody else, and love less and less in expanding concentric circles. I would expect the same from my neighbors.
Does this commandment mean I should lay down my life for every Tom, Dick and Sally?
There is nothing to 'erase'. We are all one race who look different.
That is extremely fallacious. morphological differences only scratch the surface. A two year old knows this.
Sure, we can all breed together. It is an obvious statement that does not address the depth of the issue.
Only propaganda can convince intelligent human beings of the big lie that race is only skin deep.
You must have missed the report years back of the African Jewish colony that had the same DNA line of Jews in Israel. It was very interesting.
Nevertheless, it is irrelevant to the discussion and who knows how true it is.
There are all kinds of ways to manipulate DNA tests.
People are still ignoring the issue of Babylon.
I'm not ignoring it, Daniel, I will answer it tomorrow, unless somebody else does it first. Right now, tonight, I have a houseful of company, a headache, and two preschool grandchildren to keep me busy.
Sorry.
I did not mean it like that.
I just meant there is a whole lot on both sides of the issue and people are trying to make it out as clear cut.
It is not.
I don't have the answers.
It is the Sabbath anyway.
Relax.
I'm on Eastern Time and must be off to bed.
"As an aside, the Law of Moses is still in effect. Jesus says not one yot or tittle shall pass away."
I am not sure a debate on 'race' would work until we have a debate on Mosaic law.
Daniel will be defending the OC while we are focused on the NC.
Daniel, if we are still under the law, where are the 'stonings' held? Because stoning is required for certain sins under Mosaic Law.
I won't be defending the Old Covenant.
The people here aren't stupid.
Most Kinists are Reformed Calvinists who are Covenantal, Theonomic and Presuppositional. You don't need me to defend those things. There are plenty of people with advanced degrees in theology/philosophy that have done that.
There is plenty of literature on the subject.
I'm not a Kinist.
I'm saying that neither side should be dogmatic. Racism is not a sin by my (and the Kinists) definition.
The terms here are not properly defined and need to be cleared up. Certainly before we try to debate something as complex as the Covenants of the Bible.
I'm not forbidding anything.
I think it is rational and not at odds with Scripture to want to marry within one's ethnicity and particular Christian tradition.
Or nationality or common language. But I think it is at odds with Scripture to say it is wrong to marry outside one's ethnicity and particular Christian tradition. And this is what kinism teaches.
Breaking down all the anthropologically based territorial boundaries seems Neo-Babylonian to me.
I'm not arguing for forced transportation of children out of their school districts, etc., and neither is anyone else in here (I think). What I believe we are arguing against is forcing the issue the other way -- territories deliniated by racial features alone, and for a tribal form of government to the exclusion of all other forms of government.
Was the Great Commandment a dictate to marry off your daughter to foreigners and the Great Commission an appeal for every White Christian to go to disease ridden hell-holes to spread a social gospel?
You are insinuating a straw man here. All we are saying it is not wrong if Christians choose to do these things.
Are you insinuating that it is immoral to love your family more than other families? Your race more than other races?
People have rights and responsibilities within their families. Parents are responsible to take care of and to nurture their children. They are not responsible for everyone else's children, including other people's children who are of the same race as they are. We all recognize this. However, I do believe it is immoral to love the color of my skin, or the shape of my eyes, more than others, and to value people solely on their physical attributes.
The Devil is the great unifier and monist.
Then there is the unity of the Spirit and believers being of one mind, which Paul speaks of in Philippians and Ephesians.
Are you insinuating that it is immoral to love your family more than other families? Your race more than other races?
PS, regarding loving people of one's own skin color more than people who have other skin colors -- the Bible says we are to love our enemies, even, and that we should love our neighbors as ourselves.
When asked who was one's neighbor, Jesus told the story about the Samaritan (mixed blood) helping the Jewish man who was robbed and injured.
Jesus also said if you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even the heathen do those kinds of things:
“For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? “And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Now we know that in those passages in Luke and Matthew, Jesus was setting the bar for true righteousness, and we know that only He could live it perfectly. But it still can be inferred that if we love only those who are like us, that isn't something to be commended.
I take the general tenor of the commands of Christ to imply that there is something wrong with loving people of your own skin color more than the rest of the world.
Yes, we have natural preferences to be with like minded people, with people who are like us in many respects, but not everything that is natural is what pleases God, or is how God thinks how we should operate.
I take the general tenor of the commands of Christ to imply that there is something wrong with loving people of your own skin color more than the rest of the world.
I think the general tone of the Bible is that God is Holy, Separate and hates His enemies with perfect rage.
How else will he condemn them to Hell?
I can't explain the passages about loving one's enemies other than through spiritual allegory in that while we were yet sinners (and at war with God as his enemies) Christ died for us.
If one reads the Psalms it is full of supplications by David asking God to break the teeth of and slaughter his (David's) enemies.
You are being selective in your quoting scripture like the Kinists and non-Kinists alike.
Or nationality or common language. But I think it is at odds with Scripture to say it is wrong to marry outside one's ethnicity and particular Christian tradition. And this is what kinism teaches.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a sin to marry outside one's tribe, but I would say people doing those things on a large scale is bad. Because it is a bad idea on a large scale I'm hesitant to praise it on the small scale.
You are insinuating a straw man here. All we are saying it is not wrong if Christians choose to do these things.
I was doing it on purpose in response to someone else's comments.
What does the Great Commandment require of us except to keep the whole of God's law? Christ even says that it is the summation of the Mosaic law yet people deny we live under a law of God.
What does the Great Commission require of us except that we spread the Gospel? Most of the time it is for condemnation as most people hear and are unconverted.
However, I do believe it is immoral to love the color of my skin, or the shape of my eyes, more than others, and to value people solely on their physical attributes.
Are you saying the study of aesthetics itself is wrong? That some people are not more beautiful than others?
I do not think you are, but you should expound upon this sentiment you are trying to express because it is completely wrong as presently stated.
Race isn't solely morphological. That is a straw man.
Then there is the unity of the Spirit and believers being of one mind, which Paul speaks of in Philippians and Ephesians.
One mind. One doctrine. One faith. Sure. The Reformed tradition has always taught that we should strive for ideological consistency and agreement.
I will not address modern churches of the Calvary Chapel type since they are so doctrinal impure as to not deserve the appellation Christian.
But it still can be inferred that if we love only those who are like us, that isn't something to be commended.
Brotherly love of race is not the same thing as the agape love of Christ.
A beautiful defense of my exact position can be found here:
The Christian Doctrine of Nations
Post a Comment
<< Home