This article doesn't really say much except, "I'm not technically a kinist, but...". There is a statement that seems to indicate that the mixing of ethnicities/races/cultures is causing damage, but not much more. What do you see as a solution to some of these issues? What are some things that you would suggest?
This would probably be a topic for another post. The goal of this post was to properly distinguish between a Christian racial consciousness itself and kinism. People are itching for a fight over this, and being able to distinguish between these views can lower the temperature.
Like all questions of wisdom, it involves dealing with particulars on a case by case basis and applying sound reason and logic regarding truths.
Your idea that the New Testament abrogates racial differences is misguided.
Acts 17:26 rephrases Deuteronomy 32:8 and states that God determined the *boundaries* of the nations.
And Paul, for all of his outreach efforts to the Gentiles (for which we must be grateful) was a Jewish kinist. Not only does he puts the Jews, his people, in a primus inter pares place of honor in Romans 1:16 and 2:10, in Romans 4:24 he states that he would wish to get cursed for the sake of his kinsmen *according to the flesh* and then states that to them belongs glory for the Covenants and for the giving of the Law and for Jesus being of their *flesh* (which does not mean we should worship them, Paul makes it very clear also. Understood, Christian Zionists?)
The point of this comment is: kinism is natural and good and godly, and the fact that the enemies of God are embarking on a neo-Babel global project should make it doubly clear.
Also, how come barely any discussion about race-mixing mentions that the sex of the race-mixer matters?
Looks like you misread me. See the paragraph that begins, "Still, membership in the one holy nation of God does not abolish one’s race or ethnicity. This is obvious from basic personal observation, but it is affirmed in the Bible."
I was careful to define kinism because what you are describing does not meet my definition. I share your concern about a neo-babel, and about the way that Western Christians have uniquely been trained to loose their natural affections for kinsmen according to the flesh, it just wasn't the topic of this post.
First of all, apologies for the sexual references, I removed them.
Onto your point: If I read correctly, your definition of (strong) kinism can be shortened as "race-mixing is inherently sinful".
This seems to be a strawman of the kinist position, which Wikipedia correctly resumes as "the divinely ordained social order is tribal instead of propositional" which does not necessarily imply the Christian Identity position of "only Whites are capable of receiving salvation", and is the position my comment was defending.
Does the Bible contain cases of interracial unions? Yes, but the parameters are more restrictive than the "weak kinist" position of "be careful, it's usually not worth it": it's either "a man of our tribe taking a woman from another tribe" (Moses) or "a woman of our tribe marrying the most powerful man on Earth" (Esther) in both cases, the Israelite tribes benefitted from such unions, but in most other cases it wouldn't.
Natural law seems to be in favor of interracial marriage. Children of mixed-race couples often have exceptionally beautiful features, and the genetic diversity can be beneficial for health.
This article doesn't really say much except, "I'm not technically a kinist, but...". There is a statement that seems to indicate that the mixing of ethnicities/races/cultures is causing damage, but not much more. What do you see as a solution to some of these issues? What are some things that you would suggest?
This would probably be a topic for another post. The goal of this post was to properly distinguish between a Christian racial consciousness itself and kinism. People are itching for a fight over this, and being able to distinguish between these views can lower the temperature.
Like all questions of wisdom, it involves dealing with particulars on a case by case basis and applying sound reason and logic regarding truths.
Your idea that the New Testament abrogates racial differences is misguided.
Acts 17:26 rephrases Deuteronomy 32:8 and states that God determined the *boundaries* of the nations.
And Paul, for all of his outreach efforts to the Gentiles (for which we must be grateful) was a Jewish kinist. Not only does he puts the Jews, his people, in a primus inter pares place of honor in Romans 1:16 and 2:10, in Romans 4:24 he states that he would wish to get cursed for the sake of his kinsmen *according to the flesh* and then states that to them belongs glory for the Covenants and for the giving of the Law and for Jesus being of their *flesh* (which does not mean we should worship them, Paul makes it very clear also. Understood, Christian Zionists?)
The point of this comment is: kinism is natural and good and godly, and the fact that the enemies of God are embarking on a neo-Babel global project should make it doubly clear.
Also, how come barely any discussion about race-mixing mentions that the sex of the race-mixer matters?
Looks like you misread me. See the paragraph that begins, "Still, membership in the one holy nation of God does not abolish one’s race or ethnicity. This is obvious from basic personal observation, but it is affirmed in the Bible."
I was careful to define kinism because what you are describing does not meet my definition. I share your concern about a neo-babel, and about the way that Western Christians have uniquely been trained to loose their natural affections for kinsmen according to the flesh, it just wasn't the topic of this post.
Finally, please avoid using such sexual language.
First of all, apologies for the sexual references, I removed them.
Onto your point: If I read correctly, your definition of (strong) kinism can be shortened as "race-mixing is inherently sinful".
This seems to be a strawman of the kinist position, which Wikipedia correctly resumes as "the divinely ordained social order is tribal instead of propositional" which does not necessarily imply the Christian Identity position of "only Whites are capable of receiving salvation", and is the position my comment was defending.
Does the Bible contain cases of interracial unions? Yes, but the parameters are more restrictive than the "weak kinist" position of "be careful, it's usually not worth it": it's either "a man of our tribe taking a woman from another tribe" (Moses) or "a woman of our tribe marrying the most powerful man on Earth" (Esther) in both cases, the Israelite tribes benefitted from such unions, but in most other cases it wouldn't.
Natural law seems to be in favor of interracial marriage. Children of mixed-race couples often have exceptionally beautiful features, and the genetic diversity can be beneficial for health.