Kinism FAQ: Is Kinism Scriptural?

Shotgun February 23, 2013 at 12:19 pm

I’ve typed out a transcript for you Mr. Khazar:

Opening Music – a pleasant guitar riff

**Enter Christian Gray’s sexy voice:**

Hello, I’m Christian Gray, and this is the Kinism FAQ series.

In the last FAQ, I answered the question: is Kinism racist?…showing that “racism” is conceptually vague, and morally arbitrary. But even to the extent that Kinism fits the most cogent definition of racism, one must show how kinism *and* racism are sinful. Especially since Kinism is essentially a preferential love shown to one’s family and extended family out of a desire for that family’s preservation and future.

I did mention in that podcast, that there are theological, practical and historical defenses of kinism, and in this podcast we’ll look at the theological case.

First: nations in scripture are distinct ethno-states, meaning that…they’re racial. Let’s look at this etymologically, lexically, and then analytically.

Etymologically, the word “nationality” comes from the Greek word ethnos, and a parallel word for that is ‘nativity’, a word we’re all familiar with. The root of ‘nativity’ is ‘natal’ which means birth. And all we have to do now is infer meaning, heredity, bloodline, race. Nations are races in the general sense.

Lexically, the word nation in the New Testament, as I mentioned, is the Greek word ethnos. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance says this word is defined as “race” or tribe. There’s also a New Testament word ‘laos’ which is translated as people or peoples, and this is defined as the people at large, especially of people assembled, a people of the same race or language. Romans 15:11 and Revelation 5:9 are good examples of how these words come together. “Praise the Lord all ye Gentiles. Laud Him all ye peoples.” There’s ethnos, and laos coming together here.

Revelation 5:9 says “and they sang a new song saying you are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals for you were slain and have redeemed us to God out of your blood from every tribe, tongue, people and nation. There’s “people” and “nation” used together. These words mean people of the same race and language.

The point here is that when the Bible speaks about basic peoples, they are racial. There’s just no multi-cultural people groups in the Bible outside the abstract church universal or world of humanity. But even those are always manifested in materialized nations, peoples tribes, clans, families. All racial.

The Oxford English dictionary defines nation as an extensive aggregate or persons so closely associated with each other by common descent, language or history, as to form a distinct race or people. Usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite territory. Only until recently did people not understand nations as racial groups.

Now getting into Scripture analytically and looking at the word “nation”, we see that there are groups of people descending from a specific ancestor. Again: meaning that nations are physical descriptions of the hereditary family. Genesis 10:5 is perfect. By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in the lands, everyone after his own family in his own tongue, in their nations.

Now before we move on here, understand that nation and race are not identical in a one to one relationship so that all nations are racially unique. There are several white nations, and black nations and oriental nations…we know this, but the point here is, the nations are always racial states. And if they’re comprised of tribes, which are even tighter ethnic units, then there’s no such thing as a multicultural state or family. An interesting thing is that while this doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t marry outside your nation, it also doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re free to marry outside of your tribe. That sounds paradoxical, but as we’ll see, the fifth commandment really is the controlling factor here.

Moreover God explicitly says in the Bible that God separates the nations as a means of bringing them to salvation. Acts 17:26 is a classic text which people abuse and abuse and abuse. Alienist keep abusing this text saying that it teaches the opposite of the Kinist position. It reads: God hath made of one blood, all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the Earth and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation.

Just going through my Greek Lexicon, it’s under the word “ethnos” that says this word is used in reference to races but it says there’s a specific use of the whole race of mankind. And it quotes Acts 17:26. But the whole word ethnos in Acts 17 does not mean the whole race of mankind! It says God has made of *one blood* all nations. Ok? Blood is “haimai”, now that could be the “whole race” of mankind. But the word “nations” there, are in particular racial groupings. God takes one blood from Adam and makes nations, distinct, diverse, racial nations. So even a Greek expert gets that wrong.

And remember that revelation teaches the presence of nations in Heaven. So before the cross, after the cross, and in the consumate Kingdom, nations are present. And nowhere are they redefined as multicultural groups. There’s a paralel passages of Acts in Deut. 32:8 and it says: “When the most High divided up their inheritance to the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of thee peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. The point here is that God appoints the boundaries of these racial groups.

A few more analytical points regarding the Scripture’s use of nations is that: land ownership and civil magistrates, was tied to tribal identity, you can see that in Leviticus 25 and Deut. 1, 13 through 16, 17 and 18; 2 Samuel 5:1; 1 Chronicles 11:1; and a really clear one is Deut. 17:15, which says: “You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses. One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you. You may not set one over you who is not your brother. Well, that’s Old Testament. The problem is, the New Testament never rescends or modifies these principles. Nations and tribes, still mean nations and tribes.

A last analytical point here is that when you read through the Bible (and I’ll provide a link to these passages in the post) is that being physically mingled in Scripture is not mentioned as something desirable, in fact, it’s mentioned as something very odd. Ezra 9:2, Jeramiah 25:20 and verse 24, Jeremiah 50:37, Ezekiel 30:5, Daniel 2:43, I will post the link to these. But being physically mingled is something that the Bible discountenances.

So that’s the first point about nations in Scripture. They’re distinct ethno-states. Secondly, and I owe David Opperman credit for this one, (at first it didn’t hit me until I looked deeper) and that is: the language of Genesis 2:23-24, the “bone of bone” “flesh of “flesh” language, when you compare that to other uses of bone of bone, in the OT, it indicates that INTRA racial marriages are normative. Not INTER racial.

And Adam said, “this is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.” Elsewhere in the Scriptures, bone and flesh … they take on the meaning of close kin connection, never extending further than one’s own ethnicity. For example, Jacob was told by his parents not to marry a foreigner. And Laban assures Jacob that his family is eligible since they’re of the same bone and flesh…Gen 29:14. In Deut 17:15 we see the rulers should be related to those whom they rule. And this principle seems to be worked out in the reign of King David, who is the archetypical ruler in the Bible, and is said to have been of Israel’s “bone and flesh” (2nd Sam 5:1 and 1 Chronicles 11:1). Therefore we can easily infer that marriages should take place between members of the same bone and flesh, or ethnicity since this is an attribute of Adam’s marriage to Eve.

Opperman also points out that this is why members of the nation of Israel can consistently be described as “fairer” or “ruddy”…because phenotype and genes, follow common ancestry.

Third point: 5th commandment. This is the big one here.

We recall in Jeremiah 35, the story of the reobites, they were tee-totalers. The dad said to his sons, among other commandments he gave them, not to drink alcohol. We know that Scripture doesn’t say drinking alcohol is bad or sinful, in fact it celebrates it. So here is an ectra-biblical command, placed on children by their father. He’s not telling them to do something sinful. he’s telling them to forbid something that God actually permits. Out of obedience to their father, in Jer 35:18 “thus says the Lord of Hosts the God of Israel: because you have obeyed your father and kept all his precepts and done according to all he commanded you, therefore, thus says the Lord of Hosts … Jonadab, son of Reckhab, shall not lack a man to stand before me forever.” That was the father..and God is saying: “You will always have a line”. What a blessing that was!

Now what does this have to do with Kinism?

Well when a father says to a daughter “you may not marry this man because he’s outside your race”, don’t you think she’s obligated to obey her father?? He’s not telling her to sin. You can say Scripture’s unclear as to whether she can marry outside her race, (I don’t think it is, based on what we’ve said so far about tribes and nations) but even if it were clear that this is something God permits, like consuming alcohol, she would still have to obey her father and God would bless her for that. That’s why I mentioned earlier that fathers have the ultimate say. This is settled by the 5th commandment.

Whom may you marry? Well the father’s voice here is authoritative and there’s no real argument against that. We have the parallel of polygamy which, in the Bible, is not clearly denounced. Some people would appeal to Leviticus 18:18, but …I don’t think it explicitly permits it. It’s admitted in the mosaic law, Deut 21:15 and any reason to restrict polygamy on the basis of Lev. 18:18 I think, is inferential and speculative. Doesn’t mean that Kinist endorse polygamy. They don’t. We condemn polygamy as normatively wrong based on God’s instituting marriage as monogamous in Gen. 2.

This is doubly interesting, because here we have a parallel with miscegenation in two regards. These same appeals to the model or prototype of marriage found in Gen 2, can be successfully made to denounce both miscegenation and polygamy.

And then secondly, if the father of the second woman (that a man wants to take in marriage) says no, then that settles it. Would anyone say that the father of this second (potential wife) doesn”t have any authority in keeping his daughter from being the second wife of a polygamist? Well, we can use this argument as well, and say that when Scripture is silent or unclear, a father may make a commandment that the child must honor. There’s no clear Scriptural passage that says “fathers you can’t forbid your daughter from marrying a man with a criminal background.” But I think most people would agree with such a prohibition as wise and shepherd like.

Quickly, in summary: If a father can lawfully and with the blessing of God, prohibit his daughter from marrying a polygamist or a criminal, he can also prohibit her from marrying outside of her race.

Let’s go to a couple of new testament texts here and wrap up:

1 Timothy 5:8 says “But if anyone does not provide for his own and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever”.

Now this word here translated as household transcends faith community. This word means “related by blood” or “kindred.” Here we have from the apostle Paul, a commandment to provide for our kin, our family AND extended family. This is the essence of Kinism: showing a preferential love toward our own. Look at it in terms of concentric circles. The largest circle may be all of humanity, but you have to jump through a lot of more local circles to get to that one. You first have you wife and husband and children, then you have the next circle which may be your cousins or grandfather. Then you have race, or Biblically speaking you can look at it as family –> clan –> tribe –> race –> nation. Then after jumping through all those hoops, if you have the resources and time and capacity left, sure, I guess you could show some love for other races and other nations. But you do have a clear obligation to provide for your own if you don’t want to defy the Faith.

Paul in Romans 9 (as we wrap up, here) says something very telling: “I tell the truth in Christ, I’m not lying, my conscience also bearing witness and the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart, for I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Isrelites.”

I’m really not sure how alienists and those who oppose the Kinist message, get around this one. Paul here is clearly doing exactly what we just talked about: Showing a preferential love for his own blood.

Churches worldwide are often told that we have to show love for the faith community first and foremost. That’s what’s essential. That’s the only law laid down about marriage partners. Make sure that your partner is a Christian. Any other loyalties we put before the Faith loyalty are “worldly”. Well, not so. Not so for Paul. He had a special love for his pagan, unbelieving, hell-bound brothers of the flesh.

So must we.

In the next Kinism FAQ, I’ll take up the practical defenses for Kinism.

Thanks.

And always remember, I think Scott Terry is a ferocious man beast.

**End Christian Gray**

Enter pleasant Guitar riff to play out the show.

6 thoughts on “Kinism FAQ: Is Kinism Scriptural?”

Mickey Henry February 20, 2013 at 7:37 pm

Superb FAQ, Christian! Thank you!
1. Christian Gray Post authorFebruary 20, 2013 at 9:14 pm
  
  Thanks, sir! I left out a point about the one and many correlation between a kinist social order and the Trinity. I’ll have to do another FAQ!
Shotgun February 20, 2013 at 10:34 pm

This is excellent!!
1. Christian Gray Post authorFebruary 21, 2013 at 12:07 am
  
  Thanks, Shotgun. I’m just rehashing all the stuff I learned from you guys.
Shotgun February 23, 2013 at 12:19 pm

I’ve typed out a transcript for you Mr. Khazar:

Opening Music – a pleasant guitar riff

**Enter Christian Gray’s sexy voice:**

Hello, I’m Christian Gray, and this is the Kinism FAQ series.

In the last FAQ, I answered the question: is Kinism racist?…showing that “racism” is conceptually vague, and morally arbitrary. But even to the extent that Kinism fits the most cogent definition of racism, one must show how kinism *and* racism are sinful. Especially since Kinism is essentially a preferential love shown to one’s family and extended family out of a desire for that family’s preservation and future.

I did mention in that podcast, that there are theological, practical and historical defenses of kinism, and in this podcast we’ll look at the theological case.

First: nations in scripture are distinct ethno-states, meaning that…they’re racial. Let’s look at this etymologically, lexically, and then analytically.

Etymologically, the word “nationality” comes from the Greek word ethnos, and a parallel word for that is ‘nativity’, a word we’re all familiar with. The root of ‘nativity’ is ‘natal’ which means birth. And all we have to do now is infer meaning, heredity, bloodline, race. Nations are races in the general sense.

Lexically, the word nation in the New Testament, as I mentioned, is the Greek word ethnos. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance says this word is defined as “race” or tribe. There’s also a New Testament word ‘laos’ which is translated as people or peoples, and this is defined as the people at large, especially of people assembled, a people of the same race or language. Romans 15:11 and Revelation 5:9 are good examples of how these words come together. “Praise the Lord all ye Gentiles. Laud Him all ye peoples.” There’s ethnos, and laos coming together here.

Revelation 5:9 says “and they sang a new song saying you are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals for you were slain and have redeemed us to God out of your blood from every tribe, tongue, people and nation. There’s “people” and “nation” used together. These words mean people of the same race and language.

The point here is that when the Bible speaks about basic peoples, they are racial. There’s just no multi-cultural people groups in the Bible outside the abstract church universal or world of humanity. But even those are always manifested in materialized nations, peoples tribes, clans, families. All racial.

The Oxford English dictionary defines nation as an extensive aggregate or persons so closely associated with each other by common descent, language or history, as to form a distinct race or people. Usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite territory. Only until recently did people not understand nations as racial groups.

Now getting into Scripture analytically and looking at the word “nation”, we see that there are groups of people descending from a specific ancestor. Again: meaning that nations are physical descriptions of the hereditary family. Genesis 10:5 is perfect. By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in the lands, everyone after his own family in his own tongue, in their nations.

Now before we move on here, understand that nation and race are not identical in a one to one relationship so that all nations are racially unique. There are several white nations, and black nations and oriental nations…we know this, but the point here is, the nations are always racial states. And if they’re comprised of tribes, which are even tighter ethnic units, then there’s no such thing as a multicultural state or family. An interesting thing is that while this doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t marry outside your nation, it also doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re free to marry outside of your tribe. That sounds paradoxical, but as we’ll see, the fifth commandment really is the controlling factor here.

Moreover God explicitly says in the Bible that God separates the nations as a means of bringing them to salvation. Acts 17:26 is a classic text which people abuse and abuse and abuse. Alienist keep abusing this text saying that it teaches the opposite of the Kinist position. It reads: God hath made of one blood, all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the Earth and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation.

Just going through my Greek Lexicon, it’s under the word “ethnos” that says this word is used in reference to races but it says there’s a specific use of the whole race of mankind. And it quotes Acts 17:26. But the whole word ethnos in Acts 17 does not mean the whole race of mankind! It says God has made of *one blood* all nations. Ok? Blood is “haimai”, now that could be the “whole race” of mankind. But the word “nations” there, are in particular racial groupings. God takes one blood from Adam and makes nations, distinct, diverse, racial nations. So even a Greek expert gets that wrong.

And remember that revelation teaches the presence of nations in Heaven. So before the cross, after the cross, and in the consumate Kingdom, nations are present. And nowhere are they redefined as multicultural groups. There’s a paralel passages of Acts in Deut. 32:8 and it says: “When the most High divided up their inheritance to the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of thee peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. The point here is that God appoints the boundaries of these racial groups.

A few more analytical points regarding the Scripture’s use of nations is that: land ownership and civil magistrates, was tied to tribal identity, you can see that in Leviticus 25 and Deut. 1, 13 through 16, 17 and 18; 2 Samuel 5:1; 1 Chronicles 11:1; and a really clear one is Deut. 17:15, which says: “You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses. One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you. You may not set one over you who is not your brother. Well, that’s Old Testament. The problem is, the New Testament never rescends or modifies these principles. Nations and tribes, still mean nations and tribes.

A last analytical point here is that when you read through the Bible (and I’ll provide a link to these passages in the post) is that being physically mingled in Scripture is not mentioned as something desirable, in fact, it’s mentioned as something very odd. Ezra 9:2, Jeramiah 25:20 and verse 24, Jeremiah 50:37, Ezekiel 30:5, Daniel 2:43, I will post the link to these. But being physically mingled is something that the Bible discountenances.

So that’s the first point about nations in Scripture. They’re distinct ethno-states. Secondly, and I owe David Opperman credit for this one, (at first it didn’t hit me until I looked deeper) and that is: the language of Genesis 2:23-24, the “bone of bone” “flesh of “flesh” language, when you compare that to other uses of bone of bone, in the OT, it indicates that INTRA racial marriages are normative. Not INTER racial.

And Adam said, “this is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.” Elsewhere in the Scriptures, bone and flesh … they take on the meaning of close kin connection, never extending further than one’s own ethnicity. For example, Jacob was told by his parents not to marry a foreigner. And Laban assures Jacob that his family is eligible since they’re of the same bone and flesh…Gen 29:14. In Deut 17:15 we see the rulers should be related to those whom they rule. And this principle seems to be worked out in the reign of King David, who is the archetypical ruler in the Bible, and is said to have been of Israel’s “bone and flesh” (2nd Sam 5:1 and 1 Chronicles 11:1). Therefore we can easily infer that marriages should take place between members of the same bone and flesh, or ethnicity since this is an attribute of Adam’s marriage to Eve.

Opperman also points out that this is why members of the nation of Israel can consistently be described as “fairer” or “ruddy”…because phenotype and genes, follow common ancestry.

Third point: 5th commandment. This is the big one here.

We recall in Jeremiah 35, the story of the reobites, they were tee-totalers. The dad said to his sons, among other commandments he gave them, not to drink alcohol. We know that Scripture doesn’t say drinking alcohol is bad or sinful, in fact it celebrates it. So here is an ectra-biblical command, placed on children by their father. He’s not telling them to do something sinful. he’s telling them to forbid something that God actually permits. Out of obedience to their father, in Jer 35:18 “thus says the Lord of Hosts the God of Israel: because you have obeyed your father and kept all his precepts and done according to all he commanded you, therefore, thus says the Lord of Hosts … Jonadab, son of Reckhab, shall not lack a man to stand before me forever.” That was the father..and God is saying: “You will always have a line”. What a blessing that was!

Now what does this have to do with Kinism?

Well when a father says to a daughter “you may not marry this man because he’s outside your race”, don’t you think she’s obligated to obey her father?? He’s not telling her to sin. You can say Scripture’s unclear as to whether she can marry outside her race, (I don’t think it is, based on what we’ve said so far about tribes and nations) but even if it were clear that this is something God permits, like consuming alcohol, she would still have to obey her father and God would bless her for that. That’s why I mentioned earlier that fathers have the ultimate say. This is settled by the 5th commandment.

Whom may you marry? Well the father’s voice here is authoritative and there’s no real argument against that. We have the parallel of polygamy which, in the Bible, is not clearly denounced. Some people would appeal to Leviticus 18:18, but …I don’t think it explicitly permits it. It’s admitted in the mosaic law, Deut 21:15 and any reason to restrict polygamy on the basis of Lev. 18:18 I think, is inferential and speculative. Doesn’t mean that Kinist endorse polygamy. They don’t. We condemn polygamy as normatively wrong based on God’s instituting marriage as monogamous in Gen. 2.

This is doubly interesting, because here we have a parallel with miscegenation in two regards. These same appeals to the model or prototype of marriage found in Gen 2, can be successfully made to denounce both miscegenation and polygamy.

And then secondly, if the father of the second woman (that a man wants to take in marriage) says no, then that settles it. Would anyone say that the father of this second (potential wife) doesn”t have any authority in keeping his daughter from being the second wife of a polygamist? Well, we can use this argument as well, and say that when Scripture is silent or unclear, a father may make a commandment that the child must honor. There’s no clear Scriptural passage that says “fathers you can’t forbid your daughter from marrying a man with a criminal background.” But I think most people would agree with such a prohibition as wise and shepherd like.

Quickly, in summary: If a father can lawfully and with the blessing of God, prohibit his daughter from marrying a polygamist or a criminal, he can also prohibit her from marrying outside of her race.

Let’s go to a couple of new testament texts here and wrap up:

1 Timothy 5:8 says “But if anyone does not provide for his own and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever”.

Now this word here translated as household transcends faith community. This word means “related by blood” or “kindred.” Here we have from the apostle Paul, a commandment to provide for our kin, our family AND extended family. This is the essence of Kinism: showing a preferential love toward our own. Look at it in terms of concentric circles. The largest circle may be all of humanity, but you have to jump through a lot of more local circles to get to that one. You first have you wife and husband and children, then you have the next circle which may be your cousins or grandfather. Then you have race, or Biblically speaking you can look at it as family –> clan –> tribe –> race –> nation. Then after jumping through all those hoops, if you have the resources and time and capacity left, sure, I guess you could show some love for other races and other nations. But you do have a clear obligation to provide for your own if you don’t want to defy the Faith.

Paul in Romans 9 (as we wrap up, here) says something very telling: “I tell the truth in Christ, I’m not lying, my conscience also bearing witness and the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart, for I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Isrelites.”

I’m really not sure how alienists and those who oppose the Kinist message, get around this one. Paul here is clearly doing exactly what we just talked about: Showing a preferential love for his own blood.

Churches worldwide are often told that we have to show love for the faith community first and foremost. That’s what’s essential. That’s the only law laid down about marriage partners. Make sure that your partner is a Christian. Any other loyalties we put before the Faith loyalty are “worldly”. Well, not so. Not so for Paul. He had a special love for his pagan, unbelieving, hell-bound brothers of the flesh.

So must we.

In the next Kinism FAQ, I’ll take up the practical defenses for Kinism.

Thanks.

And always remember, I think Scott Terry is a ferocious man beast.

**End Christian Gray**

Enter pleasant Guitar riff to play out the show.
Matt February 24, 2013 at 9:19 am

Great podcast, another good OT book example is Nehemiah. And the defence of ones own kin is shown in chpt 4:13-14;
Therefore I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at the exposed places, posting them by families, with their swords, spears and bows.
After I looked things over, I stood up and said to the nobles, the officials and the rest of the people, “Don,t be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awsome, and fight, for your brothers, your sons and daughters, your wives and your homes.”

I cannt think of a better example of kinship and and defenendidng ones kin.
T.Y. for a good FAQ

Comments are closed.