Racism: Can we talk? Uh, actually, no...

On this blog the past week or so we've seen played out exactly what can be expected in any discussion of race in these United States today, whether outside or inside the Church. And it's discouraging.

Bring race up and about five percent of those listening at one end of the spectrum will be white racists, closely paralleled by another five percent at the opposite end who are black racists. (Here, though, we've only had the white racists present, yet they've done an effective job shutting down this discussion all by themselves, haven't they?)

Both groups shout their hatred and the ninety percent who really want truth and healing can only run for cover, more convinced than ever that, aside from the power of God, the issue is hopeless.

White racists are devious, race-baiters every bit as pernicious and deceptive in their tactics as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. There's no reasoning with them because they're more interested in winning than talking. And black racists are their mirror opposites, using their racial identity and the sympathy naturally accruing to the oppressed to issue edicts and demands. And the majority of us, black and white, sit in the middle plugging our ears.

So no, there can be no civil, let alone truthful or vigorous discussion of our nation's past, of the institution of slavery across the centuries, or of the exclusively white or black culture that pervades almost every last church in our country and is a perfect contradiction of Galatians 3:28...

Everyone shoots low, aiming only for safety. We must all talk and write about race as if we were producing a medieval morality play where the point is only to give a very simple lesson to the ignorant. But of course, privately, we all have quite deep thoughts and feelings about race, some of which don't fit into any category of safe speech in our country today. But will we speak up and ask the questions we really want to ask, or acknowledge the sins we really want to acknowledge, or confront our brother with the sins he's committed asking him to repent?

Of course not. The bullets are flying so the closest we'll get to true healing is going to a Promise Keepers rally and crying about our own sinful racism, and confessing how wrong and sinful to our black brothers white supremacy has been, and feeling warm fuzzies all over about the small group of whites and blacks and Asians on the platform hugging one another.

Somewhere, sometime, somehow we're going to have to have some good old Paul-facing-down-Peter truthtalk about this matter. And likely, when it happens it will coincide with the Holy Spirit reviving His Church. Until then, let's all do everything possible to be agents of reconciliation. And yes, that must include us telling the small number of true racists always popping up in the middle of the place to be silent--whether they're white of black--er, I meant to say African-American.



Hello, I have been reading these current blogs regarding conflict with race. I teach at a public high school of almost 4,000 students that are made up of a third black, a third hispanic, a third white students.
We just had graduation and the valedictorian, a young lady, gave her address to the graduates and the families. She spoke about a young man who grew up to be the greatest teacher that influenced her life, Jesus. She asked the people attending if they have asked Jesus into their hearts. She said this might not be some of the view of the high school but Jesus is her life and guide.
The coolest thing, was after she gave her address, there was thunderous applause, amens, and thank you Jesus, shouted out loud within our diverse community members at this gathering. A common thread, the love of Jesus.
I am so happy I teach where I do.

Re: Galatians 3:28. The below was posted on a
thread of this blog but never addressed. I do
not see how those who are mistakenly labeled as
"racist" are shutting down discussion on this
open blog, although I do know of at least one
individual who has been banned from these pages
due to an opposing view. ***[Note from Tim Bayly: The individual who was banned earned it NOT by voicing an opposing view, but for lying about his opponents' arguments. And if you say again that I banned him for his opposing view, I'll ban you too, Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. Wesbrot. This blog is absolutely chock full of opposing views, and that's much of its vitality.]***

From "Raping Sacred Scripture"-
The Violation of Galatians 3:28

by Dr. H. Rondel Rumburg

What happens when Galatians 3:28 is misused as an egalitarian sword to cut down all differences? It is a long way from no difference in salvation in the spiritual realm to destroying all differences in race, authority or sex in the physical world. The result of such an interpretation would be anarchy. To force the interpretation of complete equality on this verse in such a general sense is catastrophic. Nowhere does the verse declare everyone in the physical realm equal in Christ, but it does say all the saved are one in Christ.

What does a faulty interpretation of the words, "there is neither Jew nor Greek" do to the racial teachings of the Bible? Ultimately an erroneous interpretation of this part of the text would charge God with racism and His word with error. How would it charge God with racism? It was God who divided men into races, languages and nations (Genesis chapters 9 to 11). If we force the text and make it say that redemption was needed to remove these distinctions, we are saying that God was wrong in making them originally, which is a direct attack on God's Godhood. This heretical interpretation charges the infinitely holy and infinitely wise God with sin. The result of such a position is that God is not God. The rape of this text also condemns the veracity of sacred Scripture. Not only does the Bible identify the beginning of races, languages and nations prior to Christ's redemption, but it also reveals that these distinctions are maintained after redemption. There are many texts which evidence this truth (some examples are Revelation 7:9; 5:9; 11:9; 14:6; 20:3,8). Christ Jesus maintained this distinction for He sent His disciples to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and later sent Paul to the Gentiles. The distinction is maintained in the person of Christ, for He is the same race in eternity as He was during His incarnation. The New Jerusalem was let down out of heaven upon the new earth (Rev. 21:1-3), "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it" (Rev. 21:24, 26). The "nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it" shows that the distinction is maintained or perpetuated into eternity. God was the one who divided by lands, languages, races and nations (Gen. 10:5; Deut. 32:8; Acts 17:26). God condemned those who would remove these distinctions (Deut. 7:3; Ezra 9-10; Neh. 9:2; 13:3, 23 ff [see Neh. 9-13]). Miscegenation or racial interbreeding is not the way of God as His Word bears out in the passages just mentioned and others (Judges 6:5-7; Num. 25:1-9; Deut. 7:1-6).

Weisbrot says,

"If we force the text and make it say that redemption was needed to remove these distinctions, we are saying that God was wrong in making them originally."

No, not at all. Our incorporation into Christ does not only save us from sin and death; it also gives us something better and higher than the original created state. In the heavenly state, none of these created differences will matter. We will be one in Christ, transformed into the likeness of the Son, sharers of the divine nature. Race, sex, and social status will mean nothing. And that's no slur on the original state of Adam and Eve. The New Life is simply better.

However, you are correct to point out that these differentiations still do pertain in the present life, and that it is not right for us to ignore them as long as they do.

That bit about miscegenation at the end of your post really came out of left field, though. I mean, the difference between a man and a woman is much larger than the difference between a white man and black man, but I'm going to have to assume you aren't upset when men and women miscegenate?

Perhaps it's crucial, in light of the fact that race brings up such passions, to simply shut up and fulfill the Great Commission. Can one argue with the Gospel presented to the spiritually starving, or a cup of cold water to the thirsty?

White Bread, can you possibly explain why, if mixing of the races is so bad, that two Gentile women (at least) appear in the geneology of Jesus, and the prophet like no other, Moses, was allowed to marry a woman from Cush? Why were the Israelites allowed to marry girls captured in war? What was the deal with the centurion who feared God and built a synagogue for the people he was protecting?

The fact of the matter is that proselytization is a Jewish custom originally, and that non-Jews were readily accepted into Israel on the condition that they worship YHWH. To separate today solely on the basis of race or ethnicity is to insult other branches ingrafted into the vine and forget that the roots are the same.


I see your point, but are discussions of race really any different than discussions of any other issue in this society, especially on Internet forums/blogs where we are all faceless?

So many times, people bring up a legitimate point or ciriticism regarding an issue, argument/rhetoric, policy, behavior, etc. and the immediate response is to personally attack and demonize the person making the point so you don't have to deal with the point. You know the kind of venom, hate and personal vindictiveness that has been directed at me for things I have said.

Legitimate issue-oriented discussions are almost impossible in many forums and blog comment sections because people are more interested in personally destroying their "enemies" than dealing with arguments and logic. Sometimes, that "enemy" is a race and sometimes it is a person, but they are two sides of the same filthy coin.

Respectfully discouraged,

Dear Scott, Yes, we quarrel because we don't know how to argue, as Chesterton said. And the movement in that direction is hastening. Even pollsters can't depend upon their results because interviewees tailor their answers to their perception of what the pollster wants to hear. Leaders connive at their people's sins, argumentum ad populum is the norm in political speeches, and both the president's annual state of the union address and the pastor's weekly sermon pander to their people's felt needs.

Or one might sum it all up by saying that public discourse of all kinds has been emasculated. Carol Gilligan told us women have another way of knowing that doesn't start with logic, and now the whole world has decided to follow that way of knowing.

And yet, the pressure to conform our language and arguments to those around us is much worse in certain areas--particularly black/white relations.

But don't be discouraged; Jesus said that all those who live godly lives will suffer persecution. And your persecution is not worse than many others I've known through the years.

For myself, I have to work hard to make sure that I'm persecuted for righteousness' sake, and not because I'm tactless or a busybody.

Come on. Kinists simply represent the historic Christian faith. Were Dabney and Thornwell racists because they were Confederates? Were Lee's racial views racist? Edwards? Calvin? Luther? Besides the very idea of racism was coined by none other than Leon Trotsky. That's right, the Soviet one. Martin Luther King Jr. stood proudly in that tradition. So do you have anyone that fits into the mold of historic Christianity that disagrees with kinism, and anyone outside of Soviet communism that agrees with you? Shame on you all!

>Were Dabney and Thornwell racists because they were Confederates?

No, because they were fallen men, like the rest of us in that regard.

David. Dabney and Thornwell were fallen men? Of course they were. This is not the issue. The issue is that you have failed to show that your position is at all espoused by anyone significant within the orthodox Christian tradition. Dabney and Thornwell were fallen racists, but Trotsky hit the nail head on? Sounds mighty Christian to me. Besides you folkophobes fail to produce any serious biblical critique of kinism. Of course no race is ontologically superior to another, but they are different, and that matters. If race is insignificant, so is gender. Gay marriage anyone?

So, paleo, just to make it simple, what would it take to disprove "kinism"?

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races,,, I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

-- Abraham Lincoln


You make a great point about the feminization of discourse. I have observed many times over the last few years that political discourse has become clique-based instead of being founded on principles. I imagine a bunch of high school girls running this country.

I wrote the following a year ago as aprt of a longer post:


It is the ideological/partisan litmus test that is one of the primary reasons why political discourse in this country has, in many cases, become a sewer. Rather than taking a stand based on principle, too many people make a judgment based on whether the person taking the action is on their "side". This destroys any chance of finding common ground, because politics becomes a contest between cliques rather than a debate between people with genuine philosophical differences. Sadly, this is true on both sides of the ideological divide.

People who wish to find common ground are discouraged and disgusted by the partisan inanity. They see both sides out to "get" the other or to "protect" one of their own, but few principled, consistent stands. Why bother voting or participating in the political process if principles take a back seat to partisanship?

>Posted by paleocrat at June 14, 2006 10:58 PM
>If race is insignificant, so is gender. Gay >marriage anyone?

Here we go again with the conflation of skin color with sinful behavior like sodomy.
Are we going to now claim that God is the author of sin?

Let me add another lie to the list:

6. "Kinism is about Abraham Lincoln."

The list of lies, misdirection, and bloody-shirt-waving just gets longer and longer.

As long as Galatians 3:28 is used as the basis then this will be the result. The construction of this verse in either English or the Greek leaves no other option. The "neithers" are tied together and are parallel. One cannot interpret one "neither" one way and the next another. If you take "neither Greek nor Jew" as negating all ethnic and national distinction then "neither male nor female" must by extension negate all sexual distinctions -thus the tie to the homosexual agenda. Without an out of context mutilation this won't make the argument and the attempt will only cause someone to come and apply your new interpretation consistently to the rest of the "neithers" leaving you going places you never intended to be.

Although there are verses that can be used to approach a decent argumenton this subject, Galatians 3:28 is not one of them.


I've pointed this out already, but so far it's been ignored.

Yes, in this life there are differences between male and female, and Jew and Greek. However, male and female have "miscegenated" from the very beginning of the race, so how exactly are you concluding that Jew and Greek may not?

Okay, Paleocrat, since you're name-dropping with such reckless abandon, show us quotations from Luther and Calvin that support your position.

Oh, and p.s.: Even if you can do that, which I rather doubt, tracing something back to the 16th century does not prove that it is a part of "the historic Christian faith." You're leaving out FIFTEEN CENTURIES, i.e. 75% of all Church history when you talk like that.

Because, Eric, they are different. Male and female were created and were commanded to come together and multiply.

The races were not commanded to come together in any form of unity that we humans can achieve but in Christ. What glory would there be for God in our marrying each other simply to create Christian unity? Even the athiests can create that kind of unity.

Study Acts 17:26-27. God explains that He separates the people and why. This verse is written AFTER both Pentecost and the Great Commision verifying that the separation was still to remain in effect. Why? So that by being in our groups we can better grope for Him. That is the Holy Spirit speaking. Am I to think I know better than the Holy Spirit just because something might at some point seem right to my modern eyes? God forbid it.

Regarding your question to paleocrat: I'm ashamed to say that I am not sure on Calvin, but reading "On the Jews and Their Lies" from Luther should pretty much clear up any doubt on his views.


I'm just pointing out that the Galatians passage doesn't establish anything against miscegenation. If you think you have a biblical case vs. miscegenation, you need to make it from other verses.

And Acts 17:26-27 is a bad start, if that's what you're trying to do. Really, you don't have to quote Holy Writ to prove that nations have geographical definition as well as biographical definition. That's obvious, and irrelevant besides.


I assuming you are referring to me with the remark about "lie #6" because of the Abraham Lincoln quote I provided.

I've never advocated kinism, and I never said kinism was about Abraham Lincoln.

What happened here is that I saw the remark about Confederate racism and chose to respond with words spoken by "the great emancipator". There was more than enough racism to go around in the mid-1800's, and there was a lot of it on the Northern side of the Mason/Dixon line.

I do apologize for not being clearer.

Thank you for the clarification.

Even though it may not pertain to you, I think I will retain "Lie #7" in my lengthening list of nonsense propaganda ised by white supremicists I've encountered elsewhere. Getting people's shorts in a knot over Lincoln is another trick I've seen used to distract from the real questions having to do with "what does the Bible teach about relationships between members of different ethnic groups?"

I again challenge the kinists on this forum to explain how a kinist church can fulfill the Great Commission, and why the early church was ethnically mixed, if ethnic homogeniety was such a crucial issue for our Lord.

And for what it's worth, today's kinists actually go further than Lee and Dabney in separation from other races. Lee made sure that free blacks were able to take communion along with whites, and Dabney's church expanded to make room for blacks in the area.

So at least THEY got it that blacks and whites should worship together, at the very least.

You are correct in that Galatians 3:28 helps in proving neither the case for or against miscegenation and other verses must be used to make a case either way. Many verses in this debate, if seriously looked into, yield this same result.

Acts 17:26-27 is only important because God says this is what I did and why I did it. There are those that would deny even this. Apart from this we are really provided no details. What are the boundaries, what are the times, how do we know, is God changing them now, are our own changes or resistance to them disobedient, is it not? No clear and compelling answers are provided that I can find.

Despite this I still hold a basically kinist view although after some of what I have said and might say in comments here many would say I do not. In Scripture, I see that God deals with individual families and nations as well as individuals.

The more I study the more I find I do not know. The more I also find much cannot be known for sure, things of which I was once so certain were clear in Scripture. The more I study the more I also realize the dire need for grace with brothers who may not be on the same page, but are not at odds with essentials of Scripture.

Admittedly, no one is going to hell if they marry or do not marry another ethnic race, neither are the mixed kids. Conversely, one will not go to hell for failing to marry another ethnicity either. One the other hand, it might just be more difficult for those mixed kids to grope toward God with the added complication. Disaster? The elect are chosen, they will be not one more, nor one less, or their identities altered by our actions. With a Sovereign God does anyone who is Reformed honestly believe that things are not working out exactly as intended, that is, perfectly. Things work out the way they are supposed to. All we can do is be obedient to the best of our limited understanding and hang on tight.

One thing is certain, being uncivilized with each other and threatening each other with excommunication in an areas where Scripture is not patently clear or where someone has made either racial solidarity or required miscegenation a clear, and I mean clear, idol, shows a lack of grace and humility all around and does not serve our Lord well.


There's nothing mysterious about the boundaries mentioned in Acts 17. They are geographical: "the bounds of their habitation." St. Paul is saying nothing more than that God has been controlling history all along. He made all nations to descend from one man (meaning, you should note, that they are ultimately all the same family), and arranged their geography and history as he saw fit. Paul is discoursing on general providence.

If Acts 17 means something different from what Eric Ph9ilips says (and I think he is right), then we are all disobedient mrely by being Americans. We should all go back forthwith to wherever we or our ancestors came from. Of course, for most of us, that's going to be difficult, since our ancestors all "miscegenated" like crazy. Is there redemption for Americans?

I'm back. My goal in my previous post was not simply to name drop, but to demonstrate that church history is generally in agreement with the kinist view than the modern innovation. For a quote from Calvin here's his comments on Paul's letter to Titus commenting on the Cretans:
"The Apostle...would never have spoken so harshly of the Cretans, if he had not been moved by very strong reasons. What term more reproachful than these opprobrious epithets can be imagined; that they were 'lazy, devoted to the belly, destitute of truth, evil beasts'? Nor are these vices charged against one or a few persons, but he condemns the whole nation."
Whether you think that's racist or not is irrelevant, the point is that most people today would think that this is racist. My point is that racism has a dubious etymology derived from Soviet rhetoric. Our forbearers in the Christian faith would not have been concerned by the charge of "racism" neither should we be. Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies" is also a good place to start for Luther's views, which were also politically incorrect to say the least. If you're not a conservative on race that means you're a liberal, whether you want to admit it or not. Eric, my point in soliciting Edwards, Calvin and Luther was simply to show the continuity of "kinist-like" opinions among eminent Christians from ages past. As reformed Christians I think that these names are more than sufficient. I don't find the opinion that race or ethnicity is insignificant among prominent members of the church. Ultimately, any proof will have to be grounded in the scriptures. Keith, in order to disprove kinism you need to show how our exegesis is wrong, Galatians 3:28 is not a good place to start. Jeff, my point is that if you interpret Galatians 3:28 to mean that race is of no consequence, then you would have to do the same for gender, and in fact many liberals have. They frequently use this verse to justify women pastors. I'm not equating skin color with sodomy, far from it. Kinists believe that God created the races and nations and intended them to stay separate, therefore skin color is a good thing. My point is that Galatians 3: 28 is no proof that race doesn't matter, any more than it is a proof that gender doesn't matter, as explained in Dr. Rumburg's essay which no one seems to want to comment on. Eric, you're right about Acts 17: 26-27 being about God's providential control of history, however it also explains his reasoning for separating the nations. It's beneficial to look at Genesis 10 and 11. God created and separated the nations purposefully and intentionally. It was in Genesis 11 that they came together against his will. The people at Babel said "let us make for us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." This sounds like modern America with the sentiment that everyone who believes in "freedom" is American. God's response is also clear: "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." Babel came together and acted in rebellion. The people being one in and of itself was wrong. The message is simple: multiculturalism is preceded by humanism. Finally, I would like to clarify my own personal positions, while not necessarily speaking for anyone else. I do not believe that interracial marriage is inherently sinful. When John Rolfe married Pocahontas (sp?) she converted to Christianity and fully adopted English life and customs. However, this is the exception to the rule and not the rule itself. Interracial marriage often leads to not only religious conflict, but also political conflicts of interest, and cultural ambiguity as testified by Ezra and Nehemiah. Ethnic homogeneity allows for a heritage to become a legacy, and this is important in marriages as well as faith. No race is ontologically superior to another, but different races are talented at different things, and they are not necessarily equally talented. All races will be present in Heaven, and the distinctives between races and genders will survive because they are important. Is this really so bad? Just because kinists see color, doesn't mean they don't like what they see.

Dan, you bring up a legitimate point in discussing America. Personally, I think it was wrong for America to allow so many immigrants in, and yes even white immigrants. I think that it would have been best to mostly limit immigration to northern European protestants, since they would behave the most like the Anglo-Saxons that founded the nation. One could argue (I do) that the loss of identity in America is due to its politics of simply extending the electorate to include people who will get you elected, such as Bush has done with Mexico. Was it wrong for the English to come in the first place? Hardly, the Indians here were fragmented and mostly hostile to each other, the whites then didn't believe they were stealing land and neither do I. They either bought land or won it through legitimate warfare in a defensive posture. Were the white settlers perfect? No, but they were better than conventional history makes them out to be. Is there redemption for America? I hope so, but it's hard when we really don't have an identity anymore. What makes someone American? The myth of the creedal nation is a bankrupt concept, it is neither biblical nor appealing. What needs to happen is that America needs to repent of its humanism and get back to biblical law that it was founded on in its colonial charters. The multiculturalism will logically fade after that. But it's hard to say if this can be accomplished, America is so far removed from its Anglo-Christian roots. If it had maintained a healthier and more biblical view of its identity, then it could have assimilated foreigners in a more moderate and effective way. Much the same way that England was able to assimilate the likes of Christina Rosetti, she became an Anglo-protestant. But as I stated earlier, this is the exception to the rule, and not the rule itself.

Paleocrat writes,

"Eric, you're right about Acts 17: 26-27 being about God's providential control of history, however it also explains his reasoning for separating the nations."

What reasoning is that? I don't see any reasoning explained. It just says that He did it.

Also, that Calvin quotation doesn't take a Kinist position at all. Saying that it is possible for a culture to become morally bankrupt is not even remotely the same thing as saying that certain genetic people groups are predisposed to moral bankruptcy.

"Keith, in order to disprove kinism you need to show how our exegesis is wrong, Galatians 3:28 is not a good place to start."

It seems like your basic point in your exegesis is to say that God made the races, therefore it's wrong to intermarry. To which I say God made cancer, so it's wrong to fight it, God made mosquitos, so it's wrong to squash them. It's a total non-sequitur.

Eric, Paul doesn't condemn Cretian culture, he condemns the Cretian people. Herein lies the difference between kinists and neo-Babelists. Culture comes from people it is not simply floating around somewhere. It is the same as loving the sinner and hating the sin. This cannot happen since the sin and sinner are inherently linked, just as culture and people are inherently linked. If Paul had simply condemned Cretian culture it would have made it possible for some among them to feel exempt from Paul's condemnation. Instead he says that the Cretians (not Cretian culture) are always liars, lazy (evil beasts) and gluttonous. This is the gist of what Calvin acknowledges when he says that Paul condemns the whole nation, not just their culture. By the way, what you call "certain genetic people groups" the Bible calls nations, even if they are living under the government of another people (cf. Mark 7: 26). Another good example of this is the Gibeonites. They were held in perpetual slavery in the Temple as well as being believers, yet they were not accorded equal citizenship or suffrage, even though they were still treated justly. What's your take on the Gibeonites? As far as the nations being created to be separate I still think Genesis 10-11 is the place to start. God created the nations in Genesis 10, humanism/multiculturalism set in during Genesis 11, God redivided the nations again according to his previous boundaries. Keith, your logic is disturbing. Is the existence of separate nations akin to cancer and mosquitos, and is therefore something to work to eradicate? Equating the existence of different races to the existence of cancer is profound. I wonder how it is that anyone can accuse kinists of hatred, while statements like these are made against us. I stated previously that I think that there are exceptions to the rule that nations should remain separate, such as God allowing Hebrews to marry captives from war, but that national separation and distinction is still the rule. The reason that Israelites could marry captives was because their way of life was gone after the war had swallowed it up. They would not have dual allegiances that would be otherwise problematic. I suppose a beneficial turn our dialogue could take from here is the question of the normativity of God's law given in the Old Testament for today. If it is normative for today, as kinists hold, we will be hard-pressed to see how the modern American neo-Babelistic "creedal nation" is scriptural.

Tim, I'm paleocrat.

Dear Dave,

Thanks; you've restored my faith in mankind, brother.

In Christ,

Tim Bayly

Paleocrat says,

"Paul doesn't condemn Cretian culture, he condemns the Cretian people."

Sure, he doesn't use the word culture. But he doesn't use the word race either does he? We can't tell from the words "all Cretans" whether he means race or culture. But when he finishes the sentence, "are liars," well then we're talking about culture, because lying is a habit, and culture is just a collection of values and habits. Nobody is BORN a liar. If he had said, "all Cretans are swarthy," or "all Cretans are tall," then you'd be justified in saying he was talking about race. He didn't, and you aren't.

"By the way, what you call "certain genetic people groups" the Bible calls nations."

Nope, sorry. What happened when people from other genetic groups married into Israel, or became proselytes, or became permanent bondservants? They became part of the nation. They became part of the people. And you might be interested in reading the post I wrote about the word "genos" over on the "I saw Gooley Fly" thread, June 15, 2006 03:09 PM. So far you Kinists have been conveniently ignoring it, but if you're going to keep repeating your linguistic error, I'm going to have to insist you go read it.

Oh and the Gibeonites were enslaved because they were an idolatrous nation that God had determined to judge, not because they had bad genes.

"Keith, your logic is disturbing. Is the existence of separate nations akin to cancer and mosquitos, and is therefore something to work to eradicate? Equating the existence of different races to the existence of cancer is profound. I wonder how it is that anyone can accuse kinists of hatred, while statements like these are made against us."

Ok, fine, I should have made my list more extensive. Here you go:

Race is like hair, grass, trees, rocks, water, behavior, attitudes, and habits. These are things which, yes, God made, but he gave us the intellect and the discernment to use them and change them for our purposes. I think that if God had truly meant for the races to never intermarry for the rest of history, then he would have made them sexually incompatible. Obviously he didn't.

Eric, I didn't say that the Gibeonites had inferior genes. This is not what kinists believe. The Gibeonites were not considered equal citizens of Israel because they were not of Israelite ancestry, even though they were believers: now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites (2 Samuel 21: 2). Just because someone lived in Isreal and was a believer, didn't mean they were considered an Israelite. The same goes for Naaman, he became a believer but was still a Syrian. As for the Cretians, I don't deny that Paul was talking about cultural issues, I only think that it's important that we understand that the Cretian culture came from the Cretian people, and that they all needed to own up to it to make it better.
Keith said:
"I think that if God had truly meant for the races to never intermarry for the rest of history, then he would have made them sexually incompatible. Obviously he didn't."

There are a lot of activities that are inadvisable that God still allows to happen, doesn't prove that it's right. As for allowing racial integration to occur, God will not ultimately allow for all racial distinctions to disappear. Countries that practice this become politically unstable and ultimately crumble as did Babel, the former Soviet Union, and other synthetic manmade nations throughout the world.

Dave Opperman says,

"The Gibeonites were not considered equal citizens of Israel because they were not of Israelite ancestry"

No, that wasn't why. Uriah the Hittite was a free citizen. Ancestry had nothing to do with it, except indirectly, in the sense that God had revealed Himself to Israel's ancestors, not to the ancestors of the Gibeonites. The Gibeonites were marked for divine judgment for their wicked pagan ways, and when they tricked the Israelites into swearing peace with them instead of carrying out that punishment, national enslavement was the only way Israel could meet both obligations.

A Kinist calling himself Paleocrat? That is odd. Is Mr. Opperman aware of the fact that the kinists (some time back) were involved in a lengthy, and very heated debate, with a certain anti-racist "Paleocrat" and his "Paleocrat Society" out of Battle Creek, MI? Mark Godfrey knows who the anti-racist Paleocrat is. Badlands knows all about the Paleocrat Society. Paleface is familiar with what the paleocrats (who have called themselves this since 2002) believe. Is Dave Opperman familiar with the debate that raged between kinists at the Kinist Institute, Paleocrat, and the Paleocrat Society? Paleocrat was quoted on all their sites and his sites were linked in their posts against him and his interracial marriage. Is Mr. Opperman oblivious to this?

The debate that went on between Paleocrat and the kinists revolved around Paleocrat and his Society's view on race, marriage, nationhood, and citizenship. Paleocrat (the anti-racist one involved in an interracial marriage) went so far as to challenge any reputable kinist to a public, moderated, recorded debate over the issue. Nothing came of it but the offer was on the table. It still is.

So what is the deal Mr. Opperman? Why the choice of the name? Are you familiar with Paleocrat or the Paleocrat Society? Are you aware of the debate on the kinist sites involving Paleocrat and his Society? A simple word search on any search engine would show plenty of Paleocrat sites (both personal blogs and Society sites). Actually, there is even a wikipedia entry being submitted for review concerning Paleocrat (the real one), the Paleocrat Society, and links of those who have been of that school of thought or memeber of that Society since 2002.

How do I know all this? I am Paleocrat! I founded the Society back in 2002. As far as I am aware, and I could be wrong, I am the first to coin the term. I have searched different encyclopedias, dictionaries, and internet search engines and have seen no use of this term prior to 2002. Once again, I could be wrong. I am just unaware of anyone else using it prior to that time. Now there were kinists that tried to say that I wrongfully claimed that term and that they had found a use of it prior to 2002. They linked their finding and turns out is was about 100 pages long and they refused to inform anyone where it would be found in the link. Later, upon asking the one who made the accusation, it was admitted that the word was not in the document.

In the end folks, Mr. Opperman using the term Paleocrat would be not much different than someone using the term Dave Opperman, Mark Godfrey, Konfederado, Chetrecon, Badonicus, Paleface or any other kinist name of notoriety on a kinist site while arguing against kinism.

Jeremiah "Paleocrat" Bannister
founder of the Paleocrat Society

PS- Mr. Bayly, you have someone in your church which has met me and whose brother is part of the Paleocrat Society. My best friend is the paleocrat society member Craig French from Kalamazoo, MI. If I remember correctly, his brother attends your church and every time he visits his family he attends there as well. He can verify the legitimacy of my claims. Then again, so could a search engine.

Add new comment