Biblical and historical arguments for the value of nations and kin
From
Christian Nationalist Bible Study@21:1/5 to
All on Tue Nov 19 22:50:31 2024
XPost: alt.atheism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
1. The Greek word often translated "nations" is actually "ethnos" – ethnic groups. This tells us that God inherently views humanity as divided into
ethnic groups.
2. Jesus said in Matthew 24:7, "Ethnic group (ethnos) will rise against
ethnic group (ethnos), and kingdom against kingdom." This tells us that a
(or THE) primary source of conflict in the world will be ethnic/racial conflict. Obviously the easiest way to avoid and minimize this type of dangerous conflict is to keep ethnic groups living in their own nations.
This statement by Jesus could also be used to make the argument that God
views kingdoms (nations, government divisions) as being inherently based on ethnicity.
3. Acts 17:26 says that God "made every ethnicity (ethnos) of mankind to
live on the earth, and has determined their appointed times and the
boundaries of their habitation." Once again we see that God views humanity
as divided into ethnic groups. Here we also see clearly stated that God
views each ethnic group as needing and having boundaries – borders – for the
land in which they live. Violating this is unwise for the reason explained
in #2 above (Matt. 24:7).
4. At the tower of Babel (Gen. 11), God separated mankind into separate, distinct people groups with different languages, for very good reasons.
God's obvious intention was for all of these groups to be essentially forced (by language barrier) to live separate from each other. To advocate for the idea that there is no good reason to keep people groups separated from each other, or to advocate for mass mixing of distinct people groups, is to claim that God had no good reason to do what He did at the tower of Babel.
5. Passages like Ex. 34:12, Deut. 7:2-3, and Lev. 20:23 explicitly state the prohibition against mixing with other surrounding people groups (who were ethnically distinct from the Israelites). The purpose of this was two-fold: One, to keep their genetics from mixing with the giants who inhabited the
land of Canaan at that time (the Bible teaches that these giants were not purely genetically human – a topic all its own). Two, to keep them from adopting any of the evil practices of other people groups. If you read Deut. 4:5-8 it is clear that God wanted the Israelites to carry out their government/law and social engineering according to His design, as an example
to the other ethnic groups around them who did not understand God's design
for how humans should live. God also commanded the Israelites to conquer and annihilate the giants of Canaan, both because they were corrupting the
genetics of humanity, and because they were exceedingly evil and were
spreading that evil to other groups everywhere they went. For the Israelites
to mix with other groups who were evil would compromise not only God's plan
for them, but also their general success as a nation. This clear Biblical wisdom principle could be stated as, "If your group is wiser and more
righteous than another group, don't mix with them." 1 Corinthians 15:33
("Bad company corrupts good morals") and other passages like Proverbs 1:8-19 state this principle plainly. The principle is obviously true on both the individual and the group level. In modern times, for a nation with
high-trust culture (the nations of Western Civ, Japan, South Korea) to allow large numbers of people from low-trust cultures (with higher endemic corruption) into their countries is a clear violation of this Biblical
wisdom principle/command. Violating it will result in an overall increase in the amount of evil in the receiving nation, just as it did for the ancient nation of Israel in the instances when they violated it. Nowhere does the
Bible say that compassion or empathy should override the essential
commandment to keep evil out of your life and out of your nation.
I have heard some people quote Old Testament instructions to the Israelites about how they should not mistreat foreigners (e.g. Ex. 22:21) as if that is equivalent to inviting millions of foreigners to come live in your land.
First of all, the Israelites were clearly instructed not mix with other
people groups in large numbers (e.g. Ex. 34:12, Deut. 7:2-3, Lev. 20:23). To whatever extent they disobeyed this instruction at times, mixing in
significant numbers with other people groups that were more evil than them, Israel was always negatively affected by it. Second, the number of
foreigners living in Israel at any given time was never remotely close to
the number of foreigners that leftists are thinking of when they think of "foreigners" or immigrants. America is now close to 50% inhabited with
people who originate from low-trust cultures. That is obviously not what God meant by "foreigners" living in Israel, as is made absolutely clear by the other clear commands He gave to the Israelites about not mixing with other groups/nations.
Third, the word "foreigners" is not the same as the word "immigrants". The "foreigners" God is referring to in these verses, in many or most cases were people passing through for travel, or small numbers of people from other
lands who lived temporarily in Israel for whatever reason. Some of them may have lived permanently in Israel but God specifically commanded Israel not
to do this on a large scale. Because the number of foreigners was relatively small, you can see the wisdom and common sense in the commands to not
mistreat them or withhold justice from them (governmental), and to help
provide for them if they are poor (individual). There were commands for Israelites to voluntarily help a vulnerable individual foreigner with no
family support nearby, as they were to voluntarily help widows and orphans. (These commands were not telling their government to set up a program.) All
of this makes perfect sense and has no leftist overtones whatsoever as long
as you understand that the numbers of foreigners were relatively small and
that the Israelites were also given many clear, strong commands not to
intermix with other people groups in large numbers.
In short, there is not a single verse in the Bible that can be used to
justify or argue for mass immigration of one ethnic group into the land or nation of another ethnic group. On the other hand, there are many Bible
verses and statements clearly stating that doing so is unwise, and that a
more righteous (less corrupt, more high trust) people group mixing with a
less righteous (more corrupt, lower trust) people group will have adverse effects on the more righteous people group.
6. Sometimes people try to use Galatians 3:28 – "In Christ we are one, there is no male or female, no Jew or Greek" – to claim that the Bible teaches race-blind governmental policy, or that God is race-blind (and
gender-blind). This is another classic case of blatant cherrypicking,
ignoring the clearest statements in the Bible on those subjects. Notice that all the points I made above provide a more complete (and thus more accurate) picture of what the Bible says. Points 1-3 above are from the New Testament, and they obviously speak of the realities that should dictate governmental policy, confirming the laws and principles God laid out for the ancient
nation of Israel in the Old Testament. Galatians 3:28 clearly speaks of spiritual realities ("in Christ"), not biological realities and their consequences. The rest of the Bible makes it extremely clear that men are
very different than women in certain ways, and outlines different roles for them. No honest Bible student can say that Galatians 3:28 is a license to
throw out everything the Bible says about gender roles, government,
ethnicity and borders. Even when it comes to Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles), Jesus and Paul clearly delineated different attitudes toward Jews and
Gentiles even when it comes to the gospel itself (Matt: 21:33-45, Acts
3:13-15, 23; 7:51-53; 13:45-46; 18:4-6). It is also obvious that Galatians
3:28 only applies to the esoteric institution of the Christian church itself ("in Christ"); it obviously is not speaking about the hard physical and practical realities that must dictate the policy of a national government.
People who use Galatians 3:28 to claim that Christianity is inherently
cucked are ignoring the clearest Bible statements on these topics, and thus badly misinterpreting the Bible. Yes, leftist-instinct people (a small
minority of American Christians, 20%, probably much less if you account for race) will try to use a misinterpreted, cherry-picked verse like Galatians
3:28 to purity spiral toward leftism, but that is why you need competent men running your state religion – to stop that sort of thing. Leftists will use anything no matter how nonsensical to purity spiral toward leftism, so the people in charge just have to say, "No, that is the wrong interpretation,
we're not letting you teach that," and everything will be fine.
7. Another silly argument I've heard is, "Acts 2:44-45 means that the Bible teaches communism." (These verses describe how the early Christians had everything in common – many people sold their houses and brought the money
to the apostles to share with those who had need.) But there is a huge difference between what the early Christians were doing and communism: the early Christians were sharing voluntarily, while communism is involuntary wealth transfer performed by the government at gunpoint. What the early Christians were doing was obviously (if you read the context) caused by an extraordinary outpouring of the love of God in the hearts of the Christians
via the Holy Spirit. The apostles were not commanding the Christians to sell their houses. Christian churches historically and today do not teach "you
must sell your house" as doctrine. Historically, Christianity has not taught
or practiced anything remotely resembling communism as doctrine. In 2 Thess. 3:10 the apostle Paul says, "When we were with you we charged you that
anyone who does not work should not eat." This command is obviously intended
to avoid lazy people taking advantage of the generosity of Christians. If
you combine 2 Thess. 3:10 with Acts 2:44-45 it is clear that Christianity
does not teach or practice a welfare state, or a leftist state, or a
communist state. And of course, the rest of the Bible makes it clear that
God is a huge stickler regarding property rights – the 8th and 10th Commandments being the cornerstone. Jesus called the devil "the thief" and
said he "comes to steal" (John 10:10). Jesus also told the parable of the talents wherein the guy who failed to multiply his money was called
"worthless" and had it taken away from him and given to the guy who was best
at multiplying his money. This is the exact opposite of leftism and
communism.
8. One somewhat valid criticism I've heard is, "Many Christians tend to be escapist – they want to hunker down and hide until Jesus comes back to save them, rather than actively fighting evil." My response to this is, "I have observed that tendency in some Christians too. Once again the solution is simple: accurate Bible teaching. The Bible contains a plethora of statements and passages that clearly command Christians to actively fight against and conquer evil." Jesus' message to every church in Revelation (Rev. 2 and 3)
ends with rewards for those who "conquer" or "overcome" evil – which is obviously impossible to do passively. Hebrews 11:32 commends the heroes of faith for "conquering kingdoms and executing justice." The parable of the talents obviously demands active investment and action to multiply the territory of God's Kingdom, and it says that if you don't do that, if you
are passive, you are "worthless." Jesus said we are to be the salt of the
earth (in Bible days salt was smothered on meat to keep it from going
rotten) and that if salt is not salty enough, it is only fit to be thrown
away. It is the Christian church's responsibility to stop and limit
corruption in this world. Obviously this can only be done by taking
proactive, consistent action against evil. I could go on and on.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)