16 thoughts on “Is Ethno-Nationalism a Sin against God or by His design?

  1. “then it shall come to pass, that those which you let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein you dwell. Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do to you, as I thought to do to them.” Numbers 33:55
    Doesn’t it state clearly that those who don’t want to assimilate, let your GOD be their god, your nation their nation, your language their language: those will be a danger and nuisance, and even a trap for your destiny.
    I think every immigrant should keep the standard of Ruth: ” And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave you, or to return from following after you: for where you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will lodge: your people shall be my people, and your God my God”. Otherwise please choose another country.

  2. From what I gather here I assume this has less to do with actual race but more so with the fact that mixing cultures brings about diluting the Christian culture that already exists. Kind of like 2 Corinthians 6:14 says. Because then comes ideology of equality and inclusion when it comes to things that are seen as imoral on a basic level, an example of that is homosexuality, women’s rights . . . Basically by taking people from others countries and them bring in their own way of living we are inviting in the push to compromise our Christian faith?

  3. I don’t understand what is with these types of people in that they seem to abhor the physical and are always seeking the ‘spiritual’ answer to everything. We live in the physical world, we live under the effects of gravity, heat, pain, confusion – we cannot simply say “Jesus died on the cross” and think these physical things do not exist anymore. These people seem to want to live that way, as if the fact that Jesus died on the cross means they don’t have to live in the physical world any or concern themselves with its effects because they are aware of the spiritual world.

    Because they are aware of the spiritual they believe that they can force peace between the nations and peoples in the physical! They disregard creation order, authority structures and the way God created things to work because they think their knowledge of the spiritual protects them or somehow makes them immune! Like those who lie in boxes full of snakes thinking they will not be bit because they trust in the lord! I trust in the lord too, but I am still part of this physical place were the likely chance of being bitten by on of several hundred angry snakes is a distinct possibility if I go lying down on them!

    Racism will always exist until we are all in Gods kingdom. It may not be as prevalent has it has been in the past, but people will always be people and some people will hate others because of their skin color! We will always have authorities and those who abuse those authorities until we are all in Gods kingdom and He is the only authority. To think otherwise, or to think that man can somehow create ‘heaven on earth’ is ludicrous and extremely prideful. God created the nations and people for a reason and to think that they could just be erased and everyone amalgamated into one big happy family is silly! You would think that educated people like this would know better.

  4. I had this conversation today with this guy, Bill Onesty, which allowed me to elaborate on the further truths on this subject. He starts off with the knee jerk reaction to my article(without even reading it) that I was a “creep” for insuating that our founding fathers started this nation off with ethno-nationalism as its philosophy.

    Bill Onesty’s Statement:

    “The founders did no such thing. They did not establish “ethno-nationalism.” You u are a creep for insinuating this.”

    My Response:
    Did the founders not pass the 1790 Naturalization Act which restricted citizenship to “free white persons”? I think you need to check your history books. We can argue as Christians and as Americans whether that was immoral and wrong. But we cannot deny the history of America sir.

    Bill Onesty’s Response:

    “It is one thing to claim we were founded as an ethno-nationalist nation. It is quite another to use as proof of that unwise laws that were passed after our founding and which were eventually repealed. You do know that we did away with slavery, right?”

    My Response:
    Yes we did away with slavery and we were right in doing so. Don’t confuse the issues. You do realize that the Constitution was ratified in between 1787/1788 right? That means our nation was founded two years before that law was passed. It was passed by the same people that ratified the Constitution 2 years earlier. Just because it was not part of the Constitution does not mean it was not part of our founding. Many of the first laws passed directly after the Constitution was ratified were to fill in gaps that were missed in the Constitution sir. Again it is a separate argument to say that these laws were unwise or immoral. That is a conversation to be had – but to deny they were part of our founding is incorrect since these laws were passed by our FOUNDERS.

    Bill Onesty’s Statement:

    “Ratified by the same people? No. It was passed by a Congress and signed into law by President Washington. Now ai have not done the detailed research, but not all the founders were elected to office, and not all Congress were among the founders. I would like to be precise here.

    If the argument is that these guys were close enough to the founding that they would have founding principles in mind, then ok. We agree.

    But remember the Constitution was agreed upon amidst disagreement over slavery. But also remember that those opposed to slavery put a kind of time bomb into the Constitution, hoping the matter could be settled politically later. They had confidence in the rightness and goodness of their position though they underestimated the effort required to eradicate slavery from the nation.

    So the same players sympathetic to slavery were still around and would have to agree on any law that affected immigration. Of course they would be wary of a law that would seem to hinder the importation of slaves.

    But none of this supports this notion that we were “founded on ethno-nationalism.” It only supports the idea that we were founded with high ideals but marred by the stain of slavery that would take time to remove. And we did. Something that a nation committed to ethnocentrism would not have done.

    So go take your racist ideas elsewhere.”

    My Response:
    Sir it is not “racist” to believe history. There are many people who would oppose Ethno-nationalism whether Christians or non-Christians alike that would agree with me that we were in fact founded on ethno-nationalism and that it was one of the original sins of the founders as slavery was.

    You said “If the argument is that these guys were close enough to the founding that they would have founding principles in mind, then ok. We agree.” Then we agree – if they were close enough to the founders then they had they principles as the founders.

    And yes I am well aware of the debate over slavery in the Constitutional conventions. But you do realize that the debate over slavery and the debate over ethno-nationalism were two different things? There really was little to no debate on the subject of ethno-nationalism – it was slavery that divided the founders. For instance many early Americans who believed slavery was wrong formed societies to liberate and send freed slaves back to Africa where they formed the colony of Liberia which later became the nation of Liberia. You are aware sir that there is much documentation of Abraham Lincoln while being adamant against slavery he was equally adamant against keeping the slaves here once freed. He only gave up his plans for relocating the freed slaves back to Africa when he could not get support in congress and in elsewhere to do so.

    Again it is not “racist” to be historically accurate. We can agree or disagree with what our founders believed on a host of issues whether it was ethno-nationalism or equality or womans rights and you go down the list but we cannot change history sir.

    Bill Onesty’s Response:

    “Sir, it is racist to impose your sensibilities on the men who founded this country. That many people would agree with you is of no interest to me. It is no more persuasive than if Hitler told me that many people agreed with him! Of course they did. And they were also wrong.

    As to your repatriation argument, why would it not have made sense to these men who opposed slavery to look upon slaves as kidnapped human beings who would prefer to go back home?

    Your argument would have weight if the Declaration of Independence said “All white men are created equal” or if the Constitution mentioned color or race at all.

    Your kind of historical revisionism is detestable. You are trying to attribute motivations to the founders that they did not have in order to diminish their ideals. I do not accept your analysis, and I do not accept your protestation over historical accuracy.”

    My Response:
    Bill Onesty, I am not imposing my sensibilities on the founders. The sensibilities of the founders are clearly seen by the laws they passed as well as the letters they wrote. When we study the founders we cannot just look at the Constitution but we must look at their writings from the conventions, their private letters before and after the Constitution was ratified and the laws they passed immediately after ratifying the Constitution.

    And you completely misunderstood my statement about people agreeing me. I am talking about arguments about what actually occurred in history – not arguments over the morality what occurred.

    I see you need to take the typical leftist response and throw Hitler in there for good measure. For the record “my sensibilities” are that the founders who agreed with slavery were wrong and also even the founders who disagreed with slavery but felt Africans were lesser beings that whites were wrong. Oh I bet your head is spinning now since you thought you could box me in.

    It is intellectual laziness and dishonesty to throw out “racist” and “hitler” every time someone has a different view than you on how to handle race relations within nations.

    Your Statement:
    “Your kind of historical revisionism is detestable. You are trying to attribute motivations to the founders that they did not have in order to diminish their ideals.”

    Are you kidding? I almost fell out of my chair when you said that. It is liberal multiculturalists today who are the ones who impose historical revisionism on the Constitution and other parts of our founding. I have no wish to diminish their ideals – only to present them accurately. I love our founder despite their flaws in regard to slavery and their derogatory views toward Africans and Native Americans.

    Bill Onesty’s Response:

    “If you love the founders, quit calling them racists. They were not. They thought racism and slavery were detestable for the most part. There were some who did not but the Constitution proves the rightness of their intentions. You cannot argue with the time bomb for slavery they put in place.

    Good. Call me a leftist. And yes, discount the appeal to hitler. I thought you might object to that comparison. But note I did not call you hitler, or compare your beliefs to hitler. I actually thought you and I would be in agreement about him and his detestable beliefs.

    I think many of those men, while hating slavery and believing these men with black skin were indeed men, they were in some confusion about how to deal with the terrible legacy of having brought them here, kidnapped from homeland and family.

    But they were not white supremacists. Quite the contrary. And you will never get my agreement on your hypothesis.”

    My Response:
    Bill, you are actually wrong in the reasons that were proposed for repatriation. Let me give you two examples. One from Thomas Jefferson and the other from Abraham Lincoln.

    Thomas Jefferson – one of the men who helped write the declaration of independence and the phrase “all men are created equal” made this famous quote in regard to slavery:

    “I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. the cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me a second thought, if, in that way, a general an could be effected: and, gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. but, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”


    What he was saying is he was searching for a way to safely end slavery. He felt if we just freed the slaves here in America they would eventually overrun whites in America – that is what he was talking about with “self-preservation”.

    Abraham Lincoln said this to a group of Black leaders whom he was trying convince to support his idea of moving freed slaves back to Africa:

    “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.”


    There are actually several other times Abraham Lincoln mentioned this before and during the Civil War. He made it clear he was against slavery but not for the equal inclusion of Blacks as citizens of America.

    So do you still maintain I am imposing racist views on these men?

    Again I admire both these men even if I disagree with them in some areas. I am not calling for their monuments to ripped down as so many today are doing.

    My Statement:
    Bill for the record we are in complete agreement that Hitler’s beliefs and actions in regard to race being detestable. It is kind of sad that we have to even say that when having any conversation about race.

    As to your refusal to accept the white supremacist views of the founding fathers I leave with this quote from Thomas Jefferson – the same man who coined the Declaration of Independence phrase “all men are created equal” said:

    “In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. It would be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation.”


    If saying blacks were inferior to whites in their reasoning abilities and in their ability to imagine were “dull, tasteless and anomalous” is not the very essence of white supremacy I don’t know what is.

    Again I would agree with you that he was wrong in his theories about blacks in what he said. We know from American history that Blacks later became some of our greatest thinkers(e.g. Frederick Douglass) and some of our greatest artists(both in music and other forms of art).

    Now I would distinguish the white supremacist views of our founders like Thomas Jefferson from Hitler’s racial views. Hitler literally wanted to wipe out other races he thought were inferior. Many of the founders while holding white supremacist views felt sorry for blacks and did not mean to eradicate them while some felt that God naturally put whites over blacks(which was also not supported by the Bible).

    My Statement:
    Bill, Honestly I am very glad you came on here with your concerns and your love for the founding fathers because it let me expand on some things I was not able to mention in the article because it was so long and I had to cut some things out.

    We share a love for the founding fathers and we agree that had many great ideals worth fighting for. With that said I wanted to address this statement from you:

    “If you love the founders, quit calling them racists. They were not. They thought racism and slavery were detestable for the most part.”

    We cannot bury the truth of founders anymore than we can our fathers or ancestors. They did and thought some things we know were wrong.

    It is completely accurate to say the founding fathers and later great Presidents like Abraham Lincoln were racists. There own words confirm it.

    But this is a teachable moment about people being racists. Not all racists are the same in what they believe. Some racists hate other races and even want to kill them(e.g. KKK, Neo-Nazis and Hitler and his crew). Some racists may not want to kill other races but they still have a deep seeded hatred for them. Some racists don’t hate other races at all – but they think their race is superior and God has given them dominion over other races. Still other racists don’t hate other races or even believe they have the right to rule over them – they just think their race is superior to others but they don’t want to mistreat other races because of it – in fact they may even feel sorry for races they feel are inferior.

    I believe this is the reason many who love this nation’s founding are afraid to call the founders racist – because in our current culture to be called a racist is to be called a monster of the highest magnitude. There is no greater crime in our culture than to be called a racist. So to call the founders racists would be to call them monsters and comparable to Hitler but we know that comparison is not right.

    It is accurate to say many of the founders found slavery to be a problem at the least and immoral at most. But you cannot equate someone having racist views with them supporting slavery. Many of the founders opposed slavery but thought whites were superior to blacks(the very definition of a racist).

    In other words – all those who supported slavery were racists, but not all racists supported slavery. That is distinction that many modern Americans miss.

    So it is historically historically accurate to say many of the founders opposed slavery but it is not historically accurate to say most of them were not racist when in fact they were.

    One thing I would add to this that I did not say to Bill but will add here:

    Even if someone believes that self-segregation is moral and acceptable as I do and believes it is not wrong to limit immigration and citizenship by ethnicity(ethno-nationalism) we will be called a racist. Because racism is defined either as hatred of people of different races, believing one’s race is superior to other races, or governments or individuals can make choices based on race or ethnicity. So while I reject racial hatred and white supremacy if I choose to live in mostly white neighborhoods even though I don’t hate black people I am still called a racist. If I believe the government can limit immigration based on ethnic background then I am called a racist. If I believe the government should not force races to integrate through housing schemes and busing schemes then I am called a racist.

  5. See, even with facts people just cannot see fit to change their reality. In this guys mind what your saying simply cannot be true, even WITH PROOF! This tends to be the problem with a lot of people, as I am sure you already know given the subject matter of your blog. You can show people scripture that proves your point, but despite that they will not accept it. Not because you cannot prove it is true, but because they cannot change the reality they know in order to accommodate a new reality that includes things they have been trained to believe are sinful.

    Not much we can do about it, I guess. Most people don’t want to discuss facts but rather they want to argue. I have learned to forgo talking with most people about such things and instead wait for someone who is genuinely asking questions. They tend to be more receptive rather than combative.

  6. SnapperTrx,

    I agree people don’t like having their preconceived notions challenged. For instance if you tell most people in the founders motto “E Pluribus Unum” or “out of many one” does not refer to multiracialism and multiculturalism but to the 13 English colonies joining together as one nation they won’t believe you. Even in the face of facts they will not believe you.

    If you tell them America was not called “the melting pot” until the early 20th century and the founders had no such intentions they will not believe you. You can show them proof all day long – they will not believe you.

    The only reason I engaged this guy was because there were some things I had to cut out of the article and I was able to put them in the comment to him to further clarify things. Otherwise I don’t waste my time with such people.

  7. Tamara, what you have said is great!: “From what I gather here I assume this has less to do with actual race but more so with the fact that mixing cultures brings about diluting the Christian culture that already exists. Kind of like 2 Corinthians 6:14 says.”
    “Be you not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness?” II Corinthians 6:14
    You are right that in the name of false equality now we have to serve darkness, supposedly because “dark is as good as light”. (maybe we will even see a ban on sales of torches haha) and “each and every colour and shade is equal”. Well, tell this to the fashion designer.

  8. It extends beyond Christian faith, but its pretty common knowledge that the majority of people like to live around people of like color and culture. When governments or others force feed those who are not like them and whos culture is radically different into a society it causes problems.

    Lets say Bill Smith lives in a nice, quiet suburban neighborhood. Most of the neighborhood is white, but there’s a black family down the road who is nice enough. The dad works a job similar to Bill’s and they are clean, love America and though they do some things differently than Bill is familiar with, he likes them and gets along with them. Another Asian family is on the other side of the road, but they too are clean, drive decent vehicles, keep their yard clean – nothing that Bill himself isn’t already doing or trying to do. He likes them and they come over for dinner every so often.

    This is a natural integration of peoples of different colors, cultures and creeds. Sure there’s differences between the three families, but they have all pretty much integrated into being American families and their commonality makes them accept each other despite their skin colors and cultural differences.

    Now lets say the local government informs the everyone that they are building low income housing in the neighborhood and they will be filling it with Sudanese refugees. Differences in income mean the neighborhood will now see the presence of a lot of old, beater cars and probably more junk. The differences in culture mean that there will be people in the neighborhood who have no idea what being an American means, and possibly have no idea how things like toilets, trash collection and other amenities work, simply because they have no idea such a thing exists! The dumping of several dozen black people into the neighborhood is also unsettling not because Bill is racist, but because its too much too fast and he will feel like he is being overrun. Likely the other families will feel the same, black or not.

    Racism exists, and it always will because people are people. There will always be people who hate others because of their skin color. However, culture shock is real, and when a man feels like his home and his city and his country is being overrun so that his culture is being wiped out, there will be problems, and that is much of what we see today. The government brings in ‘refugees’ from foreign countries and forcibly integrates them into established societies which creates a clash of cultures. However, even if they didn’t inject them into an established society and put them into their own space they would simply be creating pockets of societies that haven’t integrated into American culture. We see this happening in Europe where pockets of cities don’t allow law enforcement to go in and do their jobs because they don’t follow the same laws as the land they are in!

    Its a dangerous game and I don’t know if its being played this way for votes or for the establishment of a one-world government (which seems likely given the prophecies of the bible), but it is causing a lot of issues and will one day come to a full boil.

  9. Tamara,

    Your Statement:
    “From what I gather here I assume this has less to do with actual race but more so with the fact that mixing cultures brings about diluting the Christian culture that already exists.”

    Well it actually has to do with mixing cultures AND mixing races. The reason is this. It is built into human nature for us to cluster both by culture and by race. These are two separate factors. For instance – Englishmen, Germans and Frenchmen would all cluster by their cultures even though they have the same racial characteristics.

    However there is another natural factor in human nature. When a minority culture comes to a nation in most cases they will submit to and assimilate to dominant majority culture. The Caucasians of British decent where the dominant culture here when the country was founded. So the minority of Germans, French and other nationalities that were here assimilated to and submitted to the dominant American British culture. When a large wave of German immigrants and the Irish Immigrants came in the 19th and early 20th centuries again they eventually assimilated to and submitted to the dominant American British culture.

    But Blacks and Asians and other groups that did not share the common northern European ancestry of these groups did not assimilate in the same way. It is true that it can be argued that they were not allowed to assimilate and integrate because the American British culture would not allow them to. Some have tried to say Africans were not allowed to assimilate only because formerly they were slaves and that may be partially true. But even if the Africans had never been brought here as slaves – even if they came as free men the way the Germans and Irish did the result would have been the same simply because they did not share common racial heredity with the dominant British American Caucasian ethnic group here in America.

    Over time the immigrants from Northern European countries would seemly integrate when their children who were born and raised in America would intermarry. That is why even though my surname is of English descent, I also have German, German Jew, Scottish and Polish ancestors. Why did my ancestors so easily marry? Because they were of the same Northern European racial heredity. So just as the ethnic group in Britain was once formed from intermarriage between the Angles and Saxons(who came from Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands) who then intermarried with the Normans who invaded from France to form a new Caucasian group so to Northern European immigrants to America did the same thing here and created a new Caucasian ethnic group we call “whites” but more accurately would be called “Caucasian Americans” if we are to use the modern terminology consistent with “African Americans” and “Asian Americans“.

    You cannot stop racial clustering even after generations of different races living the same country as they have here in America. One of the things you need to realize is that human beings have a natural built in desire to see their ethnicity continue. It is completely unnatural for any Caucasian American to want to see the numbers of his own ethnicity diminish in this country the same as it would be for an African American or Asian American to see his numbers diminish in this country.

    It is the same as a parent wanting their children to out live them and see their children and grand children and know their family will go on. It is a core instinct of humanity. Now as I said in a previous post – I do believe that God made some people as natural “self-integrators” that these people actually want to self-integrate with other races. They want to intermarry or live among other ethnic groups than their own. These are the people who help us form bridges for diplomacy with other nations and for Christians they are our missionaries and we need such people.

    My point though is this. You can mix those of similar ethnic background(as the early northern European immigrants were) and as long as the immigrants submit to and assimilate to the dominate ethnic culture as they did you won’t have issues. But since those of very different ethnic backgrounds will naturally cluster and not be fully accepted and integrated into the dominant culture you will have problems arise.

    The humanist and secularist world will try and solve this racial clustering problem with equality movements. Eventually those forced equality movements will lead to moral relativism. So here is the progression of what happened in America:

    1. The Declaration of Independence said “all men are created equal” therefore white men and black men should all have equal rights.

    2. Most people do not know that Feminists in the mid 19th century came directly out of the abolitionist movement. The abolitionists were divided into two camps – those who believed in freeing the slaves and repatriating the freed slaves to Africa and those who believed in letting them stay in America and become equal citizens with Whites. The early feminist movements were formed from abolitionists who argued – “if we are going to make black men equal with white men – then why should white women and black women not be equal with the men.” This lead to woman’s suffrage movement which result in women being given the right to vote and full equality with men in the 20th century.

    3. Also in the 1940’s and 50’s the federal government began attempts at forced integration between blacks and whites with federal housing projects being build directly in the middle of white neighborhoods and the famous Brown vs Board of Education forced integrated schools. From these periods the new Civil Rights legislation of the 1960’s came which for the first time in American history took away private property rights and the right of association in an effort to force integration or else someone could loose their property through law suits.

    4. Then came the question of equality for all immigrants. Since all men are created equal it was argued in the 1960s – then we should have not ethnic quotas on immigration so they were removed.

    5. Then came equality of religions – why should Islam not be treated equally with Christianity in America? After all America has no established religion(forgetting the culture of America was Christian).

    6. Now under the guise of equality Satanists are suing to have their rights recognized.

    7. In recent years Homosexuals and Transgenders are now using the equality arguments and methods of the Civil Rights era to force integration and acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism on the American culture.

    So where did it all begin? It began with that first question way back in the early 19th century when they asked “If all men are created equal as the declaration of Independence states – then why should a Black man not have equal rights with a White man in America?” If back then they had answered “Yes Black men are created equal to White men but having them stay in this country will lead to racial strife and an equality movement which will eventually make the country into a secular humanist, multiracial, multicultural nation that rejects God and mandates the acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism therefore we cannot do this thing” then the American of George Washington may have survived.

  10. God did separate the people at Babel, but the ultimate question is why. It starts out saying these people were moving eastward (i.e. away from God). Why did they build? The Word says they built to make a name for themselves (in other words, not to Glorify God as they were created to do). At the same time as if the first were not bad not enough, they had the audacity to seek equality with God by building a tower to the heavens. Note that this is the same thing the enemy got into trouble with. It always seems to come down to this, the created seeking equality with God. It is no surprise that the enemy attacks humans with the concept of equality, everyone wanting to be equal with everyone else, with the result being chaos and destruction.

    I do think we need to be very careful with what we extract from this text. Some of what is extracted may be the heart of God, and some of what is extracted may be human sinfulness, thinking, and misunderstanding entering the equation. I think one thing that is key is:

    The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”.

    So God took action to separate them and change their language so they could not work together efficiently. He took a divide and conquer approach to the sin in this situation. Here is where I said we need to be careful what we take from this. People can start pointing the fingers and say God did this and God did that, which is usually followed up “the reason why is” which can go off the rails of His truth very quickly. To someone who doesn’t understand the sin in the first part of these verses, God’s actions and this event will make no sense.

    I think we can safely extract that each of these groups had skills that complemented each others’ and that a physical separation and a language barrier would impede those skills. In essence God was helping them by taking them back a notch to assist them in turning from sin. If Babel was Glorifying God and doing right, would they have been separated? I would say no. We have to see that the separation and confusion was God who loves us correcting us from the destruction we were going down.

    Where we get into trouble is this idea of, well, we shouldn’t undo what God Himself did. We are not always fully privy to what God does, but in this case, it is a very safe bet that we have some good reasons why He did what He did at Babel. Here is my tag line for this post:

    *** He did not separate these people for their benefit, or because they find it to be more comfortable around their own race. He separated them because of their sin. ***

    I’m the first to say that I think way too much is made of race, and that it only serves the enemy. Look at how it plays out every time.

    To contrast that, there is only one answer, and it is Jesus. Two people who love Jesus and truly serve Him will respect each other and work together for the Kingdom no matter what their race is.

    Put plainly, I’d much rather have a bunch of Jesus loving servants as my neighbors no matter what race they come from. Those are my brothers and sisters and He is my King.

    We may want what feels comfortable, but in the big scheme of things, what makes me comfortable isn’t really all that important.

    I know bgr that your argument is along the lines of there is nothing really wrong with wanting to be around people of your own kind, and I don’t have a problem with that except to say that if someone truly loves Jesus, and truly wishes to serve Him, and truly serve His Kingdom, and truly bring Him Glory, and are truly filled with the Holy Spirit – who knows where He may call you to go, or with whom He may put you to serve. Perhaps God will bring His children together to work efficiently for His Kingdom when they are obedience to Him and not serving themselves. I think that is certainly His style.

  11. Anm1,

    Your Statement:

    “God did separate the people at Babel, but the ultimate question is why.”

    I agree with you that the big question is why did God do this. And I answered this in the post. I agree with you that part of the reason God scattered the people at Babel was because of their sin against him. They wanted to make a name for themselves, instead of a name for God.

    I agree with you that one of the key phrases was when God said nothing would be impossible for them when they stayed together and worked together and that he was in one sense using a divide and conquer approach. But you miss a key phrase before that statement. The people at Babel said this:

    “And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth

    Genesis 11:4 (KJV)

    The key phrase is “lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth”. That statement makes your theory that “If Babel was Glorifying God and doing right, would they have been separated? I would say no.” to be false. They knew God’s command as given to Noah:

    “And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.”
    Genesis 9:7 (KJV)

    Some translations say to “fill the earth” and other commentators have mention this means literally to spread across the earth. God wanted Noah’s descendants to scatter across the earth but they went directly against his command.

    You can see it in their words “lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” – that is why they built the tower and that is exactly why God scattered them. He did both force their obedience to his command that they should fill the earth and also to keep sin from condensing within humanity.

    As far as God’s statement about nothing being impossible for them – this was far more than about technical achievements man could do. This was a bout the evil sinful ideas man could dream up when man was united and not in obedience to God.

    Your Statement:

    “Where we get into trouble is this idea of, well, we shouldn’t undo what God Himself did. We are not always fully privy to what God does, but in this case, it is a very safe bet that we have some good reasons why He did what He did at Babel. Here is my tag line for this post:

    *** He did not separate these people for their benefit, or because they find it to be more comfortable around their own race. He separated them because of their sin. ***”

    I could not disagree with this statement more:
    “Where we get into trouble is this idea of, well, we shouldn’t undo what God Himself did”

    Where we actually get into trouble is when we question what God has done and seek to undo it. That is what society has been doing since Babel – slowly but surely working to undo what God has done. And in this last century or so the world has leaped farther than ever by uniting as Babel did against God. That is why we find the institution of marriage all but destroyed and homosexuality, atheism and a host of other wicked practices and ideologies praised.

    Let me just say this – I fully accept that God can change things he has done. He did that when Christ came and died on the cross ushering in the new covenant of Grace. He did away with the sacrificial and ceremonial systems. He changed the dietary laws took away the sabbath laws.

    God could have said:

    “I am rescinding my Babel policy – what I scattered at Babel I want to reunite. I want the world to drop the concept of nations and come together as one world order and I want the Church to promote this concept.”

    But God did not say this – ever.

    The church is a spiritual entity – that is why there is no place for racial segregation in the local Church. That is why we support world wide missions efforts which would entail people of different races, ethnic groups and nations working together to bring the Gospel to all corners of the earth. Racial diversity may come as an effect of working together for the cause of Christ – but it should never be our primary focus and goal and that is where so many churches are wrong today. Our primary purpose as the believers in the Church is to preach Christ and the Gospel – not racial diversity and social justice.

    Christ one day will in fact come and bring the world together under his kingdom. He will rule with a rod of iron on this old earth before God replaces this world with a new heaven and new earth but before he does that we have no right to seek to politically undo what God did at Babel.

    Also as to this part of your statement “He did not separate these people for their benefit, or because they find it to be more comfortable around their own race”:

    Has it occurred to you that before God separated the people at Babel the people were in fact comfortable and fine integrating and living together as various races and ethnic groups? God did not separate the people to make them more comfortable living and working together as different races and ethnic groups but in fact to make them LESS comfortable working together. Don’t you see that?

    Your Statement:

    “I’m the first to say that I think way too much is made of race, and that it only serves the enemy. Look at how it plays out every time.”

    So God’s policy of seperating the world by races and ethnic groups “ethnos” nations only serves the enemy? I think not. I would agree that sin can corrupt our natural fondness for our own kindred into racial pride, hatred and even sometimes genocide. No debate with you there. But you are flat wrong from a historical perspectice that this is the way it plays out “every time”. There have been many nations that did not commit genocide against others or engage in hateful acts against others simply because of their race. Some have, some have not.

    But what has been the results of the new Babel policy of America and the rest of western civilization (one of multi-racism and multiculturalism and anti-nationalism)?

    Wickedness the world could not imagine. The institution of marriage in shambles. Populations in western nations declining because children are seen more as burden than a gift from God. God’s first command to be fruitful and multiply spat on by the west. Women leading men in nations and businesses, children telling their parents what to do. 50 million children slaughtered each year in abortions. People having casual sex as if we are not different than animals.

    And remember – the Scriptures clearly tell us God created the concept of nations:

    “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” Acts 17:26 (KJV)

    Let us not forget that God created three institutions among men:

    1. The institution of Marriage (and by extension the family)
    2. The institution of Nations
    3. The institution of the Church which crosses the boundaries of family

    Can you honestly say any of these institutions has been made stronger by the new western Babel policy? The answer is no.

    All three of these institutions have been made weaker and in reference to the topic of this post God’s institutions of nations has been being eroded just as badly as his institution of marriage. This is why nations are in an uproar. The multi-culturalism and multi-racialism of the last century has brought us to point of strife across these nations. It is the job of a nation to protect its ethnic majority through immigration controls and other controls. It is the job of a nation to protect its culture from outside interference. It is the job of a nation to protect its language and its boundaries. None of these pillars of what makes a nation have been defended and that is why we have the Muslim hoards at our doorstep.

  12. Enjoyed the post, very thorough and very logical and very biblical. Well done, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    I’m somewhat surprised that you don’t take the step of recognising that blacks have lower IQs than whites and Asians, as mentioned by Jefferson (?) in the comments. Science has shown this to be true.

    I have a black Moroccan friend. When we chat about the world he recognises that Europeans are superior to Africans and Arabs. He hates doing business with his own kind as they are untrustworthy and low intellect. But he wouldn’t want to live with Europans, nor with Algerians.

    Very clear God knew what He was doing, and where to plant His seed so it spread worldwide. It was Europeans that did that.

  13. glosoli,

    Your Statement:

    “I’m somewhat surprised that you don’t take the step of recognising that blacks have lower IQs than whites and Asians, as mentioned by Jefferson (?) in the comments. Science has shown this to be true.”

    The reason I did not address the issue of possible IQ differences between various races and ethnicities is because I believe that is a separate discussion and it would have distracted from the main point I was trying to make. I believe the strongest discussion on race is the one dealing with racial preferences rather than differences between races on intellect and ability. It is very easy to prove that races naturally cluster in whatever area of the world they are and that nations for the history of the world have always had a dominant majority race in each country whether that was blacks in African nations, Asians in Asian nations or Caucasians in Europe and western Asia.

    In this area of IQ, first we must acknowledge there are different types of intelligence and talent. Certainly there is the type of intelligence and talent which as to do with science and engineering. That there is an intelligence and talent which has to do with the arts(painting, music, story telling, acting). Then there is the intelligence that has to do with governing and philosophy. And finally there is an intelligence and talent dealing with business.

    For instance there are men that by most every measure would not be considered “intelligent” or “creative” yet they manage to start a small business and cause it to thrive into a large business.

    I believe it can be demonstrated that amongest every racial and ethnic group of mankind there are people with all these different types of intelligence that I have just mentioned. Specifically, regarding the African race, it can be easily demonstrated that there are Africans who possess these various types of intelligence just as Caucasians from Europe or West Asia do and as Asians from East Asia do.

    So it is easy to demonstrate that Jefferson’s opinion on this subject regarding the Africans was not right. However – and this is the BIG however. Just because these different types of intelligent people occur amongest every race and ethinicity does not mean they occur at the same RATE amongest each race and ethinicity.

    That is a totally different discussion. Whether it be intelligence and talents between genders or races it is foolish and illogical to assume that intelligence and talents must occur at EQUAL rates amongest the racial or gender populations.

    No two individual human beings are exactly equal in their intelligence and talents so why would we assume two larger populations of human beings must be equal in their intelligence and talents?

    As far as races go – do you know which ethinicity achieves the highest level degrees and Nobel prizes in relation to their population? It is the Jewish people. God has bless them with talent and ability more than any other race. It is ironic how Hitler thought they were beneath him – when truly from an intelligence and creativity prespective they were above his people.

    But this brings us to another point regarding Hitler and those who came before him in America in regard to Eugenics. It is wicked and utterly evil for one race or ethinicity to mistreat or try and wipe out another ethnicity or race simply because they believe that race or ethnicity is intellectually or otherwise inferior.

    I think each race and ethnicity of men deals with different strengths and weaknesses – The Europeans have their strengths and weaknesses, the West Asians have their strengths and weaknesses, the East Asians have their strengths and weaknesses and yes the Africans have their strengths and weaknesses. To deny this fact or simply blame all differences of frequencies of types of intelligence or rates of crime and corruption on social and economic factors rather than acknowledging that genetics do play a role in these things is to deny reality in pursuit of a fantasy.

    In others words – the “blank slate” theory is an easily provable false ideology. Yes social and economic conditions do play a role the cognitive development of individuals as well as ethincities, races and nations but so do genetics.

  14. Anonymous,

    Yes it sad that White Americans are not allowed to proud of their ethnic heritage. It is OK for African Americans to be proud of their African heritage, Asian American’s to be proud of their Asian heritage, or even American Indians to proud of their ethnic heritage. But if you are proud of your white American heritage that is wrong. First they will argue that “White” is a made up ethnic group. Well it is not anymore than Blacks are a made up ethnic group. Remember Blacks here in America are mixture of many African nations just as Whites are a mixture of many European nations.

    The fact is Caucasian groups have formed different ethnicities over thousands of years. The Whites of the British Isles were a mixture of many Northern european groups that came to the British Isles over many centuries to form their own new Caucasian ethnicities. This is no different than many primarily northern european caucasian groups coming together here in America to for a new Caucasian ethnicity.

    And no we do not have to apologize for the prefering our own race or ethincity in dating, marriage, where we attend church or where we live. This is basic human freedom of association and for too long we have allowed this basic human freedom to be trampled upon. We have allowed minority groups to make us feel bad for being the majority or preferring our own.

    Now does this excuse all the behavior of whites toward minorities in the past? Of course not. There are many hateful things that whites did minorities here that I would never excuse and we all should rightly condemn. But racial preference is not one of those things we should condemn.

    And this racial cold war that is playing out will never end unless we accept the way God made us as human beings. Until we fully embrace that racial preference is very different than racial hatred the racial cold war will not end. Also in whatever nation people live – the majority racial and ethnic group must treat the minorities groups in a humane way but at the same time the minority ethnic groups must respect that they are the minority and not the majority and a minority group will never be treated exactly the same as the majority group. It never happens unless the minority group in some way imposes an artificial power over the majority(like apartheid in South Africa).

  15. So is it wrong to think that God might prefer for you to marry your own kind, other than in regards to religion?

Comments are closed.