Brian wrote:

“It also is not a coincidence that France, the first nationalist country, was the first country to behead their royalty in the name of Democracy. “

Actually, it was England who was the first in beheading their king. It was Charles  I who was beheaded by Oliver Cromwell and his coalition of Levellers and others in their modern republican movement. They were proud  to call themselves “Talmudic Commonwealthsmen” because they got their teaching from the Midrash which taught that Monarchy is idolatry.
Prof. Eric Nelson writes:

”The English pamphleteers who took up the position were very much aware of its provenance and enthusiastically endorsed what one of the called the tradition of the “Talmudic commonweathmen”. In doing so, they transformed the politics of the modern world” (The Hebrew Republic, pg 26)

Oliver Cromwell and the Radical Protestant intellectual wing sought to create a Hebrew Republic in England. This was the backdrop to the English Civil Wars. The American Revolution is a carry over of this Presbyterian War. And then it was the Hebrew republican style government that is the American government, that instigated and influenced the French Revolution. Thomas Paine, the intellectual goad of the American Revolution and worked in the French Revolution, even used the phrase “Monarchy is Idolatry” in the first three paragraphs of his pamphlet Common Sense.
----------------------
On the subject of nations, let me repeat: LXX Psalm 85:9, “…and all the nations whom thou hast created”. God created all  the nations.
Jesus Christ, the Logos, commanded the apostles to go “to the nations”. Now Jesus did not command “go to mankind” (anthropoi).  Wouldn’t Jesus have known better, or was He just stupid and not enlightened as the modern Roman Catholic Church? Jesus is pretty clear on the Natural Order.
In the book of Revelation, chap 15:4, the command is “All nations shall come and worship thee….” Still the Holy Spirit uses the term “nation” and NOT the word humanity, or mankind.
And in the Book of Revelation, St. John the Apostle has a vision of heaven. What does he see? First he says there is NO temple. There is NO Church in heaven!  But what takes its place is the Lamb Himself. And then, Chap 21:24, “By the light shall the nations walk; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it. …(26) they shall bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations.” St. John sees NATIONS in heaven!  The Natural Order. The Natural Law is eternal and unchanging and the Natural Law reconstitutes Christendom with its Kings and Nations. Remember the Latin for Nation is “One birth”. The characteristic of a nation, of an ethnos is homogeneity.
So we see that there is NO temple in heaven, meaning the Church is not there. The Church Triumphant  is split into the Nations just as Jesus said in the Gospel. Go to the Nations, and the saved within them will be reconstituted into their National groupings in heaven.

The real, original Natural Law is eternal and unchanging and as it formed the cosmos, it also works in heaven and in the new rejuvenated cosmos. The real, original Natural Law operates all things, "steering all things from within" (Heraclitus). I see nationalism as a preservative. Nationalism preserves its particular character, homogeneity and culture from dissolution.
 
 

The OP is “Is Christianity incompatible with nationalism?” Well, that is very similar to the Marxist phrase “"Nationalism and Marxism are incompatible." (from Marxist.org)”. The other title of Marxism is International socialism. So for a Christian to even ask that question, means that, that Christian makes common cause with Marxism, with Freemasonry and International Socialism. If Nationalism is incompatible with Marxism and If Nationalism is Incompatible with Christianity, then they have the same goals. Then the question is, Is Christianity, Marxism? If not, what is the difference between the teachings of Marxism on nationalism and the teachings of Christianity on Nationalism?
 

Greg wrote:

“I think you'll find that the thesis that all identities other than Christian identity are contingent and secondary to be a normative thesis. …identities depend on identification: which parts of me do I identify with? Identifying is elective. Sex is fixed. I actually don't think gender identity is; someone can change his gender identity simply when he identifies with a different gender than he used to. . ..So all identities are contingent in the sense that one can disavow them. This includes national identity. I can be alienated from my nation and decide not my heritage as important. In some cases this might be very difficult psychologically, and perhaps impossible given that one has no motivation to do so, as for instance I have no motivation to identify with a different gender than I do. But this is not relevant to the normative question of whether one should make national identity more important in one's life than one's divine sonship.) {post # 6}

 What is the first thing created by the baby in the womb right after fertilization?

The fetus’s first identity is that of a member of a family. And that family is the basic cell of the natio. The first identity of the baby is his racial identity. As the fetus develops, the sexual identity comes second.

If as Greg says that “sex is fixed”, then the racial identity is fixed. Because both are created in the womb before the baby is born. We are born “parts of a whole” which one’s natio is the “whole”. We are all sons of our particular Patriarch. One’s racial identity is fixed just like one’s sexual identity is fixed at birth. They are part of our core identities. It is by blood. Do not Socrates and Plato pick up on agrarian sayings all the time. What is one saying “Blood is thicker than water” and “Birds of a feather flock together”. These sayings, grounded in commonsense, point to fundamental truths. (Philosophy is not a pure academic exercise; it is wisdom that is an intuition. and agrarian sayings, peasant sayings are part of this intuition.) 

About “gender” identity and the fluid identities. As to “gender” category, that is due solely to Marxist educational/ideological propaganda hatched in the 60s. This was not developed by orthodox Christians. Second, we don’t base laws and principles on flukes. Nature does produce genetic abnormalities, either flaws in the hormones, flaws in physical development and even flaws on the soul. Mankind is afflicted with original sin which is a rebellious spirit. Modern science does not take that into account but Christians must in order to understand reality. Man is constantly “kicking against the goads”. Exceptions don’t make the rule. Some of the arguments on fluidity are based on the rebellious condition of man. On his natural inclination to perfidy. 

If one does away with one’s national identity, then one creates a “rootless individual”. Is that what Christianity wants?  Rootlessness?  The atomized individual?  Is that the Will of God? Look at how many adoptees search for their roots?  Roots are important psychologically for a lot of people.

This is not an academic exercise, what is going around us and affecting us. How much of this argument is based on the Marxist subversion of our society?
 

Due to financial constraints, I am unable to purchase The Royalist Revolution nor can I find it online at Questia. I have read 

• Allen, Thomas B. Tories: Fighting for the King in America's First Civil War. 
• Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 

which back up in some sense Nelson's book. Anglican Churches were attacked in the American Revolution. It was essentially a war between the Presbyterians and the Anglicans. If the American Revolutionaries could have gotten their hands on King George, they would have killed him. There was a huge statue of an English king in one of the cities, the particulars right now escape me; they tore it down, melted it down and used the metal for munitions!  They tore the statue down out of pure hate. Hate was throughout the American Revolution. Huge amounts of  Loyalists with their families fled America. 
-------
The OP contends that Christianity is opposed to nationalism. If any one knew of the Greek War of Independence, the Christian Church played a significant role in it:

"The Greek Orthodox Church played a pivotal role in the preservation of national identity, the development of Greek society and the resurgence of Greek nationalism. (ref: http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/History/en/GreekWarOfIndependence.html)

The Greek Orthodox Church was indispensable in the survival of the Greek nation. Under Muslim occupation for over 400 years, the Greek Orthodox church kept their language alive and thru religious festivals kept the small scattered Greek communities alive with a particular Greek culture with dances and music. 

Almost all Pagan religions were tied to a particular natio. The set of Pagan gods were their war gods who defended and upheld their natio and developed a feedback loop into their culture. The same can be said for the True God of the Israelites. God was their war god who led them into battle and preserved their culture. All of the gods of the pagans and the Israelites where Nationalist gods. 

And we see the same paradigm of Christianity in the East from the Armenians in their country and in their Jerusalem quarter, to the Copts in Egypt. The church is there that preserves their culture and brings solidarity to their people under occupation. That is why the East has developed National Patriarchies, all separate and autonomous. 

See, this is what a philosopher does, he looks at the real world, at history; he looks at the totality of reality and in history to garner facts. Eastern Orthodox Christianity is tied to nations and their cultures. There is no dichotomy between Christianity and nationalism. It is a seamless whole at peace. This is a truly carryover from traditional cultures where religion and a national culture lived seamlessly. 

Much of the underpinnings to the Protestant Reformation was Nationalistic. The revolution of Hus was not so much against the Church, even though it was one, but it was a Czech revolt against encroaching German migration and takeover of his country. 

Nationalism is a powerful force, an instinct, drive that is throughout the world. The Church can not ignore that---nor should it fight against that!  How many good people are leaving the Church?  How many problems have been incurred in the West, because the Roman Catholic Church is encased in its unrighteous crusade of caesero-papism? Going down the internationalist path, is the death of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 

Clinias wrote:

If Christianity is incompatible with nations, then Christianity is incompatible with the Cosmos, and with Jesus Christ who formed the Cosmos. 

Nations are members of the Cosmos just like individuals are members of the society or of the nation. Christianity is incompatible with partiality to any particular nation, but quite compatible with the understanding that the individual body is subject to the cosmic [=world] order, while the soul must be subject to the spiritual order.

There's a hierarchy of nested priorities. The nation is a secondary or even tertiary thing in the overall system.

seigneur wrote:

Clinias wrote:

If Christianity is incompatible with nations, then Christianity is incompatible with the Cosmos, and with Jesus Christ who formed the Cosmos. 

 Christianity is incompatible with partiality to any particular nation, but quite compatible with the understanding that the individual body is subject to the cosmic order, while the soul must be subject to the spiritual order.

You are creating a false dichotomy. There is no "spiritual order". The Catholic Church has always taught the "Moral Order". And the Moral Order is God, Spirits (angels), Patrida (fatherland/nation/race), Family, Departed (forefathers of family/fatherland/nation/race). The Moral Order includes all in it, the spiritual and the natural realms. In one of the earlier posts, it linked to an article on First Things about identity, and using St. Paul's numerous identities. St. Paul is an Apostle.Apostles are professional missionaries. His stance is that of a missionary,---not a teaching on the Natural Order. We are all called to evangelize but there are special circumstances where a few are called to a special ministry of being a missionary. St. Paul is that. What St. Paul talks about is being a missionary. His special case is NOT a standard to be applied to all. The Context shows the truth. St. Paul's condition is different from all of our's condition. He was specially called to be an apostle. We are not apostles. It is wrong to apply St. Paul's missionary mission to the rest of us. 

True, orthodox, catholic Christianity is not incompatible to nation, to Nature, to the Natural Order. What has happened is that Gnosticism has infected Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy. 99.9% of Christianity is Gnostic. What makes modern Christianity incompatible with nationalism, hostile to Nature, is the inroads and values of Gnosticism. All of Christianity, today, has adopted Cultural Marxism; Eric Voeglin points out that not only was Puritainism gnostic but Marxism as well. If one looks at the provenance of Gnosticism, its roots are in Jewish culture--it is a Jewish meme. The Kabbalah is a Gnostic system and many Roman Catholics, such as St. Albert the Great were readers of the Kabbalah. The sophists, which Socrates and Plato fought against, were quasi gnostics. In that article at First Things, it mentions an author that points out that Liberalism is a form of Gnosticism; I have come to the same conclusion. Many Christians in all of its sects is liberal and hence gnostic. To make this "Spiritual Order" supercede the Natural Order, is only a ploy of Gnosticism. Truth does not contradict Truth. The Truth of the Spiritual Realm and the Truth of the Natural Order do not contradict each other, but are a seamless whole, like my body and soul are a seamless whole.