Men built the buildings, but God created the people in them. Why should God destroy his human creation, when He knows they will be judged after they die anyway? Other than the reason that they were destined to be destroyed? Since you say destroying racial differences is evil and hateful, is God also evil?
1. God sometimes judges on Earth, such as an example to others and other reasons, such as to stop them if they are getting out of hand.
2. If you argue if God can judge a city and destroy it, why not a race? I would argue that races being destroyed becasue other humans wanted to make with them is different then destroying city that has been judged. If God wanted a race to to be destroyed he'd probably use a plague or other natural disaster or or a genocidal war such as in teh slaughter of various tribes in the OT. If God wanted to judge and destroy a race by allowing it to be bred out, that is a possibility. But that would be God allowing something to happen asa punishment and not God himself destroying the races like God himself destroyed Sodom. But allowing something bad to ahppen as punishemt does not mean the person who performed the action is cleared of the guilt, such as if God wanted to punish a Mobster by allowing someone to murder him, the murderer would still be guilty of murder and would be judged too.
And I think you are confusing destiny and purpose. That many people are destined for Hell does not mean God created them to be sent to Hell. If a race car driver is destined to lose the race does that mean his purpose was to lose? Or was his purpose to win and he was destined to fail?
Then by this logic, God should destroy all of us because the Bible says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Yep, all mankind deserves to be destroyed. That's kind of why Jesus needed to save us.
So should a tall person not marry a short person? Should a fat person not marry a skinny person because they have a different bone structure? After all, God created the tall person's tallness, so it should be preserved too, right?
1. Size is more nutrition then genetics. You've heard the stories of short Orientals coming to the US and and then having large kids right? And height does not seem to be very racially distinct trait. By "bone structure" I meant things more like shape or whatever forensics people use to identify bones as belonging to people of a certain race. I know they can indenify the race by the skull but am not sure if they can by other bones. I can fiind lots of stuff on forensics being able to use bones to identify the reace, but nothing on whether they need the skull or not to do so. So it may be I was wrong that bone structure is a racial difference outside the skull.
2. race is identified by by groupings of traits such as the ones I listed, there is no single "race indentifier trait" although it is sometimes possible to know there is a race difference with a single trait, such as you know a person with really dark brown skin is not white, although you would not be able to identify a specific race based just on brown skin. And for these traits the races have ranges within they fall into, such as how a race can have a skin tone range. These ranges are what make it so that people of the same race can still have an individual look.
For instance, a white person with a Roman nose and one with a straight nose would technically have a diferent facial structure, but both are within the range to be considered white.
3. I think as far as the genetic component of height, it would be preserved in the race due to the Hardy-Weinberg Principle mentioned earlier. Similar to how a brown-eyed white person and a blonde haired white person person can mate as even though their traits are technically different' the traits fall within the range of their race and the genetics would be preserved accoring to the Hardy-Weinberg Principle.
Studies have also shown that Jewish people and Middle-eastern arabs have the same genetic line, even though they are considered different races.
If you are talking about Sephardic Jews, that is probably because they are the same race as the Arabs, and they just like pretending they aren't as a religious conceit.
Or they may be a different "race" if you use a narrower meaning of the word, as the Jews could have different familial lineages then the rest of the Arabs and still be a different "race" in the more narrow lineagal sense of the word. So this comes from an error of equivocation.
Or what do you mean by "same genetic line"? they have a common ancestor group somewhere or that DNA tests cannot tell the difference between them?
If you mean Ashkeni Jews, I won't believe it unless I see it. Unless you mean some common ancestor group way back.
Originally Posted by: Volos
I have been quite amused by the Christian response to Blackguard_. If Blackguard were to change his arguments form interracial marriage to same sex marriage Christians would be tripping over themselves to applaud and agree with him. The arguments he is using to defend discrimination against interracial marriage are identical to those used to defend discrimination against legal recognition of same sex marriage.
