Logic about same race marriage

[southernmissfan]

So, Kasey, do you consider yourself to be a white supremacist or racist? I'm just curious, because I often hear those type of people using identical arguments.

 

[The Seeker]

Kasey, you never answered my question:

Is ginger a race? Gingers have many distinguishing traits, light skin, green eyes (very common among gingers), heavy freckling, etc.

*dum de dum*

 

[Blackguard_]

However, the termss Adamite and Israelites are applicable in the sense that Adam and Eve were not the first humans on earth.

Adam and Eve were the first White people, the other races being earlier right? How does your view differ from CI?

 

[Kasey]

So, Kasey, do you consider yourself to a white supremacist or racist? I'm just curious, because I often hear those type of people using identical arguments.

No, I do not. I am for my own race and I am for the other races as well in the regards that they should stick to their own kind. There is nothing wrong about that at all. However, when concerning white supremacy, those people really need to grow up.

The Bible doesnt teach that you should hate other races just because they are not your own. THere is nothing for such a basis whatsoever.

 

[Kasey]

*dum de dum*

Ive never heard of "gingers". Nor have I been able to look them up on the net successfully. Do you have links to provide to help me out here?

 

[Kasey]

Adam and Eve were the first White people, the other races being earlier right? How does your view differ from CI?

Because for one, the CI movement does not keep the Fourth-Commandment Sabbath as it is supposed to kept from Friday-Twilight to Saturday Twilight. They mostly keep it from noon-to-noon from Friday to Saturday, which is completely absurd as the Hebrew specificallyh states that its twilight to twilight, or dusk to dusk.

In addition, they are mostly for human government, which is a complete contradictory notion as a Christian should be vieing for God's government, which Christ will establish when He returns and will rule by Law. In addition, they are mostly in Judaism and Roman Catholicism with a "identity" twist.

Thats how they are different as well as certain aspects here or there.

 

[praying]

Your ignoring Nehemiah 13:27. Its against God to marry "strange" or "non-relative" wives as in the Hebrew. Its not talking about cultures. The mixture of cultures comes after the mixing of the races.



If you actually study the Bible, you would know that Ruth is descended Shem just as Abrahman, Isaac and Jacob were. Ruth is descended from the Moabites, which were from Lot and His two daughters and Lot was from Shem just as Abraham was and because the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, this means that all of these people wre from a specific race of human beings.



First of all, the BIble is not Jewish - The Babylonian Talmud and The Kabbalah are Jewish and therefore, people who study and apply those two things to their llives are considered "jews". They will tell you this in their own books even.

Secondly, you should take a look at Isaiah 56:6. The Hebrew word for "stranger" there is the Hebrew word "nekar" and according to Strong's COncordance it means someone foreign, alien. Ruth, according to the context of the specific lineage of the Israelites from Shem, would be considered foriegn. However, she was still of that same race of people even though she was specifically apart of the Israelite lineage. Yet, according ot this passage, if she basically gave alliegiance to God, she would be considered as an Israelite.

Like I said earlier - it goes all the way back to the erroneous belief that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth and that they supposedly were the progeniters of mankind. Not so. If you like, I would gladly give the evidence for that as well.

Please show me where in the BIble it teaches Adam and Eve wer not the first people.

 

[Kasey]

Please show me where in the BIble it teaches Adam and Eve wer not the first people.

Alright.

Take a look at Genesis 1:26. THis is the first mentioning of God creating "man" in the BIble. Read on and take into account what God said. He said to let man have dominion over the fish, fowl, cattle and creeping thing. Essentially, the animals.

Continuing to verse 27 we see the Bible saying that God created Man. However, note this, it specifically states "in the image of God created ""he him"" , "male and female created ""he them"". There is no definate article here. Its a general, simultaneous context. Now, off the bat, yeah, there is not enough evidence to support such an assertion, but lets continue on.

In verse 28 it says that God blessed "them", both, together, at the same time, and told them specifically to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and to subdue it and have dominon over basically all the animal kingdom.

Now, in verse 29, this is good evidence as well. God specifically tells ""THEM"" that he has given them all the trees bearing fruit as meat as well as all the herbs. All of this is very important. Dont forget or leave out anything. Now, lets compare this to what we find in Genesis 2

In Genesis 2:7 we have God created "man". In this particular passage, it appears to be in direct support of Adam and Eve being the first people on earth as because of the Bible using no definate article. It just says "Man", not "the man". However, take a look at verse 8. It says "explicetly" that God put "the man" into a garden.

This is the first crucial piece of evidence. For one, there is no garden mentioned in Genesis 1. Nor is there specification concerning only one man as the definate article shows. Now, continue to verse 15 and it specifically states that God put "the man" into a garden to "dress and keep it". Those mentioned in Genesis 1 had nothing to do with a garden.

In addition, one should not overlook verse 16-17. God specifically told this man that he can eat of all the trees except one, the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Now, if Adam was the first human being, we have a contradiction here. In Genesis 1:29, God is speaking to "them" of Genesis 1:27 on how they can eat all the trees bearing fruit, but here, in Genesis 2:16-17, God commands this particular man not do so. Therefore, what is the logical conclusion? This is a completely diffeent account of creation when concerning human beings. Its a different story entirely.

Also, the last piece of evidence would be the verse after Genesis 2:16-17. Eve was created later, not in the simulatneous and general context of those created in Genesis 1:27. In addition, if Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, then how is it that Genesis 1:28 says that God blessed "them", together but Eve was clearly created later in Genesis 2 and not the same time as Adam?

Thus, you have the answer. Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, but they were the last. They were created last. They were given specific instructions that were completely different than those mentioned in Genesis 1:26-29.

IN addition, all of this shows and supports Nehemiah 13:3,27 and Ezra 10 as well as Leviticus 19:19 and the Law of the Stranger contained within the Bible. The is only way that the Bible could support what it states without it being a contradiciton. Adam and Eve were never the first people created upon the earth.

 

[The Seeker]

Ive never heard of "gingers". Nor have I been able to look them up on the net successfully. Do you have links to provide to help me out here?

Ginger hair. People with ginger hair often also have very pale skin, lots of freckles, green eyes and tend to sunburn very easily. Are they a race? Why or why not?

 

[praying]

Alright.

Take a look at Genesis 1:26. THis is the first mentioning of God creating "man" in the BIble. Read on and take into account what God said. He said to let man have dominion over the fish, fowl, cattle and creeping thing. Essentially, the animals.

Continuing to verse 27 we see the Bible saying that God created Man. However, note this, it specifically states "in the image of God created ""he him"" , "male and female created ""he them"". There is no definate article here. Its a general, simultaneous context. Now, off the bat, yeah, there is not enough evidence to support such an assertion, but lets continue on.

In verse 28 it says that God blessed "them", both, together, at the same time, and told them specifically to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and to subdue it and have dominon over basically all the animal kingdom.

Now, in verse 29, this is good evidence as well. God specifically tells ""THEM"" that he has given them all the trees bearing fruit as meat as well as all the herbs. All of this is very important. Dont forget or leave out anything. Now, lets compare this to what we find in Genesis 2

In Genesis 2:7 we have God created "man". In this particular passage, it appears to be in direct support of Adam and Eve being the first people on earth as because of the Bible using no definate article. It just says "Man", not "the man". However, take a look at verse 8. It says "explicetly" that God put "the man" into a garden.

This is the first crucial piece of evidence. For one, there is no garden mentioned in Genesis 1. Nor is there specification concerning only one man as the definate article shows. Now, continue to verse 15 and it specifically states that God put "the man" into a garden to "dress and keep it". Those mentioned in Genesis 1 had nothing to do with a garden.

In addition, one should not overlook verse 16-17. God specifically told this man that he can eat of all the trees except one, the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Now, if Adam was the first human being, we have a contradiction here. In Genesis 1:29, God is speaking to "them" of Genesis 1:27 on how they can eat all the trees bearing fruit, but here, in Genesis 2:16-17, God commands this particular man not do so. Therefore, what is the logical conclusion? This is a completely diffeent account of creation when concerning human beings. Its a different story entirely.

Also, the last piece of evidence would be the verse after Genesis 2:16-17. Eve was created later, not in the simulatneous and general context of those created in Genesis 1:27. In addition, if Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, then how is it that Genesis 1:28 says that God blessed "them", together but Eve was clearly created later in Genesis 2 and not the same time as Adam?

Thus, you have the answer. Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, but they were the last. They were created last. They were given specific instructions that were completely different than those mentioned in Genesis 1:26-29.

IN addition, all of this shows and supports Nehemiah 13:3,27 and Ezra 10 as well as Leviticus 19:19 and the Law of the Stranger contained within the Bible. The is only way that the Bible could support what it states without it being a contradiciton. Adam and Eve were never the first people created upon the earth.

Fisrt let me state that I am not a Bible literalist and belive in theistic evolution, that said however why do you think there is no creation story for the first humans? Why skip to Adam and Eve?

Personally I think you are trying to apply modern English grammatical rules to ancient Hebrew text and I think your argument are a very big stretch.

As numerous others have asked you, I would like to know how you are defining race. I asked the question about Halle Berry (which I assume you know who she is)

because I would like to know what race yuo classify her as and how you do that classification. .

 

[Misty Minister]

Who had the Senators Lynched that they should apologize for it?

"White Christians - encourage your daughters to wed black Christians and visa versa.
A more powerful cultural entity will result." Like in the Carribian?

 

[Misty Minister]

I have about 300 cousins who do not know that one of their great great great great grandmothers was black. But hey they look white so they are victims of affirmative action.
Mixmistress Misty

 

[Kasey]

Fisrt let me state that I am not a Bible literalist and belive in theistic evolution, that said however why do you think there is no creation story for the first humans? Why skip to Adam and Eve?

Because Genesis 5:1 states that this is the Book of the Generations of Adam. According to Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word for "generations" is "toldah" and it means the descent, family, history. The Bible is concerned only with Adam and Eve and their lineage. In addition, this further supports what I have been saying because if Adam and Eve were the progenitors of mankind, there would be no need for this passage as it would be completely obvious.

Personally I think you are trying to apply modern English grammatical rules to ancient Hebrew text and I think your argument are a very big stretch.

Not so. I have at least two Hebrew-Greek-English interlineary along with several copies of Strong's Concordance and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon and Thayer' Greek LExicon of the New Testament and all of the affirm what I am saying.

What sources do you have to support your assertions?

As numerous others have asked you, I would like to know how you are defining race. I asked the question about Halle Berry (which I assume you know who she is)

because I would like to know what race yuo classify her as and how you do that classification. .

I showed you how I define race, re-read what I posted from www.m-w.com .

 

[Kasey]

Ginger hair. People with ginger hair often also have very pale skin, lots of freckles, green eyes and tend to sunburn very easily. Are they a race? Why or why not?

Every human being can be classified as a race, regardless if they are pure or mixed between two individual ones. Aside from that, I need to see a picture if you have one.

 

[praying]

Every human being can be classified as a race, regardless if they are pure or mixed between two individual ones. Aside from that, I need to see a picture if you have one.

So classify Halle Berry and what am I looking up in M_W.com.

 

[Scholar in training]

Every human being can be classified as a race, regardless if they are pure or mixed between two individual ones.

Where are you getting this information from?

 

[praying]

Where are you getting this information from?

Try here:

 

[Danhalen]

Main Entry: 3race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics ****e English race>
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

By definition 2, I can say that North Eastern Ohioans are a seperate race. My aunt has moved to North Carolina, by your logic, she can't marry anyone there.

 

[arunma]

Wow, I'm quite surprised at some of the ideas being advocated here. I've debated a racist before, and I find that they aren't very responsive to sound Biblical doctrine. For the moment, I just want to remind everyone that anyone who believes in racial discrimination ought not to call himself a Christian. God will only judge the racist more harshly.

 

[Kasey]

By definition 2, I can say that North Eastern Ohioans are a seperate race. My aunt has moved to North Carolina, by your logic, she can't marry anyone there.

Main Entry: 3race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics ****e English race>
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

Oh come now, lets not even think its 3-c. THis would be the most accurate as this can be applied to animals as well - Cats/Tigers/White-Tigers.

So, thats how I define race as general groups or divisions of human beings would fall into this catagory as well such as Blacks and Whites. Aside from this, you know for a fact that I am talking about race in regards to a physical context as skin tone, bone structure and all other physical features. Therefore, in the context, as it would be in the animal kingdom, 3-c would be most applicable.