Logic about same race marriage

[Ledifni]

Exactlys. Its based on physical characteristics. How else wnould you be able to distinquish between a lion and a tiger even though they are both felines? Its the same with humans. Its more than just the skin color itself as the bone structures in white people and black people are different, all the way down to how their hair is made and designed.

Black people naturally have no red hair, nor blonde. They never have green eyes nor blue eyes, but brown or black. These are all distinquishable characteristics that show how Black people are a different race than white people.

Both of my parents are white. My mother has red hair and brown eyes, my father has light brown hair and blue-green eyes.

My older brother has tanned skin, very dark brown (almost black) hair, brown eyes. He is their biological son.

Is my brother white?

 

[Ledifni]

Its not that I am ignoring those links that you gave me, Gaijin. They simply do not take into context the key passages that I showed you from Ezra, which nails it perfectly

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/interracial.shtml

That link doesnt address the passages in Ezra, or the Hebrew. They go according to the English translation which is not the inspired text of the Bible.

---

http://en.bibleinfo.com/questions/question.html?id=750

This link doesnt prove anything either, for they do not even count the passages in Ezra in context as well. Even more so, they dont even address Adam and Eve, in whether case of how they might believe that they were the first humans or not.

Kasey, forget about Ezra and Adam and Eve and whatever else you might find to obscure the point.

Can we safely assume if there is a place in the Bible where God specifically says something is ok, that the thing in question is actually ok according to the Bible? I'd say so.

Now, in the Bible God specifically approves of Moses's Ethiopian wife. He says it's ok. He punishes Aaron and Miriam for causing problems about it. Do you interpret that passage to mean that it's ok for Jews and Ethiopians to marry, but no other racial combinations? That it's ok for Moses to marry an Ethiopian, but nobody else? How do you interpret that passage?

 

[Ledifni]

Oh really? Have you addressed Ezra? How about Nehemiah 13:3, 27? What about the Hebrew concerning the word "mixed"? Have you addressed those as well?

No, you havent. You are merely content to say that you have. Those passages havent been brought up by anyone who is for same-race marriage and that claims to be a Christian.

The truth of the matter is that no matter how much you vilify it, nor how many times you call me names or what Im saying to be "hateful", its still the truth. You cannot get around the fact that the BIble is completely against same-race marriages. There is no justification for your words of trying to say its different. If the evidence supported what you said, then the Bible wouldnt have passages such as those listed in Ezra 10, Nehemiah 13 and Leviticus 19:19 as well as the context of the creation account in Genesis of the animals being after their "kind".

Bottom-line, the evidence supports what I have shown, else, you would have gone into the Hebrew, you would have tried to show how the evidence from the Hebrew would be wrong, as well as the context of all those passages mentioned previously. But you havent, therefore, this shows conclusively that it supports what I am saying. If it didnt, then the BIble would show it, but it hasnt. Therefore, you have your answer and that is that the Bible is against same-race marriage, which means that GOd the Father and Christ Jesus are against it. They created all to be pure in their own race and its your choice to acknowledge it or attempt to remain in denial.

So, essentially, your argument goes like this: "Even though you guys have shown me plenty of verses that contradict me, I can still interpret other verses in such a way that they agree with me. Thus, your verses and wrong and mine are right."

So you're saying that only the Certified By Kasey(TM) Bible Verses are valid, and all the rest are incorrect?

 

[gaijin178]

Just an update, I called my good buddy who has his undergraduate and graduate degree from BIOLA University and he also confirms based on the scriptures that Kasey has brought up, using the same tools that Kasey has used with multiple translations and gets to the same conclusions as the rest of us, Kasey is wrong. Peace.

 

[U R my Sonshine]

Kasey, forget about Ezra and Adam and Eve and whatever else you might find to obscure the point.

Can we safely assume if there is a place in the Bible where God specifically says something is ok, that the thing in question is actually ok according to the Bible? I'd say so.

Now, in the Bible God specifically approves of Moses's Ethiopian wife. He says it's ok. He punishes Aaron and Miriam for causing problems about it. Do you interpret that passage to mean that it's ok for Jews and Ethiopians to marry, but no other racial combinations? That it's ok for Moses to marry an Ethiopian, but nobody else? How do you interpret that passage?

Why do I venture to guess he will avoid this question.....

 

[Kasey]

Actually I truly hope that your children marry someone like me: I am as pale and aryan looking as you can get, I even have a German name! I would have been right up there in the Nazi breeding programme, just slightly under the blonde haired women.

I happen to know that I have a black englishman not too far down my family tree *gasp* *shock horror!*

You would never, ever be able to tell by looking at me. You'd best have your swabs and needles ready whenever your kids bring home a date, because you're going to have to DNA test every single one of them to figure out who's a "mongrel".

Well, how far down the line is this Black englishman? Do you have a picture of him as well, for your definition of black might be different than most.

 

[Kasey]

Both of my parents are white. My mother has red hair and brown eyes, my father has light brown hair and blue-green eyes.

My older brother has tanned skin, very dark brown (almost black) hair, brown eyes. He is their biological son.

Is my brother white?

I would like to see a picture of this individual.

 

[Kasey]

So, essentially, your argument goes like this: "Even though you guys have shown me plenty of verses that contradict me, I can still interpret other verses in such a way that they agree with me. Thus, your verses and wrong and mine are right."

So you're saying that only the Certified By Kasey(TM) Bible Verses are valid, and all the rest are incorrect?

Uh, no, I go according to the Hebrew. I go according to the Experts themselves, from The Strong's Concordance, Geseniud' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. Hebrew-Greek-English Interliniaries, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Vine's Expository dictionary of Bible words.

So, if you can get around these people, then yeah, I will admit that Im wrong.

 

[Kasey]

Just an update, I called my good buddy who has his undergraduate and graduate degree from BIOLA University and he also confirms based on the scriptures that Kasey has brought up, using the same tools that Kasey has used with multiple translations and gets to the same conclusions as the rest of us, Kasey is wrong. Peace.

How do we know that "you" are telling the truth in this matter? Where is the specific evidence? Concerning what passage am I wrong? Care to show it or are you speaking this way to try to discredit me?

Bring your evidence, ALL of your specific evidence, this is nothing but here-say.

 

[Scholar in training]

I would like to see a picture of this individual.

I would like to see you respond to this post:

Can we safely assume if there is a place in the Bible where God specifically says something is ok, that the thing in question is actually ok according to the Bible? I'd say so.

Now, in the Bible God specifically approves of Moses's Ethiopian wife. He says it's ok. He punishes Aaron and Miriam for causing problems about it. Do you interpret that passage to mean that it's ok for Jews and Ethiopians to marry, but no other racial combinations? That it's ok for Moses to marry an Ethiopian, but nobody else? How do you interpret that passage?

 

[Danhalen]

Hey, since Kasey keeps dodging my question about how to discern race, does anyone have some webspace that I can upload some pics to? I just want to see if my wife and I are ok to marry. I want Kasey to explain why or why not.

Kasey, the master of dodgeball.

 

[Kasey]

Kasey, forget about Ezra and Adam and Eve and whatever else you might find to obscure the point.

Can we safely assume if there is a place in the Bible where God specifically says something is ok, that the thing in question is actually ok according to the Bible? I'd say so.

Now, in the Bible God specifically approves of Moses's Ethiopian wife. He says it's ok. He punishes Aaron and Miriam for causing problems about it. Do you interpret that passage to mean that it's ok for Jews and Ethiopians to marry, but no other racial combinations? That it's ok for Moses to marry an Ethiopian, but nobody else? How do you interpret that passage?

Moses wife was part of Moses own race. The Hebrew word for "Ethiopian" is "kueshiyth" and according to both Strong's Concordance and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldeee Lexicon, it means a Cushite individual. Now, based upon this information, all you have to do is look up Cush. Cush is one of the Sons of the Ham in Genesis 10:6 of the Sons of Noah. Moses wife was of the same race as the Israelites but under a different lineage.

As I said, it goes back to aspect of your and others proving that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. If they were, then all I have said would be a lie, I fully admit that, but they werent. Adam and Eve were a specific race created last according to scripture.

Now, how about "you" address Nehemiah 13:3, 27? How about "you" talk about the word "mixed" in Nehemiah 13:3 and concerning the word "strange" in Nehemiah 13:27?

Both of those passages prove you wrong. Unless, that is, you have complete and credible evidence to show that Strong's Concordance and Gesenius' Hebrew-CHaldee Lexicon are just full of marlakey.

 

[Kasey]

I would like to see you respond to this post:

I just responded to that

 

[Kasey]

Hey, since Kasey keeps dodging my question about how to discern race, does anyone have some webspace that I can upload some pics to? I just want to see if my wife and I are ok to marry. I want Kasey to explain why or why not.

Kasey, the master of dodgeball.

I will get to it Danhalen, wait your turn.

 

[gaijin178]

I emailed my buddy again about this topic. I am going to post what he responded. Kasey, you can call it hearsay if you like. I am not a Christian, so I am doing the best that I can to get you Christian information to prove that you are wrong and completely misguided. If I gave you Buddhist information, you wouldn't listen to that because you don't believe in that. So, I am going to post my friends response, who is a Christian and who had Graduate degrees in Religion and Christianity. Here you go.

Enjoy:

"...first of all he uses widely well known mainstream lexicons and sources, nothing super scholarly about them, ask him to parse out the section from the original hebrew if he's such an expert, and to parse each noun, furthermore have him site several commentaries from Word Biblical, ect.

Also his arguement really isn't saying much about the text either. To begin with, lets look at the context. The text is dealing with levitical Priests who had much higher regulations than even the common man, tell him to look at the leviticus and read through the high standards of even hair cuts. If you look at why they should not marry outside their race its because they "defile the priesthood" (verse 29). Furthermore, in dealing with Solomon, he also was a leader but the texdt said that the reason the foreign women were bad was because they made him sin "(verse 26) But in any case, the truth is this text does not call out the nature of other races as inferior. Because the author is stating that foreign women has lead spiritual leaders astray. It never states that intrinsically the other races of the world are evil, clearly he couldn't use the mongrol argument, otherwise what does he do with Paul's mission to the gentiles in the New Testament, or Jesus not only breaking down racial lines but also freedom levels between men and women. It makes no sense for Paul to say My mission is to the gentiles, Christ died for them, but oh yeah..don't marry them, that my friend is what is retarded.

Furthermore, if he reads anything about covenental nomism (tell him to Read James Dunn, N.T. Wright, and E.P. Sanders on this subject) it will inform him about how God was trying to keep the Jewish nation pure to keep their ideology from extention and pave the way for the coming Messiah. If Israel could have been kept pure from Foreign women he would have ok'd it, because interracial marriages would be more than fully supported by God. This is fundamental Christianity, evangelical, not presenting a Nazi Christ.

Hope this helps, I can get mad info on a more scholoarly level if this is what you want, but all this guy is quoting is Strongs Concordence, u can pick that up at starbucks, tell him to parse the straight Hebrew if he's such a scholar, and tell him not to copy it from the interlinear. lol



Peace and Blessings..."

 

[Blackguard_]

So, a mixture of racial features is monstrous?

I meant some mixed people I've seen that look black, asian etc. but have blue/green eyes. That looks very disturbing to me. I did not mean mixed race people in general.

Wow, you must have some mad nightmares, considering that probably 99.9% of the people you see every day (assuming you live in America, that is) display a mixture of racial features.

What part of America do you live in?

I didn't say it does, my friend. I did not say that my preference is "right" and yours is "wrong" due to the "might" of majority opinion. Rather, I said that my preference is realistic and yours is not.

Your preference is more "realistic" by which you seem to mean "more likely to happen" becasue it has might on it's side. If most people were against mixing and people wanting to mix were few, my freference would be more realistic right? So you are saying "might makes right".

Your objection to racial mixing is primarily, "I find separate races aesthetically pleasing! Don't make me look at ugly mongrels!"

That and diversity. Racemixing is anti-diviersity. Sure, in the short run there is a bunch of hodge-podge people, but eventually they would smooth out into a single race.

And for me personally, I simply find the white race the most beautiful, and it is only natural to want to preserve what you find beautiful right? So if I find a race beautiful, I must be opposed to mixing it right?
And there are probably people of all races who feel the same why aout their race as I do about mine, Beauty being relative right?

Ideally, people should find their own race the most beautiful whilr recognizing this is relative, not a supremacist thing. I know I can't force this view on anyone, but I think this would be ideal.

Inter-racial couples are a very odd "I find your traits beautiful, therefore I'm going to destroy them" thing.
Or do you want everyone to have one standard of beuaty which a single mixed race world would require?

it is (1) a personal preference, meaning that it's not a valid or useful basis for legislation,

True, but did I ever say I wanted to legislate it?

and (2) directly goes against what is absolutely and unquestionably guaranteed to happen no matter how hard you try to stop it. As such, I suggest that your personal aethetic preference is likely to lead you into quite a lot of disappointment.

Yes, but again this is just "might makes right". You must have interesting arguments with enivironmental preservationists. "Experts estimate rare-bird-X will be extinct by 2050? You'd better stock up on bird-shot then. Why fight the inevitable?"

but I wouldn't advise it since it's likely to drive you mad with frustration.

possibly.

"I've got sources somewhere" literally translates as, "I have no clue whether this is true or false."

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/p20-537/2000/tabFG3.txt
2nd chart down

Everybody has a different view of beauty and nobody's view of it is more correct than anyone else's.

Right, so if people should not bow down to my standard of beauty, why should I bow down to theirs?

and that's why we don't persecute people of mixed race just because you don't think they're as pretty as you.

How am I am advocating their persecution?

You also might be fascinated to know that you yourself are almost certainly of mixed race, though you don't know it.

If so, it is a looong ways back.


Anyways you whole argument boils down to "race-mixng is inevetible, save yourself the frustionation of seeing inter-racial couples, people, etc, by agreeing with them" This is a might makes right argument.

 

[maha]

Hi, I'm new. I just read the first post and skipped the thrity-six pages hence, but I'll give my two cents anyway. I too have thought about this issue in great depth. I call it "racial homogenization." It gives the progeny a distinct genetic advantage because of the diversity that is achieved by interacial breeding. Also, in time, it would help to alleviate racism because it would render the racist tendencies irrelevant--how can someone who 1/4 black and 3/4 white be predjudice against someone else who is 5/8 black 3/8 white? It makes racism seem superficial, transparent, and stupid...which it is anyway. So there are very legitimate reasons why interacial breeding is a good thing.

However, the person who posted this thread was getting a little carried away with the concept. He said that it should be mandatory, and that same race marriage should be illegal. I don't know if he was just embellishing that in order to make a point, but anyone with any sense of right and wrong can see the obvious flaws in that line of thinking. It's actually rather Hitleresque to suggest that it should be illegal to breed with any race at all, same race, sex, or otherwise. I actually prefer girls of different races than my own, but if I happen to find a white chick that I like, I'll be damned if I can't marry her and have children. Besides, people from the same races have been breeding for millenia, with no notable negative effects. So from an ethical and scientific (genetic) perspective, the notion of banning same race marriages is completely ridiculous. However, I do concede that there are inherent benefits in doing so. But it's just not ethical, that's all.

 

[Kasey]

I emailed my buddy again about this topic. I am going to post what he responded. Kasey, you can call it hearsay if you like. I am not a Christian, so I am doing the best that I can to get you Christian information to prove that you are wrong and completely misguided. If I gave you Buddhist information, you wouldn't listen to that because you don't believe in that. So, I am going to post my friends response, who is a Christian and who had Graduate degrees in Religion and Christianity. Here you go.

Of course

Enjoy:

"...first of all he uses widely well known mainstream lexicons and sources, nothing super scholarly about them, ask him to parse out the section from the original hebrew if he's such an expert, and to parse each noun, furthermore have him site several commentaries from Word Biblical, ect.

Thats right, widely known, which means that they have been verified and authenticated time and time again by people who were experts and seperate times that didnt even know each other.

I dont site "commentaries", or people's opinion, I cite fact. Strong's Concordance and Gesenius' Hebrew-chaldee lexicon are dictionaries, not commentaries. This is not the Babylonian Talmud of Judaism, but the Hebrew text.

Also his arguement really isn't saying much about the text either. To begin with, lets look at the context. The text is dealing with levitical Priests who had much higher regulations than even the common man, tell him to look at the leviticus and read through the high standards of even hair cuts. If you look at why they should not marry outside their race its because they "defile the priesthood" (verse 29). Furthermore, in dealing with Solomon, he also was a leader but the texdt said that the reason the foreign women were bad was because they made him sin "(verse 26) But in any case, the truth is this text does not call out the nature of other races as inferior. Because the author is stating that foreign women has lead spiritual leaders astray. It never states that intrinsically the other races of the world are evil, clearly he couldn't use the mongrol argument, otherwise what does he do with Paul's mission to the gentiles in the New Testament, or Jesus not only breaking down racial lines but also freedom levels between men and women. It makes no sense for Paul to say My mission is to the gentiles, Christ died for them, but oh yeah..don't marry them, that my friend is what is retarded.

First of all, I never said the other races were evil, I said AND showed that you are not to marry outside your race. Secondly, this individual has given no credible evidence concerning The Strong's COncordance and Gesenius' hebrew-chaldee which specifically state on the back that these were intended for those without expert Hebrew knowledge to be able to discern what the original text stated.

In addition, he has NO basis whatsoever to say that those statutes explicetly concern the Levitical Priesthood System. That system was associated with ceremonial washings and oblations and animal sacrifices, not ethical and moral laws. The context of the book of Hebrews as well as Exodus 24:3 proves this.

In addition, the passage in Nehemiah is not talking about those laws concerning interracial marriage are explicetly for the priethood system itself as Nehemiah 13:29 is talking about those people in verse 28! Those priests were the ones that defiled the priesthood system, its not talking about the Laws themselves as being part of the prieshood. This guy is totally off his rocker. He says that I should look at the context when the context is plainly wrong? Can this guy read or what?

Furthermore, if this guy is an expert, he would have addressed the Hebrew word "ereb" in Nehemiah 13:3 and tried to show on how it doesnt mean a "mongrel" race as these two sources explicetly say it does. He would have addressed "strange" in Nehemiah 13:27, which is "nokriy" and it means an alien, foreign, out-landish, NON-RELATIVE individual. He would have addressed the context of Adam and Eve no being the first people on earth and he would have addressed Leviticus 19:19, all of which, including Nehemiah and Ezra, show that I am right.

He didnt address any of this, just like you and the majority of other people who have responded. Therefore, what he is saying cannot be taken seriously until he would actually step up to the plate and address the passages that I have mentioned specifically as well as the Hebrew text.

Third, we are not dealing with what the New Testament states at this time, we are dealing with the Laws of God and the Hebrew text, so, he stick to the subject matter and if he would like, I would discuss the New Testament as a later time.

Furthermore, if he reads anything about covenental nomism (tell him to Read James Dunn, N.T. Wright, and E.P. Sanders on this subject) it will inform him about how God was trying to keep the Jewish nation pure to keep their ideology from extention and pave the way for the coming Messiah. If Israel could have been kept pure from Foreign women he would have ok'd it, because interracial marriages would be more than fully supported by God. This is fundamental Christianity, evangelical, not presenting a Nazi Christ.

I dont read people's "opinion". I read Lexicons and Study Aids from the Experts on the original text. I read Strong's Concordance, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblew words and guess what - Two Hebrew-Greek-English Interliniaries.

Aside from this, he is talking about Judeo-Christianity, not the BIble, there is a big difference.

Hope this helps, I can get mad info on a more scholoarly level if this is what you want, but all this guy is quoting is Strongs Concordence, u can pick that up at starbucks, tell him to parse the straight Hebrew if he's such a scholar, and tell him not to copy it from the interlinear. lol



Peace and Blessings..."

How about all the other sources I mentioned? Did he go to college to read about what people say about the Bible, or the BIble itself? In addition, how does he get around the fact that Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon supports this as well in ADDITION to Hebrew-Greek-English interliniaries?

How about "you" tlel this individual to address Nehemiah 13:3 and Nehemiah 13:27 concerning the Hebrew words "ereb" and "nokriy" and on how they BOTH prove my case to be correct? In addition, have him address the fact that Adam and Eve were not hte first people on earth?

 

[gaijin178]

All of us have been addressing the versus that you have mentioned. You don't like our answer so you are going to continue to challenge us to give you evidence. We have given you evidence but you don't like the outcome. You also say, go the bible...go to the bible...go to the bible. We all have. Then you say that the evidence is also found in these other texts that you use to prove what the bible says. Why don't you just go to the bible and have it be that. It's obvious that you are not a part of mainline Christianity and have your own views on what it is. According to your belief and I am sure a select few. You will be the only one in heaven.

 

[Danhalen]

I will get to it Danhalen, wait your turn.

I don't think you will get to me. I don't think that you can (intelligibly) answer the question. Either way, I think you dodge quite masterfully. Seriously, you should join a pro-dodgeball team.