Logic about same race marriage

Hi there Kasey!

Which situation would be the least evil of the two:

1) Your child marrying a blond, blue eyed Germanic looking person whose great great grandfather was black. Or,

2) Your child marrying an olive-skinned, really swarthy and somewhat hairy person of Sicilian background, with dark brown eyes and black hair.

Both of course, are Protestant Christians of good standing.

Would you allow your child to marry either one of those suitors?

Well there is one thing that can be said, Kasey sure has gotten me to read my bible a lot these days. Everything that I can find in Nehemiah 13 rebukes what Kasey is saying. I will work on Ezra in a bit. I just don't get it, how can we be reading the same bible, (I've checked various versions as well) and not come to the same conclusion. I guess this is why there are so many Christian denominations. Everything I have read in Nehemiah and all the commentary that I can find about it shows that Nehemiah was kind of desparate. He came back and found that all the people had lapsed from their godly ways. There was a lot of intermarriage actually at the time from what I can find. The problem was that at the time, most of the intermarriage was done with Israelite men and foreign women. Having multiple wives was very common as well so they would get men with mutliple wives, multiple languages and multiple religions. So you would get kids who weren't able to speak to their brothers and sisters because of the language differences. Children tend culturally to be more like their mothers, especially in polygamy and would adapt these foreign religions as well so to speak. So when Nehemiah came back to his tribe, he saw that the people have reverted back to their "ways." He then commanded them to stop and made the commandment to these people not to marry "strange" or foreign folks because of the adaptation of "false" religions. It was a strict and desparate cause by Nehemiah because it was based on differences in faith alone and had nothing to do with skin tone as Kasey has suggested. Kasey, being the expert on race, has even asked to see pictures of people to determine what race they belong to and if intermarriage is permitted based on this passage. What he forgets is that in Christianity, when Christ did what he did on the cross, none of these things mattered anymore. It was suggested earlier that this was part of rabbinical law. Even if it wasn't, the laws in the OT really were for to protect the people of the time. That is why there are almost silly sounding laws about mixed fibers and eating shellfish. They were there to protect the people at the time. In Nehemiah, not marrying foreigners was to protect the people from the time because of religion, not because of color.

I would like to get Kasey's opinion Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11...but I'm still thinking about whether I should even get into this debate.

arunma said:

I would like to get Kasey's opinion Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11...but I'm still thinking about whether I should even get into this debate.

Click to expand...

I think that Kasey is going to agree with those verses, however, there is going to be one thing that he will include, the verses don't mention mixed marriages. He is still going to say, "stick to your own kind."

I believe outlawing same-race marriage is about as pathetic as outlawing interracial marriage!

Personally, I am more attracted to Caucasion men (I am Caucasion), but I am certainly not opposed to interracial marriages. I also see nothing wrong with same race marriages. It's not about skin colour (G~d does not care what colour anyone's skin is!) For me, it is entirely about personality and religious belief. Whatever he looks like is entirely secondary.

Blackguard_ said:

Inter-racial couples are a very odd "I find your traits beautiful, therefore I'm going to destroy them" thing.

Click to expand...

Not all the time. Many times they just fall in love. Not everybody is after only "looks" or traits.

It doesn't "destroy traits" it just tones them down a bit and (the kids are beautiful regardless.)

gaijin178 said:

Well there is one thing that can be said, Kasey sure has gotten me to read my bible a lot these days. Everything that I can find in Nehemiah 13 rebukes what Kasey is saying. I will work on Ezra in a bit. I just don't get it, how can we be reading the same bible, (I've checked various versions as well) and not come to the same conclusion. I guess this is why there are so many Christian denominations. Everything I have read in Nehemiah and all the commentary that I can find about it shows that Nehemiah was kind of desparate. He came back and found that all the people had lapsed from their godly ways. There was a lot of intermarriage actually at the time from what I can find. The problem was that at the time, most of the intermarriage was done with Israelite men and foreign women. Having multiple wives was very common as well so they would get men with mutliple wives, multiple languages and multiple religions. So you would get kids who weren't able to speak to their brothers and sisters because of the language differences. Children tend culturally to be more like their mothers, especially in polygamy and would adapt these foreign religions as well so to speak. So when Nehemiah came back to his tribe, he saw that the people have reverted back to their "ways." He then commanded them to stop and made the commandment to these people not to marry "strange" or foreign folks because of the adaptation of "false" religions. It was a strict and desparate cause by Nehemiah because it was based on differences in faith alone and had nothing to do with skin tone as Kasey has suggested. Kasey, being the expert on race, has even asked to see pictures of people to determine what race they belong to and if intermarriage is permitted based on this passage. What he forgets is that in Christianity, when Christ did what he did on the cross, none of these things mattered anymore. It was suggested earlier that this was part of rabbinical law. Even if it wasn't, the laws in the OT really were for to protect the people of the time. That is why there are almost silly sounding laws about mixed fibers and eating shellfish. They were there to protect the people at the time. In Nehemiah, not marrying foreigners was to protect the people from the time because of religion, not because of color.

Click to expand...

Yeah that is the key. We are also told in Romans that not everything is beneficial for a Christian but that most is still permissable...

U R my Sonshine said:

Yeah that is the key.

Click to expand...

But it doesn't seem to fit in the lock...

We are also told in Romans that not everything is beneficial for a Christian but that most is still permissable...

Click to expand...

Paul was mocking those who said that everything is permissable, because in reality everything is not beneficial.

gaijin178 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Alright, you say that you have, therefore, address the word "mixed" in Nehemiah 13:3. Address it according to the Hebrew. Show me where you have done that. Which post? Now, according to the word "strange" in Nehemiah 13:27, show me according to the Hebrew how that word doesnt mean a foriegn, alien, out-landish, non-relative individual. Show me the post #.

Show me the evidence, by all means, show me the your post that addressing these things. In addition, show me the post # where you were specifically trying to rebuke or show me wrong concerning Adam and Eve not being the first human beings on earth.

Go ahead. Im waiting.

gaijin178 said:

Well there is one thing that can be said, Kasey sure has gotten me to read my bible a lot these days. Everything that I can find in Nehemiah 13 rebukes what Kasey is saying. I will work on Ezra in a bit. I just don't get it, how can we be reading the same bible, (I've checked various versions as well) and not come to the same conclusion. I guess this is why there are so many Christian denominations. Everything I have read in Nehemiah and all the commentary that I can find about it shows that Nehemiah was kind of desparate. He came back and found that all the people had lapsed from their godly ways. There was a lot of intermarriage actually at the time from what I can find. The problem was that at the time, most of the intermarriage was done with Israelite men and foreign women. Having multiple wives was very common as well so they would get men with mutliple wives, multiple languages and multiple religions. So you would get kids who weren't able to speak to their brothers and sisters because of the language differences. Children tend culturally to be more like their mothers, especially in polygamy and would adapt these foreign religions as well so to speak. So when Nehemiah came back to his tribe, he saw that the people have reverted back to their "ways." He then commanded them to stop and made the commandment to these people not to marry "strange" or foreign folks because of the adaptation of "false" religions. It was a strict and desparate cause by Nehemiah because it was based on differences in faith alone and had nothing to do with skin tone as Kasey has suggested. Kasey, being the expert on race, has even asked to see pictures of people to determine what race they belong to and if intermarriage is permitted based on this passage. What he forgets is that in Christianity, when Christ did what he did on the cross, none of these things mattered anymore. It was suggested earlier that this was part of rabbinical law. Even if it wasn't, the laws in the OT really were for to protect the people of the time. That is why there are almost silly sounding laws about mixed fibers and eating shellfish. They were there to protect the people at the time. In Nehemiah, not marrying foreigners was to protect the people from the time because of religion, not because of color.

Click to expand...

Wrong, the commandment not to marry outside your race is specifically stated in Leviticus 22:10-13. According to Strong's Concordance and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, the Hebrew word for "stranger" is "zuer" and it means a foreign, out-landish, adulterative, alien individual.

Note that in verse 12, it specifically states that if the priests daughter is married unto this stranger, this alien, this foreigner, this out-landish person, she may not eat of the holy things. However, notice in verse 13 it specifically states that if she is divorced and has NO CHILD by this person and returns unto her father, a priest, she would be allowed to eat the holy things.

This is completely supportive of Nehemiah 13:3,27 in addition to being supportive of Deuteronomy 23:2 which specifically states that a "*******", or, according to Strong's Concordance and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee lexicon is the Hebrew word "mamzer" and it means a result of mixed populations. Putting this with Nehemiah, you have interracial marriage. Its completely supportive of that fact.

However, yes, it DOES say concerning the priest daughter. That right there seems to prove me wrong. However, 1 Peter 2:9, who is talking to Christians according to 1 Peter 1:1-2, speaks of the Christian populace as a royal priesthood. Therefore, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this law is applicable to those who would call themselves Christian and also proves that these particular statutes were not specifically designed just for the Levitical Priesthood as Nehemiah explicetly states that ISRAEL, not just Aaaron or only Aaron put away the mixed, or, mongrel multitude from themselves.

Thus, according to the experts, and the contexual evidence of the scriptures, interracial marriage is WRONG. It is against GOd's Laws to mix your race as a b*****d shall NOT enter into the congregation of the Lord, which is a person of mixed racial heritage.

Lastly, these things dont matter to Judeo-Christianity and Roman Catholics, but they matter to those who study the Bible. Christ abolished the ordiances of man, The Traditions of the Elders, as well as the Levitical Priesthood System and that System, according to the context of Hebrews and Exodus 24:3 was never part of God's Commandments, Statutes and Judgments. The Law of not mixing your race is still in effect.

gaijin178 said:

I think that Kasey is going to agree with those verses, however, there is going to be one thing that he will include, the verses don't mention mixed marriages. He is still going to say, "stick to your own kind."

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should look up what the word "jew" and "greek" means. According to Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Greek LExicon, the word "jew" is "Ioudaios" and it means those belonging to the Kingdom or Country of Judah or Judea. The Greek word for "greek" is "hellen" and it means those from the progeniters of the Greeks and guess what? Those are from Adam and Eve, just not of the same lineage of the Israelites.

Further evidence of this fact is that Genesis 5:1 specifically states that this is the Book of the Generations of Adam. The Hebrew, as I have showed earlier, means history, descent, family. Since Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that even the New Testament is based upon this as the New Testament itself is based upon the Law and the Prophets. The Bible is concerned only with the people of Adam and Eve, no one else.

Scholar in training said:

But it doesn't seem to fit in the lock...

Click to expand...

Christ, my friend fits EVERY lock. He died on the cross and it is irrelavant if we eat seafood now, marry who we like, plant crops in a feild year after year..... Old testament laws are just that: Old testament Laws. Christ freed us from legalism.

Paul was mocking those who said that everything is permissable, because in reality everything is not beneficial.

Click to expand...

Really...see I thought everything was beneficial??? Ya don't say??

It is still permissable to have a glass of beer...though maybe not beneficial, to eat seafood...so on and so forth. It isn't beneficial if you sleep till 10 am on the weekends...but you can! I reiterate...Christ freed us from legalism.

The point of your off topic arguement?

U R my Sonshine said:

Christ, my friend fits EVERY lock. He died on the cross and it is irrelavant if we eat seafood now, marry who we like, plant crops in a feild year after year..... Old testament laws are just that: Old testament Laws. Christ freed us from legalism.

Click to expand...

You are only partially correct. Christ abolished the Traditions of the Elders, which basically ammounts to The Babylonian Talmud of Judaism which inevitably means man's law. In addition, Christ abolished the Levitical Priesthood System, yes, but that system was NEVER a part of God's Commandments, Statutes and Judgments. It came later as explicetly stated by the context of Exodus 24:3 and also according to the Book of Hebrews 9-10 and Hebrews 7:11

Kasey said:

You are only partially correct. Christ abolished the Traditions of the Elders, which basically ammounts to The Babylonian Talmud of Judaism which inevitably means man's law. In addition, Christ abolished the Levitical Priesthood System, yes, but that system was NEVER a part of God's Commandments, Statutes and Judgments. It came later as explicetly stated by the context of Exodus 24:3 and also according to the Book of Hebrews 9-10 and Hebrews 7:11

Click to expand...

Shucks...I knew I'd burn for patronizing Red Lobster before I came to France.

Have it your way Kasey. We are all entitled to our own convictions based on what Christ has shown us. If my children choose spouses that aren't white, I will still support them. (And love my grand babies immensly)

I do hope you wouldn't "disown" your children (and ultimately grandchildren) if they do choose against your wishes. But that is between you, them and the LORD.

Kasey said:

Thus, according to the experts, and the contexual evidence of the scriptures, interracial marriage is WRONG. It is against GOd's Laws to mix your race as a b*****d shall NOT enter into the congregation of the Lord, which is a person of mixed racial heritage.

Click to expand...

Right. So as someone said earlier, by those standards, you're going to be the only one in heaven. But I guess that works perfectly for you, so you wouldn't have to stare at whatever "mongrels" would be present there. And you know what, people aren't going to be different races in heaven anyway, come to think of it. It's our souls that go there, not our bodies, and for all we know, our souls don't have colors at all. Oh excuse me...it's YOUR soul (apparently) that will go there, and not your very caucasian body. And you know what, how DARE you suggest you have the final say on who can take part in the congregation of the Lord? Are you God? Are you my judge? I THINK NOT. God is a God of love and his love is for EVERYONE, even the "b" word that you used there. He will not turn away someone of a different racial heritage from His kingdom or congregation or whatever else, except of course if that person is not saved by accepting His Son Christ in his life. Know why? He doesn't show favoritism, that's why. "Well, that person there has preached my gospel to the world and has lived his life for me and has loved me his entire salvation, but geeze, he's got a black mother and a white father so uh...off to hell he goes. There's no communing for him in MY congregation." What kind of thinking IS that??? A person of a different racial heritage is not at fault for that, though he's still a sinner just as well as everyone else in the world. But he's still capable of taking part in what the Lord has planned for his life. You should be really careful about who you're making God out to be, I don't care HOW you (or that Lexicon nonsense) translate His word.

But you know what, why the heck am I even bothering? God help you in your feeble mission, Casey. And God help us ALL in our attempts to be loving to people with attitudes such as yours.

U R my Sonshine said:

Shucks...I knew I'd burn for patronizing Red Lobster before I came to France.

Click to expand...

Mockery doesnt mean that what I has shown to be un-true. As a matter of fact, since you continue to mock it, but show nothing, you merely affirm it.

Have it your way Kasey. We are all entitled to our own convictions based on what Christ has shown us. If my children choose spouses that aren't white, I will still support them. (And love my grand babies immensly)

I do hope you wouldn't "disown" your children (and ultimately grandchildren) if they do choose against your wishes. But that is between you, them and the LORD.

Click to expand...

Yeah, "you" are entitled to your convictions, but I live my life according to the Scriptures as that is the faith of anyone who would call themselves a Christian. You can support same-race marriage if you so choose, thats your God-given right, but that doesnt mean thats its right and thats just completely obvious. You havent shown anything to prove it wrong, therefore, all you can do is either admit that you have no evidence to support your assertions and repent to God the Father and Christ Jesus of promoting a life-style completely contrary to God's Laws and not do something like that again or you can continue on your path.

You choice.

lunalinda said:

Right. So as someone said earlier, by those standards, you're going to be the only one in heaven. But I guess that works perfectly for you, so you wouldn't have to stare at whatever "mongrels" would be present there. And you know what, people aren't going to be different races in heaven anyway, come to think of it. It's our souls that go there, not our bodies, and for all we know, our souls don't have colors at all. Oh excuse me...it's YOUR soul (apparently) that will go there, and not your very caucasian body. And you know what, how DARE you suggest you have the final say on who can take part in the congregation of the Lord? Are you God? Are you my judge? I THINK NOT. God is a God of love and his love is for EVERYONE, even the "b" word that you used there. He will not turn away someone of a different racial heritage from His kingdom or congregation or whatever else, except of course if that person is not saved by accepting His Son Christ in his life. Know why? He doesn't show favoritism, that's why. "Well, that person there has preached my gospel to the world and has lived his life for me and has loved me his entire salvation, but geeze, he's got a black mother and a white father so uh...off to hell he goes. There's no communing for him in MY congregation." What kind of thinking IS that??? A person of a different racial heritage is not at fault for that, though he's still a sinner just as well as everyone else in the world. But he's still capable of taking part in what the Lord has planned for his life. You should be really careful about who you're making God out to be, I don't care HOW you (or that Lexicon nonsense) translate His word.

But you know what, why the heck am I even bothering? God help you in your feeble mission, Casey. And God help us ALL in our attempts to be loving to people with attitudes such as yours.

Click to expand...

Your into Roman Catholicism and Judaism from the Babylonian Talmud. Aside from this, how dare "YOU" to go against GOd's Laws to say they dont mean anything or are not applicable to our lives when "YOU" have no evidence whatsoever but your vain philosophy and imagination?

The BIBLE is what says that a mongrel cannot enter into the congregation of the Lord, according to the Hebrew, according to the scholarly resources of Strong's and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, ACCORDING to Deuteronomy 23:2 - not me personally. I follow the BIble, not myself ans since you have not shown any evidence to prove otherwise, you are merely resorting back to the typical Judeo-Christian mentality of "I cant prove you wrong, so Im going to mock you and call you names."

Doesnt show favoritism? Well, if that was the case, then God the Father and Christ Jesus would never had had Deuteronomy 23:2 would they? This alone shows you to be in error. Therefore, all that I have said is provable and I have proved it, time and time again and no one has been able to prove otherwise. The Bible, the context of the scriptures, and the Hebrew all show you to be wrong. God is plainly against same-race marriage - God the Father and Christ Jesus specifically created all races pure as well as all plant and animal-life and who are "YOU" to say that that is evil or wrong or hateful or racist or prejudice or perverter or sick when you have "NO" evidence whatsoever to say otherwise? You dont.

Right....should I show "YOUR" type of love, which inevitably ends up transgressing God's Laws, or should I show the Love of God, which is to keep God's commandments and those commandments are not greivous according to 1 John 5:3? I will show The Love of God, and that is to keep God's Law. Couple this with Isaiah 8:20 and that means according to the Bible for the Bible contains both the Law and the Testimony. Therefore, I show The Love of God by treating people according to the Bible and that means showing people that same-race marriage is against the Bible and producing children from that marriage is wrong according to the Bible.

I will keep God the Father and Christ Jesus' Laws, what will you do?

lunalinda said:

You should be really careful about who you're making God out to be, I don't care HOW you (or that Lexicon nonsense) translate His word.

Click to expand...

The Lexicons are what SHOW you what the Hebrew states concerning the original text of the Bible, no the English. They are "dictionaries". Can you understand that? Its the same as me going out and buying a Spanish-English dictionary and seeing the word "house" and it would tell you that its the Spanish word "casa" and it means a residence, a building where one lives etc....

You are completely off your rocker for you say that you dont care about "The Lexicon Non-Sense". The lexicons make all the difference in the world because the lexicons themselves "prove" how the Bible interprets itself. The lexicons show you what the Hebrew and Greek state. They are "needed" for anyone who desires to study the scriptures, which, obviously, since you dont care about them, doesnt mean you.

So, you say I am translating it according to what I think it should be. Can you prove it? How could you if you didnt actually have these lexicons to begin with? Anyone can buy them. Anyone can get them. These were specifically made for lay-person so that they could study the Bible. The Strong's Concordance itself took over 37 years to be produced and because of that, there is no question concerning what the scriptures actually state. Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon was produced by Gesenius, a man who was the most noted Hebrew Scholar of his time and since then, no one has questioned what he did because its so freaking accurate. Now, one can study the Hebrew of the Bible. Now, one can study the Greek and it is because of this study aids and lexicons that I have been able to show you and the others on how they are wrong according to the scriptures, for the Hebrew and the Greek are the inspired text, not the English.

Therefore, Its just plainly and utterly rediculous for you to spout off at the mouth, saying this and saying that, but you dont actually go into detail of what the Bible states, but merely use your own opinons. You dont address the Hebrew, neither the Greek and that is the primary reason as to why you cannot show that I am wrong, for the Hebrew in and of itself, in Deuteronomy 23:2, Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13:3,27 is what nails it completely and shows me to be telling the truth.

Typical, lunalinda, so typical. . .

Kasey said:

Your into Roman Catholicism and Judaism from the Babylonian Talmud. Aside from this, how dare "YOU" to go against GOd's Laws to say they dont mean anything or are not applicable to our lives when "YOU" have no evidence whatsoever but your vain philosophy and imagination?

Click to expand...

Oh quit putting words into my mouth. I never said anything abuot God's Laws not meaning anything or not applicable to our lives. It's a very cute little try though.

Kasey said:

The BIBLE is what says that a mongrel cannot enter into the congregation of the Lord, according to the Hebrew, according to the scholarly resources of Strong's and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, ACCORDING to Deuteronomy 23:2 - not me personally. I follow the BIble, not myself ans since you have not shown any evidence to prove otherwise, you are merely resorting back to the typical Judeo-Christian mentality of "I cant prove you wrong, so Im going to mock you and call you names."

Click to expand...

I'm a big enough person to admit when I make a mistake, and I have. I'm not an expert on remembering verses in the Bible and am still in study mode, so that one was a new one on me, so that's my error. Don't know why you claim I'm resorting to whatever Judeo whatchamacallit, so I'm not even gonna touch that. Though I do kinda wonder what name is it that I called you when you spoke of name-calling? I forget.

Kasey said:

Doesnt show favoritism? Well, if that was the case, then God the Father and Christ Jesus would never had had Deuteronomy 23:2 would they? This alone shows you to be in error.

Click to expand...

Acts 10:34, Deut 10:17, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesian 6:9, Col 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17, Ephesians 2: 14-19, Galatians 3:27-29....

Kasey said:

Therefore, all that I have said is provable and I have proved it, time and time again and no one has been able to prove otherwise. The Bible, the context of the scriptures, and the Hebrew all show you to be wrong. God is plainly against same-race marriage - God the Father and Christ Jesus specifically created all races pure as well as all plant and animal-life and who are "YOU" to say that that is evil or wrong or hateful or racist or prejudice or perverter or sick when you have "NO" evidence whatsoever to say otherwise? You dont.

Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah to most of that. It's getting old and boring. Oh, and I'm sure you meant to say "God is plainly against DIFFERENT-race marriage." Who am I to say? I'm just a person with an opinion and a calling. And the only evidence I need to make my opinions is what's being presented to me. The evidence in your case is already scattered in previous pages on this thread.

Kasey said:

Right....should I show "YOUR" type of love, which inevitably ends up transgressing God's Laws, or should I show the Love of God, which is to keep God's commandments and those commandments are not greivous according to 1 John 5:3? I will show The Love of God, and that is to keep God's Law. Couple this with Isaiah 8:20 and that means according to the Bible for the Bible contains both the Law and the Testimony. Therefore, I show The Love of God by treating people according to the Bible and that means showing people that same-race marriage is against the Bible and producing children from that marriage is wrong according to the Bible.

Click to expand...

Uh-huh.

Kasey said:

I will keep God the Father and Christ Jesus' Laws, what will you do?

Click to expand...

The same.

Kasey said:

Typical, lunalinda, so typical. . .

Click to expand...

Typical of what? Don't presume to know what's typical of me and what isn't; you don't know me. But to be fair to you, I don't know you either, so I'll try and do the same. As far as the rest of that second reply of yours, I have no comment, or in your words, no "proof" that you're wrong. *shrugs* Whatever. I guess that's my problem. Maybe I have a different calling in my life. And besides, it's not my thing to use the Bible as a weapon to bash other believers with. I'd rather use it as a light to the world. But whatever. You go on and do whatever it you've gotta do and I'll do the same.

Since my attitude is rather negative, I'm gonna bow out for now. You'll probably consider yourself victorious or something, but that's alright. I'm just not gonna allow myself to cave in to my negative attitude and REALLY resort to name-calling and/or belittling. If you think I've spouted my mouth out, believe me...you haven't seen nothing yet. That said, it's best that I go.

lunalinda said:

Oh quit putting words into my mouth. I never said anything abuot God's Laws not meaning anything or not applicable to our lives. It's a very cute little try though.

Click to expand...

You are for interracial marriage. THis is shown by your own words and what you said you have done. Therefore, since I have shown beyond a shaodw of a doubt on how the Bible is against interracial marriage, that makes you against God's Laws as God's laws prohibit marrying outside your race. So no, Im not putting words into your mouth. You did that yourself.

I'm a big enough person to admit when I make a mistake, and I have. I'm not an expert on remembering verses in the Bible and am still in study mode, so that one was a new one on me, so that's my error. Don't know why you claim I'm resorting to whatever Judeo whatchamacallit, so I'm not even gonna touch that. Though I do kinda wonder what name is it that I called you when you spoke of name-calling? I forget.

Click to expand...

For a start, you basically called me hateful in post # 114.

Acts 10:34, Deut 10:17, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesian 6:9, Col 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17, Ephesians 2: 14-19, Galatians 3:27-29....

Click to expand...

First of all, just because God is no respecter of persons doesnt mean that God says that sin is ok. Sin is wrong and interracial marriage is wrong as well as producing mongrel children. In addition, you didnt mention the context of these passages.....

Acts 10:34 - Context is verse 35 in working righteousness and that is keeping God's Law according to Psalms 119:171-172

Deuteronomy 10:17 - Context is God's Law in the previous verses, which, ultimately means according to God's Judgment concerning that Law.

Romans 2:11 - The context is once again God's Law as in verse 6, 12 and on.

Galatians 2:6: - The context is God's Law once again according to verse 16

Ephesians 6:9 - The context is still God's Law and doing what is good and right according to verse 1 and verse 8 and Romans 7:12 states that the Law is Holy Just and Good.

Collosians 3:25 - The context is still doing that which is contrary to the Law of God as those things mentioned in verse 5 are against God's statutes and commandments. Even more so, verse 25 is talking about what is "wrong", but "right" as in "righteousness" is God's Law as I have shown.

1 Peter 1:17: - This passage in and of itself is talking about JUDGEMENT according to every mans work and because of that, fairness and no respecter of persons! According to God's Law in the context!

Ephesians 2:14-19: - These speak of The Levitical Priesthood System, not God's Commandments, Statutes and Judgments as expressed by the context of Hebrews 7:11, Hebrews 9-10 and Exodus 24:3

Galatians 3:27-29 - According to Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the Greek word for "jew" is "ioudianous" and it means one from the country or kingdom of Judah, The GreeK word for "greek" is "hellen" and it means those from the greeks in their nations. If you would look up the lineages in Genesis, you will find that the Greeks are descended from a different line of people than that of the Israelites, but still are part of the same race of people as Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth.

So as you see, God is no respecter of persons when it concerns JUDGMENT according to either keeping or breaking GOd's Law. None of this shows anything to the contrary of what I have said.

Blah, blah, blah to most of that. It's getting old and boring. Oh, and I'm sure you meant to say "God is plainly against DIFFERENT-race marriage." Who am I to say? I'm just a person with an opinion and a calling. And the only evidence I need to make my opinions is what's being presented to me. The evidence in your case is already scattered in previous pages on this thread.

Click to expand...

Yeah, thats what I meant. Im tired. Yeah, the evidence is scattered, but its still there and you nor anyone else has proven it wrong.

The same.

Click to expand...

You yourself have affirmed that your for interracial marriage, so how can you justifiably say you keep God's Law when you continue to support a life-style contrary to that same law to begin with? There is a word for that and its a "contradiction"

Typical of what? Don't presume to know what's typical of me and what isn't; you don't know me. But to be fair to you, I don't know you either, so I'll try and do the same. As far as the rest of that second reply of yours, I have no comment, or in your words, no "proof" that you're wrong. *shrugs* Whatever. I guess that's my problem. Maybe I have a different calling in my life. And besides, it's not my thing to use the Bible as a weapon to bash other believers with. I'd rather use it as a light to the world. But whatever. You go on and do whatever it you've gotta do and I'll do the same.

Click to expand...

I know what Judeo-Christians and ROman Catholics belief and the belief that its ok to marry outside your race is one of them. Therefore, you fall on that regard.

Yeah, the proof is your problem, the proof is always your problem as it shows I am right and you are wrong because you continually never have any proof.

I use the BIble to bash and destroy erroneous teachings concerning the Bible. Interracial marriage is just one of them. I will always continue to uphold the teachings of the Bible no matter how others might feel about it. If you feel differently about this, thats your perogative. However, if you feel that what I am doing is wrong, then by all means, SHOW me from the BIble.

Since my attitude is rather negative, I'm gonna bow out for now. You'll probably consider yourself victorious or something, but that's alright. I'm just not gonna allow myself to cave in to my negative attitude and REALLY resort to name-calling and/or belittling. If you think I've spouted my mouth out, believe me...you haven't seen nothing yet. That said, it's best that I go.

Click to expand...

I am victorious. You havent shown anything to disprove me. Those passages you quoted were quoted out of context, obviously.