Logic about same race marriage

Kasey said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wait...you think Adam and Eve weren't the first people? Well, at least you're a heretic (for other reasons than your racism).

christalee4 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Kasey - you still haven't been forthright about specifics on how you determine who is a mongrel and who is a pure white person. As many people have asked you before, how do you tell, other than the obvious differences? There has been quite a bit of race mixing in this country for some time, especially between Native Americans and whites over the past 100 years. Do you consider a person to still be "white" and good enough to marry to your children, if they look white on the outside, even though they may be part American Indian or black in their family lineage? How do you tell, and what is allowed?

Kasey said:

I would like to see a picture of this individual.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't give out pictures of my family to people I don't know. Since you seem bent on obscuring the point, I'll change the question slightly. Do you think it is at all conceivable that my parents could be completely "white," but my older brother completely "black" or "hispanic" or whatever you think his features best correspond with?

In other words, are your criteria purely based on outward physical appearance? If so, then you are not advocating purity of the races, you're advocating not having to see two people of slightly different skin color together. Because, you see, your lovely pure white folks will still have children who aren't exactly "white" no matter what you do.

Either you have to define it by genetics, or nothing. If you define it by genetics (say, by picking out a few key genes that all "white" people must share, and genes that all "black" people must share, and so on), then you will find that our species is so thoroughly mixed already that only in a few backwards, provincial places will you find populations who are even remotely "pure." If you don't define it by genetics, you are using thoroughly unscientific and unworkable criteria, since your outward physical appearance is dependent on a number of factors, only one of which is genetic -- and the genetic factor includes quite a bit of statistical variation even when both parents are, as you say, "pure."

In short, I think you're deluded, unrealistic, and fairly ridiculous in your obsessive but badly-thought-out convictions. If you think you can even begin to defend a consistent set of criteria for determining this vaunted "purity" of yours, I'd love to see you try, my man.

Ledifni said:

Kasey said:

I would like to see a picture of this individual.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't give out pictures of my family to people I don't know.

Click to expand...

Well I posted the picture of Halle Berry I want to know what he classifies her as.

Still there is no way to determine which "race" is which. Kasey keeps saying that it is as easy as looking at a lion and a tiger, yet we still have not seen how to apply that to human beings. I think Kasey has no idea what he is talking about.


Sitting in the waiting room...

arunma said:

Wait...you think Adam and Eve weren't the first people? Well, at least you're a heretic (for other reasons than your racism).

Click to expand...

I haven't read this specific part of the bible for a while... so I could be off, but...
Who did Cain and Able marry?
Didn't they travel to far off cities/lands to take wives?
So God created adam and eve and then created these cities with all the people in them young and old, etc?
When I read this part as a kid I took it to mean that adam and eve were the first two to be created in God's image thus having an immortal soul. I always believed there were other humans around. This is probably why I never saw a contradiction between evolution and the bible.

Ledifni said:

In other words, are your criteria purely based on outward physical appearance? If so, then you are not advocating purity of the races, you're advocating not having to see two people of slightly different skin color together. Because, you see, your lovely pure white folks will still have children who aren't exactly "white" no matter what you do.
.

Click to expand...

I have a bad feeling that the above is what it's going to boil down to. Although it blows my mind that there is actually someone out there smart enough to use a computer, and who can obviously read English who doesn't seem to know the difference between race and species.

Kasey said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's not what I asked and you know it. If you're imagining that listing the reference books you know about is going to impress me, please. I own everything you just listed and with the pathetic reasoning skills you've displayed, I hardly consider your rack of reference books to be much of a threat. Books are useless if you can't figure out how to use them correctly.

What I asked you is why you simply dismiss those verses for which you can't immediately find a plausible argument from the Hebrew. You're finding verses that you can translate and expound on (though your expositions sound suspiciously like a regurgitation of very specific "facts" you've been fed, judging by the huge gaps in your reasoning) -- and any verses you don't have a ready answer to are dismissed with, "Yeah, well, this other verse says I'm right! Ha! Answer that!"

You don't seem to have any interest in refuting parts of the Bible that directly contradict you. Rather, you pretend they don't exist. So again, does a verse have to be Certified True By Kasey(TM) to be true?

Kasey said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to "get around" any of those books. I'm not a Christian, I don't believe in the Bible, and I don't give a damn what you think it says. Of course, when I see you ducking and weaving and desperately concocting flimsy arguments to throw at your opponents, it seems appropriate to call you on it.

But don't get the wrong impression, Kasey. Don't get the impression that I'm going to bother to educate you in theology. Theology is, at its heart, unprovable, and I long ago abandoned it as a useful way to learn about and live in the world. You need to have that argument with these others who still believe in it.

Your position has quite enough fundamental illogic and irrationality to attack on its own, without taking a theological tack. That your dealings with the Bible are equally irrational is hardly surprising, but if you want to convince me that you have any idea what you're talking about, you're going to have to step outside of the Bible. I know, it's hard, you haven't been told what to say unless it's about your favorite verses in Ezra and "God's statutes" (by which I assume you mean OT law as laid out in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). But it's what the rest of us have to do quite often, so it might be a useful skill to develop. You know, thinking for yourself.

Kasey said:

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.

Click to expand...

All members of the human race were descendants of the sons of Noah, according to the Bible. God said to Noah that all life on Earth would be destroyed, but that he would enter into a "covenant" with Noah. The word "covenant" here is the same word that is used throughout the Old and New Testament in context of the typology of Christ's coming in the Old Testament, and, in Hebrew, implies an eternal commitment to the object of the covenant (Noah) as well as his or her descendants, for all of time.

Under that covenant, Noah and his family were saved and nobody else. If you believe the Bible, then you must believe that the covenant endures today, that God was truthful when he said that Noah alone was left after "all creatures with breath" died, and that we are all descendants of one man.

If Moses's wife was of his race because she and Moses were descended from Noah, then so are we all of the same race. Your objection is specious at best.

Kasey said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't come down to that at all. Forget Adam and Eve. An Ethiopian is black, and of the same general race as the rest of Africa. You pretend to define race by physical appearance, so how come she gets off on the basis of lineage? Furthermore, we all have that same Noahic lineage if the Bible is accurate (whether or not there were races from people other than Adam and Eve), so how were you defining races, again?

More: which of our modern races are descended from Ham? Shem? Japheth? Someone unrelated to Noah (if you believe there was any such person)? The Bible does not say. How do you know that black people and white people aren't both descended from Noah, or even from the same son of Noah?

So you need to answer the following:
Which races are descended from Ham? Show Biblical evidence.
Which races are descended from Shem? Show Biblical evidence.
Which races are descended from Japheth? Show Biblical evidence.
Which races are descended from a non-Noahic line? Show Biblical evidence.

Furthermore, you claim to be able to "prove" that there are races aside from Adam and Eve. Incest is not a valid argument, as Lot procreated by incest and was called "righteous." Adam and Eve's children might well have engaged in incest to spread the race. And I dearly hope you're not talking about the Nephilim -- they were called "sons of God" using the same Hebrew word that is used to refer to angels. Angels are not another race of men. You should probably get to proving that, then.

Kasey said:

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?

Click to expand...

Nehemiah 13 discusses the mixing of Isreal with Moab and Ammon. This was because of Balaam's curse, which put them at odds with God's people. In response to this command regarding the mixing with those who led Israelites astray, they cast out everyone of foreign descent, or as you say, "strange" or racially different descent. Of course, the only racially different people who lived in and around Canaan were the Moabites and Ammonites.

God does not command them to cast out all who are "strange" or "mixed." Rather, God commands them to cast out Moab and Ammon because of Balaam's curse, and so they cast them out, the only foreign peoples in their land. It was the people who chose the criterion of mixed or foreign ancestry, not God. So where is God's command to avoid interracial marriages?

Kasey said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why, they're not full of "malarkey" at all. You are, because you have no idea how to read them or use them, and are picking and choosing little bits that you think you can twist to your own ends. Well, I'm calling you on it

ego licet visum said:

Same race marriage should be banned because procreation without adaptation is harmful to society, to the parents and child, and to the gene pool. Without interracial marriages, the phenotype of the population remains the same, leaving this population stagnant and with a lack of genetic development and adaptation. This means that children from same race marriages add nothing to society while using up resources and part of the workforce by taking time away from the people that need to take care of them. In order to promote continuous adaptation of the whole of society, all marriages must be interracial and anything else should be illegal.

Interracial marriages also create a new generation of people who are not as prejudiced against people of other races because they gain tolerance for different races and cultures since they have been exposed and are apart of more then one. If someone is raised while experiencing and being a member of one group and one group only, when exposed to a second group it is likely they will be prejudiced against it. If someone is raised in two different groups, when exposed to a third they are more likely to be accepting of it because they won’t think that there is only one right group, but that there could be many right groups. If interracial marriages had been the way everyone was raised for the past 100 years, the Civil Rights movement would have been much less painful for society in its entirety. Racial tension in the present also would be much more relaxed allowing for a more peaceful, tolerant and positive society.

Click to expand...

10 to 1 you could ban all the same race marriages, and still get the same amount of prejudice from those familes...

Danhalen said:

Still there is no way to determine which "race" is which. Kasey keeps saying that it is as easy as looking at a lion and a tiger, yet we still have not seen how to apply that to human beings. I think Kasey has no idea what he is talking about.

Click to expand...

The fact that he apparently doesn't understand that lions, tigers, and cheetahs are different species should be a big hint. I wonder what he thinks about all those different-colored pigeons gettin' it on instead of sticking with their own kind.

Blackguard_ said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry it looks disturbing to you. It doesn't look disturbing to others, and if you don't find that combination attractive, then you don't have to date women who look like that. I don't date women with big noses, you don't date black women with blue eyes. Myself, I'd probably find that combination stunningly beautiful, but that's me. To each his own.

But that's the point, you see. You don't find certain races attractive. Fine, don't date them. There are plenty of white women around for you to date. What business is it of yours whether some of the rest of us like interracial relationships? By the time the races are thoroughly mixed, you'll be long dead and your descendants will know only mixed races. To them, a pure white or black or asian would probably be quite as disturbing as you find mixed-race people right now.

Blackguard_ said:

What part of America do you live in?

Click to expand...

Texas. But your problem isn't that you live in the wrong place. Your problem is that you see people on the street with mostly white features and assume they're white; people with mostly black features you assume to be black; and you classify people with Asian features as Asians. What you don't realize is that most of those people are not in fact pure, but mixed. Every time you see a black girl with thin lips, or an Asian man with single eyelids, or a white boy with tight, curly hair, you're looking at mixed features.

Blackguard_ said:

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".

Click to expand...

No, I am not. I am giving you advice -- if your personal preference is impossible to achieve, you might consider looking for more workable preferences. But that's your choice, of course.

My issue with you is that you seem to think because you find a certain look attractive, the rest of us should strive to keep everyone looking the way you think they should. If I find red hair attractive, it would be rather ridiculous of me to insist that people with red hair shouldn't ever marry anyone with blond hair, wouldn't it? If I were sensible, I'd date redheads and quit worrying about whether the pure redheadedness is getting diluted by other people.

Blackguard_ said:

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.

Click to expand...

And see, this argument is ridiculous. You say that mixing the races will result in uniform appearance. If that were true, then why don't all Caucasians look exactly alike, and all Africans look exactly alike, and all Asians look exactly alike? Why is there such vast diversity within races, if interbreeding causes perfect uniformity?

No, ask any animal breeder and they will tell you that breeding for purity produces uniformity and unrestricted breeding produces wildly different features in the population. What you are saying flies in the face of all human experience with animal husbandry. If you choose to believe it despite all evidence to the contrary, that is your business, but it is not your business whether we marry outside of our races. If it's really so painful to look at, buy some sunglasses.

Blackguard_ said:

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?

Click to expand...

That's not true at all. I find canyons beautiful. Should I then promote the cause of demolishing all mountains and turning them into holes in the ground? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

You are assuming that if you find something beautiful, it is your responsibility to make sure nobody else is allowed to find anything else beautiful. You find people who look "pure" to you to be beautiful; others find mixed features attractive. Why, because you like "pure" features, is it your business to make sure that nobody displays impure features? Find beauty where you like, but that doesn't mean you're supposed to oppose and destroy everyone else's idea of beauty.

Blackguard_ said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why is that ideal? You prefer your own race. That doesn't mean that all the rest of us do, or that "ideally" we would. What the hell is "ideal" about it? Can you defend your claim that it is somehow objectively "better" to prefer this illusory idea of "purity?"

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...

Utterly untrue. That's like saying that if a blond man marries a redhead, he's saying, "I find redheads attractive, therefore I'm going to destroy them." By your arguments, anyone who marries someone other than their identical twin or biological clone is committing a crime against his or her partner's genes.

Blackguard_ said:

Or do you want everyone to have one standard of beuaty which a single mixed race world would require?

Click to expand...

As I said, your argument that mixing the races will result in perfect uniformity is absolutely ridiculous. If you wonder why, go look at a herd of wild horses. Take a moment to wonder why they look the way they do. Then go and look at a corral full of fine thoroughbreds. It might surprise you to find that the "pure" animals, the ones who have been meticulously bred and raised to have the purest possible genes, are the ones who all look exactly alike. You think the human race has diversity today? Wait until the races are all mixed. You don't even know what diversity is, if you think this is diversity and mixed races would be boring.

Blackguard_ said:

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

Click to expand...

Perhaps you do not. But you clearly want us all to stop mixing the races. Whether you want to do that through law or simply by arguing with us, it's still ridiculous and none of your business.

Blackguard_ said:

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?"

Click to expand...

You're comparing apples and oranges, my friend. As I said, I'm not ascribing any moral value to aesthetic preferences, which is exactly my point. Since there is no objective value of aethetics, it follows that each of us has a different view of beaty and that our views are all equally valid. I'm pointing out that most of us don't have your revulsion for mixed races. As such, our views are just as valid as yours (being, as they are, subjective), and it's not your business to say that we are wrong.

If you feel that by following our view of beauty we are destroying yours, I am sorry, but if we followed yours that would destroy ours. You do not have the right to demand that we give up our idea of beauty so that you may have yours.

Blackguard_ said:

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

Click to expand...

Blackguard_ said:

2nd chart down

Click to expand...

Ah! Statistics! I apologize for doubting you. Well, it appears you are right -- there are more black man/white woman couples in America than the opposite. But I still am not sure what this is relevant to. I don't know why this is -- but there are still very many black woman/white man couples in America. What relevant information should I glean from these statistics?

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

Blackguard_ said:

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

Click to expand...

Who said you should? If you want to date white women, do so. Nobody is saying different. But by the same token, why should we stop "mixing the races" just because you're afraid that you would find the human race less beautiful after several generations?

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

Blackguard_ said:

How am I am advocating their persecution?

Click to expand...

You're suggesting that mixed couples are disgusting and disturbing. You seem to hope that the rest of us will share your view. If we do, then what do you suppose will happen to couples of mixed race? Do you think that they will be accepted, or persecuted? Knowing what I do of human nature, I'd say fairly confidently that if your views were majority views, people of mixed ancestry would be the target of open contempt and harassment.

You may not be outright suggesting persecution, but you are advocating views that will certainly lead to it if you are successful in convincing many of your position. From your own words, I suggest that you yourself treat people of mixed ancestry badly when you meet them. Are you friendly and accepting of a black woman with blue eyes, or do you turn away in disgust?

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

Blackguard_ said:

If so, it is a looong ways back.

Click to expand...

Do you know that for a fact? And even so, what does that matter? You're still probably mixed.

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

Blackguard_ said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, that was not my argument, Blackguard. That was a small part of my post that was intended to give you some useful advice. If you find interracial couples disgusting, then you're likely to have a miserable life in that respect. But again, that's your choice whether to heed my advice or not.

No, the part of my argument that is relevant to me, and is the point I'm trying to get across, is that all of us have a different idea of beauty. Your idea of beauty does not supercede ours, and so the only possible argument you could make for us to agree with your views would be, "It is objectively better for the races to be pure."

But you have not shown that it is objectively better. Rather, you've shown that you prefer it that way, and to that I say, why should we care what you prefer? We prefer it differently, and this is a matter of personal preference. Why is your preference so much better than ours?

Can't explain black/white problem without being censured by the list. <G>

Kasey said:

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?

Click to expand...

Kasey, did you even read what he said? No, clearly you did not. He said, "You are ignoring the context." You continue to ignore the context. I pointed the context out to you, even, and you continue to ignore the context.

The Hebrew word "ereb" means "mixed" or "impure." The Hebrew word "nokriy" means "foreign" or "strange" or "extracultural." On these two words, you are (broadly, because your actual knowledge of Hebrew is nonexistant) correct as to their meanings. But, as he correctly pointed out, you are ignoring the context.

The context is God telling the Isrealites to cast out Moab and Ammon because of Balaam's curse. God's command had nothing to do with racial mixing. It had to do with the curse that Balaam placed on the Israelites to lead them astray, with the aid of and in service of the Moabites and Ammonites. The words "ereb" and "nokriy" are used here because the Moabites and Ammonites were "ereb" and "nokriy." Nowhere does it say that the Israelites are never to marry any "ereb" or "nokriy." Nice try, but try again

Kasey said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your arguments are ridiculous. You are ridiculous. What do you do, go looking for a word that means "mixed-race" and then say, "Aha! The Bible has a word that means mongrel! Therefore I am right!" Is that your way of proving your point?

Kasey, Leviticus 22 describes the behavior of the priests. It is not ambiguous and the Hebrew is certainly not ambiguous. It says that a non-Jew may not eat of the holy food. Do you know what the holy food was? It was for priests to eat only, in rites performed by and for the Chosen People specifically. Thus, non-Jews could not be priests (much as non-Americans can't be President), and if a priest's daughter (no other daughters are mentioned) marries outside of Israel, she could no longer administer the holy rites. This was an issue of keeping the priesthood completely in Aaron's pure line.

You're right, the word means what you say it does. Problem is, the verses are not ambiguous on what they're talking about. Foreigners may not eat the holy, consecrated food that was reserved for priests. The wives of foreigners may not eat the food. But neither could the average Hebrew. You're telling us that because a foreigner couldn't eat the most holy food that carried with it a penalty of death if any but a priest ate it, that this means God commands us not to marry outside our race. If that were true, then doesn't God also command us not to be non-Levites? After all, God also barred all but the children of Levi (Aaron's line) from eating that food.

And your arguments continue in the same vein. It's a waste of time to address your verses, because it's clear you only want to hear what you want to believe. You see that the word translated "stranger" literally means "foreigner," and claim that this means we shouldn't marry outside our races. But you ignore the fact that while the verse does speak of "strangers," what it says about them is not that we are not to marry them. It says they can't be priests or the husbands of priests. You ignore everything about the context and usage of these words, and build your entire case on the fact that you found a word that means the same as some concept you find revolting.

Or you can say (as you attempt) that all Christians are priests. But the verses you quoted do not say that priests may not marry outside their race! No, it says that if priests marry outside their race, they are no longer of the very small and very priveleged class who were allowed to eat that food. No command, merely a restriction that those who eat the holy food must meet very strict criteria. So, if you want to deny those of us who "marry out" the right to eat the food consecrated in the Holy of Holies of the Jewish Temple, then... well, I suppose you've got Biblical support for that one. Happens there isn't any Holy of Holies or Jewish Temple these days, unfortunately.

Hmmm, deafening silence from Kasey on the Noachian question. He must be off trying to find the concordance that will tell him the Hebrew word for "ark" actually means "one of several boats of varying sizes in a flotilla bearing different races, each to its own one of several boats."

Ledifni said:

Your arguments are ridiculous. You are ridiculous. What do you do, go looking for a word that means "mixed-race" and then say, "Aha! The Bible has a word that means mongrel! Therefore I am right!" Is that your way of proving your point?

Click to expand...

In the context, that is the only thing it could mean Ledifni. You havent addressed the context, so what makes you think that just because you say its rediculous proves that I am not telling the truth?

Kasey, Leviticus 22 describes the behavior of the priests. It is not ambiguous and the Hebrew is certainly not ambiguous. It says that a non-Jew may not eat of the holy food. Do you know what the holy food was? It was for priests to eat only, in rites performed by and for the Chosen People specifically. Thus, non-Jews could not be priests (much as non-Americans can't be President), and if a priest's daughter (no other daughters are mentioned) marries outside of Israel, she could no longer administer the holy rites. This was an issue of keeping the priesthood completely in Aaron's pure line.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was describing the behavior of priests. I am not disputing that, however, you cannot ignore 1 Peter 2:9 which states, according to the context of 1 Peter 1:1-2, that the elect, the Christians are a royla priesthood. This proves that what this is speaking about cannot be just for the Old Covenant Priesthood System as Christians are the Priesthood of the New Covenant.

You're right, the word means what you say it does. Problem is, the verses are not ambiguous on what they're talking about. Foreigners may not eat the holy, consecrated food that was reserved for priests. The wives of foreigners may not eat the food. But neither could the average Hebrew. You're telling us that because a foreigner couldn't eat the most holy food that carried with it a penalty of death if any but a priest ate it, that this means God commands us not to marry outside our race. If that were true, then doesn't God also command us not to be non-Levites? After all, God also barred all but the children of Levi (Aaron's line) from eating that food.

Click to expand...

Your right, thanks, it does mean what I say it is and guess what, the issue is not the food, the issue is the marrying and having no child and all that. Thats the issue and according to the context of Deuteronomy 23:2, Nehemiah 13:3,27 and Ezra 10 and the creation account of Adam and Eve not being the first people on earth, its in a racial context. So, please, stick to the actual subject matter and dont try to get off into something else.

And your arguments continue in the same vein. It's a waste of time to address your verses, because it's clear you only want to hear what you want to believe. You see that the word translated "stranger" literally means "foreigner," and claim that this means we shouldn't marry outside our races. But you ignore the fact that while the verse does speak of "strangers," what it says about them is not that we are not to marry them. It says they can't be priests or the husbands of priests. You ignore everything about the context and usage of these words, and build your entire case on the fact that you found a word that means the same as some concept you find revolting.

Click to expand...

The context is always interracial marriage. Have you addressed Deuteronomy 23:2? Have you addressed Nehemiah 13:3 and the word "mixed" according to the Hebrew? Have you addressed the context of Ezra and Nehemiah 13:27 which explicetly state that marrying a foriegn, non-relative individual is a transgression against God's?

No you have not. Therefore, dont say that what Im saying is rediculous if your not going to address ALL the evidence.

Or you can say (as you attempt) that all Christians are priests. But the verses you quoted do not say that priests may not marry outside their race! No, it says that if priests marry outside their race, they are no longer of the very small and very priveleged class who were allowed to eat that food. No command, merely a restriction that those who eat the holy food must meet very strict criteria. So, if you want to deny those of us who "marry out" the right to eat the food consecrated in the Holy of Holies of the Jewish Temple, then... well, I suppose you've got Biblical support for that one. Happens there isn't any Holy of Holies or Jewish Temple these days, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

Have you taken Nehemiah 13:3,27 into context? It was a transgression to marry outside your race, period and that is writtin within the Laws of God. Deuteronomy 23:2 states explicetely that those of mixed racial heritage cannot enter into the congregation of the Lord.

Also, yeah, they could marry outside their race, but notice what the Israelites did in Nehemiah 13:3 after hearing about that in the Law - They SEPERATED themselves from the mixed multitude. This alone means they would have automatically supported Deuteronomy 23:2 and that is why the ancient Israelites didnt allow those of a foreign, racial context to live with them in ancient time because having other races around them always leads to interracial marriage, which always leads to mixed and mongrel children.

No, this is the New Covenant, where God's Commandments, Statutes and Judgments are still applicable, just not the Levitical Priesthood System. Since 1 Peter 2:9 calls those of the New Covenant a royal priesthood, as well as the fact that all other of God's moral and ethical laws are still applied, this means that Christians of the New Covenant are not to marry outside their race.

Ledifni said:

That's not what I asked and you know it. If you're imagining that listing the reference books you know about is going to impress me, please. I own everything you just listed and with the pathetic reasoning skills you've displayed, I hardly consider your rack of reference books to be much of a threat. Books are useless if you can't figure out how to use them correctly.

Click to expand...

I know how to use them correctly, you havent addressed anything. You havent addressed Deuteronomy 23:2, nor Ezra 10, nor Nehemiah 13:3, 27. You say you dont consider them a threat when you dont even go into the specific evidence I provide? Huh, yeah, right.

What I asked you is why you simply dismiss those verses for which you can't immediately find a plausible argument from the Hebrew. You're finding verses that you can translate and expound on (though your expositions sound suspiciously like a regurgitation of very specific "facts" you've been fed, judging by the huge gaps in your reasoning) -- and any verses you don't have a ready answer to are dismissed with, "Yeah, well, this other verse says I'm right! Ha! Answer that!"

Click to expand...

You havent shown anything to prove me wrong. You havent gone into the Hebrew. This is just all here-say on your part and cant be taken seriously until you actually address the Hebrew that I present from the experts.

You don't seem to have any interest in refuting parts of the Bible that directly contradict you. Rather, you pretend they don't exist. So again, does a verse have to be Certified True By Kasey(TM) to be true?

Click to expand...

Show me what they are! Show me the post # and I will take a look at it! Come on, lets not be a hypocrite here. If you have the evidence, then direct me to it SPECIFICALLY and I will address it.

I'm not trying to "get around" any of those books. I'm not a Christian, I don't believe in the Bible, and I don't give a damn what you think it says. Of course, when I see you ducking and weaving and desperately concocting flimsy arguments to throw at your opponents, it seems appropriate to call you on it.

Click to expand...

Well, duh, your not a CHristian and that makes all the difference in the world because a Christian would study the scriptures. A Judeo-Christian/Roman Catholic, Humanist, Athiest, Buddhist and all that would not.

But don't get the wrong impression, Kasey. Don't get the impression that I'm going to bother to educate you in theology. Theology is, at its heart, unprovable, and I long ago abandoned it as a useful way to learn about and live in the world. You need to have that argument with these others who still believe in it.

Click to expand...

Of course you wouldnt bother. Your acting the hypocrite. You say all of these things to try to discredit me but I dont see "YOU" going into the Hebrew in those passages in Nehemiah 13:3,27! I dont see you addressed Deuteronomy 23:2!

Come on, show me the courtesy of addressing those passages before you demonize me.

Your position has quite enough fundamental illogic and irrationality to attack on its own, without taking a theological tack. That your dealings with the Bible are equally irrational is hardly surprising, but if you want to convince me that you have any idea what you're talking about, you're going to have to step outside of the Bible. I know, it's hard, you haven't been told what to say unless it's about your favorite verses in Ezra and "God's statutes" (by which I assume you mean OT law as laid out in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). But it's what the rest of us have to do quite often, so it might be a useful skill to develop. You know, thinking for yourself.

Click to expand...

I will step outside the Bible soon enough. However, the issue at stake is whether or not the Bible is against marrying outside your race.

However, aside from this, this is all your opinion. Its here-say and is not fact. Your not a Bible studier, so who are you try to make me out to be an idiot? Your not, so stop it.

Kasey said:

Yeah, it was describing the behavior of priests. I am not disputing that, however, you cannot ignore 1 Peter 2:9 which states, according to the context of 1 Peter 1:1-2, that the elect, the Christians are a royla priesthood. This proves that what this is speaking about cannot be just for the Old Covenant Priesthood System as Christians are the Priesthood of the New Covenant.

Click to expand...

That means that we should sacrifice animals and do everything else that the Aaronic Priesthood did. Do you do all of those things?

The rest of your post just ignores what Ledifni has said about the context of those passages in Nehemiah and Deuteronomy. Rather than discuss the context itself and whose interpretation is right, you are constantly saying, "you have no evidence, you have not addressed the evidence, therefore I am right". To be frank, it doesn't work that way, Kasey. You have to address the points that he brings up in order to prove him wrong - if you can do that.

Ledifni said:

All members of the human race were descendants of the sons of Noah, according to the Bible. God said to Noah that all life on Earth would be destroyed, but that he would enter into a "covenant" with Noah. The word "covenant" here is the same word that is used throughout the Old and New Testament in context of the typology of Christ's coming in the Old Testament, and, in Hebrew, implies an eternal commitment to the object of the covenant (Noah) as well as his or her descendants, for all of time.

Click to expand...

Wrong - thats the erroneous teaching right there. Adam and Eve were NOT the first people on earth. I have shown this, thus, this is mute point. Your going off on a tangent thats completely irrelevant.

Under that covenant, Noah and his family were saved and nobody else. If you believe the Bible, then you must believe that the covenant endures today, that God was truthful when he said that Noah alone was left after "all creatures with breath" died, and that we are all descendants of one man.

Click to expand...

Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth. This is irrelevant in that regard.

If Moses's wife was of his race because she and Moses were descended from Noah, then so are we all of the same race. Your objection is specious at best.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Moses wife was of his race, that is true, but Adam and Eve were still not the first people on earth.

No, it doesn't come down to that at all. Forget Adam and Eve. An Ethiopian is black, and of the same general race as the rest of Africa. You pretend to define race by physical appearance, so how come she gets off on the basis of lineage? Furthermore, we all have that same Noahic lineage if the Bible is accurate (whether or not there were races from people other than Adam and Eve), so how were you defining races, again?

Click to expand...

An Ethiopian is Black according to what? What other people say? Im not going according to what other people say. The Bible specifically states that Adam and EVe were NOT the first people on earth, and the Ethiopian according to the English is a MISTRANSLATION - Both Strong's Concordance and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon will tell you that.

Adam and Even is the complete basis for all of this. Show that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth and you destroy ALL of several erroneous doctrines. Adam and Eve did not spawn the entire human race. They were created last.

More: which of our modern races are descended from Ham? Shem? Japheth? Someone unrelated to Noah (if you believe there was any such person)? The Bible does not say. How do you know that black people and white people aren't both descended from Noah, or even from the same son of Noah?

So you need to answer the following:
Which races are descended from Ham? Show Biblical evidence.
Which races are descended from Shem? Show Biblical evidence.
Which races are descended from Japheth? Show Biblical evidence.
Which races are descended from a non-Noahic line? Show Biblical evidence.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth.

Furthermore, you claim to be able to "prove" that there are races aside from Adam and Eve. Incest is not a valid argument, as Lot procreated by incest and was called "righteous." Adam and Eve's children might well have engaged in incest to spread the race. And I dearly hope you're not talking about the Nephilim -- they were called "sons of God" using the same Hebrew word that is used to refer to angels. Angels are not another race of men. You should probably get to proving that, then.

Click to expand...

the Nephelim were not ANgels. According to Strong's Concordance and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, that word "nephil" merely means a giant, A TYRANT. It has nothign to do with Angelic beings.

Nehemiah 13 discusses the mixing of Isreal with Moab and Ammon. This was because of Balaam's curse, which put them at odds with God's people. In response to this command regarding the mixing with those who led Israelites astray, they cast out everyone of foreign descent, or as you say, "strange" or racially different descent. Of course, the only racially different people who lived in and around Canaan were the Moabites and Ammonites.

Click to expand...

It wasnt just because of that, for what is the context? Its Dueteronomy 23:2! It specifically states that a "b" shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even unto his tenth generation. Verse 3 speaks about the Moabites and the Ammonites in that context as well. So, its speaking about the Mongrel Ammonites and Moabites in addition to Balaam. Do not forget the context! THe context is mongrel people!

God does not command them to cast out all who are "strange" or "mixed." Rather, God commands them to cast out Moab and Ammon because of Balaam's curse, and so they cast them out, the only foreign peoples in their land. It was the people who chose the criterion of mixed or foreign ancestry, not God. So where is God's command to avoid interracial marriages?

Click to expand...

Wrong, you are forgetting Deuteronomy 23:2. The commandments against interracial marriage are stated as shown earlier in Leviticus 22:13. Even though, at that time, it was speaking about the Priesthood, the entire issue was marrying without to "zoor" stranger, which was alien, out-landish, foreign and adulterative and IF the woman was DIVORCED, which supported Nehemiah 13:, 27 and had NO CHILD, which supports Deuteronomy 23:2 and Nehemiah 13:3, then she was allowed to come back and eat of the food. Since 1 Peter 2:9 specifically states that the elect, according to the context of 1 Peter 1:1-2 are the Royal Priesthood, all of this applies to the New Covenant Christians.

Why, they're not full of "malarkey" at all. You are, because you have no idea how to read them or use them, and are picking and choosing little bits that you think you can twist to your own ends. Well, I'm calling you on it

Click to expand...

Your the one thats even under the impression that the Bible teaches that all come from Adam and Eve, which it does not, so how can anyone trust what you say on this regard?