Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
mhatten said:The OP:
Nothing here about the Bible, so please tell me how you identify different races.
Kasey said:This is irrelevant, im not talking about the OP, I am talking about those who responded to me talking about how The Bible is against interracial marriage.
Kasey said:Therefore, its not a moot point! It has EVERYTHING To do with it because the lie concerning intteracial marriage STARTS with Adam and Eve! For if Adam and Eve actually WERE the first people on earth, then there is technically no concept nor room for races such as black and white!
Thus, like I said, show me in that regard and you got me. So, go ahead, prove that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth!
Ledifni said:Kasey, as I told you before I do not believe the Bible. It is not my intention to prove that Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth because the Bible simply doesn't say. You pretend to argue that the Bible must be interpreted to support your racism, but in fact you are merely arguing that the Bible may be interpreted to support your racism.
As I see it, you've already lost the argument. You are trying to pretend you haven't, by demanding that I "prove" things from the Bible. But I don't live by the Bible, so you're asking the wrong person.
No, what I set out to do, and have successfully done, is demonstrate that your interpretation is merely a possible one. Yes, one can interpret the Bible to mean that God created others alongside Adam and Eve. One can also interpret the relevant passages to mean that when God said, "You may eat of all green plants," he failed to mention the Tree of Knowledge simply because that tree hadn't been created yet. He called Adam and Eve "them" because there were two of them. I have not seen you present any other arguments, and so as it stands, you interpret the passages to mean that only because you want them to mean that -- not because they must mean that.
As so it is with every other claim you've made in this entire thread. You insist that your interpretation is correct and everyone else's is wrong. You pretend that because you can regurgitate Hebrew word definitions from a reference book on your lap, you know what you're talking about. But in point of fact, you're simply looking for ways to interpret the Bible in support of your depraved racist tendencies. You are not reading the Bible and finding racism in it. Rather, you are racist and are reading the Bible in an attempt to justify your existing hatred.
In my opinion, God was created in man's image, that is, man conceived God as an arbitrary, infinite justification and manifestation of his own character and values. You are constructing your God through interpretation of Biblical passages, and you are choosing your interpretations based on how much like your ideas they are. As such, one cannot help but wonder what you think of God, when you are so determined to create a God of alienation and elitism. Whether you can see it or not, we all can see the valid alternate interpretations of the Bible that you could espouse -- but don't, because you simply don't want to give up your racism.
Oh, and last but not least -- using a reference book compiled by experts does not give you the sanction or approval of said experts when you draw extrapolative conclusions from the simple facts they laid out. Nor can you honestly claim that your words are their words unless you are quoting their books verbatim and adding not one single word, comment, or analysis of your own. One can draw one's entire body of facts from a respected and expert source, and still spout drivel. You're the perfect example.
Ledifni said:I note with wry amusement that Kasey eagerly expects, even insists upon, attacks against his translations of specific Hebrew words. Whenever anyone attacks what he says using any other argument, he immediately and very loudly demands that the person show him which of his Hebrew definitions are wrong, even though as far as I've seen, not one person has said that he wrongly defined any Hebrew word in this entire thread.
I suspect this is because he really has no idea what he's talking about, and the only place he can feel confident is in his Hebrew definitions -- because they come from an expert and not from him. One wonders whether Kasey has ever uttered an original word in which he can place any degree of confidence.
Ledifni said:But Kasey, your Leviticus 22:3 argument is so pathetic that I can't help but address it. "Seed" in Leviticus 22:3 refers to Aaron's seed, that is, his family and descendants. It states that any of Aaron's seed who is unclean, e.g., a leper, may not eat of the holy food. It has nothing to do with race.
How many times are you going to do this, Kasey? You have not yet addressed one single rebuttal of mine. Every time, you run wildly back to your Bible to find a verse, any verse, something that has a Hebrew word you can translate! Oh no! Desperation! That one didn't work on him, where's another Hebrew word?! Quick!
So how many times do you plan to go hunting for another Hebrew word? This is pointless. Your ideas are clearly refuted by everything you've shown yet. So what purpose do you pretend to serve by finding parts of the Bible that might not refute you? I see no reason to play that game. You've already made yourself ridiculous enough, no need to belabor the point.
Ledifni said:*sigh*
As usual, Kasey doesn't touch my arguments, but instead uses lots of pretty exclamation points to direct everyone's attention to some other part of the Bible that he thinks might be able to support his bigotry.
Have fun with that, Kasey.
Ledifni said:(1) God calls Adam and Eve "them," which means there were more than two of them, since two people can't be referred to as "them."
(2) Before God put the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he told Adam that he could eat of all the plants on Earth (since the Tree of Knowledge wasn't on the Earth yet). After God put the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge in the garden, he said, "You can't eat of the Tree of Knowledge." This is clearly a contradiction, because... well, because Kasey can't quite figure out why God would say, "You can eat everything" before he put the one and only thing they couldn't eat on Earth, and then say something different once that thing was planted.
Well, since we've disposed of that ridiculous argument, here's something else I noticed from that page:
You say that it was acceptable for Ruth to be an ancestor of Jesus, because she was a Moabite and Moabites are descended from Shem. Yes? Well, you surely remember Nehemiah 13, that chapter from which you drew so much evidence about God's commands concerning interracial mixing. I suggest you read the whole chapter -- then come back and tell me about how Moabites aren't "ereb" and Jesus wasn't "nokriy." This should be very interesting
Kasey said:Um, excuse me, dont ignore the rest, which clearly states a race of men, stock, race. The context in question is Leviticus 22:12-13. It specifically states that if she was divorced and had no child, she could come back. Thats the context. The context is a race of men, or racial lineage. She was the priests daughter, of a specific lineage, yet, if she married without to a foreign, alien, out-landish, which, in the context, could only mean a different race, then she wouldnt be allowed to heat the holy things. Only if she was divorced and has NO CHILD would she be allowed to come back.
Kasey said:If it has nothing to do with race, then there wouldnt be no need for "no child" in Leviticus 22:13. That alone proves it has everything to do with race.
Kasey said:For a cultural/faith/religion thing doesnt really matter when concerning a racial matter as the culture can be independant of the race. Its a racial context because of the ALL the definitions of the word seed, which you have ignored, as well as "no child" which completely supported Nehemiah 13:3,27.
Kasey said:Dont forget Ezra 10:2-3. The word strange there is "nokriy" again, and just as you have admitted previously that the translations that I have shown are correct, then you cannot ignore the fact that the definition also means "non-relative". In the context of Leviticus 22:3, 12-13, this is racial.
Kasey said:Marriage to different races and those BORN unto them are to be put away, which is completely supportive of Deuteronomy 23:2, which is supportive of the fact that Adam and Eve were created in context of those animals and plant-life created previously of being "AFTER THEIR KIND"
Kasey said:The Hebrew makes all the difference. However, your not a Christian, so why should it matter to you? In your response right now, you deliberately ignored the rest of the definitions to the word "seed" in that context. You deliberately didnt mention the context of Leviticus 22:12-13 which is based in verse 3 as well as that which you mentioned.
Kasey said:You cannot get around the simple fact that it is because of the word "seed" as well as the woman being spoken of as being a priest of that particular seed, or race of men, or race, or family, or stock. It specifically states that shes not to have any children, for only if she doesnt is she allowed to come back, which is supportive of Ezra 10:2-3, Nehemiah 13:3,27.
Kasey said:As I have stated numermous times. All of this goes RIGHT back to Adam and Eve NOT being the first people on earth.
Kasey said:I have shown the evidence completely and specifically, that there are completely two different accounts of man being created. You have what happened in Genesis 1 and you have what happened in Genesis 2 and they are both completely different.
Therefore, as I have even said previously as well, all of this depends on the fact that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth. You would have to show that to be a lie in order to show that I am teaching lies. However, since you have not and continue to have not, it must mean im telling the truth. I think you know this because if you had the evidence, you would willfully show how Im wrong abouat Adam and Eve, to show how I might be liar, to expose me for a fraud, so therefore no one might listen to what you call a racist.
Adam and Eve is the basis, the foundation. If they were created as the first people on earth and all people came from them, then interracial marriage and producing mongrel children wouldnt matter would it? It would be pointless. This is why its so important. This is why it always goes back to that.
Yet, you still havent shown anything on that regard, nor addressed the specifics of Genesis, therefore, all can see that you cannot show me to be wrong and that is what shows that I am right.
kofh2u said:The argument doesn't cut it, that diversity by means of racial intermarriage is good. Sameness is not a useful survival tool. And, there is evidence that mankind has different mental capabilities rooted in genetic differences.
We need "differences" in the way we think in order find different solutions to the same problems.
Maybe they live in northern Wisconsin!gaijin178 said:How many folks on this thread are European-American? See, everyone gets a hyphon....happy? How many folks on this thread have never had a relationship or friendship with someone other than their race? Why are people so afraid of ethnicity and race? I don't get it...I never will...I am so sick to my stomach right now from reading this $%#@ that I want to puke.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?