Logic about same race marriage

[gaijin178]

Interesting....Tucson, a pretty diverse area of Arizona, no wonder you are feeling this way. I am not advocating destroying races. I am saying, in this case, does it really matter? Honestly, do you think that God would really care if people just looked at them just as they are? Do you think that if there is a heaven, and someone of a mixed race gets there, that God is going to say, oh no, you aren't a pure race. That's going to cause some problems? Seriously....you said that the brown folks have as much right to exist as the European-American folks? Damn right, they were here before any Whiteman came to this land preaching the"good news."

 

[gaijin178]

Your are not defining "love". The Bible defines it for you.

Romans 13:10: Love worketh no ill towards its neighbore; therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law.

1 John 5:3: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

In addition, I would point out that CHrist's commandments of Love thy Neighbor as Thyself and Love God with all your Strength, Mind and Body are direct quotations from the Law and the Prophets, of God's Commandments, Statutes and Judgements.

1. Leviticus 19:18 - Love Thy Neighbor
2. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Dueteronomy 10:12 - Love God with all your Strength Mind and Body.

God the Father and Christ Jesus would not be happy about a Black marrying a white and having children, nor for any other combination of racial people mixing their race.

God's Law is not silly, not is it abolished or done away with - only the Levitical Priesthood System was abolished, but that was completely seperate and never part of God's commandments, statutes and judgments as specifically stated by the context of Exodus 24:3 and Hebrews 9-10.

Only Judeo-Christians or Roman Catholics would want nothing to do with God's Law - They are not following the Bible and I would challenge anyone to a debate to show me where Im wrong. I am confident that I have the evidence to show them to be speaking according to their own imagination and not the scriptures.

No sir, it's statements like these that God isn't going to be happy about. I just imagine God watching his "followers" and thinking...boy, do they have it all wrong. I'm done with this...I will not tolerate this kind of thought any longer. I am tired and to be honest, very sad that these thoughts still exist. I will be off now with my interracial.....yes, I said it...interracial relationship and be done...God strike me down for loving someone. I am sick.

 

[appleofhiseye]

News Flash:

Adam and Eve had light Brown skin!
Not White Not Black!
It's all a matter of dominant/recessive genes as to what color you skin is.

Interracial marriages or not.

 

[Blackguard_]

Adam and Eve had light Brown skin!
Not White Not Black!

How do you know what skin color they had? They could have purple skin for all we know.

It's all a matter of dominant/recessive genes as to what color you skin is.

Exactly. All the feautures exclusive to white people are recessives so if the races mixed they would disappear.Blue/green eyes brown/blonde/red hair are all recessive traits.

 

[Kasey]

Kasey, you are just a misguided member of some bizarre sect. God estabilished the Catholic Church, and without her you wouldn't even know which books belong and which don't belong to the Bible.

You are completely out of your sane and logical mind. God the Father and Christ Jesus did not estalibhs the Roman Catholic Church. Let me guess, are you speaking about that passage in Matthew?

Matthew 16:18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

According to Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the Greek word for "peter" is "petros" and it means a stone, a rock. The Greek word for "rock" in this same passage, according to these same two sources is "petra" and it means a ""LARGE"" stone or rock

Obviously, Christ was not referring to Peter as the Rock being spoken of here because there is a completely different word being used in this same passage thats different than the one used for Peter.

The passage that nails this completely and makes it irrefutably clear is 1 Corinthains 10:4

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The same Greek word for "Rock" is used as in the passage of Matthew - Petra and it means a LARGE stone or rock. Also, in the context, this passage specifically states that Christ is this rock.

Therefore, I rest my case. The ROman Catholic Church was founded upon a lie and all that result inevitably ends up being a lie. You cannot show me to be wrong because the Bible and the Greek shows "you" to be wrong. The "church" is not a building or oganized religion such as the Roman Catholic Church. This is evident according to the Greek word for "church", which is "ekklesia" and it means the christian community, not a building.

I have the evidence, you dont. You showed nothing from the scriptures to show I am wrong, you just said that I was. What malarkey

Of course, since you have contempt for reason and logic (or at least this is what you have shown so far), as if they could contradict God's revelation in any way, you will never accept anything anyone proves to you, and will persevere in your errors until you decide to use your God-given rationality.

Your the pot trying to call the kettle black. How dare "you" get up here and say that I am wrong and then say I wont believe anyone else when they prove something to me to be true when you yourself has given no evidence to support your claim.

Put some evidence where your mouth is and stop being a hypocrite.

 

[Kasey]

No sir, it's statements like these that God isn't going to be happy about. I just imagine God watching his "followers" and thinking...boy, do they have it all wrong. I'm done with this...I will not tolerate this kind of thought any longer. I am tired and to be honest, very sad that these thoughts still exist. I will be off now with my interracial.....yes, I said it...interracial relationship and be done...God strike me down for loving someone. I am sick.

SHow me from the Bible where I am wrong, Gaijin, otherwise, go away. Either put up or shut up.

 

[gaijin178]

SHow me from the Bible where I am wrong, Gaijin, otherwise, go away. Either put up or shut up.

First of all, do not tell me to shut up. I have been respectful to you, be the same to me. Second, I don't believe the bible to be infallable. So when we are talking about this, there needs to be some level ground. The scriptures in the bible have not proved to anyone, that God wants certain races to be together. That means, that even in the European-American sense, an Italian cannot marry someone who is French. That is how specific we are getting.

 

[Blackguard_]

I am not advocating destroying races.

ok, good. You're one of those "love whover you want and let the pieces fall as they may" types? So what do you see wrong with someone who finds ther own races traits the most attractive and does not want to see those traits destroyed?

I am saying, in this case, does it really matter? Honestly, do you think that God would really care if people just looked at them just as they are? Do you think that if there is a heaven, and someone of a mixed race gets there, that God is going to say, oh no, you aren't a pure race. That's going to cause some problems?

I do not share Kasey's view of race mixing. I have tried and failed to argue it was morally wrong. Now I just personally think it is a bad idea and find it repulsive but I cannot say it is sin.

 

[gaijin178]

ok, good. You're one of those "love whover you want and let the pieces fall as they may" types? So what do you see wrong with someone who finds ther own races traits the most attractive and does not want to see those traits destroyed?



I do not share Kasey's view of race mixing. I have tried and failed to argue it was morally wrong. Now I just personally think it is a bad idea and find it repulsive but I cannot say it is sin.

Well, I am glad to hear that you cannot find that it is morally wrong. To comment on your first statement, you said something about not wanting to see those traits destroyed. Well, here is the thing, we are each unique. We all have traits that are different than the next. God created us no? Isn't that your belief? So why couldn't God continue to create beings with the same traits that you love? Doesn't God have a say in which couples have children and who their parents are? Doesn't God have a say in what people are going to look like and what gifts they will have? I know that this is the Christian view, God gives people gifts, he also takes away. Right? If you are not physically attracted to people that are not of your race then that's fine. But don't make a blanket statement saying that it's wrong.

 

[MidnightBlue]

I doubt whether anybody you know is a whiter white woman than Queen Elizabeth II, and that good lady has Arab and African ancestors; she is, in fact, a direct descendant of Muhammad.

Link to source please.

I hope you do not mean the apochryphal story of Elanor of Aquitaine and Saladin, as Liz 2 is from a different family.

Queen Elizabeth II is descended from Eleanor of Aquitaine but not, of course, from Saladin. (Not from a pairing of Saladin and Eleanor, anyway.)

Unfortunately, I don't know of a link to provide you with a reference. It's nto the case that everything I know was learned from the internet. I suppose the information may be out there on the internet somewhere, but I reckon you can use a search engine as well as I can. If I provided documentation, it wouldn't really change your views anyway, would it?

 

[christalee4]

Hi Kasey!! No, I won't shut up !!

Anyway, with a guy like you, let's get down to real business. In your philosophy of racial purity and separation, your crucial problem will come when your children want to get married. Unless you keep them in your tightly regulated Christian separatist compound, they may be meeting people of other races and cultures. Unless you completely don't let them out of the compound and see other brownish people.

How do you determine who is racially pure for marrying your children?

I have a cousin who is completely blonde and blue eyed, but she is 1 quarter Native American. She looks like a bouncy German babe. Would you need to do tests on future sons and daughters in law to determine their racial make up? There has been a lot of inter breeding among the races and cultures over the last century, and unless your tribe has been holed up in a compound for a couple of decades, you ain't gonna be seeing no racial purity.

Let us disseminate, if you are man enough:

I would let or not let my daughter or son marry the following:

- Someone of the Irish descent.
- Someone who looks white: blond, blue eyed, but who may be 1/4 Native American.
- Someone who is of Italian descent, but who is somewhat hairy and swarthy.
- Someone who looks really white, but who has black hair and and brown eyes, and who is a fine upstanding Christian person.
- Someone who may be part black from way back, but who looks white.
_ Someone whose family is from Latin America, and has family members who don't speak much English.
- Someone who has a slightly slanted Asian cast to their eyes, and you are not sure where they are coming from.
- Someone who may have been born from a Jewish person, down the line.

You may need to become comfortable with science, in order to determine who is racially pure enough to marry your sons and daughters. Otherwise it will be a guessing game.

 

[Blackguard_]

Unfortunately, I don't know of a link to provide you with a reference. It's nto the case that everything I know was learned from the internet. I suppose the information may be out there on the internet somewhere, but I reckon you can use a search engine as well as I can.

Ok. A link would have been easier than going to a library to look at the source though.

If I provided documentation, it wouldn't really change your views anyway, would it?

It would depend on the source.

 

[southernmissfan]

Thank you, ego licet visum, for your post. You've done much to expose some of the hypocrisy here, as well as bring some of the racist, White Power types out of the woodwork. Good work!

 

[Lifesaver]

You are completely out of your sane and logical mind. God the Father and Christ Jesus did not estalibhs the Roman Catholic Church. Let me guess, are you speaking about that passage in Matthew? Matthew 16:18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
According to Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the Greek word for "peter" is "petros" and it means a stone, a rock. The Greek word for "rock" in this same passage, according to these same two sources is "petra" and it means a ""LARGE"" stone or rockObviously, Christ was not referring to Peter as the Rock being spoken of here because there is a completely different word being used in this same passage thats different than the one used for Peter.The passage that nails this completely and makes it irrefutably clear is 1 Corinthains 10:41Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. The same Greek word for "Rock" is used as in the passage of Matthew - Petra and it means a LARGE stone or rock. Also, in the context, this passage specifically states that Christ is this rock.Therefore, I rest my case. The ROman Catholic Church was founded upon a lie and all that result inevitably ends up being a lie. You cannot show me to be wrong because the Bible and the Greek shows "you" to be wrong. The "church" is not a building or oganized religion such as the Roman Catholic Church. This is evident according to the Greek word for "church", which is "ekklesia" and it means the christian community, not a building.

Same old dishonest interpretation. Simon's name was changed to Peter exactly so that Jesus would make His point; instead of "completely different words", we have the name derived from rock.
According to you, Jesus named St. Peter like that for no reason at all, not to mention He gives St. Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which you also dishonestly chose to overlook.

Furthermore, in Aramaic the two words (Peter and rock) are the same.
Case closed.

I hope you repent of your racist sect, which so deeply insults God with its very existence.

I have the evidence, you dont. You showed nothing from the scriptures to show I am wrong, you just said that I was. What malarkey

By citing Scriptures and not accepting the authority of the Catholic Church, you are automatically a hypocrite...

Your the pot trying to call the kettle black. How dare "you" get up here and say that I am wrong and then say I wont believe anyone else when they prove something to me to be true when you yourself has given no evidence to support your claim.

Your "evidence" speaks only against you, and in two levels at that:
first, for being taken from a book which is only known to be inspired by God because of the authority of the Church; second, because the argument used is of blatant hypocrisy and dishonesty.
You won't believe the Catholic Church because you don't want to give up of your false doctrines, one of them the crazy racist notions you defend in this thread.

Put some evidence where your mouth is and stop being a hypocrite.

The defense you try to build is all I need to prove my point.

 

[beechy]

That depends on several factors. If your the product and a white and black, then it would be prudent to get together with someone else who is the same, would it not?

So is white&black its own "race" then? That is, if a white and black person get together and produce a 1/2 black, 1/2 white child, have they created a new race: white&black? If so, is this "new race" somehow inferior to a "pure" race because it was born of a disgusting, perverted "interracial" union?

Should a 1/2white, 1/2black person try to find another 1/2white, 1/2 black person, or would it be ok for them to marry a 1/4 white, 3/4 black person?

Also, what exactly would you say is "white"? English? French? Spanish? Portugese? Latvian? Icelandic? Light skin? Blond hair? Medium skin? Brown hair?

Is it ok for a blonde Swedish man to marry and red headed Irish girl? How about for a light skinned Ethiopian to marry a dark skinned Ugandan? Chinese and Filipino ok?

 

[Kasey]

First of all, do not tell me to shut up. I have been respectful to you, be the same to me. Second, I don't believe the bible to be infallable. So when we are talking about this, there needs to be some level ground. The scriptures in the bible have not proved to anyone, that God wants certain races to be together. That means, that even in the European-American sense, an Italian cannot marry someone who is French. That is how specific we are getting.

Respectful to me? No, you were not. Your statements were offensive to me because you had the audacity to say that God wouldnt like what I said even though you said or showed nothing to support such a claim when the entire context of this discussion was what the Bible stated about interracial marriage.

The Bible has shown what it states concerning interracial marriage. You say it hasnt, but you havent shown from the scriptures itself. Therefore, since you have not, then the logical conclusion based on the evidence at hand would be to say that I have support from the scriptures and you dont.

Therefore, yeah, until you can actually present evidence from the scriptures of the Bible, which is the context of all of this, I will tell you to go away or as I said earlier "put up or shut up"

 

[Kasey]

Hi Kasey!! No, I won't shut up !!

Anyway, with a guy like you, let's get down to real business. In your philosophy of racial purity and separation, your crucial problem will come when your children want to get married. Unless you keep them in your tightly regulated Christian separatist compound, they may be meeting people of other races and cultures. Unless you completely don't let them out of the compound and see other brownish people.

How do you determine who is racially pure for marrying your children?

I have a cousin who is completely blonde and blue eyed, but she is 1 quarter Native American. She looks like a bouncy German babe. Would you need to do tests on future sons and daughters in law to determine their racial make up? There has been a lot of inter breeding among the races and cultures over the last century, and unless your tribe has been holed up in a compound for a couple of decades, you ain't gonna be seeing no racial purity.

Let us disseminate, if you are man enough:

I would let or not let my daughter or son marry the following:

- Someone of the Irish descent.
- Someone who looks white: blond, blue eyed, but who may be 1/4 Native American.
- Someone who is of Italian descent, but who is somewhat hairy and swarthy.
- Someone who looks really white, but who has black hair and and brown eyes, and who is a fine upstanding Christian person.
- Someone who may be part black from way back, but who looks white.
_ Someone whose family is from Latin America, and has family members who don't speak much English.
- Someone who has a slightly slanted Asian cast to their eyes, and you are not sure where they are coming from.
- Someone who may have been born from a Jewish person, down the line.

You may need to become comfortable with science, in order to determine who is racially pure enough to marry your sons and daughters. Otherwise it will be a guessing game.

There would be no problem as the Bible is completely clear on what constitutes a race. You have felines, or cats if you will, then you have an even more specific division such as tigers, then, you have white tigers and orange-black striped tigers. Its the same with all different species out there as it is the same with human beings.

God's Laws are for the racial purity of mankind as well as plant life and the animal world. All that I would have to do would be what God the Father and Christ Jesus state to do and that is teach the children God's Laws and that is exactly what I am going to be doing. I would only have a problem if they dont listen to me, but everyone has to deal with something like that one way or the other.

Aside from this, if you cant tell the difference between an oriental, black or white individual just as it is so obivous to be able to distinquish between them like you would for a lion and a tiger, then you definately do have a problem.

However, regardless, the contention is for what the Bible states and you still havent shown me anything from the scriptures to show that I am wrong and until you do, I have nothing more to say and rest my case on this matter

 

[Kasey]

Same old dishonest interpretation. Simon's name was changed to Peter exactly so that Jesus would make His point; instead of "completely different words", we have the name derived from rock.
According to you, Jesus named St. Peter like that for no reason at all, not to mention He gives St. Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which you also dishonestly chose to overlook.

It is not according to me, it is according to two verifiably and completely accurate Greek sources. How about you start by trying to discredt The Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Greek Lexicon? I get my evidence from them and they show you to be in error - the Greek concerning the definition nof "Peter" and "rock" in that passage in Matthews.

Furthermore, in Aramaic the two words (Peter and rock) are the same.
Case closed.

We are not dealing with the Aramaic, we are dealing with the Greek, stop comparing apples to oranges.

I hope you repent of your racist sect, which so deeply insults God with its very existence.

Im not just for my own race's racial purity, for I am for the other races racial purity as well. Blacks should stay blacks, orientals should stay oriental and whites should stay whites.

However, until you can show where Im wrong for the scriptures, all that you say doesnt hold water and I think you know that. As a matter of a fact, I know you know it

By citing Scriptures and not accepting the authority of the Catholic Church, you are automatically a hypocrite...

I dont accept the authority of any fallible human being or organization such as the Roman Catholic Church. There is no evidence within the scriptures for such an organization even by the Greek word for "church" alone, which according to Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Greek Lexicon, is the Greek word "ekklesia" and it means the community of people, NOT a religious organization or a building.

Your "evidence" speaks only against you, and in two levels at that:
first, for being taken from a book which is only known to be inspired by God because of the authority of the Church; second, because the argument used is of blatant hypocrisy and dishonesty.

The Roman Catholic Church is the authority of "Judeo-Christianity" and "Roman Catholicism", not the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church is the authority of The Latin Vulgate, not the the scriptures. You shall never have my allegience nor my support as you are nothing short of fallible human beings playing the role of God and that violates the First Commandment.

You won't believe the Catholic Church because you don't want to give up of your false doctrines, one of them the crazy racist notions you defend in this thread.

I refuse to believe in an organization built by "human" beings. End of discussion. Your not God the Father and Christ Jesus and you never will be. You dont have your authority from anything based in the scriptures as I have conclusively shown by the evidence based in The Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Greek Lexicon.

The defense you try to build is all I need to prove my point.

Your point means nothing as you havent shown anything from the BIble to prove me wrong, therefore, you result to name-calling and of the like. The Pharisees called Christ many names as well with no justification to do so, thus, how are you any different?

Your not. You call me names and try to make me out to be the bad guy because you cant prove a word I am saying to be contrary to the scriptures. Thats so typical of Judeo-Christians and/or Roman Catholics.

Show me from the "Bible" where I am wrong and then I will believe you. My authority is God the Father and Christ Jesus and they teach us from the Bible, not from you.

 

[Kasey]

So is white&black its own "race" then? That is, if a white and black person get together and produce a 1/2 black, 1/2 white child, have they created a new race: white&black? If so, is this "new race" somehow inferior to a "pure" race because it was born of a disgusting, perverted "interracial" union?

Should a 1/2white, 1/2black person try to find another 1/2white, 1/2 black person, or would it be ok for them to marry a 1/4 white, 3/4 black person?

Also, what exactly would you say is "white"? English? French? Spanish? Portugese? Latvian? Icelandic? Light skin? Blond hair? Medium skin? Brown hair?

Is it ok for a blonde Swedish man to marry and red headed Irish girl? How about for a light skinned Ethiopian to marry a dark skinned Ugandan? Chinese and Filipino ok?

Technically speaking, white-black people having their own children are producing their own race as far as I can tell. However, whether they are inferior is a matter of perspective. If your talking about physical characteristics such as intelligence, strength, dexterity, agility and of the like, then it basically depends on the individual.

I consider white people to be white and Black people to be black just as I consider a lion to be a lion and a tiger to be a tiger.

As with the other questions, just use your head

 

[U R my Sonshine]

I consider white people to be white and Black people to be black just as I consider a lion to be a lion and a tiger to be a tiger.

As with the other questions, just use your head

A tiger and lion are two different species. All human beings are the same species. Use YOUR head.