Logic about same race marriage

[Misty Minister]

The only realy "pure whites now days are most of the folks from Iceland. I is too late already. So what have we got in the USA. The mexicans are mostly 1/2 to 1/4 caucasion, 95% of the Blacks are half caucasion, 40 % of the whites in the Southwest are part something else, and who really knows about the mixtures from the invasions of Europe by Asians.

 

[Misty Minister]

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.

How would YOU know that? Give us a break! Everyone else knows they had Red skin and green eyes just like the rest of the Martians.
"Adam and Eve had light Brown skin!
Not White Not Black!"

 

[Misty Minister]

Well if you want to get into mixing, we are not even supposed to mix thread types if you follow the OT laws.

 

[Misty Minister]

The US is an ungodly, perverted nation that is bent on doing everything but living according to the Bible. Its no suprise that its "changing". Yet, its not changing for the better, its changing for the worse and it will continue to be this way all the way up until Christ returns to establish His Kingdom.

Your children will more than likely end up like that, but my children will not. They will be taught God's Law and live every day of their lives in accordance with the Bible, not your philosphy nor anyone elses.

Empire. The USA is an Empire that spans a continent and also has some islands. The USA is not really a nation. Not all of a Empire is going to be ukngodly and perverted.

 

[Misty Minister]

A mantra for many
Kill all the ________________ (group of your choice)!
Kill all the ________________ (group of your choice) right now!
repeat until you attain insanity.
I am otta here. The OP was supposed to be a joke... Duh!

 

[Kasey]

Leviticus 22:13 is one of the two instances of a particular commandment: that only those who are purely of Aaron's line may eat of the holy food. Not purely Jewish, but purely of Aaron's line. Non-Levitical Jews were not allowed to eat of the holy food even if they were pure Israelites. Any daughter of a priest who married a "stranger" could not eat of the food. However, where is the command that she may not marry the stranger? It is not there. Only a command that if she does, she may not eat the holy food because she is no longer purely of Aaron's line.

Dueteronomy 25:5. Thats the Law saying that the woman shall not marry a "zuwr" stranger. This same Hebrew word is used for "stranger" in Leviticus 22:12-13, Which in turn, means someone of a different race because of the word "seed" in context in Leviticus 22:3, which, in turn, is in context of Genesis 5:1, which shows that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth because there would be no need for it, which shows that Adam and Eve were a specific race of people.

No, with the purity of Aaron's blood. Those verses are great and all, but which one says that the daughter of a priest may not marry a stranger? They say that if she does, she may not eat the holy food -- but do they say she may not marry him? Nope.

Ah ah ah! Dont forget Dueteronomy 25:5! She shall not marry without unto a "zuwr" stranger, which in the context means another race!

Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon - #2114, under pages 242-243, this word means a stranger, strange, of another nation, an alien by BIRTH. Of another FAMILY, adulterers, profligates, strange childrens, i.e BASTAR#

Of another family, someone alien by "birth", strange CHILDREN, a bastar#. The context, is Leviticus 22:3, which states that the Priest's daughet was of a specific race of men and ONLY if she had "no child" and was widowed or divorce was she allowed to come back. This is supportive of Nehemiah 13:3,27, Ezra 10 and Leviticus 19:19 as well. In addition, the context of all of God's Laws is Genesis 5:1; This is the Book of the Generations of Adam, the history! THe FAMILY! The DESCENT! This proves that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, else, it wouldnt need to specify!

Genesis 5:1 alone shows all that im saying to be correct, for if it wasnt, then there would be no need for this passage. This is specification and I dont even think you would argue with that. There is no need for specification if something contradictions that particular specification to begin with and that would be exactly the case if Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. The word "generations" there is the absolute key as well. It specifies of what racial lineage the Bible is talking about for Adam's race is very specific to have been created last - there is no doubt about that. So, how many times must I repeatedly point you back to Genesis 5:1; which shows you to be oh so wrong?

Nehemiah 13, as I have repeatedly pointed out, speaks of the Moabites and Ammonites and the transgression of Balaam. It is a punishment on those two nations for Balaam's curse, not a command to keep the races pure. Unless you're so certain God's a racist that you just want to interpret them that way, of course...

Your ignoring the context of where they got this commandment, which is Dueteronomy 23:2, which is the context of a bastar$ not entering into the congregation of the Lord, which means a mongrel person, which means that you must marry out side your race to get something such as that and the Moabites and Ammonites are mentioned as being in the same catagory. Not even unto their TENTH generation shall they not. This is conclusive evidence that its talking about mongrelized moabites.

The fact that it speaks of generations and goes all the way up to the tenth generation shows you that its talking about in a racial context, for if it were not, then thise would be absurd and rediculous. A racial context is the only viable context as its the only one that fits and makes sense.

Furthermore, the words used are "ereb" and "nokriy." "Ereb" means "a mixed multitude," and can mean a group of men and women as easily as a group of Israelites and Moabites. "Nokriy" means "foreign" or "alien" -- it definitely refers to a non-Jew, but has no particular negative connotation.

Yeah, your right, but the context according to Dueteronomy 23:2 spcifies. You cannot have a mongrel unless you interrmary your race. Therefore, one can see that its not talking about those of the same race.

Ezra 9:11-12 refutes your point. In that passage, God explains why the Israelites were not allowed to marry the strange women spoken of in Ezra 10:2-3:


"The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness.
"Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. "

As you can see, Canaan was full of people whose practices God found abominable. Because of these abominable practices (the word "therefore" in verse 12 demonstrates that the restriction applied for the reasons given in verse 11), they were forbidden to marry these people. Not because of their race, but because of their practices. You argue that it was because of their race because of the Hebrew word used to describe them. The Hebrew word is accurate -- they were of a different race.

However, when God specifically states the reason the Israelites are not to marry them, he says it is because of their practices. This implies that if they mended their ways, there would be no prohibition, and this is powerfully supported by the fact that Ruth, a member of these races herself, took up righteous ways and became an ancestor of Jesus himself.

You say that the context of Ezra 10:2-3 is Ezra 9:11-12? Indeed! But do not forget, the transgression being concerned about in ezra 10:2-3 is marrying a different race as stated by the context of the word "bastar%" in Dueteronomy 23:2, which is also verified by the Bible talking about generations. So, therefore, obviously, one of the practices was marrying outside your race.

My Hebrew lexicon has the Hebrew word translated as "bas****" here to mean "illegitimate child" OR "mixed" OR "born of a Jewish father and heathen mother or vice versa." These are listed as three separate and valid translations. So, while you could translate Deuteronomy 23:2 to mean that people of mixed-race are forbidden to enter the assembly of the Lord, you could also translate it to mean that an illegitimate child cannot enter the assembly of the Lord. Either translation is valid -- but you choose the racist one. Says quite a lot about you.

Yeah, I choose the one that talks about the race because of the context of Adam and Eve not being the first people on earth. FOr its the only one that fits on that regard. If Adam and Eve were the first one, then the racial one would matter now would it?

Deliberately? Your specious arguments are ones I've addressed already. I'm consolidating my arguments in this post because you say this is a complete list of your arguments. I refute this post, and you slink away in shame. Fair?

Now, Leviticus 22:12-13 are addressed above, exactly as I addressed them before. They do not forbid interracial marriage, they forbid those who are not pure Levites from eating the holy food.

Dont forget Dueteronomy 25:5! All of this has to be taken into context with each other. She shall not marry without unto a "zuwr" stranger! Also those of the levite lineage were racially pure, which in turn means that they came from Adam and Eve, which means that Adam and Eve were a specific race, for it DOESNT matter if Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. Do you understand that? None of this would matter, it would be pointless.

Where, Kasey? Where does it state that she is not to have children? It states that she is not to enter into the holy place or eat the holy food (in case you didn't know, the holy place is the outer portion of the Holy of Holies, which is the Temple's inner sanctum, and the holy food is the anointed sacrifice that merits instant death for anyone who is not an absolutely pure and absolutely righteous member of the Levitical High Priests). It does not state that she is not to have children -- merely that if she does she is one of the many Israelites who are not permitted to eat the holy food.

Dueteronomy 25:5. If she is forbidden to marry unto a "zuwr" stranger, that automatically means that she is not to have children, which proves Dueteronomy 23:2 to be talking about race!

This support Deuteronomy 23:2, Ezra 10, Nehemiah 13:3,27, Leviticus 22:3, 12-13, Leviticus 19:19 and the context of Adam and Eve not being the first people on earth. You wanted the evidence, there you have it. It all fits.

 

[praying]

kasey what does the NT mean to you? How does it fit in your philosophy?

 

[Kasey]

I've repeatedly shown you how you haven't proved that Adam and Eve were not the first people on Earth. In this post, I have addressed that claim and all of the rest of your claims (assuming you were telling the truth that your post detailed all of your claims) in even greater detail and found every single one wanting, using context and connotation and Hebrew translations.

No you have not. Show me where you addressed each and every single piece of evidence that I stated regarding the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Show me the post #! I have asked you to do this a couple of times, but you havent responded.

Show me the post #! Come on Ledifini! If you have shown me wrong, then this would be a piece of cake for you!

Now that all of your statements have been refuted in one post (ok, split into three parts, but close enough), what are you going to do? You don't have any other verses to run to, because this post got 'em all. Will you go and try to find some other verses to contradict these verses? Or will you pretend that I didn't address some of your arguments and simply repeat them? Whichever tactic you choose to employ, rest assured that I will see through it and expose it. Good luck!

Im still waiting for you to show me the post # where you have addressed the specific differences of what I had shown between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to prove that its completely different.

Here, I will break it down for you and you can address it now.

1. In Genesis 1:27, the Bible specifically states in the image of called created "he him", male and female created "he them". There is no definate article here for specification. Its a general context.

2. Right after he created them, RIGHT AFTERWARDS, God "blessed" them and told them to be fruitful and multiply and "replenish" the land, to "subdue" it and have "dominion" over all the fish, fowl and thing on the earth.

3. Right AFTER #2, God specfically stated that these people were given all the trees bearing fruit as food, from the earth, which in context means that which is spoken about in Genesis 1:1, which obviously means the planet. All of this is in immediate context. GOd told them these things one after the other.

4. Genesis 2:7 speaks of God forming "man" in the dust of the ground. Then, in verse 8, it specifically states that God planted a "garden" eastward in Eden. Then, it specifically states that God put "THE MAN" into the "GARDEN". This is specification, and note, its singular, there is nothing that would denote "them" as in Genesis 1.

5. The Bible specifies again in Genesi 2:15 states that God put "THE man" into a "GARDEN" to "dress and keep it". There is nothing mentioned concerning subduing the land, nor having dominion over the animal kingdom. In addition, the "garden" here is a completely different Hebrew word than that which is stated to be for "earth" in Genesis 1. As I have shown earlier, the Hebrew word for "earth" in Genesis 1 is the Hebrew word "erets" and it means the land either in a narrow or large sense. Taken in context of Genesis 1:1, that means the planet. The Hebrew word for "garden" is "gan" and it means a garden (as fenced"). Adam was put into a speciifc place and told to dress and keep the Garden. Adam was NOT told to subdue the Land, nor have dominion over all the animals.

6. God told "them" specifically, to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the land. "THEM". That means more than just Adam. God specifically told them to do this right after He created them. Adam was put into a garden to dress and keep it, and he was the only one there. There is nothing mentioned about Adam having to multiply, or be fruitful and replenish the Land. In addition, Eve was not created until later, which shows that Adam and Eve couldnt have been those mentioned in Genesis 1 because they were being talked to TOGETHER in doing those things mentioned in Genesis 1, and Adam was by himself.

In addition, there is nothing about Adam and Eve being "blessed" as those were in Genesis 1

7. In Genesis 1, God specifically told them that they had the food from all the trees of the earth, or as in the context, the planet, for that is the context. However, Adam was told not to eat one of them. This right here shows something interesting. Even more so, since Adam was put into a garden, the Bible specifically states in Genesis 3:1, "the trees of the GARDEN", no the earth. Adam was in a garden, secluded and away from everything else. Those mentioned in Genesis 1 had dominion over the trees of the earth, not a garden. Those in Genesis 1 were able to eat of all the trees upon the earth, the land, which in context means the planet as stated by Genesis 1:1. Adam and Eve were forbidden from the fruit of a single tree in a garden, which proves beyond a shadow of a conclusive doubt that Adam and Eve were in a specific area, were given specific instructions and were not the first people on earth. Its a completely different account

Now, Lednifi, if you have addressed all these points, then I would ask for the courtesy of you showing me the post # where you have. Dont call me names, dont just say im off my rocker, I want you to show me.

 

[Kasey]

kasey what does the NT mean to you? How does it fit in your philosophy?

The New Testament is based upon the Law and the Prophets. Thats how it fits.

 

[kofh2u]

How would YOU know that? Give us a break! Everyone else knows they had Red skin and green eyes just like the rest of the Martians.
"Adam and Eve had light Brown skin!
Not White Not Black!"

Genetic tests confirmed that we all have one distinct common origin in a women genetically linked to us 200,000 years ago!
It was all written up in Time mag @ 1996-7.

This fit nicely with the idea of a flood of Modern Homo sapiens emerging as the dominant and ultimately ONLY species. Modern Homos under went a huge population explosion exactly 40,000 days and nights" of years ago.

Gen. 6:7 And the LORD, (the Theistic Almighty Power) said, I will destroy man (of these types and species) whom I have created (with a flood of new creatures, Modern Homo sapiens), from the face of the earth (by means of their murderous extinction); both (this once dominant, lower species of) man, and (his ideas of) the beast, and (his ideas of) the creeping thing, and (his ideas of) the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

 

[Kasey]

Kasey you seem to ignore the New Testament, how would explain Galatians 3:28, about there being "neither Jew nor Greek" in Christ unless you argue the Jews and Greeks are the same race. If they are, what is the point of Paul's "wall of partition" speech in Ephesians 2?

Ephesians 2:11-18

11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

And Glatians 3,
7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
...16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ....................
....
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Can non-whites/Adamites be Christian? If "No", why does Paul mention things like this, as nothing would have changed from the OT if they still had to stick to "Adamites"? You said as much in the Rahab story, she was not Hebrew, but was Adamite and so her marriage into the Hebrews was not race-mixing.

So what, Pray tell, is Paul's point in Ephesians than?


And I'm curious as to how you interepret Acts 17:26

Acts 17:26
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Was Luke wrong, as you imply there are at least 2 bloods?

You seem to be under the impression that the word "Jews" and "greeks" mean someone completely opposite of each other in the regards of being completely different people. Look up the word "Jew" in both the Hebrew and the Greek. Strong's Concordance, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon and Thayer's Greek Lexicon of the New Testament will tell you that the word "Jew" means someone belonging to the Kingdom or Country of Judah. The word "greek" is "hellen" and it means someone from Grecia. Yet, what is the context - Genesis 5:1. All is in context, dont forget that. The entire context is always Genesis 5:1 which alone proves that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth because of the specification of this passage alone and of the fact that if Adam and Ever were not the first people earth, there would be no need for it.

In addition, take a look a Genesis 10:4 and look up the name "Javan" in the Hebrew. Both Gesenius and Strong's will tell you that this individual was the progeniters of the greeks.

The reason as for the breaking down the wall is because most of the Adamites did not worship the God of Israel, God the Father and Christ Jesus and therefore, because of that, they were to be seperated from them, but it was prophesied that those in Judah, or Judea, the Jews, the residents of that kingdom, would not accept the Christ. Therefore, they were sent unto the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.

The context of all of this is what Christ said, wouldnt it? Christ specifically stated that He was sent not but unto the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel in Matthew 15:24. He also specifically commanded his disciples to go to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel in Matthew 10:6. According to Strong's COncordance, the Greek word for "house" is "oikos" and it means a dwelling, by implication a family. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, this word means an inhabited house, any building whatsoever, any dwelling place, the place where one has fixed his residence, one's settled abode, domicile, the inmates of a house, all the person forming one family. According to Vine's Expository Dictionary of Bible words, this same Greek word means a house, a dwelling, by metonymy, of the members of a household or family.

Christ specifically sent them to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. In addition, you should look up the definitions of the word "nations". Its the greek word "ethnos" and Strong's Concordance states that it means a race(as of the same HABIT) i.e a tribe; specifically a foreign, non-jewish one. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, this same word "nations", "ethnos" means a multitude associated of living together; a company, troop, swarm. A multitidue of individuals of the same nature or genus.

Now, yes, if taken just by the word alone, it could apply to everyone. I do not dispute that, but I ask you to take a look at the context of Christ own words and he said unto the Lost sheep of the House of Israel. The "ethnos" in this regard would be the pagan tribes of the family of Israel. Adamites in Genesis are related to the Israelites, they were just under a different lineage. They are of the same household/family/race/genus as those of the Israelites.

Some would would quote Matthew 15:26, but the account of Mark 7:26 specifies about who the woman really was. She was a "Greek", an pagan, gentile Adamite, but not an Israelite. She was a daughter of the ancient Javan, of Noah, of Seth, of Adam and Eve.

The disiciples and Apostles of Christ were sent of the Lost sheep of the House of Israel, there is nothign here that can dispute that. Those Gentiles are the pagan members of the house-hold of Israel, of the family of Israel, which, guess what? This specifically supports the Laws of God on how one of the Adamite people can become like an Israelite if they were to have alliegance to God the Father and CHrist Jesus.

The Law and the Prophet speaks of the gentiles having access to salvation. One of the passages in the Law and the Prophets that speak of this is Isaiah 49:6.

Isaiah 49:6: And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

According to Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word for "gentiles" is "goy" and it means a foreign nation, a gentile, nation, heathen, people. According to Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, "goy" means a people, a confluence of men, especially is used of the other nations besides Israel.

Now, according to the word itself, it could very well mean something else. That is a fact. It "could". However, what is the context? Genesis 5:1. This is the Book of the Generations of Adam. Do you see on how context can change everything? The "goy" being spoken about are those others than Israelites, other nations outside of Israel, yet, Israel was a specific lineage from a specific line of people from Adam and Eve, therefore, according to the context of Genesis 5:1, this would mean those others outside of that specific lineage of Israelites, but still those from Adam and Eve.

This is why Paul states that there is no difference between a Judean and a Hellen, an Israelites from an Adamite, they are both one in Christ Jesus and both are from Adam and Eve and Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth. All of this specification is prove-positive of that fact, why cant you see it? If Adam and Eve were the first people on earth then there would be NO NEED for all of these specific details.

 

[Kasey]

Now kasey is just founding his arguments upon tne shaky personal understanding of the Genesis metaphor.

He says, "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.

But, the unrealistic understanding of Adam being "created as the first people" denies the evolutionary process. Basing his modern sociological perspective on a misinterpretation of what Genesis is trying to tell us compounds his errors.
His archaic theological view becomes all the worse by using it to found his sociology.

As an example:

Gen. 4:1 And Adam, (an eponym for the whole species, Ramaphitecus Man), knew Eve, (mother of all
hominoids), his wife; and she conceived, (through her line after thousands of years), and bare Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus), and said, I have gotten a man, (another species of hominoid), from the LORD.

Uhhhh....hello? Im saying that Adam and Eve were NOT the first people on earth.

Aside from this, Im not talking about Evolution.

 

[Ledifni]

No you have not. Show me where you addressed each and every single piece of evidence that I stated regarding the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Show me the post #! I have asked you to do this a couple of times, but you havent responded.

Show me the post #! Come on Ledifini! If you have shown me wrong, then this would be a piece of cake for you!

You are a despicable liar and cheat. I can't show you that post, and you KNOW I can't show you that post, because you just reported it for the word "bigot" and had it deleted. This post will probably get me yet another warning, but I don't care. A person as low as you are deserved to be told so publicly.

I have no interest in any further discussion with you. A person who will stoop so low as to have someone else's post deleted so he can then pretend that person didn't post his arguments -- you aren't even worth speaking with. Goodbye.

 

[christalee4]

You are a despicable liar and cheat. I can't show you that post, and you KNOW I can't show you that post, because you just reported it for the word "bigot" and had it deleted. This post will probably get me yet another warning, but I don't care. A person as low as you are deserved to be told so publicly.

I have no interest in any further discussion with you. A person who will stoop so low as to have someone else's post deleted so he can then pretend that person didn't post his arguments -- you aren't even worth speaking with. Goodbye.

Nice Christian values you're exhibiting there Kasey! I guess you don't believe in playing fair, just so you can "win".

Anyway, let's suppose you are the big winner here in your argument that the Bible, according to your interpretation, forbids interracial marriage.

In PRACTICAL application, providing you live here in these United States, how will you determine if the potential mates for your children are purely white? There has been plenty of race mixing for the past 200 years, especially within the last 30-40 years, due to the influx of immigrants. Would you care if your children married a white person, who had brown hair and blue eyes, and who had a mulatto or Native American great-grandfather? Or if your requirement is that the potential suitor be 100% white, how will you determine that on the face of it?

 

[kofh2u]

Uhhhh....hello? Im saying that Adam and Eve were NOT the first people on earth.

Aside from this, Im not talking about Evolution.

Oh, oh, sorry.
Then we agree.

Adam and Eve were the first ancestors of humanoids directly (missing) linked to our emergence.

And, I realize you were talking anout racial purity, and only I brought up the bible report of intermarriage between different species... way beyong what you are against:

Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus, two species, Methuselahian
and Methusaelian), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when (the line of humanity that would ultimately lead to Christ), the sons of God, (the Methusaelian Homo erectus), came in unto the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors, and even Neanderthal), and they bare (Neanderthal) children to them, the same became mighty men (hybrids preceeding the advent of Modern Homo Sapiens) which were of old, men of renown.

 

[Kasey]

You are a despicable liar and cheat. I can't show you that post, and you KNOW I can't show you that post, because you just reported it for the word "bigot" and had it deleted. This post will probably get me yet another warning, but I don't care. A person as low as you are deserved to be told so publicly.

I have no interest in any further discussion with you. A person who will stoop so low as to have someone else's post deleted so he can then pretend that person didn't post his arguments -- you aren't even worth speaking with. Goodbye.

I didnt know that your post had been reported. You also have no proof to believe it was me to begin with.

Dont be rude.

 

[gaijin178]

I think that this thread needs to be done and we should all just walk away with our own thoughts and feelings. The reason why I say this is because it is apparent that none of our rational words and thoughts are going to change the way that Kasey feels. He feels convicted to make a case about this and feels offended that we don't believe him or his convictions about this topic. It does sadden me that people think like this, but it doesn't matter if it comes from the bible or any other religous text. What I think is that what matters is how God or whatever you want to call it/him/her/spirit wants us to act and feel from the heart. The great thing about most religions is that most of them don't require you to become experts in all the language and translations and this isn't an ignorant statement. It's because when you get so focused on the practice and the little bits of text that can be interpreted in many different ways, one forgets the true meaning of why one is of said tradition. Just a thought.

 

[Bevlina]

For Rule Violations.