Inter-racial marriages and gay marriages

[AtheistArchon]

So where is the proof of female inferiority? Indeed, there is proof of different roles and a positional hierarchy within the church of male leadership, but there is a huge logical gap to superiority/inferiority in nature. Similarly, the Bible teaches that we should sumbit to government authorities, but also that all people are equal by nature. Proof positive that positional hierarchy is logically distinct from superiority/inferiroty in nature is Jesus' submission to His mother and adoptive father (Luke 2:51), yet Jesus was infinitely superior to them in nature.

- And the psychobabble award for the day goes to... Socrates!

So try again, but this time use logic and not emotion.

- And the pathetic irony award for the day goes to... two in a row! Isn't he great folks? Give him a big hand!

[Socrates]

Right or wrong is not decided by pragmatics, but by whether it conforms to God's Word. A professing Christian who marries a non-Christian in defiance of this calls into question the genuineness of his or her faith.

Thats your opinion,

It happens to be the correct one, easily shown by the text.

to me it just proves we love one another. Which in an of itself I consider a blessing from my Gods as much as she considers it a blessing from her's.

To me it just reinforces what Jesus said, that not everyone who says "Lord,. Lord ..." is really one of His. Applies equally to your wife becoming unequally yoked and to the bigots who opposed inter-racial marriage.

Nope, what matters is what the Bible actually says!

As defined by who?

By the text itself!! Cut this existentialist crap -- I have no patience for this.

Thats the point Socrates. What the Bible actually says has changed thruout history.. same words, some book.. different interpretation.

Yeah, exactly -- it's the interpretation that has changed, not the Bible. And in fact, much of the rationale behind racial bigotry was not biblical at all, as shown by your complete inability to show me where skin pigmentation is an issue in the Bible.

Conversion by the Sword was once accepted as God's Will. Things changed.

At a time when biblical illiteracy was widespread!

So did that. Women once could not speak in a leadership role in Churchs..now they do? Are those Churchs not really Christian to you?

They are violating God's Word, that's for sure, and instead pandering to feminism.

Where? Come on, all you Bible detractors, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!

The review gave you the short version of the justification and upon what Biblical gounds they based it.. you think its ludicrious.

Go on -- state it here. Argument by weblink is not proper. It should be easy enough to show that the Bible teaches discrimination on the grounds of skin color, if it really did.

They were willing to die for it. I am not a detractor of the Bible..

:dog::puke:

I simply state historically Christians have changed what passages mean over time. An I believe while you may argue they were wrong in their views, you can not argue that those views were not dominant and acted upon.. can you? Nor can you speak with any degree of certainity that someone in a hundred years will not think your view was .. "incorrect".

Who cares about this existentialist crap? What matters is that the Bible really does say something, as determined by the historical-grammatical approach. Otherwise, by the existentialist views of Dur, I could just as well claim that his rantings can be interpreted to mean "The Bible is the only reliable history of the world and has only one meaning, and doesn't support racial discrimination in the slightest.

You are the one who needs to pay attention to this, since JPHOlding et al. have shown that it's totally crass to read the Deep South style of slavery into the Biblical model of indentured servitude.

Crass or not I personally find them to have no moral difference. As such any argument for its justification to me simply proves you as immoral to me. You may or may not see it as justified, pious and proper.. I choose not to. As a personal moral position.

Who gives a monkey's about your position, if you believe that moral thoughts are basically just chemical motions in the brain?

They were if they contradict the Bible as interpreted via the grammatical-historical method. Since when is truth decided by majority vote?

An if a new method is created, discovered or comes into vogue that produces different results.. will someone down the line say.. "Those silly fools in the year 2004 had only the grammatical-historical method no wonder they got it all wrong. We being more knowledge an wiser can tell you exactly what this means now where they could only guess.

It won't happen -- the grammatical historical method interprets the Bible according to the author's intention.

If the majority view is not valid then your saying those stupid few that think its all about Noah's curse could be right?

Nope, that Noah's curse had nothing to do with skin color -- and I defy you to find the slightest evidence to the contrary!

Shows how stupid this whole thing is. Noah cursed Canaan, and there is not the slightest hint that it had anything to do with skin color.

Stupid? Perhaps, men died over it, men were killed over it.. the land I live on ran with blood because of it.. today men still want to fly a flag of a cause that should have died long ago.

Yes, stupid, because the Bible doesn't teach it! If people had actually bothered to judge their culture by the bible, they would have seen this in a flash. So once more, the Bible corrects bigotry.

If it was simply stupidy I think such a concept would have died long ago..

OK, stupidity combined with bigotry and bitterness over the decay of the old order and against the carpet-baggers. But nothing whatever to do with the Bible, and that's all that matters!

but there are those that keep it alive, inside white sheets and under "Ol'Dixie". It is easy to dismiss them as stupid.. harder to make them vanish from the real world.

And once more -- prove that they are based on the Bible -- i.e. demonstrate a logical progression from a Bible verse to their teachings.

Thus far, anti-biblical bigots like Higgy and Dur have failed miserably in their crass attempt to smear the Bible itself.

[quote=Socrates]OK, so once again, state the biblical justification supposedly against interracial marriage or concede defeat!

I've pointed you at the justifications used by the pastors of the time. You consider them stupid, silly etc..

Yep, because they have no basis in Scripture, because there isn't the slightest mention of skin color!

and no doubt as a man working his version of Biblical reality "after" the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement.. rightly so. But as they would no doubt say to you "Since when is truth decided by majority vote?"

If they were that crass, I would say, "never, it's decided by conformity to the text, so prove that your bigotry is justified from passages in Scripture!"

[Socrates]

Anything Socrates says has only love entwined.

:soc: Exactly :bounce:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yet Twilly claims to be a Christian while denying the authority of Scripture. Yet more proof that those who merely profess Christianity or Christian reasons for things (e.g. anti-interracial-marriage) are not always following true Christian principles.

Or the christians who say the Bible says the world is 6000 years old?

Or the christians that don't have other christians vote for them in the Alumnist of the Year award?

So where is the proof of female inferiority? Indeed, there is proof of different roles and a positional hierarchy within the church of male leadership, but there is a huge logical gap to superiority/inferiority in nature.

Well certainly. Women are inferior to men in power sports but women are superior to men in ultra endurance, like ultra-marathons.

Similarly, the Bible teaches that we should sumbit to government authorities, but also that all people are equal by nature.

I smell a stinky paradox. A christian Catch-22. A, "whatever I interpret it as is right" circular reasoning.

[Durthorin]

Women should learn in silence and all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet. For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who deceived; it was the woman who deceived and broke God's law. But a woman will be saved through having children, if she preseveres in faith and love and holiness and modesty

So where is the proof of female inferiority? Indeed, there is proof of different roles and a positional hierarchy within the church of male leadership, but there is a huge logical gap to superiority/inferiority in nature. Similarly, the Bible teaches that we should sumbit to government authorities, but also that all people are equal by nature. Proof positive that positional hierarchy is logically distinct from superiority/inferiroty in nature is Jesus' submission to His mother and adoptive father (Luke 2:51), yet Jesus was infinitely superior to them in nature.

When is a role inferior?.. when its based on "punishing" all women for Eve's being deceived... I'd say any rational person would perceive that as being inferior. "Positional Hierarchy" In other words I'm male and superior and give orders and your female and shut up and take them? <cuckle> Thats obvious from the very words.

Danu Bless, Dur

[Durthorin]

It happens to be the correct one, easily shown by the text.

Thats once more, your opnion.

By the text itself!! Cut this existentialist crap -- I have no patience for this.

Your lack of patience is a character flaw I'd work on correcting if I were you. The point stands your use of vulgarity not with standing.

Yeah, exactly -- it's the interpretation that has changed, not the Bible. And in fact, much of the rationale behind racial bigotry was not biblical at all, as shown by your complete inability to show me where skin pigmentation is an issue in the Bible.

Of course it was Biblical.. it was based on the interpretation of the Bible at the time, just as yours is based on your interpretation of the Bible now.

At a time when biblical illiteracy was widespread!

How odd.. but it was the people who were Biblically literate who in fact justified it based on the Bible. So its was those who knew God's word.. in some cases those who are consdiered the "saints" of your faith who put forward these concepts. Odd isn't it?

They are violating God's Word, that's for sure, and instead pandering to feminism.

AHHH.. I see so you do think when should shut up and do what they are told? How long have you been married?

Go on -- state it here. Argument by weblink is not proper. It should be easy enough to show that the Bible teaches discrimination on the grounds of skin color, if it really did.

I'm not an 18th century Biblical scholar. There work is freely available to you and a brief reading will show you how they justified it.. I feel no need to teach Sunday School to you. I haven't done that in over 19 years and have no great desire to do so now.

:dog::puke:

The attempt at insult over discussion is noted with a certain degree of amusement.

Who cares about this existentialist crap? What matters is that the Bible really does say something, as determined by the historical-grammatical approach. Otherwise, by the existentialist views of Dur, I could just as well claim that his rantings can be interpreted to mean "The Bible is the only reliable history of the world and has only one meaning, and doesn't support racial discrimination in the slightest.

Evidently you do or you wouldn't react with so much hostility to it. An you can claim exactly that. Now can't you.. An someone else can claim the exact opposite. Frustrating isn't it?

Who gives a monkey's about your position, if you believe that moral thoughts are basically just chemical motions in the brain?

As I said evidently you do since it upsets you to the point of insult and vulgarity.

It won't happen -- the grammatical historical method interprets the Bible according to the author's intention.

An having never spoken to the author you are intimatly aware of his intention? Hmmm.. are you not just guessing at his intention? Its not like you can say, "Paul.. I didn't get this.. what exactly did you mean?" As I said, you can not state that sometime in the future someone will not dismiss the "grammatical historical method" on par with doctors putting leechs on a patient.. an interesting historical blind ally.

And once more -- prove that they are based on the Bible -- i.e. demonstrate a logical progression from a Bible verse to their teachings.

Pointed where you can find it.. I leave the research as an exercise for you.

Thus far, anti-biblical bigots like Higgy and Dur have failed miserably in their crass attempt to smear the Bible itself.

Never tried to smear your Bible.. just pointing out that the Bible means basically what its readers want it to mean and historically has. Since those readers are Christians.. such as you.. Well..


Danu Bless, Dur

[summathetes]

FYI - The reference you have chosen from the Old Testament is true; however, you have used it out of its context. The scripture is referring to women who did not worship God, they worshipped idols.

Back in the "good ole days" whites weren't allowed to marry blacks. Interr-racial marriages were forbidden in many states, 16. Pretty much, based on merely biblical grounds of morality, Virginia had a law which stated that it was a imprisonable offense to have an inter-racial marriage. Even if the couple went to a state where it was legal and then went back to Virginia to cohabitate together, that was a crime!

Luckily, activist judges put a stop to that a long long time ago... well actually 1967 with the case Loving v Virginia .

Now a very similar case is being made against homosexuals getting married.

The ruling judge in the trial regarding Loving in Virginia stated:
But I keep hearing that the bible doesn't call for this. That inter-racial marriage is Kosher.
(Nehemiah 13:25-27) My emphasis.

I believe that is pretty strong for a recommendation barring interracial marriages. And would be right in line with what the ruling Virginian judge was stating in his opinion and ruling in the Loving case.

So I ask, why inter-racial marriages, but not gay ones?

[summathetes]

Is science not founded upon theory? And if so, theory is not scientific proof by its definition (An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.). I guess we are some of the luckiest "beings" in the world considering if the sun, moon, and planets to only name a few were merely an inch closer or further, we would all be dead.

:soc: Exactly :bounce:

[Jimmy Higgins]

FYI - The reference you have chosen from the Old Testament is true; however, you have used it out of its context. The scripture is referring to women who did not worship God, they worshipped idols.

Interesting. 30 states didn't feel that was an issue by having laws against inter-racial marriages.

[Twilly Spree]

Yet Twilly claims to be a Christian while denying the authority of Scripture. Yet more proof that those who merely profess Christianity or Christian reasons for things (e.g. anti-interracial-marriage) are not always following true Christian principles.

Let's not go so far as to question my Christianity here. That's kind of hitting below the belt. You asked for verses in which woman are positioned lower than men, I provided. We are different sorts of Christians Soc, but we are both Christians.

- And the psychobabble award for the day goes to... Socrates!

Ahaha.....it's funny because it's true.

[Socrates]

Let's not go so far as to question my Christianity here.

Why not? You say something contrary to historic Christian doctrines, and your Christianity will be questioned.

That's kind of hitting below the belt.

Not at all. As I said, you would have to attack Jesus Himself for saying ‘Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" ....’

You asked for verses in which woman are positioned lower than men, I provided.

No, you changed the goalposts. I asked for verses teaching female inferiority, and you have not provided any. Similarly, I believe Jesus was fully God by nature, but also submissive to His mother and foster father by position.

We are different sorts of Christians Soc, but we are both Christians.

What precisely do you mean by this? I mean someone who follows the true Christ of the Bible, not a false one of someone's making. A good summary is TWeb's own mission statement.

For example, there's no way that I or any of the TWeb mods would call Spong a Christian since he's a vile heretic. And I won't call the typical pro-abortion Democrat a Christian either no matter what noises he to Christians he tries to dupe into voting for him.

[falco]

Wrong arguement. Nehemiah and the Isrealites were prohibited by Jehovah God to mary because of religious concerns not racial. The bible has no mention on racism. Wars were committed not based on the belief of inferiority. Politics, land, religion etc.....were the reasons.

Thanks.

[falco]

Interesting. 30 states didn't feel that was an issue by having laws against inter-racial marriages.

I wouldn't think that. Someone writes something and another person spins it to fit the culture....does not imply that the message or writer was at fault. Even at the same time this inter-racial stuff was happening there were Christians that didn't agree with bigotry..etc....
Sounds like Christian bashing...

[Socrates]

Interesting. 30 states didn't feel that was an issue by having laws against inter-racial marriages.

Big whoop. Since when is idiosyncratic American history relevant to Biblical truth? By this "reasoning", plurality voting would also have to be the best system despite its endemic flaws and outright unfairness :punch:

[Socrates]

I wouldn't think that. Someone writes something and another person spins it to fit the culture....does not imply that the message or writer was at fault. Even at the same time this inter-racial stuff was happening there were Christians that didn't agree with bigotry..etc....
Sounds like Christian bashing...

That's exactly what it is. Jimmy has also claimed Hitler was a Christian and that the Bible teaches the inferiority of black people. He is not above mendacity when pushing his fanatical hatred of Christianity. Hardly surprising, since Higgy has also said it would be a great thing if thousands of our troops were killed in Iraq.