Bi-racial marriage

It's quite simple. If God wanted interacial marriages, then whites would have been born to blacks, Indians into orientals, blacks into Indians, whites into orientals, and so on and so on.

But no. God kept the races seperate except for economic mingling and/or slavery or servitude.

It has always been dispised by all races, until recently with some *** attack removed*** thinking.

[ September 18, 2002, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

I did not say each of Noah's sons were of a different race. But they were the progenitors of three different races.

http://latter-rain.com/ot/gene.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/7937/genesis.htm#peace

http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAROO6.htm

True. But we don't know about his wives, do we?

But that isn't what I said. See explanation above.

By the reasoning demonstrated on this thread, there is no difference between Orientals, Negro, or Caucasians in skin color or tones, features such as eye color or shape of eyes (blue in Caucasians, almond shape for orientals), hair color or texture (like silky black in orientals, blonde in Caucasian), propensity for disease (such as higher propensity for sickle cell trait in black people). And that is just not true. There are many subgroups and mixing of all races, but to infer there are not at least three distinct races with many branches is absurd.

 

On which verse of Scripture do you base that viewpoint? And what do you think of Moses' mixed marriage?

Num 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

**** remark removed***

Eric

[ September 18, 2002, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

Eric,

The great think about a thread like this is you get to know who the *** remark removed*** thinkers are... but it's a little scarry how many of them there are.

[ September 18, 2002, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Eric, sheesh! How many times are you going to post about Moses & the mixed marriage thing?

Try my example, Joseph and his Egyptian wife.

Then there's David and Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite...that might count.

I hope the namecalling of "bigot" on this thread will stop soon.

 

Until someone actually reads it. We all have different opinions, but the Bible is the final authority on truth. It's interesting that the only people posting Scripture in this discussion are the anti-racism people. If you can't support a statement that something is wrong from the Bible, it isn't for you to step in and try to take on God's role as judge. If God wanted us to know that mixed marriages were wrong He would have told us so in His Scripture. And He wouldn't have defended Moses before Miriam and Aaron.

Num 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Num 12:4 And the LORD spoke suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.
Num 12:5 And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.
Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
Num 12:7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
Num 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
Num 12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.

There's no scientific or Biblical support for the idea of "separate races" in the sense that you mean it, as if there were distinct species of human beings... and nothing in the Bible that forbids intermarriage between different people groups. The only intermarriage that is forbidden is that between believers and unbelievers. Be careful of what you believe, people, and base your beliefs in what the Bible says!

1Jo 2:9 The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now.
1Jo 2:10 The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him.
1Jo 2:11 But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

Eric

[ September 18, 2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

And we keep waiting..and waiting.

If you oppose inter-racial marriage how about providing a decisive scriptural argument? If you don't have one, then repent of your unbiblical belief and humble yourself before the Lord!

-kman

[edit: link added]

I found this interesting:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4119.asp

[ September 18, 2002, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: kman ]

 

That's the stupidest, sickest thing I've ever read on this board.
GOD kept the races separate? What changed then? He's obviously not still doing it - and never did. In fact, America, founded as a Christian nation, became the melting pot of the world. [sarcasm] Coincidence? I suppose God sends mixed messages.[/sarcasm]
As noted, none of the bigots can supply scriptural support for their position - only racist remarks.

p.s. I find it fascinating you equate racism with fundamentalism and anti-racism with liberality.

[ September 18, 2002, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Optional ]

 

Please, someone define "races". What criteria are used?

 

Helen,
I've asked this question in various forms on many forums. I've yet to get a reasonable answer. The truth is we use "races" as a substitute for cultural/geographical identity of groups of persons.

Still, I look forward to attempts to define "races".

 

Fundamentalism is identified as closed minded and racist, I always thought that was in isolated cases with narrow minded people. This thread is proving that sometimes the stereotypes are true!

 

Definitions from Webster's Dictionary:

One entry found for Caucasian.


Main Entry: Cau·ca·sian
Pronunciation: ko-'kA-zh&n, kä- also -'ka-zh&n
Function: adjective
Date: 1807
1 : of or relating to the Caucasus or its inhabitants
2 a : of or relating to the white race of humankind as classified according to physical features b : of or relating to the white race as defined by law specifically as composed of persons of European, No. African, or southwest Asian ancestry
- Caucasian noun
- Cau·ca·soid /'ko-k&-"soid/ adjective or noun

Main Entry: Ne·gro
Pronunciation: 'nE-(")grO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural Negroes
Etymology: Spanish or Portuguese, from negro black, from Latin nigr-, niger
Date: 1555
1 sometimes offensive : a member of the black race distinguished from members of other races by usually inherited physical and physiological characteristics without regard to language or culture; especially : a member of a people belonging to the African branch of the black race
2 sometimes offensive : a person of Negro descent
- Negro adjective, sometimes offensive
- Ne·gro·ness /-grO-n&s/ noun, sometimes offensive

Main Entry: ori·en·tal
Pronunciation: "Or-E-'en-t&l, "or-
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 often capitalized : of, relating to, or situated in the Orient
2 a : of superior grade, luster, or value b : being corundum or sapphire but simulating another gem in color
3 often capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of Orientals
4 capitalized : of, relating to, or constituting the biogeographic region that includes Asia south and southeast of the Himalayas and the Malay Archipelago west of Wallace's line
- ori·en·tal·ly /-t&l-E/ adverb

One entry found for racism.


Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

Interestingly, I haven't seen anyone on here post anything about human inferiority or superiority of any particular race and I haven't seen any discriminatory posts. Yet people are throwing the implication of bigotry and racism around here in accusations. Pretty disgusting.

eric, I have one thing further to say to you. If you go back and read my original post about this subject, my only objection about inter-racial marriage is that many times the children suffer. People on here want to deny that social stigmas and social unacceptance exist, even in churches. Go ahead and deny it, but I know people who have suffered from prejudice & I have been a victim of social prejudice myself.

For people on here to call each other names because of different beliefs is a pretty poor testimony and shows narrow mindedness on the part of the person doing the name calling, in my opinion.

Furthermore, medical journals and studies are full of criteria regarding health issues and disease based on three main human races. The scientific community is trying to change that and call us all one, denying the physical characteristics that define who is a Negro, who is Caucasian, etc. But these are the same people who would have us believe the earth is millions of years old and something crawled up on land one day and evolved into a human.

I have heard just about everything on this board. The only thing that hasn't been posted yet is that Jesus was not Jewish, but He was black. I suppose that will be next, or that he was a black Jew.

 

Well He sure wasn't a white European now was He?
Also, what is your motivation for posting the definition of negro and then using the term later in your post? You surely know this is a derogatory term.

African American also Af·ri·can-A·mer·i·can Pronunciation Key (fr-kn--mr-kn)
n.
A Black American of African ancestry

Black
Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin: the Black population of South Africa.
Of or belonging to an American ethnic group descended from African peoples having dark skin; African-American.

Usage Note: The Oxford English Dictionary contains evidence of the use of black with reference to African peoples as early as 1400, and certainly the word has been in wide use in racial and ethnic contexts ever since. However, it was not until the late 1960s that black (or Black) gained its present status as a self-chosen ethnonym with strong connotations of racial pride, replacing the then-current Negro among Blacks and non-Blacks alike with remarkable speed. Equally significant is the degree to which Negro became discredited in the process, reflecting the profound changes taking place in the Black community during the tumultuous years of the civil rights and Black Power movements. The recent success of African American offers an interesting contrast in this regard. Though by no means a modern coinage, African American achieved sudden prominence at the end of the 1980s when several Black leaders, including Jesse Jackson, championed it as an alternative ethnonym for Americans of African descent. The appeal of this term is obvious, alluding as it does not to skin color but to an ethnicity constructed of geography, history, and culture, and it won rapid acceptance in the media alongside similar forms such as Asian American, Hispanic American, and Italian American. But unlike what happened a generation earlier, African American has shown little sign of displacing or discrediting black, which remains both popular and positive. The difference may well lie in the fact that the campaign for African American came at a time of relative social and political stability, when Americans in general and Black Americans in particular were less caught up in issues involving radical change than they were in the 1960s. ·Black is sometimes capitalized in its racial sense, especially in the African-American press, though the lowercase form is still widely used by authors of all races. The capitalization of Black does raise ancillary problems for the treatment of the term white. Orthographic evenhandedness would seem to require the use of uppercase White, but this form might be taken to imply that whites constitute a single ethnic group, an issue that is certainly debatable. Uppercase White is also sometimes associated with the writings of white supremacist groups, a sufficient reason of itself for many to dismiss it. On the other hand, the use of lowercase white in the same context as uppercase Black will obviously raise questions as to how and why the writer has distinguished between the two groups. There is no entirely happy solution to this problem. In all likelihood, uncertainty as to the mode of styling of white has dissuaded many publications from adopting the capitalized form Black.

 

I do not wish to hinder discussion just for the sake of it. However, this topic has gotten off course. Please, no more posts about rascism, definitions, history, or anything not specifically related to whether it is okay or not for people to intermarry with people of a different skin color.

Out like the direction this thread has taken.

 

My apologies to everyone on this thread. I fear this thread took a nasty turn. This discussion is not about rascism. The thread is about the marriage possibilities between people of different skin color.

I have seen some great posts on this thread. Many have contributed in a great way. Both "sides" have made their point. This is being closed because it has become a test of whether a person is a rascist or not.

I thought Sheeagle presented some information from a medical perspective that I would like to see developed in another thread. Perhaps a discussion about Revelation 5:9 and the various terms would be in order.

This was not addressed: in the garden of eden, God declared that each of His creations would reproduce after their own kind. Perhaps in the above idea, we could explore the relationship of that principle and Revelation 5:9.

This thread has been closed.

[ September 19, 2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]