Interracial Marriage and the Bible

[Nihilist Virus]

You said creation occurred exactly as indicated in Genesis with a capital e.  Then you said your beliefs are in harmony with evolution. Therefore evolution claims that birds preceded land animals?

---

Oh my Glob...

Seriously? post 106 from the very first line:

I believe the creation account happened Exactly as indicated in Genesis. The only thing that differs between what I believe and a YEC is that I believe the creation account describes what happened in the garden (as per the start of Genesis 2) and I do not put an artificial time line on the events between the 7th day of creation and the fall of man.

That would mean everything that follows in the genesis account happened in the garden till the expulsion from the Garden

The principle explained in greater detail from the same post:

In essence God created Man Made in his image (man with a soul) and placed him in the garden, a garden created to reflect the outside world's evolutionary process at the time of the fall, so when they left they could eat the food and their off spring had suitable breeding stock to marry. Outside the garden the world was left to 'evolve' and the sons of monkeys who was not made in the image of God was not blessed with a 'living soul.'

Now I asked you to go back and re read what i wrote, then you presented me with your synopsis that was completely wrong.

So either you did not go back and re read what i wrote or you are beyond stupid boarder line retarded and me posting clips that explain all of this does not help you. Which is it?

If infact you are stupid/retarded then I ask you to ask a question so i can explain what the above quotes mean, rather than making another stupid assumption about what you think everything means, and me having to come back to correct you harshly.

Lol, I understand your argument, and on some level it is actually clever. Perhaps the nephilim were evolved humanoids, and only Adam & Steve's descendants had actual souls. The nephilim, being primitive animals, were evil in God's eyes so he wiped them out and only preserved a selection of Adam's line.

But if you want to say that Genesis 1 is talking about the creation of the garden of Eden, can you tell me exactly why it's saying God created all of earth when it means he created just the Garden on an earth that had already been there for billions of years? Like always your shit makes zero sense.

[Athene]

My dear, silly man; No one is disputing the fact that some biracial individuals struggle with racial identity at certain points in their lives. It's the assigning of your personal misgivings on the matter to ALL individuals, by summarily dismissing any experiences that don't concur with your own as being illegitimate, that's in question here.

Have you got a link to what's wrong with your goddamn brain?

---

Again, by 'some' you are only looking through the lens provided by this culture. If this was the biracial child's only exposure to the world I would tend to agree, 'things' have been getting better. i would even concede that is is possible that 'some' children are even praised for their diversity.

---

I have never once disputed that fact. However in every instance that point was made I countered with, "that is not how the world works outside of your 'blue state." Do you not understand the term 'blue state' and what it refers to? (i'll leave it to you to google.)

But, in short The world at large does not maintain the gestapo level of mandated tolerance found in most 'blue states.' That means biracial children the rest of the world over are not generally received favorably. 

These facts are what you have continually ignored to maintain your smug sense of righteousness. But once one does indeed look past your blue state mentality, they will see your righteousness is founded on nothing more than well wishing.

---

The fact that the world at large does not receive biracial children with the same open arms their families and even blue state communities might, is the very reason all of the studies I pointed to support and define everything I have brought to this subject.

That is why they all suggest an extra measure of care to walk the child through both cultures, to be taught to respect both, to find balance, and in doing so help them find their own identity.  Again all of which needs to be done by the parents. Something most parents are not willing to do themselves. Because so often the case One culture is generally assimilated by the other. Because maintaining two separate cultures in one house is a very volatile mixture that sparks off many potential fights. That is the selfish or lazy aspect i was talking about. burying one culture to live as the other.

---

Yes, I know what a blue state is, Drich. But, guess what?
I'm from VIRGINIA, you fuckin' know-nothing.

Christ, you are a MORON.

[Drich]

Lol, I understand your argument, and on some level it is actually clever.  

I would say thank you if it were mine. It's just common sense, once you actually stick to the literal narritive and only account for what is and is not said in the bible then, cut all other traditionally held beliefs away. This is what is left. So again not my narrative this is what God left for us thousands and thousands of years before their was any knowledge of the fossil record.

Perhaps the nephilim were evolved humanoids, and only Adam & Steve's descendants had actual souls.  The nephilim, being primitive animals, were evil in God's eyes so he wiped them out and only preserved a selection of Adam's line.

This is exactly my conclusion as well. In that 'monkey men' and angels could have had off spring/nephilim. One could have been named thor or loki or Hercules. that souless monkey man/evolved man was the embodiment of pure evil the worst that this planet has ever seen.. And just maybe Noah and his family was the last of the descendants of Adam that had not been eaten/corrupted by this monkey man evil. And everything that was washed away by the flood preyed and destroyed the descendants of Adam. Which is why a righteous God could and did find justification in the destruction/sterilization of the planet so that Man made in the Image of God was the only thing left to rule this planet. Via the natural choke point provided by the Ark/flood.

But if you want to say that Genesis 1 is talking about the creation of the garden of Eden, can you tell me exactly why it's saying God created all of earth when it means he created just the Garden on an earth that had already been there for billions of years?  Like always your shit makes zero sense.

My narrative does not start in Genesis 1. It starts in Genesis 2. (get to that in a minute)
This narrative can work one of two ways. My preferred belief is God 'seeded' the planet with the precursors/animals from which everything evolved. (per the most literal account of genesis 1) I think the evolution from slime/ooze is too much. but if you want/must believe that, the narrative can be adapted to fit that, in that the 'seeds' God used were protiens/DNA rather than whole very simple very primitive animals.

Also remember the Gen 1 account originally did not use words like birds or whales. the ancient Jews had no such words or classifications. that did not come til thousands of years later. The words we have in the hebrew simply describe creatures. "winged creatures" That is why the same word that is translated in Genesis one and in leviticus as "bird" can also mean bat. It does not follow the genus and philum classifications we now use. They basically had large winged creatures "birds" and they had small winged creatures "insects". So what is being described in Genesis 1 could easily be the precursor/seeds that would eventually evolve into a bird or insect, tree, whale etc...

So why do I believe that the genesis 2 is Garden only? Because Genesis two (which actually should start in verse 4, because the verses prior are still speaking about the 7th day of creation left over from the chapter 1 narrative.)
says so!

If you Read Chapter 2 starting at verse 4 (and only delete the verse notations/which were not there in the original texts)
you get(NKJV):
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

Now, look at what is being described:

"this is a history of what else happened on the day after God made the heaven and earth, but before he seeded the earth, because at that point it had not even rained." Then from there it immediately describes the creation of the man then the garden.

So we look to Genesis 1 to see what day god made the Heavens and Earth (day 2) but before he seeded the earth (Day 3):9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

So in the middle of Day three Everything (between verse 10 and 11) Genesis 2 happened. (the garden, Creation of Man, the charge of care taker, creation of woman, and the freedom to eat anything in the garden except for the tree of knoweledge, this includes the tree of life which we hear about in genesis 3.)

Now what does all of this mean? that everything happening outside the garden was by the official record, was not on the same time table Garden life was on. The planet was a barren waste land (it had not rained yet for the first time no plants. only land and sea) and in the middle of it all was a lush green perfect garden that had 4 rivers flowing from it. This means the completed picture found in Garden life did not reflect the evolutionary process of everything outside the protected Garden. Which then also makes terms like the "circle of the earth" the "dome of the sky" make sense if you can picture the Garden as being placed under a cake dish or big shield that kept everything in that was supposed to be in, and everything else out.

Now if Genesis 2 happens on day three between verse 10 and 11, what makes us think that events in genesis 3 happened the very next day? (this is the YEC assumption)

Again if we speak where the bible speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent, we could indeed have a day 4 fall from grace (before the rest of the world was complete,) but not likly. for one genesis 1 does not support a day 4 fall from grace. So then any timeline man/the church puts on the events of genesis 3 is pure speculation. However, we do have clues and indications that life out side the garden has indeed 'caught up' to garden life. In that genesis 4 and 5 speaks of cities outside the garden and husbands and wives the children of A&E took for themselves. which according to our 'understanding' of the fossil record took millions of bazillions of years to take place.. which is fine. just as 'fine' as this whole thing taking 6000 years to do. Because in the end whatever the real number of days A&E lived in the garden, this particular narrative remains unchanged.

[Drich]

---

Again, by 'some' you are only looking through the lens provided by this culture. If this was the biracial child's only exposure to the world I would tend to agree, 'things' have been getting better. i would even concede that is is possible that 'some' children are even praised for their diversity.

---

I have never once disputed that fact. However in every instance that point was made I countered with, "that is not how the world works outside of your 'blue state." Do you not understand the term 'blue state' and what it refers to? (i'll leave it to you to google.)

But, in short The world at large does not maintain the gestapo level of mandated tolerance found in most 'blue states.' That means biracial children the rest of the world over are not generally received favorably. 

These facts are what you have continually ignored to maintain your smug sense of righteousness. But once one does indeed look past your blue state mentality, they will see your righteousness is founded on nothing more than well wishing.

---

The fact that the world at large does not receive biracial children with the same open arms their families and even blue state communities might, is the very reason all of the studies I pointed to support and define everything I have brought to this subject.

That is why they all suggest an extra measure of care to walk the child through both cultures, to be taught to respect both, to find balance, and in doing so help them find their own identity.  Again all of which needs to be done by the parents. Something most parents are not willing to do themselves. Because so often the case One culture is generally assimilated by the other. Because maintaining two separate cultures in one house is a very volatile mixture that sparks off many potential fights. That is the selfish or lazy aspect i was talking about. burying one culture to live as the other.

---

Yes, I know what a blue state is, Drich. But, guess what?
I'm from VIRGINIA, you fuckin' know-nothing.

Christ, you are a MORON.

Oh, bother...

This is why I said look it up!!! I'm am getting tired of being the bad guy who forces you douche bags to eat so much crow. (I'm tired of being right ALL OF THE FRIGGEN TIME, and the one made to hold you people to the fire/educate 'use guys') I was trying to get you to police yourself and make the necessary corrections on your own rather than by me making you look stupid.

So here we go little miss can be wrong, virgina is considered a purple state, (what happens when you mix red and blue) It is a swing state one that can go either way which means their are an equal amount of blue and red voters in said state. which means you can very easily live in the part of a state where liberal douche baggery (blue state ideologies) abounds. Which again completely supports my position. (which is just bonus/cake icing)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states...lue_states

The reason I wanted you to look up the term blue state was so that you could see how isolated this ideology was and how relatively small an area these philosophies are predominate. verses the rest of the united states, verses the rest of the world. i repeatedly showed you that your personal thoughts and beliefs were contained only in areas who mandate and force tolerance. which again is not how the majority of this country works let alone the rest of the world.

[Godscreated]

---

They are none of those and they didn't come up with anything, God brought salvation to all mankind through the Israelites.

GC

They are none of those things?  So they didn't own slaves?  So those laws regarding slavery that I know have been thrown in your face dozens of times on these forums are not indicative of the fact that they owned slaves?

Yes they had slaves, the Jewish slaves were paying off debt and after seven years were freed. The slaves out side the nation of Israel were keep for life, much like what happened in this country. You want to pick on the writers of the Bible yet you ignore that slavery is worse today than it's ever been, why do you ignore this. Today's slaves are own by the secular world since you belong to that category should we start defining you as someone who approves of slavery?

GC

[Athene]

Yes, I know what a blue state is, Drich. But, guess what?
I'm from VIRGINIA, you fuckin' know-nothing.

Christ, you are a MORON.

Oh, bother...

This is why I said look it up!!! I'm am getting tired of being the bad guy who forces you douche bags to eat so much crow. (I'm tired of being right ALL OF THE FRIGGEN TIME, and the one made to hold you people to the fire/educate 'use guys') I was trying to get you to police yourself and make the necessary corrections on your own rather than by me making you look stupid.

So here we go little miss can be wrong, virgina is considered a purple state, (what happens when you mix red and blue) It is a swing state one that can go either way which means their are an equal amount of blue and red voters in said state. which means you can very easily live in the part of a state where liberal douche baggery (blue state ideologies) abounds. Which again completely supports my position. (which is just bonus/cake icing)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states...lue_states

I assure you, Drich, that I don't require what passes as "knowledge" from you, to educate me in the demographics of my home state. I understand politics as well as, if not better than you do. While Northern VA (DC Metropolitan area) leaning heavily Democratic has affected the most RECENT election outcomes and resulted in this "purplish" phenomenon, the Commonwealth of Virginia by and large, remains a deeply conservative state.

You'd do well to know that I've never lived in Northern VA. I was born, raised, and currently reside in parts of what's known as the rest of the state: You know, the good ole' conservative Republican, Confederate flag-waving, Bible-thumping, NRA-worshiping South? It is most certainly the same as it was prior to the last two Presidential elections; Red as the goddamned day is long.  

Outside of NOVA, Virginia is by no stretch of the imagination, anything NEAR a blue state, liberal-loving, hippie wet dream, PC kowtowing fantasy-land. It never has been. You simply MUST know better than that, so there's no point in persisting to suggest otherwise. 

Your woefully stupid assumption that a "sheltered, blue-state upbringing" is responsible for my "flawed thinking" was dead fucking wrong. Have you got the balls to admit that, Dipshit? If not, maybe you should STFU...before you I make you eat your words yet again. 

[KevinM1]

---

They are none of those things?  So they didn't own slaves?  So those laws regarding slavery that I know have been thrown in your face dozens of times on these forums are not indicative of the fact that they owned slaves?

Yes they had slaves, the Jewish slaves were paying off debt and after seven years were freed. The slaves out side the nation of Israel were keep for life, much like what happened in this country. You want to pick on the writers of the Bible yet you ignore that slavery is worse today than it's ever been, why do you ignore this. Today's slaves are own by the secular world since you belong to that category should we start defining you as someone who approves of slavery?

GC

Citation needed.

[Nihilist Virus]

---

They are none of those things?  So they didn't own slaves?  So those laws regarding slavery that I know have been thrown in your face dozens of times on these forums are not indicative of the fact that they owned slaves?

Yes they had slaves, the Jewish slaves were paying off debt and after seven years were freed. The slaves out side the nation of Israel were keep for life, much like what happened in this country. You want to pick on the writers of the Bible yet you ignore that slavery is worse today than it's ever been, why do you ignore this. Today's slaves are own by the secular world since you belong to that category should we start defining you as someone who approves of slavery?

GC

Just so we are all clear on what just happened, you first denied that the Bible was written by racist, sexist, genocidal, slave-driving rapists, saying that the authors were "none of those things," and now you admit that they were slave drivers. Right?

I'll gladly answer the bottom half of your post but I just wanted to clarify this first.

[Drich]

Oh, bother...

This is why I said look it up!!! I'm am getting tired of being the bad guy who forces you douche bags to eat so much crow. (I'm tired of being right ALL OF THE FRIGGEN TIME, and the one made to hold you people to the fire/educate 'use guys') I was trying to get you to police yourself and make the necessary corrections on your own rather than by me making you look stupid.

So here we go little miss can be wrong, virgina is considered a purple state, (what happens when you mix red and blue) It is a swing state one that can go either way which means their are an equal amount of blue and red voters in said state. which means you can very easily live in the part of a state where liberal douche baggery (blue state ideologies) abounds. Which again completely supports my position. (which is just bonus/cake icing)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states...lue_states

I assure you, Drich, that I don't require what passes as "knowledge" from you, to educate me in the demographics of my home state. I understand politics as well as, if not better than you do. While Northern VA (DC Metropolitan area) leaning heavily Democratic has affected the most RECENT election outcomes and resulted in this "purplish" phenomenon, the Commonwealth of Virginia by and large, remains a deeply conservative state.

You'd do well to know that I've never lived in Northern VA. I was born, raised, and currently reside in parts of what's known as the rest of the state: You know, the good ole' conservative Republican, Confederate flag-waving, Bible-thumping, NRA-worshiping South? It is most certainly the same as it was prior to the last two Presidential elections; Red as the goddamned day is long.  

Outside of NOVA, Virginia is by no stretch of the imagination, anything NEAR a blue state, liberal-loving, hippie wet dream, PC kowtowing fantasy-land. It never has been. You simply MUST know better than that, so there's no point in persisting to suggest otherwise. 

Your woefully stupid assumption that a "sheltered, blue-state upbringing" is responsible for my "flawed thinking" was dead fucking wrong. Have you got the balls to admit that, Dipshit? If not, maybe you should STFU...before you I make you eat your words yet again. 

Target lock.. you familiar with that term?
 It's when one fixates on their target so hard they become oblivious to everything else around them. It's a term fighter pilots use to describe when one of them fixates so hard on destroying a enemy plane they miss the target's wing man shooting at them, or they do not realize how close they are to the ground and slam into it. The guys with target lock are the one's who generally gets destroyed.

Your 'target lock'/fixation on which county you live in, in an attempt to destroy my "cake Icing" (I even labled my 'fluff' and you still fell for it!! Butt hurt Pride is a hellva thing. It forces you to hand over the keys to your emotions and cognitive thinking to anyone wanting to control it.)

It has left you completely open to the primary point I was making (my wing man). So now I get to do a proper victory lap!!

Because, While you were so busy obliterating my Cake icing with everything at your disposal You intentionally left out my main point which was something you even cut from my quote, so let's look at it again shall we:

The reason I wanted you to look up the term blue state was so that you could see how isolated this ideology was and how relatively small an area these philosophies are predominate. verses the rest of the united states, verses the rest of the world. i repeatedly showed you that your personal thoughts and beliefs were contained only in areas who mandate and force tolerance. which again is not how the majority of this country works let alone the rest of the world.

Wonder why you did not answer that... oh, that's right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnP5iDKwuwk

This is me 'forcing' you to 'learn somthin' whiles use is a kick'n and a scream'n at me. stings a little bit doughnut?

git it? Starwars.. Forcing you

If and when you can swallow some of that pride and admit that your world view is limited to a relatively very small part of the world and can accept the authority of the articles and papers I have posted that not only out line the very problem you are either to butt hurt to admit exists, or just blind to (because you do infact live in a blue state of mind) we can continue a respectful and civil conversation. However if you want to "stay on target" then know I will make every effort to clown you that I possible can.

Why? because this topic is very serious to me and people like you made my life hell because they would not (like you) admit their was a problem in society biracial people are having because their parents are often either too ill equip or just too damn selfish to address. The prevailing attitude being 'our love or the family's love will be enough to replace any lost sense of racial identity.'

If indeed you are bi-racial and did not grow up like this, fine. In my opening statement I made a provision for people like you. sit their and be happy. However know everyone else did not grow up as you did. I left at least 1/2 a dozen references that point to the very issues and root causes i have listed here in my own words. Everything from an transcribed episode of Opra, to a Harvard reviewed book "A must read for parents of bi-racial children" To a sociology paper that transcribed actual sessions and gave a conclusion that mirrors my own assessment!

If you can't admit to this then you don't have anything else to say, that I need to read.

[Godscreated]

Yes they had slaves, the Jewish slaves were paying off debt and after seven years were freed. The slaves out side the nation of Israel were keep for life, much like what happened in this country. You want to pick on the writers of the Bible yet you ignore that slavery is worse today than it's ever been, why do you ignore this. Today's slaves are own by the secular world since you belong to that category should we start defining you as someone who approves of slavery?

GC

Citation needed.

There's been more than enough in many threads on this forum.

GC