Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 8, 2016 at 4:02 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:
(February 8, 2016 at 3:22 pm)TrueChristian Wrote: Idk. It seems God placed the different races on different continents.
He put the white people in Europe (except for Italy I guess)
He put the orientals in Asia.
He put the blacks in Africa.
He put the jabbering aborigines and native americans in Australia and the Americas respectivley.
Wouldnt it stand to reason he would only want the races to copulte with eachother since that was his plan?
Thought experiment time.
It's 1800 and missionaries go to proclaim the gospel to natives in South America. They get shipwrecked and are stuck there permanently. Is it then immoral for them to intermarry? After all, it would seem to contradict God's plan, and that is the one thing that is immoral. Right?
No. The missionaries should take a vow of celibacy and chastity rather than contravene God's plans. They can likely better focus on evangelization without the distractions of sex, marriage and children.
Can you imagine a priest who is henpecked and has children to look after? I can't either!. It would not make for a holy and commited priest, let me tell you
(February 8, 2016 at 3:22 pm)TrueChristian Wrote: He put the white people in Europe (except for Italy I guess)
*Awkwardly looks at my blonde Italian relatives*
I doubt race as a concept would have existed back then anyway. Sure there were different ethnic groups in the Middle East and conflict between them, but they would have all had fairly similar physical features that, if they were in plain clothes or naked, would have left them indistinguishable.
"Adulthood is like looking both ways before you cross the road, and then getting hit by an airplane"- sarcasm_only
"Ironically like the nativist far-Right, which despises multiculturalism, but benefits from its ideas of difference to scapegoat the other and to promote its own white identity politics; these postmodernists, leftists, feminists and liberals also use multiculturalism, to side with the oppressor, by demanding respect and tolerance for oppression characterised as 'difference', no matter how intolerable."- Maryam Namazie
(February 8, 2016 at 4:02 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Thought experiment time.
It's 1800 and missionaries go to proclaim the gospel to natives in South America. They get shipwrecked and are stuck there permanently. Is it then immoral for them to intermarry? After all, it would seem to contradict God's plan, and that is the one thing that is immoral. Right?
No. The missionaries should take a vow of celibacy and chastity rather than contravene God's plans. They can likely better focus on evangelization without the distractions of sex, marriage and children.
Can you imagine a priest who is henpecked and has children to look after? I can't either!. It would not make for a holy and commited priest, let me tell you
Juggling is ordinarily a talent, but it is bothersome when Christians do it. I commend you for not juggling. For sticking to your guns no matter how bass ackwards your views are. A Christian like you is usually hard to find, so I'd like to run something by you if you don't mind. This is a little something I put by some Christians on their forums and the answers were... well... lots of juggling.
Is God above the law or not?
It would seem to me that the answer to this question is an obvious no. Jesus had to die because of the weight of the law. If God was above the law then he would just forgive everyone without sending his son to pay for the debts.
But then there is a problem. says,
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
This, presumably, is directly from God.
Then in , David's son is killed by God because of sins committed by David.
So... is God above the law or not?
Jesus is like Pinocchio. He's the bastard son of a carpenter. And a liar. And he wishes he was real.
(February 8, 2016 at 4:02 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Thought experiment time.
It's 1800 and missionaries go to proclaim the gospel to natives in South America. They get shipwrecked and are stuck there permanently. Is it then immoral for them to intermarry? After all, it would seem to contradict God's plan, and that is the one thing that is immoral. Right?
No. The missionaries should take a vow of celibacy and chastity rather than contravene God's plans. They can likely better focus on evangelization without the distractions of sex, marriage and children.
Can you imagine a priest who is henpecked and has children to look after? I can't either!. It would not make for a holy and commited priest, let me tell you
Juggling is ordinarily a talent, but it is bothersome when Christians do it. I commend you for not juggling. For sticking to your guns no matter how bass ackwards your views are.
But a huge problem is... well... you seem to be saying that you can infer God's plan by looking at nature, and homosexuality is natural. Therefore God's plan includes homosexuality.
Jesus is like Pinocchio. He's the bastard son of a carpenter. And a liar. And he wishes he was real.
I haven't officially studied bi-racial people, but I do tend to seek them out and talk with them if and when time allows. (At parties social gatherings whatever) I think most I have spoken to all say they felt loved, but again really didn't belong to one culture or race or the other. (unless they really looked like one race or the other, or were just out and out the oblivious to everything type.)
Which for the most part we grow out of it effecting our lives, but at the same time across the board (again unless they look like one race or the other) we all share a brutal childhood. Especially if we went to public school, and did not look like one race or the other.
While for the most part the families involved did not shun the kids most of us know we did not get the same treatment as our 'cousins' did.
This is alot to put on a kid if they are not given the tools to deal and cope. It's one thing to be call a racial name if you are all Black or Japanese, because you can go back to a group of people who all share and absorb your pain/experience, your mother is like you your father, your cousins, your friends are all like you and you are and belong to a people.. Their is Heritage, their is tradition.. it's another when you are the only one of your kind, your mom is different, your dad is different and everyone is different.
Again this is asking alot for a kid to figure out for him or her self.. Just because mommy and daddy wanted to be different.
I can certainly understand how having parents with extremely different traditions and views of the world overall, could cause a child to feel conflicted/ confused at the prospect of having to 'choose sides'. Especially if the parents can't be bothered to talk to their children, or come to a basic consensus on how raise them.
I don't feel that parents from what could essentially be considered the same background/culture, who also happen to be of different races are necessarily presenting their children with the same dilemma. It's unfair to assume that these people are selfish and just want to be different, or assume that their offspring feel pressured to somehow pick a side; especially in this current day and age. Being mixed race and/or appearing racially ambiguous isn't all that unusual or uncommon it used to be. It's not necessarily the isolating experience, you found it to be x amount of years ago.
Not certain why you feel that it's crucial for people to to share the same physical characteristics in order to relate one another. Being of the same race is ONEof countless commonalities and shared experiences that allow people to relate to each other on some level.
The point your missing is the child(ern) Don't grow up as being apart of a people or community. Yes their may be others with the same racial mix, but no sense of community or belonging. we have 'antidotes' or common stories/experiences , but no sense of community.
To take that from a child or to assume one is able to provide this basic form of identify or worse yet not even think about it is indeed selfish! The parents wants, userpt the childs needs, how is that not selfish?
Look at your response. You could not point to a social structure equivalent to the self identification say black people have with other black people or whites with whites. You pointed to "It's not as rare as it use to be." Your comparing the right of hundreds of thousands of years of basic self identification, against it's not as rare as it use to be.
Again as a child this matters because all higher functioning social activity first starts along racial lines. The first division is gender, then instinctively we subdivide by race. If we didn't this question that started this tread would be a non issue.
I mean how many threads have you seen asking "What does God say about White people marrying other white people?"
When I was a teenager in Missouri (1970s), I danced with a black girl at a school function. The following Sunday, the preacher's wife had a special Sunday school session with my sister and I about how 'God hates a mixture'.
(February 6, 2016 at 4:56 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Drich at it again... lol.
Yeah, getting "you people" to think outside the box you want to live in is quite a task
You continue to mistake your posts as 'thinking outside the box'. Your parsimonious way of turning everything you post about into a diatribe about how much you hate x or y is not profound, it's not unique, and it's not particularly interesting.
If there's an issue with multiracial/interracial relationships and offspring, then using language like 'mongrels'is only going to perpetuate that, no? You talk of societal and structural exclusions. You ever stop to think that maybe you're the one doing the excluding?
Interracial, nay, race per se means precisely nothing to me. You appear to settle on these apparent barriers as being insurmountable when, in fact, the very fact that me and millions of others like me care little for race as an indentifyer is surely evidence to the contrary.
I don't really know why I bother responding to you. So I guess I just won't ever again unless in an official capacity.
to think outside the box you want to live in is quite a task![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
