/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>827200

>If not, what Biblical argument do you have against it?

A whole book in the Bible called Ruth. She was a Gentile - A Moabite, in fact (and if you read Genesis, you'll see that Moabite origins are bizarre and tragic. They come from incest, when Lot's daughters had sex with him, their own father, They were an entire race founded on incest).

Yet God saw fit to incorporate this descendant of Moab into Israel, simply because she believed in the one true God. It took one simple act of faith on her part, and suddenly she was transformed and counted among Israel. And not only did God incorporate her into the people of Israel, she became the great-grandmother of the man who eventually became the king of Israel: David. And not only that, she is the ancestor of Mary and Jesus too.

The genealogy of Jesus also mentions Tamar - a Gentile that Judah impregnated. Judah's tribe is the very tribe Jesus and Mary comes from. Then there's Rahab, a prostitute from Jericho, who also became a part of Israel simply because she decided to help the Israelites and help them conquer the city. She, too, became an ancestor to Jesus and Mary. An outsider prostitute. Whatever shall we do?! I guess all those who oppose race-mixing will just have to settle with eternal torment in Hell and separation from God. In their haste, they rejected Christ himself. Seeing that he himself is a product of race mixing, and even the blood of prostitutes and incest. Too bad you're just modernists, who are stuck on materialism and flesh don't realize that true reality is spiritual. It will be the downfall of many.

"Very truly I tell you, NO ONE can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit b gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born from ABOVE.’" - John 3:5-8

>>827201

>However, the old catholic church teaching, even as told by Pope Pius XII, the last true Pope, makes it clear that you are not to worship your race (as the jews do) but that honoring your race is just part of the 4th Commandment.

Even as a Protestant, that's exactly my argument.

>>827203

>A whole book in the Bible called Ruth. She was a Gentile

The Jew/Gentile divide is not the same thing as the racial divide. Setting aside the religious differences, Lot was Abraham's nephew. Moabites were not biologically far off from the Israelites. It would be like a Frenchman marrying someone from Switzerland. Not a big deal.

>It took one simple act of faith on her part, and suddenly she was transformed

She was not biologically transformed, not that she needed to be. Neither is a Chinaman transformed into a European when he is given faith.

>And not only that, she is the ancestor of Mary and Jesus too.

For a very important theological reason, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

>The genealogy of Jesus also mentions Tamar

A Canaanite. Biological cousins to the Israelites.

>I guess all those who oppose race-mixing will just have to settle with eternal torment in Hell and separation from God.

So swift to pronounce judgment.

>Too bad you're just modernists, who are stuck on materialism and flesh don't realize that true reality is spiritual. It will be the downfall of many.

There is a spiritual reality, but there is also a material one. Both were created by the same God and both are quite consequential. Christians are not to be like gnostics, rejecting the whole material world. Remember that there will be a physical resurrection, just as there was with Jesus.

>>827203

I'm sure you're aware that there are counterarguments about these cases being miscegenation, but you should know that you can be a kinist and still find race mixing permissible

https://faithandheritage.com/faq/

>27. The Bible contains some really obvious cases of “interracial” marriage, such as Moses with his Ethiopian wife and Ruth with Boaz. How do you deal with those?

In the end, these alleged cases are simply not convincing or obvious in the least. Proving whether they were truly interracial is rather difficult, as is proving whether Scripture morally countenances them. The putative cases of racial intermarriage in Scripture should generally be treated in the same way as examples of polygamy are oft treated: whatever the examples teach, they do not teach the action’s general moral permissibility, and such examples ought not to be considered as the main arena of debate for the subject.

>For more reading, please see “Divorce, Miscegenation, and Polygamy: A Comparative Approach to Their Morality.” Part two of the series explains a putative case of intermarriage in Deut. 21. Further, this article addresses Moses’s Cus—e wife, and this article addresses Ruth and Boaz and the aforementioned example from Deut. 21.

>15. Maybe the Bible teaches that there are separate “races,” but certainly it says nothing against “interracial” marriage. Why do you try to add to God’s Word?

This is the precise objection made by weak kinists (who see interracial marriage as unwise) against strong kinists (who see it as sinful); they do not see this objection as against all kinism, but merely as an argument “within the camp.” The general argument which strong kinists will make in response is that the Bible does not need to directly address the topic for a moral conclusion to justly be drawn from it (such as with cannibalism or suicide), and/or that the biblical teaching on ethnonationalism, a doctrine concerning our political and social organization, has strong moral implications on our domestic life and marriage.

>On the other hand, if someone demands a Bible verse to prove that interracial marriage is unwise, as the weak kinist maintains, then he is simply confusing the purposes of natural and supernatural revelation. Can he provide us with a Bible verse explaining why sending a teenage male to evangelize in a strip club is unwise?

>For more reading (beyond the introductory article on miscegenation), please wait patiently for a future article on the subject.

>>827205

>The Jew/Gentile divide is not the same thing as the racial divide. Setting aside the religious differences, Lot was Abraham's nephew. Moabites were not biologically far off from the Israelites. It would be like a Frenchman marrying someone from Switzerland. Not a big deal.

By that reasoning, none of this matters then. The human population all traces back to Adam, and then Noah's family.

The only people who truly can fall back on these race theories don't believe in Adam or Noah in the first place, and believe in evolution instead (and like I said, they're all just modernists. Not Christians or biblically based at all in their thinking on the origins of humanity).

>>827209

>The only people who truly can fall back on these race theories don't believe in Adam or Noah in the first place

Populations diverge over time due to a number of factors, not the least of which is God's will… There's no theory needed, we can observe it firsthand. Ruth would have had a relatively recent common ancestor. The divergence would not have been very great. You are being disingenuous.

>>827209

Are you arguing that race doesn't even exist? If so, how can you accuse anyone else of being modernist?

>>827210

Just by saying populations "diverge" is in itself from a modern paradigm on race and evolution.

The biblical paradigm never mentions anything like this, and it's stance on race revolves around blessings and curses.

>>827211

Just the human race exists. Nations and political groupings are another matter. But we're all created in the image of God - not separate images of separate gods or something. And we're all dead in sin now too and all of us equally rejected God's original image for ourselves. Only his grace can make at this point. We're all absolutely worthless otherwise.

>>827213

Err.. weird.. somehow an edit didn't go through. I meant, "Only his grace can change us at this point."

>>827212

>The biblical paradigm

We are different and that's a good thing. We want to continue to have those differences, which requires maintaining nations. Why do you oppose the maintenance of nations, which God ordained? That's what this is about.

>>827213

>Just the human race exists. Nations and political groupings are another matter.

You do realize that the Greek word in the New Testament for Nation is Ethnos, right…? Έθνος

>But we're all created in the image of God

What does that even have to do with what we're talking about? No one is saying that we aren't all made in the image of God. Do you think we're trying to dehumanize other groups just because we don't think it's a good idea to interbreed with them? I love Japanese people and culture, for example. That's why I don't want to see it destroyed by the replacement of their nation with a foreign people. That's what interbreeding does… By very definition, it destroys nations and cultures. That's what this is about.

>>827203

>Two instances of something not being the most important determining factor

>Also both regard literally a single individual

>The individuals weren't even of another "race" as commonly understood today, more like a different ethnicity of the same sub-race

<Your people's ethnic identity and culture is useless, just throw it away! You should never show any preference for your own!

<t. worse than an unbeliever

It's risible that liberals (you) like to hurl the modernist title at people who actually hold to the only historically coherent interpretation, that your own kin should obviously take priority before strange foreigners, and that national identity matters. If the nations aren't legitimate then a huge volume of scripture becomes totally incoherent. That race and culture are irrelevant is the essence of liberal modernism, attitudes like that were rightly seen as insane nonsense only 70 years ago. But certainly all of Christendom was wrong all these centuries, and deracinated cucks who've been entranced by liberal propaganda since birth have found the real truth of the gospel!

And for someone who claims to think spiritual matters rule material ones, you're certainly eager to declare eternal hellfire awaits anyone who disagress with you about this particular material matter. But of course you don't really believe that, because you're a deracinated bug person who worships progressivism, liberal politics totally dominate your being, don't try to hide your politics behind Christ.

Oh but I'm sure you'd get just as mad at people blaspheming Christ as you would at whites not eagerly embracing ethnic annihilation… yeah right, don't make me laugh.

>>827213

>But we're all created in the image of God - not separate images of separate gods or something. And we're all dead in sin now too and all of us equally rejected God's original image for ourselves.

Why don't you actually read what it is you're arguing against before throwing out accusations of heresy

>>827222

This is far beyond heresy, sir. It's demonic.

>>827222

It's a strawman.

Stop posting. Read first.

>>827252

>>827250

>>827544

I dunno, ask everyone who was killed in the great flood and see if they can figure it out. READ THE BIBLE.

>>827544

>Is miscegenation a sin?

Yes.

>>827544

>Is it something that Christians should disapprove of?

It's something that we should excommunicate for, but even if we don't, I've observed firsthand that God has His own ways of both directly punishing those who engage in such behaviors, and of eventually separating them from the flock to limit the harm they can do. God is not mocked.

>>827580

>Yes.

There will be a Final Trial for all of us, and in that Courtroom, Christ will bring this up. Why is the hill you want to die on, I don't know. I guarantee you that will call in all of the witnesses you just condemned - people Christ himself died for and brought into Eternal Life, but YOU thought you had the power to condemn over God himself.

I'd wish you luck, but it wouldn't mean anything.

"I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." - Matthew 12:36

>>827581

See >>827547

>>827581

>Thinking something is a sin is the same as proclaiming your own personal power to condemn

Keep reaching retard. Take a look at the post in your own eye, you're the one acting as though your opponents are certainly bound for hellfire "I'd wish you luck, but it won't matter", whose the one presuming to condemn others again?

If God was so keen on miscegenation that even THINKING it wasn't a good idea guaranteed damnation (the cuck's position), then don't you think he would have:

a) Made this unambiguous in scripture (not even close, not even according to your own retarded arguments).

b) Not made miscegenation so plainly ruinous? Your arguments that it must be allowed are stupid, but trying to pretend it might be GOOD is laughable.

Kinism is to race what complementarianism is to gender.

We are clarifying what the natural and historic position is in the face of a confused culture.