/christianity/ - Christianity

rockwell signs jpg
(595.22 KB, 1200x802)

Christianity is defined by the teachings of the Bible, and the Bible does not teach miscegenation or zionism (defending on how you define zionism).

Sadly many christians have indeed been tricked on these issues, but they are in error. Every aware person knows the jew organizes these things.

Christianity is anti miscegenation:
http://faithandheritage.com/2011/05/the-moral-status-of-miscegenation/

If zionism simply means the establishment of a jewish state somewhere in the world, there is nothing for Christians to oppose. Zionism is only an issue because Jews are doing so by leeching off of the western white world and particularly Christian America. In this case, really zionism isn't the issue but the power of the state to confiscate your money and put it towards those causes.

 >>/118/
> http://faithandheritage.com/2011/05/the-moral-status-of-miscegenation/

I'll go straight to the biblical because everything else seems irrelevant to discussion of a stance of Christianity.
"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers" means what it says. It would say 'do not be unequally yoked' if it had an implied anti race mixing meaning.
Argument that flows from 'all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues' needs only be extended to marrying people speaking different language or belonging to a different tribe to see how ridiculous it is. Just because every nation and every tribe will produce a saint doesn't mean that there will be a national segregation in heaven.

Deut 7:3 okay, for clarity let's follow through to 7:4 "For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods" and that's a running motif which follows Hebrews marrying foreign women. 1 Corinthians 10:20 explains the situation in which the world is in plainly. Every heathen religion echoes fallen angels, their offspring or the god of this world - the Devil himself.

Ezra 9:1-3 has "The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations". Now what is the cause for the lamentation? The abominations Israel did following the natives.

And for the final strike Exodus 12:48. Literally anyone could become part Israel as long as they obeyed the Lord. 
He tried. He bended and squeezed scripture so hard to pad his preferences with biblical morality but it doesn't work that way. And that heathen solar aryan cross is just a cherry on the top.
Seek to follow God not ideologies of men.

 >>/119/
> It would say 'do not be unequally yoked' if it had an implied anti race mixing meaning. 
Is this a typo? That's what it says

> Just because every nation and every tribe will produce a saint doesn't mean that there will be a national segregation in heaven. 
The anti miscegenation position doesn't have to hold that there will be physical separation of the races in heaven and in the new earth, we're not given in marriage there anyway.

> Deut 7
> Ezra 9
Where are you arguing against mixing? You're just giving basic observations on the text.

> Exodus 12 anyone could become part of Israel
Wrong
< 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
< 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
The foreigner is still a foreigner. He is not part of the nation of Israel (nation as in ethnos, not nation-state). He is sojourning among them, and being subject to their laws.
In modern terms this is like a German living in Japan. He does not become Japanese, but while there he is obligated to obey their laws and they are obligated (according to God) to treat him equally under the law.

You are making a very weak argument: your single point for the permissibility of mixed marriage does not hold, and the rest of your case is merely an argument from silence by trying to say the relevant passages that the article claims forbid mixed marriage do not.

 >>/120/
> Is this a typo? That's what it says
The additional "with unbelievers". You're not terribly smart are yu?

 >>/121/
> ad hominem
Opinion discarded

 >>/120/
There's a problem with reading comprehension here. It'll make explaining my point difficult but I'll try.

> Is this a typo? That's what it says

It's not a typo. There's a difference and  >>/121/ pointed it out already although with unnecessary remark.

> The anti miscegenation position

Have you read the article? I made a direct refutation of it.

> You're just giving basic observations on the text.

And writer of the article missed those or feigned ignorance.

> One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Again reading comprehension issues come in. Not "one law (...) unto him (...) and one unto the stranger(...)" but "one law (...)unto him (...) and unto the stranger(...)". That means they're under the same law from that point.

 >>/123/
Where is the connection from the same law applying equally to strangers and natives and the permissibility of mixed marriages?

 >>/123/
Hold on that last point I didn't read post I was responding to to the end. I'll make correction soon.

 >>/125/
Ok.
To an earlier point, how did you conclude that the instruction against being unequally yoked must have explicitly clarified that this includes race? Do you deny the existence of implicit meaning?
Did you read Rushdoony's explanation quoted in the article?

Even if you're right on this verse, its still only an argument from silence.

 >>/120/
Okay there is a de facto distinction being made between the foreigners that sojourn (no time limit given) and natives but if that foreigner being circumcised and observing all statutes is under same law and "shall be as one that is born in the land" then how is he separate? They're not ethnically Hebrews but they're to be treated the same.

 >>/124/
They're not rejected as other heathen foreigners. They're not forbidden to marry and live among Israel. The article argues that God through scripture disapproves people of Israel to intermarry with different nations/ethnicities also because it's against racemixing and were it so there would be no privelege "as one born in the land" given to foreigners. It would be like 'ok respect our laws while you're here on your trade route or whatever and then bye bye'. Circumcision is a permanent sign of belonging to God in OT.

> then how is he separate? They're not ethnically Hebrews but they're to be treated the same.
I agree, I would even say that the foreigner isn't separate at all. While treated at equal, the Israelites and God himself still recognized his racial difference as verse 49 shows. He is "as" a native born, that's a simile.
This is the same situation as in the NT church where there is Jew not gentile.
Anyway, my point is that you're not providing an argument in favor of mixed marriage from this text.

 >>/126/
Because it stays directly with unbelievers and entire phrase talks about difficulties of married life with spouse that is not of the faith. You can make scriptures say whatever you want if you ignore context.
> Did you read Rushdoony's explanation quoted in the article?

Skimmed through it. I've reread it before making this reply just to be sure. Listen, simply because guy is a theologian doesn't mean he can't miss the point. Pharisees and Sadducees were theologians of their time. Let's go trough it piece by piece.
First "mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers and is clearly forbidden" which is simply not true. There's no sin in marrying non believer, it's great if it works out because spouse and children are sanctified through believing parent but there are some things that can go wrong and there's no guarantee that you can bring your loved one to Christ so it can end in a distress. Paul just advises against it just like he advises elsewhere against marriage in general. It's just easier for a persecuted Christian to live according to his words.
"This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong." Whoa if that's not one broad statement. Then he tries to cage it in "woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband" which simply does not follow from passages he quotes to support his idea. His argument is it's own demise since there are no bounds in original statement to guide the interpretation of his way of reading into it. Again that biblical verse is encapsulated in a talk about difficulties of life with unbeliever not with someone of different culture or ethnicity.

> its still only an argument from silence.

The meaning is clear. The context is given with detail. They're both trying to wring out of it meanings that aren't there. It cannot be used to support claims that Bible condemns or even discourages mixed ethnicity marriages because it's talking about something entirely else. I think you're misusing 'argument from silence' tag here.

 >>/128/
> Anyway, my point is that you're not providing an argument in favor of mixed marriage from this text.

Nothing I've said before obliges me to do so for one and secondly I don't recall anything specific that would be directly encouraging it. It's being left at individual's discretion. 
In general if law doesn't forbid something that means it's legal. Statement "Christianity is anti miscegenation" is false. That is my point.

 >>/129/
> Because it stays

*says
that was a typo

lulz

> Cucktianity contributed to race mixing and zionism
naturally. the bible is about sex

 >>/117/
Europe rejects Christianity and it's now full of race mixing and zionism.

Christianity is a thousand year long jewish plot to confuse the goyim and make otherwise good and moral Europeans into a mass of de-racinated low IQ mutts. This is the truth.

 >>/214/
substantiate yourself

 >>/177/
this. amazing the revisionism anti-Christians have

 >>/219/
Only a fool would fail to see this. The evidence is not something that needs to be looked for - it is everywhere. Christianity was always going to turn those who adopted it against their own, because it places no importance on race. Never-mind it being of jewish origin.

 >>/249/
If the evidence is everywhere, surely you can produce some

1551678092737 jpg
(63.07 KB, 539x530)

 >>/214/
Marriages as contracts, starting and ending at will; corruption of moral values and family; pornography and perversion of all things; state-educated children; inversion of man/woman roles; effeminacy and unbridled consumerism; glorification of deformed bodies; rejection and ridicule of tradition. These are a few problems in our societies, all of which Christianity condemn. The problem of race-mixing does not exist in a vacuum. 95% of interracial relationships are based on Muh Dik. Christianity condemns Muh Dik. If Christianity is what you claim it is, why hasn't this happened in Europe in the last ten centuries? It seems that the goals you have mentioned are much more easily achieved in secular/atheist societies.

 >>/117/
your contradictionary worldview will already disprove itself

 >>/117/
Yes the bible is obviously against race mixing. For example in genesis 1 man was created. Then in Genesis 2 Adam and Eve were created. This leads to the simple conclusion that God never intended us to mix with other races. Read it genesis 1 is the account of the creation of man. Genesis 2 recounts the creation of Adam. Also Adam means to show blood in the face in hebrew.

 >>/117/
Care to explain why either of those things shouldn't be done when morality isn't real?

 >>/117/
Nehemiah 13:3
"Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude."
You will NEVER hear this verse unless you genuinely read the bible. Or you know someone autistic enough to read through the bible constantly to pick out verses such as this. Basically any christian who race mixes is breaking the commandments of God.