|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
David Yeagley 
Comanche Patriot
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26540
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 04 2004,14:03 |
|
   |
by David Yeagley
Does Christianity promote interracial marriage? White Christian missionaries have a grand tradition of marrying the “dusky heathens” they minister to. It’s the ultimate sign of equality and the universal evidence of acceptance. The New Testament, however, does not support such an idea, nor its practice.
Liberal ministers nevertheless love to quote Paul’s letter to the Galatian church: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28).
This famous passage is really the foundation of Christian liberalism. There is to be no racial distinction, class differentiation, or gender separation in the Christian’s approach to the world. Paul’s one statement is thought to be the pith of religion.
But where is this place, “in Christ Jesus”?
Is it in New Jersey? Is it in Los Angeles? Alcapulco? Bosnia? Baghdad? New Delhi?
Is it in the cathedral, the temple, the mosque, or the university?
If “in Christ” is indeed a spiritual place, and not part of Madonna’s “Material World,” then how can the “in Christ” concept be used to overturn all social establishments in the immediate, tactile globe on which we live? If Christ’s kingdom “is not of this world,” (John 18:36), then how can His teachings be made into such a volatile political force?
Indeed, this liberal Christianity is theoretically more potent than Communism, and has contributed to the very dissolution of culture and nationalism which Communism seeks to achieve.
But both liberal Christianity and Communism run against human nature. Not that human nature is the standard of right and wrong. As Rose (Hepburn) tells Charlie (Bogart), on the African Queen, “Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we were put in this world to rise above.” Yet, this objective philosophy pertains to the individual. To make a political policy of it smacks of religious tyranny and oppression, such as Europe saw in the Dark Ages, and the Islamic world has seen since the day of its appearance.
Evolution teaches that the variety of human species was created by natural selection, due to demographic, geographic, and even dietary circumstances.
The ‘Old’ Testament teaches that the Creator separated mankind first through language (Genesis 11:1-9), which then caused the varied demographic, geographic, and dietary circumstances. Further more, Deuteronomy 31:8 suggests that the Creator involved ethnicity and nationality in a definite global purpose. And this is the very purpose referred to by Paul when he talked to people in Athens (Act 17:26). It is a deeply founded communications project, as it were, and the message is one of divine compassion.
For any modern Christian ideology or Communist political philosophy to attempt to dissolve ethnicity and nationality runs directly counter to the entire Bible, even down to the final words of Revelation. Before the throne the prophet John saw “a great multitude…of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues.” (Rev. 7:9) Clearly, humanity exists in a varied form, even at the initiation of immorality.
Even if these liberal Christian leaders are mistakenly thinking that they going to create a ‘heaven on earth,’ they really need to review their concept of heaven. It isn’t Biblical at all.
Sam Houston (1793-1863) had a better understanding.
The famous Texan known as “The Raven,” married an Indian woman just for the pleasure of it. He was no missionary to the Indians.
Well, he had run away from home (Tennessee) when he was 16, and joined the Cherokee. He “grew up” thence as an Indian. He became a citizen of the Cherokee nation. He married a Cherokee woman Tiana Rogers (distant relative of Will Rogers) in 1830. He married another Indian woman in 1840 named Margaret Moffett Lea, and remained married until he died in 1863. (He was actually married three times. The first wife, a white woman, left him early on.)
Old Towakan (Wichita) Indians said Margaret (Houston’s third wife, second Indian wife) was of their tribe. They only knew her as “Granny Houston.” There was a picture made of her in 1889, at Anadarko. She was not so beautiful by then, but still “smart as a trap.”
Houston wasn’t trying to convert Indians to anything. In fact, Margaret apparently converted him—to the Baptist church. (It seems our boy had a bit of a drinking problem.)
Today, one can certainly marry at will, and marry whomever. But to make a religious philosophy of intermarriage, particularly a Christian philosophy, is simply unfounded and also precarious, because it toys with natural sexual preferences.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
ajibik
Mister Smarty Pants
Group: Members
Posts: 1811
Joined: Jan. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 04 2004,14:36 |
|
 |
Now I remember the difference between Sunday School and a Motorcycle Club meeting.
In Sunday School, they say, "Stand up for Jesus!"
In the Motorcycle Club meeting they say, "Willya sit down fer Chrissakes!"
--------------
Talk crap, get slapped.
Asinamaaguun Ajibik,
Anishinaabe Ogitchidaa Aanikoominodewiwin,
HAWKer (Homing All The Way Killer) Veteran.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Steve
Group: Members
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 04 2004,15:14 |
|
|
| Quote (David Yeagley @ Feb. 04 2004,1:03) | | Liberal ministers nevertheless love to quote Paul’s letter to the Galatian church: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28). |
That passage is one of my favorites. I take it to mean; in heaven we are all equal. It has nothing to do with our life on earth!
Liberal Christianity is, nothing but, the reinterpretation of God's words to fit mans changing beliefs and desires. It is about the same as saying we have a living constitution. They fail to state it changes only when amended! There is a huge difference; God's word can not be amended.
AJ... It is not only motorcycle club meetings, it happens in political meetings too. My response is... well not very Christian. If you know what I mean.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
David Yeagley
Comanche Patriot
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26540
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 04 2004,15:15 |
|
|
Well, gee, when someone starts toying with my natural sexual preferences, maybe I'll have to take a cross country bike trip!
But seriously, I resent the idea that I'm obligated, in the name of Christ, to be sexually attracted to something I'm not. I think it's a stunning perversion that Christianity should come to mean such a thing.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Guest
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 04 2004,18:18 |
|
|
"Well, he had run away from home (Tennessee) when he was 16, and joined the Cherokee. He “grew up” thence as an Indian. He became a citizen of the Cherokee nation. He married a Cherokee woman Tiana Rogers (distant relative of Will Rogers) in 1830. He married another Indian woman in 1840 named Margaret Moffett Lea, and remained married until he died in 1863. (He was actually married three times. The first wife, a white woman, left him early on.)" Dr. Yeagley writes
---
Dang! He must've been one hell of a man!
Betty Ann
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Guest
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 04 2004,18:19 |
|
|
"Now I remember the difference between Sunday School and a Motorcycle Club meeting."
"In Sunday School, they say, "Stand up for Jesus!"
In the Motorcycle Club meeting they say, "Willya sit down fer Chrissakes!" ajibik writes
---
Uh, huh!
Betty Ann
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Bodvar
Group: Members
Posts: 98
Joined: Feb. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 04 2004,22:28 |
|
|
That all sort of kicks around the roots of Dr. Y's blog about the primate's private parts on public display. Today, in some circles, one is considered racist if one excludes people of other races from one's list of sexual partners. One is supposed to desire -- AND BE AVAILABLE TO -- folks of other backgrounds, colors and flavors, or one is somehow making a racist statement.
Freedom means answering to one's own conscience for one's actions...and, as mating, marriage and sex are as intimate a set of decisions as one is likely to make in life, one's choices should not be questioned. One has, after all, to reap the consequences of one's decisions just as intimately.
Exclusivity is a personal choice. It ensures actual, not political, diversity.
--------------
-- Böðvar
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
David Yeagley
Comanche Patriot
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26540
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2004,09:46 |
|
|
Nature has it that attraction is supposed to be strong enough that it lasts a good while, else the mating process can't happen.
When the context of marriage and family is lost, and the whole focus is on "attraction" itself, all distorted by political correctness, then the sexual energies are scattered, and sexuality becomes a bizzare contest for excitement. This usually leads to more and more "exotic" sex acts, apparati, and finally to bestiality. It's all because of the unnatural use of sex. It is the abuse of sex.
The radical interracial dimension is just the beginning, the surface. No, it isn't a question of "right" or "wrong" when people of different races find themselves very attracted.
It's wrong when they try to make it a law for everyone else.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Joe Peden
Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2004,15:05 |
|
|
Who is trying to make people mate or at least be attracted to each other as a "law"?
I see no reason to be attracted to anyone just because someone else says I am allowed to do so.
Actually, I think I do know what you are saying: The conflict or problem arises when others compete to interpret the "law".
But this conflict is obviated when one makes his/her own decisions.
We have this ability, to make our own decisions, regardless of where it came from. Who cares what others say, except as a concern of politics, propaganda, and other small things like trying to take over the World? These areas should be separated. Otherwise you might feel at the whim of those you rightly think are evil, or of the more mechanistic masses. This vulnerability need not exist, though the barbarians are, obviously, a practical threat.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
spb
Group: Members
Posts: 3469
Joined: Feb. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 05 2004,22:01 |
|
|
Yes, but what about those countries where the parents decide on their children's mate while their children are still young. No chance for attraction - the choices have already been taken away. Sort of takes the romance out of it, much less Divine Intervention.....but it proves to be a sort of "insurance" as to the child's future, no? A safety net, no peer pressure, no dating pool, no chance of failure. Barbaric to our society's standards, no doubt. But is it, really?
--------------
Stupidity is not a crime so you’re free to go. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
