A racist God?

[Lanolin]

As far as I know, Rebecca and Isaac werent red people, but they had Esau who was red and Jacob who wasnt. Esau would have been a surprise baby, but the Bible does say that Jacob was at his heels and they represented two nations. Esau was theancestor of the Edomites (also meaning red) and the Red sea is named after the Edomite mountains.

The interesting thing is that Esau was then tricked out of his birthright and he was designated to serve his younger brother.
Much is actually made of the fact that Isaac became blind in his old age and couldnt see properly, so he couldnt even tell his sons apart (they were TWINS!) , even though one was hairy and bright red..!

 

[Jon-E]

Is fornication moral sexual behavior in your view, then?


... dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men...

Do you really believe this is not about homosexuality???

Fornication is SIN, God's word says so. I reject this idea that sinful man makes this decision by substituting his idea on it, "moral" for "righteous" and "immoral" for unrighteous or sinful. I want to follow God's unchanging, solid commands, not man's opinion on it. In searching the KJV, ERV & ASV, the words "moral" or "immoral" are not found anywhere.

From the Merriam-Webster with my comments in brackets and my emphasis in the bold & underlined:

moral -
"1. concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior [determined by whom?]
2. based on what you think is right and good
3. considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior" [whose standard, most people or God's?]

You ask if I believe Rom. 1:26, 27 is about homosexuality. In like manner do you think Amnon's rape of Tamar in 2 Sam. 13 is about heterosexuality?

As to Rom. 1:26, I see nothing there that says women were having sex with women. There are other ways women could have changed the natural use into that which is against nature. In v27 it is recorded that men committed homosexual(adj.) acts that were unseemly. Studying the verse deeply and comparing with 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10, I ask myself, 'What sort of homosexuality were these idolaters engaged in?' I see a sinfulness as seen in Nero, not the relationship between two loving male friends who share sexual intimacy.

I learned many years ago to be skeptical of a lot of what I heard from pulpits because I found out some of what I had been told was not the truth, the teachings of the Bible, the 'old time religion', it was basically ignorant and sometimes a lie. This is why I seek the teachers of God that I can have more trust in, from men of God out of the past. I do respect those teachers ordained by God and I find those usually do come from the past, not in today's world; conservatives or liberals. I say little about liberals because most of them are apostate and are meaningless to me.

 

[Jon-E]

Rom 1:27, And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

The very context of the word "burned" in the verse above, indicates that it is a burning of lust.

So, I don't see where you get off trying to say that the word in Greek doesn't indicate a burning of lust. Whatever the meaning of the word "burned" in the above verse, the words surrounding it indicate that it was speaking of a burning of lust.

I did NOT say what you attributed to me. This is my statement on the matter, where I distinguished the "burning" in Rom. 1:27 from 1 Cor. 7:9 -

5. The KJV word "burned" in v27 is the Greek, "G1572 ἐκκαίω ekkaio" and is found only here in the NT, just this one occurrence. A. T. Robertson says it means "to burn out, to set on fire". The NRSV renders it "consumed". From a 19th century Greek scholar, James Robinson Boise, "a much stronger word than the Eng. burned". This is important because the word used for sexual desire translated "burn" referring to a loving couple is totally different: "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1Cor 7:7-9, KJV) The word "burn" here is the Greek: "G4448 πυρόω puroo" a totally unrelated word to that in Rom. 1:27.
6. The KJV word "lust" here is also an instance where this is the only occurrence in the entire NT Greek, "G3715 ὄρεξις orexis". The "burned in their lust" KJV, or "consumed with passion" NRSV; indicates something extreme, not to be compared with normal love, affection or even a close M-M friendship which may include some sexual desire considering that sexual orientation is a continuum, not neat categories. The word "lust" here is totally unrelated to the Greek lust in Matt. 5:27.

 

[Jon-E]

Does that really make sense to you? Rebuke the Cretans for being lazy, lying, beasts... so that they won't believe jewish fables? How does that follow?
Wouldn't the Judaisers also rebuke the Cretans for being lazy, lying beasts (and particularly in this generalizing manner) in order to convince them they needed to be circumcised and become Jewish?

The instances of Paul referring to Greek poets in other epistles makes sense because he is talking to people that might be familiar with that material in order to make it easy for them to understand him.
Why would Paul make a reference to a Cretan "Prophet" of Jupiter from over 600 years prior in a letter to Titus- to explain to Titus- that Cretans were liars? All men without Christ are liars, and Titus knows this because he is a Christian.

I don't think Paul would agree with Epimenedes at all- Epimenedes called them lazy, lying beasts because they said Jupiter was dead... (which might actually even be true if the myths of Jupiter were originally about an actual person). I highly doubt that he was the first one, or the only one to say this about the Cretans. I'm pretty sure the subject of the end of Titus 1 is the gainsayers and Judaisers- and not the Cretans in general.

SomeDisciple, do you think you own reasoning makes more sense than the clear statements of God's inspired word; and contrary to the understanding of the body of Christ through the centuries. Does that not sound rather prideful on your part? You write "I don't think..."

 

[justbyfaith]

There are all sorts of political interpretations designed to justify racial prejudice against groups on the basis that they are somehow descendants of cursed people, etc. On one hand, you see the interpretation that Ham's descendants are Congoid, on the other hand, there is a pushed narrative that Ham's descendants are Caucasoid (Hamidic Caucasian). In either case, it doesn't come from the Bible, and in either case the sole purpose of the narrative is to wantonly justify prejudice against either group on the basis that "they inherited Ham's curses". This type of racial prejudice isn't driven by Christian thinking, but is typical of an Old Testament style of thinking such as that of modern State of Israel Talmudic Judaism. Which in many cases dislikes the claims of Black Hebrews to the land, to the point that birth control shots were administered to Black Hebrew migrants in some cases under the guise of being a mandatory vaccination shot.

And that said, I'm not saying this to accuse anyone of being prejudicial. This is not to say that anyone that proposes the concept that "Ham was black" is necessarily trying to impose racial prejudice, but the sole function of that narrative is indeed to impose and justify racial prejudice.

That may be; and yet it would be remiss to say that it is not a true narrative.

Not every black race is descended from Canaan; but that Canaan was black is evident in the fact that it is primarily the black race that has been forced to be subservient to Shem and Japheth (the whiter races).

I would say that it is the Canaanites who have become slaves because of the curse on Canaan; and that if you look at reality, it is not primarily the white races who have been forced into subservience.

Yes; Israel was a slave in Egypt; and yet God delivered them.

It may be asked how long the curse on Canaan was to last in God's economy.

For there may also be an emancipation awaiting the Canaanites if it was not already accomplished by the emancipation proclamation.

Obviously, the Canaanites of today are seeking some kind of justice over the fact that they were cursed by Noah; requiring restitution from the whites as they loot our cities and burn down our businesses, here in the United States.

And this is considered to be "racial justice".

However, they are not realizing that their plight was the result of, at the beginning, a curse on their ancestor.

That being the case, is it truly justice for them to require restitution?

Because I feel that they are not content to have racial equality.

Black supremacy is their agenda.

"Turnabout's fair play".

 

[Magenta]

Fornication is SIN, God's word says so. I reject this idea that sinful man makes this decision by substituting his idea on it, "moral" for "righteous" and "immoral" for unrighteous or sinful. I want to follow God's unchanging, solid commands, not man's opinion on it. In searching the KJV, ERV & ASV, the words "moral" or "immoral" are not found anywhere.

Flee from sexual immorality. <= There it is, in God's revealed written Word,
not made up by sinful men as you claim. You keep wanting to pretend these
things are not spelled out in the the Bible when they most certainly are.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the
sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts,

2 Corinthians 12:21
I am afraid that when I come again, my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many
who have sinned earlier and have not repented of their acts of impurity, sexual immorality, and debauchery.

Galatians 5:19
The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery;

Ephesians 5:3
But among you, as is proper among the saints, there must not be even
a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed.

Colossians 3:5
Put to death, therefore, the components of your earthly nature: sexual immorality,
impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry.

1 Thessalonians 4:3
For it is God's will that you should be holy: You must abstain from sexual immorality;

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all and the marriage bed kept undefiled,
for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.


Not sure why you are twisting away from all this.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Are you going to address my usage of Berean Study Bible? It is what I quoted
from and what you asked about, and I defended it as you asked me to.

The Berean Study Bible seeks to connect readers with the Greek and Hebrew root words and
meanings in an easy-to-read format. The study Bible merges two previous translations, the
Berean Literal Bible and the Berean Interlinear Bible. The Berean Study Bible was created to
offer an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts in a reader-friendly format.

 

[justbyfaith]

I did NOT say what you attributed to me. This is my statement on the matter, where I distinguished the "burning" in Rom. 1:27 from 1 Cor. 7:9 -

5. The KJV word "burned" in v27 is the Greek, "G1572 ἐκκαίω ekkaio" and is found only here in the NT, just this one occurrence. A. T. Robertson says it means "to burn out, to set on fire". The NRSV renders it "consumed". From a 19th century Greek scholar, James Robinson Boise, "a much stronger word than the Eng. burned". This is important because the word used for sexual desire translated "burn" referring to a loving couple is totally different: "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1Cor 7:7-9, KJV) The word "burn" here is the Greek: "G4448 πυρόω puroo" a totally unrelated word to that in Rom. 1:27.
6. The KJV word "lust" here is also an instance where this is the only occurrence in the entire NT Greek, "G3715 ὄρεξις orexis". The "burned in their lust" KJV, or "consumed with passion" NRSV; indicates something extreme, not to be compared with normal love, affection or even a close M-M friendship which may include some sexual desire considering that sexual orientation is a continuum, not neat categories. The word "lust" here is totally unrelated to the Greek lust in Matt. 5:27.

Break down into a single statement what you are trying to say by what you have said above.

 

[Jon-E]

I understand your predicament. I've never heard a pastor preach the Truth, so few seem to "get it."

Paul wrote about the influence of the Sinful Nature in Romans chapter seven, but in Colossians, Paul wrote about how that Nature is cut away by Christ, thus, Paul could not have been under the control of the Sinful Nature when he wrote chapter 7.

Romans 7:5, 18 NLT - "When we were controlled by our old nature, sinful desires were at work within us, and the law aroused these evil desires that produced a harvest of sinful deeds, resulting in death. ... 18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can't."

Above, Paul is referring to his "old" Sinful Nature. Below, he tells of how that Nature is cut out by Christ

Colossians 2:11 NLT - "When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised," but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision--the cutting away of your sinful nature."

Have a good day . . .

Clearly, Paul in Romans 7 is speaking in the present tense, a regenerate child of God. He goes into the striving and struggles the child of God goes through in this life. The regenerate child of God seeks to follow God's commands, he has a true sense of his sinfulness and need. He cannot be speaking of himself before conversion because no unregenerate cares about sin or seeking God:

The following is the description of the unregenerate:

"as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one: Their throat is an open sepulchre; With their tongues they have used deceit: The poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom 3:10-18, ERV)

You spoke of context, I'll connect the leap from Romans to Colossians. Paul gave the solution:

"O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." (Rom 7:24, 25, 8:1, ERV)

What a comfort for those of us who are believers and recognize we sin every day, because we know we all sin or we are lying, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1John 1:8, ERV) Moving up to Colossians:

"and in him ye are made full, who is the head of all principality and power: in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he quicken together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; having put off from himself the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it." (Col 2:10-15, ERV)

The putting off the body of the flesh speaks of our sins being put onto Jesus and his righteousness placed on us. This is our standing as the elect, born from above children of God. We are declared righteous in Christ, but we still struggle in our daily lives in our fight against sin. The exchange is seen clearly as stated again by Paul:

"Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him." (2Cor 5:21, ERV)

The Westminster Confession, which is followed by the 1689 Baptist Confession states the historic Christian view on it accurately:

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, (Rom. 5:6, Rom. 8:7, Rom. 7:18, Col. 1:21) and wholly inclined to all evil, (Gen. 6:5, Gen. 8:21, Rom. 3:10–12) do proceed all actual transgressions. (James 1:14–15, Eph. 2:2–3, Matt. 15:19)

5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; (1 John 1:8, 10, Rom. 7:14, 17–18, 23, James 3:2, Prov. 20:9, Eccl. 7:20) and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. (Rom. 7:5–8, 25, Gal. 5:17)

 

[Jon-E]

Flee from sexual immorality. <= There it is, in God's revealed written Word,
not made up by sinful men as you claim. You keep wanting to pretend these
things are not spelled out in the the Bible when they most certainly are.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the
sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts,

2 Corinthians 12:21
I am afraid that when I come again, my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many
who have sinned earlier and have not repented of their acts of impurity, sexual immorality, and debauchery.

Galatians 5:19
The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery;

Ephesians 5:3
But among you, as is proper among the saints, there must not be even
a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed.

Colossians 3:5
Put to death, therefore, the components of your earthly nature: sexual immorality,
impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry.

1 Thessalonians 4:3
For it is God's will that you should be holy: You must abstain from sexual immorality;

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all and the marriage bed kept undefiled,
for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.


Not sure why you are twisting away from all this.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Are you going to address my usage of Berean Study Bible? It is what I
quoted and what you asked about, and I defended it as you asked me to.

The Berean Study Bible seeks to connect readers with the Greek and Hebrew root words and
meanings in an easy-to-read format. The study Bible merges two previous translations, the
Berean Literal Bible and the Berean Interlinear Bible. The Berean Study Bible was created to
offer an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts in a reader-friendly format.

You apparently ignored the definition of the modern idea of what is "moral" in the Merriam-Webster. I will not allow any popular opinion of man in this day to tell me what is sin or what is righteous; that is for God to tell me in his word. Those verses are not God's word by the use of "immoral". This is an example why I do use for study, the translations before modern man decided he knows more than God what His will is. Does anyone think the church of today has improved over what it was when America founded? I'm not the least worried about the sodomites in San Francisco or the Marxists in DC, I'm concerned about the corruption of God's word in the translations used by many churches of today. Even some using the KJV are dishonest. Recently I was in a church that projected up on a screen the Bible memory verse for the month. It read:

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" (John 1:12, KJV)

Even though the verse ended with the colon, they ignored the rest of the sentence, and that takes the verse out of context. The entire sentence reads:

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13, KJV)

That deceit hides the fact that we are born anew by the will of God, not our will to believe!

When you can tell me by what exegesis caused you to determine that the Berean Study Bible is correct in how it translates 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, I'll show you by actual study why I am convinced it is homophobic, NOT God's word. I've already stated my reasons for rejecting that translation previously, but if you wish me to repeat it, I'll be happy to do so. You accept the translation because BibleHub claims it is accurate? I've learned I must answer for myself on the last day, so I'm going to be responsible and seek a wide range of helps in studying God's word to make my determination.

 

[Jon-E]

Break down into a single statement what you are trying to say by what you have said above.

If your reading comprehension is that poor that you need it in a single statement, I doubt you could even understand that so I'll not waste my time.

 

[Magenta]

You apparently ignored the definition of the modern idea of what is "moral" in the Merriam-Webster. I will not allow any popular opinion of man in this day to tell me what is sin or what is righteous; that is for God to tell me in his word.

First you say you will not accept man's ideas, then you insist man's definitions must be accepted above the Word of God. I gave some Scriptures that clearly call out certain sexual behaviors as immoral, which includes homosexuality. You reject them and wish to say they mean something else. I am not sure why you do this, but, I will leave you to your pretensions and desire to ignore what the Bible says on the matter, since you are clearly determined to adhere to your delusions.

 

[posthuman]

"It was a Cretan prophet, one of their own countrymen, who said, ‘Cretans were ever liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons’— and how truly he spoke! All the more reason why you should rebuke them sharply, so that they may be restored to a sound faith, instead of paying heed to Jewish myths and to human commandments, the work of those who turn their backs on the truth." (Titus 1:12-14, REB)

the scripture might be more clear to you if you read a literal translation instead of the paraphrase versions you keep quoting from, which are full of some person's opinions.
the Bible does not say 'it was a Cretan prophet'
you should probably throw that away.

For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. ​

(Titus 1:10-11 nkjv)​

​

we're talking 'especially those of the circumcision' -- Jews.

One of them, a prophet of their own​

(Titus 1:12 nkjv)​

​

who is "them" ?
clearly, insubordinate idle-talkers & deceivers, especially those of the circumcision.
and they are teaching things they ought not -- what things?
and they are subverting whole households -- how?
and they are doing so for dishonest gain -- how does their deception bring them gain?
is this a false prophet or a prophet of God?

if you went around saying 'Cretans are always evil liars'
or for that matter, 'people who aren't members of my secular worldly political party are always evil liars'
would that be deception? would that be wicked idle talk? would that subvert entire households?
could that kind of speech potentially bring you gain? would it be honest?
is it something you ought to teach?

rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,​

not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.​

(Titus 1:13-14)​

​

did the Jews in the time period this letter was written believe that all gentiles are wicked unclean non-persons?
did they entertain lying fables about non-Jewish people, denigrating them?
did they lump them all together as evil gluttonous lazy liars?
did the Cretans have commandments of men forbidding them to associate with anyone who wasn't a Cretan?
did the Greeks wash their clothes if they came in contact with someone who wasn't Greek?
did the Egyptians refuse to eat in the presence of anyone non-Egyptian?

.. hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled ​

(Titus 1:8) ​

​

is it sober-minded, just, holy or self-controlled for a person to decide 'all people who at one time or another voted for a certain secular worldly political party are vain racist fools who give gifts to the rich and don't care for the poor' ?
is it sober-minded, just, holy or self controlled for a person to decide 'all people who at one time or another voted for a certain secular worldly political party are lawless perverted & lazy liars whose only desire is to destroy their own country' ?
is it sober-minded, just, holy or self-controlled for a person to say 'everyone who lives on a certain island is a liar' ?
does your law judge someone without hearing them first?

is Paul duplicitously self-incriminating, or are we understanding what he is saying correctly?
is this letter to Titus encouraging us to prejudge entire populations & accuse them of sin on-sight simply because of where they happen to live or have been born or their hair or skin tone?
or is this letter discouraging such things?
would it be fair to accuse Lot of all the sins of Sodom, since Lot lived there?
would that be sober-minded, just, holy or self-controlled?

 

[Jocund]

That may be; and yet it would be remiss to say that it is not a true narrative.

Not every black race is descended from Canaan; but that Canaan was black is evident in the fact that it is primarily the black race that has been forced to be subservient to Shem and Japheth (the whiter races).

I would say that it is the Canaanites who have become slaves because of the curse on Canaan; and that if you look at reality, it is not primarily the white races who have been forced into subservience.

Yes; Israel was a slave in Egypt; and yet God delivered them.

It may be asked how long the curse on Canaan was to last in God's economy.

For there may also be an emancipation awaiting the Canaanites if it was not already accomplished by the emancipation proclamation.

Obviously, the Canaanites of today are seeking some kind of justice over the fact that they were cursed by Noah; requiring restitution from the whites as they loot our cities and burn down our businesses, here in the United States.

And this is considered to be "racial justice".

However, they are not realizing that their plight was the result of, at the beginning, a curse on their ancestor.

That being the case, is it truly justice for them to require restitution?

Because I feel that they are not content to have racial equality.

Black supremacy is their agenda.

"Turnabout's fair play".

There is acheological evidence that suggests that modern Jews and Arabs are descendants of Canaanites: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...rld/jews-and-arabs-descended-from-canaanites/

This is a non-issue from a Christian perspective but it definitely is an issue for any Jewish group that tries to establish an air of supremacy by making the claim that other groups are Canaanites and "Canaanites are cursed".

There is something to be said about caution in assuming that there is a definite association between misfortunes and ancestral sin. Rain comes down and the sun shines on the righteous and unrighteous alike.

It may be asked how long the curse on Canaan was to last in God's economy.

A very interesting point. We see times in the Bible where curses were turned into blessings (such as the curse of the Ammonites that was turned into a blessing) and times when a blessing is turned into a curse (such as Jesus turning the 'blessing' of life on the fig tree into a curse of death).

it is not primarily the white races who have been forced into subservience.

The term slave comes from a reference to Slavic people (e.g. Russian, etc). There were many Irish slaves through history, etc. We should be cautious to accept the narrative that there was never a predominance of white slaves. Many aren't even aware of that there was once a thriving market for Irish slaves.

That being the case, is it truly justice for them to require restitution?

Because I feel that they are not content to have racial equality.

Black supremacy is their agenda.

I agree with your point.

Though we note that not all that are ethnically related to a supremacist group are supremacists, but you are right on the money when you say that those type of groups aren't looking for equality or fairness.

There are many kinds of ethnic supremacist groups in the world. It's nice to see that the message of Christ is to rise above it. It is unfortunate to see people judge one another by their "freshly cloak" (as another user here said) rather than by the spirit they harbour. I think that's why it's important in some cases to hold religious ideologies accountable when ethnic supremacism and subjugation of outsiders based on race is in the core of their belief. If only for the sole reason just to let the truth shine through and let that sunlight be the disinfectant.

 

[posthuman]

Not every black race is descended from Canaan; but that Canaan was black is evident in the fact that it is primarily the black race that has been forced to be subservient to Shem and Japheth (the whiter races).

wow, what terrible, circular logic!


first you presume that only people with dark skin have ever been 'primarily slaves' and that the slave owners throughout history are primarily always 'whiter'
and then you take that ridiculous assumption and say 'because of my obvious disregard for factual evidence, Canaan has to be black'
while you have zero basis for thinking Shem or Japheth are 'whiter' and the only basis you have for saying throughout all time 'slaves are generally black people serving white people' is 200 years of America.


the Jews were slaves in Babylon & Assyria --
does it make sense if i say therefore Jews must have black skin and Babylonians must have white skin, since black people thousands of years later in a pagan land called America were bought and sold as slaves to white people ???

 

[posthuman]

There is acheological evidence that suggests that modern Jews and Arabs are descendants of Canaanites: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...rld/jews-and-arabs-descended-from-canaanites/

well the Bible tells us they took wives from among the people in the land - very often contrary to God's commands for them.
so, yeah, naturally you would expect to find evidence that a people's descendants are descended from their ancestors, ha!

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Clearly, Paul in Romans 7 is speaking in the present tense, a regenerate child of God. He goes into the striving and struggles the child of God goes through in this life. The regenerate child of God seeks to follow God's commands, he has a true sense of his sinfulness and need. He cannot be speaking of himself before conversion because no unregenerate cares about sin or seeking God:

The following is the description of the unregenerate:

"as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one: Their throat is an open sepulchre; With their tongues they have used deceit: The poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom 3:10-18, ERV)

You spoke of context, I'll connect the leap from Romans to Colossians. Paul gave the solution:

"O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." (Rom 7:24, 25, 8:1, ERV)

What a comfort for those of us who are believers and recognize we sin every day, because we know we all sin or we are lying, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1John 1:8, ERV) Moving up to Colossians:

"and in him ye are made full, who is the head of all principality and power: in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he quicken together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; having put off from himself the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it." (Col 2:10-15, ERV)

The putting off the body of the flesh speaks of our sins being put onto Jesus and his righteousness placed on us. This is our standing as the elect, born from above children of God. We are declared righteous in Christ, but we still struggle in our daily lives in our fight against sin. The exchange is seen clearly as stated again by Paul:

"Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him." (2Cor 5:21, ERV)

The Westminster Confession, which is followed by the 1689 Baptist Confession states the historic Christian view on it accurately:

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, (Rom. 5:6, Rom. 8:7, Rom. 7:18, Col. 1:21) and wholly inclined to all evil, (Gen. 6:5, Gen. 8:21, Rom. 3:10–12) do proceed all actual transgressions. (James 1:14–15, Eph. 2:2–3, Matt. 15:19)

5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; (1 John 1:8, 10, Rom. 7:14, 17–18, 23, James 3:2, Prov. 20:9, Eccl. 7:20) and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. (Rom. 7:5–8, 25, Gal. 5:17)

Ok. Have a good day.

 

[Lanolin]

wow, what terrible, circular logic!


first you presume that only people with dark skin have ever been 'primarily slaves' and that the slave owners throughout history are primarily always 'whiter'
and then you take that ridiculous assumption and say 'because of my obvious disregard for factual evidence, Canaan has to be black'
while you have zero basis for thinking Shem or Japheth are 'whiter' and the only basis you have for saying throughout all time 'slaves are generally black people serving white people' is 200 years of America.


the Jews were slaves in Babylon & Assyria --
does it make sense if i say therefore Jews must have black skin and Babylonians must have white skin, since black people thousands of years later in a pagan land called America were bought and sold as slaves to white people ???

wow some people truly lack logic!
and...they have no knowledge of the world outside their own country...!

 

[Lanolin]

Maybe in tenessee ppl think this way, but the world is much bigger than the people of tenessee! lol

 

[Lanolin]

the black supremacist have just copied the white supremacists really. so boring!

In the rainbow, actually RED is the colour that is on top of the rainbow. That God created.

 

[Lanolin]

on BDF, you will encounters many ppl with wacky beliefs, such as racism, liberalism, boring american politics, flat earthers and conspiracy theorists...as well as 7th day adventists and calvinists! And possibly a few Jewish atheists that still hate Christians but like to pretend they really know God, yet reject his son Jesus.