There are some who insist that the Bible condemns race mixing. Oddly, there are others who insist that the Bible has nothing to say about it, at least in the New Testament, and anything the Old Testament has to say is specific to the ancient Israelites and has no significance to us today except perhaps as a warning not to marry outside the faith.
I think the true answer is a bit more sophisticated than either of those perspectives.
There has been much confusion in the United States regarding this issue since the two primary nations of the US, the English American Nation and the African American nation, are imprecisely referred to as two different “races”, the Whites and the Blacks. Thinking of them as “nations” (or “tribes”) should help clear up some of the confusion.
With the resurgence of nationalism there is bound to be some befuddlement regarding this issue, so I will do my best to follow a train of logic from the available information to figure out what the Bible has to say or imply about mixed marriage (if anything).
First of all, the plain fact is that when different tribes live close to each other, there’s always going to be some intermarriage. If Medieval Jews could not prevent their daughters from falling for Christian lovers, no other ethnic barrier stands a chance.
The Old Testament contains multiple injunctions warning the ancient Israelites against marrying outsiders, but for some reason there are also multiple stories about Israelites who married foreigners and were not condemned for it. This is not a contradiction. There was no condemnation if the foreign women were converts. In other words, there was no problem if the wife adopted her husband’s religion, worldview, and culture. Their children were not seen as “mixed” but as full members of the father’s tribe.
King David, for example, was of mixed ancestry, but he was never denigrated as any kind of mulatto or half-breed.
There is another side to the coin, however. The half-tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, two of the most rebellious tribes of Israel, were the result of their progenitor Joseph marrying a foreigner, and their rebellious behaviour is often traced back to the influence of their mother, even though we may assume she converted. Joseph was a righteous man and was not condemned for marrying a foreigner, but his marriage did lead to complications.
So if a Biblically-derived argument can be made about mixed marriage, it is the same that common sense would indicate: that sometimes mixed marriage is OK, but it can lead to very unpleasant complications, especially for the children.
Any argument against mixed marriage has to be derived from specific circumstances, such as whether the children are likely to be victims of ostracism or whether intermarriage is being used as a method of conquest---such as when Egypt attempted to subsume Israel by forcing all their young women to find Egyptian husbands (Exodus 1).
Private citizens have the natural right to possess and operate any weapon or tool of war which may ever possibly be used against anyone. To say otherwise is naïve and utopian.
It is increasingly obvious is that there should be a law making it a capital offense for a politician to propose gun restrictions. Maybe there should even be a clause allowing for such politicians to be legally assassinated. Call it a “citizen’s execution”.... sort of like a “citizen’s arrest”. Any politician who suggests or proposes gun restrictions has effectively declared themselves to be an enemy of the people.
Taking away a man’s guns is as unnatural and perverse as ripping out a lion’s teeth and tearing out its claws. We need these things to defend ourselves should the necessity arise.
One of the greatest historical ironies of Western history is that we abolished slavery and then established an institution that was objectively worse: the modern prison system. Another way of putting it would be that we abolished slavery and then re-instituted it under another name. It’s almost as if slavery is an unavoidable aspect of human society.
The natural, primary principle of criminal justice is reciprocity, or “an eye for an eye”. Whatever harm you do to someone, that harm should be returned upon you, no more and no less. If you murder someone, you should be executed. If you steal something, you should give it back. The modern prison system goes far beyond “an eye for an eye” and the way it operates is more like punishing a man who put out another man’s eye by removing both his eyes, both his arms, both his legs, punching him in the face, and giving him a kick in the groin.
If a man steals $1000 worth of merchandise from Walmart, what harm comes to Walmart? They lose $1000 dollars and a maybe few hours of productivity. I’ve worked in retail. I’ve seen it happen.
If the thief is then caught and sent to prison, what harm comes to him? He could lose his job. He could lose his car. He could lose his family. He will be separated from his family, possibly leaving his children in the hands of a stranger. He will be unable to support his family. He will lose months of productivity. He will be forced to endure the company of other criminals, some of whom might lure him into even greater crime. The monetary equivalent of his punishment could well run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, much more than the $1000 he stole.
Has anyone at Wall Mart lost their car or their job or their family? No. Has anyone at Walmart been forced to socialize with criminals? No. Has anyone at Walmart lost months of productivity? No.
Obviously, in this example the punishment does not fit the crime. It is cruel and unusual. If the principles of justice were being fairly applied, the thief’s punishment would include little more than returning the merchandise he stole.
If our justice system properly applied the principles of justice, the punishment for murder would be death, the punishment for rape would be death, the punishment for thievery would be to return the stolen property, the punishment for assault would be a beating, and the punishment for aggravated robbery would be to return the stolen property plus a beating. Notice that long-term imprisonment is not listed here anywhere.
The only crime for which long-term imprisonment could be considered an appropriate punishment would be if someone illegally held someone captive for a long time.
The “justice system” became injust the moment it decided to make “rehabilitation” its goal and expanded its mandate beyond distributing justice into “keeping criminals off the streets”. These changes were made in the name of compassion, but they resulted in damnable injustices.
Keeping criminals off the streets is a valid consideration, but it should not be something with which the criminal justice system concerns itself. It should be the purview of someone else. If it weren’t for our modern multi-racial societies, some form of slavery or indentured servitude could be proposed as a viable method for “keeping criminals off the streets”. Almost any form of slavery would be better than the modern prison system.
In these clips, the vociferous Penn Jillette recounts a common argument he hears from Christians, which he summarizes as, “If [the Christian God] does not exist, then what’s to prevent you from raping and murdering everyone you want?” His impassioned and indignant response is that even without God, he has somehow managed not to rape or murder anyone! He then suggests that anyone who uses such an argument must have a list somewhere of all the people they would like to rape and murder, and that law enforcement should be informed.
While a rather clever bit of rhetoric, Penn’s response appears astoundingly shallow and dishonest for such an intelligent and well-educated individual as himself. I am uncertain whether he is purposefully misrepresenting the Christian beliefs or if he legitimately does not understand the point.
If he does understand, and is purposefully twisting words, it is revolting to see someone use their intelligence and charisma in such a Mephistophelean manner.
If he does NOT understand, then he is tilting at windmills and attacking straw men---quite a spectacle but ultimately meaningless.
If Penn is implying that he is incapable of evil, he is full of shit. Throughout history, people have managed to commit great acts of wickedness despite how intelligent, enlightened, educated, or otherwise virtuous they were. Sometimes they rationalized their way into it; sometimes they were driven into it by their emotions or their hormones; and sometimes they did it without realizing it was wrong because it was socially acceptable. Because of this, Christians have no great faith in their own personal righteousness, nor in anyone else’s. Christians understand that even saints can fall into sin, so maintaining an external moral code is necessary. King David, for example, was a righteous and virtuous man right up to the day he wasn’t, and without the voice of God in his ear, he would have remained unrepentant of his adultery and murder.
Ask yourself, can you assert with 100% certainty that there is no scenario where you (or someone like you) might be tempted to commit a great act of wickedness? If a saint can fall, can you?
If you think you are immune to great evil, then you do not understand human nature. Evil springs out of the human heart. Mankind has a natural tendency to turn to evil. And evil has a tendency to grow, just like lies.
Unlike what Penn is snidely impugning, the Christian does not believe that only an external, imposed moral code prevents people from raping and murdering each other. On the contrary, Christians believe that everyone knows right from wrong on some level of their psyche.
Penns’ argument is that if you need God to tell you not to commit rape and murder, then you must be an exceptionally wicked person---unlike himself and other atheists, whom we must suppose are just inherently virtuous. The flaw with Penn’s argument is although the knowledge of good and evil may be inherent, virtue is not. Virtue is a learned characteristic, and he learned it from Christianity. No other worldview vilifies rape and murder to the extent Christianity does. Some worldviews and cultures even justify or excuse these behaviours.
Through an accident of birth, Penn was born into a Christian society that taught him that rape and murder are some of the most heinous acts it is possible to commit, but if he had been born in a Medieval Viking village, he might have had a very different attitude. It was only when the Vikings found Jesus that they started having a change of heart.
If you lived in Medieval Europe, you would not be contemptuous when you heard that the Vikings had “found Jesus”. You would not be saying “Who needs Jesus to tell them not to rape and murder?”
The historical illiteracy of atheists is mind-boggling.
Although Penn’s outrage and indignation are quite powerful to behold, the utter thoughtlessness of his position is revealed when you consider that there are always going to be people who are held back from raping and murdering solely by the fear of God. Does Penn think it’s a good idea to tear down the last restraint holding these people back?
Penn can go straight to hell.
Near the end of the second clip, Penn rages that the phrase “God is good” demonstrates that morality transcends God and therefore Christians who use this phrase are actually inadvertently demonstrating that you don’t need God to tell you what is good.
This argument makes perfect sense to a secular humanist, of course, because they define morality as something that can be determined through human reason. But Christians are not Secular Humanists, and do not define morality this way. Penn’s response demonstrates that he is trapped in his own head, unable to approach the issue except from his own perspective. His rage is therefore impotent and meaningless. He is like the homeless man you see on the street corner shouting and fighting the air.
To the Christian, God is literally the definition of good. He is the source of morality. Whatever God is or does, it is good. Goodness is defined by God in the same way that the colour ‘candy apple red’ is defined by candy apples. “Candy apple red” would be meaningless if candy apples did not exist; and in the same way “goodness” would be meaningless without God. Anyone who has determined “goodness” through reason is merely thinking God’s thoughts after Him.
I am continuously astounded by anyone who thinks that atheism presents a true intellectual challenge to Christianity. Atheism is all smoke and mirrors, disambulation, self-delusion, self-aggrandizement, rhetorical discombobulation, narcissism, and navel-gazing.