Oh well, maybe I should make my case clearer.
1. An analogy of a person regarding the present discourse
My opponent has made his case that since the paragraphs in the Bible had shown his undoubted support instead of discouragement regarding interracial marriage, then his case should be sufficient. However, My opponent might have mistaken the topic for "Show that the Bible is against mixed marriage" because in that case, his one example would suffice in proving that the Bible is NOT against mixed marriage. However, the topic is "Show that scripture that's against "mixed" marriage" showing that as long as PRO brings up at least ONE paragraph in the bible that discourages mixed marriage, PRO wins the day.
Now, the promised analogy. If this offends anyone just by reading, please, I shall note that I intend no harm and this should stay as a hypothetical example.
Suppose one wrote a book about why he hates the LGBTQ community with words full of hatred towards said community, then turned friendly towards the LGBTQ community after a few years. That's the example. Now, what if I picked up a hateful quote in his old book that he himself no longer trusts? Is it evidence that He is hostile against the LGBTQ community? No. Especially since he has turned away against his old stance. However, if I pick that quote up, and ask myself, is it a quote in his book that illustrates hatred towards the LGBTQ community? Then I'd be yes. If it is in his book and it shows hatred towards the LGBTQ community, then YES.
So no matter where it is, as long as I show scripture in the Bible that shows discouragement towards interracial marriages, PRO wins. It doesn't even have to disagree with CON's. God, the being can treat different people differently at different times, and CON's Acts 17 scripture does not negate PRO's case because PRO does not need to demonstrate that the whole bible is against interracial marriage.
2. Scriptures
Oh, and, I must show scriptures in order to prove my point. I am no master in a religion that I do not believe in, however, I have the internet helping me.
One(or four) paragraph(s) in the Deuteronomy book, states:
“When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.[1, Deuteronomy 7:1-4]
The bolded phrases and/or sentences shows my point.
So far, these claims are undoubtedly true:
- I and my opponent both agree that nations can be used to establish ethnicity.
- The Hittites, the Girgashites, etc. are thus people and ethnicity.
- God told the people(Israelites) to NOT marry with any of the seven other people in their respective nations.
- This quote is IN THE BIBLE.
- Thus, this is a scripture of the bible that is against mixed marriages, because God told the Israelites to NOT intermarry with the other people.
- Because ONE sufficient example shown from PRO is enough for him to win the debate, and this paragraph does it, I rest my case.
Conclusions above.
Sources:
(Deuteronomy 7:1-4)
You're supposed to read what the Bible says. You couldn't show one scripture that says so called interracial marriage is a sin. Likewise no book, chapter and verse to show that interfaith means interracial.
Each passage has to be taken in its context to indicate the meaning of the word as it is used.
Case and point with the word "nation". Taking how it is applied in one text to fill it in another will confuse scripture lesson and doctrine.
Using the word as meaning holy nation or holy people in a passage about people from different lands of ancestry will mix up the identity of the interpretation. So if I say , let's go to a scripture where it indicates interracial marriage (which I interpret as interfaith marriage), you go to the book of Numbers where it indicates what you'll refer to as an interracial marriage . l'll say this is not an interracial marriage. The passage makes no reference to faith. You'd be totally confused of what I'm talking about due to my exteme radical extrapolation.
no one voting on this?
I don't dictate what the bible says, the bible itself, the historians and the faithful do.
I am merely copy-pasting the works.
PRO has also misappropriated the verse he posted about Christianity being a race. It seems perfectly obvious to me that that verse is using "race" in an informal, colloquial (almost poetic) sense that has nothing to do with skin color.
I think PRO is conflating the words "race" and "ideologies" here, as "race" is typically used to refer to different kinds of ethnicity rather than different worldviews. CON's usage of "interracial marriage" in this debate seems to be referring to marriage between individuals who do not share the same skin color. That being said, the bible does indeed discourage differing ideologues from marrying each other, and rightly so. Marrying someone with a worldview that fundamentally contradicts yours is a recipe for needless strife and hardship. However, difference in perspective is not the same thing as difference in skin color, the latter of which is not condemned anywhere in the bible. Of course, that's CON's contention to defend, so I'll leave him to it.