What is the necessity of this rule?

Interracial dating rules should stay. I don't believe we should date outside of the human race.

On application forms, the race question should have two options, human and other.

 

The two I have attended did not.

 

You said, “I do not support discrimination of anyone, by anyone, for any reason.” Hmmm…………. Since you made it absolute, then you accept pedophiles, rapists, murderers, sadists, liars, buggers, etc. as jolly good fellows. Now that you have taken this foolishness to its logical conclusion, the most undiscerning and gullible can see how lubricious it is.

 

When you say "it is not biblical," do you mean it is unbiblical (i.e. violates Scripture) or it does not have Biblical support?

 

Although you do not think it has Biblical support, others may sincerely think so and must follow their beliefs. They believe that miscegenation is wrong. Is it right for your to force them to go against their beliefs that they think are as Biblical as your own? After all, people do interpret Scripture differently. Just read the Calvinist-Arminian debates on this board. Both think they are being true to Scripture.

What Biblical proof do you have that forbidding interracial marriage is sin. I am talking about this specific issue since you invoked specificity in your argument above. The passage must deal with forbidding interracial marriage, not the forbidding of meats, etc.

 

The concept of race is not necessarily evolutionary. In fact, there is a very strong argument that evolution is inherently racist. Then your best Biblical argument is simply that interracial marriage is not prohibit but it does not condemn the prohibiting of it.

Oh? So, are all faiths equal? Do you respect false teachings that delude people and destine them for eternal torment? How can a Christian respect and tolerate anything that damns men’s souls? What kind of person can tolerate evil, sin and wickedness? Do you believe that Christianity is true and these other religions are false? If not, what does it mean to be a Christian?

There verses are about fairness and justice, not racial discrimination. Simply put, they are condemning the showing of favoritism or partiality. The Law applies equal to all of us regardless of status. It does not mean that one cannot choose to separate him from others and marry only within his race. There is freedom of association on whatever basis.

If you believe interracial marriage is wrong and you marry another race, then you sin. I aver that interracial marriage is wrong if you believe it to be wrong. Whatever is not of faith is sin. Now, that’s Scriptural.

Then you ought to call yourself an universalist, a religionist or something other than Christian. For Christianity to exist as an entity, it must be discriminatory. There are those who are Christians and those who are not Christians. Otherwise, Christianity is meaningless. To be a Christian must mean something or it means nothing. There must be both inclusion and exclusion. By your definitions, discrimination is to include and exclude. You are simply using weasel words in the preceding paragraph. Your analogy is invalid—the comparison is of belief and knowledge. It is faith compared with achievement. One’s religious dogma is not the same kind of thing as his academic achievement. As for religious discrimination, the OT is full of it. God mandated it. So, how do you deal with this?

 

"I respectfully disagree. If the Bible does not forbid interracial marriage than it cannot be a sin, regardless of your personal beliefs"---------------------------------------------------------

I agree.

Without pulling your quotes, I don't think I am lumping you in with outhers except to the degree that I have not figured you out yet. However, I think in general you are a lot closer to Jackson than to Elders or Keys in your thinking. I think you do hold the vertue of thinking that all should be treated equally, but I think you fail to see where we are going wrong. I think reversed racisim is fast becoming the biggist problem. And I think the fixes are really the thing that is broken. And I think the media is biased towards Jackson's and democrates views, not the other way as you suggest. I thik it Ignores the hard truths when it comes to blacks. For instance ignoring rampant black misbehavieor and racisime while jumping on any slight misstep by whites, such as the Trent Lot thing. Or ignoring the negatives that were hightlighted by the NO situtation while bringing up issues that I think are rare and out of the main stream, such as do some schools (that you would never send you child to anywhy) prohibit intteracial dating. If it is going on it is barely on the radar, but you want to investigate and make an issue of it. But never overt black racisim. Anyhow, we will understand better as we talk in the future.

 

I respectfully disagree. If the Bible does not forbid interracial marriage than it cannot be a sin, regardless of your personal beliefs.

[snip] </font>[/QUOTE]"Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Romans 14:22-23

 

If they so believe, they're welcome to practice that belief for themselves. But since this issue is not a doctrinal issue, and not even a scriptural issue, it is completely wrong to impose that belief on others, especially given that it lacks scriptural support in entirety.

I'm curious is if you would you feel the same way if the topic were, say, evolution, bible versions, wearing of pants, or female pastors. (in fact, not long ago, I got beaten up because I was defending a beach-side church in Maui whole congregants wore beach attire). I believe all of these to be matters of religious liberty. When those issues become institutionalized, I believe they violate religious liberty, not to mention, they become legalist. Of course, I acknowlege that protection religious liberty is often imperfect and inconsistent.

But I indeed question the wisdom of any Christian who believes there is any scripturl justification for racial separation.

Those arguments are typically based on scriptural support.

It lacks biblical support. I can find no scripture that suggests that it is permissible. (At the very best, scripture permits adhering to it if the law instructs it. But it makes no indication of such for the church). It also violates Christ's mandate to love as he loved, and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. It further appears to collide with our understanding of God not being a respector of persons.

Well, Jesus was fully divine and fully human, about as spiritually interratial as you can get

Seriously, if segregationists are making a biblical case for their actions, it is they who need to provide scriptural support for it.

 

Johnv said:

It lacks biblical support. I can find no scripture that suggests that it is permissible. (At the very best, scripture permits adhering to it if the law instructs it. But it makes no indication of such for the church). It also violates Christ's mandate to love as he loved, and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. It further appears to collide with our understanding of God not being a respector of persons. </font>[/QUOTE]Your first statement is correct—there is no Biblical support for condemning those who believe miscegenation is wrong. The Bible neither clearly commands nor forbids it. The best test is whether it is of faith. If it is not of faith (i.e. one thinks it may be wrong), then it is definitely sin.

The arguments stemming from love and respecter of persons are presumptive. Separate can be equal. The Supreme Court is not the arbitrator of theological issues. Let’s take a hypothetical situation. Suppose that we find a clear-cut Scripture forbidding interracial marriage. This in no way violates the command of love and it does not prefer one race to another—it applies equally to all races. To deny the concept of separate and equal is to presume that one is inferior and segregation favors the superior.

The problem is that we cannot rationally and coolly think about race after four decades of propaganda. There is latent racism in the arguments against segregation and prohibition of miscegenation. It’s muddied water.

 

It is right and proper to do so if they claim it as a matter of Christian faith, yet are unable to provide scriptural support for their position.

Lacking scriptural support, it is as right and proper to condemn those who espouse miscegenation as a matter of Christian faith as it is to condemn KJVOism.

 

I'm curious is if you would you feel the same way if the topic were, say, evolution, bible versions, wearing of pants, or female pastors. (in fact, not long ago, I got beaten up because I was defending a beach-side church in Maui whole congregants wore beach attire). I believe all of these to be matters of religious liberty. When those issues become institutionalized, I believe they violate religious liberty, not to mention, they become legalist. Of course, I acknowlege that protection religious liberty is often imperfect and inconsistent.

But I indeed question the wisdom of any Christian who believes there is any scripturl justification for racial separation. </font>[/QUOTE]You must define what you mean by forcing it on others. If you mean passing a civil law that is binding on believer and non-believer alike, I say no. On the other hand, I believe very strongly in the freedom of association. A Christian college, for example, can set whatever standards it desires for its students and faculty. In fact, many do have rules forbidding the wearing of pants by females, wearing beach attire, using various modern Bible versions, espousing evolution, etc. This is their prerogative and I will staunchly defend it regardless of whether I agree. My reasoning is that if I can dictate to others, then others can presumably dictate to me in these same areas. Those attending or teaching at these schools have no entitlement to attend or teach. A group may freely associate and set whatever standards it desires. If you don’t want to follow the rules, then don’t associate with the group. On the other hand, I see it as coercion when I try to force the group to accept my deviance from its norms. I am free to leave at any point. This was the Puritans’ concept for freedom of religion. You’re free to practice your religion elsewhere. I would apply this to church or school, not the civil government.

[ November 03, 2005, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: paidagogos ]

 

It is right and proper to do so if they claim it as a matter of Christian faith, yet are unable to provide scriptural support for their position.

Lacking scriptural support, it is as right and proper to condemn those who espouse miscegenation as a matter of Christian faith as it is to condemn KJVOism. </font>[/QUOTE]Let's face, everyone, including yourself, has certain practices or beliefs which have no clear Biblical directive. Life is not so simple. Understanding the nature and frailty of the human condition, I am willing to tolerate you but I won't patronize you or agree with you. Perhaps you should learn tolerance of those holding a narrower view than your own which you obviously think is broad and liberal. Tolerance stretches in more than one dimension.

 

Instituting a rule that all are expected to adhere to qualifies.

Any college, Christian or nonchristian, can do so. However, there must be some justification for the rules, don't you think? And if a rule cannot be justified, then it should be stricken. If a Christian college makes a rule that says interracial dating is forbidden, and cites reasons of faith for doing so, then they should provide scripture for that stance.

 

Yes. And I don't impose those on others.