It is amazing to me how out of touch you are, Galatian, with reality. You show no ability to think critically through the issues you are discussing. You do not address the facts, the definitions, or the issues involved. You rant on and on about old issues.
You know, Larry, I can't help thinking that if you had something of substance to support you, you wouldn't feel compelled to call me names.
Let's take a look. You're telling me that the current racism at Bob Jones, and Henry Morris's attack on blacks in the 90s are "old issues". Yet to support your "so are you" argument, you brought up issues over 100 years and 76 years old respectively. How are we to take that, given your statement about "old issues"?
You are short of the facts and these facts are well published. The dating policy was not racist by definition. Racism by definition in common parlance is unequal treatment on the basis of race. You cannot tell me who was being discriminated against at BJU after 1970.
That's already been decided. The Supreme Court says it is.
You continue to repeat that BJU is racist and now you add antichristian. You have given no proof of either.
Bob Jones U. continues to require different things of different people, based on race. That is racism. You can spin it any way you want, but it won't change. And Bob Jones U. asserts that this is based in Scripture, something that is patently untrue. That is contrary to Christianity.
As for integration in the south, do some research into state laws and the repeal of those laws and then you will learn some things about this situation that you should know. IN the 60s the laws of the US were to segregate and they were in the process of being changed.
No, that's wrong, too. As of May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that "Separate but Equal" was illegal. That ruling rendered all such laws void as of that date. It took a while to bring everyone in compliance, but segregation was never legal in the 60s. Again, you've been misled.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. It took a lot of courage and moral strength to use civil disobedience to bring down illegal discrimination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was unbiblical:
Romans 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
1 Peter 2:13-15 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
When we disagree with policies, it is our right and responsibility to change them through legal means. It is unbiblical and unchristian to break them. It is against the will of God.
Since the Supreme Court had ruled all segregation was illegal, it was the authorities trying to defy the law, not the protestors, who were unbiblical. By your own standards, the people trying to maintain segregation were defying the will of God. I don't think you've given this very much thought.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have arch-Creationist Henry Morris asserting spiritual and intellectual inferiority to blacks. This was in the early 90s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where?? I would like to see this. I don’t draw either my creationism or my theology from Henry Morris so I doubt it will make much difference to me. If he said this, I will repudiate it. I have shown you were people on your side said it. Are you repudiating everything they said as well??
From Henry Morris's The Beginning of the World (1991), pp. 148, regarding “Hamites”
“Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”
And yes, scientists a hundred years ago were completely off base on race. We've learned scince then. Isn't it a pity that creationists like Morris have not?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, it's their commitment to an unorthodox interpretation of God's word. The majority of the world's Christians are quite willing to accept God's creation by evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you do not understand orthodox theology or Christianity. There are certain tenets of evolution that are wholly incompatible with God’s creation. This is an either-or situation. One can believe evolution to some degree and be saved probably. But as they learn more about God they should be repudiating it. When someone continues in “willfull ignorance” as Peter calls it (2 Peter 3), then it is hard to imagine that the Spirit of God is at work in their lives.
Horsefeathers. Even if you persist in rejecting God's creation, He isn't going to send you to hell for it. It's not a salvation issue.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, creationism is not scriptural, because it adds to and subtracts from God's word. And it is unscientific, because it denies the evidence. This is hardly the place to discuss the evidence, and we're probably pushing the patience of the moderator, but I'd be pleased to discuss that indetail where it was appropriate. Perhaps a debate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does it add or subtract from God’s word? Show me the place. And what evidence does it deny? I think what it denies is your “interpretation of the evidence. That is a far different issue. The evolutionists and the creationists all have the same evidence. It is interpreted through the lens of presuppositions. That is why differing conclusions result. As for a debate, I will debate a little bit with you but I really don’t have the time to reinvent the wheel. Everything that I would say is in print in numerous places. You are not going to agree with me because of your presuppositions.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I've heard those buzzwords before. It's the old "we can't know anything from evidence, because of those bad ol' presuppositions." It convinces no one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one I know ever said that we can’t know anything from the evidence. But if we are going to be scientific we need to limit what we say we “know” and what we deduce. We see a fossil; we can know certain things about it. WE can conjecture about certain other things. The problem with evolutionists such as yourself is that you are too dishonest to make this distinction. You tell people you find a fossil that is 60 millions years old. You never stop to tell them that you don’t really know that but you are interpreting that.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They still discriminate, based on race. And they lost their exemption in 1983, as I told you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then why did they pay taxes from 1970?? According to you they were tax exempt for all those years.
I said that? Nope. I said that they lost their exemption in the 80s. That's what happened.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never spent any time in the Gulag, either. Be honest with yourself here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My honest point is that you have never seen how one person has been treated on the campus there. So you are operating off of hearsay (not admissible in court), opinion (when you are not an expert), and conclusions drawn from your lack of knowledge.
Larry, they were segregationists. Over they years, they have continued to discriminate on the basis of race. They still do. It was (and is) in their own rules. That's why they lost their tax exemption. It's why they finally in the last couple of years rescinded their absolute ban on interracial dating. It's why they still insist on parental permission for it, even though they don't ask that of same-race couples.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't even have religion for their defense these days. The SBC is formally on record as opposing racism and segregation. So is almost every other evangelical group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But they still practice racism. And that makes all the difference. There is no scriptural support for treating interracial couples differently than others. It's just racism.
However, let me ask you this: Do you support the racist policies of major universities and colleges who deny admission to students based on race? For instance, all universities have affirmative action policies that deny admission to white students with higher qualifications so that they can admit black students with lower qualifications. BJU has never done that.
Darn right, they didn't. They just refused to admit them at all. Later, they agreed to admit them, but they were subject to special rules.
Affirmative action should be limited to actual situations were people were harmed by previous discrimination. It should only be a way to redress previous wrongs. The issue about test scores is another thing entirely. The evidence shows that ACT and SAT scores are not as accurate in predicting student achievement for other races as it is for whites. I have no idea what to do about that.
Do you react against this racist policy with the same vehemence you react against the voluntary policies of BJU?
Bob Jones U. makes the racism mandatory. There is no option to be treated the same as everyone else. However, I find all racial discrimination to be wrong.
Additionally, why, if these evolutionist universities are so far past racism, do they practice racist policies?
There are no "evolutionist universities". However, affirmative action was imposed on them by state or federal agencies.
You seem to be very angry and defensive about Bob Jones University. They largely brought it on themselves. You may not like it, but that's how it is.
, and my claims that the roots of racism do not lie in evolutionary theory and that racists are, for the most part, creationists. ... However, I don't know how much crediance people should give this list, since it appears to me that, in the author's zeal to record every single racist who ever said something at some time in history, he has misrepresented many people's positions. (Maybe even the ones above.) I also doubt that he would even consider indicating where a person has taken back or appoligized for a racist past. (Much like Billy Graham did recently.)