Small Ky. church votes against interracial couples

[Matt Black]

Is it?

The fact of the matter is, it ain't any of your business whether this church will allow interracial marriage or not.

If any organisation is behaving in a racist oppressive manner, it jolly well is my business!!!

It isn't "hateful" or "stupid." That's the hyperbolic subterfuge belched by liberals in their efforts to oppress others.

Oh, purleease! Don't throw the 'liberal' card around; it proves you don't have an argument. Odd that you talk about 'repression' whilst apparently supporting a repressive policy...

I am astounded and shocked that someone who purports to be a Christian can support the Hellish vileness that is racism; a so-called 'church' that has a racist policy like this is undeserving of the label 'Christian'.

 

[12strings]

Is it?

The fact of the matter is, it ain't any of your business whether this church will allow interracial marriage or not. It certainly isn't newsworthy.

It isn't "hateful" or "stupid." That's the hyperbolic subterfuge belched by liberals in their efforts to oppress others.

However, the "entire witness of Scripture" is that it's the father's perogative to choose to whom he will give his daughter. And if dad don't like the guy's freckles, then he doesn't have to give his daughter, and there isn't one Scripture you can produce that will overrule him.

It is newsworthy because it reveals that those with racist views are still making other people's lives miserable.

While it is the Father's role to give away his daughter, I think you would have a different attitude if you were the one wanting to get married, and the young ladies father said no for the sole reason that your name is Aaron. Should he have imput and guard who his daughter marries? YES. Should he lord it over her, disqualifying perfectly good men because he doesn't like the way they look, NO.

While it may be legally the church's prerogotive to marry whomever they wish, it does not mean any decision they make is morally right, or a decision that pleases God. Do you think this church is "making it their aim to please God." with this vote?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, Aaron, but the multiple passages in the NT about our equality in Christ, about not showing favoritism, about seeking unity, etc... seem to all cry out AGAINST a church making requirements on their members based on the whims of a few of their members.

Also...as to nullifying the vote, there could be several valid reasons to do so: they may not have met a quorum, there may be bylaws require a 75% vote, not just simple majority...who knows?

 

[jaigner]

Unless she respects her dad. Now if she is rebellious....

Some fathers are not fit to rule on this matter, such as any father who tried to stop his daughter from marrying a person of another race.

If a father is respectable, she would probably take his opinion into account, but it's still got to be her decision.

And mothers' input matters as much as fathers' does. And their input should be considered by sons as much as daughters.

 

[jaigner]

I am astounded and shocked that someone who purports to be a Christian can support the Hellish vileness that is racism; a so-called 'church' that has a racist policy like this is undeserving of the label 'Christian'.

Big thumbs up. What a creep!

 

[Don]

There is neither Jew nor Greek....

If we are all one in Christ Jesus, how can any church that claims Christ as their savior validate any claim that one skin color is different than another? Or rather, that one skin color is less worthy than another, and therefore shouldn't be mixed with the other?

 

[Aaron]

If any organisation is behaving in a racist oppressive manner, it jolly well is my business!!!
Oh, purleease! Don't throw the 'liberal' card around; it proves you don't have an argument. Odd that you talk about 'repression' whilst apparently supporting a repressive policy...

I am astounded and shocked that someone who purports to be a Christian can support the Hellish vileness that is racism; a so-called 'church' that has a racist policy like this is undeserving of the label 'Christian'.

:laugh: "Hellish vileness?":laugh:
"Hellish vileness?":tongue3:

So, Matt. How would you classify a same-sex union?

 

[Aaron]

Your post demonstrates a very disturbing application of the Bible.

Ah, yes. Disobedience to parents. Without out it, you can't have Marxism.

 

[Salty]

The fact of the matter is, it ain't any of your business whether this church will allow interracial marriage or not.

If any organisation is behaving in a racist oppressive manner, it jolly well is my business!!!

and likewise, if your church is against abortion, then does NARAL have the right to come into your chuch to make "appropriate" changes.?

... a so-called 'church' that has a racist policy like this is undeserving of the label 'Christian'.

Do you really know the meaning of the word racist?

 

[12strings]

Posted by AARON: Ah, yes. Disobedience to parents. Without out it, you can't have Marxism.

Are you saying that in order to uphold obedience to parents we have to defend and allow racist actions?

If a Father Told his daughter, "you cannot marry anyone who has blond hair" Would you still defend that father's actions?

Would you please tell us why you see it necessary to defend this church's position?

 

[12strings]

and likewise, if your church is against abortion, then does NARAL have the right to come into your chuch to make "appropriate" changes.?

We are not talking about Civil rights under U.S. Law, we are talking about what is the right thing to do before God. There are lots of things that are legal for churches to do that they should not do.

Do you really know the meaning of the word racist?

Racism is treating someone differently because of "race" (in the US, this means skin color).

Bill gates gave some scholarship money to a college and specified it for use for only black students. That's racism also... I'm not saying its Wrong, but it does qualify as racism. If I decide I want to adopt a chinese child, that's racism too, Not necessarily wrong...

HOwever, This is treating someone badly, excluding them because of their skin color...and I beleive that is soundly condemned in several of the Apostle Paul's God-inspired letters.

 

[Jerome]

Oxford English Dictionary:

a person whose words or actions display racial prejudice or discrimination

 

[jaigner]

Ah, yes. Disobedience to parents. Without out it, you can't have Marxism.

We're talking about adults here.

This is completely nuts.

 

[Salty]

rac·ism

noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Notice - the key word is Superior.

Not wanting to be part of another group - is prejudice - but not racism.

I have started another thread - off this OP a bit - but I think will be interesting

 

[Jerome]

A key word in that definition is USUALLY.

 

[Aaron]

:laugh: "Hellish vileness?":laugh:
"Hellish vileness?":tongue3:

So, Matt. How would you classify a same-sex union?

(crickets chirping)

 

[Matt Black]

You have heard of time differences?

:laugh: "Hellish vileness?":laugh:

I see nothing to laugh about here.

So, Matt. How would you classify a same-sex union?

An abomination. So? Two wrongs don't make a right; you don't stop the fight against armed robbery just because murder happens too.

 

[Matt Black]

Do you really know the meaning of the word racist?

Yes I do; I know racism when I see it and I'm looking at it right now.

Do you know its meaning?

 

[Aaron]

An abomination. So? Two wrongs don't make a right; you don't stop the fight against armed robbery just because murder happens too.

I don't think that is at all how you feel about same-sex marriage. The last I looked, you're an active member of a denomination that hallows it. I've never seen a post of yours in which you rail against it and classify it as "hellish vileness." On the contrary, you seem bound and determined to mitigate the offense. I have the distinct impression that had your denomination condemned interracial marriage in the same manner that it now hallows sodomy, you'd have left it immediately.

The point? The indignation against this church isn't at all based on biblical morality, but on man's infernal political correctness. On the scale of vices, opposing interracial marriage ranks right up there with smoking tobacco and sipping ale. Nature's God is more offended with your meddling in the matters of other men than He is in the vote of this church.

 

[12strings]

I don't think that is at all how you feel about same-sex marriage. The last I looked, you're an active member of a denomination that hallows it. I've never seen a post of yours in which you rail against it and classify it as "hellish vileness." On the contrary, you seem bound and determined to mitigate the offense. I have the distinct impression that had your denomination condemned interracial marriage in the same manner that it now hallows sodomy, you'd have left it immediately.

The point? The indignation against this church isn't at all based on biblical morality, but on man's infernal political correctness. On the scale of vices, opposing interracial marriage ranks right up there with smoking tobacco and sipping ale. Nature's God is more offended with your meddling in the matters of other men than He is in the vote of this church.

Aaron, by your logic, you should not be "meddling" in Matt's "meddling"!

If it is wrong for Matt to speak against a few Christians exercising what you seem to beleive is their right to do what they want and express their opinions...than certainly Matt should also have the right to do what he wants and express his opinion. Just sayin'.

 

[Eric B]

There is neither Jew nor Greek....

If we are all one in Christ Jesus, how can any church that claims Christ as their savior validate any claim that one skin color is different than another? Or rather, that one skin color is less worthy than another, and therefore shouldn't be mixed with the other?

Significantly enough, the term "the flesh" used to be tossed around here a lot, and it is often assumed to be just referring to so-called "sins of the flesh", particularly "sensuality" and perhaps also anger, gluttony, sloth, etc.
But if you really look at the whole theme of Paul's writings; it really means one's natural, physical lineage (such as ethnic makeup). For that is what the Israelites (and those in the church influenced by them) Paul was dealing with were trusting in (as making them "chosen"), rather than Christ.

So then, Paul says, if you're going to trust in your physical inheritance (nature), what does that nature really do for you? The answer: he lists all the sins, and contrasts it with the fruits of the Spirit.

It's amazing that Christians (even more widespread in the past, but people still believe like this today) that make a big emphasis on the "sins of the flesh" (to the point that you have to avoid certain kinds of music to stay pure) seem to believe that the actual, literal "flesh" associated with those sins [through our physical nature] carries some sort of merit (see John 6:63), that rules like this should be imposed in God's name; or at least that those who believe or do this should be encouraged/defended, and anyone who opposes them is the real oppressor, and anti-God.
It is just as much heresy as works-righteousness.