Bi-racial marriage

From the BJU letter:

If this is true, isn't the Internet an affront to these "supposed" God established barriers since we have people from many different nations participating and "coming together"?

If you believe that LOGOFF IMMEDIATELY!!!!

-kman

 

Just for the record, the Babel incident had to do with two things: apostasy and the refusal to go out into the world. It had NOTHING to do with racial distinctions. It might also be interesting to note that each of the three branches of humanity (Japhetic, Semitic, Hamitic) have variations of color involved, from very light to very dark.

GrannyGumbo, I have this deep hope that you corrected your daughter's misconceptions about birds being like people in that regard, but I have a funny feeling you didn't, but just laughed it off as 'cute.'

I forget who mentioned the fear factor, but I do think that has a lot to do with racism today. We are afraid of what we don't know about.

On the other hand, there is an element of racism which is being caused by the various ethnic groups themselves. It's called affirmative action. Translated the meaning is something like this: We can't really compete with you folks, and we have lots of excuses for that. So we need you to make special provisions for us. But we really are equal and we have to be treated that way. After we have had the special provisions, of course...

In the meantime, don't marry outside your race. Of course, we aren't really sure what a race is, you understand, but if you don't look like me you for sure are not my race.

Gets about as stupid as human beings can get. And that, in my own humble opinion, can be pretty incredibly stupid.

 

Well, looks like I fanned the flames! LOL!

Helen, thanks for picking up on the fact there are political agendas. It was being overlooked in this discussion which is why I posted what I did above.

I still say, all of this inter-racial marriage acceptance is a product of the times we are living in. It did not used to be that way. BJU former policy was a holdover from times past.

Just an observation: The first church I ever attended with a black and white couple was back in the early 1970s, a full gospel church up North. Not Baptist.

 

What about Moses? That's a fairly early precedent:

Num 12:1 (KJV) And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Eric

 

If this is true, isn't the Internet an affront to these "supposed" God established barriers since we have people from many different nations participating and "coming together"?

If you believe that LOGOFF IMMEDIATELY!!!!

-kman</font>[/QUOTE]I agree. Another thought I had while reading that letter was according to their reasoning, they (BJU) had better not be training any missionaries. After all, they would be contributing to the sin of learning other languages thereby breaking down a barrier that God set in place.

 

I've just thought of something... for people who oppose interracial marriage: what would you say to someone of mixed race? Should they not marry at all? Is intermarriage with either parent race okay? Or is it just okay to marry within the "lesser" race (as you define it)?

I personally think that all races are created equal, and indeed, even the idea of multiple races is a little silly if you know anything about ancient history and the movement of people groups. Or even just what Genesis says, we are all descended from Noah - part of the same family.

Eric

[ September 18, 2002, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

eric, I never said that! Where did you get that from? I never even implied any sort of thing or anything close to that. You are interjecting your own perceptions into what I posted (which happens a lot around here, it seems).

You guys are running away with your own preconceived misconceptions about people who are against inter-racial marriage.

I find it interesting that in the light of this discussion, Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (which used to mean Negro, Caucasian, and Semitic) have now turned into being one big whole same race. When did this interpretation arise?
And from where? It is a man-made philosophy, that's where.

Now everybody does what is right in their own eyes.

 

When did this interpretation arise? Have you been reading the posts?

How many male and female did God create in the garden?

How many people descend from them?

Out like my participation in this discussion until Scripture is used.

 

Um, where did you get your interpretation that each of Noah’s sons were of a different “race”?

If the sons were Noah’s sons, then it stands to reason that they had his genetics and had similar features.

Before you condemn the point of view that thinks Noah’s sons were genetically similar to him, you first need to demonstrate Biblically that Noah’s sons were of different “races”.

Yes, especially in this thread…

 

That much is true. According to the account I heard, the BJU policy was originally written to address a marriage between an asian and a white shortly after WWII when fear and prejudice were rampant.

I happen to like much of what I know about BJU. I like the fact that they take stands on issues... such as when they allowed PCC to break fellowship with them rather than making KJVO part of their official stand. And I happen to like them better now since I saw Dr. Jones III announce on Larry King that the policy was being dropped because it was not based on scripture but the wrong ideas of a past time.

He said the reason it had not been dealt with sooner is that the enforcement of it had never come up... remember it was liberals attempting to taint GW Bush that brought it up, not an attempt to enforce the policy.

I am sure that if we took the time to search the archives of laws and policies we could find many things that would embarrass many people and institutions. BJU has trained literally thousands of foreign missionaries and workers. The people I know from there are godly Christians with love and compassion for people of all kinds.

The policy was wrong. Dr. Jones admitted it. I don't think we have a reason to believe he was lying or would lie about it. We should respect those who are willing to admit error and change, not condemn them.

 

eric, I never said that! Where did you get that from? I never even implied any sort of thing or anything close to that. You are interjecting your own perceptions into what I posted (which happens a lot around here, it seems).

You guys are running away with your own preconceived misconceptions about people who are against inter-racial marriage.

I find it interesting that in the light of this discussion, Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (which used to mean Negro, Caucasian, and Semitic) have now turned into being one big whole same race. When did this interpretation arise?
And from where? It is a man-made philosophy, that's where.

Now everybody does what is right in their own eyes.</font>[/QUOTE]I missed the verse that said that Noah's three sons were of different races and their descendents weren't allowed to intermarry. What verse is it in your Bible? Or are you just declaring what is right in your own eyes?

Also, what about Moses' mixed marriage?

Num 12:1 (KJV) And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Eric

[ September 18, 2002, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

Hi Scott.

Since I am the one that posted a comment about them training missionaries, I am guessing your comments are directed towards me.

If I offended you by my comments, I am sorry. Please forgive me.

It was not my intention to condemn anyone, but merely to show the error in the reasoning used in the letter (ie. race being a barrier set forth by God; differing languages also being a barrier set forth by God) but never was it my intention to belittle anyone that has attended there.

 

some of these opinions really surprise me amd i hope it is just i am misreading and misunterstanded some of the comments.. arent we all 'Gods children"? it is sad how we 'preach' one thing yet practice another.. maybe if we think about what we post on the board like this: when we die, we will have to answer for what we have written and said and explain our beleifs

 

Before someone condemns me for being a racist--well, it just ain't so!

And there ain't no place in the word that tells us not to have bi-race marriages. BUT what I am saying is this--if the parents of either sex object to his/her child getting together with someone else--whether that someone is red, yellow, black, white, polka-dot, or little green men from Mars--that child is living in rebellion against God's word when he disregards the wishes of the parent whether the child believes he is right or not.

So Brother Eric--please forgive me--if you were close by I'd have you over for dinner cause the Lord Jesus died for you and He died for me!

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

that child is living in rebellion against God's word when he disregards the wishes of the parent whether the child believes he is right or not. Not so. The Bible makes it clear that we are not to follow requests that are placed on us that are immoral. Racism is immoral, and any parent who places such immoral view on their children should have their parents' licence revoked.

 

Bro.Blackbird~I live closer to ya than Bro.Eric...what's for supper?

 

Blackbird, I don't disagree with your belief that we should honor and obey our parents (insofer as such obedience doesn't interfere with our obedience to God). I was responding to this statement that you made in a previous post:

"By and large I believe that God created the races for a reason. And I believe that the races belong together-white with white, black with black, red with red, yellow with yellow. White should be looking for a white marriage and black should be looking for a black marriage--get my drift??"

Whether or not you consider that statement racist, it honestly is. I hope that God will open your eyes to this blind spot, because it will hobble your witness for Christ and give the Devil a foothold.

Having said that, I strongly believe that if you have genuinely trusted Christ as Lord and Savior and have a living relationship with Him you will be forgiven of all of your sins, just as I will be mine. And I wouldn't presume to say that I'm any less of a sinner than you are, it's just that I have different blind spots and different weaknesses the enemy is exploiting. I am admonishing as a brother, not condemning as a judge... If I show myself to be similarly deluded on another issue, I hope someone corrects me!

We all have instincts that lead us astray, which is why it is so important to read the Word, and justify our beliefs with Scripture. It's the only way we can be sure to separate right from wrong, because there is a big magnet called "sin" next to all of our moral compasses. The second we follow our own instincts instead of the Word we are in trouble! I urge you to prayerfully seek God's will in this issue, and seriously study His Word. If God doesn't condemn mixed marriages in His Word, is it really your place to do so?

Eric

[ September 18, 2002, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

WHAT RACES???????

Would someone PLEASE tell me what the different races are?

The idea of Noah's three sons representing or being three different races is absurd. Japhethites can be as dark as the southern Indians of India or as pale as a Swede or Norwegian.

Hamites can be as dark as the darkest African ever imagined being or as light as the palest Oriental.

Semites can range from light to dark as well, as one glace at the Middle East can verify.

Now, let's take a look at some of the descendants of Noah as listed in Genesis 10, the Table of Nations, and see who begat what here:

We know the Semites were the line of Abraham and thus the nations that descended from him. Here are some others from that group:

The Elamites -- joined later with the Medes (Japhethites) to form the Persian Empire

The Asshurites -- later to become the Assyrians

The Aramites -- probably precursors of the Arameans and later the Syrians

a pretty diverse group there...

Let's look at the Hamites:

from Cush -- the Ethiopians, with his son, Seba, the founder of the folk of the Sudan

from Mizraim -- the Egyptians

from Put -- the Libyans

from Canaan -- two lines which later merged to form the Chinese: the Hittites and the Sinites. Linguistically, Hittite became Kittae which slurred into Cathay, which was the name for China in the time of Columbus. The Sinites' name is still recalled in our reference to "Sino-American relations" and such phrases.

on to Japheth:

Gomer is the linguistic root of Germany, Crimea, and Cambria (Wales). His son Ashkenaz was the ancestor of the Germans, Scandanavians, and Saxons. Another son, Togarmah was the ancestor of the Armenians and the people of Turkey.

Magog is a name meaning "place of Gog". Gog became Georgia, or the peoples of the Black Sea.

Madai was the ancestor of both the Medes and the people who carried his name in India -- the people of Madras.

Javan gave rise to the Greeks, the Spanish, and possibly the original settlers of both Cyprus and Rhodes.

The name of Tubal is carried down in the name Tobolsk and Meschech's name in Moscow. The Russians are from these two.

Tiras was the ancestor of the Thracians and possibly the Etruscans.

Now, if anyone wants to track intermarriages among these groups from Babel, please feel free. There have been quite a few. Dark skin, light skin, dusky skin and all in between are represented in all three lines. The idea that the three sons represented three races was an idea born in stark ignorance and used as an excuse for slavery. There is no excuse in the world for that kind of ignorance now. Nor has there been since some of this research was put together by Hislop over 150 years ago. His research was based on ancient chronologies and linguistic studies by himself and others of much higher qualifications than any of us on this board have.

Racism is a product of ignorance and fear, neither of which should be part of any Christian.

 

What about Moses? That's a fairly early precedent:

Num 12:1 (KJV) And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Eric</font>[/QUOTE]I wasn't speaking of Biblical times. I was speaking of the society in which we have lived for the past several years.

Even 30 or 40 years ago inter-racial marriage was not common practice in America as it is today.

My posting of the BJU letter was to show that even up until recently, inter-racial dating & marriage was not accepted in some Christian circles. The point of posting that was to show that attitudes have changed.

You forgot to mention Joseph marrying an Egyptian woman. And from there came the Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

 

That much is true. According to the account I heard, the BJU policy was originally written to address a marriage between an asian and a white shortly after WWII when fear and prejudice were rampant.

I happen to like much of what I know about BJU. I like the fact that they take stands on issues... such as when they allowed PCC to break fellowship with them rather than making KJVO part of their official stand. And I happen to like them better now since I saw Dr. Jones III announce on Larry King that the policy was being dropped because it was not based on scripture but the wrong ideas of a past time.

He said the reason it had not been dealt with sooner is that the enforcement of it had never come up... remember it was liberals attempting to taint GW Bush that brought it up, not an attempt to enforce the policy.

I am sure that if we took the time to search the archives of laws and policies we could find many things that would embarrass many people and institutions. BJU has trained literally thousands of foreign missionaries and workers. The people I know from there are godly Christians with love and compassion for people of all kinds.

The policy was wrong. Dr. Jones admitted it. I don't think we have a reason to believe he was lying or would lie about it. We should respect those who are willing to admit error and change, not condemn them.</font>[/QUOTE]I agree. I posted this letter about BJU out of frustration because it seemed no one on this thread wanted to address some of the Christian attitudes that used to be prevalent up until just a few years ago. Those attitudes were wrong. Didn't mean to cause such a ruckus & have it interpreted and construed to mean something I didn't intend!