What is the necessity of this rule?

Yes. And I don't impose those on others. </font>[/QUOTE]That’s right! Why? You don’t have the power to impose it on others. If you had the power, it might be different. Power, you see, has a corrupting influence.

We know your views on forbidding interracial marriage, yet you admit that there is no clear Biblical mandate against the prohibition of interracial marriage. If you were the Czar of Education, both public and private, in the United States with the power to formulate policy, regulate schools and enforce public agendas, then you might prevent schools from prohibiting interracial marriage. Perhaps you would or perhaps you wouldn’t. We don’t know and I sincerely hope that we never have the chance to find out.

 

Would not the same go for the rule of racial separation in dating?

That's the same empty argument KJVOists make: "There is no biblical mandate against KJVOism". You can't prove a negative. It is up to those who claim their view is biblical to provide biblical support. Lacking biblical support, the position is not biblical. In fact, study of scripture doesn't even gleen anything to suggest that a racial dating ban might be remotely related to any other biblical position.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Any college, Christian or otherwise, views its own rules as justified--don’t you think? It is just that you don’t think the rules are justified. Christian colleges do interpret, although differently form you, various Scriptures as supporting their views and rules.

Being very interested in epistemology and hermeneutics, I differ from you on demanding that they provide Scripture for every view. There may be things that Scripture does not specifically address but God expects us to draw conclusions compatible with Scripture. However, when we demand a proof text for every viewpoint, folks tend to formulate their views and then try to morph Scripture into supporting said view. This, IMHO, is worse than having no apparent Scriptural support at all. Yet, this is the prevalent tendency of professing Bible-believing Christians today. We are saying that God has said what He has not said. In other words, it is better to say this is my opinion although I have no specific Scripture saying this than to take Scripture away from its intended teaching and say my viewpoint is Biblical because this proof text supports it. Many times, people resort to allegorical and fanciful interpretations based on incidental points of narrative. This is abuse and misuse of Scripture. What’s wrong with having an opinion and living by it? We all do it whether we realize or admit to it.

 

Would not the same go for the rule of racial separation in dating? </font>[/QUOTE]The thing that you are confusing is the exercise of the freedom of association and coercion. No is forced to obey the ban on racial separation in dating unless they attend a school having this ban. It is a choice. On the other hand, prohibiting said ban by force is coercion and is not a choice. What is so hard to understand about this?

That's the same empty argument KJVOists make: "There is no biblical mandate against KJVOism". You can't prove a negative. It is up to those who claim their view is biblical to provide biblical support. Lacking biblical support, the position is not biblical. In fact, study of scripture doesn't even gleen anything to suggest that a racial dating ban might be remotely related to any other biblical position. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, if you took sophomore political science in college, you would recognize this as a propaganda technique known as guilt by association. Perhaps the communists or Nazis use this same rational in some arguments too. The question is not about who uses this type of argument but it is about whether the argument is valid in this case. Why don’t you address the issue instead of shunting to a peripheral matter?

Do you believe that Scripture addresses absolutely every detail in life? If so, how do you arrive at this conclusion? Suppose there are matters such as slavery or interracial marriage that the Bible doesn’t directly address. For example, where does Scripture specifically address interracial marriage? If it doesn’t address it, then you are wrong in trying to make it a Scriptural matter. All you have is your human reasoning and opinions. You are entitled to these and may argue one way or the other but don’t call it Biblical. If Scripture doesn’t address it one way or the other, then you cannot win over your opponents by forcing them to find Scriptural justification. Easy to understand?

You stated: “In fact, study of scripture doesn't even gleen anything to suggest that a racial dating ban might be remotely related to any other biblical position.” Since you are appealing to Scripture, then prove it Biblically. There are folks, unbeknownst to you, who do think they have Scriptural support. You may disagree with them but I wonder if you even know their arguments since you so cavalierly dismiss them with a naïve papal bull. Can you tell me what their arguments are? If not, how can you so confidently dismiss them if you don’t know. This is the height of logical folly and rational naivety. You are rashly judging things beyond the pale of your experience, I think. Learn their arguments and then you can refute them.

“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” (Proverbs 18:13)

 

I can't believe you're condoning the view that racial separation is permissible for a Christian organization.

There is no scripture whatsoever, not by any stretch that does so in regards to this topic.

 

I wasn not associating anyone to KJVOism. I was pointing out how implausible the arguement of "disproving a negative" is, using KJVoism as an example.

No. Scripture is self-evident to that.

I believe that, where scripture is silent, we should be silent.

I didn't make it a scriptural matter. I have been saying all along that the racial separation topic is not a scriptural matter.

If they are esposing the rule for reasons of faith, then by all means, asking for scriptural support is right and just. There are threads multiple pages long about the Roman Catholic Church that condemn them for doing that very thing, yet here, it's forbidden??

Again, how can I prove something that doesn't exiat? "There's nothining" means "there's nothing". It's not there. Absent.

They are welcome to present that scriptural support. So far, none has ben eluded to.

You appear to do in your defense what you accuse me of in my chastisement.

 

I wasn not associating anyone to KJVOism. I was pointing out how implausible the arguement of "disproving a negative" is, using KJVoism as an example. </font>[/QUOTE]By choosing KJVO as your example you made an association with anyone using this method of argumentation.

No. Scripture is self-evident to that.
</font>[/QUOTE]Good—that’s clear and straightforward.

I didn't make it a scriptural matter. I have been saying all along that the racial separation topic is not a scriptural matter. </font>[/QUOTE]Right! I thought you had said this but it seems that you persist in holding others to the violation of Scriptural teaching by imposing racial restrictions in dating. So, one violates no Biblical teaching if he practices racial separation.

If they are esposing the rule for reasons of faith, then by all means, asking for scriptural support is right and just. There are threads multiple pages long about the Roman Catholic Church that condemn them for doing that very thing, yet here, it's forbidden?? </font>[/QUOTE]We have already previously agreed that all matters of faith are not directly supported by proof texts. Why impose on others what we cannot keep ourselves. The multi-page threads to which you allude have nothing to do with my arguments or me. Perhaps I would agree or perhaps not.

Again, how can I prove something that doesn't exiat? "There's nothining" means "there's nothing". It's not there. Absent. </font>[/QUOTE]Then the most intellectually honest position is that these people, who practice racial separation, violate no Biblical teaching. To say more and go beyond this, meanwhile claiming Biblical authority is to add to God’s Word. Let’s be tolerant and let them practice racial separation within their own circles. Why should you care unless you want to force your own opinions upon them? You don’t have to attend their schools. Live and let live.

They are welcome to present that scriptural support. So far, none has ben eluded to. </font>[/QUOTE]Don’t expect me to defend the position. All I am defending is people’s right to hold this position. Check out the people who have these rules. They can articulate their own arguments without my help.

You appear to do in your defense what you accuse me of in my chastisement. </font>[/QUOTE]How so? I have read your posts and assume they represent an accurate picture of your view. If you have not articulated your opinion well, then that’s your fault, not mine. I take you at face value—adding nothing, subtracting nothing.

 

No association was intended, and apologies are in order if any association is implied. The intent was to simply give an example of where the argument is used.

A violation would exist of such a position were climed to be scripturally appropriate (when scripture is actually silent on the direct issue). If such a position were simply claimed by the school to be socially or societally appropriate, I'm sure it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to see the error in that view.

Although, I did state scriptural reasons for why the practice should be discouraged, but those are based on interpretation and application, not by direct scriptural mandate on the topic.

As I stated prior, a violation would exist of such a position were climed to be scripturally appropriate (when scripture is actually silent on the direct issue). Perhaps "scriptural violation" is not the best phrase here. Scriptural misapplication is probably more accurate in this situation, and that topic is suitable for being challenged by other like-minded Christians.

You imply I might not know their argument, yet you are also implying an argument that, for all we know, may not be in existence (that is, instituting a racial dating ban as a matter of scriptural propriety. For all we both know, the rule may have been instituted with no scriptural reason at all, but for a social or societal reason, having nothing to do with scripture, faith, or application or implimentation of worship.

 

Man, Filmproducer, I just got done making nice with paidagogos, and you had to go louse it all up

Anyhoo, I think I'm done on this topic for now. I'll bow out and lurk for a bit

 

[qb]

 

And I am very amused that you find my posts Kantian. At least, you know the term although there is no connection between my views and Kantian moral philosophy.

No one has posit autonomous morals. You are reading into and assuming.

I think not. I don’t believe couched his expectations for humans in the obfuscations of moral philosophy. He put them on the level of the common man; whatever is not of faith is sin. Whenever one chooses to go against what he believes is pleasing to God, he sins. It is simply the assertion of the individual will over the Divine will.

I have made no such claim and I don’t. I have not argued for human autonomy. Man is not autonomous.

I do not advocate subjective truth. I will stipulate that our perception of truth may be subjective but Truth by its nature is absolute, eternal and universal.

Not true. Notice that I limited this to a closed system described by the parameters of association. Furthermore, I argued for freedom of association.

Your word choice is lacking. You ought to have used perceived instead of implied. To say implied means that God intended the perceived meaning. What human perceive as God’s implied meaning and what God intended are not always the same thing.

Yeah, this was one of my points too. If Scripture is silent on an issue, then you ought not claim Scriptural authority for it. If you claim Scriptural authority, then you had better believe that it is exactly what Scripture teaches. If you believe that the Bible forbids racial separation, please give me a passage teaching it. Otherwise, don’t claim that racial separation is contrary to Scripture. On the other hand, if you believe the Bible commands racial separation then you should practice it. Some believer do.

Have I ever stated I had such an argument? Have I indicated that I believed said argument? Just what do you think my whole point has been?

Well, perhaps. Actually, I was trying to defeat my opponent’s argument by drawing him into an admission there was no evidence either way. If Scripture is silent on an issue, then one cannot claim Scriptural authority to argue against it. Simple enough?

My argument regarding faith was that one should not lead another believer, although you may disagree with him, to violate his faith because it is sinful when he acts against his conscience. Furthermore, please allow me to stipulate that the converse and contrapositive of this argument are not necessarily true.

 

I beg to disagree. Kant claims, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” His premise rests on the assumption that universal practical reason is “the idea of the will of every rational being as a will that legislates universal law.”

He leaves no room to determine rules sufficiently. Every rational being holds separate autonomous moral values. Kant does not account for this. There is no flexibility in his universal categorical imperative. One of your arguments seems to be that of autonomous moral values in terms of faith. The very essence of the argument is Kantian in nature. </font>[/QUOTE]The disparity is that man is not autonomous and his moral values are not autonomous. My point is precisely that we do not all agree on the absolute Divine moral values. However, we must each act in faith according to our own perception of the revealed absolute moral values. This holds each individual accountable and allows for differences.

 

Yes, they do when they agree with the group standard by associating with the group. If they come to a different belief, then they separate.

 

This is also my understanding as well.

Joseph Botwinick

 

There's no fundamental difference in what we're both saying. When one is associated with the institution, he or she is obligated to follow its guidelines whether he or she is in full agreement with every minutia or not. When one’s disagreement is more important than one’s agreement, one separates. I like to keep it simple. Trying to include every sophistic angle results in cognitive overload and obfuscation.