1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What is the necessity of this rule?

Discussion in 'Baptist Colleges & Seminaries' started by Filmproducer, Oct 23, 2005.

  1. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,137
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    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.
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    The two I have attended did not.
     
  3. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    I don't know about the UK

    Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was talking about the University of Kentucky, my alma matter. [​IMG]

    Man I thought everybody knew about them! Go Wildcats! [​IMG] ;)

    And you know I am scrutinizing your words and assertions, why would that be an attack on your Character. I did not say you were using a double standard for any sinister reason...

    I understand you are not purposely attacking me, and I'm sorry if I came across otherwise. I happen to feel you read too much into my words, however. I truly want equality for all. I would also be the first to admit when reverse racism occurs. Equality for all means equality for all.
    I do apply the same standard to all groups, I do not see where I have ever said otherwise. Please show me, so I may address the issue, as it was most likely a misunderstanding.

    I don't think you would be saying that if it was preferential treatment to whites that resulted form asking the race of an applicant.

    I was not thinking about affirmative action in any way. I was not even implying it. Johnv stated that CA no longer uses race on college admissions, and many states have followed suite. The others make it very clear that race is not a mandatory question, and does not have to be answered. I did not know the standard a Christian school used, and thought it was interesting, given the subject matter at hand. If they are going to prohibit interracial dating then race would most likely be on the college admission. Just thought it was an interesting point to ponder, under the circumstance.

    But the issue is really this. I know the folks on your side philisophicaly and politically would have had a cow if anyone tried to start a "white" student union, no matter how it is funded and governed. But a different standard is applied when it comes to black prejudice, non-inclusivness, or elitism. If we are going to move forward, we must have fair and equal approches to all non-inclusivness and prejudice. I don't think you do. And remember, I did not scrutinize you first. You scrutinized me because I was dissappointed in the racial rethoric of the NO catastrophy and you challanged me on my views. So I am not sure why you want to yell foul when I scurtinize you and challange your veiw or the objectivity of you poisition. We are talking about racisim on campus, so this is very much a legitimate line of questioning.

    Again I think you are lumping me in with other people. My political philosophy happens to be very existential, among other things. Racism, by anyone is racism. Discrimination, by anyone, is discrimination. I do not place any one group above another, nor do I overlook or forgive one group more than another when they are wrong.

    Also, I believe I was challenging preconceived notions of African Americans and welfare, not the NO catastrophe, although it was in the same thread. If you recall I said repeatedly that Jackson was wrong for initially blaming the slow response on the high concentration of African Americans in the area, When he switched to high concentration of poor, I said that I believed the matter is something to be looked into and examined, not that he was necessarily right.

    But anyway, I am going on vacation, so you will get a break. I am disappointed that you did not update me on your movie when I asked. Although I question where you are comming from and whether or not you are "fair and balanced" in your approach, I am really interested in your Movie. Take care.

    Have fun on your vacation. I hope you have a wonderful time of r&r. Sorry I always forget about updating you on the movie. Please don't take it personally, as it was not so. For the most part it is going great. I am able to witness to a lot of people through emails and promotions. The editing is still going slow, however. Please pray that we will find an editor who does not want to change the message of the film (i.e., pray that we can find a Christian editor). Take care.
     
  4. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    LOL- very true! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  5. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. ;)
     
  6. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    When you say "it is not biblical," do you mean it is unbiblical (i.e. violates Scripture) or it does not have Biblical support?
     
  7. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  9. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    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. ;)
    Here let me restate my opinion so that the logical conclusion is clear. First of all I use the lexical definition of discrimination (see below). The theoretical definition you have placed on the meaning of discrimination is void of common sense, imo. At best you can claim that I used a persuasive definition of discrimination to further enhance my rhetorical motive. It is clear to me that your logical conclusion is a fallacy of relevance, then again it more clearly resembles a straw man fallacy. I'll, however, give you the benefit of the doubt and call it a fallacy of relevance.

    Lexical Definition of discrimination:

    dis•crim•i•na•tion [diss krìmmə náysh’n]
    n
    1. treating people differently through prejudice: unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnic group, age group, religion, or gender

    Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    Please do not insult my intelligence. My claim was not lubricious in any manner. Although I do not necessarily spend a lot of time constructing my arguments for posts of this nature, I do pay attention. As a student of philosophy, I have spent quite a bit of time studying logic.
     
  10. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    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.

    I believe I was clear when I said the Bible does not prohibit interracial marriage. It only logically follows that it does not condemn the forbidding of interracial marriage. It is not biblical means it is not biblical. Besides race, as defined in society today, is a modern evolutionary term. The modern classifications of race, (i.e., white, black, Asian, etc.), dates back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as a scientific response to Darwin. Though it has changed somewhat throughout the years, this is the origin of modern day races.

    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?

    I never said all faiths were equal, nor do I imply it. Please reread my post. My Christian testimony is very important to me. I cannot lead someone of a different faith, to the Lord, if I damn their faith before hand. If you haven't noticed, most people are passionate about their beliefs, and would be defensive if they believed they were being attacked. Even person's of the same faith are passionate and defensive about their beliefs, as proven by this board. I can disagree with someone about their faith and still be respectful. It is not discrimination to state your personal beliefs, nor to claim your beliefs to be true. The crux of the matter lies in how you approach people of different faiths.

    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.

    Very true. Racial discrimination is neither fair, nor just, it gives partiality of one race over another. The same applies to forbidding interracial marriage and dating, which gives preferential treatment to couples of the same race. IMO, discrimination is wrong, because it claims that "I am better than you", when we are all sinners in the eyes of God.
     
  11. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    If you believe interracial marriage is wrong and you marry another race, then you sin.

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

    Your analogy is invalid—the comparison is of belief and knowledge. It is faith compared with achievement.

    I was specifically talking about admission to an institution of higher learning. Faith based schools, such as BJU, are specifically looking for students of that faith. That is not discrimination. Secular universities are looking for students in good academic standing. It is not discrimination when someone of low academic standards is denied admission.

    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.

    No, I am a Christian. Christianity does not have to be discriminatory, although I believe we are defining discriminatory differently. Claiming Christianity is right is not discriminatory. Please see my previous comments about my Christian testimony.

    God mandated it. So, how do you deal with this?

    Luke 6:27-42

    6:27
    But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

    6:28
    Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

    6:29
    And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

    6:30
    Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

    6:31
    And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

    6:32
    For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

    6:33
    And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

    6:34
    And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

    6:35
    But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

    6:36
    Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

    6:37
    Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

    6:38
    Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

    6:39
    And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?

    6:40
    The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

    6:41
    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    6:42
    Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

    A person of a different faith is just as much of as a sinner as I. He/she needs Christ just as much as I. The difference is that I have already found my salvation through Jesus. I need to be a testimony to them so that I may show them the way to Jesus.
     
  12. Bunyon

    Bunyon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    "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.
     
  13. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    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 [​IMG]

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

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
    ;)
     
  16. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
  18. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    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.
     
  20. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. And I don't impose those on others.
     
Loading...