quote:

---

Tearing down walls and building bridges: The Cross

The church surely would not exist today if God had not created a way to overcome divisions between Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free: "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the diving wall, that is, the hostility between us" (Eph. 2:11 ff.).

---

quote:

---

Jesus did, in one sense, come for the house of Israel, and said so. But obviously also came for the whole world. (Jn 3:16). John 3:16 is NOT just for Israel!

---

PoW,
Don't you remember that debate over dispensationalism with 1way and Bob and such? If we disagree and say that John 3:16 or the sermon on the mount or anything else before Acts 2, 9, 28, etc. (depending on the dispensationalist) then they will just say that we interpret Scripture wrong. You can't really have a meaningful argument.



Kyle Essary

quote:

---

Written: Tuesday, November 17 1998. Posted: Tuesday, November 17 1998. Section: Letters. Topic: General.


'We must also decry the simplification of Byzantium as "Greek". The Roman Empire was ecumenical. Whether Latin of Greek predominated in Constantinople, ours was a multiethnic empire, with the church willing to use the local language to convey the world of God. Thus were the Slavs and others converted to Orthodoxy and brought into the orbit of our Roman civilization. ... Entire libraries have been written about nationalism. But a curious element of most nationalisms is the way they combine distant memories with new ideas. In art, this combination of old and new is called "post-modernism", and state-builders are certainly "artists" in the most literal sense of the world. The genesis of nationalism involves selective memory, and in the case of the Orthodox countries, nationalism has favoured past periods of ethnic glory over the combined splendour of Orthodox civilization.

We lament this imbalance. Without the church, we of the Orthodox tradition can never have more than a lop-sided, skewed, and incomplete view of who we are.

The emphasis on national or ethnic heritage has had the effect of fragmenting the family of our ecumenical civilizations - from Russians and Georgians to Albanians and Romanians. This is particularly disturbing because nationalism is a phenomenon, with disastrous consequences.

The holy Orthodox Church searched long for a language with which to address nationalism, amid the strife and havoc this new idiology created in the Orthodox lands of Eastern Europe and for much of the 19th century. In 1972, the Holy Synod issued a definitive condemnation of the sin of phyletism, saying, "We renounce, censure and condemn racism, that is, racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds, and dissensions within the Church of Christ..."

Today, more than a century later, nationalism remains the bane of our ecumenical church. It is time for us to begin to reconcile nationalism and ecumenism. They are not mutually exclusive...'


from a speech by His Holiness Pat. +BARTHOLEMEW, Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch

source: http://www.patriarchate.org/SPEECHES/1993/Mnymosene-Nov12.html

---

quote:

---

Show me where it is sin to teach that each race should marry within that race. You can't.

---

You still haven’t answered the response to this that has been given several times. The Bible doesn’t exhaustively define the good or the allowable (show me it’s ok to paint, to kiss, to play football, etc.). The burden of proof is not on the reasonable people of this forum (“gravity exists”), but on the racist who wants to change the status quo (“gravity doesn’t exist”). Those are the simple rules of argument you need to learn and follow if you want to have a profitable discussion.

quote:

---

God STILL makes distinction between Jew and Gentile.

---

What is that distinction? What is it based on and what does it entail? Rb, please prove that through this distinction God forbids inter-racial marriage (between the THREE races, not Jew and Gentile) and elaborate on the inherent reason this is so(not that it bad because it ‘signals’ the end times; that’s a fallacious argument).

quote:

---

Paul states that when the NATION ISRAEL comes to believe in Christ that they will be GRAFT BACK IN, that they are the NATURAL BRANCHES and that gentiles are WILD BRANCHES.

---

Yep, Jews and Gentiles are different in certain respects. You’ve PROVED that....not that anyone has disputed it. Many people have, however, disputed the nature of those differences, the ones that you purport to prove: that is, races can’t mix. Please say that you understand the difference between “differences (have) exist(ed)” and “can’t mix”.

A useful exercise would be for you to bring up verses that speak to the relationship and co-existence of peoples in (whatever dispensation you believe we’re in of) the New Testament (in whatever version of the KJV you deem authoritative). Do they speak of unity only and exclusively in the way we are saved, or in other respects?

quote:

---

Rhetoric is a great tool to use on those that you disagree with but have no evidence to back it up.

---

Yes, you’ve evidenced this as well. Most especially when you lay out this type of haughty summation and then turn around and accuse dissenters of “grandstanding.”

quote:

---

NOTICE throughout this discussion it is "perceived" that racism = hate. PROVE THAT TO BE A TRUTH. You can't.

---

Let me clarify again in the hopes that you’ll respond rather than changing topics or changing tactics whenever you’ve clearly lost a point. NO ONE NEEDS TO PROVE A THING ABOUT RACISM EXCEPT YOU. The “ground” of this and all other civilized discussion this day and age is that racism is wrong and anti-Christian. As any first year debate student will tell you, people on this board don’t even need to address you until you’ve given a suitable reason to believe that they are wrong. I don’t have to PROVE the earth is round until you’ve given me good reason to consider it’s flat. Otherwise, I’m just wasting my energy.

Here are your your attempts on these threads to do so, I believe:

#1

quote:

---

Hmmm, MLK a mighty man of God? How could this be? Let's see what has come about since his "reformation".
Drug use UP!
Out of wedlock births UP!
Education DOWN!
Black on Black crime UP! (murder, rape, etc.)

---

Post hoc, propter hoc fallacy. Average black income and college graduation rates may have gone up and the rate of serious disease infections may have gone down (except AIDS which is up across the board). Is MLK responsible for those?

Regardless, sequence doesn’t mean causality (or to use your tactic, “PROVE that he is RESPONSIBLE for these things. YOU CAN”T!” See how silly and unproductive that is?)

#2

quote:

---

I know, "There is no difference", "There is neither jew nor gentile, male nor female", but the context that you will try to put those in is wrong. Clearly you can look around and see that there are definitly male and female. The same Paul who wrote those also stated that an elder in the Church must be a male, that women are to keep silence while teaching in the church is going on when there is a mixed audience. The only thing that we are the same in is that we are sinners in need of a savior. AND God accepts anyone who believes the Gospel as presented in Romans 10:9-13 and 1 Cor. 15:1-4.

---

What this ‘proves’ is that all are sinners and need a savior (no disagreement from anyone). What you haven’t PROVED is that this is the ONLY “thing we are the same in”. Please proceed.

#3

quote:

---

Was God wrong for seperating those at the Tower of Bable? Was he wrong to seperate out Israel? Is he wrong for seperating those of us who have believed Paul's Gospel? Will he be wrong to deal with Israel in the future?

---

This is getting close to a legitimate argument (reasons to begin a discussion), although at this point it’s only a series of rhetorical questions. If you can show that Babel related to the 3 races of man the same way that God relates to Israel and find a proscription for how we should treat each other, you might be in business. The ‘Paul’s Gospel’ question is a throwaway on the race issue. But most importantly, does God ‘dealing with Israel’ entail that miscegenation between “Negroid” and “Caucazoid” is wrong?

**btw: anyone remember the cartoon “Freakazoid” on Wb? Great cartoon.**

quote:

---

So racism is a sin? I have read the King James all the way through and missed that one. If racism is a sin, then Jesus was a sinner, for he said he came ONLY (but) for the house of Israel. Do you still want to stand by that statement?

---

The Messiah’s relationship to Israel is equivalent to one human’s relationship to another? Huh? Is this entire debate predicated on your conflation of the God/Israel relationship and human/human relationships? Yes God does(did) some things differently toward Israel than he does toward other peoples. Please elaborate on how this invalidates me as a white man having a child with a black woman.

Also, a typical trick of racist ideologues is to define racism as ‘treating races differently’ or ‘believing there are differenences between races’. Thus, by carefully defining my terms, I make God a racist, and make racism good. “Woe to those who call evil good…”

quote:

---

Even though it is politically incorrect to be racist today, if a racist treats others the way "he" wants to be treated, with respect, etc., but believes that races should not mix, is he sinning? If so, please explain how.

---

Begging the question. I could and others have explain how, but you’re the one in dissension with common sense here. Once you get beyond assuming what you’re trying to prove, I’ll revisit this and we might have a lively discussion.

#4

quote:

---

Salvation is not marriage. If you are saying that there is neither Jew nor Greek to mean such, he (Paul) also said "neither male nor female" care to carry what you are saying out to the utter end? You see the problems that occur when you try to mingle philosophy of the day with the word of God?

---

Actually, I see these kinds of problems in your arguments more than in the other posters. By your logic (in #3 above), I am to treat Israel the way Jesus did, and act as its Messiah (Jesus came for the Jews, therefore...). Obviously you are filling in logical gaps with your ideological assumptions. There might be some links there, but we may never know at this rate.

#5

quote:

---

I'll just take your ignorance of the text as the reason that you are pushing something that is not there. The episode of the sheet in no way endorces mix-race marriage, it shows that the gospel had gone to the gentiles. You obviously want to gloss over the ultimate end of what you are saying. Jesus came for the house of Israel, the house of Israel rejected him, until that time, the jews were his aim, thus his "I would have gathered you" statement. The only other alternative to your assertion is that Jesus taught Peter universalism, which is madness.

---

Two ad hominems in one post! Doesn’t make your logic sound, tho. You obviously want to gloss over this, but even if we accept everything in this post, it doesn’t explain why “mix-race” marriage is wrong. Maybe I can make this clear to you with another example: Jesus came first to a certain town, then he went to other towns. That doesn’t mean, logically, that people from that town shouldn’t marry people from another town.

#6

quote:

---

Your grandstanding on unstable sand! The gospel to the gentiles states that all can be saved. That is a given. But the rest of your rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. It has NO support in scripture.

---

“Hello pot? This is kettle. You’re black.”

quote:

---

I don't know where this unfounded association of not believing in race mixing (race indicating the three lines of men that came out of Noah's sons.).

---

Please explain/quote chapter and verse why his sons constitute different races, what this has to do with Jew/Gentile, and where God prohibited the sons’ descendents to intermarry in perpetuity.

quote:

---

I know that this is very unpopular IN THIS COUNTRY right now, but it is not so in other countries. Look at Israel, or Turkey, or China, or Japan. race mixing is still looked down upon in those countries.

---

So MAN teaches that racism is ok in these places. So what? If you snap on MLK for consorting with communists, why are you citing China as a beacon of Truth? And are you seriously offering up Japan as an example of a godly Christian nation? Care to rethink this?

#7

quote:

---

So there are not an original 3 races from Ham, Shem and Japheth? That is interesting.

---

Use your own criteria: CHAPTER AND VERSE on this bro. Gives some reason to believe that his sons became the only 3 and for 3000 years distinct human races, and that this is relevant today.

quote:

---

God teaches inter-racial marriage? Numbers 38:8, Gen. 24, Gen. 27:47, 28:1, 28:8.

---

Umm, reference check please: Numbers 38:8? Gen 27:47? Are these KJV insertions? Gen 24 argues what?

Gen 28:1 (which actually exists, mind you) does show that Isaac forbade Jacob to take a Canaanite wife and to marry his cousin instead. So everything that Isaac did and said is directly inspired as the Law of God? We should all be marrying our cousins then?

Arguments like this can only be born of 2 things: ignorance or hostility. You are either foolish or you are trying to anger and frustrate people. I’m difficult to fool and even harder to anger, so please, go on with your bad self.

quote:

---

I have clearly displayed that if Galatians 3:28 teaches inter-racial marriage, it also teaches homosexual marriage. That is NOT what it teaches at all, it teaches that all must come the same way to Christ.

---

This particular scripture teaches about our relationship to each other as a body. I challenge you to present scriptures that teach about marriage or Christian relationships and that argue for the validity of segregation of races today.

quote:

---

To refuse to give references to support what you teach is a clear violation of 1 Peter 3:15. You can believe what you want, that is between you and God, but what I am objecting to is using verses out of context to support your belief, it is not a safe thing to do.

---

Fair enough (barely--we dont' have to argue about everything, merely about the Good News message), but citing verses that aren’t actually in the Bible (e.g. Numbers 38:8) doesn’t count. Also, it’s not enough to say a verse supports your point, you have to explain the logical links. Heck, at this point I’ll settle for any reasonable connection whatsoever.

#8

quote:

---

MAN also teaches that abortion is NOT wrong, that DRINKING ALCOHOL is OK, that being "fundamental" is wrong, that Homosexuals are not "sinning".

---

quote:

---

Well, sorry that you FEEL that way POW, I remember reading about the "oids" in my 5th grade social studies book in PUBLIC SCHOOL.

---

Ok, so everything they taught in your 5th grade social studies was inspired by God?

If I wanted to be as sophistic as you’ve been, I could ask you to PROVE (all caps makes it seem important!) that drinking alcohol is a sin. Just as people PROVE that the Bible writers aren’t against homosexuality, other people, being clever, have the ability to twist words around, take things out of context, explain that the ‘clear meaning’ can’t be the clear meaning, about racism.

Regardless, since you’re arguing none of those things, the fact that Western society legalizes abortion, drinking and homosexuality doesn’t matter much. They could be wrong on all those and right on this one.

Rb, if you want people to take your ideas seriously, you can’t argue that “MAN teaching X” validates an idea one minute, and invalidates it the next.

Or, if you’re saying that MAN was right then but not now, or right about this but not that, you need to do more than make the assertion.

#9

quote:

---

Acts 17:27 states that there are boundries that God set up.

---

Really, it is hard to argue with non-arguments. Acts 17:27 states no such thing, Acts 17:26 says almost the opposite.

quote:

---

Genisis 9:27 has something to say, but, will you believe it?

---

I believe it does have something of minor relevance to say. Will you PROVE it shows that mixed-race marriage is against God’s plan for Christians today?


*sigh* At this point, I’m not sure what anyone’s arguing against, except for shadow puppets and bald assertions. I’ve scoured these two threads to find some substance to your stance, and this is as close as I can come:

quote:

---

Since MAN teaches (today) that seperation of the races is WRONG, then it MUST be sin.

---

Perhaps you’re actually getting some much needed clarity and solidity to your argument. You’re against intermingling of the races only in marriage, is that true? In other words, all the races are equal in value and position before God, but the sin is mixing them in matrimony? I also take this to mean “in marriage, through procreation” since you clearly don’t mean mixing socially—eating dinner with, conversing with, and living among each other, right? You’ve admitted to doing all these things.

Perhaps, as an aid to discussion, you can explain why we can socialize with other races in all other ways except in child bearing (and presumably marriage). Would a childless marriage between races be sinful in God’s eyes?

I’d also ask you (or others who find it useful) to go beyond the scriptures and bring your reason to bear on this issue. What could be God’s purpose in keeping the races apart today? Why is it a good thing? Why was it not a good thing before Noah to have races? Why would billions be “marked” by Canaan’s one act for perpetual inferiority and slavery and why would that one 'mark' be the umpteen 'unique' charactertics of the Negroid (assuming this is where rb is heading)?

Terry




Edited by - terry_baxter on 03/03/2002 05:36:42 AM

quote:

---

Rb: The one that states that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, also states that there is neither male nor female

---