Interracial Marriage

tmjbog said:
I'm not sure Moses would agree. Guess he was just part of the contemporary movement.
Click to expand...
I don't think he would either. I'm surprised at the number of "trolls" there are on this board!
 
Strom said:
I guess Daniel 2:43 is missing from your Bible…or maybe you just decided to scribble over it with your crayons.
Click to expand...
You keep citing Bible verses and claiming you have the Bible on your side, without offering a shred of exegesis or proof. So I'm just going to assume you're just another subpar, low-IQ, inbred, Aryan bonehead. Go home, Kevin, put Finlandia on repeat, and chill out.
 
Last edited:
Strom said:
There’s no specific verse…
Click to expand...
Yes, you are rather vague and nebulous, aren't you?

That's OK. You don't have to actually provide any sort of support for your assertions. And I don't have to waste my time with them. Symmetry.
 
Strom said:
If you insist on literal interpretation, then fine. However, you are disregarding a millennia of precedent, culture, and the advice of thousands of biblical scholars and preachers, most of whom are founders of the colleges represented by these forums for which you moderate. A bit hypocritical, if you, huh (or in your case, aye)?
Click to expand...
I accuse you of being vague and nebulous, and you retort with something vague and nebulous.

It's a wonder I don't find your posts devastatingly persuasive. :ROFLMAO:

Are all your Aryan buddies as smrt as you?
 
Strom said:
“Troll,” “idiot,”…what else have you got? I’m basing my opinion on the Word and countless preachers of the Word. I’ll stick with centuries of biblical interpretation while you can stick with 21st century wokeism. By all means, think of some more ad homenim attacks while you sip on your Starbucks mocha latte
Click to expand...
I don't see any proof from "the Word" as you put it, backing you up. They weren't "ad homenim" attacks...but HONEST observations. You fit the bill, and telling the truth about your alleged "proof" is a necessity. You've so far said nothing that makes any sense!
 
Strom said:
A

re you suggesting that nearly 99% of all preachers up through at least the 1960s (preachers of all races) had their biblical interpretations wrong? Again, this isn’t about literal verses, it’s about interpretation.
Click to expand...
Which preachers in which countries? Interracial marriage does not seem to have been the issue in most of the world that it was in the U.S. The Catholic church never prohibited it. In Elizabethan England there wasn't a prohibition on it. And even in the U.S it was inconsistent. Most of the early laws prohibited marriage between black and white. It seems this was another effect of slavery. The earliest law I could find makes a white woman that marries a black man a slave. Seems like the government was grappling with what to do with slaves married to free men. Bans on interracial marriages between white-asian came much later when Asians had fallen out of favor. The preachers who bought into the idea that there is something wrong with interracial marriage were just being good servants to their government while at the same time feeding their own racist views. I think your "99%" number is greatly exaggerated. Their was great support among the churches for slavery particularly in the South. This doesn't mean slavery was right, it means those preachers/churches were more committed to keep the coffers full than to teaching the truth. Last state to officially remove the prohibition from their constitution was Alabama in 2000.
 
Strom said:
A

re you suggesting that nearly 99% of all preachers up through at least the 1960s (preachers of all races) had their biblical interpretations wrong? Again, this isn’t about literal verses, it’s about interpretation.
Click to expand...
I'm sahing that more were correct than you're giving credit to!
 
tmjbog said:
Interestingly Strom Thurman was not really against mixing of the races.
Click to expand...
You're correct...he definitely was not! The lake in the town where my wife and I are from (Augusta, GA) has what is known as "Clark's Hill Lake" on the Georgia side...but once you go out onto the South Carolina side...it's Lake Thurmond! He came down there several times and spoke with the Army Corp of Engineers about the "honor" that was being granted him! He made mention of his black daughter several times and seemed quite proud of her!
 
Sure if you want to limit the population to fundamentalist preachers in half the states of one nation at a particular point in history you might be right. But that's a far cry from 99% in all of the Christian world. So Scriptures prove it but I have to listen to Bob, Sr to figure it out?
 
Strom said:
My personal belief is that the government has no right telling anyone whom they can/can’t marry. I’m separating church and state in this argument and speaking strictly from a historical religious perspective. Also, we’re sticking to the US, I’m not going into Europe and South America. Now…you act as there were only an isolated two or three Deep South preachers who espoused these segregationist viewpoints. The reality is, my original number is probably very accurate. For example, is there even a single college represented on the FFF that didn’t promote the philosophy I speak of? Additionally, y’all are dead wrong because Scriptures were used to justify. Don’t believe me, listen to Dr. Bob Sr tell you in his own words from a chapel service. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...address-from-bob-jones-on-easter-of-1960/?amp
Click to expand...
I don't recall Maranatha holding that position at any time. Even in their beginning, there were some who were interracially married...
 
Strom said:
My personal belief is that the government has no right telling anyone whom they can/can’t marry. I’m separating church and state in this argument and speaking strictly from a historical religious perspective.
Click to expand...
And for entirely, ahem, separate reasons, a clergyman (even a "historically religious" one from the 1960s American south) has no business telling anyone whom they are allowed to marry, broadly speaking.

The Bible itself sets those boundaries. (See, for example, 1 Cor. 7:39).

Strom said:
Also, we’re sticking to the US, I’m not going into Europe and South America.
Click to expand...

No, "we" are not "sticking to the U.S." The United States is not the umpire of orthodox Christian practice. What an ignorant and parochial worldview that is.

William Carey repudiated the Indian caste system and allowed inter-caste marriages between Christians. This was biblical and right, and was a visible repudiation of anti-biblical, worldly divisions.

Strom said:
Don’t believe me, listen to Dr. Bob Sr tell you in his own words from a chapel service.
Click to expand...

Or not, because the man was a bigoted fool. I guess fundy patristics function in your mind as a substitute for actual biblical exegesis, by which you have yet to make any sort of case.
 
Strom said:
I guess it’s easy to win arguments when you have the privilege of calling people names and then blocking their ability to retort. 😬
Click to expand...
I didn't block your ability to retort, but if that's the excuse you want to use for your inability to provide a biblical case for your position, by all means, whine away.
 
Strom said:
Since you’re not a fan of Dr Bob Jones, we’ll shift to Billy Graham. Here’s a quote from CNN in 2018. (Let me know how many other people you need quoted.)
Billy Graham, who had refused to participate in the 1963 March on Washington, dismissed King's belief that protests could create a "Beloved Community" in America where even "down in Alabama little black boys and little black girls will join hands with little white boys and white girls."

"Only when Christ comes again will the little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children," Graham said after King's speech.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Graham believed the hearts of those in Alabama were too hard for reconciliation not that there was Biblical support for the segregation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top