I can't say one way or another since I have no first-hand experience. But I would surmise that this would be mighty powerful stuff (based upon the principle of X being a multiplier).
Posted on 11/30/2011 7:58:54 PM PST by TSgt
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A tiny all-white Appalachian church in rural Kentucky has voted to ban interracial couples from joining its flock, pitting members against each other in an argument over race.
Members at the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church voted Sunday on the resolution, which says the church “does not condone interracial marriage.” The church member who crafted the resolution, Melvin Thompson, said he is not racist and called the matter an “internal affair.”
“I am not racist. I will tell you that. I am not prejudiced against any race of people, have never in my lifetime spoke evil about a race,” said Thompson, the church’s former pastor who stepped down earlier this year. “That’s what this is being portrayed as, but it is not.”
Church secretary Dean Harville disagrees: He says the resolution came after his daughter visited the church this summer with her boyfriend from Africa.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I can’t quote the survey I read as it didn’t break down the numbers by sex, but I’m not surprised. Black women have a hard time finding mates because so many men are in prison or have lower paying jobs. It’s sad.
I can't say one way or another since I have no first-hand experience. But I would surmise that this would be mighty powerful stuff (based upon the principle of X being a multiplier).
rats, it won’t let me look
I've read that, and heard that, but here is the thing, you ever notice in most movies, the black girl (with maybe the exception of Halle Berry) rarely winds up with a white guy, and this is liberal leftwing hollywood which has no problem with a black guy and a white girl.
In real life, Halle Berry has strictly stayed with (some very bad) black guys. I think it might be more then anyone is willing to admit, or is they feel uncomfortable saying, black women may be that much more racist that any other group, more then anyone cares to or dares say.
FWIW, and this is only anecdotal, alot of the black women I have known, despite having boyfriends or husbands of their own, still spoke with anger and hostility when the topic of inter-racial marriage comes up, and not just strictly black/white or white/black.
“Blacks are more racist than Whites.”
~ Larry Elder, “The Ten Things You Can’t Say In America”
Yes, and it’s also due to the lack of available men for black women to date and marry. This doesn’t excuse racist bahavior on their part either. It’s an interesting psychological point that you mention.
I particularly don't care much about a group of people that says silly stuff, thus the vote of this church doesn't sway me one way or the other. I also see what you are trying to say, and someone can indeed meet the Gospel requirements of being a Christian and still say or do very silly things. It is by the Grace of God and acceptance of Christ that any person can be saved.
However, I wouldn't call what the church stated an offense to 'modern sensibilities.' It is far more than that ...it is directly false and thoroughly un-Biblical doctrine. This is not about being PC or non-PC ...it is just straight silly. Furthermore, it is not even Biblical to begin with (unless the Church has decided to omit Galatians 3:28 for example). It may come as a surprise to them, but the redemption of Christ is not based on the amount of melanin one has (or doesn't have) in their skin's epidermis.
Anyways, my point was that this is not about 'modern sensibilities' but rather something that is in the Bible. I agree with everything you are saying, and I also personally don't care what a group of people may think about me - I was only mentioning the modern sensibilities, because it is actually something that was important enough to make it in the Word. It is not political correctness but rather something that is not only not Biblical, it is false doctrine.
Galatians 3:28: 'In Him the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, slave and free man, male and female, disappear; you are all one in Christ Jesus.'
I especially like Barne's Commentary on that verse:
There is neither Jew nor Greek - All are on a level; all are saved in the same way; all are entitled to the same privileges. There is no favoritism on account of birth, beauty, or blood. All confess that they are sinners; all are saved by the merits of the same Saviour; all are admitted to the same privileges as children of God. The word "Greek" here is used to denote the Gentiles generally; since the whole world was divided by the Jews into "Jews and Greeks" - the Greeks being the foreign nation best known to them. The Syriac renders it here "Aramean," using the word to denote the Gentiles generally. The meaning is, that whatever was the birth, or rank, or nation, or color, or complexion, all under the gospel were on a level. They were admitted to the same privileges, and endowed with the same hopes of eternal life. This does not mean that all the civil distinctions among people are to be disregarded.
It does not mean that no respect is to be shown to those in office, or to people in elevated rank. It does not mean that all are on a level in regard to talents, comforts, or wealth; but it means only that all people are on a level "in regard to religion." This is the sole point under discussion; and the interpretation should be limited to this. It is not a fact that people are on a level in all things, nor is it a fact that the gospel designs to break down all the distinctions of society. Paul means to teach that no man has any preference or advantage in the kingdom of God because he is a rich man, or because he is of elevated rank; no one is under any disadvantage because he is poor, or because he is ignorant, or a slave. All at the foot of the cross are sinners; all at the communion table are saved by the same grace; all who enter into heaven, will enter clothed in the same robes of salvation, and arranged, not as princes and nobles, and rich men and poor men, in separate orders and ranks, but mingling together as redeemed by the same blood, and arranged in ranks according to their eminence in holiness; compare my notes at Isaiah 56:8.
There is neither bond nor free - The condition of a free man does not give him any special claims or advantages in regard to religion; and the condition of a slave does not exclude him from the hope of heaven, or from being regarded as a child of God, on the same terms, and entitled to the same privileges as his master. In regard to religion, they are on the same level. They are alike sinners, and are alike saved by grace. They sit down at the same communion table; and they look forward to the same heaven. Christianity does not admit the one to favor because he is free, or exclude the other because he is a slave. Nor, when they are admitted to favor, does it give the one a right to lord it over the other, or to feel that he is of any more value in the eye of the Redeemer, or any nearer to his heart. The essential idea is, that they are on a level, and that they are admitted to the favor of God without respect to their external condition in society. I do not see any evidence in this passage that the Christian religion designed to abolish slavery, any more than I do in the following phrase, "there is neither male nor female," that it was intended to abolish the distinction of the sexes; nor do I see in this passage any evidence that there should not be proper respect shown by the servant to his master, though both of them are Christians, any more than there is in the following phrase, that suitable respect should not be shown in the contact with the sexes; compare 1 Timothy 6:1-5. But the proof is explicit, that masters and slaves may alike become Christians on the same terms, and are, in regard to their religious privileges and hopes, on a level. No special favor is shown to the one, in the matter of salvation, because he is free, nor is the other excluded because he is a slave. And from this it follows:
(1) That they should sit down to the same communion table. There should be no invidious and odious distinctions there.
(2) they should be regarded alike as Christian brethren in the house of God, and should be addressed and treated accordingly.
You’re right of course; it is a bogus doctrine. What would be the point of inviting all manner of gentiles into a heretofore Jewish church, and then telling those gentiles that no, you have to segregate yourselves by skin color? Paul would have laughed.
I’m just saying that I’m not certain it has amounted to a fatal flaw with regard to salvation. The historical church is enough proof that God shows patience to a lot of guff, even inhumane guff. It isn’t literally infinite patience; an erring church will have to get right or fall apart.
I can deal with PC. It collapses with simple logical refutation. What is getting worse on FR is the gutter language that seems to be SOP for more and more posters.
Makes the board look juvenile.
I didn’t say that I believe it because I don’t. I was simply relaying my experiences with misinterpreted scripture growing up.
Geesh!
I have a mixed race family;
I agree it is poor theology, but So What?
It is their business. With church people vote with their feet and with their dollars.
May be an anomaly but my brother who is 51 years old now, just had his first child, who is half black, about a year ago.
He can't shut up about his daughter now any time I talk to him. She's a precious little girl but enough is enough. I attribute it to having become a first time parent rather late in life, while all his siblings have grown children now and even grand children, I and some of my siblings even have great grand kids already and it's old hat to us.
FWIW, I've read that Halle Berry was in a four year relationship with Canadian model Gabriel Aubry that, although it ended, produced a daughter.
I also see that for the past year she has been seriously involved with French actor Olivier Martinez
Democrats?
Charles Martel is believed by many analysts to have had several wives and concubines simultaneously ~ we all overlook that and continue to portray him as a Christian hero.
“has voted to ban interracial couples from joining its flock”
What a bunch of corn-fed toothless yahoos. Next they’ll be condemning Elvis’s music.
They ARE NOT BAPTISTS!
Or lead.
True. Sorry, forgot to put the quotation marks in there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.