Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/3/2005 2:58:50 PM EDT

My aunt came to visit over the Thaskgiving holiday and we got to talking about faith. She is Pentecostal through and through and she told me that her late pastor and now his son the current pastor of her church in St. Lewis refuses to marry inter-racial couples. Inter-racial couples can and are members and they can get married in the church but they both refuse to preform the ceremonies.

Is this racism and un-christian?
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 3:13:45 PM EDT

Is this racism and un-christian?


IMHO, yes.

Having said that, if you choose to marry someone from a different race, you DO have to accept that you're bringing a hardship on yourself, and your children, that needs to be considered carefully before marriage.

YMMV.

Link Posted: 12/3/2005 3:53:15 PM EDT
Brigham Young thought so. "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. " Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, page 110, March 8, 1863.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 4:57:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2005 5:00:50 PM EDT by DixieKnight]

Originally Posted By Kundry:
Brigham Young thought so. "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. " Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, page 110, March 8, 1863.



Yeah, I saw a peice on Steve Young being Mormon and they touched on that subject about blacks being of the devil and that they could be members of the Mormon church but could not be leaders or "pastors" but that the "church" had done away with that practice in the 60's or 70's?
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 4:58:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Is this racism and un-christian?


IMHO, yes.

Having said that, if you choose to marry someone from a different race, you DO have to accept that you're bringing a hardship on yourself, and your children, that needs to be considered carefully before marriage.

YMMV.




I guess I should have asked if the "pastors" are really "christians".
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 8:44:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DixieKnight:

Originally Posted By Kundry:
Brigham Young thought so. "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. " Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, page 110, March 8, 1863.



Yeah, I saw a peice on Steve Young being Mormon and they touched on that subject about blacks being of the devil and that they could be members of the Mormon church but could not be leaders or "pastors" but that the "church" had done away with that practice in the 60's or 70's?



It was sometime in the 70's that the then Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Mormon Church claimed to have had a Divine revelation that it would henceforth be OK with God if Blacks were allowed to hold the priesthood of the Mormon Church. The priesthood of the Mormon Church is something that, prior to that revelation, one had to be white, male and generally over the age of 12 to hold and it is considered necessary in Mormon doctrine to either hold the priesthood or be married to a holder of the priesthood to achieve any of the greater blessings of Mormon Temple ritual. Now the only restrictions seem to be sex and age for holding the priesthood. Until it changed, however, Mormon leaders seemed to be of the firm opinion that 'the seed of Cain' would never hold the priesthood of the Mormon Church. Consider these words from the book Mormon Doctrine written as late as 1966 by the Mormon apostle Bruce R. McConkie, "Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty." LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527, 1966 edition

The Mormon apostle Mark E. Peterson would, however, allow Negros that can afford them to drive Cadillacs. "Now we are generous with the negro, we are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it. Iwould be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves." LDS Apostle Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems - As They Affect The Church," Address delivered at Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 8:47:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 8:54:57 PM EDT
I guess it's up to them who they want to marry or don't want to marry. I guess it does seem racist, but it is their choice I suppose. If someone chooses to marry someone of another race.....then more power to them. That being said, I really don't see what would cause someone to marry into another race I think the women of my own are the hottest!!!
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 9:20:59 PM EDT
I have no clue.

I'd always thought that we're all equal, so it wouldn't matter. Then someone told me that since God had divided people at Babel that we shouldn't try to come back together.

Link Posted: 12/3/2005 9:49:30 PM EDT
WTF does race have to do with anything?

The pastor is a racist prick and needs to be eth(n)icly cleansed.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 10:10:13 PM EDT
I think it's racist.
Link Posted: 12/4/2005 8:43:44 AM EDT
Its racist and anti-Christian.

Link Posted: 12/4/2005 11:19:11 AM EDT
Sure it's racist.

While I don't think the ass-kicking would help, it's certainly worth a try!!hnCape Canaveral
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 3:45:48 AM EDT
That "pastor" is on dangerous ground.

He is using the pulpit to preach his personal bias, opinions, and general wrong-headedness.

There are warnings in the Bible about leading people astray, and that those who teach will be held to a higher standard of accountability.

Look up:

1 Cor 12:12-14

Galatians 3:27-29

Colossians 3:5-11
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 4:01:35 AM EDT
The marriage thing of the subject post is racist.

The fact that the Mormons didn't allow it, and now do just shows their true colors... not Christian. The Mormons are a cult that calls itself Christian... beware of those who add or take away from the scriptures and claim to do so in Christ's name.

Link Posted: 12/5/2005 4:33:18 AM EDT
Aaaahhh yess.. the paradox of pentecostals. The most sincere, faithful Christians that exist. As a whole, the most ignorant, hateful, judgmental sect in existence.

On behalf of Christians everywhere, I probably spend more time undoing the wrongs perpetrated by pentecostals than any other evangelical activity.

Considering that most 'pentecostal' ministers are about as educated as the driver of the hay truck they fell off of.... As a recovering Pentecostal, I'd be delighted to ask said pentecostal minister... "Are you familiar Samaria? As in the 'good Samaritan' Samaria?"

Samaria was a nation of intermarried Jews & Gentiles. Interracial marriage at it's finest ancient hour.

If both husband and wife are Christian, and have accepted Christ as their savior, been forgiven of their sins, and are in agreement to follow God's WIll and have a Christian home, then I fail to remember where any new testament (non Mosaic Law) scripture dealing with marriage requires both parties to be of the same race.

Now there's plenty of scripture dealing with the marriage of Christians and non-believers...
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 6:20:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
That "pastor" is on dangerous ground.

He is using the pulpit to preach his personal bias, opinions, and general wrong-headedness.

There are warnings in the Bible about leading people astray, and that those who teach will be held to a higher standard of accountability.

Look up:

1 Cor 12:12-14

    1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
    1Co 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.




Galatians 3:27-29

    Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
    Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
    Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.



Colossians 3:5-11

    Col 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
    Col 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
    Col 3:7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
    Col 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
    Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
    Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
    Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.





I agree 100%. I would like to add that inter-racial marraige is not un-biblical or un-christian but inter-faith marraige is. I'm not talking about catholic/methodist etc. I'm talking about christian/atheist, christian/muslim, or christian/pagan marriages.

    2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

    Deu 7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
    Deu 7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.



Shok
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 8:50:59 AM EDT
I think it's racist and UnChristian...
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 1:03:56 PM EDT
I think it is racist.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 2:35:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Top_prop:
The marriage thing of the subject post is racist.

The fact that the Mormons didn't allow it, and now do just shows their true colors... not Christian. The Mormons are a cult that calls itself Christian... beware of those who add or take away from the scriptures and claim to do so in Christ's name.




Interesting statement. Very interesting.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 2:47:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DixieKnight:

Originally Posted By Kundry:
Brigham Young thought so. "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. " Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, page 110, March 8, 1863.



Yeah, I saw a peice on Steve Young being Mormon and they touched on that subject about blacks being of the devil and that they could be members of the Mormon church but could not be leaders or "pastors" but that the "church" had done away with that practice in the 60's or 70's?



Joseph Smith actually started ordaining blacks to the priesthood but was commanded to stop. This command stayed in effect until the 1970's.

Kundry cracks me up a little in that he isn't even LDS, yet constantly cites old quotes of LDS leaders. I wonder why? Is Kundry now our representative of LDS docrine?

If you think the LDS Church is so racist, why don't you ask Gladys Night why she joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 4:02:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kundry:
Brigham Young thought so. "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. " Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, page 110, March 8, 1863.



Kundry,

It's interesting that you only took a snippet of Brigham Young's discourse. You forgot to include, "For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent."
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 6:27:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:
Joseph Smith actually started ordaining blacks to the priesthood but was commanded to stop. This command stayed in effect until the 1970's.

Kundry cracks me up a little in that he isn't even LDS, yet constantly cites old quotes of LDS leaders. I wonder why? Is Kundry now our representative of LDS docrine?

If you think the LDS Church is so racist, why don't you ask Gladys Night why she joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.



Given that Joseph Smith was allegedly the Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS Church, in allegedly direct contact with God, who commanded him to stop? Was it the voices in his head?

While I don't propose to be the official source of LDS doctrine, I do submit that I am more likely to give one a more complete picture of LDS doctrine than anyone who follows the guidance of the Mormon hierarchy concerning complete disclosure.

Consider this lecture, given in 1981 by Mormon Apostle Boyd K Packer titled The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than The Intellect where Packer is found to say the following:

“You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now.”

“Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer.”

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.”

“Some things that are true are not very useful.”


- Apostle Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect", 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271

Then there's Mormon Apostle Russel M. Nelson's attitute toward truth: "Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid."

Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks, a lawyer and former Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, holds what might, quite appropriately, be called a lawyer's fine distinction between out and out lying and the simple witholding of fact, or incomplete disclosure. In a fireside address given at Brigham Young University in 1993 Oaks condemns the bald faced lie as unjustifiable but defends the practice of incomplete disclosure.

"In short, my brothers and sisters, the subject of lying is clear-cut in a majority of instances. But there are a lot of situations where people are sometimes charged with lying where the charge is not well founded. You will read that kind of charge in the literature and in current commentary, as if a person were under a duty to tell everything he or she knew, irrespective of any other duties or obligations."

"I urge you who are lawyers and lawyers-in-preparation to be sophisticated as you think about these subjects. Be unqualified in your commitment to the truth. Be unqualified in your determination to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. But also be prepared for circumstances that may be painful and contrary to your personal interest and comfort where you must keep confidences, even if someone calls you a liar. It requires sophisticated analysis of the circumstances and a finely tuned conscience to distinguish between the situation where you are obliged by duty to speak and the situation where you are obliged by duty, commandment, or covenant to remain silent. " The full text of Dallin Oaks fireside may be found here.

I must admit that Dallin Oaks is sophisticated, or perhaps subtle, in his thinking. Wasn't the Serpent of Eden also said to have been more subtle than any other creature in Eden?

No, I do not propose to be the world's formost authority on LDS teaching. One is always free to look to the authorities of the LDS church for the truth as they see fit to disclose it, but I don't know that I'd buy a used Cadillac from any of those men. I have no personal knowledge concerning Gladys Knight's involvement with the LDS Church, but I bet that LDS authorities like Dallin Oaks, Russel Nelson, and Boyd K Packer didn't exactly stumble over one another to completely disclose any 'non faith promoting truth' concerning the Church's history to her.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 6:30:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 6:40:12 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Aaaahhh yess.. the paradox of pentecostals. The most sincere, faithful Christians that exist. As a whole, the most ignorant, hateful, judgmental sect in existence.



Alright, Ben.

Time for a trip to the woodshed.

I happen to BE a Pentecostal.

And while I can point to specific examples of dunder-headed rediculousness within the ranks of Pentecostal churches, it is HARDLY an accurate description of even the vast majority. I can point to similar idiocy in EVERY denomination, and in tons of independent churches too.



Considering that most 'pentecostal' ministers are about as educated as the driver of the hay truck they fell off of....



Most?? Dear heavens! Do you even know what you are saying? I dare say I know more Pentecostal ministers than anyone in the room, and the vast majority of them ARE educated and don't teach ignorant things like forbidding interracial dating. In fact, the overwhelming majority of them know what the Bible says:

" There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:28

Meaning that the racial seperations that exist in society have no place in the church! In fact, I just concluded a lesson series in my PENTECOSTAL church on 1st Corinthians based on the book "Divine Order in the Church" by DR. French Arrington (uneducated indeed!!) that dealt SPECIFICALLY with the idea that the artificial societal divisions of class and race and the like HAVE NO PLACE IN THE CHURCH.





As a recovering Pentecostal,



I think that explains it all right there. I don't know what kind of experience you had, but letting that color your outlook on all Pentecostals is wrong. You are classifying MILLIONS of GOOD people in the most awful way because of some bad experiences you have had.

I assure you that I have had more bad interactions with Pentecostals than ANYONE on this board. I have never let it color my outlook on all Pentecostals. It hasn't colored my outlook because for every bad person or looney tune I have met at a Pentecostal church, I have met dozens or hundreds who are the exact opposite.

In case you are unaware, let me show you what Pentecostals believe:

* In the verbal inspiration of the Bible.
* In one God eternally existing in three persons; namely, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
* That Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father, conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary. That Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. That He ascended to heaven and is today at the right hand of the Father as the Intercessor.
* That all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and that repentance is commanded of God for all and necessary for forgiveness of sins.
* That justification, regeneration, and the new birth are wrought by faith in the blood of Jesus Christ.
* In sanctification subsequent to the new birth, through faith in the blood of Christ; through the Word, and by the Holy Ghost.
* Holiness to be God's standard of living for His people.
* In the baptism with the Holy Ghost subsequent to a clean heart.
* In speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance and that it is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
* In water baptism by immersion, and all who repent should be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
* Divine healing is provided for all in the atonement.
* In the Lord's Supper and washing of the saints' feet.
* In the premillennial second coming of Jesus. First, to resurrect the righteous dead and to catch away the living saints to Him in the air. Second, to reign on the earth a thousand years.
* In the bodily resurrection; eternal life for the righteous, and eternal punishment for the wicked.


SPIRITUAL EXAMPLE
We will demonstrate our commitment to Christ through our practice of the spiritual disciplines; we will demonstrate our commitment to the body of Christ through our loyalty to God and commitment to His church; and we will demonstrate our commitment to the work of Christ through our being good stewards.

MORAL PURITY
We will engage in those activities which glorify God in our body and which avoid the fulfillment of the lust of the flesh. We will read, watch and listen to those things which are of positive benefit to our spiritual well-being.

PERSONAL INTEGRITY
We will live in a manner that inspires trust and confidence, bearing the fruit of the Spirit and seeking to manifest the character of Christ in all our behavior.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY
We will give priority to fulfilling family responsibilities, to preserving the sanctity of marriage and to maintaining divine order in the home.

BEHAVIORAL TEMPERANCE
We will practice temperance in behavior and will abstain from activities and attitudes which are offensive to our fellowman or which lead to addiction or enslavement.

MODEST APPEARANCE
We will demonstrate the scriptural principle of modesty by appearing and dressing in a manner that will enhance our Christian testimony and will avoid pride, elaborateness or sensuality.

SOCIAL OBLIGATION
It should be our objective to fulfill our obligations to society by being good citizens, by correcting social injustices, and by protecting the sanctity of life.


Nowhere in there is there license for racism, mysogeny, abusing anyone, gossip, slander, or any of the wrongs you may have suffered.

Those who do not conform to the image of Christ AREN'T HIS, whatever denomination they claim.

You ought to have encountered enough accusation by gross generalization on the site not to perpetrate it yourself!

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 7:49:05 AM EDT
Did I not leave room for exception in my first statement?

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 7:52:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wolfpack:

Originally Posted By DixieKnight:


Is this racism and un-christian?



Yes. That "pastor" needs his ass kicked.


(White guy married to a Philipina here)



White guy engaged to a filipina here and I agree that this "pastor" needs a new job.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 9:09:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 9:24:20 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Did I not leave room for exception in my first statement?




Yes you left room for exception.

What I am telling you is that leaving room for exception is unacceptable. The poor examples you cited ARE the exception, not the rule....

If I said that as a whole baptists are the most hateful, ignorant and fudged up people I have ever seen, people would RIGHTLY tell me I had lost it.

Ditto your statement.

I have met poor examples of Christianity in every denomination/theological identification there is out there. I have met wonderful examples in almost every denomination/theological identification. That's life.

There are half a BILLION Pentecostals world wide. You said that as a whole those half a billion Pentecostals (who are, by the way, your brothers and sisters!!!!) are judgemental hateful and ignorant!!! You aren't taking issue with specific bad examples, you are using the broad brush and insulting HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Christians, many of whom suffer persecutions reminiscent of what the first century church endured!

I am saying that you shouldn't sin against God and against MILLIONS of your brothers and sisters in Christ by saying such silly things. Do not revile what God loves!
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 10:21:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Did I not leave room for exception in my first statement?




Yes you left room for exception.

What I am telling you is that leaving room for exception is unacceptable. The poor examples you cited ARE the exception, not the rule....

If I said that as a whole baptists are the most hateful, ignorant and fudged up people I have ever seen, people would RIGHTLY tell me I had lost it.

Ditto your statement.

I have met poor examples of Christianity in every denomination/theological identification there is out there. I have met wonderful examples in almost every denomination/theological identification. That's life.

There are half a BILLION Pentecostals world wide. You said that as a whole those half a billion Pentecostals (who are, by the way, your brothers and sisters!!!!) are judgemental hateful and ignorant!!! You aren't taking issue with specific bad examples, you are using the broad brush and insulting HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Christians, many of whom suffer persecutions reminiscent of what the first century church endured!

I am saying that you shouldn't sin against God and against MILLIONS of your brothers and sisters in Christ by saying such silly things. Do not revile what God loves!



How am I sinning against God and millions of my brothers & sisters?

First of all, I initially called it a paradox citing their earnest passion and zeal. But I also cite their legalism, judgmentalism, and general approach to evangelical and worship methods as the basis for my disagreement. Yes, they are my brothers & sisters in Christ, which means that I certainly need to hold them accountable on many fronts.

I agree that there are demonstrably poor examples of Christians in every sect.

If you're referring to Pentecostals as directly descended from the events relating to the Azusa Street Revival, then I would disagree with you on a couple of items.

There aren't 1/2 billion Christians who can trace their denominational roots back to William Seymour and Azusa St.

Additionally, the core philosophy of Pentecostalism which requires speaking in tongues as the key evidence for Holy Spirit Baptism is unscriptural at best. I have attended many unrelated Pentecostal congregations throughout the nation from large to small. Backwater, tiny groups of 30 people, all the way to mega-church sized congregations of 4000 or more on a Sunday morning. This isn't an opinion of an unexperienced, uneducated nature.

A central theme was that of tongue speaking, and grandstand prayer lines which required a chaotic, disorderly display of demeaning, slobbering, frothing behavior. I've even been in more than one unrelated congregation which believed and promoted the practice of tongue speaking as even being an essential requirement for salvation.

Sorry, my bible doesn't teach me that I have to drool on my tie on Sunday morning while screaming nonsense to demonstrate gifts of the Holy Spirit. Yet, whenever you speak scripturally, Pentecostals tend to be very adament about the tradition and legalism.

J_W, i am not denigrating Pentecostals for being Pentecostals. I certainly agree with a dynamic relationship with Christ, outwardly charismatic expressions of worship, & gifts of the spirit, etc... But I cannot agree with how these things are put into an organizational methodology and practiced by Pentecostal denominations -- and the subsequent positioning of these sects as being the only, true Christian methods, etc... Then again, you're talking to someone who doesn't even believe in church buildings and 'ordained leadership' beyond the elder family member representatives of the congregation. I don't believe in head pastors, and I view PhD's in theology as being worth about as much as the paper they are written on.

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 10:36:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:



Both sides make good points.

Both are talking past each other just a bit, though.

Remember, 'pentecostal' includes at least 4 major denominations (UPC, AoG, CoG, CoGoP) and dozens of smaller ones.

FWIW, I've seen examples of some of the things BenDover mentioned. I think it hits the hardest for me because I was, as a child, always taught how 'devout' pentecostals were, so it really bothered me when I figured out that all churches had a huge portion of goats among the sheep, regardless of the sign on the door.

If it wasn't for some of the objections BenDover raises, I would probably be a member of a pentecostal church of some sort.

At any rate, this isn't the thread to discuss it in.......
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 10:50:05 AM EDT
Interracial marriage is a major step as it will have serious detremental consequences for the couple and their children. If you have no respect for your ancestors, it might be fine.
Your children might even get an affirmative action benefit out of it--as long as the current racial spoils system lasts at least.
My advice: don't do it; not for racial reasons but for common sense reasons.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 10:50:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 11:02:42 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By BenDover:
How am I sinning against God and millions of my brothers & sisters?

First of all, I initially called it a paradox citing their earnest passion and zeal. But I also cite their legalism, judgmentalism, and general approach to evangelical and worship methods as the basis for my disagreement.



And in so doing you are not accurately representing what Pentecostals believe! You are harping on millions of people based on a few excesses that you have seen, and it isn't right.



Yes, they are my brothers & sisters in Christ, which means that I certainly need to hold them accountable on many fronts.



It means you must be VERY careful in how you speak about them. Mistreating the body of Christ is a serious offense against Christ Himself.



I agree that there are demonstrably poor examples of Christians in every sect.

If you're referring to Pentecostals as directly descended from the events relating to the Azusa Street Revival, then I would disagree with you on a couple of items.

There aren't 1/2 billion Christians who can trace their denominational roots back to William Seymour and Azusa St.



There are 1/2 billion people in the world who identify themselves as Pentecosal or Charismatic. You have to understand that the Azusa street outpouring was not the ONLY thing happening at the time. 10 years before that there were people in the mountains of North and South Carolina who experienced the same thing. It also happened in places overseas around the same time period. It was more than just Azusa street...



Additionally, the core philosophy of Pentecostalism which requires speaking in tongues as the key evidence for Holy Spirit Baptism is unscriptural at best.



It is taught as the INITIAL evidence, not the "key" evidence, and that is a point of theological order that still does not justify the comments you made.



I have attended many unrelated Pentecostal congregations throughout the nation from large to small. Backwater, tiny groups of 30 people, all the way to mega-church sized congregations of 4000 or more on a Sunday morning. This isn't an opinion of an unexperienced, uneducated nature.



I was literally in Pentecostal churches before I was born. My family goes back 5 generations in Pentecostal churches.

I am telling you flat out: Your potrayal is inaccurate. If you had spent more time in Pentecostal circles than I have, or had done more research on the doctrines and teachings than I have, you would know how wrong your assesments are.



A central theme was that of tongue speaking, and grandstand prayer lines which required a chaotic, disorderly display of demeaning, slobbering, frothing behavior.



And if you had some experience with Pentecostal teachings, you would know that Pentecostal churches teach that everything is to be done DECENTLY and IN ORDER, just as Paul spoke of in 1st Corinthians. He gave specific guidelines that we Pentecostals take SERIOUSLY, even if certain individuals do not.

We have had our share of loonies show up in our services, but to classify our congregation by the occasional looney would be completely incorrect. You are making judgements based on passing familiarity while staring at glaring problems rather than looking at all the people in the Pentecostal realms that AREN'T raving loons.

And if I had my druthers, I would pick a church with a couple of hysterical women as opposed to a more "dignified" church that had quiet services that preach that God doesn't care about sin.



I've even been in more than one unrelated congregation which believed and promoted the practice of tongue speaking as even being an essential requirement for salvation.



That is not a classical Pentecostal teaching.



Sorry, my bible doesn't teach me that I have to drool on my tie on Sunday morning while screaming nonsense to demonstrate gifts of the Holy Spirit.



And Pentecostal teaching teaches no such thing. Besides which, do you hear the sheer arrogance in your statement? Do you think I go to church every Sunday drooling on my tie and acting like a lunatic along with the other members of my congregation? Again you are defining the whole by a few excessive examples and are thusly doing injustice to MILLIONS of people.



Yet, whenever you speak scripturally, Pentecostals tend to be very adament about the tradition and legalism.



Legalism?? Legalism is the LEAST of the problems in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles. Lawlessness is the primary problem I see....



J_W, i am not denigrating Pentecostals for being Pentecostals.



It sure as heck SOUNDS that way!



I certainly agree with a dynamic relationship with Christ, outwardly charismatic expressions of worship, & gifts of the spirit, etc... But I cannot agree with how these things are put into an organizational methodology and practiced by Pentecostal denominations -- and the subsequent positioning of these sects as being the only, true Christian methods, etc...



Who said they were the only Christian methods? Again, you are taking the excessive few and are using them to paint my picture, and the picture of millions of others who are nothing like what you describe!





Then again, you're talking to someone who doesn't even believe in church buildings and 'ordained leadership' beyond the elder family member representatives of the congregation. I don't believe in head pastors, and I view PhD's in theology as being worth about as much as the paper they are written on.



????????????

Then why complain about the "ignorance" of Pentecostals if you don't believe people with a PHD in theology know anything????

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 10:56:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Both sides make good points.

Both are talking past each other just a bit, though.

Remember, 'pentecostal' includes at least 4 major denominations (UPC, AoG, CoG, CoGoP) and dozens of smaller ones.

FWIW, I've seen examples of some of the things BenDover mentioned.



So have I. But I have seen far MORE decency and order than he apparently has, which is natural since I have been around it a lot longer and more deeply involved in it than he has.



I think it hits the hardest for me because I was, as a child, always taught how 'devout' pentecostals were, so it really bothered me when I figured out that all churches had a huge portion of goats among the sheep, regardless of the sign on the door.



I can find excess and stupidity in any denomination, and indeed in any church. It just so happens that some of the stupidity found in other churches isn't as intellectually objectionable.



If it wasn't for some of the objections BenDover raises, I would probably be a member of a pentecostal church of some sort.



One cannot allow the excesses of a few hold them back from what God may have for them. The simple fact is that the first century church was charismatic and full of the Holy Ghost. They too had problems with decency and order, (1st Corinthians chapters 12-14 anyone???) but they didn't reject what God wanted because a few people went too far.



At any rate, this isn't the thread to discuss it in.......



You deal with problems where you find them.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 11:32:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 11:44:10 AM EDT by BenDover]
J_W, while I spent many years away as a non-believer, my family also goes back 5 generations to the earliest days of Pentecostalism from the William Sowder's movement as he traveled up and down the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, planting churches even before Depression Era. The legalism of the Pentecostal movement is one of the key contributing factors to my having rejected Christianity as a whole for many years. Additionally, having been raised by a Pentecostal minister father who believed in the regular practice of "goin' visitin'", I've probably sat in 250 Pentecostal churches throughout the USA, from Florida, to Kentucky, to Alabama, to South Dakota and Missouri.

Mistreating "the body of Christ"? By demanding accountability for non-scriptural practices which are certainly perpetrated by more than just a small minority fringe of a sparse congregation or two?

Come on man. For having been around for that long in the movement, you must have run across a few beehive hairdos and other legalistic traditions in more than just a few isolated cases of extremism. This is demonstrative of some of the ignorance to which I speak. Furthermore, calling out such legalism and man-made traditions as many congregations have sought to push these things into doctrine is certainly better than mistreatment. You cannot manipulate doctrine to enforce women wearing skirts, bans on dancing, etc.... without maligning the true scripture.

And despite your claim that this isn't a widespread practice throughout many Pentecostal congregations, I am here to tell you that it is -- and not just in backwoods Kentucky congregations of 20 intermarried people who break out the rattlesnakes and strichnine during service either (although this is certainly the extreme destination of even branching off into this realm of legalistic order).

Legalism is certainly one of the biggest problems within the Pentecostal movement -- as it is with all religious movements. I would hardly attribute the term lawlessness to the rigid order to which many Pentecostal congregations are expected to adhere. This is why I have shed the notion of denominationalism or even formal congregant worship within a church building. Take the $90 million spent for the Palais de Joel Osteen and pay for some medical care for some poor people.

Please, do not make assumptions about what experience I have with traditional Pentecostal teachings. I am well studied in such matters. How many scriptures in Daniel would you like me to parallel as the prophetic within Revelation anyway?

My statement about drooling on my tie was not in response to tongue speaking in general. It is certainly a gift of the spirit, but isn't the only gift, and I wonder about the spastic, cartoonish, gyrations and frothing screams which often goes along with such activity. But, having missed the hairdos and dress, you've also missed the pew leaping tambourine beating alter calls that seem to be very common in many Pentecostal congregations (because that's what they did on Azusa St.).

Theology degrees mean nothing. Listening to and obeying God is all that matters. I consistently find that those who do this the best are hardly what I would consider to be 'leaders' in the church -- at least in regard to the pomp and circumstance which comes along with the peacock displays that I've personally witnessed on many a Pentecostal pulpit.

Arrogance within my statements? Not at all. A sincere, earnest desire that those congregations engaged in legalistic practices and false doctrines would abandon such things maybe.


ETA: For referential purposes... here's a Wikipedia entry about Wm. Sowders... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sowders
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 11:45:13 AM EDT

Take the $90 million spent for the Palais de Joel Osteen and pay for some medical care for some poor people.


Joel seems like a nice guy, but let's not be so liberal that we call his building a church.

His 'church' is merely a group of followers of a charasmatic individual (I use the word charismatic in the broader sense). Said individual sometimes teaches Biblically sound principles during his motivational speeches, but he is NOT an evangelist, he is NOT a preacher, and he needs to find himself a good Bible study class post-haste.

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 11:56:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 11:57:11 AM EDT by arowneragain]

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:


One cannot allow the excesses of a few hold them back from what God may have for them.




Don't prove Ben's point by being so arrogant as to ASSume that my reluctance to join a church who teaches what I believe to be incorrect (though benignly so, for the most part) doctrine is a matter of 'holding back what God has for me'. I have little regard for the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole, but I'm quite sure the little SBC church I'm a member of is where God wants me at this point in time.


The simple fact is that the first century church was charismatic and full of the Holy Ghost. They too had problems with decency and order, (1st Corinthians chapters 12-14 anyone???) but they didn't reject what God wanted because a few people went too far.



Well, part of it was, anyway. I wonder if that part went around shoving tongues down other churches' throats, so to speak, thereby creating unneeded division within the Body at large? Or maybe if they accepted that maybe tongues were NOT some sort of Christian rite of passage meant for every believer, and instead tried to focus on strengthening their common ground? How cool would THAT have been?



You deal with problems where you find them.



Some of us take things too far sometimes.

Hint, Hint.



Link Posted: 12/7/2005 12:11:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aristotle1:
Interracial marriage is a major step as it will have serious detremental consequences for the couple and their children. If you have no respect for your ancestors, it might be fine.
Your children might even get an affirmative action benefit out of it--as long as the current racial spoils system lasts at least.
My advice: don't do it; not for racial reasons but for common sense reasons.



Oh really? What might these "detremental" consequences be? Other than, of course, pissing off 88'ers...
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 12:22:53 PM EDT
With respect to the original topic, and racism, I refer everyone to Wikipedia's entry about Charles Parham, who is regarded as the father of the Pentecostal movement, and founder of Assemblies of God.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fox_Parham

Pay close attention to Parham's documented involvement with the KKK, and even his statements about his Christian brothers at the Azusa St. revival being a 'darky camp meeting'.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 12:39:13 PM EDT
I see interracial marriages as part of the globalization movement, and God always saw globalization (with the Tower of Babel, in the End Times, etc.) as evil. I definately see where the pastor could be coming from with his refusal to perform the ceremonies. If they're two Christians who feel like God wants them to marry each other, he should still perform the ceremony...
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 1:06:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:
J_W, while I spent many years away as a non-believer, my family also goes back 5 generations to the earliest days of Pentecostalism from the William Sowder's movement as he traveled up and down the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, planting churches even before Depression Era. The legalism of the Pentecostal movement is one of the key contributing factors to my having rejected Christianity as a whole for many years. Additionally, having been raised by a Pentecostal minister father who believed in the regular practice of "goin' visitin'", I've probably sat in 250 Pentecostal churches throughout the USA, from Florida, to Kentucky, to Alabama, to South Dakota and Missouri.

Mistreating "the body of Christ"? By demanding accountability for non-scriptural practices which are certainly perpetrated by more than just a small minority fringe of a sparse congregation or two?

Come on man. For having been around for that long in the movement, you must have run across a few beehive hairdos and other legalistic traditions in more than just a few isolated cases of extremism.



Indeed I have. I have seen lots of problems, too many to recount.

But I have seen far more than just the problems. The problems are glaring and attention getters, but the quiet folks who posess their vessels in honor and with charity and true Christian love don't tend to get the notice that the nutjobs do, now do they?



This is demonstrative of some of the ignorance to which I speak. Furthermore, calling out such legalism and man-made traditions as many congregations have sought to push these things into doctrine is certainly better than mistreatment. You cannot manipulate doctrine to enforce women wearing skirts, bans on dancing, etc.... without maligning the true scripture.



And if you will look at what I posted (which is DIRECT quotation of my church's declaration of faith and of our practical doctrinal comitments) you will see me attempting to do no such thing. You are making a mistake that is extremely common: Mistaking what some people represent as the rule and definition for what all who associate with the theology they claim represent. It just flat isn't right. The official positions of my church (which dates to 10 years BEFORE Azusa street) has NEVER had as its official doctrine that a woman wearing pants or makeup is a harlot bound for hell.

Yes I have seen the holiness hairdos. My grandmother STILL has one. Nevertheless, that is not part of the doctrine the church teaches and it is not what we represent. Individuals and individual congregations have indeed tried to ratify personal preference as scriptural doctrine, but it has not prevailed. The Word of God is, has been, and shall always be our guide, period.



And despite your claim that this isn't a widespread practice throughout many Pentecostal congregations, I am here to tell you that it is -- and not just in backwoods Kentucky congregations of 20 intermarried people who break out the rattlesnakes and strichnine during service either (although this is certainly the extreme destination of even branching off into this realm of legalistic order).



If you are referring to the practice of interracial marriage, you are again flat wrong! My church has NEVER taught against it! Some of our highest ranking officials are in interracial marriages, especially those who have been in the mission field!

If you are speaking of women not wearing pants, makeup, jewelry, etc, then you are still wrong. I have a goatee, long sideburns, and hair that touches my collar. Yes some people believe I am some sort of horror, but the church leadership and the SANE members of the churches don't share those opinions.

Legalism is NOT the core of Pentecostal doctrine, purpose, or teaching. Period.



Legalism is certainly one of the biggest problems within the Pentecostal movement -- as it is with all religious movements. I would hardly attribute the term lawlessness to the rigid order to which many Pentecostal congregations are expected to adhere. This is why I have shed the notion of denominationalism or even formal congregant worship within a church building. Take the $90 million spent for the Palais de Joel Osteen and pay for some medical care for some poor people.



Formal congregant worship within a church building is consistent with the practices of the early church.

Osteen, by the way, isn't Pentecostal. No Pentecostal preacher smiles that much. It makes my face hurt just watching the guy.

God expects us to be a contributing and faithful member of a local church congregation whose focus is on holding to Gospel truth and reaching the lost. That church can have a massive building and a bevy of paid staff, or it can be a small group who meets in someone's house. God can be in EITHER accomplishing His will. I can point to massive churches who are thriving because they are doing God's will and I can also point to small home churches that are nothing but bitterness clubs born out of rebellion and offense that will never accomplish anything.

Size doesn't matter to God. He loves the little churches as well as the big ones, and He works in BOTH.




Please, do not make assumptions about what experience I have with traditional Pentecostal teachings. I am well studied in such matters. How many scriptures in Daniel would you like me to parallel as the prophetic within Revelation anyway?



Your statments and the attitudes expressed are not charachteristic of those who have intimate familiarity with Pentecostal teachings and what we are all about. If you had a negative view of things when you were younger and then walked away from Christianity altogether only to return fairly recently, then perhaps a thorough re-evaluation of what you saw and the impressions you got is in order. I know from personal experience that everything looks much different when you are fully committed to God instead of running from Him and holding resentment for the Gospel's message.




My statement about drooling on my tie was not in response to tongue speaking in general. It is certainly a gift of the spirit, but isn't the only gift,



And Pentecostals have NEVER taught it to be the only gift. Specific individuals get nutty with the topic, but it's place in public worship is right alongside the other gifts and its purpose is the same as the other gifts: the edification of the church. Some people have a tendancy to get stupid with it (which is why we have 1st Corinthians 12-14....) but that is not reflective of the Pentecostal doctrines on the matter. It is reflective of people doing their own thing rather than submitting to scriptural demands, which is found on just about every matter in every church one could hope to name.



and I wonder about the spastic, cartoonish, gyrations and frothing screams which often goes along with such activity. But, having missed the hairdos and dress, you've also missed the pew leaping tambourine beating alter calls that seem to be very common in many Pentecostal congregations (because that's what they did on Azusa St.).



I have missed NOTHING. For instance, my Grandfather, a Pentecostal minister of 50 years, recounted a story of a service he held in revival for another minister. During his sermon, a person jumped up and began to run around screaming at the top of his lungs, "I'm the Lord's loose mule!!! I'm the Lord's loose mule!!!"

My grandfather responded by saying in an equally loud voice "No you're not! You are out of order and acting like a jackass!! Sit down and be quiet!!"

So no, I haven't missed anything. I have seen more siliness than you can shake a stick at. What I have NOT done is define all of Pentecostalism by those who are out of order.



Theology degrees mean nothing.



They do mean something. When coupled with genuine faith and a heart after God's they mean that a person has great learning on the original languages of scripture and that the person holding the degree ought to be heard on matters of exegis and doctrine. It is not the end all and be all of Christianity, but those who have studied to show themselves approved DO have some authority.



Listening to and obeying God is all that matters.



It would be mighty difficult to obey God if we could not translate His word from Greek. Thus the benefit of those who have spent many years studying the original languages and foundations of Christianity.



I consistently find that those who do this the best are hardly what I would consider to be 'leaders' in the church -- at least in regard to the pomp and circumstance which comes along with the peacock displays that I've personally witnessed on many a Pentecostal pulpit.



"Peacock" displays? Mercy. Again, you are defining the whole by the part, apparently unfamiliar with men like Lovell Carrey, Charles W. Conn, D.L. Moody, Smith Wigglesworth and a whole host of other Pentecostal folks who have gone about humbly witnessing to the world and winning people to Christ. Your broad brush catches those men too! That is why I caution you. Touch not God's annointed...



Arrogance within my statements? Not at all. A sincere, earnest desire that those congregations engaged in legalistic practices and false doctrines would abandon such things maybe.



There is nothing wrong with criticising or discussing legalistic excess. There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with painting an entire theological identification with the broad brush you used in your statements.

Again I beg you to get past whatever trauma in your past that has caused you to have skewed ideas and look AFRESH at the situation through the eyes of faith. Things look much different when one has humbled themselves before Christ than when they were a rebellious teenager seeking to escape the "opression" of the Gospel, or at least they have for me.



ETA: For referential purposes... here's a Wikipedia entry about Wm. Sowders... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sowders



I have heard the name before.

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 1:12:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Don't prove Ben's point by being so arrogant as to ASSume that my reluctance to join a church who teaches what I believe to be incorrect (though benignly so, for the most part) doctrine is a matter of 'holding back what God has for me'. I have little regard for the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole, but I'm quite sure the little SBC church I'm a member of is where God wants me at this point in time.



I said no such thing.

I was responding to Ben's ideas about excess being a reason for distancing one's self from a particular idea. He didn't make a doctrinal arguement, but one based on personal experience. That is the idea I was responding to.

You were looking for subtext where there was none.



Well, part of it was, anyway.



What part wasn't? Everywhere I look in Acts I see the gifts of The Spirit operating. Healings, miracles, signs, wonders, teaching, preaching, love, peace, joy...Those could be found in all the 1st century churches.



I wonder if that part went around shoving tongues down other churches' throats, so to speak, thereby creating unneeded division within the Body at large?



Huh? Who is "shoving" anything here?



Or maybe if they accepted that maybe tongues were NOT some sort of Christian rite of passage meant for every believer, and instead tried to focus on strengthening their common ground? How cool would THAT have been?



Again, what on earth are you talking about??





Some of us take things too far sometimes.

Hint, Hint.



Et tu???
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 1:16:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Muskrat:
I see interracial marriages as part of the globalization movement, and God always saw globalization (with the Tower of Babel, in the End Times, etc.) as evil. I definately see where the pastor could be coming from with his refusal to perform the ceremonies. If they're two Christians who feel like God wants them to marry each other, he should still perform the ceremony...



There is no scriptural basis, apart from a misapplication of an OT rule, for any doctrine or idea that a marriage between two Christians of different races is unacceptable. Moses had an Etheopian wife, after all, and God didn't raise any objections with Moses. God put the requirement about marrying within Israel for the Hebrews specifically because He wanted to keep them from idolatry.

That is basically the reason Paul said that believers should not be yoked together with unbelievers, because of the danger to the faith of the believer by having an unbelieving spouse. It was never about racial "purity". It was about dedication to Him and not polluting His way with pagan rites brought in by pagan wives.

If a black Christian man wants to marry a white/black/asian/hispanic/slavic/jewish/etc. Christian woman, there is absolutely no sin in it whatsoever, and I see not even the slightest NT grounds for anyone to assert that God would have any objection based on race alone.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 1:25:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:
With respect to the original topic, and racism, I refer everyone to Wikipedia's entry about Charles Parham, who is regarded as the father of the Pentecostal movement, and founder of Assemblies of God.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fox_Parham

Pay close attention to Parham's documented involvement with the KKK, and even his statements about his Christian brothers at the Azusa St. revival being a 'darky camp meeting'.



Who writes Wikipedia's articles?? Where do they get their facts? How sure are you that they are giving the absolute facts?

Are you asserting that the AOG stands for the sexual abuse of children, racism and all those other things??

Further, did the article mention anything about the sodomy charges against Parham being dropped becasue of lack of credible evidence???

Of course not.

So it makes one wonder exactly what agenda was fueling that Wikipedia article. Perhaps it was the same type of thing that defined AR15.com as a hangout for violent nutjobs that we campaigned to have removed????

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 2:56:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Who writes Wikipedia's articles?? Where do they get their facts? How sure are you that they are giving the absolute facts?

Are you asserting that the AOG stands for the sexual abuse of children, racism and all those other things??

Further, did the article mention anything about the sodomy charges against Parham being dropped becasue of lack of credible evidence???

Of course not.

So it makes one wonder exactly what agenda was fueling that Wikipedia article. Perhaps it was the same type of thing that defined AR15.com as a hangout for violent nutjobs that we campaigned to have removed????




I believe anyone that wants to can. Haven't you ever tried to look up on Wikipedia and had it tell you that there was no article for that topic, but you could write it if you wanted to?
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:33:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 3:38:03 PM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By Muskrat:
I believe anyone that wants to can.



Indeed, that was my entire point. One needs to take quite a lot of salt with Wikipedia definitions...



Haven't you ever tried to look up on Wikipedia and had it tell you that there was no article for that topic, but you could write it if you wanted to?



I think I might go edit the ARFCOM definition to see what mischief I can introduce...Something about ice cream trucks handing out uzis to children....
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 12:20:13 PM EDT
God did have something to say to Miriam and Aaronabout Interacial Marriages.

Numbers 12
1And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

2And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it.

3(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

4And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.

5And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.

6And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

7My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

8With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

9And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.

10And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.

11And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.

12Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb.

13And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.

14And the LORD said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again.

15And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.

16And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran.

Link Posted: 12/18/2005 7:12:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2005 7:14:04 PM EDT by Zarathustra1]
I think the pastor should be free to have any opinion about race he wants, and the biggots here who think differently should have their asses kicked...
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 2:36:41 AM EDT
There are a lot of Irish Catholic men marrying hot Catholic latina babes.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 3:37:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
I think the pastor should be free to have any opinion about race he wants, and the biggots here who think differently should have their asses kicked...



No one here is challenging the pastor's right to think what he wishes about race.

He is free to do so as an American.

He is NOT free to do so as a Christian. Being a Christian requires certain things of people, and if they are unwilling to at least try to live up to those demands then they should become something else.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 3:51:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
I think the pastor should be free to have any opinion about race he wants, and the biggots here who think differently should have their asses kicked...



No one here is challenging the pastor's right to think what he wishes about race.

He is free to do so as an American.

He is NOT free to do so as a Christian. Being a Christian requires certain things of people, and if they are unwilling to at least try to live up to those demands then they should become something else.



Point taken.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 4:00:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DixieKnight:
My aunt came to visit over the Thaskgiving holiday and we got to talking about faith. She is Pentecostal through and through and she told me that her late pastor and now his son the current pastor of her church in St. Lewis refuses to marry inter-racial couples. Inter-racial couples can and are members and they can get married in the church but they both refuse to preform the ceremonies.

Is this racism and un-christian?




Yes. Its all good.
Top Top