Back when the world was more oriented in a right side up way than it is now, racism was a short-hand way of describing the mental outlook of the bigot — and everybody knew what a bigot was also. Racism was a descriptive term, and I did not mind describing racism as a sin against God — which I have done for many decades now. And if we are using normal old school definitions, racism really is a sin against God.
But we have gotten to the point where the word is not only useless, but is also pernicious. It covers pretty much everything now — from microagressions to expressing the view at Tea Party Rallies that budgets should balance. Racism is, as a wit once explained, winning an argument with a liberal. It has become pernicious because if “racism” is a sin, then “prejudice” is also, and if “prejudice” is a sin, then “discrimination” is also. And the racism, and the prejudice, and the discrimination float over the perpetrator’s head like an inchoate cloud of undefined but still untoward thoughts. And this is how we have gotten to the the point where a person is thought to be messed up if he discriminates about anything.
Now when racism really is a sin, what is sinful about it? The Bible doesn’t ever describe racism as a sin. What has to be present in order for the sinfulness to be present? There are two sinful elements in real racism, and this is where the sin resides. The two sins are vainglory and animosity. Racism would be racially-based vainglory and racially-based animosity. The Bible describes vainglory and malice as sinful in multiple places, and if people give way to these sins it doesn’t much matter what raw material they use.
Some are vainglorious about their looks, or education, or nationality, or regional sports teams, and some are vainglorious about their race. The vainglory is the sin.
Others are hostile and malicious, and their animosity is directed at others on the basis of looks, or education, or nationality, etc. The malice is the sin.
I would urge Christians to stop using the phrase “racism is sin,” and instead start saying that “racial vainglory is sin” or “racial animosity is sin.”
When it is stated this way, it is evident that the problem is a moral one, and that the solution is repentance and forgiveness. Only Jesus can remove vainglory and hatred. If one laments the problem of racial prejudice, that is a problem that you might be able to remove with the program. Education to the rescue.
I think this is very useful. But how ought we to describe systems, as opposed to people, that are racist? For example, a system deliberately set up to give one race undeserved preference over other races.
Sounds like the people deliberately set it up to be vainglorious or malicious. Am I thinking right? I think!
I’m not sure. I thought about Ben’s comment above, and I think he is right about something. I think the tendency to promote one’s own children, one’s own family, one’s own group, is probably hardwired into us. I would not call that malicious or vainglorious, although it can become both if we don’t recognize this tendency and control it.
In my opinion, what you’re describing is not racism but in-group preference. An example of this is when blacks advocate for anti-discrimination laws or affirmative action .They don’t do this out of hatred or vainglory, but rather to advance the cause of their own group. Every group does this in one way or another, and it’s a perfectly natural part of being human. Of course, positive thoughts and feelings about your own group can very easily drift into corresponding negative thoughts and feelings about outsiders.
Unjust (if it is)
You’re just asking for out-of-context aren’t ya?
The Wilson Police have been notified.
I wish Pastor Wilson would write more about vaingloriousness in general. So often its manifestations strike me as childishly innocent rather than sinful. For example, every child in a healthy family believes that its house is the nicest, its mother the prettiest, its food the most tasty, its father the smartest. Is it inherently wrong to transfer that belief to one’s community, one’s country, and one’s ethnic group as long as that belief is never used to oppress others? My nuns specialized in keeping us humble, yet even they did not encourage us to deny the existence of actual gifts.… Read more »
That hypocritical simulation of humility is so charming compared to straight vainglory. I don’t think the word “vainglory” is going to catch on though. It expresses a concept that’s against the rules to think. It would be interesting to compare what’s actually wrong with racism with what people who level the charge think is wrong with it.
every child in a healthy family believes that its house is the nicest,
its mother the prettiest, its food the most tasty, its father the
I am of the opinion that those children are correct.
They are not correct. They are showing a proper natural affection but in a flawed, childish way.
When they mature, they should be able to feel and express natural affection according to just measures rather than prejudice. “My mother isn’t the prettiest, but she is lovely and I prefer no mother’s face to hers. My father isn’t the smartest, but he is a good, gifted, and wise man whom I am glad to call my father. Our food, however, is the tastiest — I’ve had a chance to compare.”
It is flawed and childish, but it seems infinitely preferable that a child should think that way rather than be critical of his family and envious of the neighbors. I think it is not simply a question of adjusting your assessments to be more realistic; it is also coming to realize that everyone feels that way about his loved ones, and a good thing too.
I agree with that — that’s why I called it a “proper affection.” I am just taking issue with the statement that they are “correct.” The impulse is correct, the application is not.
“When I was a child, I
spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.
When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” 1 Corinthians 13:11
I would urge Christians to stop using the phrase “racism is sin,” and instead start saying that “racial vainglory is sin” or “racial animosity is sin.”
I am going to pull a Dunsworth on you here.
I would urge is better expressed as I urge
As to the point. bravo.
It bypasses the language and idioms of the enemy and roots the argument firmly in Scripture.
Hi, Timothy, I think it is probably easier to say what it is not. I don’t think it is a fondness for one’s own people, or a desire to marry a blue-eyed blonde rather than a Samoan, or a belief that the British write better poetry than the Chinese (or vice versa). Nor do I think it is innocent micro-aggressions (new buzzword for me, proudly used for the first time) that in the past would have been dismissed as thoughtlessness or unintentional rudeness. My darling mother of 96 could not understand why Crayola changed the name of a crayon from… Read more »
1.the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors… Hi Jilly. The debate has moved. I think the better arguments are made by those who argue this is true…but… and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others “superiority” is the word . A black man from Kenya will win most (all) marathons. A Russian will lift more weight. We can look at each and rightly call each feat “superior” and then notice that certain peoples do certain things better than others. That is one definition of “superiority”. There is another. It stands in… Read more »
“God overthrew that crap at the Cross.”
LOL! I love that phrasing.
Racism is sin. The Confederate flag is THE symbol of racism. It is more than that, but it is not less than that.
” The Confederate flag is THE symbol of racism” – for those who believe comic book history and all of the headlines at Yahoo News.
Back in the 1970s, it was on cars on TV shows and flow at rock concerts. It was even prominently displayed on a t-shirt from a local radio station (one of my older siblings owned the shirt). Neither blacks in general nor civil rights activists cared about any of this. But now it’s “THE symbol of racism” because gosh golly, Jack Bradley, the SBC and most of the internet says so.
I’m not buying it.
More than the swastika?
You mean for those who believe comic book history and all of the headlines at Yahoo News
No one should have an opinion about the NSDAP until they have first read Mein Kampf or have watched “The Greatest Story Never Told”.
The Documentary “Hellstorm” should be mandatory viewing for all public schools.
The Confederate flag is THE symbol of …vainglory
The Confederate flag is THE symbol of …malice
I hope you are being sarcastic. I disagree with flying the stars and bars. But many fly it for reasons other than to express “racism” (animosity or vainglory). I think we should be respectful of how people see it and not fly it. I think flying it is never an act of love, but refusing to fly it may be such. Its kind of like eating meat sacrificed to idols. Its not wrong in itself, but if it causes another to stumble, don’t do it. Its not wrong to have a glass of wine at your meal, but if it… Read more »
mkt has the best point. If it was a symbol of racism, then since it became that symbol it would have stood for that. The swastika ever since World War II has stood for that, so it is a bad symbol. The confederate flag has only recently become that symbol.
Only recently? Lance, you can’t be serious.
I’d really like to see you whitesplain that to our black fellow citizens.
Hmm, this is incomplete somehow. Hatred is a bit more complex than vainglory and malice. I think to goes back to thou shall not murder. To erase someone,to render them invisible, to mark them as inferior and not quite human, is to attempt soul murder. It is to erase someone’s status as a child of God, made in His image, so it is a kind of theft against what has been designated Holy by God Himself. Blasphemy, I’m going with “racism is blasphemy.” The problem in the world being people think nothing of blasphemy anymore and racism has been so… Read more »
I think that malice covers hatred.
And why can a black woman not be racist?
“And why can a black woman not be racist?”
Because racism requires systematic, institutional, power behind it. And individual without power cannot be racist, they can only engage in prejudice or at best some bigotry. That is why an old man sitting on his back porch making derogatory remarks is not a racist. There is no power and control in the equation.
Malice is simply wrongful intention, ill will, a desire to do evil. Hatred is a passionate and intense loathing, deep or extreme emotional dislike. Malice is not synonymous with hatred.
This is exactly what I keep telling patriarchalists. Racism is blasphemy against egalitarianism.
“Racism is blasphemy against egalitarianism.”
Hmm, well I suppose if you worship the god of egalitarianism rather than the God of the patriarchs, Issac, Abraham,and Jacob, that would be true.
So the black female in charge of med school admissions–who openly discriminates against white males–doesn’t have systematic, institutional power? Yes, such a lady exists and has steered members of my family into a different profession. What about the black female manager who likes to promote her own kind…especially sorority sisters? Yep, I’ve run into her as well. Not to mention the hateful, race-baiting Loretta Lynch…in the position of Attorney General.
What a bunch of tripe. I hope you weren’t being serious.
“So the black female in charge of med school admissions–who openly
discriminates against white males–doesn’t have systematic,
Did I say anything at all about a black woman in charge of med school admissions? Nope. Did I say anything about her not having systematic institutional power? Nope.
The only tripe is your usual knee jerk emotionalism and reading comprehension issues.
No, you said a black woman can’t be racist because “Because racism requires systematic, institutional, power behind it.” No context, no qualifications. It was a dimwitted statement. Not surprisingly, you go back to projecting your own errors (emotionalism and reading comp…please!) on someone else.
I never said a black woman couldn’t be racist. If I’d known it was you I was trying to communicate with, I would have used stick figures and cave drawings, not actual words.
Hey! Play nice!
So by an accident of birth when I am prejudice I am also guilty of the sin of racism but a minority person is only guilty of prejudice?
By virtue of the colour of my skin my sin is greater than that of a black man? Are blacks not as morally culpable?
Can only a man be sexist?
I never mentioned birth, minority status, or the alleged virtue of your skin color. Nor did I say the man on the porch was white.
But along with blasphemy, vainglory, and malice, I think we should now add envy. I don’t mean that personally, but racism always involves an immediate comparison as if to say, “they have rights and status I don’t.” So to be racist is not only about vainglory, but also to be envious, fearful, convinced we are lessor than. Shame not pride.
So racism is prejudice applied in an area where you have an influence over another person?
(I read your “institutional” and “systematic” as applying to cultures, not individuals)
Yes, racism involves power and control. “Institutional and systematic” usually involves the full force and power of the state.
In my area whites are the majority. My skin is white. So are my prejudices also racist because by an accident of birth I am classified in a majority (dominant) group? Or only if my prejudice has a negative effect on another?
Can the said black admissions officer above be racist as she is using her power even though she is not part of a dominant subculture?
I think there has to be some distinction made between systemic racism such as that demonstrated by organizations or reflected by structures and policies, and individual racism. We use the word far too freely. I believe that all of us are racist in the most general sense–I don’t see how any human can reach adulthood without developing preferences, opinions, and beliefs based on generalized observations of other groups. In my household, my own dear daughter functions as the Racism Police (also the Sexism, Classism, GBLTQ, Animal Rights, and Fashion Police). I have learned from personal experience that there is no… Read more »
I think there has to be some distinction made between systemic racism such as that demonstrated by organizations or reflected by structures and policies, and individual racism.
Nah. They’re both nonsense. Just buzzwords people employ in an attempt to disguise their hatred of white people and Western civilization.
We will never agree on this, but nonetheless… Can you concede that a person can enjoy the benefits of Western civilization, can in fact appreciate his heritage, without seeing the white race as endangered or under siege? Can someone like me appreciate Western art and literature, like my English heritage of lyric poetry and Yorkshire pudding, and be extremely fond of the countless Brits in my extended family, yet have no desire to pull up the drawbridge and kick out the non-whites? Is it possible for me to conclude that I have more in common, on every important value and… Read more »
Of course it’s possible. Millions of whites do those very things. Just as millions of white people believe that two men should be able to get married.
But it’s still lunacy.
Envy poisons everything. I sometimes think we are not as conscious as we should be of how envy can take over our thoughts.
I think it’s a real problem because what we usually envy is other people’s perceived power. In Christ we have access to all the power we could possibly need, so if we are feeling separated from Him in some way, it is far more productive to ask “why,” rather than fearing or hating others who we think are hogging all the favor. “Racism” has become a form of weaponized envy and created a great deal of havoc in the black community. Those who managed to escape the social engineering and to achieve success have often leaned heavily into Christ, rather… Read more »
I would say that denying the humanity of another person is also a sin, and by humanity I mean the aspect of having the full value of a being created in the image of God.
Yeah, like liberals do to Trump and his followers.
Trump is a liberal
No, he’s a populist or paleoconservative. Pssst… there’s more than two options.
This is pious sounding gibberish.
OK? Good for you, I guess.
If you would like to present a coherent argument, then please do, but don’t pretend that your childish outburst matters in the least.
If you would like to present a coherent argument, then please do
You go first. Emphasis on coherent and argument
Do either of your dads know you’re playing on the computer?
I just read through this discussion since you decided to not continue our conversation and, simply put, you’ve presented yourself as quite the racist. You constantly have tried to excuse your bigotry with vague mentions of past man-made traditions and totally out of context Biblical quotes. You’re like the homosexual who desperately tries to prove that the Bible approves of their homosexuality.
You even got an upvote from Dunsworth!
Dunsworth is the real racist!
I had to look that up.
Don’t feel bad, jilly.
I had to look it up the first time I saw it, too.
But now that you know, you can comment like a pro!
As long as I don’t unintentionally say something improper. I can foresee a time when I will decide to shock everyone with something that makes them stare at their keyboards in disbelief. But I want to make sure that I do it intentionally.
If a white man tells his daughter that he doesn’t want her dating a black guy she met, because he doesn’t approve interracial marriage, has he denied the humanity of the black guy?
Not necessarily. But a modern girl is likely to ask why her father disapproves of racial intermarriage, and can he then make a persuasive case without revealing his belief that the black guy is not quite as human as the white guy?
This is what’s called a tautology, jilly.
Did I say anything about the dad telling his daughter he doesn’t want her dating a black guy because blacks are sub-human?
No. But how would this conversation go? “Daddy, why don’t you want me dating Andrew? His dad is on the Supreme Court. Andrew is chief resident of pulmonary surgery at Johns Hopkins. His uncle is our ambassador to France.” Without appealing to tradition, how would you explain why your daughter can’t date Andrew?
Maybe because he wants his Grandchildren to look like him. It could be this simple.
I think that would be a harmless reason, but not a very compelling one. We all want our daughters to marry people from good homes who share our religious beliefs and values. We want them to marry people who can provide for them, and who will make loving husbands and fathers. When I worry about whom my daughter will marry, it just doesn’t seem important that any future children should look like me. On the other hand, you noted in an earlier post that you would prefer to marry within your race. I don’t think that is a racist point… Read more »
The Bible doesn’t say “Honor thy mother and father, except when it comes to deciding whom to marry. Then feel free to dishonor them.”
So the parents’ opposition to interracial marriage or gay marriage is reason enough for her not to marry a black guy or marry a woman.
One is sinful, and the other is not. One can argue against interracial marriage using reasons based on prudence, tradition, and personal feeling. But I still don’t see how one can argue against it based on scripture or the clear teaching of the Christian church.
One is sinful, and the other is not. One can argue against interracial marriage using reasons based on prudence, tradition, and personal feeling. But I still don’t see how one can argue against it based on scripture or the clear teaching of the Christian church. That’s your opinion. For centuries years in America, hundreds of millions of white Christians most certainly did interpret the Bible as forbidding marriages between whites and blacks. And I’m not trying to be gratuitously offensive, but I have no respect for Roman Catholic theology. It seems to me that the RC priesthood is little more… Read more »
Well, I can understand why you might feel that way. But I don’t, and because of that, the church’s teaching is important to me. Under Jewish law, mamzer refers to a child born of incest, adultery, or another prohibited union. The original etymology suggests spoilt or corrupt but not mongrel. How can you be so sure that the only two references to mamzer in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy and Zechariah) imply the mixing of races as opposed to marriages between religious Jews (or Christians) and pagans?
Under Jewish law, mamzer refers to a child born of incest, adultery, or another prohibited union. And where does “Jewish law” come from, jilly? Doesn’t it come from the Talmud? Isn’t “Jewish law” the same thing the Pharisees taught and practiced? Don’t modern orthodox Jewish scholars proudly claim that Judaism today is simply modern Pharisaism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism Didn’t Jesus condemn Pharisees to hell for their “Jewish law”, which he said was a complete perversion of God’s real laws? Why would a Christian ever consult the very teachings Jesus condemned in order to understand God’s word? Strong’s Concordance says the word means… Read more »
Jewish law comes from Torah, the five books Moses received from God. The Talmud, none of which was written down until 200 AD, consists of commentaries, arguments, and case decisions based on the law. Of course, there was an oral tradition that accompanied the law as people tried to figure out exactly that was required and what was prohibited. For example, oral tradition and case law developed the principle that “eye for an eye” meant fair compensation and not literal eye removal in cases where one man accidentally destroyed the sight of another. My Biblical knowledge is very weak compared… Read more »
I don’t want to address everything in this comment. I’ll just say, that IMO, your understanding of several important biblical subjects seems to be deficient. But, I’m curious. Let’s say it’s 1959. Marriage between blacks and whites is still illegal in around 40% of the states, and even where it’s legal it’s not accepted. White women who date or marry blacks become pariahs, often never being able to speak to any family members again. Most white Americans find interracial marriage abhorrent and deeply immoral, whether they can back that up from the Bible or not. A Gallup poll finds that… Read more »
“given all that, what arguments would you make with your friends and neighbors to convince them that it’s wrong to oppose whites marrying blacks?”
I will ask again what is the downside of inter racial marriage for the blacks? If there isn’t one then you’re just exhibiting what Doug called racial vainglory.
Do those newfangled paint chips taste as good as the ones with lead?
From everything you’ve said it looks like you are mourning the end of your white civilization. Also it seems as if you think your whiteness is responsible for modern civilization (and possibly all civilization throughout history). The benefits of civilization are the result of Gods grace not your genetics.
The benefits of civilization are the result of Gods grace not your genetics.
Right. It’s all religion. Genes have nothing do with anything.
(But for some reason, chromosomes are hugely important. Weird.)
So Haiti should be putting a man on the moon any day now, as 94% of the population is Christian. Same thing with Nigeria, and the Congo, Zambia, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Guatemala, and Ecuador.
I’m guessing that next you’ll tell me that all these countries are far more advanced than America and Europe, but the lying lamestream media covers it up.
“Right. It’s all religion. Genes have nothing do with anything.”
If you want to say that God can’t bless any culture that isn’t white then sure genes are super important.
“So Haiti should be putting a man on the moon any day now, as 94% of the population is Christian.”
Christian or Catholic?
“I’m guessing that next you’ll tell me that all these countries are far more advanced than America and Europe, but the lying lamestream media covers it up.”
No, but I will tell you that when God judges the U.S. being white wont help.
Assuming this is the present day, and that racial intermarriage has been legal since Loving v. Virginia. I would not try to persuade anyone that it is a good idea for whites to marry blacks, or vice versa. I am fairly conventional in my social views, and I think that marriages based on commonality of background will often (not invariably) do better than marriages where there is substantial disparity. On the other hand, I don’t accept that the government has any right to prohibit racial intermarriage, or that the Bible presents any arguments against it. I would not argue against… Read more »
Good answer, jilly.
Not that I’ve changed my mind in the slightest. But I enjoy interacting with you on here because, even though we disagree strenuously on many major issues, you always treat me with respect and make a serious attempt to try to answer my arguments or convince me of your position.
Most on here don’t that.
And I endeavor to treat you with respect and make a serious attempt to try to answer your arguments or convince you of my position.
I appreciate you as well. You constantly surprise me–I would never have guessed that you read The Guardian!
But the religious prohibition is not racial but rather religious intermarriage. A faithful American Jew should be much more upset about his son marrying a red-haired Irish Catholic than an observant Ethiopian Jew. Really? Then why did Israel forcibly inject all those Ethiopian “Jewish” women with the long term birth control drug without their consent? I doubt if it’s because they think the idea of their daughters marrying Ethiopians is just peachy, even if they do practice Judaism. So please don’t give me the “it’s religion, not race” argument about Jews and their opposition to intermarriage. These people are supposedly… Read more »
I read the link, which said the matter is under investigation. If this was a government policy, it is disgusting–assuming that it was carried out without the immigrant women’s knowledge and consent. But, what the Israeli government does or doesn’t do should not be taken as evidence of Jewish attitudes and ethics worldwide. I know many Jews who have grave concerns about Israel’s track record when it comes to human rights.
Please consider Revelation 2:9; 3:9.
This is a good book — “Who is Esau Edom” by Charles Weisman. A free PDF exists somewhere out there.
How can you be so sure that the only two references to mamzer in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy and Zechariah) imply the mixing of races as opposed to marriages between religious Jews (or Christians) and pagans?
Ezra and Nehemiah certainly were sure of it.
They didn’t order the men to send away their unbelieving wives.
They ordered them to send away their foreign wives.
Because they were idolaters. Note that Ruth was a foreigner but as a believer was allowed to marry into Israel, as was Rahab
The text says nothing of the kind. You can’t just make stuff up. I suppose in ten years you’ll be claiming that God didn’t destroy Sodom because of homosexuality, but because the residents voted against legalizing gay marriage. Ezra and Nehemiah don’t order the men to put away their idolatrous wives and half idolatrous/half Christian children. If that were the case, they would’ve instructed the wives to put away their idols, and enter into the covenant and start worshiping the true God They tell them to send away their strange wives. Look up the word. It doesn’t mean idolater or… Read more »
Note that Ruth was a foreigner but as a believer was allowed to marry into Israel, as was Rahab
Ruth was a Moabite the same way Charlize Theron is an African. The terms describe where they lived or grew up, not their race.
Rahab was a Canaanite through Ham!
As all men are one blood, all blood lines are somewhat arbitrary, Moabites were racially divergent at Moab, Egypt was racially divergent at Ham.
So when God said “an Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation”, what he really meant was that nobody on earth shall enter into into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation.
Thanks for clearing that up.
And when he told the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites, what he actually meant was, “Go kill everyone on earth and then off yourselves.”
I don’t understand your reply
“One Blood” does not exist in most texts. Most scholars agree. Nevertheless…..
Please explain to me how 3 principle Races Evolved out of one race? Where is this explained in the Scriptures?
All men are descended from Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives.
Humans as a species are very similar genetically compared to some other animals. It is not hard to see how they all came from Adam and then Noah.
If you don’t like “one blood” then:
And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth,
“…It is not hard to see how they all came from Adam and then Noah…..
Impressive. I’m thoroughly convinced.
If your daughter asked you if it’s okay for her to date or marry a woman, would you think it’s wrong to impose your religious beliefs on her and say no?
I would remind her of centuries of Christian doctrine that regards lesbian conduct as sinful. ( I am under no illusion that this would stop her, as my own dear daughter tells me she has lost her faith. I am happy for her sake that this particular issue isn’t likely to arise.) If she were a minor, I would probably have withheld my consent. But, leaving my own special snowflake out of this, the difference between the two cases is that there is clear scriptural teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual conduct. People might argue about whether Leviticus applies to… Read more »
What would you say if your daughter came to you and said, “Mom, why don’t you want me dating Andrea? Her dad is on the Supreme Court. Andea is chief resident of pulmonary surgery at Johns Hopkins. Her uncle is our ambassador to France.” First off, there’s nothing wrong with appealing to tradition. The Bible says we’re to honor our mothers and fathers, and that doesn’t just mean clean your room when Mom says to and don’t sass Dad. It also talks at great length about the folly of rejecting wisdom, which our forefathers accumulated a lot of. And it… Read more »
Well, no one who is at all observant thinks it’s a good idea for whites to marry blacks. Which is not to imply that it’s a good idea for whites to marry Asians, or Arabs, or Mexicans. A white person should only marry another white person, of the opposite sex, and only one. That’s what virtually all our forefathers, most of whom were Christians, believed and practiced, for hundreds of years. I’ve seen no evidence that they had it wrong, and mountains of evidence that they were right. So I’ll stick with them, rather than with the likes of the… Read more »
You also need a paralell argument for why blacks should not want to marry whites.
You also need a paralell argument for why blacks should not want to marry whites.
Sure I do.
Just like if I list several reasons why it’s a bad idea for men to marry men, but don’t post several reasons why it’s a bad idea for women to want to marry men, then I’m guilty of heterosexual vainglory.
Dude, could you at least try to think before you post?
If inter racial marriage is bad for whites it must be bad for blacks as well, in which case you should be able to articulate the problems it creates for black people.
If his objection is based on a fundamental disagreement of interracial marriage, then yes.
So if the same man tells his son that he doesn’t want him marrying the guy who was his college roommate, then he has denied the humanity of the son’s boyfriend, if his objection is based on a “fundamental disagreement” of same-sex marriage, right? Same thing if he doesn’t want his son to marry a girl with Down Syndrome, right? That means he thinks mentally retarded people are subhuman, right? And if he tells his daughter to break off her romance with a guy who’s been in prison four times, it means he thinks ex-cons are subhuman, right? So if… Read more »
You seem to fail to understand the basic issue at hand. Let me go through your examples and show how they betray this ignorance: 1) The father would be talking about his roommate based on the actions of his roommate, not an inborn trait that applies to all roommates. That makes it incomparable to an inborn trait like skin color. A comparable statement would be, “The father doesn’t want his daughter to marry any roommates based on the fact that they are roommates.” That would also betray an unfounded bias in the father’s reasoning. 2) A person with Down Syndrome… Read more »
The father would be talking about his roommate based on the actions of his roommate, not an inborn trait that applies to all roommates.
The actions of his roommate? You think his male roommate chose to be a male?
I’m just going to assume that you’re purposefully not debating in good faith. It will be clear to anyone reading this threat how nonsensical that question is.
I said: So if the same man tells his son that he doesn’t want him marrying the guy who was his college roommate, then he has denied the humanity of the son’s boyfriend, if his objection is based on a “fundamental disagreement” of same-sex marriage, right? I didn’t say anything about the actions of the kid’s roommate. All I said was he was a male. You replied: The father would be talking about his roommate based on the actions of his roommate, not an inborn trait that applies to all roommates. Ipso facto, you’re saying that being male is NOT… Read more »
Firstly, let me say that I read your example as being that of a daughter marrying the roommate. So, my fault, but that doesn’t make your example any more relevant.
Same-sex marriage is forbidden in scripture, interracial marriage is not. It’s still not comparable.
Same-sex marriage is forbidden in scripture, interracial marriage is not.
That’s your interpretation. Not only do millions of Christians disagree, but this used to be the nearly universal consensus among white people in America.
It’s a good thing the consensus of white people isn’t our basis for the word of God.
If you disagree for Biblical reasons, then please provide them.
Also, thinking that someone isn’t a good marriage partner for your son or daughter doesn’t “deny their humanity.”
Nice strawman, I hope no one falls for it, though. You must have some good justification for denying that a person is a good marriage partner. That might include previous actions by that person, an argument from biblical authority that goes against the marriage (like same sex marriage), or some other good justification. If you cannot provide good justification, then it must be assumed that your statement is based on bad reasoning or internal unfounded bias. This would include something like believing that a person is not equal in every meaningful way based on their skin color, therefore denying their… Read more »
Me: Also, thinking that someone isn’t a good marriage partner for your son or daughter doesn’t “deny their humanity.”
You: Nice strawman, I hope no one falls for it, though.
You obviously have no idea what strawman means.
You should ask Dunsworth.
She knows English real good.
I think the term tribalism is helpful as all cultures are somewhat tribalist. It may or may not be a sin. I think freedom of association is important, and the more I think about the civil rights issue of the 1960s in the US the more I think they got it wrong. Men should be equal under the law. But men should also be free to associate as they wish, even if their desires are sinful. Part of the problem is involving the government in so much and the government needs to be race-blind. This is fine with crime, but… Read more »
I believe you’re absolutely correct here. The failure to distinguish between that which is sin and that which is not only sin, but a crime as well, is one of THE biggest problems we face, thus empowering the state to make that distinction and putting it in the place of God Himself. The Civil Rights Act of ’65, though perhaps well intentioned, is un-Lawful for precisely that reason.
The fact that Pastor Wilson used the word vainglory reminded me of a book that I have read, Glittering Vices, and another by the same author, Rebecca Konyndyck DeYong, Vainglory, which I have yet to read. She was interviewed by Ken Myers on MarsHill Audio Journal in the past year. The meaning has not gotten into my bones so I really need to read the second book way before I can consider how to apply it to groups, institutions, or ‘racism.’ A few quotes from Vainglory chapter in Glittering Vices: “Implicit in all expressions of vainglory…is the desire for our… Read more »
This reminds me of that saying, “the problem with humility is that once you acquire it, you lose it.” Often we are so proud of having achieved some spiritual milestone, we can’t help but boast about it.
Memi, humility is a bit of a self propagating paradox. The way I frequently express it is:
“How do you win a humility contest?” ; – )
Ha! You are so right.
Some are vainglorious about their lack of racism. I ran into this a lot in graduate school. Once we had to sit through a seminar on “diversity.” The “professor” asked the class – about 150 med students: who thought it would be the “worst thing in the world to be called a racist?” Every hand in the room shot up (less one: mine). I was shocked. It was truly eye opening. The worst thing in the world was not killing someone or leaving your family to suffer evil needlessly. It wasnt even BEING a racist. It was being CALLED a… Read more »
I think Al Mohler’s comments on the Confederate flag are the most cogent: “I know full well that today’s defenders of that flag — by far most of them — do not intend to send a racial message nor to defy civil rights. . . Today, most who defend that flag do so to claim a patrimony and to express love for a region. But that is not the whole story, and we know it. . . Some of our neighbors—and some of our own brothers and sisters in Christ—are deeply wounded by this flag. They see it as a… Read more »
When did he make those comments? Was it around the time of the shooting in Charleston?
Extremely sad to see a man of God call having negative feelings the same as being “deeply wounded”.
Racism (n.) The existence of white gentiles in any number greater than zero.
Racist (n.) A white gentile
Racist (adj.) Anything which doesn’t hasten the day when the number of white gentiles in existence is zero
So let me get your opinion on something, Mr. President. It seems to me that the issue of Calvinism does not press upon the mind until someone begins to notice the differences between certain entities; the question it seeks to address is what accounts for all these differences. The answer is, of course, Unconditional Election. Now this certainly applies to all maters eternal, such as that I am saved and my family member is not. But does it apply to temporal matters too? Does Unconditional Election explain the disparity in standardized test scores across the races? Does it explain moral… Read more »
Hypothetically speaking, how do you know that you are and that your family member is not? Suppose it is a delusion so that the surprise at the end is all the nastier for you (and nicer for him)?
I grant that is possible. Now buzz off.
That is what I believe, although I realize it is a point on which sincere Christians can differ.
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
As you say, malice and vainglory are sins. The terms are descriptive by themselves and admit no qualification — there are no mitigating circumstances that make one species of it worse or better. I have to quibble with your history, though. “Racism was a short-hand way of describing the mental outlook of the bigot.” When? The 1936 OED defines the term as “the theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race”. The term was popularised by Jewish communist Leon Trotsky and by Jewish pervert Magnus Hirschfeld, both using it to inveigh against those who believed that there… Read more »
I am a white man. I am attracted to only white women and can’t imagine taking for a wife anything other than a white woman. In my dreams, I imagine children looking just like me. Am I racist?
Of course you’re a racist. You admitted it right here:
I am a white man.
Anyone who is white and not Jewish is, by definition, a racist.
Racism (n.) The existence of white gentiles in any number greater than zero.
Racist (n.) A white gentile
Racist (adj.) Anything which doesn’t hasten the day when the number of white gentiles in existence is zero
I hope you are being highly sarcastic. ?
Hard to know these days. There are many who believe exactly what you just wrote — White Privilege Conferences.
In all seriousness…………….I am hoping the author of this blog/article would answer my question; since it is he who is defining ‘who’ and what a racist is.
No sarcasm at all. Once a person seriously starts paying attention, these definitions become crystal clear.
I guess what I should have asked was whether ‘you’ believe I am a racist.
Yes. Unless you were lying about being a white man. But I took you at your word.
If you’re a white gentile, you’re a racist.
See the definitions above.
Of course if he isn’t 100% white you would say he was lying and therefore not a raceist.
Ground control to Major Tom…
I guess it depends on how you define ‘racism’. I love my White racial family. I would rather live in a community of my own people than those of other races. If that makes me a Racist, then so be it. If someone can convince me that all races come from Adam and Eve, I may reconsider. But that is a biological impossibility.
Speaking of racists, James Dobson announced that Donald Trump recently accepted Christ as his savior. Trump met with hundreds of evangelical leaders in New York earlier this week, and while some well-known figures — such as Liberty University president, Jerry Falwell Jr. — have endorsed the candidate, others are more hesitant to do so. However, Dobson, a Christian psychologist and founder of the Focus on the Family group, said he knows “the person who led [Trump] to Christ. And that’s fairly recent.” “I don’t know when it was, but it has not been long,” Dobson said in an interview with… Read more »
Back when the world was more oriented in a right side up way than it is now, racism was a short-hand way of describing the mental outlook of the bigot — and everybody knew what a bigot was also. This tells us nothing about what the “old fashioned” and “real” definition of racism was. In fact, until the last few decades, the word bigot had nothing to do with one’s views on race. It simply meant a person that is convinced he’s right about a topic, any topic, and won’t listen to other people’s opinions about it. It didn’t mean… Read more »
“Malice” and “vainglory” at least have the virtue of being words used in the Bible to tell us what not to do.
I don’t recall anything in the Bible that’s remotely about “racial malice” or “racial vainglory.”
They’re basically just nonsense terms.
I agree that qualifying the terms doesn’t add a lot of clarity. But, consider, which is better: believing the English are great because they produced Shakespeare, or believing Shakespeare was great because he was English?
I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.
Which is better: Keeping Muslims out of America because a few of them might commit terrorist acts, or keeping Muslims out of America because they’re not white?
My point is that some people elevate a legitimate interest (desire to be around people like themselves) into a principle (people like us good, people not like us bad). Leftism applied to race/ethnicity, in other words. My answer to “when has pride in your race crossed over into inordinate pride” is when those who were born on third base think they hit a triple (and no longer give thanks to God for their unique blessings).
My answer to “when has pride in your race crossed over into inordinate pride” is when those who were born on third base think they hit a triple (and no longer give thanks to God for their unique blessings).
Maybe. But I think at this point in time, that’s about the last thing we need to be worrying about.
And given how shockingly fast Doug has come around to insisting that gaymarried couples should be treated pretty much like married couples, how long before he’s lecturing us about the wickedness of heterosexual vainglory and cisgender malice?
Wilson’s positions on this stuff have been pretty stable over the past several years. I disagree it’s “the last thing we need to be worrying about” because I don’t think progressivism has much more time left. There are those fighting the left along with us right now that we’ll need to oppose on these points later on.