This is a link. It may disappear. They have been "rearranging" things. Probably, because of the upcoming action in Congress; or some other reason. Not sure if this will work.

Bob Jones on Keyes

Best wishes,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 24, 2000

Answers

Thanks Z. I still plan to vote for Keyes. While I disagree with Mr. Jones's opinion of Mr. Keyes, at least Mr. Jones has given a substantive presentation of his view of the issues, rather than the kind of contentless diatribes we've been getting from the critics of BJU.

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 24, 2000.

When someone is accused of something, I believe they should have a chance to answer their accuser. Yesterday, I sent this email to Bob Jones University.

"First, I want to commend you for the quality of your texts, especially for English. I am familiar with Bob Jones' academic materials for Christian schools and homeschools. My mother uses the Bob Jones curriculum at Desert Christian High School in California, and I know a lot of homeschoolers who also use it where I live."

"Second, I am contacting you because I wanted to clarify something: I heard that Bob Jones University has a policy against interracial dating among students. Is that true? If it is true, what is the rationale behind that rule?"

I have not heard back, but when I do, I will post the reply here. I tried to find their student policies/rules on their website, but I couldn't find it--hence the email.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 24, 2000.

S., I don't know if BJU will write back, but the policy does exist. It was the basis for their tax-exempt status being revoked back in 1983 or thereabouts. I was a pastor at the time and there was a bit of a stir about it in conservative Christian circles. I don't agree with the policy (I think the issue of keeping ethnic groups segregated is addressed decisively in places like Galatians 2 and Ephesians 2), but while I disagree with it theologically, politically I have to defend their right to have such a policy. It doesn't discriminate against any particular race; it treats all races the same.

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 24, 2000.

S. Kohl:

Yea, since all of this uproar in the press and Congress, their link to anti-catholic and anti-our friends in Utah statements have disappeared from their web site. Or at least, they aren't where they were. Maybe they are just cutting their losses.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

Thanks for the information.

I understand that they can legally do whatever they want to do. But laws aren't all there is to it, when it comes to what is right, or what is wrong. I think those serving God have a higher standard to meet in issues upon which they take a stand. Because they represent Someone Else, and have been bought with a very expensive price. They are not their own.

Here is the Bob Jones University mission statement:

"Within the cultural and academic soil of liberal arts education, Bob Jones University exists to grow Christlike character that is Scripturally disciplined; others-serving; God-loving; Christ-proclaiming; and focused above."

Maybe they have a good rationale for this policy. But without their explanation, I'm afraid I can't think of one myself that both explains that policy and matches their mission statement (esp. the "Scripturally disciplined" and "Christ-like" part).

I feel very disappointed in Bob Jones University as it stands right now. Though it's not the first time this has happened to me, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 24, 2000.

Markus Archus said, "...I don't agree with the policy (I think the issue of keeping ethnic groups segregated is addressed decisively in places like Galatians 2 and Ephesians 2), but while I disagree with it theologically..."

Since God created the races in the first place, isn't it reasonable to assume that (for whatever reason) he wants them separate? If he had wanted a homogeneous population, wouldn't it have been much easier for him to create it that way from the start?

I feel that this is just one more instance of man trying to determine what is right and wrong instead of letting God disclose what is right and wrong. That was the original sin of Adam was it not?

George

-- GeorgeValentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), February 24, 2000.

George:

I don't take your statement as a serious one. Or you haven't been reading the latest data based on r-DNA studies. Race has no biological meaning. It is imbedded in outdated social custom. Based on the latest data, three genetically identifiable groups may exist. Two are in Africa. None are in the America's. This includes those who can't date whites at BJU. If you are serious and want to debate this, give me some references in the peer reviewed literature and we can talk.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

George -

Your reasoning is logical, but the New Testament is clear that it disagrees with you. You of course have the prerogative of rejecting the New Testament (and Jews who oppose intermarriage with Gentiles are perfectly consistent with scripture they profess to believe). But for those of us who identify ourselves as New Testament believers, it is hard to escape the theme running throughout, that God intends to gather into one people those from every tribe and nation.

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 24, 2000.

"Since God created the races in the first place, isn't it reasonable to assume that (for whatever reason) he wants them separate?"

Oh bunkum!!

Is it a sin to cross-pollinate roses? If you believe in what you espouse,... then surely you realize that the genetic components for the races were present in Adam and Eve?

Ever read Song of Solomon? I don't think God cares a hoot about the color of our skin, other than the beauty and goodness of ALL colors. Color is color is color, nothing more, nothing less. God created with the infinite palate of divine art. Enjoy it.

Further, if two people wish to tackle matrimony with all its risks, joys, heartaches, and hard work, AND factor in any additional stress from dealing with myopic racist people, then more power to them. What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

If Bob Jones truly has this policy, I pity them. They will be accountable to the Creator.

-- Mumsie (shezdremn@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

Z1X4Y7,

This reminds me of the sly old saying: How about let's you and him fight, OK?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), February 24, 2000.

By-the-way George:

None appear to be in the Americas because our forebearers didn't take the separation of races quite as seriously as you state that you do.

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

Brian:

Nope. While I am a molecular biologist; and I read this literature extensively; I will turn this gun fight over to you. So George, continue this discussion with Brian. Brian, George has no facts to support his statements [I don't believe this is anything more than a joke], but you can handle the fall-out.

Best wishes,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

>> I will turn this gun fight over to you. <<

Aw heck. I always figure the best seat at a brawl is *over there a ways*. But if Bob Jones' supporters and Alan Keyes' supporters want to mix it up, I'll be happy to hold their coats for them.

As a public service.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), February 24, 2000.

Brian:

"But if Bob Jones' supporters and Alan Keyes' supporters want to mix it up".

Well I'm neither, but I assumed that you were one of the above. I started this thread to provide information. It changed with an uniformed, racist insert. As I said, I've left you to clean-up the mess. You are officially designated as the mess cleaner-upper ;o>.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

Z1X4Y7:

My statement is very serious, and is based upon my understanding of what God has said in His bible (both testaments). I dont know whether you are referring to the discovery that all of mankind has descended from one woman or not, but peer review is review by humans, not God. I still feel that it is correct to let God say what is right and what is wrong.

Markus Archus:

How does this square with, God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow or whatever the exact wording of the quote I have mangled is? I still contend that He devised races for a reason and that he still wants them separate.

Mumsie:

Is it not true that Noah was chosen because he was perfect in all his generations? Does that not mean that his ancestors never married outside their race? If not, what else could perfect in all his generations mean?

Z1X4Y7 said, None appear to be in the Americas because our forebearers didn't take the separation of races quite as seriously as you state that you do.

Huh? Do you mean no races appear to be in the Americas? If not, what? Perhaps you are saying that since all men came from one woman there can be no races. Perhaps you are saying that since all mankind can interbreed that there are no races. This latter contention applies to dogs, yet we recognize several breeds. Can we not categorize humans the same way? White men, red men, brown men, yellow men?

Z1X4Y7 also said, Nope. While I am a molecular biologist; and I read this literature extensively; I will turn this gun fight over to you. So George, continue this discussion with Brian. Brian, George has no facts to support his statements [I don't believe this is anything more than a joke], but you can handle the fall-out.

My original post had three questions and one statement of what I feel to be the truth. What facts do I need to support that? My original assumption is that there is a God, that God did make man, and that God divided man into races that more or less breed true: white with white makes white, red with red makes red, etc. If God did not want there to be such races, why do they exist? (Notice that I have begun to put quotes around race in deference to whatever definition of race that you may have. Mine is merely the categorization of humans by easily observable traits.)

Nevertheless, I still feel that God created the races for a reason, and that trying to do away with them is a mistake on the part of mankind: trying to determine for ones self what is right and what is wrong without regard to what God says is right and wrong is what Adam did after God told him not to, the original sin.

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), February 24, 2000.

George:

God gave us reason and the ability to find these things out. Your kind of reasoning has fueled all sorts of genocidal acts. It is based in ignorance. Human races don't exist. They are a creation of human ignorance. As I said before, if you want to talk to me, find some peer reviewed papers to support your opinion. Otherwise, talk to Brian. He is in charge.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

What an idiot. Recent DNA evidence shows that we all came from black Africa - all of us - including George.

-- Sheri (wncy2k@nccn.net), February 24, 2000.

I believe we all (and I mean the whole human race) are prejudiced. These are developed over time due to social, educational, peer group, and family views.

The trick to life is to overcome these set views. Those ingrained, ignorant, almost basic opinions we gain as we grow up in these influential environments.

Take every meeting with anyone you cross paths with, on its own individual merit.

Enjoy people for themselves rather than their ethnic background, its a pretty small planet we all share, I dont believe it will be very long before we all see each other on the internet.

The bandwith is increasing and the cost of the technology is dropping.

Some folks might be surprised at how we all appear now that weve formed like-minded bonds with somebody weve never met. Should be fun!!

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), February 24, 2000.

God did create the races for a reason. They originated in different climates--like skin protection. Anyway, that's what nature did. God didn't do it. God is way above all that. God doesn't know there are different races.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

George -

Yes, the NT teaches that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). But there is also the concept of certain things in the OT being done away with in the New because their purpose is superceded. For example, animal sacrifices were a central, indispensible part of Old Testament religion, but are completely done away with in the new.

I'm not enough of a theologian to adequately articulate what purpose separation of the races played under the Old Covenant. But it is clear to me, from passages I've already cited and many others, that separation of the races is done away with in the New.

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 24, 2000.

George:

I know that you prefer answers that are consistant with your faith in the Bible. Answers couched solely in terms of science are not likely to sway you. So, I will try to answer you in that mode, although I am not a profound scholar of the Bible. I will simply do my best, as I must assume you do.

>> Since God created the races in the first place, isn't it reasonable to assume that (for whatever reason) he wants them separate? <<

You assert that God made the races in the first place. I do not see in the Bible that God did any such thing.

He created Adam. Then he created Eve. It stands to reason that Adam could not have been of more than one race. And since Eve was made of his flesh, she must have been of the same race, too. The original race, which is not described in any modern racial terms.

So, doesn't it make more sense (and isn't it more in tune with what the Bible says) to conclude that races arose and became separate over time, *after* the expulsion from Eden? In which case, the separation of the races (and the tongues -- c.f. the story of Babel) was not a direct act of God's creation, but a development from man's sinful nature?

And isn't it that sinful nature that God abhors? So wouldn't it be more in keeping with reason to believe God abhors the separation of the races which so changed His original design?

So it is wrong to conclude, as you do, that God "created the races in the first place". He didn't George. He just plain did not. Period.

>> If he had wanted a homogeneous population, wouldn't it have been much easier for him to create it that way from the start? <<

As I have just pointed out, that is EXACTLY what He did do, according to Genesis. Obviously, He also included a mechanism in humanity that could lead to the formation of races. Or not, depending on what WE did *after* we left the garden.

So, if the races are *our* creation, and God DID go to all the trouble of creating us in homogeneity, and if, in our sinful nature, we split apart into races. Isn't it only right to reunite the races back into one?

Yet, that is what Bob Jones is forbidding, blind to God's wishes.

>> I feel that this is just one more instance of man trying to determine what is right and wrong instead of letting God disclose what is right and wrong. <<

Again, since your interpretation is counter-Biblical, and has no direct justification in scripture, I would be more careful about what thoughts or intentions YOU are putting in God's mouth and God's head through careless, overweaning assumptions.

>> That was the original sin of Adam was it not? <<

And still going strong after all these generations, I see.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), February 24, 2000.

George, I have a question. If a black man and a white woman (or vice versa) marry and have a child, is that child of the black race or the white race, and why? _____________________________________________

Another issue: Have you read much on genetics? Here is some info.

There are two copies of each gene (alleles). They may each code for the same thing (skin color, for example) but can have different instructions for that thing: instructions to make brown pigment, instructions to make red pigment, instructions to make yellow pigment, or no instructions to make pigment (a defective gene that is no longer working).

It is more complicated than this, because more than one gene is responsible for whatever color your skin is, and for other reasons, but this is a simplified example.

Let's say that "A" is the allele telling skin to make lots of pigment, and "a" is the allele telling skin to make only a little pigment. A man could have a skin color gene that was "Aa" (two copies, or alleles, make up each gene). Let's say he married a woman who also had a skin color gene "Aa". They each have one dark and one light copy--they're going to have medium brown skin.

Each parent supplies one allele for each gene in their children. A sperm only has one copy of each gene, and the same thing with the egg. Until they combine, you don't have a full genetic code for the child. But that's okay--until they combine, you don't have a child anyway. So the dad would give "A" or "a" to each child, so they could have skin color :-). So would the mother.

The possible allele combinations for children of these two medium brown skinned individuals are: AA, Aa, or aa. "AA" would be black, "Aa" would be brown, and "aa" would be white.

If two people who were AA married, all their children would be AA. The only allele they have is "A", so that's all they can give. If two people who were "aa" married, all their children would be "aa" for the same reason.

Voila. The races. Simplified version :-).

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 24, 2000.

Your analysis seems coherent to me Brian, doubt most folks are going to jump on that bandwagon though.

Too contradictory to their basic point of view.

My guess is that history will "laugh" after we've all become, thru no fault of our own, (Damn those hormones!} one similar species over the next couple of centuries.

It's actually a darn small planet we're all hanging out on.

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), February 24, 2000.

.....Not to sound too "poorly" on this one, but threads like this one sure seem to illustrate how little any of you understand in regards to Scripture. But, then that's to be understood when the Scripture itself tells of the profound degree of apostacy the "church" and the world are in.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 24, 2000.

Huh? Patrick, what do you mean???

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), February 24, 2000.

Michael...

.....It is not my intention to enter this particular debate. The point I wish to make is that the Scripture is brought forth as a "mystery" that is quite obviously lost on most inhabitants of the planet. That's not to say that it is really all that difficult to understand, just that most people are too busy, (or lazy), to do the research required. The truth is not to be found in "the church" in it's current state of apostacy, (as prophesied). It will be the individual that answers for himself, and no other. You won't be able to stand there and say, "Well, my pastor said..." and answer for a thing.

.....The only thing that I will say in regards to this topic, is that all of the answers so far are, at best, inadequate. The differences in the races are to be celebrated, and never to be used as excuse for hatred. But the Old Testament cannot be dismissed as easily as Mr. McLaughlin asserts, and that the answers to this issue are answered fully by careful study of BOTH Ot and NT.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 24, 2000.

>> Huh? Patrick, what do you mean??? <<

It means Patrick KNOWS! Well, at least he THINKS he KNOWS! And just you wait, I bet he's gonna SHOW US what he thinks he knows. Unless he would prefer to turn around and curse us from back inside the cave where it is safer.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), February 24, 2000.

Thanks for your response Patrick.

Brian, you're an interesting guy, gotta love it.

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), February 24, 2000.

What a Mess! I offer the following question: Do you Bow your head in Prayer? If so, why? I heard some Biblical stats on that phrase. Seem to remember the Bible tells us to Bow Head no more than once or twice. The rest of the phrases tell us to Lift Our Heads Upward, Eyes, open to Heaven. I think the Head Bowing started in the 16th Century, by Mankind. The "Bowing" I believe was to acknowledge a Superior Being. I see it that we only have to "Acknowledge once and believe". The rest of the time we lift our eyes upward and rejoice (yeah, dancing too). I used to be prejudiced, It was all good in theory. Until a Family member married what we used to call the "Rag Heads". This person has a most kind and beautiful soul. He/She is more forgiving than me. The drilling message was "To Love One Another". Now SYSOPS, is this thread going to disapear too?

-- Second (Look@life.com), February 24, 2000.

Second,

That would wrong, I seriously doubt it.

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), February 24, 2000.

"be"

Not very happy with my fingers this evening.

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), February 24, 2000.

"It means Patrick KNOWS! Well, at least he THINKS he KNOWS! And just you wait, I bet he's gonna SHOW US what he thinks he knows. Unless he would prefer to turn around and curse us from back inside the cave where it is safer."

Mr. McLaughlin...

.....I must say, I was quite surprised by the invective within your post. I have thought of you as one of the more civil among us to this point. I believe we just crossed-posted, and am assuming that when you were frantically typing your answer, that you had yet to see what I had posted in response to Michael. Whatever would lead you to believe that I was the sort to "curse you" be it from a cave or anywhere else? I have always maintained a quite civil tongue on this board, but particularly in discussing Scripture.

.....I've said that I really didn't wish to enter this particular fray, but not without strong reason. It is quite obvious to me, that, you consider yourself knowledgeable enough to splash your comments regarding Scripture upon various threads over the last months, you are not quite up to the level of comprehension that would be required for you and I to relate to one another on this topic. I understand how condescending that sounds, but believe me, that is not the spirit with which it has been spoken. I think anyone that pursues the truth is to be highly regarded for it. .....I would admonish you, however, that any discussion of the Scripture should be completely void of the invective, as that will do little to facilitate understanding. Perhaps you just had a bad day?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 24, 2000.

>> The Old Testament cannot be dismissed as easily as Mr. McLaughlin asserts <<

Hmmmm. I asserted what? Where?

>> ...the answers to this issue are answered fully by careful study of BOTH Ot and NT. <<

I was answering George in the kind of terms I thought he could appreciate.

My own belief is that "careful study of both the OT and NT" leads to an extremely narrow band of information about life and the world. It is so limited that it oftens leads to a sad sterility of intellect, because it is pursued with the kind of single-minded zeal one would naturally use when attending to the supposedly literal word of God.

But I do not take the Bible at its own estimation of itself. I treat it as a book, written by men and shot through with the errors that humans are so prone to make. Plus it has many profound things to say, here and there.

I do not "dismiss" the OT or NT, except insofar as they are said to be the literal word of God. I do dismiss that claim. I do not despise those whose faith in the Bible extends further then mine. I appreciate what good there is in them and rejoice in it. The bad in them is only like the bad in me.

I just don't care what you can prove mathematically from scripture. If it doesn't square with what I see in God's universe or what I understand as clearly good, then I do not heed it and will attempt to refute it.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), February 24, 2000.

Brian...

.....I attributed an assertion to you, however inadvertantly, that Mr. Archus made. Please accept my humble apology. His was the post just above yours, so it was an "error of proximity" I believe. (G)

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 24, 2000.

Patrick, do you get the information out of the Bible through mathematical analysis? (I ask based on a response to you that seemed to imply that you do.)

If so, then that's certainly "secret knowledge", isn't it? Who is the source of your technique, out of curiosity. I mean the original person who came up with that technique (I've heard it mentioned somewhere before).

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 24, 2000.

Ummmm...all people are people. Unfortunately they have these funny preconceived notions. DAR, Black Panthers, Tradition rules. Heaven forbid we would actually read The Word-KJV. I bet I won't find anyone on here who is KJV only! I didn't think so. This country was founded mostly on white land owning Masons who thought slavery was just fine. And according to the Bible it is a condition of the human race. But, it is always a worldly condition and not smiled upon in the Bible. It is a basic tenet of the NT that you accept where you are and serve the Lord there. No one wants to do this...I am trying, but failing. If I found a black woman and we came together, I would tell the rest of you to go to hell if you didn't like it.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 24, 2000.

BTW, the racial strife will NEVER end in this country. Too much money involved. If we were to achieve racial harmony JJ would be out of a job. And we can't have that. NAACP lives off of it. It will never end. Too much money involved.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 24, 2000.

S. Kohl...

.....No, it would have little to do with such; I do recognize the importance of the numbers, but not in the way that I've seen spoken of here. However, if anyone thinks they can read strictly English and "get it" I'm afraid they fall victim to centuries of work by the "scribes" spoken of within. It is absolutely vital to go into the Hebrew, Chaldean and Greek to facilitate comprehension. When the bastardization of the languages has progressed to the degree that it has, many words have lost original meaning. I use the AV King James, (The Companion Bible from Kregel with language helps), in tandem with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and utilize various codices and the Greek Septuagint. It truly isn't "brain surgery" as they say, but one must put forth quite an effort.

.....For a slight example of what I mean, Christ was crucified on a stauros in the Greek. This was a straight up and down pole, sans cross-member of any angle. The "cross" came into the church in 342 A.D. at the behest of Constantine's mother, Helena, who was a sun- worshipper. It is the symbol of the solar wheel only, having zero to do with Christianity, (inspite of it's one lengthened leg). So if the "church" brings this purely pagan symbol into the house, they are doing what they have been implicitly instructed not to do. Hence, apostacy. Likewise with the steeple, care to wager a guess what this symbolizes?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 24, 2000.

Patrick:

Are you Seventh Day Adventist, by any chance?

Canthappen:

I was an Arabic translator for 2-3 years, so I know a little bit (only a little) about how conversions are done between languages. Based on that, and my reading of various translated versions of the Bible in tandem, I'm not ready to be KJV only.

And I would say that unless you're going to build a doctrine like an upside down pyramid (the tip is a verse or two from scripture, and the rest someone makes up himself) I don't think you'll get into too much trouble with versions other than the KJV. And if you do the upside down pyramid thing, you'll get into trouble no matter what Bible you use.

If you have specific examples of what verses/words you object to, as being inaccurate if they're not from the KJV, I'd be happy to hear about them :-). As examples for me to consider.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 24, 2000.

S. Kohl...

.....No, I don't claim membership to any denomination. Denominations are simply "divisions" and there were none in the first century church. I believe they are an abomination before God, and I wouldn't be caught setting foot in any so-called "church" that I'm aware of in my area, as they none teach what the Scripture teaches plainly. I'm in no possession of any "secret knowledge" to which you refer, and don't study any of the fringe elements, although the truth has been marginalized.

Brian...

.....I don't attempt to prove anything with the numerics of Scripture, other than what the numbers themselves symbolize for emphasis, (i.e. seven being the number of spiritual perfection). Nor would I consider my sterile intellectually or zealous. I have studied the world as well, in order to understand that which the Scripture brings forth. I believe I could hold my own with you in both history and Scripture, if you able to relate to it in terms of the macro.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 24, 2000.

Oops...

.....last post should have said, "Nor would I consider mySELF sterile intellectually or zealous."

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 24, 2000.

1) Re the policy against interracial dating: I have always made it a policy to date within my own race...I find dating non-humans disgusting! (Of course, one of my best friends is a dog!)

2) Currently, a majority of the marriages in Hawai'i are interracial (but still between humans).

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), February 24, 2000.

Patrick wrote: "...I wouldn't be caught setting foot in any so-called "church" that I'm aware of in my area, as they none teach what the Scripture teaches plainly. I'm in no possession of any "secret knowledge" to which you refer, and don't study any of the fringe elements, although the truth has been marginalized."

That's interesting, Patrick. I'm serious--you're the first person who believes this way I've had a chance to "talk" to. Are you completely on your own? Or part of a group of like-minded people?

You've said several times things like "what the scripture teaches plainly." What exactly are you objecting to in the churches and with that statement? The fact that churches are schismed? Or that their doctrines are not all exactly the same?

Is there a particular scripture that has important ramifications doctrinally, that you think the organized churches have got wrong?

Your "stauros" example just doesn't seem that important to me. I know that other groups also make a big deal about it. But the groups I've met representatives from who make a big deal out of that seem to do so for a particular reason. Their main point is that traditional churches are wrong, so you have to join their church only.

Their church also has either new revelation or prophetic leadership that is not accountable to the laypeople or scripture (because the laypeople misunderstand scripture, and the leader does not). They say that the Bible as we have it has been changed--in turn, they themselves feel justified in changing it "back" without any manuscript support--in other words, they change it to match their preexisting doctrine.

Anyway, it seems to me from what you've said (and I may have misunderstood) that you may think that everyone making religious statements on this thread, and all organized churches, are so wrong that they are not true to the Christian faith any longer.

But then I wonder, what falsehood is taught by all organized churches, and how is the gospel undermined because of it? And did you figure that out on your own? How much can someone disagree with you, and still be okay doctrinally, or in other words which issues are the key ones?

I've got to go now, but I'll check back later. :-)

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 25, 2000.

S. Kohl...

.....It's late and I'm about to retire for the evening as well. Thank you for the civil tone, and I'll be more than happy to discuss any aspect of this that you care to delve into... beginning tomorrow night.

.....I am a part of no group, nor organization of like-minded individuals. Suffice it to say I consider myself a voice in the wilderness. I'll address the other questions in your post tomorrow, and thank you in advance for your patience.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 25, 2000.

This conversation seems like the one about worshipping the Christmas tree. Patrick, I am with you on this debate. I have no use for organized religion anymore than I have use for the corrupt government we are currently cursed with. Any book that has been in print as long as the Bible has been hsa been corrupted at some point. I too know about the Stauros thing and the triad of God, Jesus and holy spirit brought from the original Babylonian triad of "gods"... It is all too nebulous for me, and personally, my relationship with God, Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH... (please pick your favorite) has NOTHING to do with organized religion, or IMHO, the great harlot of Revelation...

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it religious zealots...

growlin'...

The irreverant Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), February 25, 2000.

The Dog...

.....Glad I checked back in before I laid my head down. Check back in tomorrow night if you have time, this could be a good conversation.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 25, 2000.

I usually don't get into dog fights...but I have to make one comment to our friend George... God saw after the flood that man still couldn't get it right...he continued to disobey GOD's commandments and in a weak struggle for self-righteousness he began to develop ways in his own heart that would justify himself in sin. One of the ways man decided to do this was build a tower to heaven rather than follow GOD's commandments and go through the front door of heaven...Man has always tried to make a back door where there isn't one...the story of the tower of babel is the story of languages and races...GOD saw man in his sin and said, "No More!" and confounded their languages and color so to divide them from eachother and so they did divide... GOD didn't do this to punish man... infact, like in the garden of eden, GOD didn't thrown adam and eve out as a punishment....No...No...HE did it because HE loved them and knew that if they partaked of the tree of life that they would not need GOD to live forever...and they would live forever in their own sin...GOD took them out of the garden so that we would not live forever in sin...HE had already provided a redeemer for repentant man... Jesus Christ... GOD changed the skin color and the languages in order to seperate man from thinking he could attain godhood on his own merits... Jesus had a lineage that came from Gentiles and Jews, Prostitutes to murderers, adulterers, poor, rich, from every race and lifestyle that we may know that HE loves all of us ... races are merely a sign to us like a rainbow is...it speaks of HIS grace and mercy. George, I have a lot of guys in my prison chapel who believe like you...they are from a cult called "Christian Idenity Movement" or "American Patriot Movement" ... we shouldn't waste time trying to seperate eachother but use the time GOD has given us to unite with eachother and press forth to the work HE desire us to do in HIS will...not ours!

May the LORD show you HIS grace! In HIS Grip, BRyan

-- S BRyan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), February 25, 2000.

Patrick and The Dog: Can't wait until tonight and the debate about pagan worship, the christmas tree, christmas, easter, and the cross starts up. One thing for all to think on: God says to worship Him in the ways He has designated, and NOT to add to that. That is why it IS important that the post was changed to the cross and then worshipped.

-- Just Curious (jnmpow@flash.net), February 25, 2000.

I am completely willing to worship God the way He wants to be worshipped. But I am not so willing to worship God the way some human being thinks He should be worshipped--unless I should come to realize that it is neccesary to win that person to Christ or to prevent them from being led into sin themselves.

This is what I read, as to worshipping God:

John 4:23-24 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

For those who consider the KJV to be the only inspired version:

John 4:23-24 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 25, 2000.

Another thought: maybe we should start a new thread for this discussion, since we've drifted from the stated topic somewhat :-). How about this title? "Apostacy and Worship"?

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 25, 2000.

Lead on S.Kohl....

loungin' on the porch...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), February 25, 2000.

Wow. This thread is too big for me to follow in-depth. My kids are too energetic for that today.

George, I would like to answer the question you posed to me personally.

Noah was perfectly 'human'. Ever read about the nephilim?

Therefore, my vote goes to Mad Monk! Great response Brother Madness of Monkville!

-- Mumsie (shezdremn@aol.com), February 25, 2000.

I have no problem with inter-racial dating, but if Bob Jones wants to forbid their students to do it, then that's THEIR problem. Why should I care?

Other religious groups have all sorts of goofy ideas & do all sorts of goofy things. If they're consenting adults, & they're not breaking the law, why on earth should I CARE that they choose not to date outside their race...?

-- seriously wondering why (all@this.fuss), February 25, 2000.

To the top.

-- topper (thread@raiser.up), February 25, 2000.

Seriously wondering wrote:

"I have no problem with inter-racial dating, but if Bob Jones wants to forbid their students to do it, then that's THEIR problem. Why should I care?"

Maybe there's no reason for you to care. Depends on where you're coming from. I care for several reasons.

1. I love my children, and I don't want others to mistreat them or put them down, even though I know that it will happen, and I can't prevent it. Christians should at least try to make everyone feel welcomed and loved, whether they carry it off perfectly or not.

2. I also want my children to marry the spouse God, and not man, has picked out for them. If I adopted a black child, would I want her to go to BJU and be prohibited from dating certain people (I suspect that finding a marriage partner is the goal of college dating) because of the color of her skin? While classmates were allowed to date those same people because they matched?

3. Not only would that hurt my hypothetical black child's feeling, it is hypocritical enough that I would not send my white child, sibling to the black one, there either. The last thing I want my kids to learn is that Christians can do things even though they're not scripturally right, and that that's okay.

(It also makes me wonder whether BJU students are applying that lesson of doublemindedness in their personal lives in other areas, like underage drinking or illicit sex.)

4. I respect BJU educational materials, and have heard good things about them as far as their adherence to what is in the Bible. Now I will have to examine those materials more closely, and will even have to consider whether I want to use them at all (there are other options).

5. Christians are to further the gospel, not their own culture or ideas in the guise of spreading the gospel. Everything else is secondary to the Great Commission, even preferences. I know the South has prejudice, but for a Christian university with a mission statement like theirs to support that prejudice with rules against interracial dating is a serious flaw, from my perspective, and perhaps indicates a deeper problem somewhere.

Maybe they have an explanation that would change my mind by showing me a different perspective on the issue, but I haven't heard such an explanation so far.

But realistically, who am I that it matters that I care about this issue, anyway? No one they need to worry about or explain themselves to. When I stand before God, I want to be able to hear Him say I was His servant to the best of my ability, understanding, and opportunity (I am always falling short of course, but not generally on purpose).

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 25, 2000.

I had intended to respond to this earlier, but it slipped my mind.

Just Curious wrote: "One thing for all to think on: God says to worship Him in the ways He has designated, and NOT to add to that. That is why it IS important that the post was changed to the cross and then worshipped."

I still don't understand why it is important whether Jesus was killed on a torture pole or a Roman cross--the only thing in question would be the credibility of the translator who made such a change unilaterally, because he might have changed other, more important things for the same reason, whether through error or deliberately.

You see, I worship God, not the cross (or post). So I guess for me, that particular question is a non-issue, theologically speaking.

You can make an idol out of anything--a church organization, a church publication, a church building, church leaders, the cross, the Bible, whatever. The problem is the idolatry, not the object of the idolatry.

The group I've encountered that makes a big deal out of cross vs. pole, I finally remembered, was not the SDA's, but Jehovah's Witnesses. When Patrick brought the "stauros" issue up, I wondered if the Jehovah's Witnesses and he had a similar source for their idea. When evaluating something like this, I like to go back to the person who actually thought it up, and originated the issue, for evaluation. Presumably, someone at some point claimed that the word translated to mean "cross" really meant "pole." Who was the one who first disputed the meaning of "stauros" and what did that person do it for?

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 27, 2000.

Just thought I'd let you know (whoever is interested) that this morning I got an email from Patrick. It was sent Friday, but only arrived today.

Patrick has formulated a reply, but was unable to post it when he intended, because of provider problems. He said if he was unable to post, that he'd post Monday at the earliest.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 28, 2000.

S.Kohl...

.....Thank you very much for relaying the above message regarding my provider trouble; I was more frustrated than even Alice that I couldnt post on Friday. My business had me out of town over the weekend, so I was unable to get back to you, and for that I apologize. I will have to respond to her on the other thread, although, certainly not in kind.

.....You ask what exactly Im objecting to in the churches, as well as asking if the fact that the churches have allowed the schism or that their doctrine is not always the same. Yes, the church has allowed themselves to be split many times over, by now this is a minor point. I dont see much difference in doctrine in that they are all just varying degrees of falsehood. Despite the fact that I could go on for hours here, I will begin with the short list of what I find offensive...

a. Evangelism has been brought into the pulpit in place of true pastoring. Theyll quote a verse or two then go on for an hour about their experiences, or this mans or that mans. I see them as so many penguins lined up in a row, all looking essentially the same with their manner of dress and hairstyle, with not an original thought among them, so indoctrinated are they with that which theyve never taken time to investigate for validity. They give repeated milk of Scripture instead of the meat; the milk was intended for the lambs, (baby Christians), as opposed to the sheep, (grown-up Christians). The end of Hebrews 5 and beginning of Hebrews 6 addresses the practice of teaching the crucification over and over, exposing Christ to open shame, and to a room full of believers, no less. Ive seen elderly ladies sit in the same pew for thirty years, tithing what little they have, hearing the same rudimentary message, and never going near the deeper things spoken of by Paul, leaving behind those evangelical teachings, as beautiful as they are. To teach salvation and baptism over and over is, in fact, an abomination before God. Ask them what theyve learned this week that they didnt know last week, and youll rarely get a coherent answer. This is only the tip of the iceburg.

b. Todays church has been quite effectively neutered by the acceptance of a 501(c)3 tax status from the government, allowing them to proscribe what will or will not be tolerated as far as teaching goes. Further, through the alliance formed by virtue of membership in the Federal Council of Churches, they have gone even deeper into this pit. Perhaps you should investigate what their charter allows the members. Youll find this information in TIME, March 16, 1942; pp. 44. There is quite a list of dos and donts for their members, and this has been allowed to fester for nigh on sixty years. Id be quite curious as to how many of you will seize upon such a reference when provided as opposed to just reading over it. It would be easily obtained through your library, a real eye-opener.

c. The rampant paganism in the church that is obvious to any that take the time to investigate. Celebrating anything but the high Holy days, Christmas on the winter solstice, Easter, (Ishtar/Eostre), offering up their abominable cakes and drinks to the queen of heaven spoken of in Jeremiah 44. Fertility rites, (eggs, quick like a bunny), on the passover Lambs day, in sunrise service five and twenty elders, (note the extra elder here, indicative of the false... for this to represent the true, there should be four and twenty elders), with their backs to the alter. Youll not find the word Easter in Scripture; yes, the little scribes got in there and inserted in into the book of the Acts, but the word in the manuscripts is pascha in the Greek, meaning passover. Add to this the molech worship of passing their children through the stones of the fire, the very teaching of the threat of hell and holding that over their heads as they keep them from measuring up to their levels of religiousityall in an effort to lay guilt trips on the flock, thereby keeping them under thumb. Will worship spoken of in Corinthians and the perpetual focus of only that which is in the flesh. The teaching of the rapture doctrine, be it pre, mid or post tribulatational, in the face of Ezekiel 13 where God emphatically states that he hates those that teach his children to fly to save their souls. To give context, verse five states, for the house of Israel to stand in the battle of the day of the Lord. Dont presume to tell me this is mere history. Would it not be reasonable, that if there were such a thing as "rapture" that the word would show up in Scripture at least once? Thessolonians is often used to say this, however, "caught up in the air" is a Greek idiom, meaning "seized in the breath of life" that ruach that was breathed into Adam, again, the languages. Fascinating how God knew theyd be teaching this particular abomination, (based on the ranting of a mentally disturbed individual in 1830, while on her deathbed).

d. The manner and attitude of those that Ive observed as church- goers is hardly that of true Christianity. They seem to me to be overly concerned with their glorified fellowship and ill-concerned with the true teaching of Christ. We wont even have to get into the comparisons of wardrobe and possessions. Ive found more invective in the so-called church than Ive seen in some lesser places. Most churches that I've seen would run Christ himself out on a rail.

e. The profound ignorance of the world in which we live, that has to be understood for the Scriptures to make true sense to anyone. They dont know the history of the world and peoples that the Word relates to, nor the modernday players, so distorted is our mainstream history. It is like watching a play without knowing whos who. Imagine thinking the good guy character was the bad guy and vice- versa. How does anyone even begin to find a clue?

.....You say the stauros example Ive provided you seems of little importance to you. I did call this a slight example, but what does God have to say to such things? Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter? (Ezekiel 16 or so). How many of these unimportant matters must be piled on top of one another for this to become a gestalt of consequence? It matters little what worthless mans opinions are if they are in conflict with the written Word.The problem which youve chosen to expound upon in regards to this example...

I know that other groups also make a big deal about it. But the groups Ive met representatives from who make a big deal out of that seem to do so for a particular reason. Their main point is that traditional churches are wrong, so you have to join their church only.

.....youll find Im in complete agreement with. The trouble is that like so many other factions within so-called Christianity, is that they get just a little bit of light, and they close the book and concentrate upon building a religion around one tiny piece of knowledge; choosing to dwell upon yet another devisive detail rather than striving for the sum total of the parts and looking for a way to relate this to others without derision. No... ... we have people killing and hating in Gods name, without ever realizing or even considering the utter folly in such practice.

.....To address your remaining questions, It doesnt matter to me whether you or anyone else agrees with me. Im a worthless man just like all other worthless men in the eyes of the Father. Dont take my word for any of this, but stick your nose in the Book and prove to yourself whats there. Just dont expect it to be a minor undertaking. The question then becomes, do you agree with Scripture? Youll not answer to me, nor I to you in judgement. No, I didnt figure all of this out on my own; in many counsels there is wisdom and each piece of counsel that one avails himself to must be weighed against the Word, and one must prove all things. I have only skimmed the surface in this, the deepest of subjects, but doctrinally, the church fails to understand the eternal purpose of God, yet they presume to teach others, thereby taking them down. Now, if youll excuse me for a few; before I return, I have to go have a word with Alice on the Apostacy thread. (G)

.....As an aside to little Alice in her looking glass, come on down with that miniature flamethrower now, and tell me how Ive said nothing, if, in fact... ... you have it in you. I promise Ill remain civil.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 28, 2000.

To the top...

-- Seek (.@nd ye.shallfind), February 28, 2000.

Ah - but you are assuming I really care about what "Bob Jones" thinks about Mr Keyes.

You are perhaps assuming that all conservatives must somehow think alike, that perhaps there is no room in the various conservative groups to allow for discuss, even disagreements?

Or do you perhaps believe that (like Democrats) we must forget our thoughts and toe the "party line" in an orgy of hatred and derision? Like Glenn did - anything, any lie, any assumption, any asumption, and any "friend" (like Hustler magazine) is vlaid as an excuse for a Democrat.....any whimsy, comment, exaggeration or lie is valid to accuse a Republican?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 28, 2000.

.....You didn't all tire out already, did you?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 28, 2000.

But Sir Patrick of the Unconvinced - in discussing matters of faith - by definition, one cannot be convinced of anything.

One can, with grace and under right circumstances, perhaps be converted, but never convinced.

Thus - since I have no intention of "converting" you - or anybody else for that matter - it is a waste of time to "argue" religion. You end up either discussing things withothers who believe you completely - and thus gain nothing nor any new facts about others; or you end up screaming and charging false notions and obtuse (irrelevent) factoids about matters that neither will change (nor accept) from the other.

Better is a quiet discussion that all can learn from - but that too - is almost impossible. Faith stirs from within, and is inspired by comtemplation with God (or the devil -should one prefer to associate with the people whom he associates and tempts from within), association with others of simlar faith, and prayer - not from logic or supposed facts.

All, for example, can twist endlessly from a single point - if for example, one chooses to believe the current Bible is a true and complete translated text of verbal stories, history, and parables inspired by God to teach and inspire today's users - then one will get a very different frame of reference that if one chooses to parse and divide every sentence as literal truth.

Again - faith takes all.

---...---

Me? I'm just surprised a bunch of intinerent sheepherders wandering in the desert could "invent" a story of creation that includes the Big Bang theory and the creation of stars moons, and the planets; next the formation of the land and seas; the separation of the oceans by continental drift, and the complete theory of evolution: plants, then lower animals, then higher animals - even getting the birds inserted in the right place - and we STILL don't have good fossils to really say that's true - then man and women - complete with a rejunvenating rib!

Marvelous, simply marvelous the way these sheepherders figured all this out....course, they missed a decimal or two in their "powers of ten of the number of days" it might have taken, but that's because "0" hadn't been invented yet.

Can't write down exponential years from verbal histories if the 10 isn't invented.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 28, 2000.

Robert...

.....Patrick of the Unconviced? I'm not sure what you're saying I'm unconvinced of here... I'm convinced that God is indeed real, but quite certain that organized religion is lost, and unable to relate Scripture to their respective flock. Did you miss my point, or I yours?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 29, 2000.

Patrick:

First, I would like to thank you for sharing your ideas.

Second, can you give me a source for some of them? Especially the stauros example, because I've come across that one several times before, and I'm starting to recognize it, yet have no source for the idea yet. With at least the items among those you brought up that I've heard mentioned by others before, I would like to see what reasoning/evidence led the source to think what he thinks. As I have time, of course!

Third, I think I might make just a few comments on some things you said, but I want to think about it a little more, first (plus sometimes I do do other things than discuss, and some of those things tend to be rather insistent :-) if I'm not keeping up with them).

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 29, 2000.

Mr. Cook:

The Scriptures and the whole drama and 'human interest' factor of Christianity IS quite amazing, isn't it?

For people who think Christians are not quite intelligent - - all I can say is: "You're wrong!"

We had a Superintendent and Principal of our children's Christian school who used to say that God must love people lacking in intelligence, because He made so many more of them than smart ones; and he must love poor people, because he made so many more of THEM.

He was a member of the V-12 program in the second world war (which could compare to the astronaut program, in that the very most intelligent people were chosen to participate.

He resigned his commission, because he said that, while he, himself, didn't have to kill anyone, he was sending young men out with instructions to do that. He became a true conscientious objector.

My imagination was grabbed when I heard the Gospel, because I immediately knew it was true.

God is good.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), February 29, 2000.

Oh Patrick, my Patrick. You latched on to one word and one word only in my correspondence with you.that word being rude. I was rude in that I demanded an answer . You were and are simply RUDE with the midol crack. Very ungraceful and uncivilized. You do not recognize your own rudeness. Your attacks were personal. Mine simply demanded answers as your posts were merely disparaging but without any content. You should choose your words more carefully.

You might recall that I had intended to respond to you next week. I shall post a separate response as to why my vacation was cancelled and I am here to respond to you now.

On to the meat of the responses. Unlike you, I actually read your reponses. At the time of my posting, you had merely taken the trouble to disparage others on this discussion. Check the timing. I am sorry that your server was slow.mine is INCREDIBLY slow, so with that I sympathize. But then I read your lengthy response and found that again..you mostly wanted to disparage organized religion. I too am disheartened by organized religion. I have yet to find one that is "right" with God. But isn't that in Revelations when he speaks of the seven churches? I am reminded of the passage where he looks at one and says, "you are neither hot nor cold"that about sums up my feelings when I read your post. You seem afraid to say exactly what you do believe injust about what you DON'T believe in.

You are prideful. That is a sin. You simply do not see it. You are looking into your own glass darkly, Patrick. Remove the mote from your own eye. You are not a perfect persona sentiment with which you apparantly give only lip service.. as your actual commentary belies this point. (Connie most succinctly and better than I responded to you on this point) You believe that your way is the RIGHT way. Then you say something which to you seems modest and I do believe YOU believe that you are a humble seeker of the truth. Unfortunately, if that is the case, then you surely do not come across that way.

My dear Patrick, what makes you assume that I have not read the bible? I most certainly have and will not attempt to "outdo" you in that department. It is not a question of that. Quite frankly, I am amazed that such a learned individual as yourself does not understand that God speaks most clearly to your heart. He formed us and we are all a part of him. He refers to HIMSELF as our Father. I read HIS words for clarification, but I know in my heart of hearts when I have erred. I know that the bible contains "variations"that is why there are so many versions. I am not a nit-picker. Jesus came and told that to the Jewish church leaders. HE informed them that ritualistically following the law was wrong. HE had come to EMBODY the law. I believe that you would have been amont the Pharisees condemning him for saving the man on the Sabbath. It was against the LAW. Listen more to your heart and less to a document which has been handed down for thousands of years.

As noted in my earlier posts, I do not believe that the bible is inerrant. I am at odds with the fundamentalists on this one. I know that man is flawed and sinful and although the original work was inerrant, I believe that over time Man has "corrupted" the word. It is amazing that it is as intact as it is. That truly is a miracle of God. But the many versions speak to the fact that different interpretations exist. And why wouldn't they? Could a Man living thousands of years ago speak knowledgeably about computers and space travel? He wrote what God inspired him to write. John was taken in the spirit to view the latter days and he was told to write what he saw..God didn't dictate thata MAN living in that day and with that day's experience wrote that. He was not knowledgeable about things existing that far into the future. Would I expect his "vision" to be a perfect reflection of the future? No, I wouldn't. Does that make that book any less holy or reliable? No. He was an inspired man , doing what he was told to do by God. But his vision may not be what I would have described today. Ever seen a car accident? Three people are witnesses to the event and yet there are variations. Are they lying? No they are not. Each has told the truth from their vantage point. The bible was written over time. It has been modified/translated. Some cultures do not even have the words to describe what the original wording washence a variation creeps in.

There are over 30 words to describe rain in the Japanese language. Each conveys a different meaning to one from that culture. But the bottom line is they all say rain. Or do they? To the Japanese, if you use the "wrong" word, then you have completely altered the meaningand they would be right from their vantage point. The eskimoes have an incredible number of words for snow. It has great and implicit meaning in their culture. To change or alter a certain word for snow to them would be a complete obviation of the translation.

In other words, being a twentieth century man of Western Civilization, I do not believe that you will TRULY ever completely understand the original meaning of the bible. If you believe otherwise, then you are prideful, Patrick. Of course you should study it and learn from it. But you should listen with your heart first. The bible clearly teaches that. God knew that over time changes would enter.from a cultural perspective alone, that is inevitable. We do not view the world as our ancestors did. We cannot conceive of what really is happening on the other side of the world in our own time. How can we possibly understand a shepherd , a fisherman, a priest, etc. from millennia ago?

I have lived overseas for many, many years and studied many diverse cultures in many locations on this planet and I can assure you that you have no clue as to how they thinkI can only begin to understand them dimly. How in the world can you rely so heavily on YOUR OWN interpretation based on ancient Hebrew and less ancient Greek? Again, I admonish you to use your heart Patrick.

My rudeness was a demand for you to be more forthcoming and while lengthy, you do not seem to understand the questioneven now. What do you believe Patrick?

I believe in Jesus, the Son of God. He died for my sins (pole or cross, doesn't matter) and through his Grace I am saved. Bottom line, that is my faith system. I am sinful and not worthy to gather up the crumbs beneath his table (sound familiar?). Yet, he has deemed me worthy of this great sacrifice. I believe that you wrote something of a similar natureIf so, then we are in complete agreement as to the bottom line. You may want to take a second look at the preface to your faith however.

God admonished Job for trying to "understand" the nature of God. It is human to try to do so. Quite frankly, I do not believe that any of us can conceive of his true and complete nature while in mortal form. I believe that this gift is only possible through his saving Grace and at that can only be understood in the form of acceptance of his remarkable sacrifice. Every time I tuck my children in I think of this sacrifice and am brought to the verge of tears at his Gift of Love. For that is what he is. Complete and pure love. Unconditional acceptance of me warts and all. I do not begin to claim scholarship of him. Every man in the bible who did so was thrown down. The prophets themselves threw themselves at his feet when they realized their sins in pride. Even Moses was too terrified to speak for him and begged to be excused. Obviously his brother, Aaron, did not have the same problem. Be very careful, Patrick. Be very, very careful in all that you say and do.

As to the "casting your pearls before swine"..Jesus spoke to everyone and left out noone. I believe that you have misunderstood that passage as well. Again, a prideful statement that you were above me, though you knew me not. Again the disparaging remark. I came to the table to learn as did the harlots, moneylenders, tax collectors and other sinners and yet you slammed the door in my face. There is a popular saying about now, have you heard it Patrick? "What would Jesus do?" Re-read your posts and see if they sound as if they were inspired of God or of Man. Jesus spoke to the multitudes. He didn't merely teach in the temple. He didn't go before the Pharisees and argue with them.though as you will recall, they tried to get him there repeatedly. He knew that he could not preach to the pride of scholars entrenched in their own sinful convictions. They believed they were righteous men. They believed they had the ear and the TRUTH of God. They believed they were right and were preserving their faith. They were wrong, weren't they Patrick? Please go and re-read the bible and be inspired yourself, Patrick. I will pray for you. Prayer is also God's gift to us.A promise that he hears us and will help us. That is the subject of my independent post. Please read it and be inspired again. Stop looking at how "wrong" everything is everywhere in the churches and start looking for where it is right. There are miracles even now. I know, for God blessed me early Sunday morning. I am a very blessed and lucky woman. Praise God ! He really DOES hear and answer our prayers.

Go in peace and may HIS light fill your heart, Patrick. If I have offended you, then I apologize, but I am admonished to chastise those who will lead others astray. Your fruit does not bear picking in my orchard. I will see the Forest of God's love and not the weeds of dissension planted by Man. May God shower you with his blessings as you continue in HIS way, for HE is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIGHT.

-- Alice (Looking@glass.com), February 29, 2000.

Alice...

.....You and I so obviously got off on the wrong foot here that it doesnt even need saying. Allow me, if you will, an attempt to set things right. My comments, outside of the initial one, before you appeared, were in direct answer to specific questions asked of me by S. Kohl. They were not directed at any one individual, unless so stated. I regret both the midol comment and wondering as to whether or not you were worthy of a Christians pearls of wisdom, you are certainly not swine so please forgive my rash statements. I was rude in kind and I was wrong to be so; since youve chosen to adopt a more civil tone, I will be answer as such. I did indeed take offense with the hot air comments, when, as Ive said, I wasnt even aware of your existence. To lay out ones beliefs, if they are of any consequence, cannot be done in a sentence or two, particularly when those beliefs are so far removed from that which I see the world understanding. Would it not have been more appropriate for us both for you to come out and ask for a brief overview of my beliefs? I would have happily obliged. I know you feel that youve got me pretty well summed up, from your post above, but I didnt see me in any of your comments, and if we engage in conversation for more than the cursory glance weve attained so far, I believe your opinion will at least soften, if not change completely. At least that would be my wish.

.....I fully understand that chastisement must always be given in love and it is, from my perspective. My father loved me, but that didnt ever stop him from some serious firmness in the way I was chastized as a child. Is the concept of righteous indignation now politically incorrect as so many other areas? I am indeed quite indignant with organized religion, and Im an equal opportunity opponent. I know in my heart that they are wrong and I am a passionate person, so when I say things of this nature, oftentimes they sound as though there is more invective than I am actually delivering, especially on this board, without the nuance and expression afforded by verbal communication. I have had more than one mishap in this area, and I obviously have yet to learn the gentle approach. So be it... I hold my views without apology, as they truely are firmly rooted in Scripture. Was Christ chastizing without love when He came against the scribes, pharisees and Scripture lawyers, calling them a den of vipers? No, He took a cat onine and routed the money-changers out of the temple. Was this pride? Christ was killed because He pointed fingers and named names, and He was a very serious threat to the power structure of His day. That is why He was crucified. Forgive me if I fail to believe in the peace, love, hippie-type persona that is so widely held today.

.....I have stated implicitly that I am merely a worthless man in the eyes of the Father, and I am very careful not to become puffed up in my knowledge. I fall as short as anybody in my walk at times, but I always manage to pick myself up and shake the dust off and try again. That is not to say that I am anything less than forceful in my words on this subject, but I happen to believe that now is the time for strong words. Believe it or not, Alice, I walk as though a sheep in wolves country; but when Im engaged in these discussions, I speak as the spirit leads. I mean no disrespect to any individual on a personal basis, but the apostate church is failing miserably in the duties theyve taken upon themselves, and they sit in the seat of Moses when they should, by their fruits, be relegated to janitor status. I am not afraid to say what I believe in as you state that I seem; the problem lies in people being so indoctrinated in what passes today for Christianity, that they fail to comprehend what it is that I say or mean. I have much more luck with the unbelievers among us, it seems, as many of them want to learn, but are as turned off by the hypocrisy of the church as I had become. I maintain that God is not in these beth-avens, (houses of nothingness, which should be beth-el... houses of God).

.....I wont have time right now to address every point youve made above, particularly those of your opinions of me, but you do make an excellent example of the Japanese word usage, which is precisely the point of my earlier statement concerning the languages. But lets bring this right down to the kitchen table here, shall we? Again, as a slight example, there were four separate words in the Hebrew that were rendered into the English, man... do you know what they are? Do you then know which is which when reading Scripture? How does one presume to understand what is being said without this discernment? The differences in this example cannot be dismissed as subtle the way you have with the Japanese example. These things must be sought out if one hopes to have a chance to understand. Why are these not taught by the church today? I submit to you that it was for the same reason they they never wanted a copy of Scriptures to be allowed into the hands of the masses years ago. This is not only neglect, but criminal neglect with intent. There are many more examples where even more than four words were used synonymously, and rendered as one.

.....Once again, we really havent gotten to my doctrinal beliefs, but I would define them as Christian, Alice; and if you bear with me, I will get some of them out; but as I said, it cannot be done in a sentence or two. The eternal purpose of God can be delineated in a concise chronological order, but one has to understand that even the most knowledgeable among us, is still to be found wanting when it comes to the 100% category. The very reason that I didnt wish to enter this fray, as I had initially said, was not due to and schizophrenia on my part; it is that the racial aspect of Scripture is so widely misunderstood, but yet it is passionately misunderstood and it seems that everyone has made up their minds and put a solid fifteen or twenty coats of hard shellack over their views, and theyll just dare you to try to change them. If I get a bit more time this evening, I will try to address a few more of your more salient points with sincerity, and Ill do my best to keep from sounding as though Im that which you find disfavorable.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 29, 2000.

"Second, can you give me a source for some of them? Especially the stauros example, because I've come across that one several times before, and I'm starting to recognize it, yet have no source for the idea yet. With at least the items among those you brought up that I've heard mentioned by others before, I would like to see what reasoning/evidence led the source to think what he thinks. As I have time, of course!"

S. Kohl...

.....The stauros example I've mentioned can be found in Appendix #162 in the rear of Kregel's Companion Bible that I mentioned above. The assertions are born out in the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. There is quite a bit there, and the pertinence is not easily lost when presented here. I believe that at least some of the work here can be attributed to Bullinger, although they refuse to assign a man's name to the scholarship. I don't remember where I had heard it was him, so I cannot be certain. I think your approach to this particular item would be better understood if you reversed your thinking on it though; instead of trying to understand where and from whom this becomes an issue, think in terms of when and by whom, it was changed into a "cross"... I believe up above I said 342 A.D., but after checking my reference, it was actually 326 A.D.. Surely the solar wheel symbol has significance to us on this. Perhaps your local Christian bookstore will have a copy of this Bible that you could glance at in order that you could at least see the validity of my assertion. Do you use a concordance in your study?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 29, 2000.

Patrick wrote: "Todays church has been quite effectively neutered by the acceptance of a 501(c)3 tax status from the government, allowing them to proscribe what will or will not be tolerated as far as teaching goes. Further, through the alliance formed by virtue of membership in the Federal Council of Churches, they have gone even deeper into this pit. Perhaps you should investigate what their charter allows the members. Youll find this information in TIME, March 16, 1942; pp. 44. There is quite a list of dos and donts for their members, and this has been allowed to fester for nigh on sixty years.

Well, I found the article you were talking about, Patrick, and here it is.

From "TIME", March 16, 1942

_________________________________________________________________

American Malvern These are the high spots of organized US Protestantism's super-protestant new program for a just and durabel peace after World War II:

***Ultimately, "a world government of delegated powers."

***Complete abandonment of US isolationism.

***Strong immediate limitations on national soveriegnty.

***International control of all armies & navies.

***"A universal system of money...so planned as to prevent inflation and deflation."

***Worldwide freedom of immigration.

***Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade.

***"Autonomy for all subject and colonial peoples" (with much better treatment for Negroes in the US).

***No punitive reparations, no humiliating decrees of war guilt, no arbitrary dismemberment of nations."

***A "democratically controlled" international bank "to make development capital available in all parts of the world without the predatory and imperialistic aftermath so characteristic of large-scale private and governmental loans."

This program was adopted last weeki by 375 appointed representatives of 30-odd denominations called together at Ohio Wesleyan University by the Federal Council of Churches. Every local Protestand church in the country will now be urged to get behind the program. "As Christian citizens," its sponsors affirmed, "we must seek to translate our beliefs into practical realitites and to create a public opinion which will insure that the United States shall play its full and essential part in the creation of a moral way of international living."

Among the 375 delegates who drafted the program were 15 bishops of five denominations, seven seminary heads "including Yale, Chicago, Princeton, Colgate-Rochester), eight college and university presidents (including Princeton's Harold W. Dodds), practically all the ranking officials of the Federal COuncil and a group of well-known laymen, including John R. Mott, Irving Fisher and Harvey S. Firestone Jr. "Intellectually," said Methodist Bishop Ivan Lee Holt of Texas, "this is the most distinguished American church gathering I have seen in 30 years of conference-going."

The meeting showed its temper early by passing a set of 13 "requisite principles for peace" submitted by Chairman John Foster Dulles and his inter-church Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and DUrable Peace. These principles, far from putting all the onus on Germany or Japan, bade the US give thought to the shortsighted selfishness of its own policies after World War I, declared that the US would have to turn over a new leaf if the world is to enjoy lasting peace.

Excerpts:

***"For at least a generation we have held preponderant economic power in the world, and with it the capacity to influence decisively the shaping of world events. It should be a matter of shame and humiliation to us that actually the influences shaping the world have largely been irresponsible forces. Our own positive influence has been imparied because of concentration on selfr and on our short-range material gains....If the future is to be other than a repetition of the past, the US must accept the responsibility for constructive action commensurate with its power and opportunity."

***"The natural wealth of the world is not evenly distributed. Accordingly the possession of such natural resources...is a trust to be discharged in the general interest. This calls for more than an offer to sell to all on equal terms. Such an offer may be a futile gesture unless those in need can, through the selling of their own goods and services, acquire the means of buying."

With these principles accepted, the conference split up into four groups to study, respectively, teh social, economic and political problems of the post-war world and the problem of the church's own position in that world.*

FOOTNOTE HERE: (Despite their zeal for world policial, social and economic unity, the churchmen were less drastic when it came to themselves. They were frank enough to admit that their own lack of unity was no shining example to the secular world, but did no more than call for "a new era of interdenominational cooperation in which the claims fo cooperative effort should be placed, so far as possible, before denominational prestige.")

Discussion waxed hot & heavy, with one notable silence: in a week when the Japs were taking Java, discussion of the war itself was practically taboo. Reason: The Federal COuncil felt that, since five of its other commissions are directly connected with the war efort, the conference's concern should be iwth plans for peace. One war statement--"the Christian CHurch as such is not at war"--was proposed by Editor Charles Clayton Morrison, of the influential and isolationist-before-Pearl-Harbor "Christian Century". This statement was actually inserted in a subcommittee report by a 64-58 vote after a sharp debate. In the plenary session, however, it was ruled out of order.

Some of the conference's economic opinions were almost as sensational as the extreme internationalism of its political program. It held that "a new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative"--a neww order that is sure to come either "through voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through explosive political revolution. WIthout condemning the profit motive as such, it denounced various defects in the profit system for breeding war, demagogues and dictators, "mass unemployment, widespread dispossession from homes and farms, destitution, lack of opportunity for youth and of security for old age." Instead, "the church msut demand economic arrangements measured by human welfare...must appeal to the Christian motive of human service aas paramount to personal gain or governmental coercion."

"Collectivism is coming, whether we like it or not," the delegates were told by no less a churchman than England's Dr. William Paton, co-secretary of the World Council of Churches, but the conference did not veer as far to the left as its definitely pinko British counterpart, the now famous Malvern Conference ("TIME", Jan 20, 1941). It did, however, back up Labor's demand for an increasing share in industrial management. It echoed Labor's shibboleth that the denial of collective bargaining "reduces labor to a commodity." It urged taxation designed "to the end that our wealth may be more equitably distributed." It urged experimentation with government and cooperative ownership.

"Every individual," the conference declared, "has the right to full-time educational opportunities...to economic security in retirement...to adequate health service [and an] obligation to work in some socially necessary service."

The conference statement on the political bases of a just and durable peace proclaimed that the first post-war dutyr of the church "will be the achievement of a just peace settlement with due regard to the welfare of all the nations, the vanquished, the overrun and the victors alike." In contrast to the blockade of Germany after World War I, it called for immediate provision of food and other essentials after the war for every country needing them. "We must get back," explained Methodist Bishop Francis J. McConnell, "to a stable material prosperity not only to strengthen men's bodies but to strengthen their souls."

Politically, the conference's most important assertion was that many duties now performed by local and national governments "can now be effectively carried out only by international authority." Individual nations, it declared, must give up their armed forces "except for preservation of domestic order" and allow the world to be policed by an international army & navy. This League-of-Nations-with-teeth would also have "the power of final judgment in controversies between nations...the regulation of international trade and population movements among nations."

The ultimate goal: "a duly constituted world government fo delegated powers: an international legislative body, and international court with adequate jurisdiction, international administrative bodies with necessary powers, and adequate international police forces and provision for enforcing its worldwide economic authority."

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 29, 2000.

These are some comments from another brother of mine, (my baby brother). He works at a library when he's not studying (English for Information Systems), and he is the one who got a copy of the article for me.

"This church, or parachurch, organization comes off sounding socialistic. This promotion of One World Government is not a new thing. Something to keep in mind is the fact that in 1942 the US was allied with the Soviet Union and many socialist abuses were not commonly known. If I recall, this group (World Council of Churches) has supported terrorist activity."

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 29, 2000.

S. Kohl...

.....Bravo! I'm glad you looked this up. I was originally going to offer to mail this article, (at my expense), to anyone here that wanted it, but thought it would do well to tempt you into a bit of "legwork" of your/their own. ;o)

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), February 29, 2000.

weird very weird, god doesn't care what color people are, he created us all. Now what color is god? I said he is a rainbow. All colors come from him, all the same, all loved.

-- ET (bneville@zebra.net), February 29, 2000.

Thank you, Patrick. I try to 'speak the truth in love' but fail sometimes. (Especially (rarely)if it's 'up close and personal', as S. Kohl mentioned on the other thread.

The main thing in our everyday behavior that the Lord wants us to control is our tongues - - observe the fire out of control over the situation at BJU.

Since this thread began with a discussion of Alan Keyes and Bob Jones University, I wonder how many of you remember the account in Numbers (16, I think,- - no, it's Numbers 12: 1 -10)of Moses, Miriam and Aaron? Miriam and Aaron were Moses' sister and brother, as most of you recall.

They criticized Moses for marrying the Cushite (Ethiopian - black; some accounts say she was dark-skinned) woman and God said to them: "How dare you criticize my servant Moses!?" he then turned Miriam leprous, but Moses prayed to Him and asked Him not to hold it against her, and to heal her, which He did.

The reason they were upset is not because she was black, but because she wasn't of their tribe, or something, I believe.

We're not to be unequally yoked together, but that means with unbelievers, not with people of other races. This tells us that God is not against mixed marriages, either of the racial or tribal kind; only the believer-unbeliever kind.

I thought of that early on in this discussion, but got off on a tangent.

The thing that makes me feel bad about this mess over Bush's visit to Bob Jones is that it's a terrible witness. Satan sure grabbed the ball and ran with this one.

I do believe that Bob Jones should change its policy in this regard. While they are entitled to teach whatever they want, since they refused government dollars, it's like the fact that we (or rather Protestants - - I don't consider myself a Protestant - - I'm just a Christian) should not be considered heretics by the Roman Catholic Church, nor be subject to being put to death by them (one of the facts of the Inquisition).

As far as I know, those tenets have not been removed from the annals of that church. There is plenty of injustice to go around on this one!

Also, S. Kohl, I hope Eve found it as amusing as I did that you said, "Blame Eve!" Adam said the same thing in the garden after the snack, if I'm not mistaken! ;-) ;-)

Concerning that discussion - - predestination and free will are also one of those unsolvable (for humans) complexities of the N.T. This is where we 'see through a glass, darkly, but then face-to-face'.

-- Connie (hive @gte.net), March 01, 2000.

Patrick:

I tried to send you something after reading the long item above, but it came back as undeliverable. It's none of my business, but is that not your real e-mail number?

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 01, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Unequal yoking imagry is often invoked to exclude unbelievers (in whatever broad or narrow sense the speaker might intend) from full participation in public life. I have seen it used to exclude families from homeschooling associations, to exclude citizens from juries, to advocate religious tests for holding public office, to deny current or prospective lovers an opportunity to be together, to deny children a voice, to excommunicate people from their communities, and even to justify murder. Any code which tends to promote such behaviors as these is seriously lacking in both wisdom and compassion.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), March 01, 2000.

Dancr, my mother and father were/are unequally yoked. And I can tell you, nothing I've faced in my life since has been as horrible as growing up with repercussions from that.

If neither party in a marriage really believes that their religion is the one that matches reality, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But when you really believe something, then that is what you want to teach your children. That kind of conflict is both unresolvable and intense.

OTOH, I think that extending God's compassionate warning to those choosing a life-long marriage partner beyond its bounds, as in the examples you gave, is not very admirable, if only because of the effect it has on those that are excluded.

We aren't to hide away from the world, as adult Christians, anyway, or to form "an exclusive and holier-than-thou club". We are to be in the world yet not of it (much more difficult than simply withdrawing).

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), March 01, 2000.

Connie...

.....The addy is real, I e-mailed you today, as yet don't know if you got it. Please, try again.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), March 01, 2000.

S. Kohl...

.....The article you pulled from TIME above, when I received it, was coupled with another piece from the department of treasury internal revenue service, publication 1826 (9-94) Cat. no. 21096G. For a 501(c)3 exemption there are seventeen more listed items that the "churches" must abide by; another interesting list, to be sure, but #2 on this list is, "Have a recognized creed and 'IRS approved' code of doctrine." #13 says, "May 'not' engage in activities 'opposing pornography'." #14... "May 'not' support legislation saying 'children belong to parents' rather than to the state." #17... "May 'not publically declare' we are to 'obey God rather than the government."

.....Certainly I'm not the only one in this discussion that is outraged by such proclivities, or am I?.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), March 01, 2000.

I haven't seen the 501(c)3 regulations, yet. Does anyone know if those are available on the internet?

If those things are true, well then, not only is that something a church could not and should not obey (refraining from saying that we should obey God rather than man, especially), it is something that no church I've ever attended obeys.

I am also happy to report that my church is not a member of the World Council of Churches. Is there a complete list on the internet of their membership? I didn't find one in my initial search. Library research will take a little longer.

Maybe, like some Executive Orders, these laws are actually there, but will/can be challenged as unconstitutional if they are ever enforced? Which shows why the Judicial system is so important.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), March 01, 2000.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_fosterj_news/20000301_xnfoj_bob_j ones_.shtml is the location of more explanation from Bob Jones.

The article is below, from the above address at World Net Daily.

__________________________________________________

Bob Jones answers critics 73-year-old Christian school on being political 'whipping boy'

By Julie Foster ) 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

With GOP presidential candidate John McCain's controversial campaign speech attacking leaders of the "religious right," religion has emerged as the current lightning rod of the primary season, and has succeeded in painting Bob Jones University -- a highly-successful, 73-year-old Christian school -- as a pariah institution.

McCain's South Carolina co-chairman, House Speaker Pro Tem Terry Haskins resigned over the attack.

"They're growing into a national media vendetta that I cannot associate my name to," Haskins, a Bob Jones alumnus, said Monday, adding that the attacks were vicious and unjustified, according to Fox News.

"People at Bob Jones are not racist and they don't hate Catholics," he said. "No doubt Bob Jones University holds religious beliefs that are outside the mainstream and unpopular. But the public lynching of this college has created an environment which threatens the freedom for any individual or group in America to hold unpopular religious beliefs."

McCain uses a line from his speech, part of which has been replayed continually by the media since McCain delivered it Monday, as the new theme of his official campaign website: "We are the party of Ronald Reagan, not Pat Robertson. We are the party of Theodore Roosevelt, not the party of special interests. We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, not Bob Jones."

His reference to Bob Jones, founder of the recently maligned Bob Jones University in South Carolina, has stoked a fire the media has created around the school. But BJU has not exactly sat by while its reputation has been tarnished.

In a document titled, "The Truth About Bob Jones University," the school responds to media accusations labeling the school as a racist, anti-Catholic institution.

The school acknowledges its restriction of interracial dating, but defends the policy as a precautionary measure against its religious belief that world unity will enable the rule of "Antichrist." It is not a racist-motivated punishment against minorities.

"Students of all races attend here and live in racial harmony and respect for one another as Christians," school officials say. "If there is discrimination in the policy, which race is discriminated against? Black, white, or yellow? Each person dates within his own race. For there to be discrimination, one race would have to be treated differently than the other."

"The one-world principle -- every effort man has made, or will make, to bring the world together in unity -- plays into the hand of Antichrist," the school's explanation continues. "This first began at the Tower of Babel, and it will culminate at Armageddon when the Lord returns to establish His rule of peace and harmony for a thousand years.

"Bob Jones University opposes one world, one church, one economy, one military, one race, and unisex. God made racial differences as He made gender differences. Each race and each sex should be proud to be what God made it, and none should reproach the other."

The school asks, "Why is the focus being placed on something which is such a small and insignificant part of the University's whole, making it a media obsession? The last two or three generations of students who have graduated from this institution never once heard a discussion of this policy. It is not something that is preached or talked about."

The university, which notes the Bible does not teach against interracial marriage but gives principles upon which the school bases its policy, says that it does not look down on interracially married couples, and enrolls such couples in the university.

"The warning against interracial marriages is not about the couple, but about the one-world system," school officials say.

The paper adds facts to back up the school's stated stance against racism. Its 1998 Alumni Appreciation Award recipient was a black BJU graduate, and the school's current student body president is an Asian-American.

It also explains the origin of the policy against interracial dating.

"It was first stated in the mid-1950s when dealing with an Asian-Caucasian dating couple. At that time, Christians nationwide understood that interracial marriage was best avoided."

As for accusations calling the school "anti-Catholic," Bob Jones University "stand[s] upon the doctrines of Scripture, which places it at odds with papal edict," but clarifies such a stand does not justify the label "haters of Catholics."

"If there are those who wish to charge us with being anti-Catholicism, we plead guilty. But we are not Catholic-haters," according to the school. "All religion, including Catholicism, which teaches that salvation is by religious works or church dogma is false. Religion that makes the words of its leader, be he Pope or other, equal with the Word of God is false."

"We love the practicing Catholic and earnestly desire to see him accept the Christ of the Cross, leave the false system that has enslaved his soul, and enjoy the freedom of sins forgiven that is available for any of us in Christ alone."

Alan Keyes, the only black candidate and a practicing Catholic, spoke at BJU on Valentine's Day. During his speech, Keyes took the opportunity to criticize the school's interracial dating policy and position on Catholicism.

"There are folks who don't think I should be talking to Bob Jones University," Keyes told the assembled group of students and staff. "You know that, don't you? I hope you understand this. They said I shouldn't come here, because I am a black person, and there are these terrible policies about interracial dating. They said I shouldn't come because I am -- I say it with pride and certainty -- a Roman Catholic Christian. And that I would not be received in this place, on that account."

"I have, thankfully, put the lie to that by my presence," he added.

Bob Jones III, the university's president, believes Keyes' remarks reflect his submission to media pressures. Keyes' comments during a televised debate prior to the South Carolina primary further incensed the university president. Indeed, after his appearance at BJU, Keyes attacked the school and criticized Gov. George W. Bush for his Feb. 2 visit to the university.

"Alan Keyes betrayed his friends at Bob Jones University with an outburst of sanctimonious hypocrisy," Jones said in a written statement. "Like many of you, I feel hurt and angry that a man whose integrity I believed in has sold himself to the pressure of the media to use Bob Jones University as a whipping boy in the furtherance of his political ambition even as McCain has done."

"Concern for the media's reaction to him forced Dr. Keyes to take shots at the University when he was our invited guest on Monday; and in the [South Carolina] debate Tuesday [Feb. 19], he condemned Governor George Bush for not also doing so when he spoke here. ...

"Keyes revealed his hypocrisy and insincerity in the fact that during the 1996 Presidential primaries, he also spoke here and never uttered a word of reproach against the University. He did so now only because the media expected him to do so. He caved in," concluded Jones.

"I don't think the media expected him to do anything," Keyes' spokesman George Cecala told WorldNetDaily. "They just reported it."

Keyes' national media strategist, Joe Giganti told WorldNetDaily the timing of the university's response is suspicious.

"As a whole, Bob Jones had nothing to say about this until after the debates in which Alan pointed out to Bush and the world that Bush's approach to the university was incorrect and showed a lack of statesmanship because he didn't take the school to task over its policies such as interracial dating," Giganti said.

"What's most interesting is that Alan was the last person to talk there, but the media keeps talking about Bush," he continued.

Giganti noted Keyes' suspicion of the school's attacks on the Catholic candidate, saying the timing of its response to Keyes' comments imply Bush applied pressure to the university to blast Keyes.

"Alan believes that it shows there obviously was some sort of political pressure, because it wasn't until he spoke out against the way Bush approached it," Giganti said. "There was nothing he said in that debate that he hadn't already said before, but the letter didn't come until after the debate."

The spokesman explained: "If someone came into my house and insulted me, I wouldn't sit there and continue to entertain them and put on a good show and then a week later call up and say I'm upset. It doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense."

"The timing of Jones' release seems to be a politically motivated maneuver," he added.

Giganti also pointed to Keyes comments during the South Carolina debate in which he said his meeting with Bob Jones was the "first step in bringing BJU's form of bigotry to an end."

Many presidential candidates have visited BJU in the past without incident. Ronald Reagan spoke at the university during his 1980 campaign, as did Sen. Bob Dole in 1996. And the list includes more than presidential candidates. More than a dozen federal and state representatives, both Republican and Democrat, have spoken at BJU over the years -- some were frequent guests.

The list includes:

- President Ronald Reagan - Vice President Dan Quayle - Rep. Jack Kemp, R-N.Y. - Ambassador Alan Keyes - Dr. Pat Robertson - Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan. - Rep. Lindsey Graham, R.-S.C. - Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ariz. - Rep. Tommy Hartnett, R.-S.C. - Rep. Liz Patterson, D.-S.C. - Rep. Jim DeMint, R.-S.C. - Rep. Bob Inglis, R.-S.C. - Sen. Strom Thurmond, R.-S.C. - Gov. Carroll Campbell, R.-S.C. - Gov. David Beasley, R-S.C. - Lt. Gov. Bob Peeler, R-S.C. - Attorney General Charlie Condon, R-S.C. - Gov. Jim Hodges, D-S.C. - State Sen. Verne Smith, D-S.C. - State Sen. Ralph Anderson, D-S.C.

Bob Jones University Press is the largest publisher of home-school curriculum in the United States. Materials are also used in Christian schools throughout the country.

It has pioneered the LINC program, or live interactive network classroom, which began three years ago. LINC provides live audio and video access via satellite to remotely located students, allowing students to participate in class discussion and take real-time quizzes. In fact, BJU is now consulting Greenville Technical College in South Carolina on development of that college's interactive classroom program.

BJU's six colleges offer more than 100 majors, including pre-medical degrees. Each year, 95 percent of the school's pre-med students are accepted to medical school; in 1996, 100 percent were accepted.

Every year the education students rank at the top of the state's exam qualifying new teachers, and the state's student legislature regularly elects BJU pupils into leadership positions.

"We are far from a perfect place and people," the school's explanation concludes, "but we try to love Christ as perfectly as redeemed sinners can. We don't expect everyone to understand us or agree with us, but we're still naove enough to expect that in a pluralistic society, there would be respect and freedom for convictioned nonconformity and honest difference."

Julie Foster is a staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), March 01, 2000.

So the reason for the policy is...they believe that they will slow or prevent the coming rule of the AntiChrist by keeping the races pure? Members of the races who are conservative Christians and attend BJU and hold their eschatological position, will stay "pure", anyway...

I don't know what to say.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), March 01, 2000.

Dancr:

Those words: " Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers", are not my words, but God's. Also : "How can two walk together except they be agreed?" (Amos, I think.)

Every Christian who is married to an unbeliever understands why this is important advice.

Christians, to lead their happiest lives, have to obey what God has said in His Word, even when they don't understand why.

I don't like to hurt anyone by leaving him/her out, but God has made a distinction between believer and unbeliever, and we ignore it at our peril.

Thanks, Patrick; I'll get back to you eventually.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 01, 2000.

Concerning the article from 1942:

There was a huge uproar back in the 40s and 50s concerning the World Council of Churches. Most believers' fellowships did not join. Mainly the more liberal Protestant groups joined; I don't think the Roman Catholic Church did.

When we see the forming of a one-world government or a new world order, we are disturbed, because we know from Scripture that the final world government, Mystery Babylon, will have some of these same characteristics.

The thing is, nothing we do can prevent this coming about. God has said it will. Our main task should be getting out the Gospel, not becoming entangled in the things of the flesh - - such as politics.

One of the chief problems will be in avoiding the Mark of the Beast. We need to be aware of what is coming about, but we really can't prevent it. We shouldn't facilitate it, of course, by voting for its proponents - - which , Lo and Behold! - - turn up in both political parties.

In the post I made above, I used an incorrect word: "annals'. I should have said "edicts'. (RE: Killing heretics.)

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 02, 2000.

Connie...

.....The world government is already de facto with us. We don't even hear about what they're doing until it's in place for the most part.

.....Christians not becoming involved in politics? This is the very reason that things are such a terrible mess today. All that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing, (not my quote). All of my life I've heard that "you should never discuss politics or religion;" where do you think such a statement comes from? From the politicos and the whore religious leaders of course! I use the term "whore" in the biblical sense, as in "whoring after the wrong rock", (note the small 'r' - not our Rock). The fact that men of faith have relinquished their responsibilities in this area has wrought untold damage. When the founders established this nation, they had meetings on election day and sternly warned the candidates that as long as they served properly and in a Godly fashion, that they would receive their support; the minute they stepped out of that realm, then they would be staunchly opposed.

.....An example of how far we've fallen as men is easy to illustrate... the president of the supposedly strongest nation in the world, takes advantage of a young woman, and when the father of this young woman was asked his opinion, he chooses to make excuses for the president. What manner of man do we breed in this country today? Are these the men we rely upon to guard the guardians? Are you content to leave the affairs of your nation in the hands of men such as these? It takes a really tortured reading of Romans 12 to buy into such utter nonsense.

.....Mystery Babylon has been wrapped around us for some time. I AM Zerubbabel... born into Babylon. We all are, it isn't some future event that we look to; it is here.

.....I won't expound upon the mark of the beast at this point other than to say that Scripture tells us what it is, and it's hardly some goofy biochip or tattoo that is currently being formulated. Who would be deceived by such a notion? Satan is not so stupid as to think that he would fool a single soul with such hogwash. AGAIN, the languages MUST be studied to overcome that which the scribes have done to Scripture over centuries of constant vigil. No, Satan would never be so stupid, but he certainly is counting on today's Christions to be.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), March 02, 2000.

Hi, Patrick!

I always enjoy your posts.

I disagree with several of your points, but I'm too tired to expound on them tonight.

Here, as with Y2k, I believe I should be prepared to be wrong.

Did you receive the material I sent? It shows that it went out of my outbox, so I assume you got it, if you didn't accidentally delete it.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 02, 2000.

Quite frankly, Patrick, I don't think you understand the question. You very often tell us what something "doesn't" mean, but rarely follow up with what it does until you are severely prodded.

This being your preferred method of communication, I will ask my question quite clearly as to your latest "bombshell".

1. Patrick, what in your opinion, is the Mark of the Beast?

Additionally, and in order to understand you more clearly, please (if you will), respond to the questions below:

2. To what church or with what "group" are you affiliated in the religious sense? If none is the answer, then please briefly explain (yes, I know you think this is difficult, please try anyway) what are the basic tenets of your philosophy/religion?

Here I suggest you list the top three. If you reread my post, I did. (e.g. Jesus is my personal savior, I get to heaven through HIS Grace/sacrifice alone, HIS message is most clearly written in my heart)....or words to that effect. This will give me an idea as to "where you are coming from" ... as I often cannot tell from your posts.

3. What is your stance (if you care to share) as to the Antichrist, the End Times (are we there yet?), and current socio-political agendas? (My own personal areas of interest..I am a student of prophecy.)

I am truly interested in your response here Patrick. Take your time and get back to us. Thank you in advance.

-- Alice (Looking@glass.com), March 02, 2000.

Oh~

And can we start a new thread? This one takes FOREVER for my server to load...half the time, it cuts off and I can't read the new responses.

Thanks. Maybe we could call it "Addendum to Keyes Post"? Or some such title.....just a suggestion.

-- Alice (Looking@glass.com), March 02, 2000.

I suppose that will depend on how the change in forum set-up affects these threads.

If this is the end, as we know it, Shalom!

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 02, 2000.