Okay extreme fundies, If God didn't want me to exist, then why do I?

A poster on another message board goes on and on of how Bob Jones University is a great Christian Institution, that holds up biblical beliefs, etc. I had heard bad things about BJU in the past, but decided to do a little research for myself. Then I come across this, written by Bob Jones III, Univ. President-

(From Letter from Bob Jones University re: Interracial Dating – The Multiracial Activist)

What?!?! Where, oh, where does the Bible say that?

Yes, I know the policy has been removed. And yes, I’m still mad! I hardly think that Bob the 3rd totally dropped his beliefs because Larry King pressured him on Larry King Live.

This imbecile even admits this isn’t in the Bible:

This is not anti-Christian. I am a devout Christian. This just makes me royally mad. My Mom & Dad are both Interracial; So are both sides of my family back several centuries. If God did not want these so-called “barriers” to be broken, then why did he allow it to happen?

If God wants us so different, then why do Christians want to evangelize everyone? I mean, they’re supposed to be different, right? Let 'em stay that way!

I don’t know the God that you know, and I can only hope that the God that I know will someday soften your heart.
Ladies & Gent’s, a round of applause for my very first OP :slight_smile:

One thing- I just wanted to add that my outrage at Bob Jones III and the Univ. former rule has nothing to do with the poster or messageboard that sparked my research.

Well, we all know that Jesus Christ was a blond haired blue eyed European Protestant! :rolleyes:

The only thing I can explain is that they’re nutjobs. They’re convinced Catholicism is evil and the Pope is the Antichrist, BIG BAND and SWING is banned on campus, and if you’re a man who is married and living off campus, your wife must wear skirts at all time.

For reals.
Sometimes, I wonder about the fundies-I truly believe that if some of them were alive back then, they would have been with the Pharisees-because they’re so Letter of the Law, so restrictive-and Jesus was a hippie-Jewish radical.

C’mon, people THINK!!! God gave you a brain, he wants you to use it.

May I ask though-is it the board I’m thinking of?

:wink:

They always like to ignore the fact the Protestantism branched from Catholicism, don’t they Guin?

Or my favorite: the reason many of them are protestants- a king who wanted a divorce.
shhh! that doesn’t count!!

Yup.

A sharp one, she is.

Well, for your first OP, and in the Pit no less, I’ll have to give you a B+. Good sense of outrage, link provided and a demonstration of the basics of coding. The only thing missing for a Pit thread, is a healthy dose of obscenities, real or created. Otherwise, nice job.

Dagnabbit, you bleedin’ not nice person! You bloody better well be happy now.

Feh.

(I know I lose pit points, but thats about as bad as my swearing gets :wink: )

Anyone read the letter to the end?

That’s priceless.

Yes, we are all individuals
We must think for ourselves.
Tell us more.

Actually the Book of Ruth comes out in favor of interracial marriages. I’ve just quickly rescanned it, and Ruth is indeed a Moabite, not a Jew, and she is one of the direct ancestresses of David himself. Then again, there are some folks who would prefer not to be confused with the facts.

I’m sorry. It really bothers me that these people are directly contradicting the Book they base their faith on – “We don’t care what it says; this is what we believe!”

CJ

Page 900. [/simpsons]

Personally, my favorite part is that you’ve got a bunch of fundies who know and understand Gods plan. That’s priceless.

Esther is another good example.

Wow. I went to a Christian college that looks like Animal House compared to this place. I’ve never heard of a denomination that believes interracial marriage is wrong.

The arguement that Bob Jones presents is not as un-Biblical as it may appear, although he stretched his conclusions FAR beyond what the Bible actually said. That different races exist because of “differences that God has established” is based at least partly on Genesis Chapter 11, which is the story of the tower of Babel:

Jones’ allusion to “one world government” is in reference to the state of the world before this event allegedly took place, and according to this passage, such a unification of mankind is obviously against God’s will.

On the question of races being seperated, it’s more hazy. God may have seperated men from each other at the time by creating different “languages” (language, in this usage, thought to be euphemism for racial, ethnic, and cultural differences) but nowhere does it indicate that he expected this state of affairs to last forever.

People have been interpreting the Bible in all kinds of weird ways for millenia, and BJ’s interpretation is no stranger than a lot of others. Also, just based on what the OP quoted, he doesn’t actually say that any race is inferior, just that according to his Biblical interpretation, God wants them to be seperate. I know that sounds racist, but it really isn’t, according to a strict definition of racism.
Although I don’t agree with BJ on this issue in any way (I’m dating a half-black, half-Asian woman as I write this) I can understand why he would logically arrive at his conclusion. It’s really not all that different thanJewish people wanting their kids to marry other jewish people. Its the same logic at work. It may be faulty logic, but it’s not automatically racist, either.

Great OP. Kudos to Mademoiselle for a great Pit rant, on her first thread yet! :slight_smile:

That said, I take umbrage at:

Well, uh, in the interests of fighting ignorance, that’s not quite the truth. Wanna debate it, or was it just a “hey, let’s bitch about Protestants, and this case in point comes to mind” sort of remark?

People think up all kinds of crazy interpretations. I swear, I could find a Bible verse to justify a rule stating we can’t wear purple on Fridays or something.

I mean, look at snake handlers? Or Biblical literalists? People like Fred Phelps?

I think I also saw a reference to “Serpent Spong.” And then, at that same place, someone talked about Saint Polycarp. Hmmm…just got me to thinking.

:wink:

Well Poly, I am a Protestant, and always have been proud of it.

However, please do enlighten me! I don’t mean to debate; in my admittedly short experiences Protestants I have met (here in the US) are Anglo-Saxon; and are Protestants because they branched from the Church of England.

Of course I knew about Martin Luther; however his following (I thought) was marginal before Henry the 8th converted, in order to divorce Catherine of Aragon, in order to marry Anne Boleyn. (Forgive the spelling)

My problem is that many fundies do so much hatred-filled Catholic bashing, when essentially all Christianity branched from the roots of the Catholic Church.

Would you enlighten me mousier?

Scriptures can be construed to make it look like they support anything. At risk of violating Goodwin’s law, Hitler was doing “the Christian thing” during the holocaust, and had Scripture to “back it up”

Christians shouldn’t try to justify whatever bigoted beliefs they have with some obscure scripture in the Bible; they should perhaps look to the Bible first, not the other way around.

(mlle, hoping no one mis-interpets that last paragraph)

Well, notwithstanding the fact that most Lutheran families are Lutheran because their ancestors were and that dates back to the Reformation and has nothing to do with the Church of England, and many churches with “Reformed” in their name derive from Calvin, I do take your point – you do have the Episcopal > Methodist > Wesleyan > Holiness > Pentecostal sequence, with people stopping anywhere along that sequence.

But, at rock bottom, the understanding of the Anglican Communion is this: Like the Orthodox, the Church in the West was divided up into national churches supported by the crown in each nation: the Church of Sweden under the Swedish monarchs, the Church of France under the French monarchs, etc. All were united into the Catholic Church under the spiritual leadership of the Patriarch of Rome, AKA the Pope, but had their local church government run by a Primate, ordinarily an Archbishop, who worked with and for the Pope and the monarch as appropriate. (Naturally, there were some problems where authority overlapped, but we’re talking the everyday process.)

Throughout history, kings tended to make marriages that benefitted their realms, marrying the daughter or sister or niece of a neighbor monarch to tighten an alliance, marrying the heiress of a neighboring county or duchy to bring that under their rule, and so on. When such marriages violated the specifics of canon law, the Pope was pleased to grant dispensations; when there was a need to put away a wife and remarry owing to lack of interfertility, the Pope could be counted on to grant an annulment (not a divorce; an annulment is an official declaration that, contrary to appearances, what seemed to be a marriage really was not one, as in the apocryphal case of the guy who gets drunk and wakes up next to a strange woman who claims he married her the night before – there was no real intent to wed there).

Henry VII had arranged one of these marriages for his son Arthur, to Catherine the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain (Ferdy, by the way, was one of those kings who married for dynastic reasons, Isabella being heiress in her own right of Castile, the large central region of Spain, while he was king of the smaller Kingdom of Aragon in the northeast). When Arthur died young, Catherine was married to the new heir, Henry. They had one daughter who lived, Mary, and a half dozen miscarriages. Eventually Henry decided that having married his brother’s widow (which was a violation of canon law from which the Pope had granted a dispensation) was actually a sin, and he was being punished for it by not fathering a male heir. Simultaneously, he developed the hots for Anne Boleyn, which was a second contributing factor in his request to the Pope to annul (not divorce) Catherine.

However, the Pope was, reasonably, in Rome, which was at this time occupied by the troops of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, and coincidentally the nephew of Catherine. Charles did not want his beloved aunt put away, and the Pope, looking at the troops outside, was pleased to deny Henry his request for an annulment.

There was precedent in Germany and France for the local church to revoke the Pope’s authority over a given canon law issue and retain authority in the local Archbishop’s Court. Henry decided to resort to that, to have himself as monarch and defender of the faith (a title the Pope had given him for writing a treatise against Luther’s heresy) declared Head of the Church in England and deny the Pope’s authority to grant or deny annulments, just as the Kings of France and Holy Roman Emperors had done in the past.

As it happened, however, this was at the beginning of the Reformation, and the Church of England, which dates at least back to St. Augustine of Canterbury in the 500s AD, never negotiated for reunion with the Papacy as the previous instances of such rebellion had ended with. It remained a slightly-schismatic branch of the Catholic church for about 40 years, until a later Pope, influenced by Philip II of Spain who was making war on the first Queen Elizabeth, excommunicated her and her subjects. And that is more or less where things have stuck ever since. There have been “swervings” in Anglican theology more towards Protestantism and more towards Catholicism, but we’ve always maintained the status of a “bridge church” that is truly Reformed and truly Catholic in our beliefs.