Omo yo, oshiete kudasai

NearertoGod said:
God does not judge us by outward appearances.
Click to expand...

Very, very good NTG.

In fact:

But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
1 Sam 16:7

Isn't that beautiful? That was further elaborated in the new testament:

For there is no respect of persons with God.
For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves
Rom 2:11-14

There is no respect of persons with God. Modern translations would have that as:

New Living Translation (©2007)
For God does not show favoritism.

English Standard Version (©2001)
For God shows no partiality.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For there is no partiality with God.

International Standard Version (©2008)
because God does not show partiality.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
God does not play favorites.

Weymouth New Testament
For God pays no attention to this world's distinctions.

World English Bible
For there is no partiality with God.

Young's Literal Translation
For there is no acceptance of faces with God,
 
Please don't allow on racist to speak for all Americans or Christians. Some people are just have very narrow minds and try to force the rest of the world into their view of how things "should be". He is wrong. Honor God, and He will bless your relationship. No man has any right to question what God chooses to honor.
 
Tomoko,

I agree whole-heartedly with Krystal. Anytime someone tells you that its a sin to do something, immediately ask that person to show you the verse(s) in the Bible where it says it.
Then, on your own time, at your own liesure, look the verse(s) up and read the whole passage. Its very important that you don't read just the verse that they cited. Read the whole passage, or more if need be, to see if the person has taken the verse out of context.

Welcome to America by the way. Its an honor to have an immigrant from the fascinating Land of the Rising Sun on our soil.

God bless you.
 
Banarenth said:
Please don't allow on racist to speak for all Americans or Christians. Some people are just have very narrow minds and try to force the rest of the world into their view of how things "should be". He is wrong. Honor God, and He will bless your relationship. No man has any right to question what God chooses to honor.
Click to expand...

I want to preface my response to you with a disclaimer. I don't support the guy's "no-inter-racial-dating" view. I think it's a misunderstanding of what the Bible says, and is unbiblical. So this is not meant as a defense of his view.

However, I'd just like to say that we ought to be careful with hastily attaching labels to people. The fact that the guy claimed that something is true doesn't mean that he likes what the claim entails. It may be that he somehow has misread the text of whatever passage he got that idea from, and has thus become convinced that inter-racial dating is a sin. But racism doesn't follow from that.
Consider this: Part of the great commission is our responsibility to tell non-Christians that all have broken God's law and are guilty, and that all who reject God's offer of a pardon (i.e., Christ's attoning sacrifice) will suffer unending misery for their crimes against God. Imagine if the atheist crowd immediately called us "blood-thirsty hatemongers" because, instead of listening to our reasons for why we hold our beliefs, they hastily assumed that we liked the thought of people suffering unending misery. Clearly we don't like it, that's why we spread the Gospel, to reduce the number of people who'll go to hell. Yet we believe it will happen. It wouldn't be fair for non-Christians to slap labels on us simply because we believe that something is true. Likewise, it wouldn't be fair to the guy who spoke with Tomoko, for us to commit a hasty generalization and call him a name simply because he believes something is true.

And yes, I acknowledge that many racists do condemn inter-racial dating simply because they're racist. All I'm saying is that racism doesn't nessecarily follow from the claim. Some people actually believe the principle to be true whilst loving people of all races and believing in racial equality. If the guy automatically is a racist simply for holding his belief, then we're automatically blood-thirsty hatemongers simply for holding our beliefs regarding hell.
 
Mr. Black said:
I want to preface my response to you with a disclaimer. I don't support the guy's "no-inter-racial-dating" view. I think it's a misunderstanding of what the Bible says, and is unbiblical. So this is not meant as a defense of his view.

However, I'd just like to say that we ought to be careful with hastily attaching labels to people. The fact that the guy claimed that something is true doesn't mean that he likes what the claim entails. It may be that he somehow has misread the text of whatever passage he got that idea from, and has thus become convinced that inter-racial dating is a sin. But racism doesn't follow from that.
Consider this: Part of the great commission is our responsibility to tell non-Christians that all have broken God's law and are guilty, and that all who reject God's offer of a pardon (i.e., Christ's attoning sacrifice) will suffer unending misery for their crimes against God. Imagine if the atheist crowd immediately called us "blood-thirsty hatemongers" because, instead of listening to our reasons for why we hold our beliefs, they hastily assumed that we liked the thought of people suffering unending misery. Clearly we don't like it, that's why we spread the Gospel, to reduce the number of people who'll go to hell. Yet we believe it will happen. It wouldn't be fair for non-Christians to slap labels on us simply because we believe that something is true. Likewise, it wouldn't be fair to the guy who spoke with Tomoko, for us to commit a hasty generalization and call him a name simply because he believes something is true.

And yes, I acknowledge that many racists do condemn inter-racial dating simply because they're racist. All I'm saying is that racism doesn't nessecarily follow from the claim. Some people actually believe the principle to be true whilst loving people of all races and believing in racial equality. If the guy automatically is a racist simply for holding his belief, then we're automatically blood-thirsty hatemongers simply for holding our beliefs regarding hell.
Click to expand...

I may have been a bit hasty in calling him a racist, but I stand behind the rest of my statement. If he didn't agree with it, it is unlikely that he would have gone through as much effort to point it out to her. I know that doesn't make him a racist, but I have my doubts that he not. This is simply a case where I've run into this type of thing many, many times and the mindset has always been the same. If this man is the exception, then he's the first exception I've run into. So, I'll apologize for the quickly applied label, but in application it is the same result.
 
Banarenth: (or should I call you Vincent?) ;)

Understood. Just wanted to strive for clarity is all. I see where you're coming from, and I agree with the rest of your statement. I made the comment because I've actually run into quite a few exceptions and it's always a humbling experience to find out that I've, in my own haste, made a false accusation toward people who actually held honest opinions based on their (misguided) understanding of the facts.

God bless you, bud.
 
Mr. Black said:
Banarenth: (or should I call you Vincent?) ;)

Understood. Just wanted to strive for clarity is all. I see where you're coming from, and I agree with the rest of your statement. I made the comment because I've actually run into quite a few exceptions and it's always a humbling experience to find out that I've, in my own haste, made a false accusation toward people who actually held honest opinions based on their (misguided) understanding of the facts.

God bless you, bud.
Click to expand...

I understand and you are correct in saying that I should have been more cautious. However, I don't quite view racism in the same light as others at times. I just look at it as a situation of degrees. And on one degree or another, he was supporting a form of racism, which is why I don't feel I can completely back down from my assessment.
 
Banarenth said:
I understand and you are correct in saying that I should have been more cautious. However, I don't quite view racism in the same light as others at times. I just look at it as a situation of degrees. And on one degree or another, he was supporting a form of racism, which is why I don't feel I can completely back down from my assessment.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd agree with that completely. I see it as him agreeing with an argument that racists are happy to use as an excuse for racist behavior, but I don't see his position itself as an intrinsically racist notion. I think it's just a viewpoint that some hold honestly, and that many racists choose to use as a mask to hide their true intentions. It kind of reminds me of the Christian position on homosexual marriage. We oppose gay marriage because we believe it's wrong. But we're not homophobes, nor are we supporting a form of homophobia when we oppose gay marriage. We love homosexuals who practice homosexual behavior themselves, but we vehemently oppose their decision to live a life that's contrary to what they ought to do.
 
Hmmmm. Is racism a phobia? If it is, then I would be forced to agree. But I don't really see it that way (though I suppose it can be at times). It seems to be more of a bias that can become a hatred when it is applied too extremely.
 
LOL, yeah. If hating gays constitutes as "homophobia", as most people seem to think, then racism would have to count as a "phobia" as well.
 
idk. I think it's semantics and what two different people view as racism. I don't necessarily consider racism to be hatred, though it can definitely become such. It doesn't appear that you make the distinction. So I think we just have different views on what racism means.
 
Could be. I guess I don't neccesarily believe that racism must entail hate. It could just denote a personal dislike. I think that's where the bias comes from to begin with.
 
Banarenth said:
Hmmmm. Is racism a phobia? If it is, then I would be forced to agree. But I don't really see it that way (though I suppose it can be at times). It seems to be more of a bias that can become a hatred when it is applied too extremely.
Click to expand...

I think it can a phobia and a bias amongst other things.

stereotyping is another. I allowed that to happen with Americans once to be honest with you. The first few Americans I met were loud and boastful so they matched "type"... Of course I've met plenty since who don't match.

I could equally imagine it happening with the English btw - take our football(soccer) reputation, Say the first couple you met were on holiday getting drunk on lager and then gettin into punch ups. It's not hard to imagine someone thinking "typical English" even though it is far from the truth.
 
I suppose language differences are another thing -sometimes nice though - would I have dared to call someone I dpn't really know a little dear in English? But in my fragments of pigeon Welsh, cariad bach is absolutely fine. It carries a delightful sentiment that in spite of all our many English words can not be conveyed in the right way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top