[belcherboy]

People at BJU are happy to follow the rules.

People there are happy to follow the rules? LOL...Kel, you've made my day

I kind of view it like the strict/overprotecive father vs. the more lenient father vs. the loose father. One allows his daughter to date at the age of 13. The other at the age of 16. Another at the age of 21. Although there are good arguments that each father is wiser than the next, it is not a right or wrong thing. I wouldn't say one father is going to screw up his kids more than another. I definitely would be closer to the middle father, but it doesn't mean that my kid is better off than the other two kids with their fathers. It is just a difference in rules. If the father is instilling biblical values into the child, as they age they will be better off. They are not necessarily going to be better off with strict curfews, dating rules, music rules etc, but I think they are better off than being on the extreme of the other side. BJU chooses to be strict on its students. How is that different from a parent that does the same? I have a kid in my school that has no tv in his home. He is not allowed to listen to music with any type of beat. I think his parents go way overboard. He still is a good kid and will probably end up being a very good Christian man. Now are his parents sinning? I wouldn't say they are, they still teach him the bible. It is a legalistic version of the bible, but I'd rather see that than the parents that little to no rule system set up for their child. I think that is my view of BJU. I think there is a better way to run their university, but I can think of thousands of worse ways to run a university.

[4everfsu]

I dont know if they are happy, some maybe some may not. I imagine there are some kids who have to go to BJU because of parents. Now the kid in the home with no TV would probably be happy at BJU

[paradox]

Kel, Belcher, Libertine:

I understand that we all come from different backgrounds and various perspectives and some may have been raised with a small dose or two of Bob Jones, and in effect the conversation may be hitting a little too close to home for some.

However, it's easy for a bunch of white guys to get on here and semi-defend BJU, and claim that they've changed, ect. But would we even be having this conversation if you were from a non-white race?

We claim that BJU has repented from its racist past and that it has reconciled itself with our black brothers and sisters. However, what concrete evidence do we have of that? I'm sorry but mere lip-service isn't gonna cut it on this one.

So then, where are the black voices defending BJU? Do we really believe that they exist?

Do we even care enough to try to think this one through?

[belcherboy]

Kel, Belcher, Libertine:

I understand that we all come from different backgrounds and various perspectives and some may have been raised with a small dose or two of Bob Jones, and in effect the conversation may be hitting a little too close to home for some.

However, it's easy for a bunch of white guys to get on here and semi-defend BJU, and claim that they've changed, ect. But would we even be having this conversation if you were from a non-white race?

We claim that BJU has repented from its racist past and that it has reconciled itself with our black brothers and sisters. However, what concrete evidence do we have of that? I'm sorry but mere lip-service isn't gonna cut it on this one.

So then, where are the black voices defending BJU? Do we really believe that they exist?

Do we even care enough to try to think this one through?

I guess I'm the wrong color to give any credit to BJU. What is it you want if "lip-service" doesn't cut it? What more can they do? They have changed their policies, but perhaps more can be done. I don't know. I'm not going to pretend to know why someone does right, but I do want to give them credit for doing it. I would love to see a public apology, but I'm not going to completely disregard any changes they have made. It is progress and they need to be praised for it, and condemned for anything that is still unbiblical in their policies. What are those unbiblical policies they still have? I will join your "side" if they still exist. I just don't see them, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.

I live in Detroit and have grown very accustomed to differing races (especially the black race). Why is it that a black person must give his/her "o.k." for BJU to get any credit in your opinion? Are you saying there are no black people at BJU? Would their mere enrollment prove that they "exist"? Or maybe they attend as a form of protest? Perhaps they are victims and just don't know it.

Also, must reconciliation happen for true forgiveness to occur? Can a murderer ever get forgiveness from the family of his victim or must reconciliation happen for true repentence to occur?

[paradox]

Belcher:

Did you happen to see the Larry King interview when BJ-3 was practically forced to change his race policies under compulsion on live television, and coerced under pressure into accountability from an unbeliever, nonetheless? The policy changes seem to have stemmed more from expediency rather than from genuine repentence.

In my estimation, true repentence would involve a complete repudiation of past sins against our black brothers and sisters. As part of this BJ-3 would need to publicly denounce the false teachings of his father and his grandfather, and acknowledge his own wrongdoing as well. In my view, the name of the institution would need to be changed as well because the name of Bob Jones Sr. is in utter disrepute and is a disgrace to the cause of Christ. In addition, they would need to reach out to the many young black ministers in the south who would benefit from a theological education, but can't afford it.

[4everfsu]

Paradox
In addition, they would need to reach out to the many young black ministers in the south who would benefit from a theological education, but can't afford it.

Good point on what you said above that was something that never crossed my mind. Question does BJU give out any scholarships at all, regardless of race?

[belcherboy]

Belcher:

Did you happen to see the Larry King interview when BJ-3 was practically forced to change his race policies under compulsion on live television, and coerced under pressure into accountability from an unbeliever, nonetheless? The policy changes seem to have stemmed more from expediency rather than from genuine repentence.

In my estimation, true repentence would involve a complete repudiation of past sins against our black brothers and sisters. As part of this BJ-3 would need to publicly denounce the false teachings of his father and his grandfather, and acknowledge his own wrongdoing as well. In my view, the name of the institution would need to be changed as well because the name of Bob Jones Sr. is in utter disrepute and is a disgrace to the cause of Christ. In addition, they would need to reach out to the many young black ministers in the south who would benefit from a theological education, but can't afford it.

I hadn't seen the interview in a long time. Have you read the transcripts? Maybe it came across differently on tv, I really don't remember but, how did Larry "practically force" this change? (from the Larry King interview):

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... kl.00.html

KING: Why can't black kids date white kids?

JONES: OK.

KING: Because you didn't take black kids for a long time, right?

JONES: Well, 50 percent of American colleges as late as the mid- 1960s still didn't take black students, so...

KING: But you were late?

JONES: 1970, so we weren't that late. Furman (ph) University in our town took their first black I believe it was in '65, Clemson in '63. So, you know, we were not exclusive in this by any means.

KING: But will you admit, as Jerry Falwell has said, you were wrong, you should have taken them?

JONES: Yes, we do. We do, of course we do.

KING: All right, why -- explain this, why they can't date.

JONES: Well, being a Bible believing institution, Larry, we try to base things on Bible principle. The problem we have today is that our principle is so greatly misunderstood. People think we don't let them date because we are racist, in other words to be racist you have to treat people differently. We don't. We don't let them date, because we were trying, as an example, to enforce something, a principle that is much greater than this.

We stand against the one-world government, against the coming world of anti-Christ, which is a one world system of blending, of all differences, of blending of national differences, economic differences, church differences, into a big one ecumenical world. The Bible is very clear about this.

We said, you know, way back years ago, when we first had a problem, which was -- by the way, we started this principle, back in the mid-'50s, I was a college student at BJU at the time and it was with an Asian and Caucasian is -- we didn't even have black students for another 15 years. So it was not put there as a black thing, I think people need to understand that.

KING: So the fear of one world relates back to two people dating?

JONES: Now, we realize that a inter-racial marriage is not going to bring in the world the anti-Christ by any means, but if we as Christians stand for Christ and not anti-Christ, and we see -- we are against the one world church. We are against one economy, one political system.

We see what the Bible says about this, so we say, OK, if they're going to blend this world -- and inter-racial marriage is a genetic blending, which is a very definite sort of blending -- we said as -- let's put this policy in here, because we are against the one world church and, way back, 17 years ago when I was on your program, I was saying on programs all across America, we are not going to the Supreme Court fighting for our rule and our -- we are fighting for our right to it. There is a religious freedom issue, that's all we ever fought for.

KING: You are a private institution, you don't get the tax benefit because -- but you are entitled to the thing -- I'm trying to find out why you have the rule.

JONES: Yes. We have the rule, because it was a part of a bigger -- it was a -- it wasn't the rule itself. We can't point to a verse in the Bible that says you shouldn't date or marry inter-racial.

KING: You can't back it up?

JONES: No, we can't back it up with a verse from the Bible. We never have tried to, we have never tried to do that. But we have said there is a principle here, an overriding principle of the one world government. But let me tell you how insignificant this is. Students never hear it preached. There have been four, five, six generations of students that graduated from there have never heard this preached in our chapel or taught in our school. To us...

KING: But it's a rule, though, they know they can't.

JONES: It is a rule, it is, but it's the most insignificant thing, but now, we are being defined as a racist school. I mean, that is all the media talks about. KING: Partly, during the era -- you know -- the era of segregation, segregationists said, well, we are not racist, we just think the races should be apart, they should be treated equally, but not together, and that was regarded as a kind of a cop-out.

JONES: Yes.

KING: Do you think maybe -- I mean, you could change that, you think it is a stretch maybe? In other words, have you given thought to maybe that's taking it too far, down to two people into a whole one world concept?

JONES: I don't think it's taking it too far, but I can tell you this, we don't have to have that rule. In fact, as of today, we have dropped the rule. We have dropped the rule for this reason.

KING: Today?

JONES: Today. I met with the administrators this afternoon before coming here. But let me tell you why we dropped it. We don't want this to be a -- here is a great institution, one of the premier academic institutions in America, one of the premier Christian colleges of America. We have a broader testimony. And if all anybody can see is this rule, which we never talk about or preach, which most of our students couldn't even tell you what it is. It is that unimportant to us.

I said to our administration, you know, guys, this thing is of such insignificance to us, it is so significant to the world at large, the media particularly, why should we have this here as an obstacle? It hurts our graduates, we love our graduates greatly, it hurts maybe the church, as well. I don't want to hurt the church of Jesus Christ.

KING: Now it's involved in the presidential race.

JONES: It is involved in the presidential race.

KING: You caused a presidential candidate to write a letter to a cardinal.

JONES: Yes, well...

KING: I'll get to that in a minute.

JONES: He did that. OK, but I want to tell you...

KING: It's ended?

JONES: It is ended, and I want it to be very clear why it has ended. Our concern for the cause of Christ, our concern for our graduates, our concern for our testimony, our concern for the school's broader usefulness is greater to us than a rule that we never talk about and that is meaningless to us. The principle upon which it's based is very, very important.

KING: I understand. JONES: But the rule itself is not, so we did away with it.

KING: Gone today?

JONES: Yes.

The changes were made and BJ-3 could have come across more sympathetic and remorseful. He didn't take full advantage of his opportunity. He admitted publicly from the beginning that he was wrong in excluding blacks from his college. From this interview, it sounds like he owes every race an apology though. Most pick out the black race, but unless he is lying (I'm not saying he isn't, I don't know), this foolish rule was first brought out due to a white and asian relationship before the black race was allowed entrance. It sounds like it wasn't brought about by a white supremacy complex or anti-black race complex, but by an anti race mixing attitude. He claims it is not biblical and was never taught in school. IMO he is a fool for even trying to defend it, but he did they did change it on their own.

Should they now issue an apology to all races, including the white race? Or is this exclusive to the black race because they excluded them until 1970?

[flameshaw]

Yea, I believe it was just coincidental that the 3rd knows he is going on the Larry King show that night and they do away with the rule earlier that day, RIGHT!!!!!!!!!

Quite a leap from inter-racial dating to one world government. can you say apples and oranges. Has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard except when he called Jerry "the most dangerous man in America"

Typical extra chromosomial fundamentalist non-thinking.

[belcherboy]

Yea, I believe it was just coincidental that the 3rd knows he is going on the Larry King show that night and they do away with the rule earlier that day, RIGHT!!!!!!!!!

Quite a leap from inter-racial dating to one world government. can you say apples and oranges. Has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard except when he called Jerry "the most dangerous man in America"

Typical extra chromosomial fundamentalist non-thinking.

How does this discriminate against one race? How does it benefit one race? That is the crux of the argument right? They need to make things right with the black race? Why not other races, why is the argument above only mentioning the black race?

Also, we need to thank Larry King, because without him and his show this rule would never have changed!

I think it was a dumb rule, but it equally offended all races IMO. Can you imagine meeting a hot hispanic (Salma Hayek) lady and being told you couldn't date her? Now that is offensive to me as a white man!!

[paradox]

Yea, I believe it was just coincidental that the 3rd knows he is going on the Larry King show that night and they do away with the rule earlier that day, RIGHT!!!!!!!!!

Quite a leap from inter-racial dating to one world government. can you say apples and oranges. Has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard except when he called Jerry "the most dangerous man in America"

Typical extra chromosomial fundamentalist non-thinking.

How does this discriminate against one race? How does it benefit one race? That is the crux of the argument right? They need to make things right with the black race? Why not other races, why is the argument above only mentioning the black race?

Also, we need to thank Larry King, because without him and his show this rule would never have changed!

I think it was a dumb rule, but it equally offended all races IMO. Can you imagine meeting a hot hispanic (Salma Hayek) lady and being told you couldn't date her? Now that is offensive to me as a white man!!

Belcher:

You are completely missing the point!

Something of this magnitude cannot be brushed-off or explained away as just a "dumb rule."

Their policies were an affront against all non-white races in general, and a grave indignity toward our black brothers and sisters in particular. This is obvious because BJU is located in the middle of old Carlolina plantation country and not located in the Phillipines or in some remote part of Asia. In addition, 35% of Greenville, SC is black, and the Asian population is less than one half of one percent. Only the most devout BJU apologists would try to steer this thing into a conversation about Asians or one-world governments.

[paradox]

[quote="paradox"]Belcher:

Did you happen to see the Larry King interview when BJ-3 was practically forced to change his race policies under compulsion on live television, and coerced under pressure into accountability from an unbeliever, nonetheless? The policy changes seem to have stemmed more from expediency rather than from genuine repentence.

In my estimation, true repentence would involve a complete repudiation of past sins against our black brothers and sisters. As part of this BJ-3 would need to publicly denounce the false teachings of his father and his grandfather, and acknowledge his own wrongdoing as well. In my view, the name of the institution would need to be changed as well because the name of Bob Jones Sr. is in utter disrepute and is a disgrace to the cause of Christ. In addition, they would need to reach out to the many young black ministers in the south who would benefit from a theological education, but can't afford it.[/quot







Again, a real change in the Christian sense would at the very least look like something what is written above.

[4everfsu]

BJIII caved in, simple as that. If this had not been brought before the entire country, do you think they would have change their interracial dating? Personally I don't think they would have.

[paradox]

Did you happen to see the Larry King interview when BJ-3 was practically forced to change his race policies under compulsion on live television, and coerced under pressure into accountability from an unbeliever, nonetheless? The policy changes seem to have stemmed more from expediency rather than from genuine repentence.

In my estimation, true repentence would involve a complete repudiation of past sins against our black brothers and sisters. As part of this BJ-3 would need to publicly denounce the false teachings of his father and his grandfather, and acknowledge his own wrongdoing as well. In my view, the name of the institution would need to be changed as well because the name of Bob Jones Sr. is in utter disrepute and is a disgrace to the cause of Christ. In addition, they would need to reach out to the many young black ministers in the south who would benefit from a theological education, but can't afford it.

Belcher:

If BJ-3 truly has a change of heart and mind, certain changes and actions would be clear evidence of that.

How can BJU be taken seriously as a Christian institution when it is named after an avowed racist?

Why should we take anything that BJ-3 says seriously when he continues to revere and esteem his father and grandfather and refuses to denounce them and their racist and legalistic views?

And lastly, if they were serious about moving away from their racist past, wouldn't they be reaching out to young black ministers in need and offering them assistance toward a theological eduaction?

Play the apologist if you will, but I don't see how you can continue on, and evade these questions.

[belcherboy]

Yea, I believe it was just coincidental that the 3rd knows he is going on the Larry King show that night and they do away with the rule earlier that day, RIGHT!!!!!!!!!

Quite a leap from inter-racial dating to one world government. can you say apples and oranges. Has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard except when he called Jerry "the most dangerous man in America"

Typical extra chromosomial fundamentalist non-thinking.

How does this discriminate against one race? How does it benefit one race? That is the crux of the argument right? They need to make things right with the black race? Why not other races, why is the argument above only mentioning the black race?

Also, we need to thank Larry King, because without him and his show this rule would never have changed!

I think it was a dumb rule, but it equally offended all races IMO. Can you imagine meeting a hot hispanic (Salma Hayek) lady and being told you couldn't date her? Now that is offensive to me as a white man!!

Belcher:

You are completely missing the point!

Something of this magnitude cannot be brushed-off or explained away as just a "dumb rule."

Their policies were an affront against all non-white races in general, and a grave indignity toward our black brothers and sisters in particular. This is obvious because BJU is located in the middle of old Carlolina plantation country and not located in the Phillipines or in some remote part of Asia. In addition, 35% of Greenville, SC is black, and the Asian population is less than one half of one percent. Only the most devout BJU apologists would try to steer this thing into a conversation about Asians or one-world governments.

1) How is it an affront against non-white races? (That policy was taken away in 1970 according to BJ-3) White races are not allowed to date other races. How is this not equal treatment? (although very dumb)

2) Why is it a grave indignity toward the black race in particular? If you are talking about before 1970, we can lump in 50% or more of all institutions. Why does this not affect the hispanic, asian, etc. equally? Does the population of an area or school dictate who is being treated MORE unfairly? Would your opinion change if a large population of Asians moved to the area?

3) Why am I now labeled a devout BJU apologist? I think your position completely disregards all other races that were equally affected by this rule. If you would just admit you hate BJ and his university and no matter what he says or does you are always going to feel that way, maybe we can just agree to disagree?

I'm no more of a BJU apologist than you are a BJU hater. I just hate to see Christians bash each other over things that they do not have first hand knowledge of. I grew up in a church and school that pretty much bashed BJU. We made fun of those who attended, etc. After feeling the same treatment about attending Liberty from BJU supporters (Jerry was labeled as a reprobate in many of their eyes), I determined I wasn't going to blindly throw out blanketed accusations about other Christian institutions without first hand knowledge. I have read some of BJU's handbook and feel, although way over the top, it is a quality Christian university. It probably has some CRAZY professors, but so does Liberty. I had a professor at Liberty that shared how there were a few of them who believed in the curse on the black race due to Noah's son Ham (himself included). He said that up until the early 90's (I attended in the mid to late 90's) a few argued that as fact. He stated that the position changed, people were forced to either be removed, leave on their own, or changed their position. Now I was under the impression that some taught that as fact, but I did not hear a public apology from them. I don't need one, they changed their position and change is worth much more IMO than an apology. BJU has as least publicly changed their policy and I will give them credit for it. I do not want to try and determine whether God truly changed their heart.

Here is my opinion:
I don't believe it was a 100% racist rule at the time it was changed, I think it was a foolish rule. I think it may have been a rule started as a racist rule, but later was kept due to foolish reasons that were not racist. If it indeed is racist, than it affected all races equally. I coach basketball, if I get a poor official, I am good as long as they are poor on both ends of the floor. If they call it differently on one end, than I have a problem with it. This rule called it poor on all ends. It was bad for black, white, asian, hispanic, etc. According to this rule, a black man was not treated differently than a white man IMO.

I also want to say that I am enjoying the debate, so if I come across as negative, that is not my position. I have enjoyed many points that you and others have made.

[paradox]

BJIII caved in, simple as that. If this had not been brought before the entire country, do you think they would have change their interracial dating? Personally I don't think they would have.

Yea, good point.

He was obviously uncomfortable and his posture gave him away. This was something that he was clearly pressured into doing, not because he wanted to, but because he had to, and all he was really trying to do was get away from the controversy with the election and get the focus off of BJU.

[paradox]

Belcher:

You are correct on two points:

1. You are an ardent BJU apologist.

2. And I am in complete opposition to what they represent.

You are completely lost on this race thing, my friend. And it seems as though you may have your own bone to pick with regard to a certain race as you refuse to acknowlege the situation in its proper context.

If they clearly change their ways and their name, then I'll whole-heartily support them and let the past be the past. However, right now, the past is not much different then the present.

[belcherboy]

Belcher:

You are correct on two points:

1. You are an ardent BJU apologist.

2. And I am in complete opposition to what they represent.

You are completely lost on this race thing, my friend. And it seems as though you may have your own bone to pick with regard to a certain race as you refuse to acknowlege the situation in its proper context.

If they clearly change their ways and their name, then I'll whole-heartily support them and let the past be the past. However, right now, the past is not much different then the present.

I'm sorry we cannot see eye to eye. I do resent you would insinuate me a racist, but I will not hold that against you as you are good at making statements without real knowledge of the person or organization and seem to be blinded with hate towards this group (yes a form of prejudice). I don't think they could do enough to be forgiven of their past, or even given the opportunity to show change in your eyes. Also, maybe my definition of apologist is wrong, but does that not define someone who would defend something or someone on all accounts? If so, have I come across that way or have I not made it clear I do not agree with them in various aspects?

To answer your earlier question, (I missed it somehow), do you know that they do not offer scholarships to young black men or is this also another form of your opinion? If they do or have offered scholarships/aid, you are making false statements. I don't know so I will now refrain from debating the statement. I do know they gave a dark skinned hispanic missionary kid from my church a full ride, but he wasn't black.

Good luck with your stance, I'm hoping they can change the image of Bob Jones into something that further promotes the name of Jesus Christ, but perhaps you will get your wish and they will change the name and everything will be fixed (of course I'm still wondering how they haven't changed their ways).

[Libertine]

Belcher:

You are correct on two points:

1. You are an ardent BJU apologist.

2. And I am in complete opposition to what they represent.

You are completely lost on this race thing, my friend. And it seems as though you may have your own bone to pick with regard to a certain race as you refuse to acknowlege the situation in its proper context.

I am so trying to not get myself banned from this board right now.

Paradox, huh? How about Non Sequitur?

[kel varson]

How does this discriminate against one race? How does it benefit one race? That is the crux of the argument right? They need to make things right with the black race? Why not other races, why is the argument above only mentioning the black race?

Also, we need to thank Larry King, because without him and his show this rule would never have changed!

I think it was a dumb rule, but it equally offended all races IMO. Can you imagine meeting a hot hispanic (Salma Hayek) lady and being told you couldn't date her? Now that is offensive to me as a white man!!

Belcher:

You are completely missing the point!

Something of this magnitude cannot be brushed-off or explained away as just a "dumb rule."

Their policies were an affront against all non-white races in general, and a grave indignity toward our black brothers and sisters in particular. This is obvious because BJU is located in the middle of old Carlolina plantation country and not located in the Phillipines or in some remote part of Asia. In addition, 35% of Greenville, SC is black, and the Asian population is less than one half of one percent. Only the most devout BJU apologists would try to steer this thing into a conversation about Asians or one-world governments.

1) How is it an affront against non-white races? (That policy was taken away in 1970 according to BJ-3) White races are not allowed to date other races. How is this not equal treatment? (although very dumb)

2) Why is it a grave indignity toward the black race in particular? If you are talking about before 1970, we can lump in 50% or more of all institutions. Why does this not affect the hispanic, asian, etc. equally? Does the population of an area or school dictate who is being treated MORE unfairly? Would your opinion change if a large population of Asians moved to the area?

3) Why am I now labeled a devout BJU apologist? I think your position completely disregards all other races that were equally affected by this rule. If you would just admit you hate BJ and his university and no matter what he says or does you are always going to feel that way, maybe we can just agree to disagree?

I'm no more of a BJU apologist than you are a BJU hater. I just hate to see Christians bash each other over things that they do not have first hand knowledge of. I grew up in a church and school that pretty much bashed BJU. We made fun of those who attended, etc. After feeling the same treatment about attending Liberty from BJU supporters (Jerry was labeled as a reprobate in many of their eyes), I determined I wasn't going to blindly throw out blanketed accusations about other Christian institutions without first hand knowledge. I have read some of BJU's handbook and feel, although way over the top, it is a quality Christian university. It probably has some CRAZY professors, but so does Liberty. I had a professor at Liberty that shared how there were a few of them who believed in the curse on the black race due to Noah's son Ham (himself included). He said that up until the early 90's (I attended in the mid to late 90's) a few argued that as fact. He stated that the position changed, people were forced to either be removed, leave on their own, or changed their position. Now I was under the impression that some taught that as fact, but I did not hear a public apology from them. I don't need one, they changed their position and change is worth much more IMO than an apology. BJU has as least publicly changed their policy and I will give them credit for it. I do not want to try and determine whether God truly changed their heart.

Here is my opinion:
I don't believe it was a 100% racist rule at the time it was changed, I think it was a foolish rule. I think it may have been a rule started as a racist rule, but later was kept due to foolish reasons that were not racist. If it indeed is racist, than it affected all races equally. I coach basketball, if I get a poor official, I am good as long as they are poor on both ends of the floor. If they call it differently on one end, than I have a problem with it. This rule called it poor on all ends. It was bad for black, white, asian, hispanic, etc. According to this rule, a black man was not treated differently than a white man IMO.

I also want to say that I am enjoying the debate, so if I come across as negative, that is not my position. I have enjoyed many points that you and others have made.

I agree with you.

[belcherboy]

Upon further review, I am sorry paradox. I did not mean for this to turn into a spiteful debate. I hope I didn't offend you are anyone else and I'll refrain from further debate in this topic. I think you and others have very valid points of view that I just don't share, but that does not make them any less valid. If I caused any dissension on this board, I sincerely apologize. I am new and do not want to make this an uncomfortable place to discuss things.

[paradox]

Upon further review, I am sorry paradox. I did not mean for this to turn into a spiteful debate. I hope I didn't offend you are anyone else and I'll refrain from further debate in this topic. I think you and others have very valid points of view that I just don't share, but that does not make them any less valid. If I caused any dissension on this board, I sincerely apologize. I am new and do not want to make this an uncomfortable place to discuss things.

No hard feelings and no need to apologize.

I was enjoying the conversation, but if you rather move on, that's fine too.

[paradox]

At the end of the day, we can say whatever we want about what we wish BJU could be, or try to deny what it once was and what is still represents today, however, the name Bob Jones will forever be associated with fanaticism, legalism, hyper-pietism, separatism, divisiveness, pharisaism and religous racism.

A few gems to chew on from the three Bobs:

"I think that Dr. Billy Graham is doing more harm in the cause of Jesus Christ than any living man"

"Jerry Falwell is the most dangerous man in America"

"All popes are demon-possessed"

"God intended segregation of the races and ... the Scriptures forbid interracial marriage."





Perhaps, they are slowly coming around, however, until they make more significant strides, the people on the outside have a right to be suspicious. I, for one, remain skeptical.

[belcherboy]

No hard feelings and no need to apologize.

I was enjoying the conversation, but if you rather move on, that's fine too.

I have no problem continuing the debate, but I don't want it to turn into "if you don't see what I see, you must be just like them". Or if you don't agree with me it is because you have deep seeded hate in your heart. I truly come from a multi-race area (metro Detroit: filled with Arabs:Dearborn, Black:Detroit, and plenty of whites all over) and the ministries I run at my church are made up of 50-70% black children and adults. I've been called racist on many occasions. Mostly it happens when I'm kicking a person out of the gym (for fighting or some sort of inappropriate behavior), refusing to help them (usually drug addicts that I have helped before), or basically not acting the way THEY think I should act toward them. With all the work I do to make minorities comfortable in our church (we have significantly changed our race makeup since I and others have come onto staff 6 years ago), it drives me nuts when someone determines I (or others in my ministries) are racists because we don't do things the way they want them done. They truly do not know us and are presenting a false thing if they make those statements.

I think living in metro Detroit I am much more sensitive toward people throwing out the word racist. It happens so often to the police department, business owners, churches, etc. when an African American feels they are getting slighted in any way. Racism exists, but at least up here, it often gets thrown out too much often making it a worthless statement. In some circles, if someone of a particular race has been slighted, it must be racism. I get slighted all the time, I am white, but I don't think it is because of my race.

I just don't want BJU, Liberty, any other Christian institution to be unfairly labeled. If they indeed teach racist doctrine, than lets call them to task. If they have made changes, lets give them praise. Keeping a critical eye on them is o.k., but I just don't see where their doctrine has not been corrected. He publicly admitted they were wrong to keep black people out of their school due to race. They could go further, but I personally believe time will truly change this university. They have the policy in place to take them in the right direction, I hope that God will lead them further. Paradox, you are indeed accurate that they have a long way to go. Hopefully they continue in the right direction.

[belcherboy]

I, for one, remain skeptical.

Count me in as well. I'm just looking for God to turn the place around. Hopefully they let him do it!

[paradox]

No hard feelings and no need to apologize.

I was enjoying the conversation, but if you rather move on, that's fine too.

I just don't want BJU, Liberty, any other Christian institution to be unfairly labeled. If they indeed teach racist doctrine, than lets call them to task. If they have made changes, lets give them praise. Keeping a critical eye on them is o.k., but I just don't see where their doctrine has not been corrected. He publicly admitted they were wrong to keep black people out of their school due to race. They could go further, but I personally believe time will truly change this university. They have the policy in place to take them in the right direction, I hope that God will lead them further. Paradox, you are indeed accurate that they have a long way to go. Hopefully they continue in the right direction.

Well, acknowledging that they need to continue to move even further away from their past is certainly neutral ground and something that we can both agree on.

I too hope that the institution moves forward and adapts positions that resemble a more orthodox view with regard to the Christian faith.