Am I crazy?

[Vladimir]

No doubt those that suffer for being "another color" will be reward in heaven and those who do not advocate that men should do so will loose rewards in heaven (if they are a Christan) or be punished more in hell (if they die in unbelief).

Where did you get this idea of "less rewards" or "more punishment"?

Scripture and the WCF. All our works will be judged. Believers works shall be judged and unbelievers works also. This is where The Lord will judge not only the works but the motive.

My friend, if you get "more or less" from that, you have got some very serious misconceptions about the judgment, the nature of sin, our Lord's justice and, especially, the Cross.

 

[earl40]

Oh, I agree with you on dogmatic pragmatism. Our disagreement lies in the extent of the authority that God has given the state. You seem to be implying, though I hope this is not the case, that you believe the state has been given the authority to judge and punish any and all moral infractions, including the thoughts and intents of a man's heart. Would you agree with that statement?

For the sake of the discussion, here are two definitions for racism per Merriam-Webster. Are you arguing that both should be illegal, or one of them in particular?

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

I totally agree that the state not has been given the authority to judge moral infractions as if they know the intention of the heart. Though I will say this, the state has been given the authority to judge the actions that arise out of bad moral intentions. Am I saying the state should judge kids who do not go to bed on time....nope that is the parents spear of authority. I am saying the state has the authority to disapline those that pratice discrimination as per #2 in your definition. What I find intersting is the state here in the USA does this (albiet poorly) to some extent in the EEOC and also because they do it poorly is not an excuse to not be the state.

 

[earl40]

Earl this seems like an unbalanced focus for a Christian to be involved with in America. We have laws to protect all races, creeds or colors.

.

We have some laws that do such, but it is not against the law to serve a cup of coffee ONLY to "white" people at a resturant if the owner wishes.

 

[Vladimir]

No doubt those that suffer for being "another color" will be reward in heaven and those who do not advocate that men should do so will loose rewards in heaven (if they are a Christan) or be punished more in hell (if they die in unbelief).

Where did you get this idea of "less rewards" or "more punishment"?

Scripture and the WCF. All our works will be judged. Believers works shall be judged and unbelievers works also. This is where The Lord will judge not only the works but the motive.

My friend, if you get "more or less" from that, you have got some very serious misconceptions about the judgment, the nature of sin, our Lord's justice and, especially, the Cross.

I was just listening to RefNet, and heard Sproul speaking about actual different rewards in Heaven. I am sorry, Earl, I may have been rash in my statement. I will have to research this.

The concept sounds bizarre, though. Even if Sproul says that works do not matter for sanctification, how do they matter in the judgment? Bad sins and real bad sins? Good works and great works? Wages of sin are death: is there "less death" and "more death"? How do you marry this with the doctrine of imputed righteousness?

 

[ThyWord IsTruth]

No doubt those that suffer for being "another color" will be reward in heaven and those who do not advocate that men should do so will loose rewards in heaven (if they are a Christan) or be punished more in hell (if they die in unbelief).

Where did you get this idea of "less rewards" or "more punishment"?

Scripture and the WCF. All our works will be judged. Believers works shall be judged and unbelievers works also. This is where The Lord will judge not only the works but the motive.

My friend, if you get "more or less" from that, you have got some very serious misconceptions about the judgment, the nature of sin, our Lord's justice and, especially, the Cross.

I was just listening to RefNet, and heard Sproul speaking about actual different rewards in Heaven. I am sorry, Earl, I may have been rash in my statement. I will have to research this.

The concept sounds bizarre, though. Even if Sproul says that works do not matter for sanctification, how do they matter in the judgment? Bad sins and real bad sins? Good works and great works? Wages of sin are death: is there "less death" and "more death"? How do you marry this with the doctrine of imputed righteousness?

Here are a couple portions of scripture regarding the judgment seat of Christ.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15 KJV)

But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. (Romans 14:10-13 KJV)

 

[Skyler]

I totally agree that the state not has been given the authority to judge moral infractions as if they know the intention of the heart. Though I will say this, the state has been given the authority to judge the actions that arise out of bad moral intentions. Am I saying the state should judge kids who do not go to bed on time....nope that is the parents spear of authority. I am saying the state has the authority to disapline those that pratice discrimination as per #2 in your definition. What I find intersting is the state here in the USA does this (albiet poorly) to some extent in the EEOC and also because they do it poorly is not an excuse to not be the state.

Thank you for the clarification on that.

 

[earl40]

Even if Sproul says that works do not matter for sanctification, how do they matter in the judgment? Bad sins and real bad sins? Good works and great works? Wages of sin are death: is there "less death" and "more death"? How do you marry this with the doctrine of imputed righteousness?

I don't know what Sproul means if he says works do not matter for sanctifiation, I would have to hear what the context was. So far as how do works and how they relate with imputation is a great great question that we all need to be reminded of often. I do this by remembering a quote that says "Reprobation like justification are not based on works". This means we are not sent to hell or heaven based on any works we do. We all were born and conceived in Adam because of the imputed sin of Adam (Adam's work and unrighteousness). Of course the Good News is the imputation of Christ's work and righteousness to those he loves which is the best part of imputation that only a few receive, relatively speaking to the whole of humanity.

The works of believers will be judged based on not only if they conform to what God has said we should do, but also the motivation to Who these works were done for. This is why we Christians should do EVERYTHING unto The Lord.

The works of unbelievers will also be judged by the same standard as Christians which are, if they are commanded by God and the motivation they were done for. Of course the motivation for doing good works is totally missing thus ALL the works will be shown as being sinful at the root and thus sinful. The amount of punishment will be doled out by if they did do what God commanded according to His law. Of course if they follow His commandments they will be less sinful because the law does curb sin even in the most rank unbeliever. Even Hitler loved his mother is my favorite example to demonstrate such.

 

[RamistThomist]

What is racism? If it is the thought, then we should also start executing all the murderers and adulterers- I might as well go first. God will judge us for the actions of our hearts/minds, we don't need the state going there. As for overt acts, there are already plenty of laws in place to deal with these issues.

I am not a theonomist and the penalty for practicing racism is not the discussion here but if it (racism) should be against the law.

A law that has no sanctions is worse than useless. If racism is to be against the law, there must be a punishment, otherwise there is no point to the law.

 

[Vladimir]

Just letting everyone know I move the rewards and punishments discussion to: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/degrees-rewards-punishment-79308/

 

[RamistThomist]

And to further point out: There is a difference between sin and crime. Not all sins are crimes. Getting drunk is a sin. It's not a crime. Driving while drunk is. For all of theonomy's problems, they were very clear on this distinction. If we make these types of sins into crimes, we have entered into one of the most diabolical tyrannies---thought crimes (which is where we are headed now, but that's cool: it's better than being ruled by Moses).

 

[Skyler]

...the state has been given the authority to judge the actions that arise out of bad moral intentions. Am I saying the state should judge kids who do not go to bed on time....nope that is the parents spear of authority. I am saying the state has the authority to disapline those that pratice discrimination as per #2 in your definition.

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Do you believe the state has the authority to judge all actions that have a motive of racial prejudice or discrimination, or only a particular subset? More generally, does this apply to perceived superiority in general, or only perceived genetic superiority?

Consider the following hypothetical cases:

1. A person maintains a generally civil attitude towards those he believes to be inferior, but admits privately to holding the opinion that those with a particular characteristic are superior.
....a. Alternatively, consider that he admits this opinion publicly, or that he argues for it in a public context.
2. A person refuses to enter into a relationship (as a friend, coworker, employee, employer, spouse, teacher, student, seller, buyer, etc.) with someone because he believes he is superior.
3. A person actively attempts to discredit/displease someone he believes is inferior in order to convince them to leave his community.
4. A person actively attempts, in cooperation with others or alone, to force someone he believes is inferior to do something against their will.

Which of these would you argue should be illegal?

 

[RamistThomist]

God in his wisdom did not give the state the authority to punish "thoughts" or intentions. And to illustrate this further: who gets the authority to define racism? Do we let that Christ-hater Disease Morris at the Southern Poverty Law Center define it? Why not? He's the biggest race-baiter in America. I can promise you that if racism becomes illegal, it will be so defined that everyone on this board is a racist because you don't vote democratic.

 

[Frosty]

The problem is that while yes, racism is an evil thing, there is no practical and effective way to make it illegal.

It keeps coming back to this issue: WHAT is racism? And, WHO determines what constitutes racism? How can it be proved that someone did or said something out of a racist attitude?

There are some laws already on the books that enter into the exterior of this realm, but that's about as far as you can go. You can't legislate people's motives and inner beliefs.

 

[The Calvinist Cop]

You can't legislate people's motives and inner beliefs.

There is in policing...Racial Profiling.

 

[earl40]

[ Consider the following hypothetical cases:

1. A person maintains a generally civil attitude towards those he believes to be inferior, but admits privately to holding the opinion that those with a particular characteristic are superior.
....a. Alternatively, consider that he admits this opinion publicly, or that he argues for it in a public context.
2. A person refuses to enter into a relationship (as a friend, coworker, employee, employer, spouse, teacher, student, seller, buyer, etc.) with someone because he believes he is superior.
3. A person actively attempts to discredit/displease someone he believes is inferior in order to convince them to leave his community.
4. A person actively attempts, in cooperation with others or alone, to force someone he believes is inferior to do something against their will.

Which of these would you argue should be illegal?

On #1. I would prosecute the person if he publically declares his racism. He now has made the matter of the heart readially apparent and he will try to polute society by spreading his ill concieved beliefs. We should not allow such as I also have the opinion that the KKK should be outlawed. BTW it is interesting how they wear hoods to conseal the shame they espouse,which of course is an opinion that may be wrong, in that I am indeed assigning an evil motive for the white sheet.

#2 I would not prosecute. Though I would allow the workforce to weed him out if he will not be a good employee.

#3 I would allow and encourage the injured party to sue the pants off of him for defamation of his humanity.

#4 I am not sure what you mean here.

 

[RamistThomist]

Two comments:

1) Unless I missed it, you still haven't given a definition of "racism."

2) Do you take exception to the Westminster Larger Catechism's exposition of the 5th Commandment, which clearly acknowledges that society is composed of superiors and inferiors and equals?

[ Consider the following hypothetical cases:

1. A person maintains a generally civil attitude towards those he believes to be inferior, but admits privately to holding the opinion that those with a particular characteristic are superior.
....a. Alternatively, consider that he admits this opinion publicly, or that he argues for it in a public context.
2. A person refuses to enter into a relationship (as a friend, coworker, employee, employer, spouse, teacher, student, seller, buyer, etc.) with someone because he believes he is superior.
3. A person actively attempts to discredit/displease someone he believes is inferior in order to convince them to leave his community.
4. A person actively attempts, in cooperation with others or alone, to force someone he believes is inferior to do something against their will.

Which of these would you argue should be illegal?

On #1. I would prosecute the person if he publically declares his racism. He now has made the matter of the heart readially apparent and he will try to polute society by spreading his ill concieved beliefs. We should not allow such as I also have the opinion that the KKK should be outlawed. BTW it is interesting how they wear hoods to conseal the shame they espouse,which of course is an opinion that may be wrong, in that I am indeed assigning an evil motive for the white sheet.

#2 I would not prosecute. Though I would allow the workforce to weed him out if he will not be a good employee.

#3 I would allow and encourage the injured party to sue the pants off of him for defamation of his humanity.

#4 I am not sure what you mean here.

 

[matt01]

1) Unless I missed it, you still haven't given a definition of "racism."

Certainly not clearly. There are plenty of laws (or regulations) on the books related to actions that are done for racist or prejudicial reasons, there is no reason for what you propose. I wouldn't call you crazy, but possibly misguided. As someone wrote above, it would appear that your focus is on the wrong things.

 

[Skyler]

On #1. I would prosecute the person if he publically declares his racism. He now has made the matter of the heart readially apparent and he will try to polute society by spreading his ill concieved beliefs. We should not allow such as I also have the opinion that the KKK should be outlawed. BTW it is interesting how they wear hoods to conseal the shame they espouse,which of course is an opinion that may be wrong, in that I am indeed assigning an evil motive for the white sheet.

#2 I would not prosecute. Though I would allow the workforce to weed him out if he will not be a good employee.

#3 I would allow and encourage the injured party to sue the pants off of him for defamation of his humanity.

#4 I am not sure what you mean here.

I agree with #2 & #3. Though I think it's interesting that the only action that you've declared you would prosecute is a public confession of a belief in genetic superiority... can you give any other examples that you would prosecute?

 

[RamistThomist]

Are you talking to me or the original poster? I haven't necessarily set forth my own position, save for the following:

1. Any definition of racism at this point in our society will favor the status quo
2. Making thoughts "crimes" goes beyond God in his word.

1) Unless I missed it, you still haven't given a definition of "racism."

Certainly not clearly. There are plenty of laws (or regulations) on the books related to actions that are done for racist or prejudicial reasons, there is no reason for what you propose. I wouldn't call you crazy, but possibly misguided. As someone wrote above, it would appear that your focus is on the wrong things.

 

[matt01]

I was responding to the OP, having previously asked what racism was.

 

[earl40]

Two comments:

1) Unless I missed it, you still haven't given a definition of "racism."

2) Do you take exception to the Westminster Larger Catechism's exposition of the 5th Commandment, which clearly acknowledges that society is composed of superiors and inferiors and equals?

The 5th has NOTHING to do with racism in the context of this thread. The definition I am using is one that most here understand tacitly in that it would be any treatment of another human being that The Lord has granted all certain rights in line with them being made in his image.

 

[earl40]

On #1. I would prosecute the person if he publically declares his racism. He now has made the matter of the heart readially apparent and he will try to polute society by spreading his ill concieved beliefs. We should not allow such as I also have the opinion that the KKK should be outlawed. BTW it is interesting how they wear hoods to conseal the shame they espouse,which of course is an opinion that may be wrong, in that I am indeed assigning an evil motive for the white sheet.

#2 I would not prosecute. Though I would allow the workforce to weed him out if he will not be a good employee.

#3 I would allow and encourage the injured party to sue the pants off of him for defamation of his humanity.

#4 I am not sure what you mean here.

I agree with #2 & #3. Though I think it's interesting that the only action that you've declared you would prosecute is a public confession of a belief in genetic superiority... can you give any other examples that you would prosecute?

I could list scores if we lived in a society that was like ours in the 1950's. For instance my father had a private business that had two different waiting rooms. Now back then it was the accepted way things were done and my father chose to comply to this evil because he did not want to start a race riot even though he HATED that he had to do do such.

Now a days I would not allow by law any business to not allow all black, yellow white or red to do business if they chose to do so. I also would prosecute with more severe penalties those who perpetrated crimes based on race....sort of like we have now (good law we have now) that many here appear to think is not needed, though I will grant that law is not quite what I have in mind.

 

[earl40]

On #1. I would prosecute the person if he publically declares his racism. He now has made the matter of the heart readially apparent and he will try to polute society by spreading his ill concieved beliefs. We should not allow such as I also have the opinion that the KKK should be outlawed. BTW it is interesting how they wear hoods to conseal the shame they espouse,which of course is an opinion that may be wrong, in that I am indeed assigning an evil motive for the white sheet.

#2 I would not prosecute. Though I would allow the workforce to weed him out if he will not be a good employee.

#3 I would allow and encourage the injured party to sue the pants off of him for defamation of his humanity.

#4 I am not sure what you mean here.

I agree with #2 & #3. Though I think it's interesting that the only action that you've declared you would prosecute is a public confession of a belief in genetic superiority... can you give any other examples that you would prosecute?

Jonathan just curious, do you believe the KKK should be outlawed?

 

[Mushroom]

So, Earl, if I have a particular distaste for red-headed people, would I be prosecuted under the laws you propose?

I have to confess that whenever I hear the sentiment that 'there oughta be a law', I get the picture in my mind of a man with a leash looking for a dog...

 

[Skyler]

On #1. I would prosecute the person if he publically declares his racism. He now has made the matter of the heart readially apparent and he will try to polute society by spreading his ill concieved beliefs. We should not allow such as I also have the opinion that the KKK should be outlawed. BTW it is interesting how they wear hoods to conseal the shame they espouse,which of course is an opinion that may be wrong, in that I am indeed assigning an evil motive for the white sheet.

#2 I would not prosecute. Though I would allow the workforce to weed him out if he will not be a good employee.

#3 I would allow and encourage the injured party to sue the pants off of him for defamation of his humanity.

#4 I am not sure what you mean here.

I agree with #2 & #3. Though I think it's interesting that the only action that you've declared you would prosecute is a public confession of a belief in genetic superiority... can you give any other examples that you would prosecute?

I could list scores if we lived in a society that was like ours in the 1950's. For instance my father had a private business that had two different waiting rooms. Now back then it was the accepted way things were done and my father chose to comply to this evil because he did not want to start a race riot even though he HATED that he had to do do such.

Now a days I would not allow by law any business to not allow all black, yellow white or red to do business if they chose to do so. I also would prosecute with more severe penalties those who perpetrated crimes based on race....sort of like we have now (good law we have now) that many here appear to think is not needed, though I will grant that law is not quite what I have in mind.

That's interesting, because earlier you upheld an individual's right to choose whether to enter into an employer/employee or customer/supplier relationship with someone else based on their belief in their own superiority. Do you believe that should be illegal after all? And if so, what sort of relationships does that extend to, and why - should it be illegal to refuse to befriend someone because you believe you are superior?

As a corollary, should people have a right to choose who they do business with or hire at all? Are there any valid criteria for that choice, and why isn't personal preference one of them?

In regards to the KKK, my understanding of the current organization is somewhat limited, but it seems to me that they would have fallen under the general category of a domestic terrorist organization, killing/threatening/injuring/vandalizing the property of those they disliked. I don't know what the modern formulation entails, but the version just described should be illegal as a terrorist organization. I see no reason to make it "more" illegal to perpetrate crimes for racial reasons than for social-status reasons, religious reasons, or any other demographic reasons.

 

[Edward]

a domestic terrorist organization, killing/threatening/injuring/vandalizing the property of those they disliked.

Those were mainly the ones working for Hoover's FBI.

 

[earl40]

So, Earl, if I have a particular distaste for red-headed people, would I be prosecuted under the laws you propose?

I have to confess that whenever I hear the sentiment that 'there oughta be a law', I get the picture in my mind of a man with a leash looking for a dog...

I hear you Brad, and yes not serving redheads would fall under my law if I were king. I can imagine the visceral reaction you describe about "there ought to be a law" and do you remember the movie Legends of the Fall with Pitt and Hopkins and the barkeep would not serve the Indian a beer? Well there ought to have been a law.

 

[earl40]

That's interesting, because earlier you upheld an individual's right to choose whether to enter into an employer/employee or customer/supplier relationship with someone else based on their belief in their own superiority.

I sorry, where did I say such?

 

[Skyler]

2. A person refuses to enter into a relationship (as a friend, coworker, employee, employer, spouse, teacher, student, seller, buyer, etc.) with someone because he believes he is superior.

#2 I would not prosecute. Though I would allow the workforce to weed him out if he will not be a good employee.

See above.

 

[RamistThomist]

So, Earl, if I have a particular distaste for red-headed people, would I be prosecuted under the laws you propose?

I have to confess that whenever I hear the sentiment that 'there oughta be a law', I get the picture in my mind of a man with a leash looking for a dog...

I hear you Brad, and yes not serving redheads would fall under my law if I were king. I can imagine the visceral reaction you describe about "there ought to be a law" and do you remember the movie Legends of the Fall with Pitt and Hopkins and the barkeep would not serve the Indian a beer? Well there ought to have been a law.

Would you base any laws off of the Bible or is this simply your own fancy? Which of the two is more likely to lead to tyranny?