Is Racism a Sin?

[RDKirk]

The differences are only visual. But I'm not going to pretend it would be considered normal for 2 Chinese parents to have a Black baby.

As has been pointed out, your example is false. You're talking about a question of marital infidelity, not a question of a child's color. Beyond that, statistically 90% of newborns look strongly like the father, although by the age of five their appearances have changed so that only 50% look strongly like the father. But it's an interesting thing that God causes the vast majority of newborns to look like the father.

I suspect that a dark-skinned baby from the Chinese mother's womb who with the father's features will simply have to be taken as unusual as an albino.

Among African-Americans, it's not terribly unusual for recessive Caucasian genes in two dark-skinned parents to result in a child significantly lighter skinned that either of them. And sometimes, even this happens:

One In A Million - The Two Twins Who Have Different Skin Color

Fraternal twins.

 

[Ken-1122]

As has been pointed out, your example is false. You're talking about a question of marital infidelity, not a question of a child's color.

No I'm not talking about marital infidelity, and I'm not talking about color. I'm saying if both parents are 100% Chinese/Mongoloid; it would not be considered normal for them to have an African/Negroid baby

 

[Alien Lotus]

This pastor says that it is. And he calls out church leaders to label it as a sin.

Who Will Call Out the President's Racism?

Should national leaders be called out on their sins even if they are believed to support 'Christianity'? Or should only only national leaders who are believed to not support Christianity be called out on their sins?

Should the party who called out Bill Clinton for marital infidelity also call out Donald Trump for racism?? Within the realm of morals and ethics is there any reason why anyone should believe Christians have either morals or ethics?

The President isn't a racist.
Islam is not a race.
Illegal Immigrant isn't a race.

When Trump Fought the Racists | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.

..
In today’s world the Left demands racial quotas and supports illegal immigration. What all of these things have in common is that they are designed to divide Americans by race, to divide by skin color. Which is precisely what Donald Trump stood up and fought against when no one other than Palm Beach society was paying attention.

The harsh reality of the racism charge against Trump is not only that it is bogus, utterly false from start to finish. The reality is the charges of racism against Trump are coming from the one political force in the country that has a long, deep, and immutable history of racism. A racism that is no relic of a long ago past but both current and visceral, used now as it has always been used — to divide and judge by skin color for political profit.

The good news here that in Donald Trump someone — finally — is standing up to fight back. Just as he fought back all those years ago in Palm Beach when no one was looking."

 

[RDKirk]

No I'm not talking about marital infidelity, and I'm not talking about color. I'm saying if both parents are 100% Chinese/Mongoloid; it would not be considered normal for them to have an African/Negroid baby

You're not making a point that is relevant to anything. Nobody is arguing that there aren't different skin colors. The argument is that the difference makes no difference other than aesthetic.

You appear to have agreed with that in your post #299, so you don't actually have a point of debate to make.

 

[Rebecca12]

I don't care if you are White, Black, Brown, or Blue...…. if you openly espouse the government of a particular foreign country as better than here in America,,,,,,, perhaps you SHOULD go live in that country so you will be where you think it is better. (No matter WHERE you happen to be born.)

This is my country. I have the same right as you do to try to make it better. I am not ready to give up on it.

***
The harsh reality of the racism charge against Trump is not only that it is bogus, utterly false from start to finish. The reality is the charges of racism against Trump are coming from the one political force in the country that has a long, deep, and immutable history of racism. A racism that is no relic of a long ago past but both current and visceral, used now as it has always been used — to divide and judge by skin color for political profit.

The good news here that in Donald Trump someone — finally — is standing up to fight back. Just as he fought back all those years ago in Palm Beach when no one was looking."

Ah, the "good news" is fighting dirty. Assuming a hispanic judge from Indiana is Mexican and won't judge him fairly. Telling non-white American's born in the USA to "go back where they came from." Discriminating against blacks in housing, sued twice by the Justice Department, and filing a frivolous lawsuit that was dismissed to fight the accusations. Saying that: "A well educated black has tremendous advantages over a well educated white man in terms of the job market." (Not true, based on actual data). Birtherism. Mocking Chinese accents. "They don't look like Indians to me." "Black guys counting my money, I hate that. . . Laziness is a trait in blacks." (Quoted, not denied by Trump for years, he once acknowledged the book where he was quoted was probably true, but then later claimed he did not say that.)

 

[Alien Lotus]

Ah, the "good news" is fighting dirty.

Baiting doesn't make your points superior nor relevant nor true. Don't look to Trump as a racist when bigotry is your cross.

 

[Ken-1122]

You're not making a point that is relevant to anything. Nobody is arguing that there aren't different skin colors. The argument is that the difference makes no difference other than aesthetic.

You appear to have agreed with that in your post #299, so you don't actually have a point of debate to make.

I agree; to ME it is meaningless, but I also recognize there are a lot of people out there that for them it means a lot.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree; to ME it is meaningless, but I also recognize there are a lot of people out there that for them it means a lot.

If they are Christian and the skin color or phenotype of other Christians makes a difference to them, then they are in the wrong.

 

[Rebecca12]

Baiting doesn't make your points superior nor relevant nor true. Don't look to Trump as a racist when bigotry is your cross.

Nonresponsive.

 

[Ken-1122]

If they are Christian and the skin color or phenotype of other Christians makes a difference to them, then they are in the wrong.

I wasn't speaking of Christians, I was speaking of people. If race meant nothing to anybody, racism wouldn't exist.

 

[RDKirk]

I wasn't speaking of Christians, I was speaking of people. If race meant nothing to anybody, racism wouldn't exist.

The thread is "Is racism a sin?"

The question is only relevant for Christians.

Pagans and heathens are going to hell for non-belief, not for racism.

 

[FredVB]

The thread is "Is racism a sin?"

The question is only relevant for Christians.

Pagans and heathens are going to hell for non-belief, not for racism.

Well let's see what the original post of the thread says.

This pastor says that it is. And he calls out church leaders to label it as a sin.
Who Will Call Out the President's Racism?
Should national leaders be called out on their sins even if they are believed to support 'Christianity'? Or should only only national leaders who are believed to not support Christianity be called out on their sins?
Should the party who called out Bill Clinton for marital infidelity also call out Donald Trump for racism?? Within the realm of morals and ethics is there any reason why anyone should believe Christians have either morals or ethics?

It is asking for what to consider about elected officials, as for the national presidency, from Christians. What is sin for them is understood to apply to who they would choose for a position, whether or not that one is Christian. So it is still relevant about that one even if that one is not Christian. Votes from Christians reflect on them.

Nonbelief is not the cause of "going to hell". Sins are what separates any from God, without repentance with coming to Christ such cannot enter into eternity with bliss in relationship to God, and would be "going to hell", faith then is necessary, that which is in Christ would be saving such.

Racism involves hate, like agism, ableism, sexism, speciesism, being exclusionary without rationality, it is not fair in how others are dealt with, so that is sin. One is guilty of sins before they are Christian, and it is why repentance with coming to Christ is needed.

 

[pleinmont]

Racism is evil, there are no if and buts about that, imo.

 

[Dave-W]

Pagans and heathens are going to hell for non-belief, not for racism.

True, but if/when they come to faith; it is a sin they will need to repent from and make restitution.

So in that sense it is relevant for the pre-christian as well.

 

[RDKirk]

Nonbelief is not the cause of "going to hell". Sins are what separates any from God, without repentance with coming to Christ such cannot enter into eternity with bliss in relationship to God, and would be "going to hell", faith then is necessary, that which is in Christ would be saving such.

I'll have to disagree with that.

If it is the "sins," the specific acts, that create the separation, then all one has to do is stop committing those specific acts--a matter of one's own works--to be right with God.

 

[FredVB]

Nonbelief is not the cause of "going to hell". Sins are what separates any from God, without repentance with coming to Christ such cannot enter into eternity with bliss in relationship to God, and would be "going to hell", faith then is necessary, that which is in Christ would be saving such.

Racism involves hate, like agism, ableism, sexism, speciesism, being exclusionary without rationality, it is not fair in how others are dealt with, so that is sin. One is guilty of sins before they are Christian, and it is why repentance with coming to Christ is needed.

I'll have to disagree with that. If it is the "sins," the specific acts, that create the separation, then all one has to do is stop committing those specific acts--a matter of one's own works--to be right with God.

That is alright, you can disagree. Yet, how can any who have sinned, having a nature to sin, stop all sins? And if it were possible, there would be the past sins still to separate from God, that only the atonement through Christ deals with. God is fair, and all sin, every one, is dealt with. God cannot just look on sin. The ones of those who come to Christ are dealt with, in Christ. We who do would not want to keep sinning, for more of all that he dealt with for us. I want to be done with sins. This isn't about saving oneself with stopping one's sinning. But God helps providing for that, not wanting our sins to continue any more than they have to.

 

[RDKirk]

That is alright, you can disagree. Yet, how can any who have sinned, having a nature to sin, stop all sins? And if it were possible, there would be the past sins still to separate from God, that only the atonement through Christ deals with. God is fair, and all sin, every one, is dealt with. God cannot just look on sin. The ones of those who come to Christ are dealt with, in Christ. We who do would not want to keep sinning, for more of all that he dealt with for us. I want to be done with sins. This isn't about saving oneself with stopping one's sinning. But God helps providing for that, not wanting our sins to continue any more than they have to.

Well, now you have repudiated your own initial point.

 

[FredVB]

That is alright, you can disagree. Yet, how can any who have sinned, having a nature to sin, stop all sins? And if it were possible, there would be the past sins still to separate from God, that only the atonement through Christ deals with. God is fair, and all sin, every one, is dealt with. God cannot just look on sin. The ones of those who come to Christ are dealt with, in Christ. We who do would not want to keep sinning, for more of all that he dealt with for us. I want to be done with sins. This isn't about saving oneself with stopping one's sinning. But God helps providing for that, not wanting our sins to continue any more than they have to.

Well, now you have repudiated your own initial point.

I notice from previous posting that you like to use that tactic claiming another with another view is contradicting themselves with the view in a new statement. It makes no sense here, is it really concluded that what I believe is not really thought out well, or without getting familiar with things said in the Bible? If anything would have been repudiated it is what was understood from what I posted previously, because I can still stand for the statements I have made in the posts here. If you say there is contadiction then show it, I think I could show there is no contradiction.

We are saved through Christ, not with our works. It is still salvation from sins of our own lives that along with our sin nature were cutting us off from the relationship with God that there should be. With the salvation with being in Christ we are to become removed from sin, this more generally will be with growth spiritually.

 

[FredVB]

It should be understood that God enables those who are repentant, the ones who are real believers, to have a new nature with the repentance to turn from sins. There is still a process to know more to turn from, finding the will of Yahweh.

 

[Estrid]

You're not making a point that is relevant to anything. Nobody is arguing that there aren't different skin colors. The argument is that the difference makes no difference other than aesthetic.

You appear to have agreed with that in your post #299, so you don't actually have a point of debate to make.

"No" difference?