Baptist Church Excludes Democrats

[perfessor]

http://www.wlos.com/

I don't get it. Didn't Jesus ply his trade among tax collectors, prostitutes, and other "sinners"?

East Waynesville Baptist asked nine members to leave. Now 40 more have left the church in protest. Former members say Pastor Chan Chandler gave them the ultimatum, saying if they didn't support George Bush, they should resign or repent. The minister declined an interview with News 13. But he did say "the actions were not politically motivated." There are questions about whether the bi-laws were followed when the members were thrown out.

So my question for debate: Should the East Waynesville Baptist Church lose its tax-exempt status?

I say they should, since the pastor has turned the church into an arm of the Republican party.

[micatala]

The Pastor was 100% within his right to teach his religion the way he wants. Lucky for the church it wasn't a mosque or AK-47's may have decided the issue.

The Democrats believe in relativism and chaos and want to take everyone's money to pay the evenyual bills for that chaos.

Al, you are so far over the top sometimes, it is hard to take you seriously.

I am not a member of either major political party. I frankly don't see that the democrats are any more or less 'ungodly' than the republicans.

Does the pastor have a right to his views? Certainly.

Does he have right to endorse political candidates in his role as a pastor? Well, yes as an American citizen he does, but he does risk his church losing its tax exempt status. If the church is willing to let him do this, fine. We could argue about whether this is a reasonable law, but at this point, that is the law. If the Pastor wishes to follow the Bible, then a good case can be made on the basis of the Bible that what he is doing is not right.

I would agree that Galileo gives good advice. I find it ironic that you somehow think this quote supports your views. Galileo was a proponent of free discussion. He did not feel it was appropriate for the church to try to claim that 'God proclaims the earth immovable.' He felt the church was making a mistake and that it was not wise for fallible men to put words in God's mouth, especially with regards to a matter that the evidence at hand implied was highly disputable.

Politics is inherently an area where the issues are often in dispute, and reasonable people can disagree in good conscience. To say that God somehow favors one large group over another with respect to these matters, to me, is ridiculous and I daresay Galileo would find it so as well.

[AlAyeti]

Israel was a large group of people that God favored. And favors.

The Earth can be moved how? How is it that the planet we're on just doen't fly off away from our solar system?

Is it not "fixed" into its place and position? Is that not provable? Now? I've always found that particular debate one that drew me towards the Bible and certainly not away. My compass points me to the "four corners" of the earth even still. Interesting that that was written in the Bible before the invention of the compass.

Oh well, back on topic...

It is clear that Democrats i.e., Liberals do not want the debate they shriek about so loudly. Take a stand that does not cow tow to theirs and you are relegated to the flat-earthers faster than you can say "fetus."

There can be no law telling a church what they can and cannot say. Not if the Constitution ( a documant written by just men) can be believed at face value. The law about politics in the church is very recent NO?

I am not a Republican for very real reasons. They are bad on too many things. But, the Democrats are plainly and openly anti-Christian. They are incompatible with the teachings of life first and foremost and they keep sliding towards Sodom with every passing day.

Any Pastor worth his ordination would tell them to get out of his church.

That is "part of the discussion." Just not one that lines up with the decadent-relativism (oops I mean 'Diversity') that rules the Democrat platform.

Please, how am I wrong?

I'll be back this afternoon.

[Vladd44]

The people asked to leave, were asked to leave because the democrat party is incompatible with Christians living within the Christian faith.

From your limited scope, maybe.

Expand your horizons and realize that there are good people in both parties. As an ex republican that will never go back, nor join the demos, I find your viewpoint laughable. Simple party affiliation is incompatible with xtianity?

What rubbish.

[AlAyeti]

Vladd,

Fair enough. You have your opinion. I am niether GOP or Demmy myself. But what the Democrats proliferate by theor actions is incompatible to that of historic cultural Christianty.

Test my views. Read the Gospels and the following letters in the New Testament to expand you horizons. Point me to some place I can see the error in my position and I will start my homework.

My horizon became darkened the moment I learned what "late term abortion" was all about. I "learned" why the Republicans so accurately labeled it "Partial Birth Abortion."

"WWJD?"

[Vladd44]

Test my views. Read the Gospels and the following letters in the New Testament to expand you horizons. Point me to some place I can see the error in my position and I will start my homework.

I have told you before, I have read your bible more times than I care to admit. My dad was a pastor, and while I respect him, and the lessons he taught me while he was alive, I do not share the same beliefs.

It was the fact that I did read the bible that caused me to see the inaccuracies in the text.

I must confess that while I still find the words of your christ interesting, I cannot stomach the attitude of your paul.

While I abhor abortion, I find the republican polices of supporting the genocide of the palestinian people to be as morally bankrupt. Not to mention the warmongering attitude of the current regime in occupation of the white house.

I would also put forward the proposition that if the democrats there were in error, it was the responsibility of the pastor to teach them with love, not judge them and send them packing.

[AlAyeti]

I am not trying to evangelize so find comfort in that.

Paul is awesome to me. Why do YOU quote him? Also do you realize the insulting nature of your little signoff?

"What I want to do I don't do and what I don't want to do I do." Any guy that wrote things like that is worth respecting.

My point is that I have a very wide perspective. I have chosen that the views focused through the New Testament are worth following.

The Pastor does not need to try to convince Christians of what they should already know. You would have to agree with that (I assume).

For instance, people who do not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead couldn't possibly BE Christians but you find those that hold to that view calling themselves Christians.

Jesus fed and preached thousands and thousands of people who followed Him around and was left with His mother, John and a few others at the Cross.

Wide is the road to destruction and narrow. . .

You know the rest.

Pastors need to preach the word as it is and forget about the consequences. That whole "interpretation" thing is a bogus position at best and purely ulterior at worst.

[Amphigorey]

The IRS page is <a href="http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable ... 99,00.html" target="_new">here</a> and it states:
"In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates."

I guess you could argue over the word "substantial" and whether the Democratic Party is the same thing as a specific candidate.

Seperation means seperation. Congress shall make no laws. . .!

The point of debate was tax exemption for non-profits and whether this example violated the IRS's definition.

Lucky for the church it wasn't a mosque or AK-47's may have decided the issue.

Are you suggesting that the congregation should be lined up and shot?

[Vladd44]

Why do YOU quote him? Also do you realize the insulting nature of your little signoff?

We discussed the nature of my Signature line already, click here for a refresher.

As far as why? Well, its accurate to describe how I feel. Doesnt really matter how I feel towards pauls doctrinal viewpoint.

"What I want to do I don't do and what I don't want to do I do." Any guy that wrote things like that is worth respecting.

For me, that sounds more like someone who is to be pitied.

My point is that I have a very wide perspective. I have chosen that the views focused through the New Testament are worth following.

heh, Well which is it? wide perspective? or is it a view that is limited to what the bible says?

The Pastor does not need to try to convince Christians of what they should already know. You would have to agree with that (I assume).
For instance, people who do not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead couldn't possibly BE Christians but you find those that hold to that view calling themselves Christians.

EXACTLY.

By your definition, (and it seems by this former pastors definition) these people may have called themselves christians, but werent christians at all in reality. So they should have been given every chance to see the "error of their ways", not booted out and given the cold shoulder.

Pastors need to preach the word as it is and forget about the consequences.

24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Worse Case Scenario, these ungodly democrats were tares. If Jesus said to let them grow with the wheat, who are you? or this pastor to start removing them?

Best case scenario, they are simply well intentioned, but misguided people, and they need instruction from their leadership, not being shown the door.

[AlAyeti]

Your use of text is awesome.

How can I argue with the truth? You see that they are tares among the wheat. And I have thought about this many times myself.

But let me ask you a question. Do you let these tares take your children?

Did Jesus ever let sin or a sinner slide?

The Pastor had the right to tell them to become wheat or else. If they felt uneasy than they can go start a church else where. Like Jesus said get the log out first. Within a church setting the church members are the logs in this case.

No?

[AlAyeti]

Amphigorey,

I was suggesting that Christians can have bitter disputes and not have to have a jihad over it.

I noticed you're a student, I usually don't explain the obvious. Don't get used to it.