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.

[AlAyeti]

From Enigma: "Perhaps you can point out the part of the constitution where it says churches are more free than people."

"People pay taxes."

///

So Christians are to be doubly taxed? I work outside of a church and now have to be taxed at church too? Seperation of church and state is easy to understand.

Christians that make their living within a church cannot be touched by the governemnt. That IS seperation of church and state.

Otherwise Christians would have to accept Satanic things like abortion and homosexuality. Which they basically have to, or people like you come knocking their doors down and taking their "tax exempt stataus" away.

It is clear that the Pastor who booted out liberal Democrats is being attacked on religious grounds through political means. Liberal Democrats have givenn away their rights to a decent church by supporting horror. They still have the rights to form a Massachusetts style church anywhere in the country. Remember Kerry and Kennedy are "Catholics."

[AlAyeti]

Mculloch,

You're a Canadien. Your views about America are valid how?

It is clear that Christianity is on the chopping block in Canada and sexual deviance is worshipped.

Are you pleased that 14-yeard olds are sexual adults "in Canada?" Who benefits from that I wonder.

I'd like to know that answer from a Canadien.

[AlAyeti]

From Enigma: "Just as "The Trinity" is nowhere in the Bible."

///

Off topic but I couldn't resist.

You're an Atheists. How is your opinion of the Trinty valid?

You mean the "word" Trinity is not in the Bible. But the concept explained quite well, is.

But to an atheist, all that I just wrote goes something like this . . .

grewfsyhdui reuhyerghfhiu hfhgue gheohghg ghgo sdreujg gjkeruer ghjgeioforgg gjhreogirjhg.

[AlAyeti]

Magus,

"Look, scripture is not the only guide. Historically speaking, there have been three authorities: scripture, tradition, and the teaching magisterium of the Papacy. Most Protestants have discarded the last authority and replaced it with common sense."


No Protestants are sola scriptura. Common sense flows from that.

"Firstly, on a purely pragmatic basis, when committing to a venture it's always sensible to enlist as much help as possible. It shouldn't matter where that help comes from, so long as it's given and taken honestly. Also on a purely pragmatic basis, knowledge and reason are to be valued for their own sakes. Should we throw out relativity because the mind which bore it forth into physics was not Christian? Of course not. "

Wow. I couldn't have described the how and why Liberals are so far away from the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, that is to say "Jesus," better than you did.

Now we have "openly homosexual Pastors" and rampant "divorce within the church." Now "relativity" is doctrine and the Word of God is insulting and virtually illegal and "politically incorrect." But the worse thing about liberal relativism is what has happened to "The Family" and the children of the hedonistic licentious lifestyle so openly supported by the Liberal theologians in "The Church." Let alone how many "Liberal Theologians" do not even believe that Jesus was either an actual person or said, did, or went through anything the Bible said he did. I refer you to the fruits of Liberal Theology, The Jesus Seminar "Scholars."

Pragmatism?

Read the Bible and believe it. Relativity is another way of saying that you do not believe in what the Bible clearly says. Remember Jesus IS the Word of God made flesh.

Pragmatic belief Bible-style is NOT yoking yourself with unbelievers. The consequences of doing that is all too easy to see in todays Christian Church. Satan knows what he's doing.

[ShieldAxe]

From Enigma: "Just as "The Trinity" is nowhere in the Bible."

///

Off topic but I couldn't resist.

You're an Atheists. How is your opinion of the Trinty valid?



.

Your views about atheism and homosexuality are invalid by that logic.

[MagusYanam]

No Protestants are sola scriptura. Common sense flows from that.

Only conservative Lutherans and Calvinists are sola scriptura. Other Protestants recognise the need for tradition to be authoritative: Episcopalians recognise the authorities of scripture, tradition and reason; Methodists those three plus personal experience.

Anyone who has gone through confirmation knows that.

Wow. I couldn't have described the how and why Liberals are so far away from the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, that is to say "Jesus," better than you did.

Now we have "openly homosexual Pastors" and rampant "divorce within the church." Now "relativity" is doctrine and the Word of God is insulting and virtually illegal and "politically incorrect."

If you had read closer, you would have recognised that by 'relativity' I was referring to the Theory of Relativity in physics - the brainchild of Albert Einstein, who was not Christian. Relativity is not 'doctrine', it's physics taken to a universal scale.

Talk about thick. But then again, thickness is all relative according to speed.

But the worse thing about liberal relativism is what has happened to "The Family" and the children of the hedonistic licentious lifestyle so openly supported by the Liberal theologians in "The Church." Let alone how many "Liberal Theologians" do not even believe that Jesus was either an actual person or said, did, or went through anything the Bible said he did. I refer you to the fruits of Liberal Theology, The Jesus Seminar "Scholars."

Now that we're clear what (physical) 'relativity' means we can address the entirely different (ethical) issue of 'relativism'. Firstly, what do you mean by 'hedonism' and 'licentiousness'? It sounds as though you're just using saying them as buzzwords without attributing to them any useful definition we can start to work from. I consider 'hedonism' to mean self-serving attitudes and applying mostly to supply-side economics, which no liberal (let alone any liberal theologian) can in good conscience support. 'Licentiousness' I take with the primary connotation of 'polygamy', which I'm absolutely positive no liberal theologian or pastor supports.

Also, do you know any liberal theologians personally? As someone who is aspiring to become one I can tell you right now that the liberal theologians I've met all believed Jesus to be an historical figure. And I know from studying liberal Christian theology that almost all of the figures that defined the liberal Christian ethos of their times believed in the historicity and Godhood of Jesus - the exceptions being the Unitarians (the followers of William Channing) and the Transcendentalists (the followers of Theodore Parker and Ralph Waldo Emerson). Today's liberal Christian ethos has been primarily shaped by the Personalists (like Albert Knudsen, Edgar S. Brightman and his better-known student, Martin Luther King, Jr.) and the Social Gospellers (Gladden, Rauschenbusch, Fosdick et cetera) - all of whom, I might add, believed in the historicity and Godhood of Jesus.

Stop playing with your straw men and start doing the research.

Pragmatism?

Read the Bible and believe it. Relativity is another way of saying that you do not believe in what the Bible clearly says. Remember Jesus IS the Word of God made flesh.

Pragmatic belief Bible-style is NOT yoking yourself with unbelievers. The consequences of doing that is all too easy to see in todays Christian Church. Satan knows what he's doing.

I'm not going to stop saying this till you get it through your skull: relativity is another way of saying physical movement is relative and can affect one's observations of time, space and mass.

I read the Bible and allow it to guide me with the help of church traditions and with the help of my own faculties. Relying on the Bible alone is like relying on a chair with one leg - without the guiding influence of precedent and one's own moral reasoning it can be incredibly misleading and, indeed, destructive (as our history has shown repeatedly).

Also, you want to cut yourself off from all dealings with unbelievers, cut yourself off from the society and the culture, that's your affair. But you don't get to gripe about it like a hypocrite from behind your wall - leave that to the people who are actually dealing with it.

[McCulloch]

You're a Canadien.

Actually a Canadian. Canadien is a French word signifying a Montréal hockey team.

Your views about America are valid how?

This is clearly an ad hom attack. Are you asserting that only citizens of the USA can have valid views on your country? You express your views about my country. They may be valid they may be invalid but they should be judged only on the basis of the views themselves not by who expresses them.

It is clear that Christianity is on the chopping block in Canada and sexual deviance is worshipped.

Unlike in the USA, in Canada christian morality is not being imposed upon non-christians and sexual choices between consenting adults are tolerated. Worship is left up individual choice.

Are you pleased that 14-yeard olds are sexual adults "in Canada?" Who benefits from that I wonder.

You and I agree that children should be protected from being taken advantage by sexual predators. I would hope that you would agree that any legislation to protect children, by necessity has to be arbitrary. Do provide evidence if I am wrong, but my understanding of Canadian law is that if anyone 18 years old or older has sex with anyone 16 years old or younger it is a criminal offense. Sex between consenting persons between the ages of 14 and 18 is not a criminal offense. Please answer your own question. Who does this benefit?
Current Law

The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Also prior to Bill C-15, a male person who had sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who was over 14 but under 16 was guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to a maximum of five years’ imprisonment, whether or not he believed she was 16. Consent was not specifically precluded as a defence, however, and failure to prove that the accused was more to blame than the female person could result in acquittal. Once again, males under 14 were not open to prosecution for this offence. Section 153 now prohibits "sexual interference" or "invitation to sexual touching," in respect of a young person over 14 but under 18, where the accused is in a relationship of trust or authority towards the complainant or the complainant is in a relationship of dependency with the accused. Previous sexual experience and/or consent are no longer relevant where this special relationship exists. The maximum available penalty is five years’ imprisonment for those prosecuted by way of indictment.

From Young People and Sex
In Canada, for both males and females, the basic age of consent is 14. Anyone who is 14 or over can consent to having most kinds of sex with anyone else who is 14 or over. But here are some exceptions that prohibit sexual activity above 14.

• At any age incest and bestiality are illegal. Bestiality is sex with animals. Incest is defined as sexual intercourse with a parent, child, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, grandparent, or grandchild.
• For the other laws described here, someone who mistakenly believes a sexual partner is over the legal age of consent must be able to show they took "all reasonable steps" to know the age of the young person.
• It is illegal, for a sexual purpose, to expose your genitals to a person under 14, to touch a young person "directly or indirectly," or to "invite, counsel, or incite" them to touch themselves or anyone else.
• Except people who are 14 or 15 can have sex with people under 14 who are no more than two years younger than them (14-12, 15-13) as long as neither is in a position of trust or authority over the other.
• It is illegal to have sex with a person under 18 if you are in a position of trust of authority, or responsible in a relationship of dependence, with them. This applies to teachers, lifeguards, coaches, guardians, social workers, childcare workers, babysitters, etc., whether or not they are under 18 themselves. It doesn't matter whether they are male or female.
• Selling sex is not itself illegal at any age. But it is illegal to pay (or offer to pay) someone who is under 18 for sex. That is: the person who breaks the law is the person who gives the money, not the person who takes it. This also applies to offers of food, housing, drugs, gifts, etc.
• In 1997, the law was amended to make it illegal to pay someone believed to be under 18 for sex. This allows undercover police officers posing as young prostitutes in sting operations to lay more serious charges than before. If a police officer was represented as being under 18, the accused must prove they knew this wasn't true before the offence occurred.

[McCulloch]

You're an Atheists. How is your opinion of the Trinty valid?

Clearly another ad hom attack. Atheists views on the dogma of trinity should be evaluated based upon the merits of the views themselves rather than who expresses them. Do you believe that theists can hold valid views on atheism? Now, if the orthodox christians were to admit that the doctrine of Trinity was subjective opinion rather than objective truth, then it would be beyond the bounds of debate.

[McCulloch]

Look, scripture is not the only guide. Historically speaking, there have been three authorities: scripture, tradition, and the teaching magisterium of the Papacy. Most Protestants have discarded the last authority and replaced it with common sense.

No Protestants are sola scriptura.

I have a hard time believing that you really meant what you wrote. But I do completely agree with your sentence as it stands. However, in all honesty, I believe that you really intended:

No, Protestants are sola scriptura.

My mother was an English teacher.
If protestants were sola scriptura, then they would not have the incredible number of doctrinal divisions among themselves. They would have abandoned all church names which honour human rather than divine origins (Lutheran, Wesleyan, Anglican, Mennonite, etc). They would have jettisoned all creeds which may divide, taking the holy scripture as the sole and only necessary creed. They would dismantle their synods, councils, presbyteries and other non-biblically sanctioned organizational structures. They would cease to use unbiblical titles such as Reverend. Elders (aka bishops) would only be married men with believing children.

[ENIGMA]

First off, AlAyeti, 4 posts in a row from you to a fewer different number of people.. tsk, tsk. I would have thought that your deity didn't approve of post-slutting. But anyway...

From Enigma: "Perhaps you can point out the part of the constitution where it says churches are more free than people."

"People pay taxes."

///

So Christians are to be doubly taxed? I work outside of a church and now have to be taxed at church too?

Anyone who contributes anything to anyone else is "doubly taxed" in such a manner. They are taxed and then the person recieving the contribution is taxed (excluding charitable organizations and the like). Anyone who purchased stock in a corporation is also "doubly taxed" because the corporation has to pay taxes as well.

Christians that make their living within a church cannot be touched by the governemnt. That IS seperation of church and state.

So I take it then that you support the Catholic Church's refusal to hand over the pedophile priests for state prosecution, since after all since they make their living in the church, they "cannot be touched by the government"? How about religions that involve human sacrifice? They should be protected from interference from the big bad government as well?

As one who's been on quite a few different subway systems in the last couple months, may I offer a bit of advice... Don't jump on the train until you know where it leads.

Otherwise Christians would have to accept Satanic things like abortion and homosexuality. Which they basically have to, or people like you come knocking their doors down and taking their "tax exempt stataus" away.

When they use the money to try to screw with things outside the church walls, then yes, they should have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

It is clear that the Pastor who booted out liberal Democrats is being attacked on religious grounds through political means. Liberal Democrats have givenn away their rights to a decent church by supporting horror. They still have the rights to form a Massachusetts style church anywhere in the country. Remember Kerry and Kennedy are "Catholics."

Do those churches kick out people who voted for Bush?

I didn't think so.

From Enigma: "Just as "The Trinity" is nowhere in the Bible."

///

Off topic but I couldn't resist.

For shame, shouldn't you resist temptation?

You're an Atheists. How is your opinion of the Trinty valid?

You have poor command of the English language. How is any opinion of yours which is addressed in English valid?

You mean the "word" Trinity is not in the Bible. But the concept explained quite well, is.

Correct. Just as the words "Seperation of Church and State" are not in the Constitution, but the concept is established in the Constitution.

But to an atheist, all that I just wrote goes something like this . . .

Emulation of the thought processes of others is not your strong suit.

grewfsyhdui reuhyerghfhiu hfhgue gheohghg ghgo sdreujg gjkeruer ghjgeioforgg gjhreogirjhg.

Thank you for the insight on your current thought processes.

Also, I am quite curious about something...

You complain about Canada setting the age of consent to 14. What age, Biblically, should the age of consent be set?

Do cite verses please. I am confident that this will be enlightening for all of us.