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]

Enigma,

First, it is very difficult for me to not stand up to bullies. And Atheists are 100% bullies. Nothingness-believers are only frightening if they are running countries. Right now, American Christians have fended off their powerplay effectively.


The concept of the Trinity is established.

We can agree on things. From you: "Correct. Just as the words "Seperation of Church and State" are not in the Constitution, but the concept is established in the Constitution."

I don't have to like what you represent (or anyone as an individual), to know that we can agree on some things. Like I've said before, sometimes I am given cause to be happy from your statements.

My views on Satanic things like abortion and the homosexual agenda are from understanding what I am seeing. Whether my command of the English language be good or not.

It seems that Godly things can be understood by the non-godly the same way.

My use of English words doesn't seem to stop people fron understanding what I clearly mean. There is an ulterior and sick agenda at work to sicken real Christianity from within by people who are "Liberals." It is not surprising that people without a conscience would have no problem attacking a church from within. There is a big diference in "a big tent" and alowing anti-Christians to rule over Christians within the walls of a church. The Bible is done on many, many, issues. Unrepentant sinners is well-defined.

Now, those churches on the East coast where people voted for Bush and yet are still allowed to sit in the pews?


Like the Saint John's Episcopal Church in Bristol Connecticut?
Liberals descended on the church and made their move. The homosexual agenda in full force. (Of course in my opinion.)

Tolerating or ignoring those Christians with a different view on Biblical things?

And, an Atheist is as much of a proselytizer of their faith as any missionary.

But I have many times wondered why?

[McCulloch]

Enigma,

First, it is very difficult for me to not stand up to bullies. And Atheists are 100% bullies.

You might want to revise your number. 100% literally means no exceptions. If I find a single atheist who is not a bully then your statement is proven false.

The concept of the Trinity is established.

Well, sort of. It is well established in certain circles of orthodox christianity. A significant number of theists both of non-christian and christian heritages do not accept the dogme of Trinity.

Tolerating or ignoring those Christians with a different view on Biblical things?
And, an Atheist is as much of a proselytizer of their faith as any missionary.
But I have many times wondered why?

It has been a very long time since I had to confront an atheist at my door trying to spread the word.

[AlAyeti]

No, it is proven false to you.

I have yet to meet an Atheist that wasn't. They all seem to desire to command rule.

Really? How many JW's are trying to command their ideology rule every school and public square?

Think the sole bully and egotist Michael Newdow. This one person must have his beliefs rule over all. A typaical atheist. Now thionk every college. Type in Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by, Josh McDowell and atheist rebuttals are right there instantly.

Why?

The Trinity is an example of good Christianity. I have yet to see a "fatwa-like" disturbance (you know, bombings) between differing denominations. I debate Mormons and JW's every time they are at my door. Even sharing a soda or two. But killing them? No way. Their wrong, like atheists. Why should I bother them in any way other than "as a skeptic" question their views.

I admire a skeptic.

Jesus is my example.

And Ireland is political, so please. . ..

[MagusYanam]

And Ireland is political, so please. . ..

Of course it's political. But think of the reasons why it's political. What is the main difference between Ulster (Northern Ireland) and the rest of Ireland? The difference is primarily a religious-demographic one. In Ulster, the majority of voters (58% or so) are Protestant Unionists (largely Scots Irish, if I remember my history correctly) and want a secular government. In the rest of Ireland, about 94% of voters are Roman Catholic and the government is essentially a Catholic theocracy - not a government which many Unionist Protestants would see as amenable to their interests as Irish citizens. Hence, the conflict.

Same thing goes with Serbia. If you've ever read Nowhere Man, you'll find that there are still many Serbs who identify only with their religious group and view all Muslims, especially Kosovars and Albanians, with prejudiced distrust. The result? How much outcry was there from the Orthodox corner over Milosevic's policy of ethnic cleansing of the Islamic Kosovars?

Religion and politics are very often intertwined - take a look at the title of this subforum and then the number of subjects posted on it.

I have yet to meet an Atheist that wasn't. They all seem to desire to command rule.

My philosophy professor last year was an atheist who had no problem with my being a Christian, as long as I considered my beliefs on a logical basis. Hardly an attitude which would advocate command rule.

[AlAyeti]

Magus,

I have had many, many connversations with "atheist professors" that have no problem with my being a "Christian" as long as I do not take my religion seriously. Of course they don't.

Yet, science backs up the Christian views on abortion being murder and sexuality being defined by anatomy, physiology and biology. They will refuse to believe in science every time they are challenged by it.

That is called closed-minded bigotry. Devoid of logic.

It is clear from listening to the inclusive secular-atheist-freethinker-humanist perspective, that Christians have freedom to believe what they want as long as they don't really believe what they believe.

They don't mean us any harm or discrimination as long as we agree with everything they say and do.

[MagusYanam]

I have had many, many connversations with "atheist professors" that have no problem with my being a "Christian" as long as I do not take my religion seriously. Of course they don't.

Yet, science backs up the Christian views on abortion being murder and sexuality being defined by anatomy, physiology and biology. They will refuse to believe in science every time they are challenged by it.

That is called closed-minded bigotry. Devoid of logic.

You still don't get it. This professor knew that I took being a Christian seriously. He had no problem with that, so long as I could defend my position on a logical basis. He didn't demand ideological conformity, only a willingness to question our previous assumptions on a logical basis.

The course, after all, was entitled 'Logic and Reasoning'.

Also, you are confusing the realms of knowledge and reasoning to which science and religion pertain. Science is of the realm of the material and is responsible for describing the ways in which the physical world functions. Religion is of the realm of the ethereal and of the moral - every bit as real as the realm of science, but completely different in its focus.

Science can describe biological growth patterns and functions of a human being in great detail, but it cannot describe or formulate moral behaviour. Such things are the purview of religion and ethical philosophy.

Murder and sexual morality are qualitative ethical-philosophical - not scientific - concepts. As such, it is ridiculous to claim that 'science backs up' any particular moral position; science deals with quantifiable data, ethical philosophy and religion with qualification.

It is clear from listening to the inclusive secular-atheist-freethinker-humanist perspective, that Christians have freedom to believe what they want as long as they don't really believe what they believe.

They don't mean us any harm or discrimination as long as we agree with everything they say and do.

It is clear that you are speaking out of ignorance, because secularism, atheism and humanism are three distinct and separate perspectives. Secularism, particularly Western secularism, is very firmly grounded in early Christian thought, being one of the few religions that saw formal state sponsorship as unnecessary. Western humanism also is founded in Judeo-Christian principles (though it is mirrored in almost all other major world religions) as seen through the eyes of the Enlightenment. Atheism has all sorts of influences and precedents, though formal atheism is really mostly a post-Enlightenment phenomenon.

'Freethinker' can apply to a lot of different positions, so the term as applied here seems well nigh meaningless.

The Enlightenment would seem to dictate that religion is a matter of personal conviction and should be practised on a personal level without interference from an external temporal authority. Conversely, temporal authorities in the interest of their respective populaces should not be beholden to any religious authority.

[AlAyeti]

John Locke was a very enlightened thinker.

His view on atheism is my own.


Your professor had no problem with your Christianity because it does not challenge him

Let's take a poll.

How many atheists, humanists, secualrists, "freethinkers" progressives and Liberals, are pro life, define marriage as somethinng only between a man and a woman, believe in the creation story from Genesis, promote virginity and/or abstinence as a noble quest, or how many of those "independent minds," think that there are absolutes?

Care to guess how the polling would lead us in our thinking about the unity of all of these independent perspectives? Use the logic and reasoning tools you learned in that class.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Soryy, I'm a skeptic.

[MagusYanam]

At least my philosophy professor was smart enough not to feel threatened by people who honestly disagreed with him, wherever they stood on the political spectrum. I haven't seen anything from you that convinces me of the same intelligence - to recognise moral conviction when you see it, even when it comes from an atheist, a humanist, a secularist or a liberal.

How many atheists, humanists, secualrists, "freethinkers" progressives and Liberals, are pro life, define marriage as somethinng only between a man and a woman, believe in the creation story from Genesis, promote virginity and/or abstinence as a noble quest, or how many of those "independent minds," think that there are absolutes?

Care to guess how the polling would lead us in our thinking about the unity of all of these independent perspectives? Use the logic and reasoning tools you learned in that class.

What does this have to do with anything? I know that there are atheists who are social conservatives, but to some extent, that is beside the point. You're only gauging the political alignment of a person - a very one-dimensional way of looking at different perspectives. I get to an evolutionist viewpoint, for example, in a different way than would an atheist - I have a Kantian viewpoint of the world that demands that science has precedence in matters pertaining to the material. The creation story can tell us things about the nature of man and the covenant between man and God, but it is bad religion to take it as an explanation for the physical world.

An atheist would get to an evolutionist viewpoint because he or she would see no reasonable alternative (not necessarily dependent on Kantian dichotomy between the roles of religion and science).

[AlAyeti]

Magus,

So your math is 0 x 1 = the observable universe, in all of its complexities. No matter how you arrived at eviolution doesn't matter. The destination is the same. Evolution is the denial of the Biblical God. Or, relegating the Biblical God to a bumbler that needed a infinite number of drawing boards and yet, even now not reaching whatever potential is in store for those of us that have the breath of life in us..

"Kant" hmmm. Anything I write will be seen as an epithet. Interesting his first name.

Jesus is "Joshua" by the way. They are the same name spelled a different way. And I like what Joshua is reportes to have said. "Choose this day whom you will serve." Evolution and God are not the same things and cannot be spelled differently to mean the same things.

You have chosen accidents rambling into each other until now.

Keep on studying.

[MagusYanam]

No matter how you arrived at eviolution doesn't matter. The destination is the same. Evolution is the denial of the Biblical God. Or, relegating the Biblical God to a bumbler that needed a infinite number of drawing boards and yet, even now not reaching whatever potential is in store for those of us that have the breath of life in us..

Says who? Not the Bible, and most certainly not Darwin (good Anglican that he was). The creation story was always seen as a pourquoi explanation for the nature of man (and not, as my Jewish roommate informs me, a literal account of the creation of the universe).

Interesting that you choose to judge the path by the destination, or God by the end result of his work. I prefer the analogy of God as composer - all of evolutionary history being the composition; the epic ballad, as it were, of life, from the first proteins in the seas of antiquity to the present world. Just as you should not judge the Messiah just by the last notes that Handel wrote on the last page, you should not gauge the creation merely by what exists now. Just as Handel chose to give his work some variances - a number of solos or dramatic turns - I see the evolutionary process as one guided knowingly. Handel was no bumbler.

My math is 1 ? i. Though both constants are relevant to a complete mathematic (as it were), they belong to two different realms of understanding - two realms as different as religion and science.