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.

[MagusYanam]

If you don't believe me, then try and show some support for Bush with some of your liberal friends and see their reaction. It's the same reaction you would get if one tried to show support for Ted Kennedy in front of conservatives.

I don't believe you because I've observed this, and the response of the average liberal at Kalamazoo College to advanced conservative views is far different from the average conservative to advanced liberal views. The standard MO among our college's Democrats is to listen, consider the statements as they're given and then argue against them. The standard MO among our college's Republicans is basically shout them down.

I work and write for an editorial paper on our campus (the Mayhem's Murmurs), so I'm quite aware of the debating styles on both sides. Granted, we have a few very shrill, contentious liberals and some clever, respectful conservatives, but by and large these attitudes are typical.

[AlAyeti]

FROM Magus: "If you want to know what I really think, it's that the Sodomite view is more reflective of modern conservatism than of modern liberalism. Abuse of those with differing views or differing backgrounds - those were the true sins of Sodom. They abused the angels and they refused to listen to Lot because both were alien (foreign), just as this pastor is abusing and refusing to heed the aliens (Democrats) in his congregation. "

///

I agree with you that Conservatives line up with the "Ezekiel" view of Sodom. But liberals also do in a far better way. I think about Hollywood Liberals as perfect Ezekiel Sodomites you can observe more easily. I laugh quite often that I am painted as a conservative because I am a skeptic of the lies of the neo-Liberal, Conservatives care little for the poor and needy.

Those "Sodomites" wanted to force their sexual ways on the innocent Angels. The "men" of Sodom were after those messengers.

Do the math. Liberals applaud sexual deviance and celebrate it even in their "churches." Conservatives at least are honest enough in their hypocrisy to try to keep their sexual behavior where it belongs. IN PRIVATE.

But once it is exposed in a church, good Pastors will deal with it rightly, the way this Pastor did.

[MagusYanam]

Do the math. Liberals applaud sexual deviance and celebrate it even in their "churches." Conservatives at least are honest enough in their hypocrisy to try to keep their sexual behavior where it belongs. IN PRIVATE.

But once it is exposed in a church, good Pastors will deal with it rightly, the way this Pastor did.

Doing the math leads one to realise that your equations never balance. If social conservatives are so concerned with keeping sexual behaviour a private matter, then why do they try to make it such a big public issue? As a liberal I don't have to approve of homosexuality, but I say it's their own business. I don't have to approve of abortion, but I realise that nor I nor the lawmakers have the foresight to deal with every pregnant woman's case. It's the conservatives who keep wanting to make public issues of sexual behaviours.

Take a good honest look at your own argumentation. In this thread I've been defending a stance that is by and large liberal on the issues of war, the economy and the environment and far more centrist on issues relating to sexual conduct. Yet you consistently hammer on the Democrats because of these same issues. That's hardly keeping the issues private.

And I'm guessing that the Democrats in this particular church were not 'exposing' sexual behaviour in public. I'm shocked that you would even make such an insinuation, as it is ridiculous bordering on obscene.

[AlAyeti]

Once something is made public, then it is open for opinions and judgments.

Homosexuals are forcing their sexual actions on everyone. They are demanding to be accepted against every social norm of decency. And the democrat Party IS the political arm of the homosexualization of society in America.

Now on infidelity (uh yeah), there is no adultery unless we know about. Right?

Well, not, it seems, to God, if David and Bathsheba is any indication.

You are simply allowing and celebrating sin to be OK. There is no other position you have on this. You have no justification Biblically, to hold your position of permissiveness of sexual sin.

Liberal or otherwise, you are being permissive and allowing them to go and sin more within your theology. That is antithetical to biblical voice.

Democrats champion the sexual rights of homosexuals as if they were a "people." "They" are not. That is why I hammer the democrats. Leave sex to privacy. But homosexual agendaists are forcing the behavior be accepted in every school, by law. I can fight that battle in the secular venue too, you know.

Homosexuals and others that live for sexual hedonism are not compatible with a healthy Church. They not only will not repent, but claim a birth right to the sin. last time I looked, adultery is not (yet) a congenital condition of sexual orientation. But there are voices that claim other sexual sins are justified by birth.

Thus, thay have to go from a good Church unless the repent.

Like I asked you in another thread, where is sexual purity proclaimed in the homosexual agenda (OR the Democrat platform)? Condoms?

WWJD.

[bernee51]

Homosexuals are forcing their sexual actions on everyone.

They are not forcing them on me so your assertion is obviously false.

They are demanding to be accepted against every social norm of decency.

Many people have ideas of social norms of decency htat differ from yours and what you interpret from the bible.

Another false assertion.

There is no other position you have on this. You have no justification Biblically, to hold your position of permissiveness of sexual sin.

Only what you and those who similarly interpret the bible claim adultery as sin. Many do not.

Liberal or otherwise, you are being permissive and allowing them to go and sin more within your theology. That is antithetical to biblical voice.

Democrats champion the sexual rights of homosexuals as if they were a "people." "They" are not.

Homosexuals are not people? What is your definiton of a person?

Homosexuals and others that live for sexual hedonism are not compatible with a healthy Church.

So the church should keep it's nose out of the private lives of others.

Like I asked you in another thread, where is sexual purity proclaimed in the homosexual agenda (OR the Democrat platform)? Condoms?

Why does anyone have to conform with your idea of sexual purity.

WWJD.

Live and let live

[AlAyeti]

Bernee, you're zeal to insult caused you to drift from rationality.

You have taught me so many good things but not this time.

First, reread my context of "a" people.

The people in India are a people. They do sexual acts as well. Sexual preference is being claimed as a definable classification by homsexuals. if that is the case then pedophioles are a race. My definition of a personn is to observe behaviors and judge accordingly. That is fair.

Secondly, you are not a Christian so your opinion borders on insult for insult reason. In fact it is rude.

You are mistaken again about MY sexuality. "I" do not put it out for display so your opinion of my opinion has no worth other than to prove my point about public display, can bring judgment.

Social norms in different societies CAN differ. Homosexuality is not acceptable in a decent society anywhere currently or historically to be displayed in public.

Magus, CANNOT find Biblical support for justifying permissiveness on the matter being discussed. That is defensible Biblically.

Pedophiles and other sexual deviants HAVE TO conform to the laws. That is why Democrats are to be chgallenged in the Church. Sexual purity is a fact of nature and human society. Aberration is also a fact of nature and human society. Now decency, that is being attacked and redefined by Democrats.

Jesus did indeed live and let live BUT called people sinners and worse. Non violence is the only message that can be attached to the Christian position. Hell was also a reality to Jesus. "Go and sin no more," not only is a judgmental statement but also one of promise.

I don't really like "just arguing" with you because you have a great spirit. (I am an Aatheist.) Skeptics and so-called atheists are, many times, making God holier with their arguments. I'm not afraid of the truth and I'm sure God isn't either. I follow the good example. But you need to at least try to see the historic nature of what the "Liberal Agenda" is forcing on people. I have to literally pay for the vices of others. Literally by what Democrats have legislated into "Law." I may have to take it on the political level but not on the Biblical.

certainly if things were private then there would be no need of this debate. But, Sodom was no myth.

Your opinions on many things are just that.

[bernee51]

First, reread my context of "a" people.

I knew that Al - I was playing with you.

The people in India are a people. They do sexual acts as well. Sexual preference is being claimed as a definable classification by homsexuals. if that is the case then pedophioles are a race.

It's good to see tha you haven't lost your penchant for non sequitors.


My definition of a personn is to observe behaviors and judge accordingly. That is fair.

Secondly, you are not a Christian so your opinion borders on insult for insult reason. In fact it is rude.

You are mistaken again about MY sexuality. "I" do not put it out for display so your opinion of my opinion has no worth other than to prove my point about public display, can bring judgment.

I'm not sure to what part of my post this refers. Did I refer to your 'sexuality'?

Social norms in different societies CAN differ.

And change in time

Homosexuality is not acceptable in a decent society anywhere currently or historically to be displayed in public.

So you find the sight of two men kissing to be abhorent. Two men holding hands? Two men hugging lovingly?

Sexual purity is a fact of nature and human society.

You mean your defintion os sexual purity.

But you need to at least try to see the historic nature of what the "Liberal Agenda" is forcing on people.

The so called liberal agenda is not forcing you to sdo anything that you are already doing. Other than respect the rights of individual to choose. Thsi is something you seem to have a difficulty with.

I Sodom was no myth.

Yes it is.

Your opinions on many things are just that.

I think it was Democritus who said "Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion."

[AlAyeti]

Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion."

It is the new testament that says that Jesus created those atoms and empty space. It is a beautiful concept pointed out
long before John and Peter and Paul by the Greek thinkers. I've thought it through and agree that Jesus is the Logos.

There seems to be no middle ground with Liberals and Democrats. It's their way or else. The ACLU is even worse. Sorry, but it seems to be the same with Atheists. They have to force their view on every facet of life. Education, public and private. Now, the UC Educators are denying Christian students credits for being taught to be skeptical of evolution and learning "Creationism," in Christian High Schools. Most of those schools if not all, turn out a large number of collge students accepted for the last hundred years in every major University. But now they are being attacked for teaching what they believe in.

That is another exasmple of the intolerance of the Liberal Agenda and its proponents. Many of the most valuable Doctors in this country are Christian.

The agenda against Christians is very real.

[Chimp]

Two things are at play here...

A church's right to preach whatever it pleases ( I agree this is correct and
also constitutionally protected ). Even the white supremacists have a church
( not that I agree with them, nor am I comparing the Baptist church to them,
just saying that even extreme wackjobs have a right to their beliefs. )

The second, and really the point of the debate is tax-exempt status. For
churches, it is a requirement that they actively avoid advocating for a political
party or candidate. It's the bargain they entered into when they accepted
tax-exempt status.

The pastor is free to stand on a stage with George Bush and say he's the man,
but he may not do so in the building of the organisation that claims tax exemption.
Preachers do it all the time though. Personally, I think it's an abuse of trust.
I go to church to have fellowship and to worship, not to be involved in
politics. What makes this different is the expulsion of members of a church
based on politics.

[MagusYanam]

You are simply allowing and celebrating sin to be OK. There is no other position you have on this. You have no justification Biblically, to hold your position of permissiveness of sexual sin.

Liberal or otherwise, you are being permissive and allowing them to go and sin more within your theology.

My theology has little to do with it. But if you must drag it into this discussion, sin is a matter between a person and God - I follow the teachings of Jesus, judging not lest I be judged. If following Jesus in this regard is being permissive, then so be it. I'm not a priest; I can't absolve people from their sin, nor can I condemn them because of it. I will not usurp the authority of God.

That's my Biblical justification. I don't reach for the mote in another's eye when I may have a beam in my own.

Democrats champion the sexual rights of homosexuals as if they were a "people." "They" are not. That is why I hammer the democrats.

Look at their argumentation again. The Democratic line wants to treat homosexuals the same way as heterosexuals are treated in terms of legal rights. Cultural identity (a very fuzzy distinction IMHO) has nothing to do with it.

You're at the straw men with a torch again.

Magus, CANNOT find Biblical support for justifying permissiveness on the matter being discussed.

You should have waited for a response before claiming rhetorical victory on this one. I can find support in the Bible for being humble, whereas I may point out that your attitude on the matter is downright pharisaic.

Now decency, that is being attacked and redefined by Democrats.

That's really funny, because I find that it's the Republicans who seem to have the hardest time being decent.

I'm not afraid of the truth

Then why do you keep ignoring it even when it jumps in your face?

They have to force their view on every facet of life. Education, public and private. Now, the UC Educators are denying Christian students credits for being taught to be skeptical of evolution and learning "Creationism," in Christian High Schools. Most of those schools if not all, turn out a large number of collge students accepted for the last hundred years in every major University. But now they are being attacked for teaching what they believe in.

Teaching what you believe in as fact is reprehensible. Creationism and ID aren't science, they are philosophy and deserve to be taught as such. I've no objection to creationist philosophy being taught in a university, but those who think on it as a science are simply fooling themselves. The concept of a universe created by God I share, but I also realise it is not amenable to testing by the scientific method. Evolution is.