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]

[/quote="AlAyeti"]My faith is founded on immutable facts. Somehow changeable to a Liberal. [/quote]

Then why don't you defend your faith with facts? God knows I do. If your faith is founded on facts, your argumentation certainly doesn't show it.

That you have presented Muslim theology as equal to that of the Bible is a perfect place for me to find an example of the worth of Liberalism. Someone is right and someonne is wrong.

I made no value judgment - you assumed it. But you are right about one thing. Someone is right and someone is wrong - and after this, almost everything you say is wrong.

Islam does acknowledge Isaac (or, as they call him, Ishaq) as the father of the nations of Israel and Elam as in the Bible, though the Qur'an is not entirely clear on which son was to be sacrificed (note: it does not explicitly say Ishmael). And they acknowledge Jesus (Isaas) as the heir of Israel (the Messiah, in other words - meaning the 'anointed one').

Christianity and Islam, just like Christianity and Judaism, are not entirely compatible. But there is a lot of common ground and a lot to be gained by conversing with them in humility.

But if you're planning to argue against Islam, argue against Islam and not just your straw Muslims. Get your facts straight. Don't make overgeneralisations.

[AlAyeti]

It is specifics. Overgeneralizations are like your views that there is compaitibilty with a religion like Islam founded on mistakes and falseehoods and giving the equality with the Bible.

You and they are wrong.

That is just plain hard facts.

[AlAyeti]

Magus:" Then why don't you defend your faith with facts? God knows I do. If your faith is founded on facts, your argumentation certainly doesn't show it.":

You are purposefully giving false evidence.

Think of a four letter word?

I have given facts. Abraham DID NOT try to sacrifice Ishmael. That is a specific fact. Jesus WAS Crucified. Not a guy made up to look like him. That is a specific fact.

Like I advised you before, it would be better for you not to appeal to the Bible for your convoluted religious position. It is better to live in your delusion. For now. And certainly leave the Koran to those that "want" to believe it.

[MagusYanam]

Read it again. You have no basis in fact.

I made no value judgment - you assumed it.

Christianity and Islam, just like Christianity and Judaism, are not entirely compatible.

Islam was cut from the same stone from which Judaism and Christianity were cut. There are places where Islam and Judaism screw up, but for the most part I can agree with the moderate Muslims and Jews on many things. Even as regards God.

You are deliberately burning your straw men.

That is just plain hard facts.

I have given facts. Abraham DID NOT try to sacrifice Ishmael. That is a specific fact. Jesus WAS Crucified. Not a guy made up to look like him. That is a specific fact.

That says nothing about Islam. Yes, these are facts but they mean nothing in relation to Islam without reference to the Qur'an. The Qur'an denies the latter (which is where it screws up) but you don't know its position on the former any more than I or any objective Qur'anic scholar does.

So don't claim it without evidence.

Like I advised you before, it would be better for you not to appeal to the Bible for your convoluted religious position.

Likewise. My position makes perfect sense to me in light of the Gospel. More's the pity if it doesn't to you.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Thank you for providing some evidence, Al.


I think we both agree that the central issue here is whether Christians have the right to impose their beliefs on others.

In answering this, I find it necissary to ask the old cliche- WWJD. Based on the scriptures I have seen, he would show the unbelievers where they are wrong, and urge them to repent. Agreed?

Does that mean he would resort to rallying against the government, changing the constitution, and forcing everyone against their will to conform to his belief system and it's set of regulations?

I have not found any verse in the Bible to suggest he did.

Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to "Go and sin no more." Of course, judging her as a sinner. Let us not forget.

Jesus is/was God, and never comitted a sin. Jesus is granted the biblical right to judge.

Are humans granted the same right?

Luke 6:37
"Stop Judging and you will never be judged"

James 4:11
"Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge."

Who are you to judge gays, and others of the like? You are a human, and therefore sinful as Romans teaches, correct?
To be granted the right to judge others (unbelievers included), you need be perfect, as Jesus was.

within Christianity, shaking the dust off your shoes carries with it a solemn judgment.

Indeed.

Mark 6
10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.
11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Based on your commentary, one might be led to believe that upon entering a house/city, the disciples would be flanked with a battalion of holy crusaders ready to ambush those that refuse to obey.

Does the verse actually convey this message? "Shake the dust off your feet as testimony against them". Does not sound very forceful to me. In fact, it is merely a warning. Take particular note of the end portion of verse 11. "It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgement, than for that city". Sinners will be condemned for their actions in the day of judgement, not through the regulatations imposed by an imperfect human government





Does being imposed under forced compliance really make unbelievers less sinful? Are we not taught in the Bible that a change of the HEART must occur, and that we are to change the way we think and act of our own free will? Are you really doing the unbelievers a favor by implenting your views on them under rule of law?

2 Timothy 2:24
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle untoall men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those
that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance
to the acknowledging of the truth

Isn't this a better way to instruct? Gently and humbly, rather than by personal assault and conceit, as you prefer?

Paul told a church to turn a sinner out and over to Satan.

Exactly! It is in Satan's juristiction to deal with sinners, not our own. We are obligated to urge one away from sin as much as possible, but interfering with one's God-given right of free will is in no way justifyable.






I want you to show me a verse that shows Jesus exerting mandatory compliance. If you can cite such a verse, I will personally place myself on the forefront of the fundamental Christian theocratic movement.

Having read the Bible through many a time, I am pretty confident that you will find no such verse. But I urge you to prove me wrong.

[AlAyeti]

PP,

I'm on it.

[AlAyeti]

PP,

I'm confident that Jesus is demanding compliance towards treating children with the utmost care and concern. In fact He uses very threatening language. If you'll take the time to reread most of my posts, I believe that Liberals are destroying our youith. Literally encouraginng unimagineably horrific behavior.

I have worked a decade and a half in the childcare "business." Liberalism that started with Neo-Liberalism in the Sixties has come home to roost in fatherless houses coast to coast.

Liberals view morality as the use of a condom and a public service announcement by a convicted drug addict rocker. Or now of course Rapper. MTV is not exactly a den of conservatism.

A question (or two) for you.

Are people born to sin and is it OK if they claim that status, to let them go on sinning? And, to celebrate them and encourage them in their sin?

Remember, I am only concerned with Christians and what they do in representing Biblical perspective.

Non-believers can do what they want.

But as an American citizen I can decide what I think is best for society and support political organizations that agree with my position and they with mine.

Jesus did exhort us to do just that. No?

Is it not fair to claim that Liberals have crossed a line on issues that darken all believers?

The whole statement goes like this: Judge not or in the way you judge others, you will be judged.

I'm pretty sure that I do not celebrate sin or encourage others to sin. I'm almost confident that I don't.

But that is not what we see happening in "some" churches.

[MagusYanam]

The whole statement goes like this: Judge not or in the way you judge others, you will be judged.

I'm pretty sure that I do not celebrate sin or encourage others to sin.

Do not twist the words of Jesus! The Clinton quote may at least be excused in that Clinton is not God (and very far from). But it is sacrilege to change what was said in the Gospel, an attack on the Gospel itself!

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.
Condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned.
Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

It's pretty clear what the whole statement is; leave it to the realistic Christians to read what it actually says.

As far as the second statement goes, you must be joking. You celebrate the actions of our soldiers when those actions are born from sin and try to shout down those who speak out against the cause for that sin. Homosexuality is so very venial in comparison to the foreign policy of this country it seems obscene to place such importance on it. Gay marriage will affect probably only 8% of the people in this country; the foreign policy affects us all.

Liberals view morality as the use of a condom and a public service announcement by a convicted drug addict rocker. Or now of course Rapper.

Unsubstantiated and patently false. You've been conversing with liberals for how long on this forum? When have I or micatala or the Persnickety Platypus ever used condoms in our views of morality? That's right: not once. Have we ever referred to rappers or drug-addicted rockers to substantiate our morality? Not once.

MTV is a den of consumerism and capitalistic interest. That said, its vulgarity is hardly unexpected.

Are people born to sin and is it OK if they claim that status, to let them go on sinning? And, to celebrate them and encourage them in their sin?

No, but how do you propose to stop people from sinning? Here's a hint: it won't be done through the legal system.

Liberal congregations have the right idea. The best way to counter sin is to forgive the sinner - it's what Jesus did, it's what Mohandas Gandhi did and it's what Martin Luther King, Jr. did. Jesus turned Pharisees like Nicodemus toward a better understanding of the law; Gandhi ended British brutality in India and Pakistan; Martin Luther King, Jr. ended segregation and championed civil rights in this country.

If the people be led by laws and harsh punishments, they will obey the law to avoid the punishment, but their hearts will know no shame. If the people be led by example and kindness, their hearts will know shame, and become good.

Is it not fair to claim that Liberals have crossed a line on issues that darken all believers?

No; no more than conservatives. Very likely less.

[micatala]

I'm confident that Jesus is demanding compliance towards treating children with the utmost care and concern. In fact He uses very threatening language.

Yes, it is true that Jesus cares very much for children, and does use very graphic language concerning the protection of children.
"Better a millstone be hung around your neck and you thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to sin." (Apologies for my bad paraphrasing ).

Is Jesus demanding compliance? He certainly does not seem to be giving US license to demand compliance from others, not in this verse anyway. It seems what he is really doing is just telling us that there will be grave consequences for those who 'cause these little ones to sin.' One might infer that this is in the form of eternal punishment, which is entirely in God's domain to enforce. He may also be referring to the moral anguish a person would suffer upon realizing he had caused a young one to fall into sin. I would have to say this verse does not lend support to the contention that believers can demand compliance from other believers. It is even doubtful that this verse lends support to saying that Jesus is demanding compliance from believers (which I don't think is what Platypus meant, but I think is what he actually wrote ).

I do think you are right that we (believers or not, IMHO) must be very careful to train children in the best way we know how, and I do mean not only academically but also morally and (for those of us of faith) spiritually.

Where I part company with you is in your leaping from "Democrats support fair treatment of homosexuals" to "Democrats promote sin among children." These two are not the same thing at all. The latter assertion is also false, and I have seen NO evidence provided to support it.

That being said, yes there are certainly those small minority of people, both heterosexual and a few homosexual, who would prey on children. There are others who would 'cause them to sin' in other ways (stealing, drugs, etc.). I agree with you that we should do all we can as individuals and as a society to protect children from such people.

However, the existence of such people has nothing to do with Democratic politics or policies, or even liberal or leftist policies.

If you'll take the time to reread most of my posts, I believe that Liberals are destroying our youith. Literally encouraginng unimagineably horrific behavior.

I know you believe this, but I have not seen any concrete evidence that "Liberals are destroying our youth." You seem to have a problem with 'rampant condom distribution' in schools. Leaving aside the extent to which this actually happens (it doesn't happen around here I can tell you), you haven't made the case that this is 'destroying' anybody.

Yes, if discussion of sexuality, condoms etc. is to be done, it should be done in a responsible manner. Children, at the appropriate time (and this is a judgment call as to when is appropriate), do need information and guidance on making responsible decisions with regards to their sexuality. I am guessing that you would agree with me that abstinence, especially for young teenagers, is the absolutely best recommendation we can give. If it was my call I certainly would not be handing out condoms in schools. However, I am not sure that " 'just say no' and nothing else" is the most responsible approach. I am certainly willing to entertain arguments to the contrary.

Just because we do not all agree on what the best approach to 'sex education' is, doesn't mean that we should label those with whom we disagree with false and slanderous epithets like 'pedarast'. THis is entirely unfair and uncalled for, and mocks the people who are trying to do their best to provide responsible guidance for young people.

In addition, the call for fair treatment for homosexuals is a separate issue. In this case, many are simply trying to see that students who are, correctly or not, identified by their peers as homosexuals do not suffer abuse or worse at the hands of their peers (or others). Working to see that Bobby does not get beat up because he says he likes boys or some people think he is effeminate or whatever is not promoting homosexuality, it is promoting basic human rights.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I'm confident that Jesus is demanding compliance towards treating children with the utmost care and concern. In fact He uses very threatening language.

Jesus certainly wished for compliance on this and a number of other issues, but I don't recall him ever advancing on anyone choosing not to adhere to that wish.

The most Jesus ever did was give a warning of the consequences. I will say no more concerning this, for fear of repeating micatala.

If you'll take the time to reread most of my posts, I believe that Liberals are destroying our youith.

Yes, you have made that quite clear.

So what are conservatives doing to combat evil liberalism in our children? By and large, teaching them to discriminate against sinners, and anyone else not strictly in agreeance with their worldview.

Jesus can't be too happy with that.

Are people born to sin and is it OK if they claim that status, to let them go on sinning? And, to celebrate them and encourage them in their sin?

Let them go on without a word in edgewise? Probably not. FORCE them to accept Christ and his commandments? Certainly not.

Celebrate and encourage their sin? I don't see anyone here suggesting that we do that. The only thing I celebrate and encourage in regards to this, is the respect and tolerance of the difference in others, and their personal right of choice.

Remember, I am only concerned with Christians and what they do in representing Biblical perspective.

Non-believers can do what they want.

I don't understand. If you agree that non-believers can do what they, why are you in support of a constitutional ammendment that would limit them from doing just that?

How is granting gays couples the same rights as any other couple hurting anyone? Just because we allow it, does not mean we celebrate it.

But as an American citizen I can decide what I think is best for society and support political organizations that agree with my position and they with mine.

Of course you have that right. But how is this best for anyone?

The Bible certainly does not support it, from what I have seen. It goes strictly against the Constitution, and forsakes everything America stands for. I do not believe it helps ANYONE come closer to God, as I have all ready explained.

What is to be gained by anyone?





Still waiting for a verse, by the way.