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]

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.

///

It is hard to deal with a person that can use this kind of reason. Islam can be completely wrong and yet pointing out the facts somehow says "nothing about Islam."

This is not only called Liberal spin it is called being deceived. Who and or what "is" the deceiver?

[AlAyeti]

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.

///
Al: Magus, you are twisting scripture. The context is plain. Do not judge unless you want to be judged the way you judge others. Lest is word that denotes concern. Fear of the Lord doesn't mean terrorized it means to be concerned.

I do not want to teach children about sexual deviance. Judge away.


M: 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.

A: Realistic Christians that celebrate "diversity" when it includes celebrating sin? That is what is happening inn Liberal Churches.

M: 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.

Al: Comparing the sacrifice made by our soldiers to the wanton behavior of a cruising sexual deviant? Perfect Liberal mind. I need search no where else for my evidence against Liberalism of today. . . Your colors are running true to form.

M:

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.

Al: Unsubstantiated and patently false? MTV runs those ads featuring those drug addicts! And at least you do recognize what "vulgarity" is. Though your blindness to other facts is interesting to file away for me.

M:

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.

Al: No and yes, but asking them to leave your church so that they will not infect others is the correct thing to do Biblically. Keep reading the Bible. IF they repent, then they are welcome to return. Lucky for them this isn't Old Testament time. Read the book of Joshua!

M: 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.

Al: Ghandi was a political lawyer. Read your history. He was murdered by his own people. Now, how do you fight sin when it has been accepted as a biurth condition and excused, celebrated and become a new culture? Liberal churches have done that with same-sex marriage. I didn't make that up.

M:

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.

M: Liberalism darkens all believers in churches that celebrate sin by redefining it as "diversity" that needs to be celebrated and embraced as individual expresion and a civil right. That is Satanic. Not political. The Republicans that are exposed of as comitting crimes and sins have at least to be exposed they don't champion their sins as human rights. In a church even!

Do the math Magus. And use a Biblical calculator.

[AlAyeti]

"Still waiting for a verse, by the way?"

P-P,

Waiting for a verse where Jesus forces compliance?

"Noone comes to the father but by me?" Jesus said that. So much for "diversity" and "tolerance."

I think that you are using semantics but I do not know why. There is no room for allowing sinners to stay sinners in the Gospel message. "Repent" is a hard word to whitewash with Political Correctness!

You seem to be employing a crafty trick to make it seem like I am preaching forced conversions. What I am declaring is that "Christians" (like Magus) that champion "diversity" are believingn false teaching. Another very discriptive word that carries with it an absolutist view of assertion to follow OR else.

Marriage for instance is never offered as being anything but man-woman. But somehow there are "Christians" that not only believe this can be savaged into any meaning one wishes, but also that other "fundamental truths" can be flushed away in the name of "tolerance."

Take Rev. John Shelby Spong for instance. He is a Christian Minister, but can somehow teach anti-Christian "facts" and be allowed to be called a Christian.

In all of my posts I challenge lies. I have that right.

I use scripture and I have used empirical scientific evidence, and am still ridiculed as a bigot. Anatomy, is also as absolute as it gets.

You cannot allow sin and be a Christian.

As an American citizen, I can challenge Neo-Liberalism and the death and destruction it has wrought on MY country since the sixties. Free Love, has cost lives and billions of dolars and yet, Liberals still incesantly dance to its tune.

I did what you wanted. I looked for Jesus forcing His views on people. It is not in the text of the New Testament. I would like it pointed out where I presented Jesus and His views in that way? Anywhere in any of my posts. I am not evading your tactic I am stating a fact. No where in the Bible can the things Liberals have done to the Gospel be found in the text as well.

I will glady continue to appeal to the Bible for our debate. Please allow me the same right of being correct when the text backs up my statements. Which it does on this issue.

Jesus was crucified for what reason? It wasn't for preaching the acceptance of sin or sinners. He preached repentance and Salvation. Now, how does a person repent? They have to be challenged to see that they are siners. Not celebrated by relabing sin "Diversity" ans elevating sin to a new culture class.

To a Liberal like Magus and Spong and many others (like in the Jesus Seminar) lies can not only be seated next to them in the Church, but are elevated to a class of rights and celebrated by "diversity." A hypocrite is just that. But a celebrated sinner is worse!

Please show me a scripture that allows for Christians to not only "shut up" as Magus has challenged, but to celebrate sin and anti-Christ actions WITHIN the Church.

Christian martyrs are not allowed an AK-47's, but are certainly vocal.

Another example, on the issue of marriage, history AND the Bible have the same immutable stance. Man/wonen. But, somehow, what cannot be changed,is being attempted by a class of people that want to be seen as intelligent and noble, when they are easily seen for what they are. Evil.

Are we to be yoked together with unbelievers?

That's an easy Bible answer huh? At least it used to be.

And though the Constitution is a failed attempt at nobility, written by traitors and now used by Sodomites (pedophiles, pornographers and sexual deviants) for the rights to sexualize our youth, the "laws of this land," still allow me to speak.

Oops, no they don't.

I forgot. Speaking up for decency and the family is now outlawed by Hate Crimes Legislation.

[MagusYanam]

It is hard to deal with a person that can use this kind of reason. Islam can be completely wrong and yet pointing out the facts somehow says "nothing about Islam."

This is not only called Liberal spin it is called being deceived. Who and or what "is" the deceiver?

You didn't bother to note that Islam agrees with Christianity on at least half the points you made. You didn't bother to note what Islam says, therefore you said nothing about Islam - only about your perverted conception of it.

You deceive yourself, though I'm sure you know who is helping you along. I only pray you may break free of this deceit.

Magus, you are twisting scripture.

Wrong. Want to read again?

Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.

Here's what you wrote.

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

(Italics added by MagusYanam)

I think it's pretty clear who is twisting scripture here. Jesus made no ifs, ands or buts about what he was trying to say.

That is what is happening inn Liberal Churches.

Again with the generalisations! How would you know what goes on behind the doors of our churches? How would you know what is preached? We preach acceptance, penitance and forgiveness of all through divine grace.

What's the Biblical rationale behind your lack of grace?

Comparing the sacrifice made by our soldiers to the wanton behavior of a cruising sexual deviant? Perfect Liberal mind. I need search no where else for my evidence against Liberalism of today. . . Your colors are running true to form.

As are yours - you have a beam in your own eye and yet you reach for motes in all around you. What did Jesus have to say about that?

All sin is sin, no matter the source. It should be treated no differently, whether soldier or homosexual or any other kind.

Unsubstantiated and patently false? MTV runs those ads featuring those drug addicts!

Please show me a scripture that allows for Christians to not only "shut up" as Magus has challenged

But you weren't talking about MTV, were you? You were trying to associate liberals in their morality with MTV in its vulgarity - something which is unsubstantiated and patently false. I'm living proof that not all liberals watch MTV or buy away into the consumer culture.

Also, you are deliberately misinterpreting my assertion to discredit me as a Christian and as a moderator - a despicable tactic of prevarication. I said, 'put up or shut up' - meaning you either back what you say with reason or you don't say it. I did not say 'shut up' - that would be counter to the rules of this forum.

If you can't help twisting the words of Clinton, the words of the Gospel, mine or even your own words, I pity you.

No and yes, but asking them to leave your church so that they will not infect others is the correct thing to do Biblically. Keep reading the Bible. IF they repent, then they are welcome to return.

I do read the Bible; did Jesus tell the prostitutes and publicans he dined with to leave and return only when they had stopped doing business? No - he turned them from their sin through fellowship and moral influence.

Casting people out proves nothing and solves nothing.

Ghandi was a political lawyer. Read your history.

So he was, but he wasn't acting that way through civil disobediance. He was breaking the law he thought was unjust. So did Jesus and so did Martin Luther King, Jr. That Jesus was a rabbi or that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a politician didn't stop them from breaking laws they found unjust.

They led their movements by example, not by decree. They did not use or avow violence; they did not expound or condone hatred.

Now, how do you fight sin when it has been accepted as a biurth condition and excused, celebrated and become a new culture? Liberal churches have done that with same-sex marriage. I didn't make that up.

New culture? We have too many as it is. Why not accept homosexuals within this culture, and turn them from any wrong choices that they've made? That is the challenge offered by liberal churches - it's a pity you keep mistaking forgiveness for celebration of sin.

The Republicans that are exposed of as comitting crimes and sins have at least to be exposed they don't champion their sins as human rights.

No; Republicans are far more insidious. They will claim the wrongs they've done not to be wrong at all, deny they ever happened or claim entitlement or some higher moral authority. What was once 'getting Saddam' turned into 'finding weapons of mass destruction' which became 'championing democracy'. The first we did, though not too efficiently. The second we never did. The third will likely never manifest itself in any practicable way for decades, after which all will be forgotten. All houses built on sand, from a moral perspective.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Waiting for a verse where Jesus forces compliance?

"Noone comes to the father but by me?" Jesus said that. So much for "diversity" and "tolerance."

That's your verse?

You forget that some people do not want to come to the father. Is it our duty as Christians to force them to? The Bible does not teach us so. If they do not heed the warnings and make the choice to obey, they will pay the consequences in the afterlife. The Bible makes this clear. Gays, as everyone else, are given an option. To enforce our will on them forsakes God's gift of free choice.

Adam and Eve had a choice. God made no attempt to stop their partaking of the tree of life.

Jesus did not teach tolerance?
Ephesians 4:2
"Be humble and gentle in every way. Be patient with each other and lovingly accept each other."

You seem to be employing a crafty trick to make it seem like I am preaching forced conversions.

What is making homosexuals involuntarily conform to Christian beliefs if it is not forced conversion?
I have argued against your theocratic stance for quite some time, and never before have you stated that my assumptions are wrong.

Could you just clear this up for me, if you don't mind? What is your exact stance? Liberal churches should be outlawed? Non-christians should be forcibly converted? America is best off as a theocracy?

Please allow me the same right of being correct when the text backs up my statements. Which it does on this issue.

Backs up what statements? That God does not grant the right of free choice? Or that in order to recieve eternal life one must stop sinning?

If the former, I am afraid nothing you have shown me backs up that statement. If the later, I never denied this truth. It, unlike your theocratic notions, is backed up by scripture.

You and they are wrong.

That is just plain hard facts.

What I am declaring is that "Christians" (like Magus) that champion "diversity" are believingn false teaching.

No where in the Bible can the things Liberals have done to the Gospel be found in the text as well.

Another example, on the issue of marriage, history AND the Bible have the same immutable stance.

My faith is founded on immutable facts. Somehow changeable to a Liberal.

As these quotes can testify, you have a habit of presenting your opinion as fact. Frankly, I cannot conceive how you are unable to see the sheer arrogance in this. Regardless, I feel that we as Christians are obligated to be respectful of others feelings, even if we dont happen to agree with them. I believe we must allow all Christians the freedom of teaching Gods will the way they feel necessary, as the scriptures can be interpreted a number of ways. This is not to say I approve of divisions, but unfortunately they are inevitable. You are obligated to urge others to act in the way you believe is best for sake of their own salvation, but I believe to do any more than that is crossing the line.

In addition, I feel that your particular method of presenting opinion does very little to further your case, but instead only succeeds in further alienating those participating in the debate, creating confrontation. I dont think that this is the way Jesus would have wanted it.

[AlAyeti]

P-P,

I do not display arrogance but confidence. That is not pride either. I do not show disagrrement with your positions for the most part because they are logical and Biblical.

But those divisions you mention come from right and wrong. If Jesus was not confrontational, then I have a starnge version of the Bible. And i have many, many, versionns. All have the same Jesus confronting, Jewish leaders, non-believers, His own disciples and mentioning hell many, many times.

I point out where Liberal theology becomes satanic. And that is in celebrating sin and sinners within the walls of the church and promotion of unbelieveable heresy as some kind of Biblical truth. Didn't Jesus mention that people like that would invade the flock.

When have Christians been silent on anything?

Magus thinks there are things that Muslim's agree with Christians on. What? Jesus DID NOT die on the Cross. Abraham DID NOIT attempt to sacrifice Ishmael. It is a capital offense to teach that Jesus IS GOD.

Islam has nothing in common with Christianity any more than Mormonism or the Jesus Seminar.

Should our Baptist Pastor - the subject of this thread - allow Muslims and Mormons in his church as well? Without challenging them?

Christianity absolutely challenges everything. "No one comes to the Father but by Me," IS the most confrontational thing uttered by anyone. The facts of what happerned to Jesus bare that out. "I and the father are One." That is pretty presumptuous. Very confrontational. And the reaction to the Jews of those days and the Jews and MUSLIMS today, prove my point well.

Arrogance? That doesn't add up. I point out my opposition to the opposition. And they will not tolerate it. I maybe smug and laugh at their assertions but you'l have to "forgive me." The same old tired poutiness and tantrums from anti-Christians and permissive heretics. It is enjoyable seeing the same old song and dance.

"Did God 'really' say . . ."

Sin started with the same questions as it's practiced today.

Now, somehow, a "Chrsitian" can say that God bumbled his way to the current version of human being/higher ape, and all the while denying that Jesus taught creation and Noah's flood and Jonah, as actually happening. I guess Jesus was a fundamentalist right-wing fanatic.

But Liberal theology somehow allows for abomination to be allowed for some reason. I boldy state it is satanic. The facts back that up. Allow me the free choice to believe anti-Christian and heresy promoting arguments are for the most part stupid and backed up mostly by misplaced emotionnal passion.

Churches celebrating what cannot be celebrated is a prime example. Look at how many non and anti Christians compare divorce and same-sex marriage. Why? All the while. not even being able to perceive that their logic is off base. Because comparing something to something wrong makes your object/subject, exist in wrong doing. Because the church (some and many) celebrate people that are divorced when, they should allow them in the church only IF they are repentant.

Diversity does not mean being complicit in a person sinning.

Interesting that adulteres do not say they were "born to adultery."

No where do we find non-Christian Christianity more than in politics. I'll give you that. Somehow Democrat Chrstians can champion high taxation to the point of communism knowing that it is immoral. Forget about people like Clinton and his intern and other trolling sexual deviants , think about taxing "Families" into bankruptcy.

No where do these Democrat Christians, you see all over the pews when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton curry support, think to PROMOTE abstinence instead of condom use to control unimagineable (almost unimagineable the Bible did tell us) promiscuity like for example Jesse Jackson's. Monogamy to a Liberal-Christian is one lover in bed at one time. Not holy matrimony.

But our Baptist Pastor is getting hammered for telling these kinds of people to leave his church.

But I don't know if that was as bad as telling religious leaders that their father was Satan.

Do you think that was a confrontational situation between Jesus and the Rabbi's? The text seems to be clear that it was.

[AlAyeti]

Magus: "New culture? We have too many as it is. Why not accept homosexuals within this culture, and turn them from any wrong choices that they've made? That is the challenge offered by liberal churches - it's a pity you keep mistaking forgiveness for celebration of sin.

///


Marriage is NOT a "Celebration?

Your logic goes from bad to worse to abomination.

Magus: "No; Republicans are far more insidious. They will claim the wrongs they've done not to be wrong at all, deny they ever happened or claim entitlement or some higher moral authority. What was once 'getting Saddam' turned into 'finding weapons of mass destruction' which became 'championing democracy'. The first we did, though not too efficiently. The second we never did. The third will likely never manifest itself in any practicable way for decades, after which all will be forgotten. All houses built on sand, from a moral perspective."

///

I agree with you on much here.

Ever heard a Republican say they were born to misrepresent the truth?

I have heard this from Liberal Democrats.

And obviously so has our Baptist Pastor.

I would like to see those anti-war peace activist go to the countries where the peace activist that live there are shot to death by people like Saddam Hussein. Like say the Kurdish women and children that Saddam gasses to death!

Now I believe that poisoned gas is a weapon of mass destruction. I believe that I have my facts staright on that.

And unfortunately for the Leftist that hysterically hates George Bush (of course that doesn't include those forgiving liberal Christians), the UN had all of those UN resolutions for what they also believed were facts as well.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Arrogance is defined as overbearing pride. Overbearing is defined as dominant. You present your opinion as being dominant and indisputable (Which of course, is impossible for an opinion to be- every opinion is equal in merit).

Personally, I find my opinion to be supported by both the Bible and the dictionary. But regardless, it is still just an opinion, and I present it only as a suggestion to you. If YOU do not find your words to be arrogant, there is precious little I can do to change your way, apart from urging you to present yourself in a modified fashion.

This has more or less been my entire point all along. We may have our personal opinions on what is right, and if we are confident enough in these beliefs, we may wish to present them to others and suggest they believe/act likewise. However, is it right for us to seek to forcibly impose this conjecture on them? I could just as well have taken your method towards presenting an opinion; "Your statements are arrogant, this is a fact", but what good would have come out of that, aside from more confrontation? I believe that through seeking to better understand one's beliefs and tolerating their entitlement to them, we may make more progress towards discovering truth.

The pastor did not tolerate his members opinions. I believe he had absolutely no right, biblically or otherwise, to go to the lengths he did. If Jesus was here today, he could rightfully tell us who is right and who is wrong. But since that is not the case, we must accept that our interpretations will differ.



AlAyeti, I have a question for you. Please answer in order to prevent future miscommunications.

What should we do in regards to so-called sinners in our society, such as homosexuals?

(A)Force them to conform to Christian beliefs
(B)Accept their right of choice but urge them to reconsider their decisions
(C) Other (specify)

Thank you.

[AlAyeti]

C.

Take a stand.

Over bearing and prideful? That can equally describe me and every "freethinker-secualrist-atheists-Liberal-Progressive," on these threads. Where is this nicey-nice limitation on the Christian perspective?

I think it is huilarious to see what is presented as argument against the Christian position most of the time. Though, in all fairness, there are good souls that present good points. But, when they want to be insulting for effect a good debater should answer in kind.

If it ruffles feathers but is correct in content is that bad?

I'll take your advice.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

C.

Take a stand.

What sort of actions might that encompass?

But, when they want to be insulting for effect a good debater should answer in kind.

I disagree 100%. A good debater will stick to civil language even when presented with outright flame-bait. I hope that I have stuck to this definition of a 'good debater' throughout the course of this thread (though this is doubtful), and would hope you would bring it to my attention when I don't.

The Bible teaches us to turn the other cheek and be gentle in the way we teach others.

I would agree that there are a number of "freethinker-secualrist-atheists-Liberal-Progressives" out there that are more than willing to resort to mocking as a source of argument. But I do not believe that this gives you the right to engage yourself in the same fashion.

If Christians and athiests decided to spend even half the time they use to insult each other respectfully discussing matters, who knows what mutual understanding we might achieve?