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]

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.

So far you've done nothing of the sort. Liberal theology is wont not to respect persons and to respect the equality of all people in God; this is consistent with its treatment of homosexuals as well as all other sinners. This is not satanic; this is Pauline and consistent with Jesus' ministry.

The unbelievable heresies come in with the conservative denial of divine grace as applicable to those who do not deserve it. That stands anathema to the Gospel.

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

Yes to the first question; no to the second. A good church should challenge everyone to follow Jesus' example, not just non-believers, but it should never be exclusive either in its membership or in its challenge.

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.

Again, you pontificate on what you don't understand in the slightest. The biological evolutionary standpoint is fully consistent with a Ritschlian theological understanding of the Gospel. What Jesus taught was within the framework of his own culture - the Creation and the Flood were a part of that culture. Whether they 'actually' happened or not is a non-issue.

I guess Jesus was a fundamentalist right-wing fanatic.

Then how come he saved his most condemnatory language of hell for the 'fundamentalist right-wing fanatics' of his time: the Pharisees and the scribes? These were the people who followed the law to the letter, yet demonstrated a complete lack of grace as shown them by God - perfectly applicable to the rightists in the church.

Jesus challenged them to look beyond the letter of the law and respect their fellow men and to love God. A liberal message if ever I heard one.

Monogamy to a Liberal-Christian is one lover in bed at one time. Not holy matrimony.

Explain that to my liberal parents who've been happily married for twenty-five years, or the millions of happily-married liberal couples in this country.

No basis in empiricism, only in hatred. Pitiful.

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

As well he should be. It's a failure of his pastoral ministry if he can't tolerate dissenting views in his church. It's a greater failure of his ministry if he is unable or unwilling to minister to the sinners. I don't think he should be allowed the privilege of herding sheep when he takes such lousy care of them.

The good shepherd lays his life down for his flock; Jesus told us as much. But here's a person who won't even lay down his pride for them.

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.

Unfortunately for the paranoid and hateful rightists who keep pontificating on things that they don't understand, I am aware of this fact. The UN should have been allowed to do its job if we were so interested in finding WMD's (which was never the case anyway). Instead, Bush just thumbed his nose at them and invaded anyway - and look where we are now.

It was never about Saddam, or the WMD's, or the democracy - though the last comes just a shade closer to the truth. To the neoconservatives who are more honest, it was all about exerting an imperial hegemony in the region which would enforce our national interests (in other words, money through Iraq's natural resources).

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

I have heard this from Liberal Democrats.

Am I missing something? I've never heard any liberal Democrat tell me they were born to lie, and I spend a great deal of time in their company (aside from being one myself).

Unless, of course, this is just more paranoid pontification. In which case I'll just send it to the circular directory.

[AlAyeti]

Taking a stand means reading everything and anything you can FROM the perspective of the anti and non Christian. I don't like reading Christian material ON a subject like mormonism. I go to Mormon churches (statkes) and get their works from them. I do this with Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists etc., etc.

Nothing has even come close to disproving Jesus.

I take the tact to show believers that the argumants against us are fairly mundane and petty.

Why are babaies born . . .? If Jesus was or is God then ....

Yet, when these anti-Christians (that always peddle the same dribble) are challeneged, they almost always give the same comeback as you have given. "Aren't you Christians supposed to be lovey dovey?

I don't think so. Christians need to know that absurdity lies as the foundation of most anti-Christian attacks. Evolutionists are ape-men and Atheists are nothingness personified. Why do we put up with the diatribe and hysteria propped up against us like we are not as educated or have a valid right to believe what we do.

I asked a guy - an atheist - on another thread, why he always has to present his opinions with insults towards Christians and Christianity. Atheists seem to get bent all out of shape when they are reminded of the horrors in history caused by their people, but shriek about the crusades, and yet, are too dense to see they were started by Muslim's and not Christians. I do not believe lies and I do not have to tolerate those that do. Where is that Biblical? Am I not protecting the flock?

Evolutionistst are laughable because they are apes giving opinions, and yet, seem to think their opinions cannot be challenged. An animal giving an opinion? C'Mon now, how many Christians in schools at this very moment, are being attacked and insulted for their rights to believe what they believe. Now, they are being attacked by lamebrains (or worse) and do not see it. I point it out and am called a bigot or intolerant or meansprited or whatever.

Instead of empirical.

I present my opinions with statements that can be grasped by the people I'm communicating to, and their reactions prove that.

Fertilization starts the life process of a human being and yet can be ended by semantics by supposedly intelligent and educated people, so that men and women can conitinue to be promiscuous without consequence.

Anatomy and physiology, both scientific perspectives, cannot be used to describe and denote proper sexuality. That is intolerant and bigoted.

I don't get it. And I don't have to.

I am not trying to win arguments. I am showing Christians that our positions are not founded on myth like the "science" of accidents bumping into other accidents and creating our observable universe. I have discussed this with many highly educated people and the get as angry when challenged as the garden variety "free"thinker.

They absolutely believe that something can come from nothing, and yet want to be taken seriously as having a form of intelliegence.

I don't know if I am altogether trying to insult people and be meanspirited, it's just cause and effect.

And, yet. I do not deny the empirical.

I'm sure Paul was seen as meansprited to the Romans in the first chapter of the book by that title. His description of the sexually rude is as accurate now as then. And still just as insulting to sexual deviants and hedonistic sociopaths.

But he was scientifically correct in his assertion. We can observe that.

[AlAyeti]

Magus: "Again, you pontificate on what you don't understand in the slightest. The biological evolutionary standpoint is fully consistent with a Ritschlian theological understanding of the Gospel. What Jesus taught was within the framework of his own culture - the Creation and the Flood were a part of that culture. Whether they 'actually' happened or not is a non-issue. "

So "God" was wrong.

Perfect example of liberal theology that "actually" happens. It's interesting that you through your liberal ideology are more enlightened than the Son of God.

This is probably why Jesus mentioned hell more than he did heaven.

Very judgmental point of view.

I finally figured out why the sun goes away after a bunnch of hours and it gets all dark and bad bad things happen to people in the blackness condition that results.

It's President George W. Bush that makes the sun go away. He has those evil powers.

And I'm sure that aging is a Republican conspiricay to get people hooked on drugs for all of those sicknesses brought on by living many many years.

I listen to Air America every day. Got to love that Randy Rhodes.

But about that Jesus that somehow is in concert with the almighty God, and yet got the Flood thing all wrong. Didn't Jesus know that He was just an ape-man and could reallly explain anything away by telling people they were born to sin? No, not born IN sin, born TO sin.

But then again, since Adam and Eve was a middle eastern "myth," Jesus didn't need to mention sin at all.

Somehow Magus, we are debatinng two different people named Jesus. Just like Jesus said would happen.

How did He know?

[bernee51]

So "God" was wrong.

Perfect example of liberal theology that "actually" happens. It's interesting that you through your liberal ideology are more enlightened than the Son of God.

This is probably why Jesus mentioned hell more than he did heaven.

Very judgmental point of view.

I finally figured out why the sun goes away after a bunnch of hours and it gets all dark and bad bad things happen to people in the blackness condition that results.

It's President George W. Bush that makes the sun go away. He has those evil powers.

And I'm sure that aging is a Republican conspiricay to get people hooked on drugs for all of those sicknesses brought on by living many many years.

I listen to Air America every day. Got to love that Randy Rhodes.

But about that Jesus that somehow is in concert with the almighty God, and yet got the Flood thing all wrong. Didn't Jesus know that He was just an ape-man and could reallly explain anything away by telling people they were born to sin? No, not born IN sin, born TO sin.

But then again, since Adam and Eve was a middle eastern "myth," Jesus didn't need to mention sin at all.

I gotta say - you have outdone yourself with that one.

I cannot make any sense of it at all

[AlAyeti]

Bernee,

I'm answering Magus.

Read his position on his view of Christianty. I am asserting that Liberals have left Biblical Christianty. He uses points and I use points.

It should be fascinating for you to witness. Please feel free to interject. Your opinions are welcomed and obviously I know your "religious" position.

I trust people like you far more than the Liberal peddlers of my faith. An Atheist denies and does not blaspheme Jesus for the most part. There is a path I can walk with an Atheist but the wide path of Liberal Christianty is not a road I want to be on. Ever. I was once an Atheist and definitely once lived like a "Liberal" Christian.

An Atheist is sometimes far closer to the truth and sometimes more honest in position towards God. Denying God is maybe foolish, but blaspheming God is worse.

[MagusYanam]

I am asserting that Liberals have left Biblical Christianty.

And that assertion is absolutely, 100 per cent, 180 degrees wrong. Allow me to demonstrate. Here is what I wrote:

What Jesus taught was within the framework of his own culture - the Creation and the Flood were a part of that culture. Whether they 'actually' happened or not is a non-issue.

And here's how you interpreted it:

So "God" was wrong.

That's not what I said at all. The Creation and the Flood were a part of the Hebraic culture to which those to whom Jesus preached could relate. The reason Jesus used the imagery of the Creation and of the Flood was because it made his teachings relevant to those he taught.

Relevance. It has nothing to do with what 'actually happened' and everything to do with the audience. If you look at the examples where he cites the creation story, Noah, Jonah and the like it is all auxiliary to his main point, to help his audience better understand his teachings.

It is an evil generation that looks for a sign, and the only sign that shall be given them is the sign of Jonah, et cetera.

It's interesting that you through your liberal ideology are more enlightened than the Son of God.

Stop burning your straw men and face the issue. I never claimed to be more enlightened than the Son of God - I read the Gospel through my own hermeneutical lens and approach my own faith honestly through reason. As an honest and discerning Christian I have to reconcile my faith with evolution through reason, rather than denying one to the demands of the other.

This is probably why Jesus mentioned hell more than he did heaven.

Which he didn't. He mentioned the Kingdom and taught more about the Kingdom far more than he did the outer darkness.

He spoke of Hell to the religious authorities more than to anyone else - those who valued the law above the spirit; now what does that tell you?

Didn't Jesus know that He was just an ape-man and could reallly explain anything away by telling people they were born to sin?

If you don't understand it, don't pontificate on it. If you don't understand the mechanics of evolution, don't stand in judgment of it. If you don't understand the liberal Christian positions on penitance and grace, don't stand in condemnation of it. Jesus preached humility - start practising it.

But then again, since Adam and Eve was a middle eastern "myth," Jesus didn't need to mention sin at all.

A true myth, one whose importance lies not in its historicity but in its philosophical positions on the nature of sin. That's the Niebuhrian standpoint - one considered by many to be a liberal position and one that is Biblical in its foundation - and the one to which I lend the most credence.

[Jose]

I don't think so. Christians need to know that absurdity lies as the foundation of most anti-Christian attacks. Evolutionists are ape-men and Atheists are nothingness personified. Why do we put up with the diatribe and hysteria propped up against us like we are not as educated or have a valid right to believe what we do.

I asked a guy - an atheist - on another thread, why he always has to present his opinions with insults towards Christians and Christianity. Atheists seem to get bent all out of shape when they are reminded of the horrors in history caused by their people, but shriek about the crusades, and yet, are too dense to see they were started by Muslim's and not Christians. I do not believe lies and I do not have to tolerate those that do. Where is that Biblical? Am I not protecting the flock?

Evolutionistst are laughable because they are apes giving opinions, and yet, seem to think their opinions cannot be challenged. An animal giving an opinion? C'Mon now, how many Christians in schools at this very moment, are being attacked and insulted for their rights to believe what they believe. Now, they are being attacked by lamebrains (or worse) and do not see it. I point it out and am called a bigot or intolerant or meansprited or whatever.

I dunno, Al. This sounds an awful lot like an intolerant, meanspirited statement. I point out the following bits in what you've said:

1. Christians need to know that absurdity lies as the foundation of most anti-Christian attacks.
2. Evolutionists are ape-men and Atheists are nothingness personified.
3. Atheists seem to get bent all out of shape when they are reminded of the horrors in history caused by their people, but shriek about the crusades, and yet, are too dense to see they were started by Muslim's and not Christians.
4. Evolutionistst are laughable because they are apes giving opinions, and yet, seem to think their opinions cannot be challenged. An animal giving an opinion?
5. Now, they are being attacked by lamebrains (or worse) and do not see it.

I'll offer my simple-minded analysis of these things you've said.

1. Absurdity is the basis of anti-Christian attacks...You imply here two things that are false. The first is that there even are anti-Christian attacks. If you really want us to believe that there are such attacks, you'll need to tell us what they are, and explain why they are attacks against Christianity. Maybe they are no more than what your savior was stuck with: suggestions that there are inequities in the current treatment of people, and that tolerance might be called for. But no, you seem to follow the logic of the protesters I saw on the news recently, who claimed that our failure in Iraq is god's punishment of the US for harboring homosexuals. The second thing that is false in your statement is that these so-called attacks are based in absurdity. They are based in the notion of human rights, and follow very clear logic. You may not agree with the logic, but if so, you should address that logic logically, not by calling it absurd and expect everyone to agree with you.

2. Evolutionists are ape-men and Atheists are nothingness personified...this sounds pretty meanspirited, not to mention just plain nasty. Y'know, if you want others to listen to what you have to say, you should treat them with some degree of respect. Otherwise, they will simply label you as a wacko.

3. Atheists have caused horrors, and are too dense to understand history... Again, it seems meanspirited to call an entire class of people "too dense." What you mean is: they interpret the motivational forces of historical events differently than you do. As for those "horrors," you may want to prove that these horrors exist, and that atheists have actually caused them. I don't want to go into all of the horrors that can be laid at the feet of Christians; I don't think there's any value in rehashing history. What happened has happened. We should be concerned with the current problems and try to fix them, rather than assess blame for things we cannot change.

4. Evolutionists are apes giving opinions... Given that you seem to consider humans to be superior to apes, I interpret this to be another meanspirited attack on evolutionists. Why not look at what they say--particularly in these forums, which are (in most cases) quite civil. Do you expect to have your opinions listened to, if you show so little respect for others?

5. Christian schools are being attacked by lamebrains, but don't see it... This is particularly meanspirited. You simultaneously dedigrate both the people you think are attacking Christians and the Christians themselves, as if you want to alienate yourself from both sides.

Ah, well. It's up to you, of course, how you choose to make your arguments. But, it seems to me, you'd have more success in making your case if you didn't imply that everyone else is a nitwit. If nothing else, you are likely to convince the readers that your assertions (of anti-Christian attacks, and of licentious hedonism being taught in the schools because of the Liberal Democrat's homosexual agenda, etc) are borne of fantasy and paranoia, and not reality. We don't want that. If you really have a point, it would be good if we could hear it clearly, without being turned away by rudeness.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I point it out and am called a bigot or intolerant or meansprited or whatever.

Just FYI, the mere fact that you point out lies is not what earns you these titles with some people. I think that it is how you choose to go about doing it.

You present your opinions as things that anyone with any remote grip on reality can supposedly see as objective fact. I think it is great that you are this confident in your beliefs (I sure wish I was). But what you tend to forget is that reality is actually quite subjective, therefore there can be any number of interpretations of the theory sporting the strongest supporting evidence . The subject of humanities origins encompass no more than mere hypothetic musings; To pose your worldview as anything more than an educated guess seems rash. Personally I don't think we will ever know truth, and to act as if we do is foolish. There are an infinite number of possibilities. In this regard, the chance that anyone is right seems slim. But alas, we must make our best guess.

That said, I have heard the evidence both for and against evolution, (which you seem quite convinced is a lie concieved to bring about an end to Christianity), and can conclude that the notion that we originated from apes is a great possibility, the theory of change over time even more so. Whether you believe this conflicts with scripture is another matter (I feel it does not, personally, as I tend to lean towards a more figurative interpretation of the scriptures).

Anyway, the point being, evolutionists (as well as others of any other persuasion) deserve the same respect you might give to a fundamentalist Christian. Ther notions are based on hard data, not merely anti-christian agendas. You are so quick to call a conspiracy you may not even have noticed.

[AlAyeti]

Jose,

Rudenes?

There are very few little diatribes from secualrist-atheist-evolutionist-freethinker-humanists etc., etc., that are not always couched in biting denigrating verbage about what and why Christians believe in the plain words of the New Testament. Yet science agrees with more of the New Testament than it doesn't. What Jesus went through on then Cross is a very accurate description for example. All of the people mentioned in the New Testament actually existed.

Myth, nutball, fanatics, is almost alwyas tacked onto any Christian that CHALLENGES the secular position. Yet, these same ""enlightened thinkers" can look at human anatomy and physiology and, when it is used by Christians to prove that the Christian views on sexuality are NOT ignorant anf bigoted, they are smugly shrugged aside.

I use anatomy about sexuality and I'm labeled a bigot. I come back that atheism has caused the MURDERS of millions and millions and millions of people in communist countries (not counting abortions for convenience i.e. China), and my position is "meanspirited."

What atrocities in Christianity's history can be excused in "let's get on with the now," statement. Christians have these things forced into their faces everytime they try to speak. But when I comeback that if that devalues a Christian than an Atheist is the most worthles of human beings by the facts of the atrocities of their culture, I am labeled again. What are the two latin words I'm thinking of?

I point actual happeings like pedophillia and homosexuality having a hand in hand past, present and future, and I'm "building strawmen." Who is grasping ignorance me or my detractors?

For example, you cannot BE a Christian and NOT believe in the resurrection. That is 100% proveable FROM the New Testament, but somehow, Liberal-Christians can do just such, and when challenged, call people like me "closed-minded" and blah, blah, blah.

Evolutionists ARE ape-men from out of their own mouths. Evolution and the Bible ARE NOT compatible. No Adam no Jesus. It is an absolute. But, somehow, not to a "Christian" like Magus, that somehow can use society in the timeframe to change immutable teachings. Either Jesus was wrong or he wasn't.

I do not to be excused for believing that it is Satanic and irrational to believe in what the core teachings of Liberalism holds as its immuntable assertions. I have the proof and the right to claim it.

Abortion for any other reason than a life and death situation is pure evil. It is murder one. But, along with evolution came no human morality. That is a logical asertion on my part. The Billions of children slaughtered worldwide so that the women hoilding the unborn child can have no responsibilty for unrestrained licentiousness is a logical way to look at the secular viewpoint from a Biblical perspective.

There was a billion daughters raped by their fathers or their relatives? Abortion "rare, safae and legal?" I am comfiratble "as a Christian" in challenging the validity of anyone calling themselves a Christian and supprting the "Pro-Choice" platform. The proof is in. There is no reasonable doubt to not convict that movement of murder in the first degree.

Did I not just present an argument based on reason and facts? Especially Biblically?

Take a moment to at least appreciate that I am not going to take liars representing MY culture.

That is like saying that I am an Atheist that believes in Jesus as God and that the Trinity is fact. That evolution is nonsense and that the Only way to salvation is through Jesus. If I believe those things, am I an Atheist?

It's OK if you are meanspirited and say that I cannot be an Atheist and believe that Jesus is God. Truth does not anger me nor does it bother me. But it does seem to bother others.

You cannot believe in evolution as primordial soup that caused all of what we see today, and have a Jesus that is not a lunatic. Where in h-ll did the primordial soup come from? A primordial can? Someone had to open that can.

Questioning the "mechanism" of evolution IS absolutely my right. 0 x 1 to get to where we are today as taught in our schools is insanity. And look at society today. New Orleans proved we are no different than the story in the Book of Judges.

"Man, you don't want to be outside out night." Now, does that sentence fit a story from the Old Testament or downtown Seattle tonight?

The answer is both.

If I believe the Bible in absolutes, I certainly have a very good position to do so.

BUT!

I will endeavor to be kinder and gentler to those that I do not agree with.

But you'll have to forgive me. I find it almost impossible to do. I was the same way in high school with bulies.

Like believing that a fertilized human embryo will not become a fully grown human being and therefore HAS human identity from the start. Although that is 100% proveable 100% of the time. somehow the educated enlightened can excuse those facts. Also, That all of what we can see and observe does not fit the mechanism of the evolutionary dogma. Which, by the way is as fluid as sweat. Which version of evolution is Magus clinging to? If it is something from nothing, which is exactly what Darwinian evolution claims, than his position needs to be questioned. A bumbler-god is not are very good theological stance. But that is exactly what an evolution-deity would actually be. See, I didn't even try an insult. And, if human sexuality cannot be defined by the observable mecahanism of biological-physiological empiricism, than I am right in claiming that an insidious ulterior motive (meaning evil) is driving the licensing of what by empiricsim, cannot be licensed.

Turning the other cheek has little place in debating. And it has nothing to do with protecting the people within a church. A Pastor does indeed ned to drive off the wolves. And Jesus knew and told us, they would be in our midst.

Wheats and tares, by the way, is insulting someone, and it is not the wheat.

Also "By their fruits you will know them."

Condoms, is fruit of only one ideological morality, to curb something but it is not licentiuosness. The jury is in with the judgment of that.

[MagusYanam]

Yet, these same ""enlightened thinkers" can look at human anatomy and physiology and, when it is used by Christians to prove that the Christian views on sexuality are NOT ignorant anf bigoted, they are smugly shrugged aside.

That's because science makes no value judgments whatsoever. Science cannot tell us what is right or what is beautiful - science only deals with the material. If you are looking to human anatomy and physiology for moral comfort, you are looking in the wrong places.

Enlightened or not, most thinkers have realised that science can tell us only so much. Science is invaluable but limited in its scope. The rest is left to the philosophies.

For example, you cannot BE a Christian and NOT believe in the resurrection. That is 100% proveable FROM the New Testament, but somehow, Liberal-Christians can do just such, and when challenged, call people like me "closed-minded" and blah, blah, blah.

When have I ever denied the Resurrection, or gave license to Christians to deny the Resurrection as a liberal? I defy you to quote me thus.

But you're right. You are closed-minded, especially when you don't listen to your opponents but argue against caricatures of their arguments. That kind of behaviour is frowned upon on this forum.

Evolutionists ARE ape-men from out of their own mouths. Evolution and the Bible ARE NOT compatible. No Adam no Jesus. It is an absolute. But, somehow, not to a "Christian" like Magus, that somehow can use society in the timeframe to change immutable teachings. Either Jesus was wrong or he wasn't.

Absolute truth claims are the straight and easy path to Hell. That you refuse to see that it is possible to reconcile the natural world with scripture is pitiable, but it does not preclude such a reconciliation.

The teachings may be immutable, but they still have to be put into a framework through which they may be understood. That framework included the creation story. Look past the particulars: what is it Jesus was trying to say by referring to Jonah? Here's a hint: it had nothing to do with Jonah and everything to do with the generation he was addressing, which looked for a sign.

I have the proof and the right to claim it.

Then articulate it in a civil and rational manner. Just remember, you have no rights on this forum to daemonise your opponents, only to refute their arguments.

Abortion for any other reason than a life and death situation is pure evil. It is murder one. But, along with evolution came no human morality. That is a logical asertion on my part.

No, it is not. Evolution makes no value judgment on abortion or on anything else. It says nothing about human morality or its existence. As far as abortion goes, the ethics are extremely grey - not black and white as you are so often wont to point out. It's a complex issue, since you have to take into account familial pressures, availability of child-care resources and other such personal circumstances in every individual case. Should there be some measure by which abortion under certain sets of circumstances becomes wrong (and thus illegal)? Of course! But will it be as simple as you presuppose? Of course not.

Did I not just present an argument based on reason and facts?

No, you presented a whole bunch of personal value judgments and presuppositions. Such do not compose a reasonable argument.

I will endeavor to be kinder and gentler to those that I do not agree with.

Good. A little humility never hurt anyone.

Also, That all of what we can see and observe does not fit the mechanism of the evolutionary dogma. Which, by the way is as fluid as sweat. Which version of evolution is Magus clinging to? If it is something from nothing, which is exactly what Darwinian evolution claims, than his position needs to be questioned. A bumbler-god is not are very good theological stance. But that is exactly what an evolution-deity would actually be.

There is one version of the theory of evolution as posited by Charles Darwin. It hasn't changed since the day he formulated it.

a.) Every organism produces more offspring than will survive to maturity.

b.) There are variations amongst these offspring.

c.) These variations can be inherited by subsequent generations.

d.) In each generation those best equipped to adapt to their environment are those with the greatest chance of passing those variations which allowed it onto the next generation. As a result the incidence of this variation will increase in the general population.

All observed, all well-documented, all supported by the facts. This is the theory of evolution - nothing more. Nothing about anything from nothing. In the words of Barbara Kingsolver, 'the greatest, simplest, most elegant logical construct ever to dawn across our curiosity about the workings of natural life'. God knew what he was doing when he set it in motion - he was no bumbler; he wasted nothing.

You were railing in the dark, burning an effigy of evolution - you thought for some reason that evolution claims 'something from nothing', but as you can see nothing can be further from the truth. Evolution uses what was already there and makes no claims about life's genesis. Any claims on that are conjecture.

A Pastor does indeed ned to drive off the wolves. And Jesus knew and told us, they would be in our midst.

Not at the expense of the sheep. If the prerequisite by this pastor's reckoning for being a sheep is to support George W. Bush (which it was), then this pastor is not serving his flock at all - he failed in his pastoral ministry.

He wasn't 'driving off the wolves'. He was driving off all those who didn't agree with Bush's policies, which is something very, very different. Read the original post again.

Wheats and tares, by the way, is insulting someone, and it is not the wheat.

Also "By their fruits you will know them."

That's one interpretation of it, and it's not, to my mind, the right one. Each plant is composed of a head and a stalk. The stalk shall be thrown away and the head shall be kept. The ore is composed of gold and dross - the former shall be kept and the latter discarded.

I interpret these passages thus: God will save in everyone what is most worthy, the gold from the ore or the head of wheat.

Condoms, is fruit of only one ideological morality, to curb something but it is not licentiuosness. The jury is in with the judgment of that.

So you lash out in the darkness and blame the liberals. Not reasonable - if blame is to be laid for the current cheapening of sexuality, it lies not at the foot of the liberal politic but at the foot of the consumer culture.