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]

Jesus is not an evolved ape. There is no shred of evidence to do to the Nicene Creed what the Liberal Magus did to it.

But he did.

No wonder you have the view of Christianity and the Bible that you do.

Read it again. I did nothing to the Nicene Creed (except present it as my confession of faith). The Nicene Creed says nothing about evolution; therefore, I can believe what I want to believe about evolution and still be Christian.

That was the material point.

Please reread the Nicene Creed you put worth into.

Jesus did not crawl His way out of primordial ooze.

Which of course, your evolved Jesus did.

That is honest Christianity presented to you.

Inhaling fumes from all those burning straw-men can't be good for you.

For us and for our salvation,
he came down from Heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

Evolution seems to have absolutely nothing to do with it. The 'primordial ooze' (your words, not mine) has absolutely nothing to do with it (and, I would argue, nothing to do with evolution at all).

Jesus was the begotten son of God through Mary (who was a fully-evolved human being in her own right). He is of one Being with the Father. What part of that didn't you understand on your first read through? Human beings have evolved, sure, but Jesus was more than just human.

I am amazed that anyone tries to defend that it does not present "something from nothing" and therefore is anti-Biblical in terms of the Biblical perspective.

Please point out where compatibilty with Darwinian Evolution finds support in the Biblical text?

We are Christians right? I believe this is a fair question.

I thought creatio ex nihilo was a Creationist argument? It seems to have little to do with the topic at hand.

Evolution has no precedent as far as the Bible is concerned and does not appeal to scripture (nor need to) for its basis. It is based on observations of the natural world which, I presume, Christians like all others are free to do. (Especially considering it was a Christian who made the observations.)

Paul told his Church that he 'had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by [his] voice [he] might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue', and exhorted his church to 'be not children in understanding; howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men' (First Cor. 14:19, 20). I consider speaking in understanding and understanding as men to rest on the faculties of reason and of observation we've been given. Paul was giving us (the Church) the license to grow and to discover. This includes modern science and the theory of evolution.

"Christians" are hung up on sex, because what should be holy is perverted into commerce and licentiousness, AND, the children suffer. Secularsts are either completely unable to see facts or are complicit in the evil that is enveloping society. Which of course is the way I see it.

Teaching abstinence is useles because we have such a powerful force in society celebrating sexual licentiousness and hedonism. I am not apologetic in saying that democrats and liberals are leading the way in this.

You should be apologetic about casting about in the dark and beating the first who fall across your path. You came nearer the truth when you said what should be holy is being perverted into commerce, though you fail to see that it has been so ever since our society adopted a consumer culture.

It's not the political liberals who are advocating a social ethic based on instant gratification. It isn't the NPR-listening, NewsHour-watching, New-England-and-Upper-Midwest crowd which is glorifying illicit behaviour - that I can attest to. We didn't make this problem, we inherited it. And we have a different way of fighting it - one which, given time, may work.

There does seem to be a concerted effort to take down normality and morality. And its loudest champions are from people that are "indifferent" to Christians and religion. There clearly is an agenda.

The trouble with normal is it always gets worse. Normality is not a virtue.

As to morality, there are greater concerns - far greater - than same-sex marriage. Why don't we try focusing as a society on social justice first: securing good jobs, public education, a healthy environment, health care, building communities, defending civil liberties.

[AlAyeti]

Magus: "It is based on observations of the natural world which, I presume, Christians like all others are free to do. (Especially considering it was a Christian who made the observations.)"

///

The observable world means nothing to a liberal mind. Especially in defining morality. Anatomy is simply ignored, as well as cause and effect.

Magus: "Paul told his Church that he 'had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by [his] voice [he] might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue', and exhorted his church to 'be not children in understanding; howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men' (First Cor. 14:19, 20). I consider speaking in understanding and understanding as men to rest on the faculties of reason and of observation we've been given. Paul was giving us (the Church) the license to grow and to discover. This includes modern science and the theory of evolution. "

///

Evolution is the religion of the Atheist. Richard Dawkins is a good example. Darwin rejected Christianity for a reason. His followers haven't changed.


AlAyeti wrote:
"Christians" are hung up on sex, because what should be holy is perverted into commerce and licentiousness, AND, the children suffer. Secularsts are either completely unable to see facts or are complicit in the evil that is enveloping society. Which of course is the way I see it.

Teaching abstinence is useles because we have such a powerful force in society celebrating sexual licentiousness and hedonism. I am not apologetic in saying that democrats and liberals are leading the way in this.


Magus: "You should be apologetic about casting about in the dark and beating the first who fall across your path. You came nearer the truth when you said what should be holy is being perverted into commerce, though you fail to see that it has been so ever since our society adopted a consumer culture. "

///

I judge using the powers of reasoning based on observations. Liberals not only pervert what should have been holy, into a commerce, but also celebrate and encourage others to celebrate abomination.

That is observable just from abortion only.

///

Magus: "It's not the political liberals who are advocating a social ethic based on instant gratification. It isn't the NPR-listening, NewsHour-watching, New-England-and-Upper-Midwest crowd which is glorifying illicit behaviour - that I can attest to. We didn't make this problem, we inherited it. And we have a different way of fighting it - one which, given time, may work."

///

Interesting. You do know that it is the NPR-listening New Englander that has perverted truth. You "didn't make this problem," but you encourage others to stay on its course. I watch NPR. And I listen to Air America.



AlAyeti wrote:
There does seem to be a concerted effort to take down normality and morality. And its loudest champions are from people that are "indifferent" to Christians and religion. There clearly is an agenda.


Magus: "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse. Normality is not a virtue."

///

Morailty is a virtue. Liberals have thrown in the towel to leading people to a moral life. You now use "diversity" to excuse your lack of defending the Gospel of life. What used to be clearly normal in science books is now somehow not. I'm thinking about sexual intercourse for instance, or the developing human child. Once these things are destroyed by the Liberal insanity peddled as educated eliteness, every other problem in society pales in comparison. Letting poor women kill their children is not moral or normal in both the Bible and in biology. And letting sexual deviants gain a cultural status is insanity. But both are a civil right to a Liberal.

///

Magus: "As to morality, there are greater concerns - far greater - than same-sex marriage. Why don't we try focusing as a society on social justice first: securing good jobs, public education, a healthy environment, health care, building communities, defending civil liberties.

///

Once the family is finally put to death by same-sex marriage, promoted by the liberal agenda, Demons now run society. It will be hate speech for a normal child raised in a normal family to claim that a normal family is the normal way families should be. Like Paul said. We are struggling agaisnt powers and pricipalities. You Liberals side with the evil ones.

A healthy environment without moral constraints? Public education denying facts for "diversity?" Health care for children raised in unnatural "families?" Building communities where "anything goes?" Defending civil liberties of the intolerant anti-god crowd and outlawing the voice of the church?

You have a strange Chrsitianty Magus.

[McCulloch]

The observable world means nothing to a liberal mind. Especially in defining morality. Anatomy is simply ignored, as well as cause and effect.

These are strong sweeping generalizations. If taken at face value, one would expect to find liberal-minded physicians who know literally nothing of anatomy or other aspects of the observable world. I suspect very strongly that AlAyeti is indulging in hyperbole.

Evolution is the religion of the Atheist. Richard Dawkins is a good example.

If Atheism is a religion then baldness is a hair color and vacuum is a substance.

Darwin rejected Christianity for a reason. His followers haven't changed.

The reason is still valid, why should they change?

What used to be clearly normal in science books is now somehow not. I'm thinking about sexual intercourse for instance, or the developing human child.

AlAyeti continues to assert that his views are backed by science. This assertion has been challenged in the debate thread, Does Science show that Homosexual behaviour is immoral? AlAyeti has not answered this challenge.

Once these things are destroyed by the Liberal insanity peddled as educated eliteness, every other problem in society pales in comparison. [...] And letting sexual deviants gain a cultural status is insanity. Once the family is finally put to death by same-sex marriage, promoted by the liberal agenda, Demons now run society.

These statements seem to be more hyperbole. AlAyeti has yet to provide evidence that the recognition of same-sex marriage will have any detrimental effect on traditional heterosexual marriages. It has not effected mine.

[micatala]

AlAyeti wrote:
Darwin rejected Christianity for a reason. His followers haven't changed.

McCulloch:
The reason is still valid, why should they change?

Well, I am going to have to disagree with both of you here.

If by a 'follower of Darwin' we mean someone who accepts the fact of evolution, then many followers of Darwin have not rejected Christianity. They have seen no reason to.

In my view, atheism does not follow logically from evolution. To reject theism or even Christianity because evolution contradicts a particular interpretation of the CHristian scriptures is to jump very far to a conclusion that does not seem to me to be justified.

[McCulloch]

If by a 'follower of Darwin' we mean someone who accepts the fact of evolution, then many followers of Darwin have not rejected Christianity. They have seen no reason to.

In my view, atheism does not follow logically from evolution. To reject theism or even Christianity because evolution contradicts a particular interpretation of the Christian scriptures is to jump very far to a conclusion that does not seem to me to be justified.

Fair enough. I should have been more careful. Can we agree that "Followers of Darwin" have rejected a particular literalistic exclusive interpretation of Christian scriptures?

[AlAyeti]

McC,

AlAyeti continues to assert that his views are backed by science. This assertion has been challenged in the debate thread, Does Science show that Homosexual behaviour is immoral? AlAyeti has not answered this challenge.

///

If rectums violated by a penis, or women thrusting their rubber phalluses into each other, cannot convince an educated person or any other, of the immorality inherent in homosexuality, then using facts of anatomy, physiology and biology - all sciences - are like talking to swine in a pen to keep the area clean.

Should I post this in the above thread?

I think the stone walls of intellect will still see my perfect logic as bigotry.

[MagusYanam]

AlAyeti,

Regardless of what 'logic' or 'facts' you want to use, the atmosphere of this forum does demand a certain level of propriety and common decency. Your last post involved graphic descriptions of sex acts, which I may safely say are a flagrant violation of the second rule of this forum.

2. Nothing "R" rated is allowed (this includes profanity and anything of sexual nature).

Surely even in on an appropriate thread subject-wise, we may honestly discuss sexual behaviour and the morality thereof without resorting to this kind of obscenity.

If rectums violated by a penis, or women thrusting their rubber phalluses into each other, cannot convince an educated person or any other, of the immorality inherent in homosexuality, then using facts of anatomy, physiology and biology - all sciences - are like talking to swine in a pen to keep the area clean.

I am of the opinion that this requires a formal warning at the least. I implore you to keep this discussion decent and civil, and warn you that any further disregard for forum rules and decorum will result in disciplinary action.

[McCulloch]

AlAyeti continues to assert that his views are backed by science. This assertion has been challenged in the debate thread, Does Science show that Homosexual behaviour is immoral? AlAyeti has not answered this challenge.

If [graphic depctions of homosexual sex acts] cannot convince an educated person or any other, of the immorality inherent in homosexuality, then using facts of anatomy, physiology and biology - all sciences - are like talking to swine in a pen to keep the area clean.
Should I post this in the above thread?
I think the stone walls of intellect will still see my perfect logic as bigotry.

This is the kind of response that should have been expected from AlAyeti.
It would have been preferable if AlAyeti had used logic, reason and empirical evidence to refute the arguments made against him in the Religion and Science forum. AlAyeti seems to be convinced that unfavourable depictions of acts he considers immorral are enough to prove his point. Perhaps this is true in the playground of an eighth grade school.

[MagusYanam]

Okay, back in discussion mode...

You do know that it is the NPR-listening New Englander that has perverted truth. You "didn't make this problem," but you encourage others to stay on its course. I watch NPR. And I listen to Air America.

I don't know too much about Air America. But I do know this much: you obviously don't watch NPR. No one watches NPR, and with good reason: NPR just so happens to be A RADIO NETWORK!

It's demagoguery like this that I would find funny if it weren't so pernicious. Statements you make about 'the atheist' or 'the liberal' or 'the New Englander' are frighteningly reminiscent of statements the Nazis made about 'the Jew'. What do you know of New Englanders? (The Kennedies, like the Bushes, don't count.) My mother and her parents are from New England (our family have been there since 1809), and I would trust them with my life, not to mention to speak the truth as they see it.

Once the family is finally put to death by same-sex marriage, promoted by the liberal agenda, Demons now run society. It will be hate speech for a normal child raised in a normal family to claim that a normal family is the normal way families should be. Like Paul said. We are struggling agaisnt powers and pricipalities. You Liberals side with the evil ones.

A healthy environment without moral constraints? Public education denying facts for "diversity?" Health care for children raised in unnatural "families?" Building communities where "anything goes?" Defending civil liberties of the intolerant anti-god crowd and outlawing the voice of the church?

You have a strange Chrsitianty Magus.

My family hasn't been 'put to death', or affected in any other way, by same-sex marriage. I see no indication that it ever will be. And we're about as 'normal' as you can get - a professor, his wife and two teenage kids in an urban middle-class environment. On the other hand, the environment, health-care, public education, the well-being of the community and civil liberties all do affect us. That's the morality I fight for.

A healthy environment is a moral end in itself and needs no qualifier - God placed humanity by virtue of our sapience in a position of stewardship over his creation; how we use it is an important moral issue.

Public education is a moral end in itself and needs no qualifier if we place any value on children's futures. We know how highly God values a child.

Community is a moral end in itself and needs no qualifier. 'Where two or three gather in God's name'... the early Church valued community highly and I see no reason why this moral end should be tossed aside so lightly to make way for sexual issues.

Caring for one's neighbour is the ultimate moral end. Jesus said so himself - the greatest of all commandments are to love one's neighbour and to love God. Societally, this encompasses education, health care, welfare, and defence of civil liberties.

My Christianity is the Christianity of Washington Gladden, Frederick Denison Maurice, Walter Rauschenbusch, Henry Fosdick, Edgar Brightman and Martin Luther King, Jr. All of them cared deeply about these issues in their own rights as moral ends in themselves as we should today. Call it 'strange' if you like, it's still Christianity as it was meant to be.

[micatala]

micatala wrote:
If by a 'follower of Darwin' we mean someone who accepts the fact of evolution, then many followers of Darwin have not rejected Christianity. They have seen no reason to.

In my view, atheism does not follow logically from evolution. To reject theism or even Christianity because evolution contradicts a particular interpretation of the Christian scriptures is to jump very far to a conclusion that does not seem to me to be justified.

Fair enough. I should have been more careful. Can we agree that "Followers of Darwin" have rejected a particular literalistic exclusive interpretation of Christian scriptures?

Yes.

AlAyeti wrote:
You do know that it is the NPR-listening New Englander that has perverted truth. You "didn't make this problem," but you encourage others to stay on its course. I watch NPR. And I listen to Air America.

What about NPR-listening Christian moderates from Red States in the midwest like me?

AlAyeti wrote:
Once the family is finally put to death by same-sex marriage, promoted by the liberal agenda, Demons now run society. It will be hate speech for a normal child raised in a normal family to claim that a normal family is the normal way families should be. Like Paul said. We are struggling agaisnt powers and pricipalities. You Liberals side with the evil ones.

A healthy environment without moral constraints? Public education denying facts for "diversity?" Health care for children raised in unnatural "families?" Building communities where "anything goes?" Defending civil liberties of the intolerant anti-god crowd and outlawing the voice of the church?

You have a strange Chrsitianty Magus.

This quote is so full of erroneous assumptions I don't know where to start.

I am for defending everyone's civil liberties, even wacko right-wing haters of homosexuals, liberals and democrats.

I am not for outlawing the voice of the church. The problem is, Al, you think the 'church' consists only of people who think like you.

In addition, you have shown NO EVIDENCE that I have seen in any of the many threads you have posted on that Christianity or religious expression has been outlawed in the U.S.

NONE. NADA. ZIP. ZILCH. NICHTS.

If I have missed something, please point it out to me, even in just this thread.

You have repeatedly claimed to be an 'empiricist.' So, it should not be hard for you to go back through the thread and find some actual evidence I may have missed, and quote it, so that we can all see what it is. Your unsubstantiated assertions do not count. Examples where private citizens oppose views held by some Christians don't count. Examples of laws against behavior that may be motivated by Christian beliefs do not count, unless the laws apply exclusively to Christians.

Actual examples supporting the actual claims you made that Christianity is being outlawed. I would even settle for an actual proposed law that was even just considered in the deliberations of any legislative body or municipal governing body.

No digressions into rants about homosexuality, or Demons, or what is normal and what is not, or false accusations about liberals or Democrats being anti-God, or what happens or happened in the past in Russia or Rome or ancient Israel or Timbuktu.