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]

Jose,

Bazillions of contradictions in evolution do not bode well for it as a science.

It is hysteria-driven by its proponents and adherents.

Late's look at your relativism: "If you base opinions about people on their external genital morphology, and not on the fundamental makeup of their brains, you are engaging in relativism. In fact, the very purpose of religion is to provide people with advice about which things are better relative to other things (and usually, it seems, which people are better relative to other people). That's relativism."

Science is observation and answer. External genital morphology is the basis of a rational decision as to what they are designed for. Going against there design becomes a belief system not grounded or founded on facts.

Brains and minds are where society finds the law protecting it against individuals that use their minds and brains wrong.

There is observations not based on belief systems but on facts. Like genitalia.

Sperm and ovum are not fuly human. Fertilied ovum are. If the science of DNA is to be believed as factual. Which of course it seems to be. Your finger is yours and yours alone. Always will be and always was. FROM conception, all of the DNA that proves your fingers are yours was present.

What I object to is what is being explained to children that is for sure. Teach sexuality correctly and include deviant behavior in the part that opposoes normality and you are doing the right thing scientifically. Teach aberrant behaivior as a choice and ulterior motives exist.

Again that is fact.

Bazillions of facts about evolution? I love that. Now dinosuars, those great huge lizards. . . are now birds. So much for all of those history books and all of those facts.

When do schools get the revised versions of facts?

[Jose]

Bazillions of contradictions in evolution do not bode well for it as a science.

It is hysteria-driven by its proponents and adherents.

This is an amusing assertion. Do you have evidence to back it up? In reality, you won't find contradictions or hysteria. Still, I'd be interested to hear what your reasoning is here.

External genital morphology is the basis of a rational decision as to what they are designed for. Going against there design becomes a belief system not grounded or founded on facts.

Brains and minds are where society finds the law protecting it against individuals that use their minds and brains wrong.

Does this mean that you think people should use their genitals instead of their brains? No? I didn't think so. Where I come from, the brain is a more rational organ than the plumbing, and that it's really important to use the brain for making decisions. Going against the design of the brain is not a good idea. Of course, humans are clever enough that they can rationalize any wacko behavior, especially if there are others doing it, and really-especially if doing it makes you a member of a special group. Hmmm...suppose your church said you had to do _______ to be correct (where ______ is whatever horrible licentious sinful immoral act you particularly abhor). It might work just fine for the plumbing, but your brain might recoil at the thought. This would be much the same as your current insistence that gays do what you say, and not what god designed them for.

Defining someone else's "design," without considering them as you do so, is pretty dictatorial.

Uhhh...and how do you interpret the thousands of babies born each year with indeterminate genitals? How do you define them? Surgeons usually "adjust" them so they look female, because it's easier. We know why this happens at the biological and chemical level. Since it happens in utero, it must mean that god is directing it. Are you going to go against god and make up your own mind about who these kids should be? And what if you do it wrong, and surgically "correct" a male baby to be "female" and try to raise "her" as a girl? There are too many documented cases of this type of trick not working for us to accept the dogmatic stance of the fundamentalists, that gender is "learned," and that the plumbing is all that matters.

There is observations not based on belief systems but on facts. Like genitalia.

uh, right. Those hermaphrodites are facts, but you've got to determine how to ensure that they live normal, productive lives. God tricked you so that you can't go by the genitals. What do you do? Go by their toes? The only thing that makes sense is their brain. They know who they are...it might be helpful to listen to them.

It's a funny thing. So many people really, really insist that sexual orientation is learned from parents and society at large. It turns out not to be. But that's just scientific facts, and if they contradict our religous training, we conclude that the facts are wrong.

Sperm and ovum are not fuly human.

They aren't? What are they? Chimpanzee? Daffodil? I'd say they're 100% human. They're also alive, and derived from living cells, which were derived from living cells, as far back as there have been living cells. You'd previously said only that "science knows when life starts"...it's a different question to ask when any particular genome is reprogrammed to turn on the genes that produce an embryo.

And then there's the issue of the soul...now there's a tricky one. Is it put in at fertilization? Or is it put in later? Is the soul relevant any more? Be careful here...you have to accomodate twins. Do they share the same soul? Does each have only half of a soul, or does it jump back and forth between them? If they each have an entire soul, then what do we call a lump of cells that doesn't have a soul?

What I object to is what is being explained to children that is for sure. Teach sexuality correctly and include deviant behavior in the part that opposoes normality and you are doing the right thing scientifically. Teach aberrant behaivior as a choice and ulterior motives exist

Hmmm. You've said over and over that someone, somewhere, is teaching people to follow aberrant behavior. I think you'll need to explain to us what you mean. What are the examples? Where's the data? I know of no one who is teaching kids to do weird things. What are these mysterious ulterior motives, and what is the evidence that they exist?

Bazillions of facts about evolution? I love that. Now dinosuars, those great huge lizards. . . are now birds. So much for all of those history books and all of those facts.

When do schools get the revised versions of facts?

This is a problem, all right. Science teaching has pretty much become the listing of the conclusions, or inferences, that are drawn from the facts. I recently looked through a bunch of textbooks, and for most of the topics, they didn't give any data--just the conclusions. There are reasons for this, of course. Partly, it's just historical. That's how it's always been done; it just doesn't work so well now that the sputnik episode is over, and people like to pretend that science is "bad." Another reason is that there has been an attempt over the last few decades to make science more understandable to students, so they've taken out the hard parts (like actually thinking about how we know the things we know). The result turns out to be that the books have the conclusions drawn from the facts (like "evolution happens") but not the facts upon which those conclusions are based. It's quite unfortunate.

The result is that people tend to think that science is just a bunch of facts to memorize, when in reality, it's a bunch of inferences drawn from data. People think the inferences are supposed to be facts, and they rarely see the actual data, which is the real facts.

Schools have access to all of the facts, and to all of the interpretations. But, it's hard to keep up, because new things are discovered all the time. It would be best if we could teach science as the "current best explanations" of the data, and present some of the data--so that everyone will see more clearly that the explanations are likely to change when and if we find more data that help us re-think things. People think it's static, and it's not. Unfortunately, this allows them to imagine that "scientists lied to them" if something ever changes. Of course our interpretations are going to change! We don't start out knowing the answer, so we have to try to figure it out. This is where creationism differs from science: it claims it knows the answer at the outset, and only looks for little bits of data that seem to support that pre-defined answer.

There's also the problem of textbook publishing. It's a big business, but the publishers tend to use old texts as the models for new texts. No single author can possibly know all of science, so there's a fair amount of reiterating what has been in the books before. Consequently, it takes a while for the new information to get into the textbooks.

If we add to this the fact that the Big Markets for textbooks don't like evolution and insist on assessing "knowledge" with multiple choice tests (ie, Texas), and we end up with rather little of the real data in any of the textbooks. All of those bazillion facts that support evolution tend not to be described in any detail; it's usually just the conclusions that make it into the texts.

So, it's understandable that you would think it goofy when we note that there are bazillions of facts supporting evolution. We've discussed many of them in these threads, so feel free to read about them. As for your dinosaurs/birds comment, I'm not quite sure what you meant by it. The animals we call dinosaurs were quite diverse, with many species being quite small, and others being quite large. The popular vision is just of the large ones, but there were many, many others. So, you don't need to try to imagine a T. rex going "pop" and becoming a sparrow. T. rex's lineage died out after the Chixulub disaster, but some of the little guys managed to squeak through. So did those little shrew-like ancestors of you and me! (Now there's a relief...otherwise, we might both be prairie dogs.

[AlAyeti]

Jose,

I think you proved my hysteria theory.

On evolutionary meag theories? Now dinosaurs are birds in stead of lizards? How many of the pre-ape to ape-like to human examples in the little cartoon were lies made up by desperate "scientists." Nebraska "man" was a pig tooth.

You also proved that people are born with birth defects. Some we should pity and some we need to help get through life correctly. And some we should fear to be around our children.

Chromosomes, not hysteria, decide the sexual orientation issue.

I side with observable data and keep emotionalism where it belongs.

[Dilettante]

Now dinosaurs are birds in stead of lizards? How many of the pre-ape to ape-like to human examples in the little cartoon were lies made up by desperate "scientists." Nebraska "man" was a pig tooth.

You also proved that people are born with birth defects. Some we should pity and some we need to help get through life correctly. And some we should fear to be around our children.

Chromosomes, not hysteria, decide the sexual orientation issue.

I side with observable data and keep emotionalism where it belongs.

Ironically, you seem to expect scientists to never make mistakes or be fooled by fraudsters. That hoaxes exist in science does not prove that science is not reliable. It just proves that scientists are humans, not gods. Does pious fraud disprove religion?

Dinosaurs are now considered to be related to birds. So? If nothing else, this proves the self-correcting character of science, which is definitely a strength rather than a weakness. Wise people change their theories according to new evidence.

What would "getting through life correctly" be, in your opinion, for a hermaphrodite?

I'm sure you're aware that siding with observable data is not the same as taking things at face value. What exactly is your method?

[Jose]

Jose,

I think you proved my hysteria theory.

I think you'll have to explain too us what you mean here. What data do you use to draw your conclusion? Or is your conclusion pre-defined, and is therefore true regardless of the facts?

On evolutionary meag theories? Now dinosaurs are birds in stead of lizards? How many of the pre-ape to ape-like to human examples in the little cartoon were lies made up by desperate "scientists." Nebraska "man" was a pig tooth.

Why do you think dinosaurs are birds? Birds are birds, dinosaurs are dinosaurs. This seems clear enough to me. Why should the fact that birds descended from one lineage of dinosaurs imply that all of the dinosaurs were also birds? From this logic, you'd seem forced to conclude that since humans are descended from primate ancestors, and those from shrew-like ancestors, and those from eryops-like ancestors, and those from coelacanth-like ancestors, that coelacanths were human. Or would you rather conclude that humans are coelacanths? It's really not that hard to let ancestors be ancestors without changing their names, so let's allow dinosaurs to remain dinosaurs, and birds to be birds.

But, for that little cartoon you mention--it's an odd thing, but that cartoon seems to reinforce many people's misconception that evolution is supposed to occur by individual animals going *pop* and turning into something else. It gives rise to the Dilbert cartoon in which the dinosaur is sitting at his typewriter, and having made a mistake, says "I hope I can correct that before all my friends evolve into birds." It doesn't work that way. Every living thing merely lives its life, has offspring (or not), and dies. You don't need to worry about going *pop* and becoming a monkey, because it can't happen. As you well know, each creature reproduces according to its kind. It's just that mutations cause kinds to change over time.

You also proved that people are born with birth defects.

No, I didn't prove it at all. I simply described some of the things that can happen. In some cases, they probably do count as birth defects. In other cases, they are a result of mutation, which is not exactly the same thing.

Some we should pity and some we need to help get through life correctly. And some we should fear to be around our children.

Chromosomes, not hysteria, decide the sexual orientation issue.

I have a sense that the hysteria is among those who cry "licentious hedonism" whenever they are faced with something that doesn't fit their particular view of what should be "correct." As for sexual orientation and chromosomes, it's far more complex. Most of the Y chromosome is irrelevant to sex, and much of the X is devoted to intelligence. On the Y, it is only the SRY gene that affects sexual development. It does so by causing the gonads to develop as testes. The testes then produce testosterone, which masculinizes the rest of the embryo. There are many reports of XX people who have a translocation of the SRY gene onto an autosome, and who develop as males. But, they are infertile, because XX germ cells cannot differentiate into sperm. Similarly, there are many reports of XY people who carry a mutation in their SRY gene, and develop into infertile females.

The brain develops over different timing than the genitalia, but it, too, has male and female versions. Some of the difference seems to depend on the chromosome constitution (though we don't know yet whether it's the SRY gene again). Some depends on the hormonal status of the embryo. A lot of those industrial chemicals that our wonderful president is ensuring will be spread far and wide into the environment interfere with the hormone signalling system. Sometimes, we're able to see the results of this interference in ambiguous genitalia. Sometimes, we can't see it, because it affects only the brain--where it shows up as female-like behavior in so-called males and male-like behavior in so-called females. this behavior is "observable data"--but your response is "emotionalism" in which you declare that such behavior is sin.

I side with observable data and keep emotionalism where it belongs.

I imagine everyone feels this way about themselves.

[AlAyeti]

How interesting that Christians are not allowed to make mistakes or else their entire belief system goes out the window. Lying scientists are "to be expected?"

Evolutoin is every bit a religion as anything else people have believed in.

Hermaphrodites have the decision to make in regards to sexual acts.

Fully (completely) formed males and females do not.

Aberration is aberration. A hermaphrodite is born with a birth defect. People whouse their sex organs wrong have no excuse for the aberrant behavior.

Our society is deciding to accept insanity and the insane because the insane have become the law makers and the PhD's. You would expect that if true evil exists. Which it does.

Good is intolerance and evil is a civil right. Our society in the U.S. and countries elsewhere that embrace licentious hedonism will suffer like those in the past. Empiricism is easily the guide in any major city when the sun goes down. Now of course even in the light of the elementary class. Far from hysteria unless the screaming victim of the licentious is to be the proof.

[AlAyeti]

Back on track . . .

Christian Pastors should indeed protect their flock.

If the New Testament is to be the guide that the Baptist Minister used then, he did the right thing.

It is far past the time when the logs in the eyes of the church be removed. Now human beings are sold as commodities to heal the swicnesses of the rich and famous. If Sodom and Gomorrah was more about mistreating the defenseless, then we are due for the visit of two Angels as soon as Bush leaves office.

I hope the Pastor of that church realizes that the Neo-Con views held by many "Bush voters" are as heinous as the licentiousness and cruelty spawned by the kinds of Neo-Liberal people that supported Kerry and his crew, that the Pastor kicked out of his church.

[McCulloch]

Back on track . . .

Christian Pastors should indeed protect their flock.

If the New Testament is to be the guide that the Baptist Minister used then, he did the right thing.

It is far past the time when the logs in the eyes of the church be removed. Now human beings are sold as commodities to heal the swicnesses of the rich and famous. If Sodom and Gomorrah was more about mistreating the defenseless, then we are due for the visit of two Angels as soon as Bush leaves office.

I hope the Pastor of that church realizes that the Neo-Con views held by many "Bush voters" are as heinous as the licentiousness and cruelty spawned by the kinds of Neo-Liberal people that supported Kerry and his crew, that the Pastor kicked out of his church.

I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with AlAyeti. Every church and religious group should consistently apply its belief system to its membership. Those people who find themselves at odds with the belief system of any particular church or religious group should not be there. Churches should not encourage hypocrisy. A careful reading of the teachings attributed to Jesus would lead one to belive that hypocrisy is one of the sins he has most strongly condemned. Churches that accept members and financial support from those who are there for 'social' reasons and do not accept the dogma of that church should be very ashamed.

[AlAyeti]

Wow.

[ST88]

Good is intolerance and evil is a civil right. Our society in the U.S. and countries elsewhere that embrace licentious hedonism will suffer like those in the past.

I'm very curious as to what you mean by this. Do you feel that the just will be punished with the unjust because we all live under the same set of licentious laws? What is the "suffering" that you are speaking of?