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.

[jerickson314]

I could say the same about your posts. Are you done with the ad hominems now?

Ad hominem attacks attack the presenter of the argument, not the argument itself. I referenced only your arguments.

Funny. My Bible reads different as you can see above, with the focus about "harm" clearly being about the woman regardless of whether she miscarries or not. The reference clearly is to the woman.

What translation are you using? I was using the World English Bible. Looking at the Strong's information from the KJV, it looks like either interpretation could be true.

Just like the Bible speaks against heterosexual behavior. Paul, in particular, was big on that. So that proves nothing.

NO! Paul does NOT speak against all heterosexual behavior. Paul simply said that celibacy would be preferable, but that heterosexual marriage would NOT be sinful. He also says that ALL homosexual behavior is wrong.

INFERENCE??? Yes, there we go again, trying to make claims about what God WOULD have said.

Inference is NOT the same thing as speculation. Inference is simple logic.

And you feel that personal, political INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible are appropriate for public policy (Which, by the way, are not allowed to endorse a specific religious view)?

I would say that the correct interpretation is not "political" but that it IS true for all people in all places, even though the U.S. government isn't allowed to enforce it.

Most if not all of the "interpretations" I have been showing you are clearly correct from actual study. Not just personal and arbitrary.

'

I already showed where that claim is tenuous, and clearly needing an anti-choice Bible rather than a neutral, Christian Bible.

Anti-choice? Please don't use labels like that. I don't say "anti-life".

And the Bible is "neutral"? NOT REALLY. It speaks against many moral wrongs.

Abortion is not murder, so you are not making sense here.

I would define "murder" as "intentionally killing a member of species homo sapien." Abortion is murder.

But the definition that really matters is the one used in the Bible. From Exodus 20:13:

7523 ratsach raw-tsakh'

a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a
human being), especially to murder:--put to death, kill,
(man-)slay(-er), murder(-er).

Abortion does look like murder, even under this definition.

If you have to stretch interpretations that far,

Not far at all!

how should we then interpret the Exodus rules about how to treat slaves, and how much you can beat them, f.ex.?

Irrelevant, since I don't have any slaves. Please find me a passage that mentions "beating", as I don't recall any.

Or are you saying that only PART of the Bible is valid, and you get to decide which part?

Well, part of it (like OT ceremonial laws) no longer apply to us. Sound study and exegesis must decide, not my personal opinion.

According to the Bible, possibly.

Ever heard of "loving your neighbor"?

How do you know? How do you know that God doesn't consider computers the worst tool of the Devil yet?

Sound study and exegesis.

Because you CHOOSE to interpret the Bible that way even if the Bible doesn't talk about using computers, right?

I choose based on evidence. Not based on what I want.

Ah. like your appeal to your unique subjective interpretation of your wishful thinking as "facts"?

Prove at least one part of this. You have failed thus far.

When your "simple reasoning" involves incredible inference and assumptions based on your political/moral filter of schemas, then it is not so "simple" anymore regardless of your claim.

If it ever does. Can you give me at least one example that you can prove?

And there is no evidence that God sees abortion or homosexual marriage as particularly a sin.

There is plenty of evidence. See any thread on those topics.

But we DO know that God sees humans trying to "enforce" what they see as God's moral code as being sinful.

No, we don't. Addressed in a bit.

"don't judge least..." "See first the splinter..." Let the one without sin throw the first rock" Etc. That one is pervasive throughout the Bible.

This is a reference to asserting one's superiority due to an alleged lack of sin. Not to Bible-based reference to sin as sin.

So when you seek to restrict others civil rights through your politicized INTERPRETATION of the Bible, then you are most certainly committing a sin.

How do I want to restrict civil rights?

And my interpretation is from study, not politics.

And there is no support for the "most certainly commiting a sin", if I am simply opposing sinful acts rather than individuals.

Are you interested in getting help overcoming that sin?

If I ever become judgmental and hypocritical, yes.

Ah, because you say so, right?

No. Again, sound study and exegesis. I can prove it in another thread if you start one.

MHT 19:
24 - Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

It is very specific. If you are rich, you will NOT enter heaven.

When the disciples heard it, they were exceedingly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
Looking at them, Jesus said, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Only when taken out of context does it say that. BTW, "needle" was a reference to a specific gate that posed a challenge but not an impossibility for camels to get through. This conclusion comes from scholarship, not me.

Socialism at its best. Income redistribution is a MUST according to the literal Bible.

No, not really.

You may have CHOSEN TO INTERPRET this differently as your personal politics don't agree with the bible at this point, but that's your problem.

I choose my interpretations based on evidence. Not politics.

And it certainly shows al-ayeti's claim of God being a repugnican/conservative to be outright false.

It shows no such thing, even if AlAyeti's claim is false.

Glad you agree. Perhaps you can then persuade the person whose "side" you are taking in these arguments.

I am trying to take the side of truth and sound reason. There are points where I agree and points where I disagree with both of you.

He seems convinced that God specifically is a republican politician and that democrats are ungodly atheists.

This generalization would certainly be false.

I did. God wants the best for children.

Certainly.

The best is for as much education and support in reaching your goals as is at all possible.

Some goals are good, others are not. We should not help people reach sinful goals.

It is not to lie to kids or withhold information from them. Case closed.

It is simply that childhood is too early to study these things. Just like we shouldn't teach them calculus, since it would just confuse them. And teaching them this kind of information too early could send them into sinful lifestyles, in addition.

And BTW, feel free to drop those silly ad hominems. Or we could descend into "but you are ugly and your mom is dressing you funny" kind of accusations. I look forward to posts from you that do not contain such ad hominems.

I admit, I have used some ad hominem arguments (especially about your math skills). I apologize. Nonetheless, I don't see them here, besides implying that you haven't used your brain.

"Appeal to ignorance" is the name of a widely recognized logical fallacy - making a claim based on an alleged lack of evidence. Saying that you are making an "appeal to ignorance" is simply NOT making an ad hominem argument.

Yes, he really was. Because al-ayeti decided to claim that only republicans are Christians. That is very much a politicalization of God, making claims without evidence that God is a conservative anti-tax loon.

If he actually made this claim, it could have been politically motivated. However, it could also be a straw man.

I am glad you disagree with al-ayeti, then. But then I am puzzled why you up above defend that very sentiment you now disagree with?

What did I defend? Probably only parts that I agreed with.

Yes, I know that. But the political implications are much closer to socialism than to the anti-social fascism that al ayeti is claiming.

I don't know if AlAyeti is actually claiming this or not.

Nonetheless, socialism has historically led to evil dictators and related problems. Democratic capitalism seems less prone to these problems. This is why I think democratic capitalism is better. The Bible doesn't really specify one or the other; it only mentions personal decisions about how to handle money.

However, if you are as literal in single bible verses as al-ayeti is, then Pi indeed is 3.0

Not necessarily. You can be quite literal without getting pi=3.

The two of us have already agreed that the text of the Bible is to be looked at somewhat in context. The person you are defending has not. To him, every single Bible verse is a literal truism in itself. I would suggest that you check out some of his writings before choosing to go down that road any further.

I'll have to look more and see if he's actually like that.

[steen]

Steen,

Your mathematics testifies against the Bible

No, your "because I say so" claim is false.

if you want to claim the Bible has nothing to say about homosexuality.

I don't.

Allowing sinners to be comfortable in their sins is anti-Biblical.

Yet you try to claim being confortable in self-righteousness and judgementalism.

It is anti-Jesus.

No, your "because I say so" claim is false.

It is claimed in the New Testament to be derived from the spirit of anti-Christ.

No, your "because I say so" claim is false.

Man plus woman. An absolutist view painted very brightly in the Bible.

Except where it is not. Your "because I say so" claim is false.

Science agrees with that math 100%.

And neither agrees with you.

Homosexuality is categorically opposed by the compilers of the Bible.

Like paul opposes heterosexual sex!

As is keeping a drug addict in clean needles.

No, your "because I say so" claim is false.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Joseph, were exceedingly rich men. All "blessed" by God.

Yes. Irrelevant to the discussion

Bernee's position can be understood as it can be easily seen as coming from a place of hatred and intolerance for Christians and Christianity.

I have seen no such thing. Bernee has not been intolerant to me or expressed hatred at me. As such, Bernee's point is not against Christianity, but rather against your position. I find it disturbing that you can't see the difference.

It is acceptable to me to understand his view since it is shared by evolutionists and atheists in totality.

I fail to see what the two have in common, your attempt at lumping none withstanding. Certainly that doesn't fit reality.

Your position stands against the clear written words of the Bible.

No, your "because I say so" claim is false.

Claiming to be a follower yet denying what you claim to follow?

No, your "because I say so" claim is false.

Benedict Arnold then is one of the finest Americans to have ever lived.

Could you please leave the ad hominems and hate mongering behind? Or are you here to antagonize and insult rather than discuss?

Your position is not in agreement with the Bible.

Your "because I say so" claim is false.

The Pastor and his actions clearly are.

No, your "because I say so" claim is false.

[AlAyeti]

Steen,

Please show where in the Bible the Pastor was wrong for challenging the people who voted for Kerry?

He was not wrong.

Yes, I say so.

And, also, maybe start another thread to examine Paul being "against heterosexual sex" between married couples.

[steen]

Steen,

Please show where in the Bible the Pastor was wrong for challenging the people who voted for Kerry?

Where Jesus points out that his kingdom is not of this world and to give to caecar.. This shows that worldly politics is outside of God's concern, yet you claim it is not. You directly contradict God, yet claim to speak for God. Again, that is what the Pharisee did.

[AlAyeti]

Steen,

Jesus was executed by "secular" authorities.

Want to try again?

Also look up the history behind the political appointees of King Herod that assumed the roles of the Pharisees. I am not Jewish. I therefore cannot or could not be a "Cohen" of Israel.

I challenge religious dogma. "It is written" is usually my formula. Sound familiar?

Especially liberal dogma. Abortion? Sexual deviance? Clean needles to keep people addicts. Taxing the honest to pay for licentiousness?

Please, come let us reason together.

I would like to see where the Bible tells its adherants that it is OK to support these things.

Simple.

[ENIGMA]

Steen,

Jesus was executed by "secular" authorities.

Want to try again?

Did Jesus object to being executed by the secular authorities? I mean, it would probably be more than a tad embarrasing if Jesus, the supposed Savior who was to be sacrificed to pay for our sins... yadda yadda, happened to die of old age without someone properly executing him now wouldn't it?

[AlAyeti]

Enigma,

What perspective could you possible have of Jesus that could shed even the slightest light on the issue between Steen and I? I'm thinking you are just "trying" to insult me.

You have the perspective of chaos to organization yada, yada, or, actually something coming from nothing, yada, yada. I believe you believe that you are a smart ape, so why interject about the Biblical justification of what the Pastor did to kick out Democrats from his church? Just go on your way evolving. How could anything in the Bible interest you in the slightest? So how in all fairness can an Atheist ever insult a Christian?

And seeing that you somehow know something of the Gospel account, it would have been more impressive to hear about the strange actions of Jesus, though being "God," was somehow praying "to God" to give Him another option than the Cross, (when He was clearly objecting to the horror He would have to endure). Boy, that is a stumper.

Jesus was executed by secular authorities. He was treated the same way then by people who said eerily similar things that are said now, yada, yada. Matter of fact I think "Yada, yada," would be a fair interpretation of what those mocking Him were saying to Him as He was dying on the Cross. "He saved others, yada, yada, so let Him save Himself. . .yada, yada.

Jesus very much objected to being insulted, beaten and killed by secular and religious authorities. I believed He called to them "dogs" in reference to non-Israelites and He most assuredly thought even less of the religious hypocrites that sold Him out.

Like the Bible says, "There is nothing new under the sun." Including I'll bet, the insulting yet unwitty invective "Yada, yada."

I believe that the Pastor and I see Democrats in both derogatory camps. And still, Steen's bizaare comebacks do not show where the pastor did anything wrong.

[bernee51]

Jesus was executed by secular authorities.

Then

Jesus very much objected to being insulted, beaten and killed ... religious authorities.

If he existed...which one was it.

I believe that the Pastor and I see Democrats in both derogatory camps. And still, Steen's bizaare comebacks do not show where the pastor did anything wrong.

You will never get it because you, like the pastor, are mixing politics with your religion. He is willfully excluding people who may be seeking spiritual guidance (not polical guidance). Souls could be saved and he is rejecting them based on his politics.

Not very christian.

Probably not a 'true christian' (TM)

Seeing you back him to the hilt - where does that leave you?

[AlAyeti]

Bernee, you will nevere get it that you can have no opinion of what Christianity "Is." You deny the very existence of Jesus. Jesus, actually is Joshua or, Yeshua. A very common Israeli name.

If you knew the story, you would know that Jesus said to the religious authorities "For which good works do you want to stone me?" He objected to religious authorities executing Him.

He was killed by Romans by Roman law.

I find your use of nit picking out of place. And, actually an opinion on someone who never existed is unnecesary. The Pastor, to that kind of view was absurd for even being a believer in a fictional character. So why care? You are a talented and bright-minded debater and could have used a better attack.

Couldn't you have used a pat answer so common to an Atheist? "If Jesus was God couldn't He have just 'poofed' it all better?" That's a stumper for sure.

The Pastor acted very well indeed. Now, what you seem also unable to "get" is, if the Democrat-voting offenders were to "repent" they would have their seats within the congragation still. That is Christian.

But also please note, that the people were unharmed and I'll bet have found comfortable seats at another church.

No beheadings, no stonings.

Ah true diversity. Gotta love it.

[AlAyeti]

There can be know seperation of politics and personal views. They are one and the same!

Personal views come from ones religion and individual experiences or lack of and denial of religion and experiences within that non-godian realm.

Seperation of Church and State means that no law, no government agency can tell a religious person what they can say.

That is why anti-Christians are trying to define Church and State the way they are. And almost always do we find the anti-Christian voice in the mouth of a Democrat.

The Pastor knew what he was doing.