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.

[McCulloch]

The Gospels mention real people and real places in real time.
I believe that what I read in the Gospels is accurately presented.
So do many non-Christians. History books -not in a church - can be used to prove the places and names.

A man named Brown wrote a book of fiction. In it he mentions real people and real places in real time. It is still a book of fiction.
We all know that you believe what you read in the Gospels is accurately presented. Even some non-Christians believe parts of it. I cannot see how you could believe all of it and remain non-Christian. Many of the people and places in the Christian New Testament are historically plausible. If this were not true, then there would not be any room for debate. You were, however, asked to provide objective evidence in support of your claim that "the Gospels are accurate historically". I have not seen any objective evidence in your posts.

It is fair and a persons free will to deny Jesus as the Messiah of Israel or as God Incarnate. It just puts the person holding that opinion in the position of being wrong.

This is yet another assertion without supporting evidence.

[AlAyeti]

You "assert" that I am wrong.

Brown's book I assume, should be the subject of worldwide debate and the subject of millions and millions of books and websites.

I'll bet it is not.

Unless id denigrates or attacks Christianity. Oh yeah "that" Brown!

I owe you a dollar.

I've always wondered why these brave reconstructionists don't go after the delusions of Mohammad. But then again, there is no Fatwa to kill detractors of Jesus coming from Christian leaders about denigrating Christ.

Christianity gets it most hatred for asserting that it is fact. That Jesus is fact.

My position as a Christian, is that those that attack and denigrate Christians and Christianity, are ignorant, lacking in reasoning powers or have dark ulterior motives (evil), and/or are simply wrong.

Christianity has many fine apologists that have brought the modern world an accurate view of reality. Even using science to prove it. I am not a pastor or evangelist. I haven't the slightest desire to "pine away" hoping everyone will follow the Truth (though I pray for the gift). I live in the real world. There is dust on my shoes that needs to be swatted away and forgotten.

My pearls have seen the bottom of pigs feet. I live in the real world. And I speak up about it.

I endeavor to challenge, no, no "oppose" anti-Christians as a member of none of the above. I have every right to believe that the Gospels and the "story of the Bible" is being played out right now in prime time. And my opinion is that those that cannot see evidence are blind in mind.

Men are demanding to "marry" each other. Women can be whores and kill their children and attain "Diva Status."

The United Nations for example . . . have member countries that murder untold numbers of innocent human beings and are treated with "respect" and their voices not denounced. In fact have a "vote" in world matters.

In modern American society, men can impregnate their "baby's momma," go off to another woman and do it again, and be considered our biggest "stars."

The world is heading to the conclusion painted accurately in the Bible.

The Bible is not found in the fiction section of the library next to Brown's book. Well, maybe in Berkely San Francisco and Boston, but they have reasons to want to devalue the Bible.

The objectivity of the Bible and especially Jesus, is that it really happened. No where at anytime would relegating the story to fiction has ever been presented by the Church.

Like I said, deny it, that is your right.

But I presented reasons why I believe that Jesus and the standard belief about the ways to "be" a Christian is not irrational.

You presented a fiction writer that used historical reference to help his fictional story be enjoyable to read.

I presented history with reference to real people and real happenings. And the UN-enjoyable nature of the read is all to telling of reality.

Making the logic of the New Testament (which cannot exist without the Old), seen again and again in the real world, a matter of much more than just "faith."

You can believe what you want. I want Christians to feel assured that their beliefs are founded on reality.

This is what is done in a debate.

Jesus ddn't try to convert Pilate or Herod or the members of the Sanhedrin.

He presented His position as fact.

It is amazing to me that at the level of education and sophistication reached by the educated elites, the most they have arrived at to disprove Jesus is evolution, something originating from nothing." Heretics and cults hold the same amazement to me, spinning a Jesus of absurdity. Liberals are no more "Progressive" than Sodomites.

I'm sorry. I see no fiction emenating from the Bible. I can no longer have that opinion, because, I read the newspaper.

[AlAyeti]

Now on this:

AlAyeti wrote:
It is fair and a persons free will to deny Jesus as the Messiah of Israel or as God Incarnate. It just puts the person holding that opinion in the position of being wrong."


McC: "This is yet another assertion without supporting evidence."

///

I expect that the Gospels are not supporting evidence? This "assertion" is made first by Jesus. The "object" of debatingchristianity.com. And the major subject/object of the last nineteen -or so -hundred years and millions and millions of books and now, in modern time, millions and millions and millions of cyber info.

There is nothing I can present to counter your position if it is going to be like that of a kindergartener.

This is the same as when I present the anatomy, physiology and biology of the human body.

Plain observations cannot be seen by those that do not have eyes to see nor ears to hear. A phrase first mentioned by Jesus as well.

I'm assuming that even this presentation of observable facts is just an "assertion" of mine.

Please.

[McCulloch]

I expect that the Gospels are not supporting evidence?

Um.. no. .. It is called Begging the Question. If we were all to assume that the Gospels are sufficient evidence of a particular position, then there really would not be any debate.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

The Gospels are accurate historically. Caiaphas, Pilate, everything really happened.

And let me guess- they are accurate because the Bible says they are accurate?

Not seeing the 'evidence' in that.

The Gospels mention real people and real places in real time.

I used "objective" properly when asked to do so.

Objective= having actual existance or reality.

Can you prove the gospels are reality, without falling back on "because the Bible says so"?

Take your (and evolution's) "change of life over the years" and go backward. You are left with 0 x 1.

What if God created everything, and from that point the genetic changes took place?

There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that evolution is incompatible.

Christianity gets it most hatred for asserting that it is fact. That Jesus is fact.

Exactly. Christians are hated because we assert our opinions as fact, and allow no room for other interpretations. This is arrogant, and in effect, hypocritical against Jesus' teachings.

I expect that the Gospels are not supporting evidence?

They are not. Unless you would be willing to count any other random book (say, The Da Vinci Code) as evidence for a belief.

I'm assuming that even this presentation of observable facts is just an "assertion" of mine.

There are no such facts to observe.

Everyone sees the Bible, but not everyone sees truth in it.




Now in saying all of this I would like to clarify my position a bit. I am a Christian. I do not, however, consider my beliefs to be unarguable fact; There are many other interpretations of reality to consider. I say all of this out of the hope that I may influence other Christians not to assert their beliefs, as I feel this stifles philosophic progression, and only stems hate and violence.

[AlAyeti]

P-P,

Forgive me if I think you are joking.

Archaeology validated and verified Pilate and Caiaphas. They were where the New Testament said they were.

Objective, as you want it.

Empiricism as I like it.

Jesus asserted that He was God as a fact. The rest of the writers of the New Testament "assert" the same thing.

I have no desire to be nice to people that denigrate Chistians. For that I need to be forgiven. But not from them because they are unbelievers. So, if you are a brother (or sister) in Christ, forgive me. I just don't think Christians deserve to be attacked by the proselytizers of Atheism, Secularism and Liberalism. And that is exactly what they are by empiricism. Their positions are so droll. Thye'll say: "Why are babies born with problems?" And then scream for their independence from being told how and what to do.

I'm not sorry that I see in that absurdity of logic. They either want a puppet master god, or chaos, or freedom to fail and succeed, or whatever. Irrational positions irritate me. Their views contradict their views most of the time. I used to rely on secualrism, but like Liberalsim a new parasitic kind of person has taken over what used to be noble.

Your statement that the Gospels are "random books" makes it hard to believe that you are a Christian.

You and I differ. I see the facts of Christianity as something to argue most definately. I have clarified my position time and again. So, once more. I am not a Pastor or Evangelist. I am tired of hearing the denigration of Christians from educated-ignorants and not challenging their absurdities.

Debatingchristianity.com? How many do it in a civil way? Certainly not the anti-Christians. I have never feared bullies.

I do not hope I influence Christians. I know that I do. There are some things that cannot be "interpreted." I am confident that a voice of opposition to the relentless anti-Christianism that has parasitized the secular voice, is welcomed coast to coast. I talk to people coast to coast.

"For which reason are you trying to stone me?" Said Jesus.

"You are a mere man and are making yourself equal to God," said members of the Sanhedrin.

In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was God. Interesting that those "closed-minded" Christians used Greek philosophy to show the Divinity of Jesus. They could have just used circular methods. Like Evolutionists do. "Evolution is true because we evolutionists only see the data through evolutionary means." No dissent is allowed. Hmm, dark ages anyone?

I do not believe that 0 x 1 = us.

I believe Nietzsche ended up the way he did because of that math.

Chaos begets chaos. Not . . . us. And certainly nothing beautiful comes from random mutations. Just things. I do not believe in atheism existing.

I am chided by my assertion of what evolution is, but the math is perfect. Just follow the theory backwards. All good detective work finds the answers the same way. It is Origins right?

God is not a bumbler needing mutations somehow somewhere bumping into each other in random chance meetings.

Believe that if you like. But Jesus doesn't fit the math.

I love the created because I love the Creator. But that doesn't mean I have to be nice when attacked by them. I am after all, just a man. Protecting fellow flock members is a kind act.

But what the Pastor did in that Baptist Church, needs to be more frequent in other Churches. First the plank out of the Churches eye. Then the billions of little specks in anti-Christians eyes.

But let me clear up a thing or two. Remember in Romans after Paul clearly details sexual deviant behavior? He mentions what unbelievers do right.

I, as a fundamentalist (labeled that is) believe that God has many that do His will that are not in the Church. Or, that even call themselves Christians. A name, by the way that was applied to "followers of Jesus" as an epithet.

But as Paul clearly details, these people do what is right.

[McCulloch]

Archaeology validated and verified Pilate and Caiaphas. They were where the New Testament said they were.
Objective, as you want it.
Empiricism as I like it.

Most historians agree, Pilate and Caiaphas were who the New Testament said they were. They agree, not because the New Testament is a good source of historical knowledge, but because there is adequate reliable historical data to support that view. Just because the NT writers include a few accurate historical bits does not make the NT a reliable source of historical information.

Jesus asserted that He was God as a fact. The rest of the writers of the New Testament "assert" the same thing.

No. What is a fact is that the writers of the NT make the claim that Jesus made statements which many have interpreted as meaning that he was God. Their evidence is somewhat suspect because

1. they had a theological ax to grind
2. they did not write until quite a number of years after the events
3. there is no independent collaborating evidence
4. there are Christian individuals and groups who interpret those sayings differently than meaning that he claimed to be God

Debatingchristianity.com? How many do it in a civil way? Certainly not the anti-Christians. I have never feared bullies.

If there are any instances of uncivil debating on this forum please PM one of the moderators with the details.

In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was God. Interesting that those "closed-minded Christians used Greek philosophy to show the Divinity of Jesus. They could have just used circular methods. Like Evolutionists do. "Evolution is true because we evolutionists only see the data through evolutionary means." No dissent is allowed.

Seeing how some christians have dealt with dissent (heresy) in the past, this seems to be the pot calling the kettle.

I do not believe in atheism existing.

This statement is nonsense. Whether or not you agree with atheism; atheism (the belief that there is no god) objectively empirically exists.

But what the Pastor did in that Baptist Church, needs to be more frequent in other Churches. First the plank out of the Churches eye. Then the billions of little specks in anti-Christians eyes.

Here is where AlAyeti and I come to a point of agreement. The churches nor the cause of truth are served by churches which allow or encourage membership (and alms) at the expense of their core beliefs. If a particular church believes that God himself has condemned the wearing of mixed fabric, then those who believe otherwise should not seek nor should they be granted membership. No dissent is allowed!

[micatala]

Most historians agree, Pilate and Caiaphas were who the New Testament said they were. They agree, not because the New Testament is a good source of historical knowledge, but because there is adequate reliable historical data to support that view. Just because the NT writers include a few accurate historical bits does not make the NT a reliable source of historical information.

Agreed.

All I would say is that you cannot conclude the the gospels are inherently unreliable simply because of a lack of independent corraborating evidence.

Moreover, the Bible does not have to be reliable in all details to be of value in a spiritual or moral sense. In my view, a lot of the 'historical details' are of less importance than the spiritual or moral message. Some of these details are even irrelevant.

Here is where AlAyeti and I come to a point of agreement. The churches nor the cause of truth are served by churches which allow or encourage membership (and alms) at the expense of their core beliefs. If a particular church believes that God himself has condemned the wearing of mixed fabric, then those who believe otherwise should not seek nor should they be granted membership. No dissent is allowed!

I would not entirely agree.

Let's grant that it is a core belief of the church in question that abortion is evil and so is homosexuality, and that the pastor feels people who believe otherwise should not be in the church. This is a little different than saying that anyone who votes for Kerry should not be in the church. People decide to vote for one or another candidate based on a whole variety of issues, and certainly we probably have all voted for someone who did not agree entirely with our own point of view, even on important issues. I voted for Bob Dole in 1996, even though I did not agree with many of his positions or the positions of his party.

It is even worse, in my view, for a pastor to exclude all democrats simply because they are democrats because many democrats would agree with such a pastor on his core issues (eg. abortion, homosexuality). Harry Reid is pro-life. My mom is a democrat but is certainly not a supporter of gay-marriage.

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and I do not support the idea of abortion as an unalienable right, nor do I support making it illegal. I voted for Ralph Nader. SHould I be excluded from the church?

[McCulloch]

Here is where AlAyeti and I come to a point of agreement. The churches nor the cause of truth are served by churches which allow or encourage membership (and alms) at the expense of their core beliefs. If a particular church believes that God himself has condemned the wearing of mixed fabric, then those who believe otherwise should not seek nor should they be granted membership. No dissent is allowed!

I would not entirely agree.
Let's grant that it is a core belief of the church in question that abortion is evil and so is homosexuality, and that the pastor feels people who believe otherwise should not be in the church. This is a little different than saying that anyone who votes for Kerry should not be in the church. People decide to vote for one or another candidate based on a whole variety of issues, and certainly we probably have all voted for someone who did not agree entirely with our own point of view, even on important issues. I voted for Bob Dole in 1996, even though I did not agree with many of his positions or the positions of his party.
It is even worse, in my view, for a pastor to exclude all democrats simply because they are democrats because many democrats would agree with such a pastor on his core issues (eg. abortion, homosexuality). Harry Reid is pro-life. My mom is a democrat but is certainly not a supporter of gay-marriage.

So would a church in 1940's Germany be justified in excluding Nazis? There has to be a line drawn somewhere.
Churches have the right of self-autonomy. They can choose who to allow or not to allow as members. If the church believes that it is a sin to vote for Dole, it is their right to expel members based on that. I might question the right of the pastor of the church to dictate the church's belief and policy, but that would be an internal church matter and none of my business. I would certainly think that such overtly partisan political stance would be cause to revoke the church's charitable status, but that would be a decision made by the appropriate governing body, not the church itself. Each church has to make their own decisions as to which things are articles of faith and therefore not something where dissent is allowed and which things are matters of opinion.
If there is a God and he has spoken on any particular issue, he must be right by definition.

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and I do not support the idea of abortion as an unalienable right, nor do I support making it illegal. I voted for Ralph Nader. Should I be excluded from the church?

That would depend on which church. If the church in question taught that God himself teaches that abortion is absolutely equivalent to murder, and you disagree with the church (you do not support making it illegal), then clearly, you do not belong in that church. But if the church in question generally opposes abortion but allows informed discussion and debate on the topic, then you may find yourself fitting in there.

[AlAyeti]

McC, "Most historians agree, Pilate and Caiaphas were who the New Testament said they were. They agree, not because the New Testament is a good source of historical knowledge, but because there is adequate reliable historical data to support that view. Just because the NT writers include a few accurate historical bits does not make the NT a reliable source of historical information."

///

The stuff I put in bold, what does it mean? It seems a little convoluted. They agree why then? Becuase . . . the NT is written in pure historical setting. And, it was proved to be accurate.

Christians have always said the NT is accurate and science proves it time and again.

I'm sure that "adequate reliable historical data," uh, is a good place to find validation "OUTSIDE" of Biblical sources, for Biblical sources to be reliable.

It's what you call empiricism.

Both Pilate and Caiaphas are late on the archeaological scene as historiacal proof of the accuracy of the NT.

Like Jesus, truth cannot be changed for personal "opinion." There is no doubt, archeaologically, that the first Christians worshipped Jesus as God. What was argued later is only that.

Many people believe lies and deception because they refuse to look at facts. For example, abortion. Let the woman observe what is happening to the "mass of cells" within her during the abortion. Evidence has a way of bringing out truth.

But anyway . . .

The last four posts seem to indicate that the pastor did what was right in his church.

Now, if a large number of Christians nationwide agree with his way of thinking, then the GOP will benefit. Though I somewhat wish that evangelicals would join and influence the Democrat Party.

It seems that there is evidence that a lot of voters think the way the pastor did.

I go to two different churches from time to time and no one would speak out that they voted for Kerry.

Politics and religion has always been linked and always will be.