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]

Iraqis Vote in Constitutional Referendum By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 11 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's deeply divided Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds took their struggle over the nation's future to the ballot box Saturday, voting in a fierce competition over a new constitution aimed at establishing a democracy after decades of dictatorship.

At the bottom of the article . . .

Ramadi, Anbar's capital, looked like a ghost town, with empty streets. At the hour polls opened, insurgents clashed with U.S. troops in the downtown streets.

Only about 70 people had voted in the Anbar town of Haditha, northwest of Baghdad, by midday. Said Ahmad Fliha walked up the hill to the fortified polling station with the help of a relative and Iraqi soldier.

"I'm 75 years old. Everything is finished for me. But I'm going to vote because I want a good future for my children," Fliha said.

There would be no freedom in Iraq if a Democrat were President.

Just Saddam Hussein destroying people in masses.

Interesting that the issue is not framed as seeing Hussein as a weapon of mass destruction.

Seems all of those UN resolutions opposing Saddam's Iraq were seen more clearly By the Bush administration.

Do we see anti-war protestors marching against the freedom to vote in the new Iraq?

That freedom was given to them by war.

Not by Birkenstock wearing hippies, that bitch by day and sleep comfortably on their futons at night.

And of course that freedom of democracy was brought to Iraq by the United States military led by George Bush President and Commander in Chief.

How does that old saying go? There is no greater gift than to lay down your life for another."

Something like that right?

Now who first mentioned that adaga?

[MagusYanam]

Logical failure is a Christian voting for a pro-abortion politician.

Christian does not just mean anti-abortion. It also means pro-social justice, which is what the Democrats stand for.

The failure of knowledge is in your views. The concept and fact of what a family is and always has been is man-woman-children.

The redefinition of family and marriage to accommodate an extreme fringe faction of the population logically opens the doors for any group calling themselves a minority culture or community to sue for some other redefinition of marriage. Is that also to be tolerated by the populace?

You know, this kind of paranoia doesn't help anyone, not even your own cause. I am a member of a functional, nuclear family - I have a father, a mother and a sister - and I see no reason to be afraid of homosexuals being allowed to marry. How does it affect us? How is the love my father and mother feel toward each other or toward us affected by the fact that somewhere else gays are allowed to marry?

The nuclear family will always exist - it's stronger than you know. It survived the 'sixties and 'seventies (I'm proof), it can definitely survive this. I support the Democrats - I admit it - because I want a better future for my children. I want a pristine environment, I want a more just, peaceable and equitable society toward all people, I want a good public education for all people. These are important goals, these are moral goals, and these are Democratic goals.

Democrats are not honest people. They want taxes in such gluttonous amounts and use it to fund criminals and degenerates to stay criminals and degenerates. Good families suffer when paychecks are gutted by high taxes. paying for roads and utilities is a far cry from sending money to drug addicts to get drugs.

The famous failures of Liberal and Democrat legislative acts to literally pay for clean needles for drug addicts to obtain cleaner drugs, failed to stop disease and new addicts being created. No decent law abiding citizen should have their money taken from them by high taxation so prevalent in Democrat policy to pay for the miscreant to stay in that sorry state. Good families should be rewarded continually the way tax policies of George Bush has helped.

Wait a minute, hold on just one second... whose idea was the War on Drugs?

Um... let me think... yep, I'm definitely sure it was a Democratic president. Does Clinton count?

Sorry, your argument about the Democrats funding the drug culture is ludicrous (especially since a lot of the money they 'took from good people' went into busting drug lords and making the streets safer). To my mind your view borders on some wacko paranoid conspiracy theory.

Higher levels of taxation, especially for the affluent, are still necessary to a.) invest in societal improvements and b.) to decrease the national debt. As a true fiscal conservative, I prefer the Democrats' 'tax and spend' any day to the Republicans' 'borrow and spend'. At least the Democrats' views on the economy are consistent.

No Christian should have anything to do with Democrats that allow funding to come from war protesters that denigrate our very country by protesting on its land.

So no Christian should associate with any member of a party which derives much of its funding from good Christian churches. Wow. The illogic is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Most war protesters today are Christian. And not just Quaker and Mennonite, but Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Baptist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian (in short everyone but the heretics on the far right fringe). I have yet to see a qualified mainline theologian who was in favour of the Iraq War (although I know many who are against it).

No Christian can or should support Democrats that completely oppose the teachings of Jesus in the guise of secularism.

The Democratic platform comes closest to the teachings of Jesus, at least in this country: do by others as you would be done by; love your enemies; care for the poor; console the sorrowful. In the end, the Republicans don't really stand for anything except raping the economy.

If you really want to look at it that way, Jesus was in favour of secularism. He had to be. 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's', et cetera sounds a lot like he was in favour of separation of the roles of the the eternal and the temporal in society. For a long time, Christianity was necessarily secular. They had to be able to be Christians and Roman citizens at the same time, and the only way to do that was by separating the societal roles of the church and of the state.

While the Democrats fail to support the concept of family and redefine further the immutable concept of marriage, our country is becoming more and more violent on our very streets.

I don't know whether to chalk this up to pathetic paranoia or to label you an outright liar as you have shown time and time again that you deserve. You should be thankful I was raised in a Christian household and baptised on those beliefs, since my patience with you is running very thin indeed.

Annual violent crime rate in this country has seen a drop from about 48 incidences per 1000 people at the end of Bush, Sr.'s term to 23 incidences per 1000 at the end of Clinton's. Violent crime has been halved under the auspices of both said liberal's terms, and guess what? It's still dropping! These are the true consequences of liberalism. That's (one of the reasons) why I'm for it.

Clinton might not have been an admirable person, but he really has done more to further the cause of the Kingdom (social justice, the environment, international understanding) than any of the five presidents before him.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Those are the facts. Read them and weep. Or better yet, rethink your spiteful ideology.

[AlAyeti]

The Democratic platform comes closest to the teachings of Jesus, at least in this country: do by others as you would be done by; love your enemies; care for the poor; console the sorrowful. In the end, the Republicans don't really stand for anything except raping the economy.

If you really want to look at it that way, Jesus was in favour of secularism. He had to be. 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's', et cetera sounds a lot like he was in favour of separation of the roles of the the eternal and the temporal in society. For a long time, Christianity was necessarily secular. They had to be able to be Christians and Roman citizens at the same time, and the only way to do that was by separating the societal roles of the church and of the state.

AlAyeti wrote:
While the Democrats fail to support the concept of family and redefine further the immutable concept of marriage, our country is becoming more and more violent on our very streets.


I don't know whether to chalk this up to pathetic paranoia or to label you an outright liar as you have shown time and time again that you deserve. You should be thankful I was raised in a Christian household and baptised on those beliefs, since my patience with you is running very thin indeed.

Annual violent crime rate in this country has seen a drop from about 48 incidences per 1000 people at the end of Bush, Sr.'s term to 23 incidences per 1000 at the end of Clinton's. Violent crime has been halved under the auspices of both said liberal's terms, and guess what? It's still dropping! These are the true consequences of liberalism. That's (one of the reasons) why I'm for it.

Jesus recognized the inevitable nature of secularism These people were almost exclusively not His followers.

You embrace people not to follow Christ by choosing to accept their diversity and you remain quiet. How Liberal. How many people have you urged to repent?

The Democrats (Liberals) redefined what is and what isn't a crime. The use of medical marijuana for example and its resulting crime rate, even violent crime. No need for drug wars if drugs are legal. A child can have an abortion but no mention of the age of the perpetrator of statutory rape because Liberals have taken away parental rights. How convenient.

The rise of conservative voice on radio and TV to point out the licentiousness promulgated on society by Liberalism is the key to a better society. A free exchange of ideas will always have conservative values grow.

That is of course why the left is reacting in hysterics. Evil is in check. They thought the war for souls was just about won.

In all fairness, you seem to not only "tolerate" sin and sinners to continue unabated, you promote both in your social choice behavior.

How is that rendering to God and of course Jesus as that God?

The Caesar part is easy to observe.

[MagusYanam]

You embrace people not to follow Christ by choosing to accept their diversity and you remain quiet. How Liberal. How many people have you urged to repent?

The Democrats (Liberals) redefined what is and what isn't a crime. The use of medical marijuana for example and its resulting crime rate, even violent crime. No need for drug wars if drugs are legal. A child can have an abortion but no mention of the age of the perpetrator of statutory rape because Liberals have taken away parental rights. How convenient.

If people choose to follow Christ at my example, at least I have enough Christian humility to realise it won't be because I told them to. If they don't, I love them anyway. That is what it means to be Christian.

Democrats for legal drugs? Get real. The War on Drugs and the War on Crime are Democratic brainchildren, as is D.A.R.E. and manifold other anti-drug programmes. Also, there is a very large difference between abusing marijuana to 'get high' and using THC to treat glaucoma. Surely you are not so blind as to not see that (no pun intended). The only ones in favour of legalising marijuana (or other drugs) completely are the Green Party and libertarian Republicans.

Look at the data and do the math. One definition of violent crime holds for an entire generation of the data. And guess what it shows? Democrat in power; violent crime halved. Lie through your teeth all you want; you can't change the facts, or hold back the power of truth.

[nikolayevich]

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.

A church should never do more than preach the Gospel and try to abide by Biblical principles. Pointing at neither Republicans or Democrats. It is a false practice. Roman churches told their followers to support Hitler and Stalin. Perhaps they thought they knew best. Ultimately, pastors should vouch only for God and the Bible, not for mere men. Too many times when they have, they have enabled hate-filled demagogues to gain too much power.

But many Americans are too often debating which party of two is the truly American, or the truly humane, or the truly ethical party. Did anyone ever consider that they are both made of fallible humans and neither party measures up to the teachings of Jesus? Let's face it- one is Coke and the other Pepsi. Does the US really move in different directions when one or the other is in power. You're kidding yourselves. There are far bigger agenda behind both parties.

I would suggest we likewise render our comparisons between Caesar and Caesar, not Jesus and a caesar.

Vote your conscience, yes. Vote for my choice? God forgive me if I'm wrong and tell you to do so.

[AlAyeti]

No Christian can find validation for voting for killing an unborn child because you don't want it.

Jesus defined WHAT marriage IS.

Taxing the poor widow like Democrats want to do, if she gets a job is also not supported by Jesus.

It is clear that Republicans need a short leash, but far more Republicans in the Congress and Senate nseem at least from what they say and how they vote, to have better morals than Democrats.

Anyone in America can become a big business businessman.

They should not be forced to share their accomplishments with anyone else. Why are the rich treated like they have done something wrong. If everyone was taxed at say 10%, than the rich person making ten-million dollars a year, would be paying far more in taxes than a person making thirty-thousand dollars a year.

No one has the right in Liberal ideology to force their way of life on another person, but that is exactly what the rich most endure.

How is that Christian?

The Lord wants a cheerful giver. The Democrats want the rich to pay for others in a way that is basically stealing.

When you look at what Democrats actually do, they seem very immoral.

I know this is how the unborn must feel.

In my opinion:

In the history of the world there has never been greater hypocrisy than from the position of being alive, and, literally being conceived, grown in the womb, and to have been born . . . and yet someone discarding the inherent right to life that was granted to the living individual and that individual . . . supporting abortion.

A Christian is a person that believes that God dwelt in Mary as a developing fetus, was carried to term, was born, and lived a life to give us all eternal life.

How can a Christian support pro-abortion Democrats or have them in their Churches, if they will not repent?

[MagusYanam]

Taxing the poor widow like Democrats want to do, if she gets a job is also not supported by Jesus.

It is clear that Republicans need a short leash, but far more Republicans in the Congress and Senate nseem at least from what they say and how they vote, to have better morals than Democrats.

Anyone in America can become a big business businessman.

Everyone gets taxed, not just the rich. And rightly so, since taxes are needed for the government simply to govern. That's the Caesar part of 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's'.

And no, not anyone in America can become a big businessman. That's just the Big Lie that I keep hearing spewed forth - I know that while I may be intelligent and get good grades in school and work hard, I won't ever become a successful entrepreneur. Why? I don't have the salesman's personality, and I don't have the manager's personality.

Why are the rich treated like they have done something wrong. If everyone was taxed at say 10%, than the rich person making ten-million dollars a year, would be paying far more in taxes than a person making thirty-thousand dollars a year.

Because they do so much of the time (Enron, Adelphia, WorldCom, et cetera) in order to get even richer. And if they do commit sins of greed, they are more likely to affect a broader range of people, say in a utility or a stock scam, than a poorer person can. Because rich people require more of society's attention in terms of crime and interest, they should be contributing more to that society. It's that simple.

Also, it's not like they are simply deriving their subsistence from their funds (the way a $30,000-a-year worker would), or that they will even be able to spend it all. Also, which would produce the greater benefit to humanity - that money being put into public services and social improvements (like parks and schools) or paying off the national debt, or that money being stored in some Swiss bank account and never being spent?

Do the math. It's not that hard or 'fuzzy'.

Jesus encouraged the rich to give their money to these things themselves to benefit those poorer than themselves, but from hundreds of years of history have proven that, in general, rich people simply don't do this. Now, I know several decent people on the affluent side of the state (in Newport), who do give of their time, talents and money to the less fortunate. They aren't taxed as heavily as those that don't - and that's how it should be. But these folks are in the minority of the minority.

The 'liberal ideology' I cling to is an ideology of God's Kingdom. Many people dedicated their lives to this goal: a society that will treat people equally regardless of circumstance or belief, a society that loves its neighbours and cares for its environment, a society that is a shining example to those around it. The Democrats, however aimless at this point, are the heirs to this ideal. And I have faith that another Walter Rauschenbusch or FDR or Reinhold Niebuhr or Martin Luther King, Jr. will rediscover this and help us to fight once more for the just society.

[Dilettante]

nikolayevich wrote:

Roman churches told their followers to support Hitler and Stalin.

Are you talking about individual congregations or entire churches? What do you mean by "Roman churches"? Can you provide the source of that information?

[nikolayevich]

It has usually been fed top-down. The Vatican has a history of commentary regarding political leaders and whether to support them and they have often fumbled or worse, been culpable for certain "sentiments" toward various ethnic groups.

Vatican-Reich Concordat of 1933

Article 16

Before bishops take possession of their dioceses they are to take an oath of fealty either to the Reich Representative of the State concerned, or to the President of the Reich, according to the following formula: "Before God and on the Holy Gospels I swear and promise as becomes a bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and to the State of . . . I swear and promise to honor the legally constituted Government and to cause the clergy of my diocese to honor it. In the performance of my spiritual office and in my solicitude for the welfare and the interests of the German Reich, I will endeavor to avoid all detrimental acts which might endanger it."

This is what I'm saying (previous post) about churches supporting gov't of any branch. Let's assume (read pretend) for a moment that the Vatican was not aware of a rise of anti-semitism in Germany, its requirement of clergy to swear oaths to government is still not wise. History has shown time and again when religious groups have to later apologize for their implications or endorsements.

It isn't just a Vatican problem, but it does continue as a Vatican problem.

[AlAyeti]

The 'liberal ideology' I cling to is an ideology of God's Kingdom. Many people dedicated their lives to this goal: a society that will treat people equally regardless of circumstance or belief, a society that loves its neighbours and cares for its environment, a society that is a shining example to those around it. The Democrats, however aimless at this point, are the heirs to this ideal. And I have faith that another Walter Rauschenbusch or FDR or Reinhold Niebuhr or Martin Luther King, Jr. will rediscover this and help us to fight once more for the just society.

- - FDR went to war. Millions died because of his act as president. Hawaii was not even an American state when we were attacked there. Shouldn't we have let the Hawaians decide their own future and pulled out our troops? Instead FDR decided death to so many. - -

But anyway:

Your above definition of Christian ideological actions describe mine, except that I follow the example of the Christian "community" built in the New Testament. The church, had nothing to do with the society in which it built itself within and around. I think the book of Romans is frighteningly appropriate to help me make Biblical decisions.

Jesus is even more clear.

The Church was literally refered to as "The Called Out Ones." "Ecclesia." Those original "Christians" did indeed shine as an example to those around it. "Around it."

Now, what were those Christians called out "from?"

There is a clear line of demarcation from what a Christian is and does, and what those that are not Christians choose and do.

Paul showed that using the citizenship of the country you live in does not usurp your honor to serve Christ accurately.

His views are very telling to the ways Christ should affect his followers. The books Of John, Peter and Jude, Philemon etc., show the uncompromising position a Christian has to others in Christ and towards those that are not believers. It certainly is not to validate their ways or to join views that are anti-Christ.

Allowing the world into the Church is calling in those that are unwilling to come out of the world as having an equality to those that left the ways of the world.

Where is that supported anywhere in the New Testament?

It is not a bad thing that so many Christians use their votes to show a faith in Christ. Paul did the same thing. The secular history of the Church shows that Christians opposed the ways of the people that they came from, when they left the world and became Christians.

The animosity towards Christians mentioned in the New Testament and confirmed in Roman writings, is exactly the same way now as it was at the beginning of the Church.

That should tell you something in the way you handle your choices to follow the ways of the world. How do you bring Christ to a person and change the teachings and sayings of Jesus in the process. Who is really being changed?

The Baptist Church that chose to turn out those that willingly chose the way of the world . . . did what the New Testament lierature showed them was the right thing to do.