Baptist Church Excludes Democrats

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
perfessor
Scholar
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 8:47 pm
Location: Illinois

Baptist Church Excludes Democrats

Post #1

Post by 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.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #201

Post by McCulloch »

steen wrote:Ah, and anti-Christians are political? Facinating claim you make, politicizing Christianity in DIRECT VIOLATION of God's word. But probably you are not even ashamed of thus misusing God, as you already are merely USING GOD AS A PAWN for your political agenda.
steen, I agree with you on many points. But, I am unaware that it has been established that politicizing Christianity is a direct violation of god's word (unless you include the first amendement to the US constitution as part of god's word ;) ). On the surface of it, if god is interested in human behaviour and morals, then god is interested in our politics. I know that christians are quite divided on this kind of issue. Jehovahs Witnesses and Old Order Mennonite and Amish who refuse to various degrees to be involved in anything political and Catholics and Evangelicals who are quite involved in the political process. So, I think that it would be fair to ask you to provide some evidence that god is opposed to political involvement by christianity.

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #202

Post by AlAyeti »

Who is doing the forcing of change and the accepting of aberrant behavior to equal normality?

Why is it that "Progressives" are taking us backwards to a sexually deviant age?

This is a question for the pastor to decide. And he made the right decision.

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #203

Post by AlAyeti »

When a Christian makes a judgmental decision, it is made with judgment of the individual making the statement being ever present. I am comfortable espousing what a Democrat is and/or promotes. By what they say and do.

Abortion on demand for any reason. Unquestioned.

Sexual licentiousness for any reason. Unquestioned.

Family redefined unquestiioned.

Taxation of the morally sound to pay for corrupt institutions to further invent programs where the employees find a paycheck and the poor find little.

The Democrat Party where the atheist and secualrist finds an unchallennged voice, continue their barrage of anti-Christian actions with total disregard for decency.

Talk about eyes firmly squezzed shut!

Whilt the immorality of the leftist finds fertile soil, our children suffer the consquences of fatherless homes and addicted mothers.

But to a secular/atheist/evolutionist mind, this is OK. Perfect darwinism.

Maybe the Pastor should have left the Democrats in his church and preached against thier socialist political actions and their very real anti-Christian consequences of Democrat politics every sermon, until even the Democrats in the Church heard the truth.

Some strawmen are facts.

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #204

Post by AlAyeti »

You have Hollywood correct sort of. You know that the industry is dominated by leftists. Sexual licentiousness is part and parcel. Par for the course. You can't possibly disagree with that point.

You were not bothered in High School "as a Liberal Christian," for a reason. You have to be outside of the culture to be different from it. try to persuade one of the ubiquitous tattooed and pierced individualists to live a pure life of Godliness and see how many parties you get invited too.

M-Y: "I thought it was you complaining about the graphic depictions of sex and violence on network TV, and now you're advocating more? Do you honestly think the FCC will allow such displays? Abortion is wrong and it is definitely not pleasant, I agree there; but don't you think that the truth about it can be handled with a little more tact and decency? Part of what I dislike most about modern consumer culture is the use of shock tactics."

It's not shock tactics to speak the truth. You cannot prove the disgusting nature of deviant sexuality or abortion by letting the Leftist media lie.

AlAyeti wrote:
Democrats (Liberals) support and pass laws that children can get abortions or any medical needs met without parental notification. That is not in keeping with Christianity, or anything decent. And please, the amount of parental abuse being grounds to take away every parents rights is bogus. Liberals seem to me to be after promoting sexual licentiousness.


M-Y: "I haven't heard of these laws, or even acts in the process of passing. The closest thing I've heard of to this is anonymous testing for venereal disease that didn't involve notification of relatives - nothing about abortion. Could you post a link for that?"

You just need to call a california school and ask.

M-Y: "The hip-hop I listen to doesn't say it's OK to shoot someone for the way they look. In fact, the very ANS-Jump song I quoted you has a line in it telling old folks not to presume they're disobedient kids just because they wear loose clothing or chains around their necks. But then again, hip-hop Longmenzhen-style is pretty tame."

Loose clothing and chains? C'mon. Ignorant or dishonest? This is the "bithches and ho's" art form. And you know it.

M-Y: "As far as gun ownership goes, it is a very grey issue - and yes, the gun is partly to blame. . ."

No "it" is not. Accidents happen a lot of times when people are stupid and careless and shootings happen a lot of times by criminals and those gangstas that listen to the rap you don't listen too. I don't see the justification for Christians to own guns to shoot people with, but I do think that morally honest people should not be held to the same standard as bithches and ho's and people that think a lifestyle of violence should be a clothing line or art form.

AlAyeti wrote
:
Democrats (Liberals) promote abortion. It is simply a total lie to use the term rare, safe and legal. . ."


M-Y: "From what I've heard from both Democrats and Republicans, the end goal is to reduce the number of abortions, preferably to eliminate them altogether. I've already told you why making it illegal seems to me like asking for disaster. So don't presume to judge us for going about the problem a different way than you would."

Hear with your eyes, since you cannot see with them. Abortion on demand is murder. Legalized abortion should only be for dire circumstances and be between a doctor and patient. But we both know it is used for birth control by Democrats. And we both know that God's judgment is coming for America.

M-Y: "The Democratic mentality (and this is from someone who knows) says that through better education and more generous domestic policy, people will be better-equipped to make good choices. And abortion is a sure sign that people have made the wrong choice. You better equip people to handle their problems, personal and economic, and the end result is fewer abortions. Making it outright illegal doesn't help people make better decisions."

Bogus. Show the truth. That's all you have to do for the majority of these issues to be decided.

AlAyeti wrote:
Democrats are for high taxation to pay for their Liberal Socialistic agenda. Forcing good and honest people to have to pay the way of miscreants. A good person should oppose that. Welfare should only be paid to people who are enrolled in schools. And higher minimum wage is absurd. The median price of a decent house in in a safe and decent neighborhood in California, Massachusetts or New York is a impossible to reach unless you are making a very high income.


M-Y: "Where are you getting this garbage? As a political liberal and a fiscal conservative, I'll tell you right now why I'm in favour of increased taxation. Here's my liberal-socialist agenda: pay off the national debt. My generation's already going to have to pay through the nose for the fiscal evils of Reagan and now for the fiscal evils of Bush, Jr. - we should at least cushion the blow now by raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending, especially in the military sector where we least need it."

You just contracdicted yourself within your first 26-words. "Fiscal conservative and higher taxation? Uhh yeah. Higher taxes ushered in our revolutionary war and it will again. And see what happens when all of those migrants find out about Mr. and Mr. Smith being taught to their children in school.

M-Y: "Higher minimum wage is not a cure-all, but it is a step in the right direction - definitely not an absurdity."

Staring at $25.00 an hour maybe. Unless by affordable housing you mean the projects. Sorry man, but I've been around this country.

AlAyeti wrote:
"Now, as a union member in California, I assert that anti-war protesters are cowards and mostly interested in getting laid . . ."

M-Y: "No indeed the image of the dope smoking hippy wanting free love (licentiousness) is more prevalent in marchers now as when they started the downfall of American society in the Sixties. You really don't see them as that? I've been there among them. All screaming Liberals in actuality."

That the World Workers Party is involved with most anti-War protests means what to you? To me it means that those dope smoking hippies are still in action, but got even worse morally.

AlAyeti: "I wouldn't join the Army now because few Americans are worth a hang nail let alone my life."

Sorry that is how I feel.

M-Y: "What does being a member of a union have anything to do with anti-war movements? And how does it make you an authority on pacifism?"

Why are Unions hip deep involved in anti-war protests. I had to complain to my union officials about that very thing. I was ignored.

M-Y: "I grew up in a church that was philosophically opposed to war in all forms, and in my 12 years there I never met one person in that church who smoked marijuana or who cared more about 'getting laid' than the problems in their community. Of course I don't see pacifists as dope-smoking, free-love hippies, because the ones I know just simply aren't."

There is no greater love than what? Certainly not in cowardly protests while people are being slaughtered while the protesters go home to paint more clever signs. Those peaceful churches you attended sat by and let people die. That's a cold hard fact.

M-Y: "And what would the point of protesting al-Qaeda here be, exactly? It isn't an issue and it isn't a controversy - it's widely agreed that what al-Qaeda did to this country was well beyond the pale, among liberals just as much as conservatives."

That is not an accurate statement. Leftist-Liberals (Democrats) excused Muslim terrorists because they are poor and suffering because of big oil interestes in Muslim countries. That is a Leftist mantra and you know it. And it is anti-American at best.

M-Y: "Then explain the prevalence of Seventh-Day Adventists in animal-rights and vegetarian movements (including PETA)."

I can't explain why a group of Chrsitians follow the Millerite mistake or anything else they believe in and why. But I am a strong animal rights person and I'm a "fundamentalist Christian."

AlAyeti wrote:
Even Liberals drive cars. I've seen them on the way to protest American soldiers dying for them overseas. They Blame Bush for everything and don't see that Socialism is the most expensive political ideology of all.


M-Y: "Anyone who's been in a real anti-war demonstration knows perfectly well that it isn't the soldiers who are being blamed but the people who order them about from afar, Bush included."

That is another statement that is not believable. You know very well what these anti-war apathists think of soldiers.

M-Y: "Socialism may seem an expensive economic policy to the individual taxpayer, but I've seen enough of the ravages of laissez-faire economics and consumer culture to know that in the long run, socialist policies may very well save the society from bankruptcy. I'm willing to pay those extra few cents on the dollar to clear my part of the check."

In the long run? Socialism breeds sexual slavery of the young. And, hedonistic licentiousness. Not too Christianny, but certainly emprical.

AlAyeti wrote:
Where are the Democrats helping the poor? The projects in Illinois or the slums in DC or Watts or Oakland or the masses of illegal aliens on welfare killing the states in which they are parasitizing the society, while bringing the noose with which to hang the capitalist pigs?

Standard Christianty (Bible believing Christians) cannot support what Democrats want to force on American society. "

M-Y: "I know that in Providence, they run the soup kitchens and in Boston, the homeless shelters. In Madison they did municipal services for the downtown, did volunteer work for the library system and helped old people repaint and replaster their dilapidated homes. I'd hardly call these activities parasitic."

Illegal immigrants are parasitizing the country (not people doing hard work for the poor). That is also a fact.

M-Y: "What do these terms mean, 'standard' and 'Bible-believing' Christianity? Is there any other kind?

According to the homosexual agenda or the garden varioety liberal-relativistic thoughts that have corrupted the Gospels they preach? I'll agree that there are many heretical movements and even some fundamentalists have been wrong, but Liberalism has almost left Biblical-historical Christianity.

Liberals are far and away more political in their use of the pulpit than any conservatives. Homosexuals are validated within the walls of many so-called churches in this country and others, and that alone has caused Chrsitianity to suffer far worse than some fundamentalists kissing snakes.

User avatar
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #205

Post by MagusYanam »

AlAyeti wrote:You have Hollywood correct sort of. You know that the industry is dominated by leftists. Sexual licentiousness is part and parcel. Par for the course. You can't possibly disagree with that point.

You were not bothered in High School "as a Liberal Christian," for a reason. You have to be outside of the culture to be different from it. try to persuade one of the ubiquitous tattooed and pierced individualists to live a pure life of Godliness and see how many parties you get invited too.
No, I know that the industry is dominated by one thing, like all other industries. That's money, my friend - the root of all evil.

And as for you choosing to live outside the society, that doesn't sound like ostracism to me. That sounds like your choice, nothing to do with liberalism. Also, that attitude is entirely a selfish and, IMHO, an un-Christian one. You choose to live outside the society, you don't get to complain about it. Actually, I've heard my Dad say some things similar to this to other pacifists - in order to effect real change, you have to participate, not wilfully isolate yourself from the society.

It is the weak faith that must shrink from society and the strong faith that operates within it and cooperates and struggles with it.
AlAyeti wrote:It's not shock tactics to speak the truth. You cannot prove the disgusting nature of deviant sexuality or abortion by letting the Leftist media lie.
Well make up your mind, one way or the other. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

This is what I think. Truth must be treated with caution where common decency is concerned. I wouldn't want my children to learn the 'facts of life' - so to speak - when they're six years old.
AlAyeti wrote:You just need to call a california school and ask.
And you just need support your claims with real evidence. Be warned - you're going to be reported if I see any more of this flippancy.
AlAyeti wrote:Loose clothing and chains? C'mon. Ignorant or dishonest? This is the "bithches and ho's" art form. And you know it.
Come on. Arrogant or bigoted? This is prejudgment based on the clothes someone wears - and one step down from shooting someone for the way they look. And you know it.
AlAyeti wrote:I don't see the justification for Christians to own guns to shoot people with, but I do think that morally honest people should not be held to the same standard as bithches and ho's and people that think a lifestyle of violence should be a clothing line or art form.
No - precisely wrong. They should be held to the exact same standard - and if one or the other is weighed, measured and found wanting then so be it. If the morally honest are found to be capable gun owners, then they should be allowed to have guns. But that doesn't mean that the standards should be relaxed, or that there shouldn't be standards.
AlAyeti wrote:Hear with your eyes, since you cannot see with them. Abortion on demand is murder. Legalized abortion should only be for dire circumstances and be between a doctor and patient. But we both know it is used for birth control by Democrats. And we both know that God's judgment is coming for America.
I'll leave God's judgment to Him. As for abortion, its abuse is wrong (and I've no doubt that many of my fellow Democrats will agree with me on this), but it can't be laid at the feet of a political party that's trying every bit as much as the other to limit that abuse. You know as well as I that here you've only got hold of the shoe and you're trying to ensure the foot be made to fit (even though it doesn't).
AlAyeti wrote:Bogus. Show the truth. That's all you have to do for the majority of these issues to be decided.
I don't know what's more appalling, your naivete or your blindness to that self-same truth. You scare people, it won't make them good; you lead by example, it will make them good. Sound social philosophy from a great social philosopher.
AlAyeti wrote:You just contracdicted yourself within your first 26-words. "Fiscal conservative and higher taxation? Uhh yeah. Higher taxes ushered in our revolutionary war and it will again. And see what happens when all of those migrants find out about Mr. and Mr. Smith being taught to their children in school.
You heard me right. A fiscal conservative is, by definition, a person who looks at the bottom line and wants to see black, not red. One way you get back in the black, as it were, is increasing your revenue (a fancy way of saying 'raise taxes'), and the other way is to decrease your expenditures (a fancy way of saying 'lower spending'). I'm being perfectly consistent - you're the one equivocating over the term 'fiscal conservative'.

Bush is not a fiscal conservative. He can't even pretend to be, not when he's running up a $200 billion deficit on a war we never really needed.

And, as I've no doubt mentioned in my other posts, I'm a hardline Tory when it comes to the War of American Independence. Britain was right to increase taxes in the colonies - the colonies were causing the mother country to take a nosedive into red ink thanks to the Seven Years' War, and they should have helped her out of it willingly. Instead, the colonists refused to take responsibility and balance their own books, choosing instead to wrap it in such euphemistic language as 'individual liberty' and 'property rights'. The results of this recalcitrance? The Sugar Act. The Stamp Act. Nothing they couldn't have seen coming.
AlAyeti wrote:Staring at $25.00 an hour maybe. Unless by affordable housing you mean the projects. Sorry man, but I've been around this country.
My dad's a salaried worker and he doesn't make that much. Yet here I am writing this post from a liberal city, from a good neighbourhood, from the second floor of a house that's been here since the 1880's. Come on; do the math.
AlAyeti wrote:That the World Workers Party is involved with most anti-War protests means what to you? To me it means that those dope smoking hippies are still in action, but got even worse morally.
That Halliburton is still taking out works contracts in Iraq means what to you? To me it means that big business interests are still in action there, and that Americans are morally right in opposing it, especially given the fact that they'd been led about by the nose by this administration.
AlAyeti wrote:Sorry that is how I feel.
Feelings, if they can't be backed by logic or evidence, have no place in civil discussion and no place on this board especially when they are expressed in inflammatory ways.
AlAyeti wrote:Why are Unions hip deep involved in anti-war protests.
Good question. Perhaps you wouldn't mind providing an answer?
AlAyeti wrote:There is no greater love than what? Certainly not in cowardly protests while people are being slaughtered while the protesters go home to paint more clever signs. Those peaceful churches you attended sat by and let people die. That's a cold hard fact.
Don't give me this Romanticist horse manure. I already provided evidence of the MCC's involvement and service programmes in dangerous parts of the world, in light of which what you just said was nothing more than cold hard rubbish.
AlAyeti wrote:That is not an accurate statement. Leftist-Liberals (Democrats) excused Muslim terrorists because they are poor and suffering because of big oil interestes in Muslim countries. That is a Leftist mantra and you know it. And it is anti-American at best.
Excuse me? Usama bin Laden, Mr. Saudi Multi-Millionaire, 'poor and suffering'? I almost laughed out loud at that, as would most liberals of my acquaintance. While it is true that most Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries are (in general) impoverished and desperate, al-Qaeda as an organisation most certainly is not. And I know of no liberal currently trying to excuse them.

But wait - wasn't it Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson trying to blame the 9/11 attacks on the ACLU and the United Way? Hmmm... makes you wonder.
AlAyeti wrote:I can't explain why a group of Chrsitians follow the Millerite mistake or anything else they believe in and why. But I am a strong animal rights person and I'm a "fundamentalist Christian."
Okay, so don't go blanketting the wackos of PETA or ALF as being liberal, or as being representative of liberalism. Animal-rights-ism and environmentalism are two separate beasts (no pun intended) - I happen to be the latter.
AlAyeti wrote:That is another statement that is not believable. You know very well what these anti-war apathists think of soldiers.
Yes, I do. Pacifists think of them as being misguided, misled and exploited by the powers that be - not evil. It's not the soldier we object to, but the strategist. Especially the neoconservative Pentagon strategist who advises going into Iraq without a proper contingency plan.
AlAyeti wrote:In the long run? Socialism breeds sexual slavery of the young. And, hedonistic licentiousness. Not too Christianny, but certainly emprical.
I'm beginning to enjoy the entertainment value of these posts. Niebuhr, a licentious hedonist? Rauschenbusch, an underage sexual slaver? Or Thomas, or Debs? Socialism had a strong following among the Victorian Social Gospellers who were famous for their anti-hedonism. Your 'empiricism' is lacking in empirical proof once more, I see.

I recommend reading therapeutic doses of Rev. Dorrien's work as soon as possible, in your case.
AlAyeti wrote:According to the homosexual agenda or the garden varioety liberal-relativistic thoughts that have corrupted the Gospels they preach? I'll agree that there are many heretical movements and even some fundamentalists have been wrong, but Liberalism has almost left Biblical-historical Christianity.

Liberals are far and away more political in their use of the pulpit than any conservatives. Homosexuals are validated within the walls of many so-called churches in this country and others, and that alone has caused Chrsitianity to suffer far worse than some fundamentalists kissing snakes.
And what would you know of historical Christianity? Ever heard of Origen? What about St. Jerome? St. Francis? Menno Simon? John Wesley? George Fox? William Channing? Horace Bushnell? Washington Gladden? Frederick Morris? Hans Kueng? All 'liberal-relativists' of their time (and ours), and all in full keeping with their understanding of the Gospel. All of them were courageous enough and faithful enough to use the pulpit and the pen for what they believed the Gospel represented. And to them that Gospel represented a vision of grace and of an inclusive, all-embracing, sacrificial love.

As a Christian (and an Anglo-Catholic at that), I see homosexuality as an issue so venial it is a heresy even to put it on the map next to the mortal denial of grace - the denial of the Gospel! - that I see coming from the right wing of American Christendom. The New England Episcopalians and Congregationalists may allow homosexuals to receive the Eucharist, but I see this as nothing if they preach penitance, forgiveness and the assurance of an unconditional grace in Christ.

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #206

Post by AlAyeti »

First I need to know if "MCC" means the Metropolitan Community Church?

Does it?

That would explain much of your perspectives to me.

User avatar
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #207

Post by MagusYanam »

Sorry to disappoint; MCC in this case stands for 'Mennonite Central Committee' - an organisation of which the church in question (the Madison Mennonite Church of Madison, WI) is an active and participating member.

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #208

Post by AlAyeti »

California's Law about the rights of parents in regards to their own children.

From the ACLU's website.

http://aclunc.org/reproductive-rights/ca-court.html

(As a Christian, I view the ACLU as a Pedophilia/Pederasty promoting organization. The First Amendmendment to me is abomination if sexualizing children is a human civil right protected by it. So the ACLU's glee in sexualized children having autonomy from the protection of their parents is obvious "to me.")

The spirit of anti-Christ.

I will endeavor to get a hold of an actual pamphlet from a school detailing how a child can leave school for any medical reason and parents will not be informed.

As the ACLU puts it: ". . . Young people are not subject to whims of the State, nor are they chattel belonging to their parents."

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #209

Post by AlAyeti »

You did not disappoint but certainly humbled me. The Mennonite (MCC) doctrine seems well grounded (from reading it). Especially the definition of family. Far from the MCC I was refering too. But from your MCC, your positions about things come into sharp relief.

Though, I do not understand "pacifism" in regards to standing by and watching evil people killing others without physically fighting the bad guys. The soldiers dying in war are giving their lives for others. They kill the people who kill the peopel. They fall and are picked up in heaven, in my opinion. They prove the "Greater love" with their life.

I re-enlisted for "Desert Shield." I knew that if I was called to go, that I was fighting bad guys and was not one of them.

Also, my experiences with anti-war activists in California with my involvement with my union co-members and the "World Workers Party" members I have directly spoken with, are real and cement my perspective that many, many, many people in fact the large majority involved in "anti-war" protests are nothing more than anti-Americans and do not mean to better the world by moral means. No Christian should yoke themselves with unbelievers for work.

Like I said, they never go to where the real bad guys do their evil. Where are the great hordes of pacificst's marching for peace in Sudan? They walk along safe American streets and rail against Republicans year in and year out, but risk very little discomfrt other than a blister on their toes from a new pair of Birkenstocks.

The Pastor of this thread topic, made a good decision about the core values of Democrats and remained yoked to people who he could work with together for well-grounded purposes.

How was this wrong Biblically?

User avatar
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #210

Post by MagusYanam »

AlAyeti wrote:Though, I do not understand "pacifism" in regards to standing by and watching evil people killing others without physically fighting the bad guys. The soldiers dying in war are giving their lives for others. They kill the people who kill the peopel. They fall and are picked up in heaven, in my opinion. They prove the "Greater love" with their life.

I re-enlisted for "Desert Shield." I knew that if I was called to go, that I was fighting bad guys and was not one of them.
Because that's not what Jesus taught us to do. He taught us to teach our enemies by example not by fighting them, but by loving them. Not by striking back but by praying for them.

'You have heard that it was said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the left also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse any who want to borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, "you shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy". But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward is yours? Do not even the publicans the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.' [St. Matthew 5:38-48]

What 'greater love' is theirs who hate and kill their enemies, Biblically speaking? Why is there the need for us to distinguish between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'? That's God's job: I don't want to be the ungrateful servant who is forgiven a large debt and does not forgive another a small one.
AlAyeti wrote:Also, my experiences with anti-war activists in California with my involvement with my union co-members and the "World Workers Party" members I have directly spoken with, are real and cement my perspective that many, many, many people in fact the large majority involved in "anti-war" protests are nothing more than anti-Americans and do not mean to better the world by moral means. No Christian should yoke themselves with unbelievers for work.
AlAyeti wrote:The Pastor of this thread topic, made a good decision about the core values of Democrats and remained yoked to people who he could work with together for well-grounded purposes.

How was this wrong Biblically?
What does this mean, 'anti-American'? I know from the Gospel that God doesn't distinguish between the deeds of an American and those of a non-American but judges all on the same scale; does that make me 'anti-American'? I am often ashamed by the actions of my nation with respect to other nations; does that make me 'anti-American'? That I don't wave the flag hard enough or holler the slogans loud enough, does that make me 'anti-American'? More often than not, I've noticed, the people that are marked 'anti-American' are no more really than anti-Bush, and speak their minds out of moral conviction. It's a crime to spend more money (just for example) in a week on a needless war than in a year on the entire NSF budget.

Also, don't kid yourself - you want to 'better the world by moral means', you're going to have to 'yoke [yourself] with unbelievers'. One of the great things about our society is that it's structured in such a way that to get things done you have to associate with people who don't agree with you on everything. I think this is beneficial - though this forum is talking for the sake of talking, it's based on the same principle. You try to better understand those who disagree with you so that, ostensibly, you can try to reason together what is best for everyone.

That's why I think this pastor was wrong. By silencing those who represent the half of the population in this country, he was crippling that discussion. He didn't have the moral interest at heart; just the tribal or the personal interest - if he was truly interested in figuring out what is right, he would have kept the Democrats and welcomed their input.

Jesus associated with publicans and prostitutes. A pastor who refuses to associate with those more decent who happen to have liberal political leanings is not showing strength, he is showing weakness. He has failed in his pastoral ministry to follow Jesus' example.
AlAyeti wrote:Like I said, they never go to where the real bad guys do their evil. Where are the great hordes of pacificst's marching for peace in Sudan? They walk along safe American streets and rail against Republicans year in and year out, but risk very little discomfrt other than a blister on their toes from a new pair of Birkenstocks.
And tell me, what would be the good of marching in the Sudan for peace when there is none? Sudan is not yet capable of peace; for there to be peace, there first has to be adequate food, water, shelter, justice. And that's what the pacifists are doing there - just look at the activities of the Quakers or of the Mennonites. When you have an internally stable country with an interest in justice and the majority of its citizens well off enough to make altruistic determinations - that's when and where you can start marching. That's why the marching's going on here, in Europe, in Japan and South Korea - but not, for example, in the Middle East or in North Korea.

Post Reply