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]

Okay, back in discussion mode...

You do know that it is the NPR-listening New Englander that has perverted truth. You "didn't make this problem," but you encourage others to stay on its course. I watch NPR. And I listen to Air America.

I don't know too much about Air America. But I do know this much: you obviously don't watch NPR. No one watches NPR, and with good reason: NPR just so happens to be A RADIO NETWORK!

It's demagoguery like this that I would find funny if it weren't so pernicious. Statements you make about 'the atheist' or 'the liberal' or 'the New Englander' are frighteningly reminiscent of statements the Nazis made about 'the Jew'. What do you know of New Englanders? (The Kennedies, like the Bushes, don't count.) My mother and her parents are from New England (our family have been there since 1809), and I would trust them with my life, not to mention to speak the truth as they see it.

Once the family is finally put to death by same-sex marriage, promoted by the liberal agenda, Demons now run society. It will be hate speech for a normal child raised in a normal family to claim that a normal family is the normal way families should be. Like Paul said. We are struggling agaisnt powers and pricipalities. You Liberals side with the evil ones.

A healthy environment without moral constraints? Public education denying facts for "diversity?" Health care for children raised in unnatural "families?" Building communities where "anything goes?" Defending civil liberties of the intolerant anti-god crowd and outlawing the voice of the church?

You have a strange Chrsitianty Magus.

My family hasn't been 'put to death', or affected in any other way, by same-sex marriage. I see no indication that it ever will be. And we're about as 'normal' as you can get - a professor, his wife and two teenage kids in an urban middle-class environment. On the other hand, the environment, health-care, public education, the well-being of the community and civil liberties all do affect us. That's the morality I fight for.

A healthy environment is a moral end in itself and needs no qualifier - God placed humanity by virtue of our sapience in a position of stewardship over his creation; how we use it is an important moral issue.

Public education is a moral end in itself and needs no qualifier if we place any value on children's futures. We know how highly God values a child.

Community is a moral end in itself and needs no qualifier. 'Where two or three gather in God's name'... the early Church valued community highly and I see no reason why this moral end should be tossed aside so lightly to make way for sexual issues.

Caring for one's neighbour is the ultimate moral end. Jesus said so himself - the greatest of all commandments are to love one's neighbour and to love God. Societally, this encompasses education, health care, welfare, and defence of civil liberties.

My Christianity is the Christianity of Washington Gladden, Frederick Denison Maurice, Walter Rauschenbusch, Henry Fosdick, Edgar Brightman and Martin Luther King, Jr. All of them cared deeply about these issues in their own rights as moral ends in themselves as we should today. Call it 'strange' if you like, it's still Christianity as it was meant to be.

///

I meant PBS in regards to NPR. So I can be mistaken. I found this website on yahoo's search engine:http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/hate.html

PBS isn't exactly a big fan of historic Christianity.

Caring for ones neighbor, in the Christian sense, also means to bring the Gospel of life to them. Unfortunately for the all-inclusive diversity promoting clique, this means pointing out where they err in their actions and beliefs. This is the reason that Jesus went to the Cross. He pointed out where people erred in their actions and beliefs.

Unlike the new ape-man who seem to not be able to recognize facts.

I mentioned "WHAT" homosexuals "DO" because I use empirical means to prove my position. I haven't the shred of bigotry in my position if I use basic facts.

If you find it wrong to do that, it is you wwho does not want to see facts, not I.

I was responding to the how and why of the immorality of homosexuality. Without detailed example, I do not see how that can be done. I have no desire to hide my head in the sand.



That is how AIDS spread.

[AlAyeti]

AlAyeti continues to assert that his views are backed by science. This assertion has been challenged in the debate thread, Does Science show that Homosexual behaviour is immoral? AlAyeti has not answered this challenge.

If [graphic depctions of homosexual sex acts] cannot convince an educated person or any other, of the immorality inherent in homosexuality, then using facts of anatomy, physiology and biology - all sciences - are like talking to swine in a pen to keep the area clean.
Should I post this in the above thread?
I think the stone walls of intellect will still see my perfect logic as bigotry.

This is the kind of response that should have been expected from AlAyeti.
It would have been preferable if AlAyeti had used logic, reason and empirical evidence to refute the arguments made against him in the Religion and Science forum. AlAyeti seems to be convinced that unfavourable depictions of acts he considers immorral are enough to prove his point. Perhaps this is true in the playground of an eighth grade school.

///

Like I wrote, I use basic empiricism and am still called a bigot or worse.

It is Liberals that want to celebrate homosexuality to eighth graders. I obviously am in opposition of this.

I can't qualify your rebuttal as disingenuous. It is not in that category. But it purposely distorts truth and accuracy.

"Unfavorable depictions," are used in every court of law in America. It is called by lawyers as "proof and evidence."

I went to the science and religion thread. How can I give input to a bunch of bobblehead dolls patting each other on their diversity-backs carrying all of that blind permissiveness?

The initial question was presented accurately and then somehow attacked by the presenter. A bizaare form of debate to be sure. Typical of the elitist mentality. I love that they call themselves "freethinkers."

The whole science and religion thread is as open-minded and polite to Christians as a Cobra to a young rabbit.

[McCulloch]

Like I wrote, I use basic empiricism and am still called a bigot or worse.

Sorry, I missed the empiricism. Does that mean the same thing as logic, reason and evidence?

It is Liberals that want to celebrate homosexuality to eighth graders. I obviously am in opposition of this.

And so am I. But what I meant is that to an eighth grader is it sufficient to describe something as being yukky to prove that it is immoral. Adults should require a higher standard of proof.

I can't qualify your rebuttal as disingenuous. It is not in that category. But it purposely distorts truth and accuracy.

I do not want to distort truth or accuracy. I do hope that AlAyeti would point out specifically what untruth or inaccuracy I have committed.

"Unfavorable depictions," are used in every court of law in America. It is called by lawyers as "proof and evidence."

Yes, it can be used as proof that certain events have occurred. It cannot be used as proof that any activity is immoral. I think that AlAyeti may be confusing the two.

I went to the science and religion thread. How can I give input to a bunch of bobblehead dolls patting each other on their diversity-backs carrying all of the permissiveness?

It is called debate. You present your reasons with logic and evidence. You refute your opponents by showing them with logic and evidence that their position is irrational or untruthful.

The initial question was presented accurately and then somehow attacked by the presenter. A bizaare form of debate to be sure. Typical of the elitist menatality. I love that they call themselves "freethinkers."

I am looking forward to AlAyeti joining in a real debate.

[MagusYanam]

I meant PBS in regards to NPR. So I can be mistaken. I found this website on yahoo's search engine:http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/hate.html

PBS isn't exactly a big fan of historic Christianity.

As to which is the more trustworthy source of information, I'll take PBS and NPR over some wacko Internet 'blog, thankyouverymuch. At least PBS and NPR have some accountability to the American public.

However, as to PBS's treatment of Christianity (historic or contemporary), I found Bill Moyers' Understanding Genesis series to be extremely even-handed. They had Walter Brueggemann and Phylis Trible as guest speakers, as well as a professor from Fuller Theological Seminary whose name is currently eluding me.

Caring for ones neighbor, in the Christian sense, also means to bring the Gospel of life to them. Unfortunately for the all-inclusive diversity promoting clique, this means pointing out where they err in their actions and beliefs. This is the reason that Jesus went to the Cross. He pointed out where people erred in their actions and beliefs.

The reason Jesus went to the Cross was to save humanity from sin and death. He could have saved himself, but chose not to for our sake. Pointing out human error had nothing to do with the Crucifixion. Saving people from human error had everything to do with it.

Unlike the new ape-man who seem to not be able to recognize facts.

I mentioned "WHAT" homosexuals "DO" because I use empirical means to prove my position. I haven't the shred of bigotry in my position if I use basic facts.

If you find it wrong to do that, it is you wwho does not want to see facts, not I.

I was responding to the how and why of the immorality of homosexuality. Without detailed example, I do not see how that can be done. I have no desire to hide my head in the sand.

Like I wrote, I use basic empiricism and am still called a bigot or worse.

We can see the 'facts' and the 'empiricism' just fine. And we weren't calling you to task for being a bigot, we were calling you to task for being obscene. If you're so in favour of decency and morality, you can appreciate that lurid and pornographic descriptions of sex acts might be unwelcome on a forum predicated on civil and mature discussion. This may sound a bit Victorian, but if you don't see how discussing sexuality in a civil and mature manner can be done, then you shouldn't be discussing it here at all.

In the opinion of this moderator, the 'facts' could have been handled with a bit more decency on your part. If you have a problem with that decision, you're to call it to my attention via private message.

[AlAyeti]

Magus,

Is there one "conservative" moderator at debatingchristianty.com?

And, if my depictions of sex acts as they relate in exactness to the homosexual sex acts carried out by male and female homosexuals - as can be observed by the evidence I presented - is "obscene", it is precisely because they are immoral.

I am, in this thread, defending the actions of a good Pastor. Democrats cast there votes against God, the Bible and the Church. Why should they be allowed to stay in it?

There are good reasons to ask Liberal-Democrats to leave a good church. Liberals do not find anything wrong or obscene about sexual sins or unnatural sexuality. As well as many other incompatibility beliefs held by the modern Liberal.

For example, McCulloch wants me to answer the thread on morality and homosexuality and hasn't a clue that there is not one shred of morality presented in the homosexual lifestyle except for protection during one of the many promiscuios encounters that is inherent in the culture.

What culture celebrates whoredom? Is that culture and belief system compatible with what is trying to be held as sacred in a good church?

Same-sex marriage follows the further decline of our society like a VD to a prostiutute. It is a natural progression. Odd that the word "Progressive" defines those that celebrate and proliferate sexual promiscuity under the guise of civil rights. Notice that it is always divorce rates that give some kind of evil accpetance to same-sex marriage. All it will do is give credibilty to a lifestyle rooted in promiscuity without challenge or opposition within its own "community."

A church that wants to return to or maintain holiness like the Baptist Church in question, opposes so many things held by the modern liberal as to make it necesary to challenge them first in the church, like done by the Minister in question, and then to preach against them every Sunday.

By the way . . . "The reason Jesus went to the Cross was to save humanity from sin and death. He could have saved himself, but chose not to for our sake. Pointing out human error had nothing to do with the Crucifixion. Saving people from human error had everything to do with it."

Evolution, as in Darwinian, makes what you wrote impossible. Interesting that a Christian can embrace the antithetical and still claim membership.

Jesus, was not the product of natural selection from eons of mutations from primordial ooze that somehow created itself.

You cannot have the Nicene Creed in one hand, and Origin of Species in the other. Even Darwin didn't do that. He rejected Jesus because of his belief in evolution.

[micatala]

And, if my depictions of sex acts as they relate in exactness to the homosexual sex acts carried out by male and female homosexuals - as can be observed by the evidence I presented - is "obscene", it is precisely because they are immoral.

This is illogical. You are saying that something is obscene because it is immoral. In other words, if something is immoral it is obscene.

This does not meet the usual definition of obscene, certainly not the definition Magus is using. Lot's of immoral things would not normally be considered obscene (eg. stealing a walkman from radio shack).

Also, lots of things that would be found obscene if described in detail on the forum would not be considered immoral.

Democrats cast there votes against God, the Bible and the Church.

A gross over-generalization at best. Better characterized as a rank falsehood. Magus and others have argued effectively that Democrats are no more against God, the Bible, or the CHurch than Republicans. Why is the pastor not also excluding Republicans?

Again, just because a Christian has different views than you does not mean they are not CHristian, are anti-God, or are against 'the Church.' You are implying by your statements that your judgment about who is CHristian or not is the same as GOd's would be.

Same-sex marriage follows the further decline of our society like a VD to a prostiutute. It is a natural progression.

An unsubstantiated assertion, unless you redefine 'decline of society' to be equivalent to 'allowing same-sex marriage.' If you want to empirically establish that this is true, you would need to specifically define what you mean by 'decline of society,' and then show how this decline correlates or is caused by or causes same-sex marriage. You should address the situations in those countries that have allowed same-sex marriage to see if they are in a further state of decline than those that do not allow it.

Evolution, as in Darwinian, makes what you wrote impossible. Interesting that a Christian can embrace the antithetical and still claim membership.

Jesus, was not the product of natural selection from eons of mutations from primordial ooze that somehow created itself.

You cannot have the Nicene Creed in one hand, and Origin of Species in the other.

THis is really off-topic, but I don't buy for a second the assertion that evolution is anti-thetical to Christianity.

Jesus said "My words are spirit and they are life," and "the flesh counts for nothing." Jesus is clearly concerned about spiritual matters. I don't think He cares one whit about evolution, as evolution has to do with flesh. God is a spiritual being, after all, and so clearly if we are 'created in His image' this an only mean with respect to our spiritual natures.

[micatala]

I found this website on yahoo's search engine:http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/hate.html

PBS isn't exactly a big fan of historic Christianity.

WHat is this site evidence of?

Here is the full text.

Hate Crimes

Tonight, I was watching a "documentary" on PBS about the burning of Rome under the rule of Nero. It started out innocent enough by clearly trying to prove that Nero may not have intentionally burned Rome down as some think by proving that the fire was probably naturally caused and spread. Towards the end, it began trying to prove the "evil" Christians probably burned Rome down intentionally going completely against the "proofs" they had used to vindicate Nero.





They started by showing that the fire probably had been of natural origin in order to vindicate Nero and then went against their own proofs for it being of natural origin to prove that it really had been arson in order to prove the Christians had intentionally caused the fire blatently ignoring that they had just "proved" that the fire was probably of natural origin.

It would be interesting to see this documentary and determine if this viewer's characterization is anything close to accurate. My guess is that the documentary simply presented the prevailing competing views and the evidence and lack of evidence for each.

It was very clear that this was not a documentary but a hate crime paid for by our tax dollars clearly intended to cause non Christians to hate Christians. I have been noticing that there are increasing numbers of such "documentaries" on both PBS and the other liberal TV stations trying to discredit and/or turn people against Christians.

These people clearly hate God, the Bible, Christianity, and Christians and I realized tonight that what they are doing is trying to turn people against Christians in order to cause non Christians to declare Christianity evil and a hate crime so they can outlaw Christianity and begin legally persecuting Christians in order to destroy Christianity.

And now we get into the completely unsubstantiated and wild speculations and false assertions.

THe writer has created his own fictional characiture of 'these people' without any evidence to back up his claims.

The really scary thing is that this guy says he used to be a high school science teacher.

Here is the rest of his diatribe without further interruption or comment.

I have noticed the same trends in certain TV shows such as Charmed where they regularly portray Christians as being evil, bad, and stupid while portraying such things as witches, demons, satanists, and other pagan and occult religions and entities as being good.

Tonight, all of this came together for me causing me to realize that these shows are actually a hate crime against Christianity designed to cause Christianity to be outlawed the way Hitler outlawed the Jews and begin the same kind of persecution against Christians in order to wipe us out the way Hitler tried to wipe the Jews out. These shows and "documentaries" by the liberal media and Hollywood are nothing more than hate crimes against Christians intentionally designed to cause the persecution of Christians as has been caused for the Jews and others in the past by such evil people.

All Christians need to be made aware of these hate crimes against us and stand up to fight against such hatreds before it is too late and you are being legally persecuted. Once the laws are passed against Christianity and the persecutions become legal, it will be too late. The God haters will have won and we will pay for our apathy with our blood and our lives. If nothing else, think of your children. Do you want them thrown in death camps probably called rehabilitation centers by these God haters? Think about it.

These evil people are doing exactly the same thing to Christians that Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews with their lies and propaganda. When will our Chistal Nacht arrive? I see increasing evidence that it is working the same way.

This is certainly not evidence that Christianity has been or is likely to be made illegal in any way. There is not even any real evidence that the documentary cited is anti-CHristian or anti-God in any way. Even if the claims about the documentary and the people who made it were true, it would still not be evidence of 'Christianity being or about to be outlawed.'

No evidence at all. Just paranoia.

[Jose]

Is it not now a business to turn human offspring into a "miracle cure" for all types of diseases?

No. There is an effort to understand gene expression enough to be able to cure certain types of diseases. You forget, of course, that you cannot be cured by implanting cells from any old person. Your immune system would reject them, just as with organ transplants. You seem to be imagining a world that does not exist, and probably cannot exist.

So Steve Reeves wasn't representing hope in a "miracle cure" in Stem Cells?

I'm sorry if I stand secure that my "assertions" are founded on real life happenings. There are countries all over the earth hoping to "cash in" on Stem Cell research. Cash in as in cash in. Poor women will be lining up to sell their "human" offspring as a commodity the same way as milk cows do now. There is ultimate evil in that.

Humans as a commodity.

You didn't follow what I said. If I have a problem that can be fixed by stem cells, I need my own stem cells because my body will reject those from someone else. I cannot just buy them from someone else. To achieve my cure, we'd need to know how to take one of my own cells and reprogram it to grow into stem cells, and then use those cells for my cure.

At present, we don't know enough to be able to do this. The research is aimed at acquiring that knowledge. The research does require some human stem cell lines to work with--but it is the work at the beginning of the search that needs them. The cures that come out of it will be by reprogramming a few cells of the person who needs the cure.

I have the right to believe that the Bible is clear on the issues of the day and that there are people who misrepresent the truth for evil purposes. A Christian that doesn't believe that there is incarnate evil is wierd. It is the same as an Atheist that believes in God.

You certainly have this right. I agree that there are people who misrepresent the truth for evil purposes. There is, indeed, evil incarnate--and I think we'd all agree that there is. The difference is that there seem to be particular flavors of Christians who seem to think that the gravest evils are sex and homosexuality, along with abortion, while others of us see those as side-issues that distract us from the Really Evil things we should be working together to fight.

I present science and you brush me aside as just using my narrow assertions for my views.

Stem Cell research is making products from human embryos.

DNA proves that an individual is just that. All DNA present at conception. YOU, were never NOT going to be exactly you.

Anatomy settles the bigotry issue on homosexuality. Homosexuals may or (by the lack of any proof ) may not, possess a congenitalbrain-defect to seek procreation where they will never find it, but I do find it fascinating, the convoluted logic used by detractors of Christianty, to seek to belittle a Christain that uses empiricism to amke a stand against them and their beliefs.

But, you are making narrow assertions. Stem cell research is currently trying to get some cell lines to work with, but its eventual goal is not what you imagine. The biology is against it. Your assertion is too narrow; your worries grow out of having enough knowledge to imagine what might be done, but not quite enough to know that much of what you can imagine isn't likely, and may not even be possible. You can set aside that worry.

For the DNA bit, yeah--the instructions we get from Mom and Dad determine a great deal about us. But there are other issues as well, about which we know more than you want to admit, concerning embryological development. It should be enough to conclude that homosexuality results from biology, not choice. To the Christian, that biology--the magic of the creation of another human being--is said to be directed by God. Why can't we allow God's creations to live their lives with respect from the rest of us, rather than horror? They are doomed to a life without procreation, and are an "evolutionary dead end." Their plight is not contagious; you can't "catch gay" from anyone. Why do you care what they do?

To respect God's creations is not anti-Christian. To examine and learn from God's creations is not anti-Christian, even if God put into his creation the proof of evolution. What would be anti-Christian would be to say "Christians are dodos!" but we aren't doing that. We are describing the results of investigation of God's world.

I am, in this thread, defending the actions of a good Pastor. Democrats cast there votes against God, the Bible and the Church. Why should they be allowed to stay in it?

There are good reasons to ask Liberal-Democrats to leave a good church. Liberals do not find anything wrong or obscene about sexual sins or unnatural sexuality. As well as many other incompatibility beliefs held by the modern Liberal.

I do not, in any way, see that Democrats cast their votes against God, the Bible, and the church. They did not cast their votes for GW Bush because they knew what idiocy he has used as his guiding principles for governance--as illustrated by his absolute refusal to pay attention to scientific information in developing policy. One small example is his ignoring the science and the scientists who implored government agencies to wake up and pay attention to the vulnerability of New Orleans to devastation by hurricanes. Is it anti-Christian to want to help protect your fellow man? There is more to Christianity than fear of homosexuality. And your "good Pastor" throws people out of his church if they strive for these other Christian ideals instead of focusing on sex.

Caring for ones neighbor, in the Christian sense, also means to bring the Gospel of life to them. ...

Unlike the new ape-man who seem to not be able to recognize facts.

Those stupid, licentious Liberals merely want to help their neighbors survive, and be able to enjoy Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Rather than repair the environmental damage that led to the inundation of New Orleans, let's give the drowning man the Gospel.

[Jose]

WHat is this site evidence of?

Here is the full text.

<snipped for brevity>

No evidence at all. Just paranoia.

This is really scary. How do people come to these conclusions? Do they sit in dark corners whispering to each other, and never come out and look around? Christianity is the Major Religion in the US, and comprises a majority of the population! How can anyone even imagine that it's under attack?

This is the kind of nuttiness that leads to the "pre-emptive strike," in which the paranoid perpetrate some kind of violence on everyone else.

[Chimp]

Here's a more reliable description of the content...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_rome/clues.html

Draw your own conclusions.