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.

[MagusYanam]

and was indeed as rude to Christians as I have seen here on debatingchristianty.com. You should have seen me in my confirmation classes. The Bobbleheadism you know so well.

And things have changed... how? Rudeness to atheists as well? I can hardly call that an improvement.

Rudeness and name-calling don't win debates. 'Bobblehead' is not an argument; it is a label, and it shows the weakness of your stance that it can't be argued using more civil language.

And Psychiatrist will no longer fear having to be sued for "labeling" deviants. They can just sign the commitment papers and go golfing without a crowd of rabble-rousers to harass the sound medical opinion behind recognizing the insane.

Paedophilia is a crime and psychiatrists do recognise it as a mental disorder. The reason paedophilia is recognised as a mental illness and homosexuality is not has more to do with how you'd go about addressing the cause of homosexuality than with the politics of the matter. We do know what causes paedophilia, for example (and can thus treat it and categorise it as a mental disorder), but not homosexuality. Since we don't know the cause of homosexuality, presuming it to be a mental illness is counterproductive - psychiatrists and psychologists studying homosexuality realise this. It's not political pressure as much as it is intellectual honesty.

[AlAyeti]

AlAyeti wrote:
and was indeed as rude to Christians as I have seen here on debatingchristianty.com. You should have seen me in my confirmation classes. The Bobbleheadism you know so well.

And things have changed... how? Rudeness to atheists as well? I can hardly call that an improvement.

Rudeness and name-calling don't win debates. 'Bobblehead' is not an argument; it is a label, and it shows the weakness of your stance that it can't be argued using more civil language.

Close-mindedness is the position I fight against. "Bobbelhead" is an appropriate "label" to say the least. It is a parody more than an insult. But I do mean it in the comical sense. I laugh hysterically whenever I hear the "who made God" thing. It's soooo original.

AlAyeti wrote:
And Psychiatrist will no longer fear having to be sued for "labeling" deviants. They can just sign the commitment papers and go golfing without a crowd of rabble-rousers to harass the sound medical opinion behind recognizing the insane.

Please be very, very careful in taking in the following info. I got it from the Traditional Values Coalition. Oooh. You gotta be careful when these Christian organizations present anything:

Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."

Prior to the APA's 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.

The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section "302. Sexual Deviations." It was the first deviation listed.

After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA's mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.

I guess there are other opinions similar:

Dr. Socarides Speaks Out

Dr. Satinover shows how APA's policies were influcenced by closeted homosexual APA leaders.
Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.

Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes: "To declare a condition a 'non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years…"

Socarides continued: "For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status.

Ahhhh who can you believe . . . who can you believe.

Paedophilia is a crime and psychiatrists do recognise it as a mental disorder.

Sodomy and homosexuality were both "once" a crime.

The reason paedophilia is recognised as a mental illness and homosexuality is not has more to do with how you'd go about addressing the cause of homosexuality than with the politics of the matter.

Pedo[hiles are striving for that "politics" as we write.

We do know what causes paedophilia, for example (and can thus treat it and categorise it as a mental disorder), but not homosexuality.

Would that be by anatomical, physiological or biological input?

Since we don't know the cause of homosexuality, presuming it to be a mental illness is counterproductive - psychiatrists and psychologists studying homosexuality realise this.

And what if pedophiles become Psychiatrists at the head of the APA?

It's not political pressure as much as it is intellectual honesty.

The intellectualism of that sentence bows to the emotionalism of its author, as the political pressure of the homosexual agenda is indeed driving every qualifier of "what" homosexuality "is."

Certainly anatomy, phusiology and biology sees the same unnaturalness of sex with children and sex with someone of the same sex.

[melikio]

Sodomy and homosexuality were both "once" a crime.

Why should it have ever been a criminal offense in modern society?

Why isn't remarriage a crime? Isn't THAT adultery (in most cases)?

And surely, DIVORCE affects far more families than homosexuality does.

Why do some guys need 2, 3, 4 wives in their lifetime? (Could be a MENTAL disorder..blah...blah...)

WE NEED LEGISLATION NOW!! (To protect marriage/families)

-Mel-

[melikio]

Pedo[hiles are striving for that "politics" as we write.

Then THAT "politics" is your real issue, not that this nation and the world has "homosexuals" in it.

Why do you keep trying to associate homosexuals with criminals? (Where is the real and valid comparison?)

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

Quote:
Pedo[hiles are striving for that "politics" as we write.

Then THAT "politics" is your real issue, not that this nation and the world has "homosexuals" in it.

Why do you keep trying to associate homosexuals with criminals? (Where is the real and valid comparison?)

Why are you trying to pin a hate crime on me? Oh that's right, new law.

I have every intention as a Bible-believing person to view the redefining of marriage and family as impossible. If a person chooses a lifestyle outside of that definition so be it.

But I present the consistent message that chaos will ensue relativism taking hold of society. Once "anything goes" is a civil right, then anything goes!

It's that simple and it makes the Christian position satnd alone on the world's stage. No, I'm not looking for persecution. I believe in Abraham's math as keeping things going for a while longer.

[melikio]

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.

Really.

How deeply into politics should any given church be?

Even so, I'm glad those people exercised their right to LEAVE in protest.

I believe God is concerned overall, but likely hasn't advocated that people become divided over the issues they tend to.

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

Really.

How deeply into politics should any given church be?

When abomination is embraced by believers as justifiable things to support within politics, then a good Pastor has to react. Jesus did the same thing.

Even so, I'm glad those people exercised their right to LEAVE in protest.

You may want to read the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament to see which Christians reacted more accurately to Christins doctrine.

I believe God is concerned overall, but likely hasn't advocated that people become divided over the issues they tend to.

Not according to Jesus. If family members have to decide how to follow Christ, than what Church members do with each other is even easier to deal with Biblically.

[melikio]

When abomination is embraced by believers as justifiable things to support within politics, then a good Pastor has to react. Jesus did the same thing.

How did Jesus react toward religious HYPOCRITES...as opposed to a harlot?

Are people just going to TALK about and proclaim religious "absolutes", or LIVE them?

There is a math equation you like to present here; how about this one:

Religion minus Love (charity) = NOTHING.

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

Quote:
When abomination is embraced by believers as justifiable things to support within politics, then a good Pastor has to react. Jesus did the same thing.

How did Jesus react toward religious HYPOCRITES...as opposed to a harlot?

Are people just going to TALK about and proclaim religious "absolutes", or LIVE them?

There is a math equation you like to present here; how about this one:

Religion minus Love (charity) = NOTHING.

Have you ever taken CPR? They teach you to pound on a person's chest with both hands. Is that teaching hate or love for thy neighbor?

I have never questioned your salvation.

Questioinng the forcing of change onto Christianity is my duty.

Granted I do not present love in the fluffy-bunny mode, but yelling at a hysteriacl screaming man is sometimes the only way they can hear anything.

You need to post a new thread on "what" loving your neighbor "is." If you think that it's mandating that Christianty has to change to make the secular godless world like or accept the Church you are dreaming a dream that will never be realized. A Church that literally IS the world is not the Church. It is Babylon.

If this was a purly Christian website I would approach this (and you), in a far different way.

But this is a place where one-sided niceness is seen as submission and not diametric disagreement.

Darkness and light cannot dwell in the same place. And one thing about repentance, it is offered unconditionally forever.

Now, if those Democrat Baptists were to show remorse, they would have no problems finding their old seats in their old church.

[melikio]

Questioinng the forcing of change onto Christianity is my duty.

Al, if what you are talking about IS "Christianity", then I'm really better off not being Christian.

Rather than try to work anything more out with you, or talking about it through your lens, I'll take it up with God.

And you really don't define Chrsitianity for each person who actually has a relationship with God/Jesus; you merely give your view of what you think/believe the parameters of Christianity may be.

I'm not going to contend with you anymore because it became fruitless. I believe God ultimately uses reality (WHAT IS) to winnow out truth to/for all of us. And that can be frustrating to humanity at times, because we can really only know PART of WHAT (actually) IS.

I think it's clear enough that we disagree on core issues, and we've likely learned something from that disagreement. But I don't worship "learning" enough per se, to subject myself to any and everything that comes off of others, just to "learn" some new or missing thing (from my collection of knowledge); there are billions of opinions and real consensus involves more than I can achieve with you here. Some of the effects of things you say (true or not), aren't worth enduring (at least not on a repeated basis); the way we interact is negative (I'm sure, for me at least). I have tried.

I can't talk to a Christain who is offended and reacts negatively, every time their view of "Christianity" is challenged. I used to be that way, but contrary to those who interpret the Bible in a way that leads to continuous CONFLICT between people, I see something else. I don't mind discussion and disagreement, but I can't answer for every position and/or emotion from people who feel so strongly about all of it, that they are DIFFICULT.

I think the primary power true Christians possess, is found in love, not much of what you consistently embrace as fact and opinion. Since I don't know YOU really, I realize it's better to not further contend anything, to a point where I might think of you as a BAD GUY; the simple fact is that we just disagree and the format that this forum represents, makes finding a consensus with you impossible for me. Perhaps if you really knew me, it might all make a bit more sense; but not here...this is exhausting (in part because of me, you and reality itself).

Maybe some desire to argue this (Christian) stuff for their entire lives, I know I cannot and I won't. If the love/compassion I'm willing to show others doesn't translate (by God's grace) into what is "Christian", then I can only answer to God for that. I can't answer to every person who has an interpretation of "Christianity" (what they believe it is). At some point, God will just show me the truth/s I need to know (though I still won't know ALL); I've always had enough faith to believe that.

And honestly, I have to remember, to not debate anything with you; perhaps if I find something we agree upon I may mention it. Even so, I've learned that I shouldn't argue with you (in particular) any longer. What's going on between us right now, feels a lot to me like the things that are happening in France; it's very negative stuff.

Peace and grace to you,

-Mel-