Southern Baptist Church, and Democrats Options

[Jaq]

A Southern Baptist church in East Waynesville, North Carolina has expelled all of its Democrats

Well, actually 9 of them have been expelled and another additional 40 left as protest.

From another message board:

She (posters mother) said WLOS tv just broke in to report that the East Waynesville Baptist church has officially excommunicated all its democratic members.

She said that before the election, the preacher told the congregation from the pulpit that if they didn't vote for * they had to come to the altar to confess their sins and repent. they could'nt be members. (My Mom doesn't attend that church--she's United Methodist, but I know of lots who do attend).

From Mom's email: "One of the local women who got excommunicated said on TV that it was like a cult. Another man who got excommunicated said that the rest of the congregation stood up and applauded as the Democrats were told to leave."

This seems to signal to me another step towards not just the gradual blurring of the boundary between church and state, but a full blown theocracy.

Ten Commandments in public places, debating homosexual marriage in the context of religion (when it's a secular government policy and wouldn't have any impact on churches as they wouldn't be required to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies), prayer in schools... the list goes on..


What think you? The States heading towards a theocracy, or am I just blowing things out of proportion? Would a theocracy be such a bad thing? Why? Why not? Please submit your essays by 5:00 p.m. 500 words or less.

[believe]

There's a huge difference between gay marriage and ordaining gay pastors. Gay marriage is something that everyone can vote on and which is a secular issue (though a person's religious standing on it will probably come into effect when they vote on it, which is fine). Ordaining gay clergy is a church matter. It doesn't effect anyone outside that church, so the government shouldn't get invovled, and it doesn't.

Sure. I wasn't trying to state church affairs as a political issue, but to point out that some of the gay rights activists to try to enforce their will on some churches. (Now, all activists do this as far as I can tell. Part of advancing your cause and all. I also believe that voting often includes enforcing your will on people, so.. c'est la vie.) Its more something that influences voting opinion or how people view an issue. Or why some might consider it something that involves them, rather than being a purely secular issue.

If you believe that the Bible told us that gays are sinners: The Bible also told us that women are unclean during periods and shouldn't be allowed in the church. We shouldn't eat pork. We shouldn't take into our bodies blood or blood products. We shouldn't eat an animal that we've found dead.

These were Jewish laws for pre-medieval times, ones that the modern church hasn't enforced as well.. we aren't Jews. Neither Jesus nor the NT have instructed Christians to follow Jewish regulations. As for the laws themselves, soap in the form we know know it didn't exist, people often didn't bathe regularly and disease was very, very hard to treat. There were also no neat pads or tampons during your period. Men were also considered unclean for a certain period of time after their bodily emissions, so hey.. equal oppertunity. These cleanliness laws likely saved a lot of lives, even if men abused the reason for them occasionally. Samonella, e-coli, colds and the regular array of illnesses weren't exactly understood. Things that promoted not touching decaying and infected meat=good.

So yes, people don't follow these laws, but they aren't required too. Hence it not being a sin to eat steak. Blood transfusions also didn't exist then, making it a reference to drinking animal blood. Which was sometimes a ritual component in sacrificing or witchcraft and not something that was used to save people's lives.

I think people realize that the Bible is a historical document and that while there are alot of good parts to it, many of the things it preaches have to be taken with a grain of salt.

heh. I always find this a little insulting, as a literal believer. People that believe that its God's word can in fact believe that the Bible is right, over popular opinion and demand. Its not a matter of if 'if you were just smarter/wiser you'd realize its not that true'. Some people just believe differently and sadly, its set up to where we won't know 100% who's right until we die.

You're right about the grain of salt, considering that a lot of people don't realize context at first glance. Context being that you're referring to Jewish laws from a different era and that Christians aren't required to follow those laws. The Jewish laws aren't really the problem in the homosexuality debate, considering that we don't follow most of those, excepting the Ten Commandments. Those are handily backed up in the NT. The bigger problem with the homosexuality debate is that its mentioned in the NT, which is followed.

And, in recent years, some say that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't actually that the people were gay, but that they were inhospitable to guests who were angels to boot.

Well, there's a bit more to it than that. This was a town so corrupt that they were ready to jump two strangers and rape them. Because they were handsome, innocent or whatever. Lot proved his er, goodness by offering his two virgin daughters to the mob, which was another shining moment. Those are all sins and have to be taken into account. Which fanatics rarely do when quoting the story. heh.

As for Lot being saved, him being Abraham's nephew probably needs to be taken into consideration. Abraham was the patriach and a man generally devoted to God. Lot had contact/training about God through Abraham and Abraham likely had prayed for him at some point. As to just why Lot was spared, well.. I think you're probably right about the hospitality. Lot was the only one that even tried to protect the angels, for all his other sins and fabulous parenting.