You continue to blur the lines between church and state. But to answer your obfuscation, if the law of the land were to mandate they must publicly identify by some sort of physical sign while in public I would not object.
“obfuscation” you asked me I’m only asking your opinion in return. That’s only fair, isn’t it?
Bringing issues of legality (the state) into how the church implements their morals and ethics is blurring lines (obfuscation). The state believes it’s ok to murder a baby in the womb. Should the church follow suit in its preaching about abortion?
No of course not.
Okay, then you must understand the irrelevance of the implication in your question to me about tagging a molester in public places like Walmart, right?
You asked me if I would be ok with it. And I said I wouldn’t be against it. I’m other words, you asked first.
it was your question. So if it’s irrelevant, your question originally was irrelevant. I was just asking you in return.
I asked you what? Dude, put the bong down.
Post#150 = “So should the former (presumably repentant) molester have to wear some external identification so everyone is aware of their former crime? Should we keep them from Walmart and public places where children might be present?”
It was post 140. That was hyperbolic rhetoric. In other words, the obvious expected answer to my question then was “no”. For homework, see Reductio ad absurdum. And my question, rhetorical as it was, stemmed from the statement (about removing them completely from access to the public) you made early in the thread in post# 48 “I personally believe that there is no room for these kind of people in my community much less the church I attend”