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”
I’m being sincere.
He'd be a better accuser than Satan standing before the throne of God! Sad....
Some of his answers and attitudes make me think that he's eating funny spinach! Maybe he's been eating "special brownies!"
Over my 4 decades of pastoring we dealt with this issue about 4 times. In only one instance did we allow the convicted offender to attend…attached at the hip to a deacon. This was a young adult man who had grown up in our church. He was convicted of having child porn on his computer….don’t remember exactly how it all came about but he was never suspected or accused of improper contact with a child.
“We decided that it’s hard to encourage parents to trust us with their kids on one hand and allow convicted, registered child molesters to attend our services.“
I fully respect that
He’s basically saying the same thing I’ve said just in a much more articulate nicer way.I fully respect that
Hopefully this changes the minds of some on here about this topic. I just do not understand……
And at least three separate times in the other thread I either implied or stated that the decision would be the collective effort of the church after deliberation on the matter. If you read Tarheel’s response, he said “we decided”. That means that either a group of elders or the church body decided on the issue on a case by case basis. The interesting question for me is how that decision making process played out. Did he get the final say? If it was a group of elders who deliberated, did he, as the senior pastor, get veto power? Did the church congregation have any input?
“did he, as the senior pastor, get veto power?”