Rules provide no help in avoiding evil desires

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I was referring to your thread title.



Can you explain "antinomian" to me?

I don't think Christianity is defined by a set of rules. Christianity is defined by a relationship with Jesus Christ. How that relationship looks may vary some from person to person. While there is some common factors, God deals with each person and their unique background and struggles.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

Ok, I agree it was stupid, but how was it criminal? Of course, I'm not the well-educated and card-carrying bar member that Baron is, but I do have some understanding of the legal topics that have been posted on this very forum. If the man is a member of that church and allowed the pastor to take the phone; He has consented to give the church, and that pastor, spiritual jurisdiction; And therefore, the pastor is covered by separation of church and state.

Taking something that doesn't belong to you is stealing, never covered by separation of church and state. I don't know where you get this spiritual jurisdiction nonsense. Your mistaken if you think a pastor has free reign to do whatever he wants to members.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Colossians 2:21-23 You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as, “Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!”? Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them. These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.

Why is it we have elevated rules to protect people and yet the Word says they are useless in doing that very thing.

Because then the preacher can measure ya.

[OilCityCajun]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Taking something that doesn't belong to you is stealing, never covered by separation of church and state.

I am quite sure the term "taken" in this case is not literal. I am sure the pastor told the man...possibly in the form of a request, along with a loving explanation of the reason the pastor thought this man's cell phone was hindering his walk with God, but most likely in the form of a demand...to surrender the phone and the man obeyed his pastor. Perhaps Sis. Alvear can clarify that point for us. You make it sound like the Pastor just went up to the man and jerked the phone from his hand or pocket. Possible, but HIGHLY unlikely. I don't think even the nuttiest of Ultra-Con pastors would be that stupid.

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I don't know where you get this spiritual jurisdiction nonsense. Your mistaken if you think a pastor has free reign to do whatever he wants to members.

Well, I was wrong about it being posted on these forums, but the link to it was posted here:

Originally Posted by DAII

Interesting "legal response" to the separation of Church and State arguments made by Fogarty @ Spiritual Abuse ....

http://spiritualabuse.org/experience...eparation.html

In the first paragraph under the heading of Guinn Vs. Church of God of Collinsville... "This case determined that while a person is a member of a church, they willingly submit to the religious doctrines and disciplinary actions of that church." I am starting to wonder just how good a lawyer you are if an uneducated, non-bar-certified wanna-be does better legal research than you do before issuing a legal opinion - or rather, an opinion on legal matters.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

I am quite sure the term "taken" in this case is not literal. I am sure the pastor told the man...possibly in the form of a request, along with a loving explanation of the reason the pastor thought this man's cell phone was hindering his walk with God, but most likely in the form of a demand...to surrender the phone and the man obeyed his pastor. Perhaps Sis. Alvear can clarify that point for us. You make it sound like the Pastor just went up to the man and jerked the phone from his hand or pocket. Possible, but HIGHLY unlikely. I don't think even the nuttiest of Ultra-Con pastors would be that stupid.


Well, I was wrong about it being posted on these forums, but the link to it was posted here: In the first paragraph under the heading of Guinn Vs. Church of God of Collinsville... "This case determined that while a person is a member of a church, they willingly submit to the religious doctrines and disciplinary actions of that church." I am starting to wonder just how good a lawyer you are if an uneducated, non-bar-certified wanna-be does better legal research than you do before issuing a legal opinion - or rather, an opinion on legal matters.

Well keep patting yourself on the back, I wouldn't try and carry this statement about submitting to church discipline as overriding the laws of the land. Reynolds v. US clearly set the standard on separation of church and state and justice Waite was quite clear that you cannot violate the laws of the land under the guise of religious freedom.

Also several cases have made a point that laws of general applicability apply to churches and individuals regardless of religious beliefs.

I wouldn't be handing out legal advice to quickly or your client will end up broke or in jail.

Also the case you cite was tossed for other reasons and the Supreme Court never ruled on the lower courts interpretation of the law, in other words an almost completely useless decision.

[OilCityCajun]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Reynolds v. US clearly set the standard on separation of church and state and justice Waite was quite clear that you cannot violate the laws of the land under the guise of religious freedom.

Of course not. And if it is proven that your literal interpretation of the term "took" in this case is accurate, I would agree with you. However, at this point, you and I are both assuming facts not in evidence.

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I wouldn't be handing out legal advice to quickly or your client will end up broke or in jail.

No, but I would for practicing law without a license.

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Also the case you cite was tossed for other reasons and the Supreme Court never ruled on the lower courts interpretation of the law, in other words an almost completely useless decision.

Were Hadnot Vs. Shaw and Hester Vs Barnett also overturned? The findings in those cases agree with the concept of consent to spiritual jurisdiction mentioned in Guinn Vs Church of God of Clarksville.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

Of course not. And if it is proven that your literal interpretation of the term "took" in this case is accurate, I would agree with you. However, at this point, you and I are both assuming facts not in evidence.

No, but I would for practicing law without a license.

Were Hadnot Vs. Shaw and Hester Vs Barnett also overturned? The findings in those cases agree with the concept of consent to spiritual jurisdiction mentioned in Guinn Vs Church of God of Clarksville.

An Oklahoma case and a Missouri case are not what one should cite when making arguments for separation of church and state. Look to Supreme Court cases for interpretation of Constitutional law.

[Baron1710]

"Religious organizations come before us in the same attitude as other voluntary associations for benevolent or charitable purposes, and their rights of property, or of contract, are equally under the protection of the law, and the actions of their members subject to its restraints." Watson v. Jones, 80 US 679

[OilCityCajun]

Very interesting, but not at all relevant, unless - as stated before - the assumed "facts" prove true. At this point, they are still not in evidence.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

Very interesting, but not at all relevant, unless - as stated before - the assumed "facts" prove true. At this point, they are still not in evidence.

Stick to what you know...leave the law to the professionals.

Churches have the right to do only what is allowed by law...nothing more.

A person can disassociate at any time and the church has no authority over them at all.