Private property rights? - advice needed to settle a bet

RightFighter

[LiteKeeper]

Fine for you. I will stick to the reported words of Christ and continue to reject all teachings added by later "apostles" as of no more worth than those of Jimmy Swaggert.

Do you consider Paul, Peter, and James as "later apostles?" Are you rejecting the all but the Gospels in the New Testament? I am just curious how wide a net you cast over "all teachings."

[Servant of the Nine]

How do you know those words are reported accurately?

I don't, I just hope.

So9

[RightWhale]

the church, as a private entity, has every right to tell someone that they are not welcome on the property, and would have the right to have someone arrested for trespassing if they failed to heed such a request.

They would need a good reason that would be acceptable anyplace else. Disrupting services would be a good reason. Whether someone merely being there is disruptive is doubtful.

[Sloth]

Well, that seems a little goofy. Why bother at all? The Gospel writers are either reliable, or they're not. For example, if you reject the various teachings in the book of Acts (after Christ left Earth), why lend ANY credence to the words of Christ recorded in the gospel of Luke -- by the *same author* as Acts? Did he faithfully record Christ's words, and then turn around and write another book full of lies?

[alancarp]

I was always under the impression that I should be guided by the Holy Spirit, not by a human membership board!

I will only ask you to consider this: the first scriptural example of everything we've been discussing in this thread: please review Acts 5:1-10. In here we find Peter being God's instrument to apply discipline to two church members who blatently lied to God. It is the Holy Spirit Himself who opted for the ultimate punishment for that sin: the killing of Annanias and his wife.

We are under authority: God defined some of that authorithy structure in 1 Timothy -- pastors and elders. These people are ordained for God's service and must yield themselves to the wisdom granted by the Holy Spirit. They don't go off willy-nilly and try to engage in witch hunts. That is absolutely wrong! We've all been given the Spirit as beleivers. Pleae don't think that this isn't part of the equation.

[Dogrobber]

Not only can the Church expell whomsoever they wish, the Government cannot involve itself in the dispute, either through civil rights laws or a suit by the expelled person, because the issue is one of dogma and to resovle the dispute would intertwine the state in religious issue in prohibition to the First Amendment. The fact that the prior posts all seem to debate christian values provides proof that to enter this dispute the government would end up be the religious "judge" of this church, a position prohibited by the free excercise/non-establishment clause of good ole #1.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Has it escalated to the point of the woman being told in front of the whole congregation to do something about this open sin of hers or else be gone? If so, the embarrassment alone ought to be enough to make her go away till she gets it right. But yes you can ban anyone you wish for any reason you wish, it's private property.

[billbears]

bump

[Rate_Determining_Step]

> Let's see, the church gets tax-free status, because it adminsters to those in need. Now, if you want to assume 'Private Property' rights, it would only make sense that the church would forfeit it's tax-free status.

Why must the two be coupled? Private property is one thing and your tax status is another. The public doesn't "own" the church because they don't pay as much taxes as a business.

Have you come to the mentality of this country that your property reverts to the government each year and you must buy it back?!

- RDS
(atheist)

[Protagoras]

An unrepentant sinner who refuses to change works against the faith of the faithful.

Which, while true, doesn't make it morally right to physically bar a sinner from attending worship. I don't think it says that in the bible. So I don't think the bible is fairly clear on that.

[Protagoras]

attempted purpose of disrupting or splitting the church,

Which has nothing to do with the question. Certainly anyone who brought a trombone to church to play during the sermon could morally be removed from private property.

[Hodar]

Have you come to the mentality of this country that your property reverts to the government each year and you must buy it back?!

Yes, that is exactly correct. This country pays for your property's defense, communications, power, transportation, sanitation and emergency services. Thus, there is a tab that MUST be payed. For a church to insist on a 'tax-exempt' status, it must (IMHO) show that it is providing for the public a service (no pun intended). If the church does not provide a service to the community, there is no reason for the church to receive the civic services it shares in, in the tax-exempt state. If that is the case, (again, IMHO) it should be treated as private property, and subject to taxes as any privately owned property would.

If you disagree, and refuse to pay your property taxes, and you will soon find that the gov't will seize your property. So, again, yes indeedie ... the US Gov't 'owns' your property, and you buy it back every year when you pay your property taxes.

[Centurion2000]

As property laws stand in Texas, the owner or someone acting on behalf or representing the owner has the right to demand ANYONE to leave their property at the express instructions of the abovementioned people.

If, after being told to leave, the person remains on property it is a class B misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass. If that person is armed with a weapon of deadly force then that person commits a class A misdemeanor of criminal trespass

[stuartcr]

How do you even know they were spoken?

[jimt]

I don't think it says that in the bible.

Perhaps a quote to back up your assertion? I don't think you can find one.

Bible quotes aside, why is it wrong for a private group to be able to choose its members? Isn't this simply "freedom of association"?

[hopespringseternal]

I don't think it says that in the bible.

Maybe you should read the two posts above where it is conclusively shown that the bible says exactly that for a Christian actively engaged in sin who defies the call to repent.

That is a different situation from someone who is not a Christian.

[savedbygrace]

Hank, your opinion is not in line with the Word of God. Suggest you re-read 1 Corinthians. If being in line with God's word is important to you, that is.

Also, Jesus taught about this. Some have cut that part of the Gospels out of the Bible, though, so it's not surprising so many comments on this thread are against the idea.

After you study this some more, if you really can't find what Jesus and Paul said about it, write back.

[ought-six]

"I'm guessing that the church would have the same property rights that a business owner has. They can tell someone that they aren't welcome and after that the person is trespassing if they set foot on the property."

That's right.

[cinFLA]

hmmm. The church is 'divorcing' itself from the woman who no longer has the same goals that is divorcing the man who no longer has the same goals .... hmmmmm

[G.Mason]

"I'm just looking for some Freeper advice to help me settle a bet with a friend."

1st things 1st.

How much is the bet and what percentage of it are you willing to part with for the correct answer that will win it for you?