How do I answer this one?

[inkaneer]

Where do you think Luyher got his original ideas about the Jews from? The Churches doctrine calling them Christ killers. R C Sproul has addressed Luther’s issues and has denounced them.

There were Catholics who owned slaves as well as Jews and native Americans. It still does not make it right.

It’s funny you try to justify the churches bad actions by saying other people were bad too. So you are telling me because only 1000 to 2000 died it’s OK. There is blame on both sides.

Personally I don’t like the Protestant tag as I’m not protesting any thing. I want to go the restoration route. To restore the purity of first century faith and bypass all man made tradition as being necessary for salvation. I think that’s the thrust of non denominational churches.

First of all R.C. Sprowls is a Calvinist not a Lutheran so for him to denounce Luther means nothing. Now if he were to denounce Calvin… By the way there are people in Ligonier, PA who do not speak highly of him. They claim he has a problem with spirits of the liquid kind. I live not far from there. Now as for Luther, if, as you claim, Luther got his ideas from church doctrines then you can show me these “church doctrines” now can’t you? I would very much like to see them. However, I suspect that your allegation is just that, an allegation with no proof. I see a lot of that from protestants. As far as slavery is concerned I am sure there were Catholics who owned slaves but slavery was a protestant institution. Slavery flourished in the South which was predominantly protestant. Maryland was the only colony that was predominantly Catholic. The slave traders were predominantly English and Anglican.

As for the 1,000 -2,000 death figure I suggest you read the book by Henry Kamen entitled “The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision” (1997) and “Inquisition” (1988) by historian Edward Peters. By the way Mr. Kamen is a Jew and both he and Mr. Peters come to a very different conclusion than protestants. Of course they had access to documents released by the Spanish government after thre death of Generalissimo Franco in 1975. Mr. Peters wrote of prior work on the Spanish Inquisition:

“The Inquisition was an image assembled from a body of legends and myths which, between the twentieth and the sixteenth centuries, established the perceived character of inquisitorial tribunals and influenced all ensuing efforts to recover their historical reality.”

And I don’t try to justify anyone’s “bad actions”. I am content to have the truth exposed for what it is. I have no agenda as others do, namely the anti Catholic bigots that seem to proliferate amongst protestants. You didn’t see me saying the Lutheran church was anti semitic but I did say Luther was because quite frankly he admitted it in his own handwriting.

 

[inkaneer]

Amen, Inkaneer.

It seems because the Church tries to take the moral high road, we end up being painted as villains.

When I researched the Crusades and the Inquisitions, I was shocked and amazed by the truth. Every Catholic needs to learn more about Church history so we can properly defend it, else we have no reply and look guilty of whatever we are accused of.

I was also baffled when I read up a little on Martin Luther to learn that he was not the hero that he is made out to be by Protestants.

Misinformation seems to be the Devil’s favorite tool these days.

Here is something you will never hear about Luther from any protestant. He was a victim of physical and psychological abuse as a child. That abuse was what formed his theology regarding authority. But all protestants will admit to was that his parents were “strict”. But Luther writes in his own handwriting that he could never forgive his father for what he had done and he writes at length about being beaten by his mother until he bled for what Luther describes as “an insignificant nut”. His mother was what we would call a perfectionist who Luther could never please. Later Luther would anguish over how he could please God when he couldn’t please his own mother. His father wanted him to be a lawyer but Luther refused. Instead he did what he would do over and over. He ran from authority. First he ran to the Augustinians and became a monk. But authority reared its ugly head there too for while he was free of the parental authority he hated he was now under the authority of the Augustinian order and the Church. Ultimately he would reject all authority except that which he, himself could control and that was the authority of scripture, as long as it was Luther who was doing the interpretation. That was the beginning of sola scriptura and Luther lived to see others pick up on his idea and interpret scripture their own way, all to Luther’s consternation.

 

[jericho777]

First of all I have not seen any official record of any Jews being burnt alive for being Jewish. I have seen the allegations made by some protestant groups to this effect but they have made allegations only and submitted no proof what so ever. Anyone can make allegations but proving them is another matter. Second, how do you know that people were tortured for the purpose of saving their souls? How do you know they were innocent people? These are the allegations made by protestants and I have yet to see any proofpresented to support these allegations.

As far as Islam today is concerned, They believe they are involved in a"jihad" against us who they call the “crusaders”. Unless something is done you will live to see what happened in North Africa over a thousand years ago happen again in Europe. Already the alarms are being sounded in France.

So if Islam is on the move in europe as you say why does the church not fight against them like they did before?

I guess the church no matter how much it wants to cliam infallibility can’t prove it because of it’s past actions.

 

[jericho777]

First of all R.C. Sprowls is a Calvinist not a Lutheran so for him to denounce Luther means nothing. Now if he were to denounce Calvin… By the way there are people in Ligonier, PA who do not speak highly of him. They claim he has a problem with spirits of the liquid kind. I live not far from there. Now as for Luther, if, as you claim, Luther got his ideas from church doctrines then you can show me these “church doctrines” now can’t you? I would very much like to see them. However, I suspect that your allegation is just that, an allegation with no proof. I see a lot of that from protestants. As far as slavery is concerned I am sure there were Catholics who owned slaves but slavery was a protestant institution. Slavery flourished in the South which was predominantly protestant. Maryland was the only colony that was predominantly Catholic. The slave traders were predominantly English and Anglican.

As for the 1,000 -2,000 death figure I suggest you read the book by Henry Kamen entitled “The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision” (1997) and “Inquisition” (1988) by historian Edward Peters. By the way Mr. Kamen is a Jew and both he and Mr. Peters come to a very different conclusion than protestants. Of course they had access to documents released by the Spanish government after thre death of Generalissimo Franco in 1975. Mr. Peters wrote of prior work on the Spanish Inquisition:

“The Inquisition was an image assembled from a body of legends and myths which, between the twentieth and the sixteenth centuries, established the perceived character of inquisitorial tribunals and influenced all ensuing efforts to recover their historical reality.”

And I don’t try to justify anyone’s “bad actions”. I am content to have the truth exposed for what it is. I have no agenda as others do, namely the anti Catholic bigots that seem to proliferate amongst protestants. You didn’t see me saying the Lutheran church was anti semitic but I did say Luther was because quite frankly he admitted it in his own handwriting.

I was talking about RC Sr. I know nothing about his son. Even though he is not Lutheran I have heard on his radio broadcast how overall he admires Luther. Though he does not like the antisemitism aspects and rejects it.

It was not until recently the catholic church has recinded it’s claim against the Jews being Christ killers. Thats where Luther got his ideas from. What do you think people are going to think or do when their church has official doctrines calling someone Christ killers? Would this not go to faith and morals?

The north was not catholic either and they rejected slavery. John Brown was a christian and vehiemently rejected slavery to the point of giving his own life to stop it.

The inquisition was adminisetred by clergy. I don’t remember which religious order but it doesen’t matter. There is plenty of blood on the churches hands.

 

[inkaneer]

I was talking about RC Sr. I know nothing about his son. Even though he is not Lutheran I have heard on his radio broadcast how overall he admires Luther. Though he does not like the antisemitism aspects and rejects it.

It was not until recently the catholic church has recinded it’s claim against the Jews being Christ killers. Thats where Luther got his ideas from. What do you think people are going to think or do when their church has official doctrines calling someone Christ killers? Would this not go to faith and morals?

The north was not catholic either and they rejected slavery. John Brown was a christian and vehiemently rejected slavery to the point of giving his own life to stop it.

The inquisition was adminisetred by clergy. I don’t remember which religious order but it doesen’t matter. There is plenty of blood on the churches hands.

Where are you getting your information? Specifically where did you get thre information that the Catholic Church only recently recinded it’s claim against the Jews being Christ killers? Please show me when the Catholic Church ever claimed this. Show me the evidenctiary proof that this was Church doctrine. You make allegations but where is the proof to support it. Do you realize that making false allegations is bearing false witness? If you are getting this indformation from your preacher and it is wrong then what does that say of your preacher? That he is a liar? That he and you are engaging in activity specifically prohibited by the Ten Commandments. What kind of christian does that make you or your preacher?

Regarding slavery it doesn’t matter who rejected it it matters who didn’t reject it and who employed it. Slavery was a protestant institution based upon defective interpretation of the scriptures. As for the Inquisition the religious order was the Dominicans and they administered a form of justice that was more merciful than the Spanish civil courts of the day. You obviously have not taken the time to read the works of the two renowned experts, Peters and Kamen, on the subject but continue to accept legend and myths as gospel truth. So where is your search for truth that should be the goal of all christians?

 

[jericho777]

Where are you getting your information? Specifically where did you get thre information that the Catholic Church only recently recinded it’s claim against the Jews being Christ killers? Please show me when the Catholic Church ever claimed this. Show me the evidenctiary proof that this was Church doctrine. You make allegations but where is the proof to support it. Do you realize that making false allegations is bearing false witness? If you are getting this indformation from your preacher and it is wrong then what does that say of your preacher? That he is a liar? That he and you are engaging in activity specifically prohibited by the Ten Commandments. What kind of christian does that make you or your preacher?

Regarding slavery it doesn’t matter who rejected it it matters who didn’t reject it and who employed it. Slavery was a protestant institution based upon defective interpretation of the scriptures. As for the Inquisition the religious order was the Dominicans and they administered a form of justice that was more merciful than the Spanish civil courts of the day. You obviously have not taken the time to read the works of the two renowned experts, Peters and Kamen, on the subject but continue to accept legend and myths as gospel truth. So where is your search for truth that should be the goal of all christians?

It was on a thread here and poster by a catholic. You should be more careful before falsely accusing others before you hear the answer.

You are not going to make bible believing christians guilty for other so called christians. The point is bible believing christians don’t support slavery but catholics support the church in the inquisition and crusades. And continue to make excuses for them big difference. According to the logic here non catholic christians would deserve a go round with the inquisitor and if you died oh well so be it.

 

[fbl9]

It was on a thread here and poster by a catholic. You should be more careful before falsely accusing others before you hear the answer.

You are not going to make bible believing christians guilty for other so called christians. The point is bible believing christians don’t support slavery but catholics support the church in the inquisition and crusades. And continue to make excuses for them big difference. According to the logic here non catholic christians would deserve a go round with the inquisitor and if you died oh well so be it.

Billy Raybob’s (who is a long time attendee of your worship services)14 yr old daughter is baptised one Sunday. After the service is over some one observes Billy and family , at their home, worshipping a tree and rubbing the vile “christian” water off her with it’s leaves.When brought to your pastor’s attention this incendent he bars Billy Raybob and family from attending. How much force are you going to use to keep him out of the doors unless they repent of this idoldtry?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

It was on a thread here and poster by a catholic. You should be more careful before falsely accusing others before you hear the answer.

You are not going to make bible believing christians guilty for other so called christians. The point is bible believing christians don’t support slavery but catholics support the church in the inquisition and crusades. And continue to make excuses for them big difference. According to the logic here non catholic christians would deserve a go round with the inquisitor and if you died oh well so be it.

First, noone makes excuses for the inquisition. We merely try to give good, historical, information about it. Not the drivel that is published, then rescinded, with the rescinding book ignored, and the initial anti-Catholic book quoted eternally despite its lack of historicity and good research.

Second, no “bible believing” (your term, not mine) would feel bad for what anyone else did because only your actions and beliefs matter and well heck, “That aint me, so why should it bother me?” This is pretty much the definition of anarchy.

If you truly believed the bible you would do as God taught through Jesus and receive the Sacred Host as the body and blood of our savior, and allow the descendants of the apostles to do what Christ commanded and “feed [his] sheep”.

FSC

 

[inkaneer]

It was on a thread here and poster by a catholic. You should be more careful before falsely accusing others before you hear the answer.

Are you saying that makes it official ??? Unlike some of your protestant denominations the Catholic Church documents its teachings. Now maybe you don’t know what I mean by evidentiary proof. I am talking about official church documents. Now I did the research on this issue for you and here is what I found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 597 entitled:

"Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus’ death

597 The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost.385 Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders.386 Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence.387 As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:

. . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.388"

Now the ball is in your court to properly document your allegation and until you do so and do so properly, it remains a false allegation.

You are not going to make bible believing christians guilty for other so called christians. The point is bible believing christians don’t support slavery but catholics support the church in the inquisition and crusades. And continue to make excuses for them big difference. According to the logic here non catholic christians would deserve a go round with the inquisitor and if you died oh well so be it.

But you apparently think it is perfectly okay to blame Catholics for what has been falsely alleged to have been done by Catholics in the past. Henry Kamen and Edward Peters have both written books on the Spanish Inquisition and these books are viewed by experts in the field as the definitive history of the Inquisition. So why don’t you seek the truth that these books reveal? Is it because these books do not support your allegations? Is it because you are not interested in knowing the truth but only that which fit your agenda? Is that why you refer to the truth as “excuses”? By the way, the office of the Inquisition is not just past history. It never went out of existance and still exists today as a fully functioning department of the Roman Curia. It is now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was under Pope JPII headed by Cardinal Ratzinger who is now Pope Bennedict VXI. By the way have you or any of your protestant brothers been called before the Inquisition? I didn’t think so.

 

[inkaneer]

One more thing here. There are protestant denominations in which there exists a body that is charged with preserving the beliefs of the denomination. Sometimes these are denominational in nature and sometimes they are a local committee made up of elders. They are never referred to as an inquisition or a court of inquiry but that is exactly what they are. Sometimes a person has to appear before such a body to relate their beliefs in order to be accepted in full fellowship. Other times persons [a lot of whom are pastors] are called before a governing board to explain their preaching and or beliefs. The goal is to preserve the beliefs of the particular denomination. I once corresponded with a woman who had to go before a board of elders to be questioned on her faith and who voiced her concern that they would find her beliefs to be in error in some way. I asked her why did her denmination have a court of inquisition but she adamantly refused to call it an inquisition. But a rose is a rose is a rose**. . .**

 

[jericho777]

Billy Raybob’s (who is a long time attendee of your worship services)14 yr old daughter is baptised one Sunday. After the service is over some one observes Billy and family , at their home, worshipping a tree and rubbing the vile “christian” water off her with it’s leaves.When brought to your pastor’s attention this incendent he bars Billy Raybob and family from attending. How much force are you going to use to keep him out of the doors unless they repent of this idoldtry?

I don’t think they would really want to be there in the first place. I don’t know what the law is on that subject.

 

[jericho777]

First, noone makes excuses for the inquisition. We merely try to give good, historical, information about it. Not the drivel that is published, then rescinded, with the rescinding book ignored, and the initial anti-Catholic book quoted eternally despite its lack of historicity and good research.

Second, no “bible believing” (your term, not mine) would feel bad for what anyone else did because only your actions and beliefs matter and well heck, “That aint me, so why should it bother me?” This is pretty much the definition of anarchy.

If you truly believed the bible you would do as God taught through Jesus and receive the Sacred Host as the body and blood of our savior, and allow the descendants of the apostles to do what Christ commanded and “feed [his] sheep”.

FSC

It is wrong for one man to enlsave, torture, kill, mame another. Obviously you don’t seem to feel bad for the people the church killed and you are trying to blame me.

People who received communion did those unspeakable things with the blessing of the church. I don’t think they were feeding any sheep.

 

[jericho777]

Are you saying that makes it official ??? Unlike some of your protestant denominations the Catholic Church documents its teachings. Now maybe you don’t know what I mean by evidentiary proof. I am talking about official church documents. Now I did the research on this issue for you and here is what I found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 597 entitled:

"Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus’ death

597 The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost.385 Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders.386 Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence.387 As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:

. . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.388"

Now the ball is in your court to properly document your allegation and until you do so and do so properly, it remains a false allegation.

But you apparently think it is perfectly okay to blame Catholics for what has been falsely alleged to have been done by Catholics in the past. Henry Kamen and Edward Peters have both written books on the Spanish Inquisition and these books are viewed by experts in the field as the definitive history of the Inquisition. So why don’t you seek the truth that these books reveal? Is it because these books do not support your allegations? Is it because you are not interested in knowing the truth but only that which fit your agenda? Is that why you refer to the truth as “excuses”? By the way, the office of the Inquisition is not just past history. It never went out of existance and still exists today as a fully functioning department of the Roman Curia. It is now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was under Pope JPII headed by Cardinal Ratzinger who is now Pope Bennedict VXI. By the way have you or any of your protestant brothers been called before the Inquisition? I didn’t think so.

Vatican II recinded the Jews being Christ killers. But up to that point that’s how they were thought of.

Though I do not know any christians personally who were called to the inquisition. I’m sure any one who held the beliefs that I hold would have been brought before the inquisition. And you all would think that’s just fine.

 

[jericho777]

One more thing here. There are protestant denominations in which there exists a body that is charged with preserving the beliefs of the denomination. Sometimes these are denominational in nature and sometimes they are a local committee made up of elders. They are never referred to as an inquisition or a court of inquiry but that is exactly what they are. Sometimes a person has to appear before such a body to relate their beliefs in order to be accepted in full fellowship. Other times persons [a lot of whom are pastors] are called before a governing board to explain their preaching and or beliefs. The goal is to preserve the beliefs of the particular denomination. I once corresponded with a woman who had to go before a board of elders to be questioned on her faith and who voiced her concern that they would find her beliefs to be in error in some way. I asked her why did her denmination have a court of inquisition but she adamantly refused to call it an inquisition. But a rose is a rose is a rose**. . .**

Yes but the difference is they don’t torture and kill any one. Churches should oversee that the bible is not being miss applied and that pastors believe and teach the word.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Yes but the difference is they don’t torture and kill any one. Churches should oversee that the bible is not being miss applied and that pastors believe and teach the word.

If there were people that called Jews “Christ Killers” then they were seriously deranged. The Church may have apologized for Jews being called this, but that does not mean the Church held such beliefs. Think about it: the Apostles were all Jewish and the first converts were all Jewish. Again, any Christian that adhered to such bigotry was in serious error on so many levels.

 

[inkaneer]

Yes but the difference is they don’t torture and kill any one. Churches should oversee that the bible is not being miss applied and that pastors believe and teach the word.

And if you read the true history of the inquisition you will find that neither did the Catholic Church. Why do you persist in dealing in false accusations? Especially when the truth is available to you? Is it your agenda to smear the Catholic Church with false accusations. What kind of christian does that make you?

 

[jericho777]

And if you read the true history of the inquisition you will find that neither did the Catholic Church. Why do you persist in dealing in false accusations? Especially when the truth is available to you? Is it your agenda to smear the Catholic Church with false accusations. What kind of christian does that make you?

It is not false that Jews were considered Christ killers by the church and V2 rescinded that. The inquisition happened and was conducted by Dominicans.

There are many versions of history. You choose to believe what you want to believe and will defend the church even when they are wrong. That’s your prerogative.

Now when I challenge you, you attack my faith.

 

[Mintaka]

Actually, the continuous belief and teaching of the Catholic Church is that all human beings, and especially Christians, are Christ killers. Jesus died for our sins. Our sins killed Him. We all have murdered God, every day.

There have been various strains of attempts to wriggle out from under this truth. Some liked to blame Judas, or Pontius Pilate, or the Roman soldiers, or the Jews, or Caesar and his pagan pagan ways. Unfortunately for the Jewish populations, they were usually a little more susceptible to physical attack than the bones of Pontius Pilate.

But wriggling is what it is, was, and has always been. No serious Christian could say that kind of crud with a straight face, ever. Anybody who said it was wriggling away from Catholic teaching, and the more they tried to justify it with calls to the Bible, the more they were wriggling. I will grant you that in many times and places, there was in fact so much wriggling going on that people may have confused it with church teaching. But it was never a secret.

Vatican II was the latest in a long line of official magisterial teachings to point this out. That’s all.

 

[kepha1]

It is not false that Jews were considered Christ killers by the church and V2 rescinded that. The inquisition happened and was conducted by Dominicans.

There are many versions of history. You choose to believe what you want to believe and will defend the church even when they are wrong. That’s your prerogative.

Now when I challenge you, you attack my faith.

There is a difference between challenging us and attacking us with hate propaganda. I do not deny that SOME Catholic clergy abused their power in the Inquisition. The execution of St. Joan of Arc is a good example. But that was sin, not Church teaching. I’m sorry you refuse to see the difference. But bearing false witness against the entire Catholic faith with mythical exaggerations is a sin too, and many Protestants continue to propagate lies and myths about the Inquisition, which you accept as fact.

I can support the truth about the Inquisition from reliable historians and non-Catholic sources, from Catholic and non-Catholic archives that dispove typical Protestant lies. You so far have repeatly made false accustions with no supporting documentation. This is not challenging us, it is persecuting us, and I beg you on my knees in the name of Jesus to stop.

The 1994 BBC/A&E production, “The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition” exposes the common understanding that the Inquisition was a vast pogrom of non Catholics as largely the creation of Protestant propaganda.

But in recent years the Inquisition has been subject to greater investigation. In preparation for the Jubilee in 2000, Pope John Paul II wanted to find out just what happened during the time of the Inquisition’s (the institution’s) existence. In 1998 the Vatican opened the archives of the Holy Office (the modern successor to the Inquisition) to a team of 30 scholars from around the world. Now at last the scholars have made their report, an 800-page tome that was unveiled at a press conference in Rome on Tuesday. Its most startling conclusion is that the Inquisition was not so bad after all. Torture was rare and only about 1 percent of those brought before the Spanish Inquisition were actually executed.
Thomas F. Madden is professor and chair of the department of history at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri.

Historical revision of the Inquisition from Wikipedia

Was the Church guilty of handing over proven guilty persons to the state for execution? They had committed a civil crime, and that is the way things were done, because people thought differently then. We may not agree with the justice system they had 400 years ago, but to blame the Church for following the legal system of the times is wrong too. Heresy was considered to be the same as treason, and anti-Catholics conveniently leave out historical context. Lastly, the Church has never executed anyone, the state has, and I am prepared to support that with facts.

catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp
But the facts fail to do that. The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

What must be grasped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not.

Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.
%between%

 

[fbl9]

I don’t think they would really want to be there in the first place. I don’t know what the law is on that subject.

What you think has nothing to do with the fact that Billy Raybob and family claim to be christians and want to attend your fellowship…Again i ask how much force would your group exercise in keeping these people out as long as they remain unrepentant?