Megachurch In Alabama May Get Its Own Police Force

Post Reply New Topic

Whether or not we believe that the signs and wonders have ceased, at the original Pentecost, in the original context, they were supposed to be orderly and meaningful -- not chaotic.

Speaking of the need for strongmen, in the sanctuary (and, I realize that this is not coming from the far right of Calvinism) self-reporting demoniacs have attempted to harm the pastors, with live weapons.

Whether or not that's your worldview, it's still a crazy person, there, to kill you.

The onus is being placed on overly-pious Christians, but not on anti-missionaries, infiltrating the church.



A term, which is often used by charismatics. Maybe, you will think it is sexist --
Jezebel spirit.

In the Bible story, she presumes ownership, over Naboth's orchard.

Either, the pastor, the elders, or some governing body, are the presumptive authorities, over that establishment.

Stealing someone's soapboax, or his thunder, or generally making him look like an ass, is being an interloper.

You could start your own church, where anyone is allowed to interject, at will. You could be your own schism. But, I wouldn't want to take responsibility, for a group of people, who wouldn't meet me, halfway. Would you be able to get a word in edgewise.

The original temple would have guards and was considered a likeness of heaven, which also has guardian angels.

In the parable of the wedding feast (Matt 22) or of the 10 virgins, not all are admitted.

Adam and Eve are kept out of the Garden.

You are supposed to be afflicted with a version of systematic thinking, yet fail to grasp the concept of sanctified space.

If you are a gatherer, and not a scatterer, along the lines of Korah (Num 26), then gather. Don't hijack the initiative, which others have taken, when founding the establishment. Spread out, and collect more hungry people.

From my personal experience, I have never seen the life of any Pastor at my church ever threatened. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but just not in my neck of the woods.
As I already stated, I have never interrupted a service, just voiced my personal opinions person to person, or at Bible study where such discussions are acceptable.
Not everyone was welcomed into the wedding feast in Jesus' parable, because they had chosen not to heed the call, or had refused to accept the free wedding clothes, which was symbolic of Christ's forgiveness.
As for speaking in tongues: I hold with my church body's official position on that; that such a gift is no longer in existence, and those who "speak in tongues" today are either faking it, or have worked themselves into a dissociative state complete with incoherent babbling. Though if in case, some member of our church suddenly finds himself/herself speaking, say, Chinese, and has no memory of ever learning that language, then that member should hop on a plane for China to teach the Gospel. Otherwise, said member should lock himself/herself into a closet and speak Chinese to himself/herself, instead of disrupting worship by speaking in a language no one else can understand.

So, my points were about dedicated spaces, structure, and executive authority. I still stand by those.

I think a good pastor or leader should be budgeting himself, mentally. He should probably, politely decline at the first hint of contention or futile discussion.

When someone has no definite purpose, and is a brain-drain, on people who do have purpose, that's why we have the police / admins.

I see a phenomenon, in which the urban kids leave a trail of destruction, where they have gone through the museum, and an entrance fee has been discussed for brick-and-mortar stores; it seems that all most people realistically do, is come there and leave a mess.

I would want dynamic, pro-active contributors, to my venture, and not dead weight, not ideological opponents.

Just think, if United Airlines had its own police force...

Should they board an indeterminate number of passengers, based on their free will? Why do they need to pay?

I already gave thorough answers, about the airline issue, and still consider the role of security to be a dirty job.

I believe they were incompetent, and a large part of that comes from admitting all comers, irrespective of worth.

They had already boarded everybody, so for the UA incident last week your question is irrelevant.

...You really think a " sjw " would try to Manchurian-Candidate his-/herself into this hypothetical squad of this church so that h. could lead that force astray ? Really ?
To start with , how would this undercover sjw masquerading as a private police- suitable employee for a conservative church show that he had sufficient skills and a suitable background for this megachurch (presumably a conservative one) 's squad , in the eyes of the people who would hire , pay and supervise them ?





ote="friedmacguffins"]By this same logic, the mall cop could conceivably coerce shoppers. These church policemen have the same legal authority as the mall cop.

fwiw, some sjw will usually try to get hired, knowing full well that they're a bad fit, politically-speaking, then try to sue, for discrimination, at a ruinous price. You same people, who worry about being indoctrinated, under force, will then hide behind armed police, to force sensitivity training, onto some traditionalist.

So, to avoid all this, church business is usually performed, secularly. They might just as soon hire from a security service, in the phonebook, if they can afford it, because you will punish them, if they don't. Lest anyone think that I'm being speculative or fanciful, this has literally happened, before.[/quote]

...You really think a " sjw " would try to Manchurian-Candidate his-/herself into this hypothetical squad of this church so that h. could lead that force astray ? Really ?
To start with , how would this undercover sjw masquerading as a private police- suitable employee for a conservative church show that he had sufficient skills and a suitable background for this megachurch (presumably a conservative one) 's squad , in the eyes of the people who would hire , pay and supervise them ?





ote="friedmacguffins"]By this same logic, the mall cop could conceivably coerce shoppers. These church policemen have the same legal authority as the mall cop.

fwiw, some sjw will usually try to get hired, knowing full well that they're a bad fit, politically-speaking, then try to sue, for discrimination, at a ruinous price. You same people, who worry about being indoctrinated, under force, will then hide behind armed police, to force sensitivity training, onto some traditionalist.

So, to avoid all this, church business is usually performed, secularly. They might just as soon hire from a security service, in the phonebook, if they can afford it, because you will punish them, if they don't. Lest anyone think that I'm being speculative or fanciful, this has literally happened, before.[/quote]

I think that most churches are not only filled with phonies, but operated by them.

Absolutely.

I believe that sincere fundamentalists are more likely to be railroaded by change agents.

It's been called "ponerization", and it's what most Boomers have done to every last social institution. Like, in 'Clockwork Orange', when the criminals become police.

They learn trades and use them as platforms for social change.

If you want to teach autistic people how to function in society, why not adress the issue of playing politics, how to spot it, and you can do it, too.

I think the move is in response to what happened in Charleston. I don't think it's about stifling dissent within the church.

As well as the dangerous criminals, I don't have a problem with the removal of quarrelsome people, from the premises.

I think, if someone can't abide by a traditionalist credo, they could call themselves something else.

Both stories are relevant to stupid praetors, roughing people up. Conventionally speaking, there are physical limits to time, space, matériel, and resolve. You can be used up.

...First: You feel that the majority of churches , presumably meaning all statedly Christian places of worship , have " phonies " funning them ? In (1) the Holden Caufield sense of that phrase , or (2) the sense you were pointing at before of undercover agents ?
And , more narrowly , that - Presumably a greater majority , since you said " more likely " - a massive number of undercover agent Boomers - Which means that they would be drawn from the pool of everyone born in America from 01/01/46 to 12/31/64 - made their way into fundamentalist churches , which were victims of these deep cover SJW Boomers who , while giving the impression they agreed with those fundamentalist churches , spent years as parishoners or employees of those churches and led those churches astray , keeping their true sjw affiliation a mega-deep dark secret for many years while they pulled off their undercover subversion ?
That is what you are saying ?
And , then , how did these deep cover Bloomers affect the churches and other institutions and lead them astray ? And what was/were the things that those c-a-o-i were led astray from doing by those crafty deep cover Bloomers over the decades that would have done , if not
for those Manchurian Boomers ?



acguffins"]

I think that most churches are not only filled with phonies, but operated by them.

Absolutely.

I believe that sincere fundamentalists are more likely to be railroaded by change agents.

It's been called "ponerization", and it's what most Boomers have done to every last social institution. Like, in 'Clockwork Orange', when the criminals become police.

They learn trades and use them as platforms for social change.

If you want to teach autistic people how to function in society, why not adress the issue of playing politics, how to spot it, and you can do it, too.[/quote]

Yes.

There are no clauses, conditions, or qualifications.

It's usually a matter of incrementalism, combined with explosive overreactions, to simple statements of faith.

Generally, people with no objective morality, can't cope with numbers and definitions, so are forever trying to moderate the abstract thinkers.

They are just ideas. If you don't believe those ideas, label yourself some other way; don't have battles of definition. It's not too much to ask.

There is no such thing as debate, when people can't agree to the definition of each individual word. That is an attempt to shut people down.

I don't see an issue here but then again I'm not a liberal terrified at the mere mention of the words CHURCH or
ALABAMA. It's not just one building but several on thier propery that they want to cover. IMHO, armed security guards should be able to handle it but that's up to that church and the laws of that state.

The article (if anyone read it) clearly sates that the church police will only have jurisdiction on the church grounds and I don't see why anyone would think any different. Any college campus I've been on had campus police, but I bet there wasn't an uproar back when that was instituted.

From the article:

]When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

I also have no issues with churchgoers or employees other than cops carrying a peice on them as they normally would anywhere else.

I don't care if the police wouldn't have authority off of church grounds. Nor do I buy into the argument that they're afraid of terrorist attacks or whatever. There's just something untoward or wrong with a church, which is supposed to be a place where people worship the Prince of Peace, and are supposed to believe in loving their neighbor and turning the other cheek, has on staff uniformed, armed men. It's reminiscent of how the Papacy had once hired armed mercenaries to carry out its wars, or had empowered the clergy to torture and execute heretics. And no, I'm not saying that that sort of thing would be happening in the Alabama church. If any church deserves police protection, it's black churches who have been the subject of physical harm and vandalism, but I see them keeping more to christ's message of peace.
Guess what, I'm not just a liberal, but a church going liberal, so I'm hardly afraid of the mere mention of CHURCH.
As for Alabam - - what's to dislike, other than the poor education system, widespread poverty, the black poor having white poor people pitted against them by the moneyed class, voter suppression, a redneck culture embracing ignorance and bigotry, etc.
Who knows, maybe I'm just biased because I don't buy into all that theology of glory crap that flies for religion among evangelicals.