Outta Here

Well, I suppose we have moved on from the rather outdated notion that in some way the dedication of a building would somehow sanctify or change the nature of the bricks and mortar of the construction in the same way that some in the 1st century felt could occur with regard to meat used in some sort of idolatrous ritual. The dedication of a building for a particular purpose is really an act of the users, making that dedication for the time that they find that building suitable for that particular purpose. Once the building no longer suits that purpose and is no longer required by those making the dedication, then it seems quite reasonable that it should be disposed of and any funds obtained as a result should then be used for that same dedicated purpose. Thinking that the fabric of a building should be used in perpetuity for that same purpose as if it was somehow made "holy" by that dedication is unreasonable . If that notion was applied literally, then no refurbishment could ever take place. No rented or leased building could ever be returned to it owner. Nice to see more pretentious hooey biting the dust. (However sincerely it was originally meant of course).

Great to see one area of life at least where concern for the treatment of fellow humans, particularly children, is paramount in law. Although the focus is on retribution rather than prevention, at least the problem is acknowledged.

Philip Reece? The Aussie guy? Where is he now?

They were " in the right place but it must have been the wrong time" Malcolm John Rebennack Jr. As for the billionaire illustration, we are not suggesting that Jehovah pays us to go to assemblies are we?

Malcolm John Rebennack Jr. Got that right first line........ They may have "been in the right place but it must have been the wrong time"

More complicated stuff! I presume you are trying to make a case for the need to speed up action in the case of Child Abuse crimes??? If that is the case, then it is a worthy cause, regardless of context. And one I agree with wholeheartedly, across the board. However, I don't think I could really comment on your hypothetical generalities unfortunately. Specific cases from a host of backgrounds where they have been brought to light in a legal context, appear to have been commented on extensively in the public domain by those qualified to do so. Where there are genuine reasons for criticising the handling of such cases and these have been dealt with, then presumably these instances have then been handled as appropriately as possible by the correct authorities? Any exposure of mishandling in specific cases then serves to inform all parties presumably. Quite how you have managed to morph a discussion on baptism questions into one on handling of Child Abuse allegations would be an interesting study in itself, but not one I have the inclination to unravel at this point of time. Anyway, if the topic manages to get back on track and any further points meriting discussion appear, I will be back. But for now, excuse me if I turn to other areas of interest.

I don't follow your (presumably) reasoning that if crime and sin are synonymous then Secular Authorities could handle all "judicial matters", unless your are presenting it from a soulical perspective. Do you therefore think that the secular definition of sin and crime is the same as the sacred and that sacred and secular authority is synonymous in these matters?

Of course they are, but their meaning (dare I say...) overlaps. The key to understanding is to consider against who the crime or sin is committed. The word sin is traditionally viewed by those of the soulical world as relating to the violating of God's laws or standards, whereas the word crime is understood by many of that same designation as referencing a violation of the requirements or laws of the secular state. Really, in the spiritual world there is no difference between a crime and a sin as any violation of God's laws or principles constitues a crime or sin. To sin is a criminal act. But we have no problem in speaking the language of the world if that is what they understand.

But like "cynical" Depends what language you speak.

Matters not how this topic of sin v crime is reasoned/wrangled/presented by you and others who reflect your view. Regardless of religious/moral/ ethical persuasions or stance, this the soulical perception of matters. You seem to think that what lies in the mind of man is what determines the existence of sin or crime. This is a soulical perception. You are effectively demonstrating what Paul descibed regarding this matter, although I am not sure if that is your intention.

Without getting bogged down in semantics here, there is no real difference between the two words. The difference may lie in whose law is actually violated. The differentiation between a violation of Jehovah's law as a sin and not a crime would be a "soulical" percepton. We don't really care about worldly ("soulical") perceptions about laws, crimes, sins, lawyers, definitions, corporations etc. etc. Paul encapsulated the principle in his words to Timothy regarding the Mosaic Law (and by extension, law in general and all its appendages). 1Tim.1:8-10. Let those who fit his description be concerned with all the relevant definitions and arguments concerning "Law". Your complex definitions and arguments indicate your need in this regard. I hope you are getting it clear and it is enlightening for you. 😊

Instead of "factually", I would use the word "physically", or "soulically" if you want to get scriptural. You have used the term "spiritually" in contrast. Both terms can be applied to the same set of facts, and focus on the "eye of the beholder". In the immediate instance, the "soulical" view is that baptism is the ratification of some sort of (business?) contract with a religious "corporation". This is not the view of a spiritual mind. (Compare 1Cor.2:14).

Up to the individual. Neither required nor paticularly appropriate. We can all speak in our hearts and be heard .

All under your "inspired" topics and threads.

Does not matter a jot. The baptism is a symbol of the candidate's dedication, not that of the baptiser. If any words are spoken at all, they should be spoken by the one submitting to baptism, and directed to the one receiving their dedication. And, of course, such words, as evidence of a totally private and personal act of worship on the part of the individual, can, appropriately, be silently expressed.