Why I will not buy a Ford

[Texas Lynn]

The main point of my post due to it's context was that we are not to avoid the sinners of the world. Indeed, we are given a mission to make them disciples.

We do not discipline nonbelievers. They are not subject to church discipline. Church discipline is for those within the church.

Many people confuse that. It's pretty common today to see people in congregations that never discipline anyone within the congregation who are instead trying to discipline nonbelievers, they've got things flipped.

Now I don't know where you ever got the idea that for some reason that means I said that everyone in the church thereby cannot sin or else we kick them out. That is not how church discipline works. It is a process where repeatedly the person is asked to repent. Only a person who repeatedly chooses his sin over the church would ever be removed from church fellowship.

Marv

That is not the subject of this thread so I do not see any relevance here.

Churches which exercise "discipline" tend to be cults and not operating in a proper Christian spirit. A proper exercise would be such a thing as the disgraced Enron Corporation CEO Ken Lay, a leader in his local United Methodist Church being asked to volunteer to step down from his lay leadership duties while he was under investigation then charged, indicted, tried, and convicted of looting pension funds and so forth, and the other church leaders being prepared to remove him had he not agreed to step down. But nothing whatsoever like that is being discussed here. A political organization instituted a boycott of a company over the company's marketing to a group they hate.

 

[TheDag]

That is not the subject of this thread so I do not see any relevance here.

from what I'm reading that is exactly the point Marv is making. That is what I said earlier as well. He has repeated it. You agree with him. So if what he is saying has no relevance then what your saying must also have no relevance.

Churches which exercise "discipline" tend to be cults and not operating in a proper Christian spirit. A proper exercise would be such a thing as the disgraced Enron Corporation CEO Ken Lay, a leader in his local United Methodist Church being asked to volunteer to step down from his lay leadership duties while he was under investigation then charged, indicted, tried, and convicted of looting pension funds and so forth, and the other church leaders being prepared to remove him had he not agreed to step down. But nothing whatsoever like that is being discussed here. A political organization instituted a boycott of a company over the company's marketing to a group they hate.

What would have been wrong with waiting for the outcome of the investigation before asking him to step down? Is insisting he step down from church leadership an appropiate consequence for his actions? Of course once again you agree with Marv in saying christian churches tend not to discipline members like they are instructed to in the bible.

There is also a difference between marketing and supporting organisations. Or do we claim that companies who make political donations are actually marketing to the political party hoping people from that party will buy their product?

 

[Texas Lynn]

from what I'm reading that is exactly the point Marv is making. That is what I said earlier as well. He has repeated it. You agree with him. So if what he is saying has no relevance then what your saying must also have no relevance.

I don't think so but okay.

What would have been wrong with waiting for the outcome of the investigation before asking him to step down? Is insisting he step down from church leadership an appropiate consequence for his actions? Of course once again you agree with Marv in saying christian churches tend not to discipline members like they are instructed to in the bible.

I'm not sure to what those first 2 sentences refer.

There is also a difference between marketing and supporting organisations.

What are the differences? In this case, it's minimal.

Or do we claim that companies who make political donations are actually marketing to the political party hoping people from that party will buy their product?

In the U.S. corporate campaign contributions are illegal to candidates. Some companies give earmarked donations to political parties primarily to fund the national conventions. Executives, supposedly acting as individuals, bundle donations to Republicans-often with considerable peer pressure but that is legal. Unions donate to Democrats through their political action committees.