First Baptist Church members must now sign sexuality oath opposing LGBTQ freedoms

[Baconqueen13]

I should also add that signing such a contract or covenant actually goes AGAINST biblical teachings. Matthew 5:34-37

34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]

[Carpy]

The wonderful thing about the First Amendment is that no one is required or forced to be a member of that church’s congregation. Do I agree with what the pastor is doing, absolutely not, which is why I’d never support the church beyond acknowledging their rights.

This^

[Francee89]

The wonderful thing about the First Amendment is that no one is required or forced to be a member of that church’s congregation. Do I agree with what the pastor is doing, absolutely not, which is why I’d never support the church beyond acknowledging their rights.

It would be nice if they didn’t seem to think the rest of society should be forced to live like them though:

“First Baptist Church has a long history of opposing LGBTQ rights, including strenuous opposition of the city's Human Rights Ordinance. The HRO, which prohibited people from being fired or evicted simply because of their sexual identity, did eventually pass after several years. But after an early failed vote in August 2012, councilmembers who voted against it were honored at a First Baptist Church church service. The church also sent shuttlebuses full of church members to speak against the HRO at meetings.”

[Della]

The wonderful thing about the First Amendment is that no one is required or forced to be a member of that church’s congregation. Do I agree with what the pastor is doing, absolutely not, which is why I’d never support the church beyond acknowledging their rights.

It would be nice if they didn’t seem to think the rest of society should be forced to live like them though:

“First Baptist Church has a long history of opposing LGBTQ rights, including strenuous opposition of the city's Human Rights Ordinance. The HRO, which prohibited people from being fired or evicted simply because of their sexual identity, did eventually pass after several years. But after an early failed vote in August 2012, councilmembers who voted against it were honored at a First Baptist Church church service. The church also sent shuttlebuses full of church members to speak against the HRO at meetings.”

This church has been a J'ville political mainstay since at least the 50's. My daddy used to get into religious discussions with the original pastor Homer Lindsay and his son https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_G._Lindsay_Jr.

It's also shrouded in scandal.

[Pjmm]

Ok..:and? Religious entities have long made their own rules for their congregants…and the baptists have long been k own to be extreme…

Other than Jesus didn’t discriminate on who he spoke to. Samaritans, tax collectors (who were despised at the time) it was all one with him. Even healed the servant of a Roman as I recall. Besides say you’re a church and your mission is to bring sinners to God’s Grace. Then by your messiah’s example of accepting the outcasts you should welcome those you don’t agree with. Now I’m not saying I believe homosexuality is a sin. I don’t. I’m saying the Baptists can’t read a Bible. They are hypocrites and I’d say “How can you remove the splinter from your brothers eye and ignore the beam in your own?” I’m not always certain of Jesus’s nature or of heaven’s existence. but moments like this I truly hope he’s God so I can watch him say to these people “truly I do not know you.”

I also wonder how many of the members are divorced, something Jesus was very strongly against. or cheating on their wives. Another thing Jesus truly hated.

[WellPreserved]

"It's right that every member agree to such a statement before they join us to receive our care." oof

That’s my biggest sticking point. It’s putting terms and conditions on love and care which imo is not what Jesus did so neither should we. Definitely not a church I’d be interested in.

I'm only familiar with mainline protestant churches where the statement of faith is Nicene Creed so this seemed antithetical to the Christian faith I grew up in.

[WellPreserved]

Separation of church and state ring a bell?

Catholics don’t have to sign a contract in the physical sense but are expected to follow the doctrine in “good faith”. Prior to the Popes declaration that homosexuality isn’t a sin it was taught…so I’m not sure why you are surprised…

It’s Florida—Florida, like Texas runs on their own set of rules—

Ok..:and? Religious entities have long made their own rules for their congregants…and the baptists have long been k own to be extreme…

It's a hugely political move in NE FL at this time. Even the Catholic church hasn't required a signed contract that I'm aware of either.

Didn't the Pope say that homosexuality is a sin but shouldn't be a crime?

Edited: That homosexual actions are a sin, not homosexuality itself.

[Baconqueen13]

Ok..:and? Religious entities have long made their own rules for their congregants…and the baptists have long been k own to be extreme…

Well yes, but most don't make their congregants sign a contract stating they will abide by the "rules"
It was always more of a "take it or leave it but you know where the door is" unspoken arrangement.

Forcing congregants to "Sign a contract" well besides being a sure sign of blasphemy I'm pretty sure it's bordering on legal/political coercion and may very well open the church up to lawsuits.

Plenty of churches do these kinds of contracts.

Plenty of churches also are full of hypocrites that contradict the very Bible they profess to follow.....I'm just saying that if a church requires it, it's a sure sign that the church in question is full of false prophets and pharisees. God doesn't require contracts, any church that does goes against what God commanded.

[WellPreserved]

Ok..:and? Religious entities have long made their own rules for their congregants…and the baptists have long been k own to be extreme…

Well yes, but most don't make their congregants sign a contract stating they will abide by the "rules"
It was always more of a "take it or leave it but you know where the door is" unspoken arrangement.

Forcing congregants to "Sign a contract" well besides being a sure sign of blasphemy I'm pretty sure it's bordering on legal/political coercion and may very well open the church up to lawsuits.

Plenty of churches do these kinds of contracts.

Is this common in evangelical Christian churches because I've never heard of signed statements in Mainline Protestant or Catholic churches.

[Deleted User 1990]

Well yes, but most don't make their congregants sign a contract stating they will abide by the "rules"
It was always more of a "take it or leave it but you know where the door is" unspoken arrangement.

Forcing congregants to "Sign a contract" well besides being a sure sign of blasphemy I'm pretty sure it's bordering on legal/political coercion and may very well open the church up to lawsuits.

Plenty of churches do these kinds of contracts.

Plenty of churches also are full of hypocrites that contradict the very Bible they profess to follow.....I'm just saying that if a church requires it, it's a sure sign that the church in question is full of false prophets and pharisees. God doesn't require contracts, any church that does goes against what God commanded.

It’s only Mennonites and Quakers that take that verse literally.

Nobody is following Deuteronomy 22:21 either, so I think it’s safe to say that different churches interpret certain scripture as poetic rather than literally instructive.