Love The Sinner...

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The cold shoulder is a form of expulsion. And i think the church has ex communication for homosexual priests that don't repent. And i never said ignore it, don't put words into my mouth please.

 

 

Jesus iz LORD.

 

 

<edit> That don't put words in my mouth wasn't called for we are just having a discussion, sorry reyb, please forgive me. But the fact is i never said ignore either what saint paul said nore to ignore the sinfulness of sin and the destruction it causes personally and communally nore that at some point should we sacrifice our own salvation or the communities to tolerate anothers gravely disordered habitual mortal sin. The wages of sin are death, seperation from God and the community, the cold shoulder. I tend to think the death talked about by the prophets in leviticus  was a cold shoulder death, leave the person to there own devices and the Gods judgement, the angel of death, which than has me thinking about the vesre " figure out your own salvation with fear and trembling." I would quote that verse hopefully to a bretheren if my salvation and/or the communities was endangered by anothers habitual sin.

 

Onward christian souls

 

God is Good.

[Luigi]

Reyb - 

 

Look - Paul is important, but Jesus trumps Paul. Paul says not to associate with sinners, after Jesus DID associate with sinners. 

 

People who think in absolutist dichotomies get their shorts all up in a knot over this kind of thing. 'Jesus is in conflict with Paul! Paul is in conflict with Jesus!' Nonsense. 

 

Jesus, being God, and pretty secure in his own person, could associate with sinners any day of the week. He would not be led into their sin because he was already pretty well set in his holiness, if you see what I'm saying. 

 

Paul, on the other hand, was writing to an emerging Christian community set in a pagan society. The new Christians weren't as set in their holiness as Jesus was. So Paul tells them not to associate with sinners. The idea was to not allow the sinner to pollute the rest of the community.

 

In fact, a whole standardized process in the Church evolved out of this. Some years after Paul was martyred, it became standard practice that public sinners were banned from the church - they couldn't go to Mass with the rest of the Christians. They had to go through a year of penance (wearing sackcloth and ashes, kneeling on the church steps as people were coming in for Mass and asking them to pray for him), classes, alms-giving, etc. Then the sinner could be received back into full communion with the church at Easter. There are still two forms of this "banning" - anathema and excommunication. Those can be saved for another time.

 

If Paul hadn't been martyred, and if he had written an epistle to the community every year for fifteen or twenty years. maybe he would eventually have told them, "You all are pretty holy now, and I think you can stand up the sinners in your midst - go ahead and start associating with them again." As it happens, the Church came to pretty much the same conclusion, even without Paul writing it out for us. Because we're led by the Holy Spirit, so the message comes through to us via one saint or another. 

 

And notice that the banning was only for public sinners. What people did behind closed doors - or what they did in Vegas that stayed in Vegas - didn't make them subject to being banned. 

 

 

Lastly, if we're going to talk about "Love the sinner, hate the sin," we have to define what we mean by love. In the Catholic Church, love has never meant "all warm and fuzzy and welcoming and gee whiz." It has always meant "wanting what is best for the other person." So it's possible to want what is best for a homosexual (or a thief, or an embezzler, or a prostitute, or a gambler, or someone who abuses her spouse, or any other kind of a sinner) but still disapprove of what they do. And this is very natural for all human beings - we've all had the experience of loving our father but hating when he yells at us in a drunken rage, or of loving our mother but hating when she gambles her paycheck away, or loving our brother but hating when he robs banks - I'm sure you get my drift. 

 

So it's perfectly possible, and it's perfectly Christian, to look at our homosexual sisters and brothers and say, "I want what's best for them, but I don't think sex with each other IS what's best for them." 

 

It's not that complicated. 

[reyb]

so why are you here associating with us since i am certain some of us if not a big majority have commited at least one of those sins.  if your convinced your not supposed to avoid these people, then you should not be here associating with us.

 

 

Reyb - 

 

Look - Paul is important, but Jesus trumps Paul. Paul says not to associate with sinners, after Jesus DID associate with sinners. 

 

People who think in absolutist dichotomies get their shorts all up in a knot over this kind of thing. 'Jesus is in conflict with Paul! Paul is in conflict with Jesus!' Nonsense. 

 

Jesus, being God, and pretty secure in his own person, could associate with sinners any day of the week. He would not be led into their sin because he was already pretty well set in his holiness, if you see what I'm saying. 

 

Paul, on the other hand, was writing to an emerging Christian community set in a pagan society. The new Christians weren't as set in their holiness as Jesus was. So Paul tells them not to associate with sinners. The idea was to not allow the sinner to pollute the rest of the community.

 

In fact, a whole standardized process in the Church evolved out of this. Some years after Paul was martyred, it became standard practice that public sinners were banned from the church - they couldn't go to Mass with the rest of the Christians. They had to go through a year of penance (wearing sackcloth and ashes, kneeling on the church steps as people were coming in for Mass and asking them to pray for him), classes, alms-giving, etc. Then the sinner could be received back into full communion with the church at Easter. There are still two forms of this "banning" - anathema and excommunication. Those can be saved for another time.

 

If Paul hadn't been martyred, and if he had written an epistle to the community every year for fifteen or twenty years. maybe he would eventually have told them, "You all are pretty holy now, and I think you can stand up the sinners in your midst - go ahead and start associating with them again." As it happens, the Church came to pretty much the same conclusion, even without Paul writing it out for us. Because we're led by the Holy Spirit, so the message comes through to us via one saint or another. 

 

And notice that the banning was only for public sinners. What people did behind closed doors - or what they did in Vegas that stayed in Vegas - didn't make them subject to being banned. 

 

 

Lastly, if we're going to talk about "Love the sinner, hate the sin," we have to define what we mean by love. In the Catholic Church, love has never meant "all warm and fuzzy and welcoming and gee whiz." It has always meant "wanting what is best for the other person." So it's possible to want what is best for a homosexual (or a thief, or an embezzler, or a prostitute, or a gambler, or someone who abuses her spouse, or any other kind of a sinner) but still disapprove of what they do. And this is very natural for all human beings - we've all had the experience of loving our father but hating when he yells at us in a drunken rage, or of loving our mother but hating when she gambles her paycheck away, or loving our brother but hating when he robs banks - I'm sure you get my drift. 

 

So it's perfectly possible, and it's perfectly Christian, to look at our homosexual sisters and brothers and say, "I want what's best for them, but I don't think sex with each other IS what's best for them." 

 

It's not that complicated. 

Luigi,

 

Your statements are just ‘conjecture’ why Apostle Paul go for expulsion. 

 

Apostle Paul did approve the expulsion of this wicked man, ‘so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord (‘1 Cor 5:1-5). Therefore, this expulsion is for salvation. On the other hand, you do not want to expel homosexuals and adulterous persons from your Church because you want to guide them to become a ‘moral’ person and be saved in accordance with your belief. Therefore, your Church is really different from them because they have different ways in 'saving' a wicked brother.

 

 

Havok,

 

We are not yet in the same side of fence hence it is not for me to kick you out. Besides, I am still here on earth. Now, why I ‘associate’ myself to this forum because, I am still hoping that one day you will see Him and then you will truly understand how this sinful nature in a man was destroyed and saved his Spirit thru expulsion in that Church. 

Edited January 6, 2014 by reyb

[Lilllabettt]

If sexual temptations are particularly strong for a particular Christian, or they are weak in that area,  it is prudence and wisdom for that Christian not to associate with people who are not striving to practice good sexual ethics. But Christians who are strong in this area are called to go out and minister to them. In the Body of Christ, each has their function.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Clare Brigid]

A brother who had sinned was turned out of the church by the priest; Abba Bessarion got up and went with him, saying, 'I, too, am a sinner.'

 

Sayings of the Desert Fathers (Benedicta Ward, tr.), p. 42.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Clare Brigid

[reyb]

We Catholics read Holy Scripture within the Church, "the pillar and ground of truth."  1 Timothy 3:`5.  We do not take one verse and draw our own conclusions from it.  That is rather what Protestants do.  And we have over 30,000 Protestant denominations as the fruit of that particular labor.  Each can quote the verses that justify their separation.

 

Yes, liberty you have.  The truth you don't.

 

Allow me to quote Bob Dylan from his 1983 song, Jokerman:

If you really read my previous post, you will see that I have nothing against ‘gays’. Nonetheless, it is for yours to keep whatever impression you have towards me but you must proved it otherwise, you are giving false testimony. If you really think, I am wrong or the truth is not in me then, please prove it so that I may learn from you.

[reyb]

Sayings of the Desert Fathers (Benedicta Ward, tr.), p. 42.

 

Of course, that is how your Chuch treated them.

[Clare Brigid]

Reyb, what is your church?

[Ice_nine]

the church of the historical Jesus I think

[NotreDame]

There is hypocrisy in ‘Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin’ mentality. It is an scapegoat motto of preachers not to question them by straight people in accepting gays or sexually immoral people in the community. 

 

It is written in 1 Cor 5:9-13

 

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

 

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."  

 

Can anyone explain this?

 

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 explained here for your sir.

 

It also helps to read the whole chapter to get context (which I'm sure you've read, Reyb, but for the sake of those who haven't.)

[Luigi]

Reyb -

 

I'm' sure you're right.

[KnightofChrist]

Why I Love the Sinner and Hate the Sin

I recently read an article on Huffington Post entitled “Why I Can’t Say ‘Love the Sinner/Hate the Sin’ Anymore.” The author, Micah Murray, is obviously a very caring individual, and I understand where he is coming from. He hates the idea that we would see gays – or anyone – as someone substandard, someone who is “other” to us, or less than us because of their sin. He points to a fundamental Christian reality – that people are people and he rightly resents the idea that people would be defined by a sin, rather than by who they are as individuals.

I agree. It would be a horrible thing if the world were split into groups of people who saw one another as less simply because of a sin that they commit. Indeed, only God can judge the worth of a man. Should one person attempt to tell another man that he is less, then the first man is really the one guilty of such stature.

Yet, in denying the saying “love the sinner, hate the sin” Mr. Murray has committed the other crime of this saying. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” has now become “love the sinner, love the sin.” This is also incorrect, and frankly, quite dangerous and even hypocritical.

The saying “love the sinner, hate the sin” isn’t just a catchy Christian catchphrase that we rattle off passive-aggressively at those who need to “shape up!” No, this saying attempts to capture, to point at, the fundamental mystery of the Christian life: that in dying to our sin, we rise again to a greater self, that in love we conquer death, and that we can only love sinners because we hate their sin.

This saying is not an invitation to view ourselves as better than others, but rather a recognition that as people we are all sinners, struggling to deal with the painful effects of original sin. Moreover, it is a generous and loving phrase, one that says “in our humanity, love one another, and hate the sin that weighs one another down.” Truly, at its core, this saying opens our eyes to the human condition from which we all suffer. Thus, to say “love the sinner, hate the sin,” is a recognition that we are all sinners, and, therefore that we are all in need of love because we are all sinners.

Indeed, we hate the sin because we love the sinner. The saying “love the sinner, hate the sin” is a true practice of the very act Mr. Murray asks of all of us: to love one another, not to judge as we are all sinners, not to be hypocritical because we all suffer from some short coming, from some sin, from some element of our human existence. Yet Mr. Murray, in his compassion, has given in to the progressive notion that true love is manifested in the act of allowing others to do whatever they want in the name of “happiness,” rather than denying ourselves out of an honest pursuit of joy. Christians, however, understand this dichotomy: that in denial we have abundance and in practicing rules we have true freedom. Thus, we hate the sin because of the pain and evil it unleashes in the sinner’s life, because of the shackles it places around the sinner which prevent him from attaining the true joy which freedom from sin brings.

Indeed, it is more loving to hate something that causes another pain, more loving to desire goodness, health, beauty, and joy for someone, more loving to resent an action that causes another harm than allow someone to continue down a path of self destruction.

Thus, for Christians, to love the sinner is to hate the sin. Yet, because we are all sinners, to love the sinner is to love all and to love all involves the righteous hatred of all sin that holds us hostage in this life.

“Love the sinner, hate the sin” is not judgmental; it is not harsh; it is not reserved for “special sinners.” It is a saying that captures the pain of human existence and challenges all people to rise to the demands of true love. It is a saying that elevates us in our humanity so that we are not our sin, and so that we are not defined by our weaknesses and struggles. It is a saying that allows us to be defined by the love of the Father, who consistently pours out his graces on us in His love so that we as sinners may sin no more.
- See more at: http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2014/01/03/why-i-love-the-sinner-and-hate-the-sin/#sthash.cdyf7h6K.dpuf

[reyb]

Reyb -

 

I'm' sure you're right.

Luigi, sometimes the true message of a speaker are not in his words but, in a manner how these words are conveyed.  Whatever your intention in saying it, I want you to know that I am not asking any praises from anyone. Actually, I do not have such kind of expectations from anybody.

 

If you will notice in my previous post, I did not simply say ‘your statements are conjecture’ in relation as to why Apostle Paul approved for expulsion of this wicked person because, I gave that particular verse showing you the reason of Apostle Paul himself.

 

Anyway, let us continue our discussion.

[reyb]

Reyb, what is your church?

Many times, I confess in this forum that I was once a Catholic and never become a Protestant. Today, I do not belong to any religious organization in whatever kind of denomination known to you. (meaning, I belong to a particular Church which is still hidden from you)

 

I will explain it further some other time. 

[CrossCuT]

Sweet mystery!