Love The Sinner...

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Thank you for your concern. I really appreciate it. But.....

 

Let me correct you first, I am simply quoting Apostle Paul's instruction 'to expel him '. Although I agree in it because in giving that wicked man to satan thru expulsion in the midst of the holies, he continue living but no longer in his old self since he learn to realize how hard to live in hell. Is it written? Well I am simply telling you that  I learned it from experience too. 

 

Anyway, So are you saying, let the sinners (weeds) and wheat (the chosen) to grow together?. Okay. Let me ask this first, Who are these 'wheats 'in your church since you already said in your previous post,  'If we refused to associate with sinners, no one would be at Mass on Sunday'. To me, you are practically saying all of you are still weeds in one way or another. So again who are these wheats in your Church?

 

 

The holy priests perhaps and the odd laymen, j/k But  I think the weeds and wheat is the world in general and not necessarily the church, although there are wolves in sheeps clothing, pray for more sheep dogs to chase them away. :)

[reyb]

The holy priests perhaps and the odd laymen, j/k But  I think the weeds and wheat is the world in general and not necessarily the church, although there are wolves in sheeps clothing, pray for more sheep dogs to chase them away. :)

 

I thought you are all agree in......all are sinners. It is written in Rom 3:9-11

 

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

 

So, again who is that 'wheat' in your church?

Edited January 11, 2014 by reyb

[reyb]

For Priests and Bishops,

 

The reason why you are seeing conflict between Jesus’ parable and Paul’s instruction is because, you are equating or claiming that your Church is The Church.  What I mean is this. If you are a Catholic then, Roman Catholic Church is the Church of Christ in Paul’s letter or The Kingdom of God in the parable.

 

As long as you stand in this egoistic doctrine, you will always at lost who to follow between Jesus (i.e. to associate) or Paul (i.e. expel) in dealing with immoral brothers within your Church. There is no middle ground between them, especially for priest and bishop since Apostle Paul’s instruction were addressed to leaders in the Church, it is either you will approved or disapproved for their expulsion. And many, if not all priest and bishops, will disapproved for their expulsion and cried ‘No. ... Let both grow together until the harvest. (Matt 13:30), and thus ignoring Apostle Paul’s instruction, ‘Expel the wicked man from among you. (1 Cor 5:13).

 

As I said before, in doing it, you (in the likeness of a hypocrite teacher of Jews) are putting a crown of thorn in Jesus’ head because you are practically saying’ The Spirit of Christ is against Jesus’ or ‘Jesus is against his own Spirit’ because Apostle Paul has the Spirit of Christ.

 

I will stop here and the rest is up to you.

Edited January 12, 2014 by reyb

[cruciatacara]

For Priests and Bishops,
 
The reason why you are seeing conflict between Jesus’ parable and Paul’s instruction is because, you are equating or claiming that your Church is The Church.  What I mean is this. If you are a Catholic then, Roman Catholic Church is the Church of Christ in Paul’s letter or The Kingdom of God in the parable.
 
As long as you stand in this egoistic doctrine, you will always at lost who to follow between Jesus (i.e. to associate) or Paul (i.e. expel) in dealing with immoral brothers within your Church. There is no middle ground between them, especially for priest and bishop since Apostle Paul’s instruction were addressed to leaders in the Church, it is either you will approved or disapproved for their expulsion. And many, if not all priest and bishops, will disapproved for their expulsion and cried ‘No. ... Let both grow together until the harvest. (Matt 13:30), and thus ignoring Apostle Paul’s instruction, ‘Expel the wicked man from among you. (1 Cor 5:13).
 
As I said before, in doing it, you (in the likeness of a hypocrite teacher of Jews) are putting a crown of thorn in Jesus’ head because you are practically saying’ The Spirit of Christ is against Jesus’ or ‘Jesus is against his own Spirit’ because Apostle Paul has the Spirit of Christ.
 
I will stop here and the rest is up to you.

 
Of course we see the Catholic Church as the one true Church - no one belongs to a faith that they don't think is 'the one'. If they thought otherwise, wouldn't it be silly of them not to switch over to the one that they think is? Certainly you think that your faith is right, or you wouldn't keep going on and on about it.

I do find it hard to believe that there is any church that agrees with your private revelations and understanding of scripture though. Are you a member of some cult? I don't mean to be rude, but everything that you write seems to contradict what Jesus taught. And to support your arguments you try to pit St Paul against Jesus. It's just plain old weird theology IMO. If you are a member of some legitimate Christian denomination, would you share the name with us so we can refer to your sources in discussion? When we use ours, you try to invalidate them without using anything that can be verified.
 
Honestly I don't understand why you even post here unless it is just to use phatmass as your own personal pulpit for your own version of personal Christianity. I would love to discuss Christianity with you as I usually enjoy chatting with anyone from another Christian faith, but yours is so hard to understand that I don't see how it can be part of any legitimate Christian church. Do you care to enlighten us as to where or how you developed all these unusual beliefs? And if this is all something that you worked out on your own, where is your authority? Sorry, but I doubt you are convincing anyone on here to change their faith to yours, especially since you refuse to disclose what that actually is.

[reyb]

 
Of course we see the Catholic Church as the one true Church - no one belongs to a faith that they don't think is 'the one'. If they thought otherwise, wouldn't it be silly of them not to switch over to the one that they think is? Certainly you think that your faith is right, or you wouldn't keep going on and on about it.

I do find it hard to believe that there is any church that agrees with your private revelations and understanding of scripture though. Are you a member of some cult? I don't mean to be rude, but everything that you write seems to contradict what Jesus taught. And to support your arguments you try to pit St Paul against Jesus. It's just plain old weird theology IMO. If you are a member of some legitimate Christian denomination, would you share the name with us so we can refer to your sources in discussion? When we use ours, you try to invalidate them without using anything that can be verified.
 
Honestly I don't understand why you even post here unless it is just to use phatmass as your own personal pulpit for your own version of personal Christianity. I would love to discuss Christianity with you as I usually enjoy chatting with anyone from another Christian faith, but yours is so hard to understand that I don't see how it can be part of any legitimate Christian church. Do you care to enlighten us as to where or how you developed all these unusual beliefs? And if this is all something that you worked out on your own, where is your authority? Sorry, but I doubt you are convincing anyone on here to change their faith to yours, especially since you refuse to disclose what that actually is.

Who will remind you that you are unknowingly in error if there is no one who will do it for you? Who will remind you that you are an idolater while in fact you truly believe that you are not? Now, since you are asking me to what Church or Kingdom I belong, I will show it to you in that parable itself.

 

Do you really read that parable carefully?

 

In Matt 13:37-39 He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them.

 

Now, I belong to the Kingdom of God or Church of Christ from where all of us, from first  to last generation of the entire humanity are members.  As it is written in Acts 17:24-28  "... 'We are his offspring.'

 

Thus, in that parable we are all ‘sons of the Kingdom’. Even unbelievers and atheist are included as it is written in Eph 3:6.  This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

 

Of course, you do not see it that way because we are honouring different Jesus, So, how come that the Roman Catholic Church is the Kingdom of God or the Church of Christ if the field is the world?

Edited January 12, 2014 by reyb

[reyb]

 I do find it hard to believe that there is any church that agrees with your private revelations and understanding of scripture though. Are you a member of some cult? I don't mean to be rude, but everything that you write seems to contradict what Jesus taught. And to support your arguments you try to pit St Paul against Jesus. It's just plain old weird theology IMO. If you are a member of some legitimate Christian denomination, would you share the name with us so we can refer to your sources in discussion? When we use ours, you try to invalidate them without using anything that can be verified.
 

Since you said ‘..... everything that you write seems to contradict what Jesus taught’.

 

I will show you another conflicting stories you have. I know that you believe in original sin hence you have baptism for infants using Romans 5:12 as a proof of its truthfulness.

 

Now, where is your proof (of this teaching) in reference to Jesus' parable saying ‘"The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. (Matt 13:37-38).

 

This time you used the letter of Paul while setting aside the parable of Jesus. Are you now following Paul more than Jesus? Of course, I hear you that Jesus is greater than Paul but, can you explain where is original sin in that parable? 

Edited January 15, 2014 by reyb

[Pliny]

I can't look my gay brother in the eye anymore and say "I love the sinner but hate the sin." I can't keep drawing circles in the sand.

I thought I just needed to try harder. Maybe I needed to focus more on loving the sinner, and less on protesting the sin. But even if I was able to fully live up to that "ideal," I'd still be wrong. I'd still be viewing him as something other, something different.

Not human. Not friend. Not Christian. Not brother.

Sinner.

 

And despite all my theological disclaimers about how I'm just as much a sinner too, it's not the same. We don't use that phrase for everybody else. Only them. Only "the gays." That's the only place where we make "sinner" the all-encompassing identity.

 

 

 

It's not a sin to be gay.  It's a sin to commit homosexual acts.

 

When did it happen that this slogan now applies only to gays?  That's news to me.  I thought it also applied to adulterers, fornicators, masturbaters, thieves, etc.

 

A homosexual act is an evil act.  It does nobody any good, especially the homosexual, to ignore that, or worry that it's going to hurt someone's feelings to protest the sin.

 

The same goes for all the other serious sexual sins.

We're all sinners, but isn't it a different category to be in a state of mortal sin, and why would we not want to hate that kind of sin above all else?   I'm a sinner, but I can't say I'm "just as much" a sinner as the adulterer, the fornicator, or the practicing homosexual. If I were, then I couldn't be receiving Communion.

 

The OP has built a straw man.  Practicing gays are not the "only sinners" and committing the only sins we should hate.

 

 

[reyb]

It's not a sin to be gay.  It's a sin to commit homosexual acts.

 

When did it happen that this slogan now applies only to gays?  That's news to me.  I thought it also applied to adulterers, fornicators, masturbaters, thieves, etc.

 

A homosexual act is an evil act.  It does nobody any good, especially the homosexual, to ignore that, or worry that it's going to hurt someone's feelings to protest the sin.

 

The same goes for all the other serious sexual sins.

We're all sinners, but isn't it a different category to be in a state of mortal sin, and why would we not want to hate that kind of sin above all else?   I'm a sinner, but I can't say I'm "just as much" a sinner as the adulterer, the fornicator, or the practicing homosexual. If I were, then I couldn't be receiving Communion.

 

The OP has built a straw man.  Practicing gays are not the "only sinners" and committing the only sins we should hate.

Are you saying, gays should not enjoy their sexual life ? (this is exclusively for straight people only ).  

Edited February 13, 2014 by reyb

[Pliny]

I'm saying that nobody should have sexual relations outside of a valid marriage.

 

The OP should be looking at his "gay brother" in the eye and tell him for his own sake that he needs to find a way out of doing what he is doing, just as he should to the straight adulterer.  

 

Love the sinner and hate the sin.  That's a GOOD strategy and by no means is exclusive to homosexual sins.

[reyb]

I'm saying that nobody should have sexual relations outside of a valid marriage.

 

The OP should be looking at his "gay brother" in the eye and tell him for his own sake that he needs to find a way out of doing what he is doing, just as he should to the straight adulterer.  

 

Love the sinner and hate the sin.  That's a GOOD strategy and by no means is exclusive to homosexual sins.

 

This is what I got from your previous statement.  -- To be gay is not a sin per se as long as he (or she for lesbian) is not doing this ‘homosexual’ act. Am I correct?

Edited February 14, 2014 by reyb

[Pliny]

Yes, that's what I meant and I'm surprised and perplexed that a Catholic could make that first post.

[reyb]

Yes, that's what I meant and I'm surprised and perplexed that a Catholic could make that first post.

 

The way I looked at them, they are gays not because of this ‘homosexual acts’ alone. What I am saying is this. I am a straight man and being as such, I act, think and move, and learn to love a straight woman not because of  ‘sex’.  Sex follows after she loved me too, and I did it because I loved her.

 

Now, do you think gay’s affection toward their lover is not ‘true love as a gay’? 

[reyb]

It's not a sin to be gay.  It's a sin to commit homosexual acts.

 

 

It is written in Heb 4:12-13 ‘For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.’

 

Now, why do you condemn ‘homosexual act’ while leaving behind ‘the thoughts and attitudes of the heart’ of gay people (since you said, ‘it is not a sin to be gay’)? My point is this: if you are really condemning homosexuality (I am here referring  to your own definition of homosexuality) then, you must condemn too ‘the thoughts and attitudes of the heart’ of gay people. Otherwise, you are just playing with your words in a subtle hypocritic manner.   

 

So again I asked...

 

 

Do you think gay’s affection toward their lover is not 'love' but just a mere 'lust'? 

Edited February 15, 2014 by reyb

[reyb]

Since you are too silent, I assumed you see my point that this is not about ‘un-normal sex’ anymore. It is  about God’s righteousness, and Apostle Paul is not referring to your definition and understanding of  â€˜sexual immorality’ because,  this kind ‘does not occur even among pagans’(1 Cor 5:1-2).

 

It is clear, Apostle Paul is not referring to your kind of ‘sexually immoral’ people because, obviously there are ‘idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexual offender, thieves, greedy, drunkards,  slanderers and swindlers (1 Cor 6:9)’ among pagans that is, if we will used your own definition of ‘sexual immorality’ .

 

He even said previous to that statement (1 Cor 6:18-20)

 

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

 

Therefore, this sexual immorality has something to do with the kind of Spirit to whom you give your body. Meaning, if you give yourself to another Jesus – different from the Jesus all witnesses are preaching – then, you are actually a ‘sexually immoral’ person. 

[CrossCuT]