Pope to Pro-Ghey Priest: You Are Out Of Here!- DUmp 'splodes...

[movie buff]

Never did understand the prostitution as a sin thing but the men that are willing to pay them to sin are considered blameless.   If males controlled themselves there would be no Prostitutes.  When has anyone ever heard a male accused of loose morals because he gets a divorce and remarries ? Or shame put on a male that has  more then a couple of children by 2 or more woman and not ever married any of them. 

Don't believe Jesus felt this way about tax collectors----- " Rend unto Cesar what is Cesar's----- Rend into the Lord what is HIS"  this I would believe to mean paying taxes and being conscripted into the military to defend the land and lives of the people.

CC, can you explain in the religious topic what is or is not a SIN, and how all different society's view it, is to sin a time and actual consequence of the environment at the time or is it open to interpretation .   

Jesus said that for a man to divorce and remarry is sinful.
Men who hire prostitutes are certainly not blameless, it takes two to tango.
As for tax collectors, I was explaining why they were seen as sinners. It's not that paying taxes was sinful; It's that, as I said, tax collectors in that day and age were known for as a rule being extremely corrupt in terms of things like how much money they took from people and how much of that they then pocketed. As I said, dishonest and unethical business practices like that are indeed sinful. You'll notice that the Pharisees, not Jesus, were the ones who called tax collectors sinners. Or, at least, you WOULD notice that if you ever cracked open a Bible.

[dandi]

The Pope gets it. It's about changing our sinful ways and accepting the sinner. NOT accepting the sin...

They either don't get that or refuse to acknowledge it (I suspect it's mostly the latter). If you don't fully embrace homosexuality as something glorious and virtuous, you're a Nazi hatemonger who wants them all dead.

[Skul]

Zip, zero, nada.


Now I'm going to go play in the street.

Vesta should have offered to lend you some scissors, too.
Silly Vesta.

[MrsSmith]

Hydra (11,165 posts)
16. Hard to say

The Pope could be just trying for a more positive image with his comments about LBGT stuff and Globalization, or he could be rocking the boat and will have to fight the establish power structure to move away from stuff like this.

That said, this is an organic process. If they kick out all of the equality friendly voices from the church(that includes people like me), then they're just going to be an empty shell full of hateful/fearful people that no one will view as a positive influence in the world.

The choice is theirs- money/power/evil or what their messiah stands for.

Strangely enough, this post seems to indicate that you have no idea what He stands for...   

 

[MrsSmith]

The Pope gets it. It's about changing our sinful ways and accepting the sinner. NOT accepting the sin...

Odd I have no idea how anyone can do this act.   Seems to me that those that commit evil deeds for their own benefit irregardless of who or how many are harmed place themselves in the position of being unacceptable  to those they harm or may harm in the future.

This is where society's laws come in, we have jails and mental institutions to keep the sinners away from the public and harm at their hands.  

I doubt Jesus hung out with murderers, child molesters, thugs, pyromaniacs  or serial killers.

I cannot equate a Tax collector or prostitutes to sinners, perhaps not an ideal job but someone has to do it.

Guess a sin is to harm another for ones own benefit.   Definition changes  from society to society through the years, adultery was a sin that meant death for the woman, not for the man.  

However I look at it, there are some outright Evil ba*tards in this world and to accept them but hate what they are doing makes no sense at all.

No way will I accept the Muslim terrorists and still hate what they are doing.   Nasty bunch of people that only live to die and have an eternity of sex with virgins. No one has ever explained to me what happens to the used virgins, are they cast into hell ?  

Point 1) We don't "accept" the sinner...we LOVE him.  We love him (or her) enough to pray for them, tell them the truth about sin, and explain the way out of bondage to sin.  We love people enough to tell them the truth even when they attack us and hate us for it.

Point 2) all people are sinners.

[Aristotelian]

Point 1) We don't "accept" the sinner...we LOVE him.  We love him (or her) enough to pray for them, tell them the truth about sin, and explain the way out of bondage to sin.  We love people enough to tell them the truth even when they attack us and hate us for it.

Point 2) all people are sinners.

Exactly - ^5.

If somebody I love has drunk too much and wants to drive home, should I "accept" his choice, or try to convince him that it's best that he doesn't? It is precisely because of our love, that we try to get sinners to change their ways.

The first sinner whose ways we should try to change is always ourselves.

[BlueStateSaint]

Exactly - ^5.

If somebody I love has drunk too much and wants to drive home, should I "accept" his choice, or try to convince him that it's best that he doesn't? It is precisely because of our love, that we try to get sinners to change their ways.

The first sinner whose ways we should try to change is always ourselves.

Dead-on.  H5.

[MrsSmith]

Exactly - ^5.

If somebody I love has drunk too much and wants to drive home, should I "accept" his choice, or try to convince him that it's best that he doesn't? It is precisely because of our love, that we try to get sinners to change their ways.

The first sinner whose ways we should try to change is always ourselves.

Everything we do is pointless if we don't do that first. 

[vesta111]

Exactly - ^5.

If somebody I love has drunk too much and wants to drive home, should I "accept" his choice, or try to convince him that it's best that he doesn't? It is precisely because of our love, that we try to get sinners to change their ways.

The first sinner whose ways we should try to change is always ourselves.

Then one comes to find that once changed to forgo a sin can cause the ex-sinner to become a hell on wheels Evangelist about what ever they have done in the past or still doing in the present.

Has to be a reason why the TV Evangelists never  caught on Up here, ---in the 50's Boston did have a Cardinal Sheen hold mass on a radio station and give a short talk for those that were shut ins or unable to attend services. Much like his Brothers of the Protestant faith when he passed away it became a shock to his followers that this man they had faithfully followed as a Priest who had given up all claim to his earthly goods had willed to his housekeeper a few 100 thousands of dollars.   He himself owned a large amount of income property that did not go to the Church but to both male and female friends.  

There is a reason why society's have mistrusted the religious leaders from the beginning of time.  

I sat and watched in rapt attention to the problems of Jimmy Swagged  and his tear full apology to the thousands of his followers with wife at his side.    Darn I was disappointed she did not cold cock the right reverend in front of the cameras .

Then the saga of Tammy and Jim Baker, swindlers and thieves, seems there are no amount of people except for the Rev. IKE in the 70's that are honest enough to say it as it is.  

Me. I would rather attend a small Black church where the Pastor holds down a job and donates his time to preach the Good Book each Sunday, listen to the congregation making a Joy full shout to the lord and sing and dance about, then some huge mega church where the cost to build could feed the poor for 20 years.  

By the way Aristotelian, one can get their nose punch in, knifed or shot when trying to help a "friend, or loved one " in the case of removing them from danger to themselves or others.  Better to let them spend the night in jail then to spend a few days yourself in the hospital.      

[Aristotelian]

Has to be a reason why the TV Evangelists never  caught on Up here, ---in the 50's Boston did have a Cardinal Sheen hold mass on a radio station and give a short talk for those that were shut ins or unable to attend services. Much like his Brothers of the Protestant faith when he passed away it became a shock to his followers that this man they had faithfully followed as a Priest who had given up all claim to his earthly goods had willed to his housekeeper a few 100 thousands of dollars.   He himself owned a large amount of income property that did not go to the Church but to both male and female friends.

By Cardinal Sheen I presume you mean Archbishop Fulton Sheen. When did he give up 'all claim to his earthly goods'? He was a saecular and therefore not vowed to poverty.

Given that the cause for his canonisation is open, and he still has a large following (many of his talks are available to watch/listen to on-line, for example), I don't think you can take his case as an illustration that people don't trust religious leaders.