People forgot in their love is love version of Jesus that he specifically said Love to the father was paramount. He told people that if their families kept them from God to leave them.
Yes God wants you to love everyone, but correction is a part of love. If you saw your brother sinning you'd stop him, correct? So stop anyone from sinning because they are your sibling.
This idea that Jesus would accept sin because he was a hippie is laughable. He didn't tolerate sin he insisted you leave it behind to be with him. Jesus would never tell someone God put them in the wrong body, that God fucked up. Satan would do that, but not Jesus.
Enabling is probably one of the most insidious sins out there, and its the one the Left promote the heaviest.
Personally I'd rank it almost equal to the sin it enables itself, because there is solid argument to make that someone wouldn't sin without the enabler supporting them towards it.
Enabling is probably one of the most insidious sins out there
This is is what the Western Church has called "scandal." Its also another example of how the English language has drifted. Scandal is considered a "mortal sin" by Roman Catholics precisely because enabling or encouraging others to behave in a detrimental way is evil.
Correct, and doubly so for children. Parenting is taken VERY seriously among real Catholics, because it is a solemn and serious duty to guide your little ones along the right path. Less so among Churchians, who you'll find frequently espouse postmodernist bullshit and exhibit a derision of this duty. I'm very thankful for my own parents, who were not the disinterested and absentee parents as were so many of their generation.
Faith, hope, and love. And the greatest of these is love. The problem is "love' is a pretty shite word, and a piss poor translation of caritas. Caritas is the love that teaches difficult children, the love that leads to an intervention, and the love that begs wayward brethren to return. It has nothing to do romance. In fact older Anglo Christians never said "faith, hope, and love, " they said "faith, hope, and charity." In the modern era I presume this linguistic shift was intentional.
Good point. I've imposed the traditional virtues over scripture; a bad mistake. I think my point may still stand: "love" is still not a great word to stack against agape.
Woah buddy! Who are we to judge? I mean we have the scriptures and two thousand years of tradition, but wouldn't it be mean to tell a sinner they might be making a mistake?
As a note, that passage in the bible was an after the fact addition. It's removed from newer translations specifically because it's a pretty blatant forgery.
It’s been a while but I remember hearing they believe the Gospels come from something called a Q reference or something like that. Been years since I was in the class. I guess my point was you can lovingly tell someone they are in the wrong. People have done so to me.
I do remember reading the Gospel of Thomas was written like 60 or 70 years after the 4 gospels
People simply don't know what love is. They equate it with romanticism and passions. Love is a choice, not a feeling, since feelings are fickle and temporary.
From a Catholic perspective, to love is to selflessly will the good of another.
If you saw your brother sinning you'd stop him, correct?
As long as I'm not ignoring the plank in my eye to concern myself with the speck in his.
So stop anyone from sinning because they are your sibling.
What if they don't want to be stopped? Should I use violence? Immediately? Or.. is there a threshold? Like.. three warnings and then a punch.. or how do we address this? This person may not see themselves as my sibling.
Critically.. should I judge him for sinning?
This idea that Jesus would accept sin because he was a hippie is laughable.
He also preached "Do unto others as you would have done to you."
He didn't tolerate sin he insisted you leave it behind to be with him.
When the shepherd leaves behind the 99 and finds his lost sheep, does he not bring him into his arms, and tell the sheep, "I love you the most?"
Anyways.. there's a real message of judgement and of violent retribution afoot lately. It concerns me because the uniparty security state would love nothing more than a violent outburst as an excuse to roll out the next version of smart borders with facial recognition and AI driven "homeland security."
The apparent need to ensure this message is posted everywhere in forms that are acceptable and expected in the forums they are posted in leads me to wonder if this is just part of the manipulation.
Anyways.. what Jesus wants is your soul. In heaven. With God. That is what is most important. If you want to show you love God, bring as many souls as you can with you, and lead them, in front of you, into Heaven.
If you saw your brother sinning you'd stop him, correct?
As long as I'm not ignoring the plank in my eye to concern myself with the speck in his.
This 2 do not contradict each other. If anything it talks about hypocrisy and that is something leftists love.
He also preached "Do unto others as you would have done to you.
If you are a Christian you would want others to help you not sin
What if they don't want to be stopped? Should I use violence? Immediately? Or.. is there a threshold? Like.. three warnings and then a punch.. or how do we address this? This person may not see themselves as my sibling.
Critically.. should I judge him for sinning?
This is just silly.
When the shepherd leaves behind the 99 and finds his lost sheep, does he not bring him into his arms, and tell the sheep, "I love you the most?"
I think you did not understand this one. He is saying that the lost sheep returns to Jesus, this would imply repentance not accepting sin.
Also there is nothing about violent retribution, I don't see that in the OP post either.
If you are a Christian you would want others to help you not sin
Nor would I expect anyone to judge me should I have sinned.
This is just silly.
Then it should be simple to answer. What is your answer? What do you do when the sinner does not want your help? What do you do when his sin intrudes on your life? These are things that happen. "Helping to not sin" is a huge spectrum of problems.
He is saying that the lost sheep returns to Jesus, this would imply repentance not accepting sin.
He is also saying that being lost is expected and that for coming back to the fold all is forgiven and forgotten immediately.
Also there is nothing about violent retribution, I don't see that in the OP post either.
I expect that reasonable people can have a different view on this. You do understand that I meant this is part of a general trend though, correct?
Nor would I expect anyone to judge me should I have sinned.
Most of your issues comes from the idea that saying you've sinned is a judgment on you. No one passes judgment on you except God. Telling someone that what he is doing is a sin in accordance with the Christian religion is an act of love in the hope of saving that person and not a judgment.
If they refuse the message it is on them but the Christian responsibility is to try to get as many on the path as possible.
The question remains, if the person refuses and fully embraces sin what can a Christian do. In my opinion we need to make clear that this is abhorrent and we do not condone it, if the sinners still wants to be friends then we can. There is always a chance that leading by example may save the sinner.
People forgot in their love is love version of Jesus that he specifically said Love to the father was paramount. He told people that if their families kept them from God to leave them.
Yes God wants you to love everyone, but correction is a part of love. If you saw your brother sinning you'd stop him, correct? So stop anyone from sinning because they are your sibling.
This idea that Jesus would accept sin because he was a hippie is laughable. He didn't tolerate sin he insisted you leave it behind to be with him. Jesus would never tell someone God put them in the wrong body, that God fucked up. Satan would do that, but not Jesus.
Enabling is probably one of the most insidious sins out there, and its the one the Left promote the heaviest.
Personally I'd rank it almost equal to the sin it enables itself, because there is solid argument to make that someone wouldn't sin without the enabler supporting them towards it.
This is is what the Western Church has called "scandal." Its also another example of how the English language has drifted. Scandal is considered a "mortal sin" by Roman Catholics precisely because enabling or encouraging others to behave in a detrimental way is evil.
Correct, and doubly so for children. Parenting is taken VERY seriously among real Catholics, because it is a solemn and serious duty to guide your little ones along the right path. Less so among Churchians, who you'll find frequently espouse postmodernist bullshit and exhibit a derision of this duty. I'm very thankful for my own parents, who were not the disinterested and absentee parents as were so many of their generation.
Millstones. That's what I worry about.
Higher maybe, in you're in a teacher or leadership position and enable sin. The Bible has some choice words for teachers who lead others astray
Quite true, once power dynamics get involved its certainly far more evil.
Faith, hope, and love. And the greatest of these is love. The problem is "love' is a pretty shite word, and a piss poor translation of caritas. Caritas is the love that teaches difficult children, the love that leads to an intervention, and the love that begs wayward brethren to return. It has nothing to do romance. In fact older Anglo Christians never said "faith, hope, and love, " they said "faith, hope, and charity." In the modern era I presume this linguistic shift was intentional.
The verse you're talking about is 1 Corinthians 13:13, and the word there is not "caritas", it's "agape".
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1co/13/2/ss1/t_conc_1075013
Good point. I've imposed the traditional virtues over scripture; a bad mistake. I think my point may still stand: "love" is still not a great word to stack against agape.
I’ll never understand the Christians who quote judge not but forget that he told the woman go and sin no more
Woah buddy! Who are we to judge? I mean we have the scriptures and two thousand years of tradition, but wouldn't it be mean to tell a sinner they might be making a mistake?
As a note, that passage in the bible was an after the fact addition. It's removed from newer translations specifically because it's a pretty blatant forgery.
Which passage is a forgery?
John 7:53-8:11
It’s been a while but I remember hearing they believe the Gospels come from something called a Q reference or something like that. Been years since I was in the class. I guess my point was you can lovingly tell someone they are in the wrong. People have done so to me.
I do remember reading the Gospel of Thomas was written like 60 or 70 years after the 4 gospels
Are you talking about this? If so, that implies that John was different.
Q reference? So you're saying Q Anon has been around for thousands of years?
Wokies agree, they just call it call in/call out culture. The difference is wokies "correct" you if you're not being degenerate enough.
People simply don't know what love is. They equate it with romanticism and passions. Love is a choice, not a feeling, since feelings are fickle and temporary.
From a Catholic perspective, to love is to selflessly will the good of another.
Sometimes a slap is an act of love.
As long as I'm not ignoring the plank in my eye to concern myself with the speck in his.
What if they don't want to be stopped? Should I use violence? Immediately? Or.. is there a threshold? Like.. three warnings and then a punch.. or how do we address this? This person may not see themselves as my sibling.
Critically.. should I judge him for sinning?
He also preached "Do unto others as you would have done to you."
When the shepherd leaves behind the 99 and finds his lost sheep, does he not bring him into his arms, and tell the sheep, "I love you the most?"
Anyways.. there's a real message of judgement and of violent retribution afoot lately. It concerns me because the uniparty security state would love nothing more than a violent outburst as an excuse to roll out the next version of smart borders with facial recognition and AI driven "homeland security."
The apparent need to ensure this message is posted everywhere in forms that are acceptable and expected in the forums they are posted in leads me to wonder if this is just part of the manipulation.
Anyways.. what Jesus wants is your soul. In heaven. With God. That is what is most important. If you want to show you love God, bring as many souls as you can with you, and lead them, in front of you, into Heaven.
This 2 do not contradict each other. If anything it talks about hypocrisy and that is something leftists love.
If you are a Christian you would want others to help you not sin
This is just silly.
I think you did not understand this one. He is saying that the lost sheep returns to Jesus, this would imply repentance not accepting sin.
Also there is nothing about violent retribution, I don't see that in the OP post either.
They suggest a priority.
Nor would I expect anyone to judge me should I have sinned.
Then it should be simple to answer. What is your answer? What do you do when the sinner does not want your help? What do you do when his sin intrudes on your life? These are things that happen. "Helping to not sin" is a huge spectrum of problems.
He is also saying that being lost is expected and that for coming back to the fold all is forgiven and forgotten immediately.
I expect that reasonable people can have a different view on this. You do understand that I meant this is part of a general trend though, correct?
Most of your issues comes from the idea that saying you've sinned is a judgment on you. No one passes judgment on you except God. Telling someone that what he is doing is a sin in accordance with the Christian religion is an act of love in the hope of saving that person and not a judgment.
If they refuse the message it is on them but the Christian responsibility is to try to get as many on the path as possible.
The question remains, if the person refuses and fully embraces sin what can a Christian do. In my opinion we need to make clear that this is abhorrent and we do not condone it, if the sinners still wants to be friends then we can. There is always a chance that leading by example may save the sinner.