wiegraf:


let's start with the double speak. don't worry about the rest, yet...

continue, where is the double speak?

nobilis:


Euthanasia is not murder. Not all killing is murder. That is why a court differentiates manslaughter from murder. Euthanasia isn't murder neither is it even manslaughter. And I still reiterate, baloney or not, unless you've been in a particular situation, do not judge.

For example, unless you've had a family member who in what is medically known as permanent vegetative state, you won't understand. When you've spent all your money trying to sustain someone who is living off of machines and who has no hope of waking up, then you'll understand. Have you ever wondered why people who are in advanced stages of illness sign DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) forms in hospitals.

Have you ever been faced with the prospect of raising a rapist's or an armed robber's child. Has any of your female relatives been raped before and she got pregnant? Or has your wife been raped by an armed robber and she got pregnant for him? Until you've been in these situations, stop using the morality card. Never you judge these issues from the sidelines.

The Catholic Church will always try to save its face as the traditionalist that it is. Secondly, no Pope will want to be responsible for any such sweeping changes in the church's theology. That's why when anyone becomes pope, even if he was a liberal and progressive before, he becomes conservative after he becomes pope (Benedict XVI is a perfect example). Before any such changes occur, an ecumenical council will have to be the one to decide that. And make such changes. And such contemporary issues as contraception, euthanasia, abortion, etc, became prominent after the conclusf Vatican Council II.

As for that definition of marriage you gave above, who gave such a definition. Pray tell.

sorry dear, I chose to ignore this for now

kemqox:


In other words, we should kiss the gay after they did it, serve them delicious food and drinks, tickle their chin and smilishly tell them; ''una for no do that thing na hahaha.''

Moral Painters twisting simple religious matters since 500BC. There is no amount or quality of white paint you put on a sepulcher that can make the rotten corps in it good enough to behold.

Look at the magnitude of mess you made of our doctrine. Tchewwww!

Even common mast.urbation has never be seen considerate enough to grant it venial status.

You shall know how much bad this thing is when your little boy of primary or secondary school age is subjected adult diaper usage in your house, his character changed girlish, delay or deny you opportunity of seeing your grand children. That will be when you shall really feel like...

get an education. am really tired today.

Ubenedictus:
i do not know up to 3 saints who are sinless, so I'm right if I say, the saint sins and good is found in the very worst sinners.

God loves in an interesting way, we are loved irrespective of our sins. God detest sin but he loves the sinner. the sin should be condemned but the sinners are taught to live better. each man is still responsible for his sins but the hatred and indignation for sins are not to be transferred to the sinner.



I hope u understand

it helps u see past the sin and. see the person. it is an experience

Note what you said: the sinner is responsible for his sin. The sin makes the man a sinner, it forms a part of the identity of the sinner. The punishment for he sin is delivered upon the sinner. The bolded is a repetition of your prior post I 'attacked'. The situation where I will agree that the sin is separable in a meaningful sense from the sinner, is when God lets into heaven a Sinner but not his sin. Or punishes the sin and not the sinner. Responsibility is the bond that binds the sinner to the sin.

Kay17:


Note what you said: the sinner is responsible for his sin. The sin makes the man a sinner, it forms a part of the identity of the sinner. The punishment for he sin is delivered upon the sinner. The bolded is a repetition of your prior post I 'attacked'. The situation where I will agree that the sin is separable in a meaningful sense from the sinner, is when God lets into heaven a Sinner but not his sin. Or punishes the sin and not the sinner. Responsibility is the bond that binds the sinner to the sin.

now it seem you are argueing against urself.

I never said the sinner is not responsible for his sins, what i did say is that the sinner isn't the sin. As long as the sinner lives he has a chance to reject his sin and live a good life. You'll see this in the story of Jesus and maru magdalene, the law was clear on the wages of sin, but Jesus was more interested in the potential of the sinner to live a new life.


Love the sinner hate the sin, is a pastoral approach that encourages a new life thru mercy instead of thru fear. It ensures the sinner isn't discriminated against along with his or her sin.

Ubenedictus:
now it seem you are argueing against urself.

I never said the sinner is not responsible for his sins, what i did say is that the sinner isn't the sin. As long as the sinner lives he has a chance to reject his sin and live a good life. You'll see this in the story of Jesus and maru magdalene, the law was clear on the wages of sin, but Jesus was more interested in the potential of the sinner to live a new life.


Love the sinner hate the sin, is a pastoral approach that encourages a new life thru mercy instead of thru fear. It ensures the sinner isn't discriminated against along with his or her sin.

What is the practical implication of loving the sinner, hating the sin have?

Kay17:


What is the practical implication of loving the sinner, hating the sin have?

ok, let me put it this way.

The bible has a very big issue with sin. In scriptures, sin is an abomination, it is an anomally, a disorder of fatal proportions, it is stupid...unnecessary...and deserving of death each and every time, it is to be avoided, discriminated against with extreme prejudice, condemned, hated and spat on. Infact with the picture scriptures paint of sin, one should be irritated by it, disgusted by it.

Now, what do you do when a friend or even a stranger sins? Are will to lump him together with his sins? Hate him, spite on him, discriminate against him, condemn him or probally kill him or anyone else each and every time they sin?

If the christian cannot differentiate the sinner from his sins, if he cannot see in the sinner one who is loved by God with a potential for goodness, greatness and love. Then all sinner will be dead (the world will be empty) or we will have a caste system of the righteous and the sinner, becos the so-called saints will be disgusted by the sinner and decleared him unworthy of friendship. That is what happen when the sinner is hated along with his sins.


Jesus on the other hand presents "goodness" as a call which we are all free to answer, righteousness doesn't happen in one day and God is interested in each and every one and wishes to accompany each person in his search for what is good, what is true, what is excellent, what is pure and what is beautiful. As such man isn't his sins even though he is responsible for them and they are associated to him, man first and foremost is a being with potential to goodness, to beauty, to all that is right.


The practical meaning is that when i discuss with the guy down the street or even when i examine my own life and see my sins, i do not discriminate against or hate him and myself for sins, i am ready to tell him and myself about all good thing trusting that God accompanies us all on our journey moving us from within to fulfilment.


If you can't see the sinner in a positive light then your teaching will be of no use to both him and yourself. He will pick the cues of your arrogance and self righteousness, your hypocrisy will be a block to the truth you teach.

Ubenedictus:


ok, let me put it this way.

The bible has a very big issue with sin. In scriptures, sin is an abomination, it is an anomally, a disorder of fatal proportions, it is stupid...unnecessary...and deserving of death each and every time, it is to be avoided, discriminated against with extreme prejudice, condemned, hated and spat on. Infact with the picture scriptures paint of sin, one should be irritated by it, disgusted by it.

Now, what do you do when a friend or even a stranger sins? Are will to lump him together with his sins? Hate him, spite on him, discriminate against him, condemn him or probally kill him or anyone else each and every time they sin?

If the christian cannot differentiate the sinner from his sins, if he cannot see in the sinner one who is loved by God with a potential for goodness, greatness and love. Then all sinner will be dead (the world will be empty) or we will have a caste system of the righteous and the sinner, becos the so-called saints will be disgusted by the sinner and decleared him unworthy of friendship. That is what happen when the sinner is hated along with his sins.


Jesus on the other hand presents "goodness" as a call which we are all free to answer, righteousness doesn't happen in one day and God is interested in each and every one and wishes to accompany each person in his search for what is good, what is true, what is excellent, what is pure and what is beautiful. As such man isn't his sins even though he is responsible for them and they are associated to him, man first and foremost is a being with potential to goodness, to beauty, to all that is right.


The practical meaning is that when i discuss with the guy down the street or even when i examine my own life and see my sins, i do not discriminate against or hate him and myself for sins, i am ready to tell him and myself about all good thing trusting that God accompanies us all on our journey moving us from within to fulfilment.


If you can't see the sinner in a positive light then your teaching will be of no use to both him and yourself. He will pick the cues of your arrogance and self righteousness, your hypocrisy will be a block to the truth you teach.

Yet your and God's expression of love towards the sinner would be inhibited by the supposed sins. Look at the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, the people were punished by fire, and that's hardly an expression of affection rather a typical expression of hatred. My own contention is that it is difficult to contain two contrasting emotions for a person and his actions separately.

Kay17:


Yet your and God's expression of love towards the sinner would be inhibited by the supposed sins. Look at the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, the people were punished by fire, and that's hardly an expression of affection rather a typical expression of hatred. My own contention is that it is difficult to contain two contrasting emotions for a person and his actions separately.

i'll probably say i get the point you are making.

The problem with sodom and gomora wasn't because of some individual sin, but because the sins have become a culture, it was a civilisation that found itself happy in wrong doing. From the biblical narrative what happen there was hardly a case a hate, maybe punishment, but not hate. They had accumulated their sins and there weren't 10 good people in the cities. It was years and years of wrong doing, God had given then ample time for repentance, at a stage justice has to be served.


The bible doesn't teach a goody goody love, love isn't the absence of punishment, it is the superabundant balance for justice. Sin has its punishments even though God would prefer the repentance of a sinner and give him ample time for that.

Kay17:


Yet your and God's expression of love towards the sinner would be inhibited by the supposed sins. Look at the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, the people were punished by fire, and that's hardly an expression of affection rather a typical expression of hatred. My own contention is that it is difficult to contain two contrasting emotions for a person and his actions separately.

and lastly i think it is possible and even a frequent thing that people bear different emotions for the action and the person. My mum is a prime example, when i was younger a wasn't the best kid and sincerly speaking, i'm sure my mum hated most of the stuff i pulled back then...that didn't stop her from loving me with every thing she could muster.

Her approach ensured i was never enstranged from her, i knew that when i got the rod it wasn't because she hated my guts.

Ubenedictus:
and lastly i think it is possible and even a frequent thing that people bear different emotions for the action and the person. My mum is a prime example, when i was younger a wasn't the best kid and sincerly speaking, i'm sure my mum hated most of the stuff i pulled back then...that didn't stop her from loving me with every thing she could muster.
Her approach ensured i was never enstranged from her, i knew that when i got the rod it wasn't because she hated my guts.

Ubenedictus:


i'll probably say i get the point you are making.

The problem with sodom and gomora wasn't because of some individual sin, but because the sins have become a culture, it was a civilisation that found itself happy in wrong doing. From the biblical narrative what happen there was hardly a case a hate, maybe punishment, but not hate. They had accumulated their sins and there weren't 10 good people in the cities. It was years and years of wrong doing, God had given then ample time for repentance, at a stage justice has to be served.


The bible doesn't teach a goody goody love, love isn't the absence of punishment, it is the superabundant balance for justice. Sin has its punishments even though God would prefer the repentance of a sinner and give him ample time for that.

Ubenedictus:
and lastly i think it is possible and even a frequent thing that people bear different emotions for the action and the person. My mum is a prime example, when i was younger a wasn't the best kid and sincerly speaking, i'm sure my mum hated most of the stuff i pulled back then...that didn't stop her from loving me with every thing she could muster.
Her approach ensured i was never enstranged from her, i knew that when i got the rod it wasn't because she hated my guts.

You seem to forget that the so beloved people of Sodom and Gomorrah perished; and you place your own story side by side with that as if both had the same consequences. Whatever love that existed for the people of Sodom was far less than the example of hatred. At least the hatred of the sins did not save the sinners.

Kay17:




You seem to forget that the so beloved people of Sodom and Gomorrah perished; and you place your own story side by side with that as if both had the same consequences. Whatever love that existed for the people of Sodom was far less than the example of hatred. At least the hatred of the sins did not save the sinners.

the "love the sinner" part is so the sinner may be saved, but not everybody wants salvation. For some sin has become a new kind of "normal". And like those of sodom love may not save them, their sins just call for justice.

Ubenedictus:


the "love the sinner" part is so the sinner may be saved, but not everybody wants salvation. For some sin has become a new kind of "normal". And like those of sodom love may not save them, their sins just call for justice.

This was what you ought to have said from the beginning; that your understanding of "love the sinner, hate the sin" meant the sinner was given a redemptive opportunity. Rather than haggle with me over responsibility and love.

Kay17:


This was what you ought to have said from the beginning; that your understanding of "love the sinner, hate the sin" meant the sinner was given a redemptive opportunity. Rather than haggle with me over responsibility and love.

hehehe,

you were the person really drawing the issue. It isn't a "A" redemptive opportunity, it is a life time of redemptive opportunities.