Posted on 08/03/2018 9:45:16 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
You are too generous.
Just imagine if elsie were here!
Such class.
Did you learn that in your catechism classes?
I’m guessing so cause that’s the way the other kinds in the catechism classes treated me.
I follow Jesus Christ.
I believe His promise in John 5:24.
Do you?
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
I'm also reminded on how Stephen responded to those who were stoning him....."Lord, do not hold this sin against them."
Of course I do, so why do you feel the urge to attack Catholics on every thread. I don’t go on protestant threads to attack someone and expect the same treatment. That’s all. Treat me as you would like to be treated and we’ll be fine. Punch me and I’ll punch back four times. In other words leave me alone a
I left too, but at the time I left, I didn’t know about all this stuff. I left for other reasons.
I'm not attacking individual Roman Catholics. I'm calling into question Roman Catholic beliefs that don't line up with the New Testament. And I don't comment on every thread....just on those of interest to me. This is Free Republic last time I checked.
However, it is interesting that one of your fellow Roman Catholics is trashing your current pope....yet you seem to have no problem with that.
I don’t go on protestant threads to attack someone and expect the same treatment.
Discussing theology is not an attack. Now, if I called you a such and such.....that would be an attack.
Paul went around the eastern Med discussing theology and advancing the Gospel. He was willing to discuss the Gospel with pretty much anyone who would listen or would talk with him....even to the point of getting the tar kicked out of him. That's all I'm doing....advancing the Gospel.
Treat me as you would like to be treated and we’ll be fine. Punch me and I’ll punch back four times. In other words leave me alone a
You may note, I try not to resort to name calling.
Just on this thread you've thrown around some comments that are shall we say....unbecoming of a believer in Christ.
For example.....
Likely it isn’t a problem for you, as stupid, fat, and ignorant isn’t all that attractive to the opposite sex.
Not exactly going by the Golden Rule.
You keep saying to leave you alone. I don't initiate posts to you. You initiate them to me and others though.
If you want to have a conversation like a grown up we can do that. If not,....well, the ball is in your court.
I don’t want to converse with you and yes I think the one you spoke of is doing nothing good, and I posted today on his thread and neither am I a fan of Pope Francis.
As far as attacks go, you insinuated that I had no chance of heaven
That’s not an attack?
The ball is in your court. Leave me alone or don’t, the choice is yours
I don’t attack protestants, most of my family are baptist.
We can be friendly or you can continue with the anti Catholic attacks. Take your pick.
All I did was ask if you believed the promise of Christ as noted in John 5:24. Not sure how that’s an attack. Paul shared the Gospel. That’s all I’m doing.
If I don’t know if someone’s is a believer in Christ I ask.
I won’t converse with you, I have more important things to do. I just want to be left alone.
If you look up Exodus 20:14 and 20:17a you will discover that they are two distinct verses and two distinct but related commandments.
Breaking 20:17a and only 20:17a does a number of things which are bad, but will not, for example, get some one pregnant. It also does not reach the level that Paul is dealing with in I Corinthinans 6:16 et al.
There is a reason that Our Lord included the final clause in the two verses he cited—”IN HIS HEART.” By doing this he closely allies the sixth and the ninth commandment (Our numbering) but he does not say that they are the same—indeed by introducing the two verses with different phrases he makes it quite clear that they are distinct in Moses, but that they both need to be taken seriously.
Before passing judgment on Catholics (or Methodists or any denomination that does not have access to a mind reading device that allows for exercising diligent expulsion of people who have improper sexual thoughts as advocated in post 37), I would note that a thought that a thought observing the sexual nature of another is not automatically lust—if it is not about a spouse, it may be a temptation to lust, but whether or not the person gives in to lust depends on what is done with the initial thought, not upon having such thoughts.
Actual Catholic teaching is really big on custody of eyes and thoughts. It isn’t always lived out, but it isn’t always not lived out. I’d bet that Baptists etc. also have similar teachings and at least some success.
It's still adultery no matter how you cut it. It is still a sin. Are there different consequences? Yes.
But from God's perspective it is sin.
Yet in Matthew the commandment being addressed is one of adultery.
27“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28 NASB
Jesus is telling the Pharisees that the mere thought of lust after a woman, be she married or not, is equal to adultery.
From a sin perspective and trying to keep the commandment, Jesus is saying the mere thought of wanting to have sex with a woman is equal to having committed adultery. The individual is just as guilty for lusting after a woman as if he'd actually had sex with her. In other words, it breaks the commandment.
I agree no one gets pregnant with a passing fancy for someone....yet the person has committed a sin in the eyes of God.
It doesn't matter if they followed up on their lust with the actual physical act or not.....Jesus said they'd committed adultery, thus breaking the commandment.
This is why I say the vast majority of Roman Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, Muslims, etc, break this commandment and may not even realize they've done so.
Are there consequences of the physical act Paul is writing about? Sure are. Possible pregnancy, STD, family impact, etc.
But Paul is also noting the spiritual impact of this as well.
Roman Catholicism, like the Pharisees, seems to want to focus on just the physical aspect of this......yet Jesus said the mere thought of lusting after someone is adultery.
I see the problem Catholics have with understanding the seriousness of sin a result of their categorizing it as *mortal* or *venial*.
They approach sin from the more severe, less severe mindset they’ve grown up with.
God’s word is clear that sin is sin and that the thought is the same as the action.
Now, you can not like it all you want and argue against it all you want, but sin is sin in GOD’s eyes.
And honestly, so what if no one gets pregnant? It’s not like it’s a worse sin because pregnancy resulted. True it has far greater consequences to those involved here on earth, but it does not change the seriousness of the sin nor the violation of the commandment in God’s eyes.
I agree. We’ve seen this approach in other discussions. It’s seems in Roman Catholicism you have to do the deed for it to be a sin. The NT teaches otherwise.
Try one thousand years.
I’d bet it’s been happening even prior to that. Rome needs to clean their house up.
The current affair with the American bishops is of enormous importance and will not be resolved without major disruptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.