Zone1 Worse than sin is the denial of sin

You call it 'sin', I call it 'bad behavior'. And behavioral science has ways of understanding and predicting what the signs can lead to, and react accordingly.
Etymology of sin: Missing the target. Bad behavior. Fault. Transgression. Misbehavior. Impropriety.

Substitute any of the above words and the topic still stands: Worse than ___________ is the denial of __________ .
 
Etymology of sin: Missing the target. Bad behavior. Fault. Transgression. Misbehavior. Impropriety.

Substitute any of the above words and the topic still stands: Worse than ___________ is the denial of __________ .
In this case the action is worse than the thought process
 
Most people in Hell didn't believe in Hell, some of the more spiritual folks of the past have said
 
In this case the action is worse than the thought process
What is worse? A man whose actions betray his thoughts? Or a man who rationalizes his actions by changing his thoughts?
 
Although in some instances that can hold true - what is far worse, in my humble opinion, is causing other people to "sin" by "Judging, condemning and isolating them" because of what one understands to be a sin. Is that not what the religious leaders and Romans did during the time of Jesus' ministry?

How did Jesus forgive sins? He didn't - not in the way most people think or believe. He helped to redeem sinners by showing them that through faith and repentance, sins can be forgiven. Jesus did not judge, condemn or persecute sinners - he invited them in, to teach them - and it was through their faith and understanding that they were redeemed.

In 1 John 5:

If anyone sees a brother commit a sin
that does not lead to death,
he should intercede for him,
and God will grant him life—
provided that the sin is not deadly.
There is a sin that leads to death,
and I do not say
that you should pray about it.[h]

17 All wrongdoing is sinful,
but not all sins are deadly.

"ALL WRONG DOING IS SINFUL - but not all sins are deadly"



When you persecute, judge and condemn someone who may be gay or had an abortion (the person may not even understand how or why it could be a sin) you may completely isolate them from being spiritually faithful and create resentment and/or despair when it involves being spiritually faithful. Now you may not realize it - but what you are doing is likely "wrong" - and "All wrong doing is sinful".

John 8:

A Woman Caught in Adultery.[a] [7:53Then each of them returned home. 1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At daybreak he entered the temple courts, and all the people gathered around him. He sat down and began to teach them.

3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought in a woman who had been caught in adultery. Forcing her to stand in their midst, 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery.[b] 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.[c] What do you have to say?”

6 They asked him this question as a test so that they could bring a charge against him. Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they continued to persist in their question, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”[d] 8 Then he again bent down and wrote on the ground.

9 When they heard his response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders, until Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She replied, “No one, sir.” “Neither do I condemn you,” Jesus said. “Go on your way, and sin no more.”]


Did Jesus forgive the sins of the woman? No, he did not. He simply used a higher understanding of the Law to first make sure she would not be physically condemned and to later assure her that "He would not condemn her either".

What did Jesus teaching about judging and condemning others?

Matthew 7:

Do Not Judge.[a] 1 “Do not judge, so that you in turn may not be judged. 2 For you will be judged in the same way that you judge others, and the measure that you use for others will be used to measure you.

3 “Why do you take note of the splinter in your brother’s eye but do not notice the wooden plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while all the time the wooden plank remains in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the wooden plank from your own eye, and then you will be able to see clearly enough to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.


What does this mean?

Some Christians are quick to condemn gay people. And based on what many of them have been taught, they are doing what they think is "right". The "worst sin" gay people could commit is the same "sin" that many heterosexuals likely can commit - "Sex outside of wedlock, being permiscuous, sodomy, etc"

Now a major misunderstanding about the word "Sodomy" is that when it was written, it meant to be "raped ...." I won't go into details but you know where. Later, the meaning was broadened to basically mean any type of sexual relation (including oral) that is not considered regular intercourse between a man and a woman.

What that means - and this is according to what Jesus taught in Matthew 7 - if you have ever had "oral" sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex, you (likely) should not be judging gay people - because believe it or not - you could likely be guilty of the same sin. And if you've done "the other thing" with the opposite sex - there is no difference in that act than what you accuse and condemn gay people for.

Does it seem "unnatural or perverse" to some? It could. But what could seem "perverse" to others if your entire life were to be exposed?

Many of you were critical of Pope Francis when he stated, "Who are we to judge?" Pope Francis simply stated what Jesus spoke about in both Matthew and John.

Personally, I am heterosexual - and when I was younger it was almost "normal" to joke about gay people - But this always makes me remember about a night when I was 16 years old and this kid who was 6'4 230 pounds wanted to beat me up (I was much smaller than him at the time) and my neighbor who was bigger than me, about a year older (I had a ton of friends but they all seemed to disappear at the time) - was the only one who came over and stood up to the kid and told him that he wasn't going to touch me. The kid backed down and I was happy I went home instead of going to the hospital.

It wasn't until many years later (sometime during my college years) that I found out that the neighbor who stopped the kid from beating me up was gay. Who knows how many times he must have heard me or my friends make a gay joke over the years? Despite all of that, he was the only one (when all my straight friends ran for the weeds) who had the guts to stand up for me and prevented me from getting beat up.
 
Last edited:
True Catholics reject francis because he is not Catholic

and only Catholics can be pope
 
What the actions were.
Let's say the actions were the same. Let's say a guy thinks cheating on his wife is wrong and then cheats on his wife (actions betrayed his thoughts) but doesn't change his belief. Another guy thinks cheating on his wife is wrong, then cheats on his wife and rationalizes that his cheating has made his marriage better (man who rationalizes his actions by changing his thoughts).

Which was worse? Both were unfaithful.
 
Let's say the actions were the same. Let's say a guy thinks cheating on his wife is wrong and then cheats on his wife (actions betrayed his thoughts) but doesn't change his belief. Another guy thinks cheating on his wife is wrong, then cheats on his wife and rationalizes that his cheating has made his marriage better (man who rationalizes his actions by changing his thoughts).

Which was worse? Both were unfaithful.

Him trying to rationalize his way out of that, is just lying to himself. Its cowardice.
But either way, the men cheated. And that is wrong no matter what.
 
Him trying to rationalize his way out of that, is just lying to himself. Its cowardice.
But either way, the men cheated. And that is wrong no matter what.
Correct. But the first guy can learn from his mistakes while the second guy can't because he won't acknowledge his mistakes. So he's doomed to repeat them over and over again. That is until he encounters the predictable surprises from normalization of deviance, and even then he'll probably still do it.
 
15th post
Pope Francis was a Jesuit.

Are you saying the Jesuit order is not Catholic?
No, and I thought I was done w/ you

oh yeh, forgot to officially Ignore

Your questions/comments indicate a HUGE ignorance of modern Church history. I wish I could find someone who could converse me on this topic of how corrupt and UN-Catholic the Vatican is, but I guess I'll have to go elsewhere. People here, generally speaking, appear to prefer ignorance on such topics.
 
Correct. But the first guy can learn from his mistakes while the second guy can't because he won't acknowledge his mistakes. So he's doomed to repeat them over and over again. That is until he encounters the predictable surprises from normalization of deviance, and even then he'll probably still do it.
Agreed
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom