Jesus Loved Gays But Christians Won’t
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
Well, Chavez claims to be catholic. Lets see what great good he does for Venezuela.
??????????? Lots of people claim lots of things..What is your point and what does that have to do with Communism?
So is it your sincere belief that no on that calls themselves Cristian believes in an idea of Original sin which is simmilar as to what is stated in Wikipedia?
Al Gore?
Oh never mind...It is very clear you are not at all aware of what the hell you are talking about. In this post you mix actions with doctrines.....to the point I truly do not know what you are trying to communicate to me. I'll let Pangloss play with you. He is more than capable of handling the situation. I have complete faith in his intellectual abilities.
Sanctus:
Then how about the Catholic Encyclopedia:
(1) The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death -- "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men". Here there is question of physical death. First, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wisdom 2:24: "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world". Cf. Genesis 2:17; 3:3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, 1 Corinthians 15:21: "For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead". Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.
(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.
(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it. The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam's bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man. And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Romans 5:18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, "Contra julian.", VI, xxiv, 75).
A little wordy, and certainly not me teaching you anything, but it makes its point.
Pangloss
Then how about the Catholic Encyclopedia:
(1) The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death -- "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men". Here there is question of physical death. First, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wisdom 2:24: "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world". Cf. Genesis 2:17; 3:3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, 1 Corinthians 15:21: "For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead". Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.
(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.
(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it. The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam's bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man. And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Romans 5:18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, "Contra julian.", VI, xxiv, 75).
A little wordy, and certainly not me teaching you anything, but it makes its point.
Pangloss
Are you suggesting you are more qualified to discuss theological teachings than I am? That wikipedia is a reliable source for Church doctrines?
And what is a "Cristian"???
As to "original sin", clearly your ability to read matches your ability to write. Not once did I suggest the doctrine of Original Sin was not a doctrine of the Church. I merely explained its intent and elaborated on its teaching, apparently to no avail.
s243a - could you please take the time to correct your spelling? These annoying, pointless mistakes only betray the lack of effort you put into your posts.
Pangloss
We are born with the propensity to sin. That means we are not born pure, but babies are born innocent for they have not done anything at that point in time. However, because of the fall from grace by the first peoples, it is better understood to state we are born with that mark upon us, which will enable us to either walk in the light of Christ or to dismiss that Light and walk in sin.
Much like, if I may draw a bad comparison, a person born with a genetic disorder. How a person deals with that disorder is the issue. In other words, he can either allow this disorder to manifest itself in defeatism, or attempt to use this disorder to his advantage and succeed as a fully functioning human. Does that clarify sufficiently?
You might look a little less rude if you actually made that comment when replying to a post which contained spelling errors. Anyway, if you had more wisdom you might pay more attention to content the spelling.
Indeed, would you care to translate for those of us not inclined to reading his code?
So then their are only two choices? You are either with Christ or you are a sinner. That is pretty bigoted.
I just love it when a Cristian thinks that their understanding and knowledge of scripture is superior in all views and all respects. Is it not possible that someone educated and rational could come to different conclusions in some respects?
No, not bigoted, you noob! It is one of those things that is true within its own logic. According to Christian thought, you are with Christ or you are a sinner. That is logically consistent within Christian thinking.
Perhaps I am writing way over your head. I mean, this does seem to be a self evident truth.
Pangloss
man, I hate it when I've got stupid on my side.
p
I can't speak for "Cristians", as I am not familiar with that particular faith group. Nor can I confirm or deny what you "just love". However, I do have an undergraduate Theological Studies degree, as well as a Psychology degree, combined with 6 years of seminary education.I assume this would allow me to formulate even a tiny theological opinion.