Catholic Social Teaching

Originally posted by knightmeister
The word "sin" in the Bible literally means separation , so we are separated from God by our slavery (captivity) to sin (the wages of sin is death). Separated from God means separated from eternal life and salvation so we need to be united with God and made one ("that they may be made one as we are one" ) We can be adopted as sons rather than remain sl ...[text shortened]... rom the others that follow. Now will you do the decency of also addrsssing my questions?

"everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin"

You continue to ignore this. Why?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
"everyone who [b]commits sin is the slave of sin"

You continue to ignore this. Why?[/b]

I don't ignore it , but I do try to reconcile it with what Jesus says elsewhere. I will concede it presents a difficulty but not an insurmountable one.

You see I have to reconcile it with Christ's other teachings over a broad range of teachings. This is something you apparently see no need to do and thus the whole process is very easy for you. It would be easy for me too if I chose not to feel obliged by the words of Jesus in other parts of the NT regarding the remission of sin , belief and the Holy Spirit.

I think it's because I don't equate the words "a slave to sin" as meaning the same as " not having salvation". I also think there may be a difference between "committing sin" and sin which may be just a part of human falleness. It's self evident that some sins are wilful and "committed" and others are less intentional. Even Christ admitted "things that cause men to sin are bound to come".

Overall , I'm not convinced that Christ launches into these verses with the intention that what he says here is to be intepreted as the last and final word on salvation , period. It's obvious that there is still more to come . To me he is outlining the seriousness of sin and also challenging the arrogance of those he was talking to who didn't think they were in trouble. Call me pedantic , but I happen to think that context is very important.

Therefore , I do think it's possible for someone to be sinning and not fully free of it but also be saved by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice and this is entirely consistent with what Christ says at the last supper (for example)

The other problem is that the words you quote consist of 9 words in total only . Now they are important words but I'm trying to look across the whole spectrum of his teachings.Is that not reasonable? It's also clear that Jesus himself did not always get across what he was saying clearly . For example , he lead the whole early church to believe that he would come back and end the world within their lifetimes , he didn't. This may sound blasphemous but it's true.

I suppose at the end of the day the whole idea of having to overcome sin 100% with total perfection (and no slip ups) in order to enter heaven is unpalatable to me because it would mean that less than 0.1% of men would actually make it and I just can't believe something like that and I can't believe that that's the way God would set it up. It might appeal to the elitist but not to me.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't ignore it , but I do try to reconcile it with what Jesus says elsewhere. I will concede it presents a difficulty but not an insurmountable one.

You see I have to reconcile it with Christ's other teachings over a broad range of teachings. This is something you apparently see no need to do and thus the whole process is very easy for you. It w ...[text shortened]... ay God would set it up. It might appeal to the elitist but not to me.

So you choose what "appeals" to you over loving Jesus?

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him...If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So you choose what "appeals" to you over loving Jesus?

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him...If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words."

Hang on . Play fair Think of One , I'm putting some thoughts out there for discussion and all you seem to want to do is take advantage to further your position.

I choose to follow the law of love written on my heart , and that law says that God is not going to allow 99.9% of the world's population miss out on heaven. I doubt whether you like that idea either. If you do then fair play to you.

My reasoning is that Jesus could not possibly have meant things the way you assume partly because the implications would be entirely unpalatable and unreasonable. For example , if Jesus taught that we must eat babies to be saved and you gave me a choice between not eating babies or loving Jesus then I will not choose Jesus (but then I would also have my doubts about someone interpreting Jesus in such a way). In addition there are many other reasons why I should doubt your interpretation.

Now , can you (at least once) address my question otherwise there is little point continuing. You wanted a discussion and you got one , and discussions work 2 ways. What do you think that Jesus meant by "when he the comforter comes he will guide you in to all truth"?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Hang on . Play fair Think of One , I'm putting some thoughts out there for discussion and all you seem to want to do is take advantage to further your position.

I choose to follow the law of love written on my heart , and that law says that God is not going to allow 99.9% of the world's population miss out on heaven. I doubt whether you like that ...[text shortened]... u think that Jesus meant by "when he the comforter comes he will guide you in to all truth"?

Why do you deny the words of Jesus?

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him...If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words."

What do these words mean to you?

What do you think would happen if people actually followed the commandments of Jesus?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why do you deny the words of Jesus?

"[b]He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him...If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He t ...[text shortened]... you?

What do you think would happen if people actually followed the commandments of Jesus?[/b]

They'd all tear their eyeballs out for checking out the neighbor's wife.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why do you deny the words of Jesus?

"[b]He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him...If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He t you?

What do you think would happen if people actually followed the commandments of Jesus?[/b]

Do we not need to ask what his commandments actually were first?

His primary command was for us to live a life of love and truth , and that my friend means a hell of a lot to me. However , the way of love can be messy and we don't always get it right. You seem to suggesting that nothing less than perfection is acceptable to God , an idea which I reject outright. I live a life committed to love and truth and believe in being honest and ethical in my dealings with people. I try hard not to judge and try to understand and forgive others. I am a committed pacifist and believe in gentleness over hate , peace over war. I would sooner die than fight in a war myself.

Despite this I can sometimes get irritated with my kids and get angry when I shouldn't and have to apologise. I have other failings as a human being in that I can't say I never ever cast a stray look at another woman. So , I confess , take my sins to Jesus in the sure knowledge that he sees past these things to who I am underneath. So where's your problem here? I could do better , but I could do a heck of a lot worse. The funny thing is thinking about this is that for all your talk of sin , you never define it exactly.


Anyway , enough of your questions , it's about time you entered into a more mature give and take discussion. That means you answer one of mine. Pick one please , or you can forget this discussion. I will only go so far if you are not prepared to give something yourself.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Do we not need to ask what his commandments actually were first?

His primary command was for us to live a life of love and truth , and that my friend means a hell of a lot to me. However , the way of love can be messy and we don't always get it right. You seem to suggesting that nothing less than perfection is acceptable to God , an idea which I re this discussion. I will only go so far if you are not prepared to give something yourself.

We started this with me stating my position: "My position is simple. The words of Jesus support salvation through righteousness."

I've given you a number of verses with the words of Jesus that support my position.

I asked for the following:
Where does Jesus explicitly state that if an individual professes belief that Jesus died for everyones sins, that individual will be granted salvation?

Please provide the chapters and verses.

Like usual, you've spent numerous posts dancing around the question. Then as usual you start with accusing me of not answering your questions, when all the while you dance around the most pertinent of mine.

You've been anything but "honest and ethical" in your dealings with me.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
We started this with me stating my position: "My position is simple. The words of Jesus support salvation through righteousness."

I've given you a number of verses with the words of Jesus that support my position.

I asked for the following:
Where does Jesus explicitly state that if an individual professes belief that Jesus died for everyones sins, ...[text shortened]... inent of mine.

You've been anything but "honest and ethical" in your dealings with me.

So the rules are what then? I MUST answer your questions 100% to your satisfaction BEFORE you even attempt to address mine?

As long as it's fair? My idea would be for me to have a go at your questions and then you to have a go at mine and then I can return to your questions once again , and vice versa. That would be a free flowing , two sided discussion where BOTH people obliged themselves to answer the other's questions. I would even agree to answer two of yours to one of mine , but any kind of equality of debate does not seem to be what you want.

My feeling is that you will "dance around" my questions just as much as you perceive me as doing to yours. You have to decide if you want a fair discussion or not . Otherwise , it makes me wonder why you bother on this forum. If all you want is a one sided affair why don't you just post threads to yourself? A one sided discussion is not sustainable.

I actually think I have been quite revealing and honest about in my answers and I have not been contrived or disingenuous at all. I have admitted it is a difficult issue on many occasions but for you that seems to count for little. Come out from behind your russian dolls ToO , who are you really? What do you feel? Do you have NO doubts about your position?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So the rules are what then? I MUST answer your questions 100% to your satisfaction BEFORE you even attempt to address mine?

As long as it's fair? My idea would be for me to have a go at your questions and then you to have a go at mine and then I can return to your questions once again , and vice versa. That would be a free flowing , two sided disc ...[text shortened]... olls ToO , who are you really? What do you feel? Do you have NO doubts about your position?

Listen, this is really simple.

I've stated my position. I've backed it up with the words of Jesus.

Is it so unreasonable for me to expect you to do the same?

Especially in the light of the fact that you've lead a crusade to denigrate me using lies, half-truths and distortions as you've followed me around from thread to thread.

You have all this hostility toward my position, but nothing to counter it besides extrapolations of the words of Paul which are extrapolations of the words of Jesus.

I'd think that if you were truly interested in proving your position correct, you'd be showing me how the words of Jesus back your position instead of asking me questions. I'd think that if you could back your position you would. But you don't. Why is that?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Listen, this is really simple.

I've stated my position. I've backed it up with the words of Jesus.

Is it so unreasonable for me to expect you to do the same?

Especially in the light of the fact that you've lead a crusade to denigrate me using lies, half-truths and distortions as you've followed me around from thread to thread.

You have all th s. I'd think that if you could back your position you would. But you don't. Why is that?

You know full well that I have used the words of Jesus to back up my position , this is why I want you to answer my questions on his words (just for a change). If you look back at this thread you will see that I have done this. I have also argued convincingly that many words of jesus require extrapolation. The problem is that you see yourself as the asker of questions with no responsibility to answer any. You have only one approach and one angle and seem to be a one trick pony.

It's simple , I answer one of yours then you answer one of mine etc etc , that way the discussion is fair and not one sided. Would you like such a discussion?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Listen, this is really simple.

I've stated my position. I've backed it up with the words of Jesus.

Is it so unreasonable for me to expect you to do the same?

Especially in the light of the fact that you've lead a crusade to denigrate me using lies, half-truths and distortions as you've followed me around from thread to thread.

You have all th ...[text shortened]... s. I'd think that if you could back your position you would. But you don't. Why is that?

"but nothing to counter it besides extrapolations of the words of Paul"---ToO------


This is just plain false , I have hardly ever quoted St Paul and have quoted Jesus nearly all the time. Find one of my posts where I start off with a St Paul quote and go from there. I am extrapolating largely on the words of Jesus , words which you have no alternative interpretation for. Don't try that trick on me.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You know full well that I have used the words of Jesus to back up my position , this is why I want you to answer my questions on his words (just for a change). If you look back at this thread you will see that I have done this. I have also argued convincingly that many words of jesus require extrapolation. The problem is that you see yourself as th etc etc , that way the discussion is fair and not one sided. Would you like such a discussion?

I asked for the following:
Where does Jesus explicitly state that if an individual professes belief that Jesus died for everyones sins, that individual will be granted salvation?

Please provide the chapters and verses.

Note that you still have yet to do so.

Instead you continue the dance.

The dance to keep your belief system above the words of Jesus.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I asked for the following:
[b]Where does Jesus explicitly state that if an individual professes belief that Jesus died for everyones sins, that individual will be granted salvation?

Please provide the chapters and verses.

Note that you still have yet to do so.

Instead you continue the dance.

The dance to keep your belief system above the words of Jesus.[/b]

Jesus does explicitly state that "whoever believes in me shall receive eternal life" - so there you .

Now , would you like an even sided discussion or a one way interogation where only KM answers any questions? If you entered into such a discussion this would not let me off the hook or mean that your questions would stop. It would simply mean that I would get at least some chance to cross examine your position.

Please decide.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Jesus does explicitly state that "whoever believes in me shall receive eternal life" - so there you .

Now , would you like an even sided discussion or a one way interogation where only KM answers any questions? If you entered into such a discussion this would not let me off the hook or mean that your questions would stop. It would simply mean that I would get at least some chance to cross examine your position.

Please decide.

And the dance continues....

Once again the question:
"Where does Jesus explicitly state that if an individual professes belief that Jesus died for everyones sins, that individual will be granted salvation?

Please provide the chapters and verses.

Let's see. No chapter, no verse. Plus the statement is ambiguous at best. Is it really your contention that "believes in me" equates to "professes belief that Jesus died for everyones sins"? This is really your idea of "explicit"?

What might Jesus mean by "believe"? You might want to look at all verses that I've shown you numerous times where He places the condition that you must "follow [His] word", "follow [His] commandments", "follow the will of God", etc.

You might also look to John the Baptist who directly refutes your contention:
John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

This underlines my earlier contention that you've shown time and again that you seem incapable of having a rational discussion. If you can't bring yourself to discuss this rationally, then there's little point in continuing.