My blog shares ideas regarding Sociology,Conservative Politics, Catholic beliefs, current events, personal stories, Philosophy, humor and entertainment news.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
A Priest Speaks on Sin, Playboy, and Hefner's Need for Conversion
This is a liberal theme and wrong in context. True I and all others must be sorry for our PERSONAL sin, but not that of another. How can one live a life of virtue by always sinning, better said in the Rev's venacular; "Being sorry for others sins".
Teresa, I am sure you know of God as I do as well, but this talk is yet another reason I left the Church. If one thinks on that portion of his talk it is nothing but socialism.
If you were to be sorry for my sin, which you had no part in, would that not be redistirbution of sin itself? Now multiply that amongst non-sinners as sureadly there are. Now one has to ask what is the point of redemption,,right?
I do not question your faith as I share it, I do however wish you to question those you call leaders of it.
Listen and study the words of speakers and then open the Bible to see if they hold true, it may open your eyes?
Again. I have no doubt as your Faith in God as I share that Faith, but words have power and if used incorrectly they are dangerous.
This is not liberal. This is Catholic. Catholics belong to a community, and so do Christians. He is saying that we must be sorry for sin in the world in the sense that it is our duty as Catholics to denounce and combat against sin, or be sad that it exists. Yes, we have personal salvation. But, as Catholics we are concerned for other persons salvation also. This isn't to say that our salvation is connected or dependent on others' salvation. That isn't what the priest was saying, or even implying. We, as Christians, are always looking to convert souls.
He is correct in that Hefner sugar coated pornography and made it almost main-stream. When I have seen him on TV, I don't see much "there". I become sad for the women who associate with him. Sure, some may become rich, but it is a sad way to become rich. High paid Vegas prostitutes may become rich as well. But to me that is sad. I like the way Father talked about STDs and abortions as well. This is all part of the promiscuous culture that young women are told is OK. I am sad for them when they believe it.
Mine is a personal relationship with God which is impossible to share. Yes, me and you and millions of others 'share' such a relationship but those are unique as in individual.
I will not suffer for the sin of a murderer as God will not punish me for another, just as He will not reward the murderer for my restraint.
What the good Rev. said in that spot goes against all Biblical text and believe me I was raised in it.
Actually my Great Uncle was a Roman Catholic Theologian and Pastor so I have some very real teaching in this particular subject.
You must know as well I mean no disrespect. but rather intellectual, spiritual and robust discussion.
Actually you took me to task in comparing his words (at the point I marked) to liberalism.
This is fine by me as it opens up discourse.
This is the problem both in politics and organized religion as I see it. Really all need both but to a point. If we could go back say 600 years or so and have no organized relgious sects I dare say we would not have wars today.
No, I am not my brothers keeper. I got his back but his sins are his own.
No one who starts a comment with a statement "@ 2:47 mark - Wrong" is sincerely interested in anything that "opens up discourse". Whatever such a person says, the former action has belied that expressed intention. The pointing out of perceived error is the obvious aim there, not dialogue. No one who comes out right off the bat with the statement "This talk is yet another reason why I left the Church" has the humility sufficient to be able to participate in a dialogue. It's sad to see such zeal in avoiding secular, profane political liberalism turned wrongly on matters sacred and spiritual. It's sad to see someone with the name Christopher, Christ-Bearer, echoing the sin of Cain, denying that he is in any important sense his brother's keeper, turning his back on the Eucharist (which was the context of the whole discussion about Blessed James Alberione and the inscription above the tabernacle). That is what it means to turn your back on the Church Christ founded for whatever reason (and political reasons for doing so are particularly outrageous). The Church is the Body of Christ, made so by the Eucharist, the Body of Christ. To turn your back on the Church and on the Eucharist is to turn your back on Jesus. Any why? So you don't have to care about anyone else's sin? So you don't have to participate in Christ's Passion, Christ's redemptive work, and His salvation of others? Well, we aren't just saved as individuals - we are incorporated into Christ's Body, and as such, we are in this together, and we SHOULD care about others, instead of being selfish and echoing the sinful sentiment of Cain. True, no one else's sin can damn your soul if you are in a state of grace, but that does not mean we don't care about anyone else's salvation, and it doesn't mean we cannot or should not be sorry, in some non-guilty and yet also non-trivial sense, for sin in general. That is an important part in our participation in Christ's redemptive work, and it is not "liberalism".
7 comments:
@ 2:47 mark - Wrong.
This is a liberal theme and wrong in context. True I and all others must be sorry for our PERSONAL sin, but not that of another. How can one live a life of virtue by always sinning, better said in the Rev's venacular; "Being sorry for others sins".
Teresa, I am sure you know of God as I do as well, but this talk is yet another reason I left the Church. If one thinks on that portion of his talk it is nothing but socialism.
If you were to be sorry for my sin, which you had no part in, would that not be redistirbution of sin itself? Now multiply that amongst non-sinners as sureadly there are. Now one has to ask what is the point of redemption,,right?
I do not question your faith as I share it, I do however wish you to question those you call leaders of it.
Listen and study the words of speakers and then open the Bible to see if they hold true, it may open your eyes?
Again. I have no doubt as your Faith in God as I share that Faith, but words have power and if used incorrectly they are dangerous.
Christopher,
This is not liberal. This is Catholic. Catholics belong to a community, and so do Christians. He is saying that we must be sorry for sin in the world in the sense that it is our duty as Catholics to denounce and combat against sin, or be sad that it exists. Yes, we have personal salvation. But, as Catholics we are concerned for other persons salvation also. This isn't to say that our salvation is connected or dependent on others' salvation. That isn't what the priest was saying, or even implying. We, as Christians, are always looking to convert souls.
hey Teresa..I will watch now...Hefner is a horror who has ruined scores of lives and our culture..sigh.............
He is correct in that Hefner sugar coated pornography and made it almost main-stream. When I have seen him on TV, I don't see much "there". I become sad for the women who associate with him. Sure, some may become rich, but it is a sad way to become rich. High paid Vegas prostitutes may become rich as well. But to me that is sad. I like the way Father talked about STDs and abortions as well. This is all part of the promiscuous culture that young women are told is OK. I am sad for them when they believe it.
2Teresa,
Mine is a personal relationship with God which is impossible to share. Yes, me and you and millions of others 'share' such a relationship but those are unique as in individual.
I will not suffer for the sin of a murderer as God will not punish me for another, just as He will not reward the murderer for my restraint.
What the good Rev. said in that spot goes against all Biblical text and believe me I was raised in it.
Actually my Great Uncle was a Roman Catholic Theologian and Pastor so I have some very real teaching in this particular subject.
You must know as well I mean no disrespect. but rather intellectual, spiritual and robust discussion.
Actually you took me to task in comparing his words (at the point I marked) to liberalism.
This is fine by me as it opens up discourse.
This is the problem both in politics and organized religion as I see it. Really all need both but to a point. If we could go back say 600 years or so and have no organized relgious sects I dare say we would not have wars today.
No, I am not my brothers keeper. I got his back but his sins are his own.
No one who starts a comment with a statement "@ 2:47 mark - Wrong" is sincerely interested in anything that "opens up discourse". Whatever such a person says, the former action has belied that expressed intention. The pointing out of perceived error is the obvious aim there, not dialogue. No one who comes out right off the bat with the statement "This talk is yet another reason why I left the Church" has the humility sufficient to be able to participate in a dialogue. It's sad to see such zeal in avoiding secular, profane political liberalism turned wrongly on matters sacred and spiritual. It's sad to see someone with the name Christopher, Christ-Bearer, echoing the sin of Cain, denying that he is in any important sense his brother's keeper, turning his back on the Eucharist (which was the context of the whole discussion about Blessed James Alberione and the inscription above the tabernacle). That is what it means to turn your back on the Church Christ founded for whatever reason (and political reasons for doing so are particularly outrageous). The Church is the Body of Christ, made so by the Eucharist, the Body of Christ. To turn your back on the Church and on the Eucharist is to turn your back on Jesus. Any why? So you don't have to care about anyone else's sin? So you don't have to participate in Christ's Passion, Christ's redemptive work, and His salvation of others? Well, we aren't just saved as individuals - we are incorporated into Christ's Body, and as such, we are in this together, and we SHOULD care about others, instead of being selfish and echoing the sinful sentiment of Cain. True, no one else's sin can damn your soul if you are in a state of grace, but that does not mean we don't care about anyone else's salvation, and it doesn't mean we cannot or should not be sorry, in some non-guilty and yet also non-trivial sense, for sin in general. That is an important part in our participation in Christ's redemptive work, and it is not "liberalism".
Post a Comment