Apostolic Truth vs. Modern Inclusion: The Christian Call to Transformation

[temporal1]

I agree with you about what the Bible says about promiscuity, homosexuality, etc. I did some reading about this Martin guy and it seems that a lot of what comes out of his mouth isn't trusted by people in his own denomination. Even though he claims he got a message about the pope being open to homosexual catholics in another article it says that the pope just yesterday refused to meet with a group of homosexuals. Probably because they were pushing their agenda again.

So who's right and who's taking advantage? I don't know. I just know that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong.

Yes, the Catholic Church as an institution has this surprising ability to accommodate countless positions, some even contradictory, and still remain united. But in this case, the infiltration of the LGBT lobby, which exalts not only homosexuality but pride as a quality, is much more serious because it is a position that goes against the teachings of Jesus. Disguised as the virtue of tolerance, they want to normalize sin and immorality

OP / TM:
Note the implicit presupposition or teaching behind this statement:
That one can be Catholic (Christian) and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer at the same time. In other words: these are valid personal identities. LGBTQ people do not have to stop identifying as such to be Catholic (Christian); being who they are, they can be faithful believers.
But is this the apostolic teaching?

My understanding from Pope Francis and Pope Leo is, to receive communion, repentant individuals must be celibate, no matter carnal attractions. (i’m not part of the in-crowd in Rome, either.)

i’ve not heard either address the organized political bloc (the lobby you describe above) which is everything evil you describe and worse, but which is a political entity, not human, without a soul. No bloc or lobby has a soul. No bloc or lobby will receive salvation.

Questions are often deliberately complicated by many-many words, but (in my understanding) the principle Truth is not complex,
“love the sinner, hate the sin”, no matter the sin. The prayer is to repent, resist temptation, and not continue in (any) sin.

i do not envy any church leaders tasked with wrestling with these problems. It takes faith and courage.

[temporal1]

Is “Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin” Biblical?
https://biblehub.com/q/is_'love_the_sin ... blical.htm

.. 7. Summary and Conclusion
Though “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is not a direct biblical quote, its essence resonates with the overarching witness of Scripture. God’s love for fallen humanity is displayed everywhere from Genesis to Revelation, culminating in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ (cf. Romans 5:8; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8). At the same time, Scripture consistently speaks of God’s hatred for sin and commands believers to abhor it while extending grace, forgiveness, and a call to repentance.

This principle finds reflection in Jesus, who demonstrates compassion for sinners while never endorsing the behaviors that separate them from God’s holiness. Therefore, the phrase captures the biblical truth that believers are to deeply love individuals precisely because they are image-bearers of God, while steadfastly rejecting all that conflicts with God’s righteousness.

Indeed, the Scriptures present a God who is both perfectly just and perfectly loving, calling all people to repent (2 Peter 3:9) and to be reconciled to Him through Jesus Christ. When practically applied, “Love the sinner, hate the sin” echoes the Spirit of the gospel itself-caring for people unconditionally while resisting every form of evil.

[JohnL]

Well now God bless any church that stands up against the devil’s tricks and deceptions especially when it involves perversions and the promotion of evil. I don’t care what denomination it is. I don’t mind saying the churches need less fighting with each other and more mutual encouragement to stand strong.

[barnhart]

My observation is that Catholic doctrine is not that flexible or easily pushed about.

...You said their doctrine is not that flexible or pushed about. Why do you come to that conclusion?

I think they don't change much or very quickly, it's a complicated and historic system that responds slowly. I think that is one reason they couldn't get ahead of the child predator problems. Sometimes it is a problem and sometimes it is a blessing because they aren't buffeted about by cultural winds.

[temporal1]

My observation is that Catholic doctrine is not that flexible or easily pushed about.

...You said their doctrine is not that flexible or pushed about. Why do you come to that conclusion?

I think they don't change much or very quickly, it's a complicated and historic system that responds slowly. I think that is one reason they couldn't get ahead of the child predator problems. Sometimes it is a problem and sometimes it is a blessing because they aren't buffeted about by cultural winds.

i pretty much agree.
but, the child abuse problems are noted in M Luther’s history. hundreds of years. i presume more than that.

not to say the Catholic Church was the only such offender.
the exact patterns of child sexual abuse and other sexual abuse show up in every situation. it WAS effective in history.
the CC was one big target, global, in fact.

the internet was the place that allowed victims to connect, to not be silenced, intimidated, denied, bullied.

i don’t believe “love is love”; it appears sin is sin, no matter where it appears, under what label.
church, community, individuals, organized, unorganized. sin hurts with a huge ripple effect.

unfortunately, evil has no conscience. as one evil is set back, others move in, with mercurial changeability.

thus, Pope Leo’s face often appears as one carrying a heavy burden. he is. i’m sure of it.
esp standing next to (that martin guy) in the OP.

many souls, all souls, are in need of sober prayer. pride, alone, is a grave sin.

God is greater than.

[JohnL]

My observation is that Catholic doctrine is not that flexible or easily pushed about.

...You said their doctrine is not that flexible or pushed about. Why do you come to that conclusion?

I think they don't change much or very quickly, it's a complicated and historic system that responds slowly. I think that is one reason they couldn't get ahead of the child predator problems. Sometimes it is a problem and sometimes it is a blessing because they aren't buffeted about by cultural winds.

That’s true. The slower a church is willing to jump on a trend-sin or fad, the less likely they’ll follow it to self-destruction.

Child predators have a special place in hell in my thinking. Unless of course they repent and sin no more. I don’t think the Methodists or Baptists are any better at getting ahead of the problem either. Some of these preachers get away with abuse for years before anyone gets past their little clique to report it. There’s tales in these mountains that’ll make your hair stand on end.

[barnhart]

I just listened to Al Mohler's Thinking in Public interview with Joe Rigney where they discuss for an hour how the sin of empathy has destroyed the church. The destruction they have in mind is primarily sex and gender related. I see shades of this same reasoning in this thread as well.

From my perspective sin is sinful primarily because it misrepresents or distorts God, often not because of the attitude or emotional content of the agent. Churches that have lost their way around gender and sexuality are wrong because they have lost their vision of God, not because they are to inclusive or empathetic. If the latter were the case the situation could be resolved by denouncing empathy and embracing exclusion as a goal. I think it is possible many churches and church leaders will do exactly that and never address the deeper issues of where the vision for God and his creation was flawed.

The "Apostolic Truth" (I'm a little uncomfortable with that terminology...) is that God creates for a purpose and our highest calling is to discover that purpose and receive it as a gift. As the scripture says:
"Ye are not your own, therefore glorify God in your body..."
Unless we are ready to start on this foundation and demonstrate consistency in our own lives, I don't think we have "Apostolic Truth" to share with anyone.

[JohnL]

I just listened to Al Mohler's Thinking in Public interview with Joe Rigney where they discuss for an hour how the sin of empathy has destroyed the church. The destruction they have in mind is primarily sex and gender related. I see shades of this same reasoning in this thread as well.

From my perspective sin is sinful primarily because it misrepresents or distorts God, often not because of the attitude or emotional content of the agent. Churches that have lost their way around gender and sexuality are wrong because they have lost their vision of God, not because they are to inclusive or empathetic. If the latter were the case the situation could be resolved by denouncing empathy and embracing exclusion as a goal. I think it is possible many churches and church leaders will do exactly that and never address the deeper issues of where the vision for God and his creation was flawed.

The very first time I heard of the word "empathy" was from the Star Trek TOS episode "The Empath" with its theme of self-sacrifice for others.

Al Mohler also likes to raise uncomfortable questions. But at least he's getting people to think and talk more deeply than the shallow headlines of today's media.

If empathy is self-sacrifice then when does it become self-destructive? How can the Christian church continue the Gospel message if it no longer exists because it has lost its vision of God and his teachings? Maybe the call to "empathy" is the wrong call. Maybe it should be the call to compassion and its mission of bring the Gospel message to the lost who need its message of healing the soul from sin?

[Szdfan]

I just listened to Al Mohler's Thinking in Public interview with Joe Rigney where they discuss for an hour how the sin of empathy has destroyed the church. The destruction they have in mind is primarily sex and gender related. I see shades of this same reasoning in this thread as well.

From my perspective sin is sinful primarily because it misrepresents or distorts God, often not because of the attitude or emotional content of the agent. Churches that have lost their way around gender and sexuality are wrong because they have lost their vision of God, not because they are to inclusive or empathetic. If the latter were the case the situation could be resolved by denouncing empathy and embracing exclusion as a goal. I think it is possible many churches and church leaders will do exactly that and never address the deeper issues of where the vision for God and his creation was flawed.

The very first time I heard of the word "empathy" was from the Star Trek TOS episode "The Empath" with its theme of self-sacrifice for others.

Al Mohler also likes to raise uncomfortable questions. But at least he's getting people to think and talk more deeply than the shallow headlines of today's media.

If empathy is self-sacrifice then when does it become self-destructive? How can the Christian church continue the Gospel message if it no longer exists because it has lost its vision of God and his teachings? Maybe the call to "empathy" is the wrong call. Maybe it should be the call to compassion and its mission of bring the Gospel message to the lost who need its message of healing the soul from sin?

"Empathy" and "empath" are not exactly the same thing.

"Empathy" is the ability to understand the share the feelings of another person and what they're going through.

An "empath" is someone who is highly sensitive to the emotions and energy of others and absorbs them into one's own feelings and experiences. It's a pop psychological concept and in contexts like the Star Trek episode, the individual has a paranormal ability to sense other people's feelings. BTW, in Star Trek: The Next Generation, Counselor Troi's empath abilities are more positively depicted and empower's her role as the Enterprise's counselor.

I think the entire "sin of empathy" thing is a toxic, profoundly unbiblical concept advocated for in certain conservative Christian circles to justify poor treatment of people they don't like. It's a polemic to justify exclusion. However, there's nothing in the Bible that suggests empathy is a sin. The Scriptures call for empathy towards those who are on the margins. As Romans 12:15 puts it, "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep." That suggests something more than just compassion and something more like empathy.

[JohnL]

I just listened to Al Mohler's Thinking in Public interview with Joe Rigney where they discuss for an hour how the sin of empathy has destroyed the church. The destruction they have in mind is primarily sex and gender related. I see shades of this same reasoning in this thread as well.

From my perspective sin is sinful primarily because it misrepresents or distorts God, often not because of the attitude or emotional content of the agent. Churches that have lost their way around gender and sexuality are wrong because they have lost their vision of God, not because they are to inclusive or empathetic. If the latter were the case the situation could be resolved by denouncing empathy and embracing exclusion as a goal. I think it is possible many churches and church leaders will do exactly that and never address the deeper issues of where the vision for God and his creation was flawed.

The very first time I heard of the word "empathy" was from the Star Trek TOS episode "The Empath" with its theme of self-sacrifice for others.

Al Mohler also likes to raise uncomfortable questions. But at least he's getting people to think and talk more deeply than the shallow headlines of today's media.

If empathy is self-sacrifice then when does it become self-destructive? How can the Christian church continue the Gospel message if it no longer exists because it has lost its vision of God and his teachings? Maybe the call to "empathy" is the wrong call. Maybe it should be the call to compassion and its mission of bring the Gospel message to the lost who need its message of healing the soul from sin?

"Empathy" and "empath" are not exactly the same thing.

"Empathy" is the ability to understand the share the feelings of another person and what they're going through.

An "empath" is someone who is highly sensitive to the emotions and energy of others and absorbs them into one's own feelings and experiences. It's a pop psychological concept and in contexts like the Star Trek episode, the individual has a paranormal ability to sense other people's feelings. BTW, in Star Trek: The Next Generation, Counselor Troi's empath abilities are more positively depicted and empower's her role as the Enterprise's counselor.

I think the entire "sin of empathy" thing is a toxic, profoundly unbiblical concept advocated for in certain conservative Christian circles to justify poor treatment of people they don't like. It's a polemic to justify exclusion. However, there's nothing in the Bible that suggests empathy is a sin. The Scriptures call for empathy towards those who are on the margins. As Romans 12:15 puts it, "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep." That suggests something more than just compassion and something more like empathy.

There’s no need to be condescending - I’m well aware of the difference between empathy and empath. So how about an answer to the question re compassion vs empathy?