Search results

I think I agree with you about 2 categories of sins, and perhaps about scrupulocity, but with this exception--God recognizes 1. Sin that is intentional vs 2. Sin that is committed in ignorance. Your swearing, if a sin at all, would be the intentional type the way you described it. And those are...

Meaning that Catholicism encourages people to sin, at least in little ways? Mark 9:42 (ESV) “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

It only seems to fit here if continuing to sin the little sins is part of the joys of Catholicism.

Maybe a good idea to move it to another thread. What you said made me think of Dave Ramsey's approach to paying off debt--start with the baby steps. Iow, pay off the easier debts to pay off, then apply that payment that was freed up to the next easiest, etc., not stopping until all debt is...

I've heard that from others. But I question whether they make excuses for themselves without being willing to let the Holy Spirit work in them to clean their speech. And it seems like Catholics do it more than other denominations.

mostly sarcastic/joking, but Paul did vows where he shaved his head. A vow is synonymous with "oath". I agree that if you have to swear about something you say, it diminishes your word for all the times you don't swear, which is Jesus' and James' point. That was one of the reasons I got fired a...

That's just for Jews. Not for the BOC. 😉

Seems non sequiturial to me. Want to explain?

"So help me God."

But unless you keep it with the declaration, it's just another man-based system, which can be overthrown by a different one.

This is true, but then there's nothing to elevate that person's beliefs over any other person's, including someone's who doesn't believe in human rights.

The US Constitution was secondary to the Declaration of Independence, which did have such a requirement.

I thought liberals didn't like the slippery slope argument.

Then we never began to exist, either.

False dichotomy. Like: If God didn't intend for people to steal, He would have told us to give the thieves everything they wanted.

It certainly appears that way.

Nuance is hardly justification for murder. Nor does it alleviate guilt of a nation. Jeremiah 32:29 (KJV) And the Chaldeans, that fight against this city, shall come and set fire on this city, and burn it with the houses, upon whose roofs they have offered incense unto Baal, and poured out drink...

But they have to believe they came from a higher authority than man to expect man not to eradicate or emasculate the rights.

Not everyone agrees it is better to exist than not to. So which is more correct, you, or the other guy? And why, since you are both basing your opposite conclusions on the same inputs? If it is a universal value to exist over not existing, and nature's normal course results in you not existing...

What, and who do you think those two types of judgement are focused on?