Jesus used the word “righteous” not “self-righteous.” The one who were told to depart are just called “those on his left”. There is no suggestion they are self-righteous.Looks like you want to split hairs over the word, “righteous.”
You don’t believe it means, “self-righteous.”
OK
Jim
Isn’t he talking about the Pharisees here (I haven’t looked it up). Isn’t that the context of these statements? Not sure that touches on morality for his followers from Jesus’ perspective. You can selectively argue biblical passages forever.
Like I said, you’re splitting hairs.
Yes, the issue is not whether particular dinner guests will pose an imminent physical threat to children, the problem is whether or not they will pose a moral threat.
I do not understand. I assumed it was an honest error in reading. Jim said they were self-righteous. I was only pointing out Jesus did not say that. I am not selectively arguing anything. It was not my passage. It does not say what Jim said that it did. That is not a hair and it is not a small thing, especially if one deliberately changes what Jesus says to what we wanted Jesus to say. That is why I was assuming it was a simply mistake, switching what Jesus said to one group to another group.
Yes, I was actually on your side - I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I think I didn’t realize I was in your post. And yes this is being used to say something it isn’t.
Shunning is most certainly not a charitable manner. Lovingly explaining your values and living by them yourself is a charitable manner.
Jesus taught and converted them while eating with them. They were open to the gospel and repented. He did not merely accept them with their sins.
:clapping::tiphat: God bless this Cardinal! We have to pray for him & the Synod.
THANK YOU CARDINAL BURKE! You are in our prayers!In fact we eventually did that in our extended family. My two uncles and their wives and adult children went to one celebration at my cousin’s house; my mother, my aunt and her kids, and I attended another at my aunt’s or my mother’s.
And believe it or not I’d respect their decision to exclude the gay couple, even though I might or might not make the same decision, if they think that’s the best thing for raising their kids Catholic.
One thing I would do, if I had young children at the table and a gay relative came with his or her partner, is politely say “you know we have young children who are joining us for dinner and they’re too young to know much about sexuality, I was wondering if it was OK that you two just say you’re good friends?”. It’s not unusual to have same-sex friends (who are not lovers) at a dinner. That would be an elegant way out to avoid scandalizing children. My oldest son shares an apartment with another young man to share expenses. Neither of them is gay, but they are very good friends and we do have both of them over for dinner from time to time.
But it’s not correct – sodomy is not confined to homosexuality, nor do all gay men engage in sodomy.
No. Righteous and self-righteous mean two different things. One is genuine, and one is not. It is not splitting hairs to be clear that the terms imply almost opposite things.
Jesus didn’t place conversion as a condition before eating with them, is the point.
Jesus in the Gospel account posted, was not talking about genuine righteousness, but those who thought they were, but were not in God’s eyes.
True, and the ones who didn’t (like Judas) were asked to leave.
