Is automatic excommunication hyprocrisy?

balshan

Well-known member
Aren't the rules the same though? If a religious (nun) or a priest procures an abortion or performs one, they are excommunicated too. Similarly, if a lay member commits sexual sin they are not automatically excommunicated. How are the rules not the same?

But I want to return to a discussion of excommunication. If you are going to excommunicate Christians for sins, which would they be and why?
Obviously not. Laity automatically excommunicated, leaders not. Not the discussion is about excommunicating Christians, it is about why you ignore Paul and just leave strangling weeds in your leadership. Paul is clear sexual sin and false teachers are to be avoided and excommunicated.

I do not understand that those leaders who rape children, let us stop softening what they do and call it for what it is the rape of children, are not given the highest discipline that can be given which is automatic excommunication.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Obviously not. Laity automatically excommunicated, leaders not.
Umm no it's the same. As I noted, if leaders are involved in abortion, they're automatically excommunicated too.

Not the discussion is about excommunicating Christians, it is about why you ignore Paul and just leave strangling weeds in your leadership. Paul is clear sexual sin and false teachers are to be avoided and excommunicated.
I don't ignore Paul. You interpret Paul as saying - as a general rule - that people guilty of sexual sin should be avoided and excommunicated, right?
I do not understand that those leaders who rape children, let us stop softening what they do and call it for what it is the rape of children, are not given the highest discipline that can be given which is automatic excommunication.
Excommunication is a discipline for a reason. It's not given as punishment because it doesn't punish. It is given as a remedial consequence. You're still thinking that "X is worse so therefore deserves excommunication," whereas excommunication has nothing really to do with how bad a sin might be (compared to others).
 

balshan

Well-known member
I
Umm no it's the same. As I noted, if leaders are involved in abortion, they're automatically excommunicated too.


I don't ignore Paul. You interpret Paul as saying - as a general rule - that people guilty of sexual sin should be avoided and excommunicated, right?

Excommunication is a discipline for a reason. It's not given as punishment because it doesn't punish. It is given as a remedial consequence. You're still thinking that "X is worse so therefore deserves excommunication," whereas excommunication has nothing really to do with how bad a sin might be (compared to others).
I notice you ignore the verse I used that says flee from sexual sinners. We have been over the ground. Raping children is not in need of the discipline at all, no remedial consequence needed. No I think your sinning leaders get off what others don't. Oh yep and the Irish saint you punched the pregnant nun in the stomach and thus caused an abortion was made a saint. As I am pointing out and you try to make out it isn't by diversion. One rule for laity and another for priests who cause abortions. They become saints.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
I

I notice you ignore the verse I used that says flee from sexual sinners.
Okay, Paul says to shun or flee from "sexual immorality" - πορνείαν (1 Cor 6:18). A couple of things on this: (a) Should all sexual sinners be excommunicated? In this verse, Paul doesn't seem to be talking about excommunication but telling the church what behaviour they should personally avoid and why. (b) The term Paul uses here is tricky. It's the same term that Jesus uses in Matthew's Gospel regarding a reason for divorce.
We have been over the ground. Raping children is not in need of the discipline at all, no remedial consequence needed.
Which is probably why an excommunication doesn't apply. If there's little chance the rapist would respond to the threat of excommunicating by realising the gravity of the sin and repenting, then there is little reason for issuing an excommunication (unless you want to make an example of them, but that can be dicey).
No I think your sinning leaders get off what others don't. Oh yep and the Irish saint you punched the pregnant nun in the stomach and thus caused an abortion was made a saint. As I am pointing out and you try to make out it isn't by diversion. One rule for laity and another for priests who cause abortions. They become saints.
Which Irish saint punched a pregnant nun?
 

balshan

Well-known member
H
Okay, Paul says to shun or flee from "sexual immorality" - πορνείαν (1 Cor 6:18). A couple of things on this: (a) Should all sexual sinners be excommunicated? In this verse, Paul doesn't seem to be talking about excommunication but telling the church what behaviour they should personally avoid and why. (b) The term Paul uses here is tricky. It's the same term that Jesus uses in Matthew's Gospel regarding a reason for divorce.

Which is probably why an excommunication doesn't apply. If there's little chance the rapist would respond to the threat of excommunicating by realising the gravity of the sin and repenting, then there is little reason for issuing an excommunication (unless you want to make an example of them, but that can be dicey).

Which Irish saint punched a pregnant nun?
He did more than say avoid said behaviour, he said avoid said people. Of course no RCs gets a divorce it is an annulment. What a joke. God is not fooled.
have posted all about it before. You seem to forget all the details. In fact, I cited the info many times. By the way I love the way you like to nuance the verses to narrow what they are saying. Tell me which sexual sins God finds acceptable?
 

balshan

Well-known member
H

He did more than say avoid said behaviour, he said avoid said people. Of course no RCs gets a divorce it is an annulment. What a joke. God is not fooled.

have posted all about it before. You seem to forget all the details. In fact, I cited the info many times.

None. But then, He finds no sins acceptable. Sexual sins are bad, but I can think of much worse.
Really is that so. I suppose you think the rape of children lower than murder. But what was the focus of the epistles?
 

balshan

Well-known member
I think on the scale of goods, rape of children is lower than murder. As horrific as it is, while there's life there's hope. Depriving innocents of life is the worst thing that can be perpetrated upon them.

Which epistle?
You ignore the fact that children who are raped are murdered. Who they were is destroyed by the act. But of course the life of the mother is of no consequence at all. Rubbish innocents who die go straight to heaven, children who are raped live in hell on earth. It is seen by the fact that some commit suicide.

By the way no scale of goods, sin is sin. If you break one commandment then you break them all. So if you commit sexual sin, you have murdered, you have left God, you have stolen etc. You get the picture.

Take your pick. By the way the bible mentions the evils of sexual sin over 100 times. Yet your leaders do not face consequences.
 
Top