Love the sinner and hate the sin

[sojourner]

Yes. That's just the bible for ya. I can't change what it says. It is what it is.

And you have to approach it for what it is, filtering out biases and assumptions.

I know. Since it is used, that's what I go by according to biblical (English translation) definition not what we know of today.

It’s used, but it’s not very accurate. One should always use what’s most accurate.

I can't help how the text is set up. I wish it read differently, but it doesn't

But you can help how you read it.

Many people who have the same education as you come off with different interpretations most likely (if they are christian) based on their perspective

They do. Again: the Bible is multivalent, and we have to use best practices in order to filter out biases and apply the concepts to our circumstances.

It's all I have

That’s not an excuse. You have an Internet. Lots of solid translations on the internet for free.

This was no where near the point raised. It referred to your pride when it comes to religious education and how you see others when it comes to that "professionality" as a pastor and other titles you say you have earned.

I'm not at all sure how the above relates to this

Read it all again.

It's pride. Which in one way is fine since you most likely did a lot of hard work to get where you are. On the other end, it can make you separate yourself from others not at your level. There's a lack of humility regardless the name you call it. Humility also accepts constructive criticism even if you don't see it yourself

No. It’s not pride.

Thanks for raising my above point

I didn’t. Professionals in all areas know things that laypeople in those areas don’t. Would you take your car to a non-mechanic to have it worked on? No, because only a mechanic can be trusted to fix your car. Would you hire a baker to wire your home? Would you take your sick dog to a court clerk? It’s got nothing to do with pride. It has everything to do with the training one receives to do the job.

 

[sojourner]

Do you have the best practices over all other people?

Huh?

 

[sojourner]

Yes. I know. I disagree with it as well. I can't change what it says but thankfully, I'm not christian and don't live my life by its teachings. This sounds like your personal opinion.

“What it says” is best left to those who know how to exegete the texts. I can’t help what you think it “sounds like.”

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And you have to approach it for what it is, filtering out biases and assumptions.

It's irrelevant to me. Like I said, I go off my experiences and what I've learned. If you want to talk more in-depth about scripture, you'd have to talk to someone else you consider at your level of knowledge.

It’s used, but it’s not very accurate. One should always use what’s most accurate.

I can only take your word for it here.

But you can help how you read it.

It depends if I show interest in it beyond just experience and what I've learned.

They do. Again: the Bible is multivalent, and we have to use best practices in order to filter out biases and apply the concepts to our circumstances.

All christians tend to have biases and their own interpretations. Many are well-educated like you and many even more so. You have good points but defending them by pointing out my ignorance isn't helping with believing everything you say.

That’s not an excuse. You have an Internet. Lots of solid translations on the internet for free.

Like I said. Pride. Please read my posts.

No. It’s not pride.

Take it as constructive criticism. You can take it and learn from it or say it's not true. It doesn't devalue my observations none the less.

I didn’t. Professionals in all areas know things that laypeople in those areas don’t. Would you take your car to a non-mechanic to have it worked on? No, because only a mechanic can be trusted to fix your car. Would you hire a baker to wire your home? Would you take your sick dog to a court clerk? It’s got nothing to do with pride. It has everything to do with the training one receives to do the job.

I'm not sure how this second scenario of going to a professional for information relates to you having pride based on the direction, tone, and words used in this conversation.

There are thousands who know more than you. So, I'd not use that as a defense to support your points.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Do you have the best practices over all other people?

"It’s not about correct or incorrect. It’s about best practices."

I asked do you believe you the only one who has the correct interpretation of the bible?

Since it's not correct or incorrect, I asked about practices. Do you believe you are the only one who has best practices of the bible?

Question with a question isn't an answer.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

“What it says” is best left to those who know how to exegete the texts. I can’t help what you think it “sounds like.”

And.... ? What does this mean to me using my ignorance to defend your point?

The topic was all saved vs some saved. Everyone isn't saved in scripture. As for homosexuality, I get what you're saying but again if you want to talk about the logistics behind it, I'm not the one you speak to.

 

[sojourner]

It's irrelevant to me. Like I said, I go off my experiences and what I've learned. If you want to talk more in-depth about scripture, you'd have to talk to someone else you consider at your level of knowledge

It’s not irrelevant if we’re discussing “what the Bible says.” You don’t get to just say “the Bible says what I think it says.” That’s not How It Works. When you spout nonsense and use your own ignorance as a defense of that nonsense, I do get to point that out.

It's irrelevant to me. Like I said, I go off my experiences and what I've learned

See above. “What you’ve experienced and learned” isn’t the end of the matter when you’re engaging with other people.

If you want to talk more in-depth about scripture, you'd have to talk to someone else you consider at your level of knowledge

I’m pointing out that skimming the surface isn’t OK when dealing with theology. And you are dealing with theology here. You can’t drive Le Mans in a ‘73 Chevy Vega.

It depends if I show interest in it beyond just experience and what I've learned

Then. Your opinion means very little in the scheme of things.

All christians tend to have biases and their own interpretations. Many are well-educated like you and many even more so. You have good points but defending them by pointing out my ignorance isn't helping with believing everything you say

You’re using your own ignorance as a defense. You kinda get back what you throw out there.

Like I said. Pride. Please read my posts

Whatever.

Take it as constructive criticism. You can take it and learn from it or say it's not true. It doesn't devalue my observations none the less

It does if your observation is incorrect.

I'm not sure how this second scenario of going to a professional for information relates to you having pride based on the direction, tone, and words used in this conversation

Because professionals tell you you’re wrong doesn’t indicate pride.

 

[sojourner]

"It’s not about correct or incorrect. It’s about best practices."

I asked do you believe you the only one who has the correct interpretation of the bible?

Since it's not correct or incorrect, I asked about practices. Do you believe you are the only one who has best practices of the bible?

Question with a question isn't an answer.

I believe I’m employing best practices when it comes to exegeting the Bible. You, on the other hand, not so much.

 

[sojourner]

And.... ? What does this mean to me using my ignorance to defend your point?

The topic was all saved vs some saved. Everyone isn't saved in scripture. As for homosexuality, I get what you're saying but again if you want to talk about the logistics behind it, I'm not the one you speak to.

Yes. Everyone is saved in scripture. Incomplete reading yields incomplete results.

You’re the one who brought out the “clobber passages.” When you post things as “fact” that aren’t necessarily so, and when the opinions you put forth buy into systemic violence against a group of people, yes I am going to speak to you about it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It’s not irrelevant if we’re discussing “what the Bible says.” You don’t get to just say “the Bible says what I think it says.” That’s not How It Works. When you spout nonsense and use your own ignorance as a defense of that nonsense, I do get to point that out.

I can't take your word for it. Thousands of people know more than you. Discrediting my opinion doesn't help your original points.

See above. “What you’ve experienced and learned” isn’t the end of the matter when you’re engaging with other people.

I never said I was having an deeper discussion of scripture. I'm more interested in peoples experiences. Whether you respect or not is your thing. I ask you to respect me as a pastor and common courtesy.

I’m pointing out that skimming the surface isn’t OK when dealing with theology. And you are dealing with theology here. You can’t drive Le Mans in a ‘73 Chevy Vega.

I never approached tthe discussion like this.

Then. Your opinion means very little in the scheme of thi

Not in regards to theology. But I ask you to respect me both my opinions and views.

You’re using your own ignorance as a defense. You kinda get back what you throw out there.

You're turning this around. I admit I don't know theology. Stop using this against me.

Whatever

Humility?

It does if your observation is incorrec

No. You just need to respect constructive criticism. Strangers tend to have more insight since the relationship bias is missing.

Because professionals tell you you’re wrong doesn’t indicate

I am wrong in some things. Using this against me in this type of discussion doesn't help though.

Actually many professionals and "pastors" tend to have better communications. I'd hope.

 

[sojourner]

I can't take your word for it. Thousands of people know more than you. Discrediting my opinion doesn't help your original points.

It does if your opinion is admittedly sub par based on your admitted ignorance of the subject. You’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I never said I was having an deeper discussion of scripture. I'm more interested in peoples experiences. Whether you respect or not is your thing. I ask you to respect me as a pastor and common courtesy

When you bring up hot button topics such as this, it begs for a deeper look at things. “Peoples’ experiences” have very little to do with “what the Bible says on the subject.”

I don’t have to have any respect for posts that perpetuate the myth that the Bible condemns homosexuality.

But I’d like to know why you think I’m “disrespecting” you? I’ve not called you names. I’ve not posted any ad hominem attacks. Do you think I “disrespect” you because I disagree with your opinions, and that I point out that they are not well-founded opinions? Even you admit that they’re not well-founded.

I never approached tthe discussion like this

But I did. And I’m welcome to do that. In debate threads, we bring our strengths. You have admitted that you have no strengths on the subject. But I do. And I’m going to bring those to this debate.

I never approached tthe discussion like this

This is a debate. Of a topic concerning what the Bible says. You asked why love the sinner but hate the sin, with regard to homosexuality. I pointed out that, where the Bible is concerned, there is no mention of homosexuality, so therefore cannot be a sin where the Bible is concerned. How else should we approach it, do you think?

Not in regards to theology. But I ask you to respect me both my opinions and views

I do respect you. I don’t have to respect views that are unfounded and damaging to a group of people.

You're turning this around. I admit I don't know theology. Stop using this against me

I’m simply acknowledging what you’ve said about your knowledge. In a theological debate, I have the upper hand. It’s not hubris; it’s a fact to which you admit.

No. You just need to respect constructive criticism

When I see some, I’ll give it consideration.

I am wrong in some things. Using this against me in this type of discussion doesn't help though

So, if you’re wrong, you don’t think I’m allowed to point out your error? Pointing out your error doesn’t help in a debate? Is that what you’re saying?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It does if your opinion is admittedly sub par based on your admitted ignorance of the subject. You’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I said I was in the beginning of this conversation. I also said I didn't come into this conversation from a theological perspective. I know (it seems) you value knowledge and titles, but not all of us are on that same note.

When you bring up hot button topics such as this, it begs for a deeper look at things. “Peoples’ experiences” have very little to do with “what the Bible says on the subject.”

I don’t have to have any respect for posts that perpetuate the myth that the Bible condemns homosexuality.

But I’d like to know why you think I’m “disrespecting” you? I’ve not called you names. I’ve not posted any ad hominem attacks. Do you think I “disrespect” you because I disagree with your opinions, and that I point out that they are not well-founded opinions? Even you admit that they’re not well-founded.

and... that's how I came upon my posts was personal experiences and what I've learned.

I'm just posting what I read and learned nothing more. There's no feelings behind it.

I would explain it again but it seems like you're not going to take what I say into consideration.

Your pride (which isn't a bad word) is belittling my intelligence. I never stated I know more than you or anything like that. So...

But I did. And I’m welcome to do that. In debate threads, we bring our strengths. You have admitted that you have no strengths on the subject. But I do. And I’m going to bring those to this debate.

Thank you for acknowledging that you did.

I mentioned there are debate discussion threads specifically for theological discussions (I gave you link to those). If you're expecting a more "deeper" debate on this thread, you'd have to swim to find people who would go that far. I'm sure there are others you'd accept at your education level.

Yes. I've admitted it multiple times. And...?

This is a debate. Of a topic concerning what the Bible says. You asked why love the sinner but hate the sin, with regard to homosexuality. I pointed out that, where the Bible is concerned, there is no mention of homosexuality, so therefore cannot be a sin where the Bible is concerned. How else should we approach it, do you think?

I was going off what christians say that their love the sinner and hate the sin insulting to many LGBTQ like myself who hear it. The OP also mentions (split second recall) that if you love someone, you can't associate them as if same-sex sex (the sin) is associated to only LGBTQ people. It's insinuating that homosexuality (same-sex sex biblical terms -I know; I know-) is something that LGBTQ does and when you associate the action with the assumed actor, it is a contradiction.

It has nothing to do with the theology of the bible.

I do respect you. I don’t have to respect views that are unfounded and damaging to a group of people.

I don't see how pointing out what the bible says damages a particular group. I can't change what it said and neither do I support it. Your interpretation of scripture is one of many many interpretations of scripture. So, again, I can't take your word for it. Just repeating what I learned and what I experienced. (Maybe ask what I learned and what I experience to get context in what I'm saying?)

I’m simply acknowledging what you’ve said about your knowledge. In a theological debate, I have the upper hand. It’s not hubris; it’s a fact to which you admit.

Yes. But again the OP had nothing to do with theology.

When I see some, I’ll give it consideration.

It's hard to accept (myself included) criticisms about our behavior and speech. I'm not a pastor so it may be harder for me I don't kow, but I'd assume spirituality would give some insight into that.

So, if you’re wrong, you don’t think I’m allowed to point out your error? Pointing out your error doesn’t help in a debate? Is that what you’re saying?

Because you're making this about theology and not about the OP and the context in which the OP has been written.

 

[sojourner]

I also said I didn't come into this conversation from a theological perspective

Of course you did. You’re discussing the theology of how and why some Christians see homosexual people.

I'm just posting what I read and learned nothing more. There's no feelings behind it.

I’m posting what I know and nothing more.

If you're expecting a more "deeper" debate on this thread, you'd have to swim to find people who would go that far

I disagree.

It has nothing to do with the theology of the bible

Of course it does.

I don't see how pointing out what the bible says damages a particular group

Because many take the Bible as absolutely infallible and as an absolute authority, and the misreading gives these people justification for their systemic violence against homosexuals.

Yes. But again the OP had nothing to do with theology

Again: yes it did. See above.

Because you're making this about theology and not about the OP

The OP is a theological/exegetical topic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Of course you did. You’re discussing the theology of how and why some Christians see homosexual people.

No. I was discussing how a christian can say love the sinner and hate the sin.

I’m posting what I know and nothing more.

Yes...

I disagree.

How so? You've told me that I didn't know the theology to discuss it and how you're a professional and pastor. How could you discuss this topic you bring up with someone below your level (if you like) of understanding?

Refer to the classroom analogy

Of course it does.

It doesn't.

Because many take the Bible as absolutely infallible and as an absolute authority, and the misreading gives these people justification for their systemic violence against homosexuals.

Okay. That's fine for people who believe in the bible and believe all that nonesense. Saying what's in the bible doesn't mean I support it and promote what it says.

Again: yes it did. See above.

It does not.

The OP is a theological/exegetical topic.

It isn't. It's specific to the context of "love the sinner and hate the sin." Discussing the definition of homosexuality and all of that is besides the point; it's not a theological question.

How would you define the phrase "love the sinner and hate the sin?"

How can you love a homosexual and define her akin to these detestable actions (rape, incest, murder, etc)?

The theology of the bible is besides (arguing about the word homosexuality, culture, and where it comes from) is besides the point. If you want to make it a point, respect the limited knowledge I have and accept I cannot discuss theology because a. that's not the OP and b. Again. Because I don't know enough information to discuss it.

You can create another thread to discuss homosexuality, culture, and theology in those two thread forums I gave you.

 

[sojourner]

No. I was discussing how a christian can say love the sinner and hate the sin.



Yes...



How so? You've told me that I didn't know the theology to discuss it and how you're a professional and pastor. How could you discuss this topic you bring up with someone below your level (if you like) of understanding?

Refer to the classroom analogy



It doesn't.



Okay. That's fine for people who believe in the bible and believe all that nonesense. Saying what's in the bible doesn't mean I support it and promote what it says.



It does not.



It isn't. It's specific to the context of "love the sinner and hate the sin." Discussing the definition of homosexuality and all of that is besides the point; it's not a theological question.

How would you define the phrase "love the sinner and hate the sin?"

How can you love a homosexual and define her akin to these detestable actions (rape, incest, murder, etc)?

The theology of the bible is besides (arguing about the word homosexuality, culture, and where it comes from) is besides the point. If you want to make it a point, respect the limited knowledge I have and accept I cannot discuss theology because a. that's not the OP and b. Again. Because I don't know enough information to discuss it.

You can create another thread to discuss homosexuality, culture, and theology in those two thread forums I gave you.

I think we’re done here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think we’re done here.

Why on earth would you go waste time in all these theology issues when answering the OP would cut all this short by I don't know how many pages?

 

[sojourner]

Why on earth would you go waste time in all these theology issues when answering the OP would cut all this short by I don't know how many pages?

The only time wasted was buying into your manipulative games. I think we’re done here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The only time wasted was buying into your manipulative games. I think we’re done here.

This is so weird. Maybe I have a "play games with UA" on the back of my shirt or something on RF, but no. I'm a very simple person and the context and question is very simple. The OP (if you look at other replies) is very straightforward. As with propagating lies or whatever from the bible, not sure where you got that from either (maybe that's why you're frustrated. I'm not sure).

I know you guys like to "debate" but this is ridiculous.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

A couple things about that verse. First, it doesn't say they are saved by the believing parent, or spouse. It says sanctified. Whatever Paul means in that context cannot mean saved, because that would be saying an unrepentant sinner gets in on a technicality. I can't imagine that's very fair dealings with the rest of the sinners who get cast into hell, just because they didn't luck out having someone in the family who got 5 extra get out of hell free passes to hand to family members once they joined club Jesus. That is what that would amount to.
But worse than that, what about the children of unbelieving parents? What about the billions of children who are not born into Christian families? Does God send them to hell? Do you believe he does?
Don't they also, or even far morseo, have a leaning to do good primarily? Or are human beings primarily wicked first and foremost above being good? One wonders how humans survived as a species then, why we didn't all die off in the first few generations after we ate ourselves alive.
I can't think of anyone going to hell. I can't even imagine hell as something God created and sends people into. I see God as Love, not hate.

Even if a person can't think of anyone going to hell, the Bible teaches that the day Jesus died he went to hell - Acts of the Apostles 2:27
Not to some religious-myth hell taught by false clergy, but to the Bible's hell which is simply the temporary grave for the sleeping dead.

I find salvation comes at the end, so a minor child is protected, so to speak, by the parent until mature.
Just like dead Jesus, dead people go to hell, Not to some religious-myth hell but biblical hell which is the common grave for mankind.
In other words, the Bible's hell is simply mankind's temporary stone-cold grave for the sleeping dead.
Sleep in death is what Jesus taught - John 11:11-14 - and so does the OT teach sleep in death - Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5
'Death' is the total price tag that sin pays, Not death plus any post-mortem penalty, No double jeopardy in death, just unconscious sleep.
People who died before Jesus' died were Not born into Christian families. - John 3:13
Jesus' ransom can cover such dead ones - Matthew 20:28
They can have a resurrection - Acts of the Apostles 24:15

Good point about can't imagine hell as something God created because 'biblical hell' is Not hot.
For example: when King James translated the word Gehenna into English as hell fire that put the flames in the grave.
Gehenna was just a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem where things were destroyed.
Thus, Gehenna is a fitting word standing for destruction as in the wicked will be destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35
To teach the dead suffer is slandering God because that attributes to God the personality of a devil !
God hates suffering - Jeremiah 19:5
Satanic lies about death (the dead are alive) would mean the dead are death proof thus there would be No need for a resurrection.
The living do Not need a resurrection.
If the dead are living there would be No need for Christ to have given his life for us.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

...Although there is a process during the 1,000 years... I was referring to the process for each person here and now.

I can agree that the purpose or process here and now is tied in with the good news of God's kingdom - Daniel 2:44; Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8.
As each person hears about God's kingdom ( thy kingdom come.... ) etc, they class themselves as being either a figurative humble ' sheep ' or haughty ' goat ' leading up to the soon coming ' time of separation ' on Earth as found at Jesus' coming glory time of Matthew 25:31-33,37