Hate the sin but love the person...except when voting?

Remember that your job is to produce a political Jesus - one who is instructing on how society is to be shaped. Instructing Christians to love the downtrodden and rejected isn't the same thing as telling them to build a society which promotes that which God finds sinful simply so that that society can be called 'eglitarian' by certain worldviews.Loving someone doesn't mean condoning their sin or supporting the propagation of it. Ask any parent.-On gays and heaven?

quote:

---

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

---

Now I don't for a minute think this means gay men and women won't inherit heaven but so far as your saying the Bible doesn't say it. Well it appears it does say it.I've commented on your "rich men excluded" thesis earlier.- Again you conflate a selfless, servant attitude with assisting the propagation of sin in society.- Don't you mean Paul and Matthew (or whoever it is that says they are reporting Jesus' words). If you suppose contradiction then you're faced with what you must assume are two uninspired texts. Which renders none more authoritive than the other.- The context of "so little" centred on the idea of exegesis. Exegisis is something built on a quantity of text. "so little" text and your exegesis will be poor - was the suggestion.If you insist on a play on words rather than dealing with the point at least put some work into it. Raise a smile or summit...Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Would you mind pointing out where it is you get the implication from me that:

quote:

---

Christ said "this particular rich man"--not the rich in general.

---

..I just want to ensure that what's bollocks isn't your own misunderstanding of what I say - ..but Jesus didn't talk of the flat out impossibility of a rich man getting into heaven. He talked of the flat out impossibility of a rich man getting himself into heaven (assuming we take the preceding example of a rich man failing to do just that as our informant).- I'm not sure a) what this sentence means by itself b) what this sentence mean in the context of a vs. Sorry.- I'm not sure what this means either. Are you saying that Jesus is indeed only talking about rich=wealth in money?- You seem to be making a virtue out of turning a standalone verse/story into a doctrine.I've a reasonable amount of Bible supporting the notion that salvation is through God's effort alone. This story, which centres on a mans desire for the alternative: salvation through own effort, sees Jesus gently instruct, then pronounce on, in the negative.I think the meaning is more than plain when it fits so well into the body of the argument: man is a sinner, he worships false gods. He cannot save himself.I'm thinking plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face obvious. A far cry from bollox.- I think Christs problem with wealth (whether a believers wealth or an unbelievers wealth) stems from it being made a god (per our rich young ruler story). I don't think he's an objection to wealth per se. Wealth can be used to get great things done.- I have flicked by the likes of Hinn & Co when channel surfing. The term "Lord, Lord, did we not cast out demons in your name.." ever springs to mind.Spine-chillingly so.-Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

True. Should I cease working to prevent the propagation of all kinds of sin in society? Rape? Theft? Condemnation of anothers sin needn't be a motivation for working to prevent gay marriage.You're back to doing what the OP does - assuming your case to be the only case possible.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

.Clearly. Except that you're begging the question Ringo. Is working to prevent the propagation of sin necessarily a hateful act?Where's the smoking gun (other than the one you planted at the scene)?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Ketchup jar. The motivation to ensure the law prohibits gay marriage can be based on the view that such a thing is sin. Since motivation to form law is relevant to the formation of law, sin is relevant.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

A clear display of atheistic, materialistic worldview. I mean, you clearly don't think the abnormalities which are produced by unnatural nature, abnormal. (which would be a clear display of this theists worldview)- Nature couldn't trump my idealogy (assuming for a moment it's true) because my ideology explains why nature produces abnormalities (including those in me). It's only your ideology which (correctly) see's itself subject to nature (although in order to be able to pronouce so, it must momentarily rise above nature - I mean, how can the brain-by-accident know it is correctly observing nature )Since the rest of your post is predicated on this point, I leave answering it.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Wrong. You (or someone else) needs to show why my working towards a prohibition of gay marriage is necessarily hateful.It's been requested that folk don't conflate motivation (let's call it religious) with any on-the-ground action. You can assume any action would utilise those aspects which could be expected to produce a suitable outcome. Actions which wouldn't produce the desired result wouldn't be used.

Okay Omni - although you're about the most enjoyable interlocuter in-thread (in that there's the chance of encountering a unbelievers view of Jesus unheard of before). I hope the sick & tiredness stemming only from debate weariness. But a temporary and passing shadow.Blessings.

Calling it an escape hatch signifies a position yet to be achieved by you. The neutral terms for it is a possible option. When that possible option has been reasonably closed then you can call it as you do Begging the question. It would depend on motivation. If that motivation genuinely saw danger and harm for society (however difficult it might be to pin that down in a way that would satisfy a worldview which worships at the altar of empiricism) then I don't see any problem at the judgement of believers.

Your judicial language is another form of begging the question Ringo. What has gay considering themselves harmed got to do with the motivation for the action which produces that being hatred?- You can use all the hyperbole you like Ringo, it doesn't hide the fact you're position bounces off the defence like ball bearings off an ocean liner. There is no one being strangled, just benefits extended to some and not to others. It happens all the time in society.

I'm sure those who worked towards abolition of same considered it good for society that they be abolished. I'm sure you won't demand that I dig up quote or two from those involved who saw that such practices would eat away at the fabric of the society in which they were allowed to flourish.I'd note too that the Christian position is that such practices are sinful so would imagine Christians then motivated by a desire to eradicate such sin from society.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I agree the thread is done - there isn't a variation on the "my worldview/interpretation-of-the-bible is more valid that yours Q.E.D" that hasn't been done to death already.As purpledawn has pointed out a couple of times, the issue itself contra gay marriage necessarily hateful has filtered through virtually untouched.Edited by iano, : No reason given.