toldailytopic: Hate the sin, love the sinner?

[fzappa13]

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)​

God must have loved us even while we were still sinners, otherwise He never would have sent His Son to die for us.

Go to the head of the class ... you understand what THE BOB doth not. We are all sinners and yet made in the image of a God that has instructed us to love one another. If we are to hate the sinner then there is no one on earth to be loved in that all have sinned.

Lucky for us THE BOB is not God ... yet.

 

[Lighthouse]

Go to the head of the class ... you understand what THE BOB doth not. We are all sinners and yet made in the image of a God that has instructed us to love one another. If we are to hate the sinner then there is no one on earth to be loved in that all have sinned.

Lucky for us THE BOB is not God ... yet.

No one said we cannot love those we hate. God did it. If you don't believe me just look at the verse Paulos presented; Romans 5:8 and understand that it in no way contradicts Psalm 5:4-6 which tells us God hates all workers of iniquity, i.e. sinners.

God does not just hate sin, He hates sinners; yet He loved us so much in spite of His hatred for us that He sent Christ to die.

Romans 5:8 could read, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while He hated us, Christ died for us,"and be 100% true.

But you have also forgotten that we who are in Christ are no longer slaves to sin, e.g. no longer sinners. God no longer hates us who are His.

God loves all people, but He hates sinners.

 

[fzappa13]

No one said we cannot love those we hate.

Whirling non sequitur thy name is Lighthouse. You know, I'm getting to where I enjoy your responses if for no other reason than a little comic relief. THE BOB's doctrines at times render the English language meaningless. I'm reminded of a couple of lines out of a song I once heard:

"I'm ambivalent about you baby. Oh yes, yes, yes; Oh no, no, no."

... and then there is Hilston' dictionary ...

 

[Dionyshish]

.... But you have also forgotten that we who are in Christ are no longer slaves to sin, e.g. no longer sinners.

Since when have christians or any other human not transgressed, or as the word means, made a mistake.

God no longer hates us who are His.

Tribalism at it's best.

God loves all people, but He hates sinners.

How does this work? We all transgress!

 

[Lighthouse]

Whirling non sequitur thy name is Lighthouse. You know, I'm getting to where I enjoy your responses if for no other reason than a little comic relief. THE BOB's doctrines at times render the English language meaningless. I'm reminded of a couple of lines out of a song I once heard:

"I'm ambivalent about you baby. Oh yes, yes, yes; Oh no, no, no."

... and then there is Hilston' dictionary ...

So you think Psalm 5:4-6 contradicts Romans 5:8?

Since when have christians or any other human not transgressed, or as the word means, made a mistake.
Tribalism at it's best.
How does this work? We all transgress!

Forget transgressing, none of us meet the mark. That's why Jesus died.

But those in Christ do not have the sin of the flesh counted against us. The body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. That done in the flesh is not accounted to those of us in Christ, by God. He does not call us sinners.

There is a reason why Romans 5:8 uses the phrase, "while we were yet/still sinners," it is because we no longer are.

And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
-1 Corinthians 6:11

 

[fzappa13]

So you think Psalm 5:4-6 contradicts Romans 5:8?

No, to the contrary, they make my point. Though if I were to make my point using only scripture they would not have necessarily been my first two choices. If the words ''hate" and "love" are to have any significance as words then their definitions must be respected when used or they lose their value as communicative tools. It's sort of like playing poker and changing the rules in the middle of a hand to suit the hand you then hold.

Here you deliberately misquote scripture to make your (or better said THE BOB'S) point:

Romans 5:8 could read, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while He hated us, Christ died for us,"and be 100% true.

God's word actually says this:

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

There is a price to be paid by those that take such liberties with the word of God. Your homework assignment is to find out just what that price is and meditate on it.

 

[Dionyshish]

Forget transgressing, none of us meet the mark. That's why Jesus died.

But those in Christ do not have the sin of the flesh counted against us. The body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. That done in the flesh is not accounted to those of us in Christ, by God. He does not call us sinners.

There is a reason why Romans 5:8 uses the phrase, "while we were yet/still sinners," it is because we no longer are.

And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
-1 Corinthians 6:11

All people transgress/trespass/sin, and this includes christians.

If this is not the case, why is the Lord's prayer a vital part of christianity?:
Luke 11:4 ".. and forgive us our sins.... "

Are you also saying that the good people of this world, before christ's crucufixion are condemned?

 

[Lighthouse]

No, to the contrary, they make my point. Though if I were to make my point using only scripture they would not have necessarily been my first two choices. If the words ''hate" and "love" are to have any significance as words then their definitions must be respected when used or they lose their value as communicative tools. It's sort of like playing poker and changing the rules in the middle of a hand to suit the hand you then hold.

One says God hates sinners, the other says He loves them. If that's not a contradiction [and I hold that it is not] then love and hate are not opposites.

Here you deliberately misquote scripture to make your (or better said THE BOB'S) point:

God's word actually says this:

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

I misquoted nothing; I paraphrased, which is what most translations we have available today do. And my paraphrase was based on other Scripture, specifically Psalm 5:5, which states that God hates all workers of iniquity. Not to mention I made it clear that I was not quoting what the Scripture actually said.

Here, is this better: But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet workers of iniquity, Christ died for us.

What do you think workers of iniquity means?

There is a price to be paid by those that take such liberties with the word of God. Your homework assignment is to find out just what that price is and meditate on it.

You're a fool.

All people transgress/trespass/sin, and this includes christians.

If this is not the case, why is the Lord's prayer a vital part of christianity?:
Luke 11:4 ".. and forgive us our sins.... "

Are you also saying that the good people of this world, before christ's crucufixion are condemned?

1. The Lord's Prayer was prior to His death, burial and resurrection.
2. Paul clearly wrote in Romans 7, twice, that when we sin it is no longer we who sin, but sin that dwells in us.
3. We are also told that we are in Christ, and that in Him there is no sin.
4. In John 3:18 [before His death] Christ stated that the only ones condemned are those who do not believe on the name of the only begotten Son of God: Jesus
5. Why do you deny the words of the Bible?

 

[fzappa13]

...

 

[fzappa13]

One says God hates sinners, the other says He loves them. If that's not a contradiction [and I hold that it is not] then love and hate are not opposites.

Again you misquote the Bible …

I misquoted nothing; I paraphrased, which is what most translations we have available today do.

And again you redefine words to conform to your tortured logic …

Her, is this better:

Depends on who her is ...

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet workers of iniquity, Christ died for us.

Yet another misquote …

What do you think workers of iniquity means?

Amongst other things a good working definition would have to include people that deliberately misquote the Bible …

You're a fool.

I would hasten to agree with you; my continued attempts to reason with you being evidence in support of your assertion.

 

[Dionyshish]

1. The Lord's Prayer was prior to His death, burial and resurrection.
2. Paul clearly wrote in Romans 7, twice, that when we sin it is no longer we who sin, but sin that dwells in us.
3. We are also told that we are in Christ, and that in Him there is no sin.
4. In John 3:18 [before His death] Christ stated that the only ones condemned are those who do not believe on the name of the only begotten Son of God: Jesus
5. Why do you deny the words of the Bible?

1. Is the way Jesus taught people to pray now defunct?
2-4. Many christians disagree with the conclusions you've come to.
5. I'm an agnostic.

I'll try this again:
Are you also saying that the good people of this world, before christ's crucufixion are condemned?

 

[Lighthouse]

Again you misquote the Bible …

When, where and how?

And again you redefine words to conform to your tortured logic …

What words have I redefined?

Depends on who her is ...

You'd rather do this than answer the question? Dishonest much?

Yet another misquote …

Prove it.

Amongst other things a good working definition would have to include people that deliberately misquote the Bible …

If I'm pointing out that my phrasing is not the actual phrasing in the text how am I misquoting?

How does my paraphrase not mean the same thing as the text I paraphrased?

Are workers on iniquity and sinners the same thing?

I would hasten to agree with you; my continued attempts to reason with you being evidence in support of your assertion.

You've made no attempt to reason. You've done nothing but asserted that you are correct with no move to support your argument with any evidence, whatsoever.

1. Is the way Jesus taught people to pray now defunct?

The way Jesus taught to pray and the words He actually used are not the same thing.

One does not pray to receive something they know they already have. This does not mean they cease to pray in the manner they did before receiving it.

2-4. Many christians disagree with the conclusions you've come to.

I know they do, and it's sad. The Bible clearly states these things, and they are denied in churches everywhere, from the pulpit to the pew.

5. I'm an agnostic.

So you don't know what you're talking about, then?

I'll try this again:
Are you also saying that the good people of this world, before christ's crucufixion are condemned?

:bang:

If you can't understand from my reference to John 3:18 that those who died before Christ came, yet looked forward to Him [believed on the only begotten Son of God] were not condemned then I don't know how to help you.

And John 3:18 came before His crucifixion, so those who were alive when He was here and believed on Him were also not condemned.

It is only those who did not believe who are condemned.

 

[fzappa13]

.
If I'm pointing out that my phrasing is not the actual phrasing in the text how am I misquoting

By using your "paraphrase" as a proof text.

How does my paraphrase not mean the same thing as the text I paraphrased?

You use different words for a reason ... because they mean different things. If the meaning of the words God used were sufficient to make your point you wouldn't need others. I suspect God knew what He was doing when He chose the ones He did. You would be well advised to stop trying to be Gods' interpreter. You're not nearly as smart as you fancy yourself to be ... and that's smarter than God.

And your sig could use a little work as well while we are on the subject. It makes it look like your sense of self esteem needs its own zip code.

Are workers on iniquity and sinners the same thing?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "workers on iniquity".

You've made no attempt to reason. You've done nothing but asserted that you are correct with no move to support your argument with any evidence, whatsoever.

In the universe between the ears of Lighthouse that may well seem true. I have pointed out the obvious difference between the Word of God and your self styled "paraphrasing". You continue to confuse the two and are apparently oblivious to this.

 

[Dionyshish]

The way Jesus taught to pray and the words He actually used are not the same thing.

Please clarify this.

One does not pray to receive something they know they already have. This does not mean they cease to pray in the manner they did before receiving it.

Why??

I know they do, and it's sad. The Bible clearly states these things, and they are denied in churches everywhere, from the pulpit to the pew.

So everyone has got it wrong and you're right?

So you don't know what you're talking about, then?

One can know an awful lot about a t.v. show like Dr. Who and still not believe in time travel.

:bang:

If you can't understand from my reference to John 3:18 that those who died before Christ came, yet looked forward to Him [believed on the only begotten Son of God] were not condemned then I don't know how to help you.

And John 3:18 came before His crucifixion, so those who were alive when He was here and believed on Him were also not condemned.

It is only those who did not believe who are condemned.

It's me who should be (and am ) banging my head, what about the billions of people around the world who had died before the crucifixion and had never heard of judaism never mind a messiah?
Are you claiming that there weren't any good Europeans, Asians or Orientals?
And lets not forget the people of the New Worlds who weren't to hear about mono-theism for almost a millenium and a half after the crucifixion. How many of them died without salvation?

 

[fzappa13]

Poor Lighthouse, caught between an Agnostic and a Nonismatist.

 

[Dionyshish]

Poor Lighthouse, caught between an Agnostic and a Nonismatist.

Are you saying you believe in christ but not christianity, or christianity but not christ?

 

[Lighthouse]

Please clarify this.

I did. It was the very next sentence in my post.

Why??

As a kid if you asked your parents for a sandwich and they gave you one, would you keep asking them for a sandwich?

So everyone has got it wrong and you're right?

The Bible says what it says. If people deny that it says what it says then, yes, they're wrong.

One can know an awful lot about a t.v. show like Dr. Who and still not believe in time travel.

Or aliens... people such as myself. I believe in neither aliens or time travel and I can still tell you an awful lot about Doctor Who. And I just started watching it at the end of 2009.

Regardless, you've already made it clear that you don't know what the Bible says.

It's me who should be (and am ) banging my head, what about the billions of people around the world who had died before the crucifixion and had never heard of judaism never mind a messiah?

Do you really think God would just let them go without hearing of Him?

Are you claiming that there weren't any good Europeans, Asians or Orientals?

Good has nothing to do with it.

And lets not forget the people of the New Worlds who weren't to hear about mono-theism for almost a millenium and a half after the crucifixion. How many of them died without salvation?

You assume too much.

Poor Lighthouse, caught between an Agnostic and a Nonismatist.

What are you on about?

 

[fzappa13]

Are you saying you believe in christ but not christianity, or christianity but not christ?

Maye a little of the former ... sorta ...

The Theology of Nonismatism

I created this term, Nonismatism, to fulfill my need for a word to briefly express my approach to the word of God that the English language lacked heretofore. Some have enquired as to it’s meaning. Like me, it is a work in progress, changing to accommodate my level of understanding as is needed. Though it is not as of yet entirely codified there are certain aspects of Nonismatism that may be pointed to with some modicum of confidence. To wit:

Nonismatism firmly rejects any and all isms, denominational or otherwise, while reserving the right to agree with certain tenets of any of them.

A Nonismatics' statement of faith is the Bible…………….. ALL of it.

Nonismatism seeks to preserve and present the verses of scripture cast aside, contradictory to and otherwise unwanted by ismatic theologies.

Nonismatism affirms the individual’s responsibility to come to an understanding of the word of God through their own sustained effort.

Nonismatics see “the church” as a group of any two or more believers in Jesus and rejects the notion it is a physical or denominational structure.

Nonismatism demands of it’s adherents that they be willing to cast aside any and all preconceived notions about the meaning of the word of God if the plain meaning of what they read of it requires it.

Nonismatism holds that there are no contradictions in the word of God; only what appear to be contradictions to the mind of man.

Nonismatics have no problem whatsoever saying, “I don’t know. I’ll study some and get back to you on that”. They are also encouraged to admit, “You might be right” if the occasion calls for it.

Nonismatics hold that the answer to Cain’s question is, “Yes”.

Nonismatics believe that “the Parable of the Talents” indicates that rather than stuff their talent down someone else’s throat that they are directed to go get more.

Nonismatism holds that not everyone is at the same level of understanding of the word of God and that this is not necessarily a “hanging offense”.

Nonismatism has only one Boss, the rest of us are servants……….ALL of us. There are no “chief seats” in Nonismatism.

Nonismatics don’t tithe; they believe they owe it all.

Nonismatism fully embraces both humor and irony as evidenced by the fact its adherents are fully aware that Nonismatism is, at the end of the day, yet another ism.


If you feel that you too are a Nonismatist you are thereby empowered to add or subtract from its tenets as is necessary to accommodate your current level of understanding of the word of God. However, as with all isms, it is inevitable that Nonismatism will give birth to other competing isms such as Anti-Nonismatism, Ultranonismatism and the like. If you feel so inclined please strive to maintain the purity of Nonismatic thought and avoid such innovations.

Love,

fzappa13

 

[Dionyshish]

I did. It was the very next sentence in my post.

I still don't get it: "The way Jesus taught to pray and the words He actually used are not the same thing."This is garbled, even when read with it's following sentence.

He told people to pray for forgiveness and implored them to avow to forgive others.
Surely his example of how to communicate with the father was not a short-term lesson?

As a kid if you asked your parents for a sandwich and they gave you one, would you keep asking them for a sandwich?

The next time I needed one, yes.
And the lord's prayer states that humans should ask for forgiveness, and should always be prepared to forgive.

The Bible says what it says. If people deny that it says what it says then, yes, they're wrong.

If god told you to murder children and infants would you?

Or aliens... people such as myself. I believe in neither aliens or time travel and I can still tell you an awful lot about Doctor Who. And I just started watching it at the end of 2009.

Being from this side of the pond I've grown up with the Dr., but this does not make me more knowledgeable than you about time-travel.

On the other hand aliens are very probable.

Regardless, you've already made it clear that you don't know what the Bible says.

I also grew up with the bible, and know much more about it than I do time travel or aliens.
I also know that the bible has caused many arguments and deaths over how it should be interpreted.

Do you really think God would just let them go without hearing of Him?

How many had heard of Jehovah outside of Israel?
Apart from Persia the rest of the world was polytheistic, animists etc., or a mixture.

Good has nothing to do with it.

So, all the Europeans who had never heard of christ (or jehovah), before the roman empire spread christianity are doomed, whether they were good people or not?

You assume too much.

The new worlds strangely enough were not monotheistic.

Whether it was christ's contemporaries outside of the Middle East, or the lands still to be discovered, billions of people died before being exposed to chistianity or Jehovah.

Were their souls condemned?

 

[Dionyshish]

Maye a little of the former ... sorta ...

The Theology of Nonismatism

I created this term, Nonismatism, to fulfill my need for a word to briefly express my approach to the word of God that the English language lacked heretofore. Some have enquired as to it’s meaning. Like me, it is a work in progress, changing to accommodate my level of understanding as is needed. Though it is not as of yet entirely codified there are certain aspects of Nonismatism that may be pointed to with some modicum of confidence. To wit:

Nonismatism firmly rejects any and all isms, denominational or otherwise, while reserving the right to agree with certain tenets of any of them.

A Nonismatics' statement of faith is the Bible…………….. ALL of it.

Nonismatism seeks to preserve and present the verses of scripture cast aside, contradictory to and otherwise unwanted by ismatic theologies.

Nonismatism affirms the individual’s responsibility to come to an understanding of the word of God through their own sustained effort.

Nonismatics see “the church” as a group of any two or more believers in Jesus and rejects the notion it is a physical or denominational structure.

Nonismatism demands of it’s adherents that they be willing to cast aside any and all preconceived notions about the meaning of the word of God if the plain meaning of what they read of it requires it.

Nonismatism holds that there are no contradictions in the word of God; only what appear to be contradictions to the mind of man.

Nonismatics have no problem whatsoever saying, “I don’t know. I’ll study some and get back to you on that”. They are also encouraged to admit, “You might be right” if the occasion calls for it.

Nonismatics hold that the answer to Cain’s question is, “Yes”.

Nonismatics believe that “the Parable of the Talents” indicates that rather than stuff their talent down someone else’s throat that they are directed to go get more.

Nonismatism holds that not everyone is at the same level of understanding of the word of God and that this is not necessarily a “hanging offense”.

Nonismatism has only one Boss, the rest of us are servants……….ALL of us. There are no “chief seats” in Nonismatism.

Nonismatics don’t tithe; they believe they owe it all.

Nonismatism fully embraces both humor and irony as evidenced by the fact its adherents are fully aware that Nonismatism is, at the end of the day, yet another ism.


If you feel that you too are a Nonismatist you are thereby empowered to add or subtract from its tenets as is necessary to accommodate your current level of understanding of the word of God. However, as with all isms, it is inevitable that Nonismatism will give birth to other competing isms such as Anti-Nonismatism, Ultranonismatism and the like. If you feel so inclined please strive to maintain the purity of Nonismatic thought and avoid such innovations.

Love,

fzappa13

You make some good points, but I must decline your invitation, as I am a fully paid-up member of the Antidisestablishantinonismatism League.

This cybernet thingy works so quickly.

Peace,

'Shish.