Does anyone know that that phase “Love the sinner, hate the sin” was by St. Augistine , and it is related to disciplining nuns. Read it. It is also taken out of context.

IT IS HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND THAT NO ONE ON THIS SITE HAS THIS INFORMATION.

My Mom has just written a good word study on judgment that I encourage you and your readers to check out for more detail on this.

OK…you got me. You cannot characterize ANY community that way.

However, I would submit for your perusal the response from SIGNIFICANT portions of the Gay Community (with nary a countervailing view) to

Carrie Prejean
The Mormon Church
etc

The reality is that the church is the last and most formidable voice to stand in opposition to the notion that gay sex = straight sex in terms of it’s moral acceptability.

So, it stands to reason that people trying to make gay sex every bit as normative would be hostile.

And they are…

BD

PS Your thenomist argument is a LAUGHABLE red herring – kind of like saying OJ is representative of black people. Using a WIKIPEDIA cite made it beyond laughable. haha

Good for you. Go on discerning for yourself. I agree that w/o inerrancy, I can’t categorically tell you should and should not believe.

But that’s not my goal. I have no interest in getting you or anyone else to agree to a system of doctrine or theology.

I would ask the athiest, the theonomist, and everyone in between the same 3 questions:

(1) do you affirm or at least try to affirm the innate and equal dignity, value, and worth of every person?

(2) if so, why? (let’s have a conversation about it!); and

(3) if not, why shouldn’t others fear you?

That’s about it.

Why not start theological conversations with both believers and unbelievers with these three questions? Does a Christian really need to establish Scriptural infallibility first, before he/she can have that conversation?

How do you characterize the whole gay community with one sweeping stroke: “the gay community (WITHOUT justifiable cause) HATES CHRISTIANS WITH ALL THEIR HEARTS”?

In my life, I have experienced great kindness from gays and lesbians toward me who surely suspected where I (then) stood on homosexuality.

Those friendships have been, quite frankly, very convicting for me. Their kindness, particularly when contrasted with the rude hatred of their judgmentors, has transformed my thinking on the topic.

Yes, some gays and lesbians are resentful toward Christians. But they have plenty of justification. Those most identified with Christianity have long supported legislation that marginalizes them as people and criminalizes their behavior.

Some Christian “theonomists” even advocate instituting the death penalty for homosexual conduct. According to the Wikipedia article on “Theonomy”…

Various theonomic authors have stated such goals as “the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics”,[7] exclusion of non-Christians from voting and citizenship,[8] and the application of Biblical law by the state.[9] Under such a system of Biblical law, homosexual acts,[10] adultery, witchcraft, and blasphemy[11] would be punishable by death. Propagation of idolatry or “false religions” would be illegal[12] and could also be punished by the death penalty.

I can understand why a homosexual might resent arguments from people who say that they are sinful, evil, and worthless and ought to at least be imprisoned (through prosecution of existing anti-sodomy laws), if not put to death, for homosexual conduct.

Although I’m not a homosexual, I resent those arguments too.

But I understand where these arguments come from. The central belief for anti-homosexual legislation is not a living God or Jesus Christ but that the Bible is inerrant or at least our infallible guide.

The Bible says that the law of God is perfect, and holy, and just. The Bible says we should love the law and meditate on it day and night. Under God’s “perfect law,” homosexuals were to be put to death. Ergo, our laws should also criminalize homosexuality.

I know that not all evangelicals go as far as the put-them-to-death theonomists. But the theonomists at least have this to their credit. They REALLY REALLY BELIEVE — and don’t just say that they believe — that the Bible is inerrant and infallible.

haha

Too Funny.

This guy is actually arguing that DECLARING the scripture unreliable leads to LESS a less judgmental critical spirit!

Someone ought to tell Carrie Prejean that.

BD

Or the people in Stalin’s Russia.
Pol Pot’s Cambodia
Hitler’s Germany
and on and on and on…

PS Can’t wait for someone to BLAME scriture for those events….

Why should Jesus words be elevated?
He didn’t say they should be.
Nor did any of the people who GAVE you Jesus words.

And if you decide to elevate his words for no legitimate reason anyway, you still have to deal w/the fact that he himself said the Word of God was flawless at a time when the ONLY ‘Word of God’ out there was the OLD Testament which was CLEARLY what he was referring to.

As for the guy who decided he gets to pick and chose what scriptures are from God, all I can say is – Good Luck WID DAT! haha Anything you ‘discern’ I can discern better, pal. That’s where that ABSURD reasoning leads us….quickly!

Finally, the gay community (WITHOUT justifiable cause) HATES CHRISTIANS WITH ALL THEIR HEARTS. That is the PRIMARY reason why the saying “Love the Sinner/Hate the Sin” has become anathema in liberal circles (and thus Ken’s circles! lol) It’s because gays KNOW it’s basically about them.

It’s interesting however that the same liberals who IMMEDIATELY cringe when they hear it (try uttering that statement amongst a bunch of gay activists) held the PRECISE position (or at least pretended to) back during the Iraq War. (Liberal Memo…You know the Iraq War is over, right? Sure there’s still 140,000 or so soldiers there in VERY dangerous territory, but Barack’s the Prez now and the Iraq War is not popular so we don’t want to sully his reputation w/it. The proper way to refer it these days is BUSH’s Iraq War…end of Liberal Memo)

Where was I? Oh yeah the liberal position on the war!

Love the Sinner (soldier)
Hate the Sin (Iraq war)

Liberals, of course, don’t really love the sinner. But even if we grant them that, their position here is EXACTLY the same as the Christians on gays.

How come they don’t cringe when it’s being applied in this area?

Hmmmm…

BD

“It” is called mercy.

Hate is not mentioned so much in scripture.

As someone who affirmed inerrancy for years for the very reason you raise, this is a discussion I would LOVE to have. But we need a forum for it.

I have 100 thoughts on this issue.

Just because I don’t believe everything I read doesn’t mean I cannot believe in, or have no basis for believing in, anything.

There are, after all, numerous extra-textual guides (some affirmed in Scripture itself) to *discerning* truth:

1a) Does it provide meaning & purpose or lead to despair? (This, incidentally, how presuppositionalists such as Francis Schaeffer and Cornelius Van Til critique all non-Christian beliefs; so why not universalize this method of critique?)

1b) Is it in accord with natural and moral revelation? (See Rom 1, 2, and 10)

1c) Does it harmonize with one’s deepest intuitions about life? (borrowed from Greg Boyd – http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html). See also Acts 17:26-27.

2) How about this as criterion of truth: “by their fruits you shall know them.” See John 15:8; 15:16; Gal. 5:22-23; Matt 7:15-21; Matt 21:43.

3) Can’t the Holy Spirit be SUFFICIENT to “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) or is He chained to a text?

Also, SO WHAT?

4) Is God more interested in our certainty of doctrine, or in our seeking? Ultimately, what is saving faith? How about earnestly seeking coupled with the hope/belief that the search will be rewarded (Heb. 11:6)? Isn’t that enough? Will that not be credited by God as faith?

5) When it says “You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free” (John 8:32), is Jesus talking about a set of doctrinal propositions, or Himself (John 14:6)?

6) The Catholics argued that if you didn’t let the Pope & Bishops define the truth, then everyone would go their own way. They were right. Despite Protestantism’s “Sola Scriptura” creed, Protestantism splintered into a 1000 creeds. BUT SO WHAT? IS THAT SO BAD?

And finally:

7) IMO, the biggest thing that gets tossed over the precipice when one rejects inerrancy is a judgmental, critical spirit. Stripped of an inerrant text, Christians lose their ability to play doctrinal police cop. Their focus is shifted from an outwardly critical one to an inwardly critical one, and they are left to consider only the fruit they produce.