• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Hate the sin...but love the sinner"????

Thunder said:
are you finished trying to provoke me?

want to return to the thread now?

you let me know.
Click to expand...

How is bringing up things you said in this thread, not replying to this thread?
 
Thunder said:
that is a lie. I never said such a thing.

do me a favor, and don't lie about my comments.
Click to expand...

You're right, I gave you too much credit an assumed you could spell "unfortunately". No need for me to lie, though. Here's your own words in all their glory.

Thunder said:
infortunately, the foundations of Christianity did not end with the death of Jesus.
Click to expand...
 
X Factor said:
You're right, I gave you too much credit an assumed you could spell "unfortunately". No need for me to lie, though. Here's your own words in all their glory.
Click to expand...

ah, and now you're discussing silly typos. That's really intelligent of you, X Factor. You gonna bring up my poor capitalization next? :lamo


..anyways, I was saying that its unfortunate for his argument, that the foundations of Christianity did not end with Christ's death. I'm sorry that you were unable to understand what I wrote. I'll try to be clearer next time, so you can understand me.
 
Thunder said:
ah, and now you're discussing silly typos. That's really intelligent of you, X Factor. You gonna bring up my poor capitalization next? :lamo


..anyways, I was saying that its unfortunate for his argument, that the foundations of Christianity did not end with Christ's death. I'm sorry that you were unable to understand what I wrote. I'll try to be clearer next time, so you can understand me.
Click to expand...

I understood you perfectly. In fact, I was thinking of making that quote my sig. Do I have your permission?
 
X Factor said:
I understood you perfectly. In fact, I was thinking of making that quote my sig. Do I have your permission?
Click to expand...

clearly, you either didn't understand me at all....or you are simply LYING about my comment.

if you think that I said that "it was unfortunate that the foundations of Christianity didn't die with Christ", then you are indeed lying.
 
so, does ANYONE have any views on the OP that disagree with my understanding of the Bibilical passage?
 
lizzie said:
If you intend to discuss *Christianity*, I would personally tend to quote Jesus, rather than one of his followers.....
Click to expand...

Thunder said:
infortunately, the foundations of Christianity did not end with the death of Jesus.
Click to expand...

Clearly, I was referring to his ARGUMENT. Not Christianity itself.

I've posted the whole interaction, so nobody can misunderstand.

Unless they're just playing games.

nota bene said:
Of course not. That's because He was resurrected.
Click to expand...

see? some folks understood exactly what I was saying.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
I see. And clearly you're going to just keep repeating the same thing, and that you have no response to what's been said so far. It's also clear you have no use for Christians given your wish that Christian doctrine had died with Christ. So now, my question is, if you're bigoted against Christians, does that make you a racist? I ask because I've seen people be accused of racism if they question or criticize the religion of Islam.
Click to expand...

X Factor said:
You made the statement, didn't you, that it was unfortunate the foundations of Christainity didn't die with Christ. I asked you to clarify what you meant, but you couldn't/didn't. I'm just saying, if you've ever called someone a racist for criticizing Islam, then you're saying the same thing about yourself.

BTW, I totally addressed your OP in my first response to this thread. You couldn't respond to that either. Lol
Click to expand...


This is one of several very similar threads that he's started, all with the same theme. It starts out superficially appearing to discuss some actual topic, but it quickly becomes clear that his only motive in starting the thread is to create yet another forum for him to express his bigotry against Christianity in general, and often against specific branches of Christianity.

It's amusing, of course, to see this, and to realize that one of his favorite insult to hurl against others to whom he is badly losing an argument is to accuse them of bigotry; when, in fact, he can clearly be seen to be a far worse bigot than anyone against whom we've seen him hurl that accusation.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
...It's amusing, of course, to see this, and to realize that one of his favorite insult to hurl against others to whom he is badly losing an argument is to accuse them of bigotry; when, in fact, he can clearly be seen to be a far worse bigot than anyone against whom we've seen him hurl that accusation.
Click to expand...


you're a hypocrite, and one of the worst bigots on this forum.
 
Thunder said:
Clearly, I was referring to his ARGUMENT. Not Christianity itself.

I've posted the whole interaction, so nobody can misunderstand.

Unless they're just playing games.



see? some folks understood exactly what I was saying.
Click to expand...

Let's look again, shall we?

Thunder said:
infortunately, the foundations of Christianity did not end with the death of Jesus.
Click to expand...

nota bene said:
Of course not. That's because He was resurrected.
Click to expand...

Thunder said:
that's besides the point.
Click to expand...

Your response to Nota Bene's comment was that it was "besides the point". How can you argue now that Nota got the point you claim now that you were making, when you said, at that time, that he didn't get the point? I specifically asked you what you meant earlier in this thread. I even asked if you meant what it sounded like. I think your words are very clear. No need to make up bull**** explain any further.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It's amusing, of course, to see this, and to realize that one of his favorite insult to hurl against others to whom he is badly losing an argument is to accuse them of bigotry; when, in fact, he can clearly be seen to be a far worse bigot than anyone against whom we've seen him hurl that accusation.
Click to expand...

And, like clockwork;

Thunder said:
you're a hypocrite, and one of the worst bigots on this forum.
Click to expand...


LOL, too funny. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
 
I think what the biblical passage really said is: Love the sin, hate the sinner!

No?

ah ok :shrug:
 
Thunder said:
Clearly, I was referring to his ARGUMENT. Not Christianity itself.
Click to expand...

So, speaking of the "foundations of Christianity" is not speaking about Christianity itself? Wow, that doesn't even make sense.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
This is one of several very similar threads that he's started, all with the same theme. It starts out superficially appearing to discuss some actual topic, but it quickly becomes clear that his only motive in starting the thread is to create yet another forum for him to express his bigotry against Christianity in general, and often against specific branches of Christianity.

It's amusing, of course, to see this, and to realize that one of his favorite insult to hurl against others to whom he is badly losing an argument is to accuse them of bigotry; when, in fact, he can clearly be seen to be a far worse bigot than anyone against whom we've seen him hurl that accusation.
Click to expand...

Thunder said:
you're a hypocrite, and one of the worst bigots on this forum.
Click to expand...

Quod erat demonstrandum.
 
Thunder said:
clearly, you either didn't understand me at all....or you are simply LYING about my comment.

if you think that I said that "it was unfortunate that the foundations of Christianity didn't die with Christ", then you are indeed lying.
Click to expand...

No, he's not (unless, of course, "infortunately" means other than "unfortunately"). In post #8, you said, "infortunately, the foundations of Christianity did not end with the death of Jesus."

No translation needed; flipping this, what you said is that "It would have been fortunate if the foundations of Christianity had ended with the death of Jesus."

Who are you trying to kid here?
 
Hate the spin, but join the winner.
 
X Factor said:
Let's look again, shall we?

Your response to Nota Bene's comment was that it was "besides the point". How can you argue now that Nota got the point you claim now that you were making, when you said, at that time, that he didn't get the point? I specifically asked you what you meant earlier in this thread. I even asked if you meant what it sounded like. I think your words are very clear. No need to make up bull**** explain any further.
Click to expand...

X Factor said:
So, speaking of the "foundations of Christianity" is not speaking about Christianity itself? Wow, that doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

I explained to you what I meant. You're just playing pathetic & childish games, in a stupid attempt to provoke me.

let us know when you decide to take the thread seriously, and not simply view it as an opportunity to play stupid games.
 
nota bene said:
No, he's not (unless, of course, "infortunately" means other than "unfortunately"). In post #8, you said, "infortunately, the foundations of Christianity did not end with the death of Jesus."

No translation needed; flipping this, what you said is that "It would have been fortunate if the foundations of Christianity had ended with the death of Jesus."

Who are you trying to kid here?
Click to expand...

unfortunately for his argument, the foundations of Christianity did not end with the death of Christ.

Paul's orders & instructions are very much part of the foundations of Christianity, and his instructions, as per the passage in the OP, and very relevant to Christianity. Which is unfortunate for his argument, that only the words of Jesus should be considered.

got it?

or are folks now going to ignorantly & pathetically claim that ONLY the words of Jesus are relevent to Christianity, and Paul's instructions & orders are crap.
 
Last edited:
hmmm....so no one wants to counter the OP?

I guess I'm right. :)

"hate the sin, love the sinner"...is a baseless cliche', unfounded in Christianity.
 
You're reading too much into it.

One renounces such conduct as undesirable, whilst embracing the ones conducting themselves thus, in a sense of tolerance and compassion.

Is it so untenable?
 
NoC_T said:
You're reading too much into it.

One renounces such conduct as undesirable, whilst embracing the ones conducting themselves thus, in a sense of tolerance and compassion.

Is it so untenable?
Click to expand...

embraces the ones conducting themselves thus?

how can you honestly read that in the passage?

the passage is very clear. Its unambiguous. Its not vague, or metaphorical, or allegorical.

"But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the Church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked man from among you'".

I understand, that this passage totally goes against the cliché of "love the sinner, hate the sin", but you could at least have the integrity & honesty to not mis-characterize what this passage says.

you are welcome to counter this passage with other passages by Paul or other early Church leaders that disagree with it.

so far, no one has done so. Perhaps this is because the founders remain consistent on the issue.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom