How many times have you heard the evangelical/Baptist, possibly (probably) Pentecostal expression "Hate the sin, love the person" or "Hate the sin, love the sinner"? I've heard it, or more so, seen it many times. I've used it myself. I actually coined it originally with myself. I say that because I assume at this point, it was a well-known expression within the evangelical "community" before I knew much about them. I can't be sure about who was the first person ever to string those words together, but reading the Bible does cause minds to come to many similar conclusions, even as others also come to diametrically opposed readings and so-called understandings. For instance, the expression or the idea that "it's going to get much worse before it gets better" is a conclusion that many first-time and many-time Bible readers can come to without ever having seen or heard that idea before. At the same time, there are groups such as the one covered in a feature story on Democracy Now the other day called The Family. I've written about them before. They have an Old Testament view of God in that they believe God hardens hearts and raises up hard rulers. My reading though is that the spirit that hardens hearts is the Satanic whereas the Godly is the spirit that softens hearts even while strengthening. The Family claims to be Christian but is not.
The conclusion of Jesus's message and exemplary life is not laissez-faire, dictatorial, capitalistic privatization (The Family's position) but rather that giving and sharing all with all is the condition in the Highest Heaven that must come to the Earth in total. That spirit does not force itself on anyone. It is a gift that has been rejected by all but a few who have had to wait rather than being able to enjoy it surrounding them on the Earth as the only spirit rather than being assaulted by lesser proverbial light and darkness.
It is the potential within individual humans and groups of humans and the whole of humanity to soften that we as Christians are to love. We are to show love to the lost and fallen as we were shown and are shown love. However, we are not to love everyone equally as if everyone's behavior is already indicative of the same level of worthiness. We are to love everyone equally as if each can change because otherwise, where do we expect God's line to be drawn concerning us. These are reconcilable positions. This does not constitute a logical fallacy. The reason is that the contexts are different in the mundane sense of context. They are not different in the divine sense.
We aren't to settle for our own shortcomings. We are to hate our own shortcomings. Jesus hated them and hates them. He knew and knows that the spirits do according to cause-and-effect worthiness. He still teaches this. He still tells the truth that the one who brings the evil of human-on-human violence brings woe upon himself, brings Satan into himself and manifests that, no matter how sanctioned by the real God that, that one imagines himself to be. The offender is in error. He will come as God while being only a god-man-demon.
We won't get to Heaven, we won't bring it here, by doing violence to each other. It has always been so and always will. We won't call each other far enough doing violence. This is how it is. This is the way of it. This is the truth.
Everyone doesn't know his or her sins. Everyone isn't sufficiently led by wallflower, self-styled exemplary behavior with his or her mouth zipped. Jesus was overt. He was also covert, but only by people not grasping what he overtly was saying and doing in their bold and brazen faces, so to speak. He was not secretive about any of this even though it remains a secret.
Jesus said that we are what we do and that those who do wrong are wrong, those who do evil are evil. Otherwise, one says, I am not what I am doing. I am doing sin, but I am not evil.
Well, if your true nature is not a bad branch (to use Jesus's and John the Baptist's allusion), then stop doing the behavior of a bad branch. Stop bringing forth the fruit or results that are indicative of one who will be pruned away entirely to be gathered up with the rest of the bad to be burned up as unworthy to continue on that is truly lovable. Stop rationalizing your selfish and harmful behavior. Stop beating about the bush failing to get at the root issue of harm. Stop telling people that you are perfectly acceptable to God as you are while you are desirously engaged in behavior that runs contrary to the perfection of God who is not disordered or fractured in the least, who does nothing against himself. God does not have anal sex. God is not a bugger! Jesus does not either. If you are, then rise and be changed.
God did not crucify Jesus. It did not please him to crucify Jesus. That's a total distortion. It pleased God that Jesus gave of himself for the sake of reaching the lost. That's what pleased God. God did not take sick pleasure in Jesus's pain. God is not the sadist. Satan is the sadist. People confuse the two. God is not Satan and Jesus is not Lucifer of the Mystery Religions. Jesus is the morning star in that it is Jesus's spirit and not the worldly Empire, Babylonian, Dick Cheney, violent, coercive, humanist spirit to which you should aspire. The wrong New World Order people are holding up the wrong spirit as being God and the Christ, savior spirit. The militants who call themselves Christian are part of that divided house of the Mystery Religion spirit that will fall forever.
The grace of God did not put Adolf Hitler in power. I don't care what you've heard before or been led to believe. It is falsehood that the grace of God put Hitler in power. The grace of God is not synonymous with the actions of Satan. God and Satan are not one and the same!
God did not harden Hitler's heart. God did not harden Pharaoh's heart in the time of Moses. Moses thought there was only one god (note the lower case). He thought that there was only one spirit. That way of thinking is not Christian, unless put into the proper context where the real is righteous and never harmful. This is why Jesus was necessary rather than just leaving everything where Moses left off. Moses is a blending of worldly and metaphysical eugenics whereas Jesus is entirely metaphysical where force is concerned. This is the difference.
It is semantical, so it doesn't apply when used within the wrong context.
Doing it Jesus's way does not offend God. Moses's way offends. Moses's way is hypocritical. This is true even though Moses's scripture alludes to Jesus's coming. Moses was given only so much.
The Family and all the other worldly militaristic believers and followers are frankly dimwitted about this. They are in the dark. Their light doesn't exist.
Hitler was in power because of the cause and effect of human choices. Circumstances harden him, and he went along with that process. Others did not have the same reaction he did even though they were in every bit as troubling circumstances. This is why each individual is finally judged on his own merits.
George W. Bush was in power and Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Hugo Chavez are in power not from God's most direct desire, even though God's power is the only reason anything exists, including Satan proper (although Satan doesn't believe it and isn't real in the end).
God allows cause and effect. God does not desire bad choices. It was Moses who knew that Pharaoh wouldn't soften but rather would react in a hardened manner. Moses was informed of that. The spirits can see all even into the future and can relate what they know for good or evil or both.
Materialists (anti-metaphysicists) will insist on proof, but the spirits don't want to show themselves yet to the materialists. The materialists will sarcastically say that's convenient. It's what they deserve, unless....
...unless they change behavior that includes changing their emotional basis.
To those who say, "Hate the sin, love the sinner" without these qualifications, do you want to live with Satan in the eternal Lake of Fire? Do you hate yourself enough to change into something else that is truly lovable?
So what about Hugo Chavez versus the elitists who claim that the two choices in life are between laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and coercive socialism on the other? Well, laissez-faire capitalism doesn't exist even in the mind of any human being. There is no such possibility. It is a logical fallacy.
Go ahead Pentagon. Program it into your supercomputers and let them run the syllogisms to conclusion. You'll find that laissez-faire capitalism always ends in fallacy. I'm speaking here about testing all the premises and not just isolated syllogisms without taking on the whole fallacious worldview. Likewise, coercive socialism doesn't bear out either.
The solutions lie nowhere on that false spectrum, so be done with it. God's system that allows the wrath of Satan is "tiring" of souls that refuse. Satan will take them, but Satan will be walled off with them. Your Pentagon will be there. I won't because God is just even though I'm not yet perfected.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)