This is not quite right or finished yet, I don't think, but I wanted to put down these thoughts while I'm thinking about them...
"Love the
'sinner'
hate the
'sin'"
is a problematic suggestion
Rationally, morally and from a simple place of common grace
it's presumptuous and condescending
and I'd suggest, just not helpful or
loving
(thereby making mockery of the first premise
as if one could love the poor pathetic "sinner" that one looks down upon)
Rather:
Love the sinner
"Love the
'sinner'
hate the
'sin'"
is a problematic suggestion
Rationally, morally and from a simple place of common grace
it's presumptuous and condescending
and I'd suggest, just not helpful or
loving
(thereby making mockery of the first premise
as if one could love the poor pathetic "sinner" that one looks down upon)
Rather:
Love the sinner
Hate the conflating of all human failures with intentional evil
Love the sinner
Hate the oppression - sure
and not only hate the oppression
and not only hate the oppression
but take an active stand against the oppressors
But
"Love the 'sinner...'"?
How about this:
Love the human
"Love the 'sinner...'"?
How about this:
Love the human
even in our imperfection
because, why not?
Maybe, love the human who is imperfect
(ie, all of us)
as God loves all of us
just because
Just because we are family,
we are one,
we are the Beloved of God
and who are we to dispute a Loving God?
Yes, yes,
we must hate the oppression and those who abuse
we must take actions to
ally with and protect those who are being abused and oppressed
but most of us in our daily lives?
we're not choosing to abuse
to harm
to oppress
We're just being imperfect humans and
while that can be awful enough
it's not like it rises to the level of Evil
It's sufficient to keep in mind that this term
SIN
which has been so badly abused through the centuries
sinfully so, indeed,
in the original texts and languages simply meant
missing the mark
trying one's best but not quite hitting the target
That is,
simply imperfect
not evil.
The more I ponder conservative human theories about "sin natures"
the more I'm convinced of the harm of those theories
at least in how they're implemented.
because, why not?
Maybe, love the human who is imperfect
(ie, all of us)
as God loves all of us
just because
Just because we are family,
we are one,
we are the Beloved of God
and who are we to dispute a Loving God?
Yes, yes,
we must hate the oppression and those who abuse
we must take actions to
ally with and protect those who are being abused and oppressed
but most of us in our daily lives?
we're not choosing to abuse
to harm
to oppress
We're just being imperfect humans and
while that can be awful enough
it's not like it rises to the level of Evil
It's sufficient to keep in mind that this term
SIN
which has been so badly abused through the centuries
sinfully so, indeed,
in the original texts and languages simply meant
missing the mark
trying one's best but not quite hitting the target
That is,
simply imperfect
not evil.
The more I ponder conservative human theories about "sin natures"
the more I'm convinced of the harm of those theories
at least in how they're implemented.
16 comments:
I'm going to ignore your routine minimizing of the seriousness of sin and address the platitude, "love the sinner, hate the sin". Your intention to reframe it doesn't do much to alter it at all, if as Scripture teaches, we are all sinners. If you prefer to say we are all brothers, all brothers are sinners, so what's the difference? Well, in your case, you're again minimizing the seriousness of sin. To call out our brothers as sinners isn't condescending to them if we at the same time admit that we are sinners as well.
But the expression is notable for the fact that the sin is worthy of our attention...that we are not to dismiss it as "no big deal", because it most certainly is. Going on about human imperfection...about human inability to be perfect...isn't the flex you think it is, for nobody is demanding perfection of another rather than acknowledging our obligation to strive for perfection regardless of that inability.
We know what constitutes sinful behavior because Scripture teaches it so very plainly one would have to intentionally ignore it to assert it's ambiguous. So the "intention" is in the abdication of the responsibility to strive to be holy because God is holy. By this I mean one assuming oneself "holy enough" one need not concern oneself with keeping that "mark" in mind at all times. That's evil.
And you minimize what evil is and suppose it's only that which is blatant, such as ripping limb from limb an infant, or flying planes into buildings. But the greatest evil...the worst manifestation of evil...is that which says "That's not so bad, don't worry about it. It's only 'missing the mark'. No big deal." Or, "Did God really say...?"
God doesn't ignore our failures or imperfections. Christ intercedes for us if we believe in Him and His sacrifice for us so that we are regarded as perfect. But it doesn't mean we can just go about ignoring what is sinful because that indicates we haven't accepted Christ at all and thus our failures and imperfections will not be ignored by the Father.
We must always be mindful of avoiding sin and doing that which pleases God and we do our brothers (sinners all) no favors by pretending his sinful behaviors and choices are no big deal.
Marshal “ We know what constitutes sinful behavior because Scripture teaches it so very plainly one would have to intentionally ignore it to assert it's ambiguous.”
Don’t eat pork.
Don’t meat with blood still in it.
Don’t wear a shirt of two plants.
Don’t touch a woman on her period.
These sins are condemned as equal to refusal to feed the hungry and clothe those with clothes.
Marshal’s right! It’s all in Leviticus. Gotta do it.
I wonder if aspirin is ok? 🤔 May cause MAGA Rage!
And yet, they never see that hole in their argument, do they, Feodor. And not seeing it, they don't even acknowledge its existence, but that doesn't make the hole go away.
Marshal:
in your case, you're again minimizing the seriousness of sin.
You have ONE chance here, Marshal. ONE chance: PROVE IT.
I would call what I'm doing "right-sizing" the "seriousness" of sin.
Some behaviors, actions, policies are truly destructive and harmful, oppressive and abusive to such a degree that those actions are rightly called evil. A sample list would include rape, genocide, killing, especially killing and abuse of children and other innocent people. If you want to hate a sin, THOSE are the sins to hate (that, as opposed to actually VOTING for people who implement these policies).
But the vast majority of human failings/shortcomings/imperfections are NOT rape, murder, genocide. The vast majority are simple human imperfections that may be more or less serious, but they're not worthy of hate.
I may snap at my brother or parents. I might do something to hurt their feelings. I might even "borrow" a big brother's car without permission because I really wanted to meet with a sweetheart on the other side of the town. Those actions are wrong, they are failings, but they are the simple missing the mark of perfection, nothing that rises to the level of evil or abuse or oppression. Just stupid errors on our part.
I'd be willing the vast majority of human "sins" are closer to the level of being rude to a driver in front of you or not being patient with a friend or telling a homeless person asking for money that you don't have any cash on you (when you do)... that kind of thing. Simple temporal shortcomings that simply don't rise to the level of evil of such that it needs to be "hated."
Do you disagree? Can you see that I'm merely right-sizing the nature of degrees of sin and misdeeds rather than "minimizing" sin in general?
If not and you want to stand by your nonsense claim, PROVE IT.
Provide objective proof that noting the very real distinction between simple impatience as compared to rape and genocide is somehow "minimizing" sin.
Objective proof or admit you can't do so, apologize and move on.
Indeed, if ANYONE is minimizing sin, it's those who say that all sins are basically the same - that it's equally evil to be impatient with a loved one as to rape a child. THAT's some level of unhealthy attitudes towards human misconduct and actual evil.
One chance or just move on.
Dan
Once again, you're focusing on specific sins when I'm speaking of sin. You truly not see the distinction?
Marshal commits and ignores his sin more than anyone else in all my universe. Especially including the men I visit in prison who have a desire to turn their life into a spiritually and educationally focused one now and when they’re released.
Because of Christ’s love and faithfulness, God has already accepted everyone. God has set in motion the way by which everyone will be reddened and enter the fullness of life.
Col 2: And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross.
Eph 1: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
2 Corinthians 5: that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.
Romans 5: For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.
Marshal:
you're focusing on specific sins when I'm speaking of sin.
WhatEVER it is you're imagining in your head in your little personal opinion, son, SUPPORT it. Objectively.
Can you see that I'm merely right-sizing the nature of
degrees of sin and misdeeds
rather than "minimizing" sin in general?
THAT is what I'm talking about. Are you going to try to suggest that all "sinful" actions are equally hate-worthy? Equally evil?
Answer THAT question.
THEN, if you imagine this theoretical "sin nature" is hate-worthy and evil and something that an almighty God can't abide (y'all paint such a squeamish, tiny, weakling vision of your god), THEN OBJECTIVELY PROVE IT.
Failing that, admit that you, of course, can't objectively prove it, it's just a theory you hold without strong support.
Last chance.
Marshal:
You truly not see the distinction?
I fully understand that you all hold to this human theory of a mythical "sin nature," that you imagine all humans have. Remember, it's something I used to believe, too, until I realized how unbiblical and irrational it is.
IF, by "sin nature," you mean that humans are merely NOT perfect, NOT God-like in themselves, then yes, that's true. But we already have a word for that: We're human. Imperfect, fallible humans. We are not perfect nor do we make all-perfect decisions.
That much is observable, but you all don't stop there. You all imagine that this "sin nature" (something you can't objectively prove at all) is something all humans "inherited" from a literal "Adam" which means NOT merely imperfect and human, but deliberately turned against God, deliberately in rebellion to God.
Is that a correct estimate of your "sin nature" theory?
If so, here are the things that you can't/won't prove in any meaningfully objective way:
1. That a "sin nature" exists.
2. That this "sin nature" is MORE than merely being an imperfect human. It means we are in rebellion against God.
3. And, therefore (you imagine), this "sin nature rebellion" is all EQUALLY evil no matter if it manifests in stealing ten cookies and telling 20 lies or if it results in rape and genocide and other actual atrocities.
IF that is what you want to guess at, fine. No matter how silly or infantile a theory it is, hold it. BUT, unless you can objectively prove it, then have the adult wherewithal to admit it's just an unproven theory you and millions of your friends hold.
I'm not in your universe or ever hope to be. It's one of many blessings bestowed upon me by God.
Romans 6:15: "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!"
"And yet, they never see that hole in their argument..."
There's no "hole" in our argument, except that which you pretend exists. Take your own challenge and prove there's an actual hole in our argument. I'll wait here while you delete the challenge rather than rise to it.
"I would call what I'm doing "right-sizing" the "seriousness" of sin."
Not at all. You're "right-sizing" according to YOUR parameters without regard to God's. Case in point:
"Some behaviors, actions, policies are truly destructive and harmful, oppressive and abusive to such a degree that those actions are rightly called evil."
Where in Scripture does this constitute THE definition of "evil"? I'll wait here while you pretend you weren't challenged to defend your wild claim. No. This is Dan Trabue defining "evil" according to what is displeasing to Dan Trabue.
"But the vast majority of human failings/shortcomings/imperfections are NOT rape, murder, genocide."
Again, "evil" is not defined as that which any given human being...and certainly not Dan Trabue...finds repulsive. Evil is anything which is contrary to that which God finds pleasing...or, anything which displeases God...any act contrary to His Will.
"The vast majority are simple human imperfections that may be more or less serious, but they're not worthy of hate."
Please cite chapter and verse where God/Jesus lists sins He claims He doesn't hate.
"I may snap at my brother or parents. I might do something to hurt their feelings. I might even "borrow" a big brother's car without permission because I really wanted to meet with a sweetheart on the other side of the town. Those actions are wrong, they are failings, but they are the simple missing the mark of perfection, nothing that rises to the level of evil or abuse or oppression. Just stupid errors on our part."
They ARE evil actions. You HAVE abused another at the very least in each example . And to abuse is to oppress. You just acknowledged they are wrong, which makes them sinful. They are not "wrong" like making a wrong turn on the road, or picking the wrong wine for a fish dinner. They're wrong in the sense of being abusive to those to whom you've done the stated wrong, and the degree to which they were abused is irrelevant.
"I'd be willing the vast majority of human "sins" are closer to the level of being rude to a driver in front of you or not being patient with a friend or telling a homeless person asking for money that you don't have any cash on you (when you do)... that kind of thing. Simple temporal shortcomings that simply don't rise to the level of evil of such that it needs to be "hated.""
These all smack of the very reasons your kind like to pretend was the primary reason for Sodom's destruction. Were the people of Sodom more rude to the drivers in front of them? Were the people of Sodom more impatient with their friends? Were the people of Sodom simply more unlikely to dole out a few bills to a homeless guy? Where was the line they crossed which separates acceptable and unacceptable degrees of these behaviors ?
"Do you disagree?"
Clearly.
" Can you see that I'm merely right-sizing the nature of degrees of sin and misdeeds rather than "minimizing" sin in general?"
I can see you're assuming authority to dictate when sin is acceptable and when it isn't according to what pleases and displeases YOU. But God hates all sin. Here's an excellent essay describing you to a T in your presumptions:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/we-must-remember-that-all-sin-is-evil-in-gods-eyes.html
"Provide objective proof that noting the very real distinction between simple impatience as compared to rape and genocide is somehow "minimizing" sin."
Well, I just did with the link above, but more importantly here, I never never mentioned specific actions when asserting the fact that you minimize the seriousness sin. You choose "minor" sins and contrast them against savagely barbaric actions like murder and rape and pretend your position is sound. But you fail by again conflating specific actions with "sin", which is what the focus of my criticism and a distinction you continue to ignore.
But we can look at it from the other side. All those very nasty actions you list which for Dan Trabue ranks as worst of the worst and worthy of the label "evil" (as if only those very nasty things constitute evil). Which of those action...and go ahead and think of the worst abuse and oppression you can conjure....which "evil" action will God NOT forgive of an abusive oppressor who repents and comes to Christ? I'll wait here while you dither.
So if there's no sin so grievous that God won't forgive it should the sinner repent and come to Christ, then on what basis does it make sense to pretend God doesn't hate all sin? And if God hates all sin (as He most certainly does, given the wages of sin), who are YOU to presume you can rank behaviors as you do and in doing so not at the same time be minimizing the seriousness of sin? Where YOUR "objective proof" to substantiate your wild arrogance?
"Indeed, if ANYONE is minimizing sin, it's those who say that all sins are basically the same - that it's equally evil to be impatient with a loved one as to rape a child."
Well, if nothing else, you're efficient in your lying. I never said all "sins" are the same, and only you would choose to compare something as vague and ambiguous as "impatient with a loved one" (over what, exactly?) with something as specific and as vile as you can imagine such as "to rape a child" in order to continue pushing that which is contrary to what has been clarified again and again and again for you. And worse, your lie presumes that there's such a thing as "equally evil" as if evil comes in degrees or amounts. Evil is evil. There's no "that's not really that evil" or "that's REALLY evil!" Evil is evil. Only people say otherwise, and ususally people who are enabling sinners.
So at this point, I've not only resolved your confusion present in your comment from August 29, 2026 at 8:04 PM, but pretty much that from August 30, 2026 at 11:41 AM, but here's more:
"Are you going to try to suggest that all "sinful" actions are equally hate-worthy? Equally evil?"
Yes, then No.
God hates sin. Period. Full stop. End of story. Why would a real Christian hate them less?
John 3:4, Romans 1:18 (which doesn't say, "some" godlessness and wickedness, but ALL godlessness and wickedness), Romans 6:23 (which doesn't say "some" sin), Isaiah 59:2, Revelation 20:15. All of these alone point to how hated sin is by God.
There is no "equally" evil. Evil is evil. All sin is evil. Little sins, big sins...all evil. Period.
"THEN, if you imagine this theoretical "sin nature" is hate-worthy and evil and something that an almighty God can't abide (y'all paint such a squeamish, tiny, weakling vision of your god), THEN OBJECTIVELY PROVE IT."
Again? How many times must I do this only to have you continue pretending you've not received what you demanded of me? If you promise me you'll write it down and paint it on your bedroom wall where you can see it constantly, then I'll provide it once again. (Revelations 21:27, Ephesians 5:5, 2 Chronicles 7:14)
You want to imagine that God "can't" abide sin? As if He's too weak to be near sin? That's childishly absurd as well as derogatory and deceitful. God is perfect holiness. How can sin exist in the presence of perfect holiness. God came to earth while it was corrupted by the sin of Adam. But earth isn't heaven and no sin dwells in heaven. God WON'T abide sin. God DOESN'T abide sin. It's not a matter of "can't", as in "unable". My description of God is totally in line with Scripture. Yours is totally in line with Dan Trabue.
From August 30, 2026 at 11:53 AM, you again repeat that which you've never done a thing to prove is untrue. Man's sin nature. A totally Biblical teaching. Here's two verses for now:
1 Corinthians 15:22, Romans 5:12
Do you know more than Paul? There is also this:
Galatians 5:17. Here Paul speaks of that very sin nature. Would someone without it crave what is contrary to the Spirit?
Romans 3:10, Romans 3:23, Psalm 14:3, Jeremiah 17:9, Ephesians 2:1-3, Ecclesiastes 7:20, 1 John 1:8-10, Job 15:14, Proverbs 20:9, and this one from One Who knows better than anyone whereof He speaks, Mark 7:21. How many verses do you need? Clearly the concept of man's sin nature is totally Biblical and thus absolutely rational. And even a cursory study of Scripture indicates the logic of the concept. Why a serious and prayerful study didn't for you is a wonderment.
"IF, by "sin nature," you mean that humans are merely NOT perfect, NOT God-like in themselves, then yes, that's true. But we already have a word for that: We're human. Imperfect, fallible humans. We are not perfect nor do we make all-perfect decisions."
Now you're tap-dancing. Which is it? You can soft soap it any way you like but the fact is we are all born with a sin nature. And of course only Christ was perfect and without sin. Why? He was NOT born with a sin nature. This isn't in the slightest a debatable Biblical truth.
"Is that a correct estimate of your "sin nature" theory?"
Superficially and with your disrespectful condescension. I "imagine" nothing. As my many citations "prove", the concept is absolutely Biblical.
"If so, here are the things that you can't/won't prove in any meaningfully objective way:"
HA! Except that I did....thoroughly and so much so that you'll delete my comments instead of proving me wrong. To wit:
1. Supported with Biblical citations.
2. Supported with Biblical citations.
3. Not something I said ever, but that which you insist I have to own in order for you to have any hope of being anywhere near "right" about something.
I "guess" at nothing. I read Scripture and this is what it teaches. Provide an alternate explanation (with supportive evidence) for the citations I've provided, or just delete as you always do because you can't.
Marshal, you did not - and did not even TRY - to objectively support your nonsense human theories. You have NOT pulled out an autopsy or a microscope, an x-ray or a CAT scan and identified your mythical "human sin nature." Your comments will be deleted as soon as I am at my computer.
In the meantime, let me repeat what you've been told repeatedly:
That there is a verse in the Bible that says, for instance,
"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, - Romans 8:3 (ESV)"
THAT the verse exists in the Bible is not in dispute. But the MEANING of the verse IS in dispute. You read verses like this and you create a myth of a "sin nature" because it makes sense to you in your head. But no one cares what makes sense to you in your head. You just aren't that important, little mortal.
The question is not "DOES that verse exist?" The question is "What does it mean and does it support this theory of a 'sin nature'?"
YOU have not objectively proven it means what you're reading into it.
Eisegesis is not objective proof. Wishful thinking is not objective proof. "People who agree with me all think it means what I think it means" is not objective proof.
Your problem is that you can't separate your little personal mortal feelings and opinions from objective facts. I don't know, maybe you just don't understand, that's between you and your mental health support team.
All I'm letting you know is that, as an objective fact, you have not objectively proven even one thing.
Citing a Bible verse IS NOT PROOF.
Citing a website that cites a Bible verse IS NOT PROOF.
Move on.
Dan
Post a Comment