September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Abortion as Injustice Interview – Part 2 | Main | Three Free Video Series from Ligonier »

July 11, 2014


A family member thanked me for being nice to her lesbian friend.
Being nice? Not what I'd call it.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin."

While not directly from the biblical text, the origins of the phrase are thought to be from Saint Augustine’s letter 211, written around AD424, which contains the phrase, Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum, which roughly translates as “With love for mankind and hatred of sins.” The exact phrase is thought to derive from Mohandas Gandhi's 1929 Autobiography.

Most people can't successfully process what seems to many to be a dichotomy, their "feelings" get in the way. Some privilege love the sinner and disparage hate the sin. Some privilege hate the sin and disparage love the sinner. In order to be faithful to the covenant, we must believe and live both.

My policy is to let the truth be known and follow up by shunning the sinner and those who support them. Because of this, I have a fair amount of family members and in-laws who despise me, not to mention former acquaintances I've shunned.

RonH, do tell. What woukd you call it?


RonH's paradigm is one of wish-fulfillment. Don't ask of that paradigm something other than an equivocation of syntax within naturalism's grammar as it applies to the phrase which we say of all persons, "you matter". The homosexual does not "matter" in such a paradigm. In fact, no one matters at all short of wish-fulfillment, indifference necessarily ending all regressions.

Hard Stop.

Of course, we know the homosexual matters, and we thus reject naturalism's paradigm for Christ's paradigm, the latter being coherent with reality's state of affairs.

......state of affairs.

Hard Stop.

Pretending the homosexual - or anyone - is valuable whether or not one's whim declares them so is an impossible motion for the Christian, for in his (the Christian's) paradigm all people matter - and that to distances the Christian knows he cannot fathom - and he knows such is the state of affairs whether he (the Christian) likes it or not, Immutable Love ending all regress. Hard Stop.

An actualized wish-fulfillment / pretending of "you matter no matter what anyone says or thinks" spoken in insincerity to the face of the homosexual, while impossible within God's (Immutable Love's) paradigm, just is the ceaseless state of affairs within naturalism's paradigm, autohypnosis wrapped up inside of make-believe's pretense being inescapable, Indifference ending all regress. Hard Stop.

The whole trick to the issue is that we all are in the same boat, we heteros and homos alike. We are, however, of the opinion that our part of the boat is much nicer than that part occupied by the "others."

The sad fact is that all are under the same need of grace. Heteros can be burdened under a whole different panoply of sexual sins. We are in no degree exempt from these avenues to dishonor our Lord. Thus, there is no degree of normal or abnormal in this sense. Just opportunities to break the sixth (for my Reformed friends, the seventh) of the ten commands God has given us in His declaration of what is right or wrong.

The Gospel speaks of repentance and forgiveness. Luther in his first of his ninety-five theses declared: When saying "repent," our Lord and Teacher Jesus Christ willed that the whole life of faith be one of repentance. It is in ignoring this foundational tenet of Gospel we reduce Jesus teaching of the speck and the log (Mt. 7: 3-5) to an attack: Consider your own sins and leave it to the "others" to consider theirs (which often means they won't). This warning of Jesus comes before His warning on casting pearls to pigs. The message of repentance is scorned because we forget the component of conviction of sin. The one who is oblivious to the concept of sin moves forward as the one dead in sins.

This is the nasty difficulty in addressing sexual sins, whose not excluded. In a culture that obsesses on such, we have a major obstacle towards understanding each other. But conviction must be honed before repentance is possible.

Now, how best to do this?

Ron, your attitude is one of the typical problems in U.S. society. You do not agree with Melinda's viewpoint of morality, therefore you insult her and accuse her of being spiteful. This is the typical problem that plagues our society. The idea is "I do not agree with you, therefore, you are an idiot and I hate you." You need to learn to respect those that don't share your worldview. It's an alarming trend. We now have a completely divided society: republican democrat, christian/atheist, etc. etc. Never mind that there are many that don't find themselves in those boxes. If you accept one point from one box, then you accept all of them, etc. This sort of nonsensical approach to life will tear our society apart if we do not change it.


I did not insult Melinda or accuse her of being spiteful.

That hardly needs saying.

But, maybe I should clarify.

I meant: I wouldn't call what her company (STR) does with regard to LGBT people 'being nice'.

Why is it legal to get a divorce or to live together unmarried? Those sins have been "normalized," I guess, but that doesn't mean they're not still sins. What's wrong with "normalizing" homosexual marriage? That wouldn't make it less sinful. It would just mean letting them go ahead and sin, if they insist.

Maybe that's what "being nice" would mean - go ahead and let them sin and don't try to force them to stop. Being nice doesn't mean you have to stop telling them they're sinners. It just means letting them decide for themselves when to repent.

Homosexuals fortunately need not believe Atheism's ultimate judgment of lovelessness, of indifference upon all the "its" (for lack of a better word) which Atheism’s paradigm must - at bottom - label as "the homosexual". The homosexual’s Personhood within Atheism’s I.D. (Indifference/Determinism) not only (fatally) fails to end the regress but in autopsy is found to be delusion. Contrary to what Atheism’s paradigm tries to tell us regarding the homosexual, it is no mere fantasy, no mere pretending within make-believe’s autohypnosis that the homosexual matters and that such is immutably so. STR - merely in parroting the paradigm of Immutable Love – as so many do – echoes to the homosexual that which is the actual state of affairs: “You matter. You matter to degrees no one on Earth can claim to spy, and this ceaselessly, and this regardless of ever morphing opinion”. That is one of the beautiful truths which Theism excavates: there is an actual line which exists and which is found between Person and Act, between Person and Appetite and it is there in that tension amid both Truth and Grace where the homosexual – where all of us – finds the end of all inquiry regarding the Self, the I, the Me: it is the fact of the matter – at the end of ad infinitum – in that Hard Stop that is God – in that Hard Stop that is Immutable Love – that you are the beloved.

Thank you Melinda . . . for your thoughtful and sensitive refection on how, as disciples of JESUS, we should conduct ourselves toward homosexuals. This is an issue with which I have struggled and it is very difficult to know exactly what we should do. I have several friends who are homosexuals and in spite of their knowing that I trust the LORD that their lifestyle is not what He would have them do I have earned their trust by treating them as I believe Jesus would. For me it has come down to conducting myself as John 13:35 affirms: "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” It isn't my job to "convert" the homosexual but just to be a faithful witness of The Way. The results are up to the Holy Spirit. Having gotten to this stage I now have peace when I interact with homosexuals and I know that the LORD is working on them just as He did on me when I was an unbeliever. It's also nice to know that I'm not getting in His way.

@ Ron H

"Being nice? Not what I'd call it."

What, pray tell, would you call it? And what's your basis for saying so?

(Especially when there was nothing here about the specifics of what she said.)


I wouldn't call what her company (STR) does with regard to LGBT people 'being nice'.

Why on earth do you think this has anything to do with Melinda's family situation?

I certainly do not mean to be rude to you, Ron. But Melinda is not an idiot. You just basically insulted her, albeit indirectly. Your claim ultimately is that she did not treat someone with respect. The opposite of nice is either mean or spiteful. The Christian worldview is that homosexuality is wrong. What about that is "not nice"? Perhaps you should tell us how to think now? Would you like it if told you that not believing in God is "not nice"?

John Moore,

I am pondering your definition of "being nice" and am having severe difficulties with it:

>> go ahead and let them sin and don't try to force them to stop.

I am sure you believe this approach of moral diplomacy will have the necessary results of unruffled feathers, as if a state of "unruffled" is desirable. Still, offering a warning is not force.

Consider: how best to handle a smoker. Shall we go ahead and let them smoke? Are we concerned of residual smoke affecting ourselves and our children? I just had seen a PSA dealing with the special needs of a person undergoing a tracheotomy due to throat cancer due do smoking; would exposing a smoker to this be considered force due to the graphic nature of that commercial? Is persuasion force?

The same with the homosexual. To what degree are we to blend acceptance of person with disdain for the practice? To say nothing, to do nothing is moral callousness (Ezek. 33: 8).

I appreciate your understanding that conviction of sin must prompt and precede repentance. How best to convict, seeing that saying/doing nothing is wrong?

It wouldn't have occurred to my relative to thank me for being nice to, for instance, another relative who is living with her boyfriend. It hasn't occurred to her to thank me for being nice to relatives who have divorced. That isn't surprising to her, but it is when it comes to homosexuality.

I think it's very likely this didn't occur to her because Christians are so disproportionately awful to gay people.

When there's a law like DOMA that outlaws divorce, she will probably be surprised if you are nice to divorced people.


Why on earth do you think [what STR does with regard to LGBT people] has anything to do with Melinda's family situation?

Simple: I'm looking at the sum of STR's activities with regard to LGBT people plus whatever the relative called 'being nice'.

@ RonH

Where is your response to me?

I'd like to see one to JBerr as well.


Did you read my reply to SteveK?

@ Ron H

I don't understand your response to SteveK.

Please answer what I asked you.


As I understood it, you asked this:

Since Melinda told us NOTHING about what she said to her relative's friend, HOW can I decline to call it 'being nice'?

SteveK, as I understood him, asked the same thing in different words: "Melinda's family situation".

I told SteveK this:

When I said "I wouldn't call it being nice", the 'it' did not refer to "Melinda's family situation".

I told SteveK that the 'it' referred to STR's activities with regard to LGBT people.

Mo, you are right: Melinda didn't say what happened between her and her relative's friend.

So, in my first comment, I assumed everybody would recognize that 'it' did not refer to what Melinda said or did in private with her relative and the friend.

Clearly I was wrong in that assumption.

Do you understand my response to SteveK now?
Do you understand why my response to him is a response to you as well?


@ Ron H

I'm sorry, but I find your explanation hard to accept.

Given the one line from Melinda:

"A family member thanked me for being nice to her lesbian friend."

and your one line response:

"Being nice? Not what I'd call it."

how in the world would anyone be able to figure out from this response that you were referring to "STR's activities with regard to LGBT people"?

Especially when you don't even explain what you meant by that? Come on.

Hi Mo,

In your theory of my comment ("Being nice? Not what I'd call it."), what does 'it' refer to?

@ RonH

You know as well as I do that you're playing games here. (Otherwise, you would've answered my question instead of trying to turn it around on me.)


I gave you an explanation of my first comment and reply to SteveK.

That explanation squares with the reply, right?
Do you see that?

Now, look at my earlier reply to Jberr - the one where I say, "I meant: I wouldn't call what her company (STR) does with regard to LGBT people 'being nice'."

That also squares with the explanation I'm giving you for my original comment.

Do you see now?

The comments to this entry are closed.