Hate the sin, love the sinner--why the disdain for the saying?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

I think the context indicates they were teachers.

Good point.

Yes, that's Matthew 16:19.  Again, good point.  

Hypothetically, what happens if those apostles make a mistake?  Is it binding?  

I don't think so.  First, consider D&C 128:9:

Quote

It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it?

That sounds pretty solid.  But then there's D&C 132:7:

Quote

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

The "Holy Spirit of Promise" appears to have a "ratifying" function.  See here:

Quote

The Holy Spirit of Promise is the power by which ordinances and other righteous acts performed on this earth, such as baptism and eternal marriage, are ratified, validated, and sealed in heaven as well as on earth. Paul taught the Ephesians that after acting on their faith in Christ they "were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise," which was the surety of their "inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession" (Eph. 1:12-14). The sealing of earthly covenants and performances is conditional and depends upon the recipient's personal commitment and worthiness. If a person who has received the Holy Spirit of Promise subsequently becomes unrighteous, the seal is broken until full repentance and forgiveness occur (DS 1:55; 2:94-99).

The necessity of sealing by the Holy Ghost is emphasized in the following passage: "All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise,…are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead" (D&C 132:7). Earthly representatives of the Lord, such as bishops and elders may be deceived by an unworthy person, but no one can deceive the Holy Spirit, who will not ratify an ordinance received unworthily. This safeguard is attached to all blessings and covenants associated with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The covenants we make with God are only efficacious if they are "ratified, validated, and sealed" by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  I think that would cover circumstances such as

A) a person receives a saving ordinance through deceit or other untoward means (in which case the ordinance would seemingly not be ratified);

B) a person validly receives, but does not thereafter keep and live up to, a saving ordinance (in which case the ordinance would seemingly not be ratified), or

C) a person validly receives and lives up to saving ordinances, but is wrongfully deprived of it through another's error such as an improper or unjust withdrawal of membership (in which case the error would seemingly not be ratified).

So no, I don't think a mistake by those in authority will be "binding" in the eternities.  I believe all such errors, mistakes, misjudgments, etc. will be sorted out in the Millennium.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

My understanding is that Christ himself is the keeper of the gate.  He employs no servant there.  2 Nephi 9:41.   

I have no problem with religions trying to help people in their journey, but I'm not comfortable with religions teaching that they are in effect the gatekeepers.  

Except Christ specifically said his Apostles were appointed to judge.  And the world would be judged by the Saints.  Joseph taught that we can't be saved without legal administrators.  The prophets have said the dispensation heads judge their dispensations and bring them to Christ.

I think the idea that we can get directly to Christ without another man is false.   I think Christ is the keeper of the gate to the Father's kingdom.  But we have to return to Christ's presence first.

Edited January 25, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Olmec Donald]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  First, consider D&C 128:9:

That sounds pretty solid.  But then there's D&C 132:7:

The "Holy Spirit of Promise" appears to have a "ratifying" function.  See here:

The covenants we make with God are only efficacious if they are "ratified, validated, and sealed" by the Holy Spirit of Promise...

So no, I don't think a mistake by those in authority will be "binding" in the eternities.  I believe all such errors, mistakes, misjudgments, etc. will be sorted out in the Millennium.  

I agree with you!

But your (our) conclusion implies that "right and wrong" counts for more than the "intermediary authority."

My opinion (for whatever it's worth!) is that the Priesthood is in a sense an apprenticeship, as what's actually right or wrong is what really matters.  But I could be wrong.  

[Olmec Donald]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the idea that we can get directly to Christ without another man is false.  

I think this is where you and I disagree. 

Imo "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" calls for no intermediary.

Imo "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" calls for no intermediary.

Imo "I am with you always, even until the end of the world" calls for no intermediary.

Imo "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me" calls for no intermediary.

Imo "I am in the Father, and ye in me, and I in you" calls for no intermediary.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Olmec Donald]

Oops double post

Edited January 25, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[mfbukowski]

Just now, Olmec Donald said:

I think this is where you and I disagree. 

Imo "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" calls for no intermediary.

Imo "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" calls for no intermediary.

Imo "I am with you always, even until the end of the world" calls for no intermediary.

Imo "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me" calls for no intermediary.

When I speak with my Maker, He knows me and I know Him.

There is only one person, no telephones no party lines.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

I think this is where you and I disagree. 

Imo "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" calls for no intermediary.

Imo "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" calls for no intermediary.

Imo "I am with you always, even until the end of the world" calls for no intermediary.

Imo "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me" calls for no intermediary.

That's not what I mean by "get to Christ".

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Mark - Great post. But you made a slight twist in the church doctrine, did you not? You said "We actually believe we are God's truest Church . . . "

If that is what the church teaches, I would simply keep quiet (I know - that is not possible). Every church in the world might believe it is the truest or the bestest of all . . . . but that is not what the LDS church teaches about itself, is it? I appreciate you amending it as you did. That would eliminate the onlyism and would enable you to join the great community of other bestest groups within Christianity. Then becoming a member of the LDS church would be a migration, not a conversion. I would be all for that.

Why do we attend the ward? First and foremost we enjoy the fellowship. By and large the folks are wonderful to us. Second, it is the only English speaking church community within three hours of our home. My wife does not understand enough Spanish to comfortably chat with people, enjoy a sermon or song, or pray in the language. Therefore we started going to the closest English-speaking church - the LDS ward. Also by that time I was a rabid LDS church history nut. I was already speaking at MHA conferences before we started attending the ward. We quit 8 times, just as I quit this forum 5 times! We always went back. Now I have no more quit in me for either group. I should also add that the folks have found ways to allow us to minister in a variety of ways. That has been nice.

If we had a Mennonite church near us that had an English service, we would go there. We don't. So, we don't. If we attended an Mennonite church, at least 20% of the congregation would think we aren't Mennonite enough (culturally speaking). I would guess less of a percentage of the ward don't like us attending, so we are probably even in that regard. Methinks our ward might be a bit different than many for a variety of reasons. My historical knowledge tells me that since 1885 when the first Saints came here to live, they have been a bit different than many other groups within the church. Once, I gave a talk at MHA. A lady came up to me afterwards and said "You can't be from the colonies, you don't have the colony accent!" So maybe they even talk differently! Ha!

I only know four Mormon communities: our ward and stake, MHA, the church history department, and this forum. Each of the four have a lot of diversity. I like that. Probably this forum has the most diversity, MHA second, then the church history department, and finally our ward. At this point I can say I enjoy them all, because at times as you yourself have advised me, I just say "Well, they are wrong! I will see them in heaven" and I go on my way. Thanks and take care.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1988/01/i-have-a-question/what-is-the-relationship-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-to-the-non-christian-religions-of-the-world?lang=eng

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That's not what I mean by "get to Christ".

Understood.

But do you see my point?  Christ is not behind a firewall.  

Personally I think he is often much closer to us than we would imagine.  I wouldn't be surprised if the minimum number that need be gathered in his name is actually "one".

Edited January 25, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Olmec Donald]

Oops another double post.  

Anything to boost my post count.

edit:  Hey, it even got a LIKE!  I'm starting to figure out how to work the system...

second edit:  This post has gotten FOUR likes!  That's hilarious, especially since it's far more than any of my deep-dive long-winded religious-themed posts!   You guys trying to tell me something?

Edited January 25, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Understood.

But do you see my point?  Christ is not behind a firewall.  

Personally I think he is often much closer to us than we would imagine.  I wouldn't be surprised if the minimum number that need be gathered in his name is actually "one".

I do and I agree.  Of course our access to Christ and the atonement doesn't require intermediaries.  But other aspects of access to Christ do.

Do you believe that intermediaries are needed for us to literally return to Christ prior to his allowing us to return to the Father?

 

[Olmec Donald]

59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Do you believe that intermediaries are needed for us to literally return to Christ prior to his allowing us to return to the Father?

For the record, I believe that the intermediary-free communions with Christ described in my post ARE literal.  I believe that the main reason their literalness is not apparent to us is, the veil.

But I understand what you mean.  I used to believe in a one and only path of covenants and ordinances and priesthood authority. 

Now I think the barriers which separate us from Christ are of our own making (aside from the veil), and I think their removal will be between us and Him.  I think the most important stuff is included within the two great commandments.  I think the two great commandments are the foundation for all laws past and present, and for all teachings of the prophets.  But I could be wrong.  

My instinct is that the covenant path paradigm and the two great commandments paradigm are compatible, but I haven't figured it all out, and once again I could be wrong. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

This seems to me to indicate a failing on the part of religion.  Imo religion is supposed to lighten people's burdens, not add to them.  Religion is supposed to remove despair, not induce it.  The "gospel" is supposed to be good news, not awful news.  Christ said that his yoke is easy and his burden is light, but all too often religions impose a yoke that is not easy, and a burden that is not light.  

Perfect love casts out fear.  So if a religious teaching does not cast out fear, then it is not perfect love.  

I don’t know if it is a failing of religion. The teachings of Jesus induced quite a bit of despair. At least that is why I believe many stopped following Him when Jesus told them the hard things of the gospel. Peter and the apostles staying is admirable but Peter’s statement that there is literally no other option to get what they want is not a cheerful message of enthusiastic love.

While perfect love casts out all fear I don’t think perfect love is the beginning of the gospel. I suspect that hits when you get charity, the gift I crave and deeply fear.

[Olmec Donald]

 

Thanks for writing back, The Nehor.  I was afraid I'd crossed the line into overkill with the weirdness.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The teachings of Jesus induced quite a bit of despair.

I missed that.  Can you let me know where it's found?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

At least that is why I believe many stopped following Him when Jesus told them the hard things of the gospel. Peter and the apostles staying is admirable but Peter’s statement that there is literally no other option to get what they want is not a cheerful message of enthusiastic love.

John chapter 6?  Aye, there be weirdness.  But I don't recall anything that obviously induced despair.  I'll take another look, but if you can give me guidance, I'd appreciate it.  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

While perfect love casts out all fear I don’t think perfect love is the beginning of the gospel. I suspect that hits when you get charity, the gift I crave and deeply fear.

Imo perfect love is way yonder at the tail end of the gospel journey.  The beginning is almost the opposite:  "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."  But this fear is ONLY the beginning!  Things get better, and at some point ime the gospel actually starts deserving to be called "good news".  But it's not necessarily obvious.

If you don't mind, what is it about charity that you "crave and deeply fear"?  Sounds like you have something very specific in mind.  If it's too personal that's okay of course.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

 

Thanks for writing back, The Nehor.  I was afraid I'd crossed the line into overkill with the weirdness.

I missed that.  Can you let me know where it's found?

John chapter 6?  Aye, there be weirdness.  But I don't recall anything that obviously induced despair.  I'll take another look, but if you can give me guidance, I'd appreciate it.  

Imo perfect love is way yonder at the tail end of the gospel journey.  The beginning is almost the opposite:  "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."  But this fear is ONLY the beginning!  Things get better, and at some point ime the gospel actually starts deserving to be called "good news".  But it's not necessarily obvious.

If you don't mind, what is it about charity that you "crave and deeply fear"?  Sounds like you have something very specific in mind.  If it's too personal that's okay of course.

I flee many things but not weirdness.

They accepted the prosperity gospel that Jesus would give them bread forever. Then Jesus offered a better gift and they didn’t want it.

Probably one of the most despair inducing thing Jesus ever said to any individual was at the end of John when he ask Peter if he loves Him and then Jesus rewards this devotion with a promise that his destiny was torturous death. Then Peter asked about John, probably hinting that why do I go to deprivation, pain, and death while John gets to live forever. Jesus gives the cold counsel that that is not your concern and to follow Jesus down that dark path. Peter passed the test.

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

What's wrong with it?  

It has an incorrect date for his death.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

What is your take on John 14:6?  "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Christ is the judge, the only means, the keeper of the access to the Father for eternity. No person will go to the Father, but by Him (Christ's decision or judgment). I take this verse very literally. I am not a universalist. I am a believer in a wideness in God's mercy, just like the old hymn says. As an aside, I do not think (opinion?) that any ordinances will factor into that. I believe that concept is in conflict with the Book of Hebrews' teachings. Whoever wrote Hebrews (perhaps Apollos or Aquilla) was a brilliant writer and thinker who may have written the original in a wonderful style of Koine Greek.

[kimpearson]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1988/01/i-have-a-question/what-is-the-relationship-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-to-the-non-christian-religions-of-the-world?lang=eng

Do you think that saying "When we speak of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the only true church, we mean that it is the only organization authorized to administer the ordinances of salvation. We mean that it is the only organization led by Jesus Christ, through the earthly ministries of prophets and Apostles." it is any less offensive to other religions than saying we are the only true church?  The author of this article is still claiming exclusiveness for priesthood power and prophets guided by Jesus Christ.  This belief of exclusiveness of priesthood power and being guided directly by Jesus Christ is a core doctrine of the Church.  The LDS church does believe it is the only true church.  Trying to soften that claim by pointing out that other churches have some truth is just a little bit disingenuous.

I do believe the Church has priesthood power to perform ordinances of salvation but that should in no way take away from the work of salvation that other churches both christian and non-christian perform.  99.9% of God's children are being prepared for salvation by other churches not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  I believe this work of salvation by other churches only supports God's work and will save far more lives on this earth than the LDS Church.  This work of salvation on this earth will lead to exhalation for far more of God's children than the work done by the LDS church.  That is why we do temple work.  LDS doctrine teaches that priesthood ordinances are just the final topping on the cake and are not limited to members of the LDS church in this life.

I believe the Church is guided by Jesus Christ through prophets.  I believe any other church with leaders that teach correct principles has leaders that are guided by Jesus Christ.  It unfortunately seems like at time we members view our prophets as exclusively ours when those prophets have the calling to witness Jesus Christ to the world not just members of the Church.  I will be honest that some times I think those prophets forget about ministering directly to the rest of the world rather than just Church members.

[The Nehor]

I am trying to come up with a religion that offends absolutely no one. I don’t think it is possible.

[Saint Bonaventure]

14 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

I think the context indicates they were teachers.

Good point.

The "covenant path" isn't "the way"?   Is there any other "way"?  

Yes, that's Matthew 16:19.  Again, good point.  

Hypothetically, what happens if those apostles make a mistake?  Is it binding?  

I would argue that, yes, an implication of Matthew 16:18-19 is that Peter was given the authority to bind heaven. In the Catholic Church, this means that there must be a notion of infallibility, even if it's not saying that a particular person is themself infallible.

 

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

I agree with you!

But your (our) conclusion implies that "right and wrong" counts for more than the "intermediary authority."

I would go beyond saying it is an "implication."  It's right there in D&C 121:

Quote

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

I commented on a similar theme back in 2020:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

I would add this: When there is a "rare occasion when these (principles and authority) are at odds," it my perception that this is a manifestation of a misuse of authority, rather than a lack of authority.

I am not entirely sure, but, I am inclined to agree based on my personal (be it limited) experience.

 

Let me illustrate: As an attorney, I regularly file paperwork in court and ask the judge to do something (such as, say, granting a motion to dismiss the case).  Now, let's say that the judge denies my motion on spurious grounds (such as the judge having a private, undisclosed hostility against my client).  I later find out that the judge acted improperly. 

If this were to happen, I would likely file an appeal, but the appeal would not be that the judge lacked authority.  I would also not challenge the authority of the State of Utah (which is the source of the adjudicative authority granted to the judge), or the authority of the United States (from which the State of Utah derives its authority).  I would not deny that the judge was invested with authority from the state to adjudicate legal disputes.  I would, instead, argue that the judge did have authority, but that he misused it.  Or that he acted outside its scope (in legal parlance, this would be called "ultra vires" - Latin for "beyond the powers" (meaning outside the scope of the judge's authority)).  A misuse of authority, yes.  But not an overall lack of authority.

I think similar principles apply to matters of governance, administration, authority, etc. in the Church.  An example: Many years ago I witnessed a bishop misuse his authority in a particular way.  In retrospect, I wish I had approached the bishop (privately) and offered an objection to his behavior.  I also wish I had written to the stake president about it.  If I had, I would not have done so by denying that the bishop has authority from the Church.  I also would not have challenged the authority of the Church.  As an observant member, I believe in the foundational theophanies by which Joseph Smith was ordained with priesthood power and authority, and I believe this authority continues to be held by the Church.  Consequently, my communications to the bishop and/or stake president would not have been about the bishop lacking authority, but rather misusing his authority.

So can authority from God be misused?  Yep.  

15 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

My opinion (for whatever it's worth!) is that the Priesthood is in a sense an apprenticeship, as what's actually right or wrong is what really matters.  But I could be wrong.  

I think it all matters.  It's all part of the same plan.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 1/23/2022 at 6:40 PM, teddyaware said:

I just looked up this expression on the Church website and found it’s been used many times by many General Authorities throughout the years. Why is there any controversy over such perfectly sound and compassionate spiritual counsel?

Becasure reasonable persons may disagree that this is perfectly sound and compassionate spiritual counsel.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

It has an incorrect date for his death.

Ah, yes.  I remember now.  My dad has mentioned that.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Christ is the judge, the only means, the keeper of the access to the Father for eternity.

I agree.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

No person will go to the Father, but by Him (Christ's decision or judgment). I take this verse very literally.

So do I.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not a universalist.

I sort of am.  Our eschatology diverges from much of Christianity when we discuss the Three Kingdoms of Glory and Outer Darkness concepts as compared to the Heaven/Hell dichotomy.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am a believer in a wideness in God's mercy, just like the old hymn says. As an aside, I do not think (opinion?) that any ordinances will factor into that.

I respect that.  For me, the Bible is steeped in liturgy and ordinances.  

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I believe that concept is in conflict with the Book of Hebrews' teachings. Whoever wrote Hebrews (perhaps Apollos or Aquilla) was a brilliant writer and thinker who may have written the original in a wonderful style of Koine Greek.

I assume you are referencing mostly chapters 8 and 9? 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

People who say hate the sin love the sinner are never referring to themselves.

I would agree.

I can only remember a few instances hearing the expression in real life, but they were always directed at someone else - someone else who was being angry or judgemental about another and were being admonished to remember that they ought to love that person, even if they disapproved of their behavior.

 

[Olmec Donald]

 

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

Probably one of the most despair inducing thing Jesus ever said to any individual was at the end of John when he ask Peter if he loves Him and then Jesus rewards this devotion with a promise that his destiny was torturous death. Then Peter asked about John, probably hinting that why do I go to deprivation, pain, and death while John gets to live forever. Jesus gives the cold counsel that that is not your concern and to follow Jesus down that dark path. Peter passed the test.

Yeah, that does seem like it sucked to be Peter.  But maybe he got the Oscar for "Best Supporting Actor" in the passion play.  As you say, Peter passed the test.

(I presume that near death experiences are not given much credibility around here, but many experiencers report leaving their bodies just before a horrible fatal injury occurs, so they are not subjected to that pain, though if they choose to return recovery is painful.  And I have read accounts of people who left their body while it was being tortured.  So maybe the physical pain aspect was not as horrific as it seems to us.)

And John "gets" to live forever in a Telestial world?  Who got the short end of that stick??  Peter was probably snickering "Sucker!" behind John's back.  Probably still does every time he thinks about it.

Seriously, I don't have the answers.  In my naivety I believe there is a perspective, specifically the most correct perspective, from which it is apparent that God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons.  But I could be wrong.

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They accepted the prosperity gospel that Jesus would give them bread forever. Then Jesus offered a better gift and they didn’t want it.

I think the story in John Chapter 6 is kinda funny. 

Jesus does this miraculous feeding of the five thousand and all of a sudden this huge super-annoying crowd is following him around because now he's the ultimate sugar daddy.  He tries to ditch them by walking on water out to a boat, but that doesn't work because now he's the ultimate Chris Angel rock star in addition to being the ultimate sugar daddy.  So he says to them, "You guys are just in it for the free food."  And they're like, "Well, duh!"  So he says, "It's not about the free food.  It's about my teachings."  And they say, "Fine. Then teach us how to do the free food thing."  He says, "Okay.  You guys want such incredible free food that you'll never hunger again?"  And they're like, "Duuuude!"  And he says, "Then eat me.  No, seriously, eat me.  Eat my body, drink my blood.  Eat me."  The crowd is stunned.  "Dude.  That's messed up."  Problem solved - no more huge annoying crowd!

(I had something vaguely similar happen when I was a missionary.  This was in a country where paperwork mattered a lot.  My companion and I were stopped by a police officer who demanded our papers.  We presented them and he said they were not valid.  They were, but that was not an argument we were going to win.  So I launched into the most pushy missionary pitch I had ever done.  I asked him when we could come to his home and teach him and his family how they could be together forever.  When he wouldn't give us an appointment, I asked him, "Don't you want to be with your family forever?"  I was relentless and soon he forgot all about our paperwork.  Poor guy couldn't get away from us fast enough!  It was one of my proudest moments.)

*  *  *  *

In a subsequent post you wrote:  "I am trying to come up with a religion that offends absolutely no one. I don’t think it is possible."

It's not possible.  No religion can control other people's thoughts.  If I'm bound and determined to take offense, I'll find a way.  It's my right.  How dare you think you can stop me??  

Imo it might be possible to come up with a religion that teaches how to not take offense.  If that happens, I should probably join.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Amulek]

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Then what is the point of the saying at all? Why mention sin at all. Everyone is sinning. No need to mention it. No need to judge others because they sin differently. Why not just love them?

I believe that's largely the point of the saying - to remind you that you ought to be loving people, regardless of their shortcomings.

At the same time though, loving somebody doesn't mean that you have to condone all of their behaviors as well.

 

Quote

Again if you are saying everyone sins, then the saying is meaningless.

I don't see how that follows.

 

Quote

What you fail to recognize is that implicit in the saying is that whenever it is used the speaker is judging someone else to be sinning worse than themselves. 

I think you're projecting a bit here. As I mentioned to CB, the only time I've ever heard somebody use the saying was to admonish somebody for being too judgemental / not loving enough.