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

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with you, Navidad is a Mennonite, and apparently thinks differently.

For us, God communicates with us through feelings. For us faith is a HOPE at first of things unseen

Faith is a principle of action

As we act on faith, we feel that testimony feeling again and again, and our faith because certainty 

For other Christians, they believe only in revelation through existing revelation, because they do not have an open canon, their idea of personal revelation is different than ours

We believe our certainty comes directly from God, personally

At least this is my understanding that other Christians believe that revelation only comes from reading scripture and that Feelings are uncertain and not worth trusting 

Hi my friend. The only nitpick I have with your comment is that in your last couple of sentences. You are correct, we do not have an open canon, but we encourage prayer, meditation, fasting, etc. as methods for receiving personal special revelation. The idea that non-LDS Christians reject special revelation in all forms is not correct. There is/was/has been a bit of a debate among Evangelicals as to whether or not God has an individual will for individual Christians.

I have a highly esteemed friend from college who wrote a wonderful book on this - "Decision-Making and the Will of God," in which he challenges some traditional teachings. However the vast majority of non-LDS Christians within a Fundamentalist/Evangelical tradition believe that God will reveal His will to us related to our own specific lives. This is not a different will from the moral will revealed in scripture, but it is for individuals - should I marry this person, take this job, go to this college, take out this loan, etc? This will and/or revelation is different for different folks, but is never designed to modify His moral will as revealed in scripture. Now that I think about it, I don't believe I have ever heard a sacrament talk about "seeking God's will for your life" as a family or individual. That would be a often-heard topic in an Evangelical community. You might often hear from a friend "Please pray with me that I ascertain God's will as to whether we should move back to Texas and take a new job?" One would not hear "Please pray with me about whether I should go rob this bank to meet my mortgage payment." Individual revelation does not counter revelation as revealed in scripture.

We also believe God has a sovereign will for each of our lives about which there is no point praying or seeking, because He doesn't and won't reveal it to us. He knows in advance when and how we will die for example. It deals with his omniscience and our inability to deal well with that as humans. No point in seeking that from Him.

I also believe that many (on all sides of Christianity) who claim revelation - personal, individual, and corporate revelation may manipulate that in order to serve their own purposes, will, desired outcome, etc. For the devout person, bias confirmation may be a tool to strengthen a belief or desired outcome via a "testimony" or "revelation." When I received a full scholarship to a particular college, my father was sure that was "God's will" for my life! So off I went! I could say that was confirmed because I met and married my wonderful wife there, had a terrific time of growth and development, and enjoyed it immensely. Of course, I have no idea what would have happened had I gone elsewhere. Joseph Smith's personal revelation he says he received in the "First Vision" over time became a corporate revelation for the LDS church. One would not see that (a personal reply to a personal question becoming a corporate belief tenet) in the vast majority of Evangelical or Fundamentalist communities.

It is a bit off the subject, but sometimes I also think that we each use our "knowledge," "experience," and even revelations of and about the other (in terms of faith groups) to validate our group and our own preconceived beliefs and assumptions about the "other." This is a group strengthening device that is used broadly in sociological and religious practice. Non-LDS Christians have strong biases and are often incorrect about what LDS Christians believe. Being inaccurate about that doesn't keep them/us from regurgitating it over and over. Ditto for the other way around. Both are sins. Take care!

Edited January 26, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I was going to say "Protestant" but since we were discussing a point brought up by Navidad, I did not want to offend him by implying that he is a "Protestant"and yet all Christians supposedly believe the same thing

Confusing to me. 

I sincerely appreciate your concern, but I am not sure I follow it. Theologically Mennonites are Protestant by and large. Culturally they/we resists the affiliation because of the history of persecution of Mennonites at the hands of both Protestants and Catholics. Although I would have great difficulty in setting up a list of "Protestant beliefs" that would separate them from Anabaptists, Pentecostals, Apostolics, Orthodox, or even Catholics. The old "sola scriptura" trope doesn't work any more, even though folks on this forum use it quite a bit with a derogatory connotation to it. I certainly would never state that "all Christians supposedly believe the same thing." That would not be true. There is much diversity within the  Christian community, including the LDS community. There are many "appendages" in all faiths. None of them really matter in the view of eternity. Your own Joseph Smith was very clear on not focusing on the appendages. I heartily agree with him.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Navidad said:

There is/was/has been a bit of a debate among Evangelicals as to whether or not God has an individual will for individual Christians.

This sounds interesting…

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Now that I think about it, I don't believe I have ever heard a sacrament talk about "seeking God's will for your life" as a family or individual

Not quite the language that we use, but definitely a part of how we teach about prayer.  It is a pretty common topic in my experience, but I taught in Primary and haven’t attended adult classes much, since my 20s.  Any time prayer is spoken of, it seems like I am typically hearing essentially “don’t forget’Thy Will be done’”, but maybe I heard it so much when younger and taught it myself, I just attach it.  But it is in our basic manual and I got a number of hits on “prayer” and “God’s Will”.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-8-praying-to-our-heavenly-father?

Quote

As we pray to our Heavenly Father, we should tell Him what we really feel in our hearts, confide in Him, ask Him for forgiveness, plead with Him, thank Him, express our love for Him. We should not repeat meaningless words and phrases (see Matthew 6:7–8). We should always ask that His will be done, remembering that what we desire may not be best for us (see 3 Nephi 18:20). At the end of our prayer, we close in the name of Jesus Christ (see 3 Nephi 18:19).

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1999/02/i-have-a-question/what-guidelines-can-help-us-pray-in-accordance-with-gods-will?

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/10/knowing-the-lords-will-for-you?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/how-to-pray-in-a-way-god-can-answer?lang=eng

Edited January 26, 2022 by Calm

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with you, Navidad is a Mennonite, and apparently thinks differently.

For us, God communicates with us through feelings. For us faith is a HOPE at first of things unseen

Faith is a principle of action

As we act on faith, we feel that testimony feeling again and again, and our faith because certainty 

For other Christians, they believe only in revelation through existing revelation, because they do not have an open canon, their idea of personal revelation is different than ours

We believe our certainty comes directly from God, personally

At least this is my understanding that other Christians believe that revelation only comes from reading scripture and that Feelings are uncertain and not worth trusting 

I am not  an expert of this but my understanding is the for Protestant believers they do believe in personal revelation/inspiration/guidance through the Holy Spirit.  This is one reason why they do not need a pope, prophet or apostle. While for them the canon is closed as part of the priesthood of all believers they do believe in direct personal communication with God.  While I know the anti LDS evangelicals often argue that feelings are a poor way to determine truth-which I agree with-for practical purposes they rely on feelings same way Latter-day Saints do.

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not  an expert of this but my understanding is the for Protestant believers they do believe in personal revelation/inspiration/guidance through the Holy Spirit.  This is one reason why they do not need a pope, prophet or apostle. While for them the canon is closed as part of the priesthood of all believers they do believe in direct personal communication with God.  While I know the anti LDS evangelicals often argue that feelings are a poor way to determine truth-which I agree with-for practical purposes they rely on feelings same way Latter-day Saints do.

Ok thanks 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Now that I think about it, I don't believe I have ever heard a sacrament talk about "seeking God's will for your life" as a family or individual.

I think we don't talk about it because it IS such a central aspect of our beliefs.  We "ask God" for everything, again Moroni 10:3-5.

It would be like a talk on breathing! 😉

I am sure you hear this in testimony meetings all the time, at least I do

Edited January 26, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I sincerely appreciate your concern, but I am not sure I follow it. Theologically Mennonites are Protestant by and large. Culturally they/we resists the affiliation because of the history of persecution of Mennonites at the hands of both Protestants and Catholics. Although I would have great difficulty in setting up a list of "Protestant beliefs" that would separate them from Anabaptists, Pentecostals, Apostolics, Orthodox, or even Catholics. The old "sola scriptura" trope doesn't work any more, even though folks on this forum use it quite a bit with a derogatory connotation to it. I certainly would never state that "all Christians supposedly believe the same thing." That would not be true. There is much diversity within the  Christian community, including the LDS community. There are many "appendages" in all faiths. None of them really matter in the view of eternity. Your own Joseph Smith was very clear on not focusing on the appendages. I heartily agree with him.

I guess I have heard it in criticisms from EV's on relying on a "burning in the bosom" and thinking that is a revelation, compared to heartburn etc.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I am not  an expert of this but my understanding is the for Protestant believers they do believe in personal revelation/inspiration/guidance through the Holy Spirit.  This is one reason why they do not need a pope, prophet or apostle. While for them the canon is closed as part of the priesthood of all believers they do believe in direct personal communication with God.  While I know the anti LDS evangelicals often argue that feelings are a poor way to determine truth-which I agree with-for practical purposes they rely on feelings same way Latter-day Saints do.

This might explain the changing attitudes toward religion that we have been seeing in the last couple of decades.  Literally millions of people leaving organized religion,, but still identifying as religious.  If one truly believes in personal revelation from God, then what purpose do popes, apostles, prophets have other than running a huge organization.  Couple that with some of the sex abuse issues and exclusionary policies, many seem to be wondering the value of organized religion.

[Navidad]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

I guess I have heard it in criticisms from EV's on relying on a "burning in the bosom" and thinking that is a revelation, compared to heartburn etc.

OK, but again my guess is that you are hearing that from Fundamentalists more than Evangelicals.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

This might explain the changing attitudes toward religion that we have been seeing in the last couple of decades.  Literally millions of people leaving organized religion,, but still identifying as religious.  If one truly believes in personal revelation from God, then what purpose do popes, apostles, prophets have other than running a huge organization.  Couple that with some of the sex abuse issues and exclusionary policies, many seem to be wondering the value of organized religion.

In the US in particular there is also the leadership of a lot of groups abandoning the flock to play games with the rich and powerful. It is hard to stomach someone who strongly condemns the young or the vulnerable for their sins and speak about their severity but will fawn over prominent unrepentant sinners.

Kind of the opposite of the approach you see with Jesus and John the Baptist. They found themselves in the company of the sinners who were at the bottom of the totem pole and Jesus spent a lot of time forgiving them. John the Baptist literally lost his head for condemning the sins of a powerful man.

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

OK, but again my guess is that you are hearing that from Fundamentalists more than Evangelicals.

Sorry, I don't see them as separate groups.

But then it seems that you prefer one over the other?

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

This might explain the changing attitudes toward religion that we have been seeing in the last couple of decades.  Literally millions of people leaving organized religion,, but still identifying as religious.  If one truly believes in personal revelation from God, then what purpose do popes, apostles, prophets have other than running a huge organization.  Couple that with some of the sex abuse issues and exclusionary policies, many seem to be wondering the value of organized religion.

The benefits as I see them is promoting a POV with which you agree, and learning from others with similar inclinations

And an organization can get more done to spread a POV than just a bunch of believers hanging out congratulating themselves on how right the are.  Example: LDS missionaries 

For that matter, why have Gay Pride etc organizations? Promoting common beliefs, offering comfort in a tough world

Very similar rationale as I see it.

You get more done with organizations, that's why they are formed!

Edited January 26, 2022 by mfbukowski

[BlueDreams]

On 1/23/2022 at 11:12 AM, Stormin' Mormon said:

1a. Why does the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework elicit such disdain?

1b. Is the disdain for the concept itself, or for how it has been operationalized by certain over-zealous and under-wise practitioners?

2a. Is there an alternative for the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework for a Christian who is genuinely trying to both proclaim repentance and love his neighbor?

2b. Would the recommended alternative apply to all sins, or just to sexual sins that are no longer stigmatized by society at large?

I've read page 1 of 7, so I'm sure some of this will be redundant. 

1 a/b) My problem with it is a little different from what I'm seeing. My biggest issue is that it doesn't really work in practice 9 times out of 10. People confuse or use it to write off other people's stories or experiences as simply sin. This then makes it a dispute of whether it's a sin or not in the first place or just our own cultural/personal assumptions getting in the way of actually seeing a person. Which means they can't really fully love the person because they don't really know them. Within ourselves what is sin is often tied to what actually makes us and is strength as well. For example, you mentioned pride. My pride has been mixed with several traits that are generally really good. Judging/dicerning situations, a strong sense and will to do things, love and passion for the work I do and the people I love. It has/had negative aspects to it, like difficulty submitting to others (including God), distain for humility, etc. Those needed shifting. But if i merely hated my "sin" I may have ended up damaging parts of myself that were good and precious. Hate to me is a passion word, it puts energy into something. And if you hate something you do. Repetitively. in spite of your best efforts not to it also quickly morphs into shame. Shame is almost always unproductive to healing. Hating parts of yourself isn't productive or conducive to healing. So even though it may sound good on paper, in practice, it doesn't work and may actually hinder someone from loving others and being loved...including from themselves. 

2 a) My personal alternative is based on the 1st two commandments but also a genuine profound belief that we are ALL children of Heavenly parent. Including those who have legitimately done awful things. Leading with that assumes that there is/was good inside them that got lost in a world of poor behaviors, beliefs, and often pain inflicted on them. Few stories that I've heard don't make sense as to how a person got there. Including stories of being the abuser. My personal roll is to teach them how to lovingly and gently assess their behavior, actions, and thought patterns and learn to care for these parts of themselves that have broken or harm others. I don't shame them. I don't overly focus on the evil of their actions. I point to a concern, I help them see where it came from, i help them see what it's currently doing, and help them find and strengthen healthier patterns of living. If they're unable to do so or unwilling, I try to help others who they're harming realize this and find safety. In short it's charity and honoring where they're at and what they're willing to do in that moment. 

b) All sins, period. Though I might guess my definition of sin may differ from yours. 

 

with luv,

BD

 

[kimpearson]

On 1/25/2022 at 2:13 PM, mfbukowski said:

I am trying to find a salient point here.

If you believe that other churches have prophets then follow them. We are to learn from the best books, and that's why I study philosophy.

If you find others which preach that we can become like God and have a rational approach to creation, and ceremonies similar to ancient ceremonies for that purpose, go for it.

If you subscribe to the Trinity being held together by some vague "substance", and in creation ex nihilo, follow your heart. 

If you believe that some people cannot receive God's "best" glory because in mortality they did not find the right truth, follow your heart

If your heart tells you that God wants you in another church, follow that.

If Your argument seems to be that other churches lead others to Christ, we agree.

We are only 200 years old.  Catholicism is 2000 years old, protestantism is 500 years old.  

Give us time to catch up.

You never answered the question I put forth.

[kimpearson]

On 1/25/2022 at 2:26 PM, mfbukowski said:

I don't have a metric for judging offensiveness 

But can you find another church which teaches our purpose in life is to become Gods, and claims that God himself is an embodied human? And that every person ever born can achieve this?

Best wishes 

Now your evading the question.

[kimpearson]

On 1/25/2022 at 3:15 PM, JLHPROF said:

I agree with much of what you say.
But I am trying to determine why the bolded section is phrased as if it's a problem?
If it's true then it's true.  If it offends others that doesn't need to be a concern.

Somewhere it seems like offending someone became the worst sin you can commit.  Christ offended people including other religions on a daily basis and remained without sin.

The logic that members of the Church use to say we are not putting anyone down and the arrogance that we have stating our exclusiveness as if it is a fact rather than a belief.  Every time someone says "I know the Church is true" they are not stating a fact.  They don't know unless God Himself appeared to them and told them this.  They are stating a feeling of strong belief based on personal experiences that can't be proven.  We need to acknowledge that it is our belief not knowledge.

Please cite where Christ offended a religion.  Religious leaders because of their wickedness in not following their own religion yes.   Righteous religious leaders were never offended.   Did he offend the religion of the Samaritans, no.  The Romans, no.  The Greeks, no.  Jesus never even testified of a religious organization being true.  Jesus was a jew and was a member of that religion until His death.  Jesus's testimony was of God the Father, Himself and the Holy Ghost and He authorized certain individuals to act in His name.  I am solely speaking of New Testament times.  In the Book of Mormon during Christ's appearance, all other religions had ceased to exist so He organized His Church but still never offended any other religions.

Edited January 26, 2022 by kimpearson

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Now your evading the question.

Not at all. That IS the answer. I am not a mind reader, and those were my factors for choosing ths church, intellectually, to answer the question if God made man or man made God.

I accept both of those statements as justifiable because God is human

I don't intend any offense, but one has to TAKE offense for it to be offensive.  

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by mfbukowski

[James 1 5]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

I will just reiterate, faithing and trusting are not about knowing any more than they are about hoping. Faith also isn't a feeling. It doesn't come with a sense of certainty - that is why it is deemed faith. Certainty involves a sort of ego fulfillment. It is about "I am" not about "God is." Again faith is not a feeling. God communicates to me through diligent study of the word and prayer. He does more than try!

I don't know who your "many people" are? Do you have anyone or groups in particular in mind? My concern is with people who get an understanding of God without reading scripture or praying. Welcome to the forum! We are a diverse group.

If you felt certain about any of your beliefs then I think you would feel as if you were on the right track, that you had a good idea, and if you were also certain that your sense of certainty was given to you by God, rather than your own ego, then you would likely say that certainty was what is also referred to as faith and feel certain that your faith was given to you by God..

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry, I don't see them as separate groups.

But then it seems that you prefer one over the other?

I too am sorry you don't, can't, or won't see them as separate groups. Do you prefer Catholicism or the LDS Church? I think I know the answer. Of course I prefer Evangelicalism over Fundamentalism. I grew up in a Fundamentalist environment. I can go back to that no more than you can go back to your Catholic roots. The differences between Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mainline non-LDS Christians are many and not very subtle.

You seem always interested in being accurate and precise in your posts. I am not sure I understand your reluctance, hesitance, or refusal to see Fundamentalists and Evangelicals as separate. I guess that is simply an LDS thing. Outside of MHA gatherings, I have rarely heard LDS folks acknowledge the differences between non-LDS Christians. Does insisting they are the same somehow affirm your LDS identity? I am trying to understand.

I hope you understand that Fundamentalists will by and large refuse or hesitate to fellowship with Evangelical groups. Evangelical groups will hesitate for sure with identifying with Fundamentalist groups, causes, and writings. Do you see a difference between James E. Talmadge and Robert Millet? Between Billy Graham or CS Lewis and John R Rice or Jerry Falwell in his early years? Getting personal do you see a difference between me and the fiery Fundamentalist pastor leading protests at your pageants, or between me and Walter Martin?

Do you see the LDS and the Community of Christ as separate groups?

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, James 1 5 said:

If you felt certain about any of your beliefs then I think you would feel as if you were on the right track, that you had a good idea, and if you were also certain that your sense of certainty was given to you by God, rather than your own ego, then you would likely say that certainty was what is also referred to as faith and feel certain that your faith was given to you by God..

Yep

Faith is ACTING on a belief, and why would one act without certainty that it was a good cause?

Even acting on say, global warming indicates certainty that it is "real"

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

guess that is simply an LDS thing.

I admit I have a problem with it because I have never encountered a person who labeled themselves as a fundamentalist, but rather they called themselves evangelicals…but according to you given their beliefs or actions that is not an accurate label. I am used to allowing people to label themselves according to how they want rather than my judgment, so it feels awkward not to on this case. 

[James 1 5]

21 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

The logic that members of the Church use to say we are not putting anyone down and the arrogance that we have stating our exclusiveness as if it is a fact rather than a belief.  Every time someone says "I know the Church is true" they are not stating a fact.  They don't know unless God Himself appeared to them and told them this.  They are stating a feeling of strong belief based on personal experiences that can't be proven.  We need to acknowledge that it is our belief not knowledge.

That is your opinion, kim, and you are entitled to it even though I believe it is wrong.  We can know things are true even if we have never seen them with our natural 5 senses.  I know atoms exist even though I have never seen one with my natural eyes.  And knowledge is not limited to only one definition of the word.  Many people often use the word knowledge to refer to what they are aware of and accept as truth.  Like how I know my wife doesn't like seafood.  You know what I mean?.

 

21 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Please cite where Christ offended a religion.  Religious leaders because of their wickedness in not following their own religion yes.   Righteous religious leaders were never offended.   Did he offend the religion of the Samaritans, no.  The Romans, no.  The Greeks, no.  Jesus never even testified of a religious organization being true.  Jesus was a jew and was a member of that religion until His death.  Jesus's testimony was of God the Father, Himself and the Holy Ghost and He authorized certain individuals to act in His name.  I am solely speaking of New Testament times.  In the Book of Mormon during Christ's appearance, all other religions had ceased to exist so He organized His Church but still never offended any other religions.

Have you ever read D&C 1?  How do you think most other churches feel about what Jesus said there?

[kimpearson]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I know that is what you believe.  My beliefs are naturally different.
My scripture teaches that Baptism is necessary to enter God's Kingdom.  My scripture teaches me that the ultimate heavenly blessings come only through the eternal marriage ordinance.  
And then there are other ordinances that we believe are in scripture that you do not.
It comes down to faith and testimony.  I don't doubt your testimony of Christ and that Christ will reward you for your faithfulness.  My scripture teaches me that all blessings are contingent on obedience to the connected law, not just on belief in Christ.

Do you not understand your own church doctrine?  Why would we ever look down on or judge another religion as being less than when your own doctrine teaches that every true believer in Jesus Christ will receive all the ordinances necessary for exaltation.  We also believe that everyone that truely had no idea who Jesus Christ was will also have that same blessing if their heart would have accepted Jesus if given the full opportunity in this life.  The temple takes care of ordinances for everyone.  You have no right under your own religion to infer that someone who wasn't baptized with the proper authorization or didn't enter into eternal marriage in this life will not receive all the heavenly blessings.  Last I checked we were doing temple work for everyone with no exception.

In my opinion, the best we members of the LDS Church can say is that we have access to priesthood authority in this life that everyone else will have at a later date.  Navidad is completely right that he can stand confidently before Jesus Christ and receive all of Christ's blessings without formally joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints if his heart and life are aligned with Jesus Christ.   Literally billions have been brought to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and lived good lives based on the teachings and practices of other religions.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I too am sorry you don't, can't, or won't see them as separate groups. Do you prefer Catholicism or the LDS Church? I think I know the answer. Of course I prefer Evangelicalism over Fundamentalism. I grew up in a Fundamentalist environment. I can go back to that no more than you can go back to your Catholic roots. The differences between Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mainline non-LDS Christians are many and not very subtle.

You seem always interested in being accurate and precise in your posts. I am not sure I understand your reluctance, hesitance, or refusal to see Fundamentalists and Evangelicals as separate. I guess that is simply an LDS thing. Outside of MHA gatherings, I have rarely heard LDS folks acknowledge the differences between non-LDS Christians. Does insisting they are the same somehow affirm your LDS identity? I am trying to understand.

I hope you understand that Fundamentalists will by and large refuse or hesitate to fellowship with Evangelical groups. Evangelical groups will hesitate for sure with identifying with Fundamentalist groups, causes, and writings. Do you see a difference between James E. Talmadge and Robert Millet? Between Billy Graham or CS Lewis and John R Rice or Jerry Falwell in his early years? Getting personal do you see a difference between me and the fiery Fundamentalist pastor leading protests at your pageants, or between me and Walter Martin?

Do you see the LDS and the Community of Christ as separate groups?

Yes I see that one group is " better" than another, and that for me LDS is the best.

But doesn't that contradict your view that no Christian groups are superior to another?

Why are you Evangelical rather than Fundamentalist? Is one better than the other or not?

Of course your views are "superior" imo to critics, but you maintain that all Christians are equal?

I will never understand you on this I think