Colorado Nightclub Shooter is a (Nominal) Member of the Church

[Calm]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm guessing they'll continue to be fine with my use of that phrase, because I've been using it around them for a year, and they seem to like it just fine.

If they are your friends or coworkers, they may take from you stuff they would find annoying or offensive from a stranger.  I call my daughter a pagan all the time, no problem.  If a Saint on the board started describing her as such, I can guarantee she would assume the person was being insulting.  And even if friends and acquaintances find something insulting, they may decide to let it pass because of the cost of beginning it up.

If you want to really know if it’s typical in the LGBT+ community to see that phrase as insulting or not, go to a group of strangers in the community and ask them.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Calm

[Stargazer]

It just occurred to me that Butch Cassidy was also a (nominal) member of the church, as was Ted Bundy. And both Hitler and Mussolini were (nominal) Catholics. I bet we can find plenty of examples of bad people with (nominal) faith adherence. And some who were more than nominal.

[LoudmouthMormon]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

If they are your friends or coworkers, they may take from you stuff they would find annoying or offensive from a stranger.  I call my daughter a pagan all the time, no problem.  If a Saint on the board started describing her as such, I can guarantee she would assume the person was being insulting.  And even if friends and acquaintances find something insulting, they may decide to let it pass because of the cost of beginning it up.

If you want to really know if it’s typical in the LGBT+ community to see that phrase as insulting or not, go to a group of strangers in the community and ask them.

Well, I just used the phrase in front of a random stranger (California Boy), who indicated a level of offense.   But no, neither CB nor any other single random stranger represents the "typical LGBT+" community.  (That's the fifth version of the acronym in recent posts, btw...)  Because, as CB mentioned earlier, "the LGBT community is not a monolith".   There is no such thing as "the LGBT+ community" (or, as CB calls it, the "queer community" or the "LGBT community" or the "LGBTQ community", depending on which post you're reading).  Yeah, there's GLAAD, and there's the AP style sheet, but there's also an endless tsunami of small-to-large organizations, groups, and govt agencies, all doing their best to use the correct acronym, with endless variations.  If CB gets to use what he wants, informed by his various sources and circles, so does everybody else.

For example, the government of British Columbia, says it's "2SLGBTQ+"  https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/gender-equity/lgbtq2splus.  I've heard the 'two spirit' stuff is an attempt to welcome indigenous peoples into the fold and help them feel acknowledged and safe.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, just last week, said it's 2STNBGD.  (two-spirit, transgender, non-binary and other gender-diverse)  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/children-and-youth-report-expanded-services-1.6885372 Focusing on gender instead of sxl orientation.  Ok - fine with me.

Honestly, humans-who-feel-it's-important-to-have-everyone-agree-on-what's-offensive-and-innoffensive-about-the-acronym, y'all seem to be sold on diversity and inclusion.  If there's a nonbinary or nonhetero notion or person out there, you seem to want to make sure your rainbow umbrella covers them.  I can't find a single thing wrong with that.  Go for it - help everyone feel included, help everyone feel safe.   But holy crap, maybe you could take a breath before you get offended when someone tries to find a catch-all phrase like 'alphabet community'?  Taking offense when none is intended doesn't make anyone better or stronger or more healthy or more inclusive.

Edited June 29, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

You either are going to call Aldrich a guy, or you think pronouns must be respected.  You can't do both and remain intellectually consistent. 

Can you?

Sure you can. Respecting genuine requests while filtering out the disingenuous ones to the best of one’s ability. Not sure how anyone can ask for more with a straight face. Obviously your mileage varies. 

[bsjkki]

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sure you can. Respecting genuine requests while filtering out the disingenuous ones to the best of one’s ability. Not sure how anyone can ask for more with a straight face. Obviously your mileage varies. 

Thank you. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

16 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

You either are going to call Aldrich a guy, or you think pronouns must be respected.  You can't do both and remain intellectually consistent. 

Can you?

Sure you can. Respecting genuine requests while filtering out the disingenuous ones to the best of one’s ability. Not sure how anyone can ask for more with a straight face. Obviously your mileage varies. 

Sweet!   SeekingUnderstanding tells me the rules of pronouns have changed!   Now it's "respect pronouns unless you think they're being disingenuous".  

I get to make a value judgment when someone tells me their pronouns, and if I suspect they are not acting totally above board, I'm free to just plain old steamroller over their request, and use the pronouns I figure apply to them.  And I'm not being transphobic, and I'm not making trans genocide a thing, and I'm not being an oppressor, or pushing trans kids into suicide. (Accusations I often hear leveled at people who don't respect pronouns.)

Does this also apply to the use of deadnames?

Also, if a feminine boy or a butch girl is being buried under the crushing weight of social pressure to accept and confirm their trans identity, does that qualify as disingenuousness somehow?  The kid doesn't know any better, but the folks providing the peer pressure and social forces might...

Edited June 29, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Sweet!   SeekingUnderstanding tells me the rules of pronouns have changed!   Now it's "respect them unless they're being disingenuous".  

I get to make a value judgment when someone tells me their pronouns, and if I suspect they are not above board, I'm free to just plain old steamroller over their request, and use the pronouns I figure apply to them.  

Does this also apply to the use of deadnames?

I think most of us are trying to be respectful in these kinds of conversations and doing the best we can, you and bsj included.  Exactly what that is going to look like is probably going to be a little different from person to person because we've all had different experiences with it.

It would have been better for CB to ask you why you used the term you did before accusing you of stuff, but we've all also made that mistake as well, and read or assumed bad intentions on the part of a poster that weren't actually there. 

We all need mercy sometimes from each other, and we all should be willing to extend mercy to others as well.  These last few posts are a good example of that.

[LoudmouthMormon]

This topic is so incredibly (and, I've found, violently) divisive, so new, with so many folks who don't know what to think.  I honestly can't tell if @bluebell is sending appreciations my way for being one of the merciful posts, or gently trying to call me in to stop what I'm doing and start being respectful and generous.

All I can do is be transparent.  I've eagerly tried to learn "the rules", the new language, the new principles and beliefs as they form, change, morph, and form again.  In all genuine love, I honestly can't tell what people think, or are supposed to think, about accepting someone's pronouns.  In honest, blunt transparency, I've lost count of all the times I've personally witnessed accusations of genocide and oppression and bigotry, and endless invitations to unalive onesself, when someone randomly doesn't respect pronouns, or respects them differently, or tries to take a principled stand.   

So yeah, as I see bsjkki and SeekingUnderstanding working through things with me, I'm genuinely excited to hear, for the first time ever, people explicitly state that there can/should be exceptions to honoring someone's expressed pronouns.  

You don't have to respect someone's pronouns if you think they're being disingenuous.  

It sounds fine to me.   I'd love to hear CaliforniaBoy weigh in on the proposition.   My questions remain:

Does this also apply to the use of deadnames?

Also, if a feminine boy or a butch girl is being buried under the crushing weight of social pressure to accept and confirm their trans identity, does that qualify as disingenuousness somehow?  The kid doesn't know any better, but the folks providing the peer pressure and social forces might...

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I've eagerly tried to learn "the rules", the new language, the new principles and beliefs as they form, change, morph, and form again. 

Maybe you should stopped looking at these aspects of communication as “rules” that have some sort of enduring existence and instead look at the differences as languages.  People tend to appreciate it if you try and learn their language even if you make mistakes at times.  What they don’t appreciate in my experience is being told what a sacrifice one is making or how hard or complicated it is or how great it is you are doing this for them.  
 

And it is important to remember that language evolves and not get hung up on the changes.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

So yeah, as I see bsjkki and SeekingUnderstanding working through things with me, I'm genuinely excited to hear, for the first time ever, people explicitly state that there can/should be exceptions to honoring someone's expressed pronouns.  

You don't have to respect someone's pronouns if you think they're being disingenuous.  

This is a rare, extreme case where there are significant legal implications for accepting the person’s claims and there were likely experts involved in actually investigating whether or not he was sincere.  In similar cases where harm may occur to others, I think it a very good idea to investigate that the request is consistent with their past and current behaviour.  In cases where there is likely no risk of significant harm, then why not go the civil route and use new pronouns or names without making a big deal about it.

[LoudmouthMormon]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

7 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

You don't have to respect someone's pronouns if you think they're being disingenuous.  

This is a rare, extreme case where there are significant legal implications for accepting the person’s claims and there were likely experts involved in actually investigating whether or not he was sincere.

Oof.  A proposed modification to Seeking's claim, which had been agreed to by bsjkki.  But I can't really tell what the claim is.  Let me attempt to rephrase, and Calm can tell me if I'm on the right track.

You pretty much always have to respect someone's pronouns, except for rare, extreme cases that carry legal implications, and experts investigate and judge the person's sincerity.

How'd I do Calm?

Assuming I did ok, let's test it with a hypothetical.  (This hypothetical isn't hypothetical, it's literally happening with thousands of girls, perhaps tens of thousands, across the country and the world.)

Your 14 yr old daughter has had confusion and stress about such things ever since puberty.  Feeling she can't trust her parents, she goes online, and spends 2 weeks on Reddit and Discord and Twitter and TikTok learning and talking with people on the subject.  The overwhelming, defening consensus, with only a few bitter hateful voices in opposition, is that she's trans, she's a man living in a woman's body, and she needs to affirm her gender and transition.  She is convinced by the almost unanimous peer pressure, and changes her pronouns to he/them.

According to Calm, the parents, schools, church, her friends, everyone, must respect her pronouns.  There's no legal implication, and no expert has investigated, and we can all tell there's not a single disingenuous bone in her young barely-teen body.

So, how do we feel about Calm's modification?  (Assuming I'm paraphrasing it correctly.  Calm, please clarify if I haven't, and I'll try again.)

 

6 hours ago, Calm said:

And it is important to remember that language evolves and not get hung up on the changes.

Heh.  Yeah, give me your definition of the word "woman", and let's see whether it's worth getting hung up on or not.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

definition of the word "woman", and let's see whether it's worth getting hung up on or not.

What’s your definition of the term?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Sweet!   SeekingUnderstanding tells me the rules of pronouns have changed!   Now it's "respect pronouns unless you think they're being disingenuous".  

I get to make a value judgment when someone tells me their pronouns, and if I suspect they are not acting totally above board, I'm free to just plain old steamroller over their request, and use the pronouns I figure apply to them.  And I'm not being transphobic, and I'm not making trans genocide a thing, and I'm not being an oppressor, or pushing trans kids into suicide. (Accusations I often hear leveled at people who don't respect pronouns.)

Does this also apply to the use of deadnames?

Also, if a feminine boy or a butch girl is being buried under the crushing weight of social pressure to accept and confirm their trans identity, does that qualify as disingenuousness somehow?  The kid doesn't know any better, but the folks providing the peer pressure and social forces might...

What do the actions of third parties have to do with it? In a similar debate, @Scott Lloyd demanded to be called “his royal lordship” or some such nonsense. In determining whether his request was genuine, I merely need to determine if this is something he really prefers, or if it’s his cute way to score internet points for his team. I’m willing to bet a large sum of money on the latter. 
 

If on the other hand my believing parents, or my neighbors children ask to be called Latter-day Saints instead of Mormons after Nelson’s talk, I don’t need to consider the enormous peer pressure put on them to make this request. I can see that they genuinely want it. 
 

It’s not some difficult calculus. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[california boy]

On 6/28/2023 at 4:29 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Please believe me when I state I meant no disrespect.  

Please also believe me when I have personally, directly, and I'm not making this up, been asked to use 4 different variations on the acronym.  One of them, a leader in the Diversity Allies group of which I'm a member, found the "A" to be offensive, (LGBTQIA and LGBTQIA+, etc.)  I was told the A stood for "ally", and was offensive because it represented cis colonization of the acronym.   I didn't think it was my place to correct this queer-identifying individual (sorry, I'm not sure of the preferred pronouns), that I had learned previously from the LGBTQIA+ group, that they liked the A, and were totally comfortable with it either standing for 'ally' or 'asexual'. 

I honestly haven't heard LGBT since the late 2010's.  Not since the Q-slur gained widespread reclamation.  I mean, good for y'all.  "Mormon" is a reclaimed slur too.  

Anyway, it may seem like I'm being facetious or sarcastic or dismissive here, but honestly, I'm not.  I've put in a lot of effort in the last three years to expand my cultural understanding, and I've learned what could be termed several 'dialects' of English spoken by LGBTQ folk, allies, millennials, progressives, and even a few who are still ok with the term 'woke'.

So please understand that I've done my homework when I point out that this:

and this:

Cannot both be said by the same person unproblematically.  One contradicts the other.  I'm not summoning @bsjkki to answer for the discrepancy, but I am pointing out as folks who aren't me go about changing language, sometimes they're doing it in confusing, contradictory, and problematic ways. 

I will take you at your word that you weren’t being snarky by referring to the LGBTQ community as the alphabet crowd.  But despite that, it came across that way. 
 

Maybe consider this as a similar analogy.  What people call fathers is also not a monolithic consensus.  Some are called dad, father, pappy, pops, pa, even the old man   Some fathers would consider some of those names disrespectful. Others would not.  But this is the point  Some are safer to use than others.  Calling someone father would probably not offend anyone. Calling someone a breeder would probably offend a LOT of fathers.  Even if technically that is a true and accurate title  Still there are some who would be ok with that, like within friends maybe where it is meant in a more teasing context

I hope you can see why I called you out on a message board for using the term alphabet crowd   While all the other examples you gave wouldn’t be offensive to just about anyone even if they prefer another title, alphabet crowd is probably the most likely term to be offensive, even if that wasn’t your intention  If you are trying to use a respectful title, stick with something that most people would not be offended by  LGBT or LGBTQ is more like father even though more newanced names might be preferred by some 

I hope that gives you a better perspective 

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

This topic is so incredibly (and, I've found, violently) divisive, so new, with so many folks who don't know what to think.  I honestly can't tell if @bluebell is sending appreciations my way for being one of the merciful posts, or gently trying to call me in to stop what I'm doing and start being respectful and generous.

All I can do is be transparent.  I've eagerly tried to learn "the rules", the new language, the new principles and beliefs as they form, change, morph, and form again.  In all genuine love, I honestly can't tell what people think, or are supposed to think, about accepting someone's pronouns.  In honest, blunt transparency, I've lost count of all the times I've personally witnessed accusations of genocide and oppression and bigotry, and endless invitations to unalive onesself, when someone randomly doesn't respect pronouns, or respects them differently, or tries to take a principled stand.   

So yeah, as I see bsjkki and SeekingUnderstanding working through things with me, I'm genuinely excited to hear, for the first time ever, people explicitly state that there can/should be exceptions to honoring someone's expressed pronouns.  

You don't have to respect someone's pronouns if you think they're being disingenuous.  

It sounds fine to me.   I'd love to hear CaliforniaBoy weigh in on the proposition.   My questions remain:

Does this also apply to the use of deadnames?

Also, if a feminine boy or a butch girl is being buried under the crushing weight of social pressure to accept and confirm their trans identity, does that qualify as disingenuousness somehow?  The kid doesn't know any better, but the folks providing the peer pressure and social forces might...

 

I was just expressing that no one was in the wrong and there didn’t seem to be any reason to keep hashing it out blow by blow. 😊

[LoudmouthMormon]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

9 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

definition of the word "woman", and let's see whether it's worth getting hung up on or not.

What’s your definition of the term?

Adult human female.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Adult human female.

And what is a female?

[LoudmouthMormon]

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And what is a female?

*** for tat Clarice.  How do you define woman?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

*** for tat Clarice.  How do you define woman?

I’m not the one claiming it’s easy. But if you can’t, that’s fine. 
 

Edited to add, I’m in line with Dan McClellan on dictionaries and definitions:

Quote

Dictionaries do not establish or adjudicate meaning, they chase after usage and try to reduce words and concepts to necessary and sufficient features, which is frequently distorting, as meaning is almost never built on such features. Think of the word “furniture,” as an example. You probably know precisely what furniture means, but almost all native English speakers have never had to look it up in a dictionary in order to learn what it means, and if asked, couldn’t give anything approximating a useful definition of the word. Look it up in the dictionary and you’ll also find a definition that isn’t very helpful, because in trying to reduce the concept to the shortest list of necessary and sufficient features, it ended up roping lots of things in to the category that are never referred to as “furniture.” You know what furniture is because of all of your years of experience seeing and hearing what kinds of things are referred to as furniture, not because there is some inherent meaning inhabiting the word that magically inserts units of meaning into your brain. If you had lived your whole life seeing people refer to pens and wires as “furniture,” the meaning you would conjure up in your head would have nothing to do with the meaning intended by a signer/speaker/writer. That’s because words do not have meaning, they are just conventionalized indices for meaning that index unique and subjective suites of meanings for every mind that interprets them.

https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2020/04/25/no-words-do-not-have-meaning/

Edited July 1, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[LoudmouthMormon]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m not the one claiming it’s easy. But if you can’t, that’s fine. 

I never claimed anything of the sort.  And I never mentioned a dictionary.  And in the last 3 years, Dan seems to have updated his discussion on dictionaries to include stuff like "dictionaries only serve to enforce and preserve power structures".  No link, I just hear him saying stuff like that on his TikToks.

Anyway, I see you refusing to answer the question.  I'm not willing in this thread to discuss what a woman is with folks who decline to provide a definition, reply with multiple strawmen misrepresenting my statements, and aren't up to date on what Dan says about dictionaries.  I stand with the growing numbers in various LGBTQ+ communities who agree with the definition I've provided.  (In full honest transparence, I had never thought about the definition until I heard it defined in those words by queer folk who were mad at trans radical folk).   Every time I look, there's another new website, another new Twitter group account, another dozen stories from formerly trans folks who are speaking out against the radical trans gender homophobia they've personally encountered:

https://www.detransalliancecanada.com/
https://genspect.org/detransitioner-resources/
https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/about
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2022/06/15/whats-current-lesbians-united-fights-back-against-gender-ideology-homophobia-with-save-the-tomboys-campaign/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/lgb-community-divorcing-themselves-from-the-tqplus-community/ar-AA1aUO3B

Have a great Independence Day weekend!  #SaveTheTomboys!

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I never claimed anything of the sort. 

My apologies then. Every person I’ve seen previously ask the question, does so in a gotcha sense and then acts like it’s easy to define. So you think it’s difficult then?

21 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

And I never mentioned a dictionary.  And in the last 3 years, Dan seems to have updated his discussion on dictionaries to include stuff like "dictionaries only serve to enforce and preserve power structures".  No link, I just hear him saying stuff like that on his TikToks.

There is no daylight between Dans position then and his position now. A good example of this would be main stream Christian leaders attempting to use their definition of Christian to exclude Latter-day Saints. 

21 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Anyway, I see you refusing to answer the question. 
 

Not at all. I’m pointing out that words don’t work that way with bright sharp boundaries (outside of mathematics and maybe formal logic). Each word means slightly different things to different users, and each category has fuzzy boundaries. 
 

Take your definition essentially equating woman with female. This is either circular, since the two words are often used synonymously, or really odd to me if you are using female in the scientific sense (which is based solely on the relative size of one’s gametes). I can tell you that not once in my 45 years of life have I ever used “Woman” while thinking of gamete size. Maybe you meant something else? I’ll never know since *you refuse to define. 

21 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

I'm not willing in this thread to discuss what a woman is with folks who decline to provide a definition, reply with multiple strawmen misrepresenting my statements, and aren't up to date on what Dan says about dictionaries. 

On the first My apologies on misrepresenting your position. Two, you have declined to provide a definition when asked for elaboration (what does female mean) - so  physician heal thyself. And three I’m very aware of Dan’s TikToks on  dictionary’s, and I’m a huge fan.  There is no daylight between his position then and now.

21 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

folks who decline to provide a definition

Honestly this whole definition red herring is simply laughable. I mean biologists (who study life for a living) can’t agree on a definition of the word “life” for crying out loud. 
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2019/03/27/what-is-life/?sh=5d4f3bcf1c77

If life is undefinable, by experts in life no less, why is it surprising that other categories are difficult to define?

Edited July 2, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Stargazer]

On 6/28/2023 at 6:25 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A couple of things. We know very little about Christs life. There are no surviving first hand accounts, and the accounts recorded in the Bible do not speak with univocality. 

Yes, we know very little about his mortal life. So what?

But we do know the mind and will of the Lord as expressed in our day through the Prophet Joseph Smith and the revelations which have come down to us as the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The teachings in these works coincide remarkably well with those found in the New Testament. And whether we know that Jesus liked his eggs scrambled or sunny-side up is remarkably unimportant. 

Yes, I know that you doubt that Jesus was the Son of God, and all that went along with it. You're entitled to believe that.

On 6/28/2023 at 6:25 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That said, Jesus - according to the Bible - absolutely condoned sin. Sin as defined by the religious leaders of his day. He healed on the sabbath and broke sabbath day laws in other ways. So just because you call something sin does not make it so. 

If you want to say that Jesus condoned some of what the Pharisees and their ilk had elevated to "sin status", but were not sins, then you are absolutely correct. That the Pharisees had taken observance of the Law of Moses into the realms of the absurd is without question. And it continues to this day among the Orthodox Jews. 

Just for illustration, check out the modern עירוב as described here: Why There's a Single, Tiny Wire Encircling Manhattan

Yes, Jesus healed on the sabbath, and broke supposed sabbath day laws in other ways, but the laws that the Pharisees were complaining about were the special extensions of the Law of Moses that they had developed in countless discussions over the centuries. Do you know that to maintain kosher you must have two sets of cooking utensils? One used for preparing foods containing milk products, and another used for preparing foods containing meat products. Did Moses come up with this? Nope. Some rabbi or convocation of rabbis came up with it. 

And yes, just because *I* call something a sin doesn't make it a sin. You're absolutely right.

Breaking any of the Ten Commandments is a sin. That's incontrovertible. But if you don't believe in the concept of sin, or feel that the Ten Commandments is a quaint holdover from a pastoral, nomadic time, and nothing more, then that's all it is. Did Jesus condone breaking those commandments? No, he did not. 

On 6/28/2023 at 6:25 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A final point, there was one group Jesus condemned above all others. A group that called others sinners. A group that thought they spoke for God. That was the group Jesus did not hang out with and condemned ruthlessly. 

If you feel the New Testament is so unreliable that we cannot know anything about the life of Jesus, how can you say any of this? If the NT is to be doubted because of equivocality, then asserting anything at all about Jesus is a crapshoot. Why do you even bother?

Aside from the opportunity to present to us the Gospel according to SeekingUnderstanding, that is -- or in other words, the philosophy of SeekingUnderstanding mingled with scripture.  

But, just for the sake of argument, let's say that the NT is reliable enough for our purposes here.

Then, contrary to your assertion, as the Gospels indicated, he hung out with anyone who would hang out with him, even the ones calling others sinners. And he called all of them to repentance, assuring them forgiveness if they did so. So by calling all to repentance, by implication he called everyone a sinner. All of them. 

As to whom he condemned, if you read the Gospels with precision you will note that the only group that Jesus condemned was the hypocrites. 

When the unnamed woman written of in Luke 7 came to the house of a Pharisee named Simon while Jesus was eating dinner there (see? he was hanging out with a man who was a member of a group who called others sinners!), he indicated that she was a great sinner, but because of her love, her sins were forgiven. Jesus calling someone a sinner? Doesn't that make Jesus part of that group of people who think they speak for God and calls others sinners? 

The point is, we are all sinners -- something made very clear in the NT -- and in need of repentance and forgiveness. I can call you a sinner and be completely accurate, because you are a sinner. It takes one to know one, as the saying goes, for I am a sinner also. I know my sins, but what are yours? Aside from saying I know you have some, I shall not say further. Your sins are your business and your repentance is likewise entirely up to you. Do it or do not, as Yoda said, though trying is still entirely reasonable.

I'm still trying to repent, after all these years. God grant that I may end this life having repented sufficiently. Eternal progression and all that.

 

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Stargazer

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Just for illustration, check out the modern עירוב as described here: Why There's a Single, Tiny Wire Encircling Manhattan

Very interesting.