Actually, I have always agreed that "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" is
trite, and have never really cared for the statement myself, but I thought
it somehow worked for the effect I was going for. Maybe not so much...
Yes, it does matter how a person lives. I probably share the same dislike
of hypocrites that everyone else here has, but that has no baring on an
argument. As an example, I could argue for or against abortion, and it
doesn't matter whether you know how I personally feel on the issue. What
matters in a logical debate is my argument. That is why the Devil's
Advocate exists, to make arguments that don't necessarily match up with the
arguer's personal beliefs.
And while the medium can effect how the message is taken, the message
ideally should be viewed on its own merits. Thomas Jefferson supposedly
believed that all men should be free, although he didn't release his slaves
until his deathbed (I am not a historian, so I will not state this as
anything but a story at this moment) If this were the case, does it make
his beliefs about men being free wrong, or does it just make him a
hypocrite? Time seems to indicate the latter. To view the message based on
it's presenter would be a mistake.
And I don't disagree with calling a person on the wrongs they have
committed. That is actually a separate argument. I in no way am defending
Mike Warnke. As a matter of fact, I was planning on reading a bit more
about him before thinking anything about him one way or the other. The
basics I have heard sound like they would be definitely 'wrongs' - lying
about the Satanism thing and the money issues. My only statement here is
that regardless of how he personally lived, was his message wrong? If his
message had been 'live a good life like I do' and he committed these acts,
then that would be wrong. But if he was teaching things like the 'golden
rule' and 'live a life of charity', then you have to judge whether his words
were wrong or not. Man has weaknesses. Some more than others. If he was
trying to have others live by his example, than his life would be his
argument, but otherwise you must take his words and argue their merit.
Post by bananamuncher9
The only problem with this is that it shouldn't
matter what kind of life the person lives, only whether their argument
Well, sort of. How about saying it this way... "The
validity of a person's arguments can not be judged
solely by their lifestyle."?
Because it DOES matter how a person lives - but that
may or may not affect the validity of their argument.
Their lifestyle, of course, may undermine what they
are teaching/arguing (the gentleman in question, Mike
Warnke, comes to mind)...
Post by bananamuncher9
long as his
argument is sound, it shouldn't matter that he
believe a word he is saying.
While in a logical sense, I understand the "truth" of
your statement, I don't think you'll find it playing
out easily in real life. Marshall McLuhan said of
television that "the medium is the message" - which, I
think, applies here. The medium (the person speaking)
definitely affects the perception of the message.
Post by bananamuncher9
There is a saying I heard somewhere which is popular
some: "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin". On a similar
should "Analize the Message, not the Messenger."
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a trite way to get
across a very important truth - people's actions do
not necessarily define their destinies. As a follower
of Christ, my job is to hate sin, because it's
destructive to the person committing it and the people
around them. I love them, because God is love. I never
forget that I'm one of them, too - a sinner. Someone
who screws up and causes pain & anguish. I need the
Of course, the reference I made that started all this
to Mike Warnke refers not simply to a man who taught
the basic truths of an evangelical Christian faith
(which he did) but also claimed things about his life
(being a Satanic priest with numerous followers) and
ministry (monies being used to feather his own nest
were supposedly "for the kids") that were patently
untrue. And, as all good con men do, he mixed the true
stuff (the basics of the Christian faith) with the
false stuff (the stories of his life) to create an
easy-to-swallow "sale" of faith in Jesus.
If it was simply about evangelical Christians fussing
at each other, I wouldn't have even brought it up here
in the pub. (As one who is solidly 'evangelical', I
don't mean that term in a perjorative sense.) However,
Mike's "story" of the inside workings of Satanism had
a profound affect on theories about MPD's (Multiple
Personality Disorders) & recovered memories, police
work involving occultic elements, and so on. Much of
what Mike said was taken as "the inside scoop" on
Satanic beliefs & practices by the church, the media &
the law enforcement community, when it was actually an
elaborate con. The insidious poision of his lies still
color discussion on these subjects inside & outside
Look, I know this is a whole lot deeper than we
normally get in here - and if you've read this far,
thanks. Mike Warnke's "exposure" back in '92 was hard
for me, as I'd listened to his records and used some
of his stuff in working with teenagers. I felt duped.
I was angry. Ticked at the game-playing, yes, but
moreover I was ticked at being played. Angry that my
own discernment hadn't caught on to the guy.
And I was thankful - thankful that there were folks
who would do the research and print the story, even
though they would get flack from those who believe
that "judge not lest you be judged" is a blanket that
covers all behaviors. (For the record, and going WAY
deeper than I intended, "judging" is not the same
thing as "confronting". In other words, I am NEVER to
dismiss Mike Warnke as a person - he has the
potential, like every one of us, to be someone
different than he is right now. But I am clearly "in
bounds" when I call him on the wrong things that he's
doing... when I call them 'sin'.)
1 Corinthians 5:12 (Living) It isn't our job to
judge outsiders. But it certainly is our job to judge
and deal strongly with those who are members of the
church and who are sinning in these ways.
Finally, for those of you who missed it, the link to
what I'm yammering on & on about:
Thanks for your patience... I'm not sure what's got
into me today - probably a combination of "what I
believe & hold dear" and the "I don't get to go to
Gulf Games" blues.
aka fluff daddy
Sarah's Personal Bookmark:
Yahoo! Groups Links