hate the sin, love the sinner

[Gemini]

Neither,  I find that love (much like morality) is more about attitude, than any action. Hate would be the opposite of love.   I don't believe that one fighting in war, need to hate the enemy, even though they are trying to kill them.   Nor do I think that a judge must hate the one they are sentencing.  While we may normally remove a judge with a close relationship to the one being tried for various reasons.   If a judge was to give a harsh sentence to his child because he is honorable, and it is what is just. I wouldn't conclude, that he doesn't love his child.   Neither do I wish ill upon those who I find it difficult to have an amicable relationship.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" Attitude without action is meaningless. 

You are not fighting a war against atheists or LGBT people. We are not threatening your life or anything in it. Nor are you in a position to judge us, within the moral context of your own belief system.

[RoadRunner79]

Neither,  I find that love (much like morality) is more about attitude, than any action. Hate would be the opposite of love.   I don't believe that one fighting in war, need to hate the enemy, even though they are trying to kill them.   Nor do I think that a judge must hate the one they are sentencing.  While we may normally remove a judge with a close relationship to the one being tried for various reasons.   If a judge was to give a harsh sentence to his child because he is honorable, and it is what is just. I wouldn't conclude, that he doesn't love his child.   Neither do I wish ill upon those who I find it difficult to have an amicable relationship.

If the judge made up an arbitrary rule "because he said so" and sent that child to the torture dungeon, I'd certainly say he was an immoral tyrant who did not love that child. Anyone who dedicated their lives to that judge would also be guilty of not loving that child.

So then, if the child was wicked, then you would agree with what I had said previously?

[Jesster]

If the judge made up an arbitrary rule "because he said so" and sent that child to the torture dungeon, I'd certainly say he was an immoral tyrant who did not love that child. Anyone who dedicated their lives to that judge would also be guilty of not loving that child.

So then, if the child was wicked, then you would agree with what I had said previously?

Wicked according to the judge "because he said so"? No. I would not agree with you. The judge would have to give actual reasoning instead of just personal doctrine.

I will point this back at Christians though to stay more accurately on topic. You are following this personal doctrine without asking questions. This is far from love.

[Alex K]

IF the child was wicked? What is this, the 18th century?

[RoadRunner79]

Neither,  I find that love (much like morality) is more about attitude, than any action. Hate would be the opposite of love.   I don't believe that one fighting in war, need to hate the enemy, even though they are trying to kill them.   Nor do I think that a judge must hate the one they are sentencing.  While we may normally remove a judge with a close relationship to the one being tried for various reasons.   If a judge was to give a harsh sentence to his child because he is honorable, and it is what is just. I wouldn't conclude, that he doesn't love his child.   Neither do I wish ill upon those who I find it difficult to have an amicable relationship.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" Attitude without action is meaningless. 

I'd agree, that action will follow the true attitude!

You are not fighting a war against atheists or LGBT people. We are not threatening your life or anything in it. Nor are you in a position to judge us, within the moral context of your own belief system.

I think that there is a misunderstanding here. I'm just talking about the OP which was general, although the principles do flow to the specific. I think that you may be trying to read too much into my analogy (although if I am mistaken... I apologize).

[RoadRunner79]

So then, if the child was wicked, then you would agree with what I had said previously?

Wicked according to the judge "because he said so"? No. I would not agree with you. The judge would have to give actual reasoning instead of just personal doctrine.

I will point this back at Christians though to stay more accurately on topic. You are following this personal doctrine without asking questions. This is far from love.

LOL.... I'll try that, if I ever end up in court!

[Cyberman]

IF the child was wicked? What is this, the 18th century?

Nah man, 'e's like well wicked, innit?

[Jesster]

Wicked according to the judge "because he said so"? No. I would not agree with you. The judge would have to give actual reasoning instead of just personal doctrine.

I will point this back at Christians though to stay more accurately on topic. You are following this personal doctrine without asking questions. This is far from love.

LOL.... I'll try that, if I ever end up in court!

So you're just going to ignore the reasoning behind that then.

Respectable laws are spelled out and put in place based on reasonable discussion about reality. Law makers do not just throw laws in place "because they said so" unless they are immoral tyrants. A judge rules in a court based on these laws that have been set up before-hand. In a lengthy court case that requires further discussion, evidence is provided to create a decision.

This is very much unlike what you have set up. There's no reasoning. There's only "because I said so" decisions. And then there's you just taking his word for it.

And then you claim to love me. Fuck off.

I'm surprised I had to spell that out for you.

[Joods]

A judge rules in a court based on these laws that have been set up before-hand. In a lengthy court case that requires further discussion, evidence is provided to create a decision.

Not always. Many times they completely ignore what laws there are and they just do what they want. I can attest to this.

[Jesster]

A judge rules in a court based on these laws that have been set up before-hand. In a lengthy court case that requires further discussion, evidence is provided to create a decision.

Not always. Many times they completely ignore what laws there are and they just do what they want. I can attest to this.

Sure. And when they ignore the law to punish people unjustly, anyone who argues in support of that judge is just as wrong.

And thanks for getting me to clarify that. The world is certainly not perfect. Christians try to claim their god is though. Lol.