Would it be right to complain to someone singing for the lor

[alon]

Mar 30, 2019 10:00:18 GMT -8 mystic said:

Yes my situation is definitely not normal and way too much going on to keep track of.

No, I am not adding words to scripture, just wondering whether it's the person or act that is an abomination because Christians say "hate the sin, not the sinner". i had alway thought those were Christ's words but researching this now, I am not finding any scripture for it. I did come across this:

plainsimplefaith.com/the-bible-doesnt-say-love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin-the-defense-series/

which states:

Likewise, Christians are to hate what God hates (i.e. sin), and love what God loves (i.e. our fellow man). The phrase, “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” merely serves as a reminder that we are to love others while at the same time hating the sin they practice.

So that is confusing me for as in this case, if I am to follow that advice then I cannot evict these tenants?

I too am having a difficult time following what is going on, as each time advice is given you give new insight to counter it. But here is the bottom line:

Whose ever signature is on the rental agreement is the one responsible for what happens in that apartment. They are the one who will get the eviction notice if it comes to that. And I do hope you have a signed rental agreement in place, otherwise things can get a bit tricky depending on the laws of your state. 

Your threat of eviction may be what they need to get rid of this couple who seem to be the source of the trouble, so giving notice of impending action may be a help to the tenant as well.

The saying "Hate the sin, love the sinner" takes several forms, including "hate the sin, NOT the sinner," which to me is a bit closer to biblical truth. But it is just a saying, not scripture. And as I said before, nowhere in scripture are God's people told to be dishwrags to be wrung out by the ungodly. In fact, just the opposite; scripture is full of exaples where His people are commanded to take care of business, up to and including killing the ones causing them strife. But it also speaks of moderation, so I am not saying kill them. Call the police if they are fighting or threatening. And if they couple causing the problem has stayed far past what would be a visit, and are in fact living there, give notice that if they are not gone in X number of days a notice of eviction will be issued to the person whose name is on the rental agreement. Make sure the number of days you give them is in accordance with the laws of your state.

If in the meantime they leave anyhow, problem solved, right? Meantime I'd make sure the tenant knows you do not want to see them back because they are disruptive and are not respectful of the rental agreement.

If they comply and if the tenant is paying the rent then you cannot evict. You possibly could raise the rent so she couldn't afford it, however that is the point whee I'd say being a believer obligates you to treat her fairly. So I'd only advocate that if she continued to cause you problems in other ways.

Dan C

[alon]

Proverbs 6:16-19 (KJV)
These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
Proverbs 6:16-19 King James Version (KJV)
These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

First let's look at one thing that seems to be confusing you in all this, and that is the Christian falacy that says "God does not hate." Clearly He does. "Well, He only hates sin, not the sinner." This passage clearly speaks of the one sinning, i.e. the person. "Well, hate in the Bible doesn't mean hate, just He dislikes it." Sometimes that is true, but not always. And when people state it as an absolute, which Christians are fond of doing, it is a lie. That they may believe it themselves is immaterial. They have bought into a lie and are perpetuating it when they tell it to you. The terms used here:

hate- שָׂנֵא sânêʼ, saw-nay'; to hate (personally):—enemy, foe, (be) hate(-ful, -r), odious, × utterly.

abomination- תּוֹעֵבַה tôwʻêbah, to-ay-baw'; or תֹּעֵבַה tôʻêbah; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:—abominable (custom, thing), abomination.

So God does hate, and here it is personal. And it gets more personal as the passage continues, until it says He hates the false witness:

false- שֶׁקֶר sheqer, sheh'-ker; from H8266; an untruth; by implication, a sham (often adverbial):—without a cause, deceit(-ful), false(-hood, -ly), feignedly, liar, lie, lying, vain (thing), wrongfully.

witness- עֵד ʻêd, ayd; concretely, a witness; abstractly, testimony; specifically, a recorder, i.e. prince:—witness.

Thos indicate the person as well as the sin. But most telling, especially in your own question:

discord- מְדָן mᵉdân, med-awn'; a form of H4066:—discord, strife.

And it clearly says it is the one sowing this strife that He hates:

Proverbs 6:19 (ESV) a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

It is absolutely clear here God hates the person sowing strife. Not those who deal with the strife and the person sowing it, but that person responsible for the strife themself. 

Again I will say it: you need to quit watching these Christian TV evangelists who only lie and confuse you. This kind of Christian doctrine that we always must love the sinner because God loves the sinner is just that, a lie. One born mostly of ignorance, but one people who should know better perpetuate willingly and gladly because it generates the donations that support their lifestyle. Read the passage you quoted for yourself without the blinders put on you by false teachers, and here it clearly states that God hates the person responsible for the strife.

Dan C

Note: I know the above sounds "anti-Christian." But it is not. Even most Christians hate these TV evangelists. And they hate it when they are lied to. Many I have talked with love it when I point out this kind of inconsistency with what they are often taught and what scripture actually says. They still won't give up their Christmas ham and trees and presents and just the wonderful season they are used to. So not every lie is well received. But lies like this they tend to like being pointed out for the most part. Therefore I do not view it as ati-Christian to point out that for the most part Christianity has lied to them (and you) here.

[mystic]

Mar 30, 2019 11:02:09 GMT -8 alon said:

The saying "Hate the sin, love the sinner" takes several forms, including "hate the sin, NOT the sinner," which to me is a bit closer to biblical truth. But it is just a saying, not scripture. 
Dan C

The advice on the tenant situation is noted, thanks. I think the visitors left yesterday as planned. As for "lease agreement", here in NY a judge will give tenants up to 6 months rent free living to find a place with or without a lease. We've had to evict 2 times in the past so we know the process.

When I became born again 5 years ago, at that time I had joined a few online Christian forums and had found a mentor who had helped me in the same way you guys do here. However, our relationship got strained last year when she kept telling me i always have to "walk in love" as Jesus commanded but I had pointed out to her that even Jesus had  his breaking point and had displayed anger a few times and had also said to rebuke but not commit sin. 

Another thing is that most Christians who say to walk in love at all times are not continuously getting kicked in the shin by people so it's easy to say this, that or the other scripture when you are not in some people's situation.  

[Elizabeth]

Just to clarify, Yeshua didn't and doesn't have a "breaking point". We do, and when we go past it, we act out of self and therefore we sin.     
  
The anger Yeshua displayed was righteous and produced righteousness as He is G-d. He acted to protect people and the sanctity of G-d, not just vent His feelings and frustrations because He let evil push Him too far. Our displays of anger NEVER produce righteousness. But there must be times people can act in His anger and righteousness in His Spitit, and I think these times seem like anger losing it to us because we don't get it. I'm thinking of such example as Phineas, Moses, Aaron and the Levites.  
  
Here's what I find fearful thinking about those examples. We are told the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of G-d, (James 1:20) yet these men were considered righteous ...... so then they must not have been angry when they killed.

That's scary because we think only evil can do that, be in control and unemotionally act to kill. We call it cold-blooded, but there must be a holy opposite side of the spectrum to this disturbing behavior based on these examples and future prophecy.  We're not prepared for it because we don't understand G-d's love.

G-d will destroy, and He will be very deliberate in His destruction because there's no life in sin.  All that emotional love and heartfelt approach Christianity teaches us, (what I hear in your statements about her advice) is basically incomplete.

This is an example of a place you're seeing the effects of having no regard for ; incomplete picture of G-d's character and an almost arrogant lack of understanding.  Yes G-d loves, but He will manage what He's created for the sake of that love. How many of us would kill for our kids, and how many of us would have absolutely zero regrets, and isn't that love? G-d will kill for His kids, and He won't feel bad about it. He has that right anyway because we are His creation to begin with.

G-d gives every last chance He can because He does love and that's why He created. But when He's done, it's because there's no more hope for those who haven't chosen Him, and to protect those who belong to Him, He'll kill. It's not because He's reached His breaking point. It's because it's the truth and it's really done. Evil only Seeks to destroy. He will therefore destroy it, and He will do so in a very controlled, unremorseful, deliberate way.

I think it will seem almost unfeeling because it's just the truth and it's not something we really understand as humans with mistakes and regrets over how we behave.  We depend on second chances, while evil exploits them. G-d will bring an end to that when all who are His are where they belong, and evil will deal with a very calculated and unremorseful approach to its own destruction when the tables are turned (think Haman). 

Anyway, we can get angry, but we're not to act on it. We wait on G-d while just doing what He says, and when He acts in His anger, it won't look like anything we do when we get out of control. He'll be very in control, and I think that's far more fearful. G-d's anger is perfect and deliberate, targeted and purposeful. And our confusion is we think only evil can do that. 

So, it wasn't like Yeshua just lost it and had no idea what He was doing when He threw the tables. He didn't let His emotions get the better of Him. He did nothing accidentally or impulsively. He's not going to come back and say sorry, I shouldn't have ..... wish I would have...... He's perfect so He has nothing to repent of. That means these examples you're looking at of Him having a breaking point are being misunderstand in context of our own weaknesses and imperfections. We're the ones who have to repent and apologize because our anger is grounded in self.  It does not produce righteousness, and then results in mistakes and regrets.

In other words, Yeshua's behavior  in the Temple and acts of rebuking people were not mistakes. I think if you're struggling with your "breaking point", you've probably let something unrighteous go too far and that's not what you're seeing in Yeshua. That's how I understand be angry, but do not sin. Get a handle on things in love but seriousness before they go too far. Act deliberately against sin keeping His commandments before you are pulled into sin. 

[mystic]

Apr 1, 2019 6:43:31 GMT -8 Elizabeth said:

The anger Yeshua displayed was righteous and produced righteousness as He is G-d. He acted to protect people and the sanctity of G-d, not just vent His feelings and frustrations because He let evil push Him too far. Our displays of anger NEVER produce righteousness. But there must be times people can act in His anger and righteousness in His Spitit, and I think these times seem like anger losing it to us because we don't get it. I'm thinking of such example as Phineas, Moses, Aaron and the Levites.    

That's very interesting. i just finished reading a book on Jesus on Saturday which said: 

"He was capable of bursts of ill-temper, as when he cursed the the towns of Capernaum, Chorazin and Beth Saida or when he denounced a fig tree for not yielding fruit to appease his hunger, though it was not the fruit bearing season. And he was intemperate in his condemnation of the scribes and pharisees, most of whom were thoroughly honest and dedicated men. Finally, there are at least three traces of chauvinism in him. When a Canaanite woman pleads with him to heal her daughter, he responds "It is wrong to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs". He declares explicitly "I am not sent except to the lost sheep of Israel."

Dan, I can expect you are going to disect the above, would like to hear from you please. Also guys, the part about the dogs, I never really understood, can you guys explain the link between that and the healing please?

[Elizabeth]

The writer isn't s believer in Yeshua, and he likely only discusses Him to discredit Him. All he did was take several moments in Yeshua's life recorded in scriptures, listed them while leaving out the main points of those scriptures, arranged them in a series to make misleading matter of fact sounding statements to support his/her desired point that is just about mischaracterizing Yeshua.

The fig tree was cursed for not bearing fruit; an analogy for people whose deeds reflect no faith.

The cities were cursed for refusing to acknowledge the deeds of G-d as Yeshua did great miracles in them, yet they refused to repent and accept Him.

Meanwhile, He did go on to heal the woman's daughter. He was teaching a truth that the writer apparently didn't even attempt to understand, and He presented this woman as an example of "great faith".

In in that passage Yeshua vwas being protective of both the place of Israel and this woman's heart, mind, and place. He ensures that's she understood Israel's place in respect to G-d's plan before including her in their blessing. We are blessed through promises made to Israel. That's the meaning of that interchange between them, and she was grateful and humbly acknowledged she was receiving a great blessing through something she and her people had not. So she humbled herself in gratitude abd indebtedness to G-d's people, as a result she was blessed and then also included.

It may be one of the best verses to argue against replacement theology as He upholds Israel's place while including her in Israel as after His statement, once she accepted G-d's way and acknowledged Israel's importance, her daughter was healed. He loved that woman, but preserved the place of His people.

Nothing Yeshua did was out of character with what we can expect G-d to have done or one day to do. G-d curses and blesses; condemns and forgives. 

[alon]

Elizabeth and mystic, the terms for what you are discussing are righteous indignation, and righteous anger. It acts as Elizabeth says out of a heart for God, not just for self. It can flare instantly, as a father protecting his family from an intruder. Or indignation can grow, then apparently "flash" to anger at some point or with some final act, as Phineas when he killed the Israelite and the Moabite woman. Both examples are acts of love for something greater than oneself.

Christianity tends to get the entire Bible wrong, because it devalues the Old Testament, either ignoring it or trying to make it fit their interpretation of the New Testament. The Old informs the New. It defines the terms and gives us the character of God. The New, when viewed in this context may better explain the Old. A really good example is when Yeshua drove the money changers and merchants along with their livestock out of the Temple. He was deliberate, taking the time to gather the materials and make a scourge before He started. However to drive all those people and animals out He must have been like a madman, His anger burning. Otherwise they would have tried to protect their property by ganging up and overpowering Him. But it was as Elizabeth says a focused, righteous anger which, unlike what our own often does never spilled over to someone else. Neither the priests who allowed them there nor the customers were attacked, though of myself I could justify attacking either. However Yeshua made His point: He cleared the "leaven" out of His Father's house just before Passover. (Elizabeth, this is what the custom of cleaning the leaven and the search for that hidden piece of leaven represents- even the Jewish customs surrounding Pesach were prophetic).

The key to understanding all the acts of righteous violence in the Bible is to read the Old Testament with a view to understanding God's character. Understand why God said to kill or why certain acts of killing were righteous from His point of view. Imposing our own views, our own values on God will get it wrong every time. Our values must conform to His, not the other way around.

Dan C


 

[alon]

Apr 1, 2019 9:33:19 GMT -8 Elizabeth said:

The fig tree was cursed for not bearing fruit; an analogy for people whose deeds reflect no faith.

The cities were cursed for refusing to acknowledge the deeds of G-d as Yesha did great miracles in them, yet they refused to repent and accept Him.

Very good interpretation. But I especially like your insight to the following:

Elizabeth said: Meanwhile, He did go on to heal the woman's daughter. He was teaching a truth that the writer apparently didn't even attempt to understand, and He presented this woman as an example of "great faith".

In in that passage Yeshua vwas being protective of both the place of Israel and this woman's heart, mind, and place. He ensures that's she understood Israel's place in respect to G-d's plan before including her in their blessing. We are blessed through promises made to Israel. That's the meaning of that interchange between them, and she was grateful and humbly acknowledged she was receiving a great blessing through something she and her people had not. So she humbled herself in gratitude abd indebtedness to G-d's people, as a result she was blessed and then also included.

It may be one of the best verses to argue against replacement theology as He upholds Israel's place while including her in Israel as after His statement, once she accepted G-d's way and acknowledged Israel's importance, her daughter was healed. He loved that woman, but preserved the place of His people.

Your perspective on such passages is, as always informative. Mine tends to be more technical, but I think yours goes right to the heart of God. Then you open a segue right back to the technical side:

Elizabeth said: Nothing Yeshua did was out of character with what we can expect G-d to have done or one day to do. G-d curses and blesses; condemns and forgives.

God never steps out of character, and He is never wrong. That's why we must learn His ways and act accordingly; not just impose some "God is (only) love" values on "The God of the New Testament," vs. "the angry, judgmental God of the Old" nonsense. There is only One God, and His character does not change. 

Dan C

[alon]

Apr 1, 2019 8:13:24 GMT -8 mystic said:

"He was capable of bursts of ill-temper, as when he cursed the the towns of Capernaum, Chorazin and Beth Saida or when he denounced a fig tree for not yielding fruit to appease his hunger, though it was not the fruit bearing season. And he was intemperate in his condemnation of the scribes and pharisees, most of whom were thoroughly honest and dedicated men. Finally, there are at least three traces of chauvinism in him. When a Canaanite woman pleads with him to heal her daughter, he responds "It is wrong to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs". He declares explicitly "I am not sent except to the lost sheep of Israel."

Elizabeth gave a really good response. I'll just add that the statement "he was intemperate in his condemnation of the scribes and pharisees" shows a complete misunderstanding of both the customs of the time and what was going on. Yeshua never condemned every Scribe or every Pharisee. In fact, this writer makes no distinction between a sect that, including sub-sects numbered over half of Israel and a few of their leaders that He was talking to at any given time! The real problem is that whenever a Christian says "the Pharisees" they are equating those statements as a condemnation of all Jews in order to support their replacement theologies. 

Jews tend even today to be an "in your face" kind of people, especially when talking with each other. The Talmud is full of recorded arguments between Rabbis of the same sect calling each other such names as "dogs." Metaphorically equating Gentiles with dogs was not indicative of hatred, but rather (as Elizabeth points out) indicative of their place in respect to His own chosen people. 

The interactions of Yeshua and the "Pharisees" at different times is similarly misunderstood. In fact, the intent of those "Pharisees" is not understood at all, which skews the interpretation of the entire encounter. Those "Pharisees" were probably Scribes and Rabbis sent out to listen to Yeshua teach and then report back to the Sanhedrin, who would then determine whether the teacher in question should be investigated further. It was their responsibility to do so whenever a popular Rabbi arose in Israel. This responsibility was double when that Rabbi was the Crown Prince of Israel Himself, and moreso yet when He was the leading contender to be the promised Messiah! Of course they checked Him out! Of course they questioned Him! And the exchanges between Yeshua and these Rabonim was downright mild when compared to many exchanges between friends in Talmud. There is much evidence that Yeshua Himself was a Pharisee, and these exchanges with Pharisaical leaders is part of that evidence. They follow the form of in-house arguments. 

Finally, thanks to the so called "Women's Movement" today, almost any interaction between a man and woman where the man does not act like he's been neutered is seen as chauvinistic. As Elizabeth explained, the exchange was not about any disdain for women or children but rather the Gentiles in relation to Israel. But this is a great example of imposing our values on God and on His word. And the misinterpretation gets even worse when we interpret the words of Rav Shaul. We need to start looking at the Bible as one organic whole, no part contradicting any other. If not that, then it is not the word of God. And we need to be mindful of God's character, which does not change when we read instead of injecting our character and (mis)understanding everywhere.

Dan C

[mystic]

Apr 1, 2019 10:23:36 GMT -8 alon said:

Elizabeth and mystic, the terms for what you are discussing are righteous indignation, and righteous anger. 

Christianity tends to get the entire Bible wrong, because it devalues the Old Testament, either ignoring it or trying to make it fit their interpretation of the New Testament. The Old informs the New. It defines the terms and gives us the character of God. The New, when viewed in this context may better explain the Old. 

Dan C
 

Right got it, righteous anger as Elizabeth has stated, that makes sense to me now and is what I think the Christian friend was missing, thanks guys. Yes, it's been my experience that most Christians preach love above all else and that is what I have always struggled with, with that thinking. Yes I do believe we should exercise forgiveness and compassion for others as God does but yes, rebuke, discipline is also part of it when others do us wrong as God always did in the .

Yes most Christians ignore the , I think in large part it's due to them using Christ as an excuse to get away with some stuff and ignoring the fact that he was all about fulfilling the laws of the and that he was above all else Jewish! Most Christians refer to me as "being on that side" referring to my focusing more on the OT than the NT.

to update on the Tenant situation, the visitors left and the tenant asked me yesterday if they should start looking for a new place after I had told them we will be making a decision on the apartment. So they are willing to leave peacefully if we should desire them to. Actually this was part of what I had written to them yesterday:

Also Proverbs 33 says:
The curse of the LORD is on the house of the wicked, but He blesses the home of the righteous.

I pray every single day for everyone in this household, yes that includes you both and ask God to bless this house and everyone in it but how will he do so when things like this is happening in our home, See my point? I want a peaceful, happy home without any strife or ungodly acts so we will need to do whatever we need to do to achieve this.

[alon]

Well, then it is now up to you as to what action to take. If they have truely repented and asked forgiveness and they are otherwise good tenants, then go ahead and forgive. However with tenants I'd make it clear that any such further problems and you will call the police and/or evict, as is necessary. And the couple that caused all the problems is not welcome back. On the other hand if they have caused sufficient problems apart from the couple that left you may want to evict anyhow. It's your call.

Dan C

[mystic]

Yeah, I am handling it better this time. Last night I had a really good sleep.

On another issue, I have to take my Autistic son to a specific Psychologist for some sessions to get help with some issues but this can only be done on a Saturday, this should be ok by God right? Also, we have to drive there, no choice.

[alon]

Apr 2, 2019 11:10:24 GMT -8 mystic said:

Yeah, I am handling it better this time. Last night I had a really good sleep.

On another issue, I have to take my Autistic son to a specific Psychologist for some sessions to get help with some issues but this can only be done on a Saturday, this should be ok by God right? Also, we have to drive there, no choice.

Glad it's going better.

If Sat is the only time you can see this psychologist, then health and well being comes first. When I have to do something like that, I pray saying I am sorry and ask forgiveness, because techncally I still brok Shabbath. However I know God is ok with it because He does not expect us to suffer just to keep Shabbath. All Judaism and most of the Messianics I know say that health and security issues take precedence over every other commandment other than bowing before idols. So you can drive him to the doctor with a clear conscience.

Dan C

[mystic]

Apr 2, 2019 12:38:09 GMT -8 alon said:

Glad it's going better.

 However I know God is ok with it because He does not expect us to suffer just to keep Shabbath. All Judaism and most of the Messianics I know say that health and security issues take precedence over every other commandment other than bowing before idols. So you can drive him to the doctor with a clear conscience.

Dan C

Yeah as mentioned the mother and daughter are good quiet people, it was the visitors situation we now had to address. Also, everyone in NY knows the law and what they can get away with so I have to appreciate that they offered to find another place without my prompting.

Sorry I should have posted this issue in the Sabbath thread. Yes, this 1st interview can only be done on a Saturday but I will try for a weekday when we visit the Psych, thanks.