How did you say that, exactly?

I don't really want to argue about whether your response was adequate, but let me explain what I mean.

I brought up the slogan "Hate the sin, love the sinner" and then posted some verses that describe God hating the sinner and followers of God hating the sinner.

I asked if these verses create tension with the slogan and how you would resolve that tension.

You replied with four sentences, none of which addressed any of the questions or, in themselves, added anything to the topic.

Your first sentence was "God exhorts us to love one another."

Okay, that's true, no one was disputing that. But what do we do with the verses I quoted?

Your second sentence was "Jesus Christ died for our sins."

Again, this is true, but irrelevant... how is that supposed to relate to the verses I quoted and how does it begin to address the questions I raised?

Your third sentence was "There is no dichotomy there."

No dichotomy where? I can only assume that "there" refers to what you've said previously. Right? Well in that case "there" must refer to your previous two sentences: God exhorts us to love one another and Jesus Christ died for our sins.

You think there is no dichotomy there... Okay, I agree, but again this is irrelevant. No one said there was a dichotomy between God's exhorting us to love and Jesus death on the cross. It doesn't add anything to the topic. No one was wondering if there was a dichotomy there and there was nothing in the topic, as far as I can see, that would suggest there was in some relevant way.

Your final sentence was "I think it is wise to hate the sin, love the sinner."

Apparently, this is the only sentence that has some relation to this thread... unfortunately, all it does is assert that the slogan is wise. It doesn't address the verses I quoted and doesn't explain how there is no tension between them and the slogan (since I assume you don't think there is any).

Hopefully this clarifies why I said your "response" is a non-response. If someone asked me how God can be good and allow evil at the same time it would be a non-response if I said "God is good. I like cheese. Do you have any change for a five?"

Two of those sentences are unrelated to how God can be good and allow evil at the same time and the one sentence that is related to the question simply asserts his goodness without answering the question, it's unhelpful.

Now, perhaps you know of some way in which your first three sentences relate perfectly to the topic and address the questions. But in that case you need to spell it out and not just assume that we will all make the logical connections ourselves.

Sorry, not trying to pick on you. But I didn't want to get a lot of people on here simply asserting the slogan is true and then go away with the impression that it must be true because a bunch of people asserted it was (and yes, this does happen, it's part of confirmation bias), so let's all throw it around some more.