A false assumption

[Spherical Time]

Well, I think the reason some people keep saying it over and over and over and over is because they aren't seeing a change or anything, but that's just a guess.

But I agree, there does need to be more love w/ it.

I think one of the ideas that Lori is presenting is that saying it is simply a sign that there is no love. It isn't "saying" that the sinners will listen too, it's action.

And my point is that people that preach "Love the sinner, hate the sin" are saying and not acting. And I would include you in that group, as I never feel love from you.

 

[loriersea]

Well, I think the reason some people keep saying it over and over and over and over is because they aren't seeing a change or anything, but that's just a guess.

For the record, I don't believe that homosexuality is inherently sinful. It can be expressed in sinful ways, as can heterosexuality, but I do not believe that committed, loving same-sex relationships are sinful.

That said, I accept that you think homosexuality is sinful. I'm guessing there are things that I believe are sinful that you do not. That's fine.

My question is, when you have struggled with a sin, has being told over and over that you are sinning ever made you change? Has anyone who has a problem with gluttony ever stopped eating so much because people tell them all the time that they are fat and sinful? Has anyone who has a problem with spending too much ever stopped spending so much because people tell them all the time that they are irresponsible and selfish? Has anyone who has a problem with pornography ever stopped because people tell them all the time that it is wrong and sinful?

I don't think so. I know that, when I need to make a change in my behavior, being nagged about it either does nothing or makes it worse.

If you ask non-Christians about Christians, a surprising number of them know one thing: Christians really don't like gay people. They think being gay is a really bad sin. And, for many people, that's about it. Obviously, the message that some Christians think homosexuality is really sinful is out there. It's out there all over the place. So, if people's behavior isn't changing, it is NOT because they haven't heard what some Christians are saying. They have. So we have to conclude that either they are unable to change, in which case the message is moot, or, if they are capable of changing, the way to support that change is not by repeating over and over that homosexuality is a sin. Because, as you said, it's NOT changing people's behavior (gay people are still about 3% of the population, a number which is pretty steady across times and cultures for which we have data), despite the fact that we hear more about how sinful homosexuality is than anything else.

It's not working. All it is doing is alienating people, and driving them away from Christianity, and causing a lot of pain and hurt and hate (and the hate is on both sides) where, as Christians, we should want love. So why not change the tactic, because the tactic of telling gay people they are living in sin is clearly not working. If anything, being constantly told that your behavior is bad and wrong and sinful (and it doesn't matter if one person only tells you once, because it's a message that gay people get constantly, everywhere they turn) only causes more problems. You tell someone who struggles with overeating that they are gluttonous and sinful, and there's a really good chance they are going to overeat more, because that is how they deal with pain and you just hurt them. You tell someone who spends too much money that they are selfish and irresponsible and sinful, and there's a really good chance they are going to go spend some money, because that is how they deal with pain and you just hurt them. If you honestly believe that homosexuality is a sinful behavior, then I think by the same token people should realize that by telling people how they are immoral and sinful, you are only setting them up for further problems.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

It is a false assumption that if you greatly disagree or despise/dislike strongly an action you hate the person performing it. Now, some people really do hate the actual people, but not all, actually the vast majority don’t hate people that do actions that they strongly dislike and/or disagree with. Putting all into the same boat is inaccurate and false.

Now, for those that may disagree with this: For actions that you strongly disagree with and/or dislike/despise, do you hate people that actually do that action? If so, is that in each and every instance all the time? I ask that you honestly think about this and answer this question(s) if you disagree.

I agree with you. For instance, the immoral people who speak ill things about homosexuals... I hate their immoral behavior, and I think they are immoral, but I do not hate them. I may dislike a few of them, but it isn't for those reasons. For those reasons, they really just get my pity.

 

[loriersea]

And my point is that people that preach "Love the sinner, hate the sin" are saying and not acting. And I would include you in that group, as I never feel love from you.

I am trying to lose the rest of the "baby weight" I gained when I was pregnant with my son, before we try for another baby. I know that part of why it's slow going is because I have a tendency to snack on junk.

I am trying to change my behavior. If my husband were to say, "Stop that! That is making you fat!" every time I ate a cookie, that would NOT help me change my behavior. And, I wouldn't consider that loving, even if he believed that he was saying it out of love. I'd consider it mean, and his thinking he was saying it out of love wouldn't change that.

If the people you are supposedly treating with "love" do not feel that they are being loved, then there's a really good chance you aren't being loving.

 

[outlaw]

Well it is not those that disagree with me that I think are hateful. Differing opinons are differing opinons...It's a fact of life. It is those that want to dominate my life via legislature to dictate my freedoms that I think are hateful. And why is that? Because the result of such domination is cause for much suffering of innocent people just trying to live. And to continue to strive for such control, in my opinon, is hateful.

Very well said…thank you for summing it up so wall and so concisely.

 

[outlaw]

I disagree. The fact is, and you don't have to believe this, but stuff has spiritual consequences. I think trying to tell people of them and thus help them in the end is way better than letting them just go on in ignorance and thus face the horrid consequences that could be avoided.

And what is the spiritual consequence of prejudice and discrimination?

 

[outlaw]

You can read it but miss what's it's saying.

Well, that's you.

So your real issues is that Halo and others have read the bible but have not come to the same conclusions as you want them to come to….

 

[outlaw]

You are missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying to be hateful and such. There are times to warn and rebuke and times to simply tell them that they need to work on something. That's why you use wisdom as I said earlier. Either way, if someone is off you say something, use wisdom on how and then use wisdom whether to bring it up or not again, depending on the person.

No you missed (or ignored) what loriersea is saying. She used your argument for why it is good and moral to condemn gays and lesbians and how doings so is not hateful in any way and put the same argument as it could be directed towards a hypothetically obsess you …strangely enough you weren’t terribly happy about tbeing lovingly condemed.

Can you tell us why you did not feel the love and compassion from loriersea (or the hypothetically loving person) when she/he condemned the hypothetically obese you to hell?

 

[loriersea]

I've been thinking about this, and I think it is clear that telling someone how sinful they are is NOT how you show someone love, particularly when they are already fully aware that a good number of people think that. Period.

Which statement indicates someone being more loving: "I think you are acting sinfully, and even though you've already heard this a million times, I'm going to tell you again" or "I think you are acting sinfully, but I am going to offer you comfort and support and a listening ear and grace and friendship"?

We show love by SHOWING it, not by telling someone "You are an unrepentant sinner who is going to hell if you don't change, but I'm saying this because I love you." Chances are, if you have to TELL someone that you love them or else they'd have no idea, you aren't doing a good job of showing it.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

And what is the spiritual consequence of prejudice and discrimination?

The same as w/ all other sins.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

For the record, I don't believe that homosexuality is inherently sinful. It can be expressed in sinful ways, as can heterosexuality, but I do not believe that committed, loving same-sex relationships are sinful.

That said, I accept that you think homosexuality is sinful. I'm guessing there are things that I believe are sinful that you do not. That's fine.

My question is, when you have struggled with a sin, has being told over and over that you are sinning ever made you change? Has anyone who has a problem with gluttony ever stopped eating so much because people tell them all the time that they are fat and sinful? Has anyone who has a problem with spending too much ever stopped spending so much because people tell them all the time that they are irresponsible and selfish? Has anyone who has a problem with pornography ever stopped because people tell them all the time that it is wrong and sinful?

I don't think so. I know that, when I need to make a change in my behavior, being nagged about it either does nothing or makes it worse.

If you ask non-Christians about Christians, a surprising number of them know one thing: Christians really don't like gay people. They think being gay is a really bad sin. And, for many people, that's about it. Obviously, the message that some Christians think homosexuality is really sinful is out there. It's out there all over the place. So, if people's behavior isn't changing, it is NOT because they haven't heard what some Christians are saying. They have. So we have to conclude that either they are unable to change, in which case the message is moot, or, if they are capable of changing, the way to support that change is not by repeating over and over that homosexuality is a sin. Because, as you said, it's NOT changing people's behavior (gay people are still about 3% of the population, a number which is pretty steady across times and cultures for which we have data), despite the fact that we hear more about how sinful homosexuality is than anything else.

It's not working. All it is doing is alienating people, and driving them away from Christianity, and causing a lot of pain and hurt and hate (and the hate is on both sides) where, as Christians, we should want love. So why not change the tactic, because the tactic of telling gay people they are living in sin is clearly not working. If anything, being constantly told that your behavior is bad and wrong and sinful (and it doesn't matter if one person only tells you once, because it's a message that gay people get constantly, everywhere they turn) only causes more problems. You tell someone who struggles with overeating that they are gluttonous and sinful, and there's a really good chance they are going to overeat more, because that is how they deal with pain and you just hurt them. You tell someone who spends too much money that they are selfish and irresponsible and sinful, and there's a really good chance they are going to go spend some money, because that is how they deal with pain and you just hurt them. If you honestly believe that homosexuality is a sinful behavior, then I think by the same token people should realize that by telling people how they are immoral and sinful, you are only setting them up for further problems.

As I've stated numerous times, telling someone that what they are doing is wrong is something all christians should do at the rt. time and in the rt. way. Am I talking about being critical and saying it 18 billion times to the same person? NO.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

No you missed (or ignored) what loriersea is saying. She used your argument for why it is good and moral to condemn gays and lesbians and how doings so is not hateful in any way and put the same argument as it could be directed towards a hypothetically obsess you …strangely enough you weren’t terribly happy about tbeing lovingly condemed.

Can you tell us why you did not feel the love and compassion from loriersea (or the hypothetically loving person) when she/he condemned the hypothetically obese you to hell?

Saying, "You are going to go to hell" to someone no matter the situation is absurd. Saying, "This can lead you down the wrong path and that is possibly to hell unless you change because that's the consequence" is in a loving manner. Again you motives and how you say it (either in love or not) determine how it will be taken and such.

Condeming someone vs. telling someone that they are doing something wrong and going down the wrong path are different. Quite different in fact.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

I've been thinking about this, and I think it is clear that telling someone how sinful they are is NOT how you show someone love, particularly when they are already fully aware that a good number of people think that. Period.

Which statement indicates someone being more loving: "I think you are acting sinfully, and even though you've already heard this a million times, I'm going to tell you again" or "I think you are acting sinfully, but I am going to offer you comfort and support and a listening ear and grace and friendship"?

We show love by SHOWING it, not by telling someone "You are an unrepentant sinner who is going to hell if you don't change, but I'm saying this because I love you." Chances are, if you have to TELL someone that you love them or else they'd have no idea, you aren't doing a good job of showing it.

You missed what I said all the others times, I needn't repeat myself again.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Okay, let me clearify...The bible speaks of telling someone who is going the wrong road that they are doing this. This doesn't mean telling them 18 million times or pushing them or being condeming or critical. Telling someone in love that they are wrong or doing wrong isn't be condeming. God does that all the time, is He being condeming? No.

 

[loriersea]

Again you motives and how you say it (either in love or not) determine how it will be taken and such.

And I think this is what people are disagreeing with. Just because you feel that you are saying something in love, doesn't mean it will be a loving thing to say.

I do not believe there is much of a difference between "You are going to hell" and "If you don't change your behavior you might end up in hell." One isn't more loving because it's softer. It is still placing at the center of the relationship your feelings about the other person's behavior, and that isn't loving. To really love someone, their feelings should be at the center for you, not your own.

Condeming someone vs. telling someone that they are doing something wrong and going down the wrong path are different. Quite different in fact.

Okay. But, would you treat a friend who was going down the wrong path with gossip, or gluttony, or envy, or greed the same way you treat someone who you believe is going down the wrong path with homosexuality?

 

[loriersea]

The same as w/ all other sins.

Do you honestly believe that gay and lesbian people are treated by conservative Christians and conservative Christian churches the same way other sinners are treated? Are they really, honestly treated the same as those who have been divorced for non-biblically sanctioned reasons? Are they really, honestly treated the same as a straight couple who has sex outside of marriage? Are they really, honestly treated the same as someone who is a chronic gossip, someone who is greedy, someone who is envious, someone who is gluttonous?

If you truly, honestly believe that they are treated the same, then I guess that's that. But, if you can see that there are enormous differences in how they are treated, you need to ask yourself why.

 

[Cerberus~]

Well, for the first paragraph, the reason is it ends up in the end harming the person themself w/ the eternal consequence, plus it can harm others in the way that it can influence them to do the same and thus lead to their eternal/spiritual harm. In that sense, actions that may not be physically harmful, are spiritually.

Since this is the basis of the whole "Hate the sin, love the sinner" catchphrase, I'll just point out the holes in this.

1. You can't prove any of it. I could go around burning churches and claim it was save Christians from their false religion so that they could worship the true God who will torment them for eternity if they die not worshiping him.

So what makes my claim any different than yours?

2. It's ineffective. If saving souls from a bad spiritual afterlife is your goal, then wouldn't it be far more effective to simply kill the children of nonbelievers before they can nonbelieve? There's a billion Muslims in the Mid East having many kids per family since they have no condoms over there. How many of them will grow up to be Christian in countries where they kill you for converting?

If we were to send a few thousand nukes over there, and turn that entire place into glass, we would save billions upon billions of furture unbeleivers from Hell. Do the same to Africa, China and India for maximized saving.

But instead, you target a few million gays, with little effect. Small potatoes. So if you're goal is saving souls, then how can I take you seriously?

It's like a guy who got shot in the head is walking up to you asking for help, and you're more worried that he's walking around funny and he might fall and hurt himself, completely ignoring the bullet in his head.

3. The ends don't justify the means. Making the lives of gays more difficult in this life so that they may change their ways and be happy in the afterlife, which you can't even prove, is not justified.

I understand pushing someone out the way of a moving car, but my understanding doesn't extend to pushing someone out of the way of an non-comporeal, invisible car that only you can see. That's when I go tell you to see a doctor.

Now when somebody calls a gay an abomination, a pervert, a deviant, a disordered godless atheistic anti-family degenerate, and support policies that only make life more difficult for gays, then I will call them a bigot, I will call them a peice of human trash, I will call them a supersticious moron and I will be right, because Jesus told us to look people's fruits, and by them you will them.

 

[flicka]

Once you have it in your head that being a christian results in some kind of spiritual knowledge suddenly being inserted into you via god/holy spirit/ect that nobody else posesses then you really can't argue with them. I mean if someone actually thinks they are speaking for god then they are not likely to ever see the error of their ways. Especially them young'uns who are never wrong

 

[loriersea]

This is just a general response to some of the replies here, and an addendum to my own replies, because I do think I have come across as harsher to Lilly than I wanted. I have to say, I do not doubt for a moment that Lilly is very sincere about not hating gay people and wanting to reach out to them in love. I have seen nothing in her posts here to indicate that she isn't open to listening to others, or that she isn't willing to really think about what a loving way to reach out is.

I think there is kind of a knee-jerk reaction that as soon as someone says they think homosexuality is wrong, a whole bunch of things about them are assumed. And, I can't say I blame people for that reaction, because there is good reason for having it. We rarely see examples of politicians or pundits or preachers saying, "I think homosexuality is a sin, but gay and lesbian people should be free from discrimination, should have legal rights in their relationships, and should not be considered as different from any of the rest of us, who also sin." Instead, when people say homosexuality is a sin, it is generally followed by a diatribe about how gay people are bringing about the fall of civilization as we know it and how we must act now to keep them out of our schools/keep them from having legally-recognized relationships/keep them from being protected against discrimination/keep them off of our TVs. So, that is what we associate thinking homosexuality is sinful with, and it is understandable.

But, that doesn't mean that all or even most people who think homosexuality is a sin feel that way. My in-laws think that homosexuality is a sin, and they don't believe in gay marriage, but they support civil unions for same-sex couples that would ensure the same rights as marriage, they voted to re-elect their town's gay mayor, and they supported adding sexual orientation to their town's anti-discrimination laws. There are numerous posters here who think homosexuality is a sin but do not advocate denying gay and lesbian people rights, discriminating against them, or treating them differently than anyone else. And, I do think that, when push comes to shove, Lilly does now or will soon come to be part of that camp. Just the fact that she is concerned that her position might be construed as unloving tells me that she cares about how her words and actions affect others, even if she doesn't agree with everything they do or believe, and that right there is something, because I can't believe that the pundits/politicians/preachers out there who are blaming gays and lesbians for the breakdown of the family and for every social ill we can imagine actually care at all about how their words make gay and lesbian people, and their loved ones, feel.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

And I think this is what people are disagreeing with. Just because you feel that you are saying something in love, doesn't mean it will be a loving thing to say.

I do not believe there is much of a difference between "You are going to hell" and "If you don't change your behavior you might end up in hell." One isn't more loving because it's softer. It is still placing at the center of the relationship your feelings about the other person's behavior, and that isn't loving. To really love someone, their feelings should be at the center for you, not your own.



Okay. But, would you treat a friend who was going down the wrong path with gossip, or gluttony, or envy, or greed the same way you treat someone who you believe is going down the wrong path with homosexuality?

Yes, but I'm not talking about feeling love, I'm talking about literally showing love. Also, you can be literally showing love and people still get offended due to their own person issues. Rebuke may not be taken lovingly from God and it may not be something you want to hear, but is it unloving in Him telling you? No. The same goes for us when done in true love when it is needed to be done.

Yes, but if someone is doing something dangerous and you telling them may hurt their feelings temporarily but save them in the long run, will you allow them to get hurt in the long run and even destroyed to save them a moment of temporary hurt feelings? God doesn't do that nor should we. That isn't love.

Yes. All sin has the same consequence in the long run if unrepented and sin is sin to God.