Can you hate the sin?

[SimplyMe]

I have heard, over and over, that religious people should “Love the sinner but hate the sin.” It’s almost a mantra among many Christians and how they attempt to deal with “sinners”. Recently I’ve come to disagree with it; I’m finding that it doesn’t work and, further, isn’t even Biblical.

The idea isn’t a bad one. The idea, from what I can tell, originally meant that we should abstain from sin and help the sinner. The problem is, due to the wording, it has become a way for people to excuse their behavior for how they treat people they view as sinners. It also isn’t the way Christ taught to help people. The examples we have of Christ teaching are that he didn’t judge others. After saving the woman from being stoned, he simply told her to “go and sin no more.” He didn’t tell her that she was evil for committing adultery, he didn’t even tell her what sins she should no longer commit.

More to the point, he stopped a valid punishment from occurring. The religious law was clear, if a person was found in adultery they were to be stoned. But instead of condemning the woman, instead he caused the accusers to condemn themselves, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

In best cases, the people who use “love the sinner but...” are setting themselves up as judge. They can’t ever get over the idea that they are talking to a sinner. They can’t help but feel that they are better than the individual they are trying to help. And, because of this, as long as they keep this idea they can never truly love the sinner. Only by seeing the “sinner” as a good person, as someone equal to themselves, can they ever begin to love them. As long as they see the person as a sinner, it just isn’t possible.

Worse, many seem to think that if the “love the sinner,” since they are already the judge, they then have the some right to act as jury. At times it may even resort to violence. Some people, deluded by the idea they are helping the sinner, will physically hurt the sinner. In their mind they delude themselves with the idea that “I’m only doing this for your own good.”

Most, though, are not that extreme, they won’t ever use violence. Instead they’ll use language that only hurts them, that the sinner finds hateful. Once again, the Christian won’t understand they are hurting, they are only doing it because they care.

We need to learn to “love our neighbor,” as Christ taught. Until we realize that we each have our burdens, that we are all sinners, and that we can love one another despite our differences can we ever become true Christians.

 

[OneManSows]

If it isn't biblical, please explain why the bible says we are to love our neighbor, that God hates divorce, and we are to be like God?

 

[SimplyMe]

If it isn't biblical, please explain why the bible says we are to love our neighbor, that God hates divorce, and we are to be like God?

I thought I said loving our neighbor is not only Biblical but what makes us Christian.

We are often told to emulate Christ, but I can't remember Christ ever using "love the sinner, but hate the sin." Instead, I remember him showing kindness and compassion to the worst of Jewish society, not condemning them for their adultery or greed. Interestingly, the only ones Christ condemned were the "righteous." So, maybe my question is if the "righteous" today are our Pharisees?

 

[CSMR]

Only by seeing the “sinner” as a good person, as someone equal to themselves, can they ever begin to love them. As long as they see the person as a sinner, it just isn’t possible.

If you see the sinner as a good person equal to yourself you cannot help - firstly because you identify no problem to be helped, and secondly because if you see yourself as a good person you deceive yourself and are disconnected from the source of help which is Christ.

 

[SimplyMe]

If you see the sinner as a good person equal to yourself you cannot help - firstly because you identify no problem to be helped, and secondly because if you see yourself as a good person you deceive yourself and are disconnected from the source of help which is Christ.

Yet I'm sure that Christ said, "Judge not..." Are we not all sinners? What makes our faults and defects any less than the so called "sinners"? Typically, people know their own faults, they don't need others to point them out. I know if someone points out my faults I want to get defensive, justify them, and make excuses. I've had to learn to overcome that and instead use them to examine my life. I'm not proud of it but from what I've heard and read that is a normal human response that we need to overcome. So, if we identify other's faults, find the mote in their eye despite the beam in our own, we typically just push them away from us.

Beyond this, if I have someone come to me judging me, I have no interest in finding out more about them. I don't want to have a "holier than thou" friend. My friends are people who care about me, not people who care more about what I'm doing (or not doing).

From what I read, Jesus took the opposite route. He inspired people. People typically will condemn themselves, sometimes even unjustly. Christ, instead of making them feel worse and pushing them into despair, provided the ultimate example and encouraged people to improve. He seemed to care about them, not about their sins. And by not judging, or identifying what was wrong with them, He made a difference in their lives.

We know Christ was perfect, he didn't have a beam in his eye - unlike the rest of us who are sinners. If He, who was perfect, didn't feel a need to judge people and call individuals to repentence, why do we?

 

[CSMR]

Yet I'm sure that Christ said, "Judge not..." Are we not all sinners? What makes our faults and defects any less than the so called "sinners"?

Nothing. Jesus certainly intends to point out that the judger is as much a sinner as the judged in the "Judge not..." passage.

Typically, people know their own faults, they don't need others to point them out.

This is not true. Some people are self-righteous - Jesus had a lot to say against these people. Others think that some but not all of their faults are virtues - that they are partly righteous. Others do not even believe in God, and so cannot recognise their sin before Him.

I know if someone points out my faults I want to get defensive, justify them, and make excuses. I've had to learn to overcome that and instead use them to examine my life.

Good for you. This is a good thing to do.

So, if we identify other's faults, find the mote in their eye despite the beam in our own, we typically just push them away from us.

If the act of showing serves instead to hide then it is counter-productive. It is not always so I don't think.

I don't want to have a "holier than thou" friend. My friends are people who care about me, not people who care more about what I'm doing (or not doing).

Someone who thinks that he is holy decieves himself as I said. We can identify sin in another without failing to recognise our own.

From what I read, Jesus took the opposite route. He inspired people. People typically will condemn themselves, sometimes even unjustly.

Not the Pharisees whom Jesus preached against.

Christ, instead of making them feel worse and pushing them into despair, provided the ultimate example and encouraged people to improve.

This is your own opinion which you force on the gospel texts. Jesus was not optimistic about our capacity to improve. He knew that sin is defined by the nature of the heart and not the external deed, and that if the heart is bad no action will make a person good. He said that with man it is impossible to enter the kingdom of heaven, but with God it is possible. A man needs to be reborn to enter the kingdom of heaven. These are not the statements of someone who believes we can become good by self-improvement.

He seemed to care about them

True

not about their sins.

False - he emphasised the need for righteousness

If He, who was perfect, didn't feel a need to judge people and call individuals to repentence, why do we?

Matthew 4:17: From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mark 1:14: After John was taken, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying: the time is come, and the kingdom of heaven is at hand, repent and believe the gospel.

I urge you to look up Leviticus 19:17-18 and consider what is said there.

 

[greeneyedgirl]

We know Christ was perfect, he didn't have a beam in his eye - unlike the rest of us who are sinners. If He, who was perfect, didn't feel a need to judge people and call individuals to repentence, why do we?

John 14 23-24

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own: they belong to the Father who sent me"

John 15 10-14

If you obey my commands, you will remian in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command.


Jesus gave his life so that we may live. The lesson of the cross is love and forgiveness. Jesus as he was nearing his death commanded us to Love each other.




John 3 16-17
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever beleives in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


Love each other can be said another way "All men are created equal" and it isn't up to you or I to judge one another. The mere fact that Jesus was found guilty and crucified shows mankind can judge someone wrong, I mean after all, they sent the Son of God to his death. Alot of people get so tied up in the fact that God sent his son to be crucified that they forget that man was a willing participant.

 

[SimplyMe]

Quote:

Typically, people know their own faults, they don't need others to point them out.

This is not true. Some people are self-righteous - Jesus had a lot to say against these people. Others think that some but not all of their faults are virtues - that they are partly righteous. Others do not even believe in God, and so cannot recognise their sin before Him.

That's my point, though. Someone who doesn't believe in God isn't going to believe you if you say he or she is a sinner; same with someone that thinks their fault is a virtue. You must first bring that person to Christ and that will not happen, typically, while you are acting "holier than thou."

Quote:
So, if we identify other's faults, find the mote in their eye despite the beam in our own, we typically just push them away from us.

If the act of showing serves instead to hide then it is counter-productive. It is not always so I don't think.

I didn't say always, I said typically. But again, using your examples of the non-believer above, they are not going to accept your calling them a sinner unless you are already a friend.

Someone who thinks that he is holy decieves himself as I said. We can identify sin in another without failing to recognise our own.

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say.

Quote:

From what I read, Jesus took the opposite route. He inspired people. People typically will condemn themselves, sometimes even unjustly.

Not the Pharisees whom Jesus preached against.

The difference is that he is preaching to a group. The closest I can recall him criticizing an individual was the Peter when He was transfigured; we already know the loving relationship Peter and Jesus had before He rebuked Peter. The other interesting point is that Jesus didn't call the people to repentence that most Christians normally do, the groups he chose to call to repentence (as opposed to merely preaching repentence) were the self-righteous.

This is your own opinion which you force on the gospel texts. Jesus was not optimistic about our capacity to improve. He knew that sin is defined by the nature of the heart and not the external deed, and that if the heart is bad no action will make a person good. He said that with man it is impossible to enter the kingdom of heaven, but with God it is possible. A man needs to be reborn to enter the kingdom of heaven. These are not the statements of someone who believes we can become good by self-improvement.

So we have a basic disagreement. But if Christ really felt that way, why did he spend so much time with the dregs of Jewish society? As you say, with God it is possible. Perhaps I should clarify that "self-improvement" was meant to say "self-improvement with God". I think I didn't feel that clarification was necessary, I'm sorry for my bad assumption.

Quote:

not about their sins.

False - he emphasised the need for righteousness

I can't seem to find one place where he chastized an individual for their sins.

Matthew 4:17: From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mark 1:14: After John was taken, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying: the time is come, and the kingdom of heaven is at hand, repent and believe the gospel.

Once again, general admonitions in a group setting. The closest I can think of, off the top of my head, to an individual is the woman who was going to be stoned. He did not judge or condemn her, simply told her, "Go, and sin no more."

I urge you to look up Leviticus 19:17-18 and consider what is said there.

I find it interesting that in order to disagree with me, the closest you seem to find is an Old Testament quote. Even here, though, it can be argued that neighbor is someone with whom you already have a friendship, in which case it still says exactly what I'm stating.

 

[CrownCaster]

I thought I said loving our neighbor is not only Biblical but what makes us Christian.

We are often told to emulate Christ, but I can't remember Christ ever using "love the sinner, but hate the sin." Instead, I remember him showing kindness and compassion to the worst of Jewish society, not condemning them for their adultery or greed. Interestingly, the only ones Christ condemned were the "righteous." So, maybe my question is if the "righteous" today are our Pharisees?

You also won't find the word "rapture" in there but one day it will happen.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

There's a difference between judgment and discernment.


To say Person A is an alcoholic is discernment; to say one is better than Person A because Person A is an alcoholic is judgment.

 

[Volos]

In my personal experience the use of the phrase “hate the sin, love the sinner” is usually said with the intent of hating the sinner and using the supposed sin as justification for that hatred.

 

[Volos]

There's a difference between judgment and discernment.


To say Person A is an alcoholic is discernment; to say one is better than Person A because Person A is an alcoholic is judgment.

how interesting you say this.



Let’s try a similar example:

To say Person A is an a homosexual is discernment; to say one is better than Person A and as such person A does not deserve equal rights and equal legal protections because Person A is a homosexual is judgment.

 

[SimplyMe]

There's a difference between judgment and discernment.


To say Person A is an alcoholic is discernment; to say one is better than Person A because Person A is an alcoholic is judgment.

Yes, but when someone is talking about "loving the sinner" it implies that they have judged the person; the implication is clear that we are "loving the sinner despite the sin."

 

[Shinji Ikari]

We can love the sinner and hate the sin.

Jesus did this.

He loved the sinners and even loved the Pharisees...

He hated the sin obviously..

Likewise, we should love one another as well..

 

[CrownCaster]

[/color]

how interesting you say this.



Let’s try a similar example:

To say Person A is an a homosexual is discernment; to say one is better than Person A and as such person A does not deserve equal rights and equal legal protections because Person A is a homosexual is judgment.

The person does deserve equal rights but we don't have to place rights on a deviant act. We can embrace the homosexual person while still saying that homosexual acts are wrong and we will not support them.

 

[Volos]

The person does deserve equal rights but we don't have to place rights on a deviant act. We can embrace the homosexual person while still saying that homosexual acts are wrong and we will not support them.

Being gay is not an action

 

[SimplyMe]

The person does deserve equal rights but we don't have to place rights on a deviant act. We can embrace the homosexual person while still saying that homosexual acts are wrong and we will not support them.

Interesting concept, we can make them equal without giving them equal rights. It kind of reminds me of Animal Farm, "All animals are equal but some are equaler." To me you just proved Velos point.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

[/color]

how interesting you say this.



Let’s try a similar example:

To say Person A is an a homosexual is discernment; to say one is better than Person A and as such person A does not deserve equal rights and equal legal protections because Person A is a homosexual is judgment.

For those at home not keeping score, Volos and I have been going over this on various threads.

My point: Marriage is a union between a single male and a single female, the way steel is a union between iron and carbon. Iron and iron does not equal steel, carbon and carbon does not equal steel.

Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; they have exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, too: They may marry any person of the opposite sex who will have them.

There are many stable, loving, long lasting homosexual relationships; they just aren't marriages. If one wishes to argue that certain tax and community property rights should be extended to non-married couples in a long term relationship -- say two homosexuals living together, or an adult taking care of a medically dependent parent to give two examples -- then you (rhetorical) will find a lot of support for that idea.

It just isn't a marriage.

That explained, let's return the discussion to judging/discening between sin and sinner.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Yes, but when someone is talking about "loving the sinner" it implies that they have judged the person; the implication is clear that we are "loving the sinner despite the sin."

No, we judge the act, not the actor. I've cited either on this thread or elsewhere my friend who is an alcoholic but won't admit he needs to be sober. When he is sober he drives, when he has been drinking he has at least enough common sense to stay home (he's got enough traffic violations already without adding drunk driving to the list and permanently losing his license). If I ever saw him drinking and then preparing to drive, I would take his keys away from him, and if he got in the car before I could stop him I'd call the police. I still love him, I still care for him, but I can also see what his drinking would do when combined with an automobile. To hate the idea of innocent people being harmed by his drunk driving is not the same as hating him.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

The person does deserve equal rights but we don't have to place rights on a deviant act. We can embrace the homosexual person while still saying that homosexual acts are wrong and we will not support them.

Well...we'll shake hands with 'em...































It's a JOKE, folks!