"Hate the Sin" Hypocrisy

[FlaviusAetius]

Christianity to be blunt seems incapable of actually loving anyone outside of their bubble of acceptable morality. It also seems apparent that secularists show far more love to people as they are than Christians.

Here is an example, yes I will be using homosexual relations because it's one of the most well known forms of lifestyle sins that only Christians have a problem with.

Scenario: monogamous gay couple who adopt a child to raise to adulthood

Secularists: Good and civic people who save a child from our sub par foster care system. A clear example of the benefits of increasing the rights given to US citizens.

Catholics: damned degenerate sinners who are damning a child by raising it. It is a mistake of our government to officially accept this kind of family.

I realize catechism tries to lighten the impact, but let's be honest here. An actively homosexual couple in a monogamous relationship are going to burn in hell according to Christians. The only way to escape this is by denying their entire self, living chaste and romantically alone forever.

No matter how nice you are to active homosexuals in public, it doesn't change that Catholics are required to hate who these people are and fully expect their God will burn them in hell unless they turn a full 180 and become alone and deny themselves completely in terms of sexuality and relations (no relationships, no sex, no masturbating, no impure thoughts) all until you die. This is of course with the added salt to the wound of heterosexual Christians being allowed their sexual release through marriage.

Am I wrong? All evidence seems to point to Christianity in general being terribly hateful. A hateful God requiring his followers to hold open or secret hatred toward those who live outside God's acceptable morality. I'm open to the possibly of being corrected.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Are you wrong ?

Honestly I don't think so. The "hate the sin, love the sinner" cliche is used basically as an excuse to isolate and marginalize people and to justify the brutality of aggressive proselytization in the name of "saving someone's soul"

 

[Leevo]

Christianity to be blunt seems incapable of actually loving anyone outside of their bubble of acceptable morality. It also seems apparent that secularists show far more love to people as they are than Christians.

The love offered by secularists, is not true love. True love does not want people to go to hell for eternity, and therefore warns the person who is headed in that direction even if it doesn't look like love. (Disclaimer: I acknowledge that some Christians actually do harbor hate in their heart towards homosexuals). Secular love is not true love at all because all it does is enable.

Here is an example, yes I will be using homosexual relations because it's one of the most well known forms of lifestyle sins that only Christians have a problem with.

Scenario: monogamous gay couple who adopt a child to raise to adulthood

Secularists: Good and civic people who save a child from our sub par foster care system. A clear example of the benefits of increasing the rights given to US citizens.

Catholics: damned degenerate sinners who are damning a child by raising it. It is a mistake of our government to officially accept this kind of family.

Never seen this at all, though I do think that there are downsides to raising a child in a homosexual home but do not think that they should be banned from being able to raise children... I have especially never heard any Catholic I have met speak in this sentiment... Maybe Baptists...

I realize catechism tries to lighten the impact, but let's be honest here. An actively homosexual couple in a monogamous relationship are going to burn in hell according to Christians. The only way to escape this is by denying their entire self, living chaste and romantically alone forever.

This is true. God is the author of morality, not us. Sin is not only doing harm to another, but a whole multitude of things that go contrary to what God desires.

No matter how nice you are to active homosexuals in public, it doesn't change that Catholics are required to hate who these people are and fully expect their God will burn them in hell unless they turn a full 180 and become alone and deny themselves completely in terms of sexuality and relations (no relationships, no sex, no masturbating, no impure thoughts) all until you die. This is of course with the added salt to the wound of heterosexual Christians being allowed their sexual release through marriage.

I hate their lifestyle because it is a sinful one. I love the person as a human being and understand that they struggle with sin like everyone else. They can receive forgiveness like the rest of us. Sex in the Christian worldview is God's design for hetero-sexual marriage. It is not here for our pleasure only. It is here for us to procreate and continue the human race. Homosexual relations can accomplish none of that. The problem I see here lies within what you view sex as. You view it only as something to be done for selfish pleasure, whereas we see it as a part of God's divine plan for the human race.

A

m I wrong? All evidence seems to point to Christianity in general being terribly hateful. A hateful God requiring his followers to hold open or secret hatred toward those who live outside God's acceptable morality. I'm open to the possibly of being corrected.

You are wrong!

God is not hateful he is love. He loves the homosexuals just like he loves everyone else, so much so that He sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross for the entire world!

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

....aaaannnnndddd...

right on time:

The love offered by secularists, is not true love. True love does not want people to go to hell for eternity, and therefore warns the person who is headed in that direction even if it doesn't look like love. (Disclaimer: I acknowledge that some Christians actually do harbor hate in their heart towards homosexuals). Secular love is not true love at all because all it does is enable.

 

[Leevo]

....aaaannnnndddd...

right on time:

Truth is truth whether you like it or not. Christ offered forgiveness to the adulterous woman. But what did he say afterwards? "Go and sin no more"

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Hey OP Dude, you might want to read the rules.

 

[MikeK]

Knowing and observing living same sex couples raising well-adjusted children together has made it difficult for me to tow the Church's line on homosexual adoption.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Christianity to be blunt seems incapable of actually loving anyone outside of their bubble of acceptable morality. It also seems apparent that secularists show far more love to people as they are than Christians.

Secularists only claim to have tolerance. But they are actually very intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. They are hostile to Christians and have no tolerance for people who don't love the sin.

 

[FlaviusAetius]

Secularists only claim to have tolerance. But they are actually very intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. They are hostile to Christians and have no tolerance for people who don't love the sin.

Well Christians have been attempting to legally restrict many different sinful actions in a secular environment, so I can see why they hold intolerance.

Examples, despite freedom being the main aspect of the USA ideals Christians have fought tooth and nail to keep the government from accepting homosexual marriage. This is despite the fact that Christians see no problem with atheist getting married and allow atheists to raise children in a godless home without legal action restricting them.

Christians still continue to fight against abortion despite non Christians citizens having no problem with infanticide and God allowing things like down syndrome and other diseases to leave expecting mother's with barely functional children.

Finally one of the biggest ones is Catholic in particular of trying to restrict contraceptive for non Christians who have no Catholic obligations to not use birth control.

The argument secular make is "If you don't like abortion/gay marriage/birth control then don't do it yourself, but don't legally restrict others right to do these things." If we lived in a Catholic nation I'd be more supportive of making laws against birth control, gays, and abortion, but the USA has no official religion and is built on secularism.

Truth is truth whether you like it or not. Christ offered forgiveness to the adulterous woman. But what did he say afterwards? "Go and sin no more"

That is the issue. Woman aren't naturally adulterous, that woman can go on to live a fufilling life that includes love for herself, of a future husband, kids and God.

A homosexual in a monogamous relationship being told to sin no more must hate himself, abandon his partner and any children they raise together, and live a unfulfilled life that denies his sexuality which is a natural part of humanity (as in that most humans feel sexual attractions of some sort).

It's a conditional love that destroys someone's inner self in exchange for utter devotion to a God who hates how your mind was made to function.

If all sin was destructive to humans then I'd be more supportive of God, but forcing someone who is hard gay to completely deny all romantic happiness while heterosexuals are allowed to indulge in it seems to be more destructive than allowing them to have the chance to have a monogamous marriage and to raise a adopted child.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Scenario: monogamous gay couple who adopt a child to raise to adulthood

Secularists: Good and civic people who save a child from our sub par foster care system. A clear example of the benefits of increasing the rights given to US citizens.

Catholics: damned degenerate sinners who are damning a child by raising it. It is a mistake of our government to officially accept this kind of family.

This really isn't an apples to apples comparison. Secularists will be very supportive of a gay couple, but they are generally supportive of gay relations. They aren't doing a good job of "loving the sinner while hating the sin" because they don't believe that gay couples are sinners in the first place.

But its not as if secularism teaches that there are no "secular sins." They will condemn those that they view as bigoted, homophobic, racist, holier-than-thou, scientifically backward, "on the wrong side of history", etc. In many cases they will be unwilling to say any good thing about someone who has committed one of those sins. That is to say, the secular world will usually hate both the sin and the sinner (provided that the sin is a secular one.)

I realize catechism tries to lighten the impact, but let's be honest here. An actively homosexual couple in a monogamous relationship are going to burn in hell according to Christians. The only way to escape this is by denying their entire self, living chaste and romantically alone forever.

There is no way to be certain about the ultimate end of any individual, so we can't be sure that an active homosexual is going to burn in hell. We can be sure, however, that the homosexual is sinning in pursuing homosexual acts. This makes the homosexual a consistent sinner, putting him in the same boat as nearly all of humanity. The situation is similar to that of someone who habitually views pornography, or someone who habitually lies to get ahead at work, or someone who often commits theft, or someone who gets violently drunk every weekend. Note too that we do not have enough information to properly judge any of the cases that I listed to truly understand how bad the actions are: it may be that the sinners in question are committing their sins due to weakness which they try to resist, or it may be that they are actively and proudly committing the sins. It is sin in any case, but the amount of blame and guilt varies depending on the circumstances.

No matter how nice you are to active homosexuals in public, it doesn't change that Catholics are required to hate who these people are and fully expect their God will burn them in hell unless they turn a full 180 and become alone and deny themselves completely in terms of sexuality and relations (no relationships, no sex, no masturbating, no impure thoughts) all until you die. This is of course with the added salt to the wound of heterosexual Christians being allowed their sexual release through marriage.

Catholics are not required to hate anyone, full stop. In fact we are commanded to love even our enemies. You can only say that we are required to hate homosexuals because we can recognize that they sin in engaging in homosexual acts, but that is merely a recognition of a fact. There is as much there as there hate of children in the statement "if children play in busy streets, they are likely to get killed in a vehicular accident."

On top of that anyone who views marriage as nothing more than an outlet for sexual release has an incredibly distorted view of marriage, to the extent that it might be possible to annul any marriage that person entered. It would be better for such a person to remain celibate until he properly understood the nature of marriage, and in doing so to engage in all the self-control that is required of a chaste homosexual.

Am I wrong? All evidence seems to point to Christianity in general being terribly hateful. A hateful God requiring his followers to hold open or secret hatred toward those who live outside God's acceptable morality. I'm open to the possibly of being corrected.

Your point seems to be that Catholics must hate homosexuals if they say that their preferred sexual actions are wrong, and that secular society is superior for not saying that those actions are wrong. But I think that you fail to recognize the extreme challenge in the Christian call to love.

Love is easy when a person is likable. It is extremely difficult when a person has engaged in despicable actions, but we must love even such people. And active homosexuals are far from the worst people in the world. We are also called to love people like KKK members, serial killers and war criminals. Surely if we love people, we cannot condone their actions, and must love the sinner but hate their sins in these cases. Can the secular world do the same? Or can it only divide the world into those who should be loved, since they have done nothing wrong in secular eyes, and those who must be hated since they have wronged secular morality?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Knowing and observing living same sex couples raising well-adjusted children together has made it difficult for me to tow the Church's line on homosexual adoption.

The problem is that we see the positive results, but the negative are swept out of sight, and because it's a new idea, we won't see the results for another 20 years or more.

So, what happens after 20 years and we see that kids raised by same-sex couple's are dysfunctional emotionally and can't tell right from wrong and we have a new subculture of adults living on the fringe of sanity ? It will be impossible to reverse the negative on such people and we'll have to live with the consequences.

Heck, I was watching the news about the riots in Milwaukee the other day, and they were interviewing some of the rioters, including the brother of the suspect that was shot by the cops. The level of ignorance and incoherent vocabulary was shocking. However, thinking about it, they are the result of social engineering 15-25 years ago, where being a single mother was not a problem and even celebrated in their social environment. The kids had no father and an incompetent mother who essentially abandoned them to the streets. We mow have a subculture of barbarians in the inner cities of America.

I'm not saying this will be the same result of kids raised by same-sex couples, but I have seen the negatives from such kids who are now coming into adulthood. Its only a matter of time before we'll know whether or not, gay parenting is as good as traditional parenting with a child having a mother and a father.

Jim

 

[FlaviusAetius]

@MoonlessNight

I suppose the notion of Christian love confuses me then. What does it mean to love an objectively horrible person like a serial killer?

Why is it considered loving to believe a homosexual couple is going to burn in hell? It seems two faced of Christians to be nice to atheists and homosexuals when they believe that they'll suffer eternally for their actions.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Well Christians have been attempting to legally restrict many different sinful actions in a secular environment, so I can see why they hold intolerance.

Examples, despite freedom being the main aspect of the USA ideals Christians have fought tooth and nail to keep the government from accepting homosexual marriage. This is despite the fact that Christians see no problem with atheist getting married and allow atheists to raise children in a godless home without legal action restricting them.

Christians still continue to fight against abortion despite non Christians citizens having no problem with infanticide and God allowing things like down syndrome and other diseases to leave expecting mother's with barely functional children.

Finally one of the biggest ones is Catholic in particular of trying to restrict contraceptive for non Christians who have no Catholic obligations to not use birth control.

The argument secular make is "If you don't like abortion/gay marriage/birth control then don't do it yourself, but don't legally restrict others right to do these things." If we lived in a Catholic nation I'd be more supportive of making laws against birth control, gays, and abortion, but the USA has no official religion and is built on secularism.

Who are you trying to convince? It can't be atheists and secularists, because they largely agree with your conclusions. But I have trouble believing that you have any intention of convincing Catholics here, because your arguments are so unpersuasive to someone with a Catholic viewpoint, and you have been here long enough to have some idea of what the Catholic viewpoint is if you cared to find out.

For example you try to imply that it is hypocritical for Catholics to fight abortion when God allows children to be born with Down's Syndrome. Is that supposed to move me one inch? For this to be persuasive I would have to believe that people with Down's Syndrome are nothing but burdens who do not deserve to live. But Catholics see human dignity in all people, and do not classify people into "worthy of life" or "unworthy of life" depending on their intellectual or physical characteristics. You should know enough about Catholicism to know that we think this, so why would you try to shame us for thinking that people with Down's Syndrome should live?

Again, you try to shame us for not believing in moral relativism which says that if someone believes a practice is acceptable that there is no problem for someone to engage in that practice. You should know that Catholics believe that our moral teachings our universal and rational. That is, for example, it is wrong for anyone to murder regardless of his opinions on the matter, and it can be explained why it is wrong for anyone to murder. Since you know this, why would you think that we would be shamed by pointing out that people disagree with us?

So I do not believe that you are intending to convince Catholics here. Since you can't be persuading secularists, it's likely that you don't intend to convince anyone at all. You are merely broadcasting your hatred for Catholic doctrine and your love of secular doctrine in order to improve your standing in the eyes of your fellow travelers. You used to ask more relevant questions and have more a concern for rational argument, so it is shameful to see you engage in such petty virtue signaling.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Well Christians have been attempting to legally restrict many different sinful actions in a secular environment, so I can see why they hold intolerance.

So-called 'same-sex marriage' is not real marriage. This isn't just a religious idea. No one in history, except Nero (aka the Beast), ever believed that marriage could be anything other than a man and a woman. Even the ancient Spartans, who were practicing homosexuals themselves, did not call their homosexual relationships a 'marriage'. Though homosexual acts are a sin, Christians weren't going around raiding gay bars. Homosexuals were barely on our radar when they suddenly started a fight with us by trying to force this on us. Our fight has mostly been defensive. See the following:

Archbishop Cordileone states case against gay marriage

'To legalize marriage between two people of the same sex would enshrine in the law the principle that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or irrelevant.' - Archbishop Cordileone

Q: What is the greatest threat posed by allowing gays and lesbians to marry?

A:The better question is: What is the great good in protecting the public understanding that to make a marriage you need a husband and a wife?

I can illustrate my point with a personal example. When I was Bishop of Oakland, I lived at a residence at the Cathedral, overlooking Lake Merritt. It's very beautiful. But across the lake, as the streets go from 1st Avenue to the city limits at 100th Avenue, those 100 blocks consist entirely of inner city neighborhoods plagued by fatherlessness and all the suffering it produces: youth violence, poverty, drugs, crime, gangs, school dropouts, and incredibly high murder rates. Walk those blocks and you can see with your own eyes: A society that is careless about getting fathers and mothers together to raise their children in one loving family is causing enormous heartache.

To legalize marriage between two people of the same sex would enshrine in the law the principle that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or irrelevant, and that marriage is essentially an institution about adults, not children; marriage would mean nothing more than giving adults recognition and benefits in their most significant relationship.

How can we do this to our children?
...
Q: How would the allegation that opponents are bigoted lead to their rights being abridged?

A: Notice the first right being taken away: the right of 7 million Californians who devoted time and treasure to the democratic process, to vote for our shared vision of marriage. Taking away people's right to vote on marriage is not in itself a small thing.

But the larger picture that's becoming increasingly clear is that this is not just a debate about what two people do in their private life, it's a debate about a new public norm: Either you support redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex or you stand accused by law and culture of bigotry and discrimination.

If you want to know what this new public legal and social norm stigmatizing traditional believers will mean for real people, ask David and Tanya Parker, who objected to their kindergarten son being taught about same sex marriage after the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized it in that state and wanted to pull him out of class for that lesson. He was arrested and handcuffed for trying to protect his son's education, and they were told they had no right to do so.

Ask the good people of Ocean Grove Methodist camp in New Jersey that had part of its tax-exempt status rescinded because they don't allow same-sex civil union ceremonies on their grounds. Ask Tammy Schulz of Illinois, who adopted four children (including a sibling group) through Evangelical Child Family Services — which was shut down because it refuses to place children with same-sex couples. (The same thing has happened in Illinois, Boston and Washington, D.C., to Catholic Charities adoption services). ... Ask the doctor in San Diego County who did not want to personally create a fatherless child through artificial insemination, and was punished by the courts.... Ask Amy Rudnicki who testified in the Colorado Legislature recently that if Catholic Charities is shut out of the adoption business by new legislation, her family will lose the child they expected to adopt this year. ... Nobody is better off if religious adoption agencies are excluded from helping find good homes for abused and neglected children, but governments are doing this because the principle of "anti-discrimination" is trumping liberty and compassion. ...

When people say that opposition to gay marriage is discriminatory, like opposition to interracial marriage, they cannot also say their views won't hurt anybody else. They seek to create and enforce a new moral and legal norm that stigmatizes those who view marriage as the union of husband and wife. ... It's not kind, and it doesn't seem to lead to a "live and let live" pluralism.

Basic Biology
sperm (♂) + egg (♀) = baby
sperm (♂) + sperm (♂) = nothing
egg (♀) + egg (♀) = nothing

Full USA Today article

 

[MoonlessNight]

I suppose the notion of Christian love confuses me then. What does it mean to love an objectively horrible person like a serial killer?

Love is ultimately wanting the good for another.

Since it is a great evil and a defect to be habitually engaged in sin, in the case of a serial killer this would include hoping for him to realize the error of his ways and giving him opportunities to engage in restitution. Of course, since the common good must also be protected we would take precautions to make sure that he could not harm others at the same time.

Loving him would also mean seeing that he is treated decently and that he is recognized as a human being. If someone were to torture him in revenge for his actions, for example, Catholics would be obligated to stop it.

In some circumstances it may be necessary to execute him, such as when there are no available prison facilities or if the only existing ones are not secure enough to contain someone as dangerous as him. However, even in that case we would e called to give him opportunities to repent for his actions and to pray that he seek God's forgiveness.

Why is it considered loving to believe a homosexual couple is going to burn in hell? It seems two faced of Christians to be nice to atheists and homosexuals when they believe that they'll suffer eternally for their actions.

Suppose that two people see a child playing with matches. The first tells the child that if he continues doing that, he will die in a fire when he burns the house down. The second tells the child that if he continues playing with matches everything will be fine since there's nothing to worry about when having fun.

The first person believes that the child will experience a great deal of pain in his future, the second does not condemn the child (in the mind of the second person) to any such agony. Does the first, then, hate the child more than the second?

Again, as I noted in my second post, you don't even seem to be trying to consider things from a Christian perspective. Your arguments only make sense to people who believe that Hell is an illusion and that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts. But Christians obviously do not believe these things, and in fact if they did believe them you would not be here lecturing us about these things. So it is difficult to see how you are expecting to persuade anyone.

 

[FlaviusAetius]

Love is ultimately wanting the good for another.

Since it is a great evil and a defect to be habitually engaged in sin, in the case of a serial killer this would include hoping for him to realize the error of his ways and giving him opportunities to engage in restitution. Of course, since the common good must also be protected we would take precautions to make sure that he could not harm others at the same time.

Loving him would also mean seeing that he is treated decently and that he is recognized as a human being. If someone were to torture him in revenge for his actions, for example, Catholics would be obligated to stop it.

In some circumstances it may be necessary to execute him, such as when there are no available prison facilities or if the only existing ones are not secure enough to contain someone as dangerous as him. However, even in that case we would e called to give him opportunities to repent for his actions and to pray that he seek God's forgiveness.



Suppose that two people see a child playing with matches. The first tells the child that if he continues doing that, he will die in a fire when he burns the house down. The second tells the child that if he continues playing with matches everything will be fine since there's nothing to worry about when having fun.

The first person believes that the child will experience a great deal of pain in his future, the second does not condemn the child (in the mind of the second person) to any such agony. Does the first, then, hate the child more than the second?

Again, as I noted in my second post, you don't even seem to be trying to consider things from a Christian perspective. Your arguments only make sense to people who believe that Hell is an illusion and that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts. But Christians obviously do not believe these things, and in fact if they did believe them you would not be here lecturing us about these things. So it is difficult to see how you are expecting to persuade anyone.

The last part of my OP said my intentions were to receive convincing arguments to help myself. Yes I have a secular perspective, I came here to help myself regain a Christian mindset through discussion.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The underlying purpose of so-called "same-sex marriage" is to persecute Christians. Our fight has mostly been defensive. The latest to be sued by the LGBT lobby is Christian Mingle. The LGBT lobby has been aggressively promoting homosexual behavior everywhere and have been putting us on trial for not going along with promoting it. Here are some other examples:

"so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark...." - Rev 13:17

Prominent Boston doctor and Harvard Medical School professor fired for not endorsing LGBT lifestyle
Christian B&B owners lose court appeal: forced to sell business after homosexual couple complains
Heineken and Sam Adams boycott St. Patrick's Day parades to show their support for SSM
Guinness pulls out of New York's St Patrick's Day parade to show their support for SSM
Boy Scouts Open Doors For "Gay Leadership" (after social, legal, and political pressure)
Chicago Mayor Supports Alderman’s Plan To Block Chick-Fil-A for not supporting SSM
Burger King celebrates 'gay pride' with 'Proud Whopper' wrapped in rainbow paper
As 2015 synod council meets, 'shadow council' pushes acceptance of gay unions
"'Shadow council' speaker pushes Church acceptance of contraception, gay sex"
African cardinal: Pressure groups behind push to change Church teaching
Christian County Clerk Kim Davis Goes to Jail over "Same-Sex Marriage"
Dallas, TX Lesbian judge refuses to marry couples (and wasn't punished)
Catholic Charities Forced to Shut Down Services around the Country
Campbell’s Soup endorses homosexuality; media applauds it
Vatican responds to CDF official’s 'coming out' (Oct 3, 2015)
USCCB: Discrimination Against Catholic Adoption Services
Colorado Baker Appeals SSM 'Re-Education' Order
Chase Bank Surveying Staff's LGBT Loyalty
Tough times for Catholic adoption agencies
Mozilla CEO out over opposition to SSM

In Christian theology, God created Eve as Adam's wife. The husband symbolizes Christ, and the wife symbolizes the Church. (Eph. 5:21-33) So, a so-called "marriage" between two men would symbolize Christ without the Church, and a so-called "marriage" between two women would symbolize the Church without Christ. The Devil, wanting to destroy us, wants to separate us from Jesus who can save us. He can't separate the Church as a whole from Jesus, but he can separate individual members of the Church from Christ. And that's what SS'M' symbolizes. That is why the concept of SS'M' is Satanic at its root. And it's the mark of Nero (aka the Beast) since he was the only one in history to attempt a SS'M' which makes it unique to him.

"Thus, he will repeat the infamous deeds of Nero....As he succeeds in overcoming the saints by a persecution carried to the extreme limit, he will simultaneously give free reign to all kinds of licentiousness, and there will be no freedom except for evil."
— Fr. Charles Arminjon, The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life, p. 45-46

 

[MoonlessNight]

The last part of my OP said my intentions were to receive convincing arguments to help myself. Yes I have a secular perspective, I came here to help myself regain a Christian mindset through discussion.

If you want to regain a Christian mindset, you can begin by at least attempting to see things from a Christian mindset.

For example, rather than merely assuming that it is impossible to love the sinner while hating the sin, because in your mind hating the sin automatically means hating the sinner, ask yourself how you might try to apply the maxim in other situations where you are not as riled up. For example, suppose that you found out that a close relative, who you know to be a generally decent person, had robbed family members on several occasions over the years. How would you react? Would you be forced to choose between hating him or saying that his robberies were not evil? Or would there be another way to react?

Similarly, you could begin by considering for the sake of argument what it might imply if homosexual acts really were intrinsically disordered, just as you surely view many other sexual acts to be intrinsically disordered. What would that imply? How could you treat homosexuals knowing this? Think it through all the way seriously, don't just imagine what the caricature of a Christian in your head would do.

 

[Rhamiel]

when you love heroine addict, you do not want them to just do whatever they want

you want them to get better, to live a fuller life of dignity and virtue, for them to be the best person they can be

 

[FlaviusAetius]

If you want to regain a Christian mindset, you can begin by at least attempting to see things from a Christian mindset.

For example, rather than merely assuming that it is impossible to love the sinner while hating the sin, because in your mind hating the sin automatically means hating the sinner, ask yourself how you might try to apply the maxim in other situations where you are not as riled up. For example, suppose that you found out that a close relative, who you know to be a generally decent person, had robbed family members on several occasions over the years. How would you react? Would you be forced to choose between hating him or saying that his robberies were not evil? Or would there be another way to react?

Similarly, you could begin by considering for the sake of argument what it might imply if homosexual acts really were intrinsically disordered, just as you surely view many other sexual acts to be intrinsically disordered. What would that imply? How could you treat homosexuals knowing this? Think it through all the way seriously, don't just imagine what the caricature of a Christian in your head would do.

For the family member scenario, I'd have to learn his motivation for doing this. The reason would determine whether I outright hate them or offer sympathy and help. Not sure what kind of middle ground there is. If he's stealing for say drug money I'd offer one chance to turn things around and relapse or refusal would probably make me ostracize him.

As for intrinsic disorder of homosexuality, there are many factors to consider. One I'm not living in a Christian nation so I must tolerate non Christian thoughts and actions. Two there are degrees of intrinsic disorder. For instance, I'd never allow openly proud pedophiles to adopt but I should tolerate homosexuals adopting in the same way I tolerate atheists and non Christians adopting. Unless you'll argue atheists shouldn't be allowed to adopt?

How to treat homosexuals becomes an issue for me from a Christian perspective. If you tolerate them, are friendly and never bring up they are living disordered lives then as a Christian you're basically saying "I don't care about your soul, I'd rather us be friends even if you go to Hell."

However if you bring up that homosexuality is a sin you're basically saying "I cannot accept you as you are, your sexual inclination is equivalent to alcoholism that you must reject for salvation."

That's my honest view of the quagmire Christians seem to be placed in.