"Hate the Sin" Hypocrisy

[FlaviusAetius]

Are these really the only outlooks available to us? Both seem overly simplistic.

By all means provide a Catholic alternative view.

 

[Tree of Life]

By all means provide a Catholic alternative view.

Could I provide a generally Christian alternative view that would be acceptable to Catholics?

How about it's a mixed bag? These people are both sinful and used of God to accomplish something good. Their homosexuality is sinful but their desire to sacrifice their resources to care for a child is good. The grace of God is still present in their lives enabling them to do good. God is still using them to do good even though they're living in rebellion against him in certain significant parts of their lives. This is a little closer to reality and more similar to the stories we find in Scripture. God uses sinful people to accomplish good purposes. People are made in the image of God and capable of good, but we're also sinful and God's image is marred.

 

[Sweet Tooth]

I have no problem loving the person but hating the sin.

I love my best friend that I have known all my life: my brother. I'd take a bullet for him in a second, and I think he'd do the same for me.

However, at no point in his dark days did I enjoy or condone his drug use, which resulted in fist fights with my parents, myself, my sister, being arrested multiple times for a wide array of things, leaving drug rehabilitation programs that ranged from free and within the state to expensive and out of state, and even going so far as pulling a gun on my uncle because he ran out of money for his next score.

Going by your thread title, what, I was supposed to love the fact that my brother was killing himself slowly and didn't think twice about harming loved ones? No, as you tried to compare it with your homosexual examples, I actually really did hate it.

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.

Hate in this case would be wrong. Theologically speaking, I won't applaud and jump in joy when someone in a same-sex relationship marries or even goes so far as to adopt. I myself actually disagree with Catholicism with regards to same-sex couples not being able to adopt only because not all heterosexual couples provide a loving environment for kids.

As to their lifestyle, yes, God does not allow it...but where does it say that they are guaranteed hell? Actually, where does it say that practicing Catholics in general will be accepted into heaven? I don't like it when Catholics - and I most definitely detest both atheists or agnostics - hypothesizing where a person's soul will end up as a forgone conclusion. Which is why a lot of Catholics will be quick to remind you to worry about your sins first and foremost before worrying about someone else's.

 

[The Hammer of Witches]

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.
Everyone is to completely deny themselves and follow Christ or risk eternal hell fire. Your position seems to come from a misunderstanding of what true Christianity is. There are many false teachers and wolves out there that corrupt the image of true Christianity, these often receive the publicity. Everyone sins, and everyone falls short of Gods glory. Often times people like to focus on sins that don't apply to them, ignoring their own sins. Homosexuality is a good example as the population engaging in this sin is very small, people can focus on it without dragging themselves down. There are many lukewarm in the church today, that is where any hatred in the church comes from. Christ warned of this many times. That is why homosexuality receives extra hatred. That does not mean it is right, homosexuality is still sin. Everything sexual outside of marriage between man and woman is sin. We are to not only hate homosexuality, but every sin. We are commanded to love everybody, even our enemies. What you posted is correct; unrepentant sin is death, and everyone is to deny themselves that they may find Christ. Some people are meant to be single, it depends on what Gods plan for them is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hate the sin, convert the sinner.

James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't like the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" maxim, either, and the problem I have with it is essentially the same as the problem I have with the way that homosexuality is often discussed in Christian circles.

One of the things that separates Christianity from previous ways of life is that traditional Christian anthropology, contra Aristotle (or Will Durant, perhaps), does not say that we are what we repeatedly do. Hence the idea of 'hating the sin' is at least somewhat secondary to recognizing that we are instead what we are to become (cf. Theosis), rather than whatever we are now. Having this as the dictum by which we approach our lives, however, not only throws out the simple moralizing of the "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" crowd (since the Christian life cannot be reduced to a mere program of morals/"just don't be gay" or whatever), but also the converse whereby people 'are' their sexual lives, or their political opinions, or all this other stuff that is ultimately for this perishing world only. So this is something that 'fails' on all fronts, since it does not gel particularly well with the secular ideal of who man is and the road to his ultimate perfection absent God, nor with the religious idea that to be Christian is a matter of avoiding certain very specific sins and condemning them for the sake of showing consistent opposition to the secular world which has no concept for unchanging truth, rather than, oh, I don't know...being completely outside of both paradigms, as you'd expect a transcendent and omnipotent God to be.

Read: It's not that God does not care what we do with our bodies, but rather that this hyper-focus on specific sins that we ourselves are not tempted by or happen to be the 'sin du jour' of the world reduces the whole exercise of the Christian faith, the primary purpose of which is after all unity with the very God of the universe, into what someone else in this thread has rightly called 'petty virtue signaling' -- i.e., what you are personally not doing, and what this says about your commitment to your religion and its principles (generally with the idea that this is what separates the Christian from the secular person, even though it isn't; NB: Romans 7:15-20). This behavior is not the sole domain of secularists or Christians, but the result of an unhealthy and imbalanced idea of God and of ourselves held by plenty in both camps. The difference between the two, however, is that the Christian is not supposed to have such a view. But many Christians across the confessional spectrum understand Christian morality in this essentially 'secular' way, so it's not surprising to see it on all sides. It is the common view of Christianity in the world at large, after all: "Christian morality is about not doing XYZ" is essentially the flip side of the secular argument regarding "embracing" being XYZ, and both of them are surface-level understandings of what it means to even be a person. Our faith deserves better than that, and everyone -- gay or straight -- deserves better than that, too.

So, yeah, I don't like it either.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Because you alienate your faith when you tell non Christians that gays are equal to crack addicts in your and God's eyes.

Can you see why secularists don't tolerate Christian thoughts when they see crack addicts and a gay couple raising a kid as the same thing?

Also do you push legal restrictions on sinful acts based solely on God disliking them? I seem to recall Christians grasping at straws trying to claim statistics that gays naturally are incapable of being good parents or being monogamous.

Why hate on crack addicts so much?

 

[longhair75]

Maybe I don't have it right, but I figure that everyone's sinful nature is between them and God. No one needs my judgement, and I have my own sins for which I must atone.

Oddly enough, it seems like whenever the "hate the sin but love the sinner" discussion starts it is immediately turned into a discussion of homosexuality, as if it the only sin out there.

Homosexuals are no more or no less sinful than the rest of us.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Popular topics are agenda. It's by design.

(notice how the homosexual topic was introduced... It was in defence of -so that's what's actually going on). Dare I say agenda?

 

[AV1611VET]

Homosexuals are no more or no less sinful than the rest of us.

Sin is sin, but some fall into the category of "abominations."

Homosexuality is one such sin.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Sin is sin, but some fall into the category of "abominations."

Homosexuality is one such sin.

Is that like mortal and venial?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that like mortal and venial?

Not exactly.

And I just noticed I'm in a Catholic section.

Sorry about that!

I'll bow out gracefully.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Not exactly.

And I just noticed I'm in a Catholic section.

Sorry about that!

I'll bow out gracefully.

No, no, you just admitted to mortal and venial..! You're Catholic..!

JK, JK. Lol...

 

[Landon Caeli]

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.

Now explain why secularists hate crack addicts so much.

 

[FlaviusAetius]

Maybe I don't have it right, but I figure that everyone's sinful nature is between them and God. No one needs my judgement, and I have my own sins for which I must atone.

Oddly enough, it seems like whenever the "hate the sin but love the sinner" discussion starts it is immediately turned into a discussion of homosexuality, as if it the only sin out there.

Homosexuals are no more or no less sinful than the rest of us.

Mind explaining then how you intend to convert people with this non judging attitude? See my issue is that this "we're all sinners so live and let live." completely goes against the notion of evangelizing the Christian faith to non Christians, which I would think requires the Christian to point out what actions are sinful and what is virtuous.

Popular topics are agenda. It's by design.

(notice how the homosexual topic was introduced... It was in defence of -so that's what's actually going on). Dare I say agenda?

Sin is sin, but some fall into the category of "abominations."

Homosexuality is one such sin.

No actually I picked this sin because it has a special situation in this world. One is it's a sin that is not by worldly standards inherently destructive. Murder can be abhorred because of the damage it can do to victims, however apparently the only victim of an ideal stable homosexual home is God's feelings. Who again needs to burn them in Hell for being made this way...despite God being the one that allowed them to be born with only attraction to the same sex.

Now explain why secularists hate crack addicts so much.

Crack addiction is destructive to the consumers body in a way that is unrivalled by legal drugs. It also makes people dangerous in their search for more drugs, often being willing to steal, lie and kill for it. It also encourages criminal activity and enriches drug makers and dealers.

Come on now, did I need to explain that?

 

[longhair75]

Mind explaining then how you intend to convert people with this non judging attitude? See my issue is that this "we're all sinners so live and let live." completely goes against the notion of evangelizing the Christian faith to non Christians, which I would think requires the Christian to point out what actions are sinful and what is virtuous.

I do not try to convert people. I just recently returned to the Church, and I still have quite a lot to work out in my own life and faith. I am in no position to tell anyone how to live.*

*(Props to Tom Hanks,,,,,)

 

[Landon Caeli]

Crack addiction is destructive to the consumers body in a way that is unrivalled by legal drugs. It also makes people dangerous in their search for more drugs, often being willing to steal, lie and kill for it. It also encourages criminal activity and enriches drug makers and dealers.

Come on now, did I need to explain that?

No, I asked why secularists hate crack "addicts" so much, not crack "addiction". Isn't there a difference.....?

Because if there is, then we can understand that 'hate the sinner not the sin' is not actually hypocracy.

If not, then you would have to admit that you actually hate those addicts.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I do not try to convert people. I just recently returned to the Church, and I still have quite a lot to work out in my own life and faith. I am in no position to tell anyone how to live.*

*(Props to Tom Hanks,,,,,)

I dont try to convert people either.

 

[FlaviusAetius]

No, I asked why secularists hate crack "addicts" so much, not crack "addiction". Isn't there a difference.....?

Because if there is, then we can understand that 'hate the sinner not the sin' is not actually hypocracy.

If not, then you would have to admit that you actually hate those addicts.

Yes there is a difference and yes I accept that someone can be concerned for helping an addict while hating their addiction.

Of course that doesn't change that when Christians do this scenario with gays you're replacing normal human desires for romantic love, family, and happiness with an abnormal demand for total chastity, loneliness and suffering for the sake of a deity that hates how you're sexuality is naturally inclined.

Again, you don't see anything wrong with comparing a crack addict to a gay couple? Because from what it looks like, it seems both need to be rehabilitated IYO.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Yes there is a difference and yes I accept that someone can be concerned for helping an addict while hating their addiction.

Of course that doesn't change that when Christians do this scenario with gays you're replacing normal human desires for romantic love, family, and happiness with an abnormal demand for total chastity, loneliness and suffering for the sake of a deity that hates how you're sexuality is naturally inclined.

Again, you don't see anything wrong with comparing a crack addict to a gay couple? Because from what it looks like, it seems both need to be rehabilitated IYO.

Of course Catholics think that homosexual people need to take efforts to avoid following their temptations, possibly with the aid of the community. Why wouldn't we think that since we think that homosexual acts of intercourse are intrinsically and gravely immoral?

The addiction analogy was brought up to show you that one can help another overcome temptations towards evil without hating that person. But you missed that completely because you seem incapable of believing that Catholics can love homosexuals or that they can truly believe that homosexual acts are really evil.

Like I said, you aren't even trying to see things from the Catholic perspective, so of course you aren't going to understand it. No one can force you to see things when you insist on taping your eyes shut.