"love The Sinner, Hate The Sin"

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is it possible to love someone without agreeing on everything?

I'd say it's practically impossible for us to love any other way.

[Lamanite]

Maybe this is why itâ??s so hard to love ourselves when we arenâ??t living up to our preconceived notions of perfectionâ?¦

This is a profound statement of something I struggle with all the time. If you have cure and some snake oil- I'm buying.!

[sixidahos]

We see the sinner as part of his sin. Isn't he the one who chose this sin? Isn't he the one who committed the sin? It isn't easy to separate the sin from the sinner because it has become part of him--is part of him until he is released from the sin by Christ.

We aren't God and therefore see the sinner as created by his sin-- I believe we should love the sinner, help the sinner, but we can't separate him from his sin-- only God can.

If the sinner loves his sins more than God and even us, how do we handle that?

Don't all believers fall short of the golory of God. Aren't all believers participators in sin daily? ie. sexual thoughts about someone you're not married to, envy, greed, gluttony, self-righteous, etc.

A man who takes an honest look at himself finds it harder to judge others. If I want forgiveness, I must forgive others as well.

Anthony

[Zoidberg]

I thought we were talking about your family situation, not the homosexuality issue. I don't have a problem with gay people because they are gay. It's not my job to judge, luckily.

I wasn't adressing you personally. Rather, I was using "you" as a hypothetical person with gay children. Also, I believe you made a point that being a member of the Church and being gay are completely different things, which I am not attempting to argue. I was just illustrating how, IMHO, I had the exact same experiences as a gay person would if "loved" with the love reserved for the "sinners".

I am one that also had some thoughts sparked by the comment of "love the sinner - not the sin" So I was glad to see you start this thread.

Some of the things that I think are wrong with that course of action - well - I'll ask - How do you define sin? Homosexuality is one of those issues - some think it's a sin, others do not.

If you are inviting a child and their partner over for dinner because you love them, are you then able to say - I am so happy for you to have found a partner that you can love and you adds something good and positive to your life? Or in the back of your mind - are you repulsed? There is a difference of the level of acceptance of that child if you can not accept their lifestyle. There is a difference in the amount of love you are able to give. IMO, accepting their choice as one that best suits who they are and how fulfilled they can be in this life shows the greater love. Because you are able to share in their joy or struggles instead of thinking you know there is something better for them out there.

Amen.

Don't all believers fall short of the golory of God. Aren't all believers participators in sin daily? ie. sexual thoughts about someone you're not married to, envy, greed, gluttony, self-righteous, etc.

A man who takes an honest look at himself finds it harder to judge others. If I want forgiveness, I must forgive others as well.

Anthony

Amen.

[cartoon bluejay]

this is what i have issue with, and LOAP already brought it up...

but if i honestly and truely believe that homosexuality is a sin-then WHY do i have to believe that living a homosexual lifestyle adds something good and positive to my child's life before i can truly love them?

Why do i have to accept action or belief i feel is wrong in order to love someone?

If we were talking about alcoholism, would you still suggest that i take the 'i'm so glad you found alcohol to make your life better and more fulfilled' approach to loving my child, if my child truly believed that alcohol did such for them?

I've always considered alcoholism to be a disease. I don't consider homosexuality to be a disease. I'm not sure that in all cases it's a choice either. I think some choose the lifestyle and others are born homosexual. I don't consider it an illness or birth defect either. You may be under the opinion that homosexuality is a sin and that's okay. But it's an opinion - it's not alcoholism that has medical research to show that it's bad for you. You just can't compare the two.

I think what makes the issue difficult is that if you have a child who is homosexual and they know you are against it - they might even be under the impression that you would be trying to pray that part of who they are away from them. How can that child feel of your true love for them if they know deep down you wish for their sexuality to go away?

There's really not an example that I can come up with that would help explain this - because you consider it to be a sin. But if you have a child who is homosexual - the only way they can feel that you love them is for you to truly accept that they don't feel homosexuality is a sin and that they are making the best choices they can make with what they have been given. I personally, after watching several LDS loved ones go through the hardship of being homosexual and LDS and witnessing their personal turmoil, have decided it would be better for them to accept their own sexuality as not a sin and pursue a lifestyle that would fulfill their needs not only sexually but also emotionally.

[bluebell]

I've always considered alcoholism to be a disease. I don't consider homosexuality to be a disease. I'm not sure that in all cases it's a choice either. I think some choose the lifestyle and others are born homosexual. I don't consider it an illness or birth defect either. You may be under the opinion that homosexuality is a sin and that's okay. But it's an opinion - it's not alcoholism that has medical research to show that it's bad for you. You just can't compare the two.

I think what makes the issue difficult is that if you have a child who is homosexual and they know you are against it - they might even be under the impression that you would be trying to pray that part of who they are away from them. How can that child feel of your true love for them if they know deep down you wish for their sexuality to go away?

There's really not an example that I can come up with that would help explain this - because you consider it to be a sin. But if you have a child who is homosexual - the only way they can feel that you love them is for you to truly accept that they don't feel homosexuality is a sin and that they are making the best choices they can make with what they have been given. I personally, after watching several LDS loved ones go through the hardship of being homosexual and LDS and witnessing their personal turmoil, have decided it would be better for them to accept their own sexuality as not a sin and pursue a lifestyle that would fulfill their needs not only sexually but also emotionally.

This is the crux of the problem.

It's arrogant and immature, in my opinion, to believe that no one can love me unless they agree with my choices (and regardless of whether you believe homosexuality is a choice (i do not, in most cases) acting on it is ALWAYS a choice).

It's also hypocritical, in my opinion, to believe that others, in order to show me true love, MUST accept my beliefs as being 'good' and 'positive' while i maintain, teach and express that their contrary beliefs are not good and negative.

The issue is-the belief that homosexuality is a sin is an opinion, true. But likewise, the belief that homosexuality is not a sin is ALSO an opinion.

Why is one opinion more valid than the other? Why is does one have to acquiese(sp) to the other one when adults are concerned? This is what i don't get.

It seems like such a selfish position to believe that no one can love me who doesn't agree with my lifestyle. If i stated that i didn't believe my homosexual child could truly love me, unless they accepted that my belief that homosexuality is a sin and thought it was a good and positive belief in my life-people would denounce such feelings.

But they applaud such feelings when it's the other way around, why?

If my child throws my love back in my face and demands that i can only love him if i accept homosexuality is not a sin-then i have failed at raising my child. Not because of the choice to live homosexually but because of the selfishness of only allowing someone to love you if they agree with you first.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is the crux of the problem.

It's arrogant and immature, in my opinion, to believe that no one can love me unless they agree with my choices (and regardless of whether you believe homosexuality is a choice (i do not, in most cases) acting on it is ALWAYS a choice).

It's also hypocritical, in my opinion, to believe that others, in order to show me true love, MUST accept my beliefs as being 'good' and 'positive' while i maintain, teach and express that their contrary beliefs are not good and negative.

The issue is-the belief that homosexuality is a sin is an opinion, true. But likewise, the belief that homosexuality is not a sin is ALSO an opinion.

Why is one opinion more valid than the other? Why is does one have to acquiese(sp) to the other one when adults are concerned? This is what i don't get.

It seems like such a selfish position to believe that no one can love me who doesn't agree with my lifestyle. If i stated that i didn't believe my homosexual child could truly love me, unless they accepted that my belief that homosexuality is a sin and thought it was a good and positive belief in my life-people would denounce such feelings.

But they applaud such feelings when it's the other way around, why?

If my child throws my love back in my face and demands that i can only love him if i accept homosexuality is not a sin-then i have failed at raising my child. Not because of the choice to live homosexually but because of the selfishness of only allowing someone to love you if they agree with you first.

Powerful.

[Zoidberg]

I've always considered alcoholism to be a disease. I don't consider homosexuality to be a disease. I'm not sure that in all cases it's a choice either. I think some choose the lifestyle and others are born homosexual. I don't consider it an illness or birth defect either. You may be under the opinion that homosexuality is a sin and that's okay. But it's an opinion - it's not alcoholism that has medical research to show that it's bad for you. You just can't compare the two.

I think what makes the issue difficult is that if you have a child who is homosexual and they know you are against it - they might even be under the impression that you would be trying to pray that part of who they are away from them. How can that child feel of your true love for them if they know deep down you wish for their sexuality to go away?

There's really not an example that I can come up with that would help explain this - because you consider it to be a sin. But if you have a child who is homosexual - the only way they can feel that you love them is for you to truly accept that they don't feel homosexuality is a sin and that they are making the best choices they can make with what they have been given. I personally, after watching several LDS loved ones go through the hardship of being homosexual and LDS and witnessing their personal turmoil, have decided it would be better for them to accept their own sexuality as not a sin and pursue a lifestyle that would fulfill their needs not only sexually but also emotionally.

I also think that once you are able to allow the possibility that, in some people's view, certain things are not a sin, it becomes much easier to relate to them. And I guess an issue does not exist until it is raised. If you have gone your whole life thinking homosexuality is a sin and then you are presented an opinion that it is not so, it is very hard to accept. Some people don't even think that there is such a thing as a "sin". We all know so little, really.

I guess my answer to bluebell's question would be: what is "truly loving" someone? Is it more important to you how you feel this love should be expressed or how the recipient wants to be loved? This makes all the difference. An honest reciprocal dicussion of values would probably help. Now, if the child starts giving you ultimatums, like "If you love me you will leave the Church because it's trying to make life unbearable for gay people", I believe it's manipulative and inaproppriate. And your child should put up with your going to Church and avoid criticizing it in your presence or expressing or hinting at hope that you might some day leave. I believe it would be totally appropriate for them to ask you how Church was and other Church-related questions, and express their appreciation for your involvement in certain Church projects (but not the ones tnat involve lobbying gay marriage ban). Similarly, you need not express happiness when you do not feel it. Since it's a hypothetical situation it's kind of hard to give a definite answer, but you could try to evaluate the situation before your child got his/her partner and after, and see if there are any positive changes. Of course, the fact that your child is not depressed anymore may not seem like much of a consolation since you think you know that it hardly justifies going to the Telestial Kingdom, but isn't the fact they are not depressed anymore good? Or that they are happy? Or that they have settled down with one partner and are not being promiscuous? On the other hand, if their partner is an abusive jerk, you don't have to be nice to them. You have the right to outright tell your child your opinion of their partner (without expressing the opinion that any heterosexual partner is better than the nicest homosexual partner) and tell them they could do better.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If we, in this life only, have a hope in Christ we are of all men and women, most miserable.

[cartoon bluejay]

The issue is-the belief that homosexuality is a sin is an opinion, true. But likewise, the belief that homosexuality is not a sin is ALSO an opinion.

First, let me say I agree. It is an opinion either way, and I'm sorry that I made it sound like your view was an opinion and my view was a fact - it was unintentional.

I think we may be discussing two different things... agreeing vs acceptance. I may not agree with my childs choice to be a lawyer but I accept it as their choice - I may think that it is not a good career choice but nevertheless - it is their choice and I can accept that. As soon as I express that they made the wrong choice and something else may have been better - it damages the relationship to a certain extent.

Sexuality is something completely different. We're born male or female, heterosexual or homosexual (still debateable - I know). I'm female - you can choose to disagree with that - but I'm female. I'm heterosexual - you might disagree - but I'm heterosexual. It just bothers me that because I'm heterosexual - mostly I get to choose to be married and have children and lead a somewhat normal life without too many questions about it. However, if someone is homosexual - suddenly their sexuality is a big issue. They don't have the choice to get married and have a family - if they do get married and live a heterosexual lifestyle - the consequences are usually depression, betrayal, hurt, unfulfillment, etc. I don't usually hear of it going well.

So - if you have a loved one who is homosexual - they just are - they're homosexual. It needs to be accepted like accepting someone is male or female. The choices after that - an adult makes their own choices. As a parent - I'm going to worry no matter what. Are my children making the choices that is going to lead them to the best life they can have? I think it does show a great love to want the best for your child whether you agree with their choices or not. At some point however, the choices rests with our children... hopefully we've raised them to recognize that consequences follow. I think the true test of love comes when we let them make their choices - do we accept them or not?

[Doctor Steuss]

This is a profound statement of something I struggle with all the time. If you have cure and some snake oil- I'm buying.!

The only cure I've found for having a glass that's viewed as half empty is to get a smaller glass.

[bluebell]

I think we may be discussing two different things... agreeing vs acceptance. I may not agree with my childs choice to be a lawyer but I accept it as their choice - I may think that it is not a good career choice but nevertheless - it is their choice and I can accept that. As soon as I express that they made the wrong choice and something else may have been better - it damages the relationship to a certain extent.

We may not all agree on the same morality but i think everyone has a moral compass that loved ones could make choices contrary too. I'm not really talking about disagreeing with the choices our loved ones make-but rather believing the choices they make are morally inferior and how can we handle that while retaining the love for the person AND our moral beliefs.

So, to change your example from one of simple disagreement to a moral question-what if your child makes a career choice to be a prostitute or a porn star?

Would it be possible for you not to believe they made the wrong choice and that something else may have been better?

(I'm not taking your answer for granted here, as i do realize that many parents DON'T have a problem with their daughters being porn stars or legal prostitutes but i'm assuming that you would not agree with it-if i'm assuming wrong than i apologize).

It's one thing to accept the choices of people we love but we can't really change our morality just because someone we love does something that goes against it.

I agree that accepting and agreeing are two different things. I do believe i can accept the choices of my loved ones without agreeing with them-but that includes not having to pretend that i think they are good choices or positive choices.

Sexuality is something completely different. We're born male or female, heterosexual or homosexual (still debateable - I know). I'm female - you can choose to disagree with that - but I'm female. I'm heterosexual - you might disagree - but I'm heterosexual. It just bothers me that because I'm heterosexual - mostly I get to choose to be married and have children and lead a somewhat normal life without too many questions about it. However, if someone is homosexual - suddenly their sexuality is a big issue. They don't have the choice to get married and have a family - if they do get married and live a heterosexual lifestyle - the consequences are usually depression, betrayal, hurt, unfulfillment, etc. I don't usually hear of it going well.

This is just how life is. We ALL have things about us that limit our abilities and desires and that's just the way it is is.

I desperately wish i could sing well. I also REALLY wish i had some sort of artistic talent. I see all these people who have been blessed with those things and i honestly envy them.

But no amount of me saying it is unfair is going to change it. I am who i am and that means that there are some things i can't do-even if i REALLY want to. It also means that there are others who can do those things-even if it's unfair that i can't.

I would also really love to be able to have a career in my life right now that would not take anything away from my family time. But that's not possible. If i had a career-it would have to be 'had' during time that my young children and hubby (earning a distance BS degree while working a full time job and a part time job) need me around.

If i choose one thing-the other thing suffers. There is no way around that. I can't have everything i want right now. My choice of putting my family first means that my career MUST come second, no matter how much i wish there was some way to do it all.

Why should our sexuality be any different?

Being homosexual means, in God's eyes as i understand it, that you can't do some of the things heterosexual people can do. I have full faith that God will make up for those blessings later, how, i have no idea-but i know that He loves all His children and will provide peace and joy to all who choose Him above all else.

But right now, in mortality, it's not fair-but then, things seldom are, not in our understanding anyway.

I understand that it's not an easy choice to feel like you had to make, but it's the choice, nontheless.

So - if you have a loved one who is homosexual - they just are - they're homosexual. It needs to be accepted like accepting someone is male or female.

I so agree. There is no sin in being homosexual and there should be no shame to it (though i know there is as homosexual people are forced to interact with imperfect judgemental people).

The choices after that - an adult makes their own choices. As a parent - I'm going to worry no matter what. Are my children making the choices that is going to lead them to the best life they can have? I think it does show a great love to want the best for your child whether you agree with their choices or not. At some point however, the choices rests with our children... hopefully we've raised them to recognize that consequences follow. I think the true test of love comes when we let them make their choices - do we accept them or not?

I agree with what you're saying here. In the end, our children have their agency and we have to accept their use of it.

I feel we are commanded to do so-even while we firmly retain our own beliefs that such choices are sinful or harmful, we can wrap our arms around our loved ones and be happy when they are happy and sad when they are sad, and let them know that our love for them goes beyond any choices they could ever make.

[Deborah]

I have found that what people need most is acceptance, not necessarily of what they are doing, but of who they are: children of God who are struggling and sometimes who just have to make the choices they make because they need to learn from the school of hard knocks. One problem we have, especially with our children, is that we feel responsible to some degree when they go against our teachings, when in most cases there was probably nothing we could have done differently. Loving the sinner to me means accepting them as a child of God, whom God loves too, and looking for and acknowledging all the good traits of that person (responsibility, kindness, etc). Hating the sin means recognizing that the choices being made aren't ours, and therefore we are not accountable, but nevertheless a person has a right to choose her life and to take the consequences of it. Furthermore, hating the sin means we stand as examples and do not back down from our principles while not condemning the other but leaving such judgements to God who can see into the hearts and minds.

Having said all this, there are some choices, which may be dangerous or life-threatening, for which we must intervene. Often in those situations we may have to bring others in to help.

[bluebell]

I have found that what people need most is acceptance, not necessarily of what they are doing, but of who they are: children of God who are struggling and sometimes who just have to make the choices they make because they need to learn from the school of hard knocks. One problem we have, especially with our children, is that we feel responsible to some degree when they go against our teachings, when in most cases there was probably nothing we could have done differently. Loving the sinner to me means accepting them as a child of God, whom God loves too, and looking for and acknowledging all the good traits of that person (responsibility, kindness, etc). Hating the sin means recognizing that the choices being made aren't ours, and therefore we are not accountable, but nevertheless a person has a right to choose her life and to take the consequences of it. Furthermore, hating the sin means we stand as examples and do not back down from our principles while not condemning the other but leaving such judgements to God who can see into the hearts and minds.

Having said all this, there are some choices, which may be dangerous or life-threatening, for which we must intervene. Often in those situations we may have to bring others in to help.

very wise deborah.

[Zoidberg]

I have found that what people need most is acceptance, not necessarily of what they are doing, but of who they are: children of God who are struggling and sometimes who just have to make the choices they make because they need to learn from the school of hard knocks. One problem we have, especially with our children, is that we feel responsible to some degree when they go against our teachings, when in most cases there was probably nothing we could have done differently. Loving the sinner to me means accepting them as a child of God, whom God loves too, and looking for and acknowledging all the good traits of that person (responsibility, kindness, etc). Hating the sin means recognizing that the choices being made aren't ours, and therefore we are not accountable, but nevertheless a person has a right to choose her life and to take the consequences of it. Furthermore, hating the sin means we stand as examples and do not back down from our principles while not condemning the other but leaving such judgements to God who can see into the hearts and minds.

Having said all this, there are some choices, which may be dangerous or life-threatening, for which we must intervene. Often in those situations we may have to bring others in to help.

Nicely put.

[cartoon bluejay]

I feel we are commanded to do so-even while we firmly retain our own beliefs that such choices are sinful or harmful, we can wrap our arms around our loved ones and be happy when they are happy and sad when they are sad, and let them know that our love for them goes beyond any choices they could ever make.

I like that.

And yes! I would be devastated if my child were to become a prostitute or a porn star. However, I've always felt that if there is a ever a time that my child feels like they can't come home - I've failed as a parent. So I think it sometimes it is better to swallow our own pride or belief systems and accept and love.

But something else you said may me think - Christs love is a perfect love and I believe he accepts the sinner and the sin through His atoning sacrifice. If we are to become Christ-like - does that mean we too need to accept the sin? Just a thought.

(Thanks for your contribution Deborah - that was very well put.)

[Zoidberg]

But something else you said may me think - Christs love is a perfect love and I believe he accepts the sinner and the sin through His atoning sacrifice. If we are to become Christ-like - does that mean we too need to accept the sin? Just a thought.

Well, wouldn't we be sinless then? This calls for a paradox: if God is unable to sin, wouldn't that make Him not omnipotent?

Anyway, maybe we will be able to accept the inevitability of sin in mortal humans and let them harm themselves without interference because they have free agency.

[cartoon bluejay]

Well, wouldn't we be sinless then? This calls for a paradox: if God is unable to sin, wouldn't that make Him not omnipotent?

Anyway, maybe we will be able to accept the inevitability of sin in mortal humans and let them harm themselves without interference because they have free agency.

Hey! I know we can't BE perfect but it sure would be nice if everyone agreed with me.

I'm not sure how accepting the sin makes us sinless - I mean, Christ accepts it through the atonement and makes us perfect. We accept but we have no power to change it, however we must accept it - or not. Like forgiveness - we must forgive in order to be forgiven. Maybe it's like that - we must accept the sins of others in order for Christ to accept our sins. I don't know.

[dude]

I think we LDS view "hating the sin" in terms of our traditional (and not very scriptural) ranking of sins and transgressions. Sexual sin is often used as the example, and often within sexual sin, the specific sin of homosexuality because it's so easy to hate. This just clouds the whole conversation (and thread btw). Jesus' living example was hardly ever one of "hating" sin in my opinion. That's not the take-away message I get from reading about His life in the New Testament. My reading of the New Testament makes me think He despised self-righteousness more than anything, but now I"m guilty of ranking sins too! It's all sin, and when we look on another person's sins as worse than ours, (and that's what we have to do by definition when we even use the term: "love the sinner, hate the sin"), we are judging. Now with parents and their children maybe it's ok to use righteous judgement once in a while and call someone to repentance. But for the most part I think this phrase is abused, and it's better re-phrased as "love the sinner, ignore the sin". Very seldom should we be in a position of calling someone to repentance. We can quietly live good lives and set examples without opening our mouths and stating our position. Even our children know where we stand. Most of the time we don't have to even say a word. The example of Jesus was to be with the sinners, and gently encourage them to follow Him (choose a better path). I guess he got out His whip once, but most of the time He was mellow. He can forgive an adulterer just as easily as he can a thief. Don't rank sins, just be grateful yours aren't consuming you to destruction. We should look at it with pure godly sorrow for the person, not hate for the actions.

[spinner]

Zoidberg brought up a point in another thread that i've heard many times-that's it's impossible to really love a person and hate something they are doing or believing.

I really don't get why?

I'm trying to understand better why some people feel that you can't really love them unless you agree with them.

I'm hoping people can help me see this issue from the other side.

What is a person if not the amalgamation of all the choices they have made? For me, saying "I love the sinner but hate the sin" makes about as much sense as proclaiming "I love zucchini I just hate the way it tastes."

[Zoidberg]

Hey! I know we can't BE perfect but it sure would be nice if everyone agreed with me.

I agree with everything you've said on this thread so far. I was being serious. (well, except for the paradox part). God and Christ don't interfere with our free agency, right? Neither should we. And if there is anything objective and true, only God knows what it is. If one thinks someone is harming themselves, they might not think so, so one is imposing one's definition of harm on them.

I'm not sure how accepting the sin makes us sinless - I mean, Christ accepts it through the atonement and makes us perfect. We accept but we have no power to change it, however we must accept it - or not. Like forgiveness - we must forgive in order to be forgiven. Maybe it's like that - we must accept the sins of others in order for Christ to accept our sins. I don't know.

Yes, that would make sense.

I think we LDS view "hating the sin" in terms of our traditional (and not very scriptural) ranking of sins and transgressions. Sexual sin is often used as the example, and often within sexual sin, the specific sin of homosexuality because it's so easy to hate. This just clouds the whole conversation (and thread btw). Jesus' living example was hardly ever one of "hating" sin in my opinion. That's not the take-away message I get from reading about His life in the New Testament. My reading of the New Testament makes me think He despised self-righteousness more than anything, but now I"m guilty of ranking sins too! It's all sin, and when we look on another person's sins as worse than ours, (and that's what we have to do by definition when we even use the term: "love the sinner, hate the sin"), we are judging.

I agree. We should first apply the "love the sinner, hate the sin" treatment to ourselves... and then we won't have time to apply it to others.

What is a person if not the amalgamation of all the choices they have made? For me, saying "I love the sinner but hate the sin" makes about as much sense as proclaiming "I love zucchini I just hate the way it tastes."

Well, I sense the thread turning into another "nature vs, nurture" debate. You are right. There are the genetic determining factors in our development, as well as environmental. And (arguably) making choices somehow figures into the picture as well. First of all, I don't believe in anything objective within the realm of human experience. If only I could somehow make everybody realize that... but then we would all be wrong because everybody would think exactly the same.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What is a person if not the amalgamation of all the choices they have made? For me, saying "I love the sinner but hate the sin" makes about as much sense as proclaiming "I love zucchini I just hate the way it tastes."

So before we can love someone we have to agree with them on every issue, then?

[Zoidberg]

So before we can love someone we have to agree with them on every issue, then?

I believe someone has already pointed out the difference between agreement and acceptance.

[cartoon bluejay]

So before we can love someone we have to agree with them on every issue, then?

No - a big no. You don't have to agree with someone in order to love them - you do have to accept them however. And if you are striving to be Christ-like - you need to strive to love as He would.

[bluebell]

What is a person if not the amalgamation of all the choices they have made?

I don't see my loved ones as BEING their choices and i certainly hope my loved ones don't see me as being mine. I'm more than my choices, and so are they, thankfully, since neither their nor my choices are very good a lot of the time.

Your answer is all well and good, but it hasn't helped us find a solution to the issue.

In your opinion-how do you love the sinner AND love the sin?

What do you do if a loved one chooses to do something that you truly and honestly believe is a sin and will harm them physically, spiritually and emotionally?

How do you love the loved one without hating what they are doing?

For me, saying "I love the sinner but hate the sin" makes about as much sense as proclaiming "I love zucchini I just hate the way it tastes."

For me, it's like saying, i love pizza but dont eat it because it's bad for me-but my loved one does and i still love them even while they do.