"love The Sinner, Hate The Sin"

[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.

I see what you're saying now - I guess it took sleeping on it. I like what you said about God and Christ not interfering with our agency. There's a lot of this that applies to the gender thread you've got going on too. You've given me a lot to think about.

[cartoon bluejay]

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.

I don't think it's so unreasonable to be thought of as a product of your choices. I think it's also okay to have hope of being something better but in actuality you are what you are because of the choices you make - good or bad. Zoidberg said something that fits here. "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." Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you don't want to be thought of in terms of your choices that can be not so very good a lot of the times. Yet, they are a part you - (a part of everyone and my bad choices are a part of me - this is not a personal attack). I think sometimes in the LDS culture we have a hard time embracing our sinful selves and remembering who took our sins upon them.

But you do make a good point, you want to be more than your choices - so does everyone. As soon as someone puts more focus on the sin (or choice) than they do the person (or sinner), that person (the sinner) feels less than the sin.

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

You love the sinner and forget about the sin. No one is saying love the sin - accept the sin for what it is and love the sinner.

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?

Is this loved one a child in your care or an adult? A child - you have the right to remove whatever you believe will harm them. When that child becomes an adult - it's none of your business. Any interference damages the relationship. And it may hurt you to watch a loved one make choices that you see are hurting them over and over again, but you love them and let them make their choices and allow them to be more than their choices. You don't focus on what you believe is a wrong choice on their part. You focus on them and love them.

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

You let go of your need for control and let them experience life and choices and the consequences that follow and still have your arms open for when they make a mistake. When you do that - they feel free to come to you because you focused on your love for them.

[Zoidberg]

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.

To take this analogy one step further, there might be people to whom it is not evident that if they personally eat pizza, it will have any negative effects on them (because they have super-high metabolism, for instance, and eating pizza doesn't make them fat). So if you ate pizza, it would be bad for you, and you know it (perhaps because you have tried eating a lot of pizza one time and saw the results). So you think that must mean that if everybody eats a lot of pizza, they'll ALL gain weight, their cholesterol will go up, etc. However, a lot of things that have to do with cholesterol and body weight are genetic and vary from person to person. So some people with high metabolism and inherently low cholesterol have been eating a lot of pizza for a long time without any negative effects so far. So they can realize that while in some cases eating a lot of pizza can negatively affect a person's health, it is not negatively affecting them. In fact, it makes them happy because they can't imagine how they could live without it. The only downfall is that they have to put up with people constantly telling them about the dangers of pizza.

I see what you're saying now - I guess it took sleeping on it. I like what you said about God and Christ not interfering with our agency. There's a lot of this that applies to the gender thread you've got going on too. You've given me a lot to think about.

Ditto. You seem to be a very peaceful person. I wish I could be more like that. I tend to get into heated debates and get kicked off various forums every once in a while.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The issue is-the belief that homosexuality is a sin is an opinion, true.

Yeah...God's opinion.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be awise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but bhave pleasure in them that do them.

Pa Pa

[Zoidberg]

Yeah...God's opinion.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be awise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but bhave pleasure in them that do them.

Pa Pa

Let me tell you, Pa Pa, that the statement about women has most often been interpreted to mean **** sex with men (to avoid getting pregnant). That's how it was understood in the early church. And **** sex really does increase your chances to get a disease for both men and women.

Also, it's talking about burning in lust. I don't imagine heterosexual people burning in lust are any more justified.

You are ignoring all the other sins mentioned in this epistle that could apply to you and me. Besides, what makes you think it wasn't Paul's personal opinion? What does unnatural mean? There are non-human animals that engage in homosexual intercourse (bonobos being one famous example).

[bluebell]

Let me tell you, Pa Pa, that the statement about women has most often been interpreted to mean **** sex with men (to avoid getting pregnant). That's how it was understood in the early church. And **** sex really does increase your chances to get a disease for both men and women.

Also, it's talking about burning in lust. I don't imagine heterosexual people burning in lust are any more justified.

You are ignoring all the other sins mentioned in this epistle that could apply to you and me. Besides, what makes you think it wasn't Paul's personal opinion? What does unnatural mean? There are non-human animals that engage in homosexual intercourse (bonobos being one famous example).

let's not turn this thread into one about whether homosexuality is condoned of God or not, alright?

I know that homosexuality is automatically a part of any discussion about loving people but hating what they do, so it's only natural that it will be brought up and discussed-but let's discuss it as it pertains to the topic and leave it at that.

Thanks guys.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Let me tell you, Pa Pa, that the statement about women has most often been interpreted to mean **** sex with men (to avoid getting pregnant). That's how it was understood in the early church. And **** sex really does increase your chances to get a disease for both men and women.

Also, it's talking about burning in lust. I don't imagine heterosexual people burning in lust are any more justified.

You are ignoring all the other sins mentioned in this epistle that could apply to you and me. Besides, what makes you think it wasn't Paul's personal opinion? What does unnatural mean? There are non-human animals that engage in homosexual intercourse (bonobos being one famous example).

No it is not...I have a daughter struggling with this. I have a unique perspective. I would die and go to hell for her...so no sermons please! At what point do we accept scripture as scripture and not opinion. I didn't write I just acept it.

God bless...Pa Pa

Thanks for the advice Bluebell

[Tchild2]

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.

It is futile precisely because morality is subjective and conditional (in this case) based on religious interpretation of what is moral or not. When you "hate the sinner" you are projecting your subjective morality onto another.

"Hey, I hate coffee drinking, but I love you". "Well", says the other person, "I hate the judgemental, hypocritical pious person, but I love you".

[bluebell]

"Hey, I hate coffee drinking, but I love you". "Well", says the other person, "I hate the judgemental, hypocritical pious person, but I love you".

Why is the first statement 'judgemental, hypocritical and pious'?

[cartoon bluejay]

Why is the first statement 'judgemental, hypocritical and pious'?

I think by making a comment like "I hate coffee drinking but I love you" puts the emphasis on the behavior of the person instead of the love for the person. Why not just say "I love you" - why does the comment about coffee drinking have to be made? Can you say "I don't drink coffee" and not attach it to the feelings you have for someone? The two comments don't belong in the same sentence. That's why people get upset. The comments belong separate of one another.

Here's another example - I have a daughter who is 4. She has been potty trained for a couple of years but she's having accidents. I have to be very careful how I handle these accidents - she's old enough to take care of them and in part she is choosing to have the accidents. I can't say that I have ever scolded her about them but I have expressed frustration over the problem. When I get frustrated and I'm not careful about what I say to help her, she starts to feel bad about herself and the problem gets worse. If she perceives that I'm making a judgement about her - the problem gets worse. She does not like being attached to the problem or having it communicated that she is a problem. It is much better when I take judgement words right out of it - however, initially I know I made a judgement of her and connected her to the problem - I regret that. It's a bigger problem than it needs to be because I attached the judgement of the behavior with my feelings for her.

[bluebell]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this post bluejay-i promise i wasn't ignoring you.

I don't think it's so unreasonable to be thought of as a product of your choices.

I think it depends on how one is viewing the word 'product'.

Obviously, our choices shape who we ultimatly are. A person who chooses to use drugs will become a drug addict and that adjective will truthfully and for mortality, be an adjective that accurately describes part of who they are.

On the other hand-a former (and even a present though to a lesser extent) drug addict is so much MORE than those choices. They are some one's son or daughter, or wife, husband, child or sister, brother friend etc. and them being a drug addict doesn't change that in the least. It doesn't even impact it.

Looked at from that angle-their choice to take drugs is merely their choice and not who they ultimately are.

It's kind of like the difference between saying that someone IS a liar and saying that they are a person who sometimes tells lies.

Both can be true descriptions, but looking at the person from an eternal perspective-i think the first one isn't a very accurate picture of an entire being.

I think it's also okay to have hope of being something better but in actuality you are what you are because of the choices you make - good or bad.

I very much agree that we SHOULD have hope of being something better, i just disagree that we 'are what we are'.

Zoidberg said something that fits here. "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."

Yes, that is wise advice and i think it expresses my point. I can love myself and still hate the 'sins that easily beset me', recognize they are not good or positive things in my life, and hope to one day have them out of it....

So i don't understand why it would be impossible to do the same thing for my loved ones. And i'm not saying that as in that i can take an inventory of their sins etc but in the vein that i can acknowledge their weaknesses (to myself, not to them), see beyond their weaknesses and still love them just as much as i would if those weaknesses didn't exist.

Because that is what i hope they are able to do with me and my weaknesses and what i try to do for myself and my own weaknesses.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you don't want to be thought of in terms of your choices that can be not so very good a lot of the times. Yet, they are a part you - (a part of everyone and my bad choices are a part of me - this is not a personal attack). I think sometimes in the LDS culture we have a hard time embracing our sinful selves and remembering who took our sins upon them.

Actually, i've never thought about it before-but now that i have-i resist the idea that anyone (me or anyone else) be labeled as equal to their choices.

Not because that can't sometimes be an accurate label for them-literally speaking-but because we are so much MORE than our choices.

I have a lot of crazy, disfunctional people in my immediate family. They have made some very bad choices in their lives. But that's not who they ARE. Their choices have shaped their lives and even their personalities but they have not replaced who they are.

I've been in their lives before the choices and am still here after them and they have not personally changed that much.

But you do make a good point, you want to be more than your choices - so does everyone.

I truly believe that i AM more than my choices and so is everyone else.

You love the sinner and forget about the sin. No one is saying love the sin - accept the sin for what it is and love the sinner.

I think you're misunderstanding me.

A person can fully love the 'sinner' (i put that in quotes because it's a relative term and not absolute in everyone's beliefs) and forget about the sin and STILL hate the sin, in my opinion.

Tchild said that was impossible-i'm asking him why it's impossible?

When that child becomes an adult - it's none of your business. Any interference damages the relationship. And it may hurt you to watch a loved one make choices that you see are hurting them over and over again, but you love them and let them make their choices and allow them to be more than their choices. You don't focus on what you believe is a wrong choice on their part. You focus on them and love them.

You let go of your need for control and let them experience life and choices and the consequences that follow and still have your arms open for when they make a mistake. When you do that - they feel free to come to you because you focused on your love for them.

Yes, i agree with all of that and always have.

But even doing all of that i can STILL hate their choices, right? I can do all of that for a daughter who chooses to be a legal prostitute but doing all of that would never negate my 'hate' for that choice and it would never cause me to cease praying and hoping that she would change her mind and stop doing it.

Your post (and others here) make it seem like a parent can't do all the things you said here and still hate the sin, i'm asking WHY NOT?

That's what i don't understand.

[cartoon bluejay]

Your post (and others here) make it seem like a parent can't do all the things you said here and still hate the sin, i'm asking WHY NOT?

That's what i don't understand.

Bluebell -

In my opinion, you don't have a problem with loving the sinner and hating the sin. You want to know why it doesn't work, when it works for you very well. I think it works for you because - it sounds like you put your focus on - "love the sinner". So - I'm thinking we don't disagree too much.

The reason it doesn't work in general is because IMO, too many people say "love the sinner, hate the sin" and focus on the hate of the sin instead of the love. They focus on the behavior of the person which we both know is a problem because no one likes to be thought of in terms of their choices or behaviors. We are much more but when faced with someone who focuses on the sin (or choice or behavior) - it feels like who we are is reduced. When someone focuses on the love they have for us - it has healing, increasing, repairing, restoring affects.

If you love someone - you keep your feelings for the sin they are committing private, you don't mention their problems unless invited and even when invited - you do it carefully and with love.

Sometimes I think the statement "love the sinner, hate the sin" gives people the wrong sense of power - a power to point out sins and that they are hated - that only puts people on the defensive and sometimes entrenches them deeper in the sin. It doesn't work when people don't understand and practice the principle correctly. It sounds like you do.

Also - there is moral relativism going on here. Your morals are not the morals of someone else, because you believe your morals came from God - does that give you the right to (can't think of the word right now) put your morals on someone else? When someone acts as if their moral code is superior to someone elses - it's a problem and it doesn't show love at all. Someone who is homosexual may or may not have the moral code that homosexuality is a sin, but that individual is the only one who can determine that. It can not be determined by their parents, or siblings, or friends - it is theirs to deal with and come to terms with. If you share with that person that you hate the sin of homosexuality - it is highly unlikely that they will trust you with what they are struggling with. So - instead focus on the love and let them freely come to you.

Like Christ said "Come unto me" - it's a freely done because He perfectly loves and accepts the sin.

[spinner]

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

Yeah, you've captured my meaning perfectly. [/sarcasm]

What I am saying is this: a person makes choices and intelligent people frequently disagree on whether such choices are right. The "love the sinner and hate the sin" attitude implies that one person knows better than the other. It is an attitude of condescension, one that proclaims 'I know that you're wrong even if you don't.' There is room within a loving relationship for respectful differences of opinion, but not for condescension.

[bluebell]

I think by making a comment like "I hate coffee drinking but I love you" puts the emphasis on the behavior of the person instead of the love for the person. Why not just say "I love you" - why does the comment about coffee drinking have to be made? Can you say "I don't drink coffee" and not attach it to the feelings you have for someone? The two comments don't belong in the same sentence. That's why people get upset. The comments belong separate of one another.

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this response, but i don't think anyone would actually use the phrase in question when speaking to a loved one.

I think it was used as an exageration to make a point and not as something that someone would literally say.

My question, along that same line, was WHY is telling a loved one that you hate something equivalent to being judgemental, hypocritical, and pious, because the poster seemed to imply that it was.

It wasn't a question concerning that exact phrase-but rather the idea behind it.

I don't think anyone serious about having a good relationship with a loved one would ever use such a statement because it would an odd thing to say.

[bluebell]

Bluebell -

In my opinion, you don't have a problem with loving the sinner and hating the sin. You want to know why it doesn't work, when it works for you very well. I think it works for you because - it sounds like you put your focus on - "love the sinner". So - I'm thinking we don't disagree too much.

The reason it doesn't work in general is because IMO, too many people say "love the sinner, hate the sin" and focus on the hate of the sin instead of the love. They focus on the behavior of the person which we both know is a problem because no one likes to be thought of in terms of their choices or behaviors. We are much more but when faced with someone who focuses on the sin (or choice or behavior) - it feels like who we are is reduced. When someone focuses on the love they have for us - it has healing, increasing, repairing, restoring affects.

If you love someone - you keep your feelings for the sin they are committing private, you don't mention their problems unless invited and even when invited - you do it carefully and with love.

Sometimes I think the statement "love the sinner, hate the sin" gives people the wrong sense of power - a power to point out sins and that they are hated - that only puts people on the defensive and sometimes entrenches them deeper in the sin. It doesn't work when people don't understand and practice the principle correctly. It sounds like you do.

Also - there is moral relativism going on here. Your morals are not the morals of someone else, because you believe your morals came from God - does that give you the right to (can't think of the word right now) put your morals on someone else? When someone acts as if their moral code is superior to someone elses - it's a problem and it doesn't show love at all. Someone who is homosexual may or may not have the moral code that homosexuality is a sin, but that individual is the only one who can determine that. It can not be determined by their parents, or siblings, or friends - it is theirs to deal with and come to terms with. If you share with that person that you hate the sin of homosexuality - it is highly unlikely that they will trust you with what they are struggling with. So - instead focus on the love and let them freely come to you.

Like Christ said "Come unto me" - it's a freely done because He perfectly loves and accepts the sin.

Yes, we've finally understood each other and i agree with everything you said.

[bluebell]

Yeah, you've captured my meaning perfectly. [/sarcasm]

What I am saying is this: a person makes choices and intelligent people frequently disagree on whether such choices are right. The "love the sinner and hate the sin" attitude implies that one person knows better than the other. It is an attitude of condescension, one that proclaims 'I know that you're wrong even if you don't.' There is room within a loving relationship for respectful differences of opinion, but not for condescension.

I think where i disagree with you is that 'love the sinner, hate the sin' ALWAYS implies that one person is being condescending to another.

I don't believe that such a blanket judgement is accurate.

To me-all it implies is that one person truly believes the actions or choices of a loved one is wrong, but that they love them the same as they did (or would) if the choice had been different.

It is saying-'I love you REGARDLESS of this choice you are making, which i do believe is wrong and not good for you, and i will continue to love you, REGARDLESS of the choice, always.'

I don't see condescension in such an attitude-only a statement of personal truth.

[spinner]

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.

First, sorry so slow getting back; very sick yesterday but feeling better now.

On the issue of choices, I will disagree--we definitely are our choices. To the extent that we have any autonomy as human beings, we are simply the choices--good or bad--that we make. I can't deny that we often make mistakes, but our mistakes form a part of our being just as surely as do our successes.

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?

It's about moving beyond ideas of sinners and sinning. A person must realize that an autonomous and intelligent person may not always do what we would hope they would do, and accept that fact.

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, 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.

If you think someone is harming themself, you respect their decisions and accept that they are intelligent people who are doing what they think best. Try to put the shoe on the other foot: suppose you're the child of born-again Christians and you've decided to join the Mormon church. Will you ever feel fully loved if you feel like your belief is viewed as a sin by your parents? Your choice to be Mormon will become a very deeply ingrained part of who you are, and how can a loving and respectful relationship really exist so long as it is viewed merely as 'sin' by those around you?

Statements such as love the sinner and hate the sin smack of condescension. They imply that *I* know better than *you* and *I* know that *you* are wrong. Nevertheless, *I* will love *you* despite the fact that *you* are wrong. (And please note that I know you are sincere in your asking of this question, so I do not mean this as an attack on you; I merely bring it up to show how it feels to be on the other side of the 'love the sinner and hate the sin' mentality.)

*edited to add: I posted this before I saw your reply above, so you're already touched on some of the points I make in this post.

[spinner]

I think where i disagree with you is that 'love the sinner, hate the sin' ALWAYS implies that one person is being condescending to another.

I don't believe that such a blanket judgement is accurate.

To me-all it implies is that one person truly believes the actions or choices of a loved one is wrong, but that they love them the same as they did (or would) if the choice had been different.

It is saying-'I love you REGARDLESS of this choice you are making, which i do believe is wrong and not good for you, and i will continue to love you, REGARDLESS of the choice, always.'

I don't see condescension in such an attitude-only a statement of personal truth.

I understand what you are saying here, certainly. And while you may not feel condescension in making such a statement, the person who is at the receiving end of this attitude certainly feels condescension. Believing that somebody's actions are a 'sin' is a much stronger condemnation than merely believing that they are 'wrong.' It's perfectly fair to say that a person is making a choice "which [you] believe is wrong", but this sounds mighty different from the proclamation "you are sinning" which is implicit in the statement "love the sinner and hate the sin". Calling something a sin is a far weightier charge than mere disagreement.

So, when you pronounce "I love the sinner and hate the sin" you may be thinking "we disagree but I still love you." For the person at the receiving end of such a proclamation (especially if that person doesn't accept your definition of 'sin'), however, this statement sounds more equivalent to "I know what's right and you don't and I know that you are wrong. Nevertheless despite this failing which you do not acknowledge, I will still love you."

[Zoidberg]

No it is not...I have a daughter struggling with this. I have a unique perspective. I would die and go to hell for her...so no sermons please! At what point do we accept scripture as scripture and not opinion. I didn't write I just acept it.

God bless...Pa Pa

Thanks for the advice Bluebell

Sorry, didn't mean to deliver a sermon... I'm not sure I understand your perspective. I don't know your situation, obviously, and I don't quite understand what exactly your statement about going to hell applies to -a general statement, or you feel that your daughter might have to go to hell?

First, sorry so slow getting back; very sick yesterday but feeling better now.

On the issue of choices, I will disagree--we definitely are our choices. To the extent that we have any autonomy as human beings, we are simply the choices--good or bad--that we make. I can't deny that we often make mistakes, but our mistakes form a part of our being just as surely as do our successes.

It's about moving beyond ideas of sinners and sinning. A person must realize that an autonomous and intelligent person may not always do what we would hope they would do, and accept that fact.

If you think someone is harming themself, you respect their decisions and accept that they are intelligent people who are doing what they think best. Try to put the shoe on the other foot: suppose you're the child of born-again Christians and you've decided to join the Mormon church. Will you ever feel fully loved if you feel like your belief is viewed as a sin by your parents? Your choice to be Mormon will become a very deeply ingrained part of who you are, and how can a loving and respectful relationship really exist so long as it is viewed merely as 'sin' by those around you?

Yes, that was my situation exactly... Except there are also some atheists and some agnostics in my family, and they considered me becoming a mormon just as stupid as did the Christian part of my family... which only shows that the best way to bring people together is to unite them against someone. But also, I guess, people can look at their differing beliefs and find something in common (all their reasons for not wanting me to become a mormon were different, but they all aggreed it was a stupid idea).

Similarly, when I'm in a social situation where everybody but me drinks, I often feel like I stick out, and I often tire of constantly saying no thanks, and that's against my religion. Hopefully, people are able to see my refusal to drink as if I were Jewish or Muslim observing kosher or halal, not as being condescending to them. Sometimes people bring up a point that people who never drink live several years shorter than those who have a couple drinks a day (which is true). To which I answer that I am willing to give up those several extra years to avoid the possibility of becoming an alcoholic, as someone who never drinks will never be exposed to such a possibility. And people are usually able to understand and agree with me, especially if they had an experience with getting drunk and realize that there are negative sides to alcohol. I don't, however, get into the "sin" discussion with people who don't think there is such a thing as a sin. If I know I'm talking to someone who believes that there is such a thing, then I can say I believe drinking is a sin and explain why and why it applies to me and not necessarily to them: the WoW was not first written as a comandment, but a counsel; however, now our leaders are telling us that we must observe it. Since I have already chosen to accept those leaders as my leaders, it logically follows that I should also keep the WoW. I then do not consider that person to be sinning by drinking because they don't accept GBH as a prophet; if they did, they would be mormon, and then we could talk about drinking being a sin more "objectively", as it is generally accepted among mormons that drinking is a sin (even though not everybody understands the real reasons).

[cartoon bluejay]

My question, along that same line, was WHY is telling a loved one that you hate something equivalent to being judgemental, hypocritical, and pious, because the poster seemed to imply that it was.

I think you already know the answer to this question but it popped out at me and so - here I am responding. Proclaiming your hate for something - just isn't cool. Hate is such a strong word - the problem with the statement "love the sinner, hate the sin" - WHY must we hate the sin? To me, it's like saying - take the strongest feeling Satan can have - put it in your heart and proclaim that to the sinner. HATE the sin. HATE the sin. It should never be said. And if it should never be said --- WHY should it be felt? Why should we feel hate for sin? It's like teaching someone to hate themselves. Like everyone, I have experiences with sin and I have spent years hating the sin and hating my connection to the sin and in essence hating myself because of the sin. Forgiveness is no where near the word or feeling of hate. As long as I'm feeling hate about the sin - I can't forgive. In my experience, embracing the sin, understanding it, even loving the sin as a learning experience and an experience to bring me closer to God. A person is not brought closer to God hating the sin.

Not to mention, using the word hate is just rude and somewhat ignorant. I won't allow my children to use it. There are just better ways to express an idea.

[Zoidberg]

I think you already know the answer to this question but it popped out at me and so - here I am responding. Proclaiming your hate for something - just isn't cool. Hate is such a strong word - the problem with the statement "love the sinner, hate the sin" - WHY must we hate the sin? To me, it's like saying - take the strongest feeling Satan can have - put it in your heart and proclaim that to the sinner. HATE the sin. HATE the sin. It should never be said. And if it should never be said --- WHY should it be felt? Why should we feel hate for sin? It's like teaching someone to hate themselves. Like everyone, I have experiences with sin and I have spent years hating the sin and hating my connection to the sin and in essence hating myself because of the sin. Forgiveness is no where near the word or feeling of hate. As long as I'm feeling hate about the sin - I can't forgive. In my experience, embracing the sin, understanding it, even loving the sin as a learning experience and an experience to bring me closer to God. A person is not brought closer to God hating the sin.

Not to mention, using the word hate is just rude and somewhat ignorant. I won't allow my children to use it. There are just better ways to express an idea.

Very good point. It's obvious that Jesus said "love your enemies" as opposed to hate them. Everybody agrees on that. So we must love everybody. A single sin doesn't define who the person is. Everybody agrees on that. The real question, then, is whether or not the sin is a PART of the person. If we love someone but hate a part of them, I would hesitate to call it love. Then we don't love THEM, we love, say, 90% of them. 90% of the person is not the person. So we don't love this person.

Some people say they only hate the behavior, as the behavior itself is sinful, not the inclinations towards certain behavior; to be tempted is not to sin, right? This all inevitably goes back to the question of free will and choices. If you believe the person deliberately made those choices, why did they make them? Are they being sincere? Do they believe no harm will result from these choices? Then I don't see why you would hate it when they exhibit behavior you consider sinful because then it means that you don't want them to be sincere. This also applies to someone saying "I believe I will go to hell for being gay, but I feel it is better for me to be gay now than to go to Heaven".

Or are they making them in spite of believing these choices will be detrimental for them? Then they are not really controlling themselves, are they? A drug addict may full well realize that taking drugs is bad, but he/she is not always able to control him/herself. Then they would probably seek help from people who want them to regain control of themselves (or at least not reject this help, unless they have some kind of a death wish, in which case this help won't do any good anyway and the death wish situation could be attributed to the paragraph above). In this case they agree with you and also hate this "sin", but they are not guilty because they are unable to control their behavior, and we shouldn't make them feel worse by assuming they can. That itself would be sinful and extremely judgemental.

Basically, the first group is composed of people who have accepted their behavior as something they believe is beneficial or at least not detrimental to them, or the positive effects will outweigh the negative, and that they are consciously making a choice to engage in this behavior. To hate that behavior on our part would be to hate that person's free agency and their ability to reason logically. Then the only way we could justify our negative attitudes towards the behavior is by accepting as an axiom that it is better that the person does not engage in this "sinful" behavior than that they have free agency and the ability to reason logically. Which is exactly what Satan proposed for the Plan of Salvation (if you believe in the Council in Heaven etc.). The second group is composed of people who are indeed struggling and need help in overcoming their problem (which they themselves agree is a problem that they want no part of). In this case, the behavior is not a part of them (as they can't control it) and you don't have to love it. But you also shouldn't make them feel responsible for the behavior.

[Pahoran]

Here's a suggestion (and I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if it's been canvassed yet, so forgive me if I'm repeating something) but maybe people have a hard time with "love the sinner, hate the sin" because we are all into "unconditional love and acceptance" these days. It is not enough for us to love a wild-oats-sowing son--we have to let him bring his girlfriend home for sleepovers in his bedroom. If we don't do that, then we're not accepting him as he is, and if we don't accept him as he is, then we don't really love him.

Right?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cartoon bluejay]

Here's a suggestion (and I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if it's been canvassed yet, so forgive me if I'm repeating something) but maybe people have a hard time with "love the sinner, hate the sin" because we are all into "unconditional love and acceptance" these days. It is not enough for us to love a wild-oats-sowing son--we have to let him bring his girlfriend home for sleepovers in his bedroom. If we don't do that, then we're not accepting him as he is, and if we don't accept him as he is, then we don't really love him.

Right?

Right!

[bluebell]

Here's a suggestion (and I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if it's been canvassed yet, so forgive me if I'm repeating something) but maybe people have a hard time with "love the sinner, hate the sin" because we are all into "unconditional love and acceptance" these days. It is not enough for us to love a wild-oats-sowing son--we have to let him bring his girlfriend home for sleepovers in his bedroom. If we don't do that, then we're not accepting him as he is, and if we don't accept him as he is, then we don't really love him.

Right?

Regards,

Pahoran

Somehow i'm thinking you're being sarcastic Pahoran.

I agree though that most people DO feel that we can't love people unless we not only accept their choices but support those choices, and i disagree with that.

Any 'wild oat sowing' son of mine is welcome in our home WITH his girlfriend (and she would be loved like a member of the family) but that doesn't mean they would be allowed to share a bed in my home-that would depend on a few things.

[bluebell]

Proclaiming your hate for something - just isn't cool.

Honestly-i just don't care if it's cool or not.

Hate is such a strong word - the problem with the statement "love the sinner, hate the sin" - WHY must we hate the sin?

I really don't understand what you are saying here.

If i had a son who molested children THEN would it be alright, in your eyes, to hate the sin? Where's the line? What sins are 'hateable' and what sins aren't? Is it all about being politically correct with what we hate and don't or are you truly saying that there is NO sin that anyone can do, that we should hate?

And remember that i'm asking about the sin-not the person who commits it.

To me, it's like saying - take the strongest feeling Satan can have - put it in your heart and proclaim that to the sinner. HATE the sin. HATE the sin. It should never be said.

I obviously disagree.

Why should it never be said? That doesn't make sense to me. First, satan has NO hate for sin at all-so hating sin is the least strongest feeling satan can have-not the strongest, so i don't understand your point with that. Next, why assume that to hate a sin we must proclaim our hate to the sinner?

Why should we feel hate for sin?

Because sin, especially some sins, destroys lives and hurts people.

Who wouldn't look at a sweet innocent child who was killed by a drunk driver and NOT hate the act that killed her?

Or who wouldn't look at a young kid who had all the promise and potential in the world, who turned to gangs, violence and drugs and was left a shell of who he was and could have been and not hate the choices that brought him to that point?

And why would it be wrong, in your eyes, to do so?

I'm trying to understand better because i really don't get what you are saying.

It's like teaching someone to hate themselves. Like everyone, I have experiences with sin and I have spent years hating the sin and hating my connection to the sin and in essence hating myself because of the sin. Forgiveness is no where near the word or feeling of hate. As long as I'm feeling hate about the sin - I can't forgive.

If this is your personal experinece then it's valid and i won't argue with it-

but i disagree that it's everyone's personal experiences with hating a sin and being able to forgive it. In my personal experience, hating the choices that someone makes has no bearing on me being able to forgive any negative impact such choices have on my life.

In my experience, embracing the sin, understanding it, even loving the sin as a learning experience and an experience to bring me closer to God.

I really don't understand how embracing the sin of molesting a child (to stick with the earlier example) and loving that sin can bring a person closer to God.

How is that possible?

How is it possible to embrace something that God has said He cannot look upon with any degree of allowance and become closer to Him by doing so?

I'm obviously not understanding you here.

Not to mention, using the word hate is just rude and somewhat ignorant. I won't allow my children to use it. There are just better ways to express an idea.

That is of course your personal opinion and there is no reason to argue about personal opinions.

I disagree that using the word hate is rude (i truly hate eating tomatoes and i don't see what's rude or ignorant in saying so) and i wouldn't have a problem with my children expressing their true feelings for such things (though we would discuss them and explore them because lots of times we don't really HATE something-we are just mad and end up expressing our anger at a situation rather than true feelings about something when we use such words-not always though and i do believe it's beneficial for children to learn the difference and be able to embrace their true feelings but not mask them with words said when mad or hurt).

I'm going out of town today so i don't know how much i'll be back on here-we'll be back next week so if i disappear for a while-that's why.