Is it possible to love the sinner but hate the sin?

[Kenngo1969]

On 10/21/2022 at 8:31 AM, tagriffy said:

Please don't use that word that way, even in jest.

Lighten up, Francis.  

[tagriffy]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Lighten up, Francis.  

Would you resond that way to a Black person asking you not to use the n-word?

[Chum]

On 10/21/2022 at 10:28 AM, BlueDreams said:

I have a harder time with stories of abusive parents then a person who killed someone in a drunken bar fight. Not because murder is better but because my personal experiences and the effects of abuse are seen by me all the time.

I spend a lot of time considering the origins of bad behavior.  I'd wager that bar-fight killing had deep roots in childhood mistreatment. Based on that, I'd say you're directing your feelings at the point where change is most likely.

 

Edited October 23, 2022 by Chum

[Chum]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

That's fair. I don't know if I've ever used the descriptor "sinner" to describe someone specifically. If I have used it, it's usually in the abstract, like "we're all sinners." But beyond describing abstract mass concepts it seems largely too broad of a term. Like going up and saying, hey you human. Technically accurate but contextually weird.   

This. I've only ever found one productive place for the label sinner - myself.

[jkwilliams]

I once heard an Evangelical anti-Mormon say “Love the Mormon; hate the Mormonism.” 

To me, it’s better to say that we can love people without embracing their choices. When you say “love the sinner, hate the sin,” it’s too easy to define the person by the “sin” and end up hating the person.

And no, it’s not another way to say “I don’t like Christians.” I admit that made me chuckle. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Yeah I agree with this.  I just don't think calling them a sinner is helpful

Agreed.  For me, the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin" is equal to "love the person, hate their harmful (to themselves or others) actions". 

The term "sin" is a loaded term, and I think people sometimes react to baggage of the term more than anything else.  I personally usually interpret responses to the phrase which suggest we should never judge anyone's actions as sinful as a reaction to the baggage the term comes with rather than reactions to the actually legitimacy of the phrase itself.

I understand that reaction though because there is a lot of hurtful baggage attached to the way some people have wielded the term "sinner" and the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin".  People sometimes use it to justify what I would consider very unChristlike words and behavior.

[Chum]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I once heard an Evangelical anti-Mormon say “Love the Mormon; hate the Mormonism.” 

Only once? I'd long ago lost count. What none of them ever got is they can't keep their animosity contained in that space, not forever. Eventually it spills out into active disdain for us - if not by them, then by those who they've influenced.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Chum

[jkwilliams]

30 minutes ago, Chum said:

Only once? I'd long ago lost count. What none of them ever got is they can't keep their animosity contained in that space, not forever. Eventually it spills out into active disdain for us - if not by them, then by those who they've influenced.

That was my point: hating the Mormonism quite often becomes hating the Mormon. Same with sins and sinners. Best to leave hate out of it. 

Edited October 23, 2022 by jkwilliams

[tagriffy]

On 10/21/2022 at 3:25 PM, pogi said:

I will always accept and love my children no matter what.  I will not always approve of what they do.   "Acceptance" of an individual is about who they are (child of God that we are commanded to not judge, but to love), while "approval" in this context is about what they do.  I hope that makes better sense

I do get that part. What I think is that the adage reaches its limit when what they do is a direct extension of what they are. Can you love a homosexual peron and hate that they love a person of the same sex? Theoretically, you have the person and you have the act. But here, the act is so thoroughly linked to the person that it becomes hard to believe that you can "love the sinner, hate the sin."

[tagriffy]

On 10/21/2022 at 1:35 PM, JLHPROF said:

That would seem to be an assumption given that the word love is an emotion.

Depends on the context. The command to love your neighbor as yourself is obviously not a command to have certain emotions toward your neighbor. Such a command would be nonsensical. You either have an emotion or you don't. Emotions can't be commanded. Actions can.

Edited October 24, 2022 by tagriffy
spelling error

[Kenngo1969]

43 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

Would you resond that way to a Black person asking you not to use the n-word?

No, but the two situations are in no way comparable, so ...

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

Depends on the context. The command to love your neighbor as yourself is obviuosly not a command to have certain emotions toward your neighbor. Such a command would be nonsensical. You either have an emotion or you don't. Emotions can't be commanded. Actions can.

I don't know if I agree with this.  I think that love, despite what most movies say, is a choice. 

I think that Christ was commanding us to actually have love for our neighbors and our enemies.  I don't think He was saying that we just need to act like we love them.  (though sometimes that's where it has to start because we are all flawed).  To me, it's similar to forgiveness.  I think He expects us to actually forgive people who have wronged us and not just act like we have.  The actions are important but the real blessings come when the emotion is there as well.  I see His commandment to love in the same way.

[tagriffy]

On 10/21/2022 at 2:54 PM, pogi said:

If the parents were exclusionary and jerks about it, I get it, I would be the same way too.  If however I was gay and grew up Mormon, and my parents were loving and accepting of my spouse and treated us like all their other kids/spouses for the most part, then I would be the one in the wrong if I chose to sever my relationship with my parents because of their more conservative beliefs about gay marriage.  It is hard to get more intolerant than that where you would cut your own parents off because of their core/fundamental gospel beliefs, despite their loving affection. 

This I do tend to agree with. If the adage is about what you do, and what you are doing is being loving, accepting, and treating someone like your other friends/family/neighbors, then you are doing the right thing.

[Chum]

17 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

I do get that part. What I think is that the adage reaches its limit when what they do is a direct extension of what they are. Can you love a homosexual peron and hate that they love a person of the same sex? Theoretically, you have the person and you have the act. But here, the act is so thoroughly linked to the person that it becomes hard to believe that you can "love the sinner, hate the sin."

You're describing activities that others do and isn't directed at you. I find that easier to not judge.

What about behavior that targets you? eg: Is it easier to hate the downvote but love the downvoter?

[Kenngo1969]

On 10/21/2022 at 8:52 AM, tagriffy said:

Sinister used in a way that equates it with evil. When you use sinister to mean evil, you are perpetuating dexter supremacism.

Oh, baloney!  

Any association of the word sinister with left-handedness is archaic, meaning that it has fallen out of favor and out of common use, so if you wish to excoriate me, allegedly for perpetuating that [frankly stupid] definition, go ahead.  I can take it.  I was here long before you got here, and I will be here long after you leave.  (Besides, some of my best friends are left-handed!   )

 

 

Edited October 23, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[tagriffy]

On 10/21/2022 at 8:23 PM, Calm said:

There is a big difference between wanting to maintain appearances and believing it is important to teach by example and that example may include not suggesting by appearance to support something that one believes is damaging to others’ spiritual health.

I know some Saints and others will take offense by someone refusing to pray with them because they are seen as not Christian.  But I see it quite differently.  I see it as potentially as a great act of love and sacrifice.  The person refusing may be concerned with only how they look praying with nonChristians or look on the nonChristians as not good enough to pray with them…or they could be sincerely concerned that they are there to teach nonChristians even though it’s painful that nonChristians are damned for eternity and to be saved one must accept Christ. And they may be trying to avoid by not praying with nonChristians any implication that the Christian believes that God is okay with the nonChristian the way they are. I would rather someone be concerned for my immortal state than concerned about me feeling insulted and embarrassed in that moment. To me, the person making that ‘stand’ of refusing to pray with me, taking the risk of being rejected or even attacked by me or others for making it clear they believe I am damned because they want me to recognize my state and come to Christ, I consider that a great sign of love. They love me enough to risk losing my friendship or love for them and to be seen as a bigot, etc.

Elder Gong and others may be more concerned about someone’s eternal destiny rather than the condemnation of others looking from the outside of their relationships. It may be a great act of love to refuse to act superficially in a way the world interprets as love and acceptance and instead take a different, a harder path to teach and support in ways one believes are spiritually healthier.

Unfortunately such choices of love may not look much different than intolerance when viewed at a distance. There may be not much that can be done about that, but something can and must be done in the relationship itself if that is the path one chooses. It matters a great deal if one shares the why in a loving way.  It is unlikely to convey a loving message if you just assume it will, that the loved ones knows they are loved without it being said and shown in a variety of ways. One must actually explore if the message one wants to give is being understood or not.  

It is the private, intimate ‘stands’ that matter imo and those can’t be fully seen by the public and are therefore unfortunately easily misunderstood, imo.  If you are going to take such paths, you need to work hard to try and ensure the person you are trying to communicate with through such choices understands why you are making that choice.  If they do not understand and instead interpret it as rejection, it may be better to adapt and try and teach what you believe are eternal truths another way. 

Ugh. I would have to go with SeekingUnderstanding when faced with something like this. If acting like this is "love," then they can take their love and shove it where the sun don't shine. It really doesn't help if they explain they are concerned with my immortal soul or eternal destiny. That just tells me that they are concerned about something other than me. That tells me that the reason that they are with me is I am a conversion project rather than a person. In other words, it is dehumanizing.

[tagriffy]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, but the two situations are in no way comparable, so ...

They are comparable. That's why I asked.

[Kenngo1969]

21 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

They are comparable. That's why I asked.

They may be comparable to you, and they may be comparable to anyone else who, like you, is looking to make one's interlocutor an offender for a word (Isaiah 29:21), but they are in no way comparable to anyone else.

[tagriffy]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know if I agree with this.  I think that love, despite what most movies say, is a choice. 

I think that Christ was commanding us to actually have love for our neighbors and our enemies.  I don't think He was saying that we just need to act like we love them.  (though sometimes that's where it has to start because we are all flawed).  To me, it's similar to forgiveness.  I think He expects us to actually forgive people who have wronged us and not just act like we have.  The actions are important but the real blessings come when the emotion is there as well.  I see His commandment to love in the same way.

I obviously miscommunicated something somewhere along the way. I'm not saying the command to love your neighbor is to act like we love them. The commandment is to love them, to act in a manner that reflects love. Here is an illustration:

Quote

When you come upon your enemy's ox or donkey going astray, you shall bring it back.

When you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden and you would hold back from setting it free, you must help to set it free. (Ex. 23:4-5, NRSV)

Obviously, if you have an enemy, you probably don't have kindly, let alone loving feelings toward them. But what you are supposed to do is act in a loving manner regardless of the feelings you have toward the person.

To be sure, the feelings will often follow the act. Taking your enemy's donkey back may well start a reconciliation process resulting in you now having a friend and the associated feelings. Or not. Regardless, the command is to take the donkey back.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

They may be comparable to you, and they may be comparable to anyone else who, like you, is looking to make one's interlocutor an offender for a word (Isaiah 29:21), but they are in no way comparable to anyone else.

Why am I reminded of this?

 

[tagriffy]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

You're describing activities that others do and isn't directed at you. I find that easier to not judge.

What about behavior that targets you? eg: Is it easier to hate the downvote but love the downvoter?

That seems too easy. The stakes of a downvote are too low and may not even be personal in the first place.

Around the time I was twenty, my best friend stole a couple checks and forged them. I recovered the damages, but not in time to prevent being evicted from the apartment I was living. A couple years later, we regained contact and he apologized. Our friendship continued where I supported him when he was arrested on other charges (he'd been in and out of trouble with the law since before I knew him in my early teens). I visited him in jail and later prison, and we maintained written correspondance throughout that period. I wouldn't describe this as being either easy or hard to do. I just did it.

But maybe the stakes are still too low. At the end of the day, that was just money. I have another story where the stakes are much higher and even more personal. I am not going to get into it except to say I was not the direct target--someone I love was. What I did then is my deepest, darkest sin to this day. Again, I'm going to get into it except to say what I did was really evil and people other than my target got hurt. Yet, despite all the deep shame I feel about what I did, if I were to regain contact with that person, I don't know what I would do. That by itself scares me.

So the answer to your question is, "I don't know."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, tagriffy said:

They are comparable. That's why I asked.

The association between “evil” and left handedness is something that I was aware of, including the history of the word “sinister”. My Dad, who is left handed now has horrible hand writing with both hands because he was forced to learn to write right handed. 
 

But the campaign to end the use of “sinister” is new to me. This is obviously something that you feel passionately about, but I’m curious if this is a one man crusade or if it’s part of a larger movement?

[rpn]

I couldn't get in to answer when this first opened, and haven't read the rest.   But I wanted to point out, in case no one has, that it really depends on what you mean by love.   God's kind of love embraces everything about us, even when we/humans are doing seriously wicked and hurtful things.   And we seek Their kind of love.

But mortals tend to have difficulty even figuring out how to love wicked people.  It isn't because we don't accept them as our brother.   It's just hard to imagine how any person can voluntarily do such awful things.

[Pyreaux]

Interesting topic. Let us ask the question for the ultimate social pariah. The general public rejects all registered sex offenders regardless of the details of their offence even after finishing a lengthy prison sentence. Outrage and calls of violence against them and anyone who'd associate or harbor them is not uncommon. Now one wants to join or return to your congregation, and then they even want to ask you on a date or date someone close to you, your grown child let us say. There is nothing more they can do; they'll never be redeemed in the eyes of the public. Could you love the sinner but hate the sin?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, tagriffy said:

I do get that part. What I think is that the adage reaches its limit when what they do is a direct extension of what they are. Can you love a homosexual peron and hate that they love a person of the same sex? Theoretically, you have the person and you have the act. But here, the act is so thoroughly linked to the person that it becomes hard to believe that you can "love the sinner, hate the sin."

This might get into the “currency” of love and hate, and whether the exchange is incidental to an initial discovery and reaction, or perpetual and not improving the relationship between the persons involved and God -- assuming those involved believe in God and consider themselves followers, irrespective of differences in what they consider to be sin and discipleship. And it depends on whether they tend to connect with others transactionally or relationally (“currency” is not necessarily transactional in nature; its shared meaning is arrived at relationally). And the power dynamic affecting the persons involved. I think these, and other dynamics affects the trust level in other’s ability or sincerity in applying the principle.

So, I think you can love [have charity and familial or sociable affection and appreciation] for a homosexual person; respect their agency to love and have a relationship with a person of the same sex -- and love that person also; and hate [determinedly not make the same choice, even if you were in the same situation] whatever is considered to be the sin. The currency used must avoid contention and the spirit of the devil.