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

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

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?

I would say my post immediately above applies Posted just now . I think I could.

[tagriffy]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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!   )

 

 

 

34 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.

First, you demonstrate exactly why they are comparable, then you still want to deny that they are comparable.

Don't be so sure that the term sinister to mean left has so fallen out of use. I am not the only sinister trying to reclaim the term. Further, the fact still remains that the term sinister took on the meaning of "evil" precisely because left is associated with what is evil, wrong, improper. And as I indicated in another post, that association carries down to this day.

Consider how the opposite term, dexter, always has a positive meaning. To be dexterous is to be good with your hands. Dexterity refers to one's overall physical grace and/or mental skill. To be ambidextrous literally means to be "two right-handed"--and note the outright erasure of left-handed people.

As for me allegedly looking to make someone an offender for a word, may I remind you that my original post in this subthread was simply, "Please don't use that word that way, even in jest." You're the one who made an issue out of it.

[tagriffy]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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?

I thought I was starting what would obviously begin as a one man crusade when I started identifying myself as a sinister. But as in the link in a previous post, I started seeing other left-handers identify as sinister, apparently independently. Of course, taking on a term is just one step in reclaiming it. So far as I know at this point, ending the use of sinister to mean evil is a one man crusade at this point.

However, I posted a comment to a movie review taking issue with the fact that it talked about a villain's "sinister plot." I wrote something to the effect of: "Did you mean a left-handed plot or an evil plot? If the latter, please don't use dexter supremacist terminology." That garnered a few upvotes, which I hope means they agreed with the sentiment.

I've also been personally been trying to eliminate the use of the term right to mean anything other than the opposite of left, in the physical sense. So when I mean good, correct, proper, I try to say good, correct, proper. For example, instead of saying, "Do the job right!" I would say, "Do the job properly." I still get hung up when I see someone possibly being hurt. I still ask "Are you all right?" more often than asking "Are you okay?" Of course, there are certain terms that don't have equivalents that quite capture the same connotation, e.g., human rights, rightwing. So that is not something I would ask others to do until I get my own act straight.

Edited October 24, 2022 by tagriffy
clarification

[Pyreaux]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would say my post immediately above applies Posted just now . I think I could.

Indeed. Your post may go even further, I was speaking of members with a specific irredeemable past but repentant. You proposed to love a currently wicked person. Take my example; say an accused sex offender is in a county jail or is found guilty and in a near-by prison. Would you follow the Lord's commission to visit those in prison to comfort them? A hard thing for many. 

[tagriffy]

54 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

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?

That is a tougher one. Obviously one would want to be suitably cautious simply because of the fact that serious sex offenders tend to be more likely to reoffend in the same manner. Obviously the details do need to be taken into account. I would maintain that being suitably cautious is not inconsistent with "loving the sinner." Having said that, one would still have to be suitably cautious about how they are being suitably cautious. If you are ostracizing the person and calling that being suitably cautious, then I would say that you are not loving the sinner. So as far as joining or returning to the congregation, I would say of course they should be allowed.

Of course, asking you on a date or seeing them date someone close to you gets a little more personal. Here, I think the details matter a little more. If the person is upfront about their crime(s) and is obviously on the road to repentence, I would probably accept the date (assuming of course there were no other impediments like already being in a relationship). I may or may not ask the someone close to me if they know about the person's past. That would probably depend on how dangerous I thought sex offender still was, but I'm also typcially reluctant to interfere with other people's relationships to begin with. More likely, I would simply monitor the situation and intervene only if I saw actual danger developing.

How might this work? I would recommend a film called The Woodsman, but that comes with the warning the movie is rated R for sexual situations including nudity and some violence.

[tagriffy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

I like this thought. I just ran out of reputation points to give today.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, tagriffy said:

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.

Perhaps you react this way because someone being damned eternally in the torture of hellfire has never been your faith position, but I can certainly imagine the extreme fear that such a belief might hold for a parent, spouse, child, good friend, and even total strangers if someone had real love in their hearts (think of something much, much worse than being kidnapped by human traffickers and taken away from everything you’ve known, held captive and abused every minute of your existence where even your dreams are no escape, but filled with pain and you know you deserve it all and there is no hope of rescue or respite).  Wanting to save someone from such a fate when truly believing in such a hell must be a terrible burden, coloring one’s entire life.  It makes perfect sense to me why many who believe that have to hold the belief that God is in complete control of who is saved and who isn’t to not be saturated in despair all the time.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

46 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Take my example; say an accused sex offender is in a county jail or is found guilty and in a near-by prison. Would you follow the Lord's commission to visit those in prison to comfort them?

I had dinner Saturday evening with four mates, one of them a recent-ish convert. Less than a year after his baptism, he committed an ugly violent crime with some of his former mates and was sent to prison for one year. The Elders and I visited him nearly every week. Doing so, I believe, contributed to his being able to leave prison and no longer be at risk of such things.

His mum, who was vehemently opposed to his decision to be baptised, told him that we would abandon him and treat him as someone who had brought shame to our faith community. She was wrong.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[bsjkki]

49 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Indeed. Your post may go even further, I was speaking of members with a specific irredeemable past but repentant. You proposed to love a currently wicked person. Take my example; say an accused sex offender is in a county jail or is found guilty and in a near-by prison. Would you follow the Lord's commission to visit those in prison to comfort them? A hard thing for many. 

I don’t think my daughter in law needs to have any contact with her father in jail. Sometimes it would be easier to minister to a stranger than minister to someone who has hurt you immensely and others in your family. Where the emotional toll of any contact is deeply distressing. None of this is cut and dried. 

[Pyreaux]

41 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

That is a tougher one. Obviously one would want to be suitably cautious simply because of the fact that serious sex offenders tend to be more likely to reoffend in the same manner. Obviously the details do need to be taken into account. I would maintain that being suitably cautious is not inconsistent with "loving the sinner." Having said that, one would still have to be suitably cautious about how they are being suitably cautious. If you are ostracizing the person and calling that being suitably cautious, then I would say that you are not loving the sinner. So as far as joining or returning to the congregation, I would say of course they should be allowed.

Of course, asking you on a date or seeing them date someone close to you gets a little more personal. Here, I think the details matter a little more. If the person is upfront about their crime(s) and is obviously on the road to repentence, I would probably accept the date (assuming of course there were no other impediments like already being in a relationship). I may or may not ask the someone close to me if they know about the person's past. That would probably depend on how dangerous I thought sex offender still was, but I'm also typcially reluctant to interfere with other people's relationships to begin with. More likely, I would simply monitor the situation and intervene only if I saw actual danger developing.

How might this work? I would recommend a film called The Woodsman, but that comes with the warning the movie is rated R for sexual situations including nudity and some violence.

Nearly a million walk the streets in the US and according to the US Sentencing Commission they have the lowest recidivism rates of any criminal class with the lowest being murderers (I suppose because the murderer that survives prison are too old, or had crimes of passion, it's just unlikely they'll murder their cheating spouse a second time). It's those who haven't been caught I worry about.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Indeed. Your post may go even further, I was speaking of members with a specific irredeemable past but repentant. You proposed to love a currently wicked person. Take my example; say an accused sex offender is in a county jail or is found guilty and in a near-by prison. Would you follow the Lord's commission to visit those in prison to comfort them? A hard thing for many. 

I took your "irredeemable" to only refer the socially-imposed attitude in the eyes those who do not accept a hope for redemption in Christ and by extension use that to deny them charity -- as if charity is merited only by the redeemed, a false notion.

Yes, I would visit them, as hard a thing as it might be. Bringing the Spirit to them may help them see they are not irredeemably without the love of God. 

[CV75]

Just now, CV75 said:

I took your "irredeemable" to only refer the socially-imposed attitude in the eyes those who do not accept a hope for redemption in Christ and by extension use that to deny them charity -- as if charity is merited only by the desperately repentant, or by the already-redeemed, a false notion.

Yes, I would visit them, as hard a thing as it might be. Bringing the Spirit to them may help them see they are not irredeemably without the love of God. 

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

It is not just that sinner is a loaded term.  I am perfectly fine with someone thinking something is a sin.  What I have a problem with is someone calling someone else a sinner.  That becomes a judgement YOU put on another person based on your own beliefs as if it comes from God.   I don't think a person has a right or responsibility to judge in place of God.  Hence, the only sins a person should be concerned with are their own.

[tagriffy]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps you react this way because someone being damned eternally in the torture of hellfire has never been your faith position, but I can certainly imagine the extreme fear that such a belief might hold for a parent, spouse, child, good friend, and even total strangers if someone had real love in their hearts (think of something much, much worse than being kidnapped by human traffickers and taken away from everything you’ve known, held captive and abused every minute of your existence where even your dreams are no escape, but filled with pain and you know you deserve it all and there is no hope of rescue or respite).  Wanting to save someone from such a fate when truly believing in such a hell must be a terrible burden, coloring one’s entire life.  It makes perfect sense to me why many who believe that have to hold the belief that God is in complete control of who is saved and who isn’t to not be saturated in despair all the time.

It is true that I never believed in hell on that kind of visceral level. (When I was an Evangelical, I believed in it, but only in an intellectual, abstract, "out there" way.) So I certainly would not deny that forms part of my reaction. I would have (and in the past demonstrated I had) pity for someone who felt under such a burden. I would (and have) try to show them a better way. But I would still have to question whether it is saving me or me as a person that is the focus of how they are acting toward me in the name of "love."

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I had dinner Saturday evening with four mates, one of them a recent-ish convert. Less than a year after his baptism, he committed an ugly violent crime with some of his former mates and was sent to prison for one year. The Elders and I visited him nearly every week. Doing so, I believe, contributed to his being able to leave prison and no longer be at risk of such things.

His mum, who was vehemently opposed to his decision to be baptised, told him that we would abandon him and treat him as someone who had brought shame to our faith community. She was wrong.

Interesting.  I've been reading Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes.  This morning O start reading a chapter about guilt and shame.  That guilt is something we feel bad about in the Western world as individuals and shame is something in the Eastern world that we feel bad about because it is a problem for the community.  I've not done a good job describing it, but hopefully it makes sense.

If I have it right you are in what would be an eastern country. The moms thoughts totally fit this!

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

according to the US Sentencing Commission they have the lowest recidivism rates of any criminal class

Imo, it would be more informative to break down this category into those with single or few victims and those with higher numbers as the first tend to be low recividism and the second high.  And depending on the argument one is making, assuming either subgroup’s rate applies to all offenders can lead to the wrong conclusions.

Quote

Information about the recidivism rates of different types of sex offenders is equally important. Although sex offenders are often viewed as a homogenous group by the public, they are in reality a diverse mixture of individuals who have committed an array of illegal acts, ranging from noncontact offenses such as exhibitionism to violent sexual assaults (Center for Sex Offender Management [CSOM], 2001). Disaggregating sex offenders in recidivism research unmasks important differences in both the propensity to reoffend and the factors associated with reoffending for different types of individuals who have committed sexual crimes.  

https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-5-adult-sex-offender-recidivism

There is also the issue that the significantly lower rates of reporting and arrest and prosecution leading to an actual conviction are likely artificially lowering recidivism rates for sex offenders as well as methodology issues with much of the research and whether recidivism is defined as for any crime or just sexual crimes (low rates of sex offenders for general crime may be reassuring if worried about your kid getting ripped off by a roommate who was a sex offender, not so reassuring if you are focusing on potential for sexual offenses).

Quote

Due to the frequency with which sex crimes are not reported to police, the disparity between the number of sex offenses reported and those solved by arrest and the disproportionate attrition of certain sex offenses and sex offenders within the criminal justice system, researchers widely agree that observed recidivism rates are underestimates of the true reoffense rates of sex offenders. Hidden offending presents significant challenges for professionals working in sex offender management as it is difficult to know whether offenders who appear to be nonrecidivists based on official records are truly offense free. (For more on "Sex Offender Management Strategies," see Chapter 8 in the Adult section.) In addition, perceptions of the public safety risk associated with sex crimes and certain sexual offenders may be distorted when they are based solely on crime and on offender profiles identified in official records.

Quote

Most recidivism studies search for new recorded criminal events and place offenders without the new events in the nonrecidivism category. Heil and colleagues (2009) conducted a recidivism study that accounted for every offender and excluded from the final calculations those who moved out of state, who died or whose residence could not be verified. This reduced the sample size by more than 17 percent, all of whom would have been calculated as "nonrecidivists" in traditional studies. Not surprisingly, one- and five-year recidivism rates for this group of 1,124 prisoners were higher than those reported in many other studies that used follow-up periods that were similar in length. The one- and five-year recidivism rates found by the researchers were, respectively: 3.9 percent and 10.8 percent for a sex crime rearrest, 26.3 percent and 38.1 percent for a violent crime rearrest and 52.6 percent and 77.7 percent for any arrest.

Quote

Studies employing longer follow-up periods consistently report higher rates of recidivism. Harris and Hanson (2004), for example, reported sexual recidivism rates of 20 percent and 24 percent for a sample of sex offenders based on a 10- and 15-year follow-up period, respectively. While observed recidivism rates will naturally increase as the length of the follow-up period increases, it is important to recognize that recidivism rates derived from follow-up periods of five years or less may mislabel a considerable proportion of repeat offenders as nonrecidivists, resulting in a significant underestimation of the absolute risk to public safety that sex offenders pose.

Quote

Sex offenders have lower rates of general recidivism but higher rates of sexual recidivism than non-sex offenders. Research comparing the recidivism rates of sex offenders with non-sex offenders consistently finds that sex offenders have lower overall recidivism rates than non-sex offenders. Child molesters, rapists and sex offenders overall, however, are far more likely than non-sex offenders to recidivate sexually. Langan, Schmitt and Durose (2003), for example, found sexual recidivism rates that are four times higher for sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders in their study of about two-thirds of all sex offenders released from state prisons in 1994.

This has little to do imo though with the ability to minister to an offender with true love.  Being cautious, taking measures that limit risks does not have to interfere with expressions of love.

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

If I have it right you are in what would be an eastern country. The moms thoughts totally fit this!

His mum is a very orthodox Jew -- so orthodox, in fact, that she removes the light globe from the refrigerator before sundown every Friday.

It was interesting. She didn't visit him in prison much until she found out that we were. Then she would try to visit when we wanted to in order to block our access. It worked for a while, but she couldn't sustain it.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

It is true that I never believed in hell on that kind of visceral level. (When I was an Evangelical, I believed in it, but only in an intellectual, abstract, "out there" way.) So I certainly would not deny that forms part of my reaction. I would have (and in the past demonstrated I had) pity for someone who felt under such a burden. I would (and have) try to show them a better way. But I would still have to question whether it is saving me or me as a person that is the focus of how they are acting toward me in the name of "love."

I have a relative who was told by her father that he wished the missionary who baptized her had raped her instead.  I think that comment came from a place of deep love and deep fear.  Thankfully, I understand as the parents became more familiar with our faith (she married the missionary eventually) they have changed their minds about us actually being Christians.  Otoh, there have been Christians who have posted on the board superficial criticisms showing that even when they have sincere and attentive Saints available to them sharing accurate information about our beliefs, they are not particularly interested in engaging instead of condemning, even when signing off with “with love in Christ”.  Easy to feel we are projects or even just ways to for them to feel superior (I realize many feel this way when Saints attempt to minister to others, sincerity is not always easy to recognize due to the occurrence of too many less than sincere efforts).

[MustardSeed]

I don’t think when Jesus said Love Everyone that he meant to LOVE everyone.  You don’t have to accept a date proposition to fulfill the requirement.  
Boundaries, people.  Sometimes I think religious discussion can be so extreme, IMO.  
Compassion comes with clarity and understanding.  Most of the time, when we have all the information, peoples’ actions make sense and we can make way for Christlike love. Problem is, we so rarely have the needed information. It’s HARD to love people sometimes.  
I do think that we all tend to marginalize people who we think are different from us.  It’s a shame but I do it, you do it (maybe not Hamba) but we can generally do better.  IMO

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I don’t think my daughter in law needs to have any contact with her father in jail. Sometimes it would be easier to minister to a stranger than minister to someone who has hurt you immensely and others in your family. Where the emotional toll of any contact is deeply distressing. None of this is cut and dried. 

I object to the term "stranger" to describe someone one doesn't know, with whom one is not acquainted, and, possibly, one whom someone should not trust.  It shares its root with the term "strange," meaning, "out of the ordinary, odd, et cetera."  I mean, how does one know that someone he or she does not know really is "strange."    (Not really.  Just demonstrating absurdity by being absurd ... I mean, as long as we're busy making people offenders for a word and all ...)

Edited October 24, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Bernard Gui]

On 10/21/2022 at 10:52 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 my. 

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

It is not just that sinner is a loaded term.  I am perfectly fine with someone thinking something is a sin.  What I have a problem with is someone calling someone else a sinner.  That becomes a judgement YOU put on another person based on your own beliefs as if it comes from God.   I don't think a person has a right or responsibility to judge in place of God.  Hence, the only sins a person should be concerned with are their own.

I agree about not calling other people sinners.  We'll have to agree to disagree on the idea that we should never be concerned about the harmful actions of anyone but ourselves.

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

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?

We have a registered sex offender in our congregation right now.  He is treated with love.  He has a calling and spoke in church last week (and it was a really good talk).  But he's easy to love because he is so obviously completely repentant of his sins.  I don't think I would be capable of loving someone who had done such things and wasn't repentant.

But even though this man is loved and cared for, there are still boundaries in place to make sure that he receives love while everyone else is also protected.  There are certain callings he cannot have.  There are people he cannot interact with.  His children cannot have friends over to play at their house, etc.  He understands why these boundaries exist and as far as I can tell he willingly stays far within them.

That also makes him easier to love than if he was constantly pushing against those boundaries for whatever reason.

I'm with MustardSeed.  Love doesn't mean putting ourselves in danger, or ignoring our own needs or wants.  Love isn't a chain that binds us to people and situations that can cause harm or negates our own agency.

[MustardSeed]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

the idea that we should never be concerned about the harmful actions of anyone but ourselves.

Is this the same as loving/not loving? Imo it’s not- That’s the hard part.

When I finished graduate school, I got a job working at a halfway program for sx offenders. Tough gig. I can say first hand that I experienced genuine caring for some of my people. Others I failed to love. For me, difference was accountability.  Even for those that I loved, I don’t think there’s any question but that I was not OK with their behavior. It was a daily discussion.

Different scenario: I just spent the weekend at my sons house. He lives in a studio apartment. He was so excited for us to come visit him and stay in his first place. He also sleeps with his girlfriend. In order for us to stay at his place, he stayed at his girlfriends house. It was important to him to play host for the first time- he has worked extremely hard to be able to afford his own place for the first time ever. He knows my beliefs, he knows I would prefer he was living gospel principles. He is also an extremely loving, kind, intelligent, generous person. There are likely several people here who would refuse to stay at their sons house under these circumstances I would not have missed the opportunity for anything. He’s an adult, he makes his choices, he knows how I think, and I love him wholly.  I believe it’s completely possible to love this way under these circumstances and still have an influence in a non manipulative way in his life. 
 

I have a FIL who is a criminal. Always has been. He even Swindled my husband and I out of  $200,000.  I can still behave lovingly with him when I’m around him. That said, I have a long ways to go before I feel Christlike love for him. He does not admit anything he’s ever done wrong. He’s dangerous. I hold very high boundaries with him, however we still visit to ensure that he has food and livable conditions. I’m failing that one, I’m sure. But I’ll live with that failure. 
 

i feel zero love for a few other people in my life.  In addition, I feel zero love for strangers who have committed horrible things.  I even struggle feeling love for some people here- and that’s only due to annoyance.  I’m sure that has a lot to do with the fact that I don’t have the whole story on those people.
 

I am often struggling to live the directive to love everyone. That said, I do notice That there are those around me particularly church people (and not just our church) Who refuse to get close enough to people who they deem to be unrighteous to love them. I try not to be like that. With some, it’s harder than with others. 
 

 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Is this the same as loving/not loving? Imo it’s not- That’s the hard part.

When I finished graduate school, I got a job working at a halfway program for sx offenders. Tough gig. I can say first hand that I experienced genuine caring for some of my people. Others I failed to love. For me, difference was accountability.  Even for those that I loved, I don’t think there’s any question but that I was not OK with their behavior. It was a daily discussion.

Different scenario: I just spent the weekend at my sons house. He lives in a studio apartment. He was so excited for us to come visit him and stay in his first place. He also sleeps with his girlfriend. In order for us to stay at his place, he stayed at his girlfriends house. It was important to him to play host for the first time- he has worked extremely hard to be able to afford his own place for the first time ever. He knows my beliefs, he knows I would prefer he was living gospel principles. He is also an extremely loving, kind, intelligent, generous person. There are likely several people here who would refuse to stay at their sons house under these circumstances I would not have missed the opportunity for anything. He’s an adult, he makes his choices, he knows how I think, and I love him wholly.  I believe it’s completely possible to love this way under these circumstances and still have an influence in a non manipulative way in his life. 
 

I have a FIL who is a criminal. Always has been. He even Swindled my husband and I out of  $200,000.  I can still behave lovingly with him when I’m around him. That said, I have a long ways to go before I feel Christlike love for him. He does not admit anything he’s ever done wrong. He’s dangerous. I hold very high boundaries with him, however we still visit to ensure that he has food and livable conditions. I’m failing that one, I’m sure. But I’ll live with that failure. 
 

i feel zero love for a few other people in my life.  In addition, I feel zero love for strangers who have committed horrible things.  I even struggle feeling love for some people here- and that’s only due to annoyance.  I’m sure that has a lot to do with the fact that I don’t have the whole story on those people.
 

I am often struggling to live the directive to love everyone. That said, I do notice That there are those around me particularly church people (and not just our church) Who refuse to get close enough to people who they deem to be unrighteous to love them. I try not to be like that. With some, it’s harder than with others. 
 

 

I'm not exactly sure what the bolded part means, but there isn't anything in your post that I disagree with.  I think there are probably very few people who don't struggle to live the directive to love everyone.  I struggle with it every day. 

I think that's probably one of those commandments that most of us won't get close to mastering until long after this life is over.