Hate the Sin and Love the Sinner

[micatala]

Many Christians, when accused of being hateful or intolerant because of their statements concerning sin in general or examples of people who are in their view sinning, respond with the phrase 'hate the sin but love the sinner.'

What does this exactly mean?

To ask this question in 'loaded form,' is this phrase just a dodge to try and avoid the criticism that some CHristians harbor hateful attitudes or engage in hateful behavior?

Finally, what is the Biblical justification for this statement? Is there any?

[micatala]

I would ask this of you Easyrider because once I get outside the major Gospels of the NT, I get fairly confused, so you know. Is there a specific passage in the NT, no tthe OT, that specifically condemns homosexuality. I know this thread isn't spedific to it, so forgiveme Micalta.

There are not many. None in the gospels. Here are a couple.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The Greek words used in this last passage are somewhat ambiguous. One of them is a word coined by Paul, and so we cannot be sure what he meant because their was no prior usage. It is quite possible Paul is referring only to homosexual acts performed as part of an idolatrous ritual or other non-Christian religious or pagan practice.

For further discussion, see for example http://www.whosoever.org/v4i1/paul.html

[Confused]

I would ask this of you Easyrider because once I get outside the major Gospels of the NT, I get fairly confused, so you know. Is there a specific passage in the NT, no tthe OT, that specifically condemns homosexuality. I know this thread isn't spedific to it, so forgiveme Micalta.

There are not many. None in the gospels. Here are a couple.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The Greek words used in this last passage are somewhat ambiguous. One of them is a word coined by Paul, and so we cannot be sure what he meant because their was no prior usage. It is quite possible Paul is referring only to homosexual acts performed as part of an idolatrous ritual or other non-Christian religious or pagan practice.

For further discussion, see for example http://www.whosoever.org/v4i1/paul.html

Ok, I have some serious issues with these examples. !) God gave man over to his lustful desires and now want to condemn them for it? 2) I seriously doubt the term homosexual existed then and like you said, the term is ambiguous at best. But the largest problem I have is that homosexuality existed during the time of Christ. Is there not one Gospel that quotes Christ addressing this? The OT is so full of condemnations and superstition that like I said, I make it to Leviticus before I want to tear it to pieces. So I choose to concentrate more on the NT only because it is suppose to be more recent and more relevant to the new God image. So if there is no direct testimony by Christ, where does any Christian favor condemning it. Is it because they assume that whenever Christ mentions sexual immorality they assume he is referring to anything in the OT. If so, the energizer bunny is going to lose a lot of business.

Ok, back to the sin vs the sinner. I think one has to look at the circumstances surrounding the situation. The bible may say one thing was a sin 2006 years ago, but times have changed and so has society. Divorce for example: it is a sin except under the marital unfaithfulness. Now, how about the abuser, the man who molests his daughter, etc... No exceptions for this. So if a woman divorces her husband based on these grounds, I say hate the sin (though I wouldn't consider it a sin), no the sinner. On the opposite side for the husband who was molesting that child I say hate the sin and the sinner.

[AB]

Many Christians, when accused of being hateful or intolerant because of their statements concerning sin in general or examples of people who are in their view sinning, respond with the phrase 'hate the sin but love the sinner.'

What does this exactly mean?

To ask this question in 'loaded form,' is this phrase just a dodge to try and avoid the criticism that some CHristians harbor hateful attitudes or engage in hateful behavior?

Finally, what is the Biblical justification for this statement? Is there any?

Simple:
We are humans; brothers and sisters
We do wrong. The "wrong" is the problem.

[Confused]

Many Christians, when accused of being hateful or intolerant because of their statements concerning sin in general or examples of people who are in their view sinning, respond with the phrase 'hate the sin but love the sinner.'

What does this exactly mean?

To ask this question in 'loaded form,' is this phrase just a dodge to try and avoid the criticism that some CHristians harbor hateful attitudes or engage in hateful behavior?

Finally, what is the Biblical justification for this statement? Is there any?

Simple:
We are humans; brothers and sisters
We do wrong. The "wrong" is the problem.

But we choose to do wrong. That is a distinction is it not. We don't repent sins, we repent our sins. Sin will always exist. It is the temptation that satan put into action from the beginning. You always have a choice to sin. I don't say hate the sinner, but I will say, hate the sin, but hold the sinner accoutable.

[micatala]

Many Christians, when accused of being hateful or intolerant because of their statements concerning sin in general or examples of people who are in their view sinning, respond with the phrase 'hate the sin but love the sinner.'

What does this exactly mean?

To ask this question in 'loaded form,' is this phrase just a dodge to try and avoid the criticism that some CHristians harbor hateful attitudes or engage in hateful behavior?

Finally, what is the Biblical justification for this statement? Is there any?

Simple:
We are humans; brothers and sisters
We do wrong. The "wrong" is the problem.

Simple, and yet not so simple.

Sometimes we all agree on what is "wrong". Many times, even Christians do not agree.

Murder is in general considered a very grievious wrong, since it deprives another person of their very life. Stealing deprives another person of their property. Adultery destroys a relationship that at least on of the people involved committed to, typically for life. Even taking God's name in vain, at least in public, might be said to affect other people and not just the person swearing. In all these cases, there is someone being "wronged" by the person doing the "wrong."

However, this phrase is most frequently used, at least in my experience, in reference to homosexuality. The case that all homosexuality should be considered "wrong" is, to me, fraught with difficulties and hypocrisy, and is arguably based more on tradition and the 'yuk' factor than any objective reading of scripture.

Furthermore, two people having sex has no direct impact on anybody else, in most circumstances. There is no other person being "wronged."

Furthermore, the Bible explicitly gives each believer great latitude in deciding what is wrong for him or herself. When we say we 'hate the sin' we are in some sense trying to usurp both the believers rights in this area, as well as God's sole role in judging sin.

If there are no other person's being wronged, unless we can show we are acting for the benefit of the supposed sinner, what justification is there for saying ANYTHING about this alleged sin?

[Confused]

Many Christians, when accused of being hateful or intolerant because of their statements concerning sin in general or examples of people who are in their view sinning, respond with the phrase 'hate the sin but love the sinner.'

What does this exactly mean?

To ask this question in 'loaded form,' is this phrase just a dodge to try and avoid the criticism that some CHristians harbor hateful attitudes or engage in hateful behavior?

Finally, what is the Biblical justification for this statement? Is there any?

Simple:
We are humans; brothers and sisters
We do wrong. The "wrong" is the problem.

Simple, and yet not so simple.

Sometimes we all agree on what is "wrong". Many times, even Christians do not agree.

Murder is in general considered a very grievious wrong, since it deprives another person of their very life. Stealing deprives another person of their property. Adultery destroys a relationship that at least on of the people involved committed to, typically for life. Even taking God's name in vain, at least in public, might be said to affect other people and not just the person swearing. In all these cases, there is someone being "wronged" by the person doing the "wrong."

However, this phrase is most frequently used, at least in my experience, in reference to homosexuality. The case that all homosexuality should be considered "wrong" is, to me, fraught with difficulties and hypocrisy, and is arguably based more on tradition and the 'yuk' factor than any objective reading of scripture.

Furthermore, two people having sex has no direct impact on anybody else, in most circumstances. There is no other person being "wronged."

Furthermore, the Bible explicitly gives each believer great latitude in deciding what is wrong for him or herself. When we say we 'hate the sin' we are in some sense trying to usurp both the believers rights in this area, as well as God's sole role in judging sin.

If there are no other person's being wronged, unless we can show we are acting for the benefit of the supposed sinner, what justification is there for saying ANYTHING about this alleged sin?

Here is where the legal and religious system may be responsible for the sin itself. According to the bible, premarital sex is wrong, correct. If a minister cannot marry a homosexual couple, then their relationship, if sex is involved, is wrong. Now here we have laws preventing same sex marriages (unions). So they are in effect creating one aspect of homosexuality being morally wrong by preventing ministers, if they found it not against their religious doctrine, from performing the ceremony. Honestly, I don't think anyone is going to come to a satisfactory conclusion of the issue of same sex marriage. Each side of the issue is going to have to give a little to gain a little and unfortunately, politics is always going to side with the opponent with the most money. It is sad, but true. But to put homosexuality in this thread may not be the best idea. Only because, as you have pointed out, most references to it being a sin in the bible are ambiguous at best. So I don't know that I could qualify the act itself as a sin, but the act outside of marriage would likely be considered a sin.

[melikio]

So I don't know that I could qualify the act itself as a sin, but the act outside of marriage would likely be considered a sin.

You make good points (as usual).

But what I would highlight here, is that "homosexuality" is often mentioned, because it is (for whatever reasons) one of the most contentious issues in existence. And I suppose (regardless of the particular issue) that attaching the word "sex" to anything just perks people's "humanness" up to a different level, in most cases.

Just as when we see something spectacular in nature or in a movie, people are apt to "react" in some way, and "sex" is in that category. It generally evokes a response of "OOoooo!!!" (one way or the other).

And it is typical that the topic (human sexuality) takes the LONG WAY to "reason"; people feel passionately about it, even if they don't really know what they are feeling. So, it's pratically NOTHING for people to push real objectivity aside while dealing with "sexuality". All that, to make the following points:

Unless there is some "sin" which criminally victimizes another human being against their will (consent issues), then it should be left to THAT person and God. It's no secret that some "Christians" and other "religious" folk, LUMP the sinner in with their TREATMENT of sin. And there is no doubt that such an approach so often leads to nothing but contentions; fights and arguments stirred up by FAULTY human beings (all of us).

And it would be no problem (this handling of "sin), IF people would realize that it is one IMPERFECT PERSON speaking to another about the same. NO ONE has the righteousness, wisdom, compassion, kindness and love of Jesus Christ; but some have "imagined" that they DO have the heart/mind of God. They WILL stand in judgement over people (their sin) as if they have been appointed to ENFORCE righteousness in others (which they cannot do even in themselves, most times).

But when it come to homosexuality, it's deeply emotional, unlike many other issues pertaining to alleged or actual "sins". People have been taught and conditioned to feel it deeply, and by our very nature it is deep already... it goes to our very core, and whether one is "gay", "straight" or even "asexual", there are already strong feelings about it.

When we see a smoker, a drinker, a liar, a greedy person, a violent person... we rarely have to "discuss" (often "hypocritically" applied) this idea of "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin". Even "divorce" seemingly gets a free pass (biblically speaking) compared to the social parameters of how homosexuality is often viewed. The manner in which MANY men view homosexuality (sense of offense), can in many cases be relegated to whether or not it's beautiful "lesbians" or two fat gay guys. People are FAR from consistent in their view on the subject. And many via their "emotional" approach to homosexuality, tend to skew their religious view of it to MATCH (what they "feel", not what they really "know"). They more readily overlook or forget their obligation to splice "reality" into their view of the world in which they live.

So, while a discussion of "sin" and "sinners" is particularly valid topic, the bottom-line, where the rubber meets the road (actual "treament" of sinners by Christians or others) can be and often IS something that must be questioned or examined.

-Mel-

[micatala]

You know, just to have everything actually examined, I am going to start another thread on this one.

According to the bible, premarital sex is wrong, correct.

I will put it in the Theology forum, so we can assume the BIble is authoritative for the purposes of that discussion.

[Confused]

So I don't know that I could qualify the act itself as a sin, but the act outside of marriage would likely be considered a sin.

You make good points (as usual).

But what I would highlight here, is that "homosexuality" is often mentioned, because it is (for whatever reasons) one of the most contentious issues in existence. And I suppose (regardless of the particular issue) that attaching the word "sex" to anything just perks people's "humanness" up to a different level, in most cases.

Just as when we see something spectacular in nature or in a movie, people are apt to "react" in some way, and "sex" is in that category. It generally evokes a response of "OOoooo!!!" (one way or the other).

And it is typical that the topic (human sexuality) takes the LONG WAY to "reason"; people feel passionately about it, even if they don't really know what they are feeling. So, it's pratically NOTHING for people to push real objectivity aside while dealing with "sexuality". All that, to make the following points:

Unless there is some "sin" which criminally victimizes another human being against their will (consent issues), then it should be left to THAT person and God. It's no secret that some "Christians" and other "religious" folk, LUMP the sinner in with their TREATMENT of sin. And there is no doubt that such an approach so often leads to nothing but contentions; fights and arguments stirred up by FAULTY human beings (all of us).

And it would be no problem (this handling of "sin), IF people would realize that it is one IMPERFECT PERSON speaking to another about the same. NO ONE has the righteousness, wisdom, compassion, kindness and love of Jesus Christ; but some have "imagined" that they DO have the heart/mind of God. They WILL stand in judgement over people (their sin) as if they have been appointed to ENFORCE righteousness in others (which they cannot do even in themselves, most times).

But when it come to homosexuality, it's deeply emotional, unlike many other issues pertaining to alleged or actual "sins". People have been taught and conditioned to feel it deeply, and by our very nature it is deep already... it goes to our very core, and whether one is "gay", "straight" or even "asexual", there are already strong feelings about it.

When we see a smoker, a drinker, a liar, a greedy person, a violent person... we rarely have to "discuss" (often "hypocritically" applied) this idea of "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin". Even "divorce" seemingly gets a free pass (biblically speaking) compared to the social parameters of how homosexuality is often viewed. The manner in which MANY men view homosexuality (sense of offense), can in many cases be relegated to whether or not it's beautiful "lesbians" or two fat gay guys. People are FAR from consistent in their view on the subject. And many via their "emotional" approach to homosexuality, tend to skew their religious view of it to MATCH (what they "feel", not what they really "know"). They more readily overlook or forget their obligation to splice "reality" into their view of the world in which they live.

So, while a discussion of "sin" and "sinners" is particularly valid topic, the bottom-line, where the rubber meets the road (actual "treament" of sinners by Christians or others) can be and often IS something that must be questioned or examined.

-Mel-

I agree with you. During the womans rights movements, it was the hottest topic that got much scrutiny by the church as well. But it wasn't in relation to sin. The problem is that if one only hates the sin, then we negate the responsibility of the sinner. If one only hates the sinner, the we negate the influences of the sin itself. Then there is the isssue of what the actual sin is. So widely open to interpetation, one can very well damn themselves by taking a side at all, simply because their interpretation can be wrong in which case their beleif is wrong so though they had the best intentions: the road to hell is paved with the best intentions.

[Confused]

You know, just to have everything actually examined, I am going to start another thread on this one.

According to the bible, premarital sex is wrong, correct.

I will put it in the Theology forum, so we can assume the BIble is authoritative for the purposes of that discussion.

I so hate that. Somehow I usually end up looking the fool. Oh well.