Love the sinner and hate the sin

[Unveiled Artist]

This came to mind for some odd and weird reason. It's about homosexuality.

How can any christian (and I assume any abrahamic scripture followerer) love the homosexual when they associate and the homosexual with same-sex sex and b. define the homosexual based on same-sex sex....?

Same-sex sex is compared to rape, incest, and murder in scripture.
How can you love someone and defines her akin to these detestable actions?

-
For example, a person who kills another person is a murderer. Likewise with a person who takes something that does not belong to her is a thief. According to the bible, those who have same-sex sex are homosexuals.

If one loves the sinner and hates the sin, they shouldn't correlate with each other.

Love a person and hate murder is different than saying love the murderer and hate the murder. Love the person and hate same-sex sex is different than love the homosexual and defining her by same-sex sex.
-

How would you define the phrase "love the sinner and hate the sin?"

How can you love a homosexual and define her akin to these detestable actions (rape, incest, murder, etc)?

 

[McBell]

My love for my family is not based or predicated upon their actions, beliefs, political stance, religious beliefs, or even their actions.

 

[rocala]

My love for my family is not based or predicated upon their actions, beliefs, political stance, religious beliefs, or even their actions.

I agree. Love, to be honest is not rational by every day standards and I don't think we can judge it by them. It is in a category of it's own.

 

[Kenny]

This came to mind for some odd and weird reason. It's about homosexuality.

How can any christian (and I assume any abrahamic scripture followerer) love the homosexual when they associate and the homosexual with same-sex sex and b. define the homosexual based on same-sex sex....?

Same-sex sex is compared to rape, incest, and murder in scripture.
How can you love someone and defines her akin to these detestable actions?

-
For example, a person who kills another person is a murderer. Likewise with a person who takes something that does not belong to her is a thief. According to the bible, those who have same-sex sex are homosexuals.

If one loves the sinner and hates the sin, they shouldn't correlate with each other.

Love a person and hate murder is different than saying love the murderer and hate the murder. Love the person and hate same-sex sex is different than love the homosexual and defining her by same-sex sex.
-

How would you define the phrase "love the sinner and hate the sin?"

How can you love a homosexual and define her akin to these detestable actions (rape, incest, murder, etc)?

I guess it is a matter of perspective and a matter or definition. Throwing mud at another person so that one looks cleaner is easy to do as we compare man against man... but is that the measurement the God uses?

For an example, Jesus said: "Matt 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 ButI say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Notice the difference of definition in adultery.

I usually define it this way... On a goodness scale of 0 to 5, place a name that matches the worst person ever that can come to your mind on the "0" line. (Usually I help them by saying "What about Hitler?" and they seem to agree.)

Then I ask them to place a name to the 5 category--like a Mother Teresa - and they usually put a respected friend, mother or some other person,

The next step being, "now, what number would you put yourself as compared to these two people". Their position usually ranges an average of '3' depending on the person as they judge themselves.

From there I say "OK, but if I go to the name you gave me on number 5, they will put a different name on number 5 and then say that they themselves are the 3 on that goodness scale. That pushes you down to a 1.5 - closer to Hitler. And if I ask the next named person on the goodness scale, they also will have a different name on the number 5... which pushes you further down to where eventually you are right next to Hitler as you continue the process.

The moral of the story is "We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" as we compare ourselves to a sinless and perfect God and, as the TaNaKh says, "Our righteousness is as filthy rags" which I believe was the menstrual rag that the women used.

So, it isn't hard to look at the murderer or the adulterer (like King David) - or any other person and realize that however bad the sin may be named, you can still love the sinner because we are all sinners and still have dislike the sin. Otherwise, how could we even love ourselves?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So, it isn't hard to look at the murderer or the adulterer (like King David) - or any other person and realize that however bad the sin may be named, you can still love the sinner because we are all sinners and still have dislike the sin. Otherwise, how could we even love ourselves?

Hmm. I couldn't catch the numbers analogy. In the case of a murderer, wouldn't it be best not to call a murder a murder if "who" he is, isn't determined by what he does?

One stereotype about murders is in the US you see murderers/child rapist tend to be white males with indecent upbringing. People who do drugs tend to be black. We are still stuck on stereotypes. So, if a Asian woman committed rape, we would probably be a bit shocked temporarily. Likewise, people who are homosexual tend to be connected with same-sex sex. So, the sinner is defined by the (rather than his/her) sin.

If one loves the sinner, one wouldn't associate like these examples above.

Is it possible to disassociate sinners and "their" sin as to treat all people based on Who they are and not what we think they are?

 

[Quintessence]

My love for my family is not based or predicated upon their actions, beliefs, political stance, religious beliefs, or even their actions.

I have to ask - what is it based on then? Because you've listed pretty much everything of substance about a person there. What else is left? Who is a person beyond what they believe and do in the world (aka, who they are)?

 

[rocala]

I have to ask - what is it based on then? Because you've listed pretty much everything of substance about a person there. What else is left? Who is a person beyond what they believe and do in the world (aka, who they are)?

There must be something else, people love their babies don't they?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My love for my family is not based or predicated upon their actions, beliefs, political stance, religious beliefs, or even their actions.

What is it based on?

Actions is an expression of love, no?

 

[McBell]

I have to ask - what is it based on then? Because you've listed pretty much everything of substance about a person there. What else is left? Who is a person beyond what they believe and do in the world (aka, who they are)?

When/if I figure it out, I will let you know

 

[McBell]

What is it based on?

Actions is an expression of love, no?

When/if I figure it out, I will let you know

 

[Kenny]

Hmm. I couldn't catch the numbers analogy. In the case of a murderer, wouldn't it be best not to call a murder a murder if "who" he is, isn't determined by what he does?

One stereotype about murders is in the US you see murderers/child rapist tend to be white males with indecent upbringing. People who do drugs tend to be black. We are still stuck on stereotypes. So, if a Asian woman committed rape, we would probably be a bit shocked temporarily. Likewise, people who are homosexual tend to be connected with same-sex sex. So, the sinner is defined by the (rather than his/her) sin.

If one loves the sinner, one wouldn't associate like these examples above.

Is it possible to disassociate sinners and "their" sin as to treat all people based on Who they are and not what we think they are?

I'm sorry if I couldn't make it clear on the numerology. I was wondering if I had made it clear enough

I wouldn't define a sinner by his sin so, yes, it is possible to disassociate sinners and "their" sin. IMO.

When my son lied, I didn't call him a liar and thus didn't define him as a sinner by his sin. He is a child of God who missed the mark. We corrected the sin and then left the room in full fellowship without prejudice.

So one who murdered - I wouldn't call him a murderer but rather just one who murdered. To call him a "murderer" would be to try to cement him/her into a state of being by defining him by his sin.

God defines us as a "good work" - that He is able to finish.

Maybe that was an easier approach?

 

[1213]

...
How would you define the phrase "love the sinner and hate the sin?"...

To me love means that I care, and if I care, I don’t do anything evil to others, even if they would be bad.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm sorry if I couldn't make it clear on the numerology. I was wondering if I had made it clear enough

I wouldn't define a sinner by his sin so, yes, it is possible to disassociate sinners and "their" sin. IMO.

When my son lied, I didn't call him a liar and thus didn't define him as a sinner by his sin. He is a child of God who missed the mark. We corrected the sin and then left the room in full fellowship without prejudice.

So one who murdered - I wouldn't call him a murderer but rather just one who murdered. To call him a "murderer" would be to try to cement him/her into a state of being by defining him by his sin.

God defines us as a "good work" - that He is able to finish.

Maybe that was an easier approach?

I wish all christians would think that way, honestly. For example, in the catholic church (not sure now) they had conversion therapy for homosexual teens. If they saw every one as a child of god, they wouldn't need to convert. They (and other christians) would accept people for who they are "and" not associate homosexuality with homosexual (as if they are one and the same as murderer to his murder).

I think a lot of people would end up with better childhoods if their emotions and feelings were validated without association to sin.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This came to mind for some odd and weird reason. It's about homosexuality.
How can any christian (and I assume any abrahamic scripture followerer) love the homosexual when they associate and the homosexual with same-sex sex and b. define the homosexual based on same-sex sex....?...................

It is ' fornication ' that the Bible condemns.- Hebrews 13:4
In other words, any one single is to refrain from: fornication. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 a.
Since Christian marriage is only between man and woman, then in Scripture only such married persons are to only be sexual with each other.
ALL people are to be treated with respectful love for the final judging is left in the hands of Christ Jesus.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is ' fornication ' that the Bible condemns.- Hebrews 13:4
In other words, any one single is to refrain from: fornication. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 a.
Since Christian marriage is only between man and woman, then in Scripture only such married persons are to only be sexual with each other.
ALL people are to be treated with respectful love for the final judging is left in the hands of Christ Jesus.

You missed my point in the OP?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I guess it is a matter of perspective and a matter or definition. Throwing mud at another person so that one looks cleaner is easy to do as we compare man against man... but is that the measurement the God uses?
For an example, Jesus said: "Matt 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Notice the difference of definition in adultery................

Interesting that you use ' adultery ' as measurement whereas Jesus also made a connection to: 'fornication' at Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9.
There is judgement for both the adulterer and the fornicator - Hebrews 13:4
Since scriptural marriage is only between man and woman then anyone single must refrain from: fornication ( Greek porneia ) .

 

[SomeRandom]

Imo, all too often this is easy justification of bigotry, to make someone feel good even after they bully someone. Under the guise of “correcting the sin out of love.”
Now I’m sure not every Christian would disown or condemn their gay friends/family, obviously. There are a growing number of Christians who accept the LGBTQ community, for example. And I could even understand if someone were to truly seperate the sin from sinner. Like they express discomfort at their friend/family same sex relationship, but otherwise accept it as just how life turned out. I mean he who is without sin should cast the first stone and all that.
But how often do we hear about kids getting kicked out of home because they’re gay? Conversion therapy? Which is vehemently disowned as shoddy and abusive by legitimate medical experts.

I think homophobia runs deeper than people realise and it’s not necessarily a religious belief. I saw avowed atheists express disdain for gay couples during our Same Sex marriage “debate.” It is something that has permeated culture and religion is an easy out for some.

 

[Kenny]

I wish all christians would think that way, honestly. For example, in the catholic church (not sure now) they had conversion therapy for homosexual teens. If they saw every one as a child of god, they wouldn't need to convert. They (and other christians) would accept people for who they are "and" not associate homosexuality with homosexual (as if they are one and the same as murderer to his murder).

I think a lot of people would end up with better childhoods if their emotions and feelings were validated without association to sin.

As I dig deeper into my scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that God always intended man to rule (to have dominion) on this earth and in their lives.

The whole of the purpose of Jesus' coming is to realign mankind to his purpose and destiny, to bring Heaven's glory and authority back to earth through mankind through covenant.

But it is a process. It is a metamorphosis (Rom 12) that transforms the way we live by upgrading the way we think. Or, as Proverbs says, "as a man thinks in his heart, so is he".

 

[Kenny]

Interesting that you use ' adultery ' as measurement whereas Jesus also made a connection to: 'fornication' at Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9.
There is judgement for both the adulterer and the fornicator - Hebrews 13:4
Since scriptural marriage is only between man and woman then anyone single must refrain from: fornication ( Greek porneia ) .

I'm not sure what your point is since my application was simply that we have one definition while God has a different definition. The part that wasn't understood when I tried to use #4 was simply that by God's measurements, none of us are perfect enough.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not sure what your point is since my application was simply that we have one definition while God has a different definition. The part that wasn't understood when I tried to use #4 was simply that by God's measurements, none of us are perfect enough.

Why do you think many christians assume scripture definitions and today's definition are the same in regards to homosexuality, homosexuals, attraction, and sin (the differences thereof)?

I understand spiritual concepts are timeliness but when cultural definitions (and translations even) from before the common era are applied to today, there is a lot of judgement and "blame the sinner" because the same word is used though in different contexts B.C. versus today especially in regards to medical terms that didn't exist or was misunderstood even in the 80s in the U.S. none less over 2,000 years ago outside the country.