Love the sinner and hate the sin

Unveiled Artist said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm no Abrahamic, as you know, but I've never bought into this idea, finding it rather absurd actually. A thief is defined by his actions. A runner is defined by the fact that he runs. A teacher teaches. A fisherman fishes. What a person does is what defines them.

So personally, I think it's a psychological cop out, a method of making claims of love just to look good somehow, when you actually hate.

So when I hear this, there's an eye-roll and a 'Yeah, right, sure you do."

Vinayaka said:

I'm no Abrahamic, as you know, but I've never bought into this idea, finding it rather absurd actually. A thief is defined by his actions. A runner is defined by the fact that he runs. A teacher teaches. A fisherman fishes. What a person does is what defines them.

So personally, I think it's a psychological cop out, a method of making claims of love just to look good somehow, when you actually hate.

So when I hear this, there's an eye-roll and a 'Yeah, right, sure you do."

Click to expand...

This would go inline with what many christians believe (sorry to say) that if a sinner is defined by his sin (like a runner to his run) a homosexual would be defined according to same-sex acts rather than being a person "who acts" not a person defined by her actions.

So, in those respects if you love the sinner and hate the sin, yes it is a contradiction. Though, even so, you guys seem to share the same contextual definition.

Or am I off?

Unveiled Artist said:

This would go inline with what many christians believe (sorry to say) that if a sinner is defined by his sin (like a runner to his run) a homosexual would be defined according to same-sex acts rather than being a person "who acts" not a person defined by her actions.

So, in those respects if you love the sinner and hate the sin, yes it is a contradiction. Though, even so, you guys seem to share the same contextual definition.

Or am I off?

Click to expand...

I don't understand, so I'll opt out. Sorry to have said anything. Carry on. In my case, I don't hate either, not that it matters.

Vinayaka said:

I don't understand, so I'll opt out. Sorry to have said anything. Carry on. In my case, I don't hate either, not that it matters.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to insult just discussion. All discussions come with some form of clarification and opinions without that, then how does/why would one discuss?

If a person is defined by their actions, then who they are (say a murderer) is defined by what they do (as they murder). A person who is homosexual (in christian context) is defined by his actions. So, it's the same context. Who they are (homosexual) is defined what they do (same-sex relations).

You two have the same logic and context. As for agreement over the subject, of course you two are on opposite sides of the pole.

The point is you two have the same line of thinking (actions define the actor). It's a logic comparison, nothing more than that.

KenS said:

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.


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.

Click to expand...

But isn't calling people "sinners" as you do above, cementing them as sinners by that naming of them as such, like calling one who murders a murderer or a liar, rather that one who lies, are one who sins? Wouldn't it be better to stop calling human beings sinners, as if they were inherently evil by nature?

All are God's children, and with few exceptions, God loves all. We must follow the teachings of God and love all too. "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Windwalker said:

calling human beings sinners, as if they were inherently evil by nature?

Click to expand...

Original sin?

Clara Tea said:

Original sin?

Click to expand...

But isn't labeling a child a "sinner", like labeling them a dummy, or a loser, or something? Won't they live up to the label, and isn't that the point in not labeling them a negative word like that?

Labeling humans sinners, more than likely conditions them to live up to that. If on the other hand you tell them they are inherently good, then they are more likely to live up to that. It's kind of common sense. Augustine's silly theology, be damned here. He had some issues with sexual shame and guilt from his childhood he brought into that doctrine of original sin he came up with.

Windwalker said:

But isn't calling people "sinners" as you do above, cementing them as sinners by that naming of them as such, like calling one who murders a murderer or a liar, rather that one who lies, are one who sins? Wouldn't it be better to stop calling human beings sinners, as if they were inherently evil by nature?

Click to expand...

And why would it be better to contradict the truth revealed by God in the scriptures, which plainly states that all have sinned? It doesn’t say people are “inherently evil”. It says that everyone falls short and sins and is in need of a Savior and Jesus Christ came to save sinners.

InChrist said:

And why would it be better to contradict the truth revealed by God in the scriptures, which plainly states that all have sinned?

Click to expand...

Yes, it clearly says that all have sinned, as you point out. But I think you would agree that Paul is speaking about adults here. I cannot imagine in his mind, or any reasonable mind, that he would imagine that an infant being held by his mother has "sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Can you?

Children are not sinners. Jesus himself declares that unless we become as children we shall not enter the kingdom of God. "Go and sin no more," is an invitation to become as a child. Why, if human beings are inherently evil, or "sinners" by nature, would he say that? If we are sinners by nature, that means children are too. I do not believe they are, nor do I belive adults are either. We are after all, made in the image of God, and God is good by nature, not sinful.

InChrist said:

It doesn’t say people are “inherently evil”. It says that everyone falls short and sins and is in need of a Savior and Jesus Christ came to save sinners.

Click to expand...

But the doctrine of "original sin", which the vast majority of Christian theology adopted from Augustine in the 4th century A.D., views humans as "sinners" by virtue of inheriting the sin state from the Fall of Adam and Eve. That view, that doctrine, that teaching, tells us that humans are sinful by nature. And when we say that humans are "sinners", that is branding us as inherently bad, not inherent good, nor even just neutral. "Sinner", says this is what you are by nature. You are a bad person. Not a good person, who did bad, but a bad person inherently.

That is what the doctrine of original sin tells us that human beings are. And the language of calling people "sinners" reinforces that image, just as saying to a child, "You're a loser", will head that child right down that path of living up to that label. It says to people, you are by nature a failure.

When we brand humans as sinners, we are saying, sin is not something you've done, but something you are. It brands humans as a negative creature, bad by nature. It tells us that is who and what we are. Do you see the difference?

Unveiled Artist said:

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.

Click to expand...

In today's technological advances, I don't think definitions are any longer a problem. I believe the problem is in understanding what is written.

We end up trying to major in the minors as in "what is right and what is wrong"... in your statement it would be "attractions, homosexuality, or even living together, polygamy" and all of thing change over time and still doesn't address the timelessness of spiritual truth. We all sin. We all miss the mark so we don't pick out one and harp all over it. It is a thinking problem.

In other words, we try to change what we are "doing" instead of changing "who we are". So we pick on our particular complaints and then try to be more righteous than the other person. Some people take it out on homosexuality, others covetousness (in some sense 'the rich have more than me' is a covetous statement), just playing the blame game.

The way that Jesus taught us was to understand that mankind really hasn't changed in his own power. There are still expressions of it manifested outwardly in wars, covetousness, contentions and so many more outward manifestation of an inward heart problem..

His way is to understand that it doesn't start by trying to change mankind on the outside and working our way into our hearts but rather letting God change us from the inside, and letting Him work it from the heart outwardly. Letting God conform and transform our thinking into His way of thinking.

Whereas before I was looking at "other women" (you could say "attraction") - it was nonetheless wrong... a wrong heart. God transformed my thinking and now I only have eyes for my wife. I didn't need something screaming "You are going to Hell because you are a heart adulterer", I needed someone to say "God loves you and has opened a way for you to experience life and that more abundantly--God will help you become all you are supposed to be and has enough grace to help you when you miss the mark (another word for sin). God will begin a good work in you and is able to complete it".

(Of course, these are all principles outlined in scripture).

Yes, of course we can enumerate sins that man can commit. Yes, we need to change our ways. But Jesus didn't go about listing all the sins of the world but rather, "Preach that the Kingdom of God has come unto you". An opportunity for God to work His will through us.

KenS said:

God transformed my thinking and now I only have eyes for my wife.

Click to expand...

I took a different route as I told my wife "You can have my heart but not my eyes".

How does one heal two black eyes?

metis said:

I took a different route as I told my wife "You can have my heart but not my eyes".

How does one heal two black eyes?

Click to expand...

It should say "funny" and not "friendly".

Hey... but whatever works for you!

Clara Tea said:

All are God's children, and with few exceptions, God loves all. We must follow the teachings of God and love all too. "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Click to expand...

Right, God loves all, so all should Not judge God's judgement as recorded in Scripture.
The human judges were to use God's judgement to judge in handling matters as to what was right and what was wrong in God's eyes - Psalms 82:1-8
I find at Matthew 7 Jesus was speaking about making a 'personal judgement' of another. Jesus was Not judging God's judgement on matters.
In other words, our personal judgement of another is that we are Not to impute a bad or wrong motive to another.

Windwalker said:

But isn't calling people "sinners" as you do above, cementing them as sinners by that naming of them as such, like calling one who murders a murderer or a liar, rather that one who lies, are one who sins? Wouldn't it be better to stop calling human beings sinners, as if they were inherently evil by nature?

Click to expand...

Since ALL have sinned - Romans 3:23 - because Adam spread 'adamic sin' down to ALL - Romans 5:12, 18.
This is Not imputing wickedness or evil but the falling short of obeying God.
Thus, sin is: either on purpose or not, intentional or not, premeditated or not, willful or not, by accident or not.
There is hope for both the righteous and unrighteous - Acts of the Apostles 24:15
There is No hope for the wicked - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35
It is either: ' repent ' or ' perish ' (be destroyed) - 2 Peter 3:9

URAVIP2ME said:

Since ALL have sinned - Romans 3:23 - because Adam spread 'adamic sin' down to ALL - Romans 5:12, 18.
This is Not imputing wickedness or evil but the falling short of obeying God.
Thus, sin is: either on purpose or not, intentional or not, premeditated or not, willful or not, by accident or not.

Click to expand...

Do you believe God casts children into hell, just because they are born sinners, whether they've actually done anything or not? Why would Jesus tell us that we need to be like children then in order to enter into the presence of God?

Furthermore, do you believe in the interest of a child being a good person, it's advisable to first tell them they are sinners? "Billy, you are sinful child. Now be good!" Does labeling him a "sinner" encourage him or discourage him? "You're a bad child!" That's what he would hear.

That's what adults hear too, when Christians brand everyone alive as "sinners". Can't we be good people first, who do bad things secondly? Why call us sinners as what defines us? Were we born as rebellious hellbent sinners by nature? That doesn't make much sense to me at all, regardless of how one interprets scriptures.

URAVIP2ME said:

There is hope for both the righteous and unrighteous - Acts of the Apostles 24:15
There is No hope for the wicked - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35
It is either: ' repent ' or ' perish ' (be destroyed) - 2 Peter 3:9

Click to expand...

Can a child of three, repent? Surely, this idea of inheriting sin has problems. If we are to be strictly literal about this, all children who die go to hell, and God sends them there on a technicality. That sort of makes me shudder to imagine God as that cruel.

KenS said:

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".

Click to expand...

I am wondering if the 'everlasting' covenant or contract that you have in mind is the one found at Jeremiah 32:40 __________
To me, resurrected people like David will be part of mankind through covenant or contract (Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:25 b) David as Prince under Christ as King.
Thus fulfilling Isaiah 32:1; Psalms 45:16 when David will be resurrected - Acts of the Apostles 2:34; 24:15.
The ' process that transforms...' is what Jesus (as King of God's Kingdom) will accomplish during his one-thousand year governmental reign over Earth.

Windwalker said:

Do you believe God casts children into hell, just because they are born sinners, whether they've actually done anything or not? Why would Jesus tell us that we need to be like children then in order to enter into the presence of God?
Furthermore, do you believe in the interest of a child being a good person, it's advisable to first tell them they are sinners? "Billy, you are sinful child. Now be good!" Does labeling him a "sinner" encourage him or discourage him? "You're a bad child!" That's what he would hear.
That's what adults hear too, when Christians brand everyone alive as "sinners". Can't we be good people first, who do bad things secondly? Why call us sinners as what defines us? Were we born as rebellious hellbent sinners by nature? That doesn't make much sense to me at all, regardless of how one interprets scriptures.
Can a child of three, repent? Surely, this idea of inheriting sin has problems. If we are to be strictly literal about this, all children who die go to hell, and God sends them there on a technicality. That sort of makes me shudder to imagine God as that cruel.

Click to expand...

Good questions ^ above ^ because an inquiring mind wants to know.
Please keep 1 Corinthians 7:14 in mind because minor children are protected by parents.
Because of Satan and Adam causing human imperfection is why a parent knows his child will have leanings / towards wrongdoing.
Can you think of anyone righteous who went to hell _______________
In Scripture 'righteous Jesus' went to hell the day he died - Acts of the Apostles 2:27
Not to some 'religious-myth hell' as often taught by false clergy, but Jesus went to 'biblical hell' mankind's temporary stone-cold grave for the sleeping dead.
Jesus taught ' sleep ' Not pain in death - John 11:11-14.
Jesus was well educated in the old Hebrew Scriptures which also teach sleep in death -> Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5
Remember: there was No post-mortem penalty for Adam, No double jeopardy for sin, there is none for anyone else.
Death is what stamps the total asking price tag for sin according to Romans 6:23; 6:7.
Since we can Not resurrect oneself or another, is why we need someone who can resurrect us - Jesus can and will.
Resurrected parents will have their minor children returned to them on Resurrection Day.
( Resurrection Day meaning Jesus' millennium-Long Day of governing over Earth for a thousand years )

URAVIP2ME said:

Good questions ^ above ^ because an inquiring mind wants to know.
Please keep 1 Corinthians 7:14 in mind because minor children are protected by parents.

Click to expand...

A couple things about that verse. First, it doesn't say they are saved by the believing parent, or spouse. It says sanctified. Whatever Paul means in that context cannot mean saved, because that would be saying an unrepentant sinner gets in on a technicality. I can't imagine that's very fair dealings with the rest of the sinners who get cast into hell, just because they didn't luck out having someone in the family who got 5 extra get out of hell free passes to hand to family members once they joined club Jesus. That is what that would amount to.

But worse than that, what about the children of unbelieving parents? What about the billions of children who are not born into Christian families? Does God send them to hell? Do you believe he does?

URAVIP2ME said:

Because of Satan and Adam causing human imperfection is why a parent knows his child will have leanings / towards wrongdoing.

Click to expand...

Don't they also, or even far morseo, have a leaning to do good primarily? Or are human beings primarily wicked first and foremost above being good? One wonders how humans survived as a species then, why we didn't all die off in the first few generations after we ate ourselves alive.

URAVIP2ME said:

Can you think of anyone righteous who went to hell _______________

Click to expand...

I can't think of anyone going to hell. I can't even imagine hell as something God created and sends people into. I see God as Love, not hate.

URAVIP2ME said:

I am wondering if the 'everlasting' covenant or contract that you have in mind is the one found at Jeremiah 32:40 __________

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

URAVIP2ME said:

To me, resurrected people like David will be part of mankind through covenant or contract (Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:25 b) David as Prince under Christ as King.
Thus fulfilling Isaiah 32:1; Psalms 45:16

Click to expand...

Yes on David being part of it. Yes to Christ being King and fulfilling scripture and him being King of kings and Lord of Lords

URAVIP2ME said:

The ' process that transforms...' is what Jesus (as King of God's Kingdom) will accomplish during his one-thousand year governmental reign over Earth.

Click to expand...

Although there is a process during the 1,000 years... I was referring to the process for each person here and now.