Hate the sin, love the sinner?

[fix]

Not true. Even if someone was put into a “temporary” slavery to pay off some debt, they were still subject to inhumane treatment (“only” to be beaten as long as the beating was not lethal) and their children were subject to be sold off by the whim of the “owner”. Also there was a lot of non-chattel type of slavery, too.

The Church did not teach that anyone should abuse people.

That is “relative” morality at its best.

Not one bit. It is pointing out that no society gets it right. Some are better some are worse. That is not relative it is a fact.

The “relative” morality is included in the teaching that all the three attributes must be taken into consideration: 1) the intent, 2) the action and 3) the outcome.

Thant is not moral relativism. You cannot simply redefine terms to make your case.

 

[sw85]

Have you ever considered how does that sound to those “sinners”? When you speak of homosexual practices, the words like “disgusting”, “perverted”, “unnatural”, “hateful” and alike are abundant. People and their actions cannot be artifically separated. When you express your “disgust” toward what they do, that obviously “spills over” and you express your disgust toward them. So, do not be surprised if they see that your “love” toward them is just an empty word, and what you say about them is anything but “charitavle”, and “kind”. Something to think about?

“Love” in the Biblical sense (i.e., the way that passage is meant to be interpreted) is an ordering of the will toward the good of another.

What is good for another is not sinning.

Thus there is nothing at all inconsistent with hating the sin of sodomy, and regarding it as an abomination, and loving the sinner. In fact you cannot love someone if you do not want them to better themselves and to stop behaving badly.

I love my sisters, for instance. So I would prefer that they not be prostitutes, even if prostitution made them happy. If they became prostitutes I would rebuke them strongly, even if the rebuke made them unhappy.

Love doesn’t throw its hands in the air and say “anything goes.” That’s license. Quite a different thing from love. We give license to dogs. We expect better from our loved ones.

If you don’t get this, it’s because your understanding of love is stunted.

 

[Farien]

The Church did not teach that anyone should abuse people.

The church is silent of many things. The examples I quoted all come from the bible, which was created / collected by the church. So the church definitely supported slavery when the bible was created.

Not one bit. It is pointing out that no society gets it right. Some are better some are worse. That is not relative it is a fact.

So, is public nudity moral or immoral? Is public sex moral or immoral? Even today there are tribes where there is no prohibition against it. And those tribes are nothing, but a (relatively small) society.

Thant is not moral relativism. You cannot simply redefine terms to make your case.

I do NOT define things. There are proper definitions of the terms I use.

 

[fix]

The church is silent of many things. The examples I quoted all come from the bible, which was created / collected by the church. So the church definitely supported slavery when the bible was created.

The Church never supported abuse or chattel slavery. Your “proof” does not prove otherwise.

So, is public nudity moral or immoral?

Immoral.

Is public sex moral or immoral?

Immoral

Even today there are tribes where there is no prohibition against it. And those tribes are nothing, but a (relatively small) society.

Even primitive people eventually grow in modesty as our last Pope pointed out specifically.

I do NOT define things. There are proper definitions of the terms I use.

You make moral relativism equal to objective morality. That is redefinition.

 

[Farien]

“Love” in the Biblical sense (i.e., the way that passage is meant to be interpreted) is an ordering of the will toward the good of another.

What is good for another is not sinning.

Thus there is nothing at all inconsistent with hating the sin of sodomy, and regarding it as an abomination, and loving the sinner. In fact you cannot love someone if you do not want them to better themselves and to stop behaving badly.

I love my sisters, for instance. So I would prefer that they not be prostitutes, even if prostitution made them happy. If they became prostitutes I would rebuke them strongly, even if the rebuke made them unhappy.

Love doesn’t throw its hands in the air and say “anything goes.” That’s license. Quite a different thing from love. We give license to dogs. We expect better from our loved ones.

If you don’t get this, it’s because your understanding of love is stunted.

Even if I would accept your premise (I don’t, because love is much more complicated than “agape”), the words which are used can be chosen to convey hate and scorn or kindness and caring. Intentionally choosing hurtful words is not “love”, no matter how “noble” your intentions might be. In another thread the “loving” poster called homosexuals “sickos”, “miscreants”, “deviants” and other “loving” words. So far there was no repercussion from other posters, and we all know that silence is agreement.

Of course, when it comes to adults, you are “NOT your brother’s keeper”. You might express your views kindly, if you so choose, but if your advice is rejected, then your role has ended. And that assumes that your ideas about “sin” are correct, which is more than slightly dubious.

Yes, “love” is tolerant, love assumes that the other person is a responsible adult and respects the other person’s chosen action - as long as those actions do not hurt others. Love may assume that the other party is mistaken and so love can compel you to give voice to your concern - ONCE.

 

[sw85]

Even if I would accept your premise (I don’t, because love is much more complicated than “agape”), the words which are used can be chosen to convey hate and scorn or kindness and caring. Intentionally choosing hurtful words is not “love”, no matter how “noble” your intentions might be. In another thread the “loving” poster called homosexuals “sickos”, “miscreants”, “deviants” and other “loving” words. So far there was no repercussion from other posters, and we all know that silence is agreement.

Are you criticizing the principle as I’ve explained it or are you criticizing particular people’s failure to follow the principle?

Of course, when it comes to adults, you are “NOT your brother’s keeper”. You might express your views kindly, if you so choose, but if your advice is rejected, then your role has ended. And that assumes that your ideas about “sin” are correct, which is more than slightly dubious.

Your point in the OP was that our position is logically internally inconsistent. I’m saying it isn’t internally inconsistent, not that you don’t disagree with it, so repeating that you disagree with it isn’t particularly helpful.

Yes, “love” is tolerant, love assumes that the other person is a responsible adult and respects the other person’s chosen action - as long as those actions do not hurt others.

This is exactly what I’m saying love, properly understood, isn’t, so again, reasserting it is not only helpful. It’s also irrelevant to the point you were making, which is that the slogan you identified in the thread title is incoherent. It may be incoherent or not, but that’s a different question from whether or why you dis/agree with it.

 

[Farien]

Are you criticizing the principle as I’ve explained it or are you criticizing particular people’s failure to follow the principle?

Both, of course. But in this thread I was mostly talking about the behavior of certain people. And about the lack of criticism from those who disagree with the selection of those words. If you see “some” people’s failure to live up to those principles, and you do not speak up against them, then there is only one conclusion: “you agree with them”.

Your point in the OP was that our position is logically internally inconsistent.

You position is partly what you say, and parrtly what you do - and of those the more important is what you do. So, yes, your acts contradict what you say (“you” is generic!) and as such it is logically inconsistent. I did not insinuate that every catholic exhibits this hypocritical behavior, only that many do, and they are not “slapped down” by the others.

And, no, you cannot hide behind the professed “proper, agape-like love” when it comes to interference.

 

[fix]

Are you criticizing the principle as I’ve explained it or are you criticizing particular people’s failure to follow the principle?

Your point in the OP was that our position is logically internally inconsistent. I’m saying it isn’t internally inconsistent, not that you don’t disagree with it, so repeating that you disagree with it isn’t particularly helpful.

This is exactly what I’m saying love, properly understood, isn’t, so again, reasserting it is not only helpful. It’s also irrelevant to the point you were making, which is that the slogan you identified in the thread title is incoherent. It may be incoherent or not, but that’s a different question from whether or why you dis/agree with it.

Keeping it simple we can say that for a good size subset of the population they demand people embrace their immoral behavior as moral. Speaking the truth in this matter is intentionally mischaracterized as intolerance of persons or hate.

The distinction between loving people and hating sin is lost on them. Why? Probably several reasons but mainly once we define ourselves by our behavior exclusively then it is easy to see why they hold such an erroneous position.

 

[Gods_Peace]

since when is sodomy a form of love?

 

[Farien]

since when is sodomy a form of love?

Since when is genocide a form of love? At least “sodomy” is mutually agreed upon… genocide is not.

 

[Acerunner]

Since when is genocide a form of love? At least “sodomy” is mutually agreed upon… genocide is not.

I’m sorry I couldn’t stop laughing when I read this. This is quite possibly the dumbest argument in the world.
“Since when has heroine been a bad choice? At lest it’s better than the holocaust!”
Same exact argument just as dumb.
By the way, silence does not mean people agree with you. In my case silence it’s stepping to the side and allowing far more knowledgeable people on the subject take the debate.

 

[Bella92]

Have you ever considered how does that sound to those “sinners”? When you speak of homosexual practices, the words like “disgusting”, “perverted”, “unnatural”, “hateful” and alike are abundant. People and their actions cannot be artifically separated. When you express your “disgust” toward what they do, that obviously “spills over” and you express your disgust toward them. So, do not be surprised if they see that your “love” toward them is just an empty word, and what you say about them is anything but “charitavle”, and “kind”. Something to think about?

As an active bisexual woman, this is exactly what has driven a rift between me and my family. I get the love me hate the sin stuff all the time, in various ways, but the fact of the matter is they don’t love me. If they did, they’d accept me for who and I and what I am. What they want is for me to conform to their values and their way of living and then they’ll love me. I’ve never been able to take a partner home while my brothers and sisters with their boyfriends and girlfriends are welcomed with open arms. While my brothers and sisters are praised from the rooftops for their jobs and careers, all that’s mentioned about me is I work in an office. They’re ashamed of the film work I do because they consider it immoral and I never got any A levels because I dropped out to do modelling. Even though I’m now paying my way through the Open University it counts for nothing in their eyes since I’m not the good little girl they wanted me to be. So yeah, I wish when people came out with that rubbish of saying they love the person but hate the sin, they’d actually think about what they’re saying.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Have you ever considered how does that sound to those “sinners”? When you speak of homosexual practices, the words like “disgusting”, “perverted”, “unnatural”, “hateful” and alike are abundant. People and their actions cannot be artifically separated. When you express your “disgust” toward what they do, that obviously “spills over” and you express your disgust toward them. So, do not be surprised if they see that your “love” toward them is just an empty word, and what you say about them is anything but “charitavle”, and “kind”. Something to think about?

That’s why you don’t “artificially” separate them. I used to be a probation officer, so I’ve worked with sex offenders ranging from indecent acts in public to molesting children. What they did was disgusting and I didn’t approve of it at all. That being said, you have to look past it, and see them for who they are, acknowledge that you’re not much better than them, and it’s only because of God’s grace that you’re not in their situation.

 

[Farien]

As an active bisexual woman, this is exactly what has driven a rift between me and my family. I get the love me hate the sin stuff all the time, in various ways, but the fact of the matter is they don’t love me. If they did, they’d accept me for who and I and what I am. What they want is for me to conform to their values and their way of living and then they’ll love me. I’ve never been able to take a partner home while my brothers and sisters with their boyfriends and girlfriends are welcomed with open arms. While my brothers and sisters are praised from the rooftops for their jobs and careers, all that’s mentioned about me is I work in an office. They’re ashamed of the film work I do because they consider it immoral and I never got any A levels because I dropped out to do modelling. Even though I’m now paying my way through the Open University it counts for nothing in their eyes since I’m not the good little girl they wanted me to be. So yeah, I wish when people came out with that rubbish of saying they love the person but hate the sin, they’d actually think about what they’re saying.

How true! Their hypocrisy is nauseating. You have my virtual hugs. :hug3:

 

[Farien]

That’s why you don’t “artificially” separate them. I used to be a probation officer, so I’ve worked with sex offenders ranging from indecent acts in public to molesting children. What they did was disgusting and I didn’t approve of it at all. That being said, you have to look past it, and see them for who they are, acknowledge that you’re not much better than them, and it’s only because of God’s grace that you’re not in their situation.

Let me ask you: is there no significant difference in your eyes between child molesters and consenting performing their “sinful” actions in private? Just curious.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Let me ask you: is there no significant difference in your eyes between child molesters and consenting performing their “sinful” actions in private? Just curious.

Your question isn’t entirely clear to me.