C
chrisg93
Guest
This is a classic cliche’ but it never has sounded right to me. There is something wrong, but I can’t put my finger on it. Anybody else think this also?
You’ve got it bass-ackward so it DOESN"T make sense. We hate the SIN but love the sinner. I see this applied to homosexuals for example. We hate the lifestyle but love the person. I think that concept is easy to understand.This is a classic cliche’ but it never has sounded right to me. There is something wrong, but I can’t put my finger on it. Anybody else think this also?
Every now and then you will get someone who objects to the (non-backwards) adage. If someone says they think “love the sinner, hate the sin” stinks, challenge them to come up with a better alternative. They can’t without appealing to self-refuting relativism, or something merciless like “hate 'em both.”
Would that be when talking about homosexuality? People want to think that it is not enough to love the sinner in that instance. I mean people that don’t live by God’s rules.
If you use our pansy-butt cultural definition of “love” then you would be right.Hi Scott,
I am one who thinks it is wrong eigher way. I can’t put my finger on it but I know it’s not right somehow. I’ll take some wild guess’ at explaining what is wrong with it…
What do you think?
- It implies that we are not responsible for our sins. That the “sinner” is somehow divorced from the “sin”. He just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
- We are not supposed to “hate” anything, not even sin.
- The sinner needs truth, reproof and correction more than “fluff”, which is what is often disguised as love.
- It is a higher, better truth to say “You must master your sin”.
Chris
I’ve never heard anyone who used this phrase say or suggest that it frees sinners from responsibility. Rather, it is used when a defender of immoral behavior attempts to paint anyone who objects to that behavior as hateful, bigoted, etc. That is, it is used as a defense of the one calling sin an sin rather than a comment about the sinner. Used that way I suppose it could be taken the way you put it.Hi Scott,
I am one who thinks it is wrong eigher way. I can’t put my finger on it but I know it’s not right somehow. I’ll take some wild guess’ at explaining what is wrong with it…
- It implies that we are not responsible for our sins. That the “sinner” is somehow divorced from the “sin”. He just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
I see that you retracted this in a later post. We’re in agreement here.
- We are not supposed to “hate” anything, not even sin.
I totally agree. One of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish the sinner. If we did not love them in the real sense, we would blithely twiddle our thumbs as the sinner walked over a cliff unawares. As we love the sinner, we don’t want to see them go over the cliff, so we call out the warning to turn around. We hate the sin because it is blinding the sinner to the danger.
- The sinner needs truth, reproof and correction more than “fluff”, which is what is often disguised as love.
Yes, I believe the Catechism talks in several places about self-mastery. Again, I would point out that if we did not love sinners, we would not exort them to self-mastery, but rather let them wallow in slavery to sin.
- It is a higher, better truth to say “You must master your sin”.
Perhaps the Christian way of stating that would be:
- It is a higher, better truth to say “You must master your sin”.
Hating the sin while loving the sinner does not mean the person is freed from responsibility for his mistake. Only that we believe that any person, as long as he breaths, is still capable of repentance and conversion and rise above his former state with God’s grace, by carefully explaining it to him, and from there allow him to rise and break its hold over him. This is truly what fraternal correction is all about.You must indeed master sin, with God’s help.