Love the Sin, Hate the Sinner

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrisg93
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
I think you got it backwards. It’s hate the sin, love the sinner. Make more sense that way?
 
40.png
chrisg93:
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.

Lisa N
 
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.”

Scott
 
Scott Waddell:
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.
 
It’s hate the sin, love the sinner. Also, it can be applied to any kind of sinful situation or lifestyle.
 
If you listen to the MSM it’s “Love the sin, Hate the righteous.”
 
FYI:

Drew Mariani is on Relevant Radio right now, go on the internet to find it if they don’t broadcast in your state. He is having a pro life show and he just said, he thinks we will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Norma is talking now.
www.relevantradio.com

They have a listen live icon on the top of the page. It is a great station.
 
I think it should be love the sin and worry about your own sorry behind before you go telling everyone else what they’re doing wrong!

😛
 
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…
  1. 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.
  2. We are not supposed to “hate” anything, not even sin.
  3. The sinner needs truth, reproof and correction more than “fluff”, which is what is often disguised as love.
  4. It is a higher, better truth to say “You must master your sin”.
What do you think?

Chris
 
40.png
chrisg93:
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…
  1. 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.
  2. We are not supposed to “hate” anything, not even sin.
  3. The sinner needs truth, reproof and correction more than “fluff”, which is what is often disguised as love.
  4. It is a higher, better truth to say “You must master your sin”.
What do you think?

Chris
If you use our pansy-butt cultural definition of “love” then you would be right.

If you use the biblical agape love then Truth is what you have. Hard-nosed, “get your **** together before you feed the fires of hell” love, forceful, demanding, biting, in-your-face.

Um, we need to hate sin.

Exodus 33:3 : Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey; but I will not go up among you, lest I consume you in the way, for you are a stiff-necked people."

Psalm 11:5,6 : The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, and his soul hates him that loves violence.
On the wicked he will rain coals of fire and brimstone; a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup

Proverbs 6:16-19: There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers.

Matthew 18:7-9 : "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Luke 16:15: But he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

Galatians 5:19-21 : Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
 
40.png
chrisg93:
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…
  1. 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’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.
  1. We are not supposed to “hate” anything, not even sin.
I see that you retracted this in a later post. We’re in agreement here.
  1. The sinner needs truth, reproof and correction more than “fluff”, which is what is often disguised as love.
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.
  1. It is a higher, better truth to say “You must master your sin”.
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.

I think I see your general point. It may just be that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” has become a worn-out bumper-sticker slogan with no real power.

Scott
 
40.png
chrisg93:
  1. It is a higher, better truth to say “You must master your sin”.
Perhaps the Christian way of stating that would be:
You must indeed master sin, with God’s help.
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.

Gerry 🙂
 
i truly believe you set yourself up for a fall when you start casting stones in glass houses!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top