Discussion in 'Holy Rants' started by Timothy, Jan 8, 2016.
What would the appropriate Scriptural formulation be?
Its stated about as explicitly as the prophecies Jesus is supposed to fulfill.
I don't get it. What did I change? I'm addressing several different points in your post.
I had thought you had changed one of your posts to ask a different question. Sorry. old timers disease kicking in I guess.
No worries brother. Sometimes I get lost in these discussions so I wanted to make sure I was still on topic. As much as possible.
Yeah. That's pretty much my understanding as well.
Why does it need to be stated verbatim, "Hate the sin but love the sinner" in order for the sentiment to be valid? The message, in various stages of thought and locations in the Bible, is there. We are told to hate sin in numerous places in scripture and we are told to love sinners in various places in scripture, so I'm not sure how the statement is "unbiblical." Which part do you believe to be against scripture? Hating sin? Loving sinners? ???
Where are we told to,love sinners?
We are told to love the brethren and our neighbor.
Actually, you left out our enemies. And, anybody we love is a sinner, including our brethren and our neighbor. Anybody that sins, and we all do, is a sinner.
Then the entire conversation is simply politically correct nonsense.
Many people find their identity in their actions. You, for instance, until recently continuously reminded us that you were an adulterer many years ago.
Most alcoholics self-identify as alcoholic.
Most homosexuals have a significant source of identity in their sexuality.
What's the point of saying, "I love you, but I hate the actions that you take that you hold most dear in the terms of how you see yourself"?
Semantic games to give us political cover from those that would attack us for being easy on sin, and from the other side that would attack us for being harsh to people.
A stupid, stupid trap to fall into.
A person's self-conception isn't the end of the discussion. This should be shocking: 'you love me, but you hate the things about me that I see as self-definining? What?!' But of course, because we understand that people should define their identiy relative to Christ, not to whatever particular struggle they have.
I think this only becomes politically correct when we take 'love the sinner' to mean something like approval of everything they do.
I think the trap we fall into is a societal one, not a theological one.
Why do we have to "hate sin" and publicly announce it?
Why do we feel some need to be Holy Spirit, Jr.
Isn't it sufficient that we love our neighbor, regardless of their place on the road to eternity?
Isn't it sufficient for us to avoid sinful behaviors in our lives?
Isn't it sufficient, when asked to sin, to simply say "No, I'm a Christian, and that activity is one that offends God and his call on my life"?
Your comment raises a good question. We assume that a sinner cares what we think about them. Why would they? Doesn't this mitigate against the idea that somehow, Christians have a right or duty to "love the sinner/hate the sin" in response to everyone on the planet?
I don't see that a person with whom I have no relationship should give a tinker's snort about what I think/feel/emote about them.
As to persons with whom we have relationship, then yes, "I love you and I think the actions you are involved in are self-destructive and will eventually lead to great harm" should be both affirming and challenging; but I can't see the connection or result being the same with any Joe SixPack off the street.
Ohhhh, maybe this is a cultural thing. I don't mean anything like what you're describing, so I agree with you here.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I just don't particularly see an issue with the phrase, though. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, honestly.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
I think most Christians have their own fabricated caste system. Depending entirely on how they personally feel about one sin being more destructive than another.
(If you're an alcoholic, you fall somewhere between an adulterer and a smoker.)
So, you don't even speak to an adulterer, speak to an alcoholic only when you're sure he's sober. You speak to the smoker while waving your hand across your nose. (But NEVER try to witness to them if they insist on smoking)
Yesterday a couple of friends of ours stopped by. I hadn't seen them since Virginia passed. They respected my wish to be alone and kept in touch through my daughter. They stopped by, unannounced. Brought home made soup and fruit. They were afraid I haven't been eating right. We spent some time crying together, sharing the loss of Virginia. Hugged one another. When they left, we hugged one another, they said they loved me and keep in touch.
Yeah, Joe and Michael. They've been good friends with us almost as long as they've been "partners".
They live about four blocks away. When I go outside and feel the warmth of the sun on my face, it's good to remember that Joe and Michael also feel the same warmth.
The whole "love the sinner, hate the sin"?
Sound bites. Might as well be white noise. Makes the sanctimonious feel better I guess.
Not sure if the "sanctimonious" label is aimed at me or not, but, like RK, I believe you're making a mountain out of a molehill in regards to the phrase...
I think what Aaron and I have in mind with the phrase is something akin to what Jesus does when he ate with 'sinners' and was spoken against for it. There's nothing necessarily sanctimonious about the phrase, just in particular applications of it.
There is nothing wrong with the phrase. Just that all too often it is used by the sanctimonious.
But it certainly isn't exclusive to them.
In proper context, it's a useful tool. I just feel it shouldn't be a stand alone phrase.
If a person being lost and by Grace comes to Faith receiving His Mercy--then, being born again, is held to the standard that they have been reconciled to God and called to minister to those who have not.
This is in joy, gratitude and humility and with love for Christ and in love to those who have yet to find their way to Him.
Should I be surprised people miss this even while knowing that God will judge the church first? Seems as if confronting sin within the body (not outside of it) will save us (the church body) a lot of pain.
1 Corinthians 5:12-13
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside...
Separate names with a comma.