Is the term "Love the sinner; hate the sin" offensive?
I try to explain this, i love people.just not what they do (homosexuality).
you get labeled a hater.
Not at all. Why would it be, anyway?
No. People just like to be offended by every little thing because they have nothing better to do with their lives.
I have too much of my own sin to worry about what other people do in their lives. And no, I don't find it offensive, as long as it is applied to all sin.
Not really. I am a Christian who advocates equity. I have friends that are course chance. Who don't. So I do hear that term.
People should stop being offended by every little thing
This phrase is a way for religious folks to justify their bigotry towards people and make themselves feel better about it. If they keep telling themselves they "love" everyone then they're good holy people. It's pathetic and moronic.
Not all Christians are phony like that. Corrie Ten Boom is one good example.
Some Christians use that term to justify bigotry against homosexuals.
Personally, I don't think that having an opinion constitutes bigotry. If someone loves everyone, including homosexuals, they will not be rude or judge. However, they do have the right to their opinion just as much as you do.
To me, this phrase drips of condescension.
No, from a (fundamentalist) Christian PoV, it must feel pretty much like a parent feels when their teenage child is doing hard drugs. The parent knows he's on the road to destruction and hates what he does but still loves the child.
From their viewpoint, they show compassion but cannot help criticizing you because they want to save you from hell. Why would that be condescending?
Why bother hating the sin? What someone else does should be none of your business. Hating the sin is just a roundabout way of hating the person, most likely because they don't punish themselves the way you do.
I wouldn't call it offensive, just stupid. The person commits the sin.
It is possible to love someone but not love what they have done. The compassionate stance toward someone who has suffered because of their poor choices or caused the suffering of others is sorrow and a desire for that person to change and be healed.
Telling someone else what to do when it has nothing to do with you isn't compassionate. It's being a busybody.
Some people need to be told what to do. If you are doing evil, it is no longer all about you. Actions have consequences that can hurt far beyond the individual. Everybody so busy being politically correct, nobody says right from wrong anymore.
It's not offensive but I actually preferred (NOT agreed with) the blunt retort of somebody from the religious right when I said this. He replied: Who goes to hell, the sin or the sinner?
No. It is loving, kind and forgiving.
I think it's referring to offending those that are not religious.
Not to me and I'd definitely be considered one helluva sinner by anyone that's religious. But I don't require, or base my self worth on, the approval of others either.
Not to me. I'm more annoyed by people who have to be offended at everything.
2k damn you're a genius ; )
I hate this saying. It is drivel uttered for warm fuzzies by those who wish to discriminate against others, but don't want to feel mean for doing so.
This is not a more moderate, loving position. It is the same scum packaged into something the
...scum-slingers feel better about.
But the scum is still scum when it hits the people it's flung at, no matter how pretty the package.
I prefer honest bigots to people who wrap themselves in this garbage.
Cite, I almost always agree with what you say. It's what I'm thinking but I can't articulate it as well as you :)
Alek, I've seen you in discussions and beg to differ. You're damn good at this. :-)
Well, thanks! :)
Offensive: no. Trite: yes.
No. Non-Christians have similar sentiments: hate Christianity but treat the Christian as a regular human being by being civil to them when possible.
I don't think it is offensive, but I do think it is pretty dumb. It almost seems like an excuse, or at least a way to dilute personal responsibility.
No. It's simply a saying that means that we should treat people kindly even when they do things that we disapprove of. That's all.
Take a criminal, for instance. We don't approve of what he did, but we don't have to be uncivil to him.
We don't have to ever let him out among decent people again either, if his, that's HIS crime was serious enough to warrant it. the criminal chose to do the crime, the crime didn't itself had nothing to do with it.
Yeah, but you get what i'm saying. Maybe a non-crime example would have been better. Take a WBC protestor, for example. You don't like him one bit, but you'd probably be very gentleman like in a face-to-face conversation, at least I'd hope you would.
I would not feel any obligation to be polite to any WBC protesters. They are lower than vermin, using a made-up "church" as an excuse to be buttheads and worse.
It isn't their "sin" that I find disgusting. It's them. Personally.
Ok. Understand. You get the idea I'm talking about though. That's what it is.
Have a good night, airman. :-)
I don't find it offensive at all. Quite the contrary actually. To me it is a reminder that I can hate what somebody does, without hating that person.
I definitely see how it can be offensive when used in a hateful way.
This is how I've always grokked it. Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of people who wield this statement in order to condemn others, and it now makes me feel uncomfortable to defend its meaning. :(
Yes, I'd agree with that. I have more often seen it used as a way to justify hateful behavior and hateful words.
No other 'sin' is so constantly used to label someone a 'sinner'. This philosophy would be fine if it weren't targeted solely at labeling homosexuals as sinners, and not for an action, but for an aspect of their being.
It is because no other SIN or sinner holds PARADES to take PRIDE in the SIN which consumes them. There are no pride parades for fabricators, pedophiles, adulterers or pornography addicts. Just homosexuals.
I agree 100%, bMy!
Pride, greed, lust, gluttony - all those are far more pervasive in our culture
And also directly labeled as sin - not so with homosexuality.
that's just your inference. its a general statement that I have heard in many different contexts (I am a catholic). I have rarely heard it applied to homosexuals. I have more often heard it with people like ISIS and in things like capital punishment
Food for thought. It's worth the time to view. www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWYtkn_8D-g&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Food for thought.
I don't think so but very few people actually do.
It's not offensive but it's also NOT Scriptural. I challenge anyone to tell me where that is in the Bible.
I don't think anyone that actually says it quotes the bible, though they do tend to claim its a summary of what the bible teaches on the matter. If I may ask, are you saying hate the sinner?
No. I want the homosexual community to understand that WE ALL deal with SIN. Not just them. We love them because we all have a SIN problem however, we are not going to embrace their SIN any more than we would embrace our own SIN.
I don't think there's a specific scripture that says that but the idea is taught throughout
There are several scriptural passages where Jesus says not to judge others. He who has not sinned may cast the first stone.
True I just meant to say that the verse don't say that same thing verbatim
Depends on context, but in general, no.