OK, so if Christians hate the sin but not the sinner then why?

Question

do I see so many responses that equate gays with people who want to have sex with dogs or are child molesters, as if those acts of RAPE are remotely related to consensual adult sex?

Why would someone seek to stop another person getting the same benefits of long-term, serious relationships (tax breaks, hospital-visitation, inheritance rights) that hetero married couples enjoy with the government's OK?

It is one thing to disagree with something that someone is doing, but love them. It is another to actively prevent those same people from living a happy life.

All I'm saying is...if we hated the sin but loved the sinner, there would be gay marriage, gays would not need special protection under the law (hate crime legislation) because they're so much more likely to be randomly beaten up, etc.

Doesn't the reality of discrimination refute this whole "no really, we love the sinner" line? I don't sabotage those I love from trying to pursue what makes them happy and hurts no one.

Answer 1

Jesus and the Apostles preached during an era where homosexuality was an accepted lifestyle - just as today.

Jesus and the Apostles told these people to stop sinning (for good) and embrace the love and joy offered by Christ - which many of them did.

Today, US political leaders are having sex with 16 year old boys under some twisted guise that such behavior is pleasing to God - which God - while many other men are sentenced to decades in prison for the exact same crime (which they deserve).

When States made laws forbidding sex with minors, homosexuality remained taboo as well as consensual sex between adults and children. With the various social movements which occurred in the 1960's and 1970's, homosexuals began to assert themselves and raise the concept of "civil" rights for their partners, children and what have you.

In the past, there was no concept of powers of attorney for health decisions - only spouses had that authority. Yet, today's homosexual is obtaining those rights state by state - thumbing their noses at all spiritual authority and defying common sense. As a result, children in homosexual relationships are confused and intimidated when they see heterosexual parents enjoying life with children. There is one solution, to clearly separate the sin from the sinner and give the sinner the opportunity to reject homosexuality and embrace the joy and ever-lasting life in Christ Jesus.

Answer 2

Like most topics, you can find Biblical support for either side if you look hard enough. Shakespeare once wrote, “the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.” That said, there are many passages in the Old Testament that support capital punishment, often for relatively mild offenses: - Adultery (Leviticus 20:10) - Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16) - Breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14 & 15) - Disobedient children (Exodus 21:15 & 17; Leviticus 20:9) - Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13) - Not being a virgin on your wedding night (but only if you're a woman - Deuteronomy 22:20-21) Some people cite Romans 13:1-7, which states that all governments are sanctioned by God, and if the government dictates something – like capital punishment – then it is God’s will (one could also use this passage to legitimize abortion). However, I have yet to see a coherent reconciliation of this passage with governments like Hitler’s Germany, or Stalin’s Russia, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or any of the hundreds of others that were responsible for horrible atrocities throughout history. Governments are run by people, who are – inherently – imperfect. This is why the U.S. has a system of checks and balances, and why our laws are constantly changing (remember, there was a time when slavery was legal, when women couldn’t vote, when there were no child labor laws, etc.). This argument simply does not fly. The New Testament (starring Jesus) is primarily ANTI-death penalty. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praises mercy (Matthew 5:7) and rejects “an eye for an eye” (Matthew 5:38-39). James 4:12 says that GOD is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Romans 12:17-21 warns us against answering evil with evil, and assures us that God will see to justice in the afterlife. In John 8:7, Jesus says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." There are many, many practical problems with capital punishment (that I won't get into here), but purely from a moral standpoint, it is pretty clear that Jesus did not support it. True CHRISTians shouldn’t, either.

Answer 3

The fact that SOME people associate teh acts of rape you mentioned with homosexuality doesn't make it any less a sin. It is a sin because God said so, not by association with other things.

That said, the whole marriage legislation thing is a different issue. I have a hard time supporting a marriage amendment and things like this because you can't legislate someone into heaven. Things like abortion are different. They are so called religious issues, but they also involve murder, ending a life, or whatever you want to call it.

The presence of discrimination against gay people doesn't negate "love the sinner, hate the sin". For that, you'd have to assume that all non-Christians supported homosexuals and didn't discriminate and that all Christians practiced what they preached and that all Christians preached the above. Those are some pretty big generalizations.

I second the fact that "love the sinner, hate the sin" isn't in the Bible

Answer 4

No we defend the sinner if they are physically attacked and what not, and we offer them support when they need it, but we do not endorse what they do that is immoral. True, gays are often the subject of physical attacks and as so they should be protected in the name of humanity, but not by endorsing what they do.

As to gay marriage..... well at the most it should be brought before a vote among the people. The Supreme Court should not decide this stuff. They do not make the law - they uphold it. But a vote could be dangerous because if you propose gay marriage, and it fails, then what is to stop someone from proposing a total ban of gay marriage, or even more, to erect anti-homosexual laws (sodomy has been a crime in the United States before). I think it would be best to just leave the issue to the states. You could never get California and Texas to agree on laws concerning homosexuality, so it would be best to merely let the people decide the laws that they will be governed according to.

Answer 5

The reality of the line that some fundamentalist Christians pass around is that they don't truly feel that way, they truly desire to feel that way sometimes. However, too many of my fellow Christians rank homosexuality as the worse thing that someone could ever do. This isn't true at all. There is no evidence in scripture that says that sins are ranked. Comparing pedofiles to homosexuals is just messed up. They are no where even CLOSE to the samething. You are correct. One of them is consenual and the other is not.

Some people believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman in this country because that is what Christianity wants and they believe that this country is and should be run by Christian laws and principles. I don't agree with this statement but that is where many of them are coming from.

I agree with you completely. There is very little love going on about this subject. I think it's sad, and I think some Christians have missed the mark when it comes to unconditional love.

Answer 6

Respecting a person's dignity doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with their agenda or their philosophical or religious point of view. It means not holding the person in contempt, needing to belittle them in order to feel superior. The reason why some people are not able to adequately dislike the sin and not the sinner is because it is not easy and just looking down on someone else is easier.

By the way, a distinction is necessary between the kinds of descrimination we are talking about. Everybody descriminates. They say that one thing is not the same as another. When one looks at a dog and a cat, one can descriminate between the two things. If one needs a companion to go hunting with, obviously the dog is going to be better suited. That doesn't mean one hates the cat, nor does one encourage the cat to learn how to retreive fowl like a dog.

By the way, it is well known in psychological circles that a good number of gay and lesbians deal with problems of self-hatred. So, I don't really see making a law saying they can get married as contributing so much to their happiness. What will contribute to their happiness is for them to accept themselves for who they are without needing to get everyone else to approve of their lifestyle.

Answer 7

It's called "Impersonal Love" toward all Mankind and God is our Example to Follow, but We are Human, Not "Perfect". The whole Issue of "Learned Deviant Behavior" cannot be Justified!!! So,...Like look at the "Trend" in "Gay Marriage" to want to have "Children" for an Example. Why??? So U can turn them into the "Learned Lifestyle" U have adopted??? And what if they won't "Convert"??? So then U can't perpetuate Ur ilk because U've given up the "Natural" for the "Un-Natural" preferring the "Straight" to provide Ur "Play Toys" for U is that it??? So tell me how Ur Deviant Behavior "hurts no one", when if U had Ur way everyone would be "Gay" & we would all die off with no new Births, perhaps that's the Plan!!! Homosexuality is SIN as God has Determined it and like All Sin, Christ paid the Price for it. So U now have made a decision that U must Live with, but don't ask Us to either Accept it or Support Ur Spreading of it. If U have a Problem with that take it up with God!!! John

Answer 8

Take them one by one.

1) While there are probably some Christians who equate gays and rapist, most of us do not. Our concern is that when you begin to open the door to legalizing gay marriage, which kind comes next? If they want have consensual adult sex, they do not need marriage to do it. But as soon as you open marriage to anything beyond one man and one woman you set a precedence to open it to much more - including the types of abuse you listed.

2) If two people want to have hospital visitation rights, they simple file a "medical power of attorney". We did this with my mother-in-law when her health was failing. It gave my wife all the rights for visitation, medical deicisions, etc that a spouse would have. Same with inheritage rights, you simple put everything into joint owner and file a will. As far as tax breaks, you are aware that two single people living together pay LESS taxes then if they are married. So by NOT being married they get a tax break.

3)If the person is engaged in a destructive activity, then love demands that you have to speak against that activity. Otherwise you are en enabler for their sin.

4) You are correct that if we hated the sin and loved the sinner they would need no special protect. Unfortunately not everyone does that. The philosophy is not wrong - but the actions of sinful men can be. But they are breaking that Christian principle when they do such things.

Oh---and if they are "randomly" beat up, it is not a hate crime. They have to be deliberately targeted for being gay for it to be a hate crime. If it is "random" then it is not a hate crime - it is a crime, but not a hate crime.

5) How does the Christian "love the sinner" in the case of a gay person? The same way they would love any other sinner. They offer them the message of Christ that they can be free of that sin, and refuse to enable them in committing it further. Even Jesus, each time he forgive someone in open sin said to them "go and sin no more." We simply follow his example.

Answer 9

I can't answer for anyone else. I can only say that you will never see me post such judgmental responses. I don't support the homosexual lifestyle, but I do have gay friends. I don't think it's ok, but I still love them - they are wonderful people and they are each a blessing in my life. Who they sleep with has nothing to do with who they are in their heart.

We do not NEED hate-crime legislation. The crime is still a crime, regardless of the motive. There are already laws on the books. To expect "special protection" is equally discriminatory. Do you expect me to believe / accept that the value of human life is based on the color of someone's skin, their nationality, or on someone's sexual preference? LIFE is LIFE and it is ALL valuable!!

Answer 10

You do make some valid points here, and I'm still recuperating from my questions last week, so I want to be very careful on how I respond to this question.

When we say we hate the sin but love the sinner, we are to use this as a way to help them, not condemn them. We don't have to think it's okay to do things that are wrong, but we need to focus on helping them. It should not be used as a way to preach at them to say that they are wrong. But if we are asked, we should be allowed to render our opinions.

What you are getting into is judgment as it is mentioned in the Bible. In the Bible, we're to judge our fellow believers. And always, judgment is not to pronounce sentence on anyone, but in order to help them overcome problems in their life.

In regards to same sex marriage. I'm really in a dilemma to think about this issue. As a Christian, I don't believe that God condones any other type of sexual activity other than that which takes place between a husband and wife. And I don't think that God is pleased with any other type of sexual activity. But at the the same time, I want to walk in love to those who are gay or lesbians. I don't want to hear about their relationships - what they do in the privacy of their bedroom is is their business.

Also, I believe that marriage is a joining together by God, not just the civil marriage. In essence, when a person marries in the presence of god and these witnesses and what God joins together...they are stating that God condones the marriage and seals it in a covenant, and they are expecting God to bless something that I believe is not approved of by God. (Paul mentions this in the Bible, but some theologians reject Paul's teaching, and then can say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality).

This is why I don't feel that marriage, under God is acceptable for a same sex couple. Now, if you are asking for civil unions, where a person can have the same rights, by designating anyone they want as their legal partner, I feel that's okay. However, the only concern would be in terms of healthcare benefits: as long as that does not become abused, no problem, but I can see a can of worms opening up by two people who claim partnership only for the reason of collecting benefits, such as two roomates, who are not sexually involved.