Hate the sin or the sinner?

[eccl3_6]

#1

Should you hate the sin but love the sinner.
Or
Hate the sinner until they repent.​

#2.

Define sin.​

 

[defcon]

#1

Should you hate the sin but love the sinner.
Or
Hate the sinner until they repent.​

#2.

Define sin.​

#1 - Hate the sin but love the sinner

#2 - Any act or thought that does not meet the standard, which is God's holiness.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

#1

Should you hate the sin but love the sinner.
Or
Hate the sinner until they repent.​

#2.

Define sin.​

The term "hate the sin, love the sinner" isn't biblical or rational.

 

[intro2faith]

#1

Should you hate the sin but love the sinner.
Or
Hate the sinner until they repent.​

Hate the sin, love the sinner. And if that doesn't work...THEN hate them both! Just kidding, just kidding.

 

[eccl3_6]

The term "hate the sin, love the sinner" isn't biblical or rational.

Its not irrational and whether or not its biblical is irrelevant.

Are you 'hate the sinner until they repent' then?

Defcon
#2 - Any act or thought that does not meet the standard, which is God's holiness.

Surely then most acts don't meet the standard of God's Holiness. If any. Does this mean everything is sinful...that can't be right surely?

 

[defcon]

Surely then most acts don't meet the standard of God's Holiness. If any. Does this mean everything is sinful...that can't be right surely?

Well, I'm sure most people wouldn't say so, but I believe man is completely depraved- in other words unable to do good on their own. The Bible states that we are slaves - either to sin or to righteousness. We can't be slaves to righteousness unless God plays the active part in rescuing man from our depravity and then enables good works through the Spirit. Our very nature is sinful and therefore anything but holy.

 

[intro2faith]

The term "hate the sin, love the sinner" isn't biblical or rational.

Do you have any verses to support that? Just wondering...cause I've heard a few people here say that.

And what about those verses that say to love your enemies?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Its not irrational and whether or not its biblical is irrelevant.

Actually it is irrational.

Sin, is not something you can separate from the sinner. Sin exists because someone sins. Without a sinner there is no such thing as sin.

It would be like saying...

Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Do you have any verses to support that? Just wondering...cause I've heard a few people here say that.

And what about those verses that say to love your enemies?

We should indeed love our enemies.

Yet it isn't loving to be tolerant of sin. God says being tolerant of our neighbors sin is TRULY hateful.

‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. - Leviticus 19:17

 

[intro2faith]

Actually it is irrational.

Sin, is not something you can separate from the sinner. Sin exists because someone sins. Without a sinner there is no such thing as sin.

It would be like saying...

Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal.

Not exactly...because you could still love the criminal, but still prosecute him.

 

[intro2faith]

We should indeed love our enemies.

Yet it isn't loving to be tolerant of sin. God says being tolerant of our neighbors sin is TRULY hateful.

‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. - Leviticus 19:17

Love doesn't = being tolerant. We can still rebuke the sinner, but love them and want the best for them.

 

[Ninjashadow]

Actually it is irrational.

Sin, is not something you can separate from the sinner. Sin exists because someone sins. Without a sinner there is no such thing as sin.

It would be like saying...

Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal.

Perhaps I'm getting into symantics, but "prosecute" is an action whereas "love" is a feeling. I realize that in the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" love could be seen as being an action, but love itself is a feeling. My point is that the analogy does not work in that case.

 

[defcon]

Actually it is irrational.

Sin, is not something you can separate from the sinner. Sin exists because someone sins. Without a sinner there is no such thing as sin.

It would be like saying...

Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal.

So this position leaves either hating the sinner or loving sin. So which one is it?

I can hate the actions of my brother without hating my brother. There is a difference because it is an internal state of mind - not an outward action. Obviously I can't prosecute only my brother's act without prosecuting my brother himself. Apples and oranges.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Not exactly...because you could still love the criminal, but still prosecute him.

Now your mixing metaphors.

I said that the TERM "Hate the sin love the sinner"

Would be similar to the TERM "Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal."

"Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal." demonstrates the irrationality of that type of a term.

 

[eccl3_6]

Actually it is irrational.

Sin, is not something you can separate from the sinner. Sin exists because someone sins. Without a sinner there is no such thing as sin.

It would be like saying...

Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal.

But we're not saying prosecute...we're saying hate and the comparison doesn't carry.

Prosecute the criminal but don't hate him...hate the crime.

I may hate being punched, but I don't hate the boxer that hits me.
I may hate crashing my car, but I don't hate the person who crashes into me.

It is very easy to wrap the perpetrator in the sin but they are different. One is responsible for the act the other is the act itself.....ergo they can be seperated, I've just done it, and it is not irrational.

 

[eccl3_6]

There is a difference because it is an internal state of mind - not an outward action.

This is what I was trying to say in my previous post, but Defcon said it far better


Hate is an emotion......prosecution is an act. The comparison wasn't valid.

 

[eccl3_6]

So having settled that, "Should you 'hate the sin but love the sinner' or 'hate the sinner until they repent'." is a rational question what is the general concensus? Hate the sin but love the sinner?

Is hate to be confined to acts or can we extend it to manifestations.

I am trying to establish parameters for hate.... is it ever acceptable to hate physicality, not just only action i.e. the sin

 

[Agape4Robin]

So having settled that, "Should you 'hate the sin but love the sinner' or 'hate the sinner until they repent'." is a rational question what is the general concensus? Hate the sin but love the sinner?

Is hate to be confined to acts or can we extend it to manifestations.

I am trying to establish parameters for hate.... is it ever acceptable to hate physicality, not just only action i.e. the sin

You can still hate the sin and yet not embrace the sinner.......meaning you don't have to be their best friend.

 

[Everglaze]

#1

Should you hate the sin but love the sinner.
Or
Hate the sinner until they repent.​

#2.

Define sin.​

1. The "hate the sin but love the sinner" isn't biblical...

If the sinner continues in their ways of sinning, it is hateful in its entirety. Although, you are supposed to love everyone, sin occurs from the heart of the sinner and thus, because the sinner is so contaminated with sin (which we hate)...there's disapproval. God sends those who have not repented to Hell, not because he hates them...but because he hates sin and the sinner took sin with him, aligning himself with something God despises. That in its entirety becomes objectional. There is the Godly wrath which substitutes for Godly "hate" if you want to call it that. That hate is the righteous hate, which hates sin. Sin starts from the heart and pollutes the entire sinner, and because of that, there is no cleanliness. That is why through Christ, the sinner is cleansed. It's a rather complicated matter.

2. Sin is disobedience towards God. Sin is anything that revolves around selfishness.

 

[monochrome]

It would be like saying...
Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal.

Awesome. I'd never thought of it that way, but that's the wittiest thing I've read all day. I guess that measn I live under a rock though.

Anyway, my view is "Hate none, but defend life with death." That's about as open a philosophy as I can possibly imagine. Guess I need to add another rule or two.

- m -