Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

>	Hating the sin, but loving the sinner.  Hogwash or not?

    	Not.  Clearly not. Good grief if I disliked everybody who
    did things that are big sins in my opinion I'd have a very unhealthy
    amount of friends. Way to few. One has to be able to separate what
    people do with who they are.

>	If not hogwash, then how is it expressed?  Please provide concrete
>examples wherever possible.

    	I don't understand the question. I treat (or try to anyway)
    everyone with as much love as I can. I have always had friends who
    disagreed with me on religious issues. Many of them engage in extra
    marital sex. They know I disapprove. They know because we talk and
    I try to be as truthful with them as I can be. They know I still care 
    about them because I treat them the same as I do my friends who only have
    sex in marriage. I can't imagine doing otherwise. 

    	I should say that there are people who are skeptical of the idea
    of hating the sin but loving the sinner. I always wonder about them.
    Do they only love people who don't sin? If not, why are they skeptical?

    			Alfred

>    Trying to translate our, shall we say, regional dialects, I'd have to
>    say "sin" for me, is what I perceive to be wrong for me to do. It's not
>    a thing which exists in any other context but me. "The" sin doesn't
>    exist. Only "my" sin does and I'm the only human being who is competant
>    to judge that I have sinned. 

	So if you decide that it's alright for you to kill, or lie, or rape,
	then we have no right judging that a sin? Or do you mean something
	else?

			Alfred

re Note 426.4 by VENICE::SKELLY:

>     I, personally, would find it very difficult to love a rapist or a 
>     murderer. That's one of the problems I have with Christianity. It
>     doesn't seem to give me an option not to love them. I'm not sure I'm up
>     to that.
  
        It is not clear to me that "hate the sin, love the sinner" is
        even Scriptural, in the sense most often used by the more
        conservative Christians.  In the Old Testament, God clearly
        destroys people and whole nations, children and the unborn
        included, because of sin.  Worse yet, God isn't consistent in
        this:  God destroys some doers of great evil, and doesn't
        destroy others.  God also commands us to destroy certain types
        of sinners (murders, for example).  In the Old Testament, are
        there any classes of sinners which God commands us to love?

        If this is loving, then I must conclude that God's definition
        of love is so different from any human definition of love
        that we do a great injustice to use the human word "love" in
        a phrase like "hate the sin, love the sinner," because it is
        so misleading.

        On the other hand, we have the God of the New Testament, in
        particular the person of Jesus in the Gospels.  Jesus is quite
        different, Jesus allows himself to be destroyed because of
        others' sin, rather than destroying the others.

        How many of us Christians today take upon ourselves the
        consequences of the sins of murderers, homosexuals (if we
        believe this to be a sin), and such, rather than forcing them
        to suffer the consequences of their own sin?

        If "hate the sin, love the sinner" means anything at all, it
        must mean this.  Otherwise, we should just drop the whole
        notion.

        Bob

My take on this topic is very similar to Bob F's (Note 426.5).  Bob, however,
phrased it much more tactfully than I probably would have.

Richard

    I think perhaps we have to agree on just what sin is. For reference
    see topic 114, especially 114.19. .19 is well written though I'm
    not sure I agree with it all. My reply to it is .25.
    
    			Alfred

Note 91.1090

>       I used to think that this was true, but I'm coming to the sad
>       realization that, practically speaking, we humans can't "hate
>       the words and actions of another person" without that hate
>       spilling over into a general hate (perhaps less severe) of
>       the person.  

	I have come to a like realization.  It takes more of an effort to
feel and demonstrate love towards someone whose words and actions I strongly
disapprove.

	I hear there are exceptions to the way I see this, however.  I heard
one possible exception may be found embodied in the life and witness of our
own Alfred Thompson.  Quite a compliment.  Quite a compliment, indeed.

Peace,
Richard

>>       I used to think that this was true, but I'm coming to the sad
>>       realization that, practically speaking, we humans can't "hate
>>       the words and actions of another person" without that hate
>>       spilling over into a general hate (perhaps less severe) of
>>       the person.  
>
>	I have come to a like realization.  It takes more of an effort to
>feel and demonstrate love towards someone whose words and actions I strongly
>disapprove.
    
    You may both be correct that humans can't do this. I believe that if we
    let God live in us we can. "God help me love this person" is a prayer
    I've prayed more then once. God has always delivered so far. Long ago
    I claimed Philippians 4:13 as my own. "I can do all things through
    Christ, who strengtheneth me." Trying to too much "on my own" however
    remains a failing all too often though.
    
    			Alfred

   Alfred,

   Humans aren't perfect, but it's worthy goal.  I sometimes wonder
   if all there is to heaven is humans always trying, and frequently 
   making it.  Obtuse, I know but it's the best I can do at the moment.

   Allison

    Alfred and Richard,
    
    I've been a student of A Course in Miracles for a number of years.  For
    the last several months, I have been studying the workbook which
    contains 365 'lessons' with a partner.  Optimistically, one for each
    day.  The dear friend who studies it with me and I have been stuck on
    lesson 28 for a couple of weeks: "Above all else, I want to see things
    differently".  This morning we finally felt able to move on to lesson
    28: "God is in everything I see".  Something tells me we'll be on this one
    for awhile.  For me, these lessons help give more than lip service to
    the Ten Commandments; they give concrete practice methods in learning
    how to follow the Christ model of Love.
    
    Ro
    
    
    

[ramble alert]

I've heard it said, "they will know us by our love".  I think it's from a 
song.  I'm not sure off the top of my head if it appears in scripture, but I 
think it's true, but recent notes in this conference have reminded me of it, 
(mostly the ones concerning the question of providing medical care for people 
with HIV/AIDS based on exactly how they contracted the disease.)
And I've been wondering...

*WHO* will know us by our [Christian] love?

What is the good to do some "loving" act to a person who does not or cannot 
see it as loving?  Does the fact that I may have a whole flock of people 
behind me assuring me that it is indeed a loving act help?

If I am concerned with loving somebody, it is THAT PERSON I am concerned with 
loving. I'm not saying that the love might not be tough or will be 100 % pain
free, but the act of love is between me and that person and God, and I need to
try and meet that person where *they* need to be met, not where I or some
faceless majority says they need to be met. 

Jesus constantly met people where they were, loving them as individuals.  He 
addressed their needs.  Often, I'm sure, his message was hard to bear, "go,
and sin no more" he told a woman.  I doubt I could live up to that standard.
I wonder whether the woman did...

Perhaps she *was* in a position in her life where with that prod by Jesus she
was in fact able to live a sin free life.  A happy ending to the story.  But
perhaps she wasn't.  What might have happened if she had sinned again? 
"Sorry, lady, I told you not to do it, you messed up again, you loose..."?  Or
would he again meet her where she was, seven time seventy times if necessary,
and again address her needs. 

The gospels are populated with many people who could not recognize Jesus' 
love, yet were quite able to point out each other's "loving" deeds.  People
who were always seen praying in the synagogues on holy days, glad that they
were not like others, while unseen at the back an old woman quietly gives away
her meager life's savings out of her love of God.  Her offering wouldn't have
amounted to pocket change compared to the offering of those others, but whom
did Jesus say had more faith? 

Many times I've heard the line "morality cannot be legislated", and I think 
that's true.  I also believe that love cannot be legislated.  It seems that of 
a necessity laws are painted with very wide brushes.  It seems to be necessary 
in political circles to address large, sometimes vague groups...women, gays, 
people of color, physically challenged, old, young...the lists grow on and on.

Is it possible to make loving laws regarding groups of people like that?  I
really don't know.  Sometimes I think it IS possible to some extent.  We can
endeavor to at least enact laws to require a level playing field, an equal
opportunity.  Alas in our culture it is too often seen as a zero sum game. 
We think that one person cannot be raised up without someone else being
trampled under.  

There's a line from _Star Trek_ where Mr. Spock talks about the greatest good 
for the greatest number.  A fine democratic ideal.  Is there another side of
that coin that says we should also try to cause the least harm to the smallest
number of people?  Is that even the coin we should be using?

And no law enacted by Congress, Parliament, or any other human agency will
changed an individual's attitude.  You can't make someone love. 

While we are all created in the image of God, we are at the same time all
different, and even the most loving brush, if it is too broad, may be hurtful.
I think President Bush's hope for the "thousand points of light", while
perhaps ill conceived and poorly executed, was at least an attempt to
recognize that there does indeed need to be a deeper, more personal level of 
action.  A level that operates between individuals, where one can recognize 
the love.

Peace,

Jim

    Thank you, Alfred .9, Allison .10, Ro .11, and Jim .12.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re: .12
    
    The Monks of the Weston Priory sing and have recorded such a song.  I
    forget which album; all their music is great!
    
    	Ron