Homosexuality = Sin? (Read OP before posting please)

Great Debates
21

Heard this argument before (and even heard it used to imply that Jesus tacitly endorsed homosexuality) and found it pretty unpersuasive. Jesus (as we point out to anti-Semites) was a self-identified Jew, was called Rabbi by followers, talked about “came not to destroy the Law but to fulfull it,” “no jot nor tittle,” etc. (sorry for the (mis)quotes from memory). The very fact that the OT was so unequivocal in its condemnation makes me think it that Jesus’s silence (at least on the record) is more reasonably interpreted, in His orthodox Jewish milieu, as taking for granted that the OT strictures on homosexuality were still applicable, rather than abandoning those strictures sub silentio. That is, it was sufficiently beyond the pale that He wouldn’t have even thought to mention it. Related note: It sometimes amuses me when unchurched clerico-phobics paint a picture of the Xtns’ nonstop thundering sermons obsessively damning the sodomites; maybe this is going on in fundamentalist churches, which I’ve not much attended, but in the suburban congregation of my youth (of a denomination which was pretty clearly on record as disapproving homosexuality), I can’t recall a single mention of it from the pulpit (other than in an OT reading); frankly, it was just taken for granted that the issue wasn’t even on the table, so sermonizing on it was no more necessary than an anti-necrophilia admonishment.

Note I’m not advocating either position here; just arguing that taken in context (e.g., Pau’s roughly-contemporaneous writings, which do mention and deplore homosexuality along with fornication), the Xtn contention that Jesus would adopt a “hate the sin, love the sinner” approach seems to me the best way to read Jesus’s ‘silence’ on the issue – as opposed to inferring neutrality or approval as his position.

22

I am very hesitant to enter into this discussion. I do not want my words taken the wrong way, nor do I want them to hurt anyone, but I also want to be honest, and I don’t think I’m the only one who thinks the way I do (I know of at least a few others, my sister and mom). It’s possible that hearing an honest and heartfelt opinion from a heterosexual christian might impart some information that could help someone.

At any rate, PLEASE take this at face value, this is a very difficult subject for me to discuss and I don’t want to hurt, or make anyone feel badly about themselves, or other christians.

I find this question excrutiatingly painful. My faith says it’s a sin. The gay friends I have, society, and some of the medical community say something to the effect that it’s a “normal aberration” from heterosexuality.

If I don’t comply with what has been taught to me from childhood within my faith, then I too am a sinner. If I embrace that which is being taught by “the world” I’m a sinner.

But, if I profess, and stand by what my faith taught me about homosexuality, not only do I have to “go against” and shun my gay friends, I’m many horrible things by the world’s standards, I’m not PC, I’m wrong, I’m “racist” a “gay-basher” stupid, archaic, and on and on.

It’s a no-win situation for many christians, which is why I normally simply keep my mouth shut and love my gay friends simply for the people that they are anyway, and just shut up about what I’ve been taught all of my life.

It’s as if, in this day and age, people who have any doubts about homosexuality at all, better not say them for risk of being branded as racist, and hated.

Hate the sin, love the sinner? According to other discussions I’ve heard IRL, or read on other boards…

Not allowed, a “cop-out,” “white supremacy bulls**t” and worse.

I don’t know the answer, I do know that I have gay friends whom I consider to be great people, and I love them for who they are.

But I also know that inside, that long ago Sunday School teacher arches a disapproving eyebrow at me, and my heart aches, and I always wonder, “who’s right in this” and how and when will I know?

Sigh…

23

[QUOTEAs for biblical arguments against homosexuality, they are the easiest to refute. The majority of arguments come from the old testament right along such statements as stoning to death any who blaspheme or curse (Lev 24). Also, fundamentalists tend to be very disappointed in that Jesus never said anything against homosexuality (unless someone can show me otherwise). **[/QUOTE]

:slight_smile:

You just made me feel a WHOLE lot better. It’s my (old) church, not the bible!!

24

CanvasShoes, I’m sorry you’re going through this. But I’m grateful that you have the thoughtfulness and compassion for this issue to affect you as deeply as it does.

I’d like to direct your attention to the debates surrounding interracial marriage back in the fifties and sixties. This was another instance in which the churches of the US provided an abhorrent and hurtful viewpoint with aid and support. The arguments against ‘miscegenation’ were Biblically-based, and the churches, up until the end of the fight, for the most part, stood foresquare against the marriage of whites and blacks.

I want you to consider this, because it shows that the churches can be wrong, they can realize this, and in the name of love, they can change. They have almost universally embraced interracial marriage, and now have made many amends for the harm that they abetted in the past.

I believe that the future holds the same kind of reconciliation between gays and the churches of the nation. I think that what you’re experiencing is part of the long process of a religious establishment that’s coming to its senses, realizing the damage it has wrought, and is struggling with a reaction to it. I have faith that, with people like you on board, there will be decisions made out of compassion and caring, not judgement. I think there will come a day, not too long from now, where people won’t have to struggle with the same dichotomy you’re facing.

It’ll be a great day.

25

I’ve put my 2 cents into previous debates such as this one in the past. I don’t feel that homosexuality is a sin, I think that people are predisposed to being attracted to a certain gender at some early point, for whatever reason…and I’m not a Bible literalist or an overly devout Christian, so why would it matter to me anyway.

And yet, I hit the same wall all the time with respect to gays marrying: I think they should be able to, there’s no reason two men (or two women) should not have the legal protections of marriage…BUT there are still some unions that I would feel comfortable saying no way to, there is no earthly reason we should legally recognize so-and-so’s particular lifestyle: polygamy. Incest. The 40-year-old teacher in love with sixth-grader. That sort of thing. So we have some protections in the form of age requirements and laws that allow for only one spouse per customer. Those will infringe upon someone’s lifestyle even if ‘gender’ isn’t a factor, and those people aren’t going to arouse any sympathy from the masses. Polygamy…I don’t know that I consider it “sinful” even but I’m sure not bothered that it’s illegal.

So it might be all in the presentation. I think it’s important to avoid the merest hint of “everyone should marry whoever they want to marry”, or insisting that the government has no business dictating people’s relationships - it certainly does in some cases. Also recognize that by pushing for gay marriage and ‘legitimizing’ gay couples, they are tacitly supporting the relegation of unmarried couples to second-class and/or recognizing the legislative morality of marriage in the first place. All the BS faced by gay couples who don’t have the legal status is pretty much faced by unmarried couples, and some people have pretty good reasons not to get married. My inexpert opinion is that it would be better to align with them first, and gain broader acceptance of the rights of unmarried partners - a double whammy against the opposition - then fight for somewhat relaxed requirements for marriage. It beats going straight up against the Christian Coalition on matters of scripture. JMO.

26

DrChuckie: If God had made Adam and Steve it would have been impossible for them to reproduce, so it’s a poor argument. As Sodom and Gomorrah hint at sin but don’t specifically identify it, it’s hard to really define. Obviously those people were engaging in pre-marital and extra-marital sex, as well as rape, and blasphemy of God. That’s enough to warrant a pillar of salt all by itself.

Iampunha: I’m missing some of your point, but I think I get your drift. However, I’m not agruing for or against homosexuality as a physical norm or mental choice. I know that my own sexuality was never a question answered or even an influence that I gave into, nor was it a choice I made. Since I discovered that my genitalia had two distinct states of being, I have lusted after women.

As near as I can discover from Christian sites on the subject, there are only seven passages in the Bible which deal with homosexuality.

  1. Sodom: Already mentioned. There is no evidence from this scripture that the gang rape, outside of marriage, of men, women and apparently whatever else wandered through town with a hole in it has any bearing on a mature, loving, consential relationship with same sex adults.

  2. Deuteronomy 23, which refers to Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship.

  3. Passages in I Corinthians and I Timothy refer to male prostitution.

  4. A few passages in Leviticus, and Paul’s letter to the Romans.

Levitical laws do not apply to Christians, although perhaps the jewish orthodox would offer a comment. (Any Christians who want to call me on this had better crack open Leviticus first. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that these laws violate the words of Christ.)

Paul was a convert to the Christian faith who held strong views, and in the mind of many Christians his words poison the message of Christ. Paulism is probably a discussion for later, but he believed in slavery, absolute supplication of women, and the context of his homosexual experience was most likely limited to the convention of Roman citizens of keeping young boys for sexual exploitation. Which is a good thing to condemn, but not really related to homosexuality as we know it. Regardless, Paul calls upon us to follow Christ in all things, not him.

27

Canvas Shoes, in an effort not to argue with you but to help you past a hurdle here:

Sorry to target this section – but exactly what is it that your faith says is a sin? This might, I hope, be a way to grasp how to deal with the question a little bit better.

Because, if I’m hearing this right, “homosexuality” in conservative Christian parlance equals “being gay” and “having gay sex” all wrapped up into one. And the literal words of the Bible only condemn the second of these – and it’s been my take for some time now that what’s being condemned, in this as in other sexual-sin commandments, is gratifying lust rather than sharing love.

Mr Visible is quite capable of sinning, by my definition and I think he’ll agree by his own, by having gay sex: as a man in a committed relationship with another man (an “engagement” for all practical purposes, leading to exchanging marital vows in the near future), which I presume is exclusive in its nature, if he were to go out to a bar and pick up a guy tonight, he’d be sinning against his beloved and against his commitment to him. Mr. V. would that be accurate? I imagine you are inclined to think of sin only in the context of Biblical mandates which I believe you reject, but insofar as the word has any meaning within your POV, I believe that you’d consider that as wilful sin – because it violates your personal code of values. Right?

Can you see where I’m going with this, CS and Copa? Moral behavior is to deal ethically with the world around you from where you’re at, and sin is a violation of this. And the chapters of Leviticus that started the whole gay sex=sin thing going are dealing with how not to behave sexually as the Canaanites do – a means of keeping the Israelites separate and pure. And the Canaanites not only tolerated homosexual activity as something anybody with a mind to could engage in, they formalized it as a part of their religious worship, where men would serve as “temple prostitutes” in a role where one communed with the Astarte by having sex with her priestess or the person temporarily vowed to the role of stand-in for the goddess sexually, and with the Baal by having sex with his priest or with a man who took a similar vow – “oblates” if you will. (:wink: at Pun)

Tee, it occurs to me that the rule on marriage ought to be that people can marry according to their own wishes, not according to what you or I or a fundamentalist or a polyamorist feels comfortable with. There are some fairly rigid guidelines that can be derived from the social sciences and genetics on what combinations ought to be prohibited (most forms of incest, for example, and marriage with a minor unless that minor can demostrate both intent to marry with an awareness of the consequences and mature judgment about what is involved in it).

28

Pretty darned accurate.

Seeing as I couldn’t accept the values that were inherent in the religious definition of sin, I was forced to examine morality very carefully at a young age, and came to the conclusion that the only sin is hurting other people.

For that reason, cheating on my boyfriend would fit my definition of sin.

But there’s more to it than that, of course. The idea of cheating on my boyfriend is horrifying to me, because it would be the basest betrayal of his trust; it would be taking every time I’ve proven myself to him, every time he’s been impressed with my character, every time he’s put his trust in me and I’ve come through, every time we’ve achieved something together, and making it a lie. I just can’t imagine doing something like that.

29

Polycarp: We posted at the same time, but I think we see eye to eye on this fairly well. (It’s a religious conspiracy!) :wink:

My real problem with this is that many churches see this as a sin without much real scripture to back them up. I don’t think anyone really looked into this issue before making the pronounciation. They labelled something they thought was ugly and unnatural as sin, before they really looked into it and many are now scrambling for their Bibles for support from God, and that’s just not how it works.

Tee: I also see the genetic results of close incestual marriages as being reason enough to outlaw them, and of course there’s not much of a lobby for it. On the subject of polygamy, there is actually quite a bit of accepted law to go against it. Under the law, marriage (That is to say a purely secular marriage, which is all the government should ever give you.) is essentially a contract of partnership between two people. I saw the one I signed and that’s basically what is says. Polygamy is really more of a corporation, and size difficulties would definitely be an issue. For example, say you’ve got three people who are married, no problem, but what if you had two or three hundred people in wedded matrimony? It would not only wreak havoc on a tax return("We’d like to itemize, the standard deduction just doesn’t cut it. . . "), but it sould produce a family of 1700 people(When you count the kids) living in a commune outside of town, a divorce would involve algebraic computations and child custody would certainly be hard to determine. What if you didn’t want your own natural kids, but someone else’s within the marriage who were well behaved? As a parent would you be able to adopt everyone else’s kids? The complexities grow blurry in my head just trying to factor what three or four generations of intermarried polygamists might produce in terms of raw population. The reason I enter into this is that it would be hard to put a cap on, say, 20, or 5, or 3, and have it maintain any validity for any length of time.

30

Copasthetic, I just wanted to let you know that whenever I read your posts here my brain is adding in a heavenly choir in the background for effect.

Please, if you can manage it, reproduce. A lot. The world needs more people like you.

31

No, you don’t sound argumentative at all, and Whew! I’ll do my best to explain.

And, I probably should have clarified what I meant by my “faith” a little more. I am what I jokingly refer to as a “recovering baptist”. In that I no longer adhere to the doctrines taught by the church in which I grew up. But still consider myself just a “plain old christian” of no particular denomination. However, I don’t really have any new teachings to replace, or denounce the old, so I gradually learn new ways of believing in God and renouncing the rather poor excuse for christians that I now realize many Baptists are. (sorry, dangling prep hehe).

Anyway, some of those Baptist doctrines die hard. For instance for years, I thought I was a bad christian, or worse, a doomed sinner, because I loved to dance, and dancing, by Baptists’ reckoning, is a sin.

As far as homosexuality? We were taught from childhood on, that being gay was a sin against God, unnatural, all the usual rigamarole. It took me til my mid thirties to finally buck the convention of believing that being a dancer, something I love and am good at, was to be a sinner, imagine how hard it is for me to understand and accept homosexuality as not only not a sin, but “okay,” since it wasn’t something that at that time “hit close to home”.

In fact, some of the same bible passages as other dopers have posted above, were quoted to us as “proof” of this.

When I was a child, and a teen I didn’t know anyone who was gay (I’m nearly 44 now, so was a child and teen in the 60s-70s), or at least I didn’t KNOW that I knew anyone that was gay, it wasn’t “out” then, so it’s quite possible I knew gay people, but they were still quiet about it during that era.

Yes, I believe that what you are saying is exactly what they were trying to convey (again, I broke with the Baptist church and have been “freelancing” for about 9 years now).

The second part of what you said, that of the bible only condemns the second of these? Do you mean that it only condemns casual sex, as much as it would for heterosexual casual sex?

In other words, it’s saying if you have someone, you need to be “married” not just having it on with everyone in sight?

Because frankly, it kills me just as much, to break with that part of what I’m “supposed” to be doing also. Meaning living with my bf without being married.

You know, I’ve never talked to anyone about this. I never wanted to offend my gay friends by asking “by the way…”.

And as I said before, I considered that just shutting up, was the most polite way to deal with my mixed feelings.
And yes, I can see where you are leading. But I want to make sure I understand what you meant on your first paragraph above.

(I’m naturally blonde, please speak s–l--o–w--l–y:) )

32

CanvasShoes: I get where you’re coming from religiously, as I broke from the church several years ago as a result of what I saw as decidedly un-Christian behavior on the part of many pastors and leaders of the church. My father was a jesuit priest(No vow of celibacy or poverty.) and educated catholic until he was eighteen, and belongs on the high end of my own cadre of most intelligent men I’ve ever encountered, and a practitioner of what I would deem as true Christianity.
On the issue of casual sex with either a same sex partner or opposite sex partner, that can probably be shown to be a sin. This is one reason I condemn dissallowing Gay marriages, as it forces a far less supportable sin to provide for a much easier to support sin. In essence, by trying to legislate sin, we are probably increasing it, not to mention losing a generation of homosexuals and their heterosexual support to our(My?) faith. We are alienating a large population of people and putting the face of discrimination and hatred on Christ. I identify very well with the fact that the only time Christ was recorded as being violent was against the money changers at the temple(Of course, He didn’t hurt them, but He tossed the tables.) The tables in this matter may be hard to toss, but it’s happened before.
Oh, and most of us have made it with folks when we weren’t married ;). Jesus’ take on this was to take a wife(Or hubby) if you must have sex, but if you can avoid sexual entanglements then just love God and follow His way. Since your a Christian and you pray, you can be assured by our faith that you are forgiven for you sin, and that forgiveness is never ending. It’s when the praying for forgiveness becomes a loophole for sin that you intend to commit again and takes you away from your belief in Christ as a result that it becomes murky.
I would pray for guidence and pray together about your relationship, and remember that when forgiveness washes away sins, let the guilt go with it. Only you can decide when to leave the fold of God. Jesus has promised that nothing will take you from His hand.

Hope it comforts.

33

I’ll be sure to let my father know he’s off the hook, so to speak;)

34

AFAIK, he’s not under a vow of celibacy, but one of chastity – meaning that he’s pledged to what’s expected of the rest of us – sex within marriage.

BTW, I think that there’s something quite significant missing in defining the Christian view as “sex only within marriage” – it’s not the ceremony that’s the important part, but the commitment. If you happen to be in a situation where a legal marriage is not available to you (e.g., two seventeen-year-olds, or a gay couple), what matters is your intent to live as a committed couple, not whether your local legislature considers you together as marry-able. (And it’s not a black/white question, IMHO, where “all sex outside marriage is sinful” – that’s the ideal situation: lots of good healthy sex within a lifelong committed relationship between two people who love each other and prefer each other to any other possible sex partner. The rest of it is “sin” in the hamartia sense – falling short of the mark, falling short of the ideal. I think two people in love, horny for each other, not quite sure if the other is the right person to commit to spend the rest of their lives with just yet, are probably not committing any sort of serious sin in getting it on. I certainly don’t have any problem with your relationship, Canvas Shoes!

By “the second of these,” I actually meant that even by quasi-fundamentalist standards, only the act of sex, plus “lusting in one’s heart” in an intentional way and which turns the desired into a sex object, are sins – the orientation, being unchosen, cannot be. (But, of course, there are ways for someone being creative enough with Scripture to make that condemnable as well – and they criticize us liberals for “taking liberties with the inspired texts”! :rolleyes: )

I’m not totally sure that if my advice were asked, I’d condemn each and every instance of casual sex, either. The problem there is that emotions and unspoken assumptions get too tangled up in the situation – so that it’s extremely easy for the two people entering into a sexual relationship to hurt each other by assuming they’re out for the same thing, when in fact that’s not true. I prefer to think of it as “thin ice” – enter on it, if at all, with extreme care and with complete knowledge of what the dangers are; there’s a reason those “Danger!” signs are posted!

35

Maybe I’m out there, but who? I’ve missed it somewhere.

This is where I love to dig in. A lot of people get married for a lot of reasons, and for an example I have a cuban-american friend who’s been married three times in order to help women who are trying to get their citizenship. Obviously, if he was doing it with these women ‘casually’, even in their marriage, it would probably fall into the category of sin, on the grounds that the committment behind it is false. The irony? He’s gay, and can’t marry a man because it would violate the sactity of marriage. His parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses so I’m not sure what his take on religion is, but I’ve found him to be a remarkably spiritual person, and I believe that only thing that really keeps him from faith is the idea that God doesn’t want him. That hurts me a great deal, because in many ways I think he strikes back against God for what people have told him. I haven’t even thought of a way to tell him I’m a Christian without equating that with judgement.

Man, I am so screwed :wink: . This is also a great example of something I do habitually and repeatedly. I pray for forgiveness, and ten seconds later a hot girl walks by and I pray again. Something in my brain just causes clothing to melt off. At any rate, this is why I don’t judge other people in terms of sin. I think the famous scripture on this isn’t really referring to God as a judge, because he will anyway, but to others. As in Judge not, lest ye be judged by others. In the judgemental policies of many and in pointing the ‘sin finger’ we draw upon ourselves the call of hypocracy, and push many more from the faith. I believe that much of this issue comes from a lack of biblical knowledge.

36

I tend to agree with you. And yet it wasn’t too long ago (I just googled “gay marriage”) that the DOMA was passed - prior to that there was, I guess, no federal definition of marriage. That was pure backlash. Now my state according to this editorial is the next part of the battle:

…and so I’m just wondering if it is worth that risk. I am married, I know the pros and cons of it so maybe that’s another reason I’m not arguing strongly for everyone to have an equal shot at wedded bliss. It’s great…when it works. I think it could be improved; I think civil unions and domestic partner clauses might serve the purpose, provided they are honored. But that’s MHO, feel free to correct me, it’s based half in personal experience (of marriage and domestic partnership prior to that) and half in fear that asking for the whole enchilada of nationally recognized gay marriage at this time is going to fail miserably. And risk more backlash.

I just do not understand the movement toward that particular institution, the sacred cow of Christianity, while meanwhile the popularity/necessity/longevity of marriage is declining overall for everyone but Christians. Can’t put it any better than that (maybe because it’s Friday night?) but maybe someone will grasp it.

37

Iampunha’s father is an “oblate” – an affiliate member of a religious order. Since my wife is a life-professed Franciscan Tertiary, I have a fairly good source of information on non-classic religious orders and how they work. (Pun loves to startle people by telling them that his father’s a monk – except it didn’t work with me!)

If there is one sin for which the churches deserve to be convicted and condemned, IMHO, it is the abysmal ignorance and arrant condemnation with which they all historically and most contemporarily treat gay people. It’s an important part of what I feel God is calling me to do to try to help bridge that gap – and I am all too well aware of how short I fall of doing that at all decently.

The most effective witness you can be to your friend is to let him know that you are his friend and a Christian who doesn’t judge or condemn him – and that God doesn’t, either, IYHO (and mine).

Whatever your personal views on his sex life, the rightfulness of his marriages (and there are good reasons why I approve of what he did – as would C.S. Lewis, who did much the same thing!), or anything else, they’re secondary to his coming to know God’s love for him.

There’s an old line that I love about this – it derives from the RC practice of describing mental sex as “entertaining sinful thoughts” – and it goes something like this: “There’s nothing you can do about temptation walking down the street past you, but you can stop short of inviting it in, giving it a comfortable chair, and pouring it a drink.” We’re built to find people desirable; it’s part of the sex drive God equipped us with (Genesis 1:28 gives the first command to humans: “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and conquer it.” Three verses later, well before the Fall, 1:31 says “And God saw all that he had made, and indeed it was very good.” If there’s anything sinful, it’s in taking that beautiful woman, mentally undressing her, and having your way with her in the recesses of your mind – because you haven’t encountered her as a person, just as a useful receptacle for your lusts. That’s 100% different from “I want to spend the rest of my life with Heather, including jumping her delectable bones at every possible opportunity.”

I dunno:

But I think you have a definite point here in judgment by others, as well. I’m inclined to read the passage as “Condemn not, lest you too be condemned” – because we are told to do other things that involve assessing the value of this and that, and the context is that of being compassionate and helpful to others, not of sitting in judgment over another. Two different meanings of the term – just as what Jesus is saying is that His atonement covers the faults that inevitably beset His followers, because they’re doing their best to live up to what He set them to be doing.

38

Polycarp: I want you to know that you’ve scared me. I had to walk into the other room and actually open my bible, something I rarely do during a discussion of thise nature because it indicates to me that I have not properly versed myself(Kind of a neat way of putting it. . .) in the word. But this time, I freaked, because I thought I had misquoted.

Matthew 7:1 The Sermon On The Mount

  1. Judge not, that ye be not judged
    skip. . .
  2. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

As I see it, our ability to judge is meaningless since we haven’t the power, or the authority to make or break the path, but the judgement of others against us as a result can push them away.

39

Yep, that’s the King James Version, just the way Jesus said it!! :wink:

What I was doing was paraphrasing to try to imply the way that I understand it. If, for example, I were to try to give you some advice, I need to make some judgments about what advice would be useful for you. If I read two contradictory statements, I make judgments about which one I find more reliable, or better justified by the context, or better proven by objective cites, or whatever. We can’t help but judge things – but we are not to judge people, IMHO, except in the context of deciding what we can do to better help them, which likely entails some sort of judgment on what their needs, wants, problems, and such are.

Does it make sense, put that way?

40

Polycarp: Definitely. I was referring to your response to my quote, “Judge not, lest ye be judged[by others]” (Which technically was a kind of misquote anyway.) with your cite of John 3:18. I read it, and then thought, “Whoa! Where’d I get mine from?” So I popped it out(the Bible) and went into it.
John 3:18 fairly closely makes the case for not judgementality on the part of man, so that they would not receive the judgement of God, and there’s another in Matthew like that too, about the judgement of God being visited on the one who judged here. But, in the sermon, I think Jesus in this context was actually warning against judging others because they would then judge you based on your own sin, and that would push them away from His word(Which, of course, He wouldn’t look kindly upon in turn). But yes, I see where you’re coming from and agree there as well.