Love the (blank)er, hate the (blank)

[Note: I did not put “(blank)” in the subject line to censor a profanity - you blanker! :wink: This thread was created in response to this thread, which got a bit off-topic.]

OK, we all know the old Christian adage:

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

But where do we draw the line? Can we…

[ul][li]… love the mixed fabric wearer, but hate them wearing mixed fabric?[sup]1[/sup][/li]
[li]… love the sportsman, but hate the sport they play?[sup]2[/sup][/li]
[li]… love the murderer, but hate the murder they committed?[/li]
[li]… love the woman getting the abortion, but hate the abortion procedure she had performed?[/li]
[li]… love the homosexual, but hate the homosexual sex they have?[sup]3[/sup][/li]
[li]… love the black person, but hate their blackness?[sup]4[/sup][/li]
[li]… love the Jew, but hate Judaism?[/li]
[li]… love the Christian, but hate Christianity?[sup]5[/sup][/ul][/li]
Does having a choice in your actions (i.e., getting an abortion) differ from something that is not action-based (i.e., being black)? When you consider something to be integral to your being, does it make a difference if it is something you are born with (i.e., sexual orientation), or if it is something you found after you reached cognizance (i.e., your chosen religion)? Does it matter if it is something that affects other people (i.e., murder) or not (i.e., wearing mixed fabrics)? Does it matter if it is something considered trivial by today’s standards (i.e., again, wearing mixed fabrics)? Does it matter if it is something not specifically proscribed as a sin in the Bible, but people don’t like about you anyway (i.e., playing sports, using this as a comparison example to try to explain “love the sinner, hate the sin”)?

I suppose a big part of the question is, how much of a sin is so much a part of you that you cannot discern the sin from the sinner?

Standard disclaimers: I’m not a Christian. This thread is not intended to be a mockery of or a slam against Christianity or any other religious or philosophical belief system. YMMV. The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author. Offer void where prohibited. This thread will self-destruct in five seconds.

Esprix

[sup]1[/sup]Leviticus Chapter 19, Verse 19: “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff.
[sup]2[/sup]Mentioned by Mithrilhawk here.
[sup]3[/sup]The premise being that Christianity currently prescribes that homosexuality in and of itself is not sinful, but acting on homosexual feelings by engaging in homosexual sex is.
[sup]4[/sup]I’m not saying that the Bible considers being of African heritage a sin, I’m just bringing it up as a comparison example; i.e., being black is as inherent to a person as being homosexual is.
[sup]5[/sup]Brought up by me here.

I would say the “Love the (blanker), hate the (blank)” formula works fine, as long as the (blanking) in question is something that is actually a choice for the (blanker). For example, loving a black person and hating their blackness wouldn’t really work. Similarly, loving a gay man and hating their gayitude doesn’t work too well, given that a person can’t really help who they’re attracted to. However, I suppose you could be fine with the homosexuality, but disapprove of the expression thereof.

And of course, there are some actions that I consider too reprehensible to fall under the “love the/hate the” moniker. If my wife murdered my mom, I couldn’t really say, “Well, sweetie, I really love you, but I hate the way you chopped my mom into little pieces.” I would be more of the “I hate you, you murdering bitch” mentality. YMMV.

Jeff

I don’t see any problem with any of these statements as they each encompass a choice, except “love the black person, but hate their blackness.” And as a human being, I reserve the right to like and hate whatever action that I will, but only if there is a choice involved in the process. Using your examples, I can easily understand someone hating something like homosexual sex, just like someone else is going to hate pre-martial heterosexual sex. There is no reason however to show the person performing the action disdain or malevolence.

The best way I can explain it is like this:
I hate a lot of the policies that is imposed upon me by management (specifically from our head service chief). But although I hate how he manages, I still love him as a person, meaning that if he was hungry, I would give him my last scrap of food; if he was thirsty, I’d give him my last cup of water; if he was cold, I’d give him my blanket, even I had to go without one; if he was grieving, I would want him to be comforted. I would wish no harm to come to him, but even such, I would still hate his policy choices.

One can always argue that if you don’t love everything about a person unconditionally, i.e. they are homosexual and you hate homosexual activity, that you don’t really love them. To me, that is just silly because there will invariably be things almost everyone will end up not liking in just about everyone else which would lead to the conclusion that love someone is not possible, especially once you get to know them very well.

It seems to me that “Love the agent, hate the action” is a theoretical extreme. On the other side of the axis of character-evaluation is something akin to “Character is action, action is character; a person is what they do.” It, too, is a theoretical extreme.

Both have practical uses–for the latter, it bears to keep in mind that people tend to be cyclical and habitual creatures. For the most part, if you see somenoe act in Manner X, it’s usually not long odds to bet that they’ll act in a similar way again–that old and good rule about paying close attention to how your date treats not you on the first date, but how they treat the waitstaff. But that pole breaks down in the face of the fact that people aren’t just what they do–they are each agents under will, capable of acting from intentionality rather than habit. And that’s where the more well-known Love-the-Hate-the comes in. To rely on that entirely though, runs more practical risks.

As with most things, there’s a middle way between them.

Oh yeah, one addendum

For the murder example, do not mistake that just because someone would continue to love the murder, that that would alleviate them of their responsibilty to their crime. They would still have to serve their time and bear any sentence imposed upon them by law. But they should be treated humanely while they serve their time (i.e. not routinely beaten, raped, or starved).

My big problem with a lot of GD topics is that I’m 90 degrees off from one of the basic premises of the topic. In this case, the big problem is not whether or not we can discern the agent from the action. It’s love versus hate. Destroying the village in order to save it doesn’t do the village much good, and for me, neither does hating something that is part of what somebody has done or what somebody is. The splash damage hits everything nearby, and saying “well, yeah, but I love the guy” doesn’t help me much.

Disliking something is not the same as hating. Hating is an absence of Love. You cannot hate an aspect of a person’s identity and still love them. Love and Hate are like matter and anti-matter. They can’t co-exist in the same place.

“Hate” is an extremely strong term, IMO – if I hated somebody’s actions, then I probably wouldn’t be able to love (or even tolerate) the person. On the other hand, I’m able to disapprove of or dislike somebody’s actions and still love the person. Hell, none of my friends is perfect (one’s a bit arrogant, one’s financially irresponsible, one drinks too much, etc.), but they’re still good friends because I’m able to like (love?) them despite (what I consider to be) their foibles, and they’re able to like (love?) me despite (what they consider to be) my foibles.

These foibles (“sins”) rate pretty high on the BFD scale, though – none of them warrants a response that is anywhere close to approaching hate.

[After hitting Preview Reply]: Pretty much what Homebrew said.

—I would say the “Love the (blanker), hate the (blank)” formula works fine, as long as the (blanking) in question is something that is actually a choice for the (blanker).—

I disagree. What is a person if not a maker of choices? What could you actually be claiming to “love” that is independant of the person they are that makes such choices?

I think the reason people see a difference in the justification for hate is precisely because their “love/hate” is NOT simply a moral or emotional judgement: it is also an attempt to affect a change (even if only in their own fantasies). We express things to people in part to communicate what we want from them. When we hate something about them that they can change, this motive makes sense: it’s part and parcel of wanting to try to get them to change. When we hate something they can’t change, this motive becomes pointless and just seems mean.

Of course, racists can still find a more extreme point to this motive for again by hating the fact that blacks are treated as equals or mix with white society, or even that they exist: things that, however, detestable to us, they do think can be changed.

But let’s examine this more deeply: we recognize that black people cannot currently change their race. But what happens if, as may be perfectly possible in the future, that people can change their racial features or whatever other supposed racial characteristics via surgery or even genetic manipulaiton? Is it now okay again to love the black man, hate his blackness, if it’s something he CAN choose?

As should be obvious, that question simply brings us back to what I see as the REAL question: is being black wrong or bad in some way in the first place? Is being black and treated as an equal acceptable? Are these things we should allow, or work against? The answers to those questions are moral answers.

The question of whether one can choose to change is strategic and pragmatic: is hating them going to do any good in changing them? Are the costs of trying to change them higher than the potential benefits? The implict idea here seems to be that is hating IS justified if it can potentially have a good effect (the change) but not otherwise.

But, of course, there are those of us who don’t think it’s ever justified. It may be a natural human emotion, but its not something to cultivate or be proud of: just something to recognize the danger of.

—The splash damage hits everything nearby, and saying “well, yeah, but I love the guy” doesn’t help me much.—

Especially if the “love” described isn’t anything one might recognize as the human emotion love. I think what’s more realistically being expressed is the idea that they person is willing to split up an individual: they realize that the person is MORE than just a single action, a single characteristic, and they are willing to be open to loving other parts of them, in other contexts, at other times.

However, I think that people are flat out wrong in thinking that by hating a person’s choices, they are avoiding hating the person. Maybe they are hating part of a person, not the whole thing, but they are still hating part of a person.

Ok, I agree that hate is a strong word, but I disagree that love and hate are mutally exclusive. I’ve known plenty of love-hate type relationships.

Also, from a christian standpoint, the two have to be compatible because Jesus commands “Love thy enemy.”

Enemy as defined by Webster (1st entry) is:

If love and hatred are mutally exclusive, how would it be possible to love someone that you feel hatred towards? The whole concept of “Love thy enemy” would fall flat of its face if true.

Apos, would you care to clarify for me two things? First, I’m not at all sure where on earth the idea that love/hate is an attempt to change someone comes from, and I’d really like to see your reasoning behind this. Second, I think there’s a distinction between judging a person’s choices and judging the results thereof. For example, I can’t abide rap, but my brother enjoys it. I don’t like him any less for having different musical taste than me, but I would dislike having to listen to the same music as him. Would you argue that judging the results of a person’s choices necessarily means judging the person?

Perhaps that’s the whole point. Jesus was trying to eliminate the hate by telling you instead to love.

—First, I’m not at all sure where on earth the idea that love/hate is an attempt to change someone comes from, and I’d really like to see your reasoning behind this.—

Because it’s a reasonable motive for actually expressing hatred towards something to someone. There is both a judgement made, AND an act in expressing that judgement to a person or to interested parties. It’s also because of the way that many people seem to consider the changability/choosability of something relevant to whether or not its legitimate to hate it. I didn’t say that motive was always present, but rather that it might explain the difference people draw between hating changalbe and non-changeable things.

—Second, I think there’s a distinction between judging a person’s choices and judging the results thereof. For example, I can’t abide rap, but my brother enjoys it. I don’t like him any less for having different musical taste than me, but I would dislike having to listen to the same music as him. Would you argue that judging the results of a person’s choices necessarily means judging the person?—

If the person understands the results, sure. They are a person choosing those results.

It also seems that your example isn’t actually of what you later asked me about. In your example, your brother can listen to one type of music, and you another, and there is no real conflict between you too, or necessarily judging of him. If you do find rap detestable, doesn’t it bother you that he listens to it? Do you tell him that you love him, but hate his listening to of rap music?

How about “love the person; have compassion on their foibles, as you would have them show compassion on your own”?

:rolleyes:

How about just “love the person”? An eye full of logs has severely blurry vision at best.

I’m pretty much with you, here, but it brought to mind someone I love dearly…but who has an attitude I think expresses hate. She wouldn’t AGREE that it expresses hate, but I think it DOES… and it makes me cringe. She makes homophobic comments, but would never EVER in a million years do anything to “harm” a homosexual person. I try to explain to her that these “comments” ARE harming to people, and she looks at me with a puzzled expression on her face. If a gay person needed food, she would give it to them. If they needed shelter she would find some for them. (But as she explains it, she wouldn’t take that person into her OWN home…she has small children. I say “what does THAT have to do with anything?” She looks at me with a puzzled expression.) If said person needed the rent money and she had it to give, I expect she would give it to them.

My friend has, in general, a good and loving heart. I love her, but I don’t always LIKE her. When she makes these comments, well, that is something I don’t like about her AT ALL. Yet, I still love her.

I DO love her. I DO hate her homophobia. I think it is WRONG. I think it is HATEFUL. I wish I could get her to SEE that it is wrong for her to feel the way she does. I can’t.

So yes…I guess I think you CAN hate the sin while still loving the sinner.

True as this may be, it doesn’t translate to the logic of the statements you suggested. That is, while a homosexual does not have choice over whether he is homosexual, he does have a choice over whether he engages in homosexual sex, which is the “sin” you suggested. A black person does not have control over his being black, which is the “sin” you suggested in your statement. So those two statements (the blackness one and the homosexuality one) aren’t analogous.

In any case, I don’t mean to take a position one way or the other on “how far it should go”. I am not a Christian, and don’t believe that “love the sinner, hate the sin” is a good dogma in any moral system. Just a minor logical nitpick. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Uh, whoops. Just realized from your 3rd footnote you were trying to compare different levels of moral responsibility. Never mind my long, pompous, and useless post.

I came to a related realization a few years back when I found myself saying to someone that I hate country music. Then I suddenly realized that what I was doing was utterly pointless. There is country music in the world. I can either do my best to appreciate it (and thus gain yet another thing to enjoy in life), or focus on things I appreciate most instead, but what good was hating it doing? At BEST I was simply passing up another potential source of enjoyment. At worse I was filling myself with bad feelings, nuturing a habit of knee-jerk judgements, etc. What’s the point of that?

Even if country music was actually something I thought needed to be stopped… how would hating it contribute to enforcing my judgement? Hate is a cheap source of emotional drive: but it’s also sloppy and blinding, and other sources of emotional drive are far more empowering in the long run anyway: they just take more thought and work.

Yes, expressing hatred/love/etc may often be motivated by the desire to cause a change. But feeling a thing and expressing that thing are completely different beasts, are they not? Me hating the color of your hair is not at an attempt to get you to change it; telling you that I hate the color of your hair may be.

Yes, of course they are. What I’m trying to get at is that I don’t see that “I like Bob less” follows from “I don’t like the fact that Jim had to drive Bob home because he, Bob, was less than entirely sober.” I would have made a different choice, but it wasn’t my choice to make, so why should I like Bob any less for not being the same as me?

No, he’s perfectly free to listen to whatever kind of music he wishes, even if I think it’s bloody gawd-awful garbage. It bothers me only when I must listen to it as well. And except when those situations arise, I see no reason to say anything about it whatsoever. Even when they do, what I dislike is not him listening to rap music, it’s rap music itself.

Maybe I’m not making sense, or maybe I’m making a distinction without a difference.