This is very well said, and I agree with it.
—But feeling a thing and expressing that thing are completely different beasts, are they not?—
Well gee wilikers: I seem to remember touching on this aspect already, as well as distinguishing it from telling someone they love them but hate their sin.
—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?—
Doesn’t sound much like hate, just different personal preferences.
Well gee willikers, where did you do so? Different thread? I could be entirely dense (often am), but I don’t see it. I see you saying that love/hate is both an emotion/moral judgment and an attempt to change something, I see you saying that this is so because trying to change something is a reasonable motive for expressing a judgment of it, but I don’t see you explaining why judging by itself is an attempt to cause a change. Could you point it out to me so I don’t feel so dense?
And you’re missing my other point entirely, which means that either I’m probably not explaining it at all well or that I’m completely full of it. Quite possibly the latter, as I’m not sure I agree with it myself, and that being the case, I’ll cede it rather than wasting the rest of my Friday evening trying to figure out whether I’m sure I agree with it and if so how I can explain it better.
—I see you saying that love/hate is both an emotion/moral judgment and an attempt to change something—
I said that I see the reason people would make a distinction is because of the role of that extra element, which makes sense in some cases, but not in others. There was, uh, also the whole context of the discussion being a particular expression of love/hate. And then there was me discussing people just having the feeling of hate in general, which need not have any particular expression, and is natural (albiet something I’d like to curb in myself).
In other words, big difference between just “A is B” and “the reason one saying A might make the distinction is because of B.”
Ah. I understand better where you’re coming from (assuming that by “make a distinction” you mean between loving the sinner and hating the sin). Thanks for clarifying that.
To be fair to myself, I don’t really see the adage implying that one needs to express the judgment, and that’s not how I interpret it to begin with, so I’m probably coming at this from a different direction than you are.
I’m a “love the lesbian, hate the fact that I’m excluded” kinda guy.
Gee, Bryan, could you be any more offensive? :rolleyes:
Esprix
In my opinion, yes, he could. 
Offense is a funny thing. You’ve used a few choice phrases yourself that have offended me deeply. But I love you anyway and don’t hold onto the offense.
There is no logical difficulty in defining a certain numerous set S, having S1…SN as its members; and then noting that some subset U stands in a certain relationship R to…me.
S = a given person
S1…SN = the various descriptors true of that person
R = to love (null-R being to “hate”–I think “reject” is more accurate, BTW)
It is logically possible to have a relationship with some part of a person that you do not have with the person “as a whole”.
It is thus possible to love the sinner but hate the sin…as long as the part you reject is not regarded, by you, as a “characterizing” subset. [The subset “all members that are triangular” characterizes the set of all triangles; the subset “all members that are trilateral” does not.]
You cannot love a homosexual AND hate his homosexuality if you (actually, in your heart of hearts) regard him as being defined by his homosexuality; it’s not logically possible, and what ain’t logically possible, ain’t.
Bryan, Esprix…Is there a personal issue between you two? No obvious reason why it would be offensive for a man to feel positive toward a lesbian acquaintance, while feeling negative toward the fact that, as a man, he’s not included in her circle of friends. …surely Bryan didn’t really mean…
Actually, when I wrote that I neither knew nor cared about Esprix’s gender or orientation. My status on the issue remains unchanged. What I really meant to do was amuse myself.
And yes, I could be more offensive. The ultimate limit of my ability to offend is so far beyond that little joke that the light from that joke would take one billion years to cross the distance.
Not that I would bother, of course, as this is GD.
Scott
A stellar analysis! Well done. And I couldn’t agree with you more that null-R is rejection. I view love ([symbol]agape[/symbol]) as the conduit of God’s goodness. Rejecting that love is sin.
Obviously he did. Wanting to “join in” is as offensive as “I’m a lesbian trapped in a straight man’s body.” Purile doesn’t even begin to cover it, IMHO.
Esprix
—Wanting to “join in” is as offensive as “I’m a lesbian trapped in a straight man’s body.”—
I’m not getting it. What’s the offense here? Are gay men offended by women’s lusting after them? I’m not offended by gay men lusting after me. It’s sad, sometimes, that I’m not gay myself, and that the relationship wouldn’t really work on my end, because there are some really sexy, great guys out there I’d otherwise consider. Likewise, sometimes I’m sad that I’m not a woman and am just not attractive to some lesbians. I don’t think there’s anything wrong or offensive about that.
Perhaps it should be: “Love the man, hate the fact that we can’t really have mutually enjoyable sex?”
Actually, I think “Purile” (actually, “puerile”) is exactly the right word.
“Smart-ass” fits, too.
Actually, I think the statement that “I love the sinner, but I hate the sin,” is a lying bunch of self serving crap. I don’t know who is fooled by it, but it certainly isn’t God.
I don’t hate my sins. I like my sins. If I didn’t like my sins, I wouldn’t be sinning! I could give up paying taxes without a qualm. I could forgo the dreaded sin of eating coconut cream pie easily. I hate coconut cream pie. You see, when someone talks about hating sins, it’s your sins they are talking about. Now, those, they hate.
And why the hell are they thinking about your sins, anyway? This preoccupation with the sins of others is transparent self righteousness. I’m sick and tired of people telling me about the dreaded evil of someone else’s transgressions against the love of God. What about you, asshole? Are you so fucking perfect? Fall on your knees, and cry out for mercy, you slimy piece of shit. Tell me about your trip to hell, why don’t you?
And what really pisses me off is when they try to blame their sniveling tattletale version of love on God. You guys piss me off so bad; I start up on my favorite sins of all. Bitching out the bible thumping poltroons who are stealing my religion. Why don’t you call yourself Hellists? That’s all you care about anyway.
Now you know why I don’t get into these debates as much as I used to. I am gonna get myself banned this way.
Tris
Get down with your bad self, Tris! 
Esprix
Amen, Tris. Amen. 
I think it forms the entire basis of organized society.
He means sins against God, Eris.
I’m not sure I see the difference, though. What am I missing, perhaps by way of example?