Because it’s bullshit.
And for some, really hard to grasp.
Shocking.
Wait, so you would punch someone in the mouth because they voice a belief that is held by the Catholic Church whose religion they adhere to, not to mention other religions?
In which case, they’re just full of shit hypocrites. They’re just not doing what they espouse.
I’ll say that the terminology compounds the issue. Using Biblical language puts one in mind of Revelation, where it says that the unbelieving and the sexually immoral (among others) will be thrown into a lake of fire for their second death. Presumably an omnipotent benevolent God thinks this is appropriate, or else said God would intervene.
How does this sound: "I love you, but I think that the most compassionate being in existence thinks you deserve to be tortured for all eternity ".
I’d err on the side of caution and assume that, by “punch-in-the-mouth offensive”, Miller means that it’s offensive enough to make him want to punch the speaker in the mouth, not that he’d actually do it.
That aside, the fact that it is a belief of the Catholic Church does not make it one iota less offensive that it would be if it were just the spewings of some random homophobe.
I’m curious about your interpretation of “loving the sinner, hating the sin”. Does it include telling gay people that their love is sinful and that they ought to be celibate? Does it include working to prevent government recognition of their relationships, and using the large financial resources of your religious denomination to do so?
It’s a platitude that tries to put up a shield of immunity from reprisal when you act or speak like an asshole.
This is your theology: “I’m trying to convince you to stop engaging in the sin of blackness because I LOVE you so much! I want to save you from going to hell by dying with the unabsolved sin of blackitude on your immortal soul. I’m not a racist! I don’t hate you for being such a sinner by engaging in mortal blackness! I LOVE you in spite of your terrible flaws that would make a person less saintly than me cast you aside!”
Not me personally, no, but I’m not a violent man. My point was that if someone made a comment that was similarly judgmental and insulting about a heterosexual relationship, it’d be the sort of thing that ended up with someone sweeping up some teeth in a dustpan. It’s on par with telling a guy his wife is a slut. Probably, you could say that and not get in a fight. But if you told a guy that and he punched your lights out, it would not come as a great surprise to anyone who heard about it.
Of course, when you say something like that about a gay relationship, and someone objects, all of a sudden it’s an issue of religious freedom, and they’re being oppressed because someone called them on their bigoted bullshit. Which is more or less what you did here, I think. So what if it’s a belief held by the Catholic Church? In what way does that make it okay? And considering the large number of Catholics I know who are both faithful, and not homophobic douchebags, I don’t see why the Rick Santorums of the world should get a pass. If my mom can go to mass once a week, and still invite my boyfriend over to set up the Easter Egg hunt, Senator Man-on-Dog can keep his filthy pie-hole shut about my romantic relationships.
Yes, exactly. I find that to be true of virtually every Christian who uses the phrase “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” at least when talking about homosexuality. The Christians who actually live by that maxim never have to say it, because they actually behave in a loving manner towards homosexuals.
And the author being pitted is doing this how? He’s saying “hey, fellow Christians - we’re commanded to love these people, remember? Let’s not treat them like second-class people.” He deserves applause, not condemnation, because he’s trying to change the very behavior you’re complaining about.
He includes gay people and people with tattoos in with criminals. That is the problem, and the attitude that needs to change. That will never happen while people base their attitudes on the voices in their heads, and the ravings of ancient madmen.
He should not be saying that these things should be “tolerated”, and that people should be “loved” in spite of them. He should be saying there is nothing wrong with them.
The only value judgement I can find in the whole piece is that those who think themselves superior to any other person are wrong to do so.
[
](Birch Family Services: Empowering People. Building Futures.)
I do not understand why some readers seem to need so badly for the author to be smug, self-righteous or hypocritical.
The point is, words are cheap.
But also, that this whole “hate the sin love the sinner” applied to people one doesn’t know is 99.9999% of the time utter crap. Hate is hate. If the person doesn’t know the sinner well, hating the sin almost always amounts to hating the sinner as well.
He also includes “our ex-lovers, our lovers’ ex lovers, or our ex-lovers’ lovers,” with criminals. From this, do you deduce that he thinks there is something wrong with being an ex-lover? Do you think he’s trying to draw an moral equivalence between being an ex-lover, and being a criminal?
Your second paragraph just isn’t relevant to the essay you’re criticising. At no point is “hate the sin love the sinner” used directly or advocated by the author at all. In fact, a major point of the thing is that it’s not even possible to know what other people’s “sins” are. It’s right there in the portion I quoted in the post right above yours.
You seem to agree with what the essayist said, but you object to the essayist saying it. That’s what I’m struggling to understand.
He is making a moral challenge to Christians to live up to their beliefs, and love everyone, even criminals, ex-partners, and gays. My point is that homosexuals do not belong in that group, and that the attitude of anything “even though” someone is gay is what needs to change.
So, in this case, he is drawing a very specific equivalence between ex-lovers and criminals, which is that they have done something to the Christian in question to justify having that love removed, but that the true Christian should love them anyway. It is unacceptable to include homosexuals in that category.
Now, I appreciate that he is well meaning. However, he’s well meaning in the same way that someone letting a black man use his toilet in Alabama in 1960 is well meaning. It’s better than nothing, but there should be no “letting” allowed. It should be a matter of course.
Steophan, you’re wrong. You’re projecting what you think are the author’s motives onto what he’s saying.
He comes right out and says that it doesn’t matter if homesexuality is a sin or not. When he lists them with criminals, ex-lovers and people with tattoos the only thing those people have in common is that they are people who Christians should love and often don’t. Now I know you would agree that Christians don’t have a good track record for loving gay people, so you agree with him there.
So let me say this again. (1) In his own words he refuses to say that homosexuality is sinful, and says it doesn’t matter. (2) He says Christians, who are supposed to be loving toward everyone, ought to practice what they preach and love people that they often don’t. (3) People who Christians often fail at loving include criminals, people with tattoos, ex-lovers, and gay people.
Things he DOESN’T say:
- Homosexuality is bad or a sin
- “Love the sin, hate the sinner”
- Gays are like criminals
- Love gays “even though” they are sinners
You keep assigning him the belief that homosexuality is a sin, which is nowhere in this article.
duplicate post
To make it clear, the person I’m criticising is the person quoted at the end of the blog post, not the blogger. She says she’s not religious, and doesn’t understand why people have an issue with homosexuality.
I don’t think any of the ‘defenders’ are confused about that. We’ve been talking about the essay “I’m Christian Unless You’re Gay”, referred to at the end of the blog post the OP linked.
Here: We’re discussing this particular composition.
Some quotes from the article.
My message to him would be that, if he actually cares about his friend who’s life is being made a misery by anti-gay sentiment in his community, it’s time for him to stop participating in it, stop being ok with people saying homosexuality is sinful, and to care a great deal that people say it is.
The question shouldn’t be “Should Christians love homosexuals as they love everyone else?”. It should be “Why is this even a question?”. At best, he’s guilty of moral cowardice, being unwilling to say that homosexuality should not be considered wrong by anyone. More likely, he does have a problem with it, but wants to feel better by “tolerating” it.
Your point isn’t one he chooses to make. Write your own essay. His point is that it is irrelevant from the POV of proper behavior whether homosexuality is sinful or not. Christianity (and a several other faiths he cites, for that matter) says your job is to love. Just as you love yourself.
Yeesh. Someone comes along saying we should love each other, and people are ready to crucify him all over again.