"Hate the sin not the sinner".....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 4:21 AM GMT
    and rather unsightly, too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 4:23 AM GMT
    Active and Fit, explain that to the Castrati.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 4:30 AM GMT
    HUH?? Castrati?? I never drive foreign cars! thats unchristian too! why would I want to drive a car made by non-christian, non-Americans?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 4:43 AM GMT
    Sorry - my earlier post got truncated because I lost my satellite link.

    For those who were wondering which culture I was referring to: it was the Haudenosaunee. The Haudenosaunee are a group of First Nations/Native Americans that originally consisted of five tribes: the Mohawk, the Oneida, the Onondaga, the Cayuga, and the Seneca. Europeans and non native Americans refer to these tribes as the Five Nations or the Iriqouis Confederacy.

    At the time Europeans first arrived in North America, the Confederacy was based in what is now the northeastern United States and southern Canada, including New England, upstate New York, Pennsylvania, Ontario, and Quebec.

    The Union of Nations was established prior to major European contact, complete with a constitution known as the Gayanashagowa (or "Great Law of Peace"), recent archaeological studies have suggested the accuracy of the account found in oral tradition, which argues that the federation was formed around August 31, 1142, based on a coinciding solar eclipse (see Fields and Mann, American Indian Culture and Research Journal, vol. 21, #2).

    R

    R
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 4:47 AM GMT
    IT Jock, are you sure it wasn't some Bishop using his miter to break your satalite connection?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 4:47 AM GMT
    that must have been the lord striking down your posting on heathens .. by the way .. I love you..lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 5:21 AM GMT
    Tiwsterguy:

    I don't recall claiming it was an equation of any sort, least of all the one you describe. It is *you* that is making the unjustified generalization!

    The correlation you claim is quite insufficient to demonstrate causation: in fact the arrow is the other way round. The "free" societies in the world are all European Countries and their former colonies, together with a few other exceptions such as Japan. Of course, there are many former colonies that are not free, and some of them are ostensibly Christian too. In any event, Christianity was spread to those colonies where people emigrated and sometimes enforced upon the occupied peoples elsewhere.

    We owe much of our modern notion of a "free" society on the Enlightenment in which it was established that systematic ("scientific") thinking might be applied to such things as systems of government. The societies beforehand were founded on tradition, superstition, tyranny etc. The Christian Church was a pillar of those societies, it did nothing to oppose their inadequacies or injustices; there was no command for change from Rome. The old orders were overthrown (e.g. the French Revolution) and the ideas spread.

    These ideas developed and spread, aided by tremendous breakthroughs in technology and communication. Freedoms enshrined in the American constitution (and why you have the separation of church and state) were a reaction to your former colonial power.

    It is rational thought and science that have remade the world you live in today. It is to them that you and I owe our freedom. To observe that the "free societies" are largely (nominally) Christian is merely to observe that the colonialists were Christian. If Christianity at last feels the need to champion the modern values of freedom, that is all to the good. It is, however, simply wrong of you to suggest that Christianity created that freedom.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 5:21 AM GMT
    BTW, if you want proof that America is a Christian country, please move on over to this link ..

    http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0907/goldencross.html

    also .. I love you ..
  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    Sep 13, 2007 6:43 AM GMT
    I want to participate, but work calls for my attention :-/

    However, I will point to this lovely comic, which deals with some of the ideology used in this discussion and other discussion on RealJock:

    Dungeons and Discourse by Dresden Codak

    It helps if you've played Dungeons & Dragons.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 6:54 AM GMT
    I totally agree on the literal translation point of view, and this I find is the hypocrisy of modern day religion, not just Christianity.

    We pick and chose and translate from a colletion of old radings that we manage to salvage not fully being aware of the climate it was written in. We chose to ignore those parts of the religion that dont suit our collective or individual goals and use them to further our cause.

    Again it bings me back to how can any Gay man claim to subscribe to a major rligion when most of the major religions consider them a sinner and are hell bent on their salvation for their sins based on sexuality?

    Can someone explain their viewpoint on that if they are a practising Christian, Muslim or Hindu please? As surely you are doing exactly the same as the religions are doing now and being selective in your interpretation. Surely you either buy into it or you dont its as clear cut as that in my mindset.

    And as for using the words Hocus Pocus I really got an arse kicking from a Vicar once for saying that in a bible class once in my formative years as its incredibly offensive as roughly translated from its Latin Origins it means Devil Worship! whoops
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 9:54 AM GMT
    Paradigm_Shift asks, "What do you think about this popular Christian saying?"

    It is stupid and not Christian, although Christians may use it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 10:02 AM GMT
    Hocus Pocus = Devil Worship? Another lie from you Vicar!

    Hocus Pocus derived from 'hoc est corpus'

    (1694 CE) by the English prelate John Tillotson:

    In all probability those common juggling words of hocus pocus are nothing else but a corruption of hoc est corpus, by way of ridiculous imitation of the priests of the Church of Rome in their trick of Transubstantiation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 1:28 PM GMT
    Now, now. I know what you are all thinking, "Hate the religion, not the Christian."

    But before you make any rash decisions, I suggest you go to this website and see if you might change your mind ..

    http://landoverbaptist.org/

    oh, also, I love you, lol ..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 1:47 PM GMT
    From On-line Etymology site:

    hocus-pocus

    1624, Hocas Pocas, common name of a magician or juggler, a sham-Latin invocation used in tricks, probably based on a perversion of the sacramental blessing from the Mass, Hoc est corpus meum "This is my body." The first to make this speculation on its origin apparently was Eng. prelate John Tillotson (1630-1694).

    "I will speak of one man ... that went about in King James his time ... who called himself, the Kings Majesties most excellent Hocus Pocus, and so was called, because that at the playing of every Trick, he used to say, Hocus pocus, tontus tabantus, vade celeriter jubeo, a dark composure of words, to blinde the eyes of the beholders, to make his Trick pass the more currantly without discovery." [Thomas Ady, "A Candle in the Dark," 1655]


    Just to further Crimthann's statements, I looked up the etymology of hocus-pocus. I am Christian and I have no problem with the "Hate the sin, not the sinner" statement, but I wonder if the good vicar who chided BFG1 realizes that some of the words of Jesus during the Last Supper would have been translated into the Latin from which hocus pocus comes. The vicar probably needed to brush up on his latin.

    By the way, forgetting about whether it is geared toward a particular act, the saying "hate the sin, not the sinner" is in no way unChristian. Jesus despised sin. Even when someone was caught in sin, He said to them, "Go and sin no more." He never condoned sin in any form. However, he loved every last one of us human beings, even though we were imperfect. Even if a particular saying is not literally in the bible, it's not necessarily unChristian.

    You may attack me for it, but it shows a remarkable lack of tolerance on anyone's part to say that you cannot love someone who sins and that is the natural extension to saying the phrase is just another form of hatred. What are the alternatives? I guess you can be consistent and say, "Hate the sin and the sinner," or perhaps you could say, "Who's to say what is sin, so don't hate anyone and accept everything that everyone does."

    People do things that are wrong. What is wrong with having a standard that governs right and wrong. My son does a lot of things i really hate and, yes, they are sin...stealing a car, etc. I don't hate him. I love him. If you can prove to me that "hate the sin, not the sinner" is not in line with Christian theology...well...you can't prove that to me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 3:46 PM GMT
    Mustlose50: You're missing the point. Bottom line: gay love and intimacy is not a sin.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 3:55 PM GMT
    Mustlose50: OK you didn't really miss the point, at least in the context of the OP's question. But we're talking about gay love and intimacy here. How can any gay man apply that phrase to gay love and intimacy? It's self-loathing, and it's very sad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 4:10 PM GMT
    I think it's different to use your son or any other family member or loved one as an example when saying hate the sin not the sinner.

    Of course it's easier to say when it's a family member or loved one. I don't think christians have that same kind of unconditional love or willingness to forgive when it comes to gay people.

    Also, it seems difficult to come to some agreement or understanding when you have one side that operates by faith and the bible, which they see as the word of god and the other side that does not believe in god.

    I'm sure the phrase "Hate the sin not the sinner" was originally said with good intensions. Because of the face religion is wearing today, I'm afraid it doesn't hold much weight for me.

    Lastly, I'd like to add that I too find all the posts here very insightful. Thanks to all who have posted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2007 4:12 PM GMT
    I know...great idea...LOVE EVERYONE, hate no one
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2007 2:44 PM GMT
    Jorel1:

    In some ways, you are correct that dealing with a family member is easier, but it's not quite as simple as that. When you look at a child, son in particular, and they are into something you absolutely oppose, in some ways it feels like a betrayal. Family member or not, that is extremely hard, sometimes impossible, to overcome.

    To put things in perspective, a little, I admit to taking a literal view of the bible and believe acting on one's homosexuality is sin. That's one of my current hangups and internal conflicts. I say that just so you will know where I am coming from. I am not trying to make anyone else believe that, nor am I wanting to debate the issue. I realize that everyone else on this site disagrees with me, but that's my present stand. Please just accept that, even though it's contradictory to my own desires and needs.

    I also think that about a hundred (maybe a million) things I do in the course of a day constitute sin, but I am not going to say that I am headed to hell because of them. That includes anything having to do sexuality. I find it hard to believe that God would signal out just a few sins that absolutely will send someone to hell while offering to forgive some of the most heinous crimes. As far as I know, Jesus only said there was one unforgivable sin and it had nothing to do with sex.

    Ok, now that you know where I am coming from, in addition to all else, my son is gay. I don't hold it against him even though I feel the way I do about it. He is my son. A friend of mine, who died of AIDS years ago, was gay. No problem in my mind and heart, and it was no problem with the people in our little church, including the pastor. All of the folks in the church were pretty fundamentalist. A fraternity brother of mine is gay. So what. They are my friends and I will love them as such and stand by them as friends regardless. It was harder for me to deal with my son than with my friends. I never thought a thing about my friends being gay. So, I have had a little experience from both sides of that fence.

    Finally, don't confuse organized religion with Christianity. A Christian is who you are and that should be someone who loves Jesus, has a personal relationship with Him and seeks to imitate Him, even the love everyone part. Yeah, I fail in a lot of areas, but at least I try. That's all He asks. The organized religion that people think of as Christianity is a business. Some churches really are filled with Christians, many are not.

    The bible has a name for these in Revelation, I think. The Lord dislikes them intensely because they have "the form of religion, but not the power." They are like the Jewish leaders of Jesus' time - lot's of laws, not much love.

    I am part of the Episcopal church and side with the conservatives in the current controversies about the gay bishop, marriage and many other things. What bugs me, though, is not that there may be disagreement or even an eventual split, it's that so much of the argument centers on who owns the churches and church property. That tells you where the leadership's heart on many things is. Who cares? Jesus didn't have a building. Why should the leadership care who gets to keep a building. Like I said...it's a business.

    Sorry to be so long.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2007 3:05 PM GMT
    mustlose50 said
    "I admit to taking a literal view of the bible and believe acting on one's homosexuality is sin"
    Thanks for at least being honest about that mustlose. It can help explain your views (I don't say that in a mean way).
    There are many guys in your same situation that I have met, and having been involved in a pretty intense "christian" sect for about 8 years long ago I am very familiar with what the bible says etc. I have no "conservative" leanings anymore though and feel freer and happier than I have ever been.
    About the only rule I have left is "love your neighbor" .. that one is hard enough to follow as it is .. lol
    I have much more to say about all this stuff but that is for another conversation

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2007 4:03 PM GMT
    Thanks for your post Active...

    Actually, I (mustlose50) am the one who said it, not Jorel.

    God bless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2007 4:24 PM GMT
    "Actually, I (mustlose50) am the one who said it, not Jorel."

    well doggie, so you did. And I thanked the wrong person! Oh well, you know what they say .. Hate the post not the poster .. lol .. yeah I know you didn't hate either

    I changed it thanks to the new edit feature.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2007 6:06 PM GMT
    Thanks for clearing up the who posted what, Mustlose50, I appreciate it.



    I guess it can feel like betrayal when a family member or loved one is into something you oppose. But I still think it can be easier to apply the "Hate the sin not the sinner" way of thinking when it comes to loved ones.



    I also think you are not alone when thinking homosexuality is a sin. That's one of the reasons some gay men don't come out or even worse, can't accept themselves. Religion (and the guilt religion can instill) runs so deep with some people, even if they come out of the closet, there is always a voice of guilt that whispers that you are different, not acceptable or somewhat less loved by god because you are gay. That is the power of religion.



    Just like the media, religion is everywhere all the time. Baptisms, weddings, funerals, religious television, radio, on our currency, in our government, even in our hotel rooms.



    It is a very powerful force that for some can be a great light of love, support and comfort and for others the reason to kill, hate, go to war and even disown family members.



    On a personal note, I don't think I confuse organized religion and christianity. I get how you see that there is a difference. But without getting into it, I have a problem with many of the inconsistancies and contradictions with regards to the teachings in the bible.



    I too apologize for being so long. - Jorel



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2007 7:16 PM GMT
    the fundamentalist christians Jews and muslims are all the same in America. Since they can't call us faggots without being huniliated by us and the public they have to come up with ways of "tolerating" us so they won't have to accept us. Love thy neighbor. Now theres a sin especially when youare a guy with a male nieghbor. I would certainly love my neighbor if he looked like some of you guys. lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2007 7:14 AM GMT
    In response to the initial post - Yes, many Christians have used the phrase, "love the sinner, hate the sin", to describe their attitude towards homosexuals. This is an example of how Christian catch phrases, "esoteric codes" or "God talk" can be misleading to followers of Christ who use them assuming people know what we mean, as well as to the rest of the world, who either don't understand what we mean, or all too often actually get at our heart motives through all the pious rhetoric. As rhythm1438 said, the phrase, "hate the sin, love the sinner", is never mentioned in the Bible. Though there's an abundance of evidence that Christians "hate the sin", but more importantly, I think the question we should ask ourselves is, "how is love going to manifest itself?", such as 1 John 4:19, "We love because He first loved us." What I can infer from that verse is that Jesus didn't wait for us to acknowledge our sins before He can love us, so neither should we (which is the intended message for "love the sinner, hate the sin" phrase). Sadly, in many cases, the people who are using that phrase do so in a way that alienates others and builds up their own pride, showing no sincere effort to be loving towards others. Using these kinds of phrases and letting the words of these simplifications-of-simplified-concepts-inferred-from-the-Bible speak for themselves COULD be misleading to others (especially when used among crowds, where you're not able to explain yourself to the random passerby who overhears you). I personally try to avoid using these codes, but whenever I do, I try to explain the meaning by sharing first-hand experience with the verses behind these simplifications.

    Just my thoughts. Open for any kind of response. =)