Kynn Bartlett wrote at the now-defunct blog Shock & Awe:
I believe it is not possible to love someone while having no respect for their belief system, culture, and choices. I don't think it's possible to love someone at the same time you claim that they're condemned to hell for all eternity because they don't believe the same way you do. The "love" shown by conservative evangelical Christians is not truly unconditional love; it is love (or even simple acceptance) predicated upon "giving up your sinful ways." It is a love which says, "I will only love you unconditionally if you stop being a fag," or "I will only love you unconditionally if you stop following Islam." ... That's not love.
And what is love? Kynn provided an effective answer by quoting Paul:
Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Kynn goes on to argue that this sort of love isn't compatible with the "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude adopted by many evangelical Christians. Kynn is probably right in this, but what he doesn't explore is whether it is compatible with some other type of love. There are, obviously, multiple sorts of love. Paul's sort of love here may not fit, but perhaps some other type does?
If so, that doesn't necessarily let evangelicals off the hook. The sort of love compatible with what Kynn describes the evangelicals doing would have to be a love that isn't directed at someone as an individual person. You can't love someone as a person while also hating everything that makes that person who he or she is.
You might, however, love some ideal of that person or love their "soul" which you think is being damaged. These aren't the sorts of things normally meant by "love," but perhaps evangelicals are speaking a different language from others. If so, that needs to be stated and explained. They should also be expected to explain why they are ignoring Paul's definition of love, given how important Paul's writings are for them otherwise.
dear austin,
i trust this gets to you. REPENT !
REPENT NOW !!!
as i said last night i am not computer savvy having missed the on ramp to the information super highway.
i do not know if i have reached you or the same site again…i don’t think so.
are you there?
are you ready to put on those elitist, ‘GREAT’ mind boxing gloves of yours.
GOD bless you,
doug
REPENT! REPENT NOW!!! search your SOUL FOR ONCE……not you ‘great’ mind.
dear austin,
i am not seeing any kind of chat here. no comments from anyone. could you help me with this? no doubt i am computer ignorant.
please help me. i wish to take you on man to faithful man.
sincerely and God bless you,
doug
Grr. Just be prepared to have some serious… evidence. Be prepared to be intelligent and back up your arguments.
dear greg,
i am happy to get through to you!
to begin with austin said to me last night that pascals wager had been refuted. my question to you is how was it ever refuted?
doug
dear greg i apologize for having been half an hour late in my response to you.
REPENT!!!
i have been trying to work my way thru these web sites, for i wish to debate and CONVERT all non-believers.
sincerely & God bless you,
doug
“i wish to take you on man to faithful man.”
“i wish to debate and CONVERT all non-believers.”
Why do these types of statements, so typical of religious theists, read almost like threats of violence?
dear greg,
REPENT!!!
i have searched this web site for the other page i challenged non-believers to TRY and DEBATE this down to earth believer.
the fact that i finally got back here was heartening.
i look forward to intelligent discussions and debates with you.
i hope that you can get thru soon.
sincerely & God bless you,
doug
REPENT…REPENT!!!!! search your soul not your mind.
dear zach, sorry that i did not spot you remarks first off. i’ll be back in just a moment..a need to p…..i hope that you will still be here.
sincerely and God bless
doug
DAVE THE WAVE,
1,001 apologies for having addressed you as zack.
once more i apologize for that error.
i look forward to your response.
sincerely & God bless,
doug
REPENT!!!
doug… I feel the need to take the bait here. Please send me a message at jumpslash19@yahoo.com, where I will relay you to my more commonly-used address.
I doubt you are actually after intelligent discussion and debate, as you have made your goal quite clear; you want nothing more than to proselytize.
However, should you think you have an open mind, I would be happy to engage you if you contact me at the address above.
dear dave,
the reason i yell repent is to get non-believers attention.
i pray for non-believers such as yourself everyday.
by the way after presenting my argument that yes God does exist author cline could not respond.
sincerely & God bless you,
doug
There isn’t a chat room.
Not everyone comments on every post. There is more activity in the forum.
I’m not sure I like the sound of that.
I have no control over your email address.
I’m not aware of any site where you have proven me wrong about anything.
Feel free to demonstrate how.
Perhaps you should first write something coherent to respond to?
Follow the link I gave you. If you can’t take the time to even do that much, why should anyone take the time to explain it to you here?
Why? Does it make you uncomfortable that there are people who don’t believe as you do?
So, you need attention badly enough that it’s OK to be rude?
You haven’t presented any actual arguments, and I haven’t ignored any of your comments.
I suppose a reasonable secular analogy to the concept of “love the sinner hate the sin” can be found in a situation in which a loved one or friend is locked in a self-destructive pattern, like drinking too much, using addictive drugs, or even forming relationships with abusive people. In this case it would be possible to say, “I love you, and I don’t want to see you get hurt,” without coming off sounding arrogant or condescending. You can respect a person without having to approve of the choices that person makes. While the Christian’s assessment of what constitutes “sin” — or hazardous choices — is certainly open to debate, I think it would be reactionary to dismiss genuine, if naive, concern in a Christian who uses this phrase.
hello red, dave the whale and greg,
i went to reds yahoo site.after which i could not figure out how to get back. somehow this popped up as i was signing out.
i am not pc savvy. i do not mean to seem as tho i am backing down from any of you.
i cannot bookmark this page, but i will leave this up for a while.
search your soul.
sincerely & God bless,
doug
Doug, type http://atheism.about.com into your address bar at the top of your screen and you will be delivered to Austin’s main page. From there, you can scroll down page and follow the blue links to what ever article you wish to comment on. Just like free will.
I agree with Tom. In my evangelical experience, this was the most common way the phrase was used.
“…it just sounds like an excuse to hate people without admitting it.”
Sadly, I have no doubt this is the case with some people, but I have also heard the phrase turned around and used as a defense for being close to people whose lifestyles were under suspicion by other believers, and a reminder to those other believers that they are not to treat a person as a walking sin.
At any rate, the phrase is a problematic attempt to balance the biblical commands to love with the other commands warning Christians to separate themselves from the world, etc.
Kynn Bartlett: “I don’t think it’s possible to love someone at the same time you claim that they’re condemned to hell…”
I think it is. I don’t think it’s possible to love someone at the same time you are pleased or indifferent to the thought of them being condemned to hell, but it’s entirely possible to be so convinced (I’m not claiming here that it’s rational) that eternity is set up in such a way as to exclude people who do not believe a certain doctrine, and to be extremely distressed at that thought because of your love for someone who according to your religion will be condemned.
Doug:
PZ:
I am always so pleased to see my opponents appeal to the impotency of a non-existent being through the ineffectual medium of talking to themselves.
The problem with the analogy is that the Christian just accept that the negative consequences of the behavior — hell — is good and proper. In the secular situation, what would you say about a person whose attitude is “I don’t want to see you hurt, but if you do those bad things it’s proper that you get hurt”?
I should point out that Kynn Bartlett is a Christian.
Christians are in a difficult position here because while of course they shouldn’t want to see anyone go to hell, they can’t very well say that “the punishment of hell is bad” without saying that God — who created and/or allows for this punishment — has done something wrong. So, while they can’t be “pleased” with people going to hell, they can’t disapprove of it in general.
So the question becomes: you can love me even as you think it is proper and good (remember, God is all good and everything God does is good) that I suffer for all eternity for a temporal sin? Oh, let’s make it easier and forget sins like not being a Christian. Let’s bring out the big guns: Hitler. Can you love Hitler while thinking that it is proper and good that he suffer for all eternity as punishment for his crimes?
I think Kynn was right to dispute the idea that you can love a person while even just accepting that going to hell for all eternity is appropriate, proper, or good. You could love a person while accepting that hell is necessary (like loving a person while accepting that constantly taking drugs lead to an overdose), but Christians can’t simply regard hell as a “necessary evil” or even a neutral fact of existence lacking moral qualities, but which entails negative experiences sometimes (like gravity).
AUSTIN…..hi
i simply wished to get your attention.
where would i find the link you gave me?…is it forum?
sincerely & god bless,
doug
YEAH!
i am happy that i have been able to get some serious discussion going here. just want you to know i am here.
my replys may take a moment to compose, not that i do not have them i just want you to know that i am here and ready to play tag.
sincerely and God bless each of you,
doug
Austin, you make a sensible observation–it does come down to either criticizing a perfect God or finding it acceptable for people worthy of love to perish in such a fashion. The dilemma of hell can be heartbreaking for a believer. They are capable of love because they do not approach this problem in a sensible manner; they are often indoctrinated, and even when people come to faith later in life of their own choice, they are thinking that somehow they can reconcile these paradoxical things, or that God will somehow sort them out in one of those mysterious ways. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” sounds acceptable when you are trying to unify contradictory beliefs, when you don’t realize or accept the logical implications of the ideas you are juggling.
DAVE you stated that trying to convert others sounded almost violent. you do not believe in heaven or hell. whence if as you think there is neither then you have no idea of just what violence is
ALL,
a couple of things.
1] you seem stuck on love the sinner, but not the sin.
‘judge not yet you be judged just as harshly.’
so do not judge the sinner even tho their behavior is sinful
Jesus favorite commandment, ‘treat others as you would have them treat you’
thus if you would want someone to help you when you are down and out then you should help them.
finally: you are criticizing the behavior of christians.
if this is an atheist/agnostic site then why are we discussing the thoughts and behaviors instead of Gods existence
Is that how you behave towards family and friends?
Which link? The link to the refutation of Pascal’s Wager is precisely where I told you it’s a bad argument that’s been refuted.
Really? Where is it?
If all you want to do is “play tag,” you won’t be permitted to keep posting. These comments are for serious discussion and comments, not preaching and “playing tag.”
One of those logical implications is that one’s claims to “love” cannot be correct, or that what one calls “love” is not really love after all. So while a person thinks that they love, and are able to keep thinking because they keep repeating it, the fact remains that it isn’t really love in the end.
NAL,
you stated that you ‘love it when my opponents pray for me’.
you just proved yourself closed minded.
closed minded because you state ‘my opponents’.
sincerely and God bless you,
doug
AUSTIN,
when i said ‘play tag’ i did not mean it in any derrogatory way only that i am attempting to have a serious discussion with each of you.
do not be offended
Why not? Atheists and agnostics can discuss whatever they want, can’t they?
From the dictionary: an opponent is “One that opposes another or others in a battle, contest, controversy, or debat.” To oppose is to: “to be hostile or adverse to, as in opinion; to set against in some relation, especially as to demonstrate a comparison or contrast to.”
So, my “opponent” is someone who is “adverse to my opinion” or who “sets against my ideas their own ideas in comparison or contrast.”
Please explain how accurately describing a person in this way would make one “closed minded.”
Furthermore, please explain how exactly you think you are open minded. To be open minded in this context would mean being open to the idea that you are wrong. Are you open to the possibility that you are wrong in being a Christian and that no gods exist? If not, then you are not open minded — and are being hypocritical for criticizing others for perhaps not being open minded.
How? In all seriousness and sincerity: I have yet to see any evidence of a desire to have a serious conversation. All I see is a desire to preach and convert. Preaching is not a conversation — conversations and discussions are two-way while preaching is one-way.
I see you making lots of assumptions and accusations, but not asking any questions, too. If you were sincerely interested in a serious discussion, you wouldn’t start out by making lots of assumptions about and accusations against people you’ve never met and don’t know.
all,
concerning love the sinner, but not the sin, i do not think that my message got thru.
‘judge not yet you be judged just as harshly’
it is not for me to judge others. this is difficult if not impossible for all of us yet we can try.
Jesus favorite commandment ‘treat others as you would have them treat you’,
thus if you see someone down and out help them for you would want their help if you needed it.
sincerely and God bless, doug
austin,
you know what perhaps we are both closed minded. i am hoping to prove that yes God is while you are attempting to prove the opposite.
give me one opinion that you believe ther is not God and i shall answer.
sincerely & God bless,
doug
Doug, you are being judgmental when you come in here and ask us atheists to “Repent” and desire to “Convert all non-believers”. What are we supposed to be repenting, and why do we need to be converted? You decided that, not us. You came in here and judged us without ever having met any of us or knowing anything about us or how good and fulfilling our lives are while not believing in god.
No thanks, Doug, we will remain as we are.
I haven’t tried to prove anything to you. Remember what I said about asking question instead of making assumptions?
I don’t know how you define “god,” so I can’t speak to that. As a general principle, I don’t bother believing in any gods for basically the same reason I don’t believe in elves, fairies, Bigfoot, alien abductions, etc: I don’t see any good reason to do so. People who claim such things exist don’t provide sufficient evidence and reason to believe their claims. So, I don’t.
If you are going to try to debate the existence of any gods, this comments thread isn’t the place to do it. It’s not the topic of the relevant post. You’ll need to go to the forum for that.
You could love a person while accepting that hell is necessary (like loving a person while accepting that constantly taking drugs lead to an overdose), but Christians can’t simply regard hell as a “necessary evil” or even a neutral fact of existence lacking moral qualities…
Austin, I agree with your assessment of the problem of hell as a moral good, and I agree with Kynn’s and your dismantling of the psychology behind the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin.” But Christian belief requires a high amount of mental compartmentalization. I think it is possible for a Christian to accept hell as a consequence of unrepentant sin in a way not unlike understanding liver disease as a consequence of alcoholism. It’s true such a person is not thinking it all the way through, but we’re talking faith here, not logic, reason, and introspection. Certainly, in some cases, heck, maybe many cases “love the sinner, hate the sin” is a justification for treating others abominably. But as Absent Sway puts it, it can also be an attempt to reconcile paradoxical aspects of faith — granted, a poor, unsatisfactory attempt.
As far as “loving” Hitler goes, I think “Christian love” is the idea that anybody can be saved, no matter what the personal opinion of the Christian may be, and that it is the Christian’s duty to try and help anybody toward salvation, regardless how abhorrent a particular person may be.
As far as Hitler goes,
austin,
assumptions…..you stated that iam making assumptions on people i have never met.
my lifelong philosophy is that ‘people are basically good’
i believe that each person on here is a good and decent man.
i only disagree with their beliefs just as one person might be a yankees and the other a reds fan.
deegee,
you are right when you said that i came into ‘our site’.
i came in here with the intention of helping some of you to examine your beliefs or lack of.
yes you can have a happy and fulfilling life without God.
i do not argue that.
it is the end result where i am trying to help you.
how would you be here if God did not create us?
how would you be here if God did not create us?
Hmm, let’s see. The first people brought themselves into existence by pure force of will. Prove me wrong.
tom,
hitler?
well yes he was a sinner having killed millions of people.
in each of the books of the prophets it states that as long as you believe and have faith in your waning moments, then you will be saved.
sincerely and God bless you,
doug
tom,
we are here by shere force of will?
i think not.
without God there would not be any force of will…..which by the way where did that come from?…the force of will that is.
without God there could not be us.
why?
because there would simply be an empty void with nothing anywhere.
have you ever started your car without turning the ignition key first?
no.
somehow everything had to come into being. that being so who turned the key if it was not God?
sincerely and God bless you,
doug
I agree, and I’m applying that same standard to the claim that they “love” sinners. They may really think they do, but they are compartmentalizing their feelings and the qualities of what makes up genuine love. Because they two never meet, they never realize that what they claim isn’t right.
I’m not saying that this is always the problem. I’m saying that the very notion of “love” is being corrupted and undermined because of its association with this — not unlike how it is corrupted by saying that God’s “love” means that he kills an innocent person to pay for the sins of others, or allows ebola to kill infants, and so forth. Once you can “love” others in that way, that’s not a love I ever want to have any part of.
And yet you treat people here rudely.
Because you don’t need it, right?
I was born. Completely natural process.
[b]without God [...]there would simply be an empty void with nothing anywhere.[/b]
How could [i]there be[/i] “an empty void with nothing in it?” “To be” means to exist. How can existence not exist? The sentence [i]There is nothing[/i] is grammatically correct, but it holds as much logic as the sentence [i]The color red is blue.[/i] It’s a contradiction in terms.
Best Wishes to each and everyone of you
may you live a Long, Happy, Healthy &
Fruitful life.
Sincerely yours & God bless you
doug
They may really think they [love the sinner], but they are compartmentalizing their feelings and the qualities of what makes up genuine love.
I agree that this phrase abuses the word love and the concept it’s intended to relate.
Live long and prosper, Doug.
(Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin). This love is conditional. What is true unconditional love? Ask your dog. He knows!
two more comments,
1] i treated people rudely when i came in here.
true. i wanted to try and insult people to come and discuss openly their beliefs.
i explained this later.
i however believe that i was insulted, disdaned and otherwise treated poorly for those who claim to treat their friends and family well or rather say is this how you would treat your friends or family.
2] semantics. i found many arguments to be wrapped in semantics or the nit picking of words. using dictionary definitions when the meaning of the statement was perfectly clear.
sincerely and God bless you
doug
goodnight one and all.
sincerely & God bless you,
doug
Doug, I was out for a few hours enjoying my happy and fulfilling life with several people, many of whom are theists.
As to where I came from, I was born as Austin said. In a broader sense, we humans came about from evolution, not from creationism or intelligent design or from god.
And what do mean by the “end result”? Are you referring to after we die, as in some afterlife? Well, I don’t believe in that, either. When you die, you are dead.
We treat our friends and families much better than we have treated you, doug, because our friends and families, even if they are theists, don’t tell us to “repent” or try to “convert” us or “save our souls” like you did right from the start. Those statements antagonized many of us, as you know, and were responded to sometimes in kind, but often with calmer tones.
I find it funny when you say, “god bless you” at the end of all your posts. To all of us atheists here, that is as meaningful as saying, “The flying spaghetti monster bless you.” If you can understand why I say that, then you have taken a small step forward toward understanding atheism.
i however believe that i was insulted, disdaned and otherwise treated poorly for those who claim to treat their friends and family well or rather say is this how you would treat your friends or family.
Then you shouldn’t be complaining. You were treated exactly how you treated others.
semantics. i found many arguments to be wrapped in semantics or the nit picking of words. using dictionary definitions when the meaning of the statement was perfectly clear.
Doug, you need to understand that when you make statements like this (called “assertions”), you need to back them up with evidence. Show where you were confused by semantics and we’ll more than likely attempt to clarify. The meaning of words may have been clear to YOU, but you have to remember that certain words in the Christian mindset have different meanings in reality. (e.g., words like “witness”, “truth”, “wisdom”, “wicked”, “life”, and “word”)
I am convinced that this doug fellow is an adolescent flamer – this is too bizarre to be serious.
I got the impression that whoever this Doug person is lacked any grammatical or spelling ability. Most of the sentences were oddly phrased or abruptly cut off yielding incoherent phrases. Posting stuff at the end of every comment such as “God bless you.” didn’t exactly help his position whatever it was supposed to be.
Doug is what happens when old folks get on the internets. Well, at least he doesn’t post and run like most of the theists we see here.
Sin is just a bogus word for weakness. Even psychopaths are basically weak. Hate the sinner and the sin.
Hi, I am a believer in Christ Jesus and have been saved for 5 years. I understand it if you don’t know what it means to love the sinner and hate the sin.
If you had a child and that child was to steal or do something wrong, would you hate him/her? Of course not. You may not like his or her actions, but you still love your child.
If you have a brother who is gay, do you hate him if you don’t believe that is a right life style? I would hope not. The BIBLE calls everyone a sinner and says that no one is perfect. I think the main problem isn’t the scripture, but the people.
A lot of christans seem to judge rather than show love. So when a non believer hears that you love the sinner and hate the sin, they take it as a joke. Please know that The Lord tells us to spread the good new, not the news of hell and damnation. Those christans who talk fire and brimstone are not doing what God wills and God’s nature should not be judged by their actions. I hope I helped you understand things a bit better.
Kynn, quoted above, is a Christian. His criticisms are those of a Christian towards other Christians.
And you don’t respond to any of his criticisms or to mine. All you do is repeated the standard formula about this.
1. Homosexuality is not like stealing. Homosexuality is an orientation and thus an integral part of who a person is. Hating homosexuality means hating the same person in the same way that hating heterosexuality means hating a heterosexual person.
2. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. Calling it one is an unambiguous indication that you don’t actually understand homosexuality well enough to be forming judgments about it. At the very least, people who have told you it is an orientation have lied to you. You need to take some time to learn accurate information about it rather than rely on the misinformation and lies of others.
No, it’s definitely people — for example, people who misunderstand and/or misrepresent things like homosexuality.
I would say that ignoring the fact that homosexuality is an orientation rather than a lifestyle might qualify as judging rather than loving.
No, I’m sorry, you didn’t. Perhaps if you directly addressed the criticisms raised by both Kynn and myself that would be a good start.
The “lord” also tells us that shellfish are abomination and to not suffer a witch to live. Since “God” and “Jesus” are the same (yet different) and the Bible is the word of “God”, “Jesus” might as well have said “an eye for an eye”. They’re the same character.
You’re giving us the typical No True Scotsman routine. *yawn* Heard it.
Identity is a weakness. It leaves you own to every sort of racket from Christianity to Communism.
Substitute an honest hatred for love in Corinthians. It is the same.
Well this lifelong atheist was married for forty six years to a Quaker lady. I loved her intensely when we met and that love grew exponentially over the years. She’s been gone 13 years now and my love continues to grow, to the point that it hurts.
On religion we were poles apart. Maybe that being a Quaker helped, they are so very different to the other lot. She certainly didn’t believe the miracles bit nor the virgin birth and all that claptrap.
Did she love me as much as I loved her? I’ll never know. I doubt it. I’m damned if I could love me.
tomedgar@halent.com.au
P S
I add this and believe me I am not talking first hand or from experience. Just for smiles.
If you use the services of a prostitute does this mean you love the sin but not the sinner?
“Love the sinner, hate the sin”?
I prefer the slogan:
“Love the Christian, hate the Christian religion.”
Christ loved us while we were yet sinners, mothers love their children even though their children sometimes hate them, it is possible to unconditionally love those that don’t love you or continue in sin …
“2. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. Calling it one is an unambiguous indication that you don’t actually understand homosexuality well enough to be forming judgments about it. At the very least, people who have told you it is an orientation have lied to you. You need to take some time to learn accurate information about it rather than rely on the misinformation and lies of others.”
Everyone is really polar on this issue. Is homosexuality a choice or not? There are people who are inherently homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual, and there are also people who choose to go against their natural sexual orientation for some reason or another. Why? Who knows, but I’m sure it happens. So for some it is an orientation, and for others it is a lifestyle. (I think it’s perfectly acceptable either way, so long as you’ve got consenting adults, but that’s another matter entirely.)
(Here’s hoping the html tags worked…)
hate the sin, love the sinner is simply this: You don’t have to like what they do and you dont have to do what they do but you do have to love them. God commands us to love everyone as he loves us. We are all sinners so we need to love others as we want them to love us when we sin. For example, My aunt whom i love dearly is a homosexual. I hate that she has chosen that path but that doesnt stop me from loving her just as much as i would if she weren’t this way. I dont think you completly understand the topic.
The problem with this is that you Christian misrepresent and misunderstand what it means to say, “what they do.” You are a great example of just that problem:
Homosexuality isn’t something a person “does”. It’s not merely behavior. Homosexuality is part of a person’s identity. To say that you hate a person’s homosexuality is analogous to saying that you hate their race. Or their eye color. You can’t hate that about a person but still love them as a person – you can’t hate a part of what makes them a person while loving that person.
I know that you completely misunderstand the topic.