![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have heard several people on my friends list say something to the effect of "It is impossible for someone to 'hate the sin but love the sinner'."
I saw my friend C at church yesterday. I don't get to see him very often -- he is no longer living in our area.
There are decisions I have made about my personal life that C finds appalling. He has never said so directly -- the closest he has come is to say he was "very concerned" -- but I think I know him well enough to have a pretty good idea of what he thinks of the matter. If pressed, I'm pretty sure he would say, yes, he thinks that I am being sinful.
But when he sees me, he says "I really want to know how your life is going" and means it. He does not spend his time telling me that I am going to hell, or that the struggles I am experiencing in my emotional and spiritual life are a result of these decisions.
I think this is a clear case of "hate the sin, love the sinner."
The problem is that most people who actually say the above phrase, don't really mean it.
I saw my friend C at church yesterday. I don't get to see him very often -- he is no longer living in our area.
There are decisions I have made about my personal life that C finds appalling. He has never said so directly -- the closest he has come is to say he was "very concerned" -- but I think I know him well enough to have a pretty good idea of what he thinks of the matter. If pressed, I'm pretty sure he would say, yes, he thinks that I am being sinful.
But when he sees me, he says "I really want to know how your life is going" and means it. He does not spend his time telling me that I am going to hell, or that the struggles I am experiencing in my emotional and spiritual life are a result of these decisions.
I think this is a clear case of "hate the sin, love the sinner."
The problem is that most people who actually say the above phrase, don't really mean it.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
In my case I think that people are not identical to their choices, but that they are they (vague handwaving here) sort of the residue of their choices. Along with some other notions of self-ness.
Anyway, I believe that people can grown and change if one gives them a chance to. By the same token I can and do distance myself from particular behaviors that I find distasteful/appalling/abhorrent.
From:
no subject
Sad, really. But then my personal tendency is probably too much in the other direction, tolerating too much.
From:
no subject
The majority of situations in which I have seen "hate the sin, love the sinner" applied have been to actions, beliefs, or other things in which I consider the idea that the action, belief, or whatever is "sin" is . . . at best, laughable. And at worst, it's something that's inherent to how a person is, and the idea that one could hate the person's nature and still love the person really doesn't work for me, or for a number of other people I've seen objecting to it.
From:
no subject
Except, for me, people are not just one thing. A person's nature is made of a great many strands, some more important, some less so.
From:
no subject
For me, nothing is more important to me, more central to my life, or more essential than my family; someone who considers the form my family takes to be evidence of some sort of "sinfulness" but claims to love me nonetheless has missed the entire point of my existence.
I cannot perceive love if the essentials of my existence are dismissed or declared evil; further, I am unable to believe that that love exists. I cannot imagine a love of a thing which can coexist with hating the nature of the thing.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Changing opinions about things is possible... and takes time. I can appreciate the initial steps of separating the person from the actions.
From:
no subject
I'm glad that your friend can truly understand the distinction. I wish more were like him.
From:
Another important point
What I find weird is when it occurs in online fora where the literal wording is checkable by all parties.
From:
Re: Another important point
From:
Re: Another important point
As you said to one of my posts "nobody's perfect" and I certainly don't hold perfection as a measuring stick for my interactions (lord knows, I'd be waaaaaaaay shorter than that stick myself). But I do believe that showing behavioral signs that one is making the attempt counts for a lot.
From:
Re: Another important point
From:
Re: Another important point
From:
Re: Another important point
I agree that the listener is also responsible for receiving the message correctly. If they are primed to hear criticism, then it may be next to impossible for them to hear anything other than that, unless the speaker is 100% positive and supportive (and possibly not then).
Not that this has ever happened to ME of course! ;^) (Yes, RJ, I'm kidding. For the record, I've got some serious filters in place I fight against constantly).
Basically, it's a variation on "we see what we expect to see."
Regarding the on-line fora being better in this regard because the wording is checkable by all parties--well, I think that mostly doesn't work because only 7% of communication is carried in the words themselves. On-line communication is severely lacking in this dept., even more so than telephones (and we all know that "playing telephone" can lead to some serious miscommunications). That's why we have smileys and emoticons and LJ mood icons--to TRY to overcome some of this "natural" handicap. So being able to check the words would not change the INTERPRETATION that someone might have had about the meaning of those words; hence the continued possibility of miscommunication.
From:
Re: Another important point
I hate when that happens (usually because Netscape has decided it hasn't had enough love or something).
If they are primed to hear criticism, then it may be next to impossible for them to hear anything other than that, unless the speaker is 100% positive and supportive (and possibly not then).
Not that this has ever happened to ME of course! ;^)
Nor me. I'm talking about gnomes and elves, of course. :-)
Regarding the on-line fora being better in this regard because the wording is checkable by all parties--well, I think that mostly doesn't work because only 7% of communication is carried in the words themselves.[...] So being able to check the words would not change the INTERPRETATION that someone might have had about the meaning of those words; hence the continued possibility of miscommunication.
Okay, this is where I think the reader has to understand both the medium and the communicator and make a choice. If I'm having a conversation with A Dear Friend Of Long-Standing I will likely choose to attempt to fill in missing tone and pacing cues based on my knowledge of said DFOLS and my accuracy will likely be high. If I am dicussing something with Random Stranger, I will choose to read for literal content, paying close attention to my own triggers getting tripped (again, not perfectly).
I also think that the lack of tone and pacing can be a benefit, not a handicap, if approached as such. I think trying to infer meaning from tone or body-language is as fraught as trying to infer meaning from online content beyond the literal. Even with DFOLS folks make mistakes.
But all this is a digression from the original point "The listener is also responsible for receiving the message correctly" upon which we are in agreement. :-)
From:
Re: Another important point
Yay! We agree that we agree! ;^)
From:
Just an observation.....
From:
Re: Just an observation.....
From:
no subject
B) You are by no means a sinner
C) I've seen people evolve from simply seeing the sin to recognizing the human behind it -- it is possible
D) *hug* :^)
From:
no subject
*hugs* to you too : >
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I don't think C. is appalled at you. I'd be stunned if he was. I can only speak for myself when I say that "concern" has been about you & your family's welfare.
From:
no subject
I also have a largish beef with someone else telling me that what I'm doing is a "sin." If I'm doing wrong, that's between me and my gods, or me and the other people involved in whatever the action is. A person who is not involved in what I'm doing has no business passing any kind of judgment on what I'm doing. And I notice that the "sins" that most of these people get bent out of shape about are increases of love in places and situations where they don't think it's okay -- homosexuality, for instance, or polyamory.
Therefore, I do not take their definition of "sin" seriously; I can't. They're using "hate the sin but love the sinner" as an excuse, so that they don't have to expand their worldview. And that's why I can't take that phrase seriously, either. And why I don't believe it's possible to do what they say they're doing.
I believe your friend disapproves of what you're doing. I do not believe he hates it. There is a qualitative difference.
From:
no subject
There is someone I love who insists on acting in a self-destructive manner about some things. This is just a part of who they are. I cannot change them in that regard. Do I disapprove of this? No, I hate it. It rips me up in ways that mere disapproval does not. But I have also learned to tolerate the behavior in question -- I no longer argue about it with them because I know it will do no good, and it is only one aspect of their personality in any case.