(September 1, 2016 at 1:33 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:Well, I was referring to the more ridiculous punishments proscribed for certain behavior (mostly stoning), unless of course those rules don't matter any more. But I'm willing to accept that they don't for the sake of argument.(September 1, 2016 at 11:23 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: But what about 'sins' that aren't a matter of choice or effort on the sinner's part? Like being homosexual or not believing in god? if you're supposed to love the sinner, why would you punish them?
Most people that I know, would make a distinction, between a same sex attraction, and acting upon it. It's really no different than an inclination towards those of the opposite sex and sin. You always have a choice, in whether you embrace or turn away from sin.
Quote: if you're supposed to love the sinner, why would you punish them?
[\quote]
Would you say that any parent, that has ever punished their child, does not love them?
I don't understand the connection here in questioning "love the sinner; hate the sin". Is it being proposed, that if you cannot endorse and love everything that a person does, that you also cannot love them? Especially under the Christian view, but I think that for everyone, that would mean, that you cannot love anyone; including one's self.
And yes, parents often need to punish their children to instill better ideas or behaviors, but that's not how I would describe a lot of the stories that we get from people who come out as gay or atheist to their fundamentalist families.
Or would you say that the Christians who oust/disown their family members for 'sinning' just aren't doing it right?
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson