Hate Sin means Hate Sinner
Index – Click to Navigate
CAN’T SEPARATE SIN FROM SINNER
JUDGING AND THE LOVE SINNER
PRINCIPLE
IF YOU LOVE THE SINNER CAN YOU
PUNISH SIN?
SUMMARY
Sin is an offence against God or to put it another way, it is breaking the law of God. Sin is evil but is not the same thing as evil. Sin is a religious word and involves God. It means doing what God says is evil. Forgiveness is at the heart of the Christian faith. It is supposed to be good while condoning, rewarding the ill-done by acting as if it does not matter, is bad. So forgiveness says the sin does matter and involves hating it and loving the sinner. Christian forgiveness is two-faced because you can no more love the sinner and hate the sin any more than you can trust the sinner and not trust the sin they commit. To separate the sin from the sinner is to deny that the sinner is the cause of the sin. It is to pretend they are not the cause. You can’t hate the sin like it was the sinner and not the person committing the sin. Its not a person. It’s ridiculous hating a thing. It’s only a thing. Do you hate and resent a book for falling on your head? You only dislike chocolate when you say you hate it. You do not feel about it the same way as you do about something bad that a person does. To hate the sin is hating the sinner as well. Christ said if you have two masters you will like one and hate the other (Matthew 6:24). This shows that it is his doctrine that hating a person is too easy for us all.
Do you love your father when he does acts of great evil?
You may love your father but when you think of him as evil or sinful you will switch to hate. To hate sin is always to hate sinners.
It is possible to feel both love and hate for a person. But feeling love for them and feeling hate for them does not mean you hate or love them or both. It is what you do that determines that. If you feel great love for somebody and are hurting them and don't intend to stop that is hate.
It is possible to treat people deliberately badly out of love. Such love is more harmful and dangerous than outright hate. If we praise such love we can hardly condemn hate!
When people say they love their evil children but hate their sins what they often really mean is that they feel love and feel hate for them at the same time. That is outside the scope of love the sinner and hate the sin. Often they mean they love them most of the time but when they think of them as sinners they hate them. So its switching back and forth. To ask somebody to hate sin is always to ask them to hate the sinner.
To hate the sin is always to hate the sinner even if there is a part of you that loves them because hate cannot exist without love.
The more you value the snob next door the more you will hate her for looking down on you. To advise, "Love the sinner and hate the sin" is to advise, "Do your best to hate that person's guts".
The advice hate the sin and love the sinner demands that you don't hate the person to any degree at all which is impossible if you hate the sin. So it condemns you as bad. It brings turmoil on you. It is turning anger into yourself. It makes you a time bomb. To hate outright would possibly result in less harm overall.
If you love yourself and hate your sins how can you feel angry or guilty or have any motivation to correct yourself when you are declaring that your sins are separate from you and have nothing to do with you? There are believers who feel free to sin believing Jesus doesn't condemn them but condemns their sins so they don't worry about the sins and leave it to him to do that.
When somebody hates your sin you can be sure that it is you they really hate. We all know that to hate sin is personal for it feels personal. If you really separate the sin from the sinner you will feel about the sin the same way as you would the book that falls on your head. But you know it feels personal. Christianity calls on you to lie to be a Christian by pretending that it doesn’t. You don’t forgive the book for falling on you for it is not a person. You don’t resent the book. If a person dropped the book on you for spite you would resent the person. You cannot forgive the sinner unless you hate them first at least a little bit. Christianity offers only pretend forgiveness which is why it never lasts and never takes away the resentment which soon explodes in religious bigotry or some other form.
Cancer isn’t bad. It is just something that is living and growing in the wrong place. It’s the place that is wrong not the cancer for life and growth are good. Therefore you cannot hate cancer. You hate its consequences but not the cancer. You don’t anything personal against the cancer or its wrongness. If you really loved the sinner you wouldn’t be able to have a personal hatred of the sin.
Loving the sinner and hating the sin is the same thing as condoning in that you pretend the sinner hasn’t had anything to do with the sin. If you love the sinner then you condone the sin and you can't hate it. The command wants you to condone the sin and hate the sinner at the same time but call it love. This is hatred of the worst kind. It is like hating somebody who has done nothing wrong or whose wrong doesn't bother you.
The main reason condoning is bad is because of the results and there is no point in condemning it and praising forgiveness when both have the same results: namely the criminal getting off scot-free. It is best to put evildoing down to the insanity we all have rather than down to us knowingly and freely doing evil to avoid the hateful implications of faith in forgiveness. In other words, see evil as an aberration and not a sin. This way you can praise the woman who neglected her father for her kindness towards you without implying you approve of her behaviour towards her father. The better you get on after doing something terrible the more good you feel about having done the evil, so to be kind to her would be condoning and rewarding her sin.
The idea of a forgiving God is not consoling at all. If God forgives he will not forgive you unless you forgive everybody else too first which is only decency and commonsense and scriptural too (Mark 11:25,26; Matthew 6:12). But can you forgive Hitler? You can only pretend you can. Subconsciously, if you experienced his evil and your family did you wouldn’t forgive. If to refuse to forgive means that God refuses you pardon, then to sin after or to not forgive means you are ungrateful for this pardon you have received from him and are trying to reverse it all which is a very serious sin indeed. Then nobody can be saved. To deny this would be to become a self-deluding hypocrite.
The idea that you must judge the sin but not the sinner
is pure absurdity. You cannot do one
without the other. To judge a sin is to
judge a person. To say John committed
adultery is to say that John is an adulterer.
It is to judge him. If you cannot
judge a person as bad then you cannot judge them as good either. They say you are only good if you are capable
of evil and becoming evil. They insult
the good as well. It is okay to hurt the
good to bless the bad while pretending to oppose them. Presumably you must not hurt the poor sinner
by judging him but you can judge the sin!
What sense does this make? You
are not even allowed to say, “Bobby, you hit
A child molester will be hated even if it is known that he can't control his urge to sexually interfere with children. This is a clear case where the evil is separated from the doer. But it doesn't stop the hatred or stem it. If you feel that way about somebody who has an addiction what will you feel about the person who does wrong on purpose? You hate the person who can be separated from the evil so how can you love the sinner who cannot be separated from her or his sin? Hating the person who can be separated from the proves that when you hate evil that people do be it deliberate or not, it is the person you hate. Admit it.
You hate and detest and want to hurt the insane person who is in your house chasing you with a knife. You hate the evil he wants to do but you don't consider him a sinner for he is mad. Nevertheless you feel the hatred towards him. You hate him. Love the sinner and hate the sin is just a pompous directive - it is not meant to help you.
Love the sinner and hate the sin is absolute proof that Christianity is hypocrisy and lies. This rubbish ultimately comes from the priests so they are the ringleaders.
ABOUT THIS BOOK
This is a book about what everybody knows but few dare to admit: that to
hate sin is to hate the person who creates the sin. If you belong to the Church you will despise
and hate sinners for God is supposed to be the same as goodness and to be loved
above all things meaning you must hate sin for the more you love God the more
you will loathe what is opposed to his will.
If you agree with the Church that you should hate sin then that means
the Church is inciting you to hate sinners.
One thing is for sure, when an organisation or religion is based on
hypocrisy such as loving sinners and hating sins there should be no need for
that religion. Anything that has no
right to exist has no right to be the cause of fighting and bigotry even if it
says it forbids those things. Anything
there is no need for should disband if people fight and hate over it. Systems of bad example are to blame for all
the evil their members do over them.
The point this book will make is that if you hate the sin, even if you mean
hate not in the emotional sense but in the sense that you wish the sin didn’t
exist, that you are hating the sinner as well because the sinner is the sin for
sin is not an act but what a person becomes, that is bad. To wish the sin didn’t exist is the same as
wishing the person would lose everything and disintegrate into nothing. So are we to not care then if a person does
wrong or not? No. There is an answer but the Church cannot
accept it. The answer is to see evil as
a sickness not as something that makes a person evil. The person is good but just something evil is
coming out through them that needs to be fixed and not judged.
CAN’T SEPARATE SIN FROM SINNER
Sin is using your free will to create separation from God. It is a religious term. It means doing what God has forbidden. Sin and evil are not the same thing though
sin is supposed to be evil for many things that are not evil are excoriated as
sins. Unbelievers talk about evil and
believers talk about sin.
The Christians say you have to love the sinner and hate the sin. The Bible is very clear that we must hate
sin. God in the Bible he wrote spoke of
homosexuality as being detestable or an abomination (Leviticus
Hate implies wishing more than something didn’t happen or exist but
expresses the wish to hurt it as well.
It’s a violent emotion and you can’t want to hurt the sin without
wanting to hurt the sinner for to hurt the sin you have to hurt the
sinner. You hurt or offend against the
sinner by hating them. It would be
foolish to want to hurt sin if you separate it from the sinner and it wouldn’t
be possible. When you hurt things it is
your way of taking it out on a person.
For example, the fiancée who flushes the engagement ring down the toilet
does it not to spite the ring but to spite her fiancé.
Some put the rule this way, “Love the sinner but do not love the
sin.” This version is against the Bible
which sees sin as something totally horrendous so it is to be hated and
reviled. God took sin so seriously
according to the Bible and saw it as something so hateful that he ordered that
certain sinners be put to death for their sins, he put Adam and Eve out of paradise
for sin, he made promises to hurt sinners and curse them, he sent his Son to
die for sin and last but not least he will consign all sinners who die
unrepentant to everlasting perdition in Hell.
So you are to do more than just not love sin. You have to abhor it. Yet if you simply do not love the sin but
feel no hatred for it the sin is something a person is and to not love it is to
not love the person to some extent at least.
Let me explain. If I steal I am
the sin of stealing – that is why I, not my sin, is called a thief. So to not love the sin or to hate the sin
means you deny the sinner should be loved or cared for. Sin reflects the kind of person I am so sin
cannot be separated from me. I sin because I am bad not just because my sin is
bad.
Unconditional love is said by Christians to mean loving the person but
not the sin they commit. They say God
commands this love both towards himself and towards others. God however takes a different view in the
Bible in which he says that sinners are an abomination in his sight. Read Deuteronomy 25:16. Don’t believe the lie that God meant their
sins were an abomination and just said it was sinners for speed. Is God a bad teacher? There are plenty of examples where he
condemned sins as abominations (eg.
Leviticus 18:26) and so the sinners must be abominations as well.
The love the sinner and hate the sin pseudo-principle tells us that we
must never be soft on sin because we must hate sin and we are to be strictly
opposed to all wrong because we love the person. The trouble is nobody likes people who love
them like that. It is really saying, “I
love you for I want you to be like me or to have the morals I believe in.” What you are really saying is that you love
your principles more than the person.
It’s very exploitative. Assuming
you can love sinners and hate their sin, the only sense in which believers can
love sinners is by trying to persuade them to repent and practice the
believers’ standards. This teaching can be done even if it is known by them
that they will never succeed.
Yet it is an official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and Islam and
almost every God cult there is that the more you make war on a person’s sins
the more you love them (page 45, Ecumenical Jihad). This advocates a strict way of life. If so then nobody loves us for few are willing
to be our strict unbending mentors. And mental
hospitals should be as common as supermarkets for we are not really loved.
And it will be said that those
who go there have only their own attitude to blame.
People like to be free but when love is not liking as we will see later
what we like carries little weight.
Sinners don’t mind their sins being hated as long as they pretend this
does not mean they as persons are hated. But they certainly do mind anybody hating
them or trying to stop them sinning by force.
The love sinner not sin philosophy is an incitement to evil and
therefore commands us to hate the sin and the sinner. If the philosophy were to be bluntly stated
it would run: “Love the sinner for you
cannot do that anyway and pretend you hate the sin but while laying the
foundation for sin to be encouraged.” To
hate the sin of another is to make them sin worse for they know that by sinning
others are supposed to hurt themselves by hating it so how could it possibly be
compatible with loving them?
The principle of love sinner, hate sin makes a sinner of the person who
washes a cup for a user or ingrate. That
is doing a favour for a person who is taking good but won’t be loyal to
good. But since Christian scripture
tells us that we are all sinners and if you have unrepented sin all your
actions are sinful because you have an attachment to sin and don’t really mean
to be really good, it follows that practically everything we do is a
fault. God has a problem with it and it
is a sin.
If the sin is hateful the sinner is as well for the sinner freely causes
the sin. There would be no sin without
the sinner and how could you love the sinner if you pretend that they had
nothing to do with their sin? It is
hypocritical to separate the person from the sin as if the person was not to
blame for the sin. That is not love for
it is blessing their sins by developing the attitude that their sin is not part
of them and not loving them at all. To
love the sinner and not the sin is to pretend that the sinner has had nothing
to do with the sin which is hardly loving or sincere for the sinner needs to be
freed from the sin for sin must be bad for her or him when you have to hate
it. The reason you can love the sick
person but hate the disease is because that person is not causing the disease
so those who say we must love the sinner and hate the disease of sin because we
can love the patient and hate the illness have to be deliberately trying to
mislead.
The other way the philosophy is put, “Love the sinner for see the whole
person and not just the hateful sin which is only a small part of them”, denies
the obvious fact that once you sin you can’t do real good and all is sin and
that sin or evil reflects the kind of person you are. You do evil because you are evil. It is actually worse to do good in a state of
sin than to do harm for the person who pretends to love is worse than the one
who brazenly hates for such hate is its own punishment and is less selfish and
acting good and not being really good is
more seductive and self-deceiving than open evil. To do false good soon makes you unable to see
how sinful you are and Jesus said that this kind of sinner is the worst off and
needs the most help. He spoke to such
sinners scathingly even without provocation and his excuse was that it was the
only way that might make them see (Matthew 23).
We do not make a separation between the person and her good works so why
should we make one between her and her sins?
And how could we anyway? And a
sin is not an entity that is separate from the person it is part of the person
for sin is in the will and the will is part of the person, one of the main
parts. Sin is the will and the will is
the person so the person can be said to be the sin so to hate the sin is to
hate the person who commits the sin as well.
The sin cannot be hated until it is seen to exist and it is only seen to
exist if the person is judged. In other
words, there cannot be a sin without a person being freely responsible for
it. The sin cannot be divorced from the
person. The person may be different from
the sin but there is no distinction. It
is like the difference without a distinction that exists between sight and the
eye. The view that we are not to hate
the sin but to forgive the sin is incorrect.
We are to hate the sin but to forgive it. Even when we forgive the sin still existed
and is a hateful thing. Forgiving
implies that the sin is hateful and evil.
So even when it is forgiven we are to continue hating it. The doctrine makes real forgiveness
impossible and instead of forgiveness you have self-deceit.
You can only love
the sinner and hate the sin by a miracle.
You would know from this miracle that there is a God. So why does he not do other miracles before
us when he does that one? Why does he
hide so much? Because there is no
miracle. Miracles should not be hauled
in to solve religious contradictions for once that starts there is nothing that
can be done to find out even if one religion is more believable than another.
To hate
somebody’s sin is to wish that person never existed to commit the sin for the
person caused it. You want them to die
or pop out of existence or to have never been born and to have had a person who
was never born but who would have done better born in their place. It is no use to object that you wish the
person did exist when you think of the good side for even the person who hates
your guts must like some things about you.
You would wish that if you had a choice between nice person X and sinful
person Y dying you would choose Y even if the death was a really terrible
one. We see then we might as well hate
the sinner when we wish he never existed so he gains nothing from our “love”
and neither do we. All the love is, is
just an empty boast. The whole reason we
oppose hate is because hate wishes harm and will often lead to harm being
done. If the love Christians have is as
bad – and it is, but thankfully most of the Christians are not really
Christians – then it is only hypocrisy for them to condemn hate and their love
is hate. Remember this is hypothetical
here – I am not inciting hatred against Christians.
We only do evil when we are attracted by some good in it. It is not the evil that attracts us. The believers in free will claim that God
gave us free will so that we could decide between good and evil or in other
words good and less good. Since we don’t
like evil at all but we do sometimes like to do not what is good but what is
less good it follows that they are lying.
We choose not between good and evil but between good and less good. We only do evil because we see some good in
it. Believers in free will know fine
well we don’t choose between good and evil but they slander us and
themselves. It is impossible for us to
love evil for its own sake. To say that
when we do wrong we do evil is to say that we are evil. That being the case to love us is to love
evil. Nobody can do that. They sweetly claim you must hate the evil a
person does but love the person but that is to hide this. They are inciting to hatred and that is
that. If Christians really believes that
sinners are not completely worthless they wouldn’t be able to believe that they
go to Hell to sin and suffer forever if they happen to die.
The idea that free will is a choice between being good and less good has
the following difficulty. If God gave us
free will so that we could love and because love is a voluntary thing then the
problem turns into us having the choice between being loving and less
loving. We always love something. The person who commits suicide does so often
because they feel that its more loving to die and stop burdening the family and
friends and society. So we can’t stop
loving so we have no choice to stop loving.
We have no free will at all. All
we have is the power to put the love in the wrong direction. To say that when we are forced to love and
that love is voluntary is to be totally incoherent. It is to contradict oneself.
Free will to mean anything must mean the choice to be lovable or
despicable. But if we are to love our
enemies and to love the wicked then we are denying them their choice. We are not respecting their free will at
all. What we are doing is making their
freedom to do evil or to be despicable pretty pointless. It is like giving somebody the freedom to
steal and not thinking of them as a thief but as somebody to be loved. You can’t give somebody this freedom unless
you are willing to think of them as a thief.
Sinners must have the right to love themselves as well no matter what
they do if we are to love them. What
kind of free will is this that doesn’t allow the despicable to be
despised? It’s nonsense. They are being treated as if their evil
doesn’t matter. How can evil matter
unless you hate the producer of the evil?
If free will is the reason why there is suffering in the world not God
as believers say then how can they claim that we must love the sinner and
detest the sin? They are destroying
their belief and they are admitting that their God is evil and cruel and that
they want to turn a bind eye to it.
If you can’t treat evil or sin as something that people do and that
people create freely then how can you judge when you have to focus on the
person being lovable when they are not?
Is a mother a good judge when the child who is the apple of her eye does
wrong? And you need to judge if you are
seriously a hater of sin or an opponent of evil or wrongdoing.
The Christian claims that love is an absolute. It says that it is better to be murdered than to live and to fail to love somebody. That is why it says that sin is the greatest evil of all and even worse than death. So if somebody attacks you to kill you, you should be examining yourself all along to make sure you love this person attacking you and that you are not letting yourself or sin. If you start doing that you can be sure they will succeed! The hatred we feel for the attacker and the anger is necessary for us to get the strength and concentration to fight them off. It is an evil faith that teaches such things to children. It only makes the child feel guilty about exposing the priest who is abusing her or his body to give one example.
Loving the sinner and hating the sin implies that the sinner is a victim of their sin and so should be subjected to pity not anger or hate. They are to be considered mentally ill because alien forces take them over. They are to be forced to obey the Christian religion for they don't know what they are doing anyway! See now why you shouldn't let yourself feel cared for when Christians love you and hate your sins! If they really loved you they would not be patronising you so nauseatingly and making out you are sick for sinning or disagreeing with them! You would rather be hated than be subjected to such putrid sycophantism.
Hating the sinners respects them more than love the sinner and hate the sin. It has more concern for their rights and personhood.
JUDGING AND THE LOVE SINNER PRINCIPLE
You cannot say that if you say somebody has sinned in doing x that you are stating it as fact and not judging. When you accuse them of sin, you are indeed judging.
Hatred like all bad and damaging emotions comes from fear. If you fear a person and believe they freely
could do you harm then you hate that person to some degree. To harbour something that will lead to hate
is an act of hate in itself. It’s having
feelings that make you want to see harm come upon a person. Loving the sinner and not the sin is
impossible and abnormal and if you inflict something abnormal on yourself or
try to you cannot love anybody else at all.
The love you have to have to enter the
Some say you cannot hate the sinner with the sin for you are a sinner
yourself. But you can hate yourself as
well. If you can hate sinners as the
hate sin doctrine suggests then why not love yourself despite your sins and
hate everybody else for their sins? You
cannot love the sins of others just because you are a sinner yourself. The Christian “gospel” makes that clear.
Some say you cannot hate the sinner with the sin because you cannot judge
for you don’t know to determine what extent a person’s guilt is. You don’t know how guilty the person is or
what pressure they are under when they sin.
Nobody tells everybody everything about themselves. But is it really any comfort if I am a sinner
and I know that people hate my sin and therefore me though they cannot be sure
I sinned in a specific act or to what degree I sinned if I did? They hold that I might be a terrible sinner
so any love I get from them is reserved.
It is given to me not because I deserve it but because they are not sure
what to make of me. How can that satisfy
me and make me happy in life? A sin is
to be hated for it’s a sin. The degree
of sin has nothing to do with it.
Even if they cannot accuse me of anything specifically bad they believe
that I am a sinner and they hate me.
They hate me in the sense that they hate sinners for I am a sinner. I know I am a sinner so I have to hate
me. If I hate me I will soon hate them
and make them hate me. If I accept love
from them I am deceiving them and stealing from them.
A religion that says we prefer to be sinful cannot really mean it when it
says it does not judge. The person who
hates you for having harmed them knows you might have a weakness that was not
your fault that led you to do what you did but they still hate you. They think you probably meant to do it and
did it wholly freely and religion thinks the same thing for it says we have a
bias towards sin.
You cannot hate a sin unless you judge the person as a sinner first so
the idea that the love sinner hate sin principle goes with the ban on judgement
is totally wrong. Nearly everybody bases
their allegiance to morality on their feelings and not on morality itself. Real ethical behaviour would be based on what
reason decrees to be wrong. So it is an
appearance of morality that they follow.
So when you condemn something just because you want it to be wrong you
cannot say you love the sinner and hate the sin for when you are being unfair
you must hate both.
The Bible says that most of what saved people do is sinful and unsaved
people do nothing else and their good is sinful (Romans 3). With this cynicism, how can you not judge and
not hate the sinner with the sin? To
love the sinner would be really rewarding the sin.
The combination of God and free will implies that on hospital waiting
lists anybody who has unsafe gay sex and who is fond of the cigarette or bottle
and becomes ill because of it should be relegated to the end for they had
something to do with their illness. The
Church must stop being silent about these evil implications just to impress
people. They might say they cannot judge
but they cannot take the risk that the innocent are being pushed to the back of
the queue at times.
How does the Catholic Church answer those who oppose it for saying that
AIDS is the result of sin and that its ban on condoms is not to blame for
helping to spread the plague? It is
saying that condoms are sinful even though they save lives for the lives would
not need saving this way had it not been for sin. That is certainly judging most people who
have allegedly sinful sex. If they are
just weak people but not sinners or if they mistakenly think the sex is ethical
then the Church cannot use its answer.
You cannot help thinking people should or shouldn’t do whatever it is
they do. When you use the word should
you are making a judgement. When the
Humanist who denies free will uses the word he or she means that nature should
have programmed things better and is referring to the mental and emotional
forces that drive a person when he says a person shouldn’t have done
something. But the free will believer
has to mean it either as praise of the correct use of free will or as
condemnation of the person for the misuse of free will. Thus those who say they do not judge are not
stating facts.
Alcoholics and many people with emotional problems will not be helped
unless they are told they are the cause of their own problems and that they can
change. How can people be opposed to
judging when that has to be done?
Perhaps they are antagonistic to judging just because they themselves
don’t want to be judged and they have a lot to hide and be insecure about. To say that a person may do wrong through
stupidity and through weakness so it could be inappropriate to call them a sinner
is a strange thing for the occasions of wrong can be avoided and people know
they have a responsibility to learn about themselves and what is right. They might not be to blame for what they do
now in the sense that the freedom was lost but they are to blame other ways for
letting that loss become possible. A
person being gripped by weakness now and doing wrong because of it, then does
not entitle you to pretend you do not judge them. To judge a person and pretend you don’t is to
shove the hate for the person into the subconscious and to pervert your
feelings. Unacknowledged negativity is
the cause of all neurosis and attraction to evil. When you tell a gossip he must not judge
another person whose reputation he is attacking for he could not know all the
facts you will feel proud that you have done something for the do not judge
adage. But you are judging him.
To love the sinner and to hate
the sin is to actually tell sinners not to be offended by condemnation of their
sin. Its telling them that the
condemnation isn’t personal. If somebody gets very angry and riles against
your sin, you will be hurt. To say they
are angry at the sin and not you isn’t going to help you or them. What is the point of condemning sin when the
condemnation is not personal – not against the sinners? If its not personal they should not be upset
by it or offended and so its intended to be no good. For them to be offended would be a sin! That the condemning still happens and is
still done and recommended suggests that the condemners are getting personal
after all and lying about it. Condemning sin is personal because it feels
personal. You don’t condemn a knife
because somebody accidentally cuts themselves with it. And if sin can be divorced from the person it
is in the position of the knife.
If you are not condemning persons
when you condemn sin then why should you care if what you say about their sin
is right or not? Why not impute bad
motives to them until your heart is content?
If you judge somebody’s action as bad – especially when it is an action
that could be regarded as justified under the circumstances if you knew of them
all such as a wife not speaking to her husband – without knowing the whole
picture it is obvious that you are being personal and seeking to attack a
person or to destroy their good standing and make them look bad. You wouldn’t be judging if you didn’t want to
climb into a position of moral superiority and have a go at the person.
GOD MAKES HATRED MORE FIERCE
Christians like to say they do not condemn or judge the sinner or the person but that they leave that to God. They say that we must love sinners not by judging them but by judging their sins. So they say that to judge a person as bad is to hate that person. Their God is a God of hate. If they were honest they would not pretend that judging an act as wrong or bad or without excuse is not to judge the sinner.
It’s only natural
that the more you love God the more you will hate anything that he
condemns. If you love your girlfriend a
lot you will despise anybody doing anything bad to her. The more you love the perfect God the more
the idea of finding happiness in a person seems distasteful. You will end up doing good for others not
because you have any warmth for them but because God wants it. Obviously, you have to hate others to love
God and you have to hate yourself.
Admittedly, the hatred is pushed down into the subconscious but it is
still there. God commands that he must
be cherished above all things which demands an extreme hatred of people on the
subconscious level and hatred of anything that leads them away from the will of
God.
An unbeliever would hate an evil action intensely.
But a believer in God is expected to hate it far worse. Belief in God adds insult to injury for a
crime against God is very serious for he is such a good being.
You can believe
that you love evildoers but hate their evil but if you believe that evil is sin
which means it offends God you will naturally have to hate the evil more and
more so God increases the hatred towards sinners. Belief in God is evil and anything that
promotes belief in God is evil too.
What comes first,
loving the sinner or hating the sin?
Since God, being the best being of all, comes first and commands that he
be the reason we do all we do it has to be hating the sin. But this will stupefy and strangle the love
you have for the sinner. The hatred for
sin which corresponds to love for God has to swamp any affection for the sinner
and destroy it. It is just like how love
can be blind and condone evil and make you a bad judge of character. The same principle is at work here. You have to loathe sin for God hates it infinitely
so the hatred for it has to be very intense.
It follows that if you cannot love the sinner and hate the sin then
religion is incitement to hatred. Love
is made into a polite and hidden way of hating somebody’s guts. It is particularly vicious and crafty to do
that for it avoids detection. The hatred
often came out when the believers had the freedom to do to their enemies what
they had always wanted. Miracles are supposed
to be signs from God that show the doctrines of a religion are favoured. This tells us that if they happen then Satan
is responsible.
You could believe
in a God who rewards but who never punishes.
To believe in a God that does punish is to believe in God out of
spite. The desire is to see people
suffer for their wrongdoing because if God does not punish you can believe
whatever you want. People do find more
comfort in magical items like rose quartz crystals than God.
It is hypocritical to hate somebody’s harmless sin say of
homosexuality. Christians say it is not
for God will punish the sin. But not
necessarily. If the act is harmless it
should not be punished. Others say that
the sin hurts God which is a lie for God cannot be hurt or harmed. The Church rejects this lie (page 21, The
Atonement: Mystery of Reconciliation).
So it is ridiculous to say you love somebody who loves his harmless sin
while you hate his sin that means so much to him. It is insincere. Christianity and Islam agree that most people
prefer to sin than do good which means that the idea of hating sin will
inevitably lead the egotists to such revulsion against sinners that they will
attack them. This happens all the time
when homosexuals are condemned. It gives
aggressive people more of an incentive to beat them senseless. In this light, loving the sinner and hating
the sin is meaningless for whatever is felt for the sinner it is not love.
It is also a scandal that many religionists do not oppose wrongs like
stealing or murder because they harm us but because God forbids them. When you hate theft or murder for a figment
of the imagination that is hating other people who could do or who do such
things. It is despising them in favour
of an article of blind faith namely God.
Also to interpret God in accordance with the tenets of a blind faith religion
or a religion with insufficient evidence is offensive to him and is closing him
out of any chance he has of enabling you of performing the miracle of loving
the sinner and hating the sin.
When loving the sinner and hating the sin is not possible it follows that there can be no God for he had no justification for making us for our capacity to love was always his only excuse for all the disasters he allows to happen. To say God exists is to automatically say you should love the sinner and hate the sin so the God belief is meant only for hypocrites. To even suggest that God might exist is still endangering human integrity.
Real love does not turn into hate. Christianity by saying that doing serious evil is an almighty insult against such a wonderful God, that it deserves everlasting torment in Hell and that it gives others a bad example that could draw them to Hell is making it hard for love not to turn into hate. It would be a betrayal of your friends and loved ones to embrace such a faith. The love will make you suffer. Love shouldn't do that. It should make you happy to help the other person when the other person is going astray or in trouble. Christianity preaches love but then puts barriers in its path. It encourages hypocritical love not real love.
LOVE AND LIKING
Love is not liking (page 75, Ecumenical Jihad). That is what the Church says. But that teaching does not wash with most
people.
I define love as not voluntary sacrifice but as feeling pleasure in the
well-being of myself and others. Those
who say love does not like are fooling us because you have to at least like a
person a tiny hardly detectable bit to be willing to help them in any way. Love is liking. This means then that love is a feeling. It is valuing yourself and not the other
person because you only like them for your own fulfilment and not theirs. Strictly speaking when you say you like them
it is really yourself that you like. It
follows then there is no point in trying to love God for to love him is to put
him first and you can’t do that.
Love is selfishness and those who say it is being other-centred are
misleading us.
People prefer to be liked than to be loved. The wife who has a husband who behaves
lovingly towards her without emotion will not be happy and will be unable to
appreciate him. She would rather she had
a man who made mistakes but who liked her a lot.
If you really love your neighbour as yourself which means that you want
to make your neighbour as happy as yourself then you have to like her a
lot. You will not be of much practical use
to your neighbour unless you like her as much as you like yourself.
If you dislike your neighbour enough and cannot stand her then it is
hardly loving yourself to be kind to her.
Jesus who certainly divorced love from liking never had a clue what he
was talking about when he commanded that we love all people. That is no surprise for the man was
definitely mentally ill if he existed.
His doctrines that we could do nothing right unless God helped us to be
good and that we are an evil generation plainly suggest we should not like
ourselves much and in that case we can’t love or like our neighbour much
either. What Jesus and God give with one
hand they take away with the other.
So back to the Church. The Church
must mean that you can love a person you really don’t like when it says that
love is not liking. Some say that to
love the person you must like the fact that that person is living so you have
to like everybody on some level. That
would imply you are not allowed to wish that person had never came into
existence. But you can love while
feeling nothing for the person at all, end of story, if love is not liking.
To love God is not to feel love for him but to will what he wills. We can love God while feeling hatred for
him. The heart and the will – that part
of you that does the choosing – do not always agree. If you love God just to gain some benefit
then you don’t love God at all.
The Church says there is more love in doing favours for one you dislike
intensely than there is for helping one you like. Why?
Because there is a greater sacrifice and a greater triumph over evil
feelings that try to stop you being kindly.
To be less loving than more loving is a sin. It follows that we should like nobody and the
more feelings of hatred we bear towards them the better. It is a sin to like being loving for that
reduces the value of the sacrifice. The
more you dislike God the more you will love him in doing good for it becomes a
really difficult sacrifice.
Even if we can
love the sinner and not love the sin we cannot like the sinner and dislike the
sin. Loving sinners means trying to
change them not treating them as if their sin doesn’t matter which would be
unloving. Liking them is feeling that
they are great. If they are sinners they
are not great. Liking them is liking
their sins too. You don’t mind them
doing anyone a disservice as long as it is not you on the receiving end.
Religion tries to
warm people’s hearts by telling them that God loves them no matter what they
do. This is a cunning deception for the
people will understand love to mean liking.
People go on about looking for love but they mean love as in being liked
a great deal. We would rather do without
what religion sees as love in order to be liked than to be loved but
disliked. If nobody liked us we would be
extremely unhappy and maladjusted.
Love your neighbour as yourself sounds good. It looks good and is one of the principal
reasons why the Church never died out ages ago.
Expose it and the Church will wither away. It is better to cherish your neighbour
because you cherish yourself for all love, meaning liking, starts with
self-love. You like yourself and that
makes you reach out to help other people for that is part of liking yourself by
making friends. All love is self-love.
IF YOU LOVE THE SINNER CAN YOU PUNISH SIN?
The failure of love the sinner and hate the sin proves that it is vindictive to believe in a God of justice who rewards people according to their works be they good or bad.
Hate is distorted love. You can't hate a person or thing you don't give a toss about. Hate is not the opposite of love. The true opposite of love is indifference: not caring. It follows then that those who hate the sins of others in fact only do so because they admire the sins and wish they could commit them too! Thus they are being plainly spiteful and jealous. They are lying when they say that they love the sinners in the proper sense. That is another reason why religion should not be permitted to hide behind the smokescreen: "Oh we urge people to detest those sins but this is not incitement to hatred."
If the godly hate the sin but love the sinner why do they punish the
sinner for committing the sin? Why do
they not scrap the punishment when the sinner is somebody who has done a lot of
good? For example, they will not let a
doctor off scot-free or lightly when he commits murder even though he saved
millions of lives. They do not put the
good before the bad then as their so-called unconditional love would
require. If you really should love the
sinner but hate the sin the nearest you can get to doing so is to inflict pain
on sinners with a view to making them convert as quickly as possible. That is the only way to reconcile the command
to love the sinners and hate the sin for it is wanting the hated sin stopped by
love. Obviously, nobody verbally and
physically abuses sinners this way so nobody loves sinners and hates their
sins.
It is wrong for people to take consolation in the belief that wholly evil
murderous people like Hitler who cannot be made to pay for the great evil they
have done for life is too short will pay in the next world. That is saying that Hitler and his like should
have died when they did instead of living on this world where punishment would
be more certain at our hands. People are
after the feeling of consolation more than to see them punished. They choose irrational consolation in
preference to rational so they are only out for themselves. Do they realise how uncaring their attitude
is? What if there was no afterlife to
give the victims justice?
We see that belief in God can only lead to craftiness, lies and
hypocrisy. The Catholic book, Ecumenical
Jihad says that gay people usually are the ones who reject this love
sinner but hate sin stuff. It says they
are identifying their sin with all of their personality. In other words, they are saying there is no
distinction between their sin and their entire selves (page 45). There is real rancour in the book’s assertion
that this is what Hell is, sinners admitting they are their sin and preferring
to suffer in Hell forever rather than turn to the God who loves them and hates
their sin for they see his hatred of sin as hatred for them. This puts the gays in the same boat as the
damned. And Christians can’t care much
about the damned for they would go out of their minds if they did. Terrifying!
If it were not for the sanctimonious hate the sinner but love sin
doctrine this classification of those who reject it as extreme sinners would
not exist. If they are extreme sinners
then any good they do is false for they equate themselves and all their being
with sin. Humanists will not have
attitudes like that towards people who do that for they reject free will and
see evil as sickness.
If Hell is for those who hold they are their sin it follows that to believe that love the sinner and hate the sin is to guarantee your damnation. This is pure vindictive hatred on the part of the Church. They want us to rot in Hell forever for the truth and for seeing through their pretence. It must be an extremely grave sin.
Only a saint could really love the sinner and hate the sin if it is possible. The Christians claim to be sinners. We are therefore justified in disbelieving them when they say they love the homosexual and hate his sinful homosexuality. Take them at their word just for the sake of argument. What if Christians who loathe homosexuality beat him up to a pulp? Then they must love the attackers of the young man. They must be more evil in their eyes than the victim. They are in worse danger than he is for he didn’t sin in being attacked and they did and all sin deserves everlasting punishment in Hell. So the attackers are to be loved more than the victim. Also, their condemnation of the attack has more to do with the theological opinion that Jesus has done away with God’s laws that homosexuals who practice must be put to death by stoning than any abhorrence for the suffering caused to the victim. The love of Christianity for the victim is unimpressive.
The Christians say they don’t judge people but sins. They say that if you sin seriously then you
are identifying yourself with your sin and making a complete choice for evil
and against God. They say that everybody
is Hell is there because they believe the sinner cannot be separated from the
sin and that sin reveals the sinner so to hate sin is to hate the sinner. But if we are that bad if we commit serious
sin then some interesting conclusions arise.
The damned must really become that evil when they identify themselves
with their sin. They close themselves off from God forever and
irrevocably. There is nothing left that
God can work on to change them so all good is gone from them. That is why they must stay in Hell forever.
If so those who would be damned if they died now and those who are damned must be seen as having no genuine good in them. To hate their sin would be to hate them for they identify themselves with their sin. If Christians believe the reason for eternal damnation is that a totally evil choice is made then they cannot look for anything to praise in mortal sinners, that is, sinners who deserve Hell. The sinners then must be hated. When somebody is totally evil and is sin that person would have to be hated to avoid loving the sin. The doctrine of Hell certainly urges Christians to hate sinners.
If you thought that some girl was leading your precious little Johnny into sin that deserves everlasting suffering in Hell such as sex outside marriage, hating her would be inevitable. You would hate her far more than you would hate her if she murdered him for better dead and out of existence than rotting in Hell in everlasting agony.
If you say your sin and you is the same thing which is true if sin is possible
then for anybody to love you is to love your sin. When they love you they love your sin. If they say they hate your sin they are not
loving you for they can’t do both at the one time. They are forgetting you are a person then and
focusing on your sin as if it were a thing.
Outright hatred would be better than the indifference this makes a
virtue of!
CONCLUSION
To use God as a means of making people live moral lives fails for his
hatred of sin means he hates the sinner for if you hate the sin as he requires
then you hate the sinner. Why? Because a sin is not what a person does but
what a person becomes because the person has to become evil. Doing wrong without meaning to be evil is not
sin but becoming evil is sin.
THE WEB
www.shilohcommunitychurch.org/love_sinr.htm
TRUE OR FALSE? GOD LOVES THE SINNER BUT HATES THE SIN, FALSE, Errol
Hale
www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hatred.html
With Perfect Hatred by Dan Barker
A Baptist anti-gay site
BOOKS CONSULTED
BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, Friedrich Nietzsche, Penguin,
CATECHISM OF THE
ECUMENICAL JIHAD, Peter Kreeft, Ignatius Press,
GOD IS NOT GREAT, THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION, Christopher Hitchens,
Atlantic Books,
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli,
Monarch,
HOW DOES GOD LOVE ME? Radio Bible
Class,
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House,
MADAME GUYON, MARTYR OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, Phyllis Thompson, Hodder &
Stoughton,
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series,
Longmans Green and Co,
PRACTICAL ETHICS, Peter Singer,
PSYCHOLOGY, George A Miller, Penguin,
REASON AND BELIEF, Brand Blanschard, George Allen and Unwin Ltd,
1974
REASONS FOR HOPE, Ed Jeffrey A Mirus,
THE ATONEMENT: MYSTERY OF RECONCILIATION, Kevin McNamara, Archbishop of
SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD, Jonathan Edwards, Sword of the
Lord,
THE BRIEF OF ST ANTHONY OF
THE IMITATION OF CHRIST, Thomas A Kempis, Translated by Ronald Knox and
Michael Oakley, Universe, Burns & Oates, London, 1963
THE LIFE OF ALL LIVING,
THE NEW WALK, Captain Reginald Wallis, The Christian Press,
THE PROBLEM OF PAIN, CS Lewis,
THE SATANIC BIBLE, Anton Szandor LaVey,
THE STUDENT’S CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates,
23 February 2008