What If My Sin is not Part of Me?
Religion says God is all good but struggles to get God and evil to fit. So what it does is argue that evil is not real but is a good that is not good enough. That way it can say God did not make evil for there is nothing to make. That in fact denies the truth that inherent evil exists. You end up having a hard time denying that some evil person meant well. One rule of goodness is that you assume the best! You would have to object, "Stop assuming that bad people are doing what is self-evidently good to them. You cannot know that it really is self-evident to them." The knots you end up tied up in if you try to make God sound smart! There is something amiss by default when people have to be downgraded and maligned for a doctrine.
Suppose evil is watered down as something that is not a
thing in any sense at all. Then no person or part of what it is to be a
person can be inherently evil. It makes no sense to say evil is inherently evil.
It can only be that if it is a power or a person or part of a person. Love
is inherently good. So is it better to love a rock than not to love at all?
If you want to be good at abusing and hurting another
person, tell them you do it because you love them. You tell them that your
evil is not part of you and that there is no part of you, not even a bit that is
inherently evil. Stop assuming that bad people are doing what is self-evidently
good to them. You cannot know that it really is self-evident to them.
Religion advocates cold-blooded hatred and dresses it up so that it still
manages to come up smelling of roses. I am referring to its doctrine: “Hate the
sin but love the sinner”. To hate is to oppose the wellbeing of. To oppose the
wellbeing of anything is an act of violence. The absurdity of hating a thing and
wanting to hurt it, does not mean you cannot be stirring up love of violence in
you. The absurdity shows you are guilty of hating and trying to hide it.
To pretend the sin is not part of the sinner actually means you refuse to look
at how you can hurt the sinner by hurting and hating it. It contradicts the
alleged love you have for the sinner.
If the sinner and the sin are so separate then how can it be wrong to talk about
what evil a person who is respected now did decades ago? The rule destroys the
credibility of moral systems.
Marriage vows cannot be meant if you really believe you must hate the sin and
love the sinner. That doctrine would be the foundation of your whole life and
your endorsement of love for your spouse would be part of it. Marriage is in
essence a vow to love your spouse and hate their sins. No marriage among
religious believers can be a real marriage for the vow is nonsense.
The love sinner hate sin idea commands that you must always hate sin in others.
It claims that you don't really love the sinner unless you are sternly opposed
to sin. It won't be easy keeping a marriage going with that kind of attitude.
The idea demands that you hate sin or you don't love the person in reality.
Can we be vindictive towards a sin like it were not the sinner? To be vindictive
against a thing is to work up the filthy side of your nature. Being vindictive
is vindictive whether it is a person or thing you direct your spiteful feelings
at. If you can manage to be vindictive towards a sin like it was a thing then
some interesting conclusions arise. If you are vindictive towards a thing you
are being vindictive towards yourself by inflicting your spiteful feelings on
yourself over something that is not even alive or deliberately doing wrong. Sins
don't sin but people do. To be angry with the sin and to fear it when it is only
a thing is irrational and self-abuse too. Treat yourself like that and you will
soon be treating sinners like Hitler treated the Jews and still pretending you
do it out of love for them. If you can feel such hatred for a thing or a sin
what would you not feel for bad people? If you are honest, you will see that you
DO hate the sinner but won't admit it.
To love the sinner and hate the sin you have to hate yourself. And if you do
that you will soon hate everybody. Jesus advocated self-hatred when he said that
loving God above all matters more than loving yourself and said that if you do
all God commands you must still consider yourself to be useless. This encourages
great anger and hostility towards sin for if you love God you will hate the sin
that disrespects him.
Love the sinner and hate the sin is not very helpful at all. It is like telling
somebody to be good and not explaining what being good is. It is not meant to
help but to cast a veneer of decency over the Christians. Some people claim to
hate the sin and not the sinner and they make the sinner's life a misery. You
can imagine the other extreme. Suppose Christians say they hate the sin of
homosexuality. They might still campaign for gay rights say to marriage and
adoption. They could say they are doing it for the persons and not for the sin.
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.
They need to overcome religious conditioning that seeks to have them think their
sins are almost alien to them. How can people be opposed to fair judging when
those people need to start seeing their wrongs as part of who they are? Perhaps
people 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 have done now for they cannot change the past. In that sense the freedom
was lost. But it does not help to pretend they have no responsibility.
A person being gripped by weakness now and doing wrong because of it, 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. You cannot
be a hypocrite and expect people to trust you when you claim that you love the
sinner and hate the sin.
Christians say that to love the sinner is to hate the sin and vice versa. Hate
the sin and love the sinner means we must judge the sinner fairly and condemn
sin when we see it. To not condemn the sin and to judge it is to hate the
sinner. Surely then the more sin we see in a person the better. Why? If hating
the sin is another way of loving the sinner as the Church says, then the more
you see a person as a sinner the more you love them. Even if you mistakenly
think they are worse than they are, that is brilliant. That the Church does not
draw this conclusion is proof that it knows fine well that to hate the sin is to
want to maliciously hurt the sinner.
To love the sinner and to hate the sin is to actually
tell sinners not to be offended by condemnation of their sin. It is 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. It will make you feel worse. What is the point
of condemning sin when the condemnation is not personal – not against the
sinners? If it's 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.
If we love the sinner and hate the sin then it does not matter if we are accused
in the wrong for the sin is to be treated as a separate entity from us. If sin
is separate from you then it is not your problem if it is attacked and condemned
even unjustly. And if we are condemned for something we did do then it is the
act that is insulted and degraded not us and since it is a bad act we should not
care. God should not have issued the commandment: “You shall not bear false
witness against thy neighbour”. That we are urged to love the sinner and hate
the sin is terrible because none of us feels it is true or believes it and all
we end up becoming is hypocrites. We are persecuted by being made to feel guilty
if we do not comply so the rule neither loves the sinner or hates sin and it
abuses and loathes the saint as well as the sinner.
What good is praise if people cannot judge you as a sinner and condemn you?
Praise presupposes that you can be condemned and should be when you do wrong.
Praising somebody who you choose to see as good as you pretend that the sins
belong to something outside the doer of the sin is hollow. They would be stupid
if they took any contentment in it. So to love sinners and hate sins, the chief
victim has to be the person who does good. So the rule results in this: “Sinners
are pretended to be loved for they are punished and lied to as a reward for
repenting and doing good.”
Punishment that is not an expression of personal feeling
against evil or the evil person is not punishment at all. It is like trying to
think of the flu without admitting that there is a personal and human element.
Punishing is a way of disapproving seriously of evil and taking the evil as
seriously as it should be taken. Punishment that is not punishment
is intended to be an injustice.
The rule that sin is inherently evil but no part of the sinner is thus we should
love sinners and hate their sins is only an encouragement for religious deceit
and counterfeit virtue.