The Christian doctrine is that we must hate sin as a terrible spiritual evil above any other harm that it does.  The atheist in contrast will hate the dangerous desire to hurt others and it will not be about spirit, not about a relationship with God, not about letting demonic influence in and not about any risk of eternal damnation.

As spirit cannot be shown to be affected by sin or to even exist it is just a cover for hate speech.

Christians admit that you get two extremes.  If you take sin too seriously you give it too much power and discourage the sinner.  If you take God's love too far you will start to see the sin as tolerable and as something that will be addressed in such a way that the sinner goes to Heaven so there isn't really anything to worry about.  So what is the best approach?  Taking sin too seriously is not possible if it can lead a person to eternal loss and eternal punishment.  You can never take it seriously enough. 

The unhelpful solution is you are supposed make the cross important.  The idea is that there Jesus dealt with sin and atoned it and offered freedom from it.  So he took it seriously for you to the extent of dying for it to show you the love of God and how the love of God is not separated from his justice.  He does not treat the sinful child the same as the one who repents even though he loves both equally.

It is a strange doctrine that says that sin is so terrible it killed the best man who ever lived and who was also God and that we should let him do the taking seriously for us.  What about this then, "The man raped and murdered children.  I choose to feel nothing for life is too short and I don't want to feel hate."  Is that any better?


Christian 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”. That translates as, "Abuse the sin not the sinner" and "Judge the sin as worthy of punishment but not the sinner". When you put it like that you see straight through it.

The husband who beats his wife to a pulp because of her adultery will say it happened because he loves her. He will even believe that. This alone shows the doctrine of loving sinners and hating sins is dangerous.

Every hypocrite goes about pretending and claiming to be a well-meaning person.  A religious person who teaches a faith that isn't true is not a well-meaning person no matter how much of a do-gooder they are.  You are only well-meaning if you do the wrong thing while genuinely meaning to help others and don't have the chance to know any better.  Religionists can and should know better.

"Hate the sin and love the sinner" is a theory. Instead of asking, "I wonder can a sinful person like myself really love other sinners and hate their sins?" and getting mental health experts and psychologists to test and find the answer, the Church just gives us the theory. If the answer is yes nobody seems to worry about how correct it is. It could be that if we love the sinner and hate the sin we might be only able to keep the rule 5% of the time. From that it would follow that the Church is encouraging hatred when it condemns sin. The Church has no right to teach us the doctrine simply because it is declaring its guess to be a psychological fact. It is not guesses that ground us in truth but evidence and testing. The motive is just to hide hatred rather than to teach truth.

Suppose the power of choice exists and you are given a choice between being tortured to death and dying your hair green. You chose to dye your hair green. You chose it freely. You were forced into making the choice but it was still a choice because you could have chosen to be tortured to death. It is a lie to say you had no choice. The Catholic teachings that we are born in original sin and are obligated to obey the pope by baptism into the Church and to become saints who have a life of misery and who will go to Hell forever if we die in unrepented serious sin say something about the believer. And it is this.

The believer wants these horrible teachings to be true deep down even if he feels revulsion for them. (Doing what you find abhorrent because it is evil does not make you a better person but a terrible one!) The atheist does not acquiesce to evil to that degree. Miracles in Christianity no matter what laudable purpose they seem to have encourage these evil ideas. How can somebody with evil doctrine expect us to believe them that deep down they do not hate sinners? In fact the holier they will live the more hatred will simmer away in their heart of disguises.


If you hate the sin you must hate the sinner for the sinner freely commits the sin.

If a person hated your kindness you would know that is only another way of saying they hate you. So you cannot pretend that somebody who hates your evil traits does not hate you.

Sin is a quality a person has and the sinner IS her or his qualities. Thus to hate the sinner is to hate what he or she is as a person.

Sin cannot be treated separately from the sinner for it reveals the sinner, it reveals what kind of person the sinner is. Now if you separate the sin from the person like that you are not loving the person for you are treating the person as if the person never sinned. You are not loving the real person but the person as you want to see them.

Also blinding yourself to somebody's evil character is hardly loving that person when sin is regarded as an enemy.

They say that God makes loving the sinner possible by some sort of miracle but that would be God doing the impossible – doing something contradictory.

No other miracle would have any value as evidence for his power if he can do that one for his power would make no sense. Whatever miracles prove it is not God.

When you become a sinner, being a sinner becomes the core of your sense of self. When somebody says they are gay the Christians will argue that the being gay is not him, his gayness is merely one of the things that define him as a person. So it is not his core. The Christians say they can love him for he is more than just gay. But they are saying, "If you are gay we would hate you if being gay could really be your core, your whole nature and your whole identity." Their love for him is conditional and fake.

Suppose it is true they can love sinners who are not to be identified with their sins or seen as more than just sinners. They hate the part of the man that is gay - so they partly hate him.

He did not make himself gay. If being gay defines him partly or fully, then how much more does something you make yourself to be define you?

To say nurses are bad is to say the people who are nurses are bad. Love the sinner and hate the sin is as silly as love the nurse and hate the person who is the nurse. The teaching that we must love the sinner and hate the sin because we are sinners ourselves suggests that hating the sinner is good but only if you are not a sinner! It involves wishing you were in a position to be able to hate the sinner!

People say that a person is distinct from their acts so you can value the person and not the acts if they are bad acts. But Christianity says we are sinners not because we sin but we sin because we are sinners. In other words, we are sinners by nature. Thus Christians condemn the sinner with the sin. LGBT people are right to argue that Christians hate them when they say they hate their sexual “sins”.

If free will is misused, then is it still free will? Is the idea of misused freedom a con? An error must take place before you can misuse your free will. An an error necessarily removes freedom even if it makes you feel free. Thus to hate the sin refuses to admit that the sinners are mistaken rather than deliberately evil! It implies you hate them as well.

Christians are not telling the truth that they hate the sins of the sinner not the sinner. If they love the sinner they still paradoxically hate the sinner for they love his nature as a being that harms and demeans himself by sin!


If you hate the sin you are inflicting pain on yourself because of somebody else’s sin and claiming that you love the person. That undermines self-love.

Hating sin means disliking it and wanting to hurt it. You can’t want to hurt something that is not even a thing. It's not a person or an object. You are damaging yourself by hating and you are intending evil. You can’t want to hurt a sin.

It seems to many that if you really believe in hating sin, you should look at your own sins more than the sins of others (Matthew 7:5; Luke 6:42). Indeed, to say you should give this degree of attention to your sins implies you should detest them and hate them. In other words, you are hating yourself.

To hate your sin and wish evil on it is to wish evil on you and hate you. That's good practice for hating other people!

Love the sinner and hate the sin is a contradiction. To hate your own sins even if you never think about the sins of others will make you unable to love yourself and so others will suffer because of that. You are trained in hate and will find it impossible not to hate them.

Persons who hate their own sins and pay little attention to those of other are only going to produce personality defects and anger that will be taken out on other people.

They set an example for others. They hope to influence them to do the same. In other words, they want to see them afflicted with the same torment as they endure.


To oppose the sin is to oppose the sinner. Just because you don’t oppose the sinner in everything doesn’t entitle you to claim that you simply oppose the sin only.

To wish punishment on others is not good for you if you go beyond the limit you can bear. For your own sake, do not hate all the sins of others. Avoid hating them. Do it for your own sake and not theirs.


The Church says that there is no real love unless you live and breathe and practice the law of loving the sinner and hating the sin. So when somebody admits to sinning and you smile or don’t care that is a sin. If you do not protest when your gay son brings the boyfriend around for a sleepover you do not truly love your son. The more one fears you sinning and detests your sins the more they love you! We should be delighted then when people judge us and say our sins are rotten and we need to change urgently. The fact that we would never be happy about that proves that we know that hating the sin is hating the sinner as well.

The Catholic faith ostensibly forbids you to hate your enemy. Hate does not necessarily have to result in acts of violence or cruelty. The Church says that if you feel awful hatred for somebody that you cannot help then you must not let it make you sin against them and it is not a sin in itself for it is not your fault. Does this mean the Church approves of hatred when it afflicts you and when you don’t want to hate?

It doesn't but it as good as! It says it is not a sin.

You could not be expected to feel anything other than hatred for people and demons who you believe are putting your loved ones in danger of Hell.

Catholics who are gay feel that they will be hated by their devout parents should they let their gay nature be known. It is religion that leads to this more than anything.

It is safe to say that Catholicism incites to hatred. There is much evidence that this is so.

In practice, the Church leads to a lot of it.


The notion that love the sinner and hate the sin is about the sinner's wellbeing is a blatant lie.  The notion is what the Church depends on for the whole scheme of God's love for sinners and the Churchs alleged love collapses if it is invalid.


No Copyright