Relationship between indifference and love sinner and hate sin


A sin is supposed to oppose the goodness of God and as God is goodness it amounts to telling him he should go and die.  And to imply or infer God should die is to infer you should die if it is true you cannot exist without God.  Religion says sin is pointless and its silly to say there could ever be a way of understanding it.


A sin is supposed to be bad for us and those who are affected by what we do.  It is bad in principle and hurts because it is bad in principle.  The principle then comes first.


So we have to care if somebody sins.  The argument is that if you witness a sin it becomes your business for you are involved.  You cannot say you are not involved for seeing it involves you.


Our feelings are linked to our character.  A kindly person will get upset at seeing others being unkind to people.  So we care as in feeling and in how we see the action.


Does caring mean we must hate the sin?  If sin is terrible and trying to understand it is futile and harmful as we have seen then you won't be able to help hating it and indeed you should.


Some say that God does not hate sin but is merely its converse.  Our sin excludes God and he excludes it.  Oil and water is a good metaphor. 


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. Hate is wanting to pay a person back for somehow having failed to give you the love you want from them for you value them. You fear being hurt by the one you value so you twist the value you have put on them into hate.


If love and hate are two sides of the one coin then to open yourself up to love is risking opening yourself up to hate. What if we have to hate somebody in order to be able to love somebody else?  Many people claim to be like that.  Jesus said no man can have two masters for one will be loved and the other hated. He said hated though there were words for “loved less.” Most people are not paragons of virtue nor do they want to be. Love is easier if you find somebody to hate. We all do it.  To command love is to command hate and the god and religion that do it must take some responsibility for the hate.
The true opposite of love is indifference: not caring. Pope John Paul II said that the opposite of love is using the person as a means. The person is used instead of valued. Indifference always involves looking at the person as a non-person or a thing. It is a user outlook.


Even if hate is not the opposite of love it is clear that hatred is definitely an attempt not to love. That is what it is whether it is successful or not.  An attempt to hate would be morally evil and hating somebody when you cannot help it would not be.  So trying to hate would be a bigger issue than actual hate.
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."
Why are we not told, "Love the sinner and be indifferent to the sin"? Hate is a strong and vindictive command. Because hate and love go together it follows that the command is hatred of the sinner. It's a polite way of saying to sinners that you hate their guts.

Summary - if people are to love sinners, then it follows that they can hate them for hate is distorted love. Telling them to hate the sins means you are to have a distorted love for the sins! If the sins are bad for the sinners, then on that level you hate the sinners for you love what is bad for them. Telling people to love and to hate is creating the conditions for the distortion needed to hate sinners. And because there is distortion, it is easy to claim to love the sinner and to hate the sin.
With Perfect Hatred by Dan Barker
A Baptist anti-gay site

BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, Friedrich Nietzsche, Penguin, London, 1990
ECUMENICAL JIHAD, Peter Kreeft, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1996
GOD IS NOT GREAT, THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION, Christopher Hitchens, Atlantic Books, London, 2007
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1995
HOW DOES GOD LOVE ME? Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1996
MADAME GUYON, MARTYR OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, Phyllis Thompson, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1986
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans Green and Co, London, 1912
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996
PRACTICAL ETHICS, Peter Singer, Cambridge University Press, England, 1994
PSYCHOLOGY, George A Miller, Penguin, London, 1991
REASON AND BELIEF, Brand Blanschard, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974
REASONS FOR HOPE, Ed Jeffrey A Mirus, Christendom College Press, Virginia, 1982
THE ATONEMENT: MYSTERY OF RECONCILIATION, Kevin McNamara, Archbishop of Dublin, Veritas, Dublin, 1987
SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD, Jonathan Edwards, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, undated
THE IMITATION OF CHRIST, Thomas A Kempis, Translated by Ronald Knox and Michael Oakley, Universe, Burns & Oates, London, 1963
THE LIFE OF ALL LIVING, Fulton J Sheen, Image Books, New York, 1979
THE NEW WALK, Captain Reginald Wallis, The Christian Press, Pembridge Villas, England, undated
THE PROBLEM OF PAIN, CS Lewis, Fontana, London, 1972
THE SATANIC BIBLE, Anton Szandor LaVey, Avon Books, New York, 1969
THE STUDENT’S CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates, London, 1961


No Copyright