Calling Anyone a Sinner is Slanderous



If there is an all-good God, then he is not to blame for suffering and evil. We must be and we must have caused it by sin. Sin is doing what is wrong and forbidden by God and doing it of your own free will. It's a crime against God who is understood as judge and king.


In the light of the fact that beliefs should help us and direct us to the truth and give us tools to find it, we have to say that blaming people for evil so that you can believe God is innocent and good is mercenary and evil. It is judgemental. It is tactical. You need outstanding evidence that God exists and has given free will before you can accuse. All Christian worship offends sensible atheists for they know the worship reflects a bad attitude towards people. Christians degrade themselves by calling themselves sinners and want to spread this degradation to others.




The Bible in Romans chapter 1 states that all sin is really a form of idolatry. The intention is to put some created thing before God. What is so bad about idolatry? It is giving devotion or honour to what is not perfectly good. This could be money or even some pagan god like Krishna who likes promiscuous sex. The Bible speaks of exchanging the truth of God for a lie. It blames sin on our disconnectedness with God and says that disconnectedness is essentially idolatry. Paul says we are in Adam. We have a spiritual relationship with Adam. This relationship is destructive for us and leads to us losing our lives as God decrees we must die for our sins. This means that a sinner is not really an individual and part of something bigger. If it is slander to call somebody a sinner that is making it worse!




We have no free will because we can only concentrate on one thing at a time. At the point you make a decision, you don’t know what you are doing so you cannot be free. If I didn’t exist a moment ago and only came into existence now I wouldn’t feel any different and yet forces from the moment past have caused my present action. I couldn’t do any different. God could control me even if I am still free. But it makes no sense to say I am free.
The doctrine of sin accuses the human race of what they have not done. It asks us to approve of the needless evil allowed by the Lord and to make ourselves as unkind as he is.
If God revealed the doctrine and is good then reason is no use in determining what is good and evil. We must believe that we are insane and just believe him even when what he commands seems to be evil.
The doctrine of sin comes from the doctrine of God. God is something that is incomprehensible. The concept makes us confused. For example, nobody can explain why he thinks that it is good to let us suffer so then it is natural that his moral rules or some of them cannot be understood. This little monstrosity leads to lots more. Anybody can make up a cruel rule and say that it is a mystery. The monstrosity is the tool for Churches to make slaves of their victims. By asking us to believe in him God is condoning all of this because he thinks it is all to good for us. Because he can’t or won’t provide evidence he renders anybody who wants slaves to get them with stupid guesses unfettered.
Unsurprisingly, the Bible and religion are inebriated with moral principles that make no sense.
If there is a good God of infinite power and love, then sin insults him and is the worst evil. It is the cause of evil and suffering and so is the worst evil also in the sense that those evils are rooted in it.
Few buy religion's claim that it loves the sinner and hates the sin. The sin is the sinner. The person who claims to love the sinner but this is denial. Even if you could love the criminal and hate the crime, you certainly cannot love the sinner and hate the sin when the sin is so bad. Hate the sin means hate the sinner for sinner means a person who is the sin in the sense that it is his sinful character that is the problem. Sin means you are a sinful person. Sin is not separable from the person. For that reason as well, to hate the sin and to condemn it very severely is to condemn the person as severely.
It is shocking that the God belief implies that sin is the worst evil and that a small sin is worse than a natural disaster like an earthquake. God allows natural evil to happen implying he prefers it to sin. But God should abhor sin and evil the same. Evil whether wilful or not should offend him infinitely. We do not condone the actions of a tyrant who maims and butchers and say it was for an understandable but wrong purpose and we can see and feel the tyrant. We cannot be as sure there is a God the way we can be as sure that the tyrant exists so we condone the seemingly evil ways of a being who may not exist in preference to condoning the similar ways of a real person. But it is better to give a possible reason for God’s actions than just to say, “Oh God knows what he is doing – but I cannot explain it”, which is an unimpressive cop-out. So if a young mother is killed tragically you should say, “Perhaps if she had lived she would have turned into a monster that abuses her child so God did right to take her”, if she had been showing signs of a bad temper before she died which has to be done if there is a God who comes first, whose honour matters more than the dead woman’s.
Another problem is that to condemn a human being for doing something like slapping someone on the face and not to condemn God for making things like smallpox and flesh-eating bugs is terribly unjust. We can’t reward and praise bad actions even when done by well-meaning people and God cannot be an exception. It is worse when the person will suffer from the condemnation and God cannot for he is out of reach and the Church says nobody can give him anything for he is perfect and is totally happy. It is certainly worse to hurt a person you can see and touch for something minor or fairly minor and let God off the hook for worse when you cannot be as sure that he is as real as the human person.
A religion that invents sins should be dumped immediately. For example, the Catholic Church argues that deliberate sexual self-stimulation even for a few seconds is a huge sin.
A religion that exaggerates how bad sin is should be dumped immediately. It says sin says no to a relationship with God and this is terrible for God is so good.
A religion that exaggerates how bad some sins are should be dumped immediately. For example, suspecting Joseph might have been Jesus's father is considered to be an outrageous blasphemy in Christianity.
And it should be dumped yesterday if it says anybody should suffer everlasting torment as a punishment if he dies. When a system lies about sins and doesn't know what it is talking about, the doctrine must hold a vindictive attraction for it.
And it should be dumped yesterday if it says anybody should be sentenced to death by God for sins. The Bible God says that the wages of sin is death.
Any religious system that opposes a sensible understanding of right and wrong has no right to exist. Letting yourself be called a member is failing to take a stand and thus is encouraging the system.
People condemn a human being for doing something that is harmless like homosexuality or something that isn’t the worst crime like adultery and then God can do worse and be thought well of. He is praised and loved even though people believe that he makes viruses that torment and kill children. That is disgusting.
When sin is infinitely evil if you believe in God for he hates all sin infinitely only a strict Puritanism and fanaticism can follow. Sin has to be kept down at all costs. Love is strict.
Some people feel that sin is so bad that you have to avoid accusing another of sin at all costs. The teacher can be paralysed by this doctrine so that she won't judge a bully as a bully.
They will feel that the Puritanism is what is needed but the problem is applying it properly. The lack of knowledge about what is in the heart of another is a roadblock.
If you have a choice between destroying the sinner and the saint you have to destroy the sinner - even if the sinner has done something harmless but forbidden such as masturbated for a second. To condemn a sinful choice is to condemn the choice-maker. The sin is the sinner in that sense. What we would do or think is part of who and what we are. Such a situation being hypothetical means it still tells us what we are.
God sends earthquakes and plagues to eradicate even sin that harms nobody very much which shows that we have to be strict and not let anybody away with anything for he is strict. God hates sin though it does him no harm – which the Churches all agree on - and need not do us much harm either. He could prevent the act of rape from doing much harm to the victim by making it easier to recover from magically. Some people do recover from being abused surprisingly easily. Instead of letting us batter somebody to death, he could allow us to commit loads of sins that do little harm but which eventually add up to being as bad as this but in which the harm is spread out among many people and over a long time that it has no devastating effects. All these considerations suggest that God is rigid and does things by the book and that we should be the same for he wants us to conform to his image. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that anybody who merely calls his brother a fool should be dragged before the Sanhedrin. Jesus was saying that civil freedom was evil. He said we must be perfect as God is perfect.


And the strictness always has to start by saying to people that they are very grave sinners.

If that is untrue, it is a very grave untruth and calumny.

A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 6, PART II, KANT, Frederick Copleston SJ, Doubleday/Image, New York 1964
AQUINAS, FC Copleston, Penguin Books, London, 1991
BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, Friedrich Nietzsche, Penguin, London, 1990
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, Association for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, Dublin, 1960
CHARITY, MEDITATIONS FOR A MONTH, Richard F Clarke SJ, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1973
CHRISTIANITY FOR THE TOUGH-MINDED, Edited by John Warwick Montgomery, Bethany Fellowship, Minnesota, 1973
CRISIS OF MORAL AUTHORITY, Don Cupitt, SCM Press, London, 1995
EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT, VOL 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha, Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
ECUMENICAL JIHAD, Peter Kreeft, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1996
GOD IS NOT GREAT, THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION, Christopher Hitchens, Atlantic Books, London, 2007
GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION AND OF PERFECTION, St Alphonsus De Ligouri, Redemptorist Fathers, Brooklyn, 1988
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1995
HONEST TO GOD, John AT Robinson, SCM, London, 1963
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
RADIO REPLIES, 1, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1938
RADIO REPLIES, 2, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
RADIO REPLIES, 3, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1942
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 BIBLE TELLS US SO, R B Kuiper, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1978
THE CASE FOR FAITH, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000
The Future of Atheism, Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett, SPCK, London , 2008
THE GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION AND OF PERFECTION, St Alphonsus De Ligouri, Redemptorist Fathers, Brooklyn, 1988
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 PRACTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF GOD, Brother Lawrence, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1981
THE PROBLEM OF PAIN, CS Lewis, Fontana, London, 1972
THE PUZZLE OF GOD, Peter Vardy, Collins, London, 1990
THE SATANIC BIBLE, Anton Szandor LaVey, Avon Books, New York, 1969
THE SPIRITUAL GUIDE, Michael Molinos, Christian Books, Gardiner Maine, 1982
THE STUDENT’S CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates, London, 1961
UNBLIND FAITH, Michael J Langford, SCM, London, 1982


No Copyright