If a good God exists we can sin for we would then have free will. If God is good, then if there is evil it is our doing not his. So we have free will.
Sin is offending God by doing wrong.
The Bible says that we are all totally depraved monsters, creatures capable only of sin. It teaches that everything we do is evil though we can be good but won’t be unless God lends us his grace (supernatural help).

God wrote the Bible to teach us spiritual truth - or so we are told.
In Romans 3, we are told that no one on earth does good – no one at all which is why all need a saviour. We are even told that the righteous acts of the holy and the saved are stained by sin (1 John 1:8).
If we are all sinners like Bible religion would have us believe, then to be happy is to reward your sins. It is taking happiness and refusing to make God happy which is insulting him. To punish yourself would be wrong because you can repent and cleanse your heart of all sin instead of inflicting unnecessary suffering on yourself.
So it seems we can do one or the other for neither is right. The punishment would be more appropriate though. If there is a choice between a sinner rewarding herself or punishing herself then she has to punish herself. In fact rewarding herself with happiness would show a desire to hold on to the sin forever.
I suppose if you can’t resist sin as many religions say you can’t due to original sin then it is right to punish yourself.
Perhaps rather that sinners rewarding themselves with happiness or punishing themselves they should do nothing? But they have to do something. And it has to be better or worse to some degree. Feeling nothing would then be ideal but hard to manage.
So you have three options - be happy, be neither happy or unhappy and be unhappy. The happiness option is not acceptable for it is outnumbered.
The criticism that taking happiness from another while you grab it yourself still applies when you are not talking about freely hurting a God but a human being or a race of benevolent extra-terrestrials who allegedly care for us. Pleasure is wrong if you are a naughty free agent no matter who you are horrible to.
If emotion is allowed and the doctrine of love the sinner and hate the sin says it is - ie you must have a violent dislike of sin - then we should feel hate for sin until we fall ill. The more we hate sin the better. The less we hate it the more we love it and the more we sin. The divine injunction to refrain from sin means almost dying of hate. The Church says our likes show our character. Not detesting sin means you like it and are sinful yourself or you hanker after sin.
If it is wrong for sinners to be happy then it is wrong to make them happy. If it is wrong to make sinners sad that is a sin too. If you think both are wrong then sinners have to be neither helped or hindered. They have to be forgotten about. The only time they should be remembered is when you have the chance to inform them about why one does neither good or evil to them to try and prevent them from going deeper into sin. The consistent Christian cannot say that God put us on earth to help one another – except to see us love one another – for Bible Christianity condemns the whole world as sinful.
But what if ignoring sinners makes them happy or sad? That is not our fault but theirs. We are doing our best not to be a blessing or a curse for them. What we are not doing is still must likely to have the desired effect.
Religion is not afraid to point out the hatred of God implied in taking blessings from him when one bears ill will towards him. There is a double-standard for it never says the same about taking blessings from sinners which is complementing them on being decent when they are sinners and not decent.
The smug who say, “Oh, we used to be sinners but we are something now”, should eat their words after what comes next.
The Christians cannot be blamed for thinking that once God has forgiven them that they are allowed to grab happiness whenever they can. “The past has been dealt with and the sins are pardoned. There is no use in being punished for them anymore”.
Even if you are forgiven for your sins it is decency and gratitude to make up for them. Because you have done what is very bad you have to make a big sacrifice of painful goodness to thank God. It is not punishing yourself but you have to suffer in order to love. You are trying to reward God but not to punish yourself.
Remember how we cannot punish ourselves for it's a sin to punish sin that we won't give up. It is sadism. But it is a problem if we take happiness too. So what do we do? The answer is we should suffer but not to punish ourselves for the sin we stick to. If I cannot punish myself for the infinite evil of the sins that never leave my heart, then I should sacrifice for others to the extreme. I should do this not to punish but to get as near to both punishing myself and making amends as I can. I deserve it so it is not unreasonable. I know I should be punished but I can’t punish myself for I adhere to the things that need punishment so I have to work out the best compromise.


Hebrews 6 says,


7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.


This is in the context of those who abandon the Christian faith.  It matches what Jesus said that if people don't bear fruit he will cast them out with the rubbish.  Don't assume they mean literally no fruit.  What they mean is the person may seem largely good but they have cut off God and have no real connection with him.
A sin is an act that ideally should draw down suffering and punishment. To love the sinner because of the sin in the sense that you see the sin as harmful to them is impossible. That is really hating the harm and not the sin. To love the sinner in spite of the sin implies you are trying to force yourself to love and you are on the edge of hating the person with the sin. If our love for sinners is so dubious then I wouldn't like to be confident that our love of ex-sinners is authentic. We are too good then at fooling ourselves. Love the sinner and hate the sin translates as, "I want you to be happy but only if you give up the sin. I will not make you happy in the sin. If I am good to you it is to help you or inspire you to give the sin up." If it was stated like that people would see through it. But it suits religion to lack transparency.
Suppose we truly can love the sinner and hate the sin.
To love one sinner and hate the sin and not to love another and hate his sin is unfair. And even more so if the sinner who is loved by you has done worse than the sinner who is not loved by you. Do you really love sinners if you are so random? What you are doing when you hate one person because of her sin and not another is using the sin as an excuse. You just don't like her and wish her evil.
We all tend to love some people with faults and hate others who are no better or no worse than them. Religion says everybody is a sinner. We always condemn or hurt others because of something we don’t like in them. That is worse than hating a person because of their sin. Why? Hating a person because you feel they do things you dislike is not understandable. It's vicious. As bad as hating a person for breaking moral law is, it is not that petty and personal.
If I treat my wife badly though she is kind to me it is because I do not appreciate her - I do not like her for what she does for me though I may like the benefits. To offer unfair love to a person who deserves love is not love at all. It is an egotistic shot at manipulation.
Anybody who believes he or she is a sinner simply cannot work for the happiness of the sinner and hate the sin. Any love he or she has is self-deceit.
Happiness is iniquitous for sinners and former sinners for the former sinners are really still sinners.


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
THE 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 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