HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

Condoning and rewarding the sin results if you divide sin and sinner

Condoning a sin is rewarding it at least by doing nothing about it. If you can do or say something and its needed and don't you are permitting the evil.

 

You are worse than the sinner for the sinner does something bad and that is fine but you by your silence and tacit approval are creating the ocean for such evils to swim in.  That is a lot more toxic and potent than an evil that will be done with by the end of the day.

 

Love the sinner and hate the sin has many translations.  One is, "John tormented that baby to death.  I don't excuse John's actions but I excuse John as a person."   You only have to read that logic to see what it is: a passive aggressive hypocritical word play.

If it is too hard to love the sinner and hate the sin, people will end up having to go soft on sin in order to love the sinner better. If it is impossible to love the sinner and hate the sin then there is no choice but to go soft on sin if you want to love the sinner.

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. It is condoning the sin.

The greatest reward the sin can be given is pretending that it is somehow not real and praiseworthy. The person who sees something is a sin and who pretends it does not reflect on the sinner or is separate from the sinner is worse than a person who pretends that evil is good. They are more dangerous because they can be a bit harder to see through.

Condoning sin by pretending it does not mean the doer of the sin is a sinner is an act of injustice and offence to people who try to avoid immorality.

"Wish no evil on the sinner but on the sin." Or "hate the sin but love the sinner". This is the commandment without which religion cannot exist. It needs that cynical dose of spin-doctoring to avoid being seen as inviting people to hate sinners and to keep its ministers out of jail for inciting hatred and violence.

Religious doctrine is that to love the sinner means you hate the sin for it harms them and brings punishment on them. If you separate the sin from the person you are not loving that person. You are treating the person as if he or she never sinned. That is hardly loving when sin is regarded as an enemy to the person. You prove you are dishonest because you call the person a sinner and then in the same breath you say they are not.

The end result of the separation is that the sin is both condoned and hated at the one time! Confused? You should be for the separation doctrine is only fit for a person with a split personality. The command wants you to condone the sin and hate the sinner at the same time but call it love. This is hatred of the worst kind. It is like hating somebody who has done nothing wrong or whose wrong doesn't bother you. There is no hatred more dangerous for the hater and the hated than hate that is called love and bottled up. At least if the hate is diagnosed you can deal with it. But the doctrine prevents diagnosis. If hate is bad for its dangerous and irrational then love the sinner and hate the sin serves only to make it even more dangerous and irrational.

Loving the sinner and hating the sin is the same thing as condoning in that you pretend the sinner hasn’t had anything to do with the sin. If you love the sinner then you condone the sin and you can't hate it.

The main reason condoning is bad is because of the results. There is no point in condemning it and praising forgiveness when both have the same results: namely the criminal getting off scot-free and given the green light to re-offend. It is best to put evildoing down to the insanity we all have rather than down to us knowingly and freely doing evil to avoid the hateful implications of faith in forgiveness. In other words, see evil as an aberration and not a sin. This way you can praise the woman who neglected her father for her kindness towards you without implying you approve of her behaviour towards her father.

The better you get on after doing something terrible, the more good you feel about having done the evil. The person who is kind to you is not condoning and rewarding what you have done for it is not their responsibility if you make yourself feel good for your evil because of what they do. You are misusing their kindness.

Though love the sinner and hate the sin encourages hatred of the sinner, it condemns the victim of evil for hating the sinner who inflicts the evil. It plainly sides with the evildoer in a way against the victim. It urges the victim to hate the sin though it will mean hating the sinner and then the victim gets condemned for doing it. It is a religious kind of assault on the victim.

Some people make the mistake of thinking that if a person is in denial that they are not responsible for misleading themselves. If they are right, then instead of assuming that any murderer or thief or rapist means to be a sinner we should say they are in denial about how bad their actions are and how they are sins. If they admit they are sinners we can say they are in denial of the fact that they may not be intentionally evil.

 

People who are doing grave evil feel supported by you when you know what they do and are nice to them. That is the reality nobody wants to confess. People don’t need constant assurance that they are right. They need a friend or two to encourage them at least once and that equips them to feel others indirectly support them by seeming not to care. It is easier to do bad if everybody around you is just nice to you regardless.  And don't forget you can feel God is just as kind!

Marcus Aurelius said that we must expect to meet harmful people so to keep ourselves from being poisoned by their ways and corrupted, and so that we will value them properly, we must be prepared for them and forgive them in advance - before they do anything! That way we value them and keep our inner peace. If he is right, he certainly shows that if we forgive all people for what they have done in the past we view everybody we meet as somebody who we have not forgiven in advance. Our alleged love of them is suspect.

If we forgive in advance, we judge people in advance. And we choose to condone in advance if we separate sin and sinner.

Plain old-fashioned hatred would be a thousand times better than the love sinner and hate sin drivel...