Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H

Sin and Sinner are one and the Same
You cannot separate sin and sinner so to hate the sin is to hate the sinner

"The disengagement of moral self-sanctions from inhumane conduct is a growing human problem at both individual and collective levels" Albert Bandura, Stanford University,

Love the sinner and hate the sin is at the very heart of many religions.
This core teaching has been exposed over and over as a hypocritical lie.
If you want to be good at abusing and hurting another person, tell them you do it because you love them.

If they believe you, it is then and only then that you have power over them

Your innate qualities show in your behaviour. You can't be a sinner because you sin but you must sin because you are at least partly a sinner. Whoever says that they condemn your behaviour, and not your innate qualities is being a pure hypocrite.
Sin is not about the harm you do outwardly but about the intention that did the harm. The intention is you and speaks about you.
If people really want you to understand the sinner, why don't they say that we should not judge paedophiles or sadistic murderers unless we are paedophiles and sadistic murderers?
If you sin, you deserve to suffer and be hurt for your sin. Deserve means you get what is your fair due. Loving the sinner is not going to help them - it only helps you be smug. There is no point in preaching about sin (sin means wrongdoing and how it offends God - the atheist will condemn wrongdoing but not as sin) if your message is, "Your sins do not affect how I think of you." You will not be taken seriously and the sinner will feel encouraged to persist in sin.
Many of us identify ourselves with our sins. Thus we will feel hated. Hate sin and love sinner does little good.

If we love our sins, we will feel hated.

The Doctrine
Sin is rebellion against the will of God. The Christians have managed to get seen as fairly innocuous through their two-faced doctrine of detesting the rebellion and loving the rebellious person. This teaching is a cloak over Christian incitement to hatred. When Christians engage in violence over religion, their leaders seek to avoid responsibility for this by claiming to love sinners and hate sins.
Religion says you must love the sinner and hate the sin. Sinner means your sin is not the problem but what you say about yourself by sinning. So why is it not phrased as, "Love the sinner and hate the sinner"? Because that would render the hypocrisy too obvious.
Another version is, "I love you. I do not condemn your sin to judge or to hurt you but merely state that it is bad. I state it not as a criticism but as a fact." This is trying to separate the hatefulness of sin from the fact of sin. The two go together. To see sin as a fact is a refusal to see sin as evil. It is trying to make it an abstract thing and not a real evil. It is trying to water the condemnation down.
Would you consider a person sincere if they said to you, "I am sorry I have to hate your sin"? They tell you that the sin has nothing to do with you but if it doesn't then why are they saying sorry to YOU? The person is pretending that you can separate the sin from the person. The person cannot be sincerely sorry for hating!


Long-term sin and big sin


Long term activity that is allegedly sin will be seen as part of you and who you are.  A single act can do that too.  A doctor is seen as a murderer not as a life-saver even if he saves billions and murders one.  Those who say they do not make sins and sinners identical ever are liars.  They think they are the same and they feel they are the same.  It is easier to feel that a person is just their sin than to think it.  Thus you can be put in a box over one sin that was not that bad.

Not all believers accept the doctrine
More honest Christians reject the hypocrisy of those who say they love sinners and hate sins. They teach, "Sometimes it is said that God hates sin (impersonal) but loves the sinner (personal), but this attempt to mitigate the wrath of God is not really faithful to the biblical witness. Wrongdoing in the Bible is never disassociated from the wrongdoers, who are fully responsible for their actions. Retribution cannot be shifted to an impersonal level without it ceasing to be what it is. We cannot imagine a judge excusing a murderer who says he is sorry and offers to clean up the mess, as if the crime were all that mattered. However sincere his repentance might be, the murderer would still be held responsible for his sin, just as we are held responsible for our sins before God" (page 222, The Doctrine of God, Gerald Bray, IVP, Illinois, 1993).
The Bible teaches that we are psychological egoists and naturally selfish until the Lord gives us a new birth that frees us from all that. Emil Brunner wrote,
One is compelled to say that, there is no one wholly good - there is a flaw in each person of which one must say, there he fails. But most people are in-between, a little more inclined to good, or a little more inclined to evil, according to their natures. This view of the matter is quite correct, it is indeed necessary. But the Bible speaks differently. “There is none that doeth good, no, not one.” “For all have sinned”. In that passage Paul does not imply that even the best have somewhere some little evil flaw. On the other hand, “all” means that fundamentally all are in the same condition, namely bad. For “a sinner” does not signify that there is something bad in him, as a splendid apple may have a little bad speck that cane be removed with a twist of the paring knife, so that you can scarcely see that anything has been cut out. No, by a sinner the Bible means “bad at heart”, infected with evil at the core. “All are sinners” does not mean that even the best are not quite saints. It means rather that the difference between so-called good and so-called bad no longer comes into consideration.” How is this view to be reconciled with what we first characterised as correct? That is not hard to say. We have spoken of what holds true among men, and there it is true so far as human affairs go. But before God the matter is otherwise. Sin is a depravity that has laid hold on us all. It is a radical perversion from God, disloyalty to the Creator who has given us so much and remains so loyal, an insulting alienation from Him, in which all of us, without exception, have shared.
(page 41,42, Our Faith, SCM Limited, London, 1956).
Jesus approvingly cited Leviticus 20:9 where God says, “If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him”. In other words, he knew what he was doing and brought it on himself. To call a person a sinner is to say they bring the bad consequences and the unhappiness on themselves. Only deranged people or hypocrites would pretend they want to see sins suffer but see the sinners get away with them. If sinners bring their own problems on themselves then loving the sinner and hate the sin cannot do them any good.


Going into denial that the sinner and the sin are one and the same will not help at all.

What's Sin?
Sin is using your free will to create separation from God. It is a religious term. It means doing what God has forbidden. Sin and evil are not the same thing though sin is supposed to be evil for many actions that are not evil or necessarily that harmful are excoriated as sins. Unbelievers talk about evil and believers talk about sin. Unbelievers consider the pain caused by evil while believers worry more that it is forbidden by God's legal decree.
Sin is not a thing as such. It is a description of what a person has become - a criminal. Sin is the person. Our language makes a difference between sinner and sin but there isn't. To say that there is blue and there is a blue ball does not mean that the blue and the ball in one way are not the same thing.
A sinner is a person who makes sin partly or wholly part of themselves. They make themselves bad at least up to a point and invite bad consequences. If this definition is wrong then there is no such thing as a sinner. To call somebody a sinner is to say they brought the bad consequences on themselves. This eliminates compassion. How could you love them when love and compassion are inseparable? To call somebody a sinner is to agree with the bad they bring on themselves - it means agreeing under the circumstances. 
The Doctrine of Loving the Sinner and Thinking of Sin as not Part of them
The Church says that we must love sinners and hate sins. This is on a par with Father Anthony de Mello’s insane advice that when you are suffering never think, “I am suffering”, but, “It (hand, stomach, knee etc) is what is suffering not you!" The Church even makes a command of its insane law which makes it a form of bullying. If the command is true and good we don't need to be commanded to do it. Love is something that is freely given. You don't command love.
Anyway the Church command means you judge the sin not the sinner.
You view the sin as bad or dangerous not the sinner.
You see the sin as deserving punishment not the sinner.
Clearly we are to think of the sinner as perfect and the sin as something that has nothing to do with them at all.
But if that is true then why are they calling the person a sinner?
When you break the command down to find out its meaning you feel and see plainly how stupid and hypocritical it is.
To Wish Harm on the Sin is to Wish Harm on the Sinner
Hate implies wishing more than something didn’t happen or exist but expresses the wish to hurt it as well. It’s a violent emotion and you can’t want to hurt the sin without wanting to hurt the sinner for to hurt the sin you have to hurt the sinner. You hurt or offend against the sinner by hating them. It would be foolish to want to hurt sin if you separate it from the sinner and it wouldn’t be possible. When you hurt things it is your way of taking it out on a person. For example, the fiancée who flushes the engagement ring down the toilet does it not to spite the ring but to spite her fiancé.
If you hate the sin you must hate the sinner for the sinner freely commits the sin. Sin is a quality a person has and you are your qualities. For one to hate your sin and wish evil on it is to wish evil on you and hate you. If a person hated your kindness, you would know that is only another way of saying they hate you. So why pretend they don't hate you if they hate your sin?
If the sin is hateful the sinner is as well for the sinner freely causes the sin. There would be no sin without the sinner and how could you love the sinner if you pretend that they had nothing to do with their sin? It is hypocritical to separate the person from the sin as if the person was not to blame for the sin. That is not love at all for it is blessing their sins by developing the attitude that their sin is not part of them. To love the sinner and not the sin is to pretend that the sinner has had nothing to do with the sin which is hardly loving or sincere for the sinner needs to be freed from the sin for sin must be bad for her or him when you have to hate it.
The reason you can love the sick person but hate the disease is because that person is not causing the disease so those who say we must love the sinner and hate the disease of sin because we can love the patient and hate the illness have to be deliberately trying to mislead. They insult people who battle disease too.
To hate the sin and to love the sinner makes out that there is a distinction without a difference. It is like saying, "I hate your Christianity but admire your religious notions." "I oppose everything about you and everything that you do but I don't oppose you." "I am glad you are alive but I am opposed to the fact that you are breathing."
If you told a black person you loved them but you hated their skin colour it would be rightly disbelieved that you really love them. A sin or evil character is more personal than skin colour so you hate the sinner if you say you hate the sin. Notice how it condones racism by implication?
If you say John’s essay is stupid that is the same as calling John stupid though many pretend it is not. If to call John clever is to say John is clever that means to call John stupid is to say John is stupid. Religion pretends that it doesn't think John is stupid. This shows it is wilful dishonesty and false charm. It makes altruism impossible for it is meant to be free from lies but this bases it on lies.
Belief in love the sinner and hate the sin (we call it belief for the sake of argument - but can a person truly believe it? NO!) does not stop the person feeling outraged and hated and degraded if somebody admonishes their sin. Those who believe, "Love the sinner and hate the sin means you do not condemn the sinner as bad and worthy of hate" are not helping at all - they only look as if they do. What is the point of the doctrine if it makes one no different from people who hate sinners? You get angry at being called a sinner and the sin being condemned simply BECAUSE you know the condemner knows you have a good side. Really what you have is the believer in loving the sinner and hating the sin and the person who believes in hating the sin with the sinner doing the same thing except the first pretends to be any different from the second.
Some act as if they hate the sin when the sinner does it but as the sinner stops it and may do better after they tend to look at the person as a whole. For example, you steal thousands but afterwards you behave better and redeem yourself in their eyes. This is not hating the sin and loving the sinner. It is hating the sinner until the sinner stops the sin.
Sin is you and you are sin
This page is about what everybody knows but few dare to admit: that to hate sin is to hate the person who creates the sin.
Sin cannot be treated separately from the sinner for it reveals the sinner, it reveals what kind of person the sinner is. The sinner makes himself or herself harmful in some way and invites and accepts evil into his or her core or being. To fail to see that is an act of hate itself for it refuses to see properly what the sinner does to his or her victims and understand it for the evil that it is. Love the sinner and hate the sin is vindictive in this sense.
When you become a sinner, being a sinner becomes the core of your sense of self. When somebody says they are gay they will argue that gay is them, their gayness is one of the things that define them as a person. They did not make themselves gay. How much more does something you make yourself to be define you?
Religion counsels us to hate the sin but love the sinner. This is absurd as saying, "I disapprove of the sin but not the sinner". It is as absurd as saying, "I disapprove of the sin but not the action." And as absurd and two-faced as, "Hate the sinner and love the person".
Love the sinner and hate the sin will lead to a distorted view of the wrong people do. It is not the way to influence or stop people doing harm. It is no wonder some Christians virtually condone the evil that monsters do to them. They may make excuses etc. Christian communities are famous for enabling criminals by turning a blind eye.

You can't Hate the Sin if it is Separate from the Person
The sin cannot be hated until it is seen to exist and it is only seen to exist if the person is judged. In other words, there cannot be a sin without a person being freely responsible for it. The sin cannot be divorced from the person. Even if the person may be different from the sin, there is no distinction. It is like the difference without a distinction that exists between sight and the eye.
To love the sinner and not the sin is to separate the two. It is totally foolish to say you hate somebody’s sin but not them because how could you hate something that is separate from them? It is only a thing and what is the point of hating a thing? Its only a thing and has no will of its own. What would be the point of hating the fact that it is raining in Australia now when you are living in the UK? Hating the sin and not the sinner is only for crazy people. When say we hate cheese or crap on our doorstep. But this only refers to dislike because they are harmless things that don’t have to harm us. We don’t really hate them because we want them to exist for they have to exist for human betterment but we don’t want to. Real hatred involves wishing the thing didn’t exist and wishing it for unreasonable and malevolent motives. If sin is a thing or to be treated as something separate from the sinner that her or she has nothing to do with you can’t hate it. So you can’t hate the sin so if you hate something it has to be the sinner and you won’t admit it. This then is the morality of Christianity and many religions, hating people but hiding it under charm and serenity.
To teach that sin is some kind of object or property with which God and ourselves is exclusively angry is illogical. It is irrational to get angry at an object or property. Anger makes you irrational in your approach to those whom you are angry at. Imagine how you will make it worse by trying to hate things not people. Do not say that anger at the sin not the sinner SEEMS unfeasible. It is unfeasible. There is no seems about it.
Doing wrong without meaning to be evil is not sin but becoming evil is sin. To hate sin as if the person has nothing to do with it is to hate nothing. It is hypocritical self-torment.
If you hate the sin, even if you mean hate not in the emotional sense but in the sense that you emotionlessly agree that the sin shouldn’t exist, you are hating the sinner as well because the sinner is the sin. The sinner is the sin for sin is not an act but what a person becomes. To wish the sin didn’t exist is the same as wishing the person would lose everything and disintegrate into nothing. So are we to not care then if a person does wrong or not? No. There is an answer but the Church cannot accept it. The answer is to see evil as a sickness not as something that makes a person evil in any sense or partly. The person is good but just something evil is coming out through them that needs to be fixed and judging the person must be excluded.
If a sin does not affect relationships with God or others then sin does not matter. Saying it does is hypocritical hot air. To accuse somebody of being a sinner is to deny a relationship to them in so far as they are regarded as anti-God and anti-law and anti-others.
To sin then is to reject a real or deep relationship with God and law and others. Thus to try and have one with unrepentant sinners is trying to impose on them and manipulate them so that you get a nice warm glow from exercising your hypocritical fake love.
Christianity offers cheap hypocritical love. Cheap love is always hypocritical love. It naturally turns to hate faster than real love can and does. It is easy for the sinner to repent when the Church does not even ask for evidence or proof that this repentance is real. Real repentance tries to prove itself.
Hating relatively harmless sins
Loving the sinner and hate the sin enables you to get at a person for harmless sins. Think of how the Catholic Church seeks to convince a teenager who enjoys a little masturbation that he or he is doing something heinous and worthy of expulsion from God forever! The Church gets away with it thanks to the doctrine of love the sinner and hate the sin. It is a good smokescreen. It lends a degree of subtlety to the Church's injustice and evil. The Church should be severely punished for abusing that teenager with its lies and hypocrisy. The love the sinner and hate the sin is about looking good as one destroys the dignity and rights of another.
Many sins are relatively harmless. For example, sex using a condom. Incorporating blasphemy in comedy is another example. We have to remember that people often take offence at things and this is their own responsibility. If you are offended it will not kill you.
If you hate harmful sins and people believe that you are still able to love sinners, then they cannot say you hate harmless sins and love the sinners. If they say it they will not be saying it with a straight face. Nobody believes a person who claims to love sinners when he says that harmless sins deserve punishment. Nobody believes a person who goes as far as Jesus Christ to claim that they deserve everlasting torment in Hell.
If you claim the right to condemn even harmless acts such as masturbation or kissing an idol god as grave sins then you are consenting whether you realise it or not to others condemning you as a sinner for putting honey on your porridge or for using blue toilet roll or whatever. You demean yourself and ask to be demeaned by this right you claim. 
We allegedly sin all the time
Christianity says we do little else but sin so even if it were possible to love the sinner and hate the sin one would need to be a hero to achieve it. No wonder when we seldom if ever love God above all things. And Jesus commanded that all love is ultimately to be given to God which is even more impossible.
The principle of love sinner, hate sin makes a sinner of the person who washes a cup for a user or ingrate. That is doing a favour for a person who is taking good but won’t be loyal to good. But since Christian scripture tells us that we are all sinners and if you have unrepented sin all your actions are sinful because you have an attachment to sin and don’t really mean to be really good, it follows that practically everything we do is a fault. God has a problem with it and it is a sin.

Hate is an attack on the object of hatred's existence
If we really sin, then my sin and me is the same thing. Therefore for anybody to love me is to love my sin. If they say they hate my sin they are not loving me for they can’t do both at the one time. They are forgetting I am a person then and focusing on my sin as if it were a thing. Outright hatred would be better than the indifference this makes a virtue of! If they hate my sin they must hate me. My sin cannot go out of existence unless I do. Repenting does not change the fact that the sin still happened.
To hate somebody’s sin is to wish that person never existed to commit the sin for the person caused it. You want them to die or pop out of existence or to have never been born and to have had a person who was never born but who would have done better born in their place. It is no use to object that you wish the person did exist when you think of the good side for even the person who hates your guts must like some things about you. Indeed they need to like something about you so as to be able to hate you. Hate is based on wanting to punish a person for not suiting what you want. You like that they can please you. Your problem is that they do not.
You would wish that if you had a choice between nice person X and sinful person Y dying you would choose Y even if the death was a really terrible one. We see then we might as well hate the sinner when we wish he never existed so he gains nothing from our “love” and neither do we. All the love is, is just an empty boast. The whole reason we oppose hate is because hate wishes harm and will often lead to harm being done. If the love Christians have is as bad – and it is, but thankfully most of the Christians are not really Christians – then it is only hypocrisy for them to condemn hate and their love is hate. Remember this is hypothetical here – I am not inciting hatred against Christians.
Those who hate the sin are lying if they say they don't hate the sinner. They are like those who say they love you but hate the fact that you have ever been born.
You do not judge the insane person who is attacking you and trying to kill you as sinful. That person will suffer from your efforts to defend yourself and you may even kill him. Imagine how much keener you will be if the person is sane! Love the sinner and hate the sin is really about benefiting you and not the sinner for it does not make the sinner any safer.
You are considered at least unwittingly harmful if you deny that only hurt people hurt. You give people the best chance to reform if you see the hurt in them and recognise it. When people do not see your hurt, further anger will ensue. In the light of the knowledge that only hurt people hurt, love the sinner and hate the sin is useless and a distraction. Looking at a hurt person as a sinner is callous and unhelpful. It is really about concern for good as an abstract concept and not for helping the person.
God and hating the sin, loving the sinner
“Sin” is just a shorthand way of describing what sinners do and what kind of people they are. To say that the wrath and hatred of God is reserved only for people’s actions doesn’t make sense because actions are not independent things from the people who perform them. If I go out and steal a disabled person's car, God isn’t angry at the physical process of a given human being removing a particular piece of hardware. He is angry at me. Sin is a shorthand way of talking about sinners in the context of their actions. To make out that it is the physical process God has the problem with is deeply vicious towards the victim.
To say that God or anyone hates sin is really just a quick way of saying that God or anyone hates people for doing evil things. In other words, to say that God’s or anybody's wrath and hatred is reserved only for sin is actually to say that God’s or anybody's wrath and hatred is reserved only for sinners.
Christian teaching says that if you die estranged from God you will be damned in the evil of Hell forever. Some explain, "The damned must really become that evil when they identify themselves with their sin. They close themselves off from God forever and irrevocably. There is nothing left that God can work on to change them so all good is gone from them. That is why they must stay in Hell forever." They are basically saying that anybody who denies the honesty of loving the sinner and hating the sin should suffer in Hell. In reality, this is the only thing that really puts them in Hell and keeps them there. The believers ignore the fact that if the deterioration is gradual then it cannot happen all at death as in instantaneous. They are really trying to blame the sinner for God making them permanently and irrevocably bad.
If the believers are right to say that you damn yourself by gradually self-corrupting, then those who would be damned if they died now and those who are damned must be seen as having no genuine good in them. To hate their sin would be to hate them for they identify themselves with their sin. If Christians believe the reason for eternal damnation is that a totally evil choice is made then they cannot look for anything to praise in mortal sinners, that is, sinners who deserve Hell. The sinners then must be hated. When somebody is totally evil and is sin that person would have to be hated to avoid loving the sin. The doctrine of Hell certainly urges Christians to hate sinners.
If you thought that some girl was leading your precious little Johnny into sin that deserves everlasting suffering in Hell such as sex outside marriage, hating her would be inevitable. You would hate her far more than you would hate her if she murdered him for better dead and out of existence than rotting in Hell in everlasting agony.
To use God as a means of making people live moral lives fails for his hatred of sin means he hates the sinner. If you hate the sin as he requires then you hate the sinner. Why? Because a sin is not what a person does but what a person becomes because the person has to become evil. The teaching of Hell shows how much God hates sin. It shows that Christians have to do the same for they believe you have to become like God.
Insults God
It is bad enough to be an unbeliever and promote the lie of loving wrongdoers and hating wrong but it is worse to say that God does the same, to blacken the being you say is all good. Despite all its “love” for God, God-religion is intrinsically blasphemous and deepens vice. The atheist will have the best hope of entering the kingdom of Heaven if there is a God just like Jesus said adulteresses and tax collectors would have more hope than the respectable Jewish leaders.
If God hates sin and not the sinner, then he loves the evil demons in Hell as much as he loves the greatest saint. The wrath and hatred of God are only directed at sin. It is not the sinner. But then if that is true the demons should be released from Hell. If their sin is the problem and they are not then their punishment is unjust. Why are they bearing the consequences of their actions and choices if they are not in some way the sin they are being punished for? 


John Paul II proves that love sinner hate sin is just words


To quote the pope, "Human acts are moral acts because they express and determine the goodness or evil of the individual who performs them.120 They do not produce a change merely in the state of affairs outside of man but, to the extent that they are deliberate choices, they give moral definition to the very person who performs them, determining his profound spiritual traits. This was perceptively noted by Saint Gregory of Nyssa: "All things subject to change and to becoming never remain constant, but continually pass from one state to another, for better or worse... Now, human life is always subject to change; it needs to be born ever anew... But here birth does not come about by a foreign intervention, as is the case with bodily beings...; it is the result of a free choice. Thus we are in a certain way our own parents, creating ourselves as we will, by our decisions".


"The rational ordering of the human act to the good in its truth and the voluntary pursuit of that good, known by reason, constitute morality. Hence human activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply because the subject's intention is good.  Activity is morally good when it attests to and expresses the voluntary ordering of the person to his ultimate end and the conformity of a concrete action with the human good as it is acknowledged in its truth by reason. If the object of the concrete action is not in harmony with the true good of the person, the choice of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself."


If good intentions are not enough to make you good and  you need to be about God who you are made for to be good then how can the sinner be in any way regarded as untarnished as a person?   The word sin is just another word for sinner.




Saying that you condemn the sin not the sinner is mad because you will not say:

The sin is sick but the sinner is not.

The sin is bad but the sinner is as good as any saint.

The sin does harm to the sinner but the sinner does no harm to herself or himself.

The sin does harm to the others not the sinner.

The sin needs to be punished not the sinner.

You will not say, "I will not praise x for being so kind for she can only do good and not bad.  I hate her for being so perfect.  Even her sins are nothing to do with her."

We have to see how deranged and selfish and two-faced loving sinners and hating their sins is.  It is too thin to impress anybody and it may make you feel smug but it will not inspire the sinner to see such hypocrisy and to feel so mothered as if he or she was useless and needs your parenting.
If sin and sinner need separate treatment then they are separate. One wonders how you can treat a sin if the sinner is separate from it! It is the sinner you may try to reason with!
Nobody says, "Praise the good deed not the good person." (If you cannot say that then you cannot say people must hate the sin and love the sinner either.) Or, "The sin must repent not the sinner." Why bother repenting at all if the sin is nothing to do with you - which raises the question of why it is called your sin at all. One minute sin is defined as, "A person abusing their responsibility to God and God's law" and then we are told that it does not imply that the person is bad to any degree. The separation between sin and sinner is really just lip-service.
If hating the sin is hating the sinner then love for sinners is pretend. Even Hitler could say that he loved the Jews for he didn't want them to be Jews and that it was Jewishness not Jews he intended to hurt. As with love sinner and hate sin, it is a distinction without a difference. It is a non-distinction disguised as a distinction.
The good deeds done by religion are based on a lie and such goodness soon shows its true colours and falls like a house of cards.

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