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?



Is judging a person for their sin the same as despising them for their sin? Despising is intensely disliking with the intent of hurting the person by disliking them - at least and it often goes further than that a lot further. Also it involves encouraging yourself in the temptation to see the person suffer. To despise the sin is to despise the sinner.


If you don't despise the sin then are you saying it should be tolerated? No you are saying it should be praised or at least accepted as fine. Tolerance means hating or opposing something but to avoid other evils, you have to put up with it. Tolerance is really bottling up. The tolerance between Protestant and Catholic in Northern Ireland just needed a small trigger to turn it into violence in December 2012 over the Union Jack being flown less at Belfast City Hall.


The policy of hating the wrong-doing of others whether they intend to do wrong or not, leads to the Catholic being obligated at least once to compassionately and firmly and clearly and convincingly tell the people why they believe it is wrong. For example, something is to be said to the Catholic homosexual who is going about with a same-sex partner. The Catholic out of loyalty to the faith has to say what the Church believes. This advice is frequently given but there is a theological flaw in it. If you tell people you believe homosexuality is wrong, it won't have a great impact because they will reason, "Its only your belief. I have beliefs too. Our beliefs cannot all agree." The talk about your belief actually accidently undermines the correct Catholic teaching that homosexual activity is not to be believed to be wrong BUT TO BE PERCEIVED FOR WHAT IT IS, OBJECTIVELY WRONG.


Many Christians say we must not judge other people’s motives.


The Bible gives an example in the Book of Job where Satan judges Job's motives. He thought Job was only serving God for what benefits he could get out of it. God alone knows man’s secret motives. “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God” (I Cor. 4:5).


The problem with that view is that it means our love for others is not real. Its just provisional. "I love and trust you not because I really know you for I cannot. I love and trust you because I have to assume the best until I get further light."


Sinful judgment means judgement that is not interested much in taking a stance against sin. If you judge so that you look better than the person you judge that is an example of sinful judging. Its not about being fair to the other person. Sinful judgement is forbidden in all spheres: family, home, workplace, school, neighbourhood, etc. But in the light of Christian teaching that believers are God's representatives and duty bound to show his love and beauty it follows that sinful judgement of a follower of Jesus is especially forbidden. It is not true that Jesus opposed and condemned judging in the gospels. What he condemned was hypocritical judging.


So the Bible implies that hypocritical and malicious judging of a Christian is worse than directing it against an atheist. It is saying, "Judging out of a bad motive or unfair judgement is always bad but even worse when it is Christians being judged like that." That violates the core humanistic principle that there must be no special treatment awarded to people just because they are believers or members of a religion.


Paul wrote that if God justifies a person and says they are good despite them being sinners that nobody can say he is wrong.  This is not Paul saying a believer in Christ cannot be charged of having being a wrongdoer.  The silly thing about saying that is what he is saying is it ignores the countless times Paul argued with people about them doing wrong.  Paul is talking about the person in terms of God's way of seeing them and is not saying we must treat them like saints like God does.  Its judicial not social.  It is only saying God has the full right to judge for he knows all things but we still have to do it though we might be wrong for we have to do it.  Paul cursed any man who does not love the Lord Jesus. "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha."  That is quite a judgement on a person not a sin by the way to call them an utter curse and say they should be!


Many Catholics lie that Jesus said in the Matthew gospel not to judge.  They do not tell you the rest of it.  He said look at yourself first and then you will be able to judge clearly.  It is alarming that faith in Jesus so easily leads to people abandoning the moral compass like that. 


The Bible in Matthew 7 indicates that it is the worst form of forbidden judgment when it is regarding one’s fellow saints in the church. These are the ones we should especially love (I Cor. 13:4-7) and so be least judgmental about (Matt. 7:1-5).


Catholicism teaches that sin is an offence against the moral law of God. It is entitled to intolerance in the form of disapproval and condemnation and punishment. The Christian may tolerate sin only in the sense that he is not in a position to judge exactly how intolerable it is. But if the Christian knew, the threat of punishment would be used to stop sin. A law that does not punish breaches adequately is only a half-law. Calling somebody a sinner means, "I know you should be hurt for your sin - breaking a law demands that punishment be administered to you whether you like it or not." That proves the utter hypocrisy of saying that one must love the sinner and hate the sin. If a person is a sinner then it is your will that they be hurt.


The teaching that we must hate the bad behaviour of people and hate the contempt with which they view the ways of God but love them is a strange one. People always say, "Free yourself from those who hurt you by forgiving them so that you may enjoy peace." That attitude contradicts the alleged obligation to hate evil and disobedience to God. How? It urges us to be free from hating others and holding grudges but urges us to suffer a great stress and dislike over our sins and those of others.


If you hate evil, it will upset you gravely to see somebody doing wrong. If you love the evildoer, you will have the added burden of detesting the suffering they bring on themselves. They could be in danger of going to the Catholic hell which burns for all eternity. It is a mistake to think the Church teaches that we should enjoy seeing somebody punished. God does it but only because it is right and he does not like doing it.


To judge means to wish punishment on someone or to determine that they deserve it. It involves imputing guilt to them. Even if you don’t like to see them punished you have to approve of it if it happens and disapprove if it doesn’t. Approval and liking are different things. Approval is a mind thing. Liking is a heart thing.


Society has a perception of the Catholic Church as being judgemental. That is a huge part of the reason for the rancour towards the Church that the media has.


If you do wrong but without knowing it or against your will that is not sin.


Some Catholics say that we must not judge anybody because only God knows exactly to what extent a person intended to sin or if they intended to sin. But that argument only means you cannot judge PRECISELY how bad a person is. It does nothing to prove that you cannot judge at all.

The Catholics then who say you must not judge are interesting people for if you judge they will judge your act - and by implication you for your act says something about you - as bad! This is clearly siding with the baddie. You will be silenced for judging but you will not be taken to task for doing other things such as missing mass or having loads of casual sex or for unemployment benefit fraud.


You receive somebody's gospel. You make that message your own message.  It becomes all yours then.  You might have got it from somebody else but now that you have made the message your own you might as well have created it yourself. There is no difference in what it is like - how you got the message makes no difference. It does not matter any more if it was invented by you or the other person.


With that in mind, we cannot believe Christians who go, "You feel we judge your sin. It is not us but the Bible that judges." They are covering up their true attitude.


The Bible say that if a member of the Church suffers all the members of the body of Christ suffer with it (1 Corinthians 12). This indicates that the Church should suffer great pain if a member sins. That implies the Church must judge - the people must judge.


Most of us admit we identify ourselves with our sins. We say we are sinners. Those who do not admit it do know that sin if it exists shows what kind of person you are. So the sin and the person are one and the same. A sinner strictly speaking is a person with at least partly ungodly character not a person who commits sin.


Gay people do not believe Christian opponents of homosexuality when they say they love the gay people but hate their sin. To say you love the sinner and hate the sin is only a source of offence to people who identify themselves with their sin or so-called sin. And we all do that for we know that to love the sinner is to love the sins they commit as well.


Church moral teaching does judge people. Here is an example. The Church says that you do not treat somebody you love in a lustful way. Lust is empty of love and seeks only pleasure. It doesn’t care about the person but the pleasure. The Church sees sexual union outside of marriage as lust. This is judging.


To say that only God can judge is to say, “I would judge you if I knew and judge you as fit for Hell.” It sounds like, "I love you but..." Yet Christians who claim that saying God judges not them use this claim as proof that they actually love sinners! Keep your barbed love thanks very much guys!


To say, “The word of God given in the Bible and the declarations of the Church judge you as bad news and fit for everlasting torture in Hell”, is worse than saying, “I judge you as bad news and fit for everlasting torture in Hell.” At least if you judge you know you are fallible. You are doing it on your own frail and fallible authority. But to invoke an infallible God and to do it on his authority is horrendous. Its a stronger judgement.


Catholicism both as a people and as a religion harshly condemns many actions that are incorrect. It severely says that robbing a bank is a sin that will take you to Hell forever if you fail to repent. It condemns a little sexual act between members of the same sex as deserving this punishment. Here we see an example of how it condemns something harmless so viciously.


Suppose you wish to influence somebody or guide them to a better way of life. If you put God first, you will naturally have to tell them how you feel they are defying his will. But people don’t want to hear about how their lives offend God or are against his law. They will get angry if you try to tell them. But if you appeal to their self-love and try to inspire them to do better and show how it is better for them they will grant you a respectful hearing. All that is a violation of the teaching that God's rights matter and man's doesn't in comparison.


The Church teaches that certain sins such as masturbation are mortal sins meaning they kill your relationship with God. Even if there is no God and we can freely do wrong, mortal sin is possible in so far as we intend to commit it. The Church corrupts the human heart.

The Church says that if a person is really trying to avoid mortal sin God gives him enough grace to succeed. So the person has no excuse for failing. This teaching contradicts the fact that you need proof before you can accuse people. There is no proof that God exists and no proof that he really gives us grace -grace means he changes our hearts in ways we cannot do by ourselves. If he can do that then why didn't he make us good in the first place?


The Catholics who teach that we must judge the sin and not the sinner are stating something so hypocritical that it is unworthy of refutation.


The sinner is the sin. Therefore to hate the sin and love the sinner cannot mean the same thing. You either do one or the other.


We know by instinct that anybody who say they judge the sin you commit but not you is lying. We know by instinct that anybody who says they are against your sin but are not against you at all is lying.


If you say you love the sinner for the sinner is not all bad and hate the sin, that implies that if you met a person who has hardly any good qualities at all you would have to hate that person. It is saying you condone and encourage that. Even if you think no such person exists, the fact remains you hold hate in your heart. You would hate them if they did exist.


It may be wrong to respond in a hateful way to a person who hates you. But to be vindictive against a system is different. If religion has hateful attitudes to certain wrongs then it has to admit that secularists have the right to hate its masses, its holy statues, its Bible, its teachings and to try and turn people against them.


Therapists claim, "Telling a person they are responsible is about helping them. Blame is about wanting to hurt the person by at least making them feel bad and guilty."


Blame involves assuming a person meant to do something hateful and bad. We need to blame things too. If the car won't start we may kick it and blame it for ruining our day. We don't know the cause so we assume personal intent. The less we know of the person we blame the more we are assuming their blameworthiness.


Suppose a woman without compulsion stays with a husband that beats her up. Therapists say that she is responsible for her life but add that this is not the same as blaming (judging) her. They allege that taking responsibility for what happens to you when you can walk away does not mean taking the blame or part of the blame. Again this is more hypocritical tripe. Catholic theologians know that but they try to distinguish between blame and responsibility to fool those who see that you cannot love the sinner and hate the sin.

Blaming people all the time would be seen as egotism . The egotist who robs a bank will say that the banks are not secure enough so they deserved to be robbed. Christian morality implies we should blame all the time for nobody's life is perfect. And if there is a perfect God to please it gets worse! Nobody will ever love him enough or pray enough or serve him well enough!

Mortal sin severs you from God completely. You become your sin. Then there is no room for love the sinner and hate the sin. If love the sin and hate the sin is possible it can only be possible for venial sin.


To accuse a mortal sinner of having completely removed themselves from God is an act of hate. For the sinner to do that to himself is an act of self-hate and if you can do that to yourself what would you do to others?

Some in the Church say that if we do harmful things, God does not act to punish us for doing the harm means we punish ourselves. For example, if you drink too much your punishment is how you wreck your liver. If you sympathise with the criminal who is carried off to jail, you do so because this is less self-inflicted than his locking himself in jail. How can you sympathise at all or a bit with somebody who is more directly the cause of their punishment by smoking too much or whatever?


People get a strange comfort from thinking that God has set up nature so that it will hurt us if we abuse it a lot. And its strange for that idea is far from comforting for its gross vindictiveness cloaked in sunshine.


The Church these days baits people by claiming that it does not judge sinners but leaves judgment to God. The fact that the priest has to judge if you deserve absolution in confession and that Jesus and his followers all commanded judging shows that this is just another PR stunt. To say you cannot judge somebody who uses artificial contraception which is a sin against the Church is just as good as saying the contraception is not wrong. There is no point in condemning something when condemning is not any use in practice.


People who suffer are told by the Church to judge if God may be chastising them for something. Thus the Church says that though God is the ultimate and final judge he can help us to judge as well. This opens the door to those who wish to argue that though man has no authority to judge, man inspired by God does have such authority for God helps him to judge. If I have the authority to judge myself then I can have it to judge others too.


Catholics cannot prove that masturbation, for example, is a mortal sin. To say such a thing without proof is an act of hate. Nobody should be a member of a religion like that. Its no trivial matter!  Mortal sin is regarded as spiritual suicide and worse than going mad and killing yourself and draws you to reject God and others for all eternity.  You are not fully a person if a person needs a living soul full of God.  The doctrine means taking the road to objectifying sinners.


The Catholics cannot say they never judge. We all do - its human nature. People like to be told they are not being judged when it is not made too obvious that they in fact are being judged!


Praising a person without mentioning the bad they have done, means you have to judge the bad before you can leave it out. It is indirect judging but it is judging.


A man won't let a pregnant woman who has just a few weeks to go before birth have his seat in the hospital. She may be enraged and say he had no courtesy. Somebody may respond, "Maybe the man was ill or had cancer. Who does she think she is judging him?" But its only a maybe. Maybe she was right about him. But she is the one being judged. And harshly too because maybe she saw that the man had no need for the seat for even if he had some sickness it was not apparent. She was there not those who judge her. She knows best what to assume about the man.


Some Christians say that when you believe that people are acting in a way that harms themselves or others you have a duty to pray for them. They say that this is simply so that they discover their connection to God and his help. They say it is not that their free will may be taken away or fought. They say that it is not done to pass judgement but to help. But you would not see the need to help unless you did pass judgement. The Christian religion is totally founded on lies.


Our intuition makes us feel judged by the Church. Maybe we should listen to the voice of that intuition.