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?

 


CORE OUTLOOK ABOUT RELIGIOUS LOVE FORCES RELIGION TO BE FEELING NOT FAITH

People are under pressure from themselves, from others and from what they think others stand for to act as if they have certain beliefs. Often they cannot believe and then get a feeling making them thinking they can and do.

The world would run smoother if people were more rational and thought more. Religion is a spanner in the works we could do without. There is enough to cause disagreement and division and then temptation to evil without it coming along.

Most of our good deeds are done as a result of our feelings. We do them because we feel we want to not because they are right. Just because they are good doesn't mean we do them because of that. Anyway, then what do we need your faith or Church for? We throw off that extra burden.

Your faith if practiced properly turns people into interfering busybodies. After all you believe in the teaching of the mystical body of Christ that we are intimately united with Jesus and can be described as his feet and hands and which teaches that if one part is sick the whole body is sick. So our sins are everybody else's business.

Religious faith means nothing if at core it is not about loving the sinner and hating the sin.

People see evil people everywhere and the fear makes them feel that this philosophy offers a solution of some kind. The doctrine is so irrational and such a lie that it turns your whole faith into basically a feeling.

Hating the sin is more about hating the consequences and as the sinner is the bigger part of all that the sinner is going to be hated. Indirect hate can appear to be firmness and tough love but hate is hate. The craftiest hate is that which claims to love the sinner so you feel good and are thought good but indirect hate is as damaging and often worse than good old fashioned spite.

Religion, I am disgusted at the hypocrisy of your basic doctrine that God loves sinner and hates sins or hates the evil we do but loves us all the same and orders us to do likewise. To be able to hate sin, you have to judge it as evil and despicable. You also have to judge it as deserving punishment via hurting the sinner back or disapproving. He who judges the sin judges the sinner. To say you judge the sin is another way of saying you judge the sinner but you pretend different. You hide your hatred under a bushel of sweetness and light. It is so obvious that whoever says they judge the sin as bad and don't judge the sinner at all are lying. And if you punish a person, you are a liar if you say it is the sin you punish not the sinner. Didn't the slave owners say, "It is wrong to own a person. We don't do that. We only own the person's services"? Love the sinner and hate the sinner only supports such twisted thinking and holds endeavours to improve human welfare up to ridicule. If sin does not describe you as a person then your good deeds don't describe you either and you deserve no praise!

The suggestion that you if you judge a person as having sinned you are not saying they are completely bad or sinful is really an admission that you are judging them. If you hate their sin you at least hate them up to a point.

Love the sinner and hate the sinner is only a smokescreen for inciting hatred against those who offend against the man-made laws that you pretend are really from God. It is a fact that sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. It will look as if you hate the person. This shows how it is impossible to prove that you love the sinner and hate the sin even if it is possible. So you can do what you sometimes do, ban suicides and cremated people from the graveyard and claim to be loving. The principle threatens goodness.

You can hate the evil a person does without hating that person but only if the person is totally unaware that it is evil and if the person cannot be held responsible for not knowing. In other words, you are hating the evil deed but recognising that the person didn't intend to be evil. Loving sinners and hating sins is totally different and is a mask for hating the sinner. The worse kind of hate is the hate you pretend is not there.

Nobody can judge if you really hate a person or not. Only you can do that. Thus the law cannot be expected to take the Church seriously when it boasts that it loves sinners and hates sins. If you claim to love the sinner and hate the sin, the burden of proof is on you to show that this is true. You cannot simply expect people to believe you. You have no right to. After all you do not love the vast majority of people in the world. You just automatically choose not to care for them which is hate in the sense that you kind of wish them evil. Your attitude is: "If really bad things happen to them or really good things it is all the same to me."

Religion says that it is easy for hating the sin to turn into hating the sinner. Secularists and unbelievers can find that it is easy to hate people who have hurt them and easier again to hate them without realising it. Religion only makes it easier still with such doctrines as that sin is very very bad for it insults such a good God who died on the cross for us. It also teaches that sin makes the sinner deserve everlasting punishment. All these imply that sin is to be hated above all evil and Jesus said you should prefer to have an eye gouged out than to sin with it. The believer makes the sinner out to be worse than the secularist makes the evildoer. And the believer does it without proof. You need proof before you can accuse sinners of creating an example that puts others in danger of everlasting Hell. Christianity needs to be seen as the craftiest and most hypocritical inciter of the worst kind of hatred there is!

To tell a child to love sinners and hate sins is to ask the child to do what he or she sees as impossible. It is child abuse. Children will not be able to distinguish even if distinguishing is possible. And it is not possible which makes this even more vicious.

Rejecting God's teaching is seen as rejecting God so hating the teaching is hating the teacher according to the doctrine of God. How much more then is hating the sin, hating the sinner?

All faiths carry on the same way as you. They use some logic and some evidence flavoured with the promise of emotional fulfilment to influence you to accept their faiths. We speak of certain cults being strange and bizarre. But Catholicism itself is bizarre too. Religious faith is at least subliminal bigotry.

It is so obvious that Catholicism is a damaging and unhealthy creed. It doesn't even have a reality check and doesn't even try to take one! Those who promote Catholicism seem to wish to inflict the wiles it inflicts on them on other people.

Feeling can pose as faith. Faith can even pose as religious faith. Think about that one.