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

Read no further unless you want to...
Love the sinner and hate the sin can be rephrased as bless the sinner and judge the sin. Interestingly few are interested in reading it that way which may prove significant.  It shows they judge the sinner and the sin together and want others do but they want to hide their spite.


The Christian teaching that we must judge sins and not sinners needs translation. The translation is, "Sins are perfectly bad and sinners are perfectly good." Merely to state such a doctrine is to prove it is hypocritical nonsense.  It is obvious that an "evil" deed is a mixture of good and bad motives.  At least some of the motives whether good or bad will be influenced by mistakes or be mistakes.  You cannot condemn making mistakes for they are not meant.  Plus there will be motives we are not even aware of. 


"Love the maths student but hate his mistake" is definitely personal for why are we saying hate? Why not just correct?


All agree that nobody can say x has sinned in doing something and really love that person if there is any unfairness in x's assessment of that person.

The argument that unjustly saying somebody sinned means you cannot hide behind love the sinner and hate the sin and you hate them with the sin is interesting.  Being fair in your assessment of somebody's action being sinful does not in itself mean you really do judge the action not them.  People often use justice as a weapon.  It is not the justice they care about though they take a lot of effort to be right in their assessment of what the person has done.


Judging and condemning mean that a person's worth has been judged and it is less than that of those who are assessed as better than her or him. It is based on the view that your actions show what you are. If we believed they didn't show what you are, there would be no problem in worshipping Attila the Hun as a saint.

A paraphrase would be, "Actions may be evil but the people that do them are not evil at all." Or, "We have no right to judge anybody evil even if we can prove they are totally dangerous."
This is based on the popular notion, "You are not defined by my judgement of you. But I am defined by my judgement of you."
Such ideas try to create a disconnect between the doer of the evil and the action. It is a good way of seeming moral while in fact you are programming people to divorce themselves from their immoralities and to divorce others from theirs, thus eventually nobody feels bad about letting people be evil or becoming evil. The most common manifestation of this problem is sectarianism. Because a disconnect is created between two denominations, the members of one do not feel bad enough about hurting the members of another to refrain from persecuting them. People like hurting other communities better than they do their own.


You cannot hate a sin unless you judge the person as a sinner first so the idea that the love sinner hate sin principle goes with the ban on judgement is totally wrong. Nearly everybody bases their allegiance to morality on their feelings and not on morality itself. Real ethical behaviour would be based on what reason decrees to be wrong. So it is an appearance of morality that they follow. So when you condemn something just because you want it to be wrong you cannot say you love the sinner and hate the sin for when you are being unfair you must hate both.


Christian forgiveness is passive aggressive hypocrisy


There is no forgiving where there is no judging and no thinking, "This person does not deserve anything from me."  If forgiving is a response to judging then it follows that I have to judge and forgive actions that are nothing to do with me. It is not just that I will judge if somebody harms another. It is that I have to judge. I am obligated to for that is about recognising morality. The command of Jesus to love neighbour as yourself tells you to feel the same way when another is hurt as you would if they hurt you. The Golden Rule says the same thing. These heart warming commands, moral "principles" or rules are deceptive. They only work in a society where everybody is good nearly all the time. They are okay if it is only nature not somebody’s personal choice that hurts you. But we live in a society where everybody is deserving of  morality rooted suspicion most of the time.


If it is morally good and right to put yourself first then it follows you should avoid any upset about what happens to a person not connected with you.

Some argue that self-forgiveness is the most important forgiveness of all and it is important to do that if nothing else. They treat it as therapy.


If so then Jesus' teaching is damaging.  And he knew it for there is a reason why nobody heeds his teaching demanding that you treat another as another you.


What is harmful and what harm means differs from person to person. All agree though that the most important danger to you is yourself and your unconscious impulses and actions. Wrongs done to others are wrongs done ultimately to yourself. So it follows that sin and harm can overlap but are not the same thing. So you shouldn't even be thinking of the sin. Its about the harm that the person is doing to themselves.

Exaggerating our inability to assess good or bad actions
Some say that if people bully and abuse us that we should try to reason that it is down to very complicated things we will never understand and we must try to see that it is fine and not really as about us as we think. They add that you must not use their nastiness as an excuse for being nasty yourself. That is contradictory.


People say, "Don't judge people until you walk in their shoes". Does it mean people or actions? It has to mean both for it says you don't know what is in their mind or going on in their lives until you walk in their shoes or become them. It means you cannot accuse anybody of intentionally doing grave evil even if they do it for they might think they have no choice. The saying is one thing that people like to say but don't mean. Nobody would be reported to the police if people really agreed with the saying.


Some examples of judging
Sayings such as, "What goes around comes around", only serve to encourage your loved ones to blame you if they suffer because of something you have done.
To tell somebody, "You can do better than what you are doing" is judging.


Why judge?
Why do we talk about evil actions and sins at all? It is to penalise those who do them so that those who do harm and who do good are not treated the same. It is to identify what kind of personal traits are unacceptable. All that is swept away by "Judge the sin and not the sinner". This is about treating the sinner as a saint while pretending to be opposed to evil. It is about paving the way for evil while enjoying a smug warmth. It is to try and make yourself see evil/sin as a theory not as a reality.
If you really think people adore you like a saint no matter what you do then clearly if they judge your action not you and punish it not you, you have nothing to stop you doing evil. Fearing being thought of as a bad person is the biggest deterrent to most of those who would hurt others. And indeed if your action is not reflective of you, then there is nothing wrong with doing it even if it is evil. The evil is not your problem or anybody else's. It just is.
Many feel that you have to assess and judge people on a moral basis, judge how morally good or bad they are. They say that society cannot function if we give up all beliefs and opinions about how others behave. They say we cannot grow morally unless we judge and let ourselves be judged and accept that others have the right to judge us fairly. Some of the anti-judging brigade say that instead of judging what others do, we should just believe they are always doing the best they can even if it seems they are not. But that is judging! To really avoid judging we hold that people have the right to help or hurt others if they wish.


Challenging Non-judgementalism


The judgmental person is one who seeks to hurt others by looking for the evil in them instead of trying to help them heal from it.  Christianity does advocate judging but not judgementalism.


Jesus said to judge fairly which would imply you must challenge the sinner to get the full story.  Trials everywhere then.  So even if you are commanded to be non-judgemental this means nothing in practice for people want you to not care what they do in certain things.


He said the penalty you inflict on others will be the one you get if you don't judge correctly and fairly.  Some think this means that you cannot really see the evil in another unless it is in yourself.


Trying to create a disconnect between a person and the bad they do, is a form of gaslighting - a cruel psychological trick where a person is manipulated so that they cannot process reality properly for they don't trust themselves or their thinking. The person who sees the bad person as the problem and the action as a symptom is made to feel insane and evil and sinful and stupid. This will happen because one is trying to make the disconnect and it takes years and a lot of religious conditioning to succeed.
A popular trick is to tell people that they will judge the sin not the sinner if they keep their focus on how good the sinner is in many ways.  Then the badness of the sin is drowned out like a lovely tune is drowned out by traffic noise.


The notion that sinners are not all bad has nothing to do with judge the sin not the sinner. You can judge a person while recognising his good side. You can hate a person over one of his negative traits. The notion that we cannot see the intention of another so we cannot judge him as a person but merely judge the wrong action implies, "If I knew I would judge." This is conditional - "If you are bad then I condemn you." It is still judging the person. If you judge the action as wrong or harmful but not as a deliberate sin this is not love the sinner and hate the sin. It is love the sinner and oppose the harmful deed without implying that he intended to sin. You would treat it as an accidental bad event but not as a wilful sin.


Judging the sin is a way of saying judging the sinner
Teachers judge children when they punish them. So do parents. The law of the land punishes. And all of these may claim to love the sinner and hate the sin. They seem to think that loving the sinner means hating the sin in the sense of justly punishing it.
If you refuse to see the person as evil then why care if they are virtuous or not? It doesn't matter then about encouraging people to be honest or humble etc. Those who claim to judge sin not the sinner constantly prove that they do in fact see sin as describing a person not merely actions, they see the sin cannot be separate from the sinner because it is a symptom of being a sinner. The only problem with the actions is what they say about the person.
To call a person evil is hate speech. If you are to hate and eradicate evil then it follows that if evil people exist then they should be destroyed and regretfully tolerated if they cannot be eliminated. But none of that proves that judging the sin not the sinner is the answer. It only proves that some people try that route to get around the problem. They are doing it in fear and desperation. The danger of classing people as evil does not prove that evil people are a fiction. Judge sin and not sinners is in fact based on fear of the truth and the consequences and its supporters are intolerant and suspicious of those who know the truth. The person who judges a few people, eg Stalin, Moses, King Herod and God as evil is demonised by the hypocrites all in the name of loving sinners and hating sins. Whose side are they on?


Impersonal judging would be worse than judging people
Judging the sins is impersonal. If you do that and punish people while keeping the focus on punishing sins not them then you will be danger of hurting them more than they deserve. You treat both their sins and themselves as objects. This is far worse than judging people. Judging sins has consequences for people for sin is based on the notions of law and punishment. Law and punishment are about afflicting law-breaking people. Its the people they target.


People know that if you hate their sin you personify it and treat it like a person whom you want to see suffering punishment and retribution. You end up as hateful and twisted as you would if you had the honesty to hate them and hate them directly.

We tend to be grateful to things when they benefit us. We feel a sense of gratitude towards the car that gets us to hospital. We kick and curse the car and swear at it when it breaks down. We treat events and things as if they consciously bless us and curse us. If you really hate a sin, you are personifying it and you are as good as hating a person. That hate will be just as poisonous as hating a person and make you bitter and dangerous.


What is happening is the hate of sin is disguised as love for the person and the sin is effectively treated like it was a person.  So in reality when somebody sins and their sin is hated the believer in religion ends up seeing two people - the sin and the sinner and hating both personally.


In the following ways, it is worse to hate a thing (sin) than a person because
*Hate by definition and by how we experience it is a person to person thing. You are lying to yourself if you say you hate sin and love all the sinners who commit them
* Some people say that the reason you hate others is because you view them NOT as people but as things - you dehumanise them in your head.
*Hating a sin understood as an force not as a person is good practice for hating people.

*If you hate a thing intensely you will soon start hating people for hating somebody's bad habit soon leads to hating the person. We are programmed to hate and fear people rather than sins.
*It is irrational to try and hate a thing such as sin. It is self-hate because hate is not good for you poisons you and hate can only be sustained by creating new hates. Self-hate is an ingredient that you need in the recipe for hating others.


* If you need to hate a person, then turning a sin into a person into your head is trying to satisfy that need.  What if it does not work?  Inventing persons to direct hate at is the sign of a twisted lunatic and a totally vindictive person.


People know you judge them

If people really believed anybody can judge sinner not sin they would not be so enraged when accused of sin.


It is the judging of the person that is the problem. Judging and hating go together. You even judge the good person you hate, "That person is bad in my eyes and I want to see that person suffer". We don't get too upset if an insane person hates us for we know they are ill and unable to judge us of their own accord. When you see that love the sinner hate the sin is really saying judge the sin not the sinner you see how silly it is. "I judge your bad character but I don't judge you." It is pure contradiction and it is insulting.
To criticise a woman’s boyfriend is to criticise her choice and therefore her. Therefore to hate or judge or criticise the sin is to hate or judge or criticise the sinner.
The idea that you must judge the sin but not the sinner is pure absurdity. You cannot do one without the other. To judge a sin is to judge a person. To say John committed adultery is to say that John is an adulterer. It is to judge him. If you cannot judge a person as bad then you cannot judge them as good either. They say you are only good if you are capable of evil and becoming evil. They insult the good as well. It is okay to hurt the good to bless the bad while pretending to oppose them. Presumably you must not hurt the poor sinner by judging him but you can judge the sin! What sense does this make? You are not even allowed to say, “Bobby, you hit Tracy. You are a good person but bad in so far as you hit Tracy.” That is admitting that the sinner and the sin are inseparable and what is done to one is done to the other.
You go to the therapist. The therapist helps you see that you are the cause of your problems. The therapist will claim to be non-judgemental. But if you do bad things to yourself, you are bad. So they are judging you but pretending they don't. If they are non-judgmental they will be thinking that your evil is really good or at least not bad - in other words that it is just too good for you. This example is another evidence of the lies involved in claiming to hate the sin and love the sinner. "You are responsible for this mess but I don't judge" is a contradiction just the same. It is a proud boastful lie to say you can do what is not rationally possible and which most people see and feel is impossible.
The Church often says it can judge actions as bad but cannot judge the persons who perform the actions. If it really means it, then why does it encourage the legal system and the canon law system and psychiatrists to judge persons? It says it is not actions that are judged guilty but persons. Suppose the Church did mean it. Then it follows that if an evil act took place as a result of mental illness, the Church would say the act is still evil though the person is not. The Church judges the act as evil whether the person was sane or insane. It is hardly flattering that when somebody condemns your sin, they say they do not condemn you in case you were insane and didn't mean to sin! It is downright insulting to be sane and suspected of insanity just because you do wrong. You are not judged as a sinner but as a lunatic. But you are still judged. The non-judgemental love is pure hypocrisy.
As people tend to judge some sinners and not others or some criminals and not others, their attitude in itself is an attack on society in general. After all anybody can commit a crime. And they are telling us they would treat us arbitrary if we committed a crime so that is an insult in itself. The Catholic who judges paedophile priests but not homosexuals actually is implying by her embracing of the faith that she should judge homosexuals. She implicitly endorses the judgement. What we do or don't do is more than just what we do or don't do - there are always wider implications.
Why judge sin not sinner?
Some say you cannot hate the sinner with the sin for you are a sinner yourself. But you can hate yourself as well. If you can hate sinners as the hate sin doctrine suggests then why not love yourself despite your sins and hate everybody else for their sins? You cannot love the sins of others just because you are a sinner yourself. The Christian “gospel” makes that clear.
Some say it is terrible to judge others - it is really the only they we believe in. If judging others is so terrible, then it follows that if there is a choice between judging yourself or others then judge yourself. Degrade yourself to spare others. Better to sacrifice one for many. Better to judge yourself for at least you are you and can judge you better than anybody else. The ban on judging thrives on self-hatred and self-hatred is no basis for love.
Some say you cannot hate the sinner with the sin because you cannot judge for you don’t know to determine what extent a person’s guilt is. You don’t know how guilty the person is or what pressure they are under when they sin. Nobody tells everybody everything about themselves. But is it really any comfort if I am a sinner and I know that people hate my sin and therefore me though they cannot be sure I sinned in a specific act or to what degree I sinned if I did? They hold that I might be a terrible sinner so any love I get from them is limited or reserved. It is given to me not because I deserve it but because they are not sure what to make of me. How can that satisfy me and make me happy in life? A sin is to be hated for it’s a sin. The degree of sin has nothing to do with it.
Should implies judge
You cannot help thinking people should or shouldn’t do whatever it is they do. When you use the word should you are making a judgement. When the Humanist who denies free will uses the word he or she means that nature should have programmed things better and is referring to the mental and emotional forces that drive a person when he says a person shouldn’t have done something. But the free will believer has to mean it either as praise of the correct use of free will or as condemnation of the person for the misuse of free will. Thus those who say they do not judge are not stating facts. They are liars.
Blackmailing those who see through it
The Christians say they don’t judge people but sins. Yet they say that if you sin seriously then you are identifying yourself with your sin and making a complete choice for evil and against God. Some of them say that everybody in Hell is there because they believe the sinner cannot be separated from the sin and that sin reveals the sinner so to hate sin is to hate the sinner. This doctrine is an attempt to blackmail and scare people into accepting the lie that you and God really can love the sinner and hate the sin and love yourself and hate your sin. If the lie is seen for what it is, religion loses its purpose for existing and its virtue is really a passive-aggressive hatred for sinners. Judge sinners not sins is an attempt to manipulate. It is not about real love for you. You cannot even love the saint if you have the following outlook, "If you sin I will pretend to judge your sins and not you. I will use you to feed my hypocritical ego."


Judge sin and not sinner a form of moral relativism
The absurdity of the doctrine of loving sinners and judging/hating sins has driven its victims who swallowed it into moral relativism - the notion that good and evil or right and wrong do not exist but are mere social opinions and preferences. It is in fact a form of moral relativism itself though it is in denial about this. You cannot protest about moral relativism when you in fact encourage it and set the stage for it. Moral relativism is far from adorable but sadly it is what the Church and society have got. One religion creates moral codes while another sets up a contradictory one. This fuels relativism.
It backfires!
If you judge a person as seriously ill or possibly seriously ill, nobody cares for it may save a life. It is thought that upsetting the person is better than the alternative. If the local priest thinks you are committing hell-deserving sin and is wrong many would say you should not care because better that than him saying nothing and maybe you going to Hell. Misjudging you is worth it if it warns you about Hell.
Suppose you are not to judge the sinner and are to judge the sin instead. What if you say you do this and cause great distress to sinners and treat them as if you hate them? The rule applies to you as well so people should take the most charitable view of you. They should say that you judge sins and not sinners but go the wrong way about carrying this out.
If people persecute you because of your race or religion or whatever you would say, "They do not judge us but what they think our sins are. This is the safest way to interpret their behaviour for we have no right to accuse them of hating us. They are trying to judge and hate sin (or perceived sin) but not sinners and may be bad at expressing that or implementing it. But it is their intention that counts. Loving the sinner and hating the sin can be confusing for anybody so that is all they are trying to do." 


If for example nobody argues that whoever judges you because of your skin colour does not judge you as a person then why is anybody falling for the love the sinner and judge the sin instead rubbish?  There is something more "judgy" about struggling against somebody for what they do to hurt you than against them for their skin.  So to assert its judgemental to judge over skin colour is to admit it is far more judgemental to judge over a personal affront.
The hypocritical notion that you judge actions never people is harmful. You are left unable to judge anybody as a hater of another. This would be a hellish and dangerous view to take.  It is the sea in which racists and other bigots swim for their bigotry is treated as nothing.
Also, the rule makes the attitude of personal hate the the worst sin. So it is not the murder that is the moral problem but the hate it was done with. If we are to love sinners and hate sins that is a very basic rule. So the person who challenges it is worse than any murderer and more evil.
If you believe that all sin as an attitude is equally vile and unjust (it is possible for sinners to mean the same malice by sinning while the sins themselves may differ in the harm done to others) then there is no use in accepting "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY." That principle endorses judgement of the person and fairness.
Many claim that in relation to suicide, the only responsible position is on the one hand to unapologetically condemn suicide itself as an evil act while refraining from judging the specific culpability of the individual. We have not only no “right” to judge the state of his soul, we have no ability to do so. But having no ability to judge it does not mean we have no right to. We have rights we cannot avail of because of things we do not or cannot know.


To say you do not judge the act for you don't know what pressures the person was under is to admit that if you knew they could have done more to help themselves and thus they are culpable that you would judge them.  You are not actually judging but you are potentially judging.  In a way it is less offensive for somebody to be certain you stole a bag of sweets only than for them to argue that they don't know what you were up to and when you took the sweets you could have been taking loads of stuff.
Christians pray for sinners. Sinners who feel they can trust them because they pray for them are misplacing their trust. Here is why. Christians say they can condemn actions as vile and evil and abominable when these actions are carried out by people who are reasonably sane and who knew what they are doing. They deny that they can condemn the doers of the actions in the same way. They say only God can do that. That means they say that if God condemns you and they know it then they will hate you. To say you love a person because you don't know if they are unlovable or not is not really loving that person. It is taking a chance. The love is conditional. It is loving the conditions not the person.  Unconditional love means wanting nothing back so to love a person because you want them to convert is not love.  This is no good. If Charlie loves Andie because she is rich then it is really the wealth he loves not her.


If God does not judge


If God does not judge people then what use is judging sin?  It is like he is looking for something to judge.  If he is not judging the sinner it won't be long before he does for he goes out of his way to judge.  What can we say of attempts to explain why he might let innocent people suffer and be at risk of the grip of evil and immorality all in the name of treating one action and one person as good as another (non-judgemental)? Then free will becomes devalued. It becomes a permission and a way of doing evil with impunity. There is no judgment to worry about - no punishment. Some answer to all that that you can be good without God.  If you want to be good then the idea of a non-judgemental God is the last thing you need!


Judge sin is a different way of saying judge the sinner. Apart from that, there is no difference. Only extreme pride (humility can be a mask for pride and a form of pride - eg look how many humble people like an audience and even want to believe that God sees their "secret" acts of humility) can enable a person to fool themselves that they judge sins but are too good and fantastic to judge the sinners who commit the sins. To state that you can do the unnatural and love sinners and not let their sins affect this love is manifest pride. It is a boast dressed up as a statement.
If you hurt sinners to punish sin and not them, then you are cruel and evil. Your intention is bad. You may as well hurt the innocent for you are hurting those who you tell yourself are innocent!
When you do wrong you are a wrongdoer if there is no God. You are a sinner as well if there is so it is worse if there is a God. People who believe, "Judge the wrong but not the wrongdoer" have more right to judge the person than anybody who inserts an accusation of sin into it as well making it, "Judge the sin and not the sinner." It is less vicious.
To judge a person is to accuse them of intentionally becoming not doing evil. It is the becoming that is the problem. It is about hurting the person and causing and risking damaging them further than they have or may have damaged themselves.
If X or Y has to die, and you have to choose, you will choose the person who you know will unintentionally do some evil such as having sex outside of marriage. You are even worse if X or Y has done the evil purposely. People who are told to judge the sins and not the sinners see themselves as being harmless to the sinner. They are not. Hypothetically and in principle, they would harm the person if they had to.
Bad means that which should be willed out of existence. If it were possible to make evil vanish by the power of your will you would have to do it. Religion says you should feel you want it to cease to exist. Thus calling somebody bad is hate speech. It is saying the person should cease to exist if he or she is bad. If something deserves it, then you should feel with all your power that it should be destroyed. Your feeling of hate reinforces your attitude of hate or the way you look at the thing as hateful. It makes no sense to view a thing as bad and want it destroyed. It only makes sense to see a PERSON as bad and want her or him destroyed.
Some say it should be love the sinner and help them resist their sin.  Helping a person stop doing something bad is judging them.


To judge a sin while denying the sinner has anything to do with it is not about changing or improving the sinner at all. It is wanton hate through which you try to keep smelling of flowers. It is not about endorsing what is for the best. How could a person who takes such an attitude be trusted when they claim to love sinners and hate sins?


Hypocrisy often describes a person with double standards.  A better way to understand it is referring to how people pretend to follow a standard they don't follow.  We all pretend to follow a standard we do not follow.  For example, to love a good person is to hate a bad one because to love x means to hate what is not x or that would destroy or corrupt it.  Love and hate go together for to hate one is to love that one's opposite.  To say you hate judging people is to lie for you are admitting to hating people who judge righteously.


Seneca stated that if you judge one man as evil you must also judge human nature in general as being no better and hiding its bad side.  Imagine what he would say about those who dish out judgments that are like a manure heap covered by snow and thus who are the best friends that judgementalism ever had?  An honest bigot is better than a sneaky advert for bigotry.
With Perfect Hatred by Dan Barker
A Baptist anti-gay site