Here is a quote from the Catechism of Christian Doctrine.

334. What are we bound to do by the rule of life taught by Jesus Christ?

By the rule of life taught by Jesus Christ we are bound always to hate sin and to love God.
[Hate means literal hate. This catechism was written for children and others who would understand hate to mean real hate. What is the point of saying hating another is bad if you can torment yourself by hating their sin? Hate is an irrational emotion and therefore paves the way for violence.  Hating sin and loving God are made two sides of the same coin.  If hating sin is immoral or dangerous or does not agree with human nature then clearly God as a concept or a possibility is out.  Atheism is vindicated.]

335. How must we hate sin?

We must hate sin above all other evils, so as to be resolved never to commit a wilful sin, for the love or fear of anything whatsoever.
[This is pure religious extremism. It denies that faith should be about what is good for people. Faith should be formulated in such a way so that if the faith is wrong no harm is done. If we advocate the doctrine of 335, what right then to we have to object to the following: "If my God wants me to kill my baby then I must do it."]

Even if Church morality were true, it does not ring true. The Church merely tells the people that it is correct but makes little effort to show them that it is. That is another way to ensure that a mockery of morality is promoted and still come up from the sewer smelling of roses.
The Church says it puts forward Jesus Christ's humility as a role model for us. Humility is defined as not having an excessively good opinion of yourself. But if Jesus was God how could he be humble? The Church corrupts the people by giving them an ineffectual role model. Then when they end up arrogant and prideful the Church takes no responsibility for that. It turns its back on the people it corrupted and blames them only.
The difference between blame and responsibility is not emphasised in the Church. This causes untold destruction. Being judged by others is probably the biggest contributor to mental illness and unhappiness in the world. The Church has given no evidence of ever accepting the difference. Thus therapist today are forced to be the missionaries of the fact that to declare a person responsible for what they have done need not involve any element of judging or blaming. It's a clever move to teach people to love the neighbour as themselves and then to get them to believe things that will sneakily work against their observance of this rule.
The heart warming Christian message of forgiveness is no longer appealing when one bears all that in mind! It is a purely cosmetic message.
Also, people are tricked to believe that forgiveness and emotional recovery from suffering hurt feelings are the same. The message of forgiveness as formulated by Jesus and taught in the gospel readings of the Church is vicious. It threatens those who do not forgive with being cut off by God. When people recover from the pain the Church boasts how its God healed them and taught them the power of forgiveness.
How could a faith that says the person who commits homosexuality or adultery and knows its sinful will go to Hell forever if he dies for he has rejected God for all eternity have true concern for human rights? It is only defending rights for cosmetic reasons.
People who commit these sins might say, "I judge me as guilty of these hell deserving sins but the Church does not." They then find comfort in the Church. Again that is priestly manipulation. Should you feel happy and comfortable with people who would hate you if they knew enough to judge you?
The Hell doctrine betrays the presence of hatred for it is so obvious that you cannot accuse yourself or anybody else of being evil to the degree that they are capable of going to Hell forever and staying there freely without absolute proof. We cannot prove Hell the same way we can prove the existence of sliced bread. We would need to in order to justify saying we don't hate.
The Catholic Church says God loves us perfectly and absolutely so going to Hell can only be down to human choice and nothing to do with him. It points out that those who Jesus sends into eternal punishment have no genuine love for anybody at all (Matthew 25). When we turn to the chapter, we see that Jesus told them he was hungry and they gave him no food, he was thirsty and they gave him no drink, was naked and they would not clothe him, they would not visit him in prison or when they were sick. They responded that they never did that to him. He told them that they did because they did it to the lowest of his brothers and sisters and any who hurt them hurt him. The problem Jesus had with them was simply that they did not show love for HIM in what they did and did not do.
They say then that if people got hardened in sin and went to hell and got out by changing their attitude and went to heaven and there was crossing over between heaven and hell for all eternity that would not do (page 45, Apologia Catholic Answers to Today's Questions, Fr Marcus Holden, Fr Andrew Pinsent, CTS, London, 2010).
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.
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.
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.
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.

This shows that those who treat sins and temporary slips and not reflective of the person are lying. Love the sinner and hate the sin is really about you not the sinner for you are making a pretence.

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.


Love sinner and hate sin sums up God.  To love God is to hate sin.  To hate sin is to love God.  But the love is a lie.  Some believers admit the truth. Other's won't.

No Copyright