Hating The Sin Not The Sinner

[Roland32]

Alright, have fun with this. I dont post here, ever really, but I read this forum everyday. I thought this up in the shower this morning, thoughts, comments, insults?


"If condition x is bad and z does x he is bad."
where:
condition x = equal to an event
z= actor causing event to occur
bad = subjective opinion of observer
hate = degree of badness, past which the severity of condition is labeled by observer.


Above statement is logically flawed. It is this fallacy that allows for the existence of the argument in the thread title.

But the original statment is true if Z is "defined dominantly" by the condition x. (child murder is bad, z murders child, observer must hate z.)
The mere occurence of x by z does not in itself make z bad. (ex. if I "hate" lying and z lies to someone, I do not necessarily hate z, but I can still hate lying.)

But the statment is not true if another condition more dominantly defines Z. (child murder is bad z murders child. Z is legally insane, therefore observer can logically still hate child murder but not hate z.)

Or/Also another condition subsequently extinguishes the "badness" of condition x. (ex. child murder is bad, therefore all child murderers are bad. Z murders a child who was a child soldier and Z was an adult soldier, who killed child during war, therefore z is not bad.) Thus, an observer can hate child murder but not a person who commits child murder.

Is there any event in which condition x can occur that is not trumped by another condition, in which an observer can logically hate the condition but not the actor of the condition? (observer thinks gay sex is bad, so bad as to be hated, without the happening of another condition that either dominates or exitniguishes conditionx, how can there be a logical argument that observer does not hate z?)


The arguement I hear the most from those using this argument is:

"My belief is that my God commands me not to hate anyone, and only he can judge the behaviors of others. Thus I do not hate any sinner, as we are all sinners."

This means "bad conditions" can never be hated by observer, which means one would not be able to hate the sin either. So irregardles of hating the sinner, this argument cannot be used to support hating sin, so dies there.(If I am misunderstnding the argument I apologize and you may ostersize and correct me.)

But even if one could "hate" the sin, there is no condition outside of "salvation" that can subsequently extinguish the condition and there is no dominating condition that can make the sin not a sin. So again what logical argument can be used to support a notion that one can hate the sin and not the sinner?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Z murders a child who was a child soldier and Z was an adult soldier, who killed child during war, therefore z is not bad.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think killing in war qualifies as murder, as war is outside the bounds of civilization or something. I mean civilians in theory i guess, but not other soldiers.

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Z murders a child who was a child soldier and Z was an adult soldier, who killed child during war, therefore z is not bad.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think killing in war qualifies as murder, as war is outside the bounds of civilization or something. I mean civilians in theory i guess, but not other soldiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I follow you...

But the example is meant to be just that. Here event is no longer "bad" as its badness quality can be extinguished by the occurrence of another condition. So the murder is no longer considered murder because of the happening of another condition (here war).

Is there any other condition, besides either
1. extinguishing the badness of the first condition (child soldier example) or
2. A dominate condition that gives attributes to the actor, resulting in a logical nontransferrance of the hatred to the actor? (the legally insane example)

My main point is that I don't think there is.
Therefore the statement of hating the sin and not the sinner, is illogical outside the presence of other conditions, unless resulting in either of two above stated exceptions.

or put another way...

If x is bad and z causes x he is bad. If x is bad enough as to be hated by an observer, then observer must also hate z, unless one of the two stated exceptions occur.

My second question, for the logic of a religous argument for hating the sin but not the sinner, is there any condition that falls under either 1 or 2 that would logically allow for a nontransferance to take place?


*Note*: If this isn't clear I apologize. Damn Adhd, I have trouble writing down thoughts in organized and clear ways.

[PLOlover]

I think the point a lot of these religious people make when they reference jesus and the whore and he who is without sin, etc., is that the main point jesus made I think is when he said , go and sin no more.

what I mean is I doubt he would have intervened to stop the woman from being stoned a second time.

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the point a lot of these religious people make when they reference jesus and the whore and he who is without sin, etc., is that the main point jesus made I think is when he said , go and sin no more.

what I mean is I doubt he would have intervened to stop the woman from being stoned a second time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that if a person denounces Jesus then a christian does hate that person, but cannot hate them before that?

If that is so, then how can a person say that they do not hate the atheist, or homosexual, or pagan etc?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
So again what logical argument can be used to support a notion that one can hate the sin and not the sinner?


[/ QUOTE ]

The "Dominant Condition" of the actor is not defined by any or all of his acts.

PairTheBoard