Bigotry in Christians, bug, feature, or neither?

[Thumpalumpacus]

That would make an insufferably boring planet to live on.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? We're discussing a loving god's concern for his "children" -- not his ability to entertain them.

In any case, I'm not sure it's possible to construct a dynamic entity without any conflicting features.  I believe it's been proved that no logical construct, such as mathematics, can be paradox free.

Aside from the act that this is just more hand-wavium, you're thinking of Godel's Theorem, which doesn't state that. At least, I think you're referring to that. You don't really seem to know, yourself.

Insofar as disease and cancer are concerned, the far more debilitating malady is aging, which seems an inescapable attribute of biological existence.

And humanity IS taking on disease and cancer, and other afflictions, without depending on divine intervention or supervision.

That rather misses the point.

I think the assumption that a "compassionate" god would erase suffering reflects a misunderstanding of what suffering is.  Suffering is biology's red flags, signaling that all is not well, and existence will be uncomfortable until whatever's wrong gets fixed.  Without suffering we'd cut off our fingers in the kitchen, and make innumerable other lethal mistakes.  That not all suffering can be remedied only means we still have further work to do, but to totally eliminate suffering would inflict a much greater "suffering" of an entire greater order of magnitude.

Twaddle. I don't need cancer to know I've cut my fucking finger.

Your condescension in asserting that I don't have any understanding of suffering is a subtle but insulting ad hom. You don't know what I deal with on a daily basis, so kindly go fuck yourself.

And pronouncing on the absence of suffering being suffering ... gosh, there's a deepity. How long did that take you to think up? Oh, that's right, you didn't think that up at all ... some Christian apologist did, and now you're left to regurgitating it, all the while not addressing the point at all.

Quick question: what good do you think cancer provides that cannot be provided in a less-lethal manner?

[Alan V]

I think the assumption that a "compassionate" god would erase suffering reflects a misunderstanding of what suffering is.

Your dynamic entity of the environment is a different concept than a God, who is supposed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good.  Unlike the natural world, God could reduce our suffering to what was appropriate for the kind of signalling you had in mind.  Instead, human suffering is way out of proportion with the uses it serves, especially in situations in which nothing can be done to correct what is wrong -- incurable cancer for example.

So yes, people rightfully expect that if a God existed, their own suffering would be reduced and they would not suffer from what are quite arbitrary natural disasters.

[Dom]

I don't think he meant a deity. A dynamic entity doesn't mean a deity at all.

With all due respect, what "else" would a "dynamic entity" be?  Galactus?  Thanos?  Thor?  Me?

Creating and Modifying Dynamic Entities | Using JSON | InterSystems IRIS Data Platform 2023.1

Short:

There are no scientific term "dynamic entity", so meaning of this pair of words can be well stretched. In this particular case they could write something like "A computing system ... is a dynamic system", but apparently they didn't like the repetition, so they have decided to use a fuzzy word "entity". Also, there is a mathematical term Dynamical System, which doesn't have anything in common with what they are trying to say.

Essentially they mean that there is a lot of parts in a real computing system, which can change with time - hardware and software can be installed and uninstalled, software can be configured in many different ways, data comes into the system and gets out of it and so on. Sometimes even users and people, supporting a complex computing system, can be considered as a part of it.

[Minimalist]

I think this fits nicely here....fucking xhristards.


https://www.rawstory.com/home-schooling/

'We were indoctrinated': Some Christian home-schoolers say they're breaking away from 'abuse'

Citing a very interesting Washington Post article about what this "home-schooling" horseshit really means.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/education...rs-revolt/

[Aegon]

I have trouble understanding why "God" is actually in this post. If you removed mentions of him, you'd have made a perfectly reasonable statement. 

"How kind and loving that person will actually be largely depends on that person's life and experiences." 

Absolutely true! Why are you injecting a deity into the equation?

Edit: Wait a minute how did I end up on a 4-month old thread

A deity ended up in this because we are talking about people who believe in God.  I think bigotry in faith stems largely from a person's perception of that God, which is based on life experiences.  A person probably associates God as being an authoritarian if you had some authoritarian parents or upbringing.  If you believe God hates certain people, you'll probably hate them, too.  If you grew up in a church group that teaches God is really unhappy with gay people and atheists, maybe you'll be really unhappy with them, too.  There goes bigotry in Christianity or any religion.  So on and so forth.

I guess. The point I was making was that love, compassion, empathy, etc. are much more important factors in a person's life and positive development in their brains than the idea of God, period (loving God or spiteful God).

[Cranky]

A deity ended up in this because we are talking about people who believe in God.  I think bigotry in faith stems largely from a person's perception of that God, which is based on life experiences.  A person probably associates God as being an authoritarian if you had some authoritarian parents or upbringing.  If you believe God hates certain people, you'll probably hate them, too.  If you grew up in a church group that teaches God is really unhappy with gay people and atheists, maybe you'll be really unhappy with them, too.  There goes bigotry in Christianity or any religion.  So on and so forth.

This is the crux of the issue.  The problem is that god didn't create us in his image, as the Judea-Christian tradition purports.  It's rather the opposite that is true: humans created god in our own image.  And then we projected our prejudices onto him to make sure he hates the same things we do. And we usually hate most in others, what we hate in ourselves oddly enough.

Even if one is a deist, and I respect people who are, religion has shown time and again the damage it can do and it should not be part of the deist's way to contemplate his/her god.  If I ever migrate from skeptical agnosticism (that is an agnostic that STRONGLY suspects there is no god) back to deism, I think the only reasonable way to be one is to be a pantheist who sees god in everyone and everything.  And surely there is plenty to admire in nature.  Far more admirable stuff than a thin piece of unleavened bread that tastes like cardboard that my former religion says is "god" and should be adored.  One day this past winter my wife and I were snowshoeing up the local mountain.  The trees were covered in ice from a recent ice storm, and the wind blowing through them made them sound like wind chimes.  It was just so amazing to hear.  And it was all very real and explainable by basic science.  It was really mind-blowing.  It didn't make me believe in god though, but it did reinforce to me how utterly amazing nature is.

In my time as a Benedictine, we were admonished to treat everyone we meet as if Christ himself dwelled in that person.  It was perhaps one of the few good things that religion left me with.  If I were a pantheist I'd extend that to every person and every thing.

[Kathryn E]

This is the crux of the issue.  The problem is that god didn't create us in his image, as the Judea-Christian tradition purports.  It's rather the opposite that is true: humans created god in our own image.  And then we projected our prejudices onto him to make sure he hates the same things we do. And we usually hate most in others, what we hate in ourselves oddly enough.

I think it is a combination of both.  We are created in the "image" of God, which is love, but we also have a huge tendency to make God in our own image, usually consistent with the abuse we experienced at those in the image of God.  We create a God who is punitive, arrogant, or dismissive, instead of a being that is unconditionally loving.  Most people, like you say, aren't taking time to question their own prejudices.

If I ever migrate from skeptical agnosticism (that is an agnostic that STRONGLY suspects there is no god) back to deism, I think the only reasonable way to be one is to be a pantheist who sees god in everyone and everything.

I think that is a very reasonable perspective.

[Cranky]

This is the crux of the issue.  The problem is that god didn't create us in his image, as the Judea-Christian tradition purports.  It's rather the opposite that is true: humans created god in our own image.  And then we projected our prejudices onto him to make sure he hates the same things we do. And we usually hate most in others, what we hate in ourselves oddly enough.

I think it is a combination of both.  We are created in the "image" of God, which is love,

I rather dispute that god is “love”.  I think that’s just part of our imagery of him.  Scripture should quickly show to any critical thinker that god is anything but love.  Or maybe he is, so long as you don’t belong to any group he hates and smites.

For god so loved the world, that he sent a huge flood to kill almost all creatures inhabiting it?  If god drove a car he’d surely likely have road rage as well.

Well, that’s kind of my point, the god of scriptures is just a projection of our own nature onto our imagined god, the good part and the evil part.  Oddly, that’s just like humans.

Moreover, if there is a god who is love, independent of our image of him that men wrote into scripture, then it is quite apparent to me at least that he ceased giving a shit about this world long ago.  Then he is not the god of love but the god of apathy.

[Dom]

 We are created in the "image" of God, which is love, 

Can you describe this god to me?

[Szuchow]

I think it is a combination of both.  We are created in the "image" of God, which is love, but we also have a huge tendency to make God in our own image, usually consistent with the abuse we experienced at those in the image of God.  We create a God who is punitive, arrogant, or dismissive, instead of a being that is unconditionally loving.  Most people, like you say, aren't taking time to question their own prejudices.

If we're created in image of god which is love then how we end creating hateful deities? Something does not compute here.

[SteveII]

I know this thread is getting old, but I voted "Neither".

A ideology that as its second greatest commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself" and which has at its core the believe that "all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" and only by the grace of God can be we be made right cannot be fundamentally bigoted.

I think a lot of the claims of bigotry comes from confusing it with the concepts of 'not assenting to a claim' or 'not affirming a belief'. Part of the definition of bigotry is 'intolerant'. To tolerate (so not practicing bigotry) still means you fundamentally disagree. So, Christians should tolerate people who have beliefs antithetical to Christianity.

There are true bigots who claim Christianity. The bigotry comes from fallen people without a firm grasp on the ideology they claim to follow.

[Minimalist]

A ideology that as its second greatest commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself" and which has at its core the believe that "all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" and only by the grace of God can be we be made right cannot be fundamentally bigoted.

Oh, Stevie.... you left out the part about the only way to acquire that grace is through fucking "jesus."  Got to watch your editing, son.

[epronovost]

I think a lot of the claims of bigotry comes from confusing it with the concepts of 'not assenting to a claim' or 'not affirming a belief'.

I think the overwhelming majority of claims of bigotry are directed at people who are oppressing, discriminating, threatening or at the very least, extremely rude and disrespectful to others in public.

Also tolerance is not the opposite of bigotry, open-mindedness would be a more accurate opposite to bigotry which is defined as an obstinate and unreasonable attachment to belief/opinion/faction, in particular an attachment to prejudicial belief/opinion against a certain type of people or individual. So yes, if a person holds a prejudices or prejudicial beliefs they believe as absolutely true and can't articulate how those beliefs are reasonable to hold so closely by providing very solid rational arguments for them, they are qualifiable as bigots.

[pattylt]

Christianity has, from the beginning, been a religion of exclusion. The Jews were, too, but they were a tiny population that left others alone. Christian’s took their belief to Rome and insisted that one not only had to accept Jesus and God, but also, no longer give worship to any other deities. As Christianity grew, paganism shrunk.

As Christianity grew more, Christian’s began treating pagans every bit as badly as they had been before. Once they finally dominated, they really became even more exclusionary…to pagans, Jews and eventually any other system they bumped up against. And they’ve been winning that game until recently. Suddenly, they are faced with shrinking numbers and can see the writing on the wall. Their bigotry was long in the making and only the specific players have changed. It’s just a feature of being a “True Christian”.

[no one]

The bozos might see the writing on the wall, but can they read it?

[SteveII]

I think a lot of the claims of bigotry comes from confusing it with the concepts of 'not assenting to a claim' or 'not affirming a belief'.

I think the overwhelming majority of claims of bigotry are directed at people who are oppressing, discriminating, threatening or at the very least, extremely rude and disrespectful to others in public.

Also tolerance is not the opposite of bigotry, open-mindedness would be a more accurate opposite to bigotry which is defined as an obstinate and unreasonable attachment to belief/opinion/faction, in particular an attachment to prejudicial belief/opinion against a certain type of people or individual. So yes, if a person holds a prejudices or prejudicial beliefs they believe as absolutely true and can't articulate how those beliefs are reasonable to hold so closely by providing very solid rational arguments for them, they are qualifiable as bigots.

Your first point seems to be aimed at individuals and how they interact with people and not the ideology at the core of Christianity. I agree that many people are bigoted but the question was was that a function of the ideology. I don't think so.

Tolerance is the opposite of bigotry in the sense that both are a response to a belief or claim you don't hold.

I don't agree with your last sentence. It is irrelevant to how they come to believe the moral position on x or if they can articulate a "solid rational argument for them". It is only their response to others who that defines whether or not a person is bigoted:"...against a certain type of people or individual." Otherwise you have the position that the moral position is itself a bigoted belief, which is definitionally incorrect. It is the difference between condemning the practice of abortion to the condemning the people who believe it is not. The Bible is clear on hate the sin, love the sinner.

While I usually do not quote Bible passages, this thread specifically asks if bigotry is part of the Christian ideology so it is appropriate to go to the source:


1. **Romans 5:8 (NIV)**:
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

This verse emphasizes that God's love extends to sinners, even before they repent. It demonstrates the idea of loving individuals regardless of their sins.

2. **John 8:7 (NIV)**:
"When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.'"

This passage comes from the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus' response challenges the judgmental attitudes of the crowd and underscores the need for humility, recognizing our own imperfections before condemning others.

3. **Luke 19:10 (NIV)**:
"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

This verse reflects Jesus' mission to reach out to sinners, offering them salvation and demonstrating love even in the midst of their sinful state.

4. **Matthew 9:12-13 (NIV)**:
"On hearing this, Jesus said, 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.'"

Jesus' words here emphasize his purpose of reaching out to sinners, showing them compassion, and calling them to repentance.

5. **1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV)**:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

While this passage doesn't explicitly mention "hate the sin, love the sinner," it beautifully describes the nature of love, which can guide our attitudes toward others, showing kindness, patience, and forgiveness, while not condoning or delighting in sinful actions.

These passages collectively reflect the spirit of "hate the sin, love the sinner" by emphasizing love, compassion, and the willingness to reach out to those who have fallen short, while recognizing the need for repentance and transformation.

[SteveII]

Christianity has, from the beginning, been a religion of exclusion.  The Jews were, too, but they were a tiny population that left others alone.  Christian’s took their belief to Rome and insisted that one not only had to accept Jesus and God, but also, no longer give worship to any other deities.  As Christianity grew, paganism shrunk.  

As Christianity grew more, Christian’s began treating pagans every bit as badly as they had been before.  Once they finally dominated, they really became even more exclusionary…to pagans, Jews and eventually any other system they bumped up against.  And they’ve been winning that game until recently.  Suddenly, they are faced with shrinking numbers and can see the writing on the wall.  Their bigotry was long in the making and only the specific players have changed.  It’s just a feature of being a “True Christian”.

If anything, Christianity is the very least exclusionary worldview in the history of mankind. It is core to the belief system that everyone should be included.

You are simply judging an ideology by its abuses. More accurately, you are cherry-picking vague examples of political power not following the ideology--which is definitely not a political ideology. Rather Christianity is a worldview centered on a personal response to a particular message.

You also give the incorrect impression that billions upon billions of individual good outcomes do not owe their origins in people attempting to follow the principles of Christianity. Much of what characterizes western civilization can be traced to a Christian worldview.

[Inkubus]

If anything, Christianity is the very least exclusionary worldview in the history of mankind...

Not if you live in the US bible belt and need an abortion after being raped by your father.

[Reltzik]

Much of what characterizes western civilization can be traced to a Christian worldview.

Freedom of speech, religious freedom, and intellectual freedom are features of modern western civilization.  (And also other places, but we can be pointedly proud of them.)  We can, if we wish, trace those values to the desires of Christians to worship and proselytize as they please, though perhaps credit should be tossed further back to certain pre-Christian philosophers.  But the opposite also exists in a Christian worldview: speech, religious freedom, and intellectual freedom have all been extensively curtailed on the grounds that they are blasphemous.

Similarly with self-determination and other democratic principles.  Yes, these were often framed in terms of a Christian worldview.  But so were monarchism and aristocracy framed in terms of divine right.  They can be credited to a Christian worldview as well.

Same with slavery versus emancipation.  And individualism versus collectivism.  And egalitarianism versus racial supremacy.  On and on.

You could, of course, adopt a particularly narrow definition of what constitutes Christianity and a Christian worldview.  You could declare that the majority of people who identify as Christians throughout history aren't true Christians and that the only worldview that counts as Christian is one that's close enough to your own... where your own is a worldview that is capable of fitting into and thriving in a modern western culture.  At that point you're treading into the realm of a vapid tautology.

The bottom line is this:  There are seeds of bigotry scattered throughout the Bible and the larger Christian tradition that, throughout history, tend to sprout, spread, propagate, and entrench wherever widespread adoption of the religion creates fertile ground in which for they can thrive.  The Doctrine of Jewish Deicide (which we've discussed before), a subordinate position of women in the Bible, favored and cursed races throughout the Bible, condemnation of homosexuality, on and on and on.  It is true that this or that particular version of Christianity need not adopt these bigotries, but when you convert more people to the religion it's a crap shoot whether they'll embrace the better parts of Christianity or the worse parts.  While small pockets of Christianity can avoid these bigotries, it appears impossible to separate these things from Christianity at large.

If you'd like to prove otherwise to us, please provide a demonstration rather than just an argument.  The world would be better for it, and I imagine that actually fixing the problem is more important than debating which worldview caused it.

[Dānu]

[Minimalist]

The church dominated worldview began to collapse with the end of the Thirty Years War....when loving xhristards merrily slaughtered each other in the name of this loving "god" of theirs.

Since then, 1650, Enlightenment Principles have ruled the roost in Western Europe and the temporal power of the churches has atrophied and about time.  We need those fucks like we need hemorrhoids. 


It has never been expressed better than this:

We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins -- they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day -- of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.
These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars -- neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience -- and for them all, man is indebted to man.

Robert Green Ingersoll (God in the Constitution, 1870)

[Dancefortwo]

 Christianity is a worldview centered on a personal response to a particular message

That message is really sick.

My big beef with Christianity is the idea that they try to convince you that you are born a horrible, miserable, unworthy, disgusting sinner and after they throughly convince you of this they make sure you're completely brainwashed into thinking that you are destined to drown in a lake of fire.  After they convince you of this dreadful prediciment  they throw you a life jacket in the form of Jesus who is supposed to rescue you from this nightmare. After this  you're supposed to be super-duper greatful for being saved.  What a bunch of shit. 

And what really irks me is that this whole thing is completely unnecessary and stupid because the sin thing is based on a myth and if the sin thing is based on a myth there is no need for Jesus.  

But let's say for the sake of argument that a couple of people in a garden made a bad choice 6 or 7 thousand years ago.   How the hell am I responsible for this?  If my 5th great grandfather ran a brothel and pimped out women for sex, how am I responsible for this.  No jury would ever convict me for the crimes of my 5th great grandfather.  But in the Christian worldview we are born already convicted of the crimes of our 40th great grandparents and have to prostrate ourselves and swallow a Jesus pill to free ourselves.  This is utterly ridiculous.   

Christians claim their religion is based on love.  No, it is not.  It's foundation is based on a negative premise and the "love" part of it is conditional with the constant threat of a torture chamber in the back room if you don't comply and love Jesus properly. 

What a horrible religion.

[epronovost]

Tolerance is the opposite of bigotry in the sense that both are a response to a belief or claim you don't hold.

Under that specific frame fair enough though on a more general sense, I would still claim that open-mindedness is a better opposite to bigotry than tolerance.

I don't agree with your last sentence. It is irrelevant to how they come to believe the moral position on x or if they can articulate a "solid rational argument for them". It is only their response to others who that defines whether or not a person is bigoted:"...against a certain type of people or individual." Otherwise you have the position that the moral position is itself a bigoted belief, which is definitionally incorrect.

A moral position, to not be bigoted, needs to be based on solid rational arguments else it's indeed nothing more than bigotry. If you want to argue that X is moral or immoral, you need to explain why and how in a way that any remotely reasonable person will be forced to admit that you make a good point for it. It's far too easy to say X is moral or immoral because I believe so and that's it that's all. If such a principle would be accepted literally anything can become moral or immoral and for a long time moral and ethical debates was dominated by people holding to such form of moral relativism where one can just claim to moral truths without having to make a solid demonstration of it. You can't have morality and ethics without a solid grasp of metaethics.

That's the difference between "don't trust fraudsters with your retirement funds" which is not a bigoted statement since one can easily provide rational arguments as to why people who committed fraud and embezzlement should not be trusted with other people's retirement funds and "don't trust a Jew with your retirement funds". In the later, there is no rational argument as to why Jewish people should not be trusted with your retirement funds.

It is the difference between condemning the practice of abortion to the condemning the people who believe it is not. The Bible is clear on hate the sin, love the sinner.

Hate the sin, love the sinner can be a slippery axiom. At it's best it's a call for a compassionate form of justice and morality based on restoration and forgiveness towards criminals and wrongdoers; as in "You did something bad and while you need to amend, we understand your motivation and your circumstances and we will not seek vengeance, humiliation or hate you for your crimes and should circumstances have driven you towards those evil, we will change those circumstances for the better". But, when this axiom is applied to something that is at the core of another individual or population identity and being, something immutable (or almost immutable) or foundational to their person, like ethnicity, sexual orientation or identity, culture, religion, etc. Hate the sin, love the sinner just becomes a fig leaf for bigotry. In such situation there is no difference between hating the sin and the sinner since the sin is the sinner. Famously, this axiom has been severely lambasted when applied to gender non-conforming women, Jews, mentally disabled people, neurodivergent people, homosexuals and transgender people. To them hate the sin not the sinner is just "I hate you and wish you were someone else and I am going to try to make into someone else even though I can't and call this assault on your person, your dignity and your safety love."

[Dom]

Tolerance is the opposite of bigotry in the sense that both are a response to a belief or claim you don't hold.

Under that specific frame fair enough though on a more general sense, I would still claim that open-mindedness is a better opposite to bigotry than tolerance.

I don't agree with your last sentence. It is irrelevant to how they come to believe the moral position on x or if they can articulate a "solid rational argument for them". It is only their response to others who that defines whether or not a person is bigoted:"...against a certain type of people or individual." Otherwise you have the position that the moral position is itself a bigoted belief, which is definitionally incorrect.

A moral position, to not be bigoted, needs to be based on solid rational arguments else it's indeed nothing more than bigotry. If you want to argue that X is moral or immoral, you need to explain why and how in a way that any remotely reasonable person will be forced to admit that you make a good point for it. It's far too easy to say X is moral or immoral because I believe so and that's it that's all. If such a principle would be accepted literally anything can become moral or immoral and for a long time moral and ethical debates was dominated by people holding to such form of moral relativism where one can just claim to moral truths without having to make a solid demonstration of it. You can't have morality and ethics without a solid grasp of metaethics.

It is the difference between condemning the practice of abortion to the condemning the people who believe it is not. The Bible is clear on hate the sin, love the sinner.

Hate the sin, love the sinner can be a slippery axiom. At it's best it's a call for a compassionate form of justice and morality based on restoration and forgiveness towards criminals and wrongdoers; as in "You did something bad and while you need to amend, we understand your motivation and your circumstances and we will not seek vengeance, humiliation or hate you for your crimes and should circumstances have driven you towards those evil, we will change those circumstances for the better". But, when this axiom is applied to something that is at the core of another individual or population identity and being, something immutable (or almost immutable) or foundational to their person, like ethnicity, sexual orientation or identity, culture, religion, etc. Hate the sin, love the sinner just becomes a fig leaf for bigotry. In such situation there is no difference between hating the sin and the sinner since the sin is the sinner. Famously, this axiom has been severely lambasted when applied to gender non-conforming women, Jews, mentally disabled people, neurodivergent people, homosexuals and transgender people. To them hate the sin not the sinner is just "I hate you and wish you were someone else and I am going to try to make into someone else even though I can't and call this assault on your person, your dignity and your safety love."

Hate the sin, love the sinner pretty much sums up my attitude towards our penal system. Some people do need to be kept away from society, permanently. Love the sinner is an impossibility apparently given the human base instinct for revenge. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is more like what humanity does, if not a lot more drastic measures are taken.

[Minimalist]

Hate the sin, love the sinner

That's an excuse for Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Fuckface.

Hate the sinner and you have the "sin" covered!