"Hate the sin, not the sinner" is such a logical fallacy

[Woah0]

What if people who have hate for others who dont do them anything wrong "Though debatable sometimes, i would be offended by cannibalism".
But you get my drift.

Point is what if irrational hatred for others who dont interfere in your personal life, what if that is a sin?

[Fake Messiah]

Religious people hate other people who don't do them harm because they are not humanists. We take these principles for granted today because Western societies are built on humanistic principles that are based on compassion and the principle that there isn't anything wrong with doing something if that doesn't harm others. And it took centuries for people to come to that realization.

But, as I said, religious people hold to the commands from their religious books, like "kill people of other religions" or "kill gays", and that is why religion doesn't offer any morality. All that religion does is say "this is bad because God says so" without giving any explanation - making it taboo (and not morality).

[Woah0]

Religious people hate other people who don't do them harm because they are not humanists. We take these principles for granted today because Western societies are built on humanistic principles that are based on compassion and the principle that there isn't anything wrong with doing something if that doesn't harm others. And it took centuries for people to come to that realization.

But, as I said, religious people hold to the commands from their religious books, like "kill people of other religions" or "kill gays", and that is why religion doesn't offer any morality. All that religion does is say "this is bad because God says so" without giving any explanation - making it taboo (and not morality).

Abrahamic ones atleast have a tendency to rely much on autocratic notion of society that is about purely focus on devotion (or atleast traditional Christianity and Sunni islam for one reason). It explains why their idea of heaven is not to focus so much on this world, aka math, science, education, helping next generation of people to advance, only ok if it is for the sake of God and not what they will subjectively deem as vanity. Because why should you if you can just hang out with a personal God and all that? Protestant Christianity, i will give credit they did atleast develop a work culture, i assume its due to not relying on church traditions like catholics did. So it was easier to overall accept intellectuals during Martin Luther days, as compared to having absolute control of what was ok and what is a no no. Despite how fundamentalists is a problem in this day and age with politics and such

Apparently Buddhism has a thing where math seems to be encouraged by Buddha himself. Or i had some talk on it in math class yesterday

[The Grand Nudger]

Protestant work culture is and has always been a myth - but so is the rosy picture of export buddhism...so....

The intellectualism you think was easier to accept, was largely a product of the christians eradicating each others power base in the war between catholicism and protestantism. A similar political issue forced the creation of western buddhism in it's struggle to remain in power in the face of the chinese state.

[Pat Mustard]

What if people who have hate for others who dont do them anything wrong "Though debatable sometimes, i would be offended by cannibalism".
But you get my drift.

Point is what if irrational hatred for others who dont interfere in your personal life, what if that is a sin?

You're not supposed to take the second bit as an instruction, or a guideline, but as something to point at when called out for hatred.

[Pat Mustard]

Religious people hate other people who don't do them harm because they are not humanists. We take these principles for granted today because Western societies are built on humanistic principles that are based on compassion and the principle that there isn't anything wrong with doing something if that doesn't harm others. And it took centuries for people to come to that realization.

But, as I said, religious people hold to the commands from their religious books, like "kill people of other religions" or "kill gays", and that is why religion doesn't offer any morality. All that religion does is say "this is bad because God says so" without giving any explanation - making it taboo (and not morality).

Abrahamic ones atleast have a tendency to rely much on autocratic notion of society that is about purely focus on devotion (or atleast traditional Christianity and Sunni islam for one reason). It explains why their idea of heaven is not to focus so much on this world, aka math, science, education, helping next generation of people to advance, only ok if it is for the sake of God and not what they will subjectively deem as vanity. Because why should you if you can just hang out with a personal God and all that? Protestant Christianity, i will give credit they did atleast develop a work culture, i assume its due to not relying on church traditions like catholics did. So it was easier to overall accept intellectuals during Martin Luther days, as compared to having absolute control of what was ok and what is a no no. Despite how fundamentalists is a problem in this day and age with politics and such

Apparently Buddhism has a thing where math seems to be encouraged by Buddha himself. Or i had some talk on it in math class yesterday

Protestant work ethic is largely a myth.

[Belacqua]

What if people who have hate for others who dont do them anything wrong "Though debatable sometimes, i would be offended by cannibalism".
But you get my drift.

Point is what if irrational hatred for others who dont interfere in your personal life, what if that is a sin?

Christians have a number of different ways of defining what sin is. It's a religion with a lot of diversity. 

If we take the definition used by Aquinas and Dante, mostly adapted from Aristotle, it's easy to see why irrationally hating someone would be a sin.

For these Christians, our goal is to aim toward the Good, which is God. Aiming toward the Good is always what's in our own best interest. 

To hate someone irrationally would cause your rational thought to be deformed and would hurt yourself. For example, you might obsess unnecessarily over that person and make yourself miserable. You might devote energy to hating that person which you ought to be using in some other way. You might even attack that person, although he has never harmed you, and get yourself in trouble. 

If we encounter someone bad, we should dislike that person for the things, and to the degree, that it is rational. Going beyond that and becoming irrational is a sin because it deranges our proper rational thinking.

[Belacqua]

It explains why their idea of heaven is not to focus so much on this world, aka math, science, education, helping next generation of people to advance, only ok if it is for the sake of God and not what they will subjectively deem as vanity. Because why should you if you can just hang out with a personal God and all that? 

What makes you think that Christianity has traditionally opposed observation of this world, of math, science, education, etc.? I know that some Christians have, but this is not an essential characteristic of the religion. 

Advances in science in Europe made during the early middle ages were nearly all made by monks. See Falk, Seb; The Light Ages.

https://www.amazon.com/Light-Ages-Surpri...343&sr=8-2

Have you read about the Oxford Calculators? This was a group of theologians who proved through math and empirical experiment that Aristotle was wrong about acceleration. 

For every Christian in history you can name who opposed the advance of science, I can name two who didn't. 

Protestant Christianity, i will give credit they did atleast develop a work culture, i assume its due to not relying on church traditions like catholics did. So it was easier to overall accept intellectuals during Martin Luther days, as compared to having absolute control of what was ok and what is a no no. Despite how fundamentalists is a problem in this day and age with politics and such

The rise of Protestant Christianity cannot be separated from the rise of the power of the Bourgeoisie and capitalism. Though attributing a work ethic to individual Protestants may be too simple -- especially today -- it is certainly true that the idea of getting rich and rising in society through one's own initiative coincided with Protestantism.

Catholicism is hierarchical and thus well-suited to a feudal economic system in which power rests with the landed elite. Social mobility is difficult in such a society, and hierarchy is built in. 

Protestantism, in contrast, by largely flattening the hierarchy and giving the middle classes a boost, rewarded capitalists -- that is, people for whom power didn't reside in land ownership but in the accumulation of capital. And one of the best ways to accumulate capital is by improving the technology you use in producing goods -- which means that research into applied science becomes a practical effort in the way that it hadn't been under rigidly hierarchical economic systems. 

I think it's more accurate to say that the changing economy made Protestantism acceptable as it had never been before. Economics determines things more than theology does. And economic motivations encourage technological innovations.

Catholicism had not actively discouraged the development of technology, but Protestantism came along at just the right time to encourage it (not coincidentally).