A lot of my religious questions stem from Christianity, which I feel... oddly divided about? On the one hand, I feel like I should apologize that they're only from the one source, but on the other, it is Christianity in particular that has shaped me into the person I am now. I have done some research into other religions, but not enough where I feel confident enough to write like I do here.

Anyway, question of the day: can you really love the sinner and hate the sin simultaneously, or would doing one negate the other? I was taught as a child that anyone, should they repent of their actions, could be redeemed regardless of their sins. They could be separated from their actions, sinner and sins, and they could be washed clean while the sins were left behind. But what of the idea that a person is (at least partially) what they do? We use this in society all the time-- someone will not stop being a murderer simply because they are sorry for committing the act; they are always a murderer whether they are forgiven or not. They carry that act with them forever, and it becomes part of them. It helps define them. Even if you were to ignore that action when you judge them (and that is a when, not an if; judgment is a survival instinct), then the thought processes and backgrounds to that action are still there.

I'll admit that there are a number of sins that seem fully ridiculous to me, and even if that weren't the case, I would definitely still be a sinner by Christian standards. But my sins are far different from those of someone like Stalin. I have lied. I have taken the Lord's name in vain. I have had unjustified anger. I have been baptized prior to my belief in Jesus (in fairness, I was a baby). I have judged God's servants and will continue to do so until the day I die. But I have not been responsible for the murder of millions, nor have I been repeatedly and unduly cruel to my family. Someone like me is easily forgiven-- we all lie, and I very much doubt that I'm alone in the other respects. So why isn't Stalin as easily forgiven? If he and I were lying on our deathbeds, repentant of our actions, why would people be more willing to absolve me than him? Because of what he did, of course-- so is it that easy to divorce sinner from sin? Don't our actions make up a large part of us?

Perhaps a simpler example: I point at a man and tell you that he is brave. You ask me why I think so and I reply, "He did this, this, and this." His actions form his descriptors. So if you fundamentally believe that what someone is doing is wrong, then doesn't that color the way you describe them? It is for this reason that I am of the firm belief that you cannot love the sinner and hate the sin simultaneously. We are, to a large extent, what we do, and so to judge what someone does is surely to judge what they are. If you hate what they do, then how much fondness can you truly have for the person?