Hate is a dislike of someone that wishes evil on them for its own sake. The Church says we must hate sins. We are to hate the sins people do and to love the people who commit the sins. The doctrine of a loving God is wholly based on the lie that he and you can love a sinner and hate their sin. Thus belief in God is either hypocritical or malicious. It depends on the person.
Christians teach that evil is a lie, for it makes false promises and tries to use good to conceal and protect itself. And its servants do that too, in their own right. Loving the sinner and hating the sin is impossible if you are loving a trick that will harm you - and a trickster. You can only do it if you in fact hate yourself.
When we think of somebody doing evil, we don't think of their motives, such as revenge or profit, so much as that they simply gave in to an urge or prompt to do harm and destroy. Though some pretend to think that there is no more to evil than what you can get out of it, people do sense that part of it is trying to profit from evil for its own sake. Doing evil for its own sake and for a purpose are compatible. How? You think this useless thing can be contained and wreak wanton abuse and hurt on others so that the “evil for its own sake” bit does not affect you. The person firing an atomic bomb intends reckless chaos for its own sake, but it is put into a framework, and that is where you seek to create control around the mess, not from the mess that you will use for your goal and advantage.
One thing that people mean by “love the sinner and hate the sin” is, “If you hate, the only person you hurt is yourself.” Not so. People might enjoy hating. It can be fun to an extent. We only say it because society says it. We know we are only following a stupid norm, and it is not what we really think. If everybody around you hates you, you will be affected even if they do not act on the hate. And it can be said that real hate is more than a feeling, for actions speak more than words or feelings. So if another hates you, they will hurt you.
If we really hate sins, then we might as well hate people. Hate is hate.
To separate the sin from the sinner is to deny that the sinner is the cause of the sin and to pretend that sin is a thing when it is not—it is what kind of person a person is. Sins are not just what sinners do. Sins are what reveal the kind of person the sinner is. No separation is possible. You can’t hate the sin like it was the sinner and not the person committing the sin. It is not a person. It’s ridiculous hating a thing. It’s only a thing. To hate the sin is hating the sinner as well. Christ said if you have two masters you will like one and hate the other (Matthew 6:24). This shows that it is his doctrine that hating a person is too easy for us all. When somebody hates your sin, you can be sure that it is you they really hate. We all know that to hate sin is personal, for it feels personal. You feel something against the person as a person. Christianity calls on you to lie to be a Christian. It calls on you to tell people with a straight face that you tolerate them as people but you don't tolerate their sins. Hate is a form of intolerance. Intolerance is at the root of hate.
The Christians say that hating sin turns so easily into hating the sinner. Obviously, the more you hate sin and the more “sins” you hate, the more likely this will be. The gospel is clear that we must hate sin and find it repulsive. The stress of all that hatred and trying to keep it from turning into hatred for the sinner (I’m not pretending that they are not the same thing!) would soon result in a complete mental and nervous breakdown. Christian forgiveness is motivated by pleasing God and not genuine concern for yourself or others. The Church is quite clear that if we have a choice between loving people and God and can't do both, we must love God. We oppose that intensely.
Love the sinner and hate the sin is as misguided as love the nurse and hate the woman who is the nurse. The teaching that we must love the sinner and hate the sin because we are sinners ourselves suggests that hating the sinner is good, but only if you are not a sinner. It involves wishing you were in a position to be able to hate the sinner.
Some say, “Cancer isn’t bad. It is just something that is living and growing in the wrong place. It’s the place that is wrong, not the cancer, for life and growth are good.” If that is true, then you cannot hate cancer. You hate its consequences but not the cancer. You don’t have anything personal against the cancer or its wrongness. If you really loved the sinner, you wouldn’t be able to have a personal hatred of the sin.
Loving the sinner and hating the sin is the same thing as condoning, in that you pretend the sinner hasn’t had anything to do with the sin. The main reason condoning is bad is because of the results, and there is no point in condemning it and praising forgiveness when both have the same results: namely, the criminal getting off scot-free. It is best to put evildoing down to the insanity we all have rather than down to us knowingly and freely doing evil. This avoids the hateful implications of faith in forgiveness. In other words, see evil as an aberration and not a sin. This way you can praise the woman who neglected her father for her kindness towards you without implying you approve of her behaviour towards her father. The better you get on in life after doing something terrible, the more good you feel about having done the evil, so to be kind to her would be condoning and rewarding her sin.
The Church also says that hate is only a sin if you can do something about it but don't. It is cynical and manipulative how the Church uses the “love the sinner and hate the sin” line to avoid being castigated for being divisive.
The Church makes people who imagine that it forbids hate feel good and safe. They are mistaken, for the Church says that hate is an act of will, not emotion. You can have the feelings of hate and not will them, and you can refuse to give in to them. The hate is not sin. So hate is acting to destroy the wellbeing of another. Also, if you feel that sinners are leading your loved ones into Hell forever, you will naturally feel hatred for them. This is not a sin as long as you can't help it. It is simply not true that the Church is a sweetness-and-light organisation that is too nice to advocate hatred. It does.
Acts of sin don't seem that bad in the sense, for example, that we feel that even Hitler should not be punished with everlasting punishment. But the religious treat people as having sin natures. They have influenced and persuaded the law of the land to jail people for life for something that took them one second to do: the act of murder. They agree that a person who steals a bar of chocolate should have their good name taken away by the law and the papers and be punished seemingly out of proportion to the crime. They agree to this because they see the murderers and thieves as having an evil nature or character, which is why they must suffer. It is more about dealing with the dark characters than the actions. Nobody can pretend that any of that is about loving the sinners and hating their sins.
Christianity's love and hate are a bit cold. It is not the evil that people do to us that troubles us. It is the hate or bad feeling toward us expressed by their actions. We are made to want people to like and love us with their feelings. We are emotional creatures. If Catholics understood their faith properly, they would not be in it.
The Bible God says that justice means an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life, etc. He commands that a number of times. This command masquerades as divine revelation but was actually stolen from Hammurabi. Hammurabi is hardly a good inspiration, for it contains much barbarism. To purloin such a command from a source and say that it came from a good God is terrible.
By the way, it is strange that God would command that you can knock out the tooth of the person who knocks yours out and not say, “If he sleeps with your wife you may sleep with his.” So violence is better than illicit sex.
One of Judaism and Christianity's biggest false claims is that this law of lex talionis, tit for tat, is not about enforcing revenge but about ensuring fairness. They inconsistently say it is not about encouraging revenge but limiting it. So is it revenge or not? Also, limiting revenge to taking the eye of somebody who takes yours is encouraging revenge. Putting your dog out in an enclosed yard means you are not limiting his walking but encouraging it.
The rule masquerades as caring about proportion. It does not. Even in Hammurabi's day, they knew that taking the tooth of a man prone to infections was not the same thing as his breaking out yours when you are sturdy and healthy. Executing a man with a family for killing single Judah is not proportion.
Jesus agreed with an eye for an eye but said not to do this, for mercy was another option. Was that nice of him? No. The law is not about justice but merely looking like it while being full of hate. We clearly see that his justice is revenge, and so mercy, then, as in the withholding of vengeance that you think a person needs, is passive-aggressive.
FINALLY
Love the sinner and hate the sin is thin for people feel personal about the sin. The person is the problem not the sin. The command will cause trouble. Hate involves a level of objectification of the one hated. So the command is only a polite way of endorsing such objectification.