Christians are hypocrites

by Handsome Dan 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Handsome Dan
    Handsome Dan

    Christians are hypocrites

    Christians, they love to talk about how loving, dutiful and compassionate they are, yet I have yet to meet ONE who does not practice hypocrisy to the highest degree. Their willful ignorance of the Bible combined with their two faced idealism to preach it, has made us sick, hasn’t it? For nearly two thousand years Biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible’s teachings on ethics, manners, and morality. They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralism. The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft- noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Christians practice what can only be described as “selective morality”. What they like, they cling to and shove down other’s throats; what they don’t like, they ignore vehemently. That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addressed 2,000 years ago. Their hypocrisy is so rampant that even the validity of calling oneself “Christian” is in question. I see so many people enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul’s sermons, but don’t even PRETEND to heed other, equally valid, maxims. I’ve mentioned pro-life and conservatism in other sermons. This one is going to sum up the rest of my beefs.

    Hypocrisy of Marital Relationships: So many Christians try to rationalize this but it is clear that a true follower of Jesus can neither divorce someone nor marry someone who is divorced. There is an exception to the rule, however. If spouse commits adultery, divorce is permissible. On the same token, the Bible also says that anyone who obtains a divorce and marries another is in adulterer. Remember that 80% of this country is Christian yet we have a 50% divorce rate. A majority of divorces are a result of irreconcilable differences, not adultery, which implies that Christians are again practicing selective morality. How many Christians are working on a second, third or fourth marriage?

    1) “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6 & Mark 10:9).

    2) “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32, 19:9 & Luke 16:18).

    3) "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery" (Matthew 5:32).

    4) "...whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11 & Luke 16:18), which applies to women as well (Mark 10:12).

    On to another beef: The Christian attempts to put prayer into schools run directly counter to biblical teachings. Jesus said prayer should be a private affair devoid of public display: "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet.) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret..." (Matthew 6:5-6 RSV). Biblicists violate this on a regular basis and have no intention of correcting their behavior. They demand that evolution be taken out of the curriculum. They demand parochial school receive voucher programs so that they may collect public funding. Christians continuously pray in public, IE: churches, street corners, schools, courts, etc. yet all the while they never stop to think this is in direct violation to the god they pray to.

    I, of course, know why this is voluntarily ignored. Public prayer forces the peers of school children to jump on the band wagon and pray. We are all aware that the church is simply a business which employs tactics similar to that of tobacco industries in recruiting consumers. Get the kids while they are young and vulnerable so that they become donating members of the church when they reach adulthood. I find it humorous that other businesses warn their consumers on the package that it is dangerous to one’s health while Churches don’t put warning labels on the bible for the pornography and immorality it contains. The psychological damage organized religion causes is notably prevalent. Cancer from smoking and cirrhosis from drinking is JUST AS HARMFUL as the psychosis believers develop concerning reality. The “I see demons” complex is more rampant in Christians then it is in acid dropping space cadets. I am not saying this as a joke. There are literal studies done on this topic and they are in accordance to what I am conveying here.

    Christians always use the excuse that the above mentioned verse is some how “metaphorical” yet they take Paul’s maxim that men should pray with their heads uncovered very seriously. I assume this is generally followed because removing one’s hat isn’t particularly inconvenient. "Any man who prays or prophecies with his head covered dishonors his head…" (1 Corinthians 11:4 RSV). On the other hand, Paul’s tenet that women must keep their heads covered with a veil during prayer is quite inconvenient and, for this reason, has either been rationalized away or ignored, although it is no less binding than any other moral law in the New Testament: “…but any woman who prays or prophecies with her head unveiled dishonors her head… For if a woman will not veil herself, then we should cut off her hair: but if it be disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil… Judge for yourself; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered?” (1 Corinthians 11:5-13 RSV) The selectivity in which these verses are followed SCREAMS hypocrisy.

    More Commonly Ignored Teachings:

    1) "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (l Corinthians 11:14). How many freaked out long-haired, bible thumping Jesus freaks do you know? Perhaps this is just my experience, but I can name 12 such individuals off the top of my head. Surely, you can recall at least ONE LONG-HAIRED CHRISTIAN. The stereotypical version of CHRIST HIMSELF! Think of the numerous statues and pictures Christians adore depicting the lord appearing as that which he detests. One can not stop and wonder at the absurdity of this.

    2) Another tenet clearly prohibits women from being ministers or otherwise speaking in church (“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak”-- 1 Corinthians 14:34). It’s difficult to see how Paul could support the current movement to ordain women. Why, Jesus would shit himself knowing that even I, an ATHEIST WOMAN, has managed to get herself legally ordained.

    3) A third tenet prohibits men and women from wearing each other’s clothing (“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God”--Deuteronomy 22:5). Funny thing, two female Jehovah Witnesses came over this morning, they coffee clutched with my neighbor Jenny, a fellow Christian and ALL THREE of these women were wearing pant suits!

    4) Ever watch these Christians on television and notice how their bowed heads uniformly shake amen while some evangelist goes on and on in prayer for a fucking hour? Well, repetitious and monotonous praying is in violation of Matthew 6:7. “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”

    5) Christians are not supposed to take their disputes before non-Christian courts or judges. (“If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?” -- 1 Corinthians 6:1 NIV) How interesting! Considering that state is separate from church all courts are supposedly “ungodly”. Does this stop Christians from tying up the supreme court with law suits concerning school prayer, abortion, or numerous other absurdities? Hell no it doesn’t, and my taxes are paying the fucking bill for their hypocrisy!

    6) Christian women are supposed to dress discreetly (“...that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire”--l Timothy 2:9 RSV; and “Let not yours be the outward adorning of braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing”-- 1 Peter 3 :3). Violations of these rules are too numerous to mention. Just visualize Tammy Faye Baker’s mascara laden eyes and gold encrusted wrists.

    7) Here is perhaps the mother of verses ignored: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1) and “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven” (Luke 6:37). I have yet to meet a Christian who has not judged my atheism. The whole world is chalk full of judges, juries, voters, employers, teachers, etc. which are all constantly judging others.

    8) Believers are supposed to hate their parents when they follow Jesus (“If any man come to me, and not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sister, yet, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Well, considering that Christians do not abandon their families but usually attempt to brainwash them they are all guilty of not following this verse. “It’s symbolic”, yeah, I know your lame ass defense to this one already.

    9) They are not to oppose evil (“But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”-- Matthew 5:39). If this were followed one might just as well abolish law enforcement.

    10) Biblicists are not allowed to call anyone “father” (“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). Not only is this rule ignored on a DAILY BASIS, but Catholicism uses “father” as a specific title.

    11) Christians are not supposed to plan or prepare. God will provide (“Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or that ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on... Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, not gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feedth them. Are ye not much better than they?” --Matthew 6:25-34 & Luke 12:22-31 inclusive). I see Christian conservatives plot on a daily basis how to screw their employees so they can reap more profits.

    12) Lastly, Jesus, who clearly is of greater importance than Paul, said the Old Law was to remain in force until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished (“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”-Matthew 5:18-19 RSV). Heaven and earth still exist and many prophecies are not yet fulfilled. How many times have you heard some lame ass Christian say “the Old testament doesn’t matter, Jesus was the lamb and abolished it”? Don’t let them get away with this shit for even the bible says that they should still be following the Old Law.

    This verse leads me into an observation of how clear their selective morality can be exposed. Take for instance how Biblicists approach the Old Testament. They leap in and out of the Old Law like a porpoise in a ship’s wake. If they like it, they quote it; if they don’t, they won’t. Among the scores of verses they enjoy and employ are those which teach the following:

    13) Contact with mediums or wizards is forbidden (“Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God”-- Leviticus 19:3 1 RSV, see also: Leviticus 20:6 & Deuteronomy 18: 10-12). Here’s an interesting little stat; Christians more then any other faith consult mystics and self-proclaimed oracles.

    14) People should give one-tenth of their income to the Lord, which Biblicists equate with church (“And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s...And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord”--Leviticus 27:30-32)

    15) Tattoos are anathema: (“You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you. I am the Lord”--Leviticus 19:28) Despite this teaching I manage to see Mexican Catholics daily with tattoos of the Virgin Mary, Jesus or a set of praying hands on their forearms and shoulder blades.

    16) Money cannot be lent at interest to your brother, only to foreigners (Deuteronomy 23: 19-20) Ahhh, I’m recalling all the Christian banking corporations....

    17) Eating pork is forbidden (Deuteronomy 14:8). Hmm, I’ve never met a Christian who DIDN’T enjoy bacon and eggs.

    18) A man must marry and have relations with his dead brother’s wife (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). This goes without explaining of course.

    19) A seducer must marry an unengaged virgin whom he seduces (Exodus 22:16-17)

    20) A raped, unengaged virgin must marry her rapist and they can never divorce (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). What justice the “moral majority” advocates!

    21) There are several petty and silly little verses in the O.T., but none the less, they are to be followed. I guess it’s okay to disobey the lord for fashion’s sake. Beards can’t be rounded (Leviticus 19:27); A garment composed of wool and linen can’t be worn (Deuteronomy 22:11); Note: this explains why you will commonly see orthodox Jews with the long beards and black clothing. I say Christians should do this too so we can identify their stupidity upon first impression.

    22) Bastards can’t enter the Lord’s congregation. (Deuteronomy 23:2) Hey, I know this is harsh, but God commands it, hence it must be “just”.

    All of these rules are part of the Old Covenant and of equal import. Why quote the Ten Commandments and ignore other tenets? A believer’s obligation to one is no less than his obligation to all. In fact, if under the New Covenant Christians have stepped into the shoes of the Israelites and become, in effect, the new Chosen People, then they should inherit all the privileges and duties of that office. They seem to want the former but not the latter. Biblicists teach, preach, and attempt to reach others with moralism, but are not averse to selectively using that which suits their interests.

    I’d like to close this essay with how to catch a Christian in the act. When you see them expounding a verse and ignoring another, call them on it. I know what you’ll hear. They’ll say, “that’s from the Old Law and we aren’t under the Old Law anymore”. Trip them with this: “But aren’t the Ten Commandments part of the Old Law?” “Yes, but we are obligated to follow them because they are reported in the NT” (Matthew 19:16-18, Mark 10:17-19 & Luke 18:18-22). Immediately point out to them that Jesus omitted half of the Ten Commandments and invented a new one, “though shall not defraud” ! Before they can get a word in edge wise finish them off with: “According to scripture it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of law to fail” (Luke 16:17 & Matthew 5:18-19). If sin is transgression of the law, as 1 John 3:4 says, then you should be following all of the Old Law. This, from experience, is the best way to shoot down these idiots and bar them from getting away with their hypocrisy.

  • 5go
    5go
    Christians are hypocrites

    You had me at that.

  • yesidid
    yesidid

    ((((Handsome Dan))))))

    I love you too.

    yesidid

  • aniron
    aniron

    Its taken you this long to find out!

    All humans are hypocrites.

  • Handsome Dan
    Handsome Dan

    Just some thought provoking material to read

  • Mrs Smith
    Mrs Smith

    Hansome Dan, put it in a bubble and blow it away. Far too much anger for one person to carry. All humans are hypocrites, show me one person who has NEVER fallen under this catagory. Yes, I include myself. Done and said things that fall under that banner. Not proud of it but it happens and I have no doubt it will happen again. I don't think it has anything to do with religion or the bible. We all stuff up sooner or later. It's very easy to have one set of rules for yourself and another for everyone else. Almost everything you have written can be said of all religions, your subject could have read " Muslims are hypocrites" or "Hindus are hypocrites" and in SA "Witch Doctors are hypocrites" Get over it.

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    So far as I know, Christians aren't supposed to preach moral perfection as a standard. Pharisees preach that, the folks who serve as leaven.

    Christians aren't supposed to judge others. They are only supposed to apply the standards of the Scriptures to themselves and they recognize the role of judge belongs to Christ. When asked for advice they will offer what they believe to be sound advice, but not as an imposition of will on others and not without acknowledging their own shortcomings in applying the advice—lording it over others is an unchristian thing to do.

    Maybe you haven't met many Christians. Or maybe you have met Christians who have human failings (which the Bible allows for).

    I wonder whether you know the difference between having and holding up an ideal that even you cannot fully achieve, and being a hypocrite. It seems to me that in such a world view anyone who advocates anything they consider noble and positive that is beyond their own capability is a hypocrite. That seems like a rather dark world view to me.

    I'd rather walk in the light of a positive spirit, personally. I find it is healthier for me.

    Respectfully,
    AuldSoul

  • RAF
    RAF

    AuldSoul : WELL SAID !!! (from the begining to the end)
    Maybe it's time to make a difference in between christian by name and christian from the heart.

    a believer don't need to be Self-Rigthous (it's even an Egotic psychic desorder) a believer just know that he is human with human faillures and therefore is supposed to be able to understand others human beings faillures too (wen he/she can).

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    By the by, Handsome Dan, applying the OT to Christianity is a shortcoming of your criticism. You really should know your subject well, before criticizing others.

    Christ brought a law written on hearts, not on stone tablets. The burdensome code has been abolished for me. Here is a point by point response to your post:

    So many Christians try to rationalize this but it is clear that a true follower of Jesus can neither divorce someone nor marry someone who is divorced.

    Fortunately for Christians, they aren't a group of people that can be pointed to and accused the way you suggest. They are individuals. My judge judges me according to what I am and what I do. I have been married for nine years. I have never been divorced. If I get divorced it will be either my mate's choosing (your criterion doesn't allow for one mate to be an actual Christian while the other is not) or it will be due to adultery.

    "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet.) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret..." (Matthew 6:5-6 RSV).

    This is not a commandment of Christ. Christ himself prayed publicly. If you will note, it is the intent of the prayer that determines whether its public nature would be inappropriate. Your criticism of showy televangelists or showy prayer of any kind is dead on target and very fitting counsel for anyone. But not all public prayer is for the show of it, and to assert otherwise is to draw two messages from the text where only one is actually expressed.

    "Judge for yourself; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered?” (1 Corinthians 11:13 RSV)

    I have followed Paul's advice. I judged for myself. I determined that it is proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered. Again, Paul was not making a new command. He was a very opionated person. So long as he stuck to his determination in the matter (until and unless he changed his mind) he was not being hypocritical. Am I a hypocrite for sticking to my determination? How low will you stoop to try and make your accusation stick?

    "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (l Corinthians 11:14).

    No. Nature doth not teach me that. Next? (This is easy)

    "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak”-- 1 Corinthians 14:34

    You are welcome to view Paul's personal opinions as laws if you like. I choose not to do so. He is not Jesus and has no more authority to add to the burden of Christ than did the sect that had been Pharisees. Christ freed me, not Paul. I have only one authority driectly over me and His name is not Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus. Next?

    “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God”--Deuteronomy 22:5

    This is a tenet of Judaism, not a tenet of Christianity. Whoever ordained you must have had an extremely low standard. Not because you are a woman, but because you are apparently oblivious of so much Scripture.

    “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”

    Again, not a law. But I agree with the sentiment. The heathens chanted endlessly. Christians who wax eloquent in prayer are doing so for show. See the earlier point discussing that issue.

    “If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?” -- 1 Corinthians 6:1 NIV

    The point under discussion in context was one Christian taking another Christian to court to settle disputes over money. Again, this is Paul's opinion and not a law. Paul was not referring to redress of and appeal to courts in order to test law or judgment (a right of many citizens around the world). Paul himself "appeal[ed] to Caesar."

    “...that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire”--l Timothy 2:9 RSV;

    Why did you cut out "I desire..."? Are you trying to create the false impression that this is something more than Paul's personal opinion? Shame on you.

    “Let not yours be the outward adorning of braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing”-- 1 Peter 3 :3

    Peter was opinionated, too. He was also not Christ. He also did not free me. I will take his counsel under advisement and make my own decision. Am I hypocritical for doing so? Am I not a Christian if I do so? I say, I am much more a Christian for that view.

    "Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1) and “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven” (Luke 6:37)

    Okay, okay, you've proven it to me. You aren't a Christian. There. Are you satisfied now?

    “If any man come to me, and not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sister, yet, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26)

    Consider this: the rest of the blah blah blah that you placed in your expounding of how Christians fail in this has nothing to do with these verses. However, your blah blah blah was valid in light of many other verses in the Bible. Why didn't you use them? Trying to coerce others into being Christian removes their personal responsibility and is an unchristian thing to do. It is an example of lording it over others.

    “But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”-- Matthew 5:39

    This is not discussing violence, it is discussing response to insult. Did you really not know that?

    “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9)

    Your fleshly father is also your father. He was speaking of titular reference; in which case you are correct that Catholicism has a title that directly conflicts with the counsel of Christ.

    “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or that ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on... Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, not gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feedth them. Are ye not much better than they?” --Matthew 6:25-34 & Luke 12:22-31

    Your version is a poor translation in this instance. "Take no thought" does not convey what the writer intended and rejects many of the Bible's own proverbs, as well as the lesson of the ant. Anxiety about material things is unnecessary, the point of the message is to free Christians to try things knowing that our heavenly Father loves us and cares for us. This is a very liberating text, not in any way a burden of law.

    “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”-Matthew 5:18-19 RSV

    Temporal context seems meaningless to you. Christ accomplished (or fulfilled) the law. In every iota. In every dot. Didn't you know? Look it up. Then you use this as springboard for a long diatribe of Judaic laws. They simply do not apply to Christians. Christ abolished the law by fulfilling it. Since he did so, there is no longer a need to teach these as binding law. Not even according to Matthew 5:18-19. The verse clearly put a terminus on the application.

    Trip them with this: “But aren’t the Ten Commandments part of the Old Law?”

    How could this trip up a Christian? Yes. The ten are part of the old law. They are summed up in two laws, which comprise the positive law of Christ. (1) Love God with whole mind, heart, soul, and strength. (2) Love your neighbor as yourself. On these hang the law and prophets.

    Does rejecting the ten commandments mean I can kill my neighbor? No. That would not be loving. Can I covet? No, same reason. But the reasons become positive. It reframes the law from an oppressive burden into a liberating joy: I will not covet my neighbor's wife because I love my neighbor, not because I fear God's retribution or don't have the proper animal for an offering at the temple.

    You really don't understand much about Christianity, do you? I sense you have never been free to be a Christian. I invite your considered response.

    Respectfully,
    AuldSoul

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    Handsome

    "Trip them"...

    Consider me tripped. I've found grace. Have you?

    D Dog

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit