Give us your personal encounters.

"Oh, we'll be sure to pray for you." (insert fake-sounding "I care" voice here)

Then, on the street, those very same people won't even make eye contact with you or give you the time of day because you aren't good enough for them or worth their time. But they'll be sure to pray for you...and gossip about you behind your back.

People did this to my mom back home. They did it to me. I know not all church-goers are like this, I'm simply answering Patrick's question.

Same experience here, my whole life.... weird.

I pray for people when I tell them I'm going to. What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with that, Conservative. I personally feel uncomfortable when people say that to me, but if they're going to, then they're going to.

My problem was always that these people would treat myself and my family like dirt, but "we'll pray for you." People, we don't need your prayers, all we want is some civility, here, not your damn pity.

But I grew up in a very small, very gossipy town that had nothing better to do than to pick at people behind their backs. If you weren't part of the "in" crowd (how silly in such a small town) then you were worse than the dirt under their shoes. But they'd pray for you on Sunday!

I remember another thing!

People who act all "holier than thou" and look down their nose at you, when they are really just judgemental jerks.

I've encountered that quite a few times in my life. And people wonder why I stopped going to church.

Christians 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 me sick. 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.

"But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" -- 1 Peter 3:15

Perhaps I'm wrong and there is an intelligent loyalist to his/her faith whom may prove so. I'd be utterly delighted to have a civil, intelligent discussion with him/her.

About 99% of all liberals. THAT is MY encounter. They protect THEIR right to free speech, but may God have mercy on their souls if a conservative excersises the first amendment.

Perhaps I'm wrong and there is an intelligent loyalist to his/her faith whom may prove so. I'd be utterly delighted to have a civil, intelligent discussion with him/her.

I promise to remain civil should you start a thread.

Christians 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 me sick. 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.

"But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" -- 1 Peter 3:15

Perhaps I'm wrong and there is an intelligent loyalist to his/her faith whom may prove so. I'd be utterly delighted to have a civil, intelligent discussion with him/her.


Good luck with this guy. I know him personally and he's done his homework. I'm not saying he'll change your mind, but he'll exploit the very words you recite and turn them into a debate. Try not to get too fired up or take what he writes personally.

Good luck with this guy. I know him personally and he's done his homework. I'm not saying he'll change your mind, but he'll exploit the very words you recite and turn them into a debate. Try not to get too fired up or take what he writes personally.
Just as long as he takes the heated debates to the nosebleed section.

The only way to access the nosebleed section is to join it. Click on "What's New," at the top of the home page. Scroll down to Miscellaneous, and then click on "Group Memberships." When you join the nosebleed club you have a choice to make it your primary usergroup and over-ride your normal "Member" title. If you want to access to any of the clubs you MUST make the club your primary usergroup. That's the only way that you can access the nosebleed section on the forum.

when i was a christian, i noticed that a vast mahority of churches i attended had become so commercialized that there was no spirit or power left there. this was made all the more powerful by the fact that christ specifically comdemned these types of actions. that was one of three things that drove me from the religion.

why even tell people you are going to pray for them, Just pray for them and leave it out of your mouth in public and in the private with God.

I dont like people that are "showoff" christians. Imeanyou dont have to tell me you are one, if you are truly acting like one. I mean if you have the Holy Spirit then it will show.Show by the joy on your face, the way you live, the way you love your brothers, and the way you act.

Remember Jesus died for the sinners, not the Saints. If you are a saint, Well done...

Christians 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.

Well that's about the most loaded statement I've ever heard. Hypocrisy to the highest degree, huh? That's quite a thing to say when the rest of your post has nothing to do with hypocrisy. Because a Christian can't tell you why he's a Christian makes him a hypocrite to the highest degree? I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I don't see how it's hypocrisy.

Because a Christian can't tell you why he's a Christian makes him a hypocrite to the highest degree? I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I don't see how it's hypocrisy.

Firstly, allow me to define hypocrisy (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypocrisy)

Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

Or broadly put in layman's terms a pretense of having a religious principle that one does not really possess.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" -- 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

That all scripture is inspired by God because the scripture says so (circular reasoning) means He respectively inspired James in his penning verse 3:15 of 1 Peter. Ultimately, one might make the leap to conclude God, Himself, therefore "penned" 1 Peter 3:15 therefore He (God) is instructing his followers not to refuse debate, but rather answer to those whom ask.

I'll presume you believe the Bible to be the perfect Word of God and therefore assume all of the instructions He has subsequently inspired. For you to be endowed the title Christian should you not heed to His (Christ's) words?

Does not a cooker cook? Does not a player play? Does not a supervisor supervise?

Why then should a Christian not do as Christ demanded of Himself and His followers while professing to do just that? Perhaps our measurements of hypocrisy are debatable, but the definition and instruction are not. Enlighten me on what you would consider the highest degree of hypocrisy. Is he claiming to be Christian and then murdering any more/less of a hypocrite than he who refuses to debate? What about he/she whom divorce*?

God has clearly spoken His word pertaining to the matter, perhaps you'd like to endulge me on how a Christian not obeying His word is anything but hypocritical of himself. Now, by no means was my post intended to incite a debate, but rather to discuss the hypocrisy I've encountered.


*Approximately 80% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States) of the United States profess to be Christian and yet roughly 50% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce) of couples in the United States get divorced (Note: There are no discernible distinctions between the divorce rate among Christians verses "non-believers" despite all the support from Churches, Christian friends, and prayer)

Yet the Word of God reads:

"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -- Matthew 19:6

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -- Mark 10:9

So you're telling me that every Christian you have ever met, you have questioned them, and they have said "No, I will not discuss the issue with you." Sounds a little ridiculous to me.

I would say it's our nature to defend our beliefs and the more fervently believed, the more fervently defended. If someone was unwilling to debate it with you, it is likely they were intimidated by your "debating skills" as AFCM described. THAT would be a whole other issue, but not hypocrisy.

As far as being hypocritical about this issue, this Bible verse, well it just seems a little obscure. The divorce argument would hold more water, except for the fact that your own statistics show that there is still 30% who are Christians and don't get divorced. Do you mean to say that you have never met any of those still-married Christians?

So you're telling me that every Christian you have ever met, you have questioned them, and they have said "No, I will not discuss the issue with you." Sounds a little ridiculous to me.

Your mistake -- I never prescribed anything similar to what you've written. What I did write was, "I have yet to meet one who does not practice hypocrisy to the highest degree." That honest statement merely testifies that I've never met a Christian whom wasn't a hypocrite (as they are not freed from the chains of hypocrisy solely because they believe in the Gospel). I then give an example to what some hypocrites do: they preach what the bible says until they're blue in the face and yet they ignore the Bible (many examples are provided below my last response).


I would say it's our nature to defend our beliefs and the more fervently believed, the more fervently defended. If someone was unwilling to debate it with you, it is likely they were intimidated by your "debating skills" as AFCM described. THAT would be a whole other issue, but not hypocrisy.

I'm going to answer your question with another question: If an American soldier, after pledging the Soldier's Creed (http://www.army.mil/SoldiersCreed/flash_version/index.html) (I am an American Soldier...I will always place the mission first...I will never quit...I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat...I am an American Soldier) and swearing to obey the orders of the Commander in Chief, then goes AWOL because he is intimidated by going to Iraq, is he excused of being a hypocrite? Does he not contradict the very values of what an American Soldier is in the same respects a hypocrite does a Christian?


As far as being hypocritical about this issue, this Bible verse, well it just seems a little obscure.

Obviously, you can't find a real problem in my interpretation so you chose to use this "The Bible verse is obcure" argument. Even a flawed interpretation is still an interpretation, and you obviously can't find an inconsistency between my interpretation and the text, or you would have provided an example rather than using this non-rebuttal.

Because the Bible is a very vague book peppered with obscurities I conclude then that it cannot possibly be the product of an all-powerful and perfect God. If there is indeed an objective Truth, there is nothing in the Bible which can possibly confirm or deny what any part of that Truth is.

When you're talking about a book that's supposed to be our instructions from Almighty God, it's logical to have it be as clear and unambiguous as possible. Every little flair of poetry or bit of metaphorical language is one more thing that people can easily misinterpret, at the cost of their immortal souls.

If the Bible is literal, then it is absurd and self-contradictory. If it is figurative, then it is open to many equally valid interpretations with no way of knowing which one is True. If it is both, then how do we know which passages are to be taken literally and which are not?

That's not a casual question; civilizations have gone to war because they couldn't agree on the answers, and to this day even members of the same church can't agree on it. Many of your fellow Christians would label you a hypocrite for suggesting that God took longer than six literal days to create the World.

Let me put it this way: If I am a structural engineer in charge of designing a bridge, I will take great pains to ensure that NOTHING is left ambiguous; every bolt will have its place, every steel beam will be precisely measured, and every drawing will be labeled clearly and checked meticulously for error. If bridge plans were created by poets and painters, who draft the plans with watercolors and write the specifications in metaphorical language, would dare drive your car across the Golden Gate?

Presenting an excerpt from my bridge plan:

Bridge 2:16 - "The bolts that join the arches to the truss are threescore and ten." (Of course, the construction workers are expected to just figure out that this doesn't always mean literally seventy bolts per connection; some have a few more, some much less, depending on circumstances)

Bridge 5:23 - "Lo, the towers of the bridge shall reach unto Heaven!" (perhaps once they reach 2,000 feet and it starts buckling under its own weight, they'll realize that the specs didn't actually mean that.)

Bridge 12:4 - "Like gossamer threads spanning the chasm, shall the suspension cables be." (and as the whole thing folds up and falls into the river, the contractors begin to think that maybe steel would have worked better than gossamer.)

Doesn't it seem the least bit strange to you that a bridge designer takes far greater care to ensure accuracy and precision in his instructions than the Bible's authors did, considering what's at stake in each case?

I'm not being facetious. There are instructions in the Bible which would seem equally absurd to the ones above for building a bridge such as 1 Peter 3:15, and yet people believe them and follow them. As time has gone on, we've argued away much of the absurdities, but how many innocent people were hanged as witches before we decided that's not what God meant by "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? How many children have been abused and tortured by their own parents because to "spare the rod" would spoil the child (Proverbs 13:24)?

In other words, how many times are you going to be force-fed humble pie before you can admit that your favorite book is too obscure to be followed in any meaningful way?

We have no choice. God isn't here to clarify it for us, and those who claim to represent Him all say different things and carry no heaven-issued ID to prove they are who they say they are.

Explain to me why you disagree with 1 Peter 3:15 not being the word of God instructing his followers to answer, if indeed you do. Have years of studying the Bible at OBU rendered you as incapable of delivering a straightforward answer as the book itself is?


The divorce argument would hold more water, except for the fact that your own statistics show that there is still 30% who are Christians and don't get divorced. Do you mean to say that you have never met any of those still-married Christians?

I prescribe the roughly 30% who haven't already broken the "divorce clause" found in the Bible either will divorce or have already disobeyed yet a different instruction given by God. Nevertheless, Christians disobey the Word of God on a daily basis and can be demonstrated by the amount of guilty, repentful prayers. I don't claim to be perfect -- but I also don't claim to follow a perfect book.

Surely a portion of the remaining 30% have pushed for teacher-led prayers in our public schools...

"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).

...and I can think of ten "Christians" off the top of my head with long hair (not including the stereotypical image of Jesus).

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

Since church and state are separate (as God designed it to be [Romans 13:1-7]) then why do Christians tie up our secular court system with petty disagreements such as prayer in public schools?

"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 many Christians love their children?

"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

And let us not forget one of the biggest hypocrites (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6rSjrBhUIA) found in the news lately.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)

By now you might notice that the 30% is potentially 0% given the standards set forth by our society. Do you seek to dispute that every Christian I've met is a hypocrite to the highest degree? If so, please do.

I think you are missing the point of Christianity. It is not religion or legalism, for if it were, then yes, we would all be going to hell because nobody will ever get it right. To be a Christian, or a Christ-follower that is, means to put your faith and trust in Christ--that he died for you and has a better plan for you. That with his help you can work to be a better person, but no one will ever be perfect. With that faith comes a willingness to use the Bible as a guide, and take from it your own convictions. This is why everyone reads it a little different, and why human logic cannot ever fully comprehend it.

I think you are missing the point of Christianity. It is not religion or legalism, for if it were, then yes, we would all be going to hell because nobody will ever get it right. To be a Christian, or a Christ-follower that is, means to put your faith and trust in Christ--that he died for you and has a better plan for you. That with his help you can work to be a better person, but no one will ever be perfect. With that faith comes a willingness to use the Bible as a guide, and take from it your own convictions. This is why everyone reads it a little different, and why human logic cannot ever fully comprehend it.

Jason, you're not even attacking my argument, you're just preaching. Instead of telling me how I'm "missing the point of Christianity", why not refute me by telling me how every Christian is not a hypocrite and how my initial statement was "the most loaded statement" and I'll be happy to concede my position.

It's a loaded statement because the phrase "hypocrite to the highest degree" is extremely strong wording and based on your opinion of what constitutes the highest degree. You responded to that NO Christians ever defend their beliefs, which I find hard to believe. (Also, I just did it). Yes every Christian makes mistakes, but not all of them are "preachy" about the very things they screw up. You are making blanket statements that simply aren't true, and that's why it was a loaded statement.

And how do you know my name or that I went to OBU?? That is kinda creeping me out.

It's a loaded statement because the phrase "hypocrite to the highest degree" is extremely strong wording and based on your opinion of what constitutes the highest degree.

That the phrase was based upon my opinion doesn't means it's "loaded" since the thread is asking us to discuss personal encounters with hypocrites

An excerpt from my previous argument, "Perhaps our measurements of hypocrisy are debatable…"


You responded to that NO Christians ever defend their beliefs, which I find hard to believe.

Again, I NEVER stated that "no Christians have ever defended their beliefs". Prove me wrong and I’ll concede my argument. What I stated was, "The problem with (Christians') 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." I then provided Biblical scripture (1 Peter 3:15) to use as an example. I might have simply used any number of examples (and clearly did so in the following argument).


Also, I just did (answer) it.

You haven't answered anything. Would you like to answer something: When was Jesus crucified? Answer that. 63 views and still no closer to a response from a Christian. Perhaps I’ve stumbled upon a contradiction. I’d love for someone to explain (not rationalize) the difference (if any).


Yes every Christian makes mistakes, but not all of them are "preachy" about the very things they screw up.

I never claimed every Christian preached! I claimed I have yet to meet one whom hasn’t practiced something other than what they've preached. Read an excerpt two of my arguments:

"I have yet to meet one (Christian) who does not practice hypocrisy to the highest degree…I then give an example to what some hypocrites do: they preach what the bible says until they're blue in the face and yet they ignore the Bible."
Simply because I have yet to meet a Christian who is not a hypocrite doesn’t mean they all are. You're implicitly accusing me of making a hasty generalization, which is simply not the case.

Read it again…Perhaps a third time. I claimed the "hypocrites preach (and yet ignore the Bible)". I never said “Christians preach (and yet ignore the Bible)”


You are making blanket statements that simply aren't true, and that's why it was a loaded statement.

I'm making a true statement based upon my observations. Do you contend that I'm lying?

Your initial statement that every Christian you have met is a hypocrite to the highest degree is your hyperbole, not fact. It is opinion, and thus can only be defended as such. That's all I was saying with my initial response.

To qualify your statement we would have to define what is hypocrisy at its highest degree? The answer? I would imagine that would be your opinion and thus could never be defended as true fact.



You haven't answered anything. Would you like to answer something: When was Jesus crucified? Answer that. 63 views and still no closer to a response from a Christian. Perhaps I’ve stumbled upon a contradiction. I’d love for someone to explain (not rationalize) the difference (if any).

I don't know the answer to that question, because you are the first to ask it to me. I am not a Biblical scholar. I read that post and frankly could see nothing contradictory about the two passages.


"I have yet to meet one (Christian) who does not practice hypocrisy to the highest degree…I then give an example to what some hypocrites do: they preach what the bible says until they're blue in the face and yet they ignore the Bible."
Simply because I have yet to meet a Christian who is not a hypocrite doesn’t mean they all are. You're implicitly accusing me of making a hasty generalization, which is simply not the case.

You must not have met very many Christians.

And as far as ignoring the Bible, I would contend they are not because the Bible teaches that "works" (actions) are not the essential to Christian living, but faith. The Bible also teaches that every Christian will stumble many times. This does not rationalize doing "sinful" things but acknowledges the forgiveness that covers them. To say that a Christian that has been divorced once many years prior continues to practice hypocrisy in that area is unfounded.

And how do you know my name or that I went to OBU?? That is kinda creeping me out.


MySpace

Your initial statement that every Christian you have met is a hypocrite to the highest degree is your hyperbole, not fact. It is opinion, and thus can only be defended as such. That's all I was saying with my initial response.

Likewise then "loaded statement" must be defined.


To qualify your statement we would have to define what is hypocrisy at its highest degree? The answer? I would imagine that would be your opinion and thus could never be defended as true fact.

Hypocrisy at it's highest degree is merely a hypocrite wilfully contradicting one's own principles he/she claims to practice while preaching his/her principles to others. Do you agree with my definition? Is there anything you would add/remove?


I read that post and frankly could see nothing contradictory about the two passages.

"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified." -- John 19:14-16 (KJV)


"And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?...[The Lord's supper, Judas betrays Him, He's arrested and sentenced to death]...And it was the third hour, and they crucified him." -- Mark 14:12, 15-25 (KJV)

The hour may be rationalized. Yet the day in which Jesus was crucified seems to be contradictory. How does the author of John have Jesus crucified the day before the passover meal when the author of Mark has Jesus crucified the day after the passover meal?


You must not have met very many Christians.

Having been one myself before and attending a private Bible college, I maintain that I have met many (so-called) Christians.


The Bible also teaches that every Christian will stumble many times. This does not rationalize doing "sinful" things but acknowledges the forgiveness that covers them.

You seem to suggest "forgiveness" makes a hypocrite no more: that Ted Haggard, at the end of a day having preached against homosexual relations and then having sex with another man, asking forgiveness isn't a hypocrite.


To say that a Christian that has been divorced once many years prior continues to practice hypocrisy in that area is unfounded.

"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." -- Luke 16:18 (KJV)

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." -- Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18 (KJV)

Much like a Christian that has never been married continues to practice pre-marital sex, I suppose. If such is the case, then I was a hypocrite ONCE when I lost my virginity yet are not years later although I still engage in premarital sexual activites. Although, once again, we're not discussing only Christians. We're discussing hypocrites.

Christians will always disappoint you. That's why we don't put our faith in people, but in Christ.

Christians will always disappoint you. That's why we don't put our faith in people, but in Christ.

Faith (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith) n. - firm belief in something for which there is no proof

With enough faith, we may also believe in Allah.

If you have so much faith. Prove it by drinking a pint of arsenic. According to Jesus, in His faith you may drink any poison and it will not hurt you.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18

So, do you really have faith that Jesus tells the truth? That Jesus wouldn't lie to you?

WHERE IN THAT PASSAGE does it say that that applies to every Christian? That's ridiculous.

WHERE IN THAT PASSAGE does it say that that applies to every Christian? That's ridiculous.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe..." Mark 16:17

Continue reading,

"...In my name shall they (the believers) cast out devils, They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

You believe in Jesus? So, you're a believer, right?

Show your faith!

There is nothing there that says all these things will happen to every Christian. They are merely examples of miracles that will happen. Paul is bitten by a poisonous snake and miraculously doesn't die.

There is nothing there that says all these things will happen to every Christian. They are merely examples of miracles that will happen. Paul is bitten by a poisonous snake and miraculously doesn't die.

Nowhere does it read only some of these things will happen to only a few select believers!

"And these signs shall follow them that believe"

Plainly read without any distortion to context and it proves you have no faith in your invisible god.

It doesn't tell believers to risk their lives by drinking poison, so unless he said it applies to every believer, then there is no reason to test God. There are plenty of places in scripture that warn against doing that.

Firstly, allow me to define hypocrisy (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypocrisy)

Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

Or broadly put in layman's terms a pretense of having a religious principle that one does not really possess.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" -- 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

That all scripture is inspired by God because the scripture says so (circular reasoning) means He respectively inspired James in his penning verse 3:15 of 1 Peter. Ultimately, one might make the leap to conclude God, Himself, therefore "penned" 1 Peter 3:15 therefore He (God) is instructing his followers not to refuse debate, but rather answer to those whom ask.

I'll presume you believe the Bible to be the perfect Word of God and therefore assume all of the instructions He has subsequently inspired. For you to be endowed the title Christian should you not heed to His (Christ's) words?

Does not a cooker cook? Does not a player play? Does not a supervisor supervise?

Why then should a Christian not do as Christ demanded of Himself and His followers while professing to do just that? Perhaps our measurements of hypocrisy are debatable, but the definition and instruction are not. Enlighten me on what you would consider the highest degree of hypocrisy. Is he claiming to be Christian and then murdering any more/less of a hypocrite than he who refuses to debate? What about he/she whom divorce*?

God has clearly spoken His word pertaining to the matter, perhaps you'd like to endulge me on how a Christian not obeying His word is anything but hypocritical of himself. Now, by no means was my post intended to incite a debate, but rather to discuss the hypocrisy I've encountered.


*Approximately 80% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States) of the United States profess to be Christian and yet roughly 50% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce) of couples in the United States get divorced (Note: There are no discernible distinctions between the divorce rate among Christians verses "non-believers" despite all the support from Churches, Christian friends, and prayer)

Yet the Word of God reads:

"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -- Matthew 19:6

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -- Mark 10:9

Although your presentation is good, your point is lacking in any fundamental truths. First you reference ‘circular reasoning’ without going in to detail. You seem to be saying/asking that the Bible is the word of God “just” because it said so. The simple answer is yes it is, but not without faith. There are different degrees of faith to be applied to the word of God, none of which should be separated from the real truth. I think it is safe to say that everyone who believes that the Bible is the word of God also believes that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in April 1965. Why? Because some historian said so... I would go further to say those same people believe we landed a man on the moon in the summer of 1969 because the media and NASA said we did. Were any of us there to witness these two events? No. Then why do we believe it? Faith, pure and simple. Secondly, you use an analogy to describe hypocrisy to the highest degree by Christians who don’t demonstrate Christ’s attributes. In your analogy you use the cooker, the player and the supervisor. In order for your argument to be valid the cooker would have to cook something perfect all the time, the player would have to play to perfection every time, and the supervisor would never have a problem with those he supervises. For example; if a chef cooked a meal and presented to two people in a restaurant and one person loved it and the other didn’t, then the one who was not satisfied could say “and you call yourself a cook”. Does this make the chef a hypocrite? No. Although I enjoy reading what you write, your arguments foundation would crumble under the slightest of scrutiny.

I think it is safe to say that everyone who believes that the Bible is the word of God also believes that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in April 1965. Why? Because some historian said so... I would go further to say those same people believe we landed a man on the moon in the summer of 1969 because the media and NASA said we did. Were any of us there to witness these two events? No. Then why do we believe it? Faith, pure and simple.

The assassination of President Lincoln was documented by inumerable dispassionate observers who lived during Lincoln's assassination. This was decidedly not the case with Jesus, Whose existence was attested by no secular writer of His time.

But there is a second distinction which, to me, is the most significant: Although Lincoln led an unusually eventful and productive life, there is no historical claim that Lincoln stood the laws of physics on their head. For example, no one ever claimed that he rose from the dead after his assassination.

"Extraordinary claims," said Carl Sagan, "require extraordinary evidence". So while I might accept someone's word that Lincoln was born in Kentucky, I would not believe someone's assertion that he was born of a virgin in Kentucky. The more farfetched the claim, the more overwhelming and irrefutable the evidence must be. Since none of Christ's contemporaries even bothered to mention His name in their historical accounts, the level of proof necessary to document His "miracles" is woefully inadequate. In fact, it's absolutely nonexistent.

Wow, this thread has risen from the dead!

Oh, and Lincoln died in 1865. :)

Wow, this thread has risen from the dead!

Oh, and Lincoln died in 1865. :)

It seems I've been targeted by the moderators as they proof-read my comments prior to it being uploaded. Unfortunately, Months ago, I had written a response to this only to never have my response posted.

They've been waiting 2,000+ years for their Messiah, they can wait a few months for a response.

I think you're missing the whole concept of faith Lied. If you had all the "evidence" you needed, it wouldn't be hard to believe or have faith. "Faith" is believing in things you can't always see or explain. If God intended for us to know it all, there would not be a purpose for the ONE that does know it all (God).

Faith is believin what you know ain't true. -Samuel Clemens

I think you're missing the whole concept of faith Lied. If you had all the "evidence" you needed, it wouldn't be hard to believe or have faith. "Faith" is believing in things you can't always see or explain. If God intended for us to know it all, there would not be a purpose for the ONE that does know it all (God).

I'm not missing the point, I just refuse to accept faith as a means of living.

First you reference ‘circular reasoning’ without going in to detail.

Need I really go into detail about how the Bible utilizes circular reasoning?

You use an analogy to describe hypocrisy to the highest degree by Christians who don’t demonstrate Christ’s attributes. In your analogy you use the cooker, the player and the supervisor. In order for your argument to be valid the cooker would have to cook something perfect all the time, the player would have to play to perfection every time, and the supervisor would never have a problem with those he supervises. For example; if a chef cooked a meal and presented to two people in a restaurant and one person loved it and the other didn’t, then the one who was not satisfied could say “and you call yourself a cook”. Does this make the chef a hypocrite? No. Although I enjoy reading what you write, your arguments foundation would crumble under the slightest of scrutiny.

The cook needn't be perfect because being a cook doesn't require perfection nor is serving a luke warm served meal punishable by eternal torment. If a meal is prepared wrong, the chef isn't going to "hell". It should also be noted, the chef doesn't wander aimlessly into the dining area preaching the blessings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He probably wouldn't judge his fellow customers for not being a good as cook as he nor does he approach your doorstep asking if you know the FSM. Sound familiar?

It amazes me how "knowledgable" some people become about the Bible when it suits their agenda. Their weapon of choice is using scripture from the Bible, a book that they reject as being the Word of God and deny it's authority as a guide to living a righteous life and what happens when we sin AND are unrepentent.

Jbrown84 has been admirable in his response to you. I'm sure he knew he wouldn't sway you, but to let others see the foolishness of the attempt to fish for responses.

How's this for scripture citing:
Proverbs 26:4-5 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

In this case, Jbrown84 has not allowed you to go unrefuted.

I do feel for you and the anger you have but instead of making you feel stronger, it will only continue to weaken and consume you. I know because I almost let it comsume me, my disappointment in others grew into such hatred that I was truly miserable. Then I realized that many of us do really have good intentions and just don't follow through. In order to avoid this, when I say I'm going to pray for someone, I do it right then and there. And guess what, I am going to pray for you, RIGHT NOW:

"Father, I thank you for the priviledge we have in coming before your throne, unafraid, lifting up our petitions and praises to you in the name of your Son, Jesus. I lift up JLFY and pray that whatever has caused this person to have such bitterness and anger that you would put in his path someone that can show him the way to the Great Physician, who CAN heal ALL past hurts and create a peace in the heart that goes beyond understanding. Having personally experienced anger and bitterness in my life, I can empathize with him/her in being disappointed in others and their actions, or in this case, inaction. I also know how detrimental that feeling can be emotionally as well as physically. I pray that he/she will find the peace they so desperatly seek.
It's in Jesus Christ's Holy Name I pray, Amen!"

Proverbs 14:30 A heart at peace give life to the body, but envy* rots the bones.
*Anger, Bitterness

I am going to pray for you, RIGHT NOW:

"Father, I thank you for the priviledge we have in coming before your throne, unafraid, lifting up our petitions and praises to you in the name of your Son, Jesus. I lift up JLFY and pray that whatever has caused this person to have such bitterness and anger that you would put in his path someone that can show him the way to the Great Physician, who CAN heal ALL past hurts and create a peace in the heart that goes beyond understanding. Having personally experienced anger and bitterness in my life, I can empathize with him/her in being disappointed in others and their actions, or in this case, inaction. I also know how detrimental that feeling can be emotionally as well as physically. I pray that he/she will find the peace they so desperatly seek.
It's in Jesus Christ's Holy Name I pray, Amen!"


News flash for JLFW - nothing you can do or say can prevent that prayer from reaching God. It's already there, in fact it's been sent again by me. I generally avoid the theological posts, because I'm not very eloquent. I'm thankful that OKBound is willing (and very capable) to post a Christ centered response.

It amazes me how "knowledgable" some people become about the Bible when it suits their agenda.

Define what you suppose my agenda is. We'll begin the debate there.


Their weapon of choice is using scripture from the Bible, a book that they reject as being the Word of God and deny it's authority as a guide to living a righteous life and what happens when we sin AND are unrepentent.

How else would you demonstrate the Quran to be NOT the Word of Allah rather than using the Quran itself? I liken the reference of Scripture to the reference of Christmas stories -- A parent might tell his youngster to be good because if he doesn't Santa might not leave him any toys. The parent assuredly doesn't believe in Santa Clause. So why does the parent reference ole' St. Nick?


How's this for scripture citing:
Proverbs 26:4-5 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

You're implying that I'm a fool.

How's this for scripture citing:

"If you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell." -- Matthew 5:22 (NCV)


In this case, Jbrown84 has not allowed you to go unrefuted.

Despite what you may "believe", my response has gone completely unrefuted. There's no way around this, my friend!


And guess what, I am going to pray for you, RIGHT NOW.

Great. Nothing fails like a good old prayer. Hey, pray for the victims of Hurrican Dean. Pray that not a single person perishes due to the storm.

you're implying that i'm a fool.

how's this for scripture citing:

"if you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell." -- matthew 5:22 (ncv)


your claim is incorrect on several levels.

first, the words from proverbs and matthew rendered into english as 'fool' are not the same word. the hebrew word for 'fool' in the quote from proverbs is 'keseel.' in the lxx, this word is translated into greek as 'aphron' which means 'without understanding.' this does not carry the same negative connotation as calling someone a 'fool' in english. in the passage from matthew, the greek word translated to 'fool' is 'moros', which means foolish, impious, godless. this word does not have negative connotations on its own, either. so, the word used for 'fool' in proverbs is not the same word used in matthew. and even if it were, it would not have the same logical equivalency as calling somebody a 'fool' in english. in fact, the word 'moros' is used to call people 'fools' or 'foolish' throughout the new testament and jesus himself calls the pharisees 'fools' with this same word. there must therefore be more to the passage you quoted from matthew than simply using the word 'moros' that would put an individual at risk of hell fire. so...

second, you have taken the verse from matthew out of context. the full passage is:


but i tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. again, anyone who says to his brother, 'raca,' is answerable to the sanhedrin. but anyone who says, 'you fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

looking at the entire thought, the context is of one person who is angry at another. the word 'raca' is an aramaic word transliterated into greek and essentially means 'fool', but with a negative connotation. according to the passage, one using this word would have to answer to the sanhedrin, the jewish authorities. therefore, in this setting, one could skirt the law by calling somebody a 'fool' in another language. the point is, that if one strikes out in anger then he is at risk because of the status of his heart and not because of his word choice. it doesn't appear to me as if okbound's quoting of proverbs was done out of anger and therefore does not fit the context in the passage you quoted from matthew.

however, it does seem that you are proving okbound's point by using scripture to make your argument and subsequently misinterpreting it so that it fits neatly into your retort. good try, though.

-M

OKbound, thanks for the defense. Clearly several of us have refuted him, and he will not admit it.

Not only does he take things out of context, but he has to use bizarre, rare translations to find wording to fit his arguments.

Hypocrite alert....I'm beginning to think all those who bash gay marriage are all gay themselves....I see a clear pattern now

Guy spoke out against Clinton and helped lead the charge for his impeachment

At least he wasn't doing it in a public restroom Mr Craig


Under fire from leaders of his own party, Idaho Sen. Larry Craig on Tuesday said the only thing he had done wrong was to plead guilty after a complaint of lewd conduct in a men's room. He declared, "I am not gay. I never have been gay."

"I did nothing wrong at the Minneapolis airport," he said at a news conference with his wife, Suzanne, at his side.

Craig entered his plea several weeks after an undercover police officer in the Minneapolis arrested him and issued a complaint that said the three-term senator had engaged in actions "often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct."

The airport incident occurred June 11. Craig signed his plea papers on Aug. 1, and word of the events surfaced Monday. The senator issued a statement Monday night that said, "In hindsight, I should have pled not guilty."

He repeated that assertion at the Idaho news conference. "In June, I overreacted and made a poor decision," he said. "I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in hopes of making it go away."

Craig was at times defiant, at others apologetic.

"Please let me apologize to my family, friends and staff and fellow Idahoans for the cloud placed over Idaho," he said. "I did nothing wrong at the Minneapolis airport. I did nothing wrong, and I regret the decision to plead guilty and the sadness that decision has brought on my wife, on my family, friends, staff and fellow Idahoans."

The conservative three-term senator, who has represented Idaho in Congress for more than a quarter-century, is up for re-election next year. He said he would announce next month whether he would run again.

Craig, who has voted against gay marriage, finds his political future in doubt in the wake of the charges, which have drawn national attention.

Craig, 62, has faced rumors about his sexuality since the 1980s, but allegations that he had engaged in gay sex have never been substantiated. Craig has denied the assertions, which he calls ridiculous.

The scandal had already taken a political toll. On Monday, Craig resigned from a prominent role with Republican Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. He had been one of Romney's top Senate supporters, serving as a liaison for the campaign since February.

Asked about Craig, Romney said, "He's disappointed the American people."

"Yeah, I think it reminds us of Mark Foley and Bill Clinton. I think it reminds us of the fact that people who are elected to public office continue to disappoint, and they somehow think that if they vote the right way on issues of significance or they can speak a good game, that we'll just forgive and forget," Romney said on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company."

Foley is a former Republican lawmaker who resigned nearly a year ago after being confronted with the computer messages he sent to male teenage pages who had worked on Capitol Hill. Clinton is the former president accused in congressional impeachment proceedings of lying about an affair with a White House intern.

According to a Hennepin County, Minn., court docket, Craig pleaded guilty to a disorderly conduct charge on Aug. 8, with the court dismissing a charge of gross misdemeanor interference to privacy.

The court docket said Craig paid $575 in fines and fees and was put on unsupervised probation for a year. A sentence of 10 days in the county workhouse was stayed.

According to the prosecutor's complaint, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who was investigating allegations of sexual conduct in airport restrooms, went into a stall shortly after noon on June 11 and closed the door.

Minutes later, the officer saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the stall door and the frame.

After a man in the adjacent stall left, Craig entered it and put his roller bag against the front of the stall door, "which Sgt. Karsnia's experience has indicated is used to attempt to conceal sexual conduct by blocking the view from the front of the stall," said the complaint, which was dated June 25.

The complaint said Craig then tapped his right foot several times and moved it closer to Karsnia's stall and then moved it to where it touched Karsnia's foot. Karsnia recognized that "as a signal often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct," the complaint said.

Craig then passed his left hand under the stall divider into Karsnia's stall with his palms up and guided it along the divider toward the front of the stall three times, the complaint said.

The officer then showed his police identification under the divider and pointed toward the exit "at which time the defendant exclaimed `No!'" the complaint said.

The Aug. 8 police report says that Craig had handed the arresting officer a business card that identified him as a member of the Senate.

"What do you think about that?" Craig is alleged to have said, according to the report.

Craig joins other GOP senators facing ethical and legal troubles.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, is under scrutiny for his relationship with a contractor who helped oversee a renovation project that more than doubled the size of the senator's home.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., acknowledged that his phone number appeared in records of a Washington-area business that prosecutors have said was a front for prostitution.

Craig, a rancher and a member of the National Rifle Association, lives in Eagle, Idaho, near the capital of Boise. He was a member of the House for 10 years before winning election to the Senate in 1990. He was re-elected in 1996 and 2002.

Last fall, Craig called allegations from a gay-rights activist that he's had homosexual relationships "completely ridiculous."

___

Associated Press writers Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis, Matthew Daly in Washington

I'm not an expert on gay signals, but it seems like a pretty vague charge to me.. tapping your foot and passing your hand under the stall?

How can anyone prove that he wanted sex, given just those clues?

I'm not an expert on gay signals, but it seems like a pretty vague charge to me.. tapping your foot and passing your hand under the stall?

How can anyone prove that he wanted sex, given just those clues?

No kidding...If somebody did that to me, I'd just assume that they were looking for a "low five" on their Alli-induced...





Nah...I won't finish that thought. Not with the userID I picked.

lol... maybe he was out of toilet paper!

I'm not an expert on gay signals, but it seems like a pretty vague charge to me.. tapping your foot and passing your hand under the stall?

How can anyone prove that he wanted sex, given just those clues?

Now this is a clear man law violation...Can actually get you killed in some countries

"Minutes later, the officer saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the stall door and the frame."

Another violation is the simple fact he sat down on the stall next to the officer...Man law forbids side by side sitting down on toilets....Always always leave a stall in between and when there isn't....You come in wash your hands and stand outside until the bidness is completed :tiphat:

Now this is a clear man law violation...Can actually get you killed in some countries

"Minutes later, the officer saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the stall door and the frame."

Another violation is the simple fact he sat down on the stall next to the officer...Man law forbids side by side sitting down on toilets....Always always leave a stall in between and when there isn't....You come in wash your hands and stand outside until the bidness is completed :tiphat:

Unless you've been in the military, in which case it's perfectly normal to start up a conversation with the person next to you.

Yeah, I guess the stall crack gazing could be pretty telling.. but the other? I can see how that might be misconstrued ... the tapping of the feet and sliding of the hand.. sounds more like practicing your dance for a broadway musical production... but apparently it was a mating dance. That's strange!

I pray for people when I tell them I'm going to. What's wrong with that?

Did you not read what was type?
Jesus tap dancing Christ!
:gossip:

Yeah, I guess the stall crack gazing could be pretty telling.. but the other? I can see how that might be misconstrued ... the tapping of the feet and sliding of the hand.. sounds more like practicing your dance for a broadway musical production... but apparently it was a mating dance. That's strange!

Maybe it was like the episode of Seinfeld with Elaine in the bathroom stall asking her "neighbor" if she could "spare a square"??

another violation is the simple fact he sat down on the stall next to the officer...man law forbids side by side sitting down on toilets....always always leave a stall in between and when there isn't....you come in wash your hands and stand outside until the bidness is completed

the law is not quite that simple. first, the 'side-by-side' rule applies mainly to urinals. second, the side-by-side rule only applies when there are a sufficient number of free spots. no violation occurs when the only vacant spots result in a 'side-by-side' arrangement. however, in the case of urinals, this exception is mitigated by whether or not they have dividers between them. if there are no dividers, one must display a damn good reason for using an adjacent urinal.


yeah, i guess the stall crack gazing could be pretty telling...
the last thing this thread needs is a discussion about 'crack gazing'...

-M

I'm sure the original intent of:In this thread we discuss personal encounters with hypocrites" didn't mean to ignite a attack for or against religion,it was meant to show in ALL religions there are hypocrites and that includes non religious people.
But I hate it when people who said they will "defend" what they believe,end up wondering aimlessly and like most Sunday Christians not even come close in putting one forward.
GOD doesn't need your "defense".
A silent man maybe thought as a fool, then he speaks/types and removes all doubt.
I don't have time to respond to nuts or fools, I however highly suggest you consult your bible,read a few works on logic, and debating.
Thus you will have the means to "give an account to men, of Whom you believe", this is helpful in bringing the Gospe to the Worldl.
I don't know your true heart of where you really stand in your walk with Christ,and thus I will not judge.
But, your tact and logic is really a good argument about the extremist that has turn the Church into a free for all. READ SATAN.
Without meaning to manySunday Christians become instruments in the hands of SATAN, making the World's hearts harden against GOD.
Consider putting on the WHOLE armour of GOD,before you "battle for GOD".
This helps in the belief, you have real faith and concern then (being a Sunday Christian) instead of a child saying my daddy is better then yours".
Don't turn your brand of "religion" into another instrument in driving people from GOD.
Finally yes I have dealt with hypocrites, daily I have my moments of being one.
And so have you!
Everyday you tell your co workers,family,children ,your employer you expect this or that, but you don't expect this to apply to you.
Oh come on! How many has lied yet tell their children not to?
That boys and girls is being a hypocrite.
Have a good day!
:demonslay

A bible is supposed to be a guide to being a good Christian, not a club to use against people different than you.

Well said Jedi!

the law is not quite that simple. first, the 'side-by-side' rule applies mainly to urinals. second, the side-by-side rule only applies when there are a sufficient number of free spots. no violation occurs when the only vacant spots result in a 'side-by-side' arrangement. however, in the case of urinals, this exception is mitigated by whether or not they have dividers between them. if there are no dividers, one must display a damn good reason for using an adjacent urinal.


the last thing this thread needs is a discussion about 'crack gazing'...

-M

All good stuff. The bathroom speaking law also needs to be discussed.

-- One may only strike up a conversation with someone who is of the same status in the bathroom. E.g., if I'm standing at the urinal doing my business, I can only talk to someone who is doing the same thing. It would be improper to start a conversation with anyone either at the sink or in a stall.

I don't know a lot about it but it seems as if Big Brother is going a little crazy.

No words were exchanged. No offering of money, nothing... and he gets arrested?

I don't get it. One person's interpretation of sexual signals does not a guilty man make.

I'll be the first to admit, I'm clueless about homosexual 'signals' for sexual favors but this just seems outlandish to me.

I can see it now, one day I'm out of TP and if I pass my hand under the stall, I'm arrested.

That just seems to be taking it too far.

I don't know a lot about it but it seems as if Big Brother is going a little crazy.

No words were exchanged. No offering of money, nothing... and he gets arrested?

I don't get it. One person's interpretation of sexual signals does not a guilty man make.

I'll be the first to admit, I'm clueless about homosexual 'signals' for sexual favors but this just seems outlandish to me.

I can see it now, one day I'm out of TP and if I pass my hand under the stall, I'm arrested.

That just seems to be taking it too far.


1st off he's married. I believe in monogomy, cheaters usually get caught.

But I really think he's guilty of making attempts to get sex, granted he fumble it.
And omg! the restroom.
2nd it comes down to prejudice against homosexuals.Notice Teddy Kennedy and other Straights haven't been arrested,for far worst.
Now if he was innocent and really stood by it, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, because in this City, some cops have outright lied, and even went so far as to take someone downtown, then offer to forget it, IF...
Just be real slow in judging a person in his postion, that is if that person isn't gulity.Because if you're a cop whose bored, or looking for a quota, you get an arrest, or ticketed. I would have shouted my innocence from the roofttops and demand proof, because that case is REALLY WEAK.