Are all religious people hypocrites?

[Mr Rayon]

What is your opinion?

 

Are there any good people left in this world?

 

 

[ydoaPs]

No. Killing infidels is perfectly in line with God's will. Read the Bible, folks.

[ewmon]

I'm tempted to ask who these bozos guys are, but I agree pretty much with the guy who did most of the talking (even though he makes funny faces). Christians try to live and mature toward a set of principles, and they'll be the first ones to tell you that they're not perfect and never will be, but that they try a lot.

 

And the set in the video was too posed. I thought the coffee cups were overdone. I mean, how does one drink from a cup that's sitting nipple high.

 

You don't seem to be suggesting that atheists can't be or aren't hypocrites. Because they don't have any standards to hold themselves to, it's hard to measure them. I like what Bob Dylan said about atheists. He said that there's a lot of angry people with knives and forks, but nothing on their plates, and they want to cut something.

 

When it comes to killing infidels in the Bible, you're talking the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible), and mostly about God getting the Israelites into the promised land. Have you noticed how modern Israelis behave toward their neighbors in order to protect their promised land?

 

Besides, if you really have read the Bible, you would have noticed that God is not above killing bunches of errant &$#%! Israelites who can't get their act together. God isn't about killing only infidels, he also beat the snots out of the Israelites when they screwed up. And when they really screw up, he sent them into slavery for hundreds of years.

 

Now, if you want to talk Christian beliefs, Christ said for you to turn the other cheek, and to love your enemies, and to do good to those who do evil to you. So, yeah, definitely read the whole Bible. You'll find Christ in the New Testament.

 

 

[kristalris]

I think this belongs in the religious forum. It starts off with the first guy posing an atheist but soon it's clear both have a christian values point of view to put across.

[ydoaPs]

Now, if you want to talk Christian beliefs, Christ said for you to turn the other cheek, and to love your enemies, and to do good to those who do evil to you. So, yeah, definitely read the whole Bible. You'll find Christ in the New Testament.

Nice of you to take the bit out of context. Read the WHOLE bit there. That's Jesus saying the entirety of OT Law is to be held UNTIL THE END OF THE EARTH.

[SomethingToPonder]

No there are some religious followers who respect others beliefs and dont criticize other's for their's. The people who use religion to better their own lives because it helps them in someway, And dont try and force others to believe what they believe. those people are what religion was made for, because it helps them keep on a certain path. One they choose. Dosen't harm anyone but helps them.

[Iggy]

Are all religious people hypocrites?

I believe everyone is, to some extent, a hypocrite.

 

 

---

 

 

When it comes to killing infidels in the Bible, you're talking the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible)...

 

Now, if you want to talk Christian beliefs... You'll find Christ in the New Testament.

 

Homosexuals deserve to be burned alive!

 

Do you know what I mean?

 

Men who do those things with other men, and even women who are unnatural with each other, they deserve to be set on fire!

 

I am, of course, paraphrasing the New Testament to be sure we're talking about the same thing. Is this the reference material you're talking about and do you believe it?

 

God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

-Paul's loving account of Sodom and Gomorrah; Rom. 1:26-27

 

I have read some trashy and immoral books in my time, but I don't think I'd be able to sleep at night if I had recommended the book I just quoted as a serious and honest guide to ones life.

 

And imagine reading that book to an impressionable child. My God! I feel like washing my hands just having typed out the words.

 

 

---

 

 

No there are some religious followers who respect others beliefs and dont criticize other's for their's. The people who use religion to better their own lives because it helps them in someway, And dont try and force others to believe what they believe. those people are what religion was made for, because it helps them keep on a certain path. One they choose. Dosen't harm anyone but helps them.

 

But, if I believed that my friends were going to hell wouldn't I be a hypocrite unless I did everything possible to get them to change who they are and avoid that fate? If you're a true believer in Christianity then 'live and let live' doesn't seem exactly non-hypocritical to me.

[cladking]

The problem isn't hypocracy. The problem is superstition.

 

We adopt beliefs and then we become them. If you adopt superstitious beliefs like there are lots of God watching over you that you can entreat to intervene on your behalf, or there is a single God known by you pastor, or there is no god because Steven Hawking thinks there is no God then you will become that belief. You will see confirmation of your belief everywhere you look and you'll not even be able to see things that deny it. You will make decisions based on that belief.

 

If you believe science has all the answers then you might become cold and calculating. If you believe in technology then hedonism may be in your future.

 

A true scientist doesn't have "beliefs". He seeks data and understanding. We can never achieve it but this is what future generations are for; to gain the understanding that we can't. This is what life is for; to make the world a better place for the future and have some fun in the process. There's no point in a future if we nor they can experience joy. There's no point in technology if we can't experience rest from our work (and joy).

 

The only thing that should be considered intolerable (other than crimes against nature) is forcing beliefs onto others. But then, this really is a crime against nature.

 

I don't believe Christians tend to be worse than other beliefs mostly. All superstition is harmful though some less so than others. The US has always been puritanical but this seems to transcend mere religion and reflects peoples' belief that everyone needs to be "good".

[ewmon]

That's Jesus saying the entirety of OT Law is to be held UNTIL THE END OF THE EARTH.

 

Could you give me chapter and verse, please?

 

Homosexuals deserve to be burned alive!

 

Ask a Christian — the entirety of mankind deserves pain, suffering and death.

 

That may be a basic difference between a Christian and an atheist — a Christian is able to admit that some acts are wrong, whereas atheists tend to think that, if doing something feels good, then do it. Never mind that the transmission rates for AIDS and other STDs is several times higher among gays than among heterosexuals or that the Red Cross won't touch your blood if you are a male who has had sex, even once, with another male since 1977. Never mind what the researchers and the scientists and the doctors say, it's natural just because we say it is. Yeah!

 

imagine reading that book to an impressionable child. My God!

 

Imagine the pastor dismissing children below a certain age to another part of the building so he can preach on "adult" topics to adolescents and adults. My God! For example, I've listened to a sermon on fisting, not that it didn't make a few of the old ladies turn purple (the sermon, that is, not the fisting ).

 

 

But, if I believed that my friends were going to hell wouldn't I be a hypocrite unless I did everything possible to get them to change who they are and avoid that fate? If you're a true believer in Christianity then 'live and let live' doesn't seem exactly non-hypocritical to me.

Everything possible? Christians already know how quickly non-believers become jaded if someone does "everything possible" to get them interested.

[ydoaPs]

Could you give me chapter and verse, please?

The same exact chapter you paraphrased immediately prior to the bit you paraphrased.

[dimreepr]

No there are some religious followers who respect others beliefs and dont criticize other's for their's. The people who use religion to better their own lives because it helps them in someway, And dont try and force others to believe what they believe. those people are what religion was made for, because it helps them keep on a certain path. One they choose. Dosen't harm anyone but helps them.

 

I tend to agree with this, we atheists have to be careful not

to assume hypocrisy or even stupidity in believers as there are a great many,

liberal and scientific, religious people who ask nothing more than to be left

alone to believe what they will. Let’s be careful not to dismiss them out of

hand as cognitive dissonance effects many for a variety of different reasons;

this typically human attitude is not hypocritical of itself.

[Iggy]

Ask a Christian — the entirety of mankind deserves pain, suffering and death.

 

That may be a basic difference between a Christian and an atheist — a Christian is able to admit that some acts are wrong, whereas atheists tend to think that, if doing something feels good, then do it.

 

It's a mad preachment.

 

 

Christians may believe it, but that doesn't make it moral.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Iggy

[ewmon]

The same exact chapter you paraphrased immediately prior to the bit you paraphrased.

 

The same exact chapter I paraphrased immediately prior to the bit I paraphrased? Did you really mean to say that?

 

But I didn't paraphrase the chapter immediately prior to the bit I paraphrased.

 

So, chapter and verse please.

 

Christians may believe it, but that doesn't make it moral.

 

Atheists may not believe it, but that doesn't make it immoral.

 

Don't tell me that you've never done anything wrong or bad.

 

Give me a general description of something wrong or bad that you've done.

[Iggy]

Atheists may not believe it, but that doesn't make it immoral.

 

Don't tell me that you've never done anything wrong or bad.

 

Give me a general description of something wrong or bad that you've done.

 

Because if I ever had to put a quarter in the swear jar I would deserve pain, suffering, and death?

 

What, Sir, are you talking about?

 

You excused the burning alive of homosexuals by saying "all of humanity deserves pain, suffering, and death". What could be more disgraceful and immoral?

 

Good moral character comes from dignity and self respect, not guilt and shame.

 

"Oh, God, I am a vile sinner deserving pain, suffering, and death", is a guilt and shame producing declaration, and that's just when one says it about themselves and devalues their own personality. When you say it about all of humanity you devalue others and break the golden rule.

[John Cuthber]

That may be a basic difference between a Christian and an atheist — a Christian is able to admit that some acts are wrong, whereas atheists tend to think that, if doing something feels good, then do it.

On what evidence are you making that inaccurate and defamatory claim?

 

Anyway,

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

 

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)

 

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

 

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16

 

...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

 

 

And so on.

Edited February 3, 2013 by John Cuthber

[ewmon]

Matthew 5:17

Matthew 5:18-19

Luke 16:17

2 Timothy 3:16

John 10:35

 

Okay, so what part of the Jewish Law do you want to discuss?

[John Cuthber]

You missed a bit there.

 

 

ewmon, on 02 Feb 2013 - 17:36, said:

 

That may be a basic difference between a Christian and an atheist — a Christian is able to admit that some acts are wrong, whereas atheists tend to think that, if doing something feels good, then do it.

On what evidence are you making that inaccurate and defamatory claim?

[ewmon]

Good moral character comes from dignity and self respect, not guilt and shame.

 

"Oh, God, I am a vile sinner deserving pain, suffering, and death", is a guilt and shame producing declaration, and that's just when one says it about themselves and devalues their own personality. When you say it about all of humanity you devalue others and break the golden rule.

 

 

 

You may not want to hear this, but your perspective is in perfect unison with the mainstream Christian perspective. I kid you not, you could very well hear what you say above,verbatim, in a sermon on any Sunday in just about any Christian church. The Jewish Law can only point out that everyone is a loser. Because no one can perfectly adhere to it, it can only condemn us, it cannot save us.

 

What does everyone in every culture know? Tell your child that s/he is a loser, useless and can never please you sufficiently, and what might that child do? Commit suicide. It is inherent in the human nature. It is universal. Christianity recognizes this — that any law can only condemn and can never offer dignity and self respect.

 

That's why Christ could give salvation to those who believe in him ... that he took our failures and bore them and was sacrificed because of them, so that Christians (ie, those who believe this) can live with "dignity and self respect". Otherwise, we would walk around with a dark cloud over us, wanting to put a gun to our heads and pull the trigger (several times, if it was possible ).

 

Given that both Christians and non-Christians share this unified perspective, the only difference between them is that Christians believe that certain thoughts or words or acts are wrong, and the non-Christian does not believe so. That is, that the Jewish Law correctly defines specific wrongs.

 

So, I think what's central to the issue here isn't that homosexuals were burned alive (I think you were referring to Sodom and Gomorrah), but that God condemns their lifestyle in the first place. Today, we have some people who think that homosexual behavior is normal/natural, and some people who think it's not. In both camps, you will find some people who call themselves Christians and some people who don't call themselves Christians.

[ydoaPs]

You may not want to hear this, but your perspective is in perfect unison with the mainstream Christian perspective. I kid you not, you could very well hear what you say above,verbatim, in a sermon on any Sunday in just about any Christian church. The Jewish Law can only point out that everyone is a loser. Because no one can perfectly adhere to it, it can only condemn us, it cannot save us.

 

What does everyone in every culture know? Tell your child that s/he is a loser, useless and can never please you sufficiently, and what might that child do? Commit suicide. It is inherent in the human nature. It is universal. Christianity recognizes this — that any law can only condemn and can never offer dignity and self respect.

 

That's why Christ could give salvation to those who believe in him ... that he took our failures and bore them and was sacrificed because of them, so that Christians (ie, those who believe this) can live with "dignity and self respect". Otherwise, we would walk around with a dark cloud over us, wanting to put a gun to our heads and pull the trigger (several times, if it was possible ).

 

 

Given that both Christians and non-Christians share this unified perspective, the only difference between them is that Christians believe that certain thoughts or words or acts are wrong, and the non-Christian does not believe so. That is, that the Jewish Law correctly defines specific wrongs.

 

So, I think what's central to the issue here isn't that homosexuals were burned alive (I think you were referring to Sodom and Gomorrah), but that God condemns their lifestyle in the first place. Today, we have some people who think that homosexual behavior is normal/natural, and some people who think it's not. In both camps, you will find some people who call themselves Christians and some people who don't call themselves Christians.

No, there's a difference. Iggy is saying that you're not broken at all. Christianity is saying you're defective and need to be fixed so you can have that dignity. The two cases are in no way the same. Christianity is fake medicine for a fake disease.

 

The same exact chapter I paraphrased immediately prior to the bit I paraphrased? Did you really mean to say that?

 

But I didn't paraphrase the chapter immediately prior to the bit I paraphrased.

 

So, chapter and verse please.

With reading comprehension like that, it's no wonder you missed that one of Jesus's major messages was that the Law is to be upheld until the end of the Earth and that works are the way to the Kingdom.

[Iggy]

You may not want to hear this, but your perspective is in perfect unison with the mainstream Christian perspective. I kid you not, you could very well hear what you say above,verbatim, in a sermon on any Sunday in just about any Christian church. The Jewish Law can only point out that everyone is a loser. Because no one can perfectly adhere to it, it can only condemn us, it cannot save us.

 

"Don't worry, there's hope!"

 

Of course that's what the cult and the Christian church say. First they say, like you said, 'you're worthless and broken and you deserve pain, suffering, and death'. They try to break you down.

 

Then they build you up. They say, 'Don't worry, there's hope! The leader can fix all that if you'll just agree to be his slave. Give him your money. Confess to him your secrets. Do whatever he says and let him own your soul'.

 

I have a hunch that you've been indoctrinated from such an early age that all of that sounds perfectly normal to you, but I can assure you it is not.

 

The normal human condition is freedom. You can only be free when you own your own mistakes and plan for your own future. You don't throw your past on to a scapegoat and trust the cult leader to lead you into tomorrow's dark room. You can think for yourself and get past all that.

 

 

 

the only difference between them is that Christians believe that certain thoughts or words or acts are wrong, and the non-Christian does not believe so. That is, that the Jewish Law correctly defines specific wrongs.

 

can you support the notion that non christians don't believe certain things are wrong

[Bill Angel]

You don't seem to be suggesting that atheists can't be or aren't hypocrites. Because they don't have any standards to hold themselves to, it's hard to measure them. I like what Bob Dylan said about atheists. He said that there's a lot of angry people with knives and forks, but nothing on their plates, and they want to cut something.

I believe that's a misquote of what Bob Dylan said, with the quote below a more accurate attribution:

The whole subject reminds me of a conversation Bob Dylan had long ago with a reporter who asked him what he thought about how much criticism he was getting for going from acoustic to electric guitar. There are a lot of people who have knives and forks, he said, and they have nothing on their plates, so they have to cut something.

See http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/10/expelled-from-the-new-york-tim

[ewmon]

You missed a bit there.

 

ewmon, on 02 Feb 2013 - 17:36, said:

On what evidence are you making that inaccurate and defamatory claim?

 

Thank you for correcting me.

 

I'm not saying that non-Christians (rather than "atheists", which was poor wording on my part) don't/can't identify any behavior as wrong, I mean that Christians accept that some behavior is wrong because the Bible identifies it as wrong, and that some non-Christians may think that some behavior is wrong, and yet, they may not have an invariant source upon which to found their thoughts, or inevitable and dire consequences (ie, eternal damnation) to avoid should they think or act otherwise.

 

As far as I can tell, atheists don't have an invariant source of moral code or inevitable and eternal consequences to avoid. Who knows, maybe one of them has written an "Atheist Manifesto" upon which all atheists swear allegiance under the pains and penalty doled out by fellow atheists for the rest of their life, but I have never heard of one. By definition, because atheists don't believe in a supernatural (all-knowing and all-powerful) being, they can't believe that they can never escape judgment. And because atheists likewise don't believe in an afterlife, they can't believe in eternal damnation.

 

So what I should have said was that, although a Christian and an atheist might commit a wrong, the Christian believes he cannot escape judgment and punishment unless he confesses and repents, but an atheist does not believe this. This gives atheists a lot more moral wiggle room than Christians.

 

There's another antithetic dimension involving Christians and atheists. Christians believe in after-life judgment and condemnation for everyone, but an atheist believes that any judgment and condemnation must occur in this life. So maybe that's why "the atheist" is seen from the Christian perspective as being so hot to criticize (ie, judge and condemn) Christians for being "wrong" — because the atheist's perspective is that Christians (and everyone) must be judged and condemned in this life.

[John Cuthber]

"As far as I can tell, atheists don't have an invariant source of moral code or inevitable and eternal consequences to avoid."

​You rather seem to have missed the point that the theists don't have one either.

 

"So what I should have said was that, although a Christian and an atheist might commit a wrong, the Christian believes he cannot escape judgment and punishment unless he confesses and repents, but an atheist does not believe this. This gives atheists a lot more moral wiggle room than Christians. "

 

That's the wrong way round.

I might escape punishment by others (as long as I don't get found out) but I can't escape the knowledge that I did something wrong.

However, if I belonged to the right faith, I could go to confession and then forget about it because I would consider it "absolved".

I'm the one who has to consider how I will feel for the rest of my life so I'm the one with a requirement to get the moral decisions right.

[ewmon]

 

 

 

"As far as I can tell, atheists don't have an invariant source of moral code or inevitable and eternal consequences to avoid."

 

​You rather seem to have missed the point that the theists don't have one either.

 

Well, theist believe they do, but you don't believe they do.

You're obviously someone who doesn't believe, so you don't know how believing can so strongly motivate a person. Let me say then that theists thoroughly "believe" they have an invariant source of moral code with inevitable and eternal consequences.

 

 

"So what I should have said was that, although a Christian and an atheist might commit a wrong, the Christian believes he cannot escape judgment and punishment unless he confesses and repents, but an atheist does not believe this. This gives atheists a lot more moral wiggle room than Christians."

 

That's the wrong way round.

I might escape punishment by others (as long as I don't get found out) but I can't escape the knowledge that I did something wrong.

However, if I belonged to the right faith, I could go to confession and then forget about it because I would consider it "absolved".

I'm the one who has to consider how I will feel for the rest of my life so I'm the one with a requirement to get the moral decisions right.

 

Let's say a man finds a money bag labeled "First National Bank of Frostbite Falls, Minnesota" loaded with $1 million of randomly numbered small bills, so he knows to whom it belongs. Society and the government think it is "wrong" (ie, illegal) for him to keep the money, but the man is socially and legally safe because, in a moment of weakness, he kept the money and destroyed the bag, so only he knows the true owner of the money.

A theist man believes that God already knows what he has done, and if he doesn't confess and repent and return the money, he will suffer supernatural judgment and eternal damnation. So he confesses his greed, and repents from greediness, and returns the money. And yes, he can forget that he had committed this momentary wrong that he did. Otherwise, if he feels guilty and condemned for the rest of his life (ie, does not gain any moral relief, or feel absolved) as if he kept the money, he may as well actually keep the money and gain some benefit/compensation from feeling guilty and condemned. So it makes perfect sense that he no longer feels guilty and condemned.

An atheist man who can't escape the knowledge that it's "wrong" can only do so if he lives by some moral law; however, where does he get this moral law — what does he use? As I said, there isn't any Atheist Manifesto. He could easily justify keeping it. By their own rules, the First National Bank and the government police forces will have spent a certain amount of money/effort to try to find it and then they will stop, knowing that the FDIC (or whatever) will cover such losses, and assuming that, most likely, the money will eventually be found by someone and that most people would keep it. If they really wanted the money, they would have kept looking for it, right? Finding so much money rarely happens, so everyone expects people to behave like this, right? "Finders keepers, losers weepers", right? Anyone else who found the money would keep it, right? He just happened to be in the right place at the right time, right? The money and the bag are so old, that it must have been stolen/lost a long time ago and everyone has forgotten about it, right?

 

John Cuthbar, in your last sentence, you basically say that an atheist gets to decide how s/he will feel for the rest of his/her life, so s/he is required to get his/her moral decision "right". This is circular reasoning. To paraphrase Bill Cosby's response to the idea that marijuana enhances one's personality, let me say: What if the man who found the money is a jerk?

 

Do we really want to live in a society where everyone gets to decide what's morally right or wrong for themselves? Andrew Kehoe was morally right, he just got caught, that's all. Lee Harvey Oswald was morally right, he just got caught too. Jack Ruby also. And all those pedophile priests. And, of course, reductio ad Hitlerum, Adolf Hitler was morally right, he just got caught, that's all.

 

To top it all off, the pain of guilt only lasts, as you said, for the rest of the atheist's life, so death comes as a relief — there's no pain after that. Life's a bitch and then you die, right? May as well go for the gusto while you can. Start a bucket list. This is all there is. Look out for Number One. Keep the money.

Edited February 4, 2013 by ewmon

[John Cuthber]

"Well, theist believe they do, but you don't believe they do."

"You're obviously someone who doesn't believe, so you don't know how believing can so strongly motivate a person. Let me say then that theists thoroughly"believe" they have an invariant source of moral code with inevitable and eternal consequences. "

 

Then they need to look up the word invariant.

It's not so long since the church approved of slavery.

That doesn't depend on what I believe: it's a straightforward fact.

​They firmly believe something which is obviously false.

 

"An atheist man who can't escape the knowledge that it's "wrong" can only do so if he lives by some moral law; however, where does he get this moral law — what does he use? As I said, there isn't any Atheist Manifesto. He could easily justify keeping it."

No he couldn't. You seem to think atheists don't know right from wrong. He might keep the money anyway, but he would know it was wrong (For what it's worth, it's "Theft by finding" as far as the law is concerned)

 

 

" they really wanted the money, they would have kept looking for it, right? Finding so much money rarely happens, so everyone expects people to behave like this, right? "Finders keepers, losers weepers", right? Anyone else who found the money would keep it, right? He just happened to be in the right place at the right time, right? The money and the bag are so old, that it must have been stolen/lost a long time ago and everyone has forgotten about it, right? "

No.

Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong, and wrong again.

 

Why don't you think atheists are moral?

Why this constant defamation?

 

Do we really want to live in a society where everyone gets to decide what's morally right or wrong for themselves? Andrew Kehoe was morally right, he just got caught, that's all. Lee Harvey Oswald was morally right, he just got caught too. Jack Ruby also. And all those pedophile priests. And, of course,reductio ad Hitlerum, Adolf Hitler was morally right, he just got caught, that's all.

 

"Do we really want to live in a society where everyone gets to decide what's morally right or wrong for themselves?"

We do.

That's why, in spite of the bible telling people that they should stone their children to death for swearing, people don't.

They make their own moral judgement.

The atheists are the ones who have noticed this.

 

You on the other hand, have run up against Godwin's law (and Hitler was, by the way, a theist).

Edited February 4, 2013 by John Cuthber